Table Of ContentTHE ARABIC PLOTINUS:
A STUDY OF THE "THEOLOGY OF ARISTOTLE"
AND RELATED TEXTS
Peter S. Adamson
UMI Co. Dissertation # 9971880
DEDICATION
This dissenation is dedicated to my grandparents,
Anhur and Florence Adamson.
ii
TABLE OFCONTENTS
A NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
INTR0 DUCTI0 N " _ _ .
CHAPTER I: THE ARABIC PLOTINUS TEXTS AND THEIR ORIGIN 9
1.1 The Arabic Plotinus corpus 9
1.1.1 Th.A 9
1.1.2 DS 11
1.1.3 GS _ II
1.1.4 The common Arabic Plotinus source 12
1.1.5 The nature ofthe paraphrase 14
1.1.6 The orderofTh.A and its place in *AP 19
1.2 The origins ofAP 39
1.2.1 The identity ofthe Adaptor 40
1.2.2 The role ofPorphyry 42
1.3 Other texts related to AP .47
1.3.1 Early works related to AP _ 47
1.3.2 The later influence ofAP 50
CHAPTER 2: THE PROLOGUE AND THE "HEADINGS" 58
2.1 The Prologue 58
2.1.1 Sources ofthe Prologue: the Metaphysics and AP ..__ mm.61
2.1.2 AI-KindTas the author ofthe Prologue 69
2.1.3 The conception ofphilosophy in the Prologue 76
2.2 The ..Headings··_ 79
2.2.1 The textual basis ofthe headings 80
2.2.2 The purpose ofthe headings 82
2.2.3 Philosophical views in the headings 85
CHAPTER 3: SOUL 87
3.1 Aristotelian influence on the Adaptor's theory ofsoul 87
3.1.1 Mfmar III and the question ofenlelechia 88
3.1.2 Soul's relationship to body 94
3.1.3 AP and the Arabic paraphrase ofthe De Anima 105
3.2 Ethical Views in AP 113
3.2.1 Virtue and the cosmos 114
iii
3.2.2 Desire__. .._ _._ _. .__ _._._.__ __ 122
3.2.3 Memory and the fall ofthe soul_ .._._ _ ._._ -.--_..128
CHAPTER4: INTELLECT__ _ _._ _._._._ _.._._.._ _._ __.__ __.139
4.1 Learned ignorance.._ . _.__ _._ _._._. _ _..__. . 139
4.1.1 The doctrine ofmfmar [I..._._ __ _._. .._._. _._...._..._.__._.140
4.1.2 A potency higher than act._. _ _.__.. ._._ 147
4.1.3 Porphyry and learned ignorance in AP.__ __ _._..__ __.157
CHAPTER 5: THE FIRST PRlNCIPLE_ _. __.._ ._.. _.. ._164
5.1 Oivine predication.. _._ _ _ ._._ . .__._.._164
5.1.1 Negative theology in AP._.__.._._ _ _ _ _. _ 165
5.1.2 Positive theology in AP __ _ _._. ._._._. ._ _ . J70
5.1.3 Predication by wayofcausality and eminence__._ _.._ _ 173
5.1.4 Is the First Principle "complete"?.._._._ ._ _ __..__ _.177
5.2 God and being..__.. ._.. _ _ _ _. . ._. ._ __.._ __ 186
5.2.1 The terminology ofexistence.._ _.._ _ _. .._.._..__._.187
5.2.2 God as the First Being and only being_._ __ __ 193
5.2.3 God as pure actuality and Cause ofbeing _.. _._ _.199
5.2.4 The background ofthe doctrine ofattributes and God
as anniyyafaqa[ in AP.._ _.._. _._.__._._ _ __._.205
5.3 Creation__....-..... .....__.._._..._..._....._._ _._.._._. .__. _ _ _.._.218
5.3.1 Mediated creation vs. unmediated creation _._ __ ._.219
5.3.2 Creation and time _.._.__._ _ _ _ _ _.._._.__.__..__225
5.3.3 Creation and necessity.._.._ _._. ._.__..__ ._..__..230
5.3.4 God and thinking __ __._ __._._ ._._ _ 236
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION ._ _ _.__ . _._.__ 244
6.1 The coherence ofthe Adaptor's thought ._ _ _ _ _..245
6.2 What sources influenced the Adaptor?_ _ _.._._ __.._ _.._..__..__250
6.3 Who was the Adaptor?._.__._._ _ _. 256
