Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Pupils of the Eye / Herman F. Janssens

Posted by on May 13, 2016 in Library | Comments Off on Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Pupils of the Eye / Herman F. Janssens

Bar Hebraeus’ Book of the Pupils of the Eye
Author(s): Herman F. Janssens
Source: The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Oct., 1930), pp. 26-49
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL:
Accessed: 12-05-2016 19:40 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


BY HERMAN F. JANSSENS University of Liege, Belgium


The ?I 1= ., or Book of the Pupils of the Eye, one of Bar Hebraeus’ minor writings, is a compendium of logic, dealing, in a succinct way, with the essential points of Aristotle’s Organon.

It has been asserted that the title of this little treatise has bearing upon the exceptional value of its contents, logic being, according to medieval views on the subject, the most important part of philosophy, and, indeed, almost as precious as eyesight itself.’ There is, however, some Syriac textual evidence which hints at the possibility of another explanation, and a few lines in Paulus Persa’s Introduction to Phi- losophy2 are perhaps not altogether unconnected with the reason why Bar Hebraeus’ exposition of logic is called the Book of the Pupils of the

Persa’s text may be translated as follows:

All good things, likewise the world, are made and managed by wisdom, as also the eye of the soul, although it be blind, and denuded of the power of material seeing, is enlightened and made human by this very same thing alone, which is better than a myriad myriads of eyes of the flesh. It is, indeed, the only true eye that sees everything, because of its affinity with the truth that is in everything.,

Libe1r RPu.pPilalyarnuemS, mh.eit. hpr,eTtihoseisasiumruss, Snyomrieanculisb,riVpohli.loIs,opcholic.i4q4u2e:m”sWcrip,s.i.t, BAarIH~e,-

Syriacum (2d ed.; Halle, 1928), p. 62.
braeus.” For etymological explanations of the word – see also Brockelmann, Lexicon

2 Paulus Persa, Exposition of the Logic of Aristotle the Philosopher, written for King Khosrau, ed. Land, Anecdota Syriaca (Leyden, 1878), IV, 1-30; Introduction published by E. Renan, Journal asiatique, I (1852), 312-19.

3Renan, op. cit., p. 313; Land, op. cit., p. 1: o”- e , . .

.*. i’ .Z ; ed L. . The word 1. is also frequently used metaphorically with reference to the faculties of the mind (see Payne Smith, op. cit., col. 2867); for in-

stance, 1A,,s . 1, (Assemani, Biblioth2e6ca orientalis, III, 1, 128).

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


It may safely be assumed that the title 1-c9′ ~ = takes on a new significance when it is considered in the light of the passage quoted above. For logic might indeed reasonably be likened to the eye, or, more emphatically, to the pupil of the eye, if it be admitted that it is instrumental to systematic logical thinking, in the same manner as the organs of sight supply the greater part of sensations.

Another problem in connection with the title and identity of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye arises out of the puzzling circumstance that its text has been preserved in one particular Berlin manuscript,’ as a mere chapter of a larger treatise, called the Candelabruzr of Sanc-

tuaries,2 without the words 1- I–. being so much as men- tioned. Bar Hebraeus’ Candelabrum of Sanctuaries is a theological

encyclopedia, divided into twelve “foundations,” and, in the aforesaid Berlin codex, the second chapter of the first or introductory founda- tion happens to correspond to what is known elsewhere as the Book of the Pupils of the Eye.

From the occurrence of the lp1 ., in one manuscript, as part of the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries, Steyer3 has most peremptorily concluded that it was never originally designed by the author as an independent treatise of logic, being, in fact, an excerpt extracted by later copyists out of a larger work for special purposes. And he meets the objection of its having been preserved in all manuscripts, except one, without visible connection with any other book, by explaining that it has presumably been copied a great many times more than the

1 MS Sachau 81, fourteenth century, with missing parts supplemented in the sixteenth century; description under No. 190 in Sachau, Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der Kgl. Bibliothek zu Berlin: Syrische Hss. (Berlin, 1899), Vol. XXIII.

2 4.=C1 2;~; see Assemani, op. cit., II, 284-97; Duval, La litterature syriaque (3d ed.; Paris, 1907), p. 245; Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922), p. 314.

Subjects of the twelve l” .A or foundations: (1) knowledge, (2) natural philosophy, (3) general theology, (4) incarnation, (5) angels, (6) priests, (7) devils, (8) soul, (9) freewill,

(10) resurrection, (11) judgment, (12) paradise.
trodTuhcteorfyi,rsantdfios udnivdidaetdio(in,M”SASbaochuatu K81n) oinwtoletdhgeefoSlilomwpinlgy,c”ha.p4tLer~s:.”?A,boisutinth-e

Attainableness of Knowledge,” – -.l.1 O L- , and “About Logic,”

On other parts of the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries, especially the second foundation, see Gottheil, “A Synopsis of Greek Philosophy by Bar Hebraeus,” Hebraica, III, 249, and VII, 39.

3 C. Steyer, Das Buch der Pupillen von Gregor Bar Hebraeus (thesis; Leipzig, 1908), p. ix.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


other chapters of the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries, because of its having been used extensively in schools for the teaching of philosophy.

Several serious considerations may be urged against Steyer’s con- clusions:

First of all, it should be noted that other manuscripts containing the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries do not include the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, and give, in its stead, a different and shorter exposition of

Furthermore, a careful examination of the text itself does not reveal

any internal evidence of its being, in any manner, connected with any other writing of Bar Hebraeus.

Finally, it is practically certain that the Book of the Pupils of the Eye was known as a separate treatise in the days of the author himself, since it is mentioned as such in two lists of his works,2 both composed by contemporaries immediately after his death, and since, just a few years later, it was copied likewise without any reference to the Cande- labrum of Sanctuaries.3

Consequently, even if Steyer’s supposition were admitted, it should nevertheless be conceded that the Book of the Pupils of the Eye has been segregated from the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries during the very lifetime of the author, and, perhaps, by himself. Circumstantial evi- dence, however, in support of Steyer’s theory being rather poor, and, in fact, limited to the testimony of one manuscript, we might, for

probability’s sake, just as well assume that the 1.: ~.I was originally an independent piece of work about logic, afterward in-

serted into some redactions of the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries.

1 See lists of manuscripts in Baumstark, op. cit., p. 315, and descriptions in the cata- logues of libraries. The first foundation of the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries will be found to be much shorter than in Sachau 81, often divided into three chapters, and not containing the text of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye.

2 (a) List of Bar Hebraeus’ works, composed immediately after his death, in a memrd devoted to his life by Dioscoros of Gozarta (written in 1287); only manuscript: Oxford 158. See Payne Smith, Catalogus codicum MS Bibliothecae Bodleianae (Oxford, 1864), Part VI; Codd. Syriacos, Carshunicos, Mandaeos complectens, col. 516; and Baumstark, op. cit., p. 320. (b) List of works in the life of Bar Hebraeus added by his brother Barsauma to his Chronicon ecclesiasticum; see Assemani, op. cit., II, 268, and Abbeloos and Lamy, Bar

Hebraeus: Chronicon ecclesiasticum (Louvain, 1877), III, 477. The same list occurs in a Syriac grammar in Cod. Syr. Medic. 428; see Assemani, op. cit., II, 267.

In both lists the Book of the Pupils of the Eye is the second work mentioned. In

Dioscoros of Gozarta’s list it is mentioned as the ]-? ,.. , whereas, in all other places it is known as the L.?-9 1.. Abbeloos and Lamy print without sejamr.

3 In the manuscript dated 1299 at the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


The Introduction and seven sections of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, respectively, deal with the following matters:

Introduction.-About the use of logic [lb].1
Section I.-About the disputations in Porphyry’s Eisagoge [2a].
Chapter i: About the distinctions in expression [2a].
Chapter ii: About the five universals [3a].
Chapter iii: About description and definition [4a].
Section II.-About the disputations contained in the Book of Categories

Chapter i.-About each of the ten categories [5a].
Chapter ii.-Appendix to the Categories [6b].
Section III.-About the disputations contained in the rep ipkVvetasc [7b]. Chapter i. The proposition [7b].
Chapter ii. Matter and modes of propositions [9a].
Chapter iii. Contradiction [10a].
Chapter iv. Conversion of propositions [11a].
Sections IV.-About the disputations contained in the Book of Analytics

Chapter i: About the syllogism and its parts.
Chapter ii: Moods of the first figure [14a].
Chapter iii: Moods of the second figure [14b].
Chapter iv: Moods of the third figure [15a].
Chapter v: About the mingling of moods in the figures [16a].
Chapter vi: About the double syllogism [19a].
Section V.-About the disputations contained in the Book of Topics [20a]. Chapter i: About the matters of the apodictical syllogism [20a].
Chapter ii: About the matters of the dialectical syllogism [20b].
Section VI.-About the disputations contained in the Book of Apodictics

(i.e., the Latter Analytics) [22a].
Chapter i: About the moods of demonstration [22a]. Chapter ii: About scientific queries [22b].
Chapter iii: About the parts of apodictical studies [23a]. Section VII.-About sophistical fallacies [23b].

Although these sections deal, in successive order, with each of Aristotle’s logical writings, the Book of the Pupils of the Eye cannot be said to be either a complete commentary or a plain summary of the Organon.

Conciseness is its main characteristic, as is sufficiently illustrated

by the fact that hardly four pages2 are devoted to the important sub-

1 Between brackets, folios of the Chicago manuscript, as recorded in the present edition of the text.

2 Fols. 20a-22a.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


jects of the Book of Topics. Moreover, in two different instances, the

elementary nature of the l. = ILz. is alluded to by the author himself,I when, in a demonstration, he refers for further particulars to more extensive treatises of logic.

This being the case, it is more than likely that the Book of the Pupils of the Eye is to be considered as a textbook for beginners.

According to a well-known teaching system used in the Mohamme- dan theological and philosophical schools, a short text is learned by heart during a first year; the second year is then devoted to the read- ing of the same text with the aid of a commentary; and, during a third year, the glosses on this commentary are studied. With a view to meeting the necessities of this progressive curriculum, several Arabic treatises about philosophy, such as, for instance, Averroas commen- taries on Aristotle, have been composed in three redactions, respec- tively suited for elementary, intermediate, and advanced courses of instruction.2

It is practically certain that, in the Christian Syriac schools teach- ing was conducted according to the same methods. At any rate, it has been observed that, among Bar Hebraeus’ didactic works, the same subject not infrequently happens to be dealt with in several different books: one of them being a brief exposition of the matter, whereof another is a more thorough study. The more elementary treatises of the sort were intended for beginners, whereas the more elaborate were taken up, in a further course of instruction, by those who had already mastered the general outline and essential principles of the subject.

Bar Hebraeus has written a short grammar, called the Book of Grammar, and a very detailed one, called the Book of Splendors.3

(a) Fol. 17b, 1. 11, “As is demonstrated in the larger books,” o..– Sj.tS01 ; (b) fol. 19a, 1. 8, “Demonstration of all these facts would require a

longer exposition than this,” 7 CM 4, – 7-AL.. , Zi u0 2 See Carra de Vaux, Les penseurs de l’Islam (Paris, 1923), IV, 65.

3 The Book of Grammar,’ .& j? . , and the Book of Splendors ,.- , were both published by Martin, (Euvres grammaticales d’Abou’lfaradg, dit Bar

Hebraeus (Paris, 1872). A recent edition of the larger Grammar by A. Moberg, Le livre des splendeurs, la grande grammaire de Bar Hebraeus (Lund, 1922).

There is also a very short, unachieved metrical grammar by Bar Hebraeus called the Book of the Spark, 1,e ~’. C .

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


Likewise logic, compendiously treated in the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, is the subject of a more detailed exposition in the Book of the Cream of Wisdom, or Wisdom of Wisdom, the most complete account of Aristotelian philosophy in Syriac.’

There are reasons for suspecting that the ! I-.~z was origi- nally delivered in lecture form by Bar Hebraeus to his own disciples,

and not intended for a large circulation. In fact, an occasional sloven- liness in the redaction, and a limited number of petty errors2 shared by all manuscripts, seem to suggest that the original, from which all the preserved copies of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye are derived, was a student’s notebook rather than a text carefully prepared and revised for publication by the author himself.

Whatever the case may be, the comparatively great number of copies made at different times, and preserved in various libraries, clearly indicates that, from an early date, down to a rather recent period, the Book of the Pupils of the Eye has been considered by the Syrians a most valuable manual for the study of logic, as it is indeed.

The Book of the Pupils of the Eye is recorded among Bar Hebraeus’ more important works, and at least a short outline of its contents is given in most treatises dealing with Syriac philosophy.3 It has at- tracted the particular attention of modern scholars, presumably be- cause numerous copies of its text may be studied in the principal collections of manuscripts,4 not to mention the fact of its title being quoted in a conspicuous place of Barsauma’s list, as published by Assemani in his Bibliotheca orientalis, which has been an important source of inspiration to many historians of Syriac Literature.5

x1 I.Aa, aa r* I.L, Book of the Cream of Wisdom, called ZcP I. DLM-z 1.aNY a , Liber Magnus Sapientiae Sapientiarum, in Assemani, op. cit., II, 270. See Baum- stark, op. cit., p. 317.

2 For instance, fol. 13a, 1. 13, , omitted in all manuscripts; and, in Sec. I, chap. ii

(about the universals), the titles of the six F. ., or disputations. The second of them is entitled F. Z lr~ and the third, 4 =..;..Z 1..; whereas the titles of the first,

fourth, fifth, and sixth disputations are missing in all manuscripts and may, accordingly, be assumed to have been missing in the original text.

3 E. Renan, De philosophia peripatetica apud Syros (Paris, 1852), pp. 64 ff.; Wright, A Short History of Syriac Literature (London, 1894), pp. 265 ff.; Duval, op. cit. (1st ed.; Paris, 1899), p. 262; ibid (3d ed.; 1907), p. 256; Baumstark, op. cit. (Bonn, 1922), p. 316.

4 Sixteen manuscripts.

5 The Book of the Pupils of the Eye not being available in the Italian libraries, it is not studied by Assemani as thoroughly as other writings of Bar Hebraeus (see op. cit., II, 268).

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


An edition of the book, however, was not attempted before 1908, when C. Steyer published a text based on the collation of the four Berlin manuscripts, together with a translation of the first section, devoted to Porphyry’s Eisagoge.1 For reasons given by himself,2 he did not undertake a literary or philosophical study of the text. Steyer’s collation, when checked by means of photographical repro- ductions of the actual Berlin manuscripts, proves to have been done with great skill and care, but the author is fully aware of the fact that, as a basis for critical discussion, it has serious limitations,3 be- cause of his not having taken into account important manuscripts preserved in other countries.

Consequently, we hope that a new edition of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, as a result of the collation of twelve manuscripts, will be welcome, the more so since material for a critical study of the text has been recently supplemented by a manuscript of exceptional value, acquired by the University of Chicago, and not yet described. We also surmise that a complete English translation of the book, and some notes about its nature and contents, might possibly be interesting with regard to the history of Syriac literature and of medieval philosophy,

the 1c; -, being a truly representative work of Bar Hebraeus and of his age.


Bar Hebraeus has written about logic in several of his works be- sides the Book of the Pupils of the Eye. The whole of the first part of his great book called the Wisdom of Wisdom is nothing but an ex- tensive systematic exposition of logic, and considerable portions of both the Book of theColloquy of Wisdom and the Book of the Mer- chandise of Merchandises, two of his shorter philosophical treatises,

are devoted to the same subject.5
I Curt Steyer, op. cit. (thesis; Leipzig, 1908). Pp. xiii+35. 2 Ibid., p. v. Ibid., p. xiii.
4 See E. Renan, De philosophia peripatetica apud Syros; J. G. E. Hoffmann, De Her-

meneuticis apud Syros Aristoteleis (Leipzig, 1869; 2d ed. 1873); A. Baumstark, Aristoteles bei den Syrern, vom Vn bis zum VIIIn Jhdt. (Leipzig, 1900); R. Duval, op. cit. (1st ed.; Paris, 1899), chap. xiv, 2, “La philosophie p6ripat6ticienne,” pp. 253-63.

5 The Book of the Wisdom of Wisdom, or Cream of Wisdom. On this treatise see above p. 31.

The Book of the Colloquy of Wisdom, LQ Z ~-i see Assemani, op. cit., II, 269, and Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, p. 317.

op. Tciht.e, aBnodoBkauomfsttarhke, MAreisrtcohtealnesdbiesiedoenf SMyreerrcnh, apn. d16is4e. s, t9. .. S ; see Assemani,

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


The value attached by Bar Hebraeus to the study of logic is in accord with the importance it has been given all through the history of Syriac philosophy, from its early beginnings down to its final decay.

Ernest Renan, in the conclusion of his essay on Syriac peripateti- cism, which, being the first monograph on the subject, has been per- haps a little too implicitly relied on by historians of Syriac philosophy, resorts to his most emphatic Latin, for the purpose of passing a strongly contemptuous judgment on the Syrians as philosophers. He charges them especially with attaching to logic and dialectics an importance utterly disproportionate to their real value, and with totally neglecting the deeper problems of philosophy, entirely ab- sorbed, as they were, in mere verbal quibbling about abstruse dis- tinctions and senseless subtleties.1

In fact, there is a great deal of truth in Renan’s statement, and Syriac philosophers generally and Bar Hebraeus in particular take a strong interest in the more practical and less speculative part of logic. But it should be said that circumstances, rather than the authors themselves, appear to be responsible for it, and the Syrians will per- haps not be found to deserve a criticism as severe as Renan’s, when the intellectual conditions and necessities of their times are taken into account.

It should, indeed, be recalled that, in the medieval East, three great religions were each claiming to be possessed of a monopoly of truth, and that the historical chronicles of the Eastern Christian churches of

the time record nothing but a bewildering chaos of violent heresies and apostasies. In these circumstances, logic was not considered a mere mental exercise and intellectual recreation; it was, in fact, regarded as a most efficient offensive and defensive weapon, of vital importance in the tense struggles of doctrinal controversy.

Even before the Council of Nicaea, the Fathers of the church were, as a rule, clever dialecticians, and they had to be so indeed, since the early Christians had encountered in Aristotelian logic a serious in-

1 E. Renan, op. cit., Epilogus: “Logica est apud eos una et tota philosophia, atque pro illa amplissima disciplina, qua veterum ingenia colebantur, hi nisi tricas dialecticorum, nominum definitiones, categorias, inaniaque vocabula recantant.” And further: “Ea ne fata nos manent ut, Syrorum modo, extenuati ac degeneres homines, disciplinam majorum ferre non valeamus, ac satis nobis sit, particulas aliquas eorum ingenii sinu nostra fere jam frigente fovere.”

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


strument of resistance, in their discussions with the more cultured of their pagan opponents.

During the Middle Ages, the Christians of the Near East had ample opportunities for practicing the art of reasoning, as they had to up- hold the truth of their faith against the objections of both Mohamme- dans and Jews, and, at the same time, wage an endless war of contro- versy against the adherents of dissenting sects in their own religion.

This situation explains to a certain degree why logic was quite naturally bound to be considered by the Syrians as the most useful if not the most important part of philosophy.

As for these protracted and tenacious religious polemics of the East, they cannot be said to have been altogether unproductive with respect to the development of logical thought. Sects and creeds, in- deed, being simultaneously compelled to rationalize and substantiate their dogmas and to define and systematize their teaching, simply had
to test the validity of their doctrines by means of Aristotelian logic, the only standard of reasoning that was equally recognized by all of the otherwise violently opposed rivals. For, strange to say, at the very time when Christians and Mohammedans were fighting bloody battles, in order to vindicate the superiority of their respective par- ticular religion, Aristotle’s works were as faithfully admired and as- siduously studied in Sevilla and Bagdad as in Bologna and Paris. As
a matter of fact, the study of logic and dialectics, although they are, after all, instruments of discussion, established among the educated minds of an important section of the world, by means of a common manner of thinking and a joint interest in the same problems, a certain

intellectual community that can hardly be said to be prevalent nowa- days.

Admittedly, in the realm of logic, as in the other parts of phi- losophy, the Syrians have added little to what was already known. They were careful translators, zealous compilators, and clever as- similators, but there is not much to be learned from them, as far as original thought is concerned. If, however, it may be truly said that the main interest of the history of philosophy is to be found rather in the insight it imparts into the evolution of the human mind than in the intrinsical values of the systems studied, Syriac philosophy provides an important field of research.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


For, during the period extending in the history of thought from neo-Platonism to the Renaissance, the Syrians have played a rather considerable part: It is a well-known fact, that by their early studies of ancient philosophy, they contributed to the spread of Greek thought in the countries of the Near East, and have been, to a certain degree, the initiators of the Arabs. In this connection, however, the importance of Syriac intervention should not be overrated. We know for certain, indeed, that as early as the fifth century David of Ar- menia had carried the study of logic into his own country; further- more, there are strong reasons for assuming that the School of Alex- andria, during a long period a strong center of Aristotelian teaching, must have had some influence in the neighboring regions; and, finally,

it should be remembered that direct translations from the Greek into Arabic were made at Bagdad, by Ibn Ishaq and his school. Neverthe- less, though Syriac literature cannot be considered the only connect- ing link between classical antiquity and the Eastern Middle Ages, it played a very interesting part in the blending of civilizations that was an important characteristic of the latter period.

To return to the Syriac treatment of Aristotelian logic, the history of its development can be divided into three distinct periods.

First period.-Efflorescence of Hellenistic-Syriac studies, in the fourth and fifth centuries at the School of Edessa. The School of

Edessa, established in the third century, and for more than two hun- dred years a rival of the schools of Alexandria and Antioch, was, from
an early date, a brilliant center of Syriac culture and contributed in no small measure to the diffusion of ancient thought in the Eastern world. With regard to logic, this is the period of the first translations into Syriac of the works of Aristotle and of Greek commentaries on the same apparently not derived from Ammonius, although they do not seem to be more ancient. Most conspicuous among the Syriac trans- lators and commentators of Aristotle’s logic, in these times, was Probus. The first period comes to an abrupt end with the closing of the School of Edessa, in 489 A.D.

Second period.-From the end of the fifth to the end of the eighth century. Aristotelian logic is now studied in Syriac by means of new literal translations and commentaries derived from the works of

Ammonius. These are the source of a long series of Syriac treatises on

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


logic, gradually becoming more abridged in the course of time. Dur- ing this period, the majority of Syriac philosophers were influenced by the Aristotelian neo-Platonism of Alexandrian Monophysites, where- as, during the first period, philosophy was, as a rule, in the hands of the Nestorians. In these times logic was dealt with in a rather effi- cient way by Sergius of Reshaina, Severius Seb6kht, Jacob of Edessa, Athanasius of Balad, and George, bishop of the Arabs. Paulus Persa wrote a treatise on logic, with an introduction dedicated to King

Khosrau I An6shirwan, at whose court Greek philosophers expelled from the Byzantine Empire after the edict of Justinianus closing the Academy had taken shelter and found an opportunity of meeting Eastern scholars. The fact that Paulus Persa wrote his treatise in Syriac is symptomatic of the circumstance that Syriac was the theo- logical and philosophical language of the Christians in the Sassanid Empire. A great number of influential Persians had, indeed, been educated at the famous schools of Edessa and Nisibis.

Third period.-A third period in the development of Syriac logical studies opens at the end of the seventh century and extends down to the almost total decline of Syriac literature in the fourteenth century.
In order to have a clear idea of the particular characteristics of this period, it is necessary to visualize the effects of the following religious and political circumstances: (1) the breach between Monophysites and the Greek Orthodox church becomes irretrievable; (2) an increas- ing tendency toward asceticism and mysticism, entirely foreign and almost hostile to Aristotelian philosophy, begins to prevail in Syriac schools and monasteries; (3) the Byzantine Empire, gradually declin- ing, is no longer capable of protecting the Eastern Christian communi- ties against the rising power of Islam; (4) as a result of their conquest, the Arabs have established a decided cultural ascendancy over the Christian Syrians.

In the eighth century, indeed, direct contact with Greek thought is being severed, and Syriac philosophy begins to show signs of decay. True, there was a short revival in the ninth century, but it was brought about by the influence of Honain ibn Ishaq, and the impulse no longer came from the Syrians themselves. In fact, during this revival, as well as in the darker years of the period, Arabic influence reigns su-

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


preme, and a great many Christian philosophers actually write in Arabic. As far as production in their own language is concerned, it may be safely assumed that, from the second half of the tenth cen- tury onward, the philosophical activity of the Syrians was continu- ously on the decrease, so much so as to be brought down to an almost complete standstill in the twelfth century.

The second half, however, of the twelfth century witnessed a brilliant and rather sudden revival, in the days of Bar Salibi and Simeon Shankelawi, who wrote treatises of logic in Syriac. This ren- aissance lasts all through the thirteenth century and culminates in Bar Hebraeus.

Even at its best, however, Syriac Aristotelianism of the latter period is not what it had been. After having been, in some respects, the teachers of the Arabs, the Syrians have become their pupils, and the direct source of inspiration for their philosophical studies is no longer Aristotle and his first commentators, but Arabic works like those of al-Kindi, al-Farabi, the Ikhwin al-Safa, and the encyclo- pedical compilations of Avicenna.


This is decidedly not the place for a detailed biographical account of Bar Hebraeus’ earlier education and later ecclesiastical career.

Circumstantial information may be derived from the author’s own writings and an abundant and almost exhaustive modern literature, including a few monographs, is available on the subject.’

In order, however, fully to realize the complex nature of the ques- tions arising about the sources of his philosophical works, it is neces-

1 See Wright, op. cit (London, 1894), pp. 265-81; Duval, op. cit. (1st ed.; Paris, 1899), pp. 409-11; Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur (Bonn, 1922), pp. 313ff.; monographs: Noeldeke, “Bar Hebraeus,” Orientalische Skizzen (Berlin, 1892), pp. 250- 73; Cheikho, articles in the Arabic periodical El Machriq, I, 289 if. On Bar Hebraeus’ life and career most valuable and interesting information may also be found in Gdttsberger, Bar Hebraeus und seine Scholien zur Heiligen Schrift (Freiburg: Herder, 1900).

All the information gathered in the quoted literature is derived from the works of Bar Hebraeus himself and from biographical notes supplemented by his brother to his Chroni- con ecclesiasticon. See Assemani, op. cit., II, 444-63; Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon ecclesiasticon, ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, II, 431; Chronicon syr., ed. Bruns, pp. 503 if.; ibid., ed. Bedjan, p. 478.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


sary to recall some circumstances in his life, and to point out some characteristics in his personality.

Bar Hebraeus was born in Melitene, A.D. 1226, in rather disturbed times, when the comparative political stability established in the East by the Moslem rulers was seriously imperiled by Mongol in- vasions. An interesting tradition contends that Melitene, being actually besieged by the invaders, would have been utterly destroyed but for Bar Hebraeus’ father, who, having as a physician rendered good services to the Mongol chief, diplomatically succeeded in inducing him to spare the town. The fact of Bar Hebraeus’ family’s early and rather friendly association with the Mongols is not devoid of im- portance.

Although we know for certain that on many occasions Christians and Moslems actually united when they had to defend their cities against foreign invaders, it may be reasonably assumed that the Christian communities under Mohammedan rule were, after all, un- consciously expecting if not total relief at least some change for the better to result from the political turmoil brought about by the Mon- gol conquest. They may sometimes have considered the Mongol in- vasions in the manner the captive Jews in Babylon regarded Cyrus’ successes. At any rate, a new era seemed to open, and the very re- vival of Christian Syriac literature, culminating in the superabundant productive activity of Bar Hebraeus, may have been, to a certain extent, stimulated by a subdued feeling of hope in the coming of better

Although the appellation Bar Hebraeus, latinized form of ,

L, , meaning “Son of the Hebrew,” is most generally used by mod- ern historians of Syriac literature, it was not the author’s only name’

and, by no means, the one he appears to have preferred. In one of his poems, indeed, he very clearly intimates that he does not at all relish the idea of being considered of Jewish descent, and he wants it to be

understood that i= -, far from meaning “Son of the Hebrew,” just stands for i, -= , “Son of the Crossing,” his parents having

1 He was christened Johannes and commonly named Abulfarag; when he became bishop he took the name Gregorius.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


come from across the river. One of the most eminent members of the

Monophysite churchI has recently added an interesting contribution to the theory of Bar Hebraeus’ non-Jewish origin, supported by textual evidence derived from his poetical works, whereas Noeldeke, referring
to the same poems, had actually reached a different conclusion, finding proof of Bar Hebraeus’ being of Jewish descent in that author’s very denial of the fact.2 So that, after all, little evidence may be gathered from Bar Hebraeus’ own statement about his name, various interpre- tations of its real purport being possible.

Obviously, however, Bar Hebraeus himself never was an Israelite, and it should be clearly understood that the discussion is only about his father or grandfather having possibly been a converted Jew, which, after all, is rather hard to disprove. Besides his father’s name being Aaron, he was a physician, and many Jews, in the East, were pro- fessional men at the time. As far as Bar Hebraeus is concerned, his works do not reveal any signs of direct Jewish influence, and it seems hard to indorse Brockelmann’s assertion that the man knew Hebrew.3 In fact, the way he transcribes and explains Hebrew words in his Chronicles as well as in his commentaries on the Old Testament rather points to the contrary.4

The same thing may be said about his knowledge of Greek, and there is no certain proof whatever that he was master of this lan- guage. Bar Hebraeus was perfectly acquainted with the works and doctrines of ancient philosophers, but it should be remembered that these had all been translated into Syriac and Arabic, some of them several times. Oriental translations being, whatever their short- comings may be, as a rule, fairly accurate, it was not necessary, indeed, for a Syrian of the thirteenth century to know Greek in order to study

1 Mar Severius Efrem Barsaum, article in al-Kulliya (Beyrout, 1927), XIV, 14-17.

2 Noeldeke, loc. cit.

3 Brockelmann, “Bar Hebraeus,” Encyclopydie de l’Islam (Leyden, 1913), I, 674, asserts that Bar Hebraeus was able to study, in the original Hebrew text, a midrash on Joseph (Bar Hebraeus, Ethicon, ed. Bedjan, p. 489). He may have studied this in a version used by the Arabic-speaking Jewish communities.

4 At the beginning of his Syriac Chronicle he ascribes a Syriac origin to names such as Noah and Jacob. See article on Bar Hebraeus in the Jewish Encyclopedia (New York, 1904).

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


ancient philosophy. The statement that he did not know Greek should, however, not be overemphasized ; all we can say is that it is very probable that he did not know that language. In order, however, to deny for certain his knowledge of Greek, it would be necessary to be quite sure that an inquisitive mind like his was never tempted to study the language of Aristotle, the Septuagint, and the -gospels, especially since he was, all things well considered, a very able linguist. He seems indeed to have had a tolerable knowledge of Persian, and surely knew a great deal about the Mongol language too.2

As for Arabic, which he had thoroughly mastered, he wrote it as correctly as his native Syriac, and undoubtedly better than many Moslem authors of his time; several of his philosophical treatises were, indeed, originally composed in Arabic.

Bar Hebraeus had studied for a time under the direction of Moham- medan masters, and, on the other hand, Arabic being the official and cultural language of his day, there is indeed nothing astonishing
in his thorough mastery of it. By all means more remarkable is the fact that at a time when Arabic civilization was prevailing in the East and even imposing itself upon the West, Bar Hebraeus succeeded in the difficult performance of being appreciated by the Moslems for his very Syriac writings. Most of his Syriac philosophical treatises were translated, as is attested by the many Arabic manuscript ver- sions preserved. Moreover, at the special request of some of his Mo- hammedan friends, he composed, shortly before his death, an Arabic translation of the part of his Syriac Chronicle dealing with the general history of the world. Another proof of his being greatly admired in the Arabic-speaking world may be found in the fact that the Moslems, in an effort to secure his glory for Islam, attempted to spread the belief that he was converted to Mohammedanism on his deathbed.

1 As does Duval, op. cit. (1st ed.), p. 410, “Bar Hebraeus n’dtudia pas le grec et la litt6rature grecque, Noeldeke le remarque avec justesse.” In the original text referred to (loc. cit.) Noeldeke is not as categorical as Duval. He merely says that it is not probable that Bar Hebraeus knew Greek. On Bar Hebraeus’ knowledge of Greek and other lan-

guages see further G6ttsberger, op. cit., pp. 9 f.

2 For his Syriac Chronicle he makes use of Mongol and Persian sources. For instance, he quotes the Persian historical compilation Shamsaddin Sahib Divan, Chron. Syr., ed. Bedjan, p. 555.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


Summing up, we see Bar Hebraeus, probably the son of a converted Jew, mastering the knowledge of both Greek and Arabic cultures under the direction of Moslem and Nestorian teachers finally to be- come practically the head of the Jacobite church. Blending in his own person the distinctive elements of various civilizations, he is truly representative of his milieu, the Near East of the Middle Ages, which as a sort of melting pot of creeds and doctrines has been one of the most vital periods in the development of human thought.

This being the fact, tracing back the sources of Bar Hebraeus’ philosophical works generally, and the sources of his Book of the Pupils of the Eye in particular, is, obviously, by no means an easy task, be- cause of the variety of miscellaneous influences that may have been active in the case.

In order to determine, with a reasonable chance of accuracy, the sources from which Bar Hebraeus has derived the material for his

treatise on logic, a thorough scrutiny of his philosophical works as a whole would be required. Reserving the elements of a synthetical con- clusion about the subject for a more comprehensive survey of Bar Hebraeus’ philosophical activity, we shall merely discuss, in the pres- ent essay, a few problems connected with the Book of the Pupils of the Eye.

Complete originality being altogether out of the question, we have to examine the case of the various sources, viz., Greek, Arabic, and Syriac, from which Bar Hebraeus may have borrowed the knowledge

of logic he displays in his -, n .
As has been stated above, it would be hard to gather definite argu-

ments substantiating the probability of Bar Hebraeus having had a knowledge of Greek. At any rate, a careful study of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye does not reveal any textual evidence hinting at the possibility of a satisfactory conclusion on the matter. To be sure, many logical definitions and demonstrations in the Book of the Pupils of the Eye are almost literal translations from Ammonius, Porphyry, and other Greek authors, and many examples quoted by Bar Hebraeus may be traced back to Aristotle’s text itself. This can, however, not be considered as a proof of Bar Hebraeus having known the original

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


Greek texts, since, in his time, logical definitions and examples had been standardized for ever so long and were available in many Syriac and Arabic versions.’

The case of the possible Arabic sources is entirely different. Taking into account the high degree of development reached in the thirteenth century by Arabic peripatetic philosophy, as well as Bar Hebraeus’ education and his particular admiration for Arabic philosophy gener- ally and Avicenna’s works in particular, it is almost self-evident that the main inspiration of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye is derived from Arabic logical treatises.2 Bar Hebraeus’ ready and almost total sub- mission to Arabic ascendancy has been pointed out by Renan and

Baumstark, and is not to be challenged.3 But the ! == ta- can- not be said to supply much evidence supporting the latter’s assump-

tion that, because of this preponderant Arabic influence, Bar He- braeus’ philosophical writings are devoid of interest as far as purely

1 For instance, the definitions of genus and species in the Book of the Pupils of the Eye are practically literal translations of Porphyry’s. In fact, they are not translated from the Greek by Bar Hebraeus, but taken from existing Syriac versions such as were published by A. Freimann, Die “Isagoge” des Porphyrius in den syrischen Uebersetzungen (thesis; Erlangen, 1897).


(ed. Freimann, pp. 29 (fol. 3a, 1. 15, and and 32) fol. 3b 1. 5)

SBar Heb ra eus translated several of Avicenna’s philosophical treatises into Syriac.

Avicenna the distinction between the theoretical and the practical faculties of the soul, as 7 KaTt7yopoUbAEYoY. N,

A ristoteles bei den Syrern, om 5ten bis zum 8ten Jhdt. (Leipzig, 1900) , Introd. efTt KaTr,’yoppo l’jo. * o ‘*

* Only difference: &.1Z I in lieu of

2 Bar Hebraeus translated several of Avicenna’s philosophical treatises into Syriac. See Paris manuscript Bibliothoque Nationale Syr. 249, containing the Introduction to Avicenna’s logic translated by Bar Hebraeus. Bar Hebraeus has probably taken over from Avicenna the distinction between the theoretical and the practical faculties of the soul, as exposed in the Introduction of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye (fol. 1b, 1. 17). The dis-

tinction was not originally Avicenna’s, but was one of his favorite theories. On Avicenna’s influence on Bar Hebraeus see the article by Furlani in Islamica, III (1928), 61. influence on Bar Hebraeus see the article by Furlani in Islamica, III (1928), 61.

3 Conclusions in Renan, De philosophia peripatetica apud Syros, and Baumstark, Aristoteles bei den Syrern, vom 5ten bis zum 8ten Jhdt. (Leipzig, 1900), Introd.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


Syriac Aristotelian literature and information about previous Syriac authors are concerned.’

The fact is, indeed, that the Book of the Pupils of the Eye contains a

few passages that are to be connected with Syriac and Christian

rather than .with Arabic and Mohammedan sources. For instance,

several examples given on folio 7a are biblical, although it should be

admitted that there is a chance of their being mere transpositions

from the Arabic. More significant is the circumstance that the Book of

the Pupils of the Eye contains two Old Testament quotations, given as

examples illustrating poetical literature, viz., Ps. 128:3 and Prov. 11: 22.2

On the other hand, it cannot be truly asserted that Bar Hebraeus took no notice whatever of previous Syriac philosophical literature since in his Chronicles he mentions the fact that Paulus Persa com-

posed a treatise on logic and he apparently appreciated it.3 The fact is not without importance with reference to the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, besides concerning the explanation of the title discussed above, as there is a possibility that Paulus Persa’s and Bar Hebraeus’ treatises of logic are not entirely unrelated. The outline of both is, to a certain degree, the same, and a comparative study of the two works reveals, indeed, some interesting similarities.4 The result of the comparison,

however, is entirely in favor of the 1!z , -L, Persa’s exposition of the more delicate logical problems being often rather clumsy.5

Clearness, conciseness, and careful systematization are, indeed, the principal characteristics of Bar Hebraeus’ logical treatise, and these qualities appear to be mainly the result of his imitation of Arabic models.

1 Baumstark, Aristoteles bei den Syrern, vom 5ten bis zum 8ten Jhdt., Introd. According to Baumstark, the same thing may be said of all Syriac authors after the Arabic conquest and, partly for this reason, his essay is devoted to the writers of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries.

2 Fol. 21a, 1. 17, and fol. 21b, 1. 4.
3 Bar Hebraeus, Chronicon ecclesiasticon, ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, II, 97. (Paulus

Persa composed an admirable treatise on logic, Z 12A ~I .)
4 A certain doubt remains about the identity of the text published by Land, Anecdota Syriaca, IV, 1 if., and generally considered as Paulus Persa’s. Its comparative similarity to the Book of the Pupils of the Eye might perhaps shed a new light on the disputed point of its conclusive identification, in connection with the fact that Bar Hebraeus has mentioned

a treatise on logic by Paulus Persa in his Chronicles.

5 See Land, op. cit., LV, 17, n. 1, and 29, n. 3 (about the conversion of syllogisms mis- understood by Paulus Persa). For further particulars about the comparison see our notes on the translated text in the present edition.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


So that, after all, the principal sources of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye are Arabic, although it should be realized that the author was fully acquainted with the works of previous Syriac writers dealing with the same subject.


Sixteen manuscriptsI are known to contain the text of Bar He- braeus’ Book of the Pupils of the Eye. One of them is preserved in the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; one, in Cambridge; three, in London; three, in Paris; four, in Berlin; and four, in various oriental libraries.

In the following enumeration the manuscripts are listed according to chronological order.


Purchased in 1928 from Mar Severius Efrem Barsaum, Monophy- site archbishop of Syria and the Lebanon.

Ancient oriental red sheepskin binding. Thin paper of medieval Eastern make. Dimensions of folios: 12 X 16 cm. Number: 105.

Arabic numbers at left-hand top corner of pages, actually one folio in advance on the real situation, suggest the loss of a numbered flyleaf. Folios 24 and 25 (Arabic numbers 25 and 26) are missing.

Written surface: 9 X 12 cm. Writing in single columns throughout, 17 lines to the page.

Writing: Serto; same hand all through. The titles of sections, chap- ters, and other divisions are in red. A few marginal notes in Syriac, Arabic, and Karshuni, by various hands.

A colophon on folio 59b gives the date of he manuscript; it was written in the first month of Conm^n (December) of the Greek year 1611, which corresponds to A.D. 1299. Contents of the volume:

1 The list in Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, p. 317, should be supple- mented by the following information: Chicago, Oriental Institute (1299); Berlin, Sachau 81 (fourteenth and seventeenth centuries); British Museum, OR 4413 (nineteenth cen- tury); British Museum, OR 9381 (1891). These British Museum manuscripts are not listed in the printed catalogues.

2 In parentheses are given the symbols used in collation.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


a) Fol. la. Verses by Khamis of Arbela1
b) Fol. lb. The Book of the Pupils of the Eye
c) Fol. 26a. The Book of the Colloquy of Wisdom2 d) Fol. 60b. The Book of the Dove3

The missing leaves 24 and 25, altogether four pages, correspond to the end of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye and the beginning of the Book of the Colloquy of Wisdom.

Dated A.GR. 1675= A.D. 1364. Contains, among other treatises by

Bar Hebraeus, the Book of the Pupils of the Eye and the Book of the Colloquy of Wisdom.

Contains the Book of the Pupils of the Eye as the second section in

the first foundation of the Candelabrum of Sanctuaries. The greater part of the manuscript was probably written in the fourteenth cen- tury. Passages of considerable length are missing in the older text and have been supplemented by means of a sixteenth- or seventeenth- century text. As far as the Book of the Pupils of the Eye is concerned, almost one-third of the text (viz., fol. 14b-22a in the Berlin MS, which corresponds to 11b-19b of the Chicago MS) belongs to the more recent supplement.

Among the symbols used in our collation “F” stands for the older passages in Sachau 81, and “f” for the more modern.


Dated A.GR. 1870= A.D. 1579. Contains three treatises by Bar

Hebraeus, viz., the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, an exposition of the

canonical law about marriage, and the Book of the Dove.

1 See Baumstark, Geschichte, p. 321; Assemani, op. cit., III, 1, 566, and Cardahi, Liber thesauri de arte poetica Syrorum necnon de eorum poetarum vitis et carminibus (Rome, 1875), pp. 59-62.

2 We are preparing an edition of thc text.

3 Ed. Bedjan, Ethicon seu Moralia Gregorii Bar Hebraei (Paris and Leipzig, 1898); Cardahi, Kithaba Dhijauna seu Liber Columbae (Rome, 1899); Wensinck, Bar Hebraeus’ “Book of the Dove” (Leyden, 1919).

4 See the description in W. Wright, Catalogue of the Syriac Manuscripts in the British Museum: OR 1017 (London, 1872).

6 Description as No. 190 in Sachau, loc. cit.

8 Description in W. Wright, A Catalog of the Syriac Manuscripts Preserved in the Li- brary of the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1901), I, 500.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to



Dated A.D. 1653/54. Contains several philosophical works by Bar

Hebraeus, viz., among others the Book of the Pupils.of the Eye and the Book of the Colloquy of Wisdom. These two treatises were frequently

copied together.

Dated A.D. 1784. As will be shown, the text of this manuscript has

great critical value in spite of its comparatively recent date. BERLIN MS PETERMANN 15 (I)3

Dated A.D. 1826.

Contains Syriac texts written at different periods; the section con-

taining the Book of the Pupils of the Eye is dated A.D. 1838.



BRITISH MUSEUM MS OR 4413 (K)7 Written at the end of the nineteenth century.

Dated 1891. Contains the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, the Book

of the Colloquy of Wisdom, and other treatises by Bar Hebraeus.
In addition to these manuscripts, four copies of the Book of the

Pupils of the Eye, all of them recent, are preserved in oriental li- braries:8 Jacobite Monastery of St. Marcus, Jerusalem, MSS 31?2

1 Description in H. Zotenberg, Catalogue des manuscrits syriaques et sabdens de la Biblio- thkque Nationale (Paris, 1874).

2 Description in Sachau, op. cit., No. 208. 3 Ibid., No. 207. 4 Ibid., No. 196.

5 Description in J. B. Chabot, “Notices sur les manuscrits syriaques de la Bibliothbque Nationale, acquis depuis 1874,” Journal asiatique, II (1896), 276.

6 Ibid. According to Chabot, the manuscript is dated 1889. This does not apply to the text of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye, which is dated 1892. The codex is made up of various manuscripts.

7 Brit. M. OR 4413 and 9381 are comparatively recent acquisitions and are not recorded in the printed catalogues.

8 See Rucker, Die litt. Hss. des Jacob. Markus Klosters in Jerusalem: Oriens Christi-

anus, 2, 120/36-317/33-3, 128/46-311/27; Sachau, “Mitth. des Seminars ftir Or. Spr. zu Berlin, 3, 43/46”; Revue des bibliothkques, 1908.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


and 232?2; Library of the Syrian Archbishopric of Mardin, MS 62; Edessa MS 38.

All of the aforesaid manuscripts, except the four Eastern texts, have been collated, most of them for the first time, in order to pre- pare the present edition of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye. Their relation to one another and to their ultimate archetype is shown by the following stemma.

original text

(1299) (x)



LE (1891) (1892)

F B (y) (xivth c) (1364)

P (1579) (1653) f

(xviith c)

(1784) H (1826) (1838) D

(xixth c)

In the diagram, x, y, and z stand for manuscripts which we have not seen, but whose existence at some time in the past must be as- sumed in order to explain the relations in which the extant manu- scripts stand to one another.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


The twelve examined manuscripts fall into three well-marked families:

1. A-G: Although it was written about five hundred years later, G bears a striking resemblance to A and may safely be assumed to be a lineal descendant from it.

2. F (the older part in Sachau 81): Only representative of its group.

3. B-P-f-H-D-K-C-I-L-E: These manuscripts have many common variants and are descendants of an ancestor that seems not to have

been preserved. The family B-P-f-H-D-K-C-I-L-E falls into two groups, viz., B-P-f-H-D-K and C-I-L-E.

B,P,f,H,D,K derive from B or a manuscript closely connected with B.

In the group C-I-L-E, I has no independent value, being a copy of C. L and E, on the one hand, and L-E and C, on the other hand, although having a great many things in common, cannot have been directly copied from one and the same ancestor, because they do not all exhibit the same uniform text but show, by their variations, that their text has been transmitted through the medium of the lost inter- mediaries y and z, in its descent from x, the common parent of B-P-f-H-D-K-C-I-L-E.

In other words, E is more like L than like C and I; more like C and I than like B and P-f-H-D-K; more like B and P-f-H-D-K than like F or A and G.

Tests to decide the genealogical relationship between the manu-

scripts are common omissions1 of words and passages and agreement in a number of peculiar readings or other characteristics.2 As a matter

1 See omissions (folios and lines of A):
Om. B.P.H.D.K.C.I.L.E and B.P.f.H.D.K.C.I.L.E (in fols llb-19b): 10b13, 10b17,

12b14, 13a14, 15a10, 15a12, 16a6, 17a2, 17a10, 17b5, 20b8, 22b6, 23b4, 23b14 Om. B.P. (f).H.D.K.: 3b4, 4a2, 19b2, 21a2, 21b15, 22b1
Om. C.I.: lb5, 2b2, 4b13, 6al, 13a7, 23bl
Om. C.I.L.E.: 8a14, 8b15, 21a6, 21b16, 22a10

Om. L.E. 6b4, 9b9, 14b3, 16a6, 18a5, 18a16, 22bl14, 22b16, 23b8 Om. F.: 2b11, 3b15, 4a3, 4a10, 4b11, 5b7, 9a4, 11a3, llal4

G omits many passages in A; A appears to be the most complete text.

2 Title and beginning of the Book of the Pupils of the Eye: A =-G; B =P =1H = K =C = I = L =E; F does not agree with any of the other families; D, variant of B, etc.

Examples of contrarity (cross-shape figure on fol. 11a): A =G; B =P = H =D =K, and, with a different disposition of the text = C = I = L =E; F stands alone.

Other characteristic variants are explained in the notes on the text.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to


of course, the foregoing classification of manuscripts cannot claim to be mathematically correct, probability being, indeed, the nearest approach to certainty that may be reached on these points; but it accounts, at least, in the most reasonable way, for the actual distribu- tion of variants.

As a rule, the present edition of the text follows the Chicago manuscript (A), which, besides being the oldest, proves to be the most complete and the most trustworthy. The two pages missing in A have been supplemented by means of Sachau 140 (G), since the latter manuscript, although written in a comparatively recent period, bears the most remarkable resemblance to A.1

[To be continued]

1 The present edition in general follows A except in a few instances, e.g., lb17, 3b16, 8b17, 13a8, 13b5, 18a5, 23b13, and in a certain number of passages where Greek words occur, whose spelling, happening to be subject to variations even in the same manuscript, had to be unified in some way to meet the requirements of a modern edition.

This content downloaded from on Thu, 12 May 2016 19:40:07 UTC All use subject to