Studies in the History of Culture and Science: A Tribute to Gad Freudenthal

Studies in the History of Culture and Science

Studies in Jewish History and Culture Editor-in-Chief

Giuseppe Veltri

Editorial Board

Gad Freudenthal Alessandro Guetta Hanna Liss Ronit Meroz Reimund Leicht Judith Olszowy-Schlanger David Ruderman

VOLUME 30

Gad Freudenthal (Photograph: Smadar Bergman)

Studies in the History of Culture and Science A Tribute to Gad Freudenthal

Edited by

Resianne Fontaine, Ruth Glasner, Reimund Leicht, and Giuseppe Veltri

LEIDEN • BOSTON 2011

Copy-editing: Sweeping Maytree. This book is printed on acid-free paper.

ISSN: 1568-5004 ISBN: 978 90 04 19123 5 Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

CONTENTS

Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Selected Publications of Gad Freudenthal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix xi

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

texts: editions, translations, and commentaries Le pseudo al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam : Sur l’ asymptote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ¯ Roshdi Rashed

7

Al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology: From Courtly Entertainment to University Textbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Charles Burnett A Different Hue to Medieval Jewish Philosophy: Four Investigations into an Unstudied Philosophical Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Y. Tzvi Langermann Aristotle’s De anima and De generatione et corruptione in the Medieval Hebrew Tradition: New Details Regarding Textual History Coming from a Neglected Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Mauro Zonta La mesure du cercle d’ Archimède au moyen age : Le témoignage des textes hébreux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Tony Lévy Un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac rédigé dans la main ˙ ı an-Nabulus¯ı . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 ˇ h Suf¯ı ‘Abd al-Gan¯ du Say Paul B.˘Fenton

vi

contents

studies in medieval cultural history Maimonides and Samuel Ben Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 Herbert A. Davidson Ibn Ruˇsd and the Almohad Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Josep Puig Montada Legislating Truth: Maimonides, the Almohads, and the Thirteenth-Century Jewish Enlightenment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Carlos Fraenkel The Money Language: Latin and Hebrew in Jewish Legal Contracts from Medieval England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Judith Olszowy-Schlanger Nahmanides on Necromancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 . Reimund Leicht The First Survey of the Metaphysics in Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Resianne Fontaine Solomon ben Moses Melguiri and the Transmission of Knowledge from Latin into Hebrew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283 Hagar Kahana-Smilansky Dialectic in Gersonides’ Biblical Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Sara Klein-Braslavy Demonstrative Astronomy: Notes on Levi ben Gerˇsom’s Answer to Guide II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 José Luis Mancha Nicole Oresme and Hasdai Crescas on Many Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347 . Warren Zev Harvey The Peculiar History of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews. . . . . . . . 361 Ruth Glasner

contents

vii

studies in early modern cultural history and historiography Duhem’s Continuity Thesis: The Intrusion of Ideology into History of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385 Bernard R. Goldstein and Giora Hon Enlightenment in Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 Gideon Freudenthal A Bestseller in Context: Referring to the Tsene Rene in Early Modern Yiddish Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 Shlomo Berger On Humanist Logic Judaized—Then and Now: Two Models for the Appropriation of Gentile Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431 Charles Manekin Hebrew “Sociolinguistics” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453 Irene E. Zwiep Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471

CONTRIBUTORS

Shlomo Berger, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Amsterdam Charles Burnett, London University, Warburg Institute, London Herbert A. Davidson, University of California, Dept of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Los Angeles Paul B. Fenton, Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris Resianne Fontaine, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Amsterdam Carlos Fraenkel, McGill University, Departments of Philosophy and Jewish Studies, Montreal Gideon Freudenthal, Tel Aviv University, The Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv Ruth Glasner, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Program for the History and Philosophy of Science, Jerusalem Bernard R. Goldstein, University of Pittsburgh, Religious Studies and History & Philosophy of Science, Pittsburgh Warren Zev Harvey, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dept for Jewish Thought, Jerusalem Giora Hon, University of Haifa, Dept of Philosophy, Haifa Hagar Kahana-Smilansky, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The Program for the History and Philosophy of Science, Jerusalem Sara Klein-Braslavy, Tel Aviv University, Dept of Hebrew Culture Studies, Jewish Philosophy, Tel Aviv Y. Tzvi Langermann, Bar-Ilan University, Dept of Arabic, Ramat Gan Reimund Leicht, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dept of Jewish Thought and Program for Philosophy, History and Sociology of Sciences, Jerusalem

x

contributors

Tony Lévy, Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Paris José Luis Mancha, University of Seville, Dept of Philosophy, Logic, and Philosophy of Science, Seville Charles Manekin, University of Maryland, Dept of Philosophy, Baltimore Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, École Pratique des Hautes Études/IRHTCNRS, Paris Josep Puig Montada, Universidad Complutense, Dept of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Madrid Roshdi Rashed, Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Paris Mauro Zonta, Università “La Sapienza”, Dipartimento di Studi Filosofici ed Epistemologici, Rome Irene E. Zwiep, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and Jewish Studies, Amsterdam

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS OF GAD FREUDENTHAL

Books Introduction to the Philosophy of the Sciences (Heb) (Tel-Aviv: The Israeli Open University, ). (Ed.) Hélène Metzger, La Méthode philosophique en histoire des sciences. Textes –. Corpus des oeuvres de philosophie en langue française  /  (Paris: Fayard, ). Italian translation: Il metodo filosofico nella storia delle scienze (Manduria: Barbieri Editore, ). Reprinted as Études sur / Studies on Hélène Metzger. Collection de travaux de l’ Académie Internationale d’ Histoire des sciences (Leiden: Brill, ). (Ed.) Studies on Gersonides—A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist. Collection de travaux de l’ Académie Internationale d’ Histoire des Sciences, vol.  (Leiden: Brill, ). Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance. Form and Soul, Heat and Pneuma (Oxford: Clarendon Press, ). (Ed.) Joseph Ben-David, Scientific Growth: Collected Essays on the Social Organization and Ethos of Science (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University of California Press, ). French translation: Michelle de Launay and JeanPierre Rothschild: Joseph Ben-David, Éléments d’ une sociologie historique des sciences. Collection “Sociologies” (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, ). (Ed.) AIDS in Jewish Thought and Law (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing, ). (Ed. with Jean-Pierre Rothschild and Gilbert Dahan), Torah et Science: Perspectives historiques et théoriques. Études offertes à Charles Touati (Louvain: Peeters, ). (Ed. with S. Kottek) Mélanges d’ histoire de la médecine hébraïque. Études choisies de la Revue de l’ histoire de la médecine hébraïque, – (Leiden: Brill, ). (Ed. with Peter Barker, Alan C. Bowen, José Chabás and Y. Tzvi Langermann) Astronomy and Astrology from the Babylonians to Kepler: Essays Presented to Bernard R. Goldstein on the Occasion of his th Birthday (= Centaurus  [–] [] and  [] []). Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions. Variorum Collected Studies Series,  (Aldershot: Ashgate, ). (Ed.) Science and Philosophy in Ashkenazi Culture: Rejection, Toleration, and Accommodation (part of Simon Dubnow Yearbook  []). (Ed.) Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).

xii

selected publications of gad freudenthal Articles

“Littérature et sciences de la nature en France au début du XVIIIe siècle: Pierre Polinière, l’ introduction de l’ enseignement de la physique expérimentale à l’ Université de Paris et l’ Arrêt burlesque de Boileau,” Revue de synthèse –  (): –. “Wissenssoziologie der Naturwissenschaften: Bedingungen und Grenzen ihrer Möglichkeit,” in N. Stehr and V. Meja, eds, Wissenssoziologie. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft  () (Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, ): –. “Electricity Between Chemistry and Physics: The Simultaneous Itineraries of Francis Hauksbee, Samuel Wall, and Pierre Polinière,” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences  (): –. “Theory of Matter and Cosmology in William Gilbert’s De magnete,” Isis  (): –. “The Role of Shared Knowledge in Science: The Failure of the Constructivist Programme in the Sociology of Science,” Social Studies of Science  (): –. “Die elektrische Anziehung im . Jahrhundert zwischen korpuskularer und alchemischer Deutung,” in Christoph Meinel, ed., Die Alchemie in der europäischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen  (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, ): –. “The Theory of the Opposites and an Ordered Universe: Physics and Metaphysics in Anaximander,” Phronesis  (): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XI. “Cosmogonie et physique chez Gersonide,” Revue des études juives  (): –. “Joseph Ben-David’s Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” Minerva  (): –. “Épistémologie, astronomie et astrologie chez Gersonide,” Revue des études juives  (): –. “The Hermeneutical Status of the History of Science: The Views of Hélène Metzger (An Aperçu),” Organon  /  (–): –. “The Hermeneutical Status of the History of Science: The Views of Hélène Metzger,” in Edna Ullmann-Margalit, ed., Science in Reflection. The Israel Colloquium: Studies in History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science . Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, tome  (Dordrecht: Kluwer, ): –. “Pour le dossier de la traduction latine médiévale du Guide des égarés,” Revue des études juives  (): –. “Épistémologie des sciences de la nature et herméneutique de l’ histoire des sciences selon Hélène Metzger,” in Études sur / Studies on Hélène Metzger (see above), –. “La Philosophie de la géométrie d’ al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı: Son commentaire sur le début du Ier livre et le début du Ve livre des Éléments d’ Euclide,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam  (): –. (With Ilana Löwy) “Ludwik Fleck’s Roles in Society: A Case Study Using Joseph

selected publications of gad freudenthal

xiii

Ben-David’s Paradigm for a Sociology of Knowledge,” Social Studies of Science  (): –. “Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Transmission of the Mathematical Tract ‘On Two Asymptotic Lines’ in the Arabic, Latin, and Hebrew Medieval Traditions,” Vivarium  (): –. “Sur la partie astronomique du Liwyat Hen de Lévi ben Abraham ben Hayyim,” Revue des études juives  (): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. VII. “Human Felicity and Astronomy: Gersonides’ Revolt against Ptolemy,” (Heb.), Da#at  (): –. “Distinguishing Two R. Joseph b. Joseph Nahmias—the commentator and the . Astrologer,” (Heb.), Qiryat Sefer  (–) (–): –. Translated in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. VIII. “Science Studies in France: A Sociological View,” Social Studies of Science  (): –. “Levi ben Gershom as a Scientist: Physics, Astrology and Eschatology,” Proceedings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C, vol. : Jewish Thought and Literature (Jerusalem, World Union of Jewish Studies, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. VI. “Al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı on the Foundations of Geometry,” in Reijo Työrinoja, Anja Inkeri Lehtinen and Dagfinn Føllesdal, eds, Knowledge and the Sciences in Medieval Philosophy. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy (S.I.E.P.M.), vol.  (= Annals of the Finnish Society for Missiology and Ecumenics ) (Helsinki, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. X. “Two notes on Sefer Meyaˇsˇser #aqov by Alfonso, alias Abner of Burgos,” (Heb.) Qiryat Sefer  (–): –. English translation in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. IX. “The Problem of Cohesion Between Alchemy and Natural Philosophy: From Unctuous Moisture to Phlogiston,” in Z.R.W.M. von Martels, ed., Alchemy Revisited. Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of Alchemy at the University of Groningen, – April  (Collection de travaux de l’ Académie internationale d’ histoire des sciences, vol. ) (Leiden: Brill, ): –. “(Al-)Chemical Foundations for Cosmological Ideas: Ibn S¯ın¯a on the Geology of an Eternal World,” in Sabetai Unguru, ed., Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, –: Tension and Accommodation (= Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. ) (Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XII. “La science dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence. Quelques caractéristiques,” Communauté nouvelle  (): –. “General Introduction: Joseph Ben-David, An Outline of His Life and Work,” in Joseph Ben-David, Scientific Growth (see above): –. “Rabbi Lewi ben Gerschom (Gersonides) und die Bedingungen wissenschaftlichen Fortschritts im Mittelalter: Astronomie, Physik, erkenntnis-theore-

xiv

selected publications of gad freudenthal

tischer Realismus, und Heilslehre,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie  (): –. “The Place of Science in Medieval Jewish Communities,” (Heb.), Zemanim  (): –. “The Place of Science in Medieval Hebrew-Writing Jewish Communities: A Sociological Perspective,” in Lola Ferre, José Ramón Ayaso and María José Cano, eds, La Ciencia en las España Medieval: Musulmanes, Judíos y Cristianos (Grenade: Universidad de Granada, Instituto de Ciencias de la Education, ): –. “Sauver son âme ou sauver les phénomènes: sotériologie, épistémologie et astronomie chez Gersonide,” in Studies on Gersonides (, see above): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditionsi, ch. V. “Maimonides’ Stance on Astrology in Context: Cosmology, Physics, Medicine, and Providence,” in Fred Rosner and Samuel S. Kottek, eds, Moses Maimonides: Physician, Scientist, and Philosopher (Northvale, NJ and London: Jason Aronson, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. III. “The Place of Science in Medieval Hebrew-Writing Jewish Communities: A Sociological Perspective,” in Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, ed., Rashi, –. Hommage à Aphraïm E. Urbach. Congrès européen d’études juives (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, ): –. “Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence: Leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des études juives  (): –. “Clandestine Stoic Concepts in Mechanical Philosophy: The Problem of Electrical Attraction,” in J.V. Field and Frank A.J.L. James, eds, Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ): –. “ ‘The Air, Blessed Be He’, in Sefer ha-Maskil,” (Heb.), Da#at – (): –  (English summary: pp. LXVII–LXVIII);  (): –. “Science in the Medieval Jewish Culture of Southern France,” History of Science  (): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. I. (With Henri Hugonnard-Roche), “Gersonide logicien,” Revue philosophique  (): –. “On the Image of the Physical World in the Middle Ages,” (Heb.), in Rachel Milstein, ed., Hotam Shlomo—Hathim Suleiman (Le sceau de Salomon) (Jerusalem, ): –. “Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), –,” in S.H. Nasr et O. Leaman, eds, The Routledge History of Islamic Philosophy (London and New York: Routledge, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. IV. “Stoic Physics in the Writings of R. Sa"adia Ga"on al-Fayyumi and Its Aftermath in Medieval Jewish Mysticism,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  (): – . Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XIII. “The Study of Mathematics as ‘a Great Religious Secret’ in the Fourteenth Century: Abraham ben Solomon’s Commentary on the beginning of Euclid’s

selected publications of gad freudenthal

xv

Elements. An Annotated Critical Edition,” (Heb.) Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought  (): –. “Jewish Responses to AIDS: the Perspective of the History of Ideas” (Heb.), Assia  (–) (): –. “L’ Héritage de la physique stoïcienne dans la pensée juive médiévale (Saadia Gaon, les Dévôts rhénans, Sefer ha-Maskil),” Revue de métaphysique et de morale, : –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XIV. “Jérusalem ville sainte? La perspective maïmonidienne,” Revue d’ histoire des religions  () (): –. “Holiness and Defilement: The Ambivalent Perception of Philosophy by Its Opponents in the Early Fourteenth Century,” in Micrologus IX (): Gli Ebrei e le Scienze. The Jews and the Sciences ([Florence]: Sismel/Edizioni del Galluzo, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. II. “Providence, Astrology, and Celestial Influences on the Sublunar World in Shem-Tov Ibn Falaquera’s De#ot ha-Filosofim,” in Steven Harvey, ed., Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Amsterdam: Kluwer, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XVI. “Révélation et Raison, Torah et Madda dans quelques écrits récents,” in Gad Freudenthal, Gilbert Dahan et Jean-Pierre Rothschild, eds, Torah et Science (see above): –. “La Halakhah face à la maladie du sida,” Cahiers du judaïsme  (): –. “The Medieval Astrologization of Aristotle’s Biology: Averroes on the Role of the Celestial Bodies in the Generation of Animate Bodies,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  (): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XV. “Ketav ha-da#at or Sefer ha-Sekhel we-ha-muskalot: The Medieval Hebrew Translations of al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı’s Ris¯alah f¯ı"l-"aql. A Study in Text History and in the Evolution of Medieval Hebrew Philosophical Terminology,” Jewish Quarterly Review  (): –. “La Quiddité de l’âme, traité populaire néoplatonisant faussement attribué à alF¯ar¯ab¯ı: Traduction annotée et commentée,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  (): –. “Gersonide, génie solitaire,” in Colette Sirat, Sara Klein-Braslavy and Olga Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez les scolastiques (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, ): –. “Four Implicit Quotations of Philosophical Sources in Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture  (): –. (With Cristina Chimisso) “A Mind of Her Own. Hélène Metzger to Émile Meyerson, ,” Isis  (): –. “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’ as Categories in the History of Astronomy: Duhem vs. Popper, Maimonides vs. Gersonides,” in Peter Barker, Alan C. Bowen, José Chabás, Gad Freudenthal and Y. Tzvi Langermann, eds, Astronomy and Astrology from the Babylonians to Kepler: Essays Presented to Bernard R. Goldstein on the Occasion of his th Birthday, pp. –.

xvi

selected publications of gad freudenthal

“Résistance spirituelle à Lyon (–): le Bureau des études juives,” Revue d’ histoire de la Shoah  (): –. “New Light on the Physician Aaron Salomon Gumpertz: Medicine, Science and Early Haskalah in Berlin,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture  () (Dordrecht: Kluwer, ): –. (With Tony Lévy), “De Gérase à Bagdad: Ibn Bahr¯ız, al-Kind¯ı, et leur recension arabe de l’ Introduction arithmétique de Nicomaque, d’ après la version hébraïque de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles,” in Régis Morelon et Ahmed Hasnawi, eds, De Zénon d’Élée à Poincaré. Recueil d’études en hommage à Roshdi Rashed. Les cahiers du MIDEO  (Louvain and Paris, Éditions Peeters, ): –. “La détermination partielle, biologique et climatologique, de la félicité humaine: Maïmonide versus al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı à propos des influences célestes,” in Tony Lévy and Roshdi Rashed, eds, Maïmonide: philosophe et savant (Louvain: Peeters, ): –. “A Note on the Life of Imre Lakatos in Occupied Hungary (),” in S. Probst, A. Erdélyi, A. Moretto and K. Chemla, eds, Liberté et négation. Ceci n’ est pas un festschrift pour Imre Toth. Archive ouverte en Sciences de l’ Homme et de la Société, Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (Paris: CNRS, web site http://halshs.ccsd.cnrs.fr/halshs-). “The Cultural Identity of Medieval Jews” (Heb.), Revue européenne des études hébraïques  (): –. (With José Luis Mancha), “Levi ben Gershom’s Criticism of Ptolemy’s Astronomy. Critical Editions of The Hebrew and Latin Versions and an Annotated English Translation of Chapter Forty-Three of the Astronomy (Wars of the Lord, V..),” Aleph. Historical Studies in Science & Judaism  (): –. “Maimonides’ Philosophy of Science,” in Kenneth Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ): –. “Aaron Salomon Gumpertz, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, and the First Call for an Improvement of the Civil Rights of Jews in Germany (),” AJS Review  (): –. “The Biological Limitations of Man’s Intellectual Perfection According to Maimonides,” in George Tamer, ed., The Trias of Maimonides/Die Trias des Maimonides (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ): –. “Ein symbolischer Anfang der Berliner Aufklärung: Veitel Ephraim, David Fränckel, Aaron Gumpertz und die patriotische Feier in der Synagoge am . Dezember ,” Judaica. Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums  (): –. “Die zwei Leben der mittelalterlichen hebräischen Wissenschaft,” Kalonymos  () (): – and  () (): –, . (With Rémi Brague), “Ni Empédocle, ni Plotin. Pour le dossier du PseudoEmpédocle arabe,” in John Dillon and Monique Dixsaut, eds, Agonistes. Essays in Honour of Denis O’Brien (Aldershot: Hants et Burlington/Vt., Ashgate, ): –. “A Twelfth-Century Provençal Amateur of Neoplatonic Philosophy in Hebrew: R. Asher b. Meshullam of Lunel,” Chora – (–): –.

selected publications of gad freudenthal

xvii

“De la notion de science occidentale à la notion de la science méditerranéenne: les tribulations de l’ Introduction arithmétique de Nicomaque de Gérase,” in Régis Morelon and Ahmad Hasnawi, eds, De Bagdad à Paris. Hommage à Roshdi Rashed (Paris: Institut du monde arabe, ): –. “Une rencontre qui n’ a pas eu lieu: Le monde juif ashkénaze au XIIe siècle et les sciences,” in René-Samuel Sirat, ed., Héritages de Rachi (Paris: Éditions de l’éclat, ): –. (With Shlomo Sela), “Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Scholarly Writings: A Chronological Listing,” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science & Judaism  (): –. “The Medieval Astrologization of The Aristotelian Cosmos: From Alexander of Aphrodisias to Averroes,” Mélanges de l’ Université Saint-Joseph  (): – . “Hélène Metzger (–),” in Jean Gayon and Michel Bitbol, eds, L’Épistémologie française, – (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, ): –. “Hélène Metzger,” in Paula Hyman and Dalia Ofer, eds, Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia (Jerusalem: Shalvi Publications [on CD ROM], ). “Hebrew Medieval Science in Zamosc ca. . The Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevy of Zamosc,” in Resianne Fontaine, Andrea Schatz, Irene E. Zwiep, eds, Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Learning and EighteenthCentury Enlightened Jewish Discourse (Amsterdam: Edita KNAW, ): – . “Maimonides on the Scope of Metaphysics alias Ma"aseh Merkavah: the Evolution of his Views,” in Carlos del Vale, Santiago García-Jalón and Juan Pedro Monferrer, eds, Maimónides y su época (Madrid: Sociedad estatal de conmemoraciones culturales, ): –. “Rabbi David Fränckel, Moses Mendelssohn, and the Beginning of the Berlin Haskalah: Reattributing a Patriotic Sermon (),” European Journal of Jewish Studies , (): –. (With Mauro Zonta) “Remnants of Habib Ibn Bahr¯ız’s Arabic Translation of . Nicomachus of Gerasa’s Introduction to Arithmetic,” in Y. Tzvi Langermann and Jodeph Stern, eds, Adaptations and Innovations: Studies on the Interaction between Jewish and Islamic Thought and Literature from the Early Middle Ages to the Late Twentieth Century, dedicated to Professor Joel L. Kraemer (Paris and Louvain: Éditions Peeters, ): –. “Jewish Traditionalism and Early Modern Science: Rabbi Israel Zamosc’s Dialectic of the Enlightenment (Berlin, ),” in Robert S. Westman and David Biale, eds, Thinking Impossibilities: The Legacy of Amos Funkenstein (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, ): –. “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph. Historical Studies in Science and Judaism  (): –. “Four Observations on Maimonides’ Four Celestial Globes (Guide :–),” in A. Ravitzky, ed., Maimonides: Conservatism, Originality and Revolution (Heb.) (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, ): –. “The Biological Foundations of Intellectual Elitism: Maimonides vs. Al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı,” Maimonidean Studies  (): –.

xviii

selected publications of gad freudenthal

“Dieu parle-t-il hébreu? : De l’ origine du langage humain selon quelques penseurs juifs médiévaux,” Les Cahiers du Judaïsme  (): –. “Transfert culturel à Lunel au milieu du douzième siècle: Qu’est-ce qui a motivé les premières traductions provençales de l’ arabe en hébreu?” in Danielle Iancu-Agou and Élie Nicolas, eds, Des Tibbonides à Maïmonide: Rayonnement des Juifs andalous en Pays d’ Oc médiéval (Paris: Editions du Cerf, ): – . “Cosmology: The Heavenly Bodies,” in Steven Nadler and Tamar Rudavsky, eds, The Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy: From Antiquity through the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ): – . “Nicomachus of Gerasa in Spain, circa : Abraham bar Hiyya’s Testimony,” Aleph. Historical Studies in Science and Judaism , (): –. Planned Publications/Forthcoming “Averroes’ Changing Mind on the Role of the Active Intellect in the Generation of Animate Beings,” in Ahmed Hasnawi and Roshdi Rashed, eds, La pensée philosophique et scientifique d’ Averroès dans son temps. “Judah Ibn Tibbon and his patrons R. Meshullam b. Jacob and R. Asher b. Meshullam,” in R. Reiner et al., eds, Israel M. Ta-Shma Memorial Volume (Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center). “The Accommodation of Non-Traditional Learning in Mid-Twelfth Century Provençal Jewish Culture: A Case Study and a Preliminary Theoretical Statement,” in S. Stroumsa and H. Ben-Shammai, eds, Exchange and Transmission Across Cultural Boundaries: Philosophy, Mysticism and Science in the Mediterranean World (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities). “Arabic into Hebrew: The Accommodation of Secular Knowledge in TwelfthCentury Provençal Judaism,” in David Freidenreich and Miriam Goldstein, eds, Border Crossings: Interreligious Interaction and the Exchange of Ideas in the Islamic Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press). “ ‘Arav and Edom’ as Cultural Resources for Medieval Judaism: Contrasting Attitudes toward Arabic and Latin Learning in the Midi and in Italy,” in Maria Esperanza Alfonso and Carmen Caballero-Navas, eds, Late Medieval Jewish Identities: Iberia and Beyond (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan). “Arabic and Latin Cultures as Resources for the Hebrew Translation Movement: Comparative Considerations, Both Quantitative and Qualitative,” in Gad Freudenthal, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

INTRODUCTION

This volume contains twenty-two papers on the history of science presented to Gad Freudenthal. A Festschrift for Gad Freudenthal needs no justification. In the past thirty years he has become one of the most outstanding scholars of the history of science and especially of the history of science in Jewish culture worldwide. In the early eighties, the first period of his scholarly career, Gad Freudenthal published papers mainly on the general history of science and on the sociology of science, as well as a book on the philosophy of science. Starting in the mid-eighties his scholarly interest shifted to “the history of science and Judaism.” In  he organized the conference to mark Gersonides’ seven-hundredth birthday and edited the trailblazing Studies on Gersonides: A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist. The influence of the conference and volume were immediate: if until that time only Bernard Goldstein studied Gersonides the scientist, today many scholars investigate different aspects of his scientific work. From the early nineties on Gad’s scholarly productivity flourished, resulting in an increasing number of publications (in four languages). In many of these studies it was Gad who laid the groundwork, for example for the development of Jewish science in medieval southern Europe (especially southern France) and for the impact of Arabic philosophy and science on Jewish thought. Gad Freudenthal’s research interests are exceptionally broad, led by a rare “nose” for texts and subjects that have been little explored but that are of special importance (such as the dispersed works of Do"eg ha-Edomi). He also attaches great importance to studying the history of the history of science, exemplified by his sustained efforts to highlight (or rescue from oblivion) the scientific works of past scholars such as Moritz Steinschneider, Hélène Metzger, Joseph Ben-David, and Amos Funkenstein. Several of his studies were inspired by a strong personal commitment to such works and their authors. A unifying trait of much of his more recent work, however, seems to be a vivid interest in sociological and cultural aspects of the history of science, with a focus on issues of transmission, appropriation, and translation. In , at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, he initiated a research group on “Transmission and Appropriation of the Secular Sciences and Philosophy



introduction

in Medieval Judaism: Comparative Perspectives, Universal and National Aspects.” He organized successful conferences on “Science in Ashkenaz” (Jerusalem, ), “Moritz Steinschneider and the Study of Cultural Transfer” (Berlin, ), an EAJS colloquium on “The Cultures of Maimonideanism” (Oxford, ), and a conference entitled “Latin into Hebrew. The Transfer of Philosophical, Scientific, and Medical Lore from Christian to Jewish Cultures in Southern Europe (th–th Centuries)” (Paris, ). Currently he is engaged in an international project on Pre-Modern Scientific Hebrew Terminology (PESHAT), which aims to produce an updated and enlarged multilingual digital version of Jacob Klatzkin’s famous Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae. In  he will be leading a new research group at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, on Jewish Physicians in Medieval Christian Europe: Professional Knowledge as an Agent of Cultural Change. For Gad, scientific research is never a solipsistic enterprise but a fundamentally dialogical process. All who know him personally are familiar with his curiosity about new developments in scholarship and his strong interest in intensive exchanges of ideas about ongoing work, his own and his colleagues’. He is enormously generous and helpful when it comes to supporting and promoting the research of others. He is constantly stressing the necessity to transmit knowledge from the older generation of scholars to their heirs and successors, including the creation of forums for intellectual exchange based upon personal encounter between junior and senior scholars. He himself always takes pains to encourage young scholars and guide them to work on topics related to the history of science. In the conferences he coordinates—always a model of perfect organization—his cordial manner catalyzes the gathering of outstanding scholars from a wide range of disciplines and involves them in a fruitful and constructive dialogue about Judaism and the history of science. Gad Freudenthal’s major influence in the study of the history of science is amplified by his work as an editor. He can be proud of numerous collections of articles on different subjects, all of them carefully and meticulously selected and edited. Since its founding in , at the initiative of Yemima ben Menahem of the Hebrew University, he has been the editor of Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism. It is marked by an extraordinary diversity of content (subjects from the rabbinic age through modern times and editions of texts in many languages) and form (studies, forums on a specific topic, short notices, English translations of important older articles that are sometimes difficult to find, and bibliographies). In Aleph, Gad miraculously finds a way to maintain a very

introduction



high academic standard and, at the same time, to encourage young scholars publishing their first works. Anyone who has had the opportunity to collaborate with Gad in his editorial capacity (whether of Aleph or of one of the numerous collections of papers) knows that he views this as much more than a cut-anddried technical job. He transforms the editing process into a fruitful dialogue with the authors about their papers, intentions, and arguments. His rare ability to make focused suggestions often leads to substantial improvements in papers; the many expressions of gratitude to “Gad Freudenthal, who has made many helpful comments on previous drafts of this paper,” found in the notes of countless articles, are much more than acts of courtesy. They often relate to substantial contributions and corrections to the work. This understanding of his responsibility as editor reflects not only Gad’s firm belief in the power of the better argument, but even more so his firm conviction that every argument deserves to be presented in the best possible manner, even when one does not share it. Many people and publications have greatly profited from this high scientific ethos. During the thirty years of his career Gad has collaborated with many people and made many friends. The list of contributors the present volume could easily have been extended many times over. The editors have done their best to invite those who are closest to Gad, but beg forgiveness if they have left out anyone who would have liked to contribute to this volume. May this book be a small token of honor and gratitude offered by colleagues, students and friends, who wish to mark his th birthday.

TEXTS: EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS, AND COMMENTARIES

LE PSEUDO AL-HASAN IBN . AL-HAYTAM : SUR L’ ASYMPTOTE ¯ Roshdi Rashed Dans la proposition  du second livre des Coniques,1 Apollonius démontre que l’ asymptote et l’ hyperbole prolongées à l’ infini se rapprochent continûment l’ une de l’ autre sans jamais se rencontrer. Cette proposition a frappé l’ imagination et a été l’ objet de commentaires mathématiques et philosophiques pendant deux millénaires environ. Ce n’ est cependant qu’ au cours du dernier demi-siècle que l’ on a commencé à s’ intéresser à l’ histoire de ces commentaires. Tout a commencé par les travaux que Marshall Clagett a consacrés à la traduction latine, par le mathématicien de la cour de Frédéric II, Jean de Palerme, d’ un commentaire arabe anonyme de cette proposition II.. Marshall Clagett a édité cette traduction et en a fait un commentaire historique et mathématique.2 Gad Freudenthal, à son tour, a étudié la traduction hébraïque de ce texte latin, ainsi que l’ impact qui fut le sien—joint à celui du Guide des Égarés—sur la tradition hébraïque.3 L’ auteur de ces pages a lui-même établi, traduit et commenté quelques travaux des mathématiciens et philosophes arabes relatifs à cette proposition. Or les auteurs de ces commentaires, comme d’ ailleurs certains mathématiciens anciens, ont été principalement intrigués par l’ indétermination sémantique d’ une proposition au demeurant si bien démontrée. La proposition II., il est vrai, repose sur trois notions, toutes 1

Cette proposition est parvenue dans l’ édition d’ Eutocius et dans la traduction arabe des sept livres des Coniques avec quelques légères variantes. Sur cette question, voir Apollonius : Les Coniques, tome . : Livres II et III, commentaire historique et mathématique, édition et traduction du texte arabe par R. Rashed (Berlin et New York, ). 2 M. Clagett, « A Medieval Latin Translation of a Short Arabic Tract on the Hyperbola », Osiris  () : – ; et Archimedes in the Middle Ages, vol. , A Supplement on the Medieval Latin Traditions of Conic Sections (–) (Philadelphie, ) : – , –. 3 Gad Freudenthal, « Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Transmission of the Mathematical Tract “On Two Asymptotic Lines” in the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew Medieval Traditions », Vivarium  () : – : repr. dans R.S. Cohen et H. Levine, éd., Maimonides and the Sciences, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol.  (Dordrecht et Boston, ) : –.



roshdi rashed

nécessaires à la description du comportement asymptotique de la courbe, mais dont aucune n’ était dotée à l’ époque—et pour longtemps encore— d’ une définition opératoire. Ces notions sont : l’ infini, l’ infinitésimale et les continuités.4 On comprend donc que cette proposition II. ne pouvait laisser indifférents ni les mathématiciens ni les philosophes. Voici en effet une proposition bien établie, mais à l’ aide de notions non rigoureusement définies. Face à cette situation, Geminus qualifie II. de « théorème le plus paradoxal en géométrie ».5 Pour dénouer ce paradoxe, Proclus opte quant à lui pour une stratégie philosophique, en justifiant la présence de l’ infini comme fini dans la démonstration.6 Les choses ensuite en sont, semble-t-il, restées là, jusqu’ à la réactivation de la recherche sur la géométrie des sections coniques à partir du milieu du IXe siècle, avec les Ban¯u M¯us¯a et T¯abit ibn Qurra. De la pro¯ l’ heure, sept commenposition II. des Coniques, on connaît, pour taires en arabe, auxquels il faut ajouter le texte qui a été traduit en latin par Jean de Palerme, ainsi que l’ étude, au XVIIe siècle, de Francesco Barozzi, récemment publiée par Luigi Maierù.7 Ces commentaires sont successivement dus à al-Si˘gz¯ı—seconde moitié du Xe siècle et début du siècle suivant—, al-Qumm¯ı—jeune contemporain de ce dernier—, et alˇ B¯ır¯un¯ı—également jeune contemporain d’ al-Si˘gz¯ı. L’ algébriste Saraf alD¯ın al-T¯ . us¯ı leur succède un peu plus tard, et s’ arrête à deux reprises à cette proposition. À cela s’ ajoute un commentaire de Muhammad ibn . 4 R. Rashed, « Al-Sijz¯ı et Maïmonide : Commentaire mathématique et philosophique de la proposition II- des Coniques d’ Apollonius », Archives Internationales d’ Histoire des Sciences , vol.  () : – ; traduction anglaise « Al-Sijz¯ı and Maimonides : A Mathematical and Philosophical Commentary on Proposition II- in Apollonius’ Conic Sections », dans Cohen et Levine, éd., Maimonides and the Sciences, pp. –. On trouvera une nouvelle édition du texte d’ al-Si˘gz¯ı dans R. Rashed, Œuvre mathématique d’ al-Sijz¯ı, vol. , Géométrie des coniques et théorie des nombres au X e siècle, Les Cahiers du Mideo  (Louvain et Paris, ) : – et –. Voir également Sharaf al-D¯ın al-T¯ . us¯ı, Œuvres mathématiques. Algèbre et géométrie au XII e siècle, Collection « Sciences et philosophie arabes—textes et études »,  tomes (Paris, ) : t. , pp. cxxviii–cxxxii et t. , pp. –. 5 G. Friedlein, éd., Procli Diadochi In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commentarii (Leipzig,  ; reprod. Olms, ) :  ; et la traduction de P. Ver Eecke, Proclus de Lycie, Les Commentaires sur le premier livre des Éléments d’ Euclide (Paris, ) : – . 6 Rashed, Œuvre mathématique d’ al-Sijz¯ ı,  :. 7 F. Barozzi, Admirandum illud geometricum problema tredecim modis demonstratum : Venetiis . Éditeur L. Maierù (Bologne, ) : –. Voir aussi E. Florio et L. Maierù, « Le dimostrazioni di Francesco Barozzi nell’ Admirandum illud geometricum problema () », Acc. Naz. Sci. Lett. Arti di Modena, Memorie Scientifiche, Giuridiche, Letterarie, Cer. VIII, vol. , fasc. I ().

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯



al-Haytam (un homonyme d’ al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam que l’ on a jusqu’ à . ¯ récente confondu avec lui8) et un commentaire ¯ une date du théologien et philosophe Fahr al-D¯ın al-R¯az¯ı. Par leur prestige et par leur diversité, ˘ l’ intérêt intense et constant porté par les mathémaces noms montrent ticiens et les philosophes de la tradition arabe à la proposition II. des Coniques d’ Apollonius. Il ne s’ agissait pas pour chacun d’ entre eux de se contenter d’ en évoquer l’ exemple à l’ occasion d’ un exposé doctrinaire, comme le fit Maïmonide,9 mais de rédiger un petit traité intégralement consacré à la démonstration de cette proposition II.. Parmi ces commentaires, celui d’ al-Si˘gz¯ı joue un rôle central. C’ est en effet lui qui engage la recherche, et c’ est contre lui que certains commentateurs vont la poursuivre. L’ étude d’ al-Si˘gz¯ı est à la fois mathématique et philosophique. Pour asseoir la notion d’ infini sur une base solide, il commence par démontrer le lemme suivant : Parmi les parallélogrammes appliqués à des droites données, égaux à un parallélogramme donné, dont les angles opposés sont égaux aux deux angles opposés de ces parallélogrammes, ceux dont les longueurs sont les plus courtes ont les largeurs les plus longues, et ceux qui ont les longueurs les plus longues ont les largeurs les plus courtes. Et ainsi de suite selon ce mode, à l’ infini.10

L’ idée d’ al-Si˘gz¯ı est donc de passer par le cas discret, qui est calculable, avant d’ en venir au cas de la courbe continue. Idée intéressante, mais qui dresse d’ autres obstacles, que nous avons discutés ailleurs.11 Cependant al-Si˘gz¯ı ne s’ arrête pas là : il élabore une classification des propositions mathématiques à l’ aide du couple « démonstration / conception », pour donner un statut logique aux propositions de la catégorie de II.. Il y a les propositions conçues directement, et qu’ il n’ y a aucun moyen mathématique de démontrer ; il y a celles qu’ on conçoit avant qu’ il soit procédé à leur démonstration ; il y a celles conçues lorsque l’ on forme l’ idée de leur démonstration ; il y a celles conçues seulement une fois démontrées ; enfin, il y a les propositions difficilement concevables, même une fois démontrées, et c’ est à ces dernières qu’ appartient II..12 Le problème philosophique sous-jacent, et explicité par cette classification, est celui de la possibilité de démontrer ce que l’ on ne peut pas 8 9 10 11 12

Voir plus loin. Rashed, « Al-Sijz¯ı et Maïmonide ». Rashed, Œuvre mathématique d’ al-Sijz¯ı,  :. Ibid., pp. –. Ibid., p. .



roshdi rashed

concevoir. Or ce problème ne tardera pas à s’ articuler sur un autre, soulevé par al-Kind¯ı dans son livre Sur la Philosophie première. Ce dernier avait en effet posé le problème des propositions qu’ on démontre rigoureusement sans pouvoir en représenter l’ objet, c’ est-à-dire sans que l’ on puisse s’ en faire une image dans l’ âme. Il s’ agit cette fois du couple « démonstration / imagination ».13 C’ est précisément ce que Maïmonide reprendra plus tard dans le Guide des Égarés lors de sa critique des théologiens (mutakallim¯um) qui définissaient la modalité par l’ imagination. Mais Maïmonide intègre l’ exemple de II. pour illustrer ce problème.14 Al-Qumm¯ı, en fonction d’ al-Si˘gz¯ı mais aussi contre lui, compose un commentaire de II., qu’ il voulait auto-suffisant et épistémologiquement neutre.15 Il n’ exigeait donc de son lecteur aucune connaissance préalable des Coniques d’ Apollonius. Dans son mémoire, il explique tout ce qu’ il faut savoir sur le cône et l’ hyperbole et ne fait appel qu’ aux propositions des Éléments d’ Euclide, notamment celles du livre XI, en évitant, contrairement à al-Si˘gz¯ı, tout recours aux Coniques. C’ est là, semble-t-il, un choix de simplicité et d’ économie, car, pour établir II., Apollonius a recours à trois propositions du livre I de son ouvrage, et à neuf propositions du livre II. D’ autre part, pour assurer la neutralité épistémologique, Al-Qumm¯ı rejette la notion d’ infini en dehors du champ des mathématiques, c’ est-à-dire qu’ il la renvoie à ses propres livres en théologie philosophique (Kal¯am). Mais al-Qumm¯ı n’ est pas le seul à faire un tel choix. Il existe un traité anonyme, faussement attribué au mathématicien al-Hasan ibn al. Haytam, où l’ auteur emprunte la même voie qu’ al-Qumm¯ı. Il qualifie cette¯ voie de « claire et facile », dans la mesure où, tout en connaissant les Coniques, on n’ y procède que par les Éléments. Ce traité appartient à la collection manuscrite nº  de D¯ar al-Kutub (Le Caire), fol. vr, où il apparaît sous le titre : Ris¯ala f¯ı wu˘gu¯ d hat. t. ayn yaqrab¯ani wa-l¯a yaltaqiy¯ani (Traité sur l’ existence des deux lignes ˘qui se rapprochent sans se rencontrer). Or ce traité pose un sérieux problème d’ attribution. Le texte est anonyme, mais le copiste a écrit dans le colophon : « On comprend de ses expressions qu’ il est la composition d’ Ibn al-Haytam » ; affirmation ¯ 13

Al-Falsafa al-¯ul¯a, dans R. Rashed et J. Jolivet, Œuvres philosophiques et scientifiques d’ al-Kind¯ı, vol.  : Métaphysique et Cosmologie (Leyde, ) :  ; ar. p. , ll. –. 14 Maïmonide, Guide des égarés (arabe). Éditeur H. Atay (Ankara,  ; reprod. Le Caire, s.d.) : –. 15 Voir R. Rashed, « L’ asymptote : Apollonius et ses lecteurs », à paraître.

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯



aussi ambiguë que gratuite. Or on sait depuis peu16 qu’ il existe deux « Ibn al-Haytam », contemporains, que les biobibliographes ont identifiés et dont ils¯ ont confondu les écrits : le fameux mathématicien al-Hasan ibn . al-Haytam d’ une part, et le philosophe de Bagdad Muhammad ibn al. ¯ d’ autre part. À supposer donc que l’ affirmation du colophon Haytam ¯ soit fondée, elle ne nous dit pas de quel Ibn al-Haytam il s’ agit, et le copiste ne donne aucune indication sur son modèle¯ qui puisse nous éclairer. Quoi qu’ il en soit, les biobibliographes récents, sans examen supplémentaire, ont attribué ce traité au mathématicien al-Hasan ibn al. Haytam, induisant ainsi les historiens en erreur.17 ¯ ce traité n’ est certainement pas d’ al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam. En effet, Or . une fois établie rigoureusement la liste de ses écrits, on ¯n’ y relève ni le titre de cet écrit, ni même un titre qui s’ en rapprocherait. D’ autre part, on ne doit à al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam que très peu de commen. ¯ est pour dissiper un doute ou taires. Lorsqu’ il lui arrive d’ en rédiger, c’ pour corriger une proposition, ou encore pour développer une nouvelle théorie ; par exemple lorsqu’ il commente les Éléments, les lemmes des Ban¯u M¯us¯a aux Coniques, etc. C’ est en effet aux chercheurs qu’ il s’ adressait, et non pas aux débutants. Enfin, il est difficilement concevable qu’ al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam, en son temps le meilleur connaisseur de la . ¯ géométrie des sections coniques, et sans rival dans sa connaissance des Coniques (il en a restitué le huitième livre), ait fait l’ impasse sur l’ ouvrage d’ Apollonius pour revenir aux Éléments d’ Euclide dans un commentaire de II.. Mais, si al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam n’ est pas—et il ne peut l’ être— . ¯ est cet auteur ? Dans l’ état actuel de l’ auteur de ce traité anonyme, quel nos connaissances, il est impossible d’ apporter une réponse vraisemblable et justifiée à cette question. Nous savons seulement que l’ intérêt porté à cette proposition II. ne se bornait pas à la société des mathématiciens ; les philosophes l’ ont eux aussi commentée, ce qui étend considérablement le champ des auteurs possibles. Nous savons par exemple que le philosophe Muhammad ibn al-Haytam, familier des mathématiques . et des sciences, a écrit un mémoire sur¯ce sujet, dont il évoque lui-même

16 R. Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle, vol.  : Ibn alHaytham (Londres, ). 17 J’ ai été moi aussi victime de cette illusion, jusqu’ à ce que mes recherches me mènent aux écrits mathématiques d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Je l’ ai rectifiée lors de l’ édition et de la traduction des écrits d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Cf.¯ Les mathématiques infinitésimales, vol. , p.  ¯ n. .



roshdi rashed

le titre dans la liste autobiographique de ses écrits.18 Or Muhammad ibn . al-Haytam nous a habitués à des commentaires de ce type, animés d’ une ¯ intention didactique. évidente On sait également que le fameux théologien et philosophe (mort en ) Fahr al-D¯ın al-R¯az¯ı a écrit un traité semblablement intitulé.19 Selon ses ˘propres dires, il a procédé dans ce traité à l’ aide des Éléments uniquement, c’ est-à-dire de la même façon qu’ al-Qumm¯ı et l’ auteur de ce traité anonyme. Mais tout ceci ne suffit pas à fonder une conjecture ni à attribuer le traité anonyme à Muhammad ibn al-Haytam ou à Fahr al-D¯ın . ˘ ¯ a été commentée al-R¯az¯ı. On observe seulement que la proposition II. à plusieurs reprises par les philosophes : ces deux derniers, qui lui ont consacré chacun un traité, et Maïmonide, qui l’ évoque dans le Guide. Plus tard et sous d’ autres climats, d’ autres vont l’ évoquer, comme Montaigne et Voltaire. Peut-être faut-il chercher la raison de cet attrait exercé par la proposition II. dans l’ exemple qu’ elle offre d’ une connaissance certaine de ce qui échappe à l’ imagination, exemple qui apporterait de l’ eau au moulin des théologiens et des déistes. Le traité anonyme est sans doute l’ un des commentaires les plus développés de II.. L’ auteur multiplie délibérément les démonstrations des principaux lemmes, et il lui arrive de donner, après une démonstration directe, une autre démonstration, par l’ absurde cette fois. Son but déclaré est de démontrer l’ existence d’ une droite asymptote à l’ hyperbole, et l’ unicité de celle-ci. Il entend établir des démonstrations « faciles » et « claires » à l’ aide des Éléments d’ Euclide, et notamment des livres VI et XI. Cette fois encore on perçoit, même si elle n’ est pas explicitée, l’ intention didactique. L’ auteur commence par montrer comment engendrer un cône de révolution et obtenir une surface conique. Il explique ensuite comment

Voir Ibn Ab¯ı Us. aybi#a, ‘Uy¯un al-anb¯a" f¯ı t. abaq¯at al-at. ibb¯a’. Éditeur N. Rid¯ . a (Beyrouth, ) :  (Maq¯ala f¯ı intiz¯a # al-burh¯an ‘al¯a anna al-qit. # al-z¯a"id wa-al-hat. t. ayn ˘ all¯ad¯ani l¯a yalqay¯anihi yaqrab¯ani abadan). 19¯ Fahr al-D¯ın al-R¯ az¯ı, al-Mat. a¯lib al-¯aliya. Éditeur A.H. al-Saq¯a (Beyrouth, ) : ˘  : « Apollonius a montré dans son livre Les coniques l’ existence de deux lignes qui se rapprochent continûment, sans se rencontrer. Nous avons montré par d’ autres moyens établis sur les principes de la géométrie que cela est possible. Si on acceptait que la division soit finie, alors cela serait impossible absolument ». 18

           !M #  « $I!&!' » () * ! +   , » .« -M ./0 1 ,3 45/ 6  ) / 7!8 ./0  9!: 6 ;
le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯



déterminer une hyperbole comme section plane d’ un cône, ainsi que son diamètre transverse, son côté droit et ses ordonnées ; et comment montrer que la courbe est à branche infinie. Il ne s’ agit pas du cas général, comme chez Apollonius, mais d’ une hyperbole équilatère. Ainsi, l’ auteur fournit à son lecteur le bagage qui le dispense de revenir aux Coniques et assure à son traité indépendance et auto-suffisance. Il étudie la droite asymptote, qu’ il conçoit, à la différence d’ Apollonius, comme une droite parallèle à une génératrice du cône dans un plan passant par le centre de la section et parallèle au plan sécant—conception que l’ on rencontre déjà chez al-Qumm¯ı. L’ asymptote est donc une droite qui passe par le centre de l’ hyperbole et par l’ extrémité de la moitié du côté droit, qui est, dans l’ hyperbole équilatère, une partie de la tangente au sommet. Il montre ensuite que cette droite ne rencontre pas la courbe, que la suite des distances, majorée par la distance entre le sommet de la courbe et l’ asymptote, est une suite décroissante. Puis il démontre l’ unicité de l’ asymptote, et montre enfin que, si l’ on mène d’ un point quelconque entre le sommet de l’ hyperbole et son centre une droite parallèlement à l’ asymptote, elle se comporte avec l’ hyperbole comme l’ asymptote. Il démontre ensuite que cette droite ne rencontre pas la courbe, une fois par une preuve directe et une fois par une réduction à l’ absurde. On peut récrire la preuve directe ainsi : Soit (AB, AP) un repère, G (x, y) un point de l’ hyperbole ; par la propriété fondamentale (le symptoma), on a y2 = (a + x) x.

Soit le point W(X, Y) sur l’ asymptote, on a X = x, Y = x + a, d’ où Y 2 = (x + a)2 = y2 + a2,

donc Y 2 > y2. La démonstration par réduction à l’ absurde se récrit : Supposons que CB rencontre l’ hyperbole au point K et menons KP ; on a DP · PA + AC2 = CP2 = PK 2 (K sur BC).

Mais PK 2 = DP · PA (symptoma), donc DP · PA + AC2 = DP · PA ;

ce qui est impossible.



roshdi rashed

L’ auteur donne ensuite deux démonstrations de la décroissance de la suite des distances entre l’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote. Voici la transcription de ces démonstrations. Traçons les droites GS et EM ; elles rencontrent l’ asymptote en W et I, donc DS · SA = GS2 et DM · MA = ME2 ;

mais DS · SA < DM · MA ⇒ ME > GS et MC > SC,

d’ où CS + SG < CM + ME. D

C J V

A

B H

S L N U

M P

W O

G E

D’ autre part, DS · SA + AC2 = CS2 = SW 2 ;

mais (CS + GS) · GW + GS2 = SW 2,

d’ où (*) (CS + GS) · GW = AC2.

De même, on montre que (CM + ME) EI = AC2, donc (CS + GS) · GW = (CM + ME) · EI,

d’ où

I K

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯ CS + SG EI = ; CM + ME GW

mais CS + SG < CM + ME ⇒ EI < GW.

Mais EÔI =  droit et Î = 1/2 droit, donc Ê = 1/2 droit, donc EO = OI, EI 2 = EO2 et GW 2 = GH 2 ;

or EI < GW, donc EO < GH. On montre enfin que AJ > GH. De (*) on a CS + SG AC = ; AC GW

or CS + SG > AC ⇒AC = AB > GW

et AB2 = AJ 2, GW 2 = GH 2,

donc AJ > GH > EO.

On peut transcrire ainsi la seconde démonstration : LW · GW + SG2 = SW 2 = CS2 = DS · AS + AC2,

donc LW · GW + SG2 = DS · AS + AC2 ;

mais SG2 = DS · SA ;

par soustraction, on a AC2 = AB2 = LW · GW,

donc





roshdi rashed LW AB = . AB GW

Mais LW > AB, donc AB > GW. On montre également que NI · EI = AB2, d’ où LW · GW = NI · EI,

d’ où LW EI = ; NI GW

mais LW < NI ⇒ EI < GW. L’ auteur commence par établir deux lemmes pour démontrer que l’ asymptote et la courbe prolongées continûment ne se rencontrent jamais : ° Si on divise un segment [AB] en deux points C et E tels que AC > CB et AE = CB, et si l’ on ajoute à [AB] le segment [BD], alors AD · DB = CD2. E

A

B

C

D

° Toute parallèle à l’ asymptote menée entre le sommet de l’ hyperbole et son centre rencontre l’ hyperbole. Il démontre ensuite la proposition : Quelle que soit une distance I  entre l’ asymptote et l’ hyperbole inférieure ou égale à la distance d = AJ, il existe une distance d telle que d = I. S

C

T J N

B

A

E

O

M

Y L

I′

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯



Si I = AJ, la proposition est vérifiée. Si I < AJ, prenons JN = I sur AJ. De N on mène la droite NM parallèle à l’ asymptote CB. D’ après le lemme , la droite NM rencontre l’ hyperbole ; qu’ elle la rencontre en M. Abaissons de M la perpendiculaire ME sur l’ asymptote. On a alors le parallélogramme (N, E), donc JN = ME = I. L’ auteur montre ensuite que toute parallèle à l’ asymptote se comporte comme une asymptote et que l’ asymptote est unique. On vient de résumer les principales étapes de cet écrit anonyme. On trouvera ici l’editio princeps de celui-ci ainsi que sa première traduction. Cette édition critique a été faite à partir du seul manuscrit connu de ce texte. Ce manuscrit a été transcrit en écriture nash¯ı. Le copiste ne ˘ comprenait manifestement pas le contenu du traité et a commis beaucoup de fautes. Il a également omis de tracer les figures.

Au nom de Dieu Clément et Miséricordieux. TRAITÉ SUR L’ EXISTENCE DE L’ ASYMPTOTE20

Son auteur écrit : après avoir rendu grâces à Dieu le Très-Haut, et bénédiction sur Son Bien Aimé le Prophète élu ; avant d’ entreprendre cela, il faut que nous indiquions des lemmes solides et des propositions coniques. Parmi ce qu’ il faut introduire, il y a les définitions du début du onzième livre des Éléments. Puis suivront la première proposition de ce livre, la seconde, puis la troisième, la quatrième et la cinquième ; et enfin la proposition dont l’ énoncé est : par un point d’ un plan, on ne peut pas élever deux perpendiculaires dans une même direction.21 Ensuite la quatorzième proposition, puis la huitième, puis la onzième, puis la dix-huitième, et enfin la dix-neuvième. C’ est sur tout cela qu’ on s’ arrêtera, sur les propositions solides des Éléments. . Cône de révolution et surface conique On suppose ensuite le triangle CAE, dont l’ angle A est droit et dont la droite AC est égale à la droite AE ; menons la perpendiculaire AB. Il est clair que les deux triangles ABC, ABE sont égaux et semblables. Si nous imaginons les deux extrémités de la droite AB fixes dans leur position, et si on fait tourner le triangle ABC dans la direction de E jusqu’ à ce qu’ il revienne à sa position initiale, alors la droite BC tout entière décrit la surface d’ un cercle dont le centre est le point B et dont le demi-diamètre est BC, car BC, dans son mouvement, forme toujours avec la droite AB un angle droit ; et le mouvement de la droite BC est dans un même plan, comme on l’ a montré22 dans la cinquième proposition ; le point B est fixe, il est donc le centre du cercle [r] tracé par la droite BC. Le triangle ABC, dans son mouvement, peut se superposer au triangle ABE, car il lui est égal et semblable. La droite CE en entier est alors le diamètre du cercle et le plan du cercle est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC, comme on l’ a montré dans la dix-huitième proposition. La droite AB est en effet perpendiculaire au plan du cercle et le plan du triangle passe par la droite AB. AC décrit donc une surface conique de sommet le point A et de base le cercle de centre B.

20 21 22

Litt. : des deux lignes qui se rapprochent et qui ne se rencontrent pas. Éléments, XI.. Litt. : comme nous l’ avons montré. Il recourt à cette expression plusieurs fois.



roshdi rashed

Prolongeons AC dans la direction de C jusqu’ en K, abaissons la perpendiculaire KU sur le prolongement de AB et prolongeons-la jusqu’ au point I sur le prolongement de la droite AE. Il est clair, d’ après ce qui précède, que la droite KI est le diamètre d’ un cercle décrit par la droite KU au moyen du mouvement du triangle ABC ; U sera le centre de ce cercle. A

E

B

C

U

D

I

K

De même, on montre que toutes les droites parallèles à la droite CB, et comprises entre les deux droites AB et AC, et toutes celles qui les prolongent, peuvent décrire des cercles dont le plan est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC. Ces cercles ont pour demi-diamètres ces droites parallèles, et les centres de ces cercles se situent sur la droite qui prolonge la droite AB. Les droites AB et AC peuvent être prolongées à l’ infini ; la surface décrite par la droite AC et son prolongement peut donc augmenter continûment. . L’ hyperbole comme section plane d’ un cône Menons ensuite du point C ou d’ un autre point de la droite AC ou de son prolongement la perpendiculaire CD à IK, et élevons sur cette droite CD un plan perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC au moyen de la proposition  du livre XI ; qu’ il coupe la surface conique suivant la ligne CM. Appelons la ligne GCM, hyperbole, et appelons la droite CD, son diamètre. Comme la surface conique peut être prolongée continûment, l’ hyperbole peut aussi être prolongée continûment, si on prolonge le segment CD et si on prolonge le plan perpendiculaire à CD. Retraçons la figure avec ses lettres, marquons le point G sur l’ hyperbole23 et menons la perpendiculaire DG sur le plan du triangle ABC. Le prolongement de ce plan rencontre la droite GD, ou ce qui la prolonge, comme on l’ a montré précédemment ; qu’ il la rencontre en D. Je dis que, si on prolonge GD, cette droite coupe l’ hyperbole dans l’ autre [v] direction, en M  ; elle sera partagée en deux moitiés par la perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC.

23

Litt. : section ; que nous rendons désormais par « hyperbole ».

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed S

A E

H C

B

G I

D

K

U M

Démonstration : Menons de D une droite parallèle à la droite EC ; soit KUI. Elle coupe les droites AI, AK, AU aux points I, K, U. Le cercle de centre U et de demi-diamètre KU est donc dans un plan perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC, comme on l’ a montré précédemment ; or DG est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle, donc la droite DG est dans le plan du cercle et dans le plan de l’ hyperbole ; c’ est l’ intersection des deux plans. Prolongeons GD jusqu’ à la circonférence du cercle et le pourtour de la section ; qu’ elle les rencontre au point M. Il est impossible que la droite GD passe par le point C, puisque le point C est sur la circonférence du cercle de demi-diamètre BC et que les plans des deux cercles sont parallèles, car la droite BU est perpendiculaire à ces deux plans, d’ après la proposition  du livre XI. Les points G, M, I, K sont donc sur la circonférence du cercle de demi-diamètre UK et le diamètre IK coupe la corde GDM perpendiculairement ; il la partage donc en deux moitiés. . Les tangentes à l’ hyperbole Retraçons la même figure et menons de C une perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC. Je dis qu’ elle est tangente à l’ hyperbole. Démonstration : En effet, si elle ne lui était pas tangente, elle la couperait en P ; la droite PC est donc à l’ intérieur du cône. Mais la droite PC a rencontré la droite AC dans la surface du cône en C ; si on prolonge PC dans la direction de C, elle coupe la droite AC, et ce prolongement est à l’ extérieur de la surface du cône et ne revient pas rencontrer l’ hyperbole ; mais le point P est marqué sur l’ hyperbole en un autre point que C ; on a mené de P la perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC, CP est donc perpendiculaire à CD et CD partage l’ hyperbole

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

en deux moitiés au point C ; CP, si on la prolonge, rencontre donc l’ hyperbole au delà de C et la partage en deux moitiés au point C, d’ après ce qui précède ; elle rencontre donc le pourtour de la section, encore une fois ; or nous avons montré qu’ elle ne peut pas le rencontrer encore une fois. Ceci est impossible. La droite CP est donc tangente à l’ hyperbole. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.24 Retraçons la figure avec les mêmes lettres, c’ est-à-dire la figure de l’ hyperbole et celle du triangle ABC. Prolongeons la droite CD et la droite AI dans la direction de C ; qu’ elles se rencontrent au point S. Nous appelons la droite CS le diamètre transverse, le point H qui sépare la droite CS en deux moitiés, le centre de l’ hyperbole et le point C le sommet de l’ hyperbole. Si on prend la droite CP égale à la moitié du diamètre transverse, on l’ appelle la moitié du côté droit. Marquons alors sur le pourtour de l’ hyperbole le point G quelconque et abaissons la perpendiculaire GD sur le plan du triangle ABC. Je dis que le produit de SD par DC [r] est égal au carré de GD. Démonstration : Menons la droite KUI parallèlement à la droite CE. L’ angle B est droit et la droite AB est égale à BE ; l’ angle AEB est donc un demi-droit, je veux dire que l’ angle interne AID est un demi-droit et que l’ angle IDS est droit. Il reste l’ angle ISD égal à un demi-droit. La droite DI est donc égale à la droite DS ; de même la droite CD est égale à la droite DK et le point G est sur la circonférence du cercle dont le demi-diamètre est la droite UK. Mais on a mené de ce point la perpendiculaire GD au diamètre du cercle, donc le produit de ID par DK, c’ est-à-dire le produit de SD par DC, est égal au carré de GD. Et par la même démonstration nous montrons que toute perpendiculaire menée du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au plan du triangle ABC tombe sur le diamètre de l’ hyperbole, et est telle que le produit de la droite tout entière— composée du diamètre transverse et de la droite séparée par la perpendiculaire

24 Dans le plan de l’ hyperbole, toute droite perpendiculaire à l’ axe CD et qui coupe l’ hyperbole en un point, la recoupe en un deuxième point ; le milieu de ces deux points est un point sur l’ axe. Exemple : M, G, D ; si M vient en C, les trois points se confondent en C. Il en est de même pour N, D, N.

C

N′

G

D′

D

P

N

M

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

à partir du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au-delà du sommet de l’ hyperbole—par la droite séparée par la perpendiculaire, du diamètre, est égal au carré de la perpendiculaire.25 Toute perpendiculaire menée du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au plan du triangle ABC est dans le plan de l’ hyperbole. Puisque le plan de l’ hyperbole est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle, elle est donc aussi dans le plan de l’ hyperbole. Et ces droites forment un angle droit avec le diamètre de l’ hyperbole. Toutes ces perpendiculaires sont donc parallèles, et on les appelle les ordonnées. Par conséquent, l’ hyperbole, son diamètre transverse, la moitié de son côté droit et ses ordonnées sont dans un même plan. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer. . Existence et unicité de l’ asymptote à une hyperbole équilatère Maintenant que nous avons montré comment trouver l’ hyperbole, son diamètre transverse, la moitié de son côté droit et ses ordonnées, et que nous avons montré que l’ hyperbole se prolonge indéfiniment, je dis que la droite qui joint le centre de l’ hyperbole et l’ extrémité de la moitié de son côté droit est asymptote. Supposons que l’ hyperbole soit UAK, son diamètre AP, son diamètre transverse AD, son centre le point C, son côté droit AB. Joignons CB. Je dis que CB est asymptote à l’ hyperbole AK. D

C J V

A

B H

S L N U

M P

W O

G E

I K

Démonstration : Marquons sur l’ hyperbole les points G et E. De ces deux points menons sur la droite AP ou son prolongement les deux perpendiculaires GS et EM ; elles rencontrent la droite CB ou son prolongement aux deux points W et I. Puisque le triangle ABC est rectangle et que son côté AC est égal à AB, [v] le

25 La démonstration faite pour G est valable pour tout autre point de l’ hyperbole : SD · DC = GD2.

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

triangle ACB est semblable au triangle CSW car AB et SW sont parallèles. La droite CS est donc elle aussi égale à la droite SW. La droite AD est divisée en deux moitiés au point C et on lui ajoute AS. Le produit de DS par SA plus le carré de AC sont donc égaux au carré de CS, c’ est-à-dire au carré de SW. Mais le produit de DS par SA est égal au carré de GS ; le carré de SG plus le carré de AC sont donc égaux au carré de SW ; la droite SW est donc plus grande que la droite SG. Mais le point G est sur le pourtour de l’ hyperbole. Le point W est donc à l’ extérieur de l’ hyperbole. De même, nous montrons que le point I est à l’ extérieur de l’ hyperbole, et on montre par la même démonstration que tout point supposé sur la droite BC est extérieur à l’ hyperbole ; la droite CB et son prolongement ne rencontrent donc pas le pourtour de l’ hyperbole AK ni son prolongement. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer. Montrons cela d’ une autre manière. Retraçons la figure avec ses lettres. Nous disons : s’ il n’ en est pas comme nous l’ avons dit, que la droite BC rencontre l’ hyperbole au point K ; et menons KP en ordonnée. On a le produit de DP par PA plus le carré de AC égaux au carré de CP, c’ est-à-dire au carré de PK. Mais le carré de PK est égal au produit de DP par PA. On a donc le produit de DP par PA plus le carré de AC égaux au produit de DP par PA, le tout égal aux parties ; ce qui est impossible. La droite CB et son prolongement ne peuvent donc rencontrer l’ hyperbole. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer. . L’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote se rapprochent indéfiniment à mesure qu’ elles s’ éloignent Démontrons maintenant ce que nous avons promis, que la droite BC est asymptote à l’ hyperbole AK. Retraçons la figure, avec ses lettres, et marquons sur l’ hyperbole AK les deux points E et G, desquels on mène les deux perpendiculaires GH et EO sur la droite CB ou son prolongement ; et du point A la perpendiculaire AJ. Je dis que la perpendiculaire AJ est plus grande que la perpendiculaire GH et que GH est plus grande que EO. Démonstration : Faisons passer par les deux points E et G les deux droites GS et EM, en ordonnées au diamètre ; qu’ elles rencontrent la droite CB en deux points, W et I. Le produit de DS par SA est donc égal au carré de GS, comme on l’ a démontré précédemment. Le produit de DM par MA est égal au carré de EM

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

et le produit de DS par SA est plus petit que le produit de DM par MA. La droite ME est donc plus grande que la droite GS et la droite MC est plus grande que la droite SC. La droite CSG tout entière [r] est donc plus petite que la droite CME tout entière. De même, AD a été partagée en deux moitiés en C, et on l’ a augmentée de AS ; donc le produit de DS par SA, plus le carré de AC, sont égaux au carré de CS, d’ après la sixième proposition du livre II des Éléments. Mais CS est égale à SW ; si on pose une seule droite les deux droites CS et SW, la droite CW tout entière sera partagée en deux moitiés en S et en deux parties différentes en G. Le produit de la droite CSG tout entière par GW, plus le carré de GS, sont donc égaux au carré de SW. Mais on avait le produit de DS par SA plus le carré de AC égaux au carré de SW, qui est égal au carré de GS plus le carré de AC, ce qui est égal au produit de la droite CSG tout entière par GW, plus le carré de GS. Il reste la droite CSG tout entière, par GW, égale au carré de AC. De même, nous montrons que le produit de la droite CME tout entière par EI est égal au carré de AC. Le produit de la droite CSG, la première, tout entière, par GW, la quatrième, est donc égal au produit de la droite CME, la deuxième, tout entière, par EI, la troisième. Le rapport de la droite CGS, la première, tout entière, à la droite CME tout entière, est donc égal au rapport de EI à GW, d’ après la proposition  du livre  d’ Euclide. Mais la droite CSG tout entière est plus petite que la droite CME tout entière. La droite EI est donc plus petite que la droite GW ; l’ angle O du triangle EOI est droit et l’ angle I est un demi-droit. Il reste l’ angle E un demi-droit. La droite EO est donc égale à la droite OI. De même la droite GH est égale à la droite HW. La droite EI peut donc le double du carré de EO, la droite GW peut le double du carré de GH et la droite EI est plus petite que la droite GW ; la droite EO est donc plus petite que la droite GH. De même, nous montrons que, parmi toutes les perpendiculaires ou leurs prolongements, abaissées du pourtour de l’ hyperbole sur CB, celle qui est la plus proche du sommet de l’ hyperbole est plus grande que celle qui s’ en éloigne. Je dis que la perpendiculaire AJ, abaissée du sommet de l’ hyperbole sur la droite CB, est la plus grande des perpendiculaires mentionnées. En effet, on a montré que le produit de la droite CSG tout entière par GW est égal au carré de AC ; le rapport de la droite CSG tout entière à AC est donc égal au rapport de AC à GW. Or la droite CSG tout entière est plus grande que AC. La droite AC, qui est égale à la droite AB, est donc plus grande que GW ; le carré

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

de AB est égal au double du carré de AJ et le carré de GW est égal au double du carré de GH. La droite JA est donc plus grande que la droite [v] GH et GH est plus grande que la droite EO. Ces perpendiculaires sont des distances ; la droite est donc asymptote à l’ hyperbole. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer. Nous montrons aussi d’ une autre manière que la perpendiculaire EO est plus petite que la perpendiculaire GH, et cela parce que le procédé est le même. Prolongeons les ordonnées au tracé de l’ hyperbole de l’ autre côté, jusqu’ aux deux points L et N. D’ après ce que l’ on a montré précédemment, la droite LS est plus petite que la droite NM et la droite SW est plus petite que la droite MI, la droite LW tout entière est donc plus petite que la droite NI tout entière et la droite LG, partagée en deux moitiés au point S, est augmentée de la droite GW. Par conséquent, le produit de LG par GW, plus le carré de SG, sont égaux au carré de SW, qui est égal au carré de SC. Si tu suis la première manière dans ce chapitre, on montre que le produit de LG par GW est égal au carré de AC et que le produit de NE par IE est égal au carré de AC. Le produit de LG par WG est donc égal au produit de NE par EI. Le rapport de LG à NE est donc égal au rapport de EI à GW. Mais la droite LG est plus petite que la droite NE. La droite EI est donc plus petite que la droite GW. La perpendiculaire EO est donc plus petite que la perpendiculaire GH. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer. On le montre encore d’ une autre manière. Retraçons la même figure de l’ hyperbole avec ses lettres et ses lignes, et prolongeons AB jusqu’ en V d’ une longueur égale à AB ; joignons CV et prolongeons-la. D’ après ce qu’ on a montré précédemment, la droite CV ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole du côté AS. Prolongeons WS, IM jusqu’ en L et N, du côté de la droite CV ou de son prolongement. La droite NM est donc plus grande que la droite LS et ME est plus grande que SG ; la droite NE tout entière est donc plus grande que la droite LG tout entière. On montre que la droite LG est partagée en deux moitiés en S et en deux parties inégales en G. Le produit de LW par GW plus le carré de SG sont égaux au carré de SW, c’ est-à-dire au carré de CS, qui est égal au produit de DS par SA, plus le carré de AC. Le produit de LW par GW, plus le carré de SG, sont donc égaux au produit de DS par SA, plus le carré de AC. Mais le carré de SG est égal au produit de DS par SA. Retranchons le produit de DS par SA d’ un côté et le carré de SG de l’ autre côté. Il reste le carré de AC, qui est égal au carré de AB, égal au produit

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

de LW par GW. Le rapport de LW à AB est donc égal au rapport de AB à GW. Mais la droite LW est plus grande que la droite AB ; la droite AB est donc plus grande que la droite GW. On montre également que le produit de NI par EI est égal au carré de AB. Le produit de LW par GW est donc égal au produit de NI [r] par EI, et le rapport de LW à NI est égal au rapport de EI à GW. Mais la droite LW est plus petite que la droite NI. La droite EI est donc plus petite que la droite GW. On a ainsi montré que, parmi les perpendiculaires, c’ est-à-dire les distances entre le pourtour de l’ hyperbole et son asymptote, celles qui sont plus proches du sommet de l’ hyperbole sont plus grandes que celles qui s’ en éloignent. . La propriété infinitésimale Par conséquent, l’ hyperbole et la droite qui joint le centre de l’ hyperbole et l’ extrémité de son côté droit, à mesure qu’ on les prolonge, se rapprochent ; mais nous avons montré qu’ elles ne peuvent pas se rencontrer et nous avons montré comment il est possible de les prolonger continûment. C’ est cela que nous avons eu l’ intention de démontrer, de la manière la plus facile et la plus claire, et par des démonstrations différentes, tendant ainsi à l’ extension, de sorte qu’ on ne s’ en tienne qu’ à six livres des Éléments. Quant à l’ éminent Apollonius, il a montré cette proposition au moyen de références à son livre sur les Coniques. Nous recherchons son intention, au moyen de ce que nous avons atteint dans ce traité, c’ est-à-dire que, si on suppose une grandeur quelconque qui n’ est pas supérieure à la perpendiculaire menée du sommet de l’ hyperbole à son asymptote, nous pouvons prolonger l’ asymptote et l’ hyperbole jusqu’ à ce que la distance entre elles soit égale à cette grandeur. Nous introduisons pour cela deux lemmes. Premier lemme : On divise la droite AB en C ; soit AC la plus grande de ses deux parties. On veut l’ augmenter d’ un excédent BD, de sorte que le produit de AD par DB soit égal au carré de CD. A

E

C

B

D

Posons CE égal à CB et faisons de sorte que AE par BD soit égal au carré de CB. Je dis que le produit de AD par DB est égal au carré de CD. Démonstration : Le produit de AE par BD est égal au carré de CB. Prenons le double de DB par BC, commun. On a le double-produit de DB par BC égal au

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

produit de DB par BE, puisque BC est égale à CE. Le produit de AE par DB plus le produit de EB par BD sont donc égaux au double-produit de DB par BC, plus le carré de BC. Mais le produit de AE par BD, plus le produit de EB par BD, sont égaux au produit de AB par BD. Si nous ajoutons26 le carré de BD, commun, il vient le produit de AB par BD plus le carré de BD, [v] c’ est-à-dire le produit de AD par DB, égaux au double-produit de CB par BD, plus les deux carrés de CB et de BD. Mais les deux carrés de CB et de BD, plus le double-produit de CB par BD, sont égaux au carré de CD ; le produit de BD par DA est donc égal au carré de CD. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer. Deuxième lemme : Retraçons la figure de l’ hyperbole, ses lignes et ses lettres. Je dis que, pour toute droite menée entre l’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote, parallèlement à l’ asymptote, comme la droite IE, si on la prolonge et si on prolonge l’ hyperbole, alors toutes deux se rencontrent. Démonstration : Si elles ne se rencontrent D pas, alors prolongeons la droite EI, pour qu’ elle rencontre la droite AC, au point N ; posons le produit de DL par LA égal au carré de NL, comme nous l’ avons montré dans la C proposition précédente. Menons de L la droite N LME en ordonnée ; elle est donc parallèle à I la droite AB. Mais la droite AB a rencontré la droite NIE ; la droite LME rencontre donc B A la droite NIE. Qu’ elle la rencontre en E. La droite NIE ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole. La droite LE rencontre donc l’ hyperbole avant E de rencontrer la droite NIE. Qu’ elle rencontre L M l’ hyperbole au point M. Mais le produit de DL par LA est égal au carré de NL, et le carré de NL est égal au carré de LE, du fait que la droite NE est parallèle à la droite CB. Or le produit de DL par LA, c’ està-dire le carré de LM, comme nous l’ avons montré précédemment, est égal au carré de LE. Le plus petit est égal au plus grand. Ce qui est absurde. La droite NI rencontre donc l’ hyperbole, elle la rencontre au point E. C’ est ce que nous voulions.

26

Litt. : si nous prenons.

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

Revenons maintenant à la figure de l’ hyperbole, avec ses lettres et ses lignes, et menons la perpendiculaire AJ sur CB. Supposons que la droite I n’ est pas plus grande que la droite AJ. Je dis que l’ hyperbole et son asymptote peuvent être prolongées jusqu’ à ce que la distance entre elles devienne égale à la droite I. S C

T J N

A

B E

O

M

Y L

I′

Démonstration : Si la droite I est égale à la perpendiculaire AJ, elle est donc ce que l’ on cherche. Si elle ne lui est pas égale, elle est plus petite qu’ elle. Séparons la droite JN, égale à la droite I, et menons du point N une droite parallèle à la droite CB ; soit NM. Si on la prolonge et si on prolonge l’ hyperbole, elles se rencontrent, comme on l’ a montré dans la proposition précédente. Que la droite NM rencontre l’ hyperbole en M. Menons, de M, la droite ME, perpendiculaire à CB, ou à son prolongement. La surface est alors un parallélogramme ; [r] la droite NJ est donc égale à la droite ME. Mais la droite NJ est égale à la droite I. La droite ME, qui est la distance entre l’ hyperbole et son asymptote, est donc égale à la droite I. C’ est ce que nous avions l’ intention de montrer. Nous disons que toute droite menée parallèlement à l’ asymptote de l’ hyperbole, et qui rencontre AC du côté de C, comme la droite SO, se comporte avec l’ hyperbole comme la droite CE. Démonstration : Les perpendiculaires menées du pourtour de l’ hyperbole à la droite SO rencontrent la droite CE, comme les deux perpendiculaires NJT et LYO ; et NJ est aussi perpendiculaire à CE ; de même LY. La perpendiculaire LY est plus petite que la perpendiculaire NJ, selon ce qui précède ; et la

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯





roshdi rashed

perpendiculaire YO est égale à la perpendiculaire JT. La perpendiculaire LYO tout entière est donc plus petite que la perpendiculaire NJT tout entière. On montre de même que, parmi toutes les perpendiculaires abaissées du pourtour de l’ hyperbole à la droite SO, celles qui sont le plus près du sommet de l’ hyperbole sont plus grandes que celles qui s’ en éloignent ; et que la droite SO ne peut pas rencontrer l’ hyperbole, car elle est parallèle à la droite CB, qui ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole. On montre, à partir de cela, que la droite CB, qui ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole, est la plus proche parmi les droites qui ne rencontrent pas l’ hyperbole, et qu’ il n’ existe aucune droite plus proche qu’ elle, qui ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole. C’ est ce que nous avions l’ intention de montrer. Le traité est achevé. On comprend de ses expressions qu’ il est la composition d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Que Dieu lui accorde miséricorde. Qu’ il nous fasse profiter de ¯ lui et de ses sciences. Grâces soient rendues à Dieu seul.

le pseudo al-hasan ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote . ¯



AL-QAB¯IS. ¯I’S INTRODUCTION TO ASTROLOGY: FROM COURTLY ENTERTAINMENT TO UNIVERSITY TEXTBOOK*

Charles Burnett Every scientific text is the product of a specific cultural and intellectual situation. When a text continues to be copied over a long period of time, and is translated into other languages, it is read and used in different ways, and adds nuances from the cultures through which it travels. Ab¯u al-Saqr #Abd al-#Az¯ız ibn #Uthm¯an ibn #Al¯ı al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to . Astrology is a good example of this. For it was originally written in an Islamic court in the mid tenth century, but was copied in numerous Arabic manuscripts, until at least the mid eighteenth century. Moreover, it entered Jewish culture, being translated into Hebrew and copied in Arabic and Castilian in Hebrew script. Its greatest impact, however, was on Latin culture, which it entered as a result of a translation made in the early twelfth century, and where it eventually became integrated into the Western scholastic tradition. The original text belongs to the milieu of the court. For it was written for Sayf al-Dawla, the Hamdanid Emir of Aleppo from  to . Sayf al-Dawla ruled over a lavish court, which attracted a large number of scholars in many disciplines. A long list of famous names can be drawn up from the Arabic biographers,1 including the poet al-Mutanabb¯ı and the philosopher al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı. Among them were astrologers: the biographers name Ab¯u al-Q¯asim al-Raqq¯ı, Kuˇsa¯jim,2 and a certain Ab¯u #Abdallah al-Baghd¯ad¯ı. Although not mentioned by the biographers, al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı was clearly another of them. For he addressed to the Emir all the works of his *

The second part of this article is based on a talk given at a workshop on medieval astrology organised by Gad Freudenthal in Paris in November, . I am grateful, as always, to Gad’s encouragement and example. I am also much indebted to the comments and advice of David Juste (especially for the Latin transmission) and of Tzvi Langermann for the Hebrew transmission, and, as always, to Hanna Vorholt. 1 The list is given in T. Bianquis, “Sayf ad-Dawla,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, nd edition, IX (Leiden, ): –. 2 The astrologers at the court are discussed by A. Regourd, “L’ Epître ayant pour objet la mise à l’ épreuve de ceux qui n’ ont d’ astrologue que le nom d’ al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı (IVe/Xe s.),” Politica Hermetica,  (): –, see p. , referring in turn to the article “Kush¯adjim,”



charles burnett

which have dedications: these include treatises on numbers and the clever things you can do with them, on the distances between the planets, and on “testing those who call themselves astrologers.”3 In the preface to the last work al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı impresses on his patron the necessity to discriminate between the large number of self-styled astrologers who surround him, and gives him a set of questions that are sure to separate out astrologers who know their craft from the ignorant and the charlatans. He includes the answers to the questions, but with the strict injunction that the Emir should not reveal them to any one. The Emir would have had a personal interest in these matters. AlQab¯ıs.¯ı describes him as being skilled at calculation with his fingers;4 he composed a poem on the rainbow.5 Al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı would, no doubt, have participated in the maˇga¯lis (social gatherings) in his court, in which mathematical and astronomical questions would have been discussed and poetry would have been recited. Al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı is recorded as being “a man of culture and a poet,”6 and he quotes the poet Dh¯u al-Rumma (d.  / ) in his Testing (question ). An earlier example of this Islamic court culture is provided by another astrologer with interests very similar to those of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı: Ahmad ibn . Y¯usuf, who served the T¯ ibn T¯ . ul¯unid emirs, Ahmad . . ul¯un (–) and Khum¯arawaih (–) in Cairo.7 His work On Ratio and Proportion relates in detail a discussion in the court of Prince Hud¯a ibn Ahmad ibn . T¯ u l¯ u n, the son of A hmad ibn T¯ u l¯ u n, involving four people, including . . . the Prince, and concerning the proper preparation for understanding

in Encyclopedia of Islam, nd ed., V (Leiden, ):  (Kuˇsa¯jim was a poet and mastercook as well as being an astrologer) and M. Fakhuri, “Maˇga¯lis Sayf al-Dawla,” in alMu#allim al-#arabiyy  (Damascus, ): year , pp. –. 3 Regourd, “L’ Epître,” includes an edition (pp. –) and French translation (pp. – ) of the preface to the Testing of Those who Call Themselves Astrologers. 4 As mentioned in the preface to his book on arithmetical problems: see A. Anbouba, “Un mémoire d’ al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı (e siècle H.) sur certaines sommations numériques,” Journal for the History of Arabic Science  (): – (see p. ). 5 This poem is quoted in Ibn Khalliq¯ an, Biographical Dictionary, translated by Baron MacGuckin de Slane,  vols (Paris, –): II, p. , who says that some people attribute the poem to al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı himself. 6 Y¯ aq¯ut, Mu#jam al-Buld¯an,  vols (Beirut, –): vol. , p. . 7 M. Steinschneider, “Iusuf ben Ibrahim und Ahmed ben Iusuf,” Bibliotheca mathematica : – and –, and D.V. Schrader, “Ahmad ibn Y¯usuf,” in C.C. Gillispie, . ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol.  (New York, ): –. Ibn Yusuf wrote a bibliography of both these emirs.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



Euclid’s Elements.8 Another work by Ahmad ibn Y¯usuf—the Letter on . Similar Arcs—ends with the words “This is the argument that we dealt with in the palace in which we had gathered.”9 Al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology was appropriate to this court setting.10 After an invocation for God’s protection over Sayf al-Dawla and the hope that his life and reign will last a long time, it gives a clearly written and well-organized account of the concepts and terms used in astrology. One can draw attention to particular passages that would have directly interested the Emir: If Saturn mixes with the Sun, it indicates administration and management. If Jupiter mixes with it, it indicates decisions concerning religious issues and judgements between people and concerning injustices. If Mars mixes with it, it indicates leadership of armies and the office of emir (commander) in wars.11

On the other hand, al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı explains, if the Sun mixes with Venus, that indicates melodies of the lute played before kings and noblemen,12 and Mars signifies, among other things, “tyranny, bloodshed, conquering, wrongful seizure of lands, and the leadership of armies.”13 Most significant is that in the fifth chapter, on lots, the greatest detail is provided for matters concerning the ruler: three ways are given for calculating the condition of his rule, and four ways for the length of his rule.14 The prominence of this topic, which echoes the opening words “[I ask] God for length of life for our Lord . . . . and extension of his reign,” is especially appropriate in a work addressed to the ruler. Twenty-four Arabic copies of the Introduction to Astrology are known, ranging in date from ad  to  and deriving mostly from the Near 8 M.W.R. Schrader, “The Epistola de Proportione et Proportionalitate of Ametus Filius Iosephi,” unpublished PhD thesis (University of Wisconsin, ), and discussed in C. Burnett, “Dialectic and Mathematics According to Ahmad ibn Y¯usuf: A Model for . Gerard of Cremona’s Programme of Translation and Teaching?” in J. Biard, ed., Langage, sciences, philosophie au XIIe siècle (Paris, ): –. 9 Hoc ergo est cuius aggressi sumus declarationem in palatio in quo aggregati sumus: H.L.L. Busard and P.Sj. van Koningsveld, “Der Liber de Arcubus Similibus des Ahmad ibn . Y¯usuf,” Annals of Science  (): –, see pp. –. 10 Al-Qab¯ıs¯ı (Alcabitius), The Introduction to Astrology, edited by C. Burnett, K. Yama. moto and M. Yano (London and Turin, ), includes the Arabic and Latin texts and an English translation (henceforth Introduction to Astrology). 11 Introduction to Astrology, ch. , ll. –, pp. –. 12 Ibid., ch. , ll. –, pp. –. 13 Ibid., ch. , ll. –, pp. –. 14 Ibid., ch. , ll. –, pp. –.



charles burnett

East and Egypt. The provenance and ownership of these manuscripts is still to be ascertained. None of the manuscripts that I have seen have annotations or contain commentaries. What is the situation of texts of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s works in other languages and scripts? The knowledge of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology among Hebrew scholars is evident from the use of the work by Abraham ibn Ezra,15 from a quotation from it in a fifteenth-century text in Naples, Biblioteca nazionale, Vittorio Emmanuele II, III.F., fol. r,16 and a complete translation into Hebrew in a sixteenth-century manuscript in Jerusalem.17 Two Arabic copies are written in Hebrew script, one apparently in Syria,18 the other in Egypt in the seventeenth or eighteenth century.19 Another manuscript written in Hebrew script is the only witness to a Castilian version of the text.20 This is a manuscript written in the fifteenth century in which the Introduction to Astrology is accompanied by a hitherto unrecognized copy of the Libro de las cruzes.21 The latter is a text concerning a simple astrological technique that purports to have

15

See C. Burnett, “Hebrew and Latin Astrology in the Twelfth Century: The Example of the Location of Pain,” in L. Kassell and R. Ralley, eds, Stars, Spirits, Signs: Astrology –, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, vol.  issue  (): –. Ibn Ezra never cites al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı by name, but there are numerous parallels between his Beginning of Wisdom and the Introduction, which are best accounted for as borrowings. 16 The quotation corresponds to Introduction to Astrology,  [], ll. –. A parallel or identical passage exists in Parma, Biblioteca palatina,  (De Rossi ); it is part of or derives from an astrological miscellany compiled by a certain “Kalonymos ben David” in southern Italy in the mid-fifteenth century; in the Parma manuscript it is stated that the citation comes from John of Saxony’s commentary (see below). I owe this information and that on the Jerusalem and Moscow manuscripts below to Tzvi Langermann. 17 MS Jerusalem, Jewish National Library, Heb  , fols. r–v. This manuscript is written in a sixteenth-century Provençal hand and includes the commentary of John of Saxony. 18 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington , fols. a–a. 19 Moscow, Russian State Library, Günzburg, . The state of the text suggests that it has been written down from oral dictation. 20 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Hebr. , second part, fols. v–r. 21 The existence of this copy of the Libro de las cruzes has hitherto escaped the notice of scholars because the author was misidentified as possibly being al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı, both by Moritz Steinschneider (Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters [Berlin, ], p. , referring to the manuscript as no. ), and by the cataloguer of the Vienna Hebrew manuscripts, Arthur Z. Schwarz (Die Hebräischen Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek in Wien [Vienna, ], p. ). Steinschneider misread “cruzes” as a word signifying “conjunctions,” and suggested that the text might be a version of the short text De coniunctionibus, printed in Latin as a work of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı in  (see Appendix III in

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



been practised in pre-Islamic Spain.22 The Castilian text, however, was translated from Arabic; the translation was completed by “Hyuhda fy de Mosse Alchoen Mosca” (Yehuda ben Moshe ha-Kohen), the notary of Alfonso X, el Sabio, king of León and Castile, with the help of “Mestre Johan” (perhaps Johan Daspa), on  February , and its only surviving medieval manuscript appears to have been written in the court of Alfonso X.23 If the Castilian version of the Introduction to Astrology was also made in the court of Alfonso X, then this is a testimony that the work continued to be thought appropriate for the consumption of a ruler. The vast majority of the manuscripts and all the printed versions of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology derive from a translation of the text from Arabic into Latin made in or before  by John of Seville, the most prolific of the translators of works of astrology and astronomy in the Middle Ages. Over  Latin manuscripts written between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries and twelve separate printings are known to exist.24 The circumstances of the original translation are not clear, since there is no dedication or translator’s preface. John of Seville dedicated one of his translations to a queen—Teresa of Portugal (reigned –)— but another to Raymond, archbishop of Toledo from –, and he may have had connections both with court circles and with the cathedral clergy, though his name has not been found in any official document. From the Latin version were made a French version, an English version from the French,25 one or more English versions from the Latin,26 and a

Introduction to Astrology, pp. –). Schwarz read the Hebrew letters correctly, but associated the word with the Catalan “cors,” and translated it as “Umläufe” (“courses sc. of the planets”). The preface is missing in this Judaeo-Hispanic manuscript. 22 See J. Samsó, La Ciencias de los antiguos en al-Andalus (Madrid, ): –. 23 Madrid, Biblioteca nacional,  (The catalogue describes this as “gótica francesa típica de la cámara del Rey Sabio”). 24 A summary of the transmission of the Latin text and its vernacular translations can be found in R. Arnzen, “Vergessene Pflichtlektüre: al-Qab¯ıs.¯ıs astrologische Lehrschrift im Europäischen Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften  (–): –. A full list of manuscripts of the Latin text, the vernacular translations and the commentaries is given in Introduction to Astrology, pp. – . This list is being supplemented by the catalogue of manuscripts of medieval Latin translations of works on astronomy and astrology currently being prepared by David Juste and Charles Burnett. 25 New York, Kraus booksellers, Bute  (th cent.), fols. r–v “translated out of Frenche into Englysch be Brokhole be the sayd seigneur the yer of our lord  . . . ” (fol. v). 26 Cambridge, Trinity College, O.., fols. r–v (th cent.). This is the version on



charles burnett

German version.27 The French version was copied together with a French translation of a text on the astrolabe that was dedicated to the future Charles V of France.28 Occasionally we find references to the fact that a Latin manuscript of the Introduction to Astrology is owned by an astrologer,29 or by a doctor.30 However, many of the Latin manuscripts belong to a school or university setting. The earliest recorded Latin manuscript is from a Cathedral school. The Cathedral of Chartres, the most famous European centre of learning in the first half of the twelfth century, possessed a copy of the work in a manuscript in which there is the mention of a “present year” of  and notes added from  to .31 By the mid twelfth century there was a shift away from the Cathedral schools to the emerging universities, first the schools of Paris, which were soon followed by Oxford, Cambridge and others. It may be no coincidence that, by the turn of the next century, a manuscript of the Introduction originated from Paris (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, lat. Fol. ). With the establishment of curricula in the Faculty of Arts, and set texts for astronomy, al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s text became the astrological text

which John North based his introduction to medieval astrology in his Chaucer’s Universe (Oxford, ): –. Another English translation can be found in Cambridge, Trinity College, O..C, fols. r–v, continued in O..B, fols. r–r. 27 This translation, by Arnold of Freiburg, survives in several manuscripts, of which the earliest are Berlin, Staatsbibliothek-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, germ. Fol.  (written in Vienna in ad ) and Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Akc.  / , fols. v– v (th cent.). 28 Oxford, St John’s College,  (th cent.): see E. Laird, Pèlerin de Prusse on the Astrolabe (New York, ): –. 29 E.g., Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat.  (copied by Louis de Langle in  and owned by Simon de Phares, the astrologer), Ibid., lat.  (th cent.; owned by Simon de Phares), Ibid., BNF, lat.  (th cent.; owned by “Arnault de la Palu maître en astrologie,” court astrologer to Charles VII and Louis XI), Paris, BNF, lat.  (copied in ad  by Conrad Heingartner, court astrologer to Jean II, duke of Bourbon), Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm  (th cent.; copied by the astrologer of Egern, Johannes Pachlerus). 30 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby  (th cent.), fol. ult. verso: liber est Iohannis Fontana physici Veneti. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm  and  both belonged to the German physician Hartmann Schedel. 31 Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, , fols. r–r, an early twelfth-century manuscript. This manuscript was destroyed in the Second World War.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



that was most commonly included in the syllabus.32 In a program for the teaching of “astrologia” (the science of the stars) in the university of Bologna in , the only texts directly on astrology to be studied during the four-year course are al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction, Ptolemy’s Centiloquium with the commentary of “Haly,” Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum, and William the Englishman’s De urina non visa.33 Other examples show the teaching of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı in a university context in Vienna34 and Prague.35 Al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s concise treatment of astrology made it a highly appropriate text for teaching.36 Many manuscripts of the text come from university cities, whether these are Bologna, Cambridge, Erfurt, Krakow, Leipzig, Louvain, Oxford, Padua, Paris, Prague, Salamanca, Uppsala or Vienna.37 Manuscripts were copied by students in the university of Erfurt between –,38 and at the university of Dole in Burgundy in .39 The editor, Antonio de Fantis, who published a version of the Introduction in , had been a teacher in the faculty of Arts at Padua.40 The printing of

32

See R. Lemay, “The Teaching of Astronomy in Medieval Universities, Principally at Paris in the Fourteenth Century,” Manuscripta  (): –, J.-P. Boudet, Entre science et nigromance: astrologie, divination et magie dans l’ Occident médiéval, XIIe–XVe siècle (Paris, ): –. 33 See Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, p. . The universal medieval attribution of the Centiloquium to Ptolemy is dubious. 34 M. Shank, “Academic Consulting in Fifteenth-Century Vienna: The Case of Astrology,” in E. Sylla and M. McVaugh, eds, Texts and Contexts in Ancient and Medieval Science. Studies on the Occasion of John E. Murdoch’s Seventieth Birthday(Leiden, ): – (on p. ). 35 Prague, Archiv Praˇ zského Hradu, O. I (), fol. r: Anno domini  preambulum super lectionem Alkabicii quem legit magister Johannes Borotin et incepit. I owe this example, along with much other information on Latin astrological manuscripts, to David Juste. 36 It is probably not by chance that John North chose this text as the basis for his explanation of the doctrines of medieval astrology (see note  above). 37 Latin manuscripts are listed under these city-names in Introduction to Astrology, pp. – (except Louvain, where Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley , was written by Tristrandus, and Padua, where Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm  (s. xv), was compiled by Cristoforo de Pergamo). The mere presence of these manuscripts in these cities does not, however, guarantee that they were used in the cities’ universities. 38 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm , copied by Johannes Sack, when he was a student in Erfurt between  and . 39 Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, , copied by “Pierre Pevidic [or Pebidic] en l’ université de Dole, maistre ès ars indigne, estudient en medecine, l’ an MCCCCLIX . . . .” 40 A. Scarabel, “Une ‘édition critique’ latine du Mudhal d’ al-Qab¯ıs¯ . ı à Venise à la veille de la Renaissance,” Quaderni di Studi Arabi  (): ˘– (see pp. –).



charles burnett

the text in Frankfurt an der Oder in , by Konrad Baumgarten, was for the use of Ambrosius Lacher, Professor of Mathematics at the recently founded university of Frankfurt. An indication that al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction was used in teaching in the West is that it was frequently commented upon. In fact, of all the many astrological texts by Arabic authors translated into Latin, the Introduction to Astrology is the only one to receive commentaries. Of the commentators, Cecco d’ Ascoli was teaching astronomy and medicine in Bologna in the early fourteenth century,41 John of Stendhal wrote his commentary in Magdeburg in  specifically for the students of Erfurt,42 and Jerónimo Muñoz was professor of Hebrew and Mathematics at Valencia and Salamanca.43 The longest commentary is one found in a manuscript in Venice: Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, Lat. VIII , which consists of three hundred folios devoted entirely to a “scriptum super Alkabicio” written down by the author himself on Sunday,  September , before the twentieth hour of the day. Lynn Thorndike has suggested that this could be by the well-known philosopher and mathematician, Blasius of Parma, who was teaching mathematics and philosophy at Pavia at that time.44 We can trace the development of the Introduction to Astrology as a school text in the Latin context by looking at the glosses and commentaries that the text progressively attracted. Already in the earliest manuscripts, glosses are incorporated into the text. This is unusual, since in most literal translations from Arabic, especially those of John of Seville and Gerard of Cremona, glosses are clearly distinguished from the text, and are placed in the margin.45 No surviving manuscript of the Introduction to Astrology provides a “pure text,”

41

G. Boffito, Il Commento inedito di Cecco d’ Ascoli all’ Alcabizzo (Florence, ). This commentary covers only the first  paragraphs of the first chapter and is headed “Incipit scriptum super librum de principiis astrologie secundum Cicchum dum iuvenis erat electus per universitatem Bononie ad legendum.” 42 Bernkastel-Kues, Bibliothek des St.-Nikolaus-Hospitals, , th cent., fol. r: Explicit scriptum super Alkabicium compilatum per fratrem Johannem de Stendal ordinis predicatorum domus magdeburgensis ad instanciam reverendorum magistrorum et studentium Ertfordum se existentem censorem Ertfordum anno domini : L. Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, III (New York, ): . 43 See J. Muñoz, Libro del Nuevo Cometa. Edited by V. Navarro Brotons (Valencia, ): –. 44 L. Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, IV (New York, ): – . 45 C. Burnett, “The Strategy of Revision in the Arabic-Latin Translations from Toledo:

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



which lacks these glosses.46 This would indicate that, at the very point of its entry into Latin culture, the text was being interpreted. These glosses include explanations of doctrine: e.g., to the statement that “six signs are ‘northern,’ i.e., from the beginning of Aries to the end of Virgo,” is added: “which are north of the equator”;47 to “the Sun has rulership over the larger half of the zodiac,” is added: “because of its effects on us and because it makes summer for us.”48 To explain what al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı means when he writes that the planets “move in these signs” the gloss adds that “they are not, strictly speaking, in the signs, but rather they move under the signs.”49 Another gloss explains: “Understand from this number the strengths of the planets—the lord of the house has  strengths, the lord of the exaltation  etc.—the planet that has the highest number has the greatest strength.”50 Before the end of the twelfth century a more substantial marginal commentary to the text was written by someone who knew Arabic (the “Glossator”).51 It is characterized by the introductory formulae used: aside from “nota quod” (“note that”) which is found universally, the Glossator employs the phrases “subaudi” (“understand”), “vult ut” (“[the author] means that”) and, especially “sensus huius est quod” (“the meaning of this is that”). In the last case usually quite a substantial gloss follows, which is then terminated with the words “et hoc est quod dicit” (“and this is what he says”).52 We find the same formulae accompanying other texts which we know were being translated or read in Toledo: The Case of Ab¯u Ma#shar’s On the Great Conjunctions,” in J. Hamesse, ed., Les Traducteurs au travail: leurs manuscrits et leurs méthodes (Turnhout, ): –, – (see pp. –). 46 In Città del Vaticano, BAV, Reg. lat.  a diligent reviser of the translation of the Introduction to Astrology compared the translation with the Arabic original and carefully marked the words and phrases that did not occur in the Arabic, with the word “vacat:” see Introduction to Astrology, pp. –. 47 Introduction to Astrology,  [], p. . 48 Ibid.,  [], p. . 49 Ibid.,  [], p. . 50 Ibid.,  [], pp. –. 51 This is inferred from his use of certain Arabic words in transliteration and from the assumption that he is the same as the reviser who compared the text with the Arabic original (see n.  above). 52 E.g., al-Qab¯ıs¯ . ı, Introduction to Astrology,  [], p. : Sensus huius est quod de residuo quod est inter duos significatores debet accipere talem partem qualem pars sunt hore longitudinis ab angulo predicto de .. et hoc est quod dicit, et multiplicabis sextam illius in horas, id est si hore fuerint .., accipies de illo residuo .. sextas eius, et hoc est quod dicit, vel per multiplicationem, si volueris, id est multiplica residuum in horas et divide per .. et exibit illud idem.



charles burnett

Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar’s Great Introduction to Astrology,53 the same author’s Great Conjunctions,54 and Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum in Plato of Tivoli’s translation.55 Daniel of Morley reports a lecture in Toledo by Gerard of Cremona on Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar’s Great Introduction,56 and one may assume that al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology was also being taught there. This marginal gloss explains or adds, in clear terms, technical and historical information. One may take the example of the explanation of the “firdaria” and the “years” of the planets: Firdarie is a Persian term and means “lordship” and they are called the years of the firdaria of a certain planet, i.e., the years of the lordship of a planet, namely the years in which that planet has lordship over the life of the native. This is explained fully in the fourth chapter of this book. The great [years] are described according to the number of degrees of its (the planet’s) terms, the small ones according to the number of years of its course, and the middle according to the divisions of all the above, i.e., add the great and the small numbers and halve the total.57

The Glossator points out divergences between different authorities, and is not averse to taking a position of his own, or to finding fault with the text. His knowledge of Arabic enables him to refer directly to Arabic texts. This gloss accompanies the text in several manuscripts of the Introduction to Astrology. In the early fourteenth century we have the first example of a full-fledged commentary on the complete work. This is the one by John of Saxony, which is found in  out of the  manuscripts, and 53

Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar, Great Introduction to Astrology, vol. , ch. , l. : Sensus huius loci est quod ad hoc ut esset caput in Geminis . . . et hoc esse debet . . . : Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar al-Balh¯ı, ˘ Liber introductorii maioris ad scientiam iudiciorum astrorum. Edited by R. Lemay,  vols (Naples, –): :. 54 Ab¯ u Ma#ˇsar, On the Great Conjunctions, vol. , ch. , l. : Sensus huius littere est quod principium alicuius ex domibus accidentalibus aliquando est in principio alicuius signi . . . et hoc est quod dicit cum probat quod . . . : Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar, On Historical Astrology. Edited by K. Yamamoto and C. Burnett,  vols (Leiden, ): :–. 55 Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Città del Vaticano, BAV, Reg. lat. , fol. v: Sensus huius littere est quod quia in illis partibus . . . et hoc est quod dicit in similitudine et hoc ostendet ipse hic inferius. 56 Daniel of Morley, Philosophia (written between  and ). Edited by G. Maurach, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch  (): – (see pp. –). 57 Introduction to Astrology,  [], p. : Firdarie est nomen Persicum et interpretatur “dominatio,” et dicuntur anni firdarie alicuius planete, id est anni dominationis alicuius planete scilicet anni in quibus planeta ille habet dominium super vitam nati, et qualiter hoc fiat habetur plenarie in .. differencia huius libri. Maiores dicuntur secundum numerum graduum terminorum eius in terminis et minores secundum numerum annorum cursus eius et medii secundum divisiones supradictorum omnium, id est iunge maiores et minores et aggregatum media.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



nine out of the twelve Renaissance printed editions. Internal references in the manuscripts indicate that the commentary was written in Paris in  (this is explicitly stated in the rubrics to the printed editions). John’s family name is spelt variously as Dank, Danco, Danico or Danekov, and he came from Magdeburg, but spent most of his career in Paris.58 He is best known for writing, in , the most popular instructions for the use of the Alfonsine Tables. The Alfonsine Tables were first drawn up under the patronage of Alfonso X in  in Toledo, but only became widely diffused, displacing the Toledan Tables, from Paris in the s. Several French mathematicians wrote instructions for the use of the tables, all, confusingly, called John. John of Lignères, John of Saxony’s teacher, wrote his instructions (or “canons”) in , but John of Saxony’s text, written only five years later, was the one that became standard, and ensured that the Alfonsine Tables became the tables normally used in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, until they were eventually displaced by the Rudolphine Tables of Kepler. It cannot be by chance that John of Saxony’s canons to the Alfonsine Tables and his commentary on al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı, composed within four years of each other, both immediately established themselves as the “set texts” in their respective subjects. This suggests that the two works were part of the same syllabus in teaching astronomy in Paris.59 The scholastic nature of this syllabus is apparent from the opening words of John’s introduction to the canons, which quote Aristotle: “Time is the measure of the movement of the prime mover,” as Aristotle claims in the fourth book of his Physics. When, therefore, we desire to know movement, we must first know time, so that, knowing the quantity of time, we should recognize the movement corresponding to it. One must understand that, when distinguishing between different time periods according to the usage of the Alphonsine tables, we proceed in a physical way.60 58 The fullest account of John of Saxony is that of Emmanuel Poulle in “Les astronomes parisiens au XIVe siècle et l’ astronomie alphonsine,” in Histoire littéraire de la France publiée par l’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Tome , Fascicule  (Paris, ): –. See also Thorndike in History of Magic, III, pp. – and J. Chabás and B.R. Goldstein, The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo (Dordrecht, Boston and London, ): –. An early reference to John’s commentary can be found in an astrological prediction of  in British Library, Add. , fol. v, which includes the phrase: “ut patet in Alkabitio de naturis signorum et per Iohannem Danico super eodem.” 59 Something shared between his astronomical and astrological commentaries is the addition of worked-out examples. A whole collection of these is included in Exempla super tabulas et canones primi mobilis Johannis de Lineriis (ca. ). These examples, like those in the commentary on al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı, do not refer to particular dates. 60 Tempus est mensura motus primi mobilis, ut vult Aristoteles quarto Phisicorum.



charles burnett

John launches straight into describing the method of the Alphonsine Tables. But it would seem significant that he deals first with time (in these canons), and then, four years later, with the consequent motion, i.e., the effects of the movements of the planets on earthly things. He places his teaching on the science of the stars within the context of Aristotelian natural science. John of Saxony’s commentary on al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı is by far his most substantial work.61 It takes up  folios of the typical printed octavo volumes (compared with  folios for the text of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı itself), and is preceded by an elaborate preface. His emphasis is on doctrine, for which he quotes extensively from other authorities: Ptolemy (the Almagest and Quadripartitum, and the Centiloquium), “Haly,” whom John considers to be the author of commentaries both to the Quadripartitum (where “Haly” = #Al¯ı ibn Ridw¯ ibn Y¯usuf), . . an), and the Centiloquium (more correctly Ahmad #Al¯ı ibn ab¯ı-l-Rij¯al (Abenragel/Albenragel), Aristotle, Abraham ibn Ezra, and, above all, Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar (al-Fargh¯an¯ı is occasionally cited for some astronomical information). With the exception of al-Fargh¯an¯ı, all these authors are cited in the scholarly preface, which adds the poetic touches of the late twelfth-century author, Alain de Lille. The preface reads like a formal lecture, beginning a course on astrology. It starts with the statement that “the wise man will dominate the stars” (“Vir sapiens dominabitur astris”), a phrase allegedly from the “sapientiae Almagesti” of Ptolemy, i.e., from the set of proverbs attributed to Ptolemy in al-Mubaˇsˇsir al-F¯atik’s Mukht¯ar al-hik¯ . am which were included in the prefatory matter of Gerard of Cremona’s translation from Arabic of the Almagest.62 This cannot be found amongst the proverbs, but the same phrase is quoted several times by Thomas Aquinas, equally implausibly, as coming from the Centiloquium.63 John then cites two Cum igitur motum scire desideramus necessaria est nobis temporum precognitio ut, cognita temporis quantitate, motum sibi correspondentem cognoscamus. Est igitur intelligendum quod in distinctione temporum ad usum tabularum Alphontii incedimus modo phisico: Les Tables Alphonsines. Edited by E. Poulle (Paris, ): . 61 John of Saxony’s commentary has been briefly summarized by Thorndike, History of Magic, III, pp. –, who uses Erfurt, Amplonian Q. and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby , whose texts slightly differ from the printed edition of Simon de Colines (Colinaeus) of Paris, , followed here (= Commentary). 62 These are edited and translated in C. Burnett, “ ‘Ptolemaeus in Almagesto dixit:’ The Transformation of Ptolemy’s Almagest in its Transmission via Arabic into Latin,” in H. Böhme and G. Töpfer, eds, Transformationen antiker Wissenschaften (Berlin and New York, ): –. 63 T. Litt, Les corps célestes dans l’ univers de Saint Thomas d’ Aquin (Louvain and Paris,

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



further Ptolemaic bons mots, this time identifiable in the Centiloquium itself: “The best astrologer can ward away much evil which the stars forecast, by knowing its nature,” and “The wise soul will cooperate with the activity of the stars just as the agriculturist cooperates with the forces of nature.”64 John explains that the wise man does this by disposing the recipient to receive the celestial influence in different ways, and illustrates this with an example taken from Haly’s explanation of verbum : “If we know that a hot and dry disease is due to happen to someone because of the nature of Mars, we are able to change the patient to the opposite (qualities) before the advent of that influence: i.e., make him cold and moist, and thus the influence which was going to make him ill, will rather bring him to a temperate state.”65 John then asks who this wise man is, and what is the nature of his subject. In his answer he uses largely the arguments of Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar in the first book of his Great Introduction to Astrology, and Alain de Lille.66 Having confirmed that being wise is compatible with studying astrology, John then employs his authorities to establish what kind of man that astrologer (“astronomus”) should be, and enumerates three conditions: () he should be firm and stable in meditation, not effeminate and lazy; () he should possess a natural disposition (here John adds “For I have seen clerks who are good at logic and natural philosophy, but are

): –. A genuine “sapientia” of Ptolemy opens John of Saxony’s commentary on John of Lignères’s canons: “non fuit mortuus qui scientiam vivificat . . . ”: Thorndike, History of Magic, :. 64 John of Saxony uses Plato of Tivoli’s translation of the Centiloquium which was later printed by Erhard Ratdolt in Venice in  and by Bonetus Locatellus in Venice in . See Commentary, fol. v: Minor probatur autoritate Ptolemaei in quinta propositione Centiloquii ubi dicit: “Optimus astrologus multum malum prohibere potest quod secundum stellas venturum est cum eius naturam praesciverit.” Sic enim praemuniet eum cui malum venturum est, ut cum venerit possit illud pati. Et confirmatur auctoritate eiusdem in propositione octava eiusdem ubi dicit: “Anima sapiens ita adiuvabit opus stellarum quemadmodum seminator fortitudines naturales” = Centiloquium, verba  and  (Venice, ), fol. v. 65 Commentary, fol. v: Si sciverimus quod debeat alicui evenire aegritudo calida et sicca de natura Martis, poterimus ipsum ante adventum illius influentiae mutare ad oppositum, scilicet ad frigiditatem et humiditatem, et sic influentia quae deberet sibi facere aegritudinem reducet ipsum ad temperamentum = commentary on Centiloquium, verbum  (Venice, ), fol. v. 66 He quotes Alain de Lille, Anticlaudianus, IV.–, edited by R. Bossuat (Paris, ), pp. – on fol. v and another work of Alan’s on fol. r: Iste semper clamitat et argumentatur, dum Aristotelicas latebras rimatur. Sed si quaeras qualiter aut quid epulatur, mens studio vivit sed venter philosophatur.



charles burnett

completely unable to understand anything about astronomy, not even how to calculate”67); () he should not be concerned about worldly matters. Here John quotes a homely image, allegedly from Aristotle’s Politics: “The philosopher shouldn’t be a master of land and sea, but it is enough for him to have a servant who can cook vegetables for him,”68 and John ends the paragraph: “Paying heed to this, Socrates threw gold into the sea, as Valerius narrates.” But he adds “This third condition does not please many, not even me.”69 Next John chooses to summarize at some length the ten kinds of people who, according to Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar, oppose astrology or give it a bad name (he provides a paragraph for each kind, even though he protests that “I will touch briefly on each of them in two or three words only”).70 He concludes by adding an eleventh kind, namely those who say that the science is contrary to religious belief (“contra fidem”). John answers: I say to them that they have not read the books of the wise men of Antiquity. If they had read them, they would know that this science is not contrary to religious belief, but rather in its favor. For the teachers of the sciences posit a created world, which is the first foundation of faith.

And which authorities is John referring to? None other than the Arabic astrologers themselves: #Al¯ı ibn ab¯ı-l-Rij¯al in the first part of his book, in the chapter on the nature of Jupiter, says that at the time when God began to create the world he put Jupiter in the ascendant. And Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar in his Introduction says: “Let us say first that the movement of the firmament arises from the power of the first cause.” And a little later he says: “Behold how we have discovered the Creator from things that are manifest and known because they are attained

67

Commentary, fol. v: Vidi enim bonos clericos in logica et in naturali philosophia qui nullo modo poterant aliquid capere de astronomia, immo nec algorismum. 68 Ibid., fols. v–r: Patet ergo quod philosophus non debet esse dives, teste Philosopho septimo Politicae: “Non oportet philosophum esse dominum terrae et maris, sed sufficit ut habeat famulum ministrantem sibi olera.” This statement cannot be found in the Politics but a similar sentiment is expressed in Nicomachean Ethics, b–a (I owe this reference to David Whitehead). 69 Ibid., fol. r: Quod advertens Socrates aurum proiecit in mare, sicut narrat Valerius. Ista conditio non placet multis, nec etiam mihi. This story about Socrates appears, without an attribution to Valerius, in Odo of Cheriton’s Parabolae, XVII. Edited by L. Hervieux, Les fabulistes latins, V (Paris, ): : Socrates philosophus veniens ad Athenas, secum ferens pondus auri, proiecit in mare, dicens: Submergam te, ne submergar a te. Non putavit se posse divitias simul et virtutes possidere. 70 John of Saxony uses the translation of John of Seville.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



by the senses, (we have discovered) that he is sempiternal, having power, without end, immobile, incorruptible, most high—let his name be blessed and exalted with the greatest exaltation!”71

John is, quite unknowingly, quoting a phrase from the Koran!72 Next comes something of a predilection of John’s and is typical of scholastic teaching: making divisions, the first being between astronomy and astrology; then the divisions of astronomy itself, followed by those of astrology. The latter are four: “On interrogations, on nativities, on revolutions of years (both those of the world and those of the native), and elections.”73 More surprising is John’s next statement in which he refers to “certain other parts of judicial astrology, namely on great conjunctions, on images, and on seals, concerning which we have little or nothing.”74 John could certainly have found plenty of manuscripts of texts on these subjects in Paris. His reason for downplaying these branches of astrology is likely, rather, to have been because he disapproved of them. He never mentions talismanic magic in his commentary, and he refers disparagingly to Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar’s book on conjunctions, as we shall see. Nor did these

71 Fol. v: Quibus dico quod ipsi non legerunt libros sapientium antiquorum, quos si legissent scirent quod haec scientia non est contra fidem, immo pro fide. Ponunt enim doctores huius scientiae mundum creatum quod est primum fundamentum fidei. Dicit enim Haly Albenragel in prima parte sui libri in capitulo de natura Iovis, quod tempore quo Deus incoepit creare mundum posuit Iovem in ascendente. Et Albumazar in Introductorio suo dicit: “Et dicamus primum quod motus circuli sit a virtute primae causae.” Et quibusdam interpositis dicit: “Ecce qualiter pertraximus Creatorem ex rebus apparentibus et notis que pertinguntur sensibus, quod sit sempiternus, habens virtutem absque essentia finis immobilis et incorruptibilis, altissimus, sit nomen eius benedictum et exaltatum exaltatione maxima.” The quotations are, respectively, from Abenragel, De iudiciis astrorum, Pars prima, ch.  (Basel, , p. )—Iupiter in die qua Deus coepit creare mundum, erat in domo ascendente—and Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar, Great Introduction (trans. John of Seville), vol. , ch. , ll. – and – (ed. Lemay, vol. , pp. –): Et dicamus primum quod motus circuli sit a virtute prime cause . . . Vide qualiter pertinximus Creatorem moventem res ex rebus apparentibus et notis que pertinguntur sensibus, quod sit scilicet sempiternus, habens virtutem, absque essentia finis, immobilis et incorruptibilis, altissimus. Sit nomen eius benedictum et exaltatum exaltatione maxima. 72 Koran, .: ta#¯ al¯a . . . #uluwwan kab¯ıran (“be exalted . . . with the greatest exaltation”). 73 Fol. v: Secunda species est ars iudiciorum astrologiae et habet quatuor partes principales, quarum prima est de interrogationibus, secunda de nativitatibus, tertia de revolutionibus annorum—et haec est duplex, scilicet de revolutionibus annorum mundi et de revolutionibus annorum nativitatum—quarta de electionibus. 74 Fol. r: Praeter istas sunt quaedam aliae partes iudiciorum, scilicet de coniunctionibus magnis, de imaginibus, de sigillis, de quibus parum vel nihil habemus.



charles burnett

texts appear on university curricula. The final category John mentions are “introductory books” (libri introductorii) in which astrologers have laid down principles, and explained the terms which the masters of judicial astrology use: “Among these the book of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı is most approved among the Moderns. Therefore, leaving aside the other books, we pay attention to this one only.”75 Having then given the incipit (Postulata a domino), John of Saxony provides the traditional circumstantiae of the book: “intentio, utilitas, titulus, cui parti philosophiae, quando debet legi, subiectum, divisio.” To the last he pays most attention, dividing the work into five “books,” and the books into “parts,” which are then further divided. The exposition that follows gives lemmata from the text and then provides quite a full comment on each lemma.76 Typical are comments such as: “The author was too brief in this chapter. Therefore, one should linger a little over his explanation,”77 or, in enumerating several different possibilities, “uno modo . . . secundo modo . . . tertio modo . . . ” (fol. r). Sometimes different authorities will be compared and contrasted: The Moon is a benific, feminine and nocturnal. Here he (al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı) puts forward the nature of the Moon. The meaning of the text is clear. Ptolemy says that the greatest virtue of the Moon is to humidify, because it is very close to the earth . . . Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar argues against Ptolemy in discussing the natures of the planets and his words are as follows . . . . Haly in his commentary to the aforementioned proposition about the nature of the Moon replies to the arguments of Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar . . . 78

75

Fol. r: . . . libros introductorios in quibus posuerunt principia et exposuerunt terminos quibus utuntur magistri iudiciorum. Inter autem alios introductorios Liber Alcabitii est magis approbatus apud modernos. Ideo dimissis aliis de ipso ad praesens intendimus. 76 In most of the printed editions John of Saxony’s commentary follows a complete copy of the text of the Introduction to Astrology, but in an edition printed in Lyon in ca.  by Guilhelmus Huyon the commentary is inserted into the text. One may note that the lemmata reproduce a text which belongs to a different family of manuscripts from that of the text reproduced in its entirety in the printed editions. 77 Commentary, fol. r: Autor nimis breviloquus fuit in hoc capitulo, ideo oportet aliquantulum immorari circa explanationem. 78 Ibid., fol. r: LUNA FORTUNA FOEMINA NOCTURNA. Hic ponit naturam lunae. Sententia literae patet. Dicit Ptolemaeus maior virtus lunae est humectare, pro eo quod est multum circum terram . . . Albumazar redarguit Ptolemaeum in causa naturarum planetarum et sunt verba sua ista: . . . /fol. r/ . . . Haly in commento propositioni praeallegatae de natura lunae respondet ad rationes Albumazaris . . .

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



In regard to Islam and the prediction of the rise of religions and sects, John of Saxony is rather circumspect. After talking about the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter that signified Islam and the appearance of Muhammad, he writes: . What we have shown about the Saracen sect can be shown about other sects (if they should be called sects), if one knows the conjunction signifying that sect and the ascendant of the year of the conjunction. But it is not fitting to talk very much about this material. For it is something which does not agree with our faith. But if someone delights in this and wishes to relate the changes which happen in (religious) Laws to the movements of the higher bodies, he should read the book of Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar concerning the great conjunctions and he will find it there.79

Another passage indicates that John of Saxony is wary about entering areas which might raise questions about the salvation of the human soul: Certain people say that those who begin a war in the first “burnt” hours should fear the loss of their soul. Our author does not understand “the loss of the soul” in such a way that, after the separation of the soul from the body, devils seize it and lead it down to the depths of Hell. But he understands “the loss of the soul” as the loss of the present life and this is how it should be interpreted everywhere in judicial astrology. It is appropriate for them (astrologers) to speak about this latter kind of perdition. It is appropriate for theologians to talk about the former.80

John of Saxony’s insistence that it is the wise man who studies astrology and his references to Aristotle and the philosophers firmly situates alQab¯ıs.¯ı’s text within a university context. Such a learned context is even more evident in another preface which takes the place of that of John of Saxony in two fifteenth-century manuscripts of the commentary.81 In this 79

Fol. r: Sicut exemplificatum est de secta Sarracenorum ita potest fieri in aliis sectis, si debeant dici sectae, si sciatur coniunctio significans illam sectam et ascendens anni coniunc(tionis). Sed de hac materia non expedit multum loqui. Est enim res quae non concordat cum fide nostra. Sed si quis delectatur in his et voluerit reducere mutationes quae fiunt in legibus ad motus superiorum corporum, legat libros (other manuscripts have “librum Albumazar”: see Thorndike, History of Magic, III, p. , n. ) de magnis coniunctionibus et ibi inveniet. 80 Fol. r: Et dicunt quidam quod qui incoeperit bellum in quatuor primis horis combustis timenda est perditio animae (Arabic: talaf al-nafs) suae. Auctor non intelligit perditionem animae post vitam istam ita quod post separationem animae a corpore rapiant eam diaboli et deducant ad inferos. Sed intelligit animae perditionem, idest amissionem vitae praesentis, et hoc modo intelligitur in omnibus locis iudiciorum astronomiae. De ista enim perditione pertinet ad eos loqui. De prima autem perditione pertinet theologis. 81 See Appendix below for an edition and translation of this text.



charles burnett

preface there is no mention at all of Christianity or of the compatibility of astrology with faith. The anonymous author is quite happy to mention the science of talismans as one of the divisions of astrology (§ ). What is conspicuous about this preface is that it is structured round quotations from Aristotle. It begins with a reference to the opinions of “the princes of the Peripatetics, Aristotle and his commentator Averroes” (§ ; about the nobleness of science in general). Then, after a quotation from the astronomer J¯abir ibn Aflah. (§ ), it quotes “the Philosopher” in the De animalibus (§ ) and another reference to Aristotle in T¯abit ibn Qurrah’s book on talismans (§ ). Having called to witness the¯ ancient authorities, Ptolemy, in the Almagest, Quadripartitum and Centiloquium (§§ ,  and ), and Hippocrates in his Airs, Waters and Places and Prognostics (§ ), it quotes a passage of Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar in which the cosmological arguments of the “philosophers” are summarized (§ ), before returning to Aristotle’s Meteorologica (§ ). After philosophical, medical and cosmological justifications of astrology, the author finally comes to more specific astrological doctrines: the making of talismans and the observation of the conjunctions of the planets with each other (§ ). He ends his preface with the mention of the parts of “astrologia,” which he considers as being both astronomy (the science of motions) and astrology (the science of judgments) (§ ). The whole preface is couched in highly sophisticated language, which befits both the elevated nature of its subject matter and a schools’ context. We see, then, in this story of the passage of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology how a text which originated in the context of an Islamic court became a staple of scholastic learning in the West, listed in university curricula, and accompanied by the full panoply of glosses and commentaries. The stars presiding over the birth of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s composition have changed position so that now Saturn, joined to Mercury, indicates for the book the study of the sciences of arithmetic, writing, astronomy, philosophy and geometry—i.e., the curriculum of the Arts Faculty.82

82 Compare Introduction to Astrology,  [], pp. – and : si ei Saturno complectitur Mercurius, significat scientiam arismetice et scribendi, astronomiam quoque, philosophiam atque geometriam.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



Appendix The Luccan Preface to al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı’s Introduction to Astrology

The two known manuscripts of this text are the following:  L = Lucca, Biblioteca Statale, , th cent., fols. r–v.

B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley , th cent. (written by Tristrandus in Louvain in ), fols. ra–va.

The Lucca manuscript gives a much better text than the Bodleian manuscript, and includes corrections. Occasionally, however, the Bodleian  manuscript helps to elucidate a word which is difficult to read in the hastily-written Lucca manuscript. Only viable alternative readings from the Bodleian manuscript are mentioned in the edition below (I am grateful to Dragos and Monica Calma for checking these readings). 

  are additions by the editor; [ ] are deletions. \ / indicate words added by the scribe of L, all of which can be found in B.

[] /fol. r/ Ysagoge Alchabicii in modum introductionis in radiorum discretione stellarum in via Tholomei. [] /fol. r/ Quamquam aput omnes rationales homines concedendum putem astrorum felicissimam scientiam scientiarum omnium atque (?)  potentiam precedere, \nunc/ tamen memorare non desinam quod Perypateticorum princeps, Aristoteles, suusque commentator Averois, in editionibus de viribus anime concesserunt: “Omnem licet scientiam, quia perfectio est intellectus et eiusdem felicitas, asserendum sit bonam fore atque honorabilem, illa tamen sit dicenda nobilis et excellens alias que  obiectum nobilius considerat et ad id agnoscendum demonstraciones querit certiores.” [] Aput autem astronomicam scientiam duo hec fore nobilitatis genera comprehendere facile est ab intra (?) anima ipsa, namque considerat celeste corpus in eius motu et variis influxibus quibus inferiora conservan tur omnia, quod secundum naturam ingenitum est \et/ incorporale et omnino naturam corruptivam, alterationem suscipiens.  principes L  Averoys B  precellens B  aliasque L  cognoscendum B  et] in B  incorruptibile B

 confirmat B



charles burnett

[] Et ad hec declaranda ipsa ponit demonstrationes certissimas cum in numero sit mathematicarum scientiarum, que in primo certitudinis gradu reponuntur. [] Ideo primo apud sapientissimum Gebrum prudenter dicebatur cum sermonem faceret de bonitate astrologie: “scientiarum melior post scien-  tiam fidei est cuius scita fixa sunt et remanentia inalterata usque in horam qua Deus precipiet \aliud/ eis.” [] Et Philosophus undecimo De animalibus: “Plus concupiscimus scire modicum de rebus nobilibus quam multum de ignobilibus.” [] Et Thebit Bencorat in principio suarum Ymaginum auctoritate /v/  Aristotelis sic dicit: “Qui legerit philosophiam et geometriam et omnem scientiam et oblitus fuerit astrologie erit impeditus vel occupatus et quasi suo fine frustratus.” Que astrologia considerat corpora celestia que tantum nobiliorem naturam habent quanto sunt magis elongata ab hiis que sunt hic.  [] Utilitatem autem huius scientie tetigit Tholomeus in Sapientiis Almagesti, dicens quod universaliter nihil dicimus esse in quo tantum lucretur anima sicut in huius scientie prenosticatione. Per ipsam etenim ad divinarum humanarumque rerum noticiam pervenimus. [] Et quoniam ad ea que cuique complexioni competunt pervenire  nequimus nisi per huius operis cognitionem, ille idem enuntians nobis utilitatem huius scientie protulit hoc verbum quintum in ordine verborum sui Centiloquii: “Astrologus optimus multum malum prohibere potest quod secundum stellas futurum est, cum eius naturam sciverit. Sic enim premuniet eum cui malum futurum est ut et cum venerit posset id  pati.” [] Hec etiam utilitas eius esse dinoscitur in medicine scientia; unde Ipocras dixit in libro Aerum, dum mentionem faceret de diversitate aeris et elementorum seu naturarum, quod “res quas diximus de diversitatibus aeris sunt in scientia astrorum” et quod “scientia astrorum non sit modica  pars scientie medicine.” Et in primo Pronosticorum: “Est etiam quoddam celeste in quo ipsum medicum providere oportet,” cuius si tanta /r/ sit providentia, mirabilis nimiumque stupenda.  est] in L  scita] fato L, cum scita B  remanentia] L adds “et”  illud B  et2] B omits  prenoscationem L  perveniemus B  potuit B  est] B adds “et”  illud B  aeris] aerum B  aerum B  in] B omits  previdere B  prudentia B

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



[] Quid ergo id sit quo plures moveantur ut vilipendant stellarum scientiam profecto dubito, ne id imputetur nebulis cece ignorantie intellectus eorum qui nescientes viam qua ducimur in cognoscendo effectus quos stelle influunt illos negant penitus. Quorum ridiculum non est par vum. Non enim, si nocticoracis oculus lucem solis minime intuere valeat, reliqua non poterunt animalia. [] Quod animadvertens Tolomeus in principio Quadripartiti confirmat iudicia astrorum, unde dicit quod nostri populares sciunt res ante quam accidant. [] Et Hali in Commento secunde propositionis huius  libri dicit quod radices huius scientie sunt adeo manifeste quod populares nichil scientes sciunt et intelligunt eas inspiciendo et experiendo ipsas. [] Et Albumazar in suo Magno Introductorio confirmat ista rationibus sic: “Omnis substantia que movetur motu naturali efficit in essentiis  rerum sibi coniunctarum per naturam conversiones naturales, ut declaratur in actione ignis ad longum (read lignum?). Constat ergo opificem universitatis genitoremque Deum nature ducatum sidereis motibus commendasse.” [] Item Philosophus primo Metheorum sic ait: “Necesse est hunc mun dum inferiorem etc.” [] Amplius Tholomeus in nona propositione Centiloquii: “Vultus huius seculi subiecti sunt vultibus celi. /v/ Et ideo sapientes scientes ymagines stellarum introitum in celestes vultus inspiciebant et tunc operabantur quod debebant.” Hoc idem in quinquagesima propositione: “Non oblivi scare esse centum viginti quinque coniunctiones que fiunt in stellis erraticis. In illis enim est maior scientia eorum que fiunt in hoc mundo suscipienti incrementum et decrementum.” [] Et in Libro novem iudicum legitur: “Omnis mundane geniture condicio ex planetis eorumque signis tamquam ferrum ex lapide magnete  dependet.” [] Afflatus etiam siderum in istis inferioribus sunt experti antiqui in generationibus post generationem, in legibus et ordinationibus celorum.

 illud B  illud B  cognicio LM

 declarat B

– B omits “ymagines . . . debebant”



charles burnett

[] Quapropter ad finem universalis apprehensionis scientie librorum iudiciorum astrologie, ad ysagogas difficiles Alchabicii exponendas que sunt compendiosum introductorium in iudicia astrologie, descendamus, in quo magnum infallanter invenietis effectum. [] Quapropter sciendum quod astrologia est lex seu ratio figuras celes-  tes et motus in se et in suis effectibus universaliter considerans; in qua descriptione tangitur duplex pars astrologie: una de motibus, alia de iudiciis. [] Illa de motibus quedam determinantur theorice, quedam practice, quedam per instrumenta sicut astrolabia, horologia, quedam per tabulas.  [] Illa de iudiciis habet partes quatuor principales, pars una de revolutionibus annorum mundi, alia de nativitatibus, tertia de interrogationibus, quarta de electionibus cui scientia ymaginum astronomicarum supponitur. [] Hiis visis ad litteram accedamus.

