Pseudo Theology of Aristotle Structure and Composition

Brill
Pseudo-"Theology of Aristotle", Chapter I: Structure and Composition

Author(s): Cristina D'Ancona
Source: Oriens, Vol. 36 (2001), pp. 78-112
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1580477
Accessed: 26-10-2015 22:01 UTC
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.
Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Oriens.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 109.145.121.147 on Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:01:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PSEUDO-THEOLOGY
OF ARISTOTLE,
CHAPTER I:
STRUCTURE AND COMPOSITION
by
Cristina
D'Ancona*
Padua
For FranzRosenthalon his eighty-ffthbirthday
In a famous study published in the biennium 1952-54, Franz Rosenthal

arguedin favourof the existence of a common source for all the fragments
of Plotinus' writings translatedinto Arabicl. His main argumentconsisted
in showing that the so-called "Sayingsof the Greek Sage"- preservedboth
in doxographiesand independently-, admittedlyNeoplatonic in content2,
came from an Arabic adaptationof Plotinus which sharedthe stylistic and
doctrinalfeaturesof both the pseudo-Theologyof Aristotle and the pseudoFarabianEpistleon theDivineScience,whose dependenceupon Plotinus
had alreadybeen establishedby Paul Kraus in 19403.
The "Sayings of the Greek Sage" are preserved in the Siwanal-hikma(which came
down to us only in two abridgments)and in the Kitabal-milalwa-l-nihalby al-Sahrastanl,
whose source was the Siwanal-hikma.When Rosenthal wrote As-Sayhal-Yunanland
the ArabicPlotinusSource,the Siwanal-hikmawas attributed to Abu Sulayman alSigistanl; later on, also thanks to Rosenthal himself, the history and authorship of this
doxographicalwork were substantiallyreconsidered.Accordingto W. al-Qadl,KitabSiwan
al-,Hikma:Structure,composition,authorshipand sources. In: Der Islam 58. 1981. P.
87-124, the Siwanal-hikmais the work of an authorwho <<hadsome connection with alRayy in the fifties or/and sixties of the fourth/tenth century, had a profession that put
him in contact with the librarian of Ibn al-'Amld, Miskawayh, and was alive after
Miskawayh left the service of Samsam al-Dawla (d. 388/998). [...] we can safely conclude that the Siwanwas written about 395 and 420 / 1004 and 1029>>(p. 115). Wadad
* My warmestthanks are due to ProfessorGerhardEndress for his correctionson this
article. For all its weaknesses and oversights I obviously remainthe sole responsible.
1 F. Rosenthal,AsV-Sayh
al-Yunanl
andtheArabicPlotinusSource.In:Orientalia21.1952.
P.461-492; 22.1953. P.370-400; 23.1954. P.42-65 (repr.in: GreekPhilosophyin the Arab
World. A Collection of essays. GreathYarmouth1990).
2 The first to point to the Neoplatonic sources of the "Sayingsof the Greek Sage" preserved in al-Sahrastanl'sKitabal-milalwa-l-ni,hal
was F. Gabrieli,Plotinoe Porfirioin un
eresiografomusulmano.
In: La paroladel passato 3.1946. P.338-346.
3 P. Kraus,Plotinchezles Arabes.
Remarques
surunnouveau
fragmentde laparaphrase
arabedes Enneades.In: Bulletin de l'Institutd'Egypte 23.1940-41. P.263-295.
Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition
79
al-Qadi proposes the authorshipof Abu l-Qasim al-Katib, a disciple of Abu al-Hasan al'Amirl who <<studiedphilosophy with al-'Amirl and used to teach al-'Amirl 's books to
students. He was with him in al-Rayy, when al-'Amirl was courting Abu l-Fadl Ibn al'Amld and trying to teach him philosophy>>(p. l 18).
Besides the "sayings"preservedin the mentioneddoxographies,Rosenthal

discovered furtherquotationsof doctrinesheld by the "GreekSage" in an
Oxfordmanuscriptwhichhad alreadyretainedhis attentionin 1940, in another
famousarticleon the knowledgeof Platoin the Arabicmilieu. Herehe called
attention to this importanttestimony, namely, the ms Oxford, Bodleian
Library,Or. Marsh539, <<which
occupies itself mostly with renderingviews
ascribedto Greek authors>>4.
When, some years later, he came back to this
manuscript,in the study on the "GreekSage"mentionedabove, he was able
to show that it containedsix nominal quotationsof the "GreekSage" plus
two of the "Sage",and that all the materialsconveyed underthis nickname
came from one source, <<the
Enneads of Plotinus>>.
The fact that two among
the eight passagescoming fromPlotinusunderthe nameof the "GreekSage"
overlapwith the pseudo-Theologyof Aristotle allowed Rosenthalto drawa
series of conclusions, all of them of crucial importancefor the literaryhistory of the Graeco-ArabicPlotinus. First, Rosenthalpointed to the fact that
the agreementbetween the two texts, the one ascribedto the "GreekSage"
and the one of the pseudo-Theologyof Aristotle, is <<strictly
literal>>5.
Second, he observedthat in one case the commonpassage includes a wide text
which is not foundin the originalGreekof Plotinus,a fact which is explained
only if the passage of the "Sayingsof the Greek Sage" is a direct quotation
either from the pseudo-Theologyor from <<anidentical common source>>6.
Third, he observed that in the other case the common passage is preceded
in the pseudo-Theologyand in the "GreekSage" by two different intelpolationswhich, althoughbothrelatedto the Plotiniancontext,completelydiffer
from each other, and is followed in the pseudo-Theologyby anotherinterpolation, whereas the "Greek Sage" does preserve the continuity of the
Plotinianoriginaltext. <<The
obvious explanationof this rathercomplicated
situationis the assumptionof a common source of the "<heology"and asSayh al-Yunanl. We shall call this common source the Plotinus Source>>7.
4 F. Rosenthal,On the Knowledgeof Plato's philosophy in the Islamic world. In: Islamic
Culture 14. 1940. P. 384-422 [p. 396 quoted].
5 The two overlappingpassages identified by Rosenthalcome from IV 7[2], 8l.23-82.22
- called "B" in Rosenthal'sedition of the "Sayingsof the GreekSage"-, and from V 1[10],
6.12-19, called"A2".
6 Rosenthal,As-Sayhal-Yunani,p. 467. The reverseexplanation,namelythatthe pseudoTheologywas quotingfrom the "Sayingof the Greek Sage", is ruled out by the fact that the
passage in the "GreekSage" omits a short text coming from Plotinus and faithfully reproduced in the pseudo-Theology.
7 Rosenthal,As-Sayh al- Yunani,p. 467.
D'Ancona
Cristina
80
Marsh 539 was

Some years later, the ms Oxford, Bodleian Library,Or.
we owe
consultedby anotherscholar,GeoffreyLewis, to whom
extensively
text in
Greek
the
faces
English translationof the Arabic Plotinuswhich
the
inlacunas,
some
theeditiomaiorof the Enneads8.Not only Lewis Ellled
which
in his translationadditionalpassagesfromthe ArabicPlotinus
cluding
where
places
other
recognizing
and
arefound in the ms mentionedabove9
of the
"Sayings
the
in
thepassages preservedin the pseudo-Theologyand
with
field
the
in
Sage"overlap,but also providedthe scholarsworking
Greek
Greek
fromthe
anextremelyuseful table of correspondencesin both senses,
versa.
vice
and
to their Arabic paraphrase
treatises
at ff. 22v-28v,correspondThepassagesin questionwere foundby Lewis in the ms
ff. 33v-38v,correspond2-3;
1[10],
to V
ingto IV 8[6], 3-5; ff. 32r-33v,corresponding
9[8], 4, 1 and2; ff. 39vIV
to
corresponding
ingto IV 3[27], 18 and20-23;ff. 38v-39v,
to V 1[10],
corresponding
43r-44r,
ff.
18;
and
14
13,
11,
to IV 4[28],
43r,corresponding
do not
Lewis
by
to IV 4[28], 28. The passagesdiscovered
8;f. 103r-v,corresponding
but by
said",
Sage
Greek
"the
begin,as the othersalreadyknowndo, by the formula
ZavTo;
TOlVVV
OV%O;
(=
'aqlin
kulla
inna
otherformulae:(i) f. 22vlO:qala Aflatunu
l-nafsawa-kayfata butu
vov...,IV 8[6], 3.6-7);(ii) f. 32r7-8:qala: wa-nahnuwasifuna
l-hayatufi-l-kulli (= tiS
bn TQoZos
Tn5 XOQ7la;
TOV 4nV EV TE TO dVZaVXl...,
taral-asya'aka-makanat
1[10],2.10); (iii) f. 33v4:wa-l-nafsui_a saratfi l-abdanilam
IV 3[27], 18.1);(iv)
E0ElV...,
ZQiV
XQTal
tVXn
tarahaqablu(= noeQa be pO7ld@
yaQt?TElO kO7Og, ZO5
f.38vl: wa-qala:al-nafsuwahidatunwa-kalratun(= akka
(v) f. 39v9: qala: wa-l4.2-3);
Fla;aQa SyaQ5 ano Fla; P Fla ai naval..., IV 9[8],
qv blOlXUlV..., IV
navtoS
tov
bel
xai
(=
nafsul-mudbiratuli-ha_a l-kullil-ardiyyi
minmaliki
wa-ibtida'at
nbagasat
llati
al-asya'u
Aflatun:
4[28],11.5);(vi) f. 43r6-7:qala
navv
TOV
JISQi
navTa
Ta
l-asya'ikulliha(= xai bla tovto xai ta flkavo; tQa
zillun
annaha
l-nafsi
quwa
qulnafi
aolkea. .., V 1[ 10], 8.1-2); (vii) f. 103r7-8:wa-qad
4[28],28.16).
IV
Wvxlxov...,
to
iXvo5
to
o
laha(= OTl TO QVXlXOV EXEl EVEQ7El Faklota,
texts in which
Thanksto Lewis's work, it clearly appearedthatthe three
to us, albeit distinct
the Arabic traditionof Plotinus' writings came down
and can be used to
COlpUS
one
in
from one another,did originally belong
PlotinusaccordArabic
the
reconstructit. As a matterof fact, in going through
were arrangedin the
ing to the actual order of the Greek treatises as they
follow - roughEnneadsby Polphyry,one realizesthatthe Arabicremainders
it happensat times
ly speaking- a sort of chess-boarddisposition.Although
PlotinianaArabicaad codicum
Plotini Operat. I-III,ed. P. Henryet H.-R. Schwyzer,t. II,
SeriesPhilosophica.
Lessianum.
(Museum
1959
Bruxelles
Paris
Lewis.
G.
fidemanglicevertit
34).
Library,Departmentof Ori9 I wish to thankvery much Dr. Doris Nicholson, Bodleian
of the ms Marsh539. The
microfim
the
with
me
ental Books, for her kind help in providing
Theologyof Aristotle.
so-called
the
of
TheOrigins
ms has beenexaminedby F. W. Zimmermann,
by J. Kraye,W.F.
ed.
texts,
other
and
Theology
The
Ages.
Middle
In: Pseudo-Aristotlein the
209-217.
p.
part.
in
Ryan and C.B. Schmitt. London 1986. P. 110-240,
8
81
that passages preservedin the pseudo-Theologyare presentin the "Sayings

of the Greek Sage" too, the large majorityof Plotiniantreatises and chapters which are reflected in the pseudo-Theologyare not reflected either in
the "sayings"or in the pseudo-FarabianEpistle, and vice versa.
As is known, only the treatisesgatheredby Porphyryin EnneadsIV, V and VI - dealing
respectively with soul, intellect and the One - are reflected in the Arabic paraphrase.
Traces of IV 3[27] appearboth in the pseudo-Theology and in the "Sayings of the Greek
Sage"; but chapter 18 is preserved in the "sayings"; chapters 19 and 20, in the pseudoTheology(there is a passage in common), and chapter 21 is preserved in the "sayings".
As for IV 4[28], chapters 1-8 are preserved in the pseudo-Theology; chapters 11-28 (not
continuously) are reflected in the "Sayings of the Greek sage", and chapters 32-39 are
reflected in the pseudo-Theology. Treatise IV 5[29] is reflected only in the "Sayings of
the Greek Sage". Treatise IV 7[2] is preserved in the pseudo-Theology as for chapters 1,
8 and 13-15; there is a passage in common between the pseudo-Theology and the "Sayings of the Greek Sage" in chapter 8. Treatise IV 8[6] is reflected in the pseudo-Theology as for its beginnings (chapters 1-2) and end (chapters 5-8), whereas the central part
(chapters 3-5) is preserved in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Treatise IV 9[8] is reflected only in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". As for EnneadV, treatise V 1[10] is
reflected only in the "sayings" as for chapter 2; there are passages in common in the
pseudo-Theology and in the "sayings" as for chapters 3, 6 and 10; chapters 7, 8 and 11
are reflected only in the "sayings". The short treatise V 2[1 1], with its two chapters, is
preserved only in the pseudo-Theology, which reflects both. Treatise V 3[49] is reflected
almost in its entirety in the pseudo-FarabianEpistleon thedivinescience,and only there.
As for the short treatise V 4[7], its two chapters are reflected in the Epistle,but there is
a slight trace of chapter 1 in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Treatise V 5[32] is reflected only in the Epistle.There is a slight trace of chapter V 6[24], concerning only
some ten lines of chapter4, in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Treatise V 8[31], on the
contrary, is preserved only in the pseudo-Theology. Treatise V 9[5] is reflected only in
the Epistle.As for EnneadVI, there is a minimal trace of VI 4[22] in the "Sayings of
the Greek Sage". Treatise VI 7[38], on the contrary, is widely preserved; but the first
part is reflected in the pseudo-Theology (chapters 1-14), whereas chapters 17-18, 23, 32
and 42 are reflected in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage". Finally, there are slight traces
of treatise VI 9[9], chapter 6, in the "Sayings of the Greek Sage".
This textual situationis best explained within the hypothesis of a common text based on Enneads IV-VI. Accordingto this hypothesis, Plotinus'
writingsweretranslatedinto Arabicandat one andthe sametime paraphrased,
since, as Rosenthalremarked,in the "Sayingsof the GreekSage"are present
some of the intelpolationswhich appearalso in the pseudo-Theology.This
paraphrastictranslationcounts as the commonoriginof the threetexts which
came down to us: the pseudo-Theologyitselfl, the Epistle on the Divine
10 At a momentaboutwhich scholarsdisagree,the pseudo-Theologyreceived substantial
additions;the so-called "longerversion"which resultedfromthese additionsis found in some
Jewish-Arabicfragmentsand is reflected in the Latin translation.An extremelyuseful status
quaestionis has been madeby M. Aouad,La Theologie d'Aristote et autres textes du 'Plotinus
CristinaD'Ancona
82
Science,
and the "Sayingsof

