1 Alonso, Manuel Alonso, Maqās˙id al-falāsifa: o Intenciones de los filósofos (Barcelona, 1963).Google Scholar

2 Ibid., xv–lii. Alonso catalogs the Arabic and Latin manuscripts that contain the text and discusses al-Ghazali's life as much as the methods of the Latin translator, Dominicus Gundissalinus. He also refers to al-Ghazali by the Latin rendering of his name, Algazel, rather than a transliteration of his name from Arabic.Google Scholar

3 Ibid., xxv–xliii.Google Scholar

4 “Aun entre los autores cuya actividad se desarrolla entre 1250 y los primeros años de siglo XIV, existen muchos que están sin editar. Algunas cosas se han editato, al menos parcialmente, en Colecciones o en Revistas que no es fácil tener a mano. Ciertas obras impresas en el siglo XV y en el XVI tampoco son tan accesibles que cualquiera pueda utilizarlas. Quedarán aquí omitidas a pesar de haberlas buscado. El lector puede con derecho inferir que la influencia explicita de Algazel pudo haber sido mucho mayor que lo que nos dicen los siguentes autores.” (Ibid., xxvi.) Google Scholar

5 “In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with the coming of Scholasticism to maturity and the more direct contact with Aristotle made directly from the Greek, the use of Algazel declines. The number of manuscripts falls off, and the citations become fewer. Perhaps Giles of Rome's Tractatus de erroribus philosophorum played a role here. His list of Algazel's sixteen errors came into the Directorium Inquisitorum of Nicholas Eymerich.” (Lohr, Charles, “Logica Algazelis: Introduction and Critical Text,” Traditio 21 [1965]: 223–90, at 231.) Lohr is familiar with Alonso's list and offers a few additions to it, but he does not mention Alonso's concerns about the text's later use. Jules Janssens draws directly from Lohr on the subject when discussing the reception of the work. (Janssens, Jules, “Al-Ġazālī's Maqās˙id al-falāsifa, Latin Translation of,” in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy , ed. Lagerlund, H. [Dordrecht, 2010], 387–90, at 389.) Google Scholar

6 Al-Ghazali negatively reexamined his philosophical approach to faith in his autobiography, Al-Munqidh min al-dalal. Despite the problems that the autobiography poses, historians traditionally follow the timeline laid out by al-Ghazali in this work and see a dramatic shift in his thought after his spiritual awakening. However, Frank Griffel sees little change in his arguments and argues that historians are too willing to accept al-Ghazali's revival as a turning point. The problems of the autobiography are compounded by the fact that al-Ghazali's works spread quickly during his lifetime and attracted followers and detractors throughout the Islamic world. (Griffel, Frank, Al-Ghazali's Philosophical Theology [New York, 2009], 8–12, 61–71.)Google Scholar

7 Janssens, Jules, “La Dānesh-Nāmeh d'Ibn Sina: Un text à revoir?” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 28 (1986): 163–77, at 163–64.Google Scholar

8 “You have desired from me a doubt-removing discourse, uncovering the incoherence of the philosophers and the mutual contradictions in their views and how they hide their suppressions and deceits. But to help you in this way is not at all desirable unless I first teach you their position and demonstrate their dogmatic structure to you…. So I thought that I should preface an exposition of how they are incoherent with a concise discourse containing a reproduction of their intentions (maqās˙id) regarding the logical, physical, and theological sciences that they cultivate without distinguishing between the sound and the false in them. Thus, I intend only to make intelligible the ultimate ends of their doctrine without anything like expansion or addition going beyond what they intend. I will explain by way of accurate relation of facts and reproduction together with what they hold to be proofs. The object of the book is the reproduction of the intentions of the philosophers and that is its title.” (Al-Ghazali, , Maqās˙id al-falāsifa: Mant˙iq wa-'l-ilah˙yāt wa-t˙abī'īya , ed. Dunyā, S. [Cairo, 1961], 31–32.) All translations are mine unless stated otherwise.Google Scholar

9 “When we have completed [the Maqās˙id al-falāsifa] we will begin again seriously and purposefully in another book that we shall call, if it is the will of God, Tahāfut al-falāsifa.“ (Al-Ghazali, , Maqās˙id al-falāsifa , 32.) It is important to point out that there is little continuity in the subject matter of the Maqās˙id and the Tahāfut. The arguments that al-Ghazali refutes in the Tahāfut are not extensively treated in the Maqās˙id and thus it is difficult to view these two works as volumes within the same project.Google Scholar

10 Zedler, Beatrice, Averroes' “Destructio Destructionum Philosophiae Algazelis” in the Latin Version of Calo Calonymos (Milwaukee, 1961). A Latin translation of Averroes's Tahāfut al-tahāfut was produced in 1328 by the Jewish scholar Calonymos ibn Calonymos of Arles, which contained the majority of al-Ghazali's Tahāfut al-falāsifa. The translation was commissioned by Robert of Anjou, king of Naples, who was familiar enough with Arab philosophy to quote Avicenna and Algazel in his works. However, Robert does not quote from the translation, and the lack of any medieval copy suggests that it failed to attract an audience until 1497, when Agostino Nifo printed the work with his commentary at Venice. See nn. 66 and 69 below.Google Scholar

11 Al-Ghazali left out Avicenna's book on mathematics when he translated the work from Persian. He explained in the prologue that there was little divergence of opinion among philosophers on mathematical topics, so he left it out. (Al-Ghazali, , Maqās˙id al-falāsifa , 31–32.)Google Scholar

12 Ibid., 133–34.Google Scholar

13 The efforts of Gundissalinus and his colleagues represent a shift in the translation movement toward philosophy, but Gundissalinus was unique among translators since he authored his own treatises, borrowing from many of the Arabic works he rendered into Latin. (Fidora, Alexander, “Dominicus Gundissalinus,” in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy , 274–76.) As for Gundissalinus's associate, a variety of translations by “Magister Iohannes” appears in twelfth-century Toledo and continues to shroud him from our view. (Burnett, Charles, “Magister Iohannes Hispanus: Towards the Identity of a Toledan Translator,” in Arabic into Latin in the Middle Ages: The Translators and Their Intellectual and Social Context [Burlington, VT, 2009], Article V.) Google Scholar

14 Alonso, ( Maqās˙id al-falāsifa [n. 1 above], xx–xxiii) approves of Gundissalinus's translation and points out the specific faults of his style, but he attributes most of these errors to a lack of corresponding technical terms in Latin or a misreading by Gundissalinus's Arabic-reading associate. Burnett describes a shift in the methods of twelfth-century translators. Early translations had been periphrastic on account of the difficulty of matching Arabic and Latin syntax. However, translation practices changed by the middle of the twelfth century as Gundissalinus, Gerard, and other scholars became more literal in their translations, perhaps on account of a growing familiarity with the language and better collaboration between Latin translators and their Arabic-speaking associates. (Burnett, Charles, “Translating from Arabic into Latin in the Middle Ages: Theory, Practice, and Criticism,” in Éditer, traduire, interpréter: essais de méthodologie philosophique , ed. Lofts, S. and Rosemann, P. [Leuven-la-Neuve, 1997], 55–78.) Google Scholar

15 The translations of the eleventh and the early twelth centuries had been more eclectic and included a wider range of genres, but the preponderance of translators focused on philosophical texts, particularly the Aristotelian tradition, by the middle of the twelfth century. (Burnett, Charles, “Arabic into Latin: the Reception of Arabic Philosophy in Western Europe,” in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy , ed. Adamson, P. and Taylor, R. [Cambridge, 2005], 370–404.) I use “Arab” in this and the proceeding sections on the Latin reception of the Maqās˙id al-falāsifa to describe the tradition of philosophy as it was understood by Latin scholars in the Middle Ages, who did not know that figures such as al-Ghazali or Avicenna were ethnically Persians and not Arabs. Hereafter I use “Arab” to denote the philosophical tradition, which encompasses a variety of ethnicities and religious affiliations, including Maghrebi and Andalusi Jews and Muslims.Google Scholar

16 “The main advantage of the Arabic Aristotle over the Greek was that it was part of a lively tradition of commentary and teaching up to the time of the translators themselves” (Burnett, , “Arabic into Latin,” 374–75). Dimitri Gutas emphasizes that the translators' interests mirrored those of the previous generation of Andalusian scholars rather than the interests of Latins north of the Pyrenees. (Gutas, Dimitri, “What Was There in Arabic for the Latins to Receive? Remarks on the Modalities of the Twelfth-Century Movement in Spain,” in Wissen über Grenzen: Arabisches Wissen und lateinisches Mittelalter , ed. Speer, A. and Wegener, L. [Berlin, 2006], 3–21.)Google Scholar

17 In addition to Gundissalinus's efforts, Gerard of Cremona focused his attention on the Arabic corpus of Aristotle and several works of al-Farabi, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Themistius. (Lemay, Richard, “Gerard of Cremona,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography , ed. Gillispie, C., vol. 12 [New York, 1981], 173–92.)Google Scholar

18 Historians have identified important differences between the prologue and the rest of the work, which suggest that a later scholar translated the prologue after Gundissalinus, or that the prologue was not part of the original translation. Dominique Salman remarked that the prologue displays a higher degree of fidelity to the Arabic original, which occasionally occludes the Latin sense. In addition to differences in terminology, the prologue introduces the work as De philosophorum intentionibus and the author as “Abuhamedin Algazelin,” which do not appear in other manuscripts. Salman does not believe that these differences constitute a separate translation but rather a later redaction. (Salman, Dominique, “Algazel et les Latins,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 10 [1935–36]: 103–27, at 125.) Lohr (“Logica Algazelis” [n. 5 above], 229–30) discovered that this fidelity to the Arabic original continues in the Logica found in BNF Lat. 16096. Although he reiterates that these differences could indicate a thirteenth-century revision, he argues that the prologue could also be a work of a second translator. Despite this alluring hypothesis, Lohr leaves the question of another translator unresolved, since he is treating only the Logica and not the entire work. There is the possibility that Gundissalinus was working from an Arabic manuscript that did not contain the prologue. Given that al-Ghazali was translating an existing work, it is likely that he composed the prologue last or inserted it after the work had been allowed to circulate. (Hana, Ghanem-Georges, “Die Hochscholastik um eine Autorität ärmer,” in Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel [Göttingen, 1972], 884–99, at 892–95.) The differences in terminology are stark, but it is difficult to reject the possibility that Gundissalinus translated the prologue, especially since the STP in BNF Lat. 16096 appears to be a revision rather than a separate translation. I am inclined to side with Salman that the prologue is part of a redacted version rather than suppose the existence of an anonymous translator.Google Scholar

19 Three Latin scholars demonstrate knowledge of the Tahāfut al-falāsifa and acknowledge al-Ghazali's complicated relationship to the Arabic philosophical tradition. Roger Bacon mentions the Maqās˙id's prologue and the Tahāfut al-falāsifa (De controversia philosophorum) in his Communium naturalium. (Bacon, Roger, Communium naturalium , ed. Steele, R., Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi [Oxford, 1920], fasc. 3, 224.) He also described Avicenna and Algazel as mere reciters of others' doctrines and chastised scholars for ascribing ideas to the authors that they did not endorse: “Et hoc omnino considerandum est pro libris qui Avicenne ascribuntur et Algazeli, quoniam eis non sunt ascribendi nisi tanquam recitatoribus non auctoribus, sicut ipsemet volunt in prologis illorum librorum” (ibid., 249). Ramon Martí mentions the Tahāfut al-falāsifa (“De ruina philosophorum”) and other works by al-Ghazali, though not the Maqās˙id, in his Pugio fidei. (Martí, Ramon, Pugio fidei adversus mauros et judaeos [Leipzig, 1687], 226.) Mark of Toledo mentions that Algazel was a Muslim in the preface to his translation of Ibn Tumart (see n. 113 below). However, Ramon Martí's and Mark of Toledo's knowledge of al-Ghazali and Arabic philosophers is far from typical in Latin Christendom given their knowledge of the Arabic language, and Roger Bacon's knowledge of al-Ghazali remains unexplained.Google Scholar

20 Scholars often referred to Algazel as Avicenna's abbreviator, which explained his relationship to Avicenna and that of the Summa theoricae philsophiae to Avicenna's corpus. The title of Avicenna's sequax was also common, though it simply explained the affiliation of the arguments of Avicenna and Algazel (see nn. 82 and 84 below).Google Scholar

21 Scholars suspected that the Maqās˙id al-falāsifa was related to Avicenna's Dānesh-Nāmeh but lacked the linguistic ability to confirm this. Alonso (Maqās˙id al-falāsifa, xlv–lii) demonstrates the corresponding sections of the Maqās˙id al-falāsifa and Dānesh-Nāmeh in the introduction to his Spanish translation. Alonso's comparison study leaves little doubt that the work is a translation of Avicenna's, Dānesh-Nāmeh, but he conducted his research with a French translation (Achena, M. and Massé, H., eds., Le livre de science [Paris 1955; repr., Paris, 1986]) and could only speculate as to al-Ghazali's method of translating Persian into Arabic. Janssens, (“Le Dānesh-Nāmeh d'Ibn Sina” [n. 7 above], 163–77) provides clarity on this question and found that al-Ghazali simplifies Avicenna's prose and occasionally provides summaries and examples. Even with the changes and additions, Janssens concludes that much of the work preserves the argumentation of Avicenna and thus labels the work an “interpretative translation.” Google Scholar

22 Instead of any work by an Arabist on the subject, August Schmoelders uses the 1506 printed edition of the STP, which lacks the prologue, to demonstrate the similarity between the thought of al-Ghazali and Avicenna, which he believes is proof of al-Ghazali's early career as a philosopher. (Schmoelders, August, Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes et notamment sur la doctrine d'Algazzel [Paris, 1842], 219–20.)Google Scholar

23 Munk, Salomon, Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe (Paris, 1857), 369–73.Google Scholar

24 Duhem, Pierre, Le système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à Copernic , 4 vols. (Paris, 1913–17), 4:501. Duhem's argument was echoed by scholars for another decade. (Louis Rougier, La Scolastique et le Thomisme [Paris, 1925], 316.) Google Scholar

25 Maurice Bouyges upheld Munk's, argument in “Notes sur les philosophes arabes connus des latins au Moyen Âge,” Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale 7 (1921): 397–406. Léon Gauthier also refuted Duhem in Scolastique musulmane et scolastique chrétienne (Paris, 1928), 358–65.Google Scholar

26 Salman, , “Algazel et les Latins,” 125–27. The effect of Salman's article can be seen in a series of articles by Macdonald, Duncan, who wrote a positive review of Muckle's edition of the STP in 1936. In 1937, however, he wrote a scathing addition to his review, citing Muckle's errors and the necessity of Salman's article (see n. 31 below).Google Scholar

27 Janssens, Jules, “Al-Ghazzali and His Use of Avicennian Texts,” in Problems in Arabic Philosophy , ed. Maróth, M. (Piliscsaba, Hungary, 2003), 37–49.Google Scholar

28 The most useful edition is that of Sulaiman Dunya, which provides commentary and textual variations embedded in the text: Maqās˙id al-falāsifa: Mant˙iq wa-'l-ilah˙yāt wa-t˙abī'īya (Cairo, 1961). An older edition was conducted by al-Kurdi, Muhyi al-Din Sabri (Cairo, 1936), which Bejou later revised in his edition (Damascus, 2000). The first print edition of the STP appeared in 1506 with the title Logica et philosophia Algazelis Arabis , ed. Liechtenstein, Peter (Venice, 1506; repr., Frankfurt, 1969) and was reprinted at Venice under the same title in 1536 (repr., Hildesheim, 2001). Both versions lack the prologue.Google Scholar

29 Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics: A Mediaeval Translation , ed. Muckle, J. T. (Toronto, 1933). Muckle primarily used Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Lat. 4481 and consulted the 1506 printed edition in Paris, BNF Reserve 809 and five other manuscripts (Paris, BNF MSS Lat. 6443, 6552, 14700, 16096, 16605) for variants.Google Scholar