 Alchubucii B  motibus] B adds “et figuras celestium et”  quedam1] B adds “practice”  pars una] pars scilicet introductiva et exercitativa. Exercitativa habet  partes etc. exercitativa de revolutionibus est tripartita, prima est de  coniunctionibus, secunda de revolutionibus anni,  de monstratione temporum, prima B

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



Translation [] The Eisagoges of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı in the form of an introduction to the discernment of the rays of the stars, in the tradition of Ptolemy. [] Although I think that all rational men should agree that the most fortunate science of the stars should precede the power of all sciences, nevertheless I cannot on this occasion desist from relating what the leaders of the Peripatetics, Aristotle and his commentator, Averroes, have claimed in what they have written about the strengths of the soul: “Although every science, because it is the perfection and happiness of the intellect, should be thought to be good and honorable, that one however should be called noble and better than the others which deals with a nobler subject and seeks more certain demonstrations to recognize it.”1 [] It is easy to understand that these two kinds of nobility exist in the science of astronomy from the inside by the soul itself (?), since it considers the celestial body in its movement and various influences by which all lower things are preserved—which is naturally unborn and incorporeal, and altogether taking up (?) corrupting nature and alteration. [] To show this, it advances most certain demonstrations, since it is numbered amongst the mathematical sciences, which repose in the first degree of certitude. [] Therefore, first in the writings of the most wise J¯abir it was wisely said, when he spoke about the goodness of astrology: “The best of the sciences after the science of faith, whose data are fixed, and remain unaltered until the time God commands.”2 [] The Philosopher in the eleventh book of De animalibus writes: “We are more desirous of learning a little about noble things than a lot about ignoble things.”3

1

Source to be identified. This is the beginning of J¯abir ibn Aflah’s . Liber super Almagesto (translated by Gerard of Cremona), printed in Nuremberg, , pp. – (with Peter Apian, Instrumentum primi mobilis): Scientia species habet quarum melior post scientiam fidei est cuius scita fixa sunt, remanentia inalterata . . . Eiusque namque scita fixa sunt, remanentia non alterata usque ad horam in qua Deus illud praecipiet eis. 3 A paraphrase of Aristotle, De animalibus, XI,  (= De partibus animalibus I, ), b– and – in William of Moerbeke’s translation. 2



charles burnett

[] And T¯abit ibn Qurrah says this at the beginning of his Talismans, on ¯ the authority of Aristotle: “Whoever has read philosophy and geometry and every science and forgets astrology is hindered or blocked and is as it were frustrated of his end.”4 This astrology considers the celestial bodies which have so much more noble a nature as they are more distant from these things around us. [] Ptolemy has touched on the usefulness of this science in the Proverbs of the Almagest, saying that we generally say that there is nothing in which the soul benefits so much as in the prognostication of this science. For through it we can arrive at the knowledge of divine and human things.5 [] And since we are not able to arrive at those things which agree with each complexion except through the knowledge of this work, the same authority, voicing the usefulness of this science to us, has uttered this verbum which is fifth in the order of verba in his Centiloquium: “The best astrologer is able to ward off much evil which will come according to the stars, when he knows its nature. For thus he will protect beforehand him to whom an evil will fall, so that, when it comes, he can endure it.”6 [] Its usefulness is also recognized in the science of medicine. Hence Hippocrates has said in his book on Airs Waters and Places, when he mentions the changes of the air and the elements (or natures), that “the things we have mentioned concerning the differences of the air are in the science of the stars,” and that “the science of the stars is not the least part of the science of medicine.”7 And in the first book of the Prognostics: “There is also something celestial in which the doctor himself ought to take care.”8 If its foreknowledge is so great, it is wonderful and truly amazing.

4 T¯ abit ibn Qurra, De imaginibus, in F.J. Carmody, ed., The Astronomical Works of Th¯abit¯ b. Qurra (Berkeley and Los Angeles, ): . 5 This statement of Ptolemy does not occur among the “sapientiae” which precede the most common medieval version of the Almagest (that of Gerard of Cremona), though one could say that this is the general sense of the first chapter of the work: see Burnett, “ ‘Ptolemaeus in Almagesto dixit’ ” (n.  above). 6 Ptolemy, Centiloquium, verbum  (Venice, ): fol. v. 7 Hippocrates, Airs, Waters and Places, .: non minimam portionem confert astronomia in medicinam, sed valde plurimam. Edited by H. Grensemann (Bonn, ): . 8 Hippocrates, Prognostics, I,  (), in Articella cum commento (n.p., ): fol. cxlvi r: Est autem quoddam celeste in quo opus ipsum medicum previdere.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



[] Therefore, I am completely mystified as to what makes many people denigrate the science of the stars, unless that should be imputed to the clouds of blind ignorance of the intellect of those who, not knowing the way by which we are led to know the effects which the stars influence, deny them completely. These people make themselves look very silly. For if the eye of the night-crow cannot see the light of the Sun in the day, the other animals must be able to.9 [] Noticing this, Ptolemy, at the beginning of the Quadripartitum confirms the judgments of the stars. Hence he says that our common people know things before they happen. [] And Hali in his commentary to the second proposition of this book says that the roots of this science are so clear that the common people, who do not know anything, know and understand them by observing and experiencing them.10 [] Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar in his Great Introduction confirms this with arguments, in this way: “Every substance that moves by a natural movement produces natural changes in the essences of those things joined to it by nature, as is shown in the action of fire on wood. It is established, then, that the creator and progenitor of the universe, God, has commended the leadership of nature to the movements of the stars.”11 [] Likewise the Philosopher in the first book of his Meteorologica, says: “It is necessary for this lower world etc.”12 [] Moreover, Ptolemy in the ninth proposition of the Centiloquium says: “The forms of this word are subject to the forms of the sky. Therefore, wise men who were knowledgeable about talismans used to inspect the 9

Cf. Aristotle, De animalibus, IX, , a–. Ptolemy, Quadripartitum, fol. ra: Et generaliter videmus quod res universales eas quas intelligimus a participatione Solis et Lune ac stellarum in figuris sunt manifeste multum et apparent visibiliter ita quod eas possunt scire et intelligere propter plurimas pronosticationes multi qui nihil sciunt de scientia nec natura, solummodo pro inspiciendo in rebus et propter experientiam quam alii habuerunt. Haly’s comment: Dicit quod radices huius scientie sunt adeo manifeste quod populares nihil scientes de scientia sciunt et intelligunt eas inspiciendo et experiendo eas. 11 This quotation brings together texts of the two translations of Ab¯ u Ma#ˇsar, Great Introduction to Astrology, vol. , ch.  in John of Seville’s translation (ed. Lemay, vol. , p. , ll. –): Omnis substancia que movetur motu naturali, efficuntur ex motu eius naturali in ceteris rerum sibi coniunctarum per naturam conversiones naturales . . . et probatio huius rei est quod accipitur ex motu ignis . . ., and vol. , ch.  in Hermann of Carinthia’s translation (ed. Lemay, vol. , p. , ll. –): Hinc ergo constat opificem genitoremque universitatis Deum sideris motibus nature ducatum commendasse. 12 Cf. Aristotle, Meteorologica, a. 10



charles burnett

entry of the planets into the celestial forms and then used to do what they had to do.”13 The same (Ptolemy) in the fiftieth proposition: “You should not forget that there are  conjunctions which occur between the planets. Among these is the great science of those things which happen in this world, which experiences growth and decay.”14 [] And in the Book of the Nine Judges: “Every condition of generation in the universe depends on the planets and their signs, like iron depends on the magnet stone.”15 [] The Ancients also experienced the “breathings” of the constellations on these lower things in generations after generations, in the laws and regulations of the heavens. [] Therefore, with the aim of completely understanding the science of the books of the judgments of astrology, let us descend to explaining the difficult Eisagoges of al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı, which are a compendious introduction to the judgments of astrology, in which you will without fail find a great effect. [] It must be known, then, that astrology is the law or reason, considering altogether the celestial figures and their movements in themselves and in their effects. In this description the double aspect of astrology is touched upon: one about movements, the other about judgments. [] The part concerning movements determine some things theoretically, others practically, some through instruments such as astrolabes and sundials, others through tables. [] That part concerning judgments has four principal parts: one part about the revolutions of the years of the world, another about birth horoscopes, a third about interrogations and a fourth about elections, under which the science of astronomical

13

Ptolemy, Centiloquium, verbum , fol. v: Vultus huius seculi sunt subiecti vultibus celestibus. Et ideo sapientes qui imagines faciebant stellarum introitum in celestes vultus inspiciebant et tunc operabantur quod debebat. 14 Ibid., verbum : fol. r: Non obliviscaris esse centumviginti coniunctiones que sunt in stellis erraticis. In illis enim est maior scientia eorum que fiunt in hoc mundum suscipienti incrementum et decrementum. 15 This quotation can be found in the preliminary material to the Liber novem iudicum, which is not in the printed versions: see MS Vatican, lat. , fol. rb (a paragraph from Jergis, De domibus .vii. errantium): Summus igitur rerum omnium opifex deus universam mundane creature naturam eiusdem . . . . Sic enim ex istis tam signis quam planetis eorumque proprietatibus omnis mundane geniture condicio quemadmodum ferrum ex lapide magnete dependet.

al-qab¯ıs¯ . ı’s introduction to astrology



talismans is included.16 [] Having dealt with these things, let us proceed to the words of the text. (After this follows the lemmatized commentary which corresponds to that of John of Saxony.)

16 Compare Speculum astronomiae in P. Zambelli, ed., The Speculum Astronomiae and its Enigma (Dordrecht, Boston and London, ): : Parti autem electionum dixi supponi imaginum scientiam, non quarumcumque tamen sed astronomicarum.

A DIFFERENT HUE TO MEDIEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY: FOUR INVESTIGATIONS INTO AN UNSTUDIED PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT

Y. Tzvi Langermann The goal of this paper is to describe the only extant fragment of what was probably an extensive work of medieval Jewish philosophy. It survives in fragmentary form in a single manuscript. The author, concerning whom we know nothing at all, was interested in issues that are treated in the philosophical literature of the period, and he drew upon or reacted to many of the famous authorities—Maimonides, Ibn Ruˇsd, Ibn S¯ın¯a. However, the world-view that he articulates comes through as a distinct hue of Jewish philosophy. This essay will focus exclusively upon those distinct colorings, which set this work apart from any other writing of the medieval period that I have seen. After briefly reporting on some basic data concerning the unique manuscript, I will organize my discussion around the distinctive features of the treatise. I will first deal with two issues that combine to define the author’s theological orientation: panentheism and a polemic against dualism. I will dwell longest on the second of these, mainly because it offers the most promising leads for locating our treatise in historical context. I will then discuss his treatment of two scientific issues where, again, he speaks with a very distinctive voice: astronomy, in particular, his critical review of al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s “new astronomy”, and his lengthy remarks on magnetism. First, then, some basic information. The treatise occupies folios b– b of a manuscript formerly in the Montefiore collection, no.  in Hirschfeld’s catalogue, manuscript  in what was once the Halberstam collection.1 It comprises the fifth section (ˇsa#ar) of an extensive work; whether the whole of this section is preserved, I cannot say. The author 1 The manuscript was put up for sale by Sotheby’s in , and I do not know what has become of it. See Sotheby’s Important Hebrew Manuscripts from the Montefiore Endowment, New York, October  & , , no.  on p. . (The description in Sotheby’s catalogue was written by the present author.)



y. tzvi langermann

has left us no clues as to his name, provenance, or the circle of his associates. If pressed, I would surmise that he lived in the southern part of France in the thirteenth century, but I have no sound evidence for this. He mentions one other book that he has written, a treatise on astronomy whose title is not given. It is the last item in a codex that also contains a copy of Abraham ibn Daud’s Exalted Faith (Emunah ramah) as well as the unique copy of an anonymous commentary on that book. The entire codex was copied by Elazar Parnas in . The Montefiore manuscript is part of a series of codices copied by the same Parnas; in another manuscript, Oxford Ms. Can. Or. , he has listed the contents of the philosophical library that he copied, and which are now spread over three different codices. (The third is Cambridge University Library, Add. .) Unfortunately, though, Parnas offers no information (if he had any) about the authorship or title of our treatise. Despite the variety of “sources” exploited and the range of issues treated, our work is neither eclectic nor encyclopedic. The author has a clear goal in mind, a highly coherent and focused outlook, which can be characterized, in a first approximation, as follows: The one good God pervades the cosmos. The stance is thus panentheistic, with a strong interest in refining the notion of “one.” There are also traces of antidualistic polemic; panentheism is likely to have been part of a response to a dualist challenge. As a second approximation, the treatise connects to two distinct trends in medieval Jewish thought, which do not often meet: () Philosophy developed using Latin texts as well as Hebrew writings that were received mainly in Ashkenaz. Our author cites the astronomy of “Petrugus,” which is the Latin name for al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı, and he has much to say about Midraˇs Temurah, a text that was known to Ashkenazi writers in particular. () Philosophy that is rooted in Islamic culture; as noted, he has drunk deeply from Maimonides, Ibn S¯ın¯a, and Ibn Ruˇsd. In the course of thirty years of writing, I have never asked for more than the chance to get across whatever I feel that I have to contribute in as unmediated a form as possible. I have certainly benefited from criticisms, both on the part of evaluators and on the part of editors. On the other hand, I am and will always be hypersensitive to invasive attempts to redirect or restructure my thought, or rewrite my analyses, especially when done under the guise of “scientific” criticism. Gad Freudenthal has edited about half-a dozen books to which I have contributed, as

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



well, of course, as the journal Aleph; and, in this very touchy business, Gad’s judicious, precise, and very useful suggestions have always been balanced by his respect for my authorial stance. It is a duty and pleasure to express my gratitude to Gad; all the more so, with this paper, in which the approach and form of presentation are every bit as important to me as the contents. The present paper connects to Gad’s work in other ways. Some years ago, Gad’s interest was spurred by the late Israel Ta-Shema’s relatively brief description of Sefer ha-Ma´skil, an unusual Ashkenazi work of religious and scientific thought, and he proceeded to publish a two-part study. The text that we are about to describe is very different in form: it is straightforward philosophy, whereas Sefer ha-Ma´skil is at heart a work of halakha. Moreover, our author, unlike the author of Sefer haMa´skil, is very much at home in the thought of Maimonides, Ibn Ruˇsd, and Ibn S¯ın¯a. Nonetheless, the two texts share some very distinctive features. In doctrine, both endorse a form of panentheism; in terms of literary sources, both exploit Midraˇs Temurah; in terms of historical context, both regard dualism as a present danger. Thus, despite their choice of utterly different literary forms, they emerge as surprisingly similar Jewish responses to a certain historical situation.

Panentheism Our author espouses a mild form of panentheism. God is identified with “the All” (ìëä) and He is said to be everywhere and in everything.2 There is said to be (ultimately, and corresponding to Aristotle’s four causes) a single matter, a single form, a single agent, and a single telos; God is (ultimately) the single form, agent, and telos for the cosmos. God is not identical with the material universe, but since matter is not real, God is identical with all actual reality. For all its possible lack of clarity, as indeed all pantheistic excursions tend to lose their bearings in the cloud of unknowing, this description suffices to sharply mark off our author’s stance from the most famous—indeed the only pre-Spinozan—Jewish 2 On kol as a technical term in medieval Jewish philosophy, see most recently Elliot R. Wolfson, “God, the Demiurge, and the Intellect: On the Usage in Abraham Ibn Ezra,” Revue des Etudes juives  (): –. Clearly our author does not intend the demiurge by kol, as does Ibn Ezra according to Wolfson. Wolfson’s first footnote refers to other writers who employ the term, including, of course, Ibn Gabirol; see also the following notes in this essay.



y. tzvi langermann

pantheist (or at least he is often labeled as such), Solomon ibn Gabirol, whose trademark is the ontological envaluation of matter.3 Consider these statements: . “The substance [essence?] of God is found in every thing, without, however, there being any relation or binding [association?] with matter.”ììë øîåç íò äøáçå ñçé éìáî øáã ìëá àöîé ìàä íöò (fol. a) . “He is the All and the Omnipotent, and for this reason it says [Hosea :] All forgives sin, even though this is not the plain sense of the verse. . . . He is found in every thing, but He has no place; this is the intent of [Hosea :] And I shall not enter into the city, that is, within you the Holy One shall come, even though I shall not enter into the city. . . . but He is rather something stable [permanent, unchanging], He encompasses everything; no place is free of Him, and everything is found within Him. They asked a wise person, ‘Where is the Creator?’, and he answered, ‘Where isn’t He?’ ” (fol. a): ìëä àåä ìëá àöîð àåä . . . §åúëä èùô åðéàù ô§§òà ïåò àùú ìë øîà äæìå ìåëé ìëå êáø÷á øîåìë øéòá àáà àìå åøîàá äöø äæå íå÷î åì ïéàå íå÷î ìëáå øáã åäôé÷é àìå øáã íåùá åðéà éë . . . íå÷îá éððàå øéòá àáà àìù ô§§òà ùåã÷ àáé .ìëä àöîð åáå åðîî éåðô íå÷î ïéàå ìëä óé÷î àåäå åá ãîåò øáã ìë ìáà íå÷î åðéà àðà áéùäå àøåáä àðà íëçì åìàù . . . . “For this reason we say, that we truly know that He—Blessed is He!—is found in the all, and the all is within Him, and He knows all from the most noble aspect” (fol. b): úîàá åðòãé éë øîàð ïë ìò ãáëð øúåéä ãöä ìò ìëä òãåéå åá ìëäå ìëá àöîð êøáúé àåäù

A few comments on the second passage are in order. Our author’s protest (“even though this is not the plain sense of the verse”) notwithstanding, the interpretation of the verse in Hosea  is syntactically elegant but very bold exegetically. Medieval Jewish commentators as a rule take the Hebrew kol to be a misplaced adjective modifying “sin,” so that the verse is taken to mean “[God] forgives all sins.”4 The word order needs no further explanation according to the reading of our author, who takes kol to be a noun and the subject of the sentence. No other exegete known

3 T. Rudavsky, “Matter, Mind and Hylomorphism in Ibn Gabirol and Spinoza,” in H. Lagerlund, ed., Forming The Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightenment (Dordrecht, ): –. 4 So for example Abravanel explains ad loc., “the commentators explain that it is reversed, ‘every sin shall You forgive’ ”; modern students take kol as an adverb, i.e., “You shall forgive sin completely” (see World Biblical Commentary, :–).

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



to me has read the verse in this way.5 The verse from Hosea  is more inviting of a theological interpretation, and several are found in Jewish sources, as early as the Talmud (B Ta#anit ); but here too I have not found anyone else who reads the verse as our author does. Once again, his interpretation is facile as far as the plain sense of the text is concerned, but highly original in the meaning it imparts. According to his reading, ‘ir does not refer to Samaria (so the context would suggest), or Jerusalem (heavenly or earthly, as in the aggadic reading), but rather means simply “city,” the obvious dictionary meaning of the Hebrew word; by extension, it means “place.”6 So the verse can be read, following the word order in Hosea, to mean that the Holy One is within you, even though he is not in any place. The apothegm cited at the end is reminiscent of some sayings that are ˇ cited in Bahya ha-yihud, ch.  . ibn Paquda’s Duties of the Heart, Sa#ar . (pp. – in the edition of Rav Qafih); it is also the theme of Judah Halevi’s poem, Yah ana ams. a"ekha: “O God, where shall I find you? Your place is sublime and unseen. But where shall I not find you? Your glory fills the world!”7 Our author knows that panentheism makes some people feel uncomfortable, and offers a reassuring thought. Divine omnipresence insures that the living cosmos is suffused with a motive principle towards the good (fol. b): “There is no reason to be troubled that there is no place in the world that is free from [literally: escapes] the divine intellect, given that It intellegizes everything as one [at once] and sets in motion the entire world. For an agile human moves all of his limbs at once, and when he sets in motion the many strings on the stringed instrument [øåðë], many voices are produced together; it would be all the more fine and swift in producing the voices, were the stringed instrument a living substance; a fortiori for the deity, who sets in motion everything the way law (ñåîéð) motivates people of distinction to what is proper, to set themselves on the right path and to attain the good.”

5 See the very recent census of interpretations in M. Polliack and E. Schlossberg, Yefet Ben Eli’s Commentary on Hosea: Annotated edition, Hebrew translation and commentary (Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ): n.  pp. –. 6 Modern students see “anger” as another possible meaning for #ir; Rashi ad loc. records this anonymously (due to its Gentile source) but it is not adopted by any Jewish exegete. 7 My translation from the poem published by D. Jarden, ed., The Liturgical Poetry of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, vol.  (Jerusalem, ): no. , p. .



y. tzvi langermann

The divine omnipresence is (fol. a) likened to the (non)number one, which is present in every other number: “It has been likened to the (non)number one: it is the beginning of number, and is found in every number; it maintains itself [exists] without any number, but no number can exist without it, because it is the cause of every number and that which produces it (åùãçî), and it is found together with every number; it is the immediate cause of two, and the cause of three through the mediation of two . . . but this is not a true analogy, because the one is predicated (? àåùð) and produced by an action of the soul.” Most of these teachings are found in the writings of Abraham ibn Ezra.8 However, the notion that one is not an independently existing entity, but rather a mental construct—“produced by an action of the soul”—is not to the best of my knowledge said anywhere by Ibn Ezra, who indeed holds that the one is “like a substance which bears all accidents.”9 I have already intimated that in my view, panentheism is here part of a reaction to dualism; the evidence for our author’s concern with dualism will be arrayed in the next section. In order to counter the heresies that taught “two authorities,” our author insisted not only that there is but one, but that this unique deity is present in everything, and is in fact identifiable with all true reality. Given these leanings, it then comes as no surprise that our author invests a great deal of effort in clarifying the meaning of “one” or “unity.” The precise definition of that concept is of paramount importance to pantheists and panentheists.10 The discussion on unity in our text is both a calque and a critique on Maimonides’ Guide. It is a calque insofar as it mimics the formula well-known to all readers of Maimonides’ Guide, applying it to a Hebrew word whose multiple meanings are not discussed in the Guide:11 “one is

8

For Ibn Ezra’s views see R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod mora ve-sod torah, annotated critical edition by Joseph Cohen in collaboration with U. Simon (Ramat Gan, ): –  and , as well as the parallel discussions in other writings of Ibn Ezra that are cited in the notes to that edition. 9 Sefer ha-Ehad, ed. I. Levin, in idem, Abraham Ibn Ezra Reader (Heb.) (New York . and Tel Aviv, ): . 10 M. Levine, “Pantheism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford .edu/entries/pantheism/. 11 However, Maimonides does elaborate in the second of his thirteen principles: “His Unity . . . is not like the unity of the species or the unity of the genus, nor is it like one complex thing that divides into many units, nor is it like the unity of a simple body that is numerically one but is receptive to infinite division and partition; but rather He— may He be Exalted—is a unity unlike any other unity in any way.” (My translation from the Judaeo-Arabic edition of Y. Kapach, Peruˇs ha-miˇsnah la-Rambam, vol.  [Neziqim]

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



an equivocal (÷ôåñî) term used in many ways.”12 Moreover, our author moves on to progressively lesser known meanings of “one” (÷åçø øúåé íåñøôä ïî), much like Maimonides’ traversal of increasingly “deeper” aspects of the problem of the divine attributes in Guide I: and . As for the critique, our author, like most medieval and modern readers of the Guide, detects that Maimonides has adopted de facto Ibn S¯ın¯a’s controversial theory that existence is an accident supervening upon an essence and this, he feels, is a serious mistake.13 The discussion on this point is involved, and the text may be imperfectly transmitted in the unique manuscript; nonetheless, I feel that the following remarks accurately convey the intent of the text. There are two main ways in which the Hebrew term ehad . is used: as a “universal” (éììë), as in genus and species, and numerically, when referring to separate, distinct units. The various senses are then elaborated as follows (fol. b):14 . single objects, spatially distinct from others, having a clear boundary, e.g. a shell [for instance, one nut] . a unit made of conjoined parts that move together, for example, bodily organs such as “one hand” or “one foot” . a unit made up of parts that have been conjoined artificially, e.g., “one chair”; single items of thought, examples drawn mainly from geometry, e.g. “a circle” . units that are separate in thought, e.g. continuous quantities (“one line”), most especially those that cannot be added to (“one circle”) . single bodies made up of similar parts . single substantially, “one man,” “one horse,” insofar as they are indivisible with regard to their form; these are the instances most worthy of being called “one in number” or “numerically one”

[Jerusalem, ]: .) The multiple senses in which “one” is used exercised several medieval thinkers; their views are conveniently summarized by J.L. Kraemer, Philosophy in the Renaissance of Islam (Leiden, ): –. 12 Another calque on Maimonides, which I may explore on some other occasion, is the chapter on "or (“light”) in Jospeh Albo’s Sefer ha-#Iqqarim. 13 The second sentence (in the translation of S. Pines [Chicago and London, ]: :) of Guide I: states: “It is well known that existence is an accident attaching to what exists.” Cf. Pines’ remarks in his translator’s introduction, p. xciv, and the literature cited by Michael Schwartz in the notes to his new Hebrew translation of the Guide (Tel Aviv, ): :. See also the extensive discussion in S. Feldman, Levi ben Gerson (Gersonides) Wars of the Lord, vol.  (Philadelphia and New York, ):  n. . 14 My explanatory notes are enclosed within square brackets.



y. tzvi langermann

. single things separate with regard to their “intellectized quiddities” (úåìëùåîä íäéúåéäîá íéøáãä úùéøô); this is the one in form or absolute one; it is what the Latins would call a transcendental [the term does not appear here in Hebrew] and applies to all of the ten categories primarily and secondarily Items one through five are accidentally one; they are unique only insofar as they can be clearly distinguished one from the other. Items six and seven are the lesser known meanings of the term. Our author goes on to say that the numerical one is something abstracted by the intellect (øáã ìëùä ìåìùé) from individuals that do not subdivide; from this abstraction the imagination “creates the one that is the beginning of number, free (é÷ð) of matter, since it does not divide.” Once again, then, our author clearly opines that the one is a construct of the mind. Aristotle on several occasions stated that “that which exists” or “being” has the same variety of meanings as has “the one” (e.g. Metaphysics VII, , ; Physics a–), and this equation of “being” with “the one” carries on into the medieval thought.15 Ibn S¯ın¯a’s famous and controversial claims concerning existence, alluded to above, must apply equally to existence and unity. Yet in the Avicennian tradition, if not in Ibn S¯ın¯a himself, the more momentous of the two equivalent terms is “being.”16 Our author joins the chorus of western (by which term I include mostly Jewish and Christian thinkers from the Islamic reaches of Spain and North Africa as well as those working in Christian Europe) who reject Ibn S¯ın¯a’s claim that existence is an accident, but unlike the others, he gives more attention to the (cognate) concept of “unity” than he does to “existence.”17 In particular, Ibn S¯ın¯a is called to account for not distinguishing between the numerical and absolute one; in this criticism, our author clearly follows Ibn Ruˇsd who elaborated on this very point in his Epitome of the Metaphysics.18 Our author accuses Maimonides of following Ibn S¯ın¯a on both counts—that is in adopting the idea that 15

R. Demos, “Types of Unity According to Plato and Aristotle,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research  (–): –. 16 Thus there is a great deal of discussion of w¯ ag˘ib al-wu˘gu¯ d (and their Hebrew and Latin counterparts), but none that I know of w¯ag˘ib al-wahda, though the latter would . seem no less appropriate as a connotation of the deity. 17 I must emphasize again that we have only a small portion of what must have been a fairly extensive text. 18 The passage is cited at length by S. Munk, Le Guide des Égarés, (reprint, Paris, ): vol. , n.  on pp. –; Ibn Ruˇsd states there clearly, “Ibn Sina a confondu la nature de l’ un, principe du nombre, avec l’ un absolu, qui embrasse toutes les categories . . .”.

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



both unity and existence are accidents to essence (úåäî)—leading to the formulations in Guide I:, that “God exists, but not through existence” and “is one, but not through oneness.”19 The question would of course arise, are “unity” and “existence” wholly synonymous? Are they two words that mean exactly the same thing? One Hebrew writer who went to some length to clarify this point and flesh out the subtle distinctions between the two is Levi ben Gerˇsom, who seems (here and elsewhere) to be very much on the same wavelength as our author. Levi explains that the two terms are not synonymous. Rather, “one” signifies the absence of division, and “exists” signifies the existence, both referring to one and the same essence.20 Our author accounts for the difference in this way (fol. a): “The one that is intended in this science [metaphysics, I presume], is the absolute [one], and it is synonymous with ‘existent’, except that ‘existent’ is said of any substance or quiddity, whereas this [term, i.e., ‘one’] is said [only] of an indivisible substance.”

Midraˇs Temurah and the Vestiges of Anti-Dualistic Polemic In my view, our author’s endorsement of some sort of panentheism as well as his worries over the precise meaning of “one” and the source of evil are all evidence of an anti-dualistic polemic that is characteristic of his work. About two-thirds of the way down on fol. a there begins a long discussion of source of evil, beginning, “How great was the error of the ancients in identifying the cause of evil, how they strayed from the [correct] principle, how unbearably great is the burden of guilt that they must carry . . . ”. He then identifies two such errant schools. The first say that the deity is associated with matter (øîåçá óúåùî) and “enters into things” (íéøáãá ñðëðå), which means, so I take it, that the deity interpenetrates bodies; they are thus true pantheists, to be clearly distinguished from our author’s panentheism, which sees the divine in every real thing, thus excluding matter, which possesses no reality. The other recognizes two opposing principles, “substitutes and opposites” (íéëôäå úåøåîú). This is said to be the plainly evident (peˇsat. ) teaching of Sefer ha-Temurot “that is

19 Both statements are found in Guide I:; see Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,” p. xciv. 20 Feldman, Wars, pp. –, which includes a quotation from Levi’s (lost) supercommentary to Ibn Ruˇsd’s middle commentary on Metaphysics IV, .



y. tzvi langermann

attributed to R. Ishmael the son of21 R. Aqivah, because that book teaches that everything that God created was made with ‘a partner and a substitute’ (äøåîúå óúåùá)”, e.g., good and evil, life and death, health and illness. Our author adds: “It [Sefer ha-Temurot] contains in addition other topics, which are truly words of wisdom. . . . It seems that those great figures of blessed memory did not produce it; they became entangled in it [?], for they set out to refute this [dualist] doctrine (íäéìò æçàðù àìà åøîà åæ äòã øåúñìå).” The meaning of this last phrase is not entirely clear; it could mean that in their attempts to refute dualism the two sages somehow became contaminated with the heresy; it could also mean that the work was maliciously ascribed to them. In any event, the dualist worries of our author are transparent. At the bottom of the same page he launches yet another salvo against those who recognize a sovereign evil: the supernal beings emanate only good, “and the earth [mentioned in Job :], that is, the elements, err by not receiving the good—pace the doctrines of the heretics ‘that the earth is unfaithful’ (õøàä äðæú äðæ) [fol. b]”.22 The reference to Sefer ha-Temurot (which also went by the names Sefer or Midraˇs Temurah) is an important clue, both for the history of that obscure text and for locating our author historically. The first and to my knowledge only statement about the work’s character was made by Adolph Jellinek. On the basis of the influences of Abraham ibn Ezra and the pseudo-Galenic dialogue on the soul that he detected in the text, Jellinek claimed that Sefer Temurah was composed in the first half of the thirteenth century.23 Various versions have been published, beginning ˇ ha-gedolim (); a critical edition, based on with H.J.D. Azulai’s Sem several manuscripts as well as all of the earlier published versions was published by Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer.24 The text takes its title and main theme from its listing of pairs of opposites (temurot); the term 21

Sic! This is clearly a scribal mishap. For our author, the verse in Job : (“For hardship does not spring from the soil, nor does trouble sprout from the ground”) is an important proof text against the dualist heretics who, so it emerges, view the material universe as both real and as the source of evil. 23 A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, part one (reprint Jerusalem, ), p. xx. The pseudoGalenic tract has been studied most recently by Ermenegildo Bertola, “Un Dialogo Pseudo-Galenico sui Problemi dell’ Anima,” Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica  (): –. 24 Batei midraˇ sot, vol.  (Jerusalem, ): –; Wertheimer provides full references to all other printings and editions. 22

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



temurah definitely feeds off of the temurah mentioned at the end of Sefer Yes. ira. Thus the midrash is likely to be either a later response to Sefer Yes. ira or something that came out of the same cultural setting. The dualistic possibilities of the pairings are evident, and, as we learn from the brief discussion in our text, Sefer Temurah was exploited by some in order to support a form of dualism. Interestingly enough, there is a very strong rejection of dualism in Wertheimer’s edition: “And not like those who say that there are two authorities in the world, one bringing death and the other giving life (úéîî ãçà íìåòá íä úåéåùø éúù íéøîåàä åìàë àìå äéçî ãçàå).”25 References to Sefer Temurah in medieval Hebrew texts are rare. No text exploits Sefer Temurah more than Sefer ha-Ma´skil does; this was noted already by Israel Ta-Shema, and investigated thoroughly by Gad Freudenthal.26 Sefer ha-Ma´skil attacks both dualists and Trinitarians; it also polemicizes against the doctrine of “uncreated spirit” that some deviants read into II Samuel :. That verse caused them “to be misled and to mislead others into [maintaining] two authorities or three.”27 Remarks against trinitarianism are common enough in Jewish literature written in a Christian environment; a living, or recently expired, dualist threat, on the other hand, fits far fewer limited historical situations, notably the Albigenses in Provence and the Cathars, in Italy and Byzantium. One significant reference has heretofore escaped the notice of scholars. Temurot di-rebbe Iˇsma"el ve-rebbe Aqiva is briefly cited by Yehudah ben ˇ Semaryah in his biblical commentary. The editor of that text, Leah Naomi 25 Batei midraˇ sot, :. There are also some statements (differing in manuscripts) that God is one, cosmos is one, and pneuma (?) (çåø) is one towards the end of the midrash:

åîìåò àøá àåäå ãçà àåäù íìåòä éàá ìëì òéãåäì äøåîú åì ïéàå éðù åì ïéàå ãçåéî øáã åîìåòá àøáå (ed., p. ); but in the version of Even Shohan, cited by Wertheimer in n. : ãîåò íìåäå àåä êåøá ùåã÷ä äìúðù åðàöî àì ïëì óúåù àìå äøåîú åì ïéàù çåøä àåäå äøåîú åì ïéàå . . . çåøä ìò ùàøî äúéä àéäå úçáåùî àéäù . . . çåøä àìà. These may have been added by some copyist in

response to the same type of misuse of the midrash that is reported by our author. 26 I.M. Ta-Shema, “Sefer ha-Maskil: An Unknown Franco-Jewish Treatise from the End of the Thirteenth Century,” reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, vol. , Germany (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): ; Gad Freudenthal, “ ‘Ha-Avir barukh hu ˇ u-varukh Semo’ in Sefer ha-Ma´skil of R. Shlomo Simha of Troyes” (Heb.), Da#at – (): –,  (): –, pp. –, and esp. n. , on Midraˇs Temura as source for Stoic notion of pneuma. 27 Ta-Shema, Studies , Germany, . This concern may also have been addressed in the variant to Midraˇs Temura cited above, note .



y. tzvi langermann

Goldfeld, dates it to the late thirteenth century, correctly as it seems to me, but she was unable to identify Yehudah’s father, who is called “the great one, the leader, the patron” (ñðøôä ùàøä ìåãâä). It is clear to me ˇ that he is none other than Semaryah Ikriti, who is called “parnas” in one 28 manuscript. Elsewhere I have discussed at length Ikriti’s own polemics against the Cathars.29 Using our text, Sefer ha-Ma´skil, and Yehudah’s biblical commentary, we can triangulate Midraˇs Temurah: it belongs to the literature relating to the dualist heresies that threatened communities in southern Europe, especially the Provence, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Whether it was written at that time, or retrieved from ancient storehouses to serve a new cause, I cannot say; that question warrants a study of its own. It is, however, worth noting that Midraˇs Temurot makes its appearance at (very roughly) the time when, according to TaShema, Jews voluntarily got rid of Hebrew apocrypha that had been circulating till then, out of fear of being caught up in the crusades against the dualists.30 Finally, we observe that the section under review here ends with this jibe (fols. b–a): “It is not appropriate to pay attention to, or to be concerned with, the proofs of the mutakallim¯un (íéøáãîä), since they are built upon inanity and rest upon false premises and a fictional reality. They are worthless statements; the truth will make its own way.” Our author is clearly dependent upon Maimonides for his knowledge of the kal¯am. However, the kal¯am, to which Maimonides devotes so much effort, is not a serious player here, and an off the cuff rebuttal suffices. The active and serious threat, as we have seen, is dualism.

Astronomy Our author had some expertise in astronomy; he refers to a treatise on the science that he wrote (åðøàáù åîë äðåëúä úîëçá) where he shows that stars do not possess qualities (fols. b–a), though unfortunately gives 28

MS Munich , fol. a (commentary to Song of Songs): ñðøôä áéãðä ïá äéøîù íàð

짧öæ åäéìà §ø. 29 Y.T. Langermann, “Of Cathars and Creationism: Shemarya Ikriti’s Polemic against a Dualist Eternalism,” Jewish Studies Quarterly  (): –. 30 See I.M. Ta-Shema’s essay, “R. Moshe ha-Darshan and the Apocrypha,” reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, vol. , Italy & Byzantium (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –. Another point to ponder is the ascription of the tract to Rabbis Yishmael ˇ and Aqivah—the same two sages who are named as the authors of Si#ur Qoma.

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



neither a title nor any other information that would enable us to identify it. His discussion of astronomical matters, much like his treatment of the “one” as well as other issues that must be left out of this paper, is reminiscent of Levi ben Gerˇsom. For example, like Levi, he cites numerical data for al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s theory of Saturn.31 He espouses a teleological astrology, in which the details of the orbs and their configuration are said to be an act of providence; Gersonides makes much of this idea.32 Al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı is brought into the discussion in the chapter on “the eminences of the celestial bodies and their rankings” (íúåâøãîå íééòé÷øä íéôåâä úåìòîá øåáãä) [fols. b–b]. Our author ultimately rejects al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı; his main reasons for doing so are () eccentrics are necessary in order to explain some observed phenomena; () for reasons that appear to me theological as well as astronomical, he cannot accept al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s degradation of the sun in the cosmic order. This chapter opens with two crisp laws of dynamics: For two bodies belonging to the same species, the greater of them in quantity possesses more force (çë) than the smaller. To possess more force means to cover the same measure in a small amount of time, while the weak covers it in a long time.

Both laws are found in Aristotle’s Physics, VIII, . The second is explicit; the first follows from Aristotle’s arguments that an infinite force cannot reside in a finite body.33 Our author then moves on to describe the forces at work in the orbs. “The orb possesses two forces. The one is the force of inclination within its body; on its account one says that it is neither heavy nor light. It is the elemental force [fol. a] that diffuses within bodies, and divides up when it [the body] is divided. Just as it is impossible for 31

B.R. Goldstein, Al-Bit. r¯uj¯ı: On the Principles of Astronomy (New Haven and London, ), :–; Goldstein observes that Levi cites correct mean motions for Saturn, rather than the erroneous ones found in al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı. 32 Y.T. Langermann, “Gersonides and Astrology,” appended to Feldman, Wars, pp. –. 33 The second law is stated at all., “Let us define the greater power, in every case, as that which produces an equal effect in less time . . . ” (Aristotle, The Physics, trans. P.H. Wicksteed and F.M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge and London, ]: :); for the first, see b ll., “It follows also that the power of an unlimited body cannot be limited, although there may be cases in which the smaller body has the greater power, as well as the more obvious cases in which the greater power accompanies the greater size,” and Cornford’s note b on pp. –, at the end, stipulating that the larger the body, the greater power it contains, if two bodies of the same kind are compared—the emphasis is Cornford’s.



y. tzvi langermann

a body to be greater [in size], so is it impossible for its natural force to be stronger. For this reason, the stars cannot be bigger than they are, nor can their number increase. The second is the form from which the force [derives]. It is an indivisible force and unlimited. From it derives the overpowering (úåçöðä; Arabic ghalaba?) of one orb over another, which [phenomenon] testifies to the eminence of the mover [over the moved], which manifests itself in fewer motions, swiftness of motion, and a higher position (úåðåéìò). For the enclosing and encompassing [orb] is like a form for the enclosing [!, licet enclosed?].”34 Our author is especially interested in the dynamics of celestial motion, that is, the “force” responsible for their motions and the manner of its transmission, rather than the philosophical issues that troubled cosmologists, such as eccentrics and epicycles. Note also that he names “inclination” (äéèð) as one of the forces.35 I will return to this distinctive point shortly. After briefly taking notice of Ibn Ruˇsd’s views, our author refers to the “new astronomy” of al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı, but not for the first time; his name has come up already earlier, in portions of the treatise that are now lost: “The scholar Petrugu, as we have indicated, postulated a new astronomy.” Al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı is mentioned, or clearly alluded to, in very few in Hebrew texts; our treatise is the only one to mention him by his Latin appellation.36 According to al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı, all of the orbs share in the westerly rotation of highest orb; the farther down they are, the more the westerly motion is retarded, manifesting itself as an (increasingly swifter) easterly motion. “Divine nature” (éäìàä òáèä) has endowed them all with a second motion “from the east.” He notes that al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı rejects eccentrics or epicycles, “all the more so the strange anomalies as well as the types of motion that are difficult to conceptualize that were given to Venus and to Mercury, and which do not befit those divine bodies (åúåàé àì øùà íééäìàä íää íéôåâá).”37 The casual employment by our author of divine as an adjective, here and elsewhere, as in pagan Greek writings, is noteworthy. He may well have come across this usage in Ptolemy’s Almagest, 34

Cf. Aristotle’s Physics III. a–b. On the application of the concept of mayl, inclination, impetus, to the circular motion of the heavenly bodies, see A. Hasnaoui, “La Dynamique d’ Ibn Sina,” in J. Jolivet and R. Rashed, Etudes sur Avicenne (Paris, ). 36 The references to al-Bitr¯ . ug˘¯ı are discussed by Goldstein, “Al-Bit.r¯uj¯ı”, , –; see also Y.T. Langermann, “Some Remarks on Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen and His Encyclopedia, Midrash ha-Hokhma,” in S. Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Dordrecht, Boston and London, ): –. 37 Our author clearly has in mind the complicated devices employed in the Ptolemaic models to account for the latitude of the inferior planets. 35

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



where, e.g. in Book IX, chapter , the planets are called “divine beings”; but phrases like this are not usually repeated by Jewish authors. Devices such as eccentrics are necessary in order to uphold physical principles, such as the impossibility of a vacuum, and the existence of three motions—from, to, and about the center. Moreover, there is observational evidence for eccentrics: “Eccentricity is attested to by the senses in the case of the eclipses of the luminaries [computations carried out using eccentrics and epicycles are correct?], in the variation to [our] sight of the quantity of magnitude of the star (áëåëä úåîë ìãåâ).” Our author suggests that the sun be assigned a ranking second only to that of the prime mover. As evidence, he cites a number of facts that were known to all practicing astronomers in the Middle Ages: the motions of the planets are pegged to that of the sun (ìáâåî øáåçî åðîî . . . íëìäîå); and “their full motion is like its, because the motion of each of the three superior planets, which is the sum of its motion in the epicycle and in its own orb, is equal to the motion of the sun (éë åëìäîë íëìäî úåîìù íâ åúô÷ä ìâìâ êìäîå àöåéä åìâìâî øáåçîä íéðåéìòä íéáëåë §âî ãçà ìë êìäî äðä ùîùä êìäîì äåù)”. Our author refers here to relations between planetary phenomena and the sun. The first remark applies, e.g., to retrogradations, which depend on the planet’s position with respect to the sun. The second remark describes a relation that was known to the Babylonians; the sum of an integer number of synodic periods (such as returns to opposition) and returns of the planet in (tropical) longitude will equal the number of tropical years. Although these relations were common knowledge to preCopernican astronomers, it is unusual to see them mustered in defense of the Ptolemaic models.38 Criticisms of al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı similar to those voiced by our author are made by Latin authors. Bernard de Verdun, for example, rejects al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s models because they do not account for phenomena such as the sizes and distances of the planets.39 Indeed, Pierre d’ Ailly reports that astronomers on the whole rejected al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı, again because his models do not explain adequately conjunctions and retrogradations.40 D’ Ailly is particularly suitable for comparison with our author because he too is interested

38 These relations are discussed by O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, vol.  (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, ): –, . 39 P. Duhem, Sauver les apparences, nd ed. (Paris, ): –. 40 E. Grant, “Celestial Motions in the Late Middle Ages,” Early Science and Medicine, vol. , no. , Medieval Cosmologies (): –, at p. . D’ Ailly himself felt that alBit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s system was “probable.” My thanks are extended to B.R. Goldstein for referring me to the work of Duhem and Grant.



y. tzvi langermann

in dynamics; more specifically, he speaks of a power (virtus) by means of which the planet “inclines” (inclinat) to follow the primum mobile.41 I believe that he, like our author, has in mind the notion of impetus; the Arabic term, mayl, literally means inclination (and is so used in astronomy when speaking, for example, of the angle between the ecliptic and equator).

Magnetism We begin with the chapter on “substance and corporeality” (íöòá øåáãä once again, our author’s concern with unity is paramount. His long discourse on the notion of “unity,” parts of which were discussed earlier on in this paper, and his quest to uphold the one, transcendent, creator God, leads him to investigate the subject of motion (fol. a). The heavens, “even though they are created, are eternal, along with their force, as can be seen from their motion. Thus for us too, who believe in the creation of the world, it is clear that the mover of heaven is not a force within a body, but necessarily is beyond the substance of the orb.” Were the mover a body, it would have to be in continuous physical contact with the motile, and would itself be moved. Our author boldly states, “When this is investigated (yehupas) it will be found to be true for all the . types of motion”; he then proceeds to back up his claim. To begin with, he states that the cause of motion may be either soul or nature; motions are described as “bearing” [or: “carrying”], “pulling,” “pushing,” and “circular,” the last being compounded of pulling and pushing. These are Aristotle’s four types.42 Pulling is illustrated by the magnetic attraction of iron; this too is found in commentaries to Aristotle’s Physics.43 However, our author must deal with the difficulties that magnetic attraction poses for physics. I translate the full passage: úåîùâáå);

Do not let the lodestone or the shot arrow raise a difficulty for you in connection with our stipulation that the mover of bodies is in physical contact with the motile from the beginning of motion until its end. For when the hand [of the archer] disengages from it [the arrow], the air moves 41 Grant, “Celestial Motions,” p. . Grant gives no indication that the “inclination” mentioned here is in fact natural impetus. 42 See Physics, VII., a ff.; cf. P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics and Its Reception in the Arabic World, with an Edition of the Unpublished Parts of Ibn Bâjja’s Commentary on the Physics (Leiden, ): , . 43 Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics, p. .

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



it, and it [the air] is the first motile in this case. Also, do not be troubled by our stipulation that a material mover is itself set in motion as it moves [the motile], by the case of the lodestone pulling iron, which sets it [the iron] in motion without itself moving. This requirement holds for things that move as agents; however, the lodestone that attracts iron, and the sapphire or amber that attract straw, induce motion by way of telos and the like [?], just as the circumscribing water [induces motion?] in the earth [?].44 It is the iron that sets itself in motion [?] in order to join up to the lodestone, which is similar to its nature. It [the iron] longs to exploit it in order to make up for what it lacks. Most [physicists choose as explanations] that it [the magnet] sets it [the iron] in motion by means of the form that reaches the attracted object via the air, through some sort of alteration, and it [then] attracts it by means of its specific [of species] form, or else it attracts it by means of the individual [fiery?] part within it, on account of the relation between them, and the similarity in nature.45 However, the iron does not move the lodestone because the force of the stone overpowers the force of the iron. For this reason, there is attraction for only a limited measure [size?] of the lodestone or of the iron, and for a limited distance between them. Similarly, the sapphire will not attract straw until it has been rubbed and heated [in order to acquire the form of fire?]. Also, the iron does not set the lodestone in motion because the force of the lodestone overcomes the force of the iron. It may also be due to the blockage of the parts [pores?] of the iron and their narrowness, as well as it solidity, so that its force cannot pass and move without having the substance of the iron move; but because the parts of the stone are loose[ly joined together], and it has many pores, its force is emitted and suffices to set the iron in motion. Alternatively, the iron moves towards that which is its perfection [i.e., enables it to achieve perfection] and its form. Don’t be surprised that an object moves towards that which is its form, since in some things form moves towards matter, in its quest for matter that suits it. It is like what we see in the case of a burning wick that is placed beneath a second burning wick opposite [it]. [If] the second one is extinguished, we see the fire move down from the higher to the lower one, by the path of the rising smoke, and it [the lower wick] catches fire. [So?] it may be the case that the lodestone attracts the iron in order to supply it with what it lacks, just as the air draws in the oil [to the wick?].

44 õøàì íéîä ó÷ä òéðéù åîë äîåãäå úéìëúä ãö ìò íúòåðú. This is a fairly literal, albeit confused, rendering of a passage in book seven of (the Arabic) Physics (Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics, p. ): “The magnetic stone and similar bodies cause motion due to the aspect of being a goal (final cause) for the body which is attracted, in the same way as a piece of earth which is not at its natural place is moved by the surface of the water.” 45 Evidently these are similar but distinct explanations.



y. tzvi langermann

Before reviewing the various explanations noted in the preceding paragraph, let us remind ourselves of the three problems which magnetic attraction presents. () Action at a distance, without direct physical contact between the mover and the moved. () Why is the iron drawn to the magnet, rather than the other way around, or, alternatively, why do the two objects not move each towards the other? () The limited distance over which magnetic attraction is effective. In the long discussion cited in the previous paragraph, four different explanations are noted: () Magnetic motion is induced by telos, that is, the fourth of the Aristotelian causes. When first presented, the explanation is not clear, and the text may be corrupt. However, the matter is clarified very well towards the end of the passage. Telos as cause is mentioned in the Arabic Physics; however, the elaboration that the magnet is moved by a desire to make up for a deficiency is, as far as I know, found only in Quaestio . of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Indeed, the phrase used by our author—that the iron “longs to exploit” the magnet “in order to make up for what it lacks”—is a literal, or near-literal, rendering of the Quaestio. Alexander adds that things that lack sensation and soul have a desire for “what is natural to them”; this idea as well is reflected in our text’s statement that the desire for “perfection” is so strong that it can cause an object to move even towards “matter.”46 Just how this passage may have come to the attention of our author is a mystery; this particular explanation is not cited by Simplicius in his report of Alexander’s views.47 () The cause is a form transmitted through the intervening air, by “some sort of alteration.” This is said to be the view held by most, most probably because it preserves somehow the principle of direct physical contact. () Fire, as noted, which has the advantage of accounting for the very limited distance over which magnetic attraction is effective. () There is a contest of “forces” between the magnet and the iron (but not a mutual attraction, certainly not as in Newtonian gravitation, though there is a striking similarity in the basic idea). Both the lodestone and the iron emit a “force.” However, because the iron is more dense (less porous, to use the author’s description), its force has a harder time getting out than does the force within the less dense lodestone. This appears to be Empedocles’ view, as reported by Alexander in his Quaestio. According to Empedocles, both 46 In Sharples’ translation the attraction is caused “by desire for that which it lacks itself but the magnet possesses.” See Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones .–., translated by R.W. Sharples (Ithaca, NY, ): . 47 Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones (trans. Sharples), p.  n. .

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy



the iron and the magnet emit effluences. The effluences from the magnet “push away the air on the pores of the iron and move [the air] which rests on them like a lid.”48 A bit later on (fol. a, top) our author reveals that, in his view, the cause of magnetic attraction is the form of fire. “It is by fire alone, but a greater heat than this will not accomplish it. [This means, I think, that attraction is a special property of whatever specific heat is in the magnet.] It will also attract it and set it in motion from behind thin silver or copper.” Magnetic attraction is ascribed to fire by Ibn Ruˇsd in his epitome of the Physics even though this is not the opinion he voices elsewhere.49

48

Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones (trans. Sharples), p. . Y.T. Langermann, “Gersonides on the Magnet and the Heat of the Sun,” in Gad Freudenthal, ed, Studies on Gersonides: a fourteenth-century Jewish philosopher-scientist (Leiden, ),  n. , citing MS Oxford-Bodley Oppenheimer , fol. b. By no means is my treatment of Ibn Ruˇsd’s discourse on magnetism exhaustive; the reader of this paper kindly informs me that Ibn Ruˇsd has a long discussion of magnetism in the long commentary on the Physics, Comments VII. and VIII.. There is also a brief discussion in the middle commentary, book VII, chapter . 49

ARISTOTLE’S DE ANIMA AND DE GENERATIONE ET CORRUPTIONE IN THE MEDIEVAL HEBREW TRADITION: NEW DETAILS REGARDING TEXTUAL HISTORY COMING FROM A NEGLECTED MANUSCRIPT

Mauro Zonta In general, Aristotle’s writings were not translated into Hebrew. The most notable exception is Aristotle’s Meteorology that was translated into Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon.1 After that pioneering work, translators turned to Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries and the Jews studied Aristotle’s teachings almost exclusively from these commentaries.2 This paper draws attention to some other important exceptions to this rule, hitherto unknown, which deserve to be examined in detail. I had the opportunity to work with Gad Freudenthal recently in a study on the textual history of an ancient Greek scientific source, well-known during the Middle Ages: Nicomachus of Gerasa’s Introductio arithmetica. On that occasion, we examined part of the medieval Hebrew tradition of the work, and came to the conclusion that the text had probably been transmitted along two different paths: () via the lost original version of Hab¯ . ıb ibn Bahr¯ . ız’s translation from Syriac into Arabic, known and employed as a source by the Spanish Jewish philosopher Abraham bar Hiyya for his encyclopedia Yesodei ha-tevunah u-migdal ha-emunah . (ca. );3 () via a corrected and enlarged version of Hab¯ . ıb’s, written by al-Kind¯ı, which survived in a Hebrew translation by the Provençal

1

See R. Fontaine, Otot ha-Shamayim: Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Version of Aristotle’s Meteorology (Leiden, ). 2 See M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, ); M. Zonta, La filosofia antica nel Medioevo ebraico (Brescia, ). 3 Gad Freudenthal and M. Zonta, “Nicomachus of Gerasa in Spain, circa : Abraham bar Hiyya’s Testimony,” Aleph  /  (): –. See also M. Zonta and . Gad Freudenthal, “Remnants of Hab¯ . ıb Ibn Bahr¯ . ız’s Arabic Translation of Nicomachus of Gerasa’s Introduction to Arithmetic,” in Y.T. Langermann and J. Stern, eds, Adaptations and Innovations. Studies on the Interaction between Jewish and Islamic Thought and Literature from the Early Middle Ages to the Late Twentieth Century, Dedicated to Professor Joel L. Kraemer (Paris, Louvain and Dudley, MA, ): –.



mauro zonta

Jewish author Qalonymos ben Qalonymos ().4 In this short article, I will try to apply the same fruitful methods we used on that occasion to suggest some new details about the textual history of other two philosophical-scientific works well known among medieval Jewish philosophers and scholars: Aristotle’s De anima and De generatione et corruptione. These two works were translated into Hebrew in  by the Spanish ˇ Jewish author Zerahyah ben Yis. haq Hen (Gracian), while . . ben Se"alti"el . 5 Apparently, his translations are directly based upon the staying in Rome. Syriac-into-Arabic versions made by Ish¯ (d. ). Ish¯ . aq ibn Hunayn . . aq’s versions were themselves allegedly based upon the Greek-into-Syriac versions made by Ish¯ ibn Ish¯ . aq’s father, Hunayn . . aq. For reasons unknown, Ish¯ . aq was not able to complete his version of the De anima (he reached De an. a), so it was completed by #Is¯a ibn Zur#a (–).6 The original texts of both Ish¯ Syriac one are . aq’s Arabic version and Hunayn’s . missing. They survived indirectly, thanks to their Arabic-into-Latin and Arabic-into-Hebrew translations. The Arabic-into-Latin version of the De generatione et corruptione, made by Gerard of Cremona in ca. , is still unpublished7 whereas that of the De anima, included in the Latin translation of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary on Aristotle’s work, usually ascribed to Michael Scot, was published by F. Stuart Crawford in .8 Zerahyah’s Arabic-into-Hebrew versions of both texts were published in . critical editions: the De generatione et corruptione by Andrea Tessier in

4 About the latter, see Gad Freudenthal and T. Lévy, “De Gérase à Bagdad: Ibn Bahr¯ız, al-Kind¯ı, et leur recension arabe de l’Introduction arithmétique de Nicomaque, d’ après la version hébraïque de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles,” in R. Morelon and A. Hasnawi, eds, De Zénon d’ Elée à Poincaré. Recueil d’études en hommage à Roshdi Rashed (Louvain and Paris, ): –. 5 For a list of Zerahyah’s Arabic-into-Hebrew translations of philosophical and sci. entific works, see M. Zonta, Zerahyah ben Isaac Hen, Philosopher and Translator, and His . . Role in th-Century Rome, in Y. Lattes, ed, The Jews in Rome (forthcoming); it includes a revised version of a communication read at the International Colloquium The Jews in Rome (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, December th, –January rd, ). 6 See M. Zonta, “La tradizione medievale arabo-ebraica delle opere di Aristotele: stato della ricerca,” Elenchos  (): – (on pp. –). 7 A critical edition of the text was announced by Giuseppe Serra (University of Padua) more than thirty years ago but has yet to appear. The text is preserved in eight manuscripts; the best copy is preserved in the manuscript of Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, no.  (= F ), on fols. r–r. 8 F.S. Crawford, Averrois Cordubensis Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima Libros, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versionum Latinarum VI/ (Cambridge, MA, ).

de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition



,9 and the De anima by Gerrit Bos in .10 Both editions were based upon the textual comparison of two extant manuscripts: London, olim Jews’ College Library, no. , fols. r–r and r–r (copied by Ya#aqov ben Moˇseh Sarfati in San Severino Marche in ),11 and . Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, no.  (olim I. VI. ), fols. r–r and r–v (copied in Central or Northern Italy in the fifteenth century).12 Bos claimed that the former manuscript is a copy of the latter—a thesis which was only partly accepted by Tessier, who suggests that they may also derive directly from the same copy of the text.13 However, neither editor knew about the existence of a third manuscript of both versions: that of Jerusalem, Jewish National and University Library (now, National Library of Israel), °  (apparently copied in Italy in ca. –, as suggested by an examination of its watermarks). This manuscript, which I have consulted in the microfilm copy preserved by the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the library, shelfmark B , includes a number of Zerahyah’s Arabic-into-Hebrew translations of . philosophical works; in particular, fols. r–r and r–v include his versions of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione and De anima respectively. In the past, there had been a fourth copy of the latter translation: the manuscript of Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria, A. III. , fols. r–r (copied by Yonatan ben Avi#ezer Kohen of Ferrara in Rome in ).14 Unfortunately, this manuscript was destroyed by fire in , and no trace of it has ever been found. 9

A. Tessier, “La traduzione arabo-ebraica del De generatione et corruptione di Aristotele,” Atti dell’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, s. VIII, vol.  /  (): –. For details about the textual history of this translation, see in particular G. Serra, “Note sulla traduzione arabo-latina del De generatione et corruptione di Aristotele,” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana  (): –; idem, “Alcune osservazioni sulle traduzioni dall’ arabo in ebraico e in latino del De generatione et corruptione di Aristotele e dello pseudo-aristotelico Liber de causis,” in Scritti in onore di Carlo Diano (Bologna, ): –; A. Tessier, Verbum de verbo. Tradizione semitico-latina del “De generatione et corruptione” aristotelico (Roma, ). 10 G. Bos, Aristotle’s “De anima” translated into Hebrew by Zerahyah ben Isaac ben . Shealtiel Hen, Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus  (Leiden, ). . 11 See a short description of this manuscript in A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in Jews’ College, London (Oxford, ): –. 12 For a description of this manuscript, see G. Sacerdote, “Catalogo dei codici ebraici della Biblioteca Casanatense,” in Cataloghi dei codici orientali di alcune biblioteche d’ Italia, vol.  (Florence, ): – (on pp. –). See also G. Tamani and M. Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus. Versioni, commenti e compendi del Corpus Aristotelicum nei manoscritti ebraici delle biblioteche italiane (Venezia, ): . 13 See Zonta, “La tradizione medievale arabo-ebraica,” p.  and n. . 14 This manuscript is described in B. Peyron, Codices hebraici manu exarati Regiae



mauro zonta

The relationship between the Jerusalem manuscript and the other two (those of London and Rome) has not yet been examined in detail. Here below, this relationship will be studied on the basis of some significant variant readings of Zerahyah’s Latin-into-Hebrew translations . of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione and De anima, as found in the manuscript of Jerusalem, Jewish National and University Library, ° . Variant readings, possibly due to errors made by the copyist, e.g., a different transcription of a letter, are not usually considered here below; the words and the phrases which are found only in the manuscript of Jerusalem or in Bos’s and Tessier’s editions, and the corresponding terms in the Greek and Latin versions of the texts, are in bold type. Some abbreviations: A = passages of Aristotle as found in Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, Arabic-into-Latin translation usually ascribed to Michael Scot, edited by Crawford; Ar = Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione and De anima, Greek original texts, as edited by Marwan Rashed and Antonio Jannone respectively;15 Bos = Bos, Aristotle’s ‘De anima’; Crawford = Crawford, Averrois Cordubensis Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima; G = Gerard of Cremona’s Arabic-into-Latin translation of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione, as found in the manuscript of Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, no.  (F ), going back to the thirteenth century and including Liber Aristotilis in generatione et corruptione translatus a magistro Girardo Cremonensis in Tolleto, on fols. r, line –r, line  (book ), and fols. r, line –r, line  (book ).

A. Aristotle’s De Anima, Arabic Version by Ish¯ Completed by ‘Is¯a ibn Zur#a, . . aq ibn Hunayn, and Translated into Hebrew by Zerahyah Hen . . . Book I, Chapter  (Complete Analysis of the Text) .. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:

Bibliothecae quae in Taurinensi Athenaeo asservatur (Rome, Turin and Florence, ): –. 15 M. Rashed, Aristote, De la génération et la corruption (Paris, ); A. Jannone and E. Barbotin, Aristote, De l’ ame, nd edition (Paris, ).

de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition äðä



l, r, Bos] äðäå j = A Et etiam; cf. Ar κα.

.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: øúåé l, r, Bos] øúåé àåä j = A magis erit; cf. Ar χαλεπτερον γνεται; cf. also

the Latin text of Gerard of Cremona’s translation as found in the ms. of Madrid, Biblioteca del Palacio, VII.G.  (magis est).

Here, the Greek term γ νεται, literally “(it) becomes,” might have been translated into Arabic as  7, “(it) will be made, become,” and this Arabic term, as corrupted into  7, “(it) will be,” might have been translated into Latin as erit, “(it) will be” (in one ms., est, “[it] is”). The Hebrew term àåä, “it” in the sense of “it is,” might even have resulted from a comparison of the Latin. .. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: íéðéðòä ìëá ãçàå ãçà ìëá l, r, Bos] íéðéðòä ïî unaquaque rerum ≠ Ar κα τις λλη μοδος.

ãçàå ãçà ìëá

j = A in

.. Folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: ú÷ìçúî éúìá àéä åà

l, r, Bos] ú÷ìçúî éúìá åà j = A aut non; cf. Ar  ο.

.. Folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , lines – Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: íòáèá íéðúùî l, r, Bos] íúö÷á íúö÷ íòáèá íéðúùî j = A differunt abinvicem

secundum naturam; cf. Ar πφυκεν τερα λλλων.

.. Folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: äùâøää ìò

l, r, Bos]

ασνεσαι.

äùâøää ìò åà

j = A aut de sentire; cf. Ar κα τ

The Greek term κα, “and,” was probably translated into Arabic as -, “and,” but the latter might have been altered into  , “or.” This fact might explain both the Latin version (aut, “or”) and the Hebrew one (åà, “or”). .. Folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford: éø÷î ìò ãåîòì

l, r, Bos] éø÷î úåáñ ìò ãåîòì j = A in sciendo causas accidentium; cf. Ar πρς τ εωρ σαι τς ατας τ!ν συμβεβηκ#των.



mauro zonta

.. Folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , lines – Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: ùìåùîä úåéåæ äòéãéá Bos = A in cognoscendo angulos trianguli; cf. úòéãéá ùìåùîä úåéåæ j (corrected in the ms.); cf. Ar πρς τ κατιδε$ν . . . α% το& τριγνου γωναι] ùìåùîä ïî äæéàå äòéãéá j (before correction), l, r.

.. Folio v, line  (a); cf. page , lines – Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford: úåì÷á øáã íåù íäá ùâøåé àìå

l, r, Bos] úåì÷á íðéðòî øáã íåù íäá ùâøåé àìå j = A neque intelligitur aliquid ex eis facile; cf. Ar 'λλ( μηδ’εκσαι περ ατν ε)μαρς.

Both the Latin version (ex, “from”) and the Hebrew one (ïî, “from”) of the Greek term περ , “about,” might come from a common different interpretation of the Arabic version of this term as >, which means not only “about,” but also “from.” .. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: çëì åà

l, r, Bos] åðîî çëì åà j = A aut alicuius virtutis eius ≠ Ar *π το&δε

+νεκα το&δε.

.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: éøáãä ïë øãâéù äîì

l, r, Bos] éøáãä åá øãâéù äîì j = A ab eo quo diffinit Sermocinalis ≠ Ar διαφερ#ντως . . . , διαλεκτικς.

In the two cases mentioned above, the Latin and the Hebrew versions are very similar, but are clearly different from the Greek text. This fact might come from the lost Arabic version, but can also be explained as the result of Zerahyah’s comparison of that version with the Latin text. . .. Folio r, lines – (b–); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford: ïéðòäå l, r, Bos] ïéðòäå äøåöä ïúé éøáãäå øîåçä ïúé éòáèäå j = A Naturalis igitur dat materiam, Sermocinalis autem dat formam et intentionem; cf. Ar τοτων δ  μν τν λην ποδδωσιν,  δ τ ε!δος κα τν λ#γον.

The presence of the terms “physicist” and “dialectician,” both of which are absent in the Greek text, suggests that either both of them were introduced by the Arabic translator, or they result from a correction which was first introduced by the Latin translator, and was then adopted by Zerahyah. .

de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition



.. Folio r, line  (b); cf. page , lines – Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: éòáèä àìà ãçà äåù åðéà l, r, Bos] éòáèä àìà ãçà íåù åðéà j = A nullus est nisi Naturalis ≠ Ar 'λλ’, φυσικς.

The words “it is nothing but,” which are found both in the Latin version (nullus est nisi) and in the Hebrew one (àìà ãçà íåù åðéà), are not found in the Greek text. They probably come from the Arabic version, which might have been as follows: ?-M/ , @A  “it is nothing but the physicist.” In this case too, it cannot be ascertained whether Zerahyah directly . employed the Arabic text, or referred also to the Latin one. . Other Relevant Cases .. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: úåãåñéä ïî åà ãåñé Bos = A elementum aut ex elementis; cf. úåãåñéä ïî åà úåãåñé j, and Ar στοιχε$ον " -κ τ!ν στοιχεων] úåãåñéä ïî úåãåñé l, r.

.. Book I, chapter , folio r, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: ãáì åìà àì íä ìáà Bos = A Sed ista non sunt tantum hic; cf. íä íéðéðòä ïéàå ãáì åìà j, and Ar οκ .στι δ μ#να τα#τα] ãáì åìà íä l, r.

Here too, the Hebrew term íéðéðòä, literally “the things,” might result either from an alteration of the Arabic original wording (@, “these ones”  @B, “things”), or even from an interpretative version of the Latin term ista (a neuter plural of iste, “this”) as “the(se) things.” .. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. pages –, lines – Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford: íìëî åà ãçà ãåñéî åà ãåñé íäù åà íéàöîðä ìëù ïåéë l, íìëî åà ãçà ãåñéî åà äáøä úåãåñéî åà ãåñé íä åà j =

r, Bos] íéðéðòä ìëù ïåéë A cum omnia sint aut elementum aut ex elemento uno aut pluribus aut omnibus; cf. Ar -πειδ/ π$ν  στοιχε$ον  -κ στοιχεου 0νς " πλει%νων  πντων.

.. Book II, chapter , folio r, line  (a–); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: çë àöîé éë Bos; çë åì àöîé j; cf. A existit enim in eis potentia, but cf. also Ar φανεται γ(ρ &ν 'αυτο)ς .χοντα δ1ναμιν] çë àöîé l, r.



mauro zonta

Both the Latin and the Hebrew version seem to have translated the same Greek term, -ν α*το$ς, “in themselves” (according to the variant reading found in almost all the Greek manuscripts), in an altered form: -ν α)το$ς, “in them.” As above, the origin of the different renderings of this term is not clear: the Hebrew reading åì, “to it,” might come either from an incorrect reading of the Arabic word !C, “in them,”, as D/, “to it,” or even from a corruption of the Latin reading in eis, “in them,” as ei, “to it.” .. Book II, chapter , folio r, lines – (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: òðåî øáã íù äéäé íàå Bos; íòðîéù òéðåî íù äéäé íàå j; cf. A Et si illic sit aliquid prohibens and Ar ε δ’.σται] om. l, r.

In this case, one might suppose that the differences between the Hebrew and the Latin text are due to variant readings found in the Arabic version (but which are totally absent in the Greek one). The Arabic text read by the Latin translator probably ended as follows: 1 , “something forbidding”; that read by Zerahyah might have been as follows: E- 1, . “forbidding (what) forbids them.” .. Book II, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: íéø÷îá åà åà l, r.

Bos; íéø÷îä åà j = A et accidentia, and Ar  τ συμβεβηκ%τα]

.. Book II, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: äø÷

Bos = A accidit, and Ar συμββηκε] áçø r, j; áåø÷ l.

.. Book II, chapter , folio v, lines – (b); cf. page , lines – Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: øáãá ãéîú äéäé ìòåôá ìå÷äå Bos; øáãá ãéîú äéäéù åà ìòåôá ìå÷äå j; cf. A Et sonus in actu semper fit per aliquid and Ar γνεται δ’, κατ’&ν+ργειαν ψ#φος 3ε τινος] øáãá ãéîú äéäéù åà ìå÷äå l, r.

.. Book II, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford: éë

Bos, j = A enim and Ar γ(ρ] om. l, r.

.. Book III, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford:

de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition



äòåðúä ãçà ãö ïî äðáää åà

Bos; äòåðúäî ïéî äðáää åà j; cf. A aut intellectus aliquo modo motus, and Ar ,δ κινε)] äòåðúä ïî äðáää åà l, r.

The above phrase found both in the Latin and the Hebrew texts, and written in bold type, might have been incorrectly interpreted by Zerahyah. . He seems to have read the Latin sentence intellectus aliquo modo motus, “the intellect moved in some way,” as follows: “the intellect in some way of movement”; then, he rendered this reading into Hebrew as ïéî äðáää äòåðúäî, “the intellect as a species of movement.” Such an erroneous reading seems to have no explanation in Arabic, so that it can prove the fact that, in some points at least, Zerahyah consulted the Latin version too. . B. Aristotle’s De Generatione et Corruptione, Arabic Version by Ish¯ Translated into Hebrew by . . aq Ibn Hunayn, Zerahyah Hen (Possibly Through a Partial Comparison of . . the Arabic-into-Latin Translation by Gerard of Cremona) . Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, lines –): íéìãáää åìà äîîåøúðùëå Tessier] íéìãáää åì äàéáä äîî åøúðùëå l, r; åøúðùëå íéìãáää åìà äàéáä äîî j; cf. G quando ergo removeantur 16 istae differen-

tiae, and Ar φαιρουμ+νων ο.ν τοτων τ!ν διαφορ!ν.

. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folios r, line –v, line ): øãòää ìà áåø÷ øúåé íìãáä Tessier = j; cf. G cuius differentiae sunt propinquiores ad privationem, and Ar μ4λλον α% διαφορα . . . στ+ρησιν] íìãáä äøåö ìà áåø÷ øúåé l, r.

. Book I, chapter , folio r, line  (a–); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, lines –): øîåîä àöîð åðà éë

Tessier = j; cf. G nos enim invenimus alteratum, and Ar

φανεται γ(ρ τ μν λλοιομενον] øîåçä àöîð åðà éë l, r.

. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, line ): êøãî äæù

16

Tessier = j; cf. G ex via ≠ Ar τα1τη. ] êøãî äæù êøãî äæù l, r.

In the ms.: romoveantur.



mauro zonta

. Book I, chapter , folio r, lines – (a); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, line ): *** Tessier; ïîãæðù ÷ìç äæ éà ãö ìà j; cf. G ad latus cuiuscumque partis contingat, and Ar παρ’,τιο&ν ε6ναι μ#ριον] om. l, r.

. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, line ): øçàì äîåã j;

cf. G similium partium ≠ Ar μρος] øçàì l, r, Tessier.17

Here, the term “similar” found both in the Latin (similium) and in the Hebrew text (äîåã) probably comes from a variant reading of the Greek term μρος, “part,” as ,μοιομερς, “having similar parts.” . Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio v, line ): éååéùä Tessier

= j; cf. G aequalitatis, and Ar σζη] éåðéùä l, r.

From the above philological study of some selected passages, the following conclusions can be suggested. First, the Jerusalem manuscript was certainly not copied from any of the other two, since it includes some correct words or even passages which are not found in them. The corresponding Latin terms of those words are found in the Latin translations ascribed to Michael Scot and Gerard of Cremona; their correctness is proved by a comparison with the original Greek text of both of Aristotle’s works. Second, the possibility that the London manuscript was copied from the Jerusalem manuscript can be excluded since the latter shares with the Rome manuscript an evident “polar error”—i.e. an error consisting in transcribing the opposite of the original word—which is not found in the former (see above, A..).18 This might confirm the hypothesis that the three manuscripts do not depend upon one another.

17

But cf. page , line  Tessier: similis alterius. Since a “polar error” cannot be regarded as a real “conjunctive error,” it seems to have no value as “conjunctive-separative error” either. Therefore, it cannot be used to prove that two manuscripts (in this case, Jerusalem and Rome) were copied from the same archetype, different from that of another manuscript (in this case, London). About this, see D’ A.S. Avalle, Principi di critica testuale (Padova, ): –. 18

de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition  Third, the three extant manuscripts of the Arabic-into-Hebrew version of the De anima might depend on its lost copy, once found in the Turin manuscript, since they share a number of errors which are not found in the Latin version (see e.g. above, A..).19 These passages were very probably found in the Arabic version employed by Zerahyah; some of . them at least might also have been found in the original text of Zerahyah’s . translation, and might have been lost when the Turin manuscript was copied. Finally, one cannot completely dismiss the possibility that both Latin versions—i.e., that of the De anima ascribed to Michael Scot, and that of the De generatione et corruptione by Gerard of Cremona—were occasionally consulted by Zerahyah in preparing his own versions of Aristotle’s . works.20 From the above tentative conclusions, one is led to think that a complete examination of the text of the Jerusalem manuscript would be very useful for a probably better reconstruction of the original text of Zerahyah’s Arabic-into-Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s De generatione . et corruptione and De anima. Therefore, the valuable critical editions of both texts by Tessier and Bos should be revised, through the comparison with the Jerusalem manuscript.

19

About some of these errors, see Bos, Aristotle’s “De Anima”, pp. –. As for the De anima, see above, A.., A..–, A.., A.., and A... As for the De generatione et corruptione, this hypothesis was first suggested, on the basis of some examples, in M. Zonta, “Le traduzioni di Zerahyah Gracian e la versione ebraica del De . generatione et corruptione,” in C. D’ Ancona and G. Serra, eds, Aristotele e Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba (Padova, ): –. 20

LA MESURE DU CERCLE D’ ARCHIMÈDE AU MOYEN AGE : LE TÉMOIGNAGE DES TEXTES HÉBREUX*

Tony Lévy Pour Gad, en témoignage de mon amitié et de mon estime.

L’ examen méthodique des textes d’ Archimède disponibles en hébreu n’ a pas encore été réalisé ; il conviendrait d’ y d’ adjoindre les textes ou fragments de textes s’ inscrivant dans la tradition mathématique archimédienne.1 L’ intérêt de cette recherche doit être rappelé : prendre la mesure exacte des savoirs mathématiques accessibles en hébreu dans le monde juif médiéval ; analyser leurs sources (arabes, pour une très large part) ; évaluer, autant que faire se peut, la portée et la limite de leur diffusion ; décrire les caractères spécifiques du lexique scientifique hébraïque qui s’ élabore entre XIIe et XVIe siècles. Je propose ici l’ édition et la traduction française, commentée, de deux recensions hébraïques, anonymes, de La mesure du cercle. La première est la traduction d’ une version arabe du texte d’ Archimède. Signalée depuis plus d’ un siècle par Moritz Steinschneider,2 cette version hébraïque nous est connue par un seul manuscrit,3 lequel comprend les deux premières propositions et une partie de l’ énoncé de la troisième. Je désignerai cette version par le sigle HA. * Bernard Vitrac (CNRS, Paris) a lu une première version de cet article et m’ a adressé plusieurs remarques éclairantes. Il a mis à ma disposition ses travaux, et son savoir, sur Théon d’ Alexandrie et Archimède. Je l’ en remercie vivement. 1 T. Lévy, « The Establishment of the Mathematical Bookshelf of the Medieval Hebrew Scholar : Translations and Translators », Science in Context  () : –, voir p. . 2 M. Steinschneider, Die Hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters (Berlin,  ; réimp., Graz, ) :  ; idem, Mathematik bei den Juden (– ; réimp., Hildesheim, ) : –. 3 Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Ebr. , fol. a–b. B. Richler, ed., Hebrew manuscripts in the Vatican Library. Catalogue compiled by the Staff of the IMHM, JNUL, Jerusalem (Città del Vaticano, ) : . Le texte de la proposition  a été publié, il y a quelques années, dans G.B. Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology in Hebrew Scientific Literature of the Middle Ages (hébreu) (Jérusalem, ) : § . Le fac-simile de l’ unique manuscrit est reproduit dans l’ ouvrage



tony lévy

La deuxième recension hébraïque est inédite : je l’ ai identifiée dans un recueil de commentaires mathématiques et astronomiques, dont on connaît deux copies manuscrites.4 Elle comporte l’ énoncé et la démonstration de la seule proposition .5 Le nom d’ Archimède n’ y est pas mentionné. Anonyme aussi, cette deuxième recension est différente de la version précédemment citée : dans la mise en forme de la preuve, le style, la terminologie et le lettrage. Il apparaît que cette recension est issue d’ un texte (arabe) clairement distinct du texte (arabe) dont dérive l’ autre version. Je désignerai cette deuxième recension par le sigle HB. HA dérive—à quelques variantes près, qui ne sont pas sans intérêt— de la version arabe, anonyme, de La mesure du cercle transmise par le manuscrit arabe F¯atih. (Istanbul) .6 C’ est manifestement la même source arabe qui a servi à la traduction latine, attribuable, selon Marshall Clagett, à Gérard de Crémone (XIIe siècle).7 L’ autre version latine, que Clagett considère comme la plus ancienne et qu’ il suggère d’ attribuer à Platon de Tivoli (XIIe siècle),8 s’ écarte par plusieurs aspects du texte

de W. Knorr, dans la partie consacrée à la tradition médiévale du texte archimédien : Textual Studies in Ancient and Medieval Geometry (Boston, ) : –. 4 ) Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Heb. , fol. a–a ; le codex est décrit dans : M. Steinschneider, Verzeichnis der Hebräischen Handschriften der K. Bibliothek zu Berlin (Berlin, –) : . Abt., pp. –. ) Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS Levy , fols. a–a ; le codex est décrit dans : E. Roth et H. Striedl, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Band VI,  : Hebräische Handschriften ; Die Handschriften der Sammlung H.B. Levy an der Staats- und Universität Bibliothek Hamburg (Wiesbaden, ) : nº , pp. –. 5 Il ne s’ agit pas d’ un texte incomplet : en effet, la proposition  du texte archimédien est suivi immédiatement, dans le recueil, par l’ énoncé et la démonstration de la propriété isopérimétrique du cercle (sous la forme : « tout cercle dont le périmètre est égal à celui d’ un polygone régulier a une aire plus grande que celle du polygone », laquelle fait usage du résultat établi précédemment), puis, de la propriété isépiphanique de la sphère, ˘ abir ibn Aflah. et formulée ainsi : « toute sphère a un volume plus empruntée cette fois à G¯ grand que le volume de tout polyèdre régulier dont la surface est égale à celle de ladite sphère ». 6 Pour une liste de manuscrits, voir F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schriftums, Band V (Leyden, ) : – et Nachtrag, p. . En l’ absence d’ une édition critique du texte arabe, je me réfère au seul texte transmis par le manuscrit d’ Istanbul ; il est reproduit en fac-simile dans Knorr, Textual Studies, pp. –. 7 M. Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, vol.  : The Arabo-Latin Tradition (Madison, ) : – ; p.  : « . . . we must first examine the evidence that links it [the translation] with Gerard of Cremona ». 8 Ibid., pp. –, p.  : « It is possible that this translation was made by Plato of Tivoli (. . . ). Plato’ s translations can be dated between  and  ».

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



arabe connu ; elle retiendra mon attention, car elle recoupe certaines leçons de HA. Dans la première section, j’ étudie HA en présentant : l’ édition du texte hébreu, précédé de sa traduction française, et un commentaire qui privilégie la comparaison avec les sources arabe et latines.9 Particulièrement intéressantes sont les variantes de HA par rapport au texte arabe (AF, pour reprendre le sigle adopté par Knorr) lorsqu’ elles recoupent les leçons de la version latine attribuée à Gérard (LP = Latin/Platon, et LG = Latin/Gérard). Dans la mesure où j’ estime HA et LG indépendantes, nous disposons ainsi d’ indications sur une source arabe commune, quelque peu différente de la copie représentée par AF. L’ histoire de la traduction, en arabe, du texte d’ Archimède n’ est pas encore parfaitement claire. L’ existence de deux versions arabes différentes—l’ une d’ entre elles ayant été réalisée dans la première moitié du IXe siècle—n’ est pas exclue.10 L’ étude de HA est susceptible d’ éclairer l’ histoire du texte arabe. Dans la deuxième section, je présente le texte hébreu de HB, collationné sur les deux manuscrits connus, précédé de sa traduction française, et un commentaire analysant les principales différences entre HA et HB.11 9

J’ ai fait mon profit de l’ inventaire des variantes textuelles dressé par Knorr, qui a examiné, en regard du texte arabe, les deux versions latines et la version hébraïque (Textual Studies, pp. –, pour Prop. , et pp. –, pour Prop. –). 10 R. Rashed, « Archimède dans les mathématiques arabes », in idem, Optique et mathématiques. Recherches sur l’ histoire de la pensée scientifique arabe, Variorum  (London, ) : IX, voir p. . Idem, « Al-Kind¯ı’ s Commentary on Archimedes’ The Measurement of the Circle », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  () : –, voir p. . Idem, « Le commentaire d’ Al-Kind¯ı de La mesure du cercle d’ Archimède », Oriens—Occidens  () : –, voir p. . 11 Rappelons le principe de la démonstration d’ Archimède. Pour établir l’ égalité entre l’ aire du cercle (S) et celle du triangle rectangle dont les côtés de l’ angle droit ont pour longueurs respectives celle du rayon du cercle (ou plutôt le demi-diamètre, 1/2 d) et celle de sa circonférence (p), soit S = (1/2 p)(1/2 d), on établit l’ impossibilité des deux inégalités S ‹ (1/2 p)(1/2 d), et S › (1/2 p)(1/2 d). Le cœur de la démonstration repose sur la mise en œuvre de la proposition X,  des Eléments d’ Euclide : en retranchant d’ une grandeur donnée plus de sa moitié, et en répétant l’ opération sur le reste, on « finit » par obtenir un reste plus petit qu’ une grandeur, quelle qu’ elle soit, qu’ on aura choisie. Cette procédure « infinitésimale » a suscité au fil des époques interrogations et commentaires, qui sont autant d’ indices de la perception qu’ on avait du statut mathématique et philosophique de ladite procédure. Pour faciliter la lecture et les références, j’ ai découpé les textes en sections plus ou moins brèves.



tony lévy

Cette analyse me conduit à conclure que le texte hébreu HB adapte ou traduit un texte arabe, qui pourrait avoir quelque lien avec le commentaire de Théon d’ Alexandrie (IVe siècle) sur le premier Livre de l’Almageste. Le commentaire de Théon fut connu en arabe ;12 il comporte une démonstration de la première proposition de La mesure du cercle, explicitement référée à Archimède, bien qu’ elle soit différente, par plusieurs traits, du texte grec d’ Archimède tel qu’ il nous est parvenu et a été édité par Johan Ludvig Heiberg.13 Dans la troisième section, m’ interrogeant sur l’ identité des traducteurs, j’ analyse les caractéristiques linguistiques des deux versions. S’ agissant du traducteur de HA, il convient d’ exclure le nom de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles (début du XIVe siècle), suggéré en son temps par Steinschneider. Le rédacteur de HA semble ignorer la langue des traducteurs des Eléments d’ Euclide (XIIIe siècle), aussi bien que celle du traducteur de La Sphère et le cylindre d’ Archimède (justement, Qalonymos ben Qalonymos). Son lexique est proche de celui d’ Abraham bar Hiyya (XIe–XIIe siècle), lequel fut en relation avec Platon de Tivoli, à Bar. celone, dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle.

12

Il a été établi, par F. Rosenthal, que le texte de Théon constitue une source essentielle de l’ ouvrage d’ al-Kind¯ı, Le grand art / F¯ı al-s. in¯a #ah al-#uz. m¯a, qui se présente comme un commentaire de l’Almageste I, –. Mieux, certains passages du texte d’ al-Kind¯ı reproduisent presque littéralement celui de Théon. F. Rosenthal, « Al-Kind¯ı and Ptolemy », in R. Ciasca, ed., Studi Orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi della Vida (Rome, ) :  : –, voir p.  : « It [al-Kindi’ s text] is a rather slight elaboration not directly of the text of Ptolemy but of remarks made by Theon of Alexandria in his Commentary on the Almagest . . .. Ptolemy’ s original ideas are often given precedence, but on the whole, Theon’ s text is faithfully followed. » Je reviens plus loin sur les références d’ al-Kind¯ı, dans son Grand art, à La mesure du cercle d’ Archimède. R. Rashed les a mentionnées, dans son examen du commentaire d’ al-Kind¯ı sur la proposition  de La mesure du cercle. Voir Rashed, « Al-Kind¯ı’ s Commentary on Archimedes », p.  ; idem, « Le commentaire d’ Al-Kind¯ı de La mesure du cercle d’ Archimède », p. . 13 Cette situation a suscité débats et recherches au sein des historiens des mathématiques grecques. On consultera à cet égard, Knorr, Textual Studies, Part III, ch. –, ainsi que l’ étude consacrée à ces questions par B. Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et La mesure du cercle », Oriens-Occidens  () : –.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



I. Une première version hébraïque, anonyme, de La mesure du cercle (HA)14 [] // a // Le livre d’ Archimède sur la mesure [meˇsihat] du cercle. . Prop.  [] Tout cercle est égal au triangle à angle droit dont l’ un de ses côtés contenant l’ angle droit est égal à la moitié du diamètre du cercle, et l’ autre côté est égal à la ligne contenant le cercle. Q G

B

Z

A

F T

F

N

B

N

S

A

D O

E

[] Comment ? Posons le cercle ABGD et le triangle E, comme nous l’ avons dit dans l’ énoncé. Je dis que son aire [celle du cercle] est égale à son aire [celle du triangle]. [] S’ il n’ en était pas ainsi, le cercle serait plus grand ou plus petit que le triangle. [] Et posons-le d’ abord plus grand que lui. Et faisons dans le cercle le dans le cercle ABGD plus de sa carré ABGD. On a ainsi découpé [nehtakh] . 14 Les passages soulignés correspondent aux variantes de HA par rapport au texte arabe (AF) et aux textes latins (LG, LP), lorsqu’ elles appellent une remarque particulière ; celle-ci figure alors dans le commentaire. Les parenthèses angulaires encadrent un mot ou une expression qu’ il m’ a paru utile d’ ajouter. Les crochets droits encadrent une explication ou la translittération d’ un terme hébreu. S’ agissant de l’ édition du texte hébreu, comme il n’ existe qu’ un seul manuscrit, les interventions éditoriales sont signalées ainsi : les parenthèses ( ) signalent une suppression, les crochets droits [ ] un ajout.



tony lévy

moitié, et c’ est le carré ABGD. Et découpons l’ arc AB et ses homologues [haveroteha] d’ entre les arcs en moitiés au point F et autres points. Et . joignons BF FA et ses homologues. De cette manière, les segments ‹ restants › du cercle ABGD auront donc été découpés [yehatkhu] sur plus . de leur moitié, et c’ est le triangle ABF et ses homologues. [] Et si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois, alors nécessairement il restera des segments ‹ de cercle › plus petits que l’ excès du cercle sur le triangle E, et la surface rectiligne polygonale que contient le cercle est plus grande que le triangle E. [] Et posons le centre du cercle, N ; et menons la perpendiculaire NS. La ligne NS est alors plus petite que l’ un des côtés du triangle contenant l’ angle droit ; et le contour de la surface polygonale est plus petit que le deuxième côté du triangle E, étant plus petit que la ligne contenant le cercle. [] Ainsi, le produit de l’ un des côtés du triangle contenant l’ angle droit par l’ autre, et c’ est le double de l’ aire du triangle, est plus grand que le résultat du produit de NS par le contour du polygone, qui est le double ‹ de l’ aire › du polygone, [] ‹ et il en est de même des moitiés ›. Le triangle est donc plus grand que le polygone ; et il était déjà plus petit que lui ; et cela est faux. [] Et posons encore le cercle plus petit que le triangle E, si cela est possible. [] Et traçons sur lui un carré qui le contienne, et c’ est le carré OQ. On a ainsi découpé dans le carré OQ plus de sa moitié, et c’ est le cercle. Et découpons l’ arc BA en moitiés en F, et ses homologues d’ entre les arcs ‹ en deux moitiés › ; et que les lignes passant par les points des sections, comme la ligne ZT, soient tangentes au cercle. La ligne ZT est donc divisée en moitiés en F, et la ligne QF est perpendiculaire à ZT ; il en est de même pour ses homologues d’ entre les lignes. [] Et comme QT QZ ‹ pris ensemble › sont plus grands que ZT, leur moitié sera plus grande que sa moitié ; la ligne QT est donc plus grande que TF, qui est égale à TB. Le triangle QFT est donc plus grand que la moitié du triangle QFB ; et il s’ ensuit qu’ il est bien plus grand que la moitié de la figure QFB contenue par les lignes QF QB et l’ arc BF. Et de même, le triangle FQZ sera plus grand que la moitié de la figure QFA.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



[] Ainsi // b // TQZ dans son ensemble est plus grand que la moitié de la figure AFBQ, qui est contenue par AQ QB et l’ arc AFB. Et de même, ses homologues d’ entre les triangles seront plus grands que les moitiés des autres segments ( !) ‹ homologues ›. [] Ainsi, si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois, alors nécessairement il restera des segments au-dessus du cercle, dont la réunion sera plus petite que l’ excès du triangle E sur le cercle ABGD. [] Que restent le segment FZA et ses homologues. La figure rectiligne contenant le cercle est donc plus petite que le triangle E. Cela est faux et impossible, car elle est plus grande que lui, du fait que FN est égal à un côté du triangle et que le contour de la surface polygonale est plus grand que l’ autre côté du triangle entourant l’ angle droit, étant plus grand que le contour du cercle. Et le produit de FN par le contour de la surface est plus grand que le produit de l’ un des côtés du triangle entourant l’ angle droit par l’ autre. Le cercle n’ est donc pas plus petit que le triangle E. [] Et il n’ est pas plus grand que lui. Il est donc égal à lui. [] Et aussi : comme l’ aire [meˇsihat] . du triangle E est égale au produit de sa hauteur par la moitié de sa base, et que sa hauteur est égale à la moitié du diamètre du cercle ABGD, et que sa base est égale au contour du cercle ABGD, alors le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié du contour du cercle ABGD est égal à l’ aire du triangle E. [] Et pour cette raison, le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié d’ une section de la ligne contenant ‹ le cercle › sera l’ aire [tiˇsboret] de la figure qui est contenue par ladite section et les deux lignes allant des extrémités de la section jusqu’ au centre. Prop.  [] Le rapport [#erekh] de l’ aire [tiˇsboret] de tout cercle au carré de son diamètre est comme le rapport de onze à quatorze. [] Comment ? Posons la ligne AB comme diamètre du cercle et faisons sur lui [le cercle] le carré GH qui le [le cercle] contienne, et c’ est le carré sur le diamètre, et prolongeons GD en ligne droite ; que DG soit la moitié de DE et EZ le septième de GD.



tony lévy H

A

G

B

D

E Z

[] Puisque le rapport du triangle AGE au triangle AGD est comme le rapport de  à , et que le rapport de AGD à AEZ est comme le rapport de  à , alors le rapport du triangle AGZ au triangle AGD est comme le rapport de  à . [] Mais le carré GH est quatre fois comme15 le triangle AGD, et le triangle AGZ est égal au cercle AB car la hauteur AG est égale à la moitié du diamètre, [] et la base GZ est égale à la ligne qui le contient, car la ligne contenant le cercle est plus grande que trois fois son diamètre d’ un septième du diamètre, à peu près. [] Donc ‹ il est établi à partir de ce que nous avons dit que › le rapport du cercle AB au carré est comme le rapport de  à  ‹ et c’ est ce que nous voulions montrer ›. Prop.  [] Toute ligne contenant un cercle excède trois fois son diamètre de moins qu’ un septième du diamètre . . .

15 Dans le texte : k.m.w.t. (úåîë), qu’ il convient de lire kemot, « comme ». Lisant sans doute le mot kammut, « quantité », W. Knorr traduit ainsi : « the quantity of triangle AGD » (Textual Studies, p. ), ce qui n’ a guère de sens.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Ebr. , fol. a–b äìåâòä úçéùîá ñãéîùøà øôñ //à//

[]

[] äáöðä úéåæá ïéôé÷îä åéòìöî úçà øùà úåéåæä áöð ùìùîì äåù àéä äìåâò ìë

[] .äìåâòá óé÷îä å÷ì äåù øçàä òìöäå ,äìåâòä øè÷ éöçì äåù .øåôéñá åðøîàù åîë ,ä ùìùîå ãâáà úìåâò íéùð ?ãöéë [] .åúçéùîì äåù äúçéùîù øîåà .ùìùîäî äðè÷ åà äìåãâ äìåâòä äéäú ,ïë åðéà íàå []

.ãâáà òáåøî äìåâòá äùòðå ,åðîî äìåãâ äìçú äîéùðå [] áà úù÷ êåúçðå .ãâáà òáøî àåäå ,äéöçî øúåé ãâáà úìåâòî êåúçð ïë íà .åéøáçå àô ôá ÷éáãðå ,úåãå÷ð øàùå ô úã÷ð ìò ïéàöçì úåúù÷ä ïî äéúåøáçå àåäå ,äéàöç ìò øúåéá úåøàùðä ãâáà úìåâò úåëéúç äæá åëúçé ïë íà .åéøáçå ôáà ùìùî ùìùî ìò äìåâòä øúåîî úåðè÷ úåëéúç åøàùé çøëäá ,úåáø íéîòô äæ äùòðùëå []

.ä ùìùîî ìåãâ äìåâòä åá óé÷ú øùà úåéåæä äáåøîä íéå÷ä øùéä çèùäå .ä ùìåùîä éòìöî úçàî ïè÷ ñð å÷ ïë íà .ñð ãåîò àéöåðå ,ð äìåâòä æëøî íéùðå [] ,ä ùìùîî éðùä òìöä ïî ïè÷ úåéåæä äáåøîä çèùä óé÷îå ,úáöðä úéåæá ïéôé÷îä .äìåâòá óé÷îä å÷ä ïî ïè÷ àåäù éôì ìôë àåäå ,øçàá úáöðä úéåæá ïéôé÷îä ùìùîä éòìöî ãçà éåáéø ,ïë íà ìôë àåäå ,úåéåæä äáåøîä óé÷îá

[]

ñð éåáéøî õá÷ðä ïî ìåãâ ,ùìùîä úøåáùú

.úåéåæä äáåøîä úøåáùú .ø÷ù äæå ,ïè÷ äéä øáëå úåéåæä äáåøîä ïî ìåãâ ùìåùîä ,ïë íà [] .øùôà íà ,ä ùìùîî äðè÷ äìåâòä ãåò íéùðå [] .÷ò òáøî àåäå ,äá óé÷î òáøî äéìò íåùøðå [] ìò íéàöçì àá úù÷ êåúçðå ,äìåâòä àéäå åéöçî øúåé ÷ò òáøîî êúçð ,ïë íà íéòâåð åéäé èæ å÷ë úå÷åìçä úåãå÷ðá íéøáåòä íéå÷äå ,úåúù÷ä ïî äéúåøéáçå ô .äìåâòì .íéå÷ä ïî åéøéáç ïëå ,èæ ìò ãåîò ô÷ å÷å ,ô ìò íéàöçì ÷ìçð èæ ,ïë íà è÷ ïë íà .åúéöçîî ìåãâ íúéöçî äéäé ,èæ ïî íéìåãâ æ÷ è÷ù éôìå [] .áèì äåùä ôè (ú)éöçî ìåãâ ãåò äéäéù äæî áééçúéå .áô÷ ùìùî éöçî ìåãâ èô÷ ùìùî ïë íà éöçî ìåãâ æ÷ô ùìùî äéäé ïëå .ôá úù÷å á÷ ô÷ éå÷ åá åôé÷é øùà ,áô÷ úéðáú .àô÷ úéðáú ïî ìåãâ



tony lévy

(éöçî ìåãâ æ÷è ìë ïë íà àô÷ úéðáú) éöçî ìåãâ æ÷è //á// ìë ,ïë íà [] íéìåãâ íéùìùîä ïî åéøéáç åéäé ïëå ,áôà úù÷å á÷ ÷à åá åôé÷é øùà ÷áôà úéðáú .úåøçàä úåëéúçä éàöçî íöåáé÷ù äìåâòä ìò úåëéúç åøàùé çøëäá úåáø íéîòô äæ äùòðùë ,ïë íà

[] .ãâáà úìåâò ìò ä ùìùî øúåîî ïè÷

óé÷îå ,ùìùîä

.äéúåøéáçå àæô úëéúç åøàùéå [] .ä ùìùîî ïè÷ äìåâòá óé÷îä íéå÷ä øùéä úéðáúä ïë íà òìöì äåù ðôù éôì äæå .åðîî ìåãâ àåäù éðôî ,øùôà éà ø÷ù äæå

ìåãâ àåä éë ,äáöðä úéåæá óé÷îä øçàä ùìùîä òìöî ìåãâ úåéåæä äáåøîä çèùä ïéôé÷îä ùìùîä éòìöî ãçà éåáøî ìåãâ çèùä óé÷îá

ðô éåáøå .äìåâòä óé÷î ïî

.øçàá äáöðá .ä ùìùîî äðè÷ äìåâòä ïéà ,ïë íà .åðîî äìåãâ àìå [] .åì äåù àéä ,ïë íà ä ùìùî úçéùî éë ãåòå [] .ãâáà úìåâò óé÷îì äåù åúáùåúå ,ãâáà úìåâò øè÷ .ä ùìùî úøåáùúì äåù ãâáà úìåâòá óé÷îä éöçá øè÷ä éöç éåáéø ,ïë íà

éöçì äåù åãåîòå ,åúáùåú éöçá åãåîò éåáéøì äåù

úéðáúä úøåáùú ,óé÷îä å÷ä ïî äëéúç éöçá øè÷ä éöç éåáéø äéäé ,[êë] éôìå []

.æëøîä ìà äëéúçä úåö÷î íéàöåéä íéå÷ä éðùå àéää äëéúçä åá åôé÷é øùà [] .øùò äòáøàì øùò ãçà êøòë äøè÷ òáåøîì äìåâò ìë úøåáùú êøò [] çâ òáåøî åéìò äùòðå ,äìåâòä øè÷ áà å÷ íéùð ?ãöéë [] .ãâ úéòéáù æä äéäéå ,äã éöç âã äéäéå ,øùåé ìò ãâ àéöåðå .øèå÷ä

òáåøî àåäå äá óé÷î

ìà ãâà êøòå ,äòáùì ãçàå íéøùò êøòë ãâà ùìùîì äâà ùìùî êøòù éôìå [] íéðùå íéøùò êøòë

ãâà ùìùîì æâà ùìùî êøò ïë íà ,úçàì äòáù êøòë æäà

.äòáùì áà úìåâòì äåù æâà ùìùîå .ãâà ùìùî úåîë íéîòô äòáøà çâ òáøî ìáà [] ,äìåâòä øè÷ éöçì äåù âà ãåîòù éôì æâ úáùåúå [] .áåøé÷á øè÷ä úéòéáùá äøèå÷ë

íéîòô äùìùî øúåé äìåâòá óé÷îä å÷äù éôì äá óé÷îä å÷ì äåù

.øùò äòáøàì øùò úçà êøòë çâ òáåøîì áà úìåâò êøò ,ïë íà [] [] úåçôá äøèå÷ë íéîòô äùìù (äùìù) ìò óéñåî äéäé ,äìåâòá óé÷î å÷ ìë øè÷ä úéòéáùî

...

[]

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



Commentaire [] Le titre traduit fidèlement celui du texte arabe ; l’ orthographe du ˇ nom Archimède, A.R.S.M.I.D.S (ñãéîùøà),16 reproduit exactement celle du titre arabe. Relevons l’ orthographe des versions latines : Ersemidis (LP), Arsamithes (LG).17 S’ agissant des figures : HA comporte, à part le triangle rectangle, deux figures distinctes (assez grossièrement rendues) pour chacune des deux parties de la démonstration, alors que le texte arabe et les deux versions latines n’ offrent qu’ une seule figure. [] « l’ un de ses côtés » : HA ne rend pas le duel du texte arabe : « . . . l’ un des deux côtés ». Le phénomène n’ est pas rare, dans les traductions de l’ arabe en hébreu, par exemple dans les traductions des Eléments d’ Euclide,18 quand la compréhension du texte n’ est pas en jeu. On relèvera cette absence à plusieurs reprises dans notre texte. Soulignons, par contraste, que les deux versions latines rendent ici fidèlement le duel : « unum ex duobus lateribus » (Clagett, p. , l. ), « unum duorum laterum » (Clagett, p. , l. ). [] « Comment ? » : Cette transition est absente de AF/LG/LP. On la retrouve dans Prop. . [] « faisons dans le cercle le carré ABGD » HA recoupe ici la leçon de LG, contre AF, qui spécifie le carré par son diamètre AG. C’ est aussi la leçon de LP. Cette différence se retrouve à la ligne suivante, quand le carré est à nouveau nommé. dans le cercle [lit. : du cercle] » : « On a ainsi découpé (nehtakh) . AF a la leçon : « on aura retiré [infas. ala] du cercle » ; fidèlement rendue par LG : « separatum est ex circulo » (Clagett, p. , l. ). Tout au long du texte, HA ne distingue guère les verbes « séparer », « diviser », « découper », qu’ il traduit presque toujours par le verbe hatakh. On . retrouve un usage analogue du verbe abscido / découper dans la version latine de Platon.

16 Il convient de corriger la leçon retenue par Sarfatti, A.R.K.I.M.I.D.S (ñãéîéëøà) (Mathematical Terminology, p. ). 17 Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, p.  n. . 18 Voir Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § .



tony lévy

Moïse ibn Tibbon, auteur d’ une version hébraïque des Eléments d’ Euclide19 utilise le verbe hivdil, « séparer », pour traduire l’ arabe fas. ala et ses dérivés. On retrouve ce même usage du verbe hivdil dans HB. « Et découpons l’ arc AB » : HA, LG et LP ont la même leçon, là où le texte arabe de AF a la leçon : . . . l’ arc AFB. « Et autres points » : HA a la même leçon que LP : « et super alia puncta » (Clagett, p. , l. ). Ce passage, omis dans LG, est rendu en arabe, dans AF, par l’ expression : « au point F et ses homologues (naz. a¯"¯ırah¯a) d’ entre les points », symétrique de l’ expression précédemment utilisée pour les arcs. « ‹ restants › » : Ce terme, omis dans HA, figure dans AF, ainsi que dans les deux versions latines. On remarque que la syntaxe de la phrase tout entière est modifiée par rapport à AF : « On aura donc ainsi retiré [fa-qad infas. ala aidan] des . segments du cercle ABGD restants plus que leur moitié, et c’ est AFB et ses homologues » ; phrase rendue toujours aussi fidèlement par Gérard de Crémone dans LG : « Iam ergo separatum est ex residuis portionibus circuli ABGD plus mediatate ipsarum et est AFB et sibi similes » (Clagett, p. , l. –). Il apparaît que le traducteur en hébreu, soit qu’ il n’ ait pas compris le sens précis du verbe arabe fas. ala, soit qu’ il n’ ait pas su le rendre, a été conduit à remodeler la phrase de façon à pouvoir utiliser encore le verbe hébreu hatakh avec le sens de « découper », « sectionner ». . [] « Et si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois [pe"amim rabbot], alors nécessairement il restera des segments plus petits que l’ excès [motar] du cercle sur le triangle » : L’ argument central de la preuve archimédienne repose, on le sait, sur cette procédure itérative (déjà mise en œuvre dans les Eléments, Prop. XII, ) réglée par la proposition X,  des Eléments : en retranchant d’ une grandeur donnée plus de sa moitié, et en répétant l’ opération sur le reste obtenu, on « finit » par obtenir un reste plus petit qu’ une grandeur donnée. Relevons que LG traduit littéralement l’ expression arabe « #al¯a m¯a yatl¯u », par « secundum illud quod sequitur » (Clagett, p. , l. ). En revanche, HA et LP se retrouvent pour rendre l’ expression arabe d’ une

19

Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § .

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



tout autre manière : « cumque hoc frequenter fecerimus » (Clagett, p. , l. ). HA y ajoute toutefois l’ adverbe « nécessairement ». HA et LP se retrouvent aussi, en ne rendant pas exactement le texte arabe, lequel indique que les segments restants finiront par être « plus petits que la quantité de l’ excès du cercle [miqd¯ar ziy¯adat al-d¯a"ira] sur le triangle ». LG, en revanche, traduit fidèlement : « minores quantitate eius quod circulus addit super circulum » (Clagett, p. , l. ). « Et la surface [ˇset. ah] . rectiligne polygonale . . . que le triangle E » : HA se sépare ici du texte arabe et des deux versions latines, qui ont toutes le terme « figure » [ˇsakl / figura]. On retrouve cette différence dans la section suivante. HA est aussi le seul texte qui spécifie à nouveau le triangle. [] « le produit (ribbuy) de l’ un des côtés du triangle . . . par l’ autre » : HA ne rend pas ici littéralement le texte arabe : « ce qui vient de la multiplication (allad¯ı yak¯un min darb) de l’ un des deux côtés . . . par . ¯ : « quod autem fit ex multiplicatione unus duorum l’ autre. » LG y est fidèle laterum . . . in alterum » (Clagett, p. , l. –). En fait, le traducteur de l’ arabe en hébreu ne semble pas toujours distinguer la multiplication comme opération et le résultat de l’ opération (le produit). Toutefois, cet usage n’ est pas systématique : à la fin de la phrase examinée, HA, rendant littéralement le texte arabe, donne au terme ribbuy le sens de multiplication : « ce qui résulte de la multiplication de (ha-niqbas. miribbuy) NS par le contour » (en arabe : al-majm¯u" min darb). . « et c’ est le double de l’ aire du triangle » : La leçon de HA recoupe celle de LG (duplum aree trianguli) et LP. Dans le manuscrit AF, l’ expression arabe est illisible. Il est possible que le terme taks¯ır, « aire », n’ y figure pas, et qu’ il faille lire seulement « le double du triangle », mais il s’ agit là d’ une conjecture. « qui est le double ‹ de l’ aire › du polygone » : AF a bien ici l’ expression complète « le double de l’ aire (di"f . taks¯ır) du polygone », de même que LP : « duplum aree multiangule figure ». Toutefois, HA et LG (duplum poligonii) ne rendent pas le mot « aire ». [] « ‹ et il en est de même des moitiés › » : Comme précédemment, HA et LG présentent une lacune commune par rapport à AF : « et les moitiés de cela sont aussi comme cela (wa-ans. a¯f d¯alik aydan . ka-d¯alik). » En revanche, la leçon du texte arabe est rendue ¯ainsi par LP : « ¯dimidium itaque dimidio maius existit » (Clagett, p. , l. ).



tony lévy

« et cela est faux [ˇseqer] » : AF : « c’ est absurde [khulf ] et impossible », formule traditionnelle pour conclure un raisonnement de ce type. LG traduit fidèlement : « et hoc quidem est contrarium et impossibile » (Clagett, p. , l. ), tandis que LP se « contente » d’ un seul adjectif : « hoc est impossibile » (Clagett, p. , l. ). [] « On a ainsi découpé dans le carré OQ [lit. : du carré OQ] » : Sur l’ usage de ce verbe, voir plus haut, en []. Relevons que LP s’ exprime ici de la même manière que HA : « abscisum est itaque ex quadrato PQ », alors que LG traduit fidèlement le verbe arabe utilisé dans AF : « et iam quidem separatum est ex quadrato QC. » « Et découpons l’ arc BA en moitiés en F, ainsi que ses homologues d’ entre les arcs ‹ en deux moitiés › » : HA continue à utiliser le même verbe pour exprimer cette fois-ci la médiation de l’ arc. AF : « et divisons [wa-naqsim] » ; LG : « dividam » ; LP : « divideres ». AF, LG et LP indiquent : les deux moitiés ; de même, les deux versions latines reprennent la mention des deux moitiés pour tous les autres arcs. « Que les lignes . . . , comme la ligne ZT, soient tangentes au cercle » : L’ expression soulignée n’ apparaît que dans HA. « La ligne ZT est donc divisée [nehlaq] en moitiés en F » : . On remarque que le verbe « diviser » est enfin rendu ici par un terme autre que « découper ». On peut se demander pourquoi il n’ a pas été utilisé une ligne plus haut. Le duel arabe (« deux » moitiés) n’ est toujours pas rendu. [] « Il s’ ensuit qu’ il est bien plus grand (‘od gadol) que la moitié de la figure QFB . . . et l’ arc BF » : Le texte grec traduit en arabe devait comporter une formule équivalant à l’ expression adverbiale « de beaucoup » ; AF la rend par l’ expression bi-akthar min d¯alik, lit. « par plus que cela ». A son tour, LG traduit ¯ fidèlement : « multo plus illo ». HA utilise plutôt une périphrase pour exprimer le lien de conséquence ; sa leçon recoupe ici celle de LP qui a : « multo igitur maior dimidio figure ». AF introduit le point supplémentaire I pour désigner l’ arc BF : BIF ; et la figure mixtiligne QFB est désignée par les quatre points QFIB. De même, AF marque le milieu de l’ arc FA par le point S. . Aucun des trois autres textes ne comporte cet ajout. Cette leçon seraitelle propre à la copie représentée par AF ?

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



[] « TQZ dans son ensemble est plus grand que la figure AFBQ, qui est contenue par AQ QB et l’ arc AFB » : la leçon de HA est celle de LG : « figure AFBC que continetur duabus lineis AC CB et arcu AFB » (Clagett, p. , l. –). Cette leçon commune est différente de celle de AF. Le texte arabe, en effet, se contente de désigner la figure mixtiligne, utilisant, il est vrai, des points supplémentaires : AS. FIBQ, qui permettent de l’ identifier sans confusion possible. Par contraste, le texte latin de LP se contente d’ indiquer : « totum igitur QHF dimidio figure AQB existit » (Clagett, p. , l. –). On mesure ici l’ intérêt d’ une édition critique du texte arabe, qui, seule, permettrait d’ interpréter les variantes textuelles. « ses homologues d’ entre les triangles seront plus grands que la moitié des autres segments ( !) ‹ homologues › » : HA omet la deuxième mention de l’ adjectif « homologues », qui apparaît bien dans AF et LG. LP, pour sa part, se contente d’ indiquer « alii trianguli maiores dimidio aliarum abscitionum » (Clagett, p. , l. ). Il ne s’ agit évidemment pas de « segments circulaires », mais bien des figures mixtilignes. L’ erreur remonte au texte arabe qui a bien « segments » (qit. a"). [] « si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois . . . il restera des segments audessus du cercle » : Sur la formulation de la procédure itérative, voir le commentaire de []. [] « Cela est faux (ˇseqer) et impossible . . . du fait que FN est égal à un côté du triangle » : AF : « cela n’ est pas possible (˙gayr mumkin) ». LG : « sed hoc quidem est impossibile » (Clagett, p. , l. ). LP : « quod esse non potest » (Clagett, p. , l. ). Pour calculer l’ aire du polygone et montrer qu’ il est plus grand (en superficie) que le triangle E, le texte arabe AF considère NA, qui est à la fois apothème du polygone et rayon du cercle, et mesure donc aussi le petit côté du triangle rectangle E, le deuxième côté de ce triangle ayant pour longueur la circonférence. Ce côté est désigné en arabe comme « hauteur (‘am¯ud) » du triangle E. LG traduit fidèlement : « NF equatur catheto trianguli » (Clagett, p. , l. ). HA se contente d’ indiquer que FN est un « côté » du triangle rectangle. LP affirme que le polygone est plus grand que le triangle E (« ipso enim maior existit » [p. , l. ]) sans donner de justification.



tony lévy

Il est impossible de savoir si la leçon « AN » du texte arabe est une variante textuelle par rapport à LG et HA, ou bien un accident de copie. [] « et ‹ il a été prouvé dans ce qui précède que › il n’ est pas plus grand que lui. Il est donc égal à lui » : L’ expression soulignée n’ est omise que dans HA. AF et LG précisent : « le cercle ABGD est donc égal au triangle E ». [] « Et aussi puisque l’ aire du triangle E est égale au produit de sa hauteur par . . . alors le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié du contour du cercle ABGD est égal à l’ aire du triangle E. ‹ et c’ est ce que nous voulions montrer › » : Les sections [] et [] présentent un intérêt particulier pour la transmission du texte archimédien dans la mesure où leur contenu ne figure pas dans le texte grec tel qu’ il nous est parvenu, même si on en retrouve la trace chez plusieurs commentateurs grecs (Héron, Pappus, Théon, Eutocius). Aussi ces deux propositions sont-elles parfois présentées comme deux « corollaires » au texte grec reçu.20 Elles figurent, avec diverses variantes, dans les versions médiévales (arabe, latine, hébraïque). On sera donc attentif aux variantes offertes par les textes examinés ici, comme autant d’ indices susceptibles d’ éclairer le problème complexe du passage du grec à l’ arabe, peut-être par un intermédiaire syriaque, puis au latin et à l’ hébreu. HA se distingue du texte arabe et des textes latins en ce que ces derniers indiquent « ce qui résulte de la multiplication de . . . par . . . », là où HA s’ en tient à « le produit de . . . par . . . ». Le texte latin LG comporte un trait singulier. En effet, il est le seul des quatre recensions examinées à indiquer, à la fin du premier « corollaire », que le produit du demi-diamètre du cercle, soit la hauteur du triangle E, par la demi-circonférence donne « l’ aire d’ une figure tenue pour égale à l’ aire du triangle / est area figure accepta equalis aree trianguli » (p. , l. –). L’ objet de cette incise n’ est pas clair : doit-on y voir une allusion au fait qu’ on « multiplie » une ligne droite (le rayon) par une ligne courbe (la demi-circonférence) ? On sait que certains commentateurs grecs, dans 20 Knorr, Textual Studies, voir : Part III. The Textual Tradition of Archimedes’ Dimension of the Circle. Ch. –. Les deux « corollaires » sont attribués explicitement à Archimède par Héron, qui les présente comme des théorèmes (« . . . Archimède a prouvé que . . . ») (p. ).

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



leur formulation de cette première proposition archimédienne, ont cru bon de préciser que la circonférence du cercle était présentée comme « déroulée en une droite », avant de considérer le produit de la circonférence par le rayon.21 Il serait particulièrement précieux d’ identifier le modèle arabe auquel la traducteur latin a emprunté cette leçon, puisqu’ il ne s’ agit pas de AF. Seuls AF et LP indiquent à la fin de ce premier « corollaire » la formule « et c’ est ce que nous voulions prouver ». Or LP ne va pas plus loin (et hoc volumus), tandis que AF poursuit en donnant le deuxième « corollaire » (sans proposer la formule finale). LG place la formule finale (et illud est cuius voluimus declarationem) à la fin du deuxième « corollaire ». HA ne mentionne nulle part la formule finale. [] « Et pour cette raison, le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié d’ une section . . . allant des extrémités de la section » : On soulignera l’ identité des formulations de AF, LG et HA exprimant l’ aire du secteur circulaire. HA, une fois de plus, n’ exprime pas le duel : les « deux » extrémités, rendu par l’ arabe et le latin. On l’ a dit, LP ne mentionne pas l’ aire du secteur circulaire. Prop.  [] « faisons sur lui le carré GH qui le contienne, et c’ est le carré du diamètre, et prolongeons GD en ligne droite ; que DG soit la moitié de DE » : Le passage souligné n’ apparaît que dans HA. S’ agirait-il d’ un ajout dû au traducteur ? au copiste ? [] « le carré GH est quatre fois comme le triangle AGD . . . car la hauteur AG est égale à la moitié du diamètre » : AF a simplement : « le carré GH est quatre fois ADG ». HA a la même leçon que LG : « quadratus vero GH est quadruplus trianguli ADG » (Clagett, p. , l. ).

21 Théon, dans son Commentaire au Livre I de l’ Almageste, énonce : « il a été démontré par Archimède que le rectangle contenu par le diamètre et la circonférence du cercle, déroulée en une droite, est quadruple de la surface du cercle . . . ». Sur ce point, on se reportera à : B. Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et La mesure du cercle », voir pp. , , ,  ; et Knorr, Textual Studies, p. .



tony lévy

HA, en revanche, s’ écarte du texte arabe et des deux textes latins, lesquels, pour exprimer le rayon du cercle, utilisent la longue formulation euclidienne : « la ligne allant du centre du cercle jusqu’ à la ligne le contenant ». [] « Donc ‹ il est établi . . . dit que › le rapport du cercle AB . . . de  à . ‹ Et c’ est ce que nous voulions montrer › » : Comme précédemment, dans la section [], HA n’ offre pas cette transition qui figure bien dans les autres textes. Il en est de même pour la formule de conclusion. Que peut-on conclure de ce commentaire comparé ? • Le texte hébreu HA et le texte latin LG ont la même source arabe : leçons communes, lacunes communes par rapport à AF, même lettrage (qui diffère de celui de LP). • HA comporte quelques modifications par rapport au texte arabe de AF, attestées par des leçons qui ne recoupent pas les leçons communes à AF et LG. Cet écart n’ est pourtant pas tel qu’ il mette en cause la conclusion précédente. • LG témoigne généralement d’ une grande fidélité à AF ; caractéristique reconnue aux traductions de Gérard de Crémone, si l’ on souscrit à la conclusion de Clagett concernant l’ identité du traducteur. Et pourtant, on a relevé des écarts entre LG et le texte arabe transmis par AF. • Répétons-le : je n’ ai disposé que du seul texte arabe transmis par le manuscrit AF. Les remarques précédentes permettent d’ affirmer que cette copie n’ a pas été utilisée par les traducteurs en hébreu et en latin. La comparaison avec d’ autres copies du texte arabe-source permettrait de préciser ce constat. LP, qui présente des différences sensibles par rapport HA et LG, devrait retenir l’ attention de l’ éditeur (futur) de la ou des versions arabes. On a relevé des leçons communes, peu nombreuses, à HA et LP (voir les commentaires des sections [][][][]). Comment en rendre compte ? Le rédacteur de HA aurait-il pu avoir accès à un deuxième modèle arabe, celui ayant servi au traducteur de LP (Platon de Tivoli, ou tout autre traducteur travaillant dans le même milieu que ce dernier, proche du milieu juif de Barcelone, dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle) ? On ne peut l’ exclure. Je suggère dans la troisième section que les deux traductions (HA et LP) ont peut-être été réalisées dans le même milieu, au XIIe siècle en Espagne.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



II. Une deuxième recension hébraïque, anonyme, de la première proposition de La mesure du cercle (HB) [] Prop.  [] // MS Hamb. a // Tout cercle a sa surface [ˇset. ahah] égale à la surface . [ˇset. ah] . du triangle rectangle dont l’ un des côtés contenant l’ angle droit est égal à la moitié de son diamètre, l’ autre côté étant égal à la ligne qui le [le cercle] contient. O

B

S

L K M

G

F

A E

M

D

S

Z

T

H

[] L’ exemple : le cercle ABGD a pour centre le point E ; et le triangle ZHT a son angle H droit ; et la ligne ZH est égale à la ligne AE, laquelle est la moitié du diamètre du cercle ; et la ligne HT est égale à la ligne qui le [le cercle] contient. Je dis que la surface du triangle ZHT est égale à la surface du cercle ABGD. [] La preuve : il est impossible que la surface du cercle ABGD soit plus grande, ni qu’ elle soit plus petite, que ‹ la surface du › triangle ZHT. [] Si cela était possible, qu’ elle soit, pour commencer, plus grande que la surface du triangle. Faisons-y [dans le cercle] le carré ABGD ; il est indubitablement plus grand que la moitié du cercle.



tony lévy

Divisons [nehlaq] l’ arc AB en deux moitiés, au point K, et joignons AK . KB. Faisons de même pour les arcs qui lui sont semblables [ba-domim lo] ; de cette manière, nous aurons séparé [hivdalnu], dans la figure ‹ ainsi › construite, plus que les moitiés des segments restants, dans le cercle. [] En répétant cela continuellement sur les segments restants, nous aboutirons à une figure polygonale dont la surface sera moindre que la surface du cercle, et plus grande que la surface du triangle ZHT. Que cette figure soit celle dont AK KB sont des côtés. [] Menons sur AK la perpendiculaire EM ; alors // b // le triangle AEK est égal au produit [ˇset. ah, . lit. la surface] de EM par MK ; le produit de EM par AK est donc égal au double du triangle AKE. [] Le produit de EM par le contour de la figure polygonale ayant pour côtés AK KB est donc le double de la surface de la figure polygonale. Ainsi, le produit de EM par le contour de la figure est plus grand que le produit de ZH par HT ; or ZH est plus longue que EM, et HT est plus longue que le contour de la figure polygonale, puisque le cercle contient celleci. [] C’ est faux et impossible. La surface du cercle n’ est donc pas plus grande que la surface du triangle ZHT. [] Je dis aussi qu’ elle n’ est pas plus petite qu’ elle. S’ il était possible que sa surface fût plus petite que la surface du triangle, [] en faisant sur le cercle ABGD le carré LMSO, voyons si sa surface [celle du carré] est plus petite que la surface ZHT. [] Si ce n’ est pas le cas, divisons l’ arc AB et ceux qui lui sont semblables en deux moitiés, en un point ; et menons la ligne SKF tangente ‹ au cercle › ; et menons EKL. La ligne KL est alors perpendiculaire à SF. Comme l’ angle K est droit, la ligne FL est plus longue que la ligne FK. Or FK est égale à la ligne FA ; la ligne LF est donc plus longue que la ligne FA. Le triangle LKF est donc plus grand que le triangle FKA ; à plus forte raison, il est clair qu’ il est plus grand que le triangle que contiennent les deux lignes droites KF FA et l’ arc KA. [] Ainsi, tout le triangle LSF est plus grand que la moitié de tout l’ excès du carré BLEA sur le secteur [circulaire] AE EB.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



[] Tu procéderas ainsi continuellement sur les segments [circulaires] restants, jusqu’ à parvenir à une surface polygonale, la surface A, plus petite que la surface ZHT. [] Que cette // a // surface soit celle dont un côté est SF. La surface [le produit] de EK par FS est le double du triangle EFS. De la même manière, la surface [le produit] de EK par la ligne contenant la figure polygonale dont les côtés sont comme la ligne SF est le double de la surface de la figure polygonale. Or la ligne entourant ‹ cette figure › est plus longue que la ligne HT, puisque celle-là [la figure polygonale] contient le cercle. [] Cela est faux et impossible. Par conséquent, la surface du cercle n’ est pas plus grande que la surface du triangle ZHT, et elle n’ est pas plus petite que celle-ci. Elle lui est donc égale. Et c’ est ce que nous voulions montrer. [] Il en résulte que tout secteur circulaire a sa surface égale à celle du triangle rectangle dont l’ un des côtés contenant l’ angle droit est la moitié du diamètre, et le deuxième côté est égal à l’ arc [constituant] la base [du secteur].



tony lévy Hamburg, Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek, MS Levi , fol. a–a (ä) Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Hebr. , fol. a–a (á)

úçà øùà úåéåæä áöðä çèùì äåù äçèù äðä äìåâò ìë

//àá// //àä// []

óé÷îä å÷ì äåù øçàä òìöäå äøèå÷ éöçì äåù úáöðä úéåæá íéôé÷îä åéúåòìöî 

.äá äåù

çæ å÷å ,úáöð ç úéåæ èçæ ùìåùîå ,ä úãå÷ð äæëøî ãâáà úìåâò :äæ ìùî [] .äá óé÷îä å÷ì äåù èç å÷å ,äìåâòä øèå÷ éöç àåäù äà å÷ì .ãâáà úìåâò çèùì äåù èçæ ùìåùî çèùù øîåà äðä

ùìåùîî ïè÷ øúåé àìå ìåãâ øúåé

ãâáà úìåâò çèù äéäéù øùôà éàù :äæ úôåî []  .èçæ

,ãâáà òáåøî äá äùòðå .ùìåùîä çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äìçú äéäé ,øùôà äéä íàù [] úãå÷ð ìò íéàöç éðùá áà úù÷ ÷ìçðå .÷ôñ àìá äìåâòä éöçî ìåãâ øúåé äéäéå äðåîúá åðìãáä øáë äæá äéäéå .úåúù÷äî åì íéîåãá ïë äùòðå ,áë ëà ÷éáãðå ,ë .äìåâòä //áá// ïî úåøàùðä úåëéúçä éàöçî øúåé úéùòðä  úáø äðåîú ìà ïééðòä åðì äìëé äðä ,úåøàùðä úåëéúçá ãéîú äæ åðìùîä øùàëå [] úåæ äéäúå

.èçæ

ùìåùî çèùî ìåãâ øúåéå äìåâòä çèùî úåçô äçèù äéäé úåéåæä

.áë ëà åéúåòìöî øùà äðåîúä îä çèùì äåù ëäà ùìåùîä äéäé //áä// äðä îä ãåîò ëà ìò àéöåðå [] .äëà ùìåùî ìôëì äåù ëàá îä çèù äðä .ëîá 

,áë ëà äéúåòìö øùà ,úåéåæä úáøä äðåîúä óé÷îá îä çèù äðä [] .èçá çæ çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äðåîúä óé÷îá îä çèù äðä .úåéåæä úáøä äðåîúä äìåâòäù øçà úåéæä úáøä äðåîúá óé÷îäî êåøà øúåé èçå ,îäî êåøà øúåé çæå .äá äôé÷î çèù ìôë

.øùôà éúìá óåìç äæå []  .èçæ ùìåùî çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äìåâòä çèù ïéà äðä .åðîî ïè÷ øúåé àìå :ïë íâ øîåàå [] ,ùìåùîä çèùî ïè÷ øúåé äçèù äéäé øùôà äéä íàù

ä úìåâò [ùìåùî  á ä åá [äá  á åðîî ç úéåæ [ç úéåæ  ä èçä [èçæ  á äøè÷ [äøèå÷  áà [áë  á úðåîú [äðåîú  á ïéðòä [ïééðòä  ä åìãáä [åðìãáä  á ä åá [äá  á á ä åá [äá  á úðåîúá [äðåîúá  á ä úðåîúî [çèùî  á ùìåùî [ùìåùîä  á

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age øúåé åçèù äéäé íà äàøð



,òñîì òáåøî ãâáà úìåâò ìò åðéùò øùàë äðä [] .èçæ çèùî ïè÷

åðàöåäå ,äãå÷ð ìò íéàöç éðù íéàöç éðùá åì íéîåãäå áà úù÷ åð÷ìç ,àì íàå []

.ìëä åðàöåäå ,ùùîî ô÷ñ å÷  êåøà øúåé ìô å÷ äéäé ,úáöð ë úéåæù éôì äðä .ôñ ìò ãåîò ìë å÷ äéäé äðä øúåé

ôëì ùìåùî äðä .àô å÷î êåøà øúåé ôì å÷ äðä ,àô å÷ì äåù ëôå ,ëô å÷î ,àëô ùìåùîî ìåãâ .àë úù÷ íò íéøùéä àô ôë éå÷ éðù åá

åôé÷é øùà ùìåùîäî ìåãâ øúåé äéäéù éåàø øúåé àåäù ïëù ìë

äà úëéúç ìò äàìá òáåøî øúåî ìë éöçî ìåãâ øúåé ôñì ùìåùî ìë äðä []  .áä çèù äéäé ,úåéåæä áø çèùì ïééðòä òéâéù ãò úåøàùðä úåëéúçá ãéîú äùòú ïëå []

.èçæ çèùî ïè÷ øúåé ,à .ôñ åéúåòìöî øùà çèùä //àä// äæ äéäéå [] óé÷îä å÷á ëä çèåùî äéäé ïë åîëå .ñôä ùìåùî ìôë ñôá ëä çèù äéäé äðä  å÷äå ,úåéåæä úáøä äðåîúä çèù ìôë ôñ å÷ åîë äéúåòìö øùà úåéåæä úáøä úðåîúá .äìåâòá óé÷î àåäù øçà èç å÷î êåøà øúåé óé÷îä .øùôà éúìá óåìç äæå .åðîî ïè÷ øúåé àìå ,èçæ ùìåùî çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äìåâò çèù ïéà äðä [] .øàáì åðéöøù äî äæå .åì äåù àåä äðä  øùà úåéåæä áöðä ùìåùîì äåù äçèù äðä ,äìåâò úëéúç ìëù øàáúä ïàëáå

[]

.äúáùåú úù÷ì äåù éðùä òìöäå ,äìåâòä øèå÷ éöç úáöðá íéôé÷îä åéúåòìöî ãçà

á ä úåëéúç [úëéúç  ä äà [äàìá  á ä øúéî [øúåî  á ä ìäë [àë  á ä àúéì [å  [åîë  á çèùî [çèåùî  á ä åéäé [äéäé  á ïéðòä [ïééðòä  ä úåøàùä [úåøàùðä  á ä àúéì [óé÷îä å÷ä  á åîë åîë



tony lévy

Comparaison des deux recensions hébraïques (HA et HB) [] Ni le nom d’ Archimède, ni le titre de l’ ouvrage ne sont mentionnés dans HB. La figure n’ apparaît que dans le manuscrit de Hamburg. [] HA et HB ne divergent pas dans la formulation de l’ énoncé : l’ aire du cercle est égale à l’ aire d’ un certain triangle. Toutefois HB déclare égales les aires respectives du cercle et du triangle, et non pas les deux figures géométriques elles-mêmes. [] Notons d’ emblée que le lettrage n’ est pas le même ; le centre du cercle est déjà spécifié, le triangle rectangle désigné par ses sommets. Contrairement à HA, HB respecte les règles d’ une bonne rhétorique euclidienne : il spécifie les données de l’ énoncé (l’ ecthèse) et scande les divisions formelles (diorisme, preuve, conclusion), au moins dans cette première partie du texte. [] « en répétant cela continuellement [tamid, lit. toujours] sur les segments restants, nous aboutirons à [yikhleh lanu ha-#inyan el, lit. la démarche finira par nous ‹ conduire › à] une figure » : Cette formulation, différente de celle de HA, exprime avec plus de précision le contenu de la prop. X,  des Eléments, qui est mise en œuvre dans la preuve d’ Archimède. « à une figure polygonale dont la surface sera moindre que la surface du cercle et plus grande que la surface du triangle » : Une étape intermédiaire, présente dans HA, est ici omise : c’ est parce que les segments circulaires, obtenus par la procédure itérative, finissent par devenir plus petits qu’ une aire donnée—à savoir, l’ excès du cercle sur le triangle—qu’ on peut conclure qu’ on a obtenu un polygone inscrit plus grand que le triangle. [] et [] Par rapport à HA, le contenu de la preuve mettant en évidence la contradiction ne change pas ; les arguments y sont toutefois présentés dans un ordre différent, et quelques résultats élémentaires y sont ajoutés. [] et [] « la surface du cercle n’ est donc pas plus grande . . . Je dis aussi qu’ elle n’ est pas plus petite » : La première phrase se présente bien comme la conclusion, conforme à la rhétorique euclidienne. Elle ne figure pas dans HA [], pas plus que dans le texte grec d’ Archimède et les diverses traductions que j’ ai mentionnées, lesquels se contentent d’ indiquer que « le triangle est donc

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



plus grand que le polygone, et il était déjà plus petit que lui, et cela est faux ». De la même façon, la deuxième phrase, absente elle aussi de HA, annonce la deuxième partie de la preuve. [] « en faisant sur le cercle . . . le carré, voyons [nir"eh] si sa surface est plus petite que la surface de ZHT » : En effet, il est alors facile de montrer que la surface du carré est aussi plus grande (le périmètre du carré est plus grand que la circonférence, soit HT, et le côté du carré égal au diamètre du cercle, soit ZH). Cette remarque, qui n’ apparaît pas dans HA, est purement didactique ; elle n’ apporte rien à l’ argumentation qui suit, dans la mesure où celle-ci couvre le cas de tout polygone régulier à n côtés circonscrit au cercle, dès lors que sa surface est réputée plus petite que celle du triangle ZHT. [] « Si ce n’ est pas le cas, divisons l’ arc . . . KL est alors perpendiculaire à SF » : Si l’ argument est le même que dans HA, la rédaction ici en est plus concise. « Comme l’ angle K est droit, la ligne FL est plus longue que la ligne FK ». HA établit le même résultat en faisant remarquer que les deux côtés du triangle rectangle-isocèle sont plus grands que le troisième (Eléments, Prop. I, ). HB met en évidence l’ existence de l’ angle droit en K pour affirmer, sans autre justification, que l’ oblique est plus longue que la perpendiculaire. « le triangle LKF est donc plus grand que le triangle FKA. A plus forte raison . . . que le triangle ( !) que contiennent les deux lignes droites KF FA et l’ arc FA » : Relevons que cet argument et le précédent figurent, de manière certes plus détaillée, dans le lemme que Théon établit avant sa démonstration de la proposition d’ Archimède.1 L’ élaboration de l’ argument y est différente de ce qu’ on lit dans HA, où est établi (en utilisant les notations de HB) que LKF est plus grand que la moitié de LKA. De plus, le triangle mixtiligne (appelé ici simplement « triangle ») est décrit, alors que dans HA, il est simplement désigné.

