[Studies in Jewish history and culture] Resianne Fontaine, Ruth Glasner, Reimund Leicht, Giuseppe Veltri (editors) - Studies in the History of Culture and Science_ A Tribute to Gad Freudenthal (2011, Brill Academic Pub) - libgen.lc

Studies in the History of Culture and Science
Studies in Jewish
History and Culture
Editor-in-Chief
Giuseppe Veltri
Editorial Board
Gad Freudenthal
Alessandro Guetta
Hanna Liss
Ronit Meroz
Reimund Leicht
Judith Olszowy-Schlanger
David Ruderman
VOLUME 30
Gad Freudenthal
(Photograph: Smadar Bergman)
Studies in the History
of Culture and Science
A Tribute to Gad Freudenthal
Edited by
Resianne Fontaine,
Ruth Glasner, Reimund Leicht,
and Giuseppe Veltri
LEIDEN • BOSTON
2011
Copy-editing: Sweeping Maytree.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
ISSN: 1568-5004
ISBN: 978 90 04 19123 5
Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing,
IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in
a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV
provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center,
222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA.
Fees are subject to change.
CONTENTS
Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Selected Publications of Gad Freudenthal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
texts:
editions, translations, and commentaries
Le pseudo al-Hasan
. ibn al-Haytam : Sur l’ asymptote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Roshdi Rashed ¯
Al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to Astrology: From Courtly Entertainment

to University Textbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Charles Burnett
A Different Hue to Medieval Jewish Philosophy: Four
Investigations into an Unstudied Philosophical Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Y. Tzvi Langermann
Aristotle’s De anima and De generatione et corruptione in the
Medieval Hebrew Tradition: New Details Regarding Textual
History Coming from a Neglected Manuscript . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Mauro Zonta
La mesure du cercle d’ Archimède au moyen age : Le témoignage
des textes hébreux . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Tony Lévy
Un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac rédigé dans la main
du Šayh Sufı̄ ‘Abd al-Ġanı̄ an-Nabulusı̄ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Paul B.˘Fenton
vi contents
studies in medieval cultural history

Maimonides and Samuel Ben Ali . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
Herbert A. Davidson
Ibn Rušd and the Almohad Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
Josep Puig Montada
Legislating Truth: Maimonides, the Almohads, and the
Thirteenth-Century Jewish Enlightenment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Carlos Fraenkel
The Money Language: Latin and Hebrew in Jewish Legal Contracts
from Medieval England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Nahmanides
. on Necromancy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Reimund Leicht
The First Survey of the Metaphysics in Hebrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Resianne Fontaine
Solomon ben Moses Melguiri and the Transmission of Knowledge
from Latin into Hebrew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
Hagar Kahana-Smilansky
Dialectic in Gersonides’ Biblical Commentaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
Sara Klein-Braslavy
Demonstrative Astronomy: Notes on Levi ben Geršom’s Answer to
Guide II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
José Luis Mancha
Nicole Oresme and Hasdai
. Crescas on Many Worlds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347
Warren Zev Harvey
The Peculiar History of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews. . . . . . . . 361
Ruth Glasner
contents vii
studies in early modern cultural

history and historiography
Duhem’s Continuity Thesis: The Intrusion of Ideology into History
of Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 385
Bernard R. Goldstein and Giora Hon
Enlightenment in Gold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
Gideon Freudenthal
A Bestseller in Context: Referring to the Tsene Rene in Early
Modern Yiddish Books . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
Shlomo Berger
On Humanist Logic Judaized—Then and Now: Two Models for
the Appropriation of Gentile Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
Charles Manekin
Hebrew “Sociolinguistics” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 453
Irene E. Zwiep
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
CONTRIBUTORS
Shlomo Berger, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and Jewish

Studies, Amsterdam
Charles Burnett, London University, Warburg Institute, London
Herbert A. Davidson, University of California, Dept of Near Eastern
Languages and Cultures, Los Angeles
Paul B. Fenton, Université de Paris-Sorbonne, Paris
Resianne Fontaine, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and
Jewish Studies, Amsterdam
Carlos Fraenkel, McGill University, Departments of Philosophy and
Jewish Studies, Montreal
Gideon Freudenthal, Tel Aviv University, The Cohn Institute for the
History and Philosophy of Science and Ideas, Tel Aviv
Ruth Glasner, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Program for the
History and Philosophy of Science, Jerusalem
Bernard R. Goldstein, University of Pittsburgh, Religious Studies and
History & Philosophy of Science, Pittsburgh
Warren Zev Harvey, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dept for
Jewish Thought, Jerusalem
Giora Hon, University of Haifa, Dept of Philosophy, Haifa
Hagar Kahana-Smilansky, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The
Program for the History and Philosophy of Science, Jerusalem
Sara Klein-Braslavy, Tel Aviv University, Dept of Hebrew Culture
Studies, Jewish Philosophy, Tel Aviv
Y. Tzvi Langermann, Bar-Ilan University, Dept of Arabic, Ramat Gan
Reimund Leicht, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Dept of Jewish
Thought and Program for Philosophy, History and Sociology of Sciences,
Jerusalem
x contributors
Tony Lévy, Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

José Luis Mancha, University of Seville, Dept of Philosophy, Logic, and
Philosophy of Science, Seville
Charles Manekin, University of Maryland, Dept of Philosophy, Balti-
more
Judith Olszowy-Schlanger, École Pratique des Hautes Études/IRHT-
CNRS, Paris
Josep Puig Montada, Universidad Complutense, Dept of Arabic and
Islamic Studies, Madrid
Roshdi Rashed, Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Paris
Mauro Zonta, Università “La Sapienza”, Dipartimento di Studi Filoso-
fici ed Epistemologici, Rome
Irene E. Zwiep, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and Jewish
Studies, Amsterdam
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS OF GAD FREUDENTHAL
Books
Introduction to the Philosophy of the Sciences (Heb) (Tel-Aviv: The Israeli Open
University, ).
(Ed.) Hélène Metzger, La Méthode philosophique en histoire des sciences. Textes
–. Corpus des oeuvres de philosophie en langue française  /  (Paris:
Fayard, ). Italian translation: Il metodo filosofico nella storia delle scienze
(Manduria: Barbieri Editore, ). Reprinted as Études sur / Studies on Hé-
lène Metzger. Collection de travaux de l’ Académie Internationale d’ Histoire
des sciences (Leiden: Brill, ).
(Ed.) Studies on Gersonides—A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist.
Collection de travaux de l’ Académie Internationale d’ Histoire des Sciences,
vol.  (Leiden: Brill, ).
Aristotle’s Theory of Material Substance. Form and Soul, Heat and Pneuma (Ox-
ford: Clarendon Press, ).
(Ed.) Joseph Ben-David, Scientific Growth: Collected Essays on the Social Orga-
nization and Ethos of Science (Berkeley, Los Angeles and Oxford: University
of California Press, ). French translation: Michelle de Launay and Jean-
Pierre Rothschild: Joseph Ben-David, Éléments d’ une sociologie historique
des sciences. Collection “Sociologies” (Paris: Presses universitaires de France,
).
(Ed.) AIDS in Jewish Thought and Law (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing, ).
(Ed. with Jean-Pierre Rothschild and Gilbert Dahan), Torah et Science: Per-
spectives historiques et théoriques. Études offertes à Charles Touati (Louvain:
Peeters, ).
(Ed. with S. Kottek) Mélanges d’ histoire de la médecine hébraïque. Études choisies
de la Revue de l’ histoire de la médecine hébraïque, – (Leiden: Brill,
).
(Ed. with Peter Barker, Alan C. Bowen, José Chabás and Y. Tzvi Langermann)
Astronomy and Astrology from the Babylonians to Kepler: Essays Presented to
Bernard R. Goldstein on the Occasion of his th Birthday (= Centaurus 
[–] [] and  [] []).
Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions. Variorum Collected Stud-
ies Series,  (Aldershot: Ashgate, ).
(Ed.) Science and Philosophy in Ashkenazi Culture: Rejection, Toleration, and
Accommodation (part of Simon Dubnow Yearbook  []).
(Ed.) Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, forthcoming).
xii selected publications of gad freudenthal
Articles
“Littérature et sciences de la nature en France au début du XVIIIe siècle: Pierre

Polinière, l’ introduction de l’ enseignement de la physique expérimentale à
l’ Université de Paris et l’ Arrêt burlesque de Boileau,” Revue de synthèse –
 (): –.
“Wissenssoziologie der Naturwissenschaften: Bedingungen und Grenzen ihrer
Möglichkeit,” in N. Stehr and V. Meja, eds, Wissenssoziologie. Kölner Zeit-
schrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft  () (Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag, ): –.
“Electricity Between Chemistry and Physics: The Simultaneous Itineraries of
Francis Hauksbee, Samuel Wall, and Pierre Polinière,” Historical Studies in
the Physical Sciences  (): –.
“Theory of Matter and Cosmology in William Gilbert’s De magnete,” Isis 
(): –.
“The Role of Shared Knowledge in Science: The Failure of the Constructivist
Programme in the Sociology of Science,” Social Studies of Science  ():
–.
“Die elektrische Anziehung im . Jahrhundert zwischen korpuskularer und
alchemischer Deutung,” in Christoph Meinel, ed., Die Alchemie in der euro-
päischen Kultur- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Wolfenbütteler Forschungen 
(Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, ): –.
“The Theory of the Opposites and an Ordered Universe: Physics and Meta-
physics in Anaximander,” Phronesis  (): –. Reprinted in Science
in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. XI.
“Cosmogonie et physique chez Gersonide,” Revue des études juives  ():
–.
“Joseph Ben-David’s Sociology of Scientific Knowledge,” Minerva  ():
–.
“Épistémologie, astronomie et astrologie chez Gersonide,” Revue des études
juives  (): –.
“The Hermeneutical Status of the History of Science: The Views of Hélène
Metzger (An Aperçu),” Organon  /  (–): –.
“The Hermeneutical Status of the History of Science: The Views of Hélène
Metzger,” in Edna Ullmann-Margalit, ed., Science in Reflection. The Israel
Colloquium: Studies in History, Philosophy and Sociology of Science .
Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, tome  (Dordrecht: Kluwer,
): –.
“Pour le dossier de la traduction latine médiévale du Guide des égarés,” Revue
des études juives  (): –.
“Épistémologie des sciences de la nature et herméneutique de l’ histoire des
sciences selon Hélène Metzger,” in Études sur / Studies on Hélène Metzger (see
above), –.
“La Philosophie de la géométrie d’ al-Fārābı̄: Son commentaire sur le début du
Ier livre et le début du Ve livre des Éléments d’ Euclide,” Jerusalem Studies in
Arabic and Islam  (): –.
(With Ilana Löwy) “Ludwik Fleck’s Roles in Society: A Case Study Using Joseph
selected publications of gad freudenthal xiii
Ben-David’s Paradigm for a Sociology of Knowledge,” Social Studies of Science

 (): –.
“Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Transmission of the Mathematical
Tract ‘On Two Asymptotic Lines’ in the Arabic, Latin, and Hebrew Medieval
Traditions,” Vivarium  (): –.
“Sur la partie astronomique du Liwyat Hen de Lévi ben Abraham ben Hayyim,”
Revue des études juives  (): –. Reprinted in Science in the
Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. VII.
“Human Felicity and Astronomy: Gersonides’ Revolt against Ptolemy,” (Heb.),
Da#at  (): –.
“Distinguishing Two R. Joseph b. Joseph Nahmias—the
. commentator and the
Astrologer,” (Heb.), Qiryat Sefer  (–) (–): –. Translated
in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. VIII.
“Science Studies in France: A Sociological View,” Social Studies of Science 
(): –.
“Levi ben Gershom as a Scientist: Physics, Astrology and Eschatology,” Proceed-
ings of the Tenth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C, vol. : Jewish
Thought and Literature (Jerusalem, World Union of Jewish Studies, ):
–. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions,
ch. VI.
“Al-Fārābı̄ on the Foundations of Geometry,” in Reijo Työrinoja, Anja Inkeri
Lehtinen and Dagfinn Føllesdal, eds, Knowledge and the Sciences in Medieval
Philosophy. Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Medieval Phi-
losophy (S.I.E.P.M.), vol.  (= Annals of the Finnish Society for Missiology and
Ecumenics ) (Helsinki, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval
Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. X.
“Two notes on Sefer Meyaššer #aqov by Alfonso, alias Abner of Burgos,” (Heb.)
Qiryat Sefer  (–): –. English translation in Science in the
Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions, ch. IX.
“The Problem of Cohesion Between Alchemy and Natural Philosophy: From
Unctuous Moisture to Phlogiston,” in Z.R.W.M. von Martels, ed., Alchemy
Revisited. Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of
Alchemy at the University of Groningen, – April  (Collection de
travaux de l’ Académie internationale d’ histoire des sciences, vol. ) (Leiden:
Brill, ): –.
“(Al-)Chemical Foundations for Cosmological Ideas: Ibn Sı̄nā on the Geology
of an Eternal World,” in Sabetai Unguru, ed., Physics, Cosmology and Astron-
omy, –: Tension and Accommodation (= Boston Studies in the Phi-
losophy of Science, vol. ) (Dordrecht, Boston and London: Kluwer, ):
–. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions,
ch. XII.
“La science dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence. Quelques
caractéristiques,” Communauté nouvelle  (): –.
“General Introduction: Joseph Ben-David, An Outline of His Life and Work,” in
Joseph Ben-David, Scientific Growth (see above): –.
“Rabbi Lewi ben Gerschom (Gersonides) und die Bedingungen wissenschaft-
lichen Fortschritts im Mittelalter: Astronomie, Physik, erkenntnis-theore-
xiv selected publications of gad freudenthal
tischer Realismus, und Heilslehre,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 

(): –.
“The Place of Science in Medieval Jewish Communities,” (Heb.), Zemanim 
(): –.
“The Place of Science in Medieval Hebrew-Writing Jewish Communities: A
Sociological Perspective,” in Lola Ferre, José Ramón Ayaso and María José
Cano, eds, La Ciencia en las España Medieval: Musulmanes, Judíos y Cristianos
(Grenade: Universidad de Granada, Instituto de Ciencias de la Education,
): –.
“Sauver son âme ou sauver les phénomènes: sotériologie, épistémologie et astro-
nomie chez Gersonide,” in Studies on Gersonides (, see above): –.
Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditionsi, ch. V.
“Maimonides’ Stance on Astrology in Context: Cosmology, Physics, Medicine,
and Providence,” in Fred Rosner and Samuel S. Kottek, eds, Moses Mai-
monides: Physician, Scientist, and Philosopher (Northvale, NJ and London:
Jason Aronson, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew
and Arabic Traditions, ch. III.
“The Place of Science in Medieval Hebrew-Writing Jewish Communities: A
Sociological Perspective,” in Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, ed., Rashi, –.
Hommage à Aphraïm E. Urbach. Congrès européen d’études juives (Paris: Les
Editions du Cerf, ): –.
“Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Provence: Leur appro-
priation, leur rôle,” Revue des études juives  (): –.
“Clandestine Stoic Concepts in Mechanical Philosophy: The Problem of Elec-
trical Attraction,” in J.V. Field and Frank A.J.L. James, eds, Renaissance and
Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early
Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ): –.
“ ‘The Air, Blessed Be He’, in Sefer ha-Maskil,” (Heb.), Da#at – (): –
 (English summary: pp. LXVII–LXVIII);  (): –.
“Science in the Medieval Jewish Culture of Southern France,” History of Science
 (): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic
Traditions, ch. I.
(With Henri Hugonnard-Roche), “Gersonide logicien,” Revue philosophique 
(): –.
“On the Image of the Physical World in the Middle Ages,” (Heb.), in Rachel
Milstein, ed., Hotam Shlomo—Hathim Suleiman (Le sceau de Salomon) (Je-
rusalem, ): –.
“Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), –,” in S.H. Nasr et O. Leaman,
eds, The Routledge History of Islamic Philosophy (London and New York:
Routledge, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and
Arabic Traditions, ch. IV.
“Stoic Physics in the Writings of R. Sa"adia Ga"on al-Fayyumi and Its Aftermath
in Medieval Jewish Mysticism,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  (): –
. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions,
ch. XIII.
“The Study of Mathematics as ‘a Great Religious Secret’ in the Fourteenth
Century: Abraham ben Solomon’s Commentary on the beginning of Euclid’s
selected publications of gad freudenthal xv
Elements. An Annotated Critical Edition,” (Heb.) Jerusalem Studies in Jewish

Thought  (): –.
“Jewish Responses to AIDS: the Perspective of the History of Ideas” (Heb.), Assia
 (–) (): –.
“L’ Héritage de la physique stoïcienne dans la pensée juive médiévale (Saadia
Gaon, les Dévôts rhénans, Sefer ha-Maskil),” Revue de métaphysique et de
morale, : –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and
Arabic Traditions, ch. XIV.
“Jérusalem ville sainte? La perspective maïmonidienne,” Revue d’ histoire des
religions  () (): –.
“Holiness and Defilement: The Ambivalent Perception of Philosophy by Its
Opponents in the Early Fourteenth Century,” in Micrologus IX (): Gli
Ebrei e le Scienze. The Jews and the Sciences ([Florence]: Sismel/Edizioni del
Galluzo, ): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and
Arabic Traditions, ch. II.
“Providence, Astrology, and Celestial Influences on the Sublunar World in
Shem-Tov Ibn Falaquera’s De#ot ha-Filosofim,” in Steven Harvey, ed., Medieval
Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Amsterdam: Kluwer, ):
–. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew and Arabic Traditions,
ch. XVI.
“Révélation et Raison, Torah et Madda dans quelques écrits récents,” in Gad
Freudenthal, Gilbert Dahan et Jean-Pierre Rothschild, eds, Torah et Science
(see above): –.
“La Halakhah face à la maladie du sida,” Cahiers du judaïsme  (): –.
“The Medieval Astrologization of Aristotle’s Biology: Averroes on the Role of the
Celestial Bodies in the Generation of Animate Bodies,” Arabic Sciences and
Philosophy  (): –. Reprinted in Science in the Medieval Hebrew
and Arabic Traditions, ch. XV.
“Ketav ha-da#at or Sefer ha-Sekhel we-ha-muskalot: The Medieval Hebrew Trans-
lations of al-Fārābı̄’s Risālah fı̄" l-"aql. A Study in Text History and in the
Evolution of Medieval Hebrew Philosophical Terminology,” Jewish Quarterly
Review  (): –.
“La Quiddité de l’âme, traité populaire néoplatonisant faussement attribué à al-
Fārābı̄: Traduction annotée et commentée,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 
(): –.
“Gersonide, génie solitaire,” in Colette Sirat, Sara Klein-Braslavy and Olga Weij-
ers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez
les scolastiques (Paris: Librairie philosophique J. Vrin, ): –.
“Four Implicit Quotations of Philosophical Sources in Maimonides’ Guide of the
Perplexed,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture  (): –.
(With Cristina Chimisso) “A Mind of Her Own. Hélène Metzger to Émile
Meyerson, ,” Isis  (): –.
“ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’ as Categories in the History of Astronomy:
Duhem vs. Popper, Maimonides vs. Gersonides,” in Peter Barker, Alan C.
Bowen, José Chabás, Gad Freudenthal and Y. Tzvi Langermann, eds, Astron-
omy and Astrology from the Babylonians to Kepler: Essays Presented to Bernard
R. Goldstein on the Occasion of his th Birthday, pp. –.
xvi selected publications of gad freudenthal
“Résistance spirituelle à Lyon (–): le Bureau des études juives,” Revue

d’ histoire de la Shoah  (): –.
“New Light on the Physician Aaron Salomon Gumpertz: Medicine, Science
and Early Haskalah in Berlin,” Zutot: Perspectives on Jewish Culture  ()
(Dordrecht: Kluwer, ): –.
(With Tony Lévy), “De Gérase à Bagdad: Ibn Bahrı̄z, al-Kindı̄, et leur recen-
sion arabe de l’ Introduction arithmétique de Nicomaque, d’ après la ver-
sion hébraïque de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles,” in Régis Morelon et
Ahmed Hasnawi, eds, De Zénon d’Élée à Poincaré. Recueil d’études en hom-
mage à Roshdi Rashed. Les cahiers du MIDEO  (Louvain and Paris, Éditions
Peeters, ): –.
“La détermination partielle, biologique et climatologique, de la félicité humaine:
Maïmonide versus al-Fārābı̄ à propos des influences célestes,” in Tony Lévy
and Roshdi Rashed, eds, Maïmonide: philosophe et savant (Louvain: Peeters,
): –.
“A Note on the Life of Imre Lakatos in Occupied Hungary (),” in S. Probst,
A. Erdélyi, A. Moretto and K. Chemla, eds, Liberté et négation. Ceci n’ est pas
un festschrift pour Imre Toth. Archive ouverte en Sciences de l’ Homme et de
la Société, Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe (Paris: CNRS,
web site http://halshs.ccsd.cnrs.fr/halshs-).
“The Cultural Identity of Medieval Jews” (Heb.), Revue européenne des études
hébraïques  (): –.
(With José Luis Mancha), “Levi ben Gershom’s Criticism of Ptolemy’s Astrono-
my. Critical Editions of The Hebrew and Latin Versions and an Annotated En-
glish Translation of Chapter Forty-Three of the Astronomy (Wars of the Lord,
V..),” Aleph. Historical Studies in Science & Judaism  (): –.
“Maimonides’ Philosophy of Science,” in Kenneth Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge
Companion to Maimonides (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ):
–.
“Aaron Salomon Gumpertz, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, and the First Call for an
Improvement of the Civil Rights of Jews in Germany (),” AJS Review 
(): –.
“The Biological Limitations of Man’s Intellectual Perfection According to Mai-
monides,” in George Tamer, ed., The Trias of Maimonides/Die Trias des Mai-
monides (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, ): –.
“Ein symbolischer Anfang der Berliner Aufklärung: Veitel Ephraim, David
Fränckel, Aaron Gumpertz und die patriotische Feier in der Synagoge am .
Dezember ,” Judaica. Beiträge zum Verstehen des Judentums  ():
–.
“Die zwei Leben der mittelalterlichen hebräischen Wissenschaft,” Kalonymos 
() (): – and  () (): –, .
(With Rémi Brague), “Ni Empédocle, ni Plotin. Pour le dossier du Pseudo-
Empédocle arabe,” in John Dillon and Monique Dixsaut, eds, Agonistes. Essays
in Honour of Denis O’Brien (Aldershot: Hants et Burlington/Vt., Ashgate,
): –.
“A Twelfth-Century Provençal Amateur of Neoplatonic Philosophy in Hebrew:
R. Asher b. Meshullam of Lunel,” Chora – (–): –.
selected publications of gad freudenthal xvii
“De la notion de science occidentale à la notion de la science méditerranéenne:

les tribulations de l’ Introduction arithmétique de Nicomaque de Gérase,” in
Régis Morelon and Ahmad Hasnawi, eds, De Bagdad à Paris. Hommage à
Roshdi Rashed (Paris: Institut du monde arabe, ): –.
“Une rencontre qui n’ a pas eu lieu: Le monde juif ashkénaze au XIIe siècle et
les sciences,” in René-Samuel Sirat, ed., Héritages de Rachi (Paris: Éditions de
l’éclat, ): –.
(With Shlomo Sela), “Abraham Ibn Ezra’s Scholarly Writings: A Chronological
Listing,” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science & Judaism  (): –.
“The Medieval Astrologization of The Aristotelian Cosmos: From Alexander of
Aphrodisias to Averroes,” Mélanges de l’ Université Saint-Joseph  (): –
.
“Hélène Metzger (–),” in Jean Gayon and Michel Bitbol, eds, L’Épisté-
mologie française, – (Paris: Presses universitaires de France, ):
–.
“Hélène Metzger,” in Paula Hyman and Dalia Ofer, eds, Jewish Women: A Com-
prehensive Historical Encyclopedia (Jerusalem: Shalvi Publications [on CD
ROM], ).
“Hebrew Medieval Science in Zamosc ca. . The Early Years of Rabbi Israel
ben Moses Halevy of Zamosc,” in Resianne Fontaine, Andrea Schatz, Irene
E. Zwiep, eds, Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Learning and Eighteenth-
Century Enlightened Jewish Discourse (Amsterdam: Edita KNAW, ): –
.
“Maimonides on the Scope of Metaphysics alias Ma"aseh Merkavah: the Evolu-
tion of his Views,” in Carlos del Vale, Santiago García-Jalón and Juan Pedro
Monferrer, eds, Maimónides y su época (Madrid: Sociedad estatal de conmem-
oraciones culturales, ): –.
“Rabbi David Fränckel, Moses Mendelssohn, and the Beginning of the Berlin
Haskalah: Reattributing a Patriotic Sermon (),” European Journal of
Jewish Studies , (): –.
(With Mauro Zonta) “Remnants of Habib . Ibn Bahrı̄z’s Arabic Translation of
Nicomachus of Gerasa’s Introduction to Arithmetic,” in Y. Tzvi Langermann
and Jodeph Stern, eds, Adaptations and Innovations: Studies on the Interaction
between Jewish and Islamic Thought and Literature from the Early Middle Ages
to the Late Twentieth Century, dedicated to Professor Joel L. Kraemer (Paris and
Louvain: Éditions Peeters, ): –.
“Jewish Traditionalism and Early Modern Science: Rabbi Israel Zamosc’s Dialec-
tic of the Enlightenment (Berlin, ),” in Robert S. Westman and David
Biale, eds, Thinking Impossibilities: The Legacy of Amos Funkenstein (Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, ): –.
“Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph. Historical
Studies in Science and Judaism  (): –.
“Four Observations on Maimonides’ Four Celestial Globes (Guide :–),”
in A. Ravitzky, ed., Maimonides: Conservatism, Originality and Revolution
(Heb.) (Jerusalem: Merkaz Zalman Shazar, ): –.
“The Biological Foundations of Intellectual Elitism: Maimonides vs. Al-Fārābı̄,”
Maimonidean Studies  (): –.
xviii selected publications of gad freudenthal
“Dieu parle-t-il hébreu? : De l’ origine du langage humain selon quelques pen-

seurs juifs médiévaux,” Les Cahiers du Judaïsme  (): –.
“Transfert culturel à Lunel au milieu du douzième siècle: Qu’est-ce qui a motivé
les premières traductions provençales de l’ arabe en hébreu?” in Danielle
Iancu-Agou and Élie Nicolas, eds, Des Tibbonides à Maïmonide: Rayonnement
des Juifs andalous en Pays d’ Oc médiéval (Paris: Editions du Cerf, ): –
.
“Cosmology: The Heavenly Bodies,” in Steven Nadler and Tamar Rudavsky,
eds, The Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy: From Antiquity through the
Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ): –
.
“Nicomachus of Gerasa in Spain, circa : Abraham bar Hiyya’s Testimony,”
Aleph. Historical Studies in Science and Judaism , (): –.
Planned Publications/Forthcoming
“Averroes’ Changing Mind on the Role of the Active Intellect in the Generation
of Animate Beings,” in Ahmed Hasnawi and Roshdi Rashed, eds, La pensée
philosophique et scientifique d’ Averroès dans son temps.
“Judah Ibn Tibbon and his patrons R. Meshullam b. Jacob and R. Asher b.
Meshullam,” in R. Reiner et al., eds, Israel M. Ta-Shma Memorial Volume
(Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center).
“The Accommodation of Non-Traditional Learning in Mid-Twelfth Century
Provençal Jewish Culture: A Case Study and a Preliminary Theoretical State-
ment,” in S. Stroumsa and H. Ben-Shammai, eds, Exchange and Transmission
Across Cultural Boundaries: Philosophy, Mysticism and Science in the Mediter-
ranean World (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Science and Humanities).
“Arabic into Hebrew: The Accommodation of Secular Knowledge in Twelfth-
Century Provençal Judaism,” in David Freidenreich and Miriam Goldstein,
eds, Border Crossings: Interreligious Interaction and the Exchange of Ideas in
the Islamic Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press).
“ ‘Arav and Edom’ as Cultural Resources for Medieval Judaism: Contrasting
Attitudes toward Arabic and Latin Learning in the Midi and in Italy,” in Maria
Esperanza Alfonso and Carmen Caballero-Navas, eds, Late Medieval Jewish
Identities: Iberia and Beyond (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).
“Arabic and Latin Cultures as Resources for the Hebrew Translation Movement:
Comparative Considerations, Both Quantitative and Qualitative,” in Gad
Freudenthal, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press).
INTRODUCTION
This volume contains twenty-two papers on the history of science pre-

sented to Gad Freudenthal. A Festschrift for Gad Freudenthal needs no
justification. In the past thirty years he has become one of the most out-
standing scholars of the history of science and especially of the history of
science in Jewish culture worldwide.
In the early eighties, the first period of his scholarly career, Gad Freud-
enthal published papers mainly on the general history of science and
on the sociology of science, as well as a book on the philosophy of
science. Starting in the mid-eighties his scholarly interest shifted to “the
history of science and Judaism.” In  he organized the conference to
mark Gersonides’ seven-hundredth birthday and edited the trailblazing
Studies on Gersonides: A Fourteenth-Century Jewish Philosopher-Scientist.
The influence of the conference and volume were immediate: if until
that time only Bernard Goldstein studied Gersonides the scientist, today
many scholars investigate different aspects of his scientific work. From
the early nineties on Gad’s scholarly productivity flourished, resulting in
an increasing number of publications (in four languages). In many of
these studies it was Gad who laid the groundwork, for example for the
development of Jewish science in medieval southern Europe (especially
southern France) and for the impact of Arabic philosophy and science
on Jewish thought.
Gad Freudenthal’s research interests are exceptionally broad, led by
a rare “nose” for texts and subjects that have been little explored but
that are of special importance (such as the dispersed works of Do"eg
ha-Edomi). He also attaches great importance to studying the history of
the history of science, exemplified by his sustained efforts to highlight
(or rescue from oblivion) the scientific works of past scholars such as
Moritz Steinschneider, Hélène Metzger, Joseph Ben-David, and Amos
Funkenstein. Several of his studies were inspired by a strong personal
commitment to such works and their authors. A unifying trait of much of
his more recent work, however, seems to be a vivid interest in sociological
and cultural aspects of the history of science, with a focus on issues of
transmission, appropriation, and translation. In , at the Institute
for Advanced Studies in Jerusalem, he initiated a research group on
“Transmission and Appropriation of the Secular Sciences and Philosophy
 introduction
in Medieval Judaism: Comparative Perspectives, Universal and National

Aspects.” He organized successful conferences on “Science in Ashke-
naz” (Jerusalem, ), “Moritz Steinschneider and the Study of Cul-
tural Transfer” (Berlin, ), an EAJS colloquium on “The Cultures
of Maimonideanism” (Oxford, ), and a conference entitled “Latin
into Hebrew. The Transfer of Philosophical, Scientific, and Medical Lore
from Christian to Jewish Cultures in Southern Europe (th–th Cen-
turies)” (Paris, ). Currently he is engaged in an international project
on Pre-Modern Scientific Hebrew Terminology (PESHAT), which aims
to produce an updated and enlarged multilingual digital version of Jacob
Klatzkin’s famous Thesaurus Philosophicus Linguae Hebraicae. In  he
will be leading a new research group at the Institute for Advanced Studies
in Jerusalem, on Jewish Physicians in Medieval Christian Europe: Profes-
sional Knowledge as an Agent of Cultural Change.
For Gad, scientific research is never a solipsistic enterprise but a fun-
damentally dialogical process. All who know him personally are famil-
iar with his curiosity about new developments in scholarship and his
strong interest in intensive exchanges of ideas about ongoing work, his
own and his colleagues’. He is enormously generous and helpful when it
comes to supporting and promoting the research of others. He is con-
stantly stressing the necessity to transmit knowledge from the older gen-
eration of scholars to their heirs and successors, including the creation of
forums for intellectual exchange based upon personal encounter between
junior and senior scholars. He himself always takes pains to encourage
young scholars and guide them to work on topics related to the history
of science. In the conferences he coordinates—always a model of perfect
organization—his cordial manner catalyzes the gathering of outstanding
scholars from a wide range of disciplines and involves them in a fruitful
and constructive dialogue about Judaism and the history of science.
Gad Freudenthal’s major influence in the study of the history of sci-
ence is amplified by his work as an editor. He can be proud of numer-
ous collections of articles on different subjects, all of them carefully and
meticulously selected and edited. Since its founding in , at the ini-
tiative of Yemima ben Menahem of the Hebrew University, he has been
the editor of Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism. It is marked
by an extraordinary diversity of content (subjects from the rabbinic age
through modern times and editions of texts in many languages) and form
(studies, forums on a specific topic, short notices, English translations
of important older articles that are sometimes difficult to find, and bib-
liographies). In Aleph, Gad miraculously finds a way to maintain a very
introduction 
high academic standard and, at the same time, to encourage young schol-
ars publishing their first works.
Anyone who has had the opportunity to collaborate with Gad in his
editorial capacity (whether of Aleph or of one of the numerous collections
of papers) knows that he views this as much more than a cut-and-
dried technical job. He transforms the editing process into a fruitful
dialogue with the authors about their papers, intentions, and arguments.
His rare ability to make focused suggestions often leads to substantial
improvements in papers; the many expressions of gratitude to “Gad
Freudenthal, who has made many helpful comments on previous drafts
of this paper,” found in the notes of countless articles, are much more
than acts of courtesy. They often relate to substantial contributions and
corrections to the work. This understanding of his responsibility as editor
reflects not only Gad’s firm belief in the power of the better argument,
but even more so his firm conviction that every argument deserves to be
presented in the best possible manner, even when one does not share
it. Many people and publications have greatly profited from this high
scientific ethos.
During the thirty years of his career Gad has collaborated with many
people and made many friends. The list of contributors the present vol-
ume could easily have been extended many times over. The editors have
done their best to invite those who are closest to Gad, but beg forgiveness
if they have left out anyone who would have liked to contribute to this
volume. May this book be a small token of honor and gratitude offered
by colleagues, students and friends, who wish to mark his th birthday.
TEXTS:
EDITIONS, TRANSLATIONS,
AND COMMENTARIES
LE PSEUDO AL-HASAN
. IBN
AL-HAYTAM : SUR L’ ASYMPTOTE
¯
Roshdi Rashed
Dans la proposition  du second livre des Coniques,1 Apollonius dé-

montre que l’ asymptote et l’ hyperbole prolongées à l’ infini se rap-
prochent continûment l’ une de l’ autre sans jamais se rencontrer. Cette
proposition a frappé l’ imagination et a été l’ objet de commentaires ma-
thématiques et philosophiques pendant deux millénaires environ. Ce
n’ est cependant qu’ au cours du dernier demi-siècle que l’ on a commencé
à s’ intéresser à l’ histoire de ces commentaires. Tout a commencé par les
travaux que Marshall Clagett a consacrés à la traduction latine, par le
mathématicien de la cour de Frédéric II, Jean de Palerme, d’ un commen-
taire arabe anonyme de cette proposition II.. Marshall Clagett a édité
cette traduction et en a fait un commentaire historique et mathématique.2
Gad Freudenthal, à son tour, a étudié la traduction hébraïque de ce texte
latin, ainsi que l’ impact qui fut le sien—joint à celui du Guide des Éga-
rés—sur la tradition hébraïque.3 L’ auteur de ces pages a lui-même établi,
traduit et commenté quelques travaux des mathématiciens et philosophes
arabes relatifs à cette proposition.
Or les auteurs de ces commentaires, comme d’ ailleurs certains mathé-
maticiens anciens, ont été principalement intrigués par l’ indétermi-
nation sémantique d’ une proposition au demeurant si bien démon-
trée. La proposition II., il est vrai, repose sur trois notions, toutes
1 Cette proposition est parvenue dans l’ édition d’ Eutocius et dans la traduction

arabe des sept livres des Coniques avec quelques légères variantes. Sur cette question,
voir Apollonius : Les Coniques, tome . : Livres II et III, commentaire historique et
mathématique, édition et traduction du texte arabe par R. Rashed (Berlin et New York,
).
2 M. Clagett, « A Medieval Latin Translation of a Short Arabic Tract on the Hyper-
bola », Osiris  () : – ; et Archimedes in the Middle Ages, vol. , A Supplement
on the Medieval Latin Traditions of Conic Sections (–) (Philadelphie, ) : –
, –.
3 Gad Freudenthal, « Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Transmission of
the Mathematical Tract “On Two Asymptotic Lines” in the Arabic, Latin and Hebrew
Medieval Traditions », Vivarium  () : – : repr. dans R.S. Cohen et H. Levine,
éd., Maimonides and the Sciences, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. 
(Dordrecht et Boston, ) : –.
 roshdi rashed
nécessaires à la description du comportement asymptotique de la courbe,

mais dont aucune n’ était dotée à l’ époque—et pour longtemps encore—
d’ une définition opératoire. Ces notions sont : l’ infini, l’ infinitésimale
et les continuités.4 On comprend donc que cette proposition II. ne
pouvait laisser indifférents ni les mathématiciens ni les philosophes.
Voici en effet une proposition bien établie, mais à l’ aide de notions
non rigoureusement définies. Face à cette situation, Geminus qualifie
II. de « théorème le plus paradoxal en géométrie ».5 Pour dénouer ce
paradoxe, Proclus opte quant à lui pour une stratégie philosophique,
en justifiant la présence de l’ infini comme fini dans la démonstration.6
Les choses ensuite en sont, semble-t-il, restées là, jusqu’ à la réactiva-
tion de la recherche sur la géométrie des sections coniques à partir du
milieu du IXe siècle, avec les Banū Mūsā et Tābit ibn Qurra. De la pro-
position II. des Coniques, on connaît, pour ¯ l’ heure, sept commen-
taires en arabe, auxquels il faut ajouter le texte qui a été traduit en latin
par Jean de Palerme, ainsi que l’ étude, au XVIIe siècle, de Francesco
Barozzi, récemment publiée par Luigi Maierù.7 Ces commentaires sont
successivement dus à al-Siğzı̄—seconde moitié du Xe siècle et début du
siècle suivant—, al-Qummı̄—jeune contemporain de ce dernier—, et al-
Bı̄rūnı̄—également jeune contemporain d’ al-Siğzı̄. L’ algébriste Šaraf al-
Dı̄n al-Tūsı̄
. leur succède un peu plus tard, et s’ arrête à deux reprises à
cette proposition. À cela s’ ajoute un commentaire de Muhammad . ibn
4 R. Rashed, « Al-Sijzı̄ et Maïmonide : Commentaire mathématique et philosophique
de la proposition II- des Coniques d’ Apollonius », Archives Internationales d’ Histoire

des Sciences , vol.  () : – ; traduction anglaise « Al-Sijzı̄ and Maimonides :
A Mathematical and Philosophical Commentary on Proposition II- in Apollonius’
Conic Sections », dans Cohen et Levine, éd., Maimonides and the Sciences, pp. –. On
trouvera une nouvelle édition du texte d’ al-Siğzı̄ dans R. Rashed, Œuvre mathématique
d’ al-Sijzı̄, vol. , Géométrie des coniques et théorie des nombres au X e siècle, Les Cahiers
du Mideo  (Louvain et Paris, ) : – et –. Voir également Sharaf al-Dı̄n
al-Tūsı̄,
. Œuvres mathématiques. Algèbre et géométrie au XII e siècle, Collection « Sciences
et philosophie arabes—textes et études »,  tomes (Paris, ) : t. , pp. cxxviii–cxxxii et
t. , pp. –.
5 G. Friedlein, éd., Procli Diadochi In primum Euclidis Elementorum librum commen-
tarii (Leipzig,  ; reprod. Olms, ) :  ; et la traduction de P. Ver Eecke, Proclus
de Lycie, Les Commentaires sur le premier livre des Éléments d’ Euclide (Paris, ) : –
.
6 Rashed, Œuvre mathématique d’ al-Sijzı̄,  :.
7 F. Barozzi, Admirandum illud geometricum problema tredecim modis demonstratum :
Venetiis . Éditeur L. Maierù (Bologne, ) : –. Voir aussi E. Florio et L. Maierù,
« Le dimostrazioni di Francesco Barozzi nell’ Admirandum illud geometricum problema
() », Acc. Naz. Sci. Lett. Arti di Modena, Memorie Scientifiche, Giuridiche, Letterarie,
Cer. VIII, vol. , fasc. I ().
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
al-Haytam (un homonyme d’ al-Hasan . ibn al-Haytam que l’ on a jusqu’ à
une date¯ récente confondu avec lui8) et un commentaire ¯ du théologien
et philosophe Fahr al-Dı̄n al-Rāzı̄. Par leur prestige et par leur diversité,
ces noms montrent ˘ l’ intérêt intense et constant porté par les mathéma-
ticiens et les philosophes de la tradition arabe à la proposition II. des
Coniques d’ Apollonius. Il ne s’ agissait pas pour chacun d’ entre eux de se
contenter d’ en évoquer l’ exemple à l’ occasion d’ un exposé doctrinaire,
comme le fit Maïmonide,9 mais de rédiger un petit traité intégralement
consacré à la démonstration de cette proposition II..
Parmi ces commentaires, celui d’ al-Siğzı̄ joue un rôle central. C’ est en
effet lui qui engage la recherche, et c’ est contre lui que certains commen-
tateurs vont la poursuivre. L’ étude d’ al-Siğzı̄ est à la fois mathématique
et philosophique. Pour asseoir la notion d’ infini sur une base solide, il
commence par démontrer le lemme suivant :
Parmi les parallélogrammes appliqués à des droites données, égaux à un
parallélogramme donné, dont les angles opposés sont égaux aux deux
angles opposés de ces parallélogrammes, ceux dont les longueurs sont les
plus courtes ont les largeurs les plus longues, et ceux qui ont les longueurs
les plus longues ont les largeurs les plus courtes. Et ainsi de suite selon ce
mode, à l’ infini.10
L’ idée d’ al-Siğzı̄ est donc de passer par le cas discret, qui est calculable,
avant d’ en venir au cas de la courbe continue. Idée intéressante, mais qui
dresse d’ autres obstacles, que nous avons discutés ailleurs.11 Cependant
al-Siğzı̄ ne s’ arrête pas là : il élabore une classification des propositions
mathématiques à l’ aide du couple « démonstration / conception », pour
donner un statut logique aux propositions de la catégorie de II.. Il
y a les propositions conçues directement, et qu’ il n’ y a aucun moyen
mathématique de démontrer ; il y a celles qu’ on conçoit avant qu’ il
soit procédé à leur démonstration ; il y a celles conçues lorsque l’ on
forme l’ idée de leur démonstration ; il y a celles conçues seulement une
fois démontrées ; enfin, il y a les propositions difficilement concevables,
même une fois démontrées, et c’ est à ces dernières qu’ appartient II..12
Le problème philosophique sous-jacent, et explicité par cette classifi-
cation, est celui de la possibilité de démontrer ce que l’ on ne peut pas
8 Voir plus loin.

9 Rashed, « Al-Sijzı̄ et Maïmonide ».
10 Rashed, Œuvre mathématique d’ al-Sijzı̄,  :.
11 Ibid., pp. –.
12 Ibid., p. .
 roshdi rashed
concevoir. Or ce problème ne tardera pas à s’ articuler sur un autre, sou-

levé par al-Kindı̄ dans son livre Sur la Philosophie première. Ce dernier
avait en effet posé le problème des propositions qu’ on démontre rigou-
reusement sans pouvoir en représenter l’ objet, c’ est-à-dire sans que l’ on
puisse s’ en faire une image dans l’ âme. Il s’ agit cette fois du couple
« démonstration / imagination ».13 C’ est précisément ce que Maïmonide
reprendra plus tard dans le Guide des Égarés lors de sa critique des théo-
logiens (mutakallimūm) qui définissaient la modalité par l’ imagination.
Mais Maïmonide intègre l’ exemple de II. pour illustrer ce problème.14
Al-Qummı̄, en fonction d’ al-Siğzı̄ mais aussi contre lui, compose un

commentaire de II., qu’ il voulait auto-suffisant et épistémologique-
ment neutre.15 Il n’ exigeait donc de son lecteur aucune connaissance
préalable des Coniques d’ Apollonius. Dans son mémoire, il explique tout
ce qu’ il faut savoir sur le cône et l’ hyperbole et ne fait appel qu’ aux propo-
sitions des Éléments d’ Euclide, notamment celles du livre XI, en évitant,
contrairement à al-Siğzı̄, tout recours aux Coniques. C’ est là, semble-t-il,
un choix de simplicité et d’ économie, car, pour établir II., Apollonius
a recours à trois propositions du livre I de son ouvrage, et à neuf proposi-
tions du livre II. D’ autre part, pour assurer la neutralité épistémologique,
Al-Qummı̄ rejette la notion d’ infini en dehors du champ des mathéma-
tiques, c’ est-à-dire qu’ il la renvoie à ses propres livres en théologie phi-
losophique (Kalām).
Mais al-Qummı̄ n’ est pas le seul à faire un tel choix. Il existe un
traité anonyme, faussement attribué au mathématicien al-Hasan . ibn al-
Haytam, où l’ auteur emprunte la même voie qu’ al-Qummı̄. Il qualifie
cette¯ voie de « claire et facile », dans la mesure où, tout en connaissant
les Coniques, on n’ y procède que par les Éléments. Ce traité appartient
à la collection manuscrite nº  de Dār al-Kutub (Le Caire), fol. v-
r, où il apparaît sous le titre : Risāla fı̄ wuğūd hat. t. ayn yaqrabāni wa-lā
yaltaqiyāni (Traité sur l’ existence des deux lignes ˘qui se rapprochent sans se
rencontrer). Or ce traité pose un sérieux problème d’ attribution. Le texte
est anonyme, mais le copiste a écrit dans le colophon : « On comprend de
ses expressions qu’ il est la composition d’ Ibn al-Haytam » ; affirmation
¯
13 Al-Falsafa al-ūlā, dans R. Rashed et J. Jolivet, Œuvres philosophiques et scientifiques

d’ al-Kindı̄, vol.  : Métaphysique et Cosmologie (Leyde, ) :  ; ar. p. , ll. –.
14 Maïmonide, Guide des égarés (arabe). Éditeur H. Atay (Ankara,  ; reprod. Le
Caire, s.d.) : –.

15 Voir R. Rashed, « L’ asymptote : Apollonius et ses lecteurs », à paraître.
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
aussi ambiguë que gratuite. Or on sait depuis peu16 qu’ il existe deux « Ibn
al-Haytam », contemporains, que les biobibliographes ont identifiés et
dont ils¯ ont confondu les écrits : le fameux mathématicien al-Hasan . ibn
al-Haytam d’ une part, et le philosophe de Bagdad Muhammad . ibn al-
Haytam ¯ d’ autre part. À supposer donc que l’ affirmation du colophon
¯
soit fondée, elle ne nous dit pas de quel Ibn al-Haytam il s’ agit, et le
copiste ne donne aucune indication sur son modèle¯ qui puisse nous
éclairer. Quoi qu’ il en soit, les biobibliographes récents, sans examen
supplémentaire, ont attribué ce traité au mathématicien al-Hasan . ibn al-
Haytam, induisant ainsi les historiens en erreur.17
¯ ce traité n’ est certainement pas d’ al-Hasan ibn al-Haytam. En effet,
Or .
une fois établie rigoureusement la liste de ses écrits, on ¯n’ y relève ni
le titre de cet écrit, ni même un titre qui s’ en rapprocherait. D’ autre
part, on ne doit à al-Hasan . ibn al-Haytam que très peu de commen-
¯ est pour dissiper un doute ou
taires. Lorsqu’ il lui arrive d’ en rédiger, c’
pour corriger une proposition, ou encore pour développer une nou-
velle théorie ; par exemple lorsqu’ il commente les Éléments, les lemmes
des Banū Mūsā aux Coniques, etc. C’ est en effet aux chercheurs qu’ il
s’ adressait, et non pas aux débutants. Enfin, il est difficilement concevable
qu’ al-Hasan
. ibn al-Haytam, en son temps le meilleur connaisseur de la
¯
géométrie des sections coniques, et sans rival dans sa connaissance des
Coniques (il en a restitué le huitième livre), ait fait l’ impasse sur l’ ouvrage
d’ Apollonius pour revenir aux Éléments d’ Euclide dans un commentaire
de II..
Mais, si al-Hasan
. ibn al-Haytam n’ est pas—et il ne peut l’ être—
l’ auteur de ce traité anonyme, quel ¯ est cet auteur ? Dans l’ état actuel de
nos connaissances, il est impossible d’ apporter une réponse vraisem-
blable et justifiée à cette question. Nous savons seulement que l’ intérêt
porté à cette proposition II. ne se bornait pas à la société des mathéma-
ticiens ; les philosophes l’ ont eux aussi commentée, ce qui étend considé-
rablement le champ des auteurs possibles. Nous savons par exemple que
le philosophe Muhammad. ibn al-Haytam, familier des mathématiques
et des sciences, a écrit un mémoire sur¯ce sujet, dont il évoque lui-même
16 R. Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle, vol.  : Ibn al-
Haytham (Londres, ).

17 J’ ai été moi aussi victime de cette illusion, jusqu’ à ce que mes recherches me mènent
aux écrits mathématiques d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Je l’ ai rectifiée lors de l’ édition et de la

traduction des écrits d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Cf.¯ Les mathématiques infinitésimales, vol. , p. 
n. . ¯
 roshdi rashed
le titre dans la liste autobiographique de ses écrits.18 Or Muhammad

. ibn
al-Haytam nous a habitués à des commentaires de ce type, animés d’ une
évidente¯ intention didactique.
On sait également que le fameux théologien et philosophe (mort en
) Fahr al-Dı̄n al-Rāzı̄ a écrit un traité semblablement intitulé.19
Selon ses ˘propres dires, il a procédé dans ce traité à l’ aide des Éléments
uniquement, c’ est-à-dire de la même façon qu’ al-Qummı̄ et l’ auteur de
ce traité anonyme. Mais tout ceci ne suffit pas à fonder une conjecture ni à
attribuer le traité anonyme à Muhammad
. ibn al-Haytam ou à Fahr al-Dı̄n
al-Rāzı̄. On observe seulement que la proposition II. ˘
¯ a été commentée
à plusieurs reprises par les philosophes : ces deux derniers, qui lui ont
consacré chacun un traité, et Maïmonide, qui l’ évoque dans le Guide. Plus
tard et sous d’ autres climats, d’ autres vont l’ évoquer, comme Montaigne
et Voltaire. Peut-être faut-il chercher la raison de cet attrait exercé par
la proposition II. dans l’ exemple qu’ elle offre d’ une connaissance
certaine de ce qui échappe à l’ imagination, exemple qui apporterait de
l’ eau au moulin des théologiens et des déistes.
Le traité anonyme est sans doute l’ un des commentaires les plus déve-
loppés de II.. L’ auteur multiplie délibérément les démonstrations des
principaux lemmes, et il lui arrive de donner, après une démonstration
directe, une autre démonstration, par l’ absurde cette fois. Son but déclaré
est de démontrer l’ existence d’ une droite asymptote à l’ hyperbole, et
l’ unicité de celle-ci. Il entend établir des démonstrations « faciles » et
« claires » à l’ aide des Éléments d’ Euclide, et notamment des livres VI
et XI. Cette fois encore on perçoit, même si elle n’ est pas explicitée,
l’ intention didactique.
L’ auteur commence par montrer comment engendrer un cône de
révolution et obtenir une surface conique. Il explique ensuite comment
18 Voir Ibn Abı̄ Us. aybi#a, ‘Uyūn al-anbā" fı̄ t. abaqāt al-at. ibbā’. Éditeur N. Ridā
. (Bey-
routh, ) :  (Maqāla fı̄ intizā# al-burhān ‘alā anna al-qit. # al-zā"id wa-al-hat. t. ayn
allādāni lā yalqayānihi yaqrabāni abadan). ˘
19¯ Fahr al-Dı̄n al-Rāzı̄, al-Matālib al-āliya. Éditeur A.H. al-Saqā (Beyrouth, ) :
.
˘
 : « Apollonius a montré dans son livre Les coniques l’ existence de deux lignes qui se
rapprochent continûment, sans se rencontrer. Nous avons montré par d’ autres moyens
établis sur les principes de la géométrie que cela est possible. Si on acceptait que la division
soit finie, alors cela serait impossible absolument ».

!M # « $I!&!' » () * ! +
, »
.« -M ./0 1 ,3 45/ 6 ) / 7!8 ./0
9!: 6;
<!=
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
déterminer une hyperbole comme section plane d’ un cône, ainsi que
son diamètre transverse, son côté droit et ses ordonnées ; et comment
montrer que la courbe est à branche infinie. Il ne s’ agit pas du cas
général, comme chez Apollonius, mais d’ une hyperbole équilatère. Ainsi,
l’ auteur fournit à son lecteur le bagage qui le dispense de revenir aux
Coniques et assure à son traité indépendance et auto-suffisance. Il étudie
la droite asymptote, qu’ il conçoit, à la différence d’ Apollonius, comme
une droite parallèle à une génératrice du cône dans un plan passant
par le centre de la section et parallèle au plan sécant—conception que
l’ on rencontre déjà chez al-Qummı̄. L’ asymptote est donc une droite qui
passe par le centre de l’ hyperbole et par l’ extrémité de la moitié du côté
droit, qui est, dans l’ hyperbole équilatère, une partie de la tangente au
sommet. Il montre ensuite que cette droite ne rencontre pas la courbe,
que la suite des distances, majorée par la distance entre le sommet de
la courbe et l’ asymptote, est une suite décroissante. Puis il démontre
l’ unicité de l’ asymptote, et montre enfin que, si l’ on mène d’ un point
quelconque entre le sommet de l’ hyperbole et son centre une droite
parallèlement à l’ asymptote, elle se comporte avec l’ hyperbole comme
l’ asymptote.
Il démontre ensuite que cette droite ne rencontre pas la courbe, une
fois par une preuve directe et une fois par une réduction à l’ absurde. On
peut récrire la preuve directe ainsi :
Soit (AB, AP) un repère, G (x, y) un point de l’ hyperbole ; par la
propriété fondamentale (le symptoma), on a
y2 = (a + x) x.
Soit le point W(X, Y) sur l’ asymptote, on a X = x, Y = x + a, d’ où

Y 2 = (x + a)2 = y2 + a2,
donc Y 2 > y2.

La démonstration par réduction à l’ absurde se récrit :
Supposons que CB rencontre l’ hyperbole au point K et menons KP ;
on a
DP · PA + AC2 = CP2 = PK 2 (K sur BC).
Mais PK 2 = DP · PA (symptoma), donc

DP · PA + AC2 = DP · PA ;
ce qui est impossible.

 roshdi rashed
L’ auteur donne ensuite deux démonstrations de la décroissance de la

suite des distances entre l’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote. Voici la transcription
de ces démonstrations.
Traçons les droites GS et EM ; elles rencontrent l’ asymptote en W et I,
donc
DS · SA = GS2 et DM · MA = ME2 ;
mais
DS · SA < DM · MA ⇒ ME > GS et MC > SC,
d’ où
CS + SG < CM + ME.
C
J
V A B
S H
W
L G O
M
N E I
P
U
K
D’ autre part,
DS · SA + AC2 = CS2 = SW 2 ;
mais
(CS + GS) · GW + GS2 = SW 2,
d’ où
(*) (CS + GS) · GW = AC2.
De même, on montre que (CM + ME) EI = AC2, donc

(CS + GS) · GW = (CM + ME) · EI,
d’ où
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
CS + SG EI
= ;
CM + ME GW
mais
CS + SG < CM + ME ⇒ EI < GW.
Mais EÔI =  droit et Î = 1/2 droit, donc Ê = 1/2 droit, donc

EO = OI, EI 2 = EO2 et GW 2 = GH 2 ;
or EI < GW, donc EO < GH.
On montre enfin que AJ > GH.

De (*) on a
CS + SG AC
= ;
AC GW
or
CS + SG > AC ⇒AC = AB > GW
et
AB2 = AJ 2, GW 2 = GH 2,
donc
AJ > GH > EO.
On peut transcrire ainsi la seconde démonstration :

LW · GW + SG2 = SW 2 = CS2 = DS · AS + AC2,
donc
LW · GW + SG2 = DS · AS + AC2 ;
mais
SG2 = DS · SA ;
par soustraction, on a
AC2 = AB2 = LW · GW,
donc
 roshdi rashed
LW AB
= .
AB GW
Mais LW > AB, donc AB > GW.

On montre également que NI · EI = AB2, d’ où
LW · GW = NI · EI,
d’ où
LW EI
= ;
NI GW
mais LW < NI ⇒ EI < GW.
L’ auteur commence par établir deux lemmes pour démontrer que

l’ asymptote et la courbe prolongées continûment ne se rencontrent ja-
mais :
° Si on divise un segment [AB] en deux points C et E tels que AC > CB
et AE = CB, et si l’ on ajoute à [AB] le segment [BD], alors AD · DB
= CD2.
A E C B D
° Toute parallèle à l’ asymptote menée entre le sommet de l’ hyperbole

et son centre rencontre l’ hyperbole.
Il démontre ensuite la proposition :
Quelle que soit une distance I entre l’ asymptote et l’ hyperbole infé-
rieure ou égale à la distance d = AJ, il existe une distance d telle que d =
I.
S
C
T
J
N B
A E
O
M
Y
L
I′
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
Si I = AJ, la proposition est vérifiée.
Si I < AJ, prenons JN = I sur AJ. De N on mène la droite NM parallèle à
l’ asymptote CB. D’ après le lemme , la droite NM rencontre l’ hyperbole ;
qu’ elle la rencontre en M. Abaissons de M la perpendiculaire ME sur
l’ asymptote. On a alors le parallélogramme (N, E), donc JN = ME = I.
L’ auteur montre ensuite que toute parallèle à l’ asymptote se comporte
comme une asymptote et que l’ asymptote est unique.
On vient de résumer les principales étapes de cet écrit anonyme. On

trouvera ici l’editio princeps de celui-ci ainsi que sa première traduction.
Cette édition critique a été faite à partir du seul manuscrit connu de
ce texte. Ce manuscrit a été transcrit en écriture nashı̄. Le copiste ne
˘
comprenait manifestement pas le contenu du traité et a commis beaucoup
de fautes. Il a également omis de tracer les figures.
Au nom de Dieu Clément et Miséricordieux.
TRAITÉ SUR L’ EXISTENCE DE L’ ASYMPTOTE20
Son auteur écrit : après avoir rendu grâces à Dieu le Très-Haut, et bénédiction
sur Son Bien Aimé le Prophète élu ; avant d’ entreprendre cela, il faut que nous
indiquions des lemmes solides et des propositions coniques.
Parmi ce qu’ il faut introduire, il y a les définitions du début du onzième livre
des Éléments. Puis suivront la première proposition de ce livre, la seconde, puis
la troisième, la quatrième et la cinquième ; et enfin la proposition dont l’ énoncé
est : par un point d’ un plan, on ne peut pas élever deux perpendiculaires dans
une même direction.21 Ensuite la quatorzième proposition, puis la huitième, puis
la onzième, puis la dix-huitième, et enfin la dix-neuvième. C’ est sur tout cela
qu’ on s’ arrêtera, sur les propositions solides des Éléments.
. Cône de révolution et surface conique

On suppose ensuite le triangle CAE, dont l’ angle A est droit et dont la droite
AC est égale à la droite AE ; menons la perpendiculaire AB. Il est clair que les
deux triangles ABC, ABE sont égaux et semblables. Si nous imaginons les deux
extrémités de la droite AB fixes dans leur position, et si on fait tourner le triangle
ABC dans la direction de E jusqu’ à ce qu’ il revienne à sa position initiale, alors
la droite BC tout entière décrit la surface d’ un cercle dont le centre est le point B
et dont le demi-diamètre est BC, car BC, dans son mouvement, forme toujours
avec la droite AB un angle droit ; et le mouvement de la droite BC est dans un
même plan, comme on l’ a montré22 dans la cinquième proposition ; le point B
est fixe, il est donc le centre du cercle [r] tracé par la droite BC.
Le triangle ABC, dans son mouvement, peut se superposer au triangle ABE,
car il lui est égal et semblable. La droite CE en entier est alors le diamètre
du cercle et le plan du cercle est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC,
comme on l’ a montré dans la dix-huitième proposition. La droite AB est en effet
perpendiculaire au plan du cercle et le plan du triangle passe par la droite AB.
AC décrit donc une surface conique de sommet le point A et de base le cercle de
centre B.
20 Litt. : des deux lignes qui se rapprochent et qui ne se rencontrent pas.

21 Éléments, XI..
22 Litt. : comme nous l’ avons montré. Il recourt à cette expression plusieurs fois.
 roshdi rashed
Prolongeons AC dans la direction de C jusqu’ en K, abaissons la perpendicu-

laire KU sur le prolongement de AB et prolongeons-la jusqu’ au point I sur le
prolongement de la droite AE. Il est clair, d’ après ce qui précède, que la droite
KI est le diamètre d’ un cercle décrit par la droite KU au moyen du mouvement
du triangle ABC ; U sera le centre de ce cercle.
A
E B C
I K
U D
De même, on montre que toutes les droites parallèles à la droite CB, et comprises
entre les deux droites AB et AC, et toutes celles qui les prolongent, peuvent
décrire des cercles dont le plan est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC.
Ces cercles ont pour demi-diamètres ces droites parallèles, et les centres de ces
cercles se situent sur la droite qui prolonge la droite AB. Les droites AB et AC
peuvent être prolongées à l’ infini ; la surface décrite par la droite AC et son
prolongement peut donc augmenter continûment.
. L’ hyperbole comme section plane d’ un cône

Menons ensuite du point C ou d’ un autre point de la droite AC ou de son
prolongement la perpendiculaire CD à IK, et élevons sur cette droite CD un
plan perpendiculaire au plan du triangle ABC au moyen de la proposition 
du livre XI ; qu’ il coupe la surface conique suivant la ligne CM. Appelons
la ligne GCM, hyperbole, et appelons la droite CD, son diamètre. Comme la
surface conique peut être prolongée continûment, l’ hyperbole peut aussi être
prolongée continûment, si on prolonge le segment CD et si on prolonge le plan
perpendiculaire à CD.
Retraçons la figure avec ses lettres, marquons le point G sur l’ hyperbole23 et

menons la perpendiculaire DG sur le plan du triangle ABC. Le prolongement
de ce plan rencontre la droite GD, ou ce qui la prolonge, comme on l’ a montré
précédemment ; qu’ il la rencontre en D.
Je dis que, si on prolonge GD, cette droite coupe l’ hyperbole dans l’ autre [v]
direction, en M ; elle sera partagée en deux moitiés par la perpendiculaire au
plan du triangle ABC.
23 Litt. : section ; que nous rendons désormais par « hyperbole ».

le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
A H
E C
B
G
D
I K
U
Démonstration : Menons de D une droite parallèle à la droite EC ; soit KUI.

Elle coupe les droites AI, AK, AU aux points I, K, U. Le cercle de centre U
et de demi-diamètre KU est donc dans un plan perpendiculaire au plan du
triangle ABC, comme on l’ a montré précédemment ; or DG est perpendiculaire
au plan du triangle, donc la droite DG est dans le plan du cercle et dans le plan
de l’ hyperbole ; c’ est l’ intersection des deux plans. Prolongeons GD jusqu’ à la
circonférence du cercle et le pourtour de la section ; qu’ elle les rencontre au point
M. Il est impossible que la droite GD passe par le point C, puisque le point C est
sur la circonférence du cercle de demi-diamètre BC et que les plans des deux
cercles sont parallèles, car la droite BU est perpendiculaire à ces deux plans,
d’ après la proposition  du livre XI. Les points G, M, I, K sont donc sur la
circonférence du cercle de demi-diamètre UK et le diamètre IK coupe la corde
GDM perpendiculairement ; il la partage donc en deux moitiés.
. Les tangentes à l’ hyperbole

Retraçons la même figure et menons de C une perpendiculaire au plan du
triangle ABC.
Je dis qu’ elle est tangente à l’ hyperbole.
Démonstration : En effet, si elle ne lui était pas tangente, elle la couperait en
P ; la droite PC est donc à l’ intérieur du cône. Mais la droite PC a rencontré la
droite AC dans la surface du cône en C ; si on prolonge PC dans la direction de
C, elle coupe la droite AC, et ce prolongement est à l’ extérieur de la surface du
cône et ne revient pas rencontrer l’ hyperbole ; mais le point P est marqué sur
l’ hyperbole en un autre point que C ; on a mené de P la perpendiculaire au plan
du triangle ABC, CP est donc perpendiculaire à CD et CD partage l’ hyperbole
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
en deux moitiés au point C ; CP, si on la prolonge, rencontre donc l’ hyperbole

au delà de C et la partage en deux moitiés au point C, d’ après ce qui précède ;
elle rencontre donc le pourtour de la section, encore une fois ; or nous avons
montré qu’ elle ne peut pas le rencontrer encore une fois. Ceci est impossible. La
droite CP est donc tangente à l’ hyperbole. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.24
Retraçons la figure avec les mêmes lettres, c’ est-à-dire la figure de l’ hyperbole

et celle du triangle ABC. Prolongeons la droite CD et la droite AI dans la
direction de C ; qu’ elles se rencontrent au point S. Nous appelons la droite CS
le diamètre transverse, le point H qui sépare la droite CS en deux moitiés, le
centre de l’ hyperbole et le point C le sommet de l’ hyperbole. Si on prend la
droite CP égale à la moitié du diamètre transverse, on l’ appelle la moitié du côté
droit. Marquons alors sur le pourtour de l’ hyperbole le point G quelconque et
abaissons la perpendiculaire GD sur le plan du triangle ABC.
Je dis que le produit de SD par DC [r] est égal au carré de GD.
Démonstration : Menons la droite KUI parallèlement à la droite CE. L’ angle
B est droit et la droite AB est égale à BE ; l’ angle AEB est donc un demi-droit,
je veux dire que l’ angle interne AID est un demi-droit et que l’ angle IDS est
droit. Il reste l’ angle ISD égal à un demi-droit. La droite DI est donc égale à la
droite DS ; de même la droite CD est égale à la droite DK et le point G est sur la
circonférence du cercle dont le demi-diamètre est la droite UK. Mais on a mené
de ce point la perpendiculaire GD au diamètre du cercle, donc le produit de ID
par DK, c’ est-à-dire le produit de SD par DC, est égal au carré de GD.
Et par la même démonstration nous montrons que toute perpendiculaire
menée du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au plan du triangle ABC tombe sur le dia-
mètre de l’ hyperbole, et est telle que le produit de la droite tout entière—
composée du diamètre transverse et de la droite séparée par la perpendiculaire
24 Dans le plan de l’ hyperbole, toute droite perpendiculaire à l’ axe CD et qui coupe
l’ hyperbole en un point, la recoupe en un deuxième point ; le milieu de ces deux points

est un point sur l’ axe.
Exemple : M, G, D ; si M vient en C, les trois points se confondent en C. Il en est de
même pour N, D, N.
C P
N′ N
D′
G D M
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
à partir du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au-delà du sommet de l’ hyperbole—par

la droite séparée par la perpendiculaire, du diamètre, est égal au carré de la
perpendiculaire.25
Toute perpendiculaire menée du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au plan du triangle
ABC est dans le plan de l’ hyperbole.
Puisque le plan de l’ hyperbole est perpendiculaire au plan du triangle, elle
est donc aussi dans le plan de l’ hyperbole. Et ces droites forment un angle
droit avec le diamètre de l’ hyperbole. Toutes ces perpendiculaires sont donc
parallèles, et on les appelle les ordonnées. Par conséquent, l’ hyperbole, son
diamètre transverse, la moitié de son côté droit et ses ordonnées sont dans un
même plan. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.
. Existence et unicité de l’ asymptote à une hyperbole équilatère

Maintenant que nous avons montré comment trouver l’ hyperbole, son diamètre
transverse, la moitié de son côté droit et ses ordonnées, et que nous avons montré
que l’ hyperbole se prolonge indéfiniment, je dis que la droite qui joint le centre
de l’ hyperbole et l’ extrémité de la moitié de son côté droit est asymptote.
Supposons que l’ hyperbole soit UAK, son diamètre AP, son diamètre trans-
verse AD, son centre le point C, son côté droit AB. Joignons CB.
Je dis que CB est asymptote à l’ hyperbole AK.
C
J
V A B
S H
W
L G O
M
N E I
P
U
K
Démonstration : Marquons sur l’ hyperbole les points G et E. De ces deux points

menons sur la droite AP ou son prolongement les deux perpendiculaires GS et
EM ; elles rencontrent la droite CB ou son prolongement aux deux points W et
I. Puisque le triangle ABC est rectangle et que son côté AC est égal à AB, [v] le
25 La démonstration faite pour G est valable pour tout autre point de l’ hyperbole :
SD · DC = GD2.
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
triangle ACB est semblable au triangle CSW car AB et SW sont parallèles. La

droite CS est donc elle aussi égale à la droite SW. La droite AD est divisée en
deux moitiés au point C et on lui ajoute AS. Le produit de DS par SA plus le
carré de AC sont donc égaux au carré de CS, c’ est-à-dire au carré de SW. Mais le
produit de DS par SA est égal au carré de GS ; le carré de SG plus le carré de AC
sont donc égaux au carré de SW ; la droite SW est donc plus grande que la droite
SG. Mais le point G est sur le pourtour de l’ hyperbole. Le point W est donc à
l’ extérieur de l’ hyperbole.
De même, nous montrons que le point I est à l’ extérieur de l’ hyperbole, et
on montre par la même démonstration que tout point supposé sur la droite BC
est extérieur à l’ hyperbole ; la droite CB et son prolongement ne rencontrent
donc pas le pourtour de l’ hyperbole AK ni son prolongement. Ce qu’ il fallait
démontrer.
Montrons cela d’ une autre manière. Retraçons la figure avec ses lettres. Nous
disons : s’ il n’ en est pas comme nous l’ avons dit, que la droite BC rencontre
l’ hyperbole au point K ; et menons KP en ordonnée. On a le produit de DP par
PA plus le carré de AC égaux au carré de CP, c’ est-à-dire au carré de PK. Mais le
carré de PK est égal au produit de DP par PA. On a donc le produit de DP par PA
plus le carré de AC égaux au produit de DP par PA, le tout égal aux parties ; ce
qui est impossible. La droite CB et son prolongement ne peuvent donc rencontrer
l’ hyperbole. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.
. L’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote se rapprochent indéfiniment à mesure qu’ elles

s’ éloignent
Démontrons maintenant ce que nous avons promis, que la droite BC est asymp-
tote à l’ hyperbole AK.
Retraçons la figure, avec ses lettres, et marquons sur l’ hyperbole AK les deux
points E et G, desquels on mène les deux perpendiculaires GH et EO sur la droite
CB ou son prolongement ; et du point A la perpendiculaire AJ.
Je dis que la perpendiculaire AJ est plus grande que la perpendiculaire GH et
que GH est plus grande que EO.
Démonstration : Faisons passer par les deux points E et G les deux droites GS
et EM, en ordonnées au diamètre ; qu’ elles rencontrent la droite CB en deux
points, W et I. Le produit de DS par SA est donc égal au carré de GS, comme on
l’ a démontré précédemment. Le produit de DM par MA est égal au carré de EM
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
et le produit de DS par SA est plus petit que le produit de DM par MA. La droite
ME est donc plus grande que la droite GS et la droite MC est plus grande que
la droite SC. La droite CSG tout entière [r] est donc plus petite que la droite
CME tout entière. De même, AD a été partagée en deux moitiés en C, et on l’ a
augmentée de AS ; donc le produit de DS par SA, plus le carré de AC, sont égaux
au carré de CS, d’ après la sixième proposition du livre II des Éléments. Mais
CS est égale à SW ; si on pose une seule droite les deux droites CS et SW, la droite
CW tout entière sera partagée en deux moitiés en S et en deux parties différentes
en G. Le produit de la droite CSG tout entière par GW, plus le carré de GS, sont
donc égaux au carré de SW. Mais on avait le produit de DS par SA plus le carré
de AC égaux au carré de SW, qui est égal au carré de GS plus le carré de AC, ce
qui est égal au produit de la droite CSG tout entière par GW, plus le carré de GS.
Il reste la droite CSG tout entière, par GW, égale au carré de AC.
De même, nous montrons que le produit de la droite CME tout entière par
EI est égal au carré de AC. Le produit de la droite CSG, la première, tout entière,
par GW, la quatrième, est donc égal au produit de la droite CME, la deuxième,
tout entière, par EI, la troisième. Le rapport de la droite CGS, la première, tout
entière, à la droite CME tout entière, est donc égal au rapport de EI à GW, d’ après
la proposition  du livre  d’ Euclide. Mais la droite CSG tout entière est plus
petite que la droite CME tout entière. La droite EI est donc plus petite que la
droite GW ; l’ angle O du triangle EOI est droit et l’ angle I est un demi-droit.
Il reste l’ angle E un demi-droit. La droite EO est donc égale à la droite OI. De
même la droite GH est égale à la droite HW. La droite EI peut donc le double du
carré de EO, la droite GW peut le double du carré de GH et la droite EI est plus
petite que la droite GW ; la droite EO est donc plus petite que la droite GH.
De même, nous montrons que, parmi toutes les perpendiculaires ou leurs pro-
longements, abaissées du pourtour de l’ hyperbole sur CB, celle qui est la plus
proche du sommet de l’ hyperbole est plus grande que celle qui s’ en éloigne.
Je dis que la perpendiculaire AJ, abaissée du sommet de l’ hyperbole sur la
droite CB, est la plus grande des perpendiculaires mentionnées.
En effet, on a montré que le produit de la droite CSG tout entière par GW est
égal au carré de AC ; le rapport de la droite CSG tout entière à AC est donc égal
au rapport de AC à GW. Or la droite CSG tout entière est plus grande que AC.
La droite AC, qui est égale à la droite AB, est donc plus grande que GW ; le carré
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
de AB est égal au double du carré de AJ et le carré de GW est égal au double du

carré de GH. La droite JA est donc plus grande que la droite [v] GH et GH est
plus grande que la droite EO. Ces perpendiculaires sont des distances ; la droite
est donc asymptote à l’ hyperbole. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.
Nous montrons aussi d’ une autre manière que la perpendiculaire EO est plus
petite que la perpendiculaire GH, et cela parce que le procédé est le même.
Prolongeons les ordonnées au tracé de l’ hyperbole de l’ autre côté, jusqu’ aux
deux points L et N. D’ après ce que l’ on a montré précédemment, la droite LS
est plus petite que la droite NM et la droite SW est plus petite que la droite MI,
la droite LW tout entière est donc plus petite que la droite NI tout entière et la
droite LG, partagée en deux moitiés au point S, est augmentée de la droite GW.
Par conséquent, le produit de LG par GW, plus le carré de SG, sont égaux au
carré de SW, qui est égal au carré de SC. Si tu suis la première manière dans ce
chapitre, on montre que le produit de LG par GW est égal au carré de AC et que le
produit de NE par IE est égal au carré de AC. Le produit de LG par WG est donc
égal au produit de NE par EI. Le rapport de LG à NE est donc égal au rapport de
EI à GW. Mais la droite LG est plus petite que la droite NE. La droite EI est donc
plus petite que la droite GW. La perpendiculaire EO est donc plus petite que la
perpendiculaire GH. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.
On le montre encore d’ une autre manière. Retraçons la même figure de l’ hyper-

bole avec ses lettres et ses lignes, et prolongeons AB jusqu’ en V d’ une longueur
égale à AB ; joignons CV et prolongeons-la. D’ après ce qu’ on a montré précé-
demment, la droite CV ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole du côté AS. Prolongeons
WS, IM jusqu’ en L et N, du côté de la droite CV ou de son prolongement. La
droite NM est donc plus grande que la droite LS et ME est plus grande que SG ;
la droite NE tout entière est donc plus grande que la droite LG tout entière. On
montre que la droite LG est partagée en deux moitiés en S et en deux parties
inégales en G.
Le produit de LW par GW plus le carré de SG sont égaux au carré de SW,
c’ est-à-dire au carré de CS, qui est égal au produit de DS par SA, plus le carré de
AC. Le produit de LW par GW, plus le carré de SG, sont donc égaux au produit
de DS par SA, plus le carré de AC. Mais le carré de SG est égal au produit de DS
par SA. Retranchons le produit de DS par SA d’ un côté et le carré de SG de
l’ autre côté. Il reste le carré de AC, qui est égal au carré de AB, égal au produit
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
de LW par GW. Le rapport de LW à AB est donc égal au rapport de AB à GW.

Mais la droite LW est plus grande que la droite AB ; la droite AB est donc plus
grande que la droite GW.
On montre également que le produit de NI par EI est égal au carré de AB. Le
produit de LW par GW est donc égal au produit de NI [r] par EI, et le rapport
de LW à NI est égal au rapport de EI à GW. Mais la droite LW est plus petite que
la droite NI. La droite EI est donc plus petite que la droite GW.
On a ainsi montré que, parmi les perpendiculaires, c’ est-à-dire les distances
entre le pourtour de l’ hyperbole et son asymptote, celles qui sont plus proches
du sommet de l’ hyperbole sont plus grandes que celles qui s’ en éloignent.
. La propriété infinitésimale
Par conséquent, l’ hyperbole et la droite qui joint le centre de l’ hyperbole et
l’ extrémité de son côté droit, à mesure qu’ on les prolonge, se rapprochent ; mais
nous avons montré qu’ elles ne peuvent pas se rencontrer et nous avons montré
comment il est possible de les prolonger continûment. C’ est cela que nous avons
eu l’ intention de démontrer, de la manière la plus facile et la plus claire, et par
des démonstrations différentes, tendant ainsi à l’ extension, de sorte qu’ on ne
s’ en tienne qu’ à six livres des Éléments.
Quant à l’ éminent Apollonius, il a montré cette proposition au moyen de
références à son livre sur les Coniques. Nous recherchons son intention, au
moyen de ce que nous avons atteint dans ce traité, c’ est-à-dire que, si on suppose
une grandeur quelconque qui n’ est pas supérieure à la perpendiculaire menée
du sommet de l’ hyperbole à son asymptote, nous pouvons prolonger l’ asymptote
et l’ hyperbole jusqu’ à ce que la distance entre elles soit égale à cette grandeur.
Nous introduisons pour cela deux lemmes.
Premier lemme : On divise la droite AB en C ; soit AC la plus grande de ses
deux parties. On veut l’ augmenter d’ un excédent BD, de sorte que le produit de
AD par DB soit égal au carré de CD.
A E C B D
Posons CE égal à CB et faisons de sorte que AE par BD soit égal au carré de CB.
Je dis que le produit de AD par DB est égal au carré de CD.
Démonstration : Le produit de AE par BD est égal au carré de CB. Prenons le
double de DB par BC, commun. On a le double-produit de DB par BC égal au
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
produit de DB par BE, puisque BC est égale à CE. Le produit de AE par DB plus
le produit de EB par BD sont donc égaux au double-produit de DB par BC, plus
le carré de BC. Mais le produit de AE par BD, plus le produit de EB par BD, sont
égaux au produit de AB par BD. Si nous ajoutons26 le carré de BD, commun, il
vient le produit de AB par BD plus le carré de BD, [v] c’ est-à-dire le produit
de AD par DB, égaux au double-produit de CB par BD, plus les deux carrés de
CB et de BD. Mais les deux carrés de CB et de BD, plus le double-produit de CB
par BD, sont égaux au carré de CD ; le produit de BD par DA est donc égal au
carré de CD. Ce qu’ il fallait démontrer.
Deuxième lemme : Retraçons la figure de l’ hyperbole, ses lignes et ses lettres.

Je dis que, pour toute droite menée entre l’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote, parallèle-
ment à l’ asymptote, comme la droite IE, si on la prolonge et si on prolonge
l’ hyperbole, alors toutes deux se rencontrent.
Démonstration : Si elles ne se rencontrent D
pas, alors prolongeons la droite EI, pour
qu’ elle rencontre la droite AC, au point N ;
posons le produit de DL par LA égal au carré
de NL, comme nous l’ avons montré dans la C
proposition précédente. Menons de L la droite
LME en ordonnée ; elle est donc parallèle à N
la droite AB. Mais la droite AB a rencontré I

la droite NIE ; la droite LME rencontre donc A B
la droite NIE. Qu’ elle la rencontre en E. La
droite NIE ne rencontre pas l’ hyperbole. La
droite LE rencontre donc l’ hyperbole avant
E
de rencontrer la droite NIE. Qu’ elle rencontre L M
l’ hyperbole au point M. Mais le produit de
DL par LA est égal au carré de NL, et le carré de NL est égal au carré de LE, du fait
que la droite NE est parallèle à la droite CB. Or le produit de DL par LA, c’ est-
à-dire le carré de LM, comme nous l’ avons montré précédemment, est égal au
carré de LE. Le plus petit est égal au plus grand. Ce qui est absurde. La droite
NI rencontre donc l’ hyperbole, elle la rencontre au point E. C’ est ce que nous
voulions.
26 Litt. : si nous prenons.

le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
Revenons maintenant à la figure de l’ hyperbole, avec ses lettres et ses lignes,

et menons la perpendiculaire AJ sur CB. Supposons que la droite I n’ est pas plus
grande que la droite AJ.
Je dis que l’ hyperbole et son asymptote peuvent être prolongées jusqu’ à ce
que la distance entre elles devienne égale à la droite I.
S
C T
J
N B
A E
O
M
Y
L
I′
Démonstration : Si la droite I est égale à la perpendiculaire AJ, elle est donc ce

que l’ on cherche. Si elle ne lui est pas égale, elle est plus petite qu’ elle. Séparons
la droite JN, égale à la droite I, et menons du point N une droite parallèle à
la droite CB ; soit NM. Si on la prolonge et si on prolonge l’ hyperbole, elles se
rencontrent, comme on l’ a montré dans la proposition précédente. Que la droite
NM rencontre l’ hyperbole en M. Menons, de M, la droite ME, perpendiculaire
à CB, ou à son prolongement. La surface est alors un parallélogramme ; [r] la
droite NJ est donc égale à la droite ME.
Mais la droite NJ est égale à la droite I. La droite ME, qui est la distance entre
l’ hyperbole et son asymptote, est donc égale à la droite I. C’ est ce que nous
avions l’ intention de montrer.
Nous disons que toute droite menée parallèlement à l’ asymptote de l’ hyperbole,

et qui rencontre AC du côté de C, comme la droite SO, se comporte avec
l’ hyperbole comme la droite CE.
Démonstration : Les perpendiculaires menées du pourtour de l’ hyperbole à
la droite SO rencontrent la droite CE, comme les deux perpendiculaires NJT
et LYO ; et NJ est aussi perpendiculaire à CE ; de même LY. La perpendicu-
laire LY est plus petite que la perpendiculaire NJ, selon ce qui précède ; et la
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
 roshdi rashed
perpendiculaire YO est égale à la perpendiculaire JT. La perpendiculaire LYO

tout entière est donc plus petite que la perpendiculaire NJT tout entière. On
montre de même que, parmi toutes les perpendiculaires abaissées du pour-
tour de l’ hyperbole à la droite SO, celles qui sont le plus près du sommet de
l’ hyperbole sont plus grandes que celles qui s’ en éloignent ; et que la droite SO
ne peut pas rencontrer l’ hyperbole, car elle est parallèle à la droite CB, qui ne
rencontre pas l’ hyperbole. On montre, à partir de cela, que la droite CB, qui ne
rencontre pas l’ hyperbole, est la plus proche parmi les droites qui ne rencontrent
pas l’ hyperbole, et qu’ il n’ existe aucune droite plus proche qu’ elle, qui ne ren-
contre pas l’ hyperbole. C’ est ce que nous avions l’ intention de montrer.
Le traité est achevé. On comprend de ses expressions qu’ il est la composition

d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Que Dieu lui accorde miséricorde. Qu’ il nous fasse profiter de
¯
lui et de ses sciences. Grâces soient rendues à Dieu seul.
le pseudo al-hasan
. ibn al-haytam : sur l’ asymptote 
¯
AL-QABĪS. Ī’S INTRODUCTION TO ASTROLOGY:
FROM COURTLY ENTERTAINMENT TO
UNIVERSITY TEXTBOOK*
Charles Burnett
Every scientific text is the product of a specific cultural and intellectual

situation. When a text continues to be copied over a long period of time,
and is translated into other languages, it is read and used in different
ways, and adds nuances from the cultures through which it travels. Abū
al-Saqr
. #Abd al-#Azı̄z ibn #Uthmān ibn #Alı̄ al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to
Astrology is a good example of this. For it was originally written in an
Islamic court in the mid tenth century, but was copied in numerous
Arabic manuscripts, until at least the mid eighteenth century. Moreover,
it entered Jewish culture, being translated into Hebrew and copied in
Arabic and Castilian in Hebrew script. Its greatest impact, however, was
on Latin culture, which it entered as a result of a translation made in the
early twelfth century, and where it eventually became integrated into the
Western scholastic tradition.
The original text belongs to the milieu of the court. For it was written
for Sayf al-Dawla, the Hamdanid Emir of Aleppo from  to . Sayf
al-Dawla ruled over a lavish court, which attracted a large number of
scholars in many disciplines. A long list of famous names can be drawn up
from the Arabic biographers,1 including the poet al-Mutanabbı̄ and the
philosopher al-Fārābı̄. Among them were astrologers: the biographers
name Abū al-Qāsim al-Raqqı̄, Kušājim,2 and a certain Abū #Abdallah
al-Baghdādı̄. Although not mentioned by the biographers, al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ was
clearly another of them. For he addressed to the Emir all the works of his
* The second part of this article is based on a talk given at a workshop on medieval
astrology organised by Gad Freudenthal in Paris in November, . I am grateful, as
always, to Gad’s encouragement and example. I am also much indebted to the comments
and advice of David Juste (especially for the Latin transmission) and of Tzvi Langermann
for the Hebrew transmission, and, as always, to Hanna Vorholt.
1 The list is given in T. Bianquis, “Sayf ad-Dawla,” in Encyclopedia of Islam, nd
edition, IX (Leiden, ): –.

2 The astrologers at the court are discussed by A. Regourd, “L’ Epître ayant pour objet
la mise à l’ épreuve de ceux qui n’ ont d’ astrologue que le nom d’ al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ (IVe/Xe s.),”
Politica Hermetica,  (): –, see p. , referring in turn to the article “Kushādjim,”
 charles burnett
which have dedications: these include treatises on numbers and the clever
things you can do with them, on the distances between the planets, and
on “testing those who call themselves astrologers.”3 In the preface to the
last work al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ impresses on his patron the necessity to discriminate
between the large number of self-styled astrologers who surround him,
and gives him a set of questions that are sure to separate out astrologers
who know their craft from the ignorant and the charlatans. He includes
the answers to the questions, but with the strict injunction that the Emir
should not reveal them to any one.
The Emir would have had a personal interest in these matters. Al-
Qabı̄s. ı̄ describes him as being skilled at calculation with his fingers;4 he
composed a poem on the rainbow.5 Al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ would, no doubt, have
participated in the maǧālis (social gatherings) in his court, in which
mathematical and astronomical questions would have been discussed
and poetry would have been recited. Al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ is recorded as being “a
man of culture and a poet,”6 and he quotes the poet Dhū al-Rumma
(d.  / ) in his Testing (question ).
An earlier example of this Islamic court culture is provided by another
astrologer with interests very similar to those of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄: Ahmad
. ibn
Yūsuf, who served the Tūlūnid
. emirs, Ahmad
. ibn Tūlūn
. (–) and
Khumārawaih (–) in Cairo.7 His work On Ratio and Proportion
relates in detail a discussion in the court of Prince Hudā ibn Ahmad
. ibn
Tūlūn,
. the son of A hmad
. ibn Tūlūn,
. involving four people, including
the Prince, and concerning the proper preparation for understanding
in Encyclopedia of Islam, nd ed., V (Leiden, ):  (Kušājim was a poet and master-
cook as well as being an astrologer) and M. Fakhuri, “Maǧālis Sayf al-Dawla,” in al-
Mu#allim al-#arabiyy  (Damascus, ): year , pp. –.
3 Regourd, “L’ Epître,” includes an edition (pp. –) and French translation (pp. –
) of the preface to the Testing of Those who Call Themselves Astrologers.
4 As mentioned in the preface to his book on arithmetical problems: see A. Anbouba,
“Un mémoire d’ al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ (e siècle H.) sur certaines sommations numériques,” Journal
for the History of Arabic Science  (): – (see p. ).
5 This poem is quoted in Ibn Khalliqān, Biographical Dictionary, translated by Baron
MacGuckin de Slane,  vols (Paris, –): II, p. , who says that some people
attribute the poem to al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ himself.
6 Yāqūt, Mu#jam al-Buldān,  vols (Beirut, –): vol. , p. .
7 M. Steinschneider, “Iusuf ben Ibrahim und Ahmed ben Iusuf,” Bibliotheca mathe-
matica : – and –, and D.V. Schrader, “Ahmad . ibn Yūsuf,” in C.C. Gillispie,
ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol.  (New York, ): –. Ibn Yusuf wrote a
bibliography of both these emirs.
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
Euclid’s Elements.8 Another work by Ahmad . ibn Yūsuf—the Letter on

Similar Arcs—ends with the words “This is the argument that we dealt
with in the palace in which we had gathered.”9
Al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to Astrology was appropriate to this court
setting.10 After an invocation for God’s protection over Sayf al-Dawla and
the hope that his life and reign will last a long time, it gives a clearly
written and well-organized account of the concepts and terms used in
astrology. One can draw attention to particular passages that would have
directly interested the Emir:
If Saturn mixes with the Sun, it indicates administration and management.
If Jupiter mixes with it, it indicates decisions concerning religious issues
and judgements between people and concerning injustices. If Mars mixes
with it, it indicates leadership of armies and the office of emir (comman-
der) in wars.11
On the other hand, al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ explains, if the Sun mixes with Venus, that
indicates melodies of the lute played before kings and noblemen,12 and
Mars signifies, among other things, “tyranny, bloodshed, conquering,
wrongful seizure of lands, and the leadership of armies.”13
Most significant is that in the fifth chapter, on lots, the greatest detail
is provided for matters concerning the ruler: three ways are given for
calculating the condition of his rule, and four ways for the length of his
rule.14 The prominence of this topic, which echoes the opening words “[I
ask] God for length of life for our Lord . . . . and extension of his reign,” is
especially appropriate in a work addressed to the ruler.
Twenty-four Arabic copies of the Introduction to Astrology are known,

ranging in date from ad  to  and deriving mostly from the Near
8 M.W.R. Schrader, “The Epistola de Proportione et Proportionalitate of Ametus Filius
Iosephi,” unpublished PhD thesis (University of Wisconsin, ), and discussed in

C. Burnett, “Dialectic and Mathematics According to Ahmad . ibn Yūsuf: A Model for
Gerard of Cremona’s Programme of Translation and Teaching?” in J. Biard, ed., Langage,
sciences, philosophie au XIIe siècle (Paris, ): –.
9 Hoc ergo est cuius aggressi sumus declarationem in palatio in quo aggregati sumus:
H.L.L. Busard and P.Sj. van Koningsveld, “Der Liber de Arcubus Similibus des Ahmad . ibn
Yūsuf,” Annals of Science  (): –, see pp. –.
10 Al-Qabı̄sı̄ (Alcabitius), The Introduction to Astrology, edited by C. Burnett, K. Yama-
.
moto and M. Yano (London and Turin, ), includes the Arabic and Latin texts and an
English translation (henceforth Introduction to Astrology).
11 Introduction to Astrology, ch. , ll. –, pp. –.
12 Ibid., ch. , ll. –, pp. –.
13 Ibid., ch. , ll. –, pp. –.
14 Ibid., ch. , ll. –, pp. –.
 charles burnett
East and Egypt. The provenance and ownership of these manuscripts is

still to be ascertained. None of the manuscripts that I have seen have
annotations or contain commentaries. What is the situation of texts of
al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s works in other languages and scripts?
The knowledge of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to Astrology among Hebrew
scholars is evident from the use of the work by Abraham ibn Ezra,15
from a quotation from it in a fifteenth-century text in Naples, Biblioteca
nazionale, Vittorio Emmanuele II, III.F., fol. r,16 and a complete
translation into Hebrew in a sixteenth-century manuscript in Jerusa-
lem.17 Two Arabic copies are written in Hebrew script, one apparently
in Syria,18 the other in Egypt in the seventeenth or eighteenth century.19
Another manuscript written in Hebrew script is the only witness to a
Castilian version of the text.20 This is a manuscript written in the fif-
teenth century in which the Introduction to Astrology is accompanied by
a hitherto unrecognized copy of the Libro de las cruzes.21 The latter is
a text concerning a simple astrological technique that purports to have
15 See C. Burnett, “Hebrew and Latin Astrology in the Twelfth Century: The Example
of the Location of Pain,” in L. Kassell and R. Ralley, eds, Stars, Spirits, Signs: Astrology
–, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,
vol.  issue  (): –. Ibn Ezra never cites al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ by name, but there are
numerous parallels between his Beginning of Wisdom and the Introduction, which are
best accounted for as borrowings.
16 The quotation corresponds to Introduction to Astrology,  [], ll. –. A
parallel or identical passage exists in Parma, Biblioteca palatina,  (De Rossi );
it is part of or derives from an astrological miscellany compiled by a certain “Kalonymos
ben David” in southern Italy in the mid-fifteenth century; in the Parma manuscript it
is stated that the citation comes from John of Saxony’s commentary (see below). I owe
this information and that on the Jerusalem and Moscow manuscripts below to Tzvi
Langermann.
17 MS Jerusalem, Jewish National Library, Heb  , fols. r–v. This manu-
script is written in a sixteenth-century Provençal hand and includes the commentary of

John of Saxony.
18 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington , fols. a–a.
19 Moscow, Russian State Library, Günzburg, . The state of the text suggests that it
has been written down from oral dictation.

20 Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Hebr. , second part, fols. v–r.
21 The existence of this copy of the Libro de las cruzes has hitherto escaped the notice of
scholars because the author was misidentified as possibly being al-Qabı̄s. ı̄, both by Moritz
Steinschneider (Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters [Berlin, ], p. ,
referring to the manuscript as no. ), and by the cataloguer of the Vienna Hebrew
manuscripts, Arthur Z. Schwarz (Die Hebräischen Handschriften der Nationalbibliothek
in Wien [Vienna, ], p. ). Steinschneider misread “cruzes” as a word signifying
“conjunctions,” and suggested that the text might be a version of the short text De
coniunctionibus, printed in Latin as a work of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ in  (see Appendix III in
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
been practised in pre-Islamic Spain.22 The Castilian text, however, was

translated from Arabic; the translation was completed by “Hyuhda fy de
Mosse Alchoen Mosca” (Yehuda ben Moshe ha-Kohen), the notary of
Alfonso X, el Sabio, king of León and Castile, with the help of “Mestre
Johan” (perhaps Johan Daspa), on  February , and its only sur-
viving medieval manuscript appears to have been written in the court
of Alfonso X.23 If the Castilian version of the Introduction to Astrology
was also made in the court of Alfonso X, then this is a testimony that
the work continued to be thought appropriate for the consumption of a
ruler.
The vast majority of the manuscripts and all the printed versions of
al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to Astrology derive from a translation of the text
from Arabic into Latin made in or before  by John of Seville, the
most prolific of the translators of works of astrology and astronomy
in the Middle Ages. Over  Latin manuscripts written between the
twelfth and sixteenth centuries and twelve separate printings are known
to exist.24 The circumstances of the original translation are not clear, since
there is no dedication or translator’s preface. John of Seville dedicated one
of his translations to a queen—Teresa of Portugal (reigned –)—
but another to Raymond, archbishop of Toledo from –, and he
may have had connections both with court circles and with the cathedral
clergy, though his name has not been found in any official document.
From the Latin version were made a French version, an English version
from the French,25 one or more English versions from the Latin,26 and a
Introduction to Astrology, pp. –). Schwarz read the Hebrew letters correctly, but
associated the word with the Catalan “cors,” and translated it as “Umläufe” (“courses sc.
of the planets”). The preface is missing in this Judaeo-Hispanic manuscript.
22 See J. Samsó, La Ciencias de los antiguos en al-Andalus (Madrid, ): –.
23 Madrid, Biblioteca nacional,  (The catalogue describes this as “gótica francesa
típica de la cámara del Rey Sabio”).

24 A summary of the transmission of the Latin text and its vernacular translations can
be found in R. Arnzen, “Vergessene Pflichtlektüre: al-Qabı̄s. ı̄s astrologische Lehrschrift

im Europäischen Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wis-
senschaften  (–): –. A full list of manuscripts of the Latin text, the ver-
nacular translations and the commentaries is given in Introduction to Astrology, pp. –
. This list is being supplemented by the catalogue of manuscripts of medieval Latin
translations of works on astronomy and astrology currently being prepared by David Juste
and Charles Burnett.
25 New York, Kraus booksellers, Bute  (th cent.), fols. r–v “translated out of
Frenche into Englysch be Brokhole be the sayd seigneur the yer of our lord  . . . ”
(fol. v).
26 Cambridge, Trinity College, O.., fols. r–v (th cent.). This is the version on
 charles burnett
German version.27 The French version was copied together with a French
translation of a text on the astrolabe that was dedicated to the future
Charles V of France.28
Occasionally we find references to the fact that a Latin manuscript of
the Introduction to Astrology is owned by an astrologer,29 or by a doctor.30
However, many of the Latin manuscripts belong to a school or university
setting.
The earliest recorded Latin manuscript is from a Cathedral school. The

Cathedral of Chartres, the most famous European centre of learning
in the first half of the twelfth century, possessed a copy of the work
in a manuscript in which there is the mention of a “present year” of
 and notes added from  to .31 By the mid twelfth cen-
tury there was a shift away from the Cathedral schools to the emerg-
ing universities, first the schools of Paris, which were soon followed
by Oxford, Cambridge and others. It may be no coincidence that, by
the turn of the next century, a manuscript of the Introduction origi-
nated from Paris (Berlin, Staatsbibliothek-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, lat.
Fol. ). With the establishment of curricula in the Faculty of Arts,
and set texts for astronomy, al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s text became the astrological text
which John North based his introduction to medieval astrology in his Chaucer’s Universe
(Oxford, ): –. Another English translation can be found in Cambridge,
Trinity College, O..C, fols. r–v, continued in O..B, fols. r–r.
27 This translation, by Arnold of Freiburg, survives in several manuscripts, of which
the earliest are Berlin, Staatsbibliothek-Preussischer Kulturbesitz, germ. Fol.  (written
in Vienna in ad ) and Wrocław, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka, Akc.  / , fols. v–
v (th cent.).
28 Oxford, St John’s College,  (th cent.): see E. Laird, Pèlerin de Prusse on the
Astrolabe (New York, ): –.

29 E.g., Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, lat.  (copied by Louis de Langle in
 and owned by Simon de Phares, the astrologer), Ibid., lat.  (th cent.; owned by
Simon de Phares), Ibid., BNF, lat.  (th cent.; owned by “Arnault de la Palu maître en
astrologie,” court astrologer to Charles VII and Louis XI), Paris, BNF, lat.  (copied in
ad  by Conrad Heingartner, court astrologer to Jean II, duke of Bourbon), Munich,
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm  (th cent.; copied by the astrologer of Egern,
Johannes Pachlerus).
30 Oxford, Bodleian Library, Digby  (th cent.), fol. ult. verso: liber est Iohannis
Fontana physici Veneti. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm  and  both
belonged to the German physician Hartmann Schedel.
31 Chartres, Bibliothèque municipale, , fols. r–r, an early twelfth-century man-
uscript. This manuscript was destroyed in the Second World War.

al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
that was most commonly included in the syllabus.32 In a program for

the teaching of “astrologia” (the science of the stars) in the university
of Bologna in , the only texts directly on astrology to be stud-
ied during the four-year course are al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction, Ptolemy’s
Centiloquium with the commentary of “Haly,” Ptolemy’s Quadriparti-
tum, and William the Englishman’s De urina non visa.33 Other examples
show the teaching of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ in a university context in Vienna34 and
Prague.35
Al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s concise treatment of astrology made it a highly appropriate
text for teaching.36 Many manuscripts of the text come from university
cities, whether these are Bologna, Cambridge, Erfurt, Krakow, Leipzig,
Louvain, Oxford, Padua, Paris, Prague, Salamanca, Uppsala or Vienna.37
Manuscripts were copied by students in the university of Erfurt between
–,38 and at the university of Dole in Burgundy in .39 The
editor, Antonio de Fantis, who published a version of the Introduction in
, had been a teacher in the faculty of Arts at Padua.40 The printing of
32 See R. Lemay, “The Teaching of Astronomy in Medieval Universities, Principally

at Paris in the Fourteenth Century,” Manuscripta  (): –, J.-P. Boudet, Entre
science et nigromance: astrologie, divination et magie dans l’ Occident médiéval, XIIe–XVe
siècle (Paris, ): –.
33 See Boudet, Entre science et nigromance, p. . The universal medieval attribution
of the Centiloquium to Ptolemy is dubious.

34 M. Shank, “Academic Consulting in Fifteenth-Century Vienna: The Case of Astrol-
ogy,” in E. Sylla and M. McVaugh, eds, Texts and Contexts in Ancient and Medieval Science.
Studies on the Occasion of John E. Murdoch’s Seventieth Birthday(Leiden, ): –
(on p. ).
35 Prague, Archiv Pražského Hradu, O. I (), fol. r: Anno domini  pream-
bulum super lectionem Alkabicii quem legit magister Johannes Borotin et incepit. I owe
this example, along with much other information on Latin astrological manuscripts, to
David Juste.
36 It is probably not by chance that John North chose this text as the basis for his
explanation of the doctrines of medieval astrology (see note  above).

37 Latin manuscripts are listed under these city-names in Introduction to Astrology,
pp. – (except Louvain, where Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley , was written
by Tristrandus, and Padua, where Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm  (s. xv),
was compiled by Cristoforo de Pergamo). The mere presence of these manuscripts in
these cities does not, however, guarantee that they were used in the cities’ universities.
38 Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Clm , copied by Johannes Sack, when he
was a student in Erfurt between  and .

39 Dijon, Bibliothèque municipale, , copied by “Pierre Pevidic [or Pebidic] en
l’ université de Dole, maistre ès ars indigne, estudient en medecine, l’ an MCCCCLIX

. . . .”
40 A. Scarabel, “Une ‘édition critique’ latine du Mudhal d’ al-Qabı̄sı̄ à Venise à la veille
.
de la Renaissance,” Quaderni di Studi Arabi  (): ˘– (see pp. –).
 charles burnett
the text in Frankfurt an der Oder in , by Konrad Baumgarten, was

for the use of Ambrosius Lacher, Professor of Mathematics at the recently
founded university of Frankfurt.
An indication that al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction was used in teaching in the
West is that it was frequently commented upon. In fact, of all the many
astrological texts by Arabic authors translated into Latin, the Introduction
to Astrology is the only one to receive commentaries. Of the commenta-
tors, Cecco d’ Ascoli was teaching astronomy and medicine in Bologna
in the early fourteenth century,41 John of Stendhal wrote his commen-
tary in Magdeburg in  specifically for the students of Erfurt,42 and
Jerónimo Muñoz was professor of Hebrew and Mathematics at Valencia
and Salamanca.43 The longest commentary is one found in a manuscript
in Venice: Biblioteca nazionale Marciana, Lat. VIII , which consists
of three hundred folios devoted entirely to a “scriptum super Alkabi-
cio” written down by the author himself on Sunday,  September ,
before the twentieth hour of the day. Lynn Thorndike has suggested that
this could be by the well-known philosopher and mathematician, Blasius
of Parma, who was teaching mathematics and philosophy at Pavia at that
time.44
We can trace the development of the Introduction to Astrology as a
school text in the Latin context by looking at the glosses and commen-
taries that the text progressively attracted.
Already in the earliest manuscripts, glosses are incorporated into the
text. This is unusual, since in most literal translations from Arabic, espe-
cially those of John of Seville and Gerard of Cremona, glosses are clearly
distinguished from the text, and are placed in the margin.45 No surviv-
ing manuscript of the Introduction to Astrology provides a “pure text,”
41 G. Boffito, Il Commento inedito di Cecco d’ Ascoli all’ Alcabizzo (Florence, ).

This commentary covers only the first  paragraphs of the first chapter and is headed
“Incipit scriptum super librum de principiis astrologie secundum Cicchum dum iuvenis
erat electus per universitatem Bononie ad legendum.”
42 Bernkastel-Kues, Bibliothek des St.-Nikolaus-Hospitals, , th cent., fol. r:
Explicit scriptum super Alkabicium compilatum per fratrem Johannem de Stendal ordi-
nis predicatorum domus magdeburgensis ad instanciam reverendorum magistrorum et
studentium Ertfordum se existentem censorem Ertfordum anno domini : L. Thorn-
dike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, III (New York, ): .
43 See J. Muñoz, Libro del Nuevo Cometa. Edited by V. Navarro Brotons (Valencia,
): –.
44 L. Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, IV (New York, ): –
.
45 C. Burnett, “The Strategy of Revision in the Arabic-Latin Translations from Toledo:
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
which lacks these glosses.46 This would indicate that, at the very point of
its entry into Latin culture, the text was being interpreted. These glosses
include explanations of doctrine: e.g., to the statement that “six signs
are ‘northern,’ i.e., from the beginning of Aries to the end of Virgo,” is
added: “which are north of the equator”;47 to “the Sun has rulership over
the larger half of the zodiac,” is added: “because of its effects on us and
because it makes summer for us.”48 To explain what al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ means
when he writes that the planets “move in these signs” the gloss adds that
“they are not, strictly speaking, in the signs, but rather they move under
the signs.”49 Another gloss explains: “Understand from this number the
strengths of the planets—the lord of the house has  strengths, the lord
of the exaltation  etc.—the planet that has the highest number has the
greatest strength.”50
Before the end of the twelfth century a more substantial marginal
commentary to the text was written by someone who knew Arabic (the
“Glossator”).51 It is characterized by the introductory formulae used:
aside from “nota quod” (“note that”) which is found universally, the
Glossator employs the phrases “subaudi” (“understand”), “vult ut” (“[the
author] means that”) and, especially “sensus huius est quod” (“the mean-
ing of this is that”). In the last case usually quite a substantial gloss fol-
lows, which is then terminated with the words “et hoc est quod dicit”
(“and this is what he says”).52 We find the same formulae accompany-
ing other texts which we know were being translated or read in Toledo:
The Case of Abū Ma#shar’s On the Great Conjunctions,” in J. Hamesse, ed., Les Traducteurs
au travail: leurs manuscrits et leurs méthodes (Turnhout, ): –, – (see
pp. –).
46 In Città del Vaticano, BAV, Reg. lat.  a diligent reviser of the translation of the
Introduction to Astrology compared the translation with the Arabic original and carefully
marked the words and phrases that did not occur in the Arabic, with the word “vacat:”
see Introduction to Astrology, pp. –.
47 Introduction to Astrology,  [], p. .
48 Ibid.,  [], p. .
49 Ibid.,  [], p. .
50 Ibid.,  [], pp. –.
51 This is inferred from his use of certain Arabic words in transliteration and from
the assumption that he is the same as the reviser who compared the text with the Arabic
original (see n.  above).
52 E.g., al-Qabı̄sı̄, Introduction to Astrology,  [], p. : Sensus huius est quod de
.
residuo quod est inter duos significatores debet accipere talem partem qualem pars sunt
hore longitudinis ab angulo predicto de .. et hoc est quod dicit, et multiplicabis sextam
illius in horas, id est si hore fuerint .., accipies de illo residuo .. sextas eius, et hoc est
quod dicit, vel per multiplicationem, si volueris, id est multiplica residuum in horas et
divide per .. et exibit illud idem.
 charles burnett
Abū Ma#šar’s Great Introduction to Astrology,53 the same author’s Great

Conjunctions,54 and Ptolemy’s Quadripartitum in Plato of Tivoli’s trans-
lation.55 Daniel of Morley reports a lecture in Toledo by Gerard of Cre-
mona on Abū Ma#šar’s Great Introduction,56 and one may assume that
al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to Astrology was also being taught there.
This marginal gloss explains or adds, in clear terms, technical and
historical information. One may take the example of the explanation of
the “firdaria” and the “years” of the planets:
Firdarie is a Persian term and means “lordship” and they are called the
years of the firdaria of a certain planet, i.e., the years of the lordship of
a planet, namely the years in which that planet has lordship over the life
of the native. This is explained fully in the fourth chapter of this book.
The great [years] are described according to the number of degrees of its
(the planet’s) terms, the small ones according to the number of years of its
course, and the middle according to the divisions of all the above, i.e., add
the great and the small numbers and halve the total.57
The Glossator points out divergences between different authorities, and is

not averse to taking a position of his own, or to finding fault with the text.
His knowledge of Arabic enables him to refer directly to Arabic texts.
This gloss accompanies the text in several manuscripts of the Introduc-
tion to Astrology. In the early fourteenth century we have the first exam-
ple of a full-fledged commentary on the complete work. This is the one
by John of Saxony, which is found in  out of the  manuscripts, and
53 Abū Ma#šar, Great Introduction to Astrology, vol. , ch. , l. : Sensus huius loci
est quod ad hoc ut esset caput in Geminis . . . et hoc esse debet . . . : Abū Ma#šar al-Balhı̄,
Liber introductorii maioris ad scientiam iudiciorum astrorum. Edited by R. Lemay,  vols ˘
(Naples, –): :.
54 Abū Ma#šar, On the Great Conjunctions, vol. , ch. , l. : Sensus huius littere est
quod principium alicuius ex domibus accidentalibus aliquando est in principio alicuius

signi . . . et hoc est quod dicit cum probat quod . . . : Abū Ma#šar, On Historical Astrology.
Edited by K. Yamamoto and C. Burnett,  vols (Leiden, ): :–.
55 Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, Città del Vaticano, BAV, Reg. lat. , fol. v: Sensus huius
littere est quod quia in illis partibus . . . et hoc est quod dicit in similitudine et hoc ostendet
ipse hic inferius.
56 Daniel of Morley, Philosophia (written between  and ). Edited by G. Mau-
rach, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch  (): – (see pp. –).

57 Introduction to Astrology,  [], p. : Firdarie est nomen Persicum et interpre-
tatur “dominatio,” et dicuntur anni firdarie alicuius planete, id est anni dominationis
alicuius planete scilicet anni in quibus planeta ille habet dominium super vitam nati, et
qualiter hoc fiat habetur plenarie in .. differencia huius libri. Maiores dicuntur secun-
dum numerum graduum terminorum eius in terminis et minores secundum numerum
annorum cursus eius et medii secundum divisiones supradictorum omnium, id est iunge
maiores et minores et aggregatum media.
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
nine out of the twelve Renaissance printed editions. Internal references

in the manuscripts indicate that the commentary was written in Paris in
 (this is explicitly stated in the rubrics to the printed editions). John’s
family name is spelt variously as Dank, Danco, Danico or Danekov, and
he came from Magdeburg, but spent most of his career in Paris.58 He is
best known for writing, in , the most popular instructions for the use
of the Alfonsine Tables. The Alfonsine Tables were first drawn up under
the patronage of Alfonso X in  in Toledo, but only became widely
diffused, displacing the Toledan Tables, from Paris in the s. Several
French mathematicians wrote instructions for the use of the tables, all,
confusingly, called John. John of Lignères, John of Saxony’s teacher, wrote
his instructions (or “canons”) in , but John of Saxony’s text, written
only five years later, was the one that became standard, and ensured that
the Alfonsine Tables became the tables normally used in the Middle Ages
and Renaissance, until they were eventually displaced by the Rudolphine
Tables of Kepler. It cannot be by chance that John of Saxony’s canons to
the Alfonsine Tables and his commentary on al-Qabı̄s. ı̄, composed within
four years of each other, both immediately established themselves as the
“set texts” in their respective subjects. This suggests that the two works
were part of the same syllabus in teaching astronomy in Paris.59
The scholastic nature of this syllabus is apparent from the opening
words of John’s introduction to the canons, which quote Aristotle:
“Time is the measure of the movement of the prime mover,” as Aristotle
claims in the fourth book of his Physics. When, therefore, we desire to
know movement, we must first know time, so that, knowing the quantity
of time, we should recognize the movement corresponding to it. One
must understand that, when distinguishing between different time periods
according to the usage of the Alphonsine tables, we proceed in a physical
way.60
58 The fullest account of John of Saxony is that of Emmanuel Poulle in “Les astronomes
parisiens au XIVe siècle et l’ astronomie alphonsine,” in Histoire littéraire de la France

publiée par l’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Tome , Fascicule  (Paris,
): –. See also Thorndike in History of Magic, III, pp. – and J. Chabás
and B.R. Goldstein, The Alfonsine Tables of Toledo (Dordrecht, Boston and London,
): –. An early reference to John’s commentary can be found in an astrological
prediction of  in British Library, Add. , fol. v, which includes the phrase: “ut
patet in Alkabitio de naturis signorum et per Iohannem Danico super eodem.”
59 Something shared between his astronomical and astrological commentaries is the
addition of worked-out examples. A whole collection of these is included in Exempla

super tabulas et canones primi mobilis Johannis de Lineriis (ca. ). These examples,
like those in the commentary on al-Qabı̄s. ı̄, do not refer to particular dates.
60 Tempus est mensura motus primi mobilis, ut vult Aristoteles quarto Phisicorum.
 charles burnett
John launches straight into describing the method of the Alphonsine

Tables. But it would seem significant that he deals first with time (in these
canons), and then, four years later, with the consequent motion, i.e., the
effects of the movements of the planets on earthly things. He places his
teaching on the science of the stars within the context of Aristotelian
natural science.
John of Saxony’s commentary on al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ is by far his most substan-
tial work.61 It takes up  folios of the typical printed octavo volumes
(compared with  folios for the text of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ itself), and is preceded
by an elaborate preface. His emphasis is on doctrine, for which he quotes
extensively from other authorities: Ptolemy (the Almagest and Quadri-
partitum, and the Centiloquium), “Haly,” whom John considers to be the
author of commentaries both to the Quadripartitum (where “Haly” = #Alı̄
ibn Ridwān),
. and the Centiloquium (more correctly Ahmad . ibn Yūsuf),
#Alı̄ ibn abı̄-l-Rijāl (Abenragel/Albenragel), Aristotle, Abraham ibn Ezra,
and, above all, Abū Ma#šar (al-Farghānı̄ is occasionally cited for some
astronomical information). With the exception of al-Farghānı̄, all these
authors are cited in the scholarly preface, which adds the poetic touches
of the late twelfth-century author, Alain de Lille.
The preface reads like a formal lecture, beginning a course on astrol-
ogy. It starts with the statement that “the wise man will dominate the
stars” (“Vir sapiens dominabitur astris”), a phrase allegedly from the
“sapientiae Almagesti” of Ptolemy, i.e., from the set of proverbs attributed
to Ptolemy in al-Mubaššir al-Fātik’s Mukhtār al-hikām
. which were in-
cluded in the prefatory matter of Gerard of Cremona’s translation from
Arabic of the Almagest.62 This cannot be found amongst the proverbs,
but the same phrase is quoted several times by Thomas Aquinas, equally
implausibly, as coming from the Centiloquium.63 John then cites two
Cum igitur motum scire desideramus necessaria est nobis temporum precognitio ut, cog-
nita temporis quantitate, motum sibi correspondentem cognoscamus. Est igitur intelli-
gendum quod in distinctione temporum ad usum tabularum Alphontii incedimus modo
phisico: Les Tables Alphonsines. Edited by E. Poulle (Paris, ): .
61 John of Saxony’s commentary has been briefly summarized by Thorndike, History
of Magic, III, pp. –, who uses Erfurt, Amplonian Q. and Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Digby , whose texts slightly differ from the printed edition of Simon de Colines
(Colinaeus) of Paris, , followed here (= Commentary).
62 These are edited and translated in C. Burnett, “ ‘Ptolemaeus in Almagesto dixit:’
The Transformation of Ptolemy’s Almagest in its Transmission via Arabic into Latin,” in
H. Böhme and G. Töpfer, eds, Transformationen antiker Wissenschaften (Berlin and New
York, ): –.
63 T. Litt, Les corps célestes dans l’ univers de Saint Thomas d’ Aquin (Louvain and Paris,
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
further Ptolemaic bons mots, this time identifiable in the Centiloquium

itself: “The best astrologer can ward away much evil which the stars fore-
cast, by knowing its nature,” and “The wise soul will cooperate with the
activity of the stars just as the agriculturist cooperates with the forces
of nature.”64 John explains that the wise man does this by disposing the
recipient to receive the celestial influence in different ways, and illustrates
this with an example taken from Haly’s explanation of verbum : “If we
know that a hot and dry disease is due to happen to someone because of
the nature of Mars, we are able to change the patient to the opposite (qual-
ities) before the advent of that influence: i.e., make him cold and moist,
and thus the influence which was going to make him ill, will rather bring
him to a temperate state.”65 John then asks who this wise man is, and what
is the nature of his subject. In his answer he uses largely the arguments
of Abū Ma#šar in the first book of his Great Introduction to Astrology, and
Alain de Lille.66
Having confirmed that being wise is compatible with studying astrol-
ogy, John then employs his authorities to establish what kind of man
that astrologer (“astronomus”) should be, and enumerates three condi-
tions: () he should be firm and stable in meditation, not effeminate and
lazy; () he should possess a natural disposition (here John adds “For I
have seen clerks who are good at logic and natural philosophy, but are
): –. A genuine “sapientia” of Ptolemy opens John of Saxony’s commentary

on John of Lignères’s canons: “non fuit mortuus qui scientiam vivificat . . . ”: Thorndike,
History of Magic, :.
64 John of Saxony uses Plato of Tivoli’s translation of the Centiloquium which was later
printed by Erhard Ratdolt in Venice in  and by Bonetus Locatellus in Venice in .
See Commentary, fol. v: Minor probatur autoritate Ptolemaei in quinta propositione
Centiloquii ubi dicit: “Optimus astrologus multum malum prohibere potest quod secun-
dum stellas venturum est cum eius naturam praesciverit.” Sic enim praemuniet eum cui
malum venturum est, ut cum venerit possit illud pati. Et confirmatur auctoritate eius-
dem in propositione octava eiusdem ubi dicit: “Anima sapiens ita adiuvabit opus stel-
larum quemadmodum seminator fortitudines naturales” = Centiloquium, verba  and 
(Venice, ), fol. v.
65 Commentary, fol. v: Si sciverimus quod debeat alicui evenire aegritudo calida
et sicca de natura Martis, poterimus ipsum ante adventum illius influentiae mutare ad
oppositum, scilicet ad frigiditatem et humiditatem, et sic influentia quae deberet sibi
facere aegritudinem reducet ipsum ad temperamentum = commentary on Centiloquium,
verbum  (Venice, ), fol. v.
66 He quotes Alain de Lille, Anticlaudianus, IV.–, edited by R. Bossuat (Paris,
), pp. – on fol. v and another work of Alan’s on fol. r: Iste semper clamitat
et argumentatur, dum Aristotelicas latebras rimatur. Sed si quaeras qualiter aut quid
epulatur, mens studio vivit sed venter philosophatur.
 charles burnett
completely unable to understand anything about astronomy, not even

how to calculate”67); () he should not be concerned about worldly
matters. Here John quotes a homely image, allegedly from Aristotle’s
Politics: “The philosopher shouldn’t be a master of land and sea, but it
is enough for him to have a servant who can cook vegetables for him,”68
and John ends the paragraph: “Paying heed to this, Socrates threw gold
into the sea, as Valerius narrates.” But he adds “This third condition does
not please many, not even me.”69
Next John chooses to summarize at some length the ten kinds of
people who, according to Abū Ma#šar, oppose astrology or give it a bad
name (he provides a paragraph for each kind, even though he protests
that “I will touch briefly on each of them in two or three words only”).70
He concludes by adding an eleventh kind, namely those who say that the
science is contrary to religious belief (“contra fidem”). John answers:
I say to them that they have not read the books of the wise men of
Antiquity. If they had read them, they would know that this science is
not contrary to religious belief, but rather in its favor. For the teachers
of the sciences posit a created world, which is the first foundation of
faith.
And which authorities is John referring to? None other than the Arabic
astrologers themselves:
#Alı̄ ibn abı̄-l-Rijāl in the first part of his book, in the chapter on the nature
of Jupiter, says that at the time when God began to create the world he put
Jupiter in the ascendant. And Abū Ma#šar in his Introduction says: “Let us
say first that the movement of the firmament arises from the power of the
first cause.” And a little later he says: “Behold how we have discovered the
Creator from things that are manifest and known because they are attained
67 Commentary, fol. v: Vidi enim bonos clericos in logica et in naturali philosophia
qui nullo modo poterant aliquid capere de astronomia, immo nec algorismum.
68 Ibid., fols. v–r: Patet ergo quod philosophus non debet esse dives, teste Philoso-
pho septimo Politicae: “Non oportet philosophum esse dominum terrae et maris, sed
sufficit ut habeat famulum ministrantem sibi olera.” This statement cannot be found in
the Politics but a similar sentiment is expressed in Nicomachean Ethics, b–a
(I owe this reference to David Whitehead).
69 Ibid., fol. r: Quod advertens Socrates aurum proiecit in mare, sicut narrat Valerius.
Ista conditio non placet multis, nec etiam mihi. This story about Socrates appears, without
an attribution to Valerius, in Odo of Cheriton’s Parabolae, XVII. Edited by L. Hervieux,
Les fabulistes latins, V (Paris, ): : Socrates philosophus veniens ad Athenas, secum
ferens pondus auri, proiecit in mare, dicens: Submergam te, ne submergar a te. Non
putavit se posse divitias simul et virtutes possidere.
70 John of Saxony uses the translation of John of Seville.
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
by the senses, (we have discovered) that he is sempiternal, having power,

without end, immobile, incorruptible, most high—let his name be blessed
and exalted with the greatest exaltation!”71
John is, quite unknowingly, quoting a phrase from the Koran!72
Next comes something of a predilection of John’s and is typical of scholas-

tic teaching: making divisions, the first being between astronomy and
astrology; then the divisions of astronomy itself, followed by those of
astrology. The latter are four: “On interrogations, on nativities, on rev-
olutions of years (both those of the world and those of the native), and
elections.”73 More surprising is John’s next statement in which he refers to
“certain other parts of judicial astrology, namely on great conjunctions,
on images, and on seals, concerning which we have little or nothing.”74
John could certainly have found plenty of manuscripts of texts on these
subjects in Paris. His reason for downplaying these branches of astrology
is likely, rather, to have been because he disapproved of them. He never
mentions talismanic magic in his commentary, and he refers disparag-
ingly to Abū Ma#šar’s book on conjunctions, as we shall see. Nor did these
71 Fol. v: Quibus dico quod ipsi non legerunt libros sapientium antiquorum, quos si
legissent scirent quod haec scientia non est contra fidem, immo pro fide. Ponunt enim
doctores huius scientiae mundum creatum quod est primum fundamentum fidei. Dicit
enim Haly Albenragel in prima parte sui libri in capitulo de natura Iovis, quod tempore
quo Deus incoepit creare mundum posuit Iovem in ascendente. Et Albumazar in Intro-
ductorio suo dicit: “Et dicamus primum quod motus circuli sit a virtute primae causae.”
Et quibusdam interpositis dicit: “Ecce qualiter pertraximus Creatorem ex rebus apparen-
tibus et notis que pertinguntur sensibus, quod sit sempiternus, habens virtutem absque
essentia finis immobilis et incorruptibilis, altissimus, sit nomen eius benedictum et exal-
tatum exaltatione maxima.” The quotations are, respectively, from Abenragel, De iudiciis
astrorum, Pars prima, ch.  (Basel, , p. )—Iupiter in die qua Deus coepit creare
mundum, erat in domo ascendente—and Abū Ma#šar, Great Introduction (trans. John of
Seville), vol. , ch. , ll. – and – (ed. Lemay, vol. , pp. –): Et dicamus
primum quod motus circuli sit a virtute prime cause . . . Vide qualiter pertinximus Cre-
atorem moventem res ex rebus apparentibus et notis que pertinguntur sensibus, quod sit
scilicet sempiternus, habens virtutem, absque essentia finis, immobilis et incorruptibilis,
altissimus. Sit nomen eius benedictum et exaltatum exaltatione maxima.
72 Koran, .: ta#ālā . . . #uluwwan kabı̄ran (“be exalted . . . with the greatest exalta-
tion”).
73 Fol. v: Secunda species est ars iudiciorum astrologiae et habet quatuor partes
principales, quarum prima est de interrogationibus, secunda de nativitatibus, tertia de

revolutionibus annorum—et haec est duplex, scilicet de revolutionibus annorum mundi
et de revolutionibus annorum nativitatum—quarta de electionibus.
74 Fol. r: Praeter istas sunt quaedam aliae partes iudiciorum, scilicet de coniunction-
ibus magnis, de imaginibus, de sigillis, de quibus parum vel nihil habemus.

 charles burnett
texts appear on university curricula. The final category John mentions are
“introductory books” (libri introductorii) in which astrologers have laid
down principles, and explained the terms which the masters of judicial
astrology use: “Among these the book of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ is most approved
among the Moderns. Therefore, leaving aside the other books, we pay
attention to this one only.”75
Having then given the incipit (Postulata a domino), John of Saxony
provides the traditional circumstantiae of the book: “intentio, utilitas,
titulus, cui parti philosophiae, quando debet legi, subiectum, divisio.” To
the last he pays most attention, dividing the work into five “books,” and
the books into “parts,” which are then further divided.
The exposition that follows gives lemmata from the text and then
provides quite a full comment on each lemma.76 Typical are comments
such as: “The author was too brief in this chapter. Therefore, one should
linger a little over his explanation,”77 or, in enumerating several differ-
ent possibilities, “uno modo . . . secundo modo . . . tertio modo . . . ”
(fol. r).
Sometimes different authorities will be compared and contrasted:
The Moon is a benific, feminine and nocturnal. Here he (al-Qabı̄s. ı̄) puts
forward the nature of the Moon. The meaning of the text is clear. Ptolemy
says that the greatest virtue of the Moon is to humidify, because it is very
close to the earth . . . Abū Ma#šar argues against Ptolemy in discussing
the natures of the planets and his words are as follows . . . . Haly in his
commentary to the aforementioned proposition about the nature of the
Moon replies to the arguments of Abū Ma#šar . . . 78
75 Fol. r: . . . libros introductorios in quibus posuerunt principia et exposuerunt

terminos quibus utuntur magistri iudiciorum. Inter autem alios introductorios Liber
Alcabitii est magis approbatus apud modernos. Ideo dimissis aliis de ipso ad praesens
intendimus.
76 In most of the printed editions John of Saxony’s commentary follows a complete
copy of the text of the Introduction to Astrology, but in an edition printed in Lyon in
ca.  by Guilhelmus Huyon the commentary is inserted into the text. One may note
that the lemmata reproduce a text which belongs to a different family of manuscripts from
that of the text reproduced in its entirety in the printed editions.
77 Commentary, fol. r: Autor nimis breviloquus fuit in hoc capitulo, ideo oportet
aliquantulum immorari circa explanationem.

78 Ibid., fol. r: LUNA FORTUNA FOEMINA NOCTURNA. Hic ponit naturam
lunae. Sententia literae patet. Dicit Ptolemaeus maior virtus lunae est humectare, pro eo
quod est multum circum terram . . . Albumazar redarguit Ptolemaeum in causa natu-
rarum planetarum et sunt verba sua ista: . . . /fol. r/ . . . Haly in commento propositioni
praeallegatae de natura lunae respondet ad rationes Albumazaris . . .
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
In regard to Islam and the prediction of the rise of religions and

sects, John of Saxony is rather circumspect. After talking about the
conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter that signified Islam and the appearance
of Muhammad,
. he writes:
What we have shown about the Saracen sect can be shown about other
sects (if they should be called sects), if one knows the conjunction signi-
fying that sect and the ascendant of the year of the conjunction. But it is
not fitting to talk very much about this material. For it is something which
does not agree with our faith. But if someone delights in this and wishes to
relate the changes which happen in (religious) Laws to the movements of
the higher bodies, he should read the book of Abū Ma#šar concerning the
great conjunctions and he will find it there.79
Another passage indicates that John of Saxony is wary about entering

areas which might raise questions about the salvation of the human
soul:
Certain people say that those who begin a war in the first “burnt” hours
should fear the loss of their soul. Our author does not understand “the loss
of the soul” in such a way that, after the separation of the soul from the
body, devils seize it and lead it down to the depths of Hell. But he under-
stands “the loss of the soul” as the loss of the present life and this is how
it should be interpreted everywhere in judicial astrology. It is appropri-
ate for them (astrologers) to speak about this latter kind of perdition. It is
appropriate for theologians to talk about the former.80
John of Saxony’s insistence that it is the wise man who studies astrology
and his references to Aristotle and the philosophers firmly situates al-
Qabı̄s. ı̄’s text within a university context. Such a learned context is even
more evident in another preface which takes the place of that of John of
Saxony in two fifteenth-century manuscripts of the commentary.81 In this
79 Fol. r: Sicut exemplificatum est de secta Sarracenorum ita potest fieri in aliis sectis,
si debeant dici sectae, si sciatur coniunctio significans illam sectam et ascendens anni
coniunc(tionis). Sed de hac materia non expedit multum loqui. Est enim res quae non
concordat cum fide nostra. Sed si quis delectatur in his et voluerit reducere mutationes
quae fiunt in legibus ad motus superiorum corporum, legat libros (other manuscripts
have “librum Albumazar”: see Thorndike, History of Magic, III, p. , n. ) de magnis
coniunctionibus et ibi inveniet.
80 Fol. r: Et dicunt quidam quod qui incoeperit bellum in quatuor primis horis com-
bustis timenda est perditio animae (Arabic: talaf al-nafs) suae. Auctor non intelligit perdi-
tionem animae post vitam istam ita quod post separationem animae a corpore rapiant
eam diaboli et deducant ad inferos. Sed intelligit animae perditionem, idest amissionem
vitae praesentis, et hoc modo intelligitur in omnibus locis iudiciorum astronomiae. De
ista enim perditione pertinet ad eos loqui. De prima autem perditione pertinet theologis.
81 See Appendix below for an edition and translation of this text.
 charles burnett
preface there is no mention at all of Christianity or of the compatibility

of astrology with faith. The anonymous author is quite happy to men-
tion the science of talismans as one of the divisions of astrology (§ ).
What is conspicuous about this preface is that it is structured round quo-
tations from Aristotle. It begins with a reference to the opinions of “the
princes of the Peripatetics, Aristotle and his commentator Averroes” (§ ;
about the nobleness of science in general). Then, after a quotation from
the astronomer Jābir ibn Aflah. (§ ), it quotes “the Philosopher” in the De
animalibus (§ ) and another reference to Aristotle in Tābit ibn Qurrah’s
book on talismans (§ ). Having called to witness the¯ ancient authori-
ties, Ptolemy, in the Almagest, Quadripartitum and Centiloquium (§§ ,
 and ), and Hippocrates in his Airs, Waters and Places and Prognos-
tics (§ ), it quotes a passage of Abū Ma#šar in which the cosmological
arguments of the “philosophers” are summarized (§ ), before return-
ing to Aristotle’s Meteorologica (§ ). After philosophical, medical and
cosmological justifications of astrology, the author finally comes to more
specific astrological doctrines: the making of talismans and the observa-
tion of the conjunctions of the planets with each other (§ ). He ends
his preface with the mention of the parts of “astrologia,” which he con-
siders as being both astronomy (the science of motions) and astrology
(the science of judgments) (§ ). The whole preface is couched in highly
sophisticated language, which befits both the elevated nature of its sub-
ject matter and a schools’ context.
We see, then, in this story of the passage of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to
Astrology how a text which originated in the context of an Islamic court
became a staple of scholastic learning in the West, listed in university
curricula, and accompanied by the full panoply of glosses and commen-
taries. The stars presiding over the birth of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s composition have
changed position so that now Saturn, joined to Mercury, indicates for the
book the study of the sciences of arithmetic, writing, astronomy, philos-
ophy and geometry—i.e., the curriculum of the Arts Faculty.82
82 Compare Introduction to Astrology,  [], pp. – and : si ei Saturno com-
plectitur Mercurius, significat scientiam arismetice et scribendi, astronomiam quoque,

philosophiam atque geometriam.
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
Appendix
The Luccan Preface to al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s
Introduction to Astrology
The two known manuscripts of this text are the following:

 L = Lucca, Biblioteca Statale, , th cent., fols. r–v.
B = Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley , th cent. (written by Tristrandus
in Louvain in ), fols. ra–va.
The Lucca manuscript gives a much better text than the Bodleian manu-
script, and includes corrections. Occasionally, however, the Bodleian
 manuscript helps to elucidate a word which is difficult to read in the
hastily-written Lucca manuscript. Only viable alternative readings from
the Bodleian manuscript are mentioned in the edition below (I am
grateful to Dragos and Monica Calma for checking these readings).
are additions by the editor; [ ] are deletions. \ / indicate words added
 by the scribe of L, all of which can be found in B.
[] /fol. r/ Ysagoge Alchabicii in modum introductionis in radiorum

discretione stellarum in via Tholomei.
[] /fol. r/ Quamquam aput omnes rationales homines concedendum
putem astrorum felicissimam scientiam scientiarum omnium atque (?)
 potentiam precedere, \nunc/ tamen memorare non desinam quod Pery-
pateticorum princeps, Aristoteles, suusque commentator Averois, in edi-
tionibus de viribus anime concesserunt: “Omnem licet scientiam, quia
perfectio est intellectus et eiusdem felicitas, asserendum sit bonam fore
atque honorabilem, illa tamen sit dicenda nobilis et excellens alias que
 obiectum nobilius considerat et ad id agnoscendum demonstraciones
querit certiores.”
[] Aput autem astronomicam scientiam duo hec fore nobilitatis genera
comprehendere facile est ab intra (?) anima ipsa, namque considerat cele-
ste corpus in eius motu et variis influxibus quibus inferiora conservan-
 tur omnia, quod secundum naturam ingenitum est \et/ incorporale et
omnino naturam corruptivam, alterationem suscipiens.
 principes L  Averoys B  precellens B  aliasque L  confirmat B
 cognoscendum B  et] in B  incorruptibile B
 charles burnett
[] Et ad hec declaranda ipsa ponit demonstrationes certissimas cum

in numero sit mathematicarum scientiarum, que in primo certitudinis
gradu reponuntur.
[] Ideo primo apud sapientissimum Gebrum prudenter dicebatur cum
sermonem faceret de bonitate astrologie: “scientiarum melior post scien- 
tiam fidei est cuius scita fixa sunt et remanentia inalterata usque in horam
qua Deus precipiet \aliud/ eis.”
[] Et Philosophus undecimo De animalibus: “Plus concupiscimus scire
modicum de rebus nobilibus quam multum de ignobilibus.”
[] Et Thebit Bencorat in principio suarum Ymaginum auctoritate /v/ 
Aristotelis sic dicit: “Qui legerit philosophiam et geometriam et omnem
scientiam et oblitus fuerit astrologie erit impeditus vel occupatus et
quasi suo fine frustratus.” Que astrologia considerat corpora celestia que
tantum nobiliorem naturam habent quanto sunt magis elongata ab hiis
que sunt hic. 
[] Utilitatem autem huius scientie tetigit Tholomeus in Sapientiis Alma-

gesti, dicens quod universaliter nihil dicimus esse in quo tantum lucretur
anima sicut in huius scientie prenosticatione. Per ipsam etenim ad divi-
narum humanarumque rerum noticiam pervenimus.
[] Et quoniam ad ea que cuique complexioni competunt pervenire 
nequimus nisi per huius operis cognitionem, ille idem enuntians nobis
utilitatem huius scientie protulit hoc verbum quintum in ordine ver-
borum sui Centiloquii: “Astrologus optimus multum malum prohibere
potest quod secundum stellas futurum est, cum eius naturam sciverit. Sic
enim premuniet eum cui malum futurum est ut et cum venerit posset id 
pati.”
[] Hec etiam utilitas eius esse dinoscitur in medicine scientia; unde
Ipocras dixit in libro Aerum, dum mentionem faceret de diversitate aeris
et elementorum seu naturarum, quod “res quas diximus de diversitatibus
aeris sunt in scientia astrorum” et quod “scientia astrorum non sit modica 
pars scientie medicine.” Et in primo Pronosticorum: “Est etiam quoddam
celeste in quo ipsum medicum providere oportet,” cuius si tanta /r/ sit
providentia, mirabilis nimiumque stupenda.
 est] in L  scita] fato L, cum scita B  remanentia] L adds “et”  illud B  et2]
B omits  prenoscationem L  perveniemus B  potuit B  est] B adds
“et”  illud B  aeris] aerum B  aerum B  in] B omits  previdere B
 prudentia B
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
[] Quid ergo id sit quo plures moveantur ut vilipendant stellarum

scientiam profecto dubito, ne id imputetur nebulis cece ignorantie intel-
lectus eorum qui nescientes viam qua ducimur in cognoscendo effectus
quos stelle influunt illos negant penitus. Quorum ridiculum non est par-
 vum. Non enim, si nocticoracis oculus lucem solis minime intuere valeat,
reliqua non poterunt animalia.
[] Quod animadvertens Tolomeus in principio Quadripartiti confir-
mat iudicia astrorum, unde dicit quod nostri populares sciunt res ante
quam accidant. [] Et Hali in Commento secunde propositionis huius
 libri dicit quod radices huius scientie sunt adeo manifeste quod popu-
lares nichil scientes sciunt et intelligunt eas inspiciendo et experiendo
ipsas.
[] Et Albumazar in suo Magno Introductorio confirmat ista rationi-
bus sic: “Omnis substantia que movetur motu naturali efficit in essentiis
 rerum sibi coniunctarum per naturam conversiones naturales, ut decla-
ratur in actione ignis ad longum (read lignum?). Constat ergo opificem
universitatis genitoremque Deum nature ducatum sidereis motibus com-
mendasse.”
[] Item Philosophus primo Metheorum sic ait: “Necesse est hunc mun-
 dum inferiorem etc.”
[] Amplius Tholomeus in nona propositione Centiloquii: “Vultus huius

seculi subiecti sunt vultibus celi. /v/ Et ideo sapientes scientes ymagines
stellarum introitum in celestes vultus inspiciebant et tunc operabantur
quod debebant.” Hoc idem in quinquagesima propositione: “Non oblivi-
 scare esse centum viginti quinque coniunctiones que fiunt in stellis erra-
ticis. In illis enim est maior scientia eorum que fiunt in hoc mundo susci-
pienti incrementum et decrementum.”
[] Et in Libro novem iudicum legitur: “Omnis mundane geniture con-
dicio ex planetis eorumque signis tamquam ferrum ex lapide magnete
 dependet.”
[] Afflatus etiam siderum in istis inferioribus sunt experti antiqui

in generationibus post generationem, in legibus et ordinationibus celo-
rum.
 illud B  illud B  declarat B – B omits “ymagines . . . debebant”

 cognicio LM
 charles burnett
[] Quapropter ad finem universalis apprehensionis scientie librorum

iudiciorum astrologie, ad ysagogas difficiles Alchabicii exponendas que
sunt compendiosum introductorium in iudicia astrologie, descenda-
mus, in quo magnum infallanter invenietis effectum.
[] Quapropter sciendum quod astrologia est lex seu ratio figuras celes- 
tes et motus in se et in suis effectibus universaliter considerans; in qua
descriptione tangitur duplex pars astrologie: una de motibus, alia de
iudiciis.
[] Illa de motibus quedam determinantur theorice, quedam practice,
quedam per instrumenta sicut astrolabia, horologia, quedam per tabulas. 
[] Illa de iudiciis habet partes quatuor principales, pars una de revolu-
tionibus annorum mundi, alia de nativitatibus, tertia de interrogationi-
bus, quarta de electionibus cui scientia ymaginum astronomicarum sup-
ponitur. [] Hiis visis ad litteram accedamus.
 Alchubucii B  motibus] B adds “et figuras celestium et”  quedam1] B adds

“practice”  pars una] pars scilicet introductiva et exercitativa. Exercitativa habet 
partes etc. exercitativa de revolutionibus est tripartita, prima est de  coniunctionibus,
secunda de revolutionibus anni,  de monstratione temporum, prima B
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
Translation
[] The Eisagoges of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄ in the form of an introduction to the

discernment of the rays of the stars, in the tradition of Ptolemy.
[] Although I think that all rational men should agree that the most
fortunate science of the stars should precede the power of all sciences,
nevertheless I cannot on this occasion desist from relating what the
leaders of the Peripatetics, Aristotle and his commentator, Averroes,
have claimed in what they have written about the strengths of the soul:
“Although every science, because it is the perfection and happiness of the
intellect, should be thought to be good and honorable, that one however
should be called noble and better than the others which deals with a
nobler subject and seeks more certain demonstrations to recognize it.”1
[] It is easy to understand that these two kinds of nobility exist in
the science of astronomy from the inside by the soul itself (?), since
it considers the celestial body in its movement and various influences
by which all lower things are preserved—which is naturally unborn
and incorporeal, and altogether taking up (?) corrupting nature and
alteration.
[] To show this, it advances most certain demonstrations, since it is
numbered amongst the mathematical sciences, which repose in the first
degree of certitude.
[] Therefore, first in the writings of the most wise Jābir it was wisely said,
when he spoke about the goodness of astrology: “The best of the sciences
after the science of faith, whose data are fixed, and remain unaltered until
the time God commands.”2
[] The Philosopher in the eleventh book of De animalibus writes: “We
are more desirous of learning a little about noble things than a lot about
ignoble things.”3
1 Source to be identified.
2 This is the beginning of Jābir ibn Aflah’s
. Liber super Almagesto (translated by Gerard
of Cremona), printed in Nuremberg, , pp. – (with Peter Apian, Instrumentum
primi mobilis): Scientia species habet quarum melior post scientiam fidei est cuius scita
fixa sunt, remanentia inalterata . . . Eiusque namque scita fixa sunt, remanentia non
alterata usque ad horam in qua Deus illud praecipiet eis.
3 A paraphrase of Aristotle, De animalibus, XI,  (= De partibus animalibus I, ),
b– and – in William of Moerbeke’s translation.

 charles burnett
[] And Tābit ibn Qurrah says this at the beginning of his Talismans, on
¯
the authority of Aristotle: “Whoever has read philosophy and geometry
and every science and forgets astrology is hindered or blocked and is as it
were frustrated of his end.”4 This astrology considers the celestial bodies
which have so much more noble a nature as they are more distant from
these things around us.
[] Ptolemy has touched on the usefulness of this science in the Proverbs
of the Almagest, saying that we generally say that there is nothing in
which the soul benefits so much as in the prognostication of this science.
For through it we can arrive at the knowledge of divine and human
things.5
[] And since we are not able to arrive at those things which agree with
each complexion except through the knowledge of this work, the same
authority, voicing the usefulness of this science to us, has uttered this
verbum which is fifth in the order of verba in his Centiloquium: “The best
astrologer is able to ward off much evil which will come according to the
stars, when he knows its nature. For thus he will protect beforehand him
to whom an evil will fall, so that, when it comes, he can endure it.”6
[] Its usefulness is also recognized in the science of medicine. Hence
Hippocrates has said in his book on Airs Waters and Places, when he
mentions the changes of the air and the elements (or natures), that “the
things we have mentioned concerning the differences of the air are in the
science of the stars,” and that “the science of the stars is not the least part
of the science of medicine.”7 And in the first book of the Prognostics:
“There is also something celestial in which the doctor himself ought to
take care.”8 If its foreknowledge is so great, it is wonderful and truly
amazing.
4 Tābit ibn Qurra, De imaginibus, in F.J. Carmody, ed., The Astronomical Works of
Thābit¯ b. Qurra (Berkeley and Los Angeles, ): .

