The Internal Senses in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew Philosophic Texts

Harry Austryn Wolfson

doi:10.1017/S0017816000022938

^{page 69 note 1} sensus interiores (or interni), . See below, nn. 10, 12, 25, 27, 64, 66, and cf. passages quoted in D. Kaufuiann, Die Sinne, pp. 46–49.

^{page 69 note 2} exteriores, extreni, . See below, n. 27, and cf. Kaufmann, loc. cit.

^{page 69 note 3} corporealis, corporens, . See below, nn. 27, 40, and Ch. II, n. 28, and cf. Kaufmann, loc. cit.

^{page 69 note 4} , oprratae, , patibiles. Cf. below, n. 27.

^{page 70 note 5} spiritualis, . See below, nn. 40, 64, and Ch. II, nn. 28, 73, and cf. Kaufmann, loc. cit.

^{page 70 note 6} distinctus (= separabilis), See below, Ch. II, n. 76.

^{page 70 note 7} sensus cerebri, virtutes cerebri. See below, nn. 10, 14.

^{page 70 note 8} vis, virtus, potentia, facultas, . See below, nn. 10, 12.

^{page 70 note 9} apprehensiones, . See below, n. 27.

^{page 70 note 10} Averroes, Colliget, II, 20, fol. 30 F (see below, Ch. II, n. 82): “Et virtutes cerebri … quamvis non habeant membra vel instrumenta, ipsa tamen habeant propria loca in cerebro.” Keckermann (see below, Ch. III, n. 52), Cap. 17, Col. 1522: “Sensus interior est actio sensualis quae intus sit: sive, cuius causae instrumenta immediata sunt collocata intu, in ipso cerebro animalis.” Magirus (see below, Ch. III, n. 53), p. 350: “Interiores, qui intra cranium subsistunt.”

^{page 70 note 11} Two more detailed treatments of the internal senses in the works of two philosophers dealt with here only in a general way will be found in my papers Isaac Israeli on the Internal Senses, in George Alexander Kohut Memorial Volume (1935), and Maimonides on the Internal Senses, in Jewish Quarterly Review, N.S., 25 (1935).

Important studies of the internal senses are to be found in the following works: Landauer, S., Die Psychologie des Ibn Sînâ, in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gescllschaft, 29 (1875), pp. 399 ff.Google Scholar; Schneider, A., Die Psychologie Alberts des Grossen, I (1903), pp. 151 ff.Google Scholar; Horovitz, S., Die Psychologie des Aristotelikers Abraham Ibn Daud (1912)Google Scholar, in his Die Psychologie bei den jüdischen Religions-Philosophen des Mittelalters von Saadia bis Maimuni (1898–1912), pp. 238 ff.

^{page 71 note 12} Confessiones, I, 20; De Libero Arbitrio, II, 3–5; Confessiones, VII, 17. I have been unable to find the use of “internal senses” prior to Augustine. Cicero's tactus interior (Acad., II, 7, 20) referred to by Eisler, R. Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe, 4th ed., 1930Google Scholar, under “Wahrnehmung,” p. 484) has an entirely different meaning. The statement by Dessoir, M. in Abriss einer Geschichte der Psyehologie (1911)Google Scholar, p. 44, that “Galen unterschied sogar drei innere Sinne” is not quite correct. Galen himself does not use the term “internal sense,” though Arabic philosophers in reproducing his classification of the post-sensationary faculties describe them as internal senses. See below, nn. 18, 24.

^{page 71 note 13} Cf. The Confessions of Augustine, edited by J. Gibb and W. Montgomery (1908), notes ad loc. cit.

^{page 71 note 14} Libri, Moralium, sive Expositio in Librum Beati Job, XI, 6 (Migne, LxV, Col. 957 B). Cf. A. Schneider, Die Erkenntnislehre bei Beginn der Scholastik (1921), p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 15} De Divisione Naturae, II, 23 (Migne, CxII, Col. 577 D). Cf. Schneider, A., Die Erkenntnislehre des Johannes Eriugena, I (1921), 64.Google Scholar

^{page 71 note 16} Throughout mediaeval Latin texts, as will appear in the course of this paper, cogitativa is used as the equivalent of διανοητική In Albertus Magnus, Summa de Creaturis, II: De Homine (ed. Vivès), Quaest. 38, Art. S, Solutio, syllogistica seems to be used as its equivalent: “Prima dicitur phantasia ab antiquioribus, secunda syllogistica, tertia memorialis.”

^{page 72 note 17} Cf. S. Horovitz, op. cit., pp. 238 ff., referring to Galen's De Symptomatum Differentiis, Cap. III, in Opera Omnia (ed. D. C. G. Kühn), VII, 56.

^{page 72 note 18} Cf. Index in Galeni Libros in Opera Omnia (ed. D. C. G. Kühn), x. Nor is “internal sense” used in the threefold classification of post-sensationary faculties by Nemesius, De Natura Hominis, Chs. 6, 12, 13, and by John of Damascus, De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 17, 19, 20.

^{page 73 note 19} Cf. R. D. Hicks. Aristotle: De Anima, p. 422, and below, Ch. III, n. 22.

^{page 73 note 20} Cf. Galen, De Locis Affectis, III, 9, in Opera Omnia (ed. D. C. G. Kühn), VIII, 174 ff. This reference is given in Koning, P. de, Trois Traités d'Anatomie Arabes (1903), p. 9, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 21} Musere ha-Pilosofim, II, 10 (Lunéville, 1807), p. 15a: (1) , (2) , (3) .

^{page 73 note 22} Cf. Al-Manṣûri fi al-Tibb in Koning, P. de, Trois Traités d'Anatomie Arabes (1903). p. 9: (1) . (2) , (3) .Google Scholar

^{page 73 note 23} Hebrew: Sefer ha-Yesodot, II (ed. S. Fried), 53–55; Latin: Liber de Elementis, II, in Omnia Opera Ysaaci, Lyon, 1515, fol. ix, r:

(1) informatum; , phantasia.

(2) , cojitatio.

(3) , memoria.

^{page 73 note 24} Ma'ánî al-Nafs, Ch. 8 (ed. I. Goldziher. 1907, p. 27, 11. 21–23): (1) , (2) , (S) .