1

Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie », p.  ; Knorr, Textual Studies, p. .



tony lévy

[] « tout le triangle LSF est plus grand que la moitié de tout l’ excès du carré BLEA sur le secteur AE EB » : Nouvelle différence entre HA et HB dans la description de la figure mixtiligne. [] Dans la mise en place de la procédure itérative, on retrouve les mêmes différences par rapport à HA que celles qui apparaissent dans la première partie, en []. [] « Que cette surface soit celle dont un côté est SF » : HA désigne différemment le polygone circonscrit en question : celui qui est associé au triangle mixtiligne « restant » KFA. La suite de la preuve est symétrique de l’ argument correspondant dans la première partie. On y retrouve donc les mêmes différences par rapport à HA. [] La conclusion s’ achève sur la formule traditionnelle, laquelle était absente dans HA. En revanche, l’ énoncé de HA [] (« le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié du contour du cercle ABGD est égal à l’ aire du triangle E »), formulation du théorème en termes de produit, ne figure plus dans HB. Il convient de relever ici une différence importante entre HB et les leçons du texte de Théon. Ce dernier énonce d’ emblée la formule archimédienne sous la forme : le produit du périmètre par le rayon est le double de l’ aire du cercle. Cet énoncé se retrouve, tout naturellement, en conclusion de la démonstration théonienne.2 [] L’ énoncé relatif à l’ aire d’ un secteur circulaire a une formulation différente de celle qu’ on lit dans HA : l’ aire n’ y est pas directement donnée comme le demi-produit du rayon par l’ arc, mais comme celle d’ un triangle rectangle ayant pour côtés de l’ angle droit le rayon d’ une part, et, d’ autre part l’ arc ‹ constituant › la base ( !) dudit secteur. Puisque je suggère que HB pourrait avoir quelque lien avec les formulations de Théon (à partir d’ un intermédiaire arabe), il est bon de relever une autre différence importante entre les leçons de HB et celles de Théon : le texte relatif au secteur de cercle n’ apparaît pas chez Théon ;3 s’ agissant de la tradition grecque, il est énoncé par Héron, puis par Pappus.4

2 3 4

Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie », pp. ,  ; Knorr, Textual Studies, pp. , . Ibid. Knorr, Textual Studies, p. .

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



Quelles conclusions peut-on tirer de cette analyse comparée ? • HA et HB ne traduisent pas le même texte (arabe). • HB ne propose que la première proposition, réélaborée, de La mesure du cercle. • HB ne correspond à aucun des témoins directs, connus, du texte grec d’ Archimède, dans les traditions médiévales (arabe et latine). • HB reproduit quelques traits de la démonstration de Théon, quels que soient les intermédiaires du grec à l’ hébreu. Que peut-on dire de l’ intermédiaire arabe ? Dans ce qui suit, je suggère qu’ al-Kind¯ı pourrait être un élément de cette chaîne de transmission. HB : extrait d’ un recueil composite de commentaires mathématiques En décrivant brièvement le contenu des textes, ou plutôt des fragments qui accompagnent le texte hébreu de HB dans les deux codex (le manuscrit de Berlin et celui de Hambourg), je veux donner quelques indices susceptibles d’ aider à l’ identification des sources possibles de HB. Les deux codex sont des recueils composites ; une partie seulement de chacun d’ eux est commune ; c’ est celle qui nous intéresse ici : MS Hamburg, fol. a–a (à la dernière ligne du texte, on lit « C’ est terminé. Louange au Dieu de l’ univers.  Iyyar  [=  Avril ] ») et MS Berlin, fol. b–a (sans date). L’ analyse des deux ensembles (leçons et erreurs communes, variantes, lacunes) me permet d’ affirmer qu’ ils sont issus d’ un modèle hébreu commun. Ce modèle, composé de pièces et fragments très divers, s’ appuie explicitement sur des sources arabes : c’ est ainsi qu’ une expression revient plusieurs fois : « il convient d’ examiner le texte arabe / ïééòì éåàø éáøòá (de tel ou tel ouvrage) », (par exemple MS Berlin, fol. a et MS Hamburg, fol. a) ; on trouve aussi une longue phrase, assez peu claire, en arabe (en caractères hébraïques) (MS Berlin, fol. b, MS Hamburg, fol. a). Des textes hébreux originaux sont aussi mentionnés. On distingue les pièces suivantes, dont l’ unité n’ est pas toujours bien claire : • Commentaires sur les Eléments d’ Euclide, citant divers auteurs et divers ouvrages : Les données et L’ Optique d’ Euclide, Archimède (le nom est cité dans le seul manuscrit de Berlin [fol. b], suivi d’ une indication peu claire, qui renvoie, me semble-t-il, à La sphère et le cylindre), Autolykos, Théodose, Ménélaus, Ptolémée, al-Kind¯ı (un



• •

• • •

•

tony lévy long commentaire de Prop. VI,  des Eléments), al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, Ibn alHaytam, al-Ant.ak¯ı (nombreuses occurrences de son commentaire ˘ abir ibn Aflah. (plusieurs écrits), Ibn Ruˇsd ; sur ¯les Eléments), G¯ Abraham bar Hiyya, Abraham ibn Ezra, Levi ben Abraham ben . 5 Hayyim, Jacob ben Makhir. . Le commentaire des prémisses du Livre X des Eléments dû à Ibn alHaytam, dans la traduction de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos (). ¯ Le commentaire des prémisses des Livres I et V des Eléments dû à al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, dans la traduction de Moïse ibn Tibbon (vers ) ; incomplet.6 ˘ abir ibn Aflah. sur les rapports composés, Extraits de l’ épître de G¯ critiquant T¯abit ibn Qurra sur le même sujet. Le texte de¯HB, sans mention du nom d’ Archimède ou du titre de l’ ouvrage. Commençant, sans transition, sur la même ligne que celle qui conclut HB, viennent l’ énoncé et la preuve de la propriété isopérimétrique du cercle : « tout cercle dont le périmètre est égal à celui d’ un polygone régulier a une aire plus grande que celle du polygone (ìë äçèù äðä ,úåéåæä úáø úåòìöä äåù äðåîú óé÷îì äåù äôé÷î å÷ äéäé äìåâò úåòìöä äáøä çèùî øúåé) ».7 ˘ abir Enfin le dernier extrait s’ ouvre sur les mots : « Paroles de G¯ ibn Aflah. dans son [livre sur l’] Almageste » ; suivent l’ énoncé et une preuve de la propriété isépiphanique de la sphère (MS Hamburg, fol. b–b ; MS Berlin, fol. a–a) : « toute sphère a un volume plus grand que le volume de tout polyèdre régulier dont

5 R. Rashed a signalé et exploité un commentaire arabe anonyme des Eléments d’ Euclide « où l’ auteur cite, parmi d’ autres, T¯abit ibn Qurra, al-Nayriz¯ı, al-Ant.ak¯ı, Ibn al-Haytam, Ibn H¯ud aussi bien qu’ al-Dimaˇs¯q¯ı » ; il s’ agit de MS Hyderabad, Osmania ¯ . Voir R. Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle, University vol.  (Londres, ), p.  ainsi que p.  n.  et p.  n. . Il serait intéressant de vérifier la possibilité de quelque rapport entre ce texte arabe et les fragments hébraïques mentionnés ci-dessus. 6 Gad Freudenthal, « La philosophie de la géométrie d’ al-F¯ ar¯ab¯ı. Son commentaire sur le début du Ier livre et le début du Ve livre des ‘Eléments’ d’ Euclide », Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam  () : –. 7 Soulignons ceci : les résultats énoncés et établis ici, tant pour le cercle que pour la sphère, portent sur les polygones (resp. les polyèdres) réguliers ayant même périmètre (resp. même aire latérale) que le cercle (resp. la sphère). Ces propriétés du cercle et de la sphère, valent, on le sait, pour des polygones (resp. polyèdres) quelconques. C’ est sous cette forme générale que la plupart (mais pas tous) des textes grecs, arabes et latin, présentent et établissent le résultat ; la dernière étape de la démonstration concerne alors les polygones (resp. les polyèdres) réguliers.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age la surface est égale à celle de ladite sphère [úãî

äðä,øåãë ìë

 ...

èåùôì äåù åèåùô äéäé íéçèùä äåù íùâåî ìë úãîî [ä]ìåãâ øúåé åîùâåî øåãëä åúåà] ».8

Théon / . . . /al-Kind¯ı / . . . /HB ? Le Commentaire de Théon offre un exposé complet de la proposition  de La mesure du cercle ;9 toutefois l’ énoncé est différent de celui du texte d’ Archimède (édité par Heiberg) et la démonstration, quoique respectant l’ argument démonstratif du texte grec reçu, est plus détaillée. De 8 L’ ouvrage de l’ astronome sévillan du XIIe siècle, connu sous le titre Isl¯ . ah. al-Ma˘gist.¯ı / Révision de l’ Almageste, ou simplement Livre d’ astronomie, fut traduit deux fois en hébreu au XIIIe siècle ; il est souvent cité dans la littérature mathématique hébraïque. Voir R. Lorch, « The Astronomy of Jabir ibn Aflah », Centaurus  () : –. Aux sources arabes indiquées par Lorch, il convient d’ ajouter les copies transcrites en caractères hébraïques, récemment indiquées dans Y.T. Langermann, « Arabic Writings in Hebrew Manuscripts. A Preliminary Relisting », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  () : – , voir p. . Lorch a souligné l’ existence de deux états distincts du texte arabe (« The Astronomy of Jabir », pp. –). J’ ai examiné le texte de notre passage dans les deux versions hébraïques : celle de Moïse ibn Tibbon, réalisée en , et celle de Jacob ben Makhir (réalisée au plus tard en –, date de la mort de Jacob) révisée par Samuel de Marseille en  (il semble que la version de Jacob ben Makhir, non révisée, ne nous soit pas parvenue). Les deux versions se distinguent par leur terminologie, leur style et, au moins dans le passage qui nous intéresse, par leur contenu. C’ est ainsi que Moïse ibn Tibbon ne fait pas référence, dans la preuve, à la propriété selon laquelle les seuls polyèdres réguliers sont les cinq solides « mentionnés par Euclide [Prop. XIII,  ; il s’ agit des polyèdres dits platoniciens] » (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Opp. Add. Fol.  [Neubauer ], fol. a– a, voir fol. a–b. Je remercie vivement Juliane Lay [Paris], qui a obligeamment mis à ma disposition un microfilm du manuscrit d’ Oxford). C’ est en revanche le cas dans la version Jacob ben Makhir / Samuel de Marseille (Paris, BNF, MSS Hebr. , fol. b– a ; , fol. a–b ; , fol. b–a ; , fol. a–b). ˘ abir Le passage accompagnant le texte hébreu de HB (énoncé et démonstration par G¯ de la propriété isépiphanique de la sphère) se distingue du texte de Moïse ibn Tibbon par la terminologie et le style ; il comporte la référence aux cinq solides platoniciens, absente du texte de Moïse ibn Tibbon. Ce passage, en revanche, est très « proche » de la version Jacob / Samuel, en dépit de quelques menues variantes terminologiques. J’ ai pu consulter ˘ abir dont le contenu, au moins pour le passage qui deux des copies du texte arabe de G¯ nous concerne, correspond à la version Jacob ben Makhir / Samuel de Marseille (par exemple, Escorial, Biblioteca del Monasterio, MS Ar. , fol. a–a. Un grand merci à Henri Hugonnard-Roche [CNRS, Paris] qui a mis à ma disposition sa copie de plusieurs ˘ abir, ainsi que des extraits de son édition critique du texte des manuscrits arabes de G¯ jabirien, non publiée) : il est difficile de décider si le passage hébreu nous concernant (HB) est traduit directement à partir de l’ arabe (auquel il est très fidèle), ou bien s’ il reproduit, avec quelques écarts, la version de Jacob ben Makhir / Samuel de Marseille. La propriété isopérimétrique du cercle ne fait pas l’ objet d’ une preuve spécifique par ˘ abir. G¯ 9 Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et la Mesure du cercle », pp. –.



tony lévy

surcroît, elle comporte un lemme préliminaire10 dont le texte hébreu HB porte trace (voir mon commentaire aux sections [] et []), même si ce dernier se distingue nettement du texte théonien. Il est hautement probable que ce trait particulier à HB figurait déjà dans la source (arabe) de ce dernier. Tout naturellement, je me suis demandé si ce « mélange » était attesté dans le commentaire à l’Almageste d’ al-Kind¯ı, qui semble avoir largement puisé dans le commentaire de Théon.11 Malheureusement, al-Kind¯ı, lorsqu’ il mentionne la première des trois propositions archimédiennes que nous a transmises La mesure du cercle, nous renvoie à un autre de ses ouvrages, qui est resté introuvable, Sur les sphériques.12 Dans le tableau qui suit, j’ ai placé en regard un passage du texte de Théon et le passage qui lui correspond dans le commentaire de l’Almageste, dû à al-Kind¯ı. On pourra y mesurer la grande fidélité du texte arabe par rapport au texte grec (les expressions reproduites en caractères gras soulignent les différences de contenu relevées entre les deux textes). Pourquoi ce passage-là en particulier ? C’ est qu’ on y trouve énoncées les trois propositions archimédiennes, ainsi qu’ une preuve de la proposition rapportant le carré du diamètre à l’ aire du cercle.13 Ce passage met en jeu les trois propositions de La mesure du cercle, dans des énoncés qui ne recouvrent pas exactement ceux du texte grec d’ Archimède : ) on obtient l’ aire du cercle en multipliant le diamètre par le quart de sa circonférence ; ) la longueur de la circonférence est « proche » de trois fois son diamètre augmenté d’ un septième de ce diamètre ; ) le carré du diamètre relativement à l’ aire du cercle est dans le rapport de  à . C’ est cette dernière proposition qui est démontrée par Théon (et reproduite quasi-littéralement par al-Kind¯ı) ; elle correspond à la proposition  du texte grec d’ Archimède ; les deux preuves sont clairement différentes.14 Du reste, Théon ne précise pas l’ auteur da la preuve qu’ il rapporte.

10

Ibid., pp. –. Voir ci-dessus, n. . 12 Rashed, « Al-Kindi’ s Commentary on Archimedes », p.  n.  ; idem, « Commentaire d’ al-Kindi de la Mesure du cercle », p.  n. . 13 On sait que, dans le texte grec reçu, cette proposition porte le numéro , alors que sa démonstration requiert la connaissance de la « troisième » proposition ! 14 Voir ci-dessus le texte de la proposition  du texte hébreu HA. 11

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age

Théon, Commentaire à l’AlmagesteI, . Texte grec et trad. dans Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et la Mesure du cercle », pp. – Puisqu’ ensuite il a été démontré par Archimède que le rectangle contenu par le diamètre et la circonférence du cercle—déroulée en une droite—est quadruple de la surface du cercle, donc celui ‹ contenu › par le diamètre et la e partie de la circonférence est égal à la surface du cercle ; c’ est pourquoi on trouve que le carré sur le diamètre, relativement à la surface du cercle, a comme rapport celui de  à  de la manière suivante. Puisqu’ en effet la circonférence est triple du diamètre et plus grande en plus par la septième partie, donc, par exemple, si le diamètre est , de ceux-ci d’ une part la circonférence devient , d’ autre part leur  [quart] :   [ / ] ; de sorte aussi que si le carré ‹ du diamètre est › , de ceux-ci le cercle est   [ / ]. Et en les doublant pour l’ élimination du demi, nous exhiberons par exemple le carré de  et de ceux-ci le cercle de  ; et le rapport de ceux-ci, en les plus petits nombres, est celui de  relativement à  ; car leur plus grande commune mesure est , qui mesure d’ une part  selon , d’ autre part  selon  . . .



Al-Kind¯ı, F¯ı al- s. in¯a"ah al-"uzm¯ . a, pp. –. Édité par ‘Azm¯ı Taha al. Sayyid Ahmad (Nicosie / Chypre, ) ; . accompagné d’ une traduction arabe commentée de l’ article de F. Rosenthal, « al-Kind¯ı and Ptolemy ». Nous avons montré dans notre livre Sur les sphériques que si le périmètre du cercle est multiplié par son diamètre, le rectangle qui en résulte est quatre fois l’ aire du cercle, et que le produit du diamètre du cercle par le quart de la circonférence est égal à l’ aire du cercle ; alors le rapport du carré du diamètre du cercle à l’ aire du cercle est comme le rapport de quatorze à onze.15 La preuve de cela. Il a été dit que la circonférence du cercle est à peu près trois fois son diamètre et un septième ; donc si la longueur du diamètre [fa-bilmiqd¯ar allad¯ı yak¯un bihi al-qut. r] est sept, ¯ alors ‹ la longueur de › la circonférence du cercle est vingt-deux, dont le quart est cinq et demi ; donc si la grandeur du carré du diamètre [fa-bil- miqd¯ar allad¯ı bihi yak¯un murabba" al-qut. r] ¯ est quarante-neuf, alors ‹ la grandeur de › l’ aire du cercle est trente-huit et demi ; si nous doublons cela afin que le nombre ne comporte pas de fraction, alors la grandeur du carré du diamètre est quatre-vingt-dix-huit, et l’ aire du cercle est soixante-dix-sept ; et les plus petits nombres correspondant à ce rapport donnent le rapport de quatorze à onze, puisque le plus grand des nombres mesurant en commun quatre-vingtdix-huit et soixante-dix-sept est sept, et que sept mesure quatre-vingt-dix-huit quatorze fois et mesure soixante-dix-sept onze fois . . .

Quelle conclusion peut-on tirer de ces remarques quant aux sources possibles du texte hébreu HB ? Un (lointain) rapport entre la démonstration théonienne de la proposition d’ Archimède et le texte de HB a été relevé. L’ exploitation par alKind¯ı, dans son propre commentaire de l’Almageste, du commentaire de 15 Ce paragraphe est cité et traduit dans R. Rashed, « Commentaire d’ al-Kindi de la Mesure du cercle », p. .



tony lévy

Théon paraît bien établie. Tant qu’ on ne retrouvera pas l’ ouvrage perdu d’ al-Kind¯ı, ou une citation reproduisant sa preuve de la première proposition, on ne pourra évidemment pas affirmer l’ existence d’ un lien textuel entre al-Kind¯ı et le texte hébreu HB. La question n’ en reste pas moins posée.

III. A propos des traducteurs en hébreu Steinschneider avait suggéré—fort prudemment au demeurant—que Qalonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles (–après ) pouvait être le traducteur de HA,16 dans la mesure où il avait traduit l’ autre traité d’ Archimède, La sphère et le cylindre.17 Examinant la terminologie de HA, Sarfatti a conclu qu’ il paraissait peu probable que Qalonymos fût le traducteur de HA.18 Comparant judicieusement la terminologie hébraïque de Qalonymos, dans sa traduction de La sphère et le cylindre (I, –) à la terminologie de HA, Wilbur Knorr a conclu que ces deux écrits ne pouvaient être l’ œuvre du même traducteur.19 Autrement dit, Qalonymos ne peut pas être l’ auteur de la traduction transmise par HA. Je souscris à la conclusion négative formulée par Sarfatti et Knorr concernant l’ identité du traducteur de HA. Pour ma part, en comparant les versions HA et HB entre elles, et en les comparant séparément à d’ autres textes mathématiques hébraïques qui me sont connus, je formule les hypothèses suivantes : • HA est l’ œuvre d’ un traducteur qui emprunte à la terminologie élaborée par Abraham bar Hiyya (env. –), et qui ne mani. feste guère de familiarité avec la langue élaborée et popularisée par les traducteurs du XIIIe siècle : en dépit de la brièveté du texte, on peut en effet distinguer un petit nombre de verbes, adjectifs, particules, constituant un fonds que nous repérons dans des écrits du 16 Steinschneider, Mathematik bei den Juden, p.  n.° : « Archimedes, de mensura circuli, wahrscheinlich nach Thabit’ s arabischer Übersetzung, dürfte von Kalonymos übersetzt sein ». L’ attribution de la traduction arabe à T¯abit ne semble avoir aucun ¯ ; idem, « Commentaire d’ alfondement (voir Rashed, « Al-Kind¯ı’ s Commentary », p.  Kindi », p. ). 17 Steinschneider, Mathematik bei den Juden, p.  n.°. 18 Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § . 19 Knorr, Textual Studies, pp. –.

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



XIIe siècle, et des expressions et termes que nous ne retrouvons plus, par exemple, dans les versions hébraïques des Eléments qui nous sont connues, ou simplement dans HB. Voici les termes ou expressions figurant dans HA que nous ne trouvons que dans le lexique géométrique de Bar Hiyya :20 meˇsiha . . ou tiˇsboret = l’ aire ou la mesure de l’ aire d’ une figure ; ˇset. ah. ha-merubbeh hazawiyyot21 = la surface aux angles nombreux ; ‘erekh = le rapport. Trois termes semblent être d’ un usage propre à HA : tavnit = la figure ; ribbuy = le produit [d’ une grandeur par une autre] ; noga#im = [droites] tangentes. S’ il est vrai que Bar Hiyya, comme la plupart de ses succes. seurs, utilise couramment le terme temuna pour désigner « la figure », le terme tavnit apparaît toutefois sous sa plume pour désigner « la configuration » ou « la forme ».22 Ribbuy désigne couramment la « multiplicité » 23 lequel exprime « le produit » des deux grandeurs par le chez Bar Hiyya, . terme ribbua", très proche graphiquement et phonétiquement du précédent, dans des formulations strictement homologues à celles qui apparaissent dans HA.24 Pour désigner les (droites) tangentes, Bar Hiyya . utilise, comme la plupart de ses successeurs, la racine verbale maˇsaˇs, « toucher, effleurer », phonétiquement et sémantiquement apparentée à l’ arabe massa. La racine verbale naga#, qui signifie aussi « toucher, être en contact avec », n’ est attestée pour la première fois dans son sens géométrique, à ma connaissance, que dans un ouvrage d’ astronomie et de calculs calendaires rédigé en  à Tolède par Isaac Israeli.25 La deuxième caractéristique de HA est la présence de plusieurs leçons communes avec LP, différentes de leçons communes à AF et LG. Nous 20

Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, §§ –. L’ expression la plus fréquente, chez Bar Hiyya, est ˇset. ah. ha-marbeh s. ela#im = la . surface aux côtés nombreux. 22 Voir le titre de son ouvrage de cosmographie : Surat ha-ares we-tavnit ha-ˇ samayim/ . . La forme de la terre et la configuration du ciel. On trouve aussi, dans son ouvrage de géométrie pratique (Hibbur ha-meˇsiha . . we ha-tiˇsboret = Le livre de la surface et de la mesure), pour désigner la similitude de deux figures, l’ expression domeh be-tavnit = semblable en forme ; voir texte hébreu édité par M. Guttmann, Chibbur ha-Meschicha we ha-Tischboret (Berlin, ) : , ll. , , . 23 Par exemple : « le nombre est la multiplicité [ribbuy] faite d’ unités » (ibid., p. , l. ). 24 Par exemple : « le produit [ribbua#] de l’ un des côtés contenant l’ angle droit par la moitié de l’ autre côté, c’ est la surface [tiˇsboret] du triangle » (ibid., p. , l. ), ou « le résultat du produit [ha-niqbas. me-ribbua#] de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié de l’ arc » (ibid., p. , l. ), qu’ on comparera aux formulations de HA, dans la section []. 25 Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § . Ce compendium, intitulé Yesod #Olam / Fondement du monde, eut une diffusion importante. 21



tony lévy

avons souligné que HA dérive pourtant de la même source arabe que LG, et ne peut être une traduction du texte latin de LP ou de sa source arabe : les différences de lettrage, de certaines formulations et même de contenu (absence du corollaire sur l’ aire du secteur circulaire, dans LP) écartent cette possibilité. Rappelons les raisons invoquées par Clagett pour attribuer à Platon de Tivoli la version latine LP, telle qu’ elle est transmise par l’ unique manuscrit médiéval connu (apparemment copié deux fois au XVIe siècle) : le texte de LP, dans le codex en question, est précédé par le texte du Liber embadorum, adaptation latine du texte hébreu de l’ ouvrage de géométrie 26 réalisée par Platon de Tivoli. La collaboration pratique de Bar Hiyya, . entre Platon et Bar Hiyya (et d’ autres savants juifs ?) dans la traduction . de l’ arabe en latin, à Barcelone entre  et , semble attestée.27 Que peut-on conclure de ces indications ? Simplement des hypothèses : HA est due à un savant juif (de Barcelone ?), connaissant, peut-être, la version latine LP, voire la source arabe de celle-ci. Il traduit dans une langue assez proche de celle de Bar Hiyya, à la fin du XIIe ou au début . du XIIIe siècle. HB est l’ œuvre d’ un traducteur familier de la terminologie et du style des versions hébraïques des Eléments d’ Euclide (XIIIe siècle), 26

Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, p. . Clagett souligne aussi l’ usage d’ une même terminologie dans les deux textes—LP et le Liber embadorum—en particulier les nombreuses occurences du verbe abscido et de ses dérivés. On rapprochera cette remarque de ce que nous avons dit du verbe hatakh = découper, dans HA. . 27 B. Boncompagni, Delle versioni fatte de Platone Tiburtino, traduttore del secolo duodecimo, in Atti dell’ Accademia Pontificia dei Lincei, VI () : –. J.-M. Millas Vallicrosa, Estudios sobre historia de la ciencia española (Barcelona, ) : –. Toutefois, l’ étendue de la collaboration entre Platon et Bar Hiyya doit être revue à la . baisse par rapport aux conclusions de ces deux savants ; voir, à ce sujet, C. Burnett, « Plato of Tivoli : Translator of Works of Trigonometry, Astronomy and Astrology », in J. Strayer, ed., Dictionary of the Middle Ages IX (New York, ) : –. S’ agissant de la traduction (par endroits, une adaptation) de l’ hébreu en latin, par Platon, de l’ ouvrage de géométrie de Bar Hiyya, on ne dispose pas, à ma connaissance, . d’ indication explicite d’ une intervention directe du savant juif dans l’ élaboration du texte latin, même si la collaboration d’ un hébraïsant confirmé (juif ?) paraît vraisemblable ; voir mon « Les débuts de la littérature mathématique hébraïque. La géométrie d’ Abraham Bar Hiyya (XIe–XIIe siècle) », Micrologus IX () : – ; p.  n. . Selon R. Lemay, . « certaines traductions de Platon mentionnent qu’ il travaillait à Barcelone dans le ‘barrio Judaeorum’. C’ est donc probablement dans les milieux juifs de Barcelone que Platon, originaire d’ Italie, apprit l’ arabe et trouva son inspiration et ses matériaux », voir « Dans l’ Espagne du XIIe siècle. Les traductions de l’ arabe au latin », Annales,  () : – , p. .

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age



contrairement au rédacteur de HA. La brièveté du texte ne permet pas vraiment de caractériser son style : plusieurs des traducteurs connus du XIIIe et XIVe siècles pourraient être suggérés. Relevons toutefois des termes d’ un usage courant (pouvant donc éventuellement varier, chez un même auteur, d’ un texte à l’ autre) ou des expressions techniques complexes, qui sont rendus de la même manière dans HB et dans la version hébraïque de La sphère et le cylindre, due à Qalonymos,28 ainsi que dans d’ autres traductions du même Qalonymos. On peut donc suggérer l’ hypothèse que Qalonymos est aussi le traducteur de HB, sans toutefois prétendre avoir pleinement validé cette conclusion.

28 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. OR  (Neubauer ), fols. a–b. « La figure polygonale » est rendue dans cette version par l’ expression temuna rabbat hazawiyyot (fol. b, l. ) = la figure aux angles multiples, comme dans HB []. De même les éléments (arcs, droites, triangles) qui se correspondent sont désignés par l’ adjectif domeh = semblable, dans HB et dans La sphère et le cylindre. Un autre rapprochement terminologique doit être relevé entre Qalonymos et l’ auteur de HB, il concerne l’ expression utilisée pour formuler la procédure itérative. Nous avons vu que HB [] la rend ainsi : « en répétant cela continuellement [tamid, lit. : toujours] sur les segments restants, nous aboutirons à [yikhleh lanu ha-"inyan el, lit. : la démarche finira par nous ‹ conduire › à] une figure ». Voici la formulation de Qalonymos, traduisant Ibn al-Samh, . à propos de l’ aire d’ une ellipse : « en faisant cela continuellement [tamid], on aboutira à [yikhleh #im zeh el] » (Oxford, Bodleian, MS Neubauer , fol. b, ll. – ). Pour une traduction française du texte hébreu : T. Lévy, « Fragment d’ Ibn al-Samh. sur le cylindre et ses sections planes, conservé dans une version hébraïque », in Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle,  : –, voir p. .

UN TRAITÉ JUDÉO-ARABE SUR LES VERTUS DU TABAC RÉDIGÉ DANS LA MAIN ˙ ¯I AN-NABULUS ˇ H SUF¯I ‘ABD AL-GAN ¯ ¯I DU SAY ˘ Paul B. Fenton S’ il est vrai que pendant les deux premiers siècles après l’ introduction en Europe du tabac par l’ intermédiaire de Christophe Colombe, les Juifs marranes prirent part au développement de sa culture et de sa diffusion, les Juifs ne semblent pas s’ être intéressés à ses propriétés médicinales. Dans son catalogue des manuscrits hébreux de la bibliothèque impériale de Berlin, Moritz Steinschneider indiqua, en , dans le ms. Heb. , un recueil médical du XVIIe siècle, l’ existence d’ un traité en judéo-arabe sur le tabac. Il s’ agit de la Ris¯ala ad-d¯ami˙ga li-man yunkir1 haww¯as. s. at˘ t¯abi˙ga, « Le Traité qui confond celui qui nie les propriétés du tabac », com˘ ˇ an ibn Ish¯ posé par un certain Sa#b¯ a q ibn G¯ a n¯ ı al-Isr¯ a "¯ ı l¯ ı , apparemment . un médecin qaraïte de Damas.2 Ce traité avait déjà été signalé au XVIIIe siècle par Ha˘gg˘ i Hal¯ıfa, qui l’ attribue à un Ibn H¯an¯ı, mais on en connais˘ ˘ 3 Comme nous apprenons dans le prologue, il sait aucun exemplaire. s’ agit en fait d’ une traduction arabe commentée d’ un des premiers traités jamais écrits sur le tabac, composé par le médecin et botaniste espagnol Nicolas Monardès de Séville (ca. –).4 Celui-ci écrivit plusieurs livres, d’ importance inégale et dont le plus significatif fut son Historia Medicinal de las cosas que se traen de nuestras Indias Occidentales. Publiée en trois parties (en ,  et ), l’ ouvrage présente des plantes inconnues provenant du Nouveau Monde, et notamment le tabac. Il fut traduit en latin par Charles de l’ Ecluse (Clusius) (–), et fut rendu en français vers  par Anthoine Colin, maître apothicaire de Lyon. 1

Et non : yadhkur, comme a lu Steinschneider. M. Steinschneider, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin, vol.  (Berlin, ), Ms. Heb. ., p. . Il en donne un extrait dans l’ appendix XV, p. . Le receuil contient  folios. 3 Hajji Khal¯ıfa, Lexicon bibliographicum et encyclopaedicum. Éditeur G. Fluegel (Londres, ) : :–, nº . Voir aussi vol. , p.  où curieusement l’ auteur ˙ ı an-N¯abulus¯ı avait aussi composé un traité sur le tabac. rappelle que le ˇsayh #Abd al-Gan¯ ˘ voir, W. Bragge, Bibliotheca nicotiana (Birmingham, ) : , nº  et 4 Sur cet auteur M. Steinschneider, « Americana Nicotiana », Deborah,  juillet , p. . 2



paul b. fenton

˘ an¯ı explique dans son prologue qu’ il avait décidé de composer Ibn G¯ un traité complet sur la question après avoir constaté que : les gens, même des femmes, avaient contracté l’ habitude de fumer la plante connue actuellement sous le nom de tab¯aq¯u (tabac), et chez les Occidentaux sous celui de t¯aba˘ga, sans savoir si elle comporte des [propriétés] bénéfiques ou nocives. En effet, ils ne visent par sa consommation ni la préservation appropriée de la santé ni sa perte, mais ils visent la griserie produite par les vapeurs enfumées qui montent au cerveau . . .. Par ailleurs, je consultai un traité en forme de poème dans lequel cette plante est fortement louée. Cependant le [traité] pèche par l’ absence de toute explication, d’ abord, du comportement de cette plante, puis, ensuite, de ses effets secondaires et tertiaires à la manière dont (les botanistes) décrivent certaines plantes. Comment [ledit traité] ne serait-il pas déficient car, en effet, la chose s’ impose à quiconque a un certain savoir dans la science médicale . . . . Aussi me fixai-je comme but de cerner complètement la connaissance de cette plante, c’ est-à-dire sa quodité et sa qualité. Je commençai par examiner successivement les livres médicaux et les traités scientifiques malgré le peu d’ acquis que je possédais dans cet art. Je les examinai longuement, mais je ne trouvai personne parmi les anciens et les modernes qui fit mention de ce médicament. Puis, je découvris un traité européen appartenant à un médecin habile parmi les modernes en Espagne nommé Monardès, dans lequel il mentionne cette plante ainsi que sa quodité et sa qualité. Je m’ appliquai à la traduction de ce traité en langue arabe, plaçant ma confiance en Dieu car la réussite procède de Lui.

Comme il a été dit, il ne s’ agit pas d’ une simple transposition en arabe mais d’ une traduction critique commentée. En effet, parfois l’ auteur explique le texte original lorsqu’ il pense qu’ il ne sera pas compris. Souvent même, il contredit l’ opinion de Monardès, et donne son propre avis ou un complément d’ information, citant une fois l’ autorité de Canon d’ Ibn S¯ın¯a. Comme on l’ apprend du colophon, le copiste du manuscrit de Berlin était un certain Daniel ben Moïse ben Isaïe. Steinschneider identifia ce dernier avec le médecin qaraïte, membre de la célèbre famille damascène Fir¯uz, qui copia en  l’Ar˘gu¯ za d’ Avicenne figurant dans ˇ an était ce même recueil ms .5 Considérant que le prénom arabe Sa#b¯ l’ équivalent du nom hébreu Isaïe, Steinschneider postula que Daniel

5 Sur cette famille, voir S. Poznanski, « Die karäische Familie Firuz », MGWJ  () : – ; ibid.  (), pp. –, et Steinschneider, « An Introduction to the Arabic Literature of the Jews », JQR XI (), pp. –, nº  et p. , nº .

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



pouvait être le petit-fils de notre traducteur, dont la période d’ activité se situerait, par conséquent, aux environs de . Cette identification fut contestée par Samuel Poznanski dans son compte-rendu du catalogue de Steinschneider. Doutant qu’ un Qaraïte oriental du XVIIe siècle pût connaître l’ espagnol, Poznanski suggéra que ˘ an¯ı, devait se lire plutôt al-Giy¯ ˘ an¯ı, c’ est-à-dire originaire de le nom Ibn G¯ Jaën en Espagne. Il voyait en lui, un lettré qaraïte, dans la lignée d’ Ibn atTaras, ayant vécu beaucoup plus tôt, peut-être encore en Espagne avant l’ expulsion.6 De son côté, Steinschneider rejeta cette hypothèse en précisant que la première édition de la deuxième partie de l’Historia Medicinal de Monardès, qui contenait sa description du tabac, datait de , donc ˘ an¯ı put utibien après l’ expulsion des Juifs d’ Espagne.7 Par ailleurs, Ibn G¯ liser une traduction latine ou française et pas nécessairement l’ original espagnol. Le dernier mot resta avec Poznanski, qui, dans son étude consacrée à la famille Fir¯uz, établit que, d’ après la généalogie de Daniel Fir¯uz consignée dans un rituel qaraïte conservé en le ms. British Library Heb. ., le grand-père de Daniel se prénommait Isaïe ben Salomon, et ne 8 ˇ an ibn Ish¯ pouvait donc pas être identique avec Sa#b¯ . aq. Nous sommes à même de verser un nouvel élément au dossier qui éclaire la biographie de l’ auteur. Lors d’ une mission en octobre  à Damas, nous avons pu consulter la collection des manuscrits arabes de la Z¯ahiriyya conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale Assad où nous avons eu l’ heur de découvrir un deuxième manuscrit de cet écrit.9 Ce manuscrit, contenu dans un ma˘gm¯u # de  folios, est non seulement transcrit en caractères arabes mais est aussi rédigé vers  de la main même ˙ ı ibn Isma#¯ıl an-N¯abulus¯ı du célèbre soufi et théologien #Abd al-Gan¯ (Damas –) une des grandes figures de la vie religieuse en Syrie à son époque.10 Connu surtout pour son attachement à la voie mystique 6 S. Poznanski, « Besprechungen. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin », MGWJ  () : –, p.  ; cf. idem, « Mitteilungen aus handschriftlichen Bibel-Commentaren », Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie  () : –, p. . 7 M. Steinschneider, Die arabische Literatur der Juden (Francfort s. Main, ) : § , p. , n. . 8 Art. cit. p.  (tiré à part, Varsovie, , p. ). Voir G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, t.  (Londres, ) : a. 9 Fihris mahtu . ahir¯ıyah, t. ibb (Damas, ) : nº , pp. – . ¯ t. a¯t D¯ar al-Kutub al-Z¯ ˘ . 10 Un troisième manuscrit, également en caractères arabes, est signalé à la Bibliothèque municipale d’ Alexandrie par Y. Zidan, Fihrist maht. u¯ t. a¯t baladiyyat Iskandariyya, t. , maht. u¯ t. a¯t al-#ilmiyya (Alexandrie, ) : –,˘ nº  : ris¯ala fi d-duh¯an. Attribué ˘ ˘



paul b. fenton

de Muhyi d-D¯ın ibn #Arabi, an-N¯abulus¯ı composa de nombreux ouvrages, entre autres, sur les sciences traditionnelles, l’ interprétation des rêves, l’ agriculture, et la jurisprudence. Or, il est intéressant de rappeler que, dans ce dernier domaine, il signa plus particulièrement un long ouvrage sur le caractère licite du tabac, composé à l’ encontre des réformistes puritains du mouvement des Q¯adiz¯adelis, qui en avaient interdit la consommation. Suite aux débats théologiques au e siècle, l’ usage du tabac, encore relativement nouveau dans l’ Empire ottoman, fit l’ objet d’ une répression fanatique.11 Dans sa recherche d’ arguments en faveur ˘ an¯ı du tabac, an-N¯abulus¯ı s’ était naturellement intéressé au traité d’ Ibn G¯ qu’ il recopia dans un ma˘gm¯u # entièrement de sa main où il consigna toutes sortes d’ écrits pouvant enrichir sa documentation. Adepte de la doctrine du pluralisme religieux de l’ école akbarienne, il ne serait pas exclu même de supposer qu’ an-N¯abulus¯ı connaissait ˘ an¯ı, sans doute son concitoyen et contemporain, le médecin juif Ibn G¯ auquel il put demander de lui fournir une copie de sa traduction en caractères arabes. Un examen attentif des fautes d’ orthographe dans la copie d’ an-N¯abulus¯ı indique qu’ il fut exécuté à partir d’ un original en caractères hébreux.12 ˘ an¯ı avec le S. ulh. Une comparaison rapide de la Ris¯ala al-d¯ami˙ga d’ Ibn G¯ d’ an-N¯abulus¯ı ne laissa pas apparaître une influence du premier sur le second, mais il est probable que l’ écrit du médecin juif est venu enrichir l’ argumentation légale du mystique musulman en faveur du tabac en raison de ses propriétés bénéfiques. Ceci constitue un example curieux d’ une influence juive—certes indirecte—sur la legislation musulmane. Il est intéressant de remarquer qu’ après avoir relaté l’ histoire de l’ oculiste ˇ adhil¯ı (m. ),13 an-N¯abulus¯ı juif du saint musulman Ab¯u l-Hasan aˇs-S¯ .

à Ibn H¯afi, il contient  folios et serait incomplet. Nous ignorons s’ il s’ agit du manuscrit ˇ an ibn H¯an¯ı par C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen déjà répértorié sous Sa#b¯ Litteratur, suppl.  (Leiden, ) ˘:  : Alexandrie Tibb , Ma˘gm¯u #a . 11 As-Sulh bayna al-ihw¯ an f¯ı hukm ib¯ahat . . . . . al-duh¯an (« La Pacification des frères con˘ an (Damas, H). Sur ce traité, cernant l’ autorisation de˘ fumer »). Éditeur M.A. Duhm¯ voir I. Goldziher, Gesammelte Schriften. Éditeur J. Desomoygi, vol.  (Hildesheim, ): – (écrit en ), et aussi L. Berger, « Ein Herz wie ein trockener Schwamm. Laq¯an¯ıs und N¯abulus¯ıs Schriften über den Tabakrauch », Der Islam  () : –. Sur an-N¯abulus¯ı, voir B.R. von Schlegell, Sufism in the Ottoman Arab World : Shaykh #Abd al-Ghani al-N¯abulus¯ı (Ph.D., Université de Californie, Berkeley, ) et E. Sirriyeh, Sufi Visionary of Ottoman Damascus : Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (Londres, ). 12 Par exemple, on lit. fol.  : F!' au lieu de G!', faute qui s’ explique aisément à partir d’ un original en lettres hébraïques. 13 Que nous avons rapportée dans notre article « Juifs et soufis en Egypte mamelouke »,

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



précise que « le premier à avoir introduit [le tabac] en Occident fut un médecin juif qui composa à son sujet un [ouvrage] en poésie et en prose dans lequel il évoqua ses nombreuses vertus. Il fut ensuite introduit en Egypte, au Hi˘ . ga¯z, au Yémen, en Inde, et dans la plupart des pays musulmans ».14 Nous avons fondé notre édition sur deux manuscrits : B Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Heb. ., fols. b–b ( /  lignes par page)15 en lettres hébraïques. D Damas, Maktabat al-Asad al-Wat.aniya, Z¯ahiriya , fols. – , ( ×  cms,  lignes par page) en caractères arabes.

in R. McGregor et A. Sabra, éd., Le développement du soufisme en Egypte à l’ époque mamelouke (Le Caire, ) : –, p. . 14 An-N¯ ˘ an¯ı ? Voir infra, abulus¯ı, as. -S. ulh, . p. . S’ agit-il du poème dont parle Ibn G¯ p. . 15 Cote mic.  de l’ Institut des manuscrits microfilmés, Bibliothèque Nationale d’ Israël, Jérusalem.



paul b. fenton '-/ ( H 4!I JK/ !L/ H J5 [-MNO][-MPN]

Q RS/ DT 6U!F D3V5 U! 7B 7B  D47K 6W!7 D5 U!!X !L H 4K

* !C Y5/ $T/ FB  # Z D4= $W!7/ [  D) 5 ;- $/ ]4) ^U!_/ ]`a !9!' @ 1!X
[[   ( [6Uf 3  ( qM9 [D5  ( !L’ [H !L’  # qM9 [ '-/ ( H 4!I  [lS!'  ( @
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



^#!' p  ]-T Š` * ”G/ 0, Œ  Q/ Q  Š!‘ T!j F!j  J= :D/  S3 ;M/ l7/ * 1hT D/  pU!)  q5/ /9/ S3  ]-/ 1a/ •E g!_T oK  T +/  J) / E! D; *  / c9 ^!I  # 7/ K D .B  –h!I ?= $/ S3 a-4 T _  $_a !C JEE!f D g!}7/ 6T l5 [(-MPN]  ,=_/ S3 * =`/  1 47!I ]c9/ M/ l7/ 1T * q=t ;DY) D3 J~ ;@/ S3 )S   V!' !!'  K $  W!a ƒ/  3 Ea ${ Ea )S u#  D49 9 #U! *  V!'  i0K lM/ Fa /9 $  ?, D J_= H —-/ 5/ /9/ S3 !XT k, -/ qay ;DY) D3 $/ S3 ;k-T ˜T Qa / [(-MN‚]  3  M ™ m-!' $/  9  * (G!' lM/ u#  6  Eh J!šK * D=  4-5 @/ S3 ) ;!f !: #U! * 4-5!' 4/ # S3 ) ;?Y!› g!œ  3 D-Y ) ;65/ m 5/ $K ,; _   4= JE œ - JE7/!8 * 1 0, ;Š  K D Yh7  JE  Y!ž  5 d ŠU!-/ @/ S3   /  n! #U!/ .T * !'  7/ ) E-a/ R  ]VT k, Š!Ÿ  ^-!'  I a ,w/ ^-!' * ?/ ^cƒ/  I/ xYF/ &!'  ` D h5 W!E&5 w/ ^-!'  I xY!  hh!I S3   / (t ;5/ ]57/ ¡ T ;k-T H @B  )S9 W!) {a!I ^ / * ƒ ]57/ ^#U!/ ]ƒ ` 

E  @/ S3   9 .!' !f !:  rY/ 1 cW!-5T !W!~ W!~ VT * 0 ; _ # c9 *  T  !8 F= -a ,YM/ ; E a ;^g!})   S3 67B Y) * pU!7/ ] MT k,  K  ;I $#W!`/ * ?= Š  q4-9 ;k-T H @B  D;  D-a * D/ M ]  - !¢ x/£' D/ I 
[K . . . –h!I S3  ( qM9 [M/←Q/  ( QŒ!/ 6 [Q   ( !I [T!j  6 E! D;  ^ / c5/ ^# [D; *  / c9 ^!I  # 7/  ( ^K . . . hh!I S3 $_a  ( [$_a !C JEE!f E 6/ ^})  | # [D g!}7/ 6T l5  #  TV [ T  ( D  (
+  ( G/ [ M  ( qM9 [9  * (G!' lM/  ( qM9 [k-T ˜T Qa / [?Y!›  ( 5/ [65/  ( J!šK ^ * [JE  Eh J!šK  ( [JE  Eh (  [xYF/  ( * [ `  ( J3Ž!)  ) [7/  ( J3#U! [JE7/!8  # h JEYY!  [W!E&5  ( xh [xY!   ( ! I  ) 0, w/ ^-!' a [^-!'  I a  1 cW!-5T !W!~ W!~  ( * $SY [*  ( sY!I [k-T H @B  )S9 W!) {a!I  ( # qM9 [?=  ( * [E a  ( qM9 [9 .  ( k, !W!~ cW!-5T [!:  rY/ ( qM9 [k-T-pU!7/ 



paul b. fenton

M a- ^ƒ J9  * ?49 DIU!5 !!: ! D49 ) $/ S3  x/£' 6 $K!f ] R  V  g!5 | Da ,}/  /  ’ * u K 3 ;Ea DT ^}7/ ?/ @# 5/ &9 !ž ^  Da ;Y-/ $K!f }!j z/  9 / ? M/ ;k-T H @B , )S9 W!) {œ ^# ^# E9  ƒ RS/ I/ ^#/ ”  1Y 4!f 4G/ !‘/ [  75  #  1Y (t 0, D # ;w/ 7/ R!' ; !' g!G/ ,I/ ^#/ ^3 ^Vh Da 7Y/ J`!: # ) Ea ?/ ^cƒ/  I/ [-MP¤] xY!  ˜/ ^-!' ;6ƒ/ -d E7/ !š# ?/ ƒ!' ^#/ h/  ; _  #/ [_/  1Y $/ S3 , x/£' 6 M/ i  S ¥ , ./0 ;k-T H 0¦ ” ./ Qa  ŠU!= Da I ^#  ;75 oK ^ ^ 1 /
}/}/  # [}/  #  ’  # D [DT  ( DTƒ [a- ^ƒ  ( F/h [DIU!5  ( g!4`/ (n!/ [k-T←{œ  # ^K [^#  ( #5/ rY  3 [@# 5/   ( Dt [(t 0, D #  ( 7/ w/ !' “!  -Y ! I!' #Ž' [ w/←  0, ; _  [M/←?/  # qM9 [^#/  ( J`!: [«! 3 w/ [$/←˜/  ( ^ - [75 oK ^  ( 1§ !' [1 /  ( qM9 [ &9  ( RI DT  S

3  # qM9 [75 o!I  ( 3€ |- 3# * D [&5!' 3€ 3 i  ( [ /←^-!'  (  € !   W!, [€ !  W!,  # qM9 [h/ RS/  ( qM9 [oE, ]`a ( i / 4` c€ [_/  7   +  ( ./0 DB   / ( !I $  * ] #  DT_=  S  i# 0, [/ S ¥  (  ¥ * [QK =  ( E=  / [ E-  !'  ( K 5 / 1   1Y

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



!š a JG E9 ?/ ƒ4!' _/ ” * ^g!})  @/ S3 q e x/£' 6 D4a  Š! J 6-9 D/ !' 1YT ƒ!' _/ uY/ Q§  ?YhT !¢a G -Y -a ;r/ ]} Y= sœ JG ;k-T H @B  ^9Y/ {G/ 6 `Y/  _/ ? $/ S3 a 

oK  }/ 5/ @ !I * MT D 7/  i ^n!= RM/ M/ i  S ¥ ^n!= h= ^7 ]4-5 [t] p  | 75/  !I
`/ p -9 !' @aƒ/ (t  ]4-5 @/ S3 ]-/ ]4-5  ] ?G 6  Š!‘   € / 3#  G/ 1 Ž!B !j i -/  ]4-5 Š` - ;^#!'  @/  ]4-5 Š` - R / Š`U!/  !ž ” S3 0, lM/   K ; )S!' x}7 # E9 ?/ ^-!' 4` #Ž!/ = ~#!I !‘/ ^-!' [   1Y D x/£' 6 # i RM/ M/ [i]  S ¥ ;p / DhT ;Ecƒ !    {œ @# 9  ^_-/ .T  S ¥ ;ª!- i0K !¬ ]  !TM  ^M i/ !K D= l_   /  ) & 4`T .// - ;B 7/# U!_/ !C ./ J~ ,  &9 &5 ; ! oK h= ^7 ŠU!-/ S3 ]4- ^_-/ .T  1 / b!M D ./0 ,?!‘/ / /  [(MN¨]
qM9 [_/  ( `  [!¢a G -Y  ( 3 a [!š a  ( 9  [q  # qM9 [D  ( ª!/ ^  x-`  MY/ ] D # 6W!-9 [k-T←a  # ­- [sœ  # JY/ [JY/  ( qM9 [h=  (  t [Dt  ( qM9 [|  ( ]I [ !I  ` D [`/  # [iƒ/ (t  ]/ [@aƒ/ (t  ]4-5 @/ S3 ]-/  ( (! U!; [[   # qM9 [ )S!'←-  ( lM/    l5 [Š!‘    ( )0 W!; #/ &5!' i ^-!' 4` [p /←4`  ( !‘/  # = ~#!I [  ^-!' [./ J~  # qM9 [ª!-  ( 7 [!¬  ( qM9 [ ^M  ( 15/ $U!_/ [./0  (


paul b. fenton ;lM/  K !K  K ŠU!-/ S3 ] ]4-  l!  6 

[ª!/ DhT | 1 _/ ”-T ?/ /  !f- !: ƒcF= q  e x/£' 6 r5!' - ]/  ]/ * ?/ ?= ]/ 3 E ?_/ M/ 54 ) !¢a M ]E5 !=9 - ŠU!-/ S3 ) ;RM/ M/ i E DM 4` 3/ ;1Y/ J{= 3 ^g!})  DFa k-T H 0¦ Va !T  ^ ?_/   n!= 5!¬ RM/ M/ i  S ¥ ;[/ lK /  1Y D x/£' 6 75/  x_ ]I
( 4/ !f- [/  !f-  (  l5K [K  # qM9 [ŠU!-/  ( qM9 [6   qM9 [M  ( r_/ D ]`Y RS/ ?- []/  ]/ * ?/ ?=  ( 45 [3  D 6 4- (t Y; [ 1Y D x/£' 6  ( lF= [1Y/ J{=  #    [k-T H 0¦  # Š&/ /  !‘ ./0 - [#/←a  (  h= [   ( qM9 []/  ( ] Da  ]; * €! [D ƒ  # qM9 [)   ( (n!/ S3 [ M/ (t  ( RM/  ( qM9 [(n!/ ]4= *  ( qM9 [U!← {!'  # qM9 [# D ƒ←“! /- 5K ) [J3# g!œ←)0 W!)  ( € / ]} [D} 4!I  ( p - € [!°# !~U!~  ?/ [# = D9 ?/ p/  ( 6 [x/£' 6 J~  ( DTK [ M/ ^K  ( )0 W!) [&5 M/   ( 4` []7T  # qM9 [ ];Y!'  ( qM9 [  # !š# ( &9 3

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



W! / ] ^4§ 1§  /!ž  ] #  / - 3 W! x/£' #  6  ;^#!' ;1§ !' .T k, # !' (S!  ./0 ,h g!œ  ) 1§  R * ^#/ p $ Y ]!‘ M/  x/£' 6 J~ J9/


paul b. fenton

^_-/ . K!f 4`T p   * M/ i ;9 /  K!f ? oK  ?M 6 ]4= W!) z_/ * ]4- ;z_/ k ˜Œ! M/  ª!-!' z!f
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



[# l5K (7/ p ] ;J7K  J= H F/ S3 r;  D/’
[( l5K (7/ p ] H ;  D= q-I  S3 ;F/ r; Ea D-a  /9/ S3 * DT)0  ]) D/ 4!I J= R# E/ -B p K!'  o9  p K!'  6# DYœ ¥Y= ? / !L k g!Y/ =  ! D!L /



paul b. fenton

Dans la traduction suivante, nous avons divisé le texte en deux chapitres, subdivisés en paragraphes, afin de faciliter sa comparaison avec la traduction française du XVIIe siècle, dans laquelle nous avons également introduit une subdivision qui n’ était pas dans l’ original. Une comparaison de ˘ an¯ı n’ avait pas traduit l’ intégralité deux textes fait apparaître qu’ Ibn G¯ du texte tel qu’ il se présente à travers la traduction française. Il est aussi curieux qu’ il ait négligé le troisième chapitre où l’ on parle des effets hallucinants produits par le tabac, précisément des aspects qu’ an-N¯abulus¯ı aurait souhaité dissimuler. Afin de les faire ressortir, nous avons mis les ˘ an¯ı en italiques. observations critiques d’ Ibn G¯

Traduction [B fol. b] [D fol. a] Voici le Traité qui confond celui qui nie les propriétés du tabac (t¯abi˘ga) Dont le nom en arabe est duh¯an, en turc tütün, en indien manˇsa¯lat, et ˘ l’ île [dont il est originaire], se nomme tab¯aq¯u. Au nom d’ Allah le clément et miséricordieux ! Los à Allah, Maître de l’ univers. J’ adresse à Allah une louange exquise qu’ Il mérite par la perfection de sa sagesse, et je lui rends grâce d’ une reconnaissance majestueuse qui lui revient en vertu de l’ exaltation de sa puissance. Il créa l’ homme en le couvrant de divers honneurs et en lui enseignant les propriétés des médicaments [provenant] des arbres et des plantes afin qu’ il en tire profit dans ses actions et ses dévotions. Je formule à l’ intention de tous les prophètes et les apôtres une prière et une salutation sublimes. Ainsi dit le serviteur fautif, sollicitant la compassion d’ Allah souverain ˘ an¯ı ˇ an ibn Ish¯ et créateur, le médecin Sa#b¯ . aq, connu sous le nom d’ Ibn al-G¯ l’ Israélite : Lorsque je constatai que les gens, même des femmes, avaient contracté l’ habitude de fumer la plante connue actuellement sous le nom de tab¯aq¯u (tabac), et chez les Occidentaux sous celui de t¯aba˘ga, sans savoir si elle comporte des [propriétés] bénéfiques ou nocives. En effet, ils ne visent par sa consommation ni la préservation appropriée de la santé ni sa perte,1 mais ils visent la griserie produite par les vapeurs enfumées qui 1

Litt. : son renvoi vers la maladie.

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



montent au cerveau, ou, pour ce qui est des femmes, [elles visent] le dessèchement de l’ humidité de l’ estomac et l’ échauffement de celui-ci au moment de leur grossesse. Par ailleurs, je consultai un traité en forme de poème dans lequel cette plante est fortement louée.2 Cependant le [traité] pèche par l’ absence de toute explication, d’ abord, du comportement de cette plante, puis ensuite ses effets secondaires et tertiaires à la manière dont (les botanistes) décrivent certaines plantes. Comment [ledit traité] ne serait-il pas déficient car, en effet, la chose s’ impose à quiconque a un certain savoir dans la science médicale. Son auteur prétend que cette plante posséderait la faculté de purger la pituite, ajoutant qu’ elle élimine la bile [B fol. a]. Or, entre ces deux [humeurs] il y a un immense antagonisme. En effet, la purge de la pituite se fait nécessairement soit par l’ évacuation au moyen de purgatifs, ce qui est le traitement préférable, soit uniquement par sa résolution et sa dessiccation, ce dernier étant appelé le “traitement défectueux”. Or, cette plante ne fait point partie des purgatifs. Comment, en effet, peutelle l’ être vu que la fumée est une substance terreuse comportant une propriété fortement dessiccative et une légèrement ignée. Or, dans le cas décrit, l’ épuration de la bile se fait uniquement par la résolution et la dessiccation, traitement qui correspond seulement à la chaleur et à la sécheresse. Comment alors son assertion qu’ elle élimine la bile peutelle être correcte ? En effet, le traitement de la bile se fait d’ une manière contraire, à savoir par le réfrigération, l’ humidification et la maturation de la bile, puisque il ne peut se faire par la résolution et la dilution comme c’ est le cas concernant la bile et l’ atrabile. Il convient, au contraire, qu’ elle soit un peu épaisse comme l’ énonça explicitement le docteur Ab¯u ‘Al¯ı ibn S¯ın¯a dans le quatrième livre du Canon. Voici ses paroles : “Sache que le mélange épais a besoin d’ être dilué, tandis que le dilué a besoin d’ être épaissi, puisque le but de la maturation est de modifier la tenue de la matière afin qu’ elle devienne apte à l’ immunité.” Il est possible que ce traité ne soit pas le propos d’ un individu versé dans les livres médicaux. Il est indubitable que cette herbe est chaude ; cependant son degré de chaleur, ainsi que les autres qualités de ses propriétés sont inconnues, et nombre de gens sont morts [D fol. b] parce qu’ ils en ont pris une quantité excessive.

2 On peut penser au poème du médecin juif, évoqué par an-N¯ abulus¯ı. Voir supra, n. .



paul b. fenton

Aussi me fixai-je comme but de cerner complètement la connaissance de cette plante, c’ est-à-dire sa quodité et sa qualité. Je commençai par examiner successivement les livres médicaux et les traités scientifiques malgré le peu d’ acquis que je possédais dans cet art. Je les examinai longuement, mais je ne trouvai personne parmi les anciens et les modernes qui fit mention de ce médicament. Puis, je découvris un traité européen appartenant à un médecin habile parmi les modernes en Espagne nommé Monardès, dans lequel il mentionne cette plante ainsi que sa quodité et sa qualité. Je m’ appliquai à la traduction de ce traité en langue arabe, plaçant ma confiance en Dieu car la réussite procède de Lui. [Chapitre I] I. . Monardès, l’ excellent médecin d’ Espagne déclare que la plante actuellement connue sous le nom de tabac fait partie [B fol. b] des anciens médicaments utilisés dans le pays de la Nouvelle Inde. Ce remède, qui fut employé contre des plaies, fut célèbre parmi eux aussi bien chez les gens du vulgaire que chez les spécialistes pour [le traitement] des blessures causées par l’ épée ou le sabre. Son efficacité était manifeste sans que l’ on le dissimulât, mais son traitement était un secret caché et gardé parmi eux qu’ ils ne divulguaient à personne à l’ extérieur. [Cf. III. ] Si une affaire grave survenait à leurs royaumes, nécessitant une forte délibération pour la repousser, les principaux dirigeants de ces pays fumaient cette drogue et l’ inhalaient aussi par les narines afin de sécher l’ humidité excessive qui subsistait dans l’ estomac et le cerveau. En effet, l’ humidité de l’ estomac engendre la léthargie et l’ oubli, alors que l’ inhalation de la fumée émise par cette plante dessèche l’ humidité de l’ estomac et du cerveau. De plus, elle les réchauffe, éliminant, du coup, la torpeur et la léthargie et elle augmente la faculté de mémoire, comme nous l’ exposerons si Dieu veut. En l’ an  [], le roi d’ Espagne fit la conquête de la Nouvelle Inde. Nous y découvrîmes cette drogue et nous l’ expérimentâmes à plusieurs reprises. Elle possède des propriétés subtiles et des vertus merveilleuses qui ne se trouvent dans aucun autre médicament, en particulier si elle est employée en application externe, c’ est-à-dire comme cataplasme et en frictions. Il serait inutile de nous étendre dans la description des diverses formes de cette drogue et de ses qualités, comme le fit l’ auteur, car elles sont connues. En revanche, nous nous étendrons longuement sur ses vertus et ses propriétés, si Dieu le veut.

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



I. . L’ auteur déclare que si le nom de cette plante parmi les Indiens était naˇsbalata,3 dans notre pays elle porte le nom de l’ île appelée Tobago en raison de l’ abondance de ses plantes [qui s’ y trouvent].4 (. . . ) I. . Elle est chaude et sèche à l’ extrémité du second degré. Elle est légèrement astringente et fortement détersive, voilà pourquoi elle cicatrise les plaies fraîches et nettoie les ulcères sordides et putrides et les blessures gangreneuses. Elle est résolutive des impuretés de l’ atrabile causées par l’ humeur froide et grossière, comme nous l’ évoquerons plus loin, si Dieu le veut. I. . Elle apaise les douleurs venteuses et atrabilaires et elle est, en somme, un remède efficace pour les affections algides et humides et pour les [gens] possédant de tempéraments froids et humides ainsi que pour les gens qui ne possèdent pas un tempérament chaud, surtout au niveau du foie et du cerveau. Lorsqu’elle est inhalée, sa fumigation est bénéfique pour la réfrigeration de l’ estomac et du cerveau, et elle dessèche [D fol. a] l’ humidité superflue qui déclenche le raidissement de la digestion et de la réflexion. En effet, elle contient une vivacité évidente, mais qui est éphémère. I. . L’ auteur prétend que cette plante est un remède efficace contre la migraine causée par le froid, principalement contre la céphalalgie froide et chronique, dont l’ humeur est froide et humide. Elle est effectivement un remède salutaire contre ces maladies avec la permission de Dieu. [Cf. I. .] A cet effet, on prendra des feuilles de tabac fraîches, bien chauffées dans des cendres ardentes [B fol. a] que l’ on placera sur la douleur un bon moment jusqu’à ce qu’elle soit apaisée. Il y a des gens qui attachent à l’ endroit de la douleur les feuilles enduites d’ huile de fleurs d’ orangers qui réchauffent comme cataplasme jusqu’à ce qu’elle soit soulagée, ce qui est préférable. Fin de citation. A mon avis, je dis que ce traitement de la céphalalgie n’ est possible qu’après avoir lavé l’ estomac et le cerveau des résidus grossiers par un clystère moyen, d’ abord avec des pastiles purgatives qui épurent le cerveau, comme, ensuite, avec des pilules cochées5 et électuaires fortifiantes, sauf si 3 Plus haut ce mot était orthographié manˇ salat. Le texte français (voir l’ Appendice) dit Piciel. 4 Il manquerait ici deux paragraphes par rapport à la traduction française du traité de Monardès. Voir l’ Appendice. 5 [habb] al-q¯ uq¯ay¯a, un laxatif sous forme de pastilles composées de part égales de .



paul b. fenton

le mal de tête est modéré, [auquel cas] il suffirait uniquement de mettre un cataplasme composé de feuilles. I. . L’ auteur déclare qu’il est efficace contre l’ inflammation douloureuse de la nuque qui résulte de ce que l’ arrière de la tête s’ expose dans un endroit dégagé au temps d’ hiver ; il s’ agit d’ un traitement approprié contre un tel mal, avec l’ assistance de Dieu. On prendra des feuilles de tabac fraîches que l’ on pilera dans un mortier en marbre, puis on les pressera. On enduira la nuque de l’ extrait obtenu chauffé à une température convenable. Après l’ onction, il faut la panser au moyen d’ une feuille de tabac chauffée dans des cendres, comme il a été évoqué précédemment. Il faut porter le [pansement] de cette manière une ou deux fois selon le besoin. I. . L’ auteur déclare : j’ appliquai constamment ce remède dans le cas des maladies chroniques de la poitrine causées par la pituite, et je le trouvai extrêmement efficace. Il guérit également l’ asthme chronique et sera efficace à celui qui est affligé d’ une toux résistante qui secrète de la bouche une pituite épaisse et putride ressemblant au pus. Cette plante purge la poitrine des résidus grossiers putrides, si Dieu le veut. On prendra dix feuilles de tabac fraîches parmi les plus grandes que l’ on fera cuire en deux rot. l-s6 d’ eau de bourrache,7 jusqu’à ce qu’il n’ en reste que la moitié. Ensuite, on le clarifiera avec deux rot. l-s de sucre blanc pour former un sirop. On en prendra dix drachmes matin et soir dans une décoction de bourrache. On prendra également une fumigation [de tabac] deux fois par semaine afin d’ évacuer la pituite de la bouche. Quant à moi, je dis qu’avant que le malade n’ utilise ce remède, il convient de prendre du sirop d’ hysope que l’ on administrera pendant sept jours afin de servir de maturatif au corps. Après la maturation, on utilisera en tant que looch8 du cassier9 avec l’ agaric et l’ huile d’ amande en quantité requise selon l’ avis du médecin, car ces maladies nécessitent un muturatif fort et après leur maturation on prendra le remède indiqué. I. . L’ auteur dit qu’un cataclysme [à base de tabac] appliqué à l’ estomac est efficace dans les douleurs des flatulences abdominales qui mastic, d’ extrait d’ absinthe et de chicotin. Cf. R. Dozy, Supplémentaux dictionnaires arabes, t. II (Paris, ) : . 6 Un rotl équivaut  grammes. . 7 Ab¯ u l-Rayhan . Bir¯un¯ı, Kit¯ab al-saydana fi"l-t. ibb. Éditeur A. Zary¯ab (Tehran, ) : nº , p.  : lis¯an at-tawr, borrago officinalis. ¯ ¯ de l’ arabe la#¯uq, signifiant électuaire. 8 Mot français dérivé 9 Bir¯ un¯ı, nº , p.  : hiy¯ar ˇsanbar, cassia fistula. ˘

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



proviennent du froid. La cause en est le froid intense ou l’ atrabile épaisse ou une intrusion entre ses parties qui ressemble à une inflammation. On prendra [des feuilles] de tabac fraîches qui seront bien triburées. On versera au moment de la trituration une ou deux gouttes du vinaigre de vin acerbe et on les pressera. On prendra de ce jus que l’ on chauffera un bon coup, avec lequel on frottera rigoureusement les lombes. Après ce massage, on fera un cataplasme avec une linge de coton mouillée dans ce jus. Il appliquera [D fol. b] ce traitement matin et soir jusqu’à ce qu’il se ramollisse. Puis l’ auteur dit que [cette plante] est efficace contre les calculs rénaux [B fol. b] engendrés par la colique venteuse. On enduit la douleur avec des feuilles de tabac chaudes, comme indiqué auparavant, et elles seront ajoutées aussi aux cystères employés pour ces maladies. [Cf. II. ] L’ auteur dit que [le tabac] constitue un remède pour les maladies de la matrice, à savoir les suffocations de la matrice et son inflammation. Aussi, essuiera-t-il [la partie] entre le nombril et l’ anus avec de l’ huile de baume si l’ on en dispose, sinon avec du styrax liquide. Après cette application, il enduira ceci avec des feuilles de tabac chauffées à la manière indiquée. Quant à moi, je dis qu’il faudrait appliquer avant ce traitement un ou deux cystères selon l’ avis du médecin. I. . L’ auteur déclare qu’il avait vu des vieilles Indiennes soigner [avec du tabac] le mal au ventre accompagné de spasmes ressemblant à l’ épilepsie qui affecte les enfants. Elles faisaient des frictions sur le ventre et le dos de l’ enfant avec de l’ huile de lampe, c’est-à-dire, le résidu dans la lampe après la nuit. Après l’ onction de l’ huile, elles mettaient sur son ventre et son dos des cataplasmes faits de feuilles de tabac fraîches. Deux heures après ce traitement, le ventre de l’ enfant fut apaisé et en le répétant une ou deux fois, il était guéri avec la permission de Dieu. Je l’ essayai à plusieurs reprises avec des résultats très efficaces. [Chapitre II] II. . L’ auteur déclare que [le tabac] est utile pour [éliminer] les lombrics et des vers cucurbitaires. On prend quinze feuilles de tabac frais que l’ on fait cuire dans trois rot. l-s d’ eau jusqu’à ce qu’il n’ en reste qu’un tiers. On clarifie le suc [obtenu] avec un rot. l et demi de sucre blanc de manière à produire un sirop. On prend au matin en petite quantité,—environ dix drachmes—tandis que l’ on fait des frictions sur le nombril avec de l’ extrait de tabac. Ce traitement tue les vers et il



paul b. fenton

convient après ce traitement d’ administrer au patient un simple clystère afin d’ évacuer les vers morts des entrailles. Moi je dis que si le patient qui [souffre] des lombrics et des vers cucurbitaires est un enfant, il ne faut point utiliser le sirop de tabac puisque cette plante ne convient pas à un individu dont le tempérament est chaud. Or, il est clair qu’un enfant est chaud et par conséquent il peut lui être extrêmement nocif. Aussi, convient-il d’ appliquer ce traitement uniquement aux patients qui ont atteint l’ âge de la maturité ou la vieillesse et, aussi, de ne pas administrer ce sirop à ceux dont le tempérament est froid. Je présume que les paroles de l’ auteur « l’ on fait des frictions sur le nombril avec de l’ extrait de tabac », s’ appliquent en particulier au cas d’ un enfant malade. Quant aux adolescents, il leur est permis de prendre une petite quantité du sirop de tabac. J’ ajouterai, malgré la déficience de mon esprit mou et mon intelligence défaillante que la meilleure manière de faire le sirop est de prendre environ trente drachmes de tabac frais et une quantité égale de pourpier,10 les faire cuire dans du jus d’ endives, comme il a été indiqué. On le clarifiera avec un rot. l et demi de sucre blanc et ce [sirop] sera utilisé comme il a été indiqué avec une drachme [de tabac] de moins puisque le pourpier équivaut la chaleur du tabac. Ceci augmente l’ efficacité contre les lombrics. II. . Puis l’ auteur déclare que cette plante est un remède efficace contre les douleurs articulatoires et goutteuses causées par [B fol. a] le froid et la pituite pure. On prend de l’ extrait de tabac que l’ on chauffe bien. On en fait des frictions sur les articulations et [le lieu] de la goutte, puis on attachera une feuille de tabac réchauffée dans des cendres comme il fut indiqué cidessus. Ce traitement calmera la douleur et [D fol. a] est un résolutif de la matière. Je dis que l’ intention de l’ auteur se situe, bien entendu, après avoir procédé à un lavement interne, car le fait de placer des cataplasmes avant le lavement attire les matières vers ces lieux. Ensuite, l’ auteur déclare que le tabac est un résolutif des inflammations et les affections inflammatoires froides en tout lieu et sans peine, en faisant des frictions sur l’ inflammation avec de l’ extrait de tabac réchauffé. Après l’ enduction du suc, il faut panser avec une feuille à la manière déjà indiquée précédemment. Il est d’ une efficacité merveilleuse, si Dieu le veut.

10

Bir¯un¯ı, nº , p.  : baqla, al-hamq¯ a", portulaca oleracea. .

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



[cf. I. ] Ensuite l’ auteur déclare que le [tabac] constitue un remède au mal aux dents lorsque ceux-ci sont causés par le froid. Il faut auparavant que le patient se gargarise avec du vinaigre de vin acerbe contenant de la cannelle indienne.11 Après le rinçage, on placera sur la dent une linge mouillée de l’ extrait de tabac réchauffé. Il calmera la douleur avec l’ aide de Dieu. II. . Puis l’ auteur dit que le tabac est utile comme résolutif de l’ inflammation des mains et des pieds qui affectent les enfants et certains adolescents durant la saison d’ hiver. On prendra des [feuilles] de tabac frais finement triburées que l’ on appliquera en frictions sur les mains et les pieds. Après ces frictions, on les placera dans de l’ eau très chaude dans laquelle on aurait bouilli du sel. Il fera de la sorte matin et soir et enveloppera les doigts et les orteils pour les préserver du froid. II. . L’ auteur déclare ensuite que cette plante possède une propriété merveilleuse contre les poisons des blessures produites par des flèches empoisonnées. En effet, les Indiens traitent leurs flèches avec des produits toxiques. Tout celui qui est atteint par ces flèches n’ a pas d’ antidote et il meurt. Comme la plupart meurent suite à l’ intensité des douleurs énormes, leurs ennemis les fuient par crainte des flèches empoisonnées. Confondus [ ? ], les médecins de notre pays ne trouvèrent point de traitement pour soulager cette douleur à part le sublimé (salm¯an). Certains furent traités avec le sublimé mais ce dernier était parmi les médicaments recherchés dans notre pays. Lorsque nous trouvâmes la plante du [tabac], nous la mîmes à l’ essai et voici qu’elle avait une propriété exceptionnelle contre l’ empoisonnement causé par les blessures. La douleur de celui à qui on applique en frictions l’ extrait de tabac est immédiatement soulagée. Ce traitement était un secret gardé par les Indiens et une chose cachée qu’ils ne dévoilaient point à une personne extérieure. Ensuite, l’ auteur dit que le tabac est un remède efficace contre les blessures causées par les coupures de couteaux ou d’ épées sans que l’ on ait besoin d’ autres drogues. [D fol. b] Le régime à suivre est de bien laver au préalable la blessure avec du vin afin de la nettoyer de toute souillure. Puis, on pilera le tabac dans un mortier en marbre et on fera un cataplasme en enduisant la blessure avec l’ extrait obtenu du tabac que l’ on laissera jusqu’au matin. Au matin, il procédera comme il fit initialement. Il appliquera bien des frictions la plaie et il amollira

11

Bir¯uni, nº , p.  : s¯adi˘g hind¯ı, Cinnamomum citriadrum. ¯



paul b. fenton

son humeur, si un émollient s’ avère nécessaire, puis il guérira [B fol. b] complètement, si Dieu veut. Puis il dit également que le tabac est utile dans le traitement d’ une [brûlure de] braise si on y applique l’ extrait [de tabac] en frictions, car il en élimine le poison à la manière décrite à propos des flèches empoisonnées. Quant à moi, je dis que cette assertion demande réflexion car cette plante est chaude et sèche et ne convient absolument pas aux maladies chaudes selon ce que prétend l’ auteur lui-même. Or, la braise provient d’ une matière chaude et toxique dont le traitement se fait après une saignée, et le cataplasme se fait à base de drogues dessicatives et froides, dans lesquelles il y a une certaine propriété résolutive. Il se peut que l’ on doive recourir à une scarification profonde afin d’ évacuer le sang peccant inhérent à la nature du poison. Or, comment cette plante pourrait-elle convenir à cette maladie ? Je réponds que son utilité se place du côté de l’ extraction du mauvais sang inhérent à la nature du poison à la manière qu’elle agit dans le cas de flèches empoisonnées. La méthode préférable est de mêler à cet extrait une petite quantité du suc de plantain majeur,12 ainsi qu’une petite quantité de farine de lentille. II. . Puis l’ auteur déclare que le tabac est utile dans le traitement des ulcères malins et chroniques qui perdurent depuis un long moment. Il cicatrise, nettoie la saleté, digère les excroissances charnues putrides, et renouvelle la peau. Un grand nombre d’ individus furent atteints dans notre pays par des ulcères malins et chroniques. Or, ils furent soignés avec le tabac dont ils tirèrent un immense bénéfice. J’ observai un homme qui portait une blessure maligne et chronique, vieille d’ environ quinze ans. Il fut traité avec du tabac et il guérit complètement. La manière dont on soigne les ulcères avec du tabac est que le patient doit subir, si nécessaire, une purge complète ou partielle selon l’ avis du médecin. Après l’ épuration de l’ humeur dominante, le tabac est appliqué en frictions sur la blessure sur laquelle on mettra la substance extraite comme cataplasme. On allégera le régime alimentaire du malade autant que possible et il évitera tout aliment salé et acide, ainsi que tout aliment provoquant de la flatulence. Il s’ abstiendra également du coït. Il n’ a pas à craindre quelque digestion à propos des ulcères, car le tabac possède la propriété de digérer. Voilà donc le traitement qui s’ impose pour ce qui est des ulcères malins, car le [tabac] digère la chair abîmée et fait repousser de la chair nouvelle. S’ il ronge complètement la chair abîmée, 12

Bir¯uni, nº , p.  : lis¯an al-hamal, plantago major. .

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



il conviendrait de diminuer le volume de l’ extrait, appliquant au des frictions d’ une quantité réduite, car même cette dernière cicatrise les ulcères et fait repousser la chair. Quant à moi, je dis que ces maladies [D fol. a] nécessitent des drogues dessicatives, détergentes et astringentes, soit chaudes, si les ulcères sont froids, soit froides si les ulcères sont chauds. Ceci est le traitement initial, mais en phase finale, il faut avoir recours à des drogues comportant une propriété détergente qui fassent repousser la chair. II.  Cette plante est astringente, dessiccative, et détergente, qui ronge la chair maligne si elle est utilisée en grande quantité. Si elle est utilisée en petite quantité, elle fait repousser la chair. Cette vertu ne concerne pas seulement les êtres humains, mais elle est bénéfique aussi à d’ autres animaux. Toutes les vertus que j’ ai évoquées dans ce traité s’ avèreront justes à l’ essai. III. . Voici ce que j’ ai lu à son sujet, mais Dieu sait mieux et louanges à Lui. Colophon du ms B : Son serviteur qui sollicite la miséricorde de Dieu, qui espère en son ˇ an pardon et en son indulgence, Daniel, fils de feu Moïse, fils de feu Sa#b¯ le Juif qaraïte, que [Dieu] ait pitié de lui. Amen. Colophon du ms D : Le traité est terminé avec l’ assistance de Dieu et sa réussite favorable. Los à Dieu seul et des prières et des salutations sur notre maître Mahomet et sur sa famille et ses compagnons. Amen. Appendice Histoire des simples medicamens apportés de l’ Amérique, desquels on se sert en la Medecine. Escrite premierement en Espagnol, par M. Nicolas Monard, Medecin de Siville, depuis mise en Latin et illustré de plusieurs Annotations, par Charles de l’ Ecluse d’ Arras, et nouvellement traduicte en François par Anthoine Colin, Maistre Apoticaire Iuré de la ville de Lyon, Lyon .13 13 Dans Histoire des drogues, espiceries et de certains medicamens simples qui naissent ès Indes & en Amérique divisés en deux parties [deuxième partie] (Lyon, ) : –.



paul b. fenton

Du Tabaco, ou Herbe à la Royne Chap. X I. . La plante Tabaco, a esté anciennenment en vsage entre les Indiens, principalement entre ceux qui habitent le paies la Nouuele Espagne pour la guerison des playes. Elle nous a esté aportée en Espagne despuis peu d’ années en çà, tant pour l’ ornement des iardins, que pour ses facultés : mais maintenant elle est en plus grande estime, tant à cause de ses grandes vertus et propriétés, que à cause de sa beauté. I. . Son vray nom entre les Indiens est Piciel : car ce nom de Tobaco luy esté donné par les Espagnols, à cause d’ vne Isle ainsi appellée, où elle croist à foison. I. . C’ est une plante qui croist fort haute, & aucunefois elle surpasse de hauteur vn Limonier, ayant une tige droite, branchue : elle a les feuilles presque comme le Limonier, mais plus larges, comme celle de la Parelle, d’ une couleur claire, verde, & un peu velües, comme est aussi toute la plante. I. . Elle porte vne fleur au plus haut de ses rameaux, en forme de clochette, laquelle est blanche & pourprée au milieu lors qu’ elles tombent il sort en leur place des petites testes de Pauot noir, dedans lesquelles est contenüe vne petite semence grise de couleur cendrée tirant sur le noir. Sa racine est grosse & fendüe en plusieurs fibres, ligneule ; iaune au dedans, & amere, laquelle se pele facilement ; toutefois nous n’ auons ouy dire qu’ elle aye aucune faculté. Elle croist en plusieurs endroits des Indes ; principalement en ceux qui sont humides & ombrageux mesmes en des lieux qui ne sont point cultivés & en terre maigre. On la seme en tout temps, & dés tôt qu’ elle est sortie, il la faut garder des frois et la semer du long des murailles pour l’ ornement d’ icelles : car elle verdoye toute l’ année à la mode des Citroniers. Il n’ y a que les feuilles qui soyent en vsage, (bien qu’ a faute d’ icelles, quelques vns se seruent de la semence) & afin de les conseruer on les enfile, puis on les pend à l’ ombre, & les fait-on seicher, ils les mettent en vsage, ou entieres, ou en poudre. I. . Ceste plante est chaude & seiche au second degré : voilà pourquoy elle r’ eschauffe, resout, purifie & retrainct quelque peu, comme il sera aisé à iuger par ses facultés. I. . Les feuilles de ceste plante eschauffées, & appliquées, sont vn souuerain remede aux douleurs de la teste, & de la migraine, principa-

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



lement si la maladie prouient de cause froide, ou de ventositez, il est vray qu’ il les faut souuent reitrer, & iusques à ce que la maladie soit ostee : il y en a plusieurs lesquels oignent premierement la teste, auec huile de fleurs d’ Orenges. I. . Ce mesme remede est propre à ceux qui ont le cerueau extrement froid, & à ceux qui sont affligés du Tetanus, comme aussi en toutes autres douleurs prouenantes de mesme cause. I. . Non seulement il guerit la douleur des dents qui prennent origine de cause froide, ayant premierement nettoyé la dent auec vn linge trempé en suc d’ iceluy, puis mettre dedans la dent creuse vne feuille pliée en pillule : mais il empesche aussi que la pourriture ne passe plus en auant. I. . Lesdites feuilles bouillies dedans l’ eau, ou vn Lohoc composé de la decoction, sont propres aux maladies de la poictrine, à la vielle toux, à l’ Asthme ou dificulté de respiration, & à semblables maladies qui prouiennent d’ humeurs froides. Le Syrop composé avec le sucre, & la decoction de ses feuilles, & pris en petite quantité fait sortir hors les humeurs putrides de la poictrine : la fumée d’ icelles receuë par la bouche est aucunesfois profitable aux Asthmatiques ; mais il faut auparauant auoir vsé de purgations necessaires, moyennant toutesfois que le malade puisse attendre & dilayer. I. . Les feuilles eschauffées soubs les cendres, & toutes cêdreuses sans les nettoyer, puis appliquéess souvent toutes chaudes sur l’ estomach qui est remply de ventosités, le soulagent grandement. Quelques uns prennêt les feuilles encore verdes apres les auoir broyées entre les doigts moüillés en l’ huile, les appliquât de la sorte. Les mesmes feuilles broyées dans vn peu de vinaigre, sont fort propres aux obstructions de l’ estomac & de la ratte, & aux scirrhes, mais puis apres il faut appliquer tous les iours sur la partie des feuilles chaudes, ou vn linge moüillé et trempé dans le suc tout chaud desdites feuilles. Au deffaut des feuilles on prend la poudre d’ icelles, & la mesle on auec vn vnguent commun pour desoppiler, duquel on fait liniment sur la partie oppilée ou enflée. I. . Les femmes Indiennes en font grand cas contre les crudités d’ estomach qui suruiennent tant aux enfans qu’ aux grands : car ayant oingt premierement le ventre inferieur de l’ huile de lampe, & fait eschauffer les feuilles soubs les cendres, & mis l’ vne d’ icelles sur la partie du ventricule, & et l’ autre du costé opposite à l’ estomach, elles font digerer telles crudités, & ramollissent le ventre moyennant qu’ on les renouuelle toutes les fois & quantes qu’ il en est besoin.



paul b. fenton

[Chapitre II] II. . Le suc des feuilles cuict auec sucre espuré & pris en petite quantité, chasse du ventre toutes sortes de vers : il faut aussi mettre sur le nombril vne feuille broyée, & puis apres vuider le ventre par vn clisteré. Les feuilles chauffées soubs les cendres comme cy dessus, & appliquées le plus chaudement que faire se peut, apportent vn grand soulagement aux douleurs de reins & ventosités, en les reiterât toutes les fois & quantes qu’ il en sera de besoin. On les peut aussi mettre en vsage en clysteres, fomentations, & emplastres, au grand soulagement des malades. II. . Aux suffocations de matrice les feuilles bien chauffées & appliquées sur le nombril apportent soulagment sur le champ : II. . que si comme il aduiêt qulequesfois des defaillances de cœur, & qu’ on leur face receuoir la fumée par le nez ; soudain elles sont deliurées : lequel remede est si commû aux femmes Indiennes, que pour ceste cause elle conseruent fort curieisement les feuilles du Tabaco, en faisans grand estime. Il y en quelques vnes qui appliquent premierement sur le nombril des choses odorantes, & en apres ces feuilles. Or le Tacamahaca, l’ huile de Liquiambar, le Baulme, & la Carangne, ou bien vn emplastre composé de toutes ces choses sensemble, & porté continuellement sur le nombril, sont merueilleusemeêt proffitables. II.  On applique auec grande efficace aux douleurs de ioinctures (moyênât qu’ elles soyêt causées par des humeurs froides, ou au moins trop chaudes) les feuilles chaudes, ou vn linge moüïllé en leur suc : car elles resoluêt & digerent les humeurs voilà pourquoy elles sont fort vtiles aux humeurs et des oedemateuses, moyennant qu’ on les aye premierement bassinnées, auec le suc tout chaud desdites feuilles. II. . Nous auons appris par experience, que si l’ on frotte trois ou quatre fois les teignes des mains, & mulles des pieds auec les feuilles de ceste plante, et puis qu’ on se laue les pieds & les mains auec de l’ eau chaude & du sel, qu’ elles sont gueries entierement par ce remede. II. . Elles resistent aussi aux venins, & à ceste poison très pernicieuse dont les Cannibales empoisonnêt leurs flêches, comme quelques vns ont experimenté depuis peu de temps en ça : car auparauant ils avoyent acoustumé de sinapiser les playes auec du sublimé. Mais à present les Espagnols ont appris en ceste maniere de rompre la force de ceste poisô. Il aduint vn iour que quelques Cannibales se mirent dedâs leurs nascelles, pour aller vers sainct lean port riche, en s’ ils abordoyent quelques

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



Espagnols, ou Indiens, de les tuer auec fleches empoisonnées. Comme ils y aborderent, ils tueront quelques Indiens & Epagnols, & en blesserent plusieurs : mais n’ ayans point de sublimés, ils furent enseignés par vn certain Indien, qu’ ils missent sur leurs playes le suc de Tabaco, & puis y appliquer dessus le marc des feuilles broyées : par ce moyen furent appaisées, Dieu mercy, les douleurs des playes, & tous les Symptomes qui ont accoustumé de suiure & accompagner ce venin, & le venin surmonté, les playes par apres gueries. Despuis ce temps là on a commencé a mettre en vsage les feuilles de ceste plante contre les poisons. Le Roy catholique mesme voulant experimenter les vertus de ceste plante, commanda que l’ on blessat un chien au gozier, & qu’ on frottat la playe avec la poison de laquelle les chasseurs se seruent, & peu apres qu’ on fit distiller dedans bonne quantité de suc, & on luy attachasse sur les playes, les mesmes feuilles broyées : le chien fut guery auec une grande admiration de tous. II. . Par mesme moyen les feuilles broyées, & appliquées sur les carboncles pestiferes, sont excarre puis apres les guerissent, & sont vn remede asseuré contre les playes & morsures des animaux veneneux. Dés aussi tost qu’ elles sont apliqués sur les playes recentes, elles arrestent le sang, & les consolident : que si elles sont par trop grandes, il leur faut premieremêt lauer auec du vin, & apres aubur ioinctes les labies de la playe l’ vne contre l’ autre, il fraudra distiller dessus le suc des feuilles, & quant lier l’ herbe broyée sur icelle : le iour d’ apres & les autres suyuans, il fraudra garder le mesme ordre & regime de viure necessaire. II. . Le suc instillé dans les vieux vlceres & sur la Gangrene, & les feuilles broyées mises dessus, les deterge, guerit, & faict cicatriser, ayant premierement purgé les corps de l’ aduis du Medecin, et faict ouurir la veine, si l’ on trouue qu’ il soit necessaire de faire : en obseruant par apres la maniere de viure. II. . Dauantage l’ experience nous a enseigné que non seulement ceste plante guerit toutes vlceres aux hommes, mais aussi aux animaux : car par toutes les Indes les bœufs les vaches & autres animaux sont affligés de plusieurs vlceres, lesquels se corrompent aisement, & s’ y engêdre des vers cause de la grande humidité du pays : lesquels ils auoyent accoustoumé de sinapiser auec du sublimé en poudre, n’ ayans autre meilleur remede : mais dautant qu’ é ce pays cy il couste cher, le plus souuent ce qu’ on iettoit sur les playes, coustoit dauantage que la beste qu’ on vouloir guerir : II. . Partant ayant experimenté aux hommes les facultés du Tabaco, ils ont aussi transferé l’ vsage d’ iceluy, aux vlceres putrides, infects, & pleins de vers, & recogneurent lors, que le suc des ces feuilles instillé, non



paul b. fenton

seulement faisoit mourrir les vers, mais qu’ aussi il mondifioit les vlceres, puis qu’ ils les faisoyent cicatriser ; le Tabaco aussi est fort profitable aux escorheures des iumés, voyla pourquoy les Indiens portent tousiours de la poudre du Tabaco. J’ ay cogneu vn certain personnage qui auoit vn vlcere dans le nez duquel sortoit de la fange, non sans soupçon que ce ne fut vn mal contagieux : de mon conseil & aduis, on luy instila du suc de ces feuilles dedâs le nez, la secôde fois que l’ on en mit dedâns, il en sortit plusieurs vers ; puis vn peu moins, finalement quelquesiours apres, l’ vlcere fut gueri ; toutesfois la chair qui auoit esté mangée ne reuint point. Si on frotte les grattelles & rognes de la teste avec les feuilles d’ icelles, elle se guerissent. [Chapitre III] III. . C’ est ceste plante tant celebrée par les prestres Indiens, de laquelle ils souloyent vser pour donner responces : Car la coustume estoit entre eux, qu’ on demandoit côseil, & s’ êquestoit-on des prestres, touchant l’ issue & euenement des gueres, & des affaires de grande importance. Le prestre donc à qui on demandoit aduis, brusloit les feuilles seiches de ceste plante, receuent la fumee dedans sa bouche par un petit tuyau ou canne, puis apres il tomboit comme raui en extase, sans se mouuoir aucunement, demeurant ainsi quelque temps, la vertu et faculté de ceste fumee ayant faict son action, il reuenoit à soy, racôtoit qu’ il auoit parlé auec le malin esprit, & donnoit des responces ambiguees ; en sorte que en quelque maniere que les choses aduinsent, il leur peut facilement persuader & faire accroire qu’ il les auoit predictes : & par ce moyen ils trompoyent ces hommes barbares. III. . Au reste la populace des Indes reçoit ceste fumée par le nez & par la bouche pour plaisir, lors qu’ ils desirent parfoys de voir par songes les euenements de leurs affaires. Car tout ainsi comme le diable est vn imposteur, & cognoist la vertu des herbes, il leur enseigne les facultés de cest herbe cy, affin que par les illusions de ces songes, il trompe miserablement les hommes. III. . Mais ce n’ est chose nouuelle, qu’ il se trouue quelques plantes, lesquelles maschées ou auallées, fassent venir des illusions ou fantasies deuant les yeux. Car Dioscorides au chap. du Solane furieux, escrit que si l’ on prend un drachmes de la racine dudict, auec du vin, il faict venir au deuant des yeux des fantosmes & illusiôs qui sont plaisantes & ageables, mais que si on en prend au double, trois iours durant, il faict deuenir

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac



insensé, & au quadruple qu’ il tue tout à faict. Que si quelqu’ vn s’ en allant dormir mange de l’ Anis il sera des songes ioyeux : à rebours s’ il mange du Raifort, il fera des songes qui troublerôt, & ainsi de plusieurs autres choses. III. . Garcie du Iardin14 raconte que le suc de Bangue inesté auec autres choses faict perdre le sens, qu’ il fait resuer, & qu’ ils nous met à desliure de tous sensible pensemens, comme faict aussi l’ Opium qui est fort commun aux Indiens Orientaux, duquel Garcie a plainement traicté. III. . De mesme nos Indiens lassés de porter des fardeaux, ou d’ autres trauaux, ils hument la fumee du Tabaco, & tombent tout soudain comme priués de sens ; puis estans esueillés, ils se trouuent tous allegés par tel sommeil, & leurs forces restaurées. III. . Les Æthiopiens menés en ces quartiers là pour esclaues, voulans ensuyure leur exêple, en hument par fort trop souuent, d’ où vient que leur maistres les chastient à bon escient, cvar ils bruslent leur Tabaco affin de leur oster occasion de n’ en vser si souvent ; si ne laissent ils pas pour cela den vser à cachettes. III. . Les Indiens aussi se seruent du Tabaco pour chasser la faim et la soif, en ceste maniere. Ils bruslent certaines coquilles d’ huistres de riuiere, puis les mettent en poudre comme chaux, de ceste poudre, & desq feuilles de Tabaco, il en prenent autant de l’ vn que de l’ autre, & le maschêt, iusques à ce que des deux en soit faicte vne certaine masse, laquelle ils formêt en pillules vn peu plus grosses qu’ un pois, & les ayant faict seicher à l’ ombre, ils les serrent pour s’ en seruir. Lors qu’ ils veulent faire quelque voyage par les lieux deserts, où ils pensent qu’ ils ne trouueront ny à boire ny à manger, ils portent auec eux de ces pillules, & ayant mis l’ une dicelles entre la leure de dessoubs, & les dêts ils suçent continuellelmêt le suc d’ icelle, laquelle estant toute fondue, ils remettêt vne autre en sa place, & puis vune autre, iusques à ce qu’ ils ayent faict trois, & parfois quatre iournées de chemins & par ce moyen ils asseurent que durant tout ce temps là ils ne sentent ny faim, ny soif : d’ ont i’ estime que la cause est, que sucçans continuellement ces pillules là, ils attirent aussi du ceruea les humeurs pituiteuses, lesquelles estant auallées, & deuallées dans l’ estomach, elles humectent la chaleur naturelle, mais en fin iceluy les consume par faute d’ autres alimens : côme il se peut obseruer en beaucoup d’ animaux, lesquels tout le long de

14 Garcia de Orta (–), médecin et botaniste portugais d’ origine juive. Il fut l’ auteur de Coloquios dos simples, qui fut également traduit par Clusius.



paul b. fenton

l’ hyuer se tiennent dans leurs tasnieres, sans auoir aucun alimêt par ce que la chaleur naturelle est occupée à consumer la graisse, laquelle ils ont amassée durant l’ Esté. III. . Voilà ce que j’ ay peu recuillir touchant ceste tât renommée plante Tabaco, & de ses facultés.

STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL CULTURAL HISTORY

MAIMONIDES AND SAMUEL BEN ALI

Herbert A. Davidson Maimonides could be gracious. When scholars in Southern France questioned a number of legal and ritual decisions in the Miˇsneh Torah, he thanked them warmly for their meticulousness in reading the work, praised their rabbinic acumen, and in one instance accepted a correction, with the assurance that he was correcting his text of the code accordingly.1 Obadia, a convert to the Jewish religion, turned to Maimonides because of a disagreement with his teacher. He had insisted that Muslims are not idolaters, and the teacher lost his temper and hurled at him the biblical verse “Answer a fool according to his folly.” Maimonides confirms for Obadia that when Muslims bow down to “their house”— in Mecca—their “hearts are directed to heaven.” “Their foolishness lies in other things, which cannot be put in writing because of Jewish evildoers” who might report the writer to the authorities, but it does not include idolatry; “we shall not lie about them . . . just because they lie about us.” Furthermore, Maimonides continues, even if Obadia erred, the teacher sinned in speaking as he did to a person who cast his lot with a persecuted nation, realizing that it was the carrier of the true religion, which other religions plagiarize and pervert through additions and omissions. Instead of worrying about the idolatry of Muslims, Obadia’s teacher should have remembered the ancient rabbis’ admonition: “Whoever gets angry should be considered an idol worshipper.” The teacher has the obligation to “beg you for forgiveness, even though you are his student. He must fast, cry out [to God], pray, humble himself; maybe that will bring atonement and God will forgive him. Was he intoxicated and therefore forgot that there are thirty-six places where the Torah lays down commandments regarding the convert?”2

1 H. Davidson, Moses Maimonides. The Man and His Works (New York, ): . Y. Kafah. questioned the authenticity of the attribution to Maimonides. 2 Maimonides, Responsa. Edited by J. Blau (Jerusalem, ): § ; Davidson, Moses Maimonides, pp. , .



herbert a. davidson

Joseph ibn Jabir, was an Iraqi Jew who apparently wrote to Maimonides more than once. He describes himself as an “ignoramus” (‘am ha-ares. ), writes that he studied Maimonides’ Arabic Commentary on the Mishnah but could not understand the Miˇsneh Torah, which is in Hebrew, and appeals to Maimonides to translate the Miˇsneh Torah into Arabic. He had a number of questions as well: Did Maimonides reject the resurrection of the body, as people contend; what does immortality of a disembodied soul mean; how would Maimonides explain certain opinions of his—including the opinion to be discussed in the last part of the present article—that had been criticized in Baghdad; what is the correct procedure in a couple of other ritual situations? And he specifically requests that Maimonides answer in his own hand. A letter of the sort from an uneducated man was hardly designed to warrant an answer of more than a pro forma line or two at most, and Maimonides’ cordial and patient reply raised eyebrows in Baghdad.3 The reply, which can be dated to the early ’s, addresses the recipient as “the eminent, noble elder, the pious student, Mr. Joseph . . . ibn Jabir.” Maimonides assures Ibn Jabir that whoever studies to the extent of his ability, whether in Hebrew or another language, is not an ignoramus; Ibn Jabir is instead Maimonides’ “beloved student.” As for the Miˇsneh Torah, Maimonides would not consider translating it into Arabic, because it would then lose its “charm.” But he tells Ibn Jabir that the Hebrew used in the Miˇsneh Torah is not difficult, and he encourages him to work his way through one of the fourteen books. After that, he should have no trouble with the rest. Those who accuse Maimonides of denying resurrection in the literal sense of “the return of the soul to the body” are, in his words, guilty of “slander.” He advises Ibn Jabir that the nature of immortality of disembodied souls, which the ancient rabbis recognized in addition to resurrection of the body, may be too profound for him and he need not concern himself with it. The letter goes on to answer questions that Ibn Jabir asked. Maimonides had been informed that Ibn Jabir was among those who stepped forward to defend him against critics in Baghdad and he ends with a witty halakhic explanation of why Ibn Jabir must desist from involving himself in controversies on Maimonides’ behalf.4 3

Maimonides, Epistulae. Edited and translated by D. Baneth (Jerusalem, ): . Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam. Edited and translated by Y. Shailat (Jerusalem, ): –. Maimonides, with tongue in cheek, cites the rabbinic rule that rabbinic courts must “prevent the behavior of Sodom”; that is to say: When A loses nothing by 4

maimonides and samuel ben ali



Notwithstanding the high standard that Maimonides set for himself, he was made of flesh and blood. Throughout his lifetime, he became involved in disputes and he did not play the silent lamb. Around , when his former student, Joseph ben Judah, was living in Damascus or Baghdad, he counseled him to avoid behavior that he—Maimonides—regretted from his own youth: At Joseph’s age and even older, he writes, “I would employ my tongue and pen without restraint to take revenge against men of standing and knowledge who had the temerity to disagree with me. . . . You have undoubtedly heard what occurred between me and R. Judah ben Parhon ha-Kohen, of . blessed memory, on two questions regarding physical defects that render an animal ritually unfit for consumption, between me and the judge of Sijilmasa regarding [the validity of] a [certain] divorce document, between me and Abu Joseph ben Joseph, may he rest in peace, regarding [the legal status of] a woman who had been a captive [of the gentiles], and many other incidents of the same sort. I would please my friends and make my adversaries weep with my tongue and pen—wielding my tongue against those in the immediate vicinity and my pen against those who were at a distance.”5 How old Joseph was when Maimonides wrote those words is not known, and when the incidents occurred is unclear. Some or all could date from the period during which he lived under the Almohads in the West. We learn from a contemporary that when he arrived in Fez, probably in his early twenties, his reputation as a talmudic scholar was well established and preceded him;6 he may therefore have had the stature to challenge respected rabbinic figures on halakhic matters even before coming to Egypt. Alternatively, some or all of the events may have occurred soon after he settled in Egypt and was recognized as the preeminent rabbinic judge in the country. When Maimonides did arrive in Egypt, a man named or nicknamed Zut.a7 held the position of official head of the Egyptian Jewish community. Zut.a had earlier been instrumental in having a popular figure who held the position—a man known as Samuel ha-Nagid—deposed and had giving up a claim, and B will benefit if A does so, A is legally required to waive his claim. Since Maimonides’ critics in Baghdad advance their standing with the populace by belittling Maimonides, yet do Maimonides no harm with their pretenses, Jewish law prevents Maimonides and his allies from stopping them. 5 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. –. 6 Davidson, Moses Maimonides, p. . 7 Zuta would mean “the small one,” “shorty.” .



herbert a. davidson

managed to have himself appointed in Samuel’s stead. Samuel was, however, quickly restored to the position and remained the official head of the community to the end of his life. The ascendance of a “new king” then gave Zut.a a fresh opportunity. He bought the appointment as head of the Jewish community with hard cash, “ruled for four years,” and recouped his investment by extorting money from the community and from office holders. Maimonides, though a newcomer, did not stand apart from the conflict. According to the preserved report, which was written sometime after the events, “God . . . sent” Maimonides, who succeeded in having the miscreant removed from office.8 Because of his scholarly reputation, judges and communal officials in Egypt and beyond soon turned to him for legal guidance. When he deemed judicial opinions to be faulty, his pen knew little restraint. He characterizes one opinion or another as an “inanity,” “a proposition too unsubstantial to deserve a refutation,” “a muddle,” “an enormous muddle,” “muddled talk,” “bizarre imagining,” a thesis “lacking substance and not worthy of consideration, since it is senseless and we have never heard such a thing.” The usage insisted upon by a particular communal figure was “a custom of ignoramuses.” Of an unnamed judge, Maimonides writes that he was “totally mistaken,” of another that he was “an ignoramus,” and of a third that he “understands nothing whatsoever.”9 A number of letters that passed back and forth between Maimonides and Pinhas . ben Meshullam, a rabbinic judge in Alexandria, have been preserved and they reveal a complicated relationship between the two. 10 Pinhas . sometimes addresses Maimonides as his “master” and calls him11 self Maimonides’ “student.” Those are merely expressions of deference and do not reflect an actual master-student relationship: Pinhas . received his rabbinic education in Europe, apparently in France, before coming to Egypt and he informs Maimonides on one occasion what the view of his teachers had been concerning a certain issue.12 Maimonides, for his

8 9

Davidson, Moses Maimonides, pp. –. Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. , , , , , , , , , ,

. 10 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. , ; Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , . 11 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), p. ; and implied in what Maimonides writes in Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . 12 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. –.

maimonides and samuel ben ali



part, speaks of having “planted” and “built” Pinhas . into what he was,13 by which, we may conjecture, he means that he arranged, or supported, Pinhas’ . appointment as a judge in Alexandria. That Maimonides had no official or institutional authority over Pinhas . is plain from Pinhas’ . repeatedly ignoring his advice and instructions;14 from Maimonides’ having other judges countersign his instructions to Pinhas . in order to prevent the Alexandrian judge from telling the Islamic authorities that “so-andso maintains one thing, and I maintain something else” and there is no reason to prefer one individual’s opinion over another’s;15 and from Maimonides’ explaining why, after he pointed out Pinhas’ . error and the latter continued to pester him with counterarguments, he “kept quiet” and dropped the matter. “Such,” Maimonides’ acerbic explanation goes, “is always my way with someone whom I see insisting on his foolishness and refusing to change his mind. I keep quiet and let him do as he pleases.”16 Maimonides scolded Pinhas . for a variety of judicial mistakes and on different occasions labeled legal opinions issued or drafted by him as “in my opinion, muddled and without substance,” “confused,” “improper,” something “never heard before and without basis.”17 When Maimonides saw that harm might result from Pinhas’ . misstep, he did not keep quiet and let him do as he pleases. He intervened.18 Eventually, Pinhas . poured out his complaints in a series of letters, only the last of which received an answer. He had, he writes, heard that Maimonides was angry with him, that Maimonides had accused him of being irascible, that Maimonides had described him as knowing nothing. He expresses the suspicion that Maimonides had not answered his letters because of rumors abroad to the effect that he—Pinhas—had slandered . him, he complains that one of Maimonides’ loyal followers was making life miserable for him in Alexandria, perhaps at Maimonides’ instigation, and he pleads with Maimonides not to abandon him.19 Pinhas . has some 13

Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § , is an egregious instance. 15 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . For further instances of other judges’ countersigning Maimonides’ opinions, see Responsa (ed. Blau), §§ , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 16 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . 17 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. , , ; Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –, . 18 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –. 19 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , –, – . 14



herbert a. davidson

complimentary remarks for Maimonides’ law code, the Miˇsneh Torah, but then proceeds to criticize the format of the code together with a few particulars.20 Maimonides saw that things had come to a pass where his fellow judge had to be placated. He now did answer, addressing Pinhas . in the florid style of the time that he usually eschewed,21 as “his magnificence, greatness, and holiness, our master and rabbi, the great judge, the fortress and tower, the outstanding sage. . . . ” He admits that he was indeed angered by Pinhas’ handling of a halakhic issue and failure to face down the . accompanying public brouhaha with the fortitude required of a rabbinic judge; Hillel the elder, who was proverbially even-tempered, would, Maimonides submits, have been angered by Pinhas’ . feckless handling of the matter.22 He concedes that he described Pinhas . as irascible but counters, disingenuously, that irascibility is not something that Pinhas . need be ashamed of, inasmuch as the ancient rabbis tell us: “When a rabbinic scholar boils, the Torah is what sets him boiling.”23 Maimonides, it should be noted, had recently completed the Miˇsneh Torah, where he quotes from the Babylonian Talmud: “Whoever gets angry commits, as it were, idolatry. . . . When someone gets angry, if he is wise, his wisdom deserts him, and if he is a prophet, his prophecy deserts him”; and where he directs that “one must not be affected even by things that warrant anger.”24 As for his failure to answer letters, Maimonides writes that the reason was not rumors and gossip but illness. Even if Pinhas . made the statements he reportedly made, Maimonides avers that his own nature was to forgive and forget and not to take offense at those who aggrandize themselves at his expense. He would never abandon Pinhas . and thereby “uproot what I have planted and destroy what I have built.”25 He assures Pinhas . that he had ordered the person who was causing him grief to desist. As for the report that he had described Pinhas . as knowing nothing, Maimonides writes that he “never said that about you, [nor could I] for I do not tell lies.” What actually happened was this: A letter sent to him by reliable sources in Alexandria confirmed 20

Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . See Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), .. 22 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –. 23 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. ; see B Ta#anit a. 24 Maimonides, Miˇ ˇ sneh Torah: Hilkhot De#ot :, quoting B Sabbat b (inexactly) and B Pes b. 25 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . 21

maimonides and samuel ben ali



that Pinhas . had made a certain decision in a dowry case. Maimonides showed the decision to a few colleagues and “they all were astonished” at the faulty reasoning, whereupon Maimonides told them that there was no reason to be astonished. Jewish communities in France and other Christian countries, unlike those in the Muslim world, did not have autonomy in monetary matters. Judges in those countries were consequently not trained in such subjects and they lacked the requisite expertise.26 Maimonides did not say that Pinhas . knew nothing at all; he merely said that Pinhas knew nothing about one segment of rabbinic law. . On the present occasion, Maimonides answers Pinhas’ . questions regarding the Miˇsneh Torah but concludes with the plea: “By your life, my dear friend,” do not ask me further questions of the present sort regarding the Miˇsneh Torah and please do not expect more than a brief answer from me, and only when your questions relate to actual legal issues. “For I am occupied in a variety of matters, my body is weak, and I do not have time even to read all the letters, let alone answer them unless they are of a practical legal nature. I have no leisure whatsoever because of the constant weakness of my body and my own studies. . . . May your peace grow and be multiplied.  days of the Omer (= twentieth Iyyar). Moses son of Maimon.”27 In a letter that can be dated with reasonable confidence to a time after the air had cleared, we find Pinhas . addressing Maimonides with exquisite courtesy and a deference that is almost painful to read. Maimonides apologizes in his response for having previously replied curtly and declares that Pinhas’ . honor was more dear to him than his own.28 Maimonides sharpest series of disputes was with Samuel ben Ali (Eli), the head of the prestigious Baghdad yeshiva. Samuel’s renown extended to the ends of the Jewish world,29 and no less a talmudic scholar than Simha . 26

Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –, . Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . 28 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § ; Pinhas writes that he had almost com. pletely lost his vision, from which I infer that the letter is later than those I have thus far discussed. 29 For a colorful description of Samuel and his retinue, see Pethahiah (Petahia) of . Regensburg, Sibbuv. Edited by E. Grünhut (Frankfurt am Main, ): –. Petahia . reports that Samuel was the ultimate authority on rabbinic matters throughout Iraq, Persia, and Syria, and Assaf lists some thirty cities and towns in those areas with which he ˇ was in correspondence. See Simha ben #Eli,” Tarbiz  . Assaf, “Qoves. ˇsel iggerot R. Semu"el (–): –. Scholars in Yemen, in Kiev, and from the circle of Rabbenu Tam are known to have corresponded with him. For Yemen, see Maimonides, Responsa (ed. 27



herbert a. davidson

Assaf describes him as a man “who truly excelled in Torah and action.”30 Maimonides was not among the admirers. From his correspondence with his former student, Joseph ben Judah, who moved back and forth between Syria and Baghdad, we learn the following. Samuel and Maimonides skirmished over political appointments. The office of Reˇs Galuta, or Exilarch, the head of the Jewish communities in the diaspora, still survived in Baghdad, although its glory had faded. When the position became vacant toward the end of the twelfth century, apparently in ,31 the man selected—just how the selection was made is unclear—was opposed by Samuel, whose ultimate aim was to abolish the institution of Exilarch entirely. The appointee was supported by Joseph ben Judah, and on Joseph’s urging, Maimonides added his support, which he made public in a large ceremony at which “everyone” in Fustat, “from young to old,” was present. Samuel wrote to Maimonides complaining that the appointee was unqualified for the honor. Quel dommage! Since Maimonides had already declared his support, he explained to Samuel, it was too late to retract.32 In writing to Joseph, Maimonides refers as well to an appointment of some kind that was made in Egypt, in which Maimonides was involved, and to which Samuel again objected. The allusion is too obscure to allow anything more to be said about it, and scholars have read the passage as referring not to a separate political appointment but to the dispute over the appointment of the Exilarch.33 The Miˇsneh Torah had reached Baghdad and been accepted as an authoritative law code by some, but rejected and sharply criticized by others, Samuel being the most prominent of the critics.34 Maimonides received—when and through whom are unknown—Samuel’s objections to several legal decisions regarding the Sabbath that are recorded in the code. In the three instances for which information has been preserved, Samuel homed in on legal decisions by Maimonides that were indeed Blau), § ; for Kiev see, Encyclopaedia Judaica, second edition, article Moses of Kiev; ˇ for Rabbenu Tam, see S. Emanuel, “Teˇsuvat Rav Semu"el ben #Eli,” Tarbiz.  (–): –. 30 Assaf, “Qoves ˇ . sel iggerot,” p. . 31 Assaf, “Qoves ˇ . sel iggerot,” pp. –. 32 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. , –. On the composite nature of what Baneth accepts as a single letter, see Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –. 33 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), p. ; Maimonides could be referring to the appointment, or certification, of Judah ben Josiah to the office or quasi-office of “prince of the exiles of Israel.” See Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § . 34 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. , ; Responsa (ed. Blau) § .

maimonides and samuel ben ali



problematic—R. Abraham ben David brands one of them “a muddle”35— although the reasoning on which Samuel based his objections is shaky and Maimonides dismissed it as trivial.36 Maimonides defended his position on the three issues in a letter to Joseph ben Judah that he chose not to publicize himself but asked Joseph to circulate among friends.37 When Maimonides heard that Joseph ben Judah had taken up the cudgels in defense of him and the Miˇsneh Torah, he advised his student to control his anger, as “years,” “experience,” and “study” had taught him to do. He reminds Joseph of his “humility toward all” and his comporting himself “as if I were the least of the least” and he asks Joseph to follow his example.38 Notwithstanding the soothing words, Maimonides was plainly hurt by the criticism, as comes out when he informs Joseph that he was not surprised by events. For he foresaw that the Miˇsneh Torah “would undoubtedly fall into the hands of an evil, jealous man, who would denigrate its virtues, . . . of an unlettered ignoramus, who would have no conception of what had been accomplished in it, . . . of a deluded, confused tyro, who would have problems with passages, . . . and of a blockheaded, dull-witted pietist, who would contest the principles of proper belief contained in the book; and [I realized that] those persons would be the majority.”39 Samuel ben Ali had moreover received a letter from persons in Yemen who read the Miˇsneh Torah as denying the dogma of resurrection and who requested Samuel’s opinion. Samuel responded by composing a small treatise in which he defined and defended the dogma primarily through citations from rabbinic aggada, while carefully avoiding any express criticism of Maimonides. Joseph sent the treatise to Maimonides, who wrote back: “I am astonished at my son,” that is, Joseph, for having sent it to me. Did you want me to “conclude that the man lacks knowledge? Did you ever suppose that I thought he, or even individuals superior to him, understand anything?” Maimonides describes Samuel as a “poor soul” and “ordinary homilist,” and Samuel’s treatise on resurrection as “nonsense,” “ridiculousness,” and a “scandal.”40 Despite his dismissal of the treatise, it was the catalyst for the composition of his own Treatise on Resurrection. 35 36 37 38 39 40

R. Abraham ben David, Animadversions on Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Shabbat :. Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § . Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § . Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. –, , –. Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. –. Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), p. .



herbert a. davidson

Although we have seen that Maimonides answered one letter of Samuel’s, he as a rule avoided writing to the head of the Baghdad yeshiva. Courtesy, he tells Joseph, would require him to employ the respectful language with which scholars address one another, and he believed that Samuel and Samuel’s son-in-law and closest ally, Zachariah, were trying to get him to write to them with no other object than eliciting such language. The two “poor souls,” could then “show the letter off and preen themselves in it” as evidence of Maimonides’ homage.41 Maimonides eventually did send a lengthy letter to Samuel, and there was little danger that Samuel would show it off. In what follows, I examine the letter and its context in some detail. The subject has been touched upon more than once and from more than one viewpoint,42 but I know of no adequate treatment of the thrust and parry between Maimonides and Samuel. The issue now was whether a Jew may travel by boat on a river on the Sabbath. Iraqi rabbinic authorities forbade such travel,43 whereas the Spanish rabbinic tradition permitted it.44 The controversy played itself out in a sequence of four letters, the first of which was a legal query sent to Maimonides from Baghdad by a man whom Samuel describes as “the elder, the prince, . . . our dear friend, Mr. Abraham”—language suggesting that he was a person of communal, although not necessarily scholarly, standing. He may have been a cat’s paw of Samuel’s; if not, he was guilty of bad form in going above Samuel’s head and turning for halakhic instruction to an outsider. Nor was it good form for Maimonides to answer a halakhic question from a member of the Baghdad community rather than referring the questioner to the head of the city’s renowned yeshiva. Maimonides answered Abraham, Samuel responded, and Maimonides replied to Samuel. Writers on Maimonides have described his reply as reflecting “his typically polite fashion”45 and “usual conciliatory

41

Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), p. . See in particular I.M. Ta-Shma, “Teˇsuvat ha-Rambam be-#Inyan ha-Haflaga,” Maimonidean Studies  (): –, and –. The article is reprinted with small changes in Ta-Shma, Halakha, minhag, u-mes. iut be-Aˇskenaz, – (Jerusalem, ): –. 43 Ta-Shma, “Teˇ suvat ha-Rambam,” pp. –. 44 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § . 45 J. Münz, Moses ben Maimon (Frankfurt am Main, ): . 42

maimonides and samuel ben ali



manner,”46 as evincing a “respectful tone and humble manner,”47 and as demonstrating “the greatest respect, . . . and praising his [Samuel’s] character and talmudic knowledge.”48 The authors of those sentiments forget Maimonides’ characterization of Samuel as a “poor soul” and “ordinary homilist” who does not know anything. They also lack an eye for irony. Maimonides does overlay his reply with a thin patina of courtesy, but whether the reply is conciliatory and humble and gives high marks to Samuel’s talmudic knowledge is another matter. Six rabbinic propositions enter into the crisscrossing exchanges: . According to the classic rabbinic legal sources—the Mishnah corpus, Babylonian Talmud, and Palestinian Talmud—Jews are not permitted to travel more than a certain distance beyond inhabited areas on the Sabbath. The Mishnah sets the limit (tehum) at , . cubits, and the consensus of opinion in the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds is that the prohibition against going beyond , cubits is a rabbinic enactment and not a scriptural commandment (tehumim derabbanan).49 . . On the basis of a passage in the Palestinian Talmud, some, but by no means all, post-talmudic legists concluded that the Written Law also prohibits travel beyond a certain distance on the Sabbath. On this view, the Written Law (deorayta) imposes a , cubit limit for travel beyond inhabited areas, in contradistinction to the rabbinic enactment (derabbanan) setting the limit at , cubits.50 Maimonides and Samuel were among those who recognized the Written Law prohibition. . In the Babylonian Talmud, the question is posed whether the prohibition against travel beyond inhabited areas applies to travel that takes place not on the ground but at a height of at least ten handbreadths—thirty-five to forty inches, that is, eighty-eight to a hundred centimeters—above it. The intent is not travel on a solid elevated surface, such as a bridge; a solid surface above the ground would have the same legal status as the ground beneath it. What is

46 J. Münz, Maimonides: The Story of his Life and Genius. Translation of above, translated by H. Schnittkind (Boston, ): . 47 D. Yellin and I. Abrahams, Maimonides: His Life and Works (New York, ): . 48 S. Poznanski, Babylonische Geonim im nachgaonäischen Zeitalter (Berlin, ): . 49 B #Eruvim a, P #Eruvim : (end), and parallels. 50 P #Eruvim : (end); Alfasi, #Eruvim  (end of Chapter One).



herbert a. davidson

envisaged is a person who travels through the air by jumping from the top of a pole located within the Sabbath limit that has the requisite height to a similar pole located beyond the Sabbath limit or alternatively to the hypothetical case of someone who magically flies through the air beyond the Sabbath limit. No definitive answer to the question is forthcoming.51 . The classic rabbinic texts recognize a type of physical area, dubbed a karmelit, that does not fit the legal definition of either private or public premises. In the rabbinic conception, Sabbath restrictions carrying the sanction of the Written Law (deorayta) do not apply to karmelit areas, although a parallel set of rabbinical enactments (derabbanan) do apply.52 . The classic rabbinic texts consider the general subject of doubtful situations. The question is as follows: When a given regulation applies to a given clear-cut situation, does the regulation also apply where it is uncertain whether or not the situation obtains? If, for instance, it is uncertain whether or not the Sabbath has begun, do regulations governing the Sabbath apply? The general rule, as stated in the Babylonian Talmud, is that regulations carrying the sanction of the Written Law do apply to doubtful situations (sefeqa deorayta le-humra), whereas regulations carrying the lesser sanction of a . rabbinic enactment do not (sefeqa derabbanan le-qulla).53 . The classic rabbinic texts take for granted that travel by boat on the high seas is permitted on the Sabbath even though the ,, or ,, cubit limit is exceeded.54 Mr. Abraham of Baghdad addresses Maimonides in his letter as “the glorious, precious diadem of beauty, our master, rabbi, and lord,” and so on in the same vein for several more lines. His main query is whether it is “permitted to travel [on the Sabbath] on large rivers such as the Nile in Egypt, the Tigris, and the Euphrates,” for he “had heard that the people of Iraq forbid it.” Some, he writes, understand the grounds for the prohibition to be a concern that the water might turn out to be less than ten handbreadths deep, the boat might touch bottom, and the boat would, as it were, run along the ground. Others regard the prohibition merely as

51 52 53 54

B #Eruvim a. ˇ B Sabbat a. B Bes. a b. M #Eruvim :.

maimonides and samuel ben ali



a custom. Abraham goes on to pose additional halakhic questions that arise should travel by riverboat be permissible on the Sabbath, but they do not have bearing on our subject.55 Maimonides’ reply, as preserved, has no opening salutation and goes directly to the issue. He states that the talmudic question whether the Sabbath limit applies to travel taking place ten handbreadths above the ground has in view only travel above public areas, that is, travel above areas where people ordinarily walk. The Talmud entertained no thought of prohibiting travel in the space above the surface of a karmelit, since people do not ordinarily walk through a karmelit. It hence had no thought of prohibiting travel on bodies of water, which fall into the karmelit category, as long as the boat floats on water that is ten handbreadths deep.56 Should there be “less than ten handbreadths between the surface and the river bed,”57 a “person traveling on the river would be subject to the same regulations as someone walking on the ground,” and travel limits (tehum) would apply. There remain the doubtful situations, where it is . uncertain whether a body of water, be it a river or the open sea, is or is not ten handbreadths deep. Situations of the sort, Maimonides writes, are governed by two “propositions.” The first is “the accepted rule” embodied in the ancient rabbis’ “stating” that regulations enjoying the sanction of the Written Law apply in doubtful situations (sefeqa deorayta le-humra), whereas regulations car. rying the lesser sanction of a rabbinic enactment do not (sefeqa derabbanan le-qulla). Maimonides should now have formulated the second proposition and his conclusion more or less as follows: Bodies of water as well as their beds fall into the category of karmelit, and Sabbath restrictions regarding a karmelit have the status of rabbinic enactments. Rabbinic enactments do not apply in doubtful situations. Limits on Sabbath travel—whether the ,, or ,, cubit limit—therefore do not apply where it is uncertain whether or not the water is of the required depth. Travel on bodies of

55

Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), :. In stating that the Babylonian Talmud does not pose the question of travel above the ground in the case of bodies of water that are ten handbreadths deep, Maimonides is ˇ being inexact. See B #Eruvim a, and Miˇsneh Torah: H. Sabbat :, with commentaries. Could he have prepared multiple traps for Samuel? 57 For a different way of measuring the ten handbreadths, see Joseph Karo, Bet Yosef ˇ han on Tur: Orah. Hayyim ; Sul :. . . . . Arukh: Orah. Hayyim 56



herbert a. davidson

water, whether they be rivers or the open sea, is accordingly permissible both when the water is at least ten handbreadths deep and when the depth is uncertain. That is what Maimonides should have said. For some reason, he misleadingly formulates his second proposition without qualification as “their [that is, the rabbis’] statement that ‘travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis’ (tehumim derabbanan).” Whereupon he concludes his reply . to Mr. Abraham: “It follows from these two propositions that travel is permitted on any body of water except where it is certain that the water is less than ten handbreadths deep; in such instances it [travel] would be subject to regulations covering travel on the ground [and prohibited by rabbinic enactment]. The foregoing reasoning refutes the argument you presented, namely that river travel is forbidden because of a concern that the boat might drag [along the ground.]” Maimonides also takes up the thesis that the Sabbath travel restriction is a matter of custom: Customs must be respected, he writes, but with the proviso that they are clearly understood to be no more than customs and not legally binding. He goes on to answer the additional questions that Abraham made contingent on the premise that river travel is permitted on the Sabbath; as already said, those questions do not have bearing on our topic.58 Samuel hereupon enters the fray. Consummately courteous throughout, he informs “our glorious lord, our master Moses, . . . the expert judge, the mighty one, the wise man of the generation” that Abraham had shown him the responsum as Maimonides suggested he should; in fact, Maimonides’ responsum, as preserved, contains no such suggestion. Samuel goes on to assure Maimonides that he never ceases to praise him and to publicize his virtues. When he received the inquiry from persons in Yemen who thought that the Miˇsneh Torah rejects the dogma of resurrection, he “answered them with praise and lauding” of Maimonides. Nevertheless, the truth must be told, and the Baghdad Gaon is confident that Maimonides will not be offended by having an error in his reasoning called to his attention. For the sake of “conciseness,” Samuel does not “go into everything inscribed by Maimonides’ noble hand.” He focuses on Maimonides’ second proposition—“travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis (tehumim derabbanan)”—and he takes the words at face value as a . 58

Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), :–.

maimonides and samuel ben ali



statement about Sabbath travel restrictions in general, while astonishingly overlooking the critical point that bodies of water and their beds are a karmelit, and hence subject only to rabbinic enactments. His critique of Maimonides consists in rehearsing passages from the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, as well as a biblical verse,59 that support a Written Law travel limit of , cubits on the Sabbath. After establishing to his satisfaction that the talmudic rabbis recognized such a Written Law restriction, he reasons: When boats travel on rivers, the depth of the water is uncertain and may sometimes drop below ten handbreadths. But the prohibition against travel outside of inhabited areas is not merely a rabbinic enactment, as posited by Maimonides when he wrote: “Travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis (tehumim derab. banan).” There is also the Written Law prohibition. The rule regarding Written Law regulations is that they apply in doubtful situations. Since the possibility is always present that a riverboat might enter shallow water and might exceed the , cubit limit, and since traveling , cubits on the Sabbath is forbidden by the Written Law, the prohibition against all river travel on the Sabbath is “established definitively.” Because the technicalities may not be familiar to every reader, a recapitulation should be helpful. Maimonides’ reasoning is that rivers and river beds are a karmelit; Sabbath regulations for a karmelit carry rabbinic, and not Written Law authority; rabbinic regulations do not apply in uncertain situations; when it is uncertain whether or not rabbinic restrictions on Sabbath travel might be transgressed, one may therefore travel by river boat, no matter what the distance is. Samuel focuses on Maimonides’ misleading formulation of his second proposition, while overlooking the pivotal point that a karmelit is subject only to rabbinic, and not Written Law, regulations. He finds Maimonides guilty of the elementary error of failing to realize that there is also a Written Law limit on Sabbath travel. And he concludes: On rivers, where the depth of the water is uncertain and the travel limit might be exceeded, the rule that Written Law regulations apply in uncertain situations is operative. River travel is therefore prohibited. Samuel goes on to buttress his conclusion by citing the authority of the “Geonim” and of the “western sages R. Nissim and others,” who prohibited river travel on the Sabbath. He further intimates that Maimonides misread a passage in the Palestinian Talmud.60 59 60

Exodus :: “Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § , supplemented by .–.



herbert a. davidson

Samuel was sufficiently pleased with his refutation to let it circulate.61 Maimonides, replying at what was for him unwonted length, has a field day in picking Samuel’s missive to pieces. In language that is noticeably more restrained than that in the letters addressed to him by Abraham and Samuel, he addresses the latter as “the great Gaon, our master Samuel ha-Levi, head of the Yeshiva of the Diaspora, may God keep him.” He acknowledges Samuel’s good manners in prefacing his critique with an apology for having ventured to criticize and he expresses the hope that “God will reward” Samuel for his sensitivity and “increase the number of well-mannered and virtuous men who are like him.” He assures Samuel, however, that the sensitivity was unnecessary, because he, unlike others, is not at all offended if people criticize him. “When the least student, be it friend or adversary,” undertakes to refute him, Maimonides is, on the contrary, “happy—on condition that the person is right.” Nor, he insists, does he take offense even if the critic is mistaken, for he realizes that people are careless and speak without giving a subject proper thought. He therefore does not blame Samuel for “rejecting my propositions” and is willing to ascribe Samuel’s error to a careless reading of what Maimonides wrote and not to a lack of intelligence. In the same teasing tone, Maimonides proceeds to rebuke Samuel for the style of his response. Samuel quoted passages from the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds in some detail in order to establish the existence of a Written Law prohibition against unlimited travel on the Sabbath. That, Maimonides chides him, is not the way scholars communicate with one another. A scholar assumes that other scholars know the texts and accordingly makes do with brief references, being confident that his peers will understand. Maimonides points out something more seriously amiss in Samuel’s response. He had been informed that the Miˇsneh Torah was available in Baghdad and indeed was accepted in some circles as an authoritative code for deciding legal and ritual issues. True, certain members of the Baghdad community—Maimonides of course does not give names—criticize the Miˇsneh Torah or reject it outright without taking the trouble to study it or even to be sure that the copy they use has not been corrupted by a careless scribe. Since the Miˇsneh Torah was available in Baghdad, Samuel simply

61

Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , .

maimonides and samuel ben ali



had to open the Sabbath section and he would have found in Chapter  that Maimonides was fully aware of the Written Law prohibition on Sabbath travel beyond the , cubit limit. Furthermore, if Samuel had taken the trouble to read Maimonides’ Book of Commandments, which was also available in Baghdad, he would have found that the scriptural verse he cited with great fanfare to prove his thesis is quoted there by Maimonides as a proof text for the very Written Law prohibition that Samuel was endeavoring to establish. Had the “great Gaon” then done his job properly, he would have gone back to Maimonides’ responsum and discovered what “any student, and anyone with the slightest knowledge” would grasp, indeed what the “rawest tyro” would see, namely that bodies of water and their beds belong to the category of karmelit and are not subject to Written Law prohibitions. He would have realized that the intent of Maimonides’ second proposition— “travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis”—is that travel limits on a river bed are rabbinic enactments, and he would have understood Maimonides’ conclusion that when the depth of the water is uncertain, regulations carrying the sanction of a rabbinic enactment do not apply. “The Creator is my witness,” Maimonides exclaims; “It never crossed my mind that a rabbinic scholar would have to have the matter spelled out at length” and in detail. If we skip over technicalities that would unnecessarily lead us astray, the remaining items of interest in Maimonides’ reply are these. What counts for him in settling legal and ritual issues is the cogency of the reasoning and not the number of legists who took one position or the other. Nevertheless, since Samuel mentioned Iraqi “Geonim” who prohibited river travel on the Sabbath, Maimonides offers a list of Spanish “geonim” who permitted it. There is a subtext here. Maimonides is challenging the claim of the Iraqi Geonim that, merely by virtue of their office and title, their authority trumps the authority of rabbinic scholars elsewhere in the Jewish world. Since Maimonides was not merely settling scores with Samuel but also deciding an issue that affected individuals’ lives and livelihoods, he includes a sober and irony-free appeal to rabbinic authorities asking them to encourage people who travel on the Sabbath to prefer river travel over land travel. Travel on land is liable to lead to much more serious transgressions of the Sabbath than river travel. Samuel had written that he was not going to analyze “everything inscribed by Maimonides’ noble hand,” and Maimonides takes him to be saying that other statements in his—Maimonides’—responsum were



herbert a. davidson

open to criticism. Having annihilated Samuel’s defense of the prohibition against river travel, he “requests, . . . beseeches, and implores him, may God preserve his station,” to show no pity and compassion but rather to “scrutinize every word,” whether in Maimonides’ response to Abraham, in the present letter to Samuel, or in anything else that Maimonides wrote. Any slip that he may have committed should be corrected, and he would love to have Samuel treat him to additional animadversions of the same caliber. As far as is known, Samuel did not take up the offer; he must have had his fill. As noted earlier, his critique of a few legal decisions in the Miˇsneh Torah did reach Maimonides, and Maimonides sent Joseph a rebuttal. The last few lines of Maimonides’ letter arrive at an irritant that exacerbated his annoyance with Samuel. He writes that he knew of the way in which Yemeni Jews and others “lacking sense or desiring to belittle me . . . construed what I wrote [regarding the world to come]. . . . And I explained to them how they misunderstood my words.” He had, moreover, received Samuel’s “treatise, . . . containing all the homiletic interpretations [deraˇsot] recorded [in the Talmud] regarding resurrection”; he is referring to the composition that we saw him describing to Joseph as “nonsense,” “ridiculousness,” and a “scandal.” And Maimonides informs Samuel that he had “composed a treatise in which I clear myself of the evil name being disseminated about me.” He signs off, with a final touch of irony: “May your well-being and the well-being of your sacred academy and entire pure retinue increase and grow. Amen. Tammuz .”62 Maimonides’ followers in Baghdad combined the correspondence between Abraham of Baghdad, Maimonides, and Samuel into a small treatise, which they circulated.63 Samuel died about three years after the exchange of letters.

