Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T20:23:27.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy and Maimonides

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2011

Harry Austryn Wolfson
Harry Austryn Wolfson
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Arabic philosophic texts, and following them also in Hebrew philosophic texts, restatements of Aristotle's distinction between ‘equivocal’ (ὁμώνυμα, mushtarakah) and ‘univocal’ (συνώνυμα, mutawāṭi'ah), terms usually contain another type of term which stands midway between these two. It is called ‘ambiguous’ or ‘amphibolous’ (mushakkikah) terms. So far no adequate explanation as to the origin of this type of term has been advanced. In the latest and most important study of the subject, the problem of its origin has been left unsolved. To solve this problem as well as to account for the various treatments of ambiguous terms in Arabic philosophy, including Alfarabi, Avicenna, Algazali, Averroes and Maimonides, is the purpose of this paper.

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 1938 , pp. 151 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1938

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Categories, Ch. 1, 1a, 1–12.

2 Cf. D. Z. Baneth, “La-Terminologiah ha-Pilosofit shel ha-Rambam,” Tarbiz, VI (1935), 36–39.

3 Alexander in Topica, ed. M. Wallies (1891), p. 97, 11. 22–23.

4 Ibid., p. 152, 11. 7–8. According to Alexander ‘equivocal’ refers to a ‘term’ (ἂνομα) whereas ‘ambiguous’ refers to a ‘sentence’ (λόγος). This phase of the distinction, however, plays no part in the Arabic texts to be dealt with in this paper.

5 Risālat fī Jawābi Masā'il Su'il ‘anhā, § 12, in F. Dieterici, Alfārābī's philosophische Abhandlungen: Arabic (1890), p. 88; German (1892), pp. 145–146.

6 Najāt: I. Logic (ed. Rome, 1593), p. 23; (ed. Cairo, 1331/1913), p. 142; Shifā': I. Logic, quoted by I. Madkour in his L'Organon d'Aristote dans le monde arabe (1934), pp. 61–62.

7 Maqāṣid al-Falāsifah: I. Logic, pp. 11–12, II. Metaphysics, p. 106 (Cairo, without date); Mi'yār al-'Ilm (Cairo, 1329/1911), p. 44.

8 Original Arabic not extant. Hebrew translation: Kol Meleket Higgayon: Mabo, (Riva di Trento, 1559), pp. 2b–3a; Latin translation from the Hebrew: Epitome in Libros Logicae Aristotelis, in Aristotelis Opera (Venice, 1574), Vol. I, Pars II2, p. 36 I-M.

9 Millot ha-Higgayon, Ch. 13, ed. L. Roth (1935); Moreh Nebukim, I 56.

10 Alexandri Scripta Minora, ed. I. Bruns (1892), p. 23, 11. 4–9.

11 Metaphysics IV, 2, 1003a, 33–34.

12 Alexander in Metaphysica, ed. M. Hayduck (1891), p. 241, l. 8.

13 Metaphysics VII, 4, 1030a, 34–35.

14 Cf. the commentaries of Bonitz, Schwegler and Ross ad loc.

15 Metaphysics VII, 4, 1030a, 21–22. On the terms ‘first’ and ‘next’ see below, nn. 27 and 28.

16 Ibid. VII, 1, 1028a, 13–15.

17 Ibid., 1028a, 30–31.

18 Ibid. V, 7, 1017a, 35–b, 2.

19 Ibid. III, 6, 1003a, 1–2.

20 Ibid. IX, 8, 1049b, 5.

21 al-nahy wal-amr.

22 The Cairo edition (p. 142, l. 13) has here: al-ḥalīl wal-nāhil, in which, from a comparison with Alfarabi, al-nāhil is evidently a corruption of al-nāhī. In the Rome edition (p. 23, l. 7) the reading is al-ḥāmil wal-bāhil, pregnant woman and unmarried woman.