the Greek Sage". In
times overlapwith the
so far as the
pseudo-Theology,
theycan eitherderive "sayings"at
or from a source
fromthe latter,
common to both, namely,
the paraphrastic
self. On the contrary,
the Epistle,which
translationithas no common
pseudo-Theology,
passages with the
cannotderive from the
thelinguistic and
latterand, in so far as
it sharesin
doctrinal features of the
other two texts of the
Plotinus,does in all
likelihoodderive from the
Arabic
same commonsource,
independently
from the
albeit
pseudo-Theology.
busby Gerhard
When in 1973 the
Endress systematically
ProclusAraexploited the peculiarities
translation
style as well as the
of the
lexical
and
doctrinaladaptationswhich
acterize
the Arabic version
of
charProclus' Elementsof
locate
it within the current
Theology,in order to
of the Graeco-Arabic
common
source was clearly
translations,this Plotinian
identiEledll.As a matterof
able
to identify the style
fact, Endresswas
of the
of
Theologyby comparingit anonymoustranslationof Proclus'Elements
carefully with the Arabic
translations
coming from what is
Plotinus and other
nowadayscalled the "circle
The
translationof Plotinus'
of al-Kindl''l2.
writingswas made by Ibn
we
are informedby the
Na'ima
al-Himsl, as
incipitin the Prologueof
fact
the
which allows us to
pseudo-Theology13,
locate it in the Elrsthalf
a
of the ninth
additional
informationin the incipitof
Centuryl4.
An
the Prologueprovides
more
precise chronology,since
us with an even
we
are
told that the work
Na'ima
al-Himslwas editedfor
Ahmadibn al-Mu'tasim translatedby Ibn
therefore
earlierthan 860/870 bi-Llahby al-Kindl15,
approximatelythe date of
Kindl's death Arabus'.
In: Dictionnairedes
Paris
1989. P. 541-590, in PhilosophesAntiquespublie sous la
directionde R. Goulet. I.
1l
G. Endress, Procluspart. p. 564-570 on the "longerversion".
Arabus. Zwanzig
arabischer
Abschnitte
aus der
Uberzetzung.Wiesbaden-Beirut
12The
1973 (BeiruterTexte Institutio Theologica in
up-to-dateaccount
und Studien, 10).
of
facts
and
provided
problemsconcerningthe
by G. Endress, The
''Kindl'scircle"has been
Circle
of
and
al-Kindl.
the
Rise of Islamic
Early Arabic
Translations
Philosophy.
In:
from the Greek
The
lenism.
Ancient Traditionin
Studieson the
Transmission
Christianand Islamic Helof GreekPhilosophy
Lulofs
on his ninetieth
andSciences
13
Diesogenannte birthday,ed. by G. Endressand R. Kruk. dedicatedto H.J.Drossaart
Theologiedes Aristotelesaus
Leiden 1997. P. 43-76.
herausgegeben
von F. Dieterici.
arabischenHandschriften
zum erstenMal
Leipzig
1882
Badawi,
(repr.
Aflutln 'inda l-'arab.
Plotinus apudArabes.Rodopi,Amsterdam1965). P. 1.4-5; 'A.
supersunt.
Cairo 1955, 1966,
TheologiaAristoteliset
Kuwait
14This
translatoris mentioned in1977 (Dirasat Islamiyya,20). P. 3.7. fragmentaquae
the
Fihrist, p. 244.5 Flugel;
Zimmermann,
The Originsof the
p. 304.26
so-called Theologyof
that,
since
Tagaddud.
Kindl's First Philosophy
Aristotle,p. 135
seems
the
to
convincinglyargues
postdatethe
dedication
of Kindl's work to
caliph al-Mu'ta$im pseudo-Theology,this fact, due to
upper
limit>>.
(833-42) gives <<a
reasonablysecure
15 Ed.
Dieterici,p. 1.5-6; ed.
Badawl,
p. 3.8-9.
Theology
of Aristotle,p. 118Zimmermann,TheOriginsof the
119, interpretsthe verb
sense
thatwas
so-called
<<Him$l
responsiblefor all but a final aslaha which appearin the incipit in the
crossingof 't's and dotting
of 'i's carried
of Aristotle:Structureand Composition
Pseudo-Theology
83
andin all likelihoodaroundthe fortiesof the century,duringthe periodwhen

al-Kindlwas the preceptorof the prince Ahmadl6.One is led by this incipit
to thinkthat Enneads IV-VI were translatedby Ibn Na'ima al-Him$lfor alKindl, who made the work circulatingin the cultivatedmilieux of Bagdad,
and chiefly in the Caliphalcourt. In fact, we learn from the Fihrist by Ibn
al-Nadlmthatat least anotherphilosophicalworkwas translatedforal-Kindl,
namely, Aristotle's Metaphysicsl7.In his study on the Arabic translations
of Aristotle's De caelo, Endressmade clear that the three versions of this
work presentgrammaticaland lexical peculiaritieswhich point to different
periods of translationl8.Among the three versions of the De caelo, one was
made by Ibn al-Bitrlql9and its featureswere identiEledby Endress as the
same which appearin the translationof the Metaphysicsmade for al-Kind
and in the PlotinianArabictexts, as well as in the Arabicversions of some
texts of Alexanderof Aphrodisiasand Proclus20.On this ground,the same
of the translascholar was able, some years later, to include in the COlpUS
tions made within the ''Kindl's circle" also the Arabic version of Proclus'
Elements of Theologyand the Liber de causis2l.
In 1986, F.W. Zimmermannpublished a book-lengtharticle on the origins of the main remainderof the Arabic translationof Plotinus, namely,
Among the manypoints he made in this comprehenthe pseudo-Theology22.
out by Kindl>>
(p. 118). He raises the questionwhetheror not this verb can indicatea substantial revision made by al-Kindl, and answersin the negative. In so far as he is convincedthat
- namely,the pseudo<<there
is no rationalplan behindthe choice andorderof passages in K>>
it be that it was Kindl who selected
Theology(p. 112) , he thinksthat the question<<Could
(p. 119).
and arrangedthe passages included in K (...) ? (...) can roundlybe denied>>
16 On Kindl's position at the Caliphalcourtand its significancefor the translationmovement see F. Rosenthal,Al-Kindi als Literat. In: Orientalia2. 1942. P. 262-288, in part. p.
265, n. 1; A. L. Ivry, Al-Kindiand the Mu'tazila:Philosophical and Political Reevaluation.
In: Oriens25-26. 1976. P. 69-85; Endress,The Circle of al-Kindi,in part.p. 46-47; D. Gutas,
Greek Thought,Arabic Culture.The Graeco-ArabicTranslationMovementin Baghdad and
Early 'AbbasidSociety (2nd-4th/ 8th-l Othcenturies). London 1998, in part.p. 121- 126.
17 Fihrist, p. 251.28 Flugel; p. 312.14 Tagaddud.Endress,The Circle of al-Kindi, p. 44,
mentions Aristotle's Meteorologica too as a work whose translationwas made upon a demandby al-Kindl.On the workstranslatedwithinthe circle of al-Kindlandpossibly commissioned by him, see ibidem, p. 52-58.
18 G. Endress,Die arabische Ubersetzungenvon Aristoteles' SchriftDe caelo. Frankfurt
am Main 1966. For a comprehensiveaccount of the distinctive features of the translations
made within this circle see Endress,The Circle of al-Kindi,in part.p. 58-62; Endress'results
play an importantrole in Gutas' accountof what he calls "translationcomplexes":see Greek
Thought,Arabic Culture,p. 141- 150.
19 This translatoris mentionedin the Fihrist, p. 244.3 Flugel; p. 304.25 Tagaddud.See
on him Endress,Die arabische Ubersetzungenvon Aristoteles' SchriftDe caelo, p. 89-95.
20 Endress,Die arabische Ubersetzungenvon Aristoteles' SchriftDe caelo, p. 118-134.
21 Endress,Proclus Arabus, p. 185-193.
22 F. Zimmermann,The Origins of the so-called Theologyof Aristotle (quotedsupra, n.
9)
CristinaD'Ancona
84
sive study on the Graeco-Arabictransmissionof the Neoplatonic writings,

threeappearas the most innovative:first,Zimmermannrejectedas unproven
the hypothesis of the dependenceof the Arabic Plotinus from a Syriac reworkingof Plotinus' writings;second, he rejectedas hardlyElttingwith the
internal data of the Arabic Plotinian texts the hypothesis of Porphyry's
doctrinalinfluence lying in the background,an hypothesis whose aim was
to explain the fact that the ArabicPlotinusat times partscompanywith the
Greekone; third,he rejectedas unnecessarythe traditionalinterpretationof
Aristotle's alleged authorshipof some NeoplatonicArabic texts as a <<conscious forgery>>23.
As a result of his interpretationof the scope and ways of
the creationof a corpus of Arabic Neoplatonicain the formativeperiod of
the Islamic philosophy, Zimmermannmaintainedthat <<Hims1,
presumably
in concert with other membersof the Kindl circle, was engaged in compiling a readerin philosophicaltheology, the original *Theology,as a supplement to Aristotle's Metaphysics.He translatedand adapted(parts of?) the
second and third volumes of the Enneads, passing over the first which, in
the words of Porphyry'sintroduction,was given over to moraland physical
issues. (...) A preface was addedto explain that Plotinus's contributionwas
an elaborationof the theology projected in Aristotle's Metaphysics. The
conflict between Plotinus's Platonism and Aristotle's anti-Platonismwas
accordinglyplayed down in the adaptationof Plotinus's text>>24.
This conclusion, due to its great explicative power, has been widely accepted.
Zimmermann's attempt at providing a comprehensive explanation of the genesis of
the Neoplatonic Arabic texts has attractedmuch attention. To quote but one example, A.
de Liberatakes it as a sort of startingpoint in his descriptionof Albert the Great'sposition
within the XIII Century Latin reception of Aristotle's thought: see his Albertle Grand
et la philosophie.Paris 1990, in part. p. 55-72. The detailed account by Aouad, La
Theologied'Aristoteet autrestextesdu 'PlotinusArabus',p. 576-578 (quoted supra,n.
10), due to the nature of a statusquaestionis,does not involve an evaluation of the theses put forward by Zimmermann.On the contrary, both reviews by H. Daiber, in: Der
Islam 65. 1988. P. 130-134 and E.K. Rowson, TheTheologyof Aristotleandsomeother
pseudo-Aristotelian
textsreconsidered.In: Journalof the American Oriental Society l 12,
3. 1992. P. 478-484, contain an evaluation of Zimmermann's theses. The main perplexity raised by Daiber lies in that the discrepancies between the Arabic and Greek texts
can hardly be accounted for without having recourse to a preexistent model, which it is
fair to locate in the Greek, and not in the Arabic milieu: <<Ichhalte es nicht fur sehr
wahrscheinlich, daJ3es Himsl oder ein spaterer Bearbeiter gewesen sind, der Plotin mit
Aristoteles harmonisiertund hierzu zusatzlich griechische Kommentarliteraturherangezogen hat>>(p. 132-133). In Rowson's opinion, Zimmermann <<convincinglydismisses
the various arguments that have been proposed to prove the existence of a Syriac intermediary between the Greek Enneadsand the Theology.(...) He also cogently refuses the
23
24
Zimmermann,TheOriginsof theso-calledTheologyof Aristotle,p 131.
Ibid.
85
namely, the one mantainingthat some importantfeatureswhich

"Porphyrianhypothesis">>,
distinguish the Arabic Plotinus from the original Greek text are due to a suppositious
Zimmermann's
rearrangementmade by Porphyry.Also, Rowson maintains that <<Perhaps
most impressive argument is the one he presents for the fortuitous nature of the Theology text as we have it>>,although he adds that <<manyof his arguments are very forced>>,
and objects against transferringthis model <<bodilyto the De causis and the Zwanzig
(p. 482). Finally, Rowson approaches with skepticism Zimmermann's theAbschnitte>>
sis that there did exist a collection of texts the Theologybelongs to - the so-called ''Kindl's
metaphysics file'' -, as well as the contention that the longer version of the Theology
antedated both Isaac Israeli's works and Isma'lll Neoplatonism (ibid.).
In order to account for one of the most puzzling features of the Arabic
Plotinus,namely,its desorderversusthe Greekoriginal,Zimmermannworked
endeavouringto secure the founout the following reconstruction:<<Kindi,
dationsof ArabicHellenism, enlisted Christianswith a knowledge of Greek
as translatorsto supply the canonical texts offalsafa, classical Greek philosophy. (...) The bulky work did not survive intact. One severely mutilated
copy was uncriticallytranscribedby an ignoranttransmitterwho, misled by
the preface and/or an ambiguousinscription,ascribedthe work to AristotIn fact, not only the passages coming from the Enneadsand reflected
le>>25.
in the pseudo-Theologydo not follow the order of the Greek original, but
also there are other Neoplatonic texts circulating under the heading of a
relatedin a way or anotherto Aristotle- and chiefly the twenty
"Theology"
Proclean propositions edited by Endress, and transmittedwithin a collection of essays by Alexander of Aphrodisias-, a fact which suggested to
Zimmermannthatthe originalcollection the ArabicPlotinusstems fromwas
in classical theology>>
a sort of Aristotelian and post-Aristotelian<<reader
is, then, a
which, at a given moment of its history, was dispersed.<<There
befell the
which
catastrophe
a
physical
to
pointing
perceptibleconvergence
early in its life. A big-bangtheory would nicely explain
original *Theology
the erraticnatureof numberof relatedtexts from the Kindl workshop.No
process of rationalediting can accountfor the chaos in K26.To some extent
the same is true of the Liberde causis and of Dimashqi's fragments of
Proclus>>27.
I have arguedelsewhere in favour of some orderin the new arrangment