62 63

Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § , supplemented by .–, and .–. Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , .

ˇ AND THE ALMOHAD CONTEXT* IBN RUSD

Josep Puig Montada The relationship between philosophy and political power has always been a matter of discussion. In recent times, scholars have focused on the interaction between Ab¯u l-Wal¯ıd Muhammad ibn Ruˇsd ( / – .  / ), known in the West as Averroes, and the Almohad dynasty which he served, and they have discussed whether and how he contributed to their doctrine, and reciprocally. In the following lines, I shall examine Ibn Ruˇsd’s activity within the Almohad context, the basic principles of Almohadism and those of Ibn Ruˇsd’s philosophy in an attempt to explain some features of their relationship.

Personal or Institutional Connections The Almohad chronicler Ibn S¯ . as. -Sal¯ . ahib . at (d.  / ) reports that Ibn Ruˇsd accompanied the caliph Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf (r. –) on his failed campaign against the fortress of Wabda/Huete in  / .1 ¯ The chronicler points out that the caliph had around him some scholars called the t. alabat al-ha . dar, . “the court scholars,” and that he conducted a study session with them while his troops were fighting to take the fortress. He seems to blame his absence from combat caused by this session for the defeat of the Muslims. The t. alaba held one of the highest ranks within the Almohad hierarchy, and they were divided into two classes, t. alabat al-muwah. hid¯ . ın, “the divine unity scholars,” and t. alabat al-ha dar. They were not based on . . tribal affiliation, but on religious scholarship. The t. alabat al-ha . dar . class

* I thank Dr Ralph Jaeckel, UCLA, for his comments on the manuscript. I am responsible for all shortcomings. 1 Ab¯ u Marw¯an #Abd al-Malik Ibn S¯ . as. -Sal¯ . ahib . at, Ta"r¯ıh al-mann bi-l-im¯ama. Edited ˘ by #Abd al-H¯ad¯ı at-T¯az¯ı (Beirut,  / ): –. Spanish translation: Al-mann bilImama: estudio preliminar, traducción e índices por A. Huici Miranda, Textos medievales,  (Valencia, ): –.



josep puig montada

accompanied the caliph and assisted him with reading and interpreting the Koran and the works of the mahd¯ı Ibn T¯umart.2 Thus, they were the institutional preservers of the Almohad doctrine. Ibn Ruˇsd was, no doubt, a member of the caliph’s inner circle, which does not mean that he was one of the t. alaba. The Almohads had conquered Cordova in , and as early as  /  he must have met the Almohad sultan #Abd al-Mu"min (r. –) in Marrakech. In his Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s book On the Heavens, when he offers evidence for the spherical shape of the earth, Ibn Ruˇsd says: The star Canopus (Suhayl) is not seen in this our land, i.e., the Peninsula of al-Andalus, but it is said that it is seen from the mountain of Canopus (Fuengirola).3 It is seen in the land of the Berbers, beyond the sea that stretches between us and them, called the Strait. When in Marrakech in the year , I saw a star, which is not seen from our country, on Mount Daran, it was said to be Canopus.4

In his monograph on Ibn Ruˇsd,5 the Moroccan philosopher Muhammad . ˇ abir¯ı (d. ) follows al-#Abb¯as ibn Ibr¯ah¯ım al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı, ¯ #Abid al-G¯ author of a biographical repertory,6 stating that Ibn Ruˇsd went to help the sultan #Abd al-Mu"min “perhaps to organize the schools that the latter had founded in Marrakesh.”7 But al-#Abb¯as al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı (d. ) is a modern source, and the information itself is conjectural. Ibn Ruˇsd had not written his first philosophical works at that time. As for his Middle and Long Commentaries on Aristotle, the historian #Abd al-W¯ahid . al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı reports that the caliph Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf had complained to Ab¯u Bakr ibn Tufayl about the difficulty of understanding . Aristotle and expressed the desire that someone would paraphrase his works. Ibn Tufayl was too old, too busy, he complained, and passed . the order on to Ibn Ruˇsd, who explicitly says: “And so it came to pass

2 J.F.P. Hopkins, “The Almohad Hierarchy,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies  (): –. 3 Ahmad al-Maqqar¯ı (d.  / ) corroborates the fact in Nafh at-t¯ . . . . ıb min g˙us. n al-Andalus ar-rat.¯ıb. Edited by I. ‘Abb¯as, vol.  (Beirut, ): . 4 Talh¯ ıs. kit¯ab as-sam¯a" wa-l-" a¯lam. Edited by J. al-#Alaw¯ı (Casablanca, ): , l. –.˘ 5 Ibn Ruˇ sd. S¯ıra wa-fikr (Beirut, ; nd ed. ). 6 Al-i#l¯ am bi-man hall . Marr¯akuˇs wa-A˙gm¯at min al-a#l¯am. Edited by #Abd al-Wahh¯ab Ibn Mans. u¯ r,  vols. (Rabat, –). 7 Al-i#l¯ am bi-man hall . Mar¯akush wa-#a˙gm¯at min al-al-a#l¯am, vol.  (Rabat, ): , l. –.

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



that I wrote the paraphrases.”8 We do not know the exact date of the event. With the term talh¯ıs. , Ibn Ruˇsd is probably referring to the Middle Commentaries. The first˘ dated talh¯ıs. is the Middle Commentary on the Topics, from  Rajab  ( April˘ ).9 Since the Topics are the fourth book of the Organon, the encounter between the caliph and Ibn Ruˇsd should be placed a few years earlier. Since that time Ibn Ruˇsd enjoyed the favor of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub: he was appointed chief judge of Seville () and later of Cordova (); and he accompanied the caliph in his campaigns, as we have seen. We should bear in mind that Ibn Ruˇsd was also his physician. As a further instance of their close relationship, let us also note his visit to the tombs of Ibn T¯umart and #Abd al-Mu"min in Tinmal in .10 After Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub’s death in , his son Ab¯u Y¯usuf Ya#q¯ub al-Mans. u¯ r was enthroned. Al-Mans. u¯ r was not only pious, he was also interested in the religious sciences, and he declared the Z¯ . ahirite school of law official in his kingdom. Ibn Ruˇsd remained a respected person, but his relationship with the son was not as warm as that with the father. Ibn Ab¯ı Us. aybi#a reflects this appreciation when he tells us about the caliph’s stay in Cordova in the year  / . There were rumors that Ibn Ruˇsd had lost the favor of the caliph when he was ordered into his presence, but the caliph had Ibn Ruˇsd sit close to him and had “honored him greatly.”11 The t. alaba accompanied the caliph on this occasion and showed support to Ibn Ruˇsd. Toward the end of his life, in  / , Ibn Ruˇsd was accused of unbelief (kufr) and was condemned. Adequate information on his peribn #Abd al-Malik secution is given by Ibn #Id¯ar¯ı12 and by Muhammad . ¯

8

Al-mu#˘gib f¯ı talh¯ıs. ahb¯ar al-Ma˙grib [written ]. Edited by R. Dozy (Leiden, ˘ by M.Z.M. #Azab (Cairo, ): , l. –; Spanish ): , l. –. ˘Edited translation by A. Huici Miranda in Colección de crónicas árabes de la reconquista, vol.  (Tetuán, ): –. 9 Attested by the manuscript Florence, at the end of Book VII; cf. Talh¯ ıs. kit¯ab ˘ Arist. u¯ t. a¯l¯ıs f¯ı al-˘gadal. Edited by M.S. S¯alim (Cairo, ): , variant . Edited by G. Jéhamy (Beirut, ): , l. –. 10 Ibn #Id¯ ar¯ı al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı, Al-bay¯an al-mu˙grib f¯ı ihtis. a¯r ahb¯ar mul¯uk al-Andalus wa˘ an¯ı, M. ˘ Ben T¯aw¯ıt, M. Zunaybar ¯ l-Ma˙grib [written –]. Edited by M.I. al-Katt¯ and #Abd al-Q¯adir Zam¯am, vol.  (Beirut, ): . Spanish translation by A. Huici Miranda, in Colección de crónicas árabes de la Reconquista II, (Tetuán, –): . 11 #Uy¯ un al-anb¯a" f¯ı t. abaq¯at al-at. ibb¯a. Edited by A. Müller (Cairo, ): :. Edited by S. . az-Zayn (Beirut, ): :–. 12 Ibn #Id¯ ar¯ı, Bay¯an, p. . ¯



josep puig montada

al-Ans. a¯r¯ı al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı (d. ),13 a later historian who was not engaged with the Almohad cause as were Ibn S¯ al. as. -Sal¯ . . ahib . at and Muhammad Marr¯akuˇs¯ı. Ibn Ruˇsd and his philosopher friends were banished from the city, and philosophy was forbidden. We know the names of some ˇ who turned against him: Ab¯u #Al¯ı ibn Ha˘ and Ab¯u . gg˘ a¯g˘ , Ibn Gubayr, #Abd All¯ah ibn #Ayy¯ash.14 The historian Ibn #Abd al-Malik notes that Ibn Ruˇsd was a good friend of Ab¯u Yahy¯ . a, brother of al-Mans. u¯ r and governor of Cordova, and cites this circumstance as one of the reasons for his persecution.15 However, news about this Ab¯u Yahy¯ . a is rather confusing. The caliph had a brother who conspired against him; he summoned this brother to Marrakech and had him executed, but we do not know his name. The other brother, Ab¯u Yahy¯ . a, seems to have been loyal.16 Although the term t. alaba is not used by the accusers—Ibn ‘Abd alMalik refers to them as t. a¯lib¯un, “the petitioners”—he states that the caliph ordered them to carry out the sentence: “The caliph ordered the t. alaba of his council and the jurists (fuqah¯a") of his government to go to the congregation of the Muslims and to explain to the people that Ibn Ruˇsd was a heretic.”17 It is obvious that Ibn Ruˇsd was not a member of the t. alaba rank of the Almohad hierarchy, but his relationship with them needed clarification. Fricaud devoted an innovative study to the role of the t. alaba in Almohad society, paying singular attention to their relationship with Ibn Ruˇsd.18 To what extent they were responsible for his persecution cannot be determined; even if they were responsible, other factors should be considered. ˇ abir¯ı interprets the misfortune of Ibn Ruˇsd ¯ Muhammad #Abid al-G¯ . ˇ abir¯ı as the deepest crisis of the Almohad state.19 To explain it, al-G¯

Ab¯u #Abd All¯ah Muhammad Ibn #Abd al-Malik Al-Ans. a¯r¯ı al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı, Ad-dayl . ¯ wa-t-takmila li-kit¯abay al-Maws. u¯ l wa-s. -S. ila, vol. . Edited by I. #Abb¯as (Beirut, ¯): –. 14 For these personalities, cf. J. Puig, “Materials on Averroes’ Circle”, Journal of Near ˇ ıfa, Ibn Ruˇsd al-Haf¯ Eastern Studies  (): –. M. Ibn Sar¯ . ıd. S¯ıra wath¯a"iq¯ıya (Casablanca, ). 15 #Abd al-Malik Al-Ansa . ¯r¯ı al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı (ed. I. #Abb¯as), Ad-dayl wa-t-takmila, p. . ¯ ¯ vol.  (. Reprint 16 A. Huici Miranda, Historia política del imperio almohade, Granada, ): , footnote. 17 Ibn #Abd al-Malik, Dayl wa-t-takmila, :, l. –, l. . ¯ dans la société almohade”, Al-Qantara  (): –. 18 É. Fricaud, “Les talaba . . 19 Al-G¯ ˇ abir¯ı, Ibn Ruˇsd, pp. –. 13

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



summarizes the views of historians contemporary or close to Ibn Ruˇsd. He cites two causes: first, estrangement, even bad feelings between the caliph and the philosopher and, second, envy and a grudge by the Cordovans.20 Nevertheless, he considers these reasons only as pretexts, not true ˇ abir¯ı claims that the true cause was Ibn Ruˇsd’s book on the causes. Al-G¯ ˇ abir¯ı, the Politics, i.e., his epitome of Plato’s Republic.21 According to al-G¯ book is dedicated to Ab¯u Yahy¯ . a and the accusations raised against Ibn Ruˇsd were based on opinions expressed in the book. For instance, Ibn Ruˇsd criticizes the situation in the country: Thus men will be of two categories: a category called the masses, hamon, and another called the mighty, as is the case of the people in Persia and in many of our own states. In such a situation, the masses will be plundered by the mighty. The mighty commit excesses by seizing property from them, until this leads them at times to tyranny, just as happens in our own time and in our own State.22

ˇ abir¯ı interprets Ibn Ruˇsd to be attacking the new caliph, Ab¯u Y¯usuf Al-G¯ al-Mans. u¯ r. However, as Rosenthal suggests, Ibn Ruˇsd probably composed the book during the reign of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub, and that “the mighty” ˇ abir¯ı were not the caliph and his family. The reasons advanced by Al-G¯ are also conjectural but, in any case, Ibn Ruˇsd and his philosopher friends were in danger for these or other reasons.

Ibn Ruˇsd’s Presumed Contribution to the Almohad Doctrine The fact that Ibn Ruˇsd was not an official exponent of the Almohad doctrine does not exclude the possibility of his intellectual involvement with it in his writings. In recent times, Dominique Urvoy,23 Muhammad .

20

A Cordovan delegation had gone to Marrakech in  /  to denounce Ibn Ruˇsd to the caliph, see Ibn #Abd al-Malik, Dayl wa-t-takmila, :. ¯ Commentary on Plato’s Republic. Edited with an 21 Preserved in Hebrew: Averroes’ Introduction, Translation and Notes by E.I.J. Rosenthal (Cambridge, ). 22 On Plato’s Republic (ed. Rosenthal), translation p. , Hebrew III., , p. . 23 “La pensée almohade dans l’ œuvre d’ Averroès”, in J. Jolivet, ed., Multiple Averroès (Paris, ): –. Averroès. Les ambitions d’ un intellectuel musulman (Paris, ). “Les professions de foi d’ Ibn T¯umart. Problèmes textuels et doctrinaux,” in P. Cressier, M. Fierro, L. Molina, eds, Los almohades. Problemas y perspectivas, vol.  (Madrid, ): –.



josep puig montada

ˇ abir¯ı,24 Marc Geoffroy,25 Massimo Campanini26 and Sarah ¯ #Abid al-G¯ Stroumsa,27 among others, have raised this issue. Urvoy complained that we lack the main text of Ibn Ruˇsd on the subject, namely, his commentary on the credo, the #aq¯ıda, of Ibn T¯umart, which was lost. However, Muhammad Bensharifa found the commen. tary, which unfortunately is not yet available for publication (oral communication). Ibn #Abd al-Malik al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı calls it “Commentary on the humr¯ an¯ıya credo” because Ibn T¯umart’s statement of principles . 28 an, a client of #Umr¯an ibn begins with a had¯ . . ıt transmitted by Humr¯ ¯ 29 #Aff¯an. Urvoy had to resort to other texts and paid special attention to the Kaˇsf #an man¯ahi˘g al-adilla f¯ı #aq¯a"id al-milla, “Enquiry into the methods proving religious creeds.”30 Urvoy suggests that Ibn T¯umart and Ibn Ruˇsd follow similar methods and have similar purposes. He writes: “The Kaˇsf shows us an Andalusian intellectual defender of the essential dogmas of the Almohad doctrine, for want of a disciple of Ibn T¯umart in the proper sense.”31 The choice of the Kaˇsf is not by chance: in it, using persuasive arguments, not demonstrative ones, Ibn Ruˇsd develops a theology accessible to most Muslims. 24 Cf. his introduction to the edition of the Kaˇ sf (Beirut, ), in addition to the above mentioned Ibn Ruˇsd. S¯ıra wa-fikr, n. . 25 “L’ almohadisme théologique d’ Averroès,” Archives d’ Histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge  (): –. “Ibn Ruˇsd et la théologie almohadiste,” Medioevo  (): –. “À propos de l’ almohadisme d’ Averroès. L’ anthropomorphisme dans la seconde version du Kit¯ab al-Kaˇsf #an Man¯ahi˘g al-adilla ”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina, eds, Los almohades, :–. 26 “Averroè lettore di Aristotele: un problema politico?” in Carmela Baffioni, ed., Averroes and the Aristotelian Heritage (Naples, ): –, and also Averroè (Bologna, ). 27 “Philosophes almohades? Averroès, Maïmonide et l’ idéologie almohade”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina, eds, Los almohades, :–. 28 A tradition relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad; from here on I shall use . the simplified form hadith. 29 Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, mahdi des Almohades; texte arabe accompagné de notices biographiques et d’ une introduction par I. Goldziher. Edited by J.D. Luciani (Algiers, ); Luciani used the manuscript Paris B.N. . The text of the #aq¯ıda is on pp. –. New editions under the title A#azz m¯a yut. lab by A. T¯ . alib¯ı (Algiers, ); ˙ ı Ab¯u l-#Azm (Rabat, ). The latter used the Paris manuscript in and by #Abd al-Gan¯ addition to one in Rabat, Bibliothèque Générale . 30 Urvoy quotes according to the edition of M.J. Müller, (Munich, ). M. Q¯ asim published another edition using Müller’s text and two Cairo manuscripts (Cairo, ). ˇ abir¯ı and M. Hanaf¯ ¯ M. #Abid al-G¯ ı have newly published the Kaˇsf (Beirut, ). In the . ˇ abir¯ı plainly states: “This is a book which criticizes Kalam.” introduction al-G¯ 31 Urvoy, “La pensée almohade”, p. .

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



Geoffroy carried out research in Istanbul libraries, where he found two new manuscripts of the Kaˇsf ; he also translated the Kaˇsf into French. The two manuscripts represent a later, revised version. Geoffroy sees the later version as conforming to the doctrine of Ibn T¯umart on his absolute denial of divine anthropomorphism. He mentions the anti-Aˇs#arite mood of the treatise and notes that the second version emphasizes the trend. For Geoffroy, the Kaˇsf embodies the Almohad doctrine in its struggle against ˇ abir¯ı had also stressed the anti-Aˇs#arite attitude of ¯ Aˇs#arism. #Abid al-G¯ Ibn Ruˇsd in this work, and Geoffroy duly refers to him. Geoffroy sees the agreement between the Almohad ideology and the views of Ibn Ruˇsd more as a struggle against Aˇs#arism rather than as the sharing of common doctrines. Kal¯am, i.e. Islamic rational theology, is not a monolithic system. Ibn Ruˇsd knew the Aˇs#arite school mainly as expounded by Ab¯u l-Ma#¯al¯ı #Abd ˙ al¯ı (d.  / ˇ al-Malik al-Guwayn¯ ı (d.  / ), the teacher of al-Gaz¯ ). In a certain way, what Ibn Ruˇsd does in the Kaˇsf is to produce an alternative treatise of elementary theology; he wants to show that another kind of kal¯am is possible, but does the Kaˇsf qualify Ibn Ruˇsd as an ideologist of the Almohad movement? I shall examine this point below. Campanini approached the issue from another perspective. He found inspiration in the thought of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci for his approach. Gramsci opposed reliance on the capacity to persuade and convince and rejected domination through physical power. Persuasion occurs through ideological structures and institutions; the organic intellectual has the task of articulating through the language of culture, feelings and experiences which the masses cannot express for themselves. According to Campanini, Ibn Ruˇsd articulated beliefs which the masses could grasp and used the Almohad ideology to educate them. Sarah Stroumsa has observed contradictions in recent analyses of intellectual life in the Almohad period. Some scholars see the Almohads as fundamentalists, others as main contributors to the flourishing of philosophy. Stroumsa opposes the view that Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf entrusted Ibn Ruˇsd with commenting on Aristotle and considers that the caliph was interested in Ibn Ruˇsd as a candidate for a high position in his administration.32 To sum up, she concludes that neither Ibn Ruˇsd nor Maimonides can be qualified as “Almohad” philosophers, although she

32

Stroumsa, “Philosophes almohades?” pp. –.



josep puig montada

argues that Maimonides was more receptive of the Almohad doctrine than Ibn Ruˇsd. I agree with the affirmation that Ibn Ruˇsd cannot be qualified just as an Almohad philosopher, and shall now proceed to contrast the elements of the Almohad doctrine with those of Ibn Ruˇsd.

An Overview of the Almohad Doctrine From the remarks above we may conclude that Ibn Ruˇsd was active in the Almohad state, but was never a member of its doctrinal corporation. Among his large output, scholars have been attracted by a short theological treatise in which he often attacks the Aˇs#arites. Its main purpose is to present a rational theology with the help of persuasive arguments. I would now like to present an overview of the extant documents of the official Almohad doctrine, which were ascribed to Ibn T¯umart. I cannot decide to what extent they were actually composed by Ibn T¯umart, but it is clear that they represent that doctrine. For my overview I follow the order of the old edition by J.D. Luciani:33 We have already mentioned the credo of the founder which is document IX of the collection. The collection is usually entitled A#azz m¯a yut. lab, “The most precious thing that can be sought after,” and this rhetorical sentence opens the first treatise of the collection: I. A#azz m¯a yut. lab wa-afdal . m¯a yuktasab etc. (pp. –). This treatise is an enquiry into the foundations of religious knowledge or of science which can be acquired by the senses, by reason (#aql), and by tradition (sam#, literally, hearing). According to Ibn T¯umart, the last comprises the reception of the Koran, the traditions (sunna), and the universal agreement among Muslims. Ibn T¯umart does not employ here the term revelation that is valid for the “hearing” of the Koran and the sayings of the Prophet. Continuity of the transmitted sayings (naql) is essential for such knowledge although science can be also acquired by means of rational discourse (#aql). As far as legal theory is involved, Goldziher34 and Brunschvig35 analyzed it and concluded that Ibn T¯umart was close to Z¯ . ahirism but not 33

Luciani, ed., Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert. In his introductory study to Luciani’s edition, Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, “Mohammed Ibn Toumert et la théologie de l’ Islam dans le Maghreb au XIe Siècle”, pp. – . 35 “Sur la doctrine du Mahd¯ı Ibn T¯ umart”, Arabica  (): –. 34

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



to the extent of accepting a hadith based only on one tradition, the so called habar al-wah¯ . ıd, as the source of certain knowledge, and accepted ˘ it as “likely true,” and being a reason to act accordingly.36 II. “Treatise on prayer” (pp. –). Ibn T¯umart asserts that prayer is one of the pillars and characteristic traits of religion and produces numerous hadiths as evidence. III. “Proof that the revealed Law (ˇsar¯ı#a) is not established by reason” (pp. –). As one reason for his claim, Ibn T¯umart notes that the intellect is full of doubts. The foundations of revealed Law are ten, he says: All¯ah’s positive commandment and His explicit prohibition (), the hadiths (habar) of His commandment and prohibition (), the com˘ prohibition by the Prophet (), the hadiths concerning mandment and his commandment and prohibition (), in addition to the Prophet’s acting and deciding (iqr¯ar, ). Regarding analogy (qiy¯as) and consensus (iˇgm¯a #) as sources of law, Ibn T¯umart subsumes consensus under the above mentioned foundation of All¯ah’s commandment (p. ). Most of the chapter deals with analogy (qiy¯as), its divisions and conditions, in the way Aˇs#arism would. Legal analogy, i.e. legal syllogism (qiy¯as ˇsar#¯ı), is defined as “that to which the term points out and which the foregoing ten foundations comprise. It is divided into two categories: indication to the superior with the inferior, and indication to what unites two things different but coincident in meaning” (p. , ll. –). Ibn T¯umart ends this chapter with the hadiths in which the Prophet was asked whether an intoxicating beverage called bit# was licit. He answered that it was forbidden because “Everything which intoxicates is forbidden” (p. , l. ).37 Thus the prophet would have used syllogisms too. IV. “Treatise on universal and particular, on absolute and relative, on comprehensive and detailed, on abrogating and abrogated, on true and metaphoric meaning, etc.” (pp. –). This treatise gives as an example of “universal” the Koranic commandment “Fight the polytheists all together” (.) and as an example of “particular” the Koranic phrase “until they pay the poll-tax” (.). V. “Treatise on knowledge” (#ilm, pp. –). Here we read again that knowledge is acquired through the senses, the intellect, and the transmission of the truth, and that the Koran is the best transmitter.

36 37

Luciani, ed., Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, p. , ll. –. Cf. Muslim, S. ah¯ . ıh, . Aˇsriba,  (). Bukhar¯ı, ibid. ().



josep puig montada

VI. “Knowable entities” (al-ma#l¯um¯at, pp. –). Al-ma#l¯um¯at is a term used in kal¯am and designates known facts of existent (maw˘gu¯ d) as well as of non-existent beings (ma#d¯um). The treatise divides existent beings into absolute and limited, and limited beings result from a particularization process (ihtis. a¯s. ). Particularization is a concept also common ˘ in the kal¯am. VII. This treatise has no title and begins with the following sentence: “Temporally created being (muhda . t) is what starts to exist, it is what ¯ has limit and end, restriction and privation, incapacity and shortcoming” (pp. –). This created being is mostly described in negative terms. The texts discuss created being as being odd or even; only All¯ah is exempt from this law. “He is one with no second or third” (p. ) and those who say that All¯ah is three are unbelievers. Ibn T¯umart classifies limited unity in three ways: one which is isolated and divisible, one which is neither isolated nor divisible, and one which is isolated but not divisible. His classification appears to be original (p. ). VIII. “Treatise on the acts of worship (#ib¯ad¯at), their aspects and conditions, etc.” (pp. –). Here Ibn T¯umart answers the person who asks about his duty to practice those acts which All¯ah commanded with His words. The acts of worship are not valid without faith and sincerity, and neither of these is valid without knowledge. Knowledge requires endeavor; endeavor requires will. This is a sample of how Ibn T¯umart argues in this treatise. IX. The credo of Ibn T¯umart mentioned above (p. ) is divided into seventeen sections (fas. l, pp. –). The first chapter is called “Section on the excellence of the divine unity and its necessity; it is the first thing an, that has to be obtained”, and cites three hadiths transmitted by Humr¯ . Ibn "Umar and Ibn #Abb¯as related to the tenet of God’s unity. The second section states that “The existence of the Creator is known by necessity of reason” (p. , l. ) and continues with arguments found in the kal¯am— or to be more exact—in the Aˇs#arite tradition. In addition to Urvoy’s analysis of the #aq¯ıda, let me note the analysis of this proof made by Frank Griffel,38 who connects the doctrine of Ibn T¯umart to the teachings of the Niz¯ . am¯ıya school in Baghdad at the beginning of the eleventh till twelfth centuries ad. Ibn T¯umart continuously stresses the uniqueness of All¯ah and that He bears no resemblance at all to His creatures. Ibn T¯umart follows 38 “Ibn T¯ umart’s Rational Proof for God’s Existence”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina, eds, Los almohades, pp. –.

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



al-Aˇs#ar¯ı when he denies that human intellect has any capacity to know All¯ah or how He acts. Human minds have a limit beyond which they cannot go, and they must return to their beginning. Their limit lies in their inability to represent any qualification of the Divine. Beyond their limits, minds will either fall into the total denial of God’s attributes or into anthropomorphism.39 There is no need to say that the label anthropomorphist (mu˘gassim) applies to Ibn T¯umart’s enemies, the Almoravids. The credo is followed by two short versions of it called murˇsida and by a recitative glorification of God (tasb¯ıh, . pp. –). X. This untitled treatise (pp. –) begins as follows: “This is a chapter (b¯ab) on knowledge; knowledge is obligation to believe entirely in the Imamate; believing in the imam is one of the pillars of religion and one of the columns of the revealed Law.” The imam must be infallible, ma#s. u¯ m min az-zalal. All¯ah established the imam starting with Noah and continuing with Abraham, David, Jesus, and Muhammad (Mus. t. af¯a) to whom He revealed the whole truth. The next imams were Ab¯u Bakr and #Umar, but divisions among the Muslims began “thirty years after Mus. t. af¯a” (p. ). Let us recall that Muhammad died in  /  and that . in  /  #Al¯ı ibn Ab¯ı T¯ a lib was deposed by Mu#¯ awiya. Ibn T¯umart or . the actual author avoids the issue of #Uthm¯an and #Al¯ı; he does not even mention their names. He insists that centuries later the situation got so much worse that All¯ah sent a guide, mahd¯ı. The text clearly implies that Ibn T¯umart is that guide. XI. “Essentials (qaw¯a #id) on which religious and secular sciences are built” (pp. –). Prophets really exist and there is no disagreement among them; the books of All¯ah are true; these books are not different from each other; true religion is one and is not divisible; divine commandments are incumbent on everyone, etc. XII. “Chapter elucidating the classes and features of the veiled and anthropomorphist people” (pp. –). The author vehemently attacks the Almoravids for being anthropomorphists (mu˘gassim¯un) and also depraved: Men go veiled while women show their faces (p. ). Numerous hadiths are adduced to warn of sects that will taint Islam until the Hour is at hand. XIII. Various chapters (b¯ab) on divine unity (tawh¯ . ıd, pp. –). The first chapter considers belief in divine unity as the foundation of 39 Ibn T¯ umart employs the technical terms taky¯ıf, “qualification,” ta#t.¯ıl, “denial,” and ta˘gs¯ım, “anthropomorphism.” Luciani, ed., Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, ch. , p. , ll. –.



josep puig montada

religion. Here hadiths are quoted to prove this and other foundations. The first of them says: “Islam is built on five [pillars]: declaring All¯ah to be one, performing the ritual prayer, paying the alms tax, fasting in Ramadan, and pilgrimage.” This is the tradition transmitted by Muslim,40 but Buh¯ar¯ı reads “faith” (¯ım¯an) instead of “declaring All¯ah to be one” (yuwwa˘h. hid), and Ibn T¯umart prefers Muslim to Buhar¯ı. Even if he says . ˘ that we know God’s existence and oneness by “necessity of reason,” he reinforces the argument with a Koranic verse: “Is there doubt about All¯ah, the Maker of the heavens and the earth?” (.), (pp. –). XIV. A large selection of hadiths (pp. –) proceeding from Muslim (d. ). The first and longest chapter deals with ritual purity (pp. –). There are hadiths on the abolition of knowledge, revelation of the Koran, abolition of kindness and religion, on impostors, revelation of hadiths, unclear passages of the Koran, obstinate persons, etc. and a long chapter against alteration of the Koran. Some of the hadiths support the legitimacy of Ibn T¯umart. One of them claims that the Prophet is said to have foretold: “The mahd¯ı shall be a man of my family and his name shall be the same as mine” (p. ).41 A new chapter (b¯ab) begins on p.  and produces more hadiths (pp. –) mainly about death and its aftermath, the first being one ascribed to Ibn #Abb¯as: “I looked at Paradise and I saw that most of its people were poor.” The tradition is found in various collections, namely Buh¯ar¯ı, Muslim, Tirmid¯ı, and Ibn Hanbal. . ˘ “Book on acting¯unfaithfully (˙gul¯ul) and warning against it” (pp. XV. –). The treatise begins with the Koranic sentence: “and he who acts unfaithfully shall bring that in respect of which he has acted unfaithfully on the day of resurrection” (.) and continues with endless hadiths of an eschatological nature. XVI. Various chapters about wine drinking (pp. –). “Wine is not a medicine” (p. ) Ibn T¯umart affirms, and “God condemned drinking of wine” (pp. –). Ibn T¯umart produces numerous hadiths confirming the express disapproval of drinking alcohol. Another chapter is called “Prohibition of wine by the Koran, the traditions and the consensus of the Companions of the Prophet” (–). The treatise includes a chapter (pp. –) explaining that wine can be made of five substances: grapes, dates, honey, wheat, and barley. The explanation comes from the Prophet, as we would expect. 40 41

Muslim, S. ah¯ . ıh, . I¯m¯an,  (). Ab¯u D¯a"¯ud, Sunan, Mahd¯ı,  (), and also Ibn M¯ag˘ a and Ibn Hanbal. .

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



XVII. “Book of Holy War (˘gih¯ad)” (pp. –). It contains two treatises, one, “Incitement to Holy War,” dated in the period of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub (r. –), and the other, “Superiority of martyrdom on the way to God,” in that of Ab¯u Y¯usuf (r. –). Both treatises consist of traditions. A final chapter considers financial support for the war as g˘ih¯ad (pp. –). The edition by Ab¯u al-#Azm (see note ) includes three letters, one by the mahd¯ı Ibn T¯umart and two by the Prince of the Believers, i.e., ‘Abd al-Mu"min, printed on pp. –. The above overview teaches us several things: . Some treatises are theoretical and reflect the Aˇs#arite education Ibn T¯umart received in the East. Assuming that he is the author of most of the treatises, his information is rich, but his expression is difficult to follow. He does not produce any systematic exposition and the chapter on syllogism is particularly confusing. If we compare his ˇ treatises to the works of al-Guwayn¯ ı Im¯am al-Haramayn, they fall . short. . A second part of the collection abounds in hadiths which permit us to associate Ibn T¯umart with Z¯ . ahirism, as Goldziher did. Aˇs#arism and Z¯ of . ahirism had already appeared in the works of Ibn Hazm . Cordova ( / – / ), who was greatly appreciated by the caliph Ab¯u Y¯usuf. . In addition to Aˇs#arism and to Z¯ . ahirism, a third factor is noteworthy: The justification of the mahd¯ı. Ibn Hald¯un (–), who ˘ as did others, accepted pointed to Ibn T¯umart’s Aˇs#arite education, his orthodoxy, but excluded his doctrine of the infallible imam in which Ibn T¯umart would join the ˇs¯ı#¯ıtes.42 Ibn T¯umart did not praise #Al¯ı, but he could certainly have received the imamate idea from the ˇs¯ı#¯ıtes. In any case, as the Almohad ideology evolved, the doctrine of the imam was ignored.

42 #Abd ar-Rahm¯ . an Ibn Hald¯un, Kit¯ab al-#ibar, ed. W. MacGuckin Baron de Slane, vol.  (Algiers, ): .˘French translation, Histoire des berbères et des dynasties musulmanes de l’ Afrique septentrionale, vol.  (Algiers, ): .



josep puig montada Ibn Ruˇsd on Islam

At this point we must examine the relevant opinions of Ibn Ruˇsd on ˇ abir¯ı, and Geoffroy focused on ¯ the issue of religion. Urvoy, #Abid al-G¯ the Kaˇsf, in which Ibn Ruˇsd outlines an elementary theology and argues ˇ against the Aˇs#arite theology represented by al-Guwayn¯ ı Im¯am al-Hara. mayn, whom he mentions explicitly. He may have gone too far because everyone knew that Ibn T¯umart followed that school. He had to revise his work and add some notes showing his respect for the Almohad mahd¯ı.43 Ibn Ruˇsd’s elementary theology was an attempt to find a middle way between Aˇs#arism and the literal reading of the Koran. At the end of the Kit¯ab fas. l al-maq¯al, “The Decisive Treatise,” he writes that the Almohad doctrine was a middle way: “a middle way of knowing God the Glorious, which is placed above the low level of the followers of authority but is below the turbulence of the theologians.”44 Maybe Ibn Ruˇsd identified his elementary theology with this middle way, but after our overview of Ibn T¯umart’s books, I do not think that the identification is objectively possible. If we further consider Ibn Ruˇsd’s major theological work, the Tah¯afut at-Tah¯afut, “The Incoherence of the Incoherence,”45 we find that in it Ibn Ruˇsd is refuting fundamental Aˇs#arite doctrines on the temporal creation of the universe and on the personal activity of All¯ah. At the end of the Tah¯afut at-Tah¯afut, in the fourth discussion of ˙ al¯ı’s the section “About the natural sciences,”46 Ibn Ruˇsd rejects al-Gazz¯ accusation that philosophers deny bodily resurrection. He acknowledges that the issue did not arise among the ancient philosophers, but that resurrection was first mentioned by “the prophets of Israel after Moses,” and that it was also affirmed by Jesus and by the Sabeans before all of them.

43 Cf. Geoffroy, “À propos de l’ almohadisme d’ Averroès”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina, eds, Los almohades, pp. –. 44 Edited by M.J. Müller, Theologie und Philosophie des Averroes (Munich, ): . Bilingual edition by C.E. Butterworth (Provo, Utah, ). English translation by G.F. Hourani, On the harmony of religion and philosophy (London, ): . 45 Edited by M. Bouyges, Bibliotheca Arabica Scholasticorum III (Beirut, ). English translation by S. van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence),  vols (London, , and reprints). 46 Van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut, pp. –.

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



Ibn Ruˇsd confines the belief in bodily resurrection within the boundaries of religious dogma. Therefore he has to prove that religions are true and necessary. The main reason is that religions are necessary political disciplines. This tenet has been known since al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı and places religion below philosophy. According to Ibn Ruˇsd, religion is a political discipline because it prescribes services or collective actions, including prayers, which reinforce the knowledge of God. This theoretical knowledge contributes to the perfection of the practical, moral virtues. Furthermore, the practical virtues are necessary for the development of the speculative virtues.47 This argument might appear circular, but Ibn Ruˇsd is underlining the interaction of speculative and practical virtues. The final purpose is man’s happiness, which consists of intellectual activity. The distinction between philosophy and religion lies on the level and quality of this intellectual activity. Religion teaches the truth by means of allegories and poetical categories so that the unlearned masses can understand it. There is no need to say that bodily resurrection is merely the way to explain immortality to the masses. One may raise the question of whether philosophers need religion at all and recall Ibn Ruˇsd’s words at the beginning of his Long Commentary on the Metaphysics.48 On Aristotle’s words: “It is only fair to be grateful not only to those whose views we can share but also to those who have expressed rather superficial opinions . . . ” (Met. b–), Ibn Ruˇsd urges us to be grateful to our predecessors and above all, to Aristotle. We show him our gratitude when: We devote ourselves to the study of his doctrines and we comment on them and explain them to all people. The religion (shar¯ı"a) exclusive of the learned men (hukam¯ a") is the enquiry about all beings because the noblest . form to adore the Creator is knowledge of His creatures that leads to the true knowledge of His essence.49

Nevertheless, in the aforementioned passage of the Tah¯afut at-Tah¯afut, Ibn Ruˇsd imposes on the philosophers, “the learned men,” the obligation of adopting a particular religion. The philosopher owes gratitude to his parents and his forefathers too and “he should not deride the

47

Van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut, p. . Tafs¯ır m¯a ba#d at. -Tab¯ . ı #at (Grand commentaire de la Métaphysique). Edited by M. Bouyges, Bibliotheca Arabica Scholasticorum V. (Beirut, ): –. 49 Tafs¯ ır (ed. Bouyges), p. , ll. –. 48



josep puig montada

doctrines in which he has been brought up.” On the contrary, he should explain their universal character, which brings us back to philosophy. Ibn Ruˇsd’s words sound complaisant, seeking to please the Almohad rulers and to calm the religious authorities. But religion appears as a relative element, and this sense of relativism is strengthened by this well known passage: Further, he is under obligation to choose the best religion of his period, even when these religions are equally true for him, and he must believe that the best religion will be abrogated by the introduction of a still better one. Therefore the learned men who were instructing the people in Alexandria became Muslims when Islam reached them, and the learned in the Roman Empire became Christians when the religion of Jesus was introduced there. And nobody doubts that among the Israelites there were many learned men.50

Ibn Ruˇsd adds another argument, as if he were aware of his weak position with regard to the religious power. He affirms that every revealed religion is blended with reason and that the combination of reason and revelation is better than reason alone or revelation alone. But we may object that such a combination may be not so successful and that literal contradictions appear. In this case we assume that Ibn Ruˇsd would refer us to the Fas. l al-maq¯al, “The decisive treatise,” where he establishes hermeneutical interpretation as the way to solve the apparent contradictions.51 We see that philosophy again decides what the true meaning is. Such disparity of views also appears in the legal doctrine. Ibn Ruˇsd struggled to resurrect independent jurisprudence, i˘gtih¯ad, and wrote a now often printed book called the Bid¯ayat al-mu˘gtahid, “Primer for the jurist who practices i˘gtih¯ad,” in –.52 Ibn Ruˇsd mentioned not ˇ afi"¯ı, and only the views of the canonical schools: M¯alik, Ab¯u Han¯ . ıfa, aˇs-S¯ Ibn Hanbal but also those of D¯aw¯ud, the founder of the Z¯ . . ahirite school. He always showed respect toward the Z¯ a hirites although he obviously did . not share their views, for instance, on analogy: We say: The channels through which the judgments (ahk¯ . am) were received from the Prophet are three in genus: word, act, and approval (iqr¯ar). With

50

Van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut, p. . M.J. Müller, ed., Theologie und Philosophie des Averroes, p. ; Hourani, On the harmony, p. . 52 Bid¯ ayat al-mu˘gtahid wa-nih¯ayat al-muqtas. id. Edited by M.S. Muhaysin and S.M. . Ism¯a#¯ıl,  vols (Cairo, –). English translation, The distinguished jurist’s primer: a translation of Bid¯ayat al-mu˘gtahid by I.A.K. Nyazee (Reading, ). 51

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



respect to the judgments about which the Lawgiver is silent, the majority [of the schools] say that the method of attaining them is analogy (qiy¯as). The Z¯ . ahirites maintain that analogy in law is illegal and that about which the Lawgiver is silent there is no judgment. Reason proves (dal¯ıl al-#aql), they say, this assertion because the incidents occurring among individuals are infinite, while words, acts and approvals are finite, and it is impossible to apply the infinite to the finite.53

Ibn Ruˇsd was careful to include the Z¯ . ahirite view on any issue, as far as possible, but his methodology had nothing to do with the Z¯ . ahirite way of relying on hadiths for every purpose. He always looked for the cause of divergence in legal views. For him it was not the views that were decisive but their common origin. In so far as Ibn T¯umart and his successors relied mainly on hadiths as legal sources, they can be considered Z¯ . ahirites. Not only did the Almohades not tolerate Judaism and Christianity in their lands but they wanted also Islam to be learned and practiced in the way Ibn T¯umart preached it. When they occupied al-Andalus, they had to adjust to the reality of Islam there, but differences remained. For them the Koran and the traditions always prevailed. The use of logical arguments in theology, no matter how numerous, does not overshadow the radical discrepancy in contents between both the Almohad doctrine and Ibn Ruˇsd’s philosophy. In my view, the only possible connection between Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub and Ibn Ruˇsd was personal. On the other hand, Ibn Ruˇsd was not opposed to Malikism on principle, but he was not a Malikite jurist as his grandfather was. The Almohads did not have the active support of Malikite jurists who were a powerful force in Andalusian society, but neither did Ibn Ruˇsd. His situation was not secure in the political context; he was neither an Aˇs#arite in theology nor a Malikite or a Z¯ . ahirite in law. Ibn Ruˇsd’s main interest was to comment on and interpret Aristotle as becomes evident when we look at his philosophical works. Here again the doctrinal link to the Almohad doctrine is missing; the link is to the person of the caliph Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub. Ab¯u Y¯usuf, his son and successor, yielded to political pressures and condemned Ibn Ruˇsd, but also called him to his court in Marrakech. In spite of the condemnation, he kept a friend ˇ of Ibn Ruˇsd, Ab¯u Ga#far Ahmad ad-Dahab¯ı (–), at his side and . ¯ ¯ 53

Bid¯ayat al-mu˘gtahid, :; English, Nyazee, :xliv.



josep puig montada

entrusted him with important tasks. We may assume that the caliphs could yield to some pressure, but would never allow the balance of power to tip completely in favor of one party as the Malikite jurists were.

A Context of Permanent Distrust Did Ibn Ruˇsd pursue a coherent, continuous policy of influencing the Almohad ideology? If we take into account Kaˇsf "an man¯ahi˘g al-adilla— and the Fas. l al-Maq¯al to a certain extent—(both completed in  / – ), we may agree that he made an attempt to influence it. The Kaˇsf is just a fragment of his intellectual output and was eclipsed by the Tah¯afut at-Tah¯afut, composed between  and , in which his attack against Aˇs#arism was so deep that no reconciliation was possible. If we consider the Tah¯afut at-Tah¯afut and major writings like the Long Commentary on the Metaphysics, we find no traces of any further attempt to influence the Almohad doctrine. As regards legal doctrine, I have just referred to the Bid¯ayat al-mu˘gtahid.54 In spite of his distance from Z¯ . ahirism, Ibn Ruˇsd was helpful to the Almohads by creating a balance among the various legal schools. However, he was not permanently engaged in a project of legal reform, and we do not find any juridical works such as fatwas besides the Bid¯aya. His purpose was only to supply the independent jurist with a handbook enabling him to form his own legal conclusions. Ibn Ruˇsd devoted his energy to the project the caliph had almost certainly assigned to him and with which he completely identified himself: to explain and defend Aristotle.55 Vindicating Aristotle, however, meant ˙ al¯ı and the Aˇs#arite school, both pillars of the Almohad refuting al-Gaz¯ ideology. Was he not aware that it was impossible to replace Aˇs#arism with philosophy? The inquisitorial persecution he suffered convinced him of the impossibility, if he was otherwise not aware. Almohadism had, indeed, created and fostered interest in speculative ˙ al¯ı, who had also studied and activity, echoing the effort made by al-Gaz¯ 54 On the fundamentals of law, and as early as in  Ibn Ruˇ sd wrote a short ˙ ali: Adcommentary on the Mustas. f¯a of al-Gaz¯ . ur¯ı f¯ı us. u¯ l al-fiqh, aw muhtas. ar al. Dar¯ ˘ Mustas. f¯a. Edited by J. al-#Alaw¯ı (Beirut, ). 55 This is my argument in “Averroes’ Commentaries on Aristotle: To explain and to interpret,” in G. Fioravanti, C. Leonardi and S. Perfetti, eds, Il commento filosofico nell’ Occidente Latino (secoli XIII–XV). Rencontres de philosophie médiévale  (Turnhout, ): –.

ibn ruˇsd and the almohad context



written about philosophy. Philosophy belonged to the “Sciences of the Ancients,” also called “Sciences of the Greeks,” which occupied a certain place in Islamic society. But this does not mean that the environment at the time was favorable to philosophy. While the Almohad theologians could easily be associated with Aˇs#arism, the Andalusian jurists were Malikite; neither the Almohad theologians nor the Andalusian jurists accepted philosophy. But as long as the caliph’s authority was not challenged, the caliph had no reason to suppress philosophy. Maybe Ab¯u Y¯usuf al-Mans. u¯ r was so weak that he felt challenged, and his decision to forbid philosophy meant the end of any attempt to harmonize philosophy with the Almohad doctrine. Let me refer here to the views of two liberal thinkers presently living ¯ t.ef al-#Ir¯aq¯ı. In one of his numerous in Egypt, Mur¯ad Wahba and #A 56 articles, Wahba points to the situation of philosophy in al-Andalus, following the account of Ibn S¯ . . a"id (d.  / ) reproduced by Ahmad al-Maqqar¯ı (d.  / ). Ibn S¯ . a"id said that when someone practices philosophy or astronomy in al-Andalus, the masses call him a heretic, zindiq, and try to kill him, and al-Maqqar¯ı cautiously adds “And All¯ah knows best.”57 The situation relates to a period two centuries before Ibn Ruˇsd, but Wahba extrapolates from that situation. He observes that the masses never act on their own and maintains that they were instigated by the theologians (ulam¯a" al-kal¯am) to fight against Ibn Ruˇsd. In contrast, al-#Ir¯aq¯ı holds a group of jurists (fuqah¯a") responsible for the attack against Ibn Ruˇsd,58 but both agree that the enemies of Ibn Ruˇsd were men of religion. Al-#Ir¯aq¯ı and Wahba know that men of religion can be influential not only in contemporary politics, but also in the destiny of public personalities. Al-#Ir¯aq¯ı even had to face trial for unbelief (kufr).59 Their interpretation of Ibn Ruˇsd’s persecution arises from personal experience and must be considered seriously. The accusations brought against Ibn Ruˇsd were of a religious nature and could only have been formulated by men of religion, although other factors such as the struggle for power and personal envy were driving forces. 56 “Muf¯ araqat Ibn Ruˇsd” in A. al-#Ir¯aq¯ı, ed., Al-faylas¯uf Ibn Ruˇsd, mufakkiran #arab¯ıyan wa-r¯a"idan li-l-itti˘ga¯h al-#aql¯ı (Cairo, ): –. 57 Nafh at-tibb (ed. #Abb¯ as): :–. Ab¯u l-Q¯asim Ibn S¯ . . . . a#id, Kit¯ab t. abaq¯at alumam. Edited by L. Cheikho (Beirut, ; Reprint Frankfurt am Main, ): . 58 An-naz#a al-#aql¯ ıya f¯ı falsafat Ibn Ruˇsd, th ed. (Cairo, ): –. 59 See, for instance, his own memories in Al-faylas¯ uf Ibn Ruˇsd wa-mustaqbal at-taq¯afa ¯¯ al-#arab¯ıya. Arba#¯una ‘¯aman min dikray¯at¯ı ma# fikri-hi at-tanw¯ır¯ı (Cairo, ): –. ¯



josep puig montada

We know that Ibn Ruˇsd’s enemies were able to move the masses to such an extent that the caliph may have felt threatened and been anxious to defend his authority. We have good reasons to assume that eventually the struggle was against the caliph himself since Cordova had never willingly accepted Almohad rule. Ibn Ruˇsd had always been loyal to the Almohads, but he was not an institutional representative of their doctrine, so he could be sacrificed for the sake of appeasement.

LEGISLATING TRUTH: MAIMONIDES, THE ALMOHADS, AND THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY JEWISH ENLIGHTENMENT*

Carlos Fraenkel In the thirteenth century Maimonideans in Southern France devoted themselves “with religious zeal” to teaching philosophy to the general public.1 At the same time they were committed to the esoteric character of philosophy, holding that access to it must be restricted to the select few.2 In this paper I want to propose a solution to this puzzle. In his magisterial study on the appropriation and role of the sciences in the medieval Jewish communities of Southern France, Gad Freudenthal documented and explained the radical transformation which these communities underwent, from traditional Talmud-Torah centers into leading centers of philosophy and science. According to Freudenthal, Maimonides’ interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical religion played a key role in this process: En effet, à partir du début du XIIIe siècle, notamment, suite à la pénétration dans les communautés juives du Midi de la France et du Nord de l’ Espagne, * Different versions of this paper were presented to academic audiences at the University of Chicago and McGill University. I wish to thank them for raising interesting questions. I am also grateful for helpful comments from Erik Dreff, Rachel Haliva, and an anonymous referee, as well as for the technical assistance I received from Zoli Filotas. 1 J. Robinson, “Secondary Forms of Philosophy: On the Teaching and Transmission of Philosophy in Non-Philosophical Literary Genres,” in C. Fraenkel, J. Fumo, F. Wallis and R. Wisnovsky, eds, Vehicles of Translation, Transmission and Transformation in Medieval Cultures (Turnhout, forthcoming). As Rachel Haliva has pointed out to me, this is not true for all thirteenth-century Maimonideans. See, for instance, Shem Tov Falaquera, who sides with Ibn Ruˇsd against disclosing the philosophical doctrine of God’s incorporeality in Moreh ha-Moreh (edited by Y. Shiffman [Jerusalem, ]) on Maimonides’ Guide . (Dal¯alat al-h¯ . a"ir¯ın; edited by S. Munk and Y. Yoel [Jerusalem, ], translated by S. Pines as The Guide of the Perplexed [Chicago, ]). 2 See A. Ravitzky, The Thought of Rabbi Zerahyah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel Hen and Maimonidean-Tibbonian Philosophy in the Thirteenth Century (Heb.) (Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University, ); idem, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the Guide of the Perplexed,” AJS Review  (): –; and idem, “The Secrets of The Guide of the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenth and the Twentieth Centuries,” in I. Twersky, ed., Studies in Maimonides (Cambridge, MA, ): –.



carlos fraenkel de la philosophie de Maïmonide, les sciences et la philosophie y ont acquis droit de cité. . . . Ces sciences sont ainsi devenues une partie intégrante du “bagage intellectuel” non seulement d’ une infime élite de philosophes proprement dites, mais aussi de toute personne voulant s’ instruire tant soi peu en théologie dans l’ esprit maïmonidien. . . . En somme . . . il ne fait pas de doute que, au fur et à mesure que s’ est imposée la vision maïmonidienne du judaïsme, s’ est répandue l’ étude des sciences préparant à la métaphysique, de sorte que des le milieu du XIIIe siècle une large fraction des lettrés juifs ont “fait leurs classes” scientifiques.3

Freudenthal persuasively argues that Maimonides’ interpretation of Judaism both structured the corpus of scientific and philosophical texts that was translated from Arabic to Hebrew and provided a religious justification for studying these texts. According to Maimonides the commandment to love God (Deut. :) is a “call” to acquire “all the . . . correct opinions concerning the whole of being—opinions that constitute the numerous kinds of all the theoretical sciences [al-#ul¯um alnaz. ariyya].”4 The “theoretical sciences” are mathematics, physics, and metaphysics, preceded by the study of logic as the tool of philosophy.5 Maimonides thus legitimizes studying the entire range of the philosophical sciences that prepare for and culminate in the intellectual love of God.6 What turns the process described by Freudenthal into a puzzle is Maimonides’ insistence that the philosophical sciences are esoteric sciences— “the secrets of the Law.” Boldly identifying physics with the “Account of the Beginning” and metaphysics with the “Account of the Chariot,” Maimonides refers to the authority of the Talmud to stress their esoteric character: Whereas the “Account of the Beginning ought not to be taught in the presence of two men,” the “Account of the Chariot ought not to be taught even to one man, except if he be wise and able to understand by himself, in which case only the chapter headings may be transmitted 3

Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence: Leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des études juives  (): –, on pp.  and ; cp. also idem, “Science in the Medieval Jewish Culture of Southern France,” History of Science  (): –, which elaborates on some of the points made in the earlier paper. 4 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). Note that throughout this paper I have often modified existing English translations. 5 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). 6 For a detailed account of Maimonides’ interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical religion, see C. Fraenkel, From Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon: The Transformation of the Dal¯alat al-H¯ . a"ir¯ın into the Moreh ha-Nevukhim (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ), in ch. ..

legislating truth



to him.”7 How, then, could thirteenth-century Maimonideans turn the philosophical sciences into a “partie intégrante du ‘bagage intellectuel’ . . . de toute personne voulant s’ instruire . . . en théologie dans l’ esprit maïmonidien”? At first view, the Maimonidean framework invoked by Freudenthal fails to explain this phenomenon. It only provides a religious justification for disseminating the philosophical sciences among “une infime élite de philosophes proprement dites.” Freudenthal’s own explanation highlights the widespread literacy among Jews: “Etant donné qu’une grande partie des juifs du moyen âge sont lettrés, il s’ ensuit que les études scientifiques ne sont pas, comme dans les autres sociétés médiévales, l’ affaire d’ un groupe restreint de savants . . . .”8 Knowing how to read and write, however, is not enough for being introduced to “the secrets of the Law” according to Maimonides’ standards.9 This is all the more puzzling if we take the literary genres into account that were used for disseminating philosophy and science in Southern France. They include not only study aids such as dictionaries of technical terms and philosophical encyclopedias that make scientific contents accessible to a wider public, but also many distinctly Jewish genres— from commentaries on the Bible to synagogue sermons.10 In other words, medieval Maimonideans appropriated a wide range of traditional cultural narratives for their purpose. As a consequence, Southern France in the thirteenth century witnessed what was likely the most comprehensive attempt before the Enlightenment to bring philosophy and science into every family’s living room! The paradoxical project of teaching philosophy to hoi polloi despite the explicit prohibition to do so is not just an idiosyncratic feature of Maimonides’ medieval disciples. Scholars who took note of the phenomenon usually overlooked that the paradox is at the heart of Maimonides’ own work. They interpreted the seeming departure of thirteenth-century Maimonideans from Maimonides as a response to the concern that Christian

7

B Hagigah b, quoted by Maimonides in Guide , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; . trans. Pines, pp. –); cp. the introduction to Guide . See also Freudenthal’s explanation of why instruction in philosophy was not institutionalized in medieval Jewish culture: Freudenthal, “Science,” p. . 8 Freudenthal, “Les sciences,” p. . 9 See, e.g., the “Epistle Dedicatory” of the Guide, where Maimonides describes how he tested Joseph’s mathematical and logical skills before concluding that he was “one worthy to have the secrets of the prophetic books revealed” to him (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). 10 For an overview of these genres, see Robinson, “Secondary Forms.”



carlos fraenkel

neighbors were looking down on the intellectual culture of the Jews, a situation to be remedied through the large-scale promotion of philosophy and science.11 The neglect of Maimonides’ own role in this context is in part due to the paralyzing influence of Leo Strauss.12 According to Strauss, Maimonides takes philosophy to be the exclusive domain of the intellectual elite, fearing that its public disclosure will subvert the religious beliefs of non-philosophers and ultimately lead to the disintegration of the social order.13 As we will see, this interpretation precisely fails to capture the originality of Maimonides’ position. For one thing, much of the Guide of the Perplexed is devoted to a straightforward explanation of the allegorical meaning of terms and parables occurring in the Bible and in rabbinic texts. Particularly prominent are explanations of passages that represent God in anthropomorphic terms which on Maimonides’ reading esoterically refer to features of an incorporeal God.14 Through these explanations Maimonides makes at least some “secrets of the Law” accessible to anyone who can read the Guide. The “secret” of God’s incorporeality, for example, is a key doctrine of the “Account of the Chariot.”15 Maimonides, in other words, has no qualms about publicly revealing what the prophets and rabbinic sages took great care to conceal! Moreover, Maimonides includes a summary of Aristotelian philosophy in the Book of Knowledge, the first book of the Miˇsneh Torah that begins by stating the Laws Concerning the Foundations of the Torah. As the “Foundations of the Torah,” it turns out, Maimonides posits the core

11 See, for example, M. Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and its Philosophical Implications (Princeton, ), in particular ch. . This view was first set forth by I. Twersky, “Aspects of Social and Cultural History of Provençal Jewry,” Journal of World History  (): –. 12 See Z. Harvey, “How Leo Strauss Paralyzed the Scholarship on the Guide of the Perplexed in the th Century” (Heb.), Iyyun  (): –. Only recently are the basic assumptions of Strauss coming under scrutiny. See, for example, A. Ravitzky, “Maimonides: Esotericism and Educational Philosophy,” in K. Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides (Cambridge, ): –, on p. , where he explicitly states that his earlier stance on Maimonides’ esotericism “requires revision.” 13 I have presented my critique of Strauss’s approach in C. Fraenkel, “Theocracy and Autonomy in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy,” Political Theory  (): – . 14 See Guide . for a statement of the program, which is carried out in the Guide. 15 For the philosophical proofs of God’s incorporeality, see Guide , introduction, and .–. For the inclusion of God’s incorporeality in the “Account of the Chariot,” see Maimonides, Sefer ha-madda# (Jerusalem, ), translated by M. Hyamson as The Book of Knowledge (Jerusalem, ), Laws Concerning the Foundations of the Torah .– and ..

legislating truth



teachings of Aristotle’s metaphysics and physics: from the existence of God, inferred from the eternal motion of the celestial spheres, all the way down to the four elements of the sublunar world.16 Conveying philosophical doctrines through exegesis and legislation to the general public is clearly at odds with the political Platonism characteristic of the school of Arabic Aristotelianism founded by al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı (d. ). Maimonides is consistently described as the greatest Jewish representative of this school. Lawrence Berman called him “the disciple of Alfarabi” because, according to Berman, he took al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı’s general theory of the relationship between philosophy, religion, theology, and jurisprudence and applied it to Judaism.17 And yet Maimonides and his disciples in Southern France seem to be repeating what Plato took to be the tragic mistake of Socrates: trying to set free the cave-dwellers by dragging them out of the cave’s darkness into the light of science. To explain the rationale for disseminating philosophy and science to the general public, I first briefly examine the political Platonism which seems to be at odds with this project, in particular the division of human beings into philosophers and non-philosophers and the esoteric character of philosophy following from this division. Maimonides’ departure from the standard Platonic position, I argue, is best understood as an Aristotelian adaptation of the political-theological program of the Almohad rulers of Muslim Spain and North Africa, who legally enforced theological beliefs such as the belief in God’s incorporeality. This program, in turn, is embedded in Maimonides’ sociology of religion, for which he makes creative use of the Christian concept of divine accommodation and Arabic literature on paganism. Maimonides’ core assumption is that by legislating true beliefs the false beliefs of non-philosophers can be replaced through intellectual habituation. Since human nature is not susceptible to radical change, however, this replacement must take place gradually. Maimonides’ treatment of anthropomorphism thus can be explained in terms of the same model of progress that underlies his historical analysis of the reasons for the commandments in Guide .– : not only religious practices such as sacrifices, but also religious beliefs such as the anthropomorphic representation of God were included in the Law of Moses on account of God’s pedagogical “ruse” operating in 16

Ibid., –. L. Berman, “Maimonides, the Disciple of Alfarabi,” Israel Oriental Studies  (): –, on p. . 17



carlos fraenkel

history. Intellectual habituation, however, is only one side of Maimonides’ program for non-philosophers. It is complemented by the prescription to study the Law of Moses, including its esoteric contents, i.e., the “Account of the Beginning” and the “Account of the Chariot.” Maimonides’ aim, then, is not just to replace false with true beliefs, but also to substitute wisdom for authority as the beliefs’ foundation. Finally, I argue that Maimonides’ program was adopted by Samuel ibn Tibbon, the founder of Maimonideanism in Southern France, who turned it into a comprehensive theory of the progressive disclosure of the divine Law’s esoteric content. The main difference between Maimonides and Ibn Tibbon is that for the former intellectual habituation to true beliefs is a function of legislation whereas for the latter it is a function of the scientific culture of the non-Jewish environment.

Philosophy as an Esoteric Discipline I have discussed elsewhere Plato’s distinction between philosophers and non-philosophers and its implications for the public teaching of philosophy and the pedagogical-political purpose of religion. I also tried to show how the medieval falsafa tradition, starting with al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, adopted Plato’s conceptual framework to explain the relationship between philosophy and the divine Law.18 The standard position of the fal¯asifa is that philosophical contents should not be disclosed in public. According to Ibn Ruˇsd, for example, only philosophers have access to the truth through scientific demonstrations. Hence access to the “allegorical sense” of the divine Law should be restricted to philosophers too. Pointing out in public that the literal sense of the divine Law is false and disclosing its allegorical sense would precisely undermine the intention of the prophet who concealed the allegorical sense because of the division of humankind into philosophers and non-philosophers.19 Removing the traditional beliefs, Ibn Ruˇsd argues, risks pushing non-philosophers into nihilism because they are unable to replace them through true ones. They will, therefore, no longer follow the guidance of the lawgiver on account of either the literal or the allegorical sense of the divine Law. Again and again Ibn Ruˇsd 18 See C. Fraenkel, “Philosophy and Exegesis in al-F¯ ar¯ab¯ı, Averroes, and Maimonides,” Laval Théologique et Philosophique  (): –. 19 Ibn Ruˇ sd, Decisive Treatise and Epistle Dedicatory [Kit¯ab fas. l al-maq¯al]. Edited by G. Hourani and translated by C. Butterworth (Provo, ): –.

legislating truth



stresses that the allegorical sense of the divine Law is not to be made public. His sharp criticism of Muslim theologians who “strayed and led astray” is motivated above all by the fact that they “revealed their allegor20 ical interpretation to the multitude” (s. arah¯ . u bi-ta"w¯ılihim li-l-˘gumh¯ur). Among the beliefs that ought not to be called into question in public, Ibn Ruˇsd explicitly includes the “belief in [God’s] corporeality” (i#tiq¯ad al-˘gasmiyya).21 I partly agree with the scholarly tradition that situates Maimonides in the philosophical school founded by al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı. He indeed shares many of this school’s assumptions, for example that human beings are subdivided into philosophers and non-philosophers, and the notion of the philosopher-prophet who has a perfect intellect as well as a perfect imagination, teaching philosophers by means of demonstrations and nonphilosophers by means of dialectical, rhetorical, and poetical devices— “the language of human beings.”22 Moreover, as I pointed out above, Maimonides, too, stresses the importance of concealing the allegorical content of the divine Law for the protection of non-philosophers. In Guide . he makes a strong case for the esoteric nature of both philosophy and the divine Law’s allegorical content: disclosing them, he argues, subverts the beliefs of non-philosophers based on “authority” and hence pushes them into nihilism. Only students who are “perfect in mind” should be “elevated step by step” to true knowledge.23 This notwithstanding, the Guide is presented as a book of Biblical exegesis. To understand why, it is important to clarify who the “perplexed” are whom Maimonides is addressing. In the introduction to the Guide, the perplexed is characterized as a Jewish intellectual who has studied philosophy, but fails to understand the relationship between philosophy and the divine Law. He is “distressed by the literal meanings of the Law [zaw¯ . ah¯ır al-ˇsar¯ı#a]” because they contradict the doctrines of the philosophers.24 The Guide’s philosophical-exegetical program at first looks like a response to precisely this problem. Maimonides’ purpose is “to give indications” (tanb¯ıh) by explaining “the meaning of certain terms” and “very obscure parables occurring in the books of the prophets.” It seems, therefore, that the project of the Guide can be characterized as elevating Jewish philosophers

20 21 22 23 24

Ibid., pp. –. Ibid., p. . For more detail, see again Fraenkel, From Maimonides, ch. .. Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, pp. –). Ibid., , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).



carlos fraenkel

from the literal sense of the divine Law, designed according to pedagogical and political considerations for non-philosophers, to the allegorical sense of the divine Law, corresponding to the “truth as it is” and accessible only to philosophers.25

Leading Non-Philosophers out of the Cave In Guide . Maimonides stresses that publicly teaching philosophy and disclosing the divine Law’s allegorical content will ultimately lead to the “absolute negation” of the beliefs which non-philosophers hold on the basis of the authority of tradition. We would thus expect Maimonides to oppose straightforward philosophical exegesis as strictly as Ibn Ruˇsd. Maimonides indeed claims to have concealed his teachings in the Guide through obscuring his argumentation by means of esoteric devices such as deliberate disorder and contradictions.26 All the more surprising, then, is that much of the Guide is devoted to the explanation of the allegorical meaning of terms and parables occurring in the divine Law. These explanations are, after all, accessible to anyone who can read. Maimonides, it seems, does precisely what the fal¯asifa and he himself stressed must be avoided. To solve this puzzle, my key claim is that for Maimonides not only Jewish philosophers need to be elevated from the literal to the allegorical content of the divine Law, but non-philosophers as well. Although non-philosophers cannot acquire knowledge by means of demonstration, they can be habituated to beliefs that correspond to the true nature of things. These beliefs, acquired through habituation, coincide with the knowledge philosophers acquire through demonstration. The power of habituation is highlighted in Maimonides’ analysis of the “causes of disagreement about things.” One of these causes is habit ["ilf ] and upbringing [tarbiya]. For man has in his nature a love . . . for, and the wish to defend, beliefs to which he is habituated [mu#t¯ad¯atuhu] and in which he has been brought up and has a feeling of repulsion for beliefs other than those. For this reason also man is blind to the apprehension of the true realities and inclines toward the things to which he is habituated. This happened to the multitude with regard to the belief in His corporeality [al-ta˘gs¯ım] and many other metaphysical subjects as we

25 26

Ibid., , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). Ibid., , introduction.

legislating truth



shall make clear. All this is due to people being habituated to, and brought up on, texts . . . whose external meaning is indicative of the corporeality of God and of other imaginings with no truth in them, for these have been set forth as parables and riddles.27

If human beings can be habituated to false beliefs, there is no reason why it should not be possible to habituate them to true beliefs as well, as Maimonides argues with respect to the doctrine of God’s incorporeality: This doctrine ought to be inculcated in virtue of traditional authority [taql¯ıd] upon children, women, stupid ones, and those of a defective natural disposition, just as they adopt the notion that God is one, that He is eternal, and that none but He should be worshipped. For there is no profession of unity 28 [tawh¯ . ıd] unless the doctrine of God’s corporeality is denied.

The false belief that God is corporeal is thus replaced with the true belief that God is incorporeal. In both cases the belief is the outcome of habituation. Habituation, therefore, can be an obstacle as much as a vehicle for spreading the truth. On the basis of a late ancient version of Aristotle’s Organon, the fal¯asifa distinguished between the demonstrative, dialectical, rhetorical, and poetical method of disseminating knowledge.29 To these four methods Maimonides adds a fifth that is not derived from the same conceptual framework: “inculcation in virtue of traditional authority.” Here we meet the Almohads, i.e., the “professors of God’s unity” (muwah. hid¯ . un) who made the strict understanding of tawh¯ . ıd— God’s unity as entailing God’s incorporeality—into the official doctrine of the Almohad kingdom that all Muslims were forced to adopt.30 Sarah Stroumsa recently argued for the pervasive influence of the politicaltheological program of the Almohads on Maimonides who lived under Almohad rule from  to .31 Most important for my purpose is the Almohad murˇsida or ‘aq¯ıda, a catechism containing a set of fundamental religious doctrines that were legally enforced on all Muslims. Since the doctrine of God’s incorporeality is a cornerstone of this catechism, 27

Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). Ibid., . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, p. ). 29 For a more detailed account of these logical methods, see Fraenkel, “Philosophy.” 30 See the programmatic text The Unity of the Creator [Tawh¯ . ıd al-b¯ari"] by Ibn T¯umart, the founder of the Almohad movement, in I. Golziher, “Materialien zur Kenntnis der Almohadenbewegung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft  (): –. 31 S. Stroumsa, Maimonides in His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (Princeton, ): ch. . 28



carlos fraenkel

Stroumsa convincingly argues that Maimonides’ zeal in imposing it on all members of the Jewish community is inspired by the Almohad program. Given that the Almohads identify the anthropomorphic representation of God with idolatry, this zeal is not difficult to understand, for the eradication of idolatry, according to Maimonides, is the “foundation” ("asl) and “pivot” (qutb) of the Mosaic Law.32 Avoiding the denunciation of Jews as idolaters by their Muslim neighbors clearly was more urgent to Maimonides than pedagogical concerns which he also seems to have had about disclosing this well-guarded secret of the divine Law.33 The doctrine of God’s incorporeality, in turn, is obviously at odds with much of what the divine Law has to say about God: When people have received this doctrine, are habituated to it ["alif¯uhu] and educated . . . in it, and subsequently become perplexed [tahayyar¯ u"] . over the texts of the books of the prophets, the meaning of these books should be explained to them. They should be elevated to the knowledge of the interpretation of these texts [unhid¯ . u" li-ta"w¯ılih¯a], and their attention should be drawn to the equivocality and allegorical sense of the various terms—the exposition of which is contained in this Treatise—so that the correctness of their belief regarding the oneness of God and the affirmation of the truth of the books of the prophets should be safe.34

After having been habituated to the doctrine of God’s incorporeality, non-philosophers too will experience perplexity over the literal meaning of anthropomorphic passages in the Mosaic Law. It turns out, therefore, that much of the exegetical program of the Guide aims not only at resolving the perplexity of philosophers, but the perplexity of nonphilosophers as well! Maimonides’ stance on God’s incorporeality and its exegetical implications should not be seen as an isolated deviation from the Platonic tradition of concealment. It is part of a broad project of habituating nonphilosophers to true beliefs which clearly breaks with the framework of Platonism.35 This project is not just a variation of the catechism of fundamental religious beliefs enforced by the Almohads. It is embedded in the 32

Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, ). For the pedagogical concerns, see Guide .. There is a certain tension between the admission that representing God in corporeal terms is pedagogically required and the legal enforcement of the doctrine of God’s incorporeality. 34 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, p. ). 35 Note, however, that in Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ) Maimonides makes a distinction between God’s incorporeality and other doctrines which “are truly the mysteries of the Torah.” I suggest that the latter doctrines are doctrines that cannot yet be publicly disclosed, but may be disclosed in the future. 33

legislating truth



larger context of what may be called Maimonides’ sociology of religion. For his sociology of religion Maimonides makes creative use of various sources which have been studied in detail in previous scholarship. A brief summary will thus suffice here. According to Maimonides, God’s wisdom is not only manifest in the teleological order of nature as a whole or in the teleological order of the parts of an animal, but also in goal-oriented processes such as the biological development of animals and the culturalreligious development of societies. In these processes God’s wisdom provides what is required to sustain each developmental stage until the goal is achieved. For example: God made a wily and gracious arrangement [talattafa] with regard to all the individuals of the living beings that suck. For when born, such individuals are extremely soft and cannot feed on dry food. Accordingly breasts were prepared for them so that they should produce milk with a view to their receiving humid food, which is similar to the composition of their bodies, until their limbs gradually and little by little become dry and solid.36

The application of this model to the cultural-religious development of societies likely reflects the Christian concept of “divine accommodation” according to which God “accommodates” his guidance to a specific group of human beings whose practices and beliefs are shaped by a concrete historical context.37 Thus Christians justified the abrogation of the Jewish law by describing it as God’s guidance accommodated to a necessary but transitional stage of Israel’s development towards Christianity. On this interpretation the legal content of the Bible is not valid for all times, but only a temporary educational measure, required for repairing the Jews’ moral and intellectual corruption following their enslavement in Egypt. Maimonides adapts elements of this conception to explain the many commandments included in the Law of Moses whose rationale is not evident. His explanation is based on an ontological thesis applied to human nature:

36

Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). See, e.g., S. Pines, “Some Traits of Christian Theological Writing in Relation to Muslim Kal¯am and to Jewish Thought,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities  (): –; A. Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination: From the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century (Princeton, ): –; and idem, Maimonides: Nature, History and Messianic Beliefs (Tel Aviv, ). On divine accommodation in general, see S.D. Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought (Albany, ). 37



carlos fraenkel For a sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible. And therefore man, according to his nature is not capable of abandoning suddenly all to which he was habituated ["alifa].38

As Sarah Stroumsa has argued, Maimonides’ reconstruction of the religion of ancient Egypt is based on the study of a wide range of Arabic works on paganism. Maimonides uses this literature to construe a portrait of the religious practices and beliefs of “Sabianism,” which for him is not the name of a distinct religious community, but a collective name for pagan religions.39 In the time of Moses the religion of the “Sabians” was practiced in “the whole world.”40 It was thus also the religion of the ancient Egyptians into which the Jews were “acculturated” while being slaves in Egypt. As a consequence Moses had to deal with a twofold constraint: the moral and intellectual corruption of the Jews who had become habituated to the practices and beliefs of the “Sabians” and the fact that “man . . . is not capable of abandoning suddenly all to which he was habituated.” It was, therefore, impossible for Moses to enact a religious revolution and replace the old and false religion through a new and true one. This would have had the same effect as feeding a newborn solid food. Instead, Moses had to embark on a project of gradual reform. The paradigmatic example for the compromises which this reform project required is the laws of sacrifice: At the time when the Jews were slaves in Egypt the way of life generally accepted [maˇsh¯ura] and habitual [ma"l¯ufa] in the whole world and the universal service upon which we were brought up consisted in offering various species of living beings in the temples in which images were set up, in worshipping the latter, and in burning incense before them . . . . His wisdom, may He be exalted, and His gracious ruse, which is manifest in regard to all His creatures, did not require that He give us a Law prescribing the rejection . . . of all these kinds of worship. For one could not then conceive the acceptance of [such a Law], considering the nature of man which always likes that to which it is habituated [alma"l¯uf ]. At that time this would have been similar to the appearance of a prophet in these times who, calling upon the people to worship God, would say: “God has given you a Law forbidding you to pray to Him, to fast, to call upon Him for help in misfortune. Your worship should consist solely in meditation without any works at all.” Therefore He, may He be exalted, suffered the above-mentioned kinds of worship to remain, but transferred them from created or imaginary and unreal things to His own 38 39 40

Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). See ibid., .–, .; and Stroumsa, Maimonides, pp. –. Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

legislating truth



name, may He be exalted, commanding us to practice them with regard to Him, may He be exalted. . . . Through this divine ruse it came about that the memory of idolatry was effaced and that the grandest and true foundation of our belief—namely, the existence and oneness of the deity— was firmly established, while at the same time the souls had no feeling of repugnance . . . because of the abolition of modes of worship to which they were habituated ["alifat].41

Sacrifices, therefore, have only an instrumental, not an intrinsic, value as a way of worshipping God. They are a concession Moses had to make to the stage of the Jews in their cultural-religious development at the time of the exodus from Egypt. Their role is similar to that of the milk for the newborn. At the same time, Maimonides sketches what the path to the process’s goal could look like: sacrifices are replaced through less inadequate forms of worship such as praying and fasting which in turn are replaced through meditation without any works.42 At this final stage God is worshipped adequately not only relative to a particular historical context, but in absolute terms. Inadequate habits of worship thus can be replaced through adequate habits in a process of gradual religious reformation. While the laws of sacrifice are a paradigmatic example, Maimonides applies the same type of historical explanation to a wide range of other laws throughout his discussion of the reasons of the commandments in Guide .–. What scholars have not yet clearly seen, however, is that this developmental model applies not only to religious practices but to religious beliefs as well. Hence the secrets of the Torah can be disclosed not only to philosophers, but, step by step, to non-philosophers as well. At the final stage the beliefs of philosophers, based on demonstration, will coincide with the beliefs of non-philosophers, based on habituation. Concerning beliefs, the paradigmatic case is God’s incorporeality. Moses habituated the Jews to the belief in God’s “existence and oneness,” thus turning them away from Sabian polytheism. But since, as we saw, “a sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible,” Moses could not impose the belief in God’s incorporeality as well. In Maimonides’ time, by contrast, the commitment to God’s existence and 41

Ibid., . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, pp. –). Or, more precisely, since sacrifices, praying, and fasting coexisted, only the less inadequate forms of worship are retained at the second stage. The issue requires further investigation, however, because Maimonides also holds that sacrifices will resume in the Messianic era. See Book of Judges, Laws Concerning Kings and Wars  (Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, edited by S. Frankel,  vols. [Jerusalem, ]). 42



carlos fraenkel

oneness could be taken for granted. God’s incorporeality, moreover, became a doctrine legally enforced in the cultural-religious context of the Jewish community in which Maimonides lived. He thus felt authorized to take the reform project one step further by introducing a new aspect of the true notion of God, i.e., God’s incorporeality which is both imposed by law in the Miˇsneh Torah and disclosed through allegorical exegesis in the Guide. As in the case of the laws of sacrifice, the belief in God’s corporeality is only a paradigmatic example for the working of God’s pedagogical ruse in history. Already in the passage from Guide . quoted above, God’s corporeality is said to be one of many “metaphysical subjects” concerning which non-philosophers were habituated to false beliefs. A second example is the belief in reward and punishment. According to the “Sabians” who believed in astral gods, worshipping stars and planets leads to the prolongation of life, a warding-off of calamities, the disappearance of infirmities, the fertility of the sowing, and the thriving of the fruits. Now inasmuch as these notions were generally accepted so that they were regarded as certain, and as God, may He be exalted, wished in His pity for us to efface this error from our minds . . . and to give us laws through Moses our Master, the latter informed us in His name, may He be exalted, that if the stars and the planets were worshipped . . . rains will cease to fall, that the land will be devastated, that circumstances will become bad, that the bodies will suffer from diseases, and that lives will be short; whereas a necessary consequence of the abandonment of their worship and the adoption of the worship of God will be rainfall, the fertility of the land, good circumstances, health of the body, and length of life.43

In this example, one false belief concerning reward and punishment is replaced with another false belief which is, however, closer to the truth: that there is no reward and punishment altogether in the traditional sense. For the belief that He will procure us benefits if we obey Him and will take vengeance on us if we disobey Him, . . . this too is a ruse [h¯ . ıla] used by Him with regard to order us in order to achieve His first intention with respect to us.44

As in the case of prayers and fasting, the belief in reward and punishment is only an intermediate stage on the path to the true conception of the relationship between human beings and God. It turns out that the false 43 44

Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, pp. –).

legislating truth



beliefs that Maimonides describes as “necessary” in Guide . are necessary only for a certain stage of the Jews’ cultural-religious development. At this stage, the belief that God “has a violent anger against those who do injustice” and that God “responds instantaneously to the prayer of someone wronged or deceived” are “necessary for the abolition of reciprocal wrongdoing or for the acquisition of a noble moral quality.”45 But ultimately, as we will see below, Maimonides wants all members of the community to serve God “out of love” and not for the sake of avoiding punishment or receiving reward. The scope of Maimonides’ ambition with respect to disseminating true beliefs to non-philosophers becomes clear in the first four chapters of the Commandments Concerning the Foundations of the Law which open the Miˇsneh Torah. Here again Maimonides does not convey doctrines by means of demonstration nor by means of dialectical, rhetorical, or poetical devices. Instead he imposes a succinct summary of Aristotelian metaphysics and physics through the authority of the law. As in the Guide, moreover, he identifies metaphysics with the “Account of the Chariot” and physics with the “Account of the Beginning,” and the entire body of esoteric doctrines with “Pardes,” literally “Paradise,” the term used in rabbinical literature to refer to the esoteric content of the Mosaic Law.46 As Sarah Stroumsa has suggested, yesodei ha-torah likely renders the Arabic us¯ul al-d¯ın and is modeled on the Almohad catechism of fundamental religious doctrines.47 I would suggest that the long-term goal of Maimonides’ Aristotelian catechism was to habituate non-philosophers not only to God’s incorporeality, but to all basic concepts of what he considered a sound scientific worldview. Once these concepts take root in the minds of the members of the religious community, the disclosure of the Torah’s secrets through allegorical exegesis will have to follow suit. In other words: the gradual enforcement of true beliefs must be coordinated with the gradual disclosure of the divine Law’s esoteric content. In this sense Maimonides’ work can be seen as only one stage in a larger historical process. Following the model of what he did for the doctrine of God’s incorporeality, his successors would have to continue disclosing the Torah’s secrets.48 Plato and the fal¯asifa thought that if the traditional 45

Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). See Foundations of the Law .–; for the meaning of “Pardes,” see B Hagigah . . 47 Stroumsa, Maimonides, p. . 48 Maimonides, moreover, has prepared the ground for the next stage in the Guide. For the “Account of the Beginning,” see Guide . and for the “Account of the Chariot,” see Guide , introduction–. 46



carlos fraenkel

beliefs of non-philosophers are challenged they fall into nihilism because of their inability to replace them through true ones. Maimonides, by contrast, thinks that nihilism can be avoided if true beliefs are imposed gradually through habituation. The dichotomy between philosophers who assent to true beliefs on the basis of demonstration and non-philosophers who embrace true beliefs on the basis of habituation is, however, less clear-cut than I have presented it thus far. The ultimate goal of the Law of Moses, according to Maimonides, is twofold: It takes pains to inculcate ["i#t. a¯"] correct beliefs with regard to God, may He be exalted, in the first place . . . and desires to make man wise [tahk¯ . ım], to give him understanding [tafh¯ım], and to awaken his attention [tanb¯ıh], so that he should know the whole of that which exists in its true form.49

Inculcating “correct beliefs” and making “man wise” are clearly two distinct goals. At the stage of inculcation the teachings of the Law are accepted “on the basis of traditional authority” which Maimonides calls “the science of the Law.” But traditional authority, Maimonides argues, ought to be replaced through “wisdom,” i.e., “the verification of the opinions of the Law through correct speculation.”50 According to Maimonides, “speculation concerning the fundamental principles of religion” is included in what he calls “Talmud” and the study of Talmud is incumbent upon all members of the community. In the Laws Concerning the Study of the Torah Maimonides lays out the study curriculum as follows: The time assigned to study should be divided into three parts. One third should be devoted to the written Law, one third to the oral Law, and the last third to understanding [yavin] and intellectually apprehending [ya´skil] inferences, deducing one thing from another and comparing one thing to another. . . . . This is called Talmud. . . . The words of the Prophets are contained in the written Law and their interpretation in the oral Law. The subjects called Pardes [i.e., the “Account of the Beginning” and the “Account of the Chariot”] are included in the Gemara. This rule applies to the beginning of a person’s studies. But once he makes progress in wisdom [hokhmah] and no longer needs to learn the written Law or be occupied . with the oral Law all the time, he should, at fixed times, read the written

49

Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ) and . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, pp. –). 50

legislating truth



Law and the oral Law, so as not to forget any of the rules of the Law, and should devote all his days to the study of Talmud alone according to his 51 breadth of mind and maturity of intellect [rohav . libo ve-yiˇsˇsur da#to].

If “Talmud” implies that all members of the community must reflect on the philosophical foundations of the Law included in “Pardes,” then replacing traditional authority through wisdom is a universal obligation: everyone is required to enter “the antechambers” of the King’s palace according to Maimonides’ parable for the degrees of perfection in Guide ..52 This is corroborated by what I proposed describing as Maimonides’ Aristotelian catechism opening the Miˇsneh Torah. Although this catechism serves to legally enforce philosophical doctrines, Maimonides often sketches proofs in their support, for instance the physical proof for God’s existence, unity, and incorporeality based on the eternal motion of the celestial spheres.53 While these sketches obviously fall short of fully elaborated demonstrations, they provide starting points for further reflection and show that Maimonides’ goal is not to impose the doctrines in question through legal authority alone, but to convince the community of their correctness by means of rational argument. The goal to guide all members of the community to worshipping God on the basis of wisdom is clearly stated in what Maimonides describes as “serving God out of love”: Hence, when instructing the young, women, or the uneducated generally, we teach them to serve God out of fear [la-#avod mi-yir"ah] or for the sake of reward, until their knowledge increases and they have attained a large measure of wisdom. Then we reveal to them this secret little by little [the secret that there are no reward and punishment in the traditional sense], and habituate them to it slowly until they have grasped and comprehended it, and serve God out of love [ve-ya#avduhu me-ahavah].54

This does not mean that for Maimonides everyone has the capacity to become a philosopher in the strict sense: those who enter the King’s “antechambers . . . indubitably have different ranks.”55 In other words, the epistemic quality of the understanding attained by the members of the community will vary. Yet all of them are called upon to substitute wisdom for authority as much as they can. 51 52 53 54 55

Maimonides, Knowledge, Laws Concerning the Study of the Torah .–. Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). See Foundations of the Law . and .. Maimonides, Knowledge, Laws Concerning Repentance .; cp. .. Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).



carlos fraenkel From Maimonides to Maimonideanism: Samuel ibn Tibbon

Given Maimonides’ approach to the enlightenment of non-philosophers the commitment of many thirteenth-century Maimonideans to esotericism and their devotion to teaching philosophy to the general public should no longer strike us as a puzzle. A brief look at how Samuel ibn Tibbon, the founder of Maimonideanism in Southern France, justifies the disclosure of the divine Law’s allegorical content will corroborate the claim that Maimonides’ disciples were often continuing his project.56 Although Ibn Tibbon modifies Maimonides’ approach in certain ways, the habituation of non-philosophers to philosophical doctrines is the core idea they share. Ibn Tibbon adopts Maimonides’ view that the divine Law has two sides: an esoteric side directed towards philosophers and a public side directed towards non-philosophers which he, following Maimonides, characterizes by means of Prov. :: “A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in settings of silver.”57 Again like Maimonides, Ibn Tibbon conceives the relationship between the divine Law’s esoteric and public side as dynamic. Jewish sages have a twofold task: They must teach philosophy and disclose the divine Law’s allegorical content to their philosophically talented students and reconfigure the Law’s public teachings in accordance with the scientific culture of their time and place which determines the scope of what non-philosophers can understand.58 This model allows Ibn Tibbon to explain certain features of Moses’ account of creation that are at first puzzling from the perspective of a medieval Aristotelian, for example, that the creation of “luminaries” (the sun, the moon etc.) follows the creation of plants, even though, according to Aristotelian cosmology, the former are causally prior to the latter. Or the omission altogether of immaterial intellects which for the Aristotelian are intermediate causes between God and the physical world. Hence, an “intelligent man” (ma´skil) must ask: “Why does the Torah mention the generation of the luminaries in the ‘firmament of the heavens’

56 On Ibn Tibbon, see Fraenkel, From Maimonides and J.T. Robinson, Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Tübingen, ). As I mentioned above (n. ), not all Maimonideans shared Ibn Tibbon’s approach. The precise scope of its impact requires further study. 57 Maimonides, Guide , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, ). 58 See Ravitzky, “Samuel ibn Tibbon,” pp. –.

legislating truth



after the day on which the plants were created, and before the day on which the animals were created?”59 The luminaries should have been mentioned on the third day, creation of the plants on the fourth, the “living things” of the sea on the fifth, and the “living things” of dry land and “man” on the sixth. Instead he aimed to conceal [le-hastir] all this . . . , so that the intermediaries would not be sensed in any way by the multitude. This is the same reason he refrained from mentioning the creation of angels . . ..60

Ibn Tibbon explains the reason for this concealment thus: Moses gave the Torah at a time when the community of Sabians encompassed the entire world. At that time, people only believed in the existence of things perceived by the senses . . ., that is, corporeal existents. Because of this, they made the celestial bodies the gods of the sublunar world. They did not believe in the existence of things that are not a body or a force in a body, but rather intellects separate from any matter or substrate . . . and that it is from [the separate intellects] and through their word that [the celestial bodies] make what they make . . .. Since [Moses] wanted to remove this sickness by its root, he mentioned God’s creation of the world’s principles without any reference to intermediaries, in order to indicate that these actions should not be attributed in any way to them. Rather, they are commanded by the first cause, namely, God, to make what they make.61

Also according to Ibn Tibbon, therefore, Moses carried out God’s pedagogical “ruse” in history. To counteract the beliefs of the Sabians, who were star-worshippers, Moses mentioned the creation of the “luminaries” after the creation of the plants, thus changing “the order of things.”62 His aim was to prevent the celestial bodies from being worshipped as the causes of sublunar beings. In this way God’s causality is unequivocally conveyed to the members of the Jewish community whose practices and beliefs had been shaped by the religious culture of the Sabians. Moses’ strategy as restated by Ibn Tibbon is exactly the same as Moses’ strategy concerning reward and punishment in Maimonides’ account that we saw above. In both cases a false belief is replaced through another false belief which is, however, closer to the truth. Whereas in the former case Moses’ goal is to eradicate the belief that the stars ought to be worshipped

59 Samuel ibn Tibbon, Peruˇ s Qohelet. Edited by J.T. Robinson (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, ), translated by J.T. Robinson as Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Tübingen, ). Ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. . 60 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ). 61 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ). 62 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ).



carlos fraenkel

because they are the causes of sublunar beings, in the latter case Moses’ goal is to eradicate the belief that worshipping the stars will be rewarded through a long and prosperous life. As for the immaterial intellects, they are, according to Ibn Tibbon, omitted in Moses’ account for the same reason Moses represents God in anthropomorphic terms according to Maimonides: because the Jews in Moses’ time were unable to conceive “the existence of things that are not a body or a force in a body.” Instead of confusing them with immaterial causes between God and the physical world, Moses’ goal was to make sure that the concept of God as the first cause became solidly established in their minds. These strategies, tailored to Moses’ Sabian context, are the “settings of silver” of the “Account of the Beginning” as it is set forth in the Bible. They do not, however, cover the “golden apple”—i.e., the divine Law’s allegorical content—completely. Rather, the “settings of silver” have small “holes” through which the “golden apple” can be discerned by philosophical readers. To these readers Moses signals the causal role of the celestial bodies by mentioning the creation of the “luminaries” between the creation of different genera of sublunar beings. And he signals the existence of immaterial intellects, among others, by using the Hebrew word “elohim” to refer to God “throughout the Account of the Beginning.”63 Following Maimonides, Ibn Tibbon takes “elohim” to be an equivocal term referring to both God and angels (i.e., immaterial intellects), thus giving the philosophical reader to understand that God is not the only immaterial cause of the physical world.64 The next important stage in the history of disclosing the divine Law’s allegorical content is the period of King David, traditionally considered the author of Psalms, and King Solomon, traditionally considered the author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.65 These books reconfigure the relationship between the divine Law’s esoteric and public side in response to a more advanced scientific culture: In Solomon’s time, peace be upon him, belief in the existence of the Deity and angels became widespread throughout the world, and their rank in existence and relation to God was known. Hence there was no longer need for all these [efforts to] conceal. As a consequence, Solomon did not refrain

63

Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ). See Maimonides, Guide . and .. 65 See Ibn Tibbon, Peruˇ s (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ); Samuel Ibn Tibbon, Ma"amar yiqqawu ha-mayim [Let the Waters Be Gathered]. Edited by M. Bisliches (Pressburg, ): , p. . 64

legislating truth



from mentioning through indications [derekh remez] the existence of the intermediaries. But he did leave concealed other things with respect to them and their nature.66

The “angels” in Solomon’s revised version of the “Account of the Beginning” represent the immaterial intellects. They are one example for how Ibn Tibbon understands the relationship between Moses’ and Solomon’s writings.67 He describes the general nature of this relationship as follows: This is how he [Solomon] could make the men of understanding understand [le-havin la-nevonim] what the Master of the Prophets, peace be upon him, had concealed. That is, he widened the holes in the settings of silver with which the Master of the Prophets had covered his apples of gold. This way, someone who formerly could not see the apples, could see them now, in light of his added explication. This is what the Sages meant when they said: “thus did Solomon [join] parable with parable and word with word” [Song Rabb ::]. That is, he replaced the parables he found in the Torah with different parables, by which he brought into existence further explication. And he replaced obscure words with different words that point more clearly to their purpose.68

What Ibn Tibbon describes as “widening the holes in the settings of silver” is based, I suggest, on Maimonides’ concept of “elevating” nonphilosophers. According to Maimonides the progressive disclosure of the divine Law’s allegorical content must be coordinated with the gradual habituation of non-philosophers to philosophical doctrines. Ibn Tibbon’s account of the relationship between Moses’ and Solomon’s writings is an application of this model. After Moses and David and Solomon, additional stages in the process of “widening the holes in the settings of silver” are the prophets, the rabbinic sages, Maimonides, and Ibn Tibbon himself.69 Ibn Tibbon’s account of this process, while fuller and more systematic than the account in the Guide, clearly remains within Maimonides’ conceptual framework. His characterization of Maimonides’ contribution to the process of gradual disclosure further substantiates this claim: And when . . . the divine philosopher and Torah scholar, our master Moses [Maimonides] saw that only a few were left who understood the indications 66

Ibn Tibbon, Peruˇs (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ). For a general account of this relationship, see Ibn Tibbon, Peruˇs (ed. Robinson, par. –; trans. Robinson, par. –). 68 Ibid., ed. Robinson, par. –; trans. Robinson, par. –. 69 See ibid., ed. Robinson, par. –; trans. Robinson, par. –; Ma"amar, , – . 67



carlos fraenkel [ha-remazim] made by those who spoke through the holy spirit, and the prophets, and the rabbinic sages, who widened [the settings of silver] with regard to the Law’s secrets, he [in turn] added to their indications an explanation, likewise by means of indications, in many places, explaining openly that [God] is not a body and not subject to any of the properties and accidents of bodies. And he said the same about the intellects which are separate from matter and which are called “angels”. In the same way he also proceeded with regard to the reasons of the commandments, for he saw the great need to reveal them because of the nations which interpret all of them allegorically.70

Ibn Tibbon clearly identifies the two main elements of Maimonides’ account of progressive disclosure: the issue of incorporeality and the contextual explanation of the commandments. With regard to the incorporeality of God and angels, Ibn Tibbon was surely aware of the Almohad context that prompted Maimonides’ stance. After all, his father, Judah ibn Tibbon, was like Maimonides a Spanish refugee from the Almohads who had abolished the protected status of religious communities recognized under Islam as “people of the book.” Ibn Tibbon could thus argue that, as in Solomon’s time the belief in intermediate causes “became widespread,” the same holds true for the doctrine of incorporeality in Maimonides’ time. In both cases the habituation of non-philosophers to the doctrine in question was followed by the “widening of the holes in the settings of silver.” The main difference between Maimonides’ and Ibn Tibbon’s account of intellectual habituation to true beliefs is that for Maimonides it is the effect of legislation, whereas for Ibn Tibbon it is a function of the scientific culture of the non-Jewish environment. Thus for Ibn Tibbon all stages of the process are contingent upon the changing contexts of Jewish history. For Maimonides, by contrast, only the first stage—the stage of Moses—is directly shaped by the religious practices and beliefs of the Sabians. From Muslim Spain in the twelfth century to Christian France in the thirteenth, the cultural conditions of understanding changed sufficiently to require the replacement of Maimonides’ version of the divine Law’s teachings through a version adapted to Ibn Tibbon’s own time and place. The concern with the perception of the Jewish community by its nonJewish neighbors is mentioned only in Ibn Tibbon’s account of his own contribution. It is thus not an intrinsic part of the theory under discussion: 70

Ibid.

legislating truth



I revealed, therefore, . . . what I revealed concerning [things] that nobody had revealed before, so that we may not become a disgrace in the eyes of our neighbors, an object of mockery and derision for those around us . . .. And the truth that will be apprehended through [this treatise] is the knowledge of the true God.71

For a contemporary of Ibn Tibbon the shortest path leading to “knowledge of the true God” is no longer the Guide or the canonical Jewish books preceding the Guide from the Bible to the Talmud, but Ibn Tibbon’s own exegetical-philosophical works. It should be clear now how the conceptual framework worked out by Maimonides and further developed by Ibn Tibbon is able to justify the dissemination of philosophy to non-philosophers, in particular the use of distinctly Jewish genres for this purpose, from commentaries on the Bible to synagogue sermons. To put it in the phrase coined by Ibn Tibbon: all this is part of the project of “widening the holes in the settings of silver.” In conjunction with Maimonides’ call on all members of the religious community to study “Talmud,” i.e., the philosophical foundations of the Mosaic Law, this conceptual framework provides a solid rationale for what I described as the thirteenth-century Jewish Enlightenment. Maimonides’ interpretation of Judaism, therefore, made it possible to address not only Jewish concerns about studying philosophy in a religious setting, but also—and at least as importantly—Platonic concerns about teaching philosophy to the general public. Freudenthal, we may conclude, was right that Maimonides legitimized the dissemination of philosophy and science in the Jewish communities of Southern France. It is, however, not only the identification of philosophy with the true core of Judaism which made this process possible, but also the justification for teaching philosophy to non-philosophers. In this way philosophy was indeed able to become “une partie intégrante du ‘bagage intellectuel’ non seulement d’ une infime élite de philosophes proprement dites, mais aussi de toute personne voulant s’ instruire tant soi peu en théologie dans l’ esprit maïmonidien.”

71

Ibid.

THE MONEY LANGUAGE: LATIN AND HEBREW IN JEWISH LEGAL CONTRACTS FROM MEDIEVAL ENGLAND

Judith Olszowy-Schlanger It is a great pleasure to dedicate these pages to our dear friend, Gad Freudenthal. Throughout his work, the transmission of ideas between different cultures in the Middle Ages holds a place of honor. Gad has always seen this transmission as strongly embedded in historical, social and linguistic realities. Indeed, inter-culture transmission implies, inter alia, a shared language and shared books: a community of speakers and readers. With these conditions in mind, I will address here the oft-debated question of the knowledge of Latin by the Jews in the Middle Ages, focusing on the case of Jewish legal documents or starrs1 from England, dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. A corpus of some  legal documents in Hebrew, or bilingual in Latin and Hebrew, is still extant, in addition to a much larger corpus of Latin charters concerning Jewish transactions. Such documents promise to be an interesting and still underexploited source of information about the knowledge and use of various languages by the Jews in the Middle Ages.2 These non-literary texts used in daily praxis clearly bring up the question of knowledge of various languages and legal customs. The role and the necessity of this knowledge in the Middle Ages went beyond intellectual pursuits into the realm of the hard reality of daily life, and was often simply a matter of survival. To begin this discussion of the linguistic situation of the Anglo-Jews before the expulsion in November , here is an anecdote of the day. 1

The Latin “starrum” which in Medieval England designates Jewish legal contracts and bonds derives most probably from Hebrew øèù. 2 The majority of the Hebrew and bilingual starrs have been published, mainly by M.D. Davis, Shetaroth: Hebrew Deeds of English Jews before  (London, ); G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, –): :– (nos. –); I. Abrahams, H.P. Stokes and H. Loewe, Starrs and Jewish Charters Preserved in the British Museum (Cambridge, –); C. Roth, “Oxford Starrs,” Oxoniensia  (): –. A facsimile edition of all known starrs will appear shortly, in my edition, in the series Monumenta Palaeographica Medii Aevi at Brepols Editions, Turnhout.



judith olszowy-schlanger

In his Itinerarium Cambrie written around , Giraldus Cambrensis, or Gerald the Welshman, tells us a story of a Jew who travelled one day to Shrewsbury in company of Peche, archdeacon of a place called Mala Platea (Ill-Place), and of a deacon whose name was Deville. When he heard the archdeacon say that his authority extended from the Mala Platea and lasted till the place called Malpas in Cheshire, the Jew exclaimed: “It will be a wonder if chance brings me back safe from this country whose archdeacon is Sin (Péché), whose dean is Devil (Deville) which you enter by an Ill-Place (Mala Platea) and you exit in a Bad-Step (Malpas).”3 D’ Bloissiers Tovey, an Oxfordian to whom we owe the first history of the Jews in England published in ,4 has inevitably interpreted this anecdote as a proof of the Jew’s insolence: having a rare privilege to travel in company of two distinguished Church officials he chooses to mock and offend them. For our current purpose here, I rather see in this story an evidence of the Jew’s witty multilingualism. Indeed, the Jews in medieval England functioned in a multilingual world. Arriving in England with William the Conqueror in , this small community was mostly composed of French-speaking Jews: from Normandy, of course, but also from other regions in Northern France. A few individuals from Spain also settled in England in the twelfth century. It is attested to not only by the travels of Abraham ibn Ezra, but also by the presence of a list of English Christian debtors in the Arabic language and Hebrew Andalusian cursive script, written around  on the blank pages of an Ashkenazi prayer book to be found today in Corpus Christi College, Oxford (MS CCC , fol. v–r).5 An indication of an international texture of the English Jewish communities though it may be, it is difficult to suggest that these Arabic-speaking Jews had a lasting impact on the linguistic state of the community. Normally, English Jews spoke French. It is a matter of debate whether the 3

G. Cambrensis, Itinerarium Cambrie, vol. , ch. xiii edited by J.F. Dimock, vol. , p. ; English translation, L. Thorpe, The Journey through Wales (Harmondsworth, ). See, as well, J. Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England. Documents and Records from Latin and Hebrew Sources Printed and Manuscript for the First Time Collected and Translated (London, ): –. 4 D’ B. Tovey, Anglia Judaica: or the History of the Jews in England, collected from all our Histories, both Printed and Manuscript, as also from the Records in the Tower and other Public Repositories (Oxford, ). This antiquarian monument was re-edited and retold by E. Pearl, ed., Anglia Judaica, or A History of the Jews in England (London, ). 5 See Z. Entin-Rokéah, “A Jewish payment memorandum,” in M. Beit-Arié, The Only Dated Medieval Hebrew Manuscript written in England () [?] and the Problem of PreExpulsion Anglo Hebrew Manuscripts (London, ): –.

the money language



French written (mostly in Hebrew characters) and spoken by French and English Jews represented a specific “Jewish” idiolect. The evidence of Jewish legal documents in England points rather toward the common use of the language of the Norman ruling elite and clergy with whom English Jews entertained a close relationship—the Anglo-Norman variety of Old French. In addition to their vernacular French, English Jews were probably also exposed to Middle English, through their economic activities which involved not only an urban but often predominantly rural clientele.6 A few words which can be identified as English appear, together with French vernacular words, in the text of several Hebrew legal contracts. For example, a contract of sale of a house in Canterbury, written in Hebrew, drawn up in , adds English terms for the four cardinal points (in Hebrew characters) after their usual Hebrew equivalents: èùéà—çøæî, èùéâ—áøòî, åù—íåøã, èøåð—ïåôö, in the description of the boundaries of the property.7 In addition to the vernaculars, the Jews used of course their own traditional languages: Hebrew and Aramaic. While Hebrew was not a vernacular in the sense of “a language spoken by a mother to her children,” it obviously held an important place in the linguistic world of the medieval Jew. Besides being used in liturgy and legal tradition, Hebrew was also the language of education of Jewish boys, and the primary means of literary expression. Indeed, although there is some disagreement among scholars concerning the effective level of Jewish literacy in medieval Europe,8 all agree that those who learned to read and write did it in Hebrew for the purpose of reading Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The knowledge of Aramaic was probably also an important requirement of a curriculum: the Aramaic Targum was an object of public reading in the synagogues, it was studied and often quoted in Rabbinical works. The liturgical role of the Targum is shown clearly by the traditional arrangement of a majority of Western European Pentateuch manuscripts, where each Hebrew verse is followed by its Aramaic translation. The assiduous study of the Talmud and halakhic literature naturally gives a place of honor to Aramaic.

6 See for example, P. Elman, “Jewish finance in thirteenth century England with special reference to royal taxation,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research  (): –. 7 The charter in question is Westminster Abbey Muniments , l. – (Davis, ed., Shetaroth, nº ). 8 See for example, E. Kanarfogel, Jewish Education and Society in the Middle Ages (Detroit, ).



judith olszowy-schlanger

Most of the medieval “Hebrew” legal contracts in England are, in fact, written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, each language having a well-defined semantic and legal function. Aramaic—the ancient vernacular of Oriental Jews which in the past had been the language of Jewish legal contracts par excellence—is used here as a language of fixed legal formulae. Its use is restricted to what Talmudic literature describing the structure of the written contracts refers to as t. ofes: the framework formulae of a specific type of the contract which are highly standardized and repeated in one contract after another. The role of these Aramaic expressions is to strengthen the binding power of the formulation and this is why they appear mostly in the introductory or closing parts of the contract, especially in the extensive validity clauses. The parts of the contracts bearing its individual, informative and, by necessity, creative aspects, the toref according to Talmudic terminology, are always expressed in Hebrew (sometimes interspersed with vernacular words for more clarity when an adequate Hebrew term is lacking). Thus, the Jews in medieval England used Hebrew and Aramaic in their literary works and legal documents but spoke French and possibly some English. Did they know Latin? Before I try to gather some arguments to clarify this question, it is important to stress that, unlike in later periods, for instance in fifteenth-century Southern France and Italy where the knowledge of Latin was common in Christian lay society, and was accessible to the urban privileged classes and those trained in “liberal professions” (especially physicians and notaries) as much as it was for the clergy, the earlier periods are marked by a lesser degree of access to education which, for Christian individuals, was generally restricted to monastic schools. In other words, the Jews could easily converse in French with their Christian neighbors, but how many among their neighbors were themselves able to understand Latin? And even more important for a language which is not a spoken vernacular, how many of them were able to read and write it? The language of the overwhelming majority of legal contracts and records involving Jews in medieval England is Latin, and Jewish individuals simply had to cope with the legal and administrative intricacies of a system expressed in this language. For Robin Mundill, “the fact that the majority of the documentary evidence regarding the Jews was in Latin is, in itself, evidence that they were fluent in it.”9 It seems indeed logical that many Jews involved in legal transactions in medieval 9 R.R. Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and Expulsion, – (Cambridge, ): .

the money language



England must have known Latin and been able to read its script. Indeed, royal exchequer court’s notifications addressed to the Jewish communities concerning claims for private debts were apparently read out in synagogues on shabbats both in Latin and in Hewbrew.10 However, the precise ways in which they acquired this knowledge has still to be discovered. Until recently, scholars working on intellectual contacts between Jews and Christians have focused primarily on the transmission of Hebrew texts into Latin, and agreed that most intellectual contacts, at least until the end of the twelfth century, were carried out through oral tutorials in the vernacular. Some Christian scholars undertook the difficult task of learning Hebrew, and scholars such as Alexander Neckham,11 Herbert of Bosham,12 the anonymous authors of bilingual Hebrew-Latin manuscripts13 or the group of scholars, probably from Ramsey Abbey, in the second half of the thirteenth century14 have indeed acquired a high level of Hebrew proficiency. What about Jewish scholars and their learning of the Latin language and Latin script? Historians dealing with economic, legal and administrative records usually accepted that the Jews knew Latin, while many of those who study intellectual history often 10

J. Hillaby, “The Worcester Jewry, –: portrait of a lost community,” Transactions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, rd series  (): . 11 R.W. Hunt, The Schools and the Cloister: The Life and Writings of Alexander Nequam (–) (Oxford, ): ; R. Loewe, “Alexander Neckam’s knowledge of Hebrew,” in W. Horbury, ed., Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh, ): –. 12 B. Smalley, “A Commentary on the Hebraica by Herbert of Bosham,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale  (): –; R. Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary on Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter,” Biblica  (): –, –, –; E. De Visscher, Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Twelfth Century Medieval Western Europe: the Hebrew and Latin Sources of Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary on the Psalms (Ph.D. thesis, Oxford, ); D.L. Goodwin, Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew: Herbert of Bosham’s Christian Hebraism (Leiden, ). 13 See especially S.N. Berger, Quam notitiam Linguae Hebraicae habuerunt Christiani medii aevi temporibus in Gallia (Nancy, ); B. Smalley, “Hebrew Scholarship among Christians in th century England as illustrated by some Hebrew-Latin Psalters,” Lectiones in Vetere Testamento et in Rebus Iudaicis  (London, ); R. Loewe, “The mediaeval Christian hebraists of England. The Superscriptio Lincolniensis,” HUCA  (): –; idem, “Latin superscriptio MSS on portions of the Hebrew Bible other than the Psalter,” JJS  (): –; M. Beit-Arié, “The Valmadonna Pentateuch and the Problem of Pre-Expulsion Anglo-Hebrew Manuscripts—MS London, Valmadonna Trust Library : England (?), ,” in idem, ed., The Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book. Studies in Palaeography and Codicology (Jerusalem, ): –; J. Olszowy-Schlanger, Les manuscrits hébreux dans l’ Angleterre médiévale: étude historique et paléographique (Paris and Louvain, ). 14 J. Olszowy-Schlanger, A. Grondeux et al., Dictionnaire hébreu-latin-français de la Bible hébraïque de l’ Abbaye de Ramsey (XIIIe s.) (Turnhout, ).



judith olszowy-schlanger

doubted that Jewish scholars could read Latin. The Jews had of course access to Latin books that they often kept as pledges in money-lending transactions. Dozens of Latin books bear Hebrew inscriptions indicating the nature of the debt and the date of its payment.15 They do not contain, however, any further indication such as Hebrew marginalia on the Latin text, which would show how far went the curiosity and the capacity of the creditor to take temporary intellectual advantage of the pledge deposited with him. More recently however, the possible knowledge of Latin and its literary traditions by the Jews in the Middle Ages has received a more systematic treatment, notably through Gad Freudenthal’s efforts. The international colloquium on “Latin to Hebrew” that he organized recently in Paris promises to give a new and more complete picture of Christian and Jewish mutual intellectual interests. For example, the manuscripts containing anti-Christian polemics (and chief among them MS Paris, BNF hébr. ) contain (notably) a number of quotations from the Latin Vulgate, from the Ancient and New Testament, transliterated into Hebrew script.16 The study of Hebrew, Latin and bilingual Latin-Hebrew legal contracts from medieval England can provide, if not definite answers, at least some additional food for thought. It is first of all important to understand that the legal transactions and the production of legal contracts themselves functioned in an administrative context where Jewish law and its practitioners worked in close and direct collaboration with the royal administration and its clerks and officials. Indeed, since the end of the twelfth century and until the expulsion on  November , all transactions between Jews and Christians, but also between Jewish parties themselves (with the probable exception of marriage and divorce, left to the jurisdiction of the community), were carried out and carefully registered by a sophisticated centralized administrative system.

15 See esp. C. Sirat, “Notes sur la circulation des livres entre juifs et chrétiens au Moyen Age,” in D. Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda and J.-F. Genest, eds, Du copiste au collectionneur. Mélanges d’ histoire des textes et des bibliothèques en l’ honneur d’ André Vernet, Bibliologia (Elementa ad librorum studia pertinentia)  (Turnhout, ), pp. –; J. OlszowySchlanger, “Juifs et chrétiens à Troyes au Moyen Age: la pratique du prêt sur gages à travers les manuscrits de Saint-Etienne,” La vie en Champagne  (): –. 16 For an overview of the Latin quotations in Hebrew polemical literature in the Middle Ages, see for example Ph. Bobichon, “Citations latines de la tradition chrétienne dans la littérature hébraïque de controverse avec le christianisme (XIIe–Xve siècle)” (Colloquium “Latin to Hebrew”, in print). I thank Philippe Bobichon for letting me read his article before the publication of his work.

the money language



In his seminal book Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, published in , Louis Finkelstein introduced the notion of an important scope of Jewish legal autonomy in medieval Europe. Finkelstein argued that “infant European states” did not have an adequate juridicial system to provide for the sophisticated Jewish merchant society, and thus allowed the Jews to have their own courts. These courts were responsible for internal Jewish matters with, initially, little interference from the non-Jewish authorities. Of course, the states provided the enforcement system—police or prison—to enforce the decisions of the Rabbinical courts, but these courts used also their own means to ensure obedience: the right to excommunicate (herem, or ˇsamt"a in Aramaic) which . entailed a much feared effective isolation from the community. It is, however, difficult to ascertain the actual degree of Jewish autonomy in the early Middle Ages. For later, better documented periods, it has indeed been shown that Jewish courts in some places functioned as highly independent and hierarchically organized institutions.17 However, even in the best documented contexts, Jewish legal transactions were carried out in a double Jewish and official—royal or notarial—administration system.18 This double system was particularly well developed in medieval England after the end of the twelfth century. Prior to that, charters were issued by Henry II, and confirmed by Richard I and John, placing the Jews of England and Normandy under royal protection, ensuring them freedom from most tolls and direct access to royal Justices. The second charter of Henry II (confirmed by the other monarchs) explicitly granted the Jews autonomy in dealing with their internal affairs and in judging disputes involving the Jews alone, except for some specified categories of major criminal offences.19 However, at the end of the twelfth century the financial transactions involving Jews and Christians, but also Jews alone, 17 For Germany, see E. Kanarfogel, “Religious Leadership during the Tosafist Period: between the Academy and the Rabbinic Court,” in J. Wertheimer, ed., Jewish Religious Leadership: Image and Reality (New York, ): –; for Northern France and the court of Rabbenu Tam which functioned as a “court of appeal,” see A. Reiner, “Rabbinical Courts in France in the Twelfth Century: Centralisation and Dispersion,” JJS  /  (): –. 18 For Cologne, see R. Hoeniger, Publikationen der Gesellschaft für Rheinische Geschichtskunde, I, Kölner Schreinsurkunded des  Jahrhunderts, Quellen zur Rechts- und Wirthschaftsgeschichte der Stadt Köln (Bonn, –); for Southern France, see C. Denjean, Juifs et Chrétiens. De Perpignan à Puigcerdà XIIIe–XIVe siècles (Canet, ). 19 See H.G. Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London, ): – ; P. Brand, “Jews and the Law in England, –,” English Historical Review /nº  (Nov. ): .



judith olszowy-schlanger

were dealt with by a royal administrative system created by Richard I. The chronicler at that time, Richard of Hoveden, recorded that upon his return in  from German captivity, Richard I had begun to organize an administrative system which would ensure a proper record of Jewish transactions and especially monetary loans which could be exacted, even when the Jewish creditors were dead.20 This initiative was a direct consequence of the tragic York massacre of , in which the legal bonds perished together with the community. This represented a major financial loss to the King (who was the first heir of the Jewish debts, as long as the records existed), who reacted by establishing a more efficient record-keeping system. A system of arche (“chests”) was gradually set up, initially in seven major towns. It was shortly followed by the creation of a central department, the Exchequer of the Jews (Scaccarium Iudeorum) at Westminster.21 The local administrative centers were to be jointly managed by two appointed Christians, two Jews and two clerks. All the transactions were to be contracted in their presence. They were also accompanied by clerks of the King’s representatives, namely William of the Church of Saint Mary and William de Chimilli. All the deeds were to be written in the form of a chirograph (parchment document with scallop-shaped cut or indenture at its lower, upper or both edges); one part, sealed by the debtor, was to remain with the Jewish creditor while another was to be deposited in the common chest (archa, French “huche”). These wooden chests were provided with three locks, whose three keys were entrusted respectively to the two Christians, the two Jews and the clerks William of the Church of Saint Mary and William de Chimilli. The holders of the keys sealed the locks with their respective seals. All the transactions had to be listed in special registers. In the thirteenth century, the arche received also copies of various financial transactions among the Jews themselves, such as the sale of properties, rents, pre-marriage financial arrangements or debts written in Hebrew on chirographs, even if these contracts were drawn up by an ad 20 W. Stubbs, ed., Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden (London, ): :. For an English translation, see H.T. Riley, The Annals of Roger de Hoveden Comprising the History of England and of Other Countries of Europe, vol. , part , A.D.  to  (London,  [reprint ]): –. 21 See esp. C. Gross, “The Exchequer of the Jews in the Middle Ages,” Papers given at the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition  (London, ): –; A. Carver Cramer, “Origins and Functions of the Jewish Exchequer,” Speculum  /  (): –; K. Scott, “The Jewish Arcae,” Cambridge Law Journal  /  (): –.

the money language



hoc Jewish tribunal of three selected members of the community, before finding its way to an archa and its enrollment system.22 Given the intricate procedures in this archa system, a collaborative work of Jewish and Christian clerks must have encouraged, and indeed required, the mutual knowledge of languages and customs. It can be surmised that such a legal and vital context would also provide the necessary opportunity for Jewish clerks to acquire some familiarity with Latin. Indeed, both Hebrew and Latin documents allow us to identify many Jewish individuals appointed with special responsibilities for the archa (chirographers) and clerks in charge of drawing up documents.23 Here again, the evidence on the Christian side is more explicit. Some Christian clerks mentioned by name are defined in documents as “clerks of the Jews”: a Robertus clericus scriptor iudeorum appears for instance in Canterbury rentals.24 It appears that some of these Christian clerks learned Hebrew. An interesting testimony to this effect is the Cartulary of the Vicars Choral of York Minster, this lesser clergy corporation whose duty was to maintain opus dei—the worship by singing the canonical hours and high mass—in secular English cathedrals.25 Their well-maintained archives in York contain a Latin deed of sale (York Minster Library, Vicar Choral /Vi 26) drawn up sometime around , whereby John Roman, a Sub-Dean of the Church of St. Peter of York, sells a piece of land in Barkergate in the suburbs of York to the Jewish community, for the extension of their cemetery.27 This Latin deed is witnessed on behalf of the York Jewish community by five of its most prominent members: Isaac of Northampton, Samuel Kohen (who appears in Latin as “Leo episcopus”), Samuel son of Yose, Yose of Kent and Yose the grandson 22 There is no clear indication that fixed and permanent Jewish courts existed in England. All references in extant Hebrew legal contracts concern an ad hoc “tribunal of three.” Although men of learning and rabbis are mentioned, the official status of a leader of the Jewish community, the Presbyter Iudeorum, was a King’s nomination rather than an internal Jewish affair. 23 For lists of such Jewish officials appointed by the King’s administration in the town of Norwich, see V.D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (London, ): –. 24 See W. Urry, Canterbury under Angevin Kings (London, ): . 25 See K. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages (Manchester,  [nd ed.]): –. 26 See N.J. Tringham, Charters of the Vicars Choral of York Minster: City of York and its Suburbs to  (York, ): nº , p. . 27 For the situation of the Jewish cemetery of York in “Le Jeubyry”, in Monkgate, see R.B. Dobson, The Jews of York and the Massacre of March , Borthwick Papers  (York, ): .



judith olszowy-schlanger

Figure . York, VC..., fo. v, Hebrew witnesses’ list.

of Aaron (the witness mentioned in the Latin deed is Aaron, son of Yose, rather than his grandson).28 These five signed the Latin document with their personal signatures in Hebrew. This important charter was subsequently enrolled, i.e., copied into the Cartulary of the Vicars Choral (VC /I/I, fols. r–v). It appears that the Christian clerk who copied the documents into the Cartulary made an effort and copied the signatures of the witnesses in Hebrew characters. His handwriting is obviously nonJewish and he was probably never trained to write Hebrew according to a Jewish ductus. But his imitation of the Hebrew letters is clear and legible (Figure ). It thus appears that Christian clerks in charge of bilingual documents sometimes made an effort to learn Hebrew. What about the Jews and their knowledge of Latin? Well, they probably also did learn the legal language of their Christian colleagues. Unfortunately we have no document written in Latin which could be attributed without hesitation to a Jewish “hand.” It may of course be theoretically argued that among the great number of extant documents in Latin drawn up in the name of Jewish grantors some might have been written by them, and that their Latin calligraphy was so good that it cannot be distinguished from that of the Christian clerks. However, this does not seem probable. Most of these Latin documents are copied by professional chancellery hands and in some cases the name of the scribe is explicitly stated: it is always a 28 Leo episcopus, for example, attested in a number of records between  and his death in , and was listed in  tallage as one of the six wealthiest Jews of England, see Dobson, The Jews of York, pp. –.

the money language



Christian clerk. On the other hand, it seems that the Jews did write in Latin characters, but in all known cases the language of expression was not Latin but French. There are a few extant letters in French said to have been personally written by their Jewish authors.29 This may be the case with one extant letter written by the exceptionally learned Elias Menahem, son of the massorete Moses, son of Yom Tov, of London, the lead. ing Talmudic scholar and physician who was also the wealthiest Jewish money-lender in the second half of the thirteenth century. Indeed, Elias’ fame as a physician led Jean d’ Avesnes, a Christian nobleman in Flanders, to call for his personal services to treat a difficult illness of his brother John du Hainault. For a trip to the Continent, Elias required a special license. Three requests for such permission and for a letter of safe conduct were sent to Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells and chancellor of Edward I, between  and . One of the letters is written by Elias Menahem, and some scholars have suggested that it was written in his own handwriting, in Latin characters, but in French.30 If indeed the Jewish authors were actually the writers of this and other letters, it indicates that at least some English Jews had mastered the Latin script. The use of French may imply that they were much more at ease with the vernacular rather than with Latin. Some other elements may suggest that while Latin documents were perfectly understood, the use of Hebrew would facilitate the functioning of the documents. An interesting example is a grant of a plot of land in Sparham (Norfolk) by William Costio and his son Roger to Gerard de Folesham (Foulsham), written in Norfolk around  and preserved today in Holkham Hall (Holkham Archives, Misc. Deed ) (Figure ). It is written in Latin. The document was sealed by both grantors (only the seal of Roger, son of William, is preserved), and is annotated in Hebrew. From the presence of the Hebrew writing we gather that William Costio and his son were indebted to a Jewish creditor (whose name is unfortunately not mentioned), and their debt was repaid by Gerard de Folesham who, in exchange, was granted the land in Sparham. This

29 See Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.  n. : documents in the Public Record Office (PRO) SC/ /  /  (from Bonamy of York), SC/I/ / , SC/ /  / , SC/ /  (from Deudone Crespin of York); SC/ /  /  (from Bonamy of York) and SC/ /  /  (from Bonefey of Cricklade). 30 J. Jacobs, “Une lettre française d’ un juif anglais au XIIIe siècle,” REJ  (): – .



judith olszowy-schlanger

Figure . Holkham Misc. Deed  recto.

land was probably a pledge for the debt. Now, the Hebrew inscriptions appear on the verso and on the plica at the foot of the document. The inscription on the verso summarizes the essentials of the transaction, giving the names of the Christian parties. The two notes on the plica explain in Hebrew which seal belongs to which of the two grantors: the left-hand inscription reads: åéèùå÷ îéìéâ íúåç, “the seal of William Costio,” and the right-hand seal reads: åðá øééåø íúåç, “the seal of his son, Roger”. These precisions were added despite the fact that the seals themselves contain legends with the names of the grantors in Latin. It seems that these annotations were made by the Jewish creditor for his own archival purposes. The use of Hebrew seems to be his own practice of sorting the documents and his way of ensuring the prompt retrieval of information. Similar cases can be found in a twelfth-century Latin grant from Canterbury (Canterbury Cathedral, ChAnt/C/) where there is a Hebrew summary on the plica (àðãåã è÷éø åò÷ø÷ øëî “Richard Deudone sold his land”). The necessity to summarize

the money language



Figure . British Library Harl. Ch.  A  B.

the contents in Hebrew and especially the detailed explanation concerning the precise place of each seal may suggest, if not the ignorance of Latin, at least a weak knowledge of that language, and a clear preference for Hebrew. A more ambiguous case concerns several extant Latin documents which contain a Hebrew validity clause. I take as illustration a small Latin quitclaim by Leon, son of Solomon, with a Hebrew docket signed by his son, Jacope, who acted as an attorney in his father’s absence (British Library, Harl. Chart.  A  B31) (Figure ). The Latin document releases the Abbot and the convent of Newhouse from any obligations related to a piece of land in Haburc (Habrough). This land was a pledge for a loan by Leon, son of Solomon, to Galfrid Berner of Haburc. Immediately below the Latin text, there is a validity inscription in Hebrew: ïåàéìù øåáòáå úîà ìëä ïéèì ïåùìá äìòîì áåúëù äî ìëù äãåî ïåàéì ïá àôå÷é éðà ïåàéì ïá àôå÷é éúîúç ùøãðåìá éáà

I, Jacope son of Leon, declare that all what is written above in Latin language is all truth. And because Leon, my father, is in London, I have signed. Jacope son of Leon.