23 Topics II, 3, 110b, 19–21.

24 Alexander in Topica, p. 152, ll. 19–20.

25 Metaphysics XI, 3, 1061a, 18–20.

26 Ibid., 25–27.

27 Metaphysics VII, 6,1031b, 13–14.

28 Ibid. VII, 4, 1030a, 21–22.

29 Cf., e.g., Topics III, 2, 117b, 23, and see Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, s.v.

30 Categories, Ch. 8, 10b, 26.

31 Cf. Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, sub μᾶλλον.

32 Cf. M. Bouyges, Averroes: Talkhiç Kitāb al-Maqoūlat (1932), p. 32, l. 138 of Aristotle's Text and p. 33, l. 1 of Averroes' Commentary; also p. 84, l. 458 of Text and 1. 4 of Commentary.

33 Cf. below, p. 167.

34 Cf. Baneth, op. cit., p. 37.

35 Porphyrius in Categories, ed. A. Busse (1897), p. 66, 11. 2 ff.

36 Topics II, 3, 110b, 17–19.

37 Alexander in Topica, p. 152, ll. 16–17.

38 Nicomachean Ethics I, 6, 1096b, 27–28.

39 Metaphysics XI, 3, 1061a, 3–5.

40 Simplicius in Categorias, ed. C. Kalbfleisch (1907), p. 74, ll. 30–31.

41 Ibid., p. 228, l. 9. Here Simplicius mentions only άϕ᾽ ἑνός.

42 Cf. above, n. 8.

43 nomina analoga (p. 36 L). In the Hebrew version: (p. 3a), i.e., nomina ambigua. On the use of analoga for ambigua, see below n. 84.

44 ad principium unum: sicut si comparentur, ad efficiens unum. This reflects Aristotle's interpretation of ἀρχή as an efficient cause in Metaphysics VI, 1, 1013a, 7–10.

45 ad finem unum.

46 ad subjectum unum. In the Hebrew version: i.e., ad locum unum. The Hebrew seems to reflect here the Arabic maḥall rather than the Arabic makān and hence the Latin subjectum. The Arabic maḥall in Maqāṣid al-Falāsifah: II. Metaphysics, p. 80, is translated into Hebrew by i.e., (Kawwanot ha-Pilosofim, MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Heb. 901), and into Latin by subjectum (Algazel's Metaphysics, ed. J. T. Muckle (1933), p. 6, l. 8). Cf. my Crescas' Critique of Aristotle, p. 577, n. 15.

47 In the Latin translation the description ‘ambiguous’ (or as it is called there ‘analogous’) terms refers only to what I designate here by B. This is due to the fact that the Latin translation contains only one kind of equivocal terms instead of the two kinds found in the Hebrew translation, and consequently the Latin translation takes Averroes' concluding statement “Et istae species, exceptis primis duabus speciebus, sunt notae in nominibus analogis [ = ambiguis],” to refer to B and the clause exceptis primis duabus speciebus to refer to the one kind of equivocal terms and to A.

48 Sicut est nomen entis, quod dicitur de substantia, quantitate, et qualitate, et caeteris praedicamentis, et sicut caliditas quae dicitur de igne et caeteris rebus calidis. In his Tahāfut al-Tahāfut, VII (ed. M. Bouyges, 1930, § 37, pp. 387–388) he adds to these two examples taken from ‘being’ and ‘heat’ also the example of ‘motion’ in its application to locomotion and to other kinds of motion.

49 Et earum sunt quae dicuntur nomine derivato a nominibus, ut si dixeris phlebotomum medicinalem [et pharmacum medicinale, exercitationem salubrem et signum salubre], (locum bonum et domum bonam, veram servitutem et veram sapientiam). In this Latin quotation, the passage within brackets is supplied from the Hebrew version; that within parentheses is omitted in the Hebrew. The example of the term ‘medical’ occurs also in Averroes’ Epitome of the Metaphysics (cf. Averroes: Compendio de Metafisica, ed. Quirós, 1919, II, § 3, p. 37) where he adds also an example from the term ‘military.’

50 Quaedam comparantur ad ipsam secundum prioritatem et posterioritatem, sicut est comparatio multorum praedicamentorum et specierum eorum ad substantiam. I take the term substantia, in this passage to reflect the Arabic dhāt, i.e., the Greek τὸ τί ἐστι, rather than the Arabic jauhar, i.e., the Greek οὐσία, and accordingly Averroes' passage here may be taken to reflect the following passage in Aristotle's Metaphysics VII, 4, 1030a, 17–23: “‘Definition,’ like the essence of a thing (τὸ τί ἐστι), has several meanings, for the essence of a thing in one sense signifies substance (οὐσία) and the individual thing, but in another sense signifies each of the categories, quantity, quality, and the like. For as ‘being’ (τὸ ἔστιν) belongs to all things, though not in the same sense, but to one sort of thing primarily and to others consequently, so also ‘essence’ (τὸ τί ἐστιν) belongs to substance absolutely but to the other categories in a sort of way.” That the term substantia in this passage of Averroes cannot be taken in its literal sense is quite evident from the context.

51 Et earum sunt, quarum comparatio ad ipsam est in gradu uno.

52 Et earum sunt quarum comparatio fuerit ad res diversas consimiles, sicut est principium, quod dicitur de corde animalis et de fundamento domus et de extremo viae. The Arabic term underlying consimilis, would seem to be mutashābih which usually translates the Greek ὂμοιος (cf. Averroes' Epitome of the Metaphysics I, ed. Quirós, p. 25, § 45, last line, and Metaphysics V, 9, 1018a, 15.) But here I take it to reflect the Greek άναλογικός on the ground that the examples used here by Averroes are similar to those used by Porphyry (Commentaria in Categorias, ed. A. Busse 1887, p. 65, ll. 31 ff.) as illustrations of analogy. The enumeration of the various meanings of ‘principium’ in this passage of Averroes reflects Aristotle's discussion of the various meanings of άρχή in Metaphysics VI, 1, 1012b, 34–1013a, 1, and 1013a, 4–7.

53 Vel erit eis ad rem unam comparatio diversa, ac si diceres uvam vinosam et faciem vinosam.

54 Cf. above, nn. 29 and 30.

55 Metaphysics V, 6, 1017a, 2–3.

56 Physics VII, 4, 249a, 23–25.

57 Topics II, 3, 111a, 6–7.

58 Metaphysics V, 6, 1016b, 34–35.

59 Millot ha-Higgayon, Ch. 13.

60 Moreh Nebukim I, 56.

61 Millot ha-Higgayon, Ch. 13. There is one notable difference between the original example by Aristotle in Categories, Ch. I, and its reproduction by Maimonides. In Aristotle, it is the term ‘animal’ that is taken as the subject of the example. In Maimonides, it is the term ‘man.’ But the substitution of ‘man’ for ‘animal’ is also to be found in John of Damascus, Dialectica, Ch. 16 (Migne, Vol. 94, Col. 580), in Avicenna's Shifā' (Cf. Madkour, L'Organon d'Aristote dans le monde arabe, p. 62) and in Algazali's Mi'yār al-'Ilm, p. 44.

62 Topics II, 3, 110b, 21–22.

63 Metaphysics V, 18, 1022a, 27–29.

64 Metaphysics V, 18, 1022a, 29–31.

65 Topics II, 3, 110b, 22–25.

66 Cf. above, nn. 27 and 28.

67 Metaphysics V, 30, 1025a, 30–32.

68 Additional meanings of the term ‘ain are given in Najāt (p. 142) and in Maqāṣid al-Falāsifah (p. 11).

69 De Plantatione Noe 37, § 151.

70 Cf. their respective commentaries on Categories, Ch. 1, 1a, 1 ff., in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca.

71 Dialectica, Ch. 16 (Migne, Vol. 94, Col. 580).

72 Ibid., Ch. 30 (ibid., Col. 596).

73 Porphyrius in Categorias, p. 65, ll. 25–30 and cf. l. 19.

74 Dialectica, Ch. 30.

75 Cf. M. Bouyges, op. cit., p. 6, 1. 2 of Aristotle's Text.

76 Cf. “Glossar” under these two terms in Isidor Pollak, Die Hermeneutik des Aristoteles in der arabischen Übersetzung des Isḥāq ibn Ḥonain (Leipzig, 1913).

