Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 August 2014
The following pages are translated from an unpublished Bodleian MS. They form the first part of the introduction to an Arabic commentary on the Eisagoge of Porphyry, which the title page and the Bodleian catalogue ascribe to the well-known Arab philosopher al-Fārābī (first half of the tenth century A.D.). We know from independent sources that al-Fārābī wrote a commentary to the Eisagoge. This is evidently what we have before us, but the text dealing with the Eisagoge, which was later itself commented on by Avempace, is a different work.
The world empire of the Arabs was already an established fact considerably earlier than A.D. 700, It is generally admitted that the Arabs in the countries which they came to rule were the heirs of classical antiquity to a considerable extent. This is nowhere more evident than in philosophy and the sciences. If at first sight it seems surprising that they made more use of ancient philosophy and science than the general literature and common institutions of the Graeco-Roman world such as the theatre and the gymnasium, the reason is doubtless to be found in the abstract character of these branches, in consequence of which they did not impinge directly on the prejudices of the new rulers.
page 76 note 1 MS. Marsh 28. I should like here to record thanks to the Bodleian authorities for permission to photograph and particularly to Dr, A. F. L. Beeston, who answered several queries.
page 76 note 2 I, 117 (No. 457).
page 76 note 3 E.g., Ibn abī Uṣaibi'ah, ed. Müller, A., II, 138.Google Scholar
page 76 note 4 In MS. Escorial Ar. 612, cf. Brockelmann, , Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, I, 211.Google Scholar Part is also contained in the well-known Bodleian MS. of works of Avempace, MS. Pococke 206, fols. 189b-191b, 192a-196b. The work of al-Fārābī on which Avempace wrote this commentary does not appear to have survived in Arabic, but there are two Hebrew versions of it in a MS. of the Bibliothèque Nationale, MS. Heb. 917.
page 77 note 1 Ibn abī Uṣaibi'ah, II, 135Google Scholar, cf. I, 116.
page 77 note 2 Ath-thamara
al-marḓīya fī ba'ḓ ar-risālāt al-Fārābīya ed. Dieterici, , Leiden, 1890Google Scholar; transl. Dieterici, , Alfārāī's philosophische Abhandlungen, Leiden, 1892.Google Scholar
page 77 note 3 Alfarabius De Piatonis philosophia, ed. Rosenthal, F. et Walzer, R.London, 1943.Google Scholar
page 78 note 1 Cf. passage cited from the Dialogues of Severus by Baumstark, , Syrische Commentare zur Είσαγωγή des Porphyrios, Aristoteles bei den Syrern, Bd. I, Leipzig, 1900, p. 198.Google Scholar
page 78 note 3 See Baumstark, op. cit., 168-171. Cf. also Tatakis, Basile, La philosophie byzantine, Presses Universitaires de France, 1949, P. 49.Google Scholar
page 79 note 1 The fourth question, as to the end of philosophy, is discussed only incidentally, cf. introductory remarks p. 78 and p. 90, n. 1.
page 80 note 1 The argument evidently is that mathematics is distinct from philosophy, which is non-existent.
page 81 note 1 The Platonic caption is cited again by al-Fārābī, , Vorstudien der Philosophie, No. 4 of Alfārābī's philsophische Abhandlungen, transi. Dieterici, , Leiden, 1892, p. 87 (Arabic text, p. 52)Google Scholar, somewhat differently, with a similar explanation.
page 82 note 1 Perhaps the words translated “which resemble the genus” (yajrā majrā al-jins) have been omitted from the definition just given.
page 82 note 2 MS. al-mabda' Read perhaps al-madā.
page 83 note 1 This description of man cannot have occurred independently to Abclard, as Miss Helen Waddell suggested in her fine novel, p. 251 of the first edition.
page 83 note 2 ‘arīḍ al-aẓfār, ‘breitsohlig’ Baumstark, op. cit. 197, translating Severus; or “broad-nailed” (?).
page 84 note 1 Strictly speaking it is from this point that the discussion of B and C (cf. § 1) begins. Al-Fārābī says explicitly (§7) that discussion of the definition involves both these questions. It is less clear that D is also involved, but cf. p. 90, n. 1.
page 85 note 1 Division is not discussed till § 24 and is brought in rather awkwardly at this point.
page 85 note 2 Cf. Ammonius, , In Porphyrii Eisagogen, Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, Vol. IV, Pars III, Berlin 1891Google Scholar, Prooemitum, p. 2: γνῶσιδ τῶν δντων ῆ δντα έστί.
page 85 note 3 Ammonius, , Prooemium, p. 3Google Scholar: θείων τε καί άνθρωπνων πραγμάτων γνῶσιδ.
page 85 note 4 Ibid. p. 6: τέχνη τεχνῶν καί έπιστήμη έπιοτημῶν.
page 86 note 1 Ibid., p. 4: μελέτη θανάτου.
page 86 note 2 A young man of Ambracia who having read the Phaedo of Plato and come to the conclusion that the philosopher must study how to die, cast himself down from the city-wall. See below § 20 and p. 89, n. 1.
page 86 note 3 Ammonius, id. p. 3: δμοίωσιδ θεῷ κατά τὀ δυνατόν άνθρώπῳ.
page 86 note 4 Ibid. p. 6: τέχνη τεχνῶν καί έπιστήμη έπιοτημῶν.
page 87 note 1 Assuming that it is not his own and not due to a textual error, al-Fārābī took this figure from his source, whom we have supposed to be Philoponus (cf. introductory note, p. 78). Aristotle, (De Anima, III, 428 b 3)Google Scholar says simply that the sun appears to be a foot across, yet the size of the sun is greater than that of the earth, ραίνπαι δήλιοδ ποδιαίοδ τὀ δἐ του ήλίου μέλεθοδ έστίν ή τὀ τῆδ γῆδ. A list of the figures of various ancient astronomers for the comparative size of earth and sun is given by T, L. Heath, Aristarchos of Samos, p. 350Google Scholar, but none coincides with the “166 and a fraction” here. The actual ratio of the diameters of earth and sun is very roughly 1 to 100.
page 88 note 1 As compared with § 14 the definitions are here out of order.
page 89 note 1 See § 14 (d) and p. 2. Ammonius, , Prooemium, p. 4Google Scholar, cites an epigram on the death of Cleombrotus.
page 90 note 1 This apparently refers to the “fourth enquiry” of § 12, viz. “consideration of what the definition is made up.” la § 13 al-Fārābī says “we have to set forth … what the definition is made up of in every art.” In §§ 17-13 he has been explaining at length the definitions of philosophy given shortly in § 14 and it is understandable that he should regard this from one point of view as “consideration of what the definition (of philosophy) is made up.” On the other hand, (§§ 13-14) the definition of philosophy may be with reference to its end. Thus §§ 17-23 have something to say about the end of philosophy. This may be what al-Fārābī means by speaking of the “fourth enquiry,” viz. D of §§ 1 and 7 (cf. introductory note, p. 78 and p. 84, n. 1).
page 91 note 1 Two further methods are mentioned, fol. 14(a) (not translated here): analysis (tahlīl) and proof (burbān).
page 92 note 1 Cf. Vorstudien der Philosophie, Alfārābī's philosophische Abhandlungen, No. 4, transl. Dieterici, , p. 85Google Scholar (Arabic text, p. 50).