5 This statement of Ptolemy does not occur among the “sapientiae” which precede the
most common medieval version of the Almagest (that of Gerard of Cremona), though
one could say that this is the general sense of the first chapter of the work: see Burnett,
“ ‘Ptolemaeus in Almagesto dixit’ ” (n.  above).
6 Ptolemy, Centiloquium, verbum  (Venice, ): fol. v.
7 Hippocrates, Airs, Waters and Places, .: non minimam portionem confert astrono-
mia in medicinam, sed valde plurimam. Edited by H. Grensemann (Bonn, ): .
8 Hippocrates, Prognostics, I,  (), in Articella cum commento (n.p., ): fol. cxlvi
r: Est autem quoddam celeste in quo opus ipsum medicum previdere.

al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
[] Therefore, I am completely mystified as to what makes many people

denigrate the science of the stars, unless that should be imputed to the
clouds of blind ignorance of the intellect of those who, not knowing the
way by which we are led to know the effects which the stars influence,
deny them completely. These people make themselves look very silly. For
if the eye of the night-crow cannot see the light of the Sun in the day, the
other animals must be able to.9
[] Noticing this, Ptolemy, at the beginning of the Quadripartitum con-
firms the judgments of the stars. Hence he says that our common people
know things before they happen. [] And Hali in his commentary to
the second proposition of this book says that the roots of this science are
so clear that the common people, who do not know anything, know and
understand them by observing and experiencing them.10
[] Abū Ma#šar in his Great Introduction confirms this with arguments,
in this way: “Every substance that moves by a natural movement pro-
duces natural changes in the essences of those things joined to it by
nature, as is shown in the action of fire on wood. It is established, then,
that the creator and progenitor of the universe, God, has commended the
leadership of nature to the movements of the stars.”11
[] Likewise the Philosopher in the first book of his Meteorologica,
says: “It is necessary for this lower world etc.”12
[] Moreover, Ptolemy in the ninth proposition of the Centiloquium
says: “The forms of this word are subject to the forms of the sky. Therefore,
wise men who were knowledgeable about talismans used to inspect the
9 Cf. Aristotle, De animalibus, IX, , a–.

10 Ptolemy, Quadripartitum, fol. ra: Et generaliter videmus quod res universales eas
quas intelligimus a participatione Solis et Lune ac stellarum in figuris sunt manifeste
multum et apparent visibiliter ita quod eas possunt scire et intelligere propter pluri-
mas pronosticationes multi qui nihil sciunt de scientia nec natura, solummodo pro
inspiciendo in rebus et propter experientiam quam alii habuerunt. Haly’s comment: Dicit
quod radices huius scientie sunt adeo manifeste quod populares nihil scientes de scientia
sciunt et intelligunt eas inspiciendo et experiendo eas.
11 This quotation brings together texts of the two translations of Abū Ma#šar, Great
Introduction to Astrology, vol. , ch.  in John of Seville’s translation (ed. Lemay, vol. ,
p. , ll. –): Omnis substancia que movetur motu naturali, efficuntur ex motu
eius naturali in ceteris rerum sibi coniunctarum per naturam conversiones naturales . . .
et probatio huius rei est quod accipitur ex motu ignis . . ., and vol. , ch.  in Hermann of
Carinthia’s translation (ed. Lemay, vol. , p. , ll. –): Hinc ergo constat opificem
genitoremque universitatis Deum sideris motibus nature ducatum commendasse.
12 Cf. Aristotle, Meteorologica, a.
 charles burnett
entry of the planets into the celestial forms and then used to do what they
had to do.”13 The same (Ptolemy) in the fiftieth proposition: “You should
not forget that there are  conjunctions which occur between the
planets. Among these is the great science of those things which happen
in this world, which experiences growth and decay.”14
[] And in the Book of the Nine Judges: “Every condition of generation
in the universe depends on the planets and their signs, like iron depends
on the magnet stone.”15
[] The Ancients also experienced the “breathings” of the constellations
on these lower things in generations after generations, in the laws and
regulations of the heavens.
[] Therefore, with the aim of completely understanding the science of
the books of the judgments of astrology, let us descend to explaining the
difficult Eisagoges of al-Qabı̄s. ı̄, which are a compendious introduction
to the judgments of astrology, in which you will without fail find a great
effect.
[] It must be known, then, that astrology is the law or reason, consid-
ering altogether the celestial figures and their movements in themselves
and in their effects. In this description the double aspect of astrology is
touched upon: one about movements, the other about judgments.
[] The part concerning movements determine some things theoret-
ically, others practically, some through instruments such as astrolabes
and sundials, others through tables. [] That part concerning judgments
has four principal parts: one part about the revolutions of the years of
the world, another about birth horoscopes, a third about interrogations
and a fourth about elections, under which the science of astronomical
13 Ptolemy, Centiloquium, verbum , fol. v: Vultus huius seculi sunt subiecti vultibus
celestibus. Et ideo sapientes qui imagines faciebant stellarum introitum in celestes vultus
inspiciebant et tunc operabantur quod debebat.
14 Ibid., verbum : fol. r: Non obliviscaris esse centumviginti coniunctiones que
sunt in stellis erraticis. In illis enim est maior scientia eorum que fiunt in hoc mundum
suscipienti incrementum et decrementum.
15 This quotation can be found in the preliminary material to the Liber novem iudicum,
which is not in the printed versions: see MS Vatican, lat. , fol. rb (a paragraph from
Jergis, De domibus .vii. errantium): Summus igitur rerum omnium opifex deus universam
mundane creature naturam eiusdem . . . . Sic enim ex istis tam signis quam planetis
eorumque proprietatibus omnis mundane geniture condicio quemadmodum ferrum ex
lapide magnete dependet.
al-qabı̄sı̄’s
. introduction to astrology 
talismans is included.16 [] Having dealt with these things, let us pro-
ceed to the words of the text.
(After this follows the lemmatized commentary which corresponds to
that of John of Saxony.)
16 Compare Speculum astronomiae in P. Zambelli, ed., The Speculum Astronomiae
and its Enigma (Dordrecht, Boston and London, ): : Parti autem electionum dixi
supponi imaginum scientiam, non quarumcumque tamen sed astronomicarum.
A DIFFERENT HUE TO
MEDIEVAL JEWISH PHILOSOPHY:
FOUR INVESTIGATIONS INTO AN UNSTUDIED
PHILOSOPHICAL TEXT
Y. Tzvi Langermann
The goal of this paper is to describe the only extant fragment of what was
probably an extensive work of medieval Jewish philosophy. It survives in
fragmentary form in a single manuscript. The author, concerning whom
we know nothing at all, was interested in issues that are treated in the
philosophical literature of the period, and he drew upon or reacted to
many of the famous authorities—Maimonides, Ibn Rušd, Ibn Sı̄nā. How-
ever, the world-view that he articulates comes through as a distinct hue
of Jewish philosophy. This essay will focus exclusively upon those dis-
tinct colorings, which set this work apart from any other writing of the
medieval period that I have seen. After briefly reporting on some basic
data concerning the unique manuscript, I will organize my discussion
around the distinctive features of the treatise. I will first deal with two
issues that combine to define the author’s theological orientation: panen-
theism and a polemic against dualism. I will dwell longest on the sec-
ond of these, mainly because it offers the most promising leads for locat-
ing our treatise in historical context. I will then discuss his treatment of
two scientific issues where, again, he speaks with a very distinctive voice:
astronomy, in particular, his critical review of al-Bit.rūğı̄’s “new astron-
omy”, and his lengthy remarks on magnetism.
First, then, some basic information. The treatise occupies folios b–
b of a manuscript formerly in the Montefiore collection, no.  in
Hirschfeld’s catalogue, manuscript  in what was once the Halberstam
collection.1 It comprises the fifth section (ša#ar) of an extensive work;
whether the whole of this section is preserved, I cannot say. The author
1 The manuscript was put up for sale by Sotheby’s in , and I do not know
what has become of it. See Sotheby’s Important Hebrew Manuscripts from the Montefiore
Endowment, New York, October  & , , no.  on p. . (The description in
Sotheby’s catalogue was written by the present author.)
 y. tzvi langermann
has left us no clues as to his name, provenance, or the circle of his

associates. If pressed, I would surmise that he lived in the southern
part of France in the thirteenth century, but I have no sound evidence
for this. He mentions one other book that he has written, a treatise on
astronomy whose title is not given. It is the last item in a codex that also
contains a copy of Abraham ibn Daud’s Exalted Faith (Emunah ramah)
as well as the unique copy of an anonymous commentary on that book.
The entire codex was copied by Elazar Parnas in . The Montefiore
manuscript is part of a series of codices copied by the same Parnas; in
another manuscript, Oxford Ms. Can. Or. , he has listed the contents
of the philosophical library that he copied, and which are now spread
over three different codices. (The third is Cambridge University Library,
Add. .) Unfortunately, though, Parnas offers no information (if he
had any) about the authorship or title of our treatise.
Despite the variety of “sources” exploited and the range of issues treated,
our work is neither eclectic nor encyclopedic. The author has a clear
goal in mind, a highly coherent and focused outlook, which can be
characterized, in a first approximation, as follows: The one good God
pervades the cosmos. The stance is thus panentheistic, with a strong
interest in refining the notion of “one.” There are also traces of anti-
dualistic polemic; panentheism is likely to have been part of a response
to a dualist challenge. As a second approximation, the treatise connects
to two distinct trends in medieval Jewish thought, which do not often
meet: () Philosophy developed using Latin texts as well as Hebrew
writings that were received mainly in Ashkenaz. Our author cites the
astronomy of “Petrugus,” which is the Latin name for al-Bit.rūğı̄, and
he has much to say about Midraš Temurah, a text that was known to
Ashkenazi writers in particular. () Philosophy that is rooted in Islamic
culture; as noted, he has drunk deeply from Maimonides, Ibn Sı̄nā, and
Ibn Rušd.
In the course of thirty years of writing, I have never asked for more than
the chance to get across whatever I feel that I have to contribute in as
unmediated a form as possible. I have certainly benefited from criticisms,
both on the part of evaluators and on the part of editors. On the other
hand, I am and will always be hypersensitive to invasive attempts to
redirect or restructure my thought, or rewrite my analyses, especially
when done under the guise of “scientific” criticism. Gad Freudenthal
has edited about half-a dozen books to which I have contributed, as
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
well, of course, as the journal Aleph; and, in this very touchy business,
Gad’s judicious, precise, and very useful suggestions have always been
balanced by his respect for my authorial stance. It is a duty and pleasure
to express my gratitude to Gad; all the more so, with this paper, in which
the approach and form of presentation are every bit as important to me
as the contents.
The present paper connects to Gad’s work in other ways. Some years
ago, Gad’s interest was spurred by the late Israel Ta-Shema’s relatively
brief description of Sefer ha-Maśkil, an unusual Ashkenazi work of reli-
gious and scientific thought, and he proceeded to publish a two-part
study. The text that we are about to describe is very different in form:
it is straightforward philosophy, whereas Sefer ha-Maśkil is at heart a
work of halakha. Moreover, our author, unlike the author of Sefer ha-
Maśkil, is very much at home in the thought of Maimonides, Ibn Rušd,
and Ibn Sı̄nā. Nonetheless, the two texts share some very distinctive fea-
tures. In doctrine, both endorse a form of panentheism; in terms of liter-
ary sources, both exploit Midraš Temurah; in terms of historical context,
both regard dualism as a present danger. Thus, despite their choice of
utterly different literary forms, they emerge as surprisingly similar Jew-
ish responses to a certain historical situation.
Panentheism
Our author espouses a mild form of panentheism. God is identified with

“the All” (ìëä) and He is said to be everywhere and in everything.2 There
is said to be (ultimately, and corresponding to Aristotle’s four causes)
a single matter, a single form, a single agent, and a single telos; God is
(ultimately) the single form, agent, and telos for the cosmos. God is not
identical with the material universe, but since matter is not real, God
is identical with all actual reality. For all its possible lack of clarity, as
indeed all pantheistic excursions tend to lose their bearings in the cloud
of unknowing, this description suffices to sharply mark off our author’s
stance from the most famous—indeed the only pre-Spinozan—Jewish
2 On kol as a technical term in medieval Jewish philosophy, see most recently Elliot
R. Wolfson, “God, the Demiurge, and the Intellect: On the Usage in Abraham Ibn Ezra,”
Revue des Etudes juives  (): –. Clearly our author does not intend the
demiurge by kol, as does Ibn Ezra according to Wolfson. Wolfson’s first footnote refers
to other writers who employ the term, including, of course, Ibn Gabirol; see also the
following notes in this essay.
 y. tzvi langermann
pantheist (or at least he is often labeled as such), Solomon ibn Gabirol,

whose trademark is the ontological envaluation of matter.3 Consider
these statements:
. “The substance [essence?] of God is found in every thing, without,
however, there being any relation or binding [association?] with
matter.”ììë øîåç íò äøáçå ñçé éìáî øáã ìëá àöîé ìàä íöò (fol. a)
. “He is the All and the Omnipotent, and for this reason it says [Hosea
:] All forgives sin, even though this is not the plain sense of the
verse. . . . He is found in every thing, but He has no place; this is the
intent of [Hosea :] And I shall not enter into the city, that is, within
you the Holy One shall come, even though I shall not enter into the
city. . . . but He is rather something stable [permanent, unchanging],
He encompasses everything; no place is free of Him, and everything
is found within Him. They asked a wise person, ‘Where is the
Creator?’, and he answered, ‘Where isn’t He?’ ” (fol. a): ìëä àåä
ìëá àöîð àåä . . . §åúëä èùô åðéàù ô§§òà ïåò àùú ìë øîà äæìå ìåëé ìëå
êáø÷á øîåìë øéòá àáà àìå åøîàá äöø äæå íå÷î åì ïéàå íå÷î ìëáå øáã
åäôé÷é àìå øáã íåùá åðéà éë . . . íå÷îá éððàå øéòá àáà àìù ô§§òà ùåã÷ àáé
.ìëä àöîð åáå åðîî éåðô íå÷î ïéàå ìëä óé÷î àåäå åá ãîåò øáã ìë ìáà íå÷î
åðéà àðà áéùäå àøåáä àðà íëçì åìàù . . .
. “For this reason we say, that we truly know that He—Blessed is
He!—is found in the all, and the all is within Him, and He knows
all from the most noble aspect” (fol. b): úîàá åðòãé éë øîàð ïë ìò
ãáëð øúåéä ãöä ìò ìëä òãåéå åá ìëäå ìëá àöîð êøáúé àåäù
A few comments on the second passage are in order. Our author’s protest
(“even though this is not the plain sense of the verse”) notwithstanding,
the interpretation of the verse in Hosea  is syntactically elegant but
very bold exegetically. Medieval Jewish commentators as a rule take the
Hebrew kol to be a misplaced adjective modifying “sin,” so that the verse
is taken to mean “[God] forgives all sins.”4 The word order needs no
further explanation according to the reading of our author, who takes
kol to be a noun and the subject of the sentence. No other exegete known
3 T. Rudavsky, “Matter, Mind and Hylomorphism in Ibn Gabirol and Spinoza,” in
H. Lagerlund, ed., Forming The Mind: Essays on the Internal Senses and the Mind/Body
Problem from Avicenna to the Medical Enlightenment (Dordrecht, ): –.
4 So for example Abravanel explains ad loc., “the commentators explain that it is
reversed, ‘every sin shall You forgive’ ”; modern students take kol as an adverb, i.e., “You
shall forgive sin completely” (see World Biblical Commentary, :–).
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
to me has read the verse in this way.5 The verse from Hosea  is more
inviting of a theological interpretation, and several are found in Jewish
sources, as early as the Talmud (B Ta#anit ); but here too I have not
found anyone else who reads the verse as our author does. Once again,
his interpretation is facile as far as the plain sense of the text is concerned,
but highly original in the meaning it imparts. According to his reading,
‘ir does not refer to Samaria (so the context would suggest), or Jerusalem
(heavenly or earthly, as in the aggadic reading), but rather means simply
“city,” the obvious dictionary meaning of the Hebrew word; by extension,
it means “place.”6 So the verse can be read, following the word order in
Hosea, to mean that the Holy One is within you, even though he is not
in any place.
The apothegm cited at the end is reminiscent of some sayings that are
cited in Bahya
. ibn Paquda’s Duties of the Heart, Ša#ar ha-yihud, . ch. 
(pp. – in the edition of Rav Qafih); it is also the theme of Judah
Halevi’s poem, Yah ana ams. a"ekha: “O God, where shall I find you? Your
place is sublime and unseen. But where shall I not find you? Your glory
fills the world!”7
Our author knows that panentheism makes some people feel uncom-
fortable, and offers a reassuring thought. Divine omnipresence insures
that the living cosmos is suffused with a motive principle towards the
good (fol. b): “There is no reason to be troubled that there is no place
in the world that is free from [literally: escapes] the divine intellect, given
that It intellegizes everything as one [at once] and sets in motion the
entire world. For an agile human moves all of his limbs at once, and when
he sets in motion the many strings on the stringed instrument [øåðë],
many voices are produced together; it would be all the more fine and
swift in producing the voices, were the stringed instrument a living sub-
stance; a fortiori for the deity, who sets in motion everything the way law
(ñåîéð) motivates people of distinction to what is proper, to set themselves
on the right path and to attain the good.”
5 See the very recent census of interpretations in M. Polliack and E. Schlossberg, Yefet
Ben Eli’s Commentary on Hosea: Annotated edition, Hebrew translation and commentary
(Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ): n.  pp. –.
6 Modern students see “anger” as another possible meaning for #ir; Rashi ad loc.
records this anonymously (due to its Gentile source) but it is not adopted by any Jewish
exegete.
7 My translation from the poem published by D. Jarden, ed., The Liturgical Poetry of
Rabbi Yehuda Halevi, vol.  (Jerusalem, ): no. , p. .

 y. tzvi langermann
The divine omnipresence is (fol. a) likened to the (non)number

one, which is present in every other number: “It has been likened to
the (non)number one: it is the beginning of number, and is found in
every number; it maintains itself [exists] without any number, but no
number can exist without it, because it is the cause of every number
and that which produces it (åùãçî), and it is found together with every
number; it is the immediate cause of two, and the cause of three through
the mediation of two . . . but this is not a true analogy, because the one
is predicated (? àåùð) and produced by an action of the soul.” Most of
these teachings are found in the writings of Abraham ibn Ezra.8 However,
the notion that one is not an independently existing entity, but rather a
mental construct—“produced by an action of the soul”—is not to the best
of my knowledge said anywhere by Ibn Ezra, who indeed holds that the
one is “like a substance which bears all accidents.”9
I have already intimated that in my view, panentheism is here part of a
reaction to dualism; the evidence for our author’s concern with dualism
will be arrayed in the next section. In order to counter the heresies that
taught “two authorities,” our author insisted not only that there is but
one, but that this unique deity is present in everything, and is in fact
identifiable with all true reality. Given these leanings, it then comes as
no surprise that our author invests a great deal of effort in clarifying the
meaning of “one” or “unity.” The precise definition of that concept is of
paramount importance to pantheists and panentheists.10
The discussion on unity in our text is both a calque and a critique
on Maimonides’ Guide. It is a calque insofar as it mimics the formula
well-known to all readers of Maimonides’ Guide, applying it to a Hebrew
word whose multiple meanings are not discussed in the Guide:11 “one is
8For Ibn Ezra’s views see R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Yesod mora ve-sod torah, annotated
critical edition by Joseph Cohen in collaboration with U. Simon (Ramat Gan, ): –
 and , as well as the parallel discussions in other writings of Ibn Ezra that are cited
in the notes to that edition.
9 Sefer ha-Ehad, ed. I. Levin, in idem, Abraham Ibn Ezra Reader (Heb.) (New York
.
and Tel Aviv, ): .
10 M. Levine, “Pantheism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford
.edu/entries/pantheism/.
11 However, Maimonides does elaborate in the second of his thirteen principles: “His
Unity . . . is not like the unity of the species or the unity of the genus, nor is it like one
complex thing that divides into many units, nor is it like the unity of a simple body that
is numerically one but is receptive to infinite division and partition; but rather He—
may He be Exalted—is a unity unlike any other unity in any way.” (My translation from
the Judaeo-Arabic edition of Y. Kapach, Peruš ha-mišnah la-Rambam, vol.  [Neziqim]
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
an equivocal (÷ôåñî) term used in many ways.”12 Moreover, our author

moves on to progressively lesser known meanings of “one” (÷åçø øúåé
íåñøôä ïî), much like Maimonides’ traversal of increasingly “deeper”
aspects of the problem of the divine attributes in Guide I: and .
As for the critique, our author, like most medieval and modern readers
of the Guide, detects that Maimonides has adopted de facto Ibn Sı̄nā’s
controversial theory that existence is an accident supervening upon an
essence and this, he feels, is a serious mistake.13
The discussion on this point is involved, and the text may be imper-
fectly transmitted in the unique manuscript; nonetheless, I feel that the
following remarks accurately convey the intent of the text. There are
two main ways in which the Hebrew term ehad . is used: as a “univer-
sal” (éììë), as in genus and species, and numerically, when referring to
separate, distinct units. The various senses are then elaborated as follows
(fol. b):14
. single objects, spatially distinct from others, having a clear bound-
ary, e.g. a shell [for instance, one nut]
. a unit made of conjoined parts that move together, for example,
bodily organs such as “one hand” or “one foot”
. a unit made up of parts that have been conjoined artificially, e.g.,
“one chair”; single items of thought, examples drawn mainly from
geometry, e.g. “a circle”
. units that are separate in thought, e.g. continuous quantities (“one
line”), most especially those that cannot be added to (“one circle”)
. single bodies made up of similar parts
. single substantially, “one man,” “one horse,” insofar as they are
indivisible with regard to their form; these are the instances most
worthy of being called “one in number” or “numerically one”
[Jerusalem, ]: .) The multiple senses in which “one” is used exercised several
medieval thinkers; their views are conveniently summarized by J.L. Kraemer, Philosophy
in the Renaissance of Islam (Leiden, ): –.
12 Another calque on Maimonides, which I may explore on some other occasion, is
the chapter on "or (“light”) in Jospeh Albo’s Sefer ha-#Iqqarim.

13 The second sentence (in the translation of S. Pines [Chicago and London, ]:
:) of Guide I: states: “It is well known that existence is an accident attaching to
what exists.” Cf. Pines’ remarks in his translator’s introduction, p. xciv, and the literature
cited by Michael Schwartz in the notes to his new Hebrew translation of the Guide (Tel
Aviv, ): :. See also the extensive discussion in S. Feldman, Levi ben Gerson
(Gersonides) Wars of the Lord, vol.  (Philadelphia and New York, ):  n. .
14 My explanatory notes are enclosed within square brackets.
 y. tzvi langermann
. single things separate with regard to their “intellectized quiddities”

(úåìëùåîä íäéúåéäîá íéøáãä úùéøô); this is the one in form or abso-
lute one; it is what the Latins would call a transcendental [the term
does not appear here in Hebrew] and applies to all of the ten cate-
gories primarily and secondarily
Items one through five are accidentally one; they are unique only insofar
as they can be clearly distinguished one from the other. Items six and
seven are the lesser known meanings of the term. Our author goes on to
say that the numerical one is something abstracted by the intellect (øáã
ìëùä ìåìùé) from individuals that do not subdivide; from this abstraction
the imagination “creates the one that is the beginning of number, free (é÷ð)
of matter, since it does not divide.” Once again, then, our author clearly
opines that the one is a construct of the mind.
Aristotle on several occasions stated that “that which exists” or “being”
has the same variety of meanings as has “the one” (e.g. Metaphysics VII, ,
; Physics a–), and this equation of “being” with “the one” carries
on into the medieval thought.15 Ibn Sı̄nā’s famous and controversial
claims concerning existence, alluded to above, must apply equally to
existence and unity. Yet in the Avicennian tradition, if not in Ibn Sı̄nā
himself, the more momentous of the two equivalent terms is “being.”16
Our author joins the chorus of western (by which term I include mostly
Jewish and Christian thinkers from the Islamic reaches of Spain and
North Africa as well as those working in Christian Europe) who reject
Ibn Sı̄nā’s claim that existence is an accident, but unlike the others,
he gives more attention to the (cognate) concept of “unity” than he
does to “existence.”17 In particular, Ibn Sı̄nā is called to account for not
distinguishing between the numerical and absolute one; in this criticism,
our author clearly follows Ibn Rušd who elaborated on this very point
in his Epitome of the Metaphysics.18 Our author accuses Maimonides
of following Ibn Sı̄nā on both counts—that is in adopting the idea that
15 R. Demos, “Types of Unity According to Plato and Aristotle,” Philosophy and

Phenomenological Research  (–): –.
16 Thus there is a great deal of discussion of wāğib al-wuğūd (and their Hebrew and
Latin counterparts), but none that I know of wāğib al-wahda, . though the latter would
seem no less appropriate as a connotation of the deity.
17 I must emphasize again that we have only a small portion of what must have been a
fairly extensive text.

18 The passage is cited at length by S. Munk, Le Guide des Égarés, (reprint, Paris, ):
vol. , n.  on pp. –; Ibn Rušd states there clearly, “Ibn Sina a confondu la nature
de l’ un, principe du nombre, avec l’ un absolu, qui embrasse toutes les categories . . .”.
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
both unity and existence are accidents to essence (úåäî)—leading to the

formulations in Guide I:, that “God exists, but not through existence”
and “is one, but not through oneness.”19
The question would of course arise, are “unity” and “existence” wholly
synonymous? Are they two words that mean exactly the same thing? One
Hebrew writer who went to some length to clarify this point and flesh out
the subtle distinctions between the two is Levi ben Geršom, who seems
(here and elsewhere) to be very much on the same wavelength as our
author. Levi explains that the two terms are not synonymous. Rather,
“one” signifies the absence of division, and “exists” signifies the existence,
both referring to one and the same essence.20 Our author accounts for the
difference in this way (fol. a): “The one that is intended in this science
[metaphysics, I presume], is the absolute [one], and it is synonymous
with ‘existent’, except that ‘existent’ is said of any substance or quiddity,
whereas this [term, i.e., ‘one’] is said [only] of an indivisible substance.”
Midraš Temurah and the Vestiges of Anti-Dualistic Polemic
In my view, our author’s endorsement of some sort of panentheism as well

as his worries over the precise meaning of “one” and the source of evil
are all evidence of an anti-dualistic polemic that is characteristic of his
work. About two-thirds of the way down on fol. a there begins a long
discussion of source of evil, beginning, “How great was the error of the
ancients in identifying the cause of evil, how they strayed from the [cor-
rect] principle, how unbearably great is the burden of guilt that they must
carry . . . ”. He then identifies two such errant schools. The first say that
the deity is associated with matter (øîåçá óúåùî) and “enters into things”
(íéøáãá ñðëðå), which means, so I take it, that the deity interpenetrates
bodies; they are thus true pantheists, to be clearly distinguished from
our author’s panentheism, which sees the divine in every real thing, thus
excluding matter, which possesses no reality. The other recognizes two
opposing principles, “substitutes and opposites” (íéëôäå úåøåîú). This is
said to be the plainly evident (pešat. ) teaching of Sefer ha-Temurot “that is
19 Both statements are found in Guide I:; see Pines, “Translator’s Introduction,”
p. xciv.
20 Feldman, Wars, pp. –, which includes a quotation from Levi’s (lost) super-
commentary to Ibn Rušd’s middle commentary on Metaphysics IV, .

 y. tzvi langermann
attributed to R. Ishmael the son of21 R. Aqivah, because that book teaches
that everything that God created was made with ‘a partner and a substi-
tute’ (äøåîúå óúåùá)”, e.g., good and evil, life and death, health and illness.
Our author adds: “It [Sefer ha-Temurot] contains in addition other
topics, which are truly words of wisdom. . . . It seems that those great
figures of blessed memory did not produce it; they became entangled in
it [?], for they set out to refute this [dualist] doctrine (íäéìò æçàðù àìà
åøîà åæ äòã øåúñìå).” The meaning of this last phrase is not entirely clear;
it could mean that in their attempts to refute dualism the two sages
somehow became contaminated with the heresy; it could also mean that
the work was maliciously ascribed to them. In any event, the dualist
worries of our author are transparent. At the bottom of the same page
he launches yet another salvo against those who recognize a sovereign
evil: the supernal beings emanate only good, “and the earth [mentioned
in Job :], that is, the elements, err by not receiving the good—pace
the doctrines of the heretics ‘that the earth is unfaithful’ (õøàä äðæú äðæ)
[fol. b]”.22
The reference to Sefer ha-Temurot (which also went by the names Sefer
or Midraš Temurah) is an important clue, both for the history of that
obscure text and for locating our author historically. The first and to
my knowledge only statement about the work’s character was made by
Adolph Jellinek. On the basis of the influences of Abraham ibn Ezra and
the pseudo-Galenic dialogue on the soul that he detected in the text,
Jellinek claimed that Sefer Temurah was composed in the first half of the
thirteenth century.23 Various versions have been published, beginning
with H.J.D. Azulai’s Šem ha-gedolim (); a critical edition, based on
several manuscripts as well as all of the earlier published versions was
published by Shlomo Aharon Wertheimer.24 The text takes its title and
main theme from its listing of pairs of opposites (temurot); the term
21 Sic! This is clearly a scribal mishap.

22 For our author, the verse in Job : (“For hardship does not spring from the soil,
nor does trouble sprout from the ground”) is an important proof text against the dualist
heretics who, so it emerges, view the material universe as both real and as the source of
evil.
23 A. Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch, part one (reprint Jerusalem, ), p. xx. The pseudo-
Galenic tract has been studied most recently by Ermenegildo Bertola, “Un Dialogo
Pseudo-Galenico sui Problemi dell’ Anima,” Rivista di filosofia neo-scolastica  ():
–.
24 Batei midrašot, vol.  (Jerusalem, ): –; Wertheimer provides full refer-
ences to all other printings and editions.

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
temurah definitely feeds off of the temurah mentioned at the end of

Sefer Yes. ira. Thus the midrash is likely to be either a later response to
Sefer Yes. ira or something that came out of the same cultural setting. The
dualistic possibilities of the pairings are evident, and, as we learn from
the brief discussion in our text, Sefer Temurah was exploited by some in
order to support a form of dualism. Interestingly enough, there is a very
strong rejection of dualism in Wertheimer’s edition: “And not like those
who say that there are two authorities in the world, one bringing death
and the other giving life (úéîî ãçà íìåòá íä úåéåùø éúù íéøîåàä åìàë àìå
äéçî ãçàå).”25
References to Sefer Temurah in medieval Hebrew texts are rare. No

text exploits Sefer Temurah more than Sefer ha-Maśkil does; this was
noted already by Israel Ta-Shema, and investigated thoroughly by Gad
Freudenthal.26 Sefer ha-Maśkil attacks both dualists and Trinitarians; it
also polemicizes against the doctrine of “uncreated spirit” that some
deviants read into II Samuel :. That verse caused them “to be mis-
led and to mislead others into [maintaining] two authorities or three.”27
Remarks against trinitarianism are common enough in Jewish literature
written in a Christian environment; a living, or recently expired, dual-
ist threat, on the other hand, fits far fewer limited historical situations,
notably the Albigenses in Provence and the Cathars, in Italy and Byzan-
tium.
One significant reference has heretofore escaped the notice of scholars.

Temurot di-rebbe Išma"el ve-rebbe Aqiva is briefly cited by Yehudah ben
Šemaryah in his biblical commentary. The editor of that text, Leah Naomi
25 Batei midrašot, :. There are also some statements (differing in manuscripts) that
God is one, cosmos is one, and pneuma (?) (çåø) is one towards the end of the midrash:
åîìåò àøá àåäå ãçà àåäù íìåòä éàá ìëì òéãåäì äøåîú åì ïéàå éðù åì ïéàå ãçåéî øáã åîìåòá àøáå
(ed., p. ); but in the version of Even Shohan, cited by Wertheimer in n. : ãîåò íìåäå
àåä êåøá ùåã÷ä äìúðù åðàöî àì ïëì óúåù àìå äøåîú åì ïéàù çåøä àåäå äøåîú åì ïéàå . . . çåøä ìò
ùàøî äúéä àéäå úçáåùî àéäù . . . çåøä àìà. These may have been added by some copyist in
response to the same type of misuse of the midrash that is reported by our author.
26 I.M. Ta-Shema, “Sefer ha-Maskil: An Unknown Franco-Jewish Treatise from the
End of the Thirteenth Century,” reprinted in idem, Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature,
vol. , Germany (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): ; Gad Freudenthal, “ ‘Ha-Avir barukh hu
u-varukh Šemo’ in Sefer ha-Maśkil of R. Shlomo Simha of Troyes” (Heb.), Da#at –
(): –,  (): –, pp. –, and esp. n. , on Midraš Temura as
source for Stoic notion of pneuma.
27 Ta-Shema, Studies , Germany, . This concern may also have been addressed in
the variant to Midraš Temura cited above, note .

 y. tzvi langermann
Goldfeld, dates it to the late thirteenth century, correctly as it seems to

me, but she was unable to identify Yehudah’s father, who is called “the
great one, the leader, the patron” (ñðøôä ùàøä ìåãâä). It is clear to me
that he is none other than Šemaryah Ikriti, who is called “parnas” in one
manuscript.28 Elsewhere I have discussed at length Ikriti’s own polemics
against the Cathars.29 Using our text, Sefer ha-Maśkil, and Yehudah’s
biblical commentary, we can triangulate Midraš Temurah: it belongs to
the literature relating to the dualist heresies that threatened communities
in southern Europe, especially the Provence, in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries. Whether it was written at that time, or retrieved from ancient
storehouses to serve a new cause, I cannot say; that question warrants
a study of its own. It is, however, worth noting that Midraš Temurot
makes its appearance at (very roughly) the time when, according to Ta-
Shema, Jews voluntarily got rid of Hebrew apocrypha that had been
circulating till then, out of fear of being caught up in the crusades against
the dualists.30
Finally, we observe that the section under review here ends with this
jibe (fols. b–a): “It is not appropriate to pay attention to, or to
be concerned with, the proofs of the mutakallimūn (íéøáãîä), since
they are built upon inanity and rest upon false premises and a fictional
reality. They are worthless statements; the truth will make its own way.”
Our author is clearly dependent upon Maimonides for his knowledge of
the kalām. However, the kalām, to which Maimonides devotes so much
effort, is not a serious player here, and an off the cuff rebuttal suffices. The
active and serious threat, as we have seen, is dualism.
Astronomy
Our author had some expertise in astronomy; he refers to a treatise on the

science that he wrote (åðøàáù åîë äðåëúä úîëçá) where he shows that stars
do not possess qualities (fols. b–a), though unfortunately gives
28 MS Munich , fol. a (commentary to Song of Songs): ñðøôä áéãðä ïá äéøîù íàð
ì§§öæ åäéìà §ø.
29 Y.T. Langermann, “Of Cathars and Creationism: Shemarya Ikriti’s Polemic against
a Dualist Eternalism,” Jewish Studies Quarterly  (): –.

30 See I.M. Ta-Shema’s essay, “R. Moshe ha-Darshan and the Apocrypha,” reprinted in
idem, Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, vol. , Italy & Byzantium (Heb.) (Jerusalem,
): –. Another point to ponder is the ascription of the tract to Rabbis Yishmael
and Aqivah—the same two sages who are named as the authors of Ši#ur Qoma.
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
neither a title nor any other information that would enable us to iden-
tify it. His discussion of astronomical matters, much like his treatment of
the “one” as well as other issues that must be left out of this paper, is rem-
iniscent of Levi ben Geršom. For example, like Levi, he cites numerical
data for al-Bit.rūğı̄’s theory of Saturn.31 He espouses a teleological astrol-
ogy, in which the details of the orbs and their configuration are said to be
an act of providence; Gersonides makes much of this idea.32 Al-Bit.rūğı̄ is
brought into the discussion in the chapter on “the eminences of the celes-
tial bodies and their rankings” (íúåâøãîå íééòé÷øä íéôåâä úåìòîá øåáãä)
[fols. b–b]. Our author ultimately rejects al-Bit.rūğı̄; his main rea-
sons for doing so are () eccentrics are necessary in order to explain some
observed phenomena; () for reasons that appear to me theological as
well as astronomical, he cannot accept al-Bit.rūğı̄’s degradation of the sun
in the cosmic order.
This chapter opens with two crisp laws of dynamics:

For two bodies belonging to the same species, the greater of them in
quantity possesses more force (çë) than the smaller.
To possess more force means to cover the same measure in a small amount
of time, while the weak covers it in a long time.
Both laws are found in Aristotle’s Physics, VIII, . The second is explicit;
the first follows from Aristotle’s arguments that an infinite force cannot
reside in a finite body.33 Our author then moves on to describe the forces
at work in the orbs. “The orb possesses two forces. The one is the force of
inclination within its body; on its account one says that it is neither heavy
nor light. It is the elemental force [fol. a] that diffuses within bodies,
and divides up when it [the body] is divided. Just as it is impossible for
31 B.R. Goldstein, Al-Bit. rūjı̄: On the Principles of Astronomy (New Haven and London,
), :–; Goldstein observes that Levi cites correct mean motions for Saturn, rather
than the erroneous ones found in al-Bit.rūğı̄.
32 Y.T. Langermann, “Gersonides and Astrology,” appended to Feldman, Wars, pp.
–.
33 The second law is stated at all., “Let us define the greater power, in every case,
as that which produces an equal effect in less time . . . ” (Aristotle, The Physics, trans.
P.H. Wicksteed and F.M. Cornford, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge and London,
]: :); for the first, see b ll., “It follows also that the power of an unlimited
body cannot be limited, although there may be cases in which the smaller body has the
greater power, as well as the more obvious cases in which the greater power accompanies
the greater size,” and Cornford’s note b on pp. –, at the end, stipulating that
the larger the body, the greater power it contains, if two bodies of the same kind are
compared—the emphasis is Cornford’s.
 y. tzvi langermann
a body to be greater [in size], so is it impossible for its natural force to

be stronger. For this reason, the stars cannot be bigger than they are,
nor can their number increase. The second is the form from which the
force [derives]. It is an indivisible force and unlimited. From it derives the
overpowering (úåçöðä; Arabic ghalaba?) of one orb over another, which
[phenomenon] testifies to the eminence of the mover [over the moved],
which manifests itself in fewer motions, swiftness of motion, and a higher
position (úåðåéìò). For the enclosing and encompassing [orb] is like a
form for the enclosing [!, licet enclosed?].”34
Our author is especially interested in the dynamics of celestial motion,
that is, the “force” responsible for their motions and the manner of its
transmission, rather than the philosophical issues that troubled cosmol-
ogists, such as eccentrics and epicycles. Note also that he names “incli-
nation” (äéèð) as one of the forces.35 I will return to this distinctive
point shortly. After briefly taking notice of Ibn Rušd’s views, our author
refers to the “new astronomy” of al-Bit.rūğı̄, but not for the first time;
his name has come up already earlier, in portions of the treatise that are
now lost: “The scholar Petrugu, as we have indicated, postulated a new
astronomy.” Al-Bit.rūğı̄ is mentioned, or clearly alluded to, in very few
in Hebrew texts; our treatise is the only one to mention him by his Latin
appellation.36 According to al-Bit.rūğı̄, all of the orbs share in the westerly
rotation of highest orb; the farther down they are, the more the westerly
motion is retarded, manifesting itself as an (increasingly swifter) easterly
motion. “Divine nature” (éäìàä òáèä) has endowed them all with a sec-
ond motion “from the east.” He notes that al-Bit.rūğı̄ rejects eccentrics or
epicycles, “all the more so the strange anomalies as well as the types of
motion that are difficult to conceptualize that were given to Venus and
to Mercury, and which do not befit those divine bodies (åúåàé àì øùà
íééäìàä íää íéôåâá).”37 The casual employment by our author of divine
as an adjective, here and elsewhere, as in pagan Greek writings, is note-
worthy. He may well have come across this usage in Ptolemy’s Almagest,
34 Cf. Aristotle’s Physics III. a–b.

35 On the application of the concept of mayl, inclination, impetus, to the circular
motion of the heavenly bodies, see A. Hasnaoui, “La Dynamique d’ Ibn Sina,” in J. Jolivet
and R. Rashed, Etudes sur Avicenne (Paris, ).
36 The references to al-Bitrūğı̄ are discussed by Goldstein, “Al-Bitrūjı̄”, , –; see
. .
also Y.T. Langermann, “Some Remarks on Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen and His Ency-
clopedia, Midrash ha-Hokhma,” in S. Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of
Science and Philosophy (Dordrecht, Boston and London, ): –.
37 Our author clearly has in mind the complicated devices employed in the Ptolemaic
models to account for the latitude of the inferior planets.

a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
where, e.g. in Book IX, chapter , the planets are called “divine beings”;
but phrases like this are not usually repeated by Jewish authors.
Devices such as eccentrics are necessary in order to uphold physical
principles, such as the impossibility of a vacuum, and the existence
of three motions—from, to, and about the center. Moreover, there is
observational evidence for eccentrics: “Eccentricity is attested to by the
senses in the case of the eclipses of the luminaries [computations carried
out using eccentrics and epicycles are correct?], in the variation to [our]
sight of the quantity of magnitude of the star (áëåëä úåîë ìãåâ).”
Our author suggests that the sun be assigned a ranking second only to
that of the prime mover. As evidence, he cites a number of facts that were
known to all practicing astronomers in the Middle Ages: the motions of
the planets are pegged to that of the sun (ìáâåî øáåçî åðîî . . . íëìäîå);
and “their full motion is like its, because the motion of each of the three
superior planets, which is the sum of its motion in the epicycle and in
its own orb, is equal to the motion of the sun (éë åëìäîë íëìäî úåîìù íâ
åúô÷ä ìâìâ êìäîå àöåéä åìâìâî øáåçîä íéðåéìòä íéáëåë §âî ãçà ìë êìäî äðä
ùîùä êìäîì äåù)”. Our author refers here to relations between planetary
phenomena and the sun. The first remark applies, e.g., to retrogradations,
which depend on the planet’s position with respect to the sun. The second
remark describes a relation that was known to the Babylonians; the sum
of an integer number of synodic periods (such as returns to opposition)
and returns of the planet in (tropical) longitude will equal the number of
tropical years. Although these relations were common knowledge to pre-
Copernican astronomers, it is unusual to see them mustered in defense
of the Ptolemaic models.38
Criticisms of al-Bit.rūğı̄ similar to those voiced by our author are made
by Latin authors. Bernard de Verdun, for example, rejects al-Bit.rūğı̄’s
models because they do not account for phenomena such as the sizes and
distances of the planets.39 Indeed, Pierre d’ Ailly reports that astronomers
on the whole rejected al-Bit.rūğı̄, again because his models do not explain
adequately conjunctions and retrogradations.40 D’ Ailly is particularly
suitable for comparison with our author because he too is interested
38 These relations are discussed by O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical
Astronomy, vol.  (Berlin, Heidelberg and New York, ): –, .
39 P. Duhem, Sauver les apparences, nd ed. (Paris, ): –.
40 E. Grant, “Celestial Motions in the Late Middle Ages,” Early Science and Medicine,
vol. , no. , Medieval Cosmologies (): –, at p. . D’ Ailly himself felt that al-
Bit.rūğı̄’s system was “probable.” My thanks are extended to B.R. Goldstein for referring
me to the work of Duhem and Grant.
 y. tzvi langermann
in dynamics; more specifically, he speaks of a power (virtus) by means

of which the planet “inclines” (inclinat) to follow the primum mobile.41
I believe that he, like our author, has in mind the notion of impetus;
the Arabic term, mayl, literally means inclination (and is so used in
astronomy when speaking, for example, of the angle between the ecliptic
and equator).
Magnetism
We begin with the chapter on “substance and corporeality” (íöòá øåáãä

úåîùâáå); once again, our author’s concern with unity is paramount. His
long discourse on the notion of “unity,” parts of which were discussed
earlier on in this paper, and his quest to uphold the one, transcendent,
creator God, leads him to investigate the subject of motion (fol. a).
The heavens, “even though they are created, are eternal, along with their
force, as can be seen from their motion. Thus for us too, who believe in
the creation of the world, it is clear that the mover of heaven is not a force
within a body, but necessarily is beyond the substance of the orb.” Were
the mover a body, it would have to be in continuous physical contact
with the motile, and would itself be moved. Our author boldly states,
“When this is investigated (yehupas)
. it will be found to be true for all the
types of motion”; he then proceeds to back up his claim. To begin with,
he states that the cause of motion may be either soul or nature; motions
are described as “bearing” [or: “carrying”], “pulling,” “pushing,” and
“circular,” the last being compounded of pulling and pushing. These are
Aristotle’s four types.42 Pulling is illustrated by the magnetic attraction of
iron; this too is found in commentaries to Aristotle’s Physics.43 However,
our author must deal with the difficulties that magnetic attraction poses
for physics. I translate the full passage:
Do not let the lodestone or the shot arrow raise a difficulty for you in
connection with our stipulation that the mover of bodies is in physical
contact with the motile from the beginning of motion until its end. For
when the hand [of the archer] disengages from it [the arrow], the air moves
41 Grant, “Celestial Motions,” p. . Grant gives no indication that the “inclination”
mentioned here is in fact natural impetus.

42 See Physics, VII., a ff.; cf. P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics and Its Reception in
the Arabic World, with an Edition of the Unpublished Parts of Ibn Bâjja’s Commentary on
the Physics (Leiden, ): , .
43 Lettinck, Aristotle’s Physics, p. .
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
it, and it [the air] is the first motile in this case. Also, do not be troubled by
our stipulation that a material mover is itself set in motion as it moves [the
motile], by the case of the lodestone pulling iron, which sets it [the iron]
in motion without itself moving. This requirement holds for things that
move as agents; however, the lodestone that attracts iron, and the sapphire
or amber that attract straw, induce motion by way of telos and the like [?],
just as the circumscribing water [induces motion?] in the earth [?].44 It is
the iron that sets itself in motion [?] in order to join up to the lodestone,
which is similar to its nature. It [the iron] longs to exploit it in order to
make up for what it lacks.
Most [physicists choose as explanations] that it [the magnet] sets it [the
iron] in motion by means of the form that reaches the attracted object
via the air, through some sort of alteration, and it [then] attracts it by
means of its specific [of species] form, or else it attracts it by means of
the individual [fiery?] part within it, on account of the relation between
them, and the similarity in nature.45 However, the iron does not move the
lodestone because the force of the stone overpowers the force of the iron.
For this reason, there is attraction for only a limited measure [size?] of the
lodestone or of the iron, and for a limited distance between them. Similarly,
the sapphire will not attract straw until it has been rubbed and heated [in
order to acquire the form of fire?]. Also, the iron does not set the lodestone
in motion because the force of the lodestone overcomes the force of the
iron. It may also be due to the blockage of the parts [pores?] of the iron
and their narrowness, as well as it solidity, so that its force cannot pass and
move without having the substance of the iron move; but because the parts
of the stone are loose[ly joined together], and it has many pores, its force is
emitted and suffices to set the iron in motion. Alternatively, the iron moves
towards that which is its perfection [i.e., enables it to achieve perfection]
and its form.
Don’t be surprised that an object moves towards that which is its form,
since in some things form moves towards matter, in its quest for matter
that suits it. It is like what we see in the case of a burning wick that is
placed beneath a second burning wick opposite [it]. [If] the second one is
extinguished, we see the fire move down from the higher to the lower one,
by the path of the rising smoke, and it [the lower wick] catches fire. [So?]
it may be the case that the lodestone attracts the iron in order to supply it
with what it lacks, just as the air draws in the oil [to the wick?].
44 õøàì íéîä ó÷ä òéðéù åîë äîåãäå úéìëúä ãö ìò íúòåðú. This is a fairly literal, albeit
confused, rendering of a passage in book seven of (the Arabic) Physics (Lettinck, Aristotle’s
Physics, p. ): “The magnetic stone and similar bodies cause motion due to the aspect
of being a goal (final cause) for the body which is attracted, in the same way as a piece of
earth which is not at its natural place is moved by the surface of the water.”
45 Evidently these are similar but distinct explanations.
 y. tzvi langermann
Before reviewing the various explanations noted in the preceding

paragraph, let us remind ourselves of the three problems which magnetic
attraction presents. () Action at a distance, without direct physical
contact between the mover and the moved. () Why is the iron drawn to
the magnet, rather than the other way around, or, alternatively, why do
the two objects not move each towards the other? () The limited distance
over which magnetic attraction is effective.
In the long discussion cited in the previous paragraph, four different
explanations are noted: () Magnetic motion is induced by telos, that is,
the fourth of the Aristotelian causes. When first presented, the explana-
tion is not clear, and the text may be corrupt. However, the matter is clar-
ified very well towards the end of the passage. Telos as cause is mentioned
in the Arabic Physics; however, the elaboration that the magnet is moved
by a desire to make up for a deficiency is, as far as I know, found only
in Quaestio . of Alexander of Aphrodisias. Indeed, the phrase used by
our author—that the iron “longs to exploit” the magnet “in order to make
up for what it lacks”—is a literal, or near-literal, rendering of the Quaes-
tio. Alexander adds that things that lack sensation and soul have a desire
for “what is natural to them”; this idea as well is reflected in our text’s
statement that the desire for “perfection” is so strong that it can cause an
object to move even towards “matter.”46 Just how this passage may have
come to the attention of our author is a mystery; this particular expla-
nation is not cited by Simplicius in his report of Alexander’s views.47 ()
The cause is a form transmitted through the intervening air, by “some
sort of alteration.” This is said to be the view held by most, most probably
because it preserves somehow the principle of direct physical contact. ()
Fire, as noted, which has the advantage of accounting for the very limited
distance over which magnetic attraction is effective. () There is a contest
of “forces” between the magnet and the iron (but not a mutual attraction,
certainly not as in Newtonian gravitation, though there is a striking sim-
ilarity in the basic idea). Both the lodestone and the iron emit a “force.”
However, because the iron is more dense (less porous, to use the author’s
description), its force has a harder time getting out than does the force
within the less dense lodestone. This appears to be Empedocles’ view, as
reported by Alexander in his Quaestio. According to Empedocles, both
46 In Sharples’ translation the attraction is caused “by desire for that which it lacks itself
but the magnet possesses.” See Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones .–., translated
by R.W. Sharples (Ithaca, NY, ): .
47 Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones (trans. Sharples), p.  n. .
a different hue to medieval jewish philosophy 
the iron and the magnet emit effluences. The effluences from the magnet
“push away the air on the pores of the iron and move [the air] which rests
on them like a lid.”48
A bit later on (fol. a, top) our author reveals that, in his view, the
cause of magnetic attraction is the form of fire. “It is by fire alone, but
a greater heat than this will not accomplish it. [This means, I think, that
attraction is a special property of whatever specific heat is in the magnet.]
It will also attract it and set it in motion from behind thin silver or
copper.” Magnetic attraction is ascribed to fire by Ibn Rušd in his epitome
of the Physics even though this is not the opinion he voices elsewhere.49
48 Alexander of Aphrodisias, Quaestiones (trans. Sharples), p. .

49 Y.T. Langermann, “Gersonides on the Magnet and the Heat of the Sun,” in Gad
Freudenthal, ed, Studies on Gersonides: a fourteenth-century Jewish philosopher-scientist
(Leiden, ),  n. , citing MS Oxford-Bodley Oppenheimer , fol. b. By no
means is my treatment of Ibn Rušd’s discourse on magnetism exhaustive; the reader of
this paper kindly informs me that Ibn Rušd has a long discussion of magnetism in the
long commentary on the Physics, Comments VII. and VIII.. There is also a brief
discussion in the middle commentary, book VII, chapter .
ARISTOTLE’S DE ANIMA AND DE GENERATIONE ET
CORRUPTIONE IN THE MEDIEVAL HEBREW TRADITION:
NEW DETAILS REGARDING TEXTUAL HISTORY
COMING FROM A NEGLECTED MANUSCRIPT
Mauro Zonta
In general, Aristotle’s writings were not translated into Hebrew. The

most notable exception is Aristotle’s Meteorology that was translated into
Hebrew by Samuel ibn Tibbon.1 After that pioneering work, transla-
tors turned to Ibn Rušd’s commentaries and the Jews studied Aristo-
tle’s teachings almost exclusively from these commentaries.2 This paper
draws attention to some other important exceptions to this rule, hitherto
unknown, which deserve to be examined in detail.
I had the opportunity to work with Gad Freudenthal recently in a study
on the textual history of an ancient Greek scientific source, well-known
during the Middle Ages: Nicomachus of Gerasa’s Introductio arithmetica.
On that occasion, we examined part of the medieval Hebrew tradition
of the work, and came to the conclusion that the text had probably
been transmitted along two different paths: () via the lost original ver-
sion of Habı̄b
. ibn Bahrı̄z’s
. translation from Syriac into Arabic, known
and employed as a source by the Spanish Jewish philosopher Abraham
bar Hiyya
. for his encyclopedia Yesodei ha-tevunah u-migdal ha-emunah
(ca. );3 () via a corrected and enlarged version of Habı̄b’s,
. written
by al-Kindı̄, which survived in a Hebrew translation by the Provençal
1 See R. Fontaine, Otot ha-Shamayim: Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew Version of Aristo-
tle’s Meteorology (Leiden, ).
2 See M. Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die
Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, ); M. Zonta, La filosofia antica nel Medioevo ebraico
(Brescia, ).
3 Gad Freudenthal and M. Zonta, “Nicomachus of Gerasa in Spain, circa :
Abraham bar Hiyya’s

. Testimony,” Aleph  /  (): –. See also M. Zonta and
Gad Freudenthal, “Remnants of Habı̄b
. Ibn Bahrı̄z’s
. Arabic Translation of Nicomachus
of Gerasa’s Introduction to Arithmetic,” in Y.T. Langermann and J. Stern, eds, Adaptations
and Innovations. Studies on the Interaction between Jewish and Islamic Thought and
Literature from the Early Middle Ages to the Late Twentieth Century, Dedicated to Professor
Joel L. Kraemer (Paris, Louvain and Dudley, MA, ): –.
 mauro zonta
Jewish author Qalonymos ben Qalonymos ().4 In this short arti-

cle, I will try to apply the same fruitful methods we used on that occa-
sion to suggest some new details about the textual history of other
two philosophical-scientific works well known among medieval Jewish
philosophers and scholars: Aristotle’s De anima and De generatione et
corruptione.
These two works were translated into Hebrew in  by the Spanish
Jewish author Zerahyah. ben Yis. haq
. ben Še"alti"el Hen
. (Gracian), while
staying in Rome.5 Apparently, his translations are directly based upon the
Syriac-into-Arabic versions made by Ishāq . ibn Hunayn
. (d. ). Ishāq’s
.
versions were themselves allegedly based upon the Greek-into-Syriac
versions made by Ishāq’s
. father, Hunayn
. ibn Ishāq.
. For reasons unknown,
Ishāq
. was not able to complete his version of the De anima (he reached
De an. a), so it was completed by #Isā ibn Zur#a (–).6 The
original texts of both Ishāq’s
. Arabic version and Hunayn’s
. Syriac one are
missing. They survived indirectly, thanks to their Arabic-into-Latin and
Arabic-into-Hebrew translations. The Arabic-into-Latin version of the
De generatione et corruptione, made by Gerard of Cremona in ca. ,
is still unpublished7 whereas that of the De anima, included in the Latin
translation of Ibn Rušd’s Long Commentary on Aristotle’s work, usually
ascribed to Michael Scot, was published by F. Stuart Crawford in .8
Zerahyah’s
. Arabic-into-Hebrew versions of both texts were published in
critical editions: the De generatione et corruptione by Andrea Tessier in
4 About the latter, see Gad Freudenthal and T. Lévy, “De Gérase à Bagdad: Ibn
Bahrı̄z, al-Kindı̄, et leur recension arabe de l’Introduction arithmétique de Nicomaque,

d’ après la version hébraïque de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles,” in R. Morelon
and A. Hasnawi, eds, De Zénon d’ Elée à Poincaré. Recueil d’études en hommage à Roshdi
Rashed (Louvain and Paris, ): –.
5 For a list of Zerahyah’s Arabic-into-Hebrew translations of philosophical and sci-
.
entific works, see M. Zonta, Zerahyah
. ben Isaac Hen,
. Philosopher and Translator, and His
Role in th-Century Rome, in Y. Lattes, ed, The Jews in Rome (forthcoming); it includes
a revised version of a communication read at the International Colloquium The Jews in
Rome (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, December th, –January rd, ).
6 See M. Zonta, “La tradizione medievale arabo-ebraica delle opere di Aristotele: stato
della ricerca,” Elenchos  (): – (on pp. –).

7 A critical edition of the text was announced by Giuseppe Serra (University of
Padua) more than thirty years ago but has yet to appear. The text is preserved in
eight manuscripts; the best copy is preserved in the manuscript of Milan, Biblioteca
Trivulziana, no.  (= F ), on fols. r–r.
8 F.S. Crawford, Averrois Cordubensis Commentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De
Anima Libros, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versionum Latinarum

VI/ (Cambridge, MA, ).
de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition 
,9 and the De anima by Gerrit Bos in .10 Both editions were
based upon the textual comparison of two extant manuscripts: London,
olim Jews’ College Library, no. , fols. r–r and r–r (copied
by Ya#aqov ben Mošeh Sarfati
. in San Severino Marche in ),11 and
Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, no.  (olim I. VI. ), fols. r–r and
r–v (copied in Central or Northern Italy in the fifteenth century).12
Bos claimed that the former manuscript is a copy of the latter—a thesis
which was only partly accepted by Tessier, who suggests that they may
also derive directly from the same copy of the text.13 However, neither
editor knew about the existence of a third manuscript of both versions:
that of Jerusalem, Jewish National and University Library (now, National
Library of Israel), °  (apparently copied in Italy in ca. –,
as suggested by an examination of its watermarks). This manuscript,
which I have consulted in the microfilm copy preserved by the Institute
of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the library, shelfmark B ,
includes a number of Zerahyah’s . Arabic-into-Hebrew translations of
philosophical works; in particular, fols. r–r and r–v include
his versions of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione and De anima
respectively. In the past, there had been a fourth copy of the latter
translation: the manuscript of Turin, Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria,
A. III. , fols. r–r (copied by Yonatan ben Avi#ezer Kohen of Ferrara
in Rome in ).14 Unfortunately, this manuscript was destroyed by fire
in , and no trace of it has ever been found.
9 A. Tessier, “La traduzione arabo-ebraica del De generatione et corruptione di Aris-

totele,” Atti dell’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie della classe di scienze morali,
storiche e filologiche, s. VIII, vol.  /  (): –. For details about the textual history
of this translation, see in particular G. Serra, “Note sulla traduzione arabo-latina del De
generatione et corruptione di Aristotele,” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana  ():
–; idem, “Alcune osservazioni sulle traduzioni dall’ arabo in ebraico e in latino del
De generatione et corruptione di Aristotele e dello pseudo-aristotelico Liber de causis,” in
Scritti in onore di Carlo Diano (Bologna, ): –; A. Tessier, Verbum de verbo.
Tradizione semitico-latina del “De generatione et corruptione” aristotelico (Roma, ).
10 G. Bos, Aristotle’s “De anima” translated into Hebrew by Zerahyah ben Isaac ben
.
Shealtiel Hen,
. Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus  (Leiden, ).
11 See a short description of this manuscript in A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew
Manuscripts in Jews’ College, London (Oxford, ): –.

12 For a description of this manuscript, see G. Sacerdote, “Catalogo dei codici ebraici
della Biblioteca Casanatense,” in Cataloghi dei codici orientali di alcune biblioteche d’ Italia,
vol.  (Florence, ): – (on pp. –). See also G. Tamani and M. Zonta, Aris-
toteles Hebraicus. Versioni, commenti e compendi del Corpus Aristotelicum nei manoscritti
ebraici delle biblioteche italiane (Venezia, ): .
13 See Zonta, “La tradizione medievale arabo-ebraica,” p.  and n. .
14 This manuscript is described in B. Peyron, Codices hebraici manu exarati Regiae
 mauro zonta
The relationship between the Jerusalem manuscript and the other

two (those of London and Rome) has not yet been examined in detail.
Here below, this relationship will be studied on the basis of some sig-
nificant variant readings of Zerahyah’s. Latin-into-Hebrew translations
of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione and De anima, as found in
the manuscript of Jerusalem, Jewish National and University Library, °
. Variant readings, possibly due to errors made by the copyist, e.g., a
different transcription of a letter, are not usually considered here below;
the words and the phrases which are found only in the manuscript of
Jerusalem or in Bos’s and Tessier’s editions, and the corresponding terms
in the Greek and Latin versions of the texts, are in bold type.
Some abbreviations: A = passages of Aristotle as found in Ibn Rušd’s
Long Commentary on Aristotle’s De anima, Arabic-into-Latin translation
usually ascribed to Michael Scot, edited by Crawford; Ar = Aristotle’s De
generatione et corruptione and De anima, Greek original texts, as edited
by Marwan Rashed and Antonio Jannone respectively;15 Bos = Bos,
Aristotle’s ‘De anima’; Crawford = Crawford, Averrois Cordubensis Com-
mentarium Magnum in Aristotelis De Anima; G = Gerard of Cremona’s
Arabic-into-Latin translation of Aristotle’s De generatione et corruptione,
as found in the manuscript of Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, no. 
(F ), going back to the thirteenth century and including Liber Aris-
totilis in generatione et corruptione translatus a magistro Girardo Cremo-
nensis in Tolleto, on fols. r, line –r, line  (book ), and fols. r,
line –r, line  (book ).
A. Aristotle’s De Anima, Arabic Version by

Ishāq
. ibn Hunayn,
. Completed by ‘Isā ibn Zur#a,
and Translated into Hebrew by Zerahyah. Hen
.
. Book I, Chapter  (Complete Analysis of the Text)
.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma
, line  Crawford:
Bibliothecae quae in Taurinensi Athenaeo asservatur (Rome, Turin and Florence, ):
–.
15 M. Rashed, Aristote, De la génération et la corruption (Paris, ); A. Jannone and
E. Barbotin, Aristote, De l’ ame, nd edition (Paris, ).

de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition 
äðä l, r, Bos] äðäå j = A Et etiam; cf. Ar κα.

.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page ,
lemma , line  Crawford:
øúåé l, r, Bos] øúåé àåä j = A magis erit; cf. Ar χαλεπτερον γνεται; cf. also
the Latin text of Gerard of Cremona’s translation as found in the ms. of
Madrid, Biblioteca del Palacio, VII.G.  (magis est).
Here, the Greek term γ νεται, literally “(it) becomes,” might have been
translated into Arabic as 7, “(it) will be made, become,” and this
Arabic term, as corrupted into 7, “(it) will be,” might have been
translated into Latin as erit, “(it) will be” (in one ms., est, “[it] is”). The
Hebrew term àåä, “it” in the sense of “it is,” might even have resulted from
a comparison of the Latin.
.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page ,
lemma , line  Crawford:
íéðéðòä ìëá ãçàå ãçà ìëá l, r, Bos] íéðéðòä ïî ãçàå ãçà ìëá j = A in
unaquaque rerum ≠ Ar κα τις λλη μοδος.
.. Folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page , lemma
, line  Crawford:
ú÷ìçúî éúìá àéä åà l, r, Bos] ú÷ìçúî éúìá åà j = A aut non; cf. Ar ο.
.. Folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , lines – Bos, and
page , lemma , line  Crawford:
íòáèá íéðúùî l, r, Bos] íúö÷á íúö÷ íòáèá íéðúùî j = A differunt abinvicem
secundum naturam; cf. Ar πφυκεν
τερα λλλων.
.. Folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line  Bos, and page ,
lemma , line  Crawford:
äùâøää ìò l, r, Bos] äùâøää ìò åà j = A aut de sentire; cf. Ar κα τ
ασνεσαι.
The Greek term κα, “and,” was probably translated into Arabic as -,
“and,” but the latter might have been altered into
, “or.” This fact might
explain both the Latin version (aut, “or”) and the Hebrew one (åà, “or”).
.. Folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , line  Bos, and page ,
lemma , lines – Crawford:
éø÷î ìò ãåîòì l, r, Bos] éø÷î úåáñ ìò ãåîòì j = A in sciendo causas
accidentium; cf. Ar πρς τ εωρ σαι τς ατας τ!ν συμβεβηκ#των.
 mauro zonta
.. Folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , lines – Bos, and
page , lemma , line  Crawford:
ùìåùîä úåéåæ äòéãéá Bos = A in cognoscendo angulos trianguli; cf. úòéãéá
ùìåùîä úåéåæ j (corrected in the ms.); cf. Ar πρς τ κατιδε$ν . . . α% το&
τριγνου γωναι] ùìåùîä ïî äæéàå äòéãéá j (before correction), l, r.
.. Folio v, line  (a); cf. page , lines – Bos, and page ,
lemma , lines – Crawford:
úåì÷á øáã íåù íäá ùâøåé àìå l, r, Bos] úåì÷á íðéðòî øáã íåù íäá ùâøåé àìå
j = A neque intelligitur aliquid ex eis facile; cf. Ar 'λλ( μηδ’εκσαι περ
ατν ε)μαρς.
Both the Latin version (ex, “from”) and the Hebrew one (ïî, “from”)
of the Greek term περ , “about,” might come from a common different
interpretation of the Arabic version of this term as >, which means not
only “about,” but also “from.”
.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page ,
lemma , line  Crawford:
çëì åà l, r, Bos] åðîî çëì åà j = A aut alicuius virtutis eius ≠ Ar *π το&δε
+νεκα το&δε.
.. Folio r, line  (a); cf. page , line  Bos, and page ,
lemma , line  Crawford:
éøáãä ïë øãâéù äîì l, r, Bos] éøáãä åá øãâéù äîì j = A ab eo quo diffinit
Sermocinalis ≠ Ar διαφερ#ντως . . . , διαλεκτικς.
In the two cases mentioned above, the Latin and the Hebrew versions are
very similar, but are clearly different from the Greek text. This fact might
come from the lost Arabic version, but can also be explained as the result
of Zerahyah’s
. comparison of that version with the Latin text.
.. Folio r, lines – (b–); cf. page , line  Bos, and
page , lemma , lines – Crawford:
ïéðòäå l, r, Bos] ïéðòäå äøåöä ïúé éøáãäå øîåçä ïúé éòáèäå j = A Naturalis
igitur dat materiam, Sermocinalis autem dat formam et intentionem; cf.
Ar τοτων δ μν τν λην ποδδωσιν, δ τ ε!δος κα τν λ#γον.
The presence of the terms “physicist” and “dialectician,” both of which
are absent in the Greek text, suggests that either both of them were
introduced by the Arabic translator, or they result from a correction
which was first introduced by the Latin translator, and was then adopted
by Zerahyah.
.
de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition 
.. Folio r, line  (b); cf. page , lines – Bos, and
page , lemma , line  Crawford:
éòáèä àìà ãçà äåù åðéà l, r, Bos] éòáèä àìà ãçà íåù åðéà j = A nullus est nisi
Naturalis ≠ Ar 'λλ’, φυσικς.
The words “it is nothing but,” which are found both in the Latin version
(nullus est nisi) and in the Hebrew one (àìà ãçà íåù åðéà), are not found
in the Greek text. They probably come from the Arabic version, which
might have been as follows: ?-M/ , @A “it is nothing but the physicist.”
In this case too, it cannot be ascertained whether Zerahyah . directly
employed the Arabic text, or referred also to the Latin one.
. Other Relevant Cases

.. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
úåãåñéä ïî åà ãåñé Bos = A elementum aut ex elementis; cf. úåãåñéä ïî åà úåãåñé
j, and Ar στοιχε$ον " -κ τ!ν στοιχεων] úåãåñéä ïî úåãåñé l, r.
.. Book I, chapter , folio r, line  (b); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
ãáì åìà àì íä ìáà Bos = A Sed ista non sunt tantum hic; cf. íä íéðéðòä ïéàå
ãáì åìà j, and Ar οκ .στι δ μ#να τα#τα] ãáì åìà íä l, r.
Here too, the Hebrew term íéðéðòä, literally “the things,” might result
either from an alteration of the Arabic original wording (@, “these
ones” @B, “things”), or even from an interpretative version of the Latin
term ista (a neuter plural of iste, “this”) as “the(se) things.”
.. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. pages –, lines
– Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford:
íìëî åà ãçà ãåñéî åà ãåñé íäù åà íéàöîðä ìëù ïåéë l,
r, Bos] íéðéðòä ìëù ïåéë
íìëî åà ãçà ãåñéî åà äáøä úåãåñéî åà ãåñé íä åà j =
A cum omnia sint aut
elementum aut ex elemento uno aut pluribus aut omnibus; cf. Ar -πειδ/
π$ν στοιχε$ον -κ στοιχεου 0νς " πλει%νων πντων.
.. Book II, chapter , folio r, line  (a–); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
çë àöîé éë Bos; çë åì àöîé j; cf. A existit enim in eis potentia, but cf. also Ar
φανεται γ(ρ &ν 'αυτο)ς .χοντα δ1ναμιν] çë àöîé l, r.
 mauro zonta
Both the Latin and the Hebrew version seem to have translated the
same Greek term, -ν α*το$ς, “in themselves” (according to the variant
reading found in almost all the Greek manuscripts), in an altered form:
-ν α)το$ς, “in them.” As above, the origin of the different renderings of
this term is not clear: the Hebrew reading åì, “to it,” might come either
from an incorrect reading of the Arabic word !C, “in them,”, as D/, “to it,”
or even from a corruption of the Latin reading in eis, “in them,” as ei, “to
it.”
.. Book II, chapter , folio r, lines – (a); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
òðåî øáã íù äéäé íàå Bos; íòðîéù òéðåî íù äéäé íàå j; cf. A Et si illic sit aliquid
prohibens and Ar ε δ’.σται] om. l, r.
In this case, one might suppose that the differences between the Hebrew
and the Latin text are due to variant readings found in the Arabic version
(but which are totally absent in the Greek one). The Arabic text read
by the Latin translator probably ended as follows: 1 , “something
forbidding”; that read by Zerahyah
. might have been as follows: E- 1,
“forbidding (what) forbids them.”
.. Book II, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
íéø÷îá åà Bos; íéø÷îä åà j = A et accidentia, and Ar τ συμβεβηκ%τα]
åà l, r.
.. Book II, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
äø÷ Bos = A accidit, and Ar συμββηκε] áçø r, j; áåø÷ l.
.. Book II, chapter , folio v, lines – (b); cf. page ,
lines – Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
øáãá ãéîú äéäé ìòåôá ìå÷äå Bos; øáãá ãéîú äéäéù åà ìòåôá ìå÷äå j; cf. A
Et sonus in actu semper fit per aliquid and Ar γνεται δ’, κατ’&ν+ργειαν
ψ#φος 3ε τινος] øáãá ãéîú äéäéù åà ìå÷äå l, r.
.. Book II, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line 
Bos, and page , lemma , line  Crawford:
éë Bos, j = A enim and Ar γ(ρ] om. l, r.
.. Book III, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page ,
line  Bos, and page , lemma , lines – Crawford:
de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition 
äòåðúä ãçà ãö ïî äðáää åà

Bos; äòåðúäî ïéî äðáää åà j; cf. A aut intellectus
aliquo modo motus, and Ar ,δ κινε)] äòåðúä ïî äðáää åà l, r.
The above phrase found both in the Latin and the Hebrew texts, and writ-
ten in bold type, might have been incorrectly interpreted by Zerahyah..
He seems to have read the Latin sentence intellectus aliquo modo motus,
“the intellect moved in some way,” as follows: “the intellect in some way
of movement”; then, he rendered this reading into Hebrew as ïéî äðáää
äòåðúäî, “the intellect as a species of movement.” Such an erroneous read-
ing seems to have no explanation in Arabic, so that it can prove the fact
that, in some points at least, Zerahyah
. consulted the Latin version too.
B. Aristotle’s De Generatione et Corruptione, Arabic

Version by Ishāq
. Ibn Hunayn,
. Translated into Hebrew by
Zerahyah
. Hen
. (Possibly Through a Partial Comparison of
the Arabic-into-Latin Translation by Gerard of Cremona)
. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line  Tessier
(and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, lines –):
íéìãáää åìà äîîåøúðùëå Tessier] íéìãáää åì äàéáä äîî åøúðùëå l, r; åøúðùëå
íéìãáää åìà äàéáä äîî j; cf. G quando ergo removeantur 16 istae differen-
tiae, and Ar φαιρουμ+νων ο.ν τοτων τ!ν διαφορ!ν.
. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b–); cf. page , line 
Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folios r,
line –v, line ):
øãòää ìà áåø÷ øúåé íìãáä Tessier = j; cf. G cuius differentiae sunt propin-
quiores ad privationem, and Ar μ4λλον α% διαφορα . . . στ+ρησιν] íìãáä
äøåö ìà áåø÷ øúåé l, r.
. Book I, chapter , folio r, line  (a–); cf. page , line 
Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, lines
–):
øîåîä àöîð åðà éë Tessier = j; cf. G nos enim invenimus alteratum, and Ar
φανεται γ(ρ τ μν λλοιομενον] øîåçä àöîð åðà éë l, r.
. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (b); cf. page , line 
Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r, line ):
êøãî äæù Tessier = j; cf. G ex via ≠ Ar τα1τη. ] êøãî äæù êøãî äæù l, r.
16 In the ms.: romoveantur.

 mauro zonta
. Book I, chapter , folio r, lines – (a); cf. page ,
line  Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. ,
folio r, line ):
*** Tessier; ïîãæðù ÷ìç äæ éà ãö ìà j; cf. G ad latus cuiuscumque partis
contingat, and Ar παρ’,τιο&ν ε6ναι μ#ριον] om. l, r.
. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line 
Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio r,
line ):
øçàì äîåã j; cf. G similium partium ≠ Ar μρος] øçàì l, r, Tessier.17
Here, the term “similar” found both in the Latin (similium) and in the
Hebrew text (äîåã) probably comes from a variant reading of the Greek
term μρος, “part,” as ,μοιομερς, “having similar parts.”
. Book I, chapter , folio v, line  (a); cf. page , line 
Tessier (and cf. ms. Milan, Biblioteca Trivulziana, n. , folio v,
line ):
éååéùä Tessier = j; cf. G aequalitatis, and Ar σζη] éåðéùä l, r.
From the above philological study of some selected passages, the follow-
ing conclusions can be suggested.
First, the Jerusalem manuscript was certainly not copied from any of
the other two, since it includes some correct words or even passages
which are not found in them. The corresponding Latin terms of those
words are found in the Latin translations ascribed to Michael Scot and
Gerard of Cremona; their correctness is proved by a comparison with
the original Greek text of both of Aristotle’s works.
Second, the possibility that the London manuscript was copied from
the Jerusalem manuscript can be excluded since the latter shares with
the Rome manuscript an evident “polar error”—i.e. an error consisting
in transcribing the opposite of the original word—which is not found in
the former (see above, A..).18 This might confirm the hypothesis that
the three manuscripts do not depend upon one another.
17 But cf. page , line  Tessier: similis alterius.

18 Since a “polar error” cannot be regarded as a real “conjunctive error,” it seems to
have no value as “conjunctive-separative error” either. Therefore, it cannot be used to
prove that two manuscripts (in this case, Jerusalem and Rome) were copied from the
same archetype, different from that of another manuscript (in this case, London). About
this, see D’ A.S. Avalle, Principi di critica testuale (Padova, ): –.
de anima and de generatione in the hebrew tradition 
Third, the three extant manuscripts of the Arabic-into-Hebrew version

of the De anima might depend on its lost copy, once found in the Turin
manuscript, since they share a number of errors which are not found
in the Latin version (see e.g. above, A..).19 These passages were very
probably found in the Arabic version employed by Zerahyah; . some of
them at least might also have been found in the original text of Zerahyah’s
.
translation, and might have been lost when the Turin manuscript was
copied.
Finally, one cannot completely dismiss the possibility that both Latin
versions—i.e., that of the De anima ascribed to Michael Scot, and that of
the De generatione et corruptione by Gerard of Cremona—were occasion-
ally consulted by Zerahyah
. in preparing his own versions of Aristotle’s
works.20
From the above tentative conclusions, one is led to think that a com-
plete examination of the text of the Jerusalem manuscript would be
very useful for a probably better reconstruction of the original text of
Zerahyah’s
. Arabic-into-Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s De generatione
et corruptione and De anima. Therefore, the valuable critical editions of
both texts by Tessier and Bos should be revised, through the comparison
with the Jerusalem manuscript.
19 About some of these errors, see Bos, Aristotle’s “De Anima”, pp. –.
20 As for the De anima, see above, A.., A..–, A.., A.., and A... As for
the De generatione et corruptione, this hypothesis was first suggested, on the basis of some
examples, in M. Zonta, “Le traduzioni di Zerahyah
. Gracian e la versione ebraica del De
generatione et corruptione,” in C. D’ Ancona and G. Serra, eds, Aristotele e Alessandro di
Afrodisia nella tradizione araba (Padova, ): –.
LA MESURE DU CERCLE D’ ARCHIMÈDE AU MOYEN AGE :
LE TÉMOIGNAGE DES TEXTES HÉBREUX*
Tony Lévy
Pour Gad, en témoignage de mon amitié et de mon estime.
L’ examen méthodique des textes d’ Archimède disponibles en hébreu
n’ a pas encore été réalisé ; il conviendrait d’ y d’ adjoindre les textes ou
fragments de textes s’ inscrivant dans la tradition mathématique archimé-
dienne.1
L’ intérêt de cette recherche doit être rappelé : prendre la mesure exacte
des savoirs mathématiques accessibles en hébreu dans le monde juif
médiéval ; analyser leurs sources (arabes, pour une très large part) ; éva-
luer, autant que faire se peut, la portée et la limite de leur diffusion ;
décrire les caractères spécifiques du lexique scientifique hébraïque qui
s’ élabore entre XIIe et XVIe siècles.
Je propose ici l’ édition et la traduction française, commentée, de deux

recensions hébraïques, anonymes, de La mesure du cercle. La première est
la traduction d’ une version arabe du texte d’ Archimède. Signalée depuis
plus d’ un siècle par Moritz Steinschneider,2 cette version hébraïque nous
est connue par un seul manuscrit,3 lequel comprend les deux premières
propositions et une partie de l’ énoncé de la troisième. Je désignerai cette
version par le sigle HA.
* Bernard Vitrac (CNRS, Paris) a lu une première version de cet article et m’ a adressé
plusieurs remarques éclairantes. Il a mis à ma disposition ses travaux, et son savoir, sur
Théon d’ Alexandrie et Archimède. Je l’ en remercie vivement.
1 T. Lévy, « The Establishment of the Mathematical Bookshelf of the Medieval Hebrew
Scholar : Translations and Translators », Science in Context  () : –, voir

p. .
2 M. Steinschneider, Die Hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters (Berlin,  ;
réimp., Graz, ) :  ; idem, Mathematik bei den Juden (– ; réimp., Hilde-
sheim, ) : –.
3 Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Ebr. , fol. a–b. B. Richler, ed., Hebrew
manuscripts in the Vatican Library. Catalogue compiled by the Staff of the IMHM, JNUL,
Jerusalem (Città del Vaticano, ) : .
Le texte de la proposition  a été publié, il y a quelques années, dans G.B. Sarfatti,
Mathematical Terminology in Hebrew Scientific Literature of the Middle Ages (hébreu)
(Jérusalem, ) : § . Le fac-simile de l’ unique manuscrit est reproduit dans l’ ouvrage
 tony lévy
La deuxième recension hébraïque est inédite : je l’ ai identifiée dans un

recueil de commentaires mathématiques et astronomiques, dont on con-
naît deux copies manuscrites.4 Elle comporte l’ énoncé et la démonstra-
tion de la seule proposition .5 Le nom d’ Archimède n’ y est pas men-
tionné. Anonyme aussi, cette deuxième recension est différente de la ver-
sion précédemment citée : dans la mise en forme de la preuve, le style, la
terminologie et le lettrage. Il apparaît que cette recension est issue d’ un
texte (arabe) clairement distinct du texte (arabe) dont dérive l’ autre ver-
sion. Je désignerai cette deuxième recension par le sigle HB.
HA dérive—à quelques variantes près, qui ne sont pas sans intérêt—

de la version arabe, anonyme, de La mesure du cercle transmise par le
manuscrit arabe Fātih. (Istanbul) .6 C’ est manifestement la même
source arabe qui a servi à la traduction latine, attribuable, selon Marshall
Clagett, à Gérard de Crémone (XIIe siècle).7 L’ autre version latine, que
Clagett considère comme la plus ancienne et qu’ il suggère d’ attribuer
à Platon de Tivoli (XIIe siècle),8 s’ écarte par plusieurs aspects du texte
de W. Knorr, dans la partie consacrée à la tradition médiévale du texte archimédien :

Textual Studies in Ancient and Medieval Geometry (Boston, ) : –.
4 ) Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Heb. , fol. a–a ; le codex est décrit dans :
M. Steinschneider, Verzeichnis der Hebräischen Handschriften der K. Bibliothek zu Berlin

(Berlin, –) : . Abt., pp. –.
) Hamburg, Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, MS Levy , fols. a–a ; le
codex est décrit dans : E. Roth et H. Striedl, Verzeichnis der Orientalischen Handschriften
in Deutschland, Band VI,  : Hebräische Handschriften ; Die Handschriften der Sammlung
H.B. Levy an der Staats- und Universität Bibliothek Hamburg (Wiesbaden, ) : nº ,
pp. –.
5 Il ne s’ agit pas d’ un texte incomplet : en effet, la proposition  du texte archimédien
est suivi immédiatement, dans le recueil, par l’ énoncé et la démonstration de la propriété

isopérimétrique du cercle (sous la forme : « tout cercle dont le périmètre est égal à celui
d’ un polygone régulier a une aire plus grande que celle du polygone », laquelle fait
usage du résultat établi précédemment), puis, de la propriété isépiphanique de la sphère,
empruntée cette fois à Ğābir ibn Aflah. et formulée ainsi : « toute sphère a un volume plus
grand que le volume de tout polyèdre régulier dont la surface est égale à celle de ladite
sphère ».
6 Pour une liste de manuscrits, voir F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schriftums,
Band V (Leyden, ) : – et Nachtrag, p. . En l’ absence d’ une édition critique
du texte arabe, je me réfère au seul texte transmis par le manuscrit d’ Istanbul ; il est
reproduit en fac-simile dans Knorr, Textual Studies, pp. –.
7 M. Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, vol.  : The Arabo-Latin Tradition (Madi-
son, ) : – ; p.  : « . . . we must first examine the evidence that links it [the trans-
lation] with Gerard of Cremona ».
8 Ibid., pp. –, p.  : « It is possible that this translation was made by Plato of Tivoli
(. . . ). Plato’ s translations can be dated between  and  ».

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
arabe connu ; elle retiendra mon attention, car elle recoupe certaines
leçons de HA.
Dans la première section, j’ étudie HA en présentant : l’ édition du texte

hébreu, précédé de sa traduction française, et un commentaire qui pri-
vilégie la comparaison avec les sources arabe et latines.9 Particulière-
ment intéressantes sont les variantes de HA par rapport au texte arabe
(AF, pour reprendre le sigle adopté par Knorr) lorsqu’ elles recoupent
les leçons de la version latine attribuée à Gérard (LP = Latin/Platon, et
LG = Latin/Gérard). Dans la mesure où j’ estime HA et LG indépen-
dantes, nous disposons ainsi d’ indications sur une source arabe com-
mune, quelque peu différente de la copie représentée par AF.
L’ histoire de la traduction, en arabe, du texte d’ Archimède n’ est pas
encore parfaitement claire. L’ existence de deux versions arabes différen-
tes—l’ une d’ entre elles ayant été réalisée dans la première moitié du
IXe siècle—n’ est pas exclue.10 L’ étude de HA est susceptible d’ éclairer
l’ histoire du texte arabe.
Dans la deuxième section, je présente le texte hébreu de HB, collationné

sur les deux manuscrits connus, précédé de sa traduction française, et un
commentaire analysant les principales différences entre HA et HB.11
9 J’ ai fait mon profit de l’ inventaire des variantes textuelles dressé par Knorr, qui
a examiné, en regard du texte arabe, les deux versions latines et la version hébraïque
(Textual Studies, pp. –, pour Prop. , et pp. –, pour Prop. –).
10 R. Rashed, « Archimède dans les mathématiques arabes », in idem, Optique et mathé-
matiques. Recherches sur l’ histoire de la pensée scientifique arabe, Variorum  (London,
) : IX, voir p. . Idem, « Al-Kindı̄’ s Commentary on Archimedes’ The Measurement
of the Circle », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  () : –, voir p. . Idem, « Le com-
mentaire d’ Al-Kindı̄ de La mesure du cercle d’ Archimède », Oriens—Occidens  () :
–, voir p. .
11 Rappelons le principe de la démonstration d’ Archimède. Pour établir l’ égalité entre
l’ aire du cercle (S) et celle du triangle rectangle dont les côtés de l’ angle droit ont pour
longueurs respectives celle du rayon du cercle (ou plutôt le demi-diamètre, 1/2 d) et celle
de sa circonférence (p), soit S = (1/2 p)(1/2 d), on établit l’ impossibilité des deux inégalités
S ‹ (1/2 p)(1/2 d), et S › (1/2 p)(1/2 d).
Le cœur de la démonstration repose sur la mise en œuvre de la proposition X, 
des Eléments d’ Euclide : en retranchant d’ une grandeur donnée plus de sa moitié, et
en répétant l’ opération sur le reste, on « finit » par obtenir un reste plus petit qu’ une
grandeur, quelle qu’ elle soit, qu’ on aura choisie. Cette procédure « infinitésimale » a
suscité au fil des époques interrogations et commentaires, qui sont autant d’ indices de
la perception qu’ on avait du statut mathématique et philosophique de ladite procédure.
Pour faciliter la lecture et les références, j’ ai découpé les textes en sections plus ou
moins brèves.
 tony lévy
Cette analyse me conduit à conclure que le texte hébreu HB adapte

ou traduit un texte arabe, qui pourrait avoir quelque lien avec le com-
mentaire de Théon d’ Alexandrie (IVe siècle) sur le premier Livre de
l’Almageste. Le commentaire de Théon fut connu en arabe ;12 il comporte
une démonstration de la première proposition de La mesure du cercle,
explicitement référée à Archimède, bien qu’ elle soit différente, par plu-
sieurs traits, du texte grec d’ Archimède tel qu’ il nous est parvenu et a été
édité par Johan Ludvig Heiberg.13
Dans la troisième section, m’ interrogeant sur l’ identité des traducteurs,

j’ analyse les caractéristiques linguistiques des deux versions.
S’ agissant du traducteur de HA, il convient d’ exclure le nom de Qalo-
nymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles (début du XIVe siècle), suggéré en son
temps par Steinschneider. Le rédacteur de HA semble ignorer la langue
des traducteurs des Eléments d’ Euclide (XIIIe siècle), aussi bien que celle
du traducteur de La Sphère et le cylindre d’ Archimède (justement, Qalo-
nymos ben Qalonymos). Son lexique est proche de celui d’ Abraham bar
Hiyya
. (XIe–XIIe siècle), lequel fut en relation avec Platon de Tivoli, à Bar-
celone, dans la première moitié du XIIe siècle.
12 Il a été établi, par F. Rosenthal, que le texte de Théon constitue une source essentielle
de l’ ouvrage d’ al-Kindı̄, Le grand art / Fı̄ al-s. inā#ah al-#uz. mā, qui se présente comme
un commentaire de l’Almageste I, –. Mieux, certains passages du texte d’ al-Kindı̄
reproduisent presque littéralement celui de Théon.
F. Rosenthal, « Al-Kindı̄ and Ptolemy », in R. Ciasca, ed., Studi Orientalistici in onore
di Giorgio Levi della Vida (Rome, ) :  : –, voir p.  : « It [al-Kindi’ s text]
is a rather slight elaboration not directly of the text of Ptolemy but of remarks made by
Theon of Alexandria in his Commentary on the Almagest . . .. Ptolemy’ s original ideas
are often given precedence, but on the whole, Theon’ s text is faithfully followed. » Je
reviens plus loin sur les références d’ al-Kindı̄, dans son Grand art, à La mesure du cercle
d’ Archimède. R. Rashed les a mentionnées, dans son examen du commentaire d’ al-Kindı̄
sur la proposition  de La mesure du cercle. Voir Rashed, « Al-Kindı̄’ s Commentary
on Archimedes », p.  ; idem, « Le commentaire d’ Al-Kindı̄ de La mesure du cercle
d’ Archimède », p. .
13 Cette situation a suscité débats et recherches au sein des historiens des mathéma-
tiques grecques. On consultera à cet égard, Knorr, Textual Studies, Part III, ch. –, ainsi
que l’ étude consacrée à ces questions par B. Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et La mesure
du cercle », Oriens-Occidens  () : –.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
I. Une première version hébraïque,

anonyme, de La mesure du cercle (HA)14
[] // a // Le livre d’ Archimède sur la mesure [mešihat]

. du cercle.
Prop. 
[] Tout cercle est égal au triangle à angle droit dont l’ un de ses côtés
contenant l’ angle droit est égal à la moitié du diamètre du cercle, et l’ autre
côté est égal à la ligne contenant le cercle.
Q Z A
B G
F
T
F N B N
S
A D
O
[] Comment ? Posons le cercle ABGD et le triangle E, comme nous

l’ avons dit dans l’ énoncé. Je dis que son aire [celle du cercle] est égale
à son aire [celle du triangle].
[] S’ il n’ en était pas ainsi, le cercle serait plus grand ou plus petit que le
triangle.
[] Et posons-le d’ abord plus grand que lui. Et faisons dans le cercle le
carré ABGD. On a ainsi découpé [nehtakh]
. dans le cercle ABGD plus de sa
14 Les passages soulignés correspondent aux variantes de HA par rapport au texte
arabe (AF) et aux textes latins (LG, LP), lorsqu’ elles appellent une remarque particulière ;
celle-ci figure alors dans le commentaire. Les parenthèses angulaires encadrent un mot
ou une expression qu’ il m’ a paru utile d’ ajouter. Les crochets droits encadrent une
explication ou la translittération d’ un terme hébreu.
S’ agissant de l’ édition du texte hébreu, comme il n’ existe qu’ un seul manuscrit, les
interventions éditoriales sont signalées ainsi : les parenthèses ( ) signalent une suppres-
sion, les crochets droits [ ] un ajout.
 tony lévy
moitié, et c’ est le carré ABGD. Et découpons l’ arc AB et ses homologues

[haveroteha]
. d’ entre les arcs en moitiés au point F et autres points. Et
joignons BF FA et ses homologues. De cette manière, les segments ‹
restants › du cercle ABGD auront donc été découpés [yehatkhu]
. sur plus
de leur moitié, et c’ est le triangle ABF et ses homologues.
[] Et si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois, alors nécessairement il restera
des segments ‹ de cercle › plus petits que l’ excès du cercle sur le triangle E,
et la surface rectiligne polygonale que contient le cercle est plus grande
que le triangle E.
[] Et posons le centre du cercle, N ; et menons la perpendiculaire NS.
La ligne NS est alors plus petite que l’ un des côtés du triangle contenant
l’ angle droit ; et le contour de la surface polygonale est plus petit que le
deuxième côté du triangle E, étant plus petit que la ligne contenant le
cercle.
[] Ainsi, le produit de l’ un des côtés du triangle contenant l’ angle droit
par l’ autre, et c’ est le double de l’ aire du triangle, est plus grand que le
résultat du produit de NS par le contour du polygone, qui est le double ‹
de l’ aire › du polygone,
[] ‹ et il en est de même des moitiés ›. Le triangle est donc plus grand que
le polygone ; et il était déjà plus petit que lui ; et cela est faux.
[] Et posons encore le cercle plus petit que le triangle E, si cela est
possible.
[] Et traçons sur lui un carré qui le contienne, et c’ est le carré OQ. On
a ainsi découpé dans le carré OQ plus de sa moitié, et c’ est le cercle. Et
découpons l’ arc BA en moitiés en F, et ses homologues d’ entre les arcs
‹ en deux moitiés › ; et que les lignes passant par les points des sections,
comme la ligne ZT, soient tangentes au cercle. La ligne ZT est donc
divisée en moitiés en F, et la ligne QF est perpendiculaire à ZT ; il en
est de même pour ses homologues d’ entre les lignes.
[] Et comme QT QZ ‹ pris ensemble › sont plus grands que ZT, leur
moitié sera plus grande que sa moitié ; la ligne QT est donc plus grande
que TF, qui est égale à TB. Le triangle QFT est donc plus grand que
la moitié du triangle QFB ; et il s’ ensuit qu’ il est bien plus grand que
la moitié de la figure QFB contenue par les lignes QF QB et l’ arc BF.
Et de même, le triangle FQZ sera plus grand que la moitié de la figure
QFA.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
[] Ainsi // b // TQZ dans son ensemble est plus grand que la moitié
de la figure AFBQ, qui est contenue par AQ QB et l’ arc AFB. Et de même,
ses homologues d’ entre les triangles seront plus grands que les moitiés
des autres segments ( !) ‹ homologues ›.
[] Ainsi, si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois, alors nécessairement il
restera des segments au-dessus du cercle, dont la réunion sera plus petite
que l’ excès du triangle E sur le cercle ABGD.
[] Que restent le segment FZA et ses homologues. La figure rectiligne
contenant le cercle est donc plus petite que le triangle E.
Cela est faux et impossible, car elle est plus grande que lui, du fait que
FN est égal à un côté du triangle et que le contour de la surface polygonale
est plus grand que l’ autre côté du triangle entourant l’ angle droit, étant
plus grand que le contour du cercle.
Et le produit de FN par le contour de la surface est plus grand que le
produit de l’ un des côtés du triangle entourant l’ angle droit par l’ autre.
Le cercle n’ est donc pas plus petit que le triangle E.
[] Et il n’ est pas plus grand que lui. Il est donc égal à lui.
[] Et aussi : comme l’ aire [mešihat]
. du triangle E est égale au produit de
sa hauteur par la moitié de sa base, et que sa hauteur est égale à la moitié
du diamètre du cercle ABGD, et que sa base est égale au contour du cercle
ABGD, alors le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié du contour
du cercle ABGD est égal à l’ aire du triangle E.
[] Et pour cette raison, le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié
d’ une section de la ligne contenant ‹ le cercle › sera l’ aire [tišboret] de
la figure qui est contenue par ladite section et les deux lignes allant des
extrémités de la section jusqu’ au centre.
Prop. 
[] Le rapport [#erekh] de l’ aire [tišboret] de tout cercle au carré de son
diamètre est comme le rapport de onze à quatorze.
[] Comment ? Posons la ligne AB comme diamètre du cercle et faisons
sur lui [le cercle] le carré GH qui le [le cercle] contienne, et c’ est le carré
sur le diamètre, et prolongeons GD en ligne droite ; que DG soit la moitié
de DE et EZ le septième de GD.
 tony lévy
H
A B
G D E Z
[] Puisque le rapport du triangle AGE au triangle AGD est comme le

rapport de  à , et que le rapport de AGD à AEZ est comme le rapport
de  à , alors le rapport du triangle AGZ au triangle AGD est comme le
rapport de  à .
[] Mais le carré GH est quatre fois comme15 le triangle AGD, et le triangle
AGZ est égal au cercle AB car la hauteur AG est égale à la moitié du
diamètre,
[] et la base GZ est égale à la ligne qui le contient, car la ligne contenant
le cercle est plus grande que trois fois son diamètre d’ un septième du
diamètre, à peu près.
[] Donc ‹ il est établi à partir de ce que nous avons dit que › le rapport du
cercle AB au carré est comme le rapport de  à  ‹ et c’ est ce que nous
voulions montrer ›.
Prop. 
[] Toute ligne contenant un cercle excède trois fois son diamètre de
moins qu’ un septième du diamètre . . .
15 Dans le texte : k.m.w.t. (úåîë), qu’ il convient de lire kemot, « comme ». Lisant sans
doute le mot kammut, « quantité », W. Knorr traduit ainsi : « the quantity of triangle AGD »
(Textual Studies, p. ), ce qui n’ a guère de sens.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, MS Ebr. , fol. a–b
äìåâòä úçéùîá ñãéîùøà øôñ //à// []
[]
äáöðä úéåæá ïéôé÷îä åéòìöî úçà øùà úåéåæä áöð ùìùîì äåù àéä äìåâò ìë []
.äìåâòá óé÷îä å÷ì äåù øçàä òìöäå ,äìåâòä øè÷ éöçì äåù
.øåôéñá åðøîàù åîë ,ä ùìùîå ãâáà úìåâò íéùð ?ãöéë []
.åúçéùîì äåù äúçéùîù øîåà
.ùìùîäî äðè÷ åà äìåãâ äìåâòä äéäú ,ïë åðéà íàå []
.ãâáà òáåøî äìåâòá äùòðå ,åðîî äìåãâ äìçú äîéùðå []
áà úù÷ êåúçðå .ãâáà òáøî àåäå ,äéöçî øúåé ãâáà úìåâòî êåúçð ïë íà
.åéøáçå àô ôá ÷éáãðå ,úåãå÷ð øàùå ô úã÷ð ìò ïéàöçì úåúù÷ä ïî äéúåøáçå
àåäå ,äéàöç ìò øúåéá úåøàùðä ãâáà úìåâò úåëéúç äæá åëúçé ïë íà
.åéøáçå ôáà ùìùî
ùìùî ìò äìåâòä øúåîî úåðè÷ úåëéúç åøàùé çøëäá ,úåáø íéîòô äæ äùòðùëå []
.ä ùìùîî ìåãâ äìåâòä åá óé÷ú øùà úåéåæä äáåøîä íéå÷ä øùéä çèùäå .ä
ùìåùîä éòìöî úçàî ïè÷ ñð å÷ ïë íà .ñð ãåîò àéöåðå ,ð äìåâòä æëøî íéùðå []
,ä ùìùîî éðùä òìöä ïî ïè÷ úåéåæä äáåøîä çèùä óé÷îå ,úáöðä úéåæá ïéôé÷îä
.äìåâòá óé÷îä å÷ä ïî ïè÷ àåäù éôì
ìôë àåäå ,øçàá úáöðä úéåæá ïéôé÷îä ùìùîä éòìöî ãçà éåáéø ,ïë íà []
ìôë àåäå ,úåéåæä äáåøîä óé÷îá ñð éåáéøî õá÷ðä ïî ìåãâ ,ùìùîä úøåáùú
.úåéåæä äáåøîä úøåáùú
.ø÷ù äæå ,ïè÷ äéä øáëå úåéåæä äáåøîä ïî ìåãâ ùìåùîä ,ïë íà []
.øùôà íà ,ä ùìùîî äðè÷ äìåâòä ãåò íéùðå []
.÷ò òáøî àåäå ,äá óé÷î òáøî äéìò íåùøðå []
ìò íéàöçì àá úù÷ êåúçðå ,äìåâòä àéäå åéöçî øúåé ÷ò òáøîî êúçð ,ïë íà
íéòâåð åéäé èæ å÷ë úå÷åìçä úåãå÷ðá íéøáåòä íéå÷äå ,úåúù÷ä ïî äéúåøéáçå ô
.äìåâòì
.íéå÷ä ïî åéøéáç ïëå ,èæ ìò ãåîò ô÷ å÷å ,ô ìò íéàöçì ÷ìçð èæ ,ïë íà
ïî ìåãâè÷ ïë íà .åúéöçîî ìåãâ íúéöçî äéäé ,èæ ïî íéìåãâ æ÷ è÷ù éôìå []
.áèì äåùä ôè
(ú)éöçî ìåãâ ãåò äéäéù äæî áééçúéå .áô÷ ùìùî éöçî ìåãâ èô÷ ùìùî ïë íà
éöçî ìåãâ æ÷ô ùìùî äéäé ïëå .ôá úù÷å á÷ ô÷ éå÷ åá åôé÷é øùà ,áô÷ úéðáú
.àô÷ úéðáú
 tony lévy
(éöçî ìåãâ æ÷è ìë ïë íà àô÷ úéðáú) éöçî ìåãâ æ÷è //á// ìë ,ïë íà []
íéìåãâ íéùìùîä ïî åéøéáç åéäé ïëå ,áôà úù÷å á÷ ÷à åá åôé÷é øùà ÷áôà úéðáú
.úåøçàä úåëéúçä éàöçî
íöåáé÷ù äìåâòä ìò úåëéúç åøàùé çøëäá úåáø íéîòô äæ äùòðùë ,ïë íà []
.ãâáà úìåâò ìò ä ùìùî øúåîî ïè÷
.äéúåøéáçå àæô úëéúç åøàùéå []
.ä ùìùîî ïè÷ äìåâòá óé÷îä íéå÷ä øùéä úéðáúä ïë íà
óé÷îå ,ùìùîä òìöì äåù ðôù éôì äæå .åðîî ìåãâ àåäù éðôî ,øùôà éà ø÷ù äæå
ìåãâ àåä éë ,äáöðä úéåæá óé÷îä øçàä ùìùîä òìöî ìåãâ úåéåæä äáåøîä çèùä
ïéôé÷îä ùìùîä éòìöî ãçà éåáøî ìåãâ çèùä óé÷îá ðô éåáøå .äìåâòä óé÷î ïî
.øçàá äáöðá
.ä ùìùîî äðè÷ äìåâòä ïéà ,ïë íà
.åðîî äìåãâ àìå []
.åì äåù àéä ,ïë íà
ä ùìùî úçéùî éë ãåòå []
éöçì äåù åãåîòå ,åúáùåú éöçá åãåîò éåáéøì äåù
.ãâáà úìåâò óé÷îì äåù åúáùåúå ,ãâáà úìåâò øè÷
.ä ùìùî úøåáùúì äåù ãâáà úìåâòá óé÷îä éöçá øè÷ä éöç éåáéø ,ïë íà
úéðáúä úøåáùú ,óé÷îä å÷ä ïî äëéúç éöçá øè÷ä éöç éåáéø äéäé ,[êë] éôìå []
.æëøîä ìà äëéúçä úåö÷î íéàöåéä íéå÷ä éðùå àéää äëéúçä åá åôé÷é øùà
[]
.øùò äòáøàì øùò ãçà êøòë äøè÷ òáåøîì äìåâò ìë úøåáùú êøò []
òáåøî àåäå äá óé÷î çâ òáåøî åéìò äùòðå ,äìåâòä øè÷ áà å÷ íéùð ?ãöéë []
.ãâ úéòéáù æä äéäéå ,äã éöç âã äéäéå ,øùåé ìò ãâ àéöåðå .øèå÷ä
ìà ãâà êøòå ,äòáùì ãçàå íéøùò êøòë ãâà ùìùîì äâà ùìùî êøòù éôìå []
íéðùå íéøùò êøòë ãâà ùìùîì æâà ùìùî êøò ïë íà ,úçàì äòáù êøòë æäà
.äòáùì
áà úìåâòì äåù æâà ùìùîå .ãâà ùìùî úåîë íéîòô äòáøà çâ òáøî ìáà []
,äìåâòä øè÷ éöçì äåù âà ãåîòù éôì
íéîòô äùìùî øúåé äìåâòá óé÷îä å÷äù éôì äá óé÷îä å÷ì äåù æâ úáùåúå []
.áåøé÷á øè÷ä úéòéáùá äøèå÷ë
.øùò äòáøàì øùò úçà êøòë çâ òáåøîì áà úìåâò êøò ,ïë íà []
[]
úåçôá äøèå÷ë íéîòô äùìù (äùìù) ìò óéñåî äéäé ,äìåâòá óé÷î å÷ ìë []
øè÷ä úéòéáùî ...
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
Commentaire
[] Le titre traduit fidèlement celui du texte arabe ; l’ orthographe du

nom Archimède, A.R.Š.M.I.D.S (ñãéîùøà),16 reproduit exactement celle
du titre arabe. Relevons l’ orthographe des versions latines : Ersemidis
(LP), Arsamithes (LG).17 S’ agissant des figures : HA comporte, à part le
triangle rectangle, deux figures distinctes (assez grossièrement rendues)
pour chacune des deux parties de la démonstration, alors que le texte
arabe et les deux versions latines n’ offrent qu’ une seule figure.
[] « l’ un de ses côtés » :
HA ne rend pas le duel du texte arabe : « . . . l’ un des deux côtés ». Le
phénomène n’ est pas rare, dans les traductions de l’ arabe en hébreu,
par exemple dans les traductions des Eléments d’ Euclide,18 quand la
compréhension du texte n’ est pas en jeu. On relèvera cette absence à
plusieurs reprises dans notre texte. Soulignons, par contraste, que les
deux versions latines rendent ici fidèlement le duel : « unum ex duobus
lateribus » (Clagett, p. , l. ), « unum duorum laterum » (Clagett, p. ,
l. ).
[] « Comment ? » :
Cette transition est absente de AF/LG/LP. On la retrouve dans Prop. .
[] « faisons dans le cercle le carré ABGD »
HA recoupe ici la leçon de LG, contre AF, qui spécifie le carré par son
diamètre AG. C’ est aussi la leçon de LP. Cette différence se retrouve à la
ligne suivante, quand le carré est à nouveau nommé.
« On a ainsi découpé (nehtakh)
. dans le cercle [lit. : du cercle] » :
AF a la leçon : « on aura retiré [infas. ala] du cercle » ; fidèlement ren-
due par LG : « separatum est ex circulo » (Clagett, p. , l. ). Tout au
long du texte, HA ne distingue guère les verbes « séparer », « diviser »,
« découper », qu’ il traduit presque toujours par le verbe hatakh. . On
retrouve un usage analogue du verbe abscido / découper dans la version
latine de Platon.
16 Il convient de corriger la leçon retenue par Sarfatti, A.R.K.I.M.I.D.S (ñãéîéëøà)
(Mathematical Terminology, p. ).

17 Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, p.  n. .
18 Voir Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § .
 tony lévy
Moïse ibn Tibbon, auteur d’ une version hébraïque des Eléments d’ Eu-
clide19 utilise le verbe hivdil, « séparer », pour traduire l’ arabe fas. ala et ses
dérivés. On retrouve ce même usage du verbe hivdil dans HB.
« Et découpons l’ arc AB » :
HA, LG et LP ont la même leçon, là où le texte arabe de AF a la leçon : . . .
l’ arc AFB.
« Et autres points » :
HA a la même leçon que LP : « et super alia puncta » (Clagett, p. ,
l. ). Ce passage, omis dans LG, est rendu en arabe, dans AF, par
l’ expression : « au point F et ses homologues (naz. ā"ı̄rahā) d’ entre les
points », symétrique de l’ expression précédemment utilisée pour les arcs.
« ‹ restants › » :
Ce terme, omis dans HA, figure dans AF, ainsi que dans les deux versions
latines. On remarque que la syntaxe de la phrase tout entière est modifiée
par rapport à AF : « On aura donc ainsi retiré [fa-qad infas. ala aidan]
. des
segments du cercle ABGD restants plus que leur moitié, et c’ est AFB et
ses homologues » ; phrase rendue toujours aussi fidèlement par Gérard
de Crémone dans LG : « Iam ergo separatum est ex residuis portionibus
circuli ABGD plus mediatate ipsarum et est AFB et sibi similes » (Clagett,
p. , l. –). Il apparaît que le traducteur en hébreu, soit qu’ il n’ ait
pas compris le sens précis du verbe arabe fas. ala, soit qu’ il n’ ait pas su
le rendre, a été conduit à remodeler la phrase de façon à pouvoir utiliser
encore le verbe hébreu hatakh
. avec le sens de « découper », « sectionner ».
[] « Et si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois [pe"amim rabbot], alors néces-
sairement il restera des segments plus petits que l’ excès [motar] du cercle
sur le triangle » :
L’ argument central de la preuve archimédienne repose, on le sait, sur
cette procédure itérative (déjà mise en œuvre dans les Eléments, Prop.
XII, ) réglée par la proposition X,  des Eléments : en retranchant d’ une
grandeur donnée plus de sa moitié, et en répétant l’ opération sur le
reste obtenu, on « finit » par obtenir un reste plus petit qu’ une grandeur
donnée.
Relevons que LG traduit littéralement l’ expression arabe « #alā mā
yatlū », par « secundum illud quod sequitur » (Clagett, p. , l. ). En
revanche, HA et LP se retrouvent pour rendre l’ expression arabe d’ une
19 Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § .

la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
tout autre manière : « cumque hoc frequenter fecerimus » (Clagett, p. ,

l. ). HA y ajoute toutefois l’ adverbe « nécessairement ».
HA et LP se retrouvent aussi, en ne rendant pas exactement le texte
arabe, lequel indique que les segments restants finiront par être « plus
petits que la quantité de l’ excès du cercle [miqdār ziyādat al-dā"ira] sur le
triangle ». LG, en revanche, traduit fidèlement : « minores quantitate eius
quod circulus addit super circulum » (Clagett, p. , l. ).
« Et la surface [šet. ah]
. rectiligne polygonale . . . que le triangle E » :
HA se sépare ici du texte arabe et des deux versions latines, qui ont
toutes le terme « figure » [šakl / figura]. On retrouve cette différence dans
la section suivante. HA est aussi le seul texte qui spécifie à nouveau le
triangle.
[] « le produit (ribbuy) de l’ un des côtés du triangle . . . par l’ autre » :
HA ne rend pas ici littéralement le texte arabe : « ce qui vient de la
multiplication (alladı̄ yakūn min darb)
. de l’ un des deux côtés . . . par
¯ : « quod autem fit ex multiplicatione unus duorum
l’ autre. » LG y est fidèle
laterum . . . in alterum » (Clagett, p. , l. –). En fait, le traducteur
de l’ arabe en hébreu ne semble pas toujours distinguer la multiplication
comme opération et le résultat de l’ opération (le produit). Toutefois,
cet usage n’ est pas systématique : à la fin de la phrase examinée, HA,
rendant littéralement le texte arabe, donne au terme ribbuy le sens de
multiplication : « ce qui résulte de la multiplication de (ha-niqbas. mi-
ribbuy) NS par le contour » (en arabe : al-majmū" min darb).
.
« et c’ est le double de l’ aire du triangle » :
La leçon de HA recoupe celle de LG (duplum aree trianguli) et LP. Dans le
manuscrit AF, l’ expression arabe est illisible. Il est possible que le terme
taksı̄r, « aire », n’ y figure pas, et qu’ il faille lire seulement « le double du
triangle », mais il s’ agit là d’ une conjecture.
« qui est le double ‹ de l’ aire › du polygone » :
AF a bien ici l’ expression complète « le double de l’ aire (di"f
. taksı̄r)
du polygone », de même que LP : « duplum aree multiangule figure ».
Toutefois, HA et LG (duplum poligonii) ne rendent pas le mot « aire ».
[] « ‹ et il en est de même des moitiés › » :
Comme précédemment, HA et LG présentent une lacune commune par
rapport à AF : « et les moitiés de cela sont aussi comme cela (wa-ans. āf
dālik aydan
. ka-dālik). » En revanche, la leçon du texte arabe est rendue
¯ainsi par LP : « ¯dimidium itaque dimidio maius existit » (Clagett, p. ,
l. ).
 tony lévy
« et cela est faux [šeqer] » :

AF : « c’ est absurde [khulf ] et impossible », formule traditionnelle pour
conclure un raisonnement de ce type. LG traduit fidèlement : « et hoc
quidem est contrarium et impossibile » (Clagett, p. , l. ), tandis que
LP se « contente » d’ un seul adjectif : « hoc est impossibile » (Clagett, p. ,
l. ).
[] « On a ainsi découpé dans le carré OQ [lit. : du carré OQ] » :
Sur l’ usage de ce verbe, voir plus haut, en []. Relevons que LP s’ exprime
ici de la même manière que HA : « abscisum est itaque ex quadrato PQ »,
alors que LG traduit fidèlement le verbe arabe utilisé dans AF : « et iam
quidem separatum est ex quadrato QC. »
« Et découpons l’ arc BA en moitiés en F, ainsi que ses homologues d’ entre
les arcs ‹ en deux moitiés › » :
HA continue à utiliser le même verbe pour exprimer cette fois-ci la
médiation de l’ arc.
AF : « et divisons [wa-naqsim] » ; LG : « dividam » ; LP : « divideres ».
AF, LG et LP indiquent : les deux moitiés ; de même, les deux versions
latines reprennent la mention des deux moitiés pour tous les autres arcs.
« Que les lignes . . . , comme la ligne ZT, soient tangentes au cercle » :
L’ expression soulignée n’ apparaît que dans HA.
« La ligne ZT est donc divisée [nehlaq]
. en moitiés en F » :
On remarque que le verbe « diviser » est enfin rendu ici par un terme autre
que « découper ». On peut se demander pourquoi il n’ a pas été utilisé une
ligne plus haut. Le duel arabe (« deux » moitiés) n’ est toujours pas rendu.
[] « Il s’ ensuit qu’ il est bien plus grand (‘od gadol) que la moitié de la
figure QFB . . . et l’ arc BF » :
Le texte grec traduit en arabe devait comporter une formule équivalant
à l’ expression adverbiale « de beaucoup » ; AF la rend par l’ expression
bi-akthar min dālik, lit. « par plus que cela ». A son tour, LG traduit
¯
fidèlement : « multo plus illo ». HA utilise plutôt une périphrase pour
exprimer le lien de conséquence ; sa leçon recoupe ici celle de LP qui a :
« multo igitur maior dimidio figure ».
AF introduit le point supplémentaire I pour désigner l’ arc BF : BIF ;
et la figure mixtiligne QFB est désignée par les quatre points QFIB. De
même, AF marque le milieu de l’ arc FA par le point S. .
Aucun des trois autres textes ne comporte cet ajout. Cette leçon serait-
elle propre à la copie représentée par AF ?
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
[] « TQZ dans son ensemble est plus grand que la figure AFBQ, qui est
contenue par AQ QB et l’ arc AFB » :
la leçon de HA est celle de LG : « figure AFBC que continetur duabus
lineis AC CB et arcu AFB » (Clagett, p. , l. –). Cette leçon com-
mune est différente de celle de AF. Le texte arabe, en effet, se contente de
désigner la figure mixtiligne, utilisant, il est vrai, des points supplémen-
taires : AS. FIBQ, qui permettent de l’ identifier sans confusion possible.
Par contraste, le texte latin de LP se contente d’ indiquer : « totum igitur
QHF dimidio figure AQB existit » (Clagett, p. , l. –).
On mesure ici l’ intérêt d’ une édition critique du texte arabe, qui, seule,
permettrait d’ interpréter les variantes textuelles.
« ses homologues d’ entre les triangles seront plus grands que la moitié
des autres segments ( !) ‹ homologues › » :
HA omet la deuxième mention de l’ adjectif « homologues », qui apparaît
bien dans AF et LG.
LP, pour sa part, se contente d’ indiquer « alii trianguli maiores dimidio
aliarum abscitionum » (Clagett, p. , l. ).
Il ne s’ agit évidemment pas de « segments circulaires », mais bien des
figures mixtilignes. L’ erreur remonte au texte arabe qui a bien « seg-
ments » (qit. a").
[] « si l’ on fait cela de nombreuses fois . . . il restera des segments au-
dessus du cercle » :
Sur la formulation de la procédure itérative, voir le commentaire de [].
[] « Cela est faux (šeqer) et impossible . . . du fait que FN est égal à un
côté du triangle » :
AF : « cela n’ est pas possible (ġayr mumkin) ». LG : « sed hoc quidem est
impossibile » (Clagett, p. , l. ). LP : « quod esse non potest » (Clagett,
p. , l. ).
Pour calculer l’ aire du polygone et montrer qu’ il est plus grand (en
superficie) que le triangle E, le texte arabe AF considère NA, qui est à
la fois apothème du polygone et rayon du cercle, et mesure donc aussi le
petit côté du triangle rectangle E, le deuxième côté de ce triangle ayant
pour longueur la circonférence.
Ce côté est désigné en arabe comme « hauteur (‘amūd) » du triangle E.
LG traduit fidèlement : « NF equatur catheto trianguli » (Clagett, p. ,
l. ). HA se contente d’ indiquer que FN est un « côté » du triangle
rectangle. LP affirme que le polygone est plus grand que le triangle E
(« ipso enim maior existit » [p. , l. ]) sans donner de justification.
 tony lévy
Il est impossible de savoir si la leçon « AN » du texte arabe est une

variante textuelle par rapport à LG et HA, ou bien un accident de copie.
[] « et ‹ il a été prouvé dans ce qui précède que › il n’ est pas plus grand
que lui. Il est donc égal à lui » :
L’ expression soulignée n’ est omise que dans HA.
AF et LG précisent : « le cercle ABGD est donc égal au triangle E ».
[] « Et aussi puisque l’ aire du triangle E est égale au produit de sa
hauteur par . . . alors le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié
du contour du cercle ABGD est égal à l’ aire du triangle E. ‹ et c’ est ce que
nous voulions montrer › » :
Les sections [] et [] présentent un intérêt particulier pour la trans-
mission du texte archimédien dans la mesure où leur contenu ne figure
pas dans le texte grec tel qu’ il nous est parvenu, même si on en retrouve la
trace chez plusieurs commentateurs grecs (Héron, Pappus, Théon, Euto-
cius). Aussi ces deux propositions sont-elles parfois présentées comme
deux « corollaires » au texte grec reçu.20 Elles figurent, avec diverses va-
riantes, dans les versions médiévales (arabe, latine, hébraïque).
On sera donc attentif aux variantes offertes par les textes examinés ici,
comme autant d’ indices susceptibles d’ éclairer le problème complexe du
passage du grec à l’ arabe, peut-être par un intermédiaire syriaque, puis
au latin et à l’ hébreu.
HA se distingue du texte arabe et des textes latins en ce que ces derniers
indiquent « ce qui résulte de la multiplication de . . . par . . . », là où HA
s’ en tient à « le produit de . . . par . . . ».
Le texte latin LG comporte un trait singulier. En effet, il est le seul des
quatre recensions examinées à indiquer, à la fin du premier « corollaire »,
que le produit du demi-diamètre du cercle, soit la hauteur du triangle
E, par la demi-circonférence donne « l’ aire d’ une figure tenue pour égale
à l’ aire du triangle / est area figure accepta equalis aree trianguli » (p. ,
l. –).
L’ objet de cette incise n’ est pas clair : doit-on y voir une allusion au fait
qu’ on « multiplie » une ligne droite (le rayon) par une ligne courbe (la
demi-circonférence) ? On sait que certains commentateurs grecs, dans
20 Knorr, Textual Studies, voir : Part III. The Textual Tradition of Archimedes’ Dimen-
sion of the Circle. Ch. –. Les deux « corollaires » sont attribués explicitement à Archi-
mède par Héron, qui les présente comme des théorèmes (« . . . Archimède a prouvé que
. . . ») (p. ).
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
leur formulation de cette première proposition archimédienne, ont cru

bon de préciser que la circonférence du cercle était présentée comme
« déroulée en une droite », avant de considérer le produit de la circon-
férence par le rayon.21 Il serait particulièrement précieux d’ identifier le
modèle arabe auquel la traducteur latin a emprunté cette leçon, puisqu’ il
ne s’ agit pas de AF.
Seuls AF et LP indiquent à la fin de ce premier « corollaire » la formule
« et c’ est ce que nous voulions prouver ». Or LP ne va pas plus loin (et hoc
volumus), tandis que AF poursuit en donnant le deuxième « corollaire »
(sans proposer la formule finale). LG place la formule finale (et illud est
cuius voluimus declarationem) à la fin du deuxième « corollaire ». HA ne
mentionne nulle part la formule finale.
[] « Et pour cette raison, le produit de la moitié du diamètre par la
moitié d’ une section . . . allant des extrémités de la section » :
On soulignera l’ identité des formulations de AF, LG et HA exprimant
l’ aire du secteur circulaire.
HA, une fois de plus, n’ exprime pas le duel : les « deux » extrémités,
rendu par l’ arabe et le latin.
On l’ a dit, LP ne mentionne pas l’ aire du secteur circulaire.
Prop. 
[] « faisons sur lui le carré GH qui le contienne, et c’ est le carré du
diamètre, et prolongeons GD en ligne droite ; que DG soit la moitié de
DE » :
Le passage souligné n’ apparaît que dans HA. S’ agirait-il d’ un ajout dû au
traducteur ? au copiste ?
[] « le carré GH est quatre fois comme le triangle AGD . . . car la hauteur
AG est égale à la moitié du diamètre » :
AF a simplement : « le carré GH est quatre fois ADG ».
HA a la même leçon que LG : « quadratus vero GH est quadruplus
trianguli ADG » (Clagett, p. , l. ).
21 Théon, dans son Commentaire au Livre I de l’ Almageste, énonce : « il a été démontré
par Archimède que le rectangle contenu par le diamètre et la circonférence du cercle,

déroulée en une droite, est quadruple de la surface du cercle . . . ». Sur ce point, on se
reportera à : B. Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et La mesure du cercle », voir pp. , , ,
 ; et Knorr, Textual Studies, p. .
 tony lévy
HA, en revanche, s’ écarte du texte arabe et des deux textes latins, les-
quels, pour exprimer le rayon du cercle, utilisent la longue formulation
euclidienne : « la ligne allant du centre du cercle jusqu’ à la ligne le conte-
nant ».
[] « Donc ‹ il est établi . . . dit que › le rapport du cercle AB . . . de  à .
‹ Et c’ est ce que nous voulions montrer › » :
Comme précédemment, dans la section [], HA n’ offre pas cette tran-
sition qui figure bien dans les autres textes.
Il en est de même pour la formule de conclusion.
Que peut-on conclure de ce commentaire comparé ?
• Le texte hébreu HA et le texte latin LG ont la même source arabe :
leçons communes, lacunes communes par rapport à AF, même
lettrage (qui diffère de celui de LP).
• HA comporte quelques modifications par rapport au texte arabe
de AF, attestées par des leçons qui ne recoupent pas les leçons
communes à AF et LG. Cet écart n’ est pourtant pas tel qu’ il mette
en cause la conclusion précédente.
• LG témoigne généralement d’ une grande fidélité à AF ; caractéris-
tique reconnue aux traductions de Gérard de Crémone, si l’ on sous-
crit à la conclusion de Clagett concernant l’ identité du traducteur.
Et pourtant, on a relevé des écarts entre LG et le texte arabe transmis
par AF.
• Répétons-le : je n’ ai disposé que du seul texte arabe transmis par le
manuscrit AF.
Les remarques précédentes permettent d’ affirmer que cette copie n’ a pas
été utilisée par les traducteurs en hébreu et en latin. La comparaison avec
d’ autres copies du texte arabe-source permettrait de préciser ce constat.
LP, qui présente des différences sensibles par rapport HA et LG, devrait
retenir l’ attention de l’ éditeur (futur) de la ou des versions arabes.
On a relevé des leçons communes, peu nombreuses, à HA et LP
(voir les commentaires des sections [][][][]). Comment en rendre
compte ? Le rédacteur de HA aurait-il pu avoir accès à un deuxième
modèle arabe, celui ayant servi au traducteur de LP (Platon de Tivoli,
ou tout autre traducteur travaillant dans le même milieu que ce dernier,
proche du milieu juif de Barcelone, dans la première moitié du XIIe
siècle) ? On ne peut l’ exclure.
Je suggère dans la troisième section que les deux traductions (HA et
LP) ont peut-être été réalisées dans le même milieu, au XIIe siècle en
Espagne.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
II. Une deuxième recension hébraïque, anonyme, de la

première proposition de La mesure du cercle (HB)
[] Prop. 
[] // MS Hamb. a // Tout cercle a sa surface [šet. ahah]
. égale à la surface
[šet. ah]
. du triangle rectangle dont l’ un des côtés contenant l’ angle droit
est égal à la moitié de son diamètre, l’ autre côté étant égal à la ligne qui
le [le cercle] contient.
O B S L
F
M
G A
E
M D S
T H
[] L’ exemple : le cercle ABGD a pour centre le point E ; et le triangle ZHT

a son angle H droit ; et la ligne ZH est égale à la ligne AE, laquelle est la
moitié du diamètre du cercle ; et la ligne HT est égale à la ligne qui le [le
cercle] contient.
Je dis que la surface du triangle ZHT est égale à la surface du cercle
ABGD.
[] La preuve : il est impossible que la surface du cercle ABGD soit plus
grande, ni qu’ elle soit plus petite, que ‹ la surface du › triangle ZHT.
[] Si cela était possible, qu’ elle soit, pour commencer, plus grande que
la surface du triangle. Faisons-y [dans le cercle] le carré ABGD ; il est
indubitablement plus grand que la moitié du cercle.
 tony lévy
Divisons [nehlaq]
. l’ arc AB en deux moitiés, au point K, et joignons AK
KB. Faisons de même pour les arcs qui lui sont semblables [ba-domim lo] ;
de cette manière, nous aurons séparé [hivdalnu], dans la figure ‹ ainsi ›
construite, plus que les moitiés des segments restants, dans le cercle.
[] En répétant cela continuellement sur les segments restants, nous
aboutirons à une figure polygonale dont la surface sera moindre que la
surface du cercle, et plus grande que la surface du triangle ZHT. Que cette
figure soit celle dont AK KB sont des côtés.
[] Menons sur AK la perpendiculaire EM ; alors // b // le triangle
AEK est égal au produit [šet. ah,
. lit. la surface] de EM par MK ; le produit
de EM par AK est donc égal au double du triangle AKE.
[] Le produit de EM par le contour de la figure polygonale ayant pour
côtés AK KB est donc le double de la surface de la figure polygonale. Ainsi,
le produit de EM par le contour de la figure est plus grand que le produit
de ZH par HT ; or ZH est plus longue que EM, et HT est plus longue
que le contour de la figure polygonale, puisque le cercle contient celle-
ci.
[] C’ est faux et impossible.
La surface du cercle n’ est donc pas plus grande que la surface du
triangle ZHT.
[] Je dis aussi qu’ elle n’ est pas plus petite qu’ elle.
S’ il était possible que sa surface fût plus petite que la surface du
triangle,
[] en faisant sur le cercle ABGD le carré LMSO, voyons si sa surface
[celle du carré] est plus petite que la surface ZHT.
[] Si ce n’ est pas le cas, divisons l’ arc AB et ceux qui lui sont semblables
en deux moitiés, en un point ; et menons la ligne SKF tangente ‹ au
cercle › ; et menons EKL. La ligne KL est alors perpendiculaire à SF.
Comme l’ angle K est droit, la ligne FL est plus longue que la ligne FK.
Or FK est égale à la ligne FA ; la ligne LF est donc plus longue que la ligne
FA. Le triangle LKF est donc plus grand que le triangle FKA ; à plus forte
raison, il est clair qu’ il est plus grand que le triangle que contiennent les
deux lignes droites KF FA et l’ arc KA.
[] Ainsi, tout le triangle LSF est plus grand que la moitié de tout l’ excès
du carré BLEA sur le secteur [circulaire] AE EB.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
[] Tu procéderas ainsi continuellement sur les segments [circulaires]

restants, jusqu’ à parvenir à une surface polygonale, la surface A, plus
petite que la surface ZHT.
[] Que cette // a // surface soit celle dont un côté est SF. La surface [le
produit] de EK par FS est le double du triangle EFS. De la même manière,
la surface [le produit] de EK par la ligne contenant la figure polygonale
dont les côtés sont comme la ligne SF est le double de la surface de la
figure polygonale.
Or la ligne entourant ‹ cette figure › est plus longue que la ligne HT,
puisque celle-là [la figure polygonale] contient le cercle.
[] Cela est faux et impossible. Par conséquent, la surface du cercle n’ est
pas plus grande que la surface du triangle ZHT, et elle n’ est pas plus petite
que celle-ci. Elle lui est donc égale. Et c’ est ce que nous voulions montrer.
[] Il en résulte que tout secteur circulaire a sa surface égale à celle du
triangle rectangle dont l’ un des côtés contenant l’ angle droit est la moitié
du diamètre, et le deuxième côté est égal à l’ arc [constituant] la base [du
secteur].
 tony lévy
Hamburg, Staats-und Universitätsbibliothek,

MS Levi , fol. a–a (ä)
Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Hebr. , fol. a–a (á)
úçà øùà úåéåæä áöðä çèùì äåù äçèù äðä äìåâò ìë //àá// //àä// []
óé÷îä å÷ì äåù øçàä òìöäå äøèå÷ éöçì äåù úáöðä úéåæá íéôé÷îä åéúåòìöî 
.äá
äåù çæ å÷å ,úáöð ç úéåæ èçæ ùìåùîå ,ä úãå÷ð äæëøî ãâáà úìåâò :äæ ìùî []
.äá óé÷îä å÷ì äåù èç å÷å ,äìåâòä øèå÷ éöç àåäù äà å÷ì
.ãâáà úìåâò çèùì äåù èçæ ùìåùî çèùù øîåà äðä
ùìåùîî ïè÷ øúåé àìå ìåãâ øúåé ãâáà úìåâò çèù äéäéù øùôà éàù :äæ úôåî [] 
.èçæ
,ãâáà òáåøî äá äùòðå .ùìåùîä çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äìçú äéäé ,øùôà äéä íàù []
úãå÷ð ìò íéàöç éðùá áà úù÷ ÷ìçðå .÷ôñ àìá äìåâòä éöçî ìåãâ øúåé äéäéå
äðåîúá åðìãáä øáë äæá äéäéå .úåúù÷äî åì íéîåãá ïë äùòðå ,áë ëà ÷éáãðå ,ë
.äìåâòä //áá// ïî úåøàùðä úåëéúçä éàöçî øúåé úéùòðä 
úáø äðåîú ìà ïééðòä åðì äìëé äðä ,úåøàùðä úåëéúçá ãéîú äæ åðìùîä øùàëå []
úåæ äéäúå .èçæ ùìåùî çèùî ìåãâ øúåéå äìåâòä çèùî úåçô äçèù äéäé úåéåæä
.áë ëà åéúåòìöî øùà äðåîúä
îä çèùì äåù ëäà ùìåùîä äéäé //áä// äðä îä ãåîò ëà ìò àéöåðå []
.äëà ùìåùî ìôëì äåù ëàá îä çèù äðä .ëîá 
çèù ìôë ,áë ëà äéúåòìö øùà ,úåéåæä úáøä äðåîúä óé÷îá îä çèù äðä []
.èçá çæ çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äðåîúä óé÷îá îä çèù äðä .úåéåæä úáøä äðåîúä
äìåâòäù øçà úåéæä úáøä äðåîúá óé÷îäî êåøà øúåé èçå ,îäî êåøà øúåé çæå
.äá äôé÷î
.øùôà éúìá óåìç äæå [] 
.èçæ ùìåùî çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äìåâòä çèù ïéà äðä
.åðîî ïè÷ øúåé àìå :ïë íâ øîåàå []
,ùìåùîä çèùî ïè÷ øúåé äçèù äéäé øùôà äéä íàù
ä úìåâò [ùìåùî  á ä åá [äá  á åðîî ç úéåæ [ç úéåæ  ä èçä [èçæ  á äøè÷ [äøèå÷ 
áà [áë  á úðåîú [äðåîú  á ïéðòä [ïééðòä  ä åìãáä [åðìãáä  á ä åá [äá  á
á ä åá [äá  á úðåîúá [äðåîúá  á ä úðåîúî [çèùî  á ùìåùî [ùìåùîä  á
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
øúåé åçèù äéäé íà äàøð ,òñîì òáåøî ãâáà úìåâò ìò åðéùò øùàë äðä []
.èçæ çèùî ïè÷
åðàöåäå ,äãå÷ð ìò íéàöç éðù íéàöç éðùá åì íéîåãäå áà úù÷ åð÷ìç ,àì íàå []
.ìëä åðàöåäå ,ùùîî ô÷ñ å÷
 êåøà øúåé ìô å÷ äéäé ,úáöð ë úéåæù éôì äðä .ôñ ìò ãåîò ìë å÷ äéäé äðä
øúåé ôëì ùìåùî äðä .àô å÷î êåøà øúåé ôì å÷ äðä ,àô å÷ì äåù ëôå ,ëô å÷î
åôé÷é øùà ùìåùîäî ìåãâ øúåé äéäéù éåàø øúåé àåäù ïëù ìë,àëô ùìåùîî ìåãâ
.àë úù÷ íò íéøùéä àô ôë éå÷ éðù åá
äà úëéúç ìò äàìá òáåøî øúåî ìë éöçî ìåãâ øúåé ôñì ùìåùî ìë äðä []
 .áä
çèù äéäé ,úåéåæä áø çèùì ïééðòä òéâéù ãò úåøàùðä úåëéúçá ãéîú äùòú ïëå []
.èçæ çèùî ïè÷ øúåé ,à
.ôñ åéúåòìöî øùà çèùä //àä// äæ äéäéå []
óé÷îä å÷á ëä çèåùî äéäé ïë åîëå .ñôä ùìåùî ìôë ñôá ëä çèù äéäé äðä
 å÷äå ,úåéåæä úáøä äðåîúä çèù ìôë ôñ å÷ åîë äéúåòìö øùà úåéåæä úáøä úðåîúá
.äìåâòá óé÷î àåäù øçà èç å÷î êåøà øúåé óé÷îä
.øùôà éúìá óåìç äæå
.åðîî ïè÷ øúåé àìå ,èçæ ùìåùî çèùî ìåãâ øúåé äìåâò çèù ïéà äðä []
.øàáì åðéöøù äî äæå .åì äåù àåä äðä
 øùà úåéåæä áöðä ùìåùîì äåù äçèù äðä ,äìåâò úëéúç ìëù øàáúä ïàëáå []
.äúáùåú úù÷ì äåù éðùä òìöäå ,äìåâòä øèå÷ éöç úáöðá íéôé÷îä åéúåòìöî ãçà
á ä úåëéúç [úëéúç  ä äà [äàìá  á ä øúéî [øúåî  á ä ìäë [àë  á ä àúéì [å 

[åîë  á çèùî [çèåùî  á ä åéäé [äéäé  á ïéðòä [ïééðòä  ä úåøàùä [úåøàùðä 
á ä àúéì [óé÷îä å÷ä  á åîë åîë
 tony lévy
Comparaison des deux recensions hébraïques (HA et HB)
[] Ni le nom d’ Archimède, ni le titre de l’ ouvrage ne sont mentionnés

dans HB. La figure n’ apparaît que dans le manuscrit de Hamburg.
[] HA et HB ne divergent pas dans la formulation de l’ énoncé : l’ aire du
cercle est égale à l’ aire d’ un certain triangle. Toutefois HB déclare égales
les aires respectives du cercle et du triangle, et non pas les deux figures
géométriques elles-mêmes.
[] Notons d’ emblée que le lettrage n’ est pas le même ; le centre du
cercle est déjà spécifié, le triangle rectangle désigné par ses sommets.
Contrairement à HA, HB respecte les règles d’ une bonne rhétorique
euclidienne : il spécifie les données de l’ énoncé (l’ ecthèse) et scande les
divisions formelles (diorisme, preuve, conclusion), au moins dans cette
première partie du texte.
[] « en répétant cela continuellement [tamid, lit. toujours] sur les seg-
ments restants, nous aboutirons à [yikhleh lanu ha-#inyan el, lit. la dé-
marche finira par nous ‹ conduire › à] une figure » :
Cette formulation, différente de celle de HA, exprime avec plus de préci-
sion le contenu de la prop. X,  des Eléments, qui est mise en œuvre dans
la preuve d’ Archimède.
« à une figure polygonale dont la surface sera moindre que la surface du
cercle et plus grande que la surface du triangle » :
Une étape intermédiaire, présente dans HA, est ici omise : c’ est parce que
les segments circulaires, obtenus par la procédure itérative, finissent par
devenir plus petits qu’ une aire donnée—à savoir, l’ excès du cercle sur le
triangle—qu’ on peut conclure qu’ on a obtenu un polygone inscrit plus
grand que le triangle.
[] et [] Par rapport à HA, le contenu de la preuve mettant en évidence
la contradiction ne change pas ; les arguments y sont toutefois présentés
dans un ordre différent, et quelques résultats élémentaires y sont ajoutés.
[] et [] « la surface du cercle n’ est donc pas plus grande . . . Je dis aussi
qu’ elle n’ est pas plus petite » :
La première phrase se présente bien comme la conclusion, conforme
à la rhétorique euclidienne. Elle ne figure pas dans HA [], pas plus
que dans le texte grec d’ Archimède et les diverses traductions que j’ ai
mentionnées, lesquels se contentent d’ indiquer que « le triangle est donc
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
plus grand que le polygone, et il était déjà plus petit que lui, et cela est
faux ».
De la même façon, la deuxième phrase, absente elle aussi de HA,
annonce la deuxième partie de la preuve.
[] « en faisant sur le cercle . . . le carré, voyons [nir"eh] si sa surface est
plus petite que la surface de ZHT » :
En effet, il est alors facile de montrer que la surface du carré est aussi plus
grande (le périmètre du carré est plus grand que la circonférence, soit
HT, et le côté du carré égal au diamètre du cercle, soit ZH).
Cette remarque, qui n’ apparaît pas dans HA, est purement didactique ;
elle n’ apporte rien à l’ argumentation qui suit, dans la mesure où celle-ci
couvre le cas de tout polygone régulier à n côtés circonscrit au cercle, dès
lors que sa surface est réputée plus petite que celle du triangle ZHT.
[] « Si ce n’ est pas le cas, divisons l’ arc . . . KL est alors perpendiculaire
à SF » :
Si l’ argument est le même que dans HA, la rédaction ici en est plus
concise.
« Comme l’ angle K est droit, la ligne FL est plus longue que la ligne FK ».
HA établit le même résultat en faisant remarquer que les deux côtés
du triangle rectangle-isocèle sont plus grands que le troisième (Eléments,
Prop. I, ). HB met en évidence l’ existence de l’ angle droit en K pour
affirmer, sans autre justification, que l’ oblique est plus longue que la
perpendiculaire.
« le triangle LKF est donc plus grand que le triangle FKA. A plus forte
raison . . . que le triangle ( !) que contiennent les deux lignes droites KF
FA et l’ arc FA » :
Relevons que cet argument et le précédent figurent, de manière certes
plus détaillée, dans le lemme que Théon établit avant sa démonstration
de la proposition d’ Archimède.1
L’ élaboration de l’ argument y est différente de ce qu’ on lit dans HA,
où est établi (en utilisant les notations de HB) que LKF est plus grand que
la moitié de LKA.
De plus, le triangle mixtiligne (appelé ici simplement « triangle ») est
décrit, alors que dans HA, il est simplement désigné.
1 Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie », p.  ; Knorr, Textual Studies, p. .

 tony lévy
[] « tout le triangle LSF est plus grand que la moitié de tout l’ excès du
carré BLEA sur le secteur AE EB » :
Nouvelle différence entre HA et HB dans la description de la figure
mixtiligne.
[] Dans la mise en place de la procédure itérative, on retrouve les
mêmes différences par rapport à HA que celles qui apparaissent dans la
première partie, en [].
[] « Que cette surface soit celle dont un côté est SF » :
HA désigne différemment le polygone circonscrit en question : celui qui
est associé au triangle mixtiligne « restant » KFA.
La suite de la preuve est symétrique de l’ argument correspondant dans la
première partie. On y retrouve donc les mêmes différences par rapport à
HA.
[] La conclusion s’ achève sur la formule traditionnelle, laquelle était
absente dans HA. En revanche, l’ énoncé de HA [] (« le produit de la
moitié du diamètre par la moitié du contour du cercle ABGD est égal à
l’ aire du triangle E »), formulation du théorème en termes de produit, ne
figure plus dans HB.
Il convient de relever ici une différence importante entre HB et les
leçons du texte de Théon. Ce dernier énonce d’ emblée la formule archi-
médienne sous la forme : le produit du périmètre par le rayon est le
double de l’ aire du cercle. Cet énoncé se retrouve, tout naturellement,
en conclusion de la démonstration théonienne.2
[] L’ énoncé relatif à l’ aire d’ un secteur circulaire a une formulation
différente de celle qu’ on lit dans HA : l’ aire n’ y est pas directement
donnée comme le demi-produit du rayon par l’ arc, mais comme celle
d’ un triangle rectangle ayant pour côtés de l’ angle droit le rayon d’ une
part, et, d’ autre part l’ arc ‹ constituant › la base ( !) dudit secteur.
Puisque je suggère que HB pourrait avoir quelque lien avec les formu-
lations de Théon (à partir d’ un intermédiaire arabe), il est bon de relever
une autre différence importante entre les leçons de HB et celles de Théon :
le texte relatif au secteur de cercle n’ apparaît pas chez Théon ;3 s’ agissant
de la tradition grecque, il est énoncé par Héron, puis par Pappus.4
2 Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie », pp. ,  ; Knorr, Textual Studies, pp. , .
3 Ibid.
4 Knorr, Textual Studies, p. .
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
Quelles conclusions peut-on tirer de cette analyse comparée ?

