Some Arabic Translations of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 15 (2005) pp.
241–275
doi:10.1017/S0957423905000196 2005 Cambridge University Press
ON THE ARABIC TRANSLATIONS OF ARISTOTLE’S

METAPHYSICS*
AMOS BERTOLACCI
The starting-point and, at the same time, the foundation of

recent scholarship on the Arabic translations of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics are Maurice Bouyges’ excellent critical edition of
the work in which the extant translations of the Metaphysics
are preserved – i.e. Averroes’ Tafsı̄r (the so-called ‘‘Long
Commentary’’) of the Metaphysics1 – and his comprehensive
account of the Arabic translations and translators of the
Metaphysics in the introductory volume.2 Relying on the texts
made available by Bouyges and the impressive amount of
philological information conveyed in his edition, subsequent
scholars have been able to select and focus on more specific
*I wish to thank Prof. Dimitri Gutas (Yale University), Prof. Gerhard Endress
(Ruhr-Universität, Bochum), Dr. Ahmad Hasnawi (C.N.R.S.) and Dr. Cristina
D’Ancona (University of Pisa) for their insightful comments on a first draft of
this article. My gratitude goes also to Prof. David C. Reisman (University of
Illinois at Chicago) for his helpful observations. I am indebted also to Alexander
Treiger (Yale University) for his careful reading of a preliminary version. I am
solely responsible for the remaining flaws.
1
Averroès, Tafsir ma ba‘d at-Tabi‘at. Texte arabe inédit établi par M. Bouyges
(Beirut, 1938–1948) ( = Tafsı̄r).
2
M. Bouyges, Notice, in Averroès, Tafsir ma ba‘d at-Tabi‘at. Texte arabe
inédit établi par M. Bouyges (Beirut, 1952) ( = Notice). Valuable comprehen-
sive surveys have been later provided by F. E. Peters, Aristoteles Arabus. The
Oriental Translations and Commentaries on the Aristotelian Corpus (Leiden, 1968),
pp. 49–52 (reviewed by H. Daiber, in Gnomon, 42 [1970]: 538–47); C. Genequand,
Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics. A Translation with Introduction of Ibn Rushd’s
Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, Book Lam (Leiden, 1984), pp. 5–11 (‘‘The
Metaphysics in Arabic: Translation and Commentaries’’); A. Martin, ‘‘Aristote de
Stagire. La Métaphysique. Tradition syriaque et arabe’’, in Dictionnaire des philoso-
phes antiques, dir. par R. Goulet, vol. I (Paris, 1989), pp. 528–34, and C. Martini
Bonadeo, ‘‘La Métaphysique. Tradition syriaque et arabe (t. I, 1989, p. 528–531
[sic]). Mise à jour bibliographique’’, in Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, dir.
par R. Goulet, Supplément (Paris, 2003), pp. 259–64; C. D’Ancona Costa, La casa
della sapienza. La trasmissione della metafisica greca e la formazione della filosofia
araba (Milano, 1996), pp. 57–65; ead., ‘‘Le traduzioni di opere greche e la
formazione del corpus filosofico arabo’’, in C. D’Ancona Costa (ed.), Storia della
Filosofia nell’Islam Medievale (Torino, 2004), vol. I, pp. 180–258.
242 AMOS BERTOLACCI
topics, providing, for example, a closer inspection of the Arabic
translations of the single books of the Metaphysics (books A, ,
and in particular),3 or a detailed comparison of some of these
translations with the original text of the Metaphysics.4 A new
3
See P. Thillet, ‘‘Remarques et notes critiques sur les traductions arabes du
livre Lambda de la Métaphysique d’Aristote’’, in Association Guillaume Budé.
Congrès de Lyon, 18–23 Sept. 1958. Actes du Congrès (Paris, 1960), pp. 114–25; R.
Walzer, ‘‘On the Arabic versions of Books A, and of Aristotle’s Metaphysics’’,
in id., Greek into Arabic: Essays on Islamic Philosophy (Oxford, 1962), pp. 114–28;
R. Walzer, ‘‘New light on the Arabic translations of Aristotle’’, Oriens, 6 (1953),
p. 92, in id., Greek into Arabic: Essays on Islamic Philosophy, p. 61; A. Badawi, La
transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe (Paris, 1968), pp. 82–3; A.
Neuwirth, ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f al-Baġdādı̄’s Bearbeitung von Buch Lambda der
aristotelischen Metaphysik (Wiesbaden, 1976), pp. 166–77; ead., ‘‘Neue Materialien
zur arabischen Tradition der beiden ersten Metaphysik-Bücher’’, Welt des Islam,
18 (1977–78): 84–100; A. Bertolacci, ‘‘Metafisica A, 5, 986 a 22–26 nell’Ilāhiyyāt del
Kitāb al-S{ ifā’ di Ibn Sı̄nā’’, Documenti e Studi sulla Tradizione Filosofica
Medievale, 10 (1999): 205–31; C. Martini, ‘‘The Arabic version of the Book Alpha
Meizon of Aristotle’s Metaphysics and the testimony of the Ms. Bibl. Apostolica
Vaticana, Ott. Lat. 2048’’, in J. Hamesse (ed.), Les traducteurs au travail. Leurs
manuscrits et leurs méthodes. Actes du Colloque international organisé par le
‘‘Ettore Majorana Centre for Scientific Culture’’ (Erice, 30 septembre–6 octobre
1999) (Turnhout, 2001), pp. 173–206; ead., ‘‘La tradizione araba della Metafisica di
Aristotele. Libri e A’’, in C. D’Ancona and G. Serra (eds.), Aristotele e
Alessandro di Afrodisia nella tradizione araba. Atti del colloquio La ricezione
araba ed ebraica della filosofia e della scienza greche, Padova, 14–15 maggio 1999
(Padova, 2002), pp. 75–112; P. Thillet, ‘‘Remarques sur le livre Lambda de la
‘Métaphysique’ ’’, Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales, 70 (2003): 361–
400; M. Geo#roy, ‘‘Remarques sur la traduction Ust*ātI du livre Lambda de la
Métaphysique, chapitre 6’’, Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales, 70
(2003): 417–36; R. Wisnovsky, Avicenna’s Metaphysics in Context (Ithaca [New
York], 2003), pp. 99–112 (‘‘Greek into Arabic: The Greco-Arabic Translations and
the Early Arabic Philosophers’’), pp. 269–75 (‘‘Appendix I: Tables of Greco-Arabic
Translation’’).
4
The first attempt to compare two di#erent Arabic translations of the same
text with the original has been made by N. Mattock, ‘‘The early translations from
Greek into Arabic: an experiment in comparative assessment’’, in G. Endress and
M. Schmeink (eds.), Akten des Zweiten Symposium Graeco-Arabicum, Ruhr-
Universität Bochum, 3.–5. März 1987 (Amsterdam, 1989), pp. 73–102 (Mattock
compares Ust*ātI’s and Ish* āq’s translations of the second part of chapter , 1 [993 b
7–31]; the relation he establishes between the two translations is questioned by
Martini, ‘‘La tradizione araba’’, pp. 98–110). L. Bauloye, ‘‘La traduction arabe de
la Métaphysique et l’établissement du texte grec’’, in A. Motte and J. Denooz
(eds.), Aristotelica Secunda. Mélanges offerts à Christian Rutten (Liège, 1996),
pp. 281–9, underscores the importance of the earliest Arabic translation of the
Metaphysics (by Ust*ātI ) for choosing among the variants of the Greek manuscripts
(the examples that Bauloye provides are limited to books B and Z). Ust*ātI’s
translation has been studied by G. Endress in the context of the translations from
Greek accomplished by the group of scholars to which he belonged (‘‘The circle
of al-Kindı̄. Early Arabic translations from the Greek and the rise of Islamic
philosophy’’, in G. Endress and R. Kruk [eds.], The Ancient Tradition in Christian
and Islamic Hellenism [Leiden, 1997], pp. 43–76).
ARABIC TRANSLATIONS OF METAPHYSICS 243
trend of research in recent times has been the study of these
versions as part of the wider context of the Graeco-Arabic
translation movement.5
The last volume of Bouyges’ edition of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r
appeared more than fifty years ago, in 1948 (the introductory
volume was published posthumously in 1952). The progress of
research since then makes now possible a closer scrutiny and a
more comprehensive evaluation of the Arabic translations of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics. This is the aim of the present article.
Our sources of information on the Arabic translations of the
Metaphysics can be divided into three main categories. First,
there are the testimonia on the translations and translators of
the Metaphysics that can be gathered from the Arabic bio-
bibliographical literature, especially from Ibn al-Nadı̄m’s Kitāb
al-Fihrist (Book of the Index). Second, there are the extant
translations themselves, which are either quoted by Averroes
in his Tafsı̄r of the Metaphysics, or reported in the margins of
the manuscript of this work. Third, there is the so-called
‘‘indirect tradition’’ of the Metaphysics in Arabic – namely
the writings by philosophers dealing, in di#erent ways, with
Aristotle’s work – informing us either of the existence of
translations not otherwise attested, or of the extent of the
translations known from other sources.
In the first three sections of the present article, each of these
sources will be taken into account. In section §1, a new
interpretation of the available testimonia will be provided, and
the original extent of the two major Arabic translations of the
Metaphysics will be determined more precisely. Section §2
presents a comprehensive survey of the extant translations. In
the third section (§3), the indirect tradition regarding book A
will be considered, and the existence of an Arabic translation
of A di#erent from the extant one will be argued for. In the last
section (§4), finally, the data gathered in the previous three
5
On the overall translation movement from Greek into Arabic, see G. Endress,
‘‘Die wissenschaftliche Literatur’’, in Grundriss der Arabischen Philologie, vol. II
(Literaturwissenschaft), cur. H. Gätje (Wiesbaden, 1987), pp. 400–506; vol. III
(Supplement), cur. W. Fischer (1992), pp. 3–152; D. Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic
Culture. The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early
‘Abbāsid Society (2nd–4th / 8th–10th centuries) (London and New York, 1998); id.,
‘‘Translations from Greek and Syriac’’, in EI2, vol. X, fasc. 167–168, pp. 225b–231a.
See also L. E. Goodman, ‘‘The translation of Greek materials into Arabic’’, in
M. J. L. Young et al. (eds.), Religion, Learning and Science in the ‘Abbasid Period
(Cambridge, 1990), pp. 477–97.
244 AMOS BERTOLACCI
sections will be reconsidered; their scrutiny will allow a
division of the Arabic translations of the Metaphysics into
three phases, and an indication of the main features of each of
these phases.
§1 THE TESTIMONIA
Ibn al-Nadı̄m completed the Fihrist in 377 / 988. The earliest
translation mentioned in the entry on Aristotle’s Metaphysics
(by Ust*ātI, in the first half of the 9th century) antedates Ibn
al-Nadı̄m’s lifetime by about a century. Due to its chronological
proximity, I take the Fihrist as a faithful witness of the initial
phase of the translation activity regarding the Metaphysics.
The Fihrist had an immense impact on subsequent literature,
and many derivatives of its entry on the Metaphysics can be
found in later authors.6
Text 1: Description of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the Fihrist
Account of the ‘‘Book of Letters’’, known as ‘‘Divine [Matters]’’

