Notes on al-Kindī's Treatise on Definitions

S. M. Stern

doi:10.1017/S0035869X00117666

Notes on al-Kindī's Treatise on Definitions

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011

S. M. Stern

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Al-Kindī's Treatise On the Definitions and Descriptions of Things (Fī Ḥudūd al-Ashyā' wa-Rusūmihā) has come down to us in the great Istanbul manuscript of his collected writings (Aya Sofiya 4832), and has been published on the basis of that unique manuscript by M. A. Abū Rīdā (Rasā'il al-Kindī al-Falsafiyya, vol. i, Cairo, 1950, pp. 163 ff.). In a manuscript of the British Museum which contains a great number of important philosophical texts, Add. 7473 (Cureton's Catalogue, no. 426), written about the year 640/1242, there are some extracts from it. They are preceded (fols. 175r–178r) by al-Kindī's well-known treatise on the astrological calculation of the Islamic empire, published from this very manuscript by O. Loth. The colophon of that text reads as follows: “The treatise is finished, with the praise of God and His help and assistance. I have transcribed it from a copy dated the middle of Rabī' I, 531 [Nov.–Dec., 1136]. This colophon is followed by the extracts, which are headed by a note reading as follows: “The following paragraphs were found in the copy which I used as my model, and so I transcribe them.” What follows are definitions from al-Kindī's treatise. As it is superfluous to reproduce that part of the extracts which exists also in the Istanbul manuscript, I propose to employ a simplified method of comparison: I give the headings of the British Museum extracts, without adding anything where the British Museum version corresponds exactly to the text of the Istanbul manuscript; but I note all divergences. Readers interested in the details will peruse these pages with the printed edition before them.

Type: Articles
Information: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 91 , Issue 1-2 , April 1959 , pp. 32 - 43

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00117666 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1959

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

^{page 32 note 1} “Al-Kindî als Astrolog,” Morgenländische Forschungen (Festschrift H. L. Fleischer), Leipzig, 1875, pp. 263 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 32 note 2} Wa-tammati'l-risālatu bi-ḥamdi'llāhi wa-'aumihī wa-tawfīqihī naqaltuhū min nuskhatin ta'rīkhu tasṭirīha'al-niṣfu min Rabī‘i’l-awwali sanata iḥdā wa-thalāthīna wa-khamsimi'a.

^{page 32 note 3} Wujidat hādhihi'l-fuṣūlu 'alā nuskhati'l-aṣli hā-kadhā fa-naqaltuhā.

^{page 32 note 4} The definitions are not numbered in the edition—I have, for the sake of convenience, provided numbers. Nos. 1–6 are on p. 165, 7–12 on p. 166, 13–25 on p. 167, 26–33 on p. 168, 34–44 on p. 169, 45–54 on p. 170, 55–67 on p. 171, 68–70 on p. 172 [no. 70 is the long passage on “philosophy”, occupying pp. 172–4], 71–2 on p. 174, 73–8 on p. 175, 79–88 on p. 176, 89–90 on p. 177 [no. 90 is another long passage on “the human virtues”, pp. 177–9], 91–6 on p. 179.

^{page 34 note 1} There are two difficulties in this definition. (1) In a definition of the “universal intellect” the words “there is a universal and a particular one” are obviously absurd. (2) This definition clashes with the other definition of the intellect, no. 2. The first difficulty could be removed by reading “definition of the intellect”, instead of “definition of the universal intellect”. On the other hand, it is possible that nos. 2 and 28a originally went together, and the definition read approximately as follows: “Definition of the intellect: A simple substance which perceives things through their true essences [no. 2]; there is a universal and a particular one: the universal intellect is the specificality of things” [no. 28a]. The definition “specificality of things”, applied to the universal intellect, recurs also in al-Kindī's On the Intellect (ed. Rīdā, Abū, p. 356)Google Scholar; see for further information my remarks in Altmann, A. and Stern, S. M., Isaac Israeli, Oxford, 1958, pp. 37 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 35 note 1} “Return,” as well as “rising”, “assembly”, “road”, “account”, belong to the familiar eschatological terminology derived from the Koran.

