The Making of the Avicennan Tradition: The Transmission, Contents, and Structures of Ibn Sina's Al-Mubahatat (The Discussions (Islamic Philosophy, Theology, ... (Islamic Philosophy, Theology, and Science)

THE MAKING OF THE AVICENNAN TRADITION

David C. Reisman

BRILL

THE MAKING OF THE AVICENNAN TRADITION

ISLAMIC PHILOSOPHY THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE Texts and Studies EDITED BY

H. DAIBER and D. PINGREE

VOLUME XLIX

THE MAKING OF THE AVICENNAN TRADITION The Transmission, Contents, and Structure of Ibn SÊn§"s al-Mub§Èat§t (The Discussions) BY

DAVID C. REISMAN

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON • KÖLN 2002

This book is printed on acid-free paper

Die Deutsche Bibliothek – CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Reisman, David C. : The making of the Avicennan tradition : the transmission, contents, and structure of Ibn SÊn§"s al-Mub§Èat§t (the discussions) / by David C. Reisman – Leiden ; Boston ; Köln : Brill, 2002 (Islamic philosophy, theology and science ; Vol. 49) ISBN 90–04–12504–3

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is also available

ISSN 0169-8729 ISBN 90 04 12504 3 © Copyright 2002 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

For Cara

VI

CONTENTS

‰«R?? ? ? ?« U?¼b?MŽ l?D?IM?¹ v?²?« W¹U?? ? ? ?G?UÐ t?M?Ž VÓ−?Ô¹ r? «–≈ ‰«R?? ? ? ?« Ë√ «c! ÊU?! tÒ½≈ ‰UI?O& ø«c?! ÊU! U?L ‰UI¹ ö?¦, ¨«ÎbzUŽË U?Î,“ô ÊuJ¹ œU?? F¹ ÚÊ√ Âe?K¹ qÐ ‰«R?? ?« U¼bM?Ž lDIM?¹ v²« W?¹U?? G« p– Êu?J¹ ô Ɖ«R«

- Ibn S•nå, at-Ta>l•qåt (ed. Badaw•, Cairo 1973), 46.17-19.

CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures .............................................................. xvii Acknowledgments........................................................................... xix INTRODUCTION I. Survey of Previous Scholarship................................................ 1 II. Outline of the Present Study .................................................... 12 Technical Layout of the Study I. Major Divisions of the Mubå˙a®åt in the Later Recension ............. II. Sigla Lists of the Manuscripts ................................................. A. Chronological List of the Manuscripts................................ B. Alphabetical List of the Sigla and Unassigned Manuscripts... III. Other Signs and Abbreviations................................................ A. Editions of the Mubå˙a®åt................................................. B. References to Catalogues .................................................. C. Dates.............................................................................. D. Transliteration of Arabic and Persian................................. E. Abbreviations used in the Apparatus .................................. F. Brackets, Parentheses, and Lines .......................................

15 16 16 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 20

CHAPTER ONE, PART ONE The Codicological Context I. Introduction .......................................................................... II. Codicological Terminology .................................................... A. Terminology in the Texts ................................................. B. Scribal Terminology........................................................ a. Scribal Remarks in a Copy of Bahmanyår’s Note to Ibn S•nå (MVIb1) .............................................................. b. Scribal Note Attached to the Later Recension .................. c. The Critical Apparatus of MS E .................................... d. Sigla used for Demarcating the Boundaries of Fascicles.... 1. The Sigla of MS L2 ................................................. 2. The Sigla of MS B ................................................... III. Summary and Conclusion of Part One .....................................

21 24 25 28 28 29 31 34 34 35 36

VIII

CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE, PART TWO Descriptions of the Manuscripts I. Materials in Fascicle Form Circulating Independently of the Recensions .............................................................................. A. Original Materials: Responsa and Dicta.................................. a. Leiden Golius 184 (Í1, Í2) .............................................. 1. Risåla f• maw∂¥> >ilm må ba>∂ a†-†ab•>a ......................... i. Later Exemplars: Ayasofya 4849 ............................ ii. Later Exemplars: Nuruosmaniye 4894 (N5) ............ iii. Later Exemplars: Ayasofya 4829 ............................ 2. Tal∆•ß li-¡-¡ay∆ al-˙ak•m Ab• Manߥr ............................ b. Istanbul University A.Y. 4755 .......................................... 1. Al-Masåalayhi fa-a≠åba >anhå ........... 2. Faßl min ∆a††ih• .......................................................... 3. Untitled Passages......................................................... c. Ayasofya 4853 (W2)....................................................... 1. Segment Seven ........................................................... i. Later Exemplars: Köprülü 1589 ............................. ii. Later Exemplars: Hamidiye 1448............................ iii. Later Exemplars: Ahmet III 1584 ........................... iv. Later Exemplars: Mi¡kåt 1149 ................................ 2. Segment Nine ............................................................. i. Later Exemplars: Nuruosmaniye 4894 (N3) ............ ii. Later Exemplars: Mi¡kåt 339.................................. d. Ibn Zayla’s Question to Ibn S•nå ....................................... 1. Mi¡kåt 1149 (D4) ...................................................... 2. Pertev Pa£a 617.......................................................... e. Question on Kitåb an-Nafs................................................ 1. Nuruosmaniye 4894 (N4) ........................................... 2. Hamidiye 1452........................................................... 3. Mi¡kåt 339................................................................. 4. Cairo Ma>årif >Åmma ˇal>at 197 .................................. f. Ibn S•nå’s Letter to Ibn Zayla ........................................... 1. Ayasofya 4855 (G) .................................................... 2. Tehran University 15≠ (J)............................................ g. Bahmanyår’s Questions to Ibn S•nå ................................... 1. Sipahsålår 1216........................................................... 2. Ma≠lis II 1256 ............................................................

41 41 41 43 43 44 44 44 45 47 48 48 50 50 52 52 52 52 53 53 53 54 55 55 55 56 56 57 57 57 58 59 59 59 59

CONTENTS

3. British Museum Or. 8069 ............................................. 4. Ma≠lis I 14,473........................................................... B. Original Materials: The Letters............................................. a. Letter MII ...................................................................... 1. Landberg 368 (Q)....................................................... i. Landberg 368 Lemmata (Q 2 )..................................... 2. Rag¶p Pa£a 1461 (R1) ................................................ 3. Å∆¥nd 1187 (Ô1) ...................................................... b. Letter MIII..................................................................... 1. Berlin Petermann II 466 (X1)...................................... c. Ibn S•nå’s “Letter to Kiyå” ............................................... 1. Complete Version....................................................... i. Cairo Óikma 6M (C, the Íi\nå∆• Codex Recension).. ii. Leiden Warn. Or. 864 (between L1 and L2) ............ iii. Ma≠lis I 634 (±2) ................................................ iv. Tehr. U. 2441 (H2) .............................................. v. Mar>a¡• 286 (⁄1) ................................................. vi. Ma≠lis II 1255 ...................................................... vii. Ma≠lis I 14,473 .................................................... 2. Version lacking the introductory epistolary elements ...... i. Ayasofya 4853 (W1) ............................................ ii. Ayasofya 4849...................................................... iii. Gotha arab. 838 .................................................... iv. Nuruosmaniye 4894 (N6)...................................... v. Cairo Ma>årif >Åmma ˇal>at 197............................. 3. Version copied in a Persian-speaking environment ......... i. British Museum Or. 8069....................................... II. Earlier Recensions ................................................................. A. Intact Version ................................................................. a. Princeton Yahuda 308 (Y) ........................................... 1. Descendants ............................................................. i. Tehran University 2441 (H1) ............................... ii. Mar>a¡• 286 (⁄2)................................................. b. Ambrosiana 150s (A) .................................................. c. Leiden Warner Or. 864 (L1) ........................................ d. British Museum Add. 16,659 (E) .................................. B. Interrupted Version.......................................................... a. Ayasofya 2389 (I) ....................................................... 1. Descendants ............................................................ i. Ahmet III 3447 (T)............................................ ii. Mi¡kåt 1149 (D3) ............................................. iii. Nuruosmaniye 4894 (N2) ..................................

IX

60 60 60 60 60 61 62 62 62 62 63 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 68 68 68 68 69 70 71 73 74 74 75 75

X

CONTENTS

iv. Köprülü 869 (K1) ............................................. 75 v. Cairo Falsafa 349 (S) ......................................... 76 III. The Íi\nå∆• Codex Recension: Cairo Óikma Mu߆afaœ Få∂il 6 (C).................................................................................... 77 IV. Fascicles Derivative of Recensions........................................... 82 A. Leiden Warner Or. 864, Part 2 (L2)................................... 84 B. Responsa and Dicta on Metaphysics and the Theory of the Soul............................................................................... 89 a. Berlin Petermann II 466 (X2) ....................................... 90 b. Rag¶p Pa£a 1461 (R2) .................................................. 90 c. Å∆¥nd 1187 (Ô2) ......................................................... 90 V. The Later Recension .............................................................. 91 A. First Line of Descent ....................................................... 92 a. Bodleian Huntington 534 (B) ........................................ 92 1. Descendants of MS B............................................... 94 i. Mi¡kåt 1149 (D1) .............................................. 94 ii. Ma≠lis I 634 (±1).............................................. 94 iii. Ma≠lis I 14,473 .................................................. 95 b. Possible Extracts of the Later Recension in the First Line of Descent ........................................................... 95 1. Feyzullah 2188 (F) .................................................. 96 2. Istanbul University 4545 (O) .................................... 97 B. Second Line of Descent ..................................................... 97 a. Nuruosmaniye 4894 (N1) ............................................. 97 b. Köprülü 869 (K2) ....................................................... 97 C. Extracts of the Later Recension: Mi¡kåt 1037 (M)............... 98 VI. Unexamined and Lost Manuscripts .......................................... 99 A. Unexamined Manuscripts.................................................. 99 a. Navvåb 45 Óikma ........................................................ 99 b. Kitåb∆ånah-yi Madrasah-yi Marv• 19 [= 40 or 875?]........ 100 c. Kitåb∆ånah-yi Åqå-yi Íadr ad-D•n Ma˙allåt• (⁄•råz), Ma≠m¥>a 17 ................................................................ 100 B. Lost Manuscripts ............................................................. 100 a. Ma≠m¥>at Mirzå Fa∂l Allåh .......................................... 100 b. Ma≠m¥>at Mu˙ammad Ri∂å a¡-⁄ab•b• ............................ 101 VII. A Note on the Separative Variant between the Earlier and Later Recensions .............................................................. 102 VIII. A Provisional Stemma Codicum of the Major Exemplars......... 103

CONTENTS

XI

CHAPTER TWO The Recension Process of the Mubå˙a®åt I. Introduction .......................................................................... 105 II. Evidence from the Manuscripts ............................................... 107 A. The Íi\nå∆• Codex Recension and the Earlier Recensions...... 107 B. Bahmanyår’s “Ta˙ß•låt” ...................................................... 110 III. External Evidence ................................................................. 119 A. Versions of the Autobiography/Biography Complex ............ 119 a. Al-Bayhaq•’s Tatimmat Íiwån al-˙ikma .......................... 122 1. Al-Bayhaq•’s References to a Work entitled al-Mabå˙i®. 123 2. Al-Bayhaq•’s “shorter bibliography” ........................... 126 b. The Independent Sarguƒa¡t and the al-Qif†•/Ibn Ab• Ußaybi>a Versions of the Complex ................................. 130 c. The Authenticity of a Shorter Bibliography by al-G¥z≠ån• 135 IV. Putative Contemporary Citations of the Mubå˙a®åt .................... 138 A. The Ibn S•nå—Ab¥ Sa>•d Correspondence.......................... 138 a. Background ................................................................. 138 b. The Ta>alluq an-nafs bi-l-badan in Context .................... 141 c. Authenticating the Ta>alluq an-nafs bi-l-badan ............... 147 B. Internal References for the Title al-Mubå˙a®åt .................... 149 a. General Terminology ................................................... 150 b. General Characterizations of the Materials ...................... 151 c. Possible Title Sources................................................... 151 1. The First Response with “title” mubå˙a®åt aß-ßad•q ...... 152 2. The Second Response with “title” al-mubå˙a®åt aßßad•q•ya.................................................................. 153 3. Analysis of the “titles” .............................................. 153 4. Manuscript Evidence for the “titles” ........................... 155 5. The Creation of the Title al-Mubå˙a®åt ....................... 160 V. Summary and Conclusions...................................................... 162 CHAPTER THREE The Context of Composition and the Participants in The Discussions I. Introduction............................................................................. 166 II. The Participants ...................................................................... 166 A. Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån• ...................................................... 166 a. Early Years..................................................................... 166 b. Works ........................................................................... 169

XII

CONTENTS

1. Íafw a¡-¡ar˙ li-°så\¥≠• wa-Q冕\ur•yås.......................... 169 2. Unattested Authorship of the Íiwån al-˙ikma ................. 170 3. An Untitled Tract on the Prophet’s ˙ad•®........................ 171 4. An Untitled Treatise on Suffering ................................. 171 5. Risåla f• Uߥl al-a˙kåm an-nu≠¥m•ya ............................ 171 c. Early Contact with Ibn S•nå .............................................. 172 d. Ab¥ l-Qåsim’s Participation in The Discussions................... 180 B. Bahmanyår ibn al-Marzubån................................................. 185 a. Biographical Particulars.................................................... 185 b. Bahmanyår, Ab¥ l-Qåsim, and Ibn S•nå ............................. 192 C. Ibn Zayla ........................................................................... 195 a. General Biographical Information...................................... 195 b. Ibn Zayla and Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån•? ............................ 196 c. Ibn Zayla’s Participation in The Discussions........................ 198 1. Ibn S•nå’s Letter to Ibn Zayla ....................................... 198 i. Details of the Text ................................................. 199 ii. Translation of the Introduction ................................ 199 2. Other Texts ................................................................ 200 i. MVIc:579-585..................................................... 200 ii. MVIc:586-588, 589-590 ....................................... 201 iii. MVIc:591-593..................................................... 201 iv. MVIc:650-1 ........................................................ 201 v. MVIc:693-5 ........................................................ 201 vi. MVIe:820-843, Ibn Zayla’s Tal∆•ß ......................... 201 vii. MVIf:864-6 ........................................................ 202 viii. MVIf:867, 868 .................................................... 202 3. Ibn Zayla’s Question on a criterion for classifying the sciences ..................................................................... 202 4. Unattested Authorship of al-Ma≠m¥> al-ilåh• ................. 203 CHAPTER FOUR The Contents, Order, and Dating of the Mubå˙a®åt Texts I. General Comments concerning the Contents of the Mubå˙a®åt ...... 204 II. Mubå˙a®åt Texts ...................................................................... 205 A. MI. Letter from Ibn S•nå to Bahmanyår ............................... 205 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence ..................................... 205 b. Contents of MI ................................................................ 207 B. MII. Letter from Ibn S•nå to Bahmanyår ............................... 207 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence ..................................... 207 b. Contents of MII............................................................... 212

CONTENTS

XIII

C. MIII. Letter from Ibn S•nå to Bahmanyår ............................. 213 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence .................................... 213 1. A Hiatus in the Correspondence .................................... 214 2. Ibn S•nå’s Reference to Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån•’s displeasure ................................................................. 214 3. Ibn S•nå’s Reference to the “sections” Bahmanyår has sent him ..................................................................... 215 4. Ibn S•nå’s Reference to an oral discussion with Ab¥ l-Qåsim...................................................................... 215 b. Analysis of the Temporal Indications................................. 215 1. Michot’s Theory concerning the Dating of MIII ............. 215 2. Analysis of Michot’s Theory ......................................... 216 c. Contents of MIII.............................................................. 219 D. MIVb:142-209. Bahmanyår’s (and Ab¥ l-Qåsim’s?) Questions, Ibn S•nå’s Responses........................................................... 221 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence .................................... 221 b. Contents of MIVb............................................................ 224 E. MVa:210-266. Responsa ...................................................... 224 a. General Description ......................................................... 224 1. MVa:210-223. Ibn S•nå’s Responses to Ab¥ l-Qåsim’s Disputations................................................ 225 2. MVa:224-250. Ibn S•nå’s Responses to Bahmanyår’s Questions .................................................................. 226 3. MVa:251-266. Ibn S•nå’s Responses to Bahmanyår’s Questions .................................................................. 227 F. MVb:267-309..................................................................... 227 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence .................................... 227 1. Follow-up Questions.................................................... 227 2. Ibn S•nå’s Reference to a Future Meeting ....................... 227 3. Reference to Works-in-progress .................................... 228 b. Contents of MVb ............................................................ 230 G. MVc1-2:310-396. Responsa ................................................. 231 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence .................................... 231 1. MII+MVc1 ................................................................. 231 2. MVc1
MVc2 ......................................................... 231 i. MII+MVc1
MVc2:353 ....................................... 232 ii. MVc1:338, 339
MVc2:356, 367-8, 369-70 .......... 232 iii. MVc1:347
MVc2:360-1 ..................................... 232 3. Relation of MII+MVc1 and MVc2 to Bahmanyår’s Letter to Ibn S•nå (MVIa1).................................................... 233 H. MVIa1:397-398. Bahmanyår’s Letter to Ibn S•nå.................... 233 a. Translation of Bahmanyår’s Letter to Ibn S•nå (MVIa1)....... 234

XIV

CONTENTS

b. Analysis of the Letter and its place in the correspondence .... 235 I. MVIa2:400-499 ................................................................... 237 a. Indications of Temporal Sequence and Brief Description of Contents ......................................................................237 J. MVIb1:500-1. Bahmanyår’s Note to Ibn S•nå .......................... 239 a. Translation and Analysis of Temporal Sequence.................. 239 K. MVIb2:502-567. Responsa................................................... 240 a. References to Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån•............................... 240 b. Marginal (?) Ripostes by Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån• .............. 241 c. Internal and External Disorder .......................................... 242 1. Internal Disorder in MVIb2 .......................................... 242 2. Disorder of Questions and Responses across the Later Parts of the Mubå˙a®åt ................................................. 243 d. Repetition of Questions and Responses .............................. 244 L. MVIc:568-798. Responsa and Ibn Zayla’s Correspondence....... 245 a. Ibn Zayla’s Correspondence with Ibn S•nå.......................... 246 b. At-Ta>l•qåt Passages ........................................................ 247 c. Marginal (?) Ripostes by Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån•............... 248 M. MVIf:844-901. Responsa and Dicta ...................................... 248 N. B•dårfar’s al-Mul˙aq ........................................................... 248 O. Historical Sequence of the Correspondence: Summary and Conclusions.................................................................. 250 III. Accretional Mubå˙a®åt Texts................................................... 251 A. MIVa:127-141. Ibn Zayla’s “Memoirs of a Disciple from Rayy”............................................................................. 252 B. MVId:799-819. Bahmanyår’s tal∆•ß of parts of al-Ilåh•yåt of a¡-⁄ifål•qåt >alaœ ˙awå¡• Kitåb an-Nafs................................ 289 B. A¡-⁄ifå a†-ˇab•>• .......................................................... 290 c. Al-Ilåh•yåt ..................................................................... 291 1. Questions and Responses related to al-Ilåh•yåt from a¡-⁄ifåhad al-Ma∆†¥†åt, and the American University in Cairo Library. In Iran, I thank Hirmand Hassas whose professional services helped me acquire photocopies of Iranian manuscripts; and °ra≠ Af¡år for information on the Madrasah-yi Marv• Library and relevant publications. I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to the following: my family; Felizitas Opwis; Ahmed H. al-Rahim; Jennifer Bryson; Amos Bertolacci; Amina Steinfels; Walid Salih; Ahmad Dallal (Stanford University); Franz Rosenthal;

XX

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

F. Jamil Ragep and Sally Ragep (University of Oklahoma); Parvaneh Pourshariati; Gul Pulhan; Anthony Greenwood; Miranda Sissons; Randa Baligh; Maureen Draicchio; Ulla Kasten; the Pacelli family; Adam Gacek (McGill University); Hermann Landolt (McGill University); Lisa Alexandrin; Michael Feener (Reed College); Yahya Michot (Oxford University); Jules Janssens; David King (J.W. Goethe Universität); Tzvi Langermann (Bar-Ilan University); Gerhard Endress (Ruhr-Universität Bochum); Colin F. Baker (British Library). I am particularly indebted to Beatrice Gruendler (Yale University); Everett K. Rowson (University of Pennsylvania) and Hans Daiber (J.W. Goethe Universität) for their valuable comments and suggestions on the study in its dissertation form. Remaining errors—of transcript and judgment—are my own. Above all, I thank my wife Cara Lia Sargent, whose love, patience, and sharp intellect guide all my thoughts and actions. I dedicate this work to her. New Haven, 8 August 2001

INTRODUCTION

1

INTRODUCTION I. SURVEY

OF

P REVIOUS SCHOLARSHIP

Ibn S•nå’s al-Mubå˙a®åt has attracted uneven attention in modern scholarship. This should not come as a surprise. The very difficult problems associated with the composition, textual transmission, structure, and contents of this collection of private correspondence between Ibn S•nå and his students and colleagues have collectively presented a sizeable barrier to our evaluation of the Mubå˙a®åt as a source for the life and philosophy of Ibn S•nå. The desultory nature of the two editions of the texts that make up the Mubå˙a®åt has effectively ensured that scholars would remain confused as to how best to put the Mubå˙a®åt to use, although the more recent of the two editions (B•dårfar, 1992) does represent an improvement that has initiated a new round of studies by scholars of Ibn S•nå. With the exception of the information concerning one or another exemplar of the Mubå˙a®åt found in catalogues of Arabic manuscripts, Paul Kraus appears to be the first modern scholar to outline, however briefly, some of the problems associated with the interpretation of the Mubå˙a®åt. Kraus’s article “Plotin chez les Arabes,” published in 1941, was directed in the first instance to a survey of the influence of the Enneads of Plotinus on medieval philosophers writing in Arabic. As such, he touched upon Ibn S•nå’s Commentary on the Theology of Pseudo-Aristotle available to him in the codex Cairo Óikma 6 Mu߆afaœ Få∂il. The fragments of Ibn S•nå’s commentary, the remains of his much larger Kitåb al-Inßåf, shared space in that codex with what we now know to be a singularly eccentric recension of the texts of the Mubå˙a®åt, which would later be edited in no less an eccentric manner by >Abd ar-Ra˙mån Badaw• (Aris†¥ >inda l->arab, 1947). Kraus, with the customary mark of his genius, correctly grouped and analyzed some of the information found among the texts of the Mubå˙a®åt concerning the composition and loss of Kitåb al-Inßåf and thereby signalled the importance of the Mubå˙a®åt as an additional source for the historical side of Ibn S•nå’s life and works, all in two brief but dense notes to his larger concerns (note 3, pp. 273-4, and note 1, p. 274). Six years after Kraus’s remarks, >Abd ar-Ra˙mån Badaw• published his edition of parts of the Cairo codex, including its recension of the Mubå˙a®åt. The sheer variety of texts Badaw• selected for his Aris†¥ >inda l->arab could not but produce a certain unevenness in both his editing work and his interpretive remarks on those texts. My evaluation of Badaw•’s edition of the Mubå˙a®åt is outlined in Chapter One, Part Two and Appendix A

2

INTRODUCTION

below. Here I direct attention to the short essay in his introduction (pp. 35-40) on the nature and contents of the Mubå˙a®åt. With a confidence that belies the complexity of the problems associated with the Mubå˙a®åt, Badaw• addressed the questions of the work’s ascription to Ibn S•nå by evaluating the medieval biographical material available to him, and the composition and collection of the texts by instructive remarks on the confused order of the exemplar in the Cairo codex. Very few other exemplars of the Mubå˙a®åt were known to Badaw• (listed on pp. 35-6) and he had access to none of them. This was perhaps for the best; if, for instance, he had studied the exemplar Bodleian Huntington 534 listed by him, we perhaps would not have seen the publication of the Mubå˙a®åt from the Cairo codex. For the radically different recensional picture such a comparison would have produced would have had to inaugurate many years’ study of the textual problems associated with the Mubå˙a®åt and perhaps even have resulted in the elimination of the recension found in the Cairo codex in the editing process. But there were two major deleterious results of the publication of the Mubå˙a®åt from the Cairo codex. The first was the attendant confusion it elicited from scholars who utilized Badaw•’s edition and the concomitant lack of sustained research on the work. The second was the conclusions Badaw• drew from the disordered state of the recension in the Cairo codex. In his introduction, Badaw• noted the fragmentary nature of the texts that make up the Mubå˙a®åt in this recension, exemplified by the repetition of different versions of passages and the lack of any apparent order in the progression from one section of text to the next. He concluded from this evidence that the recension in the Cairo codex was copied from the original rough drafts made by Ibn S•nå and his students. This conclusion is contested in the following pages. However, there are elements to Badaw•’s conclusion that are worthy of attention; for instance, his suggestion that the texts of the Mubå˙a®åt were not subject to a conscientious collection by Ibn S•nå or his students (p. 39), while requiring some modification, was very prescient. But the somewhat skewed picture of the recensional process of the Mubå˙a®åt presented by Badaw• is directly attributable to the fact that a thorough study of as many of the extant exemplars of the Mubå˙a®åt as could reasonably be expected was not made before the editing process began. This must stand as an object lesson for scholars working with Arabic manuscripts. In 1950 George Anawati published the seminal catalogue of extant Ibn S•nå manuscripts (Mu•d ibn Ab• l-Ôayr correspondence by noting that in one of the letters of that correspondence the correspondents mention the Mubå˙a®åt by name. Oddly enough, however, he does not seem to have explicitly argued that the Mubå˙a®åt must then have been a collected work in Ibn S•nå’s lifetime. 4 At any rate, he did introduce this new element into the discussion about the composition and dating of the Mubå˙a®åt. Dåni¡pa≈¥h also noted the extent of the scholia of the Mubå˙a®åt present in the works of Mullå Íadrå. The degree of confusion that resulted from Badaw•’s 1947 edition of the Mubå˙a®åt was first made evident in 1952, when Shlomo Pines published his masterly study of Ibn S•nå’s “philosophie oriental.” Pines’s characterization of the Mubå˙a®åt as a “chaotic collection of responses to questions posed by his disciples and notes” is certainly a valid description of the state of the Mubå˙a®åt in the Cairo codex recension. But it is worth arguing that this 1

Fihrist-i Kitåb∆ånah-yi Ihdåa¡ara [sic!] mas, p. 29). 16 See Chapter Three, Section II.A. 15

INTRODUCTION

7

questions” to B•r¥n• in a volume dedicated to B•r¥n• and repeated Mahdav•’s assertion that they should not be so attributed.17 During the 1980s and early 1990s, scholars such as Michael Marmura and Jean Michot 18 followed Pines in utilizing the Mubå˙a®åt for studies of specific concerns in Ibn S•nå’s philosophy, but in a limited and haphazard manner that highlighted the problems involved in working with Badaw•’s edition. By far the most significant studies of the 1980s to direct attention to the textual transmission of the Mubå˙a®åt were those by Dimitri Gutas. Recognizing that research on the Mubå˙a®åt as well as other works by Ibn S•nå was stymied by the lack of fundamental studies on the nature, structure, contents, and above all the textual transmission of Ibn S•nå’s Nachlass, Gutas has single-handedly redirected the study of Ibn S•nå back to the basic concerns so fundamental to assuring profitable research into such a major intellectual figure.19 In 1987 Gutas published “Notes and Texts from Cairo Manuscripts, II: Texts from Avicenna’s Library in a Copy by >Abd-ar-Razzåq aß-Íi\nå∆•” in which he properly identified the scribe of the Cairo codex Óikma 6M used by Badaw• for his edition of the Mubå˙a®åt, made detailed codicological and palaeographical observations, traced the exemplars in the Dår al-Kutub, Cairo which descend from Óikma 6M, provided a detailed inventory of its contents and publication record, and noted many of the inconsistencies in Badaw•’s edition of a number of the works in that codex. Such a study of a single codex of Ibn S•nå’s works was and is unparalleled, and while many of the extant codices of Ibn S•nå’s work do not warrant such attention, the more important ones unquestionably should be subjected to such attention following Gutas’s model. In 1988 Gutas published his Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: Introduction to Reading Avicenna’s Philosophical Works, a work which represents a major turning-point in the modern study of Ibn S•nå. The wealth of information on the major issues related to research on Ibn S•nå in this work and the scholarly erudition brought to bear on those issues assures 17

Barras•dah dar baråyi Ab¥ Rayhån B•r¥n•, Tehran, 1973, pp. 54-163; see also the summary in Janssens, Bibliography, p. 44. 18 Marmura published two articles that drew in a minimal way on the Mubå˙a®åt, which he described as a collection of questions and responses by Ibn S•nå, Bahmanyår, and Ibn Zayla, probably collected in a first draft in Ibn S•nå’s lifetime, viz. “Avicenna on Primary Concepts in the Metaphysics of his al-Shifåd contains additional information on the historical context and the participants in the Mubå˙a®åt correspondence, which I have relied upon for the study in Chapters Three and Four below. I thank him for providing me with an early draft and a copy of the completed work. 28 To be published in Aspects of Avicenna.

12

INTRODUCTION

works. The same textual problems occasioned by B•dårfar’s edition of the Mubå˙a®åt which accompanied Michot’s translation of MIII are faced again in Gutas’s study, but it is a testament to the scholarship of both Michot and Gutas that this obstacle is addressed in a rigorous manner through their attention to all of the textual variants.29 II. O UTLINE OF

THE

PRESENT S TUDY

It should be clear from the preceding survey of scholarship on the Mubå˙a®åt that a basic investigation of the textual issues related to this important collection of philosophical correspondence is required before research can move forward. While important studies of the Mubå˙a®åt have been undertaken, this is more a testament to the achievements of individual scholars than to any communal satisfaction with the available editions of the work. If a satisfactory edition of the Mubå˙a®åt is to be made in the future, it is imperative that the basic issues of content, structure, recension, and compositional context of the Mubå˙a®åt be addressed. The following study attempts to address these issues. A major concern for our understanding of the recensional development of the Mubå˙a®åt is to determine the nature of the original codicological forms of the texts that now collectively make up the work. Chapter One, Part One assesses the extant references made by the participants of the correspondence to these codicological forms and compares these to the scribal references and critical apparatuses of the manuscripts. This study of the critical apparatus also allows us to identify the earliest recension of the Mubå˙a®åt. Chapter One, Part Two is a palaeographical and codicological study of the extant manuscripts of the Mubå˙a®åt. On the basis of the conclusions reached in Part One and a working theory of structural characteristics, these manuscripts are divided into four different groups: independently circulating fascicles, Earlier Recensions (including what I believe to be the first recension or collection by Bahmanyår), the Íi\nå∆• Codex Recension (the basis of Badaw•’s edition), and the Later Recension (the basis of B•dårfar’s edition). I have examined as many of the extant exemplars as I believe to be reasonably possible. Those manuscripts that I have not personally examined or which now appear to be irretrievably lost are also listed; in some of these cases, published descriptions of the manuscripts have made it possible to tentatively identify their structure, and thus the particular recension of the exemplar. A

29

The work of Gutas and Michot done in spite of B•dårfar’s edition calls to mind the pioneering work of Pines undertaken in spite of Badaw•’s edition.

INTRODUCTION

13

brief note on an important textual variant in the extant recensions of the Mubå˙a®åt concludes this part. Chapter Two addresses the Recension Process of the Mubå˙a®åt. Based on the descriptions of the manuscripts in Chapter One and additional information gleaned from biographical and bibliographical material on Ibn S•nå and the other participants, I set forth a theory concerning the recensional development of the discrete textual parts of the Mubå˙a®åt. A very useful means for plotting the course of this development is to identify and properly assess the references to the title Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt in related texts. To this end, I examine the contemporary and near-contemporary usages of this title. An important reference to the title is found in the putative Ibn S•nå—Ab¥ Sa>•d correspondence. My study of this correspondence suggests that this reference, and the Ibn S•nå—Ab¥ Sa>•d correspondence as a whole, is most likely a later forgery. Chapter Two concludes with a study of the term mubå˙a®åt and related usages in the texts of the Mubå˙a®åt which suggests that the title of the correspondence originates with the recensional development and not with the participants themselves. Chapters One and Two are designed as a basic framework for future editorial work on the Mubå˙a®åt by providing a conspectus of all known manuscripts and by developing a reasonable hypothesis of the medieval recension process. Chapters Three and Four are directed toward the issues of the compositional context of the correspondence now known as the Mubå˙a®åt, the structure and arrangement of its individual texts, and their dates of composition. These chapters are intended to provide an interpretive matrix for the texts of the Mubå˙a®åt. In Chapter Three I develop biographical portraits of the three figures who engaged in the correspondence with Ibn S•nå, viz. Ab¥ l-Qåsim alKirmån•, Bahmanyår, and Ibn Zayla, and attempt to characterize properly their respective roles and intellectual contributions to the philosophical correspondence. In Chapter Four, I give synopses of each of the discrete parts that collectively constitute the Mubå˙a®åt. Each synopsis contains a number of elements: a characterization of the text, an assessment of the correct place it occupies in the sequence of the correspondence, and its date of composition. These characterizations are based upon the theory that the structure of the Earlier Recensions more likely represents the original compositional order of the texts than the Later Recension (the order of which is followed in B•dårfar’s edition). In identifying the sequence of the texts of the Mubå˙a®åt in this way it is hoped that scholars can begin to study the Mubå˙a®åt as a textual record of sequential philosophical discussions, that correctly follow Ibn S•nå’s later intellectual developments. Many of the appendices to the chapters of this study are intended to

14

INTRODUCTION

provide tools for the textual study of the Mubå˙a®åt in its many recensions. Appendices A-C will allow assessments of the two available editions of the Mubå˙a®åt to be made, as well as provide a bridge between the two, so that textual studies may be profitably undertaken. Appendix D contains an edition of the introduction to one of Ibn S•nå’s letters to Ibn Zayla which was removed from that letter in the recension process; this introduction provides an interesting example of the relationship between Ibn S•nå and Ibn Zayla. Appendix E lists what are here called Recensional Duplicates, i.e., different versions of many of the questions and responses which were collected in the Later Recension. Appendix F identifies the passages of Ibn S•nå’s other works (especially the ⁄ifåa¡• 286 Mi¡kåt 339 Sipahsålår 1216 Ma≠lis II 1255 Nuruosmaniye 4894 Å∆¥nd 1187 Köprülü 869 Feyzullah 2188 Pertev Pa£a 617 Rag¶p Pa£a 1461 Mi¡kåt 1037 Br. Mus. Add. 16,659 Ma≠lis I 14,473 Ayasofya 4829 Br. Mus. Or. 8069 Hamidiye 1452 Cairo Falsafa 349 Tehran Uni. 15≠ ˇal>at 197

17

634/1237 (col.) 677/1279 (col.) 694/1295-6 (own.) 7th/13th c. (Mahdav•) 717/1317 (own.) 753/1353 (‹e£en) 781/1379 (own.) 9th/15th c. (Reisman) 866/1462 (Karatay) 880/1475-6 (Ahlwardt) 889/1484 (Ahlwardt) 914/1508-9 (Karatay) 962/1554-5 (own.) 9th/15th c. (Mahdav•) 10th/16th c. 10th/16th c.? (Reisman) 1043/1633-4 (col.) 1052/1642-3 (col.) 1072/1661-2 (col.) 1076-1086/1665-1676 (cols.) 1091/1680 (col.) 1091/1680-1 (col.) 11th/17th c. (stamp) 10th-11th/17th-18th c. (Raw¡ån) 11th-12th/17th-18th c. (Reisman) 1112/1700-1 (own.) 1113/1701-2 (own.) 1139/1726-7 (own.) 1171/1757-8 (Dåni¡pa≈¥h) 1182/1768-9 (col.) 12th/18th c. (Ô¥ar¡•ya 2 and al-masåar¡•ya referred to in MII is identical to the text now published in a variety of places as ar-Risåla al->ar¡•ya (text in Ma≠m¥>at rasåAbd Allåh ibn S•nå al-Bu∆år•, Hayderabad, 1354/1935); and edited more recently by Ibråh•m Hilål, ar-Risåla al->ar¡•ya f• ˙aqåArab• environment. 3 The incident is referred to in four places: the Biography (Gohlman, 80/81); Ibn S•nå’s “Letter to Kiyå” (B•dårfar 1158-1162, transl. Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 60-64 on the basis of MSS B and C); the “Memoirs of a Disciple from Rayy” (B•dårfar MIVa, transl. Gutas, Avicenna, 66-72); and incidentally (Ibn S•nå says he has survived some “life-threatening shocks”) in MII. For additional discussion, see Chapter Four, Section II.B. 4 The term used by al-±¥z≠ån• (Gohlman, 72.9) is ta≠årib, which Gohlman (75.pen.) incorrectly translates “experiments.” Ullmann, in his review of Gohlman (Der Islam 52, 1975, p. 149) corrects this translation to “experiences,” but “medical experiences” sounds somewhat contrived in English. 5 Gohlman, 74/75. Al-±¥z≠ån• does not expand on the cause of this loss. 6 Translated by Gutas, Avicenna, p. 101; see also id., “Aspects of Literary Form,” p. 31. 7 Al-±¥z≠ån•’s introduction to a¡-⁄ifåarab follows his account of Ibn S•nå’s public humiliation by Ab¥ Manߥr ibn >Al• ibn >Umar al-±abbån (for biographical details, see Gohlman, pp. 133-4). The four extant exemplars of a series of extracts from Lisån al->arab were used in the edition by I. Yarshater (“Risåla f• l-lu\a,” Pan≠ Risåla, pp. 13-31). The scribe who first copied the extracts says that the work was neither completed nor transcribed to clean copy, and that he saw a part of the work, some 130 folios in Ibn S•nå’s hand, but that their (disorganized?) state prevented a proper redaction (ta˙r•r), and so he chose to select some of the

PART ONE : THE C ODICOLOGICAL CONTEXT

23

These examples10 must inform a proper understanding of the transmission or, rather, creation of the work now known as Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt. The two primary elements to shape the development of this work are the loss of written materials and the relative disorder of Ibn S•nå’s papers at the time of his death. A third element, that of the attempts made by later recensors to group Ibn S•nå’s papers into some cohesive form or forms, equally plays a role in the final versions of Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt The studies of the manuscript remains of Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt and the internal and external testimonia of the work presented in detail below support the following conclusions. It would seem that no work entitled Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt existed in the lifetimes of Ibn S•nå, Bahmanyår, or the other participants in the philosophical discussions. There is no evidence that any of the participants intended to compile a collection of these discussions under the title Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt such as is extant in the various versions of the materials.11 Finally, the materials that make up what is now known as Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt underwent a series of generic transformations in form and content, culminating in the largest recension represented for instance by the Bodleian exemplar (i.e., what is called here the Later Recension). This lack of authorial intention, filled by later editorial intention, makes it difficult to talk about a Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt until a period in which both the work and the title have become a part of the accepted corpus of Ibn S•nå’s writings. However, one point is undeniable: Ibn S•nå, Bahmanyår, Ab¥ l-Qåsim al-Kirmån•, Ibn Zayla, and a participant known only as >Abd al-Malik did engage in discussions of philosophical issues raised by or more wonderful parts for copy (op. cit., 7.1-11). Interestingly, as Yarshater notes, one of Ibn S•nå’s definitions (the work was a book of lu\a, lexicography, as Ullmann, op. cit., p. 149, correctly noted, and not “philology” as Gohlman, op. cit., has it) was appropriated for the Ibn S•nå—Ab¥ Sa>•d correspondence (viz. on al-qa∂å< wa-l-qadar, see “Risåla,” 10ff.). As will be seen below a similar process of appropriation occurred with some of the scattered parts of the Mubå˙a®åt materials. The extant transcribed definitions in the Risåla are a peculiar mix of philosophical technical terminology, definitions of heterodox sects, and theological terms. They deserve closer study. Another work that Ibn S•nå was prompted to write after his humiliating encounter with al-±abbån, and once they were reconciled it seems, since Ibn S•nå dedicates the work to him, was the treatise alternately entitled Asbåb ˙ud¥® al-˙ur¥f and Ma∆åri≠ al-˙ur¥f, which deals primarily with phonetics. Apparently this work was sufficiently disorganized as to result in two recensions. Indeed, the exemplars of the two recensions (published independently by P. Ôånlar•, Tehran, 1954, and M. a†-ˇayyån and Y. >Alam, Cairo, 1979), do not agree with one another across the manuscript traditions, as noted by J.L. Janssens, Annotated Bibliography, p. 49. 10 An additional factor to be considered in the subsequent survival of Ibn S•nå’s works are acts of nature and man: fire in the |aznavid library, according to al-Bayhaq•; and the public burning of Ibn S•nå’s corpus, drawn from both private and public collections, ordered by Caliph al-Mustan≠id; see Gutas, “Avicenna’s Maƒhab,” p. 332 and the reference cited there. 11 These two characteristics are mutually exclusive in some cases. While there is some indication that at least one version of Mubå˙a®åt materials was by Bahmanyår, there is no indication that he intended to call that collection Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt. See the discussion in Chapter Two, Section II.B.

24

CHAP TER ONE

within the context of Ibn S•nå’s philosophical system. These discussions took the form of written correspondences and a few written records of oral communications. Theoretically, if we are to speak of a Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt, it would contain only these elements. Practically, however, a considerable quantity of other materials came to be included in the collections of Ibn S•nå’s papers now entitled Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt, and it is this larger collection of materials that would be entitled Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt and so referred to by later bibliographers and scholars who cited the work. Thus, the tension between what should and what should not be considered the Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt is one that could be said to be imposed by the present study. For if the participants of these discussions did not intend to compile a work entitled Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt, and the only Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt to be described as such by later authors is one created by later recensors and containing additional materials, then the only real Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt is the latter. However, one point is undeniable: there is an internal structural unity and intellectual continuity to those materials that make up the philosophical discussions undertaken by the participants listed above and this continuity is not shared by some of the other materials which are now a part of Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt. While this judgment could be viewed as yet another editorial intention foisted upon the materials that make up Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt (and one that perhaps lacks the legitimacy of the medieval editorial intentions in that it is modern and necessarily removed from the cultural context that created the Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt), it nonetheless carries the weight of a viable interpretive principle for approaching the transmission history of the work and, in a more practical vein, allows for a working nomenclature to be employed when discussing the recensional evolution of the texts. Reference is regularly made below to Mubå˙a®åt and Accretional Mubå˙a®åt materials. The latter are judged not to be a part of the original philosophical correspondence for reasons developed on an individual basis; these reasons are made clear in the appropriate places. For purposes of discussion, however, it may be useful to list these Accretional Mubå˙a®åt materials here: MIVa; MVId; MVIe:820-4; 829-843; parts of the Íi\nå∆• Codex Recension; and Ibn S•nå’s “Letter to Kiyå.” II. C ODICOLOGICAL T ERMINOLOGY A study of the manuscript traditions of Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt provides strong evidence that the original material forms of the philosophical discussions were quite diverse. In a very broad sense, these forms can be divided into two types. There are the letters (internally referred to in the singular kitåb) MI, MII, MIII, MIVa, MVIa1, that were likely written on any measure of

PART ONE : THE C ODICOLOGICAL CONTEXT

25

paper ranging from a folio to a fascicle, depending upon their length. And then there is the smaller material format, containing discrete questions and responses or a series of such questions and responses; the sizes here range from scraps of paper to quires. While some of the details of these codicological forms have to be inferred from the extant exemplars of the parts of Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt,12 there is a fairly extensive body of testimonia from both the participants of the discussions (in this case, Ibn S•nå and Bahmanyår) as well as later scribe-recensors. Additional incidental remarks from al-±¥z≠ån•’s Biography fill out the codicological picture of the compositional techniques of Ibn S•nå and his contemporaries. II.A. Terminology in the Texts Within the Kitåb al-Mubå˙a®åt materials themselves, there is a sizeable number of references to these codicological forms: i.

MII:34. Ibn S•nå refers to al-Masåa) that contained some questions.” ix. MVIc:666. Ibn S•nå says: “I wrote about this distinction in the small quire (≠uz< ßa\•r), so let him reflect [on that] and use previous things for future ones.” 12

For instance, the independently circulating fascicles of materials described in Part Two, Section I provide us with an idea of their original size, as do the scribal remarks and apparatus discussed here below in Section II.B for those original forms incorporated into recensions.

26

CHAP TER ONE

x.

MVIf:852-860. A series of eight short statements, three of which also appear in the Ta>l•qåt, introduced as “found on a piece of paper (ruq>a).”

The basic codicological forms used by Ibn S•nå for compositions such as notebook style entries of philosophical points, responses to philosophical questions, correspondences, tracts and treatises, and books are relatively varied. The smallest form appears to be slips or scraps of paper (≠uzåzåt), with a progression in size through pieces of paper (sg. ruq>a), folios (sg. waraqa), and quires (a≠zå “sent off” is used twice (iv, vi) to describe two different types of material; it underscores the fact that the participants undertook the philosophical discussions for the most part at a physical remove from one another. There are indications in the Mubå˙a®åt materials that at least some of the discussions were oral and then written down, but the vast majority of the discussions proceeded through written correspondence. Such a situation further lends itself to the subsequent disorder and loss of parts of the Mubå˙a®åt materials. Depending upon the manner in which Ibn S•nå chose to respond to Bahmanyår’s correspondence, whether in an epistolary format in which Ibn S•nå reworded the questions or selected only parts of some questions to answer, or in a sequential fashion in which Ibn S•nå wrote each response under a question from Bahmanyår, parts of the discussions were not preserved, as undoubtedly obtained in the first case (i.e., Bahmanyår’s actual questions were not preserved). Al-±¥z≠ån• provides us with some additional codicological information about the material aspects of Ibn S•nå’s compositions. In recounting Ibn S•nå’s procedure in composing a major work like the ⁄ifåawn•).” Ibn S•nå spent the night writing his responses on the five quires and in the morning handed them over to al-±¥z≠ån• to give to al-Kirmån•.14 Al-±¥z≠ån•’s first report provides us with information on one size of folio used by Ibn S•nå. It also suggests that for systematic composition, Ibn S•nå first composed a list of issues on one set of paper and then commented upon that list to produce the composition. In a case like this, Ibn S•nå would necessarily produce duplicate material, if only in the section headings. The second report contains a wealth of information on Ibn S•nå’s method of correspondence. We are given a description of yet another type and size of material format used by Ibn S•nå, the quarto Fir>awn• folio. But we also learn that, while he was presented with one quire containing questions, he used another set of quires for his responses. It is not clear from al-±¥z≠ån•’s report whether Ibn S•nå copied the questions into the quires on which he wrote his responses, or if he returned the original quire of questions with his quires of responses, 15 but in Bahmanyår’s Letter to Ibn S•nå (MVIa1) there is an implicit plea to Ibn S•nå to add his responses under the questions on the same pages. 16 So, separation of questions and responses also may account for some of the disorder in the remains of the Mubå˙a®åt materials. Al-±¥z≠ån•’s report also tells us how correspondences were transported, i.e., by express courier; a similar term, mu˙tamil qåßid, appears in Bahmanyår’s Letter to Ibn S•nå (398).17 13

Gohlman, 58/59; Gutas, Avicenna, p. 107. Gohlman, 76/77-78/79. 15 If these questions are in fact the extant series of questions alternately entitled Al-A≠wiba >an al-masåi¡r•n•ya, >I¡r¥n mas