ULUSLAR ARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU Bildiriler

22-24 Mayıs 2008 İSTANBUL

INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM Papers

May 22-24, 2008 İSTANBUL II

Mart 2009 !STANBUL BÜYÜK"EH!R BELED!YES! KÜLTÜR A.". YAYINLARI Maltepe Mahallesi Topkapı Kültür Parkı Osmanlı Evleri Topkapı - Zeytinburnu / İstanbul Tel: 0212 467 07 00 Faks: 0212 467 07 99 www.kultursanat.org / [email protected]

ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU BİLDİRİLER

INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM PAPERS

Genel Yayın Yönetmeni Nevzat Bayhan

Genel Yayın Danışmanı Prof. Dr. İlhan Kutluer

Yayın Koordinatörü Müjdat Uluçam Hasan Işık

Editörler Mehmet Mazak Nevzat Özkaya

Kapak Aydın Süleyman

Yapım

Baskı ve Cilt ...... Avicenna’s Almahad in 17th Century England: Sandys, Pococke, Digby, Baron, Cudworth et alii… 17. Yüzyıl İngilteresi’nde İbn Sînâ’nın Almahad’ı: Sandys, Pococke, Digby, Baron, Cudworth ve Diğerleri

Prof. Dr. Yahya Michot*

Abstract Very little is known about the in# uence that Avicenna’s famous Epistle on the Ma‘âd for the Feast of the Sacri! ce, especially its prophetology and hermeneutics, had in pre-modern Europe after it was translated into Latin by Andrea Alpago of Belluno (c. 1450–1522) and published in Venice by his nephew Paolo under the title Libellus Avicennæ de Almahad (1546). It was most unexpected, but very pleasing, to discover that it is referred to and criticized by the Anglo-American traveller and poet George Sandys in the relation of his journey in Turkey (1610–1612), as well as by various other & gures actively involved in the intellectual, religious and cultural life of 17th century England. The paper explores the ideas and debates that Alma- had then triggered or contributed to develop, with consequences extending into the following centuries, when Avicenna’s views came to be used against a certain George Bush… Keywords: Avicenna’s in# uence, 17th century England, Hermeneutics, Eschatology. Thanks to the great translation movement that took place in Spain during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, major works of Avicenna became available in Latin to Western scholars. His Kitâb al-Shifâ’ was notably able to play a pivotal role in the philosophical renaissance of medieval France.1 As for Avicenna’s Epistle on the Ma‘âd for the Feast of the Sacri& ce (al- Risâlat al-Adhawiyya fî amr al-ma‘âd),2 which can be considered his most important, and

* Hartford Seminary, USA 1 See S. Van Riet, “The Impact of Avicenna’s Philosophical Works in the West”, in art. “Avicenna”, Encyclo- pædia Iranica, iii, 104–107; see also S. Swiezawski, “Notes sur l’in" uence d’Avicenne sur la pensée philoso- phique latine du XVe siècle”, in R. Arnaldez & S. Van Riet (eds.), Recherches d’Islamologie. Recueil d’articles offert à Georges C. Anawati et Louis Gardet par leurs collègues et amis, Louvain, Peeters – Louvain-la-Neuve, Éditions de l’Institut Supérieur de Philosophie, 1977, 295–305. 2 See F. Lucchetta, Avicenna. Al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya fî l-ma‘âd – Epistola sulla Vita Futura. I. Testo arabo, 300 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU most daring, work on eschatology, it almost certainly remained unknown in Europe until the beginning of the sixteenth century. Then, in the age of “the second revelation of Arabic philosophy and science”3 to the West, it was translated into Latin, by the Venetian Andrea Alpago of Belluno (c. 1450–1522), under the title Libellus Avicennæ de Almahad.4 It was published after Alpago’s death in 1546, by his nephew Paolo Alpago, in Venice, apud Iuntas, with various other Avicennan opera minora. In an earlier publication, I investigated some of the in" uence that the Adhawiyya had on Islamic thought during the ! ve centuries separating Avicenna from Alpago. It was known to Abû Hâmid al-Ghazâlî (d. 505/1111), ‘Ayn al-Qudât al-Hamadhânî (d. 525/1131), Fakhr al-Dîn al-Râzî (d. 606/1210) and Mullâ Sadrâ al-Shîrâzî (d. 1050/1640). It is among the Avicennan texts collected in the philosophico-eschatological majmû‘a copied in the Madrasa Mujâhidiyya of Marâgha in 596–7/1200, which probably preserved the textbooks then taught in that school. Most interestingly, its hermeneutical pages are the object of a long, " owing commentary by the Mamlûk theologian Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) in his Averting the Con# ict between Reason and [religious] Tradition (Dar’ ta‘ârud al-‘aql wa-l-naql), and are also quoted by his disciple Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350). The Adhawiyya thus seems to have been read by some of the most important thinkers of medieval Islam.5 What about its in" uence in Europe, after Alpago’s Almahad came out? Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny calls the Venitian’s collection of Avicennan writings a “livre rare” and says that it was read by only a few people.6 As for Simone Van Riet, she states that the Avicennan translations of the Venetian physician-philosopher “did not have any leavening effect on contemporary Western thought”.7 The situation may have been more complex, however. Great digital compilations of Western literature can now be searched with an ease unimaginable less than a decade ago,8 and a simple search of the word Almahad in such literary data-bases suf! ces to show that various Western scholars of the 17th century indeed read Alpago’s version of the Adhawiyya, or became

traduzione, introduzione e note, Padova, Antenore, 1969. Presentation and partial English translation in Y. Michot, “A Mamlûk Theologian’s Commentary on Avicenna’s Risâla Adhawiyya : Being a Translation of a Part of the Dar’ al-Ta‘ârud of Ibn Taymiyya, with Introduction, Annotation, and Appendices”, Journal of Islamic Studies, Oxford, Part I, 14:2 (May 2003), 149–203; Part II, 14:3 (Sept. 2003), 309–363; Part I, p. 149–150, 173–177. See also T. Jaffer, “Bodies, Souls and Resurrection in Avicenna’s ar-Risâla al-Adhawîya fî amr al-ma‘âd”, in D. C. Reisman (ed., with the assistance of A. H. al-Rahim), Before and After Avicenna. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Avicenna Study Group, Leiden–Boston, Brill, 2003, 163–174. 3 An expression of C. Burnett; see his “The Second Revelation of Arabic Philosophy and Science: 1492–1562”, in C. Burnett & A. Contadini (eds.), Islam and the Italian Renaissance, London, The Warburg Institute, 1999, 185–198. 4 See A. Alpago, De mahad .i. de dispositione, seu loco, ad quem revertitur homo, vel anima eius post mortem, in Avicennæ philosophi præclarissimi ac medicorum principis Compendium de anima, De mahad […], Aphorismi de anima, De dif& nitionibus & quæsitis, De divisione scientiarum […] ex arabico in latinum versa cum expositioni- bus eiusdem Andreæ collectis ab auctoribus arabicis, omnia nunc primum in lucem edita, Venice, Apud Iuntas, 1546, fo. 40–102. – Offset reprint: Westmead, Farnborough, Gregg International Publishers Ltd, 1969. On Alpago, see the references given in Y. Michot, “A Mamlûk Theologian’s Commentary…”, Part I, p. 150–152. 5 On the Adhawiyya’s in" uence on past Muslim thinkers and Ibn Taymiyya’s commentary, see Y. Michot, “A Mamlûk Theologian’s Commentary…”, Parts I & II. 6 M.-Th. d’Alverny, “Andrea Alpago, interprète et commentateur d’Avicenne”, in Aristotelismo Padovano. Atti del XII Congresso Internazionale di Filoso! a, Florence (1960), 1–6, p. 2: “Ce livre rare n’a eu que peu de lec- teurs.” (Reprinted in her Avicenne en Occident. Recueil d’articles, Paris, Vrin, 1993, XIV). 7 S. Van Riet, “The Impact…”, p. 106. 8 See for example the Project Gutenberg (http://promo.net/pg/), Early English Books Online (http://eebo.chadw- yck.com/home), Google Book Search (http://books.google.com/). INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 301 acquainted with some of the ideas developed in it by Avicenna and, attracted or shocked by these ideas, like their Muslim predecessors, found it impossible to remain indifferent to them. My aim, in this paper, is to introduce some of these pre-modern Western disciples or opponents of the Shaykh al-Ra’îs, and thereby contribute to a more correct appreciation of the importance and wide-ranging nature of his in" uence beyond the Orient and the medieval period.

