The Editio Princeps of Fārābī's Compendium Legum Platonis

The Editio Princeps of Frb's Compendium Legum Platonis Author(s): Muhsin Mahdi Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1961), pp. 1-24 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543061 . Accessed: 03/07/2013 13:52
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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 support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Near Eastern Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Wed, 3 Jul 2013 13:52:18 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JOURNAL OF
NEAR
Volume XX
EASTERN
JANUARY
SEVENTY-EIGHTH
STUDIES
1961
YEAR
Number 1
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FARABI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLA TONIS1

MUHSIN MAHDI
SHE of "Summary
Plato's Laws"
(Talhis nawdmis Afldtiin2) by Abii Nasrcal-Fdrtbi (d. 339/950)3 is the only commentary by a Muslim author on a
1 Alfarabius Compendium Legum Platonis, edidit et Latine vertit Franciscus Gabrieli ["Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi, Plato Arabus," V. III] (In Aedibus Instituti Warburgiani: Londinii, MCMLII), pp. xiv (Praefatio) + 33 (Versio Latina) + 43 (Textus Arabicus). Except when otherwise indicated, references in the text and the notes of this article are to the pages and lines (and the corresponding critical notes) of the Arabic text. The writer expresses his indebtedness to the Department of Manuscripts of the Bibliotheek der Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden for supplying a microfilm copy of Cod. Or. 133, and to Professor Leo Strauss for permission to use the manuscript of the German translation prepared by him and by the late Paul Kraus. 2 The Arabic title poses two problems: (1) the degree of authority that can be attached to the initial and final words (talhis and and (2) the Arabic spelling of Plato's name: Afld.tiin) (1) The title supplied by the editor and the Leiden catalogue (P. de Jong and M. J. de Goeje, Catalogus Codicum Orientalium Bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno Batavae, III [Lugduni Batavorum, 1865], 306 [No. 1429]; cf. also P. Voorhoeve, Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden and Other Collections in the Netherlands [Lugduni Batavorum, 1957], p. 251) is a reproduction of the title given in the table of contents of the collection (Cod. Or. 133), which is written by a different scribe than the one who copied the text of the collection. This title does not occur at the beginning or in the body of Fdrdbi's text. In the colophon (43:14-15) the scribe says: "This is the end of Kitdb al-nawdmis by... Plato ... [in] the summary of (talhis) Ab-i Nasr..."
Kitab al-nawamis is thus the title given to Plato's as well as to Firdbi's work, and the latter is described as the talhis of the former. But the incorporation of this description into the title of Fdrdbi's work (as done by the author of the table of contents and accepted by the cataloguers and the editor) cannot be directly supported by the colophon or by any of our older authorities. The Escurial list by Abfi al-cAbbas Yaihy', the uncle of Averroes (cf. M. Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabo-Hispana Escurialensis [2 vols.; Madrid, 1760-70], I, 299 [No. 879 (8)]), cAli Ibn Yfisuf alQifti (Taorhh al-hukamda, ed. Julius Lippert [Leipzig, 1903], p. 280:4-5), and Ibn Abi Usaybicah (cUyiin al-anbda ft tabaqdt al-atibba', ed. August Miiller [2 vols.; Cairo and K6nigsberg, 1882-1884], II, 138:29), confirm the title Kitdb al-nawdmis. (The edited text of Ibn Abi Usaybicah adds ft after kitdb, but Steinschneider reports that the reading of the manuscript(s) he consulted does not make this addition [Moritz Steinschneider, Al-.Farabi (Alfarabius) des arabischen Philosophen Leben und Schriften (St.-Petersbourg, 1869), p. 215 (No. 27/64/51)].) Ibn Abi Usaybicah, however, supplies another title. In the edited text (II, 140:4) it reads: Kitab al-nawamis liThe manuscript(s) consulted by SteinFuld.tun. schneider (op. cit., pp. 3, 11-12, 220 [No. 99]) read: Gawdmic kitdb al-nawdmis li-Afldtun. Steirschneider already suspected the possible identity of the text to which these two titles refer (cf. ibid., p. 220 [No. 99]); and after consulting the Leiden manuscript of Fdribi's Nawdmis, he preferred the description ("Summer oder Synopsis") (ibid., p. 61 Gawdmic [No. 2]). Following Ibn Abi Usaybicah's second version, the title would thus read (Gawdmic) kitdb alit being understood that our nawamis (li-Afld.tun), older authorities do not report the words in parentheses. Unlike the title accepted by the editor, this title (in both versions) can be supported by, and was in most likelihood derived from, the Introduction where Fdrdbi describes his method of commentary (4:19-20; cf. below, n. 61,.
JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES
Platonic writing of which we possess the original Arabic text.4 The first edition of this relatively unique philological document by Professor Francesco Gabrieli of Rome was thus an event of some importance which has not received the critical appraisal it deserves. This may have been in part due to certain comments with which the editor prefaced the text. These comments tend, on the whole, to discourage the specialist and the general reader alike from occupying themselves with the text or attempting to understand its significance. For they suggest that the way
(2) As for the Arabic spelling of Plato's name, three forms are found in the bibliographical lists and in the manuscripts of Fdrdbi's works: Fuldtun, and Aflatimn. In the case of the title of the Afa.tun, Nawdmis, the first form is reported in some of the II, manuscripts of Ibn Abi Usaybicah (cUyfin, 140:4 n.; cf., however, Steinschneider's list, op.cit., the the second form 220 is [No. 99] and passim); p. one used by the author of the table of contents, and reported by the cataloguers, of the Leiden manuscript (De Jong and De Goeje, Catalogus, III, 306). The text of the Leiden manuscript contains both the second and the third forms (the second twice [5:10, 43:14 (cf. below, Part III)] and the third once [4:10]). The relative antiquity of these three forms corresponds to the order in which they are listed above. Since the second form is older than the third, since it occurs twice in the manuscript while the third occurs only once, and since it is found frequently in manuscripts of Fdrdbl's works (cf. e.g., Fdrdbi, Falsafat Afldtun ["De Platonis Philosophia"], ed. F. Rosenthal and R. Walzer ["Corpus Patonicum Medii Aevi, Plato Arabus" V. II] [Londinii, 1943], pp. 3 [title], 23:8; Falsafat Aristittdlis, MS, Aya Sofya No. 4833, fol. 19r: 3; Tahsil al[Constantinople], sacddah [Haydarabad, 1345 A.H.], p. 47:3 and 6 MS, British Museum [London], No. Add. 7518, fol. 110v), it should be preferred to the third form. 3 Carl Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Weimar and Leiden, 1898-1949) [henceforth cited as GAL], I, 210-13. 4 The second major commentary, Averroes' compendium of the Republic (.Gawamic siyusat Afldtifn [cf. Ernest Renan, Averroes et l'averroisme (Paris, 1866), p. 462]), is at present extant in the Hebrew translation of Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles (14th century) and the Latin translation of this Hebrew version by Jacob Mantinus (16th century). Cf. Averroes' Commentary on Plato's Republic, ed. Erwin Isak Jacob Rosenthal (Cambridge, 1956), pp. 2-8 (cf. J. L. Teicher in Journal of Semitic Studies [Manchester], V [1960], 176-95). Also extant is the Arabic text of Galen's commentary on the Timeaus: Gawamic kitdb Timdwus fi al-cilm al-.tdbii ("Compendium Timaei Platonis"), ed. P. Kraus and R. Walzer ["Corpus Platonicum Medii Aevi, Plato Arabus" V. I] (Londinii, 1951).
to explain what appears, in many respects, to be a baffling text is to assume some Neo-Platonic influences, Syriac interunknown Hellenistic mediaries, summaries, mistakes or deliberate corruptions in the translations, and simple misunderstandings of the Greek text or of the Greek institutions to which it refers (Praefatio, ix-xii). The present article intends (1) to sketch the broad outline of an approach to the text which (a) emphasizes the limitations of the evidence purporting to support these assumptions and (b) introduces the evidence available in the writings of Fdribi and other Muslim philosophers relative to their own understanding of Plato's Laws; (2) to give a more detailed description of, and to reappraise, the material upon which the edition is based; and (3) to supplement the edited text and its apparatus criticus with a list containing additional evidence, corrections, and improved readings drawn (a) from a re-examination of the unique manuscript utilized in the edition and (b) from a manuscript containing a partial German translation and some marginal notes by the late Paul Kraus not available to the editor. The examination of this list will reveal the nature and the extent of the emendations which must be made in the edited text before it could be profitably read and interpreted. I Students of Islamic thought are becoming increasingly aware of the decisive importance of Plato in the formation of Islamic philosophy in general and of Islamic political philosophy in particular, and of the leading role played by Fdribi in the introduction of a more genuinely Platonic approach to the understanding of politics and religion. In contrast to the physical, metaphysical, and mystical interpretation of Plato (centered about the
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FXRXBY'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS
Timeaus, and prevalent in the late Hellenistic schools in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the early Christian Middle Ages in the West), Fdrabi had access to, or was able to recover, Plato's philosophy in its original political context as presented, e.g., in the Republic and the Laws.5 His insight into the crucial importance of the relation between philosophy and the city provided him with the key to the understanding of Plato's thought. He presented an account of Aristotle's philosophy which stresses the fundamental agreement between him and Plato concerning the over-all character and aim of philosophic investigation. This account is free of most pseudo-Aristotelian doctrines, and it emphasizes the importance of the specifically Aristotelian point of departure and method.6 In all this, Fardbi shows closer affinity to classical Greek philosophy than to the late Hellenistic schools.7 Our present knowledge of these schools is admittedly incomplete. A report by Fdrdbi suggests that there was a tradition (somewhere in the many Neo-Platonic schools in Alexandria) which kept alive an older approach to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, and that this secret or "veiled" (masti~r) tradition reached him through his Jacobite teachers. But since we are still in the dark as to the content of this tradition, we are not in a position to determine the extent
5 Cf. Richard Walzer, "Arabic Transmission of Greek Thought to Medieval Europe," Bulletin of the John Rylands Library (Manchester), XXIX (1945-46), 164-65, 178-83. Of special interest is the explanation of the difference between Abfi Ishlq al-Kindi (d. ca. 259/873) and FArAbi with respect to the Hellenistic philosophic schools to which they seem to be connected and the Christian sects that transmitted the teachings of these schools (ibid., pp. 172-81). It is to be noted that it was the approach of Fdrkbi, and not of Kindi, that dominated among the leading Muslim philosophers. Cf. also Richard Walzer, "The Rise of Islamic Philosophy," Oriens (Leiden), III (1950), 11-13; FArdbi, Falsafat Aflatun, pp. xii-xvi. 6 FArAbi, Falsafat Arist.tdlis, esp. fols, 19v, 59r. 7 Walzer, "Arabic Transmission," op. cit., pp. 17980.
of Fdrhbi's indebtedness to it or the extent to which he represents a fresh departure made independently through the critical reading of the texts of Plato and Aristotle which were available to him and the rejection of the views of later commentators and schools. This question cannot be resolved until fresh material comes to light concerning that branch of Middle Platonism which holds forth the promise of supplying the missing historical link.8 In the meantime we need to proceed toward a more thorough understanding of the available works of F~rdbi. This task is important not only because it may shed light on the approach of his Hellenistic predecessors but also for understanding the subsequent development of the Islamic philosophic tradition as a whole. For it was Firibi who laid down the foundation, presented the definitive framework, and determined the course of Islamic philosophy as it came to be known in the West through Avicenna and Averroes. The more we gain access to his works, the more certain we become that Avicenna and Averroes were the commentators, not of one but of two great teachers: the "first teacher" (Aristotle) and the "second teacher" (Fdrdbi); and that in their commentaries on Aristotle they were following the broad outline set forth by Fdrdbi. This is especially true of the most decisive aspect of FdrAbi thought, i.e., his Platonic approach to political philosophy. Avicenna and Averroes may be more Aristotelian in physics and metaphysics; in politics, however, their model is not the Politics of Aristotle but Plato's political writings as
8 The report is quoted by Ibn Abi Usaybicah II, 134-35) from a work by Farfbi entitled "On the Rise of Philosophy" (cf. Steinschneider, op. cit., pp. 85-89, 211-13, 217 [No. 52]). For Middle Platonism, see Friedrich Ueberweg, Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, 1. Teil ("Die Philosophie des Altertums"), ed. Karl Praechter (14th ed.; Basel and Stuttgart, 1958), 524-56, esp. the works of Albinus (Platonicus).
(cUyiin,
JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES According to Ibn al-Nadim's Fihrist there were two (written 377--/987-),13 translations of the Laws: an older one by the famous translator Hunayn Ibn Ishiq (d. 260/873)14 and a later one by Fdrdbi's disciple Yaihyh Ibn cAdi.15 We are not told whether these translations were made directly from Greek or through the intermediary of Syriac (Birfini's quotations16 suggest that the translation he used was in all likelihood made from Syriac) nor whether Hunayn's translation was into Arabic or merely into Syriac. As to Yahy% Ibn cAdi, his activity as translator was, for the most part, the rendering into Arabic of Greek works previously translated into Syriac. He also "improved" a number of translations made from Greek (mostly through Syriac) into Arabic.17 In the absence of more definite information, the question of the Syriac intermediary translation of the Laws used by Fdrhbi cannot be answered directly. The editors of the Philosophy of Plato (where the evidence suggesting Syriac intermediary versions is more abundant than in the Nawdmis) have examined this question in a similar context and indicated
Hasan Ibn Abi Darr, al-Sa"ddah wa-l-iscdd, ed. Mojtabd Minovi [Teheran, 1958], passim [esp. Republic, Laws; see A. J. Arberry, "Some Plato in an Arabic Epitome," The Islamic Quarterly (London), II (1955), 87-91 (Republic)].) Although Platonism has an almost uninterrupted history in Islamic philosophy, our inability to locate any of the Arabic translations of a complete Platonic work, or even of the later Greek commentaries or summaries, with the exception of Galen's compendium of the Timeaus (which probably owed its popularity to the fact that it is, as the subtitle states, "on natural science" [cf. above, n. 4]), suggests that these writings were not as accessible to later thinkers as those of Aristotle, and also that, in many cases, these thinkers relied primarily on Fdrdbi's works for their understanding of Plato. 13 GAL, I, 147; Ibn al-Nadim, Fihrist, p. 246:5-6; Qifti, Ta'rih, p. 17:20-21. 14 GAL, I, 205-6. 15 Cf. n. 10; Augustin Perier, Yahyd Ben cAdi: un philosophe arabe chretien du Xe sidcle (Paris, 1920), p. 77 (No. 1), cf. pp. 58, 60. 16 Cf. below, n. 43. 17 P6rier, op. cit., pp. 77-80.
interpreted by Fardbi. Yet, only a small portion of Fdrdbi's works have been properly edited; of these only a few have been translated; and hardly any have been made the object of thorough and critical study or interpretation. This is a task which cannot be delayed too long if we are to gain a clear picture of the genesis of Islamic philosophy, of its early development, and of its impact on Islamic civilization. From Fdrdbi's Philosophy of Plato and other independent sources, we know that almost all of Plato's writings were known to him through references, descriptions, summaries, or extracts, by later Greek authors.9 We know also that the Timeaus, the Republic, and the Laws were among the dialogues translated by Fdrdbi's time, and that a number of others existed in the "handwriting" of Yahy" Ibn CAdi (d. 364/974)10 who was "a disciple of Firbil."11 These latter writings were not necessarily all translated into Arabic; some of them may have been in Syriac and others in Greek. But they were available; and even if Firibi himself did not know Greek or Syriac, he could have had access to them in these languages through Yahyh Ibn CAdi or his own Jacobite teachers.12
9 Fdribi, Falsafat Adflatun, and the editors' "Notae," pp. 17-28. On the Arabic translation of Galen's summaries, see G. Bergstriisser, Hunain Ibn Ishdq: Ober die syrischen und arabischen GalenUbersetzungen ["Abhandlungen fiir die Kunde des Morgenlandes" XVII. Band, No. 2] (Leipzig, 1925), Arabic text, pp. 50-51. 10 GAL, I, 207. 11 Ibn al-Nadim, Kitab al-fihrist, ed. Gustav Fliigel (Leipzig, 1871), p. 246. "He was the best disciple of Abfi Nasr... . He used to ... summarize the works of AbiT Nasr." cAll Ibn Zayd al-Bayhaqi, Tatimmat siwan al-hikmah, ed. Muhammad Safic (Fasc. 1, Arabic text: Lahore, 1935), p. 90. Bayhaqi reports also that he saw F~rhbi's works in the handwriting of Ibn cAdi (ibid., p. 17). Cf. below, n. 15. 12 Unlike the Arabic translations of Aristotle's writings, most of which are now e3xtant, none of the Arabic translations of Plato's writings are known to exist at present. (For instances of surviving excerpts, cf. al-Mubagiir Ibn Fdtik Muhtdr al-hikam wa-mahasin al-kalim ["Los bocados de oro"], ed. AbdurrahmAn Badawi [Madrid, 1958], pp. 85-90 [Crito]; Abui al-
THEEDITIO PRINCEPS OFFXRXBI'S LEGUM COMPENDIUM PLATONIS

the limits within which it can be expected to lead to positive results. The evidence to which they pointed out centers about the Arabic versions of Greek proper names, and the explanations of the meaning of these proper names. By tracing the Arabic versions of the Greek proper names to probable Syriac transcriptions, and by tracing the explanations of these names to probable Syriac origins, they were able, in most cases, to clarify their form and content.18 A similar inquiry into the text of the Nawdmis may lead to the explanation of the Arabic versions of the Greek proper names and even of the Arabic rendering of certain technical terms. The editor confines himself to a single term. He points out that, in a single instance, Fdrdbi uses rather than miisiqdr (cf. Syriac muisiqdrd), the more normal Arabic misiqa, to render Textus Arabicus, xi; lUovaoKrj (Praefatio, 12:20 [cf. n.]; cf. 34:6). But the fact that this instance is the exception in the Nawdmis on the one hand, and that Fdr~bi uses this same form in a context19 which has nothing to do with the text of Plato's Laws on the other, make it difficult to draw any positive conclusion from the editor's observation and point also to the general limits of such inquiries: The presence of Arabic versions of Greek proper
18 Falsafat A fldtun, pp. xvi-xviii. Many of the explanations are marginal or interlinear additions to the text of the unique manuscript (Aya Sofya [Constantinople], No. 4833, fols. lv-9v), and almost none of them is found in Falaguera's Hebrew summary (Reschith Chokmah, ed. M. David [Berlin, 1902], pp. 72-78). Readers and copyists of manuscripts containing Greek words and proper names were naturally inquisitive about what these meant. There was an abundant literature (mainly biographical) to which they referred, and it is not unlikely that some of them noted their findings on the margin of this manuscript. There are three columns of "explanations" of names of ancient philosophers following the table of contents of Cod. Or. 133. 19 Fdrdbi, Risdlah fi qawdnin sindCat al-gicr ("Fdrdbi's Canons of Poetry"), ed. A. J. Arberry in Rivista degli studi orientali (Rome), XVII (1938), 268:22. Cf. Abdurrahmrn Badawi, Aristit&dlis: Fann al-?i'r (Cairo, 1953), p. 152, n. 1.
names and technical terms suggesting Syriac intermediaries proves that such versions were adopted in Arabic philosophic literature (translations as well as independent works). By itself, this is not sufficient proof that these works were dependent exclusively on a Syriac intermediary text. Finally, and even when the fact is conclusively established that a Greek text had been translated into Arabic through a Syriac intermediary, this fact does not, by itself, indicate the degree to which the text may have been corrupted or the degree of accuracy with which it presents the thought of the Greek author. Indeed, there are examples of such translations, e.g., many of the works of Aristotle, which are more accurate than the corresponding translations made directly from Greek into modern languages. Owing to their form and style, Plato's works were more difficult to translate than those of Aristotle, and they remain so today. But in the absence of the Arabic version of the Laws we have no way of ascertaining the degree of corruption it may have suffered. And for reasons which will be stated below, it is not useful to suggest that the text of Firdbi's Nawdmis could lead us to a reliable answer. It is sufficient for our purpose to conclude that an Arabic translation of the text of Plato's Laws did exist; that one of the translators was a close associate of Firdbi; and that we have no ground upon which to doubt Fdrdbi's explicit assertion (a) that Plato's Laws (at least the first nine books) "reached" him, that he "obtained it," that he "looked into it," and that he "meditated upon it" (43:9-13); and (b) that the more serious intention of his work was to aid those who planned to read the text of Plato's Laws and were willing to undertake the laborious study and reflection required for understanding it (4:20-21)-i.e., that he expected such readers to obtain the
JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES Furthermore, in his report concerning the books of the Laws, Firrbi -does not mention the number of books which, according to Hunayn, were summarized by Galen. Again, in the absence of the text of Galen's summary or of extensive quotations from it, it would be rash to assume that he was Firabi's only source. All of Firybi's extant references to Galen confirm Maimonides' statement that Fdrdbi "was extremely This assumpcontemptuous of Galen."'23 tion is also contradicted by Firtbi's explicit references to the text of Plato's Laws; and it cannot be claimed that he mistook Galen's summary for Plato's text because the authorship of the former was a commonly known fact. Of the fact that Fdrdbi wrote a book on Plato's Laws, we possess information
23 Dalalat al-h&dirin, II. xv. (Maimonides' statement refers to Galen's doubt about the possibility of demonstrating the eternity of the world.) Paul Kraus, the original editor of the Nawdmis, made the following remarks regarding the possible relation between this text and Galen's summary: "Und die Nomoi-Paraphrase des Fdrabi scheint mir nicht einfach eine Reedition der galenischen zu sein. Dazu ist sie zu eigenwillig. lnd ausserdem sagt ja Fardbi selbst, dass er bei der Paraphrase das Original unter den Augen hatte, was nicht ausschliesst, dass er sich auch der Paraphrase des Galen bedient hat, die zu seiner Zeit iibersetzt vorlag." (Letter to Leo Strauss, May 28, 1936.) It is possible that the criticism of the crude symbolic interpretation of Laws i. 625a-c (cf. below, n. 62) is directed against Galen. But in the absence of an explicit reference to him, and of Galen's summary, nothing definite can be asserted in this respect. The reason why Farabi should have disregarded Galen's summary is not hard to seek. Despite Galen's popularity in late antiquity and in the Middle Ages, he did not command unqualified respect as a philosophic authority or as an interpreter of Plato and Aristotle. In his commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric MS, .Iamidiyyah [Constantinople], (Kitdb al-ha.tabah, No. 812, fols. 116r ff.), Firabi makes a laughing-stock of Galen's arguments against his opponents. FArabi also wrote a book exposing Galen's misinterpretations of Aristotle (Qifti, Ta'rih, p. 279:15; Ibn Abi Usaybicah, cUyiin, II, 1.39:6-7). Averroes, who consulted Galen's synopsis of the Republic, adopts the same attitude towards him as Fairabi (cf. Averroes, Republic, I. xvi. 1, xxii. 2, xxvi. 8-9, III. xx. 11). In an important respect (i.e., in his understanding of Judaism and Christianity), Galen's interpretation of Plato is not far removed from that of Fdrabi and Averroes. Galen's references to Judaism and Christianity were known to the Muslims. See Richard Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (Oxford, 1949), pp. 10-16.
Arabic text of Plato's Laws and read his Nawamis in conjunction with "the original book" (17:15-16, 28:9-11, 40:17-19),. Also, if Fdrdbi himself did not know Greek, he moved in a circle (including some of his teachers and close pupils) who did know Greek, and he lived in a period when translations from Greek were still being made and older ones corrected and improved. Therefore, he did not have to be totally dependent on the Arabic translation; and one cannot automatically attribute his divergence from the Greek text to faulty translations. Apart from the text of the Laws, there existed an Arabic translation of a summary by Galen. This summary formed the fourth and last treatise of Galen's "Synopses of Plato's Works" (Gawdmic kutub Aflt.tiin). each Unlike the rest of Galen's summaries, of which is described as gawdmic (av'vott), Hunayn describes Galen's summary of the twelve books20 of the Laws as gumal ma'cni. This means that, compared to the rest, it was a more summary and a less coherent collection of the subjects of the original text.21 Galen's summary of the Law's was not translated by Hunayn himself, but by his disciple Tish Ibn Yaihya.22 Although it is possible that Firdbi had access to Galen's summary, he does not refer to it or to its author in his Nawdmis.
20 The fact that the Laws was made up of twelve books was thus known from Galen's summary. It is also mentioned by Ibn Abi Usaybicah (cUyitn, I, 101:9-10). FarAibi's report concerning the dispute about the number of the books of the Laws (i.e., that "some claimed that they are ten and others claimed that they are fourteen" [43: 11-12]) should have immediately led the inquisitive reader to wonder (a) whether this is not a pure invention by FFrdbi, (b) why Fdirqbi does not report the correct number, (c) whether this report does not reflect upon the genuineness of the immediately preceding report (which attributes the omission of the last three books to pure accident), and (d) whether all this is not FArabl's way of justifying the omission of the tenth book containing Plato's theological treatment. Cf. Leo Strauss, "How Fairabi Read Plato's Laws," Milanges Louis Massignon, III (Damascus, 1957), 319; Averroes, Republic, III. xxi. 2-5. 21 Bergstriisser, op. cit., Arabic text, p. 50):20-21. 22 Ibid., pp. 50:21, 51:1-2. GAL, 1, 207
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FARXBI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS
independent of that which is contained in the unique extant manuscript.24 The attribution of the extant manuscript to Fdrdbi (who speaks in the body of the text in the first person as the author) was accepted in the scholarly circle through which the manuscript was transmitted. And apart from what seems to the present writer to be convincing stylistic evidence, the theoretical part of the Introduction (3:1-16) and the description of Plato's style (4:10-16). (which are the key to the understanding of Fdirbi procedure in the rest of the text) correspond in style and doctrine to Fratbi's treatment of the same topics in his book On the Agreement of the Opinions of Plato and Aristotle.25 All existing evidence thus points to the attribution of the text to Fdrdbi, and there is no positive evidence of any kind to justify the entertaining of doubts about its authorship. Nevertheless, such doubts have been entertained on the basis of the observation that the text does not render all the content of Plato's Laws; that, instead, it contains baffling ideajs that do not correspond to the ideas contained in the original Greek text; and that its author does not seem to have rightly understood Plato's thought.26
24 Cf. above, n. 2. 25 bayn ra yay al-hak-mayn Afldt&ftn alal-.amc ildhi wa-Aristilttdls ("Harmonie zwischen Plato und Aristoteles"), ed. Fr. Dieterici ["Alfiirbi's philosophische Abhandlungen," I] (Leiden, 1890), pp. 4: 65:22-6:5. 20, 26 The argument for doubting Fdrabi's authorship of the text is based on the following expectations: (1) Firdibi should have given us a more or less perfect 'rendering of the contents of the book." (2) The ideas contained in Plato's Laws should "have been rightly understood" by Farabi. (3) Fardbi should not have said things which we find "baffling," or things that "do not seem to refer to anything in the Greek original." Since the text before us does not satisfy these conditions, one is inclined to the hypothesis "that it is based on a Greek compendium of Plato's Laws which has been lost." "But then the attribution to Farabi can hardly be maintained, for it is difficult to see why FEirAbi should have made a compendium of a compendium." S. M. Stern in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies (London), XVII (1955), 398.
This assumes that we possess an authoritative and final understanding of Plato's Laws, and that Fdrdbi must have shared this understanding. It assumes, further, that Firibi had no other purpose in view than to render the content of Plato's Laws. On the basis of these assumptions, one can proceed to doubt the genuineness and value of a text that does not bear them out. However, two questions immediately suggest themselves: (1) Is it likely that we are confronted with an understanding of the Laws different from our own, and one which we are called upon to know before we presume to judge its rightness or wrongness? (2) Did Fdrdbi have a purpose other than to render the content of the original? A few comments will suffice to indicate that the answers to these questions are indeed in the affirmative. According to Avicenna, Plato's Laws treats the subject of prophecy (nubuwwah) and divine Law ('aricah). He reports that "among the philosophers, the nomos (ndmi~s) is tradition [or legal usage (sunnah)], the established and permanent norm, and the coming down of revelation."'27 The philosophic study of the nomoi is then defined as that part of practical philosophy through which one knows (a) "the existence of prophecy, and that the human species needs the divine Law in order to exist, to preserve itself, and to develop"; (b) "the measure28 of wisdom involved in the universal commandments
27 Aqsam al-culiLm in Tisc rasd8il al-caqliyyah, (Cairo, 1908), p. 108:2-5. Avicenna supports the philosophic position that subsumes revelation under the general sense of the term nomos by recalling that "the Arabs, too, call the angel that brings down revelation 'ndmi-s."' The word ndamis (which came to Arabic through the Syriac transliteration of is nomnos) reported to have been applied to Muhammad's early revelation by his older contemporary AWaraqah Ibn Nawfal. Cf. Tabari, Ta rlh al-rusul wa-l-muiik, ed. M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1879-1901), I, 1147-48, 115152. Waraqah's statements indicate that Christians and Jews had used nomos in similar contexts, e.g., "the ndmi2s that was revealed to Moses" (ibid.). 28 Or "the partial" (bacd).
that are common to [all] divine Laws, and in the ones that are specific to each divine Law [laid down] with respect to each group and each age"; and (c) "the difference between divine prophecy and all unfounded claims [to divine prophecy]." 29 Muslim philosophers did not study Plato's Laws to acquaint themselves with the last great literary production of a tired "idealist" philosopher whose failure to realize the dreams of his youth, and whose age and bitter practical experiences forced him to fabricate a less radical and a more realistic political blue-print; and their interest in it did not center about the specifically Greek institutions which it describes. They saw Plato's Laws primarily as a philosophic discussion, indeed the philosophic discussion, of divine Laws, of the legislation (rvelation) of divine Laws, and of the legislators (gods or prophets) of divine Laws-a discussion which was of immediate theoretical interest to them as philosophers, but, above all, of urgent practical value to them as Muslims or members of a religious community whose divine Law owed its origin to a revelation and a prophet. Yet Muslim philosophers could not have seriously entertained the view that Plato's Laws is of practical relevance to them without the willingness on their part (at least "among themselves") to conceive of the nomoi discussed by Plato and of their own divine Law (sari'ah or sunnah) as belonging to the same species. This means that they had achieved a certain distance from the orthodox Islamic view of the divine Law, or that they had certain reservations concerning the claims made in, and for, the Law. Without comparing it with the orthodox Islamic position, one cannot sufficiently appreciate the daring character of Avicenna's statement (in which he follows
29 Aqsam, p. 108: 6-10. Cf. Fi itbat al-nubuwwat, in Tisc rasadil, op. cit., p. 124.
closely upon the footsteps of Fdribi, especially the latter's unpublished Virtuous Religion 30). That position asserts that the Islamic divine Law is the highest wisdom and the final arbiter; and that the true science of the divine Law is jurisprudence (fiqh), which is an Islamic legal science. Avicenna, in contrast, asserts explicitly and in detail that the validity and use of any and all laws (including divine Laws), and of the wisdom they contain, are to be known through a rational inquiry or science which is a branch of practical or political philosophy. Fdirbi's Virtuous Religion is still more explicit. "Divine Law (saricah), Religion (millah), and Faith (din) become synonyms."'31 Religious opinions are undeimonstrated "similitudes" (mitaldt) of scientifically demonstrated opinions. They are thus "subordinate to (taht) theoretical philosophy."32 The practical measures contained therein (which are frequently called the "Law" [saricah] and "Tradition" [sunnah]) are particular instances the general principles of which are to be found in practical philosophy. "Therefore, all virtuous Laws are subordinate to the general [principles] of practical philosophy."33 Religion is thus an inferior image of philosophy; and the art of the religious leader (which is a combination of the royal art and "a revelation from God to him") is "subordinate to philosophy." 34 Jurisprudence (fiqh) is subordinated to philosophy in a similar fashion: "When jurisprudence deals with practical religious
30 al-Millah al-fadilah, MS, Leiden, Cod. Or. No. 1002. 31 Ibid., fol. 52v: 18. For the distinction among the three Arabic terms, cf. Tahanawi, Kaggaf is.tildhi~t al-funfin, ed. Muhammad Wagih et al. ["Bibliotheca Indica ...published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Old Series," V. 17] (Calcutta, 1853-62), pp. 503, 759, 1346. 32 Millah, fols. 52v:5-7, 21, 53r:1-3, 10-12. 33 Ibid., fols. 52v : 16-17, 53r: 7-10. 34 Ibid., fols. 51v : 18-19 (cf. 60r: 3-19), 53r : 4-5, 20. Cf. Tah8il, pp. 40-41.
THE EDITIOPRINCEPSOF FIRABi'S COMPENDIUM LEGUMPLATONIS matters, it covers subjects which are the particulars of the general [principles] encompassed by political science. It is, then, a branch of political science and subordinate to practical philosophy. And when jurisprudence deals with matters relative to religious science, it covers either the particulars of the general [principles] encompassed by theoretical philosophy or the of matters subordinate to imitations theoretical philosophy. It is, then, a branch of theoretical philosophy and subordinate to it." 35 Therefore, the philosophic study of religion, prophecy, and divine Laws is not rational apologetics (kaldm).38 It is the inquiry into the truth of certain particulars in the light of their general principles, and into imitations in the light of the things they imitate. It is a search after truth; "and truth is in general that which man can ascertain by himself, either through primary knowledge or through demonstration." 37 Seen in this perspective, Plato's Laws forms the link between Greek philosophy and the Islamic religious community and its divine Law. It was the model from which Muslim philosophers learned how to conduct a rational, philosophic discussion concerning the desirability and wisdom of divine Laws and divine commandments in general, and how to judge divine Laws and commandments legislated for particular groups at particular times. Therefore, it is the writing to which we must turn if we intend to shed light on how Muslim philosophers understood and justified Islam, and on the crucial problem of the relation between religion and philosophy in Islam.
35 Millah, fol. 54v: 17-21. Cf. the limited role assigned to kalam in ibid., fol. 53r: 20-53v: 7. The explanation of the subordination offiqh and kaldm to political science in the Millah is the justification for considering them as branches of political science in al-culfm ("La statistique Ihsd3 Amine des sciences"), ed. Osman (2nd ed.; Cairo, 1949), pp. 102 ff.
36
37 Millah,
fol. 53r: 1-2.
Although the modern reader cannot escape the impression that the discussion of divine laws is a dominant theme of Plato's Laws, he cannot see immediately how it could be described by Avicenna as having to do with divine prophecy and the divine Law in the Islamic sense, how Muslim philosophers could consider the Islamic religion and Law as simply an individual case of a general type whose characteristics had been substantially explained by Plato, or how Muslim philosophers could use Plato's Laws to explain, justify, and evaluate the revealed religion and the legal prescriptions originated by Muhammad. For, in a sense, the Laws is the work of Plato which is most Greek in character; and the laws suggested in it are intended for a (Cretan) Greek colony. Revelation, divine prophecy, and divine Law, as understood in Islam, on the other hand, seem to belong to a radically different religious and social order, and to have given rise to a religious community which presents sharp contrasts to any Greek polis. Therefore, Avicenna's description of the main theme of Plato's Laws presupposes a certain point of view and a certain way of reading the work which are not immediately accessible to us when we read it. To understand what the Laws meant to Muslim philosophers, we must school ourselves in the way they read it and in the point of view from which they looked at it. The importance of FArabi's Nawdmis consists in its being our primary guide through a hitherto inaccessible path which promises to lead to an understanding of the Laws significant both in itself and for clarifying the genesis of Islamic political philosophy. Firibi draws our attention to this question in his Introduction (3-4). Even a superficial reading of this Introduction indicates that he does not intend to give us in this work a simple run-down on the subject matter of Plato's Laws, and
10
JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES vanishes." 40 Fdribi was in fact the thinker who "re-established" this philosophy in Islam. Here, he commits himself explicitly, not only to the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle,41 but also to their ways to philosophy and to renovating it. The subject of the Laws is a characteristically Platonic subject; and the preceding remarks should be sufficient to make us at least open to the possibility that Farabi is not giving us a mere summary of the contents of Plato's Laws but treating a Platonic subject in a Platonic way, especially when the text before us opens with an explicit discussion of Plato's method in the Laws, a method which FirAbi commends to his reader. Instead of looking elsewhere for the explanation of the baffling aspects of Farrbi's Nawmi8s, we must first exhaust the possibility that Farabi is imitating what he says to be Plato's method in the Laws. II The difficulties in the way of an adequate edition of Farabi's Nawmi8s are considerable; and they need to be explained in order to do justice to Gabrieli's edition. To begin with, there is only one extant manuscript of the work (Cod. Or. Ludg. Bat. 1429 [Gol. 133a] [pp. 1-28])42 dated 692 A.H./A.D. 1292-93, i.e., about three centuries and a half after the author's death. Hence, the editor had to encounter all the problems of editing an unautographed and a relatively late uniqum. Secondly, the Arabic translation of the
40 Fardbi, Tahsil, p. 47:3-5. 41 Cf. also Farabi, Gamc, p. 1: "The definition and essence of philosophy is that it is the science of beings in so far as they are. These two sages [Plato and Aristotle] originated philosophy, established its principles and axioms, and completed its conclusions and branches. One depends on them whether [one studies] little or much of it; and one refers to them whether [one investigates] an insignificant or a significant [problem] in it. What they set forth in every discipline is indeed the reliable foundation because it is free of defects and impurities." 42 De Jong and De Goeje, Catalogus, III, 307-8.
that to summarize Plato's writings in this fashion is to him a useless and vulgar exercise. Instead, he states explicitly that he is after the "secrets" (asrdr) of Plato's writings, and that he intends to "draw out the meanings (macani) to which [Plato] has alluded (awma'a)." It is the proper understanding of this Introduction, and not a set of assumptions, that should provide the basis for the explanation of the rest of the work. Farabi's Nawdmis, like its model, contains a baffling surface; but it also contains the key which can aid the reader who desires to penetrate beyond that surface. Farabi contends that his purpose is to explain and justify why the "wise" Plato "did not permit himself to reveal the sciences or to uncover them for all people," and why he follows the "way of symbol, of riddles, of obscurity, and of difficulty" (4:10-12).38 Whatever our own understanding of Plato's intention and method may be, we will be ill-advised to disregard the fact that, in as far as Fdrdbi was concerned, Plato did intentionally follow this method, that he had good reasons to do so (wa-ddlik minh sawdb) (4:13),39 and that he followed this method in writing the Laws (4:18-19). Moreover, the first part of Fdrabi's exposition of the Philosophy of Plato and Aristotle concludes with the remarks that philosophy has come down "to us" from Plato and Aristotle, that each of them has, not only "given us" philosophy, but also "given us the ways to it and the way to re-establish it when it weakens or
38 Gamc, pp. 5-6. 39 Cf. below, n. 59. Misreading this crucial phrase goes hand in hand with the refusal to give serious consideration to FAribi's "esotericism" (Praefatio, ix, n. 6). That for FarAbi "esotericism" was not a peculiarity of Plato's writings, but inherent in the relation between the philosopher and the many, and a necessary component of the philosophic mode of expression, can be seen from his comments on Aristotle's style (damc, pp. 5-7) and from an unusually bold statement in his commentary on Aristotle's Topics (Kitdb al-gadal, MS. Hamidiyyah [Constantinople], No. 812, fol. 91v).
THE EDITIOPRINCEPSOF FXRXBI'SCOMPENDIUM LEGUMPLATONIS Laws used by Farabi in composing his Nawdmis is not available and is presumed lost, and the few quotations in the India43 of Abil al-Rayhain al-Birfini (d. 440/1048)44 are of no use in establishing FarAbi's text. (One should not exaggerate the value that could have been derived from the Arabic translation of the Laws for establishing the text of a work like Fairbi's Nawdmis. Firabi undoubtedly used his own expressions, changed the wording of the original text considerably, explained what he considered to be the "meaning" of Plato's "allusions," and even "invented" speeches which he attributed to Plato.45 Yet, had the Arabic translation of the Laws used by Fdrdbi been available, it is certain that it would have been of considerable use in establishing the text of the Nawamis, though perhaps not to the same degree to which the Arabic translations of Aristotle's Organon are useful in establishing the text of Fdrabi's summaries of Aristotle's logical works.) Thirdly, because Fartbi's Nawdinis is not an ordinary summary of the literal sense of the original text, but represents an unusual approach to the understanding of the Laws not accessible to us from other sources, the editor faces a peculiar philological dilemma. It is his duty to be faithful to the evidence available in the manuscript. In many cases, however, the reading of the manuscript is ambiguous, at variance with Plato's literal exposition, and contrary to the current understanding of his text. One is easily tempted to emend the reading of the manuscript according to some current standard of clarity and intelligibility. But by so doing, he violates the
43 Birfini, Tahq7q md li-l-Hind min maqfilah ("Alberuni's India"), ed. Edward Sachau (London, 1887), pp. 51:9-20 (from Bks. i and ii, including the opening passage of Bk. i in dialogue form), 59:17-19 (from Bk. iv), 193:11-15 (from Bk. iii, in dialogue form). The first passage, in particular, betrays a Syriac intermediary. Cf. above, n. 12. 44 GAL, I, 475-76. 45 Cf. Strauss, "How Fdrhbi Read Plato's Laws," op. cit., pp. 323-24, 344, and passim.
11
rules for the edition of texts and commits errors that can have far more grave consequences: he obliterates the points where Fdrdbi may have intended to make us aware of the difficulty involved in certain notions, or where he chose to indicate an uncommon interpretation of a Platonic passage. Finally, Fdribi was in a sense the originator of mature Arabic philosophic prose. His predecessors in this respect were primarily the translators. Competent as these were in their art, they were not original stylists, many of them were not well versed in literary Arabic, and their very conception of their task (the rendering of literal translations of the original texts) resulted, in many cas;s, in artificial and mutilated Arabic prose. Some of the characteristics of their style survive in FTrTbi's works; but he is an infinitely more competent stylist than they were. As most of his works remain unpublished, and of those published only a single text edition pays systematic attenition to the peculiarities of his style,46 it is almost impossible to determine easily and with sufficient certainty whether some of the expressions we find in the manluscript, and which look unusual to us, could have been, or actually were, written by Fartbi; or whether they are the product of scribal errors. At the present stage of our philological knowledge the sound procedure is of course to exercise extreme caution in emending the reading of the manuscript on the basis of what we consider (from our prior knowledge of correct literary Arabic or even of the philosophic prose of authors posterior to Frrabi) to be the correct reading, and, instead, supplement the text with a list of unusual expressions and peculiar grammatical constructions.47 When a sufficient number of texts are edited in this manner,
46 I.e., Risdlah fi al-caql, ed. Maurice Bouyges ["Biblioteca Arabica Scholasticorum," S6rie arabe, t. VIII, fasc. 1] (Beyrouth, 1938). 47 Cf., e.g., ibid., pp. 46-47.
12
we will be in a better position to know what kind of emendations are reasonably justified. For all these reasons, the Leiden uniqum (L) deserves close study, and the utmost attention should be paid to the evidence it contains. We shall, therefore, begin with a somewhat more detailed description of it than that offered by the editor (Praefatio, xiv, n. 21). The manuscript of Fdrdbi's Nawdmis is the first part in a collection containing eight philosophic and scientific works. These eight works form a unit as regards paleography and date of copying.48 Therefore, the collection as a whole should be examined in search of such evidence as may help us to determine the degree of authority that can be claimed by the manuscript text of the Nawdmis.49 The collection opens with a title-page containing a table of contents (fihrist) which lists the title, author, and number of folios, of each of the eight works that follow in the order in which they are placed in the collection. (The present page numbers, in Western "Arabic" numerals, seem to have been inserted subsequent to the ownership of the collection by the Leiden University Library; originally, the folios of the collection were not numbered.) This table of contents is followed by three columns of "explanations of some of the names of the ancients" beginning with Aftldtin. In addition, there are two notations bearing the dates 10 Rawwdl, 756 A.H. and 11 Muharram, 637? A.H. (The second element of the latter date is not completely legible; it should perhaps be corrected to 697 A.H.) None of the notations on this page were entered by the scribe who copied the
48 Cf. below; R. P. A. Dozy, Catalogus Codicum Orientalium Bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno Batavae, II (Lugduni Batavorum, 1851), 295. 49 For the content of the other parts, see ibid., pp. 292-98; De Jong and De Goeje, Catalogus, III, 94 (Voorhoeve, Handlist, pp. 83, 343); cf. Martin Plessner, "Beitriige zur islamischen Literaturgeschichte, I," Islamica (Leipzig), IV (1931), 534-36.
text of the collection. The relative position of the table of contents to the first notation (bearing the date 756 A.H.) indicates that the table of contents was inserted earlier, i.e., sometime between 692 and 756 A.H. The information contained in the table of contents was obtained from the text of the collection (usually from the authors' or the scribe's colophons). The titles given in it are not always accurate, and the only authority for them is the evidence contained in the text. The title of Fdrdbi's Nawdmis (Talhis nawdmis AfldtJun) is extracted from the scribe's colophon at the end of p. 28. The text of the collection supplies the following additional information. (1) All the parts are written in the same year, i.e., 692 A.H. This date is mentioned in the scribe's colophons on pp. 28, 65, 78, and 111. (2) They are all in the same handwriting. The scribe is a certain Ibn alGlulim. His name is not mentioned in the colophon of the Nawdmis, but it is evident that the handwriting of the Nawdmis is identical with that of the other parts where Ibn al-Gullm mentions himself by name (pp. 65, 78, 105, cf. 79). (3) Although it is not unusual that the colophons of a manuscript are copied by a later scribe, giving rise to doubts as to its actual date and the identity of the scribe, our collection contains evidence that seems to exclude such doubts. There are marginal notes that crowd the margins of pp. 77-78. In his colophon on p. 79, Ibn al-Guldm states that these marginal notes "ought to be inserted in the body of this work [i.e., when the work is copied again]" f al-risdlah hAddih). (wa-yagib an tuZdamman It seems very unlikely that a subsequent scribe would, despite this statement, crowd the margins of a new copy in this fashion. (4) At least part of the original from which Ibn al-Gulam copied his collection was in the handwriting of an
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FXR?Bi'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS
13
Dozy, Catalogus, II, 52 Known as Hasil al-mas8'il. Cf. Dlwfid alChalabi, (Baghdad, 1927), p. 260 (No. 13).Mah.t.tat al-M.sil
authority on philosophic matters who was copied, of his pride in being an accurate well known and generally admired during scribe, and of his willingness to present a this period. He is Fahr al-Din Abfi Ishaiq faithful copy of his original, even when it is Ibrahim Ibn Muhammad al-Tabrizi, known "extremely defective and obscure" (cf. as al-Gadanfar (cf. pp. 65, 78, passim). p. 105). The evidence thus indicates that Gadanfar (d. 629 or 630/1231)50 is the our manuscript was not the work of an author of al-Muw'dtah li-risdlat al-fihrist, a ignorant scribe or one whose virtue concontinuation of a bibliography of the sisted in elegant calligraphy of books infamous physician and philosopher Abfi tended for proud but ignorant collectors, Zakariyya al-Rdzi by Abfi al-Rayhin al- but that it was copied by a competent Birfini (the two works form the second and scribe, possessed and used by scholars, third parts of our collection, pp. 33-48, and transmitted through a scholarly circle. 49-65). Ibn al-Gulm calls Gadanfar "our Such a manuscript was credited with spemaster," "the most excellent of modern cial degree of authority in manuscript philosophers, especially of the matheage.53 maticians." Gadanfar is also the author of The consideration of the text of the the notes and summaries relating to Siwdn manuscript confirms this evidence. It is al-hikmah and its continuation (pp. 66-79). throughout carefully collated with the In his colophon (p. 79) Ibn al-Guldm says original (asl) from which it was copied, "we found these notes, too, in the hand- provides the necessary diacritical points writing of mawldna Gadanfar."51 Gadan- and vowel signs, and attempts to avoid far's interest in philosophy, medicine doubts or ambiguities through the inser(among his other surviving works is an tion of letters of clarification (e.g., a small epitome of Hunayn's MasdRi152), and cAyn) to indicate the correct reading. Yet mathematics, explains the presence of all all this is reduced to the necessary minithe works contained in this collection (the mum, does not give the impression of last two parts are mathematical works by superflous show of learning, and attests to Euclid and Ibn al-Haytam). Although great restraint concerning matters which there is no conclusive evidence that all the appeared uncertain or unintelligible to the parts of the collection were originally in scribe. In the latter cases, he does not the handwriting of Gadanfar himself, he is attempt to correct or improve hastily the a dominant figure in it. There is strong things he did not understand, but leaves likelihood that the works contained in this them as he found them in his original. collection formed part of his personal Another aspect of the manuscript which library, and were studied and copied by is of the utmost importance for its proper his disciples. Ibn al-Gulm claims to have use is the marginal notes and additions. been one of them. These are not very frequent (there are However this may be, Ibn al-GulZm's only 30 of them in 28 manuscript pages). statements and practice give evidence of They need to be discussed partly because meticulous care, of his interest in evaluatonly four of them are noted in the apparaing the degree of soundness of the texts he tus criticus of the edition (8:23, 14:6, 37:1, 50 GAL, I, 367; Voorhoeve, 37:3) and partly because they fall into Supplementband Handlist, p. 343. distinct groups the character of each of 51 Cf. 295-96.
The Technique and 53 See Franz Rosenthal, Approach of Muslim Scholarship ["Analecta Orien. talia," No. 24] (Roma, 1947), p. 23a.
14
which must be determined for its proper use in editing the text. The largest is a group of fourteen cases varying in length from a single word to a whole line. They are followed by the abbreviation s (= Sdd), or the full form sahh ("correct" or "corrected"), which refers to a specific point on the line where a mark indicates the place in which the marginal addition is to be inserted. (There is one exception, corresponding to 15:2 in the edition, where the marginal addition is crowded in at the end of the line to which it belongs.) This group has resulted from the collation of our manuscript with the original from which it was copied, and we must accept the readings contained in it as integral parts of Fdrdbi's text. The second is a group of nine cases followed by the abbreviation z (= Za') which stands for al-zdhir or cal&al-azdhir("apparently"). In one case (corresponding to 14:1), the marginal note is a simple addition of the type usually followed by s[ahh]. The rest are presented as conjectural explanations of obscure or difficult words or phrases in the text. Whatever their virtue as an aid to reading the manuscript, the readings in this group are conjectural explanations, must be indicated as such, and need to be distinguished from the first group which simply record the results of the usual process of collation with the original. The third group of six cases are followed by the abbreviation fi, which most probably stands for the phrase fi al-asl or fi alnushah ("in the original" or "in the text"). This'would mean that this group should be taken in the opposite sense of the preceding group, i.e., the readings contained in it are the readings found in the original from which our manuscript was copied; the scribe (on the basis of a second copy available to him at the time, exercising his own judgment, or both) considered them cor-
rupt; and he substituted for them the correct readings. However, instead of suppressing the corrupt readings altogether, he set them down in the margin and indicated that they were the original readings of his text. Finally, there is one case (corresponding to 28:5) which is followed by both fi and sahh in this order. This would indicate that, at the time of copying, the marginal reading was thought to belong to the preceding group, but that upon reconsideration or upon consulting another manuscript it was found to be the correct reading. These three abbreviations are not confined to the Nawadms, but are present in the margin of the collection as a whole; and they can be found in other manuscripts of Fdrdbi from the same period. Further study of these and similar manuscripts may help us to obtain more definite information about their significance. For our present purpose, it is useful that all marginal additions and notes be indicated in the apparatus criticus and the various groups distinguished from each other, particularly in view of the fact that, e.g., the group followed by z and that followed by fi could not be treated in an identical fashion.54 We have attempted to give the full information thus obtained in the appropriate places in the list below. A second document (K-S) used in compiling this list owes its origin to the late Paul Kraus. Kraus was perhaps the most competent philologist in the field of Arabic scientific and philosophic prose. Among
in effect, by Paul Kraus in 54 This was recognized, his edition of the second work contained in L. Cf. the fihrist kutub alpparatus criticus of Risdlah li-l--Bri-ni al-Razi do Ibn lIuhammad ("Epitre Zakariyyd contenant des le I3ruini ouvrages de r6pertoire AMuhammad b. Zakariyd, ar-Rdizi") (Paris, 1936). He the corrupt accepts the first group without reporting He usually accepts alternatives. the readings of the of the third secon(d group and rejects the readings group; but he also corrects them where he sees fit, all of them in the notes as marginal and mentions additions.
ft
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FiRIBI'S
COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS
15
the many works interrupted by his untimely death was an edition of Fardbi's Nawamis, based on L, on which he worked intermittently for many years.55 Some of the emendations contained in his photographic copy of L were used by the editor (Praefatio, xii). But apart from these emendations, Kraus left a manuscript of a partial German translation of the text. This translation was dictated to Leo Strauss in Berlin in 1931-32. It is made up of eight typewritten pages, of a Heft including twenty-one pages in ink, and of three loose sheets containing six pages in pencil. The material represents three stages of copying. In addition to the German text, it contains some Arabic terms, emendations of L, and references to corresponding sections in Plato's Laws. The translation is incomplete and in part fragmentary. It corresponds to the following
parts of the edited text: "Einleitung" (=3:1-5, 4:1-21), "1. Traktat" (complete "2. Traktat" (complete= 5:1-11:17), "3. Traktat" (complete= 11:18-16:19), "4. Traktat" (complete= 16:20-21:17), 21:18-25:7), "5. Traktat" (25:8-29:3). It is of course clear that K-S is based on L. It represents initial emendations and a draft translation not intended for publication in their present form. These give, however, another instance of the rare competence of their author in understanding Arabic philosophic texts. The present writer has used K-S primarily to check the corrections and notes presented below, and he has reproduced the text of the translation (in certain cases together with the probable conjectural reading of the text, deduced from the translation, in square brackets) or of the marginal notes wherever they were relevant.
IIIs56 zamdn G: al-zaman L. 3:1,3-14 minh ... yasduq (margin) [sahh] L. 4:1 al-mutaqauiifin (cf. n.) G: d.l.m.t.f.J.i*.n*. L>al-mutaqa vifin or al-muttaqin57 (omit the ascription of'd.l.m.t.f.s.i.n. to L in n.). 4:2 al-sadad G: al-saddd L. 4:7 ilayh G: lah L. 4:10-11 yakun yasmah li-nafsih G: t*akun t*asmah nafsuh L. 4:12 fayubtadal (cf. n.) G: f.y.t.b.d.l. L>fayatabaddal.58 4:13 yastacmiluh G: y.s.t.c.m.l. L>yustacmal or yastacmilu(h). 4:13 canh G: minh 59 L. 4:13 culim wa-istubin G: Ic..m. w.d.s.t.b.y.n. L'calim wa-istabyan.60 3:12
55 Cf. Leo Strauss, "On Abravanel's Philosophical Tendency and Political Teaching," in Isaac Abravanel, Six Lectures, ed. J. B. Trend and H. Loewe (Cambridge, 1937), p. 96, n. 3. The latest entry in K-S is a note written in 1938 by Leo Strauss and addressed to Paul Kraus on the cover of the Heft: "Bitte zusammen mit dem Original und der endgiiltigen deutschen (oder franzis.) Ubers. zurfickschicken." 56 The entries are arranged according to the pages and lines, and the corresponding notes (n.), of Gabrieli's edition (G) (cf. above, n. 1). Where an expression occurs more than once on the same line, the one in question is specified through a number following it in parentheses. Dots after letters indicate the absence of vowel signs; stars after letters indicate the absence of diacritical points. 57 "Piety" or "fear of God" (taqwd) is indicated subsequently by such activities of the ascetic as worship (cibadah) (4:2). His artistic accomplishments (i.e., imitating vagabonds in dress, mimicking the drunk, playing the mandolin, singing, and proficiency in jocular speech [4:5-8]) may not support his "neglect of his person" (taqaBBuf). But the parable is full of ambiguities. 58 K-S: "und sie so eine Vertauschung (Verminderung) erfiihre." Changing the text is unnecessary and misleading. Tabdil is a technical term in this context; it means "to alter the proper form of a thing" or "to turn it from its proper way." 59 K-S: "Darin hat er." The topic under discussion is Plato's style (his use of symbols, riddles, etc.) and his reasons for employing such devices. The definitive
16 4:16 4:20
L. bih (1): + maCnaE wa-'anmciha (ala) maqdlatih (cf. n. for Plessner's conjecture: wa-gamcihd maqdlah (maqdlah> 61) G: w..m. .h.d'. m.q..1l.t*.h. L; "und die seine Abhandlung in sich vereinigt" [wa-gaman(at>ha maqdlatuh] K-S. 5 :3 w&dicuhd L (omit the ascription of wa-wadicuhd to L in n.). 5:3 Z.d.w.i. wa-Z.5.w.s. G: Z.w.d.8. wa-Z*.w.dA. L (cf. 7:12 n. and 45 [col. 1:4]). 5:5 tubtiluhd: t*.b.t.l.h.d. L)tubtiluhaT(omit the ascription of yubtiluha to L in n.). 5:6 al-habar G: bi-al-habar L. 5:14 m7 (of. n.) G: gay*rihd62 L; K-S. .ayr 5:15 il&': +ba'd (margin) [s] L. 5:22 minh G: minhd L. 5:22 ta'add' (il& G: L. t.d.d.. L>)tt'dd63 6i:8 fa-al-adna G: wa-al-adina L. 6 :14 bayyan: + ay~d<L. 6:15 <(...) G: omit.64 6: 15 i-ittihda (cf. .): 1.d.tc.h.d.d. L>li-ittihdd (omit the ascription of li-ittihad to L
in n.).
6:17 yahtalim (cf. n.) G: y*.h.t*.1.m. (uncertain) L; (blank) K-S. 6 :19 al-hulqiyyah L (omit the ascription of al-hulfiyyah to L in n.). 7 :7 ildhiyyah G: al-ildhiyyah65 L.
reading of L is wa-d&lik minh sawab, which is an assertion on the part of Fdrhbi that Plato was right. (i's substitution of canh for minh makes Fdrdbi restrict his judgment to the correctness of the report that l'lato employed such a style (cf. Versio Latina, 4:12). o(G's reading (= K-S: "bekannt und offenbar ist") makes the sentence extremely awkward. The reading suggested above points to an alternative meaning of this significant sentence: "Once he [Plato (4: 10-13)] knew clearly that he had become commonly known fbr this [difficult style], and that all people had known him for it, he would sometimes turn to the thing he intends to discuss and declare it openly. The reader of, and the listener to, his discussion will thus think that this is a symbol, and that he intends by it a different meaning than that I [Plato] which he has declared." (51Plessner's conjecture is preferable, especially since it does not prejudge the precise meaning of this passage with respect to FdrAbi's reference to Plato's Laws. In 14:18-19, FdrAbi does not necessarily cite the title of Plato's Laws; what he says can also mean: "And this is the manner of his discussion of the nomoi" (K-S: "Das ist die Art seiner Rede iiber die Nomoi"). More important, however, is Fdrdbi's distinction between hddd al-kitdb ("this book") and dalik al-kitdb ("that book") in 4:20-21. Since Fdrdbi is discussing his own work as well as that of Plato, and is concluding the Introduction to his own work. the distinction becomes meaningful. We translate, adopting Plessner's conjecture: "'We have resolved to draw out the notions, to which he alluded, in this book [of' ours] and to put them [i.e., the notions] together, discourse by discourse, in order that it [i.e., this book] be an aid to him who wants to know that book [of IPlato] . . ." G's conjecture obliterates the possibility of this distinction, and it creates a problem concerning the subject of the verb yakiin (4:20) (which would then have to be istihrd~ or Jamel). Cf. G's translation (Versio Latina, 4). 62 Both the structure and the meaning of the phrase are admittedly not immediately apparent. Fdribi opposes here the crude symbolic interpretation of Plato's "way" and of the "cypress trees" (Laws i. 625a-c, passim): e.g., that by "trees" he meant "men." He then suggests an alternative explanation: "Rather, he [Plato] intended thereby to prolong [his speech]; he joined the surface of the discussion with what is similar to it, [but] which has to do with the meaning of' [things] other than they (gayrihd) [i.e., other than the way and the cypress trees]-this [other order to hide his meaning] being his purpose-in intention." K-S, too, found that the text of L does not need to be changed to make sense. They translate: "Vielmehr beabsichtigte er damit die Weitliufigkeit der Rede (sc. die Breite), und er vereinigte das Aeussere der Rede mit dem, was mit ihm zusammenpasst beziiglich einer anderen Angelegenheit, n~imlich seiner Absicht, seine Intention zu verbergen." Confronted with the obscurity of the passage (cf. Versio Latina, 5:10-11 and n. 1), G aimed at clarifyto gayr md. The effect of ing it by changing gayriha reversal of the this change is a complete meaning conveyed by L: what is Plato's purpose in L is not Plato's purpose according to G. 63 The intransitive verb is from the root O.d.w. (here meaning "to increase" or "to become intense" [al-qawl being its subject]) and not from the root O.d.y. K-S translate: "lenkt er die Rede" [taoaddd (bi)-alqawl]. 64 In lakin wa-al-galib li-nafsih, the adversative particle lakin (preceded by a negative proposition), with the together inseparable conjunction wa which
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF F?RXiBI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS
17
7 :13 al-kabirahG: al-kab*i*rahor al-kat*i*rahL. 7 :17 al-s('il G: al-qdyil L)al-qd'il; "dem Sprechenden" K-S. 7:19 *liy'utbit* (cf. n.) G: 1.y*.b*.y*.n*. L)li-yubayyin (omit the ascription of l.b.s. to L in n.); "zu erkliren" K-S. 7 :20 tadbir (of. n.) G: t.d.b*.i.r L)tadabbur;66 "Leitung" (cf. same for tadabbur in 20:19) K-S. 8 :6 al-mird' (cf. n.) G-: a.l.f*.r.d.y*.h. L)al-fardyah67 (omit the ascription of a.l.'.r.a.y*.h. to L in n.); "die Lekttire" [al-qird'ah?]K-S.
8 :9-10
8:10 8:13 8:14 8 :23 9:2

9:13
allati tag~aluhd al-alihah (cf. n.) G: alladi ya~caluhd al-ildhiyyah68 L; K-S. aydd: + amr L.
al-zann (margin) [?] L. wa-ann (cf. n.) G: wa-bi-ann L; "und dass" K-S. mdhird (cf. n.) (text) L; (not gShird as in n.) (above the line) [fi] L. lines drawn on the word indicating deletion) L. lam (2) G: lam (with two h.mird
dlakar G: bayyan L.
9:14 calayh (cf. n.) G: Calayh69s L; "dazu" K-S. 9:19 al-balaoah(cf. n.) G: al-zaliqah70 L (omit the ascription of a.l.r.l.d5..h.to L in n.); (blank) K-S. 9:20 li-tilk G: 1.1.k.L; "dieser" (text) K-S; li-kull71 ("aller?") (margin) K-S. 10:3 wa-ath (text) L; [y*].d.t.y. (margin) [fi]72 L.
10:5 al-sindcdt G: al-sindcah L.
10:21
baynahd:b*.y*.n.h.d. (text) L)baynahd; baynahumd73 (margin) [fi] L.

68 Cf. above, n. 65, where the identical problem is discussed. L says that "the nomos renders it [i.e., the pleasure to which all men incline by their natural dispositions] the divine [pleasure, through correctly regulating it in the festivals]." This is certainly not the same as saying that "the gods set them up." Fdrdbi says that the nomoi (and not the gods) have laid down the prescriptions concerning festivals (8:7-9). K-S, who reproduce the reading of L in the margin, translate: "den er als den g6ttlichen an. nimmt."
follows it, serve to rectify the preceding proposition by introducing an additional state required for asserting the predication, i.e., the first predicate is negated as standing alone, but asserted when co-ordinated with the second predicate. We translate from the beginning of the sentence: "He [Plato] explained also that the praiseworthy, courageous [human being] is not he who is daring in external wars, but he who overcomes himself too ..e." K-S translate: "sondern der, der sich selbst besiegt." 65 The omission of the definite article by G leads to a significant change of meaning. Fhrhbi is asserting that the human virtues, when practiced in accordance with the obligation set forth in the nomos, become "divine" virtues, i.e., are then identical with divine virtues. This means that divine virtues are a species of human virtues, i.e., they are those human virtues which are in conformity with the demands of the nomos. G's text dilutes this important assertion to mean that such human virtues would simply have a divine character. K-S: "so wird sie zur g6ttlichen (so entsteht die g6ttliche)." 66 G's reading is closer to L. The meaning of tadbir is here the same as that of tadabbur, i.e., the "inquiry" or "reflection" defended in this section. 67 K-S confirm the undotted Ffd or Qdf, but qirndah cannot be accepted. What is needed is a word which corresponds in meaning to lrrCL7T-LqaLS (Laws i. i:35a-b) (cf. G's suggestion) and yet preserves what is in L-hence al.fardyah ((f.r.y.: "to cut, to slit, to multiply, to render bad, to blame, to censure, to confound, etc.") which is closer to the Greek term and requires no change in L except for the normal dotting.
69 The plural pronominal suffix refers to all of the three matters previously mentioned, and not simply to al-qawl. 70 al-zaldqah ((z.l.q.): "slipperiness, smoothness, and swiftness sharp -[witted]ness; [in quickness speech]." Since azlaqa means "to make [another's] foot to slip," the reference here is to contentious or sophistical speech. 71 G's reading (supported by K-S's translation) is preferable. The doubt expressed in the marginal note of K-S may have been based on the presence of kull in the next line (9:21). 72 It was suggested above that marginal additions followed by fit are the original readings of the text. Since there is a trace of an undotted before the Yd? Alif, two possibilities emerge as to what originally had been in the text: atd, without the Wdw of conjunction; or the Waw of conjunction was present, but the rest was yall. 73 Not completely legible.
18 11:10 11:10
JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES
minh G: minhd L. al-musdhabah (cf. n.) G: d.l.m.s...b*.h. L.h al-musdhabah (omit the ascription of al-musdhabah to L in n.). 12:1 azunnuh G: azunn L. 12:4 al-hilm wa-al-'uliim L: al-hukm wa-al-cilm?74 (G in n.); "die Bildung und die Wissenschaften" K-S. 12:5 taqdim G= L; "lies taqwim (Ordnen) statt taqdim (Bevorzugen, Darbieten) (margin) K-S.75 13:5 wa-bi-ahkdmihd (cf. n.) G: wa-bi-a'ydniha L; "ffir es (den Nomos) einstehen" [wa-bi-acbd'ihd] K-S (=G in n.). 13:7 ihmdlahum G: h.m.J.l.h.m. L><(ihmalahum. 13:10 hadat al-sinn (wa->al-sibydn G: hadat sinn al-sibyn 76 L; "die Jugendlichkeit der Knaben" K-S., 13 : 11 yacmalin: .yc..m.1.ii.n. (text) L>yacmalin; y*.m.*.1.ii.n. (margin) [fi] L. 13:15 al-tafhim G: d.l.t*.q*.w.i*.m. L>al-taqwim; "Ordnung" K-S. 13:18 CalhG: ila L. 14:1 lahum (1) (margin) [z] L. 14:6 icull mJ (cf. n.) G: kullahd (text) L; kullama (margin) [z] L. 14 :10 al-W~cilah(Plessner's conjecture, cf. n.): al-cddilah77 L; "die gerechten" K-S. aw yarqus (cf. n.) G: an yarqus L; "(und) dass er tanzt" [(wa-)an 14:17-18 yarqu.] K-S. 15:2 li-l-nuzzdr (margin) L. 15:19 man hakam (<alayh> [.]munsi'uh (wa-)wadi'uh (cf. n.) G: min d.1.h.k.m. (al-hakam or al-hukm or al-h(d>kim) munWihuh wa-wddicuh L; "als das Urteil [al-hukcm]ist sein Hervorbringer und Setzer" K-S.
74There is no philological reason for changing L, and the meaning is clear: "[practical] judgment and [theoretical] sciences." 75 K-S suggest a sound (and in all probability the correct) alternative. According to Fairrbi, Plato explained that "pleasure and pain" are the source and the origins leading to the formation of "virtues and vices," and eventually to the attainment of "judgment and the sciences." The text as it stands says that "giving priority (taqdim) to these two [i.e., to judgment and to the sciences] is called 'education and training."'" This could mean that education presupposes a legislator-educator (a man of judgment and science) who legislates with a view to mold and order correctly the enjoyment of pleasures.' But since Frdhbi is explaining that to which the "narihe" education applies in common usage, it is more than likely that he gave here a common (and a less involved) definition of education: "the ordering (taqwim) of' these two [i.e., pleasure and pain]." (K-S: "das Ordnen dieser beiden [sc. Lust und Schmerz].") Of course, this requires omitting G's punctuation dot in 12:4, or placing it after al-culilm (of. n. 74). 76 The construction as understood by K-S is not normal Arabic, nor is the reading by G (which, in any case, should be hadat Kal-)sinn). Hadat should normally apply to the person himself and not to his age (tooth); hadit is the correct epithet in the latter case. This is complicated by the fact that the beginning of the letter Sin in sinn is not completely legible-thus pointing to the possibility that the word may be min or bayn (in which case the phrase would mean "a green youth"). G's conjecture has the advantage of supplying a more normal subject for the passive verb which follows. 77 At first sight, the sentence in which this word occurs (14: 9-10) is baffling and seems to call for some emendation; yet, upon closer examination and upon considering the passage in the Laws to which Fdribi alludes, the reading of L, and not the emendation which reverses the meaning of the sentence, proves to be the correct one. The Athenian Stranger suggests (Laws ii. 663b---c) that the legislator should persuade the people that justice and injustice as they appear to them are befogged or shadowy pictures (unjust things appearing pleasant, and just things appearing unpleasant) because they are being viewed from the standpoint of persons who themselves are unjust and evil. The lifting of the fog consists in persuading people to view justice and injustice from the standpoint of justice, whence the opposite picture will appear, i.e., that justice is pleasant and injustice painful. The previous passage (Laws ii. 663a) has already argued for the equation of the good and the pleasant, an argument with regard to which Fdribi (14,: 5-9) makes significant reservations, but which he does not deny. In what follows, he expresses doubt about the argument of the unjust against the just way of life, i.e., that the just way of life is opposed to the enjoyment of pleasant (or good) things:"[Undemon-
THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FXRiBi'S
COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS
19
15:21 al-qudrah G: al-quwwah L; "Fahigkeit"78 K-S. 15:23 dalik G: hdda L. 16:8 wa-li-as~db al-nawdmis G: wa-li-aslhdb nawamisihim L; "die Gesetzgeber"79 K-S. 16:19 yuglibuha G: y*a talibuha L. 16:21 hdda G: huw L; "[keine Sache] ist" K-S. 17:4 nuSi'(~) (margin) [sahh] L. nu'i"': 17:13 insg'ihd (cf. n.) G: ingd&ihim80 L; "sie (sc. 'dXvag) entstehen (wachsen) zu lassen" K-S. 17:19 bayyan G: y*.b.y*.n*.> yubayyin L (cf. 17:4-6, 18:1 n.). 18:1 bayyan (cf. n.) G: y*.b*.y*.y*.n*. L>yubayyin. 18:2 md kan yasir bih)>(cf. n.) G: li-makdn tasir (text) L; md kdn siyar (or sayr) (margin) [z] L; "[die Gesetze gelten] die die Lebensweise [der Vater] waren" K-S.81 18:11 li-sukkan G: al-sukkdn L; "die [die Stadt] bewohnen" K-S. 18:11 tafsad (cf. n.) G: t*.f.d. L; "zugrundegehen (lies: t*afsad)" K-S. 18:11 macdtimah (cf. n.) G: m.c.l.i.m.h. L (>maglibah?); (blank) (text) K-S; "Text macliimah" (margin) K-S. 19 1 ra' G: r.d.'. L>ra'()>. 19:6 ...) >G: omit.82 19:18 injaras G: ingaraz L. 19:19 natigatuh: n.t*.i*.h.h. (text) L; n.t*.J*.h.t.h. (margin) [z] L>natigatuh. 19:20 al-ahydr (cf. n.) G: al-ahya~83 L; "der lebenden (Menschen)" K-S.
strable] also is the assertion that the just ways of life turn against the goods." "Ebenso (verhhlt es sich mit der) Behauptung fiber die gerechten Lebensweisen und dass sie umgekehri [(margin): im Gegensatz stehen mit den (irdischen) Giitern] werden auf die Gijter." K-S. 78 K-S translate both qudrah and quwwah in this passage as "Fahigkeit." The reading of L is unmistakable. 79 A strange case of agreement between G and K-S over against L. 80 Although G's conjecture improves the reading of L, the change is not absolutely necessary. As it stands, the phrase reads: "They began... their establishment [of the arts]" (laha being understood). 81 In effect, K- S accept the text of L (including the marginal substitution) as it stands throughout this sentence (18:1-2): "Er erklirt ferner die Angelegenheit der Gesetze (sunan), wie sie entstanden und dass zwischen (unter) der Kindern nur die Gesetze gelten, die die Lebensweise der Vater waren." That the text here is somehow corrupt has been indicated by the scribe. But, as G indicates, the adoption of the marginal conjecture is not sufficient. Followidfg K-S, we prefer to keep the reading and the sense of L as far as possible, and suggest the following: "wa-[annahd] innamd y*akjin b*ay*n al-awlad min al-sunan md ckn siyar (or sayr) al-dbda." 82 Nothing is missed (cf. 19: 6 n.) if the phrase (19: 5-6) is properly punctuated: "al-sayf al-mustahsan, allad7 huw bi-al-haqTqah, hayr min .. ."; "die fiir sch6n gefundene Sache, die es in Wahrheit ist, besser ist als..." K-S. In case of a possible lacuna, the more probable conjecture is the omission of a second hayr.
83 The theme of the insufficiency of "lifeless" nomoi, the importance of supplementing them with living intelligence, and the emphasis on the notion that the nomoi must take care of the needs of the living (rather than of the dead), run throughout Plato's Laws (cf., e.g., xi. 922a-e). Thus the presence of the word "the living" (al-ahydO) need not be surprising. Nevertheless, the phrase. is extremely compressed, and must be examined before its meaning is revealed. In the passage to which Farabi refers (Laws iii. 689c-e), the Athenian Stranger is continuing his discussion of how the legislator must implant as much wisdom as possible in the, city (cf. 688e, and consider the relationship between wisdom and consent which calls for education, 684c ff. [Nawdmis, 19:15-18]). Wisdom proves to be a harmony (avAwvla) among the various elements, of the city comparable to the harmony which must exist among the elements of the living soul: the rational element must rule the part of the soulwhich feels pain and pleasure, and the wise must rule the masses (689a-b). He then stresses that wisdom cannot exist in the city without harmony, and that the greatest and best harmony should be considered the greatest and best wisdom. This stress on harmony alludes to the two directions in which the legislator seeks to implant wisdom in the city: harmony does not mean simply the rule of the wise but also the consent of the masses (for the relation between wisdom, friendship, and freedom, cf. 639b ff.); all must to some degree share in this harmony or wisdom; and the Athenian Stranger declares that to have such a share means to live rationally (c IAEV Ka-rd' According to Fdrdbi Aoyov 5IE'76XoS). V (19:12-19), Plato is explaining here the notion that, since it is the intellect (reason) which appreciates the truth and the goodness contained in the nomos, the
20
20:1 fa-mahma L (omit the ascription of fa-minhumd to L in n.). 20:4 idX G= L: "da" [id]84 K-S. 20:6 li-yugri um?irahum (cf. n.) G: li-t*agri umluruh85 L; "damit ihre Angelegenheiten ... verlaufen" [li-tavri um~uruh(<d] K-S. 20:8 J.l.m.d.c.n*.l.y*.f.n. (cf. Versio Latina, 15 n. 1) G= L: (perhaps) al-mdssinftn?86 20:14 al-mahabbah: +w.d.l.h.r.n. L)wa-al-huzn; "lies hurriyyah (Freiheit) statt huzn (Traurigkeit)" (margin) K-S. 20:14 bi-hd (cf. n.) G: bi-hima87 L; "mit ihnen beiden" K-S. 20:14 varif~ G=L: "vortrefflich" K-S; (perhaps) sari'd. 20:15 wa-sacub (margin) [s] L. 20:24 wa-al-dddb: + wa-ayyuhd aqdam wa-ayyuhd avadd ta'ahhurd wa-ayyuhd tanfarid bi-ddtihd wa-ayyuha ld tanfarid Can sdhiba(ti>)h ka-al-'iffah allati math lam takun mac caddlah lam yuntafac bihd wa-kaddlik sd'ir al-fadapil wa-al-ddab88 (margin) [?sa4] L; "[am Rand: und dass sie [was?] die hervorragendste und die machtigste im Zuriickbleiben ist ( = erste und letzte?), und dass sie durch sich selbst besteht und dass sie nicht gesondert ist von ihresgleichen, wie die Besonnenheit (ciffah Keuschheit), wenn sie nicht mit der Gerechtigkeit verbunden ist, nichts ntitzt; so auch die fibrigen Tugenden und durch Erziehung erworbenen Eigenschaften.]" K-S. 21:4-5 tumm 'ar ... macna89 G= L: "Danach fihrt er fort.. .ein ... Gegenstand (sc. diese Geschichten)" K-S. 21:19 fi: +hddih L; "in diesem" K-S. 22 :1 al-mirah (cf. n.) G: al-sirah90 L; "die Lebensweise" K-S.
legislator (in order to establish the nomos firmly and insure that people are attached to it) should promote all that which leads to greater rationality in the citizens. This is the task of education. Education results in taking pleasure in the good (or in the nomos) rather than in evil things. Its function with respect to the few who are to rule (cf. 19:22-20:6) is to lead them (a) to prefer the goods, (b) to approve of them, and (c) to testify to their truth. But it has also a more general, and more limited, function with respect to all the citizens, i.e., to create unity, consensus, or harmony, in their "testimonies." (Cf. 19:12, where "testimony" alone is used in connection with the truth and the goodness "contained in" the nomos, not in connection with the goods themselves; and 20: 5, where FAirAibi says that "ignorance is more harmful in kings than in the masses." While kings need to of be men science, the ruled are by definition ignorant [19:22-20:1, 20:4]). Fiiriibi alludes to this latter function by saying: "and the unity [Plato: consensus, harmony] of the testimonies of living [human beings thus educated] is the preferred [Plato: best, greatest] "und die Ubereinstimmung wisdom"; ([margin] Svowvla) der Beweise (der Bezeugungen) der lebenden (Menschen) ist dtie Wirkende (mnuattirahl] Weisheit" K-S. 84 Or, possibly, alladin (who). Or li-yugri umiirah. In both cases no change is as5 required in the second word whose pronominal suffix refers to the ruler (cf. 20: 3). 86 The Messenians are mentioned in the corresponding passage of the Laws (iii. 690d). K-S leave blank in the text and ask in the margin: "griech. Name?"
87 Changing the dual to the singular was made necessary in the edited text because of the omission of the second affair mentioned in L. 88 The following must be added in the notes: waayyuha (in all four cases): wa-annaha L; takun: yakun L; yuntafac: y*.n.t*.f*.c. L. Some of these diacritical points have led to the difficulties encountered by K-S. The translation of the text as edited above is: "[Then he set about to explain the division of' virtues and (habits of) education]: which of them is prior and which of them is emphatically posterior, which of them stands apart by itself and which of them does not stand apart from its accompanimentfor instance, temperance is not useful when it does not go together with justice, and similarly the rest of the virtues and [habits of] education." 89 G reads macnd (and not Plato) as the subject of yard (cf. Versio Latina, 16:29-31), which seems to be the only way in which the reading of L can be preserved as it stands. K-S consider Plato to be the subject (which is more likely); but this would suggest the possibility of some word(s) having fallen out before macnd, e.g., wa-bayyan or tumm bayyan. 90 G's conjecture suggests itself easily, especially if one fails to locate (cf. Versio Latina, 17) or consider the passage in the Laws to which Firdbi refers (the emendation renders simple and straightforward an otherwise baffling phrase, and the word al-mirah is used by FAirAbi elsewhere in the text [28: 6]). However, once this text is located (it is Laws iv. 704b-705d) and its intention is considered, the emendation begins to lose its apparent certainty. The Athenian Stranger is not proposing as a condition for the settlement of the proposed city that it should have a location
THE EDITIOPRINCEPSOF FlXRBI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUMPLATONIS
21
22:5 mata (margin) [s] L. 22:11 hadd5 G: hddd (twice) L. 22:20 <ann> G: "[dass]" (text) K-S; "erganze ann" (margin) K-S. 23:4 al-qibrisiyyin (cf. n., and Versio Latina, 17 n. 1) G=L: "Kyprern" (text) K-S;
"fiir: Kpdvos" [Gesetze] 713b?" [al-qiruniyyin?] (margin) K-S; (perhaps also) al-laqidamuniyyin.91 23:6 (<...) hatt& G: "vortrefflicher . . ., bis"92 (no (... .) K-S. 23:9 fad.l maghfirah G: maghir93 [s (above the line)] L. 23: 10 al-sunan (cf. n.) G: .1.s.n.i.n. L> al-sunan (omit the ascription of al-sittin to L in
n.); "lies sunan statt sinin (Jahre)" (margin) K-S. 24: 3 al-mushsim L (omit the ascription of al-muhdsim to L in n.).
24:4 24:5
24:9 24:12 al-tahlizt L; "die Fehler" K-S. (cf. n.) G: al-ta 24:13 al-4ardmatL (omit the ascription of to L in n.). lit.95 d.1.c.z.m.d.t. 24:15 taw.ti'dt: to L in n.). tawtiydtL>tawtiadt96 (omit the ascription of 24:16 taklifiyydt G: taklifdt L>taklifiyydt(cf. 24:19). tawt.a't 24:20 al-iddhdtL (omit the ascription of to L in n.).
24:20 iiti'at G: wutti'at L. idl~h.dt
al-ndmis G: al-sunan L. al-mawta G: al-mawt L>al-mawt(a)>. wa-ahatt (cf. n.) G: w.d.h.b. L>wdcib; "Es ist notwendig"94 K-S.
24:20
25:6 25:9
al-taldt L (omit the ascription of al-taldtahto L in n.).

al-mutawassit(in G=L: "die Mittelmassigen" K-S; (perhaps) al-mutawatti'~in.97 awl4 G= L: "das Erste" [Pild'or awwal]98 K-S.
ported by K-S: "ein Beispiel von der Bev6lkerung einer bei ihnen beriihmten Stadt." Despite the difficulties of agreement, L asserts that the reading is maghiir. This indicates the possibility that madher may refer to [al-]mital! (23:8). 94 K-S leave blank after the next word (cald) and add in a marginal note: "etwas ausgefallen". 95 Fdrdbi seems to be referring to the "duplicity" involved in the twofold or double form (7r snr)tolv) law of marriage proposed by the Athenian Stranger (Laws iv. 720e ff.). 96 This is simply an instance of writing the Hamzah as Yda; the former is usually substituted for the latter without the need to indicate this normal scribal habit. In certain cases, the scribe or a later hand adds a Hamzah over the Ya3. This is not done here. When it is done, it is simply a clarification and does not mean that both letters are to be read.
97 The phrase refers to Laws iv. 723a. The persuasive preludes (tawti~dt) are to ensure the easy acceptance of the tyrannical prescriptions of the law. Now, those who are "tuned up" by the preludes can be called in Arabic mutawatti?in (made ready by the preludes). There is no reference to "those who follow the mean" in Plato's discussion. Yet, mutawassitiin makes good sense, and Fdrdbi may be introducing an observation of his own. 98 Cf. 23:19-20, where, in an ambiguous reference to Laws iv. 717c (which lists: substance, body, and soul, in this order), Fdrdbi lists: body, soul, and external things, in this order.
accessible to foreign trade and supplies; in fact, he clearly prefers an isolated and inaccessible location, and speaks of the innumerable vices which trade breeds in the souls of men. What he is proposing as a condition is that the location of the city be fitting for the acquisition of virtue f(rpsldperib Kinatv) and of a just and noble life (704d, cf. 705b). This, in turn, requires that the location be relatively inaccessible, rugged, and poor (cf., also, iii. 679b ff.). Playing on the expression "to supply" or "to import" (#alab ild), L "that its [the city's] territory be says (21:22-22:2): suitable and natural so that it [the city] can be supwith the way of life (al-sirah) [G: "the (material) plied provisions" (al-mirah)] which its inhabitants need, and with the rest of what they cannot dispense with." K-S: "dass der Platz von Natur nach MSglichkeit zutriiglich ist dafiir dass er zu der Lebensweise, worauf ihre Bev6lkerung angewiesen ist, hilft, und das iibrige, was sie (die Bevalkerung) nicht entbehren kann." 91 The Lacedaemonian and Cnosian polities are mentioned in this order in Laws iv. 712c-e. The age of Cronos (713b) seems to be the example to which FArabi refers in the next section (23:9). 92 The translation by K-S reproduces the construction of the Arabic original. The difficulty indicated by G thus remains. It is likely, however, that the corruption arose in connection with the repetition of kan in 23: 5-6. Hence, the following emendation may be suggested: fa-idan [kdn] raksuhum afdal. 93 G's conjecture is probably correct and it is sup-
22 25:9
yuctande (cf. n.) G: yan*b*agi L (cf. n.); "muss" K-S; (perhaps) yanbagi <an yuctan>) 99 (cf. 23: 18-19). 25 :10 al-tniyah (Kraus' conjecture, cf. n.): al-tdlitahloo L; "dritte" K-S. 25: 17 al-namus G: al-nawdmis L; "Nomoi" K-S. 25:19 zannu hata in G: zann L; "der irrt" [zanna hataanf]o10 K-S. ha.td 26:3 al-amr G: amr L; "eine Angelegenheit" K-S. 26:13 sawd' (cf. n.) G: s.w.y. L)suwt or siwa. md tatih (cf. n.): md 26:23 (margin) [z] L)ma ta'tih or md (text) L; md t,.5.t.i.h. t,.t.h. sie ihm bringt" K-S. yatih; "was 26:24 anfusahum: + awwald L. 27:3 ann: +min L. 27 :5 wa-ann hawdt G: wa-an yuqawwi L; "und der Mann mdge stark machen" K-S. 27 :16 wa-_ddlikG: wa-dakar L; "Er erwaihnt" K-S. 28:2 yug~al G: y*u~cald L. 28:5 yanqus G: n.q.s. L)yanqus. 28:5 fa-yasir (2): fa-y*ak?in (text) L; (margin) [fi, sahh] L. "die fa-ya.ir Brtider" K-S. 28:6 wa-al-ahwdl G: wa-al-ihwdn L; 28:15 taffdil (cf. n.) G: tafsil L; "die Aufteilung" K-S. 28:15 gam' L (omit the ascription of gamic to L in n.): "des gesamten" [gamic?] K-S. 29:2 al-imtind' G: al-iqt*ind' L; "die Geniigsamkeit" K-S. 29:8 bal an G: bal bi-an L; (perhaps) [bal] bi-an. 29:16 al-tafdwut: +hdhund L. 29:16 tumm G= L: (perhaps) mimman or (...) >tumm or tumm (man).102 29:21 yastaqim G: y*astadim L. 30: 1 duhkah L (omit the ascription of s.h.k.h. to L in n). 30:11 macahum: + C4al md y*uriduh L. 30: 11 fi G: min L. 30:19 huw (1) G= L: perhaps to be read hadd or bracketed. 30:20 al-uhr4dallati G: al-uhar allati or al-uhrd (a)llati L. 30:21-22 yurattabl03. . . wa-kayf (margin) [sahh] L. 30:22 yarattab (1 and 2) G: t*.r.t.b. L)turattab.103
99 Since yanbaoi is clearly in L, this alternative is based on the conjecture that an yuctand was overlooked in the process of transcription because of the close similarity between the last word and yanba i. 100 The prelude concerning the soul begins by stating that the previous prelude had discussed two subjects: the gods and the dear forefathers (Laws v. 726, cf. also 727b; at the conclusion of that prelude the Athenian Stranger had said that it was concerned
with
read the preceding demonstrative pronoun dalik as referring to man in 25: 18, as the subject of zann, and as the antecedent of the pronominal suffix in hata~uh: "Wer meint. . ., der irrt. Sein Irrtum ..." 102 The text of L can be preserved (tumm [then] to be taken as the equivalent of wa [and]); in this case the verbs preceding and following it will have to be made to agree in time, i.e., mazar>yanzur or ya'ti>attd. 103 L indicates the masculine gender of yurattab in 30:21 by dotting the Yd&.In the two other cases in 30 : 22, in contrast, the YCd is not dotted. Since here the passive verb must be feminine, L (which usually prefers to dispense with dotting when this can be done without serious consequences) may be thus indicating the feminine gender of the last two cases. Since dots have to be supplied in any event, there is no reason for supplying the wrong dotting (notwithstanding the fact that L does not always supply the required or preferable agreement in gender).
sented in the third position. Kraus' conjecture, as reported by G, is based on the affirmation by the Athenian Stranger that, of man's belongings, his soul is most divine next to the gods (v. 726), but perhaps also on what he affirms later, i.e., that one ought to pay
honor to the soul next after the gods SEvrcpav [727b]). (/peid
the gods and those after the gods: Treptl 'Ev /pev s [iv. 724a1). The soul is thus preKal 7vaCw e7 OeoE
ye OEOOS
101 The word hata3 (and sawab) can be used as an is perhaps what G inadjective (zannun and tended to read) but not a.talun in construct with zann. K-S
THE EDITIO PRINCEPSOF FiXRBi'S COMPENDIUM LEGUMPLATONIS 31:2
23
lah: +wa-al-amr wa-al-'amal alladi y*aqim bih al-subbdn lah l1 wa-y*aslahin y*aqiim bih al-mas'dik wa-ld y*aslahin lah L. 31:7 bisadadih L (omit the ascription of bisadrih to L in n.). 31:17 *alhaybqh* (cf. n.) G: d.l.t*.m.n*.y*.h. L>al-tamniyah.
31:17
ahl G: li-ahl L.
31:19 yuqdtili~ G: y*.qg*..b*.1..d. L>yuqdbil. 32:8 as'ab (margin) [sa4h] L. 32:9 md G: man L. 32 :12 al-fussdq (text) L; al-faq (margin) [fi] L. 32:19 (...> G: i.1.m.r.t*.b*.iJ.n. L>al-murattibin. 32:24 fi al-hurriyah (qidam?> G: qidamuh104 fi al-hurriyyah L. 33 :10 yaktar G: t*k.t.r L>taktar or tukattar.105 33:11 yacdam (cf. n.) G: tacdam or tucdamlo5 L. 33:11 G: t*.c.t.i. L>tu.t&.106 33:11 yahrim yu!.t. G: t*.h.r.m. L>tuhram.106 33:17 li-l-madallah L (omit stars, and also "incertissimum" in n.l07). 34:22 tabhas (cf. n.) G: t*.b*.h.s. L>tabhas or yubhis (omit the ascription of yanhas to L in n.). 34:23 muta'ammilihd (cf. n.): muta'ammilihd (text) L; m.t*.d.m.l.i.h.d. (margin) [z] L)muta'ammilihd. 35:1 hakami G: hakaw L. 35:4 mubtadalah (cf. n.) G: mustabdacah L (perhaps to be bracketed). 35:6 yakiin mutbatd (cf. n.) G: t*akifn mutbatah L. 35:10 fawd'id (text) L; gawd'il (margin) [fi] L. 35 :12 curif min aqdwilihim G: arabl08 can cuqtiihim L. 35:12 yudrikfin: +minhd L. 35:12-13 wa-al-dhar (1 and 2) (cf. n.) G: wa-al-uhrd109 L. 36:12 wa-'al& G: cald L. 36:13 hal: ?+huw L. 36:16 bi-surcah G=L: (perhaps) bi-Sarcih or ywuarricuh. 36:17 fi (1) G: not in L. 37 :1 wa-al-nawdmis (margin) [sahh] L. 37 :3 al-samdwiyydt (cf. n.) (margin) [z] L; al-samdwdt (text) L. 38:2 fawd:idahd L (omit the ascription of to L in n.). farSdidahd 38:3 min G: fi (margin) L. min L; (text) [z] 38:7 ya4fiz G: y*.h.t*.f.. L>yahtafiz. 38:8 kaddlik G: fa-kaddlik L. 38:10 atbacah: +bi-al-qawl fi (margin) [sahh] L. 38:11 tadubb al-fa'ddil L (omit the ascription of nadab al-faddyil al-fad~cil to L in n.).
104 L, as it stands, says that the men chosen are to have as old a tradition in freedom as he who chooses them. Qidamuh can be changed to qidam or qadam; the text would then mean that the men chosen have "some" tradition or foothold in freedom. In any case, q.d.m.h. is in L. 105 The feminine verbs have miyah (waters) (33:10) as their subject.
106 The same situation obtains here as that explained in n. 105. 107 Although there may be some uncertainty as to the meaning, there is no uncertainty as to the reading of L.
109 Referrihg
10os g*.r.b.)>arab L. to daribah (pl. Oardlib [35:11]).
24
38:15 suciibah (2) G: wa-su'cibah L. 38:18 (bih) G: bih L (omit ( ). 38:22 il&: +I (transfer here the line indicating the beginning of p. 26). 39:4 tariqah G: tariqatah L. 39:9 baladih G: balad L. 39:10 aqall G: aktar (margin) [z] L; aqall (text) L. 39 : 11 aktar (cf. n.) G: al-macn&11o(margin) [s] L. 39:13 al-maCn&G: macnayayn L. can G: min L. 40:1 40:11 min: + (indicating the end of p. 26 of L. Transfer p. 27 from the margin of 40:20 to the margin of this line). 40:22 wa-alla G: wa-ld L. 41:2 li-hddih G: bi-hddih L. 41:5 ziydrdt G: ziydrah L. 41:16 yaqiim: y*.q.ft.m. L)yaqfim (omit the ascription of taqfim to L in n.). 42:2 yiijad: y*.fi.j.d. L)yiijad (omit the ascription of tfjad to L in n.). 42 :6 ann G: annah yalzam L. 42:9 wa-al-jiid G: wa-al-jawr L. 42:9 ay'd (1 and 2) G: jay(') L. 42:12 nafsihd G: anfusiha L. 43:5 hada (2) (margin) [sahh] L. 43 :14 al-akbar G: al-kabir L. 43:14 Aflttiin G: Afldtun L.
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
additions: the first (aktar) refers to aqall in 39:10, and the second (al-macnd) refers to the end of hadd in 39: 11. G inserts the first after hadd and takes the second to be a cor-
110 There are in L two marginal
rection of macnayayn which is at the end of the line in which hdd& occurs in L. Cf. 39:11 n. for the difficulty created thereby, and the restoration of the text in 39:13.

The Editio Princeps of Fārābī&#39;s Compendium Legum Platonis

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Editio Princeps of Fārābī&#39;s Compendium Legum Platonis

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Editio Princeps of Frb's Compendium Legum Platonis Author(s): Muhsin Mahdi Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies,

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FARABI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLA TONIS1

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FXRXBY'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS

THEEDITIO PRINCEPS OFFXRXBI'S LEGUM COMPENDIUM PLATONIS

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FARXBI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

fol. 53r: 1-2.

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FXR?Bi'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FiRIBI'S

COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF F?RXiBI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS

8:10 8:13 8:14 8 :23 9:2

baynahd:b*.y*.n.h.d. (text) L)baynahd; baynahumd73 (margin) [fi] L.

JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES

THE EDITIO PRINCEPS OF FXRiBi'S

COMPENDIUM LEGUM PLATONIS

JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES

THE EDITIOPRINCEPSOF FlXRBI'S COMPENDIUM LEGUMPLATONIS

al-taldt L (omit the ascription of al-taldtahto L in n.).

JOURNALOF NEAR EASTERNSTUDIES

THE EDITIO PRINCEPSOF FiXRBi'S COMPENDIUM LEGUMPLATONIS 31:2

10os g*.r.b.)>arab L. to daribah (pl. Oardlib [35:11]).

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

110 There are in L two marginal

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

The Editio Princeps of Fārābī's Compendium Legum Platonis

The Editio Princeps of Fārābī's Compendium Legum Platonis

baynahd:b.y.n.h.d. (text) L)baynahd; baynahumd73 (margin) [fi] L.