[ = Aristotle’s Metaphysics].
[a] This book is arranged according to the Greek letters. Its beginning
is ‘‘A Minor’’, which was translated by Ish * āq [ibn H
* unayn]. What can be
found of it [i.e. of the Metaphysics in Arabic translation by anybody]
[goes up] to letter ‘‘M’’. This letter [i.e. ‘‘M’’] was translated by Abū
Zakariyā’ Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄. Letter ‘‘N’’ does exist, but in Greek with
Alexander [of Aphrodisias]’s commentary. These letters [i.e. ‘‘A Minor’’-
‘‘M’’] were translated by Ust*ātI for al-Kindı̄, and he [i.e. al-Kindı̄] wrote
a notice on it.
[b] Abū Bišr Mattā translated treatise ‘‘L’’ – namely the eleventh
letter – with Alexander’s commentary into Arabic. H * unayn ibn Ish * āq
translated this treatise into Syriac. Themistius commented on treatise L.
Abū Bišr Mattā translated it with Themistius’ commentary. S { amlı̄ [also]
translated it.
[c] Ish
* āq ibn H * unayn translated a number of the treatises [of this
work]. Syrianus commented on treatise ‘‘B’’. It [i.e. treatise ‘‘B’’
together with Syrianus’ commentary] was translated into Arabic. I saw
it written in Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄’s own hand in the list of his books.7
6
The Fihrist’s account is reproduced, almost verbatim, in Ibn al-Qift*ı̄
(1172–1248), Ta’rı̄h al-h
* ukamā’, ed. J. Lippert (Leipzig, 1903), pp. 41–2, and H
* āǧǧı̄
Halı̄fa (1609–57),˘ Kašf al-z*unūn, ed. and transl. G. Flügel, 7 vols. (Leipzig,
˘
1835–1858), #10448.
7
Al-Nadı̄m, Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. G. Flügel, J. Rodiger, A. Müller, 2 vols.
(Leipzig, 1871–1872), vol. I, pp. 251, 25–252, 1 (the same text is reported in
Bouyges, Notice, p. cxvii); English translations in Peters, Aristoteles Arabus,
p. 49, and al-Nadı̄m, The Fihrist. A Tenth-century Survey of Muslim Culture, ed.
and transl. by B. Dodge (New York and London, 1970), vol. II, pp. 606–7.
Section [a] provides a general description of the arrangement
of the Metaphysics in Greek; the extent of its Arabic transla-
tions, and the authors of the Arabic version of the first and last
book that have been translated; the most complete Arabic
translation of this work. Section [b] deals in particular with
the translations of book and related Greek commentaries.
Section [c], finally, o#ers additional information on other
translators / translations.
Text 1 informs us of the following translations (in chrono-
logical order):
Ust*ātI (9th c.) for al-Kindı̄ (d. shortly after 256 / 870):8 books -M
S
{ amlı̄ (9th c.): book
H
* unayn ibn Ish * āq (808–873): Syriac translation of
Ish
* āq ibn H * unayn (d. 910): book and some other books
Abū Bišr Mattā (d. 328 / 940): book (twice, once with the commentary
by Alexander of Aphrodisias, a second time with the commentary by
Themistius)9
Abū Zakariyā’ Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄ (d. 363 / 974): book M10
In Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄ (d. 363 / 974): book B (with the commentary by
Syrianus)11
8
See Endress ‘‘The circle of al-Kindı̄’’, pp. 52–3.
9
Taken literally, Text 1 would imply that Abū Bišr Mattā accomplished two
distinct translations of book . As M. Geo#roy notices (‘‘Remarques’’), however,
it is not clear how these two translations relate to one another (i.e. whether they
are identical or di#erent), and how the latter relates to the commentary by
Themistius. For, whereas the commentary by Alexander of Aphrodisias is a literal
commentary – and Mattā’s translation of accompanying it is, in all likelihood,
the Arabic version of the lemmata of contained in Alexander’s commentary –
the commentary by Themistius is a paraphrase and does not include in any way
the text of . Mattā might have attached a translation of to his version of
Themistius’ paraphrase. This translation might be the Arabic version of the
Syriac translation of by H * unayn ibn Ish * āq, which is mentioned in Text 1 [b]
immediately before Themistius’ commentary and its Arabic translation by Mattā.
This would be in accordance with the fact that Mattā translated from Syriac, but
remains, in lack of further evidence, a matter of speculation.
10
See G. Endress, The Works of Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄. An Analytical Inventory
(Wiesbaden, 1977), pp. 27–8.
11
The list of the books of Yah* yā ibn ‘Adı̄, to which the translation of book B
with the commentary by Syrianus belongs, is the catalogue of his library, not the
inventory of his own works (see Endress, The Works of Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄, pp. 6–7).
It cannot be excluded that the pronoun ‘‘it’’ (-hā) in ‘‘I saw it’’ (ra’aytuhā) refers
to ‘‘a number of the treatises’’ (‘iddat maqālāt) at the beginning of [c], rather
than to ‘‘treatise B’’ (maqālat al-bā’) in what follows (I thank Cristina D’Ancona
for having brought this possibility to my attention); it is more likely, however,
that the reference regards the element syntactically closer to ‘‘I saw it’’, i.e. to
‘‘treatise B’’. It is also possible that ‘‘it was translated’’ (h uriǧat) refers only
to ‘‘treatise B’’, not to Syrianus’ commentary on this treatise ˘ (I am indebted to
Cristina D’Ancona also on this point); but, in this case, Ibn al-Nadı̄m’s mention of
246 AMOS BERTOLACCI
About Ust*ātI’s translation Text 1 asserts basically two things:
(i) that it started with book , and (ii) that it ended with book
M. For the expression ‘‘these letters’’, in the sentence ‘‘these
letters were translated by Ust*ātI’’ in section [a], refers to books
-M. Let us see the implications of (i) and (ii) more in detail.
(i) The fact that Ust*ātI’s translation started with book – the
second book of the Metaphysics according to the Greek
numeration – implies that in this translation the first book of
the Greek Metaphysics, namely A, was either postponed to , or
missing. The latter alternative can be argued for in three ways.
First, A is omitted by al-Fārābı̄, a few decades after Ust*ātI’s
lifetime, in his description of the Metaphysics in the Fı̄ Aġrād *
(see below, §3). A and N are the only books of the Metaphysics
that he does not take into account in this work, whereas he
does mention all the other books, even the less relevant ones,
like K.12 Judging from the Fı̄ Aġrād * , therefore, al-Fārābı̄ was
not acquainted with any Arabic translation of A. Since he
probably had at his disposal Ust*ātI’s translation, this latter
lacked in all likelihood book A. Second, the only book of the
Metaphysics for which Averroes in the Tafsı̄r does not use
Ust*ātI’s translation in any way (neither as main translation,
nor as secondary translation) is A (see below, §2). Third, book
A is also probably missing in the copy of Ust*ātI’s translation
owned by the copyist of the manuscript of the Tafsı̄r: for this
copyist reproduces Ust*ātI’s translation in the margin of the
manuscript whenever Averroes does not use this translation as
his main translation, but he omits doing that in the case of
book A (see below, §2).
Therefore – if we exclude the unlikely possibility that
al-Fārābı̄, Averroes and the copyist of the Tafsı̄r all had access
to an incomplete copy of Ust*ātI’s translation – book A was
probably missing in this translation.13 Many explanations for
the absence of A in Ust*ātI’s translation have been advanced.14
an Arabic translation of Metaphysics B would be pointless, since he has already

stated in [a] that books A–M (B included) are available in Arabic.
12
See below, n. 55.
13
In Text 1[b], the reference to book as the ‘‘eleventh letter’’ regards the
Greek alphabet (in which is actually the eleventh letter) rather than the order
of books within the Metaphysics (I wish to thank Dimitri Gutas for having
brought this point to my attention). Ibn al-Nadı̄m, however, does not warn the
reader that the eleventh letter of the Greek alphabet does not correspond to the
eleventh book of the Metaphysics, but to the twelfth. This could suggest – e
silentio – that one of the eleven books of the Metaphysics preceding was not
(ii) Furthermore, Ust*ātI’s translation did not encompass the
last book of the Metaphysics. It is evident from section [a] itself
that, at the time of Ibn al-Nadı̄m, the Arabic Metaphysics ended
with book M (‘‘What can be found of it [goes up] to letter M’’),
and did not include book N, which is mentioned as extant in
Greek – i.e. only in Greek. Moreover, book N is absent in
al-Fārābı̄’s account of the Metaphysics in the Fı̄ Aġrād (see
below, §3) and, together with book M, in Averroes’s Tafsı̄r (see
below, §2). Thus, in all likelihood Ust*ātI’s translation lacked
also book N.
On the basis of this evidence, it is safe to assume that Ust*ātI’s
translation was not an integral translation: it originally
encompassed only books -M (with the exclusion of A and N).15
Together with the absence of books A and N, the presence of
book M in Ust*ātI’s translation has to be underscored.16
The incomplete character of the other major translation
mentioned in Text 1 (Ish * āq’s translation) is evident from
section [c]. Text 1, however, does not provide any information
on the exact identity of the books that this translation actually
encompassed. Their number can be assessed on the basis of the
extant translations and the indirect tradition. Among the
extant translations, Ish * āq’s version of book is preserved
almost in full, and fragments of what is likely his version of
books , , I and (possibly) are extant as well (see below, §2).
The indirect tradition allows us to extend further the range
of books probably belonging to Ish * āq’s translation. For
translated into Arabic at the time of Ibn al-Nadı̄m – a situation compatible with
the supposed absence of A from Ust*ātI’s translation.
14
See the survey by Martini, ‘‘La tradizione araba’’, pp. 80–97; ‘‘The Arabic
version’’, pp. 181–3.
15
Despite Bouyges’ remarks (Notice, pp. cxxviii–cxxix, cxlix), in recent
scholarship the Fihrist is often taken as attesting that this translation was,
originally, complete (see Peters, Aristoteles Arabus, p. 50; Martin, ‘‘Aristote de
Stagire. La Métaphysique’’, p. 531). It cannot be excluded, of course, that Ust*ātI’s
translation was originally complete, and that, for some accident of the manu-
script tradition, two of its books (A, N) remained unknown to Ibn al-Nadı̄m,
al-Fārābı̄ and subsequent Arab philosophers. This scenario, however, appears
unlikely.
16
The presence of book M in Ust*ātI’s translation of the Metaphysics excludes,
for example, the possibility of invoking the ‘‘Platonism’’ of al-Kindı̄’s circle (to
which Ust*ātI belonged) in order to explain the fact that this translation did not
include book A (this line of interpretation is suggested by Martini, ‘‘The Arabic
version’’, pp. 182–3; ‘‘La tradizione araba’’, p. 112). Since book M (present in
Ust*ātI’s translation) is not less anti-Platonic than book A, the anti-Platonic
character of A appears to be unrelated to its absence from Ust*ātI’s translation.
248 AMOS BERTOLACCI
Avicenna’s paraphrases of some passages of books B and in
the Ilāhiyyāt ([Science of] Divine Things) of the Kitāb al-S
{ ifā’
(Book of the Cure) are based on a translation di#erent from
Ust*ātI’s;17 this translation is probably Ish * āq’s. Therefore,
Ish
* āq’s translation encompassed (at least) seven books: , B-,
-I, .
For some other translations undertaken in the second half of
the 10th century, Text 1 is complemented by an annotation in
the manuscript of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r.
Text 2: Annotation in the manuscript of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r of the
Metaphysics
[a] The twelfth [treatise of the Metaphysics = M] was translated by Ibn

Zur‘a. The thirteenth [ = N] by Naz*ı̄f ibn Yumn.
[b] As for the group of [treatises] commented upon by the Judge [i.e.
Averroes], they are [in] the translation by Ust*ātI, except for the treatise
designated as ‘‘A Major’’. The last treatise that happens to be [trans-
lated] by Ust*ātI [in Averroes’ Tafsı̄r] is ‘‘L’’. [The translation of] treatise
‘‘A Major’’ is due to Naz*ı̄f ibn Yumn.18
The twelfth and thirteenth books of the Metaphysics mentioned
in section [a] are, respectively, M and N (not and M), due to
17
As for book B, see Ibn Sı̄nā, al-S { ifā’, al-Ilāhiyyāt (2), ed. M. Y. Mūsā,
S. Dunyā, S. Zāyid (Cairo, 1960), maqāla 6, fas*l 5 (henceforth: VI, 5), p. 299, 2–3:
‘‘[. . .] for this reason someone belittled these things (istah affa bihā)’’; Metaph. B,
2, 996a32–33: ‘‘And so for this reason some of the Sophists, ˘ e.g. Aristippus,
ridiculed mathematics (
´ ’´ )’’; Ust*ātI’s translation, p. 184, 6–7:
‘‘For this reason some of the Sophists rejected this cause (yarfid * ūna hād
I ihi
al-‘illa), as Arist*ı̄fūs did’’. Avicenna, VI, 5, p. 300, 7: ‘‘Were these [i.e. the
investigations of the four causes] independent sciences (wa-law kānat hād I ihi
‘ulūman mufradatan), [. . .]’’; Metaph. B, 2, 996b1–3: ‘‘But if there are several
sciences of the causes ( ’´ ´ ’
˜ ˜ ’ ´ ’ ` ), and a di#erent
science for each di#erent principle, [. . .]’’; Ust*ātI’s translation, p. 184, 9–10: ‘‘It is
known that the sciences of the causes are many (fa-ma‘lūmun anna ‘ulūma
al-‘ilali katIı̄ratun) and each primary cause has the principle of a di#erent
science’’. As for book , see Avicenna, III, 10, p. 152, 12–14: ‘‘To [the relative
having di#erent terms] belong: . . . the one [whose di#erence] is not ascertained in
any way, like the exceeding and the deficient (mitIla al-zā’id wa-al-nāqis* ) . . .’’; ,
15, 1021a3–4: ‘‘the relation of that which exceeds to that which is exceeded (`
’ ¢ ´ ` ` ¢ ´ ) is numerically quite indefinite’’; Ust*ātI’s
translation, p. 609, 8–9: ‘‘As for the superior with regard to what it is superior to
(ammā al-a‘lā ilā allad I ı̄ ya‘lūhu), it, in a universal way, is not definite according
to number’’. On the translations of the Metaphysics used by Avicenna in the
Ilāhiyyāt, see A. Bertolacci, The Reception of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in Avicenna’s
Kitāb al-S { ifā’: Textual and Doctrinal Analysis, Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale
University, May 2005, Chapter 8.
18
Text in Bouyges, Notice, pp. lvi ( = Annotation 2); cp. p. cxviii.
the lack of K among the books commented upon by Averroes.19
Thus, section [a] deals with the Arabic translation of the last
two books of the Metaphysics (M and N), not commented upon
by Averroes. Section [b], on the other hand, takes into account
the Arabic translations of the books commented upon by
Averroes.
Text 2, despite some slight imprecision,20 is an important
document in as much as it informs us of two more translators
and their translations:
‘Izsā ibn Zur‘a (943–1008): book M
Naz*ı̄f ibn Yumn (or: Ayman) al-Rūmı̄ (second half of 10th century):21
books A and N
It is noteworthy that, according to Text 2, Naz*ı̄f translated the
two books of the Metaphysics probably missing in Ust*ātI’s
translation, according to the reconstruction proposed here. In
this regard, Naz*ı̄f’s translation appears as the completion of
Ust*ātI’s.
To summarize: a careful inspection of the most important
document at our disposal on the Arabic translations of the
Metaphysics – the relevant passage of the Fihrist (Text 1) –
shows that the first and most extensive of these translations
(Ust*ātI’s) originally encompassed books -M, omitting books A
and N. As for the second major translation (Ish * āq’s), the
evidence o#ered by the indirect tradition (Avicenna’s probable
recourse to this version) complements the information pro-
vided by the Fihrist, and indicates that this translation com-
prised (at least) seven books (, B-, -I, ). A second
testimonium (Text 2) informs us of some late 10th century
translations not mentioned in the Fihrist.
19
Book , M and N are numbered, respectively, as eleventh, twelfth and
thirteenth, due to the absence of K, also in another annotation of the manuscript
of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r (see Bouyges, Notice, p. lv, Annotation 1). As to books M and
N, the same happens in Averroes’ proemium to Z (Tafsı̄r, p. 745, 4–6).
20
The information that section [b] provides on Ust*ātI’s translation is not com-
pletely correct. For, as will be seen in the next section, Averroes uses a translation
di#erent from Ust*ātI’s in his commentary not only of book A, but also of most of
book and of the first part of book . Ust*ātI’s translation of and , however, is
reported in the margins of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r, whenever Averroes does not comment
on it. Text 2 is not totally unreliable, therefore, in connecting all of Averroes’
Tafsı̄r (except book A) with Ust*ātI’s translation.
21
Bouyges, Notice, pp. cxxii, lvi; Endress, ‘‘Die wissenschaftliche Literatur’’,
in Grundriss der Arabischen Philologie, vol. II, p. 443, n. 103; J. L. Kraemer,
Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1992), pp. 132–4; Gutas,
Greek Thought, p. 151, n. 1.
250 AMOS BERTOLACCI
§2 THE EXTANT TRANSLATIONS
Some of the Arabic translations of the Metaphysics mentioned
in Texts 1–2 are extant. Most of the extant translations are
preserved in Averroes’ Tafsı̄r of the Metaphysics.
Averroes’ Tafsı̄r is a fundamental witness to the di#erent
versions of the Arabic Metaphysics in three distinct ways.
(i) The translations upon which Averroes mainly relies for
commenting on each book of the Metaphysics are quoted in
portions of variable length (Textus) at the beginning of the
single units of the Tafsı̄r. Each of the Textus, in its turn, is
further divided into sentences (Lemmata), which are quoted a
second time and commented upon by Averroes one after the
other. (ii) In the explanations of the Lemmata (Commenta),
Averroes occasionally quotes alternative translations of the
passages he is commenting upon. (iii) Other translations have
been reported by later copyists in the margins of the manu-
script (Leiden, Universiteitsbibliotheek, Or. 2074) preserving
the Tafsı̄r.
An overview of the versions of the Metaphysics available
in the Tafsı̄r as (i) main translations in Textus / Lemmata,
(ii) additional translations in the Commenta, (iii) marginal
translations, is provided in Table 1.
Averroes’ commentary on books K, M and N – of whose
existence, however, he was aware – and on the first part of book
A (from the beginning until A, 5, 987 a 6) is not extant.22 The
22
In the introduction to his commentary on , Averroes provides an accurate
description of book K, which he designates by means of the Arabic letter Yā’
(Tafsı̄r, p. 1404, 1–8). Immediately afterwards (p. 1404, 9–11), before the
description of book (Lām), he states: ‘‘This is what we find concerning the
order of the books which have come down to us and which come before Lām, but
we do not find book Kāf in the order of letters, nor has it come down to us’’
(Engl. transl. in Genequand, Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics, p. 64). This statement,
isolated from the context, has been taken as indicating that Averroes did not
know book K at all (see Notice, p. cli). On the contrary, it only attests that he did
not know this book as book Kāf, but as book Yā’ (on the di#erent designations of
the books of the Metaphysics in Arabic, see Notice, pp. xix–xx, cliii–clv). Likewise,
Averroes appears to be familiar also with books M (Mı̄m) and N (Nūn), of which
he provides a brief description in the same introduction (p. 1405, 1–3; cp. p. 1398,
5–7). D. Gutas has shown that the description of the books of the Metaphysics in
Averroes’ introduction to is distinct from Averroes’ account of the proem of
Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary on the same book (D. Gutas, Review of
Genequand, Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics, Der Islam, 64 [1987]: 122–6, p. 124). Hence
Averroes might have been directly acquainted with these three books (books K
and M by means of Ust*ātI’s translation, book N by means of Naz*ı̄f’s translation;
see above, §1). That Averroes did not originally include in the Tafsı̄r a
Table 1: The Arabic translations of the Metaphysics in Averroes’
Tafsı̄r
Books Translations in the Translations Translations

Textus and Lemmata occasionally copied in the
referred to in margins of the
the Commenta manuscript
Ish
* āq Ust*ātI Ust*ātI
(until 995 a 17) (until 995 a 17)
Ust*ātI (995 a 17–20)
A from 987 a 6: Naz*ı̄f
B Ust*ātI
Ust*ātI Ish
* āq (?)
Ust*ātI
E Ust*ātI
Z Ust*ātI
H Ust*ātI
Ust*ātI Ish
* āq (?)
I Ust*ātI Ish
* āq (?)
K –
Mattā Ust*atI; Yah* yā; Ust*ātI
(until 1072 b 16) S
{ amlı̄ or Ish* āq (until 1072 b 16)
Ust*ātI Yah* yā (1070 a 5–7)
(1072 b 16–1073 a 13)
Mattā
(from 1073 a 14)
M –
N –
Arabic translations of these parts of the Metaphysics are

known only by means of the indirect tradition.
Averroes comments on book before commenting on book A.
Since, as we have seen, book A was lacking in the first (Ust*ātI’s)
translation of the Metaphysics, was regarded by the Arabs,
from the very beginning, as the opening book of this work. The
belief that was the first book of the Metaphysics persisted
even when book A was later translated.
As for book , the translation in the Textus and Lemmata is
Ish
* āq’s, as indicated by a marginal annotation.23 The final lines
commentary on K, M and N appears less certain than it is portrayed by Bouyges

(see Notice, pp. xviii, cli).
23
Tafsı̄r, vol. I, p. 50, 5–6.
252 AMOS BERTOLACCI
(995 a 17–20), however, according to the same marginal anno-
tation, are taken from ‘‘another translation’’ (tarǧama uhrā).24
Since these lines are missing in the translation copied ˘in the
margins of the manuscript of the Tafsı̄r,25 which is there
attributed to Ust*ātI,26 the translation of 995 a 17–20 quoted and
commented upon by Averroes is, in all likelihood, Ust*ātI’s. In
the Commentum, Averroes refers to ‘‘another translation’’
( = Ust*ātI’s translation copied in the margin) of 994 b 25–27.27
Ish
* āq’s translation of is also extant independently of
Averroes’ Tafsı̄r. It is the version quoted and commented upon
by Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄ in his commentary on Metaphysics .28 It is
also probably the version used by Avicenna in his paraphrase
of this book within the Ilāhiyyāt.29 Furthermore, an abridged
version of Ish * āq’s translation of , 1–2 (993a30–994b31) is
preserved in the MS Cairo, Dār al-Kutub, h * ikma 6, in which
texts originally belonging to Avicenna’s library have been
copied.30
24
Tafsı̄r, vol. I, p. 50, 8–10.
25
Tafsı̄r, vol. I, p. 50, 1 (bottom of page).
26
Tafsı̄r, vol. I, p. 3, 1 (bottom of page), p. 49, 1, n. 1 (bottom of page).
27
Tafsı̄r, vol. I, p. 40, 10–12.
28
Tafsı̄r li-al-maqāla al-ūlā min Kitāb Mā ba‘d al-t*abı̄‘a li-Arist*āt*ālı̄s
al-mawsūma bi-al-alif al-s*uġrā, in Rasā’il falsafiyya li-al-Kindı̄ wa-al-Fārābı̄
wa-Ibn Bāǧǧa wa-Ibn ‘Adı̄, ed. ‘A. Badawı̄ (Bengasi, 1973; repr. Beirut, 1980),
pp. 168–203; also in Maqālāt Yah * yā Ibn ‘Adı̄ al-falsafiyya, ed. S. Hulayfāt
(Amman, 1988), pp. 220–62, and Arist*āt*ālı̄s-i h * akı̄m, Nah ustı̄n maqāla-i Mā ˘ ba‘d
al-t*abı̄‘a mawsūm bi-maqālat al-Alif al-s*uġrā tarǧama-i˘ Ish * āq ibn H * unayn bā
Yah * yā b. ‘Adı̄ wa Tafsı̄r-i Ibn-i Rušd, bā tas*h * ı̄h
* wa muqaddima wa tarǧama-i fārsı̄
bi-qalam-i Muh * ammad-i Miškāt (Tehran, 1346 H.). Cp. J. Kraemer, Philosophy in
the Renaissance of Islam. Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistānı̄ and his Circle (Leiden 1986),
p. 210 and n. 169; C. Martini, ‘‘Un commento ad Alpha Elatton ‘sicut litterae
sonant’ nella Baġdād del X secolo’’, Medioevo, 28 (2003): 69–96; ead., ‘‘Yah * yā Ibn
‘Adı̄, Commentary on the Metaphysics (Book ): method and style of composi-
tion’’, in A. Hasnawi (ed.), Sciences et philosophie arabes: méthodes, problèmes, cas
(Carthage, forthcoming). Martini (‘‘La tradizione araba’’, pp. 98–9 and n. 64; ‘‘Un
commento ad Alpha Elatton’’, p. 71, n. 9) shows that Ish * āq’s translation of is
preserved more fully in Yah * yā’s commentary than in Averroes’ Tafsı̄r. She also
points out (‘‘Un commento ad Alpha Elatton’’, p. 91) that Yah * yā had at his
disposal Arabic translation(s) of other than Ish * āq’s (see also ed. Badawı̄, p. 202,
9–11; ed. Hulayfāt, p. 262, 7–9).
29
˘
See Avicenna, VIII, 1, pp. 327, 12–328, 4; Metaph. , 2, 994a11–16; Ust*ātI’s
translation, pp. 18, 1–19, 2 (bottom of page); Ish * āq’s translation, pp. 18, 11–19, 2.
30
See D. Gutas, ‘‘Notes and texts from Cairo manuscripts, II: Texts from
Avicenna’s library in a copy by ‘Abd-ar-Razzāq as*-S * iġnāhı̄’’, Manuscripts of the
Middle East, 2 (1987): 8–17, p. 13b–14a, #11. Gutas maintains ˘ that this abridge-
ment ‘‘contains a number of readings better than those in the Leiden Averroes
manuscript used by Bouyges, and it should be consulted in a future edition’’.
As for book A, the translation in the Textus and the Lemmata
is ascribed to Naz*ı̄f in Text 2 [b], as we have seen. Averroes
comments only on the second part of this book (from A, 5, 987
a 6 until the end), and in the Commenta does not refer to any
other translation.
Ust*ātI’s translation is the translation used in the Textus and
Lemmata of books B-I.31 In the Commenta on books , and I,
Averroes often quotes ‘‘another translation’’ beside Ust*ātI’s.32
This translation is probably Ish * āq’s. For Ish
* āq’s is the only
translation of the Metaphysics that, according to the infor-
mation at our disposal, possibly included these books.33
is the book for which Averroes uses the highest number of
translations. Two di#erent translations are used in the Textus
and Lemmata. The former is the version of that accompanies
Mattā’s translation of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary
on this book. It is used by Averroes, with some exceptions,34 for
Textus 1–39 (from the beginning until , 7, 1072 b 16), and
Textus 42–58 (from , 8, 1073 a 14 until the end).35 The latter
31
Pp. 413, 9–437, 8 of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r – regarding the end of chapter , 5 (1009
b 25–1011 a 2) – are missing in Arabic. The Arabic translation of these lines
in Averroes’ Textus is Bouyges’s retroversion into Arabic of the later Hebrew
and Latin versions of the Tafsı̄r (the original Arabic translation of lines 1010
b 23–1011 a 2, however, can be gathered from Averroes’ lemmata after p. 437, 8).
The translation of that Averroes uses in the Textus and Lemmata presents
some omissions (see Tafsı̄r, vol. I, pp. [21]–[23]): 1003 b 25–26; 1004 a 21–22; 1010 b
11 (in the retroversion), 1011 a 30, 1011 b 13, 1012 a 13–15, 1012 a 32, 1012 b 14–15,
1012 b 31.
32
As for book , Averroes quotes an additional translation of , 6, 1011
b 18–19; , 6, 1011 b 20–22; , 7, 1012 a 8; , 7, 1012 a 12–13; , 8, 1012 a 33 (see
Tafsı̄r, vol. I, pp. [20]–[23]). An additional translation of , 8, 1012 b 16–30, is
quoted in the Textus, before Ust*ātI’s translation, but only this latter is then
divided into Lemmata and commented upon. As for book , Averroes quotes an
additional translation of , 1, 1046 a 31–35; , 2, 1046 b 16–17; , 2, 1046 b 17–19;
, 2, 1046 b 20; , 2, 1046 b 21–22; , 2, 1046 b 22–24; , 2, 1046 b 24; , 3, 1047 a
20–22; , 7, 1049 a 1–2; , 8, 1050 a 6; , 8, 1050 a 6–7; , 8, 1050 a 9; , 8, 1050 a
13; , 8, 1050 a 13–14; , 8, 1050 b 4–5; , 8, 1050 b 6–8; , 8, 1050 b 33–34; , 8,
1050 b 34–1051 a 2; , 10, 1051 b 2–4 (see Tafsı̄r, vol. II, pp. [51]–[56]). As for book
I, Averroes quotes an additional translation of I, 1, 1052 b 27–31; I, 1, 1052 b 32–
34; I, 1, 1053 b 2–6; I, 1, 1053 b 7–8; I, 2, 1053 b 18–20; I, 3, 1054 a 32–35; I, 3, 1054 b
5–6; I, 3, 1054 b 13–18; I, 4, 1055 a 25–26; I, 8, 1058 a 8–9; I, 8, 1058 a 11–13; I, 8,
1058 a 15–16; I, 10, 1058 b 26–29; I, 10, 1058 b 29–30 (see Tafsı̄r, vol. III, pp. [60]–
[65]).
33
This is Bouyges’ view (Notice, p. cxxix).
34
See below, n. 36, cases (1), (3) and (4).
35
M. Geo#roy has convincingly shown (‘‘Remarques’’) that not only Textus 1–
39, as maintained by Bouyges, Notice, p. cxxxi, but also Textus 42 and following
are taken from Mattā’s translation. The translation of the end of (, 9,
1075b20–1076a4, Textus 57–58) – like Averroes’ commentary thereupon – are
254 AMOS BERTOLACCI
translation is Ust*ātI’s. It is used for some passages of
preceding 1072 b 16,36 and for the Textus and Lemmata corre-
sponding to , 7, 1072 b 16–1073 a 13 (Textus 40–41). Ust*ātI’s
translation of , 1–7 (until 1072 b 16) is copied in the margins
of the manuscript of Averroes’ Tafsı̄r.37 Further light on
Ust*ātI’s translations of book can be gained from the inspec-
tion of Avicenna’s commentary on , 6–10 (1071 b 5–1075 a 27)
that is part of his Kitāb al-Ins*āf (Book of the Fair Judgement).38
Bouyges’ retroversion into Arabic of the Hebrew translation (Tafsı̄r, vol. III,
pp. 1728–36).
36
(1) The translation of , 1–2, 1069 b 1–9 in Textus 6 (Tafsı̄r, vol. III, p. 1428,
3–8) and related Lemmata (p. 1429, 14–15; p. 1430, 4–5; p. 1431, 9) is identical to
the marginal translation (p. 1428, 2–5, bottom of page), and belongs, in all
likelihood, not to Mattā’s, but to Ust*ātI’s translation (see Bouyges, Notice,
p. cxxxi). (2) In Tafsı̄r, vol. III, pp. 1536, 12–1537, 11, Averroes reports in Textus
26 (, 5, 1071 a 3–17), besides Mattā’s, ‘‘another translation’’ of the text. This
translation is probably Ust*ātI’s, since the corresponding marginal translation is
absent (the marginal annotator apparently regarded as superfluous to report a
second time in the margin the translation quoted by Averroes himself in the
Textus). (3) As Averroes himself remarks (Tafsı̄r, vol. III, p. 1545, 12–13), the
translation of , 5, 1071 a 23–29 in Textus 27 (pp. 1542, 2–1543, 2; Lemmata:
p. 1546, 1–4; p. 1547, 1; p. 1548, 2; p. 1548, 6–7) is not taken from Alexander’s
commentary, but from the ‘‘second translation’’ (al-tarǧama al-tIāniya), which is
almost identical to the marginal translation (p. 1542, 2–4, bottom of page), and is
probably Ust*ātI’s translation. (4) Mattā’s translation of , 6–7, 1072 a 9–23, as
reported by Averroes in the Textus 33 (Tafsı̄r, vol. III, p. 1578, 7–8), is incomplete,
and Averroes quotes in the Commentum ‘‘another translation’’ of the same
passage (pp. 1580, 9–1582, 5), which Bouyges regards as a Textus on its own
(Textus 34); also in this case the additional translation is identical to the
marginal one (pp. 1580, 1–1582, 4, bottom of page), and is probably Ust*ātI’s.
37
Except for 1071a3–17 (see above, n. 36). M. Geo#roy (‘‘Remarques’’) provides
and excellent reconstruction of Ust*ātI’s translation of , 6.
38
Arabic text in ‘A. Badawı̄, Arist*ū ‘inda al-‘Arab (Cairo, 1947), pp. 22–33.
Integral French translation and commentary in M. Sebti, Sharh * Kitāb H
* arf al-lām
li al-shaykh al-ra’ı̄s Ibn Sina. Traduction, annotation et présentation. Mémoire
rédigé [. . .] en vue de l’obtention du D.E.A., sous la direction de M. le Prof. J.
Jolivet, École Pratique des Hautes Études, 1992 (I wish to thank the author for
having kindly put at my disposal a copy of her work). English translation of
Badawı̄, Arist*ū, pp. 26, 23–27, 4, in S. Pines, ‘‘Some distinctive metaphysical
conceptions in Themistius’ Commentary on Book Lambda and their place in the
history of philosophy’’, in J. Wiesner (ed.), Aristoteles. Werk und Wirkung. Paul
Moraux gewidmet, vol. II: Kommentierung, U } berlieferung, Nachleben (Berlin and
New York, 1987), pp. 177–204 (repr. in The Collected Works of Shlomo Pines, vol.
III: Studies in the History of Arabic Philosophy [Jerusalem, 1996], pp. 267–94),
p. 191. English translation of Badawı̄, Arist*ū, pp. 23, 21–24, 1, p. 29, 19–21 in
D. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition. Introduction to Reading
Avicenna’s Philosophical Works (Leiden-New York-København-Köln, 1988), pp. 264,
315–16. A summary of Badawı̄, Arist*ū, pp. 23, 21–26, 22 by F. Zimmermann is
available in R. Sorabji, ‘‘Infinite power impressed: the transformation of
Aristotle’s physics and theology’’, in R. Sorabji (ed.), Aristotle Transformed: the
Ancient Commentators and their Influence (London, 1990), pp. 181–98, pp. 187–90.
For in this commentary Avicenna quotes according to
Ust*ātI’s translation.39
In the Commenta of , Averroes often quotes excerpts from
additional translations, di#erent from the ones he uses in the
Textus and the Lemmata.40 At least three of these translations
can be identified. One is Ust*ātI’s translation, to which Averroes
refers as additional translation in the first half of the commen-
tary (where Mattā’s translation is used in the Textus and the
Lemmata). That some of the passages quoted by Averroes
belong to Ust*ātI’s translation can be determined by their
identity, or strong similarity, with the corresponding passages
in the marginal translation.41 A passage of another translation,
rendering , 3, 1070 a 2–7, is ascribed by Averroes himself to
Yah* yā ibn ‘Adı̄.42 Part of the same passage (1070 a 5–7) is
reproduced in the margins of the manuscript of the Tafsı̄r
(together with Ust*ātI’s translation), where it is also ascribed to
Yah* yā.43 Thus, Averroes’ Tafsı̄r informs us of a translation of
the Metaphysics unaccounted for in Texts 1–2:
Abū Zakariyā’ Yah
* yā ibn ‘Adı̄ (d. 363 / 974): book 44
All the other pericopes of additional translations quoted by
Averroes in the Commenta – in so far as they are di#erent from
On the place of this commentary within the Kitāb al-Ins*āf, see Gutas, Avicenna,
pp. 130–40. On its manuscript tradition, see Gutas, ‘‘Notes and texts’’, and J. R.
Michot, ‘‘Un important recueil avicennien du VIIe / XIIIe s.: la Majmû‘a Hüseyin
Çelebi 1194 de Brousse’’, Bulletin de philosophie médiévale, 33 (1991): 121–9. The
critical edition and French translation of Avicenna’s commentary is being
prepared by M. Geo#roy, J. Janssens and M. Sebti.
39
See J. Janssens, Avicenne et sa ‘paraphrase-commentaire’ du livre Lambda
(‘Kitāb al-Ins*āf’)’’, Recherches de théologie et philosophie médiévales, 70 (2003):
401–16; Geo#roy, ‘‘Remarques’’.
40
The complete list is provided by Bouyges in Tafsı̄r, vol. III, pp. [70]–[77].
41
Tafsı̄r, vol. III, p. 1462, 9–12 ( = 1070 a 4–7), ‘‘other translation’’ (cp. the
marginal translation at p. 1456, 1–3, bottom of page); p. 1533, 11–12 ( = 1071 a
1–2), ‘‘second translation’’ (cp. the marginal translation at p. 1531, 2, bottom of
page); p. 1552, 9–13 ( = 1071 a 32–34), ‘‘second translation’’ (cp. the marginal
translation at p. 549, 3–4, bottom of page); p. 1553, 2–4 ( = 1071 a 34–35), ‘‘second
translation’’ (cp. the marginal translation at p. 1549, 5, bottom of page); p. 1554,
6–8, p. 1555, 3 ( = 1071 a 36–b 1), ‘‘other translation’’ (cp. the marginal transla-
tion at pp. 1549, 5–1550, 2, bottom of page). Also the passage of the ‘‘third
translation’’ that Averroes quotes at pp. 1525, 10–1526, 1 ( = 1070 b 24–25) is
significantly similar to the corresponding locus in the marginal translation
(p. 1523, 1, bottom of page); Bouyges (Notice, p. cxxxi), however, regards this
passage as part of a translation di#erent from Ust*ātI’s.
42
Tafsı̄r, vol. III, p. 1463, 3–8 (see Bouyges, Notice, p. cxxxi).
43
Tafsı̄r, vol. III, p. 1456, 5–7 (bottom of page).
44
See Endress, The Works of Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄, p. 28.
256 AMOS BERTOLACCI
the marginal translation and are not ascribed to Yah * yā –
apparently belong to yet another translation. The authorship
of this translation is uncertain. On the basis of Text 1, it can be
attributed either to S{ amlı̄ or to Ish
* āq.45
An anonymous shortened paraphrase of , 6–10 (1071b3–
1076a4) is also often recorded among the extant Arabic trans-
lations of the Metaphysics. This paraphrase is preserved in
the already mentioned ‘‘Avicennian’’ manuscript Cairo, Dār
al-Kutub, h * ikma 6, and has been published twice.46 Already
present in Avicenna’s library, it had a considerable di#usion,
since it was used, for example, by al-S { ahrastānı̄ (1086 / 7ca.–
1153) in the Kitāb al-Milal wa-al-nih * al.47 The authorship and
date of this paraphrase are uncertain, and none of the di#erent
hypotheses advanced in this regard appears to be conclusive.48
In addition to being selective, it di#ers from Aristotle’s original
text in two other important respects: first, it omits some
passages of the part of text which it reproduces;49 second, it
displays interpretations of Aristotle’s doctrine that scholars
regard as ‘‘Neoplatonic’’.50 For these reasons, this paraphrase
45
Bouyges (Notice, p. cxxxii) regards Ish * āq’s autorship of this translation as
unlikely; but the argument e silentio he advances (the fact that in Text 1 no
translation of is explicitly ascribed to Ish* āq) is not conclusive.
46
See Gutas, ‘‘Notes and texts’’, p. 13b, #8. The editions are: Abū al-‘Alā ‘Afı̄fı̄,
‘‘Tarǧama ‘arabiyya qadı̄ma li-maqālat al-Lām min Kitāb Mā ba‘da l-t*abı̄‘a
li-Arist*ū’’, Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Egypt, 5 (1937):
89–138; Badawı̄, Arist*ū , pp. 1–11.
47
See below, n. 76.
48
‘Afı̄fı̄ (see Bouyges, Notice, p. 140, n. 3) regards Abū Bišr Mattā as the
author of this paraphrase. Badawı̄ (Arist*ū, pp. xii–xv) ascribes it to Ish * āq ibn
H
* unayn. P. Thillet (‘‘Remarques et notes critiques’’, p. 121) suggests that the
paraphrase might depend on Aristotle’s original text through a Syriac inter-
mediary, and that its translation from Syriac into Arabic might have been the
work of ‘Abd al-Massı̄h * ibn ‘Abd Allāh ibn Nā‘ima al-H * imsı̄ (first half of the 9th
century), to whom also the translation from Syriac into Arabic of the Theologia
Aristotelis is ascribed. Establishing the autorship of this paraphrase is made
di$cult by the cross-contamination – noticed by M. Geo#roy (‘‘Remarques’’) – of
all the extant Arabic translations of book .
49
A list of the most significant omissions is provided by P. Thillet, ‘‘Remarques
et notes critiques’’, p. 120, n. 2.
50
The example provided by S. Pines (‘‘Un texte inconnu d’Aristote en version
arabe’’, Archives d’histoire doctrinale et litteraire du Moyen Âge, 23 [1956]: 5–43;
now in id., Studies in Arabic Versions of Greek Texts and in Mediaeval Science
[Jerusalem and Leiden, 1986], p. 18, n. 3), i.e. the fact that the author of the
paraphrase calls God ‘‘First Cause’’ (al-‘illa al-ūlā) is regarded by Thillet
(‘‘Remarques et notes critiques’’, p. 120, n. 3) as one of the many Neoplatonic
interpretations present in this paraphrase (‘‘le traducteur, familier avec les
thèmes néo-platoniciens de la Théologie [d’Aristote] [. . .] interprète souvent, glose
can be considered a ‘‘translation’’ of the Metaphysics only
improperly, and will not be taken into account in what follows.
To summarize: some of the translations of the Metaphysics
mentioned by the testimonia (Texts 1 and 2) are actually extant
and preserved in Averroes’ Tafsı̄r. In chronological order, they
are the translations by Ust*ātI (, B-I, ), Ish* āq (), Mattā (
with Alexander’s commentary), and Naz*ı̄f (A). Other fragments
quoted by Averroes might belong to the translations of book
by S
{ amlı̄ and of books , -I, by Ish* āq. Averroes’ Tafsı̄r also
contains references to a translation otherwise unknown: that
of book by Yah * yā.
§3 THE INDIRECT TRADITION CONCERNING BOOK A

Important information about the Arabic translations of Aris-
totle’s Metaphysics can be gained from the references to this
work in Arabic writings. An exhaustive survey of this topic
exceeds both the limits of the present investigation and the
actual state of scholarship. Future editions of still unpublished
works, and careful studies of already published writings, hope-
fully will make a comprehensive account of this subject poss-
ible. In the present section, I will focus, in a preliminary way
and as an example, on the reception of book A, taking into
account the information on this book provided by al-Kindı̄ (d.
shortly after 870), al-Fārābı̄ (d. 950), Abū Zakariyā’ Yah * yā ibn
‘Adı̄ (d. 974), Avicenna (d. 1037), al-S { ahrastānı̄ (d. 1153) and
‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f al-Baġdādı̄ (d. 1231).
With the progress of research, the number of references to
book A that can be found, according to scholars, in al-Kindı̄’s
Kitāb fı̄ al-Falsafa al-ūlā (Book on First Philosophy) has
drastically diminished. While A. L. Ivry records eight refer-
ences to book A in the commentary to his 1974 English
translation,51 R. Rashed and J. Jolivet’s new edition (1998)
parfois, en termes néo-platoniciens’’; Thillet does not mention any other example,
though); these Neoplatonic features are the reason why Thillet suggests that the
paraphrase and the Theology of Aristotle might be by the same author (p. 121).
The presence of many Neoplatonic interpretations in the paraphrase is main-
tained also by Neuwirth, ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f al-Baġdādı̄’s Bearbeitung, p. 167, n. 20
(who quotes Pines and Thillet).
51
A. L. Ivry, Al-Kindı̄’s Metaphysics (Albany, 1974) (see the ‘‘Index of
Aristotelian sources’’, p. 206, to which the reference to A, 2, 981 b 27#., occurring
at p. 122 of the commentary has to be added).
258 AMOS BERTOLACCI
omits entirely any reference to this book.52 As a matter of fact,
the references to A detected by Ivry are quite vague and regard
general topoi; they might be taken either from other books of
the Metaphysics, or from other Aristotelian works, or from the
tradition of the commentaries on Aristotle, as Ivry himself
convincingly documents.53 Even treated cumulatively, they do
not prove that the author was directly acquainted with this
book of the Metaphysics.
One of the most important witnesses of the Arabic tradition
of the Metaphysics is al-Fārābı̄’s treatise on Aristotle’s Meta-
physics (Maqāla . . . fı̄ Aġrād
* al-h* akı̄m fı̄ kull maqāla min
al-kitāb al-mawsūm bi-al-h
* urūf; Treatise . . . on the purposes of
the Sage [ = Aristotle] in each treatise of the book named by
means of letters [ = Metaphysics]),54 in which books -M
52
Œuvres philosophiques et scientifiques d’al-Kindı̄. Volume II: Métaphysique et
cosmologie, par R. Rashed et J. Jolivet (Leiden-Boston-Köln 1998), pp. 1–117. In
A. Neuwirth’s review of Ivry’s translation (‘‘Neue Materialien’’, pp. 91–5), the
references to A detected by Ivry are reduced to two main ones (A, 2, 982 a 21–b
10; A, 3, 983 a 24–31), regarding, respectively, the features of wisdom and the wise
man, and the four types of causes. See the detailed discussion of these two
references in Martini, ‘‘La tradizione araba’’, pp. 85–90.
53
Ivry, Al-Kindı̄’s Metaphysics, pp. 121–2, 122–3; at p. 134, Ivry states: ‘‘It is
likely that he [i.e. al-Kindı̄] was helped to this eclectic approach by some
commentary to one or more of these books [i.e. Posterior Analytics, Physics, De
Anima and Metaphysics A], rather than by direct familiarity with them all’’.
54
Maqāla [. . .] fı̄ Aġrād* al-h* akı̄m fı̄ kull maqāla min al-Kitāb al-mawsūm
bi-al-h
* urūf, in Alfārābı̄’s Philosophische Abhandlungen, ed. F. Dieterici (Leiden,
1890), pp. 34–8; Maqāla fı̄ Aġrād * mā ba‘d al-t*abı̄‘a, anonymous edition
(Hyderabad, 1349 H). Integral English translation in Bertolacci, The Reception,
Chapter 3 (see also id., ‘‘Ammonius and al-Fārābı̄: The sources of Avicenna’s
concept of metaphysics’’, Quaestio, 5 [2005], forthcoming); integral German
translation (‘‘Die Abhandlung von den Tendenzen der aristotelischen Metaphysik
von dem Zweiten Meister’’) in Alfārābı̄’s Philosophische Abhandlungen, aus den
Arabischen übersetzt von F. Dieterici (Leiden, 1892), pp. 54–60; integral French
translation in Th.-A. Druart, ‘‘Le traité d’al-Fārābı̄ sur les buts de la
Métaphysique d’Aristote’’, Bulletin de philosophie médiévale, 24 (1982): 38–43
(Druart takes into account Dieterici, Hyderabad and two other MSS); integral
Spanish translation in R. Ramón Guerrero, ‘‘Al-Fārābı̄ y la ‘Metafísica’ de
Aristóteles’’, La Ciudad de Dios, 196 (1983): 211–40; partial English translation
(corresponding to ed. Dieterici, pp. 34, 6–36, 20) in Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 237–54
(Gutas takes into account Dieterici and Hyderabad, independently from Druart).
Al-Fārābı̄ did probably know the existence and content of books A and N
indirectly, through their description in Alexander of Aphrodisias’s commentary
on (see the summary by Averroes in Tafsı̄r, vol. III, pp. 1397–8, 1405), which he
quotes in the Fı̄ Aġrād * (ed. Dieterici, p. 34, 14–15), but, in all likelihood, he chose
to take into account only the books of the Metaphysics he was directly acquainted
with.
(K included) are mentioned, but not books A and N.55 In other
words, judging from this essay, al-Fārābı̄ was acquainted with
a version of the Metaphysics that did not exceed the boundaries
of Ust*ātI’s translation.56 The fact that in other works, like
the Kitāb al-G { am‘ bayna ra’yay al-h
* akı̄mayn Aflāt*ūn al-ilāhı̄
wa-Arist*ūt*ālı̄s (Book on the Agreement of the opinions of the two
sages, the divine Plato and Aristotle),57 al-Fārābı̄ refers to
55
Contrary to Druart’s assertion (‘‘Le traité d’al-Fārābı̄’’, p. 39), in this work
by al-Fārābı̄ books A and N are not grouped together with, respectively, books
and M, but rather omitted (cp. Bouyges, Notice, p. cxxix; Gutas, Avicenna, p. 242;
Ramón Guerrero, ‘‘Al-Fārābı̄ y la ‘Metafísica’ de Aristóteles’’, p. 234). The
description of the first book of the Metaphysics refers clearly only to book
(‘‘The first treatise of this book includes a sort of introduction and preface to the
book, in so far as it shows that all the types of causes end in a first cause’’, ed.
Dieterici, p. 36, 21–22; cp. , 2), whereas the content of book A (wisdom as the
knowledge of the first causes, and the views of previous thinkers on the number
of causes) is not mentioned. The description of the last book of the Metaphysics is
more vague (‘‘The twelfth treatise deals with the principles of natural and
mathematical things’’, ed. Dieterici, p. 38, 5), but there is no reason to regard it
as referring to two books together (M and N), instead of one (M).
56
Further evidence of al-Fārābı̄’s reliance on Ust*ātI’s translation in this
treatise is provided by his use of the term huwiyya in the meaning of ‘‘being’’,
typical of Ust*ātI’s translation, within the description of book E (ed. Dieterici,
p. 37, 11–12; cp. Tafsı̄r, p. 552, 3, p. 555, 2). Al-Fārābı̄’s employment of Ust*ātI’s
translation in other works is witnessed, for example, by the Kitāb al-Alfāz*
(Alfarabi’s Utterances Employed in Logic [Kitāb al-Alfāz* al-musta‘malah fı̄
al-mant*iq]. Arabic Text, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by M. Mahdi
[Beirut, 1968]), pp. 91, 15–92, 3, corresponding to Ust*ātI’s translation of Metaph. B,
4, 1000 a 9–11, 13–15, 18–19 (Tafsı̄r, p. 247, 3–4, 6–8, 10–12). Another quotation of
the Metaphysics in the Kitāb al-Alfāz* (pp. 109, 14–110, 1; cp. Metaph. H, 3, 1043 a
21–22) is taken, on the contrary, from a translation di#erent from Ust*ātI’s.
57
Kitāb al-G{ am‘ bayna ra’yay al-h * akı̄mayn Aflāt*ūn al-ilāhı̄ wa-Arist*ūt*ālı̄s,
in Alfārābı̄’s Philosophische Abhandlungen, ed. by F. Dieterici (Leiden, 1890),
pp. 1–33; Abū Nas*r al-Fārābı̄, Kitāb al-G { am‘ bayna ra’yay al-h * akı̄mayn Aflāt*ūn
al-ilāhı̄ wa-Arist*ūt*ālı̄s, ed. by A. Nader (Beirut, 1960; repr. 1968); Abū Nas*r
al-Fārābı̄, L’harmonie entre les opinions de Platon et d’Aristote. Texte arabe et
traduction, by F. M. Naǧǧār, D. Mallet (Damascus, 1999) ( = Naǧǧār-Mallet).
German translation in ‘‘Die Harmonie zwischen Plato und Aristoteles’’ in
Alfārābı̄’s Philosophische Abhandlungen, aus den Arabischen übersetzt von
F. Dieterici (Leiden, 1892), pp. 1–53; French translations in E. Abdel-Massih,
‘‘Al-Fārābı̄ – Livre de Concordance des deux sages, le divin Platon et Aristote’’,
Melto, 5 (1969): 305–58; Fārābı̄, Deux traités philosophiques: l’Harmonie entre les
opinions des deux sages, le divin Platon et Aristote, et De la religion, introduction,
traduction et notes par Dominique Mallet (Damascus, 1989) ( = Mallet);
Naǧǧār-Mallet. English translation of ed. Dieterici, pp. 5–7 ( = ed. Nader
pp. 84–85; ed. Naǧǧār-Mallet, pp. 71–7) in Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 227–9. The
authenticity of this work is questioned by J. Lameer, Al-Fārābı̄ and Aristotelian
Syllogistics. Greek Theory and Islamic Practice (Leiden-New York-Köln, 1994),
pp. 30–9 (Lameer’s view is questioned in Naǧǧār-Mallet, pp. 37–40, and G. Endress,
‘‘L’Aristote arabe. Réception, autorité et transformation du Premier Maître’’,
Medioevo, 23 [1997]: 1–42, p. 28, who retain al-Fārābı̄’s authorship).
260 AMOS BERTOLACCI
Aristotle’s criticism of Plato in the Metaphysics could give the
impression of a certain knowledge of book A. These references,
however – if they are directly taken from the Metaphysics – can
be explained on account of the loci paralleli of A in other books
of this work, especially in book M.58
Abū Zakariyā’ Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄, in his commentary on Meta-
physics , is aware of the existence and content of book A,
which he mentions explicitly as the book of the Metaphysics
following the one he is commenting upon.59 He knew this
book probably through the coeval translation by Naz*ı̄f, even
though his acquaintance with a di#erent translation cannot be
excluded. In any case, Yah * yā ibn ‘Adı̄ represents our first
witness of the circulation and use of a translation of A in the
Arabic philosophical milieu.
In Avicenna’s already mentioned Ilāhiyyāt of the Kitāb
al-S{ ifā’, we find two sets of references to Metaphysics A. The
first is a long and literal quotation of the passage of A, 5 (986 a
22–26), in which Aristotle expounds the Pythagorean doctrine
of the ‘‘columns of contraries’’ ( ´ ). This passage of A
(as all the first part of chapter 5) is not extant in Naz*ı̄f’s
translation; Avicenna refers to it in the context of his own
discussion of the opposition between unity and multiplicity
(Ilāhiyyāt III, 6), which are two of the contraries taken into
account by the Pythagoreans.60 On closer inspection, however,
58
The most significant passage is the following (ed. Naǧǧār-Mallet, p. 143,
1–10; cp. ed. Dieterici, p. 27, 11–20, ed. Nader, p. 100, 66–15): ‘‘Dans ses livres sur
la Métaphysique (fı̄ h * urūfihi fı̄mā ba‘da al-t*abı̄‘ati), Aristote argumente pour
critiquer les partisans des modèles et des formes dont on dit qu’ils existent, qu’ils
se tiennent, incorruptibles, dans le monde de la divinité. Il explique quelles
absurdités s’ensuivent; ainsi il faudrait qu’il y ait là des lignes, des surfaces, des
corps, des étoiles et des sphères, qu’existent des mouvements de ces sphères et des
cercles, qu’existent là des sciences, comme l’astronomie et la science de la
musique, des tons harmonieux et d’autres discordants, des mesures droites,
d’autres courbes, des choses chaudes et d’autres froides, en somme, des manières
d’être actives et passives, des universaux et des particuliers, des matières et des
formes et d’autres absurdités que l’on profère dans ces a$rmations et dont la
mention prolongerait à l’excès le présent propos. Nous nous dispensons, en raison
de leur célébrité, de les répéter ici-même, ainsi que nous l’avons fait des autres
discours quand nous les avons évoqués, avons indiqué leur place et avons laissé
le soin de les mentionner à qui les cherchera où ils se trouvent afin de se
consacrer à leur étude et à leur interprétation’’ (transl. Naǧǧār-Mallet, p. 142; cp.
transl. Mallet 1989, p. 90). As sources of this passage, Naǧǧār-Mallet, n. 1, p. 187,
refer to Metaph. A, 9, Z, 14, M-N (cp. Mallet, n. 108, p. 113).
59
Ed. Badawı̄, p. 202, 11–12; ed. Hulayfāt, p. 262, 9–10. See Martini, ‘‘La
tradizione araba’’, p. 92. ˘
60
Ilāhiyyāt III, 6, p. 128, 12–16.
Avicenna’s quotation appears to depend – at least in part,
possibly in its entirety – on the tradition of the Aristotelian
commentators, rather than on book A itself.61 The second set of
references to A occurs in Avicenna’s exposition and criticism
of Plato and the Pythagoreans (Ilāhiyyāt VII, 2–3), which
resembles in many respects Aristotle’s account of these think-
ers in A, 5–6, 8–9.62 The problem with these references is that
they are brief and mostly non-literal; in addition, they do not
respect the order of Aristotle’s text, and are interwoven with
other doxographic material, occasionally taken from Meta-
physics M.63 Thus, even though the chapters of A to which
Avicenna is referring are extant (for the most part) in Naz*ı̄f’s
translation, the very nature of Avicenna’s references makes
any textual comparison di$cult. Moreover, some of the doc-
trines to which Avicenna refers do not occur only in Metaphys-
ics A, but also in Aristotle’s parallel treatment of the same
subjects in Metaphysics M and N.64 Hence, it is not certain
whether in these cases Avicenna is referring (only) to book A
or (also) to these other books. The possibility of even further
Aristotelian sources cannot be excluded: as Avicenna himself
remarks in the Kitāb al-Mabda’ wa-al-ma‘ād (Book of the
Provenance and Destination), Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s
doctrine of ideas is contained in many Aristotelian works.65
Fortunately, however, the evidence at our disposal allows us
to assume that Avicenna’s references to A in the Ilāhiyyāt are
taken from a translation of this book other than Naz*ı̄f’s. For in
61
See Bertolacci, ‘‘Metafisica A, 5, 986 a 22–26’’.
62
As for Plato, cp. Ilāhiyyāt VII, 2, pp. 310, 14–311, 8, with Metaph. A, 6, 987 a
32–b 10 (see also below, Table 2.1). As for the Pythagoreans, cp. Ilāhiyyāt VII, 2,
p. 312, 16–17, with Metaph. A, 5, 985 b 24–986 a 3, A, 6, 987 b 24–25, A, 6, 987 b
27–31, and Ilāhiyyāt VII, 2, pp. 313, 17–314, 2, with Metaph. A, 5, 985 b 27–31,
32–33.
63
Cp., for example, Ilāhiyyāt VII, 2, p. 314, 4 (‘‘Most of the Pythagoreans think
the mathematical number to be the principle, without, however, being separate’’)
with Metaph. M, 6, 1080 b 16–18.
64
Avicenna’s reference to the Pythagoreans in Ilāhiyyāt VII, 2, p. 312, 16–17,
can be compared not only with the passages of Metaph. A, 5 and A, 6 mentioned
above (see n. 62), but also with Metaph. M, 6, 1080 b 16–18, M, 8, 1083 b 10–11, N,
3, 1090 a 22–23.
65
Al-Mabda’ wa-al-Ma‘ād / li-al-S { ayh al-Ra’ı̄s Abı̄ ‘Alı̄ al-H
* usayn b. ‘Abdallāh
˘ zIrānı̄, 36 (Tehran 1363 H. / 1984), p. 85,
Ibn Sı̄nā, ed. A. Nūrānı̄, Silsila-i Dāniš-i
6–7: ‘‘It seems that by ‘forms’ Plato means these forms [i.e. the intelligible forms
that are thought by the heavenly intelligences]. But the apparent [meaning] of his
doctrine is inconsistent and false, [as] Aristotle has thoroughly discussed in many
books’’.
262 AMOS BERTOLACCI
Table 2.1: Quotation of Metaph. A, 6, 987 b 14–16 in Avicenna’s
Ilāhiyyāt
Avicenna’s Ilāhiyyāt Aristotle’s Naz*ı̄f’s Arabic