Andrea Alpago(9) First edition of Almahad

That the famous English Orientalist, biblical scholar and manuscript collector, Edward Pococke (1604–1691)10 quotes Avicenna’s Almahad should not come as a surprise. After all, he was holding the chairs of Arabic and Hebrew in Oxford, supposedly one of the best academic institutions of England at that time, mentioned major falâsifa and Kalâm theologians— including “Takiddin”,11 i. e. Ibn Taymiyya—in his Specimen historiæ Arabum (1650)12 and, with his son, Edward Pococke junior (1648–1727), translated Ibn Tufayl’s Hayy Ibn Yaqzân (1671). In miscellaneous learned notes added to his Porta Mosis (1655), a study of Maimo- nides’ commentary on the Mishnah, he discusses the reality of the bodily pleasures promised to Muslims in Paradise and does not hide his disgust at what he calls a “paradisum porco- rum non hominum”,13 adding in his conclusion: “Quantas igitur gratias Deo misericordiarum

9 Engraving by F. Monaco (18th c.); see F. Lucchetta, Il medico e & losofo bellunese Andrea Alpago (d. 1520), traduttore di Avicenna. Pro& lo biographico, Padova, Antenore, 1964, Table IV. 10 On E. Pococke, see G. J. Toomer, art. “Pococke, Edward”, in H. C. G. Matthew & B. Harrison (eds.), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, from the earliest times to the year 2000, 61 vols., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004, xliv, 662–666; H. Daiber, “The reception of Islamic philosophy at Oxford in the 17th century: the Pococks’ (father and son) contribution to the understanding of Islamic philosophy in Europe”, in C. E. Butter- worth & B. A. Kessel (eds.), The introduction of Arabic philosophy into Europe, Leiden, Brill, 1994, 65–82. 11 See E. Pococke, Specimen Historiæ Arabum, ed. by J. White, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1806, p. 172. 12 See H. Daiber, “The reception of Islamic philosophy…”, p. 71–72. 13 E. Pococke, Porta Mosis, sive Dissertationes aliquot à R. Mose Maimonide, suis in varias Mishnaioth, sive tex- 302 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU patri debes qui tibi in ea religione & nasci & educari concessit, quæ de his & melius scire & rectiùs sentire doceat?”14 He quotes the passage of Almahad in which Avicenna speaks of the felicity of the hereafter as being of a purely imagined nature, an idea he ! nds less repulsive.15 At the beginning of the 17th century, in a review of Pococke’s book, the Frenchman Richard Simon (1638–1712), of the Congregation of the Oratory, well known for his works of Biblical criticism and Bossuet’s hostility towards him, will mention the Oxonian professor’s utilisation of Almahad and write that, for him, Avicenna believes that both the body and the soul will be resurrected.16

Edward Pococke17 Pococke’s Porta Mosis

Far more amazing than Pococke’s quotation of Almahad is Sir Kenelm Digby’s (1603– 1665).18 What can have led this picturesque and versatile adventurer of gentry stock, loved by Marie de Medicis at twenty, converted from Roman Catholicism to Anglicanism by political

tus Talmudici partes, Commentariis præmissæ, quæ ad universam ferè Judæorum disciplinam aditum apetiunt. Nunc Arabicè prout ab ipso Autore conscriptæ sunt, & Latinè edita. Unà cum Appendice Notatum Miscella- nea…, Oxford, H. Hall, 1655, p. 305. 14 E. Pococke, Porta Mosis…, p. 311. 15 See Texts, IV. 16 R. Simon, Nouvelle bibliotheque choisie. Où l’on fait connoître les bons livres en divers genres de Literature, & l’usage qu’on en doit faire, vol. II, Amsterdam, David Mortier, 1714; see Texts, VI. 17 E. Pococke’s Memorial, Oxford, Christ Church Cathedral (Photo: Y. Michot). 18 On K. Digby, see M. Foster, art. “Digby, Sir Kenelm”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography…, xvi, 152– 158. INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 303 opportunism (and later on again a Catholic), for some time successful privateer on the Medi- terranean, once jailed for murder, close to Van Dyck and inventor of the modern wine bottle, to the work of Avicenna? True, he was also interested in astrology and alchemy, became a founding member of the Royal Society, corresponded with Fermat and engaged in philosophical enquiri- es. It is in a treatise intending to discover the immortality of the reasonable soul, ! rst published in Paris (1644), where he was in exile, that he mentions Almahad.19 In its ninth chapter, he ! rst wants to demonstrate “that our soule is a Substance”(20) and, quite unsurprisingly, the part of Almahad which he then utilizes is Avicenna’s demonstration of the immateriality of the Ego and of its independence from the body, i.e. chapter IV of the Adhawiyya,21 whose argument anticipates the “Flying Man” of the Shifâ’s Psychology, the Mubâhatha III and the Ishârât.22 For Avicennizing ears, Digby’s conclusion assuredly sounds familiar: “Reason assureth us, that when all body is abstracted in us, there still remaineth a substance, a thinker, an Ego, or I, that in it selfe is no whitt diminished, by being (as I may say) stripped out of the case it was enclosed in”.23 In modern studies, the connection between Avicenna’s Flying Man and Descartes (1596– 1650) has often been made, Ján Bakoş writing for example: “This is the celebrated ‘Cogito ergo sum’ of Avicenna”.24 Digby presents precious evidence that such a connection between the Avicennan and Cartesian demonstrations of the self-consciousness of the human rational Ego and of the latter’s immateriality was already established long before the 20th century, in fact during Descartes’ own lifetime, at the most four years after the publication of his Discours de la méthode (1640), and by nobody else than himself. “We must not omitt,” Sir Kenelm writes, “what Avicenna in his booke de Anima & Almahad, and Monsieur des Cartes in his Methode, do presse upon the same occasion. Thus they say, or to like purpose: if I cast with my selfe, who I am that walke, or speake, or think; or order any thing; my reason will answere me, that although my legges or tongue were gone, and that I could no longer walke or speake, yet were not I gone, and I should know and see with my understanding, that I were still the very same thing, the same Ego as before.”25

19 K. Digby, Two treatises in the one of which the nature of bodies, in the other, the nature of mans soule is looked into in way of discovery of the immortality of reasonable soules, Paris, Gilles Blaizot, 1644; see Texts, II. 20 K. Digby, Two treatises…, p. 415. 21 Avicenna, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epistola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 140–144. 22 See, successively, Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Tabî‘iyyât, 6 – Kitâb al-nafs, ed. G. C. Anawati & S. Zayed, Cairo, 1974, I.i, p. 13 (Avicenna Latinus, Liber De Anima seu Sextus De Naturalibus, I–III, ed. S. Van Riet, Lou- vain, Peeters – Leiden, Brill, 1972, p. 36–37), V.vii, p. 225 (De Anima, p. 162–164); Kitâb al-Mubâhathât, ed. ‘A. R. Badawî, in Aristû ‘inda l-‘Arab, Cairo, al-Nahda, 1947, III, p. 58–62 (transl. in Y. Michot, “La réponse d’Avicenne à Bahmanyâr et al-Kirmânî. Présentation, traduction critique et lexique arabe-français de la Mubâhatha III”, Le Muséon, CX, Louvain-la-Neuve (1997), 143–221, p. 168–174); Kitâb al-Ishârât wa l-Tanbîhât – Le Livre des Théorèmes et des Avertissements, ed. J. Forget, 1e partie: Texte arabe, Leiden, Brill, 1892, p. 119 (transl. A.-M. Goichon, Livre des Directi ves et Remarques, Beirut, Commission internationale pour la traduction des chefs-d’œuvre – Paris, Vrin, 1951, p. 303). On Avicenna’s “Flying Man”, see Y. Michot, “La réponse…”, p. 146–149 (with the references of other studies). 23 K. Digby, Two treatises…, p. 417. 24 Quotation in L. E. Goodman, Avicenna, London–New York, Routledge, 1992, p. 179; see also ‘A. Badawi, Histoire de la philosophie en Islam. II. Les philosophes purs, Paris, Vrin, 1972, p. 666–670. 25 K. Digby, Two treatises…, p. 416. 304 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU

Kenelm Digby, painted by Van Dyck Digby’s Two Treatises

One generation before Digby, George Sandys (1578–1644) was another Englishman of the pre-Civil War era whose career had an extraordinary breadth.26 After touring the Middle East in 1610–1612, this son of a bloodthirsty Calvinist archbishop crossed the Atlantic as a Chris- tian imperialist treasurer of the new Virginia colony. Back in Great Britain three years after the great Indian revolt of 1622, he was appointed Gentleman of the Privy Chamber of Charles I. He nevertheless always made clear his reservations toward the absolutist tendencies of the Caroline rule and the Laudian church. Translator of the Psalms and the Book of Job as well as of Ovid and Virgil, he is sometimes called “the ! rst American Poet”. In the little church of Boxley (Kent) where he is buried, a 19th century marble plaque celebrates the memory of “a traveller, a divine poet and a good man”. George Sandys quotes and discusses Almahad of “Avicen” in a long passage of his Levanti- ne travelogue, whose ! rst edition came out in London in 1615 and was followed by many others during the 17th century: Sandys Travailes: containing a History of the Originall and present State of the Turkish Empire…27 His biographical information about the Shaykh al-Ra’îs is all 26 On R. Sandys, see J. Ellison, George Sandys: Travel, Colonialism and Tolerance in the Seventeenth Century, Cambridge, D. S. Brewer, 2002; art. “Sandys, George”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography…, xlviii, 929–932; J. Haynes, The Humanist as Traveler. George Sandys’s Relation of a Journey begun An. Dom. 1610, Cranbury–London–Mississauga, Associated University Press, 1986. 27 R. Sandys, Sandys Travailes: containing a History of the Originall and present State of the Turkish Empire: their Lawes, Government, Policy, Military force, Courts of Justice, and Commerce : The Mahometan Religion and Ceremonies. A Description of Constantinople…, London, John Sweeting, 5th ed., 1652, p. 46–47; see Texts, I. These two pages are quoted (with lacunæ) and analyzed in J. Haynes, The Humanist as Traveler…, p. 69–71. J. Haynes does not realize the importance, for Avicennan studies, of Sandy’s use of Almahad. INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 305 wrong. He has him living during the 12th century and, like many mediæval and Renaissance scholars, thinks that he was a Spanish Arab of royal descent, and a prince of Cordoba.28 He is in fact partly mistaking Avicenna for Averroes, which probably explains why he ends up attri- buting to him a doctrine of the double truth: “In the judgement of Avicen, one thing is true in their faith, and the contrary in pure and demonstrative reason.”29 Sandys speaks of Avicenna in Book I of his Travailes in which he presents “the Mahome- tan religion”, and the parts of Almahad that retain his attention are the same hermeneutical and apologetic pages that had been commented on, three centuries earlier, by Ibn Taymiyya. (30) For the Shaykh al-Ra’îs, the Messengers are sent to guide humans on the right path and to establish law, justice, and order in their jungle, not to teach them theology, eschatology or any other science. What the Qur’ân tells the masses about God is in fact limited to a few general but ethically, and hence socially and politically, useful statements.(31) As for the hereafter, Sandys writes, Avicenna considers the “sensuall felicities” depicted by the Qur’ân in the same utilitarian perspective “as meerly allegoricall, and necessarily ! tted to rude and vulgar capacities”: “if the points of religion were taught in their true form to the ignorant dull Jews, or to the wild Arabians employed altogether about their Camels; they would utterly fall off from all belief in God.” For Avicenna, the historical success of Islam demonstrates that the pragmatic mass-pedagogy tactic used by God and the Prophet for its propagation was indeed the most appropriate. Hence, as Sandys phrases it, his extolling “Mahomet highly, as being the seale of divine laws, and the last of the Prophets”, and, contrariwise, his harsh criticism of Christianity and its doctrine of a purely spiritual, angelic hereafter “as being weak and ill ! tted to vulgar understanding”, and thus, also, socially de! cient.32

28 As E. Pococke (Specimen…, p. 347) explains about Ibn Sînâ’s title al-Shaykh al-Ra’îs, it is “quasi doctorem primarium dicas ; unde vulgo Princeps insignitur”. On the mediæval and Renaissance pictures of Avicenna as a king, the extent to which this title was thought to refer to an actual kingship and the origins of this misconcep- tion, see the fascinating article of D. N. Hasse, “King Avicenna: the Iconographic Consequences of a Mistrans- lation”, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 60, London (1997), 230–243; M.-Th. d’Alverny, “Survivance et renaissance d’Avicenne à Venise et Padoue”, in Venezia e l’Oriente fra Tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento, Florence, 1966, 75–102 (reprinted in her Avicenne, XV), p. 80–83. Various European legends made Avicenna a king of the Arabs, or of Sevilla, or of Bithynia as well as of Cordoba; see D. N. Hasse, “King Avicenna…”, p. 234. 29 On the theory of the duality of truth, see F. Lucchetta, “La cosidetta ‘teoria della doppia verità’ nella Risâla adhawiyya di Avicenna e la sua trasmissione all’Occidente”, in Oriente e Occidente nel Medioevo: Filoso& a e sci- enze. Convegno internazionale, 9–15 Aprile 1969, Rome, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1971, 97–116. 30 See Y. Michot, “A Mamlûk Theologian’s Commentary…”, Part I, p. 173–177. 31 See Y. Michot, La destinée de l’homme selon Avicenne. Le retour à Dieu (ma‘âd) et l’imagination, Louvain, Peeters, 1986, p. 30–43. 32 I give in the footnotes to Text I, the references for the passages of Almahad used by Sandys. Avicenna’s hermeneutical approach to the Qur’ân as a divine exercise in mass-communication and his subsequent criticism of the excessive spirituality of Christian eschatology seem to elaborate on views already found in the Epistles of the Ikhwân al-Safâ’. He nevertheless redirects these views into the more anti-Christian line logically following from his own non-symbolist perspective: vulgar people are invited to believe in the letter of the scriptural images and allegories; as for Christian clerics, just like Mu‘tazilî theologians, they are societal troublemakers doomed to failure because they expect too much from the vulgum pecus. See Ikhwân al-Safâ’, Rasâ’il, 4 vols., Beirut, Dâr Sâdir, n. d., iii, 77–78, studied—with no comparison to Avicenna—in C. Baf! oni, “Il messaggio profetico di Gesù e di Muhammad in un passo degli Ikhwân al-Safâ’”, in Recueil d’articles offert à Maurice Borrmans par ses collègues et amis, Rome, Ponti! cio Istituto di Studi Arabi e d’Islamistica, 1996, 21–27. 306 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU

George Sandys Sandys’ Travailes, 1652 edition As a pious Protestant, our English traveller can of course accept neither Avicenna’s critique of Christianity, nor his praise of Muhammad’s action. For him, Avicenna’s hermeneutic implies that truth would have “to mask her selfe to please bestiall Ignorance”. At some point, he is ready to contemplate a possible need for ignorant people “to be enlightned by degrees” by means of allegories and drawn “to an apprehension of divine things, represented in those similitudes”. He nevertheless directly adds that “the course held by Mahomet worketh a clean contrary effect; and drowneth their understanding part and affection in the hope and love of these corporall pleasures. Whereby it is true, that he greatly enlarged his own earthly dominion: but […] withheld his followers from the true felicity.” On the one hand, Sandys’ opinion about the Prophet was already formed before he read Almahad: “a person in life so wicked, so worldly in his projects, in his prosecutions of them so disloyal, treacherous, and cruel”, “who by sensuall doctrine sought to have the rude world to follow him.” On the other hand, he considered that the truth—i.e. Christianity—might be “many times above reason, but never against it”, and could effectively be taught to all. These two reasons probably explain why he so deeply misunderstood the subtleties of Avicenna’s thought. He indeed did not realize that, for Avicenna, revelations must be obeyed literally by the populace rather than interpreted as images or symbols of some intellectual or esoteric truth that would necessarily have to be attained by all. He also gave no importance to Avicenna’s efforts to explain, by means of his doctrine of an imaginal resurrection—the one mentioned by Pococke—how Muhammad’s followers live mentally the kind of hereafter in which they are led to believe, and, consequently, how the Prophet not only perfectly accomplished his mission as lawgiver and founder of a just society but, also, was fully truthful in his eschatological promises and threats.33 In the same pages where he discusses Almahad, Sandys also quotes the eschatological chapter vii of the Shifâ’s Metaphysics, Book IX.34 His avowed purpose, in doing so, is to show

33 See Y. Michot, La destinée de l’homme… 34 See Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât (2), ed. M. Y. Moussa, S. Dunya & S. Zayed, Cairo, O.G.I.G., 1960, p. 423–432 (Avicenna Latinus, Liber de Philosophia Prima sive Scientia Divina, V–X, ed. S. Van Riet, Louvain, Peeters – Leiden, Brill, 1980, p. 506–521). INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 307 how Avicenna contradicts himself and, hence, to make him refute his own hermeneutics. Inte- restingly, Sandys’ perception of Avicenna’s intentions in the Adhawiyya and in the Metaphysics is exactly the opposite of that of various 20th century scholars. According to the latter, the Shifâ’ was written for a general audience of Aristotelian philosophizers whereas the Adhawiy- ya, with its particularly “esoteric” character, was reserved for the circle of Avicenna’s closest disciples and friends.35 For Sandys, Avicenna wrote Almahad “as a Mahometan”, for “a Maho- metan Prince”, whereas he wrote the Metaphysics after “laying down for a while his outward person of a Mahometan, and putting on the habite of a Philosopher”. In the Adhawiyya, he was “besotted with faction”. As for the Metaphysics, it expresses “his better advised and more sincere discourse”. In fact, Sandys’s discussion of Metaphysics IX.vii is as selective and oriented as his reading of Almahad. Only retaining the Metaphysics’ distinction between the religious and philosophical discourses in eschatology, as well as its demonstration of the superiority of immaterial felicity over bodily pleasure, he opposes it to Almahad’s supposedly symbolist and idealist hermeneutics. Whereas, in Almahad, Avicenna is excusing and commending “the teaching of absurd errours”, in the Metaphysics, he “utter[ly] excludes his former excuse of an allegory”. Despite the divergence of his views in the two works, the Shaykh al-Ra’îs can thus be instrumentalized against Islam and its Prophet: either he opposes their doctrine, or he reduces it to crafty fables aiming at wordly bene! ts. In other words, Islam is a demonic manipulation of people, a fraud having nothing to do with the truth. Modern specialists now consider that Avicenna proceeds along the same hermeneutical, prophetological and eschatological lines in the Adhawiyya and the Metaphysics;36 his idea of an imaginal hereafter is notably present in both works.37 Sandys could also have discerned this but his anti-Islamic agenda would of course have suffered therefrom. Sandys is not a philosopher but rather a Christian apologetic ideologue, and it is in this capacity that he discusses Almahad. He might have been biased and erroneous in his comprehension of various Avicennan ideas. The truth is, however, that his travelogue constitutes an important milestone in the spre- ading of Avicennism in the West. Further research will have to investigate where he ! rst heard of Almahad—during his studies in Oxford? in Venice, on his way to Constantinople?—38 how much his discussions are indebted to Alpago’s own notes on the Adhawiyya, and whether it is he who, by means of his Travailes, initiated the English-speaking world to the Shaykh al-Ra’îs’ daringly pragmatic hermeneutics of scriptural and prophetic narratives.39 Whatever the situation, his comments on Almahad were soon to be used by one of his contemporaries, the English poet and playwright Robert Baron (1630–1658).40

35 See Y. Michot, “A Mamlûk Theologian’s Commentary…”, Part I, p. 150, n. 2; M.-Th. d’Alverny, “Andrea Alpago…”, p. 3; “Avicenne et les médecins de Venise”, in Medioevo e Rinascimento. Studi in onore di Bruno Nardi, Florence, 1955, 177–198 (reprinted in her Avicenne, XIII), p. 193. 36 See for example Y. Michot, “A Mamlûk Theologian’s Commentary…”, Part I, p. 155, n. 22. 37 See A. Alpago, De mahad…, fol. 85 r. (= Avicenna, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epistola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 222–224); Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât, IX.vii, p. 431–432 (Philosophia…, p. 520). 38 Almahad is not mentioned among the books from Sandys’ library listed by M. A. Rogers, “Books from the Library of George Sandys”, The Book Collector, xxiii, London (1974), 361–370. 39 Before Sandys, the Elizabethan natural philosopher John Dee (1527–1608) is known to have owned a copy of Almahad, see D. F. Harkness, John Dee’s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the End of Nature, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 55, n. 203. 40 According to J. Ellison (“Sandys, George”, p. 930) the Travailes were “widely in" uential” and read by Ben Jonson, Francis Bacon, Robert Burton, Thomas Browne, Abraham Cowley, John Milton and others. 308 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU

“Prince” Avicenna41 Robert Baron’s Mirza Robert Baron published in 1647, in London, his ! nal work: a play entitled Mirza.42 A tragedie, really acted in Persia, which is generally considered an imitation of Ben Jonson’s Catiline. Another in" uence Baron came under is that of Sandys’ discussion of Almahad and the Shifâ’s Metaphysics in his Travailes, as is explicitly acknowledged by him in one of the elaborate historical annotations illustrating his play.43 Baron does more than just repeat Sandys’ analysis. He deems unacceptable “the absurd glory of Mahomets delusive Paradise” but under- lines, more than Sandys, the practical advantages attached to “these folleries” with which “is half the world bewitched”. This sensual “Elysium” might be a fraud but it is a politically and militarily useful one as the vulgar and illiterate people looking “no further then the Letter”, and “swallowing all with an implicit faith”, become the most intrepid foot soldiers, always ready “to precipitate themselves into the most horrid gulphes of eminent danger”; hence the might of the Ottoman armies… No wonder then that, according to Baron, Avicenna and other learned Muslims are sometimes so positive about Islam and willingly excuse “his Prophet for proposing it so fraught with sensual delights”: they are held to it “by Interest, and that strong charm, Reason of state”. Like Pococke, but in “the other place”, Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688) was an academic.44 Beside being Regius professor of Hebrew, he devoted himself to philosophy, opposed Thomas Hobbes and became the leader of the famous group known as the Cambridge Platonists. In his True Intellectual System of the Universe, published in 1678,45 he intended to refute atheism,

41 From the Venise edition of Avicenna’s Canon, 1520, fol. 1 r; see D. N. Hasse, “King Avicenna…”, p. 237. 42 On R. Baron, see D. Kathman, art. “Baron, Robert”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography…, iv, 19. D. Kathman places the publication of Mirza in 1655. 43 R. Baron, Mirza. A tragedie, really acted in Persia, in the last age: illustrated with historicall annotations, London, H. Moseley & T. Dring, 1647; see Texts, III. 44 On R. Cudworth, see D. A. Pailin, art. “Cudworth, Ralph”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography…, xiv, 562–565. 45 R. Cudworth, The True Intellectual System of the Universe (1678), 2 vols., New York, Garland Publishers, 1978. INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 309 corporealism and determinism. He speaks of Almahad in a sermon preached to the “honourable Society of Lincolns-Inne”, one of London’s four Inns of court, and later sometimes republished as “Second sermon”.46 Cudworth recognizes in Avicenna a spiritualist philosopher like himself. In some way, he nevertheless ! nds the Shaykh al-Ra’îs too much of a spiritualist, as, like “Mai- monides and other Philosophers”, he dreams that, in the hereafter, humans will “be mere Souls without Bodies to all Eternity” and sees in the scriptural af! rmations of a resurrection of the body nothing else than a condescending means to persuade “vulgar people” that they “shall have a real Subsistence after Death”, and, once judged by God, “shall be made capable either of future Happiness or Misery”. Cudworth shows no interest for the politics of eschatological Islamic narratives underlined by Baron. Moreover, despite writing that distinguishing doctrines kata dóxan and kat’ álètheian might “be! t a Mahumetan Philosopher”, i.e. not a Christian thinker like him, he does not indulge in any anti-Islamic polemics. His concern is exclusively that of a philosophizing Anglican theologian: ascertaining the reality of both the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of bodies.

Ralph Cudworth Cudworth’s Second Sermon During the 19th century, Cudworth’s refutation of Almahad’s eschatology will be re-used, this time in the United States, in a debate opposing two theologians: a professor in Danville Theological Seminary, Robert Wharton Landis (1809–1883), notably author of The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked carefully considered,47 and a Swedenborgian pre-Sionist Presbyterian minister, professor of Hebrew and Oriental literature at New York Uni- versity and author, among other works, of a Life of Mohammed,48 the ! rst American biography of the Prophet, Rev. George Bush (1796–1859). In his highly controversial Anastasis (1844),49

46 R. Cudworth, A sermon preached to the honourable Society of Lincolns-Inne, London, R. Royston, 1664, p. 51–52; see Texts, V. 47 R. W. Landis, The Immortality of the Soul and the Final Condition of the Wicked carefully considered, New York, Carlton & Lanahan, 1868. 48 G. Bush, The Life of Mohammed; founder of the Religion of Islam, and of the Empire of the Saracens, New York, Harper & Brothers, 1837. 49 G. Bush, Anastasis, or the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, Rationally and Scripturally considered, 310 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU

George Bush denies the reality of the resurrection of bodies. In his refutation of Bush’s work, Robert Landis challenges the originality of his opponent’s views and at some point, via Cudworth, likens them to Avicenna’s Almahad. Without explicitly saying so, he obviously believes that, for Avicenna, the scriptural depictions of a bodily hereafter are mere myths.50 It is unnecessary to say that my survey of the Adhawiyya’s impact on English 17th century literature is work in progress and that I have submitted in this paper nothing more than the results of a preliminary enquiry. Many other discoveries can undoubtedly be expected, as more works will be digitalized in the near future and also become easily searchable. What can already be concluded is, nevertheless, far from negligible, as it is manifest that Almahad was indeed read by several ! gures actively involved in the intellectual, religious and cultural life of the Jacobean, Caroline and Civil War periods: the ! rst Laudian professor of Arabic in Oxford, the adventurer sometimes called “the ornament of England”, a Gentleman of the Privy Cham- ber famous for both his poetry and his intercontinental travels, a politically acute playwright, the leading Cambridge Platonist…51 As for the ideas and debates that Almahad triggered or contributed to develop amongst its 17th century readers, with consequences extending into the following centuries, they relate altogether to philosophy, religion and politics, and are of para- mount interest: the self-consciousness of the Cogito, the relation between reason and religion, the reality of the resurrection of the body, the political—or even military—usefulness of religious myths… Although this Anglicized Avicenna might sometimes recall Fyodor Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor”, he remains, more than ever, the Shaykh al-Ra’îs.

George Bush’s Anastasis Landis’ refutation of George Bush

London, Wiley & Putnam, 1845. 50 See R. W. Landis, The Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, Asserted and defended; in Answer to the Ex- ceptions Recently Presented by Rev. George Bush, Philadelphia, Perkins & Purves – Boston, Benjamin Perkins & Co., 1846, p. 26–27; Texts, VII. 51 This paper thus adds a new dimension to the spectrum of Arabic studies in 17th century England investigated in G. A. Russell (ed.), The ‘Arabick’ interest of the Natural Philosophers in Seventeenth-Century England, Leiden, Brill, 1994. INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 311

TEXTS I. George Sandys (1615) “Avicen that great Philosopher and Physician, who " ourished about four hundred and ! fty years since, when Mahometanisme had not yet utterly exstinguished all good literature; who was by linage an Arabian of a royall house, in religion a Mahometan, but by countrey and habitation a Spaniard, and Prince (as some write) of Corduba, teacheth a far different doctrine. For although as a Mahometan, in his books De Anima, and De Almahad, addresses particularly to a Mahometan Prince, he extolleth Mahomet highly, as being the seale of divine laws, and the last of the Prophets;52 excusing his sensuall felicities in the life to come, as meerly allegoricall, and necessarily ! tted to rude and vulgar capacities: (for saith he, if the points of religion were taught in their true form to the ignorant dull Jews, or to the wild Arabians employed altogether about their Camels; they would utterly fall off from all belief in God:)53 yet besides that this excuse is so favourable and large, that it may extend as wel unto all Idolaters, and in brief to the justifying of the absurdest errors, it is in a point of doctrine so contrary to his own opinion, as nothing can be more. For Avicen himselfe in the aforesaid books, doth esteem so vilely of the body, that he prono- unceth bodily pleasures to bee false and base; and that the soules being in the body is contrary to true beatitude: whereupon he denyeth also the resurrection of the " esh. Yet in favour, as hath been said of Mahomet, (who by sensuall doctrine sought to have the rude world to follow him) he not onely by his allegoricall construction approveth the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, wherein the Jews and Mahometans consent with the Christians; but withall the transmig- ration of souls from one body into another, (by which means Mahomet devised how a Camell might passe through the eye of a needle; the soul of a sinner for purgation entring ! rst into the body of a Camell, then of a lesser beast, and ! nally of a little worm which should creep thorow the eye of a needle; and so become perfect:) and lastly, not once reproveth that impious saying of Mahomet, that God himselfe at the Resurrection should also have a body, no doubt, to enjoy those sweet sensuall felicities, though all such opinions are disclaimed by him: but contrariwise reproveth the doctrine of the Christians touching spirituall happynesse, and that saying of our Saviour, that, the Saints in the world to come shall be as Angels (yet professeth the same to be true) as being weak and ill ! tted to vulgar understanding.54 So strangely may wise men be besotted with faction, to excuse and commend the teaching of absurd errours even by themselves condemned, and to lay an aspersion upon the purity of divine doctrine, in that un! t to be so communicated to the ignorant: as if truth were to mask her selfe to please bestiall Ignorance, and Ignorance not rather to be enlightned by degrees, and drawn up to behold the Truth. But now this Avicen, laying down for a while his outward person

52 See A. Alpago, De mahad…, fol. 48 r. (= Avicenna, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epistola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 84). 53 See A. Alpago, De mahad…, fol. 43 v. (= Avicenna, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epistola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 44); fol. 44 v. – 45 r. (= Avicenna, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epis- tola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 56). 54 See A. Alpago, De mahad…, fol. 49 v. (= Avicenna, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epistola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 94–96). 312 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU of a Mahometan, and putting on the habite of a Philosopher; in his Metaphysicks (Tract.9 ca.7. & seq.) seemeth to make a " at opposition between the truth of their faith received from their Prophet, and the truth of understanding by demonstrative argument:55 And saith in effect, that this law and prophesie delivered by Mahomet, which taught that God himselfe at the resurrection should have a body, placeth the happynesse of the life to come in bodily delights. But wise Theologians, saith he, have with greater desire pursued spirituall pleasures proper to the soul: and for this corporall felicity, although it should be bestowed upon them, would not esteem it in comparison of the other, whereby the mind is conjoyned to the ! rst truth, which is God.(56) And here he never mentioneth that strained excuse of an allegory; but with just indignation and some acerbity in speech, detesteth that grosse opinion broached in their law, which placeth the predominance of everlasting felicity in the basenesse of sensuality and in that low voluptuous- nesse: and saith that a prudent and understanding man, may not think that all delight is like the delight of an Asse; and that the Angels who are next to the Lord of the worlds, should live deprived of all pleasure and joy, and that hee who is the highest in beauty and vertue, should consist in the last and lowest degree of suavity.57 And therefore concludeth, that neither in excellency, nor in perfection, nor yet in multitude, no nor in any thing praise-worthy or to be desired in pleasure, there is any comparison between those felicities:58 and though base souls be addicted to that base felicity, yet the worthy desires of holy minds are far removed from that disposition; and contrariwise being joyned to their perfection (which is God) are ! lled with all true and happy delights: and if that the contrary perswasion of affection should be remaining in them, it would hurt and withhold them from attaining unto that height of happinesse.59 This being his better advised and more sincere discourse, it utter excludes his former excuse of an allegory: whose right use being, by plain and sensible allusions to draw up the understanding to an apprehension of divine things, represented in those similitudes: the course held by Mahomet worketh a clean contrary effect; and drowneth their understanding part and affection in the hope and love of these corporall pleasures. Whereby it is true, that he greatly enlarged his own earthly dominion: but by this judgement even of Avicen withheld his followers from the true felicity. And it is worthy observation, that in the judgement of Avicen, one thing is true in their faith, and the contrary in pure and demonstrative reason. Whereas (to the honour of Christian Religion be it spoken) it is confessed by all, and enacted by a Councel, that it is an error to say, one thing is true in Theology, and in Philosophy the contrary. For the truths of religion are many times above reason, but never against it. So that we may now conclude, that the Mahometan religion, being derived from a person in life so wicked, so worldly in his projects, in his prosecutions of them so disloyal, treacherous, and cruel being grounded upon fables and false revelations, repugnant to sound reason, and that wisdome which the divine hand hath imprinted in his works; alluring men with those inchantments of " eshy pleasures, permitted in this life, and promised for the life insuing; being also supported with tyranny and the sword (for it is death to speak there against it,) and lastly,

55 See Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât, IX.vii, p. 423 (Philosophia…, p. 507, l. 95–98). 56 See Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât, IX.vii, p. 423 (Philosophia…, p. 507, l. 1–5). 57 See Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât, IX.vii, p. 424 (Philosophia…, p. 509, l. 37–44). 58 See Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât, IX.vii, p. 426 (Philosophia…, p. 511, l. 84–89). 59 See Avicenna, al-Shifâ’, al-Ilâhiyyât, IX.vii, p. 432 (Philosophia…, p. 520, l. 86 – 521, l. 94). INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 313 where it is planted rooting out all vertue, all wisdome and science, and in summe, all liberty and civility, and laying the earth so wast, dispeopled and uninhabited, that neither it came from God (save as a scourge by permission) neither can bring them to God that follow it.”60

II. Kenelm Digby (1644) “So in man, though his body be the ! rst moover that appeareth unto us, yet seeing that in his actions, some effects do shew themselves, which it is impossible should proceed from a body, it is evident, that in him there is some other thing besides that one which we see: and consequently we may conclude, that he is composed of a body and of somewhat else that is not a body: which somewhat else, being the spring from whence those actions " ow, that are of a different straine from them that are derived from the body, must necessarily be a spirituall substance. But whiles we are examining, how farre our present considerations, and short discourses may carry us, as it were experimentally to con! rme this truth, we must not omitt what Avicenna in his booke de Anima & Almahad, and Monsieur des Cartes in his Methode, do presse upon the same occasion. Thus they say, or to like purpose: if I cast with my selfe, who I am that walke, or speake, or think; or order any thing; my reason will answere me, that although my legges or tongue were gone, and that I could no longer walke or speake, yet were not I gone, and I should know and see with my understanding, that I were still the very same thing, the same Ego as before. The same as of my tongue or legges, would reason tell me of my eyes, my eares, my smelling, tasting, and feeling, eyther all of them together, or every one of them single, that were they all gone, still should I remaine: As when in a dreame, (where I use none of all these) I both am, and know my selfe to be Reason will tell me also, that although I were not nourished, so I were not wasted, (which for the drift of the argument may be supposed) yet still I should continue in Being. Whence it would appeare, that my hart, liver, lunges, kidneyes, stomacke, mouth, and what other partes of me soever, that serve for the nourishment of my body, might be severed from me, and yet I remaine what I am. Nay, if all the beautifull and ayry fantasmes, which " y about so nimbly in our braine, be nothing else but signes unto in our soule, of what is without us; it is evident, that though peradventure she would not without their service, exercise that which by errour we missename Thinking; yet the very same soule and thinker might be without them all: and consequently, without braine also; seeing that our braine is but the play- house and scene, where all these faery maskes are acted: so that in conclusion Reason assureth us, that when all body is abstracted in us, there still remaineth a substance, a thinker, an Ego, or I, that in it selfe is no whitt diminished, by being (as I may say) stripped out of the case it was enclosed in. And now I hope the intelligent Reader will conceive I have performed my promise, and have shewed the soule of man to be an Immortall substance: for since it is a substance.”61

60 R. Sandys, Travailes…, p. 46–47. 61 K. Digby, Two treatises, p. 416–417. Later version (1669) in K. Digby, Of bodies and of mans soul to discover the immortality of reasonable souls: with two discourses, Of the powder of sympathy, and, Of the vegetation of plants, London, S.G. & B.G. for John Williams ..., 1669, p. 79–81: “So, in Man, though his Body be the ! rst mover that appears to us, yet seeing that, in his actions, some effects shew themselvs, which ’tis impossible should proceed from a Body; ’tis evident, that in him there is some other thing besides that one which we see. 314 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU

III. Robert Baron (1647) “Such is the absurd glory of Mahomets delusive Paradise; yet with these fooleries is half the world bewitched, the impostor cunningly debelling and forbidding all learning, lest the light thereof should discover the grosseness of his absurdities, as it surely doth in those few that can attain it, under so strict a restraint: as Avicen that great Philosopher and Physitian, who " ourished about 500 years since, when Mahometisme had not yet utterly extinguished all good literature, who was by linage an Arabian of a Royal house, in Religion a Mahometan, but by Country and Habitation a Spaniard, and Prince (as some write) of Corduba, he (forced by the strength of his Reason) in his Books De Anima, & De Almahad, strives to vindicate the most intelligent of his Sect, from the literal belief of this Elyzium, and excuses his Prophet for proposing it so fraught with sensual delights, as meerly allegorical, and necessarily ! tted to rude and vulgar Capacities; for (saith he) if the points of Religion were taught in their true form to the ignorant dull Jews, or to the wild Arabians, employed together about their Camels, they would utterly fall off from all belief in God. But its like he here makes his Prophet (as some Commentators do their Authors) speak more then he ever meant, being ashamed of him in grosse, as appears Tract. 9. cap. 7. & seq. where laying down for a while his outward person of a Mahometan, and putting the habit of a Philosopher; in his Metaphysicks seemeth to make a " at opposition between the truth of their faith received from their Prophet, and the truth of understanding by demonstrative Argument. But however Avicen and the Learned may see into the folly of their Doctrine (to which they are yet held by Interest, and that strong charm, Reason of state) the vulgar and illiterate look no further then the Letter, swallowing all with an implicit faith, so strong in them, as that the poor Azapi or foot soldiers being covetous of these delights in Paradise (promised (by an high policie) most eminently to such as die for their Country) make nothing to precipitate themselves into the most horrid gulphes of eminent danger, nay, even to ! ll up ditches with their bodies for the Janizaries to march over, and mount

And consequently, we may conclude, that he is composed of a Body, and somwhat else that is not-a-Body: which somewhat else, being the spring from whence those actions " ow that are of a different strain from those derived from the body, must necessarily be a Spiritual Substance. But, while we are examining, how far our present considerations and short discourses may carry us, as it were, experimentally, to con! rm this truth; we must not omit what Avicenna (in his Book De Anima & Almahad) and Monsier des Cartes (in his Method) press upon the same occasion. Thus they say, or to like purpose. If I cast with my self, who I am that walk, or speak, or think, or order any thing: my reason will answer me, that, although my legs or tongue were gone, and that I could no longer walk or speak, yet were not I gone; and I should know and see with my understanding, that I were still the very same thing, the same Ego as before. The same, as of my tongue or legs, would reason tell me of my eys, my ears, my smelling, tasting and feeling, either all of them together, or every one of them single; that, were they all gone, still should I remain. As when, in a dream, (where I use none of all these) I both am and know my self to be. Reason will tell me also, that although I were not nourished, so I were not wasted, (which for the draft of the argument may be supposed) yet still I should continue in Being. Whence it would appear, that my heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, stomach, mouth, and what other parts of me soever, that serve for the nourishment of my body, might be sever’d from me; and yet I remain what I am. Nay, if all the beautiful and airy fantasms, which " y about so nimbly in our brain, be nothing else but signs to and in our Soul, of what is without us; ’tis evident, that, though peradventure she would not, without their service, exercise that which by error we mis-name Thinking, yet, the very same Soul and Thinker might be without them all: and consequently, without brain also; seeing that our brain is but the play-house and scene, where all these faery masks are acted. So that, in conclusion, Reason assures us, that, when all Body is abstracted in us, there still remains a Substance, a Thinker, an Ego, or I; that in it self is no whit diminished, by being (as I may say) strip’d out of the case it was inclos’d in. And now, I hope, the intelligent Reader will conceive I have perform’d my promise, and shewed the Soul of man to be an Immortal Substance.” INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 315 the walls of assaulted fortresses. See the Alcoran, Johannes Andreas Maurus his confutation thereof. Sandys. Herbert. &c.”(62)

IV. Edward Pococke (1655) “At emolliri forsan poterint interpretatione aliquâ, quam non adeo refugiat intellectus, ut de fabulis qua Rabbinorum scriptis passim inspersa, perhibent Judai, à quibus horum pleraque mutuata. Ita certè Avicenna visum liquet, è libro Almahad, c. ultimo, ubi hæc, interprete Bel- lunensi habentur. “Si enim anima fuerit beata post separationem, tunc imaginatur secundùm formam laudabilem, vel delectabilem in formis sensationum, & in forma secundùm quam vere cognoscit veram beatitudinem. Et dixerunt quod hæc sit pœna sepulturæ, & præmium vel delectatio in ea. Et dixerunt quod mundus secundus ipsi animæ sit exitus ab indumento istarum qualitatum corporis, vel istarum dispositionum corporis. Et quod indumentum animæ ex istis dispositionibus sit sepultura animæ. Dixerunt etiam quod non est mirum quod imaginetur formas laudabiles, & appareant ei in ! ne eius ante mundum secundum, scil. in hora mortis, & post eam omnes dispositiones connumeratæ in libris Prophetæ, scil. dispositiones Paradisi, & mulieres, & aliæ delectationes quæ currunt hoc cursu.”(63) Ita & aliis nonnullis, quibus tamen ! dei Islamitica (quam vocant) canonum observantiores, vel hoc nomine hæreseos notâ inurunt. Quid enim de illis qui hanc sibi ea quæ in Alcorano, vel à Moham. dictis ab intellectu remotiora videntur, interpretandi sibi licentiam sumserint, statuant…”(64)

V. Ralph Cudworth (1664) “Avicen the Mahumetan Philosopher, in his Almahad, hath a conceit, That the meaning of the Resurrection of the Body is nothing else but this, to persuade Vulgar people, that though they seem to perish when they die and their Bodies rot in the Grave, yet notwithstanding they shall have a real Subsistence after Death, by which they shall be made capable either of future Happiness or Misery: But because the apprehensions of the Vulgar are so gross, that the Permanency or Immortality of the Soul is too subtile a Notion for them who commonly count their Bodies for Themselves, and cannot conceive how they should have any Being after Death, unless their very Bodies should be raised up again; therefore by way of Condescension to vulgar Understandings the future Permanency and Subsistence of the Soul in Prophetical Writings is expressed under this Scheme of the Resurrection of the Body, which yet is meant kata dóxan onely and not kat’ álètheian. Which conceit how well soever it may be! t a Mahumetan Philo- sopher, I am sure it no way agrees with the Principles of Christianity. The Scripture here and elsewhere assuring us that the Resurrection of the Body is to be understood plainly and without a Figure; and that the Saints departed this life in the Faith and Fear of Christ, shall not be mere Souls without Bodies to all Eternity, as Avicen, Maimonides and other Philosophers dreamed, but consist of Soul and Body united together. Which Bodies though (as the Doctrine of