• HA et HB ne traduisent pas le même texte (arabe).
• HB ne propose que la première proposition, réélaborée, de La me-
sure du cercle.
• HB ne correspond à aucun des témoins directs, connus, du texte
grec d’ Archimède, dans les traditions médiévales (arabe et latine).
• HB reproduit quelques traits de la démonstration de Théon, quels
que soient les intermédiaires du grec à l’ hébreu. Que peut-on dire
de l’ intermédiaire arabe ? Dans ce qui suit, je suggère qu’ al-Kindı̄
pourrait être un élément de cette chaîne de transmission.
HB : extrait d’ un recueil composite de commentaires mathématiques

En décrivant brièvement le contenu des textes, ou plutôt des fragments
qui accompagnent le texte hébreu de HB dans les deux codex (le manus-
crit de Berlin et celui de Hambourg), je veux donner quelques indices
susceptibles d’ aider à l’ identification des sources possibles de HB.
Les deux codex sont des recueils composites ; une partie seulement
de chacun d’ eux est commune ; c’ est celle qui nous intéresse ici : MS
Hamburg, fol. a–a (à la dernière ligne du texte, on lit « C’ est terminé.
Louange au Dieu de l’ univers.  Iyyar  [=  Avril ] ») et MS
Berlin, fol. b–a (sans date).
L’ analyse des deux ensembles (leçons et erreurs communes, variantes,
lacunes) me permet d’ affirmer qu’ ils sont issus d’ un modèle hébreu com-
mun. Ce modèle, composé de pièces et fragments très divers, s’ appuie
explicitement sur des sources arabes : c’ est ainsi qu’ une expression re-
vient plusieurs fois : « il convient d’ examiner le texte arabe / ïééòì éåàø
éáøòá (de tel ou tel ouvrage) », (par exemple MS Berlin, fol. a et MS
Hamburg, fol. a) ; on trouve aussi une longue phrase, assez peu claire,
en arabe (en caractères hébraïques) (MS Berlin, fol. b, MS Hamburg,
fol. a). Des textes hébreux originaux sont aussi mentionnés.
On distingue les pièces suivantes, dont l’ unité n’ est pas toujours bien
claire :
• Commentaires sur les Eléments d’ Euclide, citant divers auteurs et
divers ouvrages : Les données et L’ Optique d’ Euclide, Archimède (le
nom est cité dans le seul manuscrit de Berlin [fol. b], suivi d’ une
indication peu claire, qui renvoie, me semble-t-il, à La sphère et le
cylindre), Autolykos, Théodose, Ménélaus, Ptolémée, al-Kindı̄ (un
 tony lévy
long commentaire de Prop. VI,  des Eléments), al-Fārābı̄, Ibn al-

Haytam, al-Ant.akı̄ (nombreuses occurrences de son commentaire
sur ¯les Eléments), Ğābir ibn Aflah. (plusieurs écrits), Ibn Rušd ;
Abraham bar Hiyya,. Abraham ibn Ezra, Levi ben Abraham ben
Hayyim, Jacob ben Makhir. 5
.
• Le commentaire des prémisses du Livre X des Eléments dû à Ibn al-
Haytam, dans la traduction de Qalonymos ben Qalonymos ().
• ¯
Le commentaire des prémisses des Livres I et V des Eléments dû
à al-Fārābı̄, dans la traduction de Moïse ibn Tibbon (vers ) ;
incomplet.6
• Extraits de l’ épître de Ğābir ibn Aflah. sur les rapports composés,
critiquant Tābit ibn Qurra sur le même sujet.
• Le texte de¯HB, sans mention du nom d’ Archimède ou du titre de
l’ ouvrage.
• Commençant, sans transition, sur la même ligne que celle qui con-
clut HB, viennent l’ énoncé et la preuve de la propriété isopérimé-
trique du cercle : « tout cercle dont le périmètre est égal à celui d’ un
polygone régulier a une aire plus grande que celle du polygone (ìë
äçèù äðä ,úåéåæä úáø úåòìöä äåù äðåîú óé÷îì äåù äôé÷î å÷ äéäé äìåâò
úåòìöä äáøä çèùî øúåé) ».7
• Enfin le dernier extrait s’ ouvre sur les mots : « Paroles de Ğābir
ibn Aflah. dans son [livre sur l’] Almageste » ; suivent l’ énoncé et
une preuve de la propriété isépiphanique de la sphère (MS Ham-
burg, fol. b–b ; MS Berlin, fol. a–a) : « toute sphère a
un volume plus grand que le volume de tout polyèdre régulier dont
5 R. Rashed a signalé et exploité un commentaire arabe anonyme des Eléments
d’ Euclide « où l’ auteur cite, parmi d’ autres, Tābit ibn Qurra, al-Nayrizı̄, al-Ant.akı̄, Ibn
al-Haytam, Ibn Hūd aussi bien qu’ al-Dimašqı̄ ¯ » ; il s’ agit de MS Hyderabad, Osmania
¯ . Voir R. Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle,
University
vol.  (Londres, ), p.  ainsi que p.  n.  et p.  n. . Il serait intéressant de
vérifier la possibilité de quelque rapport entre ce texte arabe et les fragments hébraïques
mentionnés ci-dessus.
6 Gad Freudenthal, « La philosophie de la géométrie d’ al-Fārābı̄. Son commentaire
sur le début du Ier livre et le début du Ve livre des ‘Eléments’ d’ Euclide », Jerusalem Studies
in Arabic and Islam  () : –.
7 Soulignons ceci : les résultats énoncés et établis ici, tant pour le cercle que pour la
sphère, portent sur les polygones (resp. les polyèdres) réguliers ayant même périmètre
(resp. même aire latérale) que le cercle (resp. la sphère). Ces propriétés du cercle et de
la sphère, valent, on le sait, pour des polygones (resp. polyèdres) quelconques. C’ est
sous cette forme générale que la plupart (mais pas tous) des textes grecs, arabes et latin,
présentent et établissent le résultat ; la dernière étape de la démonstration concerne alors
les polygones (resp. les polyèdres) réguliers.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
la surface est égale à celle de ladite sphère [úãî äðä,øåãë ìë ...

èåùôì äåù åèåùô äéäé íéçèùä äåù íùâåî ìë úãîî [ä]ìåãâ øúåé åîùâåî
øåãëä åúåà] ».8
Théon / . . . /al-Kindı̄ / . . . /HB ?

Le Commentaire de Théon offre un exposé complet de la proposition 
de La mesure du cercle ;9 toutefois l’ énoncé est différent de celui du texte
d’ Archimède (édité par Heiberg) et la démonstration, quoique respec-
tant l’ argument démonstratif du texte grec reçu, est plus détaillée. De
8 L’ ouvrage de l’ astronome sévillan du XIIe siècle, connu sous le titre Islāh al-Mağistı̄ /
. . .
Révision de l’ Almageste, ou simplement Livre d’ astronomie, fut traduit deux fois en
hébreu au XIIIe siècle ; il est souvent cité dans la littérature mathématique hébraïque. Voir
R. Lorch, « The Astronomy of Jabir ibn Aflah », Centaurus  () : –. Aux sources
arabes indiquées par Lorch, il convient d’ ajouter les copies transcrites en caractères
hébraïques, récemment indiquées dans Y.T. Langermann, « Arabic Writings in Hebrew
Manuscripts. A Preliminary Relisting », Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  () : –
, voir p. . Lorch a souligné l’ existence de deux états distincts du texte arabe (« The
Astronomy of Jabir », pp. –).
J’ ai examiné le texte de notre passage dans les deux versions hébraïques : celle de
Moïse ibn Tibbon, réalisée en , et celle de Jacob ben Makhir (réalisée au plus tard
en –, date de la mort de Jacob) révisée par Samuel de Marseille en  (il
semble que la version de Jacob ben Makhir, non révisée, ne nous soit pas parvenue).
Les deux versions se distinguent par leur terminologie, leur style et, au moins dans le
passage qui nous intéresse, par leur contenu. C’ est ainsi que Moïse ibn Tibbon ne fait
pas référence, dans la preuve, à la propriété selon laquelle les seuls polyèdres réguliers
sont les cinq solides « mentionnés par Euclide [Prop. XIII,  ; il s’ agit des polyèdres dits
platoniciens] » (Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Opp. Add. Fol.  [Neubauer ], fol. a–
a, voir fol. a–b. Je remercie vivement Juliane Lay [Paris], qui a obligeamment mis à
ma disposition un microfilm du manuscrit d’ Oxford). C’ est en revanche le cas dans la
version Jacob ben Makhir / Samuel de Marseille (Paris, BNF, MSS Hebr. , fol. b–
a ; , fol. a–b ; , fol. b–a ; , fol. a–b).
Le passage accompagnant le texte hébreu de HB (énoncé et démonstration par Ğābir
de la propriété isépiphanique de la sphère) se distingue du texte de Moïse ibn Tibbon par
la terminologie et le style ; il comporte la référence aux cinq solides platoniciens, absente
du texte de Moïse ibn Tibbon. Ce passage, en revanche, est très « proche » de la version
Jacob / Samuel, en dépit de quelques menues variantes terminologiques. J’ ai pu consulter
deux des copies du texte arabe de Ğābir dont le contenu, au moins pour le passage qui
nous concerne, correspond à la version Jacob ben Makhir / Samuel de Marseille (par
exemple, Escorial, Biblioteca del Monasterio, MS Ar. , fol. a–a. Un grand merci à
Henri Hugonnard-Roche [CNRS, Paris] qui a mis à ma disposition sa copie de plusieurs
des manuscrits arabes de Ğābir, ainsi que des extraits de son édition critique du texte
jabirien, non publiée) : il est difficile de décider si le passage hébreu nous concernant (HB)
est traduit directement à partir de l’ arabe (auquel il est très fidèle), ou bien s’ il reproduit,
avec quelques écarts, la version de Jacob ben Makhir / Samuel de Marseille.
La propriété isopérimétrique du cercle ne fait pas l’ objet d’ une preuve spécifique par
Ğābir.
9 Vitrac, « Théon d’ Alexandrie et la Mesure du cercle », pp. –.
 tony lévy
surcroît, elle comporte un lemme préliminaire10 dont le texte hébreu HB

porte trace (voir mon commentaire aux sections [] et []), même
si ce dernier se distingue nettement du texte théonien. Il est haute-
ment probable que ce trait particulier à HB figurait déjà dans la source
(arabe) de ce dernier. Tout naturellement, je me suis demandé si ce
« mélange » était attesté dans le commentaire à l’Almageste d’ al-Kindı̄,
qui semble avoir largement puisé dans le commentaire de Théon.11 Mal-
heureusement, al-Kindı̄, lorsqu’ il mentionne la première des trois pro-
positions archimédiennes que nous a transmises La mesure du cercle,
nous renvoie à un autre de ses ouvrages, qui est resté introuvable, Sur
les sphériques.12
Dans le tableau qui suit, j’ ai placé en regard un passage du texte de
Théon et le passage qui lui correspond dans le commentaire de l’Alma-
geste, dû à al-Kindı̄. On pourra y mesurer la grande fidélité du texte arabe
par rapport au texte grec (les expressions reproduites en caractères gras
soulignent les différences de contenu relevées entre les deux textes).
Pourquoi ce passage-là en particulier ? C’ est qu’ on y trouve énoncées
les trois propositions archimédiennes, ainsi qu’ une preuve de la propo-
sition rapportant le carré du diamètre à l’ aire du cercle.13
Ce passage met en jeu les trois propositions de La mesure du cercle,
dans des énoncés qui ne recouvrent pas exactement ceux du texte grec
d’ Archimède : ) on obtient l’ aire du cercle en multipliant le diamètre
par le quart de sa circonférence ; ) la longueur de la circonférence
est « proche » de trois fois son diamètre augmenté d’ un septième de ce
diamètre ; ) le carré du diamètre relativement à l’ aire du cercle est dans le
rapport de  à . C’ est cette dernière proposition qui est démontrée par
Théon (et reproduite quasi-littéralement par al-Kindı̄) ; elle correspond
à la proposition  du texte grec d’ Archimède ; les deux preuves sont
clairement différentes.14 Du reste, Théon ne précise pas l’ auteur da la
preuve qu’ il rapporte.
10 Ibid., pp. –.

11 Voir ci-dessus, n. .
12 Rashed, « Al-Kindi’ s Commentary on Archimedes », p.  n.  ; idem, « Commen-
taire d’ al-Kindi de la Mesure du cercle », p.  n. .

13 On sait que, dans le texte grec reçu, cette proposition porte le numéro , alors que
sa démonstration requiert la connaissance de la « troisième » proposition !

14 Voir ci-dessus le texte de la proposition  du texte hébreu HA.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
Al-Kindı̄, Fı̄ al- s. inā"ah al-"uzmā,

.
pp. –. Édité par ‘Azmı̄ Taha . al-
Théon, Commentaire à l’AlmagesteI, . Sayyid Ahmad
. (Nicosie / Chypre, ) ;
Texte grec et trad. dans Vitrac, « Théon accompagné d’ une traduction arabe
d’ Alexandrie et la Mesure du cercle », commentée de l’ article de F. Rosenthal,
pp. – « al-Kindı̄ and Ptolemy ».
Puisqu’ ensuite il a été démontré par Nous avons montré dans notre livre
Archimède que le rectangle contenu Sur les sphériques que si le périmètre du
par le diamètre et la circonférence du cercle est multiplié par son diamètre,
cercle—déroulée en une droite—est le rectangle qui en résulte est quatre
quadruple de la surface du cercle, donc fois l’ aire du cercle, et que le produit
celui ‹ contenu › par le diamètre et la du diamètre du cercle par le quart de la
e partie de la circonférence est égal circonférence est égal à l’ aire du cercle ;
à la surface du cercle ; c’ est pourquoi alors le rapport du carré du diamètre
on trouve que le carré sur le diamètre, du cercle à l’ aire du cercle est comme le
relativement à la surface du cercle, a rapport de quatorze à onze.15
comme rapport celui de  à  de la La preuve de cela. Il a été dit que la
manière suivante. circonférence du cercle est à peu près
Puisqu’ en effet la circonférence est triple trois fois son diamètre et un septième ;
du diamètre et plus grande en plus par donc si la longueur du diamètre [fa-bil-
la septième partie, donc, par exemple, si miqdār alladı̄ yakūn bihi al-qut. r] est sept,
le diamètre est , de ceux-ci d’ une part ¯
alors ‹ la longueur de › la circonférence
la circonférence devient , d’ autre part du cercle est vingt-deux, dont le quart
leur  [quart] :   [ / ] ; de sorte aussi est cinq et demi ; donc si la grandeur
que si le carré ‹ du diamètre est › , de du carré du diamètre [fa-bil- miqdār
ceux-ci le cercle est   [ / ]. Et en les alladı̄ bihi yakūn murabba" al-qut. r]
doublant pour l’ élimination du demi, ¯
est quarante-neuf, alors ‹ la grandeur
nous exhiberons par exemple le carré de › l’ aire du cercle est trente-huit et
de  et de ceux-ci le cercle de  ; et demi ; si nous doublons cela afin que le
le rapport de ceux-ci, en les plus petits nombre ne comporte pas de fraction,
nombres, est celui de  relativement alors la grandeur du carré du diamètre
à  ; car leur plus grande commune est quatre-vingt-dix-huit, et l’ aire du
mesure est , qui mesure d’ une part  cercle est soixante-dix-sept ; et les plus
selon , d’ autre part  selon  . . . petits nombres correspondant à ce
rapport donnent le rapport de quatorze à
onze, puisque le plus grand des nombres
mesurant en commun quatre-vingt-
dix-huit et soixante-dix-sept est sept, et
que sept mesure quatre-vingt-dix-huit
quatorze fois et mesure soixante-dix-sept
onze fois . . .
Quelle conclusion peut-on tirer de ces remarques quant aux sources

possibles du texte hébreu HB ?
Un (lointain) rapport entre la démonstration théonienne de la propo-
sition d’ Archimède et le texte de HB a été relevé. L’ exploitation par al-
Kindı̄, dans son propre commentaire de l’Almageste, du commentaire de
15 Ce paragraphe est cité et traduit dans R. Rashed, « Commentaire d’ al-Kindi de la
Mesure du cercle », p. .
 tony lévy
Théon paraît bien établie. Tant qu’ on ne retrouvera pas l’ ouvrage perdu
d’ al-Kindı̄, ou une citation reproduisant sa preuve de la première propo-
sition, on ne pourra évidemment pas affirmer l’ existence d’ un lien tex-
tuel entre al-Kindı̄ et le texte hébreu HB. La question n’ en reste pas moins
posée.
III. A propos des traducteurs en hébreu
Steinschneider avait suggéré—fort prudemment au demeurant—que Qa-

lonymos ben Qalonymos d’ Arles (–après ) pouvait être le tra-
ducteur de HA,16 dans la mesure où il avait traduit l’ autre traité d’ Archi-
mède, La sphère et le cylindre.17
Examinant la terminologie de HA, Sarfatti a conclu qu’ il paraissait peu
probable que Qalonymos fût le traducteur de HA.18
Comparant judicieusement la terminologie hébraïque de Qalonymos,
dans sa traduction de La sphère et le cylindre (I, –) à la terminologie
de HA, Wilbur Knorr a conclu que ces deux écrits ne pouvaient être
l’ œuvre du même traducteur.19 Autrement dit, Qalonymos ne peut pas
être l’ auteur de la traduction transmise par HA.
Je souscris à la conclusion négative formulée par Sarfatti et Knorr concer-

nant l’ identité du traducteur de HA. Pour ma part, en comparant les ver-
sions HA et HB entre elles, et en les comparant séparément à d’ autres
textes mathématiques hébraïques qui me sont connus, je formule les
hypothèses suivantes :
• HA est l’ œuvre d’ un traducteur qui emprunte à la terminologie éla-
borée par Abraham bar Hiyya. (env. –), et qui ne mani-
feste guère de familiarité avec la langue élaborée et popularisée par
les traducteurs du XIIIe siècle : en dépit de la brièveté du texte, on
peut en effet distinguer un petit nombre de verbes, adjectifs, par-
ticules, constituant un fonds que nous repérons dans des écrits du
16 Steinschneider, Mathematik bei den Juden, p.  n.° : « Archimedes, de mensura
circuli, wahrscheinlich nach Thabit’ s arabischer Übersetzung, dürfte von Kalonymos

übersetzt sein ». L’ attribution de la traduction arabe à Tābit ne semble avoir aucun
fondement (voir Rashed, « Al-Kindı̄’ s Commentary », p. ¯ ; idem, « Commentaire d’ al-
Kindi », p. ).
17 Steinschneider, Mathematik bei den Juden, p.  n.°.
18 Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § .
19 Knorr, Textual Studies, pp. –.
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
XIIe siècle, et des expressions et termes que nous ne retrouvons plus,

par exemple, dans les versions hébraïques des Eléments qui nous
sont connues, ou simplement dans HB.
Voici les termes ou expressions figurant dans HA que nous ne trouvons
que dans le lexique géométrique de Bar Hiyya . :20 mešiha
. ou tišboret
= l’ aire ou la mesure de l’ aire d’ une figure ; šet. ah. ha-merubbeh ha-
zawiyyot21 = la surface aux angles nombreux ; ‘erekh = le rapport.
Trois termes semblent être d’ un usage propre à HA : tavnit = la figure ;
ribbuy = le produit [d’ une grandeur par une autre] ; noga#im = [droites]
tangentes. S’ il est vrai que Bar Hiyya,
. comme la plupart de ses succes-
seurs, utilise couramment le terme temuna pour désigner « la figure », le
terme tavnit apparaît toutefois sous sa plume pour désigner « la configu-
ration » ou « la forme ».22 Ribbuy désigne couramment la « multiplicité »
chez Bar Hiyya, 23 lequel exprime « le produit » des deux grandeurs par le
.
terme ribbua", très proche graphiquement et phonétiquement du précé-
dent, dans des formulations strictement homologues à celles qui appa-
raissent dans HA.24 Pour désigner les (droites) tangentes, Bar Hiyya .
utilise, comme la plupart de ses successeurs, la racine verbale mašaš,
« toucher, effleurer », phonétiquement et sémantiquement apparentée à
l’ arabe massa. La racine verbale naga#, qui signifie aussi « toucher, être
en contact avec », n’ est attestée pour la première fois dans son sens géo-
métrique, à ma connaissance, que dans un ouvrage d’ astronomie et de
calculs calendaires rédigé en  à Tolède par Isaac Israeli.25
La deuxième caractéristique de HA est la présence de plusieurs leçons

communes avec LP, différentes de leçons communes à AF et LG. Nous
20 Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, §§ –.

21 L’ expression la plus fréquente, chez Bar Hiyya, est šet. ah. ha-marbeh s. ela#im = la
.
surface aux côtés nombreux.
22 Voir le titre de son ouvrage de cosmographie : Surat ha-ares we-tavnit ha-šamayim/
. .
La forme de la terre et la configuration du ciel. On trouve aussi, dans son ouvrage de
géométrie pratique (Hibbur . ha-mešiha
. we ha-tišboret = Le livre de la surface et de la
mesure), pour désigner la similitude de deux figures, l’ expression domeh be-tavnit =
semblable en forme ; voir texte hébreu édité par M. Guttmann, Chibbur ha-Meschicha
we ha-Tischboret (Berlin, ) : , ll. , , .
23 Par exemple : « le nombre est la multiplicité [ribbuy] faite d’ unités » (ibid., p. , l. ).
24 Par exemple : « le produit [ribbua#] de l’ un des côtés contenant l’ angle droit par la
moitié de l’ autre côté, c’ est la surface [tišboret] du triangle » (ibid., p. , l. ), ou « le
résultat du produit [ha-niqbas. me-ribbua#] de la moitié du diamètre par la moitié de l’ arc »
(ibid., p. , l. ), qu’ on comparera aux formulations de HA, dans la section [].
25 Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, § . Ce compendium, intitulé Yesod #Olam /
Fondement du monde, eut une diffusion importante.

 tony lévy
avons souligné que HA dérive pourtant de la même source arabe que

LG, et ne peut être une traduction du texte latin de LP ou de sa source
arabe : les différences de lettrage, de certaines formulations et même de
contenu (absence du corollaire sur l’ aire du secteur circulaire, dans LP)
écartent cette possibilité.
Rappelons les raisons invoquées par Clagett pour attribuer à Platon de
Tivoli la version latine LP, telle qu’ elle est transmise par l’ unique manus-
crit médiéval connu (apparemment copié deux fois au XVIe siècle) : le
texte de LP, dans le codex en question, est précédé par le texte du Liber
embadorum, adaptation latine du texte hébreu de l’ ouvrage de géométrie
pratique de Bar Hiyya, 26 réalisée par Platon de Tivoli. La collaboration
.
entre Platon et Bar Hiyya
. (et d’ autres savants juifs ?) dans la traduction
de l’ arabe en latin, à Barcelone entre  et , semble attestée.27
Que peut-on conclure de ces indications ? Simplement des hypothèses :

HA est due à un savant juif (de Barcelone ?), connaissant, peut-être, la
version latine LP, voire la source arabe de celle-ci. Il traduit dans une
langue assez proche de celle de Bar Hiyya,
. à la fin du XIIe ou au début
du XIIIe siècle.
HB est l’ œuvre d’ un traducteur familier de la terminologie et du
style des versions hébraïques des Eléments d’ Euclide (XIIIe siècle),
26 Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages, p. . Clagett souligne aussi l’ usage d’ une
même terminologie dans les deux textes—LP et le Liber embadorum—en particulier
les nombreuses occurences du verbe abscido et de ses dérivés. On rapprochera cette
remarque de ce que nous avons dit du verbe hatakh . = découper, dans HA.
27 B. Boncompagni, Delle versioni fatte de Platone Tiburtino, traduttore del secolo
duodecimo, in Atti dell’ Accademia Pontificia dei Lincei, VI () : –. J.-M. Millas
Vallicrosa, Estudios sobre historia de la ciencia española (Barcelona, ) : –.
Toutefois, l’ étendue de la collaboration entre Platon et Bar Hiyya . doit être revue à la
baisse par rapport aux conclusions de ces deux savants ; voir, à ce sujet, C. Burnett, « Plato
of Tivoli : Translator of Works of Trigonometry, Astronomy and Astrology », in J. Strayer,
ed., Dictionary of the Middle Ages IX (New York, ) : –.
S’ agissant de la traduction (par endroits, une adaptation) de l’ hébreu en latin, par
Platon, de l’ ouvrage de géométrie de Bar Hiyya,. on ne dispose pas, à ma connaissance,
d’ indication explicite d’ une intervention directe du savant juif dans l’ élaboration du texte
latin, même si la collaboration d’ un hébraïsant confirmé (juif ?) paraît vraisemblable ; voir
mon « Les débuts de la littérature mathématique hébraïque. La géométrie d’ Abraham
Bar Hiyya
. (XIe–XIIe siècle) », Micrologus IX () : – ; p.  n. . Selon R. Lemay,
« certaines traductions de Platon mentionnent qu’ il travaillait à Barcelone dans le ‘barrio
Judaeorum’. C’ est donc probablement dans les milieux juifs de Barcelone que Platon,
originaire d’ Italie, apprit l’ arabe et trouva son inspiration et ses matériaux », voir « Dans
l’ Espagne du XIIe siècle. Les traductions de l’ arabe au latin », Annales,  () : –
, p. .
la mesure du cercle d’ archimède au moyen age 
contrairement au rédacteur de HA. La brièveté du texte ne permet pas

vraiment de caractériser son style : plusieurs des traducteurs connus du
XIIIe et XIVe siècles pourraient être suggérés. Relevons toutefois des
termes d’ un usage courant (pouvant donc éventuellement varier, chez un
même auteur, d’ un texte à l’ autre) ou des expressions techniques com-
plexes, qui sont rendus de la même manière dans HB et dans la ver-
sion hébraïque de La sphère et le cylindre, due à Qalonymos,28 ainsi que
dans d’ autres traductions du même Qalonymos. On peut donc suggérer
l’ hypothèse que Qalonymos est aussi le traducteur de HB, sans toutefois
prétendre avoir pleinement validé cette conclusion.
28 Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Laud. OR  (Neubauer ), fols. a–b. « La
figure polygonale » est rendue dans cette version par l’ expression temuna rabbat ha-
zawiyyot (fol. b, l. ) = la figure aux angles multiples, comme dans HB []. De même
les éléments (arcs, droites, triangles) qui se correspondent sont désignés par l’ adjectif
domeh = semblable, dans HB et dans La sphère et le cylindre.
Un autre rapprochement terminologique doit être relevé entre Qalonymos et l’ auteur
de HB, il concerne l’ expression utilisée pour formuler la procédure itérative. Nous avons
vu que HB [] la rend ainsi : « en répétant cela continuellement [tamid, lit. : toujours] sur
les segments restants, nous aboutirons à [yikhleh lanu ha-"inyan el, lit. : la démarche finira
par nous ‹ conduire › à] une figure ». Voici la formulation de Qalonymos, traduisant Ibn
al-Samh,. à propos de l’ aire d’ une ellipse : « en faisant cela continuellement [tamid], on
aboutira à [yikhleh #im zeh el] » (Oxford, Bodleian, MS Neubauer , fol. b, ll. –
). Pour une traduction française du texte hébreu : T. Lévy, « Fragment d’ Ibn al-Samh.
sur le cylindre et ses sections planes, conservé dans une version hébraïque », in Rashed,
Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle,  : –, voir p. .
UN TRAITÉ JUDÉO-ARABE SUR
LES VERTUS DU TABAC RÉDIGÉ DANS LA MAIN
DU ŠAYH SUFĪ ‘ABD AL-ĠANĪ AN-NĀBULUSĪ
˘
Paul B. Fenton
S’ il est vrai que pendant les deux premiers siècles après l’ introduction
en Europe du tabac par l’ intermédiaire de Christophe Colombe, les Juifs
marranes prirent part au développement de sa culture et de sa diffusion,
les Juifs ne semblent pas s’ être intéressés à ses propriétés médicinales.
Dans son catalogue des manuscrits hébreux de la bibliothèque impériale
de Berlin, Moritz Steinschneider indiqua, en , dans le ms. Heb. ,
un recueil médical du XVIIe siècle, l’ existence d’ un traité en judéo-arabe
sur le tabac. Il s’ agit de la Risāla ad-dāmiġa li-man yunkir1 hawwās. s. at-
tābiġa, « Le Traité qui confond celui qui nie les propriétés du tabac ˘ », com-
posé par un certain Ša#bān ibn Ishāq . ibn Ğānı̄ al-Isrā"ı̄lı̄, apparemment
un médecin qaraïte de Damas.2 Ce traité avait déjà été signalé au XVIIIe
siècle par Hağği Halı̄fa, qui l’ attribue à un Ibn Hānı̄, mais on en connais-
˘
sait aucun exemplaire. 3 Comme nous apprenons ˘ dans le prologue, il
s’ agit en fait d’ une traduction arabe commentée d’ un des premiers traités
jamais écrits sur le tabac, composé par le médecin et botaniste espagnol
Nicolas Monardès de Séville (ca. –).4 Celui-ci écrivit plusieurs
livres, d’ importance inégale et dont le plus significatif fut son Historia
Medicinal de las cosas que se traen de nuestras Indias Occidentales. Publiée
en trois parties (en ,  et ), l’ ouvrage présente des plantes
inconnues provenant du Nouveau Monde, et notamment le tabac. Il fut
traduit en latin par Charles de l’ Ecluse (Clusius) (–), et fut ren-
du en français vers  par Anthoine Colin, maître apothicaire de Lyon.
1 Et non : yadhkur, comme a lu Steinschneider.

2 M. Steinschneider, Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu
Berlin, vol.  (Berlin, ), Ms. Heb. ., p. . Il en donne un extrait dans
l’ appendix XV, p. . Le receuil contient  folios.
3 Hajji Khalı̄fa, Lexicon bibliographicum et encyclopaedicum. Éditeur G. Fluegel
(Londres, ) : :–, nº . Voir aussi vol. , p.  où curieusement l’ auteur
rappelle que le šayh #Abd al-Ġanı̄ an-Nābulusı̄ avait aussi composé un traité sur le tabac.
4 Sur cet auteur˘ voir, W. Bragge, Bibliotheca nicotiana (Birmingham, ) : , nº  et
M. Steinschneider, « Americana Nicotiana », Deborah,  juillet , p. .
 paul b. fenton
Ibn Ğānı̄ explique dans son prologue qu’ il avait décidé de composer
un traité complet sur la question après avoir constaté que :
les gens, même des femmes, avaient contracté l’ habitude de fumer la plante
connue actuellement sous le nom de tabāqū (tabac), et chez les Occiden-
taux sous celui de tābağa, sans savoir si elle comporte des [propriétés]
bénéfiques ou nocives. En effet, ils ne visent par sa consommation ni la
préservation appropriée de la santé ni sa perte, mais ils visent la griserie
produite par les vapeurs enfumées qui montent au cerveau . . .. Par ailleurs,
je consultai un traité en forme de poème dans lequel cette plante est for-
tement louée. Cependant le [traité] pèche par l’ absence de toute expli-
cation, d’ abord, du comportement de cette plante, puis, ensuite, de ses
effets secondaires et tertiaires à la manière dont (les botanistes) décrivent
certaines plantes. Comment [ledit traité] ne serait-il pas déficient car, en
effet, la chose s’ impose à quiconque a un certain savoir dans la science
médicale . . . .
Aussi me fixai-je comme but de cerner complètement la connaissance
de cette plante, c’ est-à-dire sa quodité et sa qualité. Je commençai par
examiner successivement les livres médicaux et les traités scientifiques
malgré le peu d’ acquis que je possédais dans cet art. Je les examinai
longuement, mais je ne trouvai personne parmi les anciens et les modernes
qui fit mention de ce médicament. Puis, je découvris un traité européen
appartenant à un médecin habile parmi les modernes en Espagne nommé
Monardès, dans lequel il mentionne cette plante ainsi que sa quodité et sa
qualité. Je m’ appliquai à la traduction de ce traité en langue arabe, plaçant
ma confiance en Dieu car la réussite procède de Lui.
Comme il a été dit, il ne s’ agit pas d’ une simple transposition en arabe
mais d’ une traduction critique commentée. En effet, parfois l’ auteur ex-
plique le texte original lorsqu’ il pense qu’ il ne sera pas compris. Souvent
même, il contredit l’ opinion de Monardès, et donne son propre avis ou
un complément d’ information, citant une fois l’ autorité de Canon d’ Ibn
Sı̄nā.
Comme on l’ apprend du colophon, le copiste du manuscrit de Ber-
lin était un certain Daniel ben Moïse ben Isaïe. Steinschneider iden-
tifia ce dernier avec le médecin qaraïte, membre de la célèbre famille
damascène Firūz, qui copia en  l’Arğūza d’ Avicenne figurant dans
ce même recueil ms .5 Considérant que le prénom arabe Ša#bān était
l’ équivalent du nom hébreu Isaïe, Steinschneider postula que Daniel
5 Sur cette famille, voir S. Poznanski, « Die karäische Familie Firuz », MGWJ 
() : – ; ibid.  (), pp. –, et Steinschneider, « An Introduction to the

Arabic Literature of the Jews », JQR XI (), pp. –, nº  et p. , nº .
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
pouvait être le petit-fils de notre traducteur, dont la période d’ activité se

situerait, par conséquent, aux environs de .
Cette identification fut contestée par Samuel Poznanski dans son
compte-rendu du catalogue de Steinschneider. Doutant qu’ un Qaraïte
oriental du XVIIe siècle pût connaître l’ espagnol, Poznanski suggéra que
le nom Ibn Ğānı̄, devait se lire plutôt al-Ğiyānı̄, c’ est-à-dire originaire de
Jaën en Espagne. Il voyait en lui, un lettré qaraïte, dans la lignée d’ Ibn at-
Taras, ayant vécu beaucoup plus tôt, peut-être encore en Espagne avant
l’ expulsion.6 De son côté, Steinschneider rejeta cette hypothèse en préci-
sant que la première édition de la deuxième partie de l’Historia Medicinal
de Monardès, qui contenait sa description du tabac, datait de , donc
bien après l’ expulsion des Juifs d’ Espagne.7 Par ailleurs, Ibn Ğānı̄ put uti-
liser une traduction latine ou française et pas nécessairement l’ original
espagnol. Le dernier mot resta avec Poznanski, qui, dans son étude consa-
crée à la famille Firūz, établit que, d’ après la généalogie de Daniel Firūz
consignée dans un rituel qaraïte conservé en le ms. British Library Heb.
., le grand-père de Daniel se prénommait Isaïe ben Salomon, et ne
pouvait donc pas être identique avec Ša#bān ibn Ishāq. 8
.
Nous sommes à même de verser un nouvel élément au dossier qui
éclaire la biographie de l’ auteur. Lors d’ une mission en octobre  à
Damas, nous avons pu consulter la collection des manuscrits arabes de la
Zāhiriyya conservés à la Bibliothèque Nationale Assad où nous avons eu
l’ heur de découvrir un deuxième manuscrit de cet écrit.9 Ce manuscrit,
contenu dans un mağmū# de  folios, est non seulement transcrit
en caractères arabes mais est aussi rédigé vers  de la main même
du célèbre soufi et théologien #Abd al-Ġanı̄ ibn Isma#ı̄l an-Nābulusı̄
(Damas –) une des grandes figures de la vie religieuse en Syrie
à son époque.10 Connu surtout pour son attachement à la voie mystique
6 S. Poznanski, « Besprechungen. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen
Bibliothek zu Berlin », MGWJ  () : –, p.  ; cf. idem, « Mitteilungen aus
handschriftlichen Bibel-Commentaren », Zeitschrift für hebräische Bibliographie  () :
–, p. .
7 M. Steinschneider, Die arabische Literatur der Juden (Francfort s. Main, ) :
§ , p. , n. .
8 Art. cit. p.  (tiré à part, Varsovie, , p. ). Voir G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of
the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British Museum, t.  (Londres, ) : a.
9 Fihris mahtūtāt Dār al-Kutub al-Zāhirı̄yah, tibb (Damas, ) : nº , pp. –
. . . .
. ˘
10 Un troisième manuscrit, également en caractères arabes, est signalé à la Bibliothèque
municipale d’ Alexandrie par Y. Zidan, Fihrist maht. ūt. āt baladiyyat Iskandariyya, t. ,
maht. ūt. āt al-#ilmiyya (Alexandrie, ) : –,˘ nº  : risāla fi d-duhān. Attribué
˘ ˘
 paul b. fenton
de Muhyi d-Dı̄n ibn #Arabi, an-Nābulusı̄ composa de nombreux ouvra-

ges, entre autres, sur les sciences traditionnelles, l’ interprétation des
rêves, l’ agriculture, et la jurisprudence. Or, il est intéressant de rappe-
ler que, dans ce dernier domaine, il signa plus particulièrement un long
ouvrage sur le caractère licite du tabac, composé à l’ encontre des réfor-
mistes puritains du mouvement des Qādizādelis, qui en avaient interdit
la consommation. Suite aux débats théologiques au e siècle, l’ usage
du tabac, encore relativement nouveau dans l’ Empire ottoman, fit l’ objet
d’ une répression fanatique.11 Dans sa recherche d’ arguments en faveur
du tabac, an-Nābulusı̄ s’ était naturellement intéressé au traité d’ Ibn Ğānı̄
qu’ il recopia dans un mağmū# entièrement de sa main où il consigna
toutes sortes d’ écrits pouvant enrichir sa documentation.
Adepte de la doctrine du pluralisme religieux de l’ école akbarienne,
il ne serait pas exclu même de supposer qu’ an-Nābulusı̄ connaissait
le médecin juif Ibn Ğānı̄, sans doute son concitoyen et contemporain,
auquel il put demander de lui fournir une copie de sa traduction en
caractères arabes. Un examen attentif des fautes d’ orthographe dans la
copie d’ an-Nābulusı̄ indique qu’ il fut exécuté à partir d’ un original en
caractères hébreux.12
Une comparaison rapide de la Risāla al-dāmiġa d’ Ibn Ğānı̄ avec le S. ulh.
d’ an-Nābulusı̄ ne laissa pas apparaître une influence du premier sur le
second, mais il est probable que l’ écrit du médecin juif est venu enrichir
l’ argumentation légale du mystique musulman en faveur du tabac en
raison de ses propriétés bénéfiques. Ceci constitue un example curieux
d’ une influence juive—certes indirecte—sur la legislation musulmane. Il
est intéressant de remarquer qu’ après avoir relaté l’ histoire de l’ oculiste
juif du saint musulman Abū l-Hasan
. aš-Šādhilı̄ (m. ),13 an-Nābulusı̄
à Ibn Hāfi, il contient  folios et serait incomplet. Nous ignorons s’ il s’ agit du manuscrit
déjà répértorié sous Ša#bān ibn Hānı̄ par C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen
Litteratur, suppl.  (Leiden, ) ˘:  : Alexandrie Tibb , Mağmū#a .
11 As-Sulh bayna al-ihwān fı̄ hukm ibāhat al-duhān (« La Pacification des frères con-
. . . . .
cernant l’ autorisation de˘ fumer »). Éditeur M.A. Duhmān
˘ (Damas, H). Sur ce traité,
voir I. Goldziher, Gesammelte Schriften. Éditeur J. Desomoygi, vol.  (Hildesheim, ):
– (écrit en ), et aussi L. Berger, « Ein Herz wie ein trockener Schwamm.
Laqānı̄s und Nābulusı̄s Schriften über den Tabakrauch », Der Islam  () : –.
Sur an-Nābulusı̄, voir B.R. von Schlegell, Sufism in the Ottoman Arab World : Shaykh #Abd
al-Ghani al-Nābulusı̄ (Ph.D., Université de Californie, Berkeley, ) et E. Sirriyeh, Sufi
Visionary of Ottoman Damascus : Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (Londres, ).
12 Par exemple, on lit. fol.  : F!' au lieu de G!', faute qui s’ explique aisément à
partir d’ un original en lettres hébraïques.

13 Que nous avons rapportée dans notre article « Juifs et soufis en Egypte mamelouke »,
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
précise que « le premier à avoir introduit [le tabac] en Occident fut un

médecin juif qui composa à son sujet un [ouvrage] en poésie et en prose
dans lequel il évoqua ses nombreuses vertus. Il fut ensuite introduit
en Egypte, au Hiğāz,
. au Yémen, en Inde, et dans la plupart des pays
musulmans ».14
Nous avons fondé notre édition sur deux manuscrits :

B Berlin, Staatsbibliothek Heb. ., fols. b–b ( /  lignes
par page)15 en lettres hébraïques.
D Damas, Maktabat al-Asad al-Wat.aniya, Zāhiriya , fols. –
, ( ×  cms,  lignes par page) en caractères arabes.
in R. McGregor et A. Sabra, éd., Le développement du soufisme en Egypte à l’ époque

mamelouke (Le Caire, ) : –, p. .
14 An-Nābulusı̄, as-Sulh, p. . S’ agit-il du poème dont parle Ibn Ğānı̄ ? Voir infra,
. . .
p. .
15 Cote mic.  de l’ Institut des manuscrits microfilmés, Bibliothèque Nationale
d’ Israël, Jérusalem.
 paul b. fenton
'-/ ( H 4!I JK/ !L/ H J5 [-MNO][-MPN]
Q RS/ DT 6U!F D3V5 U! 7B 7B

D47K 6W!7 D5 U!!X !L H 4K
* !C Y5/ $T/ FB # Z D4= $W!7/ [ D) 5
;- $/ ]4) Û!_/ ]à !9!' @ 1!X <!= b!; $#-/ 6W!=
b!cd e!f g!Eh/ i9 -B iUj .!' H !L k Y!' lS!' -/ 6a 
lM!'
G!' = M m-!' $/ / (n! #= 5/ oK p/ q
!'
r_/ <!= _/ sYK Dt J3#_ u/ ,v 1Y Da ]3 4- F/
,w/ k ^-_!' / ^& l5 D= ;!I ^h/ _ ] ,J5/ <!= 3#
;!: D&5T ^-!' $I/ xF JE!L q @5/ 
) p= E ^y E7/ R z4 $/ S3 Ea z4 { /9 * ` ${
$T/ |- * JET ]}4) ~ /}/ e}/ 3 Ea $/ S3 ! Y)
;^y 7T x7a lM/ J= * kI D/ <!= JE p 3
W!E l) [-MN] @Y_/ ] D ` 6 JG/ ?T ^ $/ S3 * Ec 6
QM/ 3 E5!' # wY9 7T ! JG/ T a 4{= â 
;_ T / S3 o45T Fa DYY! D ]à
^ Da 3 / a U!E5 S3 7 x7a E5!' # u/ $/ S3
./0 Fa xY! ] JG/ T ; E3 ,^g!5 YY!
?= ;./0 mU! @Y_/ U!= a ?@Y_/ ] D D/ r_ x7a 9/ ^!I
@#5/ JG/ * 3 <!= Q!/ ]/ 7 0, @Y_/ * `/ lI!/ !/ 
./0 ,/ 1/ * 9 b!= U!-/ h/ ./S zy W!) U! ! ]
[[  ( [6Uf 3  ( qM9 [D5  ( !L [H !L  # qM9 [ '-/ ( H 4!I 
[lS!'  ( @ <!= pU!5/ ^}) [@ 1!X <!= b!;  ( EF/ [!C Y5/  ( qM9
# qM9 [  # qM9 [$/  ( [@5/ oK p/  ( e [e!f  ( qM9
3# [3#  ( !/ 1Y/ [v 1Y  ( []3  # F!' [G!'  ( M [I 
( qM9 [E  # $I DYY&/ [ $I/ xF  ( Da [D= ;!I ^h/  (
]}4)  ( qM9 [/}/ e}/  ( qM9 [Ea  # qM9 [!  # qM9 [) 
( 7 U!/ [7T  ( I [kI  ( qM9 [JE  # qM9 [$T/ |- * JET
[l)  # qM9 [D ` 6  ( ?Y [?YT ^  ( ! ^; [^y 
# W!E [E3  ( qM9 [/  ( wY9 [wY9  ( * [a  ( 7/
[0,  # `/ [`/  ( ~ [  # xY! ] [xYF/ ]!I JG/ DT 
# qM9 [9  # qM9 [U!-/  ( ! [zy  ( #! [!&  # qM9
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
^#!' p ]-T ` * G/ 0, Q/ Q ! T!j F!j J= :D/
S3 ;M/ l7/ * 1hT D/ pU!) q5/ /9/ S3 ]-/ 1a/ E g!_T oK
T +/ J) /E! D; * / c9 ^!I # 7/ K D .B h!I
?= $/ S3 a-4 T _
$_a !C JEE!f D g!}7/ 6T l5 [(-MPN]
 ,=_/ S3 * =`/ 1 47!I ]c9/ M/ l7/ 1T * q=t ;DY) D3
J~ ;@/ S3 )S V!' !!' K $ W!a / 3 Ea ${
Ea )S u# D49 9 #U! * V!' i0K lM/ Fa /9 $ ?,
D J_= H -/ 5/ /9/ S3 !XT k, -/ qay ;DY) D3 $/ S3
;k-T T Qa/
 [(-MN] 3 M m-!' $/ 9 * (G!' lM/ u# 6
Eh J!K * D= 4-5 @/ S3 ) ;!f !: #U! * 4-5!' 4/ #
S3 ) ;?Y! g! 3 D-Y ) ;65/ m5/ $K ,;_ 4= JE
- JE7/!8 * 1 0, ; K DYh7 JE Y! 5 d U!-/
@/ S3 / n! #U!/ .T * !' 7/ ) E-a/ R ]VT k, !
 ^-!' I a ,w/ ^-!' * ?/ ^c/ I/ xYF/ &!' ` Dh5
W!E&5 w/ ^-!' I xY! hh!I S3 / (t ;5/ ]57/ ¡T
;k-T H @B )S9 W!) {a!I ^/ * ]57/ ^#U!/ ] `
E @/ S3 9 .!' !f !: rY/ 1 cW!-5T !W!~ W!~ VT *
0 ;_ # c9 * T !8 F= -a ,YM/ ; E a ;^g!})
 S3 67B Y) * pU!7/ ]MT k, K ;I $#W!`/ * ?= q4-9
;k-T H @B D; D-a * D/M ] - !¢ x/£' D/I <!= DTY; @/
[K . . . h!I S3  ( qM9 [M/←Q/  ( Q!/ 6 [Q  ( !I [T!j 

6E! D; ^/ c5/ ^# [D; * / c9 ^!I # 7/  ( ^K . . . hh!I S3
$_a  ( [$_a !C JEE!f E 6/ ^}) | # [D g!}7/ 6T l5  # TV [T  (
D  ( <!= [k,  ( u# [u#  ( )0 ! [)S  ( q}T [1T  # $_ [
+  ( G/ [M  ( qM9 [9 * (G!' lM/  ( qM9 [k-T T Qa/
[?Y!  ( 5/ [65/  ( J!K ^ * [JE Eh J!K  ( [JE Eh
( [xYF/  ( * [ `  ( J3!) ) [7/  ( J3#U! [JE7/!8  # h
JEYY! [W!E&5  ( xh [xY!  ( !I ) 0, w/ ^-!' a [^-!' I a 
1 cW!-5T !W!~ W!~  ( * $SY [*  ( sY!I [k-T H @B )S9 W!) {a!I  (
# qM9 [?=  ( * [E a  ( qM9 [9 .  ( k, !W!~ cW!-5T [!: rY/
( qM9 [k-T-pU!7/ 
 paul b. fenton
M a- ^ J9 * ?49 DIU!5 !!: ! D49 ) $/ S3 x/£' 6
$K!f ] R V g!5 | Da ,}/ / * u K 3 ;Ea DT ^}7/
?/ @#5/ &9 ! ^ Da ;Y-/ $K!f }!j z/ 9/ ? M/
;k-T H @B , )S9 W!) { ^# ^# E9
RS/ I/ ^#/ 1Y 4!f 4G/ !/ [ 75 
# 1Y (t 0, D # ;w/ 7/ R!' ; !' g!G/ ,I/ ^#/
^3 ^Vh Da 7Y/ J`!: #) Ea ?/ ^c/ I/ [-MP¤] xY! / ^-!'
;6/ -d E7/
!# ?/ !' ^#/ h/ ;_ #/ [_/ 1Y $/ S3 , x/£' 6
M/ i S ¥ , ./0 ;k-T H 0¦ ./ Qa U!= Da I ^# 
;75 oK ^ ^ 1 / <!= 1§T &9 [MN¨] K # * &5 M/
3 75 o!I 1 / <!= 34` &5!' 3 3 i r54 +/
oE, ]à
!I {G/ 6`Y/ w/ ^-!' T - ! W!, h/ RS/ U!-/ S3 6
09 [_/ ) 0, ~ R!' / ]} w/ !' (!I M9!' 
;Fa i 4` ?Y7 SK
* mh7 7 * +
/ QK = - RS/ E- / s 1Y D x/£' 6
RM/ M/ i S ¥ ;k-T H @B §-!' .T Qa U!= Da @h/
i 4` r5!' - ,?G W!) &5 ^_-/ S!C / r5!© ª!- p * D
;! K !T ^ S73 ]4! ;)0 W!) #/ * &5!' M/ 
}/}/ # [}/ #  # D [DT  ( DT [a- ^  ( F/h [DIU!5 

( g!4`/ (n!/ [k-T←{  # ^K [^#  ( #5/ rY 3 [@#5/  (
Dt [(t 0, D #  ( 7/ w/ !' ! -Y !I!' #' [ w/← 
0, ;_ [M/←?/  # qM9 [^#/  ( J`!: [«! 3 w/ [$/←/  (
^ - [75 oK ^  ( 1§!' [1 /  ( qM9 [ &9  ( RI DT S
3  # qM9 [75 o!I  ( 3 |- 3# * D [&5!' 3 3 i  (
[/←^-!'  ( ! W!, [! W!,  # qM9 [h/ RS/  ( qM9 [oE, ]à
( i/ 4` c [_/ 7 +  ( ./0 DB / (!I $ * ] #
DT_= S i# 0, [/ S ¥  ( ¥ * [QK =  ( E= / [ E- !' 
( K5 / 1 1Y
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
! a JG E9 ?/ 4!' _/ * ^g!}) @/ S3 q e x/£' 6
D4a ! J 6-9 D/ !' 1YT !' _/ uY/ Q§ ?YhT !¢a G -Y -a
;r/ ]} Y= s JG
;k-T H @B ^9Y/ {G/ 6`Y/ _/ ? $/ S3 a
 oK }/ 5/ @ !I * MT D 7/ i ^n!= RM/ M/ i S ¥
^n!= h= ^7 ]4-5 [t] p | 75/ !I <!= ?Y_ ,x_/ o
;JY/ JU!/ &/ [9 * !T ` D # ]4-5 ;Ta }/ 5/ @W! J3#
`/ p -9 !' @a/ (t ]4-5 @/ S3 ]-/ ]4-5 ] ?G 6
! / 3# G/ 1 !B !j i-/ ]4-5 ` - ;^#!'
 @/ ]4-5 ` - R/ Ù!/ ! S3 0, lM/ K
;)S!'
x}7 # E9 ?/ ^-!' 4` #!/ = ~#!I !/ ^-!' [ 1Y D x/£' 6
# i RM/ M/ [i] S ¥ ;p/ DhT ;Ec
! { @#9
^_-/ .T S ¥ ;ª!- i0K !¬ ] !TM ^M i/ !K D= l_
 / ) & 4`T .// - ;B 7/# U!_/ !C ./ J~ , &9 &5
; ! oK h= ^7 U!-/ S3 ]4- ^_-/ .T
1 / b!M D ./0 ,?!/ // [(MN¨] <I [ 1Y D x/£' 6 J~
;]-/ ./ /4-!' !I * ` m`T )0 W!) &5 M/ i
l! ./0 ;/4-!' D&Y JK/ i , ?=

JK/ 1Y D x/£' 6 J~
 b!M r5!' - ,!'5/ -!'a p= , 5/ 3 -/ oK ^«!/ r54
;#E-!' J9 <!= &5!' M/ i S3
qM9 [_/  ( ` [!¢a G -Y  ( 3 a [! a  ( 9 [q 
# qM9 [D  ( ª!/ ^ x-` MY/ ] D # 6W!-9 [k-T←a  # - [s  #
JY/ [JY/  ( qM9 [h=  ( t [Dt  ( qM9 [|  ( ]I [ !I 
` D [`/  # [i/ (t ]/ [@a/ (t ]4-5 @/ S3 ]-/  ( (!
U!; [[  # qM9 [)S!'←-  ( lM/ l5 [!  (
)0 W!; #/ &5!' i ^-!' 4` [p/←4`  ( !/ # = ~#!I [ ^-!'
[./ J~  # qM9 [ª!-  ( 7 [!¬  ( qM9 [ ^M  ( 15/ $U!_/
[./0  ( <!7/ ®!K [<I [  ( p [U!-/ S3 ]4-  ( ./0 [.//  # ./T
[?=
←J~  # qM9 [/4-!'  ( )0 W!) 1§!' [&5 M/ i 1 /  # qM9
# qM9 [p=  # qM9 [  # qM9 [./0  ( qM9 [/4-!'  ( 1Y
( )S!' J9/ [#E-!' J9  # qM9 [r5!' -  ( c5/ [!'5/ 
 paul b. fenton
;lM/ K !K K U!-/ S3 ] ]4- l! 6
[ª!/ DhT | 1 _/ -T ?/ / !f- !: cF= q
e x/£' 6
r5!' - ]/ ]/ * ?/ ?= ]/ 3 E ?_/ M/ 54 ) !¢a
M ]E5 !=9 - U!-/ S3 ) ;RM/ M/ i E DM 4` 3/
;1Y/ J{= 3 ^g!}) DFa k-T H 0¦ Va !T ^ ?_/ 
n!= 5!¬ RM/ M/ i S ¥ ;[/ lK / 1Y D x/£' 6
75/ x_ ]I <!= ?Y_ }/ o oK @!' 6I ~U!~ * i .T MT
;M/ ^_- ^«!/ b!M J3# ^n!= ^7 D ]/ ]4-5 t p |?(
q!' #/ &/ / ]-/ ! U!-/ S3 - l! #/ ] U!-/ S3 a
;@- = 
0, U!; M/ (t ]4-5 ! U!a ; [/ lK / ]-/ ) 0, 6
/- G v ! Da .B U! ! ?_/ !' ! ) Qa $/ S3
;# D ) (n!/ ` ?h/ /E7/ 9 * ) U!-/ S!C
; ]-/ ) 0, ; 3 M/ ^_- ^«!/ <!= b!M x/£' 6 #!' {!'
;U!/ ¯B M/ (t 6 (h/ ) 0, 
S ¥ (n!/ ]4= * ]à QM/ y/ b!= TY/ ?30 _ 1 ` 6
<!= ?Y_ )0 W!) @!: @W! &M D} 4!I / !°# !~U!~ RM/ M/
^K 6#-T @4!I / 0, J3# g! )0 W!) ]4-5 | 75/ x_ ]I
;/ D-Y * T M/
JG # [-MN±] = D9 ?/ +/ ];Y!' [ 1Y $/ S3 x/£' 6 J~ 
D= ]7T +/ ];Y!' !C b!M &9, &5T M/ ^_= S ¥ ;my
]! [-MPP] D! 1 / 75 U!-/ S3 a ,)0 W!) #/ * &5 M/
( 4/ !f- [/ !f-  ( l5K [K  # qM9 [U!-/  ( qM9 [6 

qM9 [M  ( r_/ D ]`Y RS/ ?- []/ ]/ * ?/ ?=  ( 45 [3 
D 64- (t Y; [ 1Y D x/£' 6  ( lF= [1Y/ J{=  #
[k-T H 0¦  #
&/ / ! ./0 - [#/←a  ( h= [  ( qM9 []/  ( ]
Da  ]; * ! [D  # qM9 [)  ( (n!/ S3 [M/ (t  (
RM/  ( qM9 [(n!/ ]4= *  ( qM9 [U!←{!'  # qM9 [# D ←!
/- 5K ) [J3# g!←)0 W!)  ( / ]} [D} 4!I  ( p- [!°# !~U!~
?/ [# = D9 ?/ p/  ( 6 [x/£' 6 J~  ( DTK [M/ ^K  ( )0 W!)
[&5 M/  ( 4` []7T  # qM9 [ ];Y!'  ( qM9 [  # !#
( &9 3
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
W! / ] ^4§ 1§ /! ] # / - 3 W! x/£' # 6 ;^#!'
;1§!' .T k, #!' (S!
./0 ,h g! ) 1§ R

* ^#/ p $ Y ]! M/ x/£' 6 J~
J9/ <!= 4` ^_-/ b!M/ - &5 M/ ^_- p/ ²Y b!M
 ;k-T H @B 1Y/ lF= 3 )S!'
]-/ |4`4 l! # l9 = ) 0, 9 1 1Y D x/£' 6 J~
^_- / ) 5/ <!= ]-! `4`!' - R3 #9 Da <!= i0K !¬ ]&
;k-T H 0 1 / 75 Da &5 M/
|-/ _/ - RS/ ! / / ²Y ]! M/ 1Y D x/£' 6 J~
 7/# ! / / D ./ # i RM/ M/ S ¥ ,@B * (h/
x h= ^7 S73 ]4- r Ea b! ^!I ^B * 1§T .// -
;#!/ = JE{Y! mI
= §-/ $K!f $45/ 1a# * F= ; D/ $/ S3 x/£' 6 J~
.T v z ]) ,49 # pE5/ !f- !!: ,45!' pE5/ (v
 Y JEc= ) ,DTB 1 / ^}) T4 J3})
a ;$!' D/ U!= pE5/
1 / S3 !75/ U!= W!a , @I QTa ;45!' pE5/ JEa JE
S3 0, * !' @B W!5/ ) W!5/ !f= JE`- a ,W!5/
M/ ^_- b!I a ;$K!f p45/ 1a# * F= ; Da a $/
K DYh7 Y! !!: ! 5 d U!-/ S3 ) D=9 D/ D 1 / 79
 ;!j
g! x9 !79 1M = §-/ $KF/ 1a U!= 3 M/ x/£' 6 J~
U!5 4!j K!f ]5G ./0 * g!/ * QM/ [-MPO] # c9 k, K
# qM9 [] #  ( 1 / 75 ^#!' ]! Da [^#!' ]! D! 1 / 75 U!-/ S3 a 
[M/ ^_- p/ ²Y b!M ./0  ( D 6 [M/ x/£' 6 J~  # Y7/ [/ 
]&  ( ` [D x/£' 6 J~-  ( qM9 [^_-/ b!M/ -  ( DT_- 1§!' b!M
6 J~  ( qM9 [k-T H 0  ( qM9 [)  ( 1§ [<!=  ( i0!I ]!j [i0K !¬
! / / D ./  ( RI D [RM/ M/  ( []!  ( D 6 [x/£'
]5G []4-  ( b!G r D- 1§ [Ea b! ^!I ^B  ( qM9 [.// - 7/#
( $4a [$!'  # 45/ [$45/  ( qM9 [x/£'  # sY! [x  (
@I  ( JE= Y [JE Y  # 1 / ^B [DTB 1 / ^})  # J3) [J3}) 
) ./S !f- ) J!¢ $4 I [!' @B W!5/ )- W!5/  ( @I [
# Y! [5  # 45/ [p45/  (
[a  ( !K [0,  ( p- ./0
./0 g! [K  ( qM9 [1M = §-/  ( D 6 [U!= 3 M/ x/£' 6 J~ 
# qM9 [4!j  ( !
 paul b. fenton
^_-/ . K!f 4`T p * M/ i ;9/ K!f ? oK
?M 6 ]4= W!) z_/ * ]4- ;z_/ k ! M/ ª!-!' z!f <!= ]-!
;k-T H 0¦ T [(MN±] ^
! Da !T k, K D-I ! zF!'
pE5/ * )0 W!) E 45/ ] D ^_- <!I , ^4!f 1Y M/ x/£' 6 J~
;45!' 
)0 <!= U!; ^!I Qa u K $/ S3 D { Da 6/ S3 6
^#/ YYF!' @B 4`/ _Y/ - E U!= 49 ^K ^# ¡! ^4!f ;x/£'
x7a J5/ -I * RS/ R#/ p/ &/ Q4= Ut k, K W! ]! Ea ?/ 1M/
-I * 3 RS/ R#/? p/ S E D-Y 7 l Va ?-/ .T $/ S3 Qa
@A ^_-/ .T 1 F! 3 ]à QM/ ;45/ pE5/ * ]-Y W!) ,!j k, J5/ 
;+-/ Q# @A ]4!I 5/ ^_=
? ,] Da ]I E= ´! ?/ -/ }!j z/ 1Y M/ x/£' 6 J~
z J!C ) * +/ J) ; WI q ,c/ 9Y/ J/ ])V ,9/
= } K D/ ) U! q
e ;p/ 1Y/ -Y M/ !f= # = }
;T
Va M/ D!f-a 9 n!= u!¬ l E= ´! 
lM/ l5K ?c wY9¦ ]-/ wY5 3 M/ z/ ^ * QM/
@S xM #W!§ ª!-!' p!f E/ ]-! M/ K!f b!MT l/G/ F!j / -
m! [Wf lF ,²Y ]) |K r/ ]) lF ,74 K ]-/
] Da }!j z/ ./ pU!/ 3 S3 ;/) ^ D/ M/ z/ .T * ])V/ @A
^_-/ Y l! ,7/ 9Y/ J/ ]) , ; WI q ,9Y/ J/ 
;J/ q K/ ] E ]/ 0, ] @µ! b!M
K/ q) 0, ^K ,` ! YY! # k, ! W!, [-MPO] S3 6
qT # k, a @E * ;@ * ./0 ;^K K/ q) 0, ^# ,^#
; ! ^ Ea J/
, ] 0, ;g!}) ) 0, ,9Y/ J/ ])V 6 ,xY! | $/ S3 
;$!I c5/ `
1Y ] ,Fa 5U!/ u/ 1Y/ S3 ;J/ q
6 [M/ x/£' 6 J~  ( qM9 [6 ]4= W!) z_/ * ]4-  # qM9 [←M/ 
¡! ^4!f  # R
<!= [)0  # qM9 [$/ S3  # qM9 [, ^4!f  # D `
# G -Y [p/ 1Y/  # qM9 [45/←* RS/  # qM9 [1M/  # -/ [^#
g!5 []  ( K/ ]-/ R
+  # 7/ q) [ª!-!' p!f  # qM9 [T←?

( 3 [$/  ( [  ( [  #
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
[# l5K (7/ p ]
;J7K
J=
H F/ S3 r;
D/ <!= 4! 9 <!= H <!; K H 4!I DaT 5K k-T H - /9/ q!©
! J9 D;
 [( l5K (7/ p ]
H ; D= q-I

S3 ;F/ r; Ea D-a /9/ S3 * DT)0 ])
D/ 4!I J=
R#E/ -B pK!' o9 pK!' 6# DY ¥Y= ? / !L k g!Y/ =
! D!L /
 paul b. fenton
Dans la traduction suivante, nous avons divisé le texte en deux chapitres,

subdivisés en paragraphes, afin de faciliter sa comparaison avec la traduc-
tion française du XVIIe siècle, dans laquelle nous avons également intro-
duit une subdivision qui n’ était pas dans l’ original. Une comparaison de
deux textes fait apparaître qu’ Ibn Ğānı̄ n’ avait pas traduit l’ intégralité
du texte tel qu’ il se présente à travers la traduction française. Il est aussi
curieux qu’ il ait négligé le troisième chapitre où l’ on parle des effets hal-
lucinants produits par le tabac, précisément des aspects qu’ an-Nābulusı̄
aurait souhaité dissimuler. Afin de les faire ressortir, nous avons mis les
observations critiques d’ Ibn Ğānı̄ en italiques.
Traduction
[B fol. b] [D fol. a]
Voici le Traité qui confond celui qui nie les propriétés du tabac (tābiğa)
Dont le nom en arabe est duhān, en turc tütün, en indien manšālat, et
˘
l’ île [dont il est originaire], se nomme tabāqū.
Au nom d’ Allah le clément et miséricordieux !

Los à Allah, Maître de l’ univers.
J’ adresse à Allah une louange exquise qu’ Il mérite par la perfection
de sa sagesse, et je lui rends grâce d’ une reconnaissance majestueuse qui
lui revient en vertu de l’ exaltation de sa puissance. Il créa l’ homme en
le couvrant de divers honneurs et en lui enseignant les propriétés des
médicaments [provenant] des arbres et des plantes afin qu’ il en tire profit
dans ses actions et ses dévotions. Je formule à l’ intention de tous les
prophètes et les apôtres une prière et une salutation sublimes.
Ainsi dit le serviteur fautif, sollicitant la compassion d’ Allah souverain
et créateur, le médecin Ša#bān ibn Ishāq,
. connu sous le nom d’ Ibn al-Ğānı̄
l’ Israélite :
Lorsque je constatai que les gens, même des femmes, avaient contracté
l’ habitude de fumer la plante connue actuellement sous le nom de tabāqū
(tabac), et chez les Occidentaux sous celui de tābağa, sans savoir si elle
comporte des [propriétés] bénéfiques ou nocives. En effet, ils ne visent
par sa consommation ni la préservation appropriée de la santé ni sa
perte,1 mais ils visent la griserie produite par les vapeurs enfumées qui
1 Litt. : son renvoi vers la maladie.

un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
montent au cerveau, ou, pour ce qui est des femmes, [elles visent] le
dessèchement de l’ humidité de l’ estomac et l’ échauffement de celui-ci
au moment de leur grossesse.
Par ailleurs, je consultai un traité en forme de poème dans lequel cette
plante est fortement louée.2 Cependant le [traité] pèche par l’ absence
de toute explication, d’ abord, du comportement de cette plante, puis
ensuite ses effets secondaires et tertiaires à la manière dont (les bota-
nistes) décrivent certaines plantes. Comment [ledit traité] ne serait-il pas
déficient car, en effet, la chose s’ impose à quiconque a un certain savoir
dans la science médicale.
Son auteur prétend que cette plante posséderait la faculté de purger la
pituite, ajoutant qu’ elle élimine la bile [B fol. a]. Or, entre ces deux
[humeurs] il y a un immense antagonisme. En effet, la purge de la pituite
se fait nécessairement soit par l’ évacuation au moyen de purgatifs, ce
qui est le traitement préférable, soit uniquement par sa résolution et
sa dessiccation, ce dernier étant appelé le “traitement défectueux”. Or,
cette plante ne fait point partie des purgatifs. Comment, en effet, peut-
elle l’ être vu que la fumée est une substance terreuse comportant une
propriété fortement dessiccative et une légèrement ignée. Or, dans le cas
décrit, l’ épuration de la bile se fait uniquement par la résolution et la
dessiccation, traitement qui correspond seulement à la chaleur et à la
sécheresse. Comment alors son assertion qu’ elle élimine la bile peut-
elle être correcte ? En effet, le traitement de la bile se fait d’ une manière
contraire, à savoir par le réfrigération, l’ humidification et la maturation
de la bile, puisque il ne peut se faire par la résolution et la dilution comme
c’ est le cas concernant la bile et l’ atrabile. Il convient, au contraire, qu’ elle
soit un peu épaisse comme l’ énonça explicitement le docteur Abū ‘Alı̄ ibn
Sı̄nā dans le quatrième livre du Canon. Voici ses paroles : “Sache que le
mélange épais a besoin d’ être dilué, tandis que le dilué a besoin d’ être
épaissi, puisque le but de la maturation est de modifier la tenue de la
matière afin qu’ elle devienne apte à l’ immunité.”
Il est possible que ce traité ne soit pas le propos d’ un individu versé
dans les livres médicaux. Il est indubitable que cette herbe est chaude ;
cependant son degré de chaleur, ainsi que les autres qualités de ses
propriétés sont inconnues, et nombre de gens sont morts [D fol. b]
parce qu’ ils en ont pris une quantité excessive.
2 On peut penser au poème du médecin juif, évoqué par an-Nābulusı̄. Voir supra,
n. .
 paul b. fenton
Aussi me fixai-je comme but de cerner complètement la connaissance

de cette plante, c’ est-à-dire sa quodité et sa qualité. Je commençai par
examiner successivement les livres médicaux et les traités scientifiques
malgré le peu d’ acquis que je possédais dans cet art. Je les examinai lon-
guement, mais je ne trouvai personne parmi les anciens et les modernes
qui fit mention de ce médicament. Puis, je découvris un traité européen
appartenant à un médecin habile parmi les modernes en Espagne nommé
Monardès, dans lequel il mentionne cette plante ainsi que sa quodité et sa
qualité. Je m’ appliquai à la traduction de ce traité en langue arabe, plaçant
ma confiance en Dieu car la réussite procède de Lui.
[Chapitre I]
I. . Monardès, l’ excellent médecin d’ Espagne déclare que la plante
actuellement connue sous le nom de tabac fait partie [B fol. b] des
anciens médicaments utilisés dans le pays de la Nouvelle Inde. Ce re-
mède, qui fut employé contre des plaies, fut célèbre parmi eux aussi bien
chez les gens du vulgaire que chez les spécialistes pour [le traitement] des
blessures causées par l’ épée ou le sabre. Son efficacité était manifeste sans
que l’ on le dissimulât, mais son traitement était un secret caché et gardé
parmi eux qu’ ils ne divulguaient à personne à l’ extérieur.
[Cf. III. ] Si une affaire grave survenait à leurs royaumes, nécessitant
une forte délibération pour la repousser, les principaux dirigeants de ces
pays fumaient cette drogue et l’ inhalaient aussi par les narines afin de
sécher l’ humidité excessive qui subsistait dans l’ estomac et le cerveau.
En effet, l’ humidité de l’ estomac engendre la léthargie et l’ oubli, alors
que l’ inhalation de la fumée émise par cette plante dessèche l’ humidité
de l’ estomac et du cerveau. De plus, elle les réchauffe, éliminant, du coup,
la torpeur et la léthargie et elle augmente la faculté de mémoire, comme
nous l’ exposerons si Dieu veut.
En l’ an  [], le roi d’ Espagne fit la conquête de la Nouvelle Inde.
Nous y découvrîmes cette drogue et nous l’ expérimentâmes à plusieurs
reprises. Elle possède des propriétés subtiles et des vertus merveilleuses
qui ne se trouvent dans aucun autre médicament, en particulier si elle
est employée en application externe, c’ est-à-dire comme cataplasme et
en frictions.
Il serait inutile de nous étendre dans la description des diverses formes
de cette drogue et de ses qualités, comme le fit l’ auteur, car elles sont
connues. En revanche, nous nous étendrons longuement sur ses vertus et
ses propriétés, si Dieu le veut.
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
I. . L’ auteur déclare que si le nom de cette plante parmi les Indiens

était našbalata,3 dans notre pays elle porte le nom de l’ île appelée Tobago
en raison de l’ abondance de ses plantes [qui s’ y trouvent].4
(. . . )
I. . Elle est chaude et sèche à l’ extrémité du second degré. Elle est légère-
ment astringente et fortement détersive, voilà pourquoi elle cicatrise les
plaies fraîches et nettoie les ulcères sordides et putrides et les blessures
gangreneuses. Elle est résolutive des impuretés de l’ atrabile causées par
l’ humeur froide et grossière, comme nous l’ évoquerons plus loin, si Dieu
le veut.
I. . Elle apaise les douleurs venteuses et atrabilaires et elle est, en
somme, un remède efficace pour les affections algides et humides et pour
les [gens] possédant de tempéraments froids et humides ainsi que pour
les gens qui ne possèdent pas un tempérament chaud, surtout au niveau
du foie et du cerveau.
Lorsqu’elle est inhalée, sa fumigation est bénéfique pour la réfrigera-
tion de l’ estomac et du cerveau, et elle dessèche [D fol. a] l’ humidité
superflue qui déclenche le raidissement de la digestion et de la réflexion.
En effet, elle contient une vivacité évidente, mais qui est éphémère.
I. . L’ auteur prétend que cette plante est un remède efficace contre la
migraine causée par le froid, principalement contre la céphalalgie froide
et chronique, dont l’ humeur est froide et humide. Elle est effectivement
un remède salutaire contre ces maladies avec la permission de Dieu.
[Cf. I. .] A cet effet, on prendra des feuilles de tabac fraîches, bien
chauffées dans des cendres ardentes [B fol. a] que l’ on placera sur la
douleur un bon moment jusqu’à ce qu’elle soit apaisée. Il y a des gens
qui attachent à l’ endroit de la douleur les feuilles enduites d’ huile de
fleurs d’ orangers qui réchauffent comme cataplasme jusqu’à ce qu’elle soit
soulagée, ce qui est préférable. Fin de citation.
A mon avis, je dis que ce traitement de la céphalalgie n’ est possible
qu’après avoir lavé l’ estomac et le cerveau des résidus grossiers par un
clystère moyen, d’ abord avec des pastiles purgatives qui épurent le cerveau,
comme, ensuite, avec des pilules cochées5 et électuaires fortifiantes, sauf si
3 Plus haut ce mot était orthographié manšalat. Le texte français (voir l’ Appendice)
dit Piciel.
4 Il manquerait ici deux paragraphes par rapport à la traduction française du traité de
Monardès. Voir l’ Appendice.

5 [habb] al-qūqāyā, un laxatif sous forme de pastilles composées de part égales de
.
 paul b. fenton
le mal de tête est modéré, [auquel cas] il suffirait uniquement de mettre un

cataplasme composé de feuilles.
I. . L’ auteur déclare qu’il est efficace contre l’ inflammation doulou-
reuse de la nuque qui résulte de ce que l’ arrière de la tête s’ expose dans
un endroit dégagé au temps d’ hiver ; il s’ agit d’ un traitement approprié
contre un tel mal, avec l’ assistance de Dieu. On prendra des feuilles de
tabac fraîches que l’ on pilera dans un mortier en marbre, puis on les pres-
sera. On enduira la nuque de l’ extrait obtenu chauffé à une température
convenable. Après l’ onction, il faut la panser au moyen d’ une feuille de
tabac chauffée dans des cendres, comme il a été évoqué précédemment.
Il faut porter le [pansement] de cette manière une ou deux fois selon le
besoin.
I. . L’ auteur déclare : j’ appliquai constamment ce remède dans le cas
des maladies chroniques de la poitrine causées par la pituite, et je le
trouvai extrêmement efficace. Il guérit également l’ asthme chronique et
sera efficace à celui qui est affligé d’ une toux résistante qui secrète de la
bouche une pituite épaisse et putride ressemblant au pus.
Cette plante purge la poitrine des résidus grossiers putrides, si Dieu le
veut.
On prendra dix feuilles de tabac fraîches parmi les plus grandes que
l’ on fera cuire en deux rot. l-s6 d’ eau de bourrache,7 jusqu’à ce qu’il n’ en
reste que la moitié. Ensuite, on le clarifiera avec deux rot. l-s de sucre blanc
pour former un sirop. On en prendra dix drachmes matin et soir dans
une décoction de bourrache. On prendra également une fumigation [de
tabac] deux fois par semaine afin d’ évacuer la pituite de la bouche.
Quant à moi, je dis qu’avant que le malade n’ utilise ce remède, il convient
de prendre du sirop d’ hysope que l’ on administrera pendant sept jours afin
de servir de maturatif au corps. Après la maturation, on utilisera en tant
que looch8 du cassier9 avec l’ agaric et l’ huile d’ amande en quantité requise
selon l’ avis du médecin, car ces maladies nécessitent un muturatif fort et
après leur maturation on prendra le remède indiqué.
I. . L’ auteur dit qu’un cataclysme [à base de tabac] appliqué à l’ esto-
mac est efficace dans les douleurs des flatulences abdominales qui
mastic, d’ extrait d’ absinthe et de chicotin. Cf. R. Dozy, Supplémentaux dictionnaires

arabes, t. II (Paris, ) : .
6 Un rotl équivaut  grammes.
.
7 Abū l-Rayhan Birūnı̄, Kitāb al-saydana fi"l-tibb. Éditeur A. Zaryāb (Tehran, ) :
. .
nº , p.  : lisān at-tawr, borrago officinalis.
8 Mot français dérivé¯ ¯ de l’ arabe la#ūq, signifiant électuaire.
9 Birūnı̄, nº , p.  : hiyār šanbar, cassia fistula.
˘
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
proviennent du froid. La cause en est le froid intense ou l’ atrabile épaisse

ou une intrusion entre ses parties qui ressemble à une inflammation.
On prendra [des feuilles] de tabac fraîches qui seront bien triburées.
On versera au moment de la trituration une ou deux gouttes du vinaigre
de vin acerbe et on les pressera. On prendra de ce jus que l’ on chauffera
un bon coup, avec lequel on frottera rigoureusement les lombes. Après ce
massage, on fera un cataplasme avec une linge de coton mouillée dans ce
jus. Il appliquera [D fol. b] ce traitement matin et soir jusqu’à ce qu’il
se ramollisse.
Puis l’ auteur dit que [cette plante] est efficace contre les calculs rénaux
[B fol. b] engendrés par la colique venteuse. On enduit la douleur avec
des feuilles de tabac chaudes, comme indiqué auparavant, et elles seront
ajoutées aussi aux cystères employés pour ces maladies.
[Cf. II. ] L’ auteur dit que [le tabac] constitue un remède pour les
maladies de la matrice, à savoir les suffocations de la matrice et son
inflammation. Aussi, essuiera-t-il [la partie] entre le nombril et l’ anus
avec de l’ huile de baume si l’ on en dispose, sinon avec du styrax liquide.
Après cette application, il enduira ceci avec des feuilles de tabac chauffées
à la manière indiquée.
Quant à moi, je dis qu’il faudrait appliquer avant ce traitement un ou
deux cystères selon l’ avis du médecin.
I. . L’ auteur déclare qu’il avait vu des vieilles Indiennes soigner
[avec du tabac] le mal au ventre accompagné de spasmes ressemblant à
l’ épilepsie qui affecte les enfants. Elles faisaient des frictions sur le ventre
et le dos de l’ enfant avec de l’ huile de lampe, c’est-à-dire, le résidu dans
la lampe après la nuit. Après l’ onction de l’ huile, elles mettaient sur son
ventre et son dos des cataplasmes faits de feuilles de tabac fraîches. Deux
heures après ce traitement, le ventre de l’ enfant fut apaisé et en le répétant
une ou deux fois, il était guéri avec la permission de Dieu. Je l’ essayai à
plusieurs reprises avec des résultats très efficaces.
[Chapitre II]
II. . L’ auteur déclare que [le tabac] est utile pour [éliminer] les lom-
brics et des vers cucurbitaires. On prend quinze feuilles de tabac frais
que l’ on fait cuire dans trois rot. l-s d’ eau jusqu’à ce qu’il n’ en reste
qu’un tiers. On clarifie le suc [obtenu] avec un rot. l et demi de sucre
blanc de manière à produire un sirop. On prend au matin en petite
quantité,—environ dix drachmes—tandis que l’ on fait des frictions sur
le nombril avec de l’ extrait de tabac. Ce traitement tue les vers et il
 paul b. fenton
convient après ce traitement d’ administrer au patient un simple clystère

afin d’ évacuer les vers morts des entrailles.
Moi je dis que si le patient qui [souffre] des lombrics et des vers cucurbi-
taires est un enfant, il ne faut point utiliser le sirop de tabac puisque cette
plante ne convient pas à un individu dont le tempérament est chaud. Or, il
est clair qu’un enfant est chaud et par conséquent il peut lui être extrême-
ment nocif. Aussi, convient-il d’ appliquer ce traitement uniquement aux
patients qui ont atteint l’ âge de la maturité ou la vieillesse et, aussi, de ne
pas administrer ce sirop à ceux dont le tempérament est froid.
Je présume que les paroles de l’ auteur « l’ on fait des frictions sur le
nombril avec de l’ extrait de tabac », s’ appliquent en particulier au cas d’ un
enfant malade. Quant aux adolescents, il leur est permis de prendre une
petite quantité du sirop de tabac.
J’ ajouterai, malgré la déficience de mon esprit mou et mon intelligence
défaillante que la meilleure manière de faire le sirop est de prendre environ
trente drachmes de tabac frais et une quantité égale de pourpier,10 les faire
cuire dans du jus d’ endives, comme il a été indiqué. On le clarifiera avec un
rot. l et demi de sucre blanc et ce [sirop] sera utilisé comme il a été indiqué
avec une drachme [de tabac] de moins puisque le pourpier équivaut la
chaleur du tabac. Ceci augmente l’ efficacité contre les lombrics.
II. . Puis l’ auteur déclare que cette plante est un remède efficace contre
les douleurs articulatoires et goutteuses causées par [B fol. a] le froid
et la pituite pure.
On prend de l’ extrait de tabac que l’ on chauffe bien. On en fait des
frictions sur les articulations et [le lieu] de la goutte, puis on attachera
une feuille de tabac réchauffée dans des cendres comme il fut indiqué ci-
dessus. Ce traitement calmera la douleur et [D fol. a] est un résolutif
de la matière.
Je dis que l’ intention de l’ auteur se situe, bien entendu, après avoir
procédé à un lavement interne, car le fait de placer des cataplasmes avant
le lavement attire les matières vers ces lieux.
Ensuite, l’ auteur déclare que le tabac est un résolutif des inflammations
et les affections inflammatoires froides en tout lieu et sans peine, en fai-
sant des frictions sur l’ inflammation avec de l’ extrait de tabac réchauffé.
Après l’ enduction du suc, il faut panser avec une feuille à la manière déjà
indiquée précédemment. Il est d’ une efficacité merveilleuse, si Dieu le
veut.
10 Birūnı̄, nº , p.  : baqla, al-hamqā", portulaca oleracea.

.
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
[cf. I. ] Ensuite l’ auteur déclare que le [tabac] constitue un remède au

mal aux dents lorsque ceux-ci sont causés par le froid. Il faut auparavant
que le patient se gargarise avec du vinaigre de vin acerbe contenant de
la cannelle indienne.11 Après le rinçage, on placera sur la dent une linge
mouillée de l’ extrait de tabac réchauffé. Il calmera la douleur avec l’ aide
de Dieu.
II. . Puis l’ auteur dit que le tabac est utile comme résolutif de l’ inflam-
mation des mains et des pieds qui affectent les enfants et certains adoles-
cents durant la saison d’ hiver.
On prendra des [feuilles] de tabac frais finement triburées que l’ on
appliquera en frictions sur les mains et les pieds. Après ces frictions, on
les placera dans de l’ eau très chaude dans laquelle on aurait bouilli du sel.
Il fera de la sorte matin et soir et enveloppera les doigts et les orteils pour
les préserver du froid.
II. . L’ auteur déclare ensuite que cette plante possède une propriété
merveilleuse contre les poisons des blessures produites par des flèches
empoisonnées. En effet, les Indiens traitent leurs flèches avec des pro-
duits toxiques. Tout celui qui est atteint par ces flèches n’ a pas d’ antidote
et il meurt. Comme la plupart meurent suite à l’ intensité des douleurs
énormes, leurs ennemis les fuient par crainte des flèches empoisonnées.
Confondus [ ? ], les médecins de notre pays ne trouvèrent point de trai-
tement pour soulager cette douleur à part le sublimé (salmān). Certains
furent traités avec le sublimé mais ce dernier était parmi les médicaments
recherchés dans notre pays. Lorsque nous trouvâmes la plante du [tabac],
nous la mîmes à l’ essai et voici qu’elle avait une propriété exceptionnelle
contre l’ empoisonnement causé par les blessures. La douleur de celui à
qui on applique en frictions l’ extrait de tabac est immédiatement sou-
lagée. Ce traitement était un secret gardé par les Indiens et une chose
cachée qu’ils ne dévoilaient point à une personne extérieure.
Ensuite, l’ auteur dit que le tabac est un remède efficace contre les
blessures causées par les coupures de couteaux ou d’ épées sans que
l’ on ait besoin d’ autres drogues. [D fol. b] Le régime à suivre est
de bien laver au préalable la blessure avec du vin afin de la nettoyer de
toute souillure. Puis, on pilera le tabac dans un mortier en marbre et
on fera un cataplasme en enduisant la blessure avec l’ extrait obtenu du
tabac que l’ on laissera jusqu’au matin. Au matin, il procédera comme
il fit initialement. Il appliquera bien des frictions la plaie et il amollira
11 Birūni, nº , p.  : sādiğ hindı̄, Cinnamomum citriadrum.

¯
 paul b. fenton
son humeur, si un émollient s’ avère nécessaire, puis il guérira [B fol. b]

complètement, si Dieu veut.
Puis il dit également que le tabac est utile dans le traitement d’ une
[brûlure de] braise si on y applique l’ extrait [de tabac] en frictions,
car il en élimine le poison à la manière décrite à propos des flèches
empoisonnées.
Quant à moi, je dis que cette assertion demande réflexion car cette plante
est chaude et sèche et ne convient absolument pas aux maladies chaudes
selon ce que prétend l’ auteur lui-même. Or, la braise provient d’ une matière
chaude et toxique dont le traitement se fait après une saignée, et le cata-
plasme se fait à base de drogues dessicatives et froides, dans lesquelles il y
a une certaine propriété résolutive. Il se peut que l’ on doive recourir à une
scarification profonde afin d’ évacuer le sang peccant inhérent à la nature
du poison. Or, comment cette plante pourrait-elle convenir à cette mala-
die ? Je réponds que son utilité se place du côté de l’ extraction du mauvais
sang inhérent à la nature du poison à la manière qu’elle agit dans le cas de
flèches empoisonnées.
La méthode préférable est de mêler à cet extrait une petite quantité du
suc de plantain majeur,12 ainsi qu’une petite quantité de farine de lentille.
II. . Puis l’ auteur déclare que le tabac est utile dans le traitement des
ulcères malins et chroniques qui perdurent depuis un long moment. Il
cicatrise, nettoie la saleté, digère les excroissances charnues putrides, et
renouvelle la peau.
Un grand nombre d’ individus furent atteints dans notre pays par des
ulcères malins et chroniques. Or, ils furent soignés avec le tabac dont
ils tirèrent un immense bénéfice. J’ observai un homme qui portait une
blessure maligne et chronique, vieille d’ environ quinze ans. Il fut traité
avec du tabac et il guérit complètement.
La manière dont on soigne les ulcères avec du tabac est que le patient
doit subir, si nécessaire, une purge complète ou partielle selon l’ avis du
médecin. Après l’ épuration de l’ humeur dominante, le tabac est appliqué
en frictions sur la blessure sur laquelle on mettra la substance extraite
comme cataplasme. On allégera le régime alimentaire du malade autant
que possible et il évitera tout aliment salé et acide, ainsi que tout aliment
provoquant de la flatulence. Il s’ abstiendra également du coït. Il n’ a pas
à craindre quelque digestion à propos des ulcères, car le tabac possède
la propriété de digérer. Voilà donc le traitement qui s’ impose pour ce
qui est des ulcères malins, car le [tabac] digère la chair abîmée et fait
repousser de la chair nouvelle. S’ il ronge complètement la chair abîmée,
12 Birūni, nº , p.  : lisān al-hamal, plantago major.

.
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
il conviendrait de diminuer le volume de l’ extrait, appliquant au des

frictions d’ une quantité réduite, car même cette dernière cicatrise les
ulcères et fait repousser la chair.
Quant à moi, je dis que ces maladies [D fol. a] nécessitent des drogues
dessicatives, détergentes et astringentes, soit chaudes, si les ulcères sont
froids, soit froides si les ulcères sont chauds. Ceci est le traitement initial,
mais en phase finale, il faut avoir recours à des drogues comportant une
propriété détergente qui fassent repousser la chair.
II.  Cette plante est astringente, dessiccative, et détergente, qui ronge
la chair maligne si elle est utilisée en grande quantité. Si elle est utilisée
en petite quantité, elle fait repousser la chair. Cette vertu ne concerne
pas seulement les êtres humains, mais elle est bénéfique aussi à d’ autres
animaux.
Toutes les vertus que j’ ai évoquées dans ce traité s’ avèreront justes à
l’ essai.
III. . Voici ce que j’ ai lu à son sujet, mais Dieu sait mieux et louanges
à Lui.
Colophon du ms B :
Son serviteur qui sollicite la miséricorde de Dieu, qui espère en son

pardon et en son indulgence, Daniel, fils de feu Moïse, fils de feu Ša#bān
le Juif qaraïte, que [Dieu] ait pitié de lui. Amen.
Colophon du ms D :
Le traité est terminé avec l’ assistance de Dieu et sa réussite favorable. Los

à Dieu seul et des prières et des salutations sur notre maître Mahomet et
sur sa famille et ses compagnons. Amen.
Appendice
Histoire des simples medicamens apportés de l’ Amérique, desquels on se
sert en la Medecine. Escrite premierement en Espagnol, par M. Nicolas
Monard, Medecin de Siville, depuis mise en Latin et illustré de plusieurs
Annotations, par Charles de l’ Ecluse d’ Arras, et nouvellement traduicte
en François par Anthoine Colin, Maistre Apoticaire Iuré de la ville de
Lyon, Lyon .13
13 Dans Histoire des drogues, espiceries et de certains medicamens simples qui naissent
ès Indes & en Amérique divisés en deux parties [deuxième partie] (Lyon, ) : –.
 paul b. fenton
Du Tabaco, ou Herbe à la Royne
Chap. X
I. . La plante Tabaco, a esté anciennenment en vsage entre les Indiens,
principalement entre ceux qui habitent le paies la Nouuele Espagne pour
la guerison des playes. Elle nous a esté aportée en Espagne despuis peu
d’ années en çà, tant pour l’ ornement des iardins, que pour ses facultés :
mais maintenant elle est en plus grande estime, tant à cause de ses grandes
vertus et propriétés, que à cause de sa beauté.
I. . Son vray nom entre les Indiens est Piciel : car ce nom de Tobaco
luy esté donné par les Espagnols, à cause d’ vne Isle ainsi appellée, où elle
croist à foison.
I. . C’ est une plante qui croist fort haute, & aucunefois elle surpasse
de hauteur vn Limonier, ayant une tige droite, branchue : elle a les feuilles
presque comme le Limonier, mais plus larges, comme celle de la Parelle,
d’ une couleur claire, verde, & un peu velües, comme est aussi toute la
plante.
I. . Elle porte vne fleur au plus haut de ses rameaux, en forme de
clochette, laquelle est blanche & pourprée au milieu lors qu’ elles tombent
il sort en leur place des petites testes de Pauot noir, dedans lesquelles
est contenüe vne petite semence grise de couleur cendrée tirant sur le
noir. Sa racine est grosse & fendüe en plusieurs fibres, ligneule ; iaune au
dedans, & amere, laquelle se pele facilement ; toutefois nous n’ auons ouy
dire qu’ elle aye aucune faculté.
Elle croist en plusieurs endroits des Indes ; principalement en ceux
qui sont humides & ombrageux mesmes en des lieux qui ne sont point
cultivés & en terre maigre. On la seme en tout temps, & dés tôt qu’ elle
est sortie, il la faut garder des frois et la semer du long des murailles
pour l’ ornement d’ icelles : car elle verdoye toute l’ année à la mode des
Citroniers.
Il n’ y a que les feuilles qui soyent en vsage, (bien qu’ a faute d’ icelles,
quelques vns se seruent de la semence) & afin de les conseruer on les
enfile, puis on les pend à l’ ombre, & les fait-on seicher, ils les mettent en
vsage, ou entieres, ou en poudre.
I. . Ceste plante est chaude & seiche au second degré : voilà pourquoy
elle r’ eschauffe, resout, purifie & retrainct quelque peu, comme il sera
aisé à iuger par ses facultés.
I. . Les feuilles de ceste plante eschauffées, & appliquées, sont vn
souuerain remede aux douleurs de la teste, & de la migraine, principa-
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
lement si la maladie prouient de cause froide, ou de ventositez, il est vray

qu’ il les faut souuent reitrer, & iusques à ce que la maladie soit ostee : il y
en a plusieurs lesquels oignent premierement la teste, auec huile de fleurs
d’ Orenges.
I. . Ce mesme remede est propre à ceux qui ont le cerueau extrement
froid, & à ceux qui sont affligés du Tetanus, comme aussi en toutes autres
douleurs prouenantes de mesme cause.
I. . Non seulement il guerit la douleur des dents qui prennent ori-
gine de cause froide, ayant premierement nettoyé la dent auec vn linge
trempé en suc d’ iceluy, puis mettre dedans la dent creuse vne feuille
pliée en pillule : mais il empesche aussi que la pourriture ne passe plus
en auant.
I. . Lesdites feuilles bouillies dedans l’ eau, ou vn Lohoc composé
de la decoction, sont propres aux maladies de la poictrine, à la vielle
toux, à l’ Asthme ou dificulté de respiration, & à semblables maladies qui
prouiennent d’ humeurs froides.
Le Syrop composé avec le sucre, & la decoction de ses feuilles, & pris
en petite quantité fait sortir hors les humeurs putrides de la poictrine : la
fumée d’ icelles receuë par la bouche est aucunesfois profitable aux Asth-
matiques ; mais il faut auparauant auoir vsé de purgations necessaires,
moyennant toutesfois que le malade puisse attendre & dilayer.
I. . Les feuilles eschauffées soubs les cendres, & toutes cêdreuses sans
les nettoyer, puis appliquéess souvent toutes chaudes sur l’ estomach qui
est remply de ventosités, le soulagent grandement. Quelques uns prennêt
les feuilles encore verdes apres les auoir broyées entre les doigts moüillés
en l’ huile, les appliquât de la sorte.
Les mesmes feuilles broyées dans vn peu de vinaigre, sont fort propres
aux obstructions de l’ estomac & de la ratte, & aux scirrhes, mais puis
apres il faut appliquer tous les iours sur la partie des feuilles chaudes, ou
vn linge moüillé et trempé dans le suc tout chaud desdites feuilles. Au
deffaut des feuilles on prend la poudre d’ icelles, & la mesle on auec vn
vnguent commun pour desoppiler, duquel on fait liniment sur la partie
oppilée ou enflée.
I. . Les femmes Indiennes en font grand cas contre les crudités
d’ estomach qui suruiennent tant aux enfans qu’ aux grands : car ayant
oingt premierement le ventre inferieur de l’ huile de lampe, & fait eschauf-
fer les feuilles soubs les cendres, & mis l’ vne d’ icelles sur la partie du ven-
tricule, & et l’ autre du costé opposite à l’ estomach, elles font digerer telles
crudités, & ramollissent le ventre moyennant qu’ on les renouuelle toutes
les fois & quantes qu’ il en est besoin.
 paul b. fenton
[Chapitre II]
II. . Le suc des feuilles cuict auec sucre espuré & pris en petite quantité,
chasse du ventre toutes sortes de vers : il faut aussi mettre sur le nombril
vne feuille broyée, & puis apres vuider le ventre par vn clisteré.
Les feuilles chauffées soubs les cendres comme cy dessus, & appliquées
le plus chaudement que faire se peut, apportent vn grand soulagement
aux douleurs de reins & ventosités, en les reiterât toutes les fois & quantes
qu’ il en sera de besoin.
On les peut aussi mettre en vsage en clysteres, fomentations, & emplas-
tres, au grand soulagement des malades.
II. . Aux suffocations de matrice les feuilles bien chauffées & appli-
quées sur le nombril apportent soulagment sur le champ :
II. . que si comme il aduiêt qulequesfois des defaillances de cœur, &
qu’ on leur face receuoir la fumée par le nez ; soudain elles sont deliurées :
lequel remede est si commû aux femmes Indiennes, que pour ceste cause
elle conseruent fort curieisement les feuilles du Tabaco, en faisans grand
estime.
Il y en quelques vnes qui appliquent premierement sur le nombril des
choses odorantes, & en apres ces feuilles. Or le Tacamahaca, l’ huile de
Liquiambar, le Baulme, & la Carangne, ou bien vn emplastre composé
de toutes ces choses sensemble, & porté continuellement sur le nombril,
sont merueilleusemeêt proffitables.
II.  On applique auec grande efficace aux douleurs de ioinctures
(moyênât qu’ elles soyêt causées par des humeurs froides, ou au moins
trop chaudes) les feuilles chaudes, ou vn linge moüïllé en leur suc : car
elles resoluêt & digerent les humeurs voilà pourquoy elles sont fort vtiles
aux humeurs et des oedemateuses, moyennant qu’ on les aye premiere-
ment bassinnées, auec le suc tout chaud desdites feuilles.
II. . Nous auons appris par experience, que si l’ on frotte trois ou
quatre fois les teignes des mains, & mulles des pieds auec les feuilles de
ceste plante, et puis qu’ on se laue les pieds & les mains auec de l’ eau
chaude & du sel, qu’ elles sont gueries entierement par ce remede.
II. . Elles resistent aussi aux venins, & à ceste poison très pernicieuse
dont les Cannibales empoisonnêt leurs flêches, comme quelques vns
ont experimenté depuis peu de temps en ça : car auparauant ils avoyent
acoustumé de sinapiser les playes auec du sublimé. Mais à present les
Espagnols ont appris en ceste maniere de rompre la force de ceste poisô.
Il aduint vn iour que quelques Cannibales se mirent dedâs leurs nas-
celles, pour aller vers sainct lean port riche, en s’ ils abordoyent quelques
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
Espagnols, ou Indiens, de les tuer auec fleches empoisonnées. Comme ils

y aborderent, ils tueront quelques Indiens & Epagnols, & en blesserent
plusieurs : mais n’ ayans point de sublimés, ils furent enseignés par vn
certain Indien, qu’ ils missent sur leurs playes le suc de Tabaco, & puis
y appliquer dessus le marc des feuilles broyées : par ce moyen furent
appaisées, Dieu mercy, les douleurs des playes, & tous les Symptomes
qui ont accoustumé de suiure & accompagner ce venin, & le venin sur-
monté, les playes par apres gueries. Despuis ce temps là on a commencé
a mettre en vsage les feuilles de ceste plante contre les poisons. Le Roy
catholique mesme voulant experimenter les vertus de ceste plante, com-
manda que l’ on blessat un chien au gozier, & qu’ on frottat la playe avec
la poison de laquelle les chasseurs se seruent, & peu apres qu’ on fit dis-
tiller dedans bonne quantité de suc, & on luy attachasse sur les playes, les
mesmes feuilles broyées : le chien fut guery auec une grande admiration
de tous.
II. . Par mesme moyen les feuilles broyées, & appliquées sur les
carboncles pestiferes, sont excarre puis apres les guerissent, & sont vn
remede asseuré contre les playes & morsures des animaux veneneux.
Dés aussi tost qu’ elles sont apliqués sur les playes recentes, elles arres-
tent le sang, & les consolident : que si elles sont par trop grandes, il leur
faut premieremêt lauer auec du vin, & apres aubur ioinctes les labies de la
playe l’ vne contre l’ autre, il fraudra distiller dessus le suc des feuilles, &
quant lier l’ herbe broyée sur icelle : le iour d’ apres & les autres suyuans,
il fraudra garder le mesme ordre & regime de viure necessaire.
II. . Le suc instillé dans les vieux vlceres & sur la Gangrene, & les
feuilles broyées mises dessus, les deterge, guerit, & faict cicatriser, ayant
premierement purgé les corps de l’ aduis du Medecin, et faict ouurir la
veine, si l’ on trouue qu’ il soit necessaire de faire : en obseruant par apres
la maniere de viure.
II. . Dauantage l’ experience nous a enseigné que non seulement ceste
plante guerit toutes vlceres aux hommes, mais aussi aux animaux : car par
toutes les Indes les bœufs les vaches & autres animaux sont affligés de
plusieurs vlceres, lesquels se corrompent aisement, & s’ y engêdre des vers
cause de la grande humidité du pays : lesquels ils auoyent accoustoumé
de sinapiser auec du sublimé en poudre, n’ ayans autre meilleur remede :
mais dautant qu’ é ce pays cy il couste cher, le plus souuent ce qu’ on iettoit
sur les playes, coustoit dauantage que la beste qu’ on vouloir guerir :
II. . Partant ayant experimenté aux hommes les facultés du Tabaco,
ils ont aussi transferé l’ vsage d’ iceluy, aux vlceres putrides, infects, &
pleins de vers, & recogneurent lors, que le suc des ces feuilles instillé, non
 paul b. fenton
seulement faisoit mourrir les vers, mais qu’ aussi il mondifioit les vlceres,
puis qu’ ils les faisoyent cicatriser ; le Tabaco aussi est fort profitable aux
escorheures des iumés, voyla pourquoy les Indiens portent tousiours de
la poudre du Tabaco.
J’ ay cogneu vn certain personnage qui auoit vn vlcere dans le nez
duquel sortoit de la fange, non sans soupçon que ce ne fut vn mal
contagieux : de mon conseil & aduis, on luy instila du suc de ces feuilles
dedâs le nez, la secôde fois que l’ on en mit dedâns, il en sortit plusieurs
vers ; puis vn peu moins, finalement quelquesiours apres, l’ vlcere fut
gueri ; toutesfois la chair qui auoit esté mangée ne reuint point.
Si on frotte les grattelles & rognes de la teste avec les feuilles d’ icelles,
elle se guerissent.
[Chapitre III]
III. . C’ est ceste plante tant celebrée par les prestres Indiens, de laquelle
ils souloyent vser pour donner responces : Car la coustume estoit entre
eux, qu’ on demandoit côseil, & s’ êquestoit-on des prestres, touchant
l’ issue & euenement des gueres, & des affaires de grande importance.
Le prestre donc à qui on demandoit aduis, brusloit les feuilles seiches
de ceste plante, receuent la fumee dedans sa bouche par un petit tuyau
ou canne, puis apres il tomboit comme raui en extase, sans se mouuoir
aucunement, demeurant ainsi quelque temps, la vertu et faculté de ceste
fumee ayant faict son action, il reuenoit à soy, racôtoit qu’ il auoit parlé
auec le malin esprit, & donnoit des responces ambiguees ; en sorte que
en quelque maniere que les choses aduinsent, il leur peut facilement
persuader & faire accroire qu’ il les auoit predictes : & par ce moyen ils
trompoyent ces hommes barbares.
III. . Au reste la populace des Indes reçoit ceste fumée par le nez
& par la bouche pour plaisir, lors qu’ ils desirent parfoys de voir par
songes les euenements de leurs affaires. Car tout ainsi comme le diable
est vn imposteur, & cognoist la vertu des herbes, il leur enseigne les
facultés de cest herbe cy, affin que par les illusions de ces songes, il trompe
miserablement les hommes.
III. . Mais ce n’ est chose nouuelle, qu’ il se trouue quelques plantes,
lesquelles maschées ou auallées, fassent venir des illusions ou fantasies
deuant les yeux. Car Dioscorides au chap. du Solane furieux, escrit que si
l’ on prend un drachmes de la racine dudict, auec du vin, il faict venir au
deuant des yeux des fantosmes & illusiôs qui sont plaisantes & ageables,
mais que si on en prend au double, trois iours durant, il faict deuenir
un traité judéo-arabe sur les vertus du tabac 
insensé, & au quadruple qu’ il tue tout à faict. Que si quelqu’ vn s’ en allant
dormir mange de l’ Anis il sera des songes ioyeux : à rebours s’ il mange
du Raifort, il fera des songes qui troublerôt, & ainsi de plusieurs autres
choses.
III. . Garcie du Iardin14 raconte que le suc de Bangue inesté auec
autres choses faict perdre le sens, qu’ il fait resuer, & qu’ ils nous met à
desliure de tous sensible pensemens, comme faict aussi l’ Opium qui est
fort commun aux Indiens Orientaux, duquel Garcie a plainement traicté.
III. . De mesme nos Indiens lassés de porter des fardeaux, ou d’ autres
trauaux, ils hument la fumee du Tabaco, & tombent tout soudain comme
priués de sens ; puis estans esueillés, ils se trouuent tous allegés par tel
sommeil, & leurs forces restaurées.
III. . Les Æthiopiens menés en ces quartiers là pour esclaues, voulans
ensuyure leur exêple, en hument par fort trop souuent, d’ où vient que
leur maistres les chastient à bon escient, cvar ils bruslent leur Tabaco affin
de leur oster occasion de n’ en vser si souvent ; si ne laissent ils pas pour
cela den vser à cachettes.
III. . Les Indiens aussi se seruent du Tabaco pour chasser la faim et
la soif, en ceste maniere. Ils bruslent certaines coquilles d’ huistres de
riuiere, puis les mettent en poudre comme chaux, de ceste poudre, &
desq feuilles de Tabaco, il en prenent autant de l’ vn que de l’ autre, &
le maschêt, iusques à ce que des deux en soit faicte vne certaine masse,
laquelle ils formêt en pillules vn peu plus grosses qu’ un pois, & les ayant
faict seicher à l’ ombre, ils les serrent pour s’ en seruir.
Lors qu’ ils veulent faire quelque voyage par les lieux deserts, où ils
pensent qu’ ils ne trouueront ny à boire ny à manger, ils portent auec
eux de ces pillules, & ayant mis l’ une dicelles entre la leure de dessoubs,
& les dêts ils suçent continuellelmêt le suc d’ icelle, laquelle estant toute
fondue, ils remettêt vne autre en sa place, & puis vune autre, iusques à
ce qu’ ils ayent faict trois, & parfois quatre iournées de chemins & par ce
moyen ils asseurent que durant tout ce temps là ils ne sentent ny faim,
ny soif : d’ ont i’ estime que la cause est, que sucçans continuellement ces
pillules là, ils attirent aussi du ceruea les humeurs pituiteuses, lesquelles
estant auallées, & deuallées dans l’ estomach, elles humectent la chaleur
naturelle, mais en fin iceluy les consume par faute d’ autres alimens :
côme il se peut obseruer en beaucoup d’ animaux, lesquels tout le long de
14 Garcia de Orta (–), médecin et botaniste portugais d’ origine juive. Il fut
l’ auteur de Coloquios dos simples, qui fut également traduit par Clusius.
 paul b. fenton
l’ hyuer se tiennent dans leurs tasnieres, sans auoir aucun alimêt par ce
que la chaleur naturelle est occupée à consumer la graisse, laquelle ils ont
amassée durant l’ Esté.
III. . Voilà ce que j’ ay peu recuillir touchant ceste tât renommée plante
Tabaco, & de ses facultés.
STUDIES IN MEDIEVAL CULTURAL HISTORY
MAIMONIDES AND SAMUEL BEN ALI
Herbert A. Davidson
Maimonides could be gracious. When scholars in Southern France ques-

tioned a number of legal and ritual decisions in the Mišneh Torah, he
thanked them warmly for their meticulousness in reading the work,
praised their rabbinic acumen, and in one instance accepted a correc-
tion, with the assurance that he was correcting his text of the code
accordingly.1 Obadia, a convert to the Jewish religion, turned to Mai-
monides because of a disagreement with his teacher. He had insisted that
Muslims are not idolaters, and the teacher lost his temper and hurled at
him the biblical verse “Answer a fool according to his folly.” Maimonides
confirms for Obadia that when Muslims bow down to “their house”—
in Mecca—their “hearts are directed to heaven.” “Their foolishness lies
in other things, which cannot be put in writing because of Jewish evil-
doers” who might report the writer to the authorities, but it does not
include idolatry; “we shall not lie about them . . . just because they lie
about us.” Furthermore, Maimonides continues, even if Obadia erred,
the teacher sinned in speaking as he did to a person who cast his lot with
a persecuted nation, realizing that it was the carrier of the true religion,
which other religions plagiarize and pervert through additions and omis-
sions. Instead of worrying about the idolatry of Muslims, Obadia’s teacher
should have remembered the ancient rabbis’ admonition: “Whoever gets
angry should be considered an idol worshipper.” The teacher has the obli-
gation to “beg you for forgiveness, even though you are his student. He
must fast, cry out [to God], pray, humble himself; maybe that will bring
atonement and God will forgive him. Was he intoxicated and therefore
forgot that there are thirty-six places where the Torah lays down com-
mandments regarding the convert?”2
1 H. Davidson, Moses Maimonides. The Man and His Works (New York, ): .
Y. Kafah. questioned the authenticity of the attribution to Maimonides.

2 Maimonides, Responsa. Edited by J. Blau (Jerusalem, ): § ; Davidson, Moses
Maimonides, pp. , .

 herbert a. davidson
Joseph ibn Jabir, was an Iraqi Jew who apparently wrote to Maimonides
more than once. He describes himself as an “ignoramus” (‘am ha-ares. ),
writes that he studied Maimonides’ Arabic Commentary on the Mish-
nah but could not understand the Mišneh Torah, which is in Hebrew,
and appeals to Maimonides to translate the Mišneh Torah into Arabic.
He had a number of questions as well: Did Maimonides reject the resur-
rection of the body, as people contend; what does immortality of a disem-
bodied soul mean; how would Maimonides explain certain opinions of
his—including the opinion to be discussed in the last part of the present
article—that had been criticized in Baghdad; what is the correct proce-
dure in a couple of other ritual situations? And he specifically requests
that Maimonides answer in his own hand. A letter of the sort from an
uneducated man was hardly designed to warrant an answer of more than
a pro forma line or two at most, and Maimonides’ cordial and patient
reply raised eyebrows in Baghdad.3
The reply, which can be dated to the early ’s, addresses the recip-
ient as “the eminent, noble elder, the pious student, Mr. Joseph . . . ibn
Jabir.” Maimonides assures Ibn Jabir that whoever studies to the extent
of his ability, whether in Hebrew or another language, is not an igno-
ramus; Ibn Jabir is instead Maimonides’ “beloved student.” As for the
Mišneh Torah, Maimonides would not consider translating it into Ara-
bic, because it would then lose its “charm.” But he tells Ibn Jabir that the
Hebrew used in the Mišneh Torah is not difficult, and he encourages him
to work his way through one of the fourteen books. After that, he should
have no trouble with the rest.
Those who accuse Maimonides of denying resurrection in the literal
sense of “the return of the soul to the body” are, in his words, guilty of
“slander.” He advises Ibn Jabir that the nature of immortality of disem-
bodied souls, which the ancient rabbis recognized in addition to resur-
rection of the body, may be too profound for him and he need not con-
cern himself with it. The letter goes on to answer questions that Ibn Jabir
asked. Maimonides had been informed that Ibn Jabir was among those
who stepped forward to defend him against critics in Baghdad and he
ends with a witty halakhic explanation of why Ibn Jabir must desist from
involving himself in controversies on Maimonides’ behalf.4
3 Maimonides, Epistulae. Edited and translated by D. Baneth (Jerusalem, ): .

4 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam. Edited and translated by Y. Shailat (Jerusalem,
): –. Maimonides, with tongue in cheek, cites the rabbinic rule that rabbinic
courts must “prevent the behavior of Sodom”; that is to say: When A loses nothing by
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
Notwithstanding the high standard that Maimonides set for himself,

he was made of flesh and blood. Throughout his lifetime, he became
involved in disputes and he did not play the silent lamb.
Around , when his former student, Joseph ben Judah, was living
in Damascus or Baghdad, he counseled him to avoid behavior that
he—Maimonides—regretted from his own youth: At Joseph’s age and
even older, he writes, “I would employ my tongue and pen without
restraint to take revenge against men of standing and knowledge who
had the temerity to disagree with me. . . . You have undoubtedly heard
what occurred between me and R. Judah ben Parhon . ha-Kohen, of
blessed memory, on two questions regarding physical defects that render
an animal ritually unfit for consumption, between me and the judge
of Sijilmasa regarding [the validity of] a [certain] divorce document,
between me and Abu Joseph ben Joseph, may he rest in peace, regarding
[the legal status of] a woman who had been a captive [of the gentiles],
and many other incidents of the same sort. I would please my friends
and make my adversaries weep with my tongue and pen—wielding my
tongue against those in the immediate vicinity and my pen against those
who were at a distance.”5
How old Joseph was when Maimonides wrote those words is not
known, and when the incidents occurred is unclear. Some or all could
date from the period during which he lived under the Almohads in
the West. We learn from a contemporary that when he arrived in Fez,
probably in his early twenties, his reputation as a talmudic scholar was
well established and preceded him;6 he may therefore have had the
stature to challenge respected rabbinic figures on halakhic matters even
before coming to Egypt. Alternatively, some or all of the events may
have occurred soon after he settled in Egypt and was recognized as the
preeminent rabbinic judge in the country.
When Maimonides did arrive in Egypt, a man named or nicknamed
Zut.a7 held the position of official head of the Egyptian Jewish commu-
nity. Zut.a had earlier been instrumental in having a popular figure who
held the position—a man known as Samuel ha-Nagid—deposed and had
giving up a claim, and B will benefit if A does so, A is legally required to waive his
claim. Since Maimonides’ critics in Baghdad advance their standing with the populace
by belittling Maimonides, yet do Maimonides no harm with their pretenses, Jewish law
prevents Maimonides and his allies from stopping them.
5 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. –.
6 Davidson, Moses Maimonides, p. .
7 Zuta would mean “the small one,” “shorty.”
.
 herbert a. davidson
managed to have himself appointed in Samuel’s stead. Samuel was, how-

ever, quickly restored to the position and remained the official head of
the community to the end of his life. The ascendance of a “new king” then
gave Zut.a a fresh opportunity. He bought the appointment as head of the
Jewish community with hard cash, “ruled for four years,” and recouped
his investment by extorting money from the community and from office
holders. Maimonides, though a newcomer, did not stand apart from the
conflict. According to the preserved report, which was written sometime
after the events, “God . . . sent” Maimonides, who succeeded in having
the miscreant removed from office.8
Because of his scholarly reputation, judges and communal officials
in Egypt and beyond soon turned to him for legal guidance. When
he deemed judicial opinions to be faulty, his pen knew little restraint.
He characterizes one opinion or another as an “inanity,” “a proposi-
tion too unsubstantial to deserve a refutation,” “a muddle,” “an enor-
mous muddle,” “muddled talk,” “bizarre imagining,” a thesis “lacking
substance and not worthy of consideration, since it is senseless and we
have never heard such a thing.” The usage insisted upon by a particu-
lar communal figure was “a custom of ignoramuses.” Of an unnamed
judge, Maimonides writes that he was “totally mistaken,” of another that
he was “an ignoramus,” and of a third that he “understands nothing
whatsoever.”9
A number of letters that passed back and forth between Maimonides
and Pinhas. ben Meshullam, a rabbinic judge in Alexandria, have been
preserved and they reveal a complicated relationship between the two.
10
. sometimes addresses Maimonides as his “master” and calls him-
Pinhas
11
self Maimonides’ “student.” Those are merely expressions of deference
and do not reflect an actual master-student relationship: Pinhas
. received
his rabbinic education in Europe, apparently in France, before coming
to Egypt and he informs Maimonides on one occasion what the view of
his teachers had been concerning a certain issue.12 Maimonides, for his
8 Davidson, Moses Maimonides, pp. –.

9 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. , , , , , , , , , ,
.
10 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. , ; Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans.
Shailat), pp. , .

11 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), p. ; and implied in what Maimonides writes
in Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. .

12 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. –.
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
part, speaks of having “planted” and “built” Pinhas . into what he was,13
by which, we may conjecture, he means that he arranged, or supported,
Pinhas’
. appointment as a judge in Alexandria. That Maimonides had no
official or institutional authority over Pinhas
. is plain from Pinhas’
. repeat-
edly ignoring his advice and instructions;14 from Maimonides’ having
other judges countersign his instructions to Pinhas . in order to prevent
the Alexandrian judge from telling the Islamic authorities that “so-and-
so maintains one thing, and I maintain something else” and there is
no reason to prefer one individual’s opinion over another’s;15 and from
Maimonides’ explaining why, after he pointed out Pinhas’ . error and the
latter continued to pester him with counterarguments, he “kept quiet”
and dropped the matter. “Such,” Maimonides’ acerbic explanation goes,
“is always my way with someone whom I see insisting on his foolish-
ness and refusing to change his mind. I keep quiet and let him do as he
pleases.”16
Maimonides scolded Pinhas . for a variety of judicial mistakes and on
different occasions labeled legal opinions issued or drafted by him as “in
my opinion, muddled and without substance,” “confused,” “improper,”
something “never heard before and without basis.”17 When Maimonides
saw that harm might result from Pinhas’ . misstep, he did not keep quiet
and let him do as he pleases. He intervened.18
Eventually, Pinhas. poured out his complaints in a series of letters,
only the last of which received an answer. He had, he writes, heard that
Maimonides was angry with him, that Maimonides had accused him of
being irascible, that Maimonides had described him as knowing nothing.
He expresses the suspicion that Maimonides had not answered his letters
because of rumors abroad to the effect that he—Pinhas—had
. slandered
him, he complains that one of Maimonides’ loyal followers was making
life miserable for him in Alexandria, perhaps at Maimonides’ instigation,
and he pleads with Maimonides not to abandon him.19 Pinhas . has some
13 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. .

14 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § , is an egregious instance.
15 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. . For further in-
stances of other judges’ countersigning Maimonides’ opinions, see Responsa (ed. Blau),
§§ , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
16 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. .
17 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), pp. , , ; Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and
trans. Shailat), pp. –, .

18 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –.
19 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , –, –
.
 herbert a. davidson
complimentary remarks for Maimonides’ law code, the Mišneh Torah,

but then proceeds to criticize the format of the code together with a few
particulars.20
Maimonides saw that things had come to a pass where his fellow judge
had to be placated. He now did answer, addressing Pinhas . in the florid
style of the time that he usually eschewed,21 as “his magnificence, great-
ness, and holiness, our master and rabbi, the great judge, the fortress and
tower, the outstanding sage. . . . ” He admits that he was indeed angered
by Pinhas’
. handling of a halakhic issue and failure to face down the
accompanying public brouhaha with the fortitude required of a rabbinic
judge; Hillel the elder, who was proverbially even-tempered, would, Mai-
monides submits, have been angered by Pinhas’ . feckless handling of the
matter.22
He concedes that he described Pinhas . as irascible but counters, disin-
genuously, that irascibility is not something that Pinhas
. need be ashamed
of, inasmuch as the ancient rabbis tell us: “When a rabbinic scholar boils,
the Torah is what sets him boiling.”23 Maimonides, it should be noted, had
recently completed the Mišneh Torah, where he quotes from the Baby-
lonian Talmud: “Whoever gets angry commits, as it were, idolatry. . . .
When someone gets angry, if he is wise, his wisdom deserts him, and if
he is a prophet, his prophecy deserts him”; and where he directs that “one
must not be affected even by things that warrant anger.”24
As for his failure to answer letters, Maimonides writes that the reason
was not rumors and gossip but illness. Even if Pinhas
. made the statements
he reportedly made, Maimonides avers that his own nature was to forgive
and forget and not to take offense at those who aggrandize themselves at
his expense. He would never abandon Pinhas . and thereby “uproot what
I have planted and destroy what I have built.”25
He assures Pinhas. that he had ordered the person who was causing
him grief to desist. As for the report that he had described Pinhas . as
knowing nothing, Maimonides writes that he “never said that about
you, [nor could I] for I do not tell lies.” What actually happened was
this: A letter sent to him by reliable sources in Alexandria confirmed
20 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. .

21 See Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), ..
22 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –.
23 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. ; see B Ta#anit a.
24 Maimonides, Mišneh Torah: Hilkhot De#ot :, quoting B Šabbat b (inexactly)
and B Pes b.

25 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. .
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
that Pinhas
. had made a certain decision in a dowry case. Maimonides
showed the decision to a few colleagues and “they all were astonished”
at the faulty reasoning, whereupon Maimonides told them that there
was no reason to be astonished. Jewish communities in France and
other Christian countries, unlike those in the Muslim world, did not
have autonomy in monetary matters. Judges in those countries were
consequently not trained in such subjects and they lacked the requisite
expertise.26 Maimonides did not say that Pinhas . knew nothing at all; he
merely said that Pinhas. knew nothing about one segment of rabbinic law.
On the present occasion, Maimonides answers Pinhas’ . questions re-
garding the Mišneh Torah but concludes with the plea: “By your life, my
dear friend,” do not ask me further questions of the present sort regarding
the Mišneh Torah and please do not expect more than a brief answer from
me, and only when your questions relate to actual legal issues. “For I am
occupied in a variety of matters, my body is weak, and I do not have
time even to read all the letters, let alone answer them unless they are
of a practical legal nature. I have no leisure whatsoever because of the
constant weakness of my body and my own studies. . . . May your peace
grow and be multiplied.  days of the Omer (= twentieth Iyyar). Moses
son of Maimon.”27 In a letter that can be dated with reasonable confidence
to a time after the air had cleared, we find Pinhas
. addressing Maimonides
with exquisite courtesy and a deference that is almost painful to read.
Maimonides apologizes in his response for having previously replied
curtly and declares that Pinhas’. honor was more dear to him than his
own.28
Maimonides sharpest series of disputes was with Samuel ben Ali (Eli), the
head of the prestigious Baghdad yeshiva. Samuel’s renown extended to
the ends of the Jewish world,29 and no less a talmudic scholar than Simha
.
26 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. –, .
27 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), p. .
28 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § ; Pinhas writes that he had almost com-
.
pletely lost his vision, from which I infer that the letter is later than those I have thus
far discussed.
29 For a colorful description of Samuel and his retinue, see Pethahiah (Petahia) of
.
Regensburg, Sibbuv. Edited by E. Grünhut (Frankfurt am Main, ): –. Petahia .
reports that Samuel was the ultimate authority on rabbinic matters throughout Iraq,
Persia, and Syria, and Assaf lists some thirty cities and towns in those areas with which he
was in correspondence. See Simha . Assaf, “Qoves. šel iggerot R. Šemu"el ben #Eli,” Tarbiz 
(–): –. Scholars in Yemen, in Kiev, and from the circle of Rabbenu Tam
are known to have corresponded with him. For Yemen, see Maimonides, Responsa (ed.
 herbert a. davidson
Assaf describes him as a man “who truly excelled in Torah and action.”30
Maimonides was not among the admirers. From his correspondence
with his former student, Joseph ben Judah, who moved back and forth
between Syria and Baghdad, we learn the following.
Samuel and Maimonides skirmished over political appointments. The
office of Reš Galuta, or Exilarch, the head of the Jewish communities
in the diaspora, still survived in Baghdad, although its glory had faded.
When the position became vacant toward the end of the twelfth century,
apparently in ,31 the man selected—just how the selection was made
is unclear—was opposed by Samuel, whose ultimate aim was to abol-
ish the institution of Exilarch entirely. The appointee was supported by
Joseph ben Judah, and on Joseph’s urging, Maimonides added his sup-
port, which he made public in a large ceremony at which “everyone” in
Fustat, “from young to old,” was present. Samuel wrote to Maimonides
complaining that the appointee was unqualified for the honor. Quel dom-
mage! Since Maimonides had already declared his support, he explained
to Samuel, it was too late to retract.32 In writing to Joseph, Maimonides
refers as well to an appointment of some kind that was made in Egypt, in
which Maimonides was involved, and to which Samuel again objected.
The allusion is too obscure to allow anything more to be said about it,
and scholars have read the passage as referring not to a separate political
appointment but to the dispute over the appointment of the Exilarch.33
The Mišneh Torah had reached Baghdad and been accepted as an
authoritative law code by some, but rejected and sharply criticized by
others, Samuel being the most prominent of the critics.34 Maimonides
received—when and through whom are unknown—Samuel’s objections
to several legal decisions regarding the Sabbath that are recorded in the
code. In the three instances for which information has been preserved,
Samuel homed in on legal decisions by Maimonides that were indeed
Blau), § ; for Kiev see, Encyclopaedia Judaica, second edition, article Moses of Kiev;
for Rabbenu Tam, see S. Emanuel, “Tešuvat Rav Šemu"el ben #Eli,” Tarbiz.  (–):
–.
30 Assaf, “Qoves šel iggerot,” p. .
.
31 Assaf, “Qoves šel iggerot,” pp. –.
.
32 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. , –. On the composite
nature of what Baneth accepts as a single letter, see Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed.
and trans. Shailat), pp. –.
33 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), p. ; Maimonides could be refer-
ring to the appointment, or certification, of Judah ben Josiah to the office or quasi-office
of “prince of the exiles of Israel.” See Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § .
34 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. , ; Responsa (ed. Blau) § .
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
problematic—R. Abraham ben David brands one of them “a muddle”35—

although the reasoning on which Samuel based his objections is shaky
and Maimonides dismissed it as trivial.36 Maimonides defended his posi-
tion on the three issues in a letter to Joseph ben Judah that he chose not
to publicize himself but asked Joseph to circulate among friends.37
When Maimonides heard that Joseph ben Judah had taken up the
cudgels in defense of him and the Mišneh Torah, he advised his student to
control his anger, as “years,” “experience,” and “study” had taught him to
do. He reminds Joseph of his “humility toward all” and his comporting
himself “as if I were the least of the least” and he asks Joseph to follow
his example.38 Notwithstanding the soothing words, Maimonides was
plainly hurt by the criticism, as comes out when he informs Joseph that
he was not surprised by events. For he foresaw that the Mišneh Torah
“would undoubtedly fall into the hands of an evil, jealous man, who
would denigrate its virtues, . . . of an unlettered ignoramus, who would
have no conception of what had been accomplished in it, . . . of a deluded,
confused tyro, who would have problems with passages, . . . and of a
blockheaded, dull-witted pietist, who would contest the principles of
proper belief contained in the book; and [I realized that] those persons
would be the majority.”39
Samuel ben Ali had moreover received a letter from persons in Yemen
who read the Mišneh Torah as denying the dogma of resurrection and
who requested Samuel’s opinion. Samuel responded by composing a
small treatise in which he defined and defended the dogma primarily
through citations from rabbinic aggada, while carefully avoiding any
express criticism of Maimonides. Joseph sent the treatise to Maimonides,
who wrote back: “I am astonished at my son,” that is, Joseph, for having
sent it to me. Did you want me to “conclude that the man lacks knowl-
edge? Did you ever suppose that I thought he, or even individuals supe-
rior to him, understand anything?” Maimonides describes Samuel as a
“poor soul” and “ordinary homilist,” and Samuel’s treatise on resurrection
as “nonsense,” “ridiculousness,” and a “scandal.”40 Despite his dismissal of
the treatise, it was the catalyst for the composition of his own Treatise on
Resurrection.
35 R. Abraham ben David, Animadversions on Mishneh Torah: Hilkhot Shabbat :.

36 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § .
37 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § .
38 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. –, , –.
39 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), pp. –.
40 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), p. .
 herbert a. davidson
Although we have seen that Maimonides answered one letter of Sam-

uel’s, he as a rule avoided writing to the head of the Baghdad yeshiva.
Courtesy, he tells Joseph, would require him to employ the respectful
language with which scholars address one another, and he believed that
Samuel and Samuel’s son-in-law and closest ally, Zachariah, were trying
to get him to write to them with no other object than eliciting such
language. The two “poor souls,” could then “show the letter off and preen
themselves in it” as evidence of Maimonides’ homage.41
Maimonides eventually did send a lengthy letter to Samuel, and there
was little danger that Samuel would show it off. In what follows, I examine
the letter and its context in some detail. The subject has been touched
upon more than once and from more than one viewpoint,42 but I know
of no adequate treatment of the thrust and parry between Maimonides
and Samuel.
The issue now was whether a Jew may travel by boat on a river on the
Sabbath. Iraqi rabbinic authorities forbade such travel,43 whereas the
Spanish rabbinic tradition permitted it.44 The controversy played itself
out in a sequence of four letters, the first of which was a legal query
sent to Maimonides from Baghdad by a man whom Samuel describes
as “the elder, the prince, . . . our dear friend, Mr. Abraham”—language
suggesting that he was a person of communal, although not necessarily
scholarly, standing. He may have been a cat’s paw of Samuel’s; if not, he
was guilty of bad form in going above Samuel’s head and turning for
halakhic instruction to an outsider. Nor was it good form for Maimonides
to answer a halakhic question from a member of the Baghdad community
rather than referring the questioner to the head of the city’s renowned
yeshiva.
Maimonides answered Abraham, Samuel responded, and Maimon-
ides replied to Samuel. Writers on Maimonides have described his
reply as reflecting “his typically polite fashion”45 and “usual conciliatory
41 Maimonides, Epistulae (ed. and trans. Baneth), p. .

42 See in particular I.M. Ta-Shma, “Tešuvat ha-Rambam be-#Inyan ha-Haflaga,” Mai-
monidean Studies  (): –, and –. The article is reprinted with small
changes in Ta-Shma, Halakha, minhag, u-mes. iut be-Aškenaz, – (Jerusalem,
): –.
43 Ta-Shma, “Tešuvat ha-Rambam,” pp. –.
44 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § .
45 J. Münz, Moses ben Maimon (Frankfurt am Main, ): .
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
manner,”46 as evincing a “respectful tone and humble manner,”47 and

as demonstrating “the greatest respect, . . . and praising his [Samuel’s]
character and talmudic knowledge.”48 The authors of those sentiments
forget Maimonides’ characterization of Samuel as a “poor soul” and
“ordinary homilist” who does not know anything. They also lack an
eye for irony. Maimonides does overlay his reply with a thin patina of
courtesy, but whether the reply is conciliatory and humble and gives high
marks to Samuel’s talmudic knowledge is another matter.
Six rabbinic propositions enter into the crisscrossing exchanges:
. According to the classic rabbinic legal sources—the Mishnah cor-
pus, Babylonian Talmud, and Palestinian Talmud—Jews are not
permitted to travel more than a certain distance beyond inhabited
areas on the Sabbath. The Mishnah sets the limit (tehum)
. at ,
cubits, and the consensus of opinion in the Babylonian and Pales-
tinian Talmuds is that the prohibition against going beyond ,
cubits is a rabbinic enactment and not a scriptural commandment
(tehumim
. derabbanan).49
. On the basis of a passage in the Palestinian Talmud, some, but
by no means all, post-talmudic legists concluded that the Written
Law also prohibits travel beyond a certain distance on the Sabbath.
On this view, the Written Law (deorayta) imposes a , cubit
limit for travel beyond inhabited areas, in contradistinction to the
rabbinic enactment (derabbanan) setting the limit at , cubits.50
Maimonides and Samuel were among those who recognized the
Written Law prohibition.
. In the Babylonian Talmud, the question is posed whether the pro-
hibition against travel beyond inhabited areas applies to travel that
takes place not on the ground but at a height of at least ten hand-
breadths—thirty-five to forty inches, that is, eighty-eight to a hun-
dred centimeters—above it. The intent is not travel on a solid ele-
vated surface, such as a bridge; a solid surface above the ground
would have the same legal status as the ground beneath it. What is
46 J. Münz, Maimonides: The Story of his Life and Genius. Translation of above, trans-
lated by H. Schnittkind (Boston, ): .