of Proclus' materialswhich is given in the Liberde causis,and would like
to devote this paper to discuss the lack of order in the pseudo-Theology,
tentativelyarguingin favour of a process of rationalediting. I shall take its
f1rstchapter as a case in point. Whether or not this allows more general
Zimmermann,The Origins of the so-called Theologyof Aristotle, p. 128.
in Zimmermann'ssystem of sigla, <<theso-called Theology, misascribed to
(p. 112).
Aristotle>>
27 Ibid, p. 130.
25
26 "Kt' iS,
86
Cristina D'Ancona
conclusions, is a furtherquestion which makes sense only if such

an editing proves to be at work.
In Phaedo 66 B 1 - 67 D 3, Plato providesthe answerto

the questionhe
set down at 65 A, namely "if we bring the body as the
soul's partnerin our
searchfor intelligence, is it a hindranceor not?"- a barely
negative answer
indeed.Body gives us manytroubles,makes countless
demandsuponus and
fills us with longings and fears of all sorts, so that if we
are to have knowledge in the propersense of the term, we must get rid of it.
The attainment
of knowledgewill be possible only afterthe death,when
soul will be XoeiS
tov oatoS;
and even in this life, the condition for knowing is but
to
Xoei4elVotl FaBlota azo tov oatoS:
a clear-cutand somehow onesidedposition indeed. However, if we turn to the
TimaeusSthe body-soul
relationshipis dealt with in quite a differentway. At 29 D 6 30 C 1, in
answeringthe question"forwhat reason did the orvlotag frame
this whole
universe?",Plato works out the famous beginningof every
rationaltheology saying that he was good and who is good can never
become jealous of
anything.So he wanted everythingto be as much like himself
as was possible,and to this end he took over all that was visible and
broughtit from
&aMia
to taelg. Not only, but, foyloallevog, he discoveredthat
in the realm
ofnatureno unintelligentthing could be better than
anythingwhich does
possessvovs. Guided by this reasoning,the Demiurge put
intelligence in
souland soul in body, in orderto producethe best
possible piece of work.
According
to the likely account,then, the presence of soul into
body is but
theeffect of the divine zeovota, this is to say the
BoyloFos of the God
whodoes the best possible deeds.
This mere comparisonof passages raises the question
of their mutual
consistency.The currentsolution, namely, that they display
Plato's development
froma dualisticpositionblamingthe soul-bodyconjunction
to a more
positive
appreciationof body, was not availableto ancientreaders;or at least
sowe aretold. Ancientreaderswere admittedlynot ready
to acceptthatPlato
orAristotle changed their mind. We are also told that
they were prone to
almost
every kind of forcing, in orderto keep togetherthe whole
of Plato's
or
Aristotle's philosophy as a totally consistent system. To our
surprise,
Plotinus
- the leader of the so-called systematicreadingof
Plato's thought,
the
philosopherwho was and still is conceived of as the main
responsible
oftransformingthe aporetic movement of Plato's
thinking into a fixed,
hierarchical
system - shows a different attitude.He sharplyperceived
the
inconsistency
of Plato's statementsabout soul and body and, far from
con-
Pseudo-Theolo,gyof Aristotle: Structureand Composition
87
cealing the difficulty, directly faced it, devoting a treatise - IV 8[6] - to

Plato's apparentbla(povia. Of course, he raises the question because he
thinkshe possesses the solution;but the very fact thathe points to this problem, as well as the strategieshe works out to solve it, turn the treatise IV
8[6] into an interestingexample of what Neo-Platonismmeans, and by the
same token help in understandingits role in the formativeperiod of Islamic
philosophy.
IV 8[6] belongs in the group of the so-called first treatises,those which
Plotinuswrote afterhaving spentten years in teachingwithoutwritingdown
anythingof his thought. This group of treatisesprovides us with a sort of
basic draftof Plotinus' philosophy,and at least four of them deal with soul
and its problems:the second in the chronologicalorder, Ileel aOavaviaS
rpvxng(IV 7 in Porphyry'sarrangement);the fourth, Ileel ovoiaS RPVXNS
zetov (IV 2), the sixth, Ileei tn5 eiS ta oisRata xaOobov tn5 apvxng
(IV 8) and the eigth, neei tov ei zaval ai rpvXaiia (IV 9). Two of them,
IV 7[2] and IV 8[6], plus the famous treatise V 1[10], Ileel tov telov
aexlxov vzootaveov - still belonging in the same groupof the first treatises - containimportantdevelopmentsaboutthe soul-bodyrelationship.The
question is sketched as early as in the second treatise in the chronological
order,IV 7, On the immortality
of the soul, and takes the form of the following aporia:grantedthat soul belongs in the intelligible world, and that
the intelligible world is separatefrom the sensible one, how is it possible
that soul is immanentin body? The same aporia- soul is by natureboth an
inhabitantof the intelligiblerealmandthe immanentprincipleof life in living
things - providesthe very beginningof the crucialtreatiseV 1[ 10], Onthe
threeprincipalhypostases.The treatiseIV 8[6], Onthe descentof thesoul
into bodies,is devoted to the full-fledged solution of the aporia.
The opening section, with its famous beginning<<Often
I have woken up
out of the body to my self and have enteredinto myself, going out from all
other things>>28
is but the premiss to the crucial question, raised at line 8:
&zoeo zoS zote xal vvv xata,Saivo, <<Iam puzzled how I ever come
down>>.
Plotinusaddressesthe questionto the traditionof Greekphilosophy,
partly in a clearly anti-Gnosticvein, partly following the traditionaltripartite set of authoritieson this point, Heraclitus,Empedoclesand Plato29.Here
IV 8[6], 1.1-2 (transl.Armstrong).
See on this point W. Burkert,Plotin, Plutarch und die platonisierendeInterpretation
von Heraklitund Empedocles.In: Kephalaion.Studies in Greek Philosophyand its continuation offered to prof. C.J. de Vogel, ed. by J. Mansfeld and L.M. de Rijk. Assen 1975.
P. 137-146. Moredetails on Plotinus'exegesis of Platowill be found in the runningcommentarywhichaccompaniesthe Italiantranslationbothof IV 8[6] andits Arabicparaphrase:
AA.VV.
Plotino,La discesa dell 'animanei corpi (Enn. IV 8[6]). PlotinianaArabica(pseudo-Teologia
di Aristotele, capitoli 1 e 7; "Dettidel Sapiente Greco"), forthcoming.
28
29
ev31eiQsHaL
V 1[l0], avazenTaevws,
8.10-12: xai Tovs
etLvaL
be Tovs
vvv koyovs
koyovsTovobe
enyxaS
xaLvovS
exeivwv
n6eyeyovevaL
vvv, akka(...).
zakaL
88
CristinaD'Ancona
as elsewhere, accordingto Plotinus Plato is in agreementwith the ancient

philosophersbut surpassesthem in clarity and exhaustiveness30.However,
the claim that Plato dealt with the soul-body conjunctionin a clearer and
deeperway with respectto the previousphilosophersopens a moretroubling
question, namely, the apparentbla4)via of Plato's statementsabout the
issue at hand. As a matterof fact, Plotinus proves to be sharplyaware of
the conflicting statementsabout the soul-body conjunctionPlato utteredin
his writings.The solutionto the exegeticaldifficultyequals,to Plotinus'eyes,
the solution of the aporiaof the descent of soul into the body. In his conviction of being an exegete of Plato3l- the man who went nearerthe truth
than everyone else -, Plotinus conceives of the solution of the exegetical
difficultyas the solutionof the aporiaitself. To discussthe solutionhe works
out in IV 6[8] lies beyond the scope of this paper. It was nevertheless
necessaryto give an accountof the problem,in so far as it is on this ground
that Plotinus,in IV 7[2] and at more length in IV 8[6], createda new topic
in the history of Platonism- a topic which played an unexpectedkey role
in the Arabic Neoplatonic literature.
The new topic Plotinus created consists in analysing the status of the
embodied soul in terms of an aporiawhose horns are on one side the Platonic assumptionof the separatenatureof soul, and on the other the evidence of its immanencein body. As we saw before, as early as in IV 7[2]
the aporiatakes the form of the question"how is it possible that soul comes
to be in body, grantedthat it belongs by naturein the intelligible realm?",
and it is precisely thanks to the similarity between this question and the
question raised in IV 8[6] which we met before - &zoQo zo5 zote (...)
xatafiaivo - that Porphyry,in his tematicrearrangementof Plotinus' writings, put the treatiseOntheimmortality
of soulandthe treatiseOnthedescent
of the soul intobodiesnear one to the other, making them respectivelythe
seventh and the eight of the four Ennead.
The first chapterof the pseudo-Theologyof Aristotlefollows this Porphyrian suggestion and even emphasizes it. As a matterof fact, this opening
chapterresultsfromthe conjunctionof the end of IV 7[2] - wherethe question
mentionedabove is raised and succintly answered- and the beginning of
IV 8[6], where the same question is dealt with at more length. In addition,
30 Plato's primacywith respect to his predecessors,accordingto Plotinus, is due to his
greatersaveLa or axQLeLa:see for instanceV 1[ 10], 8.23-24, wherethe literaryParmenides
of Plato's dialogue is said to express himself in a more precise and clearerway with respect
to the historicalone (o be naQa IlkatwvL IlaQevibns axQlEsteQov keywv). Cf. on this
point Th. A. Szlezak,Platon undAristotelesin der NuslehrePlotins. Basel-Stuttgart1979. P.
28-31.
Pseudo-Theology
89
the paraphrasedtranslationof the last three chaptersof IV 7[2] and of the

first one32of IV 8[6] is followed by a long passage which has no parallel
in Plotinusand is devoted to a survey on the achievementsof Greekphilosophy. This independentpassage, with which the f1rstchapterof the pseudoTheologyends, tums out to be an extendedclaim for the harmonybetween
philosophyand the basic tenets of monotheism,namely, creationand providence.
A table will help in graspingthis structure.
ps. Theology of Aristotle, Chapter One: contents
B. = 'A. Badawi,AJlutln'indal-'arab.PlotinusapudArabes.TheologiaAristotelisetfragmenta
quae supersunt.Cairo 1966.
D. = F. Dieterici, Die sogenannte Theologie des Aristoteles aus arabischen Handschriften
zum ersten Mal herausgegeben.Leipzig 1882.
ps.-Theology, ChapterOne, On Soul
Enneads
B. 18.11-21.7 - D. 4.12-8.3
IV 7[2], 13.1-15.12
B. 22.1-25.14- D. 8.4-11.18
IV 8[6], 1.1-2.7
B. 25.15-28.3 - D. 11.18-14.9
This structureis best explained within the hypothesis of a translation

following the Enneadicdispositionestablishedby Porphyry,where the two
treatisesare adjacentto each other. In fact, it is fair to admitthat the actual
disposition of the Arabic, where the end of IV 7[2] is followed by the beginning of IV 8[6], reflects the disposition of the Greek. At all events, the
fact that the Arabic translationfollows the Enneadicorderhas been established alreadyin 1941 by Hans-RudolfSchwyzer33.The existence of a running Arabic translationof the Greek of Plotinus, where IV 7[2], translated
from its beginningto the end, was followed by IV 8[6], translatedfrom its
beginning to the end, is proved also by the fact that the parts both of IV
7[2] and IV 8[6] which did not come to compose the f1rstchapterof the
Theologyare present in the Arabic Plotinian corpus, as is shown by the
following tables.
Plus the first seven lines of chapter2.
H.-R. Schwyzer, Die pseudoaristotelische Theologie und die Plotin-Ausgabe des
Porphyrios.In:MuseumHelveticum90. 1941. P. 216-236, provideda list of seven cases against
the hypothesisthat the Arabic paraphrasewas groundedon a draftof Plotinus' treatisesantedatingPorphyry'sedition. The most famouscase againstthis hypothesisis the beginningof
the second chapterof the pseudo-Theology,which reproducesthe innaturaldivision made by
Porphyrywhen he brokea Plotiniansentence in the middle, due to the editorialcuttingof the
long treatise On dificulties about the soul.
32
33
Cristina D'Ancona
9o
IV 7[2l: Arabic tradition

L. = PlotinianaArabicaad codicumfidemanglicevertitG. Lewis,in PlotiniOperaII,Enneades
IV-V edideruntP. Henryet H.-R.Schwyzer. Pans-Louvain1959 (L.* = passagesof the Sayings
covering the same textual portionpreservedin the ps.-Theology).
R. = F. Rosenthal.As-Sayvhal-Yunanland the Arabic Plotinus Source.
Enneads
IV 7[2], 1.1-4.34
8.36-44
8l.1-82.11
82.15-85.18
13.1-15.12
ps.-Theology
IX, B. 121.1-129.7-D. 125.4-130.11
III, B. 48.8-49.9 - D. 35.19-37.2
III, B. 45.1-48.8 - D. 32.8-35.19
III, B. 49.9-55.19 - D. 37.2-43.19
Sayings of the GreekSage
L.* 201-203; R. 492
I, B. 18.11-21.7 - D. 4.12-8.3
As the table indicates, only the opening part of the treatise IV 7[2] is
preservedin the ninth chapterof the pseudo-Theolo,gy(from line 1 of chapter one to the end of chapterfour). Chapters5 to 7 are not preserved.Chap-ter eight is preservedin the thirdchapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy,
including
the part- indicatedin modem editionsby the exponentnumber- which was
missing in the Greek antecedentof Ficinus' translationand for this reason
is inserted,from Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica, with a supplementary
numberingwithin the series of chapterstraditionallyreproducedfrom Ficinus' translationonwards.
Cf. P. Henry, Les etats du texte de Plotin (Etudes Plotiniennes, I). Bruxelles 1938
(Museum Lessianum. Section Philosophique. 20). P. 68-71 and 77-124. Book XV of
Eusebius' Praeparatio Evangelica contains almost in its entirety the Plotinian treatise
On the immortalityof soul. This indirect tradition of the treatise is subdivided by Henry,
Les etats, p. 70-71, in three sections. (1) The flrst one, running from 1.1 to 8.28, overlaps with the text preserved through the direct tradition, but it comes from a different
archetype with respect to the one which gave rise to the direct tradition. As a matter of
fact, the analysis of the variantreadingsallowed P. Henry,Recherchessur la "Preparation
Evangelique" d 'Eusebe et I 'editionperdue des neuvresde Plotin publiee par Eustochius.
Paris 1935 (Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Hautes Etudes. Sect. des Sciences Religieuses.
50). P. 60-73, to conclude that Eusebius' text comes from an edition of Plotinus' treatise
different from the one made by Porphyry.This edition was, according to Henry, the one
of Eustochius,the physician mentionedin VP 7.8-12 as having done an edition of Plotinus
writings which antedates the Porphyrian one (cf. M.-O. Goulet-Caze, L'arriere-plan
scolaire de la Viede Plotin. In: Porphyre.La Viede Plotin. I, par L. Brisson, M.-O. GouletCaze, R. Goulet, D. O' Brien. Paris 1982. P. 231-327, in part. p. 287-294 [L'edition
d 'Eustochius]).(2) The second section preservedby Eusebius, runningfrom 8.28 to 84.28,
is lost in all but three of the manuscripts of the direct tradition of the Enneads, which
f1ll the lacuna having recourse to Eusebius. (3) The third section, running from line 1 to
the end (line 52) of chapter 85, is lost in the entire direct tradition and preserved only in
the indirect tradition, through the quotation by Eusebius. A wide part of this section,
Pseudo-Theology
91
namely, the part corresponding to 85.1-85.18, is reflected in the Arabic paraphrase.This