^{page 38 note 1} I give the Arabic text established with the help of the Leiden manuscript (see below); the printed text is utterly corrupt: Wa'l-muqabasatu'llati tatlu fiqara'l-'Āmiriyyi qad ja'alnāhā maqṣuratan 'alā ḥudūdin ḥassalnāhā 'aiā marri'lzamāni wa-fī nathrihā fawā'idu jammatun wa-law kānā'l-waqtu yattasi'u la-waṣalnā jamī'a dhālika bi-mā yakūnu sharḥan lahū wa-shāhidan ma'ahū wa-idhā 'āqa mā lā khafā'a bihī mina'l-makrūhi'l-'āmmi fi'l-nafsi wa'l-ḥali wa'l-ahli wa'l-ikhwāni fa-lā budda mina'l-riḍa, bi'l-mumhini wa'l-nuzuli 'inda'l-mutasahhili wa'l-qanā'ati bi'l-maysūr.

^{page 38 note 2} We shall see that a few definitions which are not found in the Istanbul manuscript can nevertheless be shown, by various indications, to have belonged to the original text of al-Kindī (cf. for the incompleteness of the Istanbul manuscript the remarks made above, p. 36). It is not impossible that a few more definitions may also belong to al-Kindī, but have escaped detection.

^{page 38 note 3} For the numbering see above, p. 32, note 4.

^{page 38 note 4} P. 309 last line but one read ḥurūf (MS.). P. 310, 1. 2 read dāllatun bi'ttifāqin wd' shtiqāqin 'alā ma'ānī fikri'l-nafsi'l-mantiqiyya(MS.).

^{page 38 note 5} Read bi-qawāfin mutawāziya…wa-funūnin ma'rūfa(MS.).

^{page 38 note 6} Instead of al-Kindī's al-Tawḥīdī has which is a possible, perhaps even a preferable, reading.

^{page 38 note 7} For bis(MS.).

^{page 38 note 8} Read; and for (MS.).

^{page 39 note 1} For , MS., read with al-Kindī . In al-Kindī read In the comments read al-bāri’ 'alā hādhā mā taqūlu fīhī (MS.) and wa-bi'rtifā'i ṣūratihi' ntafat kayfiyyatuhū wa-hādhā huwa 'aynu'l-tawḥīd (MS.). The passage thus recovered (the printed text being utter nonsense) is another instance of the idea: we know only the “quoddity” of God, not His quality (see Vajda, G., “La Philosophie et la théologie de Joseph Ibn Çaddiq,” Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge, 1949, p. 161Google Scholar; Altmann, and Stern, , Isaac Israeli, p. 22)Google Scholar. Here the idea is given a special turn: the intellect attests the quoddity (anniyya) of God, but as we cannot conceive His form, He has no quality. Further on read wa-lawlā anna hādha'l-qadra ka'l-muqtaḍā ma'ama'qtarana bihī and for (MS.). For the MS. has for

^{page 39 note 2} The MS. reads Al-khayru huwa mā yurādu wa-yu'tharu li-ajli mā yurādu bi'l-isti'ārati li-dhātih.

^{page 39 note 3} So MS.: in the printed text .

^{page 39 note 4} Read Yuqālu: ma'l-irtiyāb? Al-jawābu: tajādhubu'l-ray'ayn.

^{page 39 note 5} For the MS. reads at the end an yakūna fī dhāliha'l-mawḍi'i fa-qaṭṭ.

^{page 39 note 6} Read with the MS. and al-Kindī thabātu'l-ra'yi ‘ala’l-fi'l. (In the MS. originally corrected into .)

⁷ Read with the MS. and al-Kindī.

^{page 39 note 8} For read with the MS. and al-Kindī.

^{page 39 note 9} For read and for (MS.).

^{page 39 note 10} For read (MS.).

^{page 39 note 11} For read (MS.).

^{page 39 note 12} Read for for for (all with the MS.).

^{page 39 note 13} Read for (the MS. and al-Kindī); for the second read either (MS.) or (al-Kindī).

^{page 39 note 14} For read (MS.).

^{page 39 note 15} Read (ghayru) thābitati'l-ḥaraka (al-Kindī)?

^{page 40 note 1} For the MS. reads

^{page 40 note 2} This definition is missing in the printed text and reads in the MS.: Yuqālu: ma'l-inthinā'? Al-jawābu: taqārubu'l-tarafayni ilā khalfu aw ilā quddām.

^{page 40 note 3} For read (the MS. and al-Kindī).

^{page 40 note 4} See Altmann, and Stern, , Isaac Israeli, p. 65Google Scholar.