^{page 73 note 25} Tiḳḳun Middot ha-Nefesh (Budapest, 1896), p. 11; Arabic: ed. S. S. Wise, The Improvement of the Moral Qualities (1902), p. 4, ll. 19–20: (1) , (2) , (3) . The term used here is “internal” ().

^{page 73 note 26} Commentary on Exodus 31, 3: (1) , (2) , (3) .

^{page 73 note 27} Moreh Nebukim, I, 47 (46). Arabic: ed. Munk, S., Guide des Égarés (1856–1860)Google Scholar; Latin translation from Judah Ḥarizi's Hebrew version by Augustinus Justinianus, Dux seu Director Dubitantium aut Perplexorum (1520), and from Samuel ibn Tibbon's Hebrew version by Johannis Buxtorf, Fil., Doctor Perplexorum (1629):

The terms used by Maimonides for external and internal senses are as follows:

^{page 74 note 28} Cf. Horovitz, S., op. cit., p. 138, n. 138; p. 259, n. 256. Cf. also D. Cassel, Das Buch Kuzari (1869), V, 12, p. 391, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 75 note 29} De Menioria et Reminiscentia, 1, 450a, 12–14.

^{page 75 note 30} Ibid., 2, 451a, 28–29, and 1, 449b, 18–23.

^{page 75 note 31} Enneades, IV, iii, 29.

^{page 75 note 32} Ibid., 30.

^{page 75 note 33} De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 20. Cf. Nemesius, De Natura Hominis, Ch. 13.

^{page 75 note 34} Cf. Liber de Elementis, II, in Omnia Opera Ysaaei, Lyon, 1515, fol. ix, r, a; Hebrew: Sefer ha-Yesodot, II (ed. S. Fried), 55; Liber de Definitionibus, Ibid., fol. iii, v, b; Arabic: ed. Hirschfeld, H., Jewish Quarterly Review, 15 (1902–1903), p. 630Google Scholar; Hebrew: ed. Hirschfeld, H., Festschrift zum achzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneider's, 1896Google Scholar, Hebrew part, p. 139. Cf. my paper Isaac Israeli on the Internal Senses in George Alexander Kohut Memorial Volume. The terms used by Isaac Israeli are: (1) indagatio, (2) , inquisitio.

^{page 75 note 35} Epitome of De Memoria et Reminiscentia (see below, Ch. II, n. 75), fol. 21 G: “ista nam virtus est in homine per cognitionem.” Instead of “per cognitionem” of the Latin translation the Arabic and Hebrew have: = per cogitationem et detiberationem.

^{page 76 note 36} De Memoria et Reminiscentia, 2, 453a, 9–14.

^{page 76 note 37} Commentary on Exodus 20, 1 ff.

^{page 76 note 38} Moreh Nebukim, II, 36. The term used here for “creation” or “natural disposition” is .

^{page 76 note 39} Ibid., I, 46. The term for “created” used here is .

^{page 77 note 40} Cf. Fr. Dieterici, Arabic text: Die Abhandlungen der Ichwân Es-Safâ in Auswahl, pp. 468 ff., 269 ff., 220; German translation: Die Anthropologie der Araber, pp. 56 and 38; Die Lehre der Weltseele bei den Arabern, pp. 46–17. The terms used are as follows: (1) (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) .

^{page 78 note 41} De Anima, III, 2, 425b, 24–25.

^{page 78 note 42} Ibid., III, 3, 429a, 4–5.

^{page 78 note 43} De Sensu et Sensibili, 7, 449a, 3–10.

^{page 78 note 44} De Anima, III, 7, 431a, 14–17.

^{page 78 note 45} Metaphysics, VI, 1027b, 29–30.

^{page 78 note 46} Ibid., 25–27.

^{page 78 note 47} .

^{page 78 note 48} De Anima, III, 3, 428a, 2–3.

^{page 79 note 49} Diogenes Laertius, De Vitis, VII, 110. In other sources for γεννητικόν the term σπερματικόν is used. Cf. Diels, Doxographi Graeci, p. 390. But for our purpose here the assumption of the use of the term γεννητικόν is necessary.

^{page 79 note 50} . Cf. Averroes, , Compendio de Metafisica (ed. Carlos Quirós Rodrigues, Madrid, 1919), §2, Arabic text, p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 79 note 51} . Cf. my The Classification of Sciences in Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy in Hebrew Union College Jubilee Volume (1925), p. 265.

^{page 80 note 52} Cf. Ibid., p. 266.

^{page 80 note 53} . Cf. Ibid., p. 265.

^{page 80 note 54} De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 19.

^{page 80 note 55} Cf. above, nn. 44, 46. Cf. also below on Isaac Israeli, n. 74.

^{page 80 note 56} Cf. above, nn. 45, 48.

^{page 81 note 57} Metaphysics, VI, 1, 1025b, 25.

^{page 81 note 58} Ibid., VI, 1, 1026a, 10–11; cf. De Anima, I, 1, 403b, 15–16.

^{page 81 note 59} Cf. terms ἀρετἠ, βούλευσις, προαίρεσις in Nicomnchean Ethics, passim.

^{page 81 note 60} Cf. terms ἐπιστήμη, τέχνη in Metaphysics, I, 1, 981a, 2.

^{page 82 note 61} De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 21.

^{page 82 note 62} Cf. above, n. 15.

^{page 82 note 63} Cf. Kayser, Karl, Das Buch von der Erkenntniss der Wahrheit oder der Ursache aller Ursachen, Syriac text (1889), p. 27, l. 17; p. 125, l. 12; p. 126, l. 16; German translation (1893), pp. 35, 160, 162.Google Scholar

^{page 82 note 64} (p. 125, l. 12; p. 126, l. 16), (p. 27, l. 17). For “external senses” the term used is (p. 27, l. 15).

^{page 82 note 65} (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) (p. 125,1.12) or (p. 27,1.17).

^{page 82 note 66} Cf. A. J. Sylvestre de Sacy, Le Livre du Secret de la Créature in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale, IV (1789), 116.

^{page 83 note 67} (1) (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) .