fact proves that the Greek manuscript on which basis the Arabic translation was made
antedated the medieval archetypus of the entire direct tradition. In fact, the possibility
that the Arabic translation traces back to the pre-Porphyrianedition Eusebius made use
of for his Praeparatio is ruled out (see supra, n. 33); the possibility that the Arabic translation was made on the basis of the sole indirect tradition is obviously ruled out by the
fact that it reflects countless pages preserved only in the direct tradition; the remaining
possibility, namely, that the translator fllled the lacuna in the direct tradition having
recourse to Eusebius, is only speculative. This third section contains the Plotinian discussion on Aristotle's deflnition of soul as evEXeXeta, and gave rise to importantadaptations in the Arabic paraphrase,brought to light by Zimmermann, The Origins of the
so-called Theology of Aristotle, p. 124-125. See also R. Arnzen, Aristoteles' De Anima.
Eine verlorene spatantike Paraphrase in arabischer & persischer Uberlieferung.
Arabischer Text nebst Kommentar,quellengeschichtlichen Studien & Glossaren. Leiden
1998 (Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus. 9). P. 352-353.
We have just seen that the evidence of the Arabic Theologyclearly indicates that the Greekmanuscripton the basis of which the Arabictranslation
was madeantedatesthe entiredirecttraditionof the Enneadsas it came down
to us, becausea substantialpartof the text preservedby Eusebiusandomitted
by the extant manuscriptsof the Enneads is reflected in the Arabic paraphrase.Chapters9 to 12 are not preservedin the Arabic traditionavailable
to us. Chapters13-15, namely, the end of the treatise,are preservedand are
found at the beginning of the first chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy.
IV 8[6l: Arabic tradition
Enneads
IV 8[6],1.1-2.7
ps.-Theology
I, B. 22.1-25.14 - D. 8.4-11.18
3. 6-5 . 13
5.24-8.23
Sayings of the GreekSage
L . 23 5 -241 (= ms Bodleian
Library, Marsh 539, ff.
22v- 28 v)
VII,B. 84.1-91.21 - D. 75.16-85.6
The treatise IV 8[6] is preserved into Arabic in its entirety:the beginning is reflected in the first chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy,
where it follows the end of the translationof IV 7[2], 13-15. The middle part, from
chapterthreeto chapterfive, is preservedin the "Sayingsof the GreekSage".
The ending part of the treatise, from chapterfive to eight, is preservedin
the seventh chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy.
So far, we have reachedthe conclusion that a translationof IV 7[2] and
IV 8[6] did exist, and that it followed the actual disposition of the Greek
treatises:IV 8[6] came after IV 7[2]. An additionalhint towardsthe exist-
92
CristinaD'Ancona
ence also of the chaptersof IV 7[2] loosing in the actual remainderof the
Arabic translationof Plotinus' treatises is given by the very beginning of
the f1rstchapterof the pseudo-Theology.
To proceed: Now that it has been demonstratedand conElrmedthat the soul is not a
body and does not die or decay or perish, but is abiding and everlasting, we wish to study
concerning her also howshe departsfrom the worldof mindand descends to this corporeal world of sense and entersthis gross transient bodywhich falls under genesis and
corruption(transl.Lewis; emphasis added on the words literally coming from the Greek)34.
The openingsentence,which has no parallelin the Greekandbegins with

the formulaicexpressionid qadbanawa-sahha...,is eloquentin its brevity.
It maintainsthat it has alreadybeen demonstratedthat soul is incorporeal
and everlasting, and this amounts to a summary,extremely abridgedbut
precise, of the previous chapters(1-12) of IV 7[2]. In fact, the treatiseraises the question whether or not soul is immortaland claims - in a purely
Platonic vein - that no answer can be given about the propertiesof soul
without providingthe deElnitionof its nature.The centralpart of the treatise, from chaptertwo to eight, is devotedto the refutationof Stoic, "Pythagorean"and AristoteliandeE1nitions
of soul. Chaptersnine to eleven argue
that soul, which cannot be either a body or a function of body, belongs in
the intelligiblerealmand for this reasonis immortal.Oncethe goal achieved,
namely, once demonstratedthe immortalityof soul against all the psychological theories which make it depend on body in a way or another,Plotinus succintlyraisesandsolves the objectionthat,on the groundof the claimed
separatenessof soul, one cannot account for its presence into the body - a
presence which, in turn, cannot be denied. What we read at the beginning
of the Arabic translationof IV 7[2], chapters 13-15, is but a summaryof
the scope and the main argumentdeveloped in the treatise. After this, we
H1nd
in the H1rst
chapterof the pseudo-Theologythe paraphrasedtranslation
of the mentionedthreechapters,until to the end. The last Plotiniansentence,
15.10-12, ... xai 6ElXVVOVUl (namely,the disembodiedhumansouls giving
help by their prophecies)bl' avv zai zeQi v akkwvtrxwv, otl
iAlV aZO@VlAl,
iS reflected as follows: <<This
and the likeprovesthat
thesoul that passes from this world to the otherdoes not die orperish,but
is alive with a life abiding,not passing away or sufferingextinction>>35.
At
this point, we H1nd
in the f1rstchapterof the pseudo-Theologythe beginning
34 Ed. Dieterici,p. 4.13-5.1; ed. Badawl,p. 18.13-16;Lewis's translation,p. 219 in Plotini
Opera. The Arabic passage contains a blatanttranslationmistakethe presentquestion does
not compelus to discuss (see my Porphyry,UniversalSoul and theArabicPlotinus.In:Arabic
Sciences and Philosophy9, 1. 1999. P. 47-88).
35 Ed. Dieterici, p. 8.2-3; ed. Badawl, p. 21.16-17; Lewis' translation,p. 223 in Plotini
Opera (emphasisaddedby Lewis).
Pseudo-Theolo<gy
93
of the translationof treatise IV 8[6], introducedby the heading <<Astatement of his that is like an allegory (ramz) on the universalsoul>>36.
To this
heading much attention was devoted by Zimmermann,who, after having
recalled that the pronoun"his" in the heading clearly refers to the author,
points to the cross-referencecontainedin the translationof V 8[31], 1.1-4,
where we find the expression<<the
Allegorist (sahibal-rumuz)>>37, in a context which makes clear that the authormeant is the same as the one of the
beginningof IV 8[6]. In both cases, the <<Allegorist>>,
accordingto Zimmermann, is meant to be Plato38.
Underthis headingare translatedthe first chapterof IV 8[6] in its entirety, and the first eight lines of chaptertwo. At this point, a wide independent
passage is inserted,which concludes the first chapterof the pseudo-Theology. The insertion point of this excursus is by no means mindless. After
having set down the problem,namely, the bla+via of Plato's statements
aboutthe soul-bodyconjunctionin the Phaedo,Republic
andPhaedrusversus
those he made in the Timaeus39,
Plotinusmaintainsthat, should we want to
learn from Plato about our own soul, we necessarily meet Plato's doctrine
about soul qua soul, which in turn implies a threefoldquestion:(i) in what
sense soul is disposed by natureto the fellowship with body; (ii) what is
the natureof the universe, where soul has to dwell; (iii) whetheror not the
36 Lewiss translation,p. 225 in Plotini Opera. In the only ms of the pseudo-TheologyI
was able to consult Istanbul,Aya Sofya 2457, f. 113r8-9, this heading belongs in the body
of the text, albeit writtenin a differentink, probablyred. My thanksare due to the Director
of the Orient-Institutder DeutschenMorgenlandischenGesellschaftas well as to Dr. Ch.K.
Neumann(Istanbul)for their kind help in providingme with the microfilm of the ms Aya
Sofya 2457.
37 Ed. Dieterici,p. 44.3; ed. Badawl p. 56.5. The contextmakesclearthatthe cross-reference
is to the beginningof IV 8[6]: <<We
say thathe who is capable of doffing his body andputting
to rest his senses and promptingsand motions, as the Allegorist has describedof his own
soul, and is capable too in his thoughtof returningto himself and raising his mind to the
word of mind...>>
(Ed. Dieterici, p. 44.2-4; ed. Badawl, p. 56.4-6; Lewis' translation,p. 375
in Plotini Opera;emphasisaddedby Lewis). This sentenceexpandsPlotinus'words'Ezel6
faev IOV EV 0e ,aIOV VOnIOV XOOV
787VFEVOV
zai 10 IOV anolVOV
VOV zalavooavla zakXoS ... (V 8[3 1], 1.1-2), in a way which is clearly reminiscentof IV 8[6], 1.13.
38 To the question are devoted AppendixVI (p. 143-149) and, partly,AppendixXXI (p.
217-221). Fromwhat he calls <<afalsely drawnboundaryline betweenPlato and Plotinus>>
(p.
148), Zimmermanninfers that it was an habit with Himsl to extend Plato's role and presence
in the Enneads, creditinghim with many sentences utteredin reality by Plotinushimself. If
I am not wrong, this is meant to be an additionalargumentagainst the "Porphyrian"
hypothesis, in so far as such a difference between the Arabic and Greek Plotinus can hardly be
ascribedto the alleged Porphyry'sadaptation.I confess I am not able to judge whetheror not
the <<Allegorist>)
was Plato in the eyes of the translator;in general,the possibility to account
for the contentsof the ArabicPlotinuson the basis of an adaptationmadeby Porphyryseems
very remote to me, as I tried to say in the article quotedsupra, n. 34.
39 IV 8[6], 1.27: ov lavlov keyov zavlaxn Qavellal. The Platonic doxographyoccupies lines 29-50 of chapter 1.
D'Ancona
Cristina
94
This pasacted with justice when he sent soul into the body40.
Demiurge
is translatedas follows:
sage
studyof the soul thatis
Wemayderivesublimemattersfrom thisphilosopheron the
is andthroughwhatcause
us and of the universalsoul, so thatwe mayknowwhatshe
in
so thatwe mayknowthe
and
descendedto this body,and becameassociatedwithit,
she
place in the worldshe
what
in
and
is
it
of this worldand whatmannerof thing
nature
with it willinglyor
associated
became
and
it
to
andwhetherthe soul descended
dwells,
knowledge moresubor in any otherway. We derivefromhim some further
perforce
Creatorfashionedthe
the
whether
thanthe knowledgeof the soul;thatis, we learn
lime
whetherhis linking
and
done,
rightly
not
was
rightlyor whetherthatworkof his
things
disagreedover
ancients
the
for
not,
or
right
was
bodies
our
to
soul to this worldand
the
and discussedit at length4I.
this
is literThe translation,except for an oddity42and a misunderstanding43,

zeqi
question
his
amplified:
is
al.As it often happens,Plotinus' sentence
decan
we
that
told
are
zottov turnsto be an entire sentence, where we
'ilmun
soul,
about
rivefrom Plato a knowledge higher than the knowledge
zottov was
zeqi
question
the
wording,
asrafu min 'ilmi l-naWs. In Plotinus'
to Plato in order
thethirditem within a uniquequestionwe have to address
turns this item
tolearn his doctrine about our soul; but the amplif1cation
or not the
whether
intoa statementconcerningthe more general question
Creatordid create things with justice.
and in this
In the same vein, at line seven the Greek text is abandoned
expandsthe
strategicalpoint a doxographytakesplace, which systematically
account
wider
a
with
us
pointmade in the interpolationquoted,presenting
doxography,
the
of
of that 'ilm asraf we can learnfrom Plato. The leitmotiv
held by Plato, in
in fact, is the survey of the main metaphysicaldoctrines
of Greekthought
so far as they surpassany otherdoctrinewithin the history
lv ov,Salvel zeQi1n5neneQagtrxng zaQ'avlov a0ElV
40 IV8[6],2.1-8:'WQOIE
t;lnoal, zos zole XOlV@VlV
t;lnoaolv et avayzns efazlesOal zai zeQitrXng okos
EV @ tVXn
6El aVIOV ll08ooAl,
OlOV llVa
Qvoeog
zooov
zeQi
zai
zeQvxe,
oall
JIOlnlOV 6E, 8'llE
zeQi
zai
IQozog
akXoS
llS
'lle
evblalalal exovoa '1le avayzas0eloa
blo1xovaagXelQobl' avx@v'loo
oQ0os 'le 5 nexeQal trXai'loog, &5e6el oala
(...).
buval
zoku
Plotini
ed. Badawl,p. 25.6-14;Lewis' translation,p. 229-231 in
41
Ed. Dieterici,p. 1l.9-18;
Opera(emphasisadded somehow differentlyfrom Lewis).

