MEDIEVAL ACADEMY BOOKS, NO. 96 CORPUS PHILOSOPHORUM MEDII AEVI AVERROIS HEBRAICUS CORPUS PHILOSOPHORUM MEDII AEVI ACADEMIARUM CONSOCIATARUM AUSPICIIS ET CONSILIO EDITUM OPERA AVERROIS Ediderunt HENRICUS AUSTRYN WOLFSON V't SHLOMO PINES THE MEDIEVAL ACADEMY OF AMERICA AND THE ISRAEL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES AVERROES' DE SUBSTANTIA ORBIS Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text with English Translation and Commentary by ARTHUR HYMAN Cambridge, Massachusetts and Jerusalem 1986 ISBN 965-208-071-3 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 85-61823 Copyright ©1986 by the Medieval Academy of America Printed in Israel In 1931, the Medieval Academy of America undertook the publication of Averroes' Commentaries on Aristotle in accordance with H.A. Wolfson's "Plan for the publication of a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem"', published in Speculum, VI (1931), pp. 412-427. In 1977, the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities undertook to publish the Hebrew translations of the works of Averroes. The present volume is a joint publication of both academies. It is the last to be published in the framework of the Medieval Academy series of Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristoielem. S. Pines CONTENTS Preface 7 Introduction 13 CONCERNING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CELESTIAL SPHERE BY AVERROES Chapter One 39 Chapter Two 74 Chapter Three 99 Chapter Four 112 Chapter Five 120 Chapter Six 123 Bibliography 139 Index of References 144 Index of Names and Subjects 148 Hebrew Section see p. 7 PREFACE Averroes is primarily known for his many commentaries on Aristotle's works and for his Tahdfut al-Tahafut, "The Incoherence of the Incoherence." He was also the author of a number of independent treatises dealing with a variety of philosophical and theological topics. These treatises contain answers to questions addressed to Averroes or solutions to problems posed by him. In them Averroes usually develops his own views on the topic under discussion and, when necessary, refutes opinions he holds to be erroneous. The Ma'amar be-'Esem ha-Galgal (De Substantia Orbis) is a collection of such treatises which have as their common subject-matter the nature and properties of the heavens. No longer extant in Arabic, the work has been preserved in Hebrew and Latin translations made independently of one another from the Arabic original. The Hebrew translation is composed of six treatises, five of which appear in the Latin version. The Hebrew translation from the Arabic is the work of an anonymous translator. It has reached us in a number of complete and partial manuscripts in a recension made by Moses ben Joshua of Narbonne (called Narboni, d. 1362). In addition to the anonymous Hebrew translation of the complete work, there has come down to us an independent translation of the third chapter made from the Arabic by Solomon ibn Ayyub (fl. middle of thirteenth century). The Latin translation from the Arabic seems to have been made by Michael Scotus in the first half of the thirteenth century. It has been preserved in over eighty complete and partial manuscripts and in a number of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century printed editions. It appeared in Manuel Alonso's edition of Alvaro de Toledo's Commentario al "de substantia orbis," published in 1941, and in Antonio Poppi's edition of Pietro Pomponazzi's Super libello de substantia orbis expositio, published in 1966. The manuscripts and most of the printed editions of the Latin version contain the five chapters of Scotus' translation, but in some of the sixteenth-century editions there appear two additional chapters translated from the Hebrew into Latin by Abraham of Balmes. The first of these additional chapters was translated from the sixth chapter of the anonymous Hebrew translation; the second from a text that has only recently been discovered. The five chapters of Scotus' version were De Substantia Orbis translated from Latin into Hebrew by Judah Romano (early fourteenth century). The present volume contains a critical edition of the anonymous Hebrew translation of the De Substantia Orbis and an English translation of the work, with an introduction, explanatory notes and a Hebrew-Latin glossary. For the preparation of this edition I had at my disposal complete and partial manuscripts of the anonymous Hebrew translation, the chapter translated by Ibn Ayyub, and, for purposes of comparison, a sample of the early printed Latin editions and of the text appearing in Alonso's volume. The linguistic similarity between Hebrew and Arabic justifies the use of the Hebrew version, in preference to the Latin, as the basic text for the English translation. Since, however, the Latin is an independent translation from the Arabic original, I did not hesitate to use it when it proved to be of help. Thus I made use of the Latin translation in those instances in which the Hebrew text was corrupt or defective