^{page 83 note 68} Cf. A. J. Sylvestre de Sacy, loc. cit., n. m, and S. Horovitz, op. cit., p. 257, n. 106; p. 258, n. 107.

^{page 83 note 69} Cf. above, n. 45.

^{page 83 note 70} Cf. above, nn. 47, 48.

^{page 83 note 71} Cf. above, n. 44.

^{page 83 note 72} Cf. above, n. 46.

^{page 83 note 73} Liber de Elementis, II. fol. ix, r, a: “cogitationis enim est perscrutari et discernere et componere.” Sefer ha-Yesodot, II, 55: .

^{page 83 note 74} Liber de Elementis, III, fol. x, r, a: “intellectualis sensus: qui est (1) interpretatio et discretio, (2) et perscrutatio, (3) et solutio et ligatio, (4) et coguitio rerum secundum veritate.” Sefer ha-Yesodot, III, 68: (1) (4) (3) (2).

By “intellectualis sensus” Isaac Israeli means here διάνοια. The combination of the terms “intellectualis” and “sensus” can be explained on the ground of Aristotle's own use of the term αἴσθησις in the sense of νοῦς in Nicomachean Ethics, VI, 11, 143b, 5. The terms “interpretatio,” “discretio,” “perscrutatio,” “investigatio,” and their Arabic and Hebrew equivalents I have shown to reflect the Greek κρίσις. Cf. my paper Isaac Israeli on the Internal Senses in op. cit.

^{page 84 note 75} Sefer ha-Ruaḥ weha-Nefesh le-Rabbi Isaac ha-Ysraeli, ed. M. Steischneider, in Ha-Karmel, I (1871–72), 202: . For the use of the term in the sense of cogitatio, see above, n. 74.

^{page 84 note 76} (p. 125, 1. 8) = λογιστική.

^{page 84 note 77} (1. 7) = δύναμις.

^{page 84 note 78} (1. 8) = νόησις.

^{page 84 note 79} (1. 8) = διανόησις.

^{page 84 note 80} (1. 8) = λόγος.

^{page 85 note 81} (1. 9) = θυμός.

^{page 85 note 82} (1. 10) = ἐπιθυμία.

^{page 85 note 83} (1. 10) = ζωός.

^{page 85 note 84} (1. 10) = λογιστικός.

^{page 85 note 85} Cf. above, n. 64.

^{page 85 note 86} Cf. above, n. 64.

^{page 85 note 87} Cf. Zeller, , Die Philosophie der Griechen, II, 1 (5th edition, 1922), pp. 844–845.Google Scholar

^{page 85 note 88} De Anima, II, 3, 414b, 1–2.

^{page 85 note 89} Ibid., II, 2, 413b, 2.

^{page 86 note 1} Cf. S. Horovitz, op. cit., pp. 240–242.

^{page 87 note 2} Cf. Schmoelders, A., Documenta Philosophiae Arabum (1836), pp. 116–118Google Scholar; Landauer, S., Die Psychologie des Ibn Sînâ in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 29 (1875), p. 401Google Scholar, n. 6; S. Horovitz, op. cit., pp. 250–251, n. 93. But this connection between aestimatio and δόξα has already been discussed by Albertus Magnus, Liber de Apprehensione, Pars III, § 11: Discipulus. Similitudinem etiam cum opiuione habere videtur. Philosophia … et ideo quidam ex alumnis meis hanc virtutem [= aeslimatiram] credebant opinionem esse.” Opinio = δόξα. Cf. also Macdonald, D. B., Wahm in Arabic and its Cognates in The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1922), pp. 505–521.Google Scholar

^{page 87 note 3} De Anima, III, 3, 428a, 19–22.

^{page 87 note 4} Cf. Stobaeus, Eclogae (ed. Wachsmuth), Vol. I, p. 348, and cf. Landauer, loc. cit.

^{page 88 note 5} On the functions of δόξα, cf. J. Geyser, Die Erkenntnistheorie des Aristoteles, pp. 181 ff.

^{page 88 note 6} Cf. Ioannis Philoponi Aristotelis de Animae Libros Commentaria (ed. M. Hayduck), p. 500, ll. 25 ff., and cf. S. Horovitz, op. cit., pp. 250–251, n. 93.

^{page 89 note 7} De Anima, III, 7, 431a, 14–17, and III, 10, 433b, 27–30.

^{page 89 note 8} Ibid., III, 7, 431a, 8–20; III, 10, 433b, 27–11. 434a, 10.

^{page 90 note 9} Historia Animalium, VIII, 1, 588a, 23.

^{page 90 note 10} Ibid., 29–31.

^{page 90 note 11} De Partibus Animalium, II, 2, 648a, 5–8.

^{page 90 note 12} Ibid., II, 4, 650b, 24.

^{page 90 note 13} Nicomachean Ethics, VI, 7, 1141a, 28.

^{page 90 note 14} Emunah Ramah, I, 6, p. 29.

^{page 90 note 15} Physics, II, 8, 199a, 20–30. This Aristotelian view recurs in the writings of the Stoics, Philo, and Cicero. Cf. I. Heinemann, Poseidonios' metaphysische Schriften, II, 464–465.

^{page 91 note 16} So stated by Avicenna in Canon (see reference below, n. 31).

^{page 91 note 17} Cf. above, Ch. I, nn. 45, 56.

^{page 92 note 18} This is what is primarily meant by the expressions , componendi et dividendi (Avicenna, Canon; see below, n. 31), which generally occur in Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin texts in the description of this kind of imagination. Cf. below, Ch. III, n. 17. Sometimes, however, these expressions assume a different meaning in certain texts.

^{page 92 note 19} De Anima, III, 11, 434a, 9–10.

^{page 92 note 20} .

^{page 93 note 21} The correspondence of what we have called “compositive human imagination” to ϕαντασία λογιστική and “compositive animal imagination” to ϕαντασία αἰσθητική has been generally assumed on the ground of the fact that the former two refer to men and the latter two refer to animals. Cf. S. Landauer, op. cit., p. 400, n. 4; S. Horovitz, op. cit., p. 247, n. 85.