The last line of the Latin text contains a proviso that the grantor sign the contract in Hebrew: “In huius rei testimonium hoc scriptum Iacobus filius Leonis pro Leone predicto littera sua ebrayca sigillaui” (l. ). In this and other documents of this type, the Hebrew docket is a recognition and confirmation of the Latin text. In some cases, it contains a mention

31 See Davis, ed., Shetaroth, nº , p. ; Margoliouth, Catalogue, III, nº , p. ; Abrahams, Stokes and Loewe, Starrs and Jewish Charters, nº XVI.



judith olszowy-schlanger

of the number of the lines of the Latin text. Should we understand the presence of the confirmation in Hebrew of “what is written in Latin” as a sign that the Jews were not fluent in Latin and had to confirm in Hebrew? Or on the contrary, could not the brevity of the Hebrew docket which does not summarize the transaction but simply acknowledges “what is written in Latin,” suggest that Latin was perfectly understood? The second option seems more probable: the grantor acknowledges what he reads and understands and acknowledges it in “littera sua,” in his own script. But in this case, why use Hebrew at all? Here I think the use of Hebrew goes beyond the linguistic sphere, and constitutes an additional element of the document’s validity. Indeed, one of the arguments used in legal suits is the authenticity of the document, always established by examining the personal handwriting. Some documents explicitly state in whose handwriting they were or should be written (e.g., WAM v, WAM , ll. –): §ø ãé úáéúëî øåîàä ÷çöé §ø àéáéù øåèô øèù íåù ìò øîåì íäøáà §ø ïîàð ïéàå á÷òé §ø úáéúëî äéàø åì äéäé àì íà øåîàä á÷òé §ø éåéöá äùòð øùà øåîàä íäøáà øåîàä

And R. Abraham will not be trusted to say, about any deed of release in the said R. Abraham’s handwriting which the aforementioned R. Isaac brings that it was drawn up according to the said R. Isaac’s order, unless he [R. Abraham] has a proof in R. Jacob’s handwriting.

It is therefore likely that the Hebrew script itself is associated with personal handwriting and signature and, as such, confirms the validity of the document. An evident case of the meeting of Hebrew and Latin is in the use of translated legal formulae and expressions. In principle, documents written in Hebrew follow the formulae derived from the Gaonic court tradition, and many of the clauses and expressions in Hebrew and Aramaic are found in Talmudic and Gaonic sources, and in extant medieval legal contracts from the East and the West.32 However, in addition to these Jewish “koine” formulations, English Hebrew documents contain some clauses which derive from the legal formulaic tradition of the Christian environment. In extreme cases these are almost word for word translations in bilingual documents. The closest similarity between Hebrew and Latin

32 See A. Aptowitzer, “Formularies of Decrees and Documents from a Gaonic Court,” JQR NS  (): –.

the money language

Figure . Cambridge University Library, Doc..





judith olszowy-schlanger

Figure . Westminster Abbey Muniments .

can be seen in a group of bilingual documents from Canterbury (e.g., Cambridge University Library, Doc. ) (Figure ).33 A particularly “Latinized” Hebrew document is WAM , written in Canterbury, around  (Figure ). It is in Hebrew, but its concluding remarks, ïåùìá éãé úîéúçá éúîúç éøáò, “I have signed in my handwriting, in Hebrew,” indicate that it is a translation of a Latin deed, today lost. The introductory formula: åòãé úåéäì íéãéúòäå íéåää ìëì (l. ) is a literal translation of the common Latin opening formula “Sciant omnes presentes et futuri.” Although written by a Jewish scribe for Jewish clients, some of the Hebrew expressions translated from Latin are clumsy. Thus, úåìàùå úåéãáòå íé÷ç ìë øåáòá íéîìåò probably reflects a frequent expression pro omnibus consuetudinibus servitudinis et secularibus demandis, but the choice of the Hebrew terms does not attempt to use the existing legal equivalents: úåìàù would be better expressed as úåòéáú and úåéãáò by ãåáòù, both well attested in Hebrew legal documents from England. Translated formulae could occasionally go from Hebrew to Latin. For example, the well known Hebrew 33 A particularly strong influence of Latin models on the group of Canterbury documents from the first half of the thirteenth century goes against the conclusions of Ph. Slavin, “Hebrew Went Latin: Reflections of Latin Diplomatic Formulas and Terminology in Hebrew Private Deeds from Thirteenth-Century England,” Journal of Medieval Latin  (): –, who sees the “Latinization” of the contracts as a late thirteenthcentury phenomenon. It seems, however, that a more detailed study of formulae with differentiation between various types of transactions and places of origin is necessary.

the money language



introductory formula in CUL, Doc. : äàãåä íéãåî äèî éîåúç åðçð äøåîâ, “We, the undersigned, declare a full declaration” is translated literally into Latin, by a phrase which is not characteristic of the Latin diplomatic tradition: “Nos qui sumus subsigillati recognoscimus ueram recognicionem . . . .” These bilingual and translated documents constitute obvious examples of mutual influences, but also attest to sufficient knowledge of the language and legal formulae of each other. The Vorlage of non-Jewish formulae appears as well in Hebrew documents which contain traditional Gaonic formulation. The Latin influence is of course most evident in clauses reflecting specific legal customs and functions foreign to the Jewish tradition. For instance, the payment of feudal rent is expressed by a formulation and vocabulary which do not appear in traditional Hebrew formulae (WAM , l. – sale of a property in Norwich, 34): ¯ ä ïî ïåãàì úúì åéùøåé ìòå §å÷ðä äîìù §ø ìòå äðù éãî §ô§â äæä øöçäå úéáä ïî ééô å÷ìç øåáò áééç àåä øùà íéøçà §ô§âä åéùøåé åà §å÷ðä äãåäé §ø åòøôé øùà ïîæì äðùá ¯ åúåàî ïåãàì §å÷ðä øöçäå úéáä ïî ééô And the aforementioned R. Solomon and his heirs are obliged to give the landlord of the fee from the aforementioned house and yard, p. every year, when the aforementioned R. Judah and his heirs will pay further p. that he owes for his part of the aforementioned house and yard, to the landlord, of the same fee.

Also the payment of a fee for a legal guarantee provided by the seller of a property, the payment which usually consists of a small amount of spices, is not a Jewish legal custom (ibid., l. –): ¯ åøééî øîñî §å÷ðä äãåäé §øì úúì åéùøåé ìòå §å÷ðä äîìù §ø ìòå äðùá äðù éãî àìô úåùòì åéìò ìáé÷ù §å÷ðä äðâää øåáò à÷ùôì And the aforementioned R. Solomon and his heirs are obliged to give the aforementioned R. Judah a nail of cloves every year, for Easter, for the aforementioned protection that he took upon himself.

The Latin Vorlage of such clauses is even more evident when we consider the use of non-Hebrew borrowings or calques, such as the ééô¯ ä ïî ïåãà, “Lord of the fee,” àìô¯ åøééî øîñî “a nail of cloves,” or the use of technical terms such as “gersuma” (àîåùøâî, WAM , Norwich, ), “acta.” “[the document] was made” (àè÷à, e.g. PRO E /  /v) (some other documents contain here the translation äùòð), “actiones” (õðåàéù÷à, 34

Davis, ed., Shetaroth, nº .



judith olszowy-schlanger

e.g., Brit. Lib. Cott. Chart. Aug. ), or measures (ùø÷à, “acres,” ibid.). Indeed, the functioning of Hebrew private documents in the context of the civil law of the country implies the use of the generally accepted terms and clauses. It must, however, be noted again that while some of the clauses and terms are clearly borrowed from Latin, most foreign borrowings in Hebrew texts have a vernacular French rather than a Latin form, even though the cognate Latin is used in the analogous clauses of Latin deeds. Such, for example, is the case of àööåðèøåôà, “appurtenances” (e.g., WAM , l. ) corresponding to Latin cum pertinenciis, åì÷ àìôåøéâî “clou de girofle,” “clove” (e.g., WAM , l. ), ùééåøô, “paroisse,” Lat. parochia, “parish” (e.g., WAM , Nottingham, 35), and many others. Thus, the formulation of the contracts reflects influence and borrowings from the non-Jewish tradition of the documents, but it seems that both Latin and French contracts were the model and the source of this influence. The different ways of interaction between Hebrew and Latin (and French) legal documents in medieval England are still in need of further investigation. But it is already evident that they are a fruitful field in which one can study the influence of Latin on Hebrew formulae. The legal and administrative context in which they were elaborated, implying collaboration between Jewish and Christian clerks, provided indeed a unique mutual opportunity for learning the language and the legal traditions of one another.

35

Ibid., nº .

NAHMANIDES ON NECROMANCY* . Reimund Leicht The role of astral magic in medieval Judaism has become a respectable issue in the study of Jewish thought. Next to Shlomo Pines1 and Moshe Idel,2 Dov Schwartz has done pioneering research on the reception of astral magic in the works of Jewish thinkers from Judah Halevi (ca. – ), Abraham ibn Ezra (ca. –) up to the fourteenth and fifteenth century.3 In his richly documented and carefully investigated studies Schwartz sheds light on many of different aspects related to the theory and practice of astral magic in medieval Jewish literature and culture—ranging from the usage of astrological concepts in biblical exegesis to legal and philosophical disputes about the scientific validity and halakhic permissibility of astral magic, and from the adaptation of astromagical motifs in the emerging Kabbalah to its role in the Jewish revival of neo-Platonic philosophy in the later Middle Ages.

*

I dedicate this paper to Gad Freudenthal, who taught me more than anyone else about the necessity to study Judaism in its cross-cultural perspective and the methodological pitfalls inherent in this approach. 1 S. Pines, “On the Term Ruhaniyyot and its Origin and on Judah Halevi’s Doctrine” . (Heb.), Tarbis.  (): –, and idem, “Le Sefer ha-Tamar et les Maggidim des kabbalistes,” in G. Nahon and C. Touati, eds, Hommage à Georges Vajda (Louvain, ): –. 2 Cf., e.g., M. Idel, “The Study Program of R. Yohanan Alemanno” (Heb.), Tarbis  . . (): –; idem, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance,” in D.B. Ruderman, ed., Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renaissance and Baroque Italy (New York and London ): – (originally published in B. Cooperman, ed., Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century [Cambridge, MA, ]: – ); idem, “Hermeticism and Judaism,” in I. Merkel and A.G. Debus, eds, Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe (Washington, DC, ): –, and many other studies. 3 D. Schwartz, “The Religious Philosophy of Samuel Ibn Zarza” (Heb.) (Ph.D. thesis, Bar-Ilan University, ); idem, The Philosophy of a Fourteenth-Century Jewish Neoplatonic Circle (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ); idem, Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought (Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ); idem, “From Theurgy to Magic: The Evolution of the MagicalTalismanic Justification of Sacrifice in the Circle of Nahmanides and his Interpreters”, Aleph  (): –; idem, “Ast. rologia u-magia ba-hagut ha-yehudit bi-yemei habenayim,” Mahanaim  (): –; idem, “Conceptions of Astral Magic within .



reimund leicht

It is characteristic of Schwartz’s approach, however, that for him the history of astral magic in Jewish culture is basically a parthenogenetic process. He neither attempts to provide explanations about what caused Jewish thinkers in the early twelfth century to indulge in bold astrological speculations about biblical stories and precepts, nor does he take into consideration the broader cultural context in which his philosophers, exegetes, kabbalists and halakhists lived. Accordingly, Schwartz succeeded in reconstructing an impressively coherent history of the internal Jewish debates on astral magic,4 but his path breaking studies do so without referring the reader to contemporary phenomena outside the Jewish world. It can be argued, of course, that the Jewish debates about astral magic are indeed described best as an inner-Jewish discourse. Maimonides (–) may have had mainly inner-Jewish targets when he criticized astrological tendencies of his predecessors such as Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Ezra. Some of his followers tried to soften this harsh opposition in order to be able to enhance astrological concepts and ideas, which were at least partly a revival of ideas inherited from Judah Halevi and Abraham ibn Ezra. Later on, kabbalists and neo-Platonists used astrology to build up their peculiar ways of thinking opposed to the orthodox religious and Aristotelian Weltanschauung that was prevalent in their day. Indeed a huge amount of evidence argues for a continuous inner-Jewish debate about astral magic, while the “parallelomanic” search for non-Jewish sources faces the intricate methodological problem that we can never know how much of the learned Christian debates reached Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages at all. On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the medieval Jewish debates on magic, astrology and astral magic were not fueled at least here and there by similar debates going on in the surrounding cultures. Therefore, in the present paper I would like to discuss a small detail of a much bigger historical mosaic, which will perhaps show that the crosscultural perspective must not be omitted in this context: Nahmanides’ .

Jewish Rationalism in the Byzantine Empire,” Aleph  (): –; idem, Amulets, Properties and Rationalism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ); idem, Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought (Leiden, ). 4 Whereas many of his earlier publications have the character of case studies, his above-mentioned English book Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought, which is based upon papers published separately before, is in fact a kind of historical synthesis.

nahmanides on necromancy .



(–) usage of the term “necromancy.” This Greek word originally means, of course, “divination by the dead,” but this is not the sense in which Nahmanides uses it. It is the purpose of this paper to study the . several meanings of this term in his commentary on the Torah, and to explain Nahmanides’ equivocal use of it. The reason for my choice of this . rather specific topic is twofold: () as has been shown in earlier studies, Nahmanides reveals great interest in various phenomena related to . magic, astrology, necromancy etc., which were en vogue in Christian and Jewish circles of his time, too. But more than that, () it is quite striking that Nahmanides not only discusses at length astrology and magic, . but that he also directly adopts the loanword nigromancia,5 using it in no less than four places of his Hebrew commentary on the Torah.6 It seems quite unlikely that employing a loanword in a Hebrew biblical commentary would be altogether fortuitous. There is no dearth of technical terms for magical practices in biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, so that no imminent need to adopt a new one existed. Therefore, we can assume that Nahmanides’ usage of this loanword rather is indicative either of his con. viction that his readers would be so familiar with “necromancy” that its use would enable them to intuitively grasp some of his exegetical intentions, or that this term served him as a explanatory tool, more convenient than any other at his disposal. In both cases, however, Nahmanides’ . indebtedness to the surrounding culture is obvious. Indeed it will become clear that Nahmanides’ usage of the term “necro. mancy” cannot be properly understood without casting an eye on the contemporary non-Jewish sources treating “necromancy” as well. Most notably, we will encounter a certain terminological ambiguity and conceptual tension in Nahmanides’ usage of “necromancy” as a generic term . for different forms of illicit demon cults and its affinity to scientific natural magic. This observation will find its explanation in some Christian sources. Therefore, in a first step we will look at those texts where Nahmanides’ discusses “necromancy” in order to determine the semantic . 5 The Hebrew spelling of this loanword differs. Attested are the forms àéñðåîøâð, àéñð§§àîåøâð, àéñ§§ðîåøâð, äàéñðîåøâð and ১éñðåîøâð, which probably all go back to a pronun-

ciation close to a Romance or medieval Latin nigromancia. As customary in medieval sources, I use the terms nigromancia and necromancia (necromancy) interchangeably. 6 Cf. his commentaries on Exod. :, Lev. :, Lev. :; Deut. :. The standard edition is C. Chavel, ed., Peruˇse ha-Torah le-Rabbenu Moˇse ben Nahman (RaMBa”N) . (Heb.),  vols., (Jerusalem –). English translations are taken from C.B. Chavel, trans. and ed., Ramban (Nachmanides). Commentary on the Torah,  vols. (New York, –).



reimund leicht

fields covered by this term in his scientific vocabulary. In a second step, these findings will be confronted with the history of the term “necromancy” in Christian sources.7 The first of the four explicit references to nigromancia in Nahmanides’ . commentary on the Torah can be found in his explanation of the second commandment of the Decalogue in Exod. :. This verse provides Nahmanides with an opportunity to insert a lengthy excursus on the the. ory and history of idolatry (#avodah zarah). At the core of this commentary is the idea that “by way of truth” (#al derekh ha-emet) the biblical ban on the service of “other gods” (elohim aherim) refers to God’s deci. sion that Israel should serve Him alone and not one of the other spiritual or cosmological entities which, albeit real, are not worthy of adoration by the “chosen people.” Transposed into historical terms, this concept leads Nahmanides to . the elaboration of a historical model for the development of idolatry, which consists of three distinct stages.8 The first stage of idolatry began with the adoration of angels. The adherence to this practice is not very far-fetched in view of the fact that angels, which can be identified with the “Separate Intellects” (ha-´sekhalim ha-nivdalim) of medieval cosmology, were called “gods” (elohim) in the Hebrew Bible, too. Accordingly, angelolatry is far from being sheer nonsense and may be seen instead as an adequate form of worship for all peoples other than the Jews, because they are in fact subject to angelic power. Israel alone is exempt from it, which means Jews should serve God alone. The second historical stage of idolatry is that of astral cults. The cult of the visible stars is in itself based upon true observations regarding their dominion over the earth as it is formulated in the “science” of astrology. Thus, the astrological worldview is basically conceived as being correct, although astrolatry is not for the chosen people either. 7 The following discussions are indebted in many points to the above-mentioned studies of Dov Schwartz, most notably, the relevant chapters in Astral Magic, pp. – ; Amulets, Properties and Rationalism, pp. –; Studies on Astral Magic; and in the article “From Theurgy to Magic.” 8 Nahmanides’ historical description of idolatry stands in stark contrast to Mai. monides’ model found in his Miˇsneh Torah, Hilkhot #Avodah Zarah, ch. , which was undoubtedly known to Nahmanides and served him as a model. Whereas Nahmanides . . stresses the physical reality of the different forms of idolatry Maimonides considers them all being based in the false belief in the ruling power of the stars (astrology), which wiped out the true knowledge of God until Abraham restored it again; cf. also Moreh ha-nevukhim III: and .

nahmanides on necromancy .



Finally, Nahmanides mentions the cult of demons as the third and lowest . form of idolatry. This practice has its rational foundation in the fact that demons have power over certain peoples and events on this earth. All this, Nahmanides tells us, can be studied in both the “science of necro. mancy” (be-hokhmat nagarmunsia = nigromancia) and in rabbinic liter. ature (on Exod. :): The third kind of idolatry appeared afterwards when people began worshipping the demons which are spirits, as I will explain later on with G-d’s help. Some of them too are appointed over the peoples to be masters of their lands and to harm their beleaguered ones and those who have stumbled, as is known of their activity through the art of necromancy,9 as well as through the words of our Rabbis. . . . Scripture ridicules them, [i.e., the Israelites], saying they sacrifice also to the demons who are no gods at all. That is to say, they are not like the angels who are called eloha.

The whole passage makes it clear that necromancy is the form of idolatry most remote from the true worship of God. Nahmanides presents not . only the different kinds of idolatry as stages in a historical process, but also a value judgment about them, which range from angelolatry, directed to the lofty spiritual realm of the Separate Intellects; through astrolatry, concerned with the eternal and unchangeable, yet physical realm of the stars; to demonolatry, dealing with airy and fiery beings that live in the lower world.10 Important additional information about Nahmanides’ demonology . can be gleaned from a second passage of his commentary on the Torah, where he explicitly uses the term “necromancy” as well. In Lev. : we read about the ban on offering sacrifices to the ´se#irim, beings which were unanimously identified with demons (ˇsedim) by Rashi and Abraham ibn Ezra and by the older targumim. Now, this verse provides Nahmanides . with an occasion to put forward a detailed discussion of the nature of the demons: they were created at the beginning of the creation from air and fire and accordingly they possess a body, albeit imperceptible due to its delicacy. Since they are composed of two elements, they are also destructible and can die just like men and animals as a natural result of decomposition. Demons know the near future, and the lightness of the elements they are composed of allows them to fly, but they need food. This, Nahmanides tells us, we can learn from the practices of the . 9 C. Chavel renders hokhmat nagarmunsia (= nigromansia) with “art of necromancy” . although “science of necromancy” seems to be a more appropriate translation. 10 On the airy and fiery nature of demons, cf. the commentary on Lev. : below.



reimund leicht

necromancers (ba#ale nigromansi"ah), who offer burned sacrifices to the demons and thus help them to sustain their bodies (on Lev. :): The matter of “eating” [mentioned above in connection with these creatures] means their deriving nourishment from the moisture of water and the odors of fire, something like the fire that licked up the water that was in the trench.11 This is the purpose of the burnings which necromancers perform to the demons.

In sum, in both passages Nahmanides unequivocally identifies necro. mancy with the cult of demons in this lower world. Their cult is considered real and effective, but it is forbidden to the Jewish people, although Lev. : hints that the Israelites themselves practiced different forms of idolatry prior to the divine injunction issued in the Torah.12 A similar idea was already formulated a few pages earlier in Nahma. nides’ commentary on Lev. :, where he explains the “secret” (sod ha-#inyan) of the goat sent to #Aza"zel. According to Nahmanides, this . ritual appears to be a kind of exception to the general ban on the former practice of idolatry (on Lev. :): Now this is the secret of this matter. They used to worship “other gods,” namely, the angels, bringing offerings of a sweet savor to them, similar to that which it says and thou didst send Mine oil and My incense before them. My bread also which I gave to thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey, wherewith I fed thee, thou didst even set it before them for a sweet savor, and thus it was, saith the Eternal G-d.13 You have to contemplate the Scriptural text as it is written and [also] as [it is read according to the] Masoretic tradition. Now, the Torah has totally forbidden to accept them as deities, or to worship them in any manner. However, the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us that on the Day of Atonement we should let loose a goat in the wilderness, to that “prince” [power] which rules over wasteland, and this [goat] is fitting for it because he is its master, and destruction and waste emanate from that power, which in turn is the cause of the stars of the sword, wars, quarrels, wounds, plagues, division and destruction. In short, it is the spirit of the sphere of Mars, and its portion among the nations is Esau [Rome], the people that inherited the sword and the wars, and among animals the ´se"irim (demons) and the goats. Also in its portion are the demons called “destroyers” in the language of our Rabbis . . . .

Nahmanides does not hesitate to describe the ritual of the goat sent to . ‘Aza"zel as a kind of permissible form of magic, ordained by God himself. Accordingly, the practice of this and other similar rituals (sacrifices, the 11 12 13

I Kings :. Cf. the commentary on the word ‘od in Lev. :. Ezek. :–.

nahmanides on necromancy .



ritual of the Red Heifer, etc.) is, in spite of its outward resemblance to idolatry, actually the fulfillment of a divine commandment. Such an interpretation necessitates, however, a positive stance toward the physical reality of magic in general, so that it comes as no surprise that in the concluding sentence of his commentary on Lev. : Nahmanides vehemently . defends the reality of necromancy and spiritual magic against their critics: Thus the matter is explained, unless you pursue a further investigation from this subject to that of the Separate Intelligences and how the spirits [are affected by] the offerings’—[influence upon the spirits] being known through the study of necromancy,14 while that of the [Separate] Intelligences is known by means of certain allusions of the Torah to those who understand their secrets. I cannot explain more, for I would have to close the mouths of those who claim to be wise in the study of nature, following after that Greek [philosopher Aristotle] who denied everything except that which could be perceived by him [through the physical senses], and he, and his wicked disciples, were so proud as to suspect that whatever he could not conceive of through his reasoning is not true!

Very much like the previous passages, this text tells us that the “science of necromancy” (hokhmat nigromansi"a) deals with the nature of spirits . (ruhot)—and presumably also with their manipulation. Thus, at first . sight the object of necromancy seems to have remained the same: the demons. But unlike in the previous cases, the “science of necromancy” is now explicitly paralleled with another branch of human science—that of the Separate Intelligences. Both sciences are seen to be guarantors for the scientific plausibility of non-corporeal, spiritual influence in the physical world, most notably of astral magic as it was described in the preceding commentary. This physical worldview was opposed by some Aristotelian philosophers of nature, who denied the reality of spiritual influence, and it is interesting to see how Nahmanides here criticizes in unusually . harsh words the very philosophical position which no one other than Maimonides would have favored. But whoever Nahmanides’ direct target . may have been,15 it becomes clear that in this context the “science of necromancy” assumes a new status: whereas Nahmanides hitherto spoke . about “necromancy” as the lowest form of idolatry, now this “science” has 14 Here again Nahmanides uses the term hokhmat nigromansi"a—“science of necro. . mancy”—rendered by C. Chavel as “study of necromancy.” 15 A similar polemic against “anti-spiritualistic” Aristotelian natural philosophy can be found in Nahmanides’ Deraˇsat Torat H” Temimah in C.D. Chavel, ed., Kitvei Rabbenu . Moˇseh ben Nahman,  vols. (Jerusalem, –), –, on p. . .



reimund leicht

suddenly become a crucial element in a complex argument concerning the structure of the physical world in general and the reality of astral and spiritual magic in particular. Seemingly denigrated in the previous texts to the poorest form of idolatry, the “science of necromancy” now turns out to be a powerful weapon in Nahmanides’ fight for a spiritualistic . worldview, which closely associates the belief in demons with the belief in the reality of astral magic. The “science of necromancy” is also raised to a similar status in the fourth and last passage in the commentary on the Torah, where the term nigromancia is explicitly used. In his comments on Deut. :, Nahmanides gives a detailed account of the different branches of magic, . which he divides first into two main branches: sorcery (kiˇsuf ) and divination (qesamim). The genus of sorcery comprises different practices such as “charmers” (hover hever) and those who “ask the "ov and yid#oni” . . (ˇso"el ba-#ov we-yid#oni), whereas divination, which is simply concerned with predicting the future (mahˇ . sava ba-#atidot bi-khlal), diversifies into “cloud-interpreters” (me#onen), “diviners” (menaheˇ . s) etc. Unfortunately, Nahmanides does not put forward an explicit rule for the differentia. tion between the two genera of “sorcery” and “divination,” but the reasons he provides for the biblical ban on each of them make it sufficiently clear that the former is to be identified with aggressive acts manipulating nature, whereas the latter is based upon a more passive observation of portents. “Sorcery,” he says, is forbidden, because God the creator wanted “the world to rest in its customary way,” whereas “divination” is forbidden in the Torah because it is superfluous: Israel receives information about God’s desire through prophecy and not through divination. For our purpose, however, it is notable that Nahmanides exempli. fies in this text “manipulative” magic, “sorcery” (kiˇsuf ), by describing astral magic, which he in turn explicitly labels “necromancy” (on Deut. :): And now, know and understand concerning the subject of sorcery, that when the Creator, blessed be He, created everything from nothing, He made the higher powers to be guides for those below them. Thus He placed the earth and all things that are thereon16 in the power of the stars and constellations, depending on their rotation and position as proven by the study of astrology. Over the stars and constellation he further appointed guides, angels, and “lords” which are the soul [of the stars 16

Neh. :.

nahmanides on necromancy .



and constellations]. Now, their behavior from the time they come into existence for eternal duration, is according to the pattern [that] the Most High decreed for them. However, it was one of His mighty wonders that within the power of these higher forces, He put configurations [as explained further on] and capacities to alter the behavior of those under them. Thus if the direction of the stars towards the earth be good or bad to a certain country, people, or individual, the higher dominions can reverse it of their own volition, as they have said, “The apposition for the word oneg (pleasure) is nega (plague).” G-d ordained it so because He, blessed be his Name, changeth the times and the seasons;17 He calleth for the waters of the sea18 to do with them at His Will, and bringeth on the shadow of death in the morning 19 without changing the natural order of the world, and it is He Who made the stars and constellations move about in their order. Therefore, the author of the Book of the Moon, the expert in [the field of] necromancy, said, “when the moon, termed ‘the sphere of the world,’ is, for example, at the head of Aries (the Ram) and the constellation thus appears in a certain form, you should make a drawing of that grouping, engraving on it the particular time [when this relative position appears] and the name of the angel—one of the names mentioned in that book— appointed over it. Then perform a certain burning [of incense] in a certain specified manner, and the result of the influence [of the relative position of the stars] will be for evil, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy and to overthrow.20 And when the moon will be in a position relative to some other constellation you should make the drawing and the burning in a certain other manner and the result will be for good, to build and to plant.”21 Now this, too, is the influence of the moon as determined by the power of its [heavenly] guide. But the basic manner of its movement is by the wish of the Creator, blessed be He, Who endowed it so in time past, while this particular action is contrary thereto. This then is the secret of [all forms of] sorcery and their power concerning which the Rabbis have said that “they contradict the power of divine agencies,” meaning that they are contrary to the simple powers [with which the agencies have been endowed] and thus diminish them in a certain aspect thereof. Therefore, it is proper that the Torah prohibit these activities in order to let the world rest in its customary way, in the simple nature which is the desire of the Creator.

This excursus on the nature of “sorcery” is a valuable source for Nahma. nides’ concept of magic, not the least because it contains the very first mention of a text of astral magic in the Hebrew language—the Sefer 17 18 19 20 21

Dan. :. Amos :. Ibid. Jer. :. Ibid.



reimund leicht

ha-Levanah.22 But be this as it may, it is striking to see that Nahmanides’ . argument is based upon two rather surprising interpretations: in the first place, he bluntly identifies “sorcery” with astral magic. This is somewhat bewildering in view of the fact that Nahmanides had told us just a few . lines before that many different kinds of magic such as “charmers” or those who “ask the ‘ov and yad#oni” belong to the category of kiˇsuf, too. Does he really believe that the theory of astral magic can be seen as the common theoretical denominator of all these forms of manipulative magic? And more than that, Nahmanids goes on to argue that kiˇsuf is . best portrayed in a book called Sefer ha-Levanah, which was written by an “expert” in the “science of necromancy” (hakham be-nagarmunsi"a) and . deals with astral magic. This shows that to the first identification of kiˇsuf with astral magic, Nahmanides now adds another identification, namely, . that of a book on astral magic with “necromancy.” As a consequence, at the end of the whole passage “necromancy” suddenly seems to be nothing but a synonym for astral magic. The comparative reading of the four passages in Nahmanides’ com. mentary on the Torah thus reveals a striking inner tension in the usage of the term “necromancy.” Whereas the first two texts (Exod. : and Lev. :) leave little doubt that “necromancy” unequivocally designates the cult of demons, the third passage already posits the “science of necromancy” in a surprisingly close relationship with philosophical theories about the Separate Intellects and the possibility of non-corporeal influence on the physical world. In the fourth text this affinity of the “science of necromancy” to spiritual magic is further developed to such a degree that necromancy in itself is being identified with aggressive magic and merges terminologically with astral magic. Rather than clarifying the problems connected with the theory and practice of different forms of magic, Nahmanides’ use of the term “necromancy” thus turns out to be . inconsistent in itself. This observation calls for an explanation. Was he unaware of the discrepancies in his usage of the loanword he adopted? Was he himself responsible for the polysemy we have observed, or did he inherit it from his sources and informants? If we look at the Latin term necromantia, from which the medieval form nigromancia used by Nahmanides was derived, its Greek origin is . 22 Cf. on the Hebrew versions of the Sefer ha-Levanah, F. Lelli, “Le Versioni Ebraiche di un Testo Ermetico: Il Sefer ha-Levanah,” Henoch  (): –, and R. Leicht, Astrologumena Judaica. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der astrologischen Literatur der Juden (Tübingen, ): –.

nahmanides on necromancy .



obvious (“divination by the dead”).23 Although Greek was little known by the Middle Ages, because of the word’s inclusion in Isidore of Sevilla’s (ca. –) Etymologiae, its correct linguistic background was not altogether forgotten in the Latin West, for in Book VIII.ix. he writes:24 Necromancers are those, through whose incantations the risen dead seem [able] to divine and to answer interrogations, since nekros is called in Greek “dead” and manteia “divination.” In order to query them, blood is put on the corpse, since the demons are said to love blood (sanguis). And accordingly, necromancy is often carried out in [such a] way that thick blood (cruor) is mixed with water, since they are invoked more easily by thick blood (cruor sanguinis).

This short text can be seen as something like the standard definition of “necromancy” in the Latin Middle Ages. It combines the original Greek meaning of nekromantia—“divination by the dead”—with demonological aspects and adds the idea that blood plays a crucial role in necromantic rituals. Many other medieval authors adopted this definition (Hrabanus Maurus, Hinkmar of Reims, Ivo of Chartres),25 and it was clearly still influential in mid-thirteenth-century Castile when Alfonso X “el Sabio” (–) wrote in his legal codex Las Siete Partidas: “Necromancy is called in Latin a strange science for the incantation of bad spirits.”26 Nahmanides’ first terminological usage of the word nigromancia— . meaning the cult of demons—is thus in total accordance with this tradition in the Latin world. One could even go one step further and ask whether Nahmanides also shared other basic tenets of demonology with . the surrounding culture, although this would exceed the boundaries of the present paper. A good example of this could be his commentary 23 For the history of the Latin term, cf. D. Harmening, Superstitio. Überlieferungs- und theoriegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur kirchlich-theologischen Aberglaubensliteratur des Mittelalters (Berlin, ), –; J.-C. Schmitt, “Les Superstitions,” J. LeGoff and R. Rémond, eds, Histoire de la France religieuse, vol.  (Paris: ): –, on p. ; J.-P. Boudet, Entre Science et Nigromance. Astrologie, divination et magie dans l’ Occident médiéval (XIIe–XVe siècle) (Paris, ), –. 24 My own translation according to Isidorus Hispalensis Episcopus, Etymologiarum sive originum libri XX. Edited by W.M. Lindsay (Oxford, ): Necromantii sunt, quorum praecantationibus videntur resuscitati mortui divinare, et ad interrogata respondere. Νεκρος enim Graece mortuus, μαντεια divinatio nuncupatur: ad quos sciscitandos caderveri sanguis adicitur. Nam amare daemons sanguinem dicitur. Ideoque quotiens necromatia fit, cruor aqua miscitur, ut cruore sanguinis facilius provocentur. 25 Cf. Harmening, Superstitio, pp. –. 26 Titulo XXIII: “Necromantia dizen en latin a un saber estraño que es para encantar espiritus malos”; cf. A. d’ Agostino, Astromagia (Napoli, ): .



reimund leicht

on Lev. :, where he explains the ban on eating blood in terms of demonological practices that are reminiscent of Isidore’s description. Regarding the terminological question, it is clear, however, that nothing in these early Latin sources hints at the double usage of the term “necromancy” that we have found in Nahmanides. . In order to understand Nahmanides’ second usage of the term “necro. mancy,” we therefore have to turn to other sources and ask when Latin sources first cite this term in the meaning of “science of astral magic.” A prolific source for this question is found in medieval enumerations of the sciences, which were composed in Arabic and Latin from the tenth and eleventh centuries onward. These texts allow us to reconstruct step by step a long process which ultimately led to the emergence of “necromancy” as the “science of astral magic.”27 The philosopher al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı briefly mentions astrology alongside astronomy among the mathematical sciences in his Ihs¯ . a" al-#ul¯um (Enu28 meration of Sciences), but he does not count medicine, let alone astral magic, among the sciences at all.29 It is not until a century later that we ˙ al¯ı’s Maq¯as. id al-fal¯asifa (Intentions of the Philosophers) find in al-Gaz¯ for the first time a clear statement about “medicine, talismans, enchantments, magic etc.” (t. ibb, t. alsim¯at, n¯aranˇga¯t, sihr) . as part of the natural sciences.30 ˙ al¯ı’s book was among the first Arabic works to be translated Al-Gaz¯ into Latin, in twelfth-century Toledo, where the above-mentioned terms are rendered as medicina, ymagines, incantations, allecciones etc.31 As early as the twelfth century, magic and astral magic thus seem to have become part of the system of sciences adopted by the Latin West from the Arab world, although the term “necromancy” was not yet systematically applied.32 An important step toward the terminological identification of 27 Cf. also Boudet, Entre Science et Nigromance, pp. –, and C. Burnett, “Talismans: Magic as Science? Necromancy among the Seven Liberal Arts,” in idem, Magic and Divination in the Middle Ages. Texts and Techniques in the Islamic and Christian Worlds (Aldershot, ), first article. 28 Al-F¯ ar¯ab¯ı, Ihs¯ . a" al-#ul¯um, in al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, Catálogo de la Ciencias. Edited and translated by A. González Palencia, nd ed. (Madrid and Granada, ): – [Arabic]. 29 On the systematic reasons for this decision, see F. Schupp in his introduction to al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, Über die Wissenschaften (Hamburg, ): XLII–XLIV. 30 Al-Gaz¯ ˙ al¯ı, Maq¯as. id al-fal¯asifa. Edited by A.F. al-Maz¯ıd¯ı (Beirut, ):  (second book, second prologue). 31 J.T. Muckle, ed., Algazel’s Metaphysica: A Medieval Translation (Toronto, ): . 32 Cf. on Petrus Alfonsus (–) and John of Seville (twelfth century), Boudet, Entre Science et Nigromance, pp. –.

nahmanides on necromancy .



astral magic with necromancy was taken around the middle of the century, as we can learn from the works of Dominicus Gundissalinus, who was active in the Castilian capital, Toledo. He is the first datable author to mention “natural necromancy” (nigromantia secundum physicam) as one of the natural sciences in his De divisione philosophiae:33 Some of the sciences are universal and others are special, and those, which comprise others, are called universal. Therefore the science of nature is universal, because it comprises eight sciences: the science of medicine, the science of [astrological] judgments, the science of necromancy according to nature, the science of images, the science of agriculture, the science of navigation, the science of alchemy, which is the science of the conversion of things one into another; these are the eight species of natural science.

The concept of “natural necromancy” found in this text became pretty popular and was adopted in other Latin texts like Ps.-al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı’s De ortu scientiarum34 and in Daniel of Morley’s (–) Philosophia.35 This new terminological coinage itself, however, is indicative of a process of transition, which evidently took place during this period of time. The twelfth-century authors all try to integrate spiritual magic into their system of sciences and for that purpose they adopt “necromancy” as a technical term. The addition “secundum physicam,” on the other hand, bears witness to the fact that they were still well aware that “necromancy” originally meant something quite different from the kind of magic they 33

Dominucus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae. Edited by L. Baur (Münster, ): : sciencia de medicina, sciencia de indiciis [sic!], sciencia de nigromantia secundum physicam, sciencia de imaginibus, sciencia de agricultura, sciencia de nauigacione, sciencia de speculis and ciencia de alquimia; cf. also A. Fidora and D. Werner, eds, Dominicus Gundissalinus. De divisione philosophiae—Über die Einteilung der Philosophie (Freiburg, ): –. 34 Alpharabius, De ortu scientiarum. Edited by C. Baeumker (Münster, ): : Partes autem huius scientiae quod dixerunt sapientes primi, octo sunt, scilicet de iudiciis, scientia de medicina, scientia de nigromantia secundum physicam, scientia de imaginibus, scientia de agricultura, scientia de navigando, scientia de alkimia quae est conversione rerum in alias species, scientia de speculis.” This Latin enumeration of sciences attributed to al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı reflects later medieval developments, although H.A. Wolfson seems to believe in its authenticity (“The Classification of Sciences in Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy,” Hebrew Union College Jubilee Volume [Cincinnati, ]: –, on p. ). 35 G. Maurach, “Daniel von Morley, ‘De Philosophia’ ”, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch  (): –, on p. : De dignitate eius invenitur, quod illius partes, secundum quod dixerunt sapientes primi, octo sunt, scil. scientia de iudiciis, scientia de medicina, scientia de nigromantia secundum phisicam, scientia de agricultura, scientia de prestigiis, scientia de alckimia que est scientia de transformatione metallorum in alias species, scientia de imaginibus, quam tradit LIBER VENERIS magnus et universalis, quem edidit THOZ GRECUS, scientia de speculis, et hec scientia largior est et latior ceteris, prout ARISTOTILES manifestat in LIBRO DE SPECULO ADURENTI.



reimund leicht

were thinking about. Even though both “sciences” manipulate powers in the physical world, one of them preoccupies itself with demons whereas the other deals with natural forces. The attempt to bring order into the newly adopted and developed branches of natural science thus led in the twelfth century to a semantic diversification of the term “necromancy.” If we now come back to Nahmanides, it becomes apparent that the . inner tension in his usage of the term “necromancy” is neither the result of having misunderstood its proper meaning nor of its being a fanciful, idiosyncratic creation. Writing his commentary on the Torah in the second half of the thirteenth century, Nahmanides used the loanword in the . exact same double sense which was current in his Christian environment, too. Nahmanides speaks “the same language” here of his Christian coun. terparts. This does not mean, of course, that he necessarily read any of the literary sources mentioned in this paper, but it indicates that we have to interpret his ideas about magic, astrology and “necromancy” as an inseparable part not only of an inner-Jewish debate, but also of the general learned discourse about occult sciences that was going on in Spain during his lifetime. Talking about nigromancia in his Hebrew works— both in the traditional demonological and the newly developed scientific meaning of the term—Nahmanides displays an intimate familiarity . with the cultural trends of his time. This observation clues us in on a methodological approach to his thought: a systematic interpretation of Nahmanides’ stance towards astral magic and his interest in the possi. bility of a spiritual worldview that transcends the limits of Aristotelian physics will necessarily have to place his thought not only within the tradition of Judah Halevi’s and Abraham ibn Ezra’s astrological and magical inclinations and the reaction against Jewish Aristotelian “materialism,” which denied “everything except that which could be perceived through the physical senses.” It will also have to describe how his preoccupations echoed in part the enormous fascination exerted by the new “science of necromancy” upon intellectuals in thirteenth-century Christian Spain, some of whom may have read in the new Latin translation of the Picatrix produced at the court of Alfonso X “el Sabio”:36 And in general we call necromancy all things hidden from the senses, which the major part of mankind does not understand how they happen and from which causes they come. 36 D. Pingree, ed., Picatrix. The Latin Version (London, ): : Et generaliter nigromanciam dicimus pro omnibus rebus absconditis a sensu et quas maior pars hominum non apprehendit quomodo fiant nec quibus causis veniant.

THE FIRST SURVEY OF THE METAPHYSICS IN HEBREW

Resianne Fontaine

. Introduction In his seminal and often-quoted study on the appropriation of the sciences by Jews in medieval Provence, Gad Freudenthal calls attention to the important role of the medieval Hebrew encyclopedias in the transmission of science and philosophy from Arabic into Hebrew.1 The first encyclopedia that he discusses in this regard is the Midraˇs ha-hokhmah . by Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen, originally written in Arabic, presumably in the s, and translated by the author into Hebrew around .2 Since the publication of Freudenthal’s study considerable progress has 3 been made in the study of the Midraˇs ha-hokhmah (henceforth: MH). . . Nonetheless, there are some areas and topics in Judah’s encyclopedic composition that await further exploration. The present paper seeks to address one such area, namely the section on Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the MH, . by elaborating on Mauro Zonta’s valuable observations on the subject in his “The Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics in the ThirteenthCentury Encyclopedias.”4 The importance of this section lies in the fact that, to the best of our knowledge, it is the first Hebrew text to present a substantial survey 1 Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence: leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des Études Juives  (): –, on pp. –. The Hebrew encyclopedias form the subject of the first six paragraphs in M. Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, /repr. Graz, ). I dedicate this paper to Gad Freudenthal as a token of esteem, friendship and gratitude. 2 Ibid., –. The Arabic version is no longer extant. 3 See notably the detailed studies on (sections of) the MH, by C.H. Manekin, T. Lévy, . R. Glasner, Y.T. Langermann, A. Ivry, M. Zonta and the present author in S. Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Dordrecht etc., ). Colette Sirat drew attention to the work in her “Juda b. Salomon ha-Cohen, philosophe, astronome, et peut-être kabbaliste de la première moitié du XIIIe siècle,” Italia  (): –. See now also M. Benedetto, Un enciclopedista ebreo alla corte di Federico II. Filosofia e astrologia nel Midraˇs ha-hokhmah di Yehudah ha-Cohen (Bari, ). . 4 Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias, pp. –.



resianne fontaine

of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Prior to that date Hebrew readers living in a Christian environment with no access to Arabic but seeking to acquaint themselves with Aristotelian metaphysical, or more generally, philosophical thought could find relevant material in the Hebrew translations of the writings of Jewish philosophers like Saadya, Judah Halevi, and above all Maimonides. However, if those readers wished to turn to the actual Aristotelian sources underlying the Jewish philosophers’ expositions, they would have had to learn Arabic or Latin. This is why, as Judah ha-Kohen explains, Italian Jews requested him, during his stay in Italy in the service of the emperor Frederick II, to undertake the translation of his encyclopedia into Hebrew.5 Indeed, Judah, a native from Toledo who was well versed in the philosophical-scientific curriculum as studied in Muslim Spain, was a most suitable candidate to transmit this body of knowledge to his fellow Jews. In fact, the dissemination of contemporary scientific learning was one of Judah’s aims underlying the composition of the MH, . and for him the best way to realize it was to provide his readers with direct access to the relevant sources, that is, the most authoritative writings of his day, in abridged form. For philosophy this meant Aristotle’s philosophical works as interpreted by Ibn Ruˇsd, and in the case of the survey on the Metaphysics, this meant the Middle Commentary (henceforth: MC). It is important to bear in mind that Judah’s Hebrew survey was produced before integral Hebrew translations of the Aristotelian text or of Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries on it became available. The Commentator’s Epitome of the Metaphysics was translated into Hebrew in  by Moses ibn Tibbon, while his MC on it was rendered into Hebrew in  by Zerahyah ben Is. haq and a second time by Qalonymos . . Hen, . 6 Two other texts to be mentioned in this regard ben Qalonymos in . are Moses ibn Tibbon’s translation of Themistius’ commentary on Book Λ () and Falaquera’s De#ot ha-Filosofim (ca. ?), which mainly draws on one of the redactions of the Epitome. The Hebrew version of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary was produced around –. Latininto-Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics were to follow only in the last quarter of the fifteenth century, in Spain.7 5 MH, MS Oxford, Bodleian, Mich , fol. v. All references to the MH are to this . . MS. I have also consulted MSS Hunt , and Pococke , owned by the Bodleian Library. 6 Cf. Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen, pp. – and Zonta, “The Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics,” in Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias, pp. –. 7 For more details, see Zonta, “The Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics”, pp. –.

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



The MH . thus occupies a special place in the transmission history of the Metaphysics in Hebrew. For several decades, until the appearance of Zerahyah’s translation of the MC, it was the only Hebrew source . that presented Aristotle’s Metaphysics in a manner that was close to the Philosopher’s own wording. In what follows I shall highlight the main features of this first presentation of the Metaphysics to a Hebrew audience.

. Aristotle and Ibn Ruˇsd as Sources for the Presentation of the MH’s . Metaphysics The section treating the Metaphysics is found in Part I of the MH, . which is dedicated to philosophy. It is preceded by précis of Aristotle’s logic and natural philosophy, and followed by a treatise on the explanation of some Biblical verses. Part II treats geometry, astronomy and astrology, and ends with two treatises on specifically Jewish subjects.8 As noted above, Judah’s direct source for the Metaphysics is Ibn Ruˇsd’s MC, the Arabic of which is regrettably lost. Judah’s use of this commentary is immediately evident through the absence in the MH . of Aristotle’s Book Α and the presence of Books Κ, Μ and Ν, corresponding to the contents of the MC. In the Long Commentary, by contrast, these three books are absent, while Book A is included.9 Moreover, a comparison of Judah’s overview with the two Hebrew translations suggests that almost all of his statements can be traced back to the MC.10 In this respect his

8

One is about the letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the other about Talmudic Haggadot. 9 For a recent overview of the transmission history of the Metaphysics in Arabic, see ˇ a" (Leiden A. Bertolacci, The Reception of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in Avicenna’s Kit¯ab al-Sif¯ etc., ): –. 10 I wish to thank Mauro Zonta for generously providing me with a copy of his unpublished edition of the Hebrew translations by Zerahyah and Qalonymos. Quotations . to the MC are taken from this typescript. From the fact that, in general, Qalonymos’ translation bears greater similarity to the MH it can be inferred that . than Zerahyah’s, . Judah based his survey on the Arabic redaction that underlay Qalonymos’ translation. However, Zonta has established that Judah also used the redaction underlying Zerahyah’s . translation, cf. M. Zonta, La Tradizione ebraica del Commento Medio di Averroè alla Metafisica di Aristotele. Le Versioni ebraiche di Zerahyah ben Is. haq . e di Qalonymos . . Hen ben Qalonymos. Edizione e introduzione storico-filologica (Ph.D. thesis Università di Torino, ): *–*, *–*; and idem, “A Case of ‘Author’s Variant Reading’ and the Textual History of Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” in J. Hamesse and O. Weijers, eds, Écriture et Réécriture des Textes Philosophiques Médiévaux. Volume d’ hommage offert à Colette Sirat (Turnhout, ): –. This issue requires



resianne fontaine

procedure in this section differs somewhat from that in his treatment of natural philosophy, where Judah occasionally uses the Epitomes alongside the Middle Commentaries, even though the latter are invariably his principal sources. I have found no indications that suggest a direct usage by Judah of an Arabic translation of the Aristotelian text. Neither does he seem to have used the Long Commentary. While Judah acknowledges that it was Maimonides who kindled in him “a burning fire” (Jer. :)11 to study the sciences, we do not know if Judah was aware of Maimonides’ famous recommendation to Samuel ibn Tibbon, a few decades earlier, to study Aristotle with the help of the commentators, that is, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, and Ibn Ruˇsd.12 In turning to Ibn Ruˇsd, however, Judah is, advisedly or not, following Maimonides’ guidelines. In Judah’s day, Ibn Ruˇsd was rapidly acquiring the reputation among Jews of being Aristotle’s most authoritative interpreter. In point of fact, the MH . is one of the earliest Hebrew texts, if not the earliest, to testify to Ibn Ruˇsd’s status as Aristotle’s commentator par excellence among Jews. Most telling in this respect is a passage in Book XI (Λ) where Judah introduces a long quotation from his source by saying “This is the version of Ibn Ruˇsd”, while concluding it with the words “We will return to Aristotle’s words” (fol. v). This suggests that for Judah Ibn Ruˇsd had already supplanted Aristotle in his formative years in Toledo. However, for the medieval reader, who sought to be introduced to Aristotle’s Metaphysics through the MH . Ibn Ruˇsd’s omnipresence would not be immediately clear. If he had first studied Judah’s introduction, as he was supposed to do, he would certainly be led to expect overviews

further examination. On the problem of the different redactions of the MC in the case of the Physics, see R. Glasner, Averroes’ Physics. A Turning Point in Medieval Natural Philosophy (Oxford, ): – and Part B. 11 MH, fol. r. . 12 Zerahyah refers to it in his apology that is appended to his translation of Ibn Ruˇ sd’s . MC, cf. Zonta, La Tradizione ebraica, p. * and n. . For the impact of Maimonides’ recommendation, see S. Harvey, “Did Maimonides letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon determine which philosophers would be studied by later Jewish thinkers?,” Jewish Quarterly Review , – (): –. Interestingly, Bouyges notes that he has consulted the MH . and its quotations from Ibn Ruˇsd in Steinschneider’s Leiden catalogue for his own edition of the Long Commentary, but that he did not find them so useful: “je n’ ai rien pu en tirer,” see M. Bouyges, Averroès. Tafsir ma ba#d at-Tabi#at Bibliotheca Arabica Scholasticorum. Série Arabe (Paris, ): Tome V., p. xcviii. For Steinschneider’s description of the MH, . see Catalogus codicum hebraeorum bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae (Leiden, ): –.

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



of Aristotle’s own writings in the MH. . 13 Judah begins his book with an enumeration of the Philosopher’s works through which philosophy should be studied. Here he presents a detailed book-by-book description of the subject matter treated by Aristotle without ever mentioning Ibn Ruˇsd. The reader would thus be under the impression that Judah renders Aristotle’s own works. Throughout his work he often writes “he says,” meaning Aristotle, but the unprepared reader may not identify this as deriving from the MC’s reference to Aristotle. Further on in the MH . there are occasional references to the Commentator and also some passages that are explicitly marked as quotes from his commentaries (“çñåð ãùø ïá”). In Book XI (Λ) of the Metaphysics such quotes are particularly frequent and involve long portions of texts (cf. below). In other words: the medieval Hebrew reader of the MH . would be aware that the author has used Ibn Ruˇsd, but he would not realize that the entire survey of the Metaphysics is in fact an extract from his MC, or, in other words, that he was studying Aristotle as interpreted by the Commentator.

. Judah’s Presentation of the Metaphysics Quantitative Data If we turn now to the main features of Judah’s presentation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in Averroian garb it is useful to consider first some quantitative data. All in all, the section in the MH . takes up some  percent of the entire work, and  percent of the philosophical part, which contains all in all  folios.14 Judah’s numbering of the various books follows that of the MC. Thus his Book I renders Aristotle’s α, and the numbering of the following books (B to N) runs from II–XIV. However, the various books of the Metaphysics do not receive equal attention in Judah’s survey. Some books are covered much more extensively than others, both with respect to Aristotle and to Ibn Ruˇsd. In the MH . the longest book by far is XI (Λ), whereas in the Aristotelian text books Γ, Δ, Ζ, Κ, Μ, and Ν are all 13 Cf. fol. r, where Judah warns copyists not to copy single sections: the whole compilation should be read from the beginning to the end. 14 In the most complete manuscript, MS Vat ebr , it comprises  fols out of  fols. The philosophical part contains all in all  fols in this MS.



resianne fontaine

longer than Λ. The shortest book in the MH . is X (Κ), which in true stepmotherly fashion is covered in only three lines. In terms of length, and 15 starting with the longest, the order in the MH . is as follows: XI (Λ) ; IV (Δ) ; XII (Μ) ; VI (Ζ) ; XIII (Ν) ; VII (Η) , and IX (Ι) ; VIII (Θ) ; I (α); ; II (Β) ; III (Γ) ; V (Ε)  and X (Κ) . As for length, the MC has roughly the following order: VI; XII; IV; XV; XI and III; X; IX; II; VIII; XIII; VII; V; I. These data give rise to the assumption that Judah was selective in covering his source-material. Titles Judah uses various terms in reference to the discipline of metaphysics. The heading of Book I reads: “Book I of divine science (úéäìà äîëç), which is called ‘Metaphysics’ (òáèä øçà).” This is consistent with his terminology in the introduction to his encyclopedia, and the term “divine science” also emerges in the passage that renders a–, where he explicitly refers to the introduction (fol. r–). This designation is also found in his section on the Physics. In Metaphysics III he describes it as “first philosophy” (äðåùàø àéôåñåìéô), opposing it to dialectics and sophistry, or as “äîëç” tout court (fol. v–; –). Invoking Prov. :: “Many women have done well, but you surpassed them all,” he points out here that it is the “highest science.”16 In Book V we read: “It is necessary that there is a universal science (úéììë äîëç) in which the premises of every science (äëàìî) are explained [ . . . ], and this is philosophy (àéôåñåìéôä), for this science (äëàìî) investigates the principles and ultimate causes of existing things.”17 Elsewhere he refers to metaphysics as a “universal speculative science” (úéììë úéáùçî äëàìî), distinguishing it from physics and mathematics (fol. r). The most common expression in our section, however, is “this science” (åæ äîëç or åæ äëàìî), which he uses as a general reference to the science under consideration.18

15 The numbers refer to the number of lines devoted to each book according to MS Oxford, Bodleian, Mich . 16 Translations of Biblical verses are according to The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by A. Berlin and M.Z. Brettler (Oxford and New York, ). 17 Fol. v–, cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b–. 18 See Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen, pp. – for terms used for the Metaphysics.

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



Scope / Breadth of Coverage In all fairness, it should be said at once that Judah generally offers a faithful account of Ibn Ruˇsd’s reading of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In accordance with his aim to spread philosophical knowledge among his fellow Jews, he painstakingly records, page after page, the majority of Aristotle’s views on the nature and subject matter of the field (Books I, III and V); the questions that metaphysics should investigate (Book II); the key terms, their definitions and applications (Book IV); the difficult discussions about substance and essence (Books VI–VII); other key concepts such as matter and form, potentiality and actuality, unity and plurality (Books VIII–IX), and theology (Book XI). The last two books (XII–XIII) discuss Aristotle’s criticism of other theories on immaterial substances. Moreover, Judah is careful to insert references to other sections of his book that are relevant to the issue that he treats, as a pedagogical aid to his readers. In sum then, it is appropriate to say that Judah was concerned to provide a comprehensive survey of the most important topics and discussions found in the Metaphysics. This is not to say, however, that the survey is exhaustive or complete. Quite the contrary: as he says elsewhere explicitly he intends to be brief (fol. r). To achieve this goal he employs various abbreviation techniques. To begin with, he usually omits the views of Aristotle’s predecessors or discussions of topics that involve lengthy refutations by Aristotle. This feature accounts for the relative briefness of Book III (Γ). Here Aristotle delineates the tasks of the universal philosopher, one being that the philosopher should be able to state the most certain principles of all things (b–). This statement forms the starting-point for an extensive discussion in which Aristotle seeks to support the validity of the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. This discussion takes up the major part of Book Γ. Ibn Ruˇsd follows it meticulously, while Judah records only a few statements without referring to the context at all.19 In all probability, the reason for the almost complete omission of Aristotle’s discussion here is that a large part of it is bound up with the refutation of views and arguments of earlier philosophers. Second, as a rule Judah is not interested in including material that was already examined before. This explains the extreme brevity of Book X. Aristotle’s Book Κ largely consists of a summary of earlier books of the 19 For example the statement that “not all things can be at rest, nor can they all be in motion,” cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b– (fol. v–).



resianne fontaine

Metaphysics that address the problems and subject matter of the field, as well as a rehearsal of topics treated already in the Physics, such as the infinite, motion, chance etc. In Judah’s version it contains only a few lines.20 Last, Judah usually omits Aristotle’s extensive argumentation in support of a given view, although it should be noted that he is not always consistent. Certain topics obviously interest him more than others. In the passages that he does include, he either abridges the Commentator’s words while retaining some literal quotations, or paraphrases them. Judah’s Rendering of Book I To illustrate his general procedure, we will briefly look into Judah’s coverage of Book I (α). As can be seen from the list above, it is the shortest one in Aristotle and in the MC; but not so in the MH. . The opening sentence here reads: “The study of truth is difficult in a way and easy in another (úøçà êøãî ì÷ðå úçà êøãî äù÷ àåä úîàá ïåéòä).” It is followed by an explanation of why it is difficult (because qua individuals we cannot attain truth on our own), and why it is easy (because when the attainments of individuals are combined we achieve a considerable measure [ìåãâ øåòéù] of truth).21 The passage as a whole corresponds to Aristotle’s Metaphysics a–b. The first words are very similar to the MC ãåîòì ãöî ì÷ðå ãöî äù÷ úîàä ìò, and also to Aristotle’s wording. In the elaboration of this initial statement Aristotle compares the truth to “the proverbial door which no one can miss,” and says that one cause of the difficulty lies in ourselves (and not in the objects of study), for our intelligence is like the eyes of a bat in respect of sunlight (b–). The image is found in the MC, but Judah skips it. Next he does copy a statement about the value of the contribution made by earlier thinkers, without, however, mentioning specific thinkers in this regard, in contradistinction to his source (fol. r–).

20 Fol. v –. The first sentence “ïéàöîðä éùàø úòéãé àéä äîëçä” reflects Aristotle’s opening words “Wisdom (sophia) is a science of first principles” (a). The following lines assert that this science is concerned both with attributes and with substances, explaining the difference in their study (cf. a–). Translations of Aristotle are according to Metaphysics, edited by H. Tredennick, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA, ). 21 Fol. v–. The passage is reproduced in Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen, p. .

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



The rest of Book I in the MH . is for the most part a paraphrase of Aristotle’s words that highlights the main points. Thus we learn that knowledge of truth is called “philosophy”; that the ultimate end of theoretical philosophy is truth while the end of practical philosophy is action; that we cannot know the truth without its cause; that the first principles of things must themselves be most true, and that the four causes cannot form an infinite series, which is why all things go back to the First Cause, and that thinking can only apprehend that which is finite. In all this, Judah follows Ibn Ruˇsd, while omitting most of Ibn Ruˇsd’s elaborations. Moreover, he omits the last section of Book α (a–), where Aristotle dwells upon the impact of a lecture on its audience, contrasting the method used in mathematics to that used in natural science. The section is covered in the MC in more detail than in Aristotle. In all probability, the reason for its absence in the MH . is that Judah had already treated the issue of the different methodology in mathematics and natural science in his survey of the Physics. There is, however, one passage in Book I where Judah, contrary to his general procedure, expands upon his source by calling attention to an inconsistency in Aristotle. After recording Aristotle’s statement that a thing can come “from” another thing in two senses, he observes that, according to De animalibus XV, there are four senses in which a thing can come “from” another thing (fol. r–). Judah then takes all four senses into consideration in the ensuing inquiry into the question which of them involve reversible processes. Brevity is thus not always the rule: from time to time Judah makes some additions, and notably so when he encounters contradictions in Aristotle’s thought or feels called upon to criticize the Philosopher. Already in his introduction he shows considerable reservation about Aristotle’s philosophy, arguing that philosophical reasoning does not lead to certain knowledge.22 Conscious Conciseness At this point the question may be raised how Judah’s conciseness and criticism relate to his stated aim to spread contemporary non-Jewish learning among his fellow Jews. How familiar with the sciences should Jews become in Judah’s view? Judah does not specify any further criteria, but a clue to answering this question may be provided by his coverage of

22

Fols. v–r.



resianne fontaine

Book II (B) (fols. v–r). Book B is devoted to the theoretical and difficult questions concerning the province and subject matter of metaphysics and the study of the first principles and substances. Judah’s list of aporiae corresponds to that in Metaphysics b–a, but Judah leaves out all details. For example when listing as aporia no.  “whether unity and being are not distinct, but are the substance of beings” (a–), he does not add Aristotle’s observation that this is the most difficult question of all.23 This is consistent with his general procedure. It is surprising, however, that the outline in the MH . contains solely the list of questions. In Aristotle and in the MC the list is followed by more detailed descriptions of the various problématiques involved, and they take up the major part of the Book. This suggests that Judah deemed it sufficient to outline the questions to his fellow Jews but that he considered it less important to instruct them in the technicalities involved. Spreading knowledge was not Judah’s sole objective in compiling the MH, . as can be inferred from the wording of his motivation. While it was important to him that Jews should not be “devoid of wisdom” with respect to contemporary science, at the same time he sought to redirect to the Torah those Jews who had erred and wasted time on studying the sciences.24 His presentation of Book II meets precisely these two aims: recording a list of aporiae would ensure that Jews would not be “devoid of wisdom,” while the absence of a more thorough discussion would preclude a timeconsuming engagement with the sciences. We thus notice that in certain cases the brevity in Judah’s account of the Metaphysics is bound up with Judah’s reservation about studying the sciences, a feature that can also be noted in other parts of his coverage of Aristotle’s philosophy. Brevity and Clarity; Terminology Admirable as Judah ha-Kohen’s efforts to present a readable excerpt of the Metaphysics may be, it is legitimate to raise the question to what extent it was helpful for his readership. At times brevity is at the expense of clarity, especially where Judah omits the context of a given statement or discussion. For those readers without previous knowledge of philosophy his abbreviation techniques will have made heavy demands. It may have 23 In the rendering of the MH, following that of the MC: “whether unity is the . substance of beings and [whether] it is not something distinct, or is something distinct.” 24 Fols. v and v. See B. Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, ): .

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



been different for those whom he sought “to redirect to the Torah” and who had some background. It has been suggested that the study of the encyclopedias was accompanied by oral instruction.25 If this was indeed the case for the MH, . it was certainly no luxury. We do not have indications that point to a wide readership. Nonetheless, there are several manuscripts of the MH . that include the section on Metaphysics, and one manuscript contains only this section (Leiden  / , fols. –). This may testify to some interest in his presentation of the Metaphysics. In addition to its succinctness, Judah’s peculiar terminology may have further affected the comprehensibility of his exposition.26 Here Book IV (Δ) is particularly instructive. Book IV, the longest but one in Judah’s exposition of the Metaphysics, is a kind of philosophical glossary devoted to the definitions and explanations of key terms that are relevant for the field. Only two points can be mentioned here: . Judah includes a number of Arabic terms in Hebrew script, usually after the Hebrew equivalent. This is valid for the MH . as a whole but Metaphysics Book IV shows a concentration of them. They may well be the only remnant of Ibn Ruˇsd’s lost MC in Arabic. One such term is mabda", added after ùàø, right at the beginning (fol. v, cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b). In particular, he adds the Arabic equivalents for almost every occurrence of the word íöò, because the Hebrew term is used both in the sense of “substance” (Ar. g˘awhar) and of “essence” (Ar. d¯at), and also to denote the Arabic nafs. This practice shows that Judah ¯found it important to distinguish the different senses of íöò from one another. However, given that he wrote also for those who had no previous philosophical knowledge and did not know Arabic, he must have been aware that such explanatory distinctions would be lost on those readers. It is possible that the addition of the Arabic equivalents was prompted by the same consideration that was put forward later by Zerahyah in . the “excusatio” (úåìöðúä) that is appended to his Hebrew translation of Ibn Ruˇsd’s MC on the Metaphysics. Invoking the “narrowness of our language” when it comes to translating philosophical texts, in particular the Metaphysics, he mentions the term íöò as an example, for this “one

25 A. Ivry, “The Soul of the Hebrew Encyclopedias” in Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias, p. . 26 On his terminology, see M. Zonta, La filosofia antica nel Medieoevo ebraico (Brescia, ): – and R. Fontaine, “Arabic Terms in Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen’s Midrash ha-Hokhmah, ” DS-NELL , nos. – (): –. .



resianne fontaine

Hebrew word renders three Arabic words that have different meanings.” He adds: “I will mention these words in Arabic even though this is not useful for those who do not understand Arabic.”27 Apparently, he did so “pour acquit de conscience,” or perhaps he hoped that at least some of his readers would find the Arabic words helpful. It is tempting to surmise that in using this particular example, Zerahyah was inspired by the MH, . . especially in view of Mauro Zonta’s suggestion that the Arabic version underlying his Hebrew translation was introduced in Italy by Judah haKohen.28 Here, however, we enter the domain of speculation. . In Book IV and VI we come across the term “äééë”, which seems to be a neologism coined by Judah. It occurs four times, in three cases with the Arabic equivalent “äéðà,” meaning “thatness,” for example in the treatment of the term “one”: “àåäù àåä òöî åì ïéàù ãçàä úéáøòá äéðà úééëå øôñîì äìçú” (fol. v). When explaining the meaning of the term “relative” he uses it with a suffix: åúééë, rendering åúéðà: “its thatness.”29 Surprising as his terminology may have been to medieval readers, these two examples show that Judah’s Metaphysics is of great value for the history of Hebrew philosophical terminology, and also that it is of some relevance for the early translation history of Arabic into Hebrew, even though it should be used with caution. Selectivity and Shift of Emphasis Judah’s intention to be concise is not the only factor responsible for the omission of source material in Judah’s presentation of the Metaphysics. It has already been noted that a certain degree of selectivity characterizes his overview. As we will see, selectivity is notably at work in Judah’s treatment of the issue of the subject matter of Metaphysics. To explain this, we should first note that notwithstanding Judah’s general faithfulness to his source, there is a conspicuous absence in our section. The absence involves the notion of “being qua being,” as is immediately evident in Book III (Γ). Examining the subject matter of metaphysics, Judah draws up a kind of “table of contents” of what falls under “this science” (fol. r–v). He largely follows Aristotle’s order, but nowhere does he define “being qua being” as the object of study in this 27 28 29

Zonta, La Tradizione ebraica, p. *. Ibid., p. *. The two Hebrew translations of the MC both have úåùé, ibid., p. *.

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



discipline. The assertion that metaphysics, as opposed to other sciences, is concerned with being qua being appears at the very beginning of Book Γ, and constitutes the principal idea in Aristotle’s discussion. As could be expected, Ibn Ruˇsd repeats Aristotle’s statement at the very beginning of Book III of the MC, and the words “àöîð àåä øùàá àöîðä” appear there at regular intervals.30 Judah avoids this expression and starts the book under discussion by claiming that unity and being (éåöîä) are of the same nature, and presuppose each other in the same way as cause and principle do, for everything that is a principle of a thing is its cause and vice versa. He concludes from this that “the philosopher” (äîëçä úàæ ìòá) should study unity, being, and plurality (fol. r–), and also notes that this science investigates substances. No specific attention is paid to the concept of “being.” Very telling in this respect is that Judah abbreviates the passage in which Aristotle claims that “the philosopher’s function is to discover the truth in respect of Being qua Being” (b–) by noting: “The goal of [first] philosophy is knowledge of the truth” (fol. v– ). At the beginning of Book V (E in Aristotle), which is one of the shortest in the MH’s . Metaphysics, Judah comes close to mentioning the notion of being qua being. Here he explains that of the three theoretical philosophies (physics, mathematics and metaphysics) only metaphysics (àéôåñåìéôä) explores “the principles and ultimate causes of existing things, not insofar as they are known qua existing things, but insofar as they exist according to a cause.”31 Nonetheless, Aristotle’s claim that it is First Philosophy that studies being qua being (a) does not appear. Instead, the Hebrew account directs the readers’ attention to metaphysics as the discipline that is concerned with the causes. A little later, Judah adds that the discipline of metaphysics is superior because it studies “objects that are immutable and separable in existence and definition, that is, completely devoid of matter, and these are the eternal things that are the causes of eternal bodies” (fol. r–). We can conclude that Judah’s survey does not explicitly carry the notion that metaphysics is concerned with being qua being. Nor does it emerge in Judah’s description of the contents of “the thirteen books of Aristotle’s Metaphysics” in his introduction (fol. v). This omission does 30

Qalonymos: àöîð àåäù äîá àöîðáå äéåäá ïééòú äî äîëç ïàëá äéäúù áéåçé. Zerahyah: àöîð àåä øùàá àöîðáå úåùéá ïééòú úçà äîëç äðä äéäúù éåàøå. . 31 Fol. v–: ïäù äîá àì íéðåöé÷ä ïäéúåîøâå ïéàöîðä éùàøá ïééòú äëàìîä úàæù éôì àîøâ ìò ïééåöî ïäù äîá àìà ïéòåãé ïéàåöî.



resianne fontaine

not seem to be due to the author’s predilection for brevity. Here we have to do with a deliberate shift of emphasis on Judah’s part vis-à-vis his source. To substantiate this claim, it is necessary to have a closer look at his coverage of Book XI (Λ). Book Lamed It has already been noted that Book XI is by far the longest of the thirteen books that constitute the section on Metaphysics in the MH, . absolutely and relatively (fols. v ult–v). It takes up about a third of the entire survey. The length is not the only feature that highlights the importance attached to it by the author. It is the only book that is marked by a letter that refers to Aristotle’s numbering, starting as it does with “and this is Lamed.” Already in the introduction to the MH . Judah asserts that Λ is the most important treatise of the Metaphysics. Furthermore, unlike the previous books it offers a sustained description of Aristotle’s discussions through the insertion of discourse markers like: “[Aristotle] says”; “[Aristotle] refutes”; “[Aristotle] then goes on to explain,” etc. Finally, and most importantly, it contains long quotations from the MC. The long quotations start at the point that corresponds to the beginning of Λ.vi in Aristotle and continue until the end of Book XI. In the preceding two folios Judah summarizes Λ.i–v, applying his usual techniques of abbreviation. The coverage of the first half of Book Λ, which treats physical substances, is thus quite brief (fols. v ult–r), while that of Λ.vi–x is extensive (fols. r–r). At Λ.vi Aristotle begins to focus on the eternal substance, which is not subject to change. This is reflected in Judah’s words “Thereupon he starts to speak about the First Cause [investigating] in what sense he it said to be the cause of all, living and incorporeal” (fol. r–).32 Lest the message be lost on his readers he repeats the subject of investigation two more times: () in respect of “the principle of the whole universe” (åìåë íìåòä ùàø) he says “It is this substance that is truly one and which we investigate here” (fol. r– ); () “Since there are three [kinds of] substance, two of them are mutable and physical—the heavenly body and the corruptible substances that are beneath it—whereas the third, whose existence has been proved in the science of Physics, is immutable, we intend here to speak about that substance” (fol. r–; cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b). 32 The text of MS Mich  is corrupt here; I have supplied some words from MS Oxford, Bodleian Hunt .

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



The long exposition that follows consists almost exclusively of passages that are more or less quoted verbatim from the MC. The main lines are: There must necessarily exist an eternal substance that does not change, for if the motion of the stars is eternal, there cannot be an eternal substance that does not impart motion nor an eternal substance that sometimes moves and sometimes not, but only a substance that imparts motion and does not change for if it changed, this would imply potentiality. Given the eternity of motion, there must be a substance that is the first unmoved mover and that moves everything because it is the object of desire. It is the formal and final cause. Heaven and earth depend on this first principle. The activity of God consists in thinking itself: His thought and the object of thought are the same. This divine intellect is not mixed with matter. Life belongs to God because life is the actuality of thought and God possesses thought in the most perfect degree. The First Principle imparts the first eternal and single motion, namely the daily motion. The motion of the heavenly bodies is consequent upon their intellectual representation of the First. The number of eternal substances is equal to that of the motions of the heavenly bodies. These substances are ordered hierarchically, comparable to the hierarchy in a well-ordered state. God knows the existent things here by knowing His essence. The good, that is, the order and harmony that are found in the universe, exists because of the First, but not all parts of the universe (in particular, material existents) can acquire the good overflow from the First completely, just as in a state not everyone accepts the commands of the king. In all this, Judah follows the MC. He also takes over from his source Aristotle’s criticism of the theory of emanation, claiming that no proof for it has been established (fol. v). Nonetheless, faithful as the Hebrew compiler seems to be, some clear deviations from his source can be detected. First, there are some omissions here too. Cases in point are the end of Book XI where Ibn Ruˇsd discusses difficulties involved in theories of the principles other than those of Aristotle, and especially Ibn Ruˇsd’s long discussion on the number of the spheres, where the Commentator treats the views of Alexander and Themistius. Judah refrains from establishing a number of  or  spheres and also omits some astronomical details, replacing them by his own astronomical views, which are based on al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı (fol. v–).33 33

For Judah’s use of al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı, see Y.T. Langermann, “Some Remarks on Judah ben



resianne fontaine

Second, we find some slight but significant additions that Judah inserts in his quotes. On several occasions he adds “the Rock” (øåö), where Ibn Ruˇsd refers to “the eternal substance,” that is, the First Principle (for example, fols. r and v).34 In one such case the MH . reads øåö where the MC has äøåö. He also puts more emphasis on the eternity of the First Principle by using the word “eternal” more often than his source. Moreover, he underscores the contrast between God and other beings by inserting a reference to Isa. : “To whom, then, can you liken Me, to whom can I be compared?—says the Holy One” where, in Judah’s view, the word “holy” expresses the total negation of any similarity between God and created beings (fol. v–). Through these small but significant additions the MH . unequivocally identifies Aristotle’s First Principle with the God of Scripture, and it does so more emphatically than Ibn Ruˇsd’s equation of “the First” with God.

. Judah ha-Kohen’s Metaphysics Regrettably, a comprehensive study of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Metaphysics that takes into consideration all three commentaries is not yet available.35 Thérèse Anne Druart has examined the divergent views of Islamic authors on the subject matter of metaphysics. Basing herself on studies by Dimitri Gutas and Amos Bertolacci, she has noted that Islamic philosophy displays a development in the conception of metaphysics from “some kind of natural theology” to ontology, that is, metaphysics as the study of being.36 She concludes that the Commentator restores the Aristotelian view of the subject matter of metaphysics by conceiving it as the science that studies being qua being, focusing on being as substance and form.37 The shift of emphasis in the MH . then, lies in that Judah’s version of the Metaphysics does not consider universal being to be the core issue

Solomon ha-Cohen and His Encyclopedia, Midrash ha-Hokhmah”, in Harvey, ed., The . Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias, pp. –. 34 It is not likely that they were added by the copyist, since they appear also in the other MSS. 35 For the Long Commentary on Book Λ, see C. Genequand, Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics. A Translation with Introduction of Ibn Rushd’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Book L¯am (Leiden, ): –. 36 T.A. Druart, “Metaphysics”, in P. Adamson and R.C. Taylor, eds, Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –, on p. . 37 Ibid., p. .

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew



of the discipline under discussion. It is true that he includes discussions about being, such as being and unity, and substance and being, yet he minimizes the ontological status of metaphysics by omitting the relevant text portions about the science of universal being. Instead, he portrays metaphysics as the science that is concerned with the causes and principles of existing things, and with substances. Moreover, in surveying Book Λ he further narrows down his focus by paying special attention to nonsensible substances, in particular the First Principle or Cause of all being, whom he identifies with God as viewed in Jewish tradition. In other words, by dropping the conception of metaphysics as the science that treats universal being, Judah transforms Aristotle’s and the MC’s Metaphysics into the study of God, even though he is careful to represent other aspects of his source as well. Judah’s last two Books XII (Μ) and XIII (Ν) nicely illustrate how his endeavor to provide an adequate account of contemporary learning goes hand in hand with the attempt to turn the reader away from it. Like the preceding book, these two books are also quite extensive in coverage. Contrary to his habit, Judah includes here Ibn Ruˇsd’s discussion of Aristotle’s refutation of his predecessors’ views on non-sensible substances, more particularly, those regarding mathematical numbers and Plato’s theory of Ideas. This section, too, contains direct quotes from his source, introduced by “[Aristotle] said.” The last part of Book XIII renders at length Ibn Ruˇsd’s inquiry into the nature of the heavenly bodies (how can they be eternal if they are bodies?) as well as the Commentator’s problems in figuring out how the contradiction between Physics VIII and De caelo I regarding this question can be resolved (fols. v– v). The account includes criticism of Ibn S¯ın¯a’s distinction between “necessary by itself ” (the First) and “necessary of existence by something else and possible of existence by itself ” (the heavenly body). The MH’s . survey of the Metaphysics ends with Ibn Ruˇsd’s formulation of the difference of his own Aristotelianism to that of Ibn S¯ın¯a: “How far removed is our investigation from that of Ibn S¯ın¯a, who believed that the existence of the first mover can be explained in another way than Aristotle did” (fol. v–).38 Judah’s inclusion of this inquiry in combination with his apparent siding against Ibn S¯ın¯a’s views shows that he was concerned to present “the

38 Unlike the MH, the MC continues to comment on Aristotle’s text here. The last . section of Book N, however, is also missing in the MC.



resianne fontaine

new philosophy,” that is Ibn Ruˇsd’s Aristotelianism, the most authoritative philosophical current of his day. However, at the same time it is clear that he found this philosophy useful only up to a certain point, for immediately after the concluding sentence of his long overview he emphasizes its difference from traditional Jewish divine science by saying: “but not like [Aristotle’s] view is the inheritance of Jacob, for He is the Creator (øöåé) of everything, as we will explain in the commentary of some biblical verses with God’s help” (fol. v–). Here Judah positions the concept of the Creator-God as sharply opposed to Aristotle’s First unmoved mover. The explanation of verses from Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs, which is the subject of the next section in his compilation (Treatise One), seems to be intended as a supplement or alternative to Aristotle’s “divine science.” The treatise contains incisive criticism of Aristotle, especially of his doctrine of the eternity of the world.39 In sum, Judah obviously attached much importance to Aristotle’s Metaphysics. He describes it as the most lofty of sciences, seeing that the formal and final cause are investigated in it, and states that it is appropriate to call it “wisdom” and the one who knows it “wise” (fol. v– ). He considered it important to spread the metaphysical teachings of the Philosopher among his contemporaries. However, he wished them to read it from a perspective different from that of his source, namely as a science that has God, the first cause of the world, as its most important subject. Moreover, his survey was not designed to promote further study of the Philosophers’ Metaphysics. Judah ha-Kohen produced his book in the s when the debate about the study of philosophy divided Jewish communities in Spain and the Provence. Against this background, one may surmise that the author intended to guide his coreligionists regarding the question to what extent philosophical views were acceptable, in particular with regard to the sensitive field of metaphysics. Whether or not this assumption is correct, it can be concluded that Judah’s construal of the Metaphysics constitutes a serious though biased attempt to introduce the text of Aristotle’s Metaphysics to a Hebrew reading public. This attempt is all the more remarkable since the two major Hebrew encyclopedias that were produced later in the thirteenth century refrained from providing a systematic survey of Aristotle’s “thirteen books on Metaphysics.”

39 See D. Goldstein, “The commentary of Judah ben Solomon Hakohen ibn Matqah to Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs,” HUCA  (): –, on pp. –.

SOLOMON BEN MOSES MELGUIRI AND THE TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE FROM LATIN INTO HEBREW*

Hagar Kahana-Smilansky Solomon ben Moses Melguiri (de Melgueil), a physician and scholar who was active in southern France in the second half of the thirteenth century, has emerged from near obscurity in the last two decades. Recent studies of his extant works reveal a versatile author: apart from poems, he left behind a sizeable book on traditional Jewish themes, Beit haElohim (The House of God, henceforth BE),1 and three scientific treatises translated from Latin: [pseudo-]Ibn S¯ın¯a’s On the Heaven and the World (henceforth OHW), an adaptation of Aristotle On Sleep and Wakefulness (henceforth HSW), and a translation of the Latin pharmacology Circa instans.2 It has long been recognized that Melguiri’s scientific translations were abridged by Gershom ben Solomon of Arles and incorporated into ˇ his encyclopedia Sa#ar ha-ˇsamayim, thought to have been composed in 3 the s. These translations circulated as separate treatises, too, and were quite influential, to judge by the number of extant manuscripts (eighteen of OHW and sixteen of HSW), as well as their use by Jewish scholars from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries.4 * I am grateful to Ruth Glasner, Ofer Elior, Resianne Fontaine and Lenn Schramm, for the information they have shared with me and for their comments. 1 The author announces in the introduction of Beit ha-Elohim (MS Vatican , fol. a , ˇ ll. –) that it will consist of two parts: Sa#arei s. edeq and Beit middot. There are two extant manuscripts: () MS Vatican  (IMHM ),  folios in a fourteenth-century ˇ Spanish hand, includes the (lengthy) introduction and about a third of Sa#arei s. edeq. () MS Escorial G-II- (IMHM ),  folios in a fifteenth-century Spanish hand, contains only the last three folios of the introduction and almost all fourteen sections of ˇ Sa#arei s. edeq. The second part, Beit middot, seems to be lost. 2 M. Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, , repr. Graz, ): –, . 3 Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. –; M. Zonta, La filosofia antica nel medioevo ebraico (Brescia, ): –. 4 R. Glasner, “The Hebrew Version of De Celo et Mundo Attributed to Ibn Sina,” Arabic Science and Philosophy  (): –, on p. ; H. Kahana-Smilansky, “Aristotle On Sleep and Wakefulness: A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation of an Unknown Latin Treatise,” Aleph  /  (): –.



hagar kahana-smilansky

This paper summarizes Melguiri’s biography and personal links with Jewish and Christian scholars, illustrating one of Gad Freudenthal’s major concerns, the transmission of Latin science into Hebrew. On the basis of a considerable body of medieval Hebrew scientific translations, Freudenthal has recently analyzed the cultural habits behind the preference for Arabic over Latin scientific sources. Learned Jewish circles in Provence, he writes, “preferred to rely on Arabic sources ‘imported’ from the Iberian Peninsula, rather than turn to the Latin writings of their neighbors. Only in medicine was there a significant absorption of Latin learning.”5 Even in medicine, he shows, the number of works translated from Arabic during the period that interests us here (–) is more than twice the number of translations from Latin ( from Arabic,  from Latin).6 Melguiri’s command of Latin was rare among Jews in southern France at the time.7 We shall examine particular cultural and social settings to explain the motives behind his scholarly work.

. Capsule Biography The surname éøééåâìî ,éøéåâìî ,éøåâìî, found in Solomon’s Hebrew works and poems,8 is derived from Melgorio, Melgoire, or Melgueir, medieval versions of today’s Mauguio, a small town east of Montpellier.9 As noticed by Bar-Tiqva, a poem by Melguiri offers a clue to his date of birth: he was “a young man” when Muslims and Christians resided in Jerusalem.10 This plausibly alludes to the Christian and Muslim coexistence that followed the Treaty of Jaffa () between Emperor Frederick II and the Ayy¯ubid

5 Gad Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures as Resources for the Hebrew Translation Movement: Comparative Considerations, Both Quantitative and Qualitative,” in Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (New York, forthcoming). 6 Ibid., Table . 7 For the scarcity of Jewish translators from Latin at the time, see C.H. Manekin, “Medieval Translations: Latin and Hebrew,” in F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg, eds, Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington DC, ): – , on pp. –. 8 B. Bar Tiqva, “The Poet Solomon Melguiri and his Poems” (Heb.), in J. Dishon and E. Hazan, eds, Pirqei ˇsirah: mi-ginzei ha-ˇsirah we-ha-piyyut ˇsel qehilot yi´sra"el (Ramat Gan, ): :–, on p. ; idem, Genres and Topics in Provençal and Catalonian Piyyut (Heb.) (Beer Sheva, ): –. 9 The name may have been pronounced Melgueiri, Melgoiri, or Melgori. See H. Gross, Gallia Judaica (Paris, ): –. 10 Bar Tiqva, “The Poet Melguiri,” pp. , –, ll. –.

solomon ben moses melguiri



al-Malik al-K¯amil of Egypt, which was irrevocably shattered in .11 If Melguiri was referring his youth to this short interlude, he must have been born around . The classic archival studies of Jewish life in Languedoc (by Gustave Saige) and Narbonne (by Jean Régné) provide the essential documentation. According to a document in the registers of Narbonne, the brothers Solomon ben Moses and Vital Melguiri, originally from Béziers, moved to Narbonne before .12 Béziers was part of a district that had recently come under the authority of the French crown; hence its former inhabitants turn up in a list of “the King’s Jews” drawn up by royal officials for purposes of taxation. This group probably represents the most affluent households.13 Jean Régné suggested that Solomon ben Moses Melguiri is identical with Bonafos Mosse de Narbonne (whose Hebrew name was Solomon ben Moses14), mentioned in the rolls of neighboring Perpignan.15 Between  and  Bonafos/Solomon, his brother Vital, and son Moses loaned large sums to the king of France.16 Identifying the brothers “de Narbonne” with the Melguiris is not without difficulties,17 but does coincide with indications by Melguiri and Bedershi (see §§  and  below). The Jewish community in Perpignan grew rapidly after , because of the legal and economic security for Jewish life afforded by the Crown of Aragon and the protection of Jewish self-government, although special 11 R. Payne, The Crusades: A History (London, ): –, esp. . H.L. Gottschalk, s.v. “Al-K¯amil (al-Malik) (),” Encyclopedia of Islam, nd ed. (Leiden, –): vol.  (), pp. a–a, on p. b. 12 G. Saige, Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIV e siècle (Paris, ): – , –; J. Régné, Études sur la condition des juifs de Narbonne du V e au XIV e siècle (Narbonne, ): . 13 Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, p. ; W.C. Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, ): –. 14 R.W. Emery, The Jews of Perpignan in the Thirteenth Century (New York, ): . 15 Régné maintained that the houses bought by Bonafos for his son Moses are the “houses of the children of Solomon Melguiri” mentioned in the letter from the Viscount of Narbonne to Philip IV; see Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. –, , citing Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, p. . Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p.  n. . 16 Emery, Jews of Perpignan, pp. , , . The  loans extended to the king in these years came to a total of , solidi. 17 Vital Melguiri was alive in ,  and later (see below); but recent research mentions Blancha, the widow of Vital Mosse (Vital son of Moses) de Narbonne, in ; see R.L. Winer, Women, Wealth, and Community in Perpignan, c. – (Aldershot, ): Table ..a on p. . Winer neither quotes nor refers to the original document that is the basis for this information. A Blancha, the widow of Vidal de Eyres, is documented in  (ibid., pp. , ,  [Table ..b, no. ], p.  n. ).



hagar kahana-smilansky

taxes were imposed on the community by the crown. Perpignan became the commercial and administrative center of Roussillon around , its expanding economy offering opportunities for some Jews to function as moneylenders and bankers. However, the burden of the Royal taxes (and on “the King’s Jews”, an additional tax to the French crown) meant that they were under severe economic pressure. Some of the Jewish moneylenders of Perpignan were well-known scholars and poets.18 Bonafos/Solomon ben Moses, described as “moderately affluent,”19 held communal posts in Perpignan: in royal documents of  and  he is appointed to oversee the guardianship council of a wealthy minor.20 In  he is mentioned as one of four secretarii of the Perpignan Aljama (the Jewish community).21 Although these few surviving documents may imply that he was living there at the time, he is referred to as “from Narbonne.” Richard Emery has commented on Bonafos’ and Vital’s “interests in Narbonne.” These interests explain why, although their lives seem to have been centered in Aragonese-ruled Perpignan, they agreed to extend a risky loan to a high official of the French crown.22 Although “the Kings’ Jews” document of  indicates that Solomon and Vital Melguiri lived in Narbonne, the official who compiled the list called for further investigation of this point. Apparently, he was in doubt concerning their address. Their origin in Béziers, their surname Melguiri that point to the town of Melgueir, and (presumably) their designation “de Narbonne” exemplify Rebecca Winer’s statement that “[medieval] Jewish surnames are tied to immigration patterns in complicated ways.”23

18

David Caslari, Abraham Bedershi and his son Jedaiah, and Menahem ha-Me"iri, . among others (Winer, Women, p. ; Emery, Jews of Perpignan, pp. –). For recent information and analysis of the economic and legal situation of the Jewish community in Perpignan, see: Winer, Women, pp. –, p.  n. , p.  nn. –. Kenneth Stow, “Papal and Royal Attitudes towards Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century,” AJS Review  (): –. Y.-T. Assis, Jewish Economy in the Medieval Crown of Aragon, –: Money and Power (Leiden, ): esp. pp. –, –. 19 Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p. . 20 R.I. Burns, Jews in Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain, –  (Berkeley and Los Angeles, ): –, –; Winer, Women, pp. –. 21 Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p. ; J. Shatzmiller, “The Minor Epistle of Apology” (Heb.), Sefunot  (): –, on p. . 22 The loan of , solidi was already “long standing” in . Bonafos and Vital originally “insisted on no less than nine sureties [which] suggest that they had some doubts as to its soundness” (Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p. ). 23 Winer, Women, p.  n. . She shows that for many Jews of this time and area, travel was a result of “extended family networks,” in addition to its role in economic functions and communal and cultural relations (ibid., pp. –).

solomon ben moses melguiri



Many Jews bearing the surname “de Melgueil” are recorded in the thirteenth century as originally from Béziers and as having migrated to either Narbonne or Perpignan, mainly during the second half of the century.24 Solomon Melguiri’s occupation seems to have been a physician;25 Vital, a merchant.26 They certainly owned houses in Narbonne: the inventories of Jewish property confiscated between  and , by the decree of Philip IV, list Solomon Melguiri’s mansion (hospitium) in the middle of the main Jewish quarter of the city,27 as well as the house (domos) or houses28 of “the children of Solomon Melguiri” adjacent to the viscount’s palace. These documents suggest that Solomon ben Moses died about , and certainly before . Vital Melguiri’s two mansions in Narbonne and Béziers were also confiscated.29 Perhaps he outlived his brother: he is mentioned among those who, after the expulsion of , found refuge in Montpellier, which belonged to James II of Majorca (the younger brother of Peter III of Aragon).30 Moses, son of Bonafos/Solomon, owned ample property in Narbonne (most of it purchased by his father) but lived himself in Perpignan. He married into a wealthy family (by far the wealthiest in town) and is mentioned on the rolls of Perpignan between  and .31 Qalonymos 24 Solomon ben Meshullam (Astruc) de Melgueil purchased “a field” in Narbonne in  (Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. , –, ). Sarah, whose maiden name was “de Melgueil,” wrote a will in , in Perpignan. Her inheritance included houses in Narbonne and she mentions relatives only in Narbonne and Béziers: her father Mayr de Melgueil, her sons Perfet Davi and Mosse Davi, and her brother Durand de Melgueil, resident of Béziers (Winer, Women, p. ). He is probably identical with Durand de Melgueil, who moved in  to Narbonne, where he practiced medicine, but kept property in Béziers. He is documented in  and  (Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. , ; Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. ). Davi de Melgueil also owned a mansion in Narbonne (Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. , , , ; Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. ,  n. ). 25 See below. 26 Vital Melguiri’s commercial transactions in Montpellier are documented in  (S. Kahn, “Documents inédits sur les juifs de Montpellier au moyen age,” REJ  []: –, on pp. , ). 27 Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. , ; map from , opposite p. . 28 Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, p. . A hospitium was usually a two-story house within the town; a domus was generally a simple, low structure in the suburbs. See K.L. Reyerson, “Land, Houses, and Real Estate Investment in Montpellier: A Study of the Notarial Property Transactions, –,” in eadem, Society, Law, and Trade in Medieval Montpellier (Aldershot, ): :. 29 Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. –, –, , –; Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, p.  n. , No.  (on p. ). 30 Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, p. . 31 Ibid., p.  n. , No. . For Moses’ marriage and property see Emery, Jews of



hagar kahana-smilansky

ben Qalonymos knew him. In “The Minor Epistle of Apology,” written in Perpignan in (?), he describes Don Moses as a prominent and highly educated notable of Perpignan. He also clearly indicates that his own family in Arles and Don Moses’ parents were related.32

. Melguiri on Himself In the preface to the first part of BE, Melguiri provides details of his occupation, education, and milieu. The expressed purpose of BE is to teach young readers the value of the traditional Jewish precepts. Melguiri wrote this work at the request of a young relative, a grandson or a nephew, Moses,33 later referred to as a “dear friend” (yadid) who is “apt for philosophical study.”34 The author humbly presents himself: I am not worthy of composing a book on these grave matters which require demonstration (mofet) according to the true creed, as well as powerful arguments (t. a#anot). I therefore apologize to all those who exert themselves at the gates of wisdom,35 for the love of this friend compelled me to write for him a counsel of wisdom,36 to explain the truths and their essence (ha-amittot u-mahutam) by similes and parables, by judgment and reason. Indeed, I am not a proper scholar: my knowledge in the philosophical sciences (ha-hokhmot) is inadequate because of my limited . intelligence compared to the mind of the holy ones.37 Besides, I have always been enslaved to the practice of medicine, treating not only kings and noblemen (melakhim we-´sarim) but all their servants, as well as every man. Therefore, not even the eighth part of the day and night was my own to contemplate what I wished to comprehend for the sake of my eternal destiny. But I trust the breadth of my mind and the good temperament Perpignan, pp. , ; Shatzmiller, “Minor Epistle,” pp. –, ; Winer, Women, pp. –, . Burns, Jews in Notarial Culture, p. . 32 Qalonymos calls him: ñåôðåá äùî ïåã ãáëðä ,åðîöòî íöò ,äðåáúä ìéìëå äîëçä øæð (Shatzmiller, “Minor Epistle,” pp. , ). 33 Melguiri refers to Moses as #asmi u-ve´ sari, nini u-nekhdi (see also n.  below). . Since #as. mi u-ve´sari is Laban’s term for Jacob (Gen. :), Moses may have been either Melguiri’s nephew, or his grandson. 34 MS Vatican, fol. b, l. –fol. a, l.  (missing in MS Escorial); MS Vatican, fol. a; MS Escorial, fol. b. See note  below. The “friend” asked for explication of a list of biblical miracles, and of wonders like the (talmudic) “Ten things” that were created between two instances. 35 äîëçä éøòù (cf. B Sotah b). . 36 úòãå úåöòåîá . . . íéùéìù åì øáçì (after Prov. :). See S. Sela, “Queries on Astrology Sent from Southern France to Maimonides: Critical Edition of the Hebrew text, Translation, and Commentary,” Aleph  (): –, on p. . 37 íéùåã÷ úòã (Prov. :; see Rashi ad loc. and Ibn Ezra on Proverbs ).

solomon ben moses melguiri



of [my] faculty of memory for what I have heard and learned from the accomplished philosophers and saw in their books. My intention was merely to educate the inquirer in the philosophical sciences according to his ability.38

Leaving aside the author’s intentions and his real or pretended shortcomings, let us turn to the biographical information here. Who are the “kings and noblemen”? It is to be expected of course that the well-known “king of the Jews” in Narbonne39 would be treated by a Jewish physician. But the Jews generally designated their “king” na´si", reserving melekh for a Christian sovereign.40 To suppose that Melguiri was physician to rich and powerful Christians is perfectly plausible. Neither in Perpignan (the Crown of Aragon) nor Narbonne were Jewish physicians barred from treating Christians, in contrast to Béziers () and other French towns.41 The location of the house of “the children of Solomon Melguiri” adjacent to the palace of the viscount of Narbonne (the  letter)42 suggests that its owner maintained a personal relationship with that lord. Assuming that Melguiri is identical with Bonafos/Solomon Mosse de Narbonne, his documented financial links with the French king and his officials could have been sustained by the healing art: “enslaved to the medical treatment of kings and noblemen and all their servants,”43 Melguiri could not only increase his capital but secure the confidence of this class of patients. Another biographical detail in Melguiri’s apology is provided by the reference to his “eternal destiny.”44 His reflections on this issue and the reference to an adult grandchild (?)45 indicate that BE was written in his 38

MS Vatican, fols. a, –: åúâùä; MS Escorial, fol. b: éúâùä. A. Grabois, “Le ‘Roi Juif ’ de Narbonne,” Annales du Midi  (): –, and S.H. Pick, The Jewish Communities of Provence before the Expulsion in  (Heb.) (Ph.D. dissertation, Bar Ilan University, ): –. 40 M. Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis (Cambridge, MA, ): –. Pick, The Jewish Communities, pp. –, –. 41 The ecclesiastical prohibition of  was not enforced by the kings of Aragon. On the situation there and in France see J. Ziegler, Medicine and Religion c.  (Oxford, ): –; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, Society, pp. –; S. Kahn, “Les Juifs de la sénéchaussée de Beaucaire,” REJ  (): –, on p. ; Saige, Juifs de Languedoc, p. . 42 Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. –, . 43 .íãà ìëìå ,íäéãáò ìëì éë ãáìá íéøùå íéëìîì àì ,ãáòð äàåôøä úëàìîì éúåéä íò 44 .äìéìäå íåéä úéðéîù ,éúéøçàì ïéáäì ÷÷åúùàù äîá ïééòì éðîæî éì ïéàå 45 Melguiri writes that Moses is “apt for philosophical study” and “ready to advance to the stage of rational inquiry” (úéðåéòä äîëçá ìàåùä êðçì éúðååë äúéäå ;äîëçì íéúåàðä ãçà úåéúîà úåéìëù úåàøåä èòîá ïåéòä úâøãîì úåìòì ïîåæî åúåéäå [ . . . ] ïî åúâùä éôë [MS Vatican fol. a, ll. –), which indicates that Moses was probably between  and  of age. See J.L. Kraemer, Maimonides (New York, ), p. , on the curriculum that Maimonides 39



hagar kahana-smilansky

old age. It is no doubt later than OHW, because passages from the latter are reproduced in BE.46 Melguiri’s education in the philosophical sciences is insufficient by his own admission. The remark that he remembers what he heard (and not only read) from “accomplished philosophers” may mean that he attended public lectures or sermons by members of the Tibbonid clan.47

. The University Texts Melguiri’s medical translations from Latin coincide with the beginning of the most prolific era of writing in the faculty of medicine of Montpellier. A smaller faculty than that of Paris and training fewer practitioners, Montpellier nevertheless produced more medical commentaries and translations.48 Melguiri’s translations are not a random sample when taken in relation to the texts available in that university. Circa Instans Circa instans, a widely circulated treatise on medicinal simples, composed in Salerno between  and ; its former attribution to Mathaeus Platearius has now been called into question. Although there is no compelling evidence that this treatise was part of the curriculum of the

followed in his teens in Andalusia. The study of Aristotelian philosophy was introduced to the curricula of certain yeˇsivot in Castile (in the th–th centuries), according to P.B. Fenton, “Judaism and Sufism,” in D.H. Frank and O. Leaman, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, ): ch. , p. . The ban set by the rabbis of Provence, in , on the study of philosophy before age  proves that younger people studied it. See, e.g., G. Stern in the Cambridge Companion, ch. , esp. p. . 46 OHW (MS Cambridge , fol. b, ll. –) is duplicated in BE (MS Vatican, fol. b, ll. –). A passage on astronomy in BE (fols. a–b) is equivalent to OHW ch.  (the source cited in BE is “al-Batt¯ani”. Cf. Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –). 47 Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communités juives médiévales de Provence: leur appropriation, leur rôle,” REJ  (): –, on p. . 48 N. Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” in H. de Ridder-Symoens, ed., A History of the University in Europe (Cambridge, ): :–, on p. , citing D. Jacquart, Le milieu médical en France: En annexe second supplément au “Dictionnaire” d’ Ernst Wickersheimer (Geneva, ), pp. – (Tables  and ),  (Table ); H. de Ridder-Symoens, “Mobility,” in eadem, The University in Europe, :, citing Jacquart, Le milieu medical en France, pp. –, –.

solomon ben moses melguiri



medical faculty of Montpellier,49 it survives in a manuscript copied in Montpellier at the beginning of the thirteenth century50 as well as in another thirteenth-century manuscript in the possession of the faculty.51 Some support for this early appearance in Montpellier is implied by the fact that Circa instans circulated as far as Northern France before the middle of the thirteenth century: Vincent of Beauvais (ca. –) used it in several books of his Speculum naturale.52 A physician trained in Montpellier’s faculty of medicine, Master Jean Blaise (who may have been Melguiri’s junior by at least two or three decades), had Circa instans in his library.53 Jean, like his brother Armengaud (ca. –), is known to have maintained contacts with local Jewish scholars.54 According to my preliminary investigation, the four extant manuscripts of Melguiri’s Hebrew translation render the names of most medicines and illnesses in transliteration from Latin or Provençal.55 Since he was a practicing physician, he probably translated it for his own use. Aristotle, On Sleep, and Wakefulness As I have shown elsewhere,56 Melguiri’s HSW is an adaptation of Aristotle’s De somno et vigilia (including De insomniis and De divinatione per 49

I. Ventura, “Un Manuale di Farmacologia Medievale ed i Suoi Lettori. Il Circa Instans, La Sua Diffusione, La Sua Ricezione Dal XIII al XV Secolo,” in D. Jacquart and A. Paravicini Bagliani, eds, La Scuola Medica Salernitana: Gli autori e i testi (Florence, ): –, on pp. , , –. Cf. J. Stannard, “A Fifteenth-century Botanical Glossary,” Isis  /  (): –; repr. in J. Stannard et al., eds, Pristina Medicamenta: Ancient and Medieval Medical Botany (Aldershot, ). For the  curriculum of Montpellier see L. Demaitre, Doctor Bernard de Gordon: Professor and Practitioner (Toronto, ): . 50 Ventura, “Un Manuale,” pp. , –. 51 M. Ausécache, “Un Liber Iste, des Liber Iste? Un Platearius, des Platearius? Etat des lieux d’ un projet d’édition,” in Jacquart and Paravicini Bagliani, La Scuola Medica Salernitana, pp. –, on p. . 52 Ventura, “Un Manuale,” p. . 53 D. Nebbiai, “L’école de Montpellier et les bibliothèques médicales: Arnaud de Villeneuve, son milieu, ses livres (XIIIe–XIVe siècles),” in D. Le Blévec and T. Granier, eds, L’ Université de médecine de Montpellier et son rayonnement (XIII e–XV e siècles) (Turnhaut, ): –, on p. . 54 J. Shatzmiller, “In Search of the ‘Book of Figures’: Medicine and Astrology in Montpellier at the Turn of the Fourteenth Century,” AJS Review  (): –, on pp. –; idem, “La faculté de médecine de Montpellier et son influence en Provence: Témoignages en Hébreu, en Latin et en langue vulgaire,” in Le Blévec and Granier, L’ Université de médecine de Montpellier, pp. –, on p. . 55 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” p. . 56 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation.”



hagar kahana-smilansky

somnum), which corresponds neither to the “old” Greek-Latin version by an anonymous translator (ca. ) nor to the new one by William of Moerbeke (ca. ?–?).57 It is “updated” through many changes and additions, some of which may have been derived from Arabic treatises.58 A De somno was known to Melguiri’s contemporaries at the faculty of medicine in Montpellier, but it is not clear in what version. Magister Cardinalis (d. ca. ), who taught in the faculty from the s, employed it in a commentary; it is the only treatise from the Parva naturalia that he used.59 Aristotle’s works on natural philosophy that were used by Cardinalis “were also present in the [University of Montpellier’s] liberal arts curricula in the first quarter of the thirteenth century.”60 Arnald of Villanova knew a De somno.61 His account of sleep in Speculum medicinae (–) employs particular Galenic principles shared by Melguiri’s HSW, such as “the first and second digestions” during sleep62 and the idea that the brain is the principium of sensation and the faculties.63 Again like HSW, Bernard de Gordon (ca. –ca. –) followed Galen in locating the sensus communis in the brain, although he was aware that Aristotle assigned it to the heart.64 The works by the masters of Montpellier in physiological psychology drew on the recent translations of Galen, Arabic medicine, and Ibn S¯ın¯a’s De anima. Inasmuch as their works are apparently later than Melguiri’s, however, the source of the Galenic and 57 L. Minio-Paluello, “Jacobus Veneticus Grecus, Canonist and Translator of Aristotle,” Traditio  (): –, on pp. , , ; M.-T. d’ Alverny, “Translations and Translators,” in R.L. Benson et al., eds, Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA, ): ; B.G. Dod, “Aristoteles Latinus,” in N. Kretzmann et al., eds, The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, ): , . 58 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” pp. , –, –. 59 M. McVaugh, ed., Arnaldi de Villanova Opera Medica Omnia, vol.  (Barcelona, ), Introduction to De amore heroico, pp. –; idem, “The ‘Humidum Radicale’ in Thirteenth-Century Medicine,” Traditio  (): –, on p.  n. a; L. GarciaBallester, “The New Galen: A Challenge to Latin Galenism in Thirteen Century Montpellier,” in K.-D. Fischer et al., eds, Text and Tradition: Studies in Ancient Medicine and Its Transmission, presented to Jutta Kollesch (Leiden, ): –, on p.  n.  (repr. in J. Arrizabalaga et al., eds, Galen and Galenism: Theory and Medical Practice from Antiquity to the European Renaissance [Aldershot, ]). 60 Garcia-Ballester, “The New Galen,” p.  n. . 61 Ibid., pp. –. Arnald studied in Montpellier in the s and taught there between  and his death. 62 P. Gil-Sotres, “The Regimen of Health,” in M. Grmek, ed., B. Fatini, coord., A. Shugaar, trans., Western Medical Thought from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, (Cambridge, MA, ): –, on pp. – and p.  n. . 63 M. McVaugh, ed., Arnaldi de Villanova Opera Medica Omnia, vol.  (Barcelona, ): , –. 64 Demaitre, Bernard, p. .

solomon ben moses melguiri



other medical modifications that he introduced into HSW 65 is unclear. Perhaps the Latin De somno used by the masters of Montpellier originated in a treatise translated from Arabic, and was used by Melguiri as well. Pseudo-Ibn S¯ın¯a, On the Heaven, and the World The Latin source of Melguiri’s OHW is the Liber celi et mundi, a paraphrase of Aristotle’s De caelo that was translated from Arabic (probably in late twelfth-century Toledo) by Dominicus Gundissalinus and Johannes Hispanus.66 Liber celi et mundi was often referred to as De caelo et mundo and circulated for half a century with the corpus vetustius of the older (largely Greek-Latin) translations of Aristotle, because it was believed to be either Aristotle’s genuine De caelo or a guide to it. Its first documented appearance is in a collection compiled in Northern France ca. , but its first attribution to Ibn S¯ın¯a appear in works by Vincent of Beauvais (–) and Albertus Magnus (–).67 In view of the similarity between the texts of De caelo and the Liber celi et mundi, and the confusion of their titles in the Corpus Aristotelicum (especially during the first half of the thirteenth century), references to the former title may indicate the presence of the latter at the university. In this context we should note the use of De caelo in the faculty of Liberal Arts, as well as by medical masters of Montpellier, Cardinalis and Bernard de Gordon.68 In sum, Melguiri’s early life near Montpellier, his knowledge of Latin, and his service as a physician to the Christian aristocracy strongly suggest that his selection of Latin treatises reflected an association with the members of the faculty of medicine in that town. Circa instans and De somno were certainly used by members of this medical faculty from the middle of the thirteenth century onwards. We cannot be sure that their De somno was the version translated by Melguiri, much less that their De 65 For these modifications see Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” esp. pp. –. 66 Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –; O. Gutman, Pseudo-Avicenna Liber Celi et Mundi (Leiden, ): ix–xii. 67 O. Gutman, “On the Fringes of the Corpus Aristotelicum: The Pseudo-Avicenna Liber Celi et Mundi,” in J.M.M.H. Thijssen, ed., Early Science and Medicine: Journal for the Study of Science, Technology and Medicine in the Pre-Modern Period, Special Issue: Medieval Cosmologies, vol.  /  (): –, on pp. –, –; Gutman, Pseudo-Avicenna, p. xix. 68 For the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Cardinalis, see McVaugh, Arnaldi de Villanova Opera, :– (and n.  above); For Bernard see Demaitre, Bernard, p.  n. .



hagar kahana-smilansky

caelo was pseudo-Ibn S¯ın¯a’s Liber celi et mundi, misidentified as De caelo. Whether or not Melguiri acquired the actual Latin treatise of De somno from members of the Montpellier faculty, his motives for translating De somno into Hebrew may be assumed to have been influenced by the presence and study of this Aristotelian treatise at the university. Similarly, Melguiri’s translation of Liber celi et mundi was plausibly motivated by its presence (or that of De caelo) at the university, as well as by the prominence there of astronomy and astrology as auxiliary sciences to medicine.69 The new demand for medical texts by the Jewish physicians seeking a medical license may have been one of Melguiri’s motives, for the texts used in the university were a basis of the licensing examinations.70

. Melguiri and Contemporary Jewish Scholars The following account is based on the evidence of Abraham Bedershi, Isaac de Lattes, and the Tibbonids. The writings of Bedershi (born ca. , d.  or ) are a major source of information on poets and scholars of his time. He came from a leading family of notables in Béziers and was related to Astruc des Gabbai, who may be identical with an important financial official in the royal administration of CarcassonneBéziers.71 Bedershi divided his time between Béziers, Perpignan, and Narbonne, where he finally settled around .72 This migration pattern corresponds to that by Melguiri; they appear to have belonged to the same social class. Melguiri was probably living in Narbonne between  and , when Bedershi wrote the long poem The Ever-turning Sword (Ha-herev ha-mithappekhet), a chronicle of the poets of southern . 73 Bedershi dedicates one strophe to Melguiri: France. éXeâå é!ì#çù øÇãå øÇc úlâ"ñ / áì éV÷!ç íéìåãâ éøéåâìîì

69 Demaitre, Bernard, pp. , –, –, –, –; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, Society, pp. –, ; Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” p. . 70 L. Ferre, “Hebrew Translations from Medical Treatises of Montpellier,” Koroth  (–): –, on pp. –; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, Society, pp. –. 71 Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, pp. –. 72 H. Schirmann, “#Iyyunim be-qoves ha-ˇ sirim we-ha-melis. ot ˇsel Avraham ha-Be. dreˇsi,” in S. Ettinger et al., eds, Sefer ha-Yovel le-Yis. haq . Baer (Jerusalem, ): – ; H. Schirmann and E. Fleischer, eds, History of Hebrew Poetry in Christian Spain and Southern France (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –; Bar Tiqva, Genres and Topics, pp. –. 73 Schirmann and Fleischer, eds, History of Hebrew Poetry, pp. –, .

solomon ben moses melguiri



As suggested by Bar Tiqva, the first hemistich (“Melguiri is engaged in profound investigations/thoughts”) alludes to Melguiri’s philosophical pursuits.74 The second hemistich speaks obscurely of segullah (a remedy that acts by an essential virtue) and may hint at Melguiri’s medical practice.75 Since Bedershi knew Melguiri, the scholar who is mentioned in two of his epistles as “the honorable scholar Don Solomon,” a poet and hakham who “stands before kings,” may in fact be Solomon Melguiri.76 . In addition to his familiarity with Melguiri’s poetry, Bedershi, in his dictionary of Hebrew synonyms, Hotam tokhnit, explains the verbs yaˇsen, . “sleep” and hozeh, “dream, hallucinate”77 on the basis of HSW.78 Establishing the date of composition of Hotam tokhnit could help determine . the date of the translation of HSW, independently from Gershom ben ˇ Solomon’s Sa#ar ha-ˇsamayim. The physician Isaac ben Jacob de Lattes79 mentions Melguiri’s works in ˇ Sa#arei s. iyyon (Qiryat sefer, ), a history of French Jewish scholars. In the extant (evidently corrupt) manuscripts of this work, Melguiri’s first name is given as “Samuel” (ben Moses Melguiri). Zunz, Buber, and Renan and Neubauer80 were of the opinion that this must refer to Solomon Melguiri and the combined evidence of the two relevant manuscripts justifies this correction.81 But recent authors seem unaware of it.82

74

Bar Tiqva, “The Poet Melguiri,” pp. , . On the medical use of segullah see e.g., J. Shatzmiller, “Contacts et échanges entre savants Juifs et Chrétiens a Montpellier vers ,” Cahiers de Fanjeaux  (): – , on p. . 76 Scholars now read the first epistle as addressed to Vidal Solomon or Menahem ha. Me"iri (Schirmann, “#Iyyunim,” pp. ,  n. ), but this is doubtful according to the oldest MS, Brit. Lib. . 77 Chotam Tokhnit. Edited by G.I. Pollak (Amsterdam, ): . 78 Bedershi interprets hozeh as specific to the sleep of dogs (cf. HSW § ) and uses the terminology and phrases of HSW (§§ , , ), which renders Aristotle’s account of sleep as similar to illness (De somno, a–, a–, a–). 79 E. Renan and A. Neubauer, Les Ecrivains juifs français du XIV e siècle (Paris, ; repr. Westmead, ): –. 80 L. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, ): ; S. Buber, Beitrag zur Geschichte des Judentums bis zum Jahre  von Rab. Isaac de Lattes, mit Anmerkungen und einer Einleitung versehn (Jaroslav, ): ; Renan and Neubauer, Ecrivains juifs, p. . 81 MS Moscow, Guenzburg  (IMHM ) and MS Oxford, Bodl. Mich.  (IMHM ). 82 S.Z. Havlin, Sa#arei ˇ s. iyyon, in History of Oral Law and Early Scholarship by Menahem . ha-Me"iri (Jerusalem, ): –, p. ; O. Fraisse, Moses Ibn Tibbons Kommentar zum Hohelied und sein poetologish-philosophisches Programm (Berlin, ): . 75



hagar kahana-smilansky

De Lattes attributes to Melguiri “many books on every science and art, particularly in astronomy.” He specifies four titles: The Summit of Astronomy (Qes. la-tekhunah), The Book of the King (Sefer ha-Melekh), The Comprehensive Book (Sefer ha-Kolel), and On the Ten Sayings (or Things; Sefer ‘A´sarah devarim). These works have not been identified; De Lattes mentions none of Melguiri’s extant compositions. Thus, De Lattes’ testimony should be used with caution but cannot be altogether dismissed: Melguiri’s statement that he wrote three treatises (hibburim) . at the request of “nini we-nekhdi Moses”83 suggests that in his later life he wrote additional works. A Sefer ha-Kolel on astronomy and astrology is extant and its authorship requires investigation.84 It is significant that De Lattes lists Melguiri immediately after Samuel and Moses ibn Tibbon, since as a rule he classifies scholars according to their time and place of residence.85 The implied association between Melguiri and the Tibbonids is verified by the evidence to be introduced below. Another reason for relating to De Lattes’ information is its likely sources: distinguished members of his family lived in Narbonne at the same time as Solomon Melguiri;86 his grandfather Isaac ben Judah de Lattes of Montpellier,87 a well-known physician, was active in the –  controversy over philosophy as one of the “notables” (nikhbadim) who supported the Tibbonids.88 Isaac ben Jacob de Lattes’ history thus plausibly includes traditions transmitted by his scholarly relatives from Narbonne and Montpellier. In her study of Melguiri’s OHW, Ruth Glasner has established that he made extensive use of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s original composition 83 ,éãëðå éðéð éøùáå éîöò éøéçá äùîì èøôáå ììëá [ . . . ] úìòåú êåùîì àéä äæ éøçà éúðåëå íéøåáç äùìù øáçì éúåà õìà àåäù . . . (MS Vatican, fol. b, l. –fol. a, l. ; missing in MS

Escorial). These “three treatises” do not seem to be the “parts” of BE. As noted in the text, of Melguiri’s three extant translations, at least OHW was written before BE. 84 Gad Freudenthal (“Sur la partie astronomique du Liwyat hen de Levi ben Abraham . ben Hayyim,” REJ  []: –, on p. ) destabilized the attribution of Sefer ha-Kolel to Levi ben Avraham. 85 Renan and Neubauer, Ecrivains juifs, pp. –. 86 The talmudists Gershom De Lattes of Béziers and his son Samuel, authors of the ˇ Book of Salman (Sa#arei s. iyyon, ed. Havlin, History of Oral Law, pp. , ). 87 Renan and Neubauer, Ecrivains juifs, pp. –, , Havlin, History of Oral Law, p. . 88 De Lattes, Sa#arei ˇ s. iyyon, ed. Havlin, p. ; J. Shatzmiller, “Between Abba Mari and Rashba: The Negotiations before the Barcelona Ban” (Heb.), in B. Oded et al., eds, Mehqarim be-toledot #am yisra"el we-eres. yisra"el  (): –, on pp. , , ; . idem, “In Search of the ‘Book of Figures’,” pp. –; idem, “Contacts et échanges,” p. .

solomon ben moses melguiri



Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim (written –) and his translation of Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. Curiously, Melguiri never credits Samuel ibn Tibbon as his source.89 OHW also contains a passage from Maimonides’ Eight Chapters in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s translation, merged with a passage from Yiqqawu ha-mayim: Samuel ibn Tibbon, Yiqqawu ha-mayim90 ìëåé àì íéøáã äáøäù úîéà ìëùäå íúåîãì íãàä íéøáã äáøä ùé ïëå íúåàéöî äîãîä çëä ìëåé àìù íúåàéöî úåîãìî èìîéäì

íäì ïéàù úîéà ìëùäå ïéðò íìöà äæîå ,úåàéöî úåàéöîì ùàøå äìçúä ìëá ù÷áé ïåéîãäù íìåòä 93êùîéå äìçúäå ùàø øáã .ùâøåîä éøçà

Melguiri, OHW 91 åðåéîãá øééöéù ,äîãîä çåëä .úåéäî íé÷åçø íéøáã åàöîéù åà ùìåùî ìâìâä äîãéù ïåâë ,òáåøî äîäá ,íéîùá åùàø íãà íéðéò óìàá ,íéîá èåùú ìæøá úéðà ìëùäù íéøáãäî äæì äîåãëå .ììë úåàéöî íäì ïéàù áééçî äîãîä çåëä êùîé íéîòôìå ùàø ù÷áéå ùâøåîä øçà ,äìçúäå .äæî íéòðîðä íéøáãì íâ ìáà

Maimonides, Eight Chapters, trans. Samuel ibn Tibbon92 çåëä àåä äîãîä ÷ìçäå íéùçåîä éîåùéø øåëæé øùà úáø÷î íîìòä øçà ìà íúö÷ áéëøéå . . . íéùåçä àìù íéðééðòä ïî . . . íúö÷ øùôà éàå ììë íâéùä íãà äîãéù åîë .íâéùäì ,øéåàá äöø ìæøá úðéôñ åéìâøå íéîùá åùàøù íãàå ìò ,ïéò óìàá äîäáå ¬õøàá .ìùî êøã úåòðîðä åìàî äáøäå äîãîä çåëä íáéëøé .ïåéîãá íàéöîéå

OHW and HSW afford ample proof of Melguiri’s use of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s philosophical terminology.94 There is also extensive borrowing from Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Maimonides’ Guide in both extant parts of Melguiri’s BE. For example, several quotations ascribed to “the philosopher” (Aristotle) are in fact paraphrases of Maimonides’ Guide in this translation.95 Melguiri is one of the earliest known writers to utilize Ruah. hen, the . Hebrew philosophical compendium written in the first half of the thirteenth century. Its anonymous author, who credits Maimonides’ Guide

89

Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –. Edited by M.L. Bislichis (Pressburg, ): , l. ; cf. Maimonides’ Guide in Ibn Tibbon’s translation, I., II., III.. 91 MS Cambridge Add.  (IMHM ), fol. b, l.  from the end to fol. a, l. . 92 Edited by A. Ben Yisrael (Tel-Aviv, ): –. 93 Ed.: êùîä. 94 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” pp. –. 95 MS Vatican, fol. a,  f.; cf. Guide II., ed. Y. Even-Shemuel (Jerusalem, ), p. ; MS Vatican, fol. a, –; cf. Guide II., ed. Even-Shemuel, p. . 90



hagar kahana-smilansky

as his source of inspiration, has been assumed to be a member of the Ibn Tibbon family.96 Melguiri incorporated various passages from Ruah. hen . into HSW, for example: Melguiri, HSW, §§ – åúå÷ãá âéùîå íìåëî ãáëð úåàøä ùåç øàùî øúåé åì íéùçåîä íéøáãä ÷åçøî .íéùåçä åéùçåî âéùî òîùä ùåçå .çéøä ùåçî øúåé ÷åçøî øúåé åúâùäá ÷ã çéøä ùåçå íä äìàä íéùåçäù ¬ùåùîäå íòèä éùåçî íúåéä ãò íäéùçåî íéâéùî íðéàå íéñâ éáåò ìà êøòá ÷ã íòèä ùåçå .íá íé÷áã íéøî íéøáãä íòè ùéâøäì ùåùéîä ùåç íéöéôòå íéöåîçå íéçåìî ,íé÷åúîå ùåùéîä ùåç ùéâøé àìù äî ,íòè éìá íéìôèå .íá åòâåôá óà

Ruah. hen, chapter 97 . ïë ìò ¬íìëáù ãáëðäå ÷ãä àåä úåàøä ùåç øàùî øúåé ÷åçø øåòùá åéùçåî âéùî àåä ùéà êúåàøá éë ,äìâðå øàåáî äæå .íéùåçä ,òîùä ùåç åéøçàå .åìå÷ òîùú àì ÷åçøî .çéøä ùåç ìà êøòá ÷åçøî âéùäì ÷ã àåäå êøòá ÷åçøî âéùî àåä íâå ¬çéøä ùåç åéøçàå íéùåç íäù ¬ùåùîä ùåçå íòèä ùåç ìà íäá í÷áãä ãò íäéâùåî åâéùé àìå ¬íéñâ .íúåà íòâôå

In BE Melguiri employs Ruah. hen a number of times. An extensive . 99 A passage from passage98 borrows from chapter four of Ruah. hen. . 100 chapter nine of Ruah. hen . is reproduced in BE. Even the introduc102 None of these tory phrases of BE101 recall the preface of Ruah. hen. . borrowings are acknowledged. As compared with the professional standards of former and contemporary Jewish translators, particularly the Tibbonids,103 Melguiri took great liberty in revising his translations, incorporating material from these sources, as well as from others, into them.104 The question of contacts between Melguiri and Moses ibn Tibbon (fl. –) is intriguing. The latter is known mostly as a translator of scientific works from Arabic, especially the corpus of Ibn Ruˇsd’s epitomes,

96

Ofer Elior is studying the text and its circulation and appropriation by medieval Jewish scholars. For the present see C. Sirat, “Le livre ‘Rouah Hen’,” in A. Shinan, ed., Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, –): :– ; eadem, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, ): . 97 Ruah hen. Edited by D. Slutsky (Warsaw, ): –. . . 98 MS Vatican, fols. b–a. 99 Ruah hen, ed. Slutsky, p. . . . 100 MS Vatican, fol. b, ll. –a, l. ; cf. Ruah hen, ed. Slutsky, p. . . . 101 MS Vatican, fol. a, l.  f. 102 E.g. MS St. Petersburg B /  (IMHM ), fol. a (not in Slutsky’s edition). 103 Freudenthal, “Les sciences juives médiévales,” p. . 104 Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –.

solomon ben moses melguiri



translated between  and .105 As observed by Glasner, Melguiri mentioned “Averroes’ epitomes of Aristotle’s books” in BE: “Assuming that he was acquainted with them through the Hebrew translations of Moses ibn Tibbon, we can conclude that the book (OHW) was not written before the middle of the thirteenth century.”106 Melguiri adds no detail that would make it possible to establish his genuine familiarity with the content of the epitomes, however. Conversely, Moses ibn Tibbon was apparently familiar with Melguiri’s translation OHW, which both of them believed to be an authentic work by Ibn S¯ın¯a. Moses ibn Tibbon mentions it in his Answers to Queries on Physics107 while discussing Ibn S¯ın¯a’s doctrine of the transmutation of the four elements: The philosophers settled on three kinds of mutual transformation of the elements: effortless, difficult, and an intermediate between the two. The classification employed in Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim is the method of Ibn S¯ın¯a as recounted in chapter four of the book The Heaven and the World, and I need not repeat it [here].108

Moses ibn Tibbon himself denounces Ibn S¯ın¯a’s doctrine as “very strange” and endorses Ibn Ruˇsd’s view. Samuel ibn Tibbon, in contrast, embraced Ibn S¯ın¯a’s doctrine in Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, as was established by Gad Freudenthal,109 but his Avicennian source or sources remain to be ascertained.110 In any case, the source of influence that Moses ibn Tibbon had in mind cannot be the genuine On the Heaven and ˇ a", because it only mentions this issue in passthe World in Kit¯ab al-Sif¯ ing, but does not discuss it.111 Instead, Melguiri’s Hebrew (pseudo-)Ibn 105

Zonta, La filosofia antica, pp. –; Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” p.  n. . MS Vatican, fol. a, ll. –; Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” p.  n. . 107 Y.T. Langermann, “Maqor hadaˇ ˇ s le-targumo ˇsel Semu"el ibn Tibbon le-Moreh Nevo. khim we-he#arotaw ‘alaw,” Pe#amim  (): –, on p. . I am currently preparing an annotated edition of this text. 108 MS Parma, fol. a, –:ìò àåä éë íéôåñåìéôä úòã íúö÷î íúö÷ úåãåñéä úååäúäá íâ 106

êøã àéä íéîä åå÷é øîàîá úøëæðù ä÷åìçäå íäéðéá òöåîî éùéìùäå äù÷ éðùäå ì÷ ãçàä íéðéî äùìù .äøëæì êéøö éðéàå íìåòäå íéîùä øôñî §ã ÷øôá øëæðù éðéñ ïá 109 Gad Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph  (): –, esp. pp. –, –. 110 Freudenthal (ibid., pp. , –) holds that Samuel ibn Tibbon’s discussion of the ˇ a": Physics, III: On Generation transmutation of the elements derives from Ibn S¯ın¯a’s Sif¯ and Corruption. Glasner (“Hebrew De celo,” pp. –, nn. –) maintains that some passages (e.g., Yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bislichis, ch. , pp. –) are derived from Ibn S¯ın¯a’s Meteorology. 111 Kit¯ ˇ a": Physics, II: On the Heaven and the World. Edited by M. Qasem and ab al-Sif¯ I. Madkur (Cairo, ): –.



hagar kahana-smilansky

S¯ın¯a On the Heaven and the World provides parallel sentences to Moses ibn Tibbon’s Answers. Moreover, in Melguiri’s OHW, these sentences are found in chapter four, the chapter that Moses ibn Tibbon specified as containing the relevant doctrine of “Ibn S¯ın¯a’s book On the Heaven and the World”: Solomon Melguiri, [pseudo-]Ibn S¯ın¯a On the Heaven and the World, ch. four:112 íäé÷ìç úö÷ úåðúùäì úåãåñéä òáè ïë éë úøåöì ãçàä ãåñéä ïî äðúùîä ÷ìçä áåùìå .åøáç åà øéåà õøàäå ùà íéîä åà íéî ùàä áåùå .òðîð åðéà êà ãàî ÷åçø øáã àåä ,êôäá åðéàå ,íééëôä íäéúåéåëéàù éðôî àåä ÷åçø .íéôåñåìéôä úòã éôì òáèá íäì äæù ,òðîð àìå áåø÷ àì åðéà íéî õøàä åà øéåà íéîä áåùå ìáà .÷æç íéîá øå÷äù éðôî ,úòãä ïî ÷åçø íôúúùä éðôî ãàî áåø÷ àåä íéî øéåàä áåù ÷æç øå÷äå ùåìç øéåàá íåçäå .úåçìä úåëéàá .åéìà åëôäì åéìò ì÷éå ,íéîá

Moses ibn Tibbon, Answers to Queries on Physics:113 úåãåñéä úååäúä àåä äù÷ øúåéä éðùä ïéîäå íúö÷ ,ãçé íäéúåéëéà éúùá íéëôäúîä .úö÷î åà øéåà õøàäå ùà íéîä åà íéî ùàä áåù àåäå .úåéëéà éúùá íäéðéá êôää úåéäì .êôäá ãùø ïá ïéáå éðéñ ïá ïéá ú÷åìçî ïéà äæä ïéîáå ,íäéðéá éòöîàä àåäå éùéìùä ïéîá êà àåäù øîà éðéñ ïá éë .áø óåìç ,íéî õøàä åà øéåà íéîä áåù ÷æç íéîá øå÷ä úåéäì ÷æç õøàá ùáåéä ïëå ,ùåìç øéåàá íåçäå .ãåàî øæ äæå .ùåìç íéîá úåçìäå

This supports the conclusion that when Moses ibn Tibbon asserts that the method of the transmutation of elements is similar in Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim and in “Ibn S¯ın¯a’s On the Heaven and the World,”114 the latter refers to Melguiri’s Hebrew OHW. The similarity between the two works, implied by Moses’ comment, is evident when OHW (the passage juxtaposed above to Moses ibn Tibbon’s Answers) is also compared with a paragraph in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim.115 The resemblance between OHW and Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim is not

112

MS Cambridge Add. , fol. b, ll. –. MS Parma, fol. a, ll. –. 114 See above, n. . 115 Ed. Bislichis, p.  (), ll. – (for an English translation, see Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory,” p. . The edition is quoted in part in Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” p. ): 113

úåðúùäì úåãåñéä éòáèîù íúòãî ïëå . . . úåãåñéä §ãá íéôåñåìéôä úòãî òãåð øáëù äî äðä íåçäå úåçéìä àéäå úçà úåëéàá íôúúùäì ì÷ àåä íéî øéåàä áåù êà åøéáç ìà íäî ãçà ìë åà íéî ùàä áåù íìåàå õøà íéîä áåùé ïëå åéìà åëôäì åéìò ì÷éå ÷æç íéîá øå÷äå ùåìç øéåàá áåù àåä éòöîàäå úåéëéàä éúùá íäéðéá êôää úåéäì ãáëä àåä êôäáå øéåà õøàäå ùà íéîä .ùåìç øéåàá íåçäå ÷æç íéîá ø÷ä úåéäì íéî õøàä åà øéåà íéîä

solomon ben moses melguiri



surprising; Glasner demonstrated that Melguiri paraphrased many passages from the latter, including passages that Samuel ibn Tibbon explicitly ˇ a’.116 borrowed from Ibn S¯ın¯a’s Kit¯ab al-Sif¯ Is there any basis for accepting the implication that Samuel ibn Tibbon borrowed Ibn S¯ın¯a’s doctrine of transmutation from the Hebrew pseudoIbn S¯ın¯a On the Heaven and the World? The respective dates of Melguiri’s translation activity (from ca. ) and of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s last work (–)117 argue against this possibility. As to the Latin source of OHW, Liber celi et mundi, since it is believed to have been translated from Arabic in Toledo in the second half of the twelfth century, Samuel ibn Tibbon may have brought it back to Provence from his study visit in Toledo before . He is thought to have associated there with Michael Scotus and Alfred of Shareshill, both of whom translated scientific works from Arabic into Latin.118 But there is no evidence of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s use of Latin sources. Translating the original Arabic treatise would be more consistent with his usual practice. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Samuel ibn Tibbon imported the Arabic original from Toledo. Would he or his son not then render it directly into Hebrew, in which case the Latin-Hebrew translation by Melguiri would be unnecessary? The resemblance, demonstrated above, between passages in Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim and Melguiri’s later Latin-Hebrew translation, OHW, is best accounted for by Glasner’s evidence that in OHW Melguiri made extensive use of the Avicennian passages (among others) from Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim. Apparently, his practice misled Moses ibn Tibbon into believing that the influence was the other way round and that his father quoted these passages from the Hebrew (pseudo-)Ibn S¯ın¯a’s OHW.119 Be this as it may, it is reasonable to conclude that Moses ibn Tibbon was acquainted with Melguiri’s translation of pseudo-Ibn S¯ın¯a’s OHW.

