Ibn Sīnā's celestial kinematics represents an important aspect of his cosmology but has up to now received little attention in the secondary literature. After a short overview of some key features of his cosmology, this article attempts to clarify the role played by the separate intellects, the celestial souls, and the celestial bodies in causing celestial motion. It challenges the common view that Ibn Sīnā adhered to the theory of ten separate intellects developed by al-Fārābī and attempts to reconstruct his astronomical-metaphysical model on the basis of his main philosophical works. In addition, the article addresses the thorny question of how motion is transmitted from the intellectual to the physical plane, and it sheds light on the place of physics, metaphysics, and astronomy in Ibn Sīnā's cosmological method.

The article examines the relation that Aquinas' theory of the beatific vision maintains with Averroes' noetics as presented in his Great Commentary on the De anima. Starting with his Commentary on the Sentences, in which the young Thomas Aquinas offers an explicit transposition of the philosophical intellection of separate substances into the Christian theological order, through to his later works where no mention of it is found, we will endeavour to present the exact nature of these borrowings and to evaluate their accuracy by questioning the conceptual coherence of Aquinas' gesture: could Aquinas base his conception of a vision of God by essence on a noetic construction which was originally part of a system judged both erroneous and contrary to faith? Can one concede theologically, concerning the relation between divine essence and intellect, what one refuses philosophically, concerning the relation between the separate intellect and the body? Although Aquinas and his followers, in the incipient quarrel, assert it to be so, we will indicate how the original paradoxical borrowing maintains something conceptually problematic at the heart of Aquinas' thinking.

Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq's Arabic translation of Galen's commentary on the Hippocratic Epidemics is an invaluable source for our knowledge of Galenic medicine and its transmission history, not least because much of it is extant only in Arabic. Its importance for the Arabic medical tradition is amply attested in the later medical literature. It also tells us much about the methods and self-image of contemporary translators. Throughout the translation, we find remarks by Ḥunayn discussing the quality of his source text, his own interpretation and also his attempts to reconstruct problematic or damaged passages. Based on an edition of these notes, their analysis and comparison to similar texts and Galen's own thought on editing and interpreting difficult medical texts, this article aims to situate Ḥunayn's methods in the context of the Greek-Arabic translation movement. It argues that his approach differs in important respects from that of preceding Greek-Arabic and Greek-Syriac translators and that he was indebted to Galen not just as a physician, but also as a translator and exegete.

If anyone still raises doubts about the function of philology and the need for critical editions, this book should definitely put those doubts to rest. It shows that no history of philosophy is possible without intensive philological work with the original texts.

Dans l'horizon de l’étude de la philosophie naturelle d'Averroès, le nouveau travail de Ruth Glasner (RG) intitulé Averroes’ Physics: a Turning Point in Medieval Natural Philosophy occupera assurément une place de premier plan. Dans cet ouvrage, RG propose une étude analytique des trois commentaires d'Averroès à la Physique d'Aristote – l’Abrégé, le Commentaire Moyen et le Grand Commentaire. La force incontestable de son travail réside tout d'abord dans son approche double du texte d'Averroès, à la fois philologique et théorique. Tout au long de son analyse, ces deux aspects restent intimement liés et la mobilisation des instruments philologiques n'est jamais une fin en soi. Cette analyse a en effet pour but ultime de reconstruire le système du monde tel qu'Averroès le concevait. L'enjeu fondamental de cette étude est alors de supplanter la vision d'un Averroès interprète servile de la physique aristotélicienne et de présenter sa conception de la nature comme un système cohérent, organique et original.