47 D. Yellin and I. Abrahams, Maimonides: His Life and Works (New York, ): .
48 S. Poznanski, Babylonische Geonim im nachgaonäischen Zeitalter (Berlin, ): .
49 B #Eruvim a, P #Eruvim : (end), and parallels.
50 P #Eruvim : (end); Alfasi, #Eruvim  (end of Chapter One).
 herbert a. davidson
envisaged is a person who travels through the air by jumping from

the top of a pole located within the Sabbath limit that has the
requisite height to a similar pole located beyond the Sabbath limit
or alternatively to the hypothetical case of someone who magically
flies through the air beyond the Sabbath limit. No definitive answer
to the question is forthcoming.51
. The classic rabbinic texts recognize a type of physical area, dubbed
a karmelit, that does not fit the legal definition of either private or
public premises. In the rabbinic conception, Sabbath restrictions
carrying the sanction of the Written Law (deorayta) do not apply
to karmelit areas, although a parallel set of rabbinical enactments
(derabbanan) do apply.52
. The classic rabbinic texts consider the general subject of doubtful
situations. The question is as follows: When a given regulation
applies to a given clear-cut situation, does the regulation also apply
where it is uncertain whether or not the situation obtains? If, for
instance, it is uncertain whether or not the Sabbath has begun, do
regulations governing the Sabbath apply? The general rule, as stated
in the Babylonian Talmud, is that regulations carrying the sanction
of the Written Law do apply to doubtful situations (sefeqa deorayta
le-humra),
. whereas regulations carrying the lesser sanction of a
rabbinic enactment do not (sefeqa derabbanan le-qulla).53
. The classic rabbinic texts take for granted that travel by boat on the
high seas is permitted on the Sabbath even though the ,, or
,, cubit limit is exceeded.54
Mr. Abraham of Baghdad addresses Maimonides in his letter as “the
glorious, precious diadem of beauty, our master, rabbi, and lord,” and so
on in the same vein for several more lines. His main query is whether
it is “permitted to travel [on the Sabbath] on large rivers such as the
Nile in Egypt, the Tigris, and the Euphrates,” for he “had heard that the
people of Iraq forbid it.” Some, he writes, understand the grounds for the
prohibition to be a concern that the water might turn out to be less than
ten handbreadths deep, the boat might touch bottom, and the boat would,
as it were, run along the ground. Others regard the prohibition merely as
51 B #Eruvim a.
52 B Šabbat a.
53 B Bes. a b.
54 M #Eruvim :.
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
a custom. Abraham goes on to pose additional halakhic questions that

arise should travel by riverboat be permissible on the Sabbath, but they
do not have bearing on our subject.55
Maimonides’ reply, as preserved, has no opening salutation and goes
directly to the issue. He states that the talmudic question whether the
Sabbath limit applies to travel taking place ten handbreadths above the
ground has in view only travel above public areas, that is, travel above
areas where people ordinarily walk. The Talmud entertained no thought
of prohibiting travel in the space above the surface of a karmelit, since
people do not ordinarily walk through a karmelit. It hence had no thought
of prohibiting travel on bodies of water, which fall into the karmelit
category, as long as the boat floats on water that is ten handbreadths
deep.56
Should there be “less than ten handbreadths between the surface and
the river bed,”57 a “person traveling on the river would be subject to the
same regulations as someone walking on the ground,” and travel limits
(tehum)
. would apply. There remain the doubtful situations, where it is
uncertain whether a body of water, be it a river or the open sea, is or is
not ten handbreadths deep. Situations of the sort, Maimonides writes, are
governed by two “propositions.”
The first is “the accepted rule” embodied in the ancient rabbis’ “stat-
ing” that regulations enjoying the sanction of the Written Law apply in
doubtful situations (sefeqa deorayta le-humra),
. whereas regulations car-
rying the lesser sanction of a rabbinic enactment do not (sefeqa derab-
banan le-qulla).
Maimonides should now have formulated the second proposition and
his conclusion more or less as follows: Bodies of water as well as their beds
fall into the category of karmelit, and Sabbath restrictions regarding a
karmelit have the status of rabbinic enactments. Rabbinic enactments do
not apply in doubtful situations. Limits on Sabbath travel—whether the
,, or ,, cubit limit—therefore do not apply where it is uncertain
whether or not the water is of the required depth. Travel on bodies of
55 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), :.

56 In stating that the Babylonian Talmud does not pose the question of travel above
the ground in the case of bodies of water that are ten handbreadths deep, Maimonides is
being inexact. See B #Eruvim a, and Mišneh Torah: H. Šabbat :, with commentaries.
Could he have prepared multiple traps for Samuel?
57 For a different way of measuring the ten handbreadths, see Joseph Karo, Bet Yosef
on Tur:
. Orah. Hayyim
. ; Šulhan
. Arukh: Orah. Hayyim
. :.
 herbert a. davidson
water, whether they be rivers or the open sea, is accordingly permissible

both when the water is at least ten handbreadths deep and when the depth
is uncertain.
That is what Maimonides should have said. For some reason, he mis-
leadingly formulates his second proposition without qualification as
“their [that is, the rabbis’] statement that ‘travel limits [are an enactment]
of the rabbis’ (tehumim
. derabbanan).” Whereupon he concludes his reply
to Mr. Abraham: “It follows from these two propositions that travel is per-
mitted on any body of water except where it is certain that the water is
less than ten handbreadths deep; in such instances it [travel] would be
subject to regulations covering travel on the ground [and prohibited by
rabbinic enactment]. The foregoing reasoning refutes the argument you
presented, namely that river travel is forbidden because of a concern that
the boat might drag [along the ground.]”
Maimonides also takes up the thesis that the Sabbath travel restriction
is a matter of custom: Customs must be respected, he writes, but with the
proviso that they are clearly understood to be no more than customs and
not legally binding. He goes on to answer the additional questions that
Abraham made contingent on the premise that river travel is permitted
on the Sabbath; as already said, those questions do not have bearing on
our topic.58
Samuel hereupon enters the fray. Consummately courteous through-
out, he informs “our glorious lord, our master Moses, . . . the expert judge,
the mighty one, the wise man of the generation” that Abraham had shown
him the responsum as Maimonides suggested he should; in fact, Mai-
monides’ responsum, as preserved, contains no such suggestion. Samuel
goes on to assure Maimonides that he never ceases to praise him and
to publicize his virtues. When he received the inquiry from persons in
Yemen who thought that the Mišneh Torah rejects the dogma of resur-
rection, he “answered them with praise and lauding” of Maimonides.
Nevertheless, the truth must be told, and the Baghdad Gaon is confident
that Maimonides will not be offended by having an error in his reasoning
called to his attention.
For the sake of “conciseness,” Samuel does not “go into everything
inscribed by Maimonides’ noble hand.” He focuses on Maimonides’
second proposition—“travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis
(tehumim
. derabbanan)”—and he takes the words at face value as a
58 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), :–.

maimonides and samuel ben ali 
statement about Sabbath travel restrictions in general, while astonish-

ingly overlooking the critical point that bodies of water and their beds
are a karmelit, and hence subject only to rabbinic enactments.
His critique of Maimonides consists in rehearsing passages from the
Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, as well as a biblical verse,59 that sup-
port a Written Law travel limit of , cubits on the Sabbath. After
establishing to his satisfaction that the talmudic rabbis recognized such
a Written Law restriction, he reasons: When boats travel on rivers, the
depth of the water is uncertain and may sometimes drop below ten hand-
breadths. But the prohibition against travel outside of inhabited areas is
not merely a rabbinic enactment, as posited by Maimonides when he
wrote: “Travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis (tehumim. derab-
banan).” There is also the Written Law prohibition. The rule regarding
Written Law regulations is that they apply in doubtful situations. Since
the possibility is always present that a riverboat might enter shallow water
and might exceed the , cubit limit, and since traveling , cubits
on the Sabbath is forbidden by the Written Law, the prohibition against
all river travel on the Sabbath is “established definitively.”
Because the technicalities may not be familiar to every reader, a reca-
pitulation should be helpful. Maimonides’ reasoning is that rivers and
river beds are a karmelit; Sabbath regulations for a karmelit carry rab-
binic, and not Written Law authority; rabbinic regulations do not apply in
uncertain situations; when it is uncertain whether or not rabbinic restric-
tions on Sabbath travel might be transgressed, one may therefore travel
by river boat, no matter what the distance is. Samuel focuses on Mai-
monides’ misleading formulation of his second proposition, while over-
looking the pivotal point that a karmelit is subject only to rabbinic, and
not Written Law, regulations. He finds Maimonides guilty of the elemen-
tary error of failing to realize that there is also a Written Law limit on
Sabbath travel. And he concludes: On rivers, where the depth of the water
is uncertain and the travel limit might be exceeded, the rule that Written
Law regulations apply in uncertain situations is operative. River travel is
therefore prohibited.
Samuel goes on to buttress his conclusion by citing the authority of the
“Geonim” and of the “western sages R. Nissim and others,” who prohib-
ited river travel on the Sabbath. He further intimates that Maimonides
misread a passage in the Palestinian Talmud.60
59 Exodus :: “Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.”
60 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § , supplemented by .–.
 herbert a. davidson
Samuel was sufficiently pleased with his refutation to let it circulate.61

Maimonides, replying at what was for him unwonted length, has a field
day in picking Samuel’s missive to pieces.
In language that is noticeably more restrained than that in the letters
addressed to him by Abraham and Samuel, he addresses the latter as
“the great Gaon, our master Samuel ha-Levi, head of the Yeshiva of
the Diaspora, may God keep him.” He acknowledges Samuel’s good
manners in prefacing his critique with an apology for having ventured
to criticize and he expresses the hope that “God will reward” Samuel for
his sensitivity and “increase the number of well-mannered and virtuous
men who are like him.” He assures Samuel, however, that the sensitivity
was unnecessary, because he, unlike others, is not at all offended if
people criticize him. “When the least student, be it friend or adversary,”
undertakes to refute him, Maimonides is, on the contrary, “happy—on
condition that the person is right.” Nor, he insists, does he take offense
even if the critic is mistaken, for he realizes that people are careless and
speak without giving a subject proper thought. He therefore does not
blame Samuel for “rejecting my propositions” and is willing to ascribe
Samuel’s error to a careless reading of what Maimonides wrote and not
to a lack of intelligence.
In the same teasing tone, Maimonides proceeds to rebuke Samuel for
the style of his response. Samuel quoted passages from the Babylonian
and Palestinian Talmuds in some detail in order to establish the existence
of a Written Law prohibition against unlimited travel on the Sabbath.
That, Maimonides chides him, is not the way scholars communicate with
one another. A scholar assumes that other scholars know the texts and
accordingly makes do with brief references, being confident that his peers
will understand.
Maimonides points out something more seriously amiss in Samuel’s
response. He had been informed that the Mišneh Torah was available in
Baghdad and indeed was accepted in some circles as an authoritative code
for deciding legal and ritual issues. True, certain members of the Baghdad
community—Maimonides of course does not give names—criticize the
Mišneh Torah or reject it outright without taking the trouble to study it or
even to be sure that the copy they use has not been corrupted by a careless
scribe. Since the Mišneh Torah was available in Baghdad, Samuel simply
61 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , .
maimonides and samuel ben ali 
had to open the Sabbath section and he would have found in Chapter 
that Maimonides was fully aware of the Written Law prohibition on
Sabbath travel beyond the , cubit limit.
Furthermore, if Samuel had taken the trouble to read Maimonides’
Book of Commandments, which was also available in Baghdad, he would
have found that the scriptural verse he cited with great fanfare to prove
his thesis is quoted there by Maimonides as a proof text for the very
Written Law prohibition that Samuel was endeavoring to establish. Had
the “great Gaon” then done his job properly, he would have gone back to
Maimonides’ responsum and discovered what “any student, and anyone
with the slightest knowledge” would grasp, indeed what the “rawest tyro”
would see, namely that bodies of water and their beds belong to the
category of karmelit and are not subject to Written Law prohibitions. He
would have realized that the intent of Maimonides’ second proposition—
“travel limits [are an enactment] of the rabbis”—is that travel limits on
a river bed are rabbinic enactments, and he would have understood
Maimonides’ conclusion that when the depth of the water is uncertain,
regulations carrying the sanction of a rabbinic enactment do not apply.
“The Creator is my witness,” Maimonides exclaims; “It never crossed my
mind that a rabbinic scholar would have to have the matter spelled out at
length” and in detail.
If we skip over technicalities that would unnecessarily lead us astray,
the remaining items of interest in Maimonides’ reply are these.
What counts for him in settling legal and ritual issues is the cogency
of the reasoning and not the number of legists who took one position
or the other. Nevertheless, since Samuel mentioned Iraqi “Geonim” who
prohibited river travel on the Sabbath, Maimonides offers a list of Span-
ish “geonim” who permitted it. There is a subtext here. Maimonides is
challenging the claim of the Iraqi Geonim that, merely by virtue of their
office and title, their authority trumps the authority of rabbinic scholars
elsewhere in the Jewish world.
Since Maimonides was not merely settling scores with Samuel but
also deciding an issue that affected individuals’ lives and livelihoods,
he includes a sober and irony-free appeal to rabbinic authorities asking
them to encourage people who travel on the Sabbath to prefer river travel
over land travel. Travel on land is liable to lead to much more serious
transgressions of the Sabbath than river travel.
Samuel had written that he was not going to analyze “everything
inscribed by Maimonides’ noble hand,” and Maimonides takes him to
be saying that other statements in his—Maimonides’—responsum were
 herbert a. davidson
open to criticism. Having annihilated Samuel’s defense of the prohibition

against river travel, he “requests, . . . beseeches, and implores him, may
God preserve his station,” to show no pity and compassion but rather to
“scrutinize every word,” whether in Maimonides’ response to Abraham,
in the present letter to Samuel, or in anything else that Maimonides wrote.
Any slip that he may have committed should be corrected, and he would
love to have Samuel treat him to additional animadversions of the same
caliber. As far as is known, Samuel did not take up the offer; he must
have had his fill. As noted earlier, his critique of a few legal decisions in
the Mišneh Torah did reach Maimonides, and Maimonides sent Joseph a
rebuttal.
The last few lines of Maimonides’ letter arrive at an irritant that exac-
erbated his annoyance with Samuel. He writes that he knew of the way
in which Yemeni Jews and others “lacking sense or desiring to belittle
me . . . construed what I wrote [regarding the world to come]. . . . And
I explained to them how they misunderstood my words.” He had, more-
over, received Samuel’s “treatise, . . . containing all the homiletic inter-
pretations [derašot] recorded [in the Talmud] regarding resurrection”; he
is referring to the composition that we saw him describing to Joseph as
“nonsense,” “ridiculousness,” and a “scandal.” And Maimonides informs
Samuel that he had “composed a treatise in which I clear myself of the evil
name being disseminated about me.” He signs off, with a final touch of
irony: “May your well-being and the well-being of your sacred academy
and entire pure retinue increase and grow. Amen. Tammuz .”62
Maimonides’ followers in Baghdad combined the correspondence be-
tween Abraham of Baghdad, Maimonides, and Samuel into a small trea-
tise, which they circulated.63 Samuel died about three years after the
exchange of letters.
62 Maimonides, Responsa (ed. Blau), § , supplemented by .–, and .–.

63 Maimonides, Iggerot ha-Rambam (ed. and trans. Shailat), pp. , .
IBN RUŠD AND THE ALMOHAD CONTEXT*
Josep Puig Montada
The relationship between philosophy and political power has always

been a matter of discussion. In recent times, scholars have focused on
the interaction between Abū l-Walı̄d Muhammad
. ibn Rušd ( / –
 / ), known in the West as Averroes, and the Almohad dynasty
which he served, and they have discussed whether and how he con-
tributed to their doctrine, and reciprocally. In the following lines, I shall
examine Ibn Rušd’s activity within the Almohad context, the basic prin-
ciples of Almohadism and those of Ibn Rušd’s philosophy in an attempt
to explain some features of their relationship.
Personal or Institutional Connections
The Almohad chronicler Ibn Sā . hib

. as. -Salāt
. (d.  / ) reports that
Ibn Rušd accompanied the caliph Abū Ya#qūb Yūsuf (r. –) on
his failed campaign against the fortress of Wabda/Huete in  / .1
The chronicler points out that the caliph had around ¯ him some scholars
called the t. alabat al-ha
. dar,
. “the court scholars,” and that he conducted a
study session with them while his troops were fighting to take the fortress.
He seems to blame his absence from combat caused by this session for the
defeat of the Muslims.
The t. alaba held one of the highest ranks within the Almohad hierarchy,
and they were divided into two classes, t. alabat al-muwah. hidı̄n,. “the
divine unity scholars,” and t. alabat al-ha. .dar. They were not based on
tribal affiliation, but on religious scholarship. The t. alabat al-ha
. dar
. class
* I thank Dr Ralph Jaeckel, UCLA, for his comments on the manuscript. I am
responsible for all shortcomings.

1 Abū Marwān #Abd al-Malik Ibn Sāhib as-Salāt, Ta"rı̄h al-mann bi-l-imāma. Edited
. . . .
˘
by #Abd al-Hādı̄ at-Tāzı̄ (Beirut,  / ): –. Spanish translation: Al-mann bil-
Imama: estudio preliminar, traducción e índices por A. Huici Miranda, Textos medievales,
 (Valencia, ): –.
 josep puig montada
accompanied the caliph and assisted him with reading and interpreting
the Koran and the works of the mahdı̄ Ibn Tūmart.2 Thus, they were the
institutional preservers of the Almohad doctrine.
Ibn Rušd was, no doubt, a member of the caliph’s inner circle, which
does not mean that he was one of the t. alaba. The Almohads had con-
quered Cordova in , and as early as  /  he must have met
the Almohad sultan #Abd al-Mu"min (r. –) in Marrakech. In his
Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s book On the Heavens, when he offers
evidence for the spherical shape of the earth, Ibn Rušd says:
The star Canopus (Suhayl) is not seen in this our land, i.e., the Peninsula
of al-Andalus, but it is said that it is seen from the mountain of Canopus
(Fuengirola).3 It is seen in the land of the Berbers, beyond the sea that
stretches between us and them, called the Strait. When in Marrakech in
the year , I saw a star, which is not seen from our country, on Mount
Daran, it was said to be Canopus.4
In his monograph on Ibn Rušd,5 the Moroccan philosopher Muhammad .
#Ābid al-Ǧābirı̄ (d. ) follows al-#Abbās ibn Ibrāhı̄m al-Marrākušı̄,
author of a biographical repertory,6 stating that Ibn Rušd went to help
the sultan #Abd al-Mu"min “perhaps to organize the schools that the latter
had founded in Marrakesh.”7 But al-#Abbās al-Marrākušı̄ (d. ) is a
modern source, and the information itself is conjectural.
Ibn Rušd had not written his first philosophical works at that time. As
for his Middle and Long Commentaries on Aristotle, the historian #Abd
al-Wāhid
. al-Marrākušı̄ reports that the caliph Abū Ya#qūb Yūsuf had
complained to Abū Bakr ibn Tufayl
. about the difficulty of understanding
Aristotle and expressed the desire that someone would paraphrase his
works. Ibn Tufayl
. was too old, too busy, he complained, and passed
the order on to Ibn Rušd, who explicitly says: “And so it came to pass
2 J.F.P. Hopkins, “The Almohad Hierarchy,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies  (): –.

3 Ahmad al-Maqqarı̄ (d.  / ) corroborates the fact in Nafh at-tı̄b min ġusn
. . . . .
al-Andalus ar-rat. ı̄b. Edited by I. ‘Abbās, vol.  (Beirut, ): .
4 Talhı̄s kitāb as-samā" wa-l-" ālam. Edited by J. al-#Alawı̄ (Casablanca, ): ,
.
l. –.˘
5 Ibn Rušd. Sı̄ra wa-fikr (Beirut, ; nd ed. ).
6 Al-i#lām bi-man hall Marrākuš wa-Aġmāt min al-a#lām. Edited by #Abd al-Wahhāb
.
Ibn Mans. ūr,  vols. (Rabat, –).
7 Al-i#lām bi-man hall Marākush wa-#aġmāt min al-al-a#lām, vol.  (Rabat, ): ,
.
l. –.
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
that I wrote the paraphrases.”8 We do not know the exact date of the
event. With the term talhı̄s. , Ibn Rušd is probably referring to the Middle
Commentaries. The first˘ dated talhı̄s. is the Middle Commentary on the
Topics, from  Rajab  ( April˘ ).9 Since the Topics are the fourth
book of the Organon, the encounter between the caliph and Ibn Rušd
should be placed a few years earlier.
Since that time Ibn Rušd enjoyed the favor of Abū Ya#qūb: he was
appointed chief judge of Seville () and later of Cordova (); and
he accompanied the caliph in his campaigns, as we have seen. We should
bear in mind that Ibn Rušd was also his physician. As a further instance
of their close relationship, let us also note his visit to the tombs of Ibn
Tūmart and #Abd al-Mu"min in Tinmal in .10
After Abū Ya#qūb’s death in , his son Abū Yūsuf Ya#qūb al-Mans. ūr
was enthroned. Al-Mans. ūr was not only pious, he was also interested
in the religious sciences, and he declared the Zāhirite
. school of law
official in his kingdom. Ibn Rušd remained a respected person, but his
relationship with the son was not as warm as that with the father. Ibn Abı̄
Us. aybi#a reflects this appreciation when he tells us about the caliph’s stay
in Cordova in the year  / . There were rumors that Ibn Rušd had
lost the favor of the caliph when he was ordered into his presence, but
the caliph had Ibn Rušd sit close to him and had “honored him greatly.”11
The t. alaba accompanied the caliph on this occasion and showed support
to Ibn Rušd.
Toward the end of his life, in  / , Ibn Rušd was accused of
unbelief (kufr) and was condemned. Adequate information on his per-
secution is given by Ibn #Idārı̄12 and by Muhammad
. ibn #Abd al-Malik
¯
8 Al-mu#ğib fı̄ talhı̄s. ahbār al-Maġrib [written ]. Edited by R. Dozy (Leiden,
): , l. –. ˘Edited ˘ by M.Z.M. #Azab (Cairo, ): , l. –; Spanish
translation by A. Huici Miranda in Colección de crónicas árabes de la reconquista, vol. 
(Tetuán, ): –.
9 Attested by the manuscript Florence, at the end of Book VII; cf. Talhı̄s kitāb
.
˘
Arist. ūt. ālı̄s fı̄ al-ğadal. Edited by M.S. Sālim (Cairo, ): , variant . Edited by
G. Jéhamy (Beirut, ): , l. –.
10 Ibn #Idārı̄ al-Marrākušı̄, Al-bayān al-muġrib fı̄ ihtisār ahbār mulūk al-Andalus wa-
.
l-Maġrib [written ¯ ˘
–]. Edited by M.I. al-Kattānı̄, ˘ Ben Tāwı̄t, M. Zunaybar
M.
and #Abd al-Qādir Zamām, vol.  (Beirut, ): . Spanish translation by A. Huici
Miranda, in Colección de crónicas árabes de la Reconquista II, (Tetuán, –): .
11 #Uyūn al-anbā" fı̄ tabaqāt al-atibbā. Edited by A. Müller (Cairo, ): :. Edited
. .
by S.
. az-Zayn (Beirut, ): :–.
12 Ibn #Idārı̄, Bayān, p. .
¯
 josep puig montada
al-Ans. ārı̄ al-Marrākušı̄ (d. ),13 a later historian who was not engaged
with the Almohad cause as were Ibn Sā . hib
. as. -Salāt
. and Muhammad
. al-
Marrākušı̄. Ibn Rušd and his philosopher friends were banished from
the city, and philosophy was forbidden. We know the names of some
who turned against him: Abū #Alı̄ ibn Hağğāğ,. Ibn Ǧubayr, and Abū
#Abd Allāh ibn #Ayyāsh.14 The historian Ibn #Abd al-Malik notes that
Ibn Rušd was a good friend of Abū Yahyā, . brother of al-Mans. ūr and
governor of Cordova, and cites this circumstance as one of the reasons
for his persecution.15 However, news about this Abū Yahyā . is rather
confusing. The caliph had a brother who conspired against him; he
summoned this brother to Marrakech and had him executed, but we do
not know his name. The other brother, Abū Yahyā, . seems to have been
loyal.16
Although the term t. alaba is not used by the accusers—Ibn ‘Abd al-
Malik refers to them as t. ālibūn, “the petitioners”—he states that the
caliph ordered them to carry out the sentence: “The caliph ordered the
t. alaba of his council and the jurists (fuqahā") of his government to go to
the congregation of the Muslims and to explain to the people that Ibn
Rušd was a heretic.”17
It is obvious that Ibn Rušd was not a member of the t. alaba rank of
the Almohad hierarchy, but his relationship with them needed clarifi-
cation. Fricaud devoted an innovative study to the role of the t. alaba in
Almohad society, paying singular attention to their relationship with Ibn
Rušd.18 To what extent they were responsible for his persecution can-
not be determined; even if they were responsible, other factors should be
considered.
Muhammad
. #Ābid al-Ǧābirı̄ interprets the misfortune of Ibn Rušd
as the deepest crisis of the Almohad state.19 To explain it, al-Ǧābirı̄
13Abū #Abd Allāh Muhammad. Ibn #Abd al-Malik Al-Ans. ārı̄ al-Marrākušı̄, Ad-dayl
wa-t-takmila li-kitābay al-Maws. ūl wa-s. -S. ila, vol. . Edited by I. #Abbās (Beirut, ¯):
¯
–.
14 For these personalities, cf. J. Puig, “Materials on Averroes’ Circle”, Journal of Near
Eastern Studies  (): –. M. Ibn Šarı̄fa, Ibn Rušd al-Hafı̄d. . Sı̄ra wathā"iqı̄ya
(Casablanca, ).
15 #Abd al-Malik Al-Ansārı̄ al-Marrākušı̄ (ed. I. #Abbās), Ad-dayl wa-t-takmila, p. .
.
16 A. Huici Miranda, Historia política del imperio almohade, ¯ ¯ vol.  (. Reprint
Granada, ): , footnote.
17 Ibn #Abd al-Malik, Dayl wa-t-takmila, :, l. –, l. .
18 É. Fricaud, “Les talaba¯ dans la société almohade”, Al-Qantara  (): –.
. .
19 Al-Ǧābirı̄, Ibn Rušd, pp. –.
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
summarizes the views of historians contemporary or close to Ibn Rušd.

He cites two causes: first, estrangement, even bad feelings between the
caliph and the philosopher and, second, envy and a grudge by the Cordo-
vans.20 Nevertheless, he considers these reasons only as pretexts, not true
causes. Al-Ǧābirı̄ claims that the true cause was Ibn Rušd’s book on the
Politics, i.e., his epitome of Plato’s Republic.21 According to al-Ǧābirı̄, the
book is dedicated to Abū Yahyā . and the accusations raised against Ibn
Rušd were based on opinions expressed in the book. For instance, Ibn
Rušd criticizes the situation in the country:
Thus men will be of two categories: a category called the masses, hamon,
and another called the mighty, as is the case of the people in Persia and in
many of our own states.
In such a situation, the masses will be plundered by the mighty. The mighty
commit excesses by seizing property from them, until this leads them
at times to tyranny, just as happens in our own time and in our own
State.22
Al-Ǧābirı̄ interprets Ibn Rušd to be attacking the new caliph, Abū Yūsuf
al-Mans. ūr. However, as Rosenthal suggests, Ibn Rušd probably com-
posed the book during the reign of Abū Ya#qūb, and that “the mighty”
were not the caliph and his family. The reasons advanced by Al-Ǧābirı̄
are also conjectural but, in any case, Ibn Rušd and his philosopher friends
were in danger for these or other reasons.
Ibn Rušd’s Presumed Contribution to the Almohad Doctrine
The fact that Ibn Rušd was not an official exponent of the Almohad
doctrine does not exclude the possibility of his intellectual involvement
with it in his writings. In recent times, Dominique Urvoy,23 Muhammad
.
20 A Cordovan delegation had gone to Marrakech in  /  to denounce Ibn Rušd
to the caliph, see Ibn #Abd al-Malik, Dayl wa-t-takmila, :.
21 Preserved in Hebrew: Averroes’ ¯ Commentary on Plato’s Republic. Edited with an
Introduction, Translation and Notes by E.I.J. Rosenthal (Cambridge, ).
22 On Plato’s Republic (ed. Rosenthal), translation p. , Hebrew III., , p. .
23 “La pensée almohade dans l’ œuvre d’ Averroès”, in J. Jolivet, ed., Multiple Averroès
(Paris, ): –. Averroès. Les ambitions d’ un intellectuel musulman (Paris, ).
“Les professions de foi d’ Ibn Tūmart. Problèmes textuels et doctrinaux,” in P. Cressier,
M. Fierro, L. Molina, eds, Los almohades. Problemas y perspectivas, vol.  (Madrid, ):
–.
 josep puig montada
#Ābid al-Ǧābirı̄,24 Marc Geoffroy,25 Massimo Campanini26 and Sarah

Stroumsa,27 among others, have raised this issue.
Urvoy complained that we lack the main text of Ibn Rušd on the sub-
ject, namely, his commentary on the credo, the #aqı̄da, of Ibn Tūmart,
which was lost. However, Muhammad . Bensharifa found the commen-
tary, which unfortunately is not yet available for publication (oral com-
munication). Ibn #Abd al-Malik al-Marrākušı̄ calls it “Commentary on
the humrānı̄ya
. credo” because Ibn Tūmart’s statement of principles
28
. t transmitted by Humrān,
begins with a hadı̄ . a client of #Umrān ibn
¯
#Affān. Urvoy had to resort to other texts and paid special attention to
29
the Kašf #an manāhiğ al-adilla fı̄ #aqā"id al-milla, “Enquiry into the meth-
ods proving religious creeds.”30
Urvoy suggests that Ibn Tūmart and Ibn Rušd follow similar methods
and have similar purposes. He writes: “The Kašf shows us an Andalusian
intellectual defender of the essential dogmas of the Almohad doctrine,
for want of a disciple of Ibn Tūmart in the proper sense.”31 The choice
of the Kašf is not by chance: in it, using persuasive arguments, not
demonstrative ones, Ibn Rušd develops a theology accessible to most
Muslims.
24 Cf. his introduction to the edition of the Kašf (Beirut, ), in addition to the
above mentioned Ibn Rušd. Sı̄ra wa-fikr, n. .

25 “L’ almohadisme théologique d’ Averroès,” Archives d’ Histoire doctrinale et littéraire
du Moyen Âge  (): –. “Ibn Rušd et la théologie almohadiste,” Medioevo 

(): –. “À propos de l’ almohadisme d’ Averroès. L’ anthropomorphisme dans
la seconde version du Kitāb al-Kašf #an Manāhiğ al-adilla ”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina,
eds, Los almohades, :–.
26 “Averroè lettore di Aristotele: un problema politico?” in Carmela Baffioni, ed.,
Averroes and the Aristotelian Heritage (Naples, ): –, and also Averroè (Bologna,
).
27 “Philosophes almohades? Averroès, Maïmonide et l’ idéologie almohade”, in
Cressier, Fierro & Molina, eds, Los almohades, :–.

28 A tradition relating to the words and deeds of Muhammad; from here on I shall use
.
the simplified form hadith.
29 Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, mahdi des Almohades; texte arabe accompagné
de notices biographiques et d’ une introduction par I. Goldziher. Edited by J.D. Luciani

(Algiers, ); Luciani used the manuscript Paris B.N. . The text of the #aqı̄da is on
pp. –. New editions under the title A#azz mā yut. lab by A. Tālibı̄
. (Algiers, );
and by #Abd al-Ġanı̄ Abū l-#Azm (Rabat, ). The latter used the Paris manuscript in
addition to one in Rabat, Bibliothèque Générale .
30 Urvoy quotes according to the edition of M.J. Müller, (Munich, ). M. Qāsim
published another edition using Müller’s text and two Cairo manuscripts (Cairo, ).
M. #Ābid al-Ǧābirı̄ and M. Hanafı̄
. have newly published the Kašf (Beirut, ). In the
introduction al-Ǧābirı̄ plainly states: “This is a book which criticizes Kalam.”
31 Urvoy, “La pensée almohade”, p. .
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
Geoffroy carried out research in Istanbul libraries, where he found two

new manuscripts of the Kašf ; he also translated the Kašf into French.
The two manuscripts represent a later, revised version. Geoffroy sees the
later version as conforming to the doctrine of Ibn Tūmart on his absolute
denial of divine anthropomorphism. He mentions the anti-Aš#arite mood
of the treatise and notes that the second version emphasizes the trend. For
Geoffroy, the Kašf embodies the Almohad doctrine in its struggle against
Aš#arism. #Ābid al-Ǧābirı̄ had also stressed the anti-Aš#arite attitude of
Ibn Rušd in this work, and Geoffroy duly refers to him. Geoffroy sees
the agreement between the Almohad ideology and the views of Ibn Rušd
more as a struggle against Aš#arism rather than as the sharing of common
doctrines.
Kalām, i.e. Islamic rational theology, is not a monolithic system. Ibn
Rušd knew the Aš#arite school mainly as expounded by Abū l-Ma#ālı̄ #Abd
al-Malik al-Ǧuwaynı̄ (d.  / ), the teacher of al-Ġazālı̄ (d.  /
). In a certain way, what Ibn Rušd does in the Kašf is to produce
an alternative treatise of elementary theology; he wants to show that
another kind of kalām is possible, but does the Kašf qualify Ibn Rušd
as an ideologist of the Almohad movement? I shall examine this point
below.
Campanini approached the issue from another perspective. He found
inspiration in the thought of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci for
his approach. Gramsci opposed reliance on the capacity to persuade and
convince and rejected domination through physical power. Persuasion
occurs through ideological structures and institutions; the organic intel-
lectual has the task of articulating through the language of culture, feel-
ings and experiences which the masses cannot express for themselves.
According to Campanini, Ibn Rušd articulated beliefs which the masses
could grasp and used the Almohad ideology to educate them.
Sarah Stroumsa has observed contradictions in recent analyses of
intellectual life in the Almohad period. Some scholars see the Almohads
as fundamentalists, others as main contributors to the flourishing of
philosophy. Stroumsa opposes the view that Abū Ya#qūb Yūsuf entrusted
Ibn Rušd with commenting on Aristotle and considers that the caliph
was interested in Ibn Rušd as a candidate for a high position in his
administration.32 To sum up, she concludes that neither Ibn Rušd nor
Maimonides can be qualified as “Almohad” philosophers, although she
32 Stroumsa, “Philosophes almohades?” pp. –.

 josep puig montada
argues that Maimonides was more receptive of the Almohad doctrine

than Ibn Rušd. I agree with the affirmation that Ibn Rušd cannot be
qualified just as an Almohad philosopher, and shall now proceed to
contrast the elements of the Almohad doctrine with those of Ibn Rušd.
An Overview of the Almohad Doctrine
From the remarks above we may conclude that Ibn Rušd was active in
the Almohad state, but was never a member of its doctrinal corporation.
Among his large output, scholars have been attracted by a short theolog-
ical treatise in which he often attacks the Aš#arites. Its main purpose is
to present a rational theology with the help of persuasive arguments. I
would now like to present an overview of the extant documents of the
official Almohad doctrine, which were ascribed to Ibn Tūmart. I cannot
decide to what extent they were actually composed by Ibn Tūmart, but
it is clear that they represent that doctrine. For my overview I follow the
order of the old edition by J.D. Luciani:33
We have already mentioned the credo of the founder which is doc-
ument IX of the collection. The collection is usually entitled A#azz mā
yut. lab, “The most precious thing that can be sought after,” and this rhetor-
ical sentence opens the first treatise of the collection:
I. A#azz mā yut. lab wa-afdal
. mā yuktasab etc. (pp. –). This treatise
is an enquiry into the foundations of religious knowledge or of science
which can be acquired by the senses, by reason (#aql), and by tradition
(sam#, literally, hearing). According to Ibn Tūmart, the last comprises
the reception of the Koran, the traditions (sunna), and the universal
agreement among Muslims. Ibn Tūmart does not employ here the term
revelation that is valid for the “hearing” of the Koran and the sayings
of the Prophet. Continuity of the transmitted sayings (naql) is essential
for such knowledge although science can be also acquired by means of
rational discourse (#aql).
As far as legal theory is involved, Goldziher34 and Brunschvig35 ana-
lyzed it and concluded that Ibn Tūmart was close to Zāhirism
. but not
33 Luciani, ed., Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert.

34 In his introductory study to Luciani’s edition, Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert,
“Mohammed Ibn Toumert et la théologie de l’ Islam dans le Maghreb au XIe Siècle”, pp. –
.
35 “Sur la doctrine du Mahdı̄ Ibn Tūmart”, Arabica  (): –.
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
to the extent of accepting a hadith based only on one tradition, the so

called habar al-wahı̄d, . as the source of certain knowledge, and accepted
˘
it as “likely true,” and being a reason to act accordingly.36
II. “Treatise on prayer” (pp. –). Ibn Tūmart asserts that prayer
is one of the pillars and characteristic traits of religion and produces
numerous hadiths as evidence.
III. “Proof that the revealed Law (šarı̄#a) is not established by rea-
son” (pp. –). As one reason for his claim, Ibn Tūmart notes that
the intellect is full of doubts. The foundations of revealed Law are ten,
he says: Allāh’s positive commandment and His explicit prohibition (),
the hadiths (habar) of His commandment and prohibition (), the com-
mandment and ˘ prohibition by the Prophet (), the hadiths concerning
his commandment and prohibition (), in addition to the Prophet’s act-
ing and deciding (iqrār, ). Regarding analogy (qiyās) and consensus
(iǧmā#) as sources of law, Ibn Tūmart subsumes consensus under the
above mentioned foundation of Allāh’s commandment (p. ).
Most of the chapter deals with analogy (qiyās), its divisions and condi-
tions, in the way Aš#arism would. Legal analogy, i.e. legal syllogism (qiyās
šar#ı̄), is defined as “that to which the term points out and which the fore-
going ten foundations comprise. It is divided into two categories: indica-
tion to the superior with the inferior, and indication to what unites two
things different but coincident in meaning” (p. , ll. –).
Ibn Tūmart ends this chapter with the hadiths in which the Prophet
was asked whether an intoxicating beverage called bit# was licit. He
answered that it was forbidden because “Everything which intoxicates is
forbidden” (p. , l. ).37 Thus the prophet would have used syllogisms
too.
IV. “Treatise on universal and particular, on absolute and relative,
on comprehensive and detailed, on abrogating and abrogated, on true
and metaphoric meaning, etc.” (pp. –). This treatise gives as an
example of “universal” the Koranic commandment “Fight the polytheists
all together” (.) and as an example of “particular” the Koranic phrase
“until they pay the poll-tax” (.).
V. “Treatise on knowledge” (#ilm, pp. –). Here we read again
that knowledge is acquired through the senses, the intellect, and the
transmission of the truth, and that the Koran is the best transmitter.
36 Luciani, ed., Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, p. , ll. –.

37 Cf. Muslim, S. ahı̄
. h,. Ašriba,  (). Bukharı̄, ibid. ().
 josep puig montada
VI. “Knowable entities” (al-ma#lūmāt, pp. –). Al-ma#lūmāt is

a term used in kalām and designates known facts of existent (mawğūd)
as well as of non-existent beings (ma#dūm). The treatise divides existent
beings into absolute and limited, and limited beings result from a partic-
ularization process (ihtis. ās. ). Particularization is a concept also common
in the kalām. ˘
VII. This treatise has no title and begins with the following sentence:
“Temporally created being (muhda . t) is what starts to exist, it is what
¯
has limit and end, restriction and privation, incapacity and shortcoming”
(pp. –). This created being is mostly described in negative terms.
The texts discuss created being as being odd or even; only Allāh is exempt
from this law. “He is one with no second or third” (p. ) and those who
say that Allāh is three are unbelievers. Ibn Tūmart classifies limited unity
in three ways: one which is isolated and divisible, one which is neither
isolated nor divisible, and one which is isolated but not divisible. His
classification appears to be original (p. ).
VIII. “Treatise on the acts of worship (#ibādāt), their aspects and
conditions, etc.” (pp. –). Here Ibn Tūmart answers the person who
asks about his duty to practice those acts which Allāh commanded with
His words. The acts of worship are not valid without faith and sincerity,
and neither of these is valid without knowledge. Knowledge requires
endeavor; endeavor requires will. This is a sample of how Ibn Tūmart
argues in this treatise.
IX. The credo of Ibn Tūmart mentioned above (p. ) is divided into
seventeen sections (fas. l, pp. –). The first chapter is called “Section
on the excellence of the divine unity and its necessity; it is the first thing
that has to be obtained”, and cites three hadiths transmitted by Humrān,
.
Ibn "Umar and Ibn #Abbās related to the tenet of God’s unity. The second
section states that “The existence of the Creator is known by necessity of
reason” (p. , l. ) and continues with arguments found in the kalām—
or to be more exact—in the Aš#arite tradition. In addition to Urvoy’s
analysis of the #aqı̄da, let me note the analysis of this proof made by Frank
Griffel,38 who connects the doctrine of Ibn Tūmart to the teachings of the
Nizāmı̄ya
. school in Baghdad at the beginning of the eleventh till twelfth
centuries ad.
Ibn Tūmart continuously stresses the uniqueness of Allāh and that
He bears no resemblance at all to His creatures. Ibn Tūmart follows
38 “Ibn Tūmart’s Rational Proof for God’s Existence”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina, eds,
Los almohades, pp. –.

ibn rušd and the almohad context 
al-Aš#arı̄ when he denies that human intellect has any capacity to know
Allāh or how He acts. Human minds have a limit beyond which they can-
not go, and they must return to their beginning. Their limit lies in their
inability to represent any qualification of the Divine. Beyond their lim-
its, minds will either fall into the total denial of God’s attributes or into
anthropomorphism.39 There is no need to say that the label anthropo-
morphist (muğassim) applies to Ibn Tūmart’s enemies, the Almoravids.
The credo is followed by two short versions of it called muršida and by
a recitative glorification of God (tasbı̄h, . pp. –).
X. This untitled treatise (pp. –) begins as follows: “This is a
chapter (bāb) on knowledge; knowledge is obligation to believe entirely
in the Imamate; believing in the imam is one of the pillars of religion and
one of the columns of the revealed Law.” The imam must be infallible,
ma#s. ūm min az-zalal. Allāh established the imam starting with Noah
and continuing with Abraham, David, Jesus, and Muhammad (Mus. t. afā)
to whom He revealed the whole truth. The next imams were Abū Bakr
and #Umar, but divisions among the Muslims began “thirty years after
Mus. t. afā” (p. ). Let us recall that Muhammad
. died in  /  and that
in  /  #Alı̄ ibn Abı̄ Tālib
. was deposed by Mu#āwiya. Ibn Tūmart or
the actual author avoids the issue of #Uthmān and #Alı̄; he does not even
mention their names. He insists that centuries later the situation got so
much worse that Allāh sent a guide, mahdı̄. The text clearly implies that
Ibn Tūmart is that guide.
XI. “Essentials (qawā#id) on which religious and secular sciences are
built” (pp. –). Prophets really exist and there is no disagreement
among them; the books of Allāh are true; these books are not different
from each other; true religion is one and is not divisible; divine com-
mandments are incumbent on everyone, etc.
XII. “Chapter elucidating the classes and features of the veiled and
anthropomorphist people” (pp. –). The author vehemently attacks
the Almoravids for being anthropomorphists (muğassimūn) and also
depraved: Men go veiled while women show their faces (p. ). Numer-
ous hadiths are adduced to warn of sects that will taint Islam until the
Hour is at hand.
XIII. Various chapters (bāb) on divine unity (tawhı̄d, . pp. –).
The first chapter considers belief in divine unity as the foundation of
39 Ibn Tūmart employs the technical terms takyı̄f, “qualification,” ta#tı̄l, “denial,” and
.
tağsı̄m, “anthropomorphism.” Luciani, ed., Le livre de Mohammed ibn Toumert, ch. ,
p. , ll. –.
 josep puig montada
religion. Here hadiths are quoted to prove this and other foundations.
The first of them says: “Islam is built on five [pillars]: declaring Allāh
to be one, performing the ritual prayer, paying the alms tax, fasting in
Ramadan, and pilgrimage.” This is the tradition transmitted by Muslim,40
but Buhārı̄ reads “faith” (ı̄mān) instead of “declaring Allāh to be one”
(yuwwa˘h. hid),
. and Ibn Tūmart prefers Muslim to Buharı̄. Even if he says
that we know God’s existence and oneness by “necessity ˘ of reason,” he
reinforces the argument with a Koranic verse: “Is there doubt about Allāh,
the Maker of the heavens and the earth?” (.), (pp. –).
XIV. A large selection of hadiths (pp. –) proceeding from Mus-
lim (d. ). The first and longest chapter deals with ritual purity (pp.
–). There are hadiths on the abolition of knowledge, revelation of
the Koran, abolition of kindness and religion, on impostors, revelation of
hadiths, unclear passages of the Koran, obstinate persons, etc. and a long
chapter against alteration of the Koran. Some of the hadiths support the
legitimacy of Ibn Tūmart. One of them claims that the Prophet is said to
have foretold: “The mahdı̄ shall be a man of my family and his name shall
be the same as mine” (p. ).41
A new chapter (bāb) begins on p.  and produces more hadiths
(pp. –) mainly about death and its aftermath, the first being one
ascribed to Ibn #Abbās: “I looked at Paradise and I saw that most of its
people were poor.” The tradition is found in various collections, namely
Buhārı̄, Muslim, Tirmidı̄, and Ibn Hanbal.
.
˘ “Book on acting¯unfaithfully (ġulūl) and warning against it” (pp.
XV.
–). The treatise begins with the Koranic sentence: “and he who
acts unfaithfully shall bring that in respect of which he has acted unfaith-
fully on the day of resurrection” (.) and continues with endless
hadiths of an eschatological nature.
XVI. Various chapters about wine drinking (pp. –). “Wine is
not a medicine” (p. ) Ibn Tūmart affirms, and “God condemned
drinking of wine” (pp. –). Ibn Tūmart produces numerous ha-
diths confirming the express disapproval of drinking alcohol. Another
chapter is called “Prohibition of wine by the Koran, the traditions and
the consensus of the Companions of the Prophet” (–). The treatise
includes a chapter (pp. –) explaining that wine can be made of
five substances: grapes, dates, honey, wheat, and barley. The explanation
comes from the Prophet, as we would expect.
40 Muslim, S. ahı̄
. h,
. Īmān,  ().
41 Abū Dā"ūd, Sunan, Mahdı̄,  (), and also Ibn Māğa and Ibn Hanbal.
.
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
XVII. “Book of Holy War (ğihād)” (pp. –). It contains two

treatises, one, “Incitement to Holy War,” dated in the period of Abū
Ya#qūb (r. –), and the other, “Superiority of martyrdom on the
way to God,” in that of Abū Yūsuf (r. –). Both treatises consist
of traditions. A final chapter considers financial support for the war as
ğihād (pp. –).
The edition by Abū al-#Azm (see note ) includes three letters, one by
the mahdı̄ Ibn Tūmart and two by the Prince of the Believers, i.e., ‘Abd
al-Mu"min, printed on pp. –.
The above overview teaches us several things:

. Some treatises are theoretical and reflect the Aš#arite education Ibn
Tūmart received in the East. Assuming that he is the author of most
of the treatises, his information is rich, but his expression is difficult
to follow. He does not produce any systematic exposition and the
chapter on syllogism is particularly confusing. If we compare his
treatises to the works of al-Ǧuwaynı̄ Imām al-Haramayn,
. they fall
short.
. A second part of the collection abounds in hadiths which permit us
to associate Ibn Tūmart with Zāhirism,
. as Goldziher did. Aš#arism
and Zāhirism
. had already appeared in the works of Ibn Hazm . of
Cordova ( / – / ), who was greatly appreciated by the
caliph Abū Yūsuf.
. In addition to Aš#arism and to Zāhirism,
. a third factor is notewor-
thy: The justification of the mahdı̄. Ibn Haldūn (–), who
˘
pointed to Ibn Tūmart’s Aš#arite education, as did others, accepted
his orthodoxy, but excluded his doctrine of the infallible imam in
which Ibn Tūmart would join the šı̄#ı̄tes.42 Ibn Tūmart did not praise
#Alı̄, but he could certainly have received the imamate idea from the
šı̄#ı̄tes. In any case, as the Almohad ideology evolved, the doctrine
of the imam was ignored.
42 #Abd ar-Rahmān Ibn Haldūn, Kitāb al-#ibar, ed. W. MacGuckin Baron de Slane,
.
vol.  (Algiers, ): .˘French translation, Histoire des berbères et des dynasties
musulmanes de l’ Afrique septentrionale, vol.  (Algiers, ): .
 josep puig montada
Ibn Rušd on Islam
At this point we must examine the relevant opinions of Ibn Rušd on

the issue of religion. Urvoy, #Ābid al-Ǧābirı̄, and Geoffroy focused on
the Kašf, in which Ibn Rušd outlines an elementary theology and argues
against the Aš#arite theology represented by al-Ǧuwaynı̄ Imām al-Hara-
.
mayn, whom he mentions explicitly. He may have gone too far because
everyone knew that Ibn Tūmart followed that school. He had to revise
his work and add some notes showing his respect for the Almohad
mahdı̄.43
Ibn Rušd’s elementary theology was an attempt to find a middle way
between Aš#arism and the literal reading of the Koran. At the end of the
Kitāb fas. l al-maqāl, “The Decisive Treatise,” he writes that the Almohad
doctrine was a middle way: “a middle way of knowing God the Glo-
rious, which is placed above the low level of the followers of author-
ity but is below the turbulence of the theologians.”44 Maybe Ibn Rušd
identified his elementary theology with this middle way, but after our
overview of Ibn Tūmart’s books, I do not think that the identification is
objectively possible. If we further consider Ibn Rušd’s major theological
work, the Tahāfut at-Tahāfut, “The Incoherence of the Incoherence,”45
we find that in it Ibn Rušd is refuting fundamental Aš#arite doctrines
on the temporal creation of the universe and on the personal activity of
Allāh.
At the end of the Tahāfut at-Tahāfut, in the fourth discussion of
the section “About the natural sciences,”46 Ibn Rušd rejects al-Ġazzālı̄’s
accusation that philosophers deny bodily resurrection. He acknowledges
that the issue did not arise among the ancient philosophers, but that
resurrection was first mentioned by “the prophets of Israel after Moses,”
and that it was also affirmed by Jesus and by the Sabeans before all of
them.
43 Cf. Geoffroy, “À propos de l’ almohadisme d’ Averroès”, in Cressier, Fierro & Molina,
eds, Los almohades, pp. –.

44 Edited by M.J. Müller, Theologie und Philosophie des Averroes (Munich, ):
. Bilingual edition by C.E. Butterworth (Provo, Utah, ). English translation by
G.F. Hourani, On the harmony of religion and philosophy (London, ): .
45 Edited by M. Bouyges, Bibliotheca Arabica Scholasticorum III (Beirut, ). En-
glish translation by S. van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of
the Incoherence),  vols (London, , and reprints).
46 Van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut, pp. –.
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
Ibn Rušd confines the belief in bodily resurrection within the bound-
aries of religious dogma. Therefore he has to prove that religions are true
and necessary. The main reason is that religions are necessary political
disciplines. This tenet has been known since al-Fārābı̄ and places religion
below philosophy.
According to Ibn Rušd, religion is a political discipline because it pre-
scribes services or collective actions, including prayers, which reinforce
the knowledge of God. This theoretical knowledge contributes to the per-
fection of the practical, moral virtues. Furthermore, the practical virtues
are necessary for the development of the speculative virtues.47 This argu-
ment might appear circular, but Ibn Rušd is underlining the interaction
of speculative and practical virtues. The final purpose is man’s happiness,
which consists of intellectual activity.
The distinction between philosophy and religion lies on the level and
quality of this intellectual activity. Religion teaches the truth by means
of allegories and poetical categories so that the unlearned masses can
understand it. There is no need to say that bodily resurrection is merely
the way to explain immortality to the masses.
One may raise the question of whether philosophers need religion at
all and recall Ibn Rušd’s words at the beginning of his Long Commentary
on the Metaphysics.48 On Aristotle’s words: “It is only fair to be grateful
not only to those whose views we can share but also to those who have
expressed rather superficial opinions . . . ” (Met. b–), Ibn Rušd
urges us to be grateful to our predecessors and above all, to Aristotle. We
show him our gratitude when:
We devote ourselves to the study of his doctrines and we comment on
them and explain them to all people. The religion (sharı̄" a) exclusive of the
learned men (hukamā")
. is the enquiry about all beings because the noblest
form to adore the Creator is knowledge of His creatures that leads to the
true knowledge of His essence.49
Nevertheless, in the aforementioned passage of the Tahāfut at-Tahāfut,
Ibn Rušd imposes on the philosophers, “the learned men,” the obliga-
tion of adopting a particular religion. The philosopher owes gratitude
to his parents and his forefathers too and “he should not deride the
47 Van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut, p. .

48 Tafsı̄r mā ba#d at. -Tabı̄#at (Grand commentaire de la Métaphysique). Edited by
.
M. Bouyges, Bibliotheca Arabica Scholasticorum V. (Beirut, ): –.
49 Tafsı̄r (ed. Bouyges), p. , ll. –.
 josep puig montada
doctrines in which he has been brought up.” On the contrary, he should

explain their universal character, which brings us back to philosophy. Ibn
Rušd’s words sound complaisant, seeking to please the Almohad rulers
and to calm the religious authorities. But religion appears as a relative
element, and this sense of relativism is strengthened by this well known
passage:
Further, he is under obligation to choose the best religion of his period,
even when these religions are equally true for him, and he must believe that
the best religion will be abrogated by the introduction of a still better one.
Therefore the learned men who were instructing the people in Alexandria
became Muslims when Islam reached them, and the learned in the Roman
Empire became Christians when the religion of Jesus was introduced there.
And nobody doubts that among the Israelites there were many learned
men.50
Ibn Rušd adds another argument, as if he were aware of his weak position
with regard to the religious power. He affirms that every revealed religion
is blended with reason and that the combination of reason and revelation
is better than reason alone or revelation alone. But we may object that
such a combination may be not so successful and that literal contradic-
tions appear. In this case we assume that Ibn Rušd would refer us to the
Fas. l al-maqāl, “The decisive treatise,” where he establishes hermeneutical
interpretation as the way to solve the apparent contradictions.51 We see
that philosophy again decides what the true meaning is.
Such disparity of views also appears in the legal doctrine. Ibn Rušd
struggled to resurrect independent jurisprudence, iğtihād, and wrote a
now often printed book called the Bidāyat al-muğtahid, “Primer for the
jurist who practices iğtihād,” in –.52 Ibn Rušd mentioned not
only the views of the canonical schools: Mālik, Abū Hanı̄fa,
. aš-Šāfi"ı̄, and
Ibn Hanbal
. but also those of Dāwūd, the founder of the Zāhirite
. school.
He always showed respect toward the Zāhirites
. although he obviously did
not share their views, for instance, on analogy:
We say: The channels through which the judgments (ahkām)
. were received
from the Prophet are three in genus: word, act, and approval (iqrār). With
50 Van den Bergh, Averroes’ Tahafut al-Tahafut, p. .

51 M.J. Müller, ed., Theologie und Philosophie des Averroes, p. ; Hourani, On the
harmony, p. .
52 Bidāyat al-muğtahid wa-nihāyat al-muqtasid. Edited by M.S. Muhaysin and S.M.
. .
Ismā#ı̄l,  vols (Cairo, –). English translation, The distinguished jurist’s primer: a
translation of Bidāyat al-muğtahid by I.A.K. Nyazee (Reading, ).
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
respect to the judgments about which the Lawgiver is silent, the majority
[of the schools] say that the method of attaining them is analogy (qiyās).
The Zāhirites
. maintain that analogy in law is illegal and that about which
the Lawgiver is silent there is no judgment. Reason proves (dalı̄l al-#aql),
they say, this assertion because the incidents occurring among individuals
are infinite, while words, acts and approvals are finite, and it is impossible
to apply the infinite to the finite.53
Ibn Rušd was careful to include the Zāhirite
. view on any issue, as far
as possible, but his methodology had nothing to do with the Zāhirite.
way of relying on hadiths for every purpose. He always looked for the
cause of divergence in legal views. For him it was not the views that
were decisive but their common origin. In so far as Ibn Tūmart and
his successors relied mainly on hadiths as legal sources, they can be
considered Zāhirites.
. Not only did the Almohades not tolerate Judaism
and Christianity in their lands but they wanted also Islam to be learned
and practiced in the way Ibn Tūmart preached it. When they occu-
pied al-Andalus, they had to adjust to the reality of Islam there, but dif-
ferences remained. For them the Koran and the traditions always pre-
vailed. The use of logical arguments in theology, no matter how numer-
ous, does not overshadow the radical discrepancy in contents between
both the Almohad doctrine and Ibn Rušd’s philosophy. In my view, the
only possible connection between Abū Ya#qūb and Ibn Rušd was per-
sonal.
On the other hand, Ibn Rušd was not opposed to Malikism on princi-
ple, but he was not a Malikite jurist as his grandfather was. The Almohads
did not have the active support of Malikite jurists who were a powerful
force in Andalusian society, but neither did Ibn Rušd. His situation was
not secure in the political context; he was neither an Aš#arite in theology
nor a Malikite or a Zāhirite
. in law.
Ibn Rušd’s main interest was to comment on and interpret Aristotle as

becomes evident when we look at his philosophical works. Here again the
doctrinal link to the Almohad doctrine is missing; the link is to the per-
son of the caliph Abū Ya#qūb. Abū Yūsuf, his son and successor, yielded
to political pressures and condemned Ibn Rušd, but also called him to
his court in Marrakech. In spite of the condemnation, he kept a friend
of Ibn Rušd, Abū Ǧa#far Ahmad
. ad-Dahabı̄ (–), at his side and
¯ ¯
53 Bidāyat al-muğtahid, :; English, Nyazee, :xliv.

 josep puig montada
entrusted him with important tasks. We may assume that the caliphs
could yield to some pressure, but would never allow the balance of power
to tip completely in favor of one party as the Malikite jurists were.
A Context of Permanent Distrust
Did Ibn Rušd pursue a coherent, continuous policy of influencing the

Almohad ideology? If we take into account Kašf "an manāhiğ al-adilla—
and the Fas. l al-Maqāl to a certain extent—(both completed in  / –
), we may agree that he made an attempt to influence it. The Kašf is
just a fragment of his intellectual output and was eclipsed by the Tahāfut
at-Tahāfut, composed between  and , in which his attack against
Aš#arism was so deep that no reconciliation was possible. If we consider
the Tahāfut at-Tahāfut and major writings like the Long Commentary
on the Metaphysics, we find no traces of any further attempt to influence
the Almohad doctrine.
As regards legal doctrine, I have just referred to the Bidāyat al-muğ-
tahid.54 In spite of his distance from Zāhirism,
. Ibn Rušd was helpful to
the Almohads by creating a balance among the various legal schools.
However, he was not permanently engaged in a project of legal reform,
and we do not find any juridical works such as fatwas besides the Bidāya.
His purpose was only to supply the independent jurist with a handbook
enabling him to form his own legal conclusions.
Ibn Rušd devoted his energy to the project the caliph had almost cer-
tainly assigned to him and with which he completely identified himself:
to explain and defend Aristotle.55 Vindicating Aristotle, however, meant
refuting al-Ġazālı̄ and the Aš#arite school, both pillars of the Almohad
ideology. Was he not aware that it was impossible to replace Aš#arism with
philosophy? The inquisitorial persecution he suffered convinced him of
the impossibility, if he was otherwise not aware.
Almohadism had, indeed, created and fostered interest in speculative
activity, echoing the effort made by al-Ġazālı̄, who had also studied and
54 On the fundamentals of law, and as early as in  Ibn Rušd wrote a short
commentary on the Mustas. fā of al-Ġazāli: Ad- . Darūrı̄

. fı̄ us. ūl al-fiqh, aw muhtas. ar al-
Mustas. fā. Edited by J. al-#Alawı̄ (Beirut, ). ˘
55 This is my argument in “Averroes’ Commentaries on Aristotle: To explain and
to interpret,” in G. Fioravanti, C. Leonardi and S. Perfetti, eds, Il commento filosofico

nell’ Occidente Latino (secoli XIII–XV). Rencontres de philosophie médiévale  (Turn-
hout, ): –.
ibn rušd and the almohad context 
written about philosophy. Philosophy belonged to the “Sciences of the

Ancients,” also called “Sciences of the Greeks,” which occupied a certain
place in Islamic society. But this does not mean that the environment at
the time was favorable to philosophy. While the Almohad theologians
could easily be associated with Aš#arism, the Andalusian jurists were
Malikite; neither the Almohad theologians nor the Andalusian jurists
accepted philosophy. But as long as the caliph’s authority was not chal-
lenged, the caliph had no reason to suppress philosophy. Maybe Abū
Yūsuf al-Mans. ūr was so weak that he felt challenged, and his decision
to forbid philosophy meant the end of any attempt to harmonize philos-
ophy with the Almohad doctrine.
Let me refer here to the views of two liberal thinkers presently living
in Egypt, Murād Wahba and #Āt.ef al-#Irāqı̄. In one of his numerous
articles,56 Wahba points to the situation of philosophy in al-Andalus,
following the account of Ibn Sā"id
. (d.  / ) reproduced by Ahmad.
al-Maqqarı̄ (d.  / ). Ibn Sā"id
. said that when someone practices
philosophy or astronomy in al-Andalus, the masses call him a heretic,
zindiq, and try to kill him, and al-Maqqarı̄ cautiously adds “And Allāh
knows best.”57 The situation relates to a period two centuries before Ibn
Rušd, but Wahba extrapolates from that situation. He observes that the
masses never act on their own and maintains that they were instigated by
the theologians (ulamā" al-kalām) to fight against Ibn Rušd. In contrast,
al-#Irāqı̄ holds a group of jurists (fuqahā") responsible for the attack
against Ibn Rušd,58 but both agree that the enemies of Ibn Rušd were
men of religion.
Al-#Irāqı̄ and Wahba know that men of religion can be influential
not only in contemporary politics, but also in the destiny of public
personalities. Al-#Irāqı̄ even had to face trial for unbelief (kufr).59 Their
interpretation of Ibn Rušd’s persecution arises from personal experience
and must be considered seriously. The accusations brought against Ibn
Rušd were of a religious nature and could only have been formulated by
men of religion, although other factors such as the struggle for power and
personal envy were driving forces.
56 “Mufāraqat Ibn Rušd” in A. al-#Irāqı̄, ed., Al-faylasūf Ibn Rušd, mufakkiran #arabı̄yan
wa-rā"idan li-l-ittiğāh al-#aqlı̄ (Cairo, ): –.

57 Nafh at-tibb (ed. #Abbās): :–. Abū l-Qāsim Ibn Sā#id, Kitāb tabaqāt al-
. . . . .
umam. Edited by L. Cheikho (Beirut, ; Reprint Frankfurt am Main, ): .
58 An-naz#a al-#aqlı̄ya fı̄ falsafat Ibn Rušd, th ed. (Cairo, ): –.
59 See, for instance, his own memories in Al-faylasūf Ibn Rušd wa-mustaqbal at-taqāfa
¯¯
al-#arabı̄ya. Arba#ūna ‘āman min dikrayātı̄ ma# fikri-hi at-tanwı̄rı̄ (Cairo, ): –.
¯
 josep puig montada
We know that Ibn Rušd’s enemies were able to move the masses to such
an extent that the caliph may have felt threatened and been anxious to
defend his authority. We have good reasons to assume that eventually the
struggle was against the caliph himself since Cordova had never willingly
accepted Almohad rule. Ibn Rušd had always been loyal to the Almohads,
but he was not an institutional representative of their doctrine, so he
could be sacrificed for the sake of appeasement.
LEGISLATING TRUTH:
MAIMONIDES, THE ALMOHADS,
AND THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY
JEWISH ENLIGHTENMENT*
Carlos Fraenkel
In the thirteenth century Maimonideans in Southern France devoted

themselves “with religious zeal” to teaching philosophy to the general
public.1 At the same time they were committed to the esoteric character
of philosophy, holding that access to it must be restricted to the select
few.2 In this paper I want to propose a solution to this puzzle.
In his magisterial study on the appropriation and role of the sciences in
the medieval Jewish communities of Southern France, Gad Freudenthal
documented and explained the radical transformation which these com-
munities underwent, from traditional Talmud-Torah centers into lead-
ing centers of philosophy and science. According to Freudenthal, Mai-
monides’ interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical religion played a
key role in this process:
En effet, à partir du début du XIIIe siècle, notamment, suite à la pénétration
dans les communautés juives du Midi de la France et du Nord de l’ Espagne,
* Different versions of this paper were presented to academic audiences at the Uni-
versity of Chicago and McGill University. I wish to thank them for raising interesting
questions. I am also grateful for helpful comments from Erik Dreff, Rachel Haliva, and
an anonymous referee, as well as for the technical assistance I received from Zoli Filotas.
1 J. Robinson, “Secondary Forms of Philosophy: On the Teaching and Transmission of
Philosophy in Non-Philosophical Literary Genres,” in C. Fraenkel, J. Fumo, F. Wallis and

R. Wisnovsky, eds, Vehicles of Translation, Transmission and Transformation in Medieval
Cultures (Turnhout, forthcoming). As Rachel Haliva has pointed out to me, this is not
true for all thirteenth-century Maimonideans. See, for instance, Shem Tov Falaquera, who
sides with Ibn Rušd against disclosing the philosophical doctrine of God’s incorporeality
in Moreh ha-Moreh (edited by Y. Shiffman [Jerusalem, ]) on Maimonides’ Guide .
(Dalālat al-hā"irı̄n;
. edited by S. Munk and Y. Yoel [Jerusalem, ], translated by S. Pines
as The Guide of the Perplexed [Chicago, ]).
2 See A. Ravitzky, The Thought of Rabbi Zerahyah b. Isaac b. Shealtiel Hen and
Maimonidean-Tibbonian Philosophy in the Thirteenth Century (Heb.) (Ph.D. thesis, The

Hebrew University, ); idem, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon and the Esoteric Character of the
Guide of the Perplexed,” AJS Review  (): –; and idem, “The Secrets of The Guide
of the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenth and the Twentieth Centuries,” in I. Twersky, ed.,
Studies in Maimonides (Cambridge, MA, ): –.
 carlos fraenkel
de la philosophie de Maïmonide, les sciences et la philosophie y ont acquis

droit de cité. . . . Ces sciences sont ainsi devenues une partie intégrante
du “bagage intellectuel” non seulement d’ une infime élite de philosophes
proprement dites, mais aussi de toute personne voulant s’ instruire tant soi
peu en théologie dans l’ esprit maïmonidien. . . . En somme . . . il ne fait pas
de doute que, au fur et à mesure que s’ est imposée la vision maïmonidi-
enne du judaïsme, s’ est répandue l’ étude des sciences préparant à la méta-
physique, de sorte que des le milieu du XIIIe siècle une large fraction des
lettrés juifs ont “fait leurs classes” scientifiques.3
Freudenthal persuasively argues that Maimonides’ interpretation of Ju-
daism both structured the corpus of scientific and philosophical texts
that was translated from Arabic to Hebrew and provided a religious jus-
tification for studying these texts. According to Maimonides the com-
mandment to love God (Deut. :) is a “call” to acquire “all the . . .
correct opinions concerning the whole of being—opinions that con-
stitute the numerous kinds of all the theoretical sciences [al-#ulūm al-
naz. ariyya].”4 The “theoretical sciences” are mathematics, physics, and
metaphysics, preceded by the study of logic as the tool of philosophy.5
Maimonides thus legitimizes studying the entire range of the philosoph-
ical sciences that prepare for and culminate in the intellectual love of
God.6
What turns the process described by Freudenthal into a puzzle is Mai-
monides’ insistence that the philosophical sciences are esoteric sciences—
“the secrets of the Law.” Boldly identifying physics with the “Account of
the Beginning” and metaphysics with the “Account of the Chariot,” Mai-
monides refers to the authority of the Talmud to stress their esoteric char-
acter: Whereas the “Account of the Beginning ought not to be taught
in the presence of two men,” the “Account of the Chariot ought not to
be taught even to one man, except if he be wise and able to understand
by himself, in which case only the chapter headings may be transmitted
3 Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales de Pro-
vence: Leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des études juives  (): –, on
pp.  and ; cp. also idem, “Science in the Medieval Jewish Culture of Southern France,”
History of Science  (): –, which elaborates on some of the points made in the
earlier paper.
4 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ). Note that through-
out this paper I have often modified existing English translations.

5 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).
6 For a detailed account of Maimonides’ interpretation of Judaism as a philosophical
religion, see C. Fraenkel, From Maimonides to Samuel ibn Tibbon: The Transformation
of the Dalālat al-Hā"irı̄n
. into the Moreh ha-Nevukhim (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ), in
ch. ..
legislating truth 
to him.”7 How, then, could thirteenth-century Maimonideans turn the

philosophical sciences into a “partie intégrante du ‘bagage intellectuel’
. . . de toute personne voulant s’ instruire . . . en théologie dans l’ esprit
maïmonidien”? At first view, the Maimonidean framework invoked by
Freudenthal fails to explain this phenomenon. It only provides a reli-
gious justification for disseminating the philosophical sciences among
“une infime élite de philosophes proprement dites.” Freudenthal’s own
explanation highlights the widespread literacy among Jews: “Etant donné
qu’une grande partie des juifs du moyen âge sont lettrés, il s’ ensuit que les
études scientifiques ne sont pas, comme dans les autres sociétés médié-
vales, l’ affaire d’ un groupe restreint de savants . . . .”8 Knowing how to
read and write, however, is not enough for being introduced to “the
secrets of the Law” according to Maimonides’ standards.9
This is all the more puzzling if we take the literary genres into account
that were used for disseminating philosophy and science in Southern
France. They include not only study aids such as dictionaries of techni-
cal terms and philosophical encyclopedias that make scientific contents
accessible to a wider public, but also many distinctly Jewish genres—
from commentaries on the Bible to synagogue sermons.10 In other words,
medieval Maimonideans appropriated a wide range of traditional cul-
tural narratives for their purpose. As a consequence, Southern France in
the thirteenth century witnessed what was likely the most comprehen-
sive attempt before the Enlightenment to bring philosophy and science
into every family’s living room!
The paradoxical project of teaching philosophy to hoi polloi despite the
explicit prohibition to do so is not just an idiosyncratic feature of Mai-
monides’ medieval disciples. Scholars who took note of the phenomenon
usually overlooked that the paradox is at the heart of Maimonides’ own
work. They interpreted the seeming departure of thirteenth-century Mai-
monideans from Maimonides as a response to the concern that Christian
7 B Hagigah b, quoted by Maimonides in Guide , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ;

.
trans. Pines, pp. –); cp. the introduction to Guide . See also Freudenthal’s explanation
of why instruction in philosophy was not institutionalized in medieval Jewish culture:
Freudenthal, “Science,” p. .
8 Freudenthal, “Les sciences,” p. .
9 See, e.g., the “Epistle Dedicatory” of the Guide, where Maimonides describes how he
tested Joseph’s mathematical and logical skills before concluding that he was “one worthy
to have the secrets of the prophetic books revealed” to him (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines,
p. ).
10 For an overview of these genres, see Robinson, “Secondary Forms.”
 carlos fraenkel
neighbors were looking down on the intellectual culture of the Jews, a

situation to be remedied through the large-scale promotion of philoso-
phy and science.11 The neglect of Maimonides’ own role in this context
is in part due to the paralyzing influence of Leo Strauss.12 According to
Strauss, Maimonides takes philosophy to be the exclusive domain of the
intellectual elite, fearing that its public disclosure will subvert the reli-
gious beliefs of non-philosophers and ultimately lead to the disintegra-
tion of the social order.13 As we will see, this interpretation precisely fails
to capture the originality of Maimonides’ position. For one thing, much
of the Guide of the Perplexed is devoted to a straightforward explana-
tion of the allegorical meaning of terms and parables occurring in the
Bible and in rabbinic texts. Particularly prominent are explanations of
passages that represent God in anthropomorphic terms which on Mai-
monides’ reading esoterically refer to features of an incorporeal God.14
Through these explanations Maimonides makes at least some “secrets of
the Law” accessible to anyone who can read the Guide. The “secret” of
God’s incorporeality, for example, is a key doctrine of the “Account of
the Chariot.”15 Maimonides, in other words, has no qualms about pub-
licly revealing what the prophets and rabbinic sages took great care to
conceal! Moreover, Maimonides includes a summary of Aristotelian phi-
losophy in the Book of Knowledge, the first book of the Mišneh Torah that
begins by stating the Laws Concerning the Foundations of the Torah. As
the “Foundations of the Torah,” it turns out, Maimonides posits the core
11 See, for example, M. Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish
Thought and its Philosophical Implications (Princeton, ), in particular ch. . This
view was first set forth by I. Twersky, “Aspects of Social and Cultural History of Provençal
Jewry,” Journal of World History  (): –.
12 See Z. Harvey, “How Leo Strauss Paralyzed the Scholarship on the Guide of the
Perplexed in the th Century” (Heb.), Iyyun  (): –. Only recently are the
basic assumptions of Strauss coming under scrutiny. See, for example, A. Ravitzky, “Mai-
monides: Esotericism and Educational Philosophy,” in K. Seeskin, ed., The Cambridge
Companion to Maimonides (Cambridge, ): –, on p. , where he explicitly
states that his earlier stance on Maimonides’ esotericism “requires revision.”
13 I have presented my critique of Strauss’s approach in C. Fraenkel, “Theocracy and
Autonomy in Medieval Islamic and Jewish Philosophy,” Political Theory  (): –
.
14 See Guide . for a statement of the program, which is carried out in the Guide.
15 For the philosophical proofs of God’s incorporeality, see Guide , introduction,
and .–. For the inclusion of God’s incorporeality in the “Account of the Chariot,” see
Maimonides, Sefer ha-madda# (Jerusalem, ), translated by M. Hyamson as The Book
of Knowledge (Jerusalem, ), Laws Concerning the Foundations of the Torah .–
and ..
legislating truth 
teachings of Aristotle’s metaphysics and physics: from the existence of

God, inferred from the eternal motion of the celestial spheres, all the way
down to the four elements of the sublunar world.16
Conveying philosophical doctrines through exegesis and legislation to
the general public is clearly at odds with the political Platonism char-
acteristic of the school of Arabic Aristotelianism founded by al-Fārābı̄
(d. ). Maimonides is consistently described as the greatest Jewish
representative of this school. Lawrence Berman called him “the disciple
of Alfarabi” because, according to Berman, he took al-Fārābı̄’s general
theory of the relationship between philosophy, religion, theology, and
jurisprudence and applied it to Judaism.17 And yet Maimonides and his
disciples in Southern France seem to be repeating what Plato took to be
the tragic mistake of Socrates: trying to set free the cave-dwellers by drag-
ging them out of the cave’s darkness into the light of science.
To explain the rationale for disseminating philosophy and science to the

general public, I first briefly examine the political Platonism which seems
to be at odds with this project, in particular the division of human beings
into philosophers and non-philosophers and the esoteric character of
philosophy following from this division. Maimonides’ departure from
the standard Platonic position, I argue, is best understood as an Aris-
totelian adaptation of the political-theological program of the Almohad
rulers of Muslim Spain and North Africa, who legally enforced theo-
logical beliefs such as the belief in God’s incorporeality. This program,
in turn, is embedded in Maimonides’ sociology of religion, for which
he makes creative use of the Christian concept of divine accommoda-
tion and Arabic literature on paganism. Maimonides’ core assumption
is that by legislating true beliefs the false beliefs of non-philosophers
can be replaced through intellectual habituation. Since human nature is
not susceptible to radical change, however, this replacement must take
place gradually. Maimonides’ treatment of anthropomorphism thus can
be explained in terms of the same model of progress that underlies his
historical analysis of the reasons for the commandments in Guide .–
: not only religious practices such as sacrifices, but also religious beliefs
such as the anthropomorphic representation of God were included in
the Law of Moses on account of God’s pedagogical “ruse” operating in
16Ibid., –.
17L. Berman, “Maimonides, the Disciple of Alfarabi,” Israel Oriental Studies  ():
–, on p. .
 carlos fraenkel
history. Intellectual habituation, however, is only one side of Maimonides’

program for non-philosophers. It is complemented by the prescription to
study the Law of Moses, including its esoteric contents, i.e., the “Account
of the Beginning” and the “Account of the Chariot.” Maimonides’ aim,
then, is not just to replace false with true beliefs, but also to substitute
wisdom for authority as the beliefs’ foundation. Finally, I argue that Mai-
monides’ program was adopted by Samuel ibn Tibbon, the founder of
Maimonideanism in Southern France, who turned it into a comprehen-
sive theory of the progressive disclosure of the divine Law’s esoteric con-
tent. The main difference between Maimonides and Ibn Tibbon is that
for the former intellectual habituation to true beliefs is a function of leg-
islation whereas for the latter it is a function of the scientific culture of
the non-Jewish environment.
Philosophy as an Esoteric Discipline
I have discussed elsewhere Plato’s distinction between philosophers and

non-philosophers and its implications for the public teaching of philos-
ophy and the pedagogical-political purpose of religion. I also tried to
show how the medieval falsafa tradition, starting with al-Fārābı̄, adopted
Plato’s conceptual framework to explain the relationship between philos-
ophy and the divine Law.18 The standard position of the falāsifa is that
philosophical contents should not be disclosed in public. According to
Ibn Rušd, for example, only philosophers have access to the truth through
scientific demonstrations. Hence access to the “allegorical sense” of the
divine Law should be restricted to philosophers too. Pointing out in pub-
lic that the literal sense of the divine Law is false and disclosing its allegor-
ical sense would precisely undermine the intention of the prophet who
concealed the allegorical sense because of the division of humankind into
philosophers and non-philosophers.19 Removing the traditional beliefs,
Ibn Rušd argues, risks pushing non-philosophers into nihilism because
they are unable to replace them through true ones. They will, therefore,
no longer follow the guidance of the lawgiver on account of either the lit-
eral or the allegorical sense of the divine Law. Again and again Ibn Rušd
18 See C. Fraenkel, “Philosophy and Exegesis in al-Fārābı̄, Averroes, and Maimonides,”
Laval Théologique et Philosophique  (): –.

19 Ibn Rušd, Decisive Treatise and Epistle Dedicatory [Kitāb fasl al-maqāl]. Edited by
.
G. Hourani and translated by C. Butterworth (Provo, ): –.
legislating truth 
stresses that the allegorical sense of the divine Law is not to be made
public. His sharp criticism of Muslim theologians who “strayed and led
astray” is motivated above all by the fact that they “revealed their allegor-
ical interpretation to the multitude” (s. arahū 20
. bi-ta"wı̄lihim li-l-ğumhūr).
Among the beliefs that ought not to be called into question in public,
Ibn Rušd explicitly includes the “belief in [God’s] corporeality” (i#tiqād
al-ğasmiyya).21
I partly agree with the scholarly tradition that situates Maimonides in
the philosophical school founded by al-Fārābı̄. He indeed shares many
of this school’s assumptions, for example that human beings are sub-
divided into philosophers and non-philosophers, and the notion of the
philosopher-prophet who has a perfect intellect as well as a perfect imag-
ination, teaching philosophers by means of demonstrations and non-
philosophers by means of dialectical, rhetorical, and poetical devices—
“the language of human beings.”22 Moreover, as I pointed out above, Mai-
monides, too, stresses the importance of concealing the allegorical con-
tent of the divine Law for the protection of non-philosophers. In Guide
. he makes a strong case for the esoteric nature of both philosophy and
the divine Law’s allegorical content: disclosing them, he argues, subverts
the beliefs of non-philosophers based on “authority” and hence pushes
them into nihilism. Only students who are “perfect in mind” should be
“elevated step by step” to true knowledge.23 This notwithstanding, the
Guide is presented as a book of Biblical exegesis. To understand why,
it is important to clarify who the “perplexed” are whom Maimonides
is addressing. In the introduction to the Guide, the perplexed is char-
acterized as a Jewish intellectual who has studied philosophy, but fails
to understand the relationship between philosophy and the divine Law.
He is “distressed by the literal meanings of the Law [zawāhı̄r
. al-šarı̄#a]”
because they contradict the doctrines of the philosophers.24 The Guide’s
philosophical-exegetical program at first looks like a response to pre-
cisely this problem. Maimonides’ purpose is “to give indications” (tanbı̄h)
by explaining “the meaning of certain terms” and “very obscure para-
bles occurring in the books of the prophets.” It seems, therefore, that the
project of the Guide can be characterized as elevating Jewish philosophers
20 Ibid., pp. –.

21 Ibid., p. .
22 For more detail, see again Fraenkel, From Maimonides, ch. ..
23 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, pp. –).
24 Ibid., , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).
 carlos fraenkel
from the literal sense of the divine Law, designed according to pedagog-
ical and political considerations for non-philosophers, to the allegorical
sense of the divine Law, corresponding to the “truth as it is” and accessible
only to philosophers.25
Leading Non-Philosophers out of the Cave
In Guide . Maimonides stresses that publicly teaching philosophy

and disclosing the divine Law’s allegorical content will ultimately lead
to the “absolute negation” of the beliefs which non-philosophers hold
on the basis of the authority of tradition. We would thus expect Mai-
monides to oppose straightforward philosophical exegesis as strictly as
Ibn Rušd. Maimonides indeed claims to have concealed his teachings
in the Guide through obscuring his argumentation by means of esoteric
devices such as deliberate disorder and contradictions.26 All the more
surprising, then, is that much of the Guide is devoted to the explana-
tion of the allegorical meaning of terms and parables occurring in the
divine Law. These explanations are, after all, accessible to anyone who
can read. Maimonides, it seems, does precisely what the falāsifa and he
himself stressed must be avoided. To solve this puzzle, my key claim
is that for Maimonides not only Jewish philosophers need to be ele-
vated from the literal to the allegorical content of the divine Law, but
non-philosophers as well. Although non-philosophers cannot acquire
knowledge by means of demonstration, they can be habituated to beliefs
that correspond to the true nature of things. These beliefs, acquired
through habituation, coincide with the knowledge philosophers acquire
through demonstration. The power of habituation is highlighted in Mai-
monides’ analysis of the “causes of disagreement about things.” One of
these causes
is habit ["ilf ] and upbringing [tarbiya]. For man has in his nature a love . . .
for, and the wish to defend, beliefs to which he is habituated [mu#tādātuhu]
and in which he has been brought up and has a feeling of repulsion
for beliefs other than those. For this reason also man is blind to the
apprehension of the true realities and inclines toward the things to which
he is habituated. This happened to the multitude with regard to the belief
in His corporeality [al-tağsı̄m] and many other metaphysical subjects as we
25 Ibid., , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

26 Ibid., , introduction.
legislating truth 
shall make clear. All this is due to people being habituated to, and brought
up on, texts . . . whose external meaning is indicative of the corporeality of
God and of other imaginings with no truth in them, for these have been
set forth as parables and riddles.27
If human beings can be habituated to false beliefs, there is no reason

why it should not be possible to habituate them to true beliefs as well, as
Maimonides argues with respect to the doctrine of God’s incorporeality:
This doctrine
ought to be inculcated in virtue of traditional authority [taqlı̄d] upon
children, women, stupid ones, and those of a defective natural disposition,
just as they adopt the notion that God is one, that He is eternal, and that
none but He should be worshipped. For there is no profession of unity
[tawhı̄d]
. unless the doctrine of God’s corporeality is denied.28
The false belief that God is corporeal is thus replaced with the true belief
that God is incorporeal. In both cases the belief is the outcome of habitu-
ation. Habituation, therefore, can be an obstacle as much as a vehicle for
spreading the truth. On the basis of a late ancient version of Aristotle’s
Organon, the falāsifa distinguished between the demonstrative, dialec-
tical, rhetorical, and poetical method of disseminating knowledge.29 To
these four methods Maimonides adds a fifth that is not derived from
the same conceptual framework: “inculcation in virtue of traditional
authority.” Here we meet the Almohads, i.e., the “professors of God’s
unity” (muwah. hidūn)
. who made the strict understanding of tawhı̄d—.
God’s unity as entailing God’s incorporeality—into the official doctrine
of the Almohad kingdom that all Muslims were forced to adopt.30 Sarah
Stroumsa recently argued for the pervasive influence of the political-
theological program of the Almohads on Maimonides who lived under
Almohad rule from  to .31 Most important for my purpose is the
Almohad muršida or ‘aqı̄da, a catechism containing a set of fundamen-
tal religious doctrines that were legally enforced on all Muslims. Since
the doctrine of God’s incorporeality is a cornerstone of this catechism,
27 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

28 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, p. ).
29 For a more detailed account of these logical methods, see Fraenkel, “Philosophy.”
30 See the programmatic text The Unity of the Creator [Tawhı̄d al-bāri"] by Ibn Tūmart,
.
the founder of the Almohad movement, in I. Golziher, “Materialien zur Kenntnis
der Almohadenbewegung,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 
(): –.
31 S. Stroumsa, Maimonides in His World: Portrait of a Mediterranean Thinker (Prince-
ton, ): ch. .

 carlos fraenkel
Stroumsa convincingly argues that Maimonides’ zeal in imposing it on

all members of the Jewish community is inspired by the Almohad pro-
gram. Given that the Almohads identify the anthropomorphic represen-
tation of God with idolatry, this zeal is not difficult to understand, for
the eradication of idolatry, according to Maimonides, is the “foundation”
("asl) and “pivot” (qutb) of the Mosaic Law.32 Avoiding the denunciation
of Jews as idolaters by their Muslim neighbors clearly was more urgent
to Maimonides than pedagogical concerns which he also seems to have
had about disclosing this well-guarded secret of the divine Law.33
The doctrine of God’s incorporeality, in turn, is obviously at odds with
much of what the divine Law has to say about God:
When people have received this doctrine, are habituated to it ["alifūhu]
and educated . . . in it, and subsequently become perplexed [tahayyarū"]
.
over the texts of the books of the prophets, the meaning of these books
should be explained to them. They should be elevated to the knowledge of
the interpretation of these texts [unhidū"
. li-ta"wı̄lihā], and their attention
should be drawn to the equivocality and allegorical sense of the various
terms—the exposition of which is contained in this Treatise—so that the
correctness of their belief regarding the oneness of God and the affirmation
of the truth of the books of the prophets should be safe.34
After having been habituated to the doctrine of God’s incorporeality,
non-philosophers too will experience perplexity over the literal mean-
ing of anthropomorphic passages in the Mosaic Law. It turns out, there-
fore, that much of the exegetical program of the Guide aims not only
at resolving the perplexity of philosophers, but the perplexity of non-
philosophers as well!
Maimonides’ stance on God’s incorporeality and its exegetical impli-
cations should not be seen as an isolated deviation from the Platonic tra-
dition of concealment. It is part of a broad project of habituating non-
philosophers to true beliefs which clearly breaks with the framework of
Platonism.35 This project is not just a variation of the catechism of funda-
mental religious beliefs enforced by the Almohads. It is embedded in the
32 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, ).

33 For the pedagogical concerns, see Guide .. There is a certain tension between
the admission that representing God in corporeal terms is pedagogically required and
the legal enforcement of the doctrine of God’s incorporeality.
34 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, p. ).
35 Note, however, that in Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ) Maimonides
makes a distinction between God’s incorporeality and other doctrines which “are truly
the mysteries of the Torah.” I suggest that the latter doctrines are doctrines that cannot
yet be publicly disclosed, but may be disclosed in the future.
legislating truth 
larger context of what may be called Maimonides’ sociology of religion.

For his sociology of religion Maimonides makes creative use of various
sources which have been studied in detail in previous scholarship. A brief
summary will thus suffice here. According to Maimonides, God’s wisdom
is not only manifest in the teleological order of nature as a whole or in
the teleological order of the parts of an animal, but also in goal-oriented
processes such as the biological development of animals and the cultural-
religious development of societies. In these processes God’s wisdom pro-
vides what is required to sustain each developmental stage until the goal
is achieved. For example:
God made a wily and gracious arrangement [talattafa] with regard to
all the individuals of the living beings that suck. For when born, such
individuals are extremely soft and cannot feed on dry food. Accordingly
breasts were prepared for them so that they should produce milk with a
view to their receiving humid food, which is similar to the composition of
their bodies, until their limbs gradually and little by little become dry and
solid.36
The application of this model to the cultural-religious development of
societies likely reflects the Christian concept of “divine accommodation”
according to which God “accommodates” his guidance to a specific group
of human beings whose practices and beliefs are shaped by a concrete
historical context.37 Thus Christians justified the abrogation of the Jewish
law by describing it as God’s guidance accommodated to a necessary but
transitional stage of Israel’s development towards Christianity. On this
interpretation the legal content of the Bible is not valid for all times,
but only a temporary educational measure, required for repairing the
Jews’ moral and intellectual corruption following their enslavement in
Egypt. Maimonides adapts elements of this conception to explain the
many commandments included in the Law of Moses whose rationale is
not evident. His explanation is based on an ontological thesis applied to
human nature:
36 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

37 See, e.g., S. Pines, “Some Traits of Christian Theological Writing in Relation to Mus-
lim Kalām and to Jewish Thought,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities  (): –; A. Funkenstein, Theology and the Scientific Imagination:
From the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century (Princeton, ): –; and idem,
Maimonides: Nature, History and Messianic Beliefs (Tel Aviv, ). On divine accommo-
dation in general, see S.D. Benin, The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish
and Christian Thought (Albany, ).
 carlos fraenkel
For a sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible. And

therefore man, according to his nature is not capable of abandoning sud-
denly all to which he was habituated ["alifa].38
As Sarah Stroumsa has argued, Maimonides’ reconstruction of the reli-
gion of ancient Egypt is based on the study of a wide range of Arabic
works on paganism. Maimonides uses this literature to construe a por-
trait of the religious practices and beliefs of “Sabianism,” which for him
is not the name of a distinct religious community, but a collective name
for pagan religions.39 In the time of Moses the religion of the “Sabians”
was practiced in “the whole world.”40 It was thus also the religion of the
ancient Egyptians into which the Jews were “acculturated” while being
slaves in Egypt. As a consequence Moses had to deal with a twofold con-
straint: the moral and intellectual corruption of the Jews who had become
habituated to the practices and beliefs of the “Sabians” and the fact that
“man . . . is not capable of abandoning suddenly all to which he was habit-
uated.” It was, therefore, impossible for Moses to enact a religious rev-
olution and replace the old and false religion through a new and true
one. This would have had the same effect as feeding a newborn solid
food. Instead, Moses had to embark on a project of gradual reform. The
paradigmatic example for the compromises which this reform project
required is the laws of sacrifice: At the time when the Jews were slaves
in Egypt
the way of life generally accepted [mašhūra] and habitual [ma"lūfa] in
the whole world and the universal service upon which we were brought
up consisted in offering various species of living beings in the temples in
which images were set up, in worshipping the latter, and in burning incense
before them . . . . His wisdom, may He be exalted, and His gracious ruse,
which is manifest in regard to all His creatures, did not require that He
give us a Law prescribing the rejection . . . of all these kinds of worship. For
one could not then conceive the acceptance of [such a Law], considering
the nature of man which always likes that to which it is habituated [al-
ma"lūf ]. At that time this would have been similar to the appearance of
a prophet in these times who, calling upon the people to worship God,
would say: “God has given you a Law forbidding you to pray to Him, to
fast, to call upon Him for help in misfortune. Your worship should consist
solely in meditation without any works at all.” Therefore He, may He be
exalted, suffered the above-mentioned kinds of worship to remain, but
transferred them from created or imaginary and unreal things to His own
38 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

39 See ibid., .–, .; and Stroumsa, Maimonides, pp. –.
40 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).
legislating truth 
name, may He be exalted, commanding us to practice them with regard

to Him, may He be exalted. . . . Through this divine ruse it came about
that the memory of idolatry was effaced and that the grandest and true
foundation of our belief—namely, the existence and oneness of the deity—
was firmly established, while at the same time the souls had no feeling of
repugnance . . . because of the abolition of modes of worship to which they
were habituated ["alifat].41
Sacrifices, therefore, have only an instrumental, not an intrinsic, value as
a way of worshipping God. They are a concession Moses had to make
to the stage of the Jews in their cultural-religious development at the
time of the exodus from Egypt. Their role is similar to that of the milk
for the newborn. At the same time, Maimonides sketches what the path
to the process’s goal could look like: sacrifices are replaced through less
inadequate forms of worship such as praying and fasting which in turn
are replaced through meditation without any works.42 At this final stage
God is worshipped adequately not only relative to a particular historical
context, but in absolute terms. Inadequate habits of worship thus can
be replaced through adequate habits in a process of gradual religious
reformation.
While the laws of sacrifice are a paradigmatic example, Maimonides
applies the same type of historical explanation to a wide range of other
laws throughout his discussion of the reasons of the commandments in
Guide .–. What scholars have not yet clearly seen, however, is that
this developmental model applies not only to religious practices but to
religious beliefs as well. Hence the secrets of the Torah can be disclosed
not only to philosophers, but, step by step, to non-philosophers as well.
At the final stage the beliefs of philosophers, based on demonstration,
will coincide with the beliefs of non-philosophers, based on habitua-
tion. Concerning beliefs, the paradigmatic case is God’s incorporeality.
Moses habituated the Jews to the belief in God’s “existence and one-
ness,” thus turning them away from Sabian polytheism. But since, as we
saw, “a sudden transition from one opposite to another is impossible,”
Moses could not impose the belief in God’s incorporeality as well. In
Maimonides’ time, by contrast, the commitment to God’s existence and
41 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, pp. –; trans. Pines, pp. –).
42 Or, more precisely, since sacrifices, praying, and fasting coexisted, only the less
inadequate forms of worship are retained at the second stage. The issue requires further
investigation, however, because Maimonides also holds that sacrifices will resume in the
Messianic era. See Book of Judges, Laws Concerning Kings and Wars  (Maimonides,
Mishneh Torah, edited by S. Frankel,  vols. [Jerusalem, ]).
 carlos fraenkel
oneness could be taken for granted. God’s incorporeality, moreover,

became a doctrine legally enforced in the cultural-religious context of
the Jewish community in which Maimonides lived. He thus felt autho-
rized to take the reform project one step further by introducing a new
aspect of the true notion of God, i.e., God’s incorporeality which is both
imposed by law in the Mišneh Torah and disclosed through allegorical
exegesis in the Guide. As in the case of the laws of sacrifice, the belief
in God’s corporeality is only a paradigmatic example for the working
of God’s pedagogical ruse in history. Already in the passage from Guide
. quoted above, God’s corporeality is said to be one of many “meta-
physical subjects” concerning which non-philosophers were habituated
to false beliefs. A second example is the belief in reward and punishment.
According to the “Sabians” who believed in astral gods, worshipping stars
and planets leads to the
prolongation of life, a warding-off of calamities, the disappearance of
infirmities, the fertility of the sowing, and the thriving of the fruits. Now
inasmuch as these notions were generally accepted so that they were
regarded as certain, and as God, may He be exalted, wished in His pity
for us to efface this error from our minds . . . and to give us laws through
Moses our Master, the latter informed us in His name, may He be exalted,
that if the stars and the planets were worshipped . . . rains will cease to fall,
that the land will be devastated, that circumstances will become bad, that
the bodies will suffer from diseases, and that lives will be short; whereas
a necessary consequence of the abandonment of their worship and the
adoption of the worship of God will be rainfall, the fertility of the land,
good circumstances, health of the body, and length of life.43
In this example, one false belief concerning reward and punishment is

replaced with another false belief which is, however, closer to the truth:
that there is no reward and punishment altogether in the traditional
sense. For the belief
that He will procure us benefits if we obey Him and will take vengeance
on us if we disobey Him, . . . this too is a ruse [hı̄la]
. used by Him with
regard to order us in order to achieve His first intention with respect to
us.44
As in the case of prayers and fasting, the belief in reward and punishment
is only an intermediate stage on the path to the true conception of the
relationship between human beings and God. It turns out that the false
43 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

44 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, pp. –).
legislating truth 
beliefs that Maimonides describes as “necessary” in Guide . are neces-

sary only for a certain stage of the Jews’ cultural-religious development.
At this stage, the belief that God “has a violent anger against those who
do injustice” and that God “responds instantaneously to the prayer of
someone wronged or deceived” are “necessary for the abolition of recip-
rocal wrongdoing or for the acquisition of a noble moral quality.”45 But
ultimately, as we will see below, Maimonides wants all members of the
community to serve God “out of love” and not for the sake of avoiding
punishment or receiving reward.
The scope of Maimonides’ ambition with respect to disseminating true
beliefs to non-philosophers becomes clear in the first four chapters of
the Commandments Concerning the Foundations of the Law which open
the Mišneh Torah. Here again Maimonides does not convey doctrines by
means of demonstration nor by means of dialectical, rhetorical, or poeti-
cal devices. Instead he imposes a succinct summary of Aristotelian meta-
physics and physics through the authority of the law. As in the Guide,
moreover, he identifies metaphysics with the “Account of the Chariot”
and physics with the “Account of the Beginning,” and the entire body of
esoteric doctrines with “Pardes,” literally “Paradise,” the term used in rab-
binical literature to refer to the esoteric content of the Mosaic Law.46 As
Sarah Stroumsa has suggested, yesodei ha-torah likely renders the Arabic
usūl al-dı̄n and is modeled on the Almohad catechism of fundamental
religious doctrines.47 I would suggest that the long-term goal of Mai-
monides’ Aristotelian catechism was to habituate non-philosophers not
only to God’s incorporeality, but to all basic concepts of what he con-
sidered a sound scientific worldview. Once these concepts take root in
the minds of the members of the religious community, the disclosure of
the Torah’s secrets through allegorical exegesis will have to follow suit.
In other words: the gradual enforcement of true beliefs must be coordi-
nated with the gradual disclosure of the divine Law’s esoteric content. In
this sense Maimonides’ work can be seen as only one stage in a larger
historical process. Following the model of what he did for the doctrine
of God’s incorporeality, his successors would have to continue disclosing
the Torah’s secrets.48 Plato and the falāsifa thought that if the traditional
45 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

46 See Foundations of the Law .–; for the meaning of “Pardes,” see B Hagigah .
.
47 Stroumsa, Maimonides, p. .
48 Maimonides, moreover, has prepared the ground for the next stage in the Guide.
For the “Account of the Beginning,” see Guide . and for the “Account of the Chariot,”
see Guide , introduction–.
 carlos fraenkel
beliefs of non-philosophers are challenged they fall into nihilism because

of their inability to replace them through true ones. Maimonides, by con-
trast, thinks that nihilism can be avoided if true beliefs are imposed grad-
ually through habituation.
The dichotomy between philosophers who assent to true beliefs on the

basis of demonstration and non-philosophers who embrace true beliefs
on the basis of habituation is, however, less clear-cut than I have pre-
sented it thus far. The ultimate goal of the Law of Moses, according to
Maimonides, is twofold: It
takes pains to inculcate ["i#t. ā"] correct beliefs with regard to God, may He
be exalted, in the first place . . . and desires to make man wise [tahkı̄m],
. to
give him understanding [tafhı̄m], and to awaken his attention [tanbı̄h], so
that he should know the whole of that which exists in its true form.49
Inculcating “correct beliefs” and making “man wise” are clearly two dis-
tinct goals. At the stage of inculcation the teachings of the Law are
accepted “on the basis of traditional authority” which Maimonides calls
“the science of the Law.” But traditional authority, Maimonides argues,
ought to be replaced through “wisdom,” i.e., “the verification of the
opinions of the Law through correct speculation.”50 According to Mai-
monides, “speculation concerning the fundamental principles of reli-
gion” is included in what he calls “Talmud” and the study of Talmud is
incumbent upon all members of the community. In the Laws Concern-
ing the Study of the Torah Maimonides lays out the study curriculum as
follows:
The time assigned to study should be divided into three parts. One third
should be devoted to the written Law, one third to the oral Law, and the
last third to understanding [yavin] and intellectually apprehending [yaśkil]
inferences, deducing one thing from another and comparing one thing
to another. . . . . This is called Talmud. . . . The words of the Prophets are
contained in the written Law and their interpretation in the oral Law.
The subjects called Pardes [i.e., the “Account of the Beginning” and the
“Account of the Chariot”] are included in the Gemara. This rule applies to
the beginning of a person’s studies. But once he makes progress in wisdom
[hokhmah]
. and no longer needs to learn the written Law or be occupied
with the oral Law all the time, he should, at fixed times, read the written
49 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).

50 Ibid., . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ) and . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans.
Pines, pp. –).
legislating truth 
Law and the oral Law, so as not to forget any of the rules of the Law, and
should devote all his days to the study of Talmud alone according to his
breadth of mind and maturity of intellect [rohav 51
. libo ve-yiššur da#to].
If “Talmud” implies that all members of the community must reflect
on the philosophical foundations of the Law included in “Pardes,” then
replacing traditional authority through wisdom is a universal obliga-
tion: everyone is required to enter “the antechambers” of the King’s
palace according to Maimonides’ parable for the degrees of perfection in
Guide ..52 This is corroborated by what I proposed describing as Mai-
monides’ Aristotelian catechism opening the Mišneh Torah. Although
this catechism serves to legally enforce philosophical doctrines, Mai-
monides often sketches proofs in their support, for instance the physical
proof for God’s existence, unity, and incorporeality based on the eter-
nal motion of the celestial spheres.53 While these sketches obviously fall
short of fully elaborated demonstrations, they provide starting points for
further reflection and show that Maimonides’ goal is not to impose the
doctrines in question through legal authority alone, but to convince the
community of their correctness by means of rational argument. The goal
to guide all members of the community to worshipping God on the basis
of wisdom is clearly stated in what Maimonides describes as “serving God
out of love”:
Hence, when instructing the young, women, or the uneducated generally,
we teach them to serve God out of fear [la-#avod mi-yir"ah] or for the sake
of reward, until their knowledge increases and they have attained a large
measure of wisdom. Then we reveal to them this secret little by little [the
secret that there are no reward and punishment in the traditional sense],
and habituate them to it slowly until they have grasped and comprehended
it, and serve God out of love [ve-ya#avduhu me-ahavah].54
This does not mean that for Maimonides everyone has the capacity to
become a philosopher in the strict sense: those who enter the King’s
“antechambers . . . indubitably have different ranks.”55 In other words, the
epistemic quality of the understanding attained by the members of the
community will vary. Yet all of them are called upon to substitute wisdom
for authority as much as they can.
51 Maimonides, Knowledge, Laws Concerning the Study of the Torah .–.

52 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).
53 See Foundations of the Law . and ..
54 Maimonides, Knowledge, Laws Concerning Repentance .; cp. ..
55 Maimonides, Guide . (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, p. ).
 carlos fraenkel
From Maimonides to Maimonideanism: Samuel ibn Tibbon
Given Maimonides’ approach to the enlightenment of non-philosophers

the commitment of many thirteenth-century Maimonideans to esoteri-
cism and their devotion to teaching philosophy to the general public
should no longer strike us as a puzzle. A brief look at how Samuel ibn
Tibbon, the founder of Maimonideanism in Southern France, justifies
the disclosure of the divine Law’s allegorical content will corroborate
the claim that Maimonides’ disciples were often continuing his project.56
Although Ibn Tibbon modifies Maimonides’ approach in certain ways,
the habituation of non-philosophers to philosophical doctrines is the
core idea they share.
Ibn Tibbon adopts Maimonides’ view that the divine Law has two
sides: an esoteric side directed towards philosophers and a public side
directed towards non-philosophers which he, following Maimonides,
characterizes by means of Prov. :: “A word fitly spoken is like apples
of gold in settings of silver.”57 Again like Maimonides, Ibn Tibbon con-
ceives the relationship between the divine Law’s esoteric and public side
as dynamic. Jewish sages have a twofold task: They must teach philos-
ophy and disclose the divine Law’s allegorical content to their philo-
sophically talented students and reconfigure the Law’s public teachings
in accordance with the scientific culture of their time and place which
determines the scope of what non-philosophers can understand.58 This
model allows Ibn Tibbon to explain certain features of Moses’ account
of creation that are at first puzzling from the perspective of a medieval
Aristotelian, for example, that the creation of “luminaries” (the sun, the
moon etc.) follows the creation of plants, even though, according to Aris-
totelian cosmology, the former are causally prior to the latter. Or the
omission altogether of immaterial intellects which for the Aristotelian
are intermediate causes between God and the physical world. Hence,
an “intelligent man” (maśkil) must ask: “Why does the Torah men-
tion the generation of the luminaries in the ‘firmament of the heavens’
56 On Ibn Tibbon, see Fraenkel, From Maimonides and J.T. Robinson, Samuel Ibn
Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Tübingen, ). As I mentioned above (n. ), not
all Maimonideans shared Ibn Tibbon’s approach. The precise scope of its impact requires
further study.
57 Maimonides, Guide , introduction (ed. Munk, p. ; trans. Pines, ).
58 See Ravitzky, “Samuel ibn Tibbon,” pp. –.
legislating truth 
after the day on which the plants were created, and before the day on
which the animals were created?”59 The luminaries should have been
mentioned on the third day, creation of the plants on the fourth, the “living
things” of the sea on the fifth, and the “living things” of dry land and “man”
on the sixth. Instead he aimed to conceal [le-hastir] all this . . . , so that the
intermediaries would not be sensed in any way by the multitude. This is
the same reason he refrained from mentioning the creation of angels . . ..60
Ibn Tibbon explains the reason for this concealment thus:
Moses gave the Torah at a time when the community of Sabians encom-
passed the entire world. At that time, people only believed in the existence
of things perceived by the senses . . ., that is, corporeal existents. Because
of this, they made the celestial bodies the gods of the sublunar world. They
did not believe in the existence of things that are not a body or a force
in a body, but rather intellects separate from any matter or substrate . . .
and that it is from [the separate intellects] and through their word that
[the celestial bodies] make what they make . . .. Since [Moses] wanted to
remove this sickness by its root, he mentioned God’s creation of the world’s
principles without any reference to intermediaries, in order to indicate
that these actions should not be attributed in any way to them. Rather,
they are commanded by the first cause, namely, God, to make what they
make.61
Also according to Ibn Tibbon, therefore, Moses carried out God’s ped-
agogical “ruse” in history. To counteract the beliefs of the Sabians, who
were star-worshippers, Moses mentioned the creation of the “luminar-
ies” after the creation of the plants, thus changing “the order of things.”62
His aim was to prevent the celestial bodies from being worshipped as the
causes of sublunar beings. In this way God’s causality is unequivocally
conveyed to the members of the Jewish community whose practices and
beliefs had been shaped by the religious culture of the Sabians. Moses’
strategy as restated by Ibn Tibbon is exactly the same as Moses’ strat-
egy concerning reward and punishment in Maimonides’ account that we
saw above. In both cases a false belief is replaced through another false
belief which is, however, closer to the truth. Whereas in the former case
Moses’ goal is to eradicate the belief that the stars ought to be worshipped
59 Samuel ibn Tibbon, Peruš Qohelet. Edited by J.T. Robinson (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard
University, ), translated by J.T. Robinson as Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on

Ecclesiastes (Tübingen, ). Ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. .
60 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ).
61 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ).
62 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ).
 carlos fraenkel
because they are the causes of sublunar beings, in the latter case Moses’
goal is to eradicate the belief that worshipping the stars will be rewarded
through a long and prosperous life. As for the immaterial intellects, they
are, according to Ibn Tibbon, omitted in Moses’ account for the same
reason Moses represents God in anthropomorphic terms according to
Maimonides: because the Jews in Moses’ time were unable to conceive
“the existence of things that are not a body or a force in a body.” Instead
of confusing them with immaterial causes between God and the physical
world, Moses’ goal was to make sure that the concept of God as the first
cause became solidly established in their minds.
These strategies, tailored to Moses’ Sabian context, are the “settings
of silver” of the “Account of the Beginning” as it is set forth in the
Bible. They do not, however, cover the “golden apple”—i.e., the divine
Law’s allegorical content—completely. Rather, the “settings of silver” have
small “holes” through which the “golden apple” can be discerned by
philosophical readers. To these readers Moses signals the causal role
of the celestial bodies by mentioning the creation of the “luminaries”
between the creation of different genera of sublunar beings. And he
signals the existence of immaterial intellects, among others, by using
the Hebrew word “elohim” to refer to God “throughout the Account of
the Beginning.”63 Following Maimonides, Ibn Tibbon takes “elohim” to
be an equivocal term referring to both God and angels (i.e., immaterial
intellects), thus giving the philosophical reader to understand that God
is not the only immaterial cause of the physical world.64
The next important stage in the history of disclosing the divine Law’s
allegorical content is the period of King David, traditionally considered
the author of Psalms, and King Solomon, traditionally considered the
author of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs.65 These books
reconfigure the relationship between the divine Law’s esoteric and public
side in response to a more advanced scientific culture:
In Solomon’s time, peace be upon him, belief in the existence of the Deity
and angels became widespread throughout the world, and their rank in
existence and relation to God was known. Hence there was no longer need
for all these [efforts to] conceal. As a consequence, Solomon did not refrain
63 Ibid. (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ).

64 See Maimonides, Guide . and ..
65 See Ibn Tibbon, Peruš (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ); Samuel
Ibn Tibbon, Ma"amar yiqqawu ha-mayim [Let the Waters Be Gathered]. Edited by
M. Bisliches (Pressburg, ): , p. .
legislating truth 
from mentioning through indications [derekh remez] the existence of the

intermediaries. But he did leave concealed other things with respect to
them and their nature.66
The “angels” in Solomon’s revised version of the “Account of the Begin-
ning” represent the immaterial intellects. They are one example for how
Ibn Tibbon understands the relationship between Moses’ and Solomon’s
writings.67 He describes the general nature of this relationship as follows:
This is how he [Solomon] could make the men of understanding under-
stand [le-havin la-nevonim] what the Master of the Prophets, peace be
upon him, had concealed. That is, he widened the holes in the settings of sil-
ver with which the Master of the Prophets had covered his apples of gold.
This way, someone who formerly could not see the apples, could see them
now, in light of his added explication. This is what the Sages meant when
they said: “thus did Solomon [join] parable with parable and word with
word” [Song Rabb ::]. That is, he replaced the parables he found in the
Torah with different parables, by which he brought into existence further
explication. And he replaced obscure words with different words that point
more clearly to their purpose.68
What Ibn Tibbon describes as “widening the holes in the settings of
silver” is based, I suggest, on Maimonides’ concept of “elevating” non-
philosophers. According to Maimonides the progressive disclosure of the
divine Law’s allegorical content must be coordinated with the gradual
habituation of non-philosophers to philosophical doctrines. Ibn Tibbon’s
account of the relationship between Moses’ and Solomon’s writings is an
application of this model. After Moses and David and Solomon, addi-
tional stages in the process of “widening the holes in the settings of sil-
ver” are the prophets, the rabbinic sages, Maimonides, and Ibn Tibbon
himself.69 Ibn Tibbon’s account of this process, while fuller and more
systematic than the account in the Guide, clearly remains within Mai-
monides’ conceptual framework. His characterization of Maimonides’
contribution to the process of gradual disclosure further substantiates
this claim:
And when . . . the divine philosopher and Torah scholar, our master Moses
[Maimonides] saw that only a few were left who understood the indications
66 Ibn Tibbon, Peruš (ed. Robinson, par. ; trans. Robinson, par. ).
67 For a general account of this relationship, see Ibn Tibbon, Peruš (ed. Robinson,
par. –; trans. Robinson, par. –).
68 Ibid., ed. Robinson, par. –; trans. Robinson, par. –.
69 See ibid., ed. Robinson, par. –; trans. Robinson, par. –; Ma"amar, , –
.
 carlos fraenkel
[ha-remazim] made by those who spoke through the holy spirit, and the
prophets, and the rabbinic sages, who widened [the settings of silver] with
regard to the Law’s secrets, he [in turn] added to their indications an
explanation, likewise by means of indications, in many places, explaining
openly that [God] is not a body and not subject to any of the properties
and accidents of bodies. And he said the same about the intellects which
are separate from matter and which are called “angels”. In the same way he
also proceeded with regard to the reasons of the commandments, for he
saw the great need to reveal them because of the nations which interpret
all of them allegorically.70
Ibn Tibbon clearly identifies the two main elements of Maimonides’
account of progressive disclosure: the issue of incorporeality and the con-
textual explanation of the commandments. With regard to the incorpo-
reality of God and angels, Ibn Tibbon was surely aware of the Almohad
context that prompted Maimonides’ stance. After all, his father, Judah ibn
Tibbon, was like Maimonides a Spanish refugee from the Almohads who
had abolished the protected status of religious communities recognized
under Islam as “people of the book.” Ibn Tibbon could thus argue that, as
in Solomon’s time the belief in intermediate causes “became widespread,”
the same holds true for the doctrine of incorporeality in Maimonides’
time. In both cases the habituation of non-philosophers to the doctrine
in question was followed by the “widening of the holes in the settings of
silver.”
The main difference between Maimonides’ and Ibn Tibbon’s account
of intellectual habituation to true beliefs is that for Maimonides it is the
effect of legislation, whereas for Ibn Tibbon it is a function of the scientific
culture of the non-Jewish environment. Thus for Ibn Tibbon all stages of
the process are contingent upon the changing contexts of Jewish history.
For Maimonides, by contrast, only the first stage—the stage of Moses—is
directly shaped by the religious practices and beliefs of the Sabians.
From Muslim Spain in the twelfth century to Christian France in the
thirteenth, the cultural conditions of understanding changed sufficiently
to require the replacement of Maimonides’ version of the divine Law’s
teachings through a version adapted to Ibn Tibbon’s own time and place.
The concern with the perception of the Jewish community by its non-
Jewish neighbors is mentioned only in Ibn Tibbon’s account of his own
contribution. It is thus not an intrinsic part of the theory under discus-
sion:
70 Ibid.
legislating truth 
I revealed, therefore, . . . what I revealed concerning [things] that nobody

had revealed before, so that we may not become a disgrace in the eyes
of our neighbors, an object of mockery and derision for those around us
. . .. And the truth that will be apprehended through [this treatise] is the
knowledge of the true God.71
For a contemporary of Ibn Tibbon the shortest path leading to “knowl-
edge of the true God” is no longer the Guide or the canonical Jewish
books preceding the Guide from the Bible to the Talmud, but Ibn Tib-
bon’s own exegetical-philosophical works.
It should be clear now how the conceptual framework worked out by

Maimonides and further developed by Ibn Tibbon is able to justify the
dissemination of philosophy to non-philosophers, in particular the use of
distinctly Jewish genres for this purpose, from commentaries on the Bible
to synagogue sermons. To put it in the phrase coined by Ibn Tibbon: all
this is part of the project of “widening the holes in the settings of silver.”
In conjunction with Maimonides’ call on all members of the religious
community to study “Talmud,” i.e., the philosophical foundations of the
Mosaic Law, this conceptual framework provides a solid rationale for
what I described as the thirteenth-century Jewish Enlightenment. Mai-
monides’ interpretation of Judaism, therefore, made it possible to address
not only Jewish concerns about studying philosophy in a religious setting,
but also—and at least as importantly—Platonic concerns about teach-
ing philosophy to the general public. Freudenthal, we may conclude, was
right that Maimonides legitimized the dissemination of philosophy and
science in the Jewish communities of Southern France. It is, however,
not only the identification of philosophy with the true core of Judaism
which made this process possible, but also the justification for teaching
philosophy to non-philosophers. In this way philosophy was indeed able
to become “une partie intégrante du ‘bagage intellectuel’ non seulement
d’ une infime élite de philosophes proprement dites, mais aussi de toute
personne voulant s’ instruire tant soi peu en théologie dans l’ esprit maï-
monidien.”
71 Ibid.
THE MONEY LANGUAGE:
LATIN AND HEBREW IN JEWISH LEGAL CONTRACTS
FROM MEDIEVAL ENGLAND
It is a great pleasure to dedicate these pages to our dear friend, Gad

Freudenthal. Throughout his work, the transmission of ideas between
different cultures in the Middle Ages holds a place of honor. Gad has
always seen this transmission as strongly embedded in historical, social
and linguistic realities. Indeed, inter-culture transmission implies, inter
alia, a shared language and shared books: a community of speakers and
readers.
With these conditions in mind, I will address here the oft-debated
question of the knowledge of Latin by the Jews in the Middle Ages,
focusing on the case of Jewish legal documents or starrs1 from England,
dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. A corpus of some 
legal documents in Hebrew, or bilingual in Latin and Hebrew, is still
extant, in addition to a much larger corpus of Latin charters concerning
Jewish transactions. Such documents promise to be an interesting and
still underexploited source of information about the knowledge and use
of various languages by the Jews in the Middle Ages.2 These non-literary
texts used in daily praxis clearly bring up the question of knowledge of
various languages and legal customs. The role and the necessity of this
knowledge in the Middle Ages went beyond intellectual pursuits into the
realm of the hard reality of daily life, and was often simply a matter of
survival.
To begin this discussion of the linguistic situation of the Anglo-Jews
before the expulsion in November , here is an anecdote of the day.
1 The Latin “starrum” which in Medieval England designates Jewish legal contracts
and bonds derives most probably from Hebrew øèù.
2 The majority of the Hebrew and bilingual starrs have been published, mainly
by M.D. Davis, Shetaroth: Hebrew Deeds of English Jews before  (London, );
G. Margoliouth, Catalogue of the Hebrew and Samaritan Manuscripts in the British
Museum (London, –): :– (nos. –); I. Abrahams, H.P. Stokes
and H. Loewe, Starrs and Jewish Charters Preserved in the British Museum (Cambridge,
–); C. Roth, “Oxford Starrs,” Oxoniensia  (): –. A facsimile edition
of all known starrs will appear shortly, in my edition, in the series Monumenta Palaeo-
graphica Medii Aevi at Brepols Editions, Turnhout.
 judith olszowy-schlanger
In his Itinerarium Cambrie written around , Giraldus Cambren-

sis, or Gerald the Welshman, tells us a story of a Jew who travelled
one day to Shrewsbury in company of Peche, archdeacon of a place
called Mala Platea (Ill-Place), and of a deacon whose name was Deville.
When he heard the archdeacon say that his authority extended from the
Mala Platea and lasted till the place called Malpas in Cheshire, the Jew
exclaimed: “It will be a wonder if chance brings me back safe from this
country whose archdeacon is Sin (Péché), whose dean is Devil (Deville)
which you enter by an Ill-Place (Mala Platea) and you exit in a Bad-Step
(Malpas).”3 D’ Bloissiers Tovey, an Oxfordian to whom we owe the first
history of the Jews in England published in ,4 has inevitably inter-
preted this anecdote as a proof of the Jew’s insolence: having a rare privi-
lege to travel in company of two distinguished Church officials he chooses
to mock and offend them. For our current purpose here, I rather see in
this story an evidence of the Jew’s witty multilingualism.
Indeed, the Jews in medieval England functioned in a multilingual
world. Arriving in England with William the Conqueror in , this
small community was mostly composed of French-speaking Jews: from
Normandy, of course, but also from other regions in Northern France.
A few individuals from Spain also settled in England in the twelfth cen-
tury. It is attested to not only by the travels of Abraham ibn Ezra, but
also by the presence of a list of English Christian debtors in the Arabic
language and Hebrew Andalusian cursive script, written around 
on the blank pages of an Ashkenazi prayer book to be found today in
Corpus Christi College, Oxford (MS CCC , fol. v–r).5 An indi-
cation of an international texture of the English Jewish communities
though it may be, it is difficult to suggest that these Arabic-speaking
Jews had a lasting impact on the linguistic state of the community. Nor-
mally, English Jews spoke French. It is a matter of debate whether the
3 G. Cambrensis, Itinerarium Cambrie, vol. , ch. xiii edited by J.F. Dimock, vol. ,
p. ; English translation, L. Thorpe, The Journey through Wales (Harmondsworth,
). See, as well, J. Jacobs, The Jews of Angevin England. Documents and Records
from Latin and Hebrew Sources Printed and Manuscript for the First Time Collected and
Translated (London, ): –.
4 D’ B. Tovey, Anglia Judaica: or the History of the Jews in England, collected from all
our Histories, both Printed and Manuscript, as also from the Records in the Tower and other
Public Repositories (Oxford, ). This antiquarian monument was re-edited and retold
by E. Pearl, ed., Anglia Judaica, or A History of the Jews in England (London, ).
5 See Z. Entin-Rokéah, “A Jewish payment memorandum,” in M. Beit-Arié, The Only
Dated Medieval Hebrew Manuscript written in England () [?] and the Problem of Pre-
Expulsion Anglo Hebrew Manuscripts (London, ): –.
the money language 
French written (mostly in Hebrew characters) and spoken by French

and English Jews represented a specific “Jewish” idiolect. The evidence
of Jewish legal documents in England points rather toward the common
use of the language of the Norman ruling elite and clergy with whom
English Jews entertained a close relationship—the Anglo-Norman vari-
ety of Old French. In addition to their vernacular French, English Jews
were probably also exposed to Middle English, through their economic
activities which involved not only an urban but often predominantly
rural clientele.6 A few words which can be identified as English appear,
together with French vernacular words, in the text of several Hebrew legal
contracts. For example, a contract of sale of a house in Canterbury, writ-
ten in Hebrew, drawn up in , adds English terms for the four cardi-
nal points (in Hebrew characters) after their usual Hebrew equivalents:
èùéà—çøæî, èùéâ—áøòî, åù—íåøã, èøåð—ïåôö, in the description of the
boundaries of the property.7
In addition to the vernaculars, the Jews used of course their own tra-
ditional languages: Hebrew and Aramaic. While Hebrew was not a ver-
nacular in the sense of “a language spoken by a mother to her children,” it
obviously held an important place in the linguistic world of the medieval
Jew. Besides being used in liturgy and legal tradition, Hebrew was also the
language of education of Jewish boys, and the primary means of literary
expression. Indeed, although there is some disagreement among scholars
concerning the effective level of Jewish literacy in medieval Europe,8 all
agree that those who learned to read and write did it in Hebrew for the
purpose of reading Hebrew and Aramaic texts. The knowledge of Ara-
maic was probably also an important requirement of a curriculum: the
Aramaic Targum was an object of public reading in the synagogues, it
was studied and often quoted in Rabbinical works. The liturgical role of
the Targum is shown clearly by the traditional arrangement of a majority
of Western European Pentateuch manuscripts, where each Hebrew verse
is followed by its Aramaic translation. The assiduous study of the Talmud
and halakhic literature naturally gives a place of honor to Aramaic.
6 See for example, P. Elman, “Jewish finance in thirteenth century England with
special reference to royal taxation,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 

(): –.
7 The charter in question is Westminster Abbey Muniments , l. – (Davis, ed.,
Shetaroth, nº ).
8 See for example, E. Kanarfogel, Jewish Education and Society in the Middle Ages
(Detroit, ).
 judith olszowy-schlanger
Most of the medieval “Hebrew” legal contracts in England are, in fact,

written in a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaic, each language having a
well-defined semantic and legal function. Aramaic—the ancient vernac-
ular of Oriental Jews which in the past had been the language of Jewish
legal contracts par excellence—is used here as a language of fixed legal
formulae. Its use is restricted to what Talmudic literature describing the
structure of the written contracts refers to as t. ofes: the framework formu-
lae of a specific type of the contract which are highly standardized and
repeated in one contract after another. The role of these Aramaic expres-
sions is to strengthen the binding power of the formulation and this is
why they appear mostly in the introductory or closing parts of the con-
tract, especially in the extensive validity clauses. The parts of the contracts
bearing its individual, informative and, by necessity, creative aspects, the
toref according to Talmudic terminology, are always expressed in Hebrew
(sometimes interspersed with vernacular words for more clarity when an
adequate Hebrew term is lacking).
Thus, the Jews in medieval England used Hebrew and Aramaic in their
literary works and legal documents but spoke French and possibly some
English. Did they know Latin? Before I try to gather some arguments
to clarify this question, it is important to stress that, unlike in later peri-
ods, for instance in fifteenth-century Southern France and Italy where the
knowledge of Latin was common in Christian lay society, and was acces-
sible to the urban privileged classes and those trained in “liberal profes-
sions” (especially physicians and notaries) as much as it was for the clergy,
the earlier periods are marked by a lesser degree of access to education
which, for Christian individuals, was generally restricted to monastic
schools. In other words, the Jews could easily converse in French with
their Christian neighbors, but how many among their neighbors were
themselves able to understand Latin? And even more important for a lan-
guage which is not a spoken vernacular, how many of them were able to
read and write it? The language of the overwhelming majority of legal
contracts and records involving Jews in medieval England is Latin, and
Jewish individuals simply had to cope with the legal and administrative
intricacies of a system expressed in this language. For Robin Mundill, “the
fact that the majority of the documentary evidence regarding the Jews
was in Latin is, in itself, evidence that they were fluent in it.”9 It seems
indeed logical that many Jews involved in legal transactions in medieval
9 R.R. Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution. Experiment and Expulsion, –
(Cambridge, ): .

the money language 
England must have known Latin and been able to read its script. Indeed,
royal exchequer court’s notifications addressed to the Jewish communi-
ties concerning claims for private debts were apparently read out in syna-
gogues on shabbats both in Latin and in Hewbrew.10 However, the precise
ways in which they acquired this knowledge has still to be discovered.
Until recently, scholars working on intellectual contacts between Jews
and Christians have focused primarily on the transmission of Hebrew
texts into Latin, and agreed that most intellectual contacts, at least until
the end of the twelfth century, were carried out through oral tutorials
in the vernacular. Some Christian scholars undertook the difficult task
of learning Hebrew, and scholars such as Alexander Neckham,11 Her-
bert of Bosham,12 the anonymous authors of bilingual Hebrew-Latin
manuscripts13 or the group of scholars, probably from Ramsey Abbey, in
the second half of the thirteenth century14 have indeed acquired a high
level of Hebrew proficiency. What about Jewish scholars and their learn-
ing of the Latin language and Latin script? Historians dealing with eco-
nomic, legal and administrative records usually accepted that the Jews
knew Latin, while many of those who study intellectual history often
10 J. Hillaby, “The Worcester Jewry, –: portrait of a lost community,” Trans-

actions of the Worcestershire Archaeological Society, rd series  (): .
11 R.W. Hunt, The Schools and the Cloister: The Life and Writings of Alexander Nequam
(–) (Oxford, ): ; R. Loewe, “Alexander Neckam’s knowledge of Hebrew,”

in W. Horbury, ed., Hebrew Study from Ezra to Ben-Yehuda (Edinburgh, ): –.
12 B. Smalley, “A Commentary on the Hebraica by Herbert of Bosham,” Recherches
de théologie ancienne et médiévale  (): –; R. Loewe, “Herbert of Bosham’s

Commentary on Jerome’s Hebrew Psalter,” Biblica  (): –, –, –;
E. De Visscher, Jewish-Christian Dialogue in Twelfth Century Medieval Western Europe:
the Hebrew and Latin Sources of Herbert of Bosham’s Commentary on the Psalms (Ph.D.
thesis, Oxford, ); D.L. Goodwin, Take Hold of the Robe of a Jew: Herbert of Bosham’s
Christian Hebraism (Leiden, ).
13 See especially S.N. Berger, Quam notitiam Linguae Hebraicae habuerunt Christiani
medii aevi temporibus in Gallia (Nancy, ); B. Smalley, “Hebrew Scholarship among
Christians in th century England as illustrated by some Hebrew-Latin Psalters,” Lec-
tiones in Vetere Testamento et in Rebus Iudaicis  (London, ); R. Loewe, “The medi-
aeval Christian hebraists of England. The Superscriptio Lincolniensis,” HUCA  ():
–; idem, “Latin superscriptio MSS on portions of the Hebrew Bible other than the
Psalter,” JJS  (): –; M. Beit-Arié, “The Valmadonna Pentateuch and the Problem
of Pre-Expulsion Anglo-Hebrew Manuscripts—MS London, Valmadonna Trust Library
: England (?), ,” in idem, ed., The Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book. Studies
in Palaeography and Codicology (Jerusalem, ): –; J. Olszowy-Schlanger, Les
manuscrits hébreux dans l’ Angleterre médiévale: étude historique et paléographique (Paris
and Louvain, ).
14 J. Olszowy-Schlanger, A. Grondeux et al., Dictionnaire hébreu-latin-français de la
Bible hébraïque de l’ Abbaye de Ramsey (XIIIe s.) (Turnhout, ).

 judith olszowy-schlanger
doubted that Jewish scholars could read Latin. The Jews had of course
access to Latin books that they often kept as pledges in money-lending
transactions. Dozens of Latin books bear Hebrew inscriptions indicating
the nature of the debt and the date of its payment.15 They do not contain,
however, any further indication such as Hebrew marginalia on the Latin
text, which would show how far went the curiosity and the capacity of the
creditor to take temporary intellectual advantage of the pledge deposited
with him. More recently however, the possible knowledge of Latin and its
literary traditions by the Jews in the Middle Ages has received a more sys-
tematic treatment, notably through Gad Freudenthal’s efforts. The inter-
national colloquium on “Latin to Hebrew” that he organized recently in
Paris promises to give a new and more complete picture of Christian and
Jewish mutual intellectual interests. For example, the manuscripts con-
taining anti-Christian polemics (and chief among them MS Paris, BNF
hébr. ) contain (notably) a number of quotations from the Latin Vul-
gate, from the Ancient and New Testament, transliterated into Hebrew
script.16
The study of Hebrew, Latin and bilingual Latin-Hebrew legal contracts
from medieval England can provide, if not definite answers, at least some
additional food for thought. It is first of all important to understand that
the legal transactions and the production of legal contracts themselves
functioned in an administrative context where Jewish law and its prac-
titioners worked in close and direct collaboration with the royal admin-
istration and its clerks and officials. Indeed, since the end of the twelfth
century and until the expulsion on  November , all transactions
between Jews and Christians, but also between Jewish parties themselves
(with the probable exception of marriage and divorce, left to the juris-
diction of the community), were carried out and carefully registered by
a sophisticated centralized administrative system.
15 See esp. C. Sirat, “Notes sur la circulation des livres entre juifs et chrétiens au Moyen
Age,” in D. Nebbiai-Dalla Guarda and J.-F. Genest, eds, Du copiste au collectionneur.

Mélanges d’ histoire des textes et des bibliothèques en l’ honneur d’ André Vernet, Bibliologia
(Elementa ad librorum studia pertinentia)  (Turnhout, ), pp. –; J. Olszowy-
Schlanger, “Juifs et chrétiens à Troyes au Moyen Age: la pratique du prêt sur gages à travers
les manuscrits de Saint-Etienne,” La vie en Champagne  (): –.
16 For an overview of the Latin quotations in Hebrew polemical literature in the
Middle Ages, see for example Ph. Bobichon, “Citations latines de la tradition chrétienne
dans la littérature hébraïque de controverse avec le christianisme (XIIe–Xve siècle)”
(Colloquium “Latin to Hebrew”, in print). I thank Philippe Bobichon for letting me read
his article before the publication of his work.
the money language 
In his seminal book Jewish Self-Government in the Middle Ages, pub-

lished in , Louis Finkelstein introduced the notion of an important
scope of Jewish legal autonomy in medieval Europe. Finkelstein argued
that “infant European states” did not have an adequate juridicial sys-
tem to provide for the sophisticated Jewish merchant society, and thus
allowed the Jews to have their own courts. These courts were respon-
sible for internal Jewish matters with, initially, little interference from
the non-Jewish authorities. Of course, the states provided the enforce-
ment system—police or prison—to enforce the decisions of the Rabbini-
cal courts, but these courts used also their own means to ensure obedi-
ence: the right to excommunicate (herem,
. or šamt"a in Aramaic) which
entailed a much feared effective isolation from the community. It is, how-
ever, difficult to ascertain the actual degree of Jewish autonomy in the
early Middle Ages. For later, better documented periods, it has indeed
been shown that Jewish courts in some places functioned as highly inde-
pendent and hierarchically organized institutions.17 However, even in the
best documented contexts, Jewish legal transactions were carried out in a
double Jewish and official—royal or notarial—administration system.18
This double system was particularly well developed in medieval Eng-
land after the end of the twelfth century. Prior to that, charters were issued
by Henry II, and confirmed by Richard I and John, placing the Jews of
England and Normandy under royal protection, ensuring them freedom
from most tolls and direct access to royal Justices. The second charter
of Henry II (confirmed by the other monarchs) explicitly granted the
Jews autonomy in dealing with their internal affairs and in judging dis-
putes involving the Jews alone, except for some specified categories of
major criminal offences.19 However, at the end of the twelfth century the
financial transactions involving Jews and Christians, but also Jews alone,
17 For Germany, see E. Kanarfogel, “Religious Leadership during the Tosafist Period:
between the Academy and the Rabbinic Court,” in J. Wertheimer, ed., Jewish Religious
Leadership: Image and Reality (New York, ): –; for Northern France and the
court of Rabbenu Tam which functioned as a “court of appeal,” see A. Reiner, “Rabbinical
Courts in France in the Twelfth Century: Centralisation and Dispersion,” JJS  /  ():
–.
18 For Cologne, see R. Hoeniger, Publikationen der Gesellschaft für Rheinische Ge-
schichtskunde, I, Kölner Schreinsurkunded des  Jahrhunderts, Quellen zur Rechts- und

Wirthschaftsgeschichte der Stadt Köln (Bonn, –); for Southern France, see C.
Denjean, Juifs et Chrétiens. De Perpignan à Puigcerdà XIIIe–XIVe siècles (Canet, ).
19 See H.G. Richardson, The English Jewry under Angevin Kings (London, ): –
; P. Brand, “Jews and the Law in England, –,” English Historical Review /nº
 (Nov. ): .
 judith olszowy-schlanger
were dealt with by a royal administrative system created by Richard I.

The chronicler at that time, Richard of Hoveden, recorded that upon his
return in  from German captivity, Richard I had begun to organize
an administrative system which would ensure a proper record of Jewish
transactions and especially monetary loans which could be exacted, even
when the Jewish creditors were dead.20
This initiative was a direct consequence of the tragic York massacre of
, in which the legal bonds perished together with the community.
This represented a major financial loss to the King (who was the first
heir of the Jewish debts, as long as the records existed), who reacted
by establishing a more efficient record-keeping system. A system of
arche (“chests”) was gradually set up, initially in seven major towns.
It was shortly followed by the creation of a central department, the
Exchequer of the Jews (Scaccarium Iudeorum) at Westminster.21 The
local administrative centers were to be jointly managed by two appointed
Christians, two Jews and two clerks. All the transactions were to be
contracted in their presence. They were also accompanied by clerks of
the King’s representatives, namely William of the Church of Saint Mary
and William de Chimilli. All the deeds were to be written in the form of a
chirograph (parchment document with scallop-shaped cut or indenture
at its lower, upper or both edges); one part, sealed by the debtor, was
to remain with the Jewish creditor while another was to be deposited in
the common chest (archa, French “huche”). These wooden chests were
provided with three locks, whose three keys were entrusted respectively
to the two Christians, the two Jews and the clerks William of the Church
of Saint Mary and William de Chimilli. The holders of the keys sealed the
locks with their respective seals. All the transactions had to be listed in
special registers.
In the thirteenth century, the arche received also copies of various
financial transactions among the Jews themselves, such as the sale of
properties, rents, pre-marriage financial arrangements or debts written
in Hebrew on chirographs, even if these contracts were drawn up by an ad
20 W. Stubbs, ed., Chronica Rogeri de Hoveden (London, ): :. For an English
translation, see H.T. Riley, The Annals of Roger de Hoveden Comprising the History of
England and of Other Countries of Europe, vol. , part , A.D.  to  (London,
 [reprint ]): –.
21 See esp. C. Gross, “The Exchequer of the Jews in the Middle Ages,” Papers given at
the Anglo-Jewish Historical Exhibition  (London, ): –; A. Carver Cramer,
“Origins and Functions of the Jewish Exchequer,” Speculum  /  (): –;
K. Scott, “The Jewish Arcae,” Cambridge Law Journal  /  (): –.
the money language 
hoc Jewish tribunal of three selected members of the community, before

finding its way to an archa and its enrollment system.22
Given the intricate procedures in this archa system, a collaborative
work of Jewish and Christian clerks must have encouraged, and indeed
required, the mutual knowledge of languages and customs. It can be
surmised that such a legal and vital context would also provide the
necessary opportunity for Jewish clerks to acquire some familiarity with
Latin. Indeed, both Hebrew and Latin documents allow us to identify
many Jewish individuals appointed with special responsibilities for the
archa (chirographers) and clerks in charge of drawing up documents.23
Here again, the evidence on the Christian side is more explicit. Some
Christian clerks mentioned by name are defined in documents as “clerks
of the Jews”: a Robertus clericus scriptor iudeorum appears for instance
in Canterbury rentals.24 It appears that some of these Christian clerks
learned Hebrew.
An interesting testimony to this effect is the Cartulary of the Vicars
Choral of York Minster, this lesser clergy corporation whose duty was to
maintain opus dei—the worship by singing the canonical hours and high
mass—in secular English cathedrals.25 Their well-maintained archives in
York contain a Latin deed of sale (York Minster Library, Vicar Choral
/Vi 26) drawn up sometime around , whereby John Roman, a
Sub-Dean of the Church of St. Peter of York, sells a piece of land in
Barkergate in the suburbs of York to the Jewish community, for the
extension of their cemetery.27 This Latin deed is witnessed on behalf
of the York Jewish community by five of its most prominent members:
Isaac of Northampton, Samuel Kohen (who appears in Latin as “Leo
episcopus”), Samuel son of Yose, Yose of Kent and Yose the grandson
22 There is no clear indication that fixed and permanent Jewish courts existed in
England. All references in extant Hebrew legal contracts concern an ad hoc “tribunal of
three.” Although men of learning and rabbis are mentioned, the official status of a leader
of the Jewish community, the Presbyter Iudeorum, was a King’s nomination rather than
an internal Jewish affair.
23 For lists of such Jewish officials appointed by the King’s administration in the town
of Norwich, see V.D. Lipman, The Jews of Medieval Norwich (London, ): –.
24 See W. Urry, Canterbury under Angevin Kings (London, ): .
25 See K. Edwards, The English Secular Cathedrals in the Middle Ages (Manchester, 
[nd ed.]): –.

26 See N.J. Tringham, Charters of the Vicars Choral of York Minster: City of York and its
Suburbs to  (York, ): nº , p. .

27 For the situation of the Jewish cemetery of York in “Le Jeubyry”, in Monkgate, see
R.B. Dobson, The Jews of York and the Massacre of March , Borthwick Papers 
(York, ): .
 judith olszowy-schlanger
Figure . York, VC..., fo. v, Hebrew witnesses’ list.
of Aaron (the witness mentioned in the Latin deed is Aaron, son of

Yose, rather than his grandson).28 These five signed the Latin document
with their personal signatures in Hebrew. This important charter was
subsequently enrolled, i.e., copied into the Cartulary of the Vicars Choral
(VC /I/I, fols. r–v). It appears that the Christian clerk who copied the
documents into the Cartulary made an effort and copied the signatures
of the witnesses in Hebrew characters. His handwriting is obviously non-
Jewish and he was probably never trained to write Hebrew according to a
Jewish ductus. But his imitation of the Hebrew letters is clear and legible
(Figure ).
It thus appears that Christian clerks in charge of bilingual documents
sometimes made an effort to learn Hebrew. What about the Jews and
their knowledge of Latin? Well, they probably also did learn the legal
language of their Christian colleagues. Unfortunately we have no doc-
ument written in Latin which could be attributed without hesitation to a
Jewish “hand.” It may of course be theoretically argued that among the
great number of extant documents in Latin drawn up in the name of
Jewish grantors some might have been written by them, and that their
Latin calligraphy was so good that it cannot be distinguished from that
of the Christian clerks. However, this does not seem probable. Most of
these Latin documents are copied by professional chancellery hands and
in some cases the name of the scribe is explicitly stated: it is always a
28 Leo episcopus, for example, attested in a number of records between  and his
death in , and was listed in  tallage as one of the six wealthiest Jews of England,
see Dobson, The Jews of York, pp. –.
the money language 
Christian clerk. On the other hand, it seems that the Jews did write in
Latin characters, but in all known cases the language of expression was
not Latin but French. There are a few extant letters in French said to have
been personally written by their Jewish authors.29 This may be the case
with one extant letter written by the exceptionally learned Elias Mena-
hem, son of the massorete Moses, son of Yom Tov, . of London, the lead-
ing Talmudic scholar and physician who was also the wealthiest Jewish
money-lender in the second half of the thirteenth century. Indeed, Elias’
fame as a physician led Jean d’ Avesnes, a Christian nobleman in Flanders,
to call for his personal services to treat a difficult illness of his brother
John du Hainault. For a trip to the Continent, Elias required a special
license. Three requests for such permission and for a letter of safe con-
duct were sent to Robert Burnell, bishop of Bath and Wells and chancel-
lor of Edward I, between  and . One of the letters is written by
Elias Menahem, and some scholars have suggested that it was written in
his own handwriting, in Latin characters, but in French.30
If indeed the Jewish authors were actually the writers of this and other
letters, it indicates that at least some English Jews had mastered the
Latin script. The use of French may imply that they were much more
at ease with the vernacular rather than with Latin. Some other elements
may suggest that while Latin documents were perfectly understood, the
use of Hebrew would facilitate the functioning of the documents. An
interesting example is a grant of a plot of land in Sparham (Norfolk) by
William Costio and his son Roger to Gerard de Folesham (Foulsham),
written in Norfolk around  and preserved today in Holkham Hall
(Holkham Archives, Misc. Deed ) (Figure ). It is written in Latin.
The document was sealed by both grantors (only the seal of Roger, son
of William, is preserved), and is annotated in Hebrew.
From the presence of the Hebrew writing we gather that William
Costio and his son were indebted to a Jewish creditor (whose name
is unfortunately not mentioned), and their debt was repaid by Gerard
de Folesham who, in exchange, was granted the land in Sparham. This
29 See Mundill, England’s Jewish Solution, p.  n. : documents in the Public Record
Office (PRO) SC/ /  /  (from Bonamy of York), SC/I/ / , SC/ /  / ,
SC/ /  (from Deudone Crespin of York); SC/ /  /  (from Bonamy of
York) and SC/ /  /  (from Bonefey of Cricklade).
30 J. Jacobs, “Une lettre française d’ un juif anglais au XIIIe siècle,” REJ  (): –
.
 judith olszowy-schlanger
Figure . Holkham Misc. Deed  recto.
land was probably a pledge for the debt. Now, the Hebrew inscrip-
tions appear on the verso and on the plica at the foot of the docu-
ment. The inscription on the verso summarizes the essentials of the
transaction, giving the names of the Christian parties. The two notes
on the plica explain in Hebrew which seal belongs to which of the two
grantors: the left-hand inscription reads: åéèùå÷ îéìéâ íúåç, “the seal of
William Costio,” and the right-hand seal reads: åðá øééåø íúåç, “the seal
of his son, Roger”. These precisions were added despite the fact that
the seals themselves contain legends with the names of the grantors in
Latin. It seems that these annotations were made by the Jewish cred-
itor for his own archival purposes. The use of Hebrew seems to be
his own practice of sorting the documents and his way of ensuring
the prompt retrieval of information. Similar cases can be found in a
twelfth-century Latin grant from Canterbury (Canterbury Cathedral,
ChAnt/C/) where there is a Hebrew summary on the plica (àðãåã è÷éø
åò÷ø÷ øëî “Richard Deudone sold his land”). The necessity to summarize
the money language 
Figure . British Library Harl. Ch.  A  B.
the contents in Hebrew and especially the detailed explanation concern-

ing the precise place of each seal may suggest, if not the ignorance of
Latin, at least a weak knowledge of that language, and a clear preference
for Hebrew.
A more ambiguous case concerns several extant Latin documents
which contain a Hebrew validity clause. I take as illustration a small Latin
quitclaim by Leon, son of Solomon, with a Hebrew docket signed by
his son, Jacope, who acted as an attorney in his father’s absence (British
Library, Harl. Chart.  A  B31) (Figure ).
The Latin document releases the Abbot and the convent of Newhouse
from any obligations related to a piece of land in Haburc (Habrough).
This land was a pledge for a loan by Leon, son of Solomon, to Galfrid
Berner of Haburc. Immediately below the Latin text, there is a validity
inscription in Hebrew:
ïåàéìù øåáòáå úîà ìëä ïéèì ïåùìá äìòîì áåúëù äî ìëù äãåî ïåàéì ïá àôå÷é éðà
ïåàéì ïá àôå÷é éúîúç ùøãðåìá éáà
I, Jacope son of Leon, declare that all what is written above in Latin
language is all truth. And because Leon, my father, is in London, I have
signed. Jacope son of Leon.
The last line of the Latin text contains a proviso that the grantor sign
the contract in Hebrew: “In huius rei testimonium hoc scriptum Iacobus
filius Leonis pro Leone predicto littera sua ebrayca sigillaui” (l. ). In this
and other documents of this type, the Hebrew docket is a recognition
and confirmation of the Latin text. In some cases, it contains a mention
31 See Davis, ed., Shetaroth, nº , p. ; Margoliouth, Catalogue, III, nº , p. ;
Abrahams, Stokes and Loewe, Starrs and Jewish Charters, nº XVI.

 judith olszowy-schlanger
of the number of the lines of the Latin text. Should we understand the
presence of the confirmation in Hebrew of “what is written in Latin”
as a sign that the Jews were not fluent in Latin and had to confirm in
Hebrew? Or on the contrary, could not the brevity of the Hebrew docket
which does not summarize the transaction but simply acknowledges
“what is written in Latin,” suggest that Latin was perfectly understood?
The second option seems more probable: the grantor acknowledges what
he reads and understands and acknowledges it in “littera sua,” in his own
script. But in this case, why use Hebrew at all? Here I think the use of
Hebrew goes beyond the linguistic sphere, and constitutes an additional
element of the document’s validity. Indeed, one of the arguments used
in legal suits is the authenticity of the document, always established by
examining the personal handwriting. Some documents explicitly state in
whose handwriting they were or should be written (e.g., WAM v,
WAM , ll. –):
§ø ãé úáéúëî øåîàä ÷çöé §ø àéáéù øåèô øèù íåù ìò øîåì íäøáà §ø ïîàð ïéàå
á÷òé §ø úáéúëî äéàø åì äéäé àì íà øåîàä á÷òé §ø éåéöá äùòð øùà øåîàä íäøáà
øåîàä
And R. Abraham will not be trusted to say, about any deed of release
in the said R. Abraham’s handwriting which the aforementioned R. Isaac
brings that it was drawn up according to the said R. Isaac’s order, unless he
[R. Abraham] has a proof in R. Jacob’s handwriting.
It is therefore likely that the Hebrew script itself is associated with per-
sonal handwriting and signature and, as such, confirms the validity of the
document.
An evident case of the meeting of Hebrew and Latin is in the use of
translated legal formulae and expressions. In principle, documents writ-
ten in Hebrew follow the formulae derived from the Gaonic court tradi-
tion, and many of the clauses and expressions in Hebrew and Aramaic are
found in Talmudic and Gaonic sources, and in extant medieval legal con-
tracts from the East and the West.32 However, in addition to these Jewish
“koine” formulations, English Hebrew documents contain some clauses
which derive from the legal formulaic tradition of the Christian environ-
ment. In extreme cases these are almost word for word translations in
bilingual documents. The closest similarity between Hebrew and Latin
32 See A. Aptowitzer, “Formularies of Decrees and Documents from a Gaonic Court,”
JQR NS  (): –.

the money language 
Figure . Cambridge University Library, Doc..

 judith olszowy-schlanger
Figure . Westminster Abbey Muniments .
can be seen in a group of bilingual documents from Canterbury (e.g.,

Cambridge University Library, Doc. ) (Figure ).33
A particularly “Latinized” Hebrew document is WAM , written
in Canterbury, around  (Figure ).
It is in Hebrew, but its concluding remarks, ïåùìá éãé úîéúçá éúîúç
éøáò, “I have signed in my handwriting, in Hebrew,” indicate that it is
a translation of a Latin deed, today lost. The introductory formula: åòãé
úåéäì íéãéúòäå íéåää ìëì (l. ) is a literal translation of the common Latin
opening formula “Sciant omnes presentes et futuri.” Although written
by a Jewish scribe for Jewish clients, some of the Hebrew expressions
translated from Latin are clumsy. Thus, úåìàùå úåéãáòå íé÷ç ìë øåáòá
íéîìåò probably reflects a frequent expression pro omnibus consuetu-
dinibus servitudinis et secularibus demandis, but the choice of the Hebrew
terms does not attempt to use the existing legal equivalents: úåìàù would
be better expressed as úåòéáú and úåéãáò by ãåáòù, both well attested in
Hebrew legal documents from England. Translated formulae could occa-
sionally go from Hebrew to Latin. For example, the well known Hebrew
33 A particularly strong influence of Latin models on the group of Canterbury doc-
uments from the first half of the thirteenth century goes against the conclusions of
Ph. Slavin, “Hebrew Went Latin: Reflections of Latin Diplomatic Formulas and Termi-
nology in Hebrew Private Deeds from Thirteenth-Century England,” Journal of Medieval
Latin  (): –, who sees the “Latinization” of the contracts as a late thirteenth-
century phenomenon. It seems, however, that a more detailed study of formulae with
differentiation between various types of transactions and places of origin is necessary.
the money language 
introductory formula in CUL, Doc. : äàãåä íéãåî äèî éîåúç åðçð
äøåîâ, “We, the undersigned, declare a full declaration” is translated liter-
ally into Latin, by a phrase which is not characteristic of the Latin diplo-
matic tradition: “Nos qui sumus subsigillati recognoscimus ueram recog-
nicionem . . . .”
These bilingual and translated documents constitute obvious exam-
ples of mutual influences, but also attest to sufficient knowledge of the
language and legal formulae of each other. The Vorlage of non-Jewish
formulae appears as well in Hebrew documents which contain tradi-
tional Gaonic formulation. The Latin influence is of course most evident
in clauses reflecting specific legal customs and functions foreign to the
Jewish tradition. For instance, the payment of feudal rent is expressed
by a formulation and vocabulary which do not appear in traditional
Hebrew formulae (WAM , l. – sale of a property in Norwich,
34):
äðù éãî §ô§â äæä øöçäå úéáä ïî ééô̄ä ïî ïåãàì úúì åéùøåé ìòå §å÷ðä äîìù §ø ìòå
å÷ìç øåáò áééç àåä øùà íéøçà §ô§âä åéùøåé åà §å÷ðä äãåäé §ø åòøôé øùà ïîæì äðùá
ééô̄ åúåàî ïåãàì §å÷ðä øöçäå úéáä ïî
And the aforementioned R. Solomon and his heirs are obliged to give the
landlord of the fee from the aforementioned house and yard, p. every year,
when the aforementioned R. Judah and his heirs will pay further p. that
he owes for his part of the aforementioned house and yard, to the landlord,
of the same fee.
Also the payment of a fee for a legal guarantee provided by the seller of a
property, the payment which usually consists of a small amount of spices,
is not a Jewish legal custom (ibid., l. –):
äðùá äðù éãî àìô̄åøééî øîñî §å÷ðä äãåäé §øì úúì åéùøåé ìòå §å÷ðä äîìù §ø ìòå
úåùòì åéìò ìáé÷ù §å÷ðä äðâää øåáò à÷ùôì
And the aforementioned R. Solomon and his heirs are obliged to give the
aforementioned R. Judah a nail of cloves every year, for Easter, for the
aforementioned protection that he took upon himself.
The Latin Vorlage of such clauses is even more evident when we consider
the use of non-Hebrew borrowings or calques, such as the ééô̄ä ïî ïåãà,
“Lord of the fee,” àìô̄åøééî øîñî “a nail of cloves,” or the use of technical
terms such as “gersuma” (àîåùøâî, WAM , Norwich, ), “acta.”
“[the document] was made” (àè÷à, e.g. PRO E /  /v) (some
other documents contain here the translation äùòð), “actiones” (õðåàéù÷à,
34 Davis, ed., Shetaroth, nº .

 judith olszowy-schlanger
e.g., Brit. Lib. Cott. Chart. Aug. ), or measures (ùø÷à, “acres,” ibid.).
Indeed, the functioning of Hebrew private documents in the context of
the civil law of the country implies the use of the generally accepted
terms and clauses. It must, however, be noted again that while some
of the clauses and terms are clearly borrowed from Latin, most foreign
borrowings in Hebrew texts have a vernacular French rather than a Latin
form, even though the cognate Latin is used in the analogous clauses of
Latin deeds. Such, for example, is the case of àööåðèøåôà, “appurtenances”
(e.g., WAM , l. ) corresponding to Latin cum pertinenciis, åì÷
àìôåøéâî “clou de girofle,” “clove” (e.g., WAM , l. ), ùééåøô, “paroisse,”
Lat. parochia, “parish” (e.g., WAM , Nottingham, 35), and many
others. Thus, the formulation of the contracts reflects influence and
borrowings from the non-Jewish tradition of the documents, but it seems
that both Latin and French contracts were the model and the source of
this influence.
The different ways of interaction between Hebrew and Latin (and
French) legal documents in medieval England are still in need of fur-
ther investigation. But it is already evident that they are a fruitful field
in which one can study the influence of Latin on Hebrew formulae. The
legal and administrative context in which they were elaborated, imply-
ing collaboration between Jewish and Christian clerks, provided indeed
a unique mutual opportunity for learning the language and the legal tra-
ditions of one another.
35 Ibid., nº .
NAHMANIDES
. ON NECROMANCY*
Reimund Leicht
The role of astral magic in medieval Judaism has become a respectable

issue in the study of Jewish thought. Next to Shlomo Pines1 and Moshe
Idel,2 Dov Schwartz has done pioneering research on the reception of
astral magic in the works of Jewish thinkers from Judah Halevi (ca. –
), Abraham ibn Ezra (ca. –) up to the fourteenth and
fifteenth century.3 In his richly documented and carefully investigated
studies Schwartz sheds light on many of different aspects related to
the theory and practice of astral magic in medieval Jewish literature
and culture—ranging from the usage of astrological concepts in biblical
exegesis to legal and philosophical disputes about the scientific validity
and halakhic permissibility of astral magic, and from the adaptation of
astromagical motifs in the emerging Kabbalah to its role in the Jewish
revival of neo-Platonic philosophy in the later Middle Ages.
* I dedicate this paper to Gad Freudenthal, who taught me more than anyone else
about the necessity to study Judaism in its cross-cultural perspective and the method-
ological pitfalls inherent in this approach.
1 S. Pines, “On the Term Ruhaniyyot and its Origin and on Judah Halevi’s Doctrine”
.
(Heb.), Tarbis.  (): –, and idem, “Le Sefer ha-Tamar et les Maggidim des
kabbalistes,” in G. Nahon and C. Touati, eds, Hommage à Georges Vajda (Louvain, ):
–.
2 Cf., e.g., M. Idel, “The Study Program of R. Yohanan Alemanno” (Heb.), Tarbis 
. .
(): –; idem, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah
in the Renaissance,” in D.B. Ruderman, ed., Essential Papers on Jewish Culture in Renais-
sance and Baroque Italy (New York and London ): – (originally published in
B. Cooperman, ed., Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century [Cambridge, MA, ]: –
); idem, “Hermeticism and Judaism,” in I. Merkel and A.G. Debus, eds, Hermeticism
and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe (Wash-
ington, DC, ): –, and many other studies.
3 D. Schwartz, “The Religious Philosophy of Samuel Ibn Zarza” (Heb.) (Ph.D. the-
sis, Bar-Ilan University, ); idem, The Philosophy of a Fourteenth-Century Jewish Neo-
platonic Circle (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ); idem, Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought
(Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ); idem, “From Theurgy to Magic: The Evolution of the Magical-
Talismanic Justification of Sacrifice in the Circle of Nahmanides and his Interpreters”,
Aleph  (): –; idem, “Ast. rologia u-magia ba-hagut ha-yehudit bi-yemei ha-
benayim,” Mahanaim.  (): –; idem, “Conceptions of Astral Magic within
 reimund leicht
It is characteristic of Schwartz’s approach, however, that for him the

history of astral magic in Jewish culture is basically a parthenogenetic
process. He neither attempts to provide explanations about what caused
Jewish thinkers in the early twelfth century to indulge in bold astrolog-
ical speculations about biblical stories and precepts, nor does he take
into consideration the broader cultural context in which his philoso-
phers, exegetes, kabbalists and halakhists lived. Accordingly, Schwartz
succeeded in reconstructing an impressively coherent history of the in-
ternal Jewish debates on astral magic,4 but his path breaking studies do
so without referring the reader to contemporary phenomena outside the
Jewish world.
It can be argued, of course, that the Jewish debates about astral magic
are indeed described best as an inner-Jewish discourse. Maimonides
(–) may have had mainly inner-Jewish targets when he crit-
icized astrological tendencies of his predecessors such as Judah Halevi
and Abraham ibn Ezra. Some of his followers tried to soften this harsh
opposition in order to be able to enhance astrological concepts and ideas,
which were at least partly a revival of ideas inherited from Judah Halevi
and Abraham ibn Ezra. Later on, kabbalists and neo-Platonists used
astrology to build up their peculiar ways of thinking opposed to the
orthodox religious and Aristotelian Weltanschauung that was prevalent
in their day. Indeed a huge amount of evidence argues for a continu-
ous inner-Jewish debate about astral magic, while the “parallelomanic”
search for non-Jewish sources faces the intricate methodological prob-
lem that we can never know how much of the learned Christian debates
reached Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages at all.
On the other hand, it is difficult to imagine that the medieval Jewish
debates on magic, astrology and astral magic were not fueled at least
here and there by similar debates going on in the surrounding cultures.
Therefore, in the present paper I would like to discuss a small detail of a
much bigger historical mosaic, which will perhaps show that the cross-
cultural perspective must not be omitted in this context: Nahmanides’
.
Jewish Rationalism in the Byzantine Empire,” Aleph  (): –; idem, Amulets,
Properties and Rationalism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ); idem,
Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought (Leiden, ).
4 Whereas many of his earlier publications have the character of case studies, his
above-mentioned English book Studies on Astral Magic in Medieval Jewish Thought,

which is based upon papers published separately before, is in fact a kind of historical
synthesis.
nahmanides
. on necromancy 
(–) usage of the term “necromancy.” This Greek word originally

means, of course, “divination by the dead,” but this is not the sense in
which Nahmanides
. uses it. It is the purpose of this paper to study the
several meanings of this term in his commentary on the Torah, and to
explain Nahmanides’
. equivocal use of it. The reason for my choice of this
rather specific topic is twofold: () as has been shown in earlier stud-
ies, Nahmanides
. reveals great interest in various phenomena related to
magic, astrology, necromancy etc., which were en vogue in Christian and
Jewish circles of his time, too. But more than that, () it is quite strik-
ing that Nahmanides
. not only discusses at length astrology and magic,
but that he also directly adopts the loanword nigromancia,5 using it in no
less than four places of his Hebrew commentary on the Torah.6 It seems
quite unlikely that employing a loanword in a Hebrew biblical commen-
tary would be altogether fortuitous. There is no dearth of technical terms
for magical practices in biblical and rabbinic Hebrew, so that no immi-
nent need to adopt a new one existed. Therefore, we can assume that
Nahmanides’
. usage of this loanword rather is indicative either of his con-
viction that his readers would be so familiar with “necromancy” that its
use would enable them to intuitively grasp some of his exegetical inten-
tions, or that this term served him as a explanatory tool, more conve-
nient than any other at his disposal. In both cases, however, Nahmanides’
.
indebtedness to the surrounding culture is obvious.
Indeed it will become clear that Nahmanides’
. usage of the term “necro-
mancy” cannot be properly understood without casting an eye on the
contemporary non-Jewish sources treating “necromancy” as well. Most
notably, we will encounter a certain terminological ambiguity and con-
ceptual tension in Nahmanides’
. usage of “necromancy” as a generic term
for different forms of illicit demon cults and its affinity to scientific nat-
ural magic. This observation will find its explanation in some Chris-
tian sources. Therefore, in a first step we will look at those texts where
Nahmanides’
. discusses “necromancy” in order to determine the semantic
5 The Hebrew spelling of this loanword differs. Attested are the forms àéñðåîøâð,
àéñð§§àîåøâð, àéñ§§ðîåøâð, äàéñðîåøâð and à§§éñðåîøâð, which probably all go back to a pronun-
ciation close to a Romance or medieval Latin nigromancia. As customary in medieval
sources, I use the terms nigromancia and necromancia (necromancy) interchangeably.
6 Cf. his commentaries on Exod. :, Lev. :, Lev. :; Deut. :. The standard
edition is C. Chavel, ed., Peruše ha-Torah le-Rabbenu Moše ben Nahman

. (RaMBa”N)
(Heb.),  vols., (Jerusalem –). English translations are taken from C.B. Chavel,
trans. and ed., Ramban (Nachmanides). Commentary on the Torah,  vols. (New York,
–).
 reimund leicht
fields covered by this term in his scientific vocabulary. In a second step,

these findings will be confronted with the history of the term “necro-
mancy” in Christian sources.7
The first of the four explicit references to nigromancia in Nahmanides’

.
commentary on the Torah can be found in his explanation of the sec-
ond commandment of the Decalogue in Exod. :. This verse provides
Nahmanides
. with an opportunity to insert a lengthy excursus on the the-
ory and history of idolatry (#avodah zarah). At the core of this commen-
tary is the idea that “by way of truth” (#al derekh ha-emet) the biblical
ban on the service of “other gods” (elohim aherim)
. refers to God’s deci-
sion that Israel should serve Him alone and not one of the other spiritual
or cosmological entities which, albeit real, are not worthy of adoration by
the “chosen people.”
Transposed into historical terms, this concept leads Nahmanides
. to
the elaboration of a historical model for the development of idolatry,
which consists of three distinct stages.8 The first stage of idolatry began
with the adoration of angels. The adherence to this practice is not very
far-fetched in view of the fact that angels, which can be identified with
the “Separate Intellects” (ha-śekhalim ha-nivdalim) of medieval cosmol-
ogy, were called “gods” (elohim) in the Hebrew Bible, too. Accordingly,
angelolatry is far from being sheer nonsense and may be seen instead as
an adequate form of worship for all peoples other than the Jews, because
they are in fact subject to angelic power. Israel alone is exempt from it,
which means Jews should serve God alone.
The second historical stage of idolatry is that of astral cults. The cult
of the visible stars is in itself based upon true observations regard-
ing their dominion over the earth as it is formulated in the “science”
of astrology. Thus, the astrological worldview is basically conceived as
being correct, although astrolatry is not for the chosen people either.
7 The following discussions are indebted in many points to the above-mentioned
studies of Dov Schwartz, most notably, the relevant chapters in Astral Magic, pp. –
; Amulets, Properties and Rationalism, pp. –; Studies on Astral Magic; and in the
article “From Theurgy to Magic.”
8 Nahmanides’ historical description of idolatry stands in stark contrast to Mai-
.
monides’ model found in his Mišneh Torah, Hilkhot #Avodah Zarah, ch. , which was
undoubtedly known to Nahmanides
. and served him as a model. Whereas Nahmanides
.
stresses the physical reality of the different forms of idolatry Maimonides considers them
all being based in the false belief in the ruling power of the stars (astrology), which
wiped out the true knowledge of God until Abraham restored it again; cf. also Moreh
ha-nevukhim III: and .
nahmanides
. on necromancy 
Finally, Nahmanides
. mentions the cult of demons as the third and lowest
form of idolatry. This practice has its rational foundation in the fact that
demons have power over certain peoples and events on this earth. All
this, Nahmanides
. tells us, can be studied in both the “science of necro-
mancy” (be-hokhmat
. nagarmunsia = nigromancia) and in rabbinic liter-
ature (on Exod. :):
The third kind of idolatry appeared afterwards when people began wor-
shipping the demons which are spirits, as I will explain later on with G-d’s
help. Some of them too are appointed over the peoples to be masters of
their lands and to harm their beleaguered ones and those who have stum-
bled, as is known of their activity through the art of necromancy,9 as well
as through the words of our Rabbis. . . . Scripture ridicules them, [i.e., the
Israelites], saying they sacrifice also to the demons who are no gods at all.
That is to say, they are not like the angels who are called eloha.
The whole passage makes it clear that necromancy is the form of idolatry
most remote from the true worship of God. Nahmanides . presents not
only the different kinds of idolatry as stages in a historical process, but
also a value judgment about them, which range from angelolatry, directed
to the lofty spiritual realm of the Separate Intellects; through astrolatry,
concerned with the eternal and unchangeable, yet physical realm of the
stars; to demonolatry, dealing with airy and fiery beings that live in the
lower world.10
Important additional information about Nahmanides’. demonology
can be gleaned from a second passage of his commentary on the Torah,
where he explicitly uses the term “necromancy” as well. In Lev. : we
read about the ban on offering sacrifices to the śe#irim, beings which were
unanimously identified with demons (šedim) by Rashi and Abraham ibn
Ezra and by the older targumim. Now, this verse provides Nahmanides.
with an occasion to put forward a detailed discussion of the nature of
the demons: they were created at the beginning of the creation from air
and fire and accordingly they possess a body, albeit imperceptible due
to its delicacy. Since they are composed of two elements, they are also
destructible and can die just like men and animals as a natural result
of decomposition. Demons know the near future, and the lightness of
the elements they are composed of allows them to fly, but they need
food. This, Nahmanides
. tells us, we can learn from the practices of the
9 C. Chavel renders hokhmat nagarmunsia (= nigromansia) with “art of necromancy”

.
although “science of necromancy” seems to be a more appropriate translation.
10 On the airy and fiery nature of demons, cf. the commentary on Lev. : below.
 reimund leicht
necromancers (ba#ale nigromansi"ah), who offer burned sacrifices to the

demons and thus help them to sustain their bodies (on Lev. :):
The matter of “eating” [mentioned above in connection with these crea-
tures] means their deriving nourishment from the moisture of water and
the odors of fire, something like the fire that licked up the water that was
in the trench.11 This is the purpose of the burnings which necromancers
perform to the demons.
In sum, in both passages Nahmanides
. unequivocally identifies necro-
mancy with the cult of demons in this lower world. Their cult is consid-
ered real and effective, but it is forbidden to the Jewish people, although
Lev. : hints that the Israelites themselves practiced different forms of
idolatry prior to the divine injunction issued in the Torah.12
A similar idea was already formulated a few pages earlier in Nahma- .
nides’ commentary on Lev. :, where he explains the “secret” (sod
ha-#inyan) of the goat sent to #Aza"zel. According to Nahmanides,
. this
ritual appears to be a kind of exception to the general ban on the former
practice of idolatry (on Lev. :):
Now this is the secret of this matter. They used to worship “other gods,”
namely, the angels, bringing offerings of a sweet savor to them, similar
to that which it says and thou didst send Mine oil and My incense before
them. My bread also which I gave to thee, fine flour, and oil, and honey,
wherewith I fed thee, thou didst even set it before them for a sweet savor, and
thus it was, saith the Eternal G-d.13 You have to contemplate the Scriptural
text as it is written and [also] as [it is read according to the] Masoretic
tradition. Now, the Torah has totally forbidden to accept them as deities,
or to worship them in any manner. However, the Holy One, blessed be He,
commanded us that on the Day of Atonement we should let loose a goat in
the wilderness, to that “prince” [power] which rules over wasteland, and
this [goat] is fitting for it because he is its master, and destruction and
waste emanate from that power, which in turn is the cause of the stars
of the sword, wars, quarrels, wounds, plagues, division and destruction.
In short, it is the spirit of the sphere of Mars, and its portion among the
nations is Esau [Rome], the people that inherited the sword and the wars,
and among animals the śe"irim (demons) and the goats. Also in its portion
are the demons called “destroyers” in the language of our Rabbis . . . .
Nahmanides
. does not hesitate to describe the ritual of the goat sent to
‘Aza"zel as a kind of permissible form of magic, ordained by God himself.
Accordingly, the practice of this and other similar rituals (sacrifices, the
11 I Kings :.
12 Cf. the commentary on the word ‘od in Lev. :.
13 Ezek. :–.
nahmanides
. on necromancy 
ritual of the Red Heifer, etc.) is, in spite of its outward resemblance to idol-
atry, actually the fulfillment of a divine commandment. Such an interpre-
tation necessitates, however, a positive stance toward the physical reality
of magic in general, so that it comes as no surprise that in the conclud-
ing sentence of his commentary on Lev. : Nahmanides . vehemently
defends the reality of necromancy and spiritual magic against their crit-
ics:
Thus the matter is explained, unless you pursue a further investigation
from this subject to that of the Separate Intelligences and how the spirits
[are affected by] the offerings’—[influence upon the spirits] being known
through the study of necromancy,14 while that of the [Separate] Intelli-
gences is known by means of certain allusions of the Torah to those who
understand their secrets. I cannot explain more, for I would have to close
the mouths of those who claim to be wise in the study of nature, follow-
ing after that Greek [philosopher Aristotle] who denied everything except
that which could be perceived by him [through the physical senses], and
he, and his wicked disciples, were so proud as to suspect that whatever he
could not conceive of through his reasoning is not true!
Very much like the previous passages, this text tells us that the “science
of necromancy” (hokhmat
. nigromansi"a) deals with the nature of spirits
(ruhot)—and
. presumably also with their manipulation. Thus, at first
sight the object of necromancy seems to have remained the same: the
demons. But unlike in the previous cases, the “science of necromancy” is
now explicitly paralleled with another branch of human science—that of
the Separate Intelligences. Both sciences are seen to be guarantors for the
scientific plausibility of non-corporeal, spiritual influence in the physical
world, most notably of astral magic as it was described in the preceding
commentary. This physical worldview was opposed by some Aristotelian
philosophers of nature, who denied the reality of spiritual influence,
and it is interesting to see how Nahmanides
. here criticizes in unusually
harsh words the very philosophical position which no one other than
Maimonides would have favored. But whoever Nahmanides’. direct target
may have been,15 it becomes clear that in this context the “science of
necromancy” assumes a new status: whereas Nahmanides. hitherto spoke
about “necromancy” as the lowest form of idolatry, now this “science” has
14 Here again Nahmanides uses the term hokhmat nigromansi"a—“science of necro-

. .
mancy”—rendered by C. Chavel as “study of necromancy.”
15 A similar polemic against “anti-spiritualistic” Aristotelian natural philosophy can
be found in Nahmanides’
. Derašat Torat H” Temimah in C.D. Chavel, ed., Kitvei Rabbenu
Mošeh ben Nahman,
.  vols. (Jerusalem, –), –, on p. .
 reimund leicht
suddenly become a crucial element in a complex argument concerning

the structure of the physical world in general and the reality of astral and
spiritual magic in particular. Seemingly denigrated in the previous texts
to the poorest form of idolatry, the “science of necromancy” now turns
out to be a powerful weapon in Nahmanides’
. fight for a spiritualistic
worldview, which closely associates the belief in demons with the belief
in the reality of astral magic.
The “science of necromancy” is also raised to a similar status in the
fourth and last passage in the commentary on the Torah, where the
term nigromancia is explicitly used. In his comments on Deut. :,
Nahmanides
. gives a detailed account of the different branches of magic,
which he divides first into two main branches: sorcery (kišuf ) and div-
ination (qesamim). The genus of sorcery comprises different practices
such as “charmers” (hover
. hever)
. and those who “ask the "ov and yid#oni”
(šo"el ba-#ov we-yid#oni), whereas divination, which is simply concerned
with predicting the future (mahšava
. ba-#atidot bi-khlal), diversifies into
“cloud-interpreters” (me#onen), “diviners” (menaheš) . etc. Unfortunately,
Nahmanides
. does not put forward an explicit rule for the differentia-
tion between the two genera of “sorcery” and “divination,” but the rea-
sons he provides for the biblical ban on each of them make it sufficiently
clear that the former is to be identified with aggressive acts manipulat-
ing nature, whereas the latter is based upon a more passive observa-
tion of portents. “Sorcery,” he says, is forbidden, because God the cre-
ator wanted “the world to rest in its customary way,” whereas “divina-
tion” is forbidden in the Torah because it is superfluous: Israel receives
information about God’s desire through prophecy and not through div-
ination.
For our purpose, however, it is notable that Nahmanides
. exempli-
fies in this text “manipulative” magic, “sorcery” (kišuf ), by describing
astral magic, which he in turn explicitly labels “necromancy” (on Deut.
:):
And now, know and understand concerning the subject of sorcery, that
when the Creator, blessed be He, created everything from nothing, He
made the higher powers to be guides for those below them. Thus He
placed the earth and all things that are thereon16 in the power of the stars
and constellations, depending on their rotation and position as proven
by the study of astrology. Over the stars and constellation he further
appointed guides, angels, and “lords” which are the soul [of the stars
16 Neh. :.
nahmanides
. on necromancy 
and constellations]. Now, their behavior from the time they come into
existence for eternal duration, is according to the pattern [that] the Most
High decreed for them. However, it was one of His mighty wonders
that within the power of these higher forces, He put configurations [as
explained further on] and capacities to alter the behavior of those under
them. Thus if the direction of the stars towards the earth be good or bad to
a certain country, people, or individual, the higher dominions can reverse
it of their own volition, as they have said, “The apposition for the word
oneg (pleasure) is nega (plague).” G-d ordained it so because He, blessed be
his Name, changeth the times and the seasons;17 He calleth for the waters of
the sea18 to do with them at His Will, and bringeth on the shadow of death
in the morning 19 without changing the natural order of the world, and it
is He Who made the stars and constellations move about in their order.
Therefore, the author of the Book of the Moon, the expert in [the field
of] necromancy, said, “when the moon, termed ‘the sphere of the world,’
is, for example, at the head of Aries (the Ram) and the constellation thus
appears in a certain form, you should make a drawing of that grouping,
engraving on it the particular time [when this relative position appears]
and the name of the angel—one of the names mentioned in that book—
appointed over it. Then perform a certain burning [of incense] in a certain
specified manner, and the result of the influence [of the relative position
of the stars] will be for evil, to root out and to pull down, and to destroy
and to overthrow.20 And when the moon will be in a position relative to
some other constellation you should make the drawing and the burning
in a certain other manner and the result will be for good, to build and
to plant.”21 Now this, too, is the influence of the moon as determined by
the power of its [heavenly] guide. But the basic manner of its movement
is by the wish of the Creator, blessed be He, Who endowed it so in time
past, while this particular action is contrary thereto. This then is the secret
of [all forms of] sorcery and their power concerning which the Rabbis
have said that “they contradict the power of divine agencies,” meaning that
they are contrary to the simple powers [with which the agencies have been
endowed] and thus diminish them in a certain aspect thereof. Therefore,
it is proper that the Torah prohibit these activities in order to let the world
rest in its customary way, in the simple nature which is the desire of the
Creator.
This excursus on the nature of “sorcery” is a valuable source for Nahma-
.
nides’ concept of magic, not the least because it contains the very first
mention of a text of astral magic in the Hebrew language—the Sefer
17 Dan. :.
18 Amos :.
19 Ibid.
20 Jer. :.
21 Ibid.
 reimund leicht
ha-Levanah.22 But be this as it may, it is striking to see that Nahmanides’

.
argument is based upon two rather surprising interpretations: in the first
place, he bluntly identifies “sorcery” with astral magic. This is somewhat
bewildering in view of the fact that Nahmanides
. had told us just a few
lines before that many different kinds of magic such as “charmers” or
those who “ask the ‘ov and yad#oni” belong to the category of kišuf, too.
Does he really believe that the theory of astral magic can be seen as
the common theoretical denominator of all these forms of manipulative
magic? And more than that, Nahmanids . goes on to argue that kišuf is
best portrayed in a book called Sefer ha-Levanah, which was written by an
“expert” in the “science of necromancy” (hakham
. be-nagarmunsi"a) and
deals with astral magic. This shows that to the first identification of kišuf
with astral magic, Nahmanides
. now adds another identification, namely,
that of a book on astral magic with “necromancy.” As a consequence, at
the end of the whole passage “necromancy” suddenly seems to be nothing
but a synonym for astral magic.
The comparative reading of the four passages in Nahmanides’
. com-
mentary on the Torah thus reveals a striking inner tension in the usage
of the term “necromancy.” Whereas the first two texts (Exod. : and
Lev. :) leave little doubt that “necromancy” unequivocally designates
the cult of demons, the third passage already posits the “science of necro-
mancy” in a surprisingly close relationship with philosophical theories
about the Separate Intellects and the possibility of non-corporeal influ-
ence on the physical world. In the fourth text this affinity of the “sci-
ence of necromancy” to spiritual magic is further developed to such a
degree that necromancy in itself is being identified with aggressive magic
and merges terminologically with astral magic. Rather than clarifying the
problems connected with the theory and practice of different forms of
magic, Nahmanides’
. use of the term “necromancy” thus turns out to be
inconsistent in itself. This observation calls for an explanation. Was he
unaware of the discrepancies in his usage of the loanword he adopted?
Was he himself responsible for the polysemy we have observed, or did he
inherit it from his sources and informants?
If we look at the Latin term necromantia, from which the medieval
form nigromancia used by Nahmanides
. was derived, its Greek origin is
22 Cf. on the Hebrew versions of the Sefer ha-Levanah, F. Lelli, “Le Versioni Ebraiche
di un Testo Ermetico: Il Sefer ha-Levanah,” Henoch  (): –, and R. Leicht,

Astrologumena Judaica. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der astrologischen Literatur der
Juden (Tübingen, ): –.
nahmanides
. on necromancy 
obvious (“divination by the dead”).23 Although Greek was little known

by the Middle Ages, because of the word’s inclusion in Isidore of Sevilla’s
(ca. –) Etymologiae, its correct linguistic background was not
altogether forgotten in the Latin West, for in Book VIII.ix. he writes:24
Necromancers are those, through whose incantations the risen dead seem
[able] to divine and to answer interrogations, since nekros is called in
Greek “dead” and manteia “divination.” In order to query them, blood is
put on the corpse, since the demons are said to love blood (sanguis). And
accordingly, necromancy is often carried out in [such a] way that thick
blood (cruor) is mixed with water, since they are invoked more easily by
thick blood (cruor sanguinis).
This short text can be seen as something like the standard definition of
“necromancy” in the Latin Middle Ages. It combines the original Greek
meaning of nekromantia—“divination by the dead”—with demonologi-
cal aspects and adds the idea that blood plays a crucial role in necroman-
tic rituals. Many other medieval authors adopted this definition (Hra-
banus Maurus, Hinkmar of Reims, Ivo of Chartres),25 and it was clearly
still influential in mid-thirteenth-century Castile when Alfonso X “el
Sabio” (–) wrote in his legal codex Las Siete Partidas: “Necro-
mancy is called in Latin a strange science for the incantation of bad
spirits.”26
Nahmanides’
. first terminological usage of the word nigromancia—
meaning the cult of demons—is thus in total accordance with this tra-
dition in the Latin world. One could even go one step further and ask
whether Nahmanides
. also shared other basic tenets of demonology with
the surrounding culture, although this would exceed the boundaries of
the present paper. A good example of this could be his commentary
23 For the history of the Latin term, cf. D. Harmening, Superstitio. Überlieferungs- und
theoriegeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur kirchlich-theologischen Aberglaubensliteratur des

Mittelalters (Berlin, ), –; J.-C. Schmitt, “Les Superstitions,” J. LeGoff and
R. Rémond, eds, Histoire de la France religieuse, vol.  (Paris: ): –, on p. ;
J.-P. Boudet, Entre Science et Nigromance. Astrologie, divination et magie dans l’ Occident
médiéval (XIIe–XVe siècle) (Paris, ), –.
24 My own translation according to Isidorus Hispalensis Episcopus, Etymologiarum
sive originum libri XX. Edited by W.M. Lindsay (Oxford, ): Necromantii sunt, quo-
rum praecantationibus videntur resuscitati mortui divinare, et ad interrogata respon-
dere. Νεκρος enim Graece mortuus, μαντεια divinatio nuncupatur: ad quos sciscitan-
dos caderveri sanguis adicitur. Nam amare daemons sanguinem dicitur. Ideoque quotiens
necromatia fit, cruor aqua miscitur, ut cruore sanguinis facilius provocentur.
25 Cf. Harmening, Superstitio, pp. –.
26 Titulo XXIII: “Necromantia dizen en latin a un saber estraño que es para encantar
espiritus malos”; cf. A. d’ Agostino, Astromagia (Napoli, ): .

 reimund leicht
on Lev. :, where he explains the ban on eating blood in terms of

demonological practices that are reminiscent of Isidore’s description.
Regarding the terminological question, it is clear, however, that nothing
in these early Latin sources hints at the double usage of the term “necro-
mancy” that we have found in Nahmanides. .
In order to understand Nahmanides’
. second usage of the term “necro-
mancy,” we therefore have to turn to other sources and ask when Latin
sources first cite this term in the meaning of “science of astral magic.”
A prolific source for this question is found in medieval enumerations of
the sciences, which were composed in Arabic and Latin from the tenth
and eleventh centuries onward. These texts allow us to reconstruct step
by step a long process which ultimately led to the emergence of “necro-
mancy” as the “science of astral magic.”27
The philosopher al-Fārābı̄ briefly mentions astrology alongside as-
tronomy among the mathematical sciences in his Ihsā" . al-#ulūm (Enu-
28
meration of Sciences), but he does not count medicine, let alone astral
magic, among the sciences at all.29 It is not until a century later that we
find in al-Ġazālı̄’s Maqās. id al-falāsifa (Intentions of the Philosophers)
for the first time a clear statement about “medicine, talismans, enchant-
ments, magic etc.” (t. ibb, t. alsimāt, nāranǧāt, sihr)
. as part of the natural
sciences.30
Al-Ġazālı̄’s book was among the first Arabic works to be translated
into Latin, in twelfth-century Toledo, where the above-mentioned terms
are rendered as medicina, ymagines, incantations, allecciones etc.31 As
early as the twelfth century, magic and astral magic thus seem to have
become part of the system of sciences adopted by the Latin West from the
Arab world, although the term “necromancy” was not yet systematically
applied.32 An important step toward the terminological identification of
27 Cf. also Boudet, Entre Science et Nigromance, pp. –, and C. Burnett, “Talis-
mans: Magic as Science? Necromancy among the Seven Liberal Arts,” in idem, Magic and
Divination in the Middle Ages. Texts and Techniques in the Islamic and Christian Worlds
(Aldershot, ), first article.
28 Al-Fārābı̄, Ihsā" al-#ulūm, in al-Fārābı̄, Catálogo de la Ciencias. Edited and translated
.
by A. González Palencia, nd ed. (Madrid and Granada, ): – [Arabic].
29 On the systematic reasons for this decision, see F. Schupp in his introduction to
al-Fārābı̄, Über die Wissenschaften (Hamburg, ): XLII–XLIV.

30 Al-Ġazālı̄, Maqāsid al-falāsifa. Edited by A.F. al-Mazı̄dı̄ (Beirut, ):  (second
.
book, second prologue).
31 J.T. Muckle, ed., Algazel’s Metaphysica: A Medieval Translation (Toronto, ): .
32 Cf. on Petrus Alfonsus (–) and John of Seville (twelfth century), Boudet,
Entre Science et Nigromance, pp. –.

nahmanides
. on necromancy 
astral magic with necromancy was taken around the middle of the cen-
tury, as we can learn from the works of Dominicus Gundissalinus, who
was active in the Castilian capital, Toledo. He is the first datable author
to mention “natural necromancy” (nigromantia secundum physicam) as
one of the natural sciences in his De divisione philosophiae:33
Some of the sciences are universal and others are special, and those, which
comprise others, are called universal. Therefore the science of nature is
universal, because it comprises eight sciences: the science of medicine, the
science of [astrological] judgments, the science of necromancy according
to nature, the science of images, the science of agriculture, the science of
navigation, the science of alchemy, which is the science of the conversion
of things one into another; these are the eight species of natural science.
The concept of “natural necromancy” found in this text became pretty
popular and was adopted in other Latin texts like Ps.-al-Fārābı̄’s De ortu
scientiarum34 and in Daniel of Morley’s (–) Philosophia.35 This
new terminological coinage itself, however, is indicative of a process of
transition, which evidently took place during this period of time. The
twelfth-century authors all try to integrate spiritual magic into their
system of sciences and for that purpose they adopt “necromancy” as a
technical term. The addition “secundum physicam,” on the other hand,
bears witness to the fact that they were still well aware that “necromancy”
originally meant something quite different from the kind of magic they
33 Dominucus Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae. Edited by L. Baur (Münster,

): : sciencia de medicina, sciencia de indiciis [sic!], sciencia de nigromantia secun-
dum physicam, sciencia de imaginibus, sciencia de agricultura, sciencia de nauigacione, sci-
encia de speculis and ciencia de alquimia; cf. also A. Fidora and D. Werner, eds, Dominicus
Gundissalinus. De divisione philosophiae—Über die Einteilung der Philosophie (Freiburg,
): –.
34 Alpharabius, De ortu scientiarum. Edited by C. Baeumker (Münster, ): :
Partes autem huius scientiae quod dixerunt sapientes primi, octo sunt, scilicet de iudiciis,
scientia de medicina, scientia de nigromantia secundum physicam, scientia de imaginibus,
scientia de agricultura, scientia de navigando, scientia de alkimia quae est conversione
rerum in alias species, scientia de speculis.” This Latin enumeration of sciences attributed to
al-Fārābı̄ reflects later medieval developments, although H.A. Wolfson seems to believe in
its authenticity (“The Classification of Sciences in Mediaeval Jewish Philosophy,” Hebrew
Union College Jubilee Volume [Cincinnati, ]: –, on p. ).
35 G. Maurach, “Daniel von Morley, ‘De Philosophia’ ”, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 
(): –, on p. : De dignitate eius invenitur, quod illius partes, secundum
quod dixerunt sapientes primi, octo sunt, scil. scientia de iudiciis, scientia de medicina,
scientia de nigromantia secundum phisicam, scientia de agricultura, scientia de prestigiis,
scientia de alckimia que est scientia de transformatione metallorum in alias species, scientia
de imaginibus, quam tradit LIBER VENERIS magnus et universalis, quem edidit THOZ
GRECUS, scientia de speculis, et hec scientia largior est et latior ceteris, prout ARISTOTILES
manifestat in LIBRO DE SPECULO ADURENTI.
 reimund leicht
were thinking about. Even though both “sciences” manipulate powers in

the physical world, one of them preoccupies itself with demons whereas
the other deals with natural forces. The attempt to bring order into the
newly adopted and developed branches of natural science thus led in the
twelfth century to a semantic diversification of the term “necromancy.”
If we now come back to Nahmanides,
. it becomes apparent that the
inner tension in his usage of the term “necromancy” is neither the result
of having misunderstood its proper meaning nor of its being a fanciful,
idiosyncratic creation. Writing his commentary on the Torah in the sec-
ond half of the thirteenth century, Nahmanides
. used the loanword in the
exact same double sense which was current in his Christian environment,
too. Nahmanides
. speaks “the same language” here of his Christian coun-
terparts. This does not mean, of course, that he necessarily read any of
the literary sources mentioned in this paper, but it indicates that we have
to interpret his ideas about magic, astrology and “necromancy” as an
inseparable part not only of an inner-Jewish debate, but also of the gen-
eral learned discourse about occult sciences that was going on in Spain
during his lifetime. Talking about nigromancia in his Hebrew works—
both in the traditional demonological and the newly developed scien-
tific meaning of the term—Nahmanides
. displays an intimate familiarity
with the cultural trends of his time. This observation clues us in on a
methodological approach to his thought: a systematic interpretation of
Nahmanides’
. stance towards astral magic and his interest in the possi-
bility of a spiritual worldview that transcends the limits of Aristotelian
physics will necessarily have to place his thought not only within the tra-
dition of Judah Halevi’s and Abraham ibn Ezra’s astrological and magical
inclinations and the reaction against Jewish Aristotelian “materialism,”
which denied “everything except that which could be perceived through
the physical senses.” It will also have to describe how his preoccupations
echoed in part the enormous fascination exerted by the new “science of
necromancy” upon intellectuals in thirteenth-century Christian Spain,
some of whom may have read in the new Latin translation of the Picatrix
produced at the court of Alfonso X “el Sabio”:36
And in general we call necromancy all things hidden from the senses,
which the major part of mankind does not understand how they happen
and from which causes they come.
36 D. Pingree, ed., Picatrix. The Latin Version (London, ): : Et generaliter nigro-
manciam dicimus pro omnibus rebus absconditis a sensu et quas maior pars hominum non
apprehendit quomodo fiant nec quibus causis veniant.
THE FIRST SURVEY OF THE METAPHYSICS IN HEBREW
Resianne Fontaine
. Introduction
In his seminal and often-quoted study on the appropriation of the sci-

ences by Jews in medieval Provence, Gad Freudenthal calls attention to
the important role of the medieval Hebrew encyclopedias in the trans-
mission of science and philosophy from Arabic into Hebrew.1 The first
encyclopedia that he discusses in this regard is the Midraš ha-hokhmah
.
by Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen, originally written in Arabic, presum-
ably in the s, and translated by the author into Hebrew around .2
Since the publication of Freudenthal’s study considerable progress has
been made in the study of the Midraš ha-hokhmah (henceforth: MH). 3
. .
Nonetheless, there are some areas and topics in Judah’s encyclopedic
composition that await further exploration. The present paper seeks to
address one such area, namely the section on Aristotle’s Metaphysics in
the MH,. by elaborating on Mauro Zonta’s valuable observations on the
subject in his “The Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics in the Thirteenth-
Century Encyclopedias.”4
The importance of this section lies in the fact that, to the best of our
knowledge, it is the first Hebrew text to present a substantial survey
vence: leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des Études Juives  (): –, on
pp. –. The Hebrew encyclopedias form the subject of the first six paragraphs in
M. Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als
Dolmetscher (Berlin, /repr. Graz, ).
I dedicate this paper to Gad Freudenthal as a token of esteem, friendship and gratitude.
2 Ibid., –. The Arabic version is no longer extant.
3 See notably the detailed studies on (sections of) the MH, by C.H. Manekin, T. Lévy,
.
R. Glasner, Y.T. Langermann, A. Ivry, M. Zonta and the present author in S. Harvey,
ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of Science and Philosophy (Dordrecht etc., ).
Colette Sirat drew attention to the work in her “Juda b. Salomon ha-Cohen, philosophe,
astronome, et peut-être kabbaliste de la première moitié du XIIIe siècle,” Italia  ():
–. See now also M. Benedetto, Un enciclopedista ebreo alla corte di Federico II.
Filosofia e astrologia nel Midraš ha-hokhmah
. di Yehudah ha-Cohen (Bari, ).
4 Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias, pp. –.
 resianne fontaine
of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Prior to that date Hebrew readers living in a

Christian environment with no access to Arabic but seeking to acquaint
themselves with Aristotelian metaphysical, or more generally, philosoph-
ical thought could find relevant material in the Hebrew translations of the
writings of Jewish philosophers like Saadya, Judah Halevi, and above all
Maimonides. However, if those readers wished to turn to the actual Aris-
totelian sources underlying the Jewish philosophers’ expositions, they
would have had to learn Arabic or Latin. This is why, as Judah ha-Kohen
explains, Italian Jews requested him, during his stay in Italy in the service
of the emperor Frederick II, to undertake the translation of his encyclo-
pedia into Hebrew.5 Indeed, Judah, a native from Toledo who was well
versed in the philosophical-scientific curriculum as studied in Muslim
Spain, was a most suitable candidate to transmit this body of knowledge
to his fellow Jews.
In fact, the dissemination of contemporary scientific learning was one
of Judah’s aims underlying the composition of the MH, . and for him
the best way to realize it was to provide his readers with direct access
to the relevant sources, that is, the most authoritative writings of his
day, in abridged form. For philosophy this meant Aristotle’s philosoph-
ical works as interpreted by Ibn Rušd, and in the case of the survey
on the Metaphysics, this meant the Middle Commentary (henceforth:
MC). It is important to bear in mind that Judah’s Hebrew survey was
produced before integral Hebrew translations of the Aristotelian text
or of Ibn Rušd’s commentaries on it became available. The Commen-
tator’s Epitome of the Metaphysics was translated into Hebrew in 
by Moses ibn Tibbon, while his MC on it was rendered into Hebrew
in  by Zerahyah. ben Is. haq
. Hen,
. and a second time by Qalonymos
6 Two other texts to be mentioned in this regard
ben Qalonymos in .
are Moses ibn Tibbon’s translation of Themistius’ commentary on Book
Λ () and Falaquera’s De#ot ha-Filosofim (ca. ?), which mainly
draws on one of the redactions of the Epitome. The Hebrew version of
Ibn Rušd’s Long Commentary was produced around –. Latin-
into-Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics were to follow only in
the last quarter of the fifteenth century, in Spain.7
5 MH, MS Oxford, Bodleian, Mich , fol. v. All references to the MH are to this
. .
MS. I have also consulted MSS Hunt , and Pococke , owned by the Bodleian Library.
6 Cf. Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen, pp. – and Zonta, “The
Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics,” in Harvey, ed., The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias,

pp. –.
7 For more details, see Zonta, “The Place of Aristotelian Metaphysics”, pp. –.
the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
The MH . thus occupies a special place in the transmission history of

the Metaphysics in Hebrew. For several decades, until the appearance
of Zerahyah’s
. translation of the MC, it was the only Hebrew source
that presented Aristotle’s Metaphysics in a manner that was close to the
Philosopher’s own wording. In what follows I shall highlight the main
features of this first presentation of the Metaphysics to a Hebrew audience.
. Aristotle and Ibn Rušd as Sources for

the Presentation of the MH’s
. Metaphysics
The section treating the Metaphysics is found in Part I of the MH, . which
is dedicated to philosophy. It is preceded by précis of Aristotle’s logic and
natural philosophy, and followed by a treatise on the explanation of some
Biblical verses. Part II treats geometry, astronomy and astrology, and ends
with two treatises on specifically Jewish subjects.8
As noted above, Judah’s direct source for the Metaphysics is Ibn Rušd’s
MC, the Arabic of which is regrettably lost. Judah’s use of this commen-
tary is immediately evident through the absence in the MH . of Aristotle’s
Book Α and the presence of Books Κ, Μ and Ν, corresponding to the
contents of the MC. In the Long Commentary, by contrast, these three
books are absent, while Book A is included.9 Moreover, a comparison of
Judah’s overview with the two Hebrew translations suggests that almost
all of his statements can be traced back to the MC.10 In this respect his
8 One is about the letters of the Hebrew alphabet and the other about Talmudic
Haggadot.
9 For a recent overview of the transmission history of the Metaphysics in Arabic, see
A. Bertolacci, The Reception of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in Avicenna’s Kitāb al-Šifā" (Leiden

etc., ): –.
10 I wish to thank Mauro Zonta for generously providing me with a copy of his
unpublished edition of the Hebrew translations by Zerahyah . and Qalonymos. Quotations

to the MC are taken from this typescript. From the fact that, in general, Qalonymos’
translation bears greater similarity to the MH . than Zerahyah’s,
. it can be inferred that
Judah based his survey on the Arabic redaction that underlay Qalonymos’ translation.
However, Zonta has established that Judah also used the redaction underlying Zerahyah’s .
translation, cf. M. Zonta, La Tradizione ebraica del Commento Medio di Averroè alla
Metafisica di Aristotele. Le Versioni ebraiche di Zerahyah
. ben Is. haq
. Hen . e di Qalonymos
ben Qalonymos. Edizione e introduzione storico-filologica (Ph.D. thesis Università di
Torino, ): *–*, *–*; and idem, “A Case of ‘Author’s Variant Reading’ and
the Textual History of Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics,” in
J. Hamesse and O. Weijers, eds, Écriture et Réécriture des Textes Philosophiques Médiévaux.
Volume d’ hommage offert à Colette Sirat (Turnhout, ): –. This issue requires
 resianne fontaine
procedure in this section differs somewhat from that in his treatment of

natural philosophy, where Judah occasionally uses the Epitomes along-
side the Middle Commentaries, even though the latter are invariably his
principal sources. I have found no indications that suggest a direct usage
by Judah of an Arabic translation of the Aristotelian text. Neither does
he seem to have used the Long Commentary.
While Judah acknowledges that it was Maimonides who kindled in
him “a burning fire” (Jer. :)11 to study the sciences, we do not know
if Judah was aware of Maimonides’ famous recommendation to Samuel
ibn Tibbon, a few decades earlier, to study Aristotle with the help of
the commentators, that is, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Themistius, and
Ibn Rušd.12 In turning to Ibn Rušd, however, Judah is, advisedly or
not, following Maimonides’ guidelines. In Judah’s day, Ibn Rušd was
rapidly acquiring the reputation among Jews of being Aristotle’s most
authoritative interpreter. In point of fact, the MH . is one of the earliest
Hebrew texts, if not the earliest, to testify to Ibn Rušd’s status as Aristotle’s
commentator par excellence among Jews. Most telling in this respect is a
passage in Book XI (Λ) where Judah introduces a long quotation from
his source by saying “This is the version of Ibn Rušd”, while concluding
it with the words “We will return to Aristotle’s words” (fol. v). This
suggests that for Judah Ibn Rušd had already supplanted Aristotle in his
formative years in Toledo.
However, for the medieval reader, who sought to be introduced to
Aristotle’s Metaphysics through the MH . Ibn Rušd’s omnipresence would
not be immediately clear. If he had first studied Judah’s introduction, as
he was supposed to do, he would certainly be led to expect overviews
further examination. On the problem of the different redactions of the MC in the case
of the Physics, see R. Glasner, Averroes’ Physics. A Turning Point in Medieval Natural
Philosophy (Oxford, ): – and Part B.
11 MH, fol. r.
.
12 Zerahyah refers to it in his apology that is appended to his translation of Ibn Rušd’s
.
MC, cf. Zonta, La Tradizione ebraica, p. * and n. . For the impact of Maimonides’
recommendation, see S. Harvey, “Did Maimonides letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon determine
which philosophers would be studied by later Jewish thinkers?,” Jewish Quarterly Review
, – (): –. Interestingly, Bouyges notes that he has consulted the MH . and its
quotations from Ibn Rušd in Steinschneider’s Leiden catalogue for his own edition of the
Long Commentary, but that he did not find them so useful: “je n’ ai rien pu en tirer,” see
M. Bouyges, Averroès. Tafsir ma ba#d at-Tabi#at Bibliotheca Arabica Scholasticorum. Série
Arabe (Paris, ): Tome V., p. xcviii. For Steinschneider’s description of the MH, . see
Catalogus codicum hebraeorum bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae (Leiden, ):
–.
the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
of Aristotle’s own writings in the MH. . 13 Judah begins his book with
an enumeration of the Philosopher’s works through which philosophy
should be studied. Here he presents a detailed book-by-book descrip-
tion of the subject matter treated by Aristotle without ever mentioning
Ibn Rušd. The reader would thus be under the impression that Judah
renders Aristotle’s own works. Throughout his work he often writes “he
says,” meaning Aristotle, but the unprepared reader may not identify this
as deriving from the MC’s reference to Aristotle. Further on in the MH .
there are occasional references to the Commentator and also some pas-
sages that are explicitly marked as quotes from his commentaries (“çñåð
ãùø ïá”). In Book XI (Λ) of the Metaphysics such quotes are particu-
larly frequent and involve long portions of texts (cf. below). In other
words: the medieval Hebrew reader of the MH . would be aware that the
author has used Ibn Rušd, but he would not realize that the entire sur-
vey of the Metaphysics is in fact an extract from his MC, or, in other
words, that he was studying Aristotle as interpreted by the Commenta-
tor.
. Judah’s Presentation of the Metaphysics
Quantitative Data
If we turn now to the main features of Judah’s presentation of Aristotle’s
Metaphysics in Averroian garb it is useful to consider first some quanti-
tative data. All in all, the section in the MH. takes up some  percent of
the entire work, and  percent of the philosophical part, which contains
all in all  folios.14
Judah’s numbering of the various books follows that of the MC. Thus
his Book I renders Aristotle’s α, and the numbering of the following
books (B to N) runs from II–XIV. However, the various books of the
Metaphysics do not receive equal attention in Judah’s survey. Some books
are covered much more extensively than others, both with respect to
Aristotle and to Ibn Rušd. In the MH . the longest book by far is XI
(Λ), whereas in the Aristotelian text books Γ, Δ, Ζ, Κ, Μ, and Ν are all
13 Cf. fol. r, where Judah warns copyists not to copy single sections: the whole
compilation should be read from the beginning to the end.

14 In the most complete manuscript, MS Vat ebr , it comprises  fols out of 
fols. The philosophical part contains all in all  fols in this MS.
 resianne fontaine
longer than Λ. The shortest book in the MH . is X (Κ), which in true step-
motherly fashion is covered in only three lines. In terms of length, and
15
starting with the longest, the order in the MH . is as follows:
XI (Λ) ; IV (Δ) ; XII (Μ) ; VI (Ζ) ; XIII (Ν) ; VII (Η)
, and IX (Ι) ; VIII (Θ) ; I (α); ; II (Β) ; III (Γ) ; V (Ε)  and
X (Κ) .
As for length, the MC has roughly the following order: VI; XII; IV; XV;
XI and III; X; IX; II; VIII; XIII; VII; V; I.
These data give rise to the assumption that Judah was selective in
covering his source-material.
Titles
Judah uses various terms in reference to the discipline of metaphysics.
The heading of Book I reads: “Book I of divine science (úéäìà äîëç),
which is called ‘Metaphysics’ (òáèä øçà).” This is consistent with his ter-
minology in the introduction to his encyclopedia, and the term “divine
science” also emerges in the passage that renders a–, where he
explicitly refers to the introduction (fol. r–). This designation is
also found in his section on the Physics. In Metaphysics III he describes
it as “first philosophy” (äðåùàø àéôåñåìéô), opposing it to dialectics and
sophistry, or as “äîëç” tout court (fol. v–; –). Invoking Prov.
:: “Many women have done well, but you surpassed them all,” he
points out here that it is the “highest science.”16 In Book V we read: “It
is necessary that there is a universal science (úéììë äîëç) in which the
premises of every science (äëàìî) are explained [ . . . ], and this is philos-
ophy (àéôåñåìéôä), for this science (äëàìî) investigates the principles and
ultimate causes of existing things.”17 Elsewhere he refers to metaphysics
as a “universal speculative science” (úéììë úéáùçî äëàìî), distinguishing
it from physics and mathematics (fol. r). The most common expres-
sion in our section, however, is “this science” (åæ äîëç or åæ äëàìî), which
he uses as a general reference to the science under consideration.18
15 The numbers refer to the number of lines devoted to each book according to MS
Oxford, Bodleian, Mich .

16 Translations of Biblical verses are according to The Jewish Study Bible. Edited by
A. Berlin and M.Z. Brettler (Oxford and New York, ).

17 Fol. v–, cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b–.
18 See Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Übersetzungen, pp. – for terms used for
the Metaphysics.
the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
Scope / Breadth of Coverage

In all fairness, it should be said at once that Judah generally offers a faith-
ful account of Ibn Rušd’s reading of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. In accordance
with his aim to spread philosophical knowledge among his fellow Jews,
he painstakingly records, page after page, the majority of Aristotle’s views
on the nature and subject matter of the field (Books I, III and V); the ques-
tions that metaphysics should investigate (Book II); the key terms, their
definitions and applications (Book IV); the difficult discussions about
substance and essence (Books VI–VII); other key concepts such as matter
and form, potentiality and actuality, unity and plurality (Books VIII–IX),
and theology (Book XI). The last two books (XII–XIII) discuss Aristotle’s
criticism of other theories on immaterial substances. Moreover, Judah is
careful to insert references to other sections of his book that are relevant
to the issue that he treats, as a pedagogical aid to his readers. In sum
then, it is appropriate to say that Judah was concerned to provide a com-
prehensive survey of the most important topics and discussions found in
the Metaphysics.
This is not to say, however, that the survey is exhaustive or complete.
Quite the contrary: as he says elsewhere explicitly he intends to be brief
(fol. r). To achieve this goal he employs various abbreviation tech-
niques. To begin with, he usually omits the views of Aristotle’s predeces-
sors or discussions of topics that involve lengthy refutations by Aristo-
tle. This feature accounts for the relative briefness of Book III (Γ). Here
Aristotle delineates the tasks of the universal philosopher, one being that
the philosopher should be able to state the most certain principles of
all things (b–). This statement forms the starting-point for an
extensive discussion in which Aristotle seeks to support the validity of
the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle. This discus-
sion takes up the major part of Book Γ. Ibn Rušd follows it meticulously,
while Judah records only a few statements without referring to the con-
text at all.19 In all probability, the reason for the almost complete omission
of Aristotle’s discussion here is that a large part of it is bound up with the
refutation of views and arguments of earlier philosophers.
Second, as a rule Judah is not interested in including material that was
already examined before. This explains the extreme brevity of Book X.
Aristotle’s Book Κ largely consists of a summary of earlier books of the
19 For example the statement that “not all things can be at rest, nor can they all be in
motion,” cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b– (fol. v–).

 resianne fontaine
Metaphysics that address the problems and subject matter of the field,
as well as a rehearsal of topics treated already in the Physics, such as
the infinite, motion, chance etc. In Judah’s version it contains only a few
lines.20
Last, Judah usually omits Aristotle’s extensive argumentation in sup-
port of a given view, although it should be noted that he is not always
consistent. Certain topics obviously interest him more than others. In
the passages that he does include, he either abridges the Commentator’s
words while retaining some literal quotations, or paraphrases them.
Judah’s Rendering of Book I

To illustrate his general procedure, we will briefly look into Judah’s cov-
erage of Book I (α). As can be seen from the list above, it is the short-
est one in Aristotle and in the MC; but not so in the MH. . The opening
sentence here reads: “The study of truth is difficult in a way and easy in
another (úøçà êøãî ì÷ðå úçà êøãî äù÷ àåä úîàá ïåéòä).” It is followed by
an explanation of why it is difficult (because qua individuals we cannot
attain truth on our own), and why it is easy (because when the attain-
ments of individuals are combined we achieve a considerable measure
[ìåãâ øåòéù] of truth).21 The passage as a whole corresponds to Aristotle’s
Metaphysics a–b. The first words are very similar to the MC ãåîòì
ãöî ì÷ðå ãöî äù÷ úîàä ìò, and also to Aristotle’s wording. In the elabora-
tion of this initial statement Aristotle compares the truth to “the prover-
bial door which no one can miss,” and says that one cause of the difficulty
lies in ourselves (and not in the objects of study), for our intelligence
is like the eyes of a bat in respect of sunlight (b–). The image is
found in the MC, but Judah skips it. Next he does copy a statement about
the value of the contribution made by earlier thinkers, without, however,
mentioning specific thinkers in this regard, in contradistinction to his
source (fol. r–).
20 Fol. v –. The first sentence “ïéàöîðä éùàø úòéãé àéä äîëçä” reflects Aristotle’s
opening words “Wisdom (sophia) is a science of first principles” (a). The following
lines assert that this science is concerned both with attributes and with substances,
explaining the difference in their study (cf. a–). Translations of Aristotle are
according to Metaphysics, edited by H. Tredennick, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge,
MA, ).
21 Fol. v–. The passage is reproduced in Steinschneider, Die hebräischen Über-
setzungen, p. .
the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
The rest of Book I in the MH

. is for the most part a paraphrase of Aristo-
tle’s words that highlights the main points. Thus we learn that knowledge
of truth is called “philosophy”; that the ultimate end of theoretical phi-
losophy is truth while the end of practical philosophy is action; that we
cannot know the truth without its cause; that the first principles of things
must themselves be most true, and that the four causes cannot form an
infinite series, which is why all things go back to the First Cause, and that
thinking can only apprehend that which is finite. In all this, Judah follows
Ibn Rušd, while omitting most of Ibn Rušd’s elaborations. Moreover, he
omits the last section of Book α (a–), where Aristotle dwells upon
the impact of a lecture on its audience, contrasting the method used in
mathematics to that used in natural science. The section is covered in the
MC in more detail than in Aristotle. In all probability, the reason for its
absence in the MH . is that Judah had already treated the issue of the dif-
ferent methodology in mathematics and natural science in his survey of
the Physics.
There is, however, one passage in Book I where Judah, contrary to
his general procedure, expands upon his source by calling attention to
an inconsistency in Aristotle. After recording Aristotle’s statement that
a thing can come “from” another thing in two senses, he observes that,
according to De animalibus XV, there are four senses in which a thing
can come “from” another thing (fol. r–). Judah then takes all
four senses into consideration in the ensuing inquiry into the question
which of them involve reversible processes. Brevity is thus not always
the rule: from time to time Judah makes some additions, and notably
so when he encounters contradictions in Aristotle’s thought or feels
called upon to criticize the Philosopher. Already in his introduction he
shows considerable reservation about Aristotle’s philosophy, arguing that
philosophical reasoning does not lead to certain knowledge.22
Conscious Conciseness
At this point the question may be raised how Judah’s conciseness and
criticism relate to his stated aim to spread contemporary non-Jewish
learning among his fellow Jews. How familiar with the sciences should
Jews become in Judah’s view? Judah does not specify any further criteria,
but a clue to answering this question may be provided by his coverage of
22 Fols. v–r.
 resianne fontaine
Book II (B) (fols. v–r). Book B is devoted to the theoretical

and difficult questions concerning the province and subject matter of
metaphysics and the study of the first principles and substances. Judah’s
list of aporiae corresponds to that in Metaphysics b–a, but
Judah leaves out all details. For example when listing as aporia no. 
“whether unity and being are not distinct, but are the substance of beings”
(a–), he does not add Aristotle’s observation that this is the most
difficult question of all.23 This is consistent with his general procedure.
It is surprising, however, that the outline in the MH . contains solely the
list of questions. In Aristotle and in the MC the list is followed by more
detailed descriptions of the various problématiques involved, and they
take up the major part of the Book. This suggests that Judah deemed it
sufficient to outline the questions to his fellow Jews but that he considered
it less important to instruct them in the technicalities involved. Spreading
knowledge was not Judah’s sole objective in compiling the MH, . as can
be inferred from the wording of his motivation. While it was important
to him that Jews should not be “devoid of wisdom” with respect to
contemporary science, at the same time he sought to redirect to the Torah
those Jews who had erred and wasted time on studying the sciences.24
His presentation of Book II meets precisely these two aims: recording a
list of aporiae would ensure that Jews would not be “devoid of wisdom,”
while the absence of a more thorough discussion would preclude a time-
consuming engagement with the sciences. We thus notice that in certain
cases the brevity in Judah’s account of the Metaphysics is bound up with
Judah’s reservation about studying the sciences, a feature that can also be
noted in other parts of his coverage of Aristotle’s philosophy.
Brevity and Clarity; Terminology

Admirable as Judah ha-Kohen’s efforts to present a readable excerpt of the
Metaphysics may be, it is legitimate to raise the question to what extent
it was helpful for his readership. At times brevity is at the expense of
clarity, especially where Judah omits the context of a given statement or
discussion. For those readers without previous knowledge of philosophy
his abbreviation techniques will have made heavy demands. It may have
23 In the rendering of the MH, following that of the MC: “whether unity is the
.
substance of beings and [whether] it is not something distinct, or is something distinct.”
24 Fols. v and v. See B. Septimus, Hispano-Jewish Culture in Transition: The Career
and Controversies of Ramah (Cambridge, ): .

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
been different for those whom he sought “to redirect to the Torah”
and who had some background. It has been suggested that the study
of the encyclopedias was accompanied by oral instruction.25 If this was
indeed the case for the MH, . it was certainly no luxury. We do not have
indications that point to a wide readership. Nonetheless, there are several
manuscripts of the MH . that include the section on Metaphysics, and one
manuscript contains only this section (Leiden  / , fols. –). This
may testify to some interest in his presentation of the Metaphysics.
In addition to its succinctness, Judah’s peculiar terminology may have
further affected the comprehensibility of his exposition.26 Here Book IV
(Δ) is particularly instructive. Book IV, the longest but one in Judah’s
exposition of the Metaphysics, is a kind of philosophical glossary devoted
to the definitions and explanations of key terms that are relevant for the
field. Only two points can be mentioned here:
. Judah includes a number of Arabic terms in Hebrew script, usually

after the Hebrew equivalent. This is valid for the MH . as a whole but
Metaphysics Book IV shows a concentration of them. They may well be
the only remnant of Ibn Rušd’s lost MC in Arabic. One such term is
mabda", added after ùàø, right at the beginning (fol. v, cf. Aristotle,
Metaphysics b). In particular, he adds the Arabic equivalents for
almost every occurrence of the word íöò, because the Hebrew term is
used both in the sense of “substance” (Ar. ğawhar) and of “essence” (Ar.
dāt), and also to denote the Arabic nafs. This practice shows that Judah
¯found it important to distinguish the different senses of íöò from one
another. However, given that he wrote also for those who had no previous
philosophical knowledge and did not know Arabic, he must have been
aware that such explanatory distinctions would be lost on those readers.
It is possible that the addition of the Arabic equivalents was prompted
by the same consideration that was put forward later by Zerahyah . in
the “excusatio” (úåìöðúä) that is appended to his Hebrew translation of
Ibn Rušd’s MC on the Metaphysics. Invoking the “narrowness of our
language” when it comes to translating philosophical texts, in particular
the Metaphysics, he mentions the term íöò as an example, for this “one
25 A. Ivry, “The Soul of the Hebrew Encyclopedias” in Harvey, ed., The Medieval
Hebrew Encyclopedias, p. .

26 On his terminology, see M. Zonta, La filosofia antica nel Medieoevo ebraico (Brescia,
): – and R. Fontaine, “Arabic Terms in Judah ben Solomon ha-Cohen’s
Midrash ha-Hokhmah,
. ” DS-NELL , nos. – (): –.
 resianne fontaine
Hebrew word renders three Arabic words that have different meanings.”
He adds: “I will mention these words in Arabic even though this is not
useful for those who do not understand Arabic.”27 Apparently, he did so
“pour acquit de conscience,” or perhaps he hoped that at least some of
his readers would find the Arabic words helpful. It is tempting to surmise
that in using this particular example, Zerahyah
. was inspired by the MH, .
especially in view of Mauro Zonta’s suggestion that the Arabic version
underlying his Hebrew translation was introduced in Italy by Judah ha-
Kohen.28 Here, however, we enter the domain of speculation.
. In Book IV and VI we come across the term “äééë”, which seems to

be a neologism coined by Judah. It occurs four times, in three cases
with the Arabic equivalent “äéðà,” meaning “thatness,” for example in the
treatment of the term “one”: “àåäù àåä òöî åì ïéàù ãçàä úéáøòá äéðà úééëå
øôñîì äìçú” (fol. v). When explaining the meaning of the term
“relative” he uses it with a suffix: åúééë, rendering åúéðà: “its thatness.”29
Surprising as his terminology may have been to medieval readers, these
two examples show that Judah’s Metaphysics is of great value for the
history of Hebrew philosophical terminology, and also that it is of some
relevance for the early translation history of Arabic into Hebrew, even
though it should be used with caution.
Selectivity and Shift of Emphasis

Judah’s intention to be concise is not the only factor responsible for the
omission of source material in Judah’s presentation of the Metaphysics.
It has already been noted that a certain degree of selectivity charac-
terizes his overview. As we will see, selectivity is notably at work in
Judah’s treatment of the issue of the subject matter of Metaphysics. To
explain this, we should first note that notwithstanding Judah’s general
faithfulness to his source, there is a conspicuous absence in our section.
The absence involves the notion of “being qua being,” as is immediately
evident in Book III (Γ). Examining the subject matter of metaphysics,
Judah draws up a kind of “table of contents” of what falls under “this
science” (fol. r–v). He largely follows Aristotle’s order, but
nowhere does he define “being qua being” as the object of study in this
27 Zonta, La Tradizione ebraica, p. *.

28 Ibid., p. *.
29 The two Hebrew translations of the MC both have úåùé, ibid., p. *.
the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
discipline. The assertion that metaphysics, as opposed to other sciences,

is concerned with being qua being appears at the very beginning of Book
Γ, and constitutes the principal idea in Aristotle’s discussion. As could be
expected, Ibn Rušd repeats Aristotle’s statement at the very beginning of
Book III of the MC, and the words “àöîð àåä øùàá àöîðä” appear there
at regular intervals.30 Judah avoids this expression and starts the book
under discussion by claiming that unity and being (éåöîä) are of the same
nature, and presuppose each other in the same way as cause and principle
do, for everything that is a principle of a thing is its cause and vice versa.
He concludes from this that “the philosopher” (äîëçä úàæ ìòá) should
study unity, being, and plurality (fol. r–), and also notes that this
science investigates substances. No specific attention is paid to the con-
cept of “being.” Very telling in this respect is that Judah abbreviates the
passage in which Aristotle claims that “the philosopher’s function is to
discover the truth in respect of Being qua Being” (b–) by not-
ing: “The goal of [first] philosophy is knowledge of the truth” (fol. v–
).
At the beginning of Book V (E in Aristotle), which is one of the
shortest in the MH’s. Metaphysics, Judah comes close to mentioning the
notion of being qua being. Here he explains that of the three theoret-
ical philosophies (physics, mathematics and metaphysics) only meta-
physics (àéôåñåìéôä) explores “the principles and ultimate causes of exist-
ing things, not insofar as they are known qua existing things, but inso-
far as they exist according to a cause.”31 Nonetheless, Aristotle’s claim
that it is First Philosophy that studies being qua being (a) does
not appear. Instead, the Hebrew account directs the readers’ attention to
metaphysics as the discipline that is concerned with the causes. A little
later, Judah adds that the discipline of metaphysics is superior because it
studies “objects that are immutable and separable in existence and defini-
tion, that is, completely devoid of matter, and these are the eternal things
that are the causes of eternal bodies” (fol. r–).
We can conclude that Judah’s survey does not explicitly carry the
notion that metaphysics is concerned with being qua being. Nor does
it emerge in Judah’s description of the contents of “the thirteen books of
Aristotle’s Metaphysics” in his introduction (fol. v). This omission does
30 Qalonymos: àöîð àåäù äîá àöîðáå äéåäá ïééòú äî äîëç ïàëá äéäúù áéåçé.
Zerahyah:
. àöîð àåä øùàá àöîðáå úåùéá ïééòú úçà äîëç äðä äéäúù éåàøå.
31 Fol. v–: ïäù äîá àì íéðåöé÷ä ïäéúåîøâå ïéàöîðä éùàøá ïééòú äëàìîä úàæù éôì
àîøâ ìò ïééåöî ïäù äîá àìà ïéòåãé ïéàåöî.

 resianne fontaine
not seem to be due to the author’s predilection for brevity. Here we have
to do with a deliberate shift of emphasis on Judah’s part vis-à-vis his
source. To substantiate this claim, it is necessary to have a closer look
at his coverage of Book XI (Λ).
Book Lamed
It has already been noted that Book XI is by far the longest of the thirteen
books that constitute the section on Metaphysics in the MH, . absolutely
and relatively (fols. v ult–v). It takes up about a third of the entire
survey. The length is not the only feature that highlights the importance
attached to it by the author. It is the only book that is marked by a
letter that refers to Aristotle’s numbering, starting as it does with “and
this is Lamed.” Already in the introduction to the MH . Judah asserts
that Λ is the most important treatise of the Metaphysics. Furthermore,
unlike the previous books it offers a sustained description of Aristotle’s
discussions through the insertion of discourse markers like: “[Aristotle]
says”; “[Aristotle] refutes”; “[Aristotle] then goes on to explain,” etc.
Finally, and most importantly, it contains long quotations from the MC.
The long quotations start at the point that corresponds to the begin-
ning of Λ.vi in Aristotle and continue until the end of Book XI. In the
preceding two folios Judah summarizes Λ.i–v, applying his usual tech-
niques of abbreviation. The coverage of the first half of Book Λ, which
treats physical substances, is thus quite brief (fols. v ult–r), while
that of Λ.vi–x is extensive (fols. r–r). At Λ.vi Aristotle begins
to focus on the eternal substance, which is not subject to change. This is
reflected in Judah’s words “Thereupon he starts to speak about the First
Cause [investigating] in what sense he it said to be the cause of all, living
and incorporeal” (fol. r–).32 Lest the message be lost on his readers
he repeats the subject of investigation two more times: () in respect of
“the principle of the whole universe” (åìåë íìåòä ùàø) he says “It is this
substance that is truly one and which we investigate here” (fol. r–
); () “Since there are three [kinds of] substance, two of them are muta-
ble and physical—the heavenly body and the corruptible substances that
are beneath it—whereas the third, whose existence has been proved in
the science of Physics, is immutable, we intend here to speak about that
substance” (fol. r–; cf. Aristotle, Metaphysics b).
32 The text of MS Mich  is corrupt here; I have supplied some words from MS
Oxford, Bodleian Hunt .

the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
The long exposition that follows consists almost exclusively of passages

that are more or less quoted verbatim from the MC. The main lines
are: There must necessarily exist an eternal substance that does not
change, for if the motion of the stars is eternal, there cannot be an
eternal substance that does not impart motion nor an eternal substance
that sometimes moves and sometimes not, but only a substance that
imparts motion and does not change for if it changed, this would imply
potentiality. Given the eternity of motion, there must be a substance
that is the first unmoved mover and that moves everything because
it is the object of desire. It is the formal and final cause. Heaven and
earth depend on this first principle. The activity of God consists in
thinking itself: His thought and the object of thought are the same. This
divine intellect is not mixed with matter. Life belongs to God because
life is the actuality of thought and God possesses thought in the most
perfect degree. The First Principle imparts the first eternal and single
motion, namely the daily motion. The motion of the heavenly bodies
is consequent upon their intellectual representation of the First. The
number of eternal substances is equal to that of the motions of the
heavenly bodies. These substances are ordered hierarchically, comparable
to the hierarchy in a well-ordered state. God knows the existent things
here by knowing His essence. The good, that is, the order and harmony
that are found in the universe, exists because of the First, but not all parts
of the universe (in particular, material existents) can acquire the good
overflow from the First completely, just as in a state not everyone accepts
the commands of the king.
In all this, Judah follows the MC. He also takes over from his source
Aristotle’s criticism of the theory of emanation, claiming that no proof for
it has been established (fol. v). Nonetheless, faithful as the Hebrew
compiler seems to be, some clear deviations from his source can be
detected. First, there are some omissions here too. Cases in point are the
end of Book XI where Ibn Rušd discusses difficulties involved in theories
of the principles other than those of Aristotle, and especially Ibn Rušd’s
long discussion on the number of the spheres, where the Commentator
treats the views of Alexander and Themistius. Judah refrains from estab-
lishing a number of  or  spheres and also omits some astronomical
details, replacing them by his own astronomical views, which are based
on al-Bit.rūğı̄ (fol. v–).33
33 For Judah’s use of al-Bit.rūğı̄, see Y.T. Langermann, “Some Remarks on Judah ben
 resianne fontaine
Second, we find some slight but significant additions that Judah inserts
in his quotes. On several occasions he adds “the Rock” (øåö), where
Ibn Rušd refers to “the eternal substance,” that is, the First Principle
(for example, fols. r and v).34 In one such case the MH . reads øåö
where the MC has äøåö. He also puts more emphasis on the eternity
of the First Principle by using the word “eternal” more often than his
source. Moreover, he underscores the contrast between God and other
beings by inserting a reference to Isa. : “To whom, then, can you
liken Me, to whom can I be compared?—says the Holy One” where, in
Judah’s view, the word “holy” expresses the total negation of any similarity
between God and created beings (fol. v–). Through these small
but significant additions the MH. unequivocally identifies Aristotle’s First
Principle with the God of Scripture, and it does so more emphatically
than Ibn Rušd’s equation of “the First” with God.
. Judah ha-Kohen’s Metaphysics
Regrettably, a comprehensive study of Ibn Rušd’s Metaphysics that takes

into consideration all three commentaries is not yet available.35 Thérèse
Anne Druart has examined the divergent views of Islamic authors on the
subject matter of metaphysics. Basing herself on studies by Dimitri Gutas
and Amos Bertolacci, she has noted that Islamic philosophy displays
a development in the conception of metaphysics from “some kind of
natural theology” to ontology, that is, metaphysics as the study of being.36
She concludes that the Commentator restores the Aristotelian view of the
subject matter of metaphysics by conceiving it as the science that studies
being qua being, focusing on being as substance and form.37
The shift of emphasis in the MH . then, lies in that Judah’s version of
the Metaphysics does not consider universal being to be the core issue
Solomon ha-Cohen and His Encyclopedia, Midrash ha-Hokhmah”, . in Harvey, ed., The
Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias, pp. –.
34 It is not likely that they were added by the copyist, since they appear also in the other
MSS.
35 For the Long Commentary on Book Λ, see C. Genequand, Ibn Rushd’s Metaphysics.
A Translation with Introduction of Ibn Rushd’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Book Lām

(Leiden, ): –.
36 T.A. Druart, “Metaphysics”, in P. Adamson and R.C. Taylor, eds, Cambridge Com-
panion to Arabic Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –, on p. .

37 Ibid., p. .
the first survey of the metaphysics in hebrew 
of the discipline under discussion. It is true that he includes discussions

about being, such as being and unity, and substance and being, yet he
minimizes the ontological status of metaphysics by omitting the relevant
text portions about the science of universal being. Instead, he portrays
metaphysics as the science that is concerned with the causes and princi-
ples of existing things, and with substances. Moreover, in surveying Book
Λ he further narrows down his focus by paying special attention to non-
sensible substances, in particular the First Principle or Cause of all being,
whom he identifies with God as viewed in Jewish tradition. In other
words, by dropping the conception of metaphysics as the science that
treats universal being, Judah transforms Aristotle’s and the MC’s Meta-
physics into the study of God, even though he is careful to represent other
aspects of his source as well.
Judah’s last two Books XII (Μ) and XIII (Ν) nicely illustrate how his
endeavor to provide an adequate account of contemporary learning goes
hand in hand with the attempt to turn the reader away from it. Like
the preceding book, these two books are also quite extensive in cover-
age. Contrary to his habit, Judah includes here Ibn Rušd’s discussion
of Aristotle’s refutation of his predecessors’ views on non-sensible sub-
stances, more particularly, those regarding mathematical numbers and
Plato’s theory of Ideas. This section, too, contains direct quotes from his
source, introduced by “[Aristotle] said.” The last part of Book XIII ren-
ders at length Ibn Rušd’s inquiry into the nature of the heavenly bodies
(how can they be eternal if they are bodies?) as well as the Commen-
tator’s problems in figuring out how the contradiction between Physics
VIII and De caelo I regarding this question can be resolved (fols. v–
v). The account includes criticism of Ibn Sı̄nā’s distinction between
“necessary by itself ” (the First) and “necessary of existence by something
else and possible of existence by itself ” (the heavenly body). The MH’s .
survey of the Metaphysics ends with Ibn Rušd’s formulation of the differ-
ence of his own Aristotelianism to that of Ibn Sı̄nā: “How far removed is
our investigation from that of Ibn Sı̄nā, who believed that the existence
of the first mover can be explained in another way than Aristotle did”
(fol. v–).38
Judah’s inclusion of this inquiry in combination with his apparent sid-
ing against Ibn Sı̄nā’s views shows that he was concerned to present “the
38 Unlike the MH, the MC continues to comment on Aristotle’s text here. The last
.
section of Book N, however, is also missing in the MC.
 resianne fontaine
new philosophy,” that is Ibn Rušd’s Aristotelianism, the most authori-

tative philosophical current of his day. However, at the same time it is
clear that he found this philosophy useful only up to a certain point,
for immediately after the concluding sentence of his long overview he
emphasizes its difference from traditional Jewish divine science by say-
ing: “but not like [Aristotle’s] view is the inheritance of Jacob, for He is
the Creator (øöåé) of everything, as we will explain in the commentary of
some biblical verses with God’s help” (fol. v–). Here Judah posi-
tions the concept of the Creator-God as sharply opposed to Aristotle’s
First unmoved mover. The explanation of verses from Genesis, Psalms
and Proverbs, which is the subject of the next section in his compila-
tion (Treatise One), seems to be intended as a supplement or alternative
to Aristotle’s “divine science.” The treatise contains incisive criticism of
Aristotle, especially of his doctrine of the eternity of the world.39
In sum, Judah obviously attached much importance to Aristotle’s
Metaphysics. He describes it as the most lofty of sciences, seeing that the
formal and final cause are investigated in it, and states that it is appro-
priate to call it “wisdom” and the one who knows it “wise” (fol. v–
). He considered it important to spread the metaphysical teachings of
the Philosopher among his contemporaries. However, he wished them to
read it from a perspective different from that of his source, namely as a
science that has God, the first cause of the world, as its most important
subject. Moreover, his survey was not designed to promote further study
of the Philosophers’ Metaphysics. Judah ha-Kohen produced his book in
the s when the debate about the study of philosophy divided Jewish
communities in Spain and the Provence. Against this background, one
may surmise that the author intended to guide his coreligionists regard-
ing the question to what extent philosophical views were acceptable, in
particular with regard to the sensitive field of metaphysics. Whether or
not this assumption is correct, it can be concluded that Judah’s construal
of the Metaphysics constitutes a serious though biased attempt to intro-
duce the text of Aristotle’s Metaphysics to a Hebrew reading public. This
attempt is all the more remarkable since the two major Hebrew encyclo-
pedias that were produced later in the thirteenth century refrained from
providing a systematic survey of Aristotle’s “thirteen books on Meta-
physics.”
39 See D. Goldstein, “The commentary of Judah ben Solomon Hakohen ibn Matqah
to Genesis, Psalms and Proverbs,” HUCA  (): –, on pp. –.

SOLOMON BEN MOSES MELGUIRI
AND THE TRANSMISSION OF KNOWLEDGE
FROM LATIN INTO HEBREW*
Hagar Kahana-Smilansky
Solomon ben Moses Melguiri (de Melgueil), a physician and scholar

who was active in southern France in the second half of the thirteenth
century, has emerged from near obscurity in the last two decades. Recent
studies of his extant works reveal a versatile author: apart from poems,
he left behind a sizeable book on traditional Jewish themes, Beit ha-
Elohim (The House of God, henceforth BE),1 and three scientific treatises
translated from Latin: [pseudo-]Ibn Sı̄nā’s On the Heaven and the World
(henceforth OHW), an adaptation of Aristotle On Sleep and Wakefulness
(henceforth HSW), and a translation of the Latin pharmacology Circa
instans.2 It has long been recognized that Melguiri’s scientific translations
were abridged by Gershom ben Solomon of Arles and incorporated into
his encyclopedia Ša#ar ha-šamayim, thought to have been composed in
the s.3 These translations circulated as separate treatises, too, and
were quite influential, to judge by the number of extant manuscripts
(eighteen of OHW and sixteen of HSW), as well as their use by Jewish
scholars from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries.4
* I am grateful to Ruth Glasner, Ofer Elior, Resianne Fontaine and Lenn Schramm,
for the information they have shared with me and for their comments.
1 The author announces in the introduction of Beit ha-Elohim (MS Vatican , fol. a ,
ll. –) that it will consist of two parts: Ša#arei s. edeq and Beit middot. There are two
extant manuscripts: () MS Vatican  (IMHM ),  folios in a fourteenth-century
Spanish hand, includes the (lengthy) introduction and about a third of Ša#arei s. edeq.
() MS Escorial G-II- (IMHM ),  folios in a fifteenth-century Spanish hand,
contains only the last three folios of the introduction and almost all fourteen sections of
Ša#arei s. edeq. The second part, Beit middot, seems to be lost.
2 M. Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden
als Dolmetscher (Berlin, , repr. Graz, ): –, .

3 Steinschneider, Die Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. –; M. Zonta, La filosofia
antica nel medioevo ebraico (Brescia, ): –.

4 R. Glasner, “The Hebrew Version of De Celo et Mundo Attributed to Ibn Sina,” Arabic
Science and Philosophy  (): –, on p. ; H. Kahana-Smilansky, “Aristotle On

Sleep and Wakefulness: A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation of an Unknown Latin Treatise,”
Aleph  /  (): –.
 hagar kahana-smilansky
This paper summarizes Melguiri’s biography and personal links with

Jewish and Christian scholars, illustrating one of Gad Freudenthal’s ma-
jor concerns, the transmission of Latin science into Hebrew. On the
basis of a considerable body of medieval Hebrew scientific translations,
Freudenthal has recently analyzed the cultural habits behind the pref-
erence for Arabic over Latin scientific sources. Learned Jewish circles
in Provence, he writes, “preferred to rely on Arabic sources ‘imported’
from the Iberian Peninsula, rather than turn to the Latin writings of their
neighbors. Only in medicine was there a significant absorption of Latin
learning.”5 Even in medicine, he shows, the number of works translated
from Arabic during the period that interests us here (–) is more
than twice the number of translations from Latin ( from Arabic, 
from Latin).6 Melguiri’s command of Latin was rare among Jews in south-
ern France at the time.7 We shall examine particular cultural and social
settings to explain the motives behind his scholarly work.
. Capsule Biography
The surname éøééåâìî ,éøéåâìî ,éøåâìî, found in Solomon’s Hebrew works

and poems,8 is derived from Melgorio, Melgoire, or Melgueir, medieval
versions of today’s Mauguio, a small town east of Montpellier.9 As noticed
by Bar-Tiqva, a poem by Melguiri offers a clue to his date of birth: he was
“a young man” when Muslims and Christians resided in Jerusalem.10 This
plausibly alludes to the Christian and Muslim coexistence that followed
the Treaty of Jaffa () between Emperor Frederick II and the Ayyūbid
5 Gad Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures as Resources for the Hebrew Trans-
lation Movement: Comparative Considerations, Both Quantitative and Qualitative,” in

Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (New York, forthcoming).
6 Ibid., Table .
7 For the scarcity of Jewish translators from Latin at the time, see C.H. Manekin,
“Medieval Translations: Latin and Hebrew,” in F.A.C. Mantello and A.G. Rigg, eds,
Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington DC, ): –
, on pp. –.
8 B. Bar Tiqva, “The Poet Solomon Melguiri and his Poems” (Heb.), in J. Dishon and
E. Hazan, eds, Pirqei širah: mi-ginzei ha-širah we-ha-piyyut šel qehilot yiśra"el (Ramat Gan,
): :–, on p. ; idem, Genres and Topics in Provençal and Catalonian Piyyut
(Heb.) (Beer Sheva, ): –.
9 The name may have been pronounced Melgueiri, Melgoiri, or Melgori. See H. Gross,
Gallia Judaica (Paris, ): –.

10 Bar Tiqva, “The Poet Melguiri,” pp. , –, ll. –.
solomon ben moses melguiri 
al-Malik al-Kāmil of Egypt, which was irrevocably shattered in .11

If Melguiri was referring his youth to this short interlude, he must have
been born around .
The classic archival studies of Jewish life in Languedoc (by Gustave
Saige) and Narbonne (by Jean Régné) provide the essential documenta-
tion. According to a document in the registers of Narbonne, the broth-
ers Solomon ben Moses and Vital Melguiri, originally from Béziers,
moved to Narbonne before .12 Béziers was part of a district that had
recently come under the authority of the French crown; hence its former
inhabitants turn up in a list of “the King’s Jews” drawn up by royal offi-
cials for purposes of taxation. This group probably represents the most
affluent households.13 Jean Régné suggested that Solomon ben Moses
Melguiri is identical with Bonafos Mosse de Narbonne (whose Hebrew
name was Solomon ben Moses14), mentioned in the rolls of neighbor-
ing Perpignan.15 Between  and  Bonafos/Solomon, his brother
Vital, and son Moses loaned large sums to the king of France.16 Iden-
tifying the brothers “de Narbonne” with the Melguiris is not without
difficulties,17 but does coincide with indications by Melguiri and Bedershi
(see §§  and  below).
The Jewish community in Perpignan grew rapidly after , because
of the legal and economic security for Jewish life afforded by the Crown
of Aragon and the protection of Jewish self-government, although special
11 R. Payne, The Crusades: A History (London, ): –, esp. . H.L. Gott-
schalk, s.v. “Al-Kāmil (al-Malik) (),” Encyclopedia of Islam, nd ed. (Leiden, –):
vol.  (), pp. a–a, on p. b.
12 G. Saige, Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIV e siècle (Paris, ): –
, –; J. Régné, Études sur la condition des juifs de Narbonne du V e au XIV e siècle
(Narbonne, ): .
13 Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, p. ; W.C. Jordan, The French Monarchy and the Jews:
From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians (Philadelphia, ): –.

14 R.W. Emery, The Jews of Perpignan in the Thirteenth Century (New York, ): .
15 Régné maintained that the houses bought by Bonafos for his son Moses are the
“houses of the children of Solomon Melguiri” mentioned in the letter from the Viscount
of Narbonne to Philip IV; see Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. –, , citing Saige, Juifs
du Languedoc, p. . Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p.  n. .
16 Emery, Jews of Perpignan, pp. , , . The  loans extended to the king in these
years came to a total of , solidi.

17 Vital Melguiri was alive in ,  and later (see below); but recent research
mentions Blancha, the widow of Vital Mosse (Vital son of Moses) de Narbonne, in ;
see R.L. Winer, Women, Wealth, and Community in Perpignan, c. – (Aldershot,
): Table ..a on p. . Winer neither quotes nor refers to the original document that
is the basis for this information. A Blancha, the widow of Vidal de Eyres, is documented
in  (ibid., pp. , ,  [Table ..b, no. ], p.  n. ).
 hagar kahana-smilansky
taxes were imposed on the community by the crown. Perpignan became

the commercial and administrative center of Roussillon around ,
its expanding economy offering opportunities for some Jews to func-
tion as moneylenders and bankers. However, the burden of the Royal
taxes (and on “the King’s Jews”, an additional tax to the French crown)
meant that they were under severe economic pressure. Some of the Jew-
ish moneylenders of Perpignan were well-known scholars and poets.18
Bonafos/Solomon ben Moses, described as “moderately affluent,”19 held
communal posts in Perpignan: in royal documents of  and  he
is appointed to oversee the guardianship council of a wealthy minor.20 In
 he is mentioned as one of four secretarii of the Perpignan Aljama
(the Jewish community).21 Although these few surviving documents may
imply that he was living there at the time, he is referred to as “from Nar-
bonne.” Richard Emery has commented on Bonafos’ and Vital’s “interests
in Narbonne.” These interests explain why, although their lives seem to
have been centered in Aragonese-ruled Perpignan, they agreed to extend
a risky loan to a high official of the French crown.22
Although “the Kings’ Jews” document of  indicates that Solomon
and Vital Melguiri lived in Narbonne, the official who compiled the list
called for further investigation of this point. Apparently, he was in doubt
concerning their address. Their origin in Béziers, their surname Melguiri
that point to the town of Melgueir, and (presumably) their designation
“de Narbonne” exemplify Rebecca Winer’s statement that “[medieval]
Jewish surnames are tied to immigration patterns in complicated ways.”23
18 David Caslari, Abraham Bedershi and his son Jedaiah, and Menahem ha-Me"iri,
.
among others (Winer, Women, p. ; Emery, Jews of Perpignan, pp. –). For recent
information and analysis of the economic and legal situation of the Jewish community
in Perpignan, see: Winer, Women, pp. –, p.  n. , p.  nn. –. Kenneth
Stow, “Papal and Royal Attitudes towards Jewish Lending in the Thirteenth Century,” AJS
Review  (): –. Y.-T. Assis, Jewish Economy in the Medieval Crown of Aragon,
–: Money and Power (Leiden, ): esp. pp. –, –.
19 Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p. .
20 R.I. Burns, Jews in Notarial Culture: Latinate Wills in Mediterranean Spain, –
 (Berkeley and Los Angeles, ): –, –; Winer, Women, pp. –.
21 Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p. ; J. Shatzmiller, “The Minor Epistle of Apology”
(Heb.), Sefunot  (): –, on p. .

22 The loan of , solidi was already “long standing” in . Bonafos and Vital
originally “insisted on no less than nine sureties [which] suggest that they had some
doubts as to its soundness” (Emery, Jews of Perpignan, p. ).
23 Winer, Women, p.  n. . She shows that for many Jews of this time and area,
travel was a result of “extended family networks,” in addition to its role in economic
functions and communal and cultural relations (ibid., pp. –).
solomon ben moses melguiri 
Many Jews bearing the surname “de Melgueil” are recorded in the thir-
teenth century as originally from Béziers and as having migrated to either
Narbonne or Perpignan, mainly during the second half of the century.24
Solomon Melguiri’s occupation seems to have been a physician;25 Vital,
a merchant.26 They certainly owned houses in Narbonne: the invento-
ries of Jewish property confiscated between  and , by the decree
of Philip IV, list Solomon Melguiri’s mansion (hospitium) in the middle
of the main Jewish quarter of the city,27 as well as the house (domos)
or houses28 of “the children of Solomon Melguiri” adjacent to the vis-
count’s palace. These documents suggest that Solomon ben Moses died
about , and certainly before . Vital Melguiri’s two mansions in
Narbonne and Béziers were also confiscated.29 Perhaps he outlived his
brother: he is mentioned among those who, after the expulsion of ,
found refuge in Montpellier, which belonged to James II of Majorca (the
younger brother of Peter III of Aragon).30
Moses, son of Bonafos/Solomon, owned ample property in Narbonne
(most of it purchased by his father) but lived himself in Perpignan. He
married into a wealthy family (by far the wealthiest in town) and is men-
tioned on the rolls of Perpignan between  and .31 Qalonymos
24 Solomon ben Meshullam (Astruc) de Melgueil purchased “a field” in Narbonne in
 (Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. , –, ). Sarah, whose maiden name was
“de Melgueil,” wrote a will in , in Perpignan. Her inheritance included houses in
Narbonne and she mentions relatives only in Narbonne and Béziers: her father Mayr de
Melgueil, her sons Perfet Davi and Mosse Davi, and her brother Durand de Melgueil,
resident of Béziers (Winer, Women, p. ). He is probably identical with Durand de
Melgueil, who moved in  to Narbonne, where he practiced medicine, but kept
property in Béziers. He is documented in  and  (Saige, Juifs du Languedoc,
pp. , ; Gross, Gallia Judaica, p. ). Davi de Melgueil also owned a mansion in
Narbonne (Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. , , , ; Régné, Juifs de Narbonne,
pp. ,  n. ).
25 See below.
26 Vital Melguiri’s commercial transactions in Montpellier are documented in 
(S. Kahn, “Documents inédits sur les juifs de Montpellier au moyen age,” REJ  []:
–, on pp. , ).
27 Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. , ; map from , opposite p. .
28 Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, p. . A hospitium was usually a two-story house within
the town; a domus was generally a simple, low structure in the suburbs. See K.L. Reyerson,
“Land, Houses, and Real Estate Investment in Montpellier: A Study of the Notarial Prop-
erty Transactions, –,” in eadem, Society, Law, and Trade in Medieval Montpellier
(Aldershot, ): :.
29 Saige, Juifs du Languedoc, pp. –, –, , –; Régné, Juifs de
Narbonne, p.  n. , No.  (on p. ).

30 Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, p. .
31 Ibid., p.  n. , No. . For Moses’ marriage and property see Emery, Jews of
 hagar kahana-smilansky
ben Qalonymos knew him. In “The Minor Epistle of Apology,” written

in Perpignan in (?), he describes Don Moses as a prominent and
highly educated notable of Perpignan. He also clearly indicates that his
own family in Arles and Don Moses’ parents were related.32
. Melguiri on Himself
In the preface to the first part of BE, Melguiri provides details of his
occupation, education, and milieu. The expressed purpose of BE is to
teach young readers the value of the traditional Jewish precepts. Melguiri
wrote this work at the request of a young relative, a grandson or a
nephew, Moses,33 later referred to as a “dear friend” (yadid) who is “apt
for philosophical study.”34 The author humbly presents himself:
I am not worthy of composing a book on these grave matters which
require demonstration (mofet) according to the true creed, as well as
powerful arguments (t. a#anot). I therefore apologize to all those who exert
themselves at the gates of wisdom,35 for the love of this friend compelled
me to write for him a counsel of wisdom,36 to explain the truths and their
essence (ha-amittot u-mahutam) by similes and parables, by judgment
and reason. Indeed, I am not a proper scholar: my knowledge in the
philosophical sciences (ha-hokhmot)
. is inadequate because of my limited
intelligence compared to the mind of the holy ones.37 Besides, I have always
been enslaved to the practice of medicine, treating not only kings and
noblemen (melakhim we-śarim) but all their servants, as well as every man.
Therefore, not even the eighth part of the day and night was my own
to contemplate what I wished to comprehend for the sake of my eternal
destiny. But I trust the breadth of my mind and the good temperament
Perpignan, pp. , ; Shatzmiller, “Minor Epistle,” pp. –, ; Winer, Women,
pp. –, . Burns, Jews in Notarial Culture, p. .
32 Qalonymos calls him: ñåôðåá äùî ïåã ãáëðä ,åðîöòî íöò ,äðåáúä ìéìëå äîëçä øæð
(Shatzmiller, “Minor Epistle,” pp. , ).

33 Melguiri refers to Moses as #asmi u-veśari, nini u-nekhdi (see also n.  below).
.
Since #as. mi u-veśari is Laban’s term for Jacob (Gen. :), Moses may have been either
Melguiri’s nephew, or his grandson.
34 MS Vatican, fol. b, l. –fol. a, l.  (missing in MS Escorial); MS Vatican, fol. a;
MS Escorial, fol. b. See note  below. The “friend” asked for explication of a list of biblical
miracles, and of wonders like the (talmudic) “Ten things” that were created between two
instances.
35 äîëçä éøòù (cf. B Sotah b).
.
36 úòãå úåöòåîá . . . íéùéìù åì øáçì (after Prov. :). See S. Sela, “Queries on Astrol-
ogy Sent from Southern France to Maimonides: Critical Edition of the Hebrew text,
Translation, and Commentary,” Aleph  (): –, on p. .
37 íéùåã÷ úòã (Prov. :; see Rashi ad loc. and Ibn Ezra on Proverbs ).
solomon ben moses melguiri 
of [my] faculty of memory for what I have heard and learned from the
accomplished philosophers and saw in their books. My intention was
merely to educate the inquirer in the philosophical sciences according to
his ability.38
Leaving aside the author’s intentions and his real or pretended shortcom-
ings, let us turn to the biographical information here. Who are the “kings
and noblemen”? It is to be expected of course that the well-known “king
of the Jews” in Narbonne39 would be treated by a Jewish physician. But the
Jews generally designated their “king” naśi", reserving melekh for a Chris-
tian sovereign.40 To suppose that Melguiri was physician to rich and pow-
erful Christians is perfectly plausible. Neither in Perpignan (the Crown
of Aragon) nor Narbonne were Jewish physicians barred from treating
Christians, in contrast to Béziers () and other French towns.41 The
location of the house of “the children of Solomon Melguiri” adjacent to
the palace of the viscount of Narbonne (the  letter)42 suggests that
its owner maintained a personal relationship with that lord. Assuming
that Melguiri is identical with Bonafos/Solomon Mosse de Narbonne, his
documented financial links with the French king and his officials could
have been sustained by the healing art: “enslaved to the medical treat-
ment of kings and noblemen and all their servants,”43 Melguiri could not
only increase his capital but secure the confidence of this class of patients.
Another biographical detail in Melguiri’s apology is provided by the
reference to his “eternal destiny.”44 His reflections on this issue and the
reference to an adult grandchild (?)45 indicate that BE was written in his
38 MS Vatican, fols. a, –: åúâùä; MS Escorial, fol. b: éúâùä.

39 A. Grabois, “Le ‘Roi Juif ’ de Narbonne,” Annales du Midi  (): –, and
S.H. Pick, The Jewish Communities of Provence before the Expulsion in  (Heb.) (Ph.D.
dissertation, Bar Ilan University, ): –.
40 M. Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis (Cambridge, MA, ): –. Pick, The
Jewish Communities, pp. –, –.

41 The ecclesiastical prohibition of  was not enforced by the kings of Aragon. On
the situation there and in France see J. Ziegler, Medicine and Religion c.  (Oxford,
): –; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, Society, pp. –; S. Kahn, “Les Juifs de la
sénéchaussée de Beaucaire,” REJ  (): –, on p. ; Saige, Juifs de Languedoc,
p. .
42 Régné, Juifs de Narbonne, pp. –, .
43 .íãà ìëìå ,íäéãáò ìëì éë ãáìá íéøùå íéëìîì àì ,ãáòð äàåôøä úëàìîì éúåéä íò
44 .äìéìäå íåéä úéðéîù ,éúéøçàì ïéáäì ÷÷åúùàù äîá ïééòì éðîæî éì ïéàå
45 Melguiri writes that Moses is “apt for philosophical study” and “ready to advance to
the stage of rational inquiry” (úéðåéòä äîëçá ìàåùä êðçì éúðååë äúéäå ;äîëçì íéúåàðä ãçà
úåéúîà úåéìëù úåàøåä èòîá ïåéòä úâøãîì úåìòì ïîåæî åúåéäå [ . . . ] ïî åúâùä éôë [MS Vatican
fol. a, ll. –), which indicates that Moses was probably between  and  of age. See
J.L. Kraemer, Maimonides (New York, ), p. , on the curriculum that Maimonides
 hagar kahana-smilansky
old age. It is no doubt later than OHW, because passages from the latter
are reproduced in BE.46 Melguiri’s education in the philosophical sciences
is insufficient by his own admission. The remark that he remembers what
he heard (and not only read) from “accomplished philosophers” may
mean that he attended public lectures or sermons by members of the
Tibbonid clan.47
. The University Texts
Melguiri’s medical translations from Latin coincide with the beginning

of the most prolific era of writing in the faculty of medicine of Mont-
pellier. A smaller faculty than that of Paris and training fewer practi-
tioners, Montpellier nevertheless produced more medical commentaries
and translations.48 Melguiri’s translations are not a random sample when
taken in relation to the texts available in that university.
Circa Instans
Circa instans, a widely circulated treatise on medicinal simples, com-
posed in Salerno between  and ; its former attribution to Math-
aeus Platearius has now been called into question. Although there is no
compelling evidence that this treatise was part of the curriculum of the
followed in his teens in Andalusia. The study of Aristotelian philosophy was introduced
to the curricula of certain yešivot in Castile (in the th–th centuries), according to
P.B. Fenton, “Judaism and Sufism,” in D.H. Frank and O. Leaman, eds, The Cambridge
Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, ): ch. , p. . The ban set
by the rabbis of Provence, in , on the study of philosophy before age  proves that
younger people studied it. See, e.g., G. Stern in the Cambridge Companion, ch. , esp.
p. .
46 OHW (MS Cambridge , fol. b, ll. –) is duplicated in BE (MS Vatican, fol. b,
ll. –). A passage on astronomy in BE (fols. a–b) is equivalent to OHW ch.  (the
source cited in BE is “al-Battāni”. Cf. Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –).
47 Gad Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communités juives médiévales de Provence:
leur appropriation, leur rôle,” REJ  (): –, on p. .

48 N. Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” in H. de Ridder-Symoens, ed., A History of
the University in Europe (Cambridge, ): :–, on p. , citing D. Jacquart,

Le milieu médical en France: En annexe second supplément au “Dictionnaire” d’ Ernst
Wickersheimer (Geneva, ), pp. – (Tables  and ),  (Table ); H. de
Ridder-Symoens, “Mobility,” in eadem, The University in Europe, :, citing Jacquart,
Le milieu medical en France, pp. –, –.
solomon ben moses melguiri 
medical faculty of Montpellier,49 it survives in a manuscript copied in

Montpellier at the beginning of the thirteenth century50 as well as in
another thirteenth-century manuscript in the possession of the faculty.51
Some support for this early appearance in Montpellier is implied by the
fact that Circa instans circulated as far as Northern France before the mid-
dle of the thirteenth century: Vincent of Beauvais (ca. –) used it
in several books of his Speculum naturale.52 A physician trained in Mont-
pellier’s faculty of medicine, Master Jean Blaise (who may have been Mel-
guiri’s junior by at least two or three decades), had Circa instans in his
library.53 Jean, like his brother Armengaud (ca. –), is known
to have maintained contacts with local Jewish scholars.54 According to
my preliminary investigation, the four extant manuscripts of Melguiri’s
Hebrew translation render the names of most medicines and illnesses in
transliteration from Latin or Provençal.55 Since he was a practicing physi-
cian, he probably translated it for his own use.
Aristotle, On Sleep, and Wakefulness

As I have shown elsewhere,56 Melguiri’s HSW is an adaptation of Aristo-
tle’s De somno et vigilia (including De insomniis and De divinatione per
49 I. Ventura, “Un Manuale di Farmacologia Medievale ed i Suoi Lettori. Il Circa

Instans, La Sua Diffusione, La Sua Ricezione Dal XIII al XV Secolo,” in D. Jacquart and
A. Paravicini Bagliani, eds, La Scuola Medica Salernitana: Gli autori e i testi (Florence,
): –, on pp. , , –. Cf. J. Stannard, “A Fifteenth-century Botanical
Glossary,” Isis  /  (): –; repr. in J. Stannard et al., eds, Pristina Medica-
menta: Ancient and Medieval Medical Botany (Aldershot, ). For the  curricu-
lum of Montpellier see L. Demaitre, Doctor Bernard de Gordon: Professor and Practitioner
(Toronto, ): .
50 Ventura, “Un Manuale,” pp. , –.
51 M. Ausécache, “Un Liber Iste, des Liber Iste? Un Platearius, des Platearius? Etat
des lieux d’ un projet d’édition,” in Jacquart and Paravicini Bagliani, La Scuola Medica
Salernitana, pp. –, on p. .
52 Ventura, “Un Manuale,” p. .
53 D. Nebbiai, “L’école de Montpellier et les bibliothèques médicales: Arnaud de Vil-
leneuve, son milieu, ses livres (XIIIe–XIVe siècles),” in D. Le Blévec and T. Granier, eds,
L’ Université de médecine de Montpellier et son rayonnement (XIII e–XV e siècles) (Turnhaut,
): –, on p. .
54 J. Shatzmiller, “In Search of the ‘Book of Figures’: Medicine and Astrology in
Montpellier at the Turn of the Fourteenth Century,” AJS Review  (): –, on
pp. –; idem, “La faculté de médecine de Montpellier et son influence en Provence:
Témoignages en Hébreu, en Latin et en langue vulgaire,” in Le Blévec and Granier,
L’ Université de médecine de Montpellier, pp. –, on p. .
55 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” p. .
56 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation.”
 hagar kahana-smilansky
somnum), which corresponds neither to the “old” Greek-Latin version

by an anonymous translator (ca. ) nor to the new one by William of
Moerbeke (ca. ?–?).57 It is “updated” through many changes and
additions, some of which may have been derived from Arabic treatises.58
A De somno was known to Melguiri’s contemporaries at the faculty of
medicine in Montpellier, but it is not clear in what version. Magister Car-
dinalis (d. ca. ), who taught in the faculty from the s, employed
it in a commentary; it is the only treatise from the Parva naturalia that
he used.59 Aristotle’s works on natural philosophy that were used by Car-
dinalis “were also present in the [University of Montpellier’s] liberal arts
curricula in the first quarter of the thirteenth century.”60 Arnald of Vil-
lanova knew a De somno.61 His account of sleep in Speculum medicinae
(–) employs particular Galenic principles shared by Melguiri’s
HSW, such as “the first and second digestions” during sleep62 and the idea
that the brain is the principium of sensation and the faculties.63 Again like
HSW, Bernard de Gordon (ca. –ca. –) followed Galen in
locating the sensus communis in the brain, although he was aware that
Aristotle assigned it to the heart.64 The works by the masters of Montpel-
lier in physiological psychology drew on the recent translations of Galen,
Arabic medicine, and Ibn Sı̄nā’s De anima. Inasmuch as their works are
apparently later than Melguiri’s, however, the source of the Galenic and
57 L. Minio-Paluello, “Jacobus Veneticus Grecus, Canonist and Translator of Aristotle,”
Traditio  (): –, on pp. , , ; M.-T. d’ Alverny, “Translations and
Translators,” in R.L. Benson et al., eds, Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century
(Cambridge, MA, ): ; B.G. Dod, “Aristoteles Latinus,” in N. Kretzmann et al., eds,
The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge, ): , .
58 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” pp. , –, –.
59 M. McVaugh, ed., Arnaldi de Villanova Opera Medica Omnia, vol.  (Barcelona,
), Introduction to De amore heroico, pp. –; idem, “The ‘Humidum Radicale’ in
Thirteenth-Century Medicine,” Traditio  (): –, on p.  n. a; L. Garcia-
Ballester, “The New Galen: A Challenge to Latin Galenism in Thirteen Century Mont-
pellier,” in K.-D. Fischer et al., eds, Text and Tradition: Studies in Ancient Medicine and
Its Transmission, presented to Jutta Kollesch (Leiden, ): –, on p.  n.  (repr. in
J. Arrizabalaga et al., eds, Galen and Galenism: Theory and Medical Practice from Antiquity
to the European Renaissance [Aldershot, ]).
60 Garcia-Ballester, “The New Galen,” p.  n. .
61 Ibid., pp. –. Arnald studied in Montpellier in the s and taught there
between  and his death.

62 P. Gil-Sotres, “The Regimen of Health,” in M. Grmek, ed., B. Fatini, coord., A. Shu-
gaar, trans., Western Medical Thought from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, (Cambridge, MA,
): –, on pp. – and p.  n. .
63 M. McVaugh, ed., Arnaldi de Villanova Opera Medica Omnia, vol.  (Barcelona,
): , –.

64 Demaitre, Bernard, p. .
solomon ben moses melguiri 
other medical modifications that he introduced into HSW 65 is unclear.

Perhaps the Latin De somno used by the masters of Montpellier origi-
nated in a treatise translated from Arabic, and was used by Melguiri as
well.
Pseudo-Ibn Sı̄nā, On the Heaven, and the World

The Latin source of Melguiri’s OHW is the Liber celi et mundi, a para-
phrase of Aristotle’s De caelo that was translated from Arabic (probably in
late twelfth-century Toledo) by Dominicus Gundissalinus and Johannes
Hispanus.66 Liber celi et mundi was often referred to as De caelo et mundo
and circulated for half a century with the corpus vetustius of the older
(largely Greek-Latin) translations of Aristotle, because it was believed to
be either Aristotle’s genuine De caelo or a guide to it. Its first documented
appearance is in a collection compiled in Northern France ca. , but
its first attribution to Ibn Sı̄nā appear in works by Vincent of Beauvais
(–) and Albertus Magnus (–).67 In view of the simi-
larity between the texts of De caelo and the Liber celi et mundi, and the
confusion of their titles in the Corpus Aristotelicum (especially during
the first half of the thirteenth century), references to the former title may
indicate the presence of the latter at the university. In this context we
should note the use of De caelo in the faculty of Liberal Arts, as well as by
medical masters of Montpellier, Cardinalis and Bernard de Gordon.68
In sum, Melguiri’s early life near Montpellier, his knowledge of Latin,
and his service as a physician to the Christian aristocracy strongly suggest
that his selection of Latin treatises reflected an association with the
members of the faculty of medicine in that town. Circa instans and De
somno were certainly used by members of this medical faculty from the
middle of the thirteenth century onwards. We cannot be sure that their
De somno was the version translated by Melguiri, much less that their De
65 For these modifications see Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,”
esp. pp. –.

66 Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –; O. Gutman, Pseudo-Avicenna Liber Celi et
Mundi (Leiden, ): ix–xii.

67 O. Gutman, “On the Fringes of the Corpus Aristotelicum: The Pseudo-Avicenna
Liber Celi et Mundi,” in J.M.M.H. Thijssen, ed., Early Science and Medicine: Journal for
the Study of Science, Technology and Medicine in the Pre-Modern Period, Special Issue:
Medieval Cosmologies, vol.  /  (): –, on pp. –, –; Gutman,
Pseudo-Avicenna, p. xix.
68 For the Faculty of Liberal Arts and Cardinalis, see McVaugh, Arnaldi de Villanova
Opera, :– (and n.  above); For Bernard see Demaitre, Bernard, p.  n. .
 hagar kahana-smilansky
caelo was pseudo-Ibn Sı̄nā’s Liber celi et mundi, misidentified as De caelo.

Whether or not Melguiri acquired the actual Latin treatise of De somno
from members of the Montpellier faculty, his motives for translating De
somno into Hebrew may be assumed to have been influenced by the
presence and study of this Aristotelian treatise at the university. Similarly,
Melguiri’s translation of Liber celi et mundi was plausibly motivated by
its presence (or that of De caelo) at the university, as well as by the
prominence there of astronomy and astrology as auxiliary sciences to
medicine.69 The new demand for medical texts by the Jewish physicians
seeking a medical license may have been one of Melguiri’s motives, for the
texts used in the university were a basis of the licensing examinations.70
. Melguiri and Contemporary Jewish Scholars
The following account is based on the evidence of Abraham Beder-

shi, Isaac de Lattes, and the Tibbonids. The writings of Bedershi (born
ca. , d.  or ) are a major source of information on poets and
scholars of his time. He came from a leading family of notables in Béziers
and was related to Astruc des Gabbai, who may be identical with an
important financial official in the royal administration of Carcassonne-
Béziers.71 Bedershi divided his time between Béziers, Perpignan, and
Narbonne, where he finally settled around .72 This migration pat-
tern corresponds to that by Melguiri; they appear to have belonged to
the same social class. Melguiri was probably living in Narbonne between
 and , when Bedershi wrote the long poem The Ever-turning
Sword (Ha-herev
. ha-mithappekhet), a chronicle of the poets of southern
73 Bedershi dedicates one strophe to Melguiri:
France.
éXeâå é!ì#çù øÇãå øÇc úlâ"ñ / áì éV÷!ç íéìåãâ éøéåâìîì
69 Demaitre, Bernard, pp. , –, –, –, –; Shatzmiller, Jews,
Medicine, Society, pp. –, ; Siraisi, “The Faculty of Medicine,” p. .
70 L. Ferre, “Hebrew Translations from Medical Treatises of Montpellier,” Koroth 
(–): –, on pp. –; Shatzmiller, Jews, Medicine, Society, pp. –.
71 Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, pp. –.
72 H. Schirmann, “#Iyyunim be-qoves ha-širim we-ha-melisot šel Avraham ha-Be-
. .
dreši,” in S. Ettinger et al., eds, Sefer ha-Yovel le-Yis. haq
. Baer (Jerusalem, ): –
; H. Schirmann and E. Fleischer, eds, History of Hebrew Poetry in Christian Spain
and Southern France (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –; Bar Tiqva, Genres and Topics,
pp. –.
73 Schirmann and Fleischer, eds, History of Hebrew Poetry, pp. –, .
solomon ben moses melguiri 
As suggested by Bar Tiqva, the first hemistich (“Melguiri is engaged

in profound investigations/thoughts”) alludes to Melguiri’s philosophi-
cal pursuits.74 The second hemistich speaks obscurely of segullah (a rem-
edy that acts by an essential virtue) and may hint at Melguiri’s medical
practice.75 Since Bedershi knew Melguiri, the scholar who is mentioned
in two of his epistles as “the honorable scholar Don Solomon,” a poet and
hakham
. who “stands before kings,” may in fact be Solomon Melguiri.76
In addition to his familiarity with Melguiri’s poetry, Bedershi, in his dic-
tionary of Hebrew synonyms, Hotam . tokhnit, explains the verbs yašen,
“sleep” and hozeh, “dream, hallucinate”77 on the basis of HSW.78 Estab-
lishing the date of composition of Hotam . tokhnit could help determine
the date of the translation of HSW, independently from Gershom ben
Solomon’s Ša#ar ha-šamayim.
The physician Isaac ben Jacob de Lattes79 mentions Melguiri’s works in
Ša#arei s. iyyon (Qiryat sefer, ), a history of French Jewish scholars. In
the extant (evidently corrupt) manuscripts of this work, Melguiri’s first
name is given as “Samuel” (ben Moses Melguiri). Zunz, Buber, and Renan
and Neubauer80 were of the opinion that this must refer to Solomon
Melguiri and the combined evidence of the two relevant manuscripts
justifies this correction.81 But recent authors seem unaware of it.82
74 Bar Tiqva, “The Poet Melguiri,” pp. , .

75 On the medical use of segullah see e.g., J. Shatzmiller, “Contacts et échanges entre
savants Juifs et Chrétiens a Montpellier vers ,” Cahiers de Fanjeaux  (): –
, on p. .
76 Scholars now read the first epistle as addressed to Vidal Solomon or Menahem ha-
.
Me"iri (Schirmann, “#Iyyunim,” pp. ,  n. ), but this is doubtful according to the
oldest MS, Brit. Lib. .
77 Chotam Tokhnit. Edited by G.I. Pollak (Amsterdam, ): .
78 Bedershi interprets hozeh as specific to the sleep of dogs (cf. HSW § ) and uses
the terminology and phrases of HSW (§§ , , ), which renders Aristotle’s account of
sleep as similar to illness (De somno, a–, a–, a–).
79 E. Renan and A. Neubauer, Les Ecrivains juifs français du XIV e siècle (Paris, ;
repr. Westmead, ): –.

80 L. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur (Berlin, ): ; S. Buber, Beitrag zur
Geschichte des Judentums bis zum Jahre  von Rab. Isaac de Lattes, mit Anmerkungen
und einer Einleitung versehn (Jaroslav, ): ; Renan and Neubauer, Ecrivains juifs,
p. .
81 MS Moscow, Guenzburg  (IMHM ) and MS Oxford, Bodl. Mich. 
(IMHM ).
82 S.Z. Havlin, Ša#arei siyyon, in History of Oral Law and Early Scholarship by Menahem
. .
ha-Me"iri (Jerusalem, ): –, p. ; O. Fraisse, Moses Ibn Tibbons Kommentar
zum Hohelied und sein poetologish-philosophisches Programm (Berlin, ): .
 hagar kahana-smilansky
De Lattes attributes to Melguiri “many books on every science and

art, particularly in astronomy.” He specifies four titles: The Summit of
Astronomy (Qes. la-tekhunah), The Book of the King (Sefer ha-Melekh),
The Comprehensive Book (Sefer ha-Kolel), and On the Ten Sayings (or
Things; Sefer ‘Aśarah devarim). These works have not been identified;
De Lattes mentions none of Melguiri’s extant compositions. Thus, De
Lattes’ testimony should be used with caution but cannot be altogether
dismissed: Melguiri’s statement that he wrote three treatises (hibburim)
.
at the request of “nini we-nekhdi Moses”83 suggests that in his later life he
wrote additional works. A Sefer ha-Kolel on astronomy and astrology is
extant and its authorship requires investigation.84
It is significant that De Lattes lists Melguiri immediately after Samuel
and Moses ibn Tibbon, since as a rule he classifies scholars according
to their time and place of residence.85 The implied association between
Melguiri and the Tibbonids is verified by the evidence to be introduced
below. Another reason for relating to De Lattes’ information is its likely
sources: distinguished members of his family lived in Narbonne at the
same time as Solomon Melguiri;86 his grandfather Isaac ben Judah de
Lattes of Montpellier,87 a well-known physician, was active in the –
 controversy over philosophy as one of the “notables” (nikhbadim)
who supported the Tibbonids.88 Isaac ben Jacob de Lattes’ history thus
plausibly includes traditions transmitted by his scholarly relatives from
Narbonne and Montpellier.
In her study of Melguiri’s OHW, Ruth Glasner has established that
he made extensive use of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s original composition
83 ,éãëðå éðéð éøùáå éîöò éøéçá äùîì èøôáå ììëá [ . . . ] úìòåú êåùîì àéä äæ éøçà éúðåëå
íéøåáç äùìù øáçì éúåà õìà àåäù . . . (MS Vatican, fol. b, l. –fol. a, l. ; missing in MS
Escorial). These “three treatises” do not seem to be the “parts” of BE. As noted in the text,
of Melguiri’s three extant translations, at least OHW was written before BE.
84 Gad Freudenthal (“Sur la partie astronomique du Liwyat hen de Levi ben Abraham
.
ben Hayyim,” REJ  []: –, on p. ) destabilized the attribution of Sefer
ha-Kolel to Levi ben Avraham.
85 Renan and Neubauer, Ecrivains juifs, pp. –.
86 The talmudists Gershom De Lattes of Béziers and his son Samuel, authors of the
Book of Salman (Ša#arei s. iyyon, ed. Havlin, History of Oral Law, pp. , ).
87 Renan and Neubauer, Ecrivains juifs, pp. –, , Havlin, History of Oral Law,
p. .
88 De Lattes, Ša#arei siyyon, ed. Havlin, p. ; J. Shatzmiller, “Between Abba Mari
.
and Rashba: The Negotiations before the Barcelona Ban” (Heb.), in B. Oded et al., eds,
Mehqarim
. be-toledot #am yisra"el we-eres. yisra"el  (): –, on pp. , , ;
idem, “In Search of the ‘Book of Figures’,” pp. –; idem, “Contacts et échanges,”
p. .
solomon ben moses melguiri 
Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim (written –) and his translation of

Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed. Curiously, Melguiri never credits
Samuel ibn Tibbon as his source.89 OHW also contains a passage from
Maimonides’ Eight Chapters in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s translation, merged
with a passage from Yiqqawu ha-mayim:
Maimonides,
Samuel ibn Tibbon, Eight Chapters, trans.
Yiqqawu ha-mayim90 Melguiri, OHW 91 Samuel ibn Tibbon92
ìëåé àì íéøáã äáøäù åðåéîãá øééöéù ,äîãîä çåëä çåëä àåä äîãîä ÷ìçäå
úîéà ìëùäå íúåîãì íãàä .úåéäî íé÷åçø íéøáã åàöîéù íéùçåîä éîåùéø øåëæé øùà
íéøáã äáøä ùé ïëå íúåàéöî åà ùìåùî ìâìâä äîãéù ïåâë úáø÷î íîìòä øçà
äîãîä çëä ìëåé àìù ,òáåøî ìà íúö÷ áéëøéå . . . íéùåçä
íúåàéöî úåîãìî èìîéäì àìù íéðééðòä ïî . . . íúö÷
äîäá ,íéîùá åùàø íãà øùôà éàå ììë íâéùä
íéðéò óìàá íãà äîãéù åîë .íâéùäì
,íéîá èåùú ìæøá úéðà ,øéåàá äöø ìæøá úðéôñ
íäì ïéàù úîéà ìëùäå ìëùäù íéøáãäî äæì äîåãëå åéìâøå íéîùá åùàøù íãàå
ïéðò íìöà äæîå ,úåàéöî .ììë úåàéöî íäì ïéàù áééçî ìò ,ïéò óìàá äîäáå ¬õøàá
úåàéöîì ùàøå äìçúä äîãîä çåëä êùîé íéîòôìå .ìùî êøã
ìëá ù÷áé ïåéîãäù íìåòä ùàø ù÷áéå ùâøåîä øçà
93êùîéå äìçúäå ùàø øáã ,äìçúäå úåòðîðä åìàî äáøäå
.ùâøåîä éøçà .äæî íéòðîðä íéøáãì íâ ìáà äîãîä çåëä íáéëøé
.ïåéîãá íàéöîéå
OHW and HSW afford ample proof of Melguiri’s use of Samuel ibn
Tibbon’s philosophical terminology.94 There is also extensive borrow-
ing from Ibn Tibbon’s translation of Maimonides’ Guide in both extant
parts of Melguiri’s BE. For example, several quotations ascribed to “the
philosopher” (Aristotle) are in fact paraphrases of Maimonides’ Guide in
this translation.95
Melguiri is one of the earliest known writers to utilize Ruah. hen,
. the
Hebrew philosophical compendium written in the first half of the thir-
teenth century. Its anonymous author, who credits Maimonides’ Guide
89 Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –.

90 Edited by M.L. Bislichis (Pressburg, ): , l. ; cf. Maimonides’ Guide in Ibn
Tibbon’s translation, I., II., III..
91 MS Cambridge Add.  (IMHM ), fol. b, l.  from the end to fol. a, l. .
92 Edited by A. Ben Yisrael (Tel-Aviv, ): –.
93 Ed.: êùîä.
94 Kahana-Smilansky, “A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation,” pp. –.
95 MS Vatican, fol. a,  f.; cf. Guide II., ed. Y. Even-Shemuel (Jerusalem, ),
p. ; MS Vatican, fol. a, –; cf. Guide II., ed. Even-Shemuel, p. .
 hagar kahana-smilansky
as his source of inspiration, has been assumed to be a member of the Ibn

Tibbon family.96 Melguiri incorporated various passages from Ruah. hen
.
into HSW, for example:
Melguiri, HSW, §§ – Ruah. hen,

. chapter 97
åúå÷ãá âéùîå íìåëî ãáëð úåàøä ùåç ïë ìò ¬íìëáù ãáëðäå ÷ãä àåä úåàøä ùåç
øàùî øúåé åì íéùçåîä íéøáãä ÷åçøî øàùî øúåé ÷åçø øåòùá åéùçåî âéùî àåä
.íéùåçä ùéà êúåàøá éë ,äìâðå øàåáî äæå .íéùåçä
åéùçåî âéùî òîùä ùåçå ,òîùä ùåç åéøçàå .åìå÷ òîùú àì ÷åçøî
.çéøä ùåçî øúåé ÷åçøî .çéøä ùåç ìà êøòá ÷åçøî âéùäì ÷ã àåäå
øúåé åúâùäá ÷ã çéøä ùåçå êøòá ÷åçøî âéùî àåä íâå ¬çéøä ùåç åéøçàå
íä äìàä íéùåçäù ¬ùåùîäå íòèä éùåçî íéùåç íäù ¬ùåùîä ùåçå íòèä ùåç ìà
íúåéä ãò íäéùçåî íéâéùî íðéàå íéñâ íäá í÷áãä ãò íäéâùåî åâéùé àìå ¬íéñâ
éáåò ìà êøòá ÷ã íòèä ùåçå .íá íé÷áã .íúåà íòâôå
íéøî íéøáãä íòè ùéâøäì ùåùéîä ùåç
íéöéôòå íéöåîçå íéçåìî ,íé÷åúîå
ùåùéîä ùåç ùéâøé àìù äî ,íòè éìá íéìôèå
.íá åòâåôá óà
In BE Melguiri employs Ruah. hen . a number of times. An extensive

passage98 borrows from chapter four of Ruah. hen..
99 A passage from
100
. is reproduced in BE. Even the introduc-
chapter nine of Ruah. hen
tory phrases of BE101 recall the preface of Ruah. hen.
.
102 None of these
borrowings are acknowledged. As compared with the professional stan-

dards of former and contemporary Jewish translators, particularly the
Tibbonids,103 Melguiri took great liberty in revising his translations,
incorporating material from these sources, as well as from others, into
them.104
The question of contacts between Melguiri and Moses ibn Tibbon (fl.
–) is intriguing. The latter is known mostly as a translator of sci-
entific works from Arabic, especially the corpus of Ibn Rušd’s epitomes,
96 Ofer Elior is studying the text and its circulation and appropriation by medieval
Jewish scholars. For the present see C. Sirat, “Le livre ‘Rouah Hen’,” in A. Shinan, ed.,
Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of Jewish Studies (Jerusalem, –): :–
; eadem, A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, ): .
97 Ruah hen. Edited by D. Slutsky (Warsaw, ): –.
. .
98 MS Vatican, fols. b–a.
99 Ruah hen, ed. Slutsky, p. .
. .
100 MS Vatican, fol. b, ll. –a, l. ; cf. Ruah hen, ed. Slutsky, p. .
. .
101 MS Vatican, fol. a, l.  f.
102 E.g. MS St. Petersburg B /  (IMHM ), fol. a (not in Slutsky’s edition).
103 Freudenthal, “Les sciences juives médiévales,” p. .
104 Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” pp. –.
solomon ben moses melguiri 
translated between  and .105 As observed by Glasner, Melguiri

mentioned “Averroes’ epitomes of Aristotle’s books” in BE: “Assuming
that he was acquainted with them through the Hebrew translations of
Moses ibn Tibbon, we can conclude that the book (OHW) was not
written before the middle of the thirteenth century.”106 Melguiri adds no
detail that would make it possible to establish his genuine familiarity with
the content of the epitomes, however.
Conversely, Moses ibn Tibbon was apparently familiar with Melguiri’s
translation OHW, which both of them believed to be an authentic work
by Ibn Sı̄nā. Moses ibn Tibbon mentions it in his Answers to Queries on
Physics107 while discussing Ibn Sı̄nā’s doctrine of the transmutation of the
four elements:
The philosophers settled on three kinds of mutual transformation of the
elements: effortless, difficult, and an intermediate between the two. The
classification employed in Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim is the method of
Ibn Sı̄nā as recounted in chapter four of the book The Heaven and the
World, and I need not repeat it [here].108
Moses ibn Tibbon himself denounces Ibn Sı̄nā’s doctrine as “very

strange” and endorses Ibn Rušd’s view. Samuel ibn Tibbon, in contrast,
embraced Ibn Sı̄nā’s doctrine in Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, as was
established by Gad Freudenthal,109 but his Avicennian source or sources
remain to be ascertained.110 In any case, the source of influence that
Moses ibn Tibbon had in mind cannot be the genuine On the Heaven and
the World in Kitāb al-Šifā", because it only mentions this issue in pass-
ing, but does not discuss it.111 Instead, Melguiri’s Hebrew (pseudo-)Ibn
105 Zonta, La filosofia antica, pp. –; Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” p.  n. .
106 MS Vatican, fol. a, ll. –; Glasner, “Hebrew De celo,” p.  n. .
107 Y.T. Langermann, “Maqor hadaš le-targumo šel Šemu"el ibn Tibbon le-Moreh Nevo-
.
khim we-he#arotaw ‘alaw,” Pe#amim  (): –, on p. . I am currently preparing
an annotated edition of this text.
108 MS Parma, fol. a, –:ìò àåä éë íéôåñåìéôä úòã íúö÷î íúö÷ úåãåñéä úååäúäá íâ
êøã àéä íéîä åå÷é øîàîá úøëæðù ä÷åìçäå íäéðéá òöåîî éùéìùäå äù÷ éðùäå ì÷ ãçàä íéðéî äùìù
.äøëæì êéøö éðéàå íìåòäå íéîùä øôñî §ã ÷øôá øëæðù éðéñ ïá
109 Gad Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,”
Aleph  (): –, esp. pp. –, –.

