Textual Evidence

From a literary point of view, the two main features of the Arabic reception of the Alexandrian tradition that I will retain are the following: (1) the almost complete disappearance of Plato’s works and the irrelevant influence, if any, of the commentaries on Plato’s works; (2) the fact that, although extensively used, the commentaries on Aristotle are almost never or only very rarely referred to explicitly, which makes their influence difficult to assess.

This stands out clearly when compared with the cases ofAlexander ofAphrodisias and Themistius, whose names are well known in Arabic literature. Some of Alexander’s and Themistius’ Aristotelian commentaries and treatises were translated retaining their author’s name, subsequently copied and hence preserved as independent works. Between them and the Pagan philosophers from Alexandria whose commentaries circulated anonymously, Philoponus offers a middle ground: his opposition to the doctrine of the eternity of the world earned him fame among Muslim and Christian philosophers who often relied on his arguments; nevertheless, his works were apparently not valued as much as those of Alexander or Themistius, since they were preserved only through excerpts and adaptations. I do not share Lettinck’s confidence regarding Philoponus’ authorship of the partial commentary On Physics preserved in Arabic. Some ideas from Simplicius’ On Physics apparently also found their way in this commentary, but under another name. The possible influence of Simplicius’ commentary on al-Kindl has been noticedby Jolivet (1993) and al-Farabl’s allusions to the Poem of Parmenides might also stem from it (see Vallat 2004).

Thus, with the exceptions of Olympiodorus’ On Meteorology (different from the one preserved in Greek), the Alexandrian material preserved in the School ofBaghdad’s commentary on Physics, a few scraps of Simplicius’ and Ammonius’ On Cat., fragments of some length of Simplicius’ on Euclid’s Elements (unknown in Greek), fragments of Philoponus’ Contra Aristotelem and Contra Proclum, and a few quotations of Ammonius on music preserved by Isltaq b. Hunayn and al-Kindl, all the Alexandrian commentary tradition known at some point in Arabic has disappeared as independent works. This means that the manuscripts of these commentaries were never copied or ceased to be very early. Once used by Arabic scholars, these works were apparently unworthy of being copied and therefore for the most part fell into oblivion.

As a result, one comes across only anonymous and indirect references, which, in order to be seen and identified, require that we know the underlying Greek or at least that the comparison between the meaning of the Arabic and the generally well-known Greek doctrines can be made with sufficient accuracy. In this respect, al-Farabl’s (d. 950) and 'Abd al-Latif al-Bajgdadl’s (d. 1231) respective

Fusul muntazaa (Excerpts from the Ancients’ Works) are representative cases. The former contains, for instance, anonymous quotations drawn from one of Proclus’ work known both in Greek and Arabic (almost entirely preserved in Greek but only partially in Arabic) and echoes of Porphyry’s On Nicomachean Ethics, which is sometimes referred to in Arabic works, but is no more preserved in Arabic (except for a few passages) than in Greek. Although Dunlop suggests it, it seems rather daring to ascribe to Porphyry the ‘‘Seventh Book’’ inserted in the Arabic textual tradition of the Nicomachean Ethics called in Latin Summa Alexandrinorum. As for ‘Abd al-Latif al-Bajgdadl, Rashed (2004) has shown that his work contains anonymous quotations unknown in Greek but whose content is familiar enough to be safely attributed to Alexander of Aphrodisias.

Another hindrance further complicates the inquiry into sources. We possess Arabic anonymous Alexandrian commentaries or fragments, which testify to a posterior stage of the Alexandrian tradition to the one known in Greek, that is, apparently posterior to Stephanus. The best known example of this is Ibn al-BitrIq’s Arabic summary of a work entitled Talkhts k. al-nafs li-l-Iskandariyytn, the Alexandrians’ Epitome of Aristotle’s De anima, which has been masterfully edited by Rudiger Arnzen. In all likelihood, Ibn al-Bitrlq (first half of the ninth century) worked on an Alexandrian paraphrase, mainly composed of excerpts from Philoponus’ In De an., and whose Greek original is unknown. The Alexandrian sources that Ibn al-Tayyib (c. 980-1043) referred to in his On Eisagoge and On Categories also remain partly nameless, although both commentaries have been edited. The content of his On Isagoge, from which he failed to withdraw explicit Pagan allusions - a peculiar omission on the part of a Bible commentator - points to a translation of epitomized Alexandrian sources. As shown by C. Ferrari in her edition of Ibn al-Tayyib’s On Cat., this work displays countless similarities with all the known Alexandrian treatises from Ammonius to David. If ever rediscovered, his other commentaries on Aristotle’s Organon would surely confirm this observation. Furthermore, Rashed (2005) has established that On Cat. is somehow connected with the Marginalia of Arethas of Caeserea (c. 850-944) to the Isagoge and Categories. An in-depth study of the sources remains to be done in the case of another member of the School of Baghdad, Ibn Zur‘a (942-1008). His published epitome of De interpretatione, Prior, and Posterior Analytics has not yet been studied.

For all these Aristotelian works, Arabic philosophers made use of translated Greek commentaries without actually naming them most of the time.

The commentator called “Alllnus” or ‘‘Ilinus’’ in Arabic sources deserves a special mention. Ibn al-Tayyib and his teacher Ibn Suwar frequently quoted him, the latter having even allegedly translated his On Cat. Apart from Olympiodorus and Stephanus, ‘‘Alllnus’’ is the sole name quoted by Ibn al-Tayyib in On Isag. Among the various attempts to identify the Alexandrian commentator behind the name, Rashed (2005) put forward David, whom Hugonnard-Roche (2009) has since shown not to be a possible option.

A newly discovered complete version of what is still erroneously called Ibn al-Muqaffa -’s Logic might provide useful additional information about the Alexandrian philosophical tradition in Arabic. This handbook on logic, which clearly can neither be ascribed to Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ nor to his son Muirammad, constitutes in fact an epitome of the whole Alexandrian Organon including Rhetorics and Poetics. The only version described in ancient sources, which is now published (Danish-Pazuh 1978), includes the epitome of Porphyry’s Isagoge, Categories, De intepretatione, and Prior Analytics. To the best of my knowledge, the comparison with known Alexandrian commentaries has not been made yet.

Equally intriguing are the fragments of Paul the Persian’s Syriac work preserved in Arabic thanks to Miskawayh’s Tarttb al-sdadat. According to Gutas (1983), Paul relies on some Alexandrian prolegomena to Aristotle’s logic whose degree of scholarly refinement would suggest they are posterior to David’s. This case is puzzling because Paul’s floruit approximately tallies with Khosrow Anushirvan’s reign (531-579), whereas the probable date ofwriting ofDavid’s prolegomena coincides with the end of this reign at the earliest.

How then could David or any later author have influenced Paul? Moreover, could the composition, the transmission, and the translation of the aforementioned work into Syriac have occurred simultaneously with the composition of Paul’s treatise? No attempt has yet been made to solve this apparent chronological and geographical conundrum. In fact, it might be that Simplicius’ On Categories, or another similar commentary, is the treatise used by Paul in one form or another. For that matter, Gutas, who examined Paul’s fragments, envisages the possibility of Simplicius’ influence. A new edition and study of Miskawayh’s Tarttb al-saadat might bring further light on this issue.