^{page 93 note 22} Independently of the internal senses the estimative faculty has already been described by Isaac Israeli in his Liber de Defiuitionibus, fol. iiii, r, a, and as later in Alfarabi and Avicenna and their followers it is ascribed to animals, in whom it corresponds to reason in men: “Et propter hoc facte sunt bestiae estimantes non meditantes ().” The term , aestimatio, , occurs also in that text. It will have been noticed that the Arabic term used by Isaac Israeli for aestimatio is not wahm but rather ẓ, which is used by Avicenna as the equivalent of wahm (see below, n. 43). The term wahm (medilatio, ) is used by him as a description of a faculty which is above aestimatio but below cogitatio (fikr, ). Cf. my paper Isaac Israeli on the Internal Senses in op. cit. See also the discussion of Baḥya ibn Paḳuda, below, nn. 64, 65.

^{page 95 note 23} Cf. Risâlat fuṣuṣ al-Ḥukmun, § 36, in Fr. Dieterici's Alfārābl's Philosophische Abhandlungen (1890), pp. 73 ff. German translation (1892), pp. 121 ff.

^{page 95 note 24} ‘Uyun al-Musâi'il, § 20, in op. cit., p. 63. German translation, p. 105. Cf. also Schmoelders, A., Documenta Philosophiae Arabum (1836), Arabic, p. 32; Latin, p. 54.Google Scholar

^{page 95 note 25} (1) (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) .

^{page 95 note 26} (4) (3) (2) (i) . Dieterici erroneously takes as an adjective and translates the passage as follows (op. cit., p. 105): “sowie die inncren vorstellenden Sinne wie Vermutung, Erinnrung, Nachdenken.” Schmoelders (op. cit., p. 55) translates it correctly: “varii sensus interni modi, imaginatio scilicet, informatio, recordatio, cogitatio.” Schmoelders* translation of wahm by informatio, however, is inaccurate.

^{page 96 note 27} Cf. Sefer ha-Hatḥalot (in Ẓ. Filipowsky's Sefer ha-Asif, Leipzig, 1849), p. 3: “The imaginative faculty is that which [a] retains the impressions of the sensible objects after the latter have disappeared from sense-perception, and [b] combines some of these impressions with others and separates some of them from others. … [c] Moreover, to this faculty belongs also the apprehension of that which is beneficial or injurious, pleasant or unpleasant.” The three functions ascribed here to imagination correspond respectively to (a) retentive imagination, (b) compositive imagination, and (c) estimation.Google Scholar

^{page 96 note 28} , sensus spiritualis; , sensus corporeus. Liber de Elementis, II, Latin, fol. a, r, a; Hebrew, pp. 53–54. Ibid.: “cum sit [sensus communis] inter sensum visibilem scilicet corporeum et informatum qui est in anteriori parte cerebri nominatum phantasia, et propter hoc nominatur sensus communis.”

^{page 96 note 29} De Anima, III, 2, 426b, 8–427a, 16.

^{page 97 note 30} Cf. Risâlah fi al-Nafs, Ch. 7 (see below, n. 34) and see above, Ch. I. n. 43.

^{page 97 note 31} Canon, Lib. I, Fen I, Doctrina VI, Cap. 5. Arabic text (Rome, 1593), fol. 35; Latin text (Venice, 1582), fol. 27 v; Hebrew text (Naples, 1491).

^{page 97 note 32} Al-Shifâ'. Arabic text unavailable at present writing, but scheme of classification and terminology used in it are the same as in Al-Najât. Latin translation of part dealing with soul in Avicenna, De Anima (Pavia, c. 1485), fols. 7d–8a, 28d–34c. Analysis of this work in Winter, M., Über Avicennas Opus egregium de anima (Liber seitus naturalium) (München, 1903).Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 33} Al-Najât, II: Physics, p. 45. Published together with Canon, Rome, 1593.

^{page 99 note 34} Risâlah fi al-Nafs, Ch. 7. Arabic original with German translation and notes under the title of Die Psychologie des Ibn Sînâ by Landauer, S. in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 29 (1875), pp. 335 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 99 note 35} “Et quae harum duarum est recipiens alia est a custudiente .”

^{page 99 note 36} In Isaac Israeli's Liber de Elementis, II (Latin, fol. ix, r, a; Hebrew, p. 53), the Greek ϕαντασία is correctly identified with imagination: “Et informatum (imaginatio, cf. below, Ch. III, p. 116) qui est in anteriori parte cerebri nominatum phantasia.” .

^{page 98 note 37} Cf. De Anima, II, 3, 414, 29 ff.; III, 9, 431a, 29 ff.

^{page 98 note 38} De Somniis, 1, 459a, 15–17: καὶ ἔστι μὲν τὸ αὐτὸ τῷ αἰσθητικῷ τὸ ϕανταστικὀν, τὸ δ᾽ εἶναι ϕανταστικῷ καὶ αἰσθητικῷ ἔτερον. The term αἰσθητικῷ in this passage is generally understood to refer to “common sense.” Cf. below, n. 94. For the meaning of τὸ εἶναι see G. Rodier's note on De Anima, II, 1, 412b, 11, in his Aristotle: Traité de l'Ame, II, 180.

^{page 98 note 39} Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon in Ḳobẓ? Teshubot ha-Rambam we-Iggerotaw, II, 28b.

^{page 98 note 40} Cf. above, n. 28.

^{page 100 note 41} .

^{page 100 note 42} .

Winter, op. cit. (above, n. 32), p. 29, n. 1, has failed to see the distinction which we have made here between the identification of the term “common sense” with the Greek term phantasia and the identification of the faculties of common sense and imagination.

^{page 100 note 43} (1) , (2) (more likely: , cf. Landauer, op. cit., p. 359, n. 10; but see quotation from Cuzari, III, 5, below, nn. 59, 61), (3) , (4) , (5) . Landauer (op. cit.) makes of these a threefold classification, as follows: I = our 1; II = our 2 and 3; III = our 4 and 5. But 1 can see no ground on which his threefold classification is based, unless it was meant to correspond to the Galenic threefold classification. Avicenna's classification here, however, has no relation to the Galenic classification.