APPENDlX A: AL-KINDIAND THE ARABlC PLOTlNUS.._ _.260
A.l God and being._._..__.__._._._. ._ _ _ _ _ __.267
A.2 The emanative hierarchy__ _ _._ _..__ _ _. _ 272
A.3 Theoryofthe intellect _. .. ._ _ _ _._279
A.4 The soul and recollection _._. _ _ _..__.__285
A.5 Astrology _ _ __ _ _.._.,.._ _'._ _._ 291
APPENDlX B: IBN SINA AND THE '''THEOLOGY OF ARISTOTLE·~ _.._.303
B.I The treatment ofsoul in Ibn Slnffs commentary ._ __ 307
B.2 Mystical knowledge in Ibn Srn~rscommentary _ _ _312
B.3 Creation and emanation in Ibn SIna~s commentary 319
IV
APPENDIX C: TRANSLATION OF IBN SINA~S NOTES ON THE
"THEOLOGY OF ARISTOTLE" _._._ __._ _ _._323
C.I Notes on MTmar 1 _._ _._._ _.._._._ _ __.__._ _323
C.2 Notes on MTmar If._.._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.._ _333
C.3 Notes on MTmar IV. _.._ _ _. ._._._.._ _ 340
C.4 Notes on Mimar V _ _._ __.._ _ _._._ _..344
C.5 Notes on MTmar VII._ __.._ _.__._._ __ _ _._._._._ _ _ __.350
C.6 Notes on MTmar VIIf _._._ _._ _. .__ _ _.._.355
C.7 Notes on MTmar fX 358
BIBLIOGRAPHY 361
v
A NOTE ON ABBREVIATIONS
AND TRANSLATIONS
The following abbreviations have been commonly used in this dissertation:
B: References to the Anlbic text in Badawl. A. (ed.), AI-Aflatfinivva al-Muhdatha
"inda 31-'Arab, (Cairo: 1955).
Lewis: References to the English translation in P. Henry & H.-R. Schwyzer (eds.), Plotini
Opera. Tomus II: Enneades IV-V: Plotiniana Arabica ad codicum fidem anglice vertit G.
Lewis (Paris & Brussels: 1959).
Th.A: The '-TheologyofAristotle," Arabic text in B.
GS: The "Sayings ofthe Greek Sage," Arabic text in B.
DS: The '"Letteron Divine Science," Arabic text in B.
All quotations from the Arabic Plotinus texts use section numbers from Lewis, with the
page number from B given in brackets (e.g. Th.A IVA [B 44]).
Enn: References to the Greek text in Plotinus, Enneads, translated by A.H. Armstrong,
7 volumes (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966-1988).
All translations are mine unless otherwise noted. Arabic and Greek terms are
transliterated, with aspirated consonants in Arabic cnderlined (where the consonant
would normally have been underlined, e.g. in the title ofa book, I have not underlined the
aspirated letters).
vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
[ would like to gratefully acknowledge the following people for their generous
support ofthis project. First my advisors, David Burrell and Stephen Gersh, for their
comments on the work and theirenthusiasm for the project. I am equally grateful to my
two ··unofficial" advisors: Richard TaylorofMarquette University, who first suggested
the project. and Cristina 0'Ancona Costa ofthe Universities ofPadua and Pisa. Both
were extraordinarily supportive ofthe dissertation; indeed it would be difficult to imagine
two distinguished scholars who would be more giving oftheirenergyand time for the
work ofyoungerresearchers like myself. [would also like to thank the Philosophy
Department ofNotre Dame in general, and Paul Weithman, David O'Connor, Michael
Loux, Ken Sayre in particular for theiradvice during my graduate career.
