![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This is the first English translation of Ibn Sīnā's (Avicenna) Commentary on Chapters 6-10 of Aristotle's Metaphysics Λ. It is significant as it is one of only a small number of surviving commentaries by Ibn Sīnā and offers crucial insights into not only his attitudes towards his predecessors, but also his own philosophical positions — especially with regard to the human intellect's connections to God and the cosmos — and his attempt to develop a distinctive mode of commentary.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Ahmed AboHamad and Shiv Kotecha for reading and making valuable suggestions on the translation and introduction respectively, as well as to Hicham Awad and Safa Hamzeh.
Notes
1 The two most influential of these summae are the Healing (aš-Šifā) and Pointers and Reminders (al-Išārāt wa-t-tanbīhāt), but the Salvation (an-Najat) is also important, especially for Ibn Sīnā’s relation to the Aristotelian tradition. Besides his status as a philosopher, Ibn Sīnā was and remains equally renowned for his medical treatises, especially the comprehensive Canon of Medicine (Qanūn fī aṭ-ṭibb), which remained a standard textbook for centuries both in what Ahmed, What is Islam?, called the “Balkans-to-Bengal Complex” (in many parts of which, to this day, Ibn Sīnā’s name and image can be found on innumerable pharmacies, hospitals, doctors clinics) as well as in European universities.
2 That is not to say that he pretends to be a disinterested judge. The basic division animating the Fair Judgement was between ‘Westerners’ and ‘Easterners’, categories that correspond respectively to the Baghdad peripatetics (e.g. Abu Bišr Mattā, named at Chapter 7, §10, p. 14 of the present work) on the one hand and Ibn Sīnā’s own preferred approach both to reading Aristotle and to philosophy generally on the other (referenced at Chapter 10, §26, p. 27). Ibn Sīnā lays out this basic division in the preface to an otherwise-lost work entitled Easterners, as well as in the prologue to the Healing (both passages are translated in Gutas, Avicenna, 34–47). Particularly relevant to the Commentary on Metaphysics Lambda are the very many similar references to “Easterners” and “Eastern philosophy” in the Marginal Glosses on De Anima (Badawi, Aristotle, 75–116), a work very similar in both content and form to the commentary. The notion of an ‘Oriental' philosophy has been bound up in the question of Ibn Sīnā’s alleged sufism (see note 8 below) as early as Ibn Ṭufayl (1105–85 AD/499–580 AH). See also Nallino, “Filosofia ‘orientale’”; Gardet, “Le problème”; Massignon, “Les influences”; Massignon, “Philosophie orientale”; Pines, “‘Philosophie orientale’”; Gutas, “Ibn Ṭufayl”; Gutas, “Avicenna’s Eastern Philosophy”; and Gutas, Avicenna.
3 For a detailed account of the Fair Judgement’s history and contents, see Gutas, Avicenna, 144–155.
4 For example, he unambiguously claims that Aristotle is mistaken at Chapter 9 §22, p. 22 regarding whether the intellect tires. However, as Marc Geoffroy, Jules L. Janssens, and Meryem Sebti point out in the introduction to their 2014 edition (Commentaire, 18–19), on the whole, Ibn Sīnā does tend to remain “loyal” to Aristotle by offering a charitable interpretation of the text while simultaneously faulting him for a lack of clarity (e.g. Chapter 8, §16, p. 18; Chapter 9 §24, p. 23). In contrast, he is much more likely to reject other authors outright (e.g. Themistius at Chapter 9, §22, p. 22 and especially Abū Bišr Mattā at Chapter 7 §10, p. 15).
5 See Bertolacci, Reception, for an extensive study of Ibn Sīnā’s relationship to the Metaphysics.
6 I.e. Aristotle’s prime unmoved mover, which Ibn Sīnā equates unhesitatingly with his own conception of God, using many of the standard names from Islamic philosophical theology – the Real First, the First Cause etc. – as well as the standard Quranic epithets and honorifics although notably never his own coinage for referring to God, viz. as the Necessary Existent (wājib al-wujūd).
7 Given Ibn Sīnā’s focus on the human-divine relation, his commentary on Meta. Λ is an important piece of evidence in the long-running debate about his relation to sufism in particular and to mysticism in general. Nevertheless, little attention has been paid to this text, with the exception of a brief section in Rapoport (“Sufi Vocabulary”, 185). The literature on Ibn Sīnā and sufism is too extensive to list here. However, for recent ‘anti-mystical' arguments, see various texts by Dimitri Gutas (especially “Intellect”, “Empiricism”, and Avicenna) as well as Janssens, “Ibn Sīnā”. For a recent ‘pro-sufi' argument that Ibn Sīnā has more than a merely superficial affinity with mysticism see ʿĀmir, at-Taṣawwuf. See also p. 2n2 supra.
8 In contrast, for example, to the more literal French translation offered by Geoffroy, Janssens, and Sebti in their 2014 edition. My hope is that the two translations might be used productively alongside one another by readers with access to both.
9 See p. 17n26 infra.
10 In their edition, Geoffroy et al. attempt to comprehensively identify all quotations from the Metaphysics, even those that are only one or two words. As these will be of primary interest to more philologically inclined readers with access to the Arabic original, I have opted to include only more substantive quotations.
11 Or, ad sensum, “for causing continuous motion”.
12 Directly contrasting with Aristotle’s Greek text at 1071b29: “matter itself cannot move itself, but the art of carpentry can”. This is likely due to Ibn Sīnā’s use of Usṭaṯ's translation, which reads “simple elemental matter (al-ʿunṣur) does not move itself and nor does the art of carpentry”. (See also GJS, 82n15). For Aristotle, the form existing in the mind of the carpenter acts upon the raw materials, transforming them into a specific object. IS is emphasizing the need to take into account the prior properties of the matter that allow it to receive the form.
13 Lit. “that is subsumed under preservation” – i.e. difference arises to the nature of the various things that are preserved. GJS (46): “qui est subordinée à la preservation”.
14 The outermost sphere in the Ptolemaic system (the primum mobile), beyond that of the fixed stars. The “sphere of the zodiac” is the eighth sphere containing the fixed stars.
15 The Arabic text is syntactically ambiguous between (1) the lover only loving the object of love or (2) the object of love only loving the lover. GJS (50) opt for (2): “Quel bénéfice l'amant dont la puissance est finie tirera-t-il de ce que son Aimé, lui qui subsiste éternellement, l'aime seulement, s’il n'y a entre eux une relation autre que d’amour?” However, I have opted for (1) since there is been no mention of a reciprocal love between the First and the universe in the present text (though Ibn Sīnā does argue for this explicitly in Letter on Love §7) and because the opposition between lover and object of love suggests the directionality in (1).
16 The translation used by IS departs rather significantly from the Greek, which reads: “The first is always best or analogous to the best”. (kai estin ariston aei ē analogon to prōton).
17 A reference to a Qur’anic verse (Q 28:88).
18 The Baghdadi Christian peripatetic philosopher and translator (c. 870–940AD/257–328AH), who did many of the earliest Arabic translations of Aristotle and taught Fārābī, among others.
19 “We make sure not to render … ” reading narfaʿuhu an ʿan najʿaluhu with Badawi (26). GJS (54) interpret the verbs, which are unpointed in the MSS. (ىرفعه عن أن ىجعله ) as third person, yarfaʿuhu an ʿan yajʿaluhu, with Aristotle as the implied subject. “[Aristote] exempte Dieu d'être posé seulement comme cause du movement”.
20 Cf. the definitions of love in the Letter on Love §1 and Pointers and Reminders viii.18.
21 “ … that which in its essence intellectually apprehends each thing in its essence”: reading “ … ’allaḏī min ḏātihi yataʿaqqal kulla šayʾin min ḏātihi”, with ms. Q and Badawi (28). GJS (61) excise the second ‘min ḏātihi’ and translate “ … intellige toute chose à partir de son essence”, which results in what seems like a somewhat unnecessary ambiguity.
22 I.e. that none is prior or posterior to any other.
23 “One ought to know … ”: reading yuʿraf, with Badawi (29). GJS (65) read taʿrif (“il te faut savoir”), though IS does not otherwise address his reader directly in the second person in this text. The MSS. omit the point on the first letter: ىعرف .
24 Literally ‘the man’ (ar-rajul) – likely meant to connote respect (See GJS, 98n6), though may also be intended sarcastically, just as the above translation, ‘gentleman’, can also be read with a sarcastic inflection.
25 A reference to Aristotle’s uncertainty at Λ 8, 1074a1–14 regarding the precise number (either 47 or 55) of spheres and their movers.
26 The usual sense of anniya for Ibn Sīnā refers to a thing insofar as it concretely exists – haecceity as opposed to ipseity, in the traditional scholastic terminology. GJS (64), by contrast, translate anniya here as ‘ipseité’ based on Usṭāt̲’s use of the term to render A’s to ti ēn einai. By eschewing the scholastic terms I hope to capture something of both senses, i.e. the essence qua existent, reinforcing its characterization as ‘subsisting in actuality’ in the next clause.
See Goichon, sv. anniyya and R.M Frank, “Origin”.
27 The Arabic translation of the Metaphysics diverges significantly from the Greek, which presents “intellect” (Ar: ʿaql, Gr: nous) and “intellection” (Ar: ʾan yaʿqil, equivalent to the more common taʿaqqul; Gr: noesis. See also Goichon s.v. taʿaqqul) as alternative candidates for the substance of the first principle, not equivalents. See also GJS, 103n4.
28 See also Ch. 7, §5, p. 11 supra.
29 See n24 supra.
30 Or “the universe” (al-kull).
31 This sentence is found two paragraphs later in the MSS, following the sentence ending “ … one in all instances”. I follow GJS in transposing it to its current location.
32 Viz. God’s intellection.
33 Not a direct quotation from any known Arabic translation. The mention of the army is a very telegraphic reference – from which we can infer that Ibn Sīnā was writing for an audience well-acquainted with the text of the Metaphysics – to Aristotle’s comparison of the relation between the separate good and the good contained within the order of the cosmos to the relation between a general and his army.
34 See p. 2n2 supra.