^{page 101 note 44} Kitâb al-Milal wal-Niḥal, ed. Cureton, pp. 416–417.

^{page 101 note 45} Maḳâṣid al-Falâsifah, III: Physics, IV (Cairo, without date), pp. 234–286. Hebrew translation, Kawwanot ha-Pilosofim, MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Heb. 901. Latin translation, Algazel's Metaphysics (ed. J. T. Muckle, Toronto, 1933), pp.169–171.

^{page 101 note 46} Mîzân al-'Amal [IV], Cairo, A. H. 1348, pp. 19–20. Hebrew: Mozene ẓedeḳ, IV (ed. Goldenthal, J., Leipzig and Paris, 1839), pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 47} Algazel: Tahafot al-Falasifat, XVIII (ed. Bouyges, M., Beyrouth, 1927), pp. 298–300. Hebrew: Happalat ha-Pilosofim, XVIII, MS. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Cod. Heb. 910. Latin translation in the Latin translation from the Hebrew of Averroes’ Destructio Destructionum, In Physicis, II (Venice, 1547).Google Scholar

^{page 101 note 48} The contrast between “retentive imagination” and “memory” is expressed in Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin texts by describing the former as arca formarum, and the latter by arca inlentionum (cf. below, Ch. III, n. 18). The term arca with its Arabic and Hebrew equivalents reflects the Greek ταμεῖον which is used as a description of memory by John of Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 20. Instead of arca the term thesaurus is sometimes used. Cf. below, Ch. III, n. 18.

^{page 102 note 49} . The term conservatio with its Arabic and Hebrew equivalents reflect the Greek σωτΠΡία used in connection with memory by Plato in Philebus 34 A and by John of Damascus in De Fide Orthodoxa, II, 20, and σωτηρία used in connection with memory by Galen in Definitiones Medicae, 124 (Opera Omnia, ed. Kühn, XIX, 381). It may reflect also Aristotle's συντήρησις in De Memoria et Reminiscentia, 1, 451a, 15–16.

^{page 102 note 50} As, for instance, in Canon, Al-Shifâ', Al-Najât, Risâlah fi al-Nafs.

^{page 103 note 51} Damiri's classification is quoted by Goldziher, I., Muharamedanischer Aberglaube über Gedächtnisskraft und Vergesslichkeit in Festschrift zura siebzigsten Geburtstage A. Berliner's (1903), p. 138, n. 4: (1) , (2) , (3) .Google Scholar

^{page 103 note 52} Al-Shifâ', Al-Najât, and also Shahrastani. Latin of Al-Shifâ' (Avicenna, De Anima) reads: “in summo mediae concavitatis cerebri” (fol. 8a). “Summo” here represents the Arabic and means “extremo” or “extremitate.” Winter (op. cit., p. SI) translates it by “oberst (hinterst).” This passage is also quoted in the name of Avicenna by Albertus Magnus in Isagoge in Libros de Anima, Cap. 18.

^{page 103 note 53} Risâlah fi al-Nafs, Ch. 7 (op. cit., pp. 360, 402). Cf. also S. Horovitz, op. cit., p. 251, n. 93.

^{page 103 note 54} Mîzân al-'Amal, loc. cit.

^{page 103 note 55} Maḳâṣid al-Falâsifah, loc. cit.: “estimativa, et memorialis in posteriore parte cerebri”; Tahâfut al-Falâsifah, loc. cit.: “locus eius est ventriculum ultimum cerebri.”

^{page 103 note 56} .

^{page 104 note 57} .

Note the reverse use of cogitativa and extimativa in this Latin translation. This is due to the fact that in Hebrew, from which this Latin translation was made, one and the same term is used in both instances. Cf. also use of cogitatio for aeslimatio in Buitorf's translation of Cuzari below, nn. 59, 61.

^{page 104 note 58} .

^{page 105 note 59} Cuzari, III, 5 (Arabic and Hebrew: Das Buch Al-Chazari, ed. H. Hirschfeld, 1887, pp. 144, 143; Latin translation: Liber Cosri, by J. Buxtorf, Fil., Basel, 1660, p. 158): .

^{page 105 note 60} Its definition differs from that of Risâlah fi al-Nafs.

^{page 105 note 61} Cuzari, V, 12 (Arabic and Hebrew, pp. 312 ff.; Latin, pp. 343 ff.): .

^{page 105 note 62} Cf. above, n. 53.

^{page 105 note 63} Ḥobot ha-Lebabot, I, 10 (Arabic: Al-Hidāja 'ilā Farā'id al-Qulūb, ed. A. S. Yahuda, p. 83): (1) , (2) , (3) , (4) , (5) . Cf. Kaufmann, D., Die Theologie des Baehja lbn Pakuda in Gesarumelte Schriften (1910), II, p. 12, n. 1; S. Horovitz, op. cit., p. 256, n. 104.Google Scholar

^{page 106 note 64} Cf. above, n. 43.

^{page 106 note 65} Cf. above, n. 22. Judah ibn Tibbon, who translated both Baḥya and Judah ha-Levi into Hebrew, must have taken the term , in the sense of compositive animal imagination, for he translates by , which in Judah ha-Levi he uses as a translation of , i-e., estimation.

^{page 106 note 66} Cf. S. Horovitz, op. cit., p. 256, n. 104. This is not to be confused with the term which is used in connection with διάνοια (cf. above, Ch. I, nn. 47, 48, 56, and below, n. 73). The application of the term κρίνειν to common sense occurs in De Anima, III, 2, 426b, 8 ff., and De Somno et Vigilia, 2, 455a, 17–20.

^{page 106 note 67} .

^{page 107 note 68} Averroes: Tahafot at-Tahafot, II (XVIII) (ed. Bouyges, M., Beyrouth, 1930), pp. 546–547. Latin translation from the Hebrew by Calo Calonymos: Destructio Destructionum, In Physicis, Disputatio II (Venice, 1527).Google Scholar

^{page 107 note 69} Cf. above, n. 22.

^{page 107 note 70} Throughout his discussion in the passage referred to above in n. 68 Averroes uses the term in the general sense of imagination, which is his own use of the term, though Algazali uses it in the special sense of compositive animal imagination. Cf. below, n. 73.