My biggest debt ofthanks is, however, to my family. Idedicate this dissertation
to my grandparents Arthur and Florence, in thanks for their support and encouragement
before and during my studies. Likewise my parents Joyce and David could not have been
more supportive, and I am thankful to them for more than Ican say here. Above aU I
would like to thank my wife Ursula, for her love and for herendurance and patience,
without which I nevercould have completed this project ormy degree.
vii
INTRODUCTION
Open any book on Islamic intellectual history, and you are liable to find a
sentence or two on the so-called ""TheologyofAristotle."I The importance ofthis text in
the classical era ofArabic philosophycan scarcelybe exaggerated. The '"Theology" was
a translation or paraphrase ofthe writings ofPlotinus, yet it was mistaken for a work of
Aristotle. To imagine the importance that was attached to this text, one need only
consider the situation ofthe earliest Muslim thinkers who described themselves explicitly
as philosophers. They regarded Aristotle as the greatest representative ofGreek wisdom,
yet Aristotle's works fell far short ofproviding answers to some rather pressing
questions. What did Greek philosophy have to say about the nature ofGod orcreation,
for instance? Philosophers from John Philoponus onwards sensed the inadequacyofthe
genuine Aristotelian corpus for answering these questions: thus Aquinas, for example,
articulated how Christian revelation was needed to flesh out Aristotle's notion ofGod as
a causeofmotion. But in the "Theology ofAristotle:" the Arabic world found a text that
expounded such topics at length. It is unclearwhen this text ofPlotinus was first
mistaken for one by Aristotle, and how long the misconception persisted. But whether or
Arepresentative examplecan be found in Alben Hourani. A Historyofthe Arab Peoples
J
(Warner Books: NewYork. 1991). 172-173: "The lineofphilosophers which culminated in Ibn Sina found
the answertoquestions [aboutGod) in the Neo-Platonic version ofGreek philosophy, made more
acceptable by the fact thata majorworkofthe school.a kind ofparaphraseofpanofPlotinus' Enneads.
wasgenerally regarded as being a workofAristotle(theso-called 'TheologyofAristotle'):' Compare
Majid Fakhry. A History ofIslamic Philosophy(Columbia U. Press: New York. 1970). 19-26.
not the first readers ofthe ""Theology" thought it was a genuine work from the
Aristotelian corpus is beside the point, for as we shall see, at this period there was a
tendency to see all ofGreek philosophyas one harmonious piece. Thus Plotinus was
used to extend and even complete the Aristotelian philosophical heritage.
This is the standard picture ofthe historical relevance ofthe ""Theology," and it is
correct as far as it goes. It is an understanding that underlies almost all ofthe work done
on the ·'Theology" beginning in the late 19thcenturyand continuing through the late 20th
century. In general this work has focused on broadly philological issues relevant to the
"Theology": who wrote it, when was it written, on what sources did it draw, and what did
the original text look like? These are ofcourse important issues, but for a long time they
overshadowed another aspect ofthe text, namely the substantive philosophical changes
that were introduced into Plotinus' thought by whoevertranslated it into Arabic. It is
only within the last decade that these changes have been given serious study. At the risk
ofengaging in polemic, let me suggest a reason for this. Generallyspeaking, there is a
tendency on the part ofWestern scholars to study Arabic philosophy from one oftwo
points ofview. Either it is seen as setting the stage for 12th and 13th century European
philosophy, and particularly Aquinas, or it is seen as carrying on Greek philosophical
ideas on as they became unavailable in Europe. It is the latter point ofview which
dominated studies ofthe ··Theology": the text was primarily seen as important because it
conveyed Plotinus to the Arabic world, not as a work in its own right with original
philosophical importance. To say that Muslim thinkers drew on the '"Theology" is, on
this view,just to say that they drew on Plotinus.
2