Metaphysics translation of
Metaphysics A in
Averroes’ Tafsı̄r
(VII, 2, p. 311, 14–15) (A, 6, 987 b 14–16) (pp. 65, 14–66, 1) But
As for the Further, besides they only disputed
mathematicals, in his sensible things and about the sensibles
[ = Plato’s] opinion Forms ( ’´
) he says and the mathematical
they are entities [that there are the objects species (anwā‘
exist] between Forms of mathematics, ta‘ālı̄miyyāt), saying
(s*uwar) and the which occupy an of the latter that they
material things.66 intermediate are intermediate
position.67 between [the classes
of existing]
realities.68
the only reference in the second set that resembles a literal

quotation, Avicenna’s reworking of the original text of
Aristotle (A, 6, 987 b 14–16) is closer to this latter than Naz*ı̄f’s
translation is. The relevant passage of the Ilāhiyyāt is
compared with Aristotle’s original text and Naz*ı̄f’s Arabic
translation in Table 2.1.
It is evident from Table 2.1 that Avicenna’s quotation con-
veys just the same point that Aristotle is establishing – namely
the intermediate character of mathematicals between Forms
and sensibles – whereas Naz*ı̄f’s translation, at least in the form
in which it is extant, reproduces this doctrine obscurely, in so
far as it conflates mathematicals and forms into the ‘‘math-
ematical species’’, and does not specify the identity of the
realities to which the mathematical species are intermediate.
Therefore, a dependence of Avicenna on Naz*ı̄f’s translation, at
least in this case, appears unlikely. From the terminological
point of view, it is noteworthy that in Avicenna’s quotation the
66
fa-ammā al-ta‘lı̄miyyātu fa-innahā ‘indahu ma‘ānin bayna al-s*uwari
wa-al-māddiyyāti.
67

`
` ˜ ´ y’ ´

’´ ` ` ` ’
` ` ` ’´
´ .
68
wa-innamā ‘ānadū fı̄ al-mah * sūsāti wa-al-anwā‘i al-ta‘ālı̄miyyāti allatı̄
yaqūlūna innahā mutawassit*atun fı̄mā bayna al-umūri. I wish to thank Gerhard
Endress for his help in the interpretation of this passage.
Arabic term ‘‘form’’ (s*ūra, pl. *suwar) corresponds to the Greek
term ‘‘form’’ or ‘‘species’’ ( y’ , pl. ’´

), whereas in Naz*ı̄f’s
translation this latter is rendered as ‘‘species’’ (naw‘, pl.
anwā‘ ). The significance of this aspect will soon become clear.
The partial evidence, provided by Avicenna, of the existence
of a translation of A di#erent from Naz*ı̄f’s is corroborated by
al-S
{ ahrastānı̄’s Kitāb al-Milal wa-al-nih * al (Books of Religions
and Arbitrary Creeds). For this work contains, in the section
dealing with Plato, an explicit and lengthy reference to book A
of the Metaphysics (A, 6, 987 a 32–b 10.18).69 What is remark-
able about this quotation is that it does not correspond to
Naz*ı̄f’s translation of A, as it is pointed out in the French
translation of the second part of the Milal.70
The quotation of Metaphysics A, 6, 987 a 32–b 10.18, in the
Milal deserves full attention, since it is rather long and literal.
On closer inspection, it appears to be followed by a reference to
a passage of Metaphysics M, unnoticed so far, which is equally
noteworthy.71 A comparison of the relevant passage of the
Milal with the original text of the Metaphysics and Naz*ı̄f’s
translation of A is provided in Table 2.2.
69
Al-S
{ ahrastānı̄, Kitāb al-Milal wa-al-nih * al, ed. A. al-Sa‘ı̄d al-Mandūh (Beirut,
1994), Second Part, p. 79, 5–12 ( = ed. Badrān [Cairo, 1951–1955], pp. 891–2; ed.
Cureton [London, 1842–1846], p. 288); French transl. in S { ahrastānı̄, Livre des
religions et des sectes, vol. 2, transl. with notes by J. Jolivet and G. Monnot
(Leuven, 1993), p. 229 (‘‘Aristote, dans le livre A de la Métaphysique, raconte que
dans sa jeunesse Platon fréquenta Cratyle et en retint [la thèse] qu’on rapporte
d’Héraclite: ‘toutes les choses se corrompent et la science ne peut les embrasser’;
puis qu’il fréquenta après lui Socrate, dont la doctrine comportait la recherche
des définitions mais non pas l’étude des natures des choses, sensibles et autres.
Ainsi Platon crut que l’étude de Socrate [s’attachait] à d’autres choses que les
sensibles, car les définitions ne concernent pas les sensibles puisqu’elles ne
portent que sur des choses perpétuelles et universelles, je veux dire les genres et
les espèces. Cela étant, Platon n’appela pas les choses universelles, des formes,
parce que [ces choses] sont uniques, tout en pensant que les choses sensibles
n’existent que parce qu’elles participent des formes, puisque les formes sont pour
elles des épures et des modèles et leur sont antérieures’’). The quotation of A that
M. Bouyges (Notice, p. cxciv; see Martini, ‘‘La tradizione araba’’, p. 97) has
detected in S * adr al-Dı̄n Muh * ammad al-S { ı̄rāzı̄’s ( = Mullā S* adrā, d. 1640) al-H* ikma
al-muta‘āliya fı̄ al-asfār al-‘aqliyya al-arba‘a (Transcendent Wisdom on the Four
Intellectual Journeys) is almost verbatim identical to this passage of the Milal
(see the edition by the Dār Ih * yā’ al-TurātI al-‘Arabı̄ (Beirut, 1981), vol. 6, pp. 218,
21–219, 7). For the dependence of Mullā S * adrā’s al-H
* ikma al-muta‘āliya and
other works of his on al-S { ahrastānı̄’s Milal, see U. Rudolph, Die Doxographie
des Pseudo-Ammonios. Ein Beitrag zur neuplatonischen U ¡ berlieferung im Islam
(Wiesbaden, 1989), pp. 24, 26–32.
70
See S{ ahrastānı̄, Livre des religions et des sectes, pp. 229–30, n. 34.
71
Al-S
{ ahrastānı̄, Kitāb al-Milal, p. 79, 5–12.
264 AMOS BERTOLACCI
Table 2.2: Quotation of Metaph. A, 6, 987 a 32–b 10.18 in
al-S
{ ahrastānı̄’s Kitāb al-Milal wa-al-nih
* al
S
{ ahrastānı̄, Milal Aristotle, Naz*ı̄f’s Arabic
Metaphysics A in
[1] (p. 79, 5–6)

Aristotle, in the
treatise ‘‘A Major’’ of
the book
Metaphysics, reports
that
[2] (p. 79, 6–7) Plato (A, 6, 987a32–33) For, (p. 63, 1–2) The first
frequented Cratylus having in his youth thing that occurred
during his youth, and first become familiar after Democritus was
wrote down at his with Cratylus and the views of the
dictation what he with the Heraclitean Heracliteans,
related from doctrines
Heraclitus,
[3] (p. 79, 7) namely (987a33–34) (that all (p. 63, 2) about the
that all the sensible sensible things are fact that all the other
things are ever in a state of flux things have a
corruptible, and and there is no constant flux, and
knowledge does not knowledge about there is no
embrace them. them), knowledge of them.
[4] (987a34–b1) these (p. 62, 3) He kept
views he held even in these views, in this
later years. way, for ever.
[5] (p. 79, 7–8) Then,
after him, he
frequented Socrates,
[6] (p. 79, 8–9) whose (987b1–4) Socrates, (p. 63, 3–4) Socrates
doctrine was to seek however, was busying discussed only ethical
definitions without himself about ethical things, not something
investigating the matters and belonging to the
nature of sensible neglecting the world universal nature . . .
and other things. of nature as a whole (lac.)
but seeking the
universal in these
ethical matters, and
fixed thought for the
first time on
definitions;
[7] (p. 79, 9) Plato (987b4–6) Plato (p. 65, 6–7) [Plato]
thought that accepted his accepted that, since
Socrates’ teaching, but held he regarded the being
Table 2.2: Continued
S
Metaphysics A in
investigation that the problem of this after the

regarded things other applied not to any model of the being of
than the sensible sensible thing but to permanent things,
ones. entities of another whereas in sensible
kind – things there is
nothing stable.
[8] (p. 79, 9–11) For (987b6–7) for this (p. 65, 7–8) It is also
definitions do not reason, that the impossible that
belong to sensible common definition sensible things have
things, since they could not be a a certain definition,
apply to things that definition of any which they share,
are lasting and sensible things, as since they are
universal, namely they were always constantly in change.
genera and species. changing.
[9] (p. 79, 11a) (987b7–8) Things of (p. 65, 8–9) [Plato]
Therefore, [there this other sort, then, called ‘‘forms’’
was] Plato’s calling he called Ideas (s*uwar) those
the universal things ( ’ ´ ), [things], the same
‘‘forms’’ (s*uwar),72 [i.e. unchangeable],
that belong to the
existents.73
72
wa-‘inda d I ālika <mā> sammā aflāt*ūnu al-ašyā’a al-kulliyyata *suwaran. The
lectio difficilior mā sammā (in which mā is not a negative particle but a mā
mas*dariyya) is adopted in Cureton’s edition, attested by the majority of textual
witnesses of Badrān’s edition, and supported also by the MS Yale University,
Beinecke Library, Landberg Collection #615 (I take this information from the
unpublished paper by Jennifer Bryson ‘‘ ‘The View of Plato’ in S { ahrastānı̄’s
Al-Milal wa-l-Nih * al’’, Yale University, Spring 1996; I wish to thank the author for
having put her work at my disposal). It occurs also in Mullā S * adrā’s version of
al-S { ahrastānı̄’s quotation (ed. cit., p. 219, 5), and is retained in the French
translation of the Milal (S { ahrastānı̄, Livre des religions et des sectes, p. 229, n. 34,
where it is regarded, however, as a negative particle). I wish to thank Gerhard
Endress for his help in the interpretation of this passage.
73
wa-sammā allatı̄ hiya li-al-mawǧūdāti wāh * idatun bi-‘aynihā *suwaran. The
Arabic corresponds grosso modo to the Greek ( y¢ y’ ` ` ˜ ˜ ’´

’ ´
´ ), if we suppose a (mis)reading of ˜ as ` ’´ . I am
indebted to Dimitri Gutas and Gerhard Endress for the interpretation of this
passage.
266 AMOS BERTOLACCI
Table 2.2: Continued
S
Metaphysics A in
[10] (p. 79, 11b) since (987b18) . . . while the (p. 66, 3) The species
they are unique, Form (` y’ ) itself (al-naw’ ) is the same
is in each case thing that exists in
unique. each one.74
[11] (p. 79, 11–12a) (987b8–10) . . . and (p. 65, 9–11) As for all
and his thinking that sensible things, he the sensibles, they are
the sensible things do said, were apart from said in virtue of [the
not exist except by these, and were all forms] and for the
participation in the called after these; for sake of them; the
forms (al-s*uwar). the multitude of multiplicity that
things which have the agrees in the name
same name as the participates in the
Form ( ˜ ’´ ) species ( al-naw‘ ).
exist by participation
in it [i.e. in the Form].
[12] (p. 79, 12b–13a)
The forms, therefore,
are drawings and
models of them
[i.e. of the sensible
things], being
anterior to them.
[13] (p. 79, 13b–14) (M, 4, 1078 b 30–32)
Socrates posited the But Socrates did not
definitions only in make the universals
absolute terms, or the definitions
without considering exist apart; his
the sensible and the successors, however,
non-sensible; Plato, gave them separate
on the contrary, existence, and this
believed that he had was the kind of thing
assigned them to the they called Ideas.
non-sensible, and
therefore he
established them as
common models.
74
wa-al-naw‘u fa-huwa huwa al-šay’u al-mawǧūdu li-kulli wāh * idin. Naz*ı̄f
appears to have (mis)read ¢` ¢ ´ in the Greek (` ` y’ ’` ¢ ` ¢ ´
´ ) as ’ ¢ ´ ˛ (‘‘in each one’’, li-kulli wāh
* idin).
Four aspects of Table 2.2 are noteworthy. First, sections [2],
[3], [7] and [10] of al-S { ahrastānı̄’s quotation are remarkably
closer to Aristotle’s original text than Naz*ı̄f’s translation is
(the relevant sentences in this regard are underlined in the
table). Second, in section [11] of al-S { ahrastānı̄’s quotation the
Arabic term ‘‘form’’ (s*ūra, pl. *suwar) corresponds to ‘‘form’’ or
‘‘species’’ ( y’ ), that Naz*ı̄f renders by means of another
Arabic word, i.e. ‘‘species’’ (naw‘, pl. anwā‘ ).75 Third, the
quotation of line 987 b 18 in section [10] precedes, instead of
following, the quotation of lines 987 b 8–10 in section [11].
Fourth, the quotation of A, 6, 987 a 32–b 10.18, in sections
[1]–[11] is followed by a quotation of M, 4, 1078 b 30–32, in
section [13]. The first aspect (greater similarity to the Greek
original) shows clearly that al-S { ahrastānı̄’s quotation does not
depend on Naz*ı̄f’s translation. The second aspect (rendering of
y’ as *sūra) is a terminological feature that we have already
noticed in Avicenna’s quotation of A (see Table 2.1). The
significance of the third and the fourth aspect (the restructur-
ing of the original text, and the connection between the
quotation of A and a quotation of M) has to be properly
evaluated, since it entails some kind of intervention by
al-S { ahrastānı̄ (or his source) on the original text. These two
features, as we have seen, were also typical of Avicenna’s
approach to A.
It is evident that some kind of textual knowledge of book A,
not deriving from Naz*ı̄f’s translation of this book, was
accessible to al-S { ahrastānı̄. It is di$cult, however, to determine
the source of this knowledge, i.e. to assess whether the text he
quotes was taken from an overall translation of book A that he
had at his disposal, or rather circulated autonomously in some
kind of intermediate source on account of its doxographical or
biographical interest. The other quotations of the Metaphysics
in the Milal provide contrasting indications in this regard,
since they are both direct and indirect.76
75
Naz*ı̄f’s use of naw‘ to translate y’ is confirmed by section [10]. In section
[9], both the translation used by al-S { ahrastānı̄ and Naz*ı̄f render with *sūra the
Greek term ‘‘idea’’ ( ’ ´ ).
76
The quotation of , 6, 1071 b 3–5, in Milal, p. 103, 5–7 (qāla fı̄ kitābi
utIūlūǧiyā min h* arfi al-lāmi inna al-ǧawhara yuqālu ‘alā ItalātIati ad
* rābin itInāni
*tabı̄‘iyyāni wa-wāh * idun ġayru mutah * arrikin; ‘‘Aristote dit, dans le livre de la
Théologie, à la lettre Lambda: ‘substance se dit de trois sortes [d’êtres], deux
naturelles et une immobile’, S { ahrastānı̄, Livre des religions et des sectes, p. 283,
nn. 2–3), is taken verbatim from the anonymous paraphrase of (Badawı̄, Arist*ū,
268 AMOS BERTOLACCI
While the evidence provided by Avicenna and al-S { ahrastānı̄
is not conclusive when treated individually, considered jointly
it points toward the existence of a second Arabic translation
of A besides Naz*ı̄f’s. There are basically two reasons for
this assumption. First, Avicenna, on the one hand, and
al-S{ ahrastānı̄, on the other, refer to distinct passages of A
independently of Naz*ı̄f’s translation. Second, they refer to the
key-concept of the texts they are quoting (Platonic ‘‘forms’’ or
‘‘species’’) by means of a term that is not only di#erent from the
one used by Naz*ı̄f, but is also the same in both of them. Despite
the fact that the texts taken into account in Tables 2.1 and 2.2
regard a single chapter of A (A, 6), and that the similarity in
terminology between Avicenna and al-S { ahrastānı̄ can be tested
only in the case of a single word, these two features appear to
imply the existence of a larger and common source which these
two authors are quoting. On account of this evidence, there-
fore, I tentatively assume that Avicenna’s quotation of A, 6, 987
b 14–16, and al-S { ahrastānı̄’s quotation of A, 6, 987 a 32–b 10.18,
depend on one and the same source, namely a translation of A
which was di#erent from – and closer to the Greek than –
Naz*ı̄f’s, and in which y’ was rendered as *sūra. Future
research will corroborate, I hope, this provisional hypothesis.
If we regard the better rendering of the original text as a sign
of improvement and, consequently, of later composition, we can
imagine that this supposed second translation of A was later
than Naz*ı̄f’s. In this case, it would have been accomplished
sometime between the second half of the 10th century (when
Naz*ı̄f was active) and 1020–1027 (the probable date of com-
position of the S { ifā’). But its language and terminology might
indicate also an earlier date of composition.77
‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f al-Baġdādı̄’s Kitāb fı̄ ‘Ilm mā ba‘d al-t*abı̄‘a
(Book on the Science of Metaphysics) contains, in chapters 1–16,
p. 3, 4–5; cp. Tafsı̄r, vol. III, pp. 1555, 9–1556, 1; pp. 1555, 1–1556, 1 at the bottom of
page). The reworking of , 6, 1071 b 12–20, immediately following (p. 103, 7–17),
appears to be based on the same paraphrase (see S { ahrastānı̄, Livre des religions et
des sectes, p. 283, n. 6). A further quotation of (S { ahrastānı̄, Livre des religions et
des sectes, p. 132, 3–5) is, on the other hand, indirect, being taken from
Themistius’ commentary on .
77
In early translations, like those by Ibn al-Bit*rı̄q, *sūra is employed indiscrimi-
nately for y’ and ’ ´ , as it happens in the translation of A used by al-
S
{ ahrastānı̄ (see above, n. 72; I owe this information to Gerhard Endress). We
cannot either exclude, of course, the possibility that this translation and the one
by Naz*ı̄f are coeval and independent from each other.
a summary of books and A (intermingled) and B- of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics.78 The relation of ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f’s com-
pendium with the extant Arabic translations of the Meta-
physics has still to be ascertained.79 As for book A, according to
Angelika Neuwirth’s analysis, ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f refers to passages
spread throughout the book (from its beginning until the very
first lines of chapter 9). ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f’s compendium and the
extant translation of A by Naz*ı̄f, however, cannot be compared,
since the two overlap only in two brief passages (A, 8, 989 b
29–32; A, 9, 990 a 34–b 1), and in both cases ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f refers
to Aristotle’s text quite vaguely.80 The passages of A quoted by
Avicenna and al-S { ahrastānı̄ are not taken into account in ‘Abd
al-Lat*ı̄f’s compendium. What we can conclude from the inspec-
tion of ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f’s compendium, therefore, is that the
translation of A he was using (either Naz*ı̄f’s or another one)
was an integral version of this book.81
The indirect tradition of book A in Arabic witnesses
the progressive assimilation of this book. Absent in Ust*ātI’s
translation, referred to indirectly by al-Kindı̄ and probably
unknown to al-Fārābı̄, from the second half of the 10th century
it was translated at least once (by Naz*ı̄f), possibly also a second
time. In this way, it was mentioned by Yah * yā ibn ‘A
z dı̄ (10th c.),
quoted by Avicenna (11th c.) and al-S { ahrastānı̄ (12th c.), and
extensively paraphrased by ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f al-Baġdādı̄ (13th c.).
§4 THE AVAILABLE DATA AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

The data presented in the previous sections can be now
arranged in chronological order in the following table:
78
Chapters 1 (books A and ) and 13–16 (book ) are critically edited by
Neuwirth, ‘‘Neue Materialien’’; ead., ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f (see the review by D. Gutas,
‘‘Editing Arabic philosophical texts’’, Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, 25 [1980],
coll. 213–222). On ‘Abd al-Lat*ı̄f’s reception of book A, see Martini, ‘‘La tradizione
araba’’, pp. 93–7.
79
‘‘[. . .] das genaue Abhängigkeitsverhältnis zu den einzelnen arabischen
Versionen der verschiedenen Metaphysik-Bücher noch im einzelnen zu
untersuchen ist’’ (Neuwirth, ‘‘Neue Materialien’’, p. 92).
80
Also the second reference (‘‘Likewise, who postulates the models which are
known as Platonic forms [s*uwar] . . .’’), which Neuwirth includes between square
brackets designating, in her notation system, the ‘‘faithful paraphrases’’ (‘‘getreue
Paraphrasen’’, p. 93), is, in fact, only very loosely related to the passage of A that
Neuwirth associates with it.
81
An Arabic version of A, 1 is also attested by the Latin translation of this
chapter that is preserved in the MS Bibl. Apostolica Vaticana, Ott. Lat. 2048;
Martini (‘‘The Arabic version of the Book Alpha Meizon’’) has shown that this
translation was made from Arabic.
Table 3: Overall survey of the Arabic translations of the Metaphysics
270
books translations
Ust*ātI S * āq Mattā Yah
{ amlı̄ Ish * yā in Yah
* yā Naz*ı̄f ‘Izsā in Avicenna (d. 1037)
(IXc.) (IXc.) (d.910) (d.940) (d.974) (2nd half Xc.) (d.1008) and S
{ ahrastānı̄ (d. 1153) [?]
A e f
e e
B e Avic.? Sy.: a
e f?
e Avic.?
E e
Z e
H e
e f?
I e f?
K a
e f? f? Al.: e f
AMOS BERTOLACCI
Th.: a
M a a a
N a
legenda:
a = attested
e = extant
f = fragments
Avic. = quoted by Avicenna
Sy. = with Syrianus’ commentary
Th. = with Themistius’ commentary
Al. = with Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentary
The two most salient features of the translation activity
regarding Aristotle’s Metaphysics emerging from Table 3 are,
first, the high number of translations of this work, and, second,
the long period of time during which they were accomplished.
As for the first point, the available sources inform us of seven,
possibly eight, distinct scholars, with di#erent philosophical
backgrounds and a$liations, who engaged in rendering (larger
or smaller) portions of the Metaphysics into Arabic. Few other
Greek philosophical works have been translated into Arabic so
many times and by so many authors. As for the second point,
the translation activity regarding the Metaphysics lasted for
two centuries: translations started in the 9th century (Ust*ātI )
and ceased – as far as we know – around the end of the 10th
(‘Izsā). Also in this regard the Metaphysics represents a prime
case in the Graeco-Arabic translation movement. In other
words, the Metaphysics was repeatedly translated into Arabic
during the last two of the three centuries of the Graeco-Arabic
translation movement (8th–10th cc.). All this attests to the
great and persistent importance of this work in the Arab world.
In a diachronic perspective, the translation activity related
to the Metaphysics can be divided into three distinct phases.
The first phase encompasses the first three translations (by
Ust*ātI, S
{ amlı̄ and Ish * āq). It is marked by the rendering of the
main bulk of the work (the two most extensive translations, by
Ust*ātI and Ish* āq, belong to this initial period), and by the focus
on book (probably all three translators rendered this book
into Arabic, and one of them – S { amlı̄ – translated it indepen-
dently of the rest of the work). The second phase comprehends
the four subsequent translations (two by Mattā, one by Yah * yā,
one known to Yah * yā). It is characterized by new versions of
certain previously translated books of the Metaphysics, in so
far as they are integral parts, or useful complements, of some
Greek commentaries thereupon. Thus book is translated
twice by Mattā together with the commentaries, respectively,
by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius, and the transla-
tion of book B together with Syrianus’ commentary is report-
edly known to Yah * yā. The importance still assigned to book
is witnessed, besides Mattā’s translations, by Yah * yā’s version
of this book together with the following one (M). The third
phase, finally, encompasses the last three translations (those
by Naz*ı̄f and ‘Izsā, and the one witnessed by Avicenna and
S
{ ahrastānı̄). Its main feature is the rendering into Arabic of the
272 AMOS BERTOLACCI
books of the Metaphysics that were still untranslated, i.e. of
book A (by Naz*ı̄f and in Avicenna / S { ahrastānı̄) and book N
(by Naz*ı̄f). Among the already translated books, the focus
gradually shifts from to M, as the independent translation of
this latter by ‘Izsā seems to attest.
The three phases just outlined reflect, roughly speaking,
three di#erent approaches to the Metaphysics: (i) the transmis-
sion of the work on a large scale (first phase); (ii) the closer
inspection and deeper analysis of some of its known parts
(second phase); (iii) the shift of attention towards the parts
still unknown (third phase). In general terms, it is as though,
after the initial period of ‘‘exposition’’ to most of the Metaphys-
ics (first phase), Arab philosophers focused on what they
regarded as its most important portion, i.e. book (second
phase); then, once the ‘‘core’’ of the Metaphysics was discov-
ered, and the importance of the work in its entirety fully
appreciated, the need was felt to fill in the gaps, i.e. to translate
the parts of the Greek original still missing in Arabic (third
phase). This process is not very di#erent from our ordinary way
of reading a book with which we are unfamiliar: first, we glance
over its chapters; then, we discover something deep or original
in some of its part, and regard the book as worthy to be read;
finally, we go back to it and read carefully what we have
overlooked before. It has to be noticed, however, that the limits
between the aforementioned three phases of the Arabic trans-
lation of the Metaphysics are – as it should be expected – fluid:
each phase both prepares and somehow continues in the
following. Thus, S { amlı̄’s translation of book in the first phase
anticipates the big amount of philological e#ort directed to-
wards this book in the second phase. Likewise, Yah * yā’s trans-
lation of book M in the second phase is in continuity with ‘Izsā’s
version of this same book in the third phase.82
82
In the Arabic translation of Paul the Persian’s essay on the classification of
the parts of Aristotle’s philosophy, preserved in Miskawayh’s Tartı̄b al-sa‘ādāt
and tentatively ascribed by D. Gutas to Abū Bišr Mattā ibn Yūnus, we find the
following statement that Gutas regards as a comment by the translator: ‘‘Some of
the books of the Metaphysics were [ = have been] translated into Arabic, others
were not’’ (K. al-Sa‘āda li-Ibn Miskawayh fı̄ falsafat al-ahlāq, ed. ‘Alı̄ al-T
* ūbǧı̄
˘ ‘‘Paul the Persian
[Cairo 1335 / 1917; repr. 1346(?) / 1928], p. 69, 16; see D. Gutas,
on the classification of the parts of Aristotle’s philosophy: A milestone between
Alexandria and Baghdad’’, Der Islam, 60 [1983]: 231–67, p. 235). If Gutas’
hypothesis about the identity of the translator of Paul the Persian’s treatise is
correct, the initiator of the second phase of translations of the Metaphysics
(Mattā) was well aware that the Arabic Metaphysics was incomplete, and
The first two phases mirror two significant stages of the
history of early Arabic philosophy, for they are linked, respect-
ively, with two of the most important schools of the Arabic
falsafa. The first phase can be associated with the circle of
al-Kindı̄, to which the main translator of this phase (Ust*ātI )
belonged. The theological emphasis typical of al-Kindı̄’s ap-
proach to the Metaphysics is congruent with the focus on book
which we have seen to mark this initial phase. The entire
second phase, on the other hand, is the expression of the group
of Aristotelian scholars working in Baġdād, whose first master
(Mattā) and most significant exponent (Yah * yā) were the two
translators of this phase. The kind of exegesis of Aristotle’s
corpus inspired by the Peripatetic tradition, typical of the
Baġdādı̄ school, is evident in the translations of the com-
mentaries on the Metaphysics by Alexander of Aphrodisias,
Themistius and Syrianus, that Mattā and Yah * yā joined to
their Arabic version of the corresponding books of Aristotle’s
work. The diachronic overview of the Arabic translations of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics, therefore, sheds further light on the
history of Arabic philosophy, in so far as it is the reflex of
the di#erent trends and sensibilities that were at work in the
Arab philosophical milieu when these translations were
accomplished.
From a synchronic point of view, the core of the translation
activity concerning the Metaphysics is constituted by book ,
i.e. by Aristotle’s natural theology. According to our sources,
this book was translated into Arabic six times (by Ust*ātI, Ish
* āq,
S
{ amlı̄, Yah* yā and – possibly twice – by Mattā). Two Greek
commentaries (by Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius)
on this book were translated as well (by Mattā). Both the first
and the second phase of the translation process, as we have
seen, are centered around . But also the third phase is
somehow related to , in so far as it focuses on books like M
and N, which are the continuation and the complement of .83
It is thus clear that all the translation activity concerning
Aristotle’s Metaphysics was motivated by a strong theological
interest. This is not surprising, in the light of the theological
motivations lying behind the Arabic translations of other parts
somehow prefigured the direction that the next phase of translations would have
taken.
83
The importance of is also attested by the circulation of an anonymous
paraphrase of this book (see above, §2).
274 AMOS BERTOLACCI
of the Aristotelian corpus, like the Topics and the Physics, as
D. Gutas has well documented.84 In more general terms, in the
Arabic translations of the Metaphysics can be detected, at its
germinal stage, one of the main features of the Arab metaphysi-
cal speculation, namely the emphasis on, and the expansion of,
the theological side of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. This privileged
attention to natural theology within metaphysics character-
izes, in di#erent respects, the metaphysical œuvre of al-Kindı̄,
al-Fārābı̄ and Avicenna.
The second most important book of the Metaphysics, after ,
is apparently M, of which three translations, one in each of the
three phases of the process outlined above, are attested (by
Ust*ātI, Yah* yā and ‘Izsā). Since book M is entirely devoted to the
exposition and criticism of the doctrine of the ideas and of
other tenets of Plato’s philosophy, the translations of this book
necessarily conveyed a better knowledge both of Plato’s phil-
osophy in itself and of Aristotle’s polemical attitude towards
it. There are two implications to this fact. First, the Arabic
translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics ought to be included
among the textual sources by means of which Plato was known
in the Medieval Arab world.85 Second, the anti-Platonic bias
that Aristotle displays, inter alia, in Metaphysics M calls into
question the originally Porphyrian and later Farabian idea of
the harmony and complementarity of Plato’s and Aristotle’s
philosophies. The translation movement regarding the Meta-
physics – some of whose aspects have occasionally been inter-
preted in the light of such a ‘‘concordistic’’ view86 – appears to
be alien to this idea and, on the contrary, to operate against it.
Whether the translations of the Metaphysics simply prevented
this idea from spreading, or might have fostered it, by making
the contrast between Plato and Aristotle striking and a con-
ciliation of it even more desirable, is a question worth further
84
Gutas, Greek Thought, chapter 3.
85
A statement like ‘‘The Plato to whom al-Fārābı̄ [. . .] Ibn Sı̄nā, Ibn Bādjdja
and Ibn Rushd refer is, whether explicitly or implicitly, always the Plato of
Plotinus and his followers’’ (R. Walzer, ‘‘Aflāt*ūn’’, EI2, vol. I [1960], p. 234b)
requires qualifications: at least in Avicenna’s case, he is also the Plato of
Aristotle.
86
See above, n. 16. We may wonder, though, whether the idea of an inner
congruence between the philosophy of Plato and that of Aristotle can account,
if not for the original extent, at least for the subsequent reception of the
translations, i.e. for the actual loss, or the incomplete transmission, of the
versions of those books (A, M and N) in which Aristotle more openly criticizes
Plato.
investigation. In any case, a new scenario on the reception of
Plato’s philosophy in the Arab world, and on the relationship
between his philosophy and its Aristotelian counterpart,
emerges from the study of the Arabic translations of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics. Future research will hopefully elucidate this
topic in greater detail.
By reflecting the succession of di#erent philosophical
schools, pointing at some basic features of the Arab meta-
physical thought, and opening new perspectives on the Plato
Arabus, the Arabic translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics are
a significant event not only in the context of the translation
movement from Greek into Arabic, but also as a chapter of the
early history of Arabic philosophy.

Some Arabic Translations of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Some Arabic Translations of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Some Arabic Translations of Aristotle's Metaphysics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are the main points discussed in the article regarding Arabic translations of Aristotle's Metaphysics?

What book of the Metaphysics is discussed the most after Book Lambda?

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 15 (2005) pp.

ON THE ARABIC TRANSLATIONS OF ARISTOTLE’S

The starting-point and, at the same time, the foundation of

Account of the ‘‘Book of Letters’’, known as ‘‘Divine [Matters]’’

an Arabic translation of Metaphysics B would be pointless, since he has already

[a] The twelfth [treatise of the Metaphysics = M] was translated by Ibn

Books Translations in the Translations Translations

Arabic translations of these parts of the Metaphysics are

commentary on K, M and N appears less certain than it is portrayed by Bouyges

§3 THE INDIRECT TRADITION CONCERNING BOOK A

Avicenna’s Ilāhiyyāt Aristotle’s Naz*ı̄f’s Arabic

the only reference in the second set that resembles a literal

[1] (p. 79, 5–6)

investigation that the problem of this after the

§4 THE AVAILABLE DATA AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

You might also like