^{page 107 note 71} Cf. Canon, loc. cit.: “Quidam autem hominum sunt qui praesumunt et hanc virtutem [i.e., virtutem existimativam] imaginativam [] vocant, sed tamen non curamus, quia de nominibus non disputamus, sed intentiones et differentias intelligere debemus.” Cf. also Alfarabi's inclusion of the estimative faculty under imagination, above, n. 27.

^{page 108 note 72} Arabic and Hebrew texts edited by H. Blumberg and to be published in Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem. Latin in Aristotelis omnia quae extant opera. … Venetiis, apud Iuntas, VI, Pars 2, 1574, fols. 21 M-22 B.

^{page 108 note 73} .

(De Memoria et Reminiscentia: Averrois Paraphrais. Op. cit., fol. 21 M-22 B).

These four stages of knowledge are described by Averroes as spiritual , spiritualis), in contrast to the five senses which are described by him as corporeal (, corporate), and they are arranged by him according to their order of spirituality, the fourth being the most spiritual.

The term distinctiva with its Arabic and Hebrew equivalents reflects the Greek κριτική which is used by Aristotle as a description of one of the functions of διάνοια. Cf. above, Ch. I, nn. 47, 48, 56.

^{page 108 note 74} Cf. above, Ch. 1, nn. 45–48, 55, 56.

^{page 108 note 75} Hebrew, MS. Berlin 1888.2, to be published in Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem. Latin in Aristotelis omnia quae extant opera. … Venetiis, apud Iuntas, VI, Pars 1, 1574.

^{page 109 note 76} Ibid., Lib. III, § 6, fol. 154 B: “cum posuit virtutes individuates distinctas in quatuor ordinibus,” . I take it that the Latin distinctus in this passage reflects the Arabic and is a mistranslation. It should be separatas or separabiles. The Hebrew may likewise mean both distinctas and separabiles. Virtutes distinctas thus means here rirtutes separabiles, which is the same as virtutes spirituales and hence the equivalent of sensus spirituales or interiores. Cf. above, Ch. I, nn. 1–8.

^{page 109 note 77} .

^{page 109 note 78} Op. cit., fol. 21 G.

^{page 109 note 79} Cf. above, Ch. I, n. 35. For “nature” terms used are: , natura. Averroes' statement in this passage is obviously based upon Physics, II, 8, 199a, 20–30, referred to above, n. 16.

^{page 109 note 80} , existimatio.

^{page 109 note 81} Long Commentary on De Anima, III, 6, fol. 154 A: .

Ibid., I l l, 20, fol. 164 C: .

^{page 110 note 82} Colliget, Lib. III, Cap. 40 (Aristotelis omnia quae extant opera. … Venetiis, apud Iuntas, X, 1574, fol. 56 BC).

^{page 110 note 83} Ibid., Lib. ll, Cap. 20 (fol. 30 FG): “Propterea non invenitur haec virtus nisi in homine: et animali bruto concessa fuit aestimativa loco istius.”

^{page 110 note 84} Cf. above, Ch. I, n. 27.

^{page 110 note 85} Ruaḥ Ḥen, Ch. 2. Hebrew with Latin translation: Ruaḥ ha-Ḥen, Physica Hebraea, Rabbi Aben Tybbon … primum edita, et Latina facta. Ioannc Isaac Levita (Coloniae, 1555).

^{page 111 note 86} Sha'ar ha-Shamayim, XII (Rödelheim, 1801), p. 76.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 87} Cf. below, Ch. III, n. 59.

^{page 111 note 88} Sefer Sha'ashu'im, IX (ed. I. Davidson), p. 103: . Bate ha-Nefesh, Ibid., p. 156: .

^{page 111 note 89} Idra Rabba, Exodus, Naso, p. 136a: . Cf. Kerem Ḥemed. VIII, 74.

^{page 111 note 90} Sefer ha-Nefesh, Ch. 18 (Warsaw, 1881): .Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 91} Text to be corrected to read as follows: Pen .

^{page 111 note 92} Sha'ar ha-Shamajim, IX, 49b.

^{page 111 note 93} A reflection of this controversy is to be found in Al-Razi (op. cit., above, Ch. I, n. 22), who speaks of imagination as residing in the anterior ventricles (plural, not singular) of the brain.

^{page 112 note 94} The term “common sense” is not explicitly used here, but it is clear from the context that this is what is meant by the term . Cf. Aristotle's use of αἴσθησις in Nicomachean Ethics, VI, 8, 1142a, 27–30, and below, Ch. III, nn. 40, 41. Cf. also Aristotle's use of αἰσθητικόν in De Somniis, 1, 459a, 15–17, quoted above in n. 38.

^{page 112 note 95} . I take the passage to refer to and not to which immediately precedes it The term which is defined by the terms is the equivalent of Averroes' , distinctiva and hence , cogitativa. Cf. above, notes 73, 77.

^{page 112 note 96} Shebile Emunah, IV, 1.

^{page 112 note 97} The term “common sense” is not explicitly used here, but it is clear from the context that this is what is meant by the term . Cf. above, n. 94.

^{page 112 note 98} . Cf. above, n. 94. As for the term applied here to διανοητικόν, it reflects Aristotle's identification of διανοητικόν with in De Amima, III, 3, 414b, 18.

^{page 112 note 99} Tagmule ha-Nefesh (Lyck, 1874), p. 7a.

^{page 112 note 100} .

^{page 112 note 101} Cf. above, n. 72.

^{page 112 note 102} .

^{page 113 note 103} These Latin terms in Rebrew transliteration are used in the text.

^{page 113 note 104} . The term is a direct translation of the Latin aestimatira and does not occur in the works of earlier authors, who had no knowledge of Latin. For the term see above, n. 98.

^{page 113 note 105} Cf. above, nn. 68–70.

^{page 113 note 106} Cf. above, n. 95.

^{page 113 note 107} Op. cit., p. 21b: .

^{page 114 note 1} Cf. Steinschneider, M., Die europäischen Übersetzungen aus dem Arabischen bis Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts in Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-historischen Klasse der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, 149 (1904), 151 (1905).Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 2} Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 32, and below, nn. 8, 11, 13.

^{page 114 note 3} This part of the Latin translation is included in Algazel's Metaphysics, ed. Muckle, J. T., Toronto, 1933. Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 45.Google Scholar

^{page 114 note 4} De Animalibus, Venice, c. 1500.

^{page 114 note 5} Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 75.

^{page 114 note 6} Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 72.

^{page 114 note 7} Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 82.

^{page 115 note 8} Summa de Creaturis, Pars II: De Homine (ed. Viviès), Quaest. 35, Art. 3: “Avicenna in VI de Naturalibus.”

^{page 115 note 9} Ibid., Quaest. 35, Art. 2: “Algazel in Physica sua.”

^{page 115 note 10} Liber de Memoria et Reminiseentia, Tract. I, Cap. 1.

^{page 115 note 11} Summa Theologica, Pars I, Quaest. 78, Art. 4, No. 6: “Avicenna in suo libro de Anima.”; De Potentiis Animae, Cap. IV: “Unde Algazel dicit.”

^{page 115 note 12} De Potentiis Animae, Cap. IV: “ut dicit Averroes in lib. suo de Sensu et Sensato.”

^{page 115 note 13} Opus Majus, V: Perspectiva, Pars I, Dist. I, Cap. II.

^{page 115 note 14} Ibid.

^{page 115 note 15} Ibid.: “et in libris medicinae.”

^{page 116 note 16} In the late Latin translation from the Hebrew of Averroes' Tahâfut al-Tahâfut (see above, Ch. II, nn. 47, 68) the order is reversed: fikr is translated by aestimatio and wahm by cogitatio (see above, Ch. II, n. 57). See also a similar mistranslation of wahm in Buxtorf, Cuzari, above, Ch. II, nn. 59, 61.

^{page 116 note 17} He calls it also formativa: “in quantum autem operatur componendo et dividendo, formativa vocatur” (Cap. 16). Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 18.

^{page 117 note 18} Also: species, thesaurus formarum (cf. above, Ch. II, n. 48).

^{page 118 note 19} Liber de Elementis, II, fol. ix, r, a; Sefer ha-Yesodot, II, 53–54. Cf. my paper Isaac Israeli on the Internal Senses in op. cit.

^{page 118 note 20} Summa de Creaturis, Pars II: De Homine, Quaest. 40, Art. I.

^{page 118 note 21} Cf. Schneider, A., Die Psychologie Alberts des Grossen, I (1903), 132.Google Scholar

^{page 118 note 22} In fact, it has been pointed out that the first two chapters of De Anima, III, which deal with common sense, are more closely connected with the discussion of the external senses in Book II. Cf. It. D. Hicks, Aristotle: De Anima, p. 422.

^{page 119 note 23} Liber de Memoria et Reminiscentia, Tract. I, Cap. 1: “et hanc quidem Avicenna bene et proprie vocavit aestimationem. Averroes autem improprie vocat cogitatiram animalium bruforum, per quam fugiunt nociva et persequuntur convenientia.” Cf. quotation below in n. 27.

^{page 119 note 24} Aristotelis omnia quae extant opera. … Venetiis, apud Iuntas, VI, Pars 2, fol. 21 G: “ista nam virtus est in homine per cognitionem. … Et ista virtus in animalibus non habet nomen: et est illa, quam Avicenna vocat existimationem.” Cf. above, Ch. I, n. 35, and Ch. II, n. 79.

^{page 119 note 25} Quoted above in Ch. II, n. 83.

^{page 119 note 26} Cf. above, Ch. II, nn. 73, 77.

^{page 119 note 27} Liber de Memoria et Reminiscentia, Tract. I, Cap. 1: “Quartus locus est in organo virtutis distinctae, quam vocat Averroes cogilatiram brutorum.”

^{page 120 note 28} Cf. above, Ch. II, nn. 73, 77, 95.

^{page 120 note 29} Liber de Memoria et Reminiscentia, Tract. I, Cap. 1.

^{page 120 note 30} De Memoria et Reminiscentia: Averrois Paraphrasis, in op. cit., fol. 21 FG.

^{page 120 note 31} Cf. above, Ch. II, nn. 48–51.

^{page 120 note 32} Algazel's Metaphysics (ed. J. T. Muckle), p. 170.

^{page 120 note 33} .

^{page 121 note 34} Summa Theologica, Pars I, Quaest. 78, Art. 4, No. 6 and Concl.; De Potentiis Animae, Cap. 4. In No. 6 in Summa Theologica the expression “seu cogitativa” does not occur. That the term imaginativa which occurs in this Avicennian list between the terms phantasia and aestimativa is meant by Thomas to include both compositive human imagination and compositive animal imagination is evident from the following statement in Concl. in Summa Theologica: “Avicenna vero ponit quintam potentiam mediam inter aestimativam et imaginativam (= phantasiam in this list), quae componit et dividit formas imaginatas … Sed ista operatio non apparet in aliis animalibus ab homine, in quo ad hoc sufficit virtus imaginativa (= phantasia in this list).”

^{page 121 note 35} Summa Theologica, Ibid.; De Potentiis Animae, Ibid.

^{page 121 note 36} Cf. Summa Theologica, loc. cit., Concl.: “Sed ista operatio non apparet in aliis animalibus ab homine, in quo ad hoc sufficit virtus imaginativa. Cui autem hanc actionem attribuit Averroes in libro quodam quem fecit de sensu et sensibilibus.” Cf. also De Potentiis Animae, loc. cit.

^{page 121 note 37} Cf. Summa Theologica, loc. cit.: “Et ideo quae in aliis animalibus dicitur aestimativa naturalis, in homine dicitur cogitativa.” Cf. also De Potentiis Animae, loc. cit. That this view, which Thomas presents as his own, is also meant by him to represent the view of Averroes, is evident from the context.

^{page 122 note 38} Cf. M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters, p. 330.

^{page 122 note 39} Cf. op. cit., 'above, n. 34.

^{page 122 note 40} Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae, Quaest. 47, Art. 3: “Ad tertium dicendum, quod sicut Philosophus dicit in 6 Ethic. (cap. 8, ad fin.), prudentia non consistit in sensu exteriori, quo cognoscimus sensibilia propria, sed in sensu interiori, qui perficitur per memoriam, et per experimentum ad prompte judicandum de particularibus expertis.”