while the Latin version had preserved the correct reading, as well as in those instances in which, while the Hebrew text was intelligible, the Latin seemed to have preserved a reading more in harmony with the drift of Averroes' argument. In the first case I felt free to correct or supplement the text of the Hebrew manuscripts in accordance with the reading of the Latin; in the second, I retained the text of the Hebrew manuscripts in my critical edition, but based my translation on the Latin. However, whenever it became necessary to deviate from the text of the Hebrew manuscripts in any way, my reasons for doing so are recorded in a footnote. Corrections of the text of the Hebrew manuscripts and supplements to it based on the Latin are indicated in my edition by asterisks, and the few instances in which I had to change the text on the basis of conjecture are included in square brackets. My edition is accompanied by two critical apparatuses: one listing the variants of the Hebrew manuscripts, the other the variants between the Hebrew and the Latin editions used. In the latter case, I translated the Latin variants into Hebrew. In preparing the English translation I considered it my primary task to provide the modern reader with an accurate and readable version of Averroes' text. At the same time I attempted to preserve the linguistic niceties and the stylistic peculiarities of the original, insofar as this was possible within the confines of proper English usage. Thus, I retained Averroes' rather involved sentence structure in most instances, but I Preface did not hesitate to divide sentences when the need for clarity demanded it. I also permitted myself to supplement the translation when necessary to elucidate the meaning of a passage or to disclose the structure of an argument. Such additions are enclosed in square brackets. The explanatory notes are provided to aid the reader in understanding Averroes' text. In them, I have analyzed discussions, outlined arguments, and examined philosophic issues, besides explaining terms and linguistic usages. Reference is made to the writings of Averroes and the works of other authors. Insofar as I was aware of them, I have referred to passages in Aristotle's writings in which the discussions of Averroes had their origin or on which he drew in his exposition. In preparing these notes I made use of Narboni's Hebrew commentary on the De Substantia Orbis and of the Latin commentaries of Alvaro de Toledo and John of Jandun. AH these commentaries contain much relating to the discussion of the topics of the De Substantia Orbis by philosophers subsequent to Averroes, but in my notes I have limited myself to those passages that were of immediate help for the clarification of Averroes' text. The present volume was completed many years ago, but its publication has unfortunately been delayed by lack of adequate funding. It is, therefore, with a special sense of gratitude that I record the learned societies and foundations that made the publication of this work possible. I wish to thank the Mediaeval Academy of America and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities for jointly sponsoring the publication of this volume. The American Academy for Jewish Research through its Epstein Fund, the J. A. Melnick Foundation, the National Foundation for Jewish Culture, and the Gustav Wurzweiler Foundation generously provided publication grants, and my thanks are extended to them as well. Finally, I am indebted to the American Philosophical Society which, at an earlier stage of my work, provided a research grant that permitted me to examine manuscripts in European libraries. It is my pleasant duty to acknowledge the gracious help I received from the following libraries and their librarians: Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris; Bodleian Library, Oxford; British Museum, London; Columbia University Library, New York; Harvard University Library, Cambridge, Mass.; Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York; Jewish National and University Library, De Substantia Orbis Jerusalem; New York Public Library, New York; Preussische Staatsbibliothek, Berlin; Staatsbibliothek, Munich; Vatican Library; and Yeshiva University Library, New York. Important as were subventions and library resources, it was the advice and support of teachers, colleagues and friends that were indispensable for this project. First and foremost, I wish to acknowledge a debt of many years to my teacher and mentor, the late Professor Harry A. Wolfson, who first initiated me into the field of Medieval Philosophy and who gave generously of his unparalleled learning and his keen insight into the intricacies of medieval philosophic texts at every stage of this work. Professor Wolfson still saw the final version of this volume and his sage and judicious advice contributed much to solving many difficult problems. I am also grateful to "Oil TIO Professor Saul Lieberman V"T for all I learned from him and for his interest and support as my work progressed.