30 “Cette ancienne [1506] édition étant depuis longtemps introuvable, le Rév. J. T. Muckle eut l'heureuse idée de rééditer une partie. Une étude insuffisante de la tradition manuscrite lui a malheureusement fait choisir le médiocre Vat. Lat. 4481 comme base de l'édition, les variantes du Paris N. L. 6552 étant seules reproduites en appendice: double choix d'autant plus regrettable que les bons manuscrits parisiens avaient, semble-t-il, été examinés…. On regrettera surtout que l'éditeur ait intitulé ‘Metaphysics’ un ouvrage qui contient à la fois la Métaphysique et la Physique, et que les plus mauvais manuscrits, voire l'édition de Venise, n'avaient jamais appelée que Philosophia, terme qui dans son imprécision n'était pas inexact…. Quoi qu'il en soit, M. Muckle a mis à la disposition des médiévistes un texte somme toute utilisable de la majeure partie du Maqâcid latin, et tous lui en seront reconnaissants.” (Salman, , “Algazel et les Latins” [n. 18 above], 123–24.)Google Scholar

31 Macdonald wrote a note less than a year after his review, highlighting that Muckle's “ignorance” allowed him to neglect to use the prologue in BNF Lat. 16096 in his edition. He adds a final exasperated shot: “Finally, an Arabist cannot restrain himself from adding here that a great part of the confusion has arisen out of the refusal of western Medievalists to pay any attention to the Arabic evidence, which is very much as though a student of Cicero's philosophical writings should refuse to learn Greek and to consult Cicero's Greek teachers. In 1859 S. Munk put the matter perfectly clearly with citations of Arabic, Latin and Hebrew authorities and in 1928 the point was restated with still more Arabic authorities by Gauthier, Léon in the Revue d'histoire de la philosophie for that year, pp. 358–65. Will the present perfectly conclusive article by Salman, Fr., one of themselves, in one of their own journals, make any impression on them? May it even lead some of them to learn some Arabic!” (Macdonald, Duncan, “Note on ‘The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzali,”’ Isis 27 [1937]: 9–10.) Google Scholar

32 He observes (Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics [n. 32 above], 130) the different titles in some manuscripts but does not use them.Google Scholar

33 “We are deeply indebted to Professor Muckle for his most careful edition of the first two books on Metaphysics and Physics — he does not give the Logic — but there is no word of admonition in the preface that these do not give al-Ghazzali's own position. On the title-page they are called ‘Algazel's Metaphysics’ and the single word ‘translation’ is almost the only hint given that they were not originally written in Latin. Otherwise ‘Algazel’ might be a mediaeval European philosopher.” (Macdonald, , “The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzali,” 14.)Google Scholar

34 Lohr, Charles, ed., “Logica Algazelis,” Traditio 21 (1965): 223–90, edition on 239–88.Google Scholar

35 St. Clair, Eva, ed., “Algazel on the Soul: A Critical Edition,” Traditio 60 (2005): 47–84, edition on 60–84. The corresponding text can be found in Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics, 162–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

36 Alonso points out that Muckle created his edition with no thought as to how the text in Vat. Lat. 4481 compared to the Arabic original. He demonstrated that the text in BNF Lat. 6552, whose textual variations appear only in the appendix of Muckle's edition, is more faithful to the Arabic than that of Vat. Lat. 4481. (Alonso, Manuel, “Los Maqās˙id de Algazel: Algunas deficiencias de la edición canadiense,” Al-Andalus 25 [1960]: 445–54.)Google Scholar

37 Salman, (“Algazel et les Latins,” 103) calls the separation of the work from the Tahāfut and the medieval ignorance of its prologue “une singulière ironie de l'histoire.” Macdonald (“The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzali,” 9) sees the loss of the prologue as “one of the most unhappy misunderstandings in the history of philosophy.” Lohr, (“Logica Algazelis,” 224) echoes this sentiment almost verbatim, explaining that the loss of the prologue and Tahāfut in Latin meant that “in the West, the [Maqās˙id] fell victim to one of the most unfortunate misunderstandings in the history of philosophy.” Google Scholar

38 Alonso's list of authors (Maqās˙id al-falāsifa [n. 1 above], xxv–xliii) tails off quickly in the fourteenth century. He lists eleven authors who died between 1301 and 1310, five between 1311 and 1320, three between 1321 and 1330, and only one between 1330 and 1340.Google Scholar

39 Nicholas of Autrecourt, Exigit ordo executionis , ed. O'Donnell, R., Mediaeval Studies 1 (1939): 179–280.Google Scholar

40 Only two of the scholars who cited Algazel before the fourteenth century, Dominicus Gundissalinus and Ramon Martí, cannot be placed at any university with certainty. Additionally, only three scholars from this group do not appear to have a connection to Paris or Oxford but spent time at other universities: Moneta of Cremona (Bologna), Peter of Ireland (Naples), and Bernard of Trilia (Montpellier).Google Scholar

41 Roland of Cremona, Summa Magistri Rolandi Cremonensis O.P. Liber tertius , ed. Cortesi, A. (Bergamo, 1962), fol. 62r.Google Scholar

42 Alonso, ( Maqās˙id al-falāsifa , xxix–xxxiii) found 146 citations of Algazel in the works of Albert the Great. I was able to find more since recent editors of Albert's works found many quotations from the STP that Albert did not credit to Algazel. In his De causa et processu universitatis a prima causa alone, there are many passages in which he quotes or paraphrases passages from the STP with no mention of Algazel. Since earlier editors only located quotations in the STP when Albert mentioned Algazel by name, the extent of Albert's use of the STP is not yet fully known. See the appendix and Albert the Great, De causa et processu universitatis a prima causa , ed. Fauser, W., Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 17, pars 2 (Münster, 1993), passim.Google Scholar

43 The twelfth-century translator Adelard of Bath omits the names of Arabs in his works and explains that he was merely relating the positions of Arabs rather than arguing for their validity: “He [Adelard's nephew] urged me to put forward some new item of the studies of the Arabs…. For the present generation suffers from this ingrained fault, that it thinks that nothing should be accepted which is discovered by the ‘moderns.’ Hence it happens that, whenever I wish to publish my own discovery, I attribute it to another person saying: ‘Someone else said it, not I!’ Thus, lest I have no audience at all, some teacher came up with all my opinions, not I.” (Adelard of Bath, Questions of Natural Science , trans. Burnett, C., Adelard of Bath: Conversations with His Nephew [Cambridge, 1998], 83.)Google Scholar

44 Alexander Fidora points out that Gundissalinus derives much of the beginning of De divisione philosophiae directly from the introduction to the STP. (Gundissalinus, Dominicus, De divisione philosophiae , trans. Fidora, A. and Werner, D. [Freiburg, 2007], 62–66, 70–73, 76.)Google Scholar

45 Anonymous, De anima et de potentiis eius , ed. Gauthier, R-A., “Le Traité De anima et de potentiis eius d'un maître ès arts (vers 1225),” Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 66 (1982): 27–55, at 53; and Phillip the Chancellor, Questiones de anima , ed. Keeler, L., Philippi Cancellarii Summa de bono (Münster, 1937), 65, 77, 91.Google Scholar

46 Blund, John, Tractatus de anima , ed. Callus, D. and Hunt, R. (London, 1970), 2–3, 5, 13, 27, 28, 58, 75, 91, 94, 97; William of Auvergne, De anima , ed. Le Feron, B., Guilielmi Alverni opera omnia (Paris, 1674), 112b; Peter of Spain, Scientia libri De anima , ed. Alonso, M. (Madrid, 1941), 476; Albert the Great, , De anima , ed. Stroick, C., Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 7, pars 1 (1968), 195; Aquinas, Thomas, De potentiis animae , ed. Busa, R., S. Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia [TAOO], vol. 7 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1980), 638; Pecham, John, Quaestiones de anima , ed. Spettmann, H. (Münster, 1918), 75, 77; Bernard, of Trilia, , Quaestiones de cognitione animae separatae a corpore , ed. Martin, S. (Toronto, 1965), 113, 131, 337, 370, 386; and Matthew of Aquasparta, Quaestiones disputatae de anima, vol. 6, ed. Gondras, A. J., Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 24 (1957): 203–352.Google Scholar

47 Anonymous, Lectura in librum de anima , ed. Gauthier, R-A. (Rome, 1985), 9, 44, 49, 57, 351; Peter, of Ireland, , In Aristotelis librum De interpretatione , ed. Dunne, M. and Baeumker, C. (Leuven, 1996), 89, 180; Richard Rufus of Cornwall, In physicam Aristotelis , ed. Wood, R., Richard Rufus of Cornwall: In Physicam Aristotelis (Oxford, 2003), 89, 148, 149, 170, 172; Peter of Spain, Commentum in librum De anima , ed. Alonso, M. (Madrid, 1944), 63, 67, 68, 79, 118, 137, 173, 195, 292, 298, 390, 392, 403, 459, 484, 544; Siger of Brabant, Questiones super physicam , ed. Van Steenberghen, F. (Leuven, 1931), 188, 190; and Adam, of Buckfield, , Sententia super secundum Metaphysicae , ed. Mauer, A., Nine Mediaeval Thinkers: A Collection of Hitherto Unedited Texts (Toronto, 1955), 101, 103. See also Albert the Great's many citations of Algazel in his Aristotelian commentaries in the appendix.Google Scholar

48 Albert the Great, Metaphysica , ed. Geyer, B., Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 16, pars 1 (1960), 138, 214, 217; vol. 16, pars 2 (1960), 495, 526; Vincent, of Beauvais, , Speculum naturale (Venice, 1591), fols. 41v^a, 287r^a–v^a, 290v^a, 309r^a–v^b, 310r^b, 311r^b, 312v^b, 313r^a, 314r^b, 332v^b; and Bartholomew of England, De proprietatibus rerum (Nuremberg, 1519), Lib. VIII, c. xxxiii, xl; Lib. XIX, c. x.Google Scholar

49 Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica , ed. Klumper, B. (Rome, 1924), 118, 120, 508, 509–10, 511, 512, 513, 525, 527, 529, 530; Grosseteste, Robert, Expositio in epistulam sancti Pauli ad Galatas , ed. Dales, R., CCM 130 (Turnhout, 1995), 73; Bonaventure, , Collationes in Hexaemeron , ed. Delorme, F., S. Bonaventura Collationes in Hexaemeron et Bonaventuriana selecta quaedam (Rome, 1934), 75, 222; idem, “Quaestiones de Theologia,” ed. Tavard, G. H., Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 17 (1950): 218; and Henry of Ghent, Commentarium in Hexaemeron , ed. Smalley, B., “A Commentary on the Hexaemeron by Henry of Ghent,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 20 (1953): 83.Google Scholar

50 Alighieri, Dante, Il Convivio , ed. Vasali, C., Opere minori , vol. 1, Pars 2 (Milan/Naples, 1988), 216, 753. It is likely that Dante learned of Algazel from his reading of Albert the Great's De somno et vigilia. (Alighieri, Dante, Das Gastmahl: Viertes Buch , trans. Ricklin, T. [Hamburg, 2004], 262–63 n. 242.) Google Scholar

51 Llull, Ramon, Compendium logicae Algazelis , ed. Lohr, C., “Raimundus Lullus ‘Compendium logicae Algazelis’: Quellen, Lehre und Stellung in der Geschichte der Logik” (PhD diss., University of Freiburg, 1967).Google Scholar

52 “Ratio autem huius purgationis post mortem est quam dicit Avicenna, libro nono…. Istam autem rationem pene, eterne et non eterne, exprimit manifestius Algazel in sua Metaphysica, tractatu quinto, dicens quod cum anima est separata a felicitate ei debita secundum suam naturam tunc est ipsa in cruciate.” (Robert of Anjou, De visione beata , ed. Dykmans, Marc, La vision bienheureuse: traité envoyé au pape Jean XXII [Rome, 1970], 62.) Google Scholar

53 Llull, Ramon, Logica del Gatzell , ed. Rubio i Balaguer, J., Ramon Llull i el Lullisme (Montserrat, 1985).Google Scholar

54 Steinschneider, Moritz, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des Mittelalters, meist nach handschriftlichen Quellen (Berlin, 1893), 299. Alonso supplies lengthy Castilian excerpts from the STP found in Madrid, BN MS Lat. 10011 (“Influencia de Algazel en el mundo latino,” Al-Andalus 23 [1958]: 371–80, at 375–80).Google Scholar

55 Al-Ghazali's Hebrew audience far outnumbers his Latin readers since there are seventy manuscripts that contain the Hebrew translation of the Maqās˙id al-falāsifa. (Harvey, Steven, “Why Did Fourteenth-Century Jews Turn to Algazeli's Account of Natural Science?” Jewish Quarterly Review 91 [2001]: 359–76.)Google Scholar

56 Dag Hasse identifies similar reasons for the declining use of Avicenna's, De anima. (Hasse, Dag, Avicenna's “De Anima” in the Latin West: The Formation of a Peripatetic Philosophy of the Soul 1160–1300 [London, 2000], 75–79.) Google Scholar

57 Algazel's presence in commentaries on the Sentences can be seen in the late thirteenth century (see Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great in the appendix) but become more prominent in the fourteenth century. See entries for Scotus, John Duns, Aureoli, Peter, Crathorn, William, Chatton, Walter, Wodeham, Adam, Gregory of Rimini, Peter of Aquila, and Marsilius of Inghen in the appendix. The practice of including Algazel in Sentences commentaries was continued into the fifteenth century by Hus, Jan, Gerson, John, and Denis the Carthusian.Google Scholar

58 The quodlibeta of Gerard of Abbeville, Thomas Aquinas, John Peckham, and Henry of Ghent testify that Algazel appeared in disputations as early as the middle of the thirteenth century. As with the Sentences, the references to Algazel in quodlibeta and quaestiones disputatae increase in the fourteenth century. See Godfrey of Fontaines, James of Viterbo, Giles of Rome, Henry of Harclay, James of Thérines, Vital du Four, William of Alnwick, Henry of Lübeck, and Peter Thomas in the appendix. However, Algazel disappears from quodlibets in the fifteenth century.Google Scholar

59 Algazel appears in the Correctorium series of texts entitled “Correctorium” that debate Thomas's arguments. William of Macclefield, Le Correctorium Corruptorii “Sciendum,” ed. Glorieux, P. (Paris, 1956), 294; John of Paris, Le correctorium corruptorii “Circa,” ed. Müller, J. P. (Rome, 1941), Metaphysica, 2, 12, 35, 47, 60, 64, 65, 68, 71, 74, 75, 98, 106, 158, 202; Physica, 71, 73, 160, 202, 239; de la Mare, William, Le Correctorium Corruptorii “Quare,” ed. Glorieux, P. (Kain, 1927), 211, 218, 299; de Primadizzi de Bologne, Rambert, Apologeticum veritatis contra corruptionium , ed. Müller, J. P. (Vatican City, 1943), 163, 167, 168–69; and de Vio, Thomas, In De ente et essentia divi Thomae Aquinatis Commentaria , ed. Laurent, M. H., Thomas de Vio Cardinalis Caietanus (1469–1534): Scripta philosophica; Commentaria in praedicamenta Aristotelis (Turin, 1934), 34, 40, 87, 157.Google Scholar

60 Scholars as early as the thirteenth century compare the arguments of Albert and Algazel. Vincent of Beauvais or his continuators discuss the positions of Algazel and Albert in the Speculum naturale on two occasions. (Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum naturale, fols. 309r^b, 312v^b.) This practice remains consistent into the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries: Brito, Radulfus, Quaestiones in Aristotelis Librum tertium De anima , ed. Fauser, W., Der Kommentar des Radulphus Brito zu Buch III De anima (Münster, 1974), 281; Bartholomew of Bruges, De sensu agente , ed. Pattin, A., Pour l'histoire du sens agent: La controverse entre Barthélemy de Bruges et Jean de Jandun ses antécédents et son evolution; étude et textes inédits (Leuven, 1988), 72; James of Thérines, Quodlibet I et II, 272–73; John of Jandun, Quaestiones super tres libros Aristotelis de anima (Venice, 1587), 327; de Vio, Thomas, In De ente et essentia, 222, 223; and Nifo, Agostino, De intellectu libri sex (Venice, 1503; ed. Spruit, L. [Leiden, 2011]), 148, 372.Google Scholar

61 See Eymerich, Nicholas, Directorium Inquisitorum (Venice, 1595), 238–41, at 239–40 for Algazel's errors. There is also reason to believe that Eymerich's readers disagreed with his identification of the heresy in this case. The sixteenth-century commentator of the above edition of the Directorium, Francisco Peña, writes a lengthy comment at the end of the section that contains the list of Algazel's heresies where he explains that the pagan (gentiles) philosophers discussed here cannot be heretics because they never claimed to adhere to the Christian faith. See Peña's, “Commentarium XXIX” in Directorium Inquisitorum, 241–42.Google Scholar

62 While several scholars appear to quote from the Condemnation of 1277 when discussing Algazel's arguments, they do not mention the edict by name. The earliest explicit references to this condemnation together with Algazel appear in the works of John Gerson more than a century after the condemnation: “Intellectus agens, secundum Avicennam et Algazel, erat primo Deus respectu primae intelligentiae, et secunda intelligentia respectu tertiae, et ita deinceps usque ad animam rationalem quae habeat ultimam intelligentiam pro intellectu agente, aut forte plures, differendo in hoc a Commentatore, ita quod motum orbium causabant influentias corporeas in corpora et formas spirituales in animas, et hoc est articulus parisiensis merito damnatus.” (Gerson, John, Notulae super quaedam verba Dionysii De coelesti hierachia , ed. Glorieux, P., Jean Gerson: Oeuvres complètes , 8 vols. [New York, 1962], 3:210, referring perhaps to errors 30, 65, or 74 in the Condemnation of 1277.) “Contra hanc imaginationem est parisiensis articulus quamquam Avicenna et Algazel de beatitudine intelligentiarum visi fuerint huius imaginationis extitisse” (ibid., 3:263).Google Scholar

63 Hasse ascribes a similar fate to Avicenna's, De anima , which once had been more popular than Aristotle's De anima, only to lose its appeal in the wake of greater accessibility to Aristotle and Averroes. (See n. 56 above.) Google Scholar

64 One important exception is Ficino, Marcilio, Theologica Platonica (Paris, 1559), fol. 189r.Google Scholar

65 Al-Ghazali, , Logica et philosophia Algazelis Arabis (Venice, 1506).Google Scholar

66 Nifo, Agostino, In librum Destructio destructionum Averrois commentarium (Venice, 1497). For more information on the translation, the various editions, and their circulation, see Zedler, , Averroes' “Destructio Destructionum Philosophiae Algazelis” (n. 10 above), 18–31.Google Scholar

67 d'Alverny, Marie-Thérèse, “Survivance et renaissance d'Avicenne à Venise et à Padoue,” in Venezia e l'Oriente fra tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento (Florence, 1966), 75–102; and Burnett, Charles, “The Second Revelation of Arabic Philosophy and Science,” in Islam and the Italian Renaissance , ed. Contadini, A. (London, 1999), 185–98.Google Scholar

68 See n. 10 above. Latins paid little attention to the work and failed to notice the differences between the Algazel of the STP and that of the Destructio for almost two centuries. Only Pietro del Monte (d. 1456), a Venetian legal scholar, mentioned the difference between these two conflicting figures of Algazel before the printing of the Destructio: “Quod si Algazel sedit quandoque super thalamo irreligiosorum philosophorum cognita alia maiori veritate surrexit et inde abiit.” (Pietro del Monte, De unius legis veritate et sectarum falsitate opus [Venice, 1509], Lib. II, c. xcxiii.) Google Scholar

69 Calonymos, Calo, a Jewish scholar working in Venice, noticed the poor quality of Nifo's edition, which was missing two of the disputations on metaphysics and four of the disputations on phyiscs. Calo provided a better edition in 1527, which was reprinted in 1550, 1560, and 1573. (Zedler, , Averroes' “Destructio Destructionum Philosophiae Algazelis,” 26–29.) Nifo's edition of the Destructio was reprinted in 1517, 1529, and 1542 in Lyons.Google Scholar

70 See Nifo, Agostino, De intellectu in appendix.Google Scholar

71 “Cum, ut ait Algazel anima humana habeat duas facies unam erectam ad superiora speculanda, reliquam inclinatam ad corpus regendum tract[atus] [quintus] in logica et philosophia.” (Polo, Antonio, Abbreviatio veritatis animae rationalis [Venice, 1578], 180.)Google Scholar

72 Apart from Nifo, only Pietro Niccolò Castellani cites both the STP and the Destructio together: “ita Algazel quoque in sua metaphysica concedit infinitatem in rebus abstractis maxime per accidens coordinatis. Sed huic obiicit Averrois in Antilogia [Destructionis] Algazelis d.i d.vii quod tunc infinitum reciperet additionem, siquidem cotidie infinitatem multitudini animarum superstitium, accedunt novae animae defunctorum, sed hoc facile solvit.” (Castellani, Pietro Niccolò, Opus de immortalitate animorum [1525], c. 55.) Google Scholar

73 In addition to the widespread practice of citing Avicenna and Algazel together, scholars occasionally describe Algazel as Avicenna's adherent. “Algazel Avicennam praeceptorem sequens …” (Romeo, Francesco, De libertate operum et necessitate [1538], 224); “Ad Avicennam et Algazelem dico quod nihil contradicunt …” (de Vio, Thomas, In De ente et essentia [n. 59 above], 40). Even Nifo refers to Algazel as Avicenna's, abbreviator: “Avicenna et suus abbreviator Algazel de intellectu agente et possibili eodem modo loquuntur” (Agostino Nifo, De intellectu [n. 60 above], 398).Google Scholar

74 The majority of the sixteenth-century authors who cite the STP were Catholic, but a few references to Algazel in the works of Protestant authors indicate that the audience of Arab philosophy was not divided along sectarian lines. Protestant authors were more likely to discuss Algazel in the vernacular. The Italian Protestant Girolamo Zanchi mentions Algazel in his De natura dei seu de divinis attributis libri V (1577), 52. Kaspar Franck was born a Lutheran before converting to Catholicism later in life and included Algazel in his German list of heretics of the Catholic faith (Catalogus Haereticorum [Ingolstadt, 1576], 23). French Protestant Philippe de Mornay discussed Algazel in his work De la vérité de la religion chrestienne (Paris, 1585), 107, 247. Catholic authors also mentioned Algazel in their vernacular works. Federico Pellegrini cites Algazel's discussion of the separation of the soul from the active intellect in his Italian treatise Conversione del peccatore overo riforma della mala vita dell'huomo (Venice, 1591), 393.Google Scholar

75 The Hebraist scholar Johann Reuchlin mentioned Algazel in his De arte cabalistica (1530), fol. 2v, which was copied in later works on the same subject. See Galatino, Pietro Colonna, Opus de arcanis catholicae veritatis (Basel, 1561), 435; and Johann Pistorius the Younger, De arte cabalista (Basel, 1587), 613. Defenders of Catholic doctrine also make reference to the STP. Algazel appears in the Malleus Maleficarum along with Avicenna on the matter of fascination. (Sprenger, Jacob and Kramer, Heinrich, Malleus Maleficarum , ed. Mackay, C. [Cambridge, 2006], 231.) The Malleus (ibid., 238) also discusses the enchanter's power to throw a camel into a pit, which is an anonymous reference to Algazel's discussion of the same in Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics (n. 29 above), 194.Google Scholar

76 Aquilanus, Johann, Sermones quadragesimales (Venice, 1576), 346.Google Scholar

77 Gilson, Étienne, “Les sources gréco-arabes de l'augustinisme avicennisant,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 4 (1929): 5–129, at 74–79; Salman, , “Algazel et les Latins” (n. 18 above), 110; Cabanelas, Dario, “Notas para la historia de Algazel de España,” Al-Andalus 17 (1953): 223–32; Alonso, , “Influencia de Algazel en el mundo latino” (n. 54 above), 371–80; and Lohr, , “Logica Algazelis” (n. 34 above), 230.Google Scholar

78 “Algazel enim Latinus non fuit, sed Arabs” (Aquinas, Thomas, De unitate intellectus, TAOO , 3:583); “Et hoc probat Avicenna et Alpharabius et Algazel et omnes Arabes sic” (Albert the Great, De praedicabilibus , ed. Borgnet, A., Beati Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 1 [Paris, 1890], 64–65.); “Quod ergo ex his accipimus est positio media, quam Avicenna, Algazel et Constabel et alii Arabes dixerunt” (Nifo, Agostino, De intellectu, 381); “Denique Avicenna et Algazel Arabes philosophi in contemplatione beatitudinem hominis statuerunt” (Denis the Carthusian, Contra perfidiam Mahometi, in Doctoris ecstatici D. Dionysii Cartusiani Opera omnia, vol. 36, ed. Loër, D. [Tournai, 1908], 282).Google Scholar

79 A few anonymous authors regarded Algazel as a Jew in the thirteenth century. (Gauthier, René Antoine, “Trois commentaires ‘averroistes’ sur l'Ethique à Nicomaque,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 16 [1947–48]: 187–336, at 260, 281, and 283.) The anonymous author of the Summa philosophiae places Algazel among the Arabic-speaking Christians. (See n. 99 below.) Google Scholar

80 “Liber philosophie Algazer [sic] translatus a magistro Dominico archidiacono Sedobiensi apud Toletum ex arabico in latinum” (BNF Lat. 6552, fol. 43r). Several manuscripts that contain the STP have similar rubrics: Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana MS Ott. Lat. 2186, fol. 1r; and Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana MS Lat. 2546, fol. 1r. (d'Alverny, Marie-Thérèse, van Riet, Simone, and Jodogne, Pierre, Avicenna Latinus: Codices [Leiden, 1994], 82, 110, 274.)Google Scholar

81 Thirty of the manuscripts that contain a copy of the STP have one or more translated works of Arab philosophers or Aristotle. Avicenna's works and the STP appear together in twenty-six manuscripts. (Minnema, Anthony, “The Latin Readers of Algazel, 1150–1600” [PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2013], 89–113.)Google Scholar

82 Albert the Great, Liber de natura et origine animae , ed. Geyer, B. and Filthaut, E., Alberti Magni opera omnia , vol. 12 (1955), 23, 63; Albert also referred to Algazel as Avicenna's insecutor (idem, De anima, Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 7 [Münster, 1968], 219). William, of Ockham, , Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis , ed. Wood, R., Guillelmi de Ockham Opera philosophica et theologica, vol. 5 (St. Bonaventure, NY, 1985), 705.Google Scholar

83 Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet IX , ed. Macken, R., Henrici de Gandavo Opera omnia , vol. 13 (Leuven, 1983), 177.Google Scholar

84 Giles of Rome (dub.), De erroribus philosophorum , ed. and trans. Koch, J. and Riedl, J., Errores Philosophorum: Critical Text with Notes and Introduction (Milwaukee, 1944), 38; Dietrich of Freiberg, De intellectu et intelligibili , ed. Mojsisch, B., Opera omnia, vol. 1 (Hamburg, 1977), 144; Nifo, Agostino, De intellectu (n. 60 above), 398; and Albert the Great, De generatione et corruptione , ed. Hossfeld, P., Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 5, pars 2 (Münster, 1980), 44.Google Scholar

85 Salman, (“Algazel et les Latins,” 106) cites this quotation from Albert as an “unflattering” assessment of Algazel. Other scholars come to similar conclusions. See Hasse, , Avicenna's “De anima” in the Latin West (n. 56 above), 63; and Janssens, , “Al-Ġazālī's Maqās˙id al-Falāsifa, Latin translation of” (n. 5 above), 389.Google Scholar

86 “Idem omnino dicit Algazel in sua Metaphysica, quia dicta Algazelis non nisi abbreviatio dictorum Avicennae” (Albert the Great, De homine , ed. Anzulewicz, H. and Söder, J., Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 28, pars 2 [Münster, 2008], 408).Google Scholar

87 See n. 42 above.Google Scholar

88 “Avicenna maxime de anima IIII et Algazel ipsius collega volentes …” (Peter, of Abano, , Conciliator controversiam quae inter philosophos et medicos versantur [Venice, 1565], Differentia XXXVII, fol. 56v, col. 2G); and “Item, Algazel Avicennae collega subtilis ac profundus …” (Nifo, Agostino, De intellectu, 303).Google Scholar

89 “Ex quibus fuit Aristoteles, et sequaces eius, videlicet Alpharabius, Algaxel [sic], et Avicenna, et plures alii qui post eum et per eum forsitan a via veritatis in parta ista deviaverunt” (William of Auvergne, De anima [Paris, 1674], c. 5, pars secunda, 112b). “Aristoteles autem et sui sequaces, ut Avicenna et Algazel, posuerunt quidem non unam animam totius caeli vel mundi” (Matthew of Aquasparta, Quaestiones de anima [n. 46 above], 295). “Et ideo alii dixerunt, scilicet Avicenna et Algazel, et sequaces eorum, quod Deus cognoscit singularia universaliter; quod sic exponunt per exemplum.” (Aquinas, Thomas, In quattuor libros sententiarum, Lib. 1, d. 36, q. 1, a. 1 [TAOO, 1:93].) Google Scholar

90 “Quod antiquiores Peripateci ut dicunt Alfarabius et Algazel in quinque modis.” (Albert the Great, Super Porphyrium de quinque universalibus , in Alberti Magni opera omnia , vol. 1, pars 1A [Münster, 2004], 6.) “Et hoc est quod dicunt Algazel et Avicenna et omnes Peripatetici.” (Siger, of Brabant, , Questiones super Physicam , ed. Van Steenberghen, F., Siger de Brabant d'après ses œuvres inédites, Les philosophes Belges, vol. 12 [Leuven, 1931], 188.) “Maxime Aristotelis et eius sequacium sive peripateticorum; nam et substantias et intelligentias separatas eos appellant, sicut Aristoteles, II Metaphysicae, et Avicenna et Algazel, omnino a materia et a corpore immunes.” (Matthew, of Aquasparta, , Quaestiones de anima, 235.) “His acceptis ac perfecte expositis scientia omnium Peripateticorum est, ut Alexandri, Themistii, Simplicii, Averrois, Avicenna, Algazelis, Alpharabii, Avempace et omnium antiquorum.” (Nifo, Agostino, De intellectu, 571.)Google Scholar

91 Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics (n. 29 above), 85 line 25, 141 line 2, and 154 line 25.Google Scholar

92 Adelard of Bath often juxtaposed the “ancients” and the “moderns” in his works and he seems to have been keenly aware that being “modern” was not often a positive quality. (See n. 43 above.) Google Scholar

93 Adelard's near contemporary Alan of Lille decried the “unsophistication of the moderns” (“ruditatem modernorum”) in his Anticlaudianus. (Alan of Lille, Anticlaudianus , ed. Bossuat, R. [Paris, 1955], 55.)Google Scholar

94 Like Adelard, Daniel of Morley voiced dismay at the hidebound study and slavish reliance on authority that he found in England and Paris, which prompted him to travel to Toledo in search of the learning of the Arabs. While he does not describe them expressly as moderns, he speaks of Arab scholars as a remedy for the present ills of Latin philosophers. (Daniel, of Morley, , Philosophia , ed. Maurach, G., Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 14 [1979]: 204–55.)Google Scholar

95 “Quia vero librum Aristotelis de scientia ista habemus, sequemur eum eo modo quo secuti sumus eum in aliis, facientes digressiones ab ipso ubicumque videbitur aliquid imperfectum vel obscurum dictum, dividentes opus per libros et tractatus et capitula, ut in aliis fecimus. Nos autem omissis operibus quorumdam modernorum sequemur tantum Peripateticorum sentencias et praecipue Avicennae, et Averrois et Alpharabi et Algazelis, quorum libros de hac materia vidimus concordantes; tangemus etiam quandoque opinionem Galeni, etcetera.” (Albert the Great, Liber de somno et vigilia, Beati Alberti Magni opera omnia , vol. 9 [Paris, 1890], 123.)Google Scholar

96 “Si autem quaerimus exemplum huius, quo aliqualiter manifestari possit tanta subtilitas, dicendum, quod ab antiquis Peripateticis, Theophrasto scilicet et Porphyrio et Themistio et a posterioribus, Avicenna scilicet et Algazele et Alfarabio, quoddam inter cetera convenientius exemplum positum est.” (Albert the Great, De causis et processu universitatis a prima causa , ed. Fauser, W., Alberti Magni opera omnia , vol. 17, pars 2 [Münster, 1993], 32.) Google Scholar

97 Evidence of Grosseteste's authorship is mostly circumstantial. One of the three manuscripts has a cryptic couplet that refers to the year of Grosseteste's death, followed by a “Robertus G.” Historians have attributed this work to Roger Bacon or one of his disciples, Bartholomew of Bologna, and Robert Kilwardby. (McKeon, Charles, A Study of the “Summa philosophiae” of Pseudo-Grosseteste [New York, 1948], 7–13, 22–23.)Google Scholar

98 “De philosophis magis famosis arabis vel hispanis et aliis eis vel contemporaneis vel succedentibus etiam Latinis.” (Pseudo-Grosseteste, , Summa philosophiae , ed. Baur, L. [Münster, 1912], 279.) The author misplaces the Jewish scholars Ibn Gabirol and, shockingly, Isaac Israeli among the Muslims and identifies Gundissalinus as an Arab rather than as a Latin, implying that his work as a Latin translator of Arabic works supersedes his position as a Latin author. (See n. 99 below.) Google Scholar

99 “A tempore autem Heraclii imperatoris, quo gens Arabum per Machometum arabem pseudoqueprophetam seducta etiam Romano imperio distenso paulatimque serpendo Aegyptum Africamque nec non et Hispaniarum partem Galliarum subegit, in gente illa praeclarissimi philosophi extiterunt, videlicet Avicenna, Alfarabius, Alguegi, Avempache, Avencebrol, Alkindi, Averroës peripatetici; mathematici vero Albumazar, Arzachel, Albategni, Thebit, Avennalperi, Avennarcha, Alfraganus vel correctius Affarcus, Iulius Firmicus; medici autem Isaac, Haly, Almanzor, qui et Rasi dicitur, horumque certissimus supradictus Avicenna, qui medicam completissimus omnium edidit. Ceteri vero Christiani: Plato Tiburtinus, Costa ben Lucae, Algazel et Gundissalinus, Constantinus, Theophilus Macer ac Philaretus. Hebraei vero utrique Rabbi Moyses quorum tamen posterior conversus egregium volumen pro fide contra Iudaeos scripsit.” (Pseudo-Grosseteste, , Summa philosophiae , 279–80.)Google Scholar

100 “Sunt et alii quam plures eximiae philosophiae viri, quorum etsi philosophiam inspeximus, nomina tamen ignoramus vel non sine causa reticemus, quamquam et Iohannem peripateticum et Alfredum modernioresque Alexandrum minorem atque Albertum Coloniensem praedicatorem philosophos eximios censendos reputemus, nec tamen pro auctoritatibus habendos.” (Pseudo-Grosseteste, , Summa philosophiae , 280.)Google Scholar

101 “Dicendum quod non potest sciri quid Philosophus senserit in hac materia: utrum, scilicet, intellectus multiplicenter vel non, nec utrum sit inconveniens infinitas animas esse in actu vel non, sicut Algazel dixit quod non est inconveniens, quia non solum moderni dicunt Philosophum diversimode sensisse, sed etiam ipsi expositores Aristotelis, ut patet de Averois et Algazel. Sed quomodocumque sit de mente Philosophi hoc pro vero et pro certo tenendum est quod generatio hominum, sicut et aliarum rerum, habuit initium temporis et quod anime sunt multiplicate per corpora et sunt finite.” (Thomas, of Sutton, , Quaestiones ordinariae , ed. Sharp, D. E., “Thomas of Sutton, O. P.: His Place in Scholasticism and an Account of His Psychology,” Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie 36 [1934]: 332–54, at 342.) Here Sutton is referring to the sixth division of being (finite and infinite) in the first treatise of the Metaphysica. (Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics [n. 29 above], 40–41.) Google Scholar

102 “Propter quartum sciendum, quod, quamvis opiniones philosophorum priorum de formae substantialis productione, ut scilicet illa Anaxagorae de latitatione formarum et illa Platonis et Avicennae et Algazel de introductione formarum ab agentibus extrinsecis et separatis, quantum ad modum positionis ab omnibus communiter moderni temporis respuantur et refutentur … sed tantum incohantiones in ipsa habere.” (Nicholas of Strasbourg, Summa , ed. Pellegrino, G., Nikolaus von Strassburg, Summa , vol. 1, Liber 2, Tractatus 1–2 [Hamburg, 2009], 10. See Al-Ghazali, , Algazel's Metaphysics, 16–19.) Google Scholar

103 “Item Thomas, Contra Gentiles, lib. II, cap. 52, in ultimo argumento dicit quod ‘esse competit primo agenti secundum propriam naturam, et ideo non convenit aliis nisi per modum participationis, sicut calor aliis corporibus ab igne.’ Hoc idem dicit Algazel, a quo forsan frater Thomas accepit dictum suum.” (John of Paris, Quaestio de unitate esse et essentiae , ed. Glorieux, P., “Jean Quidort et la distinction réelle de l'essence et de l'existence,” Recherches de théologie ancienne et médievale 18 [1951]: 151–57, at 156–57.) John also connects the arguments of Algazel and Aquinas elsewhere in his rebuttal to the charges brought against Aquinas, but he does not cite a specific work by Aquinas. (See article 6 in John of Paris, Le correctorium corruptorii “Circa” [n. 59 above], 47.) Google Scholar

104 William of Alnwick, “Determinationes,” ed. Ledoux, A., Fr. Guillelmi Alnwick O.F.M. Quaestiones disputatae de esse intelligibili et de quodlibet (Florence, 1937), xxx–xxxi. Ledoux found a list of disputed questions by William entitled “Determinationum” in a single manuscript, which he did not edit, but instead provided a redacted version in the preface of this larger work.Google Scholar

105 See n. 60 above.Google Scholar

106 “Videtur etiam haec opinio ab antiquis derivata, Platone scilicet Alpharabio, Avicenna, Algazele, Boetio, Hilario, Alberto, et eorum sequacibus, licet ab Aristotele nihil manifesti in hac re habeamus….” (de Vio, Thomas, In De ente et essential [n. 59 above], 157.) Google Scholar

107 “Qui suo tempore fuerunt sapientissimi.” (Nacchiante, Jacopo, “De infinitate primi motoris,” in Theoremata Metaphysica sexdecim et Naturalia duodecim [Venice, 1567], 169.)Google Scholar

108 “Quorum nomina nimirum antiquorum ut animam quorundam explerem, qui difficiliores ad credendum sunt; magna ex parte recensebo, hi sunt … ex Arabis, Avicenna, Algazel, Avempates.” (Persio, Antonio, Liber novarum positionum in rhetoricis, dialecticis, ethicis, iure civili, iure pontificio, physicis [Venice, 1575], 223.)Google Scholar

109 “Caeterum et rationem ampliorem et damnationem per Ecclesiam factam contra Algazelem vide infra, q. 21 art. 2. Pro nunc sufficiat audite Directorium ipsum universaliter damnantum sic: Antiqui philosophi etcetera Algazel multos errores et haereses contra fidem sanctam nostram posuerunt, quod patet prosequendo ut sequitur. Et postea inter alios recitat sententiam Algazel supradictam 4 vides: quomodo vicisim ex his firmentur conclusiones.” (Capponi, Seraphino, Elucidationes formales totius Summae Theologiae sancti Thomae [Venice, 1588], 18.)Google Scholar

110 “Infernus locus est sine mensura, profundus sine fundo, plenus ardore incomparabili, dolore innarrabili, ac poena interminabili. Ad quod quidam devotus in suo Tractatu de quatuor novissimis, allegat Averrois commentatorem dicentem: ‘In inferno continua est tristitia, et moeror sine consolatione.’ Veruntamen bene eruditis in Philosophia constat, quod Averrois hoc non dicat. Fuit enim primo de lege Mahumeti, quemadmodum Avicenna et Algazel. Postmodum vero legem impiissimi Mahumeti reliquit, propter apertissimas falsitates, quae in Alchorano continentur.” (Denis the Carthusian, , De quatuor hominis novissimis , in Doctoris ecstatici D. Dionysii Cartusiani Opera omnia , vol. 41, ed. Loër, D. [Tournai, 1912], 554.) The “devotus” is Gerhard von Vliederhoven in De quatuor novissimis. Google Scholar

111 “Sprevit quoque legem Christi, propter multa incomprehensibilia et supernaturalia, quae in evangelica lege habentur. Similiter vituperavit et Moysi legem, volens esse naturali lege contentus; sicque iusto Dei iudicio permissus est cadere in multos errores gravissimos.” (Denis the Carthusian, , De quatuor hominis novissimis , 554.)Google Scholar

112 “Haec autem Mahon doctrina talis certissime est, ut nequaquam nisi a carnalibus credi possit hominibus. Ad ista probanda sancti Doctores nostri multas adducunt alias subtilissimas rationes, quas brevitati studens dimitto. In primo quoque libello iam supra ex scripturis novi ac veteris Testamenti probavi, quod nequaquam in carnalibus illis deliciis, sed in clara ac fruitiva divinae essentiae visione hominum beatitudo consistat. Denique Avicenna et Algazel, Arabes philosophi, in contemplatione beatitudinem hominis statuerunt. At vero Mahometus magis rudis, turpis carnalisque fuit, quam Epicurus philosophus, quem omnes posteriores meliores philosophi deriserunt.” (Denis the Carthusian, , Contra perfidiam Mahometi , 282.)Google Scholar

113 In the preface to his translation of Tumart, Ibn, De unione Dei , Mark of Toledo argues that the work is esteemed by many philosophers on account of its reasoning and not its use of the Qur'an. In fact, the author is only nominally a Muslim who only places quotations from the Qur'an in his work on account of social convention: “maioris ponderis sunt apud discretos uiros et prudentes argumenta et persuasiones quas Habentometus [Ibn Tumart] induxit in libello Vnionis quam uerba Mafemeti in Alchorano … quoniam quidem hic Habentometus necessariis innixus assertionibus ad probandum unum Deum esse primum et nouissimum, suam bene fundauit intentionem; et reprehenditur tamen a nonnullis sapientibus in eo quod licet unum Deum esseque unam essentiam rationibus probat efficacissimis, inserit tamen auctoritates Alchorani; et de ipso credatur quod purus fuerit Maurus, cum in nullam crediderit legem, utpote philosophus Algazelis didasculus.” (Mark of Toledo, De unione Dei , ed. d'Alverny, M-Th. and Vajda, G., “Marc de Tolède, traducteur d'Ibn Tumart,” Al-Andalus 16 [1951]: 99–140, 259–307, at 269.)Google Scholar

114 Martí, Both Ramon and Mark of Toledo mentioned that Algazel was a Muslim, but neither scholar was as widely read as Denis the Carthusian, nor did they stress this aspect of Algazel's thought. Mark's oblique reference to Algazel as a philosopher leaves considerable room for interpretation, since the translator seems to imply that Ibn Tumart did not follow Islam strictly, but instead adhered to the philosophy of Algazel. (See nn. 19 and 113 above.) Google Scholar

115 “Et Algazel in libro de scientia divina, caeterique; Arabes et Mahomistae philosophi, sentiunt quod operationes animae coniuncto corpori communes, imprimunt in animam usus et exercitii characterem.” (Agrippa, Heinrich Cornelius, De occulta philosophia libri tres , ed. Perrone, V. [Leiden, 1991], Lib. 3, 424.)Google Scholar

116 “Non ignoravit Algazel Marrane tuus, ille Mahumetista hos sibi contrarios in anima motus sursum et deorsum homini docto quam infelicissimos fore, cum in libro de scientia divina demonstrat, quod ex contrarietate huiuscemodi attrahentium impressionum fit cruciatus in anima fortissimus et maxime formidolosus.” (Galatino, Pietro Colonna, Opus de arcanis catholicae veritatis [Basel, 1550], 441.)Google Scholar

117 “Por lo qual dixo aquel illustre Sarraceno de Algazel que quando naturaleza llego a la composicion del hombre.” (de Pineda, Juan, Historia maravillosa de la vida y excelencias de S. Juan Baptista [Medina del Campo, Spain, 1604], Lib. 2, a. 3, c. 3, fol. 106v.) “Que le Monde a esté creé de Dieu, voire de rien, et Algazel Sarrazin contra Averroes.” (de Mornay, Philippe, De la verité de la religion chrestienne [n. 74 above], 107.) Google Scholar

118 Eymerich, Nicholas, Directorium Inquisitorum (n. 61 above), 238.Google Scholar

119 “Quibus haec quae de Algazelis erramentis perhibuimus liquent; et quamquam philosophis se quadrent in naturae lumine quaeque rimantibus, tamen a fidei veritate dissonant, quo perhibetur in lumine videri lumen: hoc est nequaquam per naturam sed per gratiam nos sublumine gloriae contingere beatifici obiecti visionem.” (Wimpina, Konrad, In libros de sex sophorum erramentis , ed. Sotorem, J., Farrago miscellaneorum [Cologne, 1531], fol. 128r.) “Sed nequaquam assentit Christiana fides praedictis nec consonat Peripatetica doctrina illis” (ibid., fol. 129r).Google Scholar

120 “Ex articulo habes primo quomodo per rationem interimas haeresim Averrois et Algazel (Direct[orium] inquis[itorum] 2 par[s] Q. 4 blasphemantium): quod Deus non cognoscit singularia in propria forma. Haec ex seipsa haeresim adduximus etiam supra ar[ticulo] 6 quia et contra illum articulum pugnabat in alio quodammodo sensu inquantum s[cilicet] res non cognosci a deo propria cognitione, continet secundo habes: quomodo per rationem offendas, hanc merito damnari ibi a Directorio universaliter, sic: Antiqui philosophi ut etc. Averroes Algazel multos errores et haereses contra sanctam fidem nostram posuerunt, ut patet prosequendo ut infra et particulariter damnari a psal[mo] 138.” (Capponi, Serafino, Elucidationes Summae Theologiae [n. 109 above], 17.)Google Scholar

121 “Algazel: De hoc haeretico divus Thomas (lib. 3, contra gent., cap. 145) scribit illum in hac fuisse haeresi, ut affereret, hanc solam poenam reddi peccatoribus, quod pro amissione ultimi finis affligerentur contra illud Concilii Florentini decretum agentes, quod ita habet: Diffinimus, illorum animas, qui post baptisma susceptum nullam omnino peccati maculam incurrerunt, illas etiam quae post contractam peccati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel eisdem exutae corporibus sunt purgatae, in caelum mox recipi, et intueri clare ipsum Dominum trinum et unum, sicuti est, pro meritorum tamen diversitate, alium alio perfectius: illorum autem animas, qui in actuali mortali peccato, vel solo originali decedunt, mox in infernum descendere, poenis tamen disparibus puniendas.” (du Préau, Gabriel, De vitis, sectis et dogmatibus omnium haereticorum elenchus alphabeticus [Cologne, 1569], c. 27, 21–22.) “Algazel hanc seminauit haeresim, quod pro peccato redderetur poena, quod pro amissione ultimi finis affligerentur anime. Ut D[ivus]. Tho[mas]. ait 3. cont[ra]. Gent[iles].” (Grisaldi, Paolo, Decisiones fidei catholicae et apostolicae [Venice, 1587], 44.) Google Scholar

122 “Per hoc autem excluditur opinio Algazelis, qui posuit quod peccatoribus haec sola poena redditur, quod affligentur amissione ultimi finis.” (Aquinas, Thomas, Summa contra Gentiles , Lib. 3, c. 45, n. 6 [TAOO 15:108].)Google Scholar