^{page 122 note 41} Cf. A. Grant, The Ethics of Aristotle, ad. loc. (II, 172, note).

^{page 122 note 42} Cf. above, Ch. I, nn. 12–13.

^{page 123 note 43} Opus Majus, V: Perspective, Pars I, Dist. I, Cap. V (ed. J. H. Bridges: The ‘Opus Majus’ of Roger Bacon, II, 9 f.).

^{page 123 note 44} Ibid., p. 10: “Et licet translatores librorura Avicennae, ut in illo libro de Anima et in libro de Animalibus et in libris medicinae, aliter transtulerunt et vocabula mutaverunt, ita ut ubique non sit eadem intentio Avicennae translata.”

^{page 123 note 45} Cf. above, p. 115.

^{page 123 note 46} Loc. cit.: “quoniam in libro de Animalibus Avicennae reperitur quod aestimatio est loco rationis in brutis.” Cf. quotation from Averroes' Colliget above, Ch. II, n. 83.

^{page 123 note 47} Printed in J. H. Bridges, op. cit., II, 510: “Avicenna in decimo de Animalibus dicit. … Sed imaginatio et aestimatio non sunt cum motu corporis, vel divisione aliqua in corpore.” This passage occurs in Lib. XII of the printed edition of De Animalibus. It must be admitted that this passage resembles rather remotely his reference to the De Animalibus quoted from the Opus Majus in the preceding note. But I could not find any closer passage in the entire work.

^{page 123 note 48} Op. cit., Cap. II-V.

^{page 123 note 49} Ibid., Cap. V, p. 10: “sed tenenda est ejus sententia in libro de Anima, quia ibi ex principali intentione discuit vires animae, alibi autera magis ex incidenti facit mentionem.”

^{page 124 note 50} Ibid., Cap. II, p. 5: “Nam ex secundo de Anima et de Somno et Vigilia et libro de Sensu et Sensato patet quod phantasia et sensus communis sunt idem secundum subjectum, differentes secundum esse, ut Aristoteles dicit, et quod phantasia et imaginatio sunt idem secundum subjectum, differentes secundum esse. Quapropter phantasia comprehendit utramque virtutem, et non differt ab eis nisi sicut totum a parte.”

^{page 125 note 51} Meletamata Philosophica: Philosophia Naturalis, Cap. XIV (Amsterdam, 1680), pp. 900 ff.

^{page 125 note 52} D. B. Keckermann, Opera Omnia: Systems Physicum, Lib. III, Cap. 17–19. Geneva, 1614, I, Col. 1522–1526.

^{page 125 note 53} J. Magirus, Physiologia Peripatetica, Lib. 6, Cap. 12, Cambridge, 1642, pp. 350 ff.

^{page 125 note 54} H. Zanchius, De Operibus Dei intra Spacium Sex Dierum Creatis Opus, Pars III, Lib. II, Cap. III: De Partibus et Potentiis Animae, De Sensibus Internis. 3rd ed. Neustadii in Palatinatu, 1602, pp. 733–739.

^{page 125 note 55} Keckermann, Col. 1524 EF; Magirus, p. 352, No. 24; Zanchius, p. 736, Col. 2.

^{page 125 note 56} The first translation from the Arabic was made in 1328; the second translation from the Hebrew was published in 1527. Cf. M. Steinschneider, op. cit. (above, n. 38), pp. 330, 333.

^{page 126 note 57} Eustachius a Sancto Paulo, Summa Philosophiae Quadripartita, III: Physica, Pars III, Tract. III, Disp. III, Quaest. 1. Cambridge, 1640, pp. 316–318.

^{page 126 note 58} Ibid., p. 316: “Probablior adhuc et magis Aristotelica, Duos duntaxat esse Sensus internos, nempe sensum communen et Phantasiam, cum de illis tantum mentionem faciat in lib. De anima.”

^{page 126 note 59} Cf. Ruaḥ Ḥen, Ch. 2, pp. 18–19 (ed. Coloniae, 1555, with Latin translation by I.I. Levita): , sensus interior eat facultas aestimandi (= imaginandi); Gershon ben Solomon, Sha'ar ha-Shamayim, XII: .

^{page 127 note 60} Principia Philosophiae, IV, 190. For another instance of the inclusion of the appetitive faculty among the internal senses, see above, Ch. II, p. 111.

^{page 127 note 61} Correspondance, XLVI (Oeuvres, ed. Adam et Tannery, I, p. 263, ll. 6–8).

^{page 127 note 62} Meditationes, II (Oeuvres, VII, p. 32, ll. 13–19).

^{page 127 note 63} Cf. my The Philosophy of Spinoza, II, 71 ff.

^{page 127 note 64} Die philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhehn Leibniz, ed. C. J. Gerhardt, VI, 501.

^{page 127 note 65} De Sensu, 7, 449a, 3 ff. Cf. above, Ch. I, n. 43.

^{page 127 note 66} Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 43.

^{page 128 note 67} Cf. above, n. 60.

^{page 128 note 68} De Anima, III, 2, 426b, 8–427a, 16. Cf. above, Ch. II, n. 29.

^{page 128 note 69} Essay concerning Human Understanding, II, 1, § 4.

^{page 128 note 70} Ibid., II, 9, §§ 1 ff.

^{page 128 note 71} Kritik der Reinen Vernunft, Transcendentale Asthetik, § 6.

^{page 128 note 72} De Anima, III, 2, 425b, 12 ff.

^{page 129 note 73} De Libero Arbitrio, II, 4 (Migne, xXII, Col. 1246).

^{page 130 note 74} For a threefold and fourfold classification of these seven internal senses by Avicenna, see above, Ch. II, p. 99.

^{page 130 note 75} For a threefold classification of these internal senses by Averroes, see above, Ch. II, p. 109.

Article contents

The Internal Senses in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew Philosophic Texts

Extract

Access options

References

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

The Internal Senses in Latin, Arabic, and Hebrew Philosophic Texts

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests