RESUMO – Neste estudo, procura-se mostrar, através de um autor cristão do século 10, como
comentários às obras de Aristóteles foram continuamente feitos, desde os gregos até Averróis.
Por meio de alguns textos da Metafísica, é possível perceber que, mesmo sem ter contato direto
com o original grego, foram cotejadas pelo autor diversas traduções, tanto do grego como do
siríaco. Nesses casos, tratava-se, não apenas de tradução, mas também de comentário ao texto de
Aristóteles.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Aristóteles. Metafísica.
Filosofia islâmica. Traduções para o árabe. Comentários.
ABSTRACT – In this study, we want to show, through the analysis of a Christian author of the 10th. century, how commentaries on the works of Aristotle were continuously made, from the Greek commentators until Averroes. Taking as an example some texts of the Metaphysics, we can see that, even without direct contact with the original Greek version, several translations, both from the Greek and the Syriac, were compared by the author. In those cases, it was not only a translation, but also a work of commentary on the text of Aristotle.
KEY WORDS – Aristotle. Metaphysics. Islamic philosophy. Translations into Arabic. Commentaries.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d attabi
‘a (Commentary on Alpha Elatton from Aristotle’s Books in the Metaphysics),
mentioned by al-Qifti in his Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’ (History of Learned Men) and survived
in many manuscripts, has been edited by ‘A. Badawi and M. Miºkat, together
with Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation of Aristotle’s text, which is copied in
the lemmata of Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary.1 Both are crucial in the still open
field of studies on the Graeco-Arabic transmission of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in
the 10th century Bagdad.
* Università di Padova.
1 Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics is mentioned in Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’, ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig 1903, p. 362.20. The list of the manuscripts of this work has been given by G. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, An analytical inventory, Wiesbaden 1977, pp. 38-39. It has been edited twice by M. Miºkat, Aristatalis-i hakim. Na¶ustin maqala-i Ma ba‘d attabi ‘a mawsum bi maqalat al-Alif as-sugra taræama -i Ishaq ibn ßunayn ba Yahya b. ‘Adi wa tafsir-i Ibn-i Rushd, Tehran 1346/1967 (for the manuscrips on which this edition is based cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 39) and by A. Badawi, Rasa’il falsafiyya lil-Kindi wal-Farabi wa-Ibn Baææa wa-Ibn ‘Adi, Bangazi 1393/1973 (for the manuscrips on which this edition is based cf. Introduction, p. 18).
8
First, they give a substantial contribution to the knowledge of the Arabic
translations of Alpha Elatton and of the Metaphysics as a whole, as well as to the
study of its circulation in the Arab-Muslim world. Second, they provide a key in
the analysis of the commentaries produced on the basis of the Arabic translations
of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. This is particulary important from the viewpoint of the
history of Aristotelianism, in so far as it allows us to perceive the continuity2 between
the Greek commentaries – Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the first five
books,3 Themistius’ paraphrasis of book Lambda,4 Syrianus’ commentary
on books Beta, Gamma, Mi, Ni,5 Ammonius’ lectures on the first seven books of
this treatise transcribed by Asclepius6 – and Averroes’ Great Commentary, the
Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi ‘a.7
I shall devote this paper to the critical use of sources made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi
in his Commentary on Alpha Elatton and I shall focus on the following items:
i.) Yahya ibn ‘Adi had at his disposal a more complete copy of Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation than the one which reached us through Averroes’ Great
Commentary on Metaphysics.
ii.) He did not limit himself to comment on Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation,
but also quite systematically compares the quotations of other Syriac and Arabic
translations, in order to get a good text. One of the translations which he mentions,
an ancient Arabic one, in all likelihood can be identified with Usta¢’s version
of Alpha Elatton.
In doing so, he provides us with important information about the translations
which were at the disposal of the Christian and Muslims intellectuals in the melting
pot of the 10th century Bagdad, about his way to deal with the doctrinal and
textual problems and, finally, about the method and style of composition which
caracterized the commentaries produced in his maælis (circle).8
In the 10th century Bagdad, during the decay of the ‘Abbasid caliphate and in
the following Buyid age,9 the translators were still at work: the last Greek-Arabic
2 About this “continuity” see the substantial contribution offered in C. D’Ancona Costa, Commenting
on Aristotle: from Late Antiquity to the Arab Aristotelianism, in Der Kommentar in Antike und Mittelalter.
Beiträge zu seiner Erforschung, hrsg. von W. Geerlings – Ch. Schulze, Leiden Boston Köln
2002, pp. 201-251.
3 It is well known that Alexander’s commentary on the Metaphysics, edited by M. Hayduck in the
CAG I (1891) is genuine as for books Alpha Meizon-Delta, but spurious as for books Epsilon-Ni,
which belong to Michael of Ephesus’work. See C. Luna, Trois études sur la tradition des commentaires
anciens à la, Métaphysique‘ d’Aristote, (Philosophia Antiqua 88), Leiden 2001.
4 Themistii In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Librum L Paraprasis Hebraice et Latine, edited by S. Landauer,
CAG V 5 (1903).
5 Syriani In Metaphysica Commentaria, edited by G. Kroll, CAG VI 1 (1902).
6 Asclepii In Aristotelis Metaphysicorum Libros A-Z Commentaria, edited by M. Hayduck, CAG VI 2
(1888).
7 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, Texte arabe inédit, établi par Maurice Bouyges, Bibliotheca
Arabica Scholasticorum, Beyrouth 1938-1948.