1, are renderedstrangelyenough by
Plotinus' words zei ln5 FTeag trxng, line

die wir haben>>
fShd,whichis freely translatedby Dietericias <<...derSeele,
al-nafsallatlnahnu
42
undmitAnmerkungen
ubersetzt
ausdemArabischen
desAristoteles
Theologie
(Diesogenannte
by <<the soul that is in us>>;Rubio
saw,
we
as
Lewis,
by
and
12)
P.
1883.
Leipzig
versehen.
(L. Rubio,Pseudo[almahumana]>>
translatesliterally<<...del almaen la cual estamosnosotros
1978. P. 73). The
Madrid
notas.
y
del arabe,introduccion
Aristoteles,Teologia.Traduccion
editions do.
ms Istanbul,Aya Sofya 2457 reads here (f.l l5rS) as the
zeQi trxng okes, the adverbokes is mistakenlyre43 With respectto Plotinus' words
as if it were *zei xn5 okns trxng, takenin
ferredto soul, and generatesal-nafsal-kullzya,
the sense of *zeQi xn5 trXrl5 IOV ZavTog-
Pseudo-Theolo<gy
95
and, at one and the same time, reach the very conclusions of the theology
rootedin revelation,namely,the uniqueness,creativepower and providence
of the first principle.
I shall deal in the second part of this paperwith the doxographyand the
informationwe can extract from it about the philosophical culture of its
author.As for now, I would like to argue in favour of a rationalediting of
this chapter.Insteadof being fortuitous,the new literaryitem which is the
first chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy
seems to be the result of two editorial
decisions. First, the one of conflatingthe end of IV 7[2] and the beginning
of IV 8[6]. Second, the one of inserting an entire survey on the achievements the Greekphilosophyowes to Plato at the very point where Plotinus
evokes the place in which Plato outlinedhis own rationaltheology, namely,
Timaeus29 D - 30 C. The internalstructureof the first chapterof the pseudo-Theologyis best explained, so it seems to me, within the hypothesis of
an editorial decision to conflate the two places where Plotinus deals with
the descent of soul into body - a move suggested, in all likelihood, by the
very position the topic had in the runningtranslation.To this new entity the
editor added the doxographicalexcursus, locating it in a strategicalplace.
The existence of the subsequentpart of IV 8[6], which is preservedin the
"Sayingsof the Greek Sage" as for chaptersthreeto five, and once again in
the pseudo-Theolo<gy
as for chaptersfive to the end, creates an additional
drift towardsthe idea that such an editorialdecision took place on the basis
of a runningtranslationalreadymade. In this hypothesis,the editor, strucken by the affinity of the topics dealt with in IV 7[2], 13-15 and IV 8[6], as
well as by the possibilities they gave to the promotionof Greekphilosophy
- by their insistence both on the separatenessand immortalityof soul, and
on its descent from the celestial place into bodies and parallel ascent from
body to the celestial place - decided to open the "book of Theolocsy''with
it. When the text presentedhim with the opportunityto, he inserteda long
independentpassage, explaining the metaphysicalpresuppositionsof the
doctrineof the descent of soul into the body.
The alternativehypothesis, namely, that it was the translatorhimself to
add the independentpassage as an amplification of Plotinus' account on
Plato's rationaltheology in the Timaeus,is perfectly possible and is even
favouredby Zimmermann,who thinksthat the authorof the excursusat the
end of the first chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy
is its translator,Ibn Na'ima
al-Hims144.Since Zimmermannmaintainsthat the actual disposition of the
pseudo-Theolo<gy
is due to chance, one may sum up his explanationof the
actual state of the text in the following way: the runningtranslationof IV
44 zimmermann,
TheOriginsof theso-calledTheologyof Aristotle,p. 144-145.
96
Cristina D'Ancona
7[2] and IV 8[6], plus the long excursus occurring at IV 8[6], 2.7, was
dispersedand reassembledby chance in the actualfirst chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy,
giving rise to the text as we possess it.
ButSif the analysis carriedon until now is correctSit is fair to assume
that the person who cut off the three last chaptersof IV 7[2] from the rest
of the treatise and pasted them to the beginning of IV 8[6] was guided by
a sort of editorialproject, as rough as it may be consideredand as unsuccessful as he might have been in the rest of his work, should his goal have
been to produce,on the basis of the runningtranslation,a treatisecontaining selected topics of Greek theology45.In principle,this person, who can
on this grounds be called the "editor"of the f1rstchapterof the pseudoTheology,may or may not be the same person who translatedIV 7[2] and
IV 8[6]. But, in so far as he operatedon the basis of the runningtranslation, we should admitthat, even in the hypothesishe was the same person,
he worked under anotherprofessional prof1le:no longer as the translator,
but as the editorof the Plotiniantreatisesalreadytranslatedinto Arabic.The
"editor"may or may not be the same personwho wrote the excursusat the
end of the chapter. In alternative,the translatorand the "editor"are two
differentpersons. Here, again, he may or may not have writtenthe excursus.
Once acceptedthat an "editor"of the H1rst

chaptermust have existed, the
hypotheses which account for the present state of the text seem to be, in
principle,the following: (i) the "editor"of the f1rstchapterof the pseudoTheologywas Ibn Na'ima al-Hims1himself, and he wrote also the excursus;
(ii) the "editor"was al-Hims1,but anotherperson wrote the excursus;(iii)
the "editor"was not al-Hims1but a differentperson,andthis persondid write
the excursus;(iv) the "editor"was not al-Hims1,andthis persondid not write
the excursus. In this case, it is possible to imagine either (iv.i) that the
excursushad been writtenby al-Hims1;or (iv.ii) that it had been writtenby
a thirdperson, obviously still before the editing. In the hypothesis(i) there
is no other hand at work in the pseudo-Theologyas we do possess it than
the one of al-Hims1.In the hypothesis (ii), there are two persons at work:
al-Hims1,who translatedIV 7[2] and IV 8[6] and put them together, and
anotherpersonwho wrote the excursus,but did not edit the f1rstchapterof
the pseudo-Theology.I think we may dismiss this hypothesis:the excursus,
45 Only at the end of a detailed examinationof the relationshipbetween the Arabic and
the GreekPlotinuswe shall be in a position to evaluate,first, whetherthe actual state of the
text allows or disallows the hypothesisof an editorialprojectalso for the rest of the pseudoTheologyand, second, to what extentthe project,if any, was successfullycarriedon until the
end of the work. The Italiantranslationand commentarymentionedabove n. 29, is meant
also to be a contributionto such an examination.
Pseudo-Theolo<gy
97
as we saw, is intimatelyconnectedwith IV 8[6], 2.7, a fact which rules out

the possibility that it was written by someone not involved either in the
process of translatingor in the one of editing. So, if the excursushas been
writtenbeforethe editingandthe editoris al-Hims1,this hypothesiscollapses
with (i). On the other hand, if it has been writtenin the course of the editing, and the editor is not al-Hims1,this hypothesis collapses with (iii). In
the hypothesis (iii), there are two persons responsiblefor the present state
of chapter one of the pseudo-Theology:al-Hims1,who made the running
translation,and the "editor",who not only cut and paste the portions of
translationwhich met his requirements,but also added a wide part of text
on his own. In the hypothesis (iv), the present state of the text requiresat
least two persons, and possibly three: two, if we think that al-Hims1both
translatedPlotinusand wrote the excursus,and the "editor"put togetherthe
end of IV 7[2] and IV 8[6] from the beginningto the end of the the excursus (iv.i); three,if we thinkthatal-Hims1madethe translation,anotherperson
wrote the excursus,and the "editor"cut and paste IV 7[2] and IV 8[6], plus
the excursus (iv.ii). Albeit not impossible in principle,this sub-hypothesis
seems supernumerary:
there are no facts in the text which requireit in order
to be explained. But if (ii) and (iv.ii) are ruled out, the three remaining
explanationsof the actual state of the first chapterof the pseudo-Theology
are either that al-Hims1translatedPlotinus wrote the excursus and edited
the chapter,or that he translatedPlotinus and wrote the excursus, whereas
anotherperson edited the chapter,or, finally, that al-Hims1translatedPlotinus, and the "editor"wrote the excursus. This is my favouriteexplanation,
as I said before, and is based chiefly on the internalfeaturesof the excursus. A closer inspectionon it will help, if not in solving the question of its
authorship,at least in locating it within the context of the pseudo-Theolo<gy
and narrowlyrelated texts.
II
We havejust seen thatPlotinus'questionei zOlllTOV in the Arabictranslation turnedto be the claim that we can learn from Plato a doctrinehigher
and more comprehensivethan the doctrineon soul, namely, the answer to
the question whetheror not the Creatorfashionedthe things rightly. Plotinus' sentence, as it often happens,is so squeezen that the translationis far
from easy46;at all events, the Arabic text abandonsthe Greek after oQ0ws
46 The two hornsof the alternativehe sets down at IV 8[6], 2.6-8: xai ZQi ZOlTOV 6,
lT OQ0OS lT O5 >TQal
tUxAi lOS, &56l o>aTa
blolXovaag
XiQO
bl avv
'l(1) ZOXV bvval, apparentlycomparethe deeds of the Demiurge and of our souls on the
basis of the sinking or not into bodies, whereas it is evident that such a possibility does not
98
CristinaD'Ancona
and presents a sentence where we are told that on this point the ancients
disagreed.After this, we find in the Arabic text a long passage - approximately three pages both in Dieterici and Badaw1editions - completely independentfrom the Greek and whose first sentence runs as follows:
We intend to begin by giving the view of this surpassing and sublime man on these
things we have mentioned47.
The exposition which is declaredto begin here is in fact a wide doxography on Plato, containing (1) an account of Plato's criticism of sensist
philosophersand of his own distinctionbetween the intelligible and visible
reality (p. 11.19-12.9 Dieterici, p. 25.15-26.6 Badaw1);(2) an account of
Plato's doctrine of the First Cause as being and pure good, as well as of
Plato's doctrine of creation (p. 12.9-16 Dieterici, p. 26.6-12 Badaw1);(3)
an accountof Plato's hierarchyof the universe (p. 12.16-13.10 Dieterici, p.
26.12-27.6 Badaw1);(4) an exegesis of Plato's doctrineof creation(p. 13.1114.9 Dieterici, p. 27.7-28.3 Badaw1).This doxographycan provide us with
a deeper insight not only on the ideas its authorheld on the contents, history and value of Greekphilosophy,but also, to some extent, on the library
he had at his disposal. In what follows, I shall commentupon the doxography accordingto the proposeddivisiotextus.
1 (p. 11.19-12.9 Dieterici, p. 25.15-26.6 Badaw1)- As the first and most
importantpoint to be made in orderto presentthe opinions that Plato held
on the creation of the world and the linking of soul to body, we find the
claim that in Plato culminatesthe Greek philosophy.
We say that when the sublime Plato saw that the mass of philosophers (gull al-falasifa)
were at fault with their description of beings, for when they wished to know about the
true beings they sought them in this sensible world, because they rejected intelligible
things and turned to the sensible world alone, wishing to attain by sense-perception all
things, both the transitoryand the eternally abiding - when he saw that they had strayed
from the road that would bring them to truth and the right, and that sense-perception had
won the mastery over them, he pitied them for this and was generous towards them and
guided them to the road that would bring them to the truths of things. He distinguished
between mind and sense-perception and between the nature of beings and the sensible
things. He established that the true beings were everlasting, not changing their state, and
that the sensible things were transitory, falling under genesis and corruption48.
really exist for the Demiurge.For this reason some editors of the Enneads, in the past, supposed a lacuna here. We think that the passage, as brachylogicalas it may be, stands and
translateit as follows: <<Quanto
poi all'arteficedel cosmo, ci chiediamose si sia comportato
in modo retto, o se forse abbia agito in modo analogo alle nostre anime che, trovandosia
governarecorpi inferiori,vi si devono immergereprofondamente>>.
47 Ed. Dieterici,p. 11.18-19; ed. Badawl,p. 25. 15-16;Lewis' translation,p. 231 in Plotini
Opera.
48 Lewis' translationquoted. I made a minor change, renderingal-anniyyat by "beings"
instead of keeping Lewis' "essences".
99
This passage informsus not only on the philosophicalpreferencesof its

author,but also on his previousreadings.He clearly gives to Plato a primacy on all his predecessors, following partly in the steps of Plotinus, who
presentedhis readerswith a pictureof the Greekphilosophicaltraditionabout
the soul-body relationshipwhere Plato surpassedin clarity and truthHeraclitus, Empedocles and Pythagoras.But what we read in this doxography
cannotbe accountedfor only on the basis of Plotinus'survey.Anothersource
is needed,which - predictablyenough- is but Aristotle'sMetaphysics,
book
A. The passage we have just read, with its insistence on the fact that Plato
was unhappywith the sensist approachof the otherthinkers,does not come
fromPlotinus;instead,the passage shows thatits authorwas conversantwith
the Aristoteliandoxographygiven at A 3, 983b6-11, where the Presocratics
are criticized for having pointed exclusively to the materialcause, and at A
6, 986a29-blO, where Plato's position is interpretedas the refusal to rely
on sense-perception,a refusal groundedin the fact that Plato - wrongly, in
Aristotle's eyes - accepted Heraclitus' highly questionable thesis of the
perpetualchange and consequentunknowabilityof the sensible world. This
historiographicalpatternis clearly echoed in the sentence on the gull alfalasifa (p. 12.1 Dieterici, p. 25.16 Badaw1),even though the authorof the
doxography refrains from endorsing Aristotle's judgment about Plato's
position. In fact, the authormakes a differentuse of the "progresspattern"
set down by Aristotle in this famous passage. Aristotle's philosophical
historiography- whose theoreticalaim we all have learntfromHaroldCherniss to detect between the lines - outlines an ascent from the sensist beginnings of the first thinkers,who were unable to search for anotherkind of
cause but the materialone49,to the full-fledged aitiology which he himself
expoundsin his treatisesboth on being qua being (our Metaphysics)
and on
being as passible of change (our Physics).This same "progresspattern"
appearsas the decisive feature of the passage quoted, but in the place of
Aristotle the author sets Plato, who later on (p. 13.11 Dieterici, p. 27.8
Badawl) is called straightforwardly
al-faylasuf.Plato correctedthe errorsof
his predecessors;in orderto do so, he worked out his doctrineof the two
worlds,intelligibleandsensible.It is worthnotingthat,accordingto the author
of the doxography,this doctrinearises from the epistemologicalmove Plato opposed to the sensist philosophers,namely, to contrastsense perception
and intellect. The sensist philosophersfailed to grasp the haqa'iqal-asya'
49 Metaph.
A 3, 983 b 6-8: v bn ZQ)TOV flkosonvavv
oi ZlT0l
Tag V tn5
'l6l FovaS, 0nvav aQxaglval navv.
Of course, Aristotle's position is by no means
unprecedented:the account of Socrates' disappointmentat readingthe ancient cosmologies