116 Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bislichis, ch. , pp. –; quoted in Glasner, ibid., pp. –:

íúö÷ ìà íúö÷ úåðúùäì úåãåñéä òáèî äéä øùàë éë äæå

. . . éðéö ïáà íëçì äá åéúàöî øáã .§åëå íäé÷ìçá

117 For a re-evaluation of the evidence for the date of Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim see Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory,” Appendix A. 118 J.T. Robinson, Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, ): :–, –, . 119 Possibly, Moses’ unawareness of his father’s actual source may be explained by the former’s residence in Naples until the mid-s (J.B. Sermoneta, “R. Hillel ben Samuel



hagar kahana-smilansky . Summary

Because Melguiri was one of the few Jews who translated Latin treatises into Hebrew in the second half of the thirteenth century, his biography, which explains this occupation by his Christian connections and medical profession, is of special interest. Melguiri’s solid economic and social status facilitated his contacts with Christian nobility through both his financial and medical pursuits. Gad Freudenthal has shown that the first Hebrew translations from Latin were in the field of medicine120 and that medical texts were translated more than other scientific works.121 If my conjecture that Melguiri acquired the treatises he translated through contacts with the physicians in the faculty of medicine at the University of Montpellier is correct, it illustrates a development that led from medicine to the translation of texts in its “auxiliary sciences” and, later, in other sciences and philosophy. Melguiri was not a professional translator and may have been only an amateur student of philosophy, but he left his mark on the cultural life of the Jews in thirteenth-century Provence. His translations, OHW and HSW, were read there and in Catalonia, not only in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries but also already in his lifetime, by Gershom ben Solomon of Arles, Abraham Bedershi in Narbonne, and Moses ibn Tibbon in Montpellier. It seems that he accepted the challenge of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s call on the Jews to raise their level of secular knowledge to match that of their Christian neighbors, because the latter’s scientific learning had surpassed that in the Arabic lands.122

ben Eleazar of Verona and his Philosophical Thought” (Heb.) (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ): –, – n. . Langermann (“Maqor hadaˇ s,” p. ) . noted that in this treatise and in The Epistle on Providence, Moses quotes only his father’s written texts and not his oral teaching. 120 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures.” 121 Ibid., Table . 122 Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bislichis, p. , ll. –.

DIALECTIC IN GERSONIDES’ BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES*

Sara Klein-Braslavy In his writings, Gersonides pays special attention to the method of inquiry. The most interesting method he describes is dialectic. He deals with it in his supercommentaries on Ibn Ruˇsd’s middle commentaries on Aristotle’s Logic; in his own independent book The Wars of the Lord, where he also applies it in his inquiries;1 and in his biblical exegesis, in the commentaries on Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs—books traditionally ascribed to King Solomon. Following Maimonides, Gersonides considers Solomon to have been a philosopher who expounded philosophical ideas and directed his audience toward correct conduct and intellectual perfection.2 For Gersonides, though, Solomon dealt not only with philosophical issues but also with the methods to be used in philosophical investigation. He steered his audience to the use of correct methods of inquiry through which they could attain true and certain knowledge in theoretical sciences (mathematics, physics and metaphysics) and in the practical science of politics (which includes ethics).

*

The article is based on a paper presented in the XIIth International Congress of Medieval Philosophy, Palermo, Sept. –, . 1 For the dialectical method in the Wars of the Lord, see: S. Klein-Braslavy, “The Opinions that Produce the Aporias in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord,” in E. Fleischer, G. Blidstein. C. Horowitz, and B. Septimus, eds, Me"ah She"arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual life in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –; eadem, “La méthode diaporématique de Gersonide dans les Guerres du Seigneur,” in C. Sirat, S. Klein-Braslavy and O. Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez les scolastiques (Paris, ): –; eadem, “The Solutions of the Aporias in Gersonides Wars of the Lord,” Da#at – (): –  (Heb.). The first and the third article have been translated into English and will be published by Brill in a collection of my essays on Gersonides’ methods of inquiry and their applications. 2 For King Solomon as a philosopher in Maimonides’ thought, see S. Klein-Braslavy, King Solomon and Philosophical Esotericism in the Thought of Maimonides (Heb.) (Jerusalem ; repr. ): –.



sara klein-braslavy

Here I would like to present the results of a study of Gersonides’ notion of dialectic, as presented in his biblical commentaries, and outline its main features.3 In the has. s. a#ah (preliminary note) to the commentary on the Song of Songs Gersonides presents two classifications of the sciences; the first is the ontological classification proposed by Aristotle in Metaphysics VI, : the classification of the sciences according to their subject matter. The other is an epistemological classification not found in Aristotle’s writings: a classification of the sciences by descending order of their means of verification. The highest level of verification is found in mathematics, in which inquiry proceeds by absolute demonstration. Physics uses demonstration from observation (demonstratio per signum); its level of verification is inferior to that of mathematics. The lowest level of verification is found in metaphysics, which uses dialectical syllogisms. According to the introduction to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, this is also the only method of verification that can be used in political philosophy.4 Gersonides is especially interested in dialectic because it is the only method that can be used in sciences that cannot employ absolute demonstrations and demonstrations per signum. He wants to show that dialectic, too, can be valuable for philosophical investigation: one can attain true and certain knowledge by using dialectical syllogisms, thereby arriving at the truth in metaphysics and politics as well. According to Gersonides, Solomon, too, was interested in dialectic. In the Song of Songs and in Proverbs he presented the theory of dialectic as a method of inquiry; in Ecclesiastes he used dialectic as a method in his own inquiry. In the commentaries on the Song of Songs and Proverbs Gersonides explains the theory of dialectic presented by Solomon in his books. The theory is presented through exegesis of words and verses in those books and is consequently scattered through the commentaries. To understand it we have to read each commentary and discover what Gersonides thinks 3

For a full analysis of dialectic in Gersonides’ commentary on Proverbs and the ways in which he interprets the biblical texts, see S. Klein-Braslavy, “Dialectic in Gersonides’ Commentary on Proverbs,” Tarbis.  (–) (): – (Heb.). An English translation of the article is included in my forthcoming collection of essays (above n. ). The chapters on dialectic in Gersonides’ commentaries on Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are still in manuscript. 4 See the introduction to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. . References to the commentary on Ecclesiastes are to Gersonides’ Commentaries on the [Five] Scrolls. Edited by J.L. Levy (Jerusalem, ).

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



of the dialectical method professed by Solomon and how Gersonides understands that method. Because he considers Ecclesiastes to be a book written according to the dialectical method, following the tradition of the Alexandrian prologue paradigm,5 he presents the theory of dialectic in the has. s. a#ah to his commentary on that book,6 so as to prepare readers for understanding it.7 Consequently this has. s. a#ah offers a concise introduction to his conception of the dialectical method.8 In the introduction to the commentary on Ecclesiastes Gersonides adduces the remarks on dialectic in the Aristotelian text on which he relies in his exposition: the Metaphysics.9 In his account of the dialectical method in the commentary on Proverbs he refers to the Topics and the Metaphysics as philosophical treatises expounding ideas that correspond to those expressed by Solomon in the book.10 Thus the dialectic in Gersonides’ biblical exegesis is his interpretation of Aristotelian dialectic, as he knew it from the Hebrew translations of Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries on the Topics11 and from the Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics III, .12 He does not regard it as his own innovation. 5 On the Alexandrian prologue paradigm see S. Klein-Braslavy, “The Alexandrian Prologue Paradigm in Gersonides’ Writings,” JQR  (): – and the bibliography cited there. 6 For the literary genre of the hassa#ah see S. Klein-Braslavy, “Dialectic in Gerson.. ides’ Commentary on Proverbs,” p. ; eadem, “Les commentaires bibliques—Les introductions” in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy and Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide, pp. –, esp. –. An English translation of this article is included in my forthcoming collection of essays (n.  above). 7 The explanation of the dialectical method in the hassa#ah of the introduction to .. the commentary on Ecclesiastes is an expansion of one of the points that constitute the Alexandrian prologue paradigm: the mode of instruction used in the work. 8 For this type of hassa#ah and an analysis of the methodological note in the hassa#ah .. .. see Klein-Braslavy, “Les commentaires bibliques—Les introductions,” pp. –. 9 See the hassa#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. . .. 10 This does not mean that Solomon learned them from Aristotle. For the Aristotelian works that correspond to Solomon’s understanding of dialectics see the explanation of mezimmah in the “Explanation of the Words” to Prov.  (p. ) and the commentary on Prov. :– (a/r). References to the explanation of the words in Prov.  are to B. Braner, “Gersonides’ Introduction to the Commentary on Proverbs and the Avatars of the Text of the Work,” Tarbis.  (): – (Heb.). References to the rest of that commentary are to Miqra"ot gedolot, followed by Paris BNF, MS héb.  (IMHM ). 11 Gersonides did not know Aristotle’s Topics but only Ibn Ruˇ sd’s commentaries on the work: the Middle Commentary (translated by Qalonymos ben Qalonymos in ), on which he wrote a supercommentary (), and the Epitome, known in Hebrew as Kol melekhet higgayon (translated by Yakov ben Makhir, –). For his acquaintance with the latter see C. Manekin, The Logic of Gersonides: A Translation of Sefer ha-Heqqesh ha-yashar (The Book of the Correct Syllogism) of Rabbi Levi ben Gershom (Dordrecht and Boston, ): . 12 Gersonides knew Aristotle’s Metaphysics in two Hebrew versions: that by Moses



sara klein-braslavy Dialectic as a Method of Verification

Gersonides considers dialectic to be primarily a method of verification. He seems to accept Ibn Ruˇsd’s contention, in his Middle Commentary on the Topics, that demonstrative syllogisms and dialectical syllogisms are very close and share the same formal pattern. Both are logically valid. Where they diverge is in their “matter”: demonstrative syllogisms reason from “essential premises”13 while dialectical syllogisms reason from premises that are based on generally accepted opinions.14 Starting from this idea Gersonides, in the introduction to the commentary on the Song of Songs, compares the syllogisms used in physics with those used in metaphysics according to their “matter”— that is, according to their premises. He says that physics reasons from premises that are “particular and appropriate”15 (p. /p. ),16 whereben Solomon of Beaucaire, incorporated into Solomon’s translation of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary on the Metaphysics, and an anonymous translation he referred to as the “new translation.” For the “new translation” see C. Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide (Paris, ):  n. . 13 Essential premises (haqdamot ‘asmiyyot) are those in which the predicate relates . to the subject in an inherent way. For a further explanation of this concept see KleinBraslavy, “Dialectic in Proverbs,” n. . 14 See Ibn Ruˇ sd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics: “The syllogism, with regard to its form, is one of the three arts that deal with general questions, namely: demonstration and dialectic and most sophistical arguments. But they differ with regard to their matter: the demonstrative syllogism works from true premises, the dialectic syllogism from generally accepted premises, and the sophistical syllogism from premises that are considered to be generally accepted premises but are not generally accepted premises, or are considered to be true but are not true.” (Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ] fol. v) 15 “Appropriate premises” are appropriate for a certain science. According to the Posterior Analytics, every science has its own specific postulates and methods. Nothing can be proved in one branch of science by means of the postulates of a different branch. See: Posterior Analytics I,  (a, a, a, b); Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Posterior Analytics, Paris BNF, MS héb.  /  (IMHM ), fol. v, which corresponds to Posterior Analytics I,  (b); and Gersonides’ supercommentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Posterior Analytics, Paris BNF, MS héb  (IMHM ), fols. r–v. Ibn Ruˇsd explains that because demonstration yields true knowledge, which is knowledge of a thing and its cause, its premises must be appropriate: “Because they [the premises] are the cause of something that is produced of itself, they must be appropriate to the thing that is explained by them, because this is the inference of the cause from the effect” (ibid., fol. v). “Particular” means “particular of a single subject matter. It marks the distinctive subject matter of the different sciences” (J.H. Randall, Aristotle [New York, ]: ). 16 References are to the page in Kellner’s Hebrew text, Commentary on Song of Songs by Rabbi Levi ben Gershom, edited by M. Kellner (Ramat Gan, ), followed by his English translation, Commentary on Song of Songs: Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), trans. M. Kellner (New Haven and London, ).

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



as metaphysics reasons from “remote commonly accepted premises” (ibid.).17 In his commentaries on all three Solomonic books Gersonides states that verification by dialectical syllogisms is weaker than verification by demonstrative syllogisms because dialectical syllogisms are based on generally accepted premises. That is why he is particularly interested in the epistemological status of generally accepted premises. An understanding of their epistemological status can shed light on the level of verification possible through dialectical syllogisms. He describes generally accepted premises in almost the same terms in all three of these commentaries. In the commentary on Song of Songs he holds that their common denominator is that “that they lead to two contraries or contradictories” (p. /p. ); “based on them, one may find demonstrations for both a thing and its opposite” (p. /p. ). In the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes he deals with verification in politics rather than in metaphysics. Politics is based on generally accepted opinions and rest on a weak level of verification; in fact, “perfect verification” is impossible in it: And the Philosopher [Aristotle] has already said that this subject [good and evil] cannot receive full verification, but what is explained in it is explained by generally accepted premises. (p. )

He explains this as he did in the commentary on the Song of Songs, where he used almost the same words to write about the premises used in metaphysics. Verification in politics is weak because “one may find explanations based on [its premises] for one thing and its contrary” (ibid.). Here Gersonides relies explicitly on Aristotle but does not cite the work on which he relies. Inasmuch as he generally attributes to Aristotle himself what is in fact Ibn Ruˇsd’s explanation in his middle commentaries (unless he is sure that these are Ibn Ruˇsd’s original ideas), it is likely that

17 In his commentary on Proverbs Gersonides defines the premises of the apodictic sciences as “essential [i.e., inherent] and appropriate.” He includes physics among the apodictic sciences: “This is the knowledge (yedi#ot) that can be acquired by means of inherent and appropriate premises, that is, apodictic sciences (hokhmot) like the . mathematical sciences and natural science [physics]” (p. ). The references to the has. s. a#ah of Proverbs are to the text published in Braner, “Gersonides’ Introduction to the Commentary on Proverbs.”



sara klein-braslavy

he has a middle commentary in mind18—probably that on the Topics. There Ibn Ruˇsd explains the second utility of dialectic—its usefulness in disputations (mahloqot) with the masses (he-hamon)—as follows: . Its usefulness in the disputations with the masses is because of the necessity that brings them to associate on the basis of justice and virtue and to believe in many of the theoretical topics that are beneficial to them in their political associations. This being the case, and because theoretical matters can be verified only by means of generally accepted methods, namely, the arguments employed in this art [i.e., dialectic], [it is best] that the theoretical topics be corroborated by them [generally accepted arguments]. For they are more difficult to counter than rhetorical and poetical arguments, although rhetorical and poetical methods can be used here instead of dialectical methods, as has been elucidated in political science. (Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ], fol. r)

Gersonides explains this passage in his supercommentary: This being the case, and the things that the master of political sciences believes that people should conduct themselves according to or distance themselves from, cannot be verified to them, meaning the masses, other than by generally accepted methods, because the theoretical premises can lead only to the true and false, and not to the disreputable and choice; and this is what the master of political science should strive for in his commentary. . . . And these methods, i.e., the generally accepted ones, are the arguments that are employed [especially] in this art. And because the topics investigated in political science cannot be fully verified for the masses other than by generally accepted methods, as [stated] before, it is generally accepted arguments that corroborate these topics. (Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. héb.  /  [IMHM ], fol. rv)

This resembles what he writes in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes (quoted above) about the weakness of dialectic in politics. Gersonides repeats this same claim in the commentary on Proverbs, where he speaks not of verification in a particular science but of verification by dialectic in general. Here the explanation of the nature of generally accepted premises is a part of his biblical exegesis. In the third utility to Prov. :–, where he summarizes the lesson to be learned from these verses he writes: Because there is some evident danger in what is acquired through binah [knowledge acquired through dialectical syllogisms], inasmuch as one does not come to it by means of apodictic premises, in the manner of 18 See S. Klein-Braslavy, “Gersonide commentateur d’ Averroès,” in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy and Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide, pp. –, on p. . An English translation of the chapter is included in my forthcoming collection of essays (above n. ).

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



the verification that is achieved in the mathematical sciences [by means of both explanatory and factual demonstration], nor by means of demonstrations from observation (mofet re"iyyah, demonstratio per signum)], as in natural science, but by means of generally accepted premises. And based on them, one may find demonstrations for both a thing and its opposite.19 (a/r)

In the commentary on the Song of Songs Gersonides does not cite Aristotle in support of the claim that generally accepted premises “lead to two contraries or contradictories” (p. /p. ) or that “based on them one may find demonstrations for both a thing and its opposite” (p. /p. ) nor does he cite him in the third utility of Prov. :– . But in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes he explicitly relies on the Topics. He probably means Ibn Ruˇsd’s Short Commentary on the Topics, at the end of which Ibn Ruˇsd explains that the practice of dialectical syllogisms based on generally accepted premises is a useful preparation for establishing and refuting opinions in disputations: “Since most of the generally accepted premises are opposites, it is possible on the basis of these premises to establish and refute the very same thing” (b/–).20 In this passage Ibn Ruˇsd is speaking of practice in the question-andanswer method in disputation and not of the weakness of dialectic as a method of verification. He explains that because generally accepted premises tend to be pairs of opposites, disputants can pick and choose between them in order to refute or corroborate the same opinion. Gersonides regarded this not as an explanation of how disputation is to be conducted but as a weakness of dialectic as a method of verification: scholars who employ it cannot know which conclusion is true and hence cannot attain certain knowledge. To sum up this part: In his commentaries on all three of Solomon’s books Gersonides maintains that the weakness of dialectic as a method of verification derives from its reliance on generally accepted premises, which can lead to contrary or contradictory conclusions. It follows that 19 In his commentary on Proverbs Gersonides does not seem to distinguish between the degree of verification in mathematics and in physics as he does in this commentary on Song of Songs, but only between the degree of verification of these two sciences on the one hand and that of metaphysics and politics on the other hand. 20 References are to the Hebrew translation of Yakov ben Makhir, Kol melekhet higgayon (Riva di Trento, ), followed by the English translation (from the Arabic) of C.E. Butterworth, ed. and trans., Averroës’ Three Short Commentaries on Aristotle’s Topics, Rhetoric, and Poetics (Albany, ).



sara klein-braslavy

even though dialectical syllogisms have the same form as demonstrative syllogisms they cannot lead to true and certain knowledge. Because dialectic is the only method available in metaphysics and in politics, certain knowledge in these sciences is unattainable.

Dialectic as a Method of Examination In all three commentaries Gersonides holds that it is possible to overcome the weakness of the dialectical method as a method of verification and to employ it to attain true and certain knowledge. The weakness of dialectic as a method of verification can be remedied by employing dialectic as a method of examination. Gersonides describes the method fully in his commentaries on Ecclesiastes and Proverbs. In the first of these he presents it in propria persona: This is why the Philosopher [Aristotle] said in the general argument in the third [book] of the Metaphysics, that it is appropriate that one first collect all of the generally accepted premises that may apply to each question and afterwards winnow out the correct (s. odeq) ones from the incorrect, because in this way one can easily arrive at the premises that lead to the truth in each question. (p. )

In the commentary on Proverbs he presents the method through his exegesis of the biblical texts, i.e., as Solomon’s approach. He describes the method in his glosses on several words and verses, notably the following. In the “Explanation of the Words” to Prov.  Gersonides explains the word mezimmah (Prov. :), which he takes to denote generally accepted premises: Mezimmah is the supposition [or opinion]21 that is the starting point (hathalah) of knowledge [da#at, in the sense of “metaphysical knowledge”] . and leads to it. When a person wants to determine the truth of the matter he takes the opinions that apply to it, and takes those among them that are correct, and sets aside those that are incorrect, as is mentioned in the Topics and in the Metaphysics. (p. )

Explaining Prov. :– he says: The sciences (hokhmot) are very lofty [i.e., too high] for a fool, who does . not imagine that he can attain them; consequently he does not open his 21 As I have shown in my article “Dialectic in Gersonides’ Commentary on Proverbs,” Gersonides identifies “opinion/opinions [mahˇ . savah/mahˇ . savot]” with generally accepted premise(s). See there, nn. , , , and .

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



mouth when he is in the gate with wise men. Next he explains the reason for this: if someone lays plans to befriend opinions and attach them to himself [i.e., a ba#al mezimmot] and thereby endeavors to master the will opinions that apply to this question,22 the sciences (ha- hokhmot) . summon him to acquire them, because this is the way that a man can attain them, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] stated in the Topics and the Metaphysics; for in this he will be prepared (yukhan lo)23 to winnow the correct ones from the incorrect ones and will thus acquire knowledge without any doubt, as explained there. (a/r)

Explaining Prov. :– he says: Know truly that if you have a strong desire to acquire binah and “call” and “cry aloud” (v. ) to binah, just as a man calls to someone he wants and desires, and if you “seek” it (v. ), just as people seek silver and search for it or search for treasures, digging here and there until they find them, in the same way you will find tevunah; that is, you should collect all of the generally accepted premises that apply to the question you are investigating and then separate the correct ones from the incorrect ones. This is how you should “seek it as you do silver and treasures” (v. ); for people dig in a place to see if there is a silver lode there, and if it turns out that digging there will not lead them to find silver, they do this again until they find a place where there is a silver lode. (b/v)

In these passages Gersonides presents dialectic as a method of examination that consists of two stages. First one collects all of the generally accepted premises on which the dialectical syllogisms that are supposed to verify an opinion about the subject in question can be based. The second step is to examine these premises and determine which of them are true and which are false.24 Because the form of the dialectical syllogism is the same as that of the demonstrative syllogism, dialectical syllogisms are valid. Hence when the investigator, using dialectic as a 22

The standard rendering of Prov. :– is “Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the gate he does not open his mouth. He who plans to do evil (leharea#) will be called a mischiefmaker (ba#al mezimmot).” But Gersonides has a radically different understanding of the text. In his reading, the verb leharea# is derived, not from ra#, “evil,” but from rea#, “friend.” The ba#al mezimmot is not someone who plots mischief, but, as in his gloss on Prov. :, a person who wants to “make friends” with the generally accepted premises and who tries to get to know all of those that are related to the question at hand. 23 Miqra"ot gedolot: “he will be able” (yukhal); but this is a mistake and the MS version is correct. 24 Prov. :– describes, according to Gersonides, the first step. Commenting on these verses, Gersonides explains the use of this step and describes the whole method: the collection of the premises enables examination of all the premises and hence the attainment of the true premises, i.e., the second step of the dialectical method as a method of examination.



sara klein-braslavy

method of examination, extracts the true premises and places only them in the dialectical syllogisms, he necessarily reaches true and certain conclusions. Gersonides does not spell out how dialectic as a method of examination enables one to distinguish the true premises from the false. In his commentary on Prov. : he explains that in order to find the true premises one has to examine all the generally accepted premises that relate to the matter at hand. Only an examination of all of them can ensure that no premise that could possibly be used as the basis for the investigation has been omitted, so that the examination of the premises necessarily leads to identification of the true ones: It is appropriate to make an effort to find tevunah [verifying the premises by means of the method of examination, which is compared to excavation] because it cannot be attained through essential premises; consequently one must not be confident that the premises held at the beginning of the inquiry will yield truth until after one has verified all of them, as we mentioned. (b/v)

He repeats the idea several times in the commentary on Proverbs25 and stresses it especially in the commentary on :–, where he says that one who uses the dialectical method “will thus acquire knowledge without any doubt” (a/r). Gersonides holds that after one has collected all possible generally accepted opinion on the question at hand it is easier for him to winnow out the true ones. Apparently he thinks that the ability to discern the true premises depend on the personal qualifications of the investigator. Dialectic provides the opposing premises but the investigator has to winnow out the correct ones. This interpretation is strengthened by his commentary on the Song of Songs. There (on :) Gersonides notes two prerequisites for determining the appropriate premises that can serve as the basis for finding truth in metaphysics: training in the art of dialectic, along with “a settled mind and calming of the effervescence of the bodily temperaments” (p.  / p. ). It is the second condition that interests us here.26 Gersonides explains it as follows:

25 See the Third Utility derived from Prov. :– (a/v); commentary on Prov. : (a–b/v); commentary on Prov. : (b/r); commentary on Prov. : (a/r–v). 26 The first precondition will be dealt with in the third section of the article.

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



This is so [that one must have a settled mind and calming of the effervescent temperaments] because in this art one uses generally accepted premises, a characteristic of which in most cases is that one may find demonstrations based on them for both a thing and its opposite; hence the mind of one who inquires into it should be quite settled, to the point that it takes from these generally accepted premises true premises only. (ibid.)

He explains this condition in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary: If “the effervescence of his bodily temperaments has not been calmed,” a person runs the risk that “yearning to follow after his desires brings him to make his views in this science [metaphysics] in accordance with what pleases him as is well known concerning Eliˇsa Aher . when he entered Pardes” (p.  / p. ). According to this passage, such a man chooses the generally accepted premises that will lead him to his desired outcome, rather than the true ones.27 However, Gersonides also proposes a criterion for identifying the generally accepted premises that are true. He alludes to it in the commentary on Prov. :–, in the Third Utility derived from the verses, and in the “Explanation of the Words” on Prov. :–.28 He explains that hokhmah, identified here with physics, should be studied before tevunah, . identified here with metaphysics and politics, because it helps protect against the errors that may be present in generally accepted premises.29 Gersonides does not explain how knowledge of physics can do this. It is 27 According to Wars V.., Eliˇ sa ben Abuyah’s mistake was “in thinking that the deity who governs the sublunar things is different from the deity that governs the celestial world. His error was based on the supposition that the principle that governs the corruptible things is necessarily different from the principle that governs the incorruptible things. After he considered this matter he thought that the principle of the corruptible things must be corruptible as well. This led him to think that there is no immortality of the human soul at all, since according to him, the corruptible things lack something through which permanence would be possible; for their principle is corruptible” (p.  / :– ). According to this interpretation of Eliˇsa’s thought, Eliˇsa chose incorrect premises, which led him to the false conclusion that the human soul is not immortal. Page references to the Wars of the Lord are to the Leipzig edition of  and then to Feldman’s English translation: Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), The Wars of the Lord, trans. S. Feldman,  vols. (Philadelphia, –). 28 For a full analysis of these commentaries see Klein-Braslavy, “Dialectic in Gersonides’ Commentary on Proverbs,” pp. –. 29 According to the Third Utility to Prov. :–, “error may emerge here whether because of the premises adopted at first glance [lit., at the beginning of the thought], or because of an error produced by the imagination, or because a person grew up with contemptible opinions on this matter or learned them from mistaken persons and inclines toward them as a result of study or custom, or because of an appetite that leads him to select the idea that is better suited to quenching his thirst” (a/r).



sara klein-braslavy

possible that he regards hokhmah as the touchstone for judging the con. clusions reached through these syllogisms. When these conclusions cannot be reconciled with hokhmah, the generally accepted premises from . which they were inferred must be false.30 Gersonides may have this role of hokhmah in mind in the has. s. a#ah . to the commentary on Song of Songs, where he writes that “this science [metaphysics] is impossible for one who is not fixed strongly in the true views, [which he attains] by [study] of the Torah and by speculation” (p.  / p. ). Here “speculation” means philosophical inquiry. That is, the true views to which he attains by study of the Torah and philosophical inquiry serve as a touchstone for the generally accepted premises on which the science of metaphysics is based.31 To sum up: dialectic as a method of examination can serve philosophical inquiry and make it possible to reach the truth even on the basis of generally accepted premises. When examined critically, generally accepted premises can replace the “particular and appropriate” premises used in demonstrations. The differences between dialectical investigation and demonstrative investigation are minimized. Dialectical syllogisms, and not only absolute demonstration and demonstration per signum, can be a valid tool for philosophical inquiry. The truth that is reached through the method of examination is truth “without any doubt.” In the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes Gersonides mentions Metaphysics III as the source of this method and makes an interesting connection between the contention, which he attributes to the Topics, that generally accepted premises may serve as the basis for “explanations for one thing and its contrary,” and the utility of the dialectical method that he identifies in Metaphysics III. He claims that the Metaphysics, by suggesting using the method of examination to test the premises of the dialectical syllogisms, provides the remedy to the weakness of dialectic expounded in the Topics. Hence Aristotle’s Metaphysics complements the Topics. Thus far Gersonides’ remarks about dialectic as a method of examination may give the impression that the method is to be used only in politics and metaphysics, where dialectical syllogisms are the only way 30 Ruth Glasner has suggested the explanation that physics can serve as a touchstone for judging these conclusions because its premises can be verified empirically. 31 It is important to note that here Gersonides mentions a “non-philosophical” condition for the study of metaphysics as well: the true opinions learned from the Torah. The Torah serves as a touchstone for judging the generally accepted premises on the basis of which one can attain the truth in metaphysics.

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



of verification. It can be used to determine the true premises on which these sciences rest. But in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes Gersonides adds an interesting comment on another utility of the method—its utility in inquiry in natural science. He writes that Aristotle recommended the use of the method in natural science, too, and applied it in his own investigations: And the Philosopher [Aristotle] has already given this advice [to use the method of examination as described here] regarding demonstrative questions. Therefore you will find that in natural science the Philosopher anticipated [the inquiry in] every question by the generally accepted premises relating to it. (p. )

He emphasizes that dialectic as a method of examination is important for inquiries in physics, which does employ demonstrations, and not only in the sciences that cannot use demonstrations. At the end of this remark he notes, “We have expatiated on the utility of this rule (siddur) in our commentary on the Topics and in our commentary on the Metaphysics, so I have been brief here” (ibid.). All through his works Gersonides describes his style as one of concision.32 Here he declares that the has. s. a#ah of the commentary on Ecclesiastes is written in this style. Because he had already written about the usefulness of the method of examination in his commentaries on the Metaphysics and on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics he did not want to repeat the point here. As in similar cases, readers must consult those supercommentaries to understand Gersonides’ notion in full. We can learn from this remark that Gersonides considers his biblical commentaries to be an integral part of his oeuvre and does not think that they stand by themselves as theological works; all of his books complement the others and his views are to be learned from their sum total. We can also learn something about how he looked at his supercommentaries on Ibn Ruˇsd and his commentary on the Metaphysics—not only as explanations of his predecessors’ texts, but as expressions of his own ideas, too. The remark also sheds lights on his previous statement about the utility of dialectic in the study of physics. Gersonides informs readers that they can learn more about his concept of dialectic from his commentaries on 32 See the introduction to the Wars, p.  / :; the prologues to the supercommentaries on Ibn Ruˇsd’s middle commentaries on Aristotle (see Klein-Braslavy, “Gersonide commentateur d’ Averroès,” pp. –) and his introductions to the biblical commentaries (see Klein-Braslavy, “Les commentaires bibliques—Les introductions,” pp. –).



sara klein-braslavy

the Metaphysics and the Topics. Unfortunately the commentary he began to write on the Metaphysics was lost,33 so our only recourse today is to the supercommentary on the Topics. In the Middle Commentary on the Topics, explaining the first manner of the third utility of dialectic—that with respect to the theoretical sciences—Ibn Ruˇsd writes as follows: And that [the use of dialectic as a method of examination] is most needed in those cases in which the essential is mixed with the accidental. And this occurs in fact in physics, metaphysics, and politics, but not in mathematics. And we find that Aristotle rarely brings a demonstrative proof in these three sciences unless a dialectical doubt precedes the demonstration. (Paris BNF, MS héb. , fol. r)

Gersonides comments on “and this occurs in fact in physics”: Because for the most part we use in it [physics] a proof that proceeds from the posterior to the prior, because the senses are necessary in this art. Hence in this art [physics] what is essential (ma ˇse-be-#as. mut) is mixed with what is accidental. For example: it seems that the brain is the cause of sensation and movement, because we see that sensation and movement are confused when it [the brain] is confused. But inquiry shows that they are its cause [should be it (the brain) is their (i.e., sensation and movement) cause] only accidentally, because experience (huˇ . s) shows that sensation (ha-huˇ . s) and movement are also found in that which lacks a brain. (Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hebr.  / , fol. r)

33 Gersonides wrote only a partial commentary on the Metaphysics. The commentary is mentioned in the catalogue of his library, which he seems to date from , as “part of a commentary to the Meta[physics] by myself, Levi.” See G.E. Weil, La bibliothèque de Gersonide d’ après son catalogue autographe (Paris and Louvain, ), p. . It is clear from the has. s. a#ah of the commentary on Ecclesiastes that he had already written a commentary on Metaphysics III, . We do not know whether this was Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary, Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary, or Aristotle’s own text. Steinschneider (Die hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher [Berlin, ]: § , p. ) believes that the supercommentary in question was on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics, because it is quoted in the introduction to Gersonides’ commentary on Ecclesiastes alongside the commentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics. Steinschneider was followed by Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de Gersonide, p.  and Weil, La bibliothèque de Gersonide, pp. –. In my article, “The Opinions that Produce the Aporias in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord,” p.  n. , I suggested that he wrote about Aristotle’s text itself. Ruth Glasner, “Gersonides’ Lost Commentary on the Metaphysics,” Medieval Encounters  ()” –, rejects the view of Steinschneider and Touati and is inclined to accept my conclusion. However, she also advances the possibility that Gersonides wrote his commentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary (see p. ).

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



Gersonides explains the utility of dialectic in politics and metaphysics in another way: And these two sciences, when they are perfectly constituted are constituted from the correct (s. odeq) generally accepted [opinions] not because they are generally accepted but because they are correct. So one can find benefit in the art of dialectic, in the manner [stated] before, to distinguish what is correct in them from what is incorrect. (ibid.)

According to the Topics I. (b), I. (a–b), the possible or plausible opinions (anadoxa)—translated into Arabic as maˇsh¯ur¯at and from Arabic to Hebrew as mefursamot (= generally accepted opinions)— addressed by dialectic are those we accept on the basis of authority— whether the authority of the many (that is, opinions accepted by every human being or by most human beings) or the authority of wise men (by all, by the majority, or by the most notable and reputable of them).34 Gersonides states here that in politics and metaphysics we should accept generally accepted opinions not because they are generally accepted—i.e., not because some authorities profess them—but because they are correct; that is, because we have employed the method of examination and found them to be correct. As we saw in all his commentaries on the Solomonic books, Gersonides stresses that generally accepted opinions can yield opposing consequences. The mere fact that authorities professed them does not guarantee that they are correct. The supercommentary on the Middle Commentary, though written before the biblical commentaries, fits in perfectly with this observation. In his Long Commentary on Metaphysics III,  Ibn Ruˇsd emphasizes the importance of the method of examination in physics. He explains Aristotle’s aim in the Metaphysics as follows: His goal in this treatise is first to present the dialectical arguments that both corroborate and refute the same thing in all difficult questions in this science [metaphysics], because attaining full knowledge of something, i.e., demonstrative knowledge, requires that a man first know the contradictory arguments about it and then [proceed to] resolve them on the basis of the demonstration of this same thing. And this is Aristotle’s custom in all the sciences, i.e., in the most difficult problems in them. . . . (Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ], fol. v)

34

v .

See Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics, Paris BNF, MS héb. , fols. v,



sara klein-braslavy

He then stresses the importance of dialectical arguments in natural science: But in the study of natural science he saw that it is more excellent for one who wants to construct a demonstration of this question to precede it by the dialectical inquiry in every question. (ibid.)

Gersonides was familiar with the Long Commentary and could have been influenced by Ibn Ruˇsd’s argument there. Perhaps he also included this remark in his lost commentary on the Metaphysics. In the has. s. a#ah of the commentary on Ecclesiastes, however, Gersonides adds another remark about the use of the method of examination in the study of physics: Therefore you will find that in natural science the Philosopher [Aristotle] preceded [the inquiry in] every question by the generally accepted premises relating to it [to physics]. (p. )

Not only did Aristotle recommend the use of the method of examination in demonstrative questions, he himself applied it in his own investigations in physics. Gersonides seems to be thinking of the first book of the Physics.35 He combines his knowledge of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics with his knowledge of Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentary on the Physics and supplements the theoretical argument with a proof based on its practical application.

Dialectic as Mental Exercise In the commentary on the Song of Songs (:) Gersonides mentions another use of dialectic in philosophical investigation—dialectic as mental exercise. One of the preconditions (tena"im) of dialectical investigation is that the investigator train himself in the art of dialectic as a question-and-answer method. Here he is referring explicitly to the beginning of the Topics. As he knew the Topics only through Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary, the reference is to the first utility of dialectic mentioned by Ibn Ruˇsd at the beginning of that work.36 35 Gersonides knew Ibn Ruˇ sd’s Middle Commentary on the Physics and wrote his own supercommentary on it (). In the Middle Commentary Ibn Ruˇsd emphasized Aristotle’s use of the dialectical method in Physics I–IV and described the different stages of its applications there. 36 In the Middle Commentary on the Topics Ibn Ruˇ sd extends Aristotle’s remarks in Topics I,  (a–) about the utility of dialectic and goes beyond him in the

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



According to Aristotle, the first utility of dialectic is as mental gymnastics, training in the question-and-answer technique. The application of this technique is subject to two possible interpretations. First, its purpose may be to train debaters to defeat their opponents and emerge victorious; if so, dialectic does not necessarily aim at the truth and may actually run counter to science and philosophy. Alternatively, training in this technique is a preparation for philosophy. This interpretation is based on the presupposition that dialectic is a mode of philosophical investigation and not just a debating technique. In the Middle Commentary on the Topics Ibn Ruˇsd adopted the second interpretation: dialectic leads to the sciences. It provides the rules and the methods for establishing and refuting opinions and doctrines. According to the introduction to the commentary, the rules provided by dialectic are those of the dialectical question-and-answer method. When one party to a debate employs these rules he can use them to challenge the premises of his opponent— who can, in turn, use them to rebut the challenge and support his own premises. According to this interpretation, training in dialectical rules and methods is a preparatory step for philosophical inquiry. In order to attain truth, philosophical inquiry must refute false opinions and corroborate true opinions. Hence it employs the same rules and methods as dialectical disputation. Ibn Ruˇsd states that knowledge of these rules and methods and practice in applying them enables inquirers to distinguish between true and the false opinions better than they could merely by debating them. He likens training in dialectic to horsemanship: just as training in horsemanship as sport is a preparation for warfare, training in dialectical argumentation is a preparation for philosophy. From the analogy we can infer that training in the dialectical method of questionand-answer is a sort of sport too—a contest or a game. But this game prepares competitors to conduct serious philosophical inquiry: Its utility in training (hergel) that prepares [one] for the sciences. When we dispose of known general rules and known methods and apply them to the corroboration or refutation of something, the capacity in this art it develops for us, so that we can test these doctrines and opinions and distinguish the true among them from the false, is more perfect and better prepared than the capacity that is created in us by mere training without the knowledge of these rules. Therefore, one can attain perfection in this explanation of the three uses of dialectic. That is why Kellner, in his Hebrew edition of the text (p.  n. ), says that he did not find the text Gersonides alluded to here. Indeed, the passage is not found at the beginning of Aristotle’s original treatise but only in Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentary thereon.



sara klein-braslavy art by both of these things, i.e., training and knowledge of the rules. And it is evident that the training aimed by this art is a preparation for philosophy, as training in horsemanship for sport is preparation for war. (Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ] fol. v)

In his supercommentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics, Gersonides takes “philosophy” to mean “metaphysics.” He replaces “doctrines and opinions” by “generally accepted premises.” Hence according to his interpretation training in corroboration and refutation is training in distinguishing between true and false generally accepted premises and is thus a preparation for choosing the true ones so that they can be used as the basis for dialectical syllogisms. As such, dialectic is a preparation for inquiry in metaphysics that is based on generally accepted premises and that employs dialectical syllogisms: Its utility in training (hergel) that prepares [one] for the sciences, i.e., the benefit derived from it is that the training in the practice of this art is more perfect, as the purpose of that training and its benefit, when it is attained in a perfect way, is to prepare for the sciences, because by this training man acquires some preparation for philosophy, because philosophy is constituted by the correct generally accepted premises. (Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hebr.  /  [IMHM ] fol. r)

The “prerequisite training” that Gersonides presents in the commentary on Songs : is based on this understanding of the first utility of dialectic. Gersonides thinks that the methods used in disputation are the same as those used in the dialectical method of examination; hence practice in the use of dialectical rules and methods in disputations prepares the inquirer to identify the true generally accepted premises that should be used in metaphysics. According to the understanding of the first utility of dialectic, “training” complements the account of dialectic presented in the commentaries on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes: dialectical syllogisms can be used to attain true and certain consequences if the generally accepted premises on which they are based have first been subjected to dialectic as method of examination. That examination eliminates the false premises, leaving only the true ones for use in the syllogism. Exercise in applying the rules and methods of dialectic in a question-and-answer format can improve the investigator’s skill in applying dialectic as a method of examination, which in turn allows him to overcome the “weakness” of the dialectical method as a method of verification. To sum up: Drawing on Aristotle’s Metaphysics and on his understanding of Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries on the Topics, especially the Middle

dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries



Commentary, along with his interpretation of the remarks about the usefulness of three types of dialectic—dialectic as a method of verification, dialectic as a method of examination, and dialectic as training (i.e., as mental exercise)—in his biblical commentaries Gersonides offers a complete theory of dialectic as an investigative tool that makes it possible to acquire true and certain scientific knowledge in metaphysics, politics, and physics.

DEMONSTRATIVE ASTRONOMY: ˇ NOTES ON LEVI BEN GERSOM’S ANSWER TO GUIDE II.24*

José Luis Mancha And to fatigue the minds with notions that cannot be grasped by them and for the grasp of which they have no instrument, is a defect in one’s inborn disposition or some sort of temptation. Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed II. But this is utterly absurd; for if it were true, then nature would have endowed us with a faculty for theoretical inquiries that would be for no purpose. Moreover, the natural desire we have for theoretical knowledge would also be superfluous; which is also absurd, since nature does not do anything in vain. Levi ben Gerˇsom, The Wars of the Lord I.

Levi ben Gerˇsom (Gersonides) was equally proficient as a reader of Ptolemy’s Almagest and of Maimonides’ Guide (he was at once Syrus and Joseph ben Judah). The Wars of the Lord, the culmination of his philosophical and scientific activity, was the outcome of a careful, critical, and constant dialogue with both works. Scholars knowledgeable about medieval astronomy readily admit that the astronomical section of Book V of the Wars (Wars V.) constitutes an articulated and mathematically sophisticated solution to Maimonides’ “true perplexity” and also agree that it gives us a better understanding of the nature and extent of Maimonides’ problem.1 In contrast to Maimonides, Gersonides’

* This article is offered as a tribute of friendship, appreciation, and gratitude to Gad Freudenthal. I would like to thank Ruth Glasner for checking some Hebrew texts for me and Sara Klein-Braslavy for providing me with copies of her  and  papers on Gersonides (the first in an English version still unpublished). I wish to thank them also for their detailed comments on this work. 1 Y.T. Langermann, “The True Perplexity: The Guide of the Perplexed, Part II, Chapter ,” in J.L. Kraemer, ed., Perspectives on Maimonides. Philosophical and Historical Studies (Oxford, ): –; idem, “My Truest Perplexities,” Aleph  (): –; Gad Freudenthal, “Gersonide, génie solitaire. Remarques sur l’évolution de sa pensée et



josé luis mancha

purpose was ambitious: to describe the true configuration of the heavenly orbs so that no doubt could remain, and to show that no model other than those offered in his work agreed with the observed data of planetary motion and the principles of natural philosophy. In the colophon of the work, dated December , he asserted that the results of his investigation in Wars V. were “the acme and goal of mathematical sciences, as far as this can be achieved.”2 Soon afterward, at the beginning of his Treatise on Geometry, he wrote that had already attained a “demonstrative astronomy.”3 Nevertheless, in , Wars V. did not contain quantitative models for the Sun, the Moon, and the planets, or tables of equations from which predictions could be derived. The part on solar and lunar theory (chapters – and –) was written after – and thoroughly revised some time after ;4 moreover, internal evidence strongly suggests that the work was still unfinished when Gersonides died in . On the other hand, even though Gersonides admitted in various places that much was added to the text after , he kept repeating that the work was “completed” by that date. In what sense did he consider an astronomical text without parameters or tables to be “completed”? What did he mean by “demonstrative astronomy”? Chapter , which was not written before , provides a clue. After noting that observational evidence compelled him to depart from Ptolemy and that he was unable to determine the mean position of the Sun “until the year  according to the Christian reckoning,” Gersonides writes that

de ses méthodes sur quelque points,” in C. Sirat, S. Klein-Braslavy and O. Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez les scolastiques (Paris, ): –. 2 Wars V..XIV; S. Feldman, trans., Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides). The Wars of the Lord,  vols. (Philadelphia, –): :. 3 T. Lévy, “Gersonide, commentateur d’ Euclide. Traduction annotée de ses gloses sur les Éléments,” in Gad Freudenthal, ed., Studies on Gersonides. A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist (Leiden, ): –, on p. ; R. Glasner, “The Early Stages in the Evolution of Gersonides’ The Wars of the Lord,” Jewish Quarterly Review  (): –, on p. . 4 In fact, at least  of the  preserved chapters of the Hebrew version of the Astronomy were written after , and at least  of these  after ; see J.L. Mancha, “Levi ben Gerson’s Astronomical Work: Chronology and Christian Context,” Science in Context  (): – (repr. in J.L. Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics [Ashgate, ]).

demonstrative astronomy



. . . we sought to produce a model for each planet consistent with the positions that we observed even if that entailed a slight deviation from the values for the maximum planetary corrections postulated by Ptolemy. We were so eager to achieve this, even before completing all the observations appropriate to be undertaken by someone whose goal is a perfect investigation in this art [of astronomy], because we feared that, should we perish, this wonderful science concerning the truly existing planetary models that we had already attained in a general way would perish too, before we had a chance to complete the particular details for each planet.5

For Gersonides, then, Wars V. comprised two distinct parts. The first, completed in , was a general presentation of the arrangement of the planetary orbs, attained by demonstration; the second, aimed at deriving the parameters of these arrangements in such a way that their observed motions were perfectly represented was still unfinished in ; but its achievement, a matter of time, was entailed by the first one. My purpose here is to outline Gersonides’ answer to Maimonides: why he asserted that his research proceeded in a demonstrative way and why he was confident that, once completed, it would depict the true configuration of the heavens without the slightest doubt. What Pines called the skandalon of medieval science resulted from two intertwined problems. The first is one of consistency: the hypotheses of eccentrics and epicycles, with or without equant, contradict Aristotle’s principle that all the heavenly orbs, and their circular and uniform motions, are concentric with the Earth. Among medieval scholars, though, the weight of Aristotle’s doctrine of the heavens was inversely proportional to their competence in astronomy6 and largely depended on the degree of their acceptance of Aristotle’s classification of sciences, 5

B.R. Goldstein, “A New Set of Fourteenth-Century Planetary Observations,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society  (): –, on p.  (emphasis added). 6 R. Bacon, for instance, who dismissed observational objections to Aristotle’s concentric spheres as sophismata ad quae sensus ducit, conducted a lengthy discussion of the conflict between al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı and Ptolemy in his Opus tertium and Communia naturalium, though he had no understanding of al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s models and only a poor knowledge of Ptolemy’s work. The case of al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı also suggests that sometimes we miss the trees for Aristotle’s forest. We often repeat that al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı was the culmination of Andalusian Aristotelianism and do not realize that he omitted, without notice, some of Aristotle’s principles. In the Kit¯ab fi"l-hay"a, the number of heavenly orbs is less than the number of motions (that is, an orb is moved by two different motions, at variance with Metaphysics XII.) and these orbs move only from east to west (at variance with De caelo, II.). In fact, al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s work can be linked to the Ras¯a"il ihw¯an al-s. af¯a" just as well as to Ibn Ruˇsd. ˘



josé luis mancha

which subordinates astronomy to physics and physics to metaphysics. Philosophers trained in mathematics and astronomy, like Ibn B¯ag˘ g˘ a and Maimonides, were quick to realize that it was impossible to restore the lost coherence without modifying Aristotle’s principles. The second problem is harder to solve than the first and persists even if the consistency between physical principles and astronomical hypotheses is restored. It derives from Aristotle’s doctrine that scientific knowledge should be demonstrative and can be enunciated as follows: Although a hypothesis is unacceptable if it does not agree with physical principles, agreement with observation does not prove it true, even if it is physically acceptable, because it cannot be excluded that another hypothesis explains the phenomena. In choosing, for instance, between hypotheses H1 and H2, both of which agree with observation, whereas only H1 agrees with physical principles, we must prefer H1 and reject H2. Yet this is no proof of H1, unless we must assume that H 1 and H 2 cannot both be false. Many medieval authors stated clearly the problem.7 Nowadays, we assert that agreement between observation statements that are logical consequences of a hypothesis and the phenomena can only confirm (or corroborate), not verify, that hypothesis. For Ptolemy, an argument derived from assumptions whose consequences were confirmed by observation constituted a valid form of scientific knowledge, but it was not enough (indeed it was unacceptable) for Aristotle. This is not to object that astronomy cannot provide propter quid (τ διτι) demonstrations (we cannot assert this, because, according to Aristotle, astronomical knowledge proceeds a posteriori), but to point out that agreement between prediction and observation cannot be considered a quia (τ τι) demonstration, which, along with mathematical demonstrations, are the kind allegedly provided by astronomers. The two problems can be expressed as follows: () From general principles (Aristotle’s natural philosophy) that are apparently well demonstrated (and thus apparently true) we can only deduce observation statements that describe the phenomena incorrectly (and are thus false). () Particular principles (eccentrics and epicycles) are not demonstrable (and thus may be false) even though the observation statements deduced from them correctly describe the phenomena (and thus are true). 7 See, for instance, Ibn Ruˇ sd’s penetrating analysis in De caelo II, , and, among Christian scholars, Aquinas, Summa theologica I, , . See also A.I. Sabra, “Configuring the Universe: Aporetic, Problem Solving, and Kinematic Modeling as Themes of Arabic Astronomy,” Perspectives on Science  () (): –, on pp. –.

demonstrative astronomy



Because Gersonides was a scientist, when phenomena and principles conflict only the principles are modifiable, because “a reasoning from which a false conclusion follows must have a falsity in its premises or in one of them” and “it is improper that we discard [what we know through] experience on account of conclusions we reach through theoretical reasoning.”8 Gersonides considered the variations in apparent planetary sizes as part of the astronomical data to be explained.9 Quantitative measurement of these variations, using a pinhole camera, and mathematical reasoning led him to the conclusion that these variations are indeed variations in distance, that the doctrine that all the heavenly orbs are concentric with the Earth is simply wrong, and that, in consequence, Aristotle’s natural philosophy must be modified.10 Other crucial matters, 8 J.L. Mancha and Gad Freudenthal, “Levi ben Gershom’s Criticism of Ptolemy’s Astronomy,” Aleph  (), –, on pp.  and . 9 On Gersonides’ emphasis on the variations of apparent planetary diameters, see ibid., pp. –; B.R. Goldstein, The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson (–) (New York and Berlin, ); idem, “Levi ben Gerson and the Brightness of Mars,” Journal for the History of Astronomy  (): –; idem, “The Physical Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson,” Perspectives in Science  (): –. As far as we know, Gersonides was the only medieval astronomer to derive the eccentricity of the Sun from the variation of its apparent diameters at solstices. See J.L. Mancha, “Astronomical Use of Pinhole Images in William of Saint-Cloud’s Almanach planetarum (),” Archive for History of Exact Sciences  (): –; repr. in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics. This departs from the Ptolemaic tradition, which derived it from the Sun’s unequal zodiacal motion. 10 Gersonides’ modifications in Aristotle’s natural philosophy have been described by R. Glasner: “Gersonides’ Theory of Natural Motion,” Early Science and Medicine  (): –; and “Gersonides on Simple and Composite Movements,” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science  (): –. Glasner also stressed the importance of empirical methods in Gersonides’ discussion of Aristotle’s principles. I depart from her, however, when she holds that Gersonides came to adopt them “while studying al-Bit.r¯uj¯ı’s criticism of Ptolemaic astronomy” (“The Early Stages”, p. ), a hypothesis that seems to me extremely unlikely. Gersonides wrote his Book of the Correct Syllogism in  and his Sefer Ma#a´seh hoˇ . sev in ; by this time he had already attained a level in logic and mathematics that secured him a place in the history of these disciplines. No evidence compels us to believe that at that date his mastery of astronomy lagged far behind his mathematics: the earliest observations recorded in Wars V. (solar and lunar eclipses) are dated June–July , when he was also working on his Jacob staff. Thus, it is very difficult to imagine that Gersonides, an assiduous reader of the Almagest, took a long detour to learn the importance of the empirical method from al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s “false conceptions of the science of astronomy and of the role of the astronomer.” Gersonides’ verdict on al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s (whose theory, according to him, contradicted observation, natural science, and mathematics) was: “I do not know what to say about this man, for I do not understand his thought: whether he wished to deceive us showing that he had found the true arrangement of the heavens, although he was aware it was not true, or rather he was



josé luis mancha

too, are decided on observational grounds.11 As for the second problem (empirical confirmation is not a demonstration), it is as if Gersonides opposed the following argument to Maimonides: Is it really true (namely has it been demonstrated) that we cannot demonstrate particular principles from which we can deduce observation statements that correctly describe the phenomena? Maimonides’ position was ambiguous. He admitted that demonstration is not an absolute impossibility in astronomy (according to Guide I. and II., astronomers have demonstrated beyond doubt the inclination of the Sun’s orb and the sphericity of the Sun’s body; according to I., those who dispute that the Earth is spherical and that the sphere of the stars has a circular motion are resisting demonstration). Aristotle had not been aware of the Sun’s eccentricity, “for in his time mathematics had not been brought to perfection”—here, as in Nicomachean Ethics I., time is a good discoverer—and the little we can grasp about the heavens is acquired through mathematics. But Maimonides also repeated Simplicius’ old defense of Aristotle’s natural science against astronomy, suggesting that no demonstration of whether the Sun has an eccentric orb or an epicycle is possible—now time is of no avail—and that astronomers can only save the phenomena, for “it is impossible for us to accede to the points starting from which conclusions may be drawn about the heavens, for the latter are too far away from us and too high in place and rank.” Gersonides’ answer runs parallel to his reply to Maimonides’ perplexity about “eternity versus creation”: the absence of a demonstration is a historical fact, not a proof of impossibility; nor has the need to resort to revelation or prophecy been established. Indeed, it has been possible for us to attain the starting points of demonstrations that lead to conclusions about the inclination of the Sun’s orb or the solar and lunar distances, simply wrong and believed that the arrangement he found was true” (Wars, V..; Vat. Lat. , fols. rb–va: “Nunc quid de hoc homine dicam ignoro, non enim intelligo intentionem ipsius: utrum vellet nos decipere et veram dispositionem se invenisse ostendere, licet eam non esse veram cognoverit, vel ipse erraverit et dispositionem per eum inventam esse veram crediderit”). The details of Gersonides’ reply to Maimonides’ objection to eccentrics are also known (J.L. Mancha, “Heuristic Reasoning: Approximation Procedures in Levi ben Gerson’s Astronomy,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences  []: – [repr. in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics], esp. pp.  ff.). 11 For instance, the rejection of Ptolemy’s lunar model or of the existence of epicycles (Goldstein, The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, pp. –; J.L. Mancha, “The Provençal Version of Levi ben Gerson’s Tables for Eclipses,” Archives Internationales d’ Histoire des Sciences  []: –, esp. p. ; Mancha and Freudenthal, “Levi ben Gershom’s Criticism of Ptolemy’s Astronomy,” pp. –).

demonstrative astronomy



despite the heavens are “too far away and high.” Eccentrics and epicycles are conjectures about the shape and position of the heavenly bodies, and their existence is thus susceptible of demonstration or refutation, exactly like the conjectures about the shape of the Earth (spherical or cylindrical) or the position of the Sun’s orb (parallel or inclined to the equator). Briefly, Gersonides’ answer to Maimonides is that quia demonstrations in astronomy can proceed far beyond the initial cosmographical sections of the Almagest—or, in other words, that the “small measure” of the heavens that human beings can grasp can be increased. In order to appreciate the details and originality of Gersonides’ solution, we must look at the order of the treatment of topics in Wars V. and the Almagest to see how far the former departs from the tradition of astronomical texts inaugurated by the latter (v. Table ). There is no parallel in the Almagest to Wars V..–. The length of this section indicates its importance for Gersonides. In the table the chapters are classed under the rubrics “parts of the contradiction” and “auxiliary chapters.” In the former, Gersonides uses successive dichotomies and trichotomies to construct a logical tree that includes all possible models to account for the observed data, along with their geometrical properties and indications of the extent to which they correspond with the initial data (see the summary of the contents of chapters – in Appendix A).12 Models that are a priori unable to account for the phenomena are not considered. Inasmuch as Gersonides holds that from false assumptions eventually follow false conclusions,13 the inquiry leads by elimination to a qualitative model that offers a true picture of the arrangement of the planetary orbs. The auxiliary chapters address problems that must be solved before the quantitative models can be devised: e.g., the direction in which the motion is transmitted inside the sphere of a planet (from the outermost

12 Chapter  has been edited by Goldstein (The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, esp. pp. – and –). He pointed out that he was not aware of “a comparably exhaustive discussion in any other ancient or medieval treatise” but did not deal with the purpose of Gersonides’ research. The Latin version of chapter  was edited and published by J.L. Mancha, “Right Ascensions and Hippopedes: Homocentric Models in Levi ben Gerson’s Astronomy, I: First Anomaly,” Centaurus  (): –; repr. in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics. Some indications to help interpret the meaning and aim of the partes contradictionis in Wars V. can be found there (p. ) and in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics, p. ix. 13 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb: “Impossibile est quod ex dispositione non vera sequetur continue conclusio vera.”



josé luis mancha Table 

Almagest

Wars V.

I.–

Introduction, order of theorems

–

Introduction

I.–

Sphericity and circular motion of the heavens, centrality and immobility of the Earth



Trigonometry

I.

Description of the two primary motions in the heavens

–

Description and use of observation instruments (pinhole camera, Jacob staff, astrolabe)

I.–

Trigonometry

–

Observational data to be accounted for: () motion in longitude, () motion in latitude, and () variations in apparent diameter

–

An inquiry, using the partes contradictionis method, of all possible models to account for –:

–

Parts of the contradiction concerning motion in longitude

–

Parts of the contradiction concerning motion in anomaly

–

Auxiliary chapters: number and order of the orbs inside the sphere of a planet, fluid between spheres

–

Parts of the contradiction concerning motion in anomaly

–

Auxiliary chapters: discussion of Ptolemy’s and al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s theories; Ptolemy’s equant; methods for determining mean planetary positions, equations, and parameters



Epilogue to chapters –

I.

Description and use of observation – instruments (ring, quadrant)

Sphericity and circular motion of the heavens, centrality and immobility of the Earth, Milky Way, light of stars and planets

I.–, II Spherical astronomy

–

Solar theory

III.–

Length of the year and mean motion of the Sun



Precession

III.

Hypotheses for uniform circular motion (eccentrics, epicycles)



Spherical astronomy

III.–

Solar theory

–

Lunar and eclipse theory

IV–V

Lunar theory (V. armillary sphere; – V. parallactic instrument)

Planetary motion in longitude

VI

Eclipses

–

Planetary motion in latitude

VII–VIII

Precession, catalogue of stars, spherical astronomy

–

Planetary distances

IX–XII

Planetary motion in longitude

XIII

Planetary motion in latitude

demonstrative astronomy



to the innermost orb, or vice versa), or the approximation methods useful for deriving planetary parameters when strictly Euclidean procedures cannot be applied. In recent years, a series of illuminating articles have dealt with the role of the “parts of the contradiction” in the philosophical and theological sections of the Wars14 and with Gersonides’ notion of the scientific method.15 Klein-Braslavy has pointed out that Gersonides uses the expression “parts of the contradiction” as equivalent to “all the possible alternatives” exhausting a question, or “the number of parts that the division may yield.” The simplest case is found in the discussion of Providence in his commentary on Job () and in Wars IV, where the possible solutions to the problem correspond to the logical forms in the traditional square of opposition (A, E, I, or O).16 Klein-Braslavy’s conclusion is that Gersonides’ method is a systematization of Aristotle’s diaporematic (dialectic) method, which starts with the two contradictory views—thesis and antithesis, yes or no—that produce an aporia (Topics VI.). He draws on two sources for the opinions that produce the aporia: historical views or the opinions of earlier thinkers (the endoxical premises), and all of the logico-philosophically possible answers to the problem (the parts of the contradiction) and, she asserts, gives primacy to the latter because the truth can be reached only if all the possible answers are considered.17 In my view, however, it is misleading to apply the label of “diaporematic or dialectic method” to Gersonides’ procedure in his commentary on Ecclesiastes and to that employed used in his discussion of the problem of the agent of miracles in Wars VI... In the first case, one necessarily starts from the “commonly accepted opinions,” as they correspond to the 14 S. Klein-Braslavy, “The Opinions that Give Rise to the Aporias in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord,” (Heb.) in E. Fleischer, G. Blidstein, C. Horowitz and B. Septimus, eds, Meah She"arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Jerusalem, ): –; eadem, “La méthode diaporématique de Gersonide dans les Guerres du Seigneur,” in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy, and Weijers, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide, pp. –; eadem, “The Alexandrian Prologue Paradigm in Gersonides’ Writings,” Jewish Quarterly Review  (): –. 15 Glasner, “The Early Stages”; eadem, “Gersonides’ Lost Commentary on the Metaphysics,” Medieval Encounters  (): –. 16 The method proceeds by elimination: “Now that we have cited the various arguments in behalf of these two theories, it is proper to examine in a complete manner if any of them is true, for this will help us in determining whether the third view is true or false. For if none of the former theories is true, the third must be true, since all these theories exhaust the possible alternatives on this question” (Wars IV.; trans. Feldman, :). 17 Klein-Braslavy, “La méthode diaporématique,” pp. –.



josé luis mancha

ethical (not theoretical) nature of the matter; in the second, where Gersonides’ aim is to provide an indirect proof, the endoxa are superfluous. In the first case, Gersonides admits that it is not possible to achieve true demonstrations about the subject, but only probable knowledge; whereas in Wars IV, V., and VI.. he claims to have reached the truth in a demonstrative way. As for the sources of Gersonides’ method, perhaps his commentaries on the Topics or the Posterior Analytics, once examined, can provide some useful information; meanwhile, I would suggest the indirect proofs familiar to mathematicians since Eudoxus—the reductio ad absurdum (dichotomy) and the double reductio ad absurdum (trichotomy), as in Book XII of Euclid’s Elements and in Almagest I.–. Medieval astronomers, both eastern and western, considered Ptolemy’s proofs to be quia (inn¯ı) demonstrations, based only on mathematics and observation; recall B¯ır¯un¯ı’s hostile rejection, in his al-Q¯an¯un al-Mas#¯ud¯ı, of Ptolemy’s additional argument, founded on “physical considerations,” in Almagest I.. The proofs that the Sun’s orb is inclined and that the volume of a cone is one-third that of a cylinder with the same base and height, mentioned by Maimonides in I. and I., respectively, have the same logical structure; the former involves only observation and mathematics. (For two examples of the exhaustion of all possibilities, taken from Ptolemy’s Almagest and T¯ . us¯ı’s Tadkira, see Appendix B.) In general, we may wonder ¯ Euclid with Aristotle’s eyes or Aristotle through whether Gersonides read Euclidean lenses. As for Glasner, although I agree with her main conclusion that “Gersonides’ experience as a scientist, mainly as an astronomer, dictated his notion of science and led him to an empiricist interpretation of the Posterior Analytics,” I do not accept her characterization of Gersonides’ scientific method as dialectical (agreeing with Klein-Braslavy’s view) and “empirical.” The two examples she adduces to show that the method is dialectical are problematic.18 More importantly, it is not possible to assert 18 I do not believe that we should apply the label “dialectical” to the mathematical procedure that Gersonides called heqeˇs tahbuli in Wars V.. (even in the Hebrew . text of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Epitome of the Almagest is used the word mofet), but I cannot deal with this matter here (see Mancha, “Heuristic Reasoning”). Glasner cites Gersonides’ discussion, in Wars V..–, of the theories of Ptolemy and al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı to support the contention that “demonstrative astronomy” uses the diaporematic method: their theories would be the “commonly accepted premises” (endoxa) that constitute the aporia. Instead, Gersonides clearly states that these chapters do not properly belong to the partes contradictionis: “We have established that al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı’s arrangement does not agree at all

demonstrative astronomy



that “confirmation by highly accurate observations guarantees the certainty of science, and hence its right to be regarded as demonstrative science”19 without, as pointed out by Ibn Ruˇsd and Aquinas,20 falling into a fallacia consequentis that Gersonides avoided. Here are several passages from Wars V. that can help us understanding the meaning and purpose of the “parts of the contradiction”: Once we have assumed those necessary assumptions concerning what is perceived by the senses on the motions of the planets and the variations in their apparent diameters, we must posit all the parts of the contradiction which can be posited concerning the arrangement of spheres and orbs for the planets, so that anyone can verify if what we observe in

with observation. This is why we did not include it among the parts of the contradiction which we analyzed above, since it would be inappropriate to include it among them taking into account that this arrangement is very far from truth as well as from our observations of the heavenly bodies, and also because it is manifest that a single body cannot be moved at the same time with different motions per se, as assumed in this arrangement” (Wars, V..; Vat. Lat. , va: “Et est declaratum ex dictis quod dispositio Alpetragij cum hijs que videmus non concordat cum aliquo. Ideo ista dispositio in aliqua partium contradictionis quas numeravimus superius non intravit, quia non decet ipsam intrare aliquam partium predictarum ratione tante distantie ab apparentia veritatis et ab hijs que in celestibus corporibus nos videmus, et etiam quia est per se notum quod idem corpus numero per se non potest plures motus simul habere modo quo in ista dispositione supponitur”). It is worth remembering that an argument is dialectic if its premises are commonly accepted or reputable opinions; nevertheless, an argument that starts from premises that are sense percepts and proceeds mathematically is not dialectic, even if its aim is to refute a commonly accepted opinion. According to Topics I., an argument can be demonstrative or dialectic (exclusive disjunction); we have no evidence to think that Gersonides admitted “dialectical demonstrations”; in his supercommentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Epitome of De caelo (), Gersonides wrote that “the proofs from which follows the truth concerning this entire subject [i.e., eccentrics and epicycles] are mathematical” (Glasner, “The Early Stages,” p. ). I depart from Glasner on the following point as well: although Ibn Ruˇsd asserted that eccentrics and epicycles are assumptions supported neither by demonstration nor by induction, we cannot infer that “Averroes did not consider astronomy a demonstrative science” (Glasner, “Gersonides’ Lost Commentary on the Metaphysics,” p. ). In his Epitome of the Almagest, Ibn Ruˇsd only asserts that elementary astronomical textbooks (as al-Far˙ga¯n¯ı’s, for instance) do not contain demonstrations (J. Lay, “L’Abrégé de l’ Almageste: un inédit d’ Averroes en version hébraïque,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  []: –); on the other hand, according to him the motions of the Sun are a proof that the Sun moves on an inclined orb and that this inclined orb is the cause of these motions; thus, this proof is, clearly, a demonstratio per signum. 19 Glasner, “Gersonides’ Lost Commentary on the Metaphysics,” p. . 20 “Although the appearances can be saved with these principles [i.e., eccentrics and epicycles], it is not right to say they are true, because perhaps it is possible to save the planetary appearances in another way yet not grasped by human beings” (Aquinas, Expositio in libros de caelo et mundo I, XVII). See also the texts mentioned in note .



josé luis mancha the planets concerning the variation of their motions and their diameters follow from them. We will also indicate the properties of the mentioned parts of the contradiction, and other characteristics by which a part of the contradiction can be distinguished from other, so that we can choose between those that agree with our observations and those which disagree.21 These parts of the contradiction are all the conceivable parts of the contradiction from which that variation follows; it is known that in the heavenly orbs there is no other possible cause from which this variation can follow apart from those we have examined, namely the center of the motion, the motion of the poles, and the distance of the planet to the point of the orb which moves with the mean motion.22 When we investigated this matter for the Moon and observation showed us the impossibility of the arrangement posited by Ptolemy, it was necessary for us to investigate carefully and with effort all the alternative possibilities which we can conceive for the arrangements of the celestial bodies until we arrived at an arrangement from which can follow what we observe in them.23 Taking into account what we have established on the different models for the motion in longitude and the motion in anomaly, it is clear that there is no great difficulty, for a man competent on these matters, to find a model agreeing with the observed motions in longitude and anomaly—either using the observed amounts of the additive and subtractive corrections

21

Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb: “Postquam supponimus illud quod erat necessario supponendum de hiis que per experientias sensibiles nobis apparent de motibus planetarum et diversitatibus quantitatum diametrorum eorum, necesse est quod ponamus omnes partes contradictionis que possent poni de dispositione sperarum et orbium planetarum, ex quibus posset cogitare quis quod sequerentur ea que videmus in planetis quoad diversitates motuum et diametrorum eorum. Et declarabimus dictarum partium contradictionis consequentia et alia de quibus distinguitur una pars contradictionis ab alia, ut ex eis possimus eligere illa que concordant cum hiis que videmus in ipsis et que ab eis discordant.” Goldstein (The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, p. ) translates the Hebrew text of the first sentence (kol helqei ha-soter ˇse-efˇsar) as “all mutually contradic. tory possible [models].” 22 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb: “ . . . est notum quod iste partes contradictionis sunt omnes ille quas quis posset imaginari ex quibus sequitur dicta diversitas; quod autem nulle alie cause sint in speris celestibus ex quibus possit hoc sequi nisi ille quas nominavimus, que sunt centrum motus, motus polorum et distantia planete a loco cui est proportionatus motus equalis . . . ” 23 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , vb: “Et quando quesivimus hoc modo in luna, et per experientiam impossibilitatem dispositionis quam posuit Ptolomeus invenimus, necessarium fuit nobis investigare subtiliter cum labore omnes partes contradictionis imaginabiles in celestium corporum dispositionibus in tantum quod ad dispositionem devenimus ex qua poterat sequi accidentia que videmus in eis.” See also Goldstein, “A New Set of Fourteenth Century Planetary Observations,” p. .

demonstrative astronomy



or the variation of the apparent diameters of the planets, both occurring at the different places of the zodiac and of the motion in anomaly—, because we have analyzed many models, and it is impossible that one of them does not agree with the truth since we have exhausted all the possibilities.24

In Posterior Analytics I., Aristotle provides the following syllogism as an example of a proof of the fact (quia demonstration): The planets do not twinkle; that which does not twinkle is near; therefore, the planets are near,

and he adds that we must take the truth of the second premise as having been reached by (complete) induction or perception. Let us consider that m means “with the observed features of the planetary motion in longitude.” Astronomers demonstrated mathematically that what moves on an eccentric moves with an m-motion, but the syllogism implicit in their works: The planets move with an m-motion; that which moves on an eccentric moves with an m-motion; therefore, the planets move on eccentrics,

is invalid, as noted by Ibn Ruˇsd, who concluded that astronomy cannot provide any kind of demonstration concerning eccentrics and epicycles. On the other hand, The planets move with an m-motion; that which moves with an m-motion moves on an eccentric; therefore, the planets move on eccentrics,

is a valid syllogism, although the truth of the second premise has not been proven and does not result from induction or perception. Consequently, if we could provide an indirect proof of it, namely if we could list all the possible ways of producing m-motion and then demonstrate by elimination that, of all of them, an m-motion can be inferred only from

24 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , va–b: “Et est notum quod cum eo quod in dispositionibus motus longitudinis et motus diversitatis posuimus non est magna difficultas homini in ista facultate perfecto invenire dispositionem concordem cum eo quod per experientiam motus longitudinis et in motu diversitatis uidemus, et hoc uel per quantitatem equationis quam in planetis in quolibet loco çodiaci et motus diversitatis addende vel subtrahende videmus, vel diversitatem quantitatis diametrorum visam in planetis in diversis locis çodiaci vel motus diversitatis; quia nos habemus dispositiones multas paratas, sic quod est impossibile veritatem non concordari cum una earum, quia contradictionis sunt partes.”



josé luis mancha

the eccentric, we would prove without any doubt the premise “that which moves with m-motion moves on an eccentric,” and our conclusion would be necessary and true. The meaning of the chapters devoted to the partes contradictionis (especially chapters –) is shown by a comparison with Almagest III.. Ptolemy postulated eccentrics and epicycles (which were undoubtedly the results of a previous and unreported inquiry) to account qualitatively for the observed planetary motions and provided proofs of their geometrical properties (these qualitative models are fit to the phenomena later, in Books IX–XIII, with the derivation of parameters for each planet). Gersonides, by contrast, replaces postulation by deduction, investigating all conceivable arrangements of orbs in order to find by elimination the model that accounts for all the observable consequences of the planets’ motion. This demonstration requires only observation (which provides us with the magnitudes of the variations in motions and apparent sizes) and mathematics (which allows us to construct the geometrical models and demonstrate their properties). Thus observational data are both the outside limits of the set of possibilities to be considered and the selection criteria to be used inside it; although it is not excluded that natural science may sometimes be able to provide independent confirmation of a limit or selection. The resulting qualitative model constitutes the “wonderful science . . . attained in a general way” by Gersonides in . Some years ago I described Gersonides’ proposed solution to the epistemological problem as “ingenious but inevitably ingenuous.”25 It is ingenious because Gersonides demonstrated a deep insight into the problem (and a confidence in the capacities of human reason, without which the growth of knowledge and innovation are not possible). It is ingenuous because he seems not to have suspected the complexity and difficulties involved in the construction of the partes contradictionis for the problem he was trying to solve (“true or false?” and “greater than, equal to, or less than?” are not questions like “how?”). Gersonides asserts, for instance, that a motion that is eccentric per accidens can result only from concentric orbs moving around inclined axes (as proposed by Eudoxus) or from models in which the planet is distant from the point of the orb that moves with the mean motion.26 Is this 25 26

Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics, p. ix. “Si autem ponatur motus proprie concentricus et per accidens sequetur motus

demonstrative astronomy



really a dichotomy? The division seems rather ad hoc and strongly suggests a listing of the ways he knew to produce the results he sought. In the examples from Ptolemy and T¯ . us¯ı (Appendix B) we are dealing with divisions that soon exhaust the possibilities; but, if the division is combinatorial, when do we stop? In Wars V.. (Appendix A, Bbb.), Gersonides examines the possibilities of combining three motions (all of them with velocity v equal to m, the mean motion in longitude) so that the two motions that produce the variation move in opposite directions. The combinations explored are () one eccentric and two concentric motions and () two concentric and one eccentric motion, with the subdivisions (a) the two eccentrics move in the same or in opposite directions and (b) the two resulting equations agree (both positive or negative) or disagree (one positive, the other negative). We can wonder why v = m is a condition for all three motions. Had Gersonides considered the case in which the westward concentric motion moves with v = m, but the two eccentric motions with v =  m and v =  m (eastward and westward, respectively), he would have discovered Hafr¯ı’s lunar model27 (which avoids the ˘ eccentric, uniform around the Earth irregular motion of Ptolemy’s lunar instead of around its own center) and thus solved the equant problem. There is no doubt that Gersonides was overly confident about the capacities of human reason; Maimonides’ ignorabimus, though, whichever his reasons, was also excessive. In the conflict between the two, we sometimes forget that they are closer to each other than either is to us.

eccentricus, non subterfugit quin sit altero duorum modorum, vel sit propter motum polorum, quorum unus circa alium semper giret [ . . .] vel propter distantiam planete a loco spere cui est proportionatus motus equalis . . .” (Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb). 27 G. Saliba, “A Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy: The Work of Shams al-D¯ın al-Khafr¯ı,” Journal for the History of Astronomy  (): –.



josé luis mancha Appendix A Exhaustion of all the possible alternatives (“parts of the contradiction”) to account for the planetary motion in longitude (Wars V., chapters , , , and )

Principles: (i) the planets are affixed to their orbs and move only with the motion of their orbs; (ii) the motion of these orbs is always uniform and the observed variations are only appearances. Parts of the Division A: B: Ba: Bb: Bb: Bb:

The variation occurs per se; this is impossible, according to principle (i) and natural science. The variation occurs per accidens, namely the motion is uniform but, for some reason, it appears to us as irregular. In this case, the motion can be: concentric; no variation follows; eccentric; there are two possibilities: the motion is eccentric per se; the motion is eccentric per accidens.

In the first case (Bb), two possibilities: Bba: Bbb:

the motion is simple; the motion is composite.

If the motion is simple (Bba) there are two possibilities: Bba.: Bba.: Bba..: Bba..:

the orb carrying the planet is concentric with the Earth, but its motion is uniform around another center; the orb carrying the planet is eccentric, and this in two ways: the eccentric orb encompasses the Earth; the eccentric orb does not encompass the Earth.

If the motion is composite (Bbb), it may consist of Bbb.: Bbb.: Bbb.:

two motions, three motions, more than three motions.

In the second case (Bb), there are two possibilities, depending on whether it follows Bba: Bbb:

from the motion of concentric orbs moving around inclined axes, or from the (variable) distance between the planet and the point of the orb which moves with the mean motion.

Parts of the division of Bba (the motion in longitude is simple; chapter ): Bba.:

the orb carrying the planet is concentric and its motion uniform around another center.

demonstrative astronomy



Properties of this model: • the maximum correction corresponds to an angle of ° of mean motion; • distance and apparent diameter of the planet do not vary; • if the eccentricity is made equal in models Bba. and Bba..a (below), the correction will be greater in model Bba. than in model Bba..a from ° to ° of mean motion ahead or behind the beginning of the mean motion, and the contrary in the remainder of the circle. Bba.: Bba..: Bba..:

the orb carrying the planet is eccentric. Two possibilities: the eccentric orb encompasses the Earth; the eccentric orb does not encompass the Earth but it is placed inside an orb which encompasses the Earth (in this case, the eccentric orb is called epicycle). • Conditions under which Bba.. and Bba.. are observationally equivalent (from both the same apparent motion and variations in distance follow); • Properties which are common to models Bba.. and Bba..: • the maximum correction will correspond to an angle (counted from the apogee) greater than ° of mean motion by the amount of the maximum correction; • the apparent diameter of the planet varies between a minimum at apogee and a maximum at perigee. • Differences between models Bba.. and Bba..: • in model Bba.. the observer always sees the same part of the surface of the planet (but not in model Bba..); • in model Bba.., the motion of the planet is fastest when it is farthest from the Earth if the orb carrying the epicycle and the epicycle move is the same direction; in model Bba.. the motion is slowest at the farthest point from the Earth.

When the eccentric orb encompasses the Earth (Bba..), there are two possibilities: Bba..a: Bba..b: Bba..b.:

the motion of the eccentric orb is uniform with respect to its center; the motion of the eccentric orb is uniform with respect to another point. In this case, there are two possibilities: the motion is uniform with respect to the center of the Earth. Properties: the motion of the planet is observed to be uniform, and the size of the planet appears to vary. Ptolemy’s lunar theory is constructed according to this model, although the apparent lunar diameter does not



Bba..b.: Bba..b.a: Bba..b.a.:

josé luis mancha vary in this way: it should be smaller at opposition than at quadratures by about 1/3, whereas observation shows that it is not greater at quadratures than at opposition except for a little bit; the motion is uniform with respect to a point different from the center of the Earth. Two possibilities: the three points—the center of the sphere (S), the center of motion (M), and the center of the Earth (E)—are placed in the same line. There are only three possibilities: M is placed between S and E. Properties: • this model can be distinguished from all the other eccentric models because, if the maximum correction for ° of apparent motion is set equal in this model to the maximum correction in the other models, the difference between the apparent diameter of the planet at apogee and perigee will be greater than in the other models, since the distance from the center of the Earth to apogee and perigee is greater in this model than in any of the other models; • the excess of the correction for ° of apparent motion over the correction for ° of mean motion is greater than in the other models (including the model in which this excess was the greatest, i.e., when the motion of the eccentric sphere took place around its center); • the correction for angles greater than ° of apparent motion is greater than the correction for ° of apparent motion; proof.

Bba..b.a.: S is placed between M and E. Three possibilities: Bba..b.a..: the distance MS is equal to the distance SE. In this case, the correction for ° of mean motion is equal to the correction for ° of apparent motion; Bba..b.a..: the distance MS is smaller than the distance SE. Properties: • the correction is greater for ° of apparent motion than for ° of mean motion; proof; • if the maximum correction is set equal in this model and in the model in which the motion of the eccentric sphere takes place around its own center (Bba..a), the variation in apparent size of the planet in this model is smaller than in model Bba..a, since the distance SE is smaller in this model than in model Bba..a. Bba..b.a..: The distance MS is greater than the distance SE. Properties: • the correction for ° of mean motion is greater than the correction for ° of apparent motion;

demonstrative astronomy



• this model can be distinguished from model Bba. (in which the correction for ° of mean motion is also greater than the correction for ° of apparent motion) because the difference between these corrections is greater in this model than in model Bba.. Bba..b.a.:

E is placed between M and S. Properties: • the swiftest motion takes place in this model when the apparent diameter of the planet is smallest, and the slowest motion when its apparent size is greatest; • if the motion is reckoned from the apogee, the maximum correction corresponds to ° of mean motion, or to an angle of apparent motion greater than ° by the amount of the maximum correction; this correction is to be added to the mean motion, whereas in the other models it was to be subtracted; • if the motion is reckoned from the perigee, the maximum correction corresponds to ° of mean motion, or to an angle of apparent motion lesser than ° by the amount of the maximum correction.

Bba..b.b:

the three points are not placed in the same line. Properties: • the swiftest and slowest motions do not occur at perigee and apogee, namely at the ends of the diameter passing through S and E, but at the extremities of the line passing through E and M; • the corrections in this model are not symmetric with respect to the line passing through M and E.

Parts of the division of Bbb (the motion in longitude is eccentric per se but composite; chapter ). Three possibilities: Bbb.: Bbb..: Bbb..:

it results from three motions, all of them equal to the motion in longitude (m), the two which produce the variation moving in opposite directions. Two possibilities: one motion eccentric, two concentric; two motions eccentric, one concentric. Different possibilities depending on whether (a) the two eccentric move in the same or in opposite directions, and (b) the two resulting equations agree (both positive and negative) or disagree (one positive, the other negative).

In some of these cases, two motions would be in vain: e.g., when the two opposite motions were concentric, or when the two concentric motions would move eastward and the eccentric one westward. Bbb.:

it results from two motions, the first equal to m, the second equal to m and opposite to the first; three possibilities:

 Bbb..:

Bbb..:

Bbb..: Bbb.:

josé luis mancha the motion which is twice the motion in longitude is eccentric, the other concentric; in this case, the model will produce positive and negative corrections twice for each revolution; the motion which is twice the motion in longitude is concentric, the other eccentric; in this case, a motion would be in vain, since the eccentric one, in the same direction as the planet, would suffice; the motion which is twice the motion in longitude is eccentric, the other also eccentric. it results from more than three motions, all of them slower than the motion in longitude; this model will produce more than one sequence of positive and negative corrections each period of the motion in longitude.

Parts of the division of Bba (the variation in the motion follows from concentric orbs moving around inclined axes; chapter ): Bba:

three concentric orbs moving with the mean motion in longitude of the planet. The first moves from west to east around the ecliptic poles; the axis of the second lies on the ecliptic plane and that of the third one is inclined to the second’s by an amount equal to the maximum correction; the second orb moves southward and the third northward. Properties: the maximum correction takes place at ° and ° of mean motion; no variation in apparent size follows; the planet will exhibit northern and southern latitudes twice for each revolution.

Parts of the division of Bbb (the variation in the motion follows from the distance between the planet and the point of the orb which moves with the mean motion; chapter ): Bbb.: Bbb.: Bbb.:

the orb of the motion in longitude is concentric; two possibilities: the planet is placed between the center of the orb and the point which moves with the mean motion (point A); point A is placed between the center of the orb and the planet.

In these cases, no variation follows. Bbb.: Bbb..: Bbb..a:

the orb of the motion in longitude is eccentric. There are two possibilities: the motion is concentric (i.e., uniform around the center of the Earth) and the resulting correction is due only to the mentioned distance; two possibilities: point A is placed between the center of the Earth and the planet (F). Properties: the slowest motion takes place at apogee; the correction is positive, and its maximum takes

demonstrative astronomy

Bbb..b:

Bbb..:

Bbb..a: Bbb..a.: Bbb..a..:

Bbb..a..: Bbb..a.: Bbb..a..: Bbb..a..:

Bbb..a.: Bbb..a..: Bbb..a..: Bbb..b: Bbb..b.: Bbb..b..:



place at ° of mean motion; conditions under which the correction due to the eccentricity will be (a) equal to, or (b) smaller, or (c) greater than the correction due to the distance; the planet is placed between the center of the Earth and point A. Properties: the correction is negative; the maximum correction occurs at ° of mean motion; conditions under which the correction due to the eccentricity will be (a) equal to, or (b) smaller, or (c) greater than the correction due to the distance. the motion is eccentric (i.e., uniform around another center different from the Earth’s) and two corrections result: one from the eccentricity and another from the distance. There are two possibilities: the center of the orb (S) is placed above the center of the Earth (E), and the center of motion (M) is placed in S or in another point above E; three possibilities: if S = M, there are two possible dispositions of centers in the apsidal line: FASE: the apparent correction due to the eccentricity and the distance is smaller than the correction due to the eccentricity by an amount equal to the correction due to the distance; AFSE: the apparent correction due to the eccentricity and the distance is equal to the sum of the correction due to the eccentricity and the correction due to the distance. if S ≠ M, and M is placed above S, there are two possible dispositions of centers in the apsidal line: FAMSE: the correction due to the eccentricity and the distance results from subtracting the correction due to the distance from the correction due to the eccentricity; AFMSE: the correction resulting from both causes (eccentricity and distance) is equal to the sum of the correction due to the eccentricity and the correction due to the distance. if S ≠ M, and M is placed below S, there are two possibilities: AFSME; FASME. the center of the orb (S) is placed below the center of the Earth (E), and M is below S, in E or in another point. There are three possibilities: if M = E, two possible dispositions of centers in the apsidal line: FAES. Properties: the maximum correction takes place at ° of apparent motion; the planet moves slower in the half of the circle closer to E;

 Bbb..b..: Bbb..b.: Bbb..b..: Bbb..b..:

Bbb..b.: Bbb..b..:

Bbb..b..:

josé luis mancha AFES: the planet moves swifter in the half of the circle closer to E. if M ≠ E, and M is placed above E; two possibilities: FAMES: the correction is equal to the sum of the correction due to the eccentricity and the correction due to the distance; AFMES: In this model, depending on the different ratios between parameters and distances, the correction due to the eccentricity can be equal to, or greater, or smaller than the correction due to the distance; thus, as when one of these equations is positive, the other is negative, if both are equal, no correction will result; if both are unequal, the correction will result from subtracting the smallest from the greatest. The places of maximum velocity of the planet vary according to these circumstances. if M ≠ E, and M is placed below E; two possibilities: FAEMS: as in Bbb..b.., when the correction due to the eccentricity is positive, the correction due to the distance is negative, and vice versa; so, when they are equal, no correction results; when they are unequal, the correction results from subtracting the smallest from the greatest. The places of maximum velocity of the planet vary according to these circumstances; AFEMS: as in Bbb..b.., the apparent correction is equal to the sum of the correction due to the eccentricity and the correction due to the distance.

demonstrative astronomy



Appendix B Two Examples of Exhaustion of All the Possibilities That a Division Can Yield, Taken from Ptolemy and T¯ . us¯ı A. Ptolemy, Almagest I. (proof of the centrality of the Earth; the sphericity of the heavens has been proved in I.) If the Earth is not in the middle, it would have to be either . not on the axis of the universe, but equidistant from both poles, or . on the axis but removed towards one of the poles, or . neither on the axis nor equidistant from both poles. In the first case, .. if the Earth were removed towards the zenith or the nadir of some observer, ... if he were at sphaera recta, he would never experience equinox, since the horizon would always divide the heaven into two unequal parts, one above and one below the Earth; ... if he were at sphaera obliqua, either equinox would never occur, or, if it did occur, it would not be at a position halfway between summer and winter solstices, since these intervals would necessarily be unequal. .. if the Earth were removed towards the east or west of some observer, then he would find that the sizes and distances of the stars would not remain constant and unchanged at eastern and western horizons, and that the time-interval from rising to culmination would not be equal to the interval from culmination to setting. . If the Earth would lie on the axis but removed towards one of the poles, .. only at sphaera recta could the horizon bisects the heavens; .. at sphaera obliqua, (a) the plane of the horizon would divide the heavens into two unequal parts always different for different latitudes, whether one considers the relationship of the same part at two different latitudes or the two parts at the same latitude (and at a situation such that the nearer pole were the ever visible one, the horizon would always make the part above the Earth lesser and the part below the Earth greater); (b) the great circle of the ecliptic would be also divided into unequal parts by the plane of the horizon, and (c) at the equinoxes, the shadow of the gnomon at sunrise would no longer form a straight line with its shadow at sunset in a plane parallel to the horizon. . If the Earth would be neither on the axis nor equidistant from both poles, the consequences which follow from the first two cases, will both follow in this case.28 28

G.J. Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest (London, ): –.



josé luis mancha

B. T¯ . us¯ı, Tadkira II. ¯ “Because of this difference [between the observed values of the obliquity], some have maintained that the ecliptic equator moves in latitude and approaches to the equinoctial. If this were true, then another orb would need to be established whereby the ecliptic orb would move with that motion. Now the [ecliptic] equator, if it moves, [] may complete a revolution or [] it may not complete it but instead move to a certain limit then return. This limit may be [.] after it has coincided twice with the equinoctial equator, or [.] at the second coincidence, or [.] between the two coincidences. If between, then the limit may be [..] after half a revolution, or [..] exactly at the halfway mark, or [..] before it. If [.] the equator does not reach the region between the two coincidences, then [..] it will either return upon arriving at the first coincidence or [..] else return before this [limit is reached].”29

29 F.J. Ragep, Nas¯ # . us¯ı’s Memoir on Astronomy (al-Tadkira f¯ı ilm al-hay"a) . ır al-D¯ın al-T¯ ¯ have been added). (New York and Berlin, ): – (the numbers in square brackets

NICOLE ORESME AND HASDAI CRESCAS ON MANY WORLDS . Warren Zev Harvey The two most creative thinkers in the new physics of the late fourteenth century were arguably Nicole Oresme (ca. –), grand maître of the College of Navarre at the University of Paris and later Bishop of Lisieux, and Hasdai Crescas (ca. – / ), Rabbi of the Jews . of the Crown of Aragon and advisor to its kings. The direct or indirect influence of Oresme on Crescas was long ago noted by Pierre Duhem, and further explored by Shlomo Pines and others. This connection is particularly striking with regard to their notions of infinite space and eternal time, and their critique of Aristotle’s theory of natural places.1 Given Oresme’s connection to the Kingdom of Navarre, adjacent to the Crown of Aragon, it is likely that his works were known and available in Crescas’ vicinity. It is reasonable to speculate that Crescas knew scholars who had studied with Oresme in Paris, and it is not inconceivable that he met Oresme personally.2 In my following remarks, I shall compare the views of Oresme and Crescas on the problem of many worlds. Both philosophers discuss the problem primarily in response to Aristotle’s thesis in De caelo, I, – , a–b, that there is one and only one world. Although Oresme eventually accepts Aristotle’s thesis and Crescas explicitly rejects it, the approaches of the two philosophers to the problem are in many respects similar.

1

P. Duhem, Le Système du monde (Paris, –): :–, :–; S. Pines, “Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his Predecessors,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities , no.  (): –; reprinted in idem, Collected Works (Jerusalem, –): :–; and see my Physics and Metaphysics in Hasdai Crescas (Amsterdam, ): –, and also my Hasdai Crescas (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –. . 2 On the College of Navarre, see N. Gorochov, Le Collège de Navarre de sa fondation () au début de XVe siècle () (Paris, ). Cf. A. Albertos, R. Garcia-Alonso and J.M. Ortiz, “París : La fundación del Colegio de Navarra,” Príncipe de Viana  (): –.



warren zev harvey

The two main discussions of Oresme’s on the problem of many worlds are found in his Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De caelo, I, qq. –,3 and in his Le livre du ciel et du monde, I, .4 The Quaestiones probably date from Oresme’s early teaching days at the College of Navarre (–), while the Du ciel et du monde was written much later, in , when Oresme was dean of the Cathedral of Rouen. The Du ciel et du monde is a French translation with commentary of Aristotle’s De caelo, and was written at the behest of King Charles V of France, to whom Oresme was a close advisor. Crescas’ discussions of many worlds are found in his Light of the Lord, I, , ; I, , ; I, , ; I, , ; IIIa, , ; IV, –. The Light of the Lord was written over many years, and completed in .5 The discussion in I, , , although appearing early in the book, is manifestly a late interpolation by Crescas, appended to his arguments against the Aristotelian proposition that an infinite magnitude is impossible.6 The discussions in I, ,  and , and I, , , are interconnected, and concern the possibility that different Gods rule different worlds.7 The passage in IIIa, , , concerns the doctrine of the eternal creation of successive worlds.8 IV, , treats the problem of eternity a parte post and successive worlds;9 and IV, , treats that of many worlds existing simultaneously.10 3

C. Kren, “The Questiones super De Celo of Nicole Oresme” (Ph.D. thesis, University of Wisconsin, ), Xerox Microfilms, Ann Arbor, no. –, pp. –. The thesis contains the Latin text and an annotated English translation. 4 Le Livre du ciel et du monde. Edited by A.D. Menut and A.J. Denomy, translated with an introduction by Menut (Madison, ): –. 5 Page references to the Light of the Lord will be to the useful vocalized edition by ˇ S. Fisher, Or ha-Sem (Jerusalem, ). The passages regarding many worlds are discussed and translated in my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –, –. In preparing the present study, I made use of two unpublished lectures on Crescas’ theory of many worlds: A. Ackerman, “Hasdai Crescas’ Discussion of the Possibility of Multiple Worlds,” Conference on Hasdai Crescas:  Years after his Death, Zalman Shazar Center, Jerusalem, January ; and S. Feldman, “Plural Universes: A Debate in Late Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” Meeting of the Academy for Jewish Philosophy, American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, Washington, DC, December . 6 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See H.A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle (Cambridge, MA, ): .–., and p.  n. ; and my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –. 7 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), pp. , , –. See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. – . 8 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), pp. –. See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –, –. 9 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), pp. –. See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –. 10 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), pp. –. See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. – n. ; and my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –.

nicole oresme and hasdai crescas on many worlds .



It should be noted at the outset that Crescas cites by name in the Light of the Lord only philosophic literature written in Hebrew (either originally in Hebrew, e.g., Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord, or translated from the Arabic, e.g., Averroes’ Commentaries on Aristotle or Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed), and thus cites neither Oresme nor any other Scholastic. However, in addition to Hebrew, Crescas read Latin, Catalan, and Aragonese, and thus had access to Christian writings. Although Duhem and Pines focused on the alleged influence of the Du ciel et du monde on Crescas, it is unlikely he read French philosophic books. Thus, Oresme’s influence on him was presumably though Latin works, such as the Quaestiones on the De caelo, or by word of mouth. Let us now turn to Oresme’s arguments pro and contra many worlds and their parallels in Crescas. We shall not examine all of Oresme’s arguments or all of Crescas’ arguments, but shall concern ourselves with those arguments that appear in one form or another in both philosophers.

. Argument from Natural Places (contra) Aristotle argued in De caelo, I, , b, that if there were other worlds, presuming them similar to ours, the four elements in them would spill into their natural places in our world; but since we do not see such extramundane invasions, it may be concluded that there are no other worlds. Oresme examines this argument at length in the Quaestiones, q. . He begins by affirming that God could conceivably create another world having elements similar to those in ours, but a clod of earth, for example, in that other world would move toward its proper place in that world (in suo loco proprio proprii mundi), not toward the proper place of earth in our world.11 Aristotle’s reasoning, Oresme remarks, is only “probable” (ratio sua est probabilis).12 Nonetheless, after an exhaustive discussion, he endorses Aristotle’s argument from natural places against the existence of many worlds. According to nature (naturaliter) the argument seems to him compelling, although he repeats that God does have the power to create other worlds.13 11 Quaestiones, pp. –; also pp. –. Cf. pp. –: “Aristotle would say that God could not do this; nevertheless I say indeed He can.” 12 Ibid., pp. –. 13 Ibid., pp. –.



warren zev harvey

Returning to Aristotle’s argument from natural places in his Du ciel et du monde, I, , Oresme again retorts that if another world did exist, clods of earth in it would tend toward its center, not toward the center of our world. Although he criticizes Aristotle’s argument with more confidence than in the Quaestiones and although he repeats emphatically that God could create other worlds, he concludes anticlimactically that Aristotle’s thesis about one world is true.14 Crescas decisively and derisively rejects Aristotle’s argument from natural places in Light of the Lord, I, , , and IV, . In I, , , he writes: “[T]he movement of the elements from one world to another would not be necessitated, for each one of the elements would move within the periphery of its own sphere toward its own proper place”; and he adds that Aristotle’s arguments against the possibility of many worlds are “vanity and a striving after the wind” (Eccles. :).15 In IV, , he writes: “[Aristotle] stated that if we affirm [the existence of many worlds] it would follow, for example, that parts of the element of earth in one world would move toward their natural place in another world. These are words of enticement [pittuy devarim] that are groundless. For when we posit many worlds, we presume natural places in each and every world; thus, for example, the element of earth will seek its center in its own world, or the element of fire will seek its periphery in its own world. This is self-evident.”16 This rejoinder to Aristotle’s argument from natural places against the existence of many worlds was not unique to Oresme and Crescas, but had been common since the late thirteenth century. It is found, for example, in Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V), Godfrey of Fontaines, Richard of Middleton, John of Bassols, Gerald Odonis, William of Ockham, Gersonides, John Buridan, and Albert of Saxony.17 Like Oresme, but unlike Crescas, none of these thinkers ultimately affirmed the actual existence of many worlds.

14

Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –. ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –; and my Or ha-Sem Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 16 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 17 See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. – n. ; P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds. Edited and translated by R. Ariew (Chicago, ): –, –, , , , –; E. Randi, “Plurality of Worlds: Fourteenth Century Theological Debates,” in S. Knuuttila, R. Työrinoja and S. Ebbesen, eds, Knowledge and Sciences in Medieval Philosophy (Proceedings of the th SIEPM Conference) (Helsinki, ): –; C. Schabel, “Gerald Odonis on the 15

nicole oresme and hasdai crescas on many worlds .



. Argument from Beneficence (pro) In Quaestiones, q. , Oresme raises four additional arguments against Aristotle’s thesis that there is one and only one world: () the argument that “world” is a universal, and universals are predicated of many particulars; () the argument from beneficence; () the argument from the perfection of reproduction, that is, it is a perfection for a being to generate beings similar to itself; () the argument from the generation and corruption of things composed of the four elements. The second and fourth arguments have parallels in Crescas’ Light of the Lord. As presented by Oresme, the argument from beneficence runs as follows: “It would be better that what is best and perfect be multiplied [melius est quod optimum et perfectum plurificetur] . . . as two good things are better than one . . . : therefore, since nature always produces what is better [natura semper faciat quo melius est] and the world is perfect, it follows that there are many.”18 In response to this argument, Oresme argues that “the impossible is neither better nor good,” and many good things are not necessarily better than one, since what is important is not quantity but “commensurate proportion.”19 Crescas’ presentation of the argument from beneficence is found in Light of the Lord, IV, , and formulated thus: Given the world was brought into existence “in the manner of beneficence and grace [#al s. ad hahat. avah ve-ha-haninah], and the more God “increases worlds the more . He increases goodness [kol aˇser yosif be-#olamot yosif be-hat. avah],” it follows that there are many worlds.20 The argument from beneficence is known in the Scholastic literature, beginning with William of Auvergne, and found famously in Thomas Aquinas.21

Plurality of Worlds,” Vivarium  (): –, –. Regarding Gersonides, see R. Glasner, “Gersonides’ Theory of Natural Motion,” Early Science and Medicine  (): – (esp. pp. –); O. Elior, “Gersonides’ Commentary on Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo” (Heb.) (MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ): –, –; and cf. the lectures by Ackerman and Feldman (cited above, n. ). On Gersonides and Odonis, see the Excursus (“Gersonides, Odonis, and the Heart Analogy”) appended to this essay. 18 Quaestiones, pp. –. 19 Ibid., pp. –. 20 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 21 Duhem, Medieval Cosmology, pp. , –.



warren zev harvey . Argument from Generation and Corruption (pro)

According to Oresme’s argument, the existence of generation and corruption in the sublunar realm of four elements and the consequent continuous replacement of one substance by another (“perhaps today there is nothing of the element of water which existed a thousand years ago”) suggest that the world as a whole was generated and will be corrupted, has replaced a previous world and will be replaced by a subsequent one; that is, the generation and corruption of the parts suggests the generation and corruption of the whole, and thus argues for the plurality of successive worlds. Citing Empedocles (Aristotle, De caelo, I, , b), Oresme envisions a process in which the world is not annihilated entirely but corrupted into “a confused chaos” (in chaus confusum) and then reordered.22 Against the argument from generation and corruption, Oresme points to the celestial spheres, which constitute “the principal part of the world,” and which were presumed not to evidence generation and corruption.23 In Light of the Lord, IV, , Crescas conjectures that the proposition “all things generated are corrupted” is applicable to the world as a whole (cf. Aristotle, De caelo, I, , b).24 He reasons, similar to Oresme, that the sublunar realm will be corrupted, but not the celestial spheres. Again like Oresme, he argues that if the world is corrupted, it will not be wholly annihilated. Referring to a Rabbinic dictum that the world will be destroyed (harev) in the future (B Roˇs ha-ˇsanah a, Sanhedrin a), he . notes that “destruction” (hurban) is not synonymous with “nothingness” . (he#der).25 He affirms that the world is eternal in the future “qua species,” but not necessarily “qua individual,” for individual worlds may pass away into other individual worlds. However, he concludes, once again like Oresme, that even if one affirms that the sublunar realm is periodically generated and corrupted, one might still properly say that the world is eternal “qua individual,” since the celestial spheres are not generated and corrupted.26 22

Quaestiones, pp. –, –. Ibid., pp. –. 24 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p.  (first argument contra). 25 Ibid., pp. , . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 26 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –. See also Gad Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph  (): –. Developing ideas of Ibn S¯ın¯a and contra Ibn Ruˇsd, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, in his Ma"amar yiqqawu ha-mayim (ca. ), “posits an infinite succession of [sublunar] ‘worlds,’ in which every sublunar ‘world’ is created ab novo” and destroyed, while the “heavenly spheres remain forever unchanged” (p. ). 23

nicole oresme and hasdai crescas on many worlds .



. Argument from Number (contra) In the course of his discussion in the Quaestiones, q. , Oresme gives a clever argument against the existence of many worlds. If there are many worlds, their number is either infinite or finite. It cannot be infinite, since the existence of an actual infinity has been disproved (quod est improbatum). If finite, however, why one particular number and not another (si essent finiti, non videtur in quo numero)?27 Thus, there is no plurality of worlds. The very same argument against many worlds is raised by Crescas in Light of the Lord, IV, , as a counterargument to the argument from beneficence. The number of worlds is either finite or infinite. It cannot be finite, “for whatever number of worlds is posited, it would have to be increased in accord with the increasing beneficence” (efˇsar ˇse-yittosef le-ribbuy ha-hat. avah). However, it also cannot be infinite, since there is no actual infinity.28 If there is neither a finite nor an infinite plurality of worlds, it follows there is only one world. This argument from number does not appear to be common, and I have not found a clear precedent.29

. Argument from Monotheism (contra) Oresme states the argument from monotheism briefly in his Quaestiones, q. , and more at length in his Du ciel et du monde, I, . The argument, in a nutshell, is: one God entails one world. The oneness of the Mover is based not only on Scripture, but also on Aristotle’s dictum, “Let there be one ruler!” (Metaphysics, XII, , a). In the Quaestiones, Oresme reasons: “There is only one motor primus, therefore only one primum mobile and one world”; for “if the ruler is one, his domain is one.” He mentions and rejects Averroes’ suggestion—or at least a suggestion he attributes to Averroes—that there might be one “universal ruler” (princeps universalis) but many prime movers, each responsible for a 27

Quaestiones, pp. –. Crescas does not mention here his proofs for the possibility of an infinite number of magnitudes (Light of the Lord, I, , ). Clearly IV, , was written before I, , . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 29 The pertinent text cited by Kren (Quaestiones, p. ) from Aquinas’ Commentary on the De caelo, I, lectio , n. , concerns the possibility of a void outside the world, not that of many worlds. 28



warren zev harvey

different world.30 In the Du ciel et du monde, he develops this suggestion. It does not follow, he now argues, that two worlds would entail two Gods. Rather, God is infinite, and if many worlds existed, none would be outside His power (hors de sa puissance): “one single sovereign God would govern all such worlds” (un seul Dieu souverain gouverneroit touz telz mondes), but it is possible that each world would have its own prime mover.31 The assertion that God has at least theoretically the power to create many worlds was common in Scholastic literature, especially after Bishop Etienne Tempier’s condemnation in  of the Aristotelian thesis “that the first cause cannot make more than one world.”32 The argument from monotheism appears thrice in Crescas’ Light of the Lord: in I, ,  and , and in I, , . In the course of his criticism of Maimonides’ physical proof of the prime mover in I, , , Crescas remarks: “since the possibility of other worlds has been demonstrated in our earlier comments, one might argue that one mover is the cause of one world, and another mover the cause of a different one.”33 Here, to be precise, we have not an argument from monotheism against the existence of many worlds, but an argument from the existence of many worlds against monotheism. In I, , , while criticizing Maimonides’ proof for the unity of God based on the unity of the world, Crescas repeats roughly the same argument: even if we concede that this world can have only one God, it still might be possible that there are many worlds, and each has its own God.34 In I, , , in his discussion of God’s unity, Crescas again recites the argument that different worlds might have different Gods, but this time he replies to it, affirming, not unlike Oresme in Du ciel et du monde, that since “God’s power is infinite in intensity, it is clear that the 35 One has power over them all” (ha-ehad . yakhol le-khullam). 30

Quaestiones, pp. –. This reference to Ibn Ruˇsd, who faithfully upheld Aristotle’s doctrine of the unity of the world in his Commentaries on the De caelo (see, e.g., Elior, “Gersonides’ Commentary”, pp. –), is unclear. Kren (p. ) cites Ibn Ruˇsd’s Long Commentary on Metaphysics, XII, text  (Latin, ed. Iuntas, vol. , Venice ), fol. r, where God is described as the primus princeps of the first movers of the celestial spheres. 31 Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –, –. 32 “The Condemnation of ,” in A. Hyman and J.J. Walsh, Philosophy in the Middle Ages, nd ed. (Indianapolis, ):  (proposition A). See E. Grant, “The Condemnation of , God’s Absolute Power, and Physical Thought in the Late Middle Ages,” Viator  (): –. 33 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 34 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, loc. cit. 35 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .

nicole oresme and hasdai crescas on many worlds .



. Argument from Religious Authority (pro) In Du ciel et du monde, I, , Oresme cites Origen as a religious authority supporting the doctrine of a plurality of successive worlds. The citation is from St. Jerome (Epistle , to Avitus), who writes: “Origen used to say that God will do this innumerable times.”36 Crescas, in Light of the Lord, IIIa, , , also cites religious authorities for the doctrine of a plurality of successive worlds. He cites two midrashic dicta: “He would build worlds and destroys them” (Genesis Rabbah :); and “the order of times was prior [to the creation of the world]” (ibid.).37 In addition, in Light of the Lord, I, , , and IV, , he cites a religious authority supporting the simultaneous existence of many worlds. The dictum cited is Talmudic: “He travels about in , worlds” (B Avodah Zarah b).38 Thus, both Oresme and Crescas hold that the existence of many worlds was taught in classical and authoritative religious literature.

. Limitations of Human Knowledge In the end, Oresme prefers the Aristotelian thesis that there is only one world naturaliter, although he believes that the arguments in its favor are only “probable,” and, moreover, God has the power to create other worlds. He concludes his discussion in Du ciel et du monde, I, , with the following remarkable summation: “Therefore, I conclude that God can and could in his omnipotence [par toute sa puissance] make another world besides this one or several like or unlike it. Nor will Aristotle or anyone else be able to prove completely the contrary. But, of course, there has never been nor will there ever be more than one corporeal world [un seul monde corporel].”39

36

Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –. ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . Or ha-Sem 38 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), pp. , . See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. , –. 39 Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –. Cf. E. Grant, God & Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, ): –: “Although Oresme valued reason, and always used it in his natural philosophy, he was aware, and often emphasized, that reason cannot always decide an issue . . . . [In his discussion of the possibility of many worlds,] uncertainty guides Oresme’s judgment. Neither reason nor experience can determine whether there are other worlds.” 37



warren zev harvey

Unlike Oresme, Crescas unequivocally rejects Aristotle’s thesis that there is only one world. However, like Oresme, he does not believe that the question of many worlds can be decided apodictically. He concludes his discussion in Light of the Lord, I, , , with a meditation on the limitations of human knowledge: “Inasmuch as this possibility [of many worlds] is true and unimpeachable, yet as we are unable by means of rational inquiry [haqirah] to ascertain the true nature of what is outside . this world, our Sages, peace be upon them, have seen fit to warn us against searching and inquiring [lidroˇs ve-lahqor] into ‘what is above and what is . below, what is before and what is behind’ [B Hagigah b and parallels].”40 . With regard to the question of many worlds, the Bishop of Lisieux and the Rabbi of Saragossa agreed in general about the arguments pro and contra, and about what we can know and cannot know. They also shared a bold and exciting vision of many—or infinite—worlds, but differed about its likelihood.

excursus Gersonides, Odonis, and the Heart Analogy As noted above, Aristotle’s argument in De caelo, I, , b, according to which there cannot be many worlds, for if there were, their elements would be attracted to their natural places in our world, was challenged decades before Oresme and Crescas. Like Oresme and Crescas, the early challengers argued against Aristotle that if there were many worlds, each could have its own proper places, and thus elements in them would not be attracted to our world. Among the early challengers of the argument from natural places were Levi Gersonides (–) and Gerald Odonis ( / –).41 It is striking that in their retorts to Aristotle’s argument from natural place, both philosophers make use of the analogy of the heart: just as the hearts of living creatures are one in species, but each creature has its own heart which functions within its own body; so too, if there exist many worlds of the same species, the elements in any given world might be expected to function wholly within that world; that is, just as the 40 Or ha-Sem ˇ (ed. Fisher), p. . See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –; and my Physics and Metaphysics, p. . 41 See above, n. .

nicole oresme and hasdai crescas on many worlds .



hearts of living creatures don’t pump blood into the bodies of other creatures, so too elements in one world would not spill into other worlds. Gersonides formulates the argument as follows in his Commentary on Averroes’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo, section : It is similar, by way of example, to the heart of living creatures [ba#ale hayyim]. I mean that the hearts of living creatures are in one place in . species [be-min] and many places in number [be-mispar]. However, if bodies are one in species, and the body in which they are contained is one in number, as is the case with the parts of the earth in this one sublunar world, it follows that the place of these parts would be one in number. This being so, it is clear that it does not follow that, if there were more than one world, the place of the elements that are one in species in those worlds would be one in number.42

Odonis formulates the argument as follows in his Commentary on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, II, distinction , question : By way of example, it is certain that my blood and your blood are of the same kind. . . . While my blood flows to my heart, your blood does not therefore flow to the same heart in number [in numero] . . . but to your heart, which is of the same kind as my heart, and that man’s blood [flows] to his heart, and so on for others. So the blood of all living creatures [viventium] does not have a natural inclination to the same heart in number, but to the same in species [in specie]. In this way, the earth of another world or of several would not be inclined naturally to the same center in number, but to the same in species, and so the earth of any world [would incline] to the center of its own world.43

The terminological similarity in the presentation of the heart analogy by Gersonides and Odonis clearly proves a direct or indirect connection between them. Both philosophers refer to “living creatures” (ba#ale 42 Elior, “Gersonides’ Commentary,” pp. –; cf. Glasner, “Gersonides’ Theory of Natural Motion,” p. : .øôñîá íéáø ,ïéîá ãçà íå÷îá íá 秧áä úåáìù éðåöø .íééç éìòá óåâá áìá ìùî êøã ïééðòä ïëå õøàä é÷ìçá ïééðòä åîë ,øôñîá ãçà àåä åá íéììëð íä øùà íùâäå ,ïéîá ãçà íéîùâä åéä øùàë íìåà ïééðòä úåéäáå .øôñîá ãçà íé÷ìçä åìàì íå÷îä äéäéù áééåçé äðä ,åðéòá ãçàä ìôùä íìåòä äæá øùà øùà ïéîá íéãçàä úåãåñéä íå÷î äéäéù ,ãçàî øúåé íìåò ïàëá äéä íà ,áééåçé àìù øàåáî àåä ,ïë .øôñîá ãçà íää úåîìåòá 43 Schabel, “Gerald Odonis on the Plurality of Worlds,” pp. –, : Exemplo quidem, quia certum est quod sanguis meus et sanguis tuus sunt eiusdem rationis . . . . [C]um sanguis meus emanat ad cor meum, non propter hoc sanguis tuus emanat ad idem cor in numero . . . sed ad cor tuum, quod est eiusdem speciei cum corde meo, et sanguis illius ad cor illius, et sic de aliis. Non ergo sanguis omnium viventium habet naturalem inclinationem ad idem cor in numero, sed ad idem in specie. Sic nec terra alterius mundi vel plurium inclinaretur naturaliter ad idem centrum in numero, sed ad idem in specie, et sic terra cuiuslibet mundi ad centrum mundi sui.



warren zev harvey

hayyim, viventium) and both emphasize the distinction between “in spe. cies” (be-min, in specie) and “in number” (be-mispar, in numero). The possibility of a direct connection between Gersonides and Odonis is strengthened by the fact that the use of the heart analogy as part of a response to Aristotle’s argument from natural places seems to be rare. In any case, Ruth Glasner, who discussed the Gersonides text,44 and Chris Schabel, who discussed the Odonis text,45 did not note precedents. It is possible that the heart analogy is found also in other texts before or contemporaneous with Gersonides and Odonis, but none is known to me. How is this connection between Gersonides’ and Odonis’ texts to be explained? The two philosophers were almost exact contemporaries, and did not live far from each other. Gersonides lived all his life in Provence, near Avignon. He was born apparently in Bagnols sur Cèze, dwelled in Orange, and was sometimes commissioned to do scientific research at the papal court in Avignon. Born in Camboulit, Odonis taught at Toulouse in the s and Paris in the s, and later served as Franciscan Minister General (–) and as the Latin Patriarch of Antioch (–). He was close to Pope John XXII and a welcome guest at the papal palace in Avignon. Rabbi Levi and the Franciscan doctor moralis could have met in various places and at various times, in particular when the latter visited Avignon. Gersonides’ use of the heart analogy appears in his Commentary on Averroes’ Middle Commentary on the De caelo, written in .46 Odonis’ use of the analogy appears in his Commentary on the Sentences, whose date is somewhat ambiguous. Although it is known he lectured on the Sentences during the years – at the Franciscan studium generale in Paris, it is also known that he incorporated material in his Commentary from previous lectures on the Sentences he had given in Toulouse in the mid s.47 In sum, it is unclear whose presentation of the heart analogy was first, Gersonides’ or Odonis’. If Gersonides’ text was prior, Odonis would not have been able to read it, since he did not have sufficient Hebrew; but he could have learned of the analogy by word of mouth—perhaps even hearing it from 44

Glasner, loc. cit. Schabel, loc. cit. 46 See S. Klein-Braslavi, “Gersonide commentateur d’ Averroès,” in C. Sirat, KleinBraslavy, O. Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez les scolastiques (Paris, ): –, n. . 47 See C. Schabel, “The Sentences Commentary of Gerardus Odonis,” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale  (): –, esp. pp. –. 45

nicole oresme and hasdai crescas on many worlds .



Gersonides himself. If Odonis’ text was prior, Gersonides could have read it in Latin, heard a report of it from a Christian colleague, or learned it directly from a conversation with Odonis. To be sure, it is possible that neither text is prior, and Gersonides and Odonis worked out the analogy together, perhaps during a meeting in Avignon. It is also conceivable that Gersonides and Odonis were both influenced by an unknown third philosopher. Much has been written in recent years about Levi Gersonides’ relationship to Scholastic philosophy.48 The example of the heart analogy suggests that it is a desideratum to compare his writings with those of Gerald Odonis.

48 See the views of Ruth Glasner, Colette Sirat, Sara Klein-Braslavy, and Gad Freudenthal in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy, Weijers, eds., Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide, pp. – ; and C. Schabel, “Philosophy and Theology across Cultures: Gersonides and Auriol on Divine Foreknowledge,” Speculum  (): –. On Gersonides’ Latinity, see R. Glasner, “On Gersonides’ Knowledge of Languages,” Aleph  (): –.

THE PECULIAR HISTORY OF ARISTOTELIANISM AMONG SPANISH JEWS*

Ruth Glasner The reception of Aristotelianism by medieval Jews differed widely from one community to another. Whereas it was rejected by the northern communities of Ashkenaz and Northern France, it was appropriated by the southern communities of Spain, Provence, and Italy; but the patterns of appropriation differed significantly among these three. For several years Gad Freudenthal has been dealing with the different patterns of reception of the “foreign wisdoms” in medieval Jewish communities. A recent volume he edited focuses on the Ashkenazi pattern.1 He has studied, first in general and then in greater detail, the very beginnings of the accommodation of secular knowledge in Provence;2 in two recent papers he compares the Provençal and the Italian patterns of cultural appropriation.3 But he refers only briefly to the Iberian Peninsula and concludes that “the matter calls for further research.”4 Hoping to contribute to his research, I offer here an initial, preliminary study of the Spanish pattern and compare it to the Provençal.

*

I am grateful to Hagar Kahana-Smilansky for reading a first draft of the paper and for her very helpful comments and suggestions. 1 Gad Freudenthal, ed., Science and Philosophy in Early Modern Ashkenazic Culture: Rejection, Toleration, and Appropriation. Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts VIII (). 2 Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence: Leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des études juives  (): –; idem, “Arabic into Hebrew: The Accommodation of Secular Knowledge in Twelfth-Century Provençal Judaism,” in D. Freidenreich and M. Goldstein, eds, Border Crossings: Interreligious Interaction and the Exchange of Ideas in the Islamic Middle Ages (Philadelphia, forthcoming). 3 Gad Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures as Resources for the Hebrew Translation Movement: Comparative Considerations, Both Quantitative and Qualitative,” in idem, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Cambridge, forthcoming); “#Arav and Edom as Cultural Resources for Medieval Judaism: Contrasting Attitudes toward Arabic and Latin Learning in the Midi and in Italy,” forthcoming in E. Alfonso and C. CaballeroNavas, eds., Late Medieval Jewish Identities: Iberia and Beyond. 4 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ..



ruth glasner

Aristotelianism meant a more scientific “rationalist” perspective than rival philosophies. It also meant a more systematic study of texts, using the genre of the commentary. “Aristotelians were particularly devoted to crafting, fine-tuning and commenting upon their texts.”5 Throughout the Middle Ages Aristotelianism followed a more “scholastic” pattern than Neoplatonism, and Averroism was more scholastic than Avicennism. The scholastic orientation of Aristotelianism culminated in the universities in the Latin west. Jewish Aristotelianism began and ended in Spain. The first reception was in Muslim Spain in the second half of twelfth century; the last, in Christian Spain three centuries later.6 In between—in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries—Aristotelianism was non-existent in Spain but thrived among the Jews in Provence and Italy, where its carriers were mainly Spanish Jews living outside Spain. The early and late Spanish episodes were quite different cultural phenomena: the early Aristotelians studied from Arabic sources and wrote mainly in Arabic; the later ones employed Hebrew, Arabic, and Latin sources and wrote mainly in Hebrew. Although referred to as “the autumn” or the “swan song” of medieval Jewish philosophy,7 it was, nevertheless, a lively and dynamic movement. The Jews turned with fresh interest and even enthusiasm to the study of Aristotle as well as Christian scholastic texts. Mauro Zonta designated this phenomenon “Hebrew Scholasticism” and noted that it “constituted a far more systematic phenomenon and appears to reflect a surprisingly extensive absorption of Christian culture” than before in medieval Jewish societies.8 Before turning to the story of Spanish-Jewish Aristotelianism let me address the more ordinary story of Provence.

5 H.G. Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World (London, ): . In this interesting book Snyder compares the patterns of learning in the Greek philosophical traditions. 6 A few reverberations continued in the sixteenth century in Italy and Byzantium. Puig refers to Eliah del-Medigo as the last Jewish Averroist. 7 M. Zonta, “The Autumn of Medieval Jewish Philosophy: Latin Scholasticism in Late th-Century Hebrew Philosophical Literature,” in J.A. Aertsen and M. Pickavé, eds, Herbst des Mittelalters: Fragen zur Bewertung des . und . Jahrhunderts (Berlin, ): –; A. Ackerman, “Jewish Philosophy and the Jewish-Christian Philosophical Dialogue in Fifteenth-Century Spain,” in G.H. Frank and O. Leaman, eds, The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –. 8 M. Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century: A History and a Source Book (Dordrecht, ): .

aristotelianism among spanish jews



. Provençal-Jewish Aristotelianism Aristotelianism made its first steps among Provençal Jews in the thirteenth century, developed thereafter steadily for nearly two centuries, and eventually declined. Let us look at the background. Before the Reconquista the Provençal Jewish communities were affiliated with the traditional milieu of France and Ashkenaz.9 Relations between Jews and Christians were not close.10 After the beginning of the Reconquista, the Jews of Provence and Languedoc drew closer, culturally and linguistically, to those in Aragon.11 Throughout the twelfth century French and Provençal Jews suffered more violence and experienced more anxiety than their coreligionists in Christian Spain. These were apparently related to the Crusades, starting with the pogroms of ,12 and later to the campaigns against the Albigenses in the south, which affected the Jews directly and indirectly. Recent studies have shown that they were also related to the general cultural revival in France. Growing cultural interaction, argues Funkenstein, brought with it increasing isolation and alienation.13 Intellectual links between Jews and Christians were almost nonexistent in the early Middle Ages but grew rapidly from the twelfth century onward. The expanding contacts did not increase mutual understanding or tolerance. As Christian society and culture became more urbanized, peaceful, and refined, contends Ivan Marcus, the situation of the Jews among them deteriorated.14 Anna Sapir Abulafia contends that it was the intellectual development of the twelfth century that provided the framework for libels against Jews.15 Cultural development and increasing enmity and

9 B.Z. Benedict, “On the History of Merkaz ha-Torah in Provence,” Tarbis  (): . –, on pp. –. 10 M.A. Singer and J. van Engen, Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe (Notre Dame, ): –. 11 C. Aslanov, “The Juxtaposition of Ashkenaz/Tsarfat vs. Sepharad/Provence Reassessed,” in Freudenthal, Science and Philosophy in Early Modern Ashkenazic Culture, pp. –, on pp.  and . 12 Scholars differ as to the effect of the  riots. See R. Chazan, “European Jewry and the First Crusade” (Berkeley, ); S. Schwartsfuchs, “The Place of the Crusades in Jewish History,” in M. Ben Sasson, R. Bonfil and J.R. Hacker, eds, Culture and Society in Medieval Jewry (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –. 13 A. Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, ): –. 14 I.G. Marcus, “The Dynamic of Jewish Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century,” in Singer and Van Engen, Jews and Christians, pp. – on pp. –. 15 A. Sapir Abulafia, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London,



ruth glasner

friction went hand in hand in twelfth-century France and, as we shall see, in fourteenth-century Spain. The well-known dictum, “when the cannons are heard, the muses are silent,” is again proved to be wrong. Provençal Jews were undoubtedly interested in ambient cultural developments. But the same pattern recurs from the twelfth to the fourteenth century: there is no undisputed textual evidence to illustrate acquaintance with Christian scholarship. We may call it a cautious pattern of cultural interchange. Marcus pointed out a similar dynamic of cultural revival, emphasizing the retrieval of ancient sources and patterns of traditional studies among Jews and Christians in Northern France of the twelfth century.16 Students of both Christian and Jewish biblical exegesis have pointed out similarities between the school of Rashi and the school of Saint Victor in Northern France.17 Many scholars have looked for Christian influence, notably, but not only, by the heretical Albigenses of southern France, on early Jewish Kabbalah.18 Joseph Shatzmiller emphasized the cautious pattern: if the early Kabbalists did absorb ideas from the Albigenses they were very careful to keep the borrowing hidden.19 The cautious pattern is also manifested in the paucity of texts written by Jews in the Provençal vernacular.20 The most intriguing example of the cautious pattern applies ): . Her thesis is that the twelfth-century renaissance impinged on the ChristianJewish debate and further stimulated the view that there was little if any room for Jews in Christian society (pp. –). 16 Marcus, “Dynamic,” pp. –. 17 B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, ): –; E. Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion: Studies in the Pentateuchal Commentary of Rabbi Samuel ben Meir (Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ): ch. –. 18 A. Grossman, The Early Sages of France (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): ; S. Shahar, “Catharism and the Beginning of Kabbalah in Languedoc,” Tarbis.  (): – (Heb.); J. Shatzmiller, “The Albigensian Heresy as Reflected in the Eyes of Contemporary Jews,” in Ben Sasson, Bonfil and Hacker, eds, Culture and Society, pp. –(Heb.); M.B. Sendor, “The Emergence of Provençal Kabbalah: Rabbi Isaac the Blind’s Commentary on Sefer Yes. irah” (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, ): –. Sendor traces the ideas that R. Isaac the Blind absorbed from the French school of Chartres and the thought of Hugh St. Victor, the medium by which he became acquainted with ideas of Johannes Scotus Eriugena. Marcus (“Dynamic,” p. ) finds parallels with German Pietist traditions, but this seems to be far-fetched when Provence is concerned. 19 Shatzmiller, “Albigensian Heresy,” pp. , –. 20 Only few texts were written by Jews in Provençal. The Roman d’ Esther, attributed to the physician Crescas del Caylar (Qaslari), is written in octosyllables and in Hebrew letters (published in ). I am indebted to Cyril Aslanov for this information. Aslanov found an administrative text from  written by Jews in Provençal, using the Latin alphabet. See C. Aslanov, “The Translation of the ‘Agreements’ to Provençal (),” Mesorot – (): – (Heb.).

aristotelianism among spanish jews



to the study of philosophy by Provençal Jewry during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In his well-known paper from , Shlomo Pines offered several examples of “scholastic influence” on Provençal Jewish thinkers but no conclusive textual evidence.21 Daniel Lasker is of the opinion that “philosophy and interest in Christianity went hand in hand in Provence.”22 Gad Freudenthal explains the cautious pattern in his comprehensive analysis of the Jews’ problems in appropriating Christian culture.23 Although much has been written on these issues, there is little agreement about them. The French-Provençal background—the twelfth-century Renaissance in France, religious tensions in Provence, and the flowering of Aristotelianism in French universities in the thirteenth century—is not a sufficient explanation for the reception of Aristotelianism by Provençal Jews. Several of the same factors were present in Northern France, where Jewish culture developed along different lines. Cultural history is by no means an exact science and we should not expect full explanations, as we should not expect predictions of future developments. Yet it seems that Provençal Jews were ripe for cultural renewal when the Spanish immigrants arrived and brought the Greco-Muslim culture with them. In sharp contrast to Provence, Aristotelianism was almost totally in abeyance in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Christian Spain. While Spanish immigrants promoted the cultural flowering in Provence and Italy, those who stayed in the Iberian Peninsula turned in different directions.