62 R. Baron, Mirza…, p. 248–249. 63 A. Alpago, De mahad…, fol. 85 r.–v. (= AVICENNA, al-Risâlat al-Adhawiyya…, transl. Lucchetta, Epistola sulla Vita Futura…, p. 224). 64 E. Pococke, Porta Mosis…, p. 305–306. 316 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU the Church instructeth us) they shall be both Speci! cally and Numerically the same with what they were here, yet notwithstanding the Scripture tells us they shall be so changed and altered in respect of their Qualities and Conditions, that in that sense they shall not be the same.”(65)

VI. Richard Simon (1714) “Pococke dans le ch. 7 de ce même ouvrage explique assez au long le sentiment des Maho- metans sur la resurrection, & il remarque entr’autres choses, qu’Avicenne a composé sur cette matière un livre qui a été traduit en Latin par André de Bellane sous le titre de Almahad, le Traducteur ayant retenu le mot Arabe, qui signi! e le lieu où l’homme va après la mort. Avicen- ne prétend que la résurrection ne regarde que l’ame ; mais il ajoute en même tems, que tout ce qu’il dit touchant cette résurrection de l’ame, il le dit en Philosophe & en suivant sa raison ; mais qu’en raisonnant selon les principes de la foi, Almahad regarde également le corps & l’ame, & qu’il croit que l’un & l’autre ressusciteront. Avicenne parle dans ce même petit livre de la secte de ceux qui établissent deux principes, sçavoir, la lumière et les tenebres. Pococke cite en ce même endroit les paroles d’un livre d’Avicenne intitulé, Shepha, où ce Philosophe re- connoit la resurrection, qui ne peut être prouvée autrement, que par la loi & par la verité de la tradition : Per legem & veritatem traditionis, & que son Prophete Mahomet a expliqué au long la felicité & la misere du corps après cette vie. Je ne m’arrête point à plusieurs particularites que Pococke rapporte, & qu’il a prises des livres des Mahometans, parceque ce sont de grandes rêveries, & Pococke même témoigne qu’il a honte de les rapporter, & qu’une partie a été prise des Juifs par les Mahometans : Pleraque, dit-il, qua hîc è Mahometanis adducuntur ridicula sunt, & nonnulla ex Judaorum libris desumpta. Il ajoute ensuite, que ce qu’il a produit tiré des livres des Mahometans est si ridicule, que quelques-uns pourroient croire qu’il leur impose, & que c’est pour cette raison qu’il a rapporté les propres termes de leurs livres en Arabe, pour ôter tout le soupçon qu’on pourroit avoir qu’il leur ait imposé. Au reste, quoique ces citations des livres des Mahometans produites par Pococke ne con- tiennent presque que des choses tout à fait ridicules, elles ne laissent pas d’être d’une grande utilité, parce que ce sçavant Homme met en évidence ce qui regarde la veritable croyance des Mahometans, qui a été ignorée de plusieurs nations, qui ont voulu les tourner en ridicules sur de certains faits qui ne se trouvent point dans leurs livres Arabes. Ceux qui voyagent dans le levant, & qui sont quelquefois dans l’obligation de s’entretenir avec les Mahometans sur ce qui regarde le Mahometisme, doivent lire cet ouvrage de notre sçavant Auteur, pour ne pas leur attribuer des choses fausses. Car je vois que Grotius, tout sçavant qu’il étoit, leur a quelquefois imposé après plusieurs autres. Pococke cependant ajoute, qu’on pourroit peut-être addoucir par quelque interpretation favorable ces sortes de fables, en ne les expliquant pas si litteralement, comme les Juifs, de qui ils en ont emprunté une bonne partie, donnent à leurs rêveries des exp- lications qui peuvent être tolerées : At emolliri, dit-il, forsan poterunt interpretatione aliquâ, quam non adeò refugiat Tutellerius, ut de fabulis qua Rabbinorum scriptis passim desumpta

65 R. Cudworth, A Sermon…, p. 51–52 ; also in J. JEBB, Piety without Asceticism, or the Protestant Kempis: A Manual of Christian Faith and Practice Selected from the Writings of Scougal, Charles How, and Cudworth, with Corrections, and Occasional Notes, London, James Duncan & John Cochran, 1830, p. 509–510. INTERNATIONAL IBN SINA SYMPOSIUM 317 perhibent Judai, à quibus horum pleraque mutuata. Il cite les paroles d’Algazel, fameux Interp- rete de l’Alcoran, contre la licence de quelques Mahometans, qui donnoient des sens favorables à de certains passages de l’Alcoran, qui ne paroissoient pas vrai-semblables en les prenant à la lettre. Algazel soutient, qu’on les doit entendre tous selon la signi! cation litterale des mots. Je laisse ces rêveries Judaïques & Mahometanes, pour passer à quelque chose qui soit plus utile.”(66)

VII. Robert W. Landis (1846) “We shall close this chapter with a brief history of the theory of the resurrection adopted by Professor Bush. He challenges for it the merit of being new, and that as such, it must modify essentially the common view of this doctrine. And as we dispute and deny this assumption, so far as the novelty of the doctrine is concerned, it is not from a desire to present Professor Bush in an invidious light, that we refer to its history, but merely in order to sustain the position we assume. With respect to this theory, the Professor acknowledges that it is the same substantially as that which was entertained by Swedenborg, though he claims to have arrived at his conclusions by an independent process. But the theory is much older than Swedenborg, as the following facts demonstrate […] (2.) The next prominent advocate of this theory is Avicen, the Mohammedan philosopher. In his Almahad he advances the doctrine of Professor Bush precisely, and employs some of his arguments to sustain it. He says that ‘the meaning of the resurrection of the body is nothing else but this, to persuade vulgar people, that though they seem to perish, when they die, and their bodies rot in the grave; yet, notwithstanding, they shall have a real subsistence after death, by which they shall be made capable either of future happiness or misery. But because the apprehensions of the vulgar are so gross, that the permanency and immortality of the sou1 is too subtle a notion for them, who commonly count their bodies for themselves, and cannot conceive, how they should have any being after death, unless their very bodies should be raised up again; therefore, by way of condescension to vulgar understandings, the future permanency and subsistence of the soul, in prophetical writings, is expressed under this scheme of the resurrection of the body, which yet is meant katà dóxan only, and not kat’ alètheian.’ See Cudworth’s Second Sermon, at the end of his Intellectual System, vol. ii., p. 605. Now this doctrine of the Mohammedan philosopher Avicen, and which his philosophy taught him so many centuries ago, is the very doctrine which Professor Bush has, as he professes, by the great advance of scienti! c investigation in the nineteenth century evolved by his philosophy, and by means of which he would correct the views of the Christian church on the subject of the resurrection. But let us see what Cudworth himself thinks of this theory of Avicen. After making the foregoing quotation from the Almahad, he remarks as follows: ‘Which conceit, how well soever it may be& t a Mahometan philosopher, I am sure it in no way agrees with the principles of Christianity; the Scripture here (Rom. viii. 11,) and elsewhere assuring us, that

66 R. Simon, Nouvelle bibliotheque choisie…, p. 85–88. 318 ULUSLARARASI İBN SÎNÂ SEMPOZYUMU the resurrection of the body is to be understood plainly and without a ! gure; and that the saints, departed this life in the faith and fear of Christ, shall not be mere souls without bodies to all eternity, as Avicen, Maimonides, and other philosophers dreamed, but consist of soul and body united together. Which bodies, though, as the doctrine of the church instructeth us, they shall be both speci! cally and numerically the same, with what they were here; yet, notwithstanding, the Scripture tells us, they shall be so changed and altered, in respect of their qualities and conditions, that in that sense they shall not be the same.’ Cudworth, ii., p. 605, 606.”67

67 R. W. Landis, The Doctrine of the Resurrection…, p. 26–27.