8 Cf. C. Martini Bonadeo, Un commento ad Alpha Elatton ‘sicut litterae sonant’ nella Bagdad del X
secolo, «Medioevo», XXIX (2003), pp. 69-96.
9 Cf. G. Endress, An introduction to Islam, Edinburgh 1988, pp. 122-123; about the early Buyid Era cf.
J. L. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, The Cultural Revival during the Buyid Age,
9
translations belong to this period. These last followers of the long translation
movement undertook also the revision of some of the already available Arabic
translations of Greek philosophical works. In addition, an increasingly autonomous
and original philosophical discussion was moving its first steps.10 In this context,
we meet Yahya ibn ‘Adi.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi (Abu Zakariyya Yahya ibn ‘Adi ibn ßamid ibn Zakariyya at-
Takriti al-Mantiqi, 893-974) is well known through the works of the ancients Arab
biographers.11 He belonged to a Jacobite Christian family of Takrit, an old metropolis
of the East, situated on the right bank of the Tigris to the north of
Samarra’, between Mausil and Bagdad. Later on he moved to Bagdad aiming at
studying logic, philosophy and theology: from Ibn an-Nadim who was in close
contact with him, and from al-Qifti, we know that in Bagdad Yahya ibn ‘Adi had
as his teacher the Nestorian philosopher Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus and then Abu
Nasr al-Farabi became his teacher.12 Yahya ibn ‘Adi himself summarised in a
compendium the whole corpus of al-Farabi’s works.13 Probably he also got in
touch, for a short time, with Muhammad ibn Zakariyya ar-Razi: al-Mas‘udi reports
that Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s thought was rooted in ar-Razi’s metaphysical theory based
on the doctrine of the “Pythagoreans” about first philosophy.14
He seems to have worked as a professional copyist and bookseller, a job he
inherited from his father; in addition, he was a collector of manuscripts. Ibn an-
Nadim himself tells us that he read many books in the handwriting (bi-¶att) of
Yahya Ibn ‘Adi and that he got acquainted with many texts in the catalogue of his
books, written in his own hand.15
Leiden 1986, pp. 31-102. About socio-economic distress and cultural vigor in Bagdad cf. Kraemer,
Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, cit., p. 26-27.
10 M. Nasir Bin Omar, Christian Translators in Medieval Islamic Baghdad: the Life and Works of Yahya
Ibn ‘Adi, in The Islamic Quarterly, XXXIX 3 (1995), pp. 167-181.
11 Through the works of the ancients bio-bibliographers and the manuscripts like Paris, Bibliothèque
Nationale, ar. 2346 and Leiden, Universiteitsbiblioteek, or. 583, E. Platti in Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien
chrétien et philosophe arabe, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 14, Department Orientaliestiek,
Leuven 1983, has reconstructed a vivid portrait of this Christian teacher, apologist and prime-order
philosopher and Endress in The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., wrote a complete and precious inventory
of his works. The bio-bibliographers who mention Yahya Ibn ‘Adi are al-Mas‘udi (at-Tanbih
wa’l-Ishraf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden 1893, p. 122.10-14), Ibn an-Nadim (Kitab al-fihrist, ed. G.
Flügel, Leipzig 1871-1872, p. 264.5-14), Abu ßayyan at-Tawhidi (al-Muqabasat, éd. M. Tawfiq
ßusayn, Bagdad 1970, 13, p. 103.2-16; 14, pp. 104.2-105.5; 48, pp. 204.9-205.12; 49, pp. 207-208;
89, p. 334.6-335.3; Kitab al-Imta’ wal-mu’anasa, edd. A. Amin and A. az-Zayn, æuz’ 1, p. 37.6-9; 2,
p. 38.13-17), al-Qifti (Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, ed. J. Lippert, Leipzig 1903, pp. 361.8-364.2), Ibn Abi
Usaibi‘a (‘Uyun al-anba’ fi tabaqat al-atibba’, ed. A. Müller, Cairo – Königsberg 1882, p. 235.9-28),
al-Bayhaqi (Tatimmat ≠iwan al-ßikma, ed. M. ªafi’, Lahore 1935, p. 906-11) See in Endress, The
Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp.1-9, all the references to the sources.
12 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flügel, cit., p. 264.5-7; ed. R. Taæaddud, Tehran 1971, p.
475.11-13. Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 361.9-12.
13 Al-Bayhaqi, Tatimmat ≠iwan al-ßikma, ed. M. ªafi’, cit., p. 90.6.
14 Al-Mas‘udi, at-Tanbih wa’l-Ishraf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, cit., p. 122. 10-24; ed. ‘A. I. As-≠awi, Cairo
19382, p. 106.2-5.
15 Cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp. 6-7. In the Fihrist there is the following anecdote:
once at Suq al-Warraqin Ibn an-Nadim criticised Yahya ibn ‘Adi for his copying so much. Yahya
ibn ‘Adi replied that his patience was hardly to be marveled at. He has transcribed two copies
10
He became after Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus and Abu Nasr al-Farabi the ra’is
(the chief) and the usta™ (the teacher) of the maælis16 in Bagdad. In this maælis
members of different religious affiliation,17 following the teaching of Abu Biºr
Matta ibn Yunus and Abu Nasr al-Farabi,18 were involved in copying and translating
ancient philosophical and scientific texts as well as in editing them, as we can
see in the mss Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, ar. 234619 and Leiden, Universiteitsbiblioteek,
or. 58320 containing respectively Ibn Suwar’s edition of the Organon
and Ibn as-Samh’s edition of the Physics. They were also involved in philosophical
speculation about the problem of the relationship between philosophy and religious
doctrine.21 They produced the last Greek-Arabic translations like books
Lambda and Mi of the Metaphysics and undertook the revision of some of the
already available Arabic translations of Greek philosophical works and particularly
of Aristotelian works. Ibn Abi Usaibi‘a tells us that Yahya ibn ‘Adi had an excellent
knowledge of the technique of translation and translated from Syriac into
Arabic.22
of the at-tabari’s Tafsir which he has taken to the kings of the frontiers, and he has copied innumerable
works of the mutakallimun, working day at night, writing a hundred pages every day (cf.
Ibn an-Nadim, Fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 264. 8-10; ed. Taæaddud, p. 322.20-23).
16 Cf. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, cit., pp. 6, 55-57, 103-206. One could immagine
this maælis like an informal circle guided by a spirit of friendship in which the partecipants were
motivated by a shared commitment to reason and a mutual interest in the sciences of the Ancients.
“The school consisted of a teacher, his home, books, colleagues, pupils and occasional visitors. The
teacher sometimes met with individuals or small groups […]. On special occasions, large assemblies
were convened for discussions. The teacher often dictated texts, usually adding his own comments.
In discussion sessions a question was initially proposed and then theses and antitheses
stated in turn. The procedure of question and answer is reminiscent ζ0JZμ”J” i” 8ύFg4H of Hellenistic
age”.
17 There were the Christians – ‘ƒsa ibn Zur‘a (d. 1008; cf. Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance of
Islam, cit., pp. 117-123), Ibn Suwar (d. 1017; ibidem, pp. 123-130), Ibn as-Samh (d.1027; ibidem, pp.
130-132) – more involved in textual studies, due to their bilingual Syriac-Arabic education, and the
Muslims – Abu Sulayman as-Siæistani (d. 985; ibidem, pp. 139-165), Abu ßayyan at-Tawhidi (d.
1023; ibidem, pp. 213-222).
18 Unfortunately we don’t know what was the exact curriculum of studies and the precise canon of
readings in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s school. Probably the curriculum was humanistic and included grammar,
poetry, rhetoric, logic, ethics, politics, physics, mathematics and metaphysics: it was based
on the Aristotelian classification of the sciences (cf. Top. VI 6, 145a15-16, Top. VIII 1, 157a10-11,
Metaph. a 1, 993b20-21, Metaph. L 9, 1075a1-2, Metaph. E 1, 1025 b 18-25), but of course it was influenced
by al-Farabi’s one presented in his Ihsa’ al-‘ulum (cf. Al-Farabi, Ihsa’ al-‘ulum, ed. by ‘U.
Amin, Cairo 1968, pp. 9-12) which included Arabic-Islamic sciences like fiqh and kalam.
19 Cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 32-34.
20 Cf. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 35-38 and Kraemer, Humanism in the Renaissance
of Islam, cit., p. 109.
21 The theology-philosophy relationship in the thought of Yahya ibn ‘Adi and in the interests of his
school was object of a debate between G. Graf and A. Périer. In the opinion of Graf, Yahya ibn ‘Adi
conceived of philosophy as the ancilla theologiae; on the contrary, Périer maintains that also in his
theological works Yahya ibn ‘Adi was first a philosopher and only secondarily a defensor fidei in favour
of the Jacobite Church. In fact, following the teaching of al-Farabi, Yahya ibn ‘Adi considered
the theological notions as symbols of philosophical concepts. Cf. A. Périer, Yahya Ibn ‘Adi; un philosophe
arabe chrétien du Xe siècle, Paris 1920, p. 82.
22 Ibn Abi Usaibi‘a, ‘Uyun al-anba’ fi tabaqat al-atibba’, cit., vol. I, p. 235. 12.
11
He is credited with the following translations of Aristotelian and related
works: the Arabic version of Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s Syriac translation of the Topics
together with the Commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on books I and V-VIII
and Ammonius’ Commentary on books I-IV,23 the Arabic version of the Sophistici
elenchi from the Syriac translation of Theophylus of Edessa,24 the version of a
Syriac translation of the Physics, book II, together with the Commentary of Alexander
of Aphrodisias,25 the version of Alexander’s Commentary on the Meteorology,
26 and finally the versions of books Lambda and Mi of Aristotle’s Metaphysics.
27 According to Ibn an-Nadim, Yahya ibn ‘Adi translated book Mi of Aristotle’s
treatise on first philosophy and Averroes quotes in his Tafsir the translation of
book Lambda by Yahya ibn ‘Adi (1070a2-7).28
If we give a look in the knowledge of the Aristotelian philosophy in Yahya ibn
‘Adi’s school and in the specific role played by Yahya ibn ‘Adi in promoting it, the
picture we can desume is amazing. Aristotle’s Organon, which incorporated Porphyry’s
Eisagoge, was well known.29 From the Fihrist we learn that Abu Sulayman
as-Siæistani al-Mantiqi had asked Yahya ibn ‘Adi to translate the Categories and
the Commentary of Alexander on them.30 From the Paris manuscript of the Organon
mentioned above, we know that Ibn Suwar used Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s copy of
Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation and Yahya ibn ‘Adi himself composed a Commentary
on the Categories, based in part on Simplicius’one, which is cited by Ibn
Suwar in his critical notes.31 Yahya ibn ‘Adi used the Commentary of his teacher
Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus on the Prior Analytics, as appears from the notes included
in the Paris manuscript.32 According to a colophon of the Arabic translation
of the Posterior Analytics, Ibn Suwar used for his edition the copies of the
Arabic versions made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi and ‘ƒsa ibn Zur‘a.33 Yahya ibn ‘Adi
23 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 249.17-21; ed. Taæaddud, pp. 309.27-310.4; al-
Qifti, Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., pp. 36.18-37.7. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical
inventory, cit, pp. 25-26, 34.
24 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 249.27; ed. Taæaddud, p. 310.9; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 37.14. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit, pp. 26-
27 e nota 7.
25 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 250.8-11; ed. Taæaddud, p. 310.19-22; al-Qifti,
Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 38.10-15. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory,
cit, p. 27.
26 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 251.9; ed. Taæaddud, p. 309.23; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 41.5. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit, p. 29.
27 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 251.26; ed. Taæaddud, p. 312.13; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 41.23. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit., pp. 27-
28.
28 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p. 1463.3-8.
29 Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi. An analytical inventory, cit., pp. 25-28, 32-34.
30 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 248. 24-25; ed. Taæaddud, p. 454.9-10; al-Qifti,
Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 35.10-12.
31 F. E. Peters, Aristoteles Arabus. The Oriental Translations and Commentaries on the Aristotelian
Corpus, Leiden 1968, pp. 8-10.
32 Peters, Aristoteles Arabus, cit., p. 16.
33 Peters, Aristoteles Arabus, cit., p. 18.
12
wrote his own Commentary on the Topics.34 He probably wrote a Commentary on
the Sophistici elenchi.35 And finally he revised the version of Poetics by Abu Biºr
Matta ibn Yunus.36
Yahya ibn ‘Adi revised an earlier translation of the Physics, book I.37 Ibn an-
Nadim in the Fihrist says that Yahya ibn ‘Adi translated or revised the Arabic
translation of Themistius’ Commentary on De Caelo et Mundo.38 He also corrected
the Arabic translation of Olympiodorus’ Commentary on De Generatione et Corruptione
made by Abu Biºr Matta ibn Yunus.39
Finally, al-Qifti notes that Yahya ibn ‘Adi wrote a Commentary on Alpha Elatton40
of Aristotle’s Metaphysics: our Tafsir lil-maqala l-ula min kitab Aristutalis almawsum
bi-Matafusiqa ay fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a wa-hiya l-mawsuma bi-Alif assugra.
41
We get from the accounts of Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s activity given by the biographers
the impression that he was first of all a commentator and a translator of
Aristotle.42 Yahya ibn ‘Adi and his pupils seem to share in the critical attitude of
ßunayn ibn Ishaq’s circle in editing the texts of the ancient Greek philosophers,
although they did not have any direct access to the Greek sources. I shall add
some pieces of evidence to this claim in what follows, through an analysis of the
critical use of sources made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi in his Commentary on Alpha Elatton.
(i)
In order to prove (1) that for his commentary Yahya ibn ‘Adi uses Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation of Alpha Elatton, (2) that Averroes too uses this translation in
his Great Commentary and (3) that the translation which is survived in Yahya ibn
‘Adi’s text is more complete, I’d like to focus on two examples.
34 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 264.12; ed. Taæaddud, p. 322.24; Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 362.1; Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 34; Peters, Aristoteles
Arabus., cit., p. 23-24.
35 Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 34, reports Ibn Suwar’s following note: “The excellent
Yahya ibn ‘Adi worked on a commentary of this book; I saw a large part of it – about two
thirds, according to my estimate – in Syriac and Arabic. I think that he completed it, but the copy
was not found among his books after his death. I have not made up my mind what to think about
this matter; sometimes I suppose that he destroyed the book because he was not satisfied with it;
but I am more inclined to think that it was stolen.”
36 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 250.4; ed. Taæaddud, p. 310.16; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 38.4. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 28.
37 For the accurate work on the Physica in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s school see Endress, The Works of Yahya
ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp. 35-38, and P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics and its Reception in the Arabic World,
Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus 7, Leiden NewYork Koln 1994, pp. 4-6, 14-31 and Appendix 2 p. 33.
38 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 250.30; ed. Taæaddud, p. 311.13; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 40.3. Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., pp. 29-30. This work in not suvived,
but it was available to Averroes.
39 Ibn an-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, cit., ed. Flügel, p. 251.5; ed. Taæaddud, p., 311.19; al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ alhukama’,
cit., p. 40.20; Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 30.
40 Al-Qifti, Ta’ri¶ al-hukama’, cit., p. 362.20; Endress, The Works of Yahya ibn ‘Adi, cit., p. 38-39.
41 Cf. note 1.
42 Cf. E. Platti, Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe, cit., p. 19.
13
See the passage in Metaph. a 993b 23-27:43
@Ûi ËFμg< *¥ JÎ •802¥H –<gL J0)H “ÆJ”H Ê)i”FJ@< *¥ μV84FJ” “ÛJÎ JT)<
–88T< i”2’Ó i” J@4)H –88@4H ßBVDPg4 JÎ FL<f<Lμo< (@Ë@< JÎ BL)D
2gDμ`J”J@< i” (D J@4)H –88@4H JÎ “ËJ4o< J@L)J@ J0)H 2gDμ`J0J@H)
òFJg i” •802XFJ”J@< JÎ J@4)H ßFJXD@4H J@L) •802XF4<.
In this passage Aristotle says that we do not know the truth without its cause
and that a thing has a quality in a highest degree with respect to other things if
the given quality belongs to others thing in virtue of it. Aristotle proposes the
example of fire: it is the hottest thing, for it is the cause of the heat of all other
things which are hot. Consequently, that which causes derivative truths to be true
is the absolute instance of truth. The Greek text of the example of fire (993b 25-26)
seen above is the following:
@Ê)@< JÎ BL)D 2gDμ`J”J@< i” (D J@4)H –88@4H
JÎ “ÇJ4o< J@L)J@ J0)H 2gDμ`J0J@H.
What we find in Averroes’ lemma is only the first part of this sentence, i.e.: «mi¢alu ™alika n-naru fi gayati l-hararati; as the fire is the hottest».44 However, in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s text the Aristotelian passage appears in his entirely: «wa-mi¢alu ™alika anna n-nara fi gayati l-hararati wa-™alika
annaha hiya l-‘illatu fi hararati sa’iri l-aºya’i l-harrati; as the fire is the hottest and
it is the cause of being hot for the other hot things».45 Another example is given by Metaph. a 994b 27-31:46
•88 μ¬< i” gÆ –Bg4DV (’²)F”< B8Z2g4 J gÇ*0 JT)< “ÆJT<, @Ûi –<
²)< @Û*’@àJT JÎ (4(<fFig4< J`Jg (D gÆ*X<“4 @Æ`μg2” ÓJ”< J “ÇJ4”
(<TDFTμg< JÎ *’–Bg4D@< i”J J¬< BD`F2gF4< @Ûi §FJ4< ¦<
BgBgD”FμX<å *4g>g82g4)<.
In this passage Aristotle is saying that “if the kinds of causes had been infinite
in number, then also knowledge would have been impossible; because we
think to know, only when we have ascertained the causes; but that which is infinite
by addition cannot be gone through in a finite time”. The last sentence
JÎ *’–Bg4D@< i”J J¬< BD`F2gF4< @Ûi §FJ4< ¦< BgBgD”FμX<å *4g>g82g4)<
– is translated in Averroes’ lemma as follows: «wa-la yumkinu l-mutanahi an
yaæuza ma la nihayatu la-hu; it is not possible that what is infinite passes through
the finite ».47 The translation of Aristotle’s passage in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s text is
identical with the one used by Averroes, as for the first part of the sentence: «wa-
43 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, A revised text with introduction and commentary by D. Ross, Clarendon
Press, Oxford 1924.
44 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p.13.1.
45 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
24.15-16. In Badawi’s edition, the passage in Aristotle’s lemma is not complete and we can find the
same text we read in Averroes’ lemma, but in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary the lemma is quoted in
its entirely (ed. Badawi, pp. 177.1, 178.1-2).
46 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
47 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi ‘a, cit., p. 41.4.
14
la yumkinu l-mutanahi an yaæuza ma la nihayatu la-hu», but also the words
i”J J¬< BD`F2gF4< are translated in «‘ala tariqi t-tazayyudi; in the way of
addition», at variance with what happens in Averroes.48
The two examples suggest that Yahya ibn ‘Adi made use of a copy of Ishaq’s
translation, which was more complete than the one which Averroes had at his
disposal.
(ii)
In his comments Yahya ibn ‘Adi cites, in quite a systematic comparison with
IsÌaq’s version, other Syriac and Arabic translations. A good example of this careful
attitude is his Commentary on Metaph. a 994a11-19:49
JT)< (D μXFT<, ñ)< ¦FJ J4 §FP”J@< i” BD`JgD@<, •<“(i”4)@< gÆ)<“4
JÎ BD`JgD@< “ÇJ4@< JT)< μgJ’”ÛJ`. gÆ (D gÆBg4)< ºμ”H *X@4 J JT)<
JD4T)< “ÇJ4@<, JÎ BDT)J@< ¦D@L)μg< @Û (D *¬ J` (’§FP”J@<, @Û*g<ÎH
(D JÎ Jg8gLJ”4)@< •88 μ¬< @Û*¥ JÎ μXF@<, ©<ÎH (VD (@Û2¥< *¥
*4″nXDg4 «< ´ B8gT gÆ)<“4, @Û*’–Bg4D” ´ BgBgD”FμX<“). JT)<
*z•BgDT< J@L)J@< JÎ< JD`B@< i” Ó8TH J@L) •BgD@L BV<J” J μ`D4″
μXF” Òμ@TH μXPD4 J@L) <L)< òFJ’gÇBgD μ0*X< ¦FJ4 BDT)J@<, Ó8TH “ÇJ4@<
@Û*X< ¦FJ4<.
In this passage Aristotle says that when we are speaking about a finite series
in which there are intermediates, the prior element in the series must be the cause
of the subsequent elements. For if we have to say which element is the cause, we
should say the first; surely not the last, for the final term is the cause of none; nor
even the intermediate, for it is the cause only of one. (It makes no difference
whether there is one intermediate or more, nor whether they are infinite or finite in
number.) Now, let’s imagine a series which is infinite: in this case, all the elements
preceding the one we are considering at present are intermediates; consequently,
if there is no first element, there is no cause at all.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi has in front of him the literal translation of Ishaq, which grants
a correct understanding of these lines50 and in fact he has a full comprehension of
the problem discussed by Aristotle, as we can see from the beginning of his
Commentary:51
48 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
80.6-7; ed. Badawi, p. 196.9.
49 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
50 Cf. J. N. Mattock, The early translations from Greek into Arabic: an experiment in comparative
assessment, Akten des Zweiten Symposium Graeco-Arabicum, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 101-102 and
my La tradizione araba dei primi due libri della Metafisica di Aristotele: Libri a -A, in Aristotele e
Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba, a cura di C. D’Ancona e G. Serra, Padova 2002, pp.
75-112.
51 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, pp.
36.14-5, 38.1-10, 40.2-17; ed. Badawi, pp. 181.1-13, 181.21-23, 182.1-13.
15
His aim in this section is to clarify that the causes precede by nature their effects
and the causes are prior to them, and that the effects are posterior to causes.
For him it will become clear by this fact that if there is nothing which is first and
which has not anything prior to it, there is no cause at all and, in this case, if there
is no cause, there are no effects; but it is clear and evident that the effects exist.
Therefore it is necessary that the causes exist and the first exists necessarily. And
since the first exists, it is clear that the causes exist before, and this is what Aristotle
intended to demonstrate, and for this reason he added this explanation and
said: “About intermediates, which have a last term and a term prior to them, the
prior must be the cause of the later terms”. So it is clear that the intermediates
have a prior and a last term, if they are exactly what is intermediate between two
extremes; and in the same way it is also evident that the prior is, among these
three terms, the cause of the others two which follow. For this reason he says: “It
is absolutely necessary that the prior is the cause of the later terms”. Then he
says: “When we ask which of the three is the cause?”, we answer “The first”…
Then he begins to add evidence to this theory by saying: “Surely the last is
not the cause, for it is the cause of none; nor even the intermediate is cause of the
three terms, for it is the cause only of one of them”. This is evident and he speaks
clearly about it.
Then he says: “It makes no difference whether there is one intermediate or
more, nor whether they are infinite or finite in number, and the parts of the things
which are infinite in this way, and all the infinite parts are intermediates in this
way down to that now present”. It means that there is no difference, in order to
the fact that is absolutely necessary that the prior is cause of the later terms, if the
intermediate, between two extremes, is one, or the intermediates are more, and if
they are finite in number or infinite. And he adds to his passage: “and the parts of
the things which are infinite in this way”, in order to distinguish the intermediates
between two extremes: whether some are only causes, some are only effects, and
some others causes and effects together, or whether they are only intermediates in
a series, like the parts of the time, of speeches or of things like that. And then he
says: “and all the infinite parts are intermediates in this way”: this means that
there is no difference among them, for they are intermediates and his speech
“down to that now present” means up to finish with the last that is only an effect”.
At this point, Yahya says:52
It is necessary to know that in this part of the speech which in Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation begins with “It makes no difference whether there is one
intermediate or more” and finishes with “down to that now present” I have found
in another ancient Arabic translation this quotation: “It makes no difference
52 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fî Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
42.1-9; ed. Badawi, p. 182.14-22.
16
whether the first cause is one or more, nor whether the causes are finite or infinite
in number, because all the parts of what is infinite are in this way, and all the
parts of what is infinite are now intermediates in the same way”.
Besides I have found that the same quotation in Syriac sounds in this way: “It
makes no difference for one thing to say that the causes are one or more, nor to
say that they are infinite or finite and all the infinite parts and the parts of what is
infinite in this way are intermediates down to that now present”.
So, Yahya ibn ‘Adi makes use of two additional translations: a Syriac version
and an Arabic version. Ishaq’s translation is quite different from the other two
especially as their respective rendering of Metaph. a.994a16:53
(@Û2¥< *¥*4″nXDg4 «< ´ B8gT gÆ)<“4, @Û*’–Bg4D” ´ BgBgD”FμX<“).
In Ishaq’s version this line sounds as follows: «wa-la farqa bayna an yakuna
mutawassitun wahidun wa-bayna an yakuna l-mutawassitatu ak¢ara min wahidin
wa-la bayna an takuna mutanahiyatan wa-bayna an takuna gayr mutanahiyatin; it
makes no difference whether there is one intermediate or more, nor whether they
are infinite or finite in number ».54 In the other Arabic translation we find the following
translation: «wa-la ¶ilafa fi an yakuna l-‘illatu l-ula wahidatan aw ka¢iratan
wa-la fi an takuna ™a nihayatin aw la nihayata la-ha; it makes no difference
whether the first cause is one or more, nor whether the causes are finite or infinite
in number».55 This translation is probably Usta¢’s one.56 This conclusion is suggested
by the comparison between the text given by Yahya and Usta¢’s version,
which is preserved in the margins of the Leiden manuscript Universiteitsbibliotheek,
or. 2074 (cod. arab. 1692): «wa-la ¶ilafa fi an yakuna l-‘illatu l-ula wahidatan
aw ka¢iratan wa-la fi an takuna ™at nihayatin aw la nihayata la-ha».57
In his commentary Yahya ibn ‘Adi proves to be an experienced reader of Aristotle
and makes sense of these two different translations explaining the concept of
cause. It does not matter if the first cause is one or if there are more, provided that
we do not understand the word “cause” in the meaning of the first cause in the
four genders described by Aristotle. In fact, such a cause is prior and it is cause of
everything between it and the last term. Such a cause cannot be intermediate,
because nothing comes before it. But the word “cause” can be understood in the
sense of an intermediate cause. Yahya ibn ‘Adi observes that the word “intermediate”
has two different meanings: the first when we mean the intermediates in a
series – like the parts of time or of a speech –, the second when we mean the
intermediates which are between the first cause and the last effect. In this second
53 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
54 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
36.7-9, ed. Badawi, p. 180.17-19. Cf. Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p. 19.1-3.
55 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
42.3-4, ed. Badawi, p. 182. 16-18.
56 Cf. C. Martini, La tradizione araba dei primi due libri della Metafisica di Aristotele: Libri a -A, cit., p.
103.
57 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., v (marginal version), p. 19.2-3.
17
meaning as much as the intermediate is close to the first cause, it is cause of the
cause that comes after it. Later on Yahya ibn ‘Adi concludes.58
Then Aristotle says: “Necessarily if there is no first there is no cause at all”,
because the condition of the cause is to be prior to his effects, and if there is no
first there is no cause at all.59
With this explanation, Yahya ibn ‘Adi has recourse to another passage of Aristotle’s
text strictly related with the one mentioned above, in which Aristotle
explains the double meaning of “one thing comes from another”. See Metaph. a
994a22-24:60
*4PT)H (D ((<gJ”4 J`*g ¦i J@L)*g – μ¬61 ñH J`*g 8X(gJ”4 μgJ J`*g,
@Ê)@< ¦> ’IF2μT< ’O8bμB4″, •88’´ ñH ¦i B”4*ÎH •<¬D μgJ”$V88@<J@H
´ ñH ¦> à*”J@H •ZD.
Aristotle says that the first meaning of “one thing comes from another” is in
the sense in which “from” means “after”, as in the case of the calendar of the
Greek games. The second meaning implies that something comes into being (with
– in the case of water – or without – in the case of man – the destruction of the
pre-existent thing). Yahya ibn ‘Adi has in front of him Ishaq’s version, which presents
a gap in this passage, and does not give any example for the sense of
“from” as a chronological succession.62
In his Commentary, he says:63
58 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
44.1-3, ed. Badawi, p. 183.8-10.
59 The discussion about the Aristotelian doctrine of causes was a pivotal theme among the falasifa
and in Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s school. For example, at-Tawhidi in the 13th record of his Muqabasat records
a discussion between Yahya ibn ‘Adi and al-Badihi on the following argument: «al-‘illa qabl
al-ma‘lul» (cf. at-Tawhidi, Al-Muqabasat, cit., 13, p. 103; cf E. Platti, Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien
chrétien et philosophe arabe, cit., p. 12).
60 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
61 In Ab (Laurentianus 87.12 saec. XII) we find ³. In E1 (Parisinus gr. 1853 saec. X) we find littera erasa.
In mss. E2 (Parisinus gr. 1853), J (Vindobonensis phil. gr. C saec. X ineuntis) and in Alp (Alexandri interpretatio
vel paraphrasis) we find μ¬. M¬ is the text accepted by Ross (Aristotle’s Metaphysics,
ed. Ross, cit.), whereas Jaeger (Aristotelis Metaphysica, recognovit brevique adnotatione critica instruxit
W. Jaeger, Oxonii MCMLVII) follows the reading ³.
62 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
44.14-16 and note 4, ed. Badawi, p. 184.1-3. In Ishaq’s version survived in Averroès’ Tafsir Ma ba‘d
at-tabi‘a there is not any gap and we find: «ma yuqalu ad-dababu min al-bu¶ari». Perhaps this is a
correction produced in the text by the copist; cf. Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., p. 23.3; cf.
R. Walzer, On the Arabic Versions of books A, a and L of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, «Harvard Studies
in Classical Philology», 63 (1958), pp. 217-231, (also in R. Walzer, Greek into Arabic Essays on Islamic
Philosophy, Oxford 1963, pp. 114-128); cf. J. N. Mattock, The early translations from Greek
into Arabic: an experiment in comparative assessment, cit., pp. 100-101; cf. C. Martini, La tradizione
araba dei primi due libri della Metafisica di Aristotele: Libri a -A, cit., pp. 104-107.
63 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
48.15-17; ed. Badawi, p. 185. 6-9.
18
It is necessary to know that I have found, in a different Arabic translation from
Ishaq’s one, an integration: “like for example it is said that fog comes after the
steam”, whereas in a Syriac translation I have found, instead of this example,
these precise words: “like the see is from the mountain”. Ishaq’s passage is incomplete
and it needs an example.
It is worth noting that Yahya ibn ‘Adi is properly editing his text. He finds an
integration of a different Arabic translation, probably Usta¢’s version, in which the
first example of the calendar of Greek games is rendered through a different image,
namely, the couple fog-steam, which seems to imply a causal relation:
«mi¢alu ma yuqalu ad-dababu ba‘da l-bu¶ari».64 But he has also a Syriac text,
which gives a less clear example: the see from the mountain.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi explains this textual situation assuming that these two images
are perfectly equivalent, because they are related to a process of condensation and
aggregation after – in the chronological meaning adopted, for istance, by Empedocles
and Anaxagoras – the rarefaction and the disgregation. He says:65
These two examples which I have mentioned, also if they are different, coincide
for the reason that between the two parts of everyone of them there is a contrariety
that is the condensation and the congregation after the rarefaction and the
disgregation.
Let’s proceed to the last example I would like to give of Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s attitude
to compare different translations. In his Commentary the last line of Metaph.
a. 995a19-2066 – i” gÆ μ4″H ¦B4FJZμ0H ´ B8g4`<T< J “ÇJ4″ i” JH •DPH
2gTD0)F” ¦FJ4< –
appears in Ishaq’s literal translation as follow: «wa-hal
yanbagi an nanzura fi ‘ilalin wa-awa’ila li-‘ilmin wahidin aw li-‘ulumin ak¢ara min
wahidin».67 In this line Aristotle is wondering whether the study of causes and
principles belongs to only one science or to more.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi says:68
It is necessary to know that this last part can be found only in Ishaq ibn
ßunayn’s translation. I have not found it in any Syriac translation, or in any other
Arabic different translation from Ishaq’s one; and here it is not appropriate.
64 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
48.15-16; ed. Badawi, p. 185.7. Cf. Usta¢’s translation in Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., v
(marginal version), p. 23.2: «mi¢la ma yuqalu ad-dababa min al-bu¶ari».
65 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
50.1-3; ed. Badawi, p. 185.9-11.
66 Aristotle’s Metaphysics, ed. Ross, cit.
67 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
98.15-16; ed. Badawi, p. 202.6-7. Cf. Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., pp. 49.11-50.1.
68 Yahya ibn ‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., ed. Miºkat, p.
100.2-4; ed. Badawi, p. 202.9-11.
19
In this case Yahya ibn ‘Adi has at his disposal this passage only in Ishaq’s
version, because it is not preserved in any other Syriac or Arabic version. Could
this mean that he had more than one Syriac and more than one Arabic translation?
Note that in this case he is wrong in thinking that Ishaq’s version is not
correct.
Conclusions
We are now in a position to draw some conclusions, both about the critical
use of sources made by Yahya ibn ‘Adi and about the method and style of composition
which characterized the commentaries produced in his school, as well as
Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s way to deal with the doctrinal and textual problems.
Through Yahya ibn ‘Adi’s commentary on Alpha Elatton, we get a text of
Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation which appears to be more complete then the one
reflected in Averroes’ Great Commentary on the Metaphysics.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi in more than one case compares the quotations of other Syriac
and Arabic translations in order to get a good text.
Commenting on Metaph. a 994a11-19 he uses two additional translations: a
Syriac version and an Arabic one which can be identified with Usta¢’s version of
Alpha Elatton. The three translations present some differences and Yahya ibn ‘Adi
makes an effort to make sense of this textual situation.
In the case of Metaph a 94a22-24, Yahya ibn ‘Adi makes an effort to establish
a good text by comparing Ishaq’s version, which presents a gap, with two different
translations. He uses an Arabic translation, which is probably Usta¢’s one, and
also a Syriac source.
Finally, in his Commentary of Metaph a 995a19-20 we are told that he has at
his disposal this passage only in Ishaq’s version and that he has not found other
Syriac or Arabic versions. This could mean that he has more than one Syriac and
more than one Arabic translation.
Yahya ibn ‘Adi’ approach in editing and commenting Alpha Elatton seems to
be very careful indeed. He and his pupils continued, as Platti said,69 the critical
attitude of the circle of ßunayn ibn Ishaq in editing the texts of the ancient Greek
philosophers, although they did not have any direct access to the Greek sources.
A more complete analysis of this Commentary, both in form and philosophical
contents, proves to be important in order to evaluate both the continuity and the
differences in the trasmission of Aristotle’s thought and particularly of Aristotle’s
doctrine of causes.
From this viewpoint, Alpha Elatton counts as a preferred observatory: reconstructing
its history is possible, almost without a break from Alexander to
Averroes and even later, through the Greek commentaries,70 the VIII-IXth century
69 Platti, Yahya ibn ‘Adi, théologien chrétien et philosophe arabe, cit., p. 27.
70 Cf. notes 2 and 5.
translation of Alpha Elatton made by Usta¢ for al-Kindi,71 the IX-Xth century one
made by Ishaq ibn ßunayn,72 this commentary by Yahya ibn ‘Adi,73 the paraphrase
of Metaph. a 2 by Avicenna (Ilahiyyat, VIII, 1-3),74 the Averroes’ Great
Commentary75 and finally the XIIIth century paraphrase by ‘Abd al-Latif al-
Bagdadi.76 Through a comparative analysis of the stylistic corrispondances and of
the argomentations of theese texts, it should be possible to reconstruct this important
segment in the history of Aristotelianism. This does not involve only a source
hunting, within the framework of a passive reception of Aristotle’though among
Arabs. On the contrary, such a research involves the attitude with which the Arabs
faced the study of Aristotle, the focal meanings and the most original developments
around which they commented Aristotle’s text and, finally, the linguistic
and doctrinal adaptations which characterized the Arabic tradition of Aristotle’s
doctrine of causes.
71 Usta¢’s translation is in Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit.
72 Ishaq ibn ßunayn’s translation is edited in Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., and in Yahya ibn
‘Adi, Tafsir al-Alif as-sugra min kutub Aristutalis fi Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit., in the two editions by
Badawi and by Miºkat.
73 Cf. note 1.
74 Ibn Sina, Al-Shifa. Al-Ilahiyyat (1), texte établi et édité par G.C. Anawati et S. Zayed, Le Caire 1960;
Ibn Sina, Al-ªifa. Al-Ilahiyyat (2), texte établi et édité par M. Y. Moussa, S. Dunya et S. Zayed, Le
Caire 1960.
75 Averroès, Tafsir Ma ba‘d at-tabi‘a, cit.
76 A. Neuwirth, Neue Materialien zur Arabischen Tradition der beiden ersten Metaphysik Bücher
“welt des Islam,” 18, 1-2 (1977-78), pp. 84-100.
20