^{page 40 note 5} Read with al-Kindī for and for .

^{page 40 note 6} Read and (the MS. and al-Kindī).

^{page 40 note 7} Read and (the MS. and al-Kindī); in al-Kindi one should probably read .

^{page 40 note 8} For read (al-Kindī).

^{page 40 note 9} This definition is missing in the printed text and reads in the MS.: Yuqālu: ma'l-maḥsūs Al-jawābu: huwa'l-mudraJcu ṣūratuhū ma'a ṭīnatih.

^{page 40 note 10} Read for : (al-Kindī: ); we have seen above (p. 33) that in al-Kindī we have to read for this is also borne out by al-Tawḥīdī's text, which has the same word.

^{page 40 note 11} Read for (the MS. and al-Kindī); . for (al-Kindī; the MS.); for (the MS. and al-Kindī); for (al-Kindī).

^{page 40 note 12} For read .

^{page 40 note 13} For read (the MS.).

^{page 40 note 14} Read murakkabatun mina'l-ḥaqqi wa'l-khayri yuqṣadu bihimā (the MS.); for the MS. has .

^{page 40 note 15} Owing to a homoeoteleuton the end of the definition and the beginning of the next is omitted in the printed text. Read: Yuqālu: ma'l-yaqẓa? Al-jawābu: hiya'sti'mālu'l-nafsi'l-manṭiqiyyati'l-badana naḥwa'l-khārijāti 'ani'l-badani wataṣrīfuha'l-ḥawāssa naḥwa maḥsūsatih. Yuqālu: ma'l-nawmui? Al-jawābu: tarku'lnafsi'l-mantiqiyyati' sti‘māla ālāti’l-badan.

^{page 40 note 16} For read (the MS.).

^{page 40 note 17} For read (the MS.).

^{page 40 note 18} For read (the MS.).

^{page 41 note 1} For read (the MS.; al-Kindī has .

^{page 41 note 2} For read (the MS.; al-Kindī has —for we must probably read ).

^{page 41 note 3} This definition is missing in the printed text and reads in the MS.: Yuqālu: ma'l-kharaq? Al-jawābu: huwa'l-iqdāmu ‘ala'l-shay’i bi-lā rawiyyatin wa-lā ta'ann.

^{page 41 note 4} Read: yaqa'u bihī ‘inda man huwa afḍdalu minhū fī shay'in mā.

^{page 41 note 5} For read (al-Kindī). For read (the MS.).

^{page 41 note 6} The definition is rather obscure; al-Tawḥīdī has , al-Kindī and Isaac Israeli, who derived the definition from al-Kindī (see Altmann, and Stern, , Isaac Israeli, p. 66)Google Scholar has bi-tatmīmi ‘illati'l-ijtimā’. seems preferable, and in al-Kindī we must perhaps read wa-mutammimatu'l quwwati'llatī hiya <'illatu>'jtimā‘i’l-ashyā'; cf.no. 30, which seems to be a duplication ofthe last words.

^{page 41 note 7} For read (the MS. and al-Kindī).

^{page 41 note 8} For read (the MS.).

^{page 41 note 9} This definition is missing in the printed text and reads in the MS.: Yuqālu: ma'l-wājib? Al-jawābu: huiva'lladhī bi'l-fi'li fima wuṣifa bihī abadā. In al-Kindī read for . (From the editor's note it is clear that this is actually the reading of the Istanbul manuscript.) Moreover, from the last word: (“at times”, instead of “always”) it results that al-Kindī also had the definition of “possible”, which has, however, been omitted owing to a homoeoteleuton. Read the whole text: Al-wājibu huwa'Uadhī bi'l-fi'li wa-huwa fīmā wuṣifa bihī <abadā. Al-mumkinu huwa'lladhī bi'l-quwwati tāratan wa-bi'l-fi'li fīmā wuṣifa bihī) tārn.

^{page 41 note 10} This is the correlate of the definition of “relation” in al-Kindī (no. 16): “‘Relation’—that through the establishment of which another thing is established. ‘Absolute statement’—through the establishment of which no other thing is established.” Thus it is likely that this definition also belongs to al-Kindī.

^{page 41 note 11} The words supplied by the editor of the printed text are not in the MS. and are superfluous; read Lā muṭābaqatu'l-qawli li-mā ‘alayhi’l-amr. Lā-muṭābaqa is obviously a solecistic new formation imitating Greek usage.