as well as Anaxagoras'book given in Phaedo96 A 6 - 97 B 6 lies in its background,but its
transformationinto what I called a "progresspattern"is genuinely Aristotelian.
100
CristinaD'Ancona
because they wantedto know the real beings, but, insteadof makinguse of
the faculty which is enabled to grasp them, namely, intellect, they were
contentwith sense-perception- a faculty which cannot drive us to the real
beings. Once again, this philosophicalthesis, as Platonic as its actual content might be, is groundedin Aristotle. Its obvious antecedentis the doctrine of An.Post. I 7 and 9, where the lack of the oixeial aexai, the principles appropriateto the field where the researchis made, is said to cause
the failurein providingtrueknowledge.Such an assumptionlies in the backgroundof the thesis that the sensist philosophersfailed to grasp the truth
because they wished to attain the true beings throughsense-perception.
2 (p. 12.9-16 Dieterici, p. 26.6-12 Badaw1)- After having praisedPlato
as the very top of Greek philosophy, the authorof the doxographycredits
him with a doctrineof creationwhich counts in his eyes as the development
of the doctrineof the two worlds, sensible and intelligible:
When he had completed this distinction he began by saying "The cause of the true
beings, which are bodiless, and of the sensible things, which have bodies, is one and the
same, and that is the Elrsttrue being (al-annEyyaal-ula al-haqq), meaning by that the
Creator,the Maker".Then he said "The ElrstCreator,who is the cause of the everlasting
intelligible beings and of the transitorysensible beings is absolute good (al-hayr al-makd),
and good cleaves to nothing save itself5.
This doctrineobviously cannottrace back to the historicalPlato, neither

can it trace back to Plotinus. True, Plotinus held that the first principleof
the entirereality, both intelligible and sensible, is one and the same; but he
wouldhave opposeda firmdenialto the idea,explicitlyutteredin this passage,
of mergingone into the otherthe "firsttrue being"and the "absolutegood"
- and a denial rooted precisely in the Platonic claim that the Idea of Good
lies beyond being5l. The non-Plotinianidea of collapsing one into the other
the One-Good and the pure Being is a peculiar feature of all the Arabic
Plotinusand Proclus- a featurewhich has been accountedfor in different
ways52,andwhose most eloquentparallellies in a passage of the KitabZ.dah
50 The passage quotedis p. 12.9-14 in Dieterici's edition and p. 26.6-10 in Badawi'sone.
Thetranslationquoted is still Lewis' one, but I keep renderinganniyya by "being".
51 Resp. 509 B 8-10: oix oi)viaS ovtog toi) aZyafdoi,akk' '%lzXlVa
Tn5 oUAiag
ZQaita xai 6UVa>l tZQXOV%Og-this
Good is said at 508 E 2-3 v tor ayaOor
ibav.As is well known, Plotinusmakes systematicallyuse of this passage, which he interpretsas referredto the same reality Plato deals with in the second half of his Parmenides,in
orderto argue for the transcendenceof the One with respect to being, i.e. the intelligible
reality.
52 Two explanationshave been proposedfor the appearanceof this
non-PlotinianandnonProcleanfeaturein the Arabic Plotinus and Proclus. Some scholars (Schlomo Pines, Pierre
Thillet,RichardC. Taylor) suggested to trace it back to Porphyry,who maintainedin his
commentary
on the Parmenidessuch a mergingof the One andpureBeing one into the other.
According
to them,Porphyry'sown positionwas influenton the Arabicreworkingof Plotinus'
Pseudo-Theology
101
al-hayral-mahd,the LatinLiberdecausis.Afterhavingexpoundedthe lemma

the authorof the Kitab
of proposition102 of Proclus'Elementsof Theology53,
zdahal-hayral-mahdadds a conclusion of his own and says:
We resume and say, then, that the First Being (al-huwEyyaal-ula) is quiescent and is
the cause of causes, and if He gives all things being (al-huwEyya),he gives it in the manner
of creation (bi-naw' ibda'). The Elrstlife gives life to what is below it, not in the manner
of creation, but in the manner of form. And, likewise, the intelligence gives knowledge
and the other things to what is below it only in the manner of form, not in the manner
of creation, because the manner of creation belongs to the First Cause alone54.
I quoted this passage because it presents both the merging of the First
Principleand First Being the one into the other, and the interpretationof its
causality as creation, namely, the two features which characterizethe account of Plato's position in the doxography.Since Endress' ProclusArabus,everyone knows that the Liberde causishas been producedwithin the
same workshopas the paraphraseof the Enneadsand quoting the passage
evidence to what had alreadybeen
was not intendedto add a supernumerary
establishedon a firm basis, both linguistic and doctrinal,by Endress. The
interestlies in the fact that in both cases, namely, the doxographyappended to IV 8[6], 2.7 and the independentpassage appendedto proposition102
of Proclus' Elementsof Theology,we see at work a specific doctrinalcomplex - the idea that the First Cause is also Pure Being, and acts by creation
- which parts company from the respective direct sources (Plotinus and
Proclus)undertwo respects:first, in so far both Plotinusand Proclussharpwritings, in so far as this reworkingis in some way dependentupon a rearrangementof the
Enneads made by Porphyryor in a Porphyrianvein. On the other side, I tried to argue in
favourof an alternativeexplanation,namely,thatthis featurein the ArabicPlotinusandProclus
is due to the influence of the peculiar interpretationof Neoplatonismwhich is given in the
pseudo-Dionysianwritings (see my La doctrine neoplatoniciennede l'etre entre l'antiquite
tardive et le MoyenAge. Le Liber de Causis par rapporta ses sources. In: Recherchesde
Theologie Ancienne et Medievale 59. 1992. P. 41-85 [repr.in Recherchessur le Liber de
causis. Paris 1995], and L'influencedu vocabulairearabe: "CausaPrima est esse tantum".
In L'elaborationdu vocabulairephilosophique au MoyenAge. Actes du Colloque international de Louvain-la-Neuveet Leuven, 12-14 sept. 1998 edites par J. Hamesse et C. Steel.
Turnhout2000. P. 51-97).
53 El. Th. 102, Dodds p. 92.1-4. The lemma is the following: fIavTa >V Ta onoorv
6 Ta 4ovTa arTOv xlvnTlXa
bla To zQOXos
ov navTa
X ZQaTOg aTl xai aniQov
yVOOg
>TXl bla TOV VOVV
6 Ta yvOoTlXa
aTl bla TnV 4@V TnV ZQ@TnV- navTa
TOVZQ@TOV.The proposition17(18) of the Liberde causis is groundedin this Procleanproposition but changesit substantiallyas for the meaningit attributesto the ProcleanZQ)TO5 OV,
ovTa
which turns to be identical with the First Principleitself, a squarelynon-Procleanthesis.

54 Liber de causis, prop. 17(18), ed. O. Bardenhewer,Die pseudo-aristotelischeSchrift
ueber das reine Gute bekanntunterdem NamenLiber de causis. Freiburgim Breisgau 1882
al-muhdaa 'inda
(repr.Frankfurta.M. 1961). P. 92.10-93.4; ed. 'A. Badawl,Al-AJ1atunEyya
l-'Arab.Cairo 1955. P. 19.9-12;Englishtranslationby R.C. Taylor,TheLiberde causis (Kalam
fi makdal-hayr). A Studyof MedievalNeoplatonism.Doct. Diss. Toronto1981. P. 312, with
some minor changes.
CristinaD'Ancona
ly102
distinguishbetweenthe First
PrincipleandBeing; second,
Plotinusnor Proclus
in so farneither
suggest in any way
acts by creation.
whatsoeverthat the First
Principle
3 (p. 12.16-13.10
Dieterici, p. 26.12-27.6
ited Plato with the
Badaw1)- After having
doctrine of creation,the
credauthor
poundsthe hierarchyof
of the doxography
the createduniverse.
exThis is the most
sagein this section:
relevantpasThenhe said "This
anaturemoreexalted worldis compoundof matterandform.
Whatinformedmatteris
thanmatterandsuperior
bythe powerof the
to it, viz. the
intellectualsoul. It was only
sublimemindwithinthe
soul that
came
to give the soul power
to informmatteronly she cameto informmatter.Mind
the
by virtueof the First
cause of otherbeings,
those of
Beingwhichis
Only
becauseof the FirstAgent mind,of soul and of matter,and all natural
did
the sensiblethings
things.
but
this actiontook place
becomebeautifuland
only throughthe
splendid,
'aql
medium
of
wa-l-nafs)". Thenhe said "It
is the TrueFirstBeingmindand soul (bi-tawassut almind,
then upon soul, then
thatpoursforthlife Elrst
upon
the naturalthings,this
upon
absolute
good (wa-huwa al-bari
being the Creator,who is
alladl huwa hayrun
the
makdun)"55.
The authorof the
doxographyoutlines here a
causis
doctrinethe LatinLiberde
will make famousand
debated,namely, the one of
intelligentia.
creation
Bonaventurewill condemnit as
an impious attemptatmediante
ing
the divine power;
limitatThomas will develop a
more careful and
exegesis,
readingit within the
charitable
the
passage quotedabove56.Atcontext of the doctrineof creationutteredin
all
events, the topic appears
feature
both of the Liberde
to be a typical
causis
and of the independent
Arabic
paraphraseof Plotinus.It is
passages in the
dealtwith in another
has
no correspondentin
wide
passagewhich
the Greek, namely,
the Prologue of the
Theology,
as follows:
pseudo-
Now
our aim in this book is
nation
of it, andhow it is the is the discourseon Divine Sovereignty,
andthe
Elrstcause,eternityand
itthe
is and
cause
time being beneathhim, explacreatorof causes,in a
andthat
certainway,
from
itovermindand,
throughthe mediumof mind andhow the luminousforcesteals
versal
celestialsoul, andfrom
(bi-tawassut al-'aql), overthe
mind,
soul,
through
the mediumof nature,throughthe mediumof soul, overnature,and uniover the thingsthat
from
come to be andpass
The
away57.
authorof
this passage holds, as

well as the
phy,
that
the causalityof the
firstprinciplereaches "Plato"of the doxograthe entirereality,
included
55
Ed.
Dieterici,p. 13.1-10;ed.
Badawi,p. 26.16-27.6.
too
I Lewis'
changed
Lewis'translation
"essence"
quoted;here
56
See
my La doctrinede la into"being"as a rendering
of anniyya.
creation
dans
ses
'mediante
sources. In:Revuedes
intelligentia'dans le Liber de
233
Causis et
(repr.
in Recherchessur le SciencesPhilosophiques
et Theologiques
76. 1992.P. 209Liber
de
57
causis).
Ed.
Dieterici,p. 4.13-17;ed.
Badawi,p. 6.7-11.Lewis'
Opera,
with
a minorchange.
translation,
p. 487 in
Plotini
Pseudo-Theology
103
the things falling undercoming-to-beand passing away. But, dependentas

they are from it, the transientthings of the sensible world are not directly
relatedto the first principleitself: instead, they derive from it accordingto
a hierarchyof principleswhich includeintellect,the universalsoul andnature.
In the doxography,"Plato"is credited with precisely the same hierarchy:
he maintainedthat this sensible world is compoundof matterand form, and
that this is due to the causality of the universal soul. In turn, the fact that
the universalsoul came to informmatteris due to the causalityof intellect.
And intellect operateson soul, which in turnoperateson the sensible world,
only because it is enabledto by the source of all the causal power, the First
Agent itself. In the same vein, the author of the Prologue calls the first
principle "creatorof causes". Its causal power enables first the more universal cause beneath it, intellect, to accomplish its own causality; this, in
turn,gives rise to another,less universalcausal power: the one of the cosmic soul; the cosmic soul informs matter,accordingto the "Plato"of the
doxography,and, according to the author of the Prologue of the pseudoTheology,it communicatesthe causalityof the higherprinciplesto the sensible things throughthe mediumof nature.This is why in both passages the
causality of the first principle is said to be spreadthroughthe medium of
intellect, bi-tawassutal-'aql.One should refrainfrom interpretingthis doctrine in the sense that the causal power of the first principleis transmitted,
at every step in feebler intensity, to the subordinateprinciples which are
mentioned.The authorof the doxographycareful avoids such a disturbing
consequenceby claiming that <<Mind
came to give the soul power to inform
matteronly by virtue of the First Being which is the cause of otherbeings,
those of mind, of soul and of matter,and all naturalthings>>
and repeating,
immediatelyafter, that it is only because of the causalityof the First Agent
that the sensible things share in the beauty of the intelligible world. This
doctrinalcomplexappears,in all its distinctivefeatures,in the Liberde causis.
Its authorexpoundsProclus' thesis that the divine souls possess the divine,
intellectiveandpsychic eveeyelal in preciselythe samevein, insertingwithin
his reworkingof proposition201 of the Elementsof Theologyan independent passage which claims both that the First Cause creates soul through
the mediumof intellect and that this does not imply that the lattersharesin
the divine power to create, since the soul's being is producedonly by the
First Cause. In fact, we have just seen that the authorof the Liberde causis
distinguishes between the productivepower of the "cause of causes" and
the one of the rest of the suprasensibleprinciplesprecisely in so far as the
first principle, which is pure Being, creates being, whereas the other principles can only act by mannerof informationon an alreadycreatedbeing.
This is why, when he decided to include in his short companionon theol-
Cristina D'Xncona
104
ogy - the Kitabl .dah