77 Op. cit.

78 Cf. M. Bouyges, op. cit., p. 6, 1. 4.

79 Translated into Hebrew by (Kawwanot ha-Pilosofim, Ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Heb. 901). In the Latin translation (Algazel's Metaphysics, ed. J. T. Muckle, 193S, p. 26, ll. 9–10) the term muttafiq is rendered “eo quod aptatur omnibus,” which follows immediately the statement “et vocatur nomen ambiguum,” and it is thus taken not as an alternative of the term mushakkik (ambiguum) but rather as an explanation of it. The Arabic as printed should be rendered “aut vocatur nomen aptum.” Evidently the Latin translation is based upon a different reading of the Arabic text.

80 Porphyrius in Categorias, p. 65, l. 19, cf. Baneth, op. cit., p. 37.

81 Aristotelis Opera (Venice, 1574), Vol. IV, p. 331 E.

82 Ibid., p. 331 I–K. Incidentally, it may be noted that as in the case of the term mutashābih so also in the case of the term mushkil, from its original meaning of ‘similar’ it came to mean ‘ambiguous’ (cf. Lane's Arabic-English Lexicon, s.v.) in which sense it is used by Alfarabi in his description of ambiguous terms (loc. cit.), though in this case of Alfarabi it may be a corruption of mushakkik, as has been suggested by Baneth (op. cit., p. 38, n. 18). An indirect suggestion as to some sort of association between the terms ‘similar’ and ‘ambiguous’ may be discerned in the statement “habet quamdam similitudinem atque ambiguitatem” in Boetii in Librum De Interpretatione Editio Secunda (Migne, Vol. 64, Col. 466 B; ed. Meiser, p. 143, ll. 15–16).

83 Cf. Algazel's Metaphysics, ed. J. T. Muckle (1933), p. 26, l. 9, corresponding to p. 106, 1.15 of Maqāṣid al-Falāsifah, and the old mediaeval Latin translation of Maimonides' Moreh Nebukim (Dux seu Director Dubitantium aut Perplexorum, Paris, 1520), I, 55 of Harizi's version (corresponding to I, 56 of Ibn Tibbon's version).

84 Cf. Latin translation of Averroes' Epitome of the Organon, made from the Hebrew by Abraham de Balmes, quoted above in n. 43; Latin translation of Averroes' Epitome of the Metaphysics, made from the Hebrew by Mantinus, in Aristotelis Opera (Venice, 1574), Vol. VIII, p. 359 K and p. 364 A; Latin translation of Maimonides' Millot ha-Higgayon, made from the Hebrew by Munster (Logica Sapientis Rabbi Simeonis, Basel, 1527), Ch. 13; Hebrew and Latin texts quoted in I. Husik, Judah Messer Leon's Commentary on the “Vetus Logica” (1906), p. 84.

85 Cf. M. Horten, Die Metaphysik des Averroes (1912), p. 40, l. 1; C. Quirós, Averroes Compendio de Metafisica (1919), Spanish translation, p.58, §3; S. van den Bergh, Die Epitome der Metaphysik des Averroes (1924), p. 28, l. 28. Dieterici in Alfarabi's philosophische Abhandlungen, p. 146, correctly translates it by “die doppelsinnigen” but his translation of al-muttafiqah by ‘analoge’ (p. 145) is not quite correct in this instance (cf. above, n. 77, and Baneth, op. cit., p. 34, n. 6). I. Madkour in his L'Organon d'Aristote dans le monde arabe (1934) translates mushakkik by “équivoque” (p. 61), which in its strictly technical sense is only a synonym of “homonyme” by which he translates mushtarak (p. 62).

86 Contra Gentiles I, 34: “neque univoce neque aequivoce, sed analogice.”

87 I. Sententiarum, Distinct. 35, Quaest. 1, Art 4, Solutio: “Sed duplex est analogia. Quaedam secundum conventiam in aliquo uno, quod eis per prius et posterius convenit.”

88 Contra Gentiles I, 34: “sicut ens de substantia et accidente dicitur.”