. Christian Spain: The Intellectual Background “The Iberian Peninsula was comparatively unaffected by the intellectual and religious ferment of most of the rest of Europe.”24 The universities in Christian Spain lagged far behind those in France, England, and Italy. 21 S. Pines, “Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his Predecessors,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,  () (), Hebrew;  () (), English. 22 D.J. Lasker, “Christianity, Philosophy and Polemic in Jewish Provence,” Zion  (): –, on p.  (Heb.). 23 Freudenthal, “#Arav and Edom.” 24 J.A. Trentman, “Scholasticism in the Seventeenth Century,” in N. Kretzmann, A. Kenney and J. Pinborg, eds, The Cambridge History of Late Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –, on p. .



ruth glasner

They were founded later, suffered from the Reconquista, and were burdened with economic problems. They were less cosmopolitan than the European universities they tried to imitate: the number of students and professors was relatively small and they were mostly of local origin.25 The first universities in Spain, in Palencia and Salamanca, were founded in the thirteenth century, but the former folded soon. In the fourteenth century the two Castilian universities of Salamanca and Valladolid and the University of Lerida in Aragon did not catch up with the leading European universities. There was little variety of courses before the fifteenth century.26 Those who sought serious training could not find it in the peninsula.27 In the fourteenth century some Spanish scholars went to study in Paris; towards the end of the century several commentaries on Aristotle were written by Spanish scholars resident there.28 Only in the fifteenth century did serious philosophical activity (of Thomist orientation) begin at the University of Salamanca;29 towards the end of the century Scotist philosophy started to be taught at the University of Lerida.30 John Doyle dates “the birth of Hispanic philosophy” even later, to .31 The significant flowering of Spanish scholasticism was in the sixteenth century, after the Council of Trent (convened in ), when it spread in the Dominican and Jesuit schools of the Iberian Peninsula and to South America.32 In summary, by the time Scholasticism was instituted in Christian Spain it was already past its prime north of the Pyrenees and the spirit of the Renaissance was reigning in Italy. Jewish Aristotelianism in Spain 25 J. Gutiérrez-Cuadrado, “Universities, Christian,” in E.M. Gerli, ed., Medieval Iberia: An Encyclopedia (New York, ): –, on p.  col. , p. ; M.A. de Wulf, Scholastic Philosophy. Translated by P. Coffey (London, ; New York, ): –. 26 Gutiérrez-Cuadrado, “Universities,” p. . 27 In the thirteenth century a few Spanish physicians studied in France and Italy; Arnau de Villanova and Petrus Hispanus studied in Montpellier and in Paris and Siena, respectively. See L.G. Ballester, “Medical Science and Medical Teaching at the University of Salamanca in the th Century,” in M. Feingold and V. Navarro-Brottons, eds, Universities and Science in the Early Modern Period (Dordrecht, ): –, on p. . 28 L.M. Girón Negrón, Alfonso de la Torre’s Visión Deleytable (Leiden, ): –; Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, p. . 29 Ballester, “Medical Science,” pp. –. 30 Girón Negrón, Alfonso de la Torre, pp. –. 31 J.P. Doyle, “Hispanic Scholastic Philosophy,” in J. Hankins, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –, on p. . 32 F.C. Copleston, History of Philosophy (New York, ) :–; M.A. de Wulf, A History of Medieval Philosophy. Translated by P. Coffey (London, ): Part , §§ – .

aristotelianism among spanish jews



revived when Scholasticism was making first strides in the Spanish universities. But when Spanish Scholasticism reached its prime, in the sixteenth century, it was no longer relevant to the Jews.33

. Christian Spain: The Political and Social Background If the Provençal pattern of cultural interaction between Jews and Christians was cautious, its Spanish counterpart was more open and explicit. The generally normal relations between Jews and Muslims in Muslim Spain was an important experience for the Jews, suggests Norman Roth, and proved to be essential to their ability to adjust to the new Christian society.34 Because Spain was a frontier region from the Muslim conquest in the eighth century until its unification under the Catholic monarchs at the end of the fifteenth century, the Jewish minority played an important role in Spanish administration and urban life. In fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Spain, as in twelfth-century Provence, cultural exchange and animosity went hand in hand. In Spain the situation was more intense: there was more friction, more resentment, and more cultural exchange. The larger Jewish population of Spain and the increasing number of conversos also contributed to the frequency of interaction and friction. Summing up a detailed study of life in medieval Toledo, Nina Melechen writes: “The Spanish convivencia was a system of both otherness and sameness, dependent on both interaction and separation, that required the people of Toledo to dislike each other in some contexts and deal comfortably with each other in others.”35 The relations between Jews and Christians in Toledo could be viewed as “basically harmonious or fundamentally hostile.”36 “Despite the insistence on alterity, members of the groups interacted freely and frequently in ways unknown in most of the rest of medieval Europe.”37

33

Feldman describes the transition from Aristotelianism to Platonism among Jews (including refugees from Spain) in Italy after the expulsion. See S. Feldman, “The End and Aftereffects of Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” in Frank and Leaman, Cambridge Companion, pp. –. 34 N. Roth, Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict (Leiden, ): –. 35 N. Melechen, “The Jews of Medieval Toledo: Their Economic and Social Contacts with Christians from  to ” (Ph.D. thesis, Fordham University, ): . 36 Ibid., p. . 37 Ibid., p. .



ruth glasner

As examples of the more intensive cultural interaction with Christians in Spain than in Provence, consider that Jews were involved in translation projects from Arabic to Latin in the twelfth century and from Arabic to Castilian at the court of Alfonso X in the thirteenth century (and later).38 It was not as rare for Jews to write in the vernacular (Castilian or Catalan) as it was in Provence. In the fourteenth cen39 ˇ tury we find the proverbios morales of SemTov . de Carrión in Castilian 40 and a few other texts. A notable example from the first half of the fifteenth century is Moses Arragel’s translation of the Bible into Castilian, at the request of Don Luis de Guzmán. This was a joint project of Arragel and Franciscan friars and included a commentary, for which Arragel consulted not only Jewish but also Christian commentators.41 The composition of prose and poetry in Spanish was common among the conversos in the fifteenth century;42 Norman Roth remarked that conversos played a major role in the development of Spanish poetry and literature.43 The numerous interactions between Jews and Christians in Spain, which were part of everyday life, had their impact on the cultural development of both societies. The many conversos (voluntary and forced) certainly contributed to the parallels in cultural development.44 This has to be taken into consideration when we turn to the fifteenth century. The description of Jewish life in Spain between the riots of  and the expulsion in  as a period of “unmitigated Jewish despair” or “gloom-filled parentheses” requires serious examination, contends Mark

38 F.D. Esteban, “The Literary Creation of Jews in Spanish,” in H. Beinart, ed., Moreshet Sefarad: The Sepharadi Legacy (Jerusalem, ): –, on pp. –; E.R. Miller, “Jewish Multilingualism: The Use of Hebrew, Arabic and Castilian in Medieval Spain” (Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, ): –. On Jewish physicians’ increasing reliance on Latin and vernacular medicine books, including translations of Arabic medical books, see L.G. Ballester, L. Ferre and E. Felin, “Jewish Appreciation of Fourteenth-Century Scholastic Medicine,” Osiris  (): –. 39 See A.I. Aronson-Friedman, “Identifying the Converso Voice” (Ph.D. thesis, Temple University, ): ch. . Much has been written on this text. 40 Miller mentions three other anonymous fourteenth-century texts that were probably written by Jews (“Jewish Multilingualism,” p. ). 41 I.F. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Heb.) (Tel Aviv, ): –. 42 Esteban “Literary Creation”; Aronson-Friedman, “Converso Voice,” ch. –; Miller, “Jewish Multilingualism,” pp. –. 43 N. Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison, ): xiii and –. 44 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ..

aristotelianism among spanish jews



Meyerson.45 At the beginning of this period attempts were made to reestablish some of the devastated Jewish communities.46 “Instead of viewing it as simply a long prelude to the expulsion,” Meyerson tries to treat it as “a period of adjustment, reorganization and creativity for Jews, conversos and Old Christians.”47 He puts particular emphasis on the great diversity of Jewish experience in this period, which was not exclusively fear and suffering. It is crucial to note that the intellectual relations among Jews, conversos, and Christians assumed many different patterns.48 The mass conversions in the fifteenth century boosted cultural interactions between Jews and Christians. An interesting example of the close relation between Jewish and Christian scholarship in the midfifteenth century is the influential Visión Deleytable by Alfonso de la Torre, with a Maimonidean orientation.49 There is no conclusive evidence about De la Torre’s identity, but he was probably a converso or a secondgeneration converso or an Old Christian.50 Against this background of the more open though increasingly hostile pattern of Jewish-Christian interaction, we go back to the suspension of Aristotelianism in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and its revival in the fifteenth century.

45

M.D. Meyerson, A Jewish Renaissance in Fifteenth-Century Spain (Princeton, ): –. Meyerson bases his contention on a very detailed study of documents on the Jews from the city of Morverde in Valencia, which belonged at the time to the Crown of Aragon. 46 See H. Beinart, The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): – . 47 Meyerson, Jewish Renaissance, pp. . Meyerson offers a narrative that differs, as he remarks, both from the “master narrative” in the tradition of Baer and from the narrative of the leading Spanish historians. 48 See E. Moav, “Between Jews and Christian in Spain from the End of the Fourteenth Century to the Sixteenth Century: Hesitating Conversos” (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv University, ) (Heb.). Moav surveys the wide range of attitudes to religious and philosophical questions among the conversos and emphasizes the diversity among them. 49 It has been suggested that this book was an attempt to harmonize the Christian and Hebrew traditions, notably Aquinas and Maimonides. In a new and detailed study Girón Negrón argues that close reading of the text discloses the author’s preference for the latter (Alfonso de la Torre, pp. –). 50 Ibid., Alfonso de la Torre, pp. –.



ruth glasner . The Suspension of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews

Aristotelianism flourished in Christian France and among Provençal Jews in the thirteenth century; it was almost non-existent in Christian Spain and among Spanish Jews, for whom it was the century of Kabbalah. Spanish Kabbalah, with few exceptions, was less philosophically oriented than earlier Provençal or later Italian Kabbalah.51 Whereas Kabbalah, in its first steps in twelfth-century Provence, took form among thinkers who fully accommodated philosophical education as well,52 kabbalists in Spain gradually withdrew into closed circles and developed their own conceptual frames of reference.53 Some philosophical terms and ideas, not only Neoplatonic but also Aristotelian, were integrated into the conceptual basis of early Kabbalah; but the Spanish kabbalists’ acquaintance with Aristotle was superficial and mostly restricted to second-hand presentations transmitted within kabbalistic circles.54 The few kabbalists with a background in philosophy usually acquired it outside Spain and not directly from Aristotelian texts.55 After Maimonides, notes Dov Schwartz, “we find almost no other explicitly rationalist philosopher in th-century Christian and Muslim Spain.”56 In the thirteenth century several Jewish intellectuals—such as 51

H. Tirosh-Samuelson, “Philosophy and Kabbalah: –,” in Frank and Leaman, Cambridge Companion, pp. –. 52 G. Scholem, The Kabbalah in Provence. Edited by R. Schatz (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): ; idem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, ): –. 53 Idem, The Kabbalah in Gerona. Edited by Y. Ben Shlomo (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): . In general the Maimonidean controversy, which produced fierce confrontations in France, led to growing seclusion of Kabbalah in Spain. 54 For instance, there are not many Aristotelian concepts in the Zohar. A notable example is the classification of souls in Midraˇs Ne#elam, Bereˇsit. I am grateful to Ronit Meroz for this reference. 55 I shall mention a few examples. Isaac ibn Latif ’s philosophical education came mainly from Jewish and Arabic sources—Maimonides, al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, etc. (S.O. Heller Wilensky. “Isaac Ibn Latif—Philosopher or Kabbalist,” in A. Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies [Cambridge, MA, ]: –, on pp. –). Abraham Abulafia studied Maimonides’ Guide with Hillel of Verona in Italy (M. Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia [Jerusalem, ]: ). R. Joseph Ashkenazi studied mainly Maimonides. He refers to Aristotle several times, sometimes disparagingly (Y. Halamish, A Commentary on Paraˇsat Bere"ˇsit by R. Yosef Aˇskenazi [Heb.] [Jerusalem, ]: – ). His introduction to Sefer Yes. irah (erroneously attributed to R. Abraham ben David) is relatively rich in philosophical terms. I am again indebted to Ronit Meroz for these references. 56 D. Schwartz. Central Problems in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Leiden, ): . See also M. Idel, “Jewish Thought in Medieval Spain,” in Beinart, Moreshet Sefarad, pp. –, on. p.  (Heb.).

aristotelianism among spanish jews



ˇ Zerahyah ben Se"altiel and Judah ibn Mathqa—left Spain and continued . their scientific and philosophical activity in Italy. It is hard to say how many active philosophers remained in Christian Spain. We do not know ˇ whether Sem Tov . ben Joseph ibn Falaquera and Yis. haq . Albalag stayed and worked in Spain or moved to Provence, and, if they stayed, whether those around them were interested in their work. The point I wish to make is that even during this period, in which philosophical activity was almost suspended, there were two channels of transmission of scientific texts into Christian Spain: () Arabic texts from Muslim Spain and () Hebrew texts from Provence. () Pieter van Koningsveld, who studied Andalusian-Arabic manuscripts, showed that there was a continuous transmission of AndalusianArabic manuscripts to Christian Spain by Muslims, Jews, and Christian Mozarabes in the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. These included a group of scientific texts, many of which, he shows, were commissioned or owned by Jews.57 Most of the manuscripts in this group are from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The vast majority of texts are medical, but there are also manuscripts on mathematics, astronomy, and Aristotelian philosophy.58 Tzvi Langermann, who studied JudeoArabic manuscripts, lists scientific (again mostly medical) manuscripts that were copied during this period and contends that “knowledge of Arabic was essential for the mastery of certain disciplines” in Christian Spain.59 Colette Sirat and Marc Geoffroy have shown that in Aristotelian philosophy, too, and as late as the fifteenth century, Judeo-Arabic texts, notably Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries, were used by Jews in Christian Spain.60 () The import of Hebrew texts from Provence started to be effective in the fourteenth century and built up steadily. In the fourteenth century Jews were moving relatively freely between Languedoc, Roussillon, and Catalonia. Many Jewish families found refuge in Aragon, notably in Roussillon and Catalonia, after the expulsion from France in  and

57

P.Sj. van Koningsveld, “Andalusian-Arabic Manuscripts from Christian Spain: A Comparative Intercultural Approach,” Israel Oriental Studies  (): –, on pp. –. I am grateful to Hagar Kahana-Smilansky for referring me to Van Koningsveld’s work. 58 Ibid., pp. –. 59 Y.T. Langermann, “Arabic Writing in Hebrew Manuscripts: A Preliminary Relisting,” in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  (): –, on pp. –. 60 E.g., Paris BNF, MSS héb.  and ; MS Modena a. J. .. See C. Sirat and M. Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe du grand commentaire d’ Averroès au De anima d’ Aristote (Paris, ): –. I shall return to their study in the next section.



ruth glasner

again in  and later.61 According to Yom-Tov . Assis, in Spain they found “an ideal place for pursuing their own culture and for gradual and natural integration into Spanish Jewry.”62 The process of cultural transmission, oriented from Spain to Provence in the twelfth century, reversed direction in the fourteenth century. In addition to the refugees, several Jewish scholars from Provence traveled to Spain for different reasons. Qalonymos ben Qalonymos visited Barcelona, in the s, to improve his Arabic;63 Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles went to Murcia in  to find a trustworthy Arabic text of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on De anima.64 A particularly important Provençal “agent” in Spain was Moses Narboni, who lived for many years in several cities in Aragon and Castile and helped introduce Provençal philosophy into Spain. Even in more distant Portugal we find David ibn Bilia referring to Narboni’s ˙ al¯ı’s Intentions of the Philosophers.65 The study commentary on al-Gaz¯ of philosophy came back to life in Spain in the second quarter of the fourteenth century;66 during the second half of the century philosophical knowledge accumulated, mostly in Aragon, which was closest to Provence. Here are a few examples that illustrate the growing presence of Aristotelian sources. In the first half of the century, Avner of Burgos had a general acquaintance with Aristotle through second-hand Hebrew ˇ Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaquera’s De#ot ha-filosofim and sources such as Sem Moreh ha-moreh, and perhaps also from Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on De anima.67 In , Ezra Gattegno copied Ibn Ruˇsd’s Epitome

61 Y.T. Assis, “Juifs de France réfugiés en Aragon (e–e siècles),” Revue des Etudes Juives  (): –. Roussillon and particularly the city of Perpignan were under Aragonese rule at the time. For instance, the family of Menahem ben Zerah. left Navarre . in  and settled in Castile. 62 Y.T. Assis, “Les Juifs de Montpellier sous la domination aragonaise,” Revue des Etudes Juives  (): –, on p. . 63 Freudenthal, “Les sciences,” p. . 64 L.V. Berman, “Greek into Hebrew: Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles, FourteenthCentury Philosopher and Translator,” in Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies, pp. –, on p. . 65 A. Ravitsky, Aristotelian Logic and Talmudic Methodology: The Application of Aristotelian Logic to the Interpretation of the Thirteen Hermeneutic Principles (Jerusalem, ): . 66 Schwartz, Central Problems, p. . 67 R. Szpiech, “In Search of Ibn Sina’s ‘Oriental Philosophy’ in Medieval Castile”, forthcoming in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy. I am grateful to Ryan Szpiech and Shalom Sadik for the information.

aristotelianism among spanish jews



of the Organon and three of his middle commentaries.68 In the same circle Solomon Franko refers to Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentary on the Physics.69 In ˇ , Sem Tov . ibn Mayor referred to Ibn Ruˇsd’s De animalibus and to ben Zerah. Gersonides’ commentary on it.70 Meir Alduby and Menahem . studied al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı from Hebrew translations.71 Quite a few Spanish scholars quoted the Hebrew translation of On Sleep and Waking attributed to Aristotle.72 Towards the end of the century, Simeon ben Sema h. Duran . was interested in the natural sciences and studied mainly from Moses ibn Tibbon’s translations of Ibn Ruˇsd’s short commentaries.73 The subject of the spread of philosophical texts in fourteenth-century Spain calls for a systematic study. The point I wish to make is that Aristotelian texts accumulated in Christian Spain during the fourteenth century and were studied, but were not appropriated the way they were in Provence. As Dov Schwartz has put it, philosophical activity in fourteenth-century Spain centered mainly around the traditional but “philosophically inclined” circle of Rashba’s disciples and the “radically inclined” neo-Platonist circle.74 In both circles Aristotelian texts were studied by people who wished to acquire basic science but did not consider themselves “Aristotelians.” The members of the former group, as well as several other Spanish scholars, objected to the “philosophical radicalism” represented by Ibn Ruˇsd;75 the members of the latter were closer to the thought of Ibn Ezra and Ibn S¯ın¯a than to Ibn Ruˇsd’s.76 The fourteenth 68 D. Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel: The Philosophy of a Fourteenth-Century Jewish Neoplatonic Circle (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ):  (Hebrew); Sirat and Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe, pp. –. 69 Quoted by Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel, p. . I am not sure, however, that Franko had the text in front of him. The reference is to Ibn Ruˇsd’s introduction to the Physics. ˙ al¯ı in Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries on the Physics. There are not many references to al-Gaz¯ ˙ al¯ı is mentioned in the introduction of the Short Commentary but there is no Al-Gaz¯ correspondence between what Ibn Ruˇsd writes and Franko’s “quotation.” 70 Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel, p. . 71 D. Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Ramat Gan, ): . 72 H. Kahana-Smilansky, “Aristotle On Sleep and Wakefulness: A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation of an Unknown Latin Treatise,” Aleph  (): –, on p. . 73 N. Arieli, “The Philosophical Doctrines of R. Simeon ben Semah Duran” (Ph.D. . . thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ): – (Heb.). Duran was born in Spain in  and emigrated to Algiers in . 74 Schwartz, Central Problems, pp.  and . The neo-Platonist circle has been studied in great detail by Schwartz in a series of papers and in Old in a New Vessel. 75 Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel, p. ; idem, Central Problems, p. . 76 M. Zonta, “The Role of Avicenna and of Islamic ‘Avicennism’ in the FourteenthCentury Jewish Debate around Philosophy and Religion,” Oriente moderno  (): –, on pp. –.



ruth glasner

century was an eclectic period for Spanish Jews, but Aristotelianism was not among the prevalent trends. Hardly any text that can be labeled “Aristotelian” was written during this period.77 The growing of Aristotelian erudition among non-Aristotelian scholars climaxed with Crescas (–), probably the most erudite in Aristotle’s teaching but also the most systematic and profound antiAristotelian among fourteenth-century Jews. Wolfson remarks that he “seems to have had the works of Aristotle on the tip of his tongue.”78 He had access to all the major commentaries of Ibn Ruˇsd, including a complete copy of the Long Commentary on the Physics, as well as to his treatise De substantia orbis.79 He used Gersonides’ two commentaries on the Physics and his two commentaries on De caelo, as well as Narboni’s ˙ al¯ı’s Intentions.80 commentaries on the Guide and on al-Gaz¯ Crescas marked a turning point from the relatively neutral non-Aristotelian attitude of the second half of the fourteenth century to the expressly anti-Aristotelian attitude at the beginning of the fifteenth. Did Crescas study Aristotle in such depth only in order to undermine his teaching? Nathan Ophir suggests that in the early years in Barcelona Crescas was less conservative than he became later in Saragossa.81 If this interpretation is correct we can perhaps surmise that Crescas’ antagonistic approach had not yet crystallized when he started to study Aristotelian texts in Barcelona. Aristotelianism did emerge in Spain a few decades later. Was the ground ready for it at the turn of the century? Was fifteenth-century 77 A book on logic, Kelalei ha-higgayon, was written by David ibn Bilia in the first half of the fourteenth century (see Ravitzky, Aristotelian Logic, ch. ). There is evidence of a commentary on Aristotle’s logic written by Judah ben Samuel ibn #Abbas, perhaps in the fourteenth century. See D. Schwartz, “Meharsim, Talmudiim and anˇsei ha-hokhma: The Attitude and Teaching of R. Judah ben Samuel Ibn #Abbas,” Tarbis. .  (): –, on p.  (Heb.). We do not know when Ibn ‘Abbas lived. In the new editition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica Dov Schwartz suggests thirteenth to fifteenth century. 78 H.A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle (Cambridge, ): . Ophir counts about fifty quotations of Aristotle from different sources and eighteen from Ibn Ruˇsd. See N. Ophir, R. Hasdai Crescas as Philosophical Exegete of Rabbinic Sources in the Light of the Changes in his Writings (Heb.) (Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ):  n. . 79 Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –, nn. , , . 80 Wolfson (Ibid., pp. , ) mistakenly lists Narboni’s commentary on the Physics among Crescas’ sources. The error goes back to Steinschneider, who attributed the commentary in Paris BNF MS héb.  /  to Narboni. 81 Ophir bases his argument on the analysis of the differences he found in one of the ˇ manuscripts of Or ha-Sem.

aristotelianism among spanish jews



Aristotelianism the consummation of a process that ripened during the fourteenth century but was interrupted? Spanish Jews were increasingly exposed to Aristotelian texts during the fourteenth century. Could this have led to a systematic study of Aristotle through the commentaries of Ibn Ruˇsd? We cannot know the answers to these speculative questions. What is certain is that if such a scenario was possible, the events of  put an abrupt end to it. The Jewish community, injured and aggrieved, turned in a traditionalist direction. Aristotelianism had to wait another half century.

. The Late Revival of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews Although it is unlikely that the revival of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews was detached from its revival in the Christian universities, the relationship is not easy to understand. It is hard to estimate the effect of Spanish scholasticism on the birth of Jewish Aristotelianism in Christian Spain. The first proponents of Thomism in Aragon, towards the end of the fourteenth century, were Dominicans. They included Nicolas Eymerich, who became the inquisitor general of the Crown of Aragon, and Vincent Ferrer, known for his missionary preaching that led to mass conversions of Jews, who was feared and hated by them.82 In these early stages, Spanish scholasticism could hardly appeal to the Jews, but they were probably aware of it. After , as we have seen, the Jews turned away from philosophy for half a century. Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews flourished in the second half of the fifteenth century, when it started to gain power in the Spanish universities. At first the Jews pursued the Arabic-Hebrew tradition. The interaction with Christian scholasticism and the turn to Christian sources developed gradually during the second half of the fifteenth century. In the first decades the new Aristotelians studied from the Hebrew manuscripts that had accumulated in Spain and turned to Arabic when Hebrew texts were unavailable or deficient. In the second half of the fifteenth century, Freudenthal has shown, the pace of copying Hebrew manuscripts increased markedly.83 The Spanish-Jewish Aristotelians adopted the pattern and norms that were instituted by their Provençal-Jewish 82 Roth, Conversos, –; R. Vose, Dominicans, Muslims and Jews in the Medieval Crown of Aragon (Cambridge, ): –; Baer, History –. 83 Only two dated manuscripts in science and philosophy were copied in Spain in



ruth glasner

predecessors in the fourteenth century. According to this norm the leading textbooks were the middle commentaries of Ibn Ruˇsd; the long commentaries were consulted when available.84 This pattern was crystallized by the Spanish Aristotelians, who ascribed much importance to the long commentaries and made special efforts to acquire them. The consolidation of these norms evidently reflects the scholarly academic orientation of the new Aristotelians. Sirat and Geoffroy have shown that in this period study groups (which they refer to as yeˇsivot hokhmot hi . . s. oniyyot) formed in Saragossa, Segovia, Huesca, and other places in Aragon and Castile.85 The members of each group shared their manuscripts; we may conjecture there were also loans of manuscripts between groups. Let me illustrate these points by a few examples. The Long Commentary on De anima was not available in Hebrew.86 Sirat and Geoffroy found that the Jews turned to the Arabic text. Fragments of the Arabic text were copied in several hands in Hebrew letters in the margins of MS Modena a. J. ..87 Study of the marginalia provides evidence that Spanish Jews shared their manuscripts and that knowledge of Arabic was not rare.88 We find additional evidence of the use of Arabic texts in Bibago’s commentary on the Metaphysics. Bibago complained about errors and lacunae in Qalonymos’ translation of Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary on this text and turned to “precise Arabic books.”89

the entire fourteenth century; the figures for first half and second halves of the fifteenth century are four and , respectively. See Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ., Table . 84 Three of Ibn Ruˇ sd’s five long commentaries were translated into Hebrew in the fourteenth century: those on the Physics, the Metaphysics, and the Posterior Analytics. 85 Sirat and Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe, ch. iii. On the reference to these study groups as yeˇsivot, see pp. – and n. . 86 The long commentary on De anima was not translated into Hebrew in Provence; rather, it was translated from the Latin at a later stage, probably in Italy. Steinschneider suggested, and Zonta initially agreed (“Osservazioni sulla tradizione ebraica del Commento grande di Averroè al De anima di Aristotele,” Annali di Ca’ Foscari , s.or.  []: –) that the Latin to Hebrew translation of this text was done by Barukh ben Ya#ish. More recently, however, Zonta concluded that the translation was made in Italy (Hebrew Scholasticism, pp. –). Although the Arabic text is no longer extant, citations of it are found in Ibn Falaquera’s De#ot ha-filosofim. See C. Sirat, “Les citations du grand commentaire d’ Averroès,” in J.B. Brenet, ed., Averroès et les Averroïsmes juif et latin (Turnhout, ): –. 87 Sirat and Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe, pp. –. 88 Ibid., p. . 89 See Bibago’s commentary on Metaphysics VI, Münich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek  / , fol. a.

aristotelianism among spanish jews



The Long Commentary on the Physics was similarly “shared.” This voluminous work was translated into Hebrew in Provence in the beginning of the fourteenth century, but was not easily accessible. Whereas more than forty manuscripts of the Middle Commentary are extant today, only four manuscripts of books I–IV of the Long Commentary are extant, and only two of books V–VIII. The last four books were already rare in the Middle Ages: there is evidence that they were used only in Provence in the fourteenth century and in Spain in the fifteenth.90 The Spanish Aristotelians had access to the complete commentary and apparently shared it. At least seven supercommentaries were written on the Physics, and all of them consult the Long Commentary.91 There are references to it in other writings from this cultural milieu, too.92 The Long Commentary on the Metaphysics was also available in several copies and studied, but that on the Posterior Analytics seems not to have been accessible in Spain.93 In addition to Ibn Ruˇsd’s commentaries, several Provençal supercommentaries and other Aristotelian texts circulated in Spain, including Gersonides’ supercommentaries on Posterior Analytics and Physics,94 and Narboni’s commentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Natural Questions.95 The efforts made to get hold of these texts, especially Ibn Ruˇsd’s long commentaries, illustrate the great demand for “serious” Aristotelian texts. Can we point to influence of the Christian environment at this stage? It seems that there was a certain influence, but it was subtle and not explicit. It is possible that the importance the Spanish Jews ascribed to the long

90

There are no references to these books in texts written in Italy or Byzantium. R. Glasner, “The Evolution of the Genre of the Philosophical-Scientific Commentary: Hebrew Supercommentaries on the Physics,” in Freudenthal, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures, § .. 92 E.g. ‚Eli Habilio (MS Parma. , fol. a) and Joseph ben Sem ˇ Tov . . (see S. Regev, “Theology and Rational Mysticism in the Writings of R. Joseph ben Shem Tob” [Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ]:  [Heb.]). 93 There is no evidence that Crescas was familiar with it, and none of the extant manuscripts is in Spanish script. In the introduction to his commentary on the Posterior Analytics, Abraham Bibago remarks that he had access only to a copy “in a foreign language,” probably Latin, and that this copy was full of errors. See A. Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): . 94 The former is referred to critically several times by Bibago. See ibid., p. . The latter (on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Middle Commentary) is referred to in three anonymous commentaries on the Physics, Cambridge Trinity College MS ., fols. b, a, a, b, b, and a. 95 MS Cambridge, fol. a. The Spanish Aristotelians also refer to al-Gaz¯ ˙ al¯ı’s Intentions of the Philosophers, which was a more popular textbook. 91



ruth glasner

commentaries reflected their wish to “upgrade” their norm to that of the Christians.96 The increasing use of the typically scholastic question patterns and doubt patterns in the Hebrew commentaries may confirm this conjecture.97 One can follow this trend even in the work of one commenˇ tator: Is. haq Tov . ibn Sem . wrote two commentaries on the Physics, in the first he followed the pattern of the Arabic-Hebrew tradition, while in the second he made heavy use of the scholastic structure.98 These examples, however, are not sufficient to corroborate scholastic influence, because use of the long commentaries and question and doubt patterns was a feature of the Provençal Hebrew tradition. It was, however, intensified in the Spanish circles. It was in the s that Jewish Aristotelians turned massively to Christian Scholastic sources. Abraham Bibago—who was active from the s to the s—quotes Christian texts more frequently in his later than in his earlier writings.99 His Treatise on the Multiplicity of Forms, written late in his life, reflects wide knowledge of Christian philosophy. The leading translators, Barukh ben Ya#ish, Abraham Shalom, and #Eli Habilio, were active about this time.100 Gad Freudenthal notes a “dra. matic and surprising increase in the number of scientific-philosophical translations from Latin” in fifteenth-century Spain.101 Mauro Zonta remarks that more people had access to scholastic texts (in Latin or in Hebrew translation) than ever before.102 He referred to Shalom, Habilio, . Abraham Bibago, and Moses Arondi as “the Aragonese circle” and suggests that these four scholars “were members of a sort of circle of ‘Jewish Scholastics,’ who were interested in the doctrines and texts of contemporary Latin Christian philosophers.”103 The translators took advantage of the new Latin “market” in order to produce better translations of Aristotle and also to gain acquaintance with the work of Christian scholars. Zonta shows that in the s Habilio had a good perspective on the . 96

Four of the five long commentaries were translated into Latin in the thirteenth century and were used as standard texts in the Christian universities. 97 See Glasner, “The Evolution,” § . 98 R. Glasner, “Two Notes on the Identification of Some Anonymous Hebrew Commentaries on the Physics,” Aleph  (): –, on p. . 99 See the chronological list of Bibago’s writings in Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed, p. , and lists of his sources, ibid., pp. –. 100 Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, ch. –. 101 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § .. 102 Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, pp. –. 103 M. Zonta, “The Aragonese Circle of ‘Jewish Scholastics’ and Its Relationship to Local Christian Scholarship,” lecture given in Paris in December .

aristotelianism among spanish jews



different trends in scholastic thought and tried to select representative texts to translate.104 It is likely that learning Latin and gaining access to Latin texts was easier for these Spanish Jews than it had been for the Provençal Jews two centuries earlier, because of the closer relations between Jews and Christians and because of the large number of conversos, who could serve as intermediaries. It is hard to estimate the impact of Christian scholarship, because its assimilation was interrupted by the expulsion. Although the Spanish pattern was not as “cautious” as the Provençal, it is not clear to what extent Spanish Aristotelians actively appropriated the new body of knowledge. Let me offer two examples. #Eli Habilio was the most prolific translator; . but, as Jean Pierre Rothschild remarks, “in his oeuvres personelles, unless he relied on a Christian source that has not yet been identified, his carried primary sources are in the Greek-Arabic tradition.”105 Habilio . out the vast project (completed in ) of translating six questioncommentaries on Aristotle by Johannes Versor.106 So far I have found no evidence that these translations were read and used at the time. Abraham Nuriel lists one reference to Versor in Bibago’s Treatise on the Multiplicity of Forms, but it is to Versor’s commentary on the Metaphysics, 107 Bibago’s acquaintance with a text that was not translated by Habilio. . Versor was thus either secondhand or with the Latin text. In the extant commentaries on the Physics I have found references to a Latin text ˇ ˇ only in the commentary by Sem Tov Tov, perhaps . ben Joseph ibn Sem . ˇ latest chronologically of these commentaries. Sem Tov refers several . times to Thomas (ùîåè). I am not sure if he refers to other Christian scholars.108 It is not clear to what extent an appropriation of scholastic philosophy was en route in the s and s and where this route could have 104 See his introduction to his translation of Antonius Andreas’ Questions on the Metaphysics, quoted and translated in Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, English, pp. –; Hebrew, pp. *–*. 105 J.P. Rothschild, “Questions de philosophie soumises par #Eli Habilio à Shem Tob Ibn Shem Tob v. ,” Archives d’ histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age  (): –, on pp. –. 106 The quaestiones on the Physics, De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, De anima, and three treatises from the Parva naturalia. On these translations see J.P. Rothschild, “Eli Habilio, philosophe juif et traducteur de latin en hébreu (flor. ca. –post ),” Mediaevalia – (): –, on pp. –. 107 Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed, p. . 108 E.g., Paris BNF, MS héb.  / , fols. b, b, b (the argument on the place of the outermost sphere in ch. IV..), and a.



ruth glasner

led to, had it not been blocked two decades after its start. This question is especially intriguing, inasmuch as scholasticism thrived in Christian Spain in the sixteenth century.

Conclusion It could hardly be a coincidence that Aristotelianism flourished among Provençal Jews in the thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth centuries—the zenith of scholasticism in the French universities—and that the revival of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews more or less coincided with the late reception of scholasticism in the Spanish universities. In both cases, however, the influence of Christian scholasticism was neither simple nor direct. If we employ Aristotelian language, it was not the “active cause”; perhaps it was a formal cause that offered a paradigm of scholastic culture. Gad Freudenthal expressed this when he wrote that “the Jewish philosophical culture was comparable to its Latin counterpart.”109 On the Provençal scene the active cause was, apparently, the arrival of Jewish immigrants from Muslim Spain. In Spain it is more difficult to point out. It is possible, as suggested above (§ ), that the motivation to pursue a more “rationalist” direction began to ripen in the fourteenth century with the accumulation of Aristotelian texts. This process was delayed by the events of  and the reaction that followed. Its resumption may have been encouraged by the parallel development of Christian scholasticism. It is also likely that fifteenth-century Spanish Jews found Aristotelianism attractive because it was a neutral zone in which Jews, conversos, and Christians could interact in relative peace. The Spanish Aristotelians differed in their degree of religious orthodoxy and in their willingness to endorse Aristotle’s teaching, but were more or less unanimous in their admiration for Aristotle. In their commentaries they tried, in different ways, to play down the conflict between Aristotelian theology and tradiˇ Tov tional Judaism.110 Both Joseph ibn Sem . and Abraham Bibago empha109

Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § .. ˇ “In my opinion” writes Joseph ibn Sem Tov, “only few of the basic premises of . Aristotle conflict with the truth and with the true Torah, with the exception of one major issue, namely the eternity of creation of the world, in which he had doubts, due to the conflicting arguments (úåéàø) on this issue, the absence of demonstration (úôåî), and because he did not have the privilege to learn from one of the prophets” (from the 110

aristotelianism among spanish jews



size the universal character of philosophy and its beneficial moderating influence on the human soul.111 Perhaps this explains why Habilio pro. duced a Hebrew translation of On the Universal by Vincent Ferrer, who was feared and hated by the Jews a century earlier.112 Communication was easy on the philosophical and theoretical level.

commentary on Ethics IX; quoted by Regev, “Theology and Rational Mysticism,” p. ). ˇ Tov, Is. haq . Ibn Sem . referring to Aristotle’s argument in Physics VIII., comments: “Is. haq . said: this does not contradict at all what we—namely the community of believers in creation—say and what is implied by what we say, namely that the world existed in act and unmoved. All we say is that the world was created ex nihilo . . . ” (MS Cambridge ., ˇ Tov No. , fol. a–). Sem . ben Joseph brushes the conflict aside: “The intention of the commentary is not to determine whether the world was created or not but, no matter whether it was created or not, to inquire whether the world can exist without the first motion or not. And the inquiry in this place is [carried out] as if (åìàë) it is eternal” (Paris BNF, MS héb.  / , fol. a–). On Bibago’s somewhat obscure position see Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed, p. . Although Habilio, discussing Aristotle’s argument . in Physics VIII., suggests that “in our true opinion God could have made the celestial body eternal,” he adds that Narboni’s conclusion that creation is only a possibility does not follow from this (MS Parma a–b). 111 S. Regev, “On the Study of Philosophy in the Fifteenth Century: R. Joseph Ibn Shem Tov and R. Abraham Bibago,” Da#at  (): –, on pp. ,  (Heb.). 112 A. Fidora and M. Zonta, “Vincent Ferrer’s Treatise on the Universal in Latin and in Hebrew” (Lecture given in Paris, December ).

STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN CULTURAL HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

DUHEM’S CONTINUITY THESIS: THE INTRUSION OF IDEOLOGY INTO HISTORY OF SCIENCE*

Bernard R. Goldstein and Giora Hon

. Gad Freudenthal’s Historiographical Principle It is commonly asserted that history, offering an account of events, is about the past whereas philosophy, providing an analysis of thought, is time independent. But this is not how Gad Freudenthal views his vocation as a historian of science. To be sure, the history he writes concerns the distant past (ancient, medieval, and early modern times), and the philosophy to which he appeals transcends the constraints of temporal periodicity. Freudenthal considers himself a historian of science, but he would probably be the first to acknowledge that his achievements as a historian of science are based on adhering to sound philosophical principles. Indeed, what makes his scientific endeavor insightful is the coherent unification of the two practices for, in Freudenthal’s hands, historical accounts are informed by refined philosophical distinctions. An excellent example of Freudenthal’s approach is his illuminating essay on “instrumentalism” and “realism” in the history of astronomy.1 Freudenthal focuses on Maimonides (–), who was identified as an instrumentalist by the eminent philosopher of science, Pierre Duhem *

We thank Paul Hoftijzer of the University of Leiden for his assistance in obtaining access to the original publication and Latin translation of Stevin’s De Beghinselen der Weeghconst, and for helping us in matters concerning the Dutch language. Matthias Schwerdt of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, kindly provided us with an electronic version of Snell’s Latin translation of Stevin’s work. Ron Alter, a librarian at the University of Haifa, responded most efficiently to our queries. We dedicate this paper to Gad Freudenthal in gratitude and friendship. Indeed, for many years he has been an invaluable “guide,” offering sensible and sagacious advice on a great variety of issues. 1 Gad Freudenthal, “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’ as Categories in the History of Astronomy: Duhem vs. Popper, Maimonides vs. Gersonides,” Centaurus  (): – ; see especially p.  for definitions of these two categories.



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

(–).2 Indeed, taking a long view of history, Duhem associated Maimonides with the Greek lineage of Posidonius, Geminus, Ptolemy, Proclus, and Simplicius who, according to Duhem, all held the metaphysical position of instrumentalism.3 To establish his claim Duhem quotes critical passages in Maimonides extensively, but does not engage in any analysis of these texts. By contrast, Freudenthal meticulously examines Maimonides’s metaphysical position and clarifies the underlying Aristotelian reasoning that Maimonides presents: Given the Aristotelian theory of science . . . the Maimonidean view . . . excludes the possibility of ever finding a scientific theory of the heavens. . . . Since demonstrations as required by the Aristotelian ideal of science can be given only with respect to segments of nature governed by necessity, and since . . . Maimonides holds that necessity is operative only in the sublunar realm, it follows that the kind of explanations available for the sublunar world is, and will remain, beyond reach with respect to the supralunar one.4

According to Freudenthal, Maimonides is the paragon of a medieval Aristotelian philosopher with scientific interests and metaphysical commitments. Now, do these commitments belong to an instrumentalist? For Freudenthal the continued use of the term seems warranted, and so Maimonides may justly be considered an instrumentalist by the philosopher of science. But, for the historian of science the game, as it were, is different: the term “must reflect meta-theoretical beliefs or ideals held by historical actors, not by the historian.”5 Freudenthal thus acknowledges the pioneering work of Duhem in this respect: he initiated the search for the historical actor’s “second-order,” or meta-theoretical, views, that is, the philosophical commitments of 2

Duhem preferred the term, fictive, but his view is now generally called “instrumentalism”: see ibid., pp. – n. ; P. Barker and B.R. Goldstein, “Realism and Instrumentalism in Sixteenth Century Astronomy: A Reappraisal,” Perspectives on Science  (): –, on p.  n. . 3 P. Duhem, To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from Plato to Galileo. Translated by E. Dolan and C. Maschler, with an Introductory Essay by S.L. Jaki (Chicago and London, [ / ] ): –. In addition to those listed here, Duhem associates many more thinkers who, he claims, hold the position of instrumentalism. For dissenting views on entries in Duhem’s list see, e.g., B.R. Goldstein, “Saving the Phenomena: the Background to Ptolemy’s Planetary Theory,” Journal for the History of Astronomy  (): –; and Barker and Goldstein, “Realism and Instrumentalism.” 4 Freudenthal, “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’,” p. , italics in the original. 5 Ibid., p. , see also pp. –.

duhem’s continuity thesis



a scientist, both epistemological (e.g., what counts as evidence?) and metaphysical (e.g., are the models to be understood as “real”?). In general, this is what we might call the “philosophy of science” held by a scientist. Freudenthal concludes: Duhem’s substantial theses on the history of astronomy were for the most part refuted by later historians. . . . [But] the general lesson for which we are indebted to Duhem . . . is that without taking into consideration the astronomers’ meta-theoretical beliefs we cannot give a full and adequate account of the historical development of the discipline.6

While Duhem’s specific claims concerning many individual thinkers as instrumentalists have been refuted, his search for their meta-theoretic commitments is of enduring value. According to Freudenthal, this search follows a historiographical principle which demands that “the historian of science must take into consideration the ‘second-order’ views held by the historical actors.”7 Here we call attention to the philosophical sensitivity of a perceptive historian of science. For Freudenthal a historian of science must be sensitive to scientific content as well as to “meta-theoretical” issues. Freudenthal recognizes Duhem’s important work in initiating such a search; but, following the stated principle, Freudenthal shows in a richly detailed study that Duhem’s specific claims are associated more with the analyst, Duhem, than with the historical actor, Maimonides. In short, as we see it, while Freudenthal provides a nuanced account of the actor’s philosophical commitments, Duhem anachronistically inserts Maimonides into a tradition invented to support the philosophy of the modern analyst.8 Despite its shortcomings, Freudenthal found that Duhem’s discussion of instrumentalism has a positive element, namely, the importance of studying meta-theoretical issues. In this paper we enlarge the canvas and examine Duhem’s continuity thesis to see if we can find a way to

6

Ibid., p. . Ibid., p. . 8 For details see § ., below. On Duhem’s negative view of theoretical models, an important element of his philosophy of science, see P. Duhem, The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated from the French by P.P. Wiener with a Foreword by L. de Broglie (New York, [] ): , –, –; P. Duhem, La théorie physique: son objet et sa structure, nd ed. rev. and augm. (Paris, [] ): , –, – . See also R. Ariew, “Pierre Duhem,” in E.N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter  Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win/entries/ duhem/. 7



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

derive some value in it, as Freudenthal did with Duhem’s treatment of instrumentalism. But in this case our conclusion is that Duhem’s ideology fatally undermined his argument and that the continuity thesis should simply be abandoned. Like Freudenthal, we take a cue from Duhem and seek to apply his continuity thesis to a specific thinker, namely, Simon Stevin (–). We examine critically this thesis, which motivated Duhem’s accounts of the history of statics and, more generally, of physics and astronomy. In other words, we consider the thesis that provides the framework for Duhem’s historical writing. We first introduce the continuity thesis as articulated in Duhem’s own writings and explore its shortcomings (see § ). Next we present the analysis of equilibrium by Stevin, which serves as an instructive case (see § ); indeed, Duhem pioneered the modern historical study of equilibrium in a book which he called, Les origines de la statique (– ), and it was his understanding of the discipline of statics that led him to formulate the continuity thesis.9 We then argue that Duhem’s thesis cannot account for the novel contribution of Stevin (see § ). At stake is Stevin’s conceptualization of statics; in fact, the very term statics was not available in the relevant scientific literature before the Latin translation of Stevin’s work in  by Willebrord Snell (–). We conclude with some remarks on the role of concepts as the engine of scientific change (see § ).

. Duhem’s Continuity Thesis Like any domain of scholarship in which new knowledge is sought, history of science requires intuition and sensitivity to what is critical and what is not. Typically, these features depend on the character of the individual researcher, including his or her skills and idiosyncrasies, which cannot be formalized or cast into a set of principles. Yet, however critical these features may be, there is the risk that they lead the researcher astray, away from the path to expanding the frontiers of knowledge. A case in point is the continuity thesis of Duhem which he formulated while practicing history of science, searching for philo9 P. Barker and R. Ariew, “Introduction,” in idem, eds, Revolution and Continuity: Essays in the History and Philosophy of Early Modern Science (Washington, DC, ): –, on p. . See also n. , below.

duhem’s continuity thesis



sophical coherence in the vast array of new historical data which he diligently recorded. Duhem discovered a great many medieval texts of much value and he is rightly considered the founder of the study of medieval physics in the Latin West, but this achievement is marred by his ideology.10 Behind every scientific episode there is an “implicit” philosophy of science, as Freudenthal rightly noted, calling it “metatheoretical.” Philosophy becomes ideology when it is held dogmatically; indeed, an ideologue dismisses or ignores contrary evidence. He or she thus turns science into a self-confirmatory activity by weakening the critical faculty, creating a “cozy” unified view which resists empirical refutation.11 Duhem rejected the idea that every so often there is a scientific revolution; rather, he argued that there is an underlying continuity in a scientific discipline: The collapse of Peripatetic physics did not occur suddenly; the construction of modern physics was not accomplished on an empty terrain where nothing was standing. The passage from one state to the other was made by a long series of partial transformations, each one pretending merely to retouch or to enlarge some part of the edifice without changing the whole. But when all these minor modifications were accomplished, man, encompassing at one glance the result of his lengthy labor, recognized with surprise that nothing remained of the old palace, and that a new palace stood in its place. Those who, during the sixteenth century, became aware of this substitution of one science for another were possessed by a strange delusion; they imagined that the substitution was sudden and that it was their doing. They proclaimed that Peripatetic physics, that dark den of error, just succumbed to their blows, and that they had built upon its ruins, as if by magic, the bright domain of truth. The men of subsequent centuries were either the dupes or the accomplices of the sincere delusion or vain error of these men. The physicists of the sixteenth century were celebrated as the creators to which the world owed its scientific renaissance; but they were often merely continuators, and sometimes plagiarists.12

Since Duhem’s contributions to philosophy of science are widely discussed, it is worthwhile to scrutinize them in detail. We reconsider one of them, namely, his continuity thesis, and come to the conclusion that it is 10

See, e.g., Barker and Ariew, “Introduction,” pp. –. H. Post, Against Ideologies, Inaugural Lecture,  November  (London, ). This lecture is on file at the archives of King’s College, London: C/Lec / . 12 P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds. Edited and translated by R. Ariew, an abridged edition in English translation of P. Duhem, Le Système du monde: Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic (Chicago, ): . 11



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

inadequate. Duhem failed to recognize critical conceptual innovations: as an example, we analyze the treatment of equilibrium at the turn of the seventeenth century. In our view this flawed thesis is the result of the inability of this eminent philosopher of science to make his philosophical beliefs conform to the evidence, based on sound historiographical principles. In other words, Duhem’s ideology intruded into his pioneering work in history of science. The essence of the continuity thesis is that each actor is thoroughly dependent on his predecessors. But the “thread” of continuity is determined by the analyst, not by the actor. Duhem concluded his work on the origins of statics with a bold statement: Anyone who studies the history of science is led to similar reflections. Each proposition in statics was slowly elaborated through a process of research, experimentation, hesitations, discussions, and contradictions. Among all these many efforts, not one was wasted. Each one contributed to the final result. . . . Yet, while all these efforts contributed to the advance of science which we can admire today in its finished form, no single contributor to these efforts even suspected the final magnitude and shape of the edifice he was helping construct. When Jordanus developed the law of equilibrium for a straight lever, he was certainly not aware that he was formulating a principle which could form the basis for all of statics. Neither Bernoulli nor Lagrange had any inkling that their Method of Virtual Displacements [leur méthode de déplacements virtuels] would one day be perfectly suited to deal with electric and chemical equilibrium. They could not anticipate Gibbs, even though they were his predecessors. Like skillful masons cutting and cementing stone, they worked on the completion of an edifice without ever having seen the overall design of the architect.13

From his vantage point in the early years of the twentieth century, Duhem convinced himself that he could recognize the work of the “architect.”

13 P. Duhem, The Origins of Statics: The Sources of Physical Theory. Translated from the French by G.T. Leneaux, V.N. Vagliente and G.H. Wagener, with a Foreword by S.L. Jaki (Dordrecht and Boston, ): ; P. Duhem, Les origines de la statique,  vols. (Paris, –): :–. Duhem (Statique, : n. ; Origin of Statics, p.  n. ) explains that, although many of his sources use the expression, Principle of Virtual Velocities, “it should be called the Principle of Virtual Displacements.” See also n. , below. In modern terms, “if one considers a system of mass-points in a static equilibrium acted on at any given time by forces . . . and gives it a small perturbation, then the individual masses experience ‘virtual’ displacements. . . . The principle of virtual velocities (or displacements) now asserts that a system is in equilibrium if the sum of the ‘moments of force’ vanishes”: H. Pulte, “Joseph Louis Lagrange, Méchanique analitique, first edition (),” in I. Grattan-Guinness, ed., Landmark Writings in Western Mathematics –  (Amsterdam, ): –, on p. .

duhem’s continuity thesis



He ascribes to Jordanus (thirteenth century) the method of virtual displacements, developed in fact by Jean Bernoulli (–) and JosephLouis Lagrange (–).14 We have here a subtle form of anachronism where the work of each actor may be carefully described and situated in the right context, but then put in a philosophical framework which leads to distortion in the overall picture. Duhem’s philosophical perspective is veiled in a botanical metaphor: “The minute seed planted by Jordanus not only produced the Mécanique analytique of Lagrange but the chemical and electrical mechanics of Gibbs and Helmholtz as well.”15 For him continuity works even in cases where the actors were unaware that they were tending towards the same goal. The links, then, are not just continuous, they exhibit directionality, that is, all the linkages point to one and the same goal, from antiquity to the present time. Duhem, presumably, sees his own scientific contribution to thermodynamics as the most recent stage of this ongoing process.16 Duhem’s continuity thesis motivates his entire work on the origins of statics and, indeed, informs his view of history of science in general. In the final chapter of his two-volume monograph on statics, he explicitly states his philosophical position: From Archimedes to Varignon, the mechanicians—who were geometrically inclined—never ceased to pursue the same ideal. They continue this pursuit from Varignon to Poinsot and from Poinsot to our own time. They dream of constructing a statics on the model of Euclid’s Elements of Geometry. By means of a thorough and ingenious analysis they hope to reduce the most complicated cases of equilibrium in the most diverse systems until they can see clearly simple and elementary instances of equilibrium. . . . The goal of Archimedes in his treatise On the Equilibrium of Planes was to provide statics with principles which would be acknowledged as just as clear and certain as the axioms of geometry. Such was the desire of Daniel

14 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. See also M. Panza, “The Origins of Analytic Mechanics in the th Century,” in H.N. Jahnke, ed., A history of analysis (Providence, RI, ): –, on pp. –. 15 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. . 16 P. Duhem, Thermodynamique et chimie: leçons élémentaires à l’ usage des chimistes (Paris, ). Duhem had published this book on thermodynamics and chemistry not long before he wrote his history of statics. In this book he praises the contribution of Josiah Willard Gibbs (–) and extends Gibbs’s work, focusing on the consequences of equilibrium: P. Duhem, L’Évolution de la mécanique (Paris, ). In  Duhem published a monograph, Josiah-Willard Gibbs (Paris, ), which is full of admiration for Gibbs.



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon Bernoulli and then of Poisson, when they attempted to establish the Law of the Parallelogram of Forces without reference to the general principles of dynamics.17

We note that Duhem claims to recognize a single ideal goal which is shared by actors of all eras (classical, medieval, early modern, and modern times). And these actors share not only the same goal, they even have the same desire—the same dream. Duhem expresses this bold thesis by means of several metaphors (we have already cited a botanical one, above). There is the river metaphor which comes at the end of the essay on statics.18 And then there is the metaphor of a rising tide (marée montante), which concludes the discussion of the evolution of physical theories in The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory.19 Another metaphor comes in the conclusion of his work on statics. He appeals to a naturalist who would agree, Duhem claims, that there is a “guiding idea” presiding over the development of every living being, and that this also applies to the evolution of physics: Even more than the growth of a living being, the evolution of statics is the manifestation of the influence of a guiding idea [idée directrice]. Within the complex data of this evolution, we can see the continuous action of a divine wisdom [Sagesse] which forces the ideal form [forme idéale] towards which science must tend and we can sense the presence of a Power which causes the efforts of all thinkers to converge towards this goal. In a word, we recognize here the work of Providence.20

We need not dwell on the fact that Duhem recognizes in this Power the work of Providence. Suffice it to note that the process is continuous, complete with a goal towards which “science must tend.” A metaphor does not take the place of argumentation, and a series of metaphors does not make up for weak arguments;21 on the contrary, such moves give the impression that the claim cannot be firmly grounded. As

17

Duhem, The Origins of Statics, p. , slightly modified; Duhem, Statique, :–

. 18

Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. Duhem, Aim and Structure, pp. –; Duhem, La théorie physique, p. . 20 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :. 21 For another metaphor, see P. Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” Annales de philosophie chrétienne  (): –, added as an appendix in Duhem, La théorie physique, nd ed., pp. –, on p. ; translated as “Physics of a believer” in Aim and Structure, pp. –, on p. . 19

duhem’s continuity thesis



far as we have been able to determine, the passage that comes closest to stating the thesis without a metaphor is in Duhem’s essay, “Physics of a believer” (): The movement through which physics has evolved may actually be decomposed into two other movements which are constantly superimposed on one another. One of the movements is a series of perpetual alternations in which one theory arises, dominates science for a moment, then collapses to be replaced by another theory. The other movement is a continual progress through which we see created across the ages a constantly more ample and more precise mathematical representation of the inanimate world disclosed to us by experiment. Now, these ephemeral triumphs followed by sudden collapses making up the first of these two movements are the successes and reverses which have been experienced by the various mechanistic physical systems in successive roles, including the Newtonian physics as well as the Cartesian and atomistic physics. On the other hand, the continual progress constituting the second movement has resulted in general thermodynamics; in it all the legitimate and fruitful tendencies of previous theories have come to converge. Clearly, this is the starting point, at the time we live in, for the forward march which will lead theory toward its ideal goal.22

Duhem continues in this vein to link Aristotle with modern thermodynamics: If we rid the physics of Aristotle and of Scholasticism of the outworn and demoded scientific clothing covering it, and if we bring out in its vigorous and harmonious nakedness the living flesh of this cosmology, we would be struck by its resemblance to our modern physical theory; we recognize in these two doctrines two pictures of the same ontological order, distinct because they are each taken from a different point of view, but in no way discordant.23

Both in his metaphors and here, in the argument, Duhem refers to two processes superimposed on one another. The conspicuous process is the coming and going of theories which are ephemeral in nature; Duhem takes this movement to be superficial. The real process, the one that exhibits progress, is implicit. He identifies the element which keeps progressing independently of theory as the mathematical representation of the inanimate world disclosed by experiment. What remains then are increasingly general mathematical formulations—“the ideal form toward 22

Duhem, “Physics of a believer”, p. . Ibid., p. . The cloth metaphor is taken directly from Heinrich Hertz (–): see H. Hertz, Electric Waves. Translated by D.E. Jones (New York, [] ): . 23



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

which physical theory and cosmology slowly proceed.”24 This hidden process culminated in thermodynamics, and not in the mechanical theories of Newton, Descartes, or the atomists. When stripped naked, as it were, thermodynamics resembles the physics of Aristotle. For Duhem this truth is crystal clear, and he exclaims rhetorically, “how can we not recognize a striking analogy between Aristotle’s cosmology reduced to its essential affirmations [affirmations essentielles] and the teachings of thermodynamics?”25 Duhem boldly claims that he sees a continuous line of development from Aristotle’s “essential” conception of equilibrium up to its use in thermodynamics at the turn of the last century, as developed by Gibbs and expanded by Duhem himself.26 However, Aristotle had neither a term for equilibrium nor any notion of the precise technical concept of Archimedes, let alone that of Gibbs.27 We clearly see that Duhem put his continuity thesis to work as a justification for his own contribution to science. The idea of equilibrium in thermodynamics represents then the most advanced stage (up to his time) on the path to “the ideal form.” Duhem addresses a fundamental question in philosophy of science which is still pertinent today, a century later, namely, how does science progress despite the acknowledged fact that physical theories come and go, and are not here to stay? Unfortunately, his answer is marred by his personal interest in asserting that his own scientific practice is the culmination of all that came before it. The continuity thesis, therefore, is not benign; specifically, we take issue with what Duhem identifies as the affirmations essentielles that give directionality to the continuous line of development. The idea that a historical development across more than two millennia of cultural changes exemplifies the process of germination and fruition is simply wrong. In Herbert Butterfield’s apt term, this is Whig history: “to produce a story which is the ratification if not the glorification of the present.”28 Undoubtedly, the writing of history

24

Duhem, “Physics of a believer,” p. , slightly modified; Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” p. . For example, the mathematics in Kepler is preserved and generalized in Newton. So Kepler’s theory was discarded but the mathematics remained: see, e.g., Duhem, Aim and Structure, pp. –; see also pp. , –. 25 Duhem, “Physics of a believer,” p. ; Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” p. . 26 For the “Gibbs-Duhem equation,” see S.L. Jaki, Uneasy Genius: The Life and Work of Pierre Duhem (The Hague and Boston, ): –. 27 See G. Hon and B.R. Goldstein, “What Keeps the Earth in its Place? The Concept of Stability in Plato and Aristotle,” Centaurus  (): –, on pp. –. 28 H. Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, [] ), p. v.

duhem’s continuity thesis



necessitates a principle of selection, but “Whig history . . . is not a genuine abridgement,”29 for it is based on an implicit selective process biased by a specific ideology. According to Butterfield: The whig interpretation of history is not merely the property of whigs and it is much more subtle than mental bias; it lies in a trick of organisation, an unexamined habit of mind that any historian may fall into. It might be called the historian’s “pathetic fallacy.” It is the result of the practice of abstracting things from their historical context and judging them apart from their context—estimating them and organising the historical story by a system of direct reference to the present . . . it is the very sum and definition of all errors of historical inference. The study of the past with one eye, so to speak, upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries in history, starting with the simplest of them, anachronism.30

Duhem, we argue, recast scientific theories of the past in terms of the issues of the present, notably, his own contributions to science. In a striking image taken from Butterfield, we can say that Duhem was hunting for a “flock of misapprehensions”: The chief aim of the historian is the elucidation of the unlikenesses between past and present and his chief function is to act in this way as the mediator between other generations and our own. It is not for him to stress and magnify the similarities between one age and another, and he is riding after a whole flock of misapprehensions if he goes to hunt for the present in the past. Rather it is his work to destroy those very analogies which we imagined to exist.31

Our criticism also finds support in the idea of history elaborated by Robin G. Collingwood (–). History of science would not be a part of the discipline of history if it considered scientific problems as eternal 29

Ibid., p. . Ibid., pp. –. 31 Ibid., p. . As Hall succinctly put it, “the Whig historian knows the moral of his tale before he has sat down to tell it.” With a tinge of irony he illustrated this claim as follows: “no one, perhaps, could more aptly exemplify this characteristic of ‘Whig’ history than the ‘Tory’ Pierre Duhem, in his search for the medieval precursors of Galileo.” Moreover, Hall astutely observed that “[Butterfield’s] whig interpretation . . . fails to give any positive idea of what real, non-Whig history may be. . . . It tells us what history should not be, not what it might be.” See A. Rupert Hall, “On whiggism,” History of Science  (): –, on pp. , –. Still, we find Butterfield’s thesis useful for the formulation of a powerful negative critique. Wilson and Ashplant offered a careful assessment of Butterfield’s thesis and remarked that “historical inference is inherently problematical.” See A. Wilson and T.G. Ashplant, “Whig History and Present-Centred History,” The Historical Journal  (): – and –, on p. . For recent discussion of these issues see, e.g., O.M. Abadía, “Beyond the Whig history interpretation of history: lessons on ‘presentism’ from Hélène Metzger,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science  (): –. 30



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

and unchanging. Suppose we designate Aristotle’s problem of stability, p1, which is then equated with Boltzmann’s problem of disorder, say, p19; in effect, Duhem argues that there is a certain P, which is equivalent to both p1 and p19 (and many intermediate stages, pi). To be sure, this equivalence is not immediately apparent: after all, what is the relation between the Aristotelian concept of natural place and Boltzmann’s definition of the concept of entropy?32 Thus, Duhem acknowledges, of course, no analogy appears between physics of today and the theory of natural place, if we take this theory as it appears at first sight with all the details making up its external form. But let us now remove these details and break this mold of outworn science into which the Aristotelian cosmology had to be poured; let us go to the bottom of this doctrine in order to grasp the metaphysical ideas which are its soul. What do we find truly essential in the theory of the natural place of the elements?33

What we find, according to Duhem, is the analogy between the “essential affirmations” of Aristotle’s cosmology and the teachings of thermodynamics. So far, we have almost exclusively quoted the authors of the th century. However, what they tell us has a distinctly modern flavor. Their ideas are very close to those of the physicists who have read Clausius, William Thomson, and Rayleigh. This is because thermodynamics, by completing the oversimplified dynamics deriving from Galileo’s Discorsi, partially bridged the gap separating the latter from Aristotle’s dynamics.34

While Duhem, driven by a strong ideology, is running after a “flock of misapprehensions,” we suggest adopting the historical methodology according to which, in history of science, answers have been given to different scientific questions in a certain order and at various times. More specifically, one should focus on concepts such as natural place and statics: indeed, the history of a concept should reflect its meanings as the application of the concept changes over time for, in different contexts, different problems arise and, in turn, different answers are given. Our principal claim, then, is that Duhem’s continuity thesis cannot account for conceptual change. As a rule, Duhem’s philosophical analyses and historical accounts address theories. In his essay, “What Is an Experiment in Physics?,” 32 For additional details of this argument, see R.G. Collingwood, An Autobiography (Oxford, [] ): –. 33 Duhem, “Physics of a believer,” p. ; Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” p. . 34 Duhem, The Origins of Statics, p. .

duhem’s continuity thesis



Duhem concludes that an experiment is “a precise observation of a group of phenomena, accompanied by the INTERPRETATION of these phenomena.” He continues: This interpretation replaces the concrete data really gathered by observation with abstract and symbolic representations that correspond to them by virtue of physical theories accepted by the observer.35

Duhem distinguishes four fundamental operations (opérations) in physical theories: () the definition and measurement of physical magnitudes; () the selection of hypotheses; () the mathematical development of the theory; () the comparison of the theory with experiment.36

He then develops the discussion of physical theory on the basis of these four “operations”; we note that there is no reference to the role of concepts in these operations. Duhem is perfectly aware of the fact that concepts play a critical role both in theory and experimentation. He remarks, for example, that to measure the value of the pressure supported by the gas in some experimental set-up designed by Henri Victor Regnault (–), “it was necessary to use concepts [notions] that are exceedingly profound and difficult to acquire: pressure, cohesive force.”37 But, Duhem focuses on theories and fails to investigate the role of concepts. This philosophical position is embedded in his historical writings, namely, Duhem is concerned with the history of theories, and not that of concepts. Thus, when the historical data present him with a novel concept that breaks the continuity mold, he is inclined to include it in a contemporary theory and ignore its novelty. This is the case with the concept of statics.

35 P. Duhem, “Some Reflections on the Subject of Experimental Physics,” in idem, Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Translated and edited, with Introduction, by R. Ariew and P. Barker (Indianapolis and Cambridge, ): –, on p. , italics and capitalization in the original. The French version appeared as: P. Duhem, “Quelques réflexions au sujet de la physique expérimentale,” Revue des questions scientifiques  (): –. See also Duhem, Aim and Structure, p. . 36 Duhem, Aim and Structure, p. ; Duhem, La théorie physique, p. . 37 Duhem, “Some Reflections,” p. . Cf. Duhem, Aim and Structure, pp. –; Duhem, La théorie physique, p. .



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon . Stevin’s Theory of Equilibrium

In the background to the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century one finds both scientists and craftsmen who, motivated in part by economic opportunities, tried to put science to practical use. The sixteenth century is notable for the works of practitioners in the construction of canals, fortifications, and a variety of scientific instruments as well as for theoretical advances in mathematics and physics. As the editors of Stevin’s work point out, “Stevin acquired his honourable position in the history of civilization by working both in theoretical science and in engineering. This combination of faculties was prophetical: modern science truly required the cooperation of theory and practice.”38 Indeed, Stevin’s published works include contributions to mathematics, mechanics, hydrostatics, astronomy, geography, navigation, technology, military science, bookkeeping, architecture, music, civic matters, and logic. The editors conclude that “in the history of civilization Stevin figures as the prototype of the engineer, of the perfect technologist, who deals with practical problems in a scientific way.”39 .. Stevin’s Principles of the Art of Weighing (De Beghinselen der Weeghconst) of  In his De Beghinselen der Weeghconst Stevin presented his work on equilibrium, and it was followed by two related publications in the same year that were bound together with it.40 The themes of the books that

38

E.J. Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in The Principal Works of Simon Stevin, vol. , Mechanics (Amsterdam, ): . 39 Ibid., p. . 40 Stevin published a series of three closely related texts in , each with a separate title page and separate pagination: S. Stevin, De Beghinselen der Weeghconst (Leiden, ); S. Stevin, De Weeghdaet (Leiden, ); and S. Stevin, De Beghinselen des Waterwichts (Leiden, ). The third of these included an Appendix (Anhang) on pp. –: note that there are no pages bearing numbers between  and , and the page numbered “” follows immediately after the page numbered “” with nothing missing. These three publications were reprinted together in S. Stevin, Wisconstighe Ghedachtenissen (– ), vol. , Van de Weeghconst (Leiden, ), to which a supplement (Byvough der Weeghconst) was added. For a facsimile edition of Stevin’s three publications of  in Dutch with facing English translations, see Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, vol. , Mechanics; on the supplement in edition , see ibid., p. . A Latin translation, based on the Dutch edition of , by W. Snell, appeared in the same year: S. Stevin, Tomvs quartvs Mathematicorvm hypomnematvm, De statica (Leiden, ). A French

duhem’s continuity thesis



comprise this series reflect Stevin’s interest in combining theory with practice: () The Principles of the Art of Weighing, in two “books” (Latin: Liber primvs staticae de staticae elementis, and Statices liber secvndvs qvi est de inveniendo gravitatis centro); () The Practical Art of Weighing (Latin: Liber tertivs de staticae praxi); () The Principles of Hydrostatics [Waterwicht] (Latin: Liber qvartvs staticae de hydrostatices elementis); () The Practical Art of Hydrostatics (Latin: Liber qvintvs staticae de initiis praxis hydrostatices); and () Appendix (Latin: Appendix statices vbi inter alia errores). Stevin essentially continued the work of Archimedes by giving mathematical demonstrations of the conditions for equilibrium of a horizontal lever.41 More importantly, he added an analysis of weights at rest on an inclined plane. The Dutch editors and translators of his scientific work summarized this novel contribution as follows: [Stevin] proves in a most ingenious and interesting way the law of equilibrium on an inclined plane, basing himself on the conviction of the impossibility of perpetual motion. From this theorem the rule for composition and decomposition of a force acting on a point is deduced, by which the study of equilibrium of a rigid body with one fixed point is made possible. It should be noted that Stevin for reasons of principle rejects the method of virtual displacements.42

Indeed, Stevin draws a clear distinction between the discussion of the lever and the novel analysis of weights placed on inclined planes; in his terminology, vertical weights are suspended from a lever whereas oblique weights are situated on an inclined plane: UP TO THIS POINT THE PROPERTIES OF VERTICAL WEIGHTS [RECHTWICHTEN] HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. In the following pages the properties of oblique weights [scheefwichten] will be described. . . . 43

He goes on to prove the famous theorem of the “wreath of spheres” and several corollaries concerning a weight held in equilibrium on an inclined

translation also appeared in the seventeenth century: A. Girard, trans., Les Oeuvres Mathematiques de Simon Stevin, vol. , L’ Art Ponderaire ou de la Statiqve (Leiden, ). In the present paper we have depended principally on the English translation of ; we have also consulted Snell’s Latin translation which, on occasion, differs from the original Dutch in important ways. 41 For this uncontroversial appraisal of Stevin see, e.g., E.J. Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture. Translated by C. Dikshoorn (Oxford, [] ): . 42 Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in Simon Stevin, :–. See also n. , above. 43 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :; Stevin, Weeghconst, p. .



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

plane.44 For this purpose he invokes a new concept, which he named staltwicht (literally, “apparent weight”), that is, the component of weight along the inclined plane.45 Moreover, in a most ingenious move, Stevin based his entire theory of the equilibrium of weights on an inclined plane on one principle, namely, the impossibility of perpetual motion: This descent on the one side and ascent on the other side will continue for ever, because the cause is always the same, and the spheres will automatically perform a perpetual motion, which is absurd.46

Thus, the argumentative strategy depended on a reductio ad absurdum. With this toolkit, Stevin was able to explain equilibrium on an inclined plane by means of what was later known as the parallelogram of forces. He was indeed very proud of his achievement and put the “wreath of spheres” as an emblem on the title pages of his publications in . One of Stevin’s goals was to make mathematics a practical tool for the investigation of nature.47 He added an Appendix to his Art of Weighing to make his motivation and approach explicit. .. The Appendix and the Introduction of the Term, Statics: The Name for a New Liberal Art In the Appendix to his Art of Weighing Stevin says that he did not base his theory on the method of virtual displacements. This principle, in his view, was the origin of the errors of the ancients and their more recent disciples. He indicates that in the first two chapters of the Appendix he would not detail all the errors; rather, he would just point to their 44 Stevin, Weeghconst, pp. –, VI. Vervolgh; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :, , Cor. VI. Cf. Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. In the proof in which he appeals to the wreath of spheres, Stevin considers a triangle in a vertical plane such that the greatest side (the base) is parallel to the horizon and the vertex opposite it is above the base. A string is slung about the triangle and, to the string at equal distances, equal spheres are attached. It is assumed that the string is able to slide over the three fixed points at the vertices of the triangle. The primary goal is to prove that the portion of the string (with its spheres) on one of the shorter sides is in equilibrium with that on the other shorter side. For additional details, see Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, p. . The wreath of spheres adorns the title page of Stevin’s Weeghconst with the motto, Wonder en is gheen wonder ([What appears to be] a miracle is not a miracle). 45 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, : n. ; Stevin, Weeghconst, p. . In several places Snell translated the Dutch neologism, staltwicht, into Latin as sacoma (= sêkôma), a Greek word meaning “weight,” or “standard weight”: see Snell, trans., De statica, pp. – . 46 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :; Stevin, Weeghconst, p. . 47 See Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in Simon Stevin, :–.

duhem’s continuity thesis



common origin which led his contemporaries astray.48 In other words, for Stevin the Appendix comprises clarifying notes which, although not part of the theory, nevertheless throw light on the mathematical structure of his argument. This was in keeping with “one of Stevin’s firm principles never to mingle . . . scientific argument with polemics.”49 In Chapter  of the Appendix, Stevin argues: The Ancients, when they inquired into it [the cause of equilibrium], considered [it] to reside in the circles described by the extremities of the arms [of a lever], as appears in Aristotle’s In Mechanicis and his successors. This we deny, and we give the following reason therefor That which hangs still does not describe a circle; Two gravities of equal apparent weight [euestaltwichtighe] hang still; Therefore two gravities of equal apparent weight do not describe circles. And consequently there is no circle. But where there is no circle, the circle cannot be that in which resides any cause. . . . 50

Stevin explicitly rejects the way of treating equilibrium associated with Aristotle (actually Pseudo-Aristotle) in his Mechanical Problems, which appeals to the method of virtual displacements, for this would be to invoke principles of motion in the explanation of a phenomenon that is clearly motionless.51 Against this background, Stevin introduces the Art of Weighing in Chapter  of the Appendix as an independent “free branch of mathematics” which deserves to have the same status as Arithmetic and Geometry. The subject matter of the Art of Weighing, namely, gravity, is quite different from number [i.e., arithmetic] or magnitude [i.e., geometry]; also because the useful properties of the latter are not inferior in profundity to the properties of the former (which is evident from the fact that for this reason they were the last to come to man’s knowledge, and though they may seem easy to you, you owe that to the incomprehensible perfection of the Dutch language); further because in its fundamental principles

48

In Chapter  of the Appendix Stevin criticizes several theories of falling bodies in resistant media. 49 Dijksterhuis et al., “Introductory remarks to the Appendix,” in Simon Stevin, :. 50 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :–; Stevin, Anhang, in Waterwichts, p. , italics in the original. 51 Dijksterhuis et al., “Introductory remarks to the Appendix,” in Simon Stevin, :. Cf. E.A. Moody and M. Clagett, eds and trans., The Medieval Science of Weights (Scientia de Ponderibus) (Madison, ): –. For Pseudo-Aristotle, see W.S. Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle: Mechanical Problems, in idem, Aristotle: Minor Works (London, [] ); see also nn. –, below.



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon it is of equal certainty to the former, it is, on account of this common reason, to be termed a distinct, free branch of mathematics [een besonder vrye Wisconst].52

Stevin, who was deeply involved in reorganizing the sciences, insisted that the science he developed is a liberal art as well as a mechanical art. In European schools and universities from late antiquity to the early modern period the curriculum included the seven liberal arts: the quadrivium which consisted of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music (the four mathematical arts), and the trivium which consisted of grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic. In contrast to the liberal arts, there were “mechanical arts,” which covered the category of crafts without a theoretical component (this category was not restricted to crafts involving mechanical devices).53 In the sixteenth century craftsmen or “mechanicians” had a lower status than those engaged in theoretical studies; hence craftsmen of many kinds, including Stevin, sought to have their “craft” considered on a par with disciplines taught at the university. Stevin proposed, then, including the Art of Weighing among the mathematical arts. It is the combination of theory and practice in the art of weighing which, for him, makes it both a liberal art and a mechanical art.54 Indeed, although Stevin drew a clear distinction between a mathematical and a mechanical (or: practical) proof, he included in the Art of Weighing—as he reported and explained in the Appendix, Chapter —both kinds of proof.55 We have now reached a critical juncture in our account, the naming of a discipline based on a new concept. The original Dutch heading of Chapter  of the Appendix reads:

52 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :; Stevin, Anhang, in Waterwichts, p. . 53 Cf. Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, p. . 54 For details on the role of mathematics during the Renaissance, see P.L. Rose, The Italian Renaissance of Mathematics: Studies on Humanists and Mathematicians from Petrarch to Galileo (Geneva, ). For the case of painters, sculptors, and architects in Italy who succeeded in raising their status from engaging in a mechanical art to engaging in a liberal art, see A. Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, – (Oxford, [] ): –. 55 Stevin, Appendix, in Waterwicht, pp.  f. In the margin on p. , Stevin glosses the terms in Dutch for “mathematical” and “practical” with the following terms in Latin: Mathematica and Mechanicam. Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :– : “Chapter IV, that some of the preceding proofs in which numbers were used are mathematical.” Stevin (p. ) further explains that “the practical proof has sometimes been added to the mathematical one, for the sake of greater clarity.”

duhem’s continuity thesis



IIIe. HOOFTSTICK, dat de Weeghconst een besonder vrie Wisconst is.56

Nowhere does Stevin call the new “Art” Statics, and he has no equivalent term in Dutch.57 In fact, in  he accepted the standard medieval terminology: Dutch Weeghconst corresponds to the Latin for “art of weighing” or “science of weights,” that is, ars ponderaria or scientia de ponderibus.58 This retention of the traditional medieval name, albeit in a Dutch neologism, does not extend to his novel concept of “apparent weight,” based on the impossibility of perpetual motion. However, turning to Snell’s Latin translation of Stevin’s work, we read: Cap. III. Staticam esse Mathematicarum Liberalium artium unam.59

Statics comes from a Greek term that means “standing”: it refers to the study of bodies “at rest,” i.e., motionless, based on Stevin’s novel conceptual analysis which focuses on the absence of motion—not even virtual motion. The Latin term, statica, was coined by Snell, and it first appears in this publication of . In this vein, Snell also coined the Latin term, hydrostatica, to translate Stevin’s Dutch term, Waterwicht, which literally means “water-weight.” This term too had not occurred before .60 We are persuaded, then, that the term, statica, is Snell’s innovation in the Latin version of Stevin’s work. Snell recognized that Stevin had moved away from the medieval tradition of the science of weights by introducing a new conceptual framework and that this innovation required a new term for the discipline. Stevin may have felt that the traditional “Art of Weighing” was neutral with respect to the divergent traditions of 56

Stevin, Anhang, in Waterwichts, p. ; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :: “Chapter III, that the Art of Weighing is a distinct, free [i.e., liberal] branch of mathematics.” 57 This remark should not be taken lightly, for in his Weeghconst Stevin devoted a great deal of attention to the role of language in general, and to the superiority of the Dutch language in particular: see Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in Simon Stevin, :– , –; Stevin, Weeghconst, ff. bBr–dDv; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :– . 58 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, : n. . 59 Snell, trans., De statica, p. . 60 The explanation for the term, statica, is found in the Appendix, but statica already appears on the title page of Snell’s translation (see n. , above). In the proof of Corollary , where Stevin has (Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :): “ . . . a subject with which we will deal more properly in the Practice of Weighing . . . ” [Stevin, Weeghconst, p. : “daerwy eyghentlicker af handelen sullen inde Weegdaet”], Snell has (De statica, p. ): “Sed de his in Statices praxi pressius dicemus.” The Dutch title of Book , De Weeghdaet, is translated into Latin on the title page of edition  as Praxis artis ponderaria. Evidently, at that time the term, statica, was not yet available.



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

Pseudo-Aristotle and Archimedes, whereas Snell’s term excluded the tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle, emphasizing the novel aspect of Stevin’s achievement. The occasion for the introduction of this novel term, statica, has not been noted in the secondary literature. Historians typically refer to classical works on the lever with this term, and Duhem is no exception. In particular, although he made a thorough study of Stevin’s work, Duhem ignores Chapter  in the Appendix altogether.61 For Duhem statics is an ancient science founded by both Pseudo-Aristotle and Archimedes: By studying the equilibrium of weights, Archimedes comes to the same conclusion as Aristotle [i.e., Pseudo-Aristotle], but by a completely different path. He does not deduce the principles from general laws of motion. Instead, he builds the edifice of his theory on a few simple and dependable laws relative to equilibrium. Thus he founded the science of equilibrium as an autonomous science [une science autonome] which owes nothing to the other branches of physics. In a word, he founded statics [il a constitué la Statique].62

This historical claim, we argue, is tainted with ideology; it is motivated by the continuity thesis.63

. A Critique of Duhem’s Account of Stevin’s Work According to Roger Ariew, “Les origines de la statique is . . . a transition from Duhem’s early conventional histories to the later work for which he is best known, Études sur Léonard de Vinci, and Le Système du monde, in which his thesis of the continuity of late medieval and early modern science is fully displayed.”64 Thus, Duhem’s Les origines de la statique represents a significant turning point in his own thinking as well as calling attention to neglected works of medieval science. The continuity thesis motivates this pioneering work and we focus on just one text that 61

Duhem (Statique, :; Origins of Statics, p. ) assumed, incorrectly, that the Appendix was not in Stevin’s publication of  and that it was added in the second edition of . Duhem did not appreciate Stevin’s separation of his mathematical argument from polemical comments (see nn.  and , above). 62 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :. 63 For another example of Duhem’s ideology interfering with his assessment of historical data, see M. Lejbowicz, “Pierre Duhem et l’ histoire des sciences arabes,” Revue des questions scientifiques  (): –. See also Freudenthal, “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’,” p. . 64 Ariew, “Pierre Duhem.”

duhem’s continuity thesis



Duhem discussed, albeit a critical one, namely, Stevin’s Art of Weighing. While we readily acknowledge that Duhem’s mathematical analysis is correct and informative, there are serious difficulties in his interpretation of Stevin’s contribution. As we will see, Duhem was not sensitive to conceptual issues. .. Duhem’s View of Stevin’s Art of Weighing: Confirmation of the Continuity Thesis After giving a careful and detailed mathematical analysis of the corollary concerning a weight held in equilibrium on an inclined plane in which he avoided anachronism, Duhem insists that Stevin had to have taken as his point of departure the so-called “Principle of Virtual Velocities.”65 Now this principle, Duhem claimed, owes its origin to an ancient work on mechanics, traditionally ascribed to Aristotle:66 Thus we will see that the most important progress in statics will derive from Aristotle’s doctrine rather than from the theories formulated by Archimedes.67

In brief, Duhem states the principle as follows: The weight which is moved, says Aristotle, is to the weight which moves in inverse ratio to the lengths of the arms of the lever. Indeed, a weight will always move all the more easily, the further away it is from the point of support. We have already mentioned the cause: the weight which is furthest from the point of support describes a larger circle. Thus, while using the same force, the weight will describe a greater path, the further it is from the point of support.68

According to Duhem, this consideration amounts to a general principle which could be applied to all mechanisms. On this view, the principle accounts for diverse mechanical effects simply by considering the velocities with which certain arcs of a circle are described by the parts comprising a machine—the lever being the simplest. Pseudo-Aristotle put it as follows (quoted by Duhem): 65

Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :–. Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle: Mechanical Problems, pp. –, especially pp. – . This treatise is now ascribed to an anonymous author, generally called PseudoAristotle, and it is probably a product of the Peripatetic School (ibid., p. ). 67 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :. 68 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; cf. Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle: Mechanical Problems, pp. –. 66



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon For the properties of the balance are deducible from those of the circle and the properties of the lever are deducible from those of the balance. In summary, most of the other unique properties exhibited by the motion of mechanisms are deducible from the properties of the lever.69

In Duhem’s view this idea is “the seed from which the powerful ramifications of the Principle of Virtual Velocities will sprout over the next twenty centuries.”70 However, he is well aware that Stevin objected to this method in his Appendix to the Art of Weighing.71 Duhem’s argument is based on ideology, for there is nothing in Stevin’s discussion to justify the claim that lurking in the background is an appeal to the method of virtual displacements. Moreover, while Duhem translates sacoma as pesanteur apparente, that is, “apparent weight,” and thus gets the translation right (without anachronism), he fails to recognize the conceptual innovation which Stevin introduced.72 Again, Duhem ignores what Stevin actually says in the Appendix, Chapter . He ascribes sources to Stevin concerning virtual velocities based on his own ideology, despite his recognition of Stevin’s statement to the contrary in the Appendix, Chapter . In sum, Duhem carries out a correct analysis of Stevin’s theory, but clothes it with a misleading interpretation which keeps him from recognizing the novelty of the concept of “apparent weight”; he thereby convinced himself that the case of Stevin confirms the continuity thesis. .. Duhem’s Philosophy of Science as Ideology Duhem’s analyses of the scientific writings of authors of treatises on mechanics in general are mathematically sound; however, his placement of the texts in a lineage across many centuries is unsupported by the data he presented. Thus, he rhetorically asks, “Did Stevin know the doctrines professed in statics by the School of Jordanus?” To which he replies, “It is difficult for me to doubt this. . . . ” There can be no doubt that the admirable work accomplished in statics by the great geometer from Brugge [i.e., Stevin] was in several instances

69 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp.  and  n. ; Duhem, Statique, :. Duhem translated this passage directly from the original Greek: cf. Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle: Mechanical Problems, pp. –. 70 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :. 71 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :– . 72 Duhem, Statique, :. See also n. , above.

duhem’s continuity thesis



favorably influenced by the ideas expressed from the th century on by Jordanus de Nemore and the mechanicians of his School.73

Duhem acknowledges that the laws set forth by Stevin are accurate, but he has misgivings concerning the arguments Stevin used to support his novel analysis. He thus claims that Stevin’s assessment was “unjustified,” for he rejected the method of virtual displacements which “continues to confirm the genius of the author of the Mechanical Problems.”74 To be sure, Duhem is correct that Stevin rejected this method, but this is precisely the point: he does not appreciate Stevin’s commitment to statics, to motionless phenomena. As we have seen, Stevin says explicitly in the Appendix (to the reader) that he intends to discuss the source of the “error,” i.e., virtual displacements, which derives from PseudoAristotle’s Mechanical Problems. Duhem insisted that Stevin depended on the medieval tradition of Jordanus de Nemore’s school (and ultimately on Pseudo-Aristotle), but we see no good reason to accept this assertion.75 Rather, we find overwhelming evidence that Stevin is heir to the traditions of Euclid and Archimedes. As he did with Maimonides, Duhem associates Stevin with a tradition invented to support an ideology of the modern analyst—in this case a commitment to the continuity thesis. This is where Duhem’s philosophy of science interferes with his role as historian of science. We can admire many aspects of his historical work; indeed, he focuses on significant passages in the texts he reviews. But we find his interpretation of them wanting. In the case at hand, he overlooked a key conceptual change introduced by Stevin, named “statics” by Snell. This is not an aberration on the part of Duhem; rather, it is a systematic refusal to acknowledge the role of novel concepts in the development of science, for they interfere with his continuity thesis and disrupt the “cosy” unified view of the history of science. As a result, we conclude that Duhem’s argument fails to account for the historical data; his continuity thesis is flawed.

73

Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :. Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. . 75 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. Some have also claimed that a Latin term or expression underlies Stevin’s neologism, staltwicht, but we are unpersuaded by these arguments: see, e.g., E.J. Dijksterhuis, “The Origins of Classical Mechanics,” in M. Clagett, ed., Critical Problems in the History of Science (Madison, ): –, on pp. –. 74



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon . Conclusion: the Critical Role of Concepts as the Engine of Scientific Change

Scientific theories are subject to confirmation or refutation; by contrast, scientific concepts are either suitable or unsuitable for some purpose. A theory has many components, e.g., postulates, principles, definitions, laws, and concepts, which are set in logical relations that ultimately form an argument complete with presuppositions, rules of inference, and consequences. The elements of such an argument may be consistent, or in tension with one another, thereby weakening the theory or even undermining it altogether. Still, a theory can accommodate tension, but a concept cannot for, in contrast to theories, concepts serve as units in the construction of theories. Concepts correspond to objects, classes of objects, their properties and relations, all of which may be concrete or abstract. A concept is not an argument; hence, it does not have the structure one demands of an argument. Thus, logically, unlike a theory, a concept cannot be refuted; rather, it is the claim to existence which is subject to refutation. On the one hand, the new concept may build on older ones. On the other hand, it may break with the past: an old concept may be declared unsuitable because it is in conflict with some empirical data or because its class is empty. The making of new concepts can thus be distinguished from the generation of new theories, and this difference is reflected in their respective life histories. A concept may be revolutionary because of its consequences but, even so, it may not be so perceived at the time because it does not threaten any theoretical structure.76 While new concepts may point to difficulties in the old theories, they may also extend the domain of application of the old theories. Stevin’s “apparent weight” is a case in point. It is an insightful extension of the Archimedean analysis by joining the discussion of “oblique weights” placed on inclined planes with that of “vertical weights,” suspended from a horizontal beam. This extension of the Archimedean theory was based on an explicit appeal to the principle of the impossibility of perpetual motion as well as the clear rejection 76 For a case where a novel concept undermines the old theory, see B.R. Goldstein and G. Hon, “Kepler’s Move from Orbs to Orbits: Documenting a Revolutionary Scientific Concept,” Perspectives on Science  (): –. For a case where a novel concept coheres with the contemporary theory, see G. Hon and B.R. Goldstein, From Summetria to Symmetry: The Making of a Revolutionary Scientific Concept (Dordrecht, ), especially chapter  concerning the concept of symmetry in Legendre’s reworking of Euclidean geometry.

duhem’s continuity thesis



of the principle of virtual velocities. These significant features of Stevin’s new theory led Snell to search for a new name. Snell came up with statics—the study of motionless phenomena. It is noteworthy that neither Duhem, nor any other historian of science, realized that Snell inaugurated a new scientific domain, in which equilibrium is subsumed under the more general category of statics. This historical episode well illustrates how scientific concepts function as the engine of change. Duhem’s continuity thesis is not episodic: it is not restricted to late medieval and early modern science. As we have seen, the thesis asserts a series of linkages from Aristotle to Gibbs. For Duhem science develops as an organism: “the ideas of the future, which will be full-blown tomorrow, are today still embryonic and exist in a semi-clarity. . . . ”77 Less metaphorically, and more technically, he believed that the path followed by Archimedes in mechanics is not a method of discovery. The certainty and clarity of Archimedes’ principles are due in large part to the fact that they were . . . not derived from the very roots of things. . . . Thus we will see that the most important progress in statics will derive from Aristotle’s doctrine rather than from the theories formulated by Archimedes.78

This seems to have forced Duhem to posit connections between Stevin and Pseudo-Aristotle that are not really there. Duhem examined closely Stevin’s work but ignores his conceptual framework completely. He associates Stevin with a tradition going back to Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems, Jordanus de Nemore, and Leonardo da Vinci, disregarding Stevin’s own published views, and claiming—without evidence—that Stevin had read various treatises. The dramatic contrast between Duhem’s continuity thesis and the claims for discontinuities associated with scientific revolutions is evident.79 There is, however, a middle way. Conceptual change takes place both within a theory and in the replacement of a theory by another. Duhem’s failure to take conceptual change into account makes his approach to both history of science and philosophy of science broadly unsuccessful. Freudenthal showed us the importance of paying close attention to the subtleties of Maimonides’s “second-order” response to issues of natural 77

Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :. Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :. 79 See, e.g., A. Brenner, “Genèse, évolution et continuité du développement scientifique selon Pierre Duhem,” Revue des questions scientifiques  (): –. 78



bernard r. goldstein and giora hon

philosophy. This appeal to a sound historiographical principle is very different from Duhem’s sweeping claim for a long tradition of instrumentalism. We adopted a similar approach to Stevin, a scientist active at the turn of the seventeenth century, contrasting his novel conceptual scheme with Duhem’s claim for the applicability of his continuity thesis. As a result of our examination, we were led to the recognition that Duhem’s ideology is pervasive in his historical writings, undermining the significant discoveries he made in the course of reviewing a vast number of scientific manuscripts and printed texts. History and philosophy of science can be made to work together, but first they must be put on a solid foundation: this is a task that still lies before us.

ENLIGHTENMENT IN GOLD

Gideon Freudenthal

. Enlightenment What is Enlightenment? Whatever it is, it includes the advancement of scientific knowledge and critiques of myth and superstition. In the following, I wish to follow one thin thread of enlightenment that runs from Israel Halevy Zamosc, studied by Gad Freudenthal, to Berlin and Jerusalem. What is Enlightenment? The question was asked with practical intentions in the s in Mendelssohn’s circle in Berlin. Different answers were given. One thought that the history of the Jewish nation would be most serviceable for the purpose, inasmuch as the people would discover in it the origin of their religious doctrines and of the subsequent corruption which these had undergone. They would also come to understand that the fall of the Jewish state, as well as all the subsequent persecution and oppression which the Jews had suffered, had arisen from their own ignorance and opposition to all rational planning. . . . But one of our friends thought that we ought to begin with something on natural religion and rational morality, inasmuch as this is the object of all enlightenment. . . . For my part, I believe . . . that it would be best to make a beginning with some science which, besides being most favorable for the development of the mind, is also self-evident, and stands in no connection with any religious opinions. Of this sort are the mathematical sciences; and therefore with this object in view I am willing to write a mathematical textbook in Hebrew.1

The writer of these lines is Salomon Maimon. “Enlightenment” means here a critique of the “corruption” of the Mosaic religion by rabbinical

1 S. Maimon, Salomon Maimon’s Lebensgeschichte. Von ihm selbst geschrieben und herausgegeben von K.P. Moritz. In zwei Theilen (Berlin, , ). Reprinted in V. Verra, ed., Gesammelte Werke (Hildesheim u.a.,  ff.): :–. S. Maimon, An Autobiography. Translated from the German by J.C. Murray; introduction by M. Shapiro (Urbana, ): –.



gideon freudenthal

Judaism and the distribution of scientific knowledge. Maimon believed that some scientific knowledge is not overtly opposed to religious opinions. This should be formulated more precisely. A conflict does not arise between “science” and “religion” as such but can arise between specific criteria of truth or assertions of either religion or philosophy with those of the counterpart. Such conflict may be resolved by changes on either side, or both. Neither religion nor science is a clearly circumscribed unchanging entity. Both are complex systems of propositions and social institutions, and both change with time and culture. Maimon, however, also believed that there are core-issues over which a conflict is inevitable, e.g. over the basic religious belief in the physical efficacy of a non-material entity. The common notion of “God” in Europe at the time meant, inter alia, a non-material, unworldly, personal entity which nevertheless acts physically in the world. His most conspicuous actions are miracles. Once this notion of God is critiqued, worldly events may not be explained with reference to this transcendent being.2 In a recent paper, Gad Freudenthal also takes the position that under certain conditions a conflict between science and religion may arise.3 I will now turn to a case in which Zamosc produced with the intention of enlightenment such a conflict. He introduced scientific knowledge into a commentary on a Biblical verse in which he also referred to a miracle so that science and the miracle appeared side by side in the same paragraph. In the next step of enlightenment, Mendelssohn removed this inconsistency and also explained scientifically the case that was first “explained” by a miracle.

2

Maimon draws radical consequences: “The so-called harmony between faith and (theoretical) reason is according to him [Maimon speaks of himself in the third person here—G.F] nothing else than the complete abolition of the former by the latter.” (Verra, ed., Gesammelte Werke, :). 3 Gad Freudenthal, “The Subversive Role of Science in R. Israel Zamosc’s Talmudic Novella” (Heb.), in H. Kreisel, ed., Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought (Jerusalem, ): :–. See also his “Hebrew Medieval Science in Zamo´sc´, ca. : The Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamo´sc´,” in R. Fontaine, A. Schatz and I. Zwiep, eds, Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and Eighteenth-Century Enlightened Jewish Discourse (Amsterdam, ): –.

enlightenment in gold



. The Golden Calf .. Israel Zamosc The sin of the Golden Calf traditionally posed a major problem not only to Biblical exegesis but to Jewish thought in general. Immediately after the most impressive revelation on Sinai the Jews relapsed into Egyptian idolatry. How was this possible? The problem of the commentators is this: revelation must have been indubitable. This is a necessary condition of its authority. And yet only short time after this impressive manifestation, the Jews pointed to the Golden Calf and said: “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you out of Egypt” (Exod. :). How can the allegedly indubitable revelation of the one true God be reconciled with the willingness of the Israelites to adopt other gods? Judah Halevi suggested that initially the people of Israel did not actually consider the Golden Calf to be God. Rather, they desired something perceptible, an object to which they could turn their gaze when relating the wonders of God, as they did when the pillar of cloud signified the presence of God in the tabernacle (Exod. :–). We could say that they wished to have a visible symbol of their invisible God. When Moses, who was supposed to return on the same day, did not return for forty days from Mount Sinai with some new worldly symbol of divine presence, the people, on their own accord, prepared something lasting to which they could turn. Their sin consisted first in preparing an image which was forbidden to them and second in acting upon their own discretion, not upon God’s command (Kuzari I, ). In his commentary ad locum, Israel Zamosc turns to a specific question: why was the calf cast in gold? His answer is in line with Halevi’s interpretation. When Moses did not return, it seems they believed that a human being cannot have the power to purify sufficiently so as to go between God and humans and to bring down to them God’s wonderful and awesome work, and perhaps his power did not suffice to contain this wonderful work and he [Moses] died on the Mount, and therefore they contrived the condemnable idea that they should prepare something perceptible from a strong mineral so that it would last many days. . . . and therefore they thought that they should produce something perceptible to venerate which is done from the most enduring thing, and they may have thought of Gold which is most enduring, and as those who study the natural sciences (íééòáè) know is least susceptible to corruption, and so much so that some believed that it cannot corrupt in all eternity, neither in fire nor in anything else, since it does not rust as



gideon freudenthal other metals, and even if buried in the soil and stays there for long, it will not diminish at all nor lose its appearance. And therefore, as soon as Moses saw it, he burned it in fire and ground it to thin powder to thwart their plan, although it is the nature of gold that fire cannot affect it, and it cannot burn in any way known in nature, and Moses burned it miraculously (ñðá) (and therefore we do not have to turn to Ibn Ezra’s forced explanation when he faced the difficulty to explain how gold can be burned).4

Now, here we have a conflict between religion and science. On the one hand, Zamosc relies on scientific knowledge that gold is incorruptible to explain why gold serves the intention to make the calf last forever. On the other hand, it is the very same knowledge which contradicts the Scripture according to which Moses burned the Golden Calf in fire: gold does not burn. Zamosc therefore applies science and its eminent opposite (miracles, events contradicting natural laws) in the same commentary to the Biblical events. He begins with enlightenment, but then compromises this in the service of traditional religious belief. .. Moses Mendelssohn Moses Mendelssohn adopted much of Zamosc’s interpretation of the sin of the Golden Calf. But here we are interested merely in the fabrication of the calf out of gold, the most enduring mineral that “cannot corrupt in all eternity.” When the multitude saw that Moses did not return from the Mount, Mendelssohn writes, they believed he had died and resolved to make “something lasting that will not corrupt and die like him.”5 Until this point, Mendelssohn follows Zamosc. However, Mendelssohn is consistently scientific also in his explanation of the burning of the Golden Calf. The verse (Exod. :) reads: éð"a­úà O"Öiå íénä éð"t­ìò øæiå ÷c­øÖ#à ãò ïç"èiå Öàa ó]"×iå e×ò øÖ#à ìâòä­úà çwiå ®ìàT"×é

And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children of Israel drink of it.

4 Sefer Hakuzari in five parts. With the two famous commentaries Qol Yehuda and Osar . Nehmad (Heb.) (Warsaw  / ): :– (my emphasis). . 5 I. Zamosc, Osar Nehmad, on Kuzari I, , p. ; Mendelssohn’s commentary on . . Exod. : (my emphasis).

enlightenment in gold



Mendelssohn, in contrast, translates the verse thus: Das Kalb, welches sie gemacht hatten, nahm er, kalzinierte es im Feuer, zerrieb es bis es ganz fein ward, streuete den Staub auf das Wasser, und ließ die Kinder Jisraels davon trinken.

Mendelssohn translated “burned” as “calcinated” and added in the Bi"ur the proper chemical explanation to justify his translation. He first quotes Ibn Ezra whose interpretation Zamosc rejected, and then updates him: “And he took the calf ”, some say “and burned” is like “melted in fire”, and this is not necessary since there is something that, if put together with the gold in fire, will make the gold immediately burn, and turn black and never return to be gold, and this is corroborated by experience and is true (Ibn Ezra); [From here onwards Mendelssohn speaks for himself:] and also the chemists of our generation observed this and said that if you mix salt of tartar with sulfur, you can crumble the gold in fire until it becomes as fine as ashes, and they also say that Nether too (natrum, a kind of alkaline salt, a mineral, and found in the Orient) will turn gold into dust. And the working of metals in fire, the resolution of the composition of their parts until they can be ground and crumbled, is called calcination, and so it was translated into German.6

Mendelssohn explains both the fabrication of the calf and its burning as based on the natural properties of gold. Miracles are excluded. This is a step farther towards enlightenment than that taken by Zamosc. But this minor correction touches the core of a comprehensive program.

. Der Ewige In fact, the translation of the verse above and Mendelssohn’s commentary touch the core of Mendelssohn’s philosophy of Judaism: his notion of Judaism as an antidote to idolatry. The calf was made of gold because this metal is incorruptible, some believe eternal. Here we encounter an aspect of idolatry which is rarely considered. We normally concentrate on the veneration of an image, but here the opposition between the material world in time and the eternal Divine is important. Everything worldly 6 ãéîå ,áäæä íò ùàá íùåéù øáã ùé éë êøåö ïéàå ,ùàá êúéå åîë óøùå éë ১é ,ìâòä úà ç÷éå (ë ১éîéëä éìòá åãîò ïëå ,(ò§§áàøä) àåä úîàå äñåðî øáã åäæå ,áäæ áåùé àì íìåòìå øåçù §éäéå ,óøùé ãò ùàá áäæä úà øøôì ìëåú ,úéøôâ íò éø觧øè çìî áøòúùëù åøîàå ,äæä ïåéñðä ìò ïåøçàä øåãá íâ (çøæîä úåöøàá àöîðå ,íîåãä âåñî éì১÷ìà çìî ïéî ñåø§§èàð) øúðäù åøîàå ,øôòë ÷ã øùà ,øåøôäå äðéçèä åìá÷éù ãò ,íäé÷ìç úáëøä ãåøô ùàá úåëúîä ïå÷úå .÷áàì áäæä úà êåôäé àåä ১ìá §âøåúî ïëå (ïàéöàðéöìà÷) àø÷é. See Ibn Ezra’s Long Commentary on Exod. :.



gideon freudenthal

is corruptible and transient. Eternal is God alone. When the Israelites prepared the idol, they wished to have a guide or a symbol which is lasting (in contrast to Moses, who disappeared), in fact eternal like God. Idolatry consists also in the wish to blur the difference between worldly beings which belong to the world of “coming to be and passing away” and the divine, eternal, transcendent and holy God. The reaction of Moses was therefore to prove that even gold is not incorruptible. This is doubly important for Mendelssohn who introduced for the tetragrammaton, YHWH, the expression “der Ewige” or “das ewige Wesen,” the Eternal or the eternal Being. This, he says, best captures God’s nature as “being” in the past, present and future tense, as expressed in the verse: äé"äà øÖ#à äé"äà äÖî-ìà íé!äÀ$à øîàiå (“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM”) which Mendelssohn translates as “Ich bin das Wesen, welches ewig ist”—I am the Being that is eternal (Exod. :). This name also expresses that He is the necessarily existing Being, and exercising providence.7 The opposition between the true and the false God, between God and the Golden Calf, is here emphasized by showing that God alone is eternal and everything worldly is corruptible—and not by miracles, but according to the laws of nature—simply because it is material. Mendelssohn draws far-reaching conclusions from the sin of the Golden Calf which cannot be discussed here. Suffice it to say that he chooses the opposite pole: there should be nothing lasting in religious service because all permanent objects are conducive to idolatry. Mendelssohn therefore recommends religious rites which consist only of actions which are transient: Man’s actions are transitory; there is nothing lasting, nothing enduring about them that . . . could lead to idolatry through abuse or misunderstanding.8

Judaism is least conducive to idolatry not only because it forbids the veneration of images but also because it strictly severs between everything worldly and transient and the transcendent divine Eternal. Now, the Jewish prohibition of images is well-known, but the insistence that only transient ceremonies are immune to idolatry is an innovation of Mendelssohn. Consider the far-reaching implications: it incriminates ritual articles, holy sites etc. Mendelssohn does not overtly discuss these issues, but his emphasis is on the general principle that Jewish practice 7

See Mendelssohn’s commentary on Gen. :, Exod. :– and Exod. :. M. Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, Or On Religious Power and Judaism. Translated by A. Arkush; introduction and commentary by A. Altmann (Hanover, NH, ): . 8

enlightenment in gold



should consist of transitory ceremonies only. He draws the line between legitimate religion and idolatry in a much more restrictive spirit than was (and still is) the custom. This is a far-reaching step on the way of religious enlightenment. The question is whether it had any effect on posterity.

. Siegfried Freudenthal It is easy to see that Hermann Cohen’s Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Judaism () continues Mendelssohn’s project. To Cohen, monotheism is opposed not only to polytheism, but also to anthropomorphism, pantheism, and mysticism, because all these blur the unbridgeable opposition between the unique God and everything worldly, and to Cohen this opposition is the essence of monotheism. Mendelssohn, Maimon, Cohen—these are the philosophical highlights. But what about the normal practitioner? Did Mendelssohn also capture something existing among the Jewry of Berlin of his time or did he perhaps influence posterity in his sense? Although Mendelssohn’s understanding of the ceremonial law may seem too sophisticated to be shared by a large community, I believe that his legacy influenced Jewish religious life in Germany until the World Wars. I cannot argue here nor elsewhere for this judgment, but I can illustrate it with an example that directly pertains to the person to whom the present book is dedicated. In February-March  Siegfried (Schimon) Freudenthal (Breslau,  September, –Jerusalem,  December ), the grandfather of Gad and Gideon Freudenthal, then an unmarried businessman of twenty-eight years, embarked on a tour of “The Orient” with a group of men and women from his home town of Breslau in Silesia (Germany). Siegfried Freudenthal was an observant Jew, not a philosopher nor a man of learning. The group’s way led them of course also to Jerusalem. On a Friday afternoon, they visited the Wailing Wall at the time of prayer. Freudenthal is deeply moved when he realizes “that approximately at this time entire Jewry is saying its prayers oriented towards precisely this place.” Note that his religious excitement is not aroused by the site of the temple nor does he mention its holiness; of course he does not touch and kiss the stones of the Wailing Wall nor does he insert a list of wishes into the cracks between the stones (which are widely accepted customs). Rather, his excitement is aroused by the sense of belonging to a community, geographically



gideon freudenthal

dispersed and yet united in its religious intention.9 In short, he was an observant “enlightened” German Jew. I believe that he was no exception. Enlightenment had deep roots in German Jewry. German Jews liked to refer to themselves as “enlightened” and “progressive,” as opposed to backward “Ostjuden.” It is, however, worth noting that Mendelssohn’s older teacher and early enlightener, Israel Zamosc, and Mendelssohn’s younger radical critic, Salomon Maimon, were—as were many other “Berlin” enlighteners—Ostjuden.

9

S. Freudenthal, Reise nach dem Orient vom . Februar  bis . Maerz  mit dem Fahrkartenbureau Budapest, in my possession. Soon after his forced emigration from Germany in , Siegfried Freudenthal settled in Jerusalem. There he encountered blatant superstitious kabbalistic rites practiced at funerals. I will skip the description of the unpleasant details. See Y.M. Tikuchinski, Geˇser ha-hayyim (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): . vol. , ch. , pp. –. G. Scholem succinctly discusses these “magical” rites. See his Elements of the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –. The newly founded burial society in which German Jews were dominant, was established with the intention of enlightenment, i.e. in opposition to these and other “superstitious” rites. Siegfried Freudenthal was a member of the first board and an official (éàáâ) of this society. See Festschrift of the burial society “Qehilat Yeruˇsalayim” (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): , , –.

A BESTSELLER IN CONTEXT: REFERRING TO THE TSENE RENE IN EARLY MODERN YIDDISH BOOKS

Shlomo Berger References to a book in other publications can usually be interpreted as a sign of its success and as a proof of the book’s assured quality or at least intrinsic importance. The book has made an impact on the reading public, copies of the book may have sold well and new editions may have continuously been prepared and printed. The book penetrated the general readership’s memory, as it were, and turned into an integral or even essential segment of the literary corpus. In the course of time, it may have also earned a canonical status. The printing of Yiddish books from the sixteenth century on and the ever increasing distribution of books helped to turn the Ashkenazi vernacular into a powerful cultural agent among lower and eventually also upper strata of Ashkenazi society, from Amsterdam on the shores of the North Sea to towns and villages of Eastern Europe. Yiddish was responsible for the creation and mapping of new cultural boundaries within the Ashkenazi universe1 and the employment of a unified literary style for all printed books (the Western Yiddish literary style2) slowed down the inevitable division of this Ashkenazi universe into regional entities, each of which developed its own dialect of Yiddish and subsequently also developed a new literary style.3 Already by the middle of the seventeenth century one book was recognized as a bestseller of the Yiddish language, and its stature only grew as time passed by. It is the Tsene Rene. Jacob ben Isaac’s classic text was and still is identified with Yiddish culture itself. Purchasing Yiddish books also enhanced the formation of household libraries,4 and by the s Shlomo Zalman London, a publisher of 1 J. Davis, “The Reception of the Shulhan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic Jewish Identity”, AJS  (): –. 2 Although it not only deals with the literary style, see M. Weinreich, “Roshei prokim vegn mayrevdikn yidish,” in Y. Mark, ed., Juda A. Yofe Bukh (New York, ): –. 3 D.B. Kerler, The Origins of Modern Literary Yiddish (Oxford, ). 4 A. Bar-Levav, “Between Library Awareness and the Jewish Republic of Letters,” in Y. Kaplan and M. Sluhovsky, eds, Libraries and Book Collections (Jerusalem, ):



shlomo berger

Yiddish books, already complained that Yiddish books were purchased not only for the purpose of reading but also in order to adorn a household’s living room.5 Possessing a library has apparently become a status symbol. And the existence of libraries also presented producers with further opportunities. Possessing a collection of books meant that books could be examined through comparison with other books. The act of comparison was not only a privilege given to readers but also to producers. They could include evaluations and criticism of available books in new books they were producing and subsequently support and praise their own book. Although, at times, such references were general and did not mention titles of particular books, on other occasions specific books were positively or negatively mentioned. The inclusion of references to books could be justified on several grounds. A comment about a book could engage a matter of content. It might object to the criticized book, describe it as a faulty product, and assure the reader that the present book corrected the matter.6 It might also discuss matters like a book being too long or too short.7 Books were also criticized or praised for their form: being published in a specific format, including illustrations, having a good or bad proofreading, being published on good or bad paper or using vague ink.8 There were usually no attacks directed at authors. Of course, all such references were justified on the ground that Yiddish books were published as a service to the Ashkenazi reading public. This service supposedly reflected the producer’s sense of duty towards his fellow community members and the Ashkenazi world as a whole on the one hand and his

– (Heb.); see also idem, “Amsterdam and the Inception of the Jewish Republic of Letters,” in Y. Kaplan, ed., The Dutch Intersection: the Jews and the Netherlands in Modern History (Leiden, ): –. 5 Orhot sadikim (Amsterdam, ): ïéù àéæ ïæàì ðåà ïôéå÷ íéøôñ àã àéã èééì éëðòî ïééæ æã . . ïøòåå åö èéäéâ ÷ðàù ïøéà ïéà èàøéö ïééà øô àéæ ïìòèù ðåà ïãðéá. 6 As in the case of Simkhes ha-nefesh, the preface of which includes an attack on Shimon Frankfurt’s Sefer ha-hayyim: see A. Bar-Levav, The Concept of Death in Sefer ha. Hayyim by Rabbi Shimon Frankfurt (Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ): –, – (Heb.). 7 See the Sefer Emunat Isra"el () discussed below; the preface relates that the book sets out to present guidelines without including their reasonings which would demand another one hundred quires. 8 Such arguments are given in a large number of books. See below the discussion of the  edition of the Tsene Rene, or the  edition printed in octavo format, Sefer Lev t. ov () or, for instance, Kokhva deshavit-Shtern Shus () and Hovot ha-levavot . ().

a bestseller in context



knowledge and professionalism on the other. All such arguments were eventually understood as measures that would also enhance a book’s commercial success. Performance of a mitzvah was always coupled with a sale’s logic. By the middle of the seventeenth century, the Tsene Rene was already a bestseller. Although the first edition’s publication date is unknown, it can be fairly assumed that the book became popular within a couple of decades of its initial release. We know almost nothing about the book’s author either. Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi of Janovo remains an anonymous; we know he had written and published at least two other popular books.9 The first known edition of the Tsene Rene is the fourth, from . From then on it was regularly republished at different locations in Central and Western Europe, and after  it was adapted to Eastern European Yiddish (eventually Modern Yiddish) and regularly published in Eastern Europe as well. Eventually dubbed by Eastern European Ashkenazim as the “women’s Bible,” the Tsene Rene is not in fact a Yiddish translation of the Bible or of the Torah, and it was not intended to be read by women only. As the title page of Tsene Rene editions testify, as well as title pages of many other Yiddish books, the book was written and published for the benefit of women and uneducated men, the simple-minded males who did not enjoy a thorough education or because of the need to earn a living were unable to dedicate time to Torah study. In a notorious case, it was also determined that the book was intended “for women and men who are like women.”10 The Tsene Rene is a commentary on the weekly lessons, including the haftorot and the megilot, read on Shabbat morning services. Rather than a literal rendition of the Hebrew text of the Torah, it is a well-devised commentary on Torah verses that the author collected from Hebrew medieval midrash literature, selected and translated into Yiddish. Indeed, although it is evident that Jacob ben Isaac composed a text intended for the uneducated Ashkenazi male and female, his own method of collection and selection reveals a high level of sophistication. Thus, the

9 See his Melitz yosher and Sefer ha-Magid (which was published after Jacob’s death); on the Tsene Rene, see M. Erik, History of Yiddish Literature from its Beginnings to the Haskalah Epoch (Warsaw, ): –; J. Baumgarten, Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature. Edited and translated by J.C. Frakes (Oxford, ), see index; see now also C. Turniansky and J. Elbaum, “Tsene Rene,” in G.D. Hundert, ed., The Yivo Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe (Yale, ): vol. , –. 10 See in Brantshpigl, opening of ch. .



shlomo berger

resulting text is not merely a simplified and vulgar rendition of biblical stories, ideas and notions, but a clever presentation of midrash to a less educated public.11 The book’s popularity and widespread distribution ignited curiosity among other authors and book producers. The Tsene Rene was rightly considered a formidable rival to their books and, subsequently, the Tsene Rene’s text as well as its various printed editions received attention in the form of remarks inserted in prefaces of other published Yiddish books. Indeed, the following selection of references to the Tsene Rene, gathered from Yiddish books published in Amsterdam, exhibits the wide range of concerns regarding the book and its text.12 These remarks are testimonies of the producers’ own concerns and the ones they envisaged for the reading public. In Mizmor le-todah (), the author offered a commentary of weekly lessons in the form of a poem, a relatively short rhymed text that the reading public could enjoy reading and singing to a known tune. The preface is also rhymed and it includes the following: “they prefer to sing in order to fully grasp what is told in the Torah / because even when they hold a khumesh-taytch in their hands, they do not fully understand what it is saying / it is too difficult and too profound, and one thinks ‘I’d better leave it and go to sleep’ / and when they take the Tsene Rene in hand they encounter unknown midrashim / and when the hour of sleep approaches they put the book aside . . . ” The picture drawn here shows how texts can be difficult to understand for the ordinary Ashkenazi. He cannot read the Hebrew original, of course. He is unable to follow the text when reading a traditional translation primarily intended for the study of Torah and used in the heder; the khumesh-taytch was meant for pupils and included a basic Yiddish rendition of biblical verses, but apparently was still far too demanding for a section of the Ashkenazi readership. Ideas were too 11

I would like to thank Chava Turniansky and Jacob Elbaum for sharing with me results of their as yet unpublished research into the Tsene Rene. 12 In a prayer book printed by Naftali Hertz Rofe in , the publisher determined that several texts of prayers were removed from the edition, because these could be found in other popular books which Ashkenazim have in their possession, including the Tsene Rene; on Yiddish books in Amsterdam, see M. Gutschow, Inventory of Yiddish Publications from the Netherlands c.–c. (Brill, ); L. Fuks and R. FuksMansfeld, Hebrew Typography in the Northern Netherlands (Brill, –); S. Berger, “Yiddish Book Production in Amsterdam –: Local and International Aspects,” in Y. Kaplan, ed., The Dutch Intersection. The Jews and the Netherlands in Modern History (Brill, ): –; idem, “Books for the Masses: The Amsterdam Yiddish Book Industry –,” European Judaism  (): –.

a bestseller in context



complicated, and unknown midrashim made reading of the Tsene Rene tedious as readers did not recognize the sources and could not grasp the discussions and stories. Indeed, the criticism voiced here implies that Jacob ben Isaac was still much too difficult and he did not offer a simple story at all. The Tsene Rene failed in its objectives. Another important and particular criticism of the Tsene Rene was expressed in the publisher’s preface to one of the two integral Yiddish translations of the Bible published in . Joseph Athias is out to explain what is wrong with Yiddish renditions of the Bible which are on offer to the Ashkenazi public and why his own book is good and necessary. He writes: “Although we do have the Tsene Rene on the Torah and the megilot and the haftorot, it is still only a portion of the Bible and it basically consists of Talmud and midrashim, all according to the draˇs but not the essence of the Bible. And one is unable to understand what each verse, one following the other, says. The Ayalah ˇsluhah . . and Hibburei leqet. and more books contain powerful and beautiful commentary on Torah, Prophets and Chronicles, but the books are not translated word by word . . . ” Because he boasted that he was offering the first ever integral and straightforward translation of the Bible into Yiddish, books like the Tsene Rene were a natural target of criticism. Athias argues for a Yiddish text that meets the basic requirement of a translation: i.e., it provides a rendition of the text in a way that does justice to the original version. Because Ashkenazim were not able to read Hebrew, the initial task of a Yiddish translation of the Torah was to offer the reader a parallel text with which he could acquaint himself with the Hebrew base text. Indeed, the Tsene Rene represents all the bad features that characterized Ashkenazi education. Because people read and studied books like the Tsene Rene, the written Torah was neglected in favor of the oral Torah.13 While the author of Mizmor le-todah believed that an accessible text (in the form of a song) would produce better results, Athias was more ambitious and did his utmost to offer an integral text of the Bible as a first step of Torah learning. For the one the Tsene Rene was too difficult, for the other it led people astray. The next two references come from Hayyim Druker, who published . Yiddish books on a regular basis in the first quarter of the eighteenth 13 A similar criticism is also expressed by Yekutiel Blitz, the translator of the rival Yiddish translation published in Amsterdam in –. On both translations see M. Aptroot, “Yiddish Bibles in Amsterdam,” in S. Berger, ed., The Bible in/and Yiddish (Amsterdam, ): – (including bibliography to earlier scholarship on both books).



shlomo berger

century.14 When publishing a further edition of Ma#a´seh ha-ˇsem (), Druker offered the readers of his preface a description of his editorial work: changing the location of texts, combining texts that were separately placed in the previous edition, adding texts that were missing there and removing others which he considered superfluous. Thus, he also says: “ . . . on the other hand, I removed texts that belong to the Tsene Rene and the Mayse bukh. Why should someone waste money [on texts he already has in his possession]? It would be as if in a testament a father orders his son to throw bread into the sea every day.” Druker attempted to anticipate possible questions about this edition’s raison d’être. In his mind, books were costly and it was imperative to demonstrate that a newly published book includes new texts or better edited texts that justified its purchase. The idea that a text is already printed in another book which may repose in someone’s library seemed economically unacceptable. Each newly published book should add another layer in one’s library of texts. Books are not texts. They are vessels that convey texts and the technological possibilities involved in book production should be applied in order to augment the number of texts, or at least come up with always better and more refined editions of texts. Indeed, both books he mentions were proven bestsellers and Druker felt that his own contribution should add to them rather than compete with them. In , Druker confronted another obstacle. He himself published an edition of the Tsene Rene and he had to rationalize and explain the advantages of this one: advantages that justified the purchase of a new copy of a bestseller already contained in many libraries. In , he paid tribute to the classic text by removing portions of it from another anthology he edited. He graciously recognized the Tsene Rene’s position and hinted that it was probably available in many Ashkenazi households. Now, of course, he would not criticize the text but rather offer a helping hand in enhancing its further success.15 Criticism was directed against 14 See S. Berger, “Hayyim Druker: a Type-Setter, Editor and Publisher from Amsterdam and Book Culture in the Early Modern Period,” in I. Bartal et al., eds, Hu In . t. ˇsel hen: . honor of Chava Turniansky [forthcoming]. 15 In , Druker prepared an edition of Sefer Lev tov and decided to add a second . new section to the book which he entitled Lev hakhamim. He claims that he added texts . that were published after publication of the first edition. The book’s author Isaac ben Eliakum of Pozen did not know these texts, of course. Nevertheless, Druker goes on to claim that the additions enhance the quality of the book as a whole, and if Isaac ben Eliakum had known these texts he would have used them in his work.

a bestseller in context



earlier editions of the text, and he claimed to be providing an exemplary replacement. And, of course, copious arguments had to be presented. I have seen that the Tsene Rene was printed a couple of times and that these editions are still available. Nevertheless, I decided to take on this project because I have regularly read the book and I did not like its Yiddish style. So, I was thinking to myself: when a Frenchman or a Spaniard want to speak German [Yiddish?] he [occasionally] speaks German [Yiddish?] in the manner he speaks his own language, because he does not know that each language necessarily has its own ornamentation [= grammatical rules]. This is the way our Yiddish books were also printed to date. But if you would read Sefer Lev t. ov or Ma#a´seh ha-ˇsem, which was printed in Amsterdam, and now this edition of the Tsene Rene,16 you will admit that justice is on my side. Because firstly these books were reread and rewritten, as you can see in the way I brought them to print. Moreover, the Rabbis granted me approbations, because they had seen how much effort was invested in the books. As far as mistakes are concerned, we did the best we could. Of course, mistakes do remain in the text but one must do one’s utmost and check. Not as some printers do when they bring bad texts to print and later do not ask questions when they see that black [= ink] is put on the white [= paper] and are able to expand their wealth. They cannot write in a pleasing language and they make a lot of mistakes. But I must also admit that I have seen a Tsene Rene that was printed with beautiful illustrations. I did not find mistakes in the illustrations, but above and under the illustrations and on their margins I have seen many mistakes. I must admit that the printer was right in his decision to include the illustrations because the children may be pleasantly entertained with them. But, thank God, here in Amsterdam it is not so. Good proofreading and good language are our illustrations. You are invited to look through the whole book and I trust God that you will not find in it the amount of mistakes found in  or  folios of other books.

In a dialogical style intended to touch a reader’s heart and mind, Druker aimed to relate the merits of his edition of the Tsene Rene. His arguments consist of a mixture of criticisms of previous editions, presentation of his strategy, apology for his shortcomings, exposure of linguistic sensibilities, and justification and praise of his own career. Language was of paramount importance. He did not like the style of previous editions of the book. Indeed, it is known that publishers and printers tended to reshape the Yiddish of texts they were releasing. It usually amounted to adopting a somewhat different spelling and minimal syntactical adaptations. Druker himself declared in the preface to his edition of Sefer Lev 16

In fact, Druker’s own editions.



shlomo berger

t. ov () that the printed text should mirror the spoken language of the reader. It does not mean that Druker believed that literary Yiddish should adopt usages of the spoken dialect, but rather that the style of the text should be accessible to each and every Ashkenazi. Consequently, he claimed that he encountered archaic usages in previous editions of the book, and these should have been removed for the benefit of a generation of readers that was no longer familiar with the language of their forefathers. Indeed, one has to distinguish between mistakes which are introduced because of ignorance and usages that might be conceived as mistakes by younger generations. Therefore, a process of rereading and rewriting was necessary and Druker is proud to inform the reader that he has performed this task. Evidently, Jacob ben Isaac’s primary text was not sacrosanct. Loyalty to an original style was not a requirement or even a desideratum. Diligent adaptations of a text and its language and reflecting the passage of time were considered an editor’s task which improved the initial text and, in fact, helped the author to save his composition for future generations. Insistence on quality of the text—arranging its language, editing and proofreading the new version before sending it to the printer—also affected decisions like the inclusion of illustrations to the book. Druker’s treatment of the Sultzbach edition (), the first to include illustrations, is illuminating. It consists of a mixture of praise (insincere praise?) and contempt. He could not deny the beauty of illustrations, their contribution and effectiveness for infant readers. However, by insisting that Amsterdam publishers preferred thorough proofreading to illustrations Druker wished to display his own and his local colleagues’ professionalism and put it on a more scholarly level. The Tsene Rene may be printed for the benefit of the uneducated Ashkenazi masses, but the text deserves a scholarly, learned approach. Books for the masses must be treated like books for intellectuals. The messages that a book carries must be lucidly exposed. Thus, Druker picks out mistakes found in the captions added to the illustrations in order to discredit the edition. Wrong captions minimize or even nullify the advantages of illustrations. The most probing reference to the Tsene Rene is found in Sefer Emunat Isra"el (). Dealing with the thirteen ‘iqarim and aiming to offer the Ashkenazi reading public useful instructions on correct faith, ritual and Torah study without providing long and elaborate rabbinical discussions, the compiler/editor Gedalya Taykes includes an epilogue in which he takes to task producers and readers of the Tsene Rene.

a bestseller in context



ˇ Once I heard a woman reading the haftora of Semot  in the Tsene Rene. She recited: “let Jeremiah the prostitute’s son come and punish Israel.” A shiver went up my spine when I heard that such a pure and holy prophet and son of a prophet is named in such revolting language, which constitutes a lie. Rashi writes that he stemmed from Rahab the prostitute, but he was removed eight generations from her, as the Talmud indicates. And Rahab herself enjoyed the privilege of being the wife of Joshua, a king in Israel. And, therefore, in God’s name and in the name of Jeremiah’s honor it is a mitzve [= duty] that every Jew who possesses such a Tsene Rene in his home should erase this line with a pen, and it is a mitzve for every publisher and corrector in other languages17 to follow the intention of Rashi. And every publisher intending to print a prayer book for Shabbat and feasts [= tefiles un machzoyrim] should add an endnote and, thus, let it be known to the whole world [= the Jewish reading public] that it is a wicked and criminal matter to print such revolting language concerning a prophet and son of a prophet . . . . By this I completed my own task . . . . I hope that Israel will adhere to these words and not print [such revolting language] . . .

It is true that editions of the Tsene Rene open the text of the haftora of ˇ Semot with this appellation attached to the prophet’s name.18 The Amsterdam  edition, which is the last known edition before Gedalya’s outburst, reads: “Jeremiah came from Rahab the prostitute. God says: Jeremiah will come, the one who was a prostitute’s son, and he will punish Israel who comes from a kosher mother, namely, a prostitute’s son who performed good deeds will come and punish the people of Israel who are doing bad deeds.”19 In fact, the  Frankfurt-am-Main edition includes precisely the same text, as well as the Metz  edition which was published after Gedalya’s complaints. The Amsterdam  edition omits the last two mentions of the appellation, but still opens with this supposedly derogative description of the prophet20 and, therefore, the slander in Gedalya’s eyes was not entirely removed in this edition either. Moreover, Taykes’ efforts to exonerate Jeremiah are problematic because his reference to Rashi is incorrect and, in fact, meaningless. As we noted above, according to the basic method employed by Jacob ben 17

I.e., in Yiddish and other languages into which Rashi’s text was translated. In fact, the haftora discussed is the one recited when praying according the Sephardic rite. But it is included together with the text of the haftora according to the Ashkenazi rite in the Tsene Rene. 19 ïøåä ïééà ïòååòâ æéà øòã ,äéîøé ïîå÷ ìàæ øò 䧧á÷ä èâàæ àã .äðåæä áçø ïåô ïîå÷â æéà äéîøé øã øã ïåæ ïøåä ïééà ïîå÷ ìàæ øò øîåìë .øèåî éøùë ïåô ïîå÷â ïééæ àã àéã ,ïôàøèù ìàøùé ìàæ øòã ,ïåæ íéùòî éæééá êéæ ïà ïáàä àã éã ìàøùé éã ïôàøèù ìàæ §ðåà íéùòî éèåâ êéæ ïà èàä àã. 20 .øèåî éøùë éðééà ïåô ïîå÷â ïééæ àã éã ,ïôàøèù ìàøùé ìàæ øòã .äðåæä áçø ïåô ïîå÷â æéà øòã íéùòî éèåâ êéæ ïà èàä àã øòã øðééà ïîå÷ ìàæ øò øîåìë. 18



shlomo berger

Isaac, the Yiddish text is not a literal translation of biblical verses but a commentary on them. Therefore, the opening of the haftora’s Yiddish text is not a literal translation of Jer. :. It is rather a Yiddish version of Rashi’s interpretation of the verse, where he insists that despite his dubious ancestry the prophet was known for good deeds, while the people of Israel born from a kosher seed were engaged in bad deeds.21 Following Gedalya’s guidance, a reader that would consult Rashi would return to the point of departure: i.e., the text of the Tsene Rene, and conclude that Taykes did not know what he was talking about. Was Taykes an ignoramus? Not necessarily. It seems that in calling on Rashi as a witness he was using the medieval sage’s name as a collective name for rabbinic authority. Rashi was an important source for Jacob ben Isaac and Gedalya assumed that most readers of his epilogue would immediately recognize the sage and would give credence to an argument associated with him. Indeed, the generation gap between Rahab and Jeremiah’s time is indicated in other rabbinic texts, like Midraˇs Zut. a Ekhah (:).22 Taykes probably encountered such a quotation in his own study and automatically contributed this commentary to Rashi. Having attacked the text’s content Taykes initiated a bold move. In fact, although suggesting that he was annoyed by a certain (but not specified) edition of the Tsene Rene, he was actually attacking Jacob ben Isaac himself, because he was responsible for the text. However, in Gedalya’s time the Tsene Rene had already earned such a reputation that the book was detached from its author and considered a sort of “popular text,” whose author had become anonymous and basically unimportant. We can assume that Gedalya did not think about Jacob ben Isaac and had no image of the author when sitting down to pen his attack. For him the Tsene Rene’s text enjoyed prestige and, therefore, it should be rescued from evil manipulation. Thus, he also suggests censorial measures to protect the text in the future and return the book to its glorious position. Taykes’ call on readers to erase the sentence from their own copy of the Tsene Rene evokes a Soviet-style form of censorship. The request to publishers of prayer books to include a note explaining the problem indicates that his suggestion can be interpreted as a call for social control on Ashkenazim, a control performed via the book industry. Assuming 21 éäåãáåò ïì÷ì÷îã àúð÷úî øá çëåìå äðåæä áçøî àá åäéîøé éäåãáåò ïð÷úã àúì÷ì÷ øá éúéì øùë òøæî àåäù ïäéùòî åì÷ì÷ù ìàøùé åìà. 22 .íéðéðöìå íëéðéòá íéëéùì íéøáã íëì äùåòå äðåæä áçø ìù äéðá éðáî àåäù àá äéîøé éøä íëéãöá

a bestseller in context



roles as cultural brokers who held a valuable instrument in their hands, publishers were able (if they wished) to perform roles usually reserved for rabbis and intellectuals.23 Apparently, distribution of books and especially prayer books to be found in every household, could turn into a means by which community leaders would be able to keep the public on the righteous path. To conclude, it is obvious that the Tsene Rene was treated seriously by various book producers. It was a bestseller and book producers had to reckon with the influence of its text on the Ashkenazi reading public on the one hand, and the form and shape of its printed editions on offer in the market place on the other. Moreover, both considerations affected the possible success and failure of other Yiddish books which were planned, published and put on sale. While preparing a new edition of the Tsene Rene, publishers could not criticize the text. An attack on the text was risky, as we can learn from Gedalya Taykes’ intervention. They could and did claim that they were able to improve the language, add devices which would make reading easier (e.g., adding subtitles, dividing into chapters, placing the haftorot after each weekly lesson) and decide whether the book was for household use (and, therefore, printed in folio format) or intended to be carried (and, therefore, printed in octavo format). In the eyes of one publisher, the Tsene Rene was too difficult and tedious. Living within a community whose school was praised by the Ashkenazi Shabbetai Bas,24 the Sephardi Athias attacked the heder tradition and offered new and modern principles of translation and Torah study. For him, the Tsene Rene missed the point altogether. Evidently, all attempts to dethrone the Tsene Rene failed. Athias’ failure was spectacular and testimonies show that he was able to sell only few copies of the edition.25 Indeed, it seems that the Ashkenazi crowd preferred a commentary on the Torah such as the Tsene Rene offered and rejected an integral translation into Yiddish that did not include the Hebrew text. Yiddish texts were helpful but did not replace the Torah itself. Though other book projects were launched, these publications could not topple the Tsene Rene from its primary position.

23

.

On cultural brokers, see M. Vovelle, Ideologies and Mentalities (Chicago, ): –

´ Siftei Yeˇsenim (Amsterdam, ), Introduction. M. Aptroot, “Yiddish Bibles in Amsterdam,” in Berger, ed., The Bible in/and Yiddish; see also p.  n.  for further references. 24 25

ON HUMANIST LOGIC JUDAIZED—THEN AND NOW: TWO MODELS FOR THE APPROPRIATION OF GENTILE SCIENCE

Charles Manekin From the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth centuries, the educational and pedagogical theories of the French humanist Petrus Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée, –) dominated secondary school and university education in Northern Europe, in England, Holland, and, especially, Germany.1 While Ramus’s ideas were not themselves especially original or profound, they ignited a movement in liberal arts education that subsided in Europe only in the eighteenth century, long after they had ceased to have any influence on working scientists and thinkers. The first European encyclopedias were written under the influence of Ramism, and “Ramist textbooks were a runaway printing and teaching success: traces of Ramist habits of mind have been found in the works of contemporary figures as diverse as Francis Bacon and the Pléiade poets.”2 Ramism went even further afield, for the Italian kabbalist and intellectual Rabbi Moses Hayyim Luzzatto (henceforth: Ramhal) . . wrote textbooks on various subjects that show strong signs of Ramism—to such an extent that it is only a little exaggeration to view him as a Jewish Ramist. One of these epitomes, the Logic (Sefer ha-Higgayon, Amsterdam, ), is nothing but a condensed translation of a very popular sixteenth century “semi-Ramist” textbook, the Logicae institutiones tironum adolescentum of Marcus Wendelin (–).3 To his credit, Ramhal . acknowledges the Gentile origins of the book in his introduction, 1

On the latter, see H. Hotson, Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German Ramifications, – (Oxford, ). 2 See A. Grafton and L. Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge, MA, ): –. Bacon himself was highly critical of Ramus’ method; see M. Feingold, “English Ramism: A Reinterpetation,” in M. Feingold, J.S. Freedman and W. Rother, eds, The Influence of Petrus Ramus Studies in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Philosophy and Sciences (Basel, ): –. 3 See B. (Charles) Manekin, “On Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s Logic, and on Ramist Influence in His Writings” (Heb.), Daat: A Journal of Jewish Thought  (): –.



charles manekin When I saw the great need we have for this subject [i.e., Logic], without which we cannot enter into the scientific disciplines (hokhmot) and prop. erly delight in their pleasure, I chose to arrange this subject in a condensed matter, according to what I felt necessary for a complete treatment. Most of it I translated from the books that preceded me in other languages, and I brought it to our language for the benefit of my coreligionists. I added, subtracted, and changed things as I saw fit.4

Yet the extent of Ramhal’s borrowing from Wendelin is not evident until . both books are compared. To call the Logicae institutiones one of several sources of the Logic is an understatement; it is really the basis of most of the book. Ramhal’s contribution is to abbreviate Wendelin’s lengthy . discussions, and to adapt many of the examples for his Jewish audience. Were Ramhal . merely to have condensed and translated into Hebrew a popular Latin logic textbook, the fact would be of interest only to a handful of specialists. After all, his fame rests on his introductory texts on kabbalah, ethics, and theology, some of which remain classics to this day.5 But Ramhal’s aforementioned claim that logic is necessary for . understanding the various scientific disciplines alerts us to the possibility of the influence of Ramist ideas on some of these other introductory texts. And, indeed, an examination of some of them reveals that they too, in varying degrees, should be considered Ramist textbooks. All this raises interesting questions: How did Ramhal, . who spent much of his life in Italy, where Ramism was never very influential, learn about Ramist logic and methodology? How did he view the process of appropriation of non-Jewish texts, e.g., was he at all perturbed about the non-Jewish origin of his source? Given that he wrote a separate work on Talmudic method, what was the relation between the universal method of science and that of the Talmud? And since Ramist logic was by no means the only option in logic available to an early eighteenth century thinker, why did he appropriate that option? Most of this paper attempts to establish the nature and extent of Ramhal’s Ramism, beginning with his abridgement of Wendelin in the . Logic and to show the traces of Ramism in some of his other works. It concludes with a consideration of the present-day appropriation of Ramism by a group of Jewish traditionalists who are actively promoting Ramhal’s . 4 Sefer ha-Higgayon, in D. Sackton, ed., Derekh ha-qodeˇ s . . . le-Ramhal . (Jerusalem, ): –. Subsequent references to the Logic will be to this edition. 5 See S. Ginzburg, The Life and Works of Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, Founder of Modern Hebrew Literature (Philadelphia, ); cf. E. Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies (New York, ): –.

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



Logic and related writings. Some of them are unaware of the origins of the Logic; others, who have recently become aware of it, either suppress that information from their readers, or use traditionalist strategies to neutralize it. That, too, provides a model of appropriation of Christian science.

Ramism in Ramhal’s Logic and Other Writings . After surviving a turbulent career in Italy and pledging not to write or teach kabbalistic texts, Ramhal . arrived in Amsterdam around  and stayed there for eight years. During this period only two of his books were published: a manual of ethics, the Path of the Upright (Mesillat yeˇsarim, ), and a work on logic and Talmudic method, the Ways of Reason (Derekh tevunot, ). But he circulated several other books and treatises among his private students, privileged members of the Amsterdam Spanish-Portuguese community, where he had been wellreceived. This seems to be the case of three little books, the Logic, Rhetoric (Sefer ha-Melis. ah) and Grammar (Sefer ha-Diqduq), that, together with two small appendices on logic and grammar, were composed in . Considering that the Ways of Reason itself contains much logic, this newfound interest in the subject may appear unusual. Ramhal . had written his first book, the Tongue of the Erudite (Leˇson limmudim, Padua, ), on rhetoric, but since then he had devoted most of his energies to kabbalistic manuals and commentaries. With kabbalah now forbidden to him, it may not seem surprising that he returned to rhetoric—but why logic? Something of an answer is provided in his study-program in the Way of Wisdom (Derekh hokhmah), written during his stay in Amsterdam, where . he divides the preparatory subjects for the study of divinity (elohut) into two categories: the one comprising scripture and scriptural exegesis, as well as the dicta of the Sages; the second consisting of “the universal methods of investigation and analysis of theoretical matters, i.e., the logical studies that one should teach his intellect in order to analyze and investigate what needs to be investigated, and to achieve thereby what is achievable in theology (elohuyot).”6 Logic as a universal method is a propaedeutic to the study of theology, comparable to the study of Bible and rabbinic dicta. This conception of logic turns up in other Amsterdam

6

Derekh hokhmah. Edited by Y. Spiner (Jerusalem, ): . .



charles manekin

writings, as we shall presently see. The study-program in the Way of Wisdom and the emphasis on logic in the Ways of Reason may have whetted the appetite of Ramhal’s . students in Amsterdam for logic, which may in turn have led him to compose for them the Logic and the Rhetoric. In any event, it would not have been unusual for well-off students in the Spanish-Portuguese Amsterdam community to have tutors in the profane sciences.7 The Logic is a short manual of the sort that would be read by students at the outset of their study of secular wisdom. Books in logic had been composed or translated into Hebrew since the thirteenth century, espe8 cially in Italy, where Ramhal . had spent most of his life. Since logic in Italy was traditionally studied by young students, and since Ramhal . had already written the Tongue of the Erudite during his stay there, one would expect his Logic written in Amsterdam to reflect both the older medieval Hebrew tradition of logic familiar to Italian Jewish intellectuals, and perhaps later scholastic logic. Ramhal . does employ some of the medieval Hebrew technical terminology and begins the book with the division of reality into physical and rational being, a division found in a seventeenth century textbook of scholastic logic published in Padua in .9 Nevertheless, even a short perusal of the book reveals its close affinity with the textbooks of humanistic logic printed in Northern Europe. This can be seen in three distinctive features of the books: its content, arrangement, and its emphasis on method. As to its content, the bulk of the book— eighteen of its twenty chapters—are devoted to what Luzzatto calls the “twenty-one terms that are used in logic,” or the “twenty-one distinctions that one can distinguish in subjects.” These are: cause and effect, subject and adjunct, whole and part, genus and species, denotation and denotandum, definition and definitum, conjugation and conjugatum, division and divisum, comparables, [things that are] diverse, opposites, testimonies and that which is attested. A list of this sort does not appear in the Aristotelian-scholastic logical tradition.

7 Various textbooks of Hebrew grammars were composed in Amsterdam in the seventeenth century; a few on logic and rhetoric will be mentioned below; see below notes  and . See also A.J. Klijnsmit, “Amsterdam Sephardim and Hebrew Grammar in the Seventeenth entury,” in Studia Rosenthaliana  (): –. 8 For an overview see C. Manekin, “Aristotelian Logic in Medieval Jewish Culture,” in Gad Freudenthal, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (forthcoming). 9 See S. Dupasquier, Summa philosophiae scholasticae et scotisticae: in qua . . . Religionis . . . mysteria . . . explicantur (Patavii, ): .

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



After the first three sections of the work, which correspond roughly to the three traditional sections of Aristotelian logic (the theory of terms, propositions, and syllogistic inference), there is a fourth section devoted to “order” (seder). Order is divided into two, universal and particular. The universal order when studying a given subject is first to study the universal principles (kelalim) and then the particulars, because the universal principles are better known than the particulars. We learn in the Ways of Reason that there are three principles of universal order: ordering, definition, and division, i.e., the arrangement of the subject from the most general to the most particular via definition and division. This is the method that Ramhal . adopts section after section in each chapter of the Logic: first there is the most general term, then its definition, then its subdivision, usually dichotomous, into more particular terms, until it reaches the lowest level. As we shall see below, traces of this method are found in other works of Ramhal . from the Amsterdam period, i.e., the Grammar, the Rhetoric, the Ways of Reason, the Way of the Lord, and the Path of the Upright. All this, then, is called “universal order.” The particular order is how to guide somebody to the knowledge of a certain intelligible (i.e., eternal truth) via two rational operations: genesis and analysis. These operations are based on an understanding of the twenty-one terms discussed earlier. These three features—the list of the terms employed in logic, the manner of their presentation, and the discussion of order—are some of the hallmarks of the logic of Petrus Ramus. A short digression into the world of Ramist logic will provide a key to understanding some aspects method in his later works.10 of Ramhal’s . Ramist Logic Ramus’s conception of logic, or dialectic—both terms were used interchangeably in the scholastic tradition—was based on the humanist logic of his predecessors, especially Rodolphus Agricola ( / –), and Johannes Sturm (–), Ramus’ teacher, whose lectures on Agricola at Paris were an acknowledged influence. Humanistic logic 10 For Ramus, see R. Hooykaas, Humanisme, Science, et Réforme: Pierre de la Ramée (–) (Leiden, ); W.J. Ong, Ramus: Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Cambridge, MA, ), and, more recently, P. Sharratt, “Ramus ,” Rhetorica  (): –.



charles manekin

was often expressly and polemically directed against scholastic logic.11 According to the humanists, dialectic should provide an account applicable to all uses of language, and all thought processes, and not merely describe how an academic subsection of language is deployed in formal disputations. In practical terms, this meant discarding the highly abstract and formal apparatus of the scholastic logicians, and focusing on the nature of rational argument in all its applications, from the academic to the everyday.12 Ramist method did not aim at discovering new truths or even justifying old ones. Rather it sought to provide the student with a way of assimilating material that was already accepted as true, i.e., a method of learning effectively. Ramus believed that we learn material best when it is organized according to the way humans think. We begin with what is more general and universal and proceed, through definition and division, into more particular subdivisions. This method is not just true of grammar, or even of all the arts and curricular subjects but in every matter which we wish to teach easily and clearly. Ramus took the very old notion of definition and division, which goes back to Plato, and elevated it to the status of a universal method of organizing and presenting material for students. For the next two centuries, the hall-mark of a Ramist textbook, or encyclopedia article, would be the division of the material (binary whenever possible) from the more general to the more particular through definition and dichotomous division. Long after it ceased to be of interest to the leading thinkers, Ramist principles were instrumental in the education of European bourgeoisie.13 Ramus’s two key logical/methodological operations are analysis and genesis (synthesis). “Analysis” means many things for Ramus, depending upon the context, but first and foremost it signifies the analysis of a particular subject matter in accordance with the rules of that area. In logic, for example, one takes a treatise, or even a passage from a classical text, and analyzes it in order to understand the arguments, and the rules of inference on which those arguments are based. Genesis is the reverse procedure of analysis: if analysis tries to get at the underlying logical

11 See L. Jardine, “Humanistic Logic,” in C.B. Schmitt et al., eds, The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –. 12 See P. Mack, Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric and Dialectic (Leiden, ). 13 In addition to Ong, Ramus, pp. –, see Feingold, Freedman and Rother, eds, The Influence of Petrus Ramus.

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



structure and meaning structure of a text then genesis equips the student with the method of constructing text, as he proceeds from imitation, to independent writing. In some areas, such as logic, one finds genesis and analysis in equal measures; in other areas one is favored over the other, depending upon the nature of the inquiry. As for Ramhal, . genesis (hams. a"ah) and analysis (havhanah) are discussed both in the Logic and . the Ways of Reason; genesis, in the Treatise on the Sermon, and analysis in The Knowing Heart (Da#at tevunot), The Way of the Lord, and the Path of the Upright.14

Ramhals’ Semi-Ramist Logic . Ramist dialectic was not without its detractors; during his lifetime Ramus was forbidden to teach and was continually attacked by both defenders of Aristotle and other humanists. After his death, there were many attempts to reconcile his views with those of other humanists, like the German Reformer Phillip Melanchthon (–), or with Aristotle himself; this occurred especially in textbooks, whose writers were generally conservative in intellectual temperament. Books written by logicians who eclectically combined Ramist doctrines with those of Aristotle were called in their days “Mixt,” or “Semi-Ramist,”15 and it is in that category which Ramhals’ Logic falls. . Ramhal . begins the Logic with a series of dichotomous divisions: first, being is subdivided into rational being and physical being; then rational being is subdivided into representational (medumeh) and separate (muvdal); then representational is subdivided into idea (musag) and fiction (baduy). The idea is then defined as “that thing which, although it does not exist within the sensible, should exist according to the gradation [of reality], with the sensible following it in order.”16 The idea becomes for Ramhal . the category under which are subsumed all subdivisions of 14 For havhanah see Sefer ha-Higgayon, pp. –, ; Ma"amar #al ha-deraˇ sa ; . B. Efrati, ed., Derekh ha-ˇsem (Jerusalem, ): –; A. Shoshana and Associates, eds, The Complete Mesillat Yesharim: Dialogue and Thematic Versions (Cleveland, ): ; S. Silverstein [ed. and] trans., Da"ath tevunoth: The Knowing Heart (New York and Jerusalem, ): . For hams. a"ah, see Sefer ha-Higgayon, pp. – and –; Ma"amar #al ha-deraˇsa, p. . 15 See W.S. Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, – (Princeton, ), – ; cf. Hotson, Commonplace Learning, p. . 16 Sefer ha-Higgayon, p. .



charles manekin

knowable reality, i.e., substance, accident, etc.17 After substance and accident are introduced Ramhal . leaves the concept of idea behind—it is not mentioned further in the entire book—and plunges into a discussion of the praedicamenta (ma"amarim) and the praedicabilia (kollelim). So far the only thing that is reminiscent of Ramism is the strict, often dichotomous, division into classes and sub-classes. Yet from chapter  until the end of the book, with only two exceptions, the features of Ramist logic are pronounced. Ramus, in the later editions of his work, divided logic into four subjects: technical terms employed in logic, propositions, syllogisms, and method. The treatment of the terms employed in logic was by far the largest section because Ramus placed the classical theory of the topics there. True to form, Ramhal . deals with the “terms employed in logic” in  of the book’s  chapters; later they are called “the  distinctions (havhanot) that are distinguished in a subject,” . and in his book the Ways of Reason, “the  distinctions that we use when we wish to judge according to the laws (ha-halakhot) and discussions (ha-sugyot) or reason.”18 This list includes Aristotelian logical terms, a typical phenomenon in semi-Ramist logical texts. More explanation of the distinction are found in the “appendix” to the Logic, the Wing of Syllogisms (Kenaf heqqeˇsim), with rules how to generate and analyze argument. Given that Ramhal . states explicitly that most of the Logic was translated from the books of the gentiles, the first step in identifying the source was to examine what Ramist textbooks were likely to have been available to him. This led eventually to Wendelin’s Logicae institutiones tironum adolescentum, which was written first in , and published in many subsequent editions, including ones in Amsterdam in  and , and as late as .19 Wendelin, the principal of a gymnasium in Zerbst, was 17 I have not found a specific source for this discussion, but both the Logique of Pierre Crouaz and the Elementa philosophiae of Heinnecus begin with discussions of the various types of ideas, and these two works were printed several times in early eighteenth-century Amsterdam. 18 Sefer Derekh tevunot in Sackton, ed., Derekh ha-qodeˇ s . . . le-Ramhal, . . p. . Subsequent references to the Ways of Reason will be to this edition, unless otherwise stated. 19 The  edition is not mentioned by W. Risse in Bibliographia logica . Verzeichnis der Druckschriften zur Logik mit Angabe ihrer Fundorte – (Hildesheim [u.a.], ): . It appears to be a reprinting of the  edition. Wendelin’s book was used at Harvard in the seventeenth century; see P. Miller and T.H. Johnson, The Puritans: A Sourcebook of Their Writings (New York, ):  n. . A synopsis by Henricus Geissler was published in  in Frankfurt am Main, Institutionum logicarum Wendelini synopsis, sive Rudimenta logica, but this differs from Ramhal’s abbreviation. .

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



well-known for his books in moral philosophy and theology.20 A comparison of the Logicae institutiones with the Logic clearly shows that the former was the main source for the latter, with about  percent of the Logic taken directly from Wendelin, including the arrangement of the chapters and their subject matter, the great majority of the definitions, and all of the general principles. Even Ramhal’s “peruˇs” represents Wen. delin’s “explicatio.” Although it is not the only source—the definition and analysis of concepts in chapter , the discussion of the signification of terms in chapter , and the discussion of the uses of syllogistic in chapter , are not contained in Wendelin—it is clearly the dominant one from chapter  onward. When Ramhal . said that he “added, subtracted, and altered” it would be more accurate to say that he translated, abbreviated, and appropriated the work by “Judaizing” the examples. Table . A Comparison of the Chapters of Ramhal’s . Logic and Wendelin’s Logicae Institutiones Introduction Dedicatio, b–a Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch.  Ch. 

Book I, Ch. , Rule  Book I, Ch. , Rules – Book I, Ch. , Rules – Book I, Ch. –Ch.  (but lacking discussion of the signification of terms) Book I, Ch.  Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch.  Book I, Ch.  Book I, Ch.  Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch. – Book I, Ch.  Book II, Ch. – Book II, Ch. – Book II, Ch. – Book III, Ch. – (!)

20 See F.W. Cuno, “Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich,” in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie  (): –, Digitale Volltext-Ausgabe in Wikisource, URL: http://de.wikisource .org/w/index.php?title=ADB:Wendelin,_Marcus_Friedrich&oldid= (accessed April , ).



charles manekin

Ch.  Ch.  Ch. 

(lacking discussion of the uses of syllogistic) Book II, Ch.  Book II, Ch. –

Like earlier Jewish appropriators, Ramhal . adapts examples from his source that would resonate with his audience. For example, to illustrate the category of possession, Ramhal . (p. ) uses moral virtues where Wendelin (p. ) uses armor. Here are some examples of appropriation, in my translation: Ramhal’s Logic (ed. Sackton) .

Wendelin’s Logicae institutiones (Amsterdam, )

[End] The same act can be viewed as various ones depending on its various ends. For example, two individuals prolong their prayer; one for the sake of heaven, the other to impress people of his devotion. The first performs a great deed; the other sins a great deal. (p. )

[End] The same act can be viewed as various ones depending on its various ends. For example, Judas kissed Jesus Christ, and the other disciples kissed him. But Judas’s kiss was evil and the other disciples’ kisses were good, because of their various ends. For Judas’s kiss was to betray Christ, whereas the others’ kiss was a sign of their devotion to him. (pp. –)

[Part] Question: Is the service of the Lord difficult or not? Answer: No, and the proof is from its parts, which are study and the performance of the commandments, which are not difficult matters. (p. )

[Part] Question: Did the Son of God completely receive a human nature? Answer: Yes, and this is proved from the topical rule from the essential part, since he received a human body and soul. (p. )

[Adjunct] An adjunct rests on a subject, exists simultaneously with it, or encompasses and limits it. For example, clothes rest on the body. Concurrent with the birth of Moses there was a light that filled the house. Time limits an act that was performed on a certain day at a certain time. (p. )

[Adjunct] An adjunct rests on a subject, or is simultaneous with it, or encompasses it. For example, clothes rest on the body of the subject. Concurrent with the afflictions of Christ there was an eclipse of the Sun. Encompassing the afflictions and crucifixion to Jesus was the time in which he was crucified. (p. )

[Induction] is where the premises are composed of many subjects and one predicate. For example, wine from France, Italy, Ashkenaz, Spain, and Turkey increase [body] heat. Therefore all wine increases [body] heat.

[Induction] is that in which a general conclusion follows from singular premises. For example, wine from Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, and Crete, increases [body] heat. Therefore, all wine increases [body] heat.

Such adaptation and translation of examples are not at all unusual when works are appropriated from one cultural setting to another.21 21

See, for example, C.H. Manekin, “When the Jews learned Logic from the Pope:

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



In the section on method, Ramhal, . following Wendelin closely, subdivides the universal method of studying any subject (which proceeds from knowledge of the universal and better known to that of the particular and more obscure) into the theoretical (rational) and the practical. The theoretical method arranges the material so that from the knowledge of the subject-matter one arrives at knowledge of its causes; the practical method arranges the material so that from knowledge of the end, one arrives at the knowledge of the means to achieve this end. If one looks at other writings by Ramhal . from the Amsterdam period, both in print and in manuscript, one sees these methods exemplified in Ramist textbook fashion. It is possible to divide these writings into two groups: those that are clearly Ramist or semi-Ramist, and those that show traces of Ramism.

Ramism in Ramhal’s Writings of the Amsterdam Period . To the former belong the Logic, Rhetoric, Grammar, and the Ways of Reason. The Rhetoric has been called by scholars an abbreviation of the Tongue of the Erudite,22 but even a cursory examination shows differences in terminology and arrangement: the Tongue includes almost all of the traditional five areas of rhetoric, whereas the Rhetoric, in typical Ramist fashion, focuses mainly on Style, having dealt with invention and disposition in the Logic and in the appendix to the Rhetoric, the Treatise on the Sermon. The method used in the Rhetoric is that of a Ramist textbook, i.e., definition and dichotomous division, unlike the method in the Tongue. Of course there is much overlap in material—they are both based on classical rhetoric, with the Rhetoric including enough material excluded from Ramist texts to be considered semi-Ramist, or what is sometimes called, neo-Ciceronian.23 It is not clear whether Ramhal . simply applied Ramist principles to compose the Rhetoric, or whether he had a specific textbook on rhetoric as a model. The Hebrew technical terms are accompanied by their Spanish equivalents in the manuscript, which may have been added

Three Hebrew Versions of the Tractatus of Peter of Spain,” Science in Context  (): –. 22 E.g., Y. David, Torat ha-retoriqa ve-ha-ˇ sira ˇsel Moˇse Hayyim Lus. s. at. t. o (Tel Aviv, . . ): ; and A.M. Habermann, ed., Rabbi Moˇse Hayyim Lus. s. at. t. o: Sefer ha-Melis. ah . (Jerusalem, ): . 23 Howell, Logic and Rhetoric, pp. –.



charles manekin

by Ramhal’s students, but could also be a testimony to a Spanish source. . The latter seems more likely when one considers that the Grammar is very similar in style and substance to Ramist textbooks of Hebrew, such as the Elementae Hebraicum by Caspar Wasar (Basel, ). But whether Ramhal . had in front of him models for his books on rhetoric and grammar or not, he managed to produce textbooks on the trivium in Hebrew on Ramist principles. As noted above, these three works were composed in  and circulated privately among Ramhal’s students. By contrast, the Ways of . Reason was published in Amsterdam in  with the approbations of the rabbinical leaders of the community.24 A comparison between the Logic and the Ways of Reason, which contains much logic, is beyond the scope of this paper. While there are indeed differences in doctrine—the Ways of Reason also shows the influence of the Logical Terms (Millot hahiggayon) attributed to Maimonides, for example—similarities are more pronounced. The book is intended, according to its author, for those who wish to study and to teach the foundations of Talmudic methodology and Talmudic casuistry in a clear and succinct fashion. But since he claims that Talmudic argumentation is based on universal reason, much of the book is not devoted to understanding the Talmud argumentation per se, but rather to the underlying logic on which Talmudic argumentation is based. So often the rules are taken from logic, with their examples and application taken from the Talmud. Some traces of Ramist method are found in other works from the Amsterdam period. For example, in the Introduction to the Way of the Lord, Ramhal . emphasizes the importance of starting with simple intuitive universal rules and proceeding to the particulars: For by means of a small number of short rules (kelalim), arranged properly, a great amount of science can be acquired. Do not consider these rules profound or far removed from the multitude of people, for they are rather easy and obvious; all that has been added is drawing attention to them and arranging them; for they are all found in natural laws of thought.25

24 For Ramhal’s explanation of some of the hermeneutical rules mentioned in rabbinic . literature, see A. Ravitzky, Logiqah Arist. ot. elit u-metodologyah Talmudit [Aristotelian Logic and Talmudic Methodology] (Jerusalem, ): –. 25 Efrati, ed., Derekh ha-ˇ sem, p. . Ramhal . also lists some of the terms used in logic used to analyze a subject; in the editor’s commentary parallel passages from the Logic are cited.

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



Ramhal . offers a short discourse on method, which is nothing but Ramus’s method of analysis that Ramhal . himself discusses in the Logic. There may even be traces of Ramism in the Path of the Upright, a manual of personal ethics and piety. Since its publication in Amsterdam in , the work has gone through many editions and translations and is arguably the most widely read work of traditional Jewish ethics. Several years ago, scholars identified an earlier version of the Path, written in  as a dialogue between a pietist (hasid) and a scholar (hakham). The . . central idea in both the dialogue and the manual versions is the same: in order to acquire virtues like piety, fear of God, etc. one first has to investigate their essence and their particulars, and only then can one learn how to obtain them. Ramhal . emphasizes that divine service is a science, and like other sciences, it has to be mastered according to a certain order or method. But even before the essence and particulars are investigated, one has to understand man’s overarching goal, which is to serve God and to come near to Him.26 This ordo cognoscendi is reminiscent of the “practical method” in the Logic, i.e., “one of the practical arts is ordered so that from the knowledge of its end, we come to the knowledge of the means that leads to the end”;27 this is what Wendelin calls the analytical practical method. Another idea of possible Ramist provenance is the importance of beginning with universal concepts and principles that are easily understood, and then proceeding to a study of the particulars. In both versions Ramhal . attempts to justify the need to study the various aspects of the service of God, even though its generalities are obvious to everyone. Ramist method starts with a definition of the general concept and proceeds to its parts through division and definition; the “practical method” identifies first the goal of the study and then discusses the ways of reaching it. In the manual version of the Path of the Upright Ramhal . first elucidates a given virtue (be"ur ha-middah), then examines its parts (helqei . ha-middah), and, finally provides the methods to acquire the virtue, and to avoid its concomitant vice. The division into twos and threes comes in chapter , “On the Divisions of Piety.” No charts are provided, but we can see the Ramist structure of the chapter in the following diagram:

26 Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto, The Complete Mesillat Yesharim: Dialogue and Thematic Versions. Edited by A. Shoshana and Associates (Cleveland, ): . 27 Sackton, ed., p. .



charles manekin

The arrangement of the material in Ramist fashion is striking. We can draw several conclusions from the above for Ramhal’s . intellectual development. First, Ramhal wrote textbooks influenced by Ramism . during his stay in Amsterdam, books that were based on Latin models typical of seventeenth-century schoolbooks in Germany and the Netherlands. Second, the thesis that Ramhal . imbibed all his secular learning as a youth from his teacher Isaac Cantarini in Italy seems very difficult to sustain.28 On the contrary, the evidence for his learning new doctrines in logic, grammar, and rhetoric, after leaving Italy is considerable. It is unlikely that he would have been exposed to Ramist doctrines while in Italy, since Ramism, as we have noted, made little inroads in Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain. There is no record of Wendelin’s textbook being published in Italy, but only in Germany, Holland, and Switzerland. This does not mean that Ramhal . was unfamiliar with humanist logic and rhetoric while in Italy. On the contrary, while Ramism itself was not influential in Italy, doctrines associated with humanistic logic and rhetoric go back as early as the fifteenth-century Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla. In chapter  of the Tongue of the Erudite Ramhal . even provides a little chart of subject division. Yet it should be recalled that Ramus did not invent dichotomous division; he simply made it a dominant feature of his method.29 We do not have a work on logic written by Ramhal .

28

Ginzburg, The Life and Works, p. . Cf. Ong, Ramus, p. : “The use of dichotomies, or division by twos, was not uniquely Ramist, although extreme specialization in them was.” 29

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



during his Italian period, so there is no way to compare whether there is a change of doctrine. But as we have seen, a comparison of the Tongue of the Erudite with the Rhetoric, reveals that the former is more typical of Italian humanist models, the latter of Ramism. The same Ramist influence was detected in the Grammar. In Ramhal’s summaries of kabbalah, written when he was still in Italy, . one finds an emphasis on the organization of the material; indeed, he wrote in a letter to his teacher that the significance of these works lies in their organization rather than in any original content.30 Yet there is nothing to indicate that these books were influenced at all by Ramist ideas of organization. It seems more likely that his predilection for organization and for textbook writing, is partly what attracted him to Ramist ideas after he moved to Amsterdam. If this speculation is correct, then it is possible to reconstruct some aspects of Ramhal’s intellectual biography. Having begun his career with . a work inspired by humanistic rhetoric, he turned shortly to writing kabbalistic commentaries and summaries, some purporting to be under the influence of a heavenly messenger, others not. When he arrived in Amsterdam, having pledged not to teach kabbalah, he appears to have been employed, inter alia, as a tutor to young men like David Franco Mendes in secular subjects such as the trivium, and this suggested to Ramhal . the composition of texts in Hebrew arranged according to the method of textbooks in Latin and the vernaculars of the Spanish-Portuguese community. It should be pointed out that texts on these subjects on logic and rhetoric had been composed in the mid-seventeenth century in Amsterdam by R. Moses Rafael Aguilar31 and earlier by Abraham Cohen de Herrera; the latter’s work on logic shows signs of the influence of Agricola and Ramus,32 though there is no indication that Ramhal . was familiar with either of these works. The case of Herrera is particularly apt because like Ramhal . he was a kabbalist, and there appear to be affinities between his neo-Platonic

30 See S. Ginzburg, R. Moˇ se Hayyim Lus. s. at. t. o u-vene-doro: osef iggerot u-te#udot (Tel . Aviv, ): : “äéäé øãñä ÷ø éë ,ùåãéç àöîì êøåö äéä àì íäá íâ—íéøö÷ä íéììëäå ®íäá øàáì éúöôç øùà úåìîäå ïåëð ìò”. 31 See S. Berger, Classical Oratory and the Sephardim of Amsterdam: Rabbi Aguilar’s “Tratado De La Retórica,” (Hilversum, ): esp. –. 32 See Herrera, Epitome y Compendio de la Logica O Dialectica. Edited by G.S. del Buffa (Bologna, ): xi–cxxxviii; an index to the references to Agricola and Ramus appear on pp.  and , respectively.



charles manekin

ontology (the employment of the concepts of hierarchy and gradation, the move from universals to particulars) and his decision to adopt Ramist principles. As Sacara del Buffa puts it: . . . Herrrera is influenced by Ramus, not only as regards the formal aspects which we shall discuss below, but inasmuch as Ramist dialectic is suitable for providing the presuppositions for a hierarchical conceptual structure, starting from simple primary notions and developing by means of definitions and divisions, which reflect the Neoplatonic-Kabbalistic system.33

The above may be said, mutatis mutandis, for Ramhal. . It is not that his kabbalah and logic developed together, as has recently been suggested,34 but rather that Ramhal . was attracted to Ramist logic and method after he arrived in Amsterdam because of its perceived affinity with the neoPlatonic-kabbalistic ontological system that he had explicated in Italy. That may help explain why he chose to abridge Wendelin’s textbook rather than others available to him in Amsterdam, and why his kabbalistic works are themselves devoid of Ramism. And when he learned of Ramist logic and Ramist textbooks in Amsterdam he himself began to produce textbooks that, while not rigidly Ramist, are based in part on Ramist methodology. What does the case of Ramhal . teach us about the eighteenth-century appropriation of Christian science? On the one hand, he candidly mentions that most of his Logic was translated from gentile books. He does not hesitate to write works on profane wisdom, or to use Christian methodological terms and principles in his works on ethics and theology. Ramhal . was heir to the medieval and renaissance tradition that saw all “wisdom” originating from the Bible and his own study program required mastery of the propaedeutic sciences, which included the dicta of the Sages, i.e., Talmud and midrash. On the other hand, when he actually published a book containing logic, it is in the form of a treatise on Talmudic methodology. Were it not for the Ways of Reason, only historians would be interested in the Logic today. That brings us to the present and to increased interest in these texts among Jewish traditionalists. 33

Ibid., p. . See J. Hansel, Moïse Hayyim Luzzatto, –: kabbale et philosophie (Paris, ): –. Dr. Hansel, who does not recognize a shift in Ramhal’s methodology . after the move to Amsterdam, considers neither the logic nor the kabbalah to be anterior to the other. In support of this she points out that the Tongue of the Erudite contains some Aristotelian logic. Yet while one can infer from the Tongue of the Erudite that Ramhal . studied logic as a young man, there is no hint of Ramist logic or method in that or other of the Italian works. 34

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



Ramism among Jewish Traditionalists Today The last thirty years have witnessed in Jewish traditionalist circles a miniboom in the production of editions, translations, and commentaries of Ramhal’s writings. While interest has focused on such classics as the . Path of the Upright and the Way of the Lord, and, more recently, on the kabbalistic writings, even Ramhal’s non-religious writings have not . been neglected. This may seem odd. After all, the subjects of logic and rhetoric were rarely studied in traditional Jewish academies, certainly not in modern times, and the concepts and terms of early modern logic and rhetoric are foreign to all save narrow specialists. So how do the traditionalists justify promoting to yeshiva students eighteenth-century works in early modern logic that are based on the educational principles of a French humanist and Protestant martyr? It helps, of course, to be ignorant of the intellectual background and origins of the work. For the traditionalist, Ramhal . has no context beyond that of his own writings, and even here one needn’t know more than the works before him. Those with scholarly predilections often try to understand him within the internal Jewish context, e.g., the Italian rabbinate.35 Such willful ignorance allows an editor to conclude that whatever Ramhal . did not receive from the medieval philosophers and kabbalists, or from his rabbinical teachers, he invented himself. Thus, Rabbi Mordekhai Chriqui, in the introduction to his recent edition of the Logic, claims that Ramhal’s list of twenty-one terms employed in logic “does not appear . in any literature on logic,” and then goes on to declare that the author produced it “yeˇs mi-#ayin” (“out of nothing”).36 Now Rabbi Chriqui himself knows this to be false, since most of his introduction is copied verbatim, and without attribution, from the present author’s Hebrew article on the Logic. Where Rabbi Chriqui’s text deviates from that article is precisely on the question of influence: what I claim is Ramist he declares to be invented “yeˇs mi-#ayin.” Here we witness a double

35 See, for example, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan on the source of Ramhal’s method: “If one . were to choose one outstanding aspect of the Ramchal’s works, it is his systematic approach . . . The sources of the author’s great talent for organization is not known for certain. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Luzzatto was a student of Rabbi Yitzhaq . Lampronti . . . ” In Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto, Derekh ha-Shem: The Way of God (Jerusalem, . ): . 36 M. Chriqui, ed., Sifrei Ramhal: Sefer Leˇ son limmudim ha-ˇsalem, Sefer ha-Melis. ah, . Sefer ha-Higgayon (Jerusalem, ): –.



charles manekin

appropriation: an appropriation of Ramist logic that legitimates it by attributing it to Ramhal’s genius, and an appropriation of a university . scholar’s work through cutting and pasting. Another edition and translation of the Logic, aimed at ultra-orthodox yeshiva students, was published in  by David Sackton and Chaim Tscholkowsky.37 The publication history of this edition is interesting because of the deliberate attempt to connect it with the Ways of Reason, the work on the logic of the Talmud, even though the Logic remained unpublished during the author’s lifetime and was connected with the Rhetoric and the Grammar. By contrast, it will be recalled, the Ways of Reason was published in  with the approbation of rabbinical leaders of the Amsterdam Spanish-Portuguese Jewish community. The Ways of Reason has seen over twenty editions since the editio princeps, with a marked increase in popularity during the second half of the twentieth century. A  edition of the vocalized Hebrew text was accompanied by a large fold-out chart by a Jerusalem scholar, Rabbi Joseph Shalom Weinfeld, the translation of which is: “A Chart of the Structure of the Sugya And Its Parts.” Clearly intended as a practical handbook for yeshiva students, the work included approbations by some of leading rabbinical figures of the day (Rabbis Moshe Hager, Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Moshe Yair Weinstock, Moshe Halberstam). From these approbations we see that although the work was not universally accepted in yeshiva circles, it had won some adherents. One of the enthusiasts for the Ways of Reason was Rabbi Mordecai Goldstein, the founder and dean of the Diaspora Yeshiva, an educational institution for newly observant Jews. Rabbi Goldstein has made the work “required reading” for his students. Two of them produced a translation and edition, and published it, with folding charts, with a mainstream orthodox Jewish house in , with an approbation by Rabbi S.Z. Broide of the Hebron yeshiva. They write in their preface: The Ways of Reason [sic] is unsurpassed as a guide to Talmud study since it provides a practical bridge between logic and the Talmudic method. . . . The charts in Hebrew and English show the overall structure of the books and the relationship between key concepts. It is important to progress through this guide step by step so that the number of distinctions and categories will not appear overwhelmingly complex. There are many terms used in the book in a specialized sense . . . .38 37

D. Sackton and C. Tscholkowsky, eds, The Book of Logic (Jerusalem, ). D. Sackton and C. Tscholkowsky, eds, The Ways of Reason: A Guide to the Talmud and the Foundations of Dialectics Explaining All the Principles of Reason and Logic 38

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



These terms (some of which are mistranslated) are part of the legacy of humanist logic, as is the structure, form and method of the book—facts that were presumably unknown to the editors before the present author’s Hebrew article on the Logic appeared. The charts published in English, like the charts published by Weinfeld in his Hebrew edition, are among the few Ramist charts produced since the eighteenth century. For this edition and translation of the Logic there is no approbation by Rabbi Broide (we shall surmise why presently), but it does have one from Rabbi Dov Yaffe, the dean of the “Lithuanian” Kenesses Chizkiyahu Yeshiva, who writes: I can attest that the books of our teacher the Ramhal, . The Ways of Reason and the Logic and the Rhetoric have brought benefit to my intellect (what has been often denied to those who are more talented, or possess more knowledge, than I).39

A different tack is taken by Rabbi Goldstein, in his introduction to his students’ edition, where he writes: The Logic . . . as a sequel to . . . The Ways of Reason represents a systematic effort by one of our Torah luminaries to distill the Rabbinical method which is built into the foundations of Toras Moshe (the Law of Moses).40

For Rabbi Yaffe, the virtue of Ramhal’s Logic is that it sharpens the . intellect; for Rabbi Goldstein, that it distills the rabbinical method. Since there is no evidence that the Logic was written as a sequel to the Ways of Reason, and since it is not at all a work about Talmudic methodology, Rabbi Yaffe’s judgment is the more convincing. The “rebranding” of the Logic as a work dealing specifically with Talmudic methodology continues in the translator’s introduction, where the work is considered to be a guide to #iyyun, in-depth study of Talmud. Ramhal, . we are told, “claims to give us an exhaustive set of key words or concepts in logic which define every possible argument and proof in the Talmud”41 (emphasis added). In fact, Ramhal . makes the claim not about the Talmud per se, but about “any subject that there may be.” And this claim about the universality of the method comes directly from the Logicae institutiones of Wendelin.42 in a Simple Concise Way (Jerusalem, ): –. The original edition was published in , but I have access to the revised edition. 39 Sackton and Tscholkowsky, eds, The Book of Logic, p. xii. 40 Ibid., pp. xvii–xviii. 41 Ibid., p. xx. 42 See  edition, p. b of the Dedicatio.



charles manekin

The traditionalist’s transformation of the Sefer ha-Higgayon from a short textbook of logic into a manual for the in-depth study of the Talmud harbingers another transformation: that of the Sefer ha-Melis. ah into a book on . . . Talmudic pedagogy! So we learn that the “Rhetoric [focuses upon] a continuation of Talmudic reasoning (sevarah) with the intent of study, and teaching in order to observe and do.”43 This transformation process is completed in Rabbi Sackton’s recent Hebrew edition of the Ways of Reason, the Logic, and the Rhetoric, which he makes into a trilogy and dubs the Way of Holiness. In his introduction to the trilogy he explains why this arrangement captures precisely Ramhal’s . intentions, even though the author never hinted at such an arrangement. He also explains why he published the Logic this time not as a separate book but together with the Ways of Reason. When he approached Rabbi Broide for advice on the publication of a Hebrew edition of the Logic— a daunting task, since it is a work of secular wisdom with a strange terminology—he was advised by the Rosh Yeshiva to publish the Logic together with the Ways of Reason “so that the connection to the study of Gemarrah will be clear, and so that the very study of logic will not depart from the discipline of Gemarrah.”44 One perceives clearly the difference between the religious and intellectual sensibilities of the traditional Jews of Amsterdam in the eighteenth century and those of the ultra-orthodox Jews of Jerusalem at the turn of the twenty-first century. For Ramhal, . the study of Jewish law and the study of logic were both propaedeutic to the study of theology. But for the Jewish traditionalist today, schooled in the ways of the Lithuanian yeshiva, the study of the Talmud is the ultimate intellectual pursuit; all others are subservient to it. And study of secular wisdom is, of course, suspect. Rabbi Broide was willing to compose an approbation to the English translation of the Ways of Reason, not because he approved of its use in his yeshiva, but because it seemed to help newly-observant Jewish men, who had come from the secular world, to study Talmud. He drew the line, however, at the study of logic for yeshiva students who should not be exposed to profane wisdom. So he does not give the book an approbation, despite the attempts of the editor to “Talmudize” the Logic and the Rhetoric. Rabbi Sackton does not mention the present author’s Hebrew article on the Logic, but he appears, like Rabbi Chriqui, to have read it. For he feels compelled to explain to his potentially puzzled readers how 43 44

Derekh ha-qodeˇs . . . le-Ramhal, . p. . Ibid., p. .

on humanist logic judaized—then and now



the majority of a work on “Talmudic indepth methology” is translated by Ramhal . “from the books of gentiles that preceded me.” His answer provides insight into strategies of appropriation of non-Jewish science in an ultra-orthodox Jewish community. The “majority” that the Ramhal . translated from ancient [sic!] works is a superficial and extraneous matter—he used the accepted technical terms, like the technical phrases and terms translated from foreign languages that are used in all books. But a little reflection reveals that the main part is what he added and subtracted and changed. This seems to accord with what he writes in the Ways of Reason: “I chose to establish this structure on the Talmud to that it will succeed and so I will know that it will not fall.” From here we conclude that the root principle is not what he translated but what he added, subtracted, and changed, in order to reveal the Way of Holiness in the Sea of Talmud.45

Aside from the editor’s misunderstanding of the author’s goal in the Ways of Reason, which is to demonstrate the correctness of his logic by appealing to examples from the Talmud, what does any of that have to do with the Logic? Most of that book can be traced to Wendelin. What is original in the Logic is the transmission of humanistic logic to a Hebrew linguistic and Jewish cultural setting, and this is seen primarily in the examples. It is difficult to believe that the editor is unaware of this appropriation of humanist logic. In any event, it is noteworthy that the letter and spirit of Ramism live on in some traditionalist institutions of Jewish learning in Jerusalem, Bnei Brak, Paris, and New York, where “Talmudic” logic is studied according to the concepts, principles, and formulations of a sixteenthcentury French humanist, as rendered by a seventeenth-century German theologian, and then abridged, translated, and modified by an eighteenth-century kabbalist.

45

Ibid., p. .

HEBREW “SOCIOLINGUISTICS”

Irene E. Zwiep

Introduction The history of Jewish linguistic thinking has always been described in its own (“Jewish” rather than “general linguistic”) terms. In their surveys of the pre-modern Hebrew linguistic library, scholars from Wilhelm Bacher to David Tene have reconstructed a grammatical tradition which, though initially dependent on Arabic descriptive models, soon developed a focus and dynamic of its own.1 Concentrating on the dominant Rabbanite tradition, the earlier studies tended to portray the history of Hebrew grammar as a succession of lasting breakthroughs, with the discovery of the tri-literal Hebrew root and the quest for, eventually, the seven binyanim as the tradition’s most conspicuous feats of arms. In recent times, our increasing knowledge of the medieval Karaite tradition has perhaps not quite upset this linear picture, but has definitely offered fresh perspectives by uncovering a whole range of alternative descriptive possibilities.2 And while in the earlier surveys the linguistic monuments of later centuries were often glossed over as a mere afterthought to the fundamental achievements of the medieval Andalusian-Provençal tradition, later scholarship has begun to pay more attention to the many fruits of Christian Hebraism, to Renaissance grammarians such as Elijah Levita and Abraham de Balmes, and to the variety of Ashkenazi contributions to the development of early modern and maskilic linguistic thinking.3 1 Bacher’s Die hebräische Sprachwissenschaft vom . bis zum . Jahrhundert (= J. Winter and A. Wünsche, Die jüdische Literatur, vol.  [Trier, ]: –) and Die Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik (Leipzig, ; first published in ZDMG ) seem to have determined the pattern of future descriptions. Providing a wealth of new insights, Tene’s comprehensive entry “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew” in the  edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica (vol. , cols –) basically continues the evolutionary scheme laid out in Bacher’s surveys. 2 Cf. esp. G. Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought. Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf ibn N¯uh. on the Hagiographa (Leiden, ). 3 As the most recent in-depth study of early modern Ashkenazi linguistic thinking



irene e. zwiep

From these combined efforts a strong and continuous, yet simultaneously strikingly versatile Hebrew tradition emerges. So far, that tradition has mainly been researched and described from within, i.e., by students of Hebrew or of Jewish intellectual history (with little training in linguistics), who explored the Hebrew grammatical corpus in its immediate scholarly setting, e.g., in relation to the Jewish curriculum or to contemporary Jewish attitudes towards the sciences. In this study I shall approach Jewish linguistic thinking from the other end, taking my point of departure in modern linguistics and projecting some of its categories (occasionally interpreted in a rather broad sense) on previous Hebrew linguistic models and axioms. This—admittedly somewhat playful—exercise should allow us to better judge Jewish Hebraism not just on its Jewish merits but also by its more general linguistic content. At the risk of stressing the obvious, two preliminary qualifications should be made here. First of all, contemporary linguistics being a vast domain, the present inventory of course cannot be exhaustive. As a tribute to a scholar who in his extensive oeuvre has always given precedence to interpreting Jewish intellectual life within its socio-historical context, I have therefore chosen to limit my examples to the field of sociolinguistics. Secondly, we should at all times remain aware of the fundamental anachronism implied in the exercise. Prior to the twentieth century, no systematic attention was paid to the social and cultural processes that (co-)determined the dynamic of language, its variation and stratification. Yet when reviewing the corpus of pre-modern Jewish linguistic thought, we notice that Jewish scholars did take into consideration the historical context of certain linguistic features, and in doing so betray a sensitivity, however elementary, to the impact of socio-cultural processes on language. By explaining those features against the backdrop of their—supposed—surrounding reality, they seem to have offered us a first antecedent of what today is known as “socially realistic linguistics.”

Langue and Parole in Hebrew Grammatical Description In the eyes of most pre-modern Jewish scholars, language was a human convention. The faculty of speech, they believed, had been bestowed upon man by his Creator at the beginning of time. As soon as he had been should be mentioned A. Schatz, Sprache in der Zerstreuung. Die Säkularisierung des Hebräischen im . Jahrhundert (Göttingen, ).

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



given the ability to produce articulate sounds, however, it had been up to man alone to organize those sounds and to endow them with meaning. On the one hand, the thoughts he wished to convey to his fellow-men needed expression; on the other, the environment in which he had been placed, the tools he wished to share, the goods he hoped to exchange, all had to be named. Thus he set out to develop an apparatus that would enable him to refer to things tangible and intangible, to question and to persuade, to mock and glorify—in short, to communicate with his fellow-creatures in an increasingly complex world. Had it not been for the political nature of humanity, language would not have come into being. Serving first and foremost to articulate and thus disseminate human thought in everyday situations, language was commonly regarded as a fait social, a social fact with—implicit—democratic dimensions.4 In their technical descriptions of the Hebrew language, however, Jewish grammarians generally showed less interest in the social settings of language. Prior to the nineteenth century, they devoted virtually all their attention to leˇson ha-qodeˇs, the language of the holy domain, i.e., of Temple and Scripture.5 In their descriptions of this canonical stage in the history of Hebrew, they invariably concentrated on (to borrow the distinction first introduced by the Swiss “general linguist” Ferdinand de Saussure [–]) langue rather than parole, i.e., on the holy tongue as an abstract, timeless system of signs rather than on Hebrew as the concrete, time-bound medium of actual, historical speakers, be they the benei Yisra"el or the more distant #ivrim.6 By contrast, whenever they touched upon the post-biblical stages of the language, their arguments shifted away from systematic analysis and became related first and foremost to the sphere of parole rather than langue. This turn had been inspired by the fact that, in their perception, the rabbinic writings had documented the language according to the secondary minhag (usus) of later generations, whose proficiency had suffered from the vicissitudes of time and history.

4 For a more detailed analysis of medieval Jewish views on the origin and raison d’être of language, cf. I.E. Zwiep, Mother of Reason and Revelation. A Short History of Medieval Jewish Linguistic Thought (Amsterdam, ): ch. . 5 For the etymology, cf. M Sota VII.. . 6 Comp. I.E. Zwiep “Hebrew or the Holy Tongue? Imitation and Authenticity in Medieval Hebrew Writing,” in L. Nauta, ed., Language and Cultural Change. Aspects of the Study and Use of Language in the Later Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Louvain, ): –.



irene e. zwiep

According to some (e.g., the tenth-century lexicographer Menahem . ben Saruq), the result had been a demotic dialect, ridden with anomalous conjugations and irregular derivations, caused by the effects of exile and foreign occupation. According to others, it merely reflected the universally human tendency to follow the line of least resistance. “Since the native speakers of a language generally try to make things easier for ˘ ah. wrote in a famous passage in his themselves,” Ab¯u-"l-Wal¯ıd ibn Gan¯ Sefer ha-Riqmah (eleventh century), “[it happens that] when a word is used frequently, a letter is elided from the root, in order to make [its pronunciation] easier.”7 This tendency towards simplification, he noted, was not a unique feature of mishnaic Hebrew, but could also be found in ˘ ah’s biblical phonetics and morphology. Ibn Gan¯ . observation, it should be noted, was one of the rare instances where a medieval grammarian explained a particularity in biblical Hebrew by referring to the parole (and the underlying linguistic mentality) of its original speakers.8 As in the discussions of the mishnaic usage, this approach had been triggered by the perceived departure from standard biblical analogy. It was this overt, if never systematic, digression from biblical s. ahot . that made the post-biblical minhag a less than perfect linguistic system, and thus intrinsically unsuitable for comprehensive scrutiny in the eyes of most grammarians. In fact it was not until the twentieth century that mishnaic Hebrew was analyzed as an autonomous linguistic system. Prior to M.H. Segal’s A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, first published in , scholars had looked upon the mishnaic variant as an elitist continuation of biblical Hebrew that had been supplemented (and contaminated) by foreign, lexical as well as morphological, elements.9 Accordingly, they had contented themselves with identifying the differences

7

Sefer ha-Riqmah. Edited by M. Wilensky and D. Tene (Jerusalem, 2): –, esp. ˘ ah’s p. . Ibn Gan¯ . views on frequency-induced elision had been anticipated by Judah Hayyu˘ g in Kit¯ab hur¯ . . uf al-L¯ın, ed. Marcus Jastrow, The Weak and Geminative Verbs in Hebrew. By Ab¯u Zakariyya Yahy¯ . a ibn D¯awud of Fez Known as Hayyûg (Leiden, ): . 8 NB: In his—admittedly not very mainstream—Compendium Grammatices Linguae Hebraeae (), Spinoza deviated from this essentially langue-oriented tradition by going in search of “the Hebrew language” rather than mapping out the language of Scripture. He explicitly omitted topics which he considered irrelevant for those “who desire to speak Hebrew,” and even set out to reconstruct, with the help of analogia, authentic Hebrew forms that had not been transmitted in the Bible; see W.Z. Harvey, “Spinoza’s Metaphysical Hebraism,” in H.M. Ravven and L.E. Goodman, eds, Jewish Themes in Spinoza’s Philosophy (Albany, ): –. 9 For a concise introduction to the most important discussions of mishnaic Hebrew

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



between the two stages and describing only those features that deviated from the biblical norm. “Indem die Mischnahsprache bloß eine Fortbildung des Biblisch-Hebräischen ist,” Abraham Geiger wrote in his Lehrund Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (), “so wäre es ebenso überflüssig wie verwirrend, über dieselbe eine vollständige Grammatik zu schreiben.”10 In order to minimize surplus and confusion, Geiger chose to limit his analysis to a description of the various kinds of rabbinic Ausbildung, Fortbildung and Umbildung of the biblical lexicon, which he explained against the complex historical background of Jewish antiquity rather than as a meaningful system in itself. While some of the changes had been caused by prolonged cultural and linguistic contact between the rabbis and their environment, he argued, others should be attributed to die eigne innere Fortbildung des Volkes, i.e., to the intellectual and spiritual growth of the ancient Jewish nation itself.11 This emphasis on the internal, national-psychological dynamic (Völkerpsychologie) of linguistic development was of course a typically nineteenth-century novelty in the literature on mishnaic Hebrew.12 By continuing to concentrate on isolated linguistic features, however, and by presenting those features as choices made by actual speakers against a particular historical background, Geiger (and other nineteenth-century scholars such as Dukes, Weiss and Siegfried) remained indebted to the longstanding tradition of analyzing post-biblical Hebrew on the level of utterance rather than structure, and of the incidental rather than the systematic. Against this episodic diachronic method, early twentieth-century scholars such as Karl Albrecht13 and, most influentially, M.H. Segal

from Abraham Geiger to Eduard Kutscher, see S. Kessler-Mesguich, “The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew. Some Historical Milestones,” Bulletin du Centre de recherche français de Jérusalem  (): –. 10 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau, ): . 11 Ibid., p. . 12 For Geiger’s views on language as the ultimate expression of a nation’s individuality, and as “das Corrolarium seines Geistes”, cf. esp. idem, Allgemeine Einleitung in die Wissenschaft des Judentums (Berlin, ): –. On nineteenth-century linguistics and Völkerpsychologie, see e.g., M. Ringmacher’s well-documented “Sprachwissenschaft, Philologie und Völkerpsychologie. Die Grenzen ihrer Verträglichkeit bei H. Steinthal,” in H. Wiedebach and A. Winkelmann, eds, Chajim H. Steinthal. Sprachwissenschaftler und Philosoph im . Jahrhundert (Leiden and Boston, ): –. 13 K. Albrecht, Neuhebräische Grammatik auf Grund der Mischnah (Munich, ); cf. Kessler-Mesguich, “The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew,” pp. –.



irene e. zwiep

(–) proposed an exhaustive synchronous description of postbiblical Hebrew. In Segal’s  grammar, mishnaic Hebrew was consistently presented as a coherent system rather than as a conglomerate of random facts. This approach was vindicated by Segal’s belief that the language of rabbinic literature was not “an artificial mongrel, made up of B[iblical]H[ebrew] and Aram.”14 but “a natural living speech, growing, developing, and changing in accordance with its own genius, and in conformity with the laws which govern the lives of languages in general, and the Semitic languages in particular.”15 Judging by its appearance, this “homely and severely prosaic” idiom could only be the “direct linear descendant of the spoken Hebrew of the Biblical period . . . It was a purely colloquial, one might say a vulgar idiom, directly descended from an older colloquial or vulgar idiom,” Segal argued on purely linguistic grounds.16 From the book’s concise bibliography as well as from the many references in the footnotes, we learn that A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew had been informed first and foremost by the classics of contemporary Jewish and Christian, Hebrew and Semitic scholarship. Its descriptive methodology, on the other hand, already reveals the structuralist bias introduced by De Saussure in the posthumously edited Cours de linguistique générale (Paris, ). Like De Saussure, Segal favoured a synchronous description of mishnaic Hebrew as a self-sufficient and meaningful system of linguistic relations, and therefore had to pass over such diverting aspects as the historical dynamic of the language or its actual usage in rabbinic texts.17 His claim that he was dealing with a natural language, whose grammar and vocabulary bore the stamp of widespread colloquial use, may of course be read as a polemical stance against previous conceptions of mishnaic Hebrew as the artificial medium of the rabbinic schools. 14

Segal, Grammar, p. . Ibid., italics mine. 16 Ibid., p. ; Segal had previously tried to demonstrate this biblical provenance in his “Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic,” JQR O.S.  (): –; separate reprint Oxford . In reducing the impact of Aramaic upon mishnaic Hebrew, Segal explicitly polemized with the basic tenets of Gustav Dalman’s influential Die Worte Jesu. Mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums und der Aramäischen Sprache erörtert (Leipzig, ; 2). In Segal’s view, Jerusalem as a religious centre had been too cosmopolitan to have been dominated by the “foreign patois” Aramaic (Grammar, p. ). 17 Throughout the grammar, comparisons with biblical Hebrew were not central to the grammatical descriptions, but merely served to once again underline Segal’s basic conviction that mishnaic Hebrew was the direct and natural heir to “spoken biblical Hebrew.” 15

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



Simultaneously, however, it was a crucial methodological re-orientation: it allowed Segal to concentrate on the mishnaic langue, the shared, psychological property of the entire post-biblical speech community—and the principal object of linguistic research, according to De Saussure.18 As we shall see in the next section, this linguistic reorientation implied the rejection of a long-standing topos, which had helped shape the Jewish perception of mishnaic Hebrew from the early Middle Ages right through the nineteenth century.

Early Nineteenth-Century Conceptions of Jewish Diglossia in Late Antiquity The essentially parole-oriented approach that had governed post-biblical Hebrew studies prior to Segal, had been partly nourished by the wellestablished designation of mishnaic Hebrew as leˇson hakhamim, the lan. guage of (read: spoken or used by) the Sages. In the course of time, the connotations of that expression had undergone significant changes. Originally it had been coined by hazal themselves, who had used it (e.g. in the . well-known phrase leˇson torah le-#as. mah u-leˇson hakhamim le-#as. man)19 . to distinguish the content of their own teachings from the message of Scripture. In later centuries, notably in medieval grammar and poetics, the notion that “the parlance of Torah is one thing, and the parlance of the Sages another” acquired new, more formally linguistic implications. In Abraham ibn Ezra’s famous criticism of paytanic Hebrew, for example, the phrase was adduced to dissuade contemporary Hebrew poets from contaminating biblical s. ahot . with linguistic categories borrowed from rabbinic literature, as had been the habit among classical payt. anim like Elazar ha-Qillir.20 From an expression that had served to distinguish between biblical and rabbinic law, and thus to emancipate rabbinic rulings from biblical authority, leˇson hakhamim (i.e., the parole of the Sages) . thus became a linguistic, normative concept, denoting a formal stage in the history of Hebrew. 18 NB: In stating that “for a number of generations, the Judean Jews remained Hebrews in their language” (Grammar, pp. –), Segal was one of the few to side with Maimonides, who in a famous passage (Commentary on M.Terumah I., see also below) had expressed the conviction that “those who composed the Mishnah no doubt were Hebrews who lived in the glorious land.” 19 E.g. B Hullin b, B #Avodah Zara b. . 20 Abraham ibn Ezra on Eccles. :.



irene e. zwiep

It was not until the early nineteenth century, however, that the ways in which the rabbinic scholars had spoken—and thus developed—the Hebrew language became a matter of explicit conjecture. This speculation had not so much been prompted by a purely historical interest, as by an urgent contemporary concern: the need—contested by some, ardently championed by others—to broaden Hebrew’s linguistic horizon in order to better exploit its potential as a Jewish national language.21 In the context of this debate, the sources and strategies that had once been employed by hazal when dealing with leˇson ha-qodeˇs acquired a new rel. evance, if not as a methodological precedent, then at least as an ideological justification. Neatly prefiguring the Marktplatz der Sprachen22 that had opened up for the Jews in Europe at the turn of the nineteenth century, the supposed language situation in Jewish Palestine during the first centuries ce generally would serve as a starting point for these reconstructions. A particularly vivid picture of that ancient multilingualism was provided by Solomon Loewisohn (–), who was himself a bilingual author.23 In his Ma"amar #al diqduq leˇson ha-miˇsnah of , he differentiated the languages that had been in use in various Jewish circles during the Second Temple Period.24 In overt disagreement with Maimonides, who had stated that “those who composed the Mishnah no doubt were Hebrews who lived in the glorious land,”25 Loewisohn maintained the traditional belief that Aramaic had been leˇson ha-#am, the language spoken and written by the hamon benei yisra"el in the centuries preceding and following the destruction of the Temple. Like their less learned neighbours, the Sages had conversed in that language when discussing 21

On attitudes towards harhavat ha-laˇson, with an emphasis on nineteenth-century . ˇ discussions, see I. Parush and B. Fischler, “Siqqule laˇson, sifrut ve-hevrah be-vikkuah. . #al ha-t.aharanut,” Mehqere Yeruˇsalayim be-sifrut #ivrit  (): –; and, more . recently, Schatz, Sprache in der Zerstreuung part III, where she offers a rich discussion of the topic in relation to processes of secularization and conceptualizations of nation and history from Wessely, via Mendelssohn, to the Me"assefim and Judah Loeb ben Ze"ev. 22 Cf. ibid., pp. (–). 23 Loewisohn, who was born in Hungary and worked in Prague, published in Hebrew on Hebrew linguistics and on biblical aesthetics (Melis. at yeˇsurun, ) and geography (Mehqere ares. , ); during the same period, he contributed to the German-Jewish peri. odical Sulamith, besides publishing a volume of Vorlesungen über die neuere Geschichte der Juden (). 24 Written in Prague in , the chapter on mishnaic Hebrew was interpolated in Yeshayahu Berlin’s Sefer Tosafot riˇson le-s. ion (Vienna, , unpaginated) and later included in Loewisohn’s posthumous Mehqere laˇson (Vilna, ): –. . 25 Commentary on M.Terumah I., see also above, n. .

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



profane matters (divre hol), and this had affected their usage whenever . they conversed in Hebrew. Being the only group to have had access to the authentic sefat ‘ever, they had every intention to continue their halakhic discussions in what Loewisohn called the leˇson tif"eret; all too often, however, the substratum of their daily vernacular interfered. By borrowing Aramaic words and inflecting them according to the rules of Hebrew grammar, the ba#ale ha-miˇsnah had gradually mixed the two languages into a leˇson hadaˇ sah muˇslemet, a perfect new tongue that could boast the . same quality and legitimacy as, for example, Italian, an established European language that had begun its existence as an amalgamation of Latin and Gallic, as Loewisohn pointed out. It is easy to see that hazal’s spontaneous harkavat ha-laˇson was mobi. lized as a precedent for Loewisohn’s deliberate harhavat ha-laˇson, the . expansion of Hebrew with the help of neologisms that could, if necessary, be inspired by lexical elements from other languages. In search of that precedent, Loewisohn painted a detailed portrait of linguistic heterogeneity and diglossia in ancient Jewish Palestine. In his analysis, the primary and most productive opposition was not between leˇson hakhamim and leˇson torah, but between the “High” language of the . Sages and the “Low” Aramaic vernacular of he-hamon, the majority of ancient speakers. Besides social factors such as education and access to the canon, there were also situational factors such as genre and subject matter that would determine the choice of language. Halakhic discourse, we read, always required Hebrew (like his immediate contemporaries, Loewisohn preferred the “ethnic” sefat ‘ever over leˇson ha-qodeˇs); yet whenever that halakhic discourse touched upon daily life, the Aramaic idiom would interfere, both with the original Hebrew lexicon and with its morphology.26 If we were to summarize the gist of Loewisohn’s Ma"amar in modern terminology, we might say that he offered his readers a fairly sophisticated analysis of how language contact would lead to language change through a systematic, collective process of (involuntary) linguistic interference, in which the lesser valued L[ow] variety not only affected hazal’s usage of the H[igh] variant, but eventually also altered the . grammatical system of Hebrew itself.27 26 In his article, Loewisohn gives examples of Aramaic lexical loans in Hebrew, of Hebrew neologisms created bi-temunah aramit, and of Hebrew words inflected ‘al pi diqduq aramit; Loewisohn, Mehqere laˇson, pp. –. . 27 Comp. Uriel Weinreich’s classic study Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems (New York, ): esp. p. . NB: Interestingly enough, Loewisohn did warn his readers of the risk of interference when creating their own neologisms. The Hebrew word for



irene e. zwiep

Loewisohn’s views were shared, albeit with different priorities, by his immediate Prague colleagues. In his Mevo ha-laˇson aramit (sic) of , Judah Jeitteles (–) briefly called into memory that leˇson hakha. mim was a “special language of the talmudiyim, who had chosen it as the medium of their mishnaic teachings, [with] unique nominal patterns and flections that could only boast of parallels in Aramaic.”28 A few years later, Moses Israel Landau also elaborated upon the theme of language change through linguistic interference. Assuming that a somewhat different constellation of languages had been at work, he offered his readers an additional, more top-down, impression of Jewish diglossia in late antiquity. Being the son of chief rabbi Ezekiel Landau of Prague, Israel Landau (–) had received a solid traditional education. His studies with the “early-enlightened” Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamosc (–), however, had also imbued him with a deep love of secular learning.29 From his early twenties, Landau worked as a mevi’ li-defus in a Christian printing house. There he managed to issue a new edition of Abraham Farissol’s Iggeret orhot . ‘olam (Prague, ), interpolating not only Naphtali Hertz Wessely’s Maggid hadaˇ sot,30 but also adding an epilogue . and two prefaces by his own hand. The second, rhymed preface is particularly relevant here, as it eloquently reveals Landau’s intellectual ideals, which seem to have been dominated by a desire for a universally celebrated literacy.31 Writing, no doubt, from his own experience, Landau “waterfall” (maˇsaq), he explained (p. ), was to be derived from the root ˇsaqaq (“to make a noise”). In German, however, the word “Wasserfall” was based on the verb “to fall.” Writing in a bilingual context, authors should thus be aware of the correct etymology, and at all times avoid the expression mappal ha-mayim, even if the verb nafal belonged to the oldest stratum of the Hebrew vocabulary. 28 Jeitteles, Mevo ha-laˇ son aramit (Prague, ): fol. a. In the grammar (“a novelty that never was before in Israel”), Jeitteles offered an elementary but comprehensive description of Aramaic morphology, to which he added a series of paradigms plus a selection of texts (ranging from the Book of Daniel to the Zohar) for further practice. In the introduction he tells us that he had consulted numerous Christian works on Aramaic before writing his own “Jewish” grammar of the language. 29 On Zamosc, see most recently Gad Freudenthal, “Hebrew Medieval Science in Zamosc, ca. . The Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamosc,” in R. Fontaine, A. Schatz and I. Zwiep, eds, Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and Eighteenth-Century Enlightened Jewish Discourse (Amsterdam, ): –; for bio- and bibliographical references, cf. ibid., n.  and . 30 Wessely’s supplementary, more “up-to-date” account of the Ten Lost Tribes had first been published in Ha-Me"assef of . 31 See R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den Böhmischen Ländern I: Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung, – (Tübingen, ): –, esp. pp. – .

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



stressed the importance of public libraries, which in the Hapsburg empire had become accessible to Jews since . For Landau, these learned collections represented an ideal locus of intellectual fraternity, a truly democratic Republic of Letters, where the impartial librarian ruled supreme and the Torah could be found on the shelf among the classics of the other great cultures of the world. It was this utopian vision of shared learning and Humanism that informed Landau’s reconstruction of Jewish diglossia in Roman Palestine. Quite characteristically, Landau presented his views both to the Christian scholarly audience (in Geist und Sprache der Hebräer nach dem zweyten Tempelbau, Prague, )32 and to the Jewish readership, in one of the preliminary chapters to his ambitious five-volume HebrewAramaic-German dictionary.33 In both discussions, the emphasis was not on the (internally Jewish) Hebrew-Aramaic diglossia, but on the effects of Hebrew-Greek language contact on the vernacular of the Sages—indeed the meeting of two great scholarly idioms rather than a confrontation between a H[igh]- and a L[ow]-variety.34 In Geist und Sprache der Hebräer Landau listed the factors that had caused ancient Greek to have had an impact on Hebrew. Throughout the discussion, he systematically combined traditional wisdom with acute “socio-linguistic” insights. Besides the conscious borrowing of scientific terminology, he argued, the bilingualism of some of its most prominent speakers had also influenced the language of the Sages. If anyˇ thing, it had been the curious usage of the Greek proselytes Semayah and

32

Landau had written the book as a sequel to the historical part of Wilhelm Gesenius’ Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift (Leipzig, ). Besides the chapters on ancient multilingualism and halakhic argumentation, the book offers a fairly complete grammatical outline of mishnaic Hebrew (pp. –) and a Chrestomathie plus Wörterbüchlein, which should enable the Christian novices to read and interpret unvocalized Hebrew texts without further assistance. 33 Rabbinisch-aramäisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zur Kenntnis des Talmuds, der Targumim und Midraschim. Mit Anmerkungen für Philologie, Geschichte, Archäologie, Geographie, Natur und Kunst (Prague, –). The Wörterbuch consisted of a re-edition of Nathan ben Yehiel’s eleventh-century #Arukh, supplemented by additional entries from . Musaf he-#arukh by Benjamin Musafia (–; ed. princ. Amsterdam, ) and Landau’s own annotations, gleaned from several Chaldaic manuals compiled by Christian scholars. 34 This choice may have been confirmed not only by Landau’s lofty ideals, but also by his distinguishing the older “Sprache” (Heb. ´safah, e.g. Hebrew and Greek) from the secondary “Dialekt” (Heb. laˇson, e.g., the younger Aramaic, which had been generated by later generations); see Wörterbuch, p. , where Landau pointed out that “ha-ˇsonim ha-´safah hemah yos. re ha-laˇson.”



irene e. zwiep

Avt.alyon (first century bce), who had both occupied an important rank among the Pharisees, that had left a lasting imprint upon the language of the Mishnah, Tosephta and baraitot.35 Not being native speakers of Hebrew, they had unwittingly introduced many foreign elements (sefat nekhar) whenever engaging in Hebrew discourse. In the following generation, their illustrious pupil Hillel had ensured the continuation of their hybrid dialect by ordering ˇse-adam hayyav lomar bi-leˇson rabbo, i.e., that . talmidei hakhamim should at all times “speak in their master’s tongue.”36 . Hillel’s much-quoted injunction, which was meant to safeguard the contents of the tannaitic teachings in an oral setting, inevitably also preserved the language of the earliest rabbinic teachers, whose Hebrew had been coloured either by linguistic interference from their Greek mother tongue, or by a “schwärmerischen Begeisterung für die Sprache Hellas” (a “passionate veneration for the tongue of Hellas”).37 After ca.  ce, Landau noticed, hazal’s Greek competence gradually declined into a . dialect known as elonistin, which he interpreted as a “kauderwelsche[s] Geplärre” that hardly deserved the predicate Greek. During Juda haNa´si’s lifetime, he concluded, the Sages had eventually abandoned this Hellenistic gibberish and successfully adopted the Aramaic vernacular of the non-Jewish (!) inhabitants of Palestine, who seem to have held the rabbis in the highest esteem.38 In the (Hebrew) chapters on Greek and Aramaic that preceded the lexicographical part of the Rabbinisch-aramäisch-deutsches Wörterbuch, Landau adduced additional proof-texts for the hibbah yeterah with which . the early tanna"im had embraced the language of Hellenism.39 Quoting a wealth of rabbinic passages that sanctioned the validity of reading and studying Torah in Greek translation, Landau hoped to convince his Jewish readers of the fact that in antique times “Greek had been the leˇson hakhamim, just like leˇson ha-qodeˇs”. This reconstruction of course not . only ignored the Rambam’s belief that the authors of the Mishnah had 35 The Greek descent of Semayah ˇ and Avt.alyon is claimed in B Git.t.in b and B Sanhedrin b. Their prominent position is suggested by B Pesahim a and B Yoma . b, and of course by them being mentioned as the fourth of the zugot in M Avot I.. 36 M #Eduyyot I.. 37 Geist und Sprache, pp. –; see also Wörterbuch, vol.  (), pp. –, entry “laˇson.” 38 “ . . . suchten sich die Altrabbinen besonders in der syro-chaldäischen Spache zu vervollkommen, in welche sie wirklich eine Meisterschaft erlangten”; Geist und Sprache, p. . Landau did not venture an explanation for the decline of Greek and the Sages’ ensuing linguistic reorientation. 39 Wörterbuch, :– and – respectively.

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



been genuine Hebrews, but also explicitly overruled the traditional view that ancient Jewish diglossia had involved the Hebrew and Aramaic sister languages. In conclusion we should stress once again that Landau’s perspective on ancient Jewish multilingualism neatly supplied his Humanistic Bildungs-agenda with a commanding rabbinic precedent. Just as the Sages had been equally well-versed in Hebrew and Greek, his argumentation suggested, so the truly enlightened scholars of his own generation should assume a fundamentally bilingual identity. It was this double competence in the ancient language of the Sages as well as in the language of Western scholarship that would help them realize a Jewish branch of “universal” literacy, just as the founding fathers of Judaism had done in their times.

Scholars, Professionals, and the Language of the Masses Both Landau and Loewisohn, who lived and worked in Prague around the turn of the nineteenth century, were confronted with political changes that entailed new cultural choices. As we have seen, these choices also affected their views on Hebrew, its history and relations with other languages. In their comments on the nature of post-biblical Hebrew, Landau and Loewisohn were among the first to pass an explicitly favourable judgement on the national potential of the leˇson hakhamim, attributing . its hybrid nature to cultural contact and linguistic interference. By contrast, medieval and early modern Jewish scholars who theorized on the fate of language in general and of the holy tongue in particular, usually came up with slightly more introverted explanations. Yet contrary to what we would expect, their explanations involved more than just tales of Diaspora and decline. Besides those who portrayed the development of Hebrew in historical terms, there were also scholars who approached its evolution as a permanent process of adaptation by successive speech communities. As we shall see, within these communities a pivotal role was assigned to scholars and (other) professionals, who were forced to continuously expand their lexicon in order to meet the growing demands of their disciplines. Since languages were thought to be the products of human convention, linguistic change and diversity could be understood as the modification of that convention and its adjustment to new developments. Witˇ ness, for example, the following passage from Sem Tov . ibn Falaquera’s ( / –after ) introduction to the sciences Reˇsit hokhmah: .



irene e. zwiep By now my previous reference to the fact that languages depend on human convention may have become clear . . .. Therefore, sometimes a group of speakers will use a certain word they invented regarding their craft, which will not be authorized by a second group of speakers. If, however, the second group uses the same word to designate another craft, that too will be authorized. This is what the Sages meant when they said: the language of Scripture stands alone and the language of the Mishnah stands alone.40

In Ibn Falaquera’s opinion, the Jews owed the survival of their holy tongue to precisely this dynamic strategy. They should be particularly grateful, he added, to the Sages and poets of antiquity, who had “begun to develop our language according to its grammar, creating new words and inventing meanings that had been hitherto unknown.”41 In his discussion of the noun in Millot ha-higgayon, Maimonides too had drawn attention to the role of scholars and their jargon in the development of language.42 More specifically, he had referred to how students of the arts occasionally would manipulate everyday expressions for their own intellectual or aesthetic purposes. The poets, for example, had developed the ˇsem muˇs"al, the metaphorical noun which according to the original imposition permanently denoted object x, yet could also be borrowed to temporarily denote object y. In this vain “the name lion [was] given to one of the animal species, but sometimes also to a man of might . . . . Poets use many such terms,” we read.43 While the

40

Reˇsit hokhmah, ed. M. David, Shemtob ben Josef ibn Falaqueras Propädeutik der . Wissenschaften Reshith Chokhmah (Berlin, ): . 41 Ibid. Ibn Falaquera was not the last to observe that hazal had possessed ample . knowledge of the grammar of the original Hebrew (#ivrit). In the chapter on the noun in his Ma"aseh efod, Profiat Duran (d. ca. ) also intimated that the innovations introduced by the Sages had been informed by a thorough command of authentic Hebrew. Like the ‘ivrim, the Sages had distinguished between the various kinds of nouns. If the Bible did not provide them with a suitable precedent to differentiate, for example, between a ˇsem to"ar and a ˇsem po#al, they would add a nun, as in the post-biblical form “qapdan.” “This occurred quite frequently in leˇson hazal, ” Duran concluded, “ . . . and it happened . before the prayer-book was compiled.” Ma"aseh efod. Edited by J. Friedländer and J. Kohn (Vienna, ): . 42 I follow tradition in attributing Millot ha-higgayon to Maimonides; see, however, Herbert Davidson’s exhaustive argumentation against this attribution in idem, Maimonides. The Man and His Works (Oxford, ): –. 43 English translation I. Efros, ed., Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic (Mak¯ alah fi-sin¯a #at al-mantik). The Original Arabic and Three Hebrew Translations (New York, ): . For Maimonides’ use of al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı’s conceptions of the metaphor, see M.Z. Cohen, “Logic to Interpretation: Maimonides’ Use of al-F¯ar¯abi’s Model of Metaphor,” Zutot. Perspectives on Jewish Culture  (): –, esp. pp.  f.

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



metaphor was only temporarily attributed, the extended term or ˇsem ne#etaq44 would be permanently imposed on a second object. By way of illustration, the text referred to the many everyday terms that had been appropriated by the grammarians while developing their art, such as s. eruf (particle) and miˇsqal (pattern).45 Thus, while the metaphor in Millot ha-higgayon’s definition was a temporary, mainly poetic, phenomenon, the extended term (which today we would call a metonym) turned out a lasting contribution to the lexicon of the entire speech community. In the translator’s preface to his Hebrew version of the Guide, Samuel ibn Tibbon (ca. –) included a brief passage on the actual routine of expanding language by means of metonymy. Towards the end of the preface, he justified this modus operandi as follows: It is customary among authors of scientific books to build binyanim that were not built before, to invent words not known to their predecessors, and borrow words from the language of the masses and the people and attribute them to an object other than the object to which they were [originally] attributed, provided there is some likeness between the two, if not a true likeness. And all this because of qos. er ha-laˇson when it comes to scientific terminology.46

Where Millot ha-higgayon had defined the metaphor and metonym as modifications of an original imposition (be-ˇsoreˇs hanahat . ha-laˇson), Ibn Tibbon seems to explain them as reallocations of terms borrowed from leˇson he-hamon ve ha-#am, i.e., popular usage. In Peruˇs millot ha-zarot, this kind of neologism appears as the fourth category, i.e., that of “words partaking in many meanings (either through haˇs"alah [metaphorical use] or sippuq [analogy]), of which the masses (he-hamon) know only a part.”47 The latter passage effectively refines the earlier reference to “the language of the masses.” It shows that Ibn Tibbon did not refer to everyday Hebrew usage (which in his days was hard to come by) but to the supposed Hebrew knowledge of the average Jew. In modern terms, he differentiated between the communicative competence of the less educated members of his speech community and the verbal 44

The Hebrew term is Moses ibn Tibbon’s; both Ahituv and Vivas have ˇsem ha-mu#taq. . Again the terminology is that of Ibn Tibbon, Hebrew section, p. . 46 Ed. Yehudah Even-Shmuel (Jerusalem, ): – (Hebrew pagination). 47 Ibid., p.  (English pagination). NB: for a discussion of Ibn Tibbon’s explanation of homonyms as an exegetical tool, see J.T. Robinson, Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism  (Tübingen, ): –. 45



irene e. zwiep

repertoire of its scholars, who were not only well-versed in the holy tongue but could even manipulate its vocabulary to suit the nation’s erudite needs.48 Finally, a similar, more historicizing exposition on the scholarly appropriation of everyday speech can be found in Abraham de Balmes’ (ca. –) Miqnei avram/Peculium Abrae (Venice, ), a bilingual grammar whose descriptive model was greatly determined by the author’s knowledge of logic.49 In his discussion of the various modes of signification, Balmes briefly tied his abstract theorizing to the concrete phenomenon of language change.50 He did so by distinguishing a primary (hanahah . riˇsonah) and a secondary imposition of nouns, in which two distinct social strata of speakers would be involved. The average speakers, Balmes argued, would lay the foundations of a language by imposing nouns on objects in the real world, things that could be perceived by the senses and hence were known to all users of that language (hamon ha-miˇstamˇsim).51 In the following generations, however, scholars would begin to borrow those terms and transfer them (with the help of accomodatio and translatio) to non-material concepts, which could not be perceived by the senses and would have remained unknown to the masses had it not been for their better-educated contemporaries. Together, these two layers constituted the language per se. Accordingly, it was the grammarian’s duty to discuss not only the more sophisticated modes of signification, but also the most elementary ones, “since our science should serve all speakers of a language” (Heb. meˇsammeˇset le-khol hamon ba#ale ha-laˇson; Lat. subministrat toti vulgo).52 This final observation, i.e., that the conscientious medaqdeq should always be aware of linguistic differentiation and stratification, may strike us as an emi-

48 Cf. D.H. Hymes, “On Communicative Competence,” in J.B. Pride and J. Holmes, eds, Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings (Hamondsworth, ): –. 49 For a first introduction, see A.J. Klijnsmit, Balmesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the History of Pre-Rationalist Thought, Cahiers voor Taalkunde  (Amsterdam, ). 50 Besides a few discrepancies, which may be attributed to the author’s first hand knowledge of Aristotle, Balmes’ subdivision of the noun according to eight modes of signification parallels the discussion of signification (through distinct nouns, synonyms and six types of homonyms) in the thirteenth chapter of Millot ha-higgayon. 51 The picture is indebted to al-F¯ ar¯ab¯ı’s conception of the origin of language as expounded in the Kit¯ab al-hur¯ . uf, see J. Langhade, “Grammaire, logique, études linguistiques chez Al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı,” Historia Linguistica  (): –. A direct Hebrew version was ˇ included in Sem Tov (II, ). . ibn Falaquera’s Reˇsit hokhmah . 52 Hebrew text from Klijnsmit, Balmesian Linguistics, p. .

hebrew “sociolinguistics”



nently modern conviction. There is, however, no need to argue here that Balmes’ linguistic methodology as unfolded in the Miqnei avram of course remained fundamentally untouched by the idea.

Concluding Remarks Above I have offered a far from systematic introduction to what I have anachronistically labelled pre-modern “Hebrew sociolinguistics.” Throughout the exercise, the concepts and terminology borrowed from contemporary linguistics served not as a touchstone for pre-modern speculations on language, but as a key that should help us enter and explore a few hitherto unobserved areas in Jewish linguistic thought. The end which I believe justified these questionable means, was to add an additional dimension, however modest, to the modern study of the Jewish linguistic canon. Complementary to the somewhat introverted evolution narrative, which was founded by the Wissenschaft des Judentums and is still being refined today, I have tried to unearth and expose some of the “less Jewish,” more “purely linguistic” content of pre-modern Jewish speculation on language. Lucky for us, linguistic studies have always focused on solid, concrete data and on (more or less) tangible processes, which we as speakers of a language quickly recognize from experience. As we have seen, pre-twentieth-century Jewish scholarship already recognized some of the linguistic phenomena that are being studied by today’s general linguists. While articulating their views on these issues, scholars from Ibn ˘ ah. to Abraham Geiger firmly remained within the conceptual borGan¯ ders set by the rabbinic tradition and its sources. Yet by cleverly interpreting whatever information those sources seemed to yield, each new generation succeeded in adding fresh insights to the small but lively corpus of Jewish linguistic lore.

INDEX A#azz ma yutlab,  ˙ ı ibn Isma#¯ıl an#Abd al-Gan¯ N¯abulus¯ı, , ,  as. -S. ulh. bayna al-ihw¯an,  #Abd al-Mu"min, ,˘ ,  #Abd al-W¯ahid . al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı,  Abraham,  Abraham bar Hiyya, , , , . – Liber embadorum,  Yesodei ha-tevunah u-migdal haemunah,  Abraham Bedershi, –,  Abraham ben David (Rabad),  Abraham Bibago, ,  commentary on the Metaphysics,  Treatise on the Multiplicity of Forms, ,  Abraham Cohen de Herrera, ,  Abraham de Balmes,  Miqnei avram/Peculium Abrae, ,  Abraham Farissol, Iggeret orhot . #olam,  Abraham ibn Daud, Exalted Faith (Emunah ramah),  Abraham ibn Ezra, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Abraham of Baghdad, , –, ,  Abraham Shalom,  absinthe,  Ab¯u #Abd All¯ah ibn #Ayy¯ash,  Ab¯u #Abdallah al-Baghd¯ad¯ı,  Ab¯u al-#Azm,  Ab¯u #Al¯ı ibn Ha˘ . gg˘ a¯g˘ ,  Ab¯u al-Q¯asim al-Raqq¯ı,  Ab¯u Bakr ibn Tufayl,  . Ab¯u Han¯ ı fa,  .

Ab¯u Joseph ben Joseph,  ˇ adhil¯ı,  Ab¯u l-Hasan aˇs-S¯ . Ab¯u l-Ma#¯al¯ı #Abd al-Malik alˇ Guwayn¯ ı,  Ab¯u l-Rayhan . B¯ır¯un¯ı, see B¯ır¯un¯ı Ab¯u l-Wal¯ıd Muhammad ibn Ruˇsd, . see Ibn Ruˇsd Ab¯u Ma#ˇsar, – Great Introduction to Astrology, , , ,  Ab¯u Yahy¯ . a, ,  Ab¯u Ya#q¯ub Y¯usuf, –, , ,  Ab¯u Y¯usuf Ya#q¯ub al-Mans. u¯ r, , , , ,  ˘ ah, Ab¯u-"l-Wal¯ıd ibn Gan¯ . ,  Sefer ha-Riqmah,  accident,  acting unfaithfully (˙gul¯ul),  acts of worship (#ib¯ad¯at),  agaric,  Ahituv,  . Ahmad al-Maqqar¯ı,  . Ahmad ibn T¯ . . ul¯un,  Ahmad ibn Y¯usuf, , ,  . al-#Abb¯as ibn Ibr¯ah¯ım al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı,  Alain de Lille, ,  al-Ant.ak¯ı, commentaire sur les Eléments,  Albert of Saxony,  Albigenses, , ,  al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı, , , –, , , , ,  Kit¯ab fi"l-hay"a,  Albrecht, K.,  Aleph (journal),  Aleppo,  Alexander Neckham,  Alexander of Aphrodisias, ,  commentary on De anima,  Alexandria, 



index

Alexandrian prologue paradigm,  al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, , , –, ,  Ihs¯ . a" al-#ul¯um,  Alfonso de la Torre, Visión Deleytable,  Alfonso X of León and Castile, , , ,  Las Siete Partidas,  ˘ abir¯ı, , –,  al-G¯ ˙ al¯ı, , ,  al-Gaz¯ Maq¯as. id al-fal¯asifa,  ˇ al-Guwayn¯ ı Im¯am al-Haramayn, . ,  al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam, –, , . ¯  #Al¯ı ibn Ab¯ı T¯ a lib, ,  . #Al¯ı ibn ab¯ı-l-Rij¯al, ,  #Al¯ı ibn Ridw¯ . an,  al-Kind¯ı, , , , – Sur la Philosophie première,  Almohad(s), , , , ,  catechism, ,  doctrine, , , ,  kingdom,  philosophers, ,  rulers, ,  society,  state, , ,  Almoravids,  al-Mubaˇsˇsir al-F¯atik"s Mukht¯ar alhik¯ . am,  al-Mutanabbi,  Alphonsine tables, ,  al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı, – De coniunctionibus,  Introduction to Astrology, , – , – see also under Introduction to Astrology al-Qumm¯ı, , , ,  al-Si˘gz¯ı, – amande,  Ambrosius Lacher,  anachronism, , , , ,  analogy (qiy¯as), ,  analysis (havhanah), – .

Ancient Testament,  angelolatry,  animaux, , ,  anis,  Anthoine Colin, ,  anthropomorphic, ,  anthropomorphism,  anthropomorphist (mu˘gassim¯un),  anti-Aristotelianism,  anti-Christian polemics,  Antioch,  Antonio de Fantis,  anus,  apodictic sciences,  Apollonius, , , ,  Coniques, ,  proposition II., livre des Coniques, ,  approval (iqr¯ar),  Aquinas, see Thomas Aquinas Arabic astrology, – language,  sources,  translations from,  texts,  Aragon, , , , , ,  Crown of, –,  Aramaic language, , , , , –, ,  archa, ,  Archimedes/Archimède, –, , , , , –, , , , , , ,  La mesure du cercle, –, , , , – La Sphère et le cylindre, , ,  Ar˘gu¯ za,  Aristotelian(s) catechism,  cosmology,  Jewish,  logic, ,  physics,  Spanish, , 

index Aristotelianism, , ,  Arabic,  French, ,  Jewish, , , , ,  Provençal,  rationalist perspective,  scholastic perspective,  sources,  Spanish, , ,  revival of, ,  Aristotle, , , , , , , , –, , , , , , , , –, –, – , , , , –, , , , , , , , ,  De anima, – De animalibus, , ,  De caelo, , –, , , , –, –, –  De generatione et corruptione, –  Metaphysics, –, , , , , , , ,  Meteorologica, , ,  Nicomachean Ethics, ,  Organon,  Physics, ,  Politics,  Posterior Analytics,  Topics, , –, , ,  commentaries on, ,  criticism of, ,  Hebrew On Sleep and Wakefulness (De somno et vigilia, De insomniis, De divination per somnum), , –, – , ,  medieval Hebrew tradition of Aristotle’s works, – see also pseudo-Aristotle arithmetic, ,  Arnald of Villanova,  Arras,  articulations, 



arts liberal, – mechanical,  Aˇs#ari(sm), , , , , , ,  Aˇs#arite(s),  school,  tradition,  Ashkenaz(i), , , ,  pattern,  ˇ afi"¯ı,  aˇs-S¯ asthme, ,  astral cults,  magic, , , ,  astringent, ,  astrolatry, ,  astrologia,  astrology, –,  Arabic, – astronomy, , , –, – , ,  al-Bit.r¯ug˘¯ı,  asymptote, , – ¯ t.ef al-#Ir¯aq¯ı,  #A atrabile, , ,  Autolykos,  Averroes/Averroès, see Ibn Ruˇsd Averroism,  Avicenna, see Ibn S¯ın¯a Avicennism,  Avignon, ,  Avner of Burgos,  Avtalyon,  #Aza"zel,  Bacher, W.,  Baghdad,  Bagnols sur Cèze,  Bahya . ibn Paquda, Duties of the Heart,  Ban¯u M¯us¯a, ,  Bar Tiqva, ,  baraitot,  Barcelona, ,  Barukh ben Ya#ish,  baume, 

 being qua being, ,  Beit ha-Elohim, , , , –  Bensharifa, M.,  Berlin,  Berman, L.,  Bernard de Gordon, ,  Bernard de Verdun,  Bernoulli, J., ,  Béziers, , , ,  Bible,  commentary on,  biblical exegesis, , , , ,  Bibliothèque Nationale Assad,  bile,  bilingualism, ,  B¯ır¯un¯ı, , ,  Kit¯ab al-saydana,  Q¯an¯un al-Mas#¯ud¯ı,  bit#,  Blasius of Parma,  Blidstein, G.,  bœufs,  Bologna, university of,  Boltzmann, L.,  Book of the Moon, see Sefer haLevanah Book of the Nine Judges,  bookkeeping,  Bos, G., –,  botaniste(s), , ,  bouche, , ,  bourrache,  braise(s),  Breslau,  Broide, S.Z., – brûlure,  Brunschvig,  Buh¯ar¯ı,  ˘ Butterfield, H.,  calculation,  calcul(s),  Camboulit,  Campanini, M., ,  cannelle, 

index cannibale(s),  Canopus,  carangne,  carboncles,  Cardinalis (Magister), ,  Caspar Wasar, Elementae Hebraicum,  cassier,  Castile, ,  Castilian, translations to,  Catalonia,  cataplasme(s), – Cathars, ,  Cecco d’ Ascoli,  cendres, , , , ,  céphalalgie,  cerveau, , – chair, , ,  chaleur naturelle,  Charles V of France, ,  Charles de l’ Ecluse (Clusius), , ,  Chartres,  chicotin,  chien,  chirograph,  Chriqui, M., ,  Christian culture, , ,  Hebraism,  influence,  scholarship, ,  scholasticism, ,  science,  society, ,  sources, ,  Spain, , ,  Christianity, , , ,  Christians, ,  Christoffe Colombe,  Circa instans, , , ,  Clagett, M., , , –, , ,  classification des propositions démonstration/conception,  démonstration/imagination,  classifications of the sciences, 

index Clusius, see Charles de l’ Ecluse clystère(s), , ,  Cohen, H., Religion of Reason Out of the Sources of Judaism,  coït,  Collingwood, R.,  communicative competence,  comportement asymptotique de la courbe,  concepts, , , , , , , , – engine of scientific change, , – conjunction(s), ,  Conrad Heingartner,  consensus (i˘gm¯a#),  continuités,  continuity thesis, , –, , , –, ,  conversions,  conversos, , , ,  composition of prose and poetry,  convivencia,  Cordova, , ,  Council of Trent,  countersigning Maimonides’ legal decisions,  Crawford, F.S., , – credo (#aq¯ıda),  Cristoforo de Pergamo,  crusades,  cultural development,  exchange,  interaction,  renewal,  transmission,  custom, ,  Da#at tevunot, see The Knowing Heart under Ramhal, .  D’ Ailly, P.,  Dalman, G.,  Damas(cus),  Daniel ben Moïse ben Isaïe,  Daniel Fir¯uz, 



Daniel of Morley,  Philosophia,  David, , ,  David ben Bilia,  David Franco Mendes,  Davidson, H.,  D¯aw¯ud, founder of the Z¯ . ahirite school,  Day of Atonement,  D’ Bloissiers Tovey,  de Saussure, F., ,  Cours de linguistique générale,  Decalogue,  demonolatry, , ,  demons, , , ,  demonstration/démonstration, , , , , , – absolute, ,  from observation (demonstratio per signum), , ,  explanatory and factual,  dent(s), ,  deorayta, – derabbanan, – Derekh hokhmah, see Way of . Wisdom under Ramhal . Descartes, R., ,  dessicatif, , ,  dessication,  détergent(s),  détersif,  Dh¯u al-Rumma,  diable,  dialectic(s), , –, , – , , , , , –, ,  Aristotelian,  as a method of examination, – ,  as a method of verification, –  as mental exercise, – utility of, , , – weakness of dialectic, of the dialectical method, –, ,  diaporematic method, , 



index

diglossia, , –,  dioscoride,  disputations, , , ,  disseminating knowledge,  divination, , ,  divine accommodation, Christian concept of, ,  divine Law allegorical content, , , , ,  allegorical sense, – esoteric content,  literal sense,  divine unity (tawh¯ . ıd),  doigt(s),  Dole, university of,  Dominican schools,  Dominicans,  Dominicus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae,  Don Luis de Guzmán,  dualism, , ,  dualistic,  Duhem, P., , –, – see also continuity thesis Dukes, L.,  eccentrics, –, , – Ecclesiastes, , ,  Edward I of England,  Egypt(e), , , –,  Elazar ha-Qillir,  Elazar Parnas,  electuaire, ,  #Eli Habilio, , ,  . Elias Menahem,  . Elijah Levita,  Emery, R.W.,  emollient,  Empedocles,  encyclopedia(s),  European,  Medieval Hebrew, , ,  endive(s),  Enlightenment, , , ,  enumerations of the sciences,  epicycles, –, –, 

epilepsie,  equilibrium, , , , , –, , ,  esoteric content of Law, ,  sciences,  esotericism,  Espagne, see Spain Espagnol(s), see Spaniards essentials (qaw¯a#id),  ethics, , , ,  estomac, –, ,  Euclid(e), , , , , –, , , , ,  Elements, –, , , , , , , , ,  Les données,  L’ Optique,  Eudoxus, ,  events of , ,  Ewige, der,  Exchecker of the Jews,  Exilarch,  expulsion, ,  exstase,  Ezra Gattengo,  Fahr al-D¯ın al-R¯az¯ı, ,  ˘ (¯ım¯an),  faith fal¯asifa, , , ,  falsafa tradition,  Far˙ga¯n¯ı,  Feldman, S., ,  Finkelstein, L., Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages,  Fir¯uz, famille,  flatulence, ,  Fleischer, E.,  fleurs d’ oranger,  foundations of the Torah,  France, ,  expulsion from,  Christian,  see also Northern France and Southern France

index Francesco Barozzi,  Francis Bacon,  Franciscan friars,  Frankfurt, university of,  Frédéric II,  French King, –,  Freudenthal, Gad, , , , , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, ,  see also meta-theoretical Freudenthal, Siegfried,  Fricaud, É.,  friction(s), , – Fuengirola,  fumée, fumigation(s), , , , , ,  Funkenstein, A.,  ˘ abir ibn Aflah, G¯ . , ,  Liber super Almagesto,  gangrène,  Garcia de Orta (Garcie du Iardin),  Gedalya Taykes, – Sefer Emunat Isra"el, ,  Geiger, A.,  Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah,  Geminus, ,  general linguists,  generally accepted opinions, , ,  genesis (hams. a"ah), – Geoffroy, M., , , , ,  geography,  géometrie des sections coniques,  geometry, , , ,  Gerald Odonis, , , – Commentary on Sentences, ,  Gerald the Welshman,  Gerard of Cremona/Gérard de Cremone, , , , , , – , –, , , ,  ˇ Gershom ben Solomon, Sa#ar haˇsamayim, , , 



Gersonides, , , –, , , – Gersonides’ biblical commentaries, , ,  on Ecclesiastes, –, , ,  on Job,  on Proverbs, –, –, , ,  on Song of Songs, , , , , , ,  Gersonides’ independent works Book of the correct syllogism,  Kol melekhet higgayon,  Sefer Ma#a´seh hoˇ . sev,  Treatise on Geometry,  Wars of the Lord, , , , –,  Gersonides’ (super)commentaries on Ibn Ruˇsd,  on De animalium,  on De caelo, , ,  on Logic,  on Metaphysics, ,  on Physics, ,  on Posterior Analytics, , , ,  on Topics, , , , , ,  Gibbs, J.W., , , ,  Giraldus Cambrensis,  Glasner, R., , , –, , , , , , –,  Godfrey of Fontaines,  God existence and oneness,  incorporeality, , , , , –,  intellectual love,  the All,  Golden Calf, – Goldfeld, L.N.,  Goldstein, B.R., , , , ,  Goldstein, M., ,  Goldziher, I., , 



index

goutte(s), ,  grammar,  Gramsci, A.,  Greek language, ,  Griffel, F.,  Hab¯ . ıb ibn Bahr¯ . ız,  habituation, –, , , , ,  hadiths (habar),  Hafr¯ı, ˘ Hager, M.,  Ha˘gg˘ i Hal¯ıfa,  ˘  halakha, Halberstam, M.,  Haly, , , , ,  has. s. a#ah,  to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, , –, , ,  to the commentary on Song of Songs, , – harhavat ha-laˇson, ,  . harkavat ha-laˇson,  Hartmann Schedel,  Hasdai Crescas, –,  . Light of the Lord, – Hayyim Druker, – Hebrew documents,  grammar, ,  language, –, , –, –, , , , , ,  marginalia,  mishnaic, – paytanic,  philosophical terminology, , – scholasticism,  sources,  texts,  translation(s), , , –, –, , , ,  Hebrew-Greek language contact,  Hebrews, , ,  Heiberg, J.L., , 

Hellenism,  Helmholtz, H. von,  Henry II of England,  Herbert of Bosham,  heretic (zindiq),  Hermann of Carinthia,  Hertz, H.,  Hillel,  Hinkmar of Reims,  Hippocrates Airs, Waters and Places, ,  Prognostics, ,  Holy War (˘gih¯ad),  Horowitz, C.,  Hosea, ,  Hotam tokhnit,  . Hrabanus Maurus,  Huesca,  Huete,  huître(s),  humanists,  humeur(s), , , , ,  humidité,  Humr¯ an, ,  . Hunayn ibn Ish¯ . . aq,  hydrostatics, , ,  hyperbole, – hypotheses, , ,  hysope,  Ibn #Abb¯as,  Ibn #Abd al-Malik al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı, ,  Ibn Ab¯ı Us. aybi#a,  Ibn at-Taras,  Ibn B¯ag˘ g˘ a,  ˘ an¯ı, , ,  Ibn G¯ Ris¯ala ad-d¯ami˙ga li-man yunkir haww¯as. s. at-t¯abi˙ga, ,  ˘˘ Ibn Gubayr,  Ibn Hald¯un,  ˘ Ibn Hanbal, ,  . Ibn H¯an¯ı,  ˘ Ibn Hazm,  . Ibn #Id¯ar¯ı,  ¯ Ibn Khalliq¯ an, 

index Ibn Ruˇsd, , –, , , , , , , –, , –, –, –, , , , , , , , , , , , ,  commentator of Aristotle, –  philosophical radicalism,  philosophy of,  Ibn Ruˇsd’s independent works Bid¯ayat al-mu˘gtahid, ,  De substantia orbis,  Kaˇsf #an man¯ahi˘g al-adilla f¯ı #aq¯a"id al-milla, , ,  Kit¯ab fas. l al-maq¯al, , ,  Tah¯afut at-Tah¯afut, ,  Ibn Ruˇsd’s long commentaries,  on De anima, , –,  on Metaphysics, , , , –,  on Physics, ,  on Posterior Analytics,  Ibn Ruˇsd’s middle commentaries, , , ,  on De anima,  on De animalibus,  on Metaphysics, –,  on Physics, ,  on Topics, , , , , – on Posterior Analytics,  Ibn Ruˇsd’s short commentaries (epitomes) on Almagest, ,  on Metaphysics,  on Organon,  on Physics, ,  on Topics, ,  Ibn S¯ . as. -Sal¯ . ahib . at, ,  Ibn Sa"id,  . Ibn S¯ın¯a, –, , , ,  Canon, ,  ˇ a", ,  Kit¯ab al-Sif¯ Ibn T¯umart, , , –,  Idel, M.,  ideology, –, , , , , , 



idolatry, , –, , ,  immigrants, Jewish,  immortality of the soul,  impetus (mayl),  inclination,  incorporeality of God, , , , , –,  independent jurisprudence (i˘gtih¯ad),  Indien(ne)s, , , , – infallible (ma#s. u¯ m min az-zalal),  infini, – infinitésimale,  inflammation(s), – instrumentalism, –, ,  intellectual habituation, ,  love of God,  perfection,  interprétation des rêves,  Introduction to Astrology (al-Qab¯ıs.¯ı), – Castilian version of, ,  commentaries on,  glosses, – Luccan preface to, – Iohannis Fontana physici Veneti,  #Is¯a ibn Zur#a, ,  Isaac ben Jacob de Lattes, – Isaac Cantarini,  Ish¯ , ,  . aq ibn Hunayn, . ˇ Is. haq ibn Sem Tov, commentaries . . on the Physics,  Isidore of Sevilla,  Etymologiae,  Israel (people of),  Italy, , , ,  Ivo of Chartres,  Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi of Janovo, , , , – Tsene Rene, – Jacob ben Makhir,  James II of Majorca,  Jannone, A.,  Jean Blaise,  Jean d’ Avesnes, 



index

Jean de Palerme, ,  Jean II, duke of Bourbon,  Jeitteles, J., Mevo ha-laˇson aramit,  Jellinek, A.,  Jerome of Stridon,  Jerónimo Muñoz,  Jesuit schools,  Jesus, ,  Jewish philosophical education, –, ,  Joh(anes) Borotin,  Johan Daspa,  Johannes Kepler,  Johannes Pachlerus,  Johannes Sack,  Johannes Sturm,  Johannes Versor, commentary on the Metaphysics,  John Buridan,  John Dank,  John du Hainault,  John of Bassols,  John of England,  John of Lignères,  John of Saxony, , –,  John of Seville, , ,  John of Stendhal,  John XXII, Pope,  Jordanus, , , , ,  Joseph Athias,  Joseph ben Judah, , –, ,  Joseph ibn Jabir,  ˇ Joseph ibn Sem Tov,  . Juda ha-Nasi,  Judah ben Parhon,  . Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen Midraˇs ha-hokhmah, – . see also Judah ibn Mathqa Judah Halevi, , , ,  Kuzari,  Judah Hayyu˘ g, Kit¯ab hur¯ . . uf al-L¯ın,  Judah ibn Mathqa,  see also Judah ben Solomon haKohen

Judah ibn Tibbon,  Judah Loeb ben Ze"ev,  Judaism,  jurists (fuqah¯a"), ,  Kabbalah, , , , ,  christian influence on,  kabbalist(ic), ,  texts,  kal¯am, ,  Kaplan, A.,  Karaite, , , ,  Karmelit, , , ,  Kellner, M.,  Kenaf heqqeˇsim, see Wing of Syllogisms under Ramhal . Kepler, J.,  Khumar¯awaih,  King of the Jews (nasi"),  Klein-Braslavy, S., , , , ,  Knorr, W., –, , , , , ,  knowable entities (al-ma#l¯um¯at),  knowledge (#ilm), , ,  Konrad Baumgarten,  Koran,  Kraemer, J.L.,  Kuˇsa¯jim,  Kutscher, E.,  Lagrange, J.L., ,  Landau, Ezekiel,  Landau, Moses Israel, – Geist uns Sprache der Hebräer nach dem zweyten Tempelbau,  Rabbinisch-aramäisch-deutches Wörterbuch zur Kenntnis des Talmuds, der Targumim und Midraschim, ,  Langerman, Y.T., ,  language change,  language of change,  langue, , ,  Languedoc, ,  Lasker, D., 

index Latin, , –, –, , ,  documents,  script,  text,  translation(s), ,  laws of sacrifice, – laxatif,  Lay, J.,  legal contracts, see starrs Legendre, A.-M.,  lentille,  Lerida (Aragon), university of,  leˇson hakhamim,  . Leˇson limmudim, see Tongue of the Erudite under Ramhal . leˇson ha-qodeˇs,  léthargie,  Levi ben Abraham ben Hayyim, .  Levi ben Gerˇsom, see Gersonides Lévy, T., , ,  Libro de las cruzes,  limonier,  linguistic change,  differentiation,  interference, ,  stratification,  linguistics, ,  liquiambar,  Lisieux, ,  Loewisohn, S., ,  Ma"amar al diqduq leˇson hamiˇsnah, ,  logic, , , , , , ,  humanist(ic), – Ramist, , , ,  scholastic, ,  Talmudic,  lombrics, ,  Lorenzo Valla,  lots,  Louis de Langle,  Luciani, J.D., 



Lyon, ,  Ma#a´seh ha-ˇsem, ,  magic, , ,  astral, , , ,  spiritual,  talismanic,  magnetism, ,  mahd¯ı, – Maierù, L.,  Maimon, Salomon, , ,  Maimonideanism, ,  Maimonideans, , ,  Maimonides, , –, , , – , , –, , , , , , , , , , , , , , –, , , , ,  Account of the Beginning, , , , , ,  Account of the Chariot, , , , ,  Book of Commandments,  Book of Knowledge,  Commandments Concerning the Foundations of the Law,  Eight Chapters,  Guide des Égarés, see Guide of the Perplexed Guide of the Perplexed, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  Laws Concerning the Study of the Torah,  Millot ha-higgayon, , ,  Miˇsneh Torah, , , –, , , , , –,  program for non-philosophers, –, , , ,  secrets of the Law, ,  mains,  M¯alik,  Malikite jurists, ,  Mancha, J.L., , –, , 



index

manuscripts Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Hebr. , fol. a–a,  Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS Levi , fol. a–a,  Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, MS Ebr. , fol. a–b,  see also under texts Marcus, I., ,  Marcus Wendelin, , , , ,  Logicae institutiones tironum adolescentum, , , , , ,  Marrakech, , , ,  Marranes,  mastic,  materialism,  mathematics, , , , , ,  matrice, ,  maturation, ,  Me"assefim,  mechanics, , , , , – ,  medicine Galenic,  Jewish-Christian relations through, , , –,  Meir Alduby,  Melechen, N.,  Melguiri family,  see Solomon and Vital ben Moses Melguiri Menahem ben Saruq,  . Menahem ben Zerah, . .  Mendelssohn, Moses, , –,  Ménélaus,  metaphysics, , , –, , , –, , , ,  subject matter of, , , – 

meta-theoretical, , ,  method, , , ,  dialectical, –, , – , ,  generally accepted,  of examination, –, – ,  of inquiry, , ,  of verification, , , , ,  of virtual displacements, , , –, , ,  question and answer, , ,  see also dialectic(s) Meyerson, M.,  Michel de Montaigne,  Middle English,  midrash,  Midraˇs Temurah, , , , ,  migraine, ,  miracles, , ,  Mishnah, , , ,  Mizmor le-todah, ,  Moïse ibn Tibbon, see Moses ibn Tibbon Montpellier, , ,  university of, –,  Moses, , , , –, , ,  Moses Arondi,  Moses Arragel,  Moses ben Solomon (Mosse Bonafos) de Narbonne, , –  Moses ben Solomon of Beaucaire,  Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, see . Ramhal, .  Moses ibn Tibbon, , , , –, ,  Answers to Queries on Physics, ,  Moses Narboni,  ˙ al¯ı’s commentary on al-Gaz¯ Intentions of the Philosophers, , 

index commentaries on the Guide,  commentary on Ibn Ruˇsd’s Natural Questions,  Moses Rafael Aguilar,  Mount Daran,  Mozarabes,  Muhammad,  . ˘ abir¯ı, see al¯ Muhammad #Abid al-G¯ . ˘ abir¯ı G¯ Muhammad ibn #Abd al-Malik . al-Ans. a¯r¯ı al-Marr¯akuˇs¯ı, ,  Muhammad ibn al-Haytam, , , . ¯  muhda . t,  Muhyi ¯d-D¯ın ibn #Arabi,  multilingualism, , ,  Mur¯ad Wahba,  Murcia,  murˇsida, ,  music,  Muslim(s), , , ,  Muslim Spain,  Mus. t.taf¯a,  mutakallim¯un,  Nahmanides, – . Naples,  Narbonne, –, , ,  Naˇsbalata,  natural science, see physics Navarre,  College of, ,  navigation,  necromancy, – natural,  see also nigromancia neo-Platonic ontology, ,  philosophy,  neo-Platonism,  neo-Platonist circle,  neo-Platonists,  New Testament,  Newton, I., ,  nez, ,  Nicolas Eymerich, 



Nicolas Monardès, , ,  Historia Medicinal de las cosas que se traen de nuestras Indias Occidentales, ,  Nicole Oresme, – Du ciel et du monde, –, – Quaestiones on De caelo, –  Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introductio arithmetica,  nigromancia, , ,  spelling of, ,  Nissim ben Jacob,  Noah,  nombril, , ,  non-Aristotelianism,  Northern France, , , , , ,  cultural revival,  number,  nuque,  Nuriel, A.,  Obadia the proselyte,  Odo of Cheriton, Parabolae,  Ophir, N.,  Orange,  oranger,  Orhot . s. adikim,  orteil(s),  oubli,  Padua,  paganism, Arabic works on,  Palencia, university of,  panentheism, , , ,  panentheistic,  Paradise,  Pardes, – parelle,  Paris,  university of, ,  parole, –,  particularization process (ihtis. a¯s. ), ˘  particular(s), , –



index

parts of the contradiction, –, – patterns of reception,  cautious,  Italian,  Provençal,  Spanish,  patterns of relation,  cautious, , ,  Pavia,  pavot,  peau,  Perpignan, Jewish community of, –,  Peter Lombard,  Sentences, ,  Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V),  Petrus Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée), , –, , , ,  Phillip Melanchthon,  philosopher-prophet,  philosophical religion,  philosophy, , , ,  Aristotelian, , ,  neo-Platonic, ,  Provençal,  relation with political power,  Scotist,  Thomist,  physics, , , , , , , , –,  Picatrix,  piciel, ,  Pierre de la Ramée, see Petrus Ramus Pierre Pevidic, , , , , ,  Pinhas . ben Meshullam, – pituite, , , ,  plantain,  Plato, , , ,  Republic,  Plato of Tivoli/Platon de Tivoli, , , –, , ,  Platonism, ,  political, 

Pléiade poets,  Poinsot, L.,  poison, , , ,  poitrine,  polar error, in philology,  political discipline,  politics, science of, , , – , , , , ,  Portugal,  Posidonius,  pourpier,  Poznanski, S., ,  praedicabilia,  praedicamenta,  premises, –, , , ,  appropriate, , ,  essential, ,  generally accepted, , , – , ,  incorrect,  particular and appropriate, ,  true, , –,  Proclus, ,  Profiat Duran, Ma"aseh efod,  propaedeutic science,  proposition II., – Provençal Jews, , ,  Provence, –, , , – ,  Proverbs, ,  pseudo-Aristotle, , , , ,  pseudo-Avicenna, see pseudo-Ibn S¯ın¯a pseudo-al-F¯ar¯ab¯ı, De ortu scientiarum,  pseudo-Galenic,  pseudo-Ibn S¯ın¯a Liber celi et mundi, –,  On the Heaven and the World, , , , – Ptolemaic,  Ptolemy/Ptolemée, , , , , , , , , , , , 

index Almagest, , , , , , , , , ,  Centiloquium, , , , ,  Opus tertium,  Quadripartitum, , ,  purgatif, ,  Q¯adiz¯adeli(s),  Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, , , , , , –,  traduction hébraïque de La sphère et le cylindre, , ,  Qaraïte, see Karaite quia demonstrations, , , , ,  R. Aqiva,  R. Ishmael,  Ragep, F.S.,  rainbow,  Rambam, see Maimonides Ramhal, . – Grammar, , –,  Logic, , –, –, – Path of the Upright, , , , ,  Rhetoric, –, , , –  The Knowing Heart,  Tongue of the Erudite, , , , ,  Treatise on the Sermon, ,  Way of Holiness,  The Way of the Lord, , , ,  Way of Wisdom, ,  Ways of Reason, , , , , , , , – Wing of Syllogisms,  Ramism, Ramist, –, , , –, ,  Ramist dialectic, ,  logic, , , ,  semi-Ramist, , ,  Ramsey Abbey, 



Ras¯a"il ihw¯an al-s. af¯a’,  Rashba’s˘ disciples,  Rashed, M.,  Rashi, ,  rate,  Raymond, archbishop of Toledo,  realism, , ,  reason (#aql), ,  necessity of,  Reconquista, ,  reductio ad absurdum,  refugees,  Regnault, H.V.,  Régné, J., – reins,  religion, , , , ,  ˇsar¯ı#a,  Renaissance France, twelfth century,  Italian,  résolutif(s), ,  résolution,  respiration,  resurrection, , , ,  revealed Law (ˇsar¯ı#a),  rhetoric, , ,  Richard I of England,  Richard of Hoveden,  Richard of Middleton,  River travel on the Sabbath, , –, ,  Robert Burnell,  Rodolphus Agricola, ,  Roger Bacon, Communia naturalium,  Rosenthal, E.I.J.,  Roth, N., ,  Rothschild, J.P.,  Rouen,  Roussillon,  Ruah. hen, ,  . Rudolphine Tables,  ˘ an¯ı al-Isr¯a"¯ıl¯ı, ˇ an ibn Ish¯ Sa#b¯ . aq ibn G¯ ˘ an¯ı see ibn G¯ ˇ Sa#arei s. iyyon (Qiryat sefer), 



index

Sabian(s), , , ,  context,  polytheism,  Sabianism,  Sabra, A.I.,  Sackton, D., ,  sacoma (apparent weight), ,  sacrifices,  s. ahot, ,  Saige, G., – Saint Victor,  Salamanca, university of,  Saliba, G.,  Samuel ben Ali (Eli), –, –  Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles,  Samuel ha-Nagid (of Egypt),  Samuel ibn Tibbon, , , – , –,  Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, , – Peruˇs millot ha-zarot,  sang, ,  Sapir Abulafia, A.,  ˇ Saraf al-D¯ın al-T¯ . us¯ı,  Saragossa, , ,  Sarfatti, G.B.,  Sayf al-Dawla, ,  sayings (naql),  scarification,  Schabel, C.,  scholastic Christian sources,  influence, ,  logic, ,  philosophy,  thought,  scholasticism Christian, ,  Hebrew,  Jewish,  Spanish, , , ,  Schwartz, D., , ,  science(s), ,  Aristotelian,  Christian, 

of politics, , , –, , , , ,  Scot, Michael, , – secrets of the Torah, ,  sefeqa deorayta, ,  sefeqa derabbanan, ,  Sefer ha-Diqduq, see Grammar under Ramhal . Sefer ha-Higgayon, see Logic under Ramhal . Sefer ha-Levanah, ,  Sefer ha-Ma´skil, , ,  Sefer ha-Melis. ah, see Rhetoric under Ramhal . Sefer ha-Temurot,  Sefer Lev t. ov, , ,  Sefer Temurah,  Sefer Yes. ira,  Segal, M.H., – A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, ,  Segovia,  ˇ Sem Tov . ben Joseph ibn Falaquera, ,  De#ot ha-filosofim,  Moreh ha-moreh,  Reˇsit hokhmah, ,  . ˇ ˇ Sem Tov ben Joseph ibn Sem Tov, . . commentary on the Physics,  ˇ Sem Tov . ibn Mayor,  ˇ Sem Tov . de Carrión, proverbios morales,  ˇ Semaryah Ikriti,  ˇ Semayah, ,  senses,  Separate Intellects, , , ,  Septimus, B.,  Serra, G.,  Seville/Séville, , ,  Shatzmiller, J.,  Shimon Frankfurt, Sefer ha-Hayyim, .  Shlomo Zalman London,  Siegfried, C.,  signification,  Sijilmasa, judge of, 

index Simeon ben Sema h. Duran,  . Simkhes ha-nefesh,  Simon de Phares,  Simplicius, , ,  Sinai,  Sirat, C., , , ,  Snell, W., , –, , , ,  social gatherings (maˇga¯lis),  sociolinguistics, ,  Socrates, ,  Solomon (King Solomon), –, –,  Solomon ben Moses Melguiri (de Melgueil), – Solomon ben Moses (Bonafos Mosse) de Narbonne, – Solomon Franko,  Solomon ibn Gabirol,  songe(s), ,  Song of Songs, ,  sorcery,  soufisme,  soul,  Southern France, , , , ,  Spain, , , , , , , , , ,  Muslim, , , ,  Christian, , , ,  Spaniards, , ,  Spanish immigrants,  Spanish Jewry,  Spanish Jews, , –, ,  sphere of Mars,  Spinoza, Compendium Grammatices Linguae Hebraeae,  Spinozan,  starrs, , ,  statics, , –, , , , –,  Steinschneider, M., , , , –,  Stevin, S., , – Strauss, L.,  Stroumsa, S., , , , , , 



styrax,  sublimé, ,  substance,  sucre, –, ,  syllogism, , ,  dialectical, , –, ,  demonstrative, , , ,  Syria,  Syrus,  tabac, – T¯abit ibn Qurra, , ,  ¯ Talismans,  tacamahaca,  t.alaba, – talismanic magic,  talismans,  Talmud, , , , , , , , – Talmudic logic,  Targum(im), ,  Ta-Shema, I., , ,  tehum, , – . teigne(s),  tempérament(s), ,  Temurot di-rebbe Iˇsma"el ve-rebbe Aqiva,  Tene, D., ,  Teresa of Portugal,  Tessier, A., –, – tétanus,  tête, , ,  texts, transmission of Andalusian-Arabic,  Arabic, , ,  Aristotelian, ,  Christian,  Hebrew,  Judeo-Arabic,  kabbalistic,  Latin,  medical,  mathematical,  philosophical, ,  Théodose, 



index

theologians (#ulam¯a" al-kal¯am), ,  theology, , , , ,  Théon d’ Alexandrie, , , , , –, – commentaire sur l’Almageste, , , – theory vs. concept,  thermodynamics, , , ,  Thomas Aquinas, , , , , ,  Expositio in libros de caelo et mundo,  Summa theologica,  Thomism,  Thorndike, L.,  Tibbonids, , , ,  Tinmal,  Tirmid¯ı,  ¯  Tobago, Toledo, ,  Toomer, G.J.,  Torah,  Tosephta,  Touati, C.,  Toulouse,  traditions (sunna),  training (hergel), ,  translations into Hebrew, scientific and medical, , , –, – transmission of texts,  see also under texts Tscholkowsky, C.,  Tristrandus,  T¯ . us¯ı, , , ,  Tadkira, ,  ¯ ulcères, , ,  unbelief (kufr), ,  universal, ,  principles,  rules,  vs particular,  universities, ,  Castilian,  French, 

in England,  in Italy,  in Spain, –,  see also under Bologna, Dole, Frankfurt, Lerida, Montpellier, Palencia and Paris Urvoy, D., ,  vache(s),  Valerius,  Valladolid, University of,  Van Koningsveld, P.,  Varignon, P.,  venin, ,  ventre, , ,  verification, , – vernacular Arabic,  Castilian,  Catalan,  English,  French, –, ,  Provençal,  vers, , , ,  vin, , ,  vinaigre, , ,  Vincent Ferrer,  On the Universal,  Vital ben Moses Melguiri (de Melgueil), – Vivas,  Völkerpsychologie,  Voltaire,  Vulgate,  Wailing Wall,  Weijers, O., ,  Weinfeld, J.S., ,  Weinreich, U.,  Weinstock, M.Y.,  Weiss, Y.H.,  Wessely, Naphtali Hertz,  Maggid hadaˇ sot,  . Whig history, ,  William de Chimilli,  William of Auvergne,  William of Moerbeke, 

index William of Ockham,  William of the Church of Saint Mary,  William the Conqueror,  William the Englishman,  wine,  Wissenschaft des Judentums,  wreath of spheres, ,  Ya#aqov ben Moˇseh Sarfati,  . Yaffe, D.,  Yehuda ben Moshe ha-Kohen,  ˇ Yehudah ben Semaryah,  Yekutiel Blitz,  Yis. haq . Albalag,  Yitzhaq . Lampronti, 



Yom-Tov . Assis,  Yonatan ben Avi#ezer Kohen,  Zachariah (son-in-law of Samuel ben Ali),  Z¯ . ahirism, , ,  Z¯ . ahirite(s), ,  school of law, ,  Z¯ahiriyya,  Zamosc, Israel Halevy, , , , ,  ˇ Zerahyah ben Yis. haq . . ben Se"alti"el Hen . (Gracian), –,  Zevin, S.Y.,  Zonta, M., , , , ,  Zut.a, , 