110 Freudenthal (ibid., pp. , –) holds that Samuel ibn Tibbon’s discussion of the
transmutation of the elements derives from Ibn Sı̄nā’s Šifā": Physics, III: On Generation
and Corruption. Glasner (“Hebrew De celo,” pp. –, nn. –) maintains that some
passages (e.g., Yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bislichis, ch. , pp. –) are derived from Ibn Sı̄nā’s
Meteorology.
111 Kitāb al-Šifā": Physics, II: On the Heaven and the World. Edited by M. Qasem and
I. Madkur (Cairo, ): –.

 hagar kahana-smilansky
Sı̄nā On the Heaven and the World provides parallel sentences to Moses
ibn Tibbon’s Answers. Moreover, in Melguiri’s OHW, these sentences are
found in chapter four, the chapter that Moses ibn Tibbon specified as
containing the relevant doctrine of “Ibn Sı̄nā’s book On the Heaven and
the World”:
Solomon Melguiri, [pseudo-]Ibn Sı̄nā

On the Heaven and the World, Moses ibn Tibbon,
ch. four:112 Answers to Queries on Physics:113
íäé÷ìç úö÷ úåðúùäì úåãåñéä òáè ïë éë úåãåñéä úååäúä àåä äù÷ øúåéä éðùä ïéîäå
úøåöì ãçàä ãåñéä ïî äðúùîä ÷ìçä áåùìå íúö÷ ,ãçé íäéúåéëéà éúùá íéëôäúîä
.åøáç .úö÷î
åà øéåà õøàäå ùà íéîä åà íéî ùàä áåùå åà øéåà õøàäå ùà íéîä åà íéî ùàä áåù àåäå
.òðîð åðéà êà ãàî ÷åçø øáã àåä ,êôäá .úåéëéà éúùá íäéðéá êôää úåéäì .êôäá
åðéàå ,íééëôä íäéúåéåëéàù éðôî àåä ÷åçø ãùø ïá ïéáå éðéñ ïá ïéá ú÷åìçî ïéà äæä ïéîáå
.íéôåñåìéôä úòã éôì òáèá íäì äæù ,òðîð ,íäéðéá éòöîàä àåäå éùéìùä ïéîá êà
àåäù øîà éðéñ ïá éë .áø óåìç
àìå áåø÷ àì åðéà íéî õøàä åà øéåà íéîä áåùå ,íéî õøàä åà øéåà íéîä áåù
ìáà .÷æç íéîá øå÷äù éðôî ,úòãä ïî ÷åçø ÷æç íéîá øå÷ä úåéäì
íôúúùä éðôî ãàî áåø÷ àåä íéî øéåàä áåù ÷æç õøàá ùáåéä ïëå ,ùåìç øéåàá íåçäå
÷æç øå÷äå ùåìç øéåàá íåçäå .úåçìä úåëéàá .ãåàî øæ äæå .ùåìç íéîá úåçìäå
.åéìà åëôäì åéìò ì÷éå ,íéîá
This supports the conclusion that when Moses ibn Tibbon asserts that the
method of the transmutation of elements is similar in Ma"amar Yiqqawu
ha-mayim and in “Ibn Sı̄nā’s On the Heaven and the World,”114 the lat-
ter refers to Melguiri’s Hebrew OHW. The similarity between the two
works, implied by Moses’ comment, is evident when OHW (the pas-
sage juxtaposed above to Moses ibn Tibbon’s Answers) is also compared
with a paragraph in Samuel ibn Tibbon’s Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim.115
The resemblance between OHW and Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim is not
112 MS Cambridge Add. , fol. b, ll. –.

113 MS Parma, fol. a, ll. –.
114 See above, n. .
115 Ed. Bislichis, p.  (), ll. – (for an English translation, see Freudenthal, “Samuel
Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory,” p. . The edition is quoted in part in Glasner, “Hebrew
De celo,” p. ):
úåðúùäì úåãåñéä éòáèîù íúòãî ïëå . . . úåãåñéä §ãá íéôåñåìéôä úòãî òãåð øáëù äî äðä
íåçäå úåçéìä àéäå úçà úåëéàá íôúúùäì ì÷ àåä íéî øéåàä áåù êà åøéáç ìà íäî ãçà ìë
åà íéî ùàä áåù íìåàå õøà íéîä áåùé ïëå åéìà åëôäì åéìò ì÷éå ÷æç íéîá øå÷äå ùåìç øéåàá
áåù àåä éòöîàäå úåéëéàä éúùá íäéðéá êôää úåéäì ãáëä àåä êôäáå øéåà õøàäå ùà íéîä
.ùåìç øéåàá íåçäå ÷æç íéîá ø÷ä úåéäì íéî õøàä åà øéåà íéîä
solomon ben moses melguiri 
surprising; Glasner demonstrated that Melguiri paraphrased many pas-

sages from the latter, including passages that Samuel ibn Tibbon explicitly
borrowed from Ibn Sı̄nā’s Kitāb al-Šifā’.116
Is there any basis for accepting the implication that Samuel ibn Tibbon
borrowed Ibn Sı̄nā’s doctrine of transmutation from the Hebrew pseudo-
Ibn Sı̄nā On the Heaven and the World? The respective dates of Melguiri’s
translation activity (from ca. ) and of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s last work
(–)117 argue against this possibility. As to the Latin source of
OHW, Liber celi et mundi, since it is believed to have been translated
from Arabic in Toledo in the second half of the twelfth century, Samuel
ibn Tibbon may have brought it back to Provence from his study visit in
Toledo before . He is thought to have associated there with Michael
Scotus and Alfred of Shareshill, both of whom translated scientific works
from Arabic into Latin.118 But there is no evidence of Samuel ibn Tib-
bon’s use of Latin sources. Translating the original Arabic treatise would
be more consistent with his usual practice. Suppose, for the sake of argu-
ment, that Samuel ibn Tibbon imported the Arabic original from Toledo.
Would he or his son not then render it directly into Hebrew, in which case
the Latin-Hebrew translation by Melguiri would be unnecessary?
The resemblance, demonstrated above, between passages in Ma"amar
Yiqqawu ha-mayim and Melguiri’s later Latin-Hebrew translation, OHW,
is best accounted for by Glasner’s evidence that in OHW Melguiri made
extensive use of the Avicennian passages (among others) from Ma"amar
Yiqqawu ha-mayim. Apparently, his practice misled Moses ibn Tibbon
into believing that the influence was the other way round and that
his father quoted these passages from the Hebrew (pseudo-)Ibn Sı̄nā’s
OHW.119
Be this as it may, it is reasonable to conclude that Moses ibn Tibbon
was acquainted with Melguiri’s translation of pseudo-Ibn Sı̄nā’s OHW.
116 Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bislichis, ch. , pp. –; quoted in Glasner, ibid.,
pp. –:
íúö÷ ìà íúö÷ úåðúùäì úåãåñéä òáèî äéä øùàë éë äæå . . . éðéö ïáà íëçì äá åéúàöî øáã
.§åëå íäé÷ìçá
117 For a re-evaluation of the evidence for the date of Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim see
Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory,” Appendix A.

118 J.T. Robinson, Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes (Ph.D. dissertation,
Harvard University, ): :–, –, .

119 Possibly, Moses’ unawareness of his father’s actual source may be explained by the
former’s residence in Naples until the mid-s (J.B. Sermoneta, “R. Hillel ben Samuel
 hagar kahana-smilansky
. Summary
Because Melguiri was one of the few Jews who translated Latin treatises
into Hebrew in the second half of the thirteenth century, his biography,
which explains this occupation by his Christian connections and medical
profession, is of special interest. Melguiri’s solid economic and social
status facilitated his contacts with Christian nobility through both his
financial and medical pursuits. Gad Freudenthal has shown that the first
Hebrew translations from Latin were in the field of medicine120 and
that medical texts were translated more than other scientific works.121 If
my conjecture that Melguiri acquired the treatises he translated through
contacts with the physicians in the faculty of medicine at the University of
Montpellier is correct, it illustrates a development that led from medicine
to the translation of texts in its “auxiliary sciences” and, later, in other
sciences and philosophy.
Melguiri was not a professional translator and may have been only
an amateur student of philosophy, but he left his mark on the cultural
life of the Jews in thirteenth-century Provence. His translations, OHW
and HSW, were read there and in Catalonia, not only in the fourteenth
and fifteenth centuries but also already in his lifetime, by Gershom
ben Solomon of Arles, Abraham Bedershi in Narbonne, and Moses ibn
Tibbon in Montpellier. It seems that he accepted the challenge of Samuel
ibn Tibbon’s call on the Jews to raise their level of secular knowledge
to match that of their Christian neighbors, because the latter’s scientific
learning had surpassed that in the Arabic lands.122
ben Eleazar of Verona and his Philosophical Thought” (Heb.) (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, ): –, – n. . Langermann (“Maqor hadaš, . ” p. )
noted that in this treatise and in The Epistle on Providence, Moses quotes only his father’s
written texts and not his oral teaching.
120 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures.”
121 Ibid., Table .
122 Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bislichis, p. , ll. –.
DIALECTIC IN
GERSONIDES’ BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES*
Sara Klein-Braslavy
In his writings, Gersonides pays special attention to the method of in-

quiry. The most interesting method he describes is dialectic. He deals
with it in his supercommentaries on Ibn Rušd’s middle commentaries
on Aristotle’s Logic; in his own independent book The Wars of the Lord,
where he also applies it in his inquiries;1 and in his biblical exegesis, in
the commentaries on Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Proverbs—books
traditionally ascribed to King Solomon.
Following Maimonides, Gersonides considers Solomon to have been a
philosopher who expounded philosophical ideas and directed his audi-
ence toward correct conduct and intellectual perfection.2 For Gerson-
ides, though, Solomon dealt not only with philosophical issues but also
with the methods to be used in philosophical investigation. He steered
his audience to the use of correct methods of inquiry through which they
could attain true and certain knowledge in theoretical sciences (mathe-
matics, physics and metaphysics) and in the practical science of politics
(which includes ethics).
* The article is based on a paper presented in the XIIth International Congress of

Medieval Philosophy, Palermo, Sept. –, .
1 For the dialectical method in the Wars of the Lord, see: S. Klein-Braslavy, “The
Opinions that Produce the Aporias in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord,” in E. Fleischer,
G. Blidstein. C. Horowitz, and B. Septimus, eds, Me"ah She"arim: Studies in Medieval
Jewish Spiritual life in Memory of Isadore Twersky (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –;
eadem, “La méthode diaporématique de Gersonide dans les Guerres du Seigneur,” in
C. Sirat, S. Klein-Braslavy and O. Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide
et le maniement du savoir chez les scolastiques (Paris, ): –; eadem, “The
Solutions of the Aporias in Gersonides Wars of the Lord,” Da#at – (): –
 (Heb.). The first and the third article have been translated into English and will be
published by Brill in a collection of my essays on Gersonides’ methods of inquiry and
their applications.
2 For King Solomon as a philosopher in Maimonides’ thought, see S. Klein-Braslavy,
King Solomon and Philosophical Esotericism in the Thought of Maimonides (Heb.) (Jeru-
salem ; repr. ): –.
 sara klein-braslavy
Here I would like to present the results of a study of Gersonides’ notion

of dialectic, as presented in his biblical commentaries, and outline its
main features.3
In the has. s. a#ah (preliminary note) to the commentary on the Song
of Songs Gersonides presents two classifications of the sciences; the first
is the ontological classification proposed by Aristotle in Metaphysics VI,
: the classification of the sciences according to their subject matter. The
other is an epistemological classification not found in Aristotle’s writings:
a classification of the sciences by descending order of their means of
verification.
The highest level of verification is found in mathematics, in which
inquiry proceeds by absolute demonstration. Physics uses demonstra-
tion from observation (demonstratio per signum); its level of verification
is inferior to that of mathematics. The lowest level of verification is found
in metaphysics, which uses dialectical syllogisms. According to the intro-
duction to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, this is also the only method
of verification that can be used in political philosophy.4
Gersonides is especially interested in dialectic because it is the only
method that can be used in sciences that cannot employ absolute demon-
strations and demonstrations per signum. He wants to show that dialectic,
too, can be valuable for philosophical investigation: one can attain true
and certain knowledge by using dialectical syllogisms, thereby arriving
at the truth in metaphysics and politics as well.
According to Gersonides, Solomon, too, was interested in dialectic. In
the Song of Songs and in Proverbs he presented the theory of dialectic as
a method of inquiry; in Ecclesiastes he used dialectic as a method in his
own inquiry.
In the commentaries on the Song of Songs and Proverbs Gersonides
explains the theory of dialectic presented by Solomon in his books. The
theory is presented through exegesis of words and verses in those books
and is consequently scattered through the commentaries. To understand
it we have to read each commentary and discover what Gersonides thinks
3 For a full analysis of dialectic in Gersonides’ commentary on Proverbs and the ways
in which he interprets the biblical texts, see S. Klein-Braslavy, “Dialectic in Gersonides’
Commentary on Proverbs,” Tarbis.  (–) (): – (Heb.). An English trans-
lation of the article is included in my forthcoming collection of essays (above n. ). The
chapters on dialectic in Gersonides’ commentaries on Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs are
still in manuscript.
4 See the introduction to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. . References to the
commentary on Ecclesiastes are to Gersonides’ Commentaries on the [Five] Scrolls. Edited

by J.L. Levy (Jerusalem, ).
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
of the dialectical method professed by Solomon and how Gersonides

understands that method. Because he considers Ecclesiastes to be a book
written according to the dialectical method, following the tradition of
the Alexandrian prologue paradigm,5 he presents the theory of dialectic
in the has. s. a#ah to his commentary on that book,6 so as to prepare readers
for understanding it.7 Consequently this has. s. a#ah offers a concise intro-
duction to his conception of the dialectical method.8
In the introduction to the commentary on Ecclesiastes Gersonides
adduces the remarks on dialectic in the Aristotelian text on which he
relies in his exposition: the Metaphysics.9 In his account of the dialectical
method in the commentary on Proverbs he refers to the Topics and the
Metaphysics as philosophical treatises expounding ideas that correspond
to those expressed by Solomon in the book.10 Thus the dialectic in Ger-
sonides’ biblical exegesis is his interpretation of Aristotelian dialectic, as
he knew it from the Hebrew translations of Ibn Rušd’s commentaries on
the Topics11 and from the Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s Metaphysics
III, .12 He does not regard it as his own innovation.
5 On the Alexandrian prologue paradigm see S. Klein-Braslavy, “The Alexandrian
Prologue Paradigm in Gersonides’ Writings,” JQR  (): – and the bibliogra-
phy cited there.
6 For the literary genre of the hassa#ah see S. Klein-Braslavy, “Dialectic in Gerson-
..
ides’ Commentary on Proverbs,” p. ; eadem, “Les commentaires bibliques—Les intro-
ductions” in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy and Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide,
pp. –, esp. –. An English translation of this article is included in my forth-
coming collection of essays (n.  above).
7 The explanation of the dialectical method in the hassa#ah of the introduction to
..
the commentary on Ecclesiastes is an expansion of one of the points that constitute the
Alexandrian prologue paradigm: the mode of instruction used in the work.
8 For this type of hassa#ah and an analysis of the methodological note in the hassa#ah
.. ..
see Klein-Braslavy, “Les commentaires bibliques—Les introductions,” pp. –.
9 See the hassa#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. .
..
10 This does not mean that Solomon learned them from Aristotle. For the Aristotelian
works that correspond to Solomon’s understanding of dialectics see the explanation of

mezimmah in the “Explanation of the Words” to Prov.  (p. ) and the commentary
on Prov. :– (a/r). References to the explanation of the words in Prov.  are to
B. Braner, “Gersonides’ Introduction to the Commentary on Proverbs and the Avatars
of the Text of the Work,” Tarbis.  (): – (Heb.). References to the rest of that
commentary are to Miqra"ot gedolot, followed by Paris BNF, MS héb.  (IMHM ).
11 Gersonides did not know Aristotle’s Topics but only Ibn Rušd’s commentaries on the
work: the Middle Commentary (translated by Qalonymos ben Qalonymos in ), on

which he wrote a supercommentary (), and the Epitome, known in Hebrew as Kol
melekhet higgayon (translated by Yakov ben Makhir, –). For his acquaintance
with the latter see C. Manekin, The Logic of Gersonides: A Translation of Sefer ha-Heqqesh
ha-yashar (The Book of the Correct Syllogism) of Rabbi Levi ben Gershom (Dordrecht
and Boston, ): .
12 Gersonides knew Aristotle’s Metaphysics in two Hebrew versions: that by Moses
 sara klein-braslavy
Dialectic as a Method of Verification
Gersonides considers dialectic to be primarily a method of verification.

He seems to accept Ibn Rušd’s contention, in his Middle Commentary
on the Topics, that demonstrative syllogisms and dialectical syllogisms
are very close and share the same formal pattern. Both are logically
valid. Where they diverge is in their “matter”: demonstrative syllogisms
reason from “essential premises”13 while dialectical syllogisms reason
from premises that are based on generally accepted opinions.14
Starting from this idea Gersonides, in the introduction to the com-
mentary on the Song of Songs, compares the syllogisms used in phys-
ics with those used in metaphysics according to their “matter”—
that is, according to their premises. He says that physics reasons from
premises that are “particular and appropriate”15 (p. /p. ),16 where-
ben Solomon of Beaucaire, incorporated into Solomon’s translation of Ibn Rušd’s Long
Commentary on the Metaphysics, and an anonymous translation he referred to as the
“new translation.” For the “new translation” see C. Touati, La pensée philosophique et
théologique de Gersonide (Paris, ):  n. .
13 Essential premises (haqdamot ‘asmiyyot) are those in which the predicate relates
.
to the subject in an inherent way. For a further explanation of this concept see Klein-
Braslavy, “Dialectic in Proverbs,” n. .
14 See Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics: “The syllogism, with regard to its
form, is one of the three arts that deal with general questions, namely: demonstration and
dialectic and most sophistical arguments. But they differ with regard to their matter: the
demonstrative syllogism works from true premises, the dialectic syllogism from generally
accepted premises, and the sophistical syllogism from premises that are considered to be
generally accepted premises but are not generally accepted premises, or are considered to
be true but are not true.” (Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ] fol. v)
15 “Appropriate premises” are appropriate for a certain science. According to the
Posterior Analytics, every science has its own specific postulates and methods. Nothing
can be proved in one branch of science by means of the postulates of a different branch.
See: Posterior Analytics I,  (a, a, a, b); Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary
on the Posterior Analytics, Paris BNF, MS héb.  /  (IMHM ), fol. v, which
corresponds to Posterior Analytics I,  (b); and Gersonides’ supercommentary on
Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the Posterior Analytics, Paris BNF, MS héb 
(IMHM ), fols. r–v. Ibn Rušd explains that because demonstration yields true
knowledge, which is knowledge of a thing and its cause, its premises must be appropriate:
“Because they [the premises] are the cause of something that is produced of itself, they
must be appropriate to the thing that is explained by them, because this is the inference of
the cause from the effect” (ibid., fol. v). “Particular” means “particular of a single subject
matter. It marks the distinctive subject matter of the different sciences” (J.H. Randall,
Aristotle [New York, ]: ).
16 References are to the page in Kellner’s Hebrew text, Commentary on Song of Songs
by Rabbi Levi ben Gershom, edited by M. Kellner (Ramat Gan, ), followed by his
English translation, Commentary on Song of Songs: Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), trans.
M. Kellner (New Haven and London, ).
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
as metaphysics reasons from “remote commonly accepted premises”

(ibid.).17
In his commentaries on all three Solomonic books Gersonides states
that verification by dialectical syllogisms is weaker than verification by
demonstrative syllogisms because dialectical syllogisms are based on
generally accepted premises. That is why he is particularly interested
in the epistemological status of generally accepted premises. An under-
standing of their epistemological status can shed light on the level of ver-
ification possible through dialectical syllogisms.
He describes generally accepted premises in almost the same terms in
all three of these commentaries.
In the commentary on Song of Songs he holds that their common
denominator is that “that they lead to two contraries or contradictories”
(p. /p. ); “based on them, one may find demonstrations for both a
thing and its opposite” (p. /p. ).
In the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes he deals with verifi-
cation in politics rather than in metaphysics. Politics is based on generally
accepted opinions and rest on a weak level of verification; in fact, “perfect
verification” is impossible in it:
And the Philosopher [Aristotle] has already said that this subject [good
and evil] cannot receive full verification, but what is explained in it is
explained by generally accepted premises. (p. )
He explains this as he did in the commentary on the Song of Songs,
where he used almost the same words to write about the premises used
in metaphysics. Verification in politics is weak because “one may find
explanations based on [its premises] for one thing and its contrary”
(ibid.).
Here Gersonides relies explicitly on Aristotle but does not cite the
work on which he relies. Inasmuch as he generally attributes to Aristotle
himself what is in fact Ibn Rušd’s explanation in his middle commentaries
(unless he is sure that these are Ibn Rušd’s original ideas), it is likely that
17 In his commentary on Proverbs Gersonides defines the premises of the apodictic
sciences as “essential [i.e., inherent] and appropriate.” He includes physics among the
apodictic sciences: “This is the knowledge (yedi#ot) that can be acquired by means
of inherent and appropriate premises, that is, apodictic sciences (hokhmot)
. like the
mathematical sciences and natural science [physics]” (p. ). The references to the
has. s. a#ah of Proverbs are to the text published in Braner, “Gersonides’ Introduction to
the Commentary on Proverbs.”
 sara klein-braslavy
he has a middle commentary in mind18—probably that on the Topics.

There Ibn Rušd explains the second utility of dialectic—its usefulness in
disputations (mahloqot)
. with the masses (he-hamon)—as follows:
Its usefulness in the disputations with the masses is because of the necessity
that brings them to associate on the basis of justice and virtue and to
believe in many of the theoretical topics that are beneficial to them in
their political associations. This being the case, and because theoretical
matters can be verified only by means of generally accepted methods,
namely, the arguments employed in this art [i.e., dialectic], [it is best]
that the theoretical topics be corroborated by them [generally accepted
arguments]. For they are more difficult to counter than rhetorical and
poetical arguments, although rhetorical and poetical methods can be used
here instead of dialectical methods, as has been elucidated in political
science. (Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ], fol. r)
Gersonides explains this passage in his supercommentary:
This being the case, and the things that the master of political sciences
believes that people should conduct themselves according to or distance
themselves from, cannot be verified to them, meaning the masses, other
than by generally accepted methods, because the theoretical premises can
lead only to the true and false, and not to the disreputable and choice;
and this is what the master of political science should strive for in his
commentary. . . . And these methods, i.e., the generally accepted ones,
are the arguments that are employed [especially] in this art. And because
the topics investigated in political science cannot be fully verified for the
masses other than by generally accepted methods, as [stated] before, it is
generally accepted arguments that corroborate these topics. (Munich
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. héb.  /  [IMHM ], fol. rv)
This resembles what he writes in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on
Ecclesiastes (quoted above) about the weakness of dialectic in politics.
Gersonides repeats this same claim in the commentary on Proverbs,
where he speaks not of verification in a particular science but of verifica-
tion by dialectic in general. Here the explanation of the nature of gener-
ally accepted premises is a part of his biblical exegesis.
In the third utility to Prov. :–, where he summarizes the lesson to
be learned from these verses he writes:
Because there is some evident danger in what is acquired through binah
[knowledge acquired through dialectical syllogisms], inasmuch as one
does not come to it by means of apodictic premises, in the manner of
18 See S. Klein-Braslavy, “Gersonide commentateur d’ Averroès,” in Sirat, Klein-Brasla-
vy and Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide, pp. –, on p. . An English
translation of the chapter is included in my forthcoming collection of essays (above n. ).
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
the verification that is achieved in the mathematical sciences [by means

of both explanatory and factual demonstration], nor by means of demon-
strations from observation (mofet re"iyyah, demonstratio per signum)], as
in natural science, but by means of generally accepted premises. And based
on them, one may find demonstrations for both a thing and its opposite.19
(a/r)
In the commentary on the Song of Songs Gersonides does not cite

Aristotle in support of the claim that generally accepted premises “lead
to two contraries or contradictories” (p. /p. ) or that “based on
them one may find demonstrations for both a thing and its opposite”
(p. /p. ) nor does he cite him in the third utility of Prov. :–
. But in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes he explicitly
relies on the Topics. He probably means Ibn Rušd’s Short Commentary
on the Topics, at the end of which Ibn Rušd explains that the practice
of dialectical syllogisms based on generally accepted premises is a useful
preparation for establishing and refuting opinions in disputations: “Since
most of the generally accepted premises are opposites, it is possible on
the basis of these premises to establish and refute the very same thing”
(b/–).20
In this passage Ibn Rušd is speaking of practice in the question-and-
answer method in disputation and not of the weakness of dialectic as
a method of verification. He explains that because generally accepted
premises tend to be pairs of opposites, disputants can pick and choose
between them in order to refute or corroborate the same opinion. Ger-
sonides regarded this not as an explanation of how disputation is to be
conducted but as a weakness of dialectic as a method of verification:
scholars who employ it cannot know which conclusion is true and hence
cannot attain certain knowledge.
To sum up this part: In his commentaries on all three of Solomon’s
books Gersonides maintains that the weakness of dialectic as a method
of verification derives from its reliance on generally accepted premises,
which can lead to contrary or contradictory conclusions. It follows that
19 In his commentary on Proverbs Gersonides does not seem to distinguish between
the degree of verification in mathematics and in physics as he does in this commentary

on Song of Songs, but only between the degree of verification of these two sciences on
the one hand and that of metaphysics and politics on the other hand.
20 References are to the Hebrew translation of Yakov ben Makhir, Kol melekhet hig-
gayon (Riva di Trento, ), followed by the English translation (from the Arabic) of
C.E. Butterworth, ed. and trans., Averroës’ Three Short Commentaries on Aristotle’s Topics,
Rhetoric, and Poetics (Albany, ).
 sara klein-braslavy
even though dialectical syllogisms have the same form as demonstrative

syllogisms they cannot lead to true and certain knowledge. Because
dialectic is the only method available in metaphysics and in politics,
certain knowledge in these sciences is unattainable.
Dialectic as a Method of Examination
In all three commentaries Gersonides holds that it is possible to over-

come the weakness of the dialectical method as a method of verification
and to employ it to attain true and certain knowledge. The weakness
of dialectic as a method of verification can be remedied by employing
dialectic as a method of examination.
Gersonides describes the method fully in his commentaries on Eccle-
siastes and Proverbs. In the first of these he presents it in propria persona:
This is why the Philosopher [Aristotle] said in the general argument in the
third [book] of the Metaphysics, that it is appropriate that one first collect
all of the generally accepted premises that may apply to each question
and afterwards winnow out the correct (s. odeq) ones from the incorrect,
because in this way one can easily arrive at the premises that lead to the
truth in each question. (p. )
In the commentary on Proverbs he presents the method through his
exegesis of the biblical texts, i.e., as Solomon’s approach. He describes the
method in his glosses on several words and verses, notably the following.
In the “Explanation of the Words” to Prov.  Gersonides explains the
word mezimmah (Prov. :), which he takes to denote generally accepted
premises:
Mezimmah is the supposition [or opinion]21 that is the starting point
(hathalah)
. of knowledge [da#at, in the sense of “metaphysical knowledge”]
and leads to it. When a person wants to determine the truth of the matter
he takes the opinions that apply to it, and takes those among them that
are correct, and sets aside those that are incorrect, as is mentioned in the
Topics and in the Metaphysics. (p. )
Explaining Prov. :– he says:
The sciences (hokhmot)
. are very lofty [i.e., too high] for a fool, who does
not imagine that he can attain them; consequently he does not open his
21 As I have shown in my article “Dialectic in Gersonides’ Commentary on Proverbs,”
Gersonides identifies “opinion/opinions [mahšavah/ma

. hšavot]”
. with generally accepted
premise(s). See there, nn. , , , and .
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
mouth when he is in the gate with wise men. Next he explains the reason
for this: if someone lays plans to befriend opinions and attach them to
himself [i.e., a ba#al mezimmot] and thereby endeavors to master the
opinions that apply to this question,22 the sciences (ha- hokhmot)
. will
summon him to acquire them, because this is the way that a man can
attain them, as the Philosopher [Aristotle] stated in the Topics and the
Metaphysics; for in this he will be prepared (yukhan lo)23 to winnow the
correct ones from the incorrect ones and will thus acquire knowledge
without any doubt, as explained there. (a/r)
Explaining Prov. :– he says:

Know truly that if you have a strong desire to acquire binah and “call” and
“cry aloud” (v. ) to binah, just as a man calls to someone he wants and
desires, and if you “seek” it (v. ), just as people seek silver and search for
it or search for treasures, digging here and there until they find them, in
the same way you will find tevunah; that is, you should collect all of the
generally accepted premises that apply to the question you are investigating
and then separate the correct ones from the incorrect ones. This is how you
should “seek it as you do silver and treasures” (v. ); for people dig in a place
to see if there is a silver lode there, and if it turns out that digging there will
not lead them to find silver, they do this again until they find a place where
there is a silver lode. (b/v)
In these passages Gersonides presents dialectic as a method of exami-
nation that consists of two stages. First one collects all of the generally
accepted premises on which the dialectical syllogisms that are supposed
to verify an opinion about the subject in question can be based.
The second step is to examine these premises and determine which of
them are true and which are false.24 Because the form of the dialectical
syllogism is the same as that of the demonstrative syllogism, dialectical
syllogisms are valid. Hence when the investigator, using dialectic as a
22 The standard rendering of Prov. :– is “Wisdom is too high for a fool; in the gate
he does not open his mouth. He who plans to do evil (leharea#) will be called a mischief-
maker (ba#al mezimmot).” But Gersonides has a radically different understanding of the
text. In his reading, the verb leharea# is derived, not from ra#, “evil,” but from rea#, “friend.”
The ba#al mezimmot is not someone who plots mischief, but, as in his gloss on Prov. :, a
person who wants to “make friends” with the generally accepted premises and who tries
to get to know all of those that are related to the question at hand.
23 Miqra"ot gedolot: “he will be able” (yukhal); but this is a mistake and the MS version
is correct.
24 Prov. :– describes, according to Gersonides, the first step. Commenting on
these verses, Gersonides explains the use of this step and describes the whole method:
the collection of the premises enables examination of all the premises and hence the
attainment of the true premises, i.e., the second step of the dialectical method as a method
of examination.
 sara klein-braslavy
method of examination, extracts the true premises and places only them
in the dialectical syllogisms, he necessarily reaches true and certain
conclusions.
Gersonides does not spell out how dialectic as a method of exami-
nation enables one to distinguish the true premises from the false. In
his commentary on Prov. : he explains that in order to find the true
premises one has to examine all the generally accepted premises that
relate to the matter at hand. Only an examination of all of them can
ensure that no premise that could possibly be used as the basis for the
investigation has been omitted, so that the examination of the premises
necessarily leads to identification of the true ones:
It is appropriate to make an effort to find tevunah [verifying the premises
by means of the method of examination, which is compared to excavation]
because it cannot be attained through essential premises; consequently
one must not be confident that the premises held at the beginning of
the inquiry will yield truth until after one has verified all of them, as we
mentioned. (b/v)
He repeats the idea several times in the commentary on Proverbs25 and
stresses it especially in the commentary on :–, where he says that one
who uses the dialectical method “will thus acquire knowledge without
any doubt” (a/r).
Gersonides holds that after one has collected all possible generally
accepted opinion on the question at hand it is easier for him to winnow
out the true ones. Apparently he thinks that the ability to discern the
true premises depend on the personal qualifications of the investigator.
Dialectic provides the opposing premises but the investigator has to
winnow out the correct ones.
This interpretation is strengthened by his commentary on the Song
of Songs. There (on :) Gersonides notes two prerequisites for deter-
mining the appropriate premises that can serve as the basis for finding
truth in metaphysics: training in the art of dialectic, along with “a set-
tled mind and calming of the effervescence of the bodily temperaments”
(p.  / p. ). It is the second condition that interests us here.26 Gerson-
ides explains it as follows:
25 See the Third Utility derived from Prov. :– (a/v); commentary on Prov.
: (a–b/v); commentary on Prov. : (b/r); commentary on Prov. :

(a/r–v).
26 The first precondition will be dealt with in the third section of the article.
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
This is so [that one must have a settled mind and calming of the effer-
vescent temperaments] because in this art one uses generally accepted
premises, a characteristic of which in most cases is that one may find
demonstrations based on them for both a thing and its opposite; hence
the mind of one who inquires into it should be quite settled, to the point
that it takes from these generally accepted premises true premises only.
(ibid.)
He explains this condition in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary: If “the
effervescence of his bodily temperaments has not been calmed,” a person
runs the risk that “yearning to follow after his desires brings him to make
his views in this science [metaphysics] in accordance with what pleases
him as is well known concerning Eliša Aher . when he entered Pardes”
(p.  / p. ). According to this passage, such a man chooses the generally
accepted premises that will lead him to his desired outcome, rather than
the true ones.27
However, Gersonides also proposes a criterion for identifying the gen-
erally accepted premises that are true. He alludes to it in the commen-
tary on Prov. :–, in the Third Utility derived from the verses, and
in the “Explanation of the Words” on Prov. :–.28 He explains that
hokhmah,
. identified here with physics, should be studied before tevunah,
identified here with metaphysics and politics, because it helps protect
against the errors that may be present in generally accepted premises.29
Gersonides does not explain how knowledge of physics can do this. It is
27 According to Wars V.., Eliša ben Abuyah’s mistake was “in thinking that the
deity who governs the sublunar things is different from the deity that governs the celes-
tial world. His error was based on the supposition that the principle that governs the
corruptible things is necessarily different from the principle that governs the incorrupt-
ible things. After he considered this matter he thought that the principle of the corruptible
things must be corruptible as well. This led him to think that there is no immortality of the
human soul at all, since according to him, the corruptible things lack something through
which permanence would be possible; for their principle is corruptible” (p.  / :–
). According to this interpretation of Eliša’s thought, Eliša chose incorrect premises,
which led him to the false conclusion that the human soul is not immortal. Page refer-
ences to the Wars of the Lord are to the Leipzig edition of  and then to Feldman’s
English translation: Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides), The Wars of the Lord, trans. S. Feld-
man,  vols. (Philadelphia, –).
28 For a full analysis of these commentaries see Klein-Braslavy, “Dialectic in Gerson-
ides’ Commentary on Proverbs,” pp. –.

29 According to the Third Utility to Prov. :–, “error may emerge here whether
because of the premises adopted at first glance [lit., at the beginning of the thought],
or because of an error produced by the imagination, or because a person grew up
with contemptible opinions on this matter or learned them from mistaken persons and
inclines toward them as a result of study or custom, or because of an appetite that leads
him to select the idea that is better suited to quenching his thirst” (a/r).
 sara klein-braslavy
possible that he regards hokhmah

. as the touchstone for judging the con-
clusions reached through these syllogisms. When these conclusions can-
not be reconciled with hokhmah,
. the generally accepted premises from
which they were inferred must be false.30
Gersonides may have this role of hokhmah
. in mind in the has. s. a#ah
to the commentary on Song of Songs, where he writes that “this science
[metaphysics] is impossible for one who is not fixed strongly in the true
views, [which he attains] by [study] of the Torah and by speculation”
(p.  / p. ). Here “speculation” means philosophical inquiry. That is,
the true views to which he attains by study of the Torah and philosophical
inquiry serve as a touchstone for the generally accepted premises on
which the science of metaphysics is based.31
To sum up: dialectic as a method of examination can serve philo-
sophical inquiry and make it possible to reach the truth even on the
basis of generally accepted premises. When examined critically, generally
accepted premises can replace the “particular and appropriate” premises
used in demonstrations. The differences between dialectical investigation
and demonstrative investigation are minimized. Dialectical syllogisms,
and not only absolute demonstration and demonstration per signum, can
be a valid tool for philosophical inquiry. The truth that is reached through
the method of examination is truth “without any doubt.”
In the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesiastes Gersonides men-
tions Metaphysics III as the source of this method and makes an interest-
ing connection between the contention, which he attributes to the Topics,
that generally accepted premises may serve as the basis for “explanations
for one thing and its contrary,” and the utility of the dialectical method
that he identifies in Metaphysics III. He claims that the Metaphysics, by
suggesting using the method of examination to test the premises of the
dialectical syllogisms, provides the remedy to the weakness of dialectic
expounded in the Topics. Hence Aristotle’s Metaphysics complements the
Topics.
Thus far Gersonides’ remarks about dialectic as a method of exami-
nation may give the impression that the method is to be used only in
politics and metaphysics, where dialectical syllogisms are the only way
30 Ruth Glasner has suggested the explanation that physics can serve as a touchstone
for judging these conclusions because its premises can be verified empirically.
31 It is important to note that here Gersonides mentions a “non-philosophical” condi-
tion for the study of metaphysics as well: the true opinions learned from the Torah. The
Torah serves as a touchstone for judging the generally accepted premises on the basis of
which one can attain the truth in metaphysics.
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
of verification. It can be used to determine the true premises on which

these sciences rest. But in the has. s. a#ah to the commentary on Ecclesi-
astes Gersonides adds an interesting comment on another utility of the
method—its utility in inquiry in natural science. He writes that Aristotle
recommended the use of the method in natural science, too, and applied
it in his own investigations:
And the Philosopher [Aristotle] has already given this advice [to use the
method of examination as described here] regarding demonstrative ques-
tions. Therefore you will find that in natural science the Philosopher antic-
ipated [the inquiry in] every question by the generally accepted premises
relating to it. (p. )
He emphasizes that dialectic as a method of examination is important for

inquiries in physics, which does employ demonstrations, and not only in
the sciences that cannot use demonstrations.
At the end of this remark he notes, “We have expatiated on the utility
of this rule (siddur) in our commentary on the Topics and in our com-
mentary on the Metaphysics, so I have been brief here” (ibid.).
All through his works Gersonides describes his style as one of conci-
sion.32 Here he declares that the has. s. a#ah of the commentary on Ecclesi-
astes is written in this style. Because he had already written about the use-
fulness of the method of examination in his commentaries on the Meta-
physics and on Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics he did not
want to repeat the point here. As in similar cases, readers must consult
those supercommentaries to understand Gersonides’ notion in full.
We can learn from this remark that Gersonides considers his biblical
commentaries to be an integral part of his oeuvre and does not think
that they stand by themselves as theological works; all of his books com-
plement the others and his views are to be learned from their sum total.
We can also learn something about how he looked at his supercommen-
taries on Ibn Rušd and his commentary on the Metaphysics—not only
as explanations of his predecessors’ texts, but as expressions of his own
ideas, too.
The remark also sheds lights on his previous statement about the utility
of dialectic in the study of physics. Gersonides informs readers that they
can learn more about his concept of dialectic from his commentaries on
32 See the introduction to the Wars, p.  / :; the prologues to the supercommentaries
on Ibn Rušd’s middle commentaries on Aristotle (see Klein-Braslavy, “Gersonide com-

mentateur d’ Averroès,” pp. –) and his introductions to the biblical commentaries
(see Klein-Braslavy, “Les commentaires bibliques—Les introductions,” pp. –).
 sara klein-braslavy
the Metaphysics and the Topics. Unfortunately the commentary he began

to write on the Metaphysics was lost,33 so our only recourse today is to
the supercommentary on the Topics.
In the Middle Commentary on the Topics, explaining the first man-
ner of the third utility of dialectic—that with respect to the theoretical
sciences—Ibn Rušd writes as follows:
And that [the use of dialectic as a method of examination] is most needed
in those cases in which the essential is mixed with the accidental. And this
occurs in fact in physics, metaphysics, and politics, but not in mathematics.
And we find that Aristotle rarely brings a demonstrative proof in these
three sciences unless a dialectical doubt precedes the demonstration.
(Paris BNF, MS héb. , fol. r)
Gersonides comments on “and this occurs in fact in physics”:
Because for the most part we use in it [physics] a proof that proceeds
from the posterior to the prior, because the senses are necessary in this
art. Hence in this art [physics] what is essential (ma še-be-#as. mut) is mixed
with what is accidental. For example: it seems that the brain is the cause of
sensation and movement, because we see that sensation and movement are
confused when it [the brain] is confused. But inquiry shows that they are its
cause [should be it (the brain) is their (i.e., sensation and movement) cause]
only accidentally, because experience (huš). shows that sensation (ha-huš)
.
and movement are also found in that which lacks a brain.
(Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hebr.  / , fol. r)
33 Gersonides wrote only a partial commentary on the Metaphysics. The commentary
is mentioned in the catalogue of his library, which he seems to date from , as “part of a
commentary to the Meta[physics] by myself, Levi.” See G.E. Weil, La bibliothèque de Ger-
sonide d’ après son catalogue autographe (Paris and Louvain, ), p. . It is clear from
the has. s. a#ah of the commentary on Ecclesiastes that he had already written a commentary
on Metaphysics III, . We do not know whether this was Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary,
Ibn Rušd’s Long Commentary, or Aristotle’s own text. Steinschneider (Die hebräischen
Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher [Berlin, ]: § , p. )
believes that the supercommentary in question was on Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary
on the Metaphysics, because it is quoted in the introduction to Gersonides’ commentary
on Ecclesiastes alongside the commentary on Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the
Topics. Steinschneider was followed by Touati, La pensée philosophique et théologique de
Gersonide, p.  and Weil, La bibliothèque de Gersonide, pp. –. In my article, “The
Opinions that Produce the Aporias in Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord,” p.  n. , I sug-
gested that he wrote about Aristotle’s text itself. Ruth Glasner, “Gersonides’ Lost Com-
mentary on the Metaphysics,” Medieval Encounters  ()” –, rejects the view
of Steinschneider and Touati and is inclined to accept my conclusion. However, she also
advances the possibility that Gersonides wrote his commentary on Ibn Rušd’s Long Com-
mentary (see p. ).
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
Gersonides explains the utility of dialectic in politics and metaphysics

in another way:
And these two sciences, when they are perfectly constituted are constituted
from the correct (s. odeq) generally accepted [opinions] not because they are
generally accepted but because they are correct. So one can find benefit in
the art of dialectic, in the manner [stated] before, to distinguish what is
correct in them from what is incorrect. (ibid.)
According to the Topics I. (b), I. (a–b), the possible
or plausible opinions (anadoxa)—translated into Arabic as mašhūrāt and
from Arabic to Hebrew as mefursamot (= generally accepted opinions)—
addressed by dialectic are those we accept on the basis of authority—
whether the authority of the many (that is, opinions accepted by every
human being or by most human beings) or the authority of wise men (by
all, by the majority, or by the most notable and reputable of them).34 Ger-
sonides states here that in politics and metaphysics we should accept gen-
erally accepted opinions not because they are generally accepted—i.e.,
not because some authorities profess them—but because they are correct;
that is, because we have employed the method of examination and found
them to be correct. As we saw in all his commentaries on the Solomonic
books, Gersonides stresses that generally accepted opinions can yield
opposing consequences. The mere fact that authorities professed them
does not guarantee that they are correct. The supercommentary on the
Middle Commentary, though written before the biblical commentaries,
fits in perfectly with this observation.
In his Long Commentary on Metaphysics III,  Ibn Rušd emphasizes
the importance of the method of examination in physics. He explains
Aristotle’s aim in the Metaphysics as follows:
His goal in this treatise is first to present the dialectical arguments that
both corroborate and refute the same thing in all difficult questions in this
science [metaphysics], because attaining full knowledge of something, i.e.,
demonstrative knowledge, requires that a man first know the contradictory
arguments about it and then [proceed to] resolve them on the basis of the
demonstration of this same thing. And this is Aristotle’s custom in all the
sciences, i.e., in the most difficult problems in them. . . .
(Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ], fol. v)
34 See Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the Topics, Paris BNF, MS héb. , fols. v,
v .
 sara klein-braslavy
He then stresses the importance of dialectical arguments in natural

science:
But in the study of natural science he saw that it is more excellent for one
who wants to construct a demonstration of this question to precede it by
the dialectical inquiry in every question. (ibid.)
Gersonides was familiar with the Long Commentary and could have
been influenced by Ibn Rušd’s argument there. Perhaps he also included
this remark in his lost commentary on the Metaphysics.
In the has. s. a#ah of the commentary on Ecclesiastes, however, Gerson-
ides adds another remark about the use of the method of examination in
the study of physics:
Therefore you will find that in natural science the Philosopher [Aristo-
tle] preceded [the inquiry in] every question by the generally accepted
premises relating to it [to physics]. (p. )
Not only did Aristotle recommend the use of the method of examination
in demonstrative questions, he himself applied it in his own investiga-
tions in physics. Gersonides seems to be thinking of the first book of the
Physics.35 He combines his knowledge of Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commen-
tary on the Topics with his knowledge of Ibn Rušd’s commentary on the
Physics and supplements the theoretical argument with a proof based on
its practical application.
Dialectic as Mental Exercise
In the commentary on the Song of Songs (:) Gersonides mentions

another use of dialectic in philosophical investigation—dialectic as men-
tal exercise. One of the preconditions (tena"im) of dialectical investi-
gation is that the investigator train himself in the art of dialectic as a
question-and-answer method. Here he is referring explicitly to the begin-
ning of the Topics. As he knew the Topics only through Ibn Rušd’s Middle
Commentary, the reference is to the first utility of dialectic mentioned by
Ibn Rušd at the beginning of that work.36
35 Gersonides knew Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the Physics and wrote his
own supercommentary on it (). In the Middle Commentary Ibn Rušd emphasized

Aristotle’s use of the dialectical method in Physics I–IV and described the different stages
of its applications there.
36 In the Middle Commentary on the Topics Ibn Rušd extends Aristotle’s remarks
in Topics I,  (a–) about the utility of dialectic and goes beyond him in the
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
According to Aristotle, the first utility of dialectic is as mental gym-

nastics, training in the question-and-answer technique. The application
of this technique is subject to two possible interpretations. First, its pur-
pose may be to train debaters to defeat their opponents and emerge vic-
torious; if so, dialectic does not necessarily aim at the truth and may actu-
ally run counter to science and philosophy. Alternatively, training in this
technique is a preparation for philosophy. This interpretation is based
on the presupposition that dialectic is a mode of philosophical investi-
gation and not just a debating technique. In the Middle Commentary
on the Topics Ibn Rušd adopted the second interpretation: dialectic leads
to the sciences. It provides the rules and the methods for establishing
and refuting opinions and doctrines. According to the introduction to
the commentary, the rules provided by dialectic are those of the dialec-
tical question-and-answer method. When one party to a debate employs
these rules he can use them to challenge the premises of his opponent—
who can, in turn, use them to rebut the challenge and support his own
premises. According to this interpretation, training in dialectical rules
and methods is a preparatory step for philosophical inquiry. In order to
attain truth, philosophical inquiry must refute false opinions and cor-
roborate true opinions. Hence it employs the same rules and methods
as dialectical disputation. Ibn Rušd states that knowledge of these rules
and methods and practice in applying them enables inquirers to distin-
guish between true and the false opinions better than they could merely
by debating them. He likens training in dialectic to horsemanship: just as
training in horsemanship as sport is a preparation for warfare, training
in dialectical argumentation is a preparation for philosophy. From the
analogy we can infer that training in the dialectical method of question-
and-answer is a sort of sport too—a contest or a game. But this game
prepares competitors to conduct serious philosophical inquiry:
Its utility in training (hergel) that prepares [one] for the sciences. When
we dispose of known general rules and known methods and apply them
to the corroboration or refutation of something, the capacity in this art
it develops for us, so that we can test these doctrines and opinions and
distinguish the true among them from the false, is more perfect and better
prepared than the capacity that is created in us by mere training without
the knowledge of these rules. Therefore, one can attain perfection in this
explanation of the three uses of dialectic. That is why Kellner, in his Hebrew edition of the
text (p.  n. ), says that he did not find the text Gersonides alluded to here. Indeed, the
passage is not found at the beginning of Aristotle’s original treatise but only in Ibn Rušd’s
commentary thereon.
 sara klein-braslavy
art by both of these things, i.e., training and knowledge of the rules. And it
is evident that the training aimed by this art is a preparation for philosophy,
as training in horsemanship for sport is preparation for war.
(Paris BNF, MS héb.  [IMHM ] fol. v)
In his supercommentary on Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary on the Top-
ics, Gersonides takes “philosophy” to mean “metaphysics.” He replaces
“doctrines and opinions” by “generally accepted premises.” Hence
according to his interpretation training in corroboration and refutation
is training in distinguishing between true and false generally accepted
premises and is thus a preparation for choosing the true ones so that
they can be used as the basis for dialectical syllogisms. As such, dialec-
tic is a preparation for inquiry in metaphysics that is based on generally
accepted premises and that employs dialectical syllogisms:
Its utility in training (hergel) that prepares [one] for the sciences, i.e., the
benefit derived from it is that the training in the practice of this art is more
perfect, as the purpose of that training and its benefit, when it is attained
in a perfect way, is to prepare for the sciences, because by this training
man acquires some preparation for philosophy, because philosophy is
constituted by the correct generally accepted premises. (Munich
Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. hebr.  /  [IMHM ] fol. r)
The “prerequisite training” that Gersonides presents in the commentary
on Songs : is based on this understanding of the first utility of dialectic.
Gersonides thinks that the methods used in disputation are the same as
those used in the dialectical method of examination; hence practice in the
use of dialectical rules and methods in disputations prepares the inquirer
to identify the true generally accepted premises that should be used in
metaphysics.
According to the understanding of the first utility of dialectic, “train-
ing” complements the account of dialectic presented in the commen-
taries on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes: dialectical syllogisms can be used to
attain true and certain consequences if the generally accepted premises
on which they are based have first been subjected to dialectic as method
of examination. That examination eliminates the false premises, leaving
only the true ones for use in the syllogism. Exercise in applying the rules
and methods of dialectic in a question-and-answer format can improve
the investigator’s skill in applying dialectic as a method of examination,
which in turn allows him to overcome the “weakness” of the dialectical
method as a method of verification.
To sum up: Drawing on Aristotle’s Metaphysics and on his under-
standing of Ibn Rušd’s commentaries on the Topics, especially the Middle
dialectic in gersonides’ biblical commentaries 
Commentary, along with his interpretation of the remarks about the use-
fulness of three types of dialectic—dialectic as a method of verification,
dialectic as a method of examination, and dialectic as training (i.e., as
mental exercise)—in his biblical commentaries Gersonides offers a com-
plete theory of dialectic as an investigative tool that makes it possible
to acquire true and certain scientific knowledge in metaphysics, politics,
and physics.
DEMONSTRATIVE ASTRONOMY:
NOTES ON LEVI BEN GERŠOM’S ANSWER TO GUIDE II.24*
José Luis Mancha
And to fatigue the minds with notions that cannot

be grasped by them and for the grasp of which
they have no instrument, is a defect in one’s inborn
disposition or some sort of temptation.
Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed II.
But this is utterly absurd; for if it were true, then

nature would have endowed us with a faculty for
theoretical inquiries that would be for no purpose.
Moreover, the natural desire we have for theoretical
knowledge would also be superfluous; which is also
absurd, since nature does not do anything in vain.
Levi ben Geršom, The Wars of the Lord I.
Levi ben Geršom (Gersonides) was equally proficient as a reader of
Ptolemy’s Almagest and of Maimonides’ Guide (he was at once Syrus
and Joseph ben Judah). The Wars of the Lord, the culmination of his
philosophical and scientific activity, was the outcome of a careful, crit-
ical, and constant dialogue with both works. Scholars knowledgeable
about medieval astronomy readily admit that the astronomical section
of Book V of the Wars (Wars V.) constitutes an articulated and math-
ematically sophisticated solution to Maimonides’ “true perplexity” and
also agree that it gives us a better understanding of the nature and
extent of Maimonides’ problem.1 In contrast to Maimonides, Gersonides’
* This article is offered as a tribute of friendship, appreciation, and gratitude to Gad
Freudenthal. I would like to thank Ruth Glasner for checking some Hebrew texts for me
and Sara Klein-Braslavy for providing me with copies of her  and  papers on
Gersonides (the first in an English version still unpublished). I wish to thank them also
for their detailed comments on this work.
1 Y.T. Langermann, “The True Perplexity: The Guide of the Perplexed, Part II, Chap-
ter ,” in J.L. Kraemer, ed., Perspectives on Maimonides. Philosophical and Historical Stud-
ies (Oxford, ): –; idem, “My Truest Perplexities,” Aleph  (): –;
Gad Freudenthal, “Gersonide, génie solitaire. Remarques sur l’évolution de sa pensée et
 josé luis mancha
purpose was ambitious: to describe the true configuration of the heavenly

orbs so that no doubt could remain, and to show that no model other
than those offered in his work agreed with the observed data of plane-
tary motion and the principles of natural philosophy. In the colophon of
the work, dated December , he asserted that the results of his inves-
tigation in Wars V. were “the acme and goal of mathematical sciences,
as far as this can be achieved.”2 Soon afterward, at the beginning of his
Treatise on Geometry, he wrote that had already attained a “demonstrative
astronomy.”3
Nevertheless, in , Wars V. did not contain quantitative mod-
els for the Sun, the Moon, and the planets, or tables of equations from
which predictions could be derived. The part on solar and lunar theory
(chapters – and –) was written after – and thoroughly
revised some time after ;4 moreover, internal evidence strongly sug-
gests that the work was still unfinished when Gersonides died in .
On the other hand, even though Gersonides admitted in various places
that much was added to the text after , he kept repeating that the
work was “completed” by that date.
In what sense did he consider an astronomical text without parame-
ters or tables to be “completed”? What did he mean by “demonstrative
astronomy”? Chapter , which was not written before , provides a
clue. After noting that observational evidence compelled him to depart
from Ptolemy and that he was unable to determine the mean position of
the Sun “until the year  according to the Christian reckoning,” Ger-
sonides writes that
de ses méthodes sur quelque points,” in C. Sirat, S. Klein-Braslavy and O. Weijers, eds,
Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez les scolastiques (Paris,
): –.
2 Wars V..XIV; S. Feldman, trans., Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides). The Wars of the
Lord,  vols. (Philadelphia, –): :.

3 T. Lévy, “Gersonide, commentateur d’ Euclide. Traduction annotée de ses gloses sur
les Éléments,” in Gad Freudenthal, ed., Studies on Gersonides. A Fourteenth-Century Jewish

Philosopher-Scientist (Leiden, ): –, on p. ; R. Glasner, “The Early Stages in
the Evolution of Gersonides’ The Wars of the Lord,” Jewish Quarterly Review  ():
–, on p. .
4 In fact, at least  of the  preserved chapters of the Hebrew version of the
Astronomy were written after , and at least  of these  after ; see J.L. Mancha,
“Levi ben Gerson’s Astronomical Work: Chronology and Christian Context,” Science in
Context  (): – (repr. in J.L. Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and
Optics [Ashgate, ]).
demonstrative astronomy 
. . . we sought to produce a model for each planet consistent with the posi-
tions that we observed even if that entailed a slight deviation from the
values for the maximum planetary corrections postulated by Ptolemy. We
were so eager to achieve this, even before completing all the observations
appropriate to be undertaken by someone whose goal is a perfect investi-
gation in this art [of astronomy], because we feared that, should we perish,
this wonderful science concerning the truly existing planetary models that
we had already attained in a general way would perish too, before we had
a chance to complete the particular details for each planet.5
For Gersonides, then, Wars V. comprised two distinct parts. The first,
completed in , was a general presentation of the arrangement of the
planetary orbs, attained by demonstration; the second, aimed at deriving
the parameters of these arrangements in such a way that their observed
motions were perfectly represented was still unfinished in ; but its
achievement, a matter of time, was entailed by the first one.
My purpose here is to outline Gersonides’ answer to Maimonides:
why he asserted that his research proceeded in a demonstrative way and
why he was confident that, once completed, it would depict the true
configuration of the heavens without the slightest doubt.
What Pines called the skandalon of medieval science resulted from two
intertwined problems. The first is one of consistency: the hypotheses
of eccentrics and epicycles, with or without equant, contradict Aris-
totle’s principle that all the heavenly orbs, and their circular and uni-
form motions, are concentric with the Earth. Among medieval scholars,
though, the weight of Aristotle’s doctrine of the heavens was inversely
proportional to their competence in astronomy6 and largely depended
on the degree of their acceptance of Aristotle’s classification of sciences,
5 B.R. Goldstein, “A New Set of Fourteenth-Century Planetary Observations,” Pro-

ceedings of the American Philosophical Society  (): –, on p.  (emphasis
added).
6 R. Bacon, for instance, who dismissed observational objections to Aristotle’s con-
centric spheres as sophismata ad quae sensus ducit, conducted a lengthy discussion of

the conflict between al-Bit.rūğı̄ and Ptolemy in his Opus tertium and Communia natural-
ium, though he had no understanding of al-Bit.rūğı̄’s models and only a poor knowledge
of Ptolemy’s work. The case of al-Bit.rūğı̄ also suggests that sometimes we miss the trees
for Aristotle’s forest. We often repeat that al-Bit.rūğı̄ was the culmination of Andalusian
Aristotelianism and do not realize that he omitted, without notice, some of Aristotle’s
principles. In the Kitāb fi"l-hay"a, the number of heavenly orbs is less than the number of
motions (that is, an orb is moved by two different motions, at variance with Metaphysics
XII.) and these orbs move only from east to west (at variance with De caelo, II.). In fact,
al-Bit.rūğı̄’s work can be linked to the Rasā"il ihwān al-s. afā" just as well as to Ibn Rušd.
˘
 josé luis mancha
which subordinates astronomy to physics and physics to metaphysics.

Philosophers trained in mathematics and astronomy, like Ibn Bāğğa and
Maimonides, were quick to realize that it was impossible to restore the
lost coherence without modifying Aristotle’s principles.
The second problem is harder to solve than the first and persists
even if the consistency between physical principles and astronomical
hypotheses is restored. It derives from Aristotle’s doctrine that scientific
knowledge should be demonstrative and can be enunciated as follows:
Although a hypothesis is unacceptable if it does not agree with physical
principles, agreement with observation does not prove it true, even if
it is physically acceptable, because it cannot be excluded that another
hypothesis explains the phenomena. In choosing, for instance, between
hypotheses H1 and H2, both of which agree with observation, whereas
only H1 agrees with physical principles, we must prefer H1 and reject H2.
Yet this is no proof of H1, unless we must assume that H 1 and H 2 cannot
both be false. Many medieval authors stated clearly the problem.7
Nowadays, we assert that agreement between observation statements
that are logical consequences of a hypothesis and the phenomena can only
confirm (or corroborate), not verify, that hypothesis. For Ptolemy, an argu-
ment derived from assumptions whose consequences were confirmed
by observation constituted a valid form of scientific knowledge, but it
was not enough (indeed it was unacceptable) for Aristotle. This is not to
object that astronomy cannot provide propter quid (τ διτι) demonstra-
tions (we cannot assert this, because, according to Aristotle, astronom-
ical knowledge proceeds a posteriori), but to point out that agreement
between prediction and observation cannot be considered a quia (τ τι)
demonstration, which, along with mathematical demonstrations, are the
kind allegedly provided by astronomers.
The two problems can be expressed as follows: () From general prin-
ciples (Aristotle’s natural philosophy) that are apparently well demon-
strated (and thus apparently true) we can only deduce observation state-
ments that describe the phenomena incorrectly (and are thus false).
() Particular principles (eccentrics and epicycles) are not demonstrable
(and thus may be false) even though the observation statements deduced
from them correctly describe the phenomena (and thus are true).
7 See, for instance, Ibn Rušd’s penetrating analysis in De caelo II, , and, among
Christian scholars, Aquinas, Summa theologica I, , . See also A.I. Sabra, “Configuring
the Universe: Aporetic, Problem Solving, and Kinematic Modeling as Themes of Arabic
Astronomy,” Perspectives on Science  () (): –, on pp. –.
demonstrative astronomy 
Because Gersonides was a scientist, when phenomena and principles

conflict only the principles are modifiable, because “a reasoning from
which a false conclusion follows must have a falsity in its premises or
in one of them” and “it is improper that we discard [what we know
through] experience on account of conclusions we reach through the-
oretical reasoning.”8
Gersonides considered the variations in apparent planetary sizes as
part of the astronomical data to be explained.9 Quantitative measure-
ment of these variations, using a pinhole camera, and mathematical rea-
soning led him to the conclusion that these variations are indeed vari-
ations in distance, that the doctrine that all the heavenly orbs are con-
centric with the Earth is simply wrong, and that, in consequence, Aris-
totle’s natural philosophy must be modified.10 Other crucial matters,
8 J.L. Mancha and Gad Freudenthal, “Levi ben Gershom’s Criticism of Ptolemy’s
Astronomy,” Aleph  (), –, on pp.  and .

9 On Gersonides’ emphasis on the variations of apparent planetary diameters, see
ibid., pp. –; B.R. Goldstein, The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson (–) (New
York and Berlin, ); idem, “Levi ben Gerson and the Brightness of Mars,” Journal for
the History of Astronomy  (): –; idem, “The Physical Astronomy of Levi
ben Gerson,” Perspectives in Science  (): –. As far as we know, Gersonides was
the only medieval astronomer to derive the eccentricity of the Sun from the variation
of its apparent diameters at solstices. See J.L. Mancha, “Astronomical Use of Pinhole
Images in William of Saint-Cloud’s Almanach planetarum (),” Archive for History
of Exact Sciences  (): –; repr. in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy
and Optics. This departs from the Ptolemaic tradition, which derived it from the Sun’s
unequal zodiacal motion.
10 Gersonides’ modifications in Aristotle’s natural philosophy have been described by
R. Glasner: “Gersonides’ Theory of Natural Motion,” Early Science and Medicine  ():
–; and “Gersonides on Simple and Composite Movements,” Studies in the History
and Philosophy of Science  (): –. Glasner also stressed the importance of
empirical methods in Gersonides’ discussion of Aristotle’s principles. I depart from her,
however, when she holds that Gersonides came to adopt them “while studying al-Bit.rūjı̄’s
criticism of Ptolemaic astronomy” (“The Early Stages”, p. ), a hypothesis that seems to
me extremely unlikely. Gersonides wrote his Book of the Correct Syllogism in  and
his Sefer Ma#aśeh hošev
. in ; by this time he had already attained a level in logic and
mathematics that secured him a place in the history of these disciplines. No evidence
compels us to believe that at that date his mastery of astronomy lagged far behind his
mathematics: the earliest observations recorded in Wars V. (solar and lunar eclipses)
are dated June–July , when he was also working on his Jacob staff. Thus, it is very
difficult to imagine that Gersonides, an assiduous reader of the Almagest, took a long
detour to learn the importance of the empirical method from al-Bit.rūğı̄’s “false concep-
tions of the science of astronomy and of the role of the astronomer.” Gersonides’ verdict
on al-Bit.rūğı̄’s (whose theory, according to him, contradicted observation, natural sci-
ence, and mathematics) was: “I do not know what to say about this man, for I do not
understand his thought: whether he wished to deceive us showing that he had found the
true arrangement of the heavens, although he was aware it was not true, or rather he was
 josé luis mancha
too, are decided on observational grounds.11

As for the second problem (empirical confirmation is not a demon-
stration), it is as if Gersonides opposed the following argument to Mai-
monides: Is it really true (namely has it been demonstrated) that we
cannot demonstrate particular principles from which we can deduce
observation statements that correctly describe the phenomena? Mai-
monides’ position was ambiguous. He admitted that demonstration is
not an absolute impossibility in astronomy (according to Guide I. and
II., astronomers have demonstrated beyond doubt the inclination of
the Sun’s orb and the sphericity of the Sun’s body; according to I.,
those who dispute that the Earth is spherical and that the sphere of the
stars has a circular motion are resisting demonstration). Aristotle had not
been aware of the Sun’s eccentricity, “for in his time mathematics had not
been brought to perfection”—here, as in Nicomachean Ethics I., time
is a good discoverer—and the little we can grasp about the heavens is
acquired through mathematics. But Maimonides also repeated Simpli-
cius’ old defense of Aristotle’s natural science against astronomy, suggest-
ing that no demonstration of whether the Sun has an eccentric orb or
an epicycle is possible—now time is of no avail—and that astronomers
can only save the phenomena, for “it is impossible for us to accede to the
points starting from which conclusions may be drawn about the heavens,
for the latter are too far away from us and too high in place and rank.”
Gersonides’ answer runs parallel to his reply to Maimonides’ perplex-
ity about “eternity versus creation”: the absence of a demonstration is a
historical fact, not a proof of impossibility; nor has the need to resort to
revelation or prophecy been established. Indeed, it has been possible for
us to attain the starting points of demonstrations that lead to conclusions
about the inclination of the Sun’s orb or the solar and lunar distances,
simply wrong and believed that the arrangement he found was true” (Wars, V..; Vat.
Lat. , fols. rb–va: “Nunc quid de hoc homine dicam ignoro, non enim intelligo inten-
tionem ipsius: utrum vellet nos decipere et veram dispositionem se invenisse ostendere,
licet eam non esse veram cognoverit, vel ipse erraverit et dispositionem per eum inven-
tam esse veram crediderit”). The details of Gersonides’ reply to Maimonides’ objection
to eccentrics are also known (J.L. Mancha, “Heuristic Reasoning: Approximation Proce-
dures in Levi ben Gerson’s Astronomy,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences  []:
– [repr. in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics], esp. pp.  ff.).
11 For instance, the rejection of Ptolemy’s lunar model or of the existence of epicycles
(Goldstein, The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, pp. –; J.L. Mancha, “The Provençal
Version of Levi ben Gerson’s Tables for Eclipses,” Archives Internationales d’ Histoire des
Sciences  []: –, esp. p. ; Mancha and Freudenthal, “Levi ben Gershom’s
Criticism of Ptolemy’s Astronomy,” pp. –).
demonstrative astronomy 
despite the heavens are “too far away and high.” Eccentrics and epicycles
are conjectures about the shape and position of the heavenly bodies, and
their existence is thus susceptible of demonstration or refutation, exactly
like the conjectures about the shape of the Earth (spherical or cylindri-
cal) or the position of the Sun’s orb (parallel or inclined to the equator).
Briefly, Gersonides’ answer to Maimonides is that quia demonstrations in
astronomy can proceed far beyond the initial cosmographical sections of
the Almagest—or, in other words, that the “small measure” of the heavens
that human beings can grasp can be increased.
In order to appreciate the details and originality of Gersonides’ solu-
tion, we must look at the order of the treatment of topics in Wars V.
and the Almagest to see how far the former departs from the tradition of
astronomical texts inaugurated by the latter (v. Table ).
There is no parallel in the Almagest to Wars V..–. The length of
this section indicates its importance for Gersonides. In the table the chap-
ters are classed under the rubrics “parts of the contradiction” and “auxil-
iary chapters.” In the former, Gersonides uses successive dichotomies and
trichotomies to construct a logical tree that includes all possible models
to account for the observed data, along with their geometrical properties
and indications of the extent to which they correspond with the initial
data (see the summary of the contents of chapters – in Appendix
A).12 Models that are a priori unable to account for the phenomena are
not considered. Inasmuch as Gersonides holds that from false assump-
tions eventually follow false conclusions,13 the inquiry leads by elimina-
tion to a qualitative model that offers a true picture of the arrangement
of the planetary orbs.
The auxiliary chapters address problems that must be solved before
the quantitative models can be devised: e.g., the direction in which the
motion is transmitted inside the sphere of a planet (from the outermost
12 Chapter  has been edited by Goldstein (The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, esp.
pp. – and –). He pointed out that he was not aware of “a comparably
exhaustive discussion in any other ancient or medieval treatise” but did not deal with
the purpose of Gersonides’ research. The Latin version of chapter  was edited and
published by J.L. Mancha, “Right Ascensions and Hippopedes: Homocentric Models in
Levi ben Gerson’s Astronomy, I: First Anomaly,” Centaurus  (): –; repr. in
Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics. Some indications to help interpret
the meaning and aim of the partes contradictionis in Wars V. can be found there (p. )
and in Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics, p. ix.
13 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb: “Impossibile est quod ex dispositione non vera
sequetur continue conclusio vera.”

 josé luis mancha
Table 
Almagest Wars V.
I.– Introduction, order of theorems – Introduction
I.– Sphericity and circular motion  Trigonometry
of the heavens, centrality and
immobility of the Earth
I. Description of the two primary – Description and use of observation
motions in the heavens instruments (pinhole camera, Jacob
staff, astrolabe)
I.– Trigonometry – Observational data to be accounted
for: () motion in longitude,
() motion in latitude, and ()
variations in apparent diameter
– An inquiry, using the partes
contradictionis method, of all
possible models to account for –:
– Parts of the contradiction
concerning motion in longitude
– Parts of the contradiction
concerning motion in anomaly
– Auxiliary chapters: number and
order of the orbs inside the sphere
of a planet, fluid between spheres
– Parts of the contradiction
concerning motion in anomaly
– Auxiliary chapters: discussion
of Ptolemy’s and al-Bit.rūğı̄’s
theories; Ptolemy’s equant;
methods for determining mean
planetary positions, equations, and
parameters
 Epilogue to chapters –
I. Description and use of observation – Sphericity and circular motion
instruments (ring, quadrant) of the heavens, centrality and
immobility of the Earth, Milky
Way, light of stars and planets
I.–, II Spherical astronomy – Solar theory
III.– Length of the year and mean  Precession
motion of the Sun
III. Hypotheses for uniform circular  Spherical astronomy
motion (eccentrics, epicycles)
III.– Solar theory – Lunar and eclipse theory
IV–V Lunar theory (V. armillary sphere; – Planetary motion in longitude
V. parallactic instrument)
VI Eclipses – Planetary motion in latitude
VII–VIII Precession, catalogue of stars, – Planetary distances
spherical astronomy
IX–XII Planetary motion in longitude
XIII Planetary motion in latitude
demonstrative astronomy 
to the innermost orb, or vice versa), or the approximation methods useful

for deriving planetary parameters when strictly Euclidean procedures
cannot be applied.
In recent years, a series of illuminating articles have dealt with the
role of the “parts of the contradiction” in the philosophical and theo-
logical sections of the Wars14 and with Gersonides’ notion of the sci-
entific method.15 Klein-Braslavy has pointed out that Gersonides uses
the expression “parts of the contradiction” as equivalent to “all the pos-
sible alternatives” exhausting a question, or “the number of parts that
the division may yield.” The simplest case is found in the discussion of
Providence in his commentary on Job () and in Wars IV, where the
possible solutions to the problem correspond to the logical forms in the
traditional square of opposition (A, E, I, or O).16 Klein-Braslavy’s con-
clusion is that Gersonides’ method is a systematization of Aristotle’s dia-
porematic (dialectic) method, which starts with the two contradictory
views—thesis and antithesis, yes or no—that produce an aporia (Top-
ics VI.). He draws on two sources for the opinions that produce the
aporia: historical views or the opinions of earlier thinkers (the endoxi-
cal premises), and all of the logico-philosophically possible answers to
the problem (the parts of the contradiction) and, she asserts, gives pri-
macy to the latter because the truth can be reached only if all the possible
answers are considered.17
In my view, however, it is misleading to apply the label of “diapore-
matic or dialectic method” to Gersonides’ procedure in his commentary
on Ecclesiastes and to that employed used in his discussion of the problem
of the agent of miracles in Wars VI... In the first case, one necessarily
starts from the “commonly accepted opinions,” as they correspond to the
14 S. Klein-Braslavy, “The Opinions that Give Rise to the Aporias in Gersonides’ Wars
of the Lord,” (Heb.) in E. Fleischer, G. Blidstein, C. Horowitz and B. Septimus, eds,

Meah She"arim: Studies in Medieval Jewish Spiritual Life in Memory of Isadore Twersky
(Jerusalem, ): –; eadem, “La méthode diaporématique de Gersonide dans
les Guerres du Seigneur,” in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy, and Weijers, Les méthodes de travail
de Gersonide, pp. –; eadem, “The Alexandrian Prologue Paradigm in Gersonides’
Writings,” Jewish Quarterly Review  (): –.
15 Glasner, “The Early Stages”; eadem, “Gersonides’ Lost Commentary on the Meta-
physics,” Medieval Encounters  (): –.

16 The method proceeds by elimination: “Now that we have cited the various argu-
ments in behalf of these two theories, it is proper to examine in a complete manner if any
of them is true, for this will help us in determining whether the third view is true or false.
For if none of the former theories is true, the third must be true, since all these theories
exhaust the possible alternatives on this question” (Wars IV.; trans. Feldman, :).
17 Klein-Braslavy, “La méthode diaporématique,” pp. –.
 josé luis mancha
ethical (not theoretical) nature of the matter; in the second, where Ger-
sonides’ aim is to provide an indirect proof, the endoxa are superfluous.
In the first case, Gersonides admits that it is not possible to achieve true
demonstrations about the subject, but only probable knowledge; whereas
in Wars IV, V., and VI.. he claims to have reached the truth in a
demonstrative way.
As for the sources of Gersonides’ method, perhaps his commentaries
on the Topics or the Posterior Analytics, once examined, can provide
some useful information; meanwhile, I would suggest the indirect proofs
familiar to mathematicians since Eudoxus—the reductio ad absurdum
(dichotomy) and the double reductio ad absurdum (trichotomy), as in
Book XII of Euclid’s Elements and in Almagest I.–. Medieval astron-
omers, both eastern and western, considered Ptolemy’s proofs to be
quia (innı̄) demonstrations, based only on mathematics and observation;
recall Bı̄rūnı̄’s hostile rejection, in his al-Qānūn al-Mas#ūdı̄, of Ptolemy’s
additional argument, founded on “physical considerations,” in Almagest
I.. The proofs that the Sun’s orb is inclined and that the volume of a cone
is one-third that of a cylinder with the same base and height, mentioned
by Maimonides in I. and I., respectively, have the same logical
structure; the former involves only observation and mathematics. (For
two examples of the exhaustion of all possibilities, taken from Ptolemy’s
Almagest and Tūsı̄’s
. Tadkira, see Appendix B.) In general, we may wonder
whether Gersonides read ¯ Euclid with Aristotle’s eyes or Aristotle through
Euclidean lenses.
As for Glasner, although I agree with her main conclusion that “Ger-
sonides’ experience as a scientist, mainly as an astronomer, dictated his
notion of science and led him to an empiricist interpretation of the Pos-
terior Analytics,” I do not accept her characterization of Gersonides’ sci-
entific method as dialectical (agreeing with Klein-Braslavy’s view) and
“empirical.” The two examples she adduces to show that the method is
dialectical are problematic.18 More importantly, it is not possible to assert
18 I do not believe that we should apply the label “dialectical” to the mathematical
procedure that Gersonides called heqeš tahbuli. in Wars V.. (even in the Hebrew
text of Ibn Rušd’s Epitome of the Almagest is used the word mofet), but I cannot deal
with this matter here (see Mancha, “Heuristic Reasoning”). Glasner cites Gersonides’
discussion, in Wars V..–, of the theories of Ptolemy and al-Bit.rūğı̄ to support
the contention that “demonstrative astronomy” uses the diaporematic method: their
theories would be the “commonly accepted premises” (endoxa) that constitute the aporia.
Instead, Gersonides clearly states that these chapters do not properly belong to the partes
contradictionis: “We have established that al-Bit.rūğı̄’s arrangement does not agree at all
demonstrative astronomy 
that “confirmation by highly accurate observations guarantees the cer-

tainty of science, and hence its right to be regarded as demonstrative
science”19 without, as pointed out by Ibn Rušd and Aquinas,20 falling into
a fallacia consequentis that Gersonides avoided.
Here are several passages from Wars V. that can help us understand-
ing the meaning and purpose of the “parts of the contradiction”:
Once we have assumed those necessary assumptions concerning what
is perceived by the senses on the motions of the planets and the varia-
tions in their apparent diameters, we must posit all the parts of the con-
tradiction which can be posited concerning the arrangement of spheres
and orbs for the planets, so that anyone can verify if what we observe in
with observation. This is why we did not include it among the parts of the contradiction
which we analyzed above, since it would be inappropriate to include it among them
taking into account that this arrangement is very far from truth as well as from our
observations of the heavenly bodies, and also because it is manifest that a single body
cannot be moved at the same time with different motions per se, as assumed in this
arrangement” (Wars, V..; Vat. Lat. , va: “Et est declaratum ex dictis quod
dispositio Alpetragij cum hijs que videmus non concordat cum aliquo. Ideo ista dispositio
in aliqua partium contradictionis quas numeravimus superius non intravit, quia non
decet ipsam intrare aliquam partium predictarum ratione tante distantie ab apparentia
veritatis et ab hijs que in celestibus corporibus nos videmus, et etiam quia est per se
notum quod idem corpus numero per se non potest plures motus simul habere modo
quo in ista dispositione supponitur”). It is worth remembering that an argument is
dialectic if its premises are commonly accepted or reputable opinions; nevertheless, an
argument that starts from premises that are sense percepts and proceeds mathematically
is not dialectic, even if its aim is to refute a commonly accepted opinion. According
to Topics I., an argument can be demonstrative or dialectic (exclusive disjunction); we
have no evidence to think that Gersonides admitted “dialectical demonstrations”; in his
supercommentary on Ibn Rušd’s Epitome of De caelo (), Gersonides wrote that “the
proofs from which follows the truth concerning this entire subject [i.e., eccentrics and
epicycles] are mathematical” (Glasner, “The Early Stages,” p. ). I depart from Glasner on
the following point as well: although Ibn Rušd asserted that eccentrics and epicycles are
assumptions supported neither by demonstration nor by induction, we cannot infer that
“Averroes did not consider astronomy a demonstrative science” (Glasner, “Gersonides’
Lost Commentary on the Metaphysics,” p. ). In his Epitome of the Almagest, Ibn Rušd
only asserts that elementary astronomical textbooks (as al-Farġānı̄’s, for instance) do not
contain demonstrations (J. Lay, “L’Abrégé de l’ Almageste: un inédit d’ Averroes en version
hébraïque,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  []: –); on the other hand, according
to him the motions of the Sun are a proof that the Sun moves on an inclined orb and that
this inclined orb is the cause of these motions; thus, this proof is, clearly, a demonstratio
per signum.
19 Glasner, “Gersonides’ Lost Commentary on the Metaphysics,” p. .
20 “Although the appearances can be saved with these principles [i.e., eccentrics and
epicycles], it is not right to say they are true, because perhaps it is possible to save
the planetary appearances in another way yet not grasped by human beings” (Aquinas,
Expositio in libros de caelo et mundo I, XVII). See also the texts mentioned in note .
 josé luis mancha
the planets concerning the variation of their motions and their diame-
ters follow from them. We will also indicate the properties of the men-
tioned parts of the contradiction, and other characteristics by which a
part of the contradiction can be distinguished from other, so that we can
choose between those that agree with our observations and those which
disagree.21
These parts of the contradiction are all the conceivable parts of the contra-
diction from which that variation follows; it is known that in the heavenly
orbs there is no other possible cause from which this variation can follow
apart from those we have examined, namely the center of the motion, the
motion of the poles, and the distance of the planet to the point of the orb
which moves with the mean motion.22
When we investigated this matter for the Moon and observation showed us
the impossibility of the arrangement posited by Ptolemy, it was necessary
for us to investigate carefully and with effort all the alternative possibilities
which we can conceive for the arrangements of the celestial bodies until
we arrived at an arrangement from which can follow what we observe in
them.23
Taking into account what we have established on the different models for
the motion in longitude and the motion in anomaly, it is clear that there is
no great difficulty, for a man competent on these matters, to find a model
agreeing with the observed motions in longitude and anomaly—either
using the observed amounts of the additive and subtractive corrections
21 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb: “Postquam supponimus illud quod erat neces-
sario supponendum de hiis que per experientias sensibiles nobis apparent de motibus
planetarum et diversitatibus quantitatum diametrorum eorum, necesse est quod pona-
mus omnes partes contradictionis que possent poni de dispositione sperarum et orbium
planetarum, ex quibus posset cogitare quis quod sequerentur ea que videmus in planetis
quoad diversitates motuum et diametrorum eorum. Et declarabimus dictarum partium
contradictionis consequentia et alia de quibus distinguitur una pars contradictionis ab
alia, ut ex eis possimus eligere illa que concordant cum hiis que videmus in ipsis et que
ab eis discordant.” Goldstein (The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, p. ) translates the
Hebrew text of the first sentence (kol helqei
. ha-soter še-efšar) as “all mutually contradic-
tory possible [models].”
22 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb: “ . . . est notum quod iste partes contradictionis
sunt omnes ille quas quis posset imaginari ex quibus sequitur dicta diversitas; quod
autem nulle alie cause sint in speris celestibus ex quibus possit hoc sequi nisi ille quas
nominavimus, que sunt centrum motus, motus polorum et distantia planete a loco cui
est proportionatus motus equalis . . . ”
23 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , vb: “Et quando quesivimus hoc modo in luna, et per
experientiam impossibilitatem dispositionis quam posuit Ptolomeus invenimus, neces-

sarium fuit nobis investigare subtiliter cum labore omnes partes contradictionis imagin-
abiles in celestium corporum dispositionibus in tantum quod ad dispositionem deveni-
mus ex qua poterat sequi accidentia que videmus in eis.” See also Goldstein, “A New Set
of Fourteenth Century Planetary Observations,” p. .
demonstrative astronomy 
or the variation of the apparent diameters of the planets, both occurring at

the different places of the zodiac and of the motion in anomaly—, because
we have analyzed many models, and it is impossible that one of them does
not agree with the truth since we have exhausted all the possibilities.24
In Posterior Analytics I., Aristotle provides the following syllogism as
an example of a proof of the fact (quia demonstration):
The planets do not twinkle;
that which does not twinkle is near;
therefore, the planets are near,
and he adds that we must take the truth of the second premise as having
been reached by (complete) induction or perception. Let us consider
that m means “with the observed features of the planetary motion in
longitude.” Astronomers demonstrated mathematically that what moves
on an eccentric moves with an m-motion, but the syllogism implicit in
their works:
The planets move with an m-motion;
that which moves on an eccentric moves with an m-motion;
therefore, the planets move on eccentrics,
is invalid, as noted by Ibn Rušd, who concluded that astronomy cannot
provide any kind of demonstration concerning eccentrics and epicycles.
On the other hand,
The planets move with an m-motion;
that which moves with an m-motion moves on an eccentric;
therefore, the planets move on eccentrics,
is a valid syllogism, although the truth of the second premise has not been
proven and does not result from induction or perception. Consequently,
if we could provide an indirect proof of it, namely if we could list all
the possible ways of producing m-motion and then demonstrate by
elimination that, of all of them, an m-motion can be inferred only from
24 Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , va–b: “Et est notum quod cum eo quod in disposition-
ibus motus longitudinis et motus diversitatis posuimus non est magna difficultas homini
in ista facultate perfecto invenire dispositionem concordem cum eo quod per experi-
entiam motus longitudinis et in motu diversitatis uidemus, et hoc uel per quantitatem
equationis quam in planetis in quolibet loco çodiaci et motus diversitatis addende vel sub-
trahende videmus, vel diversitatem quantitatis diametrorum visam in planetis in diversis
locis çodiaci vel motus diversitatis; quia nos habemus dispositiones multas paratas, sic
quod est impossibile veritatem non concordari cum una earum, quia contradictionis sunt
partes.”
 josé luis mancha
the eccentric, we would prove without any doubt the premise “that which
moves with m-motion moves on an eccentric,” and our conclusion would
be necessary and true.
The meaning of the chapters devoted to the partes contradictionis
(especially chapters –) is shown by a comparison with Almagest
III.. Ptolemy postulated eccentrics and epicycles (which were undoubt-
edly the results of a previous and unreported inquiry) to account qual-
itatively for the observed planetary motions and provided proofs of
their geometrical properties (these qualitative models are fit to the phe-
nomena later, in Books IX–XIII, with the derivation of parameters for
each planet). Gersonides, by contrast, replaces postulation by deduction,
investigating all conceivable arrangements of orbs in order to find by
elimination the model that accounts for all the observable consequences
of the planets’ motion. This demonstration requires only observation
(which provides us with the magnitudes of the variations in motions and
apparent sizes) and mathematics (which allows us to construct the geo-
metrical models and demonstrate their properties). Thus observational
data are both the outside limits of the set of possibilities to be considered
and the selection criteria to be used inside it; although it is not excluded
that natural science may sometimes be able to provide independent con-
firmation of a limit or selection. The resulting qualitative model consti-
tutes the “wonderful science . . . attained in a general way” by Gersonides
in .
Some years ago I described Gersonides’ proposed solution to the episte-

mological problem as “ingenious but inevitably ingenuous.”25 It is inge-
nious because Gersonides demonstrated a deep insight into the problem
(and a confidence in the capacities of human reason, without which the
growth of knowledge and innovation are not possible). It is ingenuous
because he seems not to have suspected the complexity and difficulties
involved in the construction of the partes contradictionis for the problem
he was trying to solve (“true or false?” and “greater than, equal to, or less
than?” are not questions like “how?”).
Gersonides asserts, for instance, that a motion that is eccentric per
accidens can result only from concentric orbs moving around inclined
axes (as proposed by Eudoxus) or from models in which the planet is dis-
tant from the point of the orb that moves with the mean motion.26 Is this
25 Mancha, Studies in Medieval Astronomy and Optics, p. ix.

26 “Si autem ponatur motus proprie concentricus et per accidens sequetur motus
demonstrative astronomy 
really a dichotomy? The division seems rather ad hoc and strongly sug-
gests a listing of the ways he knew to produce the results he sought. In the
examples from Ptolemy and Tūsı̄. (Appendix B) we are dealing with divi-
sions that soon exhaust the possibilities; but, if the division is combina-
torial, when do we stop? In Wars V.. (Appendix A, Bbb.), Gerson-
ides examines the possibilities of combining three motions (all of them
with velocity v equal to m, the mean motion in longitude) so that the
two motions that produce the variation move in opposite directions. The
combinations explored are () one eccentric and two concentric motions
and () two concentric and one eccentric motion, with the subdivisions
(a) the two eccentrics move in the same or in opposite directions and (b)
the two resulting equations agree (both positive or negative) or disagree
(one positive, the other negative). We can wonder why v = m is a condi-
tion for all three motions. Had Gersonides considered the case in which
the westward concentric motion moves with v = m, but the two eccen-
tric motions with v =  m and v =  m (eastward and westward, respec-
tively), he would have discovered Hafrı̄’s lunar model27 (which avoids the
irregular motion of Ptolemy’s lunar ˘ eccentric, uniform around the Earth
instead of around its own center) and thus solved the equant problem.
There is no doubt that Gersonides was overly confident about the
capacities of human reason; Maimonides’ ignorabimus, though, which-
ever his reasons, was also excessive. In the conflict between the two, we
sometimes forget that they are closer to each other than either is to us.
eccentricus, non subterfugit quin sit altero duorum modorum, vel sit propter motum
polorum, quorum unus circa alium semper giret [ . . .] vel propter distantiam planete a
loco spere cui est proportionatus motus equalis . . .” (Wars V.., Vat. Lat. , rb).
27 G. Saliba, “A Sixteenth-Century Arabic Critique of Ptolemaic Astronomy: The Work
of Shams al-Dı̄n al-Khafrı̄,” Journal for the History of Astronomy  (): –.
 josé luis mancha
Appendix A
Exhaustion of all the possible alternatives
(“parts of the contradiction”) to account for the planetary motion
in longitude (Wars V., chapters , , , and )
Principles: (i) the planets are affixed to their orbs and move only with the
motion of their orbs; (ii) the motion of these orbs is always uniform and the
observed variations are only appearances.
Parts of the Division

A: The variation occurs per se; this is impossible, according to
principle (i) and natural science.
B: The variation occurs per accidens, namely the motion is
uniform but, for some reason, it appears to us as irregular. In
this case, the motion can be:
Ba: concentric; no variation follows;
Bb: eccentric; there are two possibilities:
Bb: the motion is eccentric per se;
Bb: the motion is eccentric per accidens.
In the first case (Bb), two possibilities:
Bba: the motion is simple;
Bbb: the motion is composite.
If the motion is simple (Bba) there are two possibilities:
Bba.: the orb carrying the planet is concentric with the Earth, but
its motion is uniform around another center;
Bba.: the orb carrying the planet is eccentric, and this in two
ways:
Bba..: the eccentric orb encompasses the Earth;
Bba..: the eccentric orb does not encompass the Earth.
If the motion is composite (Bbb), it may consist of
Bbb.: two motions,
Bbb.: three motions,
Bbb.: more than three motions.
In the second case (Bb), there are two possibilities, depending on whether it
follows
Bba: from the motion of concentric orbs moving around inclined
axes, or
Bbb: from the (variable) distance between the planet and the
point of the orb which moves with the mean motion.
Parts of the division of Bba (the motion in longitude is simple; chapter ):
Bba.: the orb carrying the planet is concentric and its motion
uniform around another center.
demonstrative astronomy 
Properties of this model:

• the maximum correction corresponds to an angle of °
of mean motion;
• distance and apparent diameter of the planet do not vary;
• if the eccentricity is made equal in models Bba. and
Bba..a (below), the correction will be greater in model
Bba. than in model Bba..a from ° to ° of mean
motion ahead or behind the beginning of the mean
motion, and the contrary in the remainder of the circle.
Bba.: the orb carrying the planet is eccentric. Two possibilities:
Bba..: the eccentric orb encompasses the Earth;
Bba..: the eccentric orb does not encompass the Earth but it is
placed inside an orb which encompasses the Earth (in this
case, the eccentric orb is called epicycle).
• Conditions under which Bba.. and Bba.. are
observationally equivalent (from both the same apparent
motion and variations in distance follow);
• Properties which are common to models Bba.. and
Bba..:
• the maximum correction will correspond to an angle
(counted from the apogee) greater than ° of mean
motion by the amount of the maximum correction;
• the apparent diameter of the planet varies between a
minimum at apogee and a maximum at perigee.
• Differences between models Bba.. and Bba..:
• in model Bba.. the observer always sees the same
part of the surface of the planet (but not in model
Bba..);
• in model Bba.., the motion of the planet is fastest
when it is farthest from the Earth if the orb carrying the
epicycle and the epicycle move is the same direction;
in model Bba.. the motion is slowest at the farthest
point from the Earth.
When the eccentric orb encompasses the Earth (Bba..), there are two
possibilities:
Bba..a: the motion of the eccentric orb is uniform with respect to
its center;
Bba..b: the motion of the eccentric orb is uniform with respect to
another point. In this case, there are two possibilities:
Bba..b.: the motion is uniform with respect to the center of the
Earth. Properties: the motion of the planet is observed
to be uniform, and the size of the planet appears to vary.
Ptolemy’s lunar theory is constructed according to this
model, although the apparent lunar diameter does not
 josé luis mancha
vary in this way: it should be smaller at opposition than at

quadratures by about 1/3, whereas observation shows that it
is not greater at quadratures than at opposition except for a
little bit;
Bba..b.: the motion is uniform with respect to a point different
from the center of the Earth. Two possibilities:
Bba..b.a: the three points—the center of the sphere (S), the center of
motion (M), and the center of the Earth (E)—are placed in
the same line. There are only three possibilities:
Bba..b.a.: M is placed between S and E. Properties:
• this model can be distinguished from all the other
eccentric models because, if the maximum correction
for ° of apparent motion is set equal in this model to the
maximum correction in the other models, the difference
between the apparent diameter of the planet at apogee
and perigee will be greater than in the other models, since
the distance from the center of the Earth to apogee and
perigee is greater in this model than in any of the other
models;
• the excess of the correction for ° of apparent motion
over the correction for ° of mean motion is greater
than in the other models (including the model in which
this excess was the greatest, i.e., when the motion of the
eccentric sphere took place around its center);
• the correction for angles greater than ° of apparent
motion is greater than the correction for ° of apparent
motion; proof.
Bba..b.a.: S is placed between M and E. Three possibilities:
Bba..b.a..: the distance MS is equal to the distance SE. In this case, the
correction for ° of mean motion is equal to the correction
for ° of apparent motion;
Bba..b.a..: the distance MS is smaller than the distance SE. Properties:
• the correction is greater for ° of apparent motion than
for ° of mean motion; proof;
• if the maximum correction is set equal in this model
and in the model in which the motion of the eccentric
sphere takes place around its own center (Bba..a),
the variation in apparent size of the planet in this
model is smaller than in model Bba..a, since the
distance SE is smaller in this model than in model
Bba..a.
Bba..b.a..: The distance MS is greater than the distance SE. Properties:
• the correction for ° of mean motion is greater than the
correction for ° of apparent motion;
demonstrative astronomy 
• this model can be distinguished from model Bba. (in

which the correction for ° of mean motion is also
greater than the correction for ° of apparent motion)
because the difference between these corrections is greater
in this model than in model Bba..
Bba..b.a.: E is placed between M and S. Properties:
• the swiftest motion takes place in this model when the
apparent diameter of the planet is smallest, and the
slowest motion when its apparent size is greatest;
• if the motion is reckoned from the apogee, the maximum
correction corresponds to ° of mean motion, or to an
angle of apparent motion greater than ° by the amount
of the maximum correction; this correction is to be added
to the mean motion, whereas in the other models it was to
be subtracted;
• if the motion is reckoned from the perigee, the maximum
correction corresponds to ° of mean motion, or to an
angle of apparent motion lesser than ° by the amount of
the maximum correction.
Bba..b.b: the three points are not placed in the same line. Properties:
• the swiftest and slowest motions do not occur at perigee
and apogee, namely at the ends of the diameter passing
through S and E, but at the extremities of the line passing
through E and M;
• the corrections in this model are not symmetric with
respect to the line passing through M and E.
Parts of the division of Bbb (the motion in longitude is eccentric per se but
composite; chapter ). Three possibilities:
Bbb.: it results from three motions, all of them equal to the
motion in longitude (m), the two which produce the
variation moving in opposite directions. Two possibilities:
Bbb..: one motion eccentric, two concentric;
Bbb..: two motions eccentric, one concentric. Different possibilities
depending on whether (a) the two eccentric move in the
same or in opposite directions, and (b) the two resulting
equations agree (both positive and negative) or disagree
(one positive, the other negative).
In some of these cases, two motions would be in vain: e.g., when the two
opposite motions were concentric, or when the two concentric motions would
move eastward and the eccentric one westward.
Bbb.: it results from two motions, the first equal to m,
the second equal to m and opposite to the first; three
possibilities:
 josé luis mancha
Bbb..: the motion which is twice the motion in longitude is

eccentric, the other concentric; in this case, the model
will produce positive and negative corrections twice for each
revolution;
Bbb..: the motion which is twice the motion in longitude is
concentric, the other eccentric; in this case, a motion would
be in vain, since the eccentric one, in the same direction as
the planet, would suffice;
Bbb..: the motion which is twice the motion in longitude is
eccentric, the other also eccentric.
Bbb.: it results from more than three motions, all of them slower
than the motion in longitude; this model will produce more
than one sequence of positive and negative corrections each
period of the motion in longitude.
Parts of the division of Bba (the variation in the motion follows from
concentric orbs moving around inclined axes; chapter ):
Bba: three concentric orbs moving with the mean motion in
longitude of the planet. The first moves from west to east
around the ecliptic poles; the axis of the second lies on the
ecliptic plane and that of the third one is inclined to the
second’s by an amount equal to the maximum correction;
the second orb moves southward and the third northward.
Properties: the maximum correction takes place at ° and
° of mean motion; no variation in apparent size follows;
the planet will exhibit northern and southern latitudes twice
for each revolution.
Parts of the division of Bbb (the variation in the motion follows from the
distance between the planet and the point of the orb which moves with the
mean motion; chapter ):
Bbb.: the orb of the motion in longitude is concentric; two
possibilities:
Bbb.: the planet is placed between the center of the orb and the
point which moves with the mean motion (point A);
Bbb.: point A is placed between the center of the orb and the
planet.
In these cases, no variation follows.
Bbb.: the orb of the motion in longitude is eccentric. There are
two possibilities:
Bbb..: the motion is concentric (i.e., uniform around the center
of the Earth) and the resulting correction is due only to the
mentioned distance; two possibilities:
Bbb..a: point A is placed between the center of the Earth and the
planet (F). Properties: the slowest motion takes place at
apogee; the correction is positive, and its maximum takes
demonstrative astronomy 
place at ° of mean motion; conditions under which the

correction due to the eccentricity will be (a) equal to, or
(b) smaller, or (c) greater than the correction due to the
distance;
Bbb..b: the planet is placed between the center of the Earth and
point A. Properties: the correction is negative; the maximum
correction occurs at ° of mean motion; conditions under
which the correction due to the eccentricity will be (a) equal
to, or (b) smaller, or (c) greater than the correction due to
the distance.
Bbb..: the motion is eccentric (i.e., uniform around another center
different from the Earth’s) and two corrections result: one
from the eccentricity and another from the distance. There
are two possibilities:
Bbb..a: the center of the orb (S) is placed above the center of the
Earth (E), and the center of motion (M) is placed in S or in
another point above E; three possibilities:
Bbb..a.: if S = M, there are two possible dispositions of centers in the
apsidal line:
Bbb..a..: FASE: the apparent correction due to the eccentricity
and the distance is smaller than the correction due to the
eccentricity by an amount equal to the correction due to the
distance;
Bbb..a..: AFSE: the apparent correction due to the eccentricity and
the distance is equal to the sum of the correction due to the
eccentricity and the correction due to the distance.
Bbb..a.: if S ≠ M, and M is placed above S, there are two possible
dispositions of centers in the apsidal line:
Bbb..a..: FAMSE: the correction due to the eccentricity and the
distance results from subtracting the correction due to the
distance from the correction due to the eccentricity;
Bbb..a..: AFMSE: the correction resulting from both causes
(eccentricity and distance) is equal to the sum of the
correction due to the eccentricity and the correction due
to the distance.
Bbb..a.: if S ≠ M, and M is placed below S, there are two
possibilities:
Bbb..a..: AFSME;
Bbb..a..: FASME.
Bbb..b: the center of the orb (S) is placed below the center of the
Earth (E), and M is below S, in E or in another point. There
are three possibilities:
Bbb..b.: if M = E, two possible dispositions of centers in the apsidal
line:
Bbb..b..: FAES. Properties: the maximum correction takes place at
° of apparent motion; the planet moves slower in the half
of the circle closer to E;
 josé luis mancha
Bbb..b..: AFES: the planet moves swifter in the half of the circle closer
to E.
Bbb..b.: if M ≠ E, and M is placed above E; two possibilities:
Bbb..b..: FAMES: the correction is equal to the sum of the correction
due to the eccentricity and the correction due to the
distance;
Bbb..b..: AFMES: In this model, depending on the different ratios
between parameters and distances, the correction due to the
eccentricity can be equal to, or greater, or smaller than the
correction due to the distance; thus, as when one of these
equations is positive, the other is negative, if both are equal,
no correction will result; if both are unequal, the correction
will result from subtracting the smallest from the greatest.
The places of maximum velocity of the planet vary according
to these circumstances.
Bbb..b.: if M ≠ E, and M is placed below E; two possibilities:
Bbb..b..: FAEMS: as in Bbb..b.., when the correction due to the
eccentricity is positive, the correction due to the distance
is negative, and vice versa; so, when they are equal, no
correction results; when they are unequal, the correction
results from subtracting the smallest from the greatest. The
places of maximum velocity of the planet vary according to
these circumstances;
Bbb..b..: AFEMS: as in Bbb..b.., the apparent correction is equal
to the sum of the correction due to the eccentricity and the
correction due to the distance.
demonstrative astronomy 
Appendix B
Two Examples of Exhaustion of All the Possibilities That
a Division Can Yield, Taken from Ptolemy and Tūsı̄
.
A. Ptolemy, Almagest I. (proof of the centrality of the Earth; the sphericity of the
heavens has been proved in I.)
If the Earth is not in the middle, it would have to be either
. not on the axis of the universe, but equidistant from both poles, or
. on the axis but removed towards one of the poles, or
. neither on the axis nor equidistant from both poles.
In the first case,
.. if the Earth were removed towards the zenith or the nadir of some
observer,
... if he were at sphaera recta, he would never experience equinox,
since the horizon would always divide the heaven into two un-
equal parts, one above and one below the Earth;
... if he were at sphaera obliqua, either equinox would never occur,
or, if it did occur, it would not be at a position halfway between
summer and winter solstices, since these intervals would neces-
sarily be unequal.
.. if the Earth were removed towards the east or west of some observer,
then he would find that the sizes and distances of the stars would not
remain constant and unchanged at eastern and western horizons, and
that the time-interval from rising to culmination would not be equal to
the interval from culmination to setting.
. If the Earth would lie on the axis but removed towards one of the poles,
.. only at sphaera recta could the horizon bisects the heavens;
.. at sphaera obliqua, (a) the plane of the horizon would divide the heavens
into two unequal parts always different for different latitudes, whether
one considers the relationship of the same part at two different latitudes
or the two parts at the same latitude (and at a situation such that the
nearer pole were the ever visible one, the horizon would always make
the part above the Earth lesser and the part below the Earth greater); (b)
the great circle of the ecliptic would be also divided into unequal parts
by the plane of the horizon, and (c) at the equinoxes, the shadow of the
gnomon at sunrise would no longer form a straight line with its shadow
at sunset in a plane parallel to the horizon.
. If the Earth would be neither on the axis nor equidistant from both poles,
the consequences which follow from the first two cases, will both follow in this
case.28
28 G.J. Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest (London, ): –.

 josé luis mancha
B. Tūsı̄,
. Tadkira II.
¯
“Because of this difference [between the observed values of the obliquity], some
have maintained that the ecliptic equator moves in latitude and approaches to
the equinoctial. If this were true, then another orb would need to be established
whereby the ecliptic orb would move with that motion. Now the [ecliptic]
equator, if it moves, [] may complete a revolution or [] it may not complete it
but instead move to a certain limit then return. This limit may be [.] after it has
coincided twice with the equinoctial equator, or [.] at the second coincidence,
or [.] between the two coincidences. If between, then the limit may be [..]
after half a revolution, or [..] exactly at the halfway mark, or [..] before
it. If [.] the equator does not reach the region between the two coincidences,
then [..] it will either return upon arriving at the first coincidence or [..]
else return before this [limit is reached].”29
29 F.J. Ragep, Nası̄r al-Dı̄n al-Tūsı̄’s Memoir on Astronomy (al-Tadkira fı̄ #ilm al-hay"a)
. .
(New York and Berlin, ): – (the numbers in square brackets ¯ have been added).
NICOLE ORESME AND
HASDAI
. CRESCAS ON MANY WORLDS
Warren Zev Harvey
The two most creative thinkers in the new physics of the late fourteenth
century were arguably Nicole Oresme (ca. –), grand maître of
the College of Navarre at the University of Paris and later Bishop of
Lisieux, and Hasdai
. Crescas (ca. – / ), Rabbi of the Jews
of the Crown of Aragon and advisor to its kings. The direct or indirect
influence of Oresme on Crescas was long ago noted by Pierre Duhem,
and further explored by Shlomo Pines and others. This connection is
particularly striking with regard to their notions of infinite space and
eternal time, and their critique of Aristotle’s theory of natural places.1
Given Oresme’s connection to the Kingdom of Navarre, adjacent to the
Crown of Aragon, it is likely that his works were known and available in
Crescas’ vicinity. It is reasonable to speculate that Crescas knew scholars
who had studied with Oresme in Paris, and it is not inconceivable that he
met Oresme personally.2
In my following remarks, I shall compare the views of Oresme and
Crescas on the problem of many worlds. Both philosophers discuss the
problem primarily in response to Aristotle’s thesis in De caelo, I, –
, a–b, that there is one and only one world. Although Oresme
eventually accepts Aristotle’s thesis and Crescas explicitly rejects it, the
approaches of the two philosophers to the problem are in many respects
similar.
1 P. Duhem, Le Système du monde (Paris, –): :–, :–; S. Pines,

“Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his
Predecessors,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities , no. 
(): –; reprinted in idem, Collected Works (Jerusalem, –): :–;
and see my Physics and Metaphysics in Hasdai Crescas (Amsterdam, ): –, and
also my Hasdai
. Crescas (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –.
2 On the College of Navarre, see N. Gorochov, Le Collège de Navarre de sa fondation
() au début de XVe siècle () (Paris, ). Cf. A. Albertos, R. Garcia-Alonso
and J.M. Ortiz, “París : La fundación del Colegio de Navarra,” Príncipe de Viana
 (): –.
 warren zev harvey
The two main discussions of Oresme’s on the problem of many worlds

are found in his Quaestiones on Aristotle’s De caelo, I, qq. –,3 and
in his Le livre du ciel et du monde, I, .4 The Quaestiones probably date
from Oresme’s early teaching days at the College of Navarre (–),
while the Du ciel et du monde was written much later, in , when
Oresme was dean of the Cathedral of Rouen. The Du ciel et du monde
is a French translation with commentary of Aristotle’s De caelo, and was
written at the behest of King Charles V of France, to whom Oresme was
a close advisor.
Crescas’ discussions of many worlds are found in his Light of the Lord,
I, , ; I, , ; I, , ; I, , ; IIIa, , ; IV, –. The Light of the Lord was
written over many years, and completed in .5 The discussion in I, , ,
although appearing early in the book, is manifestly a late interpolation by
Crescas, appended to his arguments against the Aristotelian proposition
that an infinite magnitude is impossible.6 The discussions in I, , 
and , and I, , , are interconnected, and concern the possibility that
different Gods rule different worlds.7 The passage in IIIa, , , concerns
the doctrine of the eternal creation of successive worlds.8 IV, , treats the
problem of eternity a parte post and successive worlds;9 and IV, , treats
that of many worlds existing simultaneously.10
3 C. Kren, “The Questiones super De Celo of Nicole Oresme” (Ph.D. thesis, University
of Wisconsin, ), Xerox Microfilms, Ann Arbor, no. –, pp. –. The
thesis contains the Latin text and an annotated English translation.
4 Le Livre du ciel et du monde. Edited by A.D. Menut and A.J. Denomy, translated with
an introduction by Menut (Madison, ): –.

5 Page references to the Light of the Lord will be to the useful vocalized edition by
S. Fisher, Or ha-Šem (Jerusalem, ). The passages regarding many worlds are dis-
cussed and translated in my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –, –. In preparing the
present study, I made use of two unpublished lectures on Crescas’ theory of many worlds:
A. Ackerman, “Hasdai Crescas’ Discussion of the Possibility of Multiple Worlds,” Con-
ference on Hasdai Crescas:  Years after his Death, Zalman Shazar Center, Jerusalem,
January ; and S. Feldman, “Plural Universes: A Debate in Late Medieval Jewish Phi-
losophy,” Meeting of the Academy for Jewish Philosophy, American Philosophical Asso-
ciation, Eastern Division, Washington, DC, December .
6 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See H.A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle (Cam-
bridge, MA, ): .–., and p.  n. ; and my Physics and Metaphysics,
pp. –.
7 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), pp. , , –. See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –
.
8 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), pp. –. See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –,
–.
9 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), pp. –. See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –.
10 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), pp. –. See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –
n. ; and my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –.

nicole oresme and hasdai
. crescas on many worlds 
It should be noted at the outset that Crescas cites by name in the Light
of the Lord only philosophic literature written in Hebrew (either origi-
nally in Hebrew, e.g., Gersonides’ Wars of the Lord, or translated from the
Arabic, e.g., Averroes’ Commentaries on Aristotle or Maimonides’ Guide
of the Perplexed), and thus cites neither Oresme nor any other Scholas-
tic. However, in addition to Hebrew, Crescas read Latin, Catalan, and
Aragonese, and thus had access to Christian writings. Although Duhem
and Pines focused on the alleged influence of the Du ciel et du monde on
Crescas, it is unlikely he read French philosophic books. Thus, Oresme’s
influence on him was presumably though Latin works, such as the Quaes-
tiones on the De caelo, or by word of mouth.
Let us now turn to Oresme’s arguments pro and contra many worlds
and their parallels in Crescas. We shall not examine all of Oresme’s argu-
ments or all of Crescas’ arguments, but shall concern ourselves with those
arguments that appear in one form or another in both philosophers.
. Argument from Natural Places (contra)
Aristotle argued in De caelo, I, , b, that if there were other worlds,

presuming them similar to ours, the four elements in them would spill
into their natural places in our world; but since we do not see such
extramundane invasions, it may be concluded that there are no other
worlds.
Oresme examines this argument at length in the Quaestiones, q. .
He begins by affirming that God could conceivably create another world
having elements similar to those in ours, but a clod of earth, for example,
in that other world would move toward its proper place in that world
(in suo loco proprio proprii mundi), not toward the proper place of earth
in our world.11 Aristotle’s reasoning, Oresme remarks, is only “probable”
(ratio sua est probabilis).12 Nonetheless, after an exhaustive discussion, he
endorses Aristotle’s argument from natural places against the existence
of many worlds. According to nature (naturaliter) the argument seems
to him compelling, although he repeats that God does have the power to
create other worlds.13
11 Quaestiones, pp. –; also pp. –. Cf. pp. –: “Aristotle would say
that God could not do this; nevertheless I say indeed He can.”

12 Ibid., pp. –.
13 Ibid., pp. –.
 warren zev harvey
Returning to Aristotle’s argument from natural places in his Du ciel

et du monde, I, , Oresme again retorts that if another world did exist,
clods of earth in it would tend toward its center, not toward the center
of our world. Although he criticizes Aristotle’s argument with more
confidence than in the Quaestiones and although he repeats emphatically
that God could create other worlds, he concludes anticlimactically that
Aristotle’s thesis about one world is true.14
Crescas decisively and derisively rejects Aristotle’s argument from
natural places in Light of the Lord, I, , , and IV, . In I, , , he writes:
“[T]he movement of the elements from one world to another would
not be necessitated, for each one of the elements would move within
the periphery of its own sphere toward its own proper place”; and he
adds that Aristotle’s arguments against the possibility of many worlds
are “vanity and a striving after the wind” (Eccles. :).15 In IV, , he
writes: “[Aristotle] stated that if we affirm [the existence of many worlds]
it would follow, for example, that parts of the element of earth in one
world would move toward their natural place in another world. These are
words of enticement [pittuy devarim] that are groundless. For when we
posit many worlds, we presume natural places in each and every world;
thus, for example, the element of earth will seek its center in its own
world, or the element of fire will seek its periphery in its own world. This
is self-evident.”16
This rejoinder to Aristotle’s argument from natural places against the
existence of many worlds was not unique to Oresme and Crescas, but had
been common since the late thirteenth century. It is found, for example,
in Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent V), Godfrey of Fontaines, Richard
of Middleton, John of Bassols, Gerald Odonis, William of Ockham,
Gersonides, John Buridan, and Albert of Saxony.17 Like Oresme, but
unlike Crescas, none of these thinkers ultimately affirmed the actual
existence of many worlds.
14 Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –.

15 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –; and my
Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
16 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
17 See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. – n. ; P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology:
Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the Plurality of Worlds. Edited and translated by
R. Ariew (Chicago, ): –, –, , , , –; E. Randi, “Plurality
of Worlds: Fourteenth Century Theological Debates,” in S. Knuuttila, R. Työrinoja and
S. Ebbesen, eds, Knowledge and Sciences in Medieval Philosophy (Proceedings of the
th SIEPM Conference) (Helsinki, ): –; C. Schabel, “Gerald Odonis on the
. crescas on many worlds 
. Argument from Beneficence (pro)
In Quaestiones, q. , Oresme raises four additional arguments against

Aristotle’s thesis that there is one and only one world: () the argument
that “world” is a universal, and universals are predicated of many partic-
ulars; () the argument from beneficence; () the argument from the per-
fection of reproduction, that is, it is a perfection for a being to generate
beings similar to itself; () the argument from the generation and cor-
ruption of things composed of the four elements. The second and fourth
arguments have parallels in Crescas’ Light of the Lord.
As presented by Oresme, the argument from beneficence runs as
follows: “It would be better that what is best and perfect be multiplied
[melius est quod optimum et perfectum plurificetur] . . . as two good things
are better than one . . . : therefore, since nature always produces what
is better [natura semper faciat quo melius est] and the world is perfect,
it follows that there are many.”18 In response to this argument, Oresme
argues that “the impossible is neither better nor good,” and many good
things are not necessarily better than one, since what is important is not
quantity but “commensurate proportion.”19
Crescas’ presentation of the argument from beneficence is found in
Light of the Lord, IV, , and formulated thus: Given the world was brought
into existence “in the manner of beneficence and grace [#al s. ad ha-
hat. avah ve-ha-haninah],
. and the more God “increases worlds the more
He increases goodness [kol ašer yosif be-#olamot yosif be-hat. avah],” it
follows that there are many worlds.20
The argument from beneficence is known in the Scholastic literature,
beginning with William of Auvergne, and found famously in Thomas
Aquinas.21
Plurality of Worlds,” Vivarium  (): –, –. Regarding Gersonides, see

R. Glasner, “Gersonides’ Theory of Natural Motion,” Early Science and Medicine  ():
– (esp. pp. –); O. Elior, “Gersonides’ Commentary on Averroes’ Middle
Commentary on Aristotle’s De Caelo” (Heb.) (MA thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
): –, –; and cf. the lectures by Ackerman and Feldman (cited above,
n. ). On Gersonides and Odonis, see the Excursus (“Gersonides, Odonis, and the Heart
Analogy”) appended to this essay.
18 Quaestiones, pp. –.
19 Ibid., pp. –.
20 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
21 Duhem, Medieval Cosmology, pp. , –.
 warren zev harvey
. Argument from Generation and Corruption (pro)
According to Oresme’s argument, the existence of generation and cor-

ruption in the sublunar realm of four elements and the consequent con-
tinuous replacement of one substance by another (“perhaps today there
is nothing of the element of water which existed a thousand years ago”)
suggest that the world as a whole was generated and will be corrupted,
has replaced a previous world and will be replaced by a subsequent one;
that is, the generation and corruption of the parts suggests the generation
and corruption of the whole, and thus argues for the plurality of succes-
sive worlds. Citing Empedocles (Aristotle, De caelo, I, , b), Oresme
envisions a process in which the world is not annihilated entirely but cor-
rupted into “a confused chaos” (in chaus confusum) and then reordered.22
Against the argument from generation and corruption, Oresme points to
the celestial spheres, which constitute “the principal part of the world,”
and which were presumed not to evidence generation and corruption.23
In Light of the Lord, IV, , Crescas conjectures that the proposition “all
things generated are corrupted” is applicable to the world as a whole
(cf. Aristotle, De caelo, I, , b).24 He reasons, similar to Oresme,
that the sublunar realm will be corrupted, but not the celestial spheres.
Again like Oresme, he argues that if the world is corrupted, it will not be
wholly annihilated. Referring to a Rabbinic dictum that the world will be
destroyed (harev)
. in the future (B Roš ha-šanah a, Sanhedrin a), he
notes that “destruction” (hurban)
. is not synonymous with “nothingness”
(he#der).25 He affirms that the world is eternal in the future “qua species,”
but not necessarily “qua individual,” for individual worlds may pass away
into other individual worlds. However, he concludes, once again like
Oresme, that even if one affirms that the sublunar realm is periodically
generated and corrupted, one might still properly say that the world is
eternal “qua individual,” since the celestial spheres are not generated and
corrupted.26
22 Quaestiones, pp. –, –.

23 Ibid., pp. –.
24 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p.  (first argument contra).
25 Ibid., pp. , . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
26 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. –. See also
Gad Freudenthal, “Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Avicennian Theory of an Eternal World,” Aleph 
(): –. Developing ideas of Ibn Sı̄nā and contra Ibn Rušd, Samuel Ibn Tibbon, in
his Ma"amar yiqqawu ha-mayim (ca. ), “posits an infinite succession of [sublunar]
‘worlds,’ in which every sublunar ‘world’ is created ab novo” and destroyed, while the
“heavenly spheres remain forever unchanged” (p. ).
. crescas on many worlds 
. Argument from Number (contra)
In the course of his discussion in the Quaestiones, q. , Oresme gives a

clever argument against the existence of many worlds. If there are many
worlds, their number is either infinite or finite. It cannot be infinite,
since the existence of an actual infinity has been disproved (quod est
improbatum). If finite, however, why one particular number and not
another (si essent finiti, non videtur in quo numero)?27 Thus, there is no
plurality of worlds.
The very same argument against many worlds is raised by Crescas
in Light of the Lord, IV, , as a counterargument to the argument from
beneficence. The number of worlds is either finite or infinite. It cannot
be finite, “for whatever number of worlds is posited, it would have to
be increased in accord with the increasing beneficence” (efšar še-yittosef
le-ribbuy ha-hat. avah). However, it also cannot be infinite, since there is
no actual infinity.28 If there is neither a finite nor an infinite plurality of
worlds, it follows there is only one world.
This argument from number does not appear to be common, and I
have not found a clear precedent.29
. Argument from Monotheism (contra)
Oresme states the argument from monotheism briefly in his Quaestiones,

q. , and more at length in his Du ciel et du monde, I, . The argument,
in a nutshell, is: one God entails one world. The oneness of the Mover
is based not only on Scripture, but also on Aristotle’s dictum, “Let there
be one ruler!” (Metaphysics, XII, , a). In the Quaestiones, Oresme
reasons: “There is only one motor primus, therefore only one primum
mobile and one world”; for “if the ruler is one, his domain is one.”
He mentions and rejects Averroes’ suggestion—or at least a suggestion
he attributes to Averroes—that there might be one “universal ruler”
(princeps universalis) but many prime movers, each responsible for a
27 Quaestiones, pp. –.

28 Crescas does not mention here his proofs for the possibility of an infinite number
of magnitudes (Light of the Lord, I, , ). Clearly IV, , was written before I, , . See my
Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
29 The pertinent text cited by Kren (Quaestiones, p. ) from Aquinas’ Commentary
on the De caelo, I, lectio , n. , concerns the possibility of a void outside the world, not
that of many worlds.
 warren zev harvey
different world.30 In the Du ciel et du monde, he develops this suggestion.

It does not follow, he now argues, that two worlds would entail two Gods.
Rather, God is infinite, and if many worlds existed, none would be outside
His power (hors de sa puissance): “one single sovereign God would govern
all such worlds” (un seul Dieu souverain gouverneroit touz telz mondes),
but it is possible that each world would have its own prime mover.31
The assertion that God has at least theoretically the power to create
many worlds was common in Scholastic literature, especially after Bishop
Etienne Tempier’s condemnation in  of the Aristotelian thesis “that
the first cause cannot make more than one world.”32
The argument from monotheism appears thrice in Crescas’ Light of
the Lord: in I, ,  and , and in I, , . In the course of his criticism
of Maimonides’ physical proof of the prime mover in I, , , Crescas
remarks: “since the possibility of other worlds has been demonstrated in
our earlier comments, one might argue that one mover is the cause of
one world, and another mover the cause of a different one.”33 Here, to be
precise, we have not an argument from monotheism against the existence
of many worlds, but an argument from the existence of many worlds
against monotheism. In I, , , while criticizing Maimonides’ proof for
the unity of God based on the unity of the world, Crescas repeats roughly
the same argument: even if we concede that this world can have only one
God, it still might be possible that there are many worlds, and each has
its own God.34 In I, , , in his discussion of God’s unity, Crescas again
recites the argument that different worlds might have different Gods, but
this time he replies to it, affirming, not unlike Oresme in Du ciel et du
monde, that since “God’s power is infinite in intensity, it is clear that the
One has power over them all” (ha-ehad 35
. yakhol le-khullam).
30 Quaestiones, pp. –. This reference to Ibn Rušd, who faithfully upheld Aris-
totle’s doctrine of the unity of the world in his Commentaries on the De caelo (see, e.g.,
Elior, “Gersonides’ Commentary”, pp. –), is unclear. Kren (p. ) cites Ibn Rušd’s
Long Commentary on Metaphysics, XII, text  (Latin, ed. Iuntas, vol. , Venice ),
fol. r, where God is described as the primus princeps of the first movers of the celestial
spheres.
31 Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –, –.
32 “The Condemnation of ,” in A. Hyman and J.J. Walsh, Philosophy in the Middle
Ages, nd ed. (Indianapolis, ):  (proposition A). See E. Grant, “The Condem-
nation of , God’s Absolute Power, and Physical Thought in the Late Middle Ages,”
Viator  (): –.
33 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
34 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, loc. cit.
35 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
. crescas on many worlds 
. Argument from Religious Authority (pro)
In Du ciel et du monde, I, , Oresme cites Origen as a religious authority

supporting the doctrine of a plurality of successive worlds. The citation
is from St. Jerome (Epistle , to Avitus), who writes: “Origen used to
say that God will do this innumerable times.”36
Crescas, in Light of the Lord, IIIa, , , also cites religious authorities
for the doctrine of a plurality of successive worlds. He cites two midrashic
dicta: “He would build worlds and destroys them” (Genesis Rabbah :);
and “the order of times was prior [to the creation of the world]” (ibid.).37
In addition, in Light of the Lord, I, , , and IV, , he cites a religious
authority supporting the simultaneous existence of many worlds. The
dictum cited is Talmudic: “He travels about in , worlds” (B Avodah
Zarah b).38
Thus, both Oresme and Crescas hold that the existence of many worlds
was taught in classical and authoritative religious literature.
. Limitations of Human Knowledge
In the end, Oresme prefers the Aristotelian thesis that there is only one
world naturaliter, although he believes that the arguments in its favor
are only “probable,” and, moreover, God has the power to create other
worlds. He concludes his discussion in Du ciel et du monde, I, , with
the following remarkable summation: “Therefore, I conclude that God
can and could in his omnipotence [par toute sa puissance] make another
world besides this one or several like or unlike it. Nor will Aristotle or
anyone else be able to prove completely the contrary. But, of course, there
has never been nor will there ever be more than one corporeal world [un
seul monde corporel].”39
36 Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –.

37 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See my Physics and Metaphysics, p. .
38 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), pp. , . See my Physics and Metaphysics, pp. , –.
39 Oresme, Du ciel et du monde (eds Menut and Denomy), pp. –. Cf. E. Grant,
God & Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, ): –: “Although Oresme valued
reason, and always used it in his natural philosophy, he was aware, and often emphasized,
that reason cannot always decide an issue . . . . [In his discussion of the possibility of
many worlds,] uncertainty guides Oresme’s judgment. Neither reason nor experience can
determine whether there are other worlds.”
 warren zev harvey
Unlike Oresme, Crescas unequivocally rejects Aristotle’s thesis that

there is only one world. However, like Oresme, he does not believe that
the question of many worlds can be decided apodictically. He concludes
his discussion in Light of the Lord, I, , , with a meditation on the
limitations of human knowledge: “Inasmuch as this possibility [of many
worlds] is true and unimpeachable, yet as we are unable by means of
rational inquiry [haqirah]
. to ascertain the true nature of what is outside
this world, our Sages, peace be upon them, have seen fit to warn us against
searching and inquiring [lidroš ve-lahqor]
. into ‘what is above and what is
below, what is before and what is behind’ [B Hagigah
. b and parallels].”40
With regard to the question of many worlds, the Bishop of Lisieux and
the Rabbi of Saragossa agreed in general about the arguments pro and
contra, and about what we can know and cannot know. They also shared a
bold and exciting vision of many—or infinite—worlds, but differed about
its likelihood.
excursus
Gersonides, Odonis, and the Heart Analogy

As noted above, Aristotle’s argument in De caelo, I, , b, according
to which there cannot be many worlds, for if there were, their elements
would be attracted to their natural places in our world, was challenged
decades before Oresme and Crescas. Like Oresme and Crescas, the early
challengers argued against Aristotle that if there were many worlds, each
could have its own proper places, and thus elements in them would not
be attracted to our world.
Among the early challengers of the argument from natural places were
Levi Gersonides (–) and Gerald Odonis ( / –).41
It is striking that in their retorts to Aristotle’s argument from natural
place, both philosophers make use of the analogy of the heart: just as
the hearts of living creatures are one in species, but each creature has
its own heart which functions within its own body; so too, if there exist
many worlds of the same species, the elements in any given world might
be expected to function wholly within that world; that is, just as the
40 Or ha-Šem (ed. Fisher), p. . See Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –; and my
Physics and Metaphysics, p. .

41 See above, n. .
. crescas on many worlds 
hearts of living creatures don’t pump blood into the bodies of other
creatures, so too elements in one world would not spill into other worlds.
Gersonides formulates the argument as follows in his Commentary on
Averroes’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De caelo, section :
It is similar, by way of example, to the heart of living creatures [ba#ale
hayyim].
. I mean that the hearts of living creatures are in one place in
species [be-min] and many places in number [be-mispar]. However, if
bodies are one in species, and the body in which they are contained is one
in number, as is the case with the parts of the earth in this one sublunar
world, it follows that the place of these parts would be one in number. This
being so, it is clear that it does not follow that, if there were more than
one world, the place of the elements that are one in species in those worlds
would be one in number.42
Odonis formulates the argument as follows in his Commentary on Peter
Lombard’s Sentences, II, distinction , question :
By way of example, it is certain that my blood and your blood are of
the same kind. . . . While my blood flows to my heart, your blood does
not therefore flow to the same heart in number [in numero] . . . but
to your heart, which is of the same kind as my heart, and that man’s
blood [flows] to his heart, and so on for others. So the blood of all living
creatures [viventium] does not have a natural inclination to the same heart
in number, but to the same in species [in specie]. In this way, the earth of
another world or of several would not be inclined naturally to the same
center in number, but to the same in species, and so the earth of any world
[would incline] to the center of its own world.43
The terminological similarity in the presentation of the heart analogy
by Gersonides and Odonis clearly proves a direct or indirect connec-
tion between them. Both philosophers refer to “living creatures” (ba#ale
42 Elior, “Gersonides’ Commentary,” pp. –; cf. Glasner, “Gersonides’ Theory of
Natural Motion,” p. :

.øôñîá íéáø ,ïéîá ãçà íå÷îá íá ç§§áä úåáìù éðåöø .íééç éìòá óåâá áìá ìùî êøã ïééðòä ïëå
õøàä é÷ìçá ïééðòä åîë ,øôñîá ãçà àåä åá íéììëð íä øùà íùâäå ,ïéîá ãçà íéîùâä åéä øùàë íìåà
ïééðòä úåéäáå .øôñîá ãçà íé÷ìçä åìàì íå÷îä äéäéù áééåçé äðä ,åðéòá ãçàä ìôùä íìåòä äæá øùà
øùà ïéîá íéãçàä úåãåñéä íå÷î äéäéù ,ãçàî øúåé íìåò ïàëá äéä íà ,áééåçé àìù øàåáî àåä ,ïë
.øôñîá ãçà íää úåîìåòá
43 Schabel, “Gerald Odonis on the Plurality of Worlds,” pp. –, : Exemplo
quidem, quia certum est quod sanguis meus et sanguis tuus sunt eiusdem rationis . . . .
[C]um sanguis meus emanat ad cor meum, non propter hoc sanguis tuus emanat ad idem
cor in numero . . . sed ad cor tuum, quod est eiusdem speciei cum corde meo, et sanguis
illius ad cor illius, et sic de aliis. Non ergo sanguis omnium viventium habet naturalem
inclinationem ad idem cor in numero, sed ad idem in specie. Sic nec terra alterius mundi
vel plurium inclinaretur naturaliter ad idem centrum in numero, sed ad idem in specie,
et sic terra cuiuslibet mundi ad centrum mundi sui.
 warren zev harvey
hayyim,
. viventium) and both emphasize the distinction between “in spe-
cies” (be-min, in specie) and “in number” (be-mispar, in numero). The
possibility of a direct connection between Gersonides and Odonis is
strengthened by the fact that the use of the heart analogy as part of a
response to Aristotle’s argument from natural places seems to be rare. In
any case, Ruth Glasner, who discussed the Gersonides text,44 and Chris
Schabel, who discussed the Odonis text,45 did not note precedents. It is
possible that the heart analogy is found also in other texts before or con-
temporaneous with Gersonides and Odonis, but none is known to me.
How is this connection between Gersonides’ and Odonis’ texts to be
explained? The two philosophers were almost exact contemporaries, and
did not live far from each other. Gersonides lived all his life in Provence,
near Avignon. He was born apparently in Bagnols sur Cèze, dwelled in
Orange, and was sometimes commissioned to do scientific research at the
papal court in Avignon. Born in Camboulit, Odonis taught at Toulouse in
the s and Paris in the s, and later served as Franciscan Minister
General (–) and as the Latin Patriarch of Antioch (–).
He was close to Pope John XXII and a welcome guest at the papal palace
in Avignon. Rabbi Levi and the Franciscan doctor moralis could have met
in various places and at various times, in particular when the latter visited
Avignon.
Gersonides’ use of the heart analogy appears in his Commentary
on Averroes’ Middle Commentary on the De caelo, written in .46
Odonis’ use of the analogy appears in his Commentary on the Sentences,
whose date is somewhat ambiguous. Although it is known he lectured
on the Sentences during the years – at the Franciscan studium
generale in Paris, it is also known that he incorporated material in his
Commentary from previous lectures on the Sentences he had given in
Toulouse in the mid s.47 In sum, it is unclear whose presentation of
the heart analogy was first, Gersonides’ or Odonis’.
If Gersonides’ text was prior, Odonis would not have been able to
read it, since he did not have sufficient Hebrew; but he could have
learned of the analogy by word of mouth—perhaps even hearing it from
44 Glasner, loc. cit.

45 Schabel, loc. cit.
46 See S. Klein-Braslavi, “Gersonide commentateur d’ Averroès,” in C. Sirat, Klein-
Braslavy, O. Weijers, eds, Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir

chez les scolastiques (Paris, ): –, n. .
47 See C. Schabel, “The Sentences Commentary of Gerardus Odonis,” Bulletin de
philosophie médiévale  (): –, esp. pp. –.

. crescas on many worlds 
Gersonides himself. If Odonis’ text was prior, Gersonides could have read
it in Latin, heard a report of it from a Christian colleague, or learned it
directly from a conversation with Odonis. To be sure, it is possible that
neither text is prior, and Gersonides and Odonis worked out the analogy
together, perhaps during a meeting in Avignon. It is also conceivable
that Gersonides and Odonis were both influenced by an unknown third
philosopher.
Much has been written in recent years about Levi Gersonides’ rela-
tionship to Scholastic philosophy.48 The example of the heart analogy
suggests that it is a desideratum to compare his writings with those of
Gerald Odonis.
48 See the views of Ruth Glasner, Colette Sirat, Sara Klein-Braslavy, and Gad Freuden-
thal in Sirat, Klein-Braslavy, Weijers, eds., Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide, pp. –
; and C. Schabel, “Philosophy and Theology across Cultures: Gersonides and Auriol
on Divine Foreknowledge,” Speculum  (): –. On Gersonides’ Latinity, see
R. Glasner, “On Gersonides’ Knowledge of Languages,” Aleph  (): –.
THE PECULIAR HISTORY OF
ARISTOTELIANISM AMONG SPANISH JEWS*
Ruth Glasner
The reception of Aristotelianism by medieval Jews differed widely from

one community to another. Whereas it was rejected by the northern com-
munities of Ashkenaz and Northern France, it was appropriated by the
southern communities of Spain, Provence, and Italy; but the patterns of
appropriation differed significantly among these three. For several years
Gad Freudenthal has been dealing with the different patterns of reception
of the “foreign wisdoms” in medieval Jewish communities. A recent vol-
ume he edited focuses on the Ashkenazi pattern.1 He has studied, first in
general and then in greater detail, the very beginnings of the accommo-
dation of secular knowledge in Provence;2 in two recent papers he com-
pares the Provençal and the Italian patterns of cultural appropriation.3
But he refers only briefly to the Iberian Peninsula and concludes that “the
matter calls for further research.”4 Hoping to contribute to his research,
I offer here an initial, preliminary study of the Spanish pattern and com-
pare it to the Provençal.
* I am grateful to Hagar Kahana-Smilansky for reading a first draft of the paper and
for her very helpful comments and suggestions.
1 Gad Freudenthal, ed., Science and Philosophy in Early Modern Ashkenazic Culture:
Rejection, Toleration, and Appropriation. Jahrbuch des Simon-Dubnow-Instituts VIII

().
vence: Leur appropriation, leur rôle,” Revue des études juives  (): –; idem,
“Arabic into Hebrew: The Accommodation of Secular Knowledge in Twelfth-Century
Provençal Judaism,” in D. Freidenreich and M. Goldstein, eds, Border Crossings: Inter-
religious Interaction and the Exchange of Ideas in the Islamic Middle Ages (Philadelphia,
forthcoming).
3 Gad Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures as Resources for the Hebrew Trans-
lation Movement: Comparative Considerations, Both Quantitative and Qualitative,” in

idem, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (Cambridge, forthcoming); “#Arav and
Edom as Cultural Resources for Medieval Judaism: Contrasting Attitudes toward Arabic
and Latin Learning in the Midi and in Italy,” forthcoming in E. Alfonso and C. Caballero-
Navas, eds., Late Medieval Jewish Identities: Iberia and Beyond.
4 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ..
 ruth glasner
Aristotelianism meant a more scientific “rationalist” perspective than

rival philosophies. It also meant a more systematic study of texts, using
the genre of the commentary. “Aristotelians were particularly devoted to
crafting, fine-tuning and commenting upon their texts.”5 Throughout the
Middle Ages Aristotelianism followed a more “scholastic” pattern than
Neoplatonism, and Averroism was more scholastic than Avicennism. The
scholastic orientation of Aristotelianism culminated in the universities in
the Latin west.
Jewish Aristotelianism began and ended in Spain. The first recep-
tion was in Muslim Spain in the second half of twelfth century; the
last, in Christian Spain three centuries later.6 In between—in the thir-
teenth and fourteenth centuries—Aristotelianism was non-existent in
Spain but thrived among the Jews in Provence and Italy, where its car-
riers were mainly Spanish Jews living outside Spain. The early and late
Spanish episodes were quite different cultural phenomena: the early Aris-
totelians studied from Arabic sources and wrote mainly in Arabic; the
later ones employed Hebrew, Arabic, and Latin sources and wrote mainly
in Hebrew. Although referred to as “the autumn” or the “swan song” of
medieval Jewish philosophy,7 it was, nevertheless, a lively and dynamic
movement. The Jews turned with fresh interest and even enthusiasm to
the study of Aristotle as well as Christian scholastic texts. Mauro Zonta
designated this phenomenon “Hebrew Scholasticism” and noted that it
“constituted a far more systematic phenomenon and appears to reflect
a surprisingly extensive absorption of Christian culture” than before in
medieval Jewish societies.8 Before turning to the story of Spanish-Jewish
Aristotelianism let me address the more ordinary story of Provence.
5 H.G. Snyder, Teachers and Texts in the Ancient World (London, ): . In this
interesting book Snyder compares the patterns of learning in the Greek philosophical
traditions.
6 A few reverberations continued in the sixteenth century in Italy and Byzantium.
Puig refers to Eliah del-Medigo as the last Jewish Averroist.

7 M. Zonta, “The Autumn of Medieval Jewish Philosophy: Latin Scholasticism in
Late th-Century Hebrew Philosophical Literature,” in J.A. Aertsen and M. Pickavé, eds,
Herbst des Mittelalters: Fragen zur Bewertung des . und . Jahrhunderts (Berlin, ):
–; A. Ackerman, “Jewish Philosophy and the Jewish-Christian Philosophical Dia-
logue in Fifteenth-Century Spain,” in G.H. Frank and O. Leaman, eds, The Cambridge
Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –.
8 M. Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century: A History and a Source
Book (Dordrecht, ): .

aristotelianism among spanish jews 
. Provençal-Jewish Aristotelianism
Aristotelianism made its first steps among Provençal Jews in the thir-
teenth century, developed thereafter steadily for nearly two centuries, and
eventually declined. Let us look at the background.
Before the Reconquista the Provençal Jewish communities were affil-
iated with the traditional milieu of France and Ashkenaz.9 Relations
between Jews and Christians were not close.10 After the beginning of the
Reconquista, the Jews of Provence and Languedoc drew closer, culturally
and linguistically, to those in Aragon.11
Throughout the twelfth century French and Provençal Jews suffered
more violence and experienced more anxiety than their coreligionists in
Christian Spain. These were apparently related to the Crusades, start-
ing with the pogroms of ,12 and later to the campaigns against the
Albigenses in the south, which affected the Jews directly and indirectly.
Recent studies have shown that they were also related to the general
cultural revival in France. Growing cultural interaction, argues Funken-
stein, brought with it increasing isolation and alienation.13 Intellectual
links between Jews and Christians were almost nonexistent in the early
Middle Ages but grew rapidly from the twelfth century onward. The
expanding contacts did not increase mutual understanding or tolerance.
As Christian society and culture became more urbanized, peaceful, and
refined, contends Ivan Marcus, the situation of the Jews among them
deteriorated.14 Anna Sapir Abulafia contends that it was the intellec-
tual development of the twelfth century that provided the framework for
libels against Jews.15 Cultural development and increasing enmity and
9 B.Z. Benedict, “On the History of Merkaz ha-Torah in Provence,” Tarbis  ():
.
–, on pp. –.
10 M.A. Singer and J. van Engen, Jews and Christians in Twelfth-Century Europe (Notre
Dame, ): –.

11 C. Aslanov, “The Juxtaposition of Ashkenaz/Tsarfat vs. Sepharad/Provence Re-
assessed,” in Freudenthal, Science and Philosophy in Early Modern Ashkenazic Culture,

pp. –, on pp.  and .
12 Scholars differ as to the effect of the  riots. See R. Chazan, “European Jewry
and the First Crusade” (Berkeley, ); S. Schwartsfuchs, “The Place of the Crusades in
Jewish History,” in M. Ben Sasson, R. Bonfil and J.R. Hacker, eds, Culture and Society in
Medieval Jewry (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –.
13 A. Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley, ): –.
14 I.G. Marcus, “The Dynamic of Jewish Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth
Century,” in Singer and Van Engen, Jews and Christians, pp. – on pp. –.
15 A. Sapir Abulafia, Christians and Jews in the Twelfth-Century Renaissance (London,
 ruth glasner
friction went hand in hand in twelfth-century France and, as we shall

see, in fourteenth-century Spain. The well-known dictum, “when the
cannons are heard, the muses are silent,” is again proved to be wrong.
Provençal Jews were undoubtedly interested in ambient cultural devel-
opments. But the same pattern recurs from the twelfth to the fourteenth
century: there is no undisputed textual evidence to illustrate acquain-
tance with Christian scholarship. We may call it a cautious pattern of cul-
tural interchange.
Marcus pointed out a similar dynamic of cultural revival, emphasiz-
ing the retrieval of ancient sources and patterns of traditional studies
among Jews and Christians in Northern France of the twelfth century.16
Students of both Christian and Jewish biblical exegesis have pointed out
similarities between the school of Rashi and the school of Saint Victor in
Northern France.17 Many scholars have looked for Christian influence,
notably, but not only, by the heretical Albigenses of southern France, on
early Jewish Kabbalah.18 Joseph Shatzmiller emphasized the cautious pat-
tern: if the early Kabbalists did absorb ideas from the Albigenses they
were very careful to keep the borrowing hidden.19 The cautious pattern
is also manifested in the paucity of texts written by Jews in the Provençal
vernacular.20 The most intriguing example of the cautious pattern applies
): . Her thesis is that the twelfth-century renaissance impinged on the Christian-
Jewish debate and further stimulated the view that there was little if any room for Jews in
Christian society (pp. –).
16 Marcus, “Dynamic,” pp. –.
17 B. Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages (Notre Dame, ): –;
E. Touitou, Exegesis in Perpetual Motion: Studies in the Pentateuchal Commentary of Rabbi

Samuel ben Meir (Heb.) (Ramat Gan, ): ch. –.
18 A. Grossman, The Early Sages of France (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): ; S. Sha-
har, “Catharism and the Beginning of Kabbalah in Languedoc,” Tarbis.  (): –
(Heb.); J. Shatzmiller, “The Albigensian Heresy as Reflected in the Eyes of Contempo-
rary Jews,” in Ben Sasson, Bonfil and Hacker, eds, Culture and Society, pp. –(Heb.);
M.B. Sendor, “The Emergence of Provençal Kabbalah: Rabbi Isaac the Blind’s Commen-
tary on Sefer Yes. irah” (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, ): –. Sendor traces the
ideas that R. Isaac the Blind absorbed from the French school of Chartres and the thought
of Hugh St. Victor, the medium by which he became acquainted with ideas of Johannes
Scotus Eriugena. Marcus (“Dynamic,” p. ) finds parallels with German Pietist tradi-
tions, but this seems to be far-fetched when Provence is concerned.
19 Shatzmiller, “Albigensian Heresy,” pp. , –.
20 Only few texts were written by Jews in Provençal. The Roman d’ Esther, attributed
to the physician Crescas del Caylar (Qaslari), is written in octosyllables and in Hebrew
letters (published in ). I am indebted to Cyril Aslanov for this information. Aslanov
found an administrative text from  written by Jews in Provençal, using the Latin
alphabet. See C. Aslanov, “The Translation of the ‘Agreements’ to Provençal (),”
Mesorot – (): – (Heb.).
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
to the study of philosophy by Provençal Jewry during the thirteenth

and fourteenth centuries. In his well-known paper from , Shlomo
Pines offered several examples of “scholastic influence” on Provençal Jew-
ish thinkers but no conclusive textual evidence.21 Daniel Lasker is of
the opinion that “philosophy and interest in Christianity went hand in
hand in Provence.”22 Gad Freudenthal explains the cautious pattern in his
comprehensive analysis of the Jews’ problems in appropriating Christian
culture.23 Although much has been written on these issues, there is little
agreement about them.
The French-Provençal background—the twelfth-century Renaissance
in France, religious tensions in Provence, and the flowering of Aris-
totelianism in French universities in the thirteenth century—is not a
sufficient explanation for the reception of Aristotelianism by Provençal
Jews. Several of the same factors were present in Northern France, where
Jewish culture developed along different lines. Cultural history is by no
means an exact science and we should not expect full explanations, as we
should not expect predictions of future developments. Yet it seems that
Provençal Jews were ripe for cultural renewal when the Spanish immi-
grants arrived and brought the Greco-Muslim culture with them.
In sharp contrast to Provence, Aristotelianism was almost totally in
abeyance in thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Christian Spain. While
Spanish immigrants promoted the cultural flowering in Provence and
Italy, those who stayed in the Iberian Peninsula turned in different direc-
tions.
. Christian Spain: The Intellectual Background
“The Iberian Peninsula was comparatively unaffected by the intellectual

and religious ferment of most of the rest of Europe.”24 The universities
in Christian Spain lagged far behind those in France, England, and Italy.
21 S. Pines, “Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas
and his Predecessors,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,  ()
(), Hebrew;  () (), English.
22 D.J. Lasker, “Christianity, Philosophy and Polemic in Jewish Provence,” Zion 
(): –, on p.  (Heb.).

23 Freudenthal, “#Arav and Edom.”
24 J.A. Trentman, “Scholasticism in the Seventeenth Century,” in N. Kretzmann, A.
Kenney and J. Pinborg, eds, The Cambridge History of Late Medieval Philosophy (Cam-
bridge, ): –, on p. .
 ruth glasner
They were founded later, suffered from the Reconquista, and were bur-
dened with economic problems. They were less cosmopolitan than the
European universities they tried to imitate: the number of students and
professors was relatively small and they were mostly of local origin.25
The first universities in Spain, in Palencia and Salamanca, were founded
in the thirteenth century, but the former folded soon. In the fourteenth
century the two Castilian universities of Salamanca and Valladolid and
the University of Lerida in Aragon did not catch up with the leading
European universities. There was little variety of courses before the fif-
teenth century.26 Those who sought serious training could not find it in
the peninsula.27 In the fourteenth century some Spanish scholars went to
study in Paris; towards the end of the century several commentaries on
Aristotle were written by Spanish scholars resident there.28 Only in the
fifteenth century did serious philosophical activity (of Thomist orienta-
tion) begin at the University of Salamanca;29 towards the end of the cen-
tury Scotist philosophy started to be taught at the University of Lerida.30
John Doyle dates “the birth of Hispanic philosophy” even later, to .31
The significant flowering of Spanish scholasticism was in the sixteenth
century, after the Council of Trent (convened in ), when it spread in
the Dominican and Jesuit schools of the Iberian Peninsula and to South
America.32
In summary, by the time Scholasticism was instituted in Christian
Spain it was already past its prime north of the Pyrenees and the spirit
of the Renaissance was reigning in Italy. Jewish Aristotelianism in Spain
25 J. Gutiérrez-Cuadrado, “Universities, Christian,” in E.M. Gerli, ed., Medieval Iberia:
An Encyclopedia (New York, ): –, on p.  col. , p. ; M.A. de Wulf,
Scholastic Philosophy. Translated by P. Coffey (London, ; New York, ): –.
26 Gutiérrez-Cuadrado, “Universities,” p. .
27 In the thirteenth century a few Spanish physicians studied in France and Italy;
Arnau de Villanova and Petrus Hispanus studied in Montpellier and in Paris and Siena,
respectively. See L.G. Ballester, “Medical Science and Medical Teaching at the Uni-
versity of Salamanca in the th Century,” in M. Feingold and V. Navarro-Brottons,
eds, Universities and Science in the Early Modern Period (Dordrecht, ): –, on
p. .
28 L.M. Girón Negrón, Alfonso de la Torre’s Visión Deleytable (Leiden, ): –;
Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, p. .

29 Ballester, “Medical Science,” pp. –.
30 Girón Negrón, Alfonso de la Torre, pp. –.
31 J.P. Doyle, “Hispanic Scholastic Philosophy,” in J. Hankins, ed., The Cambridge
Companion to Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –, on p. .

32 F.C. Copleston, History of Philosophy (New York, ) :–; M.A. de Wulf,
A History of Medieval Philosophy. Translated by P. Coffey (London, ): Part , §§ –

.
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
revived when Scholasticism was making first strides in the Spanish uni-
versities. But when Spanish Scholasticism reached its prime, in the six-
teenth century, it was no longer relevant to the Jews.33
. Christian Spain: The Political and Social Background
If the Provençal pattern of cultural interaction between Jews and Chris-

tians was cautious, its Spanish counterpart was more open and explicit.
The generally normal relations between Jews and Muslims in Muslim
Spain was an important experience for the Jews, suggests Norman Roth,
and proved to be essential to their ability to adjust to the new Christian
society.34 Because Spain was a frontier region from the Muslim conquest
in the eighth century until its unification under the Catholic monarchs at
the end of the fifteenth century, the Jewish minority played an important
role in Spanish administration and urban life.
In fourteenth- and fifteenth-century Spain, as in twelfth-century Pro-
vence, cultural exchange and animosity went hand in hand. In Spain the
situation was more intense: there was more friction, more resentment,
and more cultural exchange. The larger Jewish population of Spain and
the increasing number of conversos also contributed to the frequency of
interaction and friction. Summing up a detailed study of life in medieval
Toledo, Nina Melechen writes: “The Spanish convivencia was a system of
both otherness and sameness, dependent on both interaction and sepa-
ration, that required the people of Toledo to dislike each other in some
contexts and deal comfortably with each other in others.”35 The relations
between Jews and Christians in Toledo could be viewed as “basically har-
monious or fundamentally hostile.”36 “Despite the insistence on alterity,
members of the groups interacted freely and frequently in ways unknown
in most of the rest of medieval Europe.”37
33 Feldman describes the transition from Aristotelianism to Platonism among Jews

(including refugees from Spain) in Italy after the expulsion. See S. Feldman, “The End
and Aftereffects of Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” in Frank and Leaman, Cambridge Com-
panion, pp. –.
34 N. Roth, Jews, Visigoths and Muslims in Medieval Spain: Cooperation and Conflict
(Leiden, ): –.

35 N. Melechen, “The Jews of Medieval Toledo: Their Economic and Social Contacts
with Christians from  to ” (Ph.D. thesis, Fordham University, ): .
36 Ibid., p. .
37 Ibid., p. .
 ruth glasner
As examples of the more intensive cultural interaction with Christians

in Spain than in Provence, consider that Jews were involved in trans-
lation projects from Arabic to Latin in the twelfth century and from
Arabic to Castilian at the court of Alfonso X in the thirteenth cen-
tury (and later).38 It was not as rare for Jews to write in the vernacu-
lar (Castilian or Catalan) as it was in Provence. In the fourteenth cen-
tury we find the proverbios morales of Šem-Tov 39
. de Carrión in Castilian
40
and a few other texts. A notable example from the first half of the fif-
teenth century is Moses Arragel’s translation of the Bible into Castil-
ian, at the request of Don Luis de Guzmán. This was a joint project of
Arragel and Franciscan friars and included a commentary, for which
Arragel consulted not only Jewish but also Christian commentators.41
The composition of prose and poetry in Spanish was common among
the conversos in the fifteenth century;42 Norman Roth remarked that
conversos played a major role in the development of Spanish poetry and
literature.43 The numerous interactions between Jews and Christians in
Spain, which were part of everyday life, had their impact on the cul-
tural development of both societies. The many conversos (voluntary and
forced) certainly contributed to the parallels in cultural development.44
This has to be taken into consideration when we turn to the fifteenth cen-
tury.
The description of Jewish life in Spain between the riots of  and
the expulsion in  as a period of “unmitigated Jewish despair” or
“gloom-filled parentheses” requires serious examination, contends Mark
38 F.D. Esteban, “The Literary Creation of Jews in Spanish,” in H. Beinart, ed., Moreshet
Sefarad: The Sepharadi Legacy (Jerusalem, ): –, on pp. –; E.R. Miller,
“Jewish Multilingualism: The Use of Hebrew, Arabic and Castilian in Medieval Spain”
(Ph.D. thesis, University of California, Santa Barbara, ): –. On Jewish physi-
cians’ increasing reliance on Latin and vernacular medicine books, including translations
of Arabic medical books, see L.G. Ballester, L. Ferre and E. Felin, “Jewish Appreciation of
Fourteenth-Century Scholastic Medicine,” Osiris  (): –.
39 See A.I. Aronson-Friedman, “Identifying the Converso Voice” (Ph.D. thesis, Temple
University, ): ch. . Much has been written on this text.

40 Miller mentions three other anonymous fourteenth-century texts that were proba-
bly written by Jews (“Jewish Multilingualism,” p. ).

41 I.F. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain (Heb.) (Tel Aviv, ): –.
42 Esteban “Literary Creation”; Aronson-Friedman, “Converso Voice,” ch. –; Miller,
“Jewish Multilingualism,” pp. –.

43 N. Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison,
): xiii and –.

44 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ..
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
Meyerson.45 At the beginning of this period attempts were made to

reestablish some of the devastated Jewish communities.46 “Instead of
viewing it as simply a long prelude to the expulsion,” Meyerson tries
to treat it as “a period of adjustment, reorganization and creativity for
Jews, conversos and Old Christians.”47 He puts particular emphasis on
the great diversity of Jewish experience in this period, which was not
exclusively fear and suffering. It is crucial to note that the intellectual
relations among Jews, conversos, and Christians assumed many different
patterns.48 The mass conversions in the fifteenth century boosted cultural
interactions between Jews and Christians. An interesting example of
the close relation between Jewish and Christian scholarship in the mid-
fifteenth century is the influential Visión Deleytable by Alfonso de la
Torre, with a Maimonidean orientation.49 There is no conclusive evidence
about De la Torre’s identity, but he was probably a converso or a second-
generation converso or an Old Christian.50
Against this background of the more open though increasingly hostile
pattern of Jewish-Christian interaction, we go back to the suspension of
Aristotelianism in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and its revival
in the fifteenth century.
45 M.D. Meyerson, A Jewish Renaissance in Fifteenth-Century Spain (Princeton, ):

–. Meyerson bases his contention on a very detailed study of documents on the Jews
from the city of Morverde in Valencia, which belonged at the time to the Crown of
Aragon.
46 See H. Beinart, The Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –
.
47 Meyerson, Jewish Renaissance, pp. . Meyerson offers a narrative that differs, as he
remarks, both from the “master narrative” in the tradition of Baer and from the narrative
of the leading Spanish historians.
48 See E. Moav, “Between Jews and Christian in Spain from the End of the Fourteenth
Century to the Sixteenth Century: Hesitating Conversos” (M.A. thesis, Tel Aviv Univer-
sity, ) (Heb.). Moav surveys the wide range of attitudes to religious and philosophical
questions among the conversos and emphasizes the diversity among them.
49 It has been suggested that this book was an attempt to harmonize the Christian and
Hebrew traditions, notably Aquinas and Maimonides. In a new and detailed study Girón
Negrón argues that close reading of the text discloses the author’s preference for the latter
(Alfonso de la Torre, pp. –).
50 Ibid., Alfonso de la Torre, pp. –.
 ruth glasner
. The Suspension of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews
Aristotelianism flourished in Christian France and among Provençal

Jews in the thirteenth century; it was almost non-existent in Christian
Spain and among Spanish Jews, for whom it was the century of Kabbalah.
Spanish Kabbalah, with few exceptions, was less philosophically oriented
than earlier Provençal or later Italian Kabbalah.51 Whereas Kabbalah,
in its first steps in twelfth-century Provence, took form among thinkers
who fully accommodated philosophical education as well,52 kabbalists in
Spain gradually withdrew into closed circles and developed their own
conceptual frames of reference.53 Some philosophical terms and ideas,
not only Neoplatonic but also Aristotelian, were integrated into the con-
ceptual basis of early Kabbalah; but the Spanish kabbalists’ acquaintance
with Aristotle was superficial and mostly restricted to second-hand pre-
sentations transmitted within kabbalistic circles.54 The few kabbalists
with a background in philosophy usually acquired it outside Spain and
not directly from Aristotelian texts.55
After Maimonides, notes Dov Schwartz, “we find almost no other
explicitly rationalist philosopher in th-century Christian and Muslim
Spain.”56 In the thirteenth century several Jewish intellectuals—such as
51 H. Tirosh-Samuelson, “Philosophy and Kabbalah: –,” in Frank and Lea-

man, Cambridge Companion, pp. –.
52 G. Scholem, The Kabbalah in Provence. Edited by R. Schatz (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ):
; idem, Kabbalah (Jerusalem, ): –.

53 Idem, The Kabbalah in Gerona. Edited by Y. Ben Shlomo (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ):
. In general the Maimonidean controversy, which produced fierce confrontations in

France, led to growing seclusion of Kabbalah in Spain.
54 For instance, there are not many Aristotelian concepts in the Zohar. A notable
example is the classification of souls in Midraš Ne#elam, Berešit. I am grateful to Ronit

Meroz for this reference.
55 I shall mention a few examples. Isaac ibn Latif ’s philosophical education came
mainly from Jewish and Arabic sources—Maimonides, al-Fārābı̄, etc. (S.O. Heller Wilen-
sky. “Isaac Ibn Latif—Philosopher or Kabbalist,” in A. Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and
Renaissance Studies [Cambridge, MA, ]: –, on pp. –). Abraham Abu-
lafia studied Maimonides’ Guide with Hillel of Verona in Italy (M. Idel, The Mystical Expe-
rience in Abraham Abulafia [Jerusalem, ]: ). R. Joseph Ashkenazi studied mainly
Maimonides. He refers to Aristotle several times, sometimes disparagingly (Y. Halamish,
A Commentary on Parašat Bere"šit by R. Yosef Aškenazi [Heb.] [Jerusalem, ]: –
). His introduction to Sefer Yes. irah (erroneously attributed to R. Abraham ben David)
is relatively rich in philosophical terms. I am again indebted to Ronit Meroz for these
references.
56 D. Schwartz. Central Problems in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Leiden, ): .
See also M. Idel, “Jewish Thought in Medieval Spain,” in Beinart, Moreshet Sefarad,
pp. –, on. p.  (Heb.).
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
Zerahyah
. ben Še"altiel and Judah ibn Mathqa—left Spain and continued
their scientific and philosophical activity in Italy. It is hard to say how
many active philosophers remained in Christian Spain. We do not know
whether Šem Tov. ben Joseph ibn Falaquera and Yis. haq . Albalag stayed
and worked in Spain or moved to Provence, and, if they stayed, whether
those around them were interested in their work.
The point I wish to make is that even during this period, in which
philosophical activity was almost suspended, there were two channels of
transmission of scientific texts into Christian Spain: () Arabic texts from
Muslim Spain and () Hebrew texts from Provence.
() Pieter van Koningsveld, who studied Andalusian-Arabic manu-
scripts, showed that there was a continuous transmission of Andalusian-
Arabic manuscripts to Christian Spain by Muslims, Jews, and Christian
Mozarabes in the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. These included
a group of scientific texts, many of which, he shows, were commissioned
or owned by Jews.57 Most of the manuscripts in this group are from
the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The vast majority of texts are
medical, but there are also manuscripts on mathematics, astronomy,
and Aristotelian philosophy.58 Tzvi Langermann, who studied Judeo-
Arabic manuscripts, lists scientific (again mostly medical) manuscripts
that were copied during this period and contends that “knowledge of
Arabic was essential for the mastery of certain disciplines” in Christian
Spain.59 Colette Sirat and Marc Geoffroy have shown that in Aristotelian
philosophy, too, and as late as the fifteenth century, Judeo-Arabic texts,
notably Ibn Rušd’s commentaries, were used by Jews in Christian Spain.60
() The import of Hebrew texts from Provence started to be effective
in the fourteenth century and built up steadily. In the fourteenth cen-
tury Jews were moving relatively freely between Languedoc, Roussillon,
and Catalonia. Many Jewish families found refuge in Aragon, notably in
Roussillon and Catalonia, after the expulsion from France in  and
57 P.Sj. van Koningsveld, “Andalusian-Arabic Manuscripts from Christian Spain: A

Comparative Intercultural Approach,” Israel Oriental Studies  (): –, on pp.
–. I am grateful to Hagar Kahana-Smilansky for referring me to Van Koningsveld’s
work.
58 Ibid., pp. –.
59 Y.T. Langermann, “Arabic Writing in Hebrew Manuscripts: A Preliminary Relist-
ing,” in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy  (): –, on pp. –.

60 E.g., Paris BNF, MSS héb.  and ; MS Modena a. J. .. See C. Sirat and
M. Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe du grand commentaire d’ Averroès au De anima d’ Aristote

(Paris, ): –. I shall return to their study in the next section.
 ruth glasner
again in  and later.61 According to Yom-Tov . Assis, in Spain they

found “an ideal place for pursuing their own culture and for gradual and
natural integration into Spanish Jewry.”62 The process of cultural trans-
mission, oriented from Spain to Provence in the twelfth century, reversed
direction in the fourteenth century. In addition to the refugees, several
Jewish scholars from Provence traveled to Spain for different reasons.
Qalonymos ben Qalonymos visited Barcelona, in the s, to improve
his Arabic;63 Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles went to Murcia in  to
find a trustworthy Arabic text of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commen-
tary on De anima.64 A particularly important Provençal “agent” in Spain
was Moses Narboni, who lived for many years in several cities in Aragon
and Castile and helped introduce Provençal philosophy into Spain. Even
in more distant Portugal we find David ibn Bilia referring to Narboni’s
commentary on al-Ġazālı̄’s Intentions of the Philosophers.65 The study
of philosophy came back to life in Spain in the second quarter of the
fourteenth century;66 during the second half of the century philosoph-
ical knowledge accumulated, mostly in Aragon, which was closest to
Provence.
Here are a few examples that illustrate the growing presence of Aris-
totelian sources. In the first half of the century, Avner of Burgos had a
general acquaintance with Aristotle through second-hand Hebrew
sources such as Šem Tov ben Joseph ibn Falaquera’s De#ot ha-filosofim and
Moreh ha-moreh, and perhaps also from Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commen-
tary on De anima.67 In , Ezra Gattegno copied Ibn Rušd’s Epitome
61 Y.T. Assis, “Juifs de France réfugiés en Aragon (e–e siècles),” Revue des Etudes
Juives  (): –. Roussillon and particularly the city of Perpignan were under
Aragonese rule at the time. For instance, the family of Menahem
. ben Zerah. left Navarre
in  and settled in Castile.
62 Y.T. Assis, “Les Juifs de Montpellier sous la domination aragonaise,” Revue des
Etudes Juives  (): –, on p. .

63 Freudenthal, “Les sciences,” p. .
64 L.V. Berman, “Greek into Hebrew: Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles, Fourteenth-
Century Philosopher and Translator,” in Altmann, ed., Jewish Medieval and Renaissance
Studies, pp. –, on p. .
65 A. Ravitsky, Aristotelian Logic and Talmudic Methodology: The Application of Aris-
totelian Logic to the Interpretation of the Thirteen Hermeneutic Principles (Jerusalem,

): .
66 Schwartz, Central Problems, p. .
67 R. Szpiech, “In Search of Ibn Sina’s ‘Oriental Philosophy’ in Medieval Castile”,
forthcoming in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy. I am grateful to Ryan Szpiech and Shalom
Sadik for the information.
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
of the Organon and three of his middle commentaries.68 In the same cir-
cle Solomon Franko refers to Ibn Rušd’s commentary on the Physics.69 In
, Šem Tov
. ibn Mayor referred to Ibn Rušd’s De animalibus and to
Gersonides’ commentary on it.70 Meir Alduby and Menahem . ben Zerah.
studied al-Fārābı̄ from Hebrew translations.71 Quite a few Spanish schol-
ars quoted the Hebrew translation of On Sleep and Waking attributed to
Aristotle.72 Towards the end of the century, Simeon ben Sema . h. Duran
was interested in the natural sciences and studied mainly from Moses
ibn Tibbon’s translations of Ibn Rušd’s short commentaries.73
The subject of the spread of philosophical texts in fourteenth-century
Spain calls for a systematic study. The point I wish to make is that Aris-
totelian texts accumulated in Christian Spain during the fourteenth cen-
tury and were studied, but were not appropriated the way they were in
Provence. As Dov Schwartz has put it, philosophical activity in four-
teenth-century Spain centered mainly around the traditional but “philo-
sophically inclined” circle of Rashba’s disciples and the “radically in-
clined” neo-Platonist circle.74 In both circles Aristotelian texts were stud-
ied by people who wished to acquire basic science but did not consider
themselves “Aristotelians.” The members of the former group, as well as
several other Spanish scholars, objected to the “philosophical radicalism”
represented by Ibn Rušd;75 the members of the latter were closer to the
thought of Ibn Ezra and Ibn Sı̄nā than to Ibn Rušd’s.76 The fourteenth
68 D. Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel: The Philosophy of a Fourteenth-Century Jewish
Neoplatonic Circle (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ):  (Hebrew); Sirat and Geoffroy, L’ Original
arabe, pp. –.
69 Quoted by Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel, p. . I am not sure, however, that Franko
had the text in front of him. The reference is to Ibn Rušd’s introduction to the Physics.
There are not many references to al-Ġazālı̄ in Ibn Rušd’s commentaries on the Physics.
Al-Ġazālı̄ is mentioned in the introduction of the Short Commentary but there is no
correspondence between what Ibn Rušd writes and Franko’s “quotation.”
70 Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel, p. .
71 D. Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Ramat Gan, ): .
72 H. Kahana-Smilansky, “Aristotle On Sleep and Wakefulness: A Medieval Hebrew
Adaptation of an Unknown Latin Treatise,” Aleph  (): –, on p. .

73 N. Arieli, “The Philosophical Doctrines of R. Simeon ben Semah Duran” (Ph.D.
. .
thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ): – (Heb.). Duran was born in Spain in
 and emigrated to Algiers in .
74 Schwartz, Central Problems, pp.  and . The neo-Platonist circle has been
studied in great detail by Schwartz in a series of papers and in Old in a New Vessel.
75 Schwartz, Old in a New Vessel, p. ; idem, Central Problems, p. .
76 M. Zonta, “The Role of Avicenna and of Islamic ‘Avicennism’ in the Fourteenth-
Century Jewish Debate around Philosophy and Religion,” Oriente moderno  ():
–, on pp. –.
 ruth glasner
century was an eclectic period for Spanish Jews, but Aristotelianism was
not among the prevalent trends. Hardly any text that can be labeled “Aris-
totelian” was written during this period.77
The growing of Aristotelian erudition among non-Aristotelian schol-
ars climaxed with Crescas (–), probably the most erudite in
Aristotle’s teaching but also the most systematic and profound anti-
Aristotelian among fourteenth-century Jews. Wolfson remarks that he
“seems to have had the works of Aristotle on the tip of his tongue.”78
He had access to all the major commentaries of Ibn Rušd, including a
complete copy of the Long Commentary on the Physics, as well as to his
treatise De substantia orbis.79 He used Gersonides’ two commentaries on
the Physics and his two commentaries on De caelo, as well as Narboni’s
commentaries on the Guide and on al-Ġazālı̄’s Intentions.80
Crescas marked a turning point from the relatively neutral non-Aristo-
telian attitude of the second half of the fourteenth century to the expressly
anti-Aristotelian attitude at the beginning of the fifteenth. Did Crescas
study Aristotle in such depth only in order to undermine his teach-
ing? Nathan Ophir suggests that in the early years in Barcelona Crescas
was less conservative than he became later in Saragossa.81 If this inter-
pretation is correct we can perhaps surmise that Crescas’ antagonistic
approach had not yet crystallized when he started to study Aristotelian
texts in Barcelona.
Aristotelianism did emerge in Spain a few decades later. Was the
ground ready for it at the turn of the century? Was fifteenth-century
77 A book on logic, Kelalei ha-higgayon, was written by David ibn Bilia in the first
half of the fourteenth century (see Ravitzky, Aristotelian Logic, ch. ). There is evi-
dence of a commentary on Aristotle’s logic written by Judah ben Samuel ibn #Abbas,
perhaps in the fourteenth century. See D. Schwartz, “Meharsim, Talmudiim and anšei
ha-hokhma:
. The Attitude and Teaching of R. Judah ben Samuel Ibn #Abbas,” Tarbis.
 (): –, on p.  (Heb.). We do not know when Ibn ‘Abbas lived. In the
new editition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica Dov Schwartz suggests thirteenth to fifteenth
century.
78 H.A. Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle (Cambridge, ): . Ophir counts
about fifty quotations of Aristotle from different sources and eighteen from Ibn Rušd.
See N. Ophir, R. Hasdai Crescas as Philosophical Exegete of Rabbinic Sources in the Light
of the Changes in his Writings (Heb.) (Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ):
 n. .
79 Wolfson, Crescas’ Critique, pp. –, nn. , , .
80 Wolfson (Ibid., pp. , ) mistakenly lists Narboni’s commentary on the Physics
among Crescas’ sources. The error goes back to Steinschneider, who attributed the
commentary in Paris BNF MS héb.  /  to Narboni.
81 Ophir bases his argument on the analysis of the differences he found in one of the
manuscripts of Or ha-Šem.
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
Aristotelianism the consummation of a process that ripened during the

fourteenth century but was interrupted? Spanish Jews were increasingly
exposed to Aristotelian texts during the fourteenth century. Could this
have led to a systematic study of Aristotle through the commentaries of
Ibn Rušd? We cannot know the answers to these speculative questions.
What is certain is that if such a scenario was possible, the events of 
put an abrupt end to it. The Jewish community, injured and aggrieved,
turned in a traditionalist direction. Aristotelianism had to wait another
half century.
. The Late Revival of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews
Although it is unlikely that the revival of Aristotelianism among Spanish

Jews was detached from its revival in the Christian universities, the
relationship is not easy to understand. It is hard to estimate the effect of
Spanish scholasticism on the birth of Jewish Aristotelianism in Christian
Spain. The first proponents of Thomism in Aragon, towards the end of the
fourteenth century, were Dominicans. They included Nicolas Eymerich,
who became the inquisitor general of the Crown of Aragon, and Vincent
Ferrer, known for his missionary preaching that led to mass conversions
of Jews, who was feared and hated by them.82 In these early stages,
Spanish scholasticism could hardly appeal to the Jews, but they were
probably aware of it. After , as we have seen, the Jews turned away
from philosophy for half a century. Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews
flourished in the second half of the fifteenth century, when it started to
gain power in the Spanish universities.
At first the Jews pursued the Arabic-Hebrew tradition. The interaction
with Christian scholasticism and the turn to Christian sources developed
gradually during the second half of the fifteenth century. In the first
decades the new Aristotelians studied from the Hebrew manuscripts
that had accumulated in Spain and turned to Arabic when Hebrew
texts were unavailable or deficient. In the second half of the fifteenth
century, Freudenthal has shown, the pace of copying Hebrew manu-
scripts increased markedly.83 The Spanish-Jewish Aristotelians adopted
the pattern and norms that were instituted by their Provençal-Jewish
82 Roth, Conversos, –; R. Vose, Dominicans, Muslims and Jews in the Medieval
Crown of Aragon (Cambridge, ): –; Baer, History –.

83 Only two dated manuscripts in science and philosophy were copied in Spain in
 ruth glasner
predecessors in the fourteenth century. According to this norm the lead-

ing textbooks were the middle commentaries of Ibn Rušd; the long com-
mentaries were consulted when available.84 This pattern was crystallized
by the Spanish Aristotelians, who ascribed much importance to the long
commentaries and made special efforts to acquire them.
The consolidation of these norms evidently reflects the scholarly aca-
demic orientation of the new Aristotelians. Sirat and Geoffroy have
shown that in this period study groups (which they refer to as yešivot
hokhmot
. hi
. s. oniyyot) formed in Saragossa, Segovia, Huesca, and other
places in Aragon and Castile.85 The members of each group shared their
manuscripts; we may conjecture there were also loans of manuscripts
between groups. Let me illustrate these points by a few examples.
The Long Commentary on De anima was not available in Hebrew.86
Sirat and Geoffroy found that the Jews turned to the Arabic text. Frag-
ments of the Arabic text were copied in several hands in Hebrew letters in
the margins of MS Modena a. J. ..87 Study of the marginalia provides
evidence that Spanish Jews shared their manuscripts and that knowledge
of Arabic was not rare.88 We find additional evidence of the use of Ara-
bic texts in Bibago’s commentary on the Metaphysics. Bibago complained
about errors and lacunae in Qalonymos’ translation of Ibn Rušd’s Middle
Commentary on this text and turned to “precise Arabic books.”89
the entire fourteenth century; the figures for first half and second halves of the fifteenth
century are four and , respectively. See Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § .,
Table .
84 Three of Ibn Rušd’s five long commentaries were translated into Hebrew in the
fourteenth century: those on the Physics, the Metaphysics, and the Posterior Analytics.
85 Sirat and Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe, ch. iii. On the reference to these study groups
as yešivot, see pp. – and n. .

86 The long commentary on De anima was not translated into Hebrew in Provence;
rather, it was translated from the Latin at a later stage, probably in Italy. Steinschneider
suggested, and Zonta initially agreed (“Osservazioni sulla tradizione ebraica del Com-
mento grande di Averroè al De anima di Aristotele,” Annali di Ca’ Foscari , s.or. 
[]: –) that the Latin to Hebrew translation of this text was done by Barukh ben
Ya#ish. More recently, however, Zonta concluded that the translation was made in Italy
(Hebrew Scholasticism, pp. –). Although the Arabic text is no longer extant, cita-
tions of it are found in Ibn Falaquera’s De#ot ha-filosofim. See C. Sirat, “Les citations du
grand commentaire d’ Averroès,” in J.B. Brenet, ed., Averroès et les Averroïsmes juif et latin
(Turnhout, ): –.
87 Sirat and Geoffroy, L’ Original arabe, pp. –.
88 Ibid., p. .
89 See Bibago’s commentary on Metaphysics VI, Münich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek
 / , fol. a.

aristotelianism among spanish jews 
The Long Commentary on the Physics was similarly “shared.” This

voluminous work was translated into Hebrew in Provence in the begin-
ning of the fourteenth century, but was not easily accessible. Whereas
more than forty manuscripts of the Middle Commentary are extant
today, only four manuscripts of books I–IV of the Long Commentary
are extant, and only two of books V–VIII. The last four books were
already rare in the Middle Ages: there is evidence that they were used
only in Provence in the fourteenth century and in Spain in the fifteenth.90
The Spanish Aristotelians had access to the complete commentary and
apparently shared it. At least seven supercommentaries were written
on the Physics, and all of them consult the Long Commentary.91 There
are references to it in other writings from this cultural milieu, too.92
The Long Commentary on the Metaphysics was also available in sev-
eral copies and studied, but that on the Posterior Analytics seems not
to have been accessible in Spain.93 In addition to Ibn Rušd’s commen-
taries, several Provençal supercommentaries and other Aristotelian texts
circulated in Spain, including Gersonides’ supercommentaries on Pos-
terior Analytics and Physics,94 and Narboni’s commentary on Ibn Rušd’s
Natural Questions.95 The efforts made to get hold of these texts, especially
Ibn Rušd’s long commentaries, illustrate the great demand for “serious”
Aristotelian texts.
Can we point to influence of the Christian environment at this stage? It
seems that there was a certain influence, but it was subtle and not explicit.
It is possible that the importance the Spanish Jews ascribed to the long
90 There are no references to these books in texts written in Italy or Byzantium.

91 R. Glasner, “The Evolution of the Genre of the Philosophical-Scientific Commen-
tary: Hebrew Supercommentaries on the Physics,” in Freudenthal, ed., Science in Medieval
Jewish Cultures, § ..
92 E.g. ‚Eli Habilio (MS Parma. , fol. a) and Joseph ben Šem Tov (see S. Regev,
. .
“Theology and Rational Mysticism in the Writings of R. Joseph ben Shem Tob” [Ph.D.
thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ]:  [Heb.]).
93 There is no evidence that Crescas was familiar with it, and none of the extant
manuscripts is in Spanish script. In the introduction to his commentary on the Posterior

Analytics, Abraham Bibago remarks that he had access only to a copy “in a foreign
language,” probably Latin, and that this copy was full of errors. See A. Nuriel, Concealed
and Revealed in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): .
94 The former is referred to critically several times by Bibago. See ibid., p. . The latter
(on Ibn Rušd’s Middle Commentary) is referred to in three anonymous commentaries on

the Physics, Cambridge Trinity College MS ., fols. b, a, a, b, b, and
a.
95 MS Cambridge, fol. a. The Spanish Aristotelians also refer to al-Ġazālı̄’s Inten-
tions of the Philosophers, which was a more popular textbook.

 ruth glasner
commentaries reflected their wish to “upgrade” their norm to that of the

Christians.96 The increasing use of the typically scholastic question pat-
terns and doubt patterns in the Hebrew commentaries may confirm this
conjecture.97 One can follow this trend even in the work of one commen-
tator: Is. haq
. ibn Šem Tov
. wrote two commentaries on the Physics, in the
first he followed the pattern of the Arabic-Hebrew tradition, while in the
second he made heavy use of the scholastic structure.98 These examples,
however, are not sufficient to corroborate scholastic influence, because
use of the long commentaries and question and doubt patterns was a fea-
ture of the Provençal Hebrew tradition. It was, however, intensified in the
Spanish circles.
It was in the s that Jewish Aristotelians turned massively to Chris-
tian Scholastic sources. Abraham Bibago—who was active from the
s to the s—quotes Christian texts more frequently in his later
than in his earlier writings.99 His Treatise on the Multiplicity of Forms,
written late in his life, reflects wide knowledge of Christian philosophy.
The leading translators, Barukh ben Ya#ish, Abraham Shalom, and #Eli
Habilio,
. were active about this time.100 Gad Freudenthal notes a “dra-
matic and surprising increase in the number of scientific-philosophical
translations from Latin” in fifteenth-century Spain.101 Mauro Zonta re-
marks that more people had access to scholastic texts (in Latin or in
Hebrew translation) than ever before.102 He referred to Shalom, Habilio,
.
Abraham Bibago, and Moses Arondi as “the Aragonese circle” and sug-
gests that these four scholars “were members of a sort of circle of ‘Jewish
Scholastics,’ who were interested in the doctrines and texts of contempo-
rary Latin Christian philosophers.”103 The translators took advantage of
the new Latin “market” in order to produce better translations of Aris-
totle and also to gain acquaintance with the work of Christian scholars.
Zonta shows that in the s Habilio. had a good perspective on the
96 Four of the five long commentaries were translated into Latin in the thirteenth
century and were used as standard texts in the Christian universities.
97 See Glasner, “The Evolution,” § .
98 R. Glasner, “Two Notes on the Identification of Some Anonymous Hebrew Com-
mentaries on the Physics,” Aleph  (): –, on p. .

99 See the chronological list of Bibago’s writings in Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed,
p. , and lists of his sources, ibid., pp. –.

100 Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, ch. –.
101 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ..
102 Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, pp. –.
103 M. Zonta, “The Aragonese Circle of ‘Jewish Scholastics’ and Its Relationship to Local
Christian Scholarship,” lecture given in Paris in December .

aristotelianism among spanish jews 
different trends in scholastic thought and tried to select representative

texts to translate.104 It is likely that learning Latin and gaining access
to Latin texts was easier for these Spanish Jews than it had been for
the Provençal Jews two centuries earlier, because of the closer relations
between Jews and Christians and because of the large number of conver-
sos, who could serve as intermediaries.
It is hard to estimate the impact of Christian scholarship, because
its assimilation was interrupted by the expulsion. Although the Spanish
pattern was not as “cautious” as the Provençal, it is not clear to what extent
Spanish Aristotelians actively appropriated the new body of knowledge.
Let me offer two examples. #Eli Habilio
. was the most prolific translator;
but, as Jean Pierre Rothschild remarks, “in his oeuvres personelles, unless
he relied on a Christian source that has not yet been identified, his
primary sources are in the Greek-Arabic tradition.”105 Habilio . carried
out the vast project (completed in ) of translating six question-
commentaries on Aristotle by Johannes Versor.106 So far I have found
no evidence that these translations were read and used at the time.
Abraham Nuriel lists one reference to Versor in Bibago’s Treatise on the
Multiplicity of Forms, but it is to Versor’s commentary on the Metaphysics,
a text that was not translated by Habilio. 107 Bibago’s acquaintance with
.
Versor was thus either secondhand or with the Latin text. In the extant
commentaries on the Physics I have found references to a Latin text
only in the commentary by Šem Tov . ben Joseph ibn Šem Tov, . perhaps
latest chronologically of these commentaries. Šem Tov . refers several
times to Thomas (ùîåè). I am not sure if he refers to other Christian
scholars.108
It is not clear to what extent an appropriation of scholastic philosophy
was en route in the s and s and where this route could have
104 See his introduction to his translation of Antonius Andreas’ Questions on the
Metaphysics, quoted and translated in Zonta, Hebrew Scholasticism, English, pp. –;
Hebrew, pp. *–*.
105 J.P. Rothschild, “Questions de philosophie soumises par #Eli Habilio à Shem Tob
Ibn Shem Tob v. ,” Archives d’ histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Age  ():
–, on pp. –.
106 The quaestiones on the Physics, De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, De anima,
and three treatises from the Parva naturalia. On these translations see J.P. Rothschild,
“Eli Habilio, philosophe juif et traducteur de latin en hébreu (flor. ca. –post ),”
Mediaevalia – (): –, on pp. –.
107 Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed, p. .
108 E.g., Paris BNF, MS héb.  / , fols. b, b, b (the argument on the place of
the outermost sphere in ch. IV..), and a.

 ruth glasner
led to, had it not been blocked two decades after its start. This question
is especially intriguing, inasmuch as scholasticism thrived in Christian
Spain in the sixteenth century.
Conclusion
It could hardly be a coincidence that Aristotelianism flourished among

Provençal Jews in the thirteenth and first half of the fourteenth centu-
ries—the zenith of scholasticism in the French universities—and that
the revival of Aristotelianism among Spanish Jews more or less coin-
cided with the late reception of scholasticism in the Spanish univer-
sities. In both cases, however, the influence of Christian scholasticism
was neither simple nor direct. If we employ Aristotelian language, it
was not the “active cause”; perhaps it was a formal cause that offered a
paradigm of scholastic culture. Gad Freudenthal expressed this when he
wrote that “the Jewish philosophical culture was comparable to its Latin
counterpart.”109
On the Provençal scene the active cause was, apparently, the arrival
of Jewish immigrants from Muslim Spain. In Spain it is more difficult to
point out. It is possible, as suggested above (§ ), that the motivation to
pursue a more “rationalist” direction began to ripen in the fourteenth
century with the accumulation of Aristotelian texts. This process was
delayed by the events of  and the reaction that followed. Its resump-
tion may have been encouraged by the parallel development of Christian
scholasticism.
It is also likely that fifteenth-century Spanish Jews found Aristotelian-
ism attractive because it was a neutral zone in which Jews, conversos, and
Christians could interact in relative peace. The Spanish Aristotelians dif-
fered in their degree of religious orthodoxy and in their willingness to
endorse Aristotle’s teaching, but were more or less unanimous in their
admiration for Aristotle. In their commentaries they tried, in different
ways, to play down the conflict between Aristotelian theology and tradi-
tional Judaism.110 Both Joseph ibn Šem Tov . and Abraham Bibago empha-
109 Freudenthal, “Arabic and Latin Cultures,” § ..

110 “In my opinion” writes Joseph ibn Šem Tov, “only few of the basic premises of
.
Aristotle conflict with the truth and with the true Torah, with the exception of one
major issue, namely the eternity of creation of the world, in which he had doubts, due
to the conflicting arguments (úåéàø) on this issue, the absence of demonstration (úôåî),
and because he did not have the privilege to learn from one of the prophets” (from the
aristotelianism among spanish jews 
size the universal character of philosophy and its beneficial moderating

influence on the human soul.111 Perhaps this explains why Habilio
. pro-
duced a Hebrew translation of On the Universal by Vincent Ferrer, who
was feared and hated by the Jews a century earlier.112 Communication
was easy on the philosophical and theoretical level.
commentary on Ethics IX; quoted by Regev, “Theology and Rational Mysticism,” p. ).
Is. haq
. Ibn Šem Tov,. referring to Aristotle’s argument in Physics VIII., comments: “Is. haq
.
said: this does not contradict at all what we—namely the community of believers in
creation—say and what is implied by what we say, namely that the world existed in act
and unmoved. All we say is that the world was created ex nihilo . . . ” (MS Cambridge .,
No. , fol. a–). Šem Tov
. ben Joseph brushes the conflict aside: “The intention of the
commentary is not to determine whether the world was created or not but, no matter
whether it was created or not, to inquire whether the world can exist without the first
motion or not. And the inquiry in this place is [carried out] as if (åìàë) it is eternal”
(Paris BNF, MS héb.  / , fol. a–). On Bibago’s somewhat obscure position see
Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed, p. . Although Habilio,
. discussing Aristotle’s argument
in Physics VIII., suggests that “in our true opinion God could have made the celestial
body eternal,” he adds that Narboni’s conclusion that creation is only a possibility does
not follow from this (MS Parma a–b).
111 S. Regev, “On the Study of Philosophy in the Fifteenth Century: R. Joseph Ibn Shem
Tov and R. Abraham Bibago,” Da#at  (): –, on pp. ,  (Heb.).
112 A. Fidora and M. Zonta, “Vincent Ferrer’s Treatise on the Universal in Latin and in
Hebrew” (Lecture given in Paris, December ).

STUDIES IN EARLY MODERN CULTURAL
HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY
DUHEM’S CONTINUITY THESIS:
THE INTRUSION OF IDEOLOGY INTO
HISTORY OF SCIENCE*
Bernard R. Goldstein and Giora Hon
. Gad Freudenthal’s Historiographical Principle
It is commonly asserted that history, offering an account of events, is

about the past whereas philosophy, providing an analysis of thought, is
time independent. But this is not how Gad Freudenthal views his voca-
tion as a historian of science. To be sure, the history he writes con-
cerns the distant past (ancient, medieval, and early modern times), and
the philosophy to which he appeals transcends the constraints of tem-
poral periodicity. Freudenthal considers himself a historian of science,
but he would probably be the first to acknowledge that his achieve-
ments as a historian of science are based on adhering to sound philo-
sophical principles. Indeed, what makes his scientific endeavor insight-
ful is the coherent unification of the two practices for, in Freudenthal’s
hands, historical accounts are informed by refined philosophical distinc-
tions.
An excellent example of Freudenthal’s approach is his illuminating
essay on “instrumentalism” and “realism” in the history of astronomy.1
Freudenthal focuses on Maimonides (–), who was identified as
an instrumentalist by the eminent philosopher of science, Pierre Duhem
* We thank Paul Hoftijzer of the University of Leiden for his assistance in obtaining
access to the original publication and Latin translation of Stevin’s De Beghinselen der
Weeghconst, and for helping us in matters concerning the Dutch language. Matthias
Schwerdt of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, kindly provided
us with an electronic version of Snell’s Latin translation of Stevin’s work. Ron Alter, a
librarian at the University of Haifa, responded most efficiently to our queries. We dedicate
this paper to Gad Freudenthal in gratitude and friendship. Indeed, for many years he has
been an invaluable “guide,” offering sensible and sagacious advice on a great variety of
issues.
1 Gad Freudenthal, “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’ as Categories in the History of
Astronomy: Duhem vs. Popper, Maimonides vs. Gersonides,” Centaurus  (): –
; see especially p.  for definitions of these two categories.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
(–).2 Indeed, taking a long view of history, Duhem associated

Maimonides with the Greek lineage of Posidonius, Geminus, Ptolemy,
Proclus, and Simplicius who, according to Duhem, all held the metaphys-
ical position of instrumentalism.3 To establish his claim Duhem quotes
critical passages in Maimonides extensively, but does not engage in any
analysis of these texts.
By contrast, Freudenthal meticulously examines Maimonides’s meta-
physical position and clarifies the underlying Aristotelian reasoning that
Maimonides presents:
Given the Aristotelian theory of science . . . the Maimonidean view . . .
excludes the possibility of ever finding a scientific theory of the heavens. . . .
Since demonstrations as required by the Aristotelian ideal of science can
be given only with respect to segments of nature governed by necessity, and
since . . . Maimonides holds that necessity is operative only in the sublunar
realm, it follows that the kind of explanations available for the sublunar
world is, and will remain, beyond reach with respect to the supralunar
one.4
According to Freudenthal, Maimonides is the paragon of a medieval
Aristotelian philosopher with scientific interests and metaphysical com-
mitments. Now, do these commitments belong to an instrumentalist? For
Freudenthal the continued use of the term seems warranted, and so Mai-
monides may justly be considered an instrumentalist by the philosopher
of science. But, for the historian of science the game, as it were, is dif-
ferent: the term “must reflect meta-theoretical beliefs or ideals held by
historical actors, not by the historian.”5
Freudenthal thus acknowledges the pioneering work of Duhem in this
respect: he initiated the search for the historical actor’s “second-order,”
or meta-theoretical, views, that is, the philosophical commitments of
2 Duhem preferred the term, fictive, but his view is now generally called “instrumen-
talism”: see ibid., pp. – n. ; P. Barker and B.R. Goldstein, “Realism and Instrumen-
talism in Sixteenth Century Astronomy: A Reappraisal,” Perspectives on Science  ():
–, on p.  n. .
3 P. Duhem, To Save the Phenomena: An Essay on the Idea of Physical Theory from
Plato to Galileo. Translated by E. Dolan and C. Maschler, with an Introductory Essay

by S.L. Jaki (Chicago and London, [ / ] ): –. In addition to those
listed here, Duhem associates many more thinkers who, he claims, hold the position of
instrumentalism. For dissenting views on entries in Duhem’s list see, e.g., B.R. Goldstein,
“Saving the Phenomena: the Background to Ptolemy’s Planetary Theory,” Journal for
the History of Astronomy  (): –; and Barker and Goldstein, “Realism and
Instrumentalism.”
4 Freudenthal, “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and ‘Realism’,” p. , italics in the original.
5 Ibid., p. , see also pp. –.
duhem’s continuity thesis 
a scientist, both epistemological (e.g., what counts as evidence?) and

metaphysical (e.g., are the models to be understood as “real”?). In general,
this is what we might call the “philosophy of science” held by a scientist.
Freudenthal concludes:
Duhem’s substantial theses on the history of astronomy were for the most
part refuted by later historians. . . . [But] the general lesson for which we
are indebted to Duhem . . . is that without taking into consideration the
astronomers’ meta-theoretical beliefs we cannot give a full and adequate
account of the historical development of the discipline.6
While Duhem’s specific claims concerning many individual thinkers as
instrumentalists have been refuted, his search for their meta-theoretic
commitments is of enduring value. According to Freudenthal, this search
follows a historiographical principle which demands that “the historian
of science must take into consideration the ‘second-order’ views held by
the historical actors.”7
Here we call attention to the philosophical sensitivity of a perceptive
historian of science. For Freudenthal a historian of science must be sensi-
tive to scientific content as well as to “meta-theoretical” issues. Freuden-
thal recognizes Duhem’s important work in initiating such a search; but,
following the stated principle, Freudenthal shows in a richly detailed
study that Duhem’s specific claims are associated more with the analyst,
Duhem, than with the historical actor, Maimonides. In short, as we see it,
while Freudenthal provides a nuanced account of the actor’s philosoph-
ical commitments, Duhem anachronistically inserts Maimonides into a
tradition invented to support the philosophy of the modern analyst.8
Despite its shortcomings, Freudenthal found that Duhem’s discussion
of instrumentalism has a positive element, namely, the importance of
studying meta-theoretical issues. In this paper we enlarge the canvas
and examine Duhem’s continuity thesis to see if we can find a way to
6 Ibid., p. .
7 Ibid., p. .
8 For details see § ., below. On Duhem’s negative view of theoretical models, an
important element of his philosophy of science, see P. Duhem, The Aim and Structure
of Physical Theory. Translated from the French by P.P. Wiener with a Foreword by L. de
Broglie (New York, [] ): , –, –; P. Duhem, La théorie physique: son
objet et sa structure, nd ed. rev. and augm. (Paris, [] ): , –, –
. See also R. Ariew, “Pierre Duhem,” in E.N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Winter  Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win/entries/
duhem/.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
derive some value in it, as Freudenthal did with Duhem’s treatment of

instrumentalism. But in this case our conclusion is that Duhem’s ideology
fatally undermined his argument and that the continuity thesis should
simply be abandoned.
Like Freudenthal, we take a cue from Duhem and seek to apply his
continuity thesis to a specific thinker, namely, Simon Stevin (–).
We examine critically this thesis, which motivated Duhem’s accounts
of the history of statics and, more generally, of physics and astronomy.
In other words, we consider the thesis that provides the framework for
Duhem’s historical writing.
We first introduce the continuity thesis as articulated in Duhem’s
own writings and explore its shortcomings (see § ). Next we present
the analysis of equilibrium by Stevin, which serves as an instructive
case (see § ); indeed, Duhem pioneered the modern historical study of
equilibrium in a book which he called, Les origines de la statique (–
), and it was his understanding of the discipline of statics that led
him to formulate the continuity thesis.9 We then argue that Duhem’s
thesis cannot account for the novel contribution of Stevin (see § ). At
stake is Stevin’s conceptualization of statics; in fact, the very term statics
was not available in the relevant scientific literature before the Latin
translation of Stevin’s work in  by Willebrord Snell (–).
We conclude with some remarks on the role of concepts as the engine
of scientific change (see § ).
. Duhem’s Continuity Thesis
Like any domain of scholarship in which new knowledge is sought,

history of science requires intuition and sensitivity to what is critical
and what is not. Typically, these features depend on the character of
the individual researcher, including his or her skills and idiosyncrasies,
which cannot be formalized or cast into a set of principles. Yet, how-
ever critical these features may be, there is the risk that they lead the
researcher astray, away from the path to expanding the frontiers of
knowledge. A case in point is the continuity thesis of Duhem which
he formulated while practicing history of science, searching for philo-
9 P. Barker and R. Ariew, “Introduction,” in idem, eds, Revolution and Continuity:
Essays in the History and Philosophy of Early Modern Science (Washington, DC, ):
–, on p. . See also n. , below.
duhem’s continuity thesis 
sophical coherence in the vast array of new historical data which he

diligently recorded. Duhem discovered a great many medieval texts of
much value and he is rightly considered the founder of the study of
medieval physics in the Latin West, but this achievement is marred
by his ideology.10 Behind every scientific episode there is an “implicit”
philosophy of science, as Freudenthal rightly noted, calling it “meta-
theoretical.” Philosophy becomes ideology when it is held dogmatically;
indeed, an ideologue dismisses or ignores contrary evidence. He or she
thus turns science into a self-confirmatory activity by weakening the
critical faculty, creating a “cozy” unified view which resists empirical
refutation.11
Duhem rejected the idea that every so often there is a scientific revolu-
tion; rather, he argued that there is an underlying continuity in a scientific
discipline:
The collapse of Peripatetic physics did not occur suddenly; the construc-
tion of modern physics was not accomplished on an empty terrain where
nothing was standing. The passage from one state to the other was made
by a long series of partial transformations, each one pretending merely to
retouch or to enlarge some part of the edifice without changing the whole.
But when all these minor modifications were accomplished, man, encom-
passing at one glance the result of his lengthy labor, recognized with sur-
prise that nothing remained of the old palace, and that a new palace stood
in its place. Those who, during the sixteenth century, became aware of this
substitution of one science for another were possessed by a strange delu-
sion; they imagined that the substitution was sudden and that it was their
doing. They proclaimed that Peripatetic physics, that dark den of error, just
succumbed to their blows, and that they had built upon its ruins, as if by
magic, the bright domain of truth. The men of subsequent centuries were
either the dupes or the accomplices of the sincere delusion or vain error of
these men. The physicists of the sixteenth century were celebrated as the
creators to which the world owed its scientific renaissance; but they were
often merely continuators, and sometimes plagiarists.12
Since Duhem’s contributions to philosophy of science are widely dis-
cussed, it is worthwhile to scrutinize them in detail. We reconsider one of
them, namely, his continuity thesis, and come to the conclusion that it is
10 See, e.g., Barker and Ariew, “Introduction,” pp. –.

11 H. Post, Against Ideologies, Inaugural Lecture,  November  (London, ).
This lecture is on file at the archives of King’s College, London: C/Lec / .
12 P. Duhem, Medieval Cosmology: Theories of Infinity, Place, Time, Void, and the
Plurality of Worlds. Edited and translated by R. Ariew, an abridged edition in English

translation of P. Duhem, Le Système du monde: Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de
Platon à Copernic (Chicago, ): .
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
inadequate. Duhem failed to recognize critical conceptual innovations:

as an example, we analyze the treatment of equilibrium at the turn of
the seventeenth century. In our view this flawed thesis is the result of the
inability of this eminent philosopher of science to make his philosophical
beliefs conform to the evidence, based on sound historiographical prin-
ciples. In other words, Duhem’s ideology intruded into his pioneering
work in history of science.
The essence of the continuity thesis is that each actor is thoroughly
dependent on his predecessors. But the “thread” of continuity is deter-
mined by the analyst, not by the actor. Duhem concluded his work on
the origins of statics with a bold statement:
Anyone who studies the history of science is led to similar reflections. Each
proposition in statics was slowly elaborated through a process of research,
experimentation, hesitations, discussions, and contradictions. Among all
these many efforts, not one was wasted. Each one contributed to the final
result. . . . Yet, while all these efforts contributed to the advance of science
which we can admire today in its finished form, no single contributor to
these efforts even suspected the final magnitude and shape of the edifice he
was helping construct. When Jordanus developed the law of equilibrium
for a straight lever, he was certainly not aware that he was formulating a
principle which could form the basis for all of statics. Neither Bernoulli nor
Lagrange had any inkling that their Method of Virtual Displacements [leur
méthode de déplacements virtuels] would one day be perfectly suited to deal
with electric and chemical equilibrium. They could not anticipate Gibbs,
even though they were his predecessors. Like skillful masons cutting and
cementing stone, they worked on the completion of an edifice without ever
having seen the overall design of the architect.13
From his vantage point in the early years of the twentieth century, Duhem
convinced himself that he could recognize the work of the “architect.”
13 P. Duhem, The Origins of Statics: The Sources of Physical Theory. Translated from
the French by G.T. Leneaux, V.N. Vagliente and G.H. Wagener, with a Foreword by
S.L. Jaki (Dordrecht and Boston, ): ; P. Duhem, Les origines de la statique, 
vols. (Paris, –): :–. Duhem (Statique, : n. ; Origin of Statics, p. 
n. ) explains that, although many of his sources use the expression, Principle of Virtual
Velocities, “it should be called the Principle of Virtual Displacements.” See also n. ,
below. In modern terms, “if one considers a system of mass-points in a static equilibrium
acted on at any given time by forces . . . and gives it a small perturbation, then the
individual masses experience ‘virtual’ displacements. . . . The principle of virtual velocities
(or displacements) now asserts that a system is in equilibrium if the sum of the ‘moments
of force’ vanishes”: H. Pulte, “Joseph Louis Lagrange, Méchanique analitique, first edition
(),” in I. Grattan-Guinness, ed., Landmark Writings in Western Mathematics –
 (Amsterdam, ): –, on p. .
duhem’s continuity thesis 
He ascribes to Jordanus (thirteenth century) the method of virtual dis-

placements, developed in fact by Jean Bernoulli (–) and Joseph-
Louis Lagrange (–).14 We have here a subtle form of anachro-
nism where the work of each actor may be carefully described and sit-
uated in the right context, but then put in a philosophical framework
which leads to distortion in the overall picture.
Duhem’s philosophical perspective is veiled in a botanical metaphor:
“The minute seed planted by Jordanus not only produced the Mécanique
analytique of Lagrange but the chemical and electrical mechanics of
Gibbs and Helmholtz as well.”15 For him continuity works even in cases
where the actors were unaware that they were tending towards the same
goal. The links, then, are not just continuous, they exhibit directionality,
that is, all the linkages point to one and the same goal, from antiquity
to the present time. Duhem, presumably, sees his own scientific con-
tribution to thermodynamics as the most recent stage of this ongoing
process.16
Duhem’s continuity thesis motivates his entire work on the origins of
statics and, indeed, informs his view of history of science in general. In
the final chapter of his two-volume monograph on statics, he explicitly
states his philosophical position:
From Archimedes to Varignon, the mechanicians—who were geometri-
cally inclined—never ceased to pursue the same ideal. They continue this
pursuit from Varignon to Poinsot and from Poinsot to our own time. They
dream of constructing a statics on the model of Euclid’s Elements of Geome-
try. By means of a thorough and ingenious analysis they hope to reduce the
most complicated cases of equilibrium in the most diverse systems until
they can see clearly simple and elementary instances of equilibrium. . . .
The goal of Archimedes in his treatise On the Equilibrium of Planes was
to provide statics with principles which would be acknowledged as just as
clear and certain as the axioms of geometry. Such was the desire of Daniel
14 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. See also M. Panza, “The Origins of Analytic
Mechanics in the th Century,” in H.N. Jahnke, ed., A history of analysis (Providence,
RI, ): –, on pp. –.
15 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. .
16 P. Duhem, Thermodynamique et chimie: leçons élémentaires à l’ usage des chimistes
(Paris, ). Duhem had published this book on thermodynamics and chemistry not
long before he wrote his history of statics. In this book he praises the contribution of
Josiah Willard Gibbs (–) and extends Gibbs’s work, focusing on the conse-
quences of equilibrium: P. Duhem, L’Évolution de la mécanique (Paris, ). In 
Duhem published a monograph, Josiah-Willard Gibbs (Paris, ), which is full of admi-
ration for Gibbs.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
Bernoulli and then of Poisson, when they attempted to establish the Law
of the Parallelogram of Forces without reference to the general principles
of dynamics.17
We note that Duhem claims to recognize a single ideal goal which is
shared by actors of all eras (classical, medieval, early modern, and mod-
ern times). And these actors share not only the same goal, they even have
the same desire—the same dream.
Duhem expresses this bold thesis by means of several metaphors (we
have already cited a botanical one, above). There is the river metaphor
which comes at the end of the essay on statics.18 And then there is
the metaphor of a rising tide (marée montante), which concludes the
discussion of the evolution of physical theories in The Aim and Struc-
ture of Physical Theory.19 Another metaphor comes in the conclusion
of his work on statics. He appeals to a naturalist who would agree,
Duhem claims, that there is a “guiding idea” presiding over the devel-
opment of every living being, and that this also applies to the evolution
of physics:
Even more than the growth of a living being, the evolution of statics is the
manifestation of the influence of a guiding idea [idée directrice]. Within
the complex data of this evolution, we can see the continuous action of a
divine wisdom [Sagesse] which forces the ideal form [forme idéale] towards
which science must tend and we can sense the presence of a Power which
causes the efforts of all thinkers to converge towards this goal. In a word,
we recognize here the work of Providence.20
We need not dwell on the fact that Duhem recognizes in this Power
the work of Providence. Suffice it to note that the process is continuous,
complete with a goal towards which “science must tend.”
A metaphor does not take the place of argumentation, and a series of
metaphors does not make up for weak arguments;21 on the contrary, such
moves give the impression that the claim cannot be firmly grounded. As
17 Duhem, The Origins of Statics, p. , slightly modified; Duhem, Statique, :–
.
18 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –.
19 Duhem, Aim and Structure, pp. –; Duhem, La théorie physique, p. .
20 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :.
21 For another metaphor, see P. Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” Annales de philosophie
chrétienne  (): –, added as an appendix in Duhem, La théorie physique, nd
ed., pp. –, on p. ; translated as “Physics of a believer” in Aim and Structure,
pp. –, on p. .
duhem’s continuity thesis 
far as we have been able to determine, the passage that comes closest to
stating the thesis without a metaphor is in Duhem’s essay, “Physics of a
believer” ():
The movement through which physics has evolved may actually be decom-
posed into two other movements which are constantly superimposed on
one another. One of the movements is a series of perpetual alternations
in which one theory arises, dominates science for a moment, then col-
lapses to be replaced by another theory. The other movement is a con-
tinual progress through which we see created across the ages a constantly
more ample and more precise mathematical representation of the inani-
mate world disclosed to us by experiment.
Now, these ephemeral triumphs followed by sudden collapses making up
the first of these two movements are the successes and reverses which have
been experienced by the various mechanistic physical systems in succes-
sive roles, including the Newtonian physics as well as the Cartesian and
atomistic physics. On the other hand, the continual progress constituting
the second movement has resulted in general thermodynamics; in it all
the legitimate and fruitful tendencies of previous theories have come to
converge. Clearly, this is the starting point, at the time we live in, for the
forward march which will lead theory toward its ideal goal.22
Duhem continues in this vein to link Aristotle with modern thermody-

namics:
If we rid the physics of Aristotle and of Scholasticism of the outworn and
demoded scientific clothing covering it, and if we bring out in its vigorous
and harmonious nakedness the living flesh of this cosmology, we would
be struck by its resemblance to our modern physical theory; we recognize
in these two doctrines two pictures of the same ontological order, distinct
because they are each taken from a different point of view, but in no way
discordant.23
Both in his metaphors and here, in the argument, Duhem refers to two
processes superimposed on one another. The conspicuous process is the
coming and going of theories which are ephemeral in nature; Duhem
takes this movement to be superficial. The real process, the one that
exhibits progress, is implicit. He identifies the element which keeps pro-
gressing independently of theory as the mathematical representation of
the inanimate world disclosed by experiment. What remains then are
increasingly general mathematical formulations—“the ideal form toward
22 Duhem, “Physics of a believer”, p. .

23 Ibid., p. . The cloth metaphor is taken directly from Heinrich Hertz (–):
see H. Hertz, Electric Waves. Translated by D.E. Jones (New York, [] ): .
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
which physical theory and cosmology slowly proceed.”24 This hidden

process culminated in thermodynamics, and not in the mechanical the-
ories of Newton, Descartes, or the atomists. When stripped naked, as it
were, thermodynamics resembles the physics of Aristotle. For Duhem
this truth is crystal clear, and he exclaims rhetorically, “how can we not
recognize a striking analogy between Aristotle’s cosmology reduced to
its essential affirmations [affirmations essentielles] and the teachings of
thermodynamics?”25 Duhem boldly claims that he sees a continuous line
of development from Aristotle’s “essential” conception of equilibrium up
to its use in thermodynamics at the turn of the last century, as developed
by Gibbs and expanded by Duhem himself.26 However, Aristotle had nei-
ther a term for equilibrium nor any notion of the precise technical con-
cept of Archimedes, let alone that of Gibbs.27 We clearly see that Duhem
put his continuity thesis to work as a justification for his own contribu-
tion to science. The idea of equilibrium in thermodynamics represents
then the most advanced stage (up to his time) on the path to “the ideal
form.”
Duhem addresses a fundamental question in philosophy of science
which is still pertinent today, a century later, namely, how does science
progress despite the acknowledged fact that physical theories come and
go, and are not here to stay? Unfortunately, his answer is marred by
his personal interest in asserting that his own scientific practice is the
culmination of all that came before it. The continuity thesis, therefore, is
not benign; specifically, we take issue with what Duhem identifies as the
affirmations essentielles that give directionality to the continuous line of
development. The idea that a historical development across more than
two millennia of cultural changes exemplifies the process of germination
and fruition is simply wrong. In Herbert Butterfield’s apt term, this
is Whig history: “to produce a story which is the ratification if not
the glorification of the present.”28 Undoubtedly, the writing of history
24 Duhem, “Physics of a believer,” p. , slightly modified; Duhem, “Physique de

croyant,” p. . For example, the mathematics in Kepler is preserved and generalized
in Newton. So Kepler’s theory was discarded but the mathematics remained: see, e.g.,
Duhem, Aim and Structure, pp. –; see also pp. , –.
25 Duhem, “Physics of a believer,” p. ; Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” p. .
26 For the “Gibbs-Duhem equation,” see S.L. Jaki, Uneasy Genius: The Life and Work
of Pierre Duhem (The Hague and Boston, ): –.

27 See G. Hon and B.R. Goldstein, “What Keeps the Earth in its Place? The Concept of
Stability in Plato and Aristotle,” Centaurus  (): –, on pp. –.

28 H. Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London, [] ), p. v.
duhem’s continuity thesis 
necessitates a principle of selection, but “Whig history . . . is not a genuine

abridgement,”29 for it is based on an implicit selective process biased by
a specific ideology. According to Butterfield:
The whig interpretation of history is not merely the property of whigs and
it is much more subtle than mental bias; it lies in a trick of organisation,
an unexamined habit of mind that any historian may fall into. It might
be called the historian’s “pathetic fallacy.” It is the result of the practice of
abstracting things from their historical context and judging them apart
from their context—estimating them and organising the historical story
by a system of direct reference to the present . . . it is the very sum and
definition of all errors of historical inference. The study of the past with one
eye, so to speak, upon the present is the source of all sins and sophistries
in history, starting with the simplest of them, anachronism.30
Duhem, we argue, recast scientific theories of the past in terms of the
issues of the present, notably, his own contributions to science. In a strik-
ing image taken from Butterfield, we can say that Duhem was hunting for
a “flock of misapprehensions”:
The chief aim of the historian is the elucidation of the unlikenesses between
past and present and his chief function is to act in this way as the mediator
between other generations and our own. It is not for him to stress and
magnify the similarities between one age and another, and he is riding
after a whole flock of misapprehensions if he goes to hunt for the present
in the past. Rather it is his work to destroy those very analogies which we
imagined to exist.31
Our criticism also finds support in the idea of history elaborated by Robin
G. Collingwood (–). History of science would not be a part
of the discipline of history if it considered scientific problems as eternal
29 Ibid., p. .
30 Ibid., pp. –.
31 Ibid., p. . As Hall succinctly put it, “the Whig historian knows the moral of his tale
before he has sat down to tell it.” With a tinge of irony he illustrated this claim as follows:
“no one, perhaps, could more aptly exemplify this characteristic of ‘Whig’ history than
the ‘Tory’ Pierre Duhem, in his search for the medieval precursors of Galileo.” Moreover,
Hall astutely observed that “[Butterfield’s] whig interpretation . . . fails to give any positive
idea of what real, non-Whig history may be. . . . It tells us what history should not be, not
what it might be.” See A. Rupert Hall, “On whiggism,” History of Science  (): –,
on pp. , –. Still, we find Butterfield’s thesis useful for the formulation of a powerful
negative critique. Wilson and Ashplant offered a careful assessment of Butterfield’s thesis
and remarked that “historical inference is inherently problematical.” See A. Wilson and
T.G. Ashplant, “Whig History and Present-Centred History,” The Historical Journal 
(): – and –, on p. . For recent discussion of these issues see, e.g.,
O.M. Abadía, “Beyond the Whig history interpretation of history: lessons on ‘presentism’
from Hélène Metzger,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science  (): –.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
and unchanging. Suppose we designate Aristotle’s problem of stability, p1,

which is then equated with Boltzmann’s problem of disorder, say, p19; in
effect, Duhem argues that there is a certain P, which is equivalent to both
p1 and p19 (and many intermediate stages, pi). To be sure, this equivalence
is not immediately apparent: after all, what is the relation between the
Aristotelian concept of natural place and Boltzmann’s definition of the
concept of entropy?32 Thus, Duhem acknowledges,
of course, no analogy appears between physics of today and the theory of
natural place, if we take this theory as it appears at first sight with all the
details making up its external form. But let us now remove these details and
break this mold of outworn science into which the Aristotelian cosmology
had to be poured; let us go to the bottom of this doctrine in order to grasp
the metaphysical ideas which are its soul. What do we find truly essential
in the theory of the natural place of the elements?33
What we find, according to Duhem, is the analogy between the “essen-

tial affirmations” of Aristotle’s cosmology and the teachings of thermo-
dynamics.
So far, we have almost exclusively quoted the authors of the th century.
However, what they tell us has a distinctly modern flavor. Their ideas
are very close to those of the physicists who have read Clausius, William
Thomson, and Rayleigh. This is because thermodynamics, by completing
the oversimplified dynamics deriving from Galileo’s Discorsi, partially
bridged the gap separating the latter from Aristotle’s dynamics.34
While Duhem, driven by a strong ideology, is running after a “flock

of misapprehensions,” we suggest adopting the historical methodology
according to which, in history of science, answers have been given to
different scientific questions in a certain order and at various times.
More specifically, one should focus on concepts such as natural place and
statics: indeed, the history of a concept should reflect its meanings as the
application of the concept changes over time for, in different contexts,
different problems arise and, in turn, different answers are given. Our
principal claim, then, is that Duhem’s continuity thesis cannot account
for conceptual change.
As a rule, Duhem’s philosophical analyses and historical accounts
address theories. In his essay, “What Is an Experiment in Physics?,”
32 For additional details of this argument, see R.G. Collingwood, An Autobiography
(Oxford, [] ): –.

33 Duhem, “Physics of a believer,” p. ; Duhem, “Physique de croyant,” p. .
34 Duhem, The Origins of Statics, p. .
duhem’s continuity thesis 
Duhem concludes that an experiment is “a precise observation of a group

of phenomena, accompanied by the INTERPRETATION of these phenom-
ena.” He continues:
This interpretation replaces the concrete data really gathered by observation
with abstract and symbolic representations that correspond to them by virtue
of physical theories accepted by the observer.35
Duhem distinguishes four fundamental operations (opérations) in phys-
ical theories:
() the definition and measurement of physical magnitudes; () the selec-
tion of hypotheses; () the mathematical development of the theory; ()
the comparison of the theory with experiment.36
He then develops the discussion of physical theory on the basis of these
four “operations”; we note that there is no reference to the role of concepts
in these operations.
Duhem is perfectly aware of the fact that concepts play a critical role
both in theory and experimentation. He remarks, for example, that to
measure the value of the pressure supported by the gas in some experi-
mental set-up designed by Henri Victor Regnault (–), “it was
necessary to use concepts [notions] that are exceedingly profound and
difficult to acquire: pressure, cohesive force.”37 But, Duhem focuses on
theories and fails to investigate the role of concepts. This philosophical
position is embedded in his historical writings, namely, Duhem is con-
cerned with the history of theories, and not that of concepts. Thus, when
the historical data present him with a novel concept that breaks the con-
tinuity mold, he is inclined to include it in a contemporary theory and
ignore its novelty. This is the case with the concept of statics.
35 P. Duhem, “Some Reflections on the Subject of Experimental Physics,” in idem,
Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science. Translated and edited, with Introduction,
by R. Ariew and P. Barker (Indianapolis and Cambridge, ): –, on p. , italics
and capitalization in the original. The French version appeared as: P. Duhem, “Quelques
réflexions au sujet de la physique expérimentale,” Revue des questions scientifiques 
(): –. See also Duhem, Aim and Structure, p. .
36 Duhem, Aim and Structure, p. ; Duhem, La théorie physique, p. .
37 Duhem, “Some Reflections,” p. . Cf. Duhem, Aim and Structure, pp. –;
Duhem, La théorie physique, p. .

 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
. Stevin’s Theory of Equilibrium
In the background to the scientific revolution of the seventeenth cen-

tury one finds both scientists and craftsmen who, motivated in part by
economic opportunities, tried to put science to practical use. The six-
teenth century is notable for the works of practitioners in the construc-
tion of canals, fortifications, and a variety of scientific instruments as
well as for theoretical advances in mathematics and physics. As the edi-
tors of Stevin’s work point out, “Stevin acquired his honourable position
in the history of civilization by working both in theoretical science and
in engineering. This combination of faculties was prophetical: modern
science truly required the cooperation of theory and practice.”38 Indeed,
Stevin’s published works include contributions to mathematics, mechan-
ics, hydrostatics, astronomy, geography, navigation, technology, military
science, bookkeeping, architecture, music, civic matters, and logic. The
editors conclude that “in the history of civilization Stevin figures as the
prototype of the engineer, of the perfect technologist, who deals with
practical problems in a scientific way.”39
.. Stevin’s Principles of the Art of Weighing (De Beghinselen der

Weeghconst) of 
In his De Beghinselen der Weeghconst Stevin presented his work on
equilibrium, and it was followed by two related publications in the same
year that were bound together with it.40 The themes of the books that
38 E.J. Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in The Principal Works of Simon Stevin, vol. ,
Mechanics (Amsterdam, ): .
39 Ibid., p. .
40 Stevin published a series of three closely related texts in , each with a sepa-
rate title page and separate pagination: S. Stevin, De Beghinselen der Weeghconst (Leiden,
); S. Stevin, De Weeghdaet (Leiden, ); and S. Stevin, De Beghinselen des Water-
wichts (Leiden, ). The third of these included an Appendix (Anhang) on pp. –:
note that there are no pages bearing numbers between  and , and the page numbered
“” follows immediately after the page numbered “” with nothing missing. These three
publications were reprinted together in S. Stevin, Wisconstighe Ghedachtenissen (–
), vol. , Van de Weeghconst (Leiden, ), to which a supplement (Byvough der
Weeghconst) was added. For a facsimile edition of Stevin’s three publications of  in
Dutch with facing English translations, see Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, vol. ,
Mechanics; on the supplement in edition , see ibid., p. . A Latin translation,
based on the Dutch edition of , by W. Snell, appeared in the same year: S. Stevin,
Tomvs quartvs Mathematicorvm hypomnematvm, De statica (Leiden, ). A French
duhem’s continuity thesis 
comprise this series reflect Stevin’s interest in combining theory with

practice: () The Principles of the Art of Weighing, in two “books” (Latin:
Liber primvs staticae de staticae elementis, and Statices liber secvndvs qvi
est de inveniendo gravitatis centro); () The Practical Art of Weighing
(Latin: Liber tertivs de staticae praxi); () The Principles of Hydrostatics
[Waterwicht] (Latin: Liber qvartvs staticae de hydrostatices elementis); ()
The Practical Art of Hydrostatics (Latin: Liber qvintvs staticae de initiis
praxis hydrostatices); and () Appendix (Latin: Appendix statices vbi inter
alia errores).
Stevin essentially continued the work of Archimedes by giving mathe-
matical demonstrations of the conditions for equilibrium of a horizontal
lever.41 More importantly, he added an analysis of weights at rest on an
inclined plane. The Dutch editors and translators of his scientific work
summarized this novel contribution as follows:
[Stevin] proves in a most ingenious and interesting way the law of equilib-
rium on an inclined plane, basing himself on the conviction of the impos-
sibility of perpetual motion. From this theorem the rule for composition
and decomposition of a force acting on a point is deduced, by which the
study of equilibrium of a rigid body with one fixed point is made possible.
It should be noted that Stevin for reasons of principle rejects the method
of virtual displacements.42
Indeed, Stevin draws a clear distinction between the discussion of the
lever and the novel analysis of weights placed on inclined planes; in his
terminology, vertical weights are suspended from a lever whereas oblique
weights are situated on an inclined plane:
UP TO THIS POINT THE PROPERTIES OF VERTICAL WEIGHTS
[RECHTWICHTEN] HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED. In the following pages
the properties of oblique weights [scheefwichten] will be described. . . . 43
He goes on to prove the famous theorem of the “wreath of spheres” and
several corollaries concerning a weight held in equilibrium on an inclined
translation also appeared in the seventeenth century: A. Girard, trans., Les Oeuvres Math-
ematiques de Simon Stevin, vol. , L’ Art Ponderaire ou de la Statiqve (Leiden, ). In the
present paper we have depended principally on the English translation of ; we have
also consulted Snell’s Latin translation which, on occasion, differs from the original Dutch
in important ways.
41 For this uncontroversial appraisal of Stevin see, e.g., E.J. Dijksterhuis, The Mecha-
nization of the World Picture. Translated by C. Dikshoorn (Oxford, [] ): .
42 Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in Simon Stevin, :–. See also n. , above.
43 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :; Stevin, Weeghconst, p. .
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
plane.44 For this purpose he invokes a new concept, which he named

staltwicht (literally, “apparent weight”), that is, the component of weight
along the inclined plane.45 Moreover, in a most ingenious move, Stevin
based his entire theory of the equilibrium of weights on an inclined plane
on one principle, namely, the impossibility of perpetual motion:
This descent on the one side and ascent on the other side will continue for
ever, because the cause is always the same, and the spheres will automati-
cally perform a perpetual motion, which is absurd.46
Thus, the argumentative strategy depended on a reductio ad absurdum.
With this toolkit, Stevin was able to explain equilibrium on an inclined
plane by means of what was later known as the parallelogram of forces.
He was indeed very proud of his achievement and put the “wreath of
spheres” as an emblem on the title pages of his publications in .
One of Stevin’s goals was to make mathematics a practical tool for the
investigation of nature.47 He added an Appendix to his Art of Weighing to
make his motivation and approach explicit.
.. The Appendix and the Introduction of the Term, Statics: The Name
for a New Liberal Art
In the Appendix to his Art of Weighing Stevin says that he did not base
his theory on the method of virtual displacements. This principle, in his
view, was the origin of the errors of the ancients and their more recent
disciples. He indicates that in the first two chapters of the Appendix
he would not detail all the errors; rather, he would just point to their
44 Stevin, Weeghconst, pp. –, VI. Vervolgh; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin,
:, , Cor. VI. Cf. Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. In the proof in which he
appeals to the wreath of spheres, Stevin considers a triangle in a vertical plane such that
the greatest side (the base) is parallel to the horizon and the vertex opposite it is above
the base. A string is slung about the triangle and, to the string at equal distances, equal
spheres are attached. It is assumed that the string is able to slide over the three fixed points
at the vertices of the triangle. The primary goal is to prove that the portion of the string
(with its spheres) on one of the shorter sides is in equilibrium with that on the other
shorter side. For additional details, see Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, p. . The wreath
of spheres adorns the title page of Stevin’s Weeghconst with the motto, Wonder en is gheen
wonder ([What appears to be] a miracle is not a miracle).
45 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, : n. ; Stevin, Weeghconst, p. . In several
places Snell translated the Dutch neologism, staltwicht, into Latin as sacoma (= sêkôma),
a Greek word meaning “weight,” or “standard weight”: see Snell, trans., De statica, pp. –
.
46 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :; Stevin, Weeghconst, p. .
47 See Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in Simon Stevin, :–.
duhem’s continuity thesis 
common origin which led his contemporaries astray.48 In other words,

for Stevin the Appendix comprises clarifying notes which, although not
part of the theory, nevertheless throw light on the mathematical structure
of his argument. This was in keeping with “one of Stevin’s firm principles
never to mingle . . . scientific argument with polemics.”49
In Chapter  of the Appendix, Stevin argues:
The Ancients, when they inquired into it [the cause of equilibrium], con-
sidered [it] to reside in the circles described by the extremities of the arms
[of a lever], as appears in Aristotle’s In Mechanicis and his successors. This
we deny, and we give the following reason therefor
That which hangs still does not describe a circle;
Two gravities of equal apparent weight [euestaltwichtighe] hang still;
Therefore two gravities of equal apparent weight do not describe circles.
And consequently there is no circle. But where there is no circle, the circle
cannot be that in which resides any cause. . . . 50
Stevin explicitly rejects the way of treating equilibrium associated with
Aristotle (actually Pseudo-Aristotle) in his Mechanical Problems, which
appeals to the method of virtual displacements, for this would be to
invoke principles of motion in the explanation of a phenomenon that
is clearly motionless.51
Against this background, Stevin introduces the Art of Weighing in
Chapter  of the Appendix as an independent “free branch of mathemat-
ics” which deserves to have the same status as Arithmetic and Geometry.
The subject matter of the Art of Weighing, namely, gravity,
is quite different from number [i.e., arithmetic] or magnitude [i.e., geome-
try]; also because the useful properties of the latter are not inferior in pro-
fundity to the properties of the former (which is evident from the fact that
for this reason they were the last to come to man’s knowledge, and though
they may seem easy to you, you owe that to the incomprehensible perfec-
tion of the Dutch language); further because in its fundamental principles
48 In Chapter  of the Appendix Stevin criticizes several theories of falling bodies in

resistant media.
49 Dijksterhuis et al., “Introductory remarks to the Appendix,” in Simon Stevin, :.
50 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :–; Stevin, Anhang, in
Waterwichts, p. , italics in the original.

51 Dijksterhuis et al., “Introductory remarks to the Appendix,” in Simon Stevin, :.
Cf. E.A. Moody and M. Clagett, eds and trans., The Medieval Science of Weights (Scientia
de Ponderibus) (Madison, ): –. For Pseudo-Aristotle, see W.S. Hett, ed. and trans.,
Aristotle: Mechanical Problems, in idem, Aristotle: Minor Works (London, [] );
see also nn. –, below.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
it is of equal certainty to the former, it is, on account of this common

reason, to be termed a distinct, free branch of mathematics [een besonder
vrye Wisconst].52
Stevin, who was deeply involved in reorganizing the sciences, insisted

that the science he developed is a liberal art as well as a mechanical art.
In European schools and universities from late antiquity to the early
modern period the curriculum included the seven liberal arts: the qua-
drivium which consisted of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music
(the four mathematical arts), and the trivium which consisted of gram-
mar, rhetoric, and dialectic. In contrast to the liberal arts, there were
“mechanical arts,” which covered the category of crafts without a the-
oretical component (this category was not restricted to crafts involving
mechanical devices).53 In the sixteenth century craftsmen or “mechani-
cians” had a lower status than those engaged in theoretical studies; hence
craftsmen of many kinds, including Stevin, sought to have their “craft”
considered on a par with disciplines taught at the university. Stevin pro-
posed, then, including the Art of Weighing among the mathematical
arts. It is the combination of theory and practice in the art of weighing
which, for him, makes it both a liberal art and a mechanical art.54 Indeed,
although Stevin drew a clear distinction between a mathematical and a
mechanical (or: practical) proof, he included in the Art of Weighing—as
he reported and explained in the Appendix, Chapter —both kinds of
proof.55
We have now reached a critical juncture in our account, the naming
of a discipline based on a new concept. The original Dutch heading of
Chapter  of the Appendix reads:
52 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :; Stevin, Anhang, in Water-
wichts, p. .
53 Cf. Dijksterhuis, Mechanization, p. .
54 For details on the role of mathematics during the Renaissance, see P.L. Rose, The
Italian Renaissance of Mathematics: Studies on Humanists and Mathematicians from

Petrarch to Galileo (Geneva, ). For the case of painters, sculptors, and architects in
Italy who succeeded in raising their status from engaging in a mechanical art to engaging
in a liberal art, see A. Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, – (Oxford, [] ):
–.
55 Stevin, Appendix, in Waterwicht, pp.  f. In the margin on p. , Stevin glosses the
terms in Dutch for “mathematical” and “practical” with the following terms in Latin:
Mathematica and Mechanicam. Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon Stevin, :–
: “Chapter IV, that some of the preceding proofs in which numbers were used are
mathematical.” Stevin (p. ) further explains that “the practical proof has sometimes
been added to the mathematical one, for the sake of greater clarity.”
duhem’s continuity thesis 
IIIe. HOOFTSTICK, dat de Weeghconst een besonder vrie Wisconst is.56

Nowhere does Stevin call the new “Art” Statics, and he has no equivalent
term in Dutch.57 In fact, in  he accepted the standard medieval
terminology: Dutch Weeghconst corresponds to the Latin for “art of
weighing” or “science of weights,” that is, ars ponderaria or scientia de
ponderibus.58 This retention of the traditional medieval name, albeit in
a Dutch neologism, does not extend to his novel concept of “apparent
weight,” based on the impossibility of perpetual motion.
However, turning to Snell’s Latin translation of Stevin’s work, we read:
Cap. III. Staticam esse Mathematicarum Liberalium artium unam.59
Statics comes from a Greek term that means “standing”: it refers to the
study of bodies “at rest,” i.e., motionless, based on Stevin’s novel concep-
tual analysis which focuses on the absence of motion—not even virtual
motion. The Latin term, statica, was coined by Snell, and it first appears
in this publication of . In this vein, Snell also coined the Latin term,
hydrostatica, to translate Stevin’s Dutch term, Waterwicht, which literally
means “water-weight.” This term too had not occurred before .60 We
are persuaded, then, that the term, statica, is Snell’s innovation in the
Latin version of Stevin’s work. Snell recognized that Stevin had moved
away from the medieval tradition of the science of weights by intro-
ducing a new conceptual framework and that this innovation required
a new term for the discipline. Stevin may have felt that the traditional
“Art of Weighing” was neutral with respect to the divergent traditions of
56 Stevin, Anhang, in Waterwichts, p. ; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Appendix, in Simon

Stevin, :: “Chapter III, that the Art of Weighing is a distinct, free [i.e., liberal] branch
of mathematics.”
57 This remark should not be taken lightly, for in his Weeghconst Stevin devoted a
great deal of attention to the role of language in general, and to the superiority of the
Dutch language in particular: see Dijksterhuis et al., “Introduction,” in Simon Stevin, :–
, –; Stevin, Weeghconst, ff. bBr–dDv; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :–
.
58 Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, : n. .
59 Snell, trans., De statica, p. .
60 The explanation for the term, statica, is found in the Appendix, but statica already
appears on the title page of Snell’s translation (see n. , above). In the proof of Corollary
, where Stevin has (Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :): “ . . . a subject with which
we will deal more properly in the Practice of Weighing . . . ” [Stevin, Weeghconst, p. :
“daerwy eyghentlicker af handelen sullen inde Weegdaet”], Snell has (De statica, p. ):
“Sed de his in Statices praxi pressius dicemus.” The Dutch title of Book , De Weeghdaet, is
translated into Latin on the title page of edition  as Praxis artis ponderaria. Evidently,
at that time the term, statica, was not yet available.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
Pseudo-Aristotle and Archimedes, whereas Snell’s term excluded the

tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle, emphasizing the novel aspect of Stevin’s
achievement.
The occasion for the introduction of this novel term, statica, has
not been noted in the secondary literature. Historians typically refer to
classical works on the lever with this term, and Duhem is no exception. In
particular, although he made a thorough study of Stevin’s work, Duhem
ignores Chapter  in the Appendix altogether.61 For Duhem statics is an
ancient science founded by both Pseudo-Aristotle and Archimedes:
By studying the equilibrium of weights, Archimedes comes to the same
conclusion as Aristotle [i.e., Pseudo-Aristotle], but by a completely differ-
ent path. He does not deduce the principles from general laws of motion.
Instead, he builds the edifice of his theory on a few simple and dependable
laws relative to equilibrium. Thus he founded the science of equilibrium
as an autonomous science [une science autonome] which owes nothing to
the other branches of physics. In a word, he founded statics [il a constitué
la Statique].62
This historical claim, we argue, is tainted with ideology; it is motivated
by the continuity thesis.63
. A Critique of Duhem’s Account of Stevin’s Work
According to Roger Ariew, “Les origines de la statique is . . . a transition

from Duhem’s early conventional histories to the later work for which he
is best known, Études sur Léonard de Vinci, and Le Système du monde,
in which his thesis of the continuity of late medieval and early modern
science is fully displayed.”64 Thus, Duhem’s Les origines de la statique
represents a significant turning point in his own thinking as well as
calling attention to neglected works of medieval science. The continuity
thesis motivates this pioneering work and we focus on just one text that
61 Duhem (Statique, :; Origins of Statics, p. ) assumed, incorrectly, that the
Appendix was not in Stevin’s publication of  and that it was added in the second edi-
tion of . Duhem did not appreciate Stevin’s separation of his mathematical argument
from polemical comments (see nn.  and , above).
62 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :.
63 For another example of Duhem’s ideology interfering with his assessment of histor-
ical data, see M. Lejbowicz, “Pierre Duhem et l’ histoire des sciences arabes,” Revue des
questions scientifiques  (): –. See also Freudenthal, “ ‘Instrumentalism’ and
‘Realism’,” p. .
64 Ariew, “Pierre Duhem.”
duhem’s continuity thesis 
Duhem discussed, albeit a critical one, namely, Stevin’s Art of Weighing.

While we readily acknowledge that Duhem’s mathematical analysis is
correct and informative, there are serious difficulties in his interpretation
of Stevin’s contribution. As we will see, Duhem was not sensitive to
conceptual issues.
.. Duhem’s View of Stevin’s Art of Weighing: Confirmation of the

Continuity Thesis
After giving a careful and detailed mathematical analysis of the corollary
concerning a weight held in equilibrium on an inclined plane in which
he avoided anachronism, Duhem insists that Stevin had to have taken
as his point of departure the so-called “Principle of Virtual Velocities.”65
Now this principle, Duhem claimed, owes its origin to an ancient work
on mechanics, traditionally ascribed to Aristotle:66
Thus we will see that the most important progress in statics will derive
from Aristotle’s doctrine rather than from the theories formulated by
Archimedes.67
In brief, Duhem states the principle as follows:

The weight which is moved, says Aristotle, is to the weight which moves
in inverse ratio to the lengths of the arms of the lever. Indeed, a weight
will always move all the more easily, the further away it is from the point
of support. We have already mentioned the cause: the weight which is
furthest from the point of support describes a larger circle. Thus, while
using the same force, the weight will describe a greater path, the further it
is from the point of support.68
According to Duhem, this consideration amounts to a general principle

which could be applied to all mechanisms. On this view, the principle
accounts for diverse mechanical effects simply by considering the veloc-
ities with which certain arcs of a circle are described by the parts com-
prising a machine—the lever being the simplest. Pseudo-Aristotle put it
as follows (quoted by Duhem):
65 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :–.

66 Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle: Mechanical Problems, pp. –, especially pp. –
. This treatise is now ascribed to an anonymous author, generally called Pseudo-
Aristotle, and it is probably a product of the Peripatetic School (ibid., p. ).
67 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :.
68 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; cf. Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle: Mechanical
Problems, pp. –.

 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
For the properties of the balance are deducible from those of the circle
and the properties of the lever are deducible from those of the balance. In
summary, most of the other unique properties exhibited by the motion of
mechanisms are deducible from the properties of the lever.69
In Duhem’s view this idea is “the seed from which the powerful rami-
fications of the Principle of Virtual Velocities will sprout over the next
twenty centuries.”70 However, he is well aware that Stevin objected to this
method in his Appendix to the Art of Weighing.71
Duhem’s argument is based on ideology, for there is nothing in Stevin’s
discussion to justify the claim that lurking in the background is an appeal
to the method of virtual displacements. Moreover, while Duhem trans-
lates sacoma as pesanteur apparente, that is, “apparent weight,” and thus
gets the translation right (without anachronism), he fails to recognize the
conceptual innovation which Stevin introduced.72 Again, Duhem ignores
what Stevin actually says in the Appendix, Chapter . He ascribes sources
to Stevin concerning virtual velocities based on his own ideology, despite
his recognition of Stevin’s statement to the contrary in the Appendix,
Chapter . In sum, Duhem carries out a correct analysis of Stevin’s the-
ory, but clothes it with a misleading interpretation which keeps him from
recognizing the novelty of the concept of “apparent weight”; he thereby
convinced himself that the case of Stevin confirms the continuity thesis.
.. Duhem’s Philosophy of Science as Ideology

Duhem’s analyses of the scientific writings of authors of treatises on
mechanics in general are mathematically sound; however, his placement
of the texts in a lineage across many centuries is unsupported by the data
he presented. Thus, he rhetorically asks, “Did Stevin know the doctrines
professed in statics by the School of Jordanus?” To which he replies, “It is
difficult for me to doubt this. . . . ”
There can be no doubt that the admirable work accomplished in statics
by the great geometer from Brugge [i.e., Stevin] was in several instances
69 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp.  and  n. ; Duhem, Statique, :. Duhem
translated this passage directly from the original Greek: cf. Hett, ed. and trans., Aristotle:
Mechanical Problems, pp. –.
70 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :.
71 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Dijksterhuis et al., eds, Simon Stevin, :–
.
72 Duhem, Statique, :. See also n. , above.
duhem’s continuity thesis 
favorably influenced by the ideas expressed from the th century on by

Jordanus de Nemore and the mechanicians of his School.73
Duhem acknowledges that the laws set forth by Stevin are accurate, but
he has misgivings concerning the arguments Stevin used to support his
novel analysis. He thus claims that Stevin’s assessment was “unjustified,”
for he rejected the method of virtual displacements which “continues
to confirm the genius of the author of the Mechanical Problems.”74 To
be sure, Duhem is correct that Stevin rejected this method, but this is
precisely the point: he does not appreciate Stevin’s commitment to stat-
ics, to motionless phenomena. As we have seen, Stevin says explicitly
in the Appendix (to the reader) that he intends to discuss the source
of the “error,” i.e., virtual displacements, which derives from Pseudo-
Aristotle’s Mechanical Problems. Duhem insisted that Stevin depended on
the medieval tradition of Jordanus de Nemore’s school (and ultimately on
Pseudo-Aristotle), but we see no good reason to accept this assertion.75
Rather, we find overwhelming evidence that Stevin is heir to the tradi-
tions of Euclid and Archimedes. As he did with Maimonides, Duhem
associates Stevin with a tradition invented to support an ideology of
the modern analyst—in this case a commitment to the continuity the-
sis.
This is where Duhem’s philosophy of science interferes with his role
as historian of science. We can admire many aspects of his historical
work; indeed, he focuses on significant passages in the texts he reviews.
But we find his interpretation of them wanting. In the case at hand,
he overlooked a key conceptual change introduced by Stevin, named
“statics” by Snell. This is not an aberration on the part of Duhem; rather,
it is a systematic refusal to acknowledge the role of novel concepts in the
development of science, for they interfere with his continuity thesis and
disrupt the “cosy” unified view of the history of science. As a result, we
conclude that Duhem’s argument fails to account for the historical data;
his continuity thesis is flawed.
73 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –; Duhem, Statique, :.

74 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. .
75 Duhem, Origins of Statics, pp. –. Some have also claimed that a Latin term
or expression underlies Stevin’s neologism, staltwicht, but we are unpersuaded by these

arguments: see, e.g., E.J. Dijksterhuis, “The Origins of Classical Mechanics,” in M. Clagett,
ed., Critical Problems in the History of Science (Madison, ): –, on pp. –.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
. Conclusion: the Critical Role of Concepts

as the Engine of Scientific Change
Scientific theories are subject to confirmation or refutation; by contrast,

scientific concepts are either suitable or unsuitable for some purpose.
A theory has many components, e.g., postulates, principles, definitions,
laws, and concepts, which are set in logical relations that ultimately
form an argument complete with presuppositions, rules of inference,
and consequences. The elements of such an argument may be consistent,
or in tension with one another, thereby weakening the theory or even
undermining it altogether. Still, a theory can accommodate tension, but
a concept cannot for, in contrast to theories, concepts serve as units
in the construction of theories. Concepts correspond to objects, classes
of objects, their properties and relations, all of which may be concrete
or abstract. A concept is not an argument; hence, it does not have the
structure one demands of an argument. Thus, logically, unlike a theory,
a concept cannot be refuted; rather, it is the claim to existence which is
subject to refutation. On the one hand, the new concept may build on
older ones. On the other hand, it may break with the past: an old concept
may be declared unsuitable because it is in conflict with some empirical
data or because its class is empty.
The making of new concepts can thus be distinguished from the gen-
eration of new theories, and this difference is reflected in their respective
life histories. A concept may be revolutionary because of its consequences
but, even so, it may not be so perceived at the time because it does not
threaten any theoretical structure.76 While new concepts may point to
difficulties in the old theories, they may also extend the domain of appli-
cation of the old theories. Stevin’s “apparent weight” is a case in point.
It is an insightful extension of the Archimedean analysis by joining the
discussion of “oblique weights” placed on inclined planes with that of
“vertical weights,” suspended from a horizontal beam. This extension of
the Archimedean theory was based on an explicit appeal to the princi-
ple of the impossibility of perpetual motion as well as the clear rejection
76 For a case where a novel concept undermines the old theory, see B.R. Goldstein and
G. Hon, “Kepler’s Move from Orbs to Orbits: Documenting a Revolutionary Scientific

Concept,” Perspectives on Science  (): –. For a case where a novel concept
coheres with the contemporary theory, see G. Hon and B.R. Goldstein, From Summetria
to Symmetry: The Making of a Revolutionary Scientific Concept (Dordrecht, ), espe-
cially chapter  concerning the concept of symmetry in Legendre’s reworking of Euclidean
geometry.
duhem’s continuity thesis 
of the principle of virtual velocities. These significant features of Stevin’s

new theory led Snell to search for a new name. Snell came up with stat-
ics—the study of motionless phenomena. It is noteworthy that neither
Duhem, nor any other historian of science, realized that Snell inaugu-
rated a new scientific domain, in which equilibrium is subsumed under
the more general category of statics. This historical episode well illus-
trates how scientific concepts function as the engine of change.
Duhem’s continuity thesis is not episodic: it is not restricted to late
medieval and early modern science. As we have seen, the thesis asserts a
series of linkages from Aristotle to Gibbs. For Duhem science develops as
an organism: “the ideas of the future, which will be full-blown tomorrow,
are today still embryonic and exist in a semi-clarity. . . . ”77 Less metaphor-
ically, and more technically, he believed that
the path followed by Archimedes in mechanics is not a method of discov-
ery. The certainty and clarity of Archimedes’ principles are due in large
part to the fact that they were . . . not derived from the very roots of
things. . . . Thus we will see that the most important progress in statics will
derive from Aristotle’s doctrine rather than from the theories formulated
by Archimedes.78
This seems to have forced Duhem to posit connections between Stevin

and Pseudo-Aristotle that are not really there. Duhem examined closely
Stevin’s work but ignores his conceptual framework completely. He asso-
ciates Stevin with a tradition going back to Pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechan-
ical Problems, Jordanus de Nemore, and Leonardo da Vinci, disregard-
ing Stevin’s own published views, and claiming—without evidence—that
Stevin had read various treatises.
The dramatic contrast between Duhem’s continuity thesis and the
claims for discontinuities associated with scientific revolutions is evi-
dent.79 There is, however, a middle way. Conceptual change takes place
both within a theory and in the replacement of a theory by another.
Duhem’s failure to take conceptual change into account makes his ap-
proach to both history of science and philosophy of science broadly
unsuccessful.
Freudenthal showed us the importance of paying close attention to the
subtleties of Maimonides’s “second-order” response to issues of natural
77 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :.

78 Duhem, Origins of Statics, p. ; Duhem, Statique, :.
79 See, e.g., A. Brenner, “Genèse, évolution et continuité du développement scien-
tifique selon Pierre Duhem,” Revue des questions scientifiques  (): –.
 bernard r. goldstein and giora hon
philosophy. This appeal to a sound historiographical principle is very dif-

ferent from Duhem’s sweeping claim for a long tradition of instrumental-
ism. We adopted a similar approach to Stevin, a scientist active at the turn
of the seventeenth century, contrasting his novel conceptual scheme with
Duhem’s claim for the applicability of his continuity thesis. As a result of
our examination, we were led to the recognition that Duhem’s ideology
is pervasive in his historical writings, undermining the significant dis-
coveries he made in the course of reviewing a vast number of scientific
manuscripts and printed texts. History and philosophy of science can be
made to work together, but first they must be put on a solid foundation:
this is a task that still lies before us.
ENLIGHTENMENT IN GOLD
Gideon Freudenthal
. Enlightenment
What is Enlightenment? Whatever it is, it includes the advancement

of scientific knowledge and critiques of myth and superstition. In the
following, I wish to follow one thin thread of enlightenment that runs
from Israel Halevy Zamosc, studied by Gad Freudenthal, to Berlin and
Jerusalem.
What is Enlightenment? The question was asked with practical inten-
tions in the s in Mendelssohn’s circle in Berlin. Different answers
were given.
One thought that the history of the Jewish nation would be most ser-
viceable for the purpose, inasmuch as the people would discover in it
the origin of their religious doctrines and of the subsequent corruption
which these had undergone. They would also come to understand that
the fall of the Jewish state, as well as all the subsequent persecution and
oppression which the Jews had suffered, had arisen from their own igno-
rance and opposition to all rational planning. . . . But one of our friends
thought that we ought to begin with something on natural religion and
rational morality, inasmuch as this is the object of all enlightenment. . . .
For my part, I believe . . . that it would be best to make a beginning with
some science which, besides being most favorable for the development of
the mind, is also self-evident, and stands in no connection with any reli-
gious opinions. Of this sort are the mathematical sciences; and therefore
with this object in view I am willing to write a mathematical textbook in
Hebrew.1
The writer of these lines is Salomon Maimon. “Enlightenment” means
here a critique of the “corruption” of the Mosaic religion by rabbinical
1 S. Maimon, Salomon Maimon’s Lebensgeschichte. Von ihm selbst geschrieben und her-
ausgegeben von K.P. Moritz. In zwei Theilen (Berlin, , ). Reprinted in V. Verra,
ed., Gesammelte Werke (Hildesheim u.a.,  ff.): :–. S. Maimon, An Autobiog-
raphy. Translated from the German by J.C. Murray; introduction by M. Shapiro (Urbana,
): –.
 gideon freudenthal
Judaism and the distribution of scientific knowledge. Maimon believed

that some scientific knowledge is not overtly opposed to religious opin-
ions. This should be formulated more precisely. A conflict does not arise
between “science” and “religion” as such but can arise between spe-
cific criteria of truth or assertions of either religion or philosophy with
those of the counterpart. Such conflict may be resolved by changes on
either side, or both. Neither religion nor science is a clearly circum-
scribed unchanging entity. Both are complex systems of propositions
and social institutions, and both change with time and culture. Maimon,
however, also believed that there are core-issues over which a conflict is
inevitable, e.g. over the basic religious belief in the physical efficacy of
a non-material entity. The common notion of “God” in Europe at the
time meant, inter alia, a non-material, unworldly, personal entity which
nevertheless acts physically in the world. His most conspicuous actions
are miracles. Once this notion of God is critiqued, worldly events may
not be explained with reference to this transcendent being.2 In a recent
paper, Gad Freudenthal also takes the position that under certain con-
ditions a conflict between science and religion may arise.3 I will now
turn to a case in which Zamosc produced with the intention of enlight-
enment such a conflict. He introduced scientific knowledge into a com-
mentary on a Biblical verse in which he also referred to a miracle so that
science and the miracle appeared side by side in the same paragraph. In
the next step of enlightenment, Mendelssohn removed this inconsistency
and also explained scientifically the case that was first “explained” by a
miracle.
2 Maimon draws radical consequences: “The so-called harmony between faith and
(theoretical) reason is according to him [Maimon speaks of himself in the third person
here—G.F] nothing else than the complete abolition of the former by the latter.” (Verra,
ed., Gesammelte Werke, :).
3 Gad Freudenthal, “The Subversive Role of Science in R. Israel Zamosc’s Talmudic
Novella” (Heb.), in H. Kreisel, ed., Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought (Jerusalem,
): :–. See also his “Hebrew Medieval Science in Zamość, ca. : The
Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamość,” in R. Fontaine, A. Schatz
and I. Zwiep, eds, Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and Eighteenth-Century
Enlightened Jewish Discourse (Amsterdam, ): –.
enlightenment in gold 
. The Golden Calf
.. Israel Zamosc

The sin of the Golden Calf traditionally posed a major problem not only
to Biblical exegesis but to Jewish thought in general. Immediately after
the most impressive revelation on Sinai the Jews relapsed into Egyptian
idolatry. How was this possible? The problem of the commentators is this:
revelation must have been indubitable. This is a necessary condition of
its authority. And yet only short time after this impressive manifestation,
the Jews pointed to the Golden Calf and said: “These are your gods, Israel,
who brought you out of Egypt” (Exod. :). How can the allegedly indu-
bitable revelation of the one true God be reconciled with the willingness
of the Israelites to adopt other gods?
Judah Halevi suggested that initially the people of Israel did not actu-
ally consider the Golden Calf to be God. Rather, they desired something
perceptible, an object to which they could turn their gaze when relating
the wonders of God, as they did when the pillar of cloud signified the
presence of God in the tabernacle (Exod. :–). We could say that
they wished to have a visible symbol of their invisible God. When Moses,
who was supposed to return on the same day, did not return for forty days
from Mount Sinai with some new worldly symbol of divine presence, the
people, on their own accord, prepared something lasting to which they
could turn. Their sin consisted first in preparing an image which was for-
bidden to them and second in acting upon their own discretion, not upon
God’s command (Kuzari I, ).
In his commentary ad locum, Israel Zamosc turns to a specific ques-
tion: why was the calf cast in gold? His answer is in line with Halevi’s
interpretation. When Moses did not return,
it seems they believed that a human being cannot have the power to
purify sufficiently so as to go between God and humans and to bring
down to them God’s wonderful and awesome work, and perhaps his power
did not suffice to contain this wonderful work and he [Moses] died on
the Mount, and therefore they contrived the condemnable idea that they
should prepare something perceptible from a strong mineral so that it
would last many days. . . . and therefore they thought that they should
produce something perceptible to venerate which is done from the most
enduring thing, and they may have thought of Gold which is most enduring,
and as those who study the natural sciences (íééòáè) know is least susceptible
to corruption, and so much so that some believed that it cannot corrupt in
all eternity, neither in fire nor in anything else, since it does not rust as
 gideon freudenthal
other metals, and even if buried in the soil and stays there for long, it
will not diminish at all nor lose its appearance. And therefore, as soon
as Moses saw it, he burned it in fire and ground it to thin powder to
thwart their plan, although it is the nature of gold that fire cannot affect
it, and it cannot burn in any way known in nature, and Moses burned
it miraculously (ñðá) (and therefore we do not have to turn to Ibn Ezra’s
forced explanation when he faced the difficulty to explain how gold can be
burned).4
Now, here we have a conflict between religion and science. On the
one hand, Zamosc relies on scientific knowledge that gold is incorrupt-
ible to explain why gold serves the intention to make the calf last for-
ever. On the other hand, it is the very same knowledge which contra-
dicts the Scripture according to which Moses burned the Golden Calf
in fire: gold does not burn. Zamosc therefore applies science and its
eminent opposite (miracles, events contradicting natural laws) in the
same commentary to the Biblical events. He begins with enlighten-
ment, but then compromises this in the service of traditional religious
belief.
.. Moses Mendelssohn

Moses Mendelssohn adopted much of Zamosc’s interpretation of the sin
of the Golden Calf. But here we are interested merely in the fabrication
of the calf out of gold, the most enduring mineral that “cannot corrupt
in all eternity.” When the multitude saw that Moses did not return from
the Mount, Mendelssohn writes, they believed he had died and resolved
to make “something lasting that will not corrupt and die like him.”5
Until this point, Mendelssohn follows Zamosc. However, Mendelssohn is
consistently scientific also in his explanation of the burning of the Golden
Calf. The verse (Exod. :) reads:
éð"aúà O"Öiå íénä éð"tìò øæiå ÷cøÖ#à ãò ïç"èiå Öàa ó]"×iå e×ò øÖ#à ìâòäúà çwiå
®ìàT"×é
And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and
ground it to powder, and strawed it upon the water, and made the children
of Israel drink of it.
4 Sefer Hakuzari in five parts. With the two famous commentaries Qol Yehuda and Osar
.
Nehmad
. (Heb.) (Warsaw  / ): :– (my emphasis).
5 I. Zamosc, Osar Nehmad, on Kuzari I, , p. ; Mendelssohn’s commentary on
. .
Exod. : (my emphasis).
enlightenment in gold 
Mendelssohn, in contrast, translates the verse thus:

Das Kalb, welches sie gemacht hatten, nahm er, kalzinierte es im Feuer,
zerrieb es bis es ganz fein ward, streuete den Staub auf das Wasser, und
ließ die Kinder Jisraels davon trinken.
Mendelssohn translated “burned” as “calcinated” and added in the Bi"ur
the proper chemical explanation to justify his translation. He first quotes
Ibn Ezra whose interpretation Zamosc rejected, and then updates him:
“And he took the calf ”, some say “and burned” is like “melted in fire”, and
this is not necessary since there is something that, if put together with the
gold in fire, will make the gold immediately burn, and turn black and never
return to be gold, and this is corroborated by experience and is true (Ibn
Ezra); [From here onwards Mendelssohn speaks for himself:] and also the
chemists of our generation observed this and said that if you mix salt of
tartar with sulfur, you can crumble the gold in fire until it becomes as fine
as ashes, and they also say that Nether too (natrum, a kind of alkaline salt, a
mineral, and found in the Orient) will turn gold into dust. And the working
of metals in fire, the resolution of the composition of their parts until they
can be ground and crumbled, is called calcination, and so it was translated
into German.6
Mendelssohn explains both the fabrication of the calf and its burning as
based on the natural properties of gold. Miracles are excluded. This is a
step farther towards enlightenment than that taken by Zamosc. But this
minor correction touches the core of a comprehensive program.
. Der Ewige
In fact, the translation of the verse above and Mendelssohn’s commentary

touch the core of Mendelssohn’s philosophy of Judaism: his notion of
Judaism as an antidote to idolatry. The calf was made of gold because
this metal is incorruptible, some believe eternal. Here we encounter an
aspect of idolatry which is rarely considered. We normally concentrate on
the veneration of an image, but here the opposition between the material
world in time and the eternal Divine is important. Everything worldly
6 ãéîå ,áäæä íò ùàá íùåéù øáã ùé éë êøåö ïéàå ,ùàá êúéå åîë óøùå éë à§§é ,ìâòä úà ç÷éå (ë
à§§éîéëä éìòá åãîò ïëå ,(ò§§áàøä) àåä úîàå äñåðî øáã åäæå ,áäæ áåùé àì íìåòìå øåçù §éäéå ,óøùé
ãò ùàá áäæä úà øøôì ìëåú ,úéøôâ íò éøè§§øè çìî áøòúùëù åøîàå ,äæä ïåéñðä ìò ïåøçàä øåãá
íâ (çøæîä úåöøàá àöîðå ,íîåãä âåñî éìà§§÷ìà çìî ïéî ñåø§§èàð) øúðäù åøîàå ,øôòë ÷ã øùà
,øåøôäå äðéçèä åìá÷éù ãò ,íäé÷ìç úáëøä ãåøô ùàá úåëúîä ïå÷úå .÷áàì áäæä úà êåôäé àåä
à§§ìá §âøåúî ïëå (ïàéöàðéöìà÷) àø÷é. See Ibn Ezra’s Long Commentary on Exod. :.
 gideon freudenthal
is corruptible and transient. Eternal is God alone. When the Israelites

prepared the idol, they wished to have a guide or a symbol which is lasting
(in contrast to Moses, who disappeared), in fact eternal like God. Idolatry
consists also in the wish to blur the difference between worldly beings
which belong to the world of “coming to be and passing away” and the
divine, eternal, transcendent and holy God. The reaction of Moses was
therefore to prove that even gold is not incorruptible.
This is doubly important for Mendelssohn who introduced for the
tetragrammaton, YHWH, the expression “der Ewige” or “das ewige We-
sen,” the Eternal or the eternal Being. This, he says, best captures God’s
nature as “being” in the past, present and future tense, as expressed in the
verse: äé"äà øÖ#à äé"äà äÖî-ìà íé!äÀ$à øîàiå (“And God said unto Moses, I
AM THAT I AM”) which Mendelssohn translates as “Ich bin das Wesen,
welches ewig ist”—I am the Being that is eternal (Exod. :). This name
also expresses that He is the necessarily existing Being, and exercising
providence.7 The opposition between the true and the false God, between
God and the Golden Calf, is here emphasized by showing that God alone
is eternal and everything worldly is corruptible—and not by miracles, but
according to the laws of nature—simply because it is material.
Mendelssohn draws far-reaching conclusions from the sin of the Gold-
en Calf which cannot be discussed here. Suffice it to say that he chooses
the opposite pole: there should be nothing lasting in religious service
because all permanent objects are conducive to idolatry. Mendelssohn
therefore recommends religious rites which consist only of actions which
are transient:
Man’s actions are transitory; there is nothing lasting, nothing enduring
about them that . . . could lead to idolatry through abuse or misunder-
standing.8
Judaism is least conducive to idolatry not only because it forbids the
veneration of images but also because it strictly severs between every-
thing worldly and transient and the transcendent divine Eternal. Now,
the Jewish prohibition of images is well-known, but the insistence that
only transient ceremonies are immune to idolatry is an innovation of
Mendelssohn. Consider the far-reaching implications: it incriminates rit-
ual articles, holy sites etc. Mendelssohn does not overtly discuss these
issues, but his emphasis is on the general principle that Jewish practice
7 See Mendelssohn’s commentary on Gen. :, Exod. :– and Exod. :.
8 M. Mendelssohn, Jerusalem, Or On Religious Power and Judaism. Translated by
A. Arkush; introduction and commentary by A. Altmann (Hanover, NH, ): .
enlightenment in gold 
should consist of transitory ceremonies only. He draws the line between

legitimate religion and idolatry in a much more restrictive spirit than was
(and still is) the custom. This is a far-reaching step on the way of reli-
gious enlightenment. The question is whether it had any effect on pos-
terity.
. Siegfried Freudenthal
It is easy to see that Hermann Cohen’s Religion of Reason Out of the

Sources of Judaism () continues Mendelssohn’s project. To Cohen,
monotheism is opposed not only to polytheism, but also to anthropo-
morphism, pantheism, and mysticism, because all these blur the un-
bridgeable opposition between the unique God and everything worldly,
and to Cohen this opposition is the essence of monotheism. Mendels-
sohn, Maimon, Cohen—these are the philosophical highlights. But what
about the normal practitioner? Did Mendelssohn also capture something
existing among the Jewry of Berlin of his time or did he perhaps influ-
ence posterity in his sense? Although Mendelssohn’s understanding of
the ceremonial law may seem too sophisticated to be shared by a large
community, I believe that his legacy influenced Jewish religious life in
Germany until the World Wars. I cannot argue here nor elsewhere for
this judgment, but I can illustrate it with an example that directly per-
tains to the person to whom the present book is dedicated.
In February-March  Siegfried (Schimon) Freudenthal (Breslau,
 September, –Jerusalem,  December ), the grandfather
of Gad and Gideon Freudenthal, then an unmarried businessman of
twenty-eight years, embarked on a tour of “The Orient” with a group of
men and women from his home town of Breslau in Silesia (Germany).
Siegfried Freudenthal was an observant Jew, not a philosopher nor a man
of learning.
The group’s way led them of course also to Jerusalem. On a Friday
afternoon, they visited the Wailing Wall at the time of prayer. Freudenthal
is deeply moved when he realizes “that approximately at this time entire
Jewry is saying its prayers oriented towards precisely this place.” Note that
his religious excitement is not aroused by the site of the temple nor does
he mention its holiness; of course he does not touch and kiss the stones of
the Wailing Wall nor does he insert a list of wishes into the cracks between
the stones (which are widely accepted customs). Rather, his excitement
is aroused by the sense of belonging to a community, geographically
 gideon freudenthal
dispersed and yet united in its religious intention.9 In short, he was an

observant “enlightened” German Jew. I believe that he was no exception.
Enlightenment had deep roots in German Jewry. German Jews liked to
refer to themselves as “enlightened” and “progressive,” as opposed to
backward “Ostjuden.” It is, however, worth noting that Mendelssohn’s
older teacher and early enlightener, Israel Zamosc, and Mendelssohn’s
younger radical critic, Salomon Maimon, were—as were many other
“Berlin” enlighteners—Ostjuden.
9 S. Freudenthal, Reise nach dem Orient vom . Februar  bis . Maerz 
mit dem Fahrkartenbureau Budapest, in my possession. Soon after his forced emigration
from Germany in , Siegfried Freudenthal settled in Jerusalem. There he encountered
blatant superstitious kabbalistic rites practiced at funerals. I will skip the description of
the unpleasant details. See Y.M. Tikuchinski, Gešer ha-hayyim
. (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ):
vol. , ch. , pp. –. G. Scholem succinctly discusses these “magical” rites. See his
Elements of the Kabbalah and its Symbolism (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): –. The newly
founded burial society in which German Jews were dominant, was established with the
intention of enlightenment, i.e. in opposition to these and other “superstitious” rites.
Siegfried Freudenthal was a member of the first board and an official (éàáâ) of this society.
See Festschrift of the burial society “Qehilat Yerušalayim” (Heb.) (Jerusalem, ): , ,
–.
A BESTSELLER IN CONTEXT:
REFERRING TO THE TSENE RENE IN EARLY MODERN
YIDDISH BOOKS
Shlomo Berger
References to a book in other publications can usually be interpreted as

a sign of its success and as a proof of the book’s assured quality or at
least intrinsic importance. The book has made an impact on the read-
ing public, copies of the book may have sold well and new editions may
have continuously been prepared and printed. The book penetrated the
general readership’s memory, as it were, and turned into an integral or
even essential segment of the literary corpus. In the course of time, it may
have also earned a canonical status. The printing of Yiddish books from
the sixteenth century on and the ever increasing distribution of books
helped to turn the Ashkenazi vernacular into a powerful cultural agent
among lower and eventually also upper strata of Ashkenazi society, from
Amsterdam on the shores of the North Sea to towns and villages of East-
ern Europe. Yiddish was responsible for the creation and mapping of new
cultural boundaries within the Ashkenazi universe1 and the employment
of a unified literary style for all printed books (the Western Yiddish lit-
erary style2) slowed down the inevitable division of this Ashkenazi uni-
verse into regional entities, each of which developed its own dialect of
Yiddish and subsequently also developed a new literary style.3 Already
by the middle of the seventeenth century one book was recognized as
a bestseller of the Yiddish language, and its stature only grew as time
passed by. It is the Tsene Rene. Jacob ben Isaac’s classic text was and still
is identified with Yiddish culture itself.
Purchasing Yiddish books also enhanced the formation of household
libraries,4 and by the s Shlomo Zalman London, a publisher of
1 J. Davis, “The Reception of the Shulhan Arukh and the Formation of Ashkenazic
Jewish Identity”, AJS  (): –.

2 Although it not only deals with the literary style, see M. Weinreich, “Roshei prokim
vegn mayrevdikn yidish,” in Y. Mark, ed., Juda A. Yofe Bukh (New York, ): –.
3 D.B. Kerler, The Origins of Modern Literary Yiddish (Oxford, ).
4 A. Bar-Levav, “Between Library Awareness and the Jewish Republic of Letters,”
in Y. Kaplan and M. Sluhovsky, eds, Libraries and Book Collections (Jerusalem, ):
 shlomo berger
Yiddish books, already complained that Yiddish books were purchased

not only for the purpose of reading but also in order to adorn a house-
hold’s living room.5 Possessing a library has apparently become a status
symbol. And the existence of libraries also presented producers with fur-
ther opportunities. Possessing a collection of books meant that books
could be examined through comparison with other books. The act of
comparison was not only a privilege given to readers but also to pro-
ducers. They could include evaluations and criticism of available books
in new books they were producing and subsequently support and praise
their own book. Although, at times, such references were general and did
not mention titles of particular books, on other occasions specific books
were positively or negatively mentioned.
The inclusion of references to books could be justified on several
grounds. A comment about a book could engage a matter of content.
It might object to the criticized book, describe it as a faulty product,
and assure the reader that the present book corrected the matter.6 It
might also discuss matters like a book being too long or too short.7
Books were also criticized or praised for their form: being published in
a specific format, including illustrations, having a good or bad proof-
reading, being published on good or bad paper or using vague ink.8
There were usually no attacks directed at authors. Of course, all such
references were justified on the ground that Yiddish books were pub-
lished as a service to the Ashkenazi reading public. This service suppos-
edly reflected the producer’s sense of duty towards his fellow community
members and the Ashkenazi world as a whole on the one hand and his
– (Heb.); see also idem, “Amsterdam and the Inception of the Jewish Republic of
Letters,” in Y. Kaplan, ed., The Dutch Intersection: the Jews and the Netherlands in Modern
History (Leiden, ): –.
5 Orhot sadikim (Amsterdam, ): ïéù àéæ ïæàì ðåà ïôéå÷ íéøôñ àã àéã èééì éëðòî ïééæ æã
. .
ïøòåå åö èéäéâ ÷ðàù ïøéà ïéà èàøéö ïééà øô àéæ ïìòèù ðåà ïãðéá.
6 As in the case of Simkhes ha-nefesh, the preface of which includes an attack on
Shimon Frankfurt’s Sefer ha-hayyim:

. see A. Bar-Levav, The Concept of Death in Sefer ha-
Hayyim by Rabbi Shimon Frankfurt (Ph.D. thesis, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
): –, – (Heb.).
7 See the Sefer Emunat Isra"el () discussed below; the preface relates that the book
sets out to present guidelines without including their reasonings which would demand
another one hundred quires.
8 Such arguments are given in a large number of books. See below the discussion of
the  edition of the Tsene Rene, or the  edition printed in octavo format, Sefer
Lev t. ov () or, for instance, Kokhva deshavit-Shtern Shus () and Hovot
. ha-levavot
().
a bestseller in context 
knowledge and professionalism on the other. All such arguments were

eventually understood as measures that would also enhance a book’s
commercial success. Performance of a mitzvah was always coupled with
a sale’s logic.
By the middle of the seventeenth century, the Tsene Rene was already
a bestseller. Although the first edition’s publication date is unknown, it
can be fairly assumed that the book became popular within a couple of
decades of its initial release. We know almost nothing about the book’s
author either. Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi of Janovo remains an anony-
mous; we know he had written and published at least two other popular
books.9 The first known edition of the Tsene Rene is the fourth, from .
From then on it was regularly republished at different locations in Central
and Western Europe, and after  it was adapted to Eastern European
Yiddish (eventually Modern Yiddish) and regularly published in Eastern
Europe as well. Eventually dubbed by Eastern European Ashkenazim as
the “women’s Bible,” the Tsene Rene is not in fact a Yiddish translation of
the Bible or of the Torah, and it was not intended to be read by women
only. As the title page of Tsene Rene editions testify, as well as title pages
of many other Yiddish books, the book was written and published for the
benefit of women and uneducated men, the simple-minded males who
did not enjoy a thorough education or because of the need to earn a living
were unable to dedicate time to Torah study. In a notorious case, it was
also determined that the book was intended “for women and men who
are like women.”10
The Tsene Rene is a commentary on the weekly lessons, including the
haftorot and the megilot, read on Shabbat morning services. Rather than
a literal rendition of the Hebrew text of the Torah, it is a well-devised
commentary on Torah verses that the author collected from Hebrew
medieval midrash literature, selected and translated into Yiddish. Indeed,
although it is evident that Jacob ben Isaac composed a text intended
for the uneducated Ashkenazi male and female, his own method of
collection and selection reveals a high level of sophistication. Thus, the
9 See his Melitz yosher and Sefer ha-Magid (which was published after Jacob’s death);
on the Tsene Rene, see M. Erik, History of Yiddish Literature from its Beginnings to the
Haskalah Epoch (Warsaw, ): –; J. Baumgarten, Introduction to Old Yiddish
Literature. Edited and translated by J.C. Frakes (Oxford, ), see index; see now also
C. Turniansky and J. Elbaum, “Tsene Rene,” in G.D. Hundert, ed., The Yivo Encyclopedia
of Jews in Eastern Europe (Yale, ): vol. , –.
10 See in Brantshpigl, opening of ch. .
 shlomo berger
resulting text is not merely a simplified and vulgar rendition of biblical

stories, ideas and notions, but a clever presentation of midrash to a less
educated public.11
The book’s popularity and widespread distribution ignited curiosity
among other authors and book producers. The Tsene Rene was rightly
considered a formidable rival to their books and, subsequently, the Tsene
Rene’s text as well as its various printed editions received attention in the
form of remarks inserted in prefaces of other published Yiddish books.
Indeed, the following selection of references to the Tsene Rene, gathered
from Yiddish books published in Amsterdam, exhibits the wide range of
concerns regarding the book and its text.12 These remarks are testimonies
of the producers’ own concerns and the ones they envisaged for the
reading public.
In Mizmor le-todah (), the author offered a commentary of weekly
lessons in the form of a poem, a relatively short rhymed text that the
reading public could enjoy reading and singing to a known tune. The
preface is also rhymed and it includes the following: “they prefer to sing
in order to fully grasp what is told in the Torah / because even when they
hold a khumesh-taytch in their hands, they do not fully understand what
it is saying / it is too difficult and too profound, and one thinks ‘I’d better
leave it and go to sleep’ / and when they take the Tsene Rene in hand they
encounter unknown midrashim / and when the hour of sleep approaches
they put the book aside . . . ” The picture drawn here shows how texts can
be difficult to understand for the ordinary Ashkenazi. He cannot read the
Hebrew original, of course. He is unable to follow the text when reading
a traditional translation primarily intended for the study of Torah and
used in the heder; the khumesh-taytch was meant for pupils and included
a basic Yiddish rendition of biblical verses, but apparently was still far
too demanding for a section of the Ashkenazi readership. Ideas were too
11 I would like to thank Chava Turniansky and Jacob Elbaum for sharing with me
results of their as yet unpublished research into the Tsene Rene.
12 In a prayer book printed by Naftali Hertz Rofe in , the publisher determined
that several texts of prayers were removed from the edition, because these could be
found in other popular books which Ashkenazim have in their possession, including
the Tsene Rene; on Yiddish books in Amsterdam, see M. Gutschow, Inventory of Yiddish
Publications from the Netherlands c.–c. (Brill, ); L. Fuks and R. Fuks-
Mansfeld, Hebrew Typography in the Northern Netherlands (Brill, –); S. Berger,
“Yiddish Book Production in Amsterdam –: Local and International Aspects,”
in Y. Kaplan, ed., The Dutch Intersection. The Jews and the Netherlands in Modern History
(Brill, ): –; idem, “Books for the Masses: The Amsterdam Yiddish Book
Industry –,” European Judaism  (): –.
a bestseller in context 
complicated, and unknown midrashim made reading of the Tsene Rene

tedious as readers did not recognize the sources and could not grasp the
discussions and stories. Indeed, the criticism voiced here implies that
Jacob ben Isaac was still much too difficult and he did not offer a simple
story at all. The Tsene Rene failed in its objectives.
Another important and particular criticism of the Tsene Rene was
expressed in the publisher’s preface to one of the two integral Yiddish
translations of the Bible published in . Joseph Athias is out to explain
what is wrong with Yiddish renditions of the Bible which are on offer
to the Ashkenazi public and why his own book is good and necessary.
He writes: “Although we do have the Tsene Rene on the Torah and the
megilot and the haftorot, it is still only a portion of the Bible and it
basically consists of Talmud and midrashim, all according to the draš
but not the essence of the Bible. And one is unable to understand what
each verse, one following the other, says. The Ayalah šluhah
. and Hibburei
.
leqet. and more books contain powerful and beautiful commentary on
Torah, Prophets and Chronicles, but the books are not translated word
by word . . . ” Because he boasted that he was offering the first ever integral
and straightforward translation of the Bible into Yiddish, books like the
Tsene Rene were a natural target of criticism. Athias argues for a Yiddish
text that meets the basic requirement of a translation: i.e., it provides a
rendition of the text in a way that does justice to the original version.
Because Ashkenazim were not able to read Hebrew, the initial task of a
Yiddish translation of the Torah was to offer the reader a parallel text with
which he could acquaint himself with the Hebrew base text. Indeed, the
Tsene Rene represents all the bad features that characterized Ashkenazi
education. Because people read and studied books like the Tsene Rene,
the written Torah was neglected in favor of the oral Torah.13 While the
author of Mizmor le-todah believed that an accessible text (in the form
of a song) would produce better results, Athias was more ambitious and
did his utmost to offer an integral text of the Bible as a first step of Torah
learning. For the one the Tsene Rene was too difficult, for the other it led
people astray.
The next two references come from Hayyim . Druker, who published
Yiddish books on a regular basis in the first quarter of the eighteenth
13 A similar criticism is also expressed by Yekutiel Blitz, the translator of the rival
Yiddish translation published in Amsterdam in –. On both translations see

M. Aptroot, “Yiddish Bibles in Amsterdam,” in S. Berger, ed., The Bible in/and Yid-
dish (Amsterdam, ): – (including bibliography to earlier scholarship on both
books).
 shlomo berger
century.14 When publishing a further edition of Ma#aśeh ha-šem (),

Druker offered the readers of his preface a description of his editorial
work: changing the location of texts, combining texts that were sep-
arately placed in the previous edition, adding texts that were missing
there and removing others which he considered superfluous. Thus, he
also says: “ . . . on the other hand, I removed texts that belong to the
Tsene Rene and the Mayse bukh. Why should someone waste money
[on texts he already has in his possession]? It would be as if in a tes-
tament a father orders his son to throw bread into the sea every day.”
Druker attempted to anticipate possible questions about this edition’s rai-
son d’être. In his mind, books were costly and it was imperative to demon-
strate that a newly published book includes new texts or better edited
texts that justified its purchase. The idea that a text is already printed
in another book which may repose in someone’s library seemed eco-
nomically unacceptable. Each newly published book should add another
layer in one’s library of texts. Books are not texts. They are vessels that
convey texts and the technological possibilities involved in book pro-
duction should be applied in order to augment the number of texts, or
at least come up with always better and more refined editions of texts.
Indeed, both books he mentions were proven bestsellers and Druker felt
that his own contribution should add to them rather than compete with
them.
In , Druker confronted another obstacle. He himself published
an edition of the Tsene Rene and he had to rationalize and explain the
advantages of this one: advantages that justified the purchase of a new
copy of a bestseller already contained in many libraries. In , he paid
tribute to the classic text by removing portions of it from another anthol-
ogy he edited. He graciously recognized the Tsene Rene’s position and
hinted that it was probably available in many Ashkenazi households.
Now, of course, he would not criticize the text but rather offer a helping
hand in enhancing its further success.15 Criticism was directed against
14 See S. Berger, “Hayyim Druker: a Type-Setter, Editor and Publisher from Amster-
dam and Book Culture in the Early Modern Period,” in I. Bartal et al., eds, Hu
. t. šel hen:
. In
honor of Chava Turniansky [forthcoming].
15 In , Druker prepared an edition of Sefer Lev tov and decided to add a second
.
new section to the book which he entitled Lev hakhamim.
. He claims that he added texts
that were published after publication of the first edition. The book’s author Isaac ben
Eliakum of Pozen did not know these texts, of course. Nevertheless, Druker goes on to
claim that the additions enhance the quality of the book as a whole, and if Isaac ben
Eliakum had known these texts he would have used them in his work.
a bestseller in context 
earlier editions of the text, and he claimed to be providing an exem-

plary replacement. And, of course, copious arguments had to be pre-
sented.
I have seen that the Tsene Rene was printed a couple of times and that
these editions are still available. Nevertheless, I decided to take on this
project because I have regularly read the book and I did not like its Yiddish
style. So, I was thinking to myself: when a Frenchman or a Spaniard want
to speak German [Yiddish?] he [occasionally] speaks German [Yiddish?]
in the manner he speaks his own language, because he does not know
that each language necessarily has its own ornamentation [= grammatical
rules]. This is the way our Yiddish books were also printed to date. But
if you would read Sefer Lev t. ov or Ma#aśeh ha-šem, which was printed
in Amsterdam, and now this edition of the Tsene Rene,16 you will admit
that justice is on my side. Because firstly these books were reread and
rewritten, as you can see in the way I brought them to print. Moreover,
the Rabbis granted me approbations, because they had seen how much
effort was invested in the books. As far as mistakes are concerned, we did
the best we could. Of course, mistakes do remain in the text but one must
do one’s utmost and check. Not as some printers do when they bring bad
texts to print and later do not ask questions when they see that black [=
ink] is put on the white [= paper] and are able to expand their wealth.
They cannot write in a pleasing language and they make a lot of mistakes.
But I must also admit that I have seen a Tsene Rene that was printed
with beautiful illustrations. I did not find mistakes in the illustrations, but
above and under the illustrations and on their margins I have seen many
mistakes. I must admit that the printer was right in his decision to include
the illustrations because the children may be pleasantly entertained with
them. But, thank God, here in Amsterdam it is not so. Good proofreading
and good language are our illustrations. You are invited to look through
the whole book and I trust God that you will not find in it the amount of
mistakes found in  or  folios of other books.
In a dialogical style intended to touch a reader’s heart and mind, Druker
aimed to relate the merits of his edition of the Tsene Rene. His arguments
consist of a mixture of criticisms of previous editions, presentation of
his strategy, apology for his shortcomings, exposure of linguistic sensi-
bilities, and justification and praise of his own career. Language was of
paramount importance. He did not like the style of previous editions
of the book. Indeed, it is known that publishers and printers tended to
reshape the Yiddish of texts they were releasing. It usually amounted to
adopting a somewhat different spelling and minimal syntactical adapta-
tions. Druker himself declared in the preface to his edition of Sefer Lev
16 In fact, Druker’s own editions.

 shlomo berger
t. ov () that the printed text should mirror the spoken language of
the reader. It does not mean that Druker believed that literary Yiddish
should adopt usages of the spoken dialect, but rather that the style of the
text should be accessible to each and every Ashkenazi. Consequently, he
claimed that he encountered archaic usages in previous editions of the
book, and these should have been removed for the benefit of a gener-
ation of readers that was no longer familiar with the language of their
forefathers. Indeed, one has to distinguish between mistakes which are
introduced because of ignorance and usages that might be conceived as
mistakes by younger generations. Therefore, a process of rereading and
rewriting was necessary and Druker is proud to inform the reader that
he has performed this task. Evidently, Jacob ben Isaac’s primary text was
not sacrosanct. Loyalty to an original style was not a requirement or even
a desideratum. Diligent adaptations of a text and its language and reflect-
ing the passage of time were considered an editor’s task which improved
the initial text and, in fact, helped the author to save his composition for
future generations.
Insistence on quality of the text—arranging its language, editing and
proofreading the new version before sending it to the printer—also
affected decisions like the inclusion of illustrations to the book. Druker’s
treatment of the Sultzbach edition (), the first to include illustra-
tions, is illuminating. It consists of a mixture of praise (insincere praise?)
and contempt. He could not deny the beauty of illustrations, their con-
tribution and effectiveness for infant readers. However, by insisting that
Amsterdam publishers preferred thorough proofreading to illustrations
Druker wished to display his own and his local colleagues’ profession-
alism and put it on a more scholarly level. The Tsene Rene may be
printed for the benefit of the uneducated Ashkenazi masses, but the
text deserves a scholarly, learned approach. Books for the masses must
be treated like books for intellectuals. The messages that a book car-
ries must be lucidly exposed. Thus, Druker picks out mistakes found
in the captions added to the illustrations in order to discredit the edi-
tion. Wrong captions minimize or even nullify the advantages of illustra-
tions.
The most probing reference to the Tsene Rene is found in Sefer Emunat
Isra"el (). Dealing with the thirteen ‘iqarim and aiming to offer the
Ashkenazi reading public useful instructions on correct faith, ritual and
Torah study without providing long and elaborate rabbinical discussions,
the compiler/editor Gedalya Taykes includes an epilogue in which he
takes to task producers and readers of the Tsene Rene.
a bestseller in context 
Once I heard a woman reading the haftora of Šemot in the Tsene Rene.
She recited: “let Jeremiah the prostitute’s son come and punish Israel.”
A shiver went up my spine when I heard that such a pure and holy
prophet and son of a prophet is named in such revolting language, which
constitutes a lie. Rashi writes that he stemmed from Rahab the prostitute,
but he was removed eight generations from her, as the Talmud indicates.
And Rahab herself enjoyed the privilege of being the wife of Joshua, a king
in Israel. And, therefore, in God’s name and in the name of Jeremiah’s
honor it is a mitzve [= duty] that every Jew who possesses such a Tsene
Rene in his home should erase this line with a pen, and it is a mitzve for
every publisher and corrector in other languages17 to follow the intention
of Rashi. And every publisher intending to print a prayer book for Shabbat
and feasts [= tefiles un machzoyrim] should add an endnote and, thus, let
it be known to the whole world [= the Jewish reading public] that it is a
wicked and criminal matter to print such revolting language concerning a
prophet and son of a prophet . . . . By this I completed my own task . . . . I
hope that Israel will adhere to these words and not print [such revolting
language] . . .
It is true that editions of the Tsene Rene open the text of the haftora of
Šemot with this appellation attached to the prophet’s name.18 The Ams-
terdam  edition, which is the last known edition before Gedalya’s
outburst, reads: “Jeremiah came from Rahab the prostitute. God says:
Jeremiah will come, the one who was a prostitute’s son, and he will punish
Israel who comes from a kosher mother, namely, a prostitute’s son who
performed good deeds will come and punish the people of Israel who are
doing bad deeds.”19 In fact, the  Frankfurt-am-Main edition includes
precisely the same text, as well as the Metz  edition which was pub-
lished after Gedalya’s complaints. The Amsterdam  edition omits the
last two mentions of the appellation, but still opens with this suppos-
edly derogative description of the prophet20 and, therefore, the slander
in Gedalya’s eyes was not entirely removed in this edition either.
Moreover, Taykes’ efforts to exonerate Jeremiah are problematic be-
cause his reference to Rashi is incorrect and, in fact, meaningless. As
we noted above, according to the basic method employed by Jacob ben
17 I.e., in Yiddish and other languages into which Rashi’s text was translated.
18 In fact, the haftora discussed is the one recited when praying according the Sephar-
dic rite. But it is included together with the text of the haftora according to the Ashkenazi
rite in the Tsene Rene.
19 ïøåä ïééà ïòååòâ æéà øòã ,äéîøé ïîå÷ ìàæ øò ä§§á÷ä èâàæ àã .äðåæä áçø ïåô ïîå÷â æéà äéîøé øã
øã ïåæ ïøåä ïééà ïîå÷ ìàæ øò øîåìë .øèåî éøùë ïåô ïîå÷â ïééæ àã àéã ,ïôàøèù ìàøùé ìàæ øòã ,ïåæ
íéùòî éæééá êéæ ïà ïáàä àã éã ìàøùé éã ïôàøèù ìàæ §ðåà íéùòî éèåâ êéæ ïà èàä àã.
20 .øèåî éøùë éðééà ïåô ïîå÷â ïééæ àã éã ,ïôàøèù ìàøùé ìàæ øòã .äðåæä áçø ïåô ïîå÷â æéà øòã
íéùòî éèåâ êéæ ïà èàä àã øòã øðééà ïîå÷ ìàæ øò øîåìë.

 shlomo berger
Isaac, the Yiddish text is not a literal translation of biblical verses but a
commentary on them. Therefore, the opening of the haftora’s Yiddish text
is not a literal translation of Jer. :. It is rather a Yiddish version of Rashi’s
interpretation of the verse, where he insists that despite his dubious
ancestry the prophet was known for good deeds, while the people of
Israel born from a kosher seed were engaged in bad deeds.21 Following
Gedalya’s guidance, a reader that would consult Rashi would return to
the point of departure: i.e., the text of the Tsene Rene, and conclude that
Taykes did not know what he was talking about.
Was Taykes an ignoramus? Not necessarily. It seems that in calling on
Rashi as a witness he was using the medieval sage’s name as a collective
name for rabbinic authority. Rashi was an important source for Jacob
ben Isaac and Gedalya assumed that most readers of his epilogue would
immediately recognize the sage and would give credence to an argument
associated with him. Indeed, the generation gap between Rahab and
Jeremiah’s time is indicated in other rabbinic texts, like Midraš Zut. a
Ekhah (:).22 Taykes probably encountered such a quotation in his own
study and automatically contributed this commentary to Rashi.
Having attacked the text’s content Taykes initiated a bold move. In fact,
although suggesting that he was annoyed by a certain (but not specified)
edition of the Tsene Rene, he was actually attacking Jacob ben Isaac
himself, because he was responsible for the text. However, in Gedalya’s
time the Tsene Rene had already earned such a reputation that the book
was detached from its author and considered a sort of “popular text,”
whose author had become anonymous and basically unimportant. We
can assume that Gedalya did not think about Jacob ben Isaac and had no
image of the author when sitting down to pen his attack. For him the
Tsene Rene’s text enjoyed prestige and, therefore, it should be rescued
from evil manipulation. Thus, he also suggests censorial measures to
protect the text in the future and return the book to its glorious position.
Taykes’ call on readers to erase the sentence from their own copy of
the Tsene Rene evokes a Soviet-style form of censorship. The request to
publishers of prayer books to include a note explaining the problem indi-
cates that his suggestion can be interpreted as a call for social control
on Ashkenazim, a control performed via the book industry. Assuming
21 éäåãáåò ïì÷ì÷îã àúð÷úî øá çëåìå äðåæä áçøî àá åäéîøé éäåãáåò ïð÷úã àúì÷ì÷ øá éúéì
øùë òøæî àåäù ïäéùòî åì÷ì÷ù ìàøùé åìà.

22 .íéðéðöìå íëéðéòá íéëéùì íéøáã íëì äùåòå äðåæä áçø ìù äéðá éðáî àåäù àá äéîøé éøä
íëéãöá
a bestseller in context 
roles as cultural brokers who held a valuable instrument in their hands,

publishers were able (if they wished) to perform roles usually reserved
for rabbis and intellectuals.23 Apparently, distribution of books and espe-
cially prayer books to be found in every household, could turn into a
means by which community leaders would be able to keep the public on
the righteous path.
To conclude, it is obvious that the Tsene Rene was treated seriously by
various book producers. It was a bestseller and book producers had to
reckon with the influence of its text on the Ashkenazi reading public on
the one hand, and the form and shape of its printed editions on offer in
the market place on the other. Moreover, both considerations affected the
possible success and failure of other Yiddish books which were planned,
published and put on sale. While preparing a new edition of the Tsene
Rene, publishers could not criticize the text. An attack on the text was
risky, as we can learn from Gedalya Taykes’ intervention. They could and
did claim that they were able to improve the language, add devices which
would make reading easier (e.g., adding subtitles, dividing into chapters,
placing the haftorot after each weekly lesson) and decide whether the
book was for household use (and, therefore, printed in folio format)
or intended to be carried (and, therefore, printed in octavo format). In
the eyes of one publisher, the Tsene Rene was too difficult and tedious.
Living within a community whose school was praised by the Ashkenazi
Shabbetai Bas,24 the Sephardi Athias attacked the heder tradition and
offered new and modern principles of translation and Torah study. For
him, the Tsene Rene missed the point altogether. Evidently, all attempts
to dethrone the Tsene Rene failed. Athias’ failure was spectacular and
testimonies show that he was able to sell only few copies of the edition.25
Indeed, it seems that the Ashkenazi crowd preferred a commentary
on the Torah such as the Tsene Rene offered and rejected an integral
translation into Yiddish that did not include the Hebrew text. Yiddish
texts were helpful but did not replace the Torah itself. Though other book
projects were launched, these publications could not topple the Tsene
Rene from its primary position.
23 On cultural brokers, see M. Vovelle, Ideologies and Mentalities (Chicago, ): –
.
24 Śiftei Yešenim (Amsterdam, ), Introduction.
25 M. Aptroot, “Yiddish Bibles in Amsterdam,” in Berger, ed., The Bible in/and Yiddish;
see also p.  n.  for further references.
ON HUMANIST LOGIC
JUDAIZED—THEN AND NOW:
TWO MODELS FOR THE APPROPRIATION
OF GENTILE SCIENCE
Charles Manekin
From the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth centuries, the educational
and pedagogical theories of the French humanist Petrus Ramus (Pierre
de la Ramée, –) dominated secondary school and university
education in Northern Europe, in England, Holland, and, especially,
Germany.1 While Ramus’s ideas were not themselves especially original
or profound, they ignited a movement in liberal arts education that sub-
sided in Europe only in the eighteenth century, long after they had ceased
to have any influence on working scientists and thinkers. The first Euro-
pean encyclopedias were written under the influence of Ramism, and
“Ramist textbooks were a runaway printing and teaching success: traces
of Ramist habits of mind have been found in the works of contemporary
figures as diverse as Francis Bacon and the Pléiade poets.”2
Ramism went even further afield, for the Italian kabbalist and intel-
lectual Rabbi Moses Hayyim
. Luzzatto (henceforth: Ramhal)
. wrote text-
books on various subjects that show strong signs of Ramism—to such an
extent that it is only a little exaggeration to view him as a Jewish Ramist.
One of these epitomes, the Logic (Sefer ha-Higgayon, Amsterdam, ),
is nothing but a condensed translation of a very popular sixteenth cen-
tury “semi-Ramist” textbook, the Logicae institutiones tironum adolescen-
tum of Marcus Wendelin (–).3 To his credit, Ramhal . acknowl-
edges the Gentile origins of the book in his introduction,
1 On the latter, see H. Hotson, Commonplace Learning: Ramism and Its German
Ramifications, – (Oxford, ).
2 See A. Grafton and L. Jardine, From Humanism to the Humanities: Education and the
Liberal Arts in Fifteenth- and Sixteenth-Century Europe (Cambridge, MA, ): –.
Bacon himself was highly critical of Ramus’ method; see M. Feingold, “English Ramism:
A Reinterpetation,” in M. Feingold, J.S. Freedman and W. Rother, eds, The Influence of
Petrus Ramus Studies in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century Philosophy and Sciences (Basel,
): –.
3 See B. (Charles) Manekin, “On Moses Hayyim Luzzatto’s Logic, and on Ramist
Influence in His Writings” (Heb.), Daat: A Journal of Jewish Thought  (): –.
 charles manekin
When I saw the great need we have for this subject [i.e., Logic], without
which we cannot enter into the scientific disciplines (hokhmot)
. and prop-
erly delight in their pleasure, I chose to arrange this subject in a condensed
matter, according to what I felt necessary for a complete treatment. Most
of it I translated from the books that preceded me in other languages, and
I brought it to our language for the benefit of my coreligionists. I added,
subtracted, and changed things as I saw fit.4
Yet the extent of Ramhal’s
. borrowing from Wendelin is not evident until
both books are compared. To call the Logicae institutiones one of several
sources of the Logic is an understatement; it is really the basis of most
of the book. Ramhal’s
. contribution is to abbreviate Wendelin’s lengthy
discussions, and to adapt many of the examples for his Jewish audience.
Were Ramhal . merely to have condensed and translated into Hebrew
a popular Latin logic textbook, the fact would be of interest only to a
handful of specialists. After all, his fame rests on his introductory texts
on kabbalah, ethics, and theology, some of which remain classics to
this day.5 But Ramhal’s
. aforementioned claim that logic is necessary for
understanding the various scientific disciplines alerts us to the possibility
of the influence of Ramist ideas on some of these other introductory texts.
And, indeed, an examination of some of them reveals that they too, in
varying degrees, should be considered Ramist textbooks.
All this raises interesting questions: How did Ramhal, . who spent
much of his life in Italy, where Ramism was never very influential, learn
about Ramist logic and methodology? How did he view the process of
appropriation of non-Jewish texts, e.g., was he at all perturbed about the
non-Jewish origin of his source? Given that he wrote a separate work on
Talmudic method, what was the relation between the universal method
of science and that of the Talmud? And since Ramist logic was by no
means the only option in logic available to an early eighteenth century
thinker, why did he appropriate that option?
Most of this paper attempts to establish the nature and extent of
Ramhal’s
. Ramism, beginning with his abridgement of Wendelin in the
Logic and to show the traces of Ramism in some of his other works. It con-
cludes with a consideration of the present-day appropriation of Ramism
by a group of Jewish traditionalists who are actively promoting Ramhal’s.
4 Sefer ha-Higgayon, in D. Sackton, ed., Derekh ha-qodeš . . . le-Ramhal (Jerusalem,

.
): –. Subsequent references to the Logic will be to this edition.
5 See S. Ginzburg, The Life and Works of Moses Hayyim Luzzatto, Founder of Modern
Hebrew Literature (Philadelphia, ); cf. E. Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi
Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies (New York, ): –.
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
Logic and related writings. Some of them are unaware of the origins of the
Logic; others, who have recently become aware of it, either suppress that
information from their readers, or use traditionalist strategies to neu-
tralize it. That, too, provides a model of appropriation of Christian sci-
ence.
Ramism in Ramhal’s
. Logic and Other Writings
After surviving a turbulent career in Italy and pledging not to write or

teach kabbalistic texts, Ramhal
. arrived in Amsterdam around  and
stayed there for eight years. During this period only two of his books
were published: a manual of ethics, the Path of the Upright (Mesillat
yešarim, ), and a work on logic and Talmudic method, the Ways
of Reason (Derekh tevunot, ). But he circulated several other books
and treatises among his private students, privileged members of the
Amsterdam Spanish-Portuguese community, where he had been well-
received. This seems to be the case of three little books, the Logic, Rhetoric
(Sefer ha-Melis. ah) and Grammar (Sefer ha-Diqduq), that, together with
two small appendices on logic and grammar, were composed in .
Considering that the Ways of Reason itself contains much logic, this new-
found interest in the subject may appear unusual. Ramhal . had written his
first book, the Tongue of the Erudite (Lešon limmudim, Padua, ), on
rhetoric, but since then he had devoted most of his energies to kabbalistic
manuals and commentaries. With kabbalah now forbidden to him, it may
not seem surprising that he returned to rhetoric—but why logic?
Something of an answer is provided in his study-program in the Way of
Wisdom (Derekh hokhmah),
. written during his stay in Amsterdam, where
he divides the preparatory subjects for the study of divinity (elohut) into
two categories: the one comprising scripture and scriptural exegesis, as
well as the dicta of the Sages; the second consisting of “the universal
methods of investigation and analysis of theoretical matters, i.e., the
logical studies that one should teach his intellect in order to analyze and
investigate what needs to be investigated, and to achieve thereby what
is achievable in theology (elohuyot).”6 Logic as a universal method is a
propaedeutic to the study of theology, comparable to the study of Bible
and rabbinic dicta. This conception of logic turns up in other Amsterdam
6 Derekh hokhmah. Edited by Y. Spiner (Jerusalem, ): .

.
 charles manekin
writings, as we shall presently see. The study-program in the Way of

Wisdom and the emphasis on logic in the Ways of Reason may have
whetted the appetite of Ramhal’s
. students in Amsterdam for logic, which
may in turn have led him to compose for them the Logic and the Rhetoric.
In any event, it would not have been unusual for well-off students in
the Spanish-Portuguese Amsterdam community to have tutors in the
profane sciences.7
The Logic is a short manual of the sort that would be read by students
at the outset of their study of secular wisdom. Books in logic had been
composed or translated into Hebrew since the thirteenth century, espe-
cially in Italy, where Ramhal 8
. had spent most of his life. Since logic in
Italy was traditionally studied by young students, and since Ramhal . had
already written the Tongue of the Erudite during his stay there, one would
expect his Logic written in Amsterdam to reflect both the older medieval
Hebrew tradition of logic familiar to Italian Jewish intellectuals, and per-
haps later scholastic logic. Ramhal. does employ some of the medieval
Hebrew technical terminology and begins the book with the division of
reality into physical and rational being, a division found in a seventeenth
century textbook of scholastic logic published in Padua in .9 Never-
theless, even a short perusal of the book reveals its close affinity with the
textbooks of humanistic logic printed in Northern Europe. This can be
seen in three distinctive features of the books: its content, arrangement,
and its emphasis on method. As to its content, the bulk of the book—
eighteen of its twenty chapters—are devoted to what Luzzatto calls the
“twenty-one terms that are used in logic,” or the “twenty-one distinctions
that one can distinguish in subjects.” These are: cause and effect, subject
and adjunct, whole and part, genus and species, denotation and deno-
tandum, definition and definitum, conjugation and conjugatum, divi-
sion and divisum, comparables, [things that are] diverse, opposites, tes-
timonies and that which is attested. A list of this sort does not appear in
the Aristotelian-scholastic logical tradition.
7 Various textbooks of Hebrew grammars were composed in Amsterdam in the
seventeenth century; a few on logic and rhetoric will be mentioned below; see below
notes  and . See also A.J. Klijnsmit, “Amsterdam Sephardim and Hebrew Grammar
in the Seventeenth entury,” in Studia Rosenthaliana  (): –.
8 For an overview see C. Manekin, “Aristotelian Logic in Medieval Jewish Culture,”
in Gad Freudenthal, ed., Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures (forthcoming).

9 See S. Dupasquier, Summa philosophiae scholasticae et scotisticae: in qua . . . Religio-
nis . . . mysteria . . . explicantur (Patavii, ): .

on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
After the first three sections of the work, which correspond roughly to
the three traditional sections of Aristotelian logic (the theory of terms,
propositions, and syllogistic inference), there is a fourth section devoted
to “order” (seder). Order is divided into two, universal and particular.
The universal order when studying a given subject is first to study the
universal principles (kelalim) and then the particulars, because the uni-
versal principles are better known than the particulars. We learn in the
Ways of Reason that there are three principles of universal order: order-
ing, definition, and division, i.e., the arrangement of the subject from the
most general to the most particular via definition and division. This is
the method that Ramhal . adopts section after section in each chapter of
the Logic: first there is the most general term, then its definition, then
its subdivision, usually dichotomous, into more particular terms, until it
reaches the lowest level. As we shall see below, traces of this method are
found in other works of Ramhal . from the Amsterdam period, i.e., the
Grammar, the Rhetoric, the Ways of Reason, the Way of the Lord, and the
Path of the Upright. All this, then, is called “universal order.” The particu-
lar order is how to guide somebody to the knowledge of a certain intelli-
gible (i.e., eternal truth) via two rational operations: genesis and analysis.
These operations are based on an understanding of the twenty-one terms
discussed earlier.
These three features—the list of the terms employed in logic, the
manner of their presentation, and the discussion of order—are some of
the hallmarks of the logic of Petrus Ramus. A short digression into the
world of Ramist logic will provide a key to understanding some aspects
of Ramhal’s
. method in his later works.10
Ramist Logic
Ramus’s conception of logic, or dialectic—both terms were used inter-

changeably in the scholastic tradition—was based on the humanist logic
of his predecessors, especially Rodolphus Agricola ( / –),
and Johannes Sturm (–), Ramus’ teacher, whose lectures on
Agricola at Paris were an acknowledged influence. Humanistic logic
10 For Ramus, see R. Hooykaas, Humanisme, Science, et Réforme: Pierre de la Ramée
(–) (Leiden, ); W.J. Ong, Ramus: Method, and the Decay of Dialogue (Cam-
bridge, MA, ), and, more recently, P. Sharratt, “Ramus ,” Rhetorica  ():
–.
 charles manekin
was often expressly and polemically directed against scholastic logic.11

According to the humanists, dialectic should provide an account appli-
cable to all uses of language, and all thought processes, and not merely
describe how an academic subsection of language is deployed in formal
disputations. In practical terms, this meant discarding the highly abstract
and formal apparatus of the scholastic logicians, and focusing on the
nature of rational argument in all its applications, from the academic to
the everyday.12
Ramist method did not aim at discovering new truths or even jus-
tifying old ones. Rather it sought to provide the student with a way of
assimilating material that was already accepted as true, i.e., a method of
learning effectively. Ramus believed that we learn material best when it
is organized according to the way humans think. We begin with what
is more general and universal and proceed, through definition and divi-
sion, into more particular subdivisions. This method is not just true of
grammar, or even of all the arts and curricular subjects but in every mat-
ter which we wish to teach easily and clearly. Ramus took the very old
notion of definition and division, which goes back to Plato, and elevated
it to the status of a universal method of organizing and presenting mate-
rial for students. For the next two centuries, the hall-mark of a Ramist
textbook, or encyclopedia article, would be the division of the material
(binary whenever possible) from the more general to the more particular
through definition and dichotomous division. Long after it ceased to be
of interest to the leading thinkers, Ramist principles were instrumental
in the education of European bourgeoisie.13
Ramus’s two key logical/methodological operations are analysis and
genesis (synthesis). “Analysis” means many things for Ramus, depending
upon the context, but first and foremost it signifies the analysis of a
particular subject matter in accordance with the rules of that area. In
logic, for example, one takes a treatise, or even a passage from a classical
text, and analyzes it in order to understand the arguments, and the rules
of inference on which those arguments are based. Genesis is the reverse
procedure of analysis: if analysis tries to get at the underlying logical
11 See L. Jardine, “Humanistic Logic,” in C.B. Schmitt et al., eds, The Cambridge History
of Renaissance Philosophy (Cambridge, ): –.

12 See P. Mack, Renaissance Argument: Valla and Agricola in the Traditions of Rhetoric
and Dialectic (Leiden, ).

13 In addition to Ong, Ramus, pp. –, see Feingold, Freedman and Rother, eds,
The Influence of Petrus Ramus.

on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
structure and meaning structure of a text then genesis equips the student
with the method of constructing text, as he proceeds from imitation,
to independent writing. In some areas, such as logic, one finds genesis
and analysis in equal measures; in other areas one is favored over the
other, depending upon the nature of the inquiry. As for Ramhal,
. genesis
(hams. a"ah) and analysis (havhanah)
. are discussed both in the Logic and
the Ways of Reason; genesis, in the Treatise on the Sermon, and analysis
in The Knowing Heart (Da#at tevunot), The Way of the Lord, and the Path
of the Upright.14
Ramhals’
. Semi-Ramist Logic
Ramist dialectic was not without its detractors; during his lifetime Ramus
was forbidden to teach and was continually attacked by both defend-
ers of Aristotle and other humanists. After his death, there were many
attempts to reconcile his views with those of other humanists, like the
German Reformer Phillip Melanchthon (–), or with Aristotle
himself; this occurred especially in textbooks, whose writers were gener-
ally conservative in intellectual temperament. Books written by logicians
who eclectically combined Ramist doctrines with those of Aristotle were
called in their days “Mixt,” or “Semi-Ramist,”15 and it is in that category
which Ramhals’. Logic falls.
Ramhal. begins the Logic with a series of dichotomous divisions: first,
being is subdivided into rational being and physical being; then ratio-
nal being is subdivided into representational (medumeh) and separate
(muvdal); then representational is subdivided into idea (musag) and fic-
tion (baduy). The idea is then defined as “that thing which, although it
does not exist within the sensible, should exist according to the gradation
[of reality], with the sensible following it in order.”16 The idea becomes
for Ramhal. the category under which are subsumed all subdivisions of
14 For havhanah see Sefer ha-Higgayon, pp. –, ; Ma"amar #al ha-deraša ;
.
B. Efrati, ed., Derekh ha-šem (Jerusalem, ): –; A. Shoshana and Associates,
eds, The Complete Mesillat Yesharim: Dialogue and Thematic Versions (Cleveland, ):
; S. Silverstein [ed. and] trans., Da"ath tevunoth: The Knowing Heart (New York and
Jerusalem, ): . For hams. a"ah, see Sefer ha-Higgayon, pp. – and –;
Ma"amar #al ha-deraša, p. .
15 See W.S. Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England, – (Princeton, ), –
; cf. Hotson, Commonplace Learning, p. .

16 Sefer ha-Higgayon, p. .
 charles manekin
knowable reality, i.e., substance, accident, etc.17 After substance and acci-
dent are introduced Ramhal . leaves the concept of idea behind—it is not
mentioned further in the entire book—and plunges into a discussion of
the praedicamenta (ma"amarim) and the praedicabilia (kollelim). So far
the only thing that is reminiscent of Ramism is the strict, often dichoto-
mous, division into classes and sub-classes.
Yet from chapter  until the end of the book, with only two exceptions,
the features of Ramist logic are pronounced. Ramus, in the later editions
of his work, divided logic into four subjects: technical terms employed in
logic, propositions, syllogisms, and method. The treatment of the terms
employed in logic was by far the largest section because Ramus placed the
classical theory of the topics there. True to form, Ramhal . deals with the
“terms employed in logic” in  of the book’s  chapters; later they are
called “the  distinctions (havhanot)
. that are distinguished in a subject,”
and in his book the Ways of Reason, “the  distinctions that we use when
we wish to judge according to the laws (ha-halakhot) and discussions
(ha-sugyot) or reason.”18 This list includes Aristotelian logical terms, a
typical phenomenon in semi-Ramist logical texts. More explanation of
the distinction are found in the “appendix” to the Logic, the Wing of
Syllogisms (Kenaf heqqešim), with rules how to generate and analyze
argument.
Given that Ramhal . states explicitly that most of the Logic was trans-
lated from the books of the gentiles, the first step in identifying the source
was to examine what Ramist textbooks were likely to have been available
to him. This led eventually to Wendelin’s Logicae institutiones tironum
adolescentum, which was written first in , and published in many
subsequent editions, including ones in Amsterdam in  and , and
as late as .19 Wendelin, the principal of a gymnasium in Zerbst, was
17 I have not found a specific source for this discussion, but both the Logique of Pierre
Crouaz and the Elementa philosophiae of Heinnecus begin with discussions of the various
types of ideas, and these two works were printed several times in early eighteenth-century
Amsterdam.
18 Sefer Derekh tevunot in Sackton, ed., Derekh ha-qodeš . . . le-Ramhal, p. . Subse-
. .
quent references to the Ways of Reason will be to this edition, unless otherwise stated.
19 The  edition is not mentioned by W. Risse in Bibliographia logica . Verzeichnis
der Druckschriften zur Logik mit Angabe ihrer Fundorte – (Hildesheim [u.a.],
): . It appears to be a reprinting of the  edition. Wendelin’s book was used
at Harvard in the seventeenth century; see P. Miller and T.H. Johnson, The Puritans: A
Sourcebook of Their Writings (New York, ):  n. . A synopsis by Henricus Geissler
was published in  in Frankfurt am Main, Institutionum logicarum Wendelini synopsis,
sive Rudimenta logica, but this differs from Ramhal’s
. abbreviation.
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
well-known for his books in moral philosophy and theology.20 A com-

parison of the Logicae institutiones with the Logic clearly shows that the
former was the main source for the latter, with about  percent of the
Logic taken directly from Wendelin, including the arrangement of the
chapters and their subject matter, the great majority of the definitions,
and all of the general principles. Even Ramhal’s
. “peruš” represents Wen-
delin’s “explicatio.” Although it is not the only source—the definition and
analysis of concepts in chapter , the discussion of the signification of
terms in chapter , and the discussion of the uses of syllogistic in chap-
ter , are not contained in Wendelin—it is clearly the dominant one
from chapter  onward. When Ramhal . said that he “added, subtracted,
and altered” it would be more accurate to say that he translated, abbrevi-
ated, and appropriated the work by “Judaizing” the examples.
Table . A Comparison of the Chapters of Ramhal’s

.
Logic and Wendelin’s Logicae Institutiones
Introduction Dedicatio, b–a
Ch.  Book I, Ch. , Rule 
Ch.  Book I, Ch. , Rules –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. , Rules –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –Ch.  (but lacking discussion of the
signification of terms)
Ch.  Book I, Ch. 
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. 
Ch.  Book I, Ch. 
Ch.  Book I, Ch. 
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. –
Ch.  Book I, Ch. 
Ch.  Book II, Ch. –
Ch.  Book II, Ch. –
Ch.  Book II, Ch. –
Ch.  Book III, Ch. – (!)
20 See F.W. Cuno, “Wendelin, Marcus Friedrich,” in Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie
 (): –, Digitale Volltext-Ausgabe in Wikisource, URL: http://de.wikisource

.org/w/index.php?title=ADB:Wendelin,_Marcus_Friedrich&oldid= (accessed
April , ).
 charles manekin
Ch.  (lacking discussion of the uses of syllogistic)

Ch.  Book II, Ch. 
Ch.  Book II, Ch. –
Like earlier Jewish appropriators, Ramhal

. adapts examples from his
source that would resonate with his audience. For example, to illustrate
the category of possession, Ramhal
. (p. ) uses moral virtues where
Wendelin (p. ) uses armor. Here are some examples of appropriation,
in my translation:
Wendelin’s Logicae institutiones

Ramhal’s
. Logic (ed. Sackton) (Amsterdam, )
[End] The same act can be viewed as [End] The same act can be viewed as
various ones depending on its various various ones depending on its various
ends. For example, two individuals ends. For example, Judas kissed Jesus
prolong their prayer; one for the sake of Christ, and the other disciples kissed him.
heaven, the other to impress people of his But Judas’s kiss was evil and the other
devotion. The first performs a great deed; disciples’ kisses were good, because of
the other sins a great deal. (p. ) their various ends. For Judas’s kiss was
to betray Christ, whereas the others’
kiss was a sign of their devotion to him.
(pp. –)
[Part] Question: Is the service of the Lord [Part] Question: Did the Son of God com-
difficult or not? Answer: No, and the proof pletely receive a human nature? Answer:
is from its parts, which are study and Yes, and this is proved from the topical
the performance of the commandments, rule from the essential part, since he
which are not difficult matters. (p. ) received a human body and soul. (p. )
[Adjunct] An adjunct rests on a [Adjunct] An adjunct rests on a subject, or
subject, exists simultaneously with it, or is simultaneous with it, or encompasses it.
encompasses and limits it. For example, For example, clothes rest on the body of
clothes rest on the body. Concurrent the subject. Concurrent with the afflictions
with the birth of Moses there was a light of Christ there was an eclipse of the
that filled the house. Time limits an act Sun. Encompassing the afflictions and
that was performed on a certain day at a crucifixion to Jesus was the time in which
certain time. (p. ) he was crucified. (p. )
[Induction] is where the premises are [Induction] is that in which a general
composed of many subjects and one conclusion follows from singular premises.
predicate. For example, wine from France, For example, wine from Italy, Spain,
Italy, Ashkenaz, Spain, and Turkey France, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, and
increase [body] heat. Therefore all wine Crete, increases [body] heat. Therefore, all
increases [body] heat. wine increases [body] heat.
Such adaptation and translation of examples are not at all unusual when
works are appropriated from one cultural setting to another.21
21 See, for example, C.H. Manekin, “When the Jews learned Logic from the Pope:
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
In the section on method, Ramhal, . following Wendelin closely, sub-

divides the universal method of studying any subject (which proceeds
from knowledge of the universal and better known to that of the partic-
ular and more obscure) into the theoretical (rational) and the practical.
The theoretical method arranges the material so that from the knowl-
edge of the subject-matter one arrives at knowledge of its causes; the
practical method arranges the material so that from knowledge of the
end, one arrives at the knowledge of the means to achieve this end. If one
looks at other writings by Ramhal. from the Amsterdam period, both in
print and in manuscript, one sees these methods exemplified in Ramist
textbook fashion. It is possible to divide these writings into two groups:
those that are clearly Ramist or semi-Ramist, and those that show traces
of Ramism.
Ramism in Ramhal’s
. Writings of the Amsterdam Period
To the former belong the Logic, Rhetoric, Grammar, and the Ways of
Reason. The Rhetoric has been called by scholars an abbreviation of the
Tongue of the Erudite,22 but even a cursory examination shows differences
in terminology and arrangement: the Tongue includes almost all of the
traditional five areas of rhetoric, whereas the Rhetoric, in typical Ramist
fashion, focuses mainly on Style, having dealt with invention and dispo-
sition in the Logic and in the appendix to the Rhetoric, the Treatise on the
Sermon. The method used in the Rhetoric is that of a Ramist textbook, i.e.,
definition and dichotomous division, unlike the method in the Tongue.
Of course there is much overlap in material—they are both based on clas-
sical rhetoric, with the Rhetoric including enough material excluded from
Ramist texts to be considered semi-Ramist, or what is sometimes called,
neo-Ciceronian.23 It is not clear whether Ramhal . simply applied Ramist
principles to compose the Rhetoric, or whether he had a specific textbook
on rhetoric as a model. The Hebrew technical terms are accompanied by
their Spanish equivalents in the manuscript, which may have been added
Three Hebrew Versions of the Tractatus of Peter of Spain,” Science in Context  ():
–.
22 E.g., Y. David, Torat ha-retoriqa ve-ha-šira šel Moše Hayyim Lussatto (Tel Aviv,
. . . . ..
): ; and A.M. Habermann, ed., Rabbi Moše Hayyim . Lus. s. at. t. o: Sefer ha-Melis. ah
(Jerusalem, ): .
23 Howell, Logic and Rhetoric, pp. –.
 charles manekin
by Ramhal’s
. students, but could also be a testimony to a Spanish source.
The latter seems more likely when one considers that the Grammar is
very similar in style and substance to Ramist textbooks of Hebrew, such
as the Elementae Hebraicum by Caspar Wasar (Basel, ). But whether
Ramhal. had in front of him models for his books on rhetoric and gram-
mar or not, he managed to produce textbooks on the trivium in Hebrew
on Ramist principles.
As noted above, these three works were composed in  and cir-
culated privately among Ramhal’s . students. By contrast, the Ways of
Reason was published in Amsterdam in  with the approbations of
the rabbinical leaders of the community.24 A comparison between the
Logic and the Ways of Reason, which contains much logic, is beyond the
scope of this paper. While there are indeed differences in doctrine—the
Ways of Reason also shows the influence of the Logical Terms (Millot ha-
higgayon) attributed to Maimonides, for example—similarities are more
pronounced. The book is intended, according to its author, for those who
wish to study and to teach the foundations of Talmudic methodology and
Talmudic casuistry in a clear and succinct fashion. But since he claims
that Talmudic argumentation is based on universal reason, much of the
book is not devoted to understanding the Talmud argumentation per se,
but rather to the underlying logic on which Talmudic argumentation is
based. So often the rules are taken from logic, with their examples and
application taken from the Talmud.
Some traces of Ramist method are found in other works from the
Amsterdam period. For example, in the Introduction to the Way of
the Lord, Ramhal. emphasizes the importance of starting with simple
intuitive universal rules and proceeding to the particulars:
For by means of a small number of short rules (kelalim), arranged prop-
erly, a great amount of science can be acquired. Do not consider these
rules profound or far removed from the multitude of people, for they
are rather easy and obvious; all that has been added is drawing atten-
tion to them and arranging them; for they are all found in natural laws
of thought.25
24 For Ramhal’s explanation of some of the hermeneutical rules mentioned in rabbinic

.
literature, see A. Ravitzky, Logiqah Arist. ot. elit u-metodologyah Talmudit [Aristotelian
Logic and Talmudic Methodology] (Jerusalem, ): –.
25 Efrati, ed., Derekh ha-šem, p. . Ramhal also lists some of the terms used in logic
.
used to analyze a subject; in the editor’s commentary parallel passages from the Logic are
cited.
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
Ramhal. offers a short discourse on method, which is nothing but

Ramus’s method of analysis that Ramhal . himself discusses in the Logic.
There may even be traces of Ramism in the Path of the Upright, a man-
ual of personal ethics and piety. Since its publication in Amsterdam in
, the work has gone through many editions and translations and is
arguably the most widely read work of traditional Jewish ethics. Several
years ago, scholars identified an earlier version of the Path, written in
 as a dialogue between a pietist (hasid)
. and a scholar (hakham).
. The
central idea in both the dialogue and the manual versions is the same: in
order to acquire virtues like piety, fear of God, etc. one first has to investi-
gate their essence and their particulars, and only then can one learn how
to obtain them. Ramhal . emphasizes that divine service is a science, and
like other sciences, it has to be mastered according to a certain order or
method. But even before the essence and particulars are investigated, one
has to understand man’s overarching goal, which is to serve God and to
come near to Him.26 This ordo cognoscendi is reminiscent of the “prac-
tical method” in the Logic, i.e., “one of the practical arts is ordered so
that from the knowledge of its end, we come to the knowledge of the
means that leads to the end”;27 this is what Wendelin calls the analyti-
cal practical method. Another idea of possible Ramist provenance is the
importance of beginning with universal concepts and principles that are
easily understood, and then proceeding to a study of the particulars. In
both versions Ramhal . attempts to justify the need to study the various
aspects of the service of God, even though its generalities are obvious to
everyone.
Ramist method starts with a definition of the general concept and pro-
ceeds to its parts through division and definition; the “practical method”
identifies first the goal of the study and then discusses the ways of reach-
ing it. In the manual version of the Path of the Upright Ramhal . first elu-
cidates a given virtue (be"ur ha-middah), then examines its parts (helqei .
ha-middah), and, finally provides the methods to acquire the virtue, and
to avoid its concomitant vice. The division into twos and threes comes
in chapter , “On the Divisions of Piety.” No charts are provided, but
we can see the Ramist structure of the chapter in the following dia-
gram:
26 Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto, The Complete Mesillat Yesharim: Dialogue and
Thematic Versions. Edited by A. Shoshana and Associates (Cleveland, ): .

27 Sackton, ed., p. .
 charles manekin
The arrangement of the material in Ramist fashion is striking.

We can draw several conclusions from the above for Ramhal’s . intellec-
tual development. First, Ramhal . wrote textbooks influenced by Ramism
during his stay in Amsterdam, books that were based on Latin models
typical of seventeenth-century schoolbooks in Germany and the Nether-
lands. Second, the thesis that Ramhal . imbibed all his secular learning
as a youth from his teacher Isaac Cantarini in Italy seems very difficult
to sustain.28 On the contrary, the evidence for his learning new doc-
trines in logic, grammar, and rhetoric, after leaving Italy is consider-
able. It is unlikely that he would have been exposed to Ramist doctrines
while in Italy, since Ramism, as we have noted, made little inroads in
Catholic countries such as Italy and Spain. There is no record of Wen-
delin’s textbook being published in Italy, but only in Germany, Holland,
and Switzerland.
This does not mean that Ramhal . was unfamiliar with humanist logic
and rhetoric while in Italy. On the contrary, while Ramism itself was
not influential in Italy, doctrines associated with humanistic logic and
rhetoric go back as early as the fifteenth-century Italian humanist, Loren-
zo Valla. In chapter  of the Tongue of the Erudite Ramhal . even provides
a little chart of subject division. Yet it should be recalled that Ramus did
not invent dichotomous division; he simply made it a dominant feature
of his method.29 We do not have a work on logic written by Ramhal .
28 Ginzburg, The Life and Works, p. .

29 Cf. Ong, Ramus, p. : “The use of dichotomies, or division by twos, was not
uniquely Ramist, although extreme specialization in them was.”
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
during his Italian period, so there is no way to compare whether there is a

change of doctrine. But as we have seen, a comparison of the Tongue of the
Erudite with the Rhetoric, reveals that the former is more typical of Italian
humanist models, the latter of Ramism. The same Ramist influence was
detected in the Grammar.
In Ramhal’s
. summaries of kabbalah, written when he was still in Italy,
one finds an emphasis on the organization of the material; indeed, he
wrote in a letter to his teacher that the significance of these works lies
in their organization rather than in any original content.30 Yet there is
nothing to indicate that these books were influenced at all by Ramist ideas
of organization. It seems more likely that his predilection for organization
and for textbook writing, is partly what attracted him to Ramist ideas
after he moved to Amsterdam.
If this speculation is correct, then it is possible to reconstruct some
aspects of Ramhal’s
. intellectual biography. Having begun his career with
a work inspired by humanistic rhetoric, he turned shortly to writing kab-
balistic commentaries and summaries, some purporting to be under the
influence of a heavenly messenger, others not. When he arrived in Ams-
terdam, having pledged not to teach kabbalah, he appears to have been
employed, inter alia, as a tutor to young men like David Franco Mendes
in secular subjects such as the trivium, and this suggested to Ramhal . the
composition of texts in Hebrew arranged according to the method of
textbooks in Latin and the vernaculars of the Spanish-Portuguese com-
munity. It should be pointed out that texts on these subjects on logic and
rhetoric had been composed in the mid-seventeenth century in Ams-
terdam by R. Moses Rafael Aguilar31 and earlier by Abraham Cohen de
Herrera; the latter’s work on logic shows signs of the influence of Agri-
cola and Ramus,32 though there is no indication that Ramhal . was familiar
with either of these works.
The case of Herrera is particularly apt because like Ramhal . he was
a kabbalist, and there appear to be affinities between his neo-Platonic
30 See S. Ginzburg, R. Moše Hayyim Lussatto u-vene-doro: osef iggerot u-te#udot (Tel
. . . ..
Aviv, ): : “äéäé øãñä ÷ø éë ,ùåãéç àöîì êøåö äéä àì íäá íâ—íéøö÷ä íéììëäå
®íäá øàáì éúöôç øùà úåìîäå ïåëð ìò”.
31 See S. Berger, Classical Oratory and the Sephardim of Amsterdam: Rabbi Aguilar’s
“Tratado De La Retórica,” (Hilversum, ): esp. –.

32 See Herrera, Epitome y Compendio de la Logica O Dialectica. Edited by G.S. del Buffa
(Bologna, ): xi–cxxxviii; an index to the references to Agricola and Ramus appear on
pp.  and , respectively.
 charles manekin
ontology (the employment of the concepts of hierarchy and gradation,

the move from universals to particulars) and his decision to adopt Ramist
principles. As Sacara del Buffa puts it:
. . . Herrrera is influenced by Ramus, not only as regards the formal aspects
which we shall discuss below, but inasmuch as Ramist dialectic is suitable
for providing the presuppositions for a hierarchical conceptual structure,
starting from simple primary notions and developing by means of defini-
tions and divisions, which reflect the Neoplatonic-Kabbalistic system.33
The above may be said, mutatis mutandis, for Ramhal. . It is not that his
kabbalah and logic developed together, as has recently been suggested,34
but rather that Ramhal. was attracted to Ramist logic and method after
he arrived in Amsterdam because of its perceived affinity with the neo-
Platonic-kabbalistic ontological system that he had explicated in Italy.
That may help explain why he chose to abridge Wendelin’s textbook
rather than others available to him in Amsterdam, and why his kabbal-
istic works are themselves devoid of Ramism. And when he learned of
Ramist logic and Ramist textbooks in Amsterdam he himself began to
produce textbooks that, while not rigidly Ramist, are based in part on
Ramist methodology.
What does the case of Ramhal . teach us about the eighteenth-century
appropriation of Christian science? On the one hand, he candidly men-
tions that most of his Logic was translated from gentile books. He does
not hesitate to write works on profane wisdom, or to use Christian
methodological terms and principles in his works on ethics and theology.
Ramhal. was heir to the medieval and renaissance tradition that saw all
“wisdom” originating from the Bible and his own study program required
mastery of the propaedeutic sciences, which included the dicta of the
Sages, i.e., Talmud and midrash. On the other hand, when he actually
published a book containing logic, it is in the form of a treatise on Tal-
mudic methodology. Were it not for the Ways of Reason, only historians
would be interested in the Logic today. That brings us to the present and
to increased interest in these texts among Jewish traditionalists.
33 Ibid., p. .
34 See J. Hansel, Moïse Hayyim Luzzatto, –: kabbale et philosophie (Paris,
): –. Dr. Hansel, who does not recognize a shift in Ramhal’s . methodology
after the move to Amsterdam, considers neither the logic nor the kabbalah to be anterior
to the other. In support of this she points out that the Tongue of the Erudite contains some
Aristotelian logic. Yet while one can infer from the Tongue of the Erudite that Ramhal .
studied logic as a young man, there is no hint of Ramist logic or method in that or other
of the Italian works.
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
Ramism among Jewish Traditionalists Today
The last thirty years have witnessed in Jewish traditionalist circles a mini-
boom in the production of editions, translations, and commentaries of
Ramhal’s
. writings. While interest has focused on such classics as the
Path of the Upright and the Way of the Lord, and, more recently, on
the kabbalistic writings, even Ramhal’s
. non-religious writings have not
been neglected. This may seem odd. After all, the subjects of logic and
rhetoric were rarely studied in traditional Jewish academies, certainly
not in modern times, and the concepts and terms of early modern logic
and rhetoric are foreign to all save narrow specialists. So how do the
traditionalists justify promoting to yeshiva students eighteenth-century
works in early modern logic that are based on the educational principles
of a French humanist and Protestant martyr?
It helps, of course, to be ignorant of the intellectual background and
origins of the work. For the traditionalist, Ramhal
. has no context beyond
that of his own writings, and even here one needn’t know more than the
works before him. Those with scholarly predilections often try to under-
stand him within the internal Jewish context, e.g., the Italian rabbinate.35
Such willful ignorance allows an editor to conclude that whatever Ramhal .
did not receive from the medieval philosophers and kabbalists, or from
his rabbinical teachers, he invented himself. Thus, Rabbi Mordekhai
Chriqui, in the introduction to his recent edition of the Logic, claims that
Ramhal’s
. list of twenty-one terms employed in logic “does not appear
in any literature on logic,” and then goes on to declare that the author
produced it “yeš mi-#ayin” (“out of nothing”).36 Now Rabbi Chriqui him-
self knows this to be false, since most of his introduction is copied ver-
batim, and without attribution, from the present author’s Hebrew arti-
cle on the Logic. Where Rabbi Chriqui’s text deviates from that arti-
cle is precisely on the question of influence: what I claim is Ramist
he declares to be invented “yeš mi-#ayin.” Here we witness a double
35 See, for example, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan on the source of Ramhal’s method: “If one
.
were to choose one outstanding aspect of the Ramchal’s works, it is his systematic
approach . . . The sources of the author’s great talent for organization is not known
for certain. Perhaps it is due to the fact that Luzzatto was a student of Rabbi Yitzhaq
.
Lampronti . . . ” In Moshe Hayyim
. Luzzatto, Derekh ha-Shem: The Way of God (Jerusalem,
): .
36 M. Chriqui, ed., Sifrei Ramhal: Sefer Lešon limmudim ha-šalem, Sefer ha-Melisah,
. .
Sefer ha-Higgayon (Jerusalem, ): –.
 charles manekin
appropriation: an appropriation of Ramist logic that legitimates it by

attributing it to Ramhal’s
. genius, and an appropriation of a university
scholar’s work through cutting and pasting.
Another edition and translation of the Logic, aimed at ultra-orthodox
yeshiva students, was published in  by David Sackton and Chaim
Tscholkowsky.37 The publication history of this edition is interesting
because of the deliberate attempt to connect it with the Ways of Reason,
the work on the logic of the Talmud, even though the Logic remained
unpublished during the author’s lifetime and was connected with the
Rhetoric and the Grammar. By contrast, it will be recalled, the Ways of
Reason was published in  with the approbation of rabbinical leaders
of the Amsterdam Spanish-Portuguese Jewish community. The Ways of
Reason has seen over twenty editions since the editio princeps, with a
marked increase in popularity during the second half of the twentieth
century. A  edition of the vocalized Hebrew text was accompanied
by a large fold-out chart by a Jerusalem scholar, Rabbi Joseph Shalom
Weinfeld, the translation of which is: “A Chart of the Structure of the
Sugya And Its Parts.” Clearly intended as a practical handbook for yeshiva
students, the work included approbations by some of leading rabbinical
figures of the day (Rabbis Moshe Hager, Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Moshe Yair
Weinstock, Moshe Halberstam). From these approbations we see that
although the work was not universally accepted in yeshiva circles, it had
won some adherents.
One of the enthusiasts for the Ways of Reason was Rabbi Mordecai
Goldstein, the founder and dean of the Diaspora Yeshiva, an educational
institution for newly observant Jews. Rabbi Goldstein has made the work
“required reading” for his students. Two of them produced a translation
and edition, and published it, with folding charts, with a mainstream
orthodox Jewish house in , with an approbation by Rabbi S.Z. Broide
of the Hebron yeshiva. They write in their preface:
The Ways of Reason [sic] is unsurpassed as a guide to Talmud study since
it provides a practical bridge between logic and the Talmudic method. . . .
The charts in Hebrew and English show the overall structure of the books
and the relationship between key concepts. It is important to progress
through this guide step by step so that the number of distinctions and
categories will not appear overwhelmingly complex. There are many terms
used in the book in a specialized sense . . . .38
37D. Sackton and C. Tscholkowsky, eds, The Book of Logic (Jerusalem, ).
38D. Sackton and C. Tscholkowsky, eds, The Ways of Reason: A Guide to the Tal-
mud and the Foundations of Dialectics Explaining All the Principles of Reason and Logic
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
These terms (some of which are mistranslated) are part of the legacy of
humanist logic, as is the structure, form and method of the book—facts
that were presumably unknown to the editors before the present author’s
Hebrew article on the Logic appeared. The charts published in English,
like the charts published by Weinfeld in his Hebrew edition, are among
the few Ramist charts produced since the eighteenth century.
For this edition and translation of the Logic there is no approbation
by Rabbi Broide (we shall surmise why presently), but it does have one
from Rabbi Dov Yaffe, the dean of the “Lithuanian” Kenesses Chizkiyahu
Yeshiva, who writes:
I can attest that the books of our teacher the Ramhal,
. The Ways of Reason
and the Logic and the Rhetoric have brought benefit to my intellect (what
has been often denied to those who are more talented, or possess more
knowledge, than I).39
A different tack is taken by Rabbi Goldstein, in his introduction to his
students’ edition, where he writes:
The Logic . . . as a sequel to . . . The Ways of Reason represents a systematic
effort by one of our Torah luminaries to distill the Rabbinical method
which is built into the foundations of Toras Moshe (the Law of Moses).40
For Rabbi Yaffe, the virtue of Ramhal’s . Logic is that it sharpens the
intellect; for Rabbi Goldstein, that it distills the rabbinical method. Since
there is no evidence that the Logic was written as a sequel to the Ways of
Reason, and since it is not at all a work about Talmudic methodology,
Rabbi Yaffe’s judgment is the more convincing. The “rebranding” of
the Logic as a work dealing specifically with Talmudic methodology
continues in the translator’s introduction, where the work is considered
to be a guide to #iyyun, in-depth study of Talmud. Ramhal, . we are
told, “claims to give us an exhaustive set of key words or concepts in
logic which define every possible argument and proof in the Talmud”41
(emphasis added). In fact, Ramhal. makes the claim not about the Talmud
per se, but about “any subject that there may be.” And this claim about the
universality of the method comes directly from the Logicae institutiones
of Wendelin.42
in a Simple Concise Way (Jerusalem, ): –. The original edition was published in
, but I have access to the revised edition.
39 Sackton and Tscholkowsky, eds, The Book of Logic, p. xii.
40 Ibid., pp. xvii–xviii.
41 Ibid., p. xx.
42 See  edition, p. b of the Dedicatio.
 charles manekin
The traditionalist’s transformation of the Sefer ha-Higgayon from a

short textbook of logic into a manual for the in-depth study of the
Talmud harbingers another transformation: that of the Sefer ha-Melis. ah
into a book on . . . Talmudic pedagogy! So we learn that the “Rhetoric
[focuses upon] a continuation of Talmudic reasoning (sevarah) with
the intent of study, and teaching in order to observe and do.”43 This
transformation process is completed in Rabbi Sackton’s recent Hebrew
edition of the Ways of Reason, the Logic, and the Rhetoric, which he
makes into a trilogy and dubs the Way of Holiness. In his introduction to
the trilogy he explains why this arrangement captures precisely Ramhal’s .
intentions, even though the author never hinted at such an arrangement.
He also explains why he published the Logic this time not as a separate
book but together with the Ways of Reason. When he approached Rabbi
Broide for advice on the publication of a Hebrew edition of the Logic—
a daunting task, since it is a work of secular wisdom with a strange
terminology—he was advised by the Rosh Yeshiva to publish the Logic
together with the Ways of Reason “so that the connection to the study of
Gemarrah will be clear, and so that the very study of logic will not depart
from the discipline of Gemarrah.”44 One perceives clearly the difference
between the religious and intellectual sensibilities of the traditional Jews
of Amsterdam in the eighteenth century and those of the ultra-orthodox
Jews of Jerusalem at the turn of the twenty-first century. For Ramhal, .
the study of Jewish law and the study of logic were both propaedeutic to
the study of theology. But for the Jewish traditionalist today, schooled
in the ways of the Lithuanian yeshiva, the study of the Talmud is the
ultimate intellectual pursuit; all others are subservient to it. And study
of secular wisdom is, of course, suspect. Rabbi Broide was willing to
compose an approbation to the English translation of the Ways of Reason,
not because he approved of its use in his yeshiva, but because it seemed
to help newly-observant Jewish men, who had come from the secular
world, to study Talmud. He drew the line, however, at the study of logic
for yeshiva students who should not be exposed to profane wisdom. So he
does not give the book an approbation, despite the attempts of the editor
to “Talmudize” the Logic and the Rhetoric.
Rabbi Sackton does not mention the present author’s Hebrew article
on the Logic, but he appears, like Rabbi Chriqui, to have read it. For
he feels compelled to explain to his potentially puzzled readers how
43 Derekh ha-qodeš . . . le-Ramhal,

. p. .
44 Ibid., p. .
on humanist logic judaized—then and now 
the majority of a work on “Talmudic indepth methology” is translated

by Ramhal. “from the books of gentiles that preceded me.” His answer
provides insight into strategies of appropriation of non-Jewish science in
an ultra-orthodox Jewish community.
The “majority” that the Ramhal . translated from ancient [sic!] works is a
superficial and extraneous matter—he used the accepted technical terms,
like the technical phrases and terms translated from foreign languages that
are used in all books. But a little reflection reveals that the main part is what
he added and subtracted and changed. This seems to accord with what he
writes in the Ways of Reason: “I chose to establish this structure on the
Talmud to that it will succeed and so I will know that it will not fall.” From
here we conclude that the root principle is not what he translated but what
he added, subtracted, and changed, in order to reveal the Way of Holiness
in the Sea of Talmud.45
Aside from the editor’s misunderstanding of the author’s goal in the
Ways of Reason, which is to demonstrate the correctness of his logic
by appealing to examples from the Talmud, what does any of that have
to do with the Logic? Most of that book can be traced to Wendelin.
What is original in the Logic is the transmission of humanistic logic to
a Hebrew linguistic and Jewish cultural setting, and this is seen primarily
in the examples. It is difficult to believe that the editor is unaware of this
appropriation of humanist logic.
In any event, it is noteworthy that the letter and spirit of Ramism
live on in some traditionalist institutions of Jewish learning in Jerusa-
lem, Bnei Brak, Paris, and New York, where “Talmudic” logic is studied
according to the concepts, principles, and formulations of a sixteenth-
century French humanist, as rendered by a seventeenth-century German
theologian, and then abridged, translated, and modified by an eigh-
teenth-century kabbalist.
45 Ibid., p. .
HEBREW “SOCIOLINGUISTICS”
Irene E. Zwiep
Introduction
The history of Jewish linguistic thinking has always been described in its
own (“Jewish” rather than “general linguistic”) terms. In their surveys of
the pre-modern Hebrew linguistic library, scholars from Wilhelm Bacher
to David Tene have reconstructed a grammatical tradition which, though
initially dependent on Arabic descriptive models, soon developed a focus
and dynamic of its own.1 Concentrating on the dominant Rabbanite tra-
dition, the earlier studies tended to portray the history of Hebrew gram-
mar as a succession of lasting breakthroughs, with the discovery of the
tri-literal Hebrew root and the quest for, eventually, the seven binyanim
as the tradition’s most conspicuous feats of arms. In recent times, our
increasing knowledge of the medieval Karaite tradition has perhaps not
quite upset this linear picture, but has definitely offered fresh perspec-
tives by uncovering a whole range of alternative descriptive possibilities.2
And while in the earlier surveys the linguistic monuments of later cen-
turies were often glossed over as a mere afterthought to the fundamen-
tal achievements of the medieval Andalusian-Provençal tradition, later
scholarship has begun to pay more attention to the many fruits of Chris-
tian Hebraism, to Renaissance grammarians such as Elijah Levita and
Abraham de Balmes, and to the variety of Ashkenazi contributions to
the development of early modern and maskilic linguistic thinking.3
1 Bacher’s Die hebräische Sprachwissenschaft vom . bis zum . Jahrhundert (=
J. Winter and A. Wünsche, Die jüdische Literatur, vol.  [Trier, ]: –) and Die
Anfänge der hebräischen Grammatik (Leipzig, ; first published in ZDMG ) seem to
have determined the pattern of future descriptions. Providing a wealth of new insights,
Tene’s comprehensive entry “Linguistic Literature, Hebrew” in the  edition of the
Encyclopaedia Judaica (vol. , cols –) basically continues the evolutionary
scheme laid out in Bacher’s surveys.
2 Cf. esp. G. Khan, The Early Karaite Tradition of Hebrew Grammatical Thought.
Including a Critical Edition, Translation and Analysis of the Diqduq of Abū Ya#qūb Yūsuf
ibn Nūh. on the Hagiographa (Leiden, ).
3 As the most recent in-depth study of early modern Ashkenazi linguistic thinking
 irene e. zwiep
From these combined efforts a strong and continuous, yet simulta-

neously strikingly versatile Hebrew tradition emerges. So far, that tra-
dition has mainly been researched and described from within, i.e., by
students of Hebrew or of Jewish intellectual history (with little train-
ing in linguistics), who explored the Hebrew grammatical corpus in its
immediate scholarly setting, e.g., in relation to the Jewish curriculum
or to contemporary Jewish attitudes towards the sciences. In this study
I shall approach Jewish linguistic thinking from the other end, taking
my point of departure in modern linguistics and projecting some of its
categories (occasionally interpreted in a rather broad sense) on previ-
ous Hebrew linguistic models and axioms. This—admittedly somewhat
playful—exercise should allow us to better judge Jewish Hebraism not
just on its Jewish merits but also by its more general linguistic content.
At the risk of stressing the obvious, two preliminary qualifications
should be made here. First of all, contemporary linguistics being a vast
domain, the present inventory of course cannot be exhaustive. As a trib-
ute to a scholar who in his extensive oeuvre has always given precedence
to interpreting Jewish intellectual life within its socio-historical context,
I have therefore chosen to limit my examples to the field of sociolin-
guistics. Secondly, we should at all times remain aware of the funda-
mental anachronism implied in the exercise. Prior to the twentieth cen-
tury, no systematic attention was paid to the social and cultural processes
that (co-)determined the dynamic of language, its variation and stratifi-
cation. Yet when reviewing the corpus of pre-modern Jewish linguistic
thought, we notice that Jewish scholars did take into consideration the
historical context of certain linguistic features, and in doing so betray
a sensitivity, however elementary, to the impact of socio-cultural pro-
cesses on language. By explaining those features against the backdrop
of their—supposed—surrounding reality, they seem to have offered us
a first antecedent of what today is known as “socially realistic linguistics.”
Langue and Parole in Hebrew Grammatical Description
In the eyes of most pre-modern Jewish scholars, language was a human

convention. The faculty of speech, they believed, had been bestowed
upon man by his Creator at the beginning of time. As soon as he had been
should be mentioned A. Schatz, Sprache in der Zerstreuung. Die Säkularisierung des

Hebräischen im . Jahrhundert (Göttingen, ).
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
given the ability to produce articulate sounds, however, it had been up to

man alone to organize those sounds and to endow them with meaning.
On the one hand, the thoughts he wished to convey to his fellow-men
needed expression; on the other, the environment in which he had been
placed, the tools he wished to share, the goods he hoped to exchange, all
had to be named. Thus he set out to develop an apparatus that would
enable him to refer to things tangible and intangible, to question and
to persuade, to mock and glorify—in short, to communicate with his
fellow-creatures in an increasingly complex world. Had it not been for the
political nature of humanity, language would not have come into being.
Serving first and foremost to articulate and thus disseminate human
thought in everyday situations, language was commonly regarded as a
fait social, a social fact with—implicit—democratic dimensions.4
In their technical descriptions of the Hebrew language, however, Jew-
ish grammarians generally showed less interest in the social settings of
language. Prior to the nineteenth century, they devoted virtually all their
attention to lešon ha-qodeš, the language of the holy domain, i.e., of Tem-
ple and Scripture.5 In their descriptions of this canonical stage in the his-
tory of Hebrew, they invariably concentrated on (to borrow the distinc-
tion first introduced by the Swiss “general linguist” Ferdinand de Saus-
sure [–]) langue rather than parole, i.e., on the holy tongue as an
abstract, timeless system of signs rather than on Hebrew as the concrete,
time-bound medium of actual, historical speakers, be they the benei
Yisra"el or the more distant #ivrim.6 By contrast, whenever they touched
upon the post-biblical stages of the language, their arguments shifted
away from systematic analysis and became related first and foremost to
the sphere of parole rather than langue. This turn had been inspired by
the fact that, in their perception, the rabbinic writings had documented
the language according to the secondary minhag (usus) of later genera-
tions, whose proficiency had suffered from the vicissitudes of time and
history.
4 For a more detailed analysis of medieval Jewish views on the origin and raison d’être
of language, cf. I.E. Zwiep, Mother of Reason and Revelation. A Short History of Medieval
Jewish Linguistic Thought (Amsterdam, ): ch. .
5 For the etymology, cf. M Sota VII..
.
6 Comp. I.E. Zwiep “Hebrew or the Holy Tongue? Imitation and Authenticity in
Medieval Hebrew Writing,” in L. Nauta, ed., Language and Cultural Change. Aspects of
the Study and Use of Language in the Later Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Louvain,
): –.
 irene e. zwiep
According to some (e.g., the tenth-century lexicographer Menahem .

ben Saruq), the result had been a demotic dialect, ridden with anomalous
conjugations and irregular derivations, caused by the effects of exile
and foreign occupation. According to others, it merely reflected the
universally human tendency to follow the line of least resistance. “Since
the native speakers of a language generally try to make things easier for
themselves,” Abū-"l-Walı̄d ibn Ğanāh. wrote in a famous passage in his
Sefer ha-Riqmah (eleventh century), “[it happens that] when a word is
used frequently, a letter is elided from the root, in order to make [its
pronunciation] easier.”7 This tendency towards simplification, he noted,
was not a unique feature of mishnaic Hebrew, but could also be found in
biblical phonetics and morphology. Ibn Ğanāh’s . observation, it should
be noted, was one of the rare instances where a medieval grammarian
explained a particularity in biblical Hebrew by referring to the parole
(and the underlying linguistic mentality) of its original speakers.8 As in
the discussions of the mishnaic usage, this approach had been triggered
by the perceived departure from standard biblical analogy.
It was this overt, if never systematic, digression from biblical s. ahot
.
that made the post-biblical minhag a less than perfect linguistic sys-
tem, and thus intrinsically unsuitable for comprehensive scrutiny in the
eyes of most grammarians. In fact it was not until the twentieth century
that mishnaic Hebrew was analyzed as an autonomous linguistic system.
Prior to M.H. Segal’s A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew, first published in
, scholars had looked upon the mishnaic variant as an elitist con-
tinuation of biblical Hebrew that had been supplemented (and contami-
nated) by foreign, lexical as well as morphological, elements.9 Accord-
ingly, they had contented themselves with identifying the differences
7 Sefer ha-Riqmah. Edited by M. Wilensky and D. Tene (Jerusalem, 2): –, esp.
p. . Ibn Ğanāh’s
. views on frequency-induced elision had been anticipated by Judah
Hayyuğ
. in Kitāb hurūf
. al-Lı̄n, ed. Marcus Jastrow, The Weak and Geminative Verbs in
Hebrew. By Abū Zakariyya Yahyā . ibn Dāwud of Fez Known as Hayyûg (Leiden, ):
.
8 NB: In his—admittedly not very mainstream—Compendium Grammatices Linguae
Hebraeae (), Spinoza deviated from this essentially langue-oriented tradition by

going in search of “the Hebrew language” rather than mapping out the language of
Scripture. He explicitly omitted topics which he considered irrelevant for those “who
desire to speak Hebrew,” and even set out to reconstruct, with the help of analogia,
authentic Hebrew forms that had not been transmitted in the Bible; see W.Z. Harvey,
“Spinoza’s Metaphysical Hebraism,” in H.M. Ravven and L.E. Goodman, eds, Jewish
Themes in Spinoza’s Philosophy (Albany, ): –.
9 For a concise introduction to the most important discussions of mishnaic Hebrew
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
between the two stages and describing only those features that deviated
from the biblical norm. “Indem die Mischnahsprache bloß eine Fortbil-
dung des Biblisch-Hebräischen ist,” Abraham Geiger wrote in his Lehr-
und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (), “so wäre es ebenso über-
flüssig wie verwirrend, über dieselbe eine vollständige Grammatik zu
schreiben.”10
In order to minimize surplus and confusion, Geiger chose to limit
his analysis to a description of the various kinds of rabbinic Ausbildung,
Fortbildung and Umbildung of the biblical lexicon, which he explained
against the complex historical background of Jewish antiquity rather
than as a meaningful system in itself. While some of the changes had
been caused by prolonged cultural and linguistic contact between the
rabbis and their environment, he argued, others should be attributed
to die eigne innere Fortbildung des Volkes, i.e., to the intellectual and
spiritual growth of the ancient Jewish nation itself.11 This emphasis on
the internal, national-psychological dynamic (Völkerpsychologie) of lin-
guistic development was of course a typically nineteenth-century nov-
elty in the literature on mishnaic Hebrew.12 By continuing to concen-
trate on isolated linguistic features, however, and by presenting those
features as choices made by actual speakers against a particular histor-
ical background, Geiger (and other nineteenth-century scholars such
as Dukes, Weiss and Siegfried) remained indebted to the longstand-
ing tradition of analyzing post-biblical Hebrew on the level of utter-
ance rather than structure, and of the incidental rather than the system-
atic.
Against this episodic diachronic method, early twentieth-century
scholars such as Karl Albrecht13 and, most influentially, M.H. Segal
from Abraham Geiger to Eduard Kutscher, see S. Kessler-Mesguich, “The Study of

Mishnaic Hebrew. Some Historical Milestones,” Bulletin du Centre de recherche français
de Jérusalem  (): –.
10 A. Geiger, Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache der Mischnah (Breslau, ): .
11 Ibid., p. .
12 For Geiger’s views on language as the ultimate expression of a nation’s individ-
uality, and as “das Corrolarium seines Geistes”, cf. esp. idem, Allgemeine Einleitung in
die Wissenschaft des Judentums (Berlin, ): –. On nineteenth-century linguistics
and Völkerpsychologie, see e.g., M. Ringmacher’s well-documented “Sprachwissenschaft,
Philologie und Völkerpsychologie. Die Grenzen ihrer Verträglichkeit bei H. Steinthal,” in
H. Wiedebach and A. Winkelmann, eds, Chajim H. Steinthal. Sprachwissenschaftler und
Philosoph im . Jahrhundert (Leiden and Boston, ): –.
13 K. Albrecht, Neuhebräische Grammatik auf Grund der Mischnah (Munich, ); cf.
Kessler-Mesguich, “The Study of Mishnaic Hebrew,” pp. –.

 irene e. zwiep
(–) proposed an exhaustive synchronous description of post-

biblical Hebrew. In Segal’s  grammar, mishnaic Hebrew was con-
sistently presented as a coherent system rather than as a conglomerate
of random facts. This approach was vindicated by Segal’s belief that the
language of rabbinic literature was not “an artificial mongrel, made up
of B[iblical]H[ebrew] and Aram.”14 but “a natural living speech, grow-
ing, developing, and changing in accordance with its own genius, and
in conformity with the laws which govern the lives of languages in gen-
eral, and the Semitic languages in particular.”15 Judging by its appearance,
this “homely and severely prosaic” idiom could only be the “direct lin-
ear descendant of the spoken Hebrew of the Biblical period . . . It was a
purely colloquial, one might say a vulgar idiom, directly descended from
an older colloquial or vulgar idiom,” Segal argued on purely linguistic
grounds.16
From the book’s concise bibliography as well as from the many refer-
ences in the footnotes, we learn that A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew had
been informed first and foremost by the classics of contemporary Jewish
and Christian, Hebrew and Semitic scholarship. Its descriptive method-
ology, on the other hand, already reveals the structuralist bias introduced
by De Saussure in the posthumously edited Cours de linguistique générale
(Paris, ). Like De Saussure, Segal favoured a synchronous descrip-
tion of mishnaic Hebrew as a self-sufficient and meaningful system of
linguistic relations, and therefore had to pass over such diverting aspects
as the historical dynamic of the language or its actual usage in rabbinic
texts.17 His claim that he was dealing with a natural language, whose
grammar and vocabulary bore the stamp of widespread colloquial use,
may of course be read as a polemical stance against previous concep-
tions of mishnaic Hebrew as the artificial medium of the rabbinic schools.
14 Segal, Grammar, p. .
15 Ibid., italics mine.
16 Ibid., p. ; Segal had previously tried to demonstrate this biblical provenance in
his “Mishnaic Hebrew and its Relation to Biblical Hebrew and to Aramaic,” JQR O.S.
 (): –; separate reprint Oxford . In reducing the impact of Aramaic
upon mishnaic Hebrew, Segal explicitly polemized with the basic tenets of Gustav Dal-
man’s influential Die Worte Jesu. Mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen
Schrifttums und der Aramäischen Sprache erörtert (Leipzig, ; 2). In Segal’s view,
Jerusalem as a religious centre had been too cosmopolitan to have been dominated by the
“foreign patois” Aramaic (Grammar, p. ).
17 Throughout the grammar, comparisons with biblical Hebrew were not central to the
grammatical descriptions, but merely served to once again underline Segal’s basic con-
viction that mishnaic Hebrew was the direct and natural heir to “spoken biblical Hebrew.”
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
Simultaneously, however, it was a crucial methodological re-orientation:

it allowed Segal to concentrate on the mishnaic langue, the shared, psy-
chological property of the entire post-biblical speech community—and
the principal object of linguistic research, according to De Saussure.18
As we shall see in the next section, this linguistic reorientation implied
the rejection of a long-standing topos, which had helped shape the Jewish
perception of mishnaic Hebrew from the early Middle Ages right through
the nineteenth century.
Early Nineteenth-Century Conceptions

of Jewish Diglossia in Late Antiquity
The essentially parole-oriented approach that had governed post-biblical

Hebrew studies prior to Segal, had been partly nourished by the well-
established designation of mishnaic Hebrew as lešon hakhamim,
. the lan-
guage of (read: spoken or used by) the Sages. In the course of time, the
connotations of that expression had undergone significant changes. Orig-
inally it had been coined by hazal
. themselves, who had used it (e.g. in the
well-known phrase lešon torah le-#as. mah u-lešon hakhamim
. le-#as. man)19
to distinguish the content of their own teachings from the message of
Scripture. In later centuries, notably in medieval grammar and poetics,
the notion that “the parlance of Torah is one thing, and the parlance of
the Sages another” acquired new, more formally linguistic implications.
In Abraham ibn Ezra’s famous criticism of paytanic Hebrew, for exam-
ple, the phrase was adduced to dissuade contemporary Hebrew poets
from contaminating biblical s. ahot. with linguistic categories borrowed
from rabbinic literature, as had been the habit among classical payt. anim
like Elazar ha-Qillir.20 From an expression that had served to distinguish
between biblical and rabbinic law, and thus to emancipate rabbinic rul-
ings from biblical authority, lešon hakhamim
. (i.e., the parole of the Sages)
thus became a linguistic, normative concept, denoting a formal stage in
the history of Hebrew.
18 NB: In stating that “for a number of generations, the Judean Jews remained Hebrews
in their language” (Grammar, pp. –), Segal was one of the few to side with Mai-
monides, who in a famous passage (Commentary on M.Terumah I., see also below) had
expressed the conviction that “those who composed the Mishnah no doubt were Hebrews
who lived in the glorious land.”
19 E.g. B Hullin b, B #Avodah Zara b.
.
20 Abraham ibn Ezra on Eccles. :.
 irene e. zwiep
It was not until the early nineteenth century, however, that the ways
in which the rabbinic scholars had spoken—and thus developed—the
Hebrew language became a matter of explicit conjecture. This specu-
lation had not so much been prompted by a purely historical interest,
as by an urgent contemporary concern: the need—contested by some,
ardently championed by others—to broaden Hebrew’s linguistic horizon
in order to better exploit its potential as a Jewish national language.21 In
the context of this debate, the sources and strategies that had once been
employed by hazal
. when dealing with lešon ha-qodeš acquired a new rel-
evance, if not as a methodological precedent, then at least as an ideolog-
ical justification. Neatly prefiguring the Marktplatz der Sprachen22 that
had opened up for the Jews in Europe at the turn of the nineteenth cen-
tury, the supposed language situation in Jewish Palestine during the first
centuries ce generally would serve as a starting point for these recon-
structions.
A particularly vivid picture of that ancient multilingualism was pro-
vided by Solomon Loewisohn (–), who was himself a bilingual
author.23 In his Ma"amar #al diqduq lešon ha-mišnah of , he differen-
tiated the languages that had been in use in various Jewish circles during
the Second Temple Period.24 In overt disagreement with Maimonides,
who had stated that “those who composed the Mishnah no doubt were
Hebrews who lived in the glorious land,”25 Loewisohn maintained the
traditional belief that Aramaic had been lešon ha-#am, the language spo-
ken and written by the hamon benei yisra"el in the centuries preced-
ing and following the destruction of the Temple. Like their less learned
neighbours, the Sages had conversed in that language when discussing
21 On attitudes towards harhavat ha-lašon, with an emphasis on nineteenth-century

.
discussions, see I. Parush and B. Fischler, “Šiqqule lašon, sifrut ve-hevrah
. be-vikkuah.
#al ha-t.aharanut,” Mehqere
. Yerušalayim be-sifrut #ivrit  (): –; and, more
recently, Schatz, Sprache in der Zerstreuung part III, where she offers a rich discussion
of the topic in relation to processes of secularization and conceptualizations of nation
and history from Wessely, via Mendelssohn, to the Me"assefim and Judah Loeb ben Ze"ev.
22 Cf. ibid., pp. (–).
23 Loewisohn, who was born in Hungary and worked in Prague, published in Hebrew
on Hebrew linguistics and on biblical aesthetics (Melis. at yešurun, ) and geography
(Mehqere
. ares. , ); during the same period, he contributed to the German-Jewish peri-
odical Sulamith, besides publishing a volume of Vorlesungen über die neuere Geschichte
der Juden ().
24 Written in Prague in , the chapter on mishnaic Hebrew was interpolated
in Yeshayahu Berlin’s Sefer Tosafot rišon le-s. ion (Vienna, , unpaginated) and later
included in Loewisohn’s posthumous Mehqere . lašon (Vilna, ): –.
25 Commentary on M.Terumah I., see also above, n. .
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
profane matters (divre hol),. and this had affected their usage whenever
they conversed in Hebrew. Being the only group to have had access to the
authentic sefat ‘ever, they had every intention to continue their halakhic
discussions in what Loewisohn called the lešon tif"eret; all too often, how-
ever, the substratum of their daily vernacular interfered. By borrowing
Aramaic words and inflecting them according to the rules of Hebrew
grammar, the ba#ale ha-mišnah had gradually mixed the two languages
into a lešon hadašah
. mušlemet, a perfect new tongue that could boast the
same quality and legitimacy as, for example, Italian, an established Euro-
pean language that had begun its existence as an amalgamation of Latin
and Gallic, as Loewisohn pointed out.
It is easy to see that hazal’s
. spontaneous harkavat ha-lašon was mobi-
lized as a precedent for Loewisohn’s deliberate harhavat . ha-lašon, the
expansion of Hebrew with the help of neologisms that could, if nec-
essary, be inspired by lexical elements from other languages. In search
of that precedent, Loewisohn painted a detailed portrait of linguistic
heterogeneity and diglossia in ancient Jewish Palestine. In his analy-
sis, the primary and most productive opposition was not between lešon
hakhamim
. and lešon torah, but between the “High” language of the
Sages and the “Low” Aramaic vernacular of he-hamon, the majority of
ancient speakers. Besides social factors such as education and access to
the canon, there were also situational factors such as genre and sub-
ject matter that would determine the choice of language. Halakhic dis-
course, we read, always required Hebrew (like his immediate contempo-
raries, Loewisohn preferred the “ethnic” sefat ‘ever over lešon ha-qodeš);
yet whenever that halakhic discourse touched upon daily life, the Ara-
maic idiom would interfere, both with the original Hebrew lexicon and
with its morphology.26 If we were to summarize the gist of Loewisohn’s
Ma"amar in modern terminology, we might say that he offered his read-
ers a fairly sophisticated analysis of how language contact would lead to
language change through a systematic, collective process of (involuntary)
linguistic interference, in which the lesser valued L[ow] variety not only
affected hazal’s
. usage of the H[igh] variant, but eventually also altered the
grammatical system of Hebrew itself.27
26 In his article, Loewisohn gives examples of Aramaic lexical loans in Hebrew, of
Hebrew neologisms created bi-temunah aramit, and of Hebrew words inflected ‘al pi
diqduq aramit; Loewisohn, Mehqere
. lašon, pp. –.
27 Comp. Uriel Weinreich’s classic study Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems
(New York, ): esp. p. . NB: Interestingly enough, Loewisohn did warn his readers
of the risk of interference when creating their own neologisms. The Hebrew word for
 irene e. zwiep
Loewisohn’s views were shared, albeit with different priorities, by his

immediate Prague colleagues. In his Mevo ha-lašon aramit (sic) of ,
Judah Jeitteles (–) briefly called into memory that lešon hakha-
.
mim was a “special language of the talmudiyim, who had chosen it as the
medium of their mishnaic teachings, [with] unique nominal patterns and
flections that could only boast of parallels in Aramaic.”28 A few years later,
Moses Israel Landau also elaborated upon the theme of language change
through linguistic interference. Assuming that a somewhat different con-
stellation of languages had been at work, he offered his readers an addi-
tional, more top-down, impression of Jewish diglossia in late antiquity.
Being the son of chief rabbi Ezekiel Landau of Prague, Israel Landau
(–) had received a solid traditional education. His studies with
the “early-enlightened” Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamosc (–),
however, had also imbued him with a deep love of secular learning.29
From his early twenties, Landau worked as a mevi’ li-defus in a Chris-
tian printing house. There he managed to issue a new edition of Abra-
ham Farissol’s Iggeret orhot
. ‘olam (Prague, ), interpolating not only
Naphtali Hertz Wessely’s Maggid hadašot, 30 but also adding an epilogue
.
and two prefaces by his own hand. The second, rhymed preface is partic-
ularly relevant here, as it eloquently reveals Landau’s intellectual ideals,
which seem to have been dominated by a desire for a universally cel-
ebrated literacy.31 Writing, no doubt, from his own experience, Landau
“waterfall” (mašaq), he explained (p. ), was to be derived from the root šaqaq (“to make
a noise”). In German, however, the word “Wasserfall” was based on the verb “to fall.”
Writing in a bilingual context, authors should thus be aware of the correct etymology,
and at all times avoid the expression mappal ha-mayim, even if the verb nafal belonged
to the oldest stratum of the Hebrew vocabulary.
28 Jeitteles, Mevo ha-lašon aramit (Prague, ): fol. a. In the grammar (“a novelty
that never was before in Israel”), Jeitteles offered an elementary but comprehensive
description of Aramaic morphology, to which he added a series of paradigms plus a
selection of texts (ranging from the Book of Daniel to the Zohar) for further practice. In
the introduction he tells us that he had consulted numerous Christian works on Aramaic
before writing his own “Jewish” grammar of the language.
29 On Zamosc, see most recently Gad Freudenthal, “Hebrew Medieval Science in
Zamosc, ca. . The Early Years of Rabbi Israel ben Moses Halevi of Zamosc,” in
R. Fontaine, A. Schatz and I. Zwiep, eds, Sepharad in Ashkenaz. Medieval Knowledge and
Eighteenth-Century Enlightened Jewish Discourse (Amsterdam, ): –; for bio- and
bibliographical references, cf. ibid., n.  and .
30 Wessely’s supplementary, more “up-to-date” account of the Ten Lost Tribes had first
been published in Ha-Me"assef of .

31 See R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den Böhmischen Län-
dern I: Das Zeitalter der Aufklärung, – (Tübingen, ): –, esp. pp. –
.
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
stressed the importance of public libraries, which in the Hapsburg empire

had become accessible to Jews since . For Landau, these learned col-
lections represented an ideal locus of intellectual fraternity, a truly demo-
cratic Republic of Letters, where the impartial librarian ruled supreme
and the Torah could be found on the shelf among the classics of the other
great cultures of the world.
It was this utopian vision of shared learning and Humanism that
informed Landau’s reconstruction of Jewish diglossia in Roman Pales-
tine. Quite characteristically, Landau presented his views both to the
Christian scholarly audience (in Geist und Sprache der Hebräer nach
dem zweyten Tempelbau, Prague, )32 and to the Jewish readership,
in one of the preliminary chapters to his ambitious five-volume Hebrew-
Aramaic-German dictionary.33 In both discussions, the emphasis was not
on the (internally Jewish) Hebrew-Aramaic diglossia, but on the effects of
Hebrew-Greek language contact on the vernacular of the Sages—indeed
the meeting of two great scholarly idioms rather than a confrontation
between a H[igh]- and a L[ow]-variety.34
In Geist und Sprache der Hebräer Landau listed the factors that had
caused ancient Greek to have had an impact on Hebrew. Throughout the
discussion, he systematically combined traditional wisdom with acute
“socio-linguistic” insights. Besides the conscious borrowing of scientific
terminology, he argued, the bilingualism of some of its most promi-
nent speakers had also influenced the language of the Sages. If any-
thing, it had been the curious usage of the Greek proselytes Šemayah and
32 Landau had written the book as a sequel to the historical part of Wilhelm Gesenius’
Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache und Schrift (Leipzig, ). Besides the chapters on
ancient multilingualism and halakhic argumentation, the book offers a fairly complete
grammatical outline of mishnaic Hebrew (pp. –) and a Chrestomathie plus Wörter-
büchlein, which should enable the Christian novices to read and interpret unvocalized
Hebrew texts without further assistance.
33 Rabbinisch-aramäisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zur Kenntnis des Talmuds, der Targu-
mim und Midraschim. Mit Anmerkungen für Philologie, Geschichte, Archäologie, Geogra-
phie, Natur und Kunst (Prague, –). The Wörterbuch consisted of a re-edition of
Nathan ben Yehiel’s
. eleventh-century #Arukh, supplemented by additional entries from
Musaf he-#arukh by Benjamin Musafia (–; ed. princ. Amsterdam, ) and Lan-
dau’s own annotations, gleaned from several Chaldaic manuals compiled by Christian
scholars.
34 This choice may have been confirmed not only by Landau’s lofty ideals, but also
by his distinguishing the older “Sprache” (Heb. śafah, e.g. Hebrew and Greek) from the
secondary “Dialekt” (Heb. lašon, e.g., the younger Aramaic, which had been generated
by later generations); see Wörterbuch, p. , where Landau pointed out that “ha-šonim
ha-śafah hemah yos. re ha-lašon.”
 irene e. zwiep
Avt.alyon (first century bce), who had both occupied an important rank
among the Pharisees, that had left a lasting imprint upon the language
of the Mishnah, Tosephta and baraitot.35 Not being native speakers of
Hebrew, they had unwittingly introduced many foreign elements (sefat
nekhar) whenever engaging in Hebrew discourse. In the following gen-
eration, their illustrious pupil Hillel had ensured the continuation of their
hybrid dialect by ordering še-adam hayyav
. lomar bi-lešon rabbo, i.e., that
talmidei hakhamim
. should at all times “speak in their master’s tongue.”36
Hillel’s much-quoted injunction, which was meant to safeguard the
contents of the tannaitic teachings in an oral setting, inevitably also pre-
served the language of the earliest rabbinic teachers, whose Hebrew had
been coloured either by linguistic interference from their Greek mother
tongue, or by a “schwärmerischen Begeisterung für die Sprache Hellas”
(a “passionate veneration for the tongue of Hellas”).37 After ca.  ce,
Landau noticed, hazal’s
. Greek competence gradually declined into a
dialect known as elonistin, which he interpreted as a “kauderwelsche[s]
Geplärre” that hardly deserved the predicate Greek. During Juda ha-
Naśi’s lifetime, he concluded, the Sages had eventually abandoned this
Hellenistic gibberish and successfully adopted the Aramaic vernacular
of the non-Jewish (!) inhabitants of Palestine, who seem to have held the
rabbis in the highest esteem.38
In the (Hebrew) chapters on Greek and Aramaic that preceded the
lexicographical part of the Rabbinisch-aramäisch-deutsches Wörterbuch,
Landau adduced additional proof-texts for the hibbah. yeterah with which
the early tanna"im had embraced the language of Hellenism.39 Quoting
a wealth of rabbinic passages that sanctioned the validity of reading
and studying Torah in Greek translation, Landau hoped to convince his
Jewish readers of the fact that in antique times “Greek had been the lešon
hakhamim,
. just like lešon ha-qodeš”. This reconstruction of course not
only ignored the Rambam’s belief that the authors of the Mishnah had
35 The Greek descent of Šemayah and Avtalyon is claimed in B Gittin b and B
. ..
Sanhedrin b. Their prominent position is suggested by B Pesahim . a and B Yoma
b, and of course by them being mentioned as the fourth of the zugot in M Avot I..
36 M #Eduyyot I..
37 Geist und Sprache, pp. –; see also Wörterbuch, vol.  (), pp. –, entry
“lašon.”
38 “ . . . suchten sich die Altrabbinen besonders in der syro-chaldäischen Spache zu
vervollkommen, in welche sie wirklich eine Meisterschaft erlangten”; Geist und Sprache,
p. . Landau did not venture an explanation for the decline of Greek and the Sages’
ensuing linguistic reorientation.
39 Wörterbuch, :– and – respectively.
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
been genuine Hebrews, but also explicitly overruled the traditional view
that ancient Jewish diglossia had involved the Hebrew and Aramaic sister
languages.
In conclusion we should stress once again that Landau’s perspective
on ancient Jewish multilingualism neatly supplied his Humanistic Bil-
dungs-agenda with a commanding rabbinic precedent. Just as the Sages
had been equally well-versed in Hebrew and Greek, his argumentation
suggested, so the truly enlightened scholars of his own generation should
assume a fundamentally bilingual identity. It was this double competence
in the ancient language of the Sages as well as in the language of Western
scholarship that would help them realize a Jewish branch of “universal”
literacy, just as the founding fathers of Judaism had done in their times.
Scholars, Professionals, and the Language of the Masses
Both Landau and Loewisohn, who lived and worked in Prague around
the turn of the nineteenth century, were confronted with political
changes that entailed new cultural choices. As we have seen, these choices
also affected their views on Hebrew, its history and relations with other
languages. In their comments on the nature of post-biblical Hebrew, Lan-
dau and Loewisohn were among the first to pass an explicitly favourable
judgement on the national potential of the lešon hakhamim,
. attributing
its hybrid nature to cultural contact and linguistic interference. By con-
trast, medieval and early modern Jewish scholars who theorized on the
fate of language in general and of the holy tongue in particular, usu-
ally came up with slightly more introverted explanations. Yet contrary to
what we would expect, their explanations involved more than just tales
of Diaspora and decline. Besides those who portrayed the development
of Hebrew in historical terms, there were also scholars who approached
its evolution as a permanent process of adaptation by successive speech
communities. As we shall see, within these communities a pivotal role
was assigned to scholars and (other) professionals, who were forced to
continuously expand their lexicon in order to meet the growing demands
of their disciplines.
Since languages were thought to be the products of human conven-
tion, linguistic change and diversity could be understood as the modifi-
cation of that convention and its adjustment to new developments. Wit-
ness, for example, the following passage from Šem Tov . ibn Falaquera’s
( / –after ) introduction to the sciences Rešit hokhmah:
.
 irene e. zwiep
By now my previous reference to the fact that languages depend on human

convention may have become clear . . .. Therefore, sometimes a group
of speakers will use a certain word they invented regarding their craft,
which will not be authorized by a second group of speakers. If, however,
the second group uses the same word to designate another craft, that
too will be authorized. This is what the Sages meant when they said: the
language of Scripture stands alone and the language of the Mishnah stands
alone.40
In Ibn Falaquera’s opinion, the Jews owed the survival of their holy tongue
to precisely this dynamic strategy. They should be particularly grateful, he
added, to the Sages and poets of antiquity, who had “begun to develop our
language according to its grammar, creating new words and inventing
meanings that had been hitherto unknown.”41
In his discussion of the noun in Millot ha-higgayon, Maimonides
too had drawn attention to the role of scholars and their jargon in the
development of language.42 More specifically, he had referred to how
students of the arts occasionally would manipulate everyday expressions
for their own intellectual or aesthetic purposes. The poets, for example,
had developed the šem muš"al, the metaphorical noun which according
to the original imposition permanently denoted object x, yet could also
be borrowed to temporarily denote object y. In this vain “the name
lion [was] given to one of the animal species, but sometimes also to a
man of might . . . . Poets use many such terms,” we read.43 While the
40 Rešit hokhmah, ed. M. David, Shemtob ben Josef ibn Falaqueras Propädeutik der
.
Wissenschaften Reshith Chokhmah (Berlin, ): .
41 Ibid. Ibn Falaquera was not the last to observe that hazal had possessed ample
.
knowledge of the grammar of the original Hebrew (#ivrit). In the chapter on the noun
in his Ma"aseh efod, Profiat Duran (d. ca. ) also intimated that the innovations
introduced by the Sages had been informed by a thorough command of authentic Hebrew.
Like the ‘ivrim, the Sages had distinguished between the various kinds of nouns. If the
Bible did not provide them with a suitable precedent to differentiate, for example, between
a šem to"ar and a šem po#al, they would add a nun, as in the post-biblical form “qapdan.”
“This occurred quite frequently in lešon hazal,
. ” Duran concluded, “ . . . and it happened
before the prayer-book was compiled.” Ma"aseh efod. Edited by J. Friedländer and J. Kohn
(Vienna, ): .
42 I follow tradition in attributing Millot ha-higgayon to Maimonides; see, however,
Herbert Davidson’s exhaustive argumentation against this attribution in idem, Mai-

monides. The Man and His Works (Oxford, ): –.
43 English translation I. Efros, ed., Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic (Makālah fi-sinā#at
al-mantik). The Original Arabic and Three Hebrew Translations (New York, ): . For
Maimonides’ use of al-Fārābı̄’s conceptions of the metaphor, see M.Z. Cohen, “Logic to
Interpretation: Maimonides’ Use of al-Fārābi’s Model of Metaphor,” Zutot. Perspectives on
Jewish Culture  (): –, esp. pp.  f.
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
metaphor was only temporarily attributed, the extended term or šem

ne#etaq44 would be permanently imposed on a second object. By way
of illustration, the text referred to the many everyday terms that had
been appropriated by the grammarians while developing their art, such
as s. eruf (particle) and mišqal (pattern).45 Thus, while the metaphor in
Millot ha-higgayon’s definition was a temporary, mainly poetic, phe-
nomenon, the extended term (which today we would call a metonym)
turned out a lasting contribution to the lexicon of the entire speech com-
munity.
In the translator’s preface to his Hebrew version of the Guide, Samuel
ibn Tibbon (ca. –) included a brief passage on the actual routine
of expanding language by means of metonymy. Towards the end of the
preface, he justified this modus operandi as follows:
It is customary among authors of scientific books to build binyanim that
were not built before, to invent words not known to their predecessors, and
borrow words from the language of the masses and the people and attribute
them to an object other than the object to which they were [originally]
attributed, provided there is some likeness between the two, if not a true
likeness. And all this because of qos. er ha-lašon when it comes to scientific
terminology.46
Where Millot ha-higgayon had defined the metaphor and metonym as
modifications of an original imposition (be-šoreš hanahat
. ha-lašon), Ibn
Tibbon seems to explain them as reallocations of terms borrowed from
lešon he-hamon ve ha-#am, i.e., popular usage. In Peruš millot ha-zarot,
this kind of neologism appears as the fourth category, i.e., that of “words
partaking in many meanings (either through haš"alah [metaphorical
use] or sippuq [analogy]), of which the masses (he-hamon) know only
a part.”47 The latter passage effectively refines the earlier reference to
“the language of the masses.” It shows that Ibn Tibbon did not refer
to everyday Hebrew usage (which in his days was hard to come by)
but to the supposed Hebrew knowledge of the average Jew. In mod-
ern terms, he differentiated between the communicative competence
of the less educated members of his speech community and the verbal
44 The Hebrew term is Moses ibn Tibbon’s; both Ahituv and Vivas have šem ha-mu#taq.
.
45 Again the terminology is that of Ibn Tibbon, Hebrew section, p. .
46 Ed. Yehudah Even-Shmuel (Jerusalem, ): – (Hebrew pagination).
47 Ibid., p.  (English pagination). NB: for a discussion of Ibn Tibbon’s explanation
of homonyms as an exegetical tool, see J.T. Robinson, Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary
on Ecclesiastes. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism  (Tübingen,
): –.
 irene e. zwiep
repertoire of its scholars, who were not only well-versed in the holy
tongue but could even manipulate its vocabulary to suit the nation’s eru-
dite needs.48
Finally, a similar, more historicizing exposition on the scholarly appro-
priation of everyday speech can be found in Abraham de Balmes’ (ca.
–) Miqnei avram/Peculium Abrae (Venice, ), a bilingual
grammar whose descriptive model was greatly determined by the au-
thor’s knowledge of logic.49 In his discussion of the various modes of
signification, Balmes briefly tied his abstract theorizing to the concrete
phenomenon of language change.50 He did so by distinguishing a pri-
mary (hanahah . rišonah) and a secondary imposition of nouns, in which
two distinct social strata of speakers would be involved.
The average speakers, Balmes argued, would lay the foundations of
a language by imposing nouns on objects in the real world, things that
could be perceived by the senses and hence were known to all users of that
language (hamon ha-mištamšim).51 In the following generations, how-
ever, scholars would begin to borrow those terms and transfer them (with
the help of accomodatio and translatio) to non-material concepts, which
could not be perceived by the senses and would have remained unknown
to the masses had it not been for their better-educated contemporaries.
Together, these two layers constituted the language per se. Accordingly,
it was the grammarian’s duty to discuss not only the more sophisticated
modes of signification, but also the most elementary ones, “since our sci-
ence should serve all speakers of a language” (Heb. mešammešet le-khol
hamon ba#ale ha-lašon; Lat. subministrat toti vulgo).52 This final obser-
vation, i.e., that the conscientious medaqdeq should always be aware
of linguistic differentiation and stratification, may strike us as an emi-
48 Cf. D.H. Hymes, “On Communicative Competence,” in J.B. Pride and J. Holmes,
eds, Sociolinguistics. Selected Readings (Hamondsworth, ): –.

49 For a first introduction, see A.J. Klijnsmit, Balmesian Linguistics. A Chapter in the
History of Pre-Rationalist Thought, Cahiers voor Taalkunde  (Amsterdam, ).

50 Besides a few discrepancies, which may be attributed to the author’s first hand
knowledge of Aristotle, Balmes’ subdivision of the noun according to eight modes of

signification parallels the discussion of signification (through distinct nouns, synonyms
and six types of homonyms) in the thirteenth chapter of Millot ha-higgayon.
51 The picture is indebted to al-Fārābı̄’s conception of the origin of language as ex-
pounded in the Kitāb al-hurūf,

. see J. Langhade, “Grammaire, logique, études linguistiques
chez Al-Fārābı̄,” Historia Linguistica  (): –. A direct Hebrew version was
included in Šem Tov. ibn Falaquera’s Rešit hokhmah
. (II, ).
52 Hebrew text from Klijnsmit, Balmesian Linguistics, p. .
hebrew “sociolinguistics” 
nently modern conviction. There is, however, no need to argue here

that Balmes’ linguistic methodology as unfolded in the Miqnei avram of
course remained fundamentally untouched by the idea.
Concluding Remarks
Above I have offered a far from systematic introduction to what I

have anachronistically labelled pre-modern “Hebrew sociolinguistics.”
Throughout the exercise, the concepts and terminology borrowed from
contemporary linguistics served not as a touchstone for pre-modern
speculations on language, but as a key that should help us enter and
explore a few hitherto unobserved areas in Jewish linguistic thought. The
end which I believe justified these questionable means, was to add an
additional dimension, however modest, to the modern study of the Jew-
ish linguistic canon.
Complementary to the somewhat introverted evolution narrative,
which was founded by the Wissenschaft des Judentums and is still being
refined today, I have tried to unearth and expose some of the “less Jew-
ish,” more “purely linguistic” content of pre-modern Jewish speculation
on language. Lucky for us, linguistic studies have always focused on solid,
concrete data and on (more or less) tangible processes, which we as
speakers of a language quickly recognize from experience. As we have
seen, pre-twentieth-century Jewish scholarship already recognized some
of the linguistic phenomena that are being studied by today’s general lin-
guists. While articulating their views on these issues, scholars from Ibn
Ğanāh. to Abraham Geiger firmly remained within the conceptual bor-
ders set by the rabbinic tradition and its sources. Yet by cleverly inter-
preting whatever information those sources seemed to yield, each new
generation succeeded in adding fresh insights to the small but lively cor-
pus of Jewish linguistic lore.
INDEX
A#azz ma yutlab,  Abū Joseph ben Joseph, 

#Abd al-Ġanı̄ ibn Isma#ı̄l an- Abū l-Hasan
. aš-Šādhilı̄, 
Nābulusı̄, , ,  Abū l-Ma#ālı̄ #Abd al-Malik al-
as. -S. ulh. bayna al-ihwān,  Ǧuwaynı̄, 
#Abd al-Mu"min, ,˘ ,  Abū l-Rayhan . Bı̄rūnı̄, see Bı̄rūnı̄
#Abd al-Wāhid . al-Marrākušı̄,  Abū l-Walı̄d Muhammad . ibn Rušd,
Abraham,  see Ibn Rušd
Abraham bar Hiyya, . , , , Abū Ma#šar, –
– Great Introduction to Astrology,
Liber embadorum,  , , , 
Yesodei ha-tevunah u-migdal ha- Abū Yahyā,
. , 
emunah,  Abū Ya#qūb Yūsuf, –, ,
Abraham Bedershi, –,  , 
Abraham ben David (Rabad),  Abū Yūsuf Ya#qūb al-Mans. ūr, ,
Abraham Bibago, ,  , , , 
commentary on the Metaphysics, Abū-"l-Walı̄d ibn Ğanāh, . , 
 Sefer ha-Riqmah, 
Treatise on the Multiplicity of accident, 
Forms, ,  acting unfaithfully (ġulūl), 
Abraham Cohen de Herrera, , acts of worship (#ibādāt), 
 agaric, 
Abraham de Balmes,  Ahituv,
. 
Miqnei avram/Peculium Abrae, Ahmad
. al-Maqqarı̄, 
,  Ahmad
. ibn Tūlūn,
. 
Abraham Farissol, Iggeret orhot . Ahmad
. ibn Yūsuf, , , 
#olam,  al-#Abbās ibn Ibrāhı̄m al-Marrākušı̄,
Abraham ibn Daud, Exalted Faith 
(Emunah ramah),  Alain de Lille, , 
Abraham ibn Ezra, , , , , al-Ant.akı̄, commentaire sur les
, , , , , , , Eléments, 
,  Albert of Saxony, 
Abraham of Baghdad, , –, Albigenses, , , 
,  al-Bit.rūğı̄, , , –, , ,
Abraham Shalom,  , , 
absinthe,  Kitāb fi"l-hay"a, 
Abū #Abd Allāh ibn #Ayyāsh,  Albrecht, K., 
Abū #Abdallah al-Baghdādı̄,  Aleph (journal), 
Abū al-#Azm,  Aleppo, 
Abū #Alı̄ ibn Hağğāğ,
.  Alexander Neckham, 
Abū al-Qāsim al-Raqqı̄,  Alexander of Aphrodisias, , 
Abū Bakr ibn Tufayl,.  commentary on De anima, 
Abū Hanı̄fa,
.  Alexandria, 
 index
Alexandrian prologue paradigm,  Ancient Testament, 

al-Fārābı̄, , , –, ,  angelolatry, 
Ihsā"
. al-#ulūm,  animaux, , , 
Alfonso de la Torre, Visión Deley- anis, 
table,  Anthoine Colin, , 
Alfonso X of León and Castile, , anthropomorphic, , 
, ,  anthropomorphism, 
Las Siete Partidas,  anthropomorphist (muğassimūn),
al-Ğābirı̄, , –,  
al-Ġazālı̄, , ,  anti-Aristotelianism, 
Maqās. id al-falāsifa,  anti-Christian polemics, 
al-Ǧuwaynı̄ Imām al-Haramayn,
. Antioch, 
,  Antonio de Fantis, 
al-Hasan
. ibn al-Haytam, –, , anus, 
 ¯ apodictic sciences, 
#Alı̄ ibn Abı̄ Tālib,
. ,  Apollonius, , , , 
#Alı̄ ibn abı̄-l-Rijāl, ,  Coniques, , 
#Alı̄ ibn Ridwān,
.  proposition II., livre des
al-Kindı̄, , , , – Coniques, , 
Sur la Philosophie première,  approval (iqrār), 
Almohad(s), , , , , Aquinas, see Thomas Aquinas
 Arabic
catechism, ,  astrology, –
doctrine, , , ,  language, 
kingdom,  sources, 
philosophers, ,  translations from, 
rulers, ,  texts, 
society,  Aragon, , , , , , 
state, , ,  Crown of, –, 
Almoravids,  Aramaic language, , , ,
al-Mubaššir al-Fātik"s Mukhtār al- , –, , 
hikām,
.  archa, , 
al-Mutanabbi,  Archimedes/Archimède, –,
Alphonsine tables, ,  , , , , –, ,
al-Qabı̄s. ı̄, – , , , , , 
De coniunctionibus,  La mesure du cercle, –,
Introduction to Astrology, , – , , , –
, – La Sphère et le cylindre, , ,
see also under Introduction to 
Astrology Arğūza, 
al-Qummı̄, , , ,  Aristotelian(s)
al-Siğzı̄, – catechism, 
amande,  cosmology, 
Ambrosius Lacher,  Jewish, 
anachronism, , , , ,  logic, , 
analogy (qiyās), ,  physics, 
analysis (havhanah),
. – Spanish, , 
index 
Aristotelianism, , ,  arts

Arabic,  liberal, –
French, ,  mechanical, 
Jewish, , , , ,  Aš#ari(sm), , , , , ,
Provençal,  , 
rationalist perspective,  Aš#arite(s), 
scholastic perspective,  school, 
sources,  tradition, 
Spanish, , ,  Ashkenaz(i), , , , 
revival of, ,  pattern, 
Aristotle, , , , , , , , aš-Šāfi"ı̄, 
–, , , , , , asthme, , 
, , –, –, – astral
, , , , –, , cults, 
, , , , , , , magic, , , , 
 astringent, , 
De anima, – astrolatry, , 
De animalibus, , ,  astrologia, 
De caelo, , –, , , astrology, –, 
, –, –, – Arabic, –
 astronomy, , , –, –
De generatione et corruptione, – , , 
 al-Bit.rūğı̄, 
Metaphysics, –, , , asymptote, , –
, , , , ,  #Āt.ef al-#Irāqı̄, 
Meteorologica, , ,  atrabile, , , 
Nicomachean Ethics, ,  Autolykos, 
Organon,  Averroes/Averroès, see Ibn Rušd
Physics, ,  Averroism, 
Politics,  Avicenna, see Ibn Sı̄nā
Posterior Analytics,  Avicennism, 
Topics, , –, , , Avignon, , 
 Avner of Burgos, 
commentaries on, ,  Avtalyon, 
criticism of, ,  #Aza"zel, 
Hebrew On Sleep and Wakefulness
(De somno et vigilia, De Bacher, W., 
insomniis, De divination per Baghdad, 
somnum), , –, – Bagnols sur Cèze, 
, ,  Bahya
. ibn Paquda, Duties of the
medieval Hebrew tradition of Heart, 
Aristotle’s works, – Banū Mūsā, , 
see also pseudo-Aristotle Bar Tiqva, , 
arithmetic, ,  baraitot, 
Arnald of Villanova,  Barcelona, , 
Arras,  Barukh ben Ya#ish, 
articulations,  baume, 
 index
being qua being, ,  cannibale(s), 

Beit ha-Elohim, , , , – Canopus, 
 carangne, 
Bensharifa, M.,  carboncles, 
Berlin,  Cardinalis (Magister), , 
Berman, L.,  Caspar Wasar, Elementae Hebraicum,
Bernard de Gordon, ,  
Bernard de Verdun,  cassier, 
Bernoulli, J., ,  Castile, , 
Béziers, , , ,  Castilian, translations to, 
Bible,  Catalonia, 
commentary on,  cataplasme(s), –
biblical exegesis, , , , , Cathars, , 
 Cecco d’ Ascoli, 
Bibliothèque Nationale Assad,  cendres, , , , , 
bile,  céphalalgie, 
bilingualism, ,  cerveau, , –
Bı̄rūnı̄, , ,  chair, , , 
Kitāb al-saydana,  chaleur naturelle, 
Qānūn al-Mas#ūdı̄,  Charles V of France, , 
bit#,  Charles de l’ Ecluse (Clusius), ,
Blasius of Parma,  , 
Blidstein, G.,  Chartres, 
bœufs,  chicotin, 
Bologna, university of,  chien, 
Boltzmann, L.,  chirograph, 
Book of the Moon, see Sefer ha- Chriqui, M., , 
Levanah Christian
Book of the Nine Judges,  culture, , , 
bookkeeping,  Hebraism, 
Bos, G., –,  influence, 
botaniste(s), , ,  scholarship, , 
bouche, , ,  scholasticism, , 
bourrache,  science, 
braise(s),  society, , 
Breslau,  sources, , 
Broide, S.Z., – Spain, , , 
brûlure,  Christianity, , , , 
Brunschvig,  Christians, , 
Buhārı̄,  Christoffe Colombe, 
˘
Butterfield, H.,  Circa instans, , , , 
Clagett, M., , , –, ,
calculation,  , 
calcul(s),  classification des propositions
Camboulit,  démonstration/conception, 
Campanini, M., ,  démonstration/imagination, 
cannelle,  classifications of the sciences, 
index 
Clusius, see Charles de l’ Ecluse Daniel of Morley, 

clystère(s), , ,  Philosophia, 
Cohen, H., Religion of Reason Out of David, , , 
the Sources of Judaism,  David ben Bilia, 
coït,  David Franco Mendes, 
Collingwood, R.,  Davidson, H., 
communicative competence,  Dāwūd, founder of the Zāhirite
.
comportement asymptotique de la school, 
courbe,  Day of Atonement, 
concepts, , , , , , D’ Bloissiers Tovey, 
, , – de Saussure, F., , 
engine of scientific change, , Cours de linguistique générale, 
– Decalogue, 
conjunction(s), ,  demonolatry, , , 
Conrad Heingartner,  demons, , , , 
consensus (iğmā#),  demonstration/démonstration, , ,
continuités,  , , , –
continuity thesis, , –, , absolute, , 
, –, ,  from observation (demonstratio
conversions,  per signum), , , 
conversos, , , ,  explanatory and factual, 
composition of prose and poetry, dent(s), , 
 deorayta, –
convivencia,  derabbanan, –
Cordova, , ,  Derekh hokhmah,
. see Way of
Council of Trent,  Wisdom under Ramhal .
countersigning Maimonides’ legal Descartes, R., , 
decisions,  dessicatif, , , 
Crawford, F.S., , – dessication, 
credo (#aqı̄da),  détergent(s), 
Cristoforo de Pergamo,  détersif, 
crusades,  Dhū al-Rumma, 
cultural diable, 
development,  dialectic(s), , –, , –
exchange,  , , , , , –,
interaction,  , 
renewal,  Aristotelian, 
transmission,  as a method of examination, –
custom, ,  , 
as a method of verification, –
Da#at tevunot, see The Knowing 
Heart under Ramhal,
.  as mental exercise, –
D’ Ailly, P.,  utility of, , , –
Dalman, G.,  weakness of dialectic, of the
Damas(cus),  dialectical method, –,
Daniel ben Moïse ben Isaïe,  , 
Daniel Firūz,  diaporematic method, , 
 index
diglossia, , –,  epilepsie, 

dioscoride,  equilibrium, , , , ,
disputations, , , ,  –, , , 
disseminating knowledge,  esoteric
divination, , ,  content of Law, , 
divine accommodation, Christian sciences, 
concept of, ,  esotericism, 
divine Law Espagne, see Spain
allegorical content, , , , Espagnol(s), see Spaniards
,  essentials (qawā#id), 
allegorical sense, – ethics, , , , 
esoteric content,  estomac, –, , 
literal sense,  Euclid(e), , , , ,
divine unity (tawhı̄d),
.  –, , , , ,
doigt(s),  
Dole, university of,  Elements, –, , , ,
Dominican schools,  , , , , ,
Dominicans,  
Dominicus Gundissalinus, De Les données, 
divisione philosophiae,  L’ Optique, 
Don Luis de Guzmán,  Eudoxus, , 
dualism, , ,  events of , , 
dualistic,  Ewige, der, 
Duhem, P., , –, – Exchecker of the Jews, 
see also continuity thesis Exilarch, 
Dukes, L.,  expulsion, , 
exstase, 
eccentrics, –, , – Ezra Gattengo, 
Ecclesiastes, , , 
Edward I of England,  Fahr al-Dı̄n al-Rāzı̄, , 
Egypt(e), , , –,  ˘ (ı̄mān), 
faith
Elazar ha-Qillir,  falāsifa, , , , 
Elazar Parnas,  falsafa tradition, 
electuaire, ,  Farġānı̄, 
#Eli Habilio,
. , ,  Feldman, S., , 
Elias Menahem,
.  Finkelstein, L., Jewish Self-Govern-
Elijah Levita,  ment in the Middle Ages, 
Emery, R.W.,  Firūz, famille, 
emollient,  flatulence, , 
Empedocles,  Fleischer, E., 
encyclopedia(s),  fleurs d’ oranger, 
European,  foundations of the Torah, 
Medieval Hebrew, , ,  France, , 
endive(s),  expulsion from, 
Enlightenment, , , ,  Christian, 
enumerations of the sciences,  see also Northern France and
epicycles, –, –,  Southern France
index 
Francesco Barozzi,  Gersonides, , , –, ,

Francis Bacon,  , –
Franciscan friars,  Gersonides’ biblical commentaries,
Frankfurt, university of,  , , 
Frédéric II,  on Ecclesiastes, –, ,
French King, –,  , 
Freudenthal, Gad, , , , , , on Job, 
–, , , , , , on Proverbs, –, –,
, , , , , , , , , 
, , , –, ,  on Song of Songs, , , ,
see also meta-theoretical , , , 
Freudenthal, Siegfried,  Gersonides’ independent works
Fricaud, É.,  Book of the correct syllogism, 
friction(s), , – Kol melekhet higgayon, 
Fuengirola,  Sefer Ma#aśeh hošev,
. 
fumée, fumigation(s), , , , Treatise on Geometry, 
, ,  Wars of the Lord, , , ,
Funkenstein, A.,  –, 
Gersonides’ (super)commentaries on
Ğābir ibn Aflah,
. , ,  Ibn Rušd, 
Liber super Almagesto,  on De animalium, 
gangrène,  on De caelo, , , 
Garcia de Orta (Garcie du Iardin), on Logic, 
 on Metaphysics, , 
Gedalya Taykes, – on Physics, , 
Sefer Emunat Isra"el, ,  on Posterior Analytics, , ,
Geiger, A.,  , 
Lehr- und Lesebuch zur Sprache on Topics, , , , , ,
der Mischnah,  
Geminus, ,  Gibbs, J.W., , , , 
general linguists,  Giraldus Cambrensis, 
generally accepted opinions, , Glasner, R., , , –, ,
,  , , , , –,
genesis (hams. a"ah), – 
Geoffroy, M., , , , ,  Godfrey of Fontaines, 
geography,  God
géometrie des sections coniques,  existence and oneness, 
geometry, , , ,  incorporeality, , , , ,
Gerald Odonis, , , – –, 
Commentary on Sentences, , intellectual love, 
 the All, 
Gerald the Welshman,  Golden Calf, –
Gerard of Cremona/Gérard de Goldfeld, L.N., 
Cremone, , , , , , – Goldstein, B.R., , , , ,
, –, , , ,  
Gershom ben Solomon, Ša#ar ha- Goldstein, M., , 
šamayim, , ,  Goldziher, I., , 
 index
goutte(s), ,  Hellenism, 

grammar,  Helmholtz, H. von, 
Gramsci, A.,  Henry II of England, 
Greek language, ,  Herbert of Bosham, 
Griffel, F.,  heretic (zindiq), 
Hermann of Carinthia, 
Habı̄b
. ibn Bahrı̄z,
.  Hertz, H., 
habituation, –, , , , Hillel, 
,  Hinkmar of Reims, 
hadiths (habar),  Hippocrates
Hafrı̄, ˘ Airs, Waters and Places, , 
Hager, M.,  Prognostics, , 
Hağği Halı̄fa,  Holy War (ğihād), 
halakha, ˘  Horowitz, C., 
Halberstam, M.,  Hosea, , 
Haly, , , , ,  Hotam
. tokhnit, 
has. s. a#ah,  Hrabanus Maurus, 
to the commentary on Ecclesi- Huesca, 
astes, , –, , , Huete, 
 huître(s), 
to the commentary on Song of humanists, 
Songs, , – humeur(s), , , , ,
harhavat
. ha-lašon, ,  
harkavat ha-lašon,  humidité, 
Hartmann Schedel,  Humrān,
. , 
Hasdai
. Crescas, –,  Hunayn
. ibn Ishāq,
. 
Light of the Lord, – hydrostatics, , , 
Hayyim Druker, – hyperbole, –
Hebrew hypotheses, , , 
documents,  hysope, 
grammar, , 
language, –, , –, Ibn #Abbās, 
–, , , , , Ibn #Abd al-Malik al-Marrākušı̄, ,
,  
marginalia,  Ibn Abı̄ Us. aybi#a, 
mishnaic, – Ibn at-Taras, 
paytanic,  Ibn Bāğğa, 
philosophical terminology, , Ibn Ğānı̄, , , 
– Risāla ad-dāmiġa li-man yunkir
scholasticism,  hawwās. s. at-tābiġa, , 
sources,  ˘
Ibn Ğubayr, 
texts,  Ibn Haldūn, 
translation(s), , , –, ˘
Ibn Hanbal, , 
.
–, , , ,  Ibn Hānı̄, 
Hebrew-Greek language contact,  ˘
Ibn Hazm, 
.
Hebrews, , ,  Ibn #Idārı̄, 
Heiberg, J.L., ,  ¯
Ibn Khalliqān, 
index 
Ibn Rušd, , –, , , , , idolatry, , –, , , 
, , –, , –, immigrants, Jewish, 
–, –, , , , immortality of the soul, 
, , , , , , , impetus (mayl), 
, ,  inclination, 
commentator of Aristotle, – incorporeality of God, , , ,
 , –, 
philosophical radicalism,  independent jurisprudence (iğtihād),
philosophy of,  
Ibn Rušd’s independent works Indien(ne)s, , , , –
Bidāyat al-muğtahid, ,  infallible (ma#s. ūm min az-zalal), 
De substantia orbis,  infini, –
Kašf #an manāhiğ al-adilla fı̄ infinitésimale, 
#aqā"id al-milla, , ,  inflammation(s), –
Kitāb fas. l al-maqāl, , ,  instrumentalism, –, , 
Tahāfut at-Tahāfut, ,  intellectual
Ibn Rušd’s long commentaries,  habituation, , 
on De anima, , –,  love of God, 
on Metaphysics, , , , perfection, 
–,  interprétation des rêves, 
on Physics, ,  Introduction to Astrology (al-Qabı̄s. ı̄),
on Posterior Analytics,  –
Ibn Rušd’s middle commentaries, Castilian version of, , 
, , ,  commentaries on, 
on De anima,  glosses, –
on De animalibus,  Luccan preface to, –
on Metaphysics, –,  Iohannis Fontana physici Veneti, 
on Physics, ,  #Isā ibn Zur#a, , 
on Topics, , , , , Isaac ben Jacob de Lattes, –
– Isaac Cantarini, 
on Posterior Analytics,  Ishāq
. ibn Hunayn,
. , , 
Ibn Rušd’s short commentaries Is. haq
. ibn Šem Tov,
. commentaries
(epitomes) on the Physics, 
on Almagest, ,  Isidore of Sevilla, 
on Metaphysics,  Etymologiae, 
on Organon,  Israel (people of), 
on Physics, ,  Italy, , , , 
on Topics, ,  Ivo of Chartres, 
Ibn Sā
. hib
. as. -Salāt,
. , 
Ibn Sa"id,
.  Jacob ben Isaac Ashkenazi of Janovo,
Ibn Sı̄nā, –, , , ,  , , , –
Canon, ,  Tsene Rene, –
Kitāb al-Šifā", ,  Jacob ben Makhir, 
Ibn Tūmart, , , –,  James II of Majorca, 
Idel, M.,  Jannone, A., 
ideology, –, , , , Jean Blaise, 
, ,  Jean d’ Avesnes, 
 index
Jean de Palerme, ,  Judah ibn Tibbon, 

Jean II, duke of Bourbon,  Judah Loeb ben Ze"ev, 
Jeitteles, J., Mevo ha-lašon aramit, Judaism, 
 jurists (fuqahā"), , 
Jellinek, A., 
Jerome of Stridon,  Kabbalah, , , , , 
Jerónimo Muñoz,  christian influence on, 
Jesuit schools,  kabbalist(ic), , 
Jesus, ,  texts, 
Jewish philosophical education, kalām, , 
–, ,  Kaplan, A., 
Joh(anes) Borotin,  Karaite, , , , 
Johan Daspa,  Karmelit, , , , 
Johannes Kepler,  Kellner, M., 
Johannes Pachlerus,  Kenaf heqqešim, see Wing of
Johannes Sack,  Syllogisms under Ramhal .
Johannes Sturm,  Kepler, J., 
Johannes Versor, commentary on the Khumarāwaih, 
Metaphysics,  King of the Jews (nasi"), 
John Buridan,  Klein-Braslavy, S., , , ,
John Dank,  , 
John du Hainault,  Knorr, W., –, , , ,
John of Bassols,  , , 
John of England,  knowable entities (al-ma#lūmāt), 
John of Lignères,  knowledge (#ilm), , , 
John of Saxony, , –,  Konrad Baumgarten, 
John of Seville, , ,  Koran, 
John of Stendhal,  Kraemer, J.L., 
John XXII, Pope,  Kušājim, 
Jordanus, , , , ,  Kutscher, E., 
Joseph Athias, 
Joseph ben Judah, , –, Lagrange, J.L., , 
,  Landau, Ezekiel, 
Joseph ibn Jabir,  Landau, Moses Israel, –
Joseph ibn Šem Tov, .  Geist uns Sprache der Hebräer
Juda ha-Nasi,  nach dem zweyten Tempelbau,
Judah ben Parhon, .  
Judah ben Solomon ha-Kohen Rabbinisch-aramäisch-deutches
Midraš ha-hokhmah,
. – Wörterbuch zur Kenntnis des
see also Judah ibn Mathqa Talmuds, der Targumim und
Judah Halevi, , , ,  Midraschim, , 
Kuzari,  Langerman, Y.T., , 
Judah Hayyuğ,
. Kitāb hurūf
. al-Lı̄n, language change, 
 language of change, 
Judah ibn Mathqa,  langue, , , 
see also Judah ben Solomon ha- Languedoc, , 
Kohen Lasker, D., 
index 
Latin, , –, –, , Lyon, , 

, 
documents,  Ma#aśeh ha-šem, , 
script,  magic, , , 
text,  astral, , , , 
translation(s), ,  spiritual, 
laws of sacrifice, – talismanic, 
laxatif,  magnetism, , 
Lay, J.,  mahdı̄, –
legal contracts, see starrs Maierù, L., 
Legendre, A.-M.,  Maimon, Salomon, , , 
lentille,  Maimonideanism, , 
Lerida (Aragon), university of, Maimonideans, , , 
 Maimonides, , –, , , –
lešon hakhamim,
.  , , –, , , ,
Lešon limmudim, see Tongue of the , , , , , , ,
Erudite under Ramhal . , , , –, , ,
lešon ha-qodeš,  , , 
léthargie,  Account of the Beginning, ,
Levi ben Abraham ben Hayyim,
. , , , , 
 Account of the Chariot, , ,
Levi ben Geršom, see Gersonides , , 
Lévy, T., , ,  Book of Commandments, 
Libro de las cruzes,  Book of Knowledge, 
limonier,  Commandments Concerning the
linguistic Foundations of the Law, 
change,  Eight Chapters, 
differentiation,  Guide des Égarés, see Guide of the
interference, ,  Perplexed
stratification,  Guide of the Perplexed, , , ,
linguistics, ,  , , , , , , ,
liquiambar,  , , , , , ,
Lisieux, ,  , 
Loewisohn, S., ,  Laws Concerning the Study of the
Ma"amar al diqduq lešon ha- Torah, 
mišnah, ,  Millot ha-higgayon, , , 
logic, , , , , , , Mišneh Torah, , , –,
 , , , , –,
humanist(ic), – 
Ramist, , , ,  program for non-philosophers,
scholastic, ,  –, , , ,
Talmudic,  
lombrics, ,  secrets of the Law, , 
Lorenzo Valla,  mains, 
lots,  Mālik, 
Louis de Langle,  Malikite jurists, , 
Luciani, J.D.,  Mancha, J.L., , –, , 
 index
manuscripts meta-theoretical, , , 

Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, MS Hebr. method, , , , 
, fol. a–a,  dialectical, –, , –
Hamburg, Staats- und Univer- , , 
sitätsbibliothek, MS Levi , generally accepted, 
fol. a–a,  of examination, –, –
Vatican, Bibliotheca Apostolica, , 
MS Ebr. , fol. a–b,  of inquiry, , , 
see also under texts of verification, , , , ,
Marcus, I., ,  
Marcus Wendelin, , , , of virtual displacements, , ,
,  –, , , 
Logicae institutiones tironum question and answer, , ,
adolescentum, , , , 
, ,  see also dialectic(s)
Marrakech, , , ,  Meyerson, M., 
Marranes,  Michel de Montaigne, 
mastic,  Middle English, 
materialism,  midrash, 
mathematics, , , , , Midraš Temurah, , , , , 
,  migraine, , 
matrice, ,  miracles, , , 
maturation, ,  Mishnah, , , , 
Me"assefim,  Mizmor le-todah, , 
mechanics, , , , , – Moïse ibn Tibbon, see Moses ibn
,  Tibbon
medicine Montpellier, , , 
Galenic,  university of, –, 
Jewish-Christian relations Moses, , , , –, ,
through, , , –, , 
 Moses Arondi, 
Meir Alduby,  Moses Arragel, 
Melechen, N.,  Moses ben Solomon (Mosse
Melguiri Bonafos) de Narbonne, , –
family,  
see Solomon and Vital ben Moses Moses ben Solomon of Beaucaire,
Melguiri 
Menahem
. ben Saruq,  Moses Hayyim
. Luzzatto, see
Menahem
. ben Zerah,.  Ramhal,. 
Mendelssohn, Moses, , –, Moses ibn Tibbon, , , ,
 –, , 
Ménélaus,  Answers to Queries on Physics,
metaphysics, , , –, , 
, , –, , , , Moses Narboni, 
 commentary on al-Ġazālı̄’s
subject matter of, , , – Intentions of the Philosophers,
 , 
index 
commentaries on the Guide,  Nicolas Monardès, , , 

commentary on Ibn Rušd’s Historia Medicinal de las cosas
Natural Questions,  que se traen de nuestras Indias
Moses Rafael Aguilar,  Occidentales, , 
Mount Daran,  Nicole Oresme, –
Mozarabes,  Du ciel et du monde, –,
Muhammad,
.  –
Muhammad
. #Ābid al-Ğābirı̄, see al- Quaestiones on De caelo, –
Ğābirı̄ 
Muhammad
. ibn #Abd al-Malik Nicomachus of Gerasa, Introductio
al-Ans. ārı̄ al-Marrākušı̄, , arithmetica, 
 nigromancia, , , 
Muhammad
. ibn al-Haytam, , , spelling of, , 
 ¯ Nissim ben Jacob, 
. t, 
muhda Noah, 
Muhyi ¯d-Dı̄n ibn #Arabi,  nombril, , , 
multilingualism, , ,  non-Aristotelianism, 
Murād Wahba,  Northern France, , , , ,
Murcia,  , 
muršida, ,  cultural revival, 
music,  number, 
Muslim(s), , , ,  nuque, 
Muslim Spain,  Nuriel, A., 
Mus. t.tafā, 
mutakallimūn,  Obadia the proselyte, 
Odo of Cheriton, Parabolae, 
Nahmanides,
. – Ophir, N., 
Naples,  Orange, 
Narbonne, –, , ,  oranger, 
Našbalata,  Orhot
. s. adikim, 
natural science, see physics orteil(s), 
Navarre,  oubli, 
College of, , 
navigation,  Padua, 
necromancy, – paganism, Arabic works on, 
natural,  Palencia, university of, 
see also nigromancia panentheism, , , , 
neo-Platonic panentheistic, 
ontology, ,  Paradise, 
philosophy,  Pardes, –
neo-Platonism,  parelle, 
neo-Platonist circle,  Paris, 
neo-Platonists,  university of, , 
New Testament,  parole, –, 
Newton, I., ,  particularization process (ihtis. ās. ),
nez, ,   ˘
Nicolas Eymerich,  particular(s), , –
 index
parts of the contradiction, –, Pléiade poets, 

– Poinsot, L., 
patterns of reception,  poison, , , , 
cautious,  poitrine, 
Italian,  polar error, in philology, 
Provençal,  political discipline, 
Spanish,  politics, science of, , , –
patterns of relation,  , , , , , 
cautious, , ,  Portugal, 
Pavia,  Posidonius, 
pavot,  pourpier, 
peau,  Poznanski, S., , 
Perpignan, Jewish community of, praedicabilia, 
–,  praedicamenta, 
Peter Lombard,  premises, –, , , ,
Sentences, ,  
Peter of Tarentaise (Pope Innocent appropriate, , , 
V),  essential, , 
Petrus Ramus (Pierre de la Ramée), generally accepted, , , –
, –, , , ,  , , 
Phillip Melanchthon,  incorrect, 
philosopher-prophet,  particular and appropriate, ,
philosophical religion,  
philosophy, , , ,  true, , –, 
Aristotelian, , ,  Proclus, , 
neo-Platonic, ,  Profiat Duran, Ma"aseh efod, 
Provençal,  propaedeutic science, 
relation with political power,  proposition II., –
Scotist,  Provençal Jews, , , 
Thomist,  Provence, –, , , –
physics, , , , , , , , 
, –,  Proverbs, , 
Picatrix,  pseudo-Aristotle, , , , ,
piciel, ,  
Pierre de la Ramée, see Petrus pseudo-Avicenna, see pseudo-Ibn
Ramus Sı̄nā
Pierre Pevidic, , , , , pseudo-al-Fārābı̄, De ortu scien-
,  tiarum, 
Pinhas
. ben Meshullam, – pseudo-Galenic, 
pituite, , , ,  pseudo-Ibn Sı̄nā
plantain,  Liber celi et mundi, –, 
Plato, , , ,  On the Heaven and the World,
Republic,  , , , –
Plato of Tivoli/Platon de Tivoli, , Ptolemaic, 
, –, , ,  Ptolemy/Ptolemée, , , , ,
Platonism, ,  , , , , , , ,
political,  
index 
Almagest, , , , , , , Rasā"il ihwān al-s. afā’, 
, , ,  Rashba’s˘ disciples, 
Centiloquium, , , , ,  Rashed, M., 
Opus tertium,  Rashi, , 
Quadripartitum, , ,  rate, 
purgatif, ,  Raymond, archbishop of Toledo,

Qādizādeli(s),  realism, , , 
Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, , , reason (#aql), , 
, , , –,  necessity of, 
traduction hébraïque de La sphère Reconquista, , 
et le cylindre, , ,  reductio ad absurdum, 
Qaraïte, see Karaite refugees, 
quia demonstrations, , , , Regnault, H.V., 
,  Régné, J., –
reins, 
R. Aqiva,  religion, , , , , 
R. Ishmael,  šarı̄#a, 
Ragep, F.S.,  Renaissance
rainbow,  France, twelfth century, 
Rambam, see Maimonides Italian, 
Ramhal,
. – résolutif(s), , 
Grammar, , –,  résolution, 
Logic, , –, –, respiration, 
– resurrection, , , , 
Path of the Upright, , , , revealed Law (šarı̄#a), 
,  rhetoric, , , 
Rhetoric, –, , , – Richard I of England, 
 Richard of Hoveden, 
The Knowing Heart,  Richard of Middleton, 
Tongue of the Erudite, , , River travel on the Sabbath, ,
, ,  –, , 
Treatise on the Sermon, ,  Robert Burnell, 
Way of Holiness,  Rodolphus Agricola, , 
The Way of the Lord, , , Roger Bacon, Communia natural-
,  ium, 
Way of Wisdom, ,  Rosenthal, E.I.J., 
Ways of Reason, , , , Roth, N., , 
, , , , – Rothschild, J.P., 
Wing of Syllogisms,  Rouen, 
Ramism, Ramist, –, , , Roussillon, 
–, ,  Ruah. hen,
. , 
Ramist Rudolphine Tables, 
dialectic, , 
logic, , , ,  Ša#bān ibn Ishāq
. ibn Ğānı̄ al-Isrā"ı̄lı̄,
semi-Ramist, , ,  see ibn Ğānı̄
Ramsey Abbey,  Ša#arei s. iyyon (Qiryat sefer), 
 index
Sabian(s), , , ,  of politics, , , –,

context,  , , , , 
polytheism,  Scot, Michael, , –
Sabianism,  secrets of the Torah, , 
Sabra, A.I.,  sefeqa deorayta, , 
Sackton, D., ,  sefeqa derabbanan, , 
sacoma (apparent weight), ,  Sefer ha-Diqduq, see Grammar
sacrifices,  under Ramhal .
s. ahot, ,  Sefer ha-Higgayon, see Logic under
Saige, G., – Ramhal .
Saint Victor,  Sefer ha-Levanah, , 
Salamanca, university of,  Sefer ha-Maśkil, , , 
Saliba, G.,  Sefer ha-Melis. ah, see Rhetoric under
Samuel ben Ali (Eli), –, – Ramhal .
 Sefer ha-Temurot, 
Samuel ben Judah of Marseilles, Sefer Lev t. ov, , , 
 Sefer Temurah, 
Samuel ha-Nagid (of Egypt),  Sefer Yes. ira, 
Samuel ibn Tibbon, , , – Segal, M.H., –
, –,  A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew,
Ma"amar Yiqqawu ha-mayim, , 
, – Segovia, 
Peruš millot ha-zarot,  Šem Tov
. ben Joseph ibn Falaquera,
sang, ,  , 
Sapir Abulafia, A.,  De#ot ha-filosofim, 
Šaraf al-Dı̄n al-Tūsı̄,
.  Moreh ha-moreh, 
Saragossa, , ,  Rešit hokhmah,
. , 
Sarfatti, G.B.,  Šem Tov
. ben Joseph ibn Šem Tov,
.
Sayf al-Dawla, ,  commentary on the Physics, 
sayings (naql),  Šem Tov
. ibn Mayor, 
scarification,  Šem Tov
. de Carrión, proverbios
Schabel, C.,  morales, 
scholastic Šemaryah Ikriti, 
Christian sources,  Šemayah, , 
influence, ,  senses, 
logic, ,  Separate Intellects, , , ,
philosophy,  
thought,  Septimus, B., 
scholasticism Serra, G., 
Christian, ,  Seville/Séville, , , 
Hebrew,  Shatzmiller, J., 
Jewish,  Shimon Frankfurt, Sefer ha-Hayyim,
.
Spanish, , , ,  
Schwartz, D., , ,  Shlomo Zalman London, 
science(s), ,  Siegfried, C., 
Aristotelian,  signification, 
Christian,  Sijilmasa, judge of, 
index 
Simeon ben Sema. h. Duran,  styrax, 

Simkhes ha-nefesh,  sublimé, , 
Simon de Phares,  substance, 
Simplicius, , ,  sucre, –, , 
Sinai,  syllogism, , , 
Sirat, C., , , ,  dialectical, , –, ,
Snell, W., , –, , , 
,  demonstrative, , , ,
social gatherings (maǧālis),  
sociolinguistics, ,  Syria, 
Socrates, ,  Syrus, 
Solomon (King Solomon), –,
–,  tabac, –
Solomon ben Moses Melguiri (de Tābit ibn Qurra, , , 
Melgueil), – ¯ Talismans, 
Solomon ben Moses (Bonafos tacamahaca, 
Mosse) de Narbonne, – t.alaba, –
Solomon Franko,  talismanic magic, 
Solomon ibn Gabirol,  talismans, 
songe(s), ,  Talmud, , , , , , ,
Song of Songs, ,  , –
sorcery,  Talmudic logic, 
soufisme,  Targum(im), , 
soul,  Ta-Shema, I., , , 
Southern France, , , , , tehum,
. , –
 teigne(s), 
Spain, , , , , , , tempérament(s), , 
, , ,  Temurot di-rebbe Išma"el ve-rebbe
Muslim, , , ,  Aqiva, 
Christian, , , ,  Tene, D., , 
Spaniards, , ,  Teresa of Portugal, 
Spanish immigrants,  Tessier, A., –, –
Spanish Jewry,  tétanus, 
Spanish Jews, , –, ,  tête, , , 
sphere of Mars,  texts, transmission of
Spinoza, Compendium Grammatices Andalusian-Arabic, 
Linguae Hebraeae,  Arabic, , , 
Spinozan,  Aristotelian, , 
starrs, , ,  Christian, 
statics, , –, , , , Hebrew, 
–,  Judeo-Arabic, 
Steinschneider, M., , , , kabbalistic, 
–,  Latin, 
Stevin, S., , – medical, 
Strauss, L.,  mathematical, 
Stroumsa, S., , , , , , philosophical, , 
 Théodose, 
 index
theologians (#ulamā" al-kalām), , in England, 

 in Italy, 
theology, , , , ,  in Spain, –, 
Théon d’ Alexandrie, , , , see also under Bologna, Dole,
, –, – Frankfurt, Lerida, Montpellier,
commentaire sur l’Almageste, , Palencia and Paris
, – Urvoy, D., , 
theory vs. concept, 
thermodynamics, , , ,  vache(s), 
Thomas Aquinas, , , , , Valerius, 
,  Valladolid, University of, 
Expositio in libros de caelo et Van Koningsveld, P., 
mundo,  Varignon, P., 
Summa theologica,  venin, , 
Thomism,  ventre, , , 
Thorndike, L.,  verification, , –
Tibbonids, , , ,  vernacular
Tinmal,  Arabic, 
Tirmidı̄,  Castilian, 
Tobago, ¯  Catalan, 
Toledo, ,  English, 
Toomer, G.J.,  French, –, , 
Torah,  Provençal, 
Tosephta,  vers, , , , 
Touati, C.,  vin, , , 
Toulouse,  vinaigre, , , 
traditions (sunna),  Vincent Ferrer, 
training (hergel), ,  On the Universal, 
translations into Hebrew, scientific Vital ben Moses Melguiri (de
and medical, , , –, Melgueil), –
– Vivas, 
transmission of texts,  Völkerpsychologie, 
see also under texts Voltaire, 
Tscholkowsky, C.,  Vulgate, 
Tristrandus, 
Tūsı̄,
. , , ,  Wailing Wall, 
Tadkira, ,  Weijers, O., , 
¯ Weinfeld, J.S., , 
ulcères, , ,  Weinreich, U., 
unbelief (kufr), ,  Weinstock, M.Y., 
universal, ,  Weiss, Y.H., 
principles,  Wessely, Naphtali Hertz, 
rules,  Maggid hadašot,
. 
vs particular,  Whig history, , 
universities, ,  William de Chimilli, 
Castilian,  William of Auvergne, 
French,  William of Moerbeke, 
index 
William of Ockham,  Yom-Tov

. Assis, 
William of the Church of Saint Yonatan ben Avi#ezer Kohen, 
Mary, 
William the Conqueror,  Zachariah (son-in-law of Samuel
William the Englishman,  ben Ali), 
wine,  Zāhirism,
. , , 
Wissenschaft des Judentums,  Zāhirite(s),
. , 
wreath of spheres, ,  school of law, , 
Zāhiriyya, 
Ya#aqov ben Mošeh Sarfati,
.  Zamosc, Israel Halevy, , , ,
Yaffe, D.,  , 
Yehuda ben Moshe ha-Kohen,  Zerahyah
. ben Yis. haq
. ben Še"alti"el
Yehudah ben Šemaryah,  Hen
. (Gracian), –, 
Yekutiel Blitz,  Zevin, S.Y., 
Yis. haq
. Albalag,  Zonta, M., , , , , 
Yitzhaq
. Lampronti,  Zut.a, , 

[Studies in Jewish history and culture] Resianne Fontaine, Ruth Glasner, Reimund Leicht, Giuseppe Veltri (editors) - Studies in the History of Culture and Science_ A Tribute to Gad Freudenthal (2011, Brill Academic Pub) - libgen.lc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

[Studies in Jewish history and culture] Resianne Fontaine, Ruth Glasner, Reimund Leicht, Giuseppe Veltri (editors) - Studies in the History of Culture and Science_ A Tribute to Gad Freudenthal (2011, Brill Academic Pub) - libgen.lc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studies in the History of Culture and Science

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright 2011 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Al-Qabı̄s. ı̄’s Introduction to Astrology: From Courtly Entertainment

studies in medieval cultural history

studies in early modern cultural

Shlomo Berger, University of Amsterdam, Dept of Hebrew and Jewish

Tony Lévy, Centre National pour la Recherche Scientifique, Paris

“Littérature et sciences de la nature en France au début du XVIIIe siècle: Pierre

Ben-David’s Paradigm for a Sociology of Knowledge,” Social Studies of Science

tischer Realismus, und Heilslehre,” Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie 

Elements. An Annotated Critical Edition,” (Heb.) Jerusalem Studies in Jewish

“Résistance spirituelle à Lyon (–): le Bureau des études juives,” Revue

“De la notion de science occidentale à la notion de la science méditerranéenne:

“Dieu parle-t-il hébreu? : De l’ origine du langage humain selon quelques pen-

This volume contains twenty-two papers on the history of science pre-

in Medieval Judaism: Comparative Perspectives, Universal and National

Dans la proposition  du second livre des Coniques,1 Apollonius dé-

1 Cette proposition est parvenue dans l’ édition d’ Eutocius et dans la traduction

nécessaires à la description du comportement asymptotique de la courbe,

4 R. Rashed, « Al-Sijzı̄ et Maïmonide : Commentaire mathématique et philosophique

de la proposition II- des Coniques d’ Apollonius », Archives Internationales d’ Histoire

8 Voir plus loin.

concevoir. Or ce problème ne tardera pas à s’ articuler sur un autre, sou-

Al-Qummı̄, en fonction d’ al-Siğzı̄ mais aussi contre lui, compose un

13 Al-Falsafa al-ūlā, dans R. Rashed et J. Jolivet, Œuvres philosophiques et scientifiques

Caire, s.d.) : –.

16 R. Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX e au XI e siècle, vol.  : Ibn al-

Haytham (Londres, ).

aux écrits mathématiques d’ Ibn al-Haytam. Je l’ ai rectifiée lors de l’ édition et de la

le titre dans la liste autobiographique de ses écrits.18 Or Muhammad

Soit le point W(X, Y) sur l’ asymptote, on a X = x, Y = x + a, d’ où

donc Y 2 > y2.

Mais PK 2 = DP · PA (symptoma), donc

ce qui est impossible.

L’ auteur donne ensuite deux démonstrations de la décroissance de la

De même, on montre que (CM + ME) EI = AC2, donc

Mais EÔI =  droit et Î = 1/2 droit, donc Ê = 1/2 droit, donc

or EI < GW, donc EO < GH.

On montre enfin que AJ > GH.

On peut transcrire ainsi la seconde démonstration :

Mais LW > AB, donc AB > GW.

mais LW < NI ⇒ EI < GW.

L’ auteur commence par établir deux lemmes pour démontrer que

° Toute parallèle à l’ asymptote menée entre le sommet de l’ hyperbole

On vient de résumer les principales étapes de cet écrit anonyme. On

TRAITÉ SUR L’ EXISTENCE DE L’ ASYMPTOTE20

. Cône de révolution et surface conique

20 Litt. : des deux lignes qui se rapprochent et qui ne se rencontrent pas.

Prolongeons AC dans la direction de C jusqu’ en K, abaissons la perpendicu-

. L’ hyperbole comme section plane d’ un cône

Retraçons la figure avec ses lettres, marquons le point G sur l’ hyperbole23 et

23 Litt. : section ; que nous rendons désormais par « hyperbole ».

Démonstration : Menons de D une droite parallèle à la droite EC ; soit KUI.

. Les tangentes à l’ hyperbole

en deux moitiés au point C ; CP, si on la prolonge, rencontre donc l’ hyperbole

Retraçons la figure avec les mêmes lettres, c’ est-à-dire la figure de l’ hyperbole

24 Dans le plan de l’ hyperbole, toute droite perpendiculaire à l’ axe CD et qui coupe

l’ hyperbole en un point, la recoupe en un deuxième point ; le milieu de ces deux points

à partir du pourtour de l’ hyperbole au-delà du sommet de l’ hyperbole—par

. Existence et unicité de l’ asymptote à une hyperbole équilatère

Démonstration : Marquons sur l’ hyperbole les points G et E. De ces deux points

triangle ACB est semblable au triangle CSW car AB et SW sont parallèles. La

. L’ hyperbole et l’ asymptote se rapprochent indéfiniment à mesure qu’ elles