al-hayr
souls, the authoradapted al-mahd- the Procleanpropositionon the divine
it to the doctrinal
the doxographyand in
complex we have met both
in
the Prologue, and said:
The soul effected these
operations only because it is
forthe First Cause
an image of the
created the being of the
higher power,
soul throughthe
(bi-tawassutal-'aq[). For this
mediation of the intelligence
reason
the
soul
came to effect a divine
whenthe First Cause
created the being of soul,
operation. Thus,
He fashioned it as
theintelligence on
which the intelligence
something subject to
effects its operation58.
The doctrinalcomplex
of the creation
medianteintelligentia
lyhelps in
establishing the relative
substantialchronology
of the main
products
of the workshopof
Neoplatonic
al-Kind1.As a matterof fact,
but
a developmentand
the complex is
creationistadaptationof a well
namely,
knownPlotiniantenet,
the descriptionof vovs
as the aZyakFa To
the
zeov
Arabicparaphraseof
of the One. From
Plotinus,where the
adaptationappears,it has been
transmitted
to the Liberde causis,
as the red herring
al-'aql
syntagm bi-tawassut
makesclear.The reverse
explanation,
namely,thatthe Liberde
might
have influencedthe
causis
Arabicparaphraseof
fact
Plotinus,is ruledout by the
thatnothingin the
Elementsof Theology
suggestssucha complex:
squarely
abandonedthis Plotinianidea
and
set the Henads- divineProclus
ples
higher than and anteriorto
princithe intelligible cosmos
- in the place of the
Plotinian
vovs as the first
mediationbetween the One
complex
and the many. The
appearedso crucialto the
author
of
the
ited
Plato with it, transforming
doxography,that he credit into the leitmotiv
of the cosmic hierarchy
according
to this philosopher.
The
author
of
the
much
Prologuetoo attachedto it
importance,because his
pivots
on it. And the author descriptionof the "aim of this book of ours"
of the Liberde causis
his
did the same: not only
selectionof Proclean
propositions
is organizedaccording
tite,
to the triparnon-Procleanscheme One Intellect- Soul, but in two
pendent
from Proclus he openly
passages indeendorses it. We have already
the
two.
There is the other:
seen one of
The
intelligence came to be so only
thanks to the First Cause
all
things
because He is the cause of
which is exalted over
the intelligence, soul,
And
the
First Cause is not an
nature and all other
things.
intelligence nor a soul nor a
the
intelligence,
nature, but ratherHe is
soul and nature because
above
He is the creator of all
creator
of the intelligence
things. He is, however,
without
mediation
and
the creator of soul,
things
throughthe mediation of the
intelligence. (...) Furthermore, nature and all other
every
intellectual,
Divine Power is above
psychic or naturalpower,
because it (: Divine Power)
power.
And the intelligence
is cause of every
possesses shape because it is
soul
possesses
being and form, and
shape and nature
likewise
possesses shape, but the First
Cause does not have shape
58
Liber
de causis, prop. 3, ed.
translation
quoted,p. 287, with a Bardenhewer,p. 64.1-4; ed. Badawl,p. 5.13-16;
minor change.
Taylor's
Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structureand Composition
105
becauseHe is only being. So if someonesays: He musthave shape,we say: His shape

is inElniteandHis essentialnatureis the PureGoodpouringforthall goods on the intelligence and on all otherthingsthroughthe mediationof the intelligence59.
The conclusion one can draw from this comparisonof texts is, first, that
the authorof the doxographycreditedPlato with a doctrinewhich is but an
adaptationof a Plotinianthesis. Now, this thesis is held chiefly in V 1[10],
chapter660.When he wrote the doxography,its authormust have had in his
mind this thesis as well as its adaptation,and this fact can be accountedfor
equally well either in the case he was the same person who translatedand
amplifledV 1[ 10], or in the case he was a differentperson,who readV 1[ 10]
in its Arabic paraphrasedtranslation.But in both cases it seems to me it is
fairto admitthatthe doxographywas appendedto IV 8[6], 2.7 afterthe translation of V 1[10] - a treatise which comes obviously after IV 8[6], in the
Enneadicorder.It mighthave been al-Hims1who decidedto amplifythe short
sentence about the 'ilm asraf we can learn from Plato on the basis of the
fascinatingdoctrineof the threehypostasesOne, Intellectand Soul he found
in V 1[10], IleQi v TQlOV aQxlxOv
vzocTIacTEOv.
In this case, he did so
working as the "editor"of the f1rstchapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy.
In the
alternativehypothesis, namely, that the "editor"of this first chapterwas a
differentperson, the most economic explanationof the present state of the
text is that he wrote the doxographyappendedto IV 8[6], 2.7, because he
wanted to give a wider account of the Platonic 'ilm asraf on the basis of
the doctrineof the threehypostasesandthe primacyof intellecthe hadalready
read in the runningtranslationof V 1[10]. One can in principlethink that
one and the same person translatedPlotinus and wrote the doxography,
withoutediting the f1rstchapter;but this person still did so when at least V
1[ 10] was alreadytranslated.In fact,the doxographycontainsa doctrinewhich
is best accountedfor on the groundsof an authoralreadyacquaintedwith
V 1[10]. I find supernumerarythe hypothesis accordingto which al-Hims
59 Liber de causis, prop. 8(9), ed. Bardenhewer,p. 77.9-79.4; ed. Badaw1,p. 12.8-17;
Taylor's translationquoted, p. 299-300, with a minor change.
60 The topic of the immediateappearanceof intellect from the First Cause, and creation
of all the otherdegrees of reality throughthe mediumof intellect, develops V 1[10], 6.1-36,
a passage which is reflectedboth in the pseudo-Theologyand, partly, in the "Sayingsof the
Greek Sage". For the pseudo-Theology,see ed. Dieterici, p. 110.19-112.10; ed. Badaw1,p.
113.16-114.18; translationLewis in Plotini Opera, p. 273-275. The independentpassage of
the pseudo-Theolo<gy,
ed. Dieterici, p. 104.9-105.5; ed. Badawl, p. 108.5-17, which is found
after a passage coming from V 1[10], 2.10-25 (see Lewis' translation,p. 263), counts in fact
as a free reworkingof chapter6 of V 1[10], becauseit containsthe Arabicrenderingof Plotinus'
definition of vors as the ayakFa To JIQ(R)TOV of the One (V 1[10], 6.14-15), namely, the
definitionof 'aql as al-mital al-awwal in which the perfectionsof the Creatorare visible (ed.
Dieterici, p. 105.3; ed. Badaw1,p. 108.16).
106
CristinaD'Ancona
translatedPlotinus and wrote the doxography,whereas anotherperson decided to shape the first chapterof the pseudo-Theolo<gy
in the form it has at
present.It seems to me that the person who, having read V 1[10], credited
Plato with the doctrineof creationand of the three suprasensibleprinciples
must have been the one and the same who cut and pasted IV 7[2], 13-15
and the beginning of IV 8[6] - be it the translatorhimself, al-Hims1,who
went back on his own work, or anotherperson.
The second conclusion concernsthe Prologue.I think we should assume
it was writtenafter the translationwas completed.And here we flnd again
the same doctrinalcomplex, ultimatelyrooted in the adaptedtranslationof
V 1[10], with a special emphasisput on the fact that the scope of the pseudo-Theolo<gy
lies precisely in the exposition of the hierarchyof principles
spreadingaroundthe causality of the first principle. The Prologue may or
may not have been writtenby the same personwho wrote the doxography;
but in the hypothesis he was a differentperson, the two had precisely the
sameview aboutthe most importantcontentof the rationaltheologyin which
culminatesthe Greek philosophicallegacy: in both cases its core appears
to be the Plotiniandoctrineof the three hypostasesOne, Intellectand Soul,
rearrangedin a doctrinalcomplex which, for the sake of brevity, we may
call the "creationmedianteintelligentia".
A third conclusion concerns the Liberde causis.Here too the topic of
the "creationmedianteintelligentia"
plays an importantrole. This implies
if I am not wrong,thatthe latterwork comes froman authoracquaintedwith
at least the Arabic translationof V 1[10], if not with the doxographyand
the Prologue.The doctrinalcomplex originatedin the ArabicPlotinus- the
one of the creationof intellect without any mediationwhatsoeverand creation of all the rest of the universe throughthe mediationof the intellect
by a first principle whose natureis best describedas "pureBeing" - was
extremely attractive for him. So attractive,that he parted company with
Proclus- his main source - and maintained,precisely as the authorof the
doxographyand the one of the Prologue did, that intellect is the first and
highestcreatureof the First Cause. In doing so, the authorof the Liberde
causisgot rid of the ProcleanHenadshe had in front of him in many Procleanpropositionshe used for his booklet.
4 (p. 13.11-14.9 Dieterici, p. 27.7-28.3 Badaw1)- The final section of
thedoxography,which coincides with the end of chapterone of the pseudo-Theology,
contains an attempt at philosophical exegesis of"Plato's"
doctrinesjust expounded,and in particularof "Plato's"doctrineof creation.
Inthis concludingpassage we are told that the Ancients were compelledto
mentiontime in their account of creation,and "Plato"too did follow this
pattern;but this by no means implies that he was convinced that creation
Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structureand Composition
107
took place in time. As a matterof fact, accordingto "Plato"creation is a

non-temporalact made by a non-temporalagent. The passage, albeit long,
is worth quoting in full.
How well and how rightlydoes this philosopherdescribethe Creatorwhen he says
"He createdmind, soul and the natureand all things else", but whoever hears the
philosopher'swordsmustnot takethemliterallyand imaginethathe said thatthe Creator fashionedthe creation(al-halq) in time. If anyoneimaginesthatof him fromhis
modeof expression,he did butso expresshimselfthroughwishingto follow the custom
of the ancients.The ancientswere compelledto mentiontime in connectionwith the
beginningof creationbecausethey wantedto describethe genesis(kawn) of things,and
they were compelledto introducetime into their descriptionof genesis and into their
descriptionof the creation(al-hallqat) - whichwas not in time at all - in orderto distinguishbetweenthe exaltedElrstcause andthe lowly secondarycauses.The reasonis
thatwhen a manwishes to elucidateand recognizecauseshe is compelledto mention
time, since the cause is boundto be priorto its effect, and one imaginesthatpriority
meanstime andthateveryagentperformshis actionin time. But it is not so; not every
agentperformshis actionin time, nor is every cause priorto its effect in time. If you
wish to knowwhetherthis act is temporalor not, considerthe agent;if he be subjectto
time thenis the act subjectto time, inevitably,andif the causeis temporalso too is the
effect. The agentand the cause indicatethe natureof the act and the effect, if they be
subjectto time or not subjectto it61.
Even though no literal source can be providedfor this passage, the doctrine expoundedin it is by no means unprecedented.On the contrary,it is
expoundedin the De Aeternitatemundi contra Proclum by John Philoponus, a work which was surely known within the circle of al-Kind1.
TheArabreadersbecomesoonacquainted
withPhiloponus'polemicaltreatisesagainst
Proclusand Aristotleon the topic of creationand eternity,namely,the De Aeternitate
mundi contra Proclum (ed. H. Rabe,Leipzig 1899;repr.Hildesheim1963, 1984;a new
critical edition was preparedby the late lamentedJohn Whittaker)and the Contra
Aristotelem (only fragmentarily
preserved,mostlyby Simpliciusin his commentaries
on
the De caelo andon the Phaedo: see C. Wildberg,Philoponus. Against Aristotle, on the
Eternity of the World. Ithaca,N.Y. 1987). In fact, Philoponus'lost Contra Aristotelem
was extensivelyusedin buildingup argumentsfor creationby al-Kindlhimself,as it was
suggestedby R. Walzer,New Studies on al-Kindi. In:Oriens10. 1957.P. 203-232(repr.
in Greek into Arabic. Essays on Islamic Philosophy. Oxford1963. P. 175-205),andas
it has been demonstrated
by H. A. Davidson,John Philoponus as a source of medieval
Islamic and Jewish proofs for creation. In:Journalof the AmericanOrientalSociety89.
1969. P.357-391(reprintedwith additionsin Proofs for Eternity, Creation and the Existence of God in medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy. New York- Oxford1987.P.
86-116).Philoponus'ContraAristotelem is quotedalsoby al-Farabl,as it hasbeenshown
by M. Mahdi,Alfarabi against Philoponus. In:Journalof NearEasternStudies26. 1967.
P. 233-260, in the Muntahab Siwan al-.Hikma,and by Ibn Slna, as it has been demonstratedby J.L.Kraemer,A Lost Passage from Philoponus ' Contra Aristotelem in Arabic
61 Lewis' translation,p. 23 1 in Plotini Opera.
108
Cristina D'Ancona
translation.In:Journalof the AmericanOrientalSociety85. 1965.P. 318-327.In addition, the Arabicreadershadat theirdisposalanotherwork,lost in Greekandpreserved
only in Arabic:see S. Pines,AnArabicsummaryof a lost workof JohnPhiloponus.In:
IsraelOrientalStudies2. 1972. P. 294-326. Finally,they were widely acquaintedalso
with the majorpolemicalworkby Philoponuson this topic, namely,the De Aeternitate
mundicontraProclum,whose Elrstargument- as it is knownfromthe studyby Father
Anawationwards(see G.C. Anawati,Unfragmentperdu du De Aeternitatemundide
Proclus.In: Melangesde philosophiegrecqueoffertsa Mgr.A. Dies [repr.in: Etudes
de philosophiemusulmane.Paris1974.P. 223-227)- is lost in Greekandpreservedonly
in Arabic.The workwas translatedtwice: see Endress,ProclusArabus,p. 15-18. RecentlyA. Hasnaoui,Alexandred 'Aphrodise
vs JeanPhilopon:Notessur quelquestraites
'perdus"en grec, conservesen arabe. In: ArabicSciencesandPhilosophy4. 1994. P.
53-109,addedan importantpiece of evidenceto the dossierof its circulationwithinthe
circle of al-Kindl.Hasnaouishows,Elrst,thatthe shorttreatiseMaqalatul-Iskandari
fi
annal-Jfi'la
a'ammuminal-harakati'alara'yiAristu,editedby 'A. Badawlin 1947within
a seriesof questionsof Alexanderof Aphrodisiasin Arabicversion,is in factborrowed
from Philoponus'De AeternitatemundiIV, 4-6. The passagetaken from Philoponus
underwentthe sameadaptationswhichcharacterizethe Arabicversionof the questions
comingfromthe realAlexanderof Aphrodisias.Second,Hasnaouishowsthatthe treatise Maqalatul-Iskandaril-Afrudlsifi ibtali qawli man qala innakula yakunusay'un
illa minsay'in wa-itbatianna kullasay'in innamayakunula minsay'in tracesbackto
De AeternitatemundiIX, 11 andincludesalso a passageborrowedfromIX, 8. Hasnaoui
convincinglyarguesin favourof the Arabicoriginof the adaptations
madein bothtreatises attributedto Alexander,but comingin realityfromPhiloponus.
Philoponus'De AeternitatemundicontraProclumis organizedin the form

of XVCel;which follow each one of Proclus' eighteen XOyOl, argumentsin
favour of the eternityof the cosmos. In his XVCylS
of the last argument,directedby Proclus againstthe literalistinterpretationof the yeyovev said of
the cosmos at Timaeus28 B 762, Philoponusarguesthat Proclusmistakenly
infers from the status of the effect the status of the cause. Proclus' argument runs as follows: the Demiurge must remain xaTa Ta avTa xai
oavS;
but assumingthat the cosmos had a beginning,we are bound to
admita change in the Demiurge,and more precisely from his eMlSto producethe cosmos to his actualeveeyela of producingit. For this reason,the
cosmoscannothave a beginningand Plato's yeyovev must be takennot literally:it was said, in fact, blbacyxakla; xaelv, i. e., as a didacticaldevice63.
Inhis XVCylS,
Philoponusarguesthatthe activity by means of which the Demiurgeframesthe cosmos is not an OCOi(l)(7l5 (p. 615.10 Rabe);that there
62 Cf. M. Baltes,Die Weltentstehung
desplatonischen
Timaios
nachdenantiken
Interpreten.
Leiden1976 (PhilosophiaAntiqua,30). P. 12 1- 123; H. Dorriet - M. Baltes,Diephilosophische
Lehre
des Platonismus.
PlatonischePhysik (im antikenVerstandnis)II. Bansteine 125-150:
Text,Ubersetzung,Kommentar.Stuttgart- Bad Cannstatt1998 (DerPlatonismusin derAntike.
Grundlagen
- System - Entwicklung,5). P. 122-129 and 426-436. K. Verrycken,Philoponus'
interpretation
ofPlato'scosmogony.
In:Documentie studisullatradizionefilosoficamedievale
8.1997. P. 269-318.
63 De Aet.mundicontraProclum,
p. 604.13-610.3 Rabe.
Pseudo-Theology
109
is no change from ttlS to eveeyela, neitherthere is xeovog in the Demiurge between his 1ln VeyVand his VeytV.In Philoponus' eyes, Proclus' mistake lies precisely in that he transfersto the principlethe features
which belong only to the effect. On the contrary,the Demiurge operates
accordingto his own mode of being, simple, unified and changeless, albeit
Ta
ZeL
producing composite, multiple and transienteffects: allQidTOS
ZQL
Ta
akXo
VOt6@5
zat
VQ7t zat ZQL Ta Zzn0VFVa
Q[aTa
(p. 617.15-18 Rabe). This reasoningis likely
akkoS exovTa aei oavS
to have provideda model for the final argumentin the doxography:whether
an action can be said to be accomplishedfi zamaninor not, depends upon
the natureof thefa'il, by no means upon the natureof the mafxul;and since
the Creatortranscendstime, creationtakes place in no time even though its
outcome, the universe, falls under time. In addition, the allusion to the
awwalunaseems to be reminiscentof the long doxographicalexcursusoccurring in the Xvots of the Procleansixth koro5 where Philoponusembarksin
an account of the exegeses of the yeyovev in the Timaeus,going through
Alexanderof Aphrodisias,Plutarch,Atticus,Calvenus
Aristotle,Theophrastus,
Proclus.
Porphyry
and
Taurus,
It is time to sum up the results of the analysis of the items into which I
subdividedthe doxography.This wide independentpassage informs us on
the libraryits authorhad at his disposalas well as on his philosophicalviews.
He was acquaintedwith Aristotle,and at least two majorAristoteliantopics
- the "progresspattern"and the necessity of takingthe appropriateepistemic
means in every field of research- become a part of his own way of thinking, so that he made use of them albeit rearrangingthem within a Platonic
framework.In addition,he sharedwith the authorof the Prologue and of
al-'aql:a topic which
the Liberde causisthe doctrineof creationbi-tawassut
arises in all likelihood from a creationistinterpretationof V 1[10]. Finally,
he was acquaintedwith Philoponus' solution of the eighteenth Proclean
argumentin favourof the eternityof the universe,and adaptedit to his own
descriptionof "Plato's"position, creditingPlato with the same creationist
reworkingof a famousNeoplatonictenet - namely, the distinctionbetween
the mode of being of the cause and the one of the effect - Philoponusmade
use of in his reply to Proclus. The first and last featuresappearalso in the
treatise al-Falsafaal-ula by al-Kindl. IIe endorsed the "progresspattern"
A, in a famouspassage which I quote here in the translation
of Metaphysics
by Alfred Ivry;
It is proper that our gratitude be great to those who have contributed even a little of
the truth, let alone to those who have contributed much truth (...). if they had not lived,
these true principles with which we have been educated towards the conclusions of our
hidden inquirieswould not have been assembled for us, even with intense researchthroughout our time. But indeed this has been assembled only in preceding past ages, age after
Cristina D'Ancona
110
age, until this our time (...). Aristotle, the most distinguished of the Greeks in philosophy, said: "We ought to be gratefulto the fathersof those who have contributedany truth,
since they were the cause of their existence; let alone (being grateful) to the sons; for
the fathers are their cause, while they are the cause of our attaining the truth." How
beautiful is that which he said in this matter!We ought not to be ashamed of appreciating
the truth and of acquiring it wherever it comes from, even if it comes from races distant
and nations different from us64.
The aim of the passage is differentfrom the one of the doxography,but

the Aristoteliansource is one and the same. Lateron, al-Kind1has recourse
also to the topic of the necessity of the oixeiat &Qxai,and this time in precisely the same vein as it happensin the doxography,namely, in the aim of
criticizing those who tried to discover the truthconcerningthe intelligible
reality throughsense-perception:
For this reason many of the inquirers into things which are beyond nature have been
confused, since they, as children (do), have used in the investigation of them their representation in the soul, corresponding to their customary practices for the sense65.
Whatfollows in the passage clearly indicatesthat al-Kind1follows in the

steps of Aristotle'sdoctrineheld in the PosteriorAnalytics:in fact, he maintainsthatmanyinquirershave been confusedin theirinvestigationon physical
matters,because they tried to use mathematicalmodels of investigation- a
thesis which recalls the exampleAristotlegives in orderto illustratethe law
prohibitingthe ETa,SavtS eiS akBo yevog in scientific demonstrations66.
As for the use the authorof the doxographymade of a topic ultimately
deriving from Philoponus' argumentagainst Proclus, a striking parallel
appearsstill in the Kindianal-Falsafa al-ula, where several argumentsof
the ContraAristotelemare adducedin orderto show that the universe cannot be infinite either in time or in magnitude.The four argumentsal-Kind1
presentsagainst the infinity of the physical world clearly trace back to
Philoponus'famousproofs retortingagainstAristotle's conclusionshis own
thesesaboutthe impertransivenessof the infinite, be it numericalor continuous:therewould be little point in retracinghere a doctrinalderivationwhich
hasbeen clearlyshownby HerbertDavidson67.It is neverthelessworthnoting
64 M. 'A. Abu Rida (ed.), Rasa'il al-Kindial-falsafyya. Cairo
1950. P. 102.10-103.5;R.
Rashed- J. Jolivet, aDuvresphilosophiqueset scientifiquesd'al-Kindi,vol. II. Metaphysique
etcosmologie. Leiden-Boston-Koln1999 (IslamicPhilosophy,Theology and Science. 29). P.
13.2-16;Al-Kindi'sMetaphysics.A Translationof Ya'qubibn Ishaq al-Kindi's Treatise "On
FirstPhilosophy" (fi al-Falsafah al-ula), with Introductionand Commentaryby A. L. Ivry.
Albany1974 (Studies in Islamic Philosophyand Science). P. 57-58.
65 Ed. Abu Rida, p. 110.15-16; ed. Rashed - Jolivet, p. 23.15-16,
transl. Ivry, p. 64.
66 Ed. Abu Rida, p. 110.19-111.6;ed. Rashed- Jolivet, p.
23.19-25.2, transl.Ivry, p. 6465.Cf. An. Post. I 7, 75 a 38-39: Ovx aea 8'c5TlV8't akXov 7EVOV5 eTafiavTa belual, OlOV
TO78@FETelXOV
67
ael0FnTlXZn-
Davidson, Proofsfor Eternity,p. 108-116.
Pseudo-Theolo,gy
lll
thatbothal-Kind1in his use of Philoponus'ContraAristotelemandthe author

of the doxographyin his use of the De Aeternitatemundicontra Proclum
follow in the step of theirrespective sources as for the philosophicalcourse
of reasoning, but do not quote literally neither follow the precise order of
the arguments,so that one is inclined to qualify both as doctrinalinspirations to Philoponus,whose authorendorsesthe doctrineof the latter,replacing
it within his own framework.
I have tried to argue elsewhere in favourof the attributionto al-Kind1of
the Prologueof the pseudo-Theology68and also did wonder if the authorof
the Liber de causis was al-KindlhimseliS9.Aware as I am of how risky is
to constructputativedeductionsabouthistoricalfacts, it is temptingto draw
the conclusion that the second hand at work in the productionof the pseudo-Theologyof Aristotle as we possess it was the one of al-Kindl, and that
his "correction"of the work, mentionedin the incipit of the Prologue,was
but the editing itself. One must resist this temptationuntil more compelling
proofs are given, and remainwithin the limits of what is directly suggested
by the available data. The available data concerningthe first chapterof the
pseudo-Theologyare, so it seems to me, that the runningtranslationof treatises 7 and 8 of Ennead IV underwenta process of rationalediting which
includedthe additionof a wide interpolationwhere strikingparallelsoccur
with the Prologue as well as with the Liber de causis and the KindianalFalsafa al-ula. Nothing preventsfrom concludingthat the person responsible for this editing and the writerwho producedthe doxographyand/orthe
Prologuewas the translatorhimself,IbnNa'ima al-Himsl,insteadof al-Kindl.
In the last resort, naming the person is only a secondarydetail, since we
have learnt- chiefly from the analysis Endressdevotedto some of the most
importanttranslationsof the Kindianworkshop,but also from other studies, like the one by RudigerArnzen on a paraphrasisof the De Anima70_
to deal with the productionsof the circle of al-Kind1as if we were dealing
with the productsof the bottega of a Renaissancepainter:several hands at
work show one and the same inspiration.Of greaterinterestis the natureof
the pseudo-Theologyas it came down to us. The question whether or not
the presentsuggestiontowardsa rationalediting can be extendedalso to the
rest of the work cannot be answeredwithin the limits of this article. However, if I am not wrong about its structureand composition,at least the first
68 Al-Kindi
on theSubject-Matter
of theFirstPhilosophy.
DirectandIndirectSourcesof
al-Falsafaal-ula, ChapterOne. In: Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter? Akten des X.
Internationalen
Kongressesfurmittelalterliche
PhilosophiederSocieteInternationale
pourl'Etude
de la PhilosophieMedievale25. bis 30. August 1997 in Erfurt.Herausgegebenvon J. A. Aertsen
und A. Speer. Berlin - New York 1998. P. 841-855.
69Al-Kindiet l'auteurdu Liberde Causis.In: Recherches
sur le Liberde Causis.
70 Arnzen,Aristoteles
De Anima(quotedsupra,p. 91).
112 C.D'Ancona,
Pseudo-Theolo,gy
chaptercan be regardedas an attemptat providingan adaptationof Plotinus' treatisesto the new needs of a new audience.If the personwho did the
same on the basis of Proclus' Elements of Theology, creating in this way
the Liberde causis, was a differentmemberof the circleof al-Kind1,he shared
with the editor of the first chapterof the pseudo-Theolo,gyat least the general idea of adaptinga Neoplatonictext througha procedureof cut andpaste.

Pseudo Theology of Aristotle Structure and Composition

Transféré par

Informations du document

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

Pseudo Theology of Aristotle Structure and Composition

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Brill

Pseudo-"Theology of Aristotle", Chapter I: Structure and Composition

For FranzRosenthalon his eighty-ffthbirthday

In a famous study published in the biennium 1952-54, Franz Rosenthal

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition

Besides the "sayings"preservedin the mentioneddoxographies,Rosenthal

Marsh 539 was

TOV 4nV EV TE TO dVZaVXl...,

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition

that passages preservedin the pseudo-Theologyare presentin the "Sayings

and the "Sayingsof

andin all likelihoodaroundthe fortiesof the century,duringthe periodwhen

sive study on the Graeco-Arabictransmissionof the Neoplatonic writings,

Zimmermann,TheOriginsof theso-calledTheologyof Aristotle,p 131.

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition

namely, the one mantainingthat some importantfeatureswhich

I have arguedelsewhere in favour of some orderin the new arrangment

conclusions, is a furtherquestion which makes sense only if such

In Phaedo 66 B 1 - 67 D 3, Plato providesthe answerto

Pseudo-Theolo,gyof Aristotle: Structureand Composition

cealing the difficulty, directly faced it, devoting a treatise - IV 8[6] - to

as elsewhere, accordingto Plotinus Plato is in agreementwith the ancient

the paraphrasedtranslationof the last three chaptersof IV 7[2] and of the

This structureis best explained within the hypothesis of a translation

IV 7[2l: Arabic tradition

Sayings of the GreekSage

L.* 201-203; R. 492

namely, the part corresponding to 85.1-85.18, is reflected in the Arabic paraphrase.This

Sayings of the GreekSage

VII,B. 84.1-91.21 - D. 75.16-85.6

The openingsentence,which has no parallelin the Greekandbegins with

is literThe translation,except for an oddity42and a misunderstanding43,

Ed. Dieterici,p. 1l.9-18;

Opera(emphasisadded somehow differentlyfrom Lewis).

Plotinus' words zei ln5 FTeag trxng, line

TheOriginsof theso-calledTheologyof Aristotle,p. 144-145.

Once acceptedthat an "editor"of the H1rst

as we saw, is intimatelyconnectedwith IV 8[6], 2.7, a fact which rules out

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structure and Composition

This passage informsus not only on the philosophicalpreferencesof its

unprecedented:the account of Socrates' disappointmentat readingthe ancient cosmologies

This doctrineobviously cannottrace back to the historicalPlato, neither

al-hayral-mahd,the LatinLiberdecausis.Afterhavingexpoundedthe lemma

which turns to be identical with the First Principleitself, a squarelynon-Procleanthesis.

this passage holds, as

the things falling undercoming-to-beand passing away. But, dependentas

ogy - the Kitabl .dah

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structureand Composition

becauseHe is only being. So if someonesays: He musthave shape,we say: His shape

Pseudo-Theology of Aristotle: Structureand Composition

took place in time. As a matterof fact, accordingto "Plato"creation is a

Philoponus'De AeternitatemundicontraProclumis organizedin the form

The aim of the passage is differentfrom the one of the doxography,but

Whatfollows in the passage clearly indicatesthat al-Kind1follows in the

Davidson, Proofsfor Eternity,p. 108-116.

thatbothal-Kind1in his use of Philoponus'ContraAristotelemandthe author

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi