ASP 2001 Vol.11 Issue.1

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume 11 Number 1 March 2001
CONTENTS
The Contributors 2
Abstracts 3
RUTH GLASNER Ibn Rushd’s Theory of Minima Naturalia 9
A. MARK SMITH The Latin Source of the Fourteenth-Century Italian

Translation of Alhacen’s De aspectibus (Vat. Lat. 4595) 27
FAÏZA BANCEL Les centres de gravité d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ 45
AHMED AARAB, PHILIPPE PROVENÇAL AND MOHAMED IDAOMAR

The Mode of Action of Venom according to J®Ωi˙ 79
SHLOMO SELA Abraham ibn Ezra’s Scientific Corpus – Basic

Constituents and General Characterization 91
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Tsinghua University, on 30 Mar 2018 at 02:58:22, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0957423901001011
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 11 (2001)
Copyright © 2001 Cambridge University Press
THE CONTRIBUTORS
DR AHMED AARAB Groupe de recherche et de documentation sur les sciences

arabes médiévales, Faculté des sciences et techniques, B.P. 416, Tanger, Maroc
FAÏZA BANCEL Centre d’histoire des sciences et des philosophies arabes et

médiévales, 7 rue Guy Môquet, B.P. n° 8, 94801 Villejuif Cedex, France
PROFESSOR RUTH GLASNER Program for the History and Philosophy of

Science, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 91905 Jesusalem
PROFESSOR MOHAMED IDAOMAR Faculté des sciences, B.P. 2121, Tétouan,

Maroc
DR PHILIPPE PROVENÇAL Naturhistorisk Museum, Århus, Universitetsparken

bygn. 210, 8000 Århus C, Denmark
DR SHLOMO SELA Department of General and Inderdisciplinary Studies, Faculty

of Humanities, University of Tel Aviv, Israel
PROFESSOR A. MARK SMITH Department of History, 101 Read Hall, University

of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 11 (2001)
ABSTRACTS
Ibn Rushd’s Theory of Minima Naturalia

Ruth Glasner
The essence of the theory of minima naturalia is the contention that a phys-
ical body is not infinitely divisible qua that specific body. A drop of water can-
not be divided again and again and still maintain its “wateriness”. There are
several statements in Aristotle’s Physics which suggest such an interpreta-
tion, and the theory of minima naturalia is commonly considered to have
originated in the thirteenth century as an interpretation of these state-
ments. The present paper is a preliminary presentation of the role of Ibn
Rushd in the evolution of the theory, hitherto neglected. His theory devel-
oped not only as an elaboration on the “suitable” statements of Aristotle, but
mainly as an attempt to solve the difficulties raised by Aristotle’s thesis
(developed in Physics VI and VII) that body and motion are continuous, infi-
nitely divisible entities and are associated qua such. According to Ibn
Rushd’s interpretation, body and motion are associated not qua being con-
tinuous but qua having indivisible minimal parts. It seems that Epicurus’
and Ibn Rushd’s theories of minima developed as responses to Physics VI
and offer modifications of classical atomism and of classical Aristotelianism
(respectively), which to a certain extent reduce the gap between these two
systems.
The Latin Source of the Fourteenth-Century Italian Translation of Alhacen’s

De aspectibus (Vat. Lat. 4595)
A. Mark Smith
That the medieval Latin version of Ibn al-Haytham’s Kit®b al-Man®˙ir was
translated into Italian in the fourteenth century has been known for well
over a century. Recent studies have shown that this translation, which is
contained in Vat. Lat. 4595, was instrumental in the composition of Lorenzo
Ghiberti’s Commentario terzo on art. Some eight years ago, the author of the
present article tentatively identified the actual manuscript-source of that
translation as MS Royal 12.G.7, which is currently held in the British
Library. This study establishes beyond reasonable doubt that his tentative
identification was correct: MS Royal 12.G.7 is indeed the Latin source for the
Italian translation in Vat. Lat. 4595.
4 ABSTRACTS
Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ on Centers of Gravity

Faïza Bancel
The only traces which remain of Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬’s work on centers of grav-
ity are the correspondence he maintained with Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-—®bi’, and the
first chapter of the Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma, which ‘Abd al-RaΩm®n al-Kh®zin¬
attributes to al-Q‚h¬ and to Ibn al-Haytham, without distinguishing between
their respective contributions. The author of the present article attempts to
confront the texts and to analyse all the testimonies which have come down
to us on this subject, which are susceptible of shedding light upon al-Q‚h¬’s
contribution and the importance of his work on centers of gravity.
The Mode of Action of Venom according to J®Ωi˙

Ahmed Aarab, Philippe Provençal and Mohamed Idaomar
The aim of this paper is to present the modes of action of venom as construed
by Ab‚ ‘Uthm®n ‘Amr ibn BaΩr al-J®Ωi˙ (780-868) in his Kit®b al-ºayaw®n
(The Book of Animals). The toxicological information presented by J®Ωi˙ is a
synthesis of data available in his time, but J®Ωi˙ complemented these early
conceptions by his personal theoretical views. J®Ωi˙’s fundamental idea is
that venoms act through their specific natures; this idea in a way is reminis-
cent of present-day theory of enzymes.
Abraham ibn Ezra’s Scientific Corpus – Basic Constituents and General

Characterization
Shlomo Sela
Abraham ibn Ezra’s (ca 1089-ca 1167) scientific corpus represented an

exceptional case: instead of the common Latin model embodied by the
scholar coming from the Christian North to the Iberian Peninsula to initiate
a translation enterprise, we have in Ibn Ezra the contrary case of an intel-
lectual imbued with the Arabic culture, who abandons al-Andalus, roams
around the Christian countries and delivers in his wandering through Italy,
France and England, the scientific and cultural cargo that he amassed dur-
ing his youth in al-Andalus. The main purpose of this article is to provide a
picture of Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus as comprehensive and detailed as pos-
sible given the present state of research. The paper will fall into two main
parts: (a) Ibn Ezra’s scientific work will be broken up into three main gen-
res: (1) Mathematics, Astronomy, Scientific Instruments and Tools; (2) The
astrological encyclopaedia; (3) Translations from Arabic into Hebrew. (b) In
the second part, Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus will be reassembled as a whole
in order to provide a global characterization, trying to point out its general
organization and shape, and to indicate its main aims and special traits
revealing Ibn Ezra personal contribution.
RÉSUMÉS 5
RÉSUMÉS
La théorie des minima naturalia d’Ibn Rushd
Ruth Glasner
L’essence de la théorie des minima naturalia réside dans l’affirmation selon

laquelle un corps physique n’est pas divisible à l’infini en tant que tel corps
spécifique. On ne saurait diviser une goutte d’eau toujours à nouveau, sans
que celle-ci perde sa nature d’eau. Plusieurs affirmations de la Physique
d’Aristote suggèrent une telle interprétation, et l’on considère communé-
ment que la théorie des minima naturalia a pris son origine au XIIIe siècle,
comme une interprétation de ces affirmations aristotéliciennes. Cet article
offre une présentation préliminaire du rôle, jusqu’ici négligé, d’Ibn Rushd
dans l’évolution de cette théorie. Celle-ci s’est développée non seulement
comme une élaboration des affirmations relevantes d’Aristote, mais surtout
en tant qu’effort pour résoudre les difficultés que soulevait la thèse
d’Aristote (développée dans Physique VI et VII), selon laquelle le corps et le
mouvement sont des entités continues et divisibles à l’infini, qui s’associent
comme telles. Selon l’interprétation d’Ibn Rushd, le corps et le mouvement
s’associent non pas en tant que continus, mais en tant qu’ayant des parties
minimales indivisibles. Il semble que les théories d’Épicure et d’Ibn Rushd
sur les minima se soient développées comme des réponses à Physique VI, et
qu’elles offrent des modifications de l’atomisme classique et de l’aris-
totélisme classique respectivement, modifications qui réduisent, jusqu’à un
certain point, l’abîme entre ces deux systèmes.
La source latine de la traduction italienne du XIVe siècle du De aspectibus

d’Alhacen (Vat. Lat. 4595)
A. Mark Smith
On sait depuis plus d’un siècle que la version latine médiévale du Kit®b al-
Man®˙ir d’Ibn al-Haytham fut traduite en italien au XIVe siècle. Des études
récentes ont montré que cette traduction, contenue dans le Vat. Lat. 4595,
fut d’une importance capitale pour la composition du Commentario terzo sur
l’art de Lorenzo Ghiberti. Il y a huit ans environ, l’auteur du présent article
a proposé de reconnaître comme manuscrit-source de cette traduction le MS
Royal 12.G.7, actuellement conservé au British Library. La présente étude
établit, sans laisser de place au doute, que cette suggestion était correcte et
que ce manuscrit est bien la source latine de la traduction latine contenue
dans le Vat. Lat. 4595.
6 RÉSUMÉS
Les centres de gravité d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬

Faïza Bancel
Les seules traces qui nous restent de l’œuvre d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ sur les cen-
tres de gravité, sont la correspondance qu’il a entretenue avec le mathémati-
cien Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-—®bi’ et le premier chapitre de Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma, que
‘Abd al-RaΩm®n al-Kh®zin¬ attribue à al-Q‚h¬ et à Ibn al-Haytham, sans dis-
tinguer leurs contributions respectives. L’auteur du présent article essaie de
confronter les textes et d’analyser tous les témoignages qui nous sont par-
venus, sur ce sujet, et qui sont susceptibles de nous éclairer quant à la con-
tribution d’al-Q‚h¬ et l’importance de son œuvre sur les centres de gravité.
Le mode d’action du venin selon J®Ωi˙

Ahmed Aarab, Philippe Provençal et Mohamed Idaomar
L’objet de ce travail est de présenter les théories toxicologiques proposées

par Ab‚ ‘Uthm®n ‘Amr ibn BaΩr al-J®Ωi˙ (780-868), dans son Kit®b al-
ºayaw®n (Le Livre des animaux), concernant les modes d’action des venins.
Les informations toxicologiques que présente J®Ωi˙ sont une synthèse des
données jusqu’alors connues. Toutefois, cet auteur complète ces conceptions
antérieures par ses propres vues. Son idée fondamentale est que les venins
agissent grâce à leurs natures spécifiques. Cette idée rappelle l’idée moderne
sur le mode d’action des enzymes.
Le corpus scientifique d’Abraham ibn Ezra – composants de base et carac-

térisation générale
Shlomo Sela
Le corpus scientifique d’Abraham ibn Ezra (ca 1089-ca 1167) représente un

cas exceptionnel: à la place du modèle habituel dans le monde latin, où un
érudit issu du Nord de la chrétienté vient s’établir dans la péninsule ibérique
pour y fonder un atelier de traduction, c’est le phénomène contraire qui se
produit chez Ibn Ezra. Il s’agit d’un intellectuel nourri de culture arabe, qui
abandonne al-Andalus, erre dans les pays chrétiens, et, au cours de ses voya-
ges à travers l’Italie, la France, et l’Angleterre, livre le bagage scientifique et
culturel qu’il avait accumulé pendant sa jeunesse, passée en Andalousie. Le
but principal de cet article est de fournir un bilan du corpus scientifique d’Ibn
Ezra qui soit, dans l’état actuel de la recherche, aussi complet et détaillé que
possible. Cette contribution comprend deux parties principales: (a) Une
présentation du travail scientifique d’Ibn Ezra, lequel se divise en trois gen-
res principaux: (1) mathématique, astronomie, instruments et outils scien-
tifiques; (2) l’encyclopédie astrologique; (3) des traductions de l’arabe en
hébreu. (b) Dans une deuxième partie, le corpus scientifique d’Ibn Ezra sera
RÉSUMÉS 7
examiné en tant que totalité, pour en donner une caractérisation globale, qui
tente de souligner son organisation et sa forme générales, tout en indiquant
ses buts principaux et ses traits particuliers, dans la mesure où ils révèlent la
contribution personnelle d’Ibn Ezra.
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 11 (2001) pp. 9-26
IBN RUSHD’S THEORY OF MINIMA NATURALIA
RUTH GLASNER
The essence of the theory of minima naturalia is the contention

that a physical body is not infinitely divisible qua that specific
body. Having a form, it must have a “reasonable” size. The evo-
lution of the theory of minima naturalia is an intriguing chap-
ter in the history of science. It involves an on-going dialogue
between the two diametrically opposed approaches to the
understanding of the world – Aristotelianism and atomism –
and illustrates how these two rival world views came somewhat
closer to each other.
The theory is commonly considered to be a Scholastic one,
which developed in the context of the interpretation of several
statements in Aristotle. It was studied by the two pioneer
students of Scholastic science, Pierre Duhem and Aneliese
Maier. Neither ascribes any role in the development of this
theory to Ibn Rushd. Duhem quotes Aristotle’s statement that
“flesh cannot increase or diminish in quantity beyond a certain
limit”,1 and remarks “Ce texte ne semble guère avoir retenu
l’attention d’Averroès […]. Mais très vite, la Scolastique latine
s’est emparée de cette courte phrase et a développé l’idée qu’elle
contenait en germe”.2 Maier, who usually studies the views of
Avicenna and Averroes carefully before coming to those of the
Latin scholars, only quotes the relevant passage of Aristotle and
remarks that from these statements the Scholatics developed
their thesis.3 Several more recent studies do not correct the
1
Physics I.4 187b35, Charlton’s translation. The context is Aristotle’s criticism of
Anaxagoras’ theory of matter.
2
Duhem, Le système du monde. Histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon à
Copernic (Paris, 1954), vol. VII, p. 42. This attitude is typical of Duhem, who else-
where comments “Il ne faut pas nous attendre à trouver chez les philosophes arabes
la profondeur et l’originalité de pensée d’un Damasius ou d’un Simplicius” (ibid.,
p. 159).
3
A. Maier, Die Vorläufer Galileis im 14. Jahrhundert (Roma, 1949), pp. 179-96, on
p. 180.
10 RUTH GLASNER
impression that the theory is of a Scholastic origin.4 The only

scholar I found who “does justice” to Ibn Rushd and to his role
in the development of the theory is Van Melsen,5 and I shall
refer to him several times in what follows.
Ibn Rushd’s theory of minima naturalia was neglected, I
believe, because it is most clearly presented in the middle com-
mentary on the Physics, while the Scholastics were acquainted
with his physics mainly or exclusively through the Latin trans-
lation of the long commentary.6 There are a few brief recapitu-
lations in the long commentary, but only when reading the
middle commentary can one follow the course of the develop-
ment of Ibn Rushd’s theory and to understand what motivated
it. The paper is a preliminary presentation of Ibn Rushd’s the-
ory of minima naturalia.7 It does not deal with the question to
what extent Scholastic scholars were acquainted with Ibn
Rushd’s theory, which is a subject for a separate study.
[I] ARISTOTLE’S TWO APPROACHES
The basic question with which we are dealing is whether a phys-

ical body is a continuum. In the writings of Aristotle, as often
happens, two different answers can be found to this question,
which are not easy to reconcile. Before coming to Aristotle’s two
answers, I shall briefly note that Aristotle offers two different
definitions of continuity in the Physics: in book VI continuous
“is that which is divisible into divisibles that are infinitely
4
E.g. Wallace in The New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1966), I, pp. 1020-4
discusses the theory of minima naturalia but does not mention the name of Ibn
Rushd. Multhauf in his article “The science of matter” describes the theory of mini-
ma naturalia as being of a Scholastic origin. See D.C. Lindberg, Science in the Middle
Ages (Chicago, 1978), pp. 369-90, on p. 385-6.
5
A.G. Van Melsen, From Atomos to Atom (New York, 1960), pp. 58-60. Pyle follows
Van Melsen on this subject. See A. Pyle, Atomism and its Critics (Bristol, 1995), pp.
217-19.
6
The translation of the long commentary is attributed to Michael Scotus and was
well known. The first three books of the middle commentary were translated from
the Hebrew much later by Jacob Mantino. Of the Arabic original there is only an out-
line. See S. Harvey, “A unique Averroes MS in the British Museum”, Bulletin of the
School of Oriental and African Studies, 45 (1982): 571-4. The commentary was trans-
lated twice into Hebrew and is extant in many manuscripts.
7
A more complete presentation of the theory and of its importance to the under-
standing of Ibn Rushd’s natural philosophy is included in my forthcoming compara-
tive study of Ibn Rushd’s three commentaries on the Physics.
IBN RUSHD’S THEORY OF MINIMA NATURALIA 11
divisible”;8 in book V things are called continuous when they
are contiguous and “the touching limits of each become one and
the same and are contained in each other”.9 I have argued else-
where that book VI is an early book and the definition of VI is
the earlier.10
Aristotle’s first answer is given in Physics VI, and assumes
the definition of book VI: “body” by definition is infinitely divis-
ible. This answer reflects a certain lack of distinction between
“the mathematical” and “the physical”, which is typical of
Aristotle’s early physics. The concept “physical body” is neither
defined by Aristotle nor is it the subject of a systematic discus-
sion.11 Aristotle’s definitions of “body” are mathematical: a body
is a magnitude divisible in three dimensions or a magnitude
which extends in three dimensions;12 magnitude, in Aristotle’s
philosophical dictionary, is that which is divisible into continu-
ous parts”.13
According to these definitions infinite divisibility is the
essence of being a body. Is this equally true of a mathematical
and of a physical body? The answer of Physics VI is decidedly
positive: there is no difference between the continuity of a
mathematical and of a physical body. In VI.1 Aristotle argues
that nothing continuous is made up of indivisible parts, and
comments: “the same reasoning applies equally to magnitude,
to time and to motion: either all of them are composed of indi-
visibles and are divisible into indivisibles, or none”.14 If magni-
tude is composed of indivisibles “the being moved will also be
composed of indivisibles”.15 Thus the “being moved”, which is a
physical body, and magnitude, which is basically a mathemati-
cal concept, have the same structure. The thesis of parallel
divisibility of Physics VI is an important stage in the evolution
of Aristotle’s natural philosophy. As Waschkies has shown,
before Aristotle only spatial magnitudes were considered to be
8
Physics VI.2, 232b24-25.
9
Physics V.3, 227a9-11.
10
“The early stages in the development of Aristotle’s Physics”, forthcoming.
11
See A. Edel, Aristotle and his Philosophy (London, 1982), p. 49.
12
De caelo I.1, 268a8-9; I.7, 274b20; Physics III.5, 204b20; Met. V.6, 1016b28;
XI.10, 1066b31-32; Top. IV.5, 142b24. Aristotle also gives another definition: “a body
is that which is bounded by a surface” (Physics III.5, 204b5; Met. XI.2, 1060b15;
XI.10,1066b23).
13
Metaphysics V.13, 1020b12.
14
15
Physics VI.1, 231b26.
12 RUTH GLASNER
continuous.16 Aristotle’s major project in Physics VI was to gen-

eralize the concept of continuity and to apply it also to the phys-
ical world. This project, I believe, was important to him both as
part of his anti-atomistic campaign and as part of his attempt to
establish natural science as a scientific discipline which relies on
the firm basis of the science of geometry. Thus, magnitude, time
and motion are associated through the notion of continuity, con-
tinuity being understood as infinite divisibility.
In VI.4 Aristotle further develops the thesis of parallel divisi-
bility in more detail and concludes: “time, the motion, the being
in motion, the thing that is in motion and the sphere of motion
must all be susceptible to the same divisions (though spheres of
motion are not all divisible in a like manner: thus place is essen-
tially, quality accidentally divisible)”.17 The comment in paren-
theses is already a slight drawback. Physical bodies are more
complex than mathematical bodies, still, in Physics VI and in De
caelo this does not affect their divisibility:18
This matter has already been considered in our discussion of movement,19
where we have shown that an indivisible length is impossible. But with
respect to natural bodies there are impossibilities involved in the view which
asserts indivisible lines, which we may briefly consider at this point. For the
impossible consequences which result from this view [that there are indivis-
ible lines] will reproduce themselves when applied to physical bodies, but
there will be difficulties in physics which are not present in mathematics […]
There are many attributes necessarily present in physical bodies which are
necessarily absent from indivisibles […] Attributes of bodies are all divisible
in one of two ways. They are divisible into kinds […] and they are divisible
per accidens when that which has them is divisible”.20
This passage asserts that physical attributes are infinitely divis-
ible and that natural bodies, like the mathematical, are infi-
nitely divisible. In the same book, he uses the divisibility of the
elements as an argument against Plato’s geometrical account of
the structure of the elements: “the element air is divisible and
16
H.J. Waschkies, “Mathematical continuity and continuity of movement”, in
F. De Gant and P. Souffrin (eds.), La Physique d’Aristote et les conditions d’une sci-
ence de la nature (Paris, 1991), pp. 151-79. This view is assumed in Aristotle’s early
philosophical dictionary, Metaphysics V 13, 1020a10-12.
17
Physics VI.4, 235a15-17.
18
Similarly in I.4 a complete separation is impossible “both in respect of quantity
and of quality – of quantity because there is no minimum magnitude, and of quality,
because affections are inseparable” (Physics I.4, 188a10-13).
19
Probably referring to Physics VI.1.
20
De caelo III.1, 299a9-22.
the same could be shown of fire and of all elements and of all
bodies whose parts are relatively fine”.21
Thus, Aristotle’s first answer to the question whether a phys-
ical body is a continuum is positive: physical and mathematical
bodies have the same continuous structure, continuity being
defined as infinite divisibility. In Physics VI.4 and in De caelo
III.1 the qualities of physical bodies do not affect their divisibil-
ity, still, the distinction between the divisibility of the qualita-
tive and the quantitative aspects was a first step towards the
second answer.
Aristotle’s second answer to the question whether a physical
body is a continuum reflects, I believe, a more mature stage in
the development of his Physics. After the introduction of the
concepts of matter and form in Physics I,22 the isomorphism
thesis became less evident. Consisting of matter and form, phys-
ical body is a complex structure, and the difference between
mathematical and physical bodies becomes clearer.23 This con-
sideration led Aristotle to his second answer: a physical body
must have a definite size – neither too big nor too small. In
Physics I, arguing against Anaxagoras’ theory of matter he
remarks:
It is necessary that if a part of a thing can be as large or small as you please,
then so can the whole, and if it is not possible for any animal or plant to be
as large or small as you please, it is not possible that any part should be
either, for if it could, so could the whole. Now flesh and bone are parts of ani-
mals, and fruits are parts of plants. Clearly then neither flesh nor bone nor
anything of the sort can proceed indefinitely far either in enlargement or in
diminution.24
Physics I.4 is usually considered to be the main text in Aristotle
which leads in the direction of a theory of minima naturalia.
21
De caelo III.5, 304b1-2.
22
In my forthcoming paper “The early stages in the development of Aristotle’s
Physics” I argue that parts of the Physics (notably book VI) and parts of De caelo pre-
date the “hylomorphic turn” and are earlier than the other books of the Physics.
23
It has been suggested that Aristotle regarded also mathematical body as consist-
ing of form and a kind of matter – intelligible matter. See I. Mueller, “Aristotle on
geometrical objects”, Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, 52 (1970): 156-71, on
p. 164; T.C. Anderson “Intelligible matter and the objects of mathematics in
Aristotle”, New Scholasticism, 43 (1969): 1-28. This interpretation was, however,
rejected by most commentators. See for example, J. Annas, Aristotle’s Metaphysics
books M and N. (Oxford, 1976), pp. 30-1.
24
Physics I.4, 187b14-20, Charlton’s translation. A similar, but somewhat vague
statement appears also in Physics VI.10, 241a32-b2.
14 RUTH GLASNER
There are a few statements in other places suggesting that

physical body cannot be infinitely divisible and still maintain its
physical properties.25 For example: “a drop of wine does not mix
with ten thousand pitchers full of water for its form dissolves”.26
There is a minimal force that can cause movement. Therefore:
“Zeno’s reasoning is false when he argues that there is no part
of the millet that does not make a sound”.27
In Physics III, discussing the subject of infinite by addition
and by division, Aristotle suggests that the matter-form struc-
ture renders only the second kind of infinite possible, because
matter is infinitely divisible, while the form is associated with
the whole. The sentence is somewhat vague (as the many brack-
ets added by the translator testify):
There seems to be no infinite by addition such as to exceed any magnitude,
while there is [an infinite] by division [of that kind] – this too is a reasonable
result. For it is matter and [so] the infinite, that is surrounded [and] inside,
and it is the form that surrounds.28
In summary, Aristotle offers two answers to the question
whether a physical body is a continuum: According to the first a
physical body, qua being a three-dimensional magnitude, is infi-
nitely divisible (mathematical and physical magnitudes being
equally divisible); according to the second a physical body, qua
having form or qualities, is not infinitely divisible and must
have a definite size. This second answer is the Aristotelian basis
of the theory of minima naturalia. I agree with Van Melsen
that the theory “is found in Aristotle only in an embryonic
state”.29
[II] THE TWO TRADITIONS
Aristotle’s two answers to the question whether a physical body

is a continuum led, I suggest, to the development of the theory
of minima naturalia along two different channels.
One channel was direct. Commentators on the Physics elabo-
rated on Aristotle’s second answer, namely that physical body is
25
See also Van Melsen, From Atomos to Atom, pp. 41-4.
26
De gen. et cor. I.10, 328a26-8. See also De sensu 6, 446a8-9.
27
Physics VII.5, 250a20.
28
Physics III.7, 207a33-6; Hussey’s translation.
29
Van Melsen, From Atomos to Atom, p. 44.
not infinitely divisible, and further developed this idea. I shall
mention two examples:
Commenting on the two passages quoted above from Physics
I.4 and III.7 Philoponus writes:
There must be a lower limit too: no man has the size of a fist or a finger or a
grain, because if something is too small it cannot receive a form either; a car-
penter can only make the form of a boat from a piece of wood when it is large
enough, and a potter cannot make a jar from one grain of clay.30
The division of the form often comes to an end because it has a certain
limit, with regard to the smaller as to the greater (for it has been said that
forms are not naturally able to remain in every magnitude), but because of
matter the cutting does not come to an end.31
Commenting on the same passage from Physics I.4 quoted

above Thomas Aquinas writes:
It must be pointed out that a body, considered mathematically, is divisible to
infinity. For in a mathematical body nothing but quantity is considered […]
But in a natural body form also is considered.32
According to these interpretations matter is infinitely divisible,

but the body composed of matter and form not necessarily.
The other channel through which the theory of minima natu-

ralia developed was indirect. We shall see that both Epicurus’
concept of minimum and Ibn Rushd’s theory of minima natu-
ralia were responses to the thesis of parallel divisibility of
Physics VI, and particularly to the statement of VI.4 that every-
thing that changes must be divisible.
In order to better understand this indirect process let us
distinguish between atoms, which are elementary unsplittable
particles, and minima, which are in some theoretical sense the
smallest thing possible, but are not necessarily well-distin-
guished particles. Things are made up or composed of atoms,
divisible into minima. Scholars agree that Presocratic atomism
conceived atoms both as unsplittable particles and as theoretical
30
A paraphrase of Philoponus on Physics I.4 187b7ff.: P. Lettinck, Aristotle’s
Physics and its Reception in the Arabic World (Leiden, 1994), p. 56.
31
Philoponus, In Phys. 481, 3-6; translation: On Aristotle’s Physics 3, translated by
M.J. Edwards (Ithaca, 1994), p. 143.
32
St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, translated by
R.J. Blackwell, R.J. Spath and W.E. Thirlkel (New Haven, 1963), book I lecture 9,
p. 34.
16 RUTH GLASNER
minima.33 Recent studies have shown that Epicurus distin-

guished between the two, and introduced a concept of minimum
(elachiston),34 which is different from that of the atom. The
atoms of Epicurus are not indivisible; they have parts which are
indivisible, but are not free-standing entities.35 Thus Epicurus
distinguishes between “being composed of” and “being divisible
into”, and presents a new conception of atomism, more sophis-
ticated than that of his Presocratic predecessors.
Why did he introduce the concept of minimal part in addition
to that of atom?36 An answer to this question was suggested by
Furley in 1967 and was widely accepted: Epicurus introduced
minima into atomic theory as a response to Aristotle’s criticism
of early atomism in Physics VI. According to the analysis of
motion of Physics VI “everything that changes37 must be divisi-
ble”; “that which is without parts cannot be in motion except
accidentally”.38 According to the analysis of contact a conti-
nuum cannot be composed of indivisibles.39 These arguments
apparently threaten the atomistic theory which was based on
the conception of the atom as indivisible. Furley suggests that
Aristotle’s arguments led Epicurus to introduce indivisible mi-
nima which have dimensions, but unlike atoms cannot stand
apart.40
Did the atomistic tradition influence the Aristotelian in antiq-
uity? Alexander of Aphrodisias, commenting on Physics I.4,
writes: “in every separation a certain number of elachista is
33
D.J. Furley, “Indivisible magnitudes”, in Two Studies in the Greek Atomists
(Princeton, 1967), p. 111; D. Konstan, “Ancient atomism and its heritage: minimal
parts”, Ancient Philosophy, 2 (1982): 60-75, on p. 62.
34
Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus, see A.A. Long and D.N. Sedley, The Hellenistic
Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987), 9a, Greek text vol. II, p. 32; English translation vol.
I, p. 40; commentary p. 42.
35
D. Konstan, “Points, lines and infinity: Aristotle’s Physics Zeta and Hellenistic
philosophy”, in J. Cleary (ed.), Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient
Philosophy, III (1988), pp. 1-32, on p. 5; “Ancient atomism and its heritage”, p. 63.
36
See for example G. Vlastos, “Minimal parts in Epicurean atomism”, Isis, 56
(1965): 121-45, on p. 122. Vlastos approaches this question from a different direction
than Furley.
37
On Aristotle’s use of the terms “move” and “change” see section IV below.
38
Physics VI.4, 234b10-20; VI.10 240b8.
39
Physics VI.1, 231a21-b17.
40
Furley, Two Studies, ch. 8. The concept of extremity plays an important part in
the development of this conception. An extremity does not stand by itself, yet accord-
ing to Epicurus it has dimensions (Two Studies, p. 115). Konstan emphasizes the role
of Aristotle’s analysis of contact in the development of Epicurus’ ideas. See
D. Konstan, “Problems in Epicurean Physics”, Isis, 70 (1979): 397-417, on p. 403.
separated”.41 It has been suggested that the word elachista is
used in “a special technical sense”.42 It is possible that Alexander
had Epicurus’ elachista in mind, but he did not further con-
tribute to the development of the theory.
It is accepted today, however, that Epicurus’ theory of minima
influenced medieval Arabic atomism. In 1936 Pines proposed
that the atomism of Epicurus might have served as a major link
towards the theory of Kal®m “provided that it included the so-
called theory of minima”,43 suggesting that there may be a
resemblance between the minima (not the atoms!) of Epicurus
and the ajz®’ of the mutakallim‚n. He adds, however that “the
scantiness and uncertainty of our knowledge of that side of
Epicurus’ theory do not allow us to press this analogy any fur-
ther with the hope of arriving at any sound conclusions”.44
A few years ago Dhanani reexamined the question in the light
of recent research on both ancient and Kal®m atomism. He did
not find an explicit statement of a theory of minimal parts anal-
ogous to that of Epicurean, but he concludes that there is suffi-
cient evidence on which one can argue that such minimal parts
were upheld by many of the mutakallim‚n.45 There is evidence
that Ibn Rushd was acquainted with both conceptions of min-
ima, that of the Kal®m and that of Epicurus. I shall quote one
example:
And the mutakallim‚n46 of our nation, as they considered division to be divi-
sion in act, denied that division can go on infinitely and contended that divi-
sion terminates with something indivisible, and this is what they meant by
indivisible parts. But the ancient upholders of indivisible parts accepted infi-
nite division, as this is one of the postulates of geometry, and assumed that
this is so in act, and according to them in one finite magnitude there are infi-
nitely many indivisible parts.47
41
Quoted from Van Melsen, From Atomos to Atom, p. 47.
42
Van Melsen, ibid.; Wallace, New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 1021 col. b.
43
S. Pines, Studies in Islamic Atomism (Jerusalem, 1997 [Berlin, 1936]) pp. 112.
44
Ibid., p. 113. In the comment that follows this passage Pines refers to Baily’s
book, The Greek Atomists and Epicurus of 1928. He is not yet acquainted with
Luria’s 1933 paper “Die Infinitisimaltheorie der antiken Atomisten”, that had made
some progress in the study of Epicurus’ atomism.
45
A. Dhanani, The Physical Theory of Kal®m (Leiden, 1994), p. 106.
46
Following here Zerahya ben Yishaq’s translation (see next note). The two manu-
scripts of Qalonimus’ translation listed below read “the ancients of our nation”. The
following sentence (not quoted here) confirms Zerahya’s reading. It repeats the argu-
ment and all manuscripts read “mutakallim‚n”.
47
Middle Commentary on the Physics, Hebrew translation by Qalonimus ben
Qalonimus, Hamburg Staats- und Universitaetsbibliothek, MS Cod. hebr. 264, VI.1,
18 RUTH GLASNER
[III] IBN RUSHD’S THEORY OF MINIMA NATURALIA
Ibn Rushd’s statement of the theory of minima naturalia is

more explicit and more elaborate than that of Aristotle or
Philoponus. There are several statements of the theory and ref-
erences to it in the commentaries of Ibn Rushd. I shall quote a
few examples:
In the epitome on Physics VI “This division indeed occurs to
the continuous thing qua being continuous, not qua being sen-
sible body actually existing”.48 In the middle commentary on
Physics III:
And to him who would argue that the line is infinitely divisible qua a pure
line, but qua a line of fire or a line of water it is not infinitely divisible, but
divisible into indivisible magnitude which is the smallest magnitude which
can assume the form of fire, as this magnitude is naturally bounded […] – we
say that the physicist49 indeed studies magnitudes qua boundaries of natural
enmattered bodies. Magnitude is infinitely divisible qua matter, not qua
form; qua form its divisibility is limited. This is why a magnitude of fire can-
not be infinitely divisible qua a magnitude of fire; it can be infinitely divisi-
ble qua pure magnitude, not qua being a natural body.50
Commenting on the passage from Physics III.7 quoted above
(note 28) he adds: “The division of magnitude is in the matter,
not in the form, as the form remains what it is”.51 There are a
few references to the theory in the long commentary on the
Physics:
When we remove a part of fire and repeat this action again and again we
finally reach a quantity which is such that by a further division the fire
would perish, because there is a certain minimal quantity of fire.
A line as a line can be divided infinitely. But such a division is impossible
if the line is taken as made of earth.
fol. 67b26-68a7. The arguments goes on to 68a15; Paris, MS BN héb. 941, fol. 92b8-
15; Hebrew translation by Zerahya ben Yishaq She’altiel, Oxford Bodl., MS 1386, fol
83a19-b2. On the question whether Epicurus considered the number of minima in an
atom is finite or infinite see Konstan, “Ancient atomism”, pp. 63-6.
48
Epitome on the Physics, Corpus commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, ed.
J. Puig (Madrid, 1983) p. 88.3-4; Ras®’il Ibn Rushd (Hyderabd, 1947), p. 73; Spanish
translation: J. Puig, Averroes: Epítome de fisica, traducción y estudio (Madrid, 1987),
p. 187.
49
Literally “the owner of this wisdom”.
50
Ibn Rushd, Middle Commentary on the Physics, III.3.5, Hamburg, MS Cod. hebr.
264, fol. 31a22-25, b4-10.
51
Ibid., fol. 32b12-13.
It is impossible for something to increase or decrease infinitely, because if
the quantity determined by nature is passed, whether by increase or
decrease, the being perishes.52
The question arises as to what made Ibn Rushd adopt an inter-

pretation of the Physics which, in a sense, is non-Aristotelian.
Aristotle’s text by no means calls for it. I have suggested above
that Ibn Rushd might have been acquainted with the Epicurean
concept of minimum, but the question still remains to be
answered: why did he adopt a concept of a school which he often
criticized, and whose views he mostly rejected. My suggestion is
that Ibn Rushd developed his theory not as an elaboration of
Aristotle’s second answer to the question whether a physical
body is a continuum, but rather as an attempt to solve the diffi-
culties raised by the first answer. The issue was not Aristotle’s
theory of minima naturalia, but his theory of continuity devel-
oped in Physics VI. In attempting to “save” this theory Ibn
Rushd found a certain compromise with atomism unavoidable. I
shall explain the difficulties in Aristotle’s presentation and pre-
sent Ibn Rushd’s solution.
The association between body and motion is a central issue in

Aristotle’s early Physics. Aristotle develops this conception in
Physics VI and VII. In VI.4 he states that everything that moves
must be divisible,53 and argues that motion and the moved body
are equally divisible.54 In VII.1 he suggests that a body moves
qua being divisible, namely qua having parts. Nothing is moved
per se and not by one of its parts being moved.55 Both the argu-
ments of VI.4 and VII.1 rely on the premise that every motion is
from something to something.56 Both arguments associate the
possibility of motion and the continuity of motion with the
divisibility of the moved body. The conception of motion as a
continuous entity, however, is difficult, and both arguments
52
Long Commentary on the Physics, Latin translation: Aristotelis opera cum
Averrois commentariis vol. IV (Venice, 1562), VIII, comm. 44 fol. 384K; IV comm. 72
fol. 163H; VI comm. 32 fol. 267D; Van Melsen’s translation, From Atomos to Atom,
pp. 59-60. See also I comm. 37 fol. 25A; VI comm. 59 fol. 285C.
53
54
Physics VI.1, 231b18-232a18; VI.4, 234b20-235a10.
55
Physics VII.1, version a 241b37-49; version b 241b27-242a15.
56
Both demonstrations explicitly refer to this premise. See Physics VI.4, 234b10;
VII.1, 242a6.
20 RUTH GLASNER
involve serious difficulties.57 Ibn Rushd develops his theory of

minima naturalia in his middle commentary on VI.4 and VII.1,
as an answer to these difficulties.
Before examining Aristotle’s arguments and Ibn Rushd’s pre-
sentations, it should be noted that in Physics VI Aristotle usu-
ally uses the term “motion”, but in several passages he uses the
term “change” instead.58 In the present context, the terms can
be understood as interchangeable.
Aristotle’s argument in Physics VI.4 is:59
• Every change is from something to something.
• When a thing is at that to which it was changing it is no
longer changing.
• When it and all its parts are at that from which it was
changing it is not changing (for that which is in whole and
part in an unvarying condition is not in a state of change).
• It follows that part of that which changes must be at the
starting point and part at the goal. (Here by ‘goal of change’
I mean that which comes first in the process of change: e.g.
in the process of change from white the goal in question will
be grey, not black: for it is not necessary that that which is
changing should be at either of the extremes).
• It is evident, therefore, that everything that changes must
be divisible.
The argument is dubious, and according to Bostock “must be
dismissed as worthless”.60 A major problem is the problematic
concept of “that which comes first in the process of change” or a
“first goal of change”. This concept is not well-defined, and con-
flicts with the main thesis of Physics VI, namely that change is a
continuous process. The reader of book VI, therefore, has two
alternatives: either to reject the concept of a first goal of change,
or to adopt this concept, at the cost of giving up the conception
57
Without modern calculus and the conception of instantaneous velocity, it is hard
to understand what happens at the point of division, or at the endpoints of a motion
interval. Aristotle’s comment that a thing cannot “both be in motion and at the same
time have completed its motion” (Physics VI.1, 231b27), reflects this difficulty. The
argument of VI.5 that in a process of motion (or change) there is a last, but no first
element also illustrates the difficulty (Physics VI.5, 236a10 ff).
58
In my forthcoming paper “The early stages in the development of Aristotle’s
Physics” I try to explain why in these passages Aristotle uses the term “change”.
59
60
D. Bostock, “Aristotle on continuity in Physics VI”, in L. Judson (ed.), Aristotle’s
Physics (Oxford, 1991), pp. 179-212, on p. 201.
of change as a continuous process. Ibn Rushd prefers the second
way. It is in this context that his theory of minima naturalia
comes in and replaces Aristotle’s theory of continuous motion.
Ibn Rushd’s argument follows Aristotle but the concept of
“first goal of change” is more explicitly adopted and used. To
make the argument more readable I shall abbreviate the two
phrases ‘that towards which the change is’ and ‘that from which
the change is’, which occur frequently, as T and F respectively.
• Every change is from something to something.
• When the changing body is at T it is at rest.
• When a thing is at F it is at rest.
• The changing body actually changes,61 when a part of it is at
F and a part of it at the first T.
• It cannot be as a whole in either of them.
• It is also impossible for it to be in none of them, because
between F and the first T there is no intermediate. For if
there was an intermediate, the first T would not be first.
Indeed the intermediate [is62] between F and the final T,
and there is no motion to the final T, but through the first
T. For example if the change is from white to black it first
changes from white to yellow.63
• Since everything that changes – a part of it is in F and part
in the first T, it follows that whatever changes is divisible.64
Ibn Rushd is aware of the implications of Aristotle’s argument
and does not hesitate to accept them: between F and the final T
61
In Physics VI Aristotle does not yet distinguish between an actual and a poten-
tial division. Ibn Rushd, here uses the term “anachronistically”.
62
Written above the line in Paris, BN MS héb. 941, fol. 98a1.
63
Aristotle refers to the intermediate colour between black and white as phaion,
namely gray (234b18). A word for gray did not exist in medieval Hebrew. Qalonimus
in his translation of Ibn Rushd’s Middle commentary refers to this color as yellow.
Yellow and green were interchangeable terms in medieval Hebrew, so one often finds
both yellow and green in this context. Gersonides uses yellow or qamely. This word
can be derived from the root qml – to become dry (referring to plants), See
Commentary on the Middle Commentary on the Physics, Paris, MS BN héb. 964/1, fol.
111b1. The use of yellow or green as intermediate colours between white and black is
explained by the Aristotelian theory of the generations of colours. See on this subject
R. Fontaine, “Red and yellow, blue and green: The colours of the rainbow according
to medieval Hebrew and Arabic scientific texts”, in Y. Toby (ed.), ‘Ever and ‘Arav
Contrasts between Arabic Literature and Jewish Literature in the Middle Ages and
Modern Time (Tel-Aviv, 1998), pp. VII-XXV, on p. VIII.
64
Ibn Rushd, Middle Commentary on the Physics, Hamburg, MS Cod. hebr. 264,
fol. 72a5-19.
22 RUTH GLASNER
there is an intermediate, but not between F and the first T.

Thus the structure of the part is not identical to that of the
whole. Commenting on this passage, Moshe Narboni, Ibn
Rushd’s fourteenth century Hebrew follower, further explains
the conception of “quanta of change”:
For every green, one can imagine a green lesser than it, and this [process]
can be continued indefinitely. But in actuality a definite limit is achieved,
such that a lesser [green] does not exist in actuality. And the black, when it
first changed into green, which is intermediate between white and black –
first it changed into a part [of greenness] so small that a smaller part does
not exist in actuality, though in potentiality it is possible. This way the
change is a part of the body65 which is so small, that it is impossible that a
part smaller than it would be actually green, as it is impossible that green-
ness less than it exists in actuality. Therefore, in actuality a first T is possi-
ble but not in potentiality, since potentially division can be carried on
indefinitely”.66
Commenting on Physics VI.4 Ibn Rushd suggests that motion,
or change, is divisible into indivisible minimal parts. In his com-
mentaries on VII.1 he argues further that physical body is divis-
ible into indivisible parts. In Physics VII.1 Aristotle proves that
there is nothing that is “moved per se and not by one of its parts
being moved”.67 He does not explain this statement further nor
specify what the moving part is. The main point for him is the
general association of motion with divisibility: a body does not
move as a whole but as Helen Lang puts it, as “a whole of
parts”.68 Ibn Rushd is more specific and suggests a positive
interpretation of Aristotle’s statement: a body is divisible into
minimal parts and the minimal part is, in a sense, the mover.
Let us look at the significant difference between the demonstra-
tions of Aristotle and of Ibn Rushd.
Aristotle’s argument briefly paraphrased is: Suppose that a
body AB is moved per se, not by one of its parts.69 Everything
moved must be divisible [according to VI.4]. So let AB be
divided at C. If CB does not move, then AB [the whole] will not
move, because had it moved it would have been moved by the
65
Should be, perhaps, part of the change.
66
Moshe Narboni, Commentary on the Middle Commentary on the Physics, Paris,
MS BN héb. 967, fol. 66a6-16.
67
Physics VII.1, 241b34-242a49 (version a), 241b24-242a15 (version b).
68
H.S. Lang, “Parts, wholes, and motion: Physics 7.1”, in H.S. Lang, Aristotle’s
Physics and its Medieval Varieties (New York, 1992), pp. 35-62, on pp. 36, 41.
69
Physics VII.1 version a, 241b38.
part AC, contrary to the assumption that it moves per se.
Therefore if CB rests, the whole AB rests.70
The main point of the argument is that the state of motion or
rest of the whole is determined by the state of motion or rest of
the part. Aristotle’s argument has been subjected to much criti-
cism. Ibn Rushd does not criticize the argument but reinter-
prets it. He starts with a new distinction which Aristotle does
not suggest:
• That which is moved essentially is either first or nonfirst.
• The ‘first-moved’ is that which is not moved because a part
of it moves or can move essentially. For instance, the
motion of a part of earth or water, namely this part that a
part smaller than it cannot assume the form of water, as
such magnitude is defined71 for the natural bodies.
• The nonfirst is that which moves as a whole because a part
of it moves essentially. For instance, the motion of any mag-
nitude greater than the smallest part of earth, or the local
motion of animals which is due to the vital heat that is in
it.72
We see that the argument of VII.1 continues that of VI.4. In his
commentary on VI.4 Ibn Rushd introduced the concept of ‘a
first that towards which the motion is’ (a first T), namely a min-
imal indivisible part of motion. Commenting on VII.1, he intro-
duces a concept of ‘first-moved part’, which is a minimal
indivisible part of a moved body. The conceptions that body is
divisible into indivisible parts and that motion is divisible into
indivisible parts apparently complement each other. At this
point comes the main point of the theory:
• The nonfirst-moved [magnitude] is moved by something
else, which is the first-moved [part]. It is established that if
a self-mover exists, namely that the mover and the moved
are one and the same thing, it must necessarily be first.73
Ibn Rushd’s argument is very different from Aristotle’s.
Aristotle’s argument is indirect. He assumes the existence of
70
Physics VII.1 version a, 242a38-49.
71
Following Zerahya’s translation; ‘listed’ or ‘limited’ in different manuscripts of
Qalonomus’ translation.
72
Ibn Rushd, Middle Commentary on the Physics, Hamburg, MS Cod. hebr. 264,
fol. 83a2-10.
73
Ibid., fol. 83a10-13.
24 RUTH GLASNER
“that which is moved per se and not by one of its parts being
moved” as a hypothesis in order to rule out such a possibility.
Ibn Rushd’s demonstration is direct and constructive. He intro-
duces a concept of minimal part and identifies the minimal part
as that part which moves the whole. According to Aristotle a
self-mover does not exist; according to Ibn Rushd that which is
first-moved is a self-mover and also the mover of the whole.
Following the introduction of these terms Ibn Rushd presents
Aristotle argument summarized above as an argument about
first-moved bodies: “Having verified this premise [that there are
Primary-Moved parts] we can establish that everything that is
moved primarily and per se is moved by something else.74 The
outline of the argument is: there are two categories of moved
objects, first-moved and nonfirst-moved. The latter are not self
movers by definition, but are moved by the former. Aristotle’s
argument establishes that the former are not self movers either.75
The theory is presented also in the epitome on Physics VII.1:
The ‘first-moved’, that which is not moved because of a part of it, is that
which is moved essentially. And in these simple bodies (about which the
doubt is) it is the minimal possible magnitude of fire that moves upwards or
the minimal possible magnitude of earth that moves downwards, because the
moved [part] of earth and of fire which is of such a character is a first-moved
[part] because this movement cannot occur to a part of it, as there is no
smaller part of fire, because the magnitudes of existing things are limited.76
Again the ‘first-moved’ is the minimal part, namely the most
elementary mover-moved unit. Ibn Rushd presents the argu-
ment of VII.1 as an argument about the first-moved body and
identifies the part that is at rest and the part that is not at rest
with the form and the matter of the first-moved body. When the
first-moved body rests “the mover in it becomes inactive”, while
“the remaining part of the first-moved body does not rest, and
this is because it [the remaining part] did not loose the faculty
(man®) by which it is moved”. The fact that the first-moved
body can either move or be at rest points out to an inner differ-
entiation, which turns out to be that between matter and form.
The mover and the moved cannot coincide because when the
first-moved body is at rest one faculty, that of the mover (namely
the form) is idle while the other, that of being moved (namely
74
Ibid., fol. 83a21-22.
75
Ibid., fol. 83a23-b12.
76
Ibn Rushd, Epitome on the Physics VII, Puig’s edition p. 114.3-9.
the matter), remains unchanged. The faculty for being moved
(matter) is also for being a magnitude and divisible;77 the faculty
for moving (form) is indivisible, and it is precisely this indivisi-
bility which defines the minimal part as such.78 Ibn Rushd con-
cludes the discussion:
And in the moved body there are necessarily two faculties: one of them by
which it is divided, and this is the faculty by which it is moved, and the second
is indivisible, and it is the faculty that when lost – the movement would be lost,
and this is necessarily the mover. Therefore bodies, similar to these simple
bodies, the first-moved in them is divided qua being moved and indivisible qua
being a mover, and therefore the mover in them is necessarily other than the
moved. And divisibility occurs to them by their matter and indivisibility by
their form. And the form is the mover and is other than the moved.79
While Aristotle’s argument in VII.1 is an exercise in logic, Ibn
Rushd’s is an analysis of the structure of the first-moved body,
namely the minimal part that maintains the body’s form and
motion. The argument of the epitome and the middle commen-
tary is briefly recapitulated in the long commentary on this
chapter:
And it is necessary that there be things that are first-moved (prima mota), as
the natural bodies are not infinitely divisible in act80 qua natural bodies. For
instance the first-moved in the case of fire is a part such that a part smaller
than it would not be fire in act.81
In itself this passage is not sufficiently clear, and the Scholastics,
who did not read the epitome or the middle commentary, could
not have fully understood Ibn Rushd’s theory.
[IV] CONCLUSION
In conclusion I would like to summarize briefly the history of

the concept of minima naturalia, emphasizing the dialogue
between the two great and rival systems of thought, the
Aristotelian and the atomistic.
The atomistic theory of Leucippus and Democritus offers
an answer to the Eleatic impasse, and to Zeno’s paradoxes in
77
According to Physics VI.4 everything that is moved must be divisible.
78
Ibn Rushd, Epitome on the Physics VII, Puig’s edition pp. 114.16-115.6.
79
Ibn Rushd, Epitome on the Physics VII, Puig’s edition p. 115.6-12.
80
”In act” in the Hebrew translation, “in eo” in the Latin.
81
Ibn Rushd, Long Commentary on the Physics VII. Latin translation Aristotelis
opera, fol. 307 I.
26 RUTH GLASNER
particular. Aristotle’s analysis of the continuum in Physics VI

offers a different answer, involving serious criticism of atomism,
to Zeno’s paradoxes. “Aristotle was emphatically not an atom-
ist”, as Molland writes, “He had no unique set of immutable and
indivisible constituents of the universe, but a world in which all
bodies were divisible, and for this reason did not form a con-
stant set”.82 Epicurus, according to Furley, reconsidered the
indivisibility of the atom in the light of Aristotle’s criticism in
Physics VI, and consequently modified classical atomism, distin-
guishing between the atoms which are the constituents of the
universe and the minima, which are indivisible but not inde-
pendently existing.83
Aristotelianism could not come to terms with the first con-
cept, but could seriously consider the second. Ibn Rushd rejects
the concept of atom, but adopts the concept of minimum, taking
it out of the atomistic context and adjusting it to the
“Aristotelian environment”. Minima for Ibn Rushd are neither
atoms (as they were for some Islamic atomists) nor parts of
atoms (as they were for Epicurus), but rather parts of the con-
tinuum. Maier describes the minima naturalia as a kind of
atoms, which also have the structure of the continuum.84
According to this account, the concept of minimum which was
introduced by Epicurus as a response to Aristotle’s theory of con-
tinuity developed in Physics VI, served Ibn Rushd to modify this
very theory (of Physics VI) which contains inner difficulties. Ibn
Rushd’s theory of minima naturalia was only partly influential.
Jewish fourteenth-century Aristotelians, who studied physics
from Ibn Rushd’s epitome and middle commentary, took it for
granted. The Scholastic commentators were not acquainted with
Ibn Rushd’s argument but with a few statements of the theory
and allusions to the argument in the long commentary. They
developed a theory of minima naturalia that did not follow the
specific direction indicated by Ibn Rushd, and focused on differ-
ent questions. The atomistic aspects of the theory of minima
naturalia gradually became better understood and eventually
contributed to the rise of atomism in the seventeenth century.85
82
G. Molland, “The atomization of motion: A facet of the scientific revolution”,
Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 13 (1982): 31-54, on p. 31.
83
Furley, Two Studies, ch. 8.
84
Maier, Die Vorläufer Galileis, p. 179.
85
Wallace, The New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 1022; Pyle, Atomism and its Critics,
ch. 5.
THE LATIN SOURCE OF THE FOURTEENTH-

CENTURY ITALIAN TRANSLATION OF ALHACEN’S
DE ASPECTIBUS (VAT. LAT. 4595)
A. MARK SMITH
Composed in the early eleventh century, Ibn al-Haytham’s

Kit®b al-Man®˙ir (“Book of Optics”) marked a turning-point in
the development of optics not only because of its technical
sophistication but also because of its comprehensiveness.
Accordingly, while taking ray-analysis to a far higher mathe-
matical level than before, Ibn al-Haytham (or “Alhacen” as he
came to be known in Latin1) also offered an extensive and com-
pelling account of visual perception that was based broadly on
physical, physiological, and psychological principles. Small won-
der that, soon after it was translated into Latin under the title
De aspectibus (c. 1200), Alhacen’s treatise assumed canonical
status in the Latin West, counting among its most enthusiastic
proponents such perspectivist optical theorists as Roger Bacon
(fl. c. 1260), Witelo (fl. c. 1270), and John Pecham (fl. c. 1280).2
But Alhacen’s influence extended beyond the realm of optics,
reaching as far afield as theology and art. The late-thirteenth-
century theologian, Peter of Limoges, for instance, looked to
Alhacen for visual examples to include in his De oculo morali.3
1
Although it has been traditional to Latinize Ibn al-Haytham’s name as “Alhazen”
according to the form used by Friedrich Risner in his 1572 edition of the De
aspectibus, the Latin manuscript-tradition simply does not support that rendering.
Among the various forms to be found within that manuscript-tradition (“Hacen,”
“Alacen,” “Achen,” and “Alhacen”) the most common by far is “Alhacen,” which is a
relatively faithful transliteration of “al-ºasan,” Alhacen’s given name in Arabic: i.e.,
al-ºasan ibn al-ºasan ibn al-Haytham.
2
Much has been written lately on the impact of Alhacen’s optical work upon the
development of ray-theory and visual-theory in the medieval Latin West, but the still-
standard account is to be found in David C. Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Alkindi
to Kepler (Chicago, 1975).
3
See, e.g., Richard Newhauser, “Der ‘Tractatus moralis de oculo’ des Petrus von
Limoges und seine exempla,” in Walter Haug and Burghart Wachinger (eds.),
Exempel und Exempel-sammlungen (Tübingen, 1991), pp. 95-136. See also Dallas
Denery, Seeing and Being Seen: Vision, Visual Analogy and Visual Error in Late
28 A. MARK SMITH
And, as Graziella Vescovini has recently shown, Lorenzo

Ghiberti relied heavily upon Alhacen – quoting verbatim and at
length from him – while framing his account of art and its aes-
thetic imperatives in the “Commentario terzo.” As Vescovini
has also shown, Ghiberti’s actual source was not the Latin ver-
sion of the De aspectibus but, rather, a fourteenth-century
Italian translation entitled Deli Aspecti.4 Currently extant in
MS Vat. Lat. 4595,5 this “volgarizzamento” of Alhacen’s work
was thus central to the development of Ghiberti’s thought
about art and visual aesthetics. Even more important, according
to Vescovini, it may well have have been central to the develop-
ment of artificial perspective in early Renaissance Italian paint-
ing.6
Given the significance of both versions, Latin and Italian, of
Alhacen’s optical masterpiece, it is of more than passing histor-
ical interest to know precisely what Latin manuscript served as
the source for the Italian translation. There are at least seven-
teen candidates according to the number of complete, or virtu-
ally complete, Latin manuscript-versions of the De aspectibus
that are currently known to exist. They are as follows:
1. London, British Library: MS Royal 12.G.7, fols. 1r-102v

(14th century)
2. Cambridge, University Library: MS Peterhouse 209, fols. 1r-
111v (14th century)
Medieval Optics, Theology and Religious Life, PhD Diss.: University of California
(Berkeley, 1999). For a broader look at Alhacen’s impact within the theological realm,
see Katherine Tachau, Vision and Certitude in the Age of Ockham (Leiden/New
York/Copenhagen/Cologne, 1988).
4
G. Vescovini, “Alhazen vulgarisé: Le De li aspecti d’un manuscrit du Vatican
(moitié du XIVe siècle) et le troisième Commentaire sur l’optique de Lorenzo
Ghiberti,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 8 (1998): 67-96. Building on her earlier
“Contributo per la storia della fortuna di Alhazen in Italia: Il volgarizzamento del
manoscritto Vat. 4595 e il ‘Commentario terzo’ del Ghiberti,” Rinascimento, ser. 2, 5
(1965): 17-49, Vescovini devotes this later study to the actual passages that Ghiberti
imported directly from the Deli aspecti into his own Commentario terzo. For a
broader discussion of Alhacen’s – and his perspectivist disciples’ – influence on
Renaissance art and aesthetics, see David Summers, The Judgment of Sense:
Renaissance Naturalism and the Rise of Aesthetics (Cambridge, 1987).
5
For a detailed description of this manuscript, see E. Narducci, “Intorno ad una
traduzione italiana, fatta nel secolo decimoquarto, del trattato d’Ottica d’Alhazen,
matematico del secolo undecimo, e ad altri lavori di questo scienziato,” Bolletino di
bibliografia e di storia delle scienze matematice e fisiche, 4 (1871): 1-48.
6
See, esp., Vescovini, “Alhazen vulgarisé,” p. 68.
ITALIAN TRANSLATION OF ALHACEN’S DE ASPECTIBUS 29
3. Edinburgh, Crawford Library, Royal Observatory: MS
Cr3.3, fols. 3r-186r (13th century)
4. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale: MS Lat 7319, fols. 1r-340v
(late 13th/early 14th century)
5. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale: MS Lat 16199, fols. 1r-277v
(16th century)
6. St-Omer, Bibliothèque Municipale: MS 605, fols. 1r-153v
(14th century)
7. Vienna, Österreichisches Nationalbibliothek: MS 5322, fols.
1r-270r (15th century)
8. Cambridge, Trinity College: MS 0.5.30, fols. 1r-165r (13th
century)
9. London, Royal College of Physicians: MS 383, fols. 1r-132r
(14th century)
10. Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale: MS II.III.324, fols.
1r-136v (14th century)
11. Brugge, Steldelijke Openbare Bibliothek: MS 512, fols. 1r-
113v (13th century)
12. London, British Library: MS Sloane 306, fols. 1r-177v (14th
century)
13. Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: MS CLM 10269, fols.
1r-160r (14th century)
14. Erfurt, Wissenschaftliche Bibliothek der Universität: MS
Ampl. F.392, fols. 1r-143v (13th century)
15. Oxford, Corpus Christi: MS 150, fols. 1r-112r (13th century)
16. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale: MS Lat. 7247, fols. 1r-107v
(14th century)
17. Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica: MS Palat. Lat. 1355, fols. 1r-
147r (13th century)
To pinpoint any of these manuscripts as the actual source of the
Italian translation – or at least most proximate to that source –
requires isolating it according to shared characteristics or “vari-
ants.”7 At the level of gross variants, for instance, the Italian
version (henceforth referred to by the siglum I) and the first
7
Although the chronological position of many of the manuscripts listed above might
seem to disqualify them (after all, how could a fourteenth-century translation have
been derived from a sixteenth-century text?), it is quite possible that both derive from
a common ancestor. Thus, it could easily happen that the Italian translation derives
from precisely the same manuscript as a far later Latin copy, so the ancestor would be
this, the most proximate manuscript-source. Note that a “variant” is such only insofar
as it represents a deviation from some norm or established standard. That norm or
standard, of course, is established by the critical text of the work in question.
30 A. MARK SMITH
seven Latin manuscripts listed all include Ibn Mu‘®dh’s brief De

crepusculis et nubium ascendentibus at the very end of the De
aspectibus.8 According to this major shared variant, then, the
field of candidates can be narrowed to seven. We can truncate
this field even further on the basis of the incipit found at the
beginning of book four in I: el libro quarto de hacen figluolo de
o hucam figlolo de haiten deli aspecti. The Latin version of this
incipit – liber quartus hacen filii hucam filii haiten de aspectibus
– occurs in only four of the manuscripts listed above: entries 1,
2, 8, and 9. Thus, while I’s Latin source, or its nearest relative,
would seem to lie among entries 1-7 listed above, it would also
seem to lie among entries 1, 2, 8, and 9 listed above. Since only
entries 1 and 2 overlap within the two groups, these two manu-
scripts emerge as the most probable candidates of all. Between
1 and 2, finally, the choice is dictated by the fact that, unlike
entry 2, the London manuscript listed as entry 1 (henceforth
referred to by the siglum L) has virtually the same explicit as I
at the end of Ibn Mu‘®dh’s treatise: L = Explicit liber etc.:
Alacen in scientia perspectiva; I = Explicit liber Alacen in scien-
tia prespectiva. Hence, by a simple process of elimination we
find that L is the most probable source for I, a conclusion that I
in fact reached several years ago on other grounds.9
Based as it is on such a small range of variants, though, the
analysis to this point is merely suggestive, not conclusive. True,
our analysis so far indicates that L is the likeliest candidate
among the seventeen listed manuscripts, but I’s true source
may not be among this group at all; it may actually lie undis-
covered or, worse, be irretrievably lost. In order, therefore, to
establish whether L is indeed the source for I, we must compare
both manuscripts closely on the basis of a wide range of idio-
syncratic variants – variants, that is, that are unique to both.
The more such shared idiosyncratic variants, the greater the
likelihood that there is a direct link between the two versions.
8
For the critical edition of this treatise, see A. Mark Smith, “The Latin version of
Ibn Mu‘®dh’s treatise ‘On Twilight and the Rising of Clouds’,” Arabic Sciences and
Philosophy, 2 (1992): 83-132.
9
See A. Mark Smith and Bernard R. Goldstein, “The medieval Hebrew and Italian
versions of Ibn Mu‘®dh’s ‘On Twilight and the Rising of Clouds’,” Nuncius, 9 (1993):
611-43, esp. 628. For a description of L, see George F. Werner and Julius P. Gilson
(eds.), Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King’s Collection, vol.
2 (1921), p. 72. Note, finally, that L’s dating (14th century) raises the probability of
its being the actual parent of I, not merely a proximate source (see n. 7 above).
The first step in this process of comparison is to isolate L’s
idiosyncratic variants relative to all the other Latin manu-
scripts. That can be done only on the basis of a comparative
transcription of all seventeen. For reasons quite apart from this
study, I have already produced such a transcription, not for the
entire treatise (which runs to nearly 200,000 words), but for
roughly one-third.10 In addition, with a critical edition of Ibn
Mu‘®dh’s De crepusculis already published, I could easily locate
L’s idiosyncratic variants in that edition’s critical apparatus.
Altogether, then, the textual basis for my comparative analysis
was not just adequate, but more than adequate. I decided on
that basis to whittle it down to manageable proportions accord-
ing to three textual segments: fols. 1r-4v in L (1r-6v in I), fols.
46r-49r in L (73r-78v in I), and fols. 102v-104r in L (177v-181v
in I), this latter segment containing Ibn Mu‘®dh’s appended
treatise.11 Hence, for the purposes of comparative analysis I
relied upon roughly eight percent of the entire work, a swath of
text amounting to somewhat over 16,000 words.
The analysis itself involved three basic procedures. First, I
combed the textual segments listed above for all of the variants
that are unique to L. Whenever I found one, I turned to the same
place in the text of I to determine whether it was manifested
there. At first blush, such a determination might seem unfeasible,
given the syntactic and grammatical differences between Latin
10
Some years ago I produced this comparative transcription as a first step in criti-
cally editing books 1-3 of the De aspectibus. I have since used this transcription as
means of analyzing the family-relationships, as well as specific lines of filiation,
among the seventeen manuscripts that contain all, or most, of the De aspectibus. It is
on the resulting critical text that the subsequent analysis of variants is based. For
that text see A. Mark Smith (ed. and trans.), Alhacen’s Theory of Visual Perception:
A Critical Edition with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three
Books of Alhacen’s De Aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham’s
Kit®b al-Man®˙ir, forthcoming in Transactions of the American Philosophical Society
(Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society Press). For complete details on the
manuscripts and my editing procedures, see the section of that critical edition enti-
tled “Manuscripts and Editing.”
11
The choice of these particular three segments was dictated not only by their hav-
ing been critically edited but also by their being relatively evenly distributed through
the text according to beginning, middle, and end. It is, of course, possible that the
portions of the Italian text that lie between the three slices I chose for comparison
(i.e., the portions contained in 7r-72v and 80r-177r – which are paralleled by 5v-45v
and 49r-102r in L) were based on one or more other Latin versions, but it is
extremely unlikely that the Italian translator would have departed from L some-
where after the middle of the treatise and then returned to it for the last five folios,
which contain Ibn Mu‘®dh’s treatise.
32 A. MARK SMITH
and Italian. But, as it turns out, the Italian translation hews so

closely to the Latin original that I rarely found it difficult to
locate the parallel variants (or lack thereof) in the two texts.
The two subsequent procedures were meant to provide con-
trols for the one-to-one comparison of L and I on the basis of
uniquely shared variants. Limiting myself to the first textual
segment (i.e., fols. 1r-4v in L), I started by combing the text for
variants that are unique to each of the remaining sixteen manu-
scripts and that also appear in I. The point of this exercise was
to rule out a corollary link between I and any of the Latin man-
uscripts other than L.12 That done, I concluded by tabulating the
variants that I and L share with one or more of the remaining
manuscripts in order to determine how deeply the correlation
between I and L extends when all their shared variants are
taken into account. As will become clear in short order, these
two control-analyses make it virtually certain that L was the
source – and the sole source – for I. Before presenting my results,
though, I should explain briefly how I tabulated my data and,
therefore, how the resulting tabulations are to be understood.
The basic organizing principle for my tabulation is that, depend-
ing on type, variants fall within a rather broad range according to
probability or significance. In Latin, for instance, a simple trans-
position (e.g., “res visa” to “visa res”) is of relatively high proba-
bility and commensurately low significance, whereas the omission
of an entire line of text is of relatively low probability and com-
mensurately high significance. The same transposition might well
occur by coincidence in two or even more manuscripts, but not
omission of the very same line of text. So there is a hierarchy of
variants according to the probability of their occurring acciden-
tally in more than one manuscript. The lower that probability, the
higher the variant’s significance. On this basis, the fundamental
variant-types can be categorized as follows from most to least sig-
nificant: 1) omission of a phrase, 2) insertion of a phrase, 3) repe-
tition of a phrase, 4) omission of a word, 5) insertion of a word, 6)
repetition of a word, 7) substitution of a word, 8) transformation
of a word, 9) transposition of words.13
Although most of these categories are self-explanatory, two
12
In other words, this procedure was meant to determine whether the Italian
translator consulted two or more Latin versions at the same time when composing I.
13
This schema is based on one laid out by Joseph Mogenet half a century ago in
Autolycus de Pithane (Louvain, 1950). For a brief explanation of its import and impli-
cations, see Smith, “The Latin version of Ibn Mu‘®dh’s treatise,” pp. 92-3.
of them – substitution and transformation – require some eluci-
dation. By “substitution” I mean the replacement of one word
by another that is of entirely different form and/or meaning.
For instance, the replacement of “distincta” with “determinata”
would constitute a substitution because of the signal change in
form, if not meaning. On the other hand, a mere change in
tense, mood, or number – e.g., altering “intuetur” to “intueatur”
or “quam” to “quem” – would constitute a transformation.
In the case of our analysis, transposition is irrelevant,
because the Italian translator would most likely have suited the
word-order to native linguistic demands rather than to the lit-
eral imperatives of the text. Thus, unlike a Latin scribe who,
when confronted with “visa res,” would be inclined unthink-
ingly to reproduce the phrase in that form, the Italian transla-
tor would surely recast it in the form “la cosa visa” that proper
Italian syntax requires.
Among the remaining eight variant-types, certain problems of
distinction can arise from time to time. Substitution and trans-
formation are especially vexing in this regard because of various
scribal conventions followed during the Middle Ages. At first
glance, for example, the replacement of “quem” with “quo-
niam” appears to be a fairly clear case of substitution, but cer-
tain forms of medieval abbreviation for the two terms are so
close that they can readily be confused. Likewise, because of the
inherent difficulty in distinguishing among minims, one can
easily mistake the abbreviation for “ut” as an abbreviation for
“non.” What look to be omissions can be misleading, as well.
Adverbs, such as “vero,” or conjunctions, such as “enim,” often
function so weakly in the Latin that they are better left untrans-
lated. Their absence in the Italian version can therefore not be
taken as an unequivocal indication of their absence in the Latin.
While these difficulties should not be ignored, they should not
be exaggerated either. For the most part, the distinctions among
variants listed above are quite clear, and where they are not they
involve relatively insignificant variants. In those cases where the
distinctions are unclear or problematic, moreover, I have taken
a conservative stance, putting equivocal variants within the cat-
egory of higher or lower significance, depending on context.14
14
For example, when an equivocal variant was uniquely shared by L and I, I placed
it in the lower category of significance in order to lessen its effect on the correlation.
On the other hand, when an equivocal variant was unique to L but not to I, I placed
it in the higher category of significance for the same reason.
34 A. MARK SMITH
In so doing, I counted as substitutions several variants that

were probably mere transformations, and vice versa. By the
same token, several of the omissions I recorded as such proba-
bly reflect stylistic quirks on the part of the Italian translator
rather than true omissions. Bearing these points in mind, let us
turn to some actual examples from L and I in order to clarify
the discussion of methodology.
Let us start with an instance of phrase omission. Take the fol-
lowing passage from the critical Latin text: et iam declaravimus
hoc in aere et cum fuerint experimentata omnia corpora
diafona invenietur quod lux non extendetur in eis nisi
secundum lineas rectas et nos declarabimus post apud nos-
trum sermonem in obliquatione quomodo illud experimentabitur.
The same passage rendered in L reads as follows: et iam declar-
avimus [… ] post apud nostrum sermonem in obliquatione quo-
modo illud experimentabitur (4va, 35-36). Note that the entire
phrase hoc … declarabimus underlined in boldface type in the
first passage has been omitted by L in the second. This very
same omission occurs in I’s version of the passage: anchora
dechiaramo […] apresso al nostro sermone in la obliquatione
como quello si spremintara (6ra, 1-3). There is thus no question
that L and I share this key variant. More to the point, since this
particular omission is unique to L within the Latin manuscript-
tradition, the fact that I shares it indicates not only a linkage,
but a potentially tight linkage, between I and L.
In order to round out this discussion of methodology, I have
provided a few additional examples below in parallel format, the
left-hand column containing the critical Latin text, the middle
column L’s version, and the right-hand column I’s version.
PHRASE-INSERTION
verumptamen […] terre verumtamen punctus ma pure el punto o
non est apud hunc vel centrum terre non veramente el centro
orbem magna quantitas est apud hunc orbem dela terra non e apresso
magna quantitas (104v, questo orbe grande
13-14) quantita (181rb, 9-11)
WORD-OMISSION
et in loco a quo reflecti- et in loco a quo reflecti- e in lo luoco dove si re-
tur lux fortiorem et tur […] fortiorem et ma- flecte […] e piu forte e
magis scintillantem. gis scintillantem (1va, piu sintilante (1va, 41-
1-2) 42)
WORD-INSERTION
et iste […] circulus est et iste sectionis circu- e di questa sectione el
equidistans lus est equidistans (3ra, circulo e equidistante
34) (3vb, 38-39)
SUBSTITUTION
et linea aeh sit tran- et linea aeh sit tran- e la linea aeh sia pas-
siens per zenith capitis siens per centrum sante per lo centro del
capitis (104v, 6-7) capo (181ra, 44-45)
TRANSFORMATION
in orizonte occidentali in orizonte accidentali nel orizonte acciden-
(102vb, 23) tale (178ra, 11-12)
Since it would serve little or no purpose to multipy examples, or,

for that matter, to list every instance in which L and I share
idiosyncratic variants (there are at least 180 such in the three
textual segments selected for analysis), I have chosen to present
my data in statistical form. Actual documentary evidence I have
remanded to an appendix, where I have listed in full every
instance of phrase-omission and phrase-insertion to be found in
the three textual segments selected for analysis: twenty-three in
all.
Let us therefore turn to the following four tables, where the
results of our comparison are given for the first textual seg-
ment, consisting of fols. 1r-4v in L.
TABLE 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L 7 21 4 5 31
Table 1 lists all the variants unique to L relative to the sixteen

other Latin manuscripts. Reading from right to left we see that
L contains seven unique phrase-omissions, twenty-one unique
word-omissions, four unique word-insertions, five unique word-
substitutions, and thirty-one unique word-transformations.
TABLE 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L 1 1 5
I 7 20 3 5 26
36 A. MARK SMITH
Table 2, for its part, provides a comparison between L and I on

the basis of the unique variants listed in Table 1. The second
line shows the variants that are shared by L and I, whereas the
first line shows those variants that remain unique to L. As is
clear from this tabulation, I shares the vast preponderance of
L’s idiosyncratic variants: i.e., 61 out of 68.
TABLE 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L/R 1 1 3 3
I/R 2 4 8 2 2 12
Next in order, Table 3 provides a comparison between I and L in

terms of variants in L that are shared with one or more of the
sixteen remaining Latin manuscripts. Line two lists those
shared variants that are also common to I, whereas line 1 lists
those shared variants that are absent from I.15
TABLE 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L 1 1 1 4 8
I 9 4 28 5 7 38
Table 4, finally, gives an overview of all the variants that are

shared by L and I within the first textual segment, no matter
whether they are unique to L or whether they are common to L
and one or more of the remaining sixteen Latin manuscripts.
Taken in concert, all four tables indicate a remarkably high
correlation between L and I. This point is especially clear in
Table 2. Of the 68 variants listed there that are unique to L all
but seven are common to I. Five of those seven, moreover, are
insignificant, consisting as they do of transformations. The
other two unshared variants – one being a word-omission, the
other a word-insertion – could easily represent variants unique
to I, the omission in L actually being a accidental insertion in I,
the insertion, conversely, being an accidental omission in I. In
15
Thus, the line designated L/R indicates those variants shared between L and all
the remaining Latin manuscripts but that are not in I; the line designated I/R indi-
cates those variants shared among I, L, and any one or more of the remaining Latin
manuscripts.
short, the unshared variants may well represent idiosyncratic
variants imported into I by the Italian translator himself.
The case for linkage between L and I becomes all the more
compelling when the data from Table 3 are taken into account.
Here we see that, in terms of the 38 variants shared by L with
one or more of the remaining sixteen manuscripts, I manifests
all but eight. Of those eight, only two – a phrase-omission and a
phrase-repetition – are potentially significant, and both can be
accounted for quite easily as idiosyncratic variants imported
into I by the Italian translator.16 Consequently, as we see from
Table 4, where the data from Tables 2 and 3 are integrated, all
but 15 of L’s 106 variants, whether unique or not, are found in
I, and of those fifteen the two that are potentially significant
can be readily accounted for as idiosyncratic variants in I.
What about a possible corollary link between I and one or
more of the other sixteen Latin versions? That possibility is
ruled out by the fact that I shares only six idiosyncratic variants
with manuscripts other than L. Two of those variants are
shared with the manuscript listed under entry 13 on p. 29
above, and one each is shared with the manuscripts listed under
entries 5, 7, 12, and 16 on p. 29 above, so there is no clustering
of them whatever. Furthermore, only one of the six – a phrase-
omission shared with entry 5 – is potentially significant, and
that variant turns out to be equivocal at best.17 Obviously, then,
16
The omitted phrase occurs in the following passage of the critical Latin text: et
iam declaratum est quod linea transiens per centrum uvee et per centrum cornee et per
centrum foramini quod est in exteriori sive in anteriori uvee extenditur in medio con-
cavitatis nervi ista ergo linea que transit per duo centra superficiei glacialis et per cen-
trum uvee est ipsa linea que transit per centrum cornee [et per centrum uvee] et per
centrum foraminis (3rb, 21-27). The Italian translator could easily have restored the
phrase “et per centrum uvee” (e per lo centro del uvea) coincidentally according to its
double recurrence earlier in the passage. As to the phrase-repetition, it is obvious as
such: [visus] sentiet ex tota superficie eius formam cuiuslibet puncti superficierum
illius rei vise et formam cuiuslibet puncti superficierum illius rei vise et for-
mam cuiuslibet puncti superficierum omnium visibilium (4rb, 31-34). Hence, unlike a
scribe mindlessly copying the Latin text, the Italian translator could hardly have
failed to notice the repetition, and therefore to excise it, as he was attempting to
make sense of the passage for translation: [el viso] sentira de tuta la superficie de essa
la forma de ziascheduno punto dele superficie di quella cosa visa […] e le forme de
ziascheduno punto dele superficie de tuti visibili (5vb, 12-16).
17
The critical Latin text reads as follows with the phrase omitted in Italian in bold-
face type: quare visibilia erunt ab eo ordinata et distincta (4rb, 48). The Italian trans-
lation is as follows: per la quale cosa serano le cose visibili ordinate e distincte (5vb,
39-40). The Latin phrase “ab eo” may well be wrapped up in “per la quale cosa”
which was chosen by the Italian translator over the simpler, more obvious “per che.”
38 A. MARK SMITH
I has no links whatever to any of the Latin manuscripts other

than L.
The close correlation between L and I that emerges from our
analysis of the first textual segment is not only borne out, but
even strengthened, by out analysis of the other two textual seg-
ments. Tables 5 and 6 below list the comparative results for
those segments – i.e., fols. 46r-49r and fols. 102v-104r in L. In
Table 5 we see that among L’s 71 idiosyncratic variants in the
second textual segment I shares all but eight, and those eight
consist solely of transformations. By the same token, we see in
Table 6 that among L’s 61 idiosycnratic variants in the third
textual segment I shares all but five, and none of those five is of
noteworthy significance.
TABLE 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L 8
I 9 1 13 2 13 25
TABLE 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L 1 1 3
I 2 4 11 10 12 17
When the comparative results for all three textual segments in

Tables 2, 5, and 6 are added together in Table 7 below, we see
just how high the correlation between L and I is overall.
TABLE 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
L 1 2 1 16
I 18 5 44 15 30 68
As this table indicates, of L’s 200 idiosyncratic variants

throughout the three textual segments selected for analysis I
shares all but 20. Of those 20, meantime, only three – one word-
omission and two word-insertions – are potentially significant,
and they can easily be accounted for as idiosyncratic variants
imported into I by the Italian translator. Most telling are the
eighteen shared phrase-omissions and the five shared phrase-
insertions, all of which occur without any unshared equivalents.
Somewhat less telling, but still significant, is the existence of 44
shared word-omissions, counterbalanced by just a single
unshared one. These data argue eloquently for the closeness of
the bond between L and I. So close, indeed, is this bond that it
is difficult to imagine any relationship between L and I other
than that of progenitor and offspring.
Difficult though it may be to imagine any other relationship
between the two, it is not impossible. After all, the degree of cer-
tainty achieved in the preceding analysis is commensurate with
the degree of correlation, and that is less than perfect. But bear
in mind that we are dealing with manuscripts and that the man-
ual reproduction of texts is as error-prone as it is tedious and
mind-numbing. Bear in mind, too, that the Italian translator
was not merely reproducing, but construing, the Latin text. He
was therefore subject to stylistic, grammatical, and even
hermeneutic considerations that would not have concerned a
Latin scribes, considerations that permitted him a fair degree of
interpretive license. Under these conditions, a perfect correla-
tion between L and I would be not only astonishing but highly
suspect. On the other hand, this less-than-perfect correlation
opens up the possibility, slim though it may be, that, instead of
being directly linked, L and I are indirectly linked through an
immediate common Latin ancestor. Although we cannot pre-
clude this possibility, we can appeal to Ockham’s Razor in
rejecting it. For simplicity’s sake, in short, we must conclude
that L and I are directly rather than indirectly affiliated.
40 A. MARK SMITH
APPENDIX
Following is a list of all phrase-omissions and phrase-insertions

that are uniquely shared by L and I in the three textual seg-
ments analyzed. The critical Latin text is given in the left-hand
column, L’s text in the center column, and I’s text in the right-
hand column.
PHRASE-OMISSIONS
deinde revertatur visus deinde revertatur visus e poi ritorne el viso suo
eius ad locum obscu- eius ad locum obscu- a lo luoco oscuro […]
rum in domo inveniet rum […] inveniet for- trovara la forma dela
formam lucis mam lucis (1ra, 42-44) luxe (1rb, 9-11)
et iterum visui multo- et iterum visui multo- e anchora al vedere

tiens latent multe res tiens latent multe res molte volto si nascon-
que sunt invisibiles ex que sunt invisibiles ex deno molta cosa le quale
sculpturis subtilibus […] scripturis sub- sono invisibile per […]
et scripturis subtiliso- tilibus (1vb, 11-13) le scultore18 sotile (2r,
tilebus… 19-21)
et etiam quia istud cen- et etiam quia istud cen- e anche per che quello
trum est centrum su- trum […] superficiei centro […] dela superfi-
perficiei (3rb, 51) cie (4rb, 28-29)
ergo est inter totum ocu- ergo est inter totum ocu- adonche sera tra tuto
lum centrum ergo lum […] cum ergo (3va, l’ochio […] quando
superficierum tuni- 6-7) adonche (4ra, 38-39)
carum visus opposi-
tarum foramini uvee
est intra totum ocu-
lum cum ergo
consolidatur cum eis consolidatur cum eis si consolida cum essi

cum ex eis exeunt duo cum […] exeunt duo la- cum […] zio sia che es-
lacerti certi (3vb, 20-21) chano due lacerti (4vb,
45-47)
18
I take I’s replacement of “scripturis” with “scultore” to be an idiosyncratic vari-
ant that can, in fact, be explained as an interpretive change wrought by the Italian
translator.
veniente ex rebus visis veniente ex rebus visis vegnente dele cose vise
ad superficiem visus […] et sensus non (4va, […] e’l senso non (6ra,
et sensus non 28-29) 41-42)
et iam declaravimus hoc etiam declaravimus […] anchora dechiaramo

in aere et cum fuerint post apud nostrum ser- […] apresso al nostro
experimentata omni monem (4va, 34-35) sermone (6rb, 1-2)
corpora omnia cor-
pora diafona inveni-
etur quod lux non
extendetur in eis nisi
secundum lineas rec-
tas et nos declara-
bimus post apud
nostrum sermonem
excessus vie quam ince- excessus vie quam ince- excesso dela via per la
dit unus super eam dit […] alius (46va, 42- quale […] l’altro incede
quam incedit alius 43) (73vb, 5-6)
cum note minutissime cum note minutissime quando alcune note ovoi
inter aliqua corpora inter aliqua corpora si- belle ovoi machie minu-
similitudinis aut dis- militudinis […] fuerint tissimi tra alchuni corpi
similitudinis fuerint (46va, 42-43) fosseno cagione de simi-
cause litudine (74ra, 8-11)
vino eiusdem coloris vino eiusdem coloris piene de vino di quigli

eiusdem claritatis […] implenta latebunt colori ovoi di quello me-
implenta latebunt (47ra, 46) disimo colore se nascon-
derano (74vb, 10-11)
unde erroneum erit fi- unde erroneum […] vi- unde el visto eroneo […]
gure iudicium in sum magis apparebit aparera magiore (74vb,
quantitate erit error (46va, 42-43) 42-43)
ex tali aere quoniam
visum maius apparebit
opposito luci forti spe- opposito luci forti spe- oposito ala luxe forte
culo ferreo et etiam culo ferreo […] opposi- uno spechio di ferro […]
oppositus sit paries tus sit paries (48rb, sia oposito el pariete
47-48) (76v, 15-17)
apparebit quidem super apparebit quidem super aparera sopra quella

corpus tertium lux se- corpus […] secondaria […] la sicondaria (77ra,
condaria (48va, 22) 16-17)
42 A. MARK SMITH
secondaria et super secondaria […] lux la sicondaria […] luxe

corpus secundum lux maior illa (48v, 22) magiore di quella (77ra,
maior illa 17)
et erit forma directa for- et erit forma directa for- e sera forma directa piu
tior reflexa cum ea- tior reflexa […] fortior forte dela reflessa […]
dem earum origo et (49ra, 28-29) piu forte (78ra, 5-6)
equalis ab ea elon-
gatio et reflexa fortior
usque ad centrum et li- usque ad centrum et li- persimo al centro e tale

neas primas ad divi- neas primas […] tales prime linee […] piu pro-
siones semicirculi semidiametro propin- pinqua al semidiametro
protractas est ad li- quiores (49rb, 38-39) (78va, 6-8)
neas tales semidiame-
tro propinquiores
que sint due linee bh et que sint […] bh et et che siano […] bh ed et
et (104ra, 5) (180ra, 41)
de causa apparitionis de causa apparitionis dela cagione del apari-

crepusculi et forma ipsius […] et orizonte tione […] de esso in ori-
appartionis eius no- orientali (104ra, 31-32) zone orientale (180rb,
bis et figurationis 39-40)
ipsius in orizonte orien-
tali
PHRASE-INSERTIONS
et illa proxima super et illa proxima super e quella proxima sopra

aliam inferiorem […] aliam inferiorem et l’altra inferiore e l’al-
propinquam illa proxima super tra prossima sopra
aliam inferiorem pro- l’altra inferiore pro-
pinquam (47ra, 12-13) pinqua (74ra, 8-11)
quando non estimatur quando non estimatur quando non si estima

[de eo suspicio]19 quod sit funditus che sia fundato
(103rb, 33-34) (178vb, 43-44)
19
This is actually a case of phrase-substitution, which is extremely rare. Aside from
granting it its own special category, I had three ways of treating this variant: 1) as
three individual word-substitutions, 2) as a combination of one phrase-omission and
one phrase-substitution, 3) as either a phrase-omission or a phrase-insertion. Since
this particular variant seemed more significant than three mere word-substitutions,
yet since I did not want to overstate its significance, I chose to categorize it as a
phrase-insertion, thus placing it at a lower level of significance than if I had treated
it as a dual phrase-omission/phrase-insertion or even as a phrase-omission alone.
ab ea est […] apparens ab ea est illuminatum da aessa sia illumi-
soli et apparens soli nato e aparente al
(104ra, 51) sole (180va, 25-26)
quando est depressio quando est depressio so- quando sia depressione
solis […] 19 gradus lis in orizonte 18 gra- del sole in orizonte 18
dus (104vb, 56-104v, 1) gradi (181va, 34-35)
verumptamen […] terre verumtamen punctus ma pure el punto o

non est apud hunc or- vel centrum terre non veramente el centro
bem magna quantitas est appud hunc orbem dela ttera non e apresso
magna quantitas (104v, questo orbe grande
13-14) quantita (181rb, 9-11)
LES CENTRES DE GRAVITÉ D’ABŪ SAHL AL-QŪHĪ
FAÏZA BANCEL
Plusieurs témoignages attestent qu’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ (Xe siècle)1

a étudié les centres de gravité et a rédigé un ouvrage, en plu-
sieurs livres, sur ce sujet. Les informations les plus riches qui
nous soient parvenues sur ces travaux sont contenues dans la
correspondance2 scientifique qu’al-Q‚h¬ a entretenue avec le
mathématicien Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-—®bi’, et dans le texte que ‘Abd al-
RaΩm®n al-Kh®zin¬ nous rapporte dans son livre Kit®b M¬z®n
al-Ωikma3 (rédigé en 515/1121) et qu’il attribue conjointement à
al-Q‚h¬ et à Ibn al-Haytham.4 C’est un ensemble de définitions
et de propositions (sans démonstrations) qui définissent le con-
cept de centre de gravité et étudient l’équilibre de systèmes de
deux ou trois solides en tenant compte des positions de leurs
centres de gravité.
1
Une étude biographique récente et détaillée a été réalisée par R. Rashed dans le
chapitre qu’il consacre au traité d’al-Q‚h¬ sur le volume du paraboloïde dans Les
mathématiques infinitésimales du IXe au XIe siècle, vol. I: Fondateurs et commenta-
teurs: Ban‚ M‚s®, Th®bit ibn Qurra, Ibn Sin®n, al-Kh®zin, al-Q‚h¬, Ibn al-SamΩ, Ibn
H‚d (Londres, 1996), pp. 835-83. Cette étude a montré qu’en 359/969 al-Q‚h¬ était
déjà un mathématicien reconnu et actif puisqu’il a participé cette année-là, en com-
pagnie des phares de son époque, à des observations astronomiques et que plusieurs
de ses traités étaient déjà rédigés et copiés. L’étude montre aussi qu’en 378/988,
année où il a dirigé des observations à Bagdad, il était au nombre des mathématiciens
les plus prestigieux.
2
La correspondance d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ avec al-—®bi’ est un texte qui a suscité l’in-
térêt à plusieurs reprises: J. Sésiano, “Notes sur trois théorèmes de mécanique d’al-
Q‚h¬ et leurs conséquences”, Centaurus, vol. 22, no. 4 (1979): 281-97. J.L. Berggren,
“The correspondence of Ab‚ Sahl al-K‚h¬ and Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-—®bi’: A translation with
commentaries”, Journal for the History of Arabic Science, vol. 7, no. 1 et no. 2 (1983):
39-123. Une nouvelle édition critique et une traduction en français ont été réalisées
par P. Abgrall, Université de Paris 7.
3
‘Abd al-RaΩm®n al-Kh®zin¬, Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma (Hyderabad, 1941). Traduction
partielle en anglais par N. Khanikoff, “Analysis and extracts of Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma
(Book of the Balance of Wisdom), an Arabic work on the water-balance, written by al-
Khâzinî in the twelfth century”, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 6 (1859): 1-
128. Traduction en russe par M.M. Rozhanskaya et I.S. Levinova, Al-Kh®zin¬ Kniga
vesov midrosti, Nauchnoye nasledstvo, vol. 6 (Moscou, 1983), pp. 15-140. Édition cri-
tique et traduction française en cours par F. Bancel, Université de Paris 7.
4
Ibid., Livre 1, chap. 1.
46 FAÏZA BANCEL
Dans sa correspondance, al-Q‚h¬ dit avoir déjà déterminé

géométriquement les centres de gravité de plusieurs figures
géométriques planes et solides (triangle, segment de parabole,
cône, segment de paraboloïde, demi-sphère). Il renvoie Ab‚
IsΩ®q al-—®bi’, pour les démonstrations de ses résultats, à son
ouvrage sur les centres de gravité (Kit®b Mar®kiz al-athq®l). Il
parle en effet d’un traité en six livres (maq®la) déjà rédigés
au moment de la correspondance, auxquels d’autres livres
devaient s’ajouter. Il annonce en particulier le projet d’un sep-
tième livre qui devait surpasser les autres par son volume et son
contenu.
Dans l’introduction de son traité Sur la détermination du vo-
lume du paraboloïde,5 il affirme interrompre ses investigations
sur les centres de gravité, après avoir déjà déterminé ceux de
plusieurs figures géométriques telles que la portion de sphère et
l’ellipsoïde,6 pour travailler sur le volume du paraboloïde, résul-
tat dont il a besoin pour déterminer le centre de gravité de cette
même figure.
L’existence de ce traité est attestée aussi par l’encyclopédiste
al-An◊®r¬ qui le mentionne, avec un traité d’Ibn al-Haytham sur
le même sujet, dans la note qu’il consacre à la science des
barycentres.7
I - LES SOURCES D’AL-QŪHĪ
La question des sources d’al-Q‚h¬ s’impose en effet puisque les

cinq résultats corrects trouvés par Ab‚ Sahl avaient été démon-
trés par Archimède. Dans la Méthode (prop. 5), celui-ci déter-
mine le centre de gravité du paraboloïde en utilisant sa méthode
mécanique. Dans les Corps flottants (II, prop. 2), il rappelle le
résultat et déclare l’avoir déjà démontré8 dans le Livre des
5
Le texte de ce traité a été édité, traduit et commenté par R. Rashed dans
Mathématiques infinitésimales, I, 835-83.
6
L’un des manuscrits qui nous sont parvenus mentionne aussi le centre de gravité
d’une portion d’hyperboloïde.
7
E. Wiedemann, Aufsätze zur arabishen Wissenchaftsgechichte (Hildesheim / New
York, 1970), vol. I, p. 122. À part le texte rapporté par al-Kh®zin¬, il ne nous reste
malheureusement aucune trace du traité d’Ibn al-Haytham.
8
Nous partageons l’avis de Paul Ver Eecke qui soutient que cette démonstration
ne pouvait être que géométrique car sinon, il aurait renvoyé à la démonstration
mécanique de la Méthode. Archimède s’est en effet clairement exprimé quant au sens
du mot “démonstration” et au rôle de sa méthode mécanique (Archimède, Les
LES CENTRES DE GRAVITÉ D’AB‡ SAHL AL-Q‡H¡ 47
équilibres qui ne nous est pas parvenu. Le cas de la demi-sphère
se trouve aussi dans la Méthode (prop. 6). En ce qui concerne le
cône, seule la valeur numérique9 a été donnée dans l’introduc-
tion de la Méthode. Quant aux figures planes, les centres de
gravité de la parabole et du triangle ont été déterminés dans
l’Équilibre des plans, I, 13-14 et II, 8. Le cas du triangle a été
étudié aussi par Héron dans ses Mécaniques,10 II, 35.
D’autre part, dans l’introduction du traité d’Ab‚ Sahl Sur la
construction de l’heptagone régulier, un passage nous renseigne
sur le grand intérêt que portaient les mathématiciens de son
époque aux œuvres d’Archimède, en citant des traités existant
tels que le livre sur les centres de gravité:
Les mathématiciens s’accordent pour reconnaître l’éminence d’Archimède et
sa primauté sur les autres Anciens, car ils ont observé combien il a découvert
de choses belles et lointaines, et de propositions difficiles et absconses, dans
les précieuses sciences démonstratives; en témoigne avec évidence l’existence
de ses livres comme le livre Sur les centres de gravité, le livre Sur la sphère
et le cylindre, et les autres livres […].11
Les mathématiciens du Xe siècle ont hérité de très peu de textes

de la tradition grecque sur les centres de gravité. Outre les Mé-
caniques de Héron, le livre VIII de la Collection de Pappus,12 et
vraisemblablement un texte d’Archimède sur les centres de gra-
vité dont on ignore le contenu, on ne trouve la trace d’aucune
autre œuvre clairement attestée. Al-Q‚h¬ ne fait référence, dans
ses lettres, à aucun écrit sur la statique attribué à Archimède.
Œuvres complètes, trad. Paul Ver Eecke [Paris-Bruxelles, 1921], trad. Charles Mugler
[Paris, 1971], voir la Méthode, lettre introductive et prop. 2).
9
Rien ne permet d’affirmer cependant qu’une démonstration ait été donnée par
Archimède.
10
Héron, “Les Mécaniques”, éd. de Carra de Vaux, Journal Asiatique, série 9
(1893).
11
Traité d’Ab‚ Sahl sur la construction de l’heptagone régulier, éd. et trad. dans
R. Rashed, Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IXe au XIe siècle, vol. III: Théorie des
coniques et constructions géométriques (Londres, 2000), Appendice I, pp. 792-3.
12
Pappus, La Collection mathématique, Œuvre traduite pour la première fois du
grec en français, avec une introduction et des notes par Paul Ver Eecke, 2 vol.
(Paris / Bruges, 1933; Nouveau tirage Paris, 1982).
48 FAÏZA BANCEL
Certaines remarques,13 dans sa Correspondance avec Ab‚ IsΩ®q

al-—®bi’ montrent qu’il ne connaissait ni la démonstration de la
loi du levier donnée par Archimède dans l’Équilibre des plans,
ni celle donnée par le pseudo-Euclide dans le Livre de la ba-
lance. En fait, il ne savait pas si cette loi avait été démontrée par
les mathématiciens grecs ou si elle était admise par l’intuition
et l’expérience. Il ne connaissait pas non plus la Quadrature de
la parabole d’Archimède, une œuvre dans laquelle il aurait pu
puiser l’essentiel de la méthode mécanique. Cette œuvre ne lui
était connue14 que par sa mention dans la préface du livre I du
traité De la sphère et du cylindre.
Une autre déclaration, donnée dans l’introduction de son
traité Sur la détermination du volume du paraboloïde, montre
que, bien que les cinq résultats corrects obtenus par al-Q‚h¬
aient déjà été démontrés par Archimède, sa découverte des cen-
tres de gravité du paraboloïde, de la demi-sphère et de l’ellip-
soïde, ainsi que ceux de plusieurs autres “choses” qu’il ne
précise pas, était complètement indépendante des résultats
d’Archimède qu’il ignorait:
[…] les centres de gravité de plusieurs choses ayant du poids, qui n’ont été
trouvés avant nous par aucun des anciens qui se sont distingués en géomé-
trie, ni a fortiori par aucun de ceux qui, parmi les modernes, leur sont infé-
rieurs, et dont nous n’avons pas entendu non plus, qu’ils ont été trouvés,
jusqu’à notre temps, tel que le centre de gravité d’une portion de sphère
donnée, ou d’un ellipsoïde. Lorsque nous l’avons trouvé, nous avons eu le
désir intense de trouver les centres de gravité d’autres solides dont on n’a
pas trouvé les centres de gravité auparavant, comme le centre de gravité du
paraboloïde.15
Le traité auquel il avait accès ne contenait donc ni la démons-
tration de la loi du levier ni la détermination des centres de
13
Berggren, “The correspondence”, p. 112, 16-22 et p. 110, 7-9:
14
Berggren, “The correspondence”, pp. 115, 27-114, 1:
15
Rashed, Mathématiques infinitésimales, I, 850.
gravité de ces figures géométriques. Comme nous ne connais-
sons aucun traité transmis aux Arabes sur les centres de gravité
de la parabole et du cône,16 nous supposons que les résultats re-
latifs aux centres de gravité de ces figures ont aussi été obtenus
par al-Q‚h¬ indépendamment d’Archimède. Quant au résultat
concernant le triangle, al-Q‚h¬ pouvait y avoir accès à travers
les Mécaniques de Héron ou le Livre VIII de la Collection de
Pappus.17 Seulement, il affirme dans ce même traité, qu’il ne
s’occupait jamais de problèmes déjà résolus par ses prédéces-
seurs car son but était d’aller toujours de l’avant.18 D’autre
part, le contenu du texte qui lui est attribué (conjointement
avec Ibn al-Haytham) par al-Kh®zin¬ est différent, en plusieurs
points, du contenu des textes de Héron et de Pappus. Ces
derniers définissent le centre de gravité comme le point d’inter-
section de tous les plans qui passent par le centre du monde et
qui divisent le corps en deux parties qui s’équilibrent. Al-Q‚h¬
et Ibn al-Haytham le définissent physiquement et géométrique-
ment. Ils traitent d’abord du mouvement naturel des corps vers
le centre du monde et définissent le centre de gravité comme le
point du corps qui coïncide avec le centre du monde, quand il y
repose au terme de son mouvement naturel. C’est une définition
physique que l’on ne retrouve pas chez Héron ni chez Pappus.
Ils définissent géométriquement le centre de gravité comme le
point d’intersection de tous les plans (qui ne passent pas
nécessairement par le centre du monde) qui divisent le corps en
deux parties qui s’équilibrent. Ils traitent aussi de la variation
de la pesanteur en fonction de la distance du centre du monde.
On ne rencontre cette théorie ni chez Héron ni chez Pappus.
La déclaration ci-dessus montre, d’autre part, que le traité
d’al-Q‚h¬ était l’une des premières œuvres importantes écrites
16
À propos de la connaissance des œuvres d’Archimède par les mathématiciens
arabes voir: R. Rashed “Archimède dans les mathématiques arabes”, dans Optique et
mathématiques. Recherches sur l’histoire de la pensée scientifique en arabe, Variorum
Reprints (Aldershot, 1992), IX.
17
Cf. Berggren, “The correspondence”, p. 82.
18
Rashed, Mathématiques infinitésimales, I, 852: “[…] si nous avions connu celui-
ci [le volume du paraboloïde] et si nous l’avions compris à partir du livre de Th®bit,
nous ne nous serions pas occupés de poursuivre la détermination de ce que d’autres
qui nous précèdent avaient déterminé – quelle que soit la manière dont on a fait sa
détermination – et nous n’aurions pas parlé de la méthode de détermination de ceux
qui nous ont précédés, qu’elle fût longue ou courte, difficile ou facile, dispensée des
lemmes ou ayant besoin d’eux, car ceci n’est pas dans nos habitudes, alors surtout
que les voies de cette science sont multiples et vastes.”
50 FAÏZA BANCEL
en arabe sur les centres de gravité. En effet, al-—®bi’ le confirme

dans la Correspondance, les mathématiciens arabes ne semblent
pas avoir abordé avant lui ce problème de manière “complète et
satisfaisante”:
[…] car sur cette science, celle des centres de gravité, il ne nous est parvenu
ni ouvrage complet (kit®b k®mil) ni travail satisfaisant (‘amal sh®fin) com-
posé par quelqu’un des anciens ou des modernes.19
Par “une œuvre complète et satisfaisante”, al-—®bi’ entend sans
doute une œuvre dans laquelle l’auteur étudie toutes les ques-
tions qui concernent le concept de centre de gravité. À l’exemple
du traité d’al-Q‚h¬, décrit dans cette correspondance, cette
œuvre doit définir ou expliquer le centre de gravité, étudier les
problèmes d’équilibre et notamment la loi du levier pour des
corps pesants en faisant intervenir leur centre de gravité, et
enfin déterminer les centres de gravité de figures géométriques
planes et solides.
II - LES CENTRES DE GRAVITÉ D’AL-QŪHĪ

DANS KITĀB MĪZĀN AL-H
. IKMA
Pour déterminer les centres de gravité de figures géométriques

telles que l’ellipsoïde, la portion de sphère et le segment de pa-
raboloïde, il est nécessaire de définir rigoureusement le centre
de gravité et d’étudier la théorie du levier pour des solides en
tenant compte des positions de leurs centres de gravité. Le texte
rapporté par al-Kh®zin¬, dans son Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma, ne
traite pas de centres de gravité de figures géométriques, mais
donne une définition physique et une géométrique du centre de
gravité, et propose plusieurs problèmes concernant l’équilibre
de systèmes de corps solides. Ces énoncés apparaissent comme
une introduction à un traité qui aurait eu pour objet la détermi-
nation des centres de gravité de figures géométriques. Al-
Kh®zin¬ n’intègre à son traité que des passages qui concernent
le fonctionnement des balances, comme l’indiquent l’objectif du
Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma (c’est un traité sur l’usage et la construc-
tion de la balance) et le titre qu’il donne à ce chapitre: Chapitre
sur des questions principales relatives aux centres de gravité
d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ et Ibn al-Haytham al-Ma◊r¬. Ce chapitre
aide celui qui l’étudie [i.e. la balance de la sagesse] à imaginer
19
Berggren, “The correspondence”, p. 120, 21-22.
ses sens. La détermination géométrique du centre de gravité
d’un paraboloïde ou d’une surface plane ne lui serait en effet
d’aucun secours dans la conception de la Balance de la Sagesse
ou dans l’explication de son fonctionnement. En revanche, l’ex-
plication du concept de centre de gravité est certainement très
importante, pour la compréhension du phénomène de l’équili-
bre entre solides et des opérations de pesée.
Dans les passages qu’il sélectionne, al-Kh®zin¬ reste cependant
très fidèle au texte original de l’auteur qu’il cite. Pour s’en con-
vaincre, il suffit de regarder les passages qu’il attribue à Euclide,
à Archimède, à al-Khayy®m et à al-B¬r‚n¬ et les comparer respec-
tivement au contenu de Liber de ponderoso et levi attribué égale-
ment à Euclide, au texte sur la pesanteur et la légèreté attribué à
Archimède, aux textes sur les poids spécifiques d’al-Khayy®m et
d’al-B¬r‚n¬ (voir Annexes 1, 2, et 3). Dans le premier cas, et bien
que les textes soient écrits dans deux langues différentes, les
similitudes sont frappantes. En effet, on retrouve dans le Kit®b
M¬z®n al-Ωikma l’intégralité du contenu du Liber Euclidis de
ponderoso et levi, mais sans les démonstrations. Ainsi, on
retrouve dans la première section les neuf postulats et dans la
deuxième les énoncés de toutes les propositions. C’est sans doute
le texte exact des énoncés de la version arabe du Liber de pon-
deroso et levi qui circulait à l’époque. Dans le cas du texte qu’al-
Kh®zin¬ attribue à Archimède, à part quelques erreurs de copiste,
les deux textes comparés sont identiques. Dans le troisième cas,
celui d’al-Khayy®m, il n’y a que très peu de différences entre les
deux textes. À part quelques phrases explicatives ajoutées dans la
version d’al-Kh®zin¬ et quelques différences à caractère gramma-
tical, les deux textes sont littéralement identiques et le contenu
est très fidèlement transmis. Quant au texte attribué à al-B¬r‚n¬,
l’étude de M. Rozhanskaya et B.A. Rozenfeld qui l’ont comparé
aux citations d’al-Kh®zin¬,20 permet de conclure que celui-ci le
reproduit “presque verbatim”.
Dans l’ensemble de ces cas, il s’agit exactement de copies des
textes originaux avec tout ce que cela implique comme erreurs
et oublis de copistes. Il n’est donc pas déraisonnable d’en déduire
qu’al-Kh®zin¬ reste très fidèle au texte original qu’il cite, même
s’il n’en sélectionne qu’une partie.
20
M. Rozhanskaya et B.A. Rozenfeld, “On al-B¬r‚n¬’s densimetry”, dans D.A. King
and G. Saliba (éds.), From Deferent to Equant: a Volume of Studies in the History of
Science in the Ancient and Medieval Near East in Honor of E.S. Kennedy (New York,
1987), pp. 403-17.
52 FAÏZA BANCEL
Un problème se pose alors quant à l’attribution du texte qui

nous concerne, puisqu’al-Kh®zin¬ l’attribue conjointement à al-
Q‚h¬ et Ibn al-Haytham, sans distinguer leurs contributions
respectives. Nous allons donner, dans ce qui suit, plusieurs élé-
ments susceptibles de nous éclairer à ce sujet.
III - DEUX TEXTES EN UN
En étudiant attentivement ce texte on peut constater qu’il se

compose de deux parties. La première partie, que nous appelle-
rons le texte 1, est constituée des cinq premières sections. La
deuxième, que nous appellerons le texte 2, est constituée des
quatre dernières sections.
Lorsque l’on compare ces deux textes, on est frappé par les
similitudes qu’il y a entre eux. Ils traitent en effet plusieurs
questions dans le même ordre, et à plusieurs reprises, des ques-
tions du texte 1 se répètent dans le texte 2. Des différences si-
gnificatives existent cependant entre eux.
Voici une confrontation des deux textes qui met en évidence
ces redondances et ces différences (voir Annexe 4 pour le texte
arabe):
Texte 1 Texte 2
Section première Section sixième
(1) La pesanteur est la force avec (1) Tout corps pesant qui se meut
laquelle se meut le corps pesant vers vers le centre du monde ne dépasse
le centre du monde. pas le centre. Quand il y parvient son
mouvement s’achève.
(2) Le corps pesant est celui qui se
meut avec une force propre, toujours
et uniquement vers le centre du
monde, je veux dire que le pesant est
celui qui a une force qui le meut vers
le point centre et toujours dans la
direction du centre et cette force ne le
meut pas dans une autre direction;
cette force lui est propre et n’est pas
acquise de l’extérieur, elle ne le quitte
pas tant qu’il n’est pas au centre et
elle le meut toujours tant qu’il n’est
pas arrêté par un obstacle et jusqu’à
ce qu’il atteigne le centre du monde.
Section deuxième
(1) Les corps pesants ont des forces
différentes; il y a ceux dont la force
est plus importante: ce sont les corps
denses.
(2) Il y a ceux dont la force est moins
importante: ce sont les corps rares.
(3) Plus la densité du corps est
grande et plus sa force est impor-
tante.
(4) Plus sa rareté est grande et plus
sa force est faible.
(5) Les corps de forces égales sont
ceux de densités ou de raretés égales,
c’est-à-dire ceux dont des quantités
égales de formes similaires sont de
pesanteurs égales; appelons ces corps
ceux qui sont égaux en force.
(6) Les corps de forces différentes
sont ceux qui ne sont pas ainsi;
appelons-les ceux qui sont différents
en force.
Section troisième
(1) Si un corps pesant se meut dans
des corps fluides, son mouvement
(dans ces corps) sera selon leurs flui-
dités; ainsi, son mouvement dans le
corps le plus fluide sera plus rapide.
(2) Si, dans un corps fluide, se meu-
vent deux corps de tailles égales, de
formes similaires et de densités dif-
férentes, le mouvement du corps le
plus dense sera plus rapide.
vent deux corps de tailles égales,
égaux en force et de formes dif-
férentes, celui qui rencontre le corps
fluide avec une plus petite surface
aura un mouvement plus rapide.
vent deux corps égaux en force et de
tailles différentes, le mouvement du
plus grand sera plus rapide.
54 FAÏZA BANCEL
Section quatrième
(1) Les poids des corps pesants peu-
vent être identiques même s’ils (les
corps) sont différents en force et en
forme.
(2) Les corps de poids égaux sont
ceux qui, s’ils se meuvent dans un
même corps fluide, à partir d’un
même point, leurs mouvements se-
ront identiques, je veux dire qu’ils
parcourent la même distance pen-
dant le même temps.
(3) Les corps de poids différents sont
ceux qui, s’ils se meuvent ainsi, leurs
mouvements seront différents et
celui qui a un poids plus important
aura un mouvement plus rapide.
(4) Les corps identiques en force, en
taille, en forme et en distance par
rapport au centre du monde sont
identiques (en poids).
(5) Tout corps pesant se trouvant au (2) Lorsque son mouvement s’achève,
centre du monde a celui-ci à son l’inclination de toutes ses parties vers
milieu. L’inclination de ses parties, le centre est identique.
dans toutes ses directions, vers le (3) Lorsque son mouvement s’achève,
centre du monde est identique. Tous la position du centre par rapport au
les plans qui passent par le centre du corps ne varie plus.
monde divisent, chacun, ce corps en (4) Si des corps pesants se meuvent
deux parties dont les poids s’équili- vers le centre (du monde) et ne sont
brent par rapport à ce plan. pas arrêtés par un obstacle, alors ils
se rencontreront au centre et leur
position par rapport à celui-ci ne
varie plus.
(5) Tout corps pesant a un centre de
gravité.
(6) Tous les plans qui le coupent et (6) Toute surface plane menée par le
ne passent pas par le centre du centre de gravité d’un corps pesant
monde le divisent en deux parties de le divise en deux parties de poids
poids qui ne s’équilibrent pas par égaux.
rapport à ce plan.
(7) Dans tout corps pesant, le point (7) Et si elle le divise en deux parties
qui coïncide avec le centre du monde, de poids qui s’équilibrent, alors son
quand le corps y repose, est appelé le centre de gravité est sur cette sur-
centre de gravité de ce corps. face.
(8) Et son centre de gravité est un
point unique.
Section cinquième Section septième
(1) Deux corps qui s’équilibrent par (1) L’ensemble de deux corps pe-
rapport à un point donné sont tels sants liés entre eux de manière à ce
que, s’ils sont joints à un corps que leurs positions relatives soient
pesant dont le centre de gravité est préservées a un centre de gravité qui
ce point, de telle sorte que leurs deux est un seul et unique point.
centres de gravité soient de part et (2) Si deux corps pesants reliés
d’autre de ce point et sur une ligne entre eux par un (autre) corps pe-
droite passant par ce point, la posi- sant dont le centre de gravité se situe
tion de ce corps ne change pas. Ce sur la ligne droite joignant leurs
point devient le centre de gravité de deux centres de gravité, alors le cen-
l’ensemble. tre de gravité de l’ensemble se situe
sur cette ligne.
(2) Deux corps qui s’équilibrent par
rapport à un plan donné sont tels
que, s’ils sont joints à un corps
pesant dont le centre de gravité est
sur ce plan, de telle sorte que leurs
deux centres de gravité soient de
part et d’autre de ce plan, la position
de ce corps ne change pas. Le centre
de gravité de l’ensemble est sur ce
plan.
(3) Les poids qui équilibrent un seul (3) Si un corps pesant équilibre un
et même poids par rapport à un (autre) corps pesant, alors tout corps
même centre, sont égaux. qui lui est égal en poids équilibre ce
corps si les centres (de gravité) ne
varient pas.
(4) Si l’on joint, à des poids qui
s’équilibrent par rapport à un centre
donné, des poids qui s’équilibrent
par rapport à ce centre, sans modi-
fier leur centres de gravité, alors
l’ensemble s’équilibre par rapport à
ce centre.
(5) Si l’on joint, à des poids qui
s’équilibrent par rapport à un plan
donné, des poids qui s’équilibrent par
rapport à ce plan, alors l’ensemble
s’équilibre par rapport à ce plan.
(6) Si l’on soustrait, à des poids qui
s’équilibrent, des poids qui s’équili-
brent, sans modifier le centre de
gravité de l’ensemble, alors ceux qui
restent sont en équilibre.
56 FAÏZA BANCEL
(7) Tout corps pesant qui équilibre (4) Quels que soient deux corps qui
un autre corps pesant n’équilibre pas s’équilibrent, si l’on enlève l’un d’eux
une partie de celui-ci par la totalité et l’on place sur son centre un corps
de son poids ou par un poids supé- plus pesant, celui-ci n’équilibrera pas
rieur, tant que la position de l’un le corps restant mais n’équilibrera
d’eux ne change pas. qu’un corps plus pesant.
Section huitième
(1) Tout corps de surfaces parallèles
et de parties semblables a son centre
de gravité confondu avec son centre,
je veux dire le point auquel se
croisent ses diamètres.
(2) Quels que soient deux corps de
surfaces parallèles, égaux en force,
d’altitudes égales et tels que leurs
altitudes forment un angle droit avec
leurs bases, le rapport de leurs poids
est comme le rapport de leurs tailles.
(3) Quel que soit un corps de sur-
faces parallèles traversé par un plan
parallèle à deux plans opposés (de ce
corps) qui le divise en deux corps de
surfaces parallèles, si on détermine
les centres des deux corps et on les
relie par une ligne droite et si on
détermine le centre de tout le corps
qui est aussi sur cette droite, alors le
rapport des poids des deux corps,
l’un à l’autre est comme le rapport
inverse des deux portions de la
droite, l’une à l’autre.
(4) Étant donné deux corps pesants
liés, le rapport du poids de l’un au
poids de l’autre est comme le rapport
inverse des deux portions de la droite
sur laquelle se situent les trois cen-
tres de gravité, celui de chaque corps
et celui de leur ensemble, l’une à
l’autre.
Section neuvième
(8) Les corps égaux en force, égaux (1) Quels que soient deux corps qui
en taille, de formes similaires et tels s’équilibrent par rapport à un point
que les distances de leurs centres de donné, le rapport du poids de l’un au
gravité à un même point sont égales, poids de l’autre est comme le rapport
ont des poids équilibrés par rapport inverse des deux portions de la droite
à ce point et par rapport au plan pas- passant par ce point et (passant) par
sant par ce point et les situations de leurs deux centres de gravité, (l’une
ces corps par rapport à ce plan sont à l’autre).
similaires. (2) Si deux corps pesants équilibrent
un même corps pesant par rapport à
un même point, alors le plus proche
de ce point est plus pesant que le
plus loin.
(3) Si un corps pesant équilibre un
(autre) corps pesant par rapport à un
point et s’il se meut, ensuite, dans la
direction opposée à cet autre corps,
avec son centre de gravité, toujours
sur la ligne droite passant par les
centres, alors plus il sera loin et plus
son poids sera grand.
(9) Quels que soient deux corps pe-
sants, l’ensemble de leurs poids est
supérieur au poids de chaque.
(10) Les corps pesants équidistants
par rapport au centre du monde sont
ceux dont les lignes qui partent du
centre du monde à leur centre de
gravité sont égales.
(4)21 Si deux corps pesants égaux en
force, en taille et en forme ont des
distances différentes du centre du
monde, alors le plus éloigné est le
plus pesant.
21
On remarquera que l’auteur passe dans les questions 9(4) et 5(10), directement
et sans lien visible, de problèmes d’équilibre d’ensembles de corps tels que la loi du
levier, à l’étude d’un corps pesant à une distance donnée du centre du monde. Il ne
s’agit cependant, dans la première partie, que de la définition de corps équidistants
du centre du monde, alors que l’auteur énonce dans la deuxième partie la relation
entre le poids d’un corps et la distance qui le sépare du centre du monde.
58 FAÏZA BANCEL
Les deux textes débutent par la question du mouvement naturel

des corps vers le centre du monde et de leurs positions finales
par rapport à ce centre. L’auteur évoque dans le texte 1 la no-
tion de force qui est inhérente au corps pesant et qui le déplace
vers le centre du monde. On ne rencontre pas cette notion dans
le texte 2 où l’auteur parle du mouvement naturel des corps pe-
sants vers le centre sans en expliquer la cause.
On pourrait voir même trois parties dans ce texte: une pre-
mière partie composée des questions 1(1)22-4(4) et proche du
Liber de ponderoso et levi d’Euclide, puis une deuxième et une
troisième parties composées respectivement des questions 4(5)-
5(10) et 6(1)-9(4) et qui seraient plus particulièrement consa-
crées aux problèmes de centres de gravité. Néanmoins, les
problèmes de pesanteur et de mouvement naturel des corps
pesants vers le centre du monde (section 1) ne sont nullement
traités dans le livre d’Euclide et les questions 2(1)-4(4) ne sont
en fait qu’une explication des questions 1(1,2). En effet, l’auteur
insère dans la section 2 des passages qui définissent la force
d’un corps pesant, évoquée dans les questions 1(1,2), en expli-
quant son rapport avec la densité du corps (cette section est
effectivement proche du Liber de ponderoso). Ces passages sont
suivis dans la section 3 par d’autres qui traitent de la vitesse du
mouvement du corps dans un fluide, eux-mêmes suivis par
d’autres (questions 4(1-3)) qui montrent le rapport qui existe
entre le poids d’un corps et la vitesse de son mouvement dans
un fluide.23 Cette étude aboutit à la question 4(4) qui stipule que
le poids d’un corps dépend de sa force, de sa taille, de sa forme
et de sa distance du centre du monde.24 L’auteur revient ensuite
22
Section 1, question 1.
23
On notera que les propositions concernant le mouvement des solides dans des
fluides ne sont pas correctes.
24
Le raisonnement identique que fait al-Kh®zin¬ dans la suite de son traité et qui
est plus clairement exposé, nous permettra de comprendre le lien qui existe entre
cette proposition et ce qui la précède. Al-Kh®zin¬, qui reprend ce problème dans son
chapitre récapitulatif (chapitre 5), traite d’abord des questions qui concernent le com-
portement des corps pesants dans les liquides. Il passe ensuite à l’étude des corps
dans l’air et il énonce que les corps pesants sont inhibés par l’air et sont, en réalité,
plus pesants que leur poids dans cet air. S’ils sont mus vers un air plus rare, ils y sont
plus pesants et inversement. Il énonce ensuite que tout corps pesant voit son poids
varier en fonction de sa distance du centre du monde et que, pour un même corps, le
rapport du poids au poids est comme le rapport de la distance à la distance. Son
raisonnement est le suivant: plus on s’éloigne de la terre plus l’air est rare. Par con-
séquent, il a moins de résistance. Selon al-Kh®zin¬, cette résistance ou inhibition à la
chute d’un corps pesant dépend du volume, de la densité et de la forme de ce corps.
au centre du monde pour définir la position d’un corps qui y
repose par rapport à ce centre et pour évoquer l’inclination de
toutes ses parties vers ce centre. Il aboutit ainsi à la définition
physique du centre de gravité d’un corps qui est le point qui
coïncide avec le centre du monde lorsque ce corps y repose.
Le texte 2, ne faisant pas intervenir au début la notion de
force, ne passe pas par toutes ces explications. Après avoir évo-
qué le mouvement naturel des corps pesants vers le centre du
monde, l’auteur parle de la position du corps par rapport à ce
centre et l’inclination de toutes ses parties vers ce point, à la fin
de son mouvement naturel. Contrairement au texte 1, l’auteur
ne donne pas ici explicitement la définition physique du centre
de gravité. Il passe directement à la définition géométrique: tout
corps pesant a un et un seul centre de gravité. C’est l’intersec-
tion de tous les plans qui divisent le corps en deux parties qui
s’équilibrent.
Les deux textes traitent ensuite des problèmes d’équilibre
d’un ensemble de corps en fonction des positions de leurs cen-
tres de gravité, une étude qui aboutit à la loi du levier qui n’est
généralisée que dans le texte 2 (dans le texte 1, il n’est question
que de l’équilibre de deux poids égaux). Après cette loi les deux
textes passent brusquement à la notion de variation du poids en
fonction de la distance du centre du monde. Dans le premier,
l’auteur définit (section 5, prop. 10) la distance entre un corps et
le centre du monde comme la distance entre celui-ci et le centre
de gravité du corps, après avoir postulé précédemment (section
4, prop. 4) que des corps égaux en force, en volume et qui sont à
distance égale du centre du monde ont des poids égaux). Dans le
deuxième texte il s’agit d’une relation entre le poids et la dis-
tance par rapport au centre du monde dans la proposition 9(4).
Même si nous ne pouvons pas trancher, plusieurs arguments,
d’ordres d’ailleurs bien différents, sont en faveur de l’indépen-
dance de ces deux textes: les redondances de certaines idées et
même de certaines expressions, d’une part, et les divergences
marquantes des deux textes, d’autre part.
Les redondances sont en effet frappantes entre les deux
textes. Nous attirons particulièrement l’attention sur les propo-
sitions 4(5) et 6(2,3) qui évoquent la position du corps par rap-
port au centre du monde à la fin de son mouvement naturel et
l’inclination de toutes ses parties vers le centre, ainsi que les
propositions 5(7) et 7(4) qui sont un exemple frappant de re-
dondances. Il est fondamental de noter néanmoins la différence
60 FAÏZA BANCEL
dans l’énoncé de ces propositions qui expriment la même idée.

Cette différence est encore plus manifeste entre 5(1) qui est une
définition et 7(1) et 7(2) qui sont deux propositions et entre 5(3)
et 7(3) qui sont réciproques.25
Par ailleurs, on peut constater que les deux textes ne poursui-
vent pas le même objectif. Alors que le premier est d’inspiration
plus dynamique et cherche à formaliser le phénomène de la pe-
santeur et des centres de gravité (il étudie le mouvement des
corps dans les fluides et tous les paramètres qui l’influencent et
s’attache au phénomène de la gravité), le deuxième étudie géo-
métriquement le centre de gravité et certaines propriétés de
l’équilibre dans le but de déterminer les centres de gravité de
figures solides. La détermination des centres de gravité de fi-
gures géométriques apparaît comme son objectif. Son étude du
centre de gravité et l’équilibre d’un parallélépipède ou d’en-
sembles de parallélépipèdes rappelle, en effet, la proposition 10
de l’Équilibre des plans d’Archimède dans laquelle celui-ci mon-
tre que le centre de gravité d’un parallélogramme est le point
d’intersection de ses diagonales, résultat qu’il utilise pour déter-
miner le centre de gravité du triangle (I.13), utilisé à son tour
pour déterminer le centre de gravité du trapèze (I, 15) puis de
celui du segment de parabole (II, 2).
Enfin puisque al-Kh®zin¬ lui-même rappelle au début de ce
chapitre que ce texte était constitué d’emprunts aux traités d’al-
Q‚h¬ et d’Ibn al-Haytham, on pourrait voir dans le texte 2 un
emprunt à al-Q‚h¬, puisque la démarche et l’objectif du texte 2
concordent avec les informations qui nous sont parvenues sur le
contenu de son traité, qui a un caractère principalement
géométrique et dont l’objectif était la détermination des centres
de gravité de figures géométriques. Quant au texte 1, on pour-
rait y voir un emprunt à Ibn al-Haytham puisque sa démarche
plus dynamique, cet attachement au phénomène physique et ce
besoin de démontrer concordent avec la philosophie de ce savant
pour qui les mathématiques sont un moyen pour quantifier les
phénomènes physiques qu’il cherche à expliquer et à formaliser.
Par ailleurs, les similitudes entre ces deux textes ne nous pa-
raissent pas anodines. On remarquera, tout d’abord, que plu-
sieurs questions étaient traitées dans le même ordre: les deux
25
Qu’une proposition et sa réciproque se trouvent dans un même texte est très
habituel. Ce qui l’est moins est qu’elles soient traitées à des endroits aussi éloignés et
dans des sections différentes.
textes débutent par la question du mouvement naturel des
corps vers le centre du monde, définissent le centre de gravité,
et passent ensuite à l’étude de problèmes d’équilibre, pour finir
par le problème de la variation du poids en fonction de l’éloi-
gnement du centre du monde. Il est particulièrement intéres-
sant de remarquer aussi la similitude entre les questions 5(3-7)
du texte 1 et les axiomes 1, 2, 3 et 9 du livre I des Éléments
d’Euclide. Ces questions ressemblent en effet à une combinai-
son des postulats I, 2 et I, 3 de l’Équilibre des plans (rupture de
l’équilibre à l’addition ou à la soustraction d’une quantité à l’un
des deux poids qui s’équilibrent) et des axiomes 1, 2, 3 et 9 du
livre I des Éléments d’Euclide (les égaux à un tiers sont égaux,
addition et soustraction d’égaux à des égaux, et le tout est plus
grand que la partie). Cette coïncidence est d’autant plus inté-
ressante que l’ordre dans lequel sont données ces propositions
5(3-7) est le même que celui dans lequel sont données les propo-
sitions 7(3) et 7(4) du texte 2 et correspond exactement à l’ordre
dans lequel sont donnés les axiomes 1, 2, 3 et 9 du livre I des
Éléments.
Nous retrouvons aussi dans les propositions (5,1), (7,1) et
(7,2), la trace d’une proposition qu’Archimède dit26 avoir dé-
montrée antérieurement à l’Équilibre des plans, et dans laquel-
le il prouve que le centre de gravité de deux grandeurs se situe
sur la droite joignant leurs deux centres de gravité.
Ibn al-Haytham avait accès à l’œuvre d’al-Q‚h¬, son prédéces-
seur de quelques décennies, et a certainement pu suivre cette
œuvre dans la rédaction de la sienne, tout en poursuivant un
objectif différent. La présence de plusieurs traces de l’œuvre ar-
chimédienne dans ces textes suggère cependant une autre hy-
pothèse: al-Q‚h¬ et Ibn al-Haytham avait accès à un même texte
plus ancien, peut-être celui d’Archimède qui, d’après le témoi-
gnage d’al-Q‚h¬, circulait à leur époque. Ils ne l’auraient suivi
cependant que pour la rédaction du début de leurs travaux, car
nous savons que ce texte ne contenait pas la démonstration de
la loi du levier et la détermination des centres de gravité de fi-
gures géométriques planes et solides, puisqu’aucune œuvre an-
cienne sur ce sujet ne leur est parvenue.
26
L’Équilibre des plans, proposition 4.
62 FAÏZA BANCEL
IV - LE LIVRE D’AL-QŪHĪ SUR LES CENTRES DE GRAVITÉ
La correspondance d’al-Q‚h¬, nous apporte plusieurs renseigne-

ments importants sur le contenu du traité qu’il a rédigé sur le
sujet. Il déclare en effet qu’il était sur le point d’achever six
livres (maq®la) successifs, dont quatre étaient rédigés à Basso-
rah au moment où il donnait ce témoignage (“ici à Bassorah”) et
deux à Bagdad. Ces six livres ont été donc rédigés avant
384/994, date de la mort d’al-—®bi’.
Il annonce aussi le projet d’un septième livre sur les centres
de gravité qui sera le meilleur et le plus volumineux, suivi d’un
huitième livre sur les centres de gravité d’ensemble de trois ou
quatre corps solides ou fluides.27 Al-Q‚h¬ dit dans ses lettres
avoir déterminé géométriquement, dans les quatre livres rédi-
gés à Bassorah (“dans les quatre livres que j’ai rédigés ici”),28 les
centres de gravité de cinq figures dont trois sont de révolution
(le paraboloïde, le cône et la demi-sphère) et les deux autres
sont planes (la parabole et le triangle). Ces cinq premiers résul-
tats qu’il donne sont en effet justes. Quant au centre de gravité
de la sixième figure (demi-cercle), il dit avoir démontré
géométriquement qu’il se situait sur l’axe et déduit sa valeur en
suivant un ordre naturel que lui ont suggéré les cinq premiers
résultats. Ses résultats sont les suivants. Ils représentent les
rapports entre la hauteur des différents centres de gravité et
celle des figures considérées.
1:4 pour le cône
2:6 pour le paraboloïde
3:8 pour la demi-sphère
1:3 pour le triangle
2:5 pour la parabole
3:7 c’est la valeur qu’il en déduit pour le demi-cercle et qui
lui paraît une suite logique aux autres valeurs.29
27
“Sayy®la” dans l’édition de Berggren qui évoque la possibilité d’une corruption
et s’interroge sur la signification de ce mot. Cf. “The correspondence”, pp. 73-4.
28
Berggren, “The correspondence”, p. 123, 12:
29
Il précise cependant que ce résultat reste provisoire tant qu’une démonstration
géométrique rigoureuse n’a pas été fournie. Berggren, “The correspondence”, p. 109,
26-27:
Al-Q‚h¬ dit avoir démontré, après cela, d’autres propositions
qu’il a utilisées comme lemmes (muqaddima) pour déterminer le
centre de gravité d’un secteur de cercle. Il cite les deux suivantes:
1. Le rapport d’un arc de cercle à sa corde est égal au rapport
du rayon du cercle à la distance qui sépare le centre du cercle et
le centre de gravité de l’arc.
2. Étant donnés deux secteurs semblables de cercles ayant le
même centre et tels que le rapport de leurs diamètres est égal
au rapport de 3/2, le centre de gravité de l’arc ayant le plus pe-
tit diamètre coïncide avec le centre de gravité du secteur ayant
le plus grand diamètre.
Il donne ensuite, à titre d’exemple, le centre de gravité du tri-
angle équilatéral, accompagné de l’expression “qui est sans
aucun doute son centre”.30 Il ne fournit, cependant, aucune in-
formation sur une démonstration éventuelle de ce résultat.
En répondant à la demande d’al-S®bi’ des précisions qu’il con-
vient d’apporter à la loi du levier, considérée jusqu’alors comme
un lemme (muqaddima), al-Q‚h¬ affirme clairement que le cen-
tre de gravité de l’ensemble de deux corps est le point autour
duquel ils s’équilibrent mutuellement, et dit l’avoir expliqué et
démontré dans ses livres sur les centres de gravité. Dans la
même réponse, il dit avoir démontré la loi du levier qui ne fait
plus partie des lemmes depuis qu’il en a fourni la preuve.31
Les informations que nous possédons sur ce traité et qui nous
sont parvenues dans la Correspondance, dans l’introduction du
traité Sur la détermination du volume du paraboloïde et dans le
texte de Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma, suggèrent l’organisation sui-
vante de cette œuvre:
1. La première partie est une introduction dans laquelle l’au-
teur introduit le concept de centre de gravité. Il y explique le
30
Berggren, “The correspondence”, p. 111, 7:
31
Berggren, “The correspondence ”, pp. 111, 21-110, 1:
64 FAÏZA BANCEL
sens physique de la pesanteur et du centre de gravité en évo-

quant le mouvement naturel des corps vers le centre du monde
et définit géométriquement le centre de gravité.
Il y étudie aussi l’équilibre et les centres de gravité d’en-
sembles de corps solides. Dans le texte rapporté par al-Kh®zin¬,
se trouvent les exemples du centre de gravité de l’ensemble de
deux corps pesants et de celui de trois corps dont les centres se
situent sur la même droite.
L’étude de tous ces problèmes d’équilibre aboutit à la loi du
levier selon laquelle les poids sont inversement proportionnels
aux distances dans un système de deux poids en équilibre. Cette
loi a été démontrée précédemment dans le fragment sur les ba-
lances attribué au pseudo-Euclide et ensuite par Th®bit ibn
Qurra dans son Kit®b f¬ al-qarasfl‚n,32 mais sans faire intervenir
les centres de gravité des solides. Les distances considérées
étaient celles entre les points de suspension des corps et le fléau.
Archimède a démontré cette loi en tenant compte des distances
des centres de gravité des corps, mais ce qui nous est parvenu,
dans l’Équilibre des plans, concerne uniquement les cas de figu-
res planes.
Les textes rapportés dans Kit®b M¬z®n al-Ωikma sont les seuls
que nous connaissons qui évoquent la loi d’équilibre pour des
solides en termes de centres de gravité.
2. La suite aurait été consacrée à la détermination des centres
de gravité de figures géométriques planes et solides. Cette par-
tie est constituée au moins des quatre livres de Bassorah qui
étaient déjà rédigés au moment de la correspondance avec Ab‚
IsΩ®q al-—®bi’.
Comme l’indiquent ses propres témoignages dans son traité
Sur la détermination du volume du paraboloïde et dans sa Cor-
respondance, al-Q‚h¬ a déterminé les centres de gravité de plu-
sieurs figures solides comme la portion de sphère, l’ellipsoïde et
le segment de paraboloïde. Il suffit de regarder le texte de son
traité sur le volume du paraboloïde pour deviner le niveau tech-
nique qu’a dû atteindre son travail sur les centres de gravité.
Par ailleurs, il présente dans la Correspondance deux théorèmes
qui permettent la détermination des centres de gravité d’un arc
de cercle et d’un secteur de cercle. Ils sont non seulement cor-
rects mais aussi inexistants dans la littérature ancienne. Cela
32
Kit®b f¬ al-qarasfl‚n, éd. et trad. française par K. Jaouiche (Leiden, 1976).
montre le degré d’abstraction que les recherches d’al-Q‚h¬
avaient atteint. Quant aux méthodes utilisées dans ses démons-
trations, nous n’avons malheureusement aucun élément qui
nous permette de les reconstituer. Nous ne pouvons actuelle-
ment que deviner la haute technicité qui y est déployée et parier
sur l’utilisation des techniques infinitésimales.
66 FAÏZA BANCEL
ANNEXE 1: PSEUDO-EUCLIDE
Liber Euclidis de Ponderoso et Levi, Texte rapporté par al-Kh®zin¬:

traduit par E. Moody & C. Clagett,
The Medieval Science of Weights
(Madison, 1952), pp. 21-31:
The Book of Euclid Concerning the Chapitre 3: questions d’Euclide sur

Heavy and Light and the Compa- la pesanteur et la légèreté et com-
rison of Bodies To Each Other. paraison des corps entre eux: en
deux sections.
Postulates Section 1
(1) Bodies equal in volume are (1) Les corps égaux en volume
those which fill equal places. sont ceux qui remplissent des
places égales.
(2) And those which fill unequal (2) Ceux qui remplissent des
places are said to be of different places différentes sont dits diffé-
volume. rents en volume.
(3) And what are said to be large, (3) Le corps le plus volumineux
among bodies, are said to be ca- est celui qui correspond à la place
pacious, among places. la plus grande.
(4) Bodies are equal in force, (4) Les corps égaux en force sont
whose motions through equal ceux qui parcourent des places
places, in the same air or the same égales, dans le même air ou dans la
water, are in equal times. même eau, dans des temps égaux.
(5) And those which traverse (5) Ceux qui parcourent des places
equal places in different times are égales dans des temps différents
said to be different in force. sont dits différents en force.
(6) And that which is the greater (6) Ceux qui possèdent des forces
in its force, is the lesser in its time. plus grandes correspondent à des
temps plus petits.
(7) Bodies are of the same kind (7) Les corps de même genre sont
which, if of equal volume, are of ceux qui sont égaux en force quand
equal force. ils sont égaux en volume. Si des
(8) When bodies which are equal corps égaux en volume ont des
in volume are different in force forces différentes, ils sont dits dif-
with respect to the same air or férents en genre.
water, they are different in kind.
(9) And the denser body is the (8) Les plus denses ont les forces
more powerful. les plus grandes.
Theorems Section 2
I Of bodies which traverse une- (1) Des corps qui parcourent, en
qual places in equal times, that des temps égaux, des places diffé-
which traverses the greater places rentes ont des forces d’autant plus
is of the greater force. importantes que leurs places sont
grandes.
II If, of two bodies of the same (2) Si deux corps sont de même
kind, one is a multiple in size of genre et si l’un d’eux est multiple
the other, then its force will be de l’autre, alors le rapport de leurs
similarly related to the force of the volumes est égal au rapport de
other. leurs forces.
III Of bodies of the same kind, the (3) Les corps de même genre ont le
volumes and forces are pro- même rapport entre les forces et
portional. les volumes.
IV If two bodies are each of the (4) Les corps de même genre qu’un
same kind as a third body, they are autre corps sont de même genre.
of the same kind as each other.
V When the volumes and the (5) Si des corps ont le même rap-
forces of several bodies are in the port entre leurs forces et leurs
same proportion, the bodies are of volumes, alors ils sont de même
the same kind. genre.
(6) Si des corps sont différents en
volume et égaux en force, relati-
vement à un même air ou une
même eau, alors le plus dense est
le moins volumineux.
Ainsi s’achèvent ses propos.
68 FAÏZA BANCEL
ANNEXE 2: ARCHIMÈDE*
70 FAÏZA BANCEL
ANNEXE 3: AL-KHAYYĀM
72 FAÏZA BANCEL
ANNEXE 4
74 FAÏZA BANCEL
76 FAÏZA BANCEL
78 FAÏZA BANCEL
THE MODE OF ACTION OF VENOM ACCORDING

TO JĀH
. IZ.
AHMED AARAB, PHILIPPE PROVENÇAL
AND MOHAMED IDAOMAR
Ab‚ ‘Uthm®n ‘Amr ibn BaΩr al-J®Ωi˙ (780-868) is a well-known

Arabic man of letters who has made significant contributions to
zoology as well.1 In his numerous and voluminous writings he
sought, very early in the history of Arabic thought, to reconcile
science and theology. His main scientific work is Kit®b al-
ºayaw®n (The Book of Animals), whose significance for the his-
tory of zoology has been studied at the end of the nineteenth
century by G. van Vloten,2 and, in this century, by M.A. Palacios
and L. Kopf.3 In this short paper we will not, of course, be able
to do justice to al-J®Ωi˙’s entire work (the recent edition of the
work comprises no less than seven volumes of almost 400 pages
each4) and we will limit ourselves to a single topos studied in it:
venoms and their mode of action. While being intent on avoid-
ing a whiggish approach to the history of science, we will have
to note that some of al-J®Ωi˙’s ideas are reminiscent of modern
toxicological ideas. We thus hope to make a contribution to the
study of a chapter in the history of science of which our knowl-
edge is still wanting.5
Our author lived during the period of the Abbassid caliphs
(al-Rash¬d, al-Ma’m‚n and al-Mu‘ta◊im) under whose reign the
1
Charles Pellat, “Djâhiz”, Encycopedia of Islam, 2nd ed., vol. II (Leiden, 1965),
pp. 385-7; Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, vol. III (Leiden, 1970),
pp. 368-75; Manfred Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam
(Leiden, 1970), pp. 19-20.
2
Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, p. 368 ff.
3
M.A. Palacios, “El Libro de los animales de J®Ωi˙”, Isis, 14 (1930): 20-54; L. Kopf,
“The Book of Animals (Kit®b al-ºayaw®n) of Al-J®Ωi˙ (ca. 767-868)”, Actes du VIIe
Congrès international d’histoire des sciences (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 395-401.
4
J®Ωi˙, Kit®b al-ºayaw®n, edited and annotated by Abdessal®m Mohammed
H®roun, 7 vols. (Beirut, 1988). In what follows all references to the Kit®b al-ºayaw®n
are to this edition.
5
J®Ωi˙’s reputation as an author of classical adab is perhaps the reason why his
contributions to biological science have not been fully appreciated until now.
80 AHMED AARAB, PHILIPPE PROVENÇAL AND MOHAMED IDAOMAR
Arabo-Islamic civilization began to absorb and accommodate

the Greek philosophical and scientific heritage, and he indeed
was familiar with Aristotle’s so-called Book of Animals.6 Still,
his work is not in the Aristotelian tradition: according to van
Vloten, J®Ωi˙ can be viewed as having developed, or expressed,
an autochthonic, original “national zoology”.7 J®Ωi˙ is thus
interested in the history of Arabic thought on venoms and he
tries to account for the familiarity with toxic substances among
the early Arabs. In his Kit®b al-ºayaw®n J®Ωi˙ explains that
Arabs, and nomads in general, have been interested in wild ani-
mals, and specifically in the venomous species:
As these peoples live in full nature and among wild beasts, they have often
been victims of claws, bites and injections and sometimes were even
devoured. Thus they needed to know in detail the nature and the behavior of
each of these assailants, and by observation they have succeeded in finding
various means of avoidance as well as finding a cure to heal their wounds.
These nomads have increased their knowledge of the wild world throughout
the centuries.8
Let us first present some theories bearing on venoms and their

modes of actions that were current in al-J®Ωi˙’s time and of
which he gives short accounts.
1. Indian scientists, J®Ωi˙ writes, hold that venom kills
because it is a foreign body. According to them, all foreign bod-
ies that penetrate an animal’s body destroy it. According to
J®Ωi˙, this hypothesis had not been accepted by his contempo-
raries.9
J®Ωi˙ does not indicate the names of the Indian scientists to
whom he refers. We suggest, however, that one of the scientists
in question can be identified as S®n®q, an Indian physician who
lived during the fourth century B.C.E., wrote about toxicology,
and held precisely the idea described by J®Ωi˙.10 We know that
the great translation movement in J®Ωi˙’s time produced trans-
6
Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam, p. 20.
7
Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, p. 369.
8
J®Ωi˙, Kit®b al-ºayaw®n, IV, 29.
9
Ibid., IV, 319.
10
B. Strauss, “Das Giftbuch des San®q. Eine Litteraturgechichtliche Unter-
suchung”, Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der
Medizin, 4 (1935): 89-152.
THE MODE OF ACTION OF VENOM ACCORDING TO J§ºI¯ 81
lations not only of Greek, but also of Persian and Indian texts.11
It is therefore not surprising to find that J®Ωi˙ was acquainted
with the writings of an Indian scholar.
2. Another explanation was offered by Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-Na˙˙®m,
J®Ωi˙’s teacher.12 In his view, each body has its own proper
venom, which, however, remains latent under normal condi-
tions. The venom of snakes, for instance, is not deadly by itself;
rather, it becomes mortal when it gets into contact with the vic-
tim’s body: the intruding venom then prevents the inhibition of
the latent power at work in the victim’s own body, thereby caus-
ing the victim’s death. This theory is in fact elaborated by al-
Na˙˙®m on the basis of his theory of kum‚n.13
3. Another theory was propounded, according to J®Ωi˙, by
Bakht¬sh‚‘ ibn Jibr¬l,14 a well-known physician of the caliph al-
Ma’m‚n. In his view, the venom is inoculated by the fangs of a
snake, or the spur of a scorpion, which, he says, he observed to
be hollow. He further believed that the viper inoculates its
venom at the moment it reverses itself.
Bakht¬sh‚‘ was obviously a keen observer, for his report is in
conformity with what we know today of vipers. The venomous
apparatus of the viper is endowed with a device consisting of a pair
of fangs crossed by a small duct, completely closed, which is con-
nected to the venom glands. In order to bite, the viper must open
its jaws and make a strike downward so that its fangs reach the
prey. Then the muscles in the mouth must contract: they thereby
raise the upper mandible in order to sink the fangs in the prey,
simultaneously compressing the venomous glands and injecting
the venom violently.15 Taken together, these contractions appear
like a reversal of the animal, as described by Bakht¬sh‚‘. This
physician is thus the first to have gained interesting anatomical
and behavioral insights into how snakes inoculate their venom.
However, it was only in the seventeenth century that Francesco
Redi provided conclusive evidence on the method of inoculation of
venom used by snakes.16
11
See Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture (London and New York,
1998), pp. 24-5 and the references there.
12
J®Ωi˙, Kit®b al-ºayaw®n, V, 21.
13
For a short introduction into the theory of kum‚n, see Encyclopaedia of Islam,
2nd ed., vol. V (Leiden, 1986), pp. 384-5.
14
J®Ωi˙, Kit®b al-ºayaw®n, IV, 123-4.
15
R. Platel, Zoologie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1991), vol. II.
16
A. Ménez, “Les venins et toxines de serpents”, in La fonction venimeuse (Paris,
1995), pp. 200-20.
II
After having sketched the various hypotheses on the mode of

action of venoms discussed during in J®Ωi˙’s time, we will con-
sider J®Ωi˙’s own views regarding this subject. Our author
asserts that the question whether the venom will kill the prey
depends on three factors:
1. The quantity (kamm) of venom necessary for obtaining a

deadly effect. J®Ωi˙ reports an experiment in which a scorpion
was weighed before and after it had injected its venom and
which showed that the weight of the scorpion remained practi-
cally unchanged, allowing one to conclude that the quantity
injected was so minute as to be unmeasurable. It should be
remembered, however, that Diocles of Carystas, Aristotle’s con-
temporary, already knew that a very small quantity of venom
was enough to cause death.17
2. The process (kayf). J®Ωi˙ observes that the incision is nec-
essary in order that the venom penetrate the body of the prey.
3. The kind or nature (jins) of the venom. Here J®Ωi˙ explains
the various aspects determining the action of venom on the ani-
mal body (see below).
Using a terminology obviously inspired by Aristotle’s logical
writings, J®Ωi˙ has thus enumerated three necessary parame-
ters determining whether, under given circumstances, a venom
would have a mortal effect. It is impressive to note that the tox-
icity of a given poison in fact depends precisely on the three para-
meters mentioned by J®Ωi˙: the efficiency of the mechanical
inoculation device; the toxicity of the inoculated substance itself;
and the minimal dose of venom capable of killing an animal.18
J®Ωi˙ addresses another issue that was debated in his time,
viz. whether the spur or the fang were venomous in and by
themselves, or rather were mere tools for the inoculation of the
venom. Our author (erroneously) holds that both cases exist.19
17
A. Touwaide, “Galien et la toxicologie”, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römis-
chen Welt, II, 37, 2 (Berlin, 1994), pp. 1887-1986, on pp. 1964-5.
18
P.-P. Grassé, Précis de zoologie: Vertébrés, 3 vols. (Paris, 1976), vol. I.
19
J®Ωi˙, Kit®b al-ºayaw®n, IV, 125-6. We now know that neither the spurs nor
fangs are venomous; rather they are only the device allowing the passage of the
venom into the prey’s body. See e.g. R. Stockmann and J. Heurtault, “Introduction”,
in La fonction venimeuse, pp. 1-11.
By contrast, J®Ωi˙ correctly affirms that the effect of the biting
by e.g. a snake or a scorpion is not due to the incision of the spur
or the fang: rather, it is due to the venom emitted during the
biting, which acts either on the prey’s blood, coagulating or liq-
uefying it, or on the nerves.20 It should again be remembered,
however, that the difference between hemolytic and neurotoxic
venom had already been known before Galen,21 so that J®Ωi˙
apparently expresses ideas he borrowed from Greek sources.
Concerning the mode of action of the venom, J®Ωi˙ rejects the
explanations postulating heat as the cause of its morbid effect.
In fact, since Aristotle it was generally held that heat plays an
essential role in several essential physiological processes,
notably in digestion and the formation of the homoeomerous
substances (including blood, milk, etc.), and that illness occurs
when this “mechanism” is disturbed.22 To refute this theory
J®Ωi˙ writes:
If this inoculated element acted by its great heat, why then does fire not act
in the same manner? And if it acted because of its very low heat, why then
does ice not provoke the same effect? It is therefore clear that the venom
does not kill because of its heat or its coldness.23
J®Ωi˙’s view also runs counter another entrenched theory of his
day. The accepted explanation of the physiology of venoms in
classical Islamic medicine was based on the principle, going
back to the Presocratic philosopher Anaximander and advo-
cated in medicine by Alcmeon, according to which the four basic
qualities of matter (heat, cold, humidity and dryness) must be
in a state of balance if a body is to be healthy. Accordingly, con-
temporary pharmacology attributed to every substance, notably
to any medicament, a degree to which it possessed any of the
four qualities; the activity of any medicine was construed as
depending on these degrees.24 J®Ωi˙ implicitly rejects this theory
and seeks to account for the activity of venoms through his own
theory, which operates in terms of properties, specificities and
the intrinsic nature of elements. According to this theory, it is
20
21
Touwaide, “Galien et la toxicologie”.
22
For an overview and bibliography see Gad Freudenthal, Aristotle’s Theory of
Material Substance. Form and Soul, Heat and Pneuma (Oxford, 1995).
23
24
As is well known, this classic theory received an innovative elaboration by al-
Kind¬, roughly J®Ωi˙’s contemporary. See Léon Gauthier, Antécédents gréco-arabes de
la psycho-physiologie (Beirut, 1938).
the intrinsic nature of the venom that, by virtue of its speci-

ficity, possesses the property of provoking death in certain bod-
ies. Put differently: a venom is not a venom per se, but rather
has the property to act as such in certain bodies. These speci-
ficities, J®Ωi˙ claims, do not have names and can only be
inferred from semantic structures. To illustrate his theory, our
author compares the digestion of a dog with that of some her-
bivorous animals. He writes:
I am going to prove to you that what I just said on properties, specificities
and the intrinsic nature of elements is true. Do you not see that in the stom-
ach of a dog and a wolf, a bone is dissolved but not the stone of a date,
although the latter is more tender than a bone? [...] Horses, which digest dry
clovers and straw in dung, cannot digest grains of barley. Camels are capable
of digesting hard and thorny vegetables, but cannot digest grains of barley.
All of this can be explained only by properties and specificities.25
III
Concerning the parameters determining the toxicity of a venom,

J®Ωi˙ declares that it varies from one venomous species to
another.26 Among individuals belonging to the same species it
depends on the following factors:
1. The injected quantity.27 J®Ωi˙, of course, had no means to
determine empirically the quantity of venom inoculated in a
given case. Still, he insightfully states that the individuals of a
venomous species do not always inoculate the same quantity of
venom. Furthermore, he emphasizes that venom can be effec-
tive only if a minimal dose of it had been inoculated.
2. The geographic region.28 J®Ωi˙ holds that the effect of the
venom of individuals belonging to a single species varies accord-
ing to their geographical origin. Thus, he claims, the action of
the venom of a species of scorpion called jarrara varies accord-
ing to whether the individual is from the region of Chihrazor (in
Kurdistan) or from the region of Askar Mokram (in Khuzistan).
This statement seems to be grounded in observation. For
instance, we know today that the species of scorpion Buthus
25
26
Ibid., V, 363.
27
Ibid., IV, 319.
28
Ibid., V, 363.
occitanus is not venomous in Europe, while in North Africa this
scorpion is very dangerous to men.29
3. The physiological state of the venomous animal.30 Speaking
of scorpions, J®Ωi˙ notes that the gravity of the consequences of
an inoculation varies according to whether it occurs when the
scorpion stings for the first time after hibernation or not. In
addition, it differs according to whether the scorpion is in a
state of gestation or not.
4. Similarly, J®Ωi˙ mentions that the injury caused by the
venom varies from one prey to another.31 Concerning the same
bitten or stung individual, the toxic effect depends of the fol-
lowing factors:
(i) The place on the body.32
(ii) The physiological state of the prey.33 The injury caused
differs according to what nourishment the victim had absorbed
and according to its respiratory state.
(iii) The time of the day.34 The action of venom depends also
on whether the inoculation occurs during day or night. As evi-
dence, J®Ωi˙ adduces the alleged fact that people feel more pain
after inoculation at night than at day. The venom’s action also
varies with the seasons, being more painful in summer than in
winter. This assertion is grounded in the view that the action of
venom depends on a further factor, namely:
(iv) The heat.35 J®Ωi˙ reports that people believe that inocula-
tion by a scorpion is more painful to someone who had just
taken a bath in warm water. Elaborating upon the explanation
given by his master, Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-Na˙˙®m, to the supposed
increased efficiency of venom when it is hot, J®Ωi˙ claims that
the phenomenon is due to the fact that increased bodily heat
brings about an opening of the bodily pores and a dilation of the
blood vessels. This, he argues, is also the reason why the venom
of scorpions is more powerful in summer: the hotter the air, the
greater the likelihood that the body will heat itself, and the more
painful will the venom be. Our author uses the same theoretical
29
G.G. Habermehl, Venomous Animals and their Toxins (Berlin, 1981), p. 23 and
table 4.
30
J®Ωi˙, Kit®b al-ºayaw®n, V, 363.
31
Ibid., IV, 221-2.
32
Ibid., V, 363.
33
Ibid., V, 363.
34
Ibid., V, 363.
35
Ibid., IV, 222.
construction to explain why people feel far more pain at night,

although the air is then colder than during day. On the basis of
the general physiological theoretical assumptions of his day,
J®Ωi˙ argues that when the ambient air is cold, the heat
“escapes” into the interior of the body, which is thus hotter
than it would have been otherwise; it follows that an inocula-
tion is more painful at night.
(v) The psychological state of the victim.36 A last factor influ-
encing the efficiency of venom as explained by our author is the
psychological state of the victim, specifically of a person bitten
by a snake, which can play a decisive role in the outcome of the
inoculation. J®Ωi˙ states that there are snakes whose venom is
mortal only if it is associated with the fright of the victim.
Sometimes, he declares, it is fright alone that kills the victim. In
order to illustrate this phenomenon, J®Ωi˙ recounts an anecdote
of a man who had been bitten in his head by a snake while he
slept under a tree. The bite woke him up, but he did not imme-
diately realize what had happened. The man remained con-
scious, until a bystander who had observed the scene told him
that he had been bitten by a snake. Thereupon the frightened
man cried out and quickly died. According to our author, the
effect of the venom on vital organs had at first been inhibited,
but then the fright nullified this inhibitory factor. J®Ωi˙ tries to
explain how the combined action of these two factors operates
in the body. He writes:
Fright can either direct the venom to vital places, or act together with the
venom [in order to efficiently lead this toxic substance to vital organs].37
J®Ωi˙ concludes that fright must be taken into account if one
wishes to explain the action of venom in causing death. He
argues that it is misguided to say of a given venom that it is
mortal without reference to the psychological state of the vic-
tim. One can make such a statement only in cases where the
venom acts on people who are shielded from fright, e.g. a person
who was bitten without being aware of it (because he slept or
fainted, for example), a naive child, or an insane person. J®Ωi˙ is
thus the first author who has drawn attention to the psycholog-
ical dimension of the efficiency of the action of venom.
36
Ibid., IV, 121-3.
37
Ibid., IV, 123.
IV
J®Ωi˙ mentions also further physiological aspects of the action

of venom. We will limit ourselves to two examples: The passage
of the venom from the blood to the maternal milk; and the pos-
sibility to avert the danger after inoculation by sucking the
blood out of the wound.
J®Ωi˙ mentions the case of a camel that was bitten by a ven-
omous snake while it suckled its young.38 At first, the camel
remained upright, and the young continued to suck. Then, sud-
denly, the young fell dead, while the mother still remained alive
for a short while. J®Ωi˙ expressed his astonishment with respect
to the observed rapidity of the passage of the venom to the
maternal milk. He went on to infer that a woman who drinks
wine while breastfeeding thereby intoxicates the baby. By the
same token, he remarks that a breastfeeding mother can pro-
voke diarrhea in the baby by taking a laxative.
J®Ωi˙ reports that when somebody was stung by a scorpion,
the Ωajj®m, a person specialized in sucking venom out of a sting
wound, was called in order to suck the poisoned blood at the
place of the injection before the venom spread throughout the
body of the victim.39 J®Ωi˙ noticed that this practice caused
health problems for the Ωajj®m, because his mouth was in direct
contact with the poisoned blood. To avoid these problems, a
piece of cotton was put on the place of the injection before aspir-
ing. The cotton thus prevented the passage of the blood to the
Ωajj®m’s mouth, yet without constricting his aspiration.
CONCLUSION
In the poems of the great Bedouin writers before the advent of

Islam, poison was often mentioned, but no differentiation in the
terminology is discernible.40 Subsequently, classical Islamic cul-
ture has produced many books on toxicology, as it was a part of
medicine, but J®Ωi˙ seems to have been one of the first Arabic
writers to have treated this subject-matter in the framework of
38
Ibid., V, 366-7.
39
Ibid., IV, 219-20.
40
M. Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam (Leiden, 1970), p. 322.
rational, empirical science. In the light of the above gleanings

into his work in toxicology, it can be stated that J®Ωi˙ is proba-
bly the first Arab naturalist to have undertaken a complete
study on venoms and their modes of action. It is important to
note that his theoretical insights concerning venoms are not all
his own. Rather, as J®Ωi˙ himself emphasizes, they are the prod-
uct of a progressive process of accumulation of knowledge, by
both scholars and laymen who had to deal with poisons in daily
life. In J®Ωi˙’s theoretical synthesis one finds, in addition to
Greek and Indian influences, his personal views together with
those of contemporary scholars. His originality is above all
expressed in his theory of properties, specificities and the intrin-
sic natures of the elements, which accounts for various mecha-
nisms of the digestion and the mode of action of venom.41
This theory, let us note, takes a path very different from the
one exposed in another (probably later) influential treatise on
toxicology, namely the Kit®b al-sum‚m wa daf‘ ma¥®rrih® of
J®bir ibn ºayy®n.42 This book, which was presumably written
in the late ninth or the early the tenth century, provides a
description of different poisons of animal, plant and mineral ori-
gin, of their modes of actions and of the different treatments of
poisonings. The theoretical physiology on which J®bir draws is
of the well-known humoral type, inherited from classical Greek
medicine, which explains the action of poisons either as their
being inflammation and burning (ilh®b wa iΩr®q) or as being
stiffening and coldness (ijm®d wa tabr¬d).43 Although the ques-
tion of the historical relationship between J®Ωi˙ and J®bir needs
further research, it is important to note that J®Ωi˙ opposed pre-
cisely the kind of theories advocated by J®bir.
We can only be impressed by the number of factors poten-
tially influencing the gravity of the action of venom which J®Ωi˙
pointed out. (He may have become attentive to them inasmuch
as these various parameters determined the difficulties in suc-
cessfully treating victims.) It is particularly interesting to note
41
Although it would be ridiculous to draw any comparison between J®Ωi˙’s ideas
and those of modern biology, one cannot help being struck by the similarity between
the theory of specificities and present-day knowledge regarding the specific actions of
enzymes.
42
Das Buch der Gifte des G®bir ibn ºayy®n, übersetzt und erläutert von Alfred
Siggel (Wiesbaden 1958).
43
Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam, pp. 327-8 and G®bir ibn ºayy®n, ed. Siggel,
pp. 7-9.
that our author is most likely the first to have noticed the psy-
chological dimension in the action of venom.
J®Ωi˙’s Kit®b al-ºayaw®n is of considerable interest also as a
source of knowledge for the history of toxicology. J®Ωi˙ provides
us with valuable information on scientific discussions going on
during his time, and particularly on some scholars active in the
8/9th century, such as Bakht¬sh‚‘ ibn Jibr¬l and Ab‚ IsΩ®q al-
Na˙˙®m. J®Ωi˙ was an active participant in these discussions,
and thereby contributed to the scientific development of his
period.*
* We are indebted H. Larson for the English translation of this paper and to the
editors of Arabic Sciences and Philosophy for their thorough redaction.
ABRAHAM IBN EZRA’S SCIENTIFIC CORPUS

BASIC CONSTITUENTS AND GENERAL
CHARACTERIZATION*
SHLOMO SELA
INTRODUCTION
Abraham ibn Ezra (ca 1089 – ca 1167) was a prolific writer on a

great variety of subjects and one of the most original medieval
thinkers. His fame was due principally to his outstanding bibli-
cal exegesis, but he also wrote religious and profane poetry and
a series of religious-theological monographs.1 However, Ibn
Ezra’s intellectual interests extended to the field of science
as well and his main contribution to the history of science lies in
the composition of a significant but poorly known scientific cor-
pus. Its contents are typical of and faithfully reflect Ibn Ezra’s
times. On the one hand, Ibn Ezra’s scientific contribution may
* I am indebted to Gad Freudenthal for his valuable comments and suggestions.

1
For a discussion of Ibn Ezra’s biblical exegesis, particularly focused on his com-
mentary on Psalms, but also useful as a general evaluation of his exegetical contri-
bution, see U. Simon, Four Approaches to the Book of Psalms from Saadia Gaon to
Abraham Ibn Ezra (Albany, 1991), pp. 145-205. For an assessment of Ibn Ezra’s
philosophical-religious thought, see the following main works: M. Friedlander, Essays
on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra (London, 1877); D. Rosin, “Die Religion-
sphilosophie Abraham Ibn Esra’s”, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft
des Judentums, 42 (1898): 17-33, 58-73, 108-15, 154-61, 200-14, 241-52, 305-15, 345-
62, 394-407, 444-57, 481-505; 43 (1899): 22-31, 75-91, 125-33, 168-84, 231-40;
H. Greive, Studien zum jüdischen Neuplatonismus: Die Religionsphilosophie des
Abraham Ibn Ezra (Berlin, 1973). About Ibn Ezra’s non-conformism and individual-
ism viewed as part and parcel of his cultural contribution and wanderings see
A. Graboïs, “Le non-conformisme intellectuel au XIIe siècle: Pierre Abélard et
Abraham Ibn Ezra”, in M. Yardeni (ed.), Modernité et non-conformisme en France à
travers les âges (Leiden, 1983), pp. 3-13. For a study of Ibn Ezra’s utilization of astro-
logical concepts in his philosophy from the perspective of the history of Jewish
thought see Y. T. Langerman, “Some astrological themes in the thought of Abraham
Ibn Ezra”, in I. Twersky and J. M. Harris (eds.), Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra: Studies in
the Writings of a Twelfth-Century Jewish Polymath (Cambridge, Mass., 1993),
pp. 28-85. For a study of the integration Ibn Ezra made of scientific contents into his
biblical commentaries and theological monographs see S. Sela, Astrology and Biblical
Exegesis in the Thought of Abraham Ibn Ezra (in Hebrew) (Ramat-Gan, 1999).
92 SHLOMO SELA
be understood as the very beginning of an historic cultural

development which may be named the scientific renaissance of
medieval Hebrew. This was a process in which Jewish scholars
gradually abandoned the Arabic language and adopted the
holy tongue as a vehicle not limited to strictly religious contents
but open also to express secular and scientific ideas.2 On the
other hand, on a broader European stage, Ibn Ezra’s scientific
output may be understood as one of the multiple expressions of
the twelfth century scientific renaissance. It was a cultural
process in whose framework the Greek scientific world con-
ception was transferred to scholars in Western Europe, after
being adopted, refined and extended by Islamic culture and
Arabic language. In this context, Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus
represented an exceptional case: instead of the common Latin
model embodied by the scholar coming from the Christian
North and daring to penetrate the Iberian Peninsula to initiate
a translation enterprise, we have in Ibn Ezra the contrary case
of an intellectual imbued with the Arabic culture, who aban-
dons al-Andalus, roams around the Christian countries and
delivers in his wandering through Italy, France and England,
2
I have adopted this special denomination – “scientific renaissance of medieval
Hebrew” – because medieval Jewish intellectuals believed that their Hebrew ances-
tors were vigorously engaged in sciences and that Greek philosophy and sciences
were in fact a product of the “theft” of the pristine Hebrew wisdom. Medieval Jewish
intellectuals therefore assumed that by being engaged in sciences of Greek or Arabic
origin they were in fact reawakening their brilliant scientific past. For a discussion of
the development of these ideas, especially in Late Antiquity, see N. Roth, “The ‘theft
of philosophy’ by the Greeks from the Jews”, Classical Folia, 32 (1978): 53-67. For a
discussion of this belief, focused mainly on the work of twelfth century Jewish intel-
lectuals, see Sela, Astrology and Biblical Exegesis, pp. 47-54. For a general review
and discussion of the movement of translations from Arabic into Hebrew which
embraced the full range of philosophy and scientific learning performed between the
12th and the 15th centuries, see A.S. Halkin, “Translation and translators”,
Encyclopaedia Judaica, XV (Jerusalem, 1972), cols. 1318-1329; J.-P. Rothschild,
“Motivations et méthodes des traductions en hébreu du milieu du XIIe à la fin du XVe
siècle”, in G. Contamine (ed.), Traduction et traducteurs au Moyen Âge (Colloque
International du CNRS, IRHT, 26-28 mai 1986) (Paris, 1989), pp. 279-302. For a
study of the role that sciences played in Jewish medieval society, chiefly focused in
Provence, see G. Freudenthal, “Les sciences dans les communautés juives médiévales
de Provence: leur appropration, leur rôle”, Revue des études juives, CLII (1993): 29-
136, esp. 32-41. On the process of creation of the corpus of medieval Jewish texts on
gynaecology and obstetrics, see R. Barkai, A History of Jewish Gynaecological
Literature in the Middle Ages (Leiden, 1998), pp. 6-20. For the contribution of
Abraham bar ºiyya, another Jewish scientist contemporary with Ibn Ezra, see
º. Rabin, “R. Abraham bar ºiyya uteΩiyyat leshonenu bimei habeinayim”, in
R. Rawidowicz (ed.), Me◊uda (London, 1945), pp. 158-70.
ABRAHAM IBN EZRA’S SCIENTIFIC CORPUS 93
the scientific and cultural cargo that he amassed during his
youth in al-Andalus.3
Researchers in the past have explored some components of
Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus. A brilliant start was carried out in
the closing years of the last century by the bibliographic contri-
bution of Moritz Steinschneider4 and by Moritz Silberberg who
translated and prepared a critical edition of Ibn Ezra’s Sefer
haMispar.5 In our century, José Maria Millás Vallicrosa focused
his attention on Ibn Ezra’s astronomical works, editing two
important Latin treatises ascribed by him to Ibn Ezra.6 Also
B. R. Goldstein, in connection with his research on Ibn al-
Muthann®’s Commentary on the Astronomical Tables of al-
Khw®rizm¬, an important lost astronomical Arabic source that
is extant in Latin and Hebrew translations, edited, translated
and commented upon the Hebrew translations, including the
version carried out by Ibn Ezra.7 But these important works
represent quantitatively only a small part of Ibn Ezra’s scien-
tific corpus. The overwhelming majority of the works composing
Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus were, as we will soon see, original
treatises written in Hebrew, and this is the most neglected part
of his scientific output. As a matter of fact, some of the Hebrew
treatises of Ibn Ezra were printed, but mainly in order to
achieve important goals which were quite tangential to the
scientific contents of the corpus. For instance, Raphael Levy
3
For a general evaluation of Ibn Ezra’s scientific contribution, see J. M. Millás
Vallicrosa, “El magisterio astronómico de Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra en la Europa latina”, in
Estudios sobre historia de la ciencia española (Barcelona, 1949), pp. 289-347;
S. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, VIII (New York, 1958), pp. 138-
220; M. Levey, “Abraham ibn Ezra”, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. IV
(1971), pp. 502-3; B. R. Goldstein, “Astronomy and astrology in the works of
Abraham Ibn Ezra”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 6 (1996): 9-21.
4
See, especially, M. Steinschneider, “Abraham Ibn Esra (Abraham Judaeus,
Avenare)”, Supplement zur Zeitschrift für Mathematik und Physik, XXV (1880):
59-128; id., “Abraham Judaeus – Savasorda und Ibn Esra”, Supplement zur Zeitschrift
für Mathematik und Physik, XXII (1867): 1-44, rprt in M. Steinschneider, Gesammelte
Schriften [eds. H. Malter and A. Marx (Berlin, 1925)], pp. 407-98; 327-87.
5
Sefer haMispar, Das Buch der Zahl, ein hebräisch-arithmetisches Werk des
R. Abraham Ibn Esra, Zum ersten Male herausgegeben ins Deutsche übersetzt und
erläutert von Dr. Moritz Silberberg (Frankfurt a. M., 1895), pp. 27, 79.
6
José M. Millás Vallicrosa, El Libro de los Fundamentos de las Tablas
Astronómicas de R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (Madrid-Barcelona, 1947); J. M. Millás
Vallicrosa, “Un nuevo tratado de astrolabio de R. Abraham ibn Ezra”, Al-Andalus, V
(1940): 9-29.
7
B. R. Goldstein, Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary on the Astronomical Tables of al-
Khw®rizm¬ (New Haven-London, 1967).
94 SHLOMO SELA
edited the Hebrew text of Ibn Ezra’s book Reshit ºokhma (The
Beginning of Wisdom), together with its medieval French trans-
lation, not so much because he was interested in this important
Hebrew astrological treatise, the most famous of Ibn Ezra’s sci-
entific corpus, as by virtue of the fact that the medieval French
translation of Reshit ºokhma was an excellent source in his
research of the process of crystallization of the incipient French
language.8 Similarly, J. L. Fleischer, a scholar interested in Ibn
Ezra’s biography and literary work, published some of his
Hebrew astrological works, but confessed openly that he under-
took the task not so much by reason of being attracted by its
inner contents as because he estimated that in the subject-
matter of these texts he would be able to find important bio-
graphical data in order to learn about Ibn Ezra’s biography and
biblical commentaries.9
My main purpose in this article is to provide a picture of Ibn
Ezra’s scientific corpus as comprehensive and detailed as possi-
ble given the present state of research, by continuing and
updating the work of those who in the past were interested in
his output. I will add new significant data that I was able to dis-
cover as a result of my exploration of Ibn Ezra’s work, the pub-
lished books as well as the works that are extant in manuscripts
only. The paper will fall into two main parts: (a) Ibn Ezra’s
scientific work will be broken up into three main genres: (1)
Mathematics, Astronomy, Scientific Instruments and Tools; (2)
The astrological encyclopaedia; (3) Translations from Arabic
into Hebrew. Within these genres, the treatises composing the
scientific corpus, including the various versions of a same trea-
tise, will be treated separately and follow a chronological order,
to establish fundamental bibliographical facts, such as date and
place of composition. At the same time, the scientific contents
8
See R. Levy, The Astrological Works of Abraham Ibn Ezra (Baltimore, 1927),
p. 65: “It is not primarily as a study of the literary significance of these treatises, how-
ever, that the present work was undertaken. Its chief object is to investigate the lan-
guage of the French translation from the point of view of French lexicography”. See
also Raphael Levy and Francisco Cantera, The Beginning of Wisdom, An Astrological
Treatise by Abraham Ibn Ezra (Baltimore, 1939), p. 15.
9
See what J. L. Fleischer wrote with remarkable frankness in the introduction to
his edition of Ibn Ezra’s first version of Sefer hafie‘amim (Jerusalem, 1951), pp. 8-9:
“I was not interested at all by the astrological-professional aspect of this book.
Instead, I prepared photographs of the manuscripts of Ibn Ezra’s astrological works
because I meant to find in them new data to explore Ibn Ezra’s biography, the
chronology of his works and new insights into his intellectual character.”
of these works will be briefly shown and its sources indicated
sporadically. I will pay special attention to the questions of Ibn
Ezra’s problematic authorship of some works; (b) In the second
part, Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus will be reassembled as a whole
in order to provide a global characterization, trying to point out
its general organization and shape, and to indicate its main aims
and special traits revealing Ibn Ezra personal contribution.
PART I: BASIC CONSTITUENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC CORPUS
1. Mathematics, Astronomy, Scientific Instruments and Tools
We begin our review with the works of Ibn Ezra dealing mainly
with mathematics and astronomy. As we will soon see, it is not
principally with the purpose of providing pure theoretical
knowledge in mathematics or astronomy that these works were
written. They were mainly oriented to solve technical astro-
nomical problems arising from the astrological praxis. Of para-
mount importance in this context was to explain and teach the
use of scientific tools and instruments, such as the astrolabe and
the astronomical tables. Another important aim was to explain
the foundations of the Hebrew calendar implementing the tools
provided by Greek and Arabic astronomy.
• Sefer haMispar (Book of the Number): This treatise was
written in Italy, possibly in the city of Lucca, approximately in
1146 or before, and therefore has to be considered as Ibn Ezra’s
first scientific work. This assertion follows from the following
two facts. First, Sefer haMispar was surely written before or in
1146, since Ibn Ezra alludes to Sefer haMispar as an already
accomplished work in his Sefer ha‘Ibbur (Book of Intercalation),
which was definitely written in the city of Verona in 1146 (see
below p. 113). Secondly, in his Sefer haMispar Ibn Ezra refers
on two different occasions to the first Hebrew version of Sefer
fia‘amei haLuΩot (Book of the Reasons behind Astronomical
Tables), using the future tense and so alluding to it as a still
unaccomplished work.10 Since the first Hebrew version of the
Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot was written in Lucca approximately in
1146 (see below p. 97), it follows that Sefer haMispar was writ-
ten in 1146 or before, in the city of Lucca or in Rome, which was
10
Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, pp. 27, 79.
96 SHLOMO SELA
Ibn Ezra’s previous station in Italy. This treatise was published

in a critical edition already in 1895, with a commentary and a
German translation.11
Sefer haMispar was intended to be an arithmetic textbook,
and as such it was divided into seven chapters, dealing with the
following basic operations: multiplication, division, addition,
subtraction, fractions, proportions and square roots. At the
same time, Sefer haMispar presents and explains in its intro-
ductory chapter the decimal positional system, which assumes,
besides separate symbols for 1 to 9, also an additional “void”
symbol for 0 as a placeholder, and Ibn Ezra refers explicitly to it
metaphorically as a “wheel, like straw before the wind, designed
to keep the values in their degrees and in foreign language
(Arabic) is called sifrah”.12 Before turning to explain the deci-
mal positional system, Ibn Ezra claims in Sefer haMispar that
this system was an invention of the Hindu sages.13 Also, in the
introduction to his translation of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary
on the Astronomical Tables of al-Khw®rizm¬, Ibn Ezra informs
us that Kanka, a Hindu scholar, “taught the Arabs the basis of
numbers, i.e., the nine numerals”, and that subsequently “all
later Arabic scholars multiply, divide and extract square roots
as is written in MuΩammad b. M‚s® al-Khw®rizm¬’s book on
Hindu reckoning”.14 Hence, Sefer haMispar was, very probably,
based on al-Khw®rizm¬’s Treatise on Calculation with the
Hindu Numerals or the Book of Addition and Subtraction by
the Method of Calculation of the Hindus, which may have
expounded for the first time in Arabic the use of the Hindu
numerals 1 to 9, and 0, and the place-value system, besides the
four basic operations of addition, subtraction, multiplication
and division as well as the extraction of the square root.15 In this
11
See note 5 above. For a discussion of some arithmetic and terminological topics
related to this book, see G. Ben-Ami Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology in Hebrew
Scientific Literature of the Middle Ages (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 1968), pp. 131-9.
12
Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, p. 3. The word sifrah, appears with the same mean-
ing in Liber de rationibus tabularum, the Latin version of Ibn Ezra’s Sefer fia‘amei
haLuΩot as cifre, which is a transliteration of an Arabic word meaning void or zero.
See Millás, Tablas, pp. 102, 114.
13
Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, p. 2.
14
Goldstein, Muth., pp. 148, 301-2.
15
For a discussion of these two al-Khw®rizm¬’s arithmetic treatises, see G. Toomer,
“Al-Khw®rizm¬”, Dictionary of Scientific Biography, VII (1973), p. 360. For a discus-
sion of al-Khw®rizm¬’s role in the beginnings of algebra, see R. Rashed, Entre arith-
métique et algèbre. Recherches sur l’histoire des mathématiques arabes (Paris, 1984),
pp. 17-29.
context, it is worth pointing out that the Hebrew Sefer
haMispar is one of the first to introduce the arithmetic of al-
Khw®rizm¬ into Latin Europe, let alone the presentation of the
decimal positional system, together and in parallel to a Latin
contemporary version named algorismus, a name that clearly
betrays al-Khw®rizm¬’s influence.16
• Sefer T . a‘amei haLuh.ot (Book of the Reasons behind
Astronomical Tables): Abraham ibn Ezra presumably wrote this
treatise in four different versions, two in Hebrew and the other
two in Latin.17 The Hebrew versions are lost but a Latin text,
the Liber de rationibus tabularum, was ascribed to Ibn Ezra and
edited in 1947 by José Maria Millás Vallicrosa.18 We have sound
evidence about Ibn Ezra’s authorship over both Hebrew ver-
sions: according to the highly reliable testimony of Joseph
Bonfils in his work —afnat Pa‘aneaΩ – a supercommentary writ-
ten on Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Pentateuch at the end of
the fourteenth century – Ibn Ezra wrote two different Hebrew
versions of the astronomical tables, the first in Lucca and the
second in Narbonne. As far as the first Hebrew version is
concerned, besides being composed in Lucca as Joseph Bonfils
16
The name of the Latin treatise is Liber ysagogarum Alchorismi and one of the
eight extant manuscripts attributes it to Magister A. Names such as Adelard of Bath,
Abraham bar ºiyya and Petrus Alphonsi were presented as plausible candidates, but
taking into account that Ibn Ezra wrote Sefer haMispar, which clearly reveals al-
Khw®rizm¬’s influence, and given that the Latin treatise covers also Jewish topics,
such as the Jewish calendar, the Hebrew names of the planets, etc. it is not impossi-
ble that Magister A. was Abraham ibn Ezra. For a discussion of this Latin arithmetic
treatise introduced in Latin Europe in the middle of the twelfth century, See espe-
cially A. Allard, “The Arabic origins and development of Latin algorisms in the
twelfth century”, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 1 (1991): 233-83. See also
L. Cochrane, Adelard of Bath, The First English Scientist (London, 1994), pp. 80-1,
83-4 (n. 31, 32); M. S. Mahoney, “Mathematics”, in D. Lindberg (ed.), Science in the
Middle Ages (Chicago, 1978), pp. 150-1.
17
For a discussion of the different versions of this treatise, and especially regard-
ing the presumed authorship of Ibn Ezra, see the following works: Steinschneider,
“Abraham Ibn Esra”, pp. 494, 469; José M. Millás Vallicrosa, “Avodato ◊el R.
Abraham Ibn Ezra beΩokhmat hatekhuna”, Tarbiz, IX (1938): 306-22; id., Tablas, pp.
11-21; id., “El magisterio astronómico de Abraham Ibn ‘Ezra”, pp. 289-347; I dealt
with this subject in two articles, and here I will confine myself to point out the main
arguments: S. Sela, “Contactos científicos entre judíos y cristianos en el siglo XII: El
caso del Libro de las Tablas astronómicas de Abraham Ibn Ezra en su versión latina
y hebrea”, Miscelanea de Estudios Arabes y Hebraicos, 45 (1996): 185-222; id.,
“Puntos de contacto entre contenidos del Libro de las Tablas astronómicas en su ver-
sión latina y las obras literarias hebreas de Abraham Ibn Ezra”, Miscelanea de
Estudios Arabes y Hebraicos, 46 (1997): 37-56.
18
See above note 6. This treatise, as we will soon see, is the second Latin version of
Liber de rationibus tabularum.
98 SHLOMO SELA
claimed, it is possible to establish with a reasonable certainty

that it was written in 1146, after Ibn Ezra wrote his Sefer
haMispar and briefly before he moved to Verona.19 Regarding
the second Hebrew version of Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot, we know
for certain that it was composed in Narbonne, as Joseph Bonfils
claimed, and it may thus be safely stated that it was composed
after Ibn Ezra left Italy and arrived in Provence in 1148 but
before 1154.20
As said above, the two Hebrew versions are lost, but we can
catch a glimpse of their contents by exploring other sources. In
—afnat Pa‘aneaΩ of Joseph Bonfils it is possible to trace four
interesting references pointing directly to four passages of Ibn
Ezra’s Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot – two dealing with the motions of
the moon, one with the longitude of Jerusalem, and one fur-
nishing a very high opinion of Claudius Ptolemy. An analysis of
these passages shows that its contents are either similar but not
identical to parallel passages found in the Latin version or non-
existent in it altogether.21 Similarly, a comparison between, on
the one hand, numerous references to Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot
found in the Hebrew scientific corpus of Ibn Ezra22 along with
the already-mentioned four references to it found in —afnat
Pa‘aneaΩ, and, on the other hand, the contents of the Latin
extant version, allows us to conclude that the Hebrew and Latin
versions were similar in some details but quite different in
other significant parts.
We now turn to the Latin version. Several manuscripts
survive of this version which, as said above, was edited by José
19
The last assertion follows from the following two points: first, as said above (see
p. 95), in his Sefer haMispar Ibn Ezra refers on two different opportunities to some
Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot, that is, the Book of the Reasons Behind Astronomical Tables,
using the future tense and so alluding to it as a still unfinished work. Secondly, later
in 1146 Ibn Ezra left Lucca and moved to Verona where he also wrote in 1146 the
first version of his Sefer ha‘Ibbur, a fact that was registered by Ibn Ezra himself in
this book (see below p. 113).
20
The second Hebrew version was quite certainly composed before 1154, when Ibn
Ezra wrote the second version of his Sefer haMoladot, in whose Latin extant transla-
tion we found a reference to the Liber de rationibus tabularum as an accomplished
work (see below p. 125).
21
The four references may be found in Joseph Bonfils, Sophnat Pane’ach, Ein
Beitrag sur Pentateuchexegeses des Mittelalters von D. Herzog (Heidelberg, 1911-
1930), I, pp. 14-15, 17-18, 84, 142. I have analyzed these four references in Sela,
“Contactos científicos”, pp. 200-7.
22
For a review and analysis of these references see: Millás, Tablas, pp. 11-19; Sela,
“Contactos científicos”, pp. 190-200.
Maria Millás Vallicrosa in 1947, who, following some hesitant
claims of M. Steinschneider,23 also ascribed this work to Abraham
ibn Ezra.24 Notwithstanding Millás Vallicrosa’s important contri-
bution in the edition of this work, some important obstacles still
remain and need to be removed before Ibn Ezra’s authorship
can safely be assumed. I will refer to these difficulties while fur-
nishing bibliographical information about the Latin versions.
In the Latin text there appears in several places the name of
Abraham or Abraham Iudaeus as a reference to its writer,25
which remark surely implies that the writer was a Jew whose
name was Abraham. This, however, does not imply that
Abraham or Abraham Iudaeus is the author of the Latin ver-
sion, for the text may originally have been written in Hebrew
and subsequently translated into Latin. Nor is it certain that
Abraham or Abraham Iudaeus can be identified with Ibn Ezra.
Still, in my opinion, the evidence suggests the following three
points: (i) Ibn Ezra was the ultimate author of the contents
found in the Latin text; (ii) the Latin text was not a mere trans-
lation from a Hebrew source; (iii) Ibn Ezra had some knowledge
of the Latin language, a fact that works in favor of the possibil-
ity that he was in some way involved in the composition of the
Latin version. These points may be defended with the following
arguments.
(i) Abraham ibn Ezra’s authorship is grounded primarily on
correspondences between the Latin text and Ibn Ezra’s other
known work. In this context, Millás Vallicrosa’s main argument
was to provide a series of references in Ibn Ezra’s Hebrew sci-
entific corpus pointing to a Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot or Sefer
haLuΩot (Book of the Astronomical Tables).26 But, besides the
fact that this list may be further enlarged and that the refer-
ences do not always point to topics which may be actually found
in the Latin text, my main objection to this argument is as fol-
lows: Based on passages extracted from Ibn Ezra’s Hebrew sci-
entific corpus, these references point naturally to the lost
Hebrew versions of Ibn Ezra’s Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot or Sefer
haLuΩot and so they cannot be presented as a proof of Ibn
23
Steinschneider, “Abraham Ibn Esra”, pp. 494, 469.
24
Millás, Tablas, pp. 11-19.
25
The Latin text begins with the words “Dixit Abraham Iudaeus”, and the name
Abraham appears on several occasions, especially in the trigonometric chapter. See
Millás, Tablas, pp. 73, 137, 148, 154, 159.
26
Millás, Tablas, pp. 11-19.
100 SHLOMO SELA
Ezra’s authorship over a Latin counterpart. In my opinion, a

proper demonstration-methodology should employ the opposite
approach, that is, considering the Latin text as the point of
departure, lines of contact should be traced to link the Latin
text with Ibn Ezra’s Hebrew work. In this context, Millás
Vallicrosa and especially B. R. Goldstein already made impor-
tant contributions, showing that there is a close and direct cor-
respondence of the contents between some parts of the Latin
text and Ibn Ezra’s translation of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Com-
mentary on the Astronomical Tables of al-Khw®rizm¬.27 What is
more, additional evidence may be presented showing striking
resemblance between some passages of the Latin text and par-
allel passages of Ibn Ezra’s whole Hebrew literary work, that is,
the scientific corpus as well as his biblical exegesis and theolog-
ical monographs.28
(ii) As said above, a comparison of the references in Ibn Ezra’s
Hebrew scientific corpus to Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot or Sefer
haLuΩot with the corresponding passages in Liber de rationibus
tabularum, shows that the Hebrew and Latin versions were
27
Millás, Tablas, pp. 51-4, 73, 137, 148, 154, 159; Goldstein, Muth., pp. 11, 200-8,
218, 231, 234.
28
I dealt with this problem in Sela, “Puntos de contacto”, pp. 37-56. In this article
I presented several links between the Latin text and Ibn Ezra’s oeuvre, but I limited
myself to two main topics: a scientific subject such as the relation between the
perimeter and the radius of the circle as well as a loaded religious topic such as a com-
parison between the Hebrew and the Christian calendars. Yet additional striking
instances may be supplied, and I will limit myself here to a single one. This is a pas-
sage found in the Latin text as well as in the first version of Sefer ha‘Olam, discussing
in Latin and in Hebrew the various amounts ascribed to the sun declination with a
similar approach and with almost identical wording: Millás, Tablas, p. 77: “Nam indi
dicunt 24 graduum integrorum declinationem solis esse, sed Abrachix et Ptholomeus
dixerunt 23 graduum 51 minutorum, secundum horum sententiam arcus declinatio-
nis sic se habebit ad totum circulum ut 11 ad 83. Omnes vero alii magistri proba-
tionum dixerunt declinationem esse 23 graduum et 35 minutorum, exceptis
Abnebimezor et Azarchel qui dixerunt eam esse 23 graduum et 33 minutorum”; Sefer
ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale de France (hereafter Paris,
BNF), MS Héb. 1056, fols. 81r-81v:
See another example, referring to two different versions of trepidatio, in Millás,

Tablas, p. 77: Cf. Hebrew counterpart in Sefer ha‘Ibbur, ed. by S. Z. H. Halberstam
(Lyck, 1874), p. 10 (a).
similar in some details but quite different in other significant
parts. Some of these differences – a reference to Jerusalem and
a comparative and didactic approach to explain the points of
contact between the Jewish and the Christian calendars – imply
that the Hebrew and Latin versions were addressed respectively
to Jewish and Christian audiences.29 These similarities and
differences work in favor of the possibility that both texts were
different versions and militate against the possibility that the
Latin version was a mere translation of the Hebrew version.
(iii) Regarding the question of Ibn Ezra’s ability to write
directly in Latin or of being involved in the composition of a Latin
scientific treatise, an exploration of his biblical exegesis reveals
some remarkable examples that show clearly that Ibn Ezra knew
the Latin language well enough to refer critically to some parts of
the Latin Vulgate, or to argue, with the help of words translated
into Latin, against fellow Jewish commentators.30 Consequently,
we can assume that he was able, either by himself or more likely
with the help of a disciple, to write a scientific technical treatise
in Latin. Indeed, there is another instance of a scientific treatise
which, as we shall explain (see below p. 107), Ibn Ezra wrote in
Latin with the help of a Christian disciple: a Book on the
Astrolabe, a parallel version to his Hebrew Keli haNeΩoshet.
There is a further central feature of the Latin text – the place
of composition – which also must be reconciled with the known
29
In this context, it should be noted that in Joseph Bonfils, Sophnat Pane’ach I,
p. 142, a reference is made to Ibn Ezra’s Sefer haLuΩot giving the exact longitude of
Jerusalem, a reference which does not appear in the Latin parallel text. Given the fact
that the geographic parameters of Jerusalem are commonly endowed by Ibn Ezra with
Jewish ritual and religious significance, that may explain why the Latin parallel ver-
sion, which was presumably directed to a Christian audience, does not contain the
same Jerusalem reference. Also, some passages may be found in the Latin text setting
out, with a clearly comparative and didactic approach, the fundamentals of the Jewish
intercalation alongside some traits of the Christian calendar. See Millás, Tablas, pp.
98-100. These passages may be construed as an effort of the author, Abraham Iudaeus,
to convey to a Christian audience the fundamentals of the Jewish calendar, stressing
particularly the points of contact which link it with the Christian calendar.
30
In his short commentary on Genesis 37:35 and on Isaiah 38:10, Ibn Ezra sharply
criticizes Jerome because of his wrong translation of the Hebrew word She’ol with
the Latin term infernus. Also, in a commentary on Genesis 49:10, reported by Joseph
Jacob of Modeville (See M. Friedlander, Essays on the Writings of Abraham Ibn Ezra
[London, 1877], pp. 67-8) Ibn Ezra finds fault with Jerome because in his translation
he distorted such a geographical term as Shilo and saw in it an allusion heralding the
rise of Christianity. Conversely, in the short commentary on Exodus 30:23, Ibn Ezra
employs the term myrrha, which is the Latin translation of the Hebrew word mor, to
argue against his fellow commentator Saadia Gaon.
102 SHLOMO SELA
biography of Ibn Ezra in order to ascribe the book to him. The

contents of the Liber de rationibus tabularum show clearly that
the text was written in the year 1154 in some unspecified loca-
tion in France.31 In fact, the Latin text records that “he tabule
composite sunt secundum meridiem Pisanorum quorum remo-
tio est ab occidentis termino 33 gradus”,32 a remark implying
that a previous and first Latin version had been composed in
Pisa. Therefore, when attempting to identify the author of the
Latin text, it is crucial to determine whether Ibn Ezra dwelt or
resided in the city of Pisa. We have plenty of information about
Ibn Ezra’s stay in the neighboring city of Lucca, where he devel-
oped a very rich literary production,33 where he wrote, as was
said above, the parallel Hebrew version of Liber de rationibus
tabularum. Nevertheless, previous research has not traced any
reference to Ibn Ezra’s residence in Pisa. Fortunately though, a
fragment of the second Hebrew version of Ibn Ezra’s Sefer
ha’Olam (Book of the World) – implying that Ibn Ezra per-
formed astronomical observations oriented to clearly astrologi-
cal uses in both Pisa and Lucca – allows us to establish quite
safely that Ibn Ezra resided some time in Pisa.34
A general overview of the Latin text indicates that Ibn Ezra
wrote this treatise in order to provide astronomical and astrologi-
cal theoretical knowledge to whoever may be interested in using
the astronomical tables35 and expound and explain the main traits
31
This is highly reminiscent of the fact that the second version of Ibn Ezra’s Sefer
haMoladot, which is extant only in a Latin translation, was also written approxi-
mately in the same year. Compare the two following references: a) Millás, Tablas,
p. 78: “anno 1154 ab incarnacione Domini, quo hanc edicionem fecimus”, see also
p. 99; b) Liber Abraham Iude de nativitatibus (Venetia, 1484), p. c 3v: “Hoc 1154 ab
incarnatione domini est adunatio eorum in triplicitate terrae”.
32
Millás, Tablas, p. 87.
33
J. L. Fleischer, “Abraham Ibn Ezra’s literary output in the city of Lucca in Italy”
(in Hebrew), Hasoker, 2 (1934): 77-84; 4 (1936-7): 186-94.
34
In Sefer ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 89v we read
that Ibn Ezra registered a list of 22 cities, including Lucca and Pisa, accompanied by
their respective city zodiacal sign (Hebrew = mazzal medinah) and its ecliptic para-
meters. Yet while in the case of the great majority of the cities Ibn Ezra limited him-
self to the routine annotation of the zodiacal sign and its exact ecliptic parameters,
regarding precisely the two cities of Lucca and Pisa he adopted a completely different
way of reporting; thus, he wrote that “Pisa: some say that its sign is Piscis, but,
according to my own observations, its sign is 3 degrees in Aquarium; Lucca: accord-
ing to my own observations on two occasions, its sign is Cancer in the limit of
Jupiter”.
35
Millás, Tablas, p. 83: “Nunc autem antequam ratiocinemus de compositione tabu-
larum quas fecimus secundum probationem predictorum virorum sibi consentientium,
quedam convenienter ad totam astronomiam premittemus”. That the expression tota
and uses of these astronomical tables.36 The treatise begins by
illustrating the astronomical and astrological features of each one
of the seven planets, and deals particularly at length with the sun
and the moon; continues with a trigonometric chapter and ends
with specific astronomical problems, such as establishing the
moon’s latitude, the latitude of cities, the seasonal hours, the
twelve astrological houses or the first visibility of the lunar cres-
cent. The author of the treatise refers explicitly to Greek and
Hermetic sources such as Hipparchus, Ptolemy, Doronius and
Hermes;37 Hindu astronomical tables are mentioned in general as
tabulas indorum and in particular as z¬j al-Sindhind;38 Arabic
astronomers and astrologers are referred to in general as magistri
probationum and in particular by mentioning the names of no-
table scientists such as al-Khw®rizm¬, al-Batt®n¬, al-—‚f¬, Ibn S¬n®,
Th®bit b. Qurra, al-Nayr¬z¬, Ibn Y‚nus, Ban‚ S®kir, M®sh®’all®h,
Ab‚ Ma‘shar;39 Andalusian scientists such as Ibn al-Muthann®,
Maslama, Ibn al-—aff®r, Azarchiel are also mentioned.40
astronomia implies elements of astronomy as well as of astrology can be affirmed after

an inspection of the following lines. See, for example, the contents of the next note.
36
Millás, Tablas, pp. 84-5: “He tabule quas composuimus utiles sunt ad declina-
tionem solis sciendum et altitudinem meridianam et ad inveniendum oriens per alti-
tudinem solis et per umbram et ad cognoscendas horas temporales diei et noctis
coequationem domorum orientis et ascensionis terrarum et ad apparitiones plane-
tarum matutinas et nocturnas et remotiones fixarum a recto circulo et ad cognoscen-
dum cum quo gradu fixa sit in medio celi et cum quo sit in oriente et cum quo occidat,
et ad arcum diurnum et nocturnum fixe ad sciendum quantitatem mutacionis visus
secundum longitudinem et latitudinem et adunacionem solis et lune et oposicionem,
et quando prima erit secundum visum et ad eclipsum lune et quantitatem eius et in
qua parte, utrum scilicet dextra an sinistra, et suum colorem et ad cognoscendum sua
tempora eclipsis et eclipsim solis, partesque omnes eius et omnes ductus qui sunt
secundum latitudinem terre, et signa mobilia et fixa et bicorpa et recta signa et obli-
qua et longa et curta et omne opus astrolabii”.
37
See the following references in Millás, Tablas: Claudius Ptholomeus: pp. 74-82,
89, 93, 130-1, 143, 155, 160; Hipparchus (Abracaz or Abracax): pp. 75, 77, 80, 91, 105;
Hermes: pp. 77, 160; Doronius: p. 160; Hermes: pp. 77, 160.
38
For the z¬j al-Sindhind (Scindehind, Acintdeindi) see ibid., pp. 75, 88. See refer-
ences to the tabulas indorum, pp. 81, 82, 89, 101, 120, 130.
39
See the following references. Al-Khw®rizm¬ (Elcaurezmus): pp. 74, 75, 105, 109,
110, 126, 127, 144, 155, 160, 164, 166, 167; al-Batt®n¬ (Albateni): pp. 78, 80, 83, 86;
al-—‚f¬ (Azofi): pp. 78, 86, 87, 98; Ibn S¬n® (Abencine): pp. 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 95;
Th®bit b. Qurra (Tebith ben Core): pp. 76, 79, 81, 82, 83; al-Nayr¬z¬ (Anarizi): p. 76;
Ibn Y‚nus (Abeniunuz): pp. 83, 86; Ban‚ S®kir (fratres Beni Saquir): pp. 81, 83;
M®sh®’all®h (Mescella): pp. 75, 160; Ab‚ Ma‘shar (Albumasar): pp. 75, 160.
40
See the following references. Ibn al-Muthann® (Abenmucenne): pp. 110, 130,
147, 153, 154, 155, 158, 160, 161, 163, 166; Maslama (Mezlame): p. 75; Ibn al-—aff®r
(Abnezafar): p. 75; Azarchiel (Acerchel, Azarchiel Hispanus): pp. 76, 77, 79, 80, 83,
86, 87, 93, 95.
104 SHLOMO SELA
• Keli haNeh.oshet (The Instrument of Brass – The Book on

the Astrolabe). As far as I was able to find out, Abraham ibn
Ezra composed this treatise, designed to describe the physical
configuration of the astrolabe and teach its astronomical and
astrological uses, in three different Hebrew versions. What is
more, Ibn Ezra wrote, with the aid of a disciple, a Latin version
of the Astrolabe Book as well.
The first Hebrew version of Keli haNeΩoshet was composed,
as Ibn Ezra himself annotated at the beginning of the Rete’s list
of stars,41 in 4906 A.M. (anno mundi) that is, in 1146. The first
version was composed in Northern Italy, possibly in Lucca,
before Ibn Ezra wrote his Sefer ha‘Ibbur (Book of Intercalation)
and after he had completed the first Hebrew version of Sefer
fia‘amei haLuΩot. We may conclude that from a fragment of the
first version of Sefer ha‘Ibbur – written in 1146 in Verona (see
below p. 113) – wherein the reader is referred to Keli haNeΩoshet
as an already completed work.42 Also, in the text of the first ver-
sion of Keli haNeΩoshet the author points out that he had
already written a book dealing with the differences of opinion
confronting the sages of Greece, India and Persia about the
astrological aspects.43 This passage, even though it has stark
astrological connotations, is closely related to astronomy, and
therefore we estimate that it is a reference to the first Hebrew
version of Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot, written in Lucca in 1146 or
earlier.44
The second version of Keli haNeΩoshet, whose existence has
not hitherto been known to modern research and which is
extant only in manuscript,45 was also written in the year 1146
41
Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), ed. H. Edelman (Koenisberg, 1845), p. 31. I also
consulted the following manuscripts: Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1053, fols. 1v-36v; Paris,
BNF, MS Héb. 1061, fols. 148v-164r; St. Petersburg, MS 311, fols. 4v-20v; Moscow, MS
Gunzburg 1080, fols. 53v-67v. For another printed edition of this text see, Keli
haNeΩoshet, in Me’ir Y◊Ωaq Bak’al (ed.), Sefer Mishpeflei haKokhavim (Jerusalem,
1971), pp. 99-132.
42
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, p. 8 (a).
43
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 29.
44
See a similar opinion in Millás, Tablas, p. 15, but Millás Vallicrosa regarded this
passage as a reference to Liber de rationibus tabularum, the Latin version of Sefer
fia‘amei haLuΩot.
45
I made use of the following manuscripts: Mantova, Biblioteca di Mantova, Fondo
Ebraico Mantovano, MS Ebr. 10 (hereafter MS Mant. 10), fols. 35-51; Warsaw, MS
Pinsker 26, fols. 58-71, left col.; Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1045, fols. 188r-196v; Paris,
BNF, MS Héb. 1047, fols. 76r-84v; St. Petersburg, MS 349, fols. 1v-14r; New York,
Jewish Theological Seminary MIC 2550/2, fols. 72-82.
(4906 A.M.), as the author himself annotated at the beginning
of the corresponding Rete stars list.46 It follows that the second
version was written in the same year as the first one (in fact, as
we shall see, a few months after it), no wonder therefore that
the second version is in some parts very similar to the first one
– in the date of composition, in the Rete’s list of stars and in its
general structure. However, the two versions have substantially
different traits that make them distinct one from the other. I
will now present these traits:
(i) The two versions differ sharply in the details and formula-
tion of some of the astrolabe’s operations, inter alia, in relation
to the procedure to find “the latitude of cities or places”,47 to
find “how many degrees each zodiacal sign will rise in the equa-
tor”,48 the procedure to locate one of the Rete’s stars,49 or the
procedure to locate one of the planets.50 Concerning the latter
operation, we shall consider below a significant passage of the
second version referring to Venus’ visibility in very special con-
ditions, a reference that makes the second version unique in the
framework of the three Hebrew versions, but at the same time
marks out a connection with an extremely similar reference
that may be found in the Latin version of the Astrolabe Book
(see below p. 111).
(ii) The two versions differ in their connection to Sefer ha‘Ibbur
(Book of Intercalation). In the second version of Keli haNeΩoshet,
Ibn Ezra directs the reader to consult Sefer ha‘Ibbur as an
already accomplished work.51 But, in Sefer ha‘Ibbur itself he
refers to Keli haNeΩoshet also as an already accomplished work.52
The explanation of these apparently incompatible cross-refer-
ences is that Sefer ha‘Ibbur was written some time in the year
1146 between the redaction of the two different versions of Keli
haNeΩoshet. The first version of Keli haNeΩoshet was written
sometime early in 1146, and this is the version referred to in
46
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 39v.
47
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fols. 42v-42r. Cf. Edelman, Keli
haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 22-3.
48
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 41v. Cf. Edelman, Keli
haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 20.
49
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 44v; Edelman, Keli
haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 35.
50
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 44v; Edelman, Keli
haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 23-4.
51
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 46v.
52
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, p. 8 (a).
106 SHLOMO SELA
Sefer ha‘Ibbur. The second version was written late in 1146, after
Ibn Ezra finished Sefer ha‘Ibbur, and in this second version of
Keli haNeΩoshet Ibn Ezra refers to Sefer ha‘Ibbur as an already
finished work.
(iii) It is possible to locate in both versions of Keli haNeΩoshet
a series of distinctive references that draw a clear dividing line
between the first and second versions of Keli haNeΩoshet.53 In
clear contrast with the first version, Ibn Ezra mentions in the
second version several times Sefer haLuΩot as a not yet written
work.54 Hence, we can conjecture that after moving from Lucca
to Verona or Mantova, Ibn Ezra was required to compose a new
version of the Sefer haLuΩot, a task that he eventually accom-
plished after he arrived in Provence. Similarly, references to
Sefer haMishpaflim (Book of Astrological Judgments), that
appear several times in the first version of Keli haNeΩoshet,55
disappear completely from its second version.
The third version of Keli haNeΩoshet, which also is extant in
manuscript,56 was written almost two years later (4908 A.M.),
early in 1148, as the author recorded in the corresponding
Rete’s list of fixed stars.57 The details, wording and composition
of the third version are substantially different from those of the
previous two versions. What is more, in the Rete’s list of fixed
stars we find 36 stars, while the two previous versions included
only 23 stars.58 As in the second version, the third version con-
53
But we also find in both versions of Keli haNeΩoshet some similar references to
other works by Ibn Ezra. Thus, in both versions of Keli haNeΩoshet Ibn Ezra refers
to an already written book dealing with the differences of opinion of the sages of
Greece, India and Persia concerning the astrological aspects. See Keli haNeΩoshet
(second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 47v; cf. Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version),
p. 29. As said above, I believe that both references point to the first Hebrew version
of Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot, written in Lucca in 1146 or before. Likewise, as in the first
version, we continue to find in the second version references to Sefer haMoladot
(Book of Nativities), a reiteration that is clearly accounted for by the fact that Sefer
haMoladot remained until 1148 an unaccomplished project. See Keli haNeΩoshet (sec-
ond version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 36v. Cf. Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version),
pp. 9, 14.
54
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fols. 37r, 42r.
55
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 25, 29, 30, 31.
56
I used the following manuscripts: Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fols. 58-71, right col.;
Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1054, fols. 4v-10r; Moscow, MS Gunzburg 179, fols. 111v-116r;
Moscow, MS Gunzburg 937, fols. 2v-14r.
57
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 67v, right col.
58
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 67v, right col. Cf.
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 31; Keli haNeΩoshet (second version),
MS Mant. 10, fol. 39v. The star lists of the first and third version of Keli haNeΩoshet
tinues to refer the reader to Sefer haLuΩot in the future tense.59
But, in the third version, for the first time, we detect a reference
in future tense to an astrological treatise named Reshit ºokhma,
a book that Ibn Ezra was to complete in the next weeks or
months.60 From this evidence we may conclude that the third
version of Keli haNeΩoshet was the first work that Ibn Ezra wrote
in Provence, after he left Italy. The fact that Ibn Ezra composed
yet another version of the same Book on the Astrolabe, just
before he began the composition of his astrological encyclopae-
dia headed by the Reshit ºokhma, is an additional proof of the
importance of the astrolabe in solving astronomical as well as
astrological problems.
A Latin manual describing the astrolabe and teaching its uses
is available in two manuscripts of the British Library – MS
Cotton Vesp. fols. 40-37 and MS Arundel 377 fols. 63-68 – fol-
lowing copies of the Latin text of the Liber de rationibus tabu-
larum ascribed to Abraham ibn Ezra. Moritz Steinschneider
was the first to draw attention to this text and to connect it with
the work of Jewish medieval scientists. To corroborate his
assertion, Steinschneider adduced a passage of the Latin text
that mentioned a personage named Abraham, undoubtedly a
Jew, dictating the astrolabe manual to a disciple. This disciple
could not conceal his deep admiration towards his teacher and
wrote: “Ut ait philosophorum sibi contemporaneorum Abraham
magister noster egregius quo dictante et hanc dispositionem
astrolabii conscripsimus …”.61 But Steinschneider hesitated
whether the author was Abraham ibn Ezra, Abraham bar
ºiyya, or Abraham Zacuto.62 The subsequent chain of events
connected to the research on this text was very similar to that
related to the Liber de rationibus tabularum. The Polish inves-
tigator A. Birkenmajer conjectured that Ibn Ezra was the
were meticulously studied by B. R. Goldstein, in the context of his research on star

lists in Hebrew. See B. R. Goldstein, “Star lists in Hebrew”, Centaurus, 28 (1985):
185-208.
59
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fols. 59v, 60r, 66r, right
col.
60
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 65v, right col.
61
Tractatus de Astrolabio conscriptus dictante authori quodsam egregio pilosopho
Mro. Abraham, London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 40r and MS
Arundel 377, fol. 68r.
62
Steinschneider, “Abraham Ibn Esra”, pp. 494-5; id., Die Hebraeischen
Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher, 2nd ed. (Graz, 1956),
p. 569.
108 SHLOMO SELA
author of this Latin text and communicated his idea to Jose

Maria Millás Vallicrosa. This distinguished Spanish historian of
the science, returning to his homeland after the Spanish Civil
War, continued the research and in 1940 published an impor-
tant article on this Latin text. The methodology of this article
was similar to that adopted in relation to the Liber de rationibus
tabularum. Millás Vallicrosa edited the Latin text of this astro-
labe manual and cautiously suggested that Ibn Ezra was its
author.63 To corroborate his assertion Millás Vallicrosa brought
forward mainly two passages, in addition to the passage men-
tioning Abraham magister noster. The first one goes on to
explain that “locum lune in tabulis coequationis planetarum
secundum artem quam dedimus de coequandis planetis ad qua-
muis horam sume”, a somewhat vague statement which in
Millás Vallicrosa’s opinion referred to the astronomical tables
that Ibn Ezra had written previously.64 The second passage
alludes to a singular astronomical phenomenon that allegedly
could be observed in England – “si quis fuerit in Anglia cum sol
fuerit a parte capricorni…” – a reference that in Millás’ opinion
indicated that the Latin text was composed by Ibn Ezra in
England during his residence there approximately in 1160.65 We
will return later to this passage and offer a different interpreta-
tion to it. Although Millás Vallicrosa made a formidable contri-
bution to the elucidation of the issue, he restricted his analysis
to the contents of the Latin text. Millás Vallicrosa was aware
only of the first Hebrew version of Keli haNeΩoshet but he did
not compare even this text with the Latin one, excusing himself
by writing that the World War was raging when he published
his article.66
No doubt, given that Ibn Ezra wrote three versions of Keli
haNeΩoshet, his authorship of a Latin counterpart should be
grounded on a comparison of the Hebrew texts to the Latin text.
After such an examination which I made, the weight of evidence
63
Millás, “Tratado de astrolabio”, pp. 9-29.
64
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 39r and MS Arundel 377, fol.
66r. Cf. Millás, “Tratado de astrolabio”, pp. 2, 19.
65
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 39r and MS Arundel 377, fol.
67v. Cf. Millás, “Tratado de astrolabio”, pp. 3-4, 22. Concerning Ibn Ezra’s sojourn in
England, see M. Friedlander, “Ibn Ezra in England”, in Transactions of the Jewish
Historical Society (London, 1894-5), pp. 47-60; J. L. Fleischer, “Abraham Ibn Ezra’s
literary work in England” (in Hebrew), Etz haHaim, VII (1931): 69-76, 107-11, 129-
33, 160-8, 189-203.
66
Millás, “Tratado de astrolabio”, p. 5. note 3.
seems to favor Millás Vallicrosa’s hypothesis about Ibn Ezra’s
authorship. The three Hebrew versions are very similar to the
Latin text not only in the description of the astrolabe – as
expected, since they describe one and the same instrument –
but also in its sources, the composition of the treatises and the
wording employed to explicate the uses of the astrolabe. The
overwhelming majority of the scientific sources recorded in the
Latin text – the magistri probationum as a distinct group of
astrologers and astronomers, Ptolomeus, Enoc (Hermes),
Mesella (M®sh®’all®h), Albumassar (Ab‚ Ma‘shar), Doroneus
(Dorotheus of Sidon), Andruzgar (Andruzgar b. Saadi Faruch),
Anurizi (al-Fa¥l b. º®tim al-Nayr¬z¬) – may be found in the sci-
entific corpus of Ibn Ezra, inclusion made of the Liber de
rationibus tabularum.67 The Arabic transliteration of the names
of the sources, as seen above, and also of the components of the
astrolabe – terms such as alhidada, alilac, assabata, acemuth,
almucantarath68 – indicate clearly that the Latin text author did
receive his scientific education in al-Andalus, as indeed did Ibn
Ezra. Moreover, some technical expressions may be found
which are strongly reminiscent of the Hebrew parallel terminol-
ogy found in the different versions of the Keli haNeΩoshet, such
as the expression ductus planetae, whose Hebrew counterpart is
nihug hakokhab,69 or the operation of ponere in linea medii
caeli, whose Hebrew counterpart is lasim beΩe◊i hashamaym,70
or the central and general term iudicia, reserved in the Latin
text for the “astrology rules”, whose Hebrew counterpart is
mishpaflim, a Hebrew word used for the first time with a clear
astrological connotation by Ibn Ezra.71
67
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fols. 39r-40v; MS Arundel 377, fol.
r
67 . For some of these names mentioned in Liber de rationibus tabularum, the Latin
version of Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot, see above notes 37, 39. The only one personage
that appears in the Latin text and that I was incapable to locate in the other works of
Ibn Ezra is Avennouausth Christianus.
68
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 38v; MS Arundel 377, fols.
63r-64v; Millás, “Tratado de astrolabio”, pp. 9-11.
69
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 40r. Cf. Reshit ºokhma, ch.
X, p. lxxv. Regarding this procedure, see below note 72.
70
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 40r. Cf. Edelman, Keli
haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 19; Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol.
41v; Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 60r, right col. This
procedure implies positioning some point of the Rete over the midheaven line of the
astrolabe, that is the projection of the observer’s meridian.
71
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 40r. The Hebrew counterpart,
mishpaflim, was used profusely by Ibn Ezra in his Hebrew literary output, let alone
110 SHLOMO SELA
A common characteristic of paramount importance is that,

although the astrolabe is known as an instrument mainly dedi-
cated to astronomical uses, an important portion of the texts of
the four versions, the three Hebrew and the Latin version as
well, was devoted to typically astrological procedures. Since the
astrolabe allows the determination of the pattern of the heavens
at any (past, present or future) time (birth, coronation, founda-
tion of a city, etc.), it was extremely useful to compute the fun-
damental components of the horoscope, particularly those parts
entailing calculations related to spherical-trigonometry, avoid-
ing tedious calculations which would otherwise have been nec-
essary. In this context, the four versions are very similar and
refer to all three horoscope-related procedures: (a) arranging
the twelve astrological houses; (b) establishing the astrological
aspects; (c) performing the procedure of ducere gradus.72
Furthermore, those astrological topics are treated in a very sim-
ilar way in the four versions. We will see later (see below p. 145)
that a main characteristic that distinguishes Ibn Ezra as a
writer is that he is very fond of treating the technical aspects of
some issue by recording the disputes that aroused between dif-
ferent schools of thought to solve this problem. Now, this is pre-
cisely a trait that may be easily detected in all four versions,
Hebrew as well as Latin, of the Astrolabe Book.73
in his biblical exegesis. As I showed in my article, S. Sela, “El papel de Abraham Ibn
Ezra en la divulgación de los “juicios” de la astrología en la lengua hebrea y latina”,
Sefarad, 59 (1999): 159-93, Ibn Ezra coined this new Hebrew word, or furnished the
new astrological meaning to the old biblical word mishpaflim, that is, judgments.
After his death, the new Hebrew word was widely used with the new astrological
meaning and with the explicit or implicit reminder that the word mishpaflim origi-
nated in Ibn Ezra’s literary work.
72
In this procedure, some planet (called apheta in Greek, indicator in Latin, or
paqid in Hebrew) is directed from one of the five places of life to one of the five places
of death. This means computing the angular distance between two sky places, being
the resulting number of degrees converted subsequently in a number of years, which
are interpreted as the life expectancy of the newborn. Regarding this procedure, see
Ptolemy, Tetrabiblos, edited and translated by F. E. Robbins, Loeb Classical Library
(London, 1980), Book III, ch. 10, pp. 271-307. A. Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie
grecque (Paris, 1899), pp. 411-19.
73
Compare the following places: Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 29-
31; Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fols. 46v-49r; Keli haNeΩoshet
(third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fols. 64r-66r, right col.; Millás, “Tratado de
astrolabio”, pp. 22-9. See a similar approach and treatment of the topics dealt with in
the Astrolabe Book also in other works of Ibn Ezra: Millás, Tablas, pp. 84-5; 93-4; 97-
8; Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 44r; Mishpeflei
haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 71v-71r.
But, what about the place and time of composition of the
Latin version of the Astrolabe Book? In this context, it is worth-
while to reexamine the passage that Millás Vallicrosa brought
forward to assert that the Latin text was written in England
approximately in the year 1160. The referred to passage is part
of a chapter entitled De loco planete cognoscendo, which
describes several techniques intended for establishing the loca-
tion of a planet, and especially finding out whether the planet is
retrograde or stationary. After dealing with Jupiter and Mars,
the author proceeds to treat the special case of the inferior plan-
ets, Mercury and Venus. The underlying point here is that
Mercury and Venus never get very far from the sun, so that it is
almost impossible to employ the same techniques that were
previously implemented in connection with Jupiter and Mars.
Nevertheless, the author of the Latin version goes on to explain:
“Simili modo operandum est de uenere, si quis fuerit in Anglia
cum fuerit a parte capricorni et uenus a sole remotissima quod
est 47 gradibus, alibi autem non.”74 This interesting passage of
the Latin text is closely connected to a very similar passage that
may be found in the second Hebrew version of Keli haNeΩoshet:
“You will be able to know the position of Venus or Mercury
when they rise or set, but at midheaven it is impossible to see
them… However, if you happen to be in the seventh climate,
namely the climate called Little Brittania by Ptolemy75 and
which is located after Inglaterra in the western side, then you
will be able to see Venus at midheaven when the sun is in the
sign of Scorpio and Venus is at the end of the sign of Cancer.
But in all the other places it is impossible (to see Venus at mid-
heaven).”76 It follows, then, that England is mentioned in these
74
London, British Library, MS Cotton Vesp. A II, fol. 40v and MS Arundel 377, fol.
v
67 : Translation: “As far as Venus is concerned, this procedure may be operated in a
similar way (as for Jupiter and Mars) if someone happens to be in England when the
sun is in the sign of Capricorn, and Venus is located 47 degrees far away from the
sun. But in other places it is impossible to operate in this way.”
75
See Ptolemy’s Almagest, translated and Annotated by G.J. Toomer (London,
1984), p. 88.
76
Keli haNeΩoshet (second version), MS Mant. 10, fol. 44v:
Cf. Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 66v, right col.
112 SHLOMO SELA
two parallel passages only in order to corroborate that Venus,

normally observed not far from the sun and appearing as an
evening star or a morning star, may be seen exceptionally a sole
remotissima or at midheaven.77 The crucial point to be stressed
here is that Ibn Ezra thought fit when dwelling in Northern
Italy to refer, using some unknown source,78 to a singular astro-
nomical phenomenon that may be observed in England, since
the second version of Keli haNeΩoshet, where this passage may
be found, was written in 1146 in Mantova or Verona. Thus, the
link adduced by Millás Vallicrosa between the report of this sin-
gular phenomenon and Ibn Ezra’s allegedly dwelling in England
is severed. What is more, this interest in England (as an especial
geographic parameter or a suitable scenario to perform astro-
nomical observations) may be also detected in Ibn Ezra’s first
version of Sefer ha‘Ibbur, which was undoubtedly written in
Verona, Italy, in 1146.79
We thus reach the conclusion that the mention of England in
the context of the report of astronomical observations does not
indicate that the Latin version of the Astrolabe Book was writ-
ten in England. Taking in account the very similar report of the
second version of Keli haNeΩoshet, written in Northern Italy,
we consider quite surely that the Latin version of the Astrolabe
Book belongs to the Italian phase of Ibn Ezra’s career, so that
probably the Latin version of the Astrolabe Book was written in
Verona or Mantova, at the same time approximately as the sec-
ond version of Keli haNeΩoshet. To strengthen this assertion,
the interesting hypothesis of Enea Datei may be brought for-
ward, according to which Ibn Ezra gave astronomical advice to
the city of Mantova to build four towers called Torri del Sole.
The relative position of these four towers, which were built
some time close to the middle of the twelfth century, was
exactly chosen and designed, as Enea Datei has shown, to reflect
the four main stations of the sun’s path, namely the two
77
It is worth to stress that this passage from the second Hebrew version of the Keli
haNeΩoshet makes this version unique in the whole context of the three Hebrew ver-
sions, and especially makes the second version clearly distinct from the first version
of Keli haNeΩoshet.
78
I was incapable of finding this source, but it might have been some discussion
about Venus visibility based on Almagest XIII, 7-10. A similar passage found in
Mishpeflei haMazzalot which we shall refer to below was analyzed in K. Fischer,
P. Kunitzsch and Y.T. Langerman, “The Hebrew astronomical codex Ms. Sasson
823”, The Jewish Quarterly Review, LXXVIII (1988): 257-8.
79
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, pp. 8-9.
equinoxes and the two solstices.80 Thus, the possibility arises
that Abraham ibn Ezra, who wrote in Mantova a treatise deal-
ing with Hebrew grammar called Sefer —aΩut and possibly the
second Hebrew version of Keli haNeΩoshet as well, also com-
posed in the same city a Latin parallel version of the Astrolabe
Book, being motivated by the need to provide advice to the coun-
cil of the city of Mantova in the endeavor of locating the above-
mentioned Torri del Sole.
• Sefer ha‘Ibbur (Book of Intercalation). Abraham ibn Ezra
wrote this treatise, designed to establish the Jewish Calendar
and explain its fundamentals, in two different versions, as Joseph
Bonfils reports in his supercommentary —ophnat Pa‘aneaΩ.81 The
first version of Sefer ha‘Ibbur82 was written in Verona in 1146
(4906) – as Ibn Ezra says himself in the text of the book83 – in
between the composition of the first and the second version of
Keli haNeΩoshet (see above p. 105). The second version of Sefer
ha‘Ibbur, which is at present lost, was written in Narbonne – as
Joseph Bonfils reported in Sophnat Pa‘aneah – and we assume
that it was composed later than 1148, after Ibn Ezra moved
from Italy to Provence.
The first version of Sefer ha‘Ibbur was originally designed in
three different chapters, but the manuscripts and the printed
edition include only two of them. The first chapter deals with
four different ways for calculating the molad (the “birth” of the
moon), that is, establishing the beginning of the lunar month, a
fundamental feature in the solar-lunar Jewish calendar. The
second chapter, which is more than twice as large as the first,
was designed to discuss the theoretical fundamentals of the
Jewish calendar and carried out the task by applying important
elements of Greek and Arabic astronomy, particularly relevant
traits which furnish a scientific explanation to cyclic time and
provide the rationale behind the Jewish calendar. As said above,
the third chapter is absent in the manuscripts of the first
version of Sefer ha‘Ibbur as well as in the printed edition. But
80
Enea Datei, “Mantova, le torri del sole”, Civiltà Mantovana, XXVIII (1993):
57-65.
81
Joseph Bonfils, Sophnat Pane’ach, I, p. 142.
82
This first version is available in manuscripts and has been already published in
1874: Sefer ha‘Ibbur, ed. by S. Z. H. Halberstam (Lyck, 1874). We used this edition.
See also Sefer ha‘Ibbur, in Me’ir Y◊Ωaq Bak’al (ed.), Sefer Mishpeflei haKokhavim
(Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 57-94.
83
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, pp. 8 (b), 9 (a) (b).
114 SHLOMO SELA
curiously enough, Ibn Ezra refers several times, in the extant

first two chapters, to the topics and contents of the lost, or per-
haps never written, third chapter. From these references we can
conclude that the third chapter included (or was intended to
include) strictly astronomical subjects, such as the first visibility
of the moon,84 irregularities in the lunar cycle,85 or the length of
the solar year;86 either highly technical topics which Ibn Ezra
allegedly put aside, leaving them as an unaccomplished project,
or heavy and obscure astronomical contents which later copy-
ists presumably did not regard as relevant enough and excluded
from their manuscripts.
• Sefer ha’Eh.ad (Book on the Unit): Ibn Ezra wrote this
short mathematical treatise concerned with the attributes of
numbers at an unspecified place and date. The book is divided
into 9 short chapters, each of them dealing with the characteris-
tics of each of the nine numerals which are explained employing
varied elements belonging to arithmetic, geometry, combinator-
ial analysis as well as astrology and theology. Sefer ha’EΩad is
regarded as a less important mathematical book than Sefer
haMispar,87 but yet it may be considered an outstanding math-
ematical treatise precisely because of its concern with pure
mathematics, without any pretension of serving, as in the case
of Sefer haMispar, as an auxiliary or practical tool in related
subjects such as solving astronomical-astrological problems or
establishing the Hebrew calendar.88 Sefer ha’EΩad was already
edited and commented upon in 1921 and has also earned a mod-
ern edition.89
84
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, pp. 4 (a)-(b), 8 (a), 11 (a).
85
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, pp. 3 (b), 11 (a).
86
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, p. 3 (b).
87
See Sarfatti, Mathematical Terminology, pp. 139-40.
88
A close examination shows that some elements of Sefer ha’EΩad were trans-
ferred by Ibn Ezra into his biblical exegesis, especially in a theological context.
Compare, for example, the treatment furnished to the number one and the Long
Commentary on Exodus 3:15.
89
Abraham Jbn Ezra, Buch der Einheit, aus dem Hebräischen übersetzt nebst
Parallelstellen und Erläuterungen zur Mathematik Jbn Esras, von Ernst Müller
(Berlin, 1921). For a modern edition see Abraham Ibn Ezra Reader (in Hebrew),
Annotated texts with Introductions and Commentaries by Israel Levin (New York-
Tel Aviv, 1985), pp. 399-414.
2. The Astrological Encyclopaedia
The central part of Ibn Ezra’s scientific writings is composed of

a series of astrological writings which may be well called an
astrological encyclopedia.90 This denomination may be justified,
as we shall see later in detail, on two main grounds. On the one
hand, not all the astrological works of Ibn Ezra but the majority
of them, that is, at least one version of these astrological trea-
tises, may be regarded collectively as a product of a steady and
concentrated effort carried out in one single year, 1148 (4908
A.M.), and in one and the same place, the city of Béziers in
Provence. On the other hand, from a thematic point of view,
these treatises may be considered as chapters of a single major
work, since part of them are designed as general textbooks,
while others deal separately with the four main systems of
Arabic astrology: nativities, elections, interrogations and uni-
versal astrology.
• Mishpet.ei haMazzalot (Book of the Judgments of the
Zodiacal Signs). This treatise, an astrological textbook teaching
the most general tenets and topics of this art, is embedded in
some of the manuscripts that make up the collection of Ibn
Ezra’s astrological works.91 Nevertheless, Mishpeflei haMazzalot
remains the most poorly known and less researched part of Ibn
Ezra’s astrological works. Even his authorship over this book
has not yet been fully demonstrated, one of the main reasons
being the fact that, even though Ibn Ezra was accustomed to
profusely employing cross-references in his treatises, in the case
of Mishpeflei haMazzalot such references are almost non-
existent. However, we shall try to show here, on the one hand,
90
José Maria Millás Vallicrosa employed the term encyclopaedic to describe one of
the main characteristics of the scientific output of Abraham bar ºiyya and Abraham
ibn Ezra as well. See J. M. Millás Vallicrosa, “La obra enciclopédica de R. Abraham
bar ºiyya”, in Estudios sobre historia de la ciencia española (Barcelona, 1949), vol. I,
pp. 219-62 (a new facsimile edition (Madrid, 1987); id., “Avodato ◊el R. Abraham Ibn
Ezra beΩokhmat haTekhuna”, pp 306-22. But, as far as Abraham ibn Ezra is con-
cerned, Millás Vallicrosa did not add any comment or explanation to corroborate his
statement. For a study of the encyclopaedic characteristics of Ibn Ezra’s astrological
treatises and literary work see S. Sela, “Encyclopedic aspects of Abraham Ibn Ezra’s
scientific corpus”, in Steven Harvey (ed.), The Medieval Hebrew Encyclopedias of
Science and Philosophy (Amsterdam, 2000), pp. 154-70.
91
See, inter alia, the following manuscripts: Cambridge, Classmark ADD 1517,
fols. 40-44; Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 68-86; Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1058, fols.
13-26.
116 SHLOMO SELA
that Ibn Ezra’s authorship over this treatise may be safely

demonstrated and, on the other hand, we shall also try to sup-
ply arguments to prove that this astrological treatise may be
considered his first astrological treatise, written in Northern
Italy, before moving to France.
An examination of the technical terminology used in Mishpeflei
haMazzalot demonstrates that this treatise is undoubtedly the
work of Abraham ibn Ezra. As we shall see later, (see below
p. 132) a clue that clearly identifies Ibn Ezra is his especial
translation strategy, which was based on the exploration of the
biblical text in order to find out “original” Hebrew words
endowed with scientific meaning, and avoided the creation of
new Hebrew words based on cognate Arabic words or on loan
translations of Arabic words. Thus, in the lexical texture of
Mishpeflei haMazzalot we may find the special word gevul taken
by Ibn Ezra from Psalms 74:17, a word meaning literally limit
or frontier but which in his opinion was designed originally to
express the technical concept of the seven climates, known in
the ancient world and the Middle Ages.92 Also, in the text of
Mishpeflei haMazzalot we may detect the very peculiar Hebrew
word mu◊aq, taken by Ibn Ezra from Job 36:16, 37:10 and
38:38, meaning literally solid, stable or strong, but intended by
him to designate the concept of center.93
Moritz Schteinschneider, still in the last century, noticed the
existence of Mishpeflei haMazzalot, assigned it to Ibn Ezra and
conjectured that the second version of Sefer hafie‘amim (see
below p. 121) was designed as a commentary on Mishpeflei
haMazzalot.94 Since the first version of Sefer hafie‘amim was
composed expressly as a commentary on Reshit ºokhma (see
below p. 120) the logical corollary to it is that Mishpeflei
haMazzalot should be regarded as a second and later version of
92
See, for instance: Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 68v:
93
See, for example: Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 75v-
r
76 : . See also fols. 74r, 74v,
76v, 78r, 78v.
94
M. Steinschneider, “Zur Geschichte der Uebersetzungen aus dem Indischen ins
Arabische und ihres Einflusses auf die arabische Literatur”, Zeitschrift der deutschen
Morgenländischen Geselschaft [ZDMG], 24 (1870): 341-2. See similar arguments in
the introduction of J. L. Fleischer to his edition of Ibn Ezra’s Sefer hafie‘amim
(Jerusalem, 1951), pp. 19-22.
Reshit ºokhma.95 Also, if we accept this conjecture, and if we
take also into account that the second version of Sefer
hafie‘amim was certainly written in France after 1148, it will
follow that Mishpeflei haMazzalot should also have been written
in France after the year 1148 (the year in which we detect Ibn
Ezra in France for the first time). However, our findings lead us
to reject this hypothesis and to favor the assertion that
Mishpeflei haMazzalot was composed in Italy, presumably in
Lucca or Verona approximately in 1146, so that Mishpeflei
haMazzalot should be regarded as the first astrological treatise
written by Ibn Ezra. This assertion is based on the following
five points:
(a) In the first version of Keli haNeΩoshet, written early in
1146 in Lucca or Verona, Ibn Ezra promised to explain some
astrological subjects – namely the astrological aspects and
houses – and referred the reader on five different occasions,
using the future tense, to a non yet written treatise that he enti-
tled Sefer haMishpaflim (Book of the Judgments).96 Can we
identify this treatise? One possibility is to recognize Sefer
haMishpaflim as being the Sefer Mishpeflei ha‘Olam (Book of
World Judgments), which is an alternative title given in some
manuscripts to Ibn Ezra’s Sefer ha‘Olam (Book of the World.
See below p. 129). However, this possibility may be discarded
since the references to Sefer haMishpaflim are concerned with
topics related to genethlialogical astrology whereas Sefer
ha‘Olam deals essentially with universal astrology. On the
other hand, we found in Mishpeflei haMazzalot some passages
dealing with the very same topics mentioned in Keli haNeΩoshet
as referring to Sefer haMishpaflim.97 We favor, thus, the possi-
bility that Sefer haMishpaflim (Book of the Judgments) should
be regarded in fact as identical with Mishpeflei haMazzalot
(Book of the Judgments of the Zodiacal Signs).
(b) As we said above, all the above-mentioned references to
Sefer haMishpaflim (Book of the Judgments) may be found in
the first version of Keli haNeΩoshet, that was written early in
1146 in Lucca or Verona. But an examination of the second
version of Keli haNeΩoshet, written later in 1146, reveals the
95
See additional arguments in the introduction of J. L. Fleischer to his edition of
Ibn Ezra’s Sefer ha‘Olam in Otzar ºaim, 13 (1937), p. 19.
96
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 25, 29, 30, 31.
97
Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 71r-71v, 76v-77r.
118 SHLOMO SELA
striking fact that these references to Sefer haMishpaflim disap-

pear there completely (an additional feature that makes the sec-
ond version of Keli haNeΩoshet distinct from the first version).
This interesting feature leads us also to the conclusion that
Mishpeflei haMazzalot was written in between the time of com-
position of the first and the second version of Keli haNeΩoshet,
namely sometime in the middle of 1146. Moreover, just as we
considered the disappearance of references to Sefer haMish-
paflim a clear singular trait that distinguishes the second ver-
sion of Keli haNeΩoshet, so from the same cross-references we
may assume that Mishpeflei haMazzalot was written in the same
place – Lucca or Verona – and for the same audience for which
Ibn Ezra wrote the first version of Keli haNeΩoshet.
(c) As may be clearly seen in its introductory phrase, the
second version of Sefer hafie‘amim was designed (like the first
version) as a commentary on Reshit ºokhma.98 Thus, the pos-
sibility should be discounted that the second version of Sefer
hafie‘amim was written as a commentary on Mishpeflei haMaz-
zalot, so that Mishpeflei haMazzalot is not a second and later
version of Reshit ºokhma but rather the opposite is presumably
the true. Since Mishpeflei haMazzalot was composed in 1146 and
Reshit ºokhma was written in 1148, and taking also in consid-
eration that both treatises are very similar in their contents and
composition, Reshit ºokhma should be considered a second and
improved version of Mishpeflei haMazzalot.
(d) Also in Mishpeflei haMazzalot, analogously with the first
and second version of Keli haNeΩoshet that were written in
1146, Ibn Ezra promises to explain some astrological concepts
and refers the reader, using the future tense, to Sefer
haMoladot, a treatise that in fact was eventually written in
1148.99 It follows clearly from this reference that Mishpeflei
haMazzalot was written before 1148, which is an additional cor-
roboration of what was said in point (c).
(e) Likewise, Ibn Ezra goes on to say in Mishpeflei haMazzalot
that “you should establish the astrological houses by the way of
the rising times, such as I explained it to you in the Book of the
(Astronomical) Tables”.100 With these words he refers to the
98
Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), ed. Naphtali Ben Menachem (Jerusalem,
1941), p. 1.
99
Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 84v, 85r..
100
Ibid., fol. 71v.
first Hebrew version of his Sefer haLuΩot, a treatise that was
composed in Lucca in 1146. From this and the previous
remarks, we conclude that Mishpeflei haMazzalot was written in
Lucca between the years 1146 and 1148, an assertion that is
completely congruous with our previous assumption that it was
written in 1146.
Mishpeflei haMazzalot was organized as a sequence of refer-
ences to various and multiple subjects covering the main ele-
ments of astrology. Following are its main topics, in the order in
which they appear in the treatise itself: (a) the zodiacal constel-
lations and their astrological characteristics; (b) the astrological
houses and the differences of opinion confronting the astrol-
ogers about their correct arrangement; (c) the planets and their
astrological characteristics; (d) the astrological aspects; (e) the
astrological lots (f) the procedure of nihug hakokhab (see above
note 72). In this clearly astrological milieu, we may also observe
naturally embedded interesting astronomical observations,
related mainly to the elongation of the planets in relation to the
sun. Inter alia, we find an interesting remark concerning the
visibility of Venus, a passage noticed and analyzed by Y.T.
Langerman in a description of the contents of the Hebrew
astronomical Codex Ms. Sasson 823.101 In this passage Ibn Ezra
states: “When the sun and Venus are in conjunction in the sign
of Pisces, and Venus has its maximum northerly latitude, Venus
can be seen – this is impossible for any other planet”.102 Even if
this remark is not exactly identical to the two similar passages
which we found in the second Hebrew version of Keli
haNeΩoshet and in the Latin version of Ibn Ezra’s Astrolabe
Book, passages dealing as well with Venus visibility in excep-
tional circumstances (see above p. 111), these three references
reveal a common interest and a similar treatment to the prob-
lem of Venus visibility, and thereby an additional argument
is supplied to strengthen our assumption that Mishpeflei
haMazzalot, as well as the second version of Keli haNeΩoshet
and its Latin version, were composed in Northern Italy in the
year 1146.
All the effort invested above to establish Ibn Ezra’s author-
ship and to determine the date of composition of Mishpeflei
haMazzalot was due mainly to the basic fact that this treatise
101
See: Fischer, Kunitzsch and Langerman, “Ms. Sasson 823”, pp. 257-8.
102
Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 76r.
120 SHLOMO SELA
has remained a marginal work in the frame of his scientific cor-

pus. The chief and fundamental reason for that is that Ibn Ezra,
who was most used to link his works in a net of cross-references,
subsequently completely ignored Mishpeflei haMazzalot, except
for the above-mentioned references, using the future tense, to
Sefer haMishpaflim from the second version of Keli haNeΩoshet.
How should this striking fact be explained? We suggest that the
main reason for the ensuing neglect of Mishpeflei haMazzalot
lies in the prominence attained by the second and improved ver-
sion entitled by Ibn Ezra as Reshit ºokhma. This treatise, as we
will immediately see, was composed by Ibn Ezra as soon as he
arrived in France and was regarded, even by Ibn Ezra himself,
as the most important component of his astrological corpus. So
it turned out that Reshit ºokhma completely overshadowed its
forerunner, Mishpeflei haMazzalot.
• Reshit H . okhma (Beginning of Wisdom): Abraham ibn
Ezra completed this book in Tamuz 4908 A.M., that is, approxi-
mately June 1148.103 This treatise was the first link in a con-
tinuous and concentrated effort whose output was made up of
seven treatises, covering the various branches of astrology, and
was written in one single year, 1148, and in one and the same
place, the city of Béziers in Provence. However, Reshit ºokhma
is neither the first astrological book that Ibn Ezra wrote nor the
first work he wrote in France. As we have seen above, Mishpeflei
haMazzalot, a general astrological textbook, was already writ-
ten in 1146. Also, Ibn Ezra wrote the third version of Keli
haNeΩoshet early in 1148, and from within this book he referred
the reader to Reshit ºokhma, as a not yet completed work.104
Ibn Ezra divided Reshit ºokhma into 10 chapters, dealing with
three main subjects: (a) a general description of the fixed stars,
the zodiac constellations and their astrological characteristics
[chapters i, ii, iii]; (b) a general description of the planets and
their astrological characteristics [chapters iv, v, vi, vii]; (c) a
general discussion of miscellaneous astrological concepts, such
as the lots, aspects and some elements of universal astrology
[chapters viii, ix, x].
Thus, Reshit ºokhma is a textbook that explains the most
basic tenets of the various branches of astrology, and may be
considered a second and improved version of the previous
103
Levy and Cantera, The Beginning of Wisdom, ch. X, p. lxxvi.
104
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 65r, right col.
Mishpeflei haMazzalot, composed about two years earlier in
Italy. Reshit ºokhma was considered by Ibn Ezra as his chief
astrological work, which assertion lies in the multiple refer-
ences to Reshit ºokhma annotated by Ibn Ezra from within his
other astrological treatises, in order to elucidate diverse astro-
logical concepts.105 When writing Reshit ºokhma, considered
the first and most important component of Ibn Ezra’s astrolog-
ical encyclopedia, Ibn Ezra already planned its other con-
stituents. Therefore, from within Reshit ºokhma he referred
his readers using the future tense to Sefer hafie‘amim (Book of
Reasons), the second component of his astrological encyclope-
dia, and also to Sefer haMoladot (Book of Nativities), the third
component.106
Reshit ºokhma was translated after Ibn Ezra’s death to
various European languages. Among these, the rendering to
medieval French excels. This translation, undertaken by a Jew
called Hagin under the guidance of Henry Bate in 1273, was
extremely useful in learning about the process of crystallization
of the incipient French language.107 The French translation,
alongside an English translation and the Hebrew text, were
edited by Raphael Levy in 1939.108
• Sefer haT. e‘amim (Book of Reasons). Ibn Ezra regarded
the first element of his astrological encyclopedia, that is his
Reshit ºokhma, as a non self-sufficient work, since the treatise
presented raw astrological concepts without introducing their
reasons, that is, their rational explanations. Consequently, still
in the introduction to Reshit ºokhma, Ibn Ezra wrote that
“when this book is finished, I shall compile a treatise explaining
the astrological reasons”.109 He accomplished this task in 1148
(4908 A.M.),110 and the outcome was his Sefer hafie‘amim, a
treatise which Ibn Ezra considered it necessary to rewrite in an
105
See, inter alia, the ensuing references to Reshit ºokhma, annotated in the fol-
lowing Ibn Ezra’s astrological treatises: Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056,
fols. 48v, 59r, 60r, 61v; Sefer haShe’elot (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols.
67v, 68r, 62v; Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), ed. J. L. Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1969),
p. 11; Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 86r; Sefer
ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 90r.
106
Levy and Cantera, The Beginning of Wisdom, ch. VI, pp. xliv, lvii.
107
Levy, The Astrological Works, pp. 19-32.
108
See note 103.
109
Levy and Cantera, The Beginning of Wisdom, p. v.
110
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 34r, 37r.
122 SHLOMO SELA
additional version, considerably different in its contents from

the first one.111
The first version of Sefer hafie‘amim was written when the
imprint of Reshit ºokhma was still fresh in Ibn Ezra’s memory.
The two works are so tightly connected that it makes sense to
think that they were composed almost simultaneously. Sefer
hafie‘amim follows closely the inner structure and organization
of Reshit ºokhma, that is, it keeps strictly the division into 10
chapters adopted in Reshit ºokhma and explains the reasons
for astrological concepts in precisely the order in which the
same concepts appear in Reshit ºokhma. The two works are so
closely linked that in Sefer haMoladot (Book of Nativities), the
next astrological treatise of the astrological encyclopedia, Ibn
Ezra refers to Sefer hafie‘amim as Sefer Teamei Reshit
ºokhma, namely “Book of Reasons of Reshit ºokhma”.112 Yet,
even when writing the first version of Sefer hafie‘amim, Ibn
Ezra carefully thought about the continuation of his astrologi-
cal encyclopedia. Therefore, he promised to explain some topics
more thoroughly in Sefer haMoladot and Sefer ha‘Olam (Book
of the World) or Sefer haMaΩbarot (Book of Conjunctions), both
of them still non-existent works, and at the same time he also
referred the reader to Keli haNeΩoshet, that is, to the third
Hebrew version of the Astrolabe Book, already written before
Reshit ºokhma early in the same year 1148.113
The second version of Sefer hafie‘amim, as well as the first
version, was designed as a commentary on Reshit ºokhma,
and Ibn Ezra asserts that expressly in the opening words of its
introduction.114 Why should this version be regarded precisely
as the second version of Sefer hafie‘amim? The key that makes
possible the chronological arrangement of the two versions of
111
For a discussion of the two versions of Sefer hafie‘amim, see the introduction to
the editions of both versions: N. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version),
pp. v-xix; Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), edited by J. L. Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1951),
pp. 5-24. J. Halbronn, “Le diptyque astrologique d’Abraham Ibn Ezra et les cycles
planétaires du Liber Rationum”, Revue des Études Juives, CLV (1996): 171-84.
112
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 48v.
113
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 35r, 36v, 43v,
44r, 45v.
114
N. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 1: “I mean, thereupon,
to lay the foundations of Reshit ºokhma …”. Concerning the opinion that this ver-
sion of Sefer hafie‘amim is rather a commentary on Mishpeflei haMazzalot, see the
introduction written by J. L. Fleischer to Sefer hafie‘amim (Jerusalem, 1951), pp. 19-
22. See also Steinschneider, “Zur Geschichte der Uebersetzungen”, ZDMG, 24
(1870), pp. 342-1.
Sefer hafie‘amim may be found in two different references to
Sefer ha‘Olam: While in one version of Sefer hafie‘amim Ibn
Ezra writes, using the future tense, that “I will explain the
Lunary Stations in Sefer ha‘Olam”,115 in the other version of
Sefer hafie‘amim Ibn Ezra goes on to say, using the past tense,
that “the two luminaries command life and the place of con-
junction or its opposition command every renewed thing, as is
written in Sefer ha‘Olam”.116 From this we clearly learn that
the referred-to Sefer ha‘Olam was written in between two dif-
ferent versions of Sefer hafie‘amim. Since the first version of
Sefer ha‘Olam was composed by 1148, we conclude that the sec-
ond version of Sefer hafie‘amim was written after that date.
What was precisely the period of time separating the two ver-
sions we cannot say, but it may be clearly noticed that not a
short time elapsed since Ibn Ezra finished his Reshit ºokhma:
even when we may observe that Ibn Ezra deals with concepts
and topics that may be found in Reshit ºokhma, the division in
10 chapters as well as the ordering of the topics as adopted
in Reshit ºokhma disappears completely in the second version
of Sefer hafie‘amim. Also, from within the second version of
Sefer hafie‘amim, Ibn Ezra refers the reader, using the past
tense, to different parts of his “astronomical tables”,117 and we
assume that with these words he is alluding to the second
Hebrew version of his Sefer haLuΩot and to the Sefer fia‘amei
haLuΩot written in Narbonne (see above p. 97). Besides, Ibn
Ezra mentions Sefer haMoladot as a completed treatise,118 and
Sefer haMe’orot (Book of Luminaries) as a not yet completed
work.119
• Sefer haMoladot (Book of Nativities): As said above, Ibn
Ezra planned the composition of Sefer haMoladot from as early
as 1146, as may be learned from references to it from within
115
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 43v.
116
N. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 33.
117
When explaining the concept of long and short zodiacal signs, Ibn Ezra refers to
Sefer haluΩot haΩeleq hagadol, that is to the ‘main chapter’ of the Book of
Astronomical Tables – see N. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 5
– and when dealing with two technical astrological topics, such as establishing the
astrological “aspects” and the calculations related to the procedure of “ducere gradus
planetae” (see above notes 43, 72) Ibn Ezra refers the reader on two occasions to
Sefer Ma‘ase haLuΩot, that is the Book to Proceed with Astronomical Tables – see N.
Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 41.
118
N. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 36.
119
Ibid., p. 34.
124 SHLOMO SELA
the first version of Keli haNeΩoshet and from Mishpeflei

haMazzalot,120 both of them composed in 1146. After completing
the first version of Sefer hafie‘amim, Ibn Ezra continued in the
same year of 1148 with the composition of Sefer haMoladot,121
a treatise concerned with genethlialogical astrology, whose fun-
damental principle is that the destiny of the new-born is deter-
mined by the configuration of the celestial sphere at the instant
of birth. Sefer haMoladot was considered by Ibn Ezra as one of
his most central astrological works, as may be learned from the
many references to it from within the other parts of Ibn Ezra’s
scientific corpus.122 Ibn Ezra deals in Sefer haMoladot first with
the fundamental problem of determining the criteria to choose
an ascendant for the nativity, according to which the astrologi-
cal houses may be calculated. The central and major part of the
treatise is divided in twelve chapters, each of them dealing with
each of the twelve astrological houses and the techniques to
interpret their astrological characteristics. Ibn Ezra concluded
the treatise with a discussion on the so-called Tequfat hashanim
(revolutiones annorum in Latin or taΩ®wil al-sin¬n in Arabic),
that is the calculation of the years, or fraction of years, which
have expired since the birth of an individual.
The Hebrew text of Sefer haMoladot is available today only in
manuscripts,123 whereas a Latin translation was already pub-
lished in Venice 1484, under the title Liber Abraham Iude de
nativitatibus. This translation was performed by Henry Bate,
together with other translations of Ibn Ezra’s works into Latin
and French, about one hundred years after Ibn Ezra’s death.124
A superficial examination of the Latin text suggests that the
Latin translation follows the Hebrew text, in its general organi-
zation and division into twelve chapters, and also in its topics,
120
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 14; Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome,
Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 84r.
121
In the first version of Sefer hafie‘amim, Ibn Ezra refers several times to Sefer
haMoladot, a sign that its composition was imminent. See Sefer hafie‘amim (first ver-
sion), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 35r, 44r, 45v.
122
N. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 36; Fleischer, Sefer
haMibΩarim, pp. 9, 10; Sefer haShe’elot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 63r, 63v;
Sefer ha‘Olam, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 90r.
123
See, inter alia, Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 46v-61v.
124
Liber Abraham Iude de nativitatibus (Venetia, 1484). Ibn Ezra’s treatise was
printed in Venice by Erhals Ratdolt together with the Magistralis Composition
Astrolabii, written in 1274 by Henry Bate. Concerning Henry Bate’s translations, see
Levy, The Astrological Works, pp. 28-9.
wording and sources.125 However, a more attentive perusal and
a collation of the Hebrew and Latin texts reserves a surprise:
whereas the Hebrew text of Sefer haMoladot commences with a
remarkable introduction, wherein Ibn Ezra presents eight
astrological universal principles that override the private fate of
the newly born,126 the Latin text begins with an encomium of
the astrolabe and proceeds to present some astrolabe models;127
also, the Hebrew text concludes, as we noted above, with a dis-
cussion of the Tequfat hashanim, a chapter which is completely
non-existent in the Latin translation. An examination of dozens
of manuscripts of the Hebrew version of Sefer haMoladot indi-
cates clearly that, despite some minor and ordinary deviations
between them, all of these Hebrew manuscripts stem from a
single text, which is significantly different from the Latin trans-
lation in both aspects noted above. This assertion is corrobo-
rated also by the fact that Sefer haMoladot and Liber Abraham
Iude de nativitatibus appear to be substantially different in
their date of composition. As we noted above, the Hebrew Sefer
haMoladot was written in 1148. But in the Latin text the author
refers to a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter and goes on to
explain that “hoc 1154 ab incarnatione Domini est adunatio
eorum in triplicitate terrae”.128 Most interestingly, this chrono-
logical remark regarding the year 1154 links the Liber Abraham
Iude de nativitatibus with the second Latin version of Liber de
rationibus tabularum, where we read, inter alia, “anno 1154 ab
incarnacione Domini, quo hanc edicionem fecimus”.129 What is
more, in the Liber Abraham Iude de nativitatibus, the author
125
To corroborate that, the following two passages referring to Hermes, may be col-
lated. Liber Abraham, fol. 2 (a): “Dixit Hermes quod locus lune in hora infusionis
spermatis in matrice erit gradus oriens in nativitate, gradus oriens in conceptione est
lune locus in nativitate; quod verum esse probatione cognitus est nisi nativitas vel
septimo vel undecimo fuerit”; Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 47r:
126
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 46r-47v.
127
Liber Abraham, fol. 2 (a) “Optimum instrumentorum ad inveniendum gradum
orientem in nativitatibus est astrolabius quo quanto perfectus tanto melior…”.
128
Liber Abraham, fol. 3 (c)v.
129
Millás, Tablas, p. 99. See also p. 109.
126 SHLOMO SELA
refers to his own Liber de rationibus tabularum,130 in a passage

that is non-existent in the corresponding Hebrew text. Since this
mention is a reference to an already completed work, we assume
that it is an allusion to the second Hebrew version of Sefer
fia‘amei haLuΩot, which presumably was written in parallel with
its Latin counterpart. We therefore conclude that Liber Abraham
Iude de nativitatibus is the Latin translation of a second version
of Sefer haMoladot whose existence was hitherto unknown. The
Hebrew original of this second version is at present lost.
• Sefer haMibh.arim (Book of Elections) and Sefer ha-
She’elot (Book of Interrogations). Next to the composition of
the first version of Sefer haMoladot, Ibn Ezra wrote two new
treatises, each of them concerned with two astrological systems.
These systems were originally developed as part of Greek astrol-
ogy, became part and parcel of Arabic astrology and subsequently
were adopted by Hebrew and Latin astrologers. One of the
books is Sefer haMibΩarim, concerned with an astrological sys-
tem (called katarkhai in Greek, ikhtiy®r®t in Arabic, electiones in
Latin and mibharim in Hebrew) designed for choosing the most
auspicious moment for accomplishing such and such act by the
expedient of casting the horoscope and observing the place of the
moon in the astrological houses. The second treatise is Sefer
haShe’elot, concerned with an astrological system (called eroteseis
in Greek, mas®’il in Arabic, quaestiones in Latin and she’elot in
Hebrew) designed to reply to questions referred to the astrologer
and relating to common incidents of daily life, such as concerning
someone who goes missing, discovering a thief or recovering a lost
item. While both systems require interpretation by the astrologer
of the horoscope cast at the moment at which the question was
posed, the latter system is related to magic and presupposes, as
Ibn Ezra wrote in his treatises, that the thoughts of the client,
should be adequately read by the astrologer.131
130
Liber Abraham, fol. 3 (a)r: “In primis ergo secundum tabulas probationum, ori-
ento invento, domos quoque secundum terrae latitudinem aequa, secundum terrae
latitudinem aequa, secundum artem a nobis in astrolabio traditam, non secundum
magistros astronomie quorum falsitate in libro de rationibus tabularum ostendimus”.
This passage was already noticed by J. Millás Vallicrosa, who thereby raised the con-
jecture that the Latin translation contained an additional version of Sefer haMoladot.
See Millás, Tablas, p. 16.
131
Regarding both astrological techniques, see Bouché-Leclercq, L’astrologie
grecque, pp. 458-86; S. Tester, A History of Western Astrology (Suffolk, 1987), pp. 88-
92. Concerning the need of reading thoughts, see Sefer haShe’elot (first version),
Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 62v.
Both treatises were composed by Abraham ibn Ezra in two
different versions, the first in 1148, and the second at a later
date that is very difficult to establish. Even though the inner
contents of both versions of each of the treatises are similar, the
four versions are clearly distinguishable by the remarkable
introductions that Ibn Ezra attached to each of them. Thus,
while in the first version of Sefer haMibΩarim Ibn Ezra endows
the superior soul the power to prevail over the verdict dictated
by the horoscope, in the second version of the same treatise,
without changing the main message, Ibn Ezra sets the possibil-
ity of changing human fate into the context of Jewish tradition
and religion.132 An analogous change of mind appears in the two
versions of Sefer haShe’elot. In the first version Ibn Ezra pre-
sents the main tenets of two opposing schools of astrologers, the
first opposed to the validity of the astrological system of quaes-
tiones, the second adhering to it by arguing that there is a direct
link connecting stars, body and soul. The same two schools
appear in the introduction to the second version, but both
schools are there presented by Ibn Ezra as headed by two kings,
the first named Ptolemy the King and the second named as
Doronius the King,133 an interesting remark which reveals how
deeply immersed Ibn Ezra was in the context of the Arabic
Andalusian cultural climate.134
Of these four treatises, only the first version of Sefer
haMibΩarim has been edited,135 while the other three treatises
are available only in manuscripts.136 Both Sefer haMibΩarim
132
For the introduction to the first version of Sefer haMibΩarim, see Fleischer,
Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), p. 9. For the introduction to the second version of
Sefer haMibΩarim, see Sefer haMibΩarim (second version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb.
1058, fol. 9r.
133
For the introduction to the first version of Sefer haShe’elot, see Sefer haShe’elot
(first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 62v. For the introduction to the second
version of Sefer haShe’elot, see Sefer haShe’elot (second version) Paris, BNF, MS
Héb. 1058, fol. 1r.
134
In this introduction, as well as in other places, Ibn Ezra endorses a myth that
converted astrologers and astronomers, such as Claudius Ptolemy and Doroteus from
Sidon, into kings. For the myth of the savant-king in medieval Arabic culture, partic-
ularly regarding Claudius Ptolemy viewed as Ptolemy the King, see the following
sources: Albumasar, De magnis conjunctionibus, annorum revolutionibus ac eorum
profectionibus, Trans. Johannes Hispalensis (Augsburg, 1489), fol. c (7); D. Pingree,
The Thousands of Ab‚ Ma‘shar (London, 1968), p. 131; —®‘id al-Andalus¬, Science in
the Medieval World, “Book of the Categories of Nations”, Translated and Edited by
Sema‘an I. Salem and Alok Kumar (Austin, 1991), p. 27.
135
Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), edited by J. L. Fleischer (Jerusalem, 1969).
136
Sefer haMibΩarim (second version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1058, fols. 9-14; Sefer
128 SHLOMO SELA
and Sefer haShe’elot were referred to using the future tense

from within Sefer haMoladot, an indication that their composi-
tion was imminent.137 After Ibn Ezra completed the first version
of Sefer haMibΩarim and Sefer haShe’elot, he referred retro-
spectively from within them to Sefer haMoladot,138 to Sefer
hafie‘amim139 and to Reshit ºokhma.140
• Sefer haMe’orot (Book of Luminaries). This astrological
treatise concerned mainly with medical astrology appears to
have been written, as the other components of the astrological
encyclopedia, in two versions. This assertion rests mainly on
two references to Sefer haMe’orot dealing with medical astrol-
ogy. On the one hand, Ibn Ezra refers to Sefer haMe’orot from
within the first version of Sefer haShe’elot using the past
tense;141 on the other hand, Ibn Ezra refers also to Sefer
haMe’orot, but using the future tense, from within the second
version of Sefer hafie‘amim, which was written substantially
later the first version of Sefer haShe’elot.142 Thus, we reach the
conclusion that the first version of Sefer haMe’orot was com-
posed before Ibn Ezra wrote the first version of Sefer
haShe’elot, that is, still in 1148. But, since Ibn Ezra refers to
Sefer haMe’orot from within the second version of Sefer
hafie‘amim in future tense, we come also to the conclusion that
the second version of Sefer haMe’orot was composed at some
time after 1149. The first version of Sefer haMe’orot was edited
in 1933,143 while the second version is at present lost.
haShe’elot (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 62-70; Sefer haShe’elot
(second version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1058, fols. 1-8.
137
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 54r, 65v.
138
Fleischer, Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), p. 10; Sefer haShe’elot (first ver-
sion), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 63r, 63v.
139
Sefer haShe’elot, first version, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 63r, 63v.
140
Fleischer, Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), p. 11; Sefer haShe’elot (first ver-
sion), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 62v, 63r, 70v.
141
Sefer haShe’elot (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 66r: “if someone
is able to locate the place of the moon at the beginning of the illness, then it is possi-
ble to know if the patient will live or die, and also to know the turning point of the
affliction, and I have already explained that in my Sefer haMe’orot.”
142
See Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 34, where Ibn Ezra
goes on to explicate that the Moon “is the gist, and when the Moon arrives in a bad
place the newly born will die, as I will explain in Sefer haMe’orot”.
143
J. L. Fleischer (ed.), Sefer haMe’orot, Sinai, Yearbook of the ºokhmat Israel
Society in Rumania (1933), pp. xlii-li. See also Sefer haMe’orot in Me’ir Y◊Ωaq Bak’al
(ed.), Sefer Mishpeflei haKokhavim (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 7-19.
Sefer haMe’orot deals with medical astrology, and more pre-
cisely with the influence that the moon exerts on man’s health.
Ibn Ezra initiated it with an interesting cosmological introduc-
tion, in which a tripartite division is outlined, one that high-
lights the differences between the fixed stars, which keep their
celestial relationships when moving, between the planets, which
constantly change their position in relation to the zodiacal orb,
and between the sub-lunar world, whose change in matter as
well as in mind is a consequence of the planets’ movements. A
distinctive mark of this introduction is that Ibn Ezra, who in
other places deals with the controversy related to the position of
the sun’s orb (below or above the orbs of Mercury and Venus)
without making clear his position, chose this introduction to
reveal his opinion, which is that the sun’s orb is the second,
after the moon’s orb.144
• Sefer ha‘Olam (Book of the World). This treatise is con-
cerned with the branch of astrology dealing with the collective
fate of mankind, by means of astrological forecasts as well as
astrological analysis of past history. That Ibn Ezra regarded this
treatise as a future project from as early as the beginning of 1148
can be confirmed on the basis of some references found in the
first version of Sefer hafie‘amim, wherein he calls the book by
two alternative titles: Sefer ha‘Olam (Book of the World) or
Sefer haMaΩbarot (Book of Conjunctions).145 This second name,
later abandoned by Ibn Ezra, nevertheless reveals two interre-
lated and important traits of Sefer ha‘Olam. First, the title Book
of Conjunctions points directly at the main source used by Ibn
Ezra, namely Ab‚ Ma‘shar’s Kit®b al-qir®n®t (De magnis con-
junctionibus annorum revolutionibus ac eorum profectionibus);
secondly, the word conjunctions included in the title of the book
hints at Ibn Ezra’s main macro-astrological doctrine, namely
the examination of Saturn-Jupiter conjunctions, a technique
explained and implemented in Ab‚ Ma‘shar’s book. Indeed,
Joseph Bonfils, who knew Ibn Ezra’s scientific work quite well,
alluded also to this treatise using the name Sefer Mishpeflei
ha‘Olam (Book of World Judgments),146 a title that also appears
in several manuscripts of Sefer ha‘Olam (first version).147
144
Fleischer, Sefer haMe’orot, p. xlii.
145
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 36v, 43v.
146
Joseph Bonfils, Sophnat Pane’ach, vol. I, pp. 75, 309, vol. II, p. 27. But in other
passages the same book is named Sefer ha‘Olam, see vol. I, p. 201 vol. II, p. 36.
147
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 86v.
130 SHLOMO SELA
This treatise, like the others mentioned above, was composed

in two versions. One of them was published in a very poor edi-
tion in 1937,148 the other version remains at present in manu-
script.149 For convenience, I call the published version the “first
version”, and the unpublished version the “second version”.
But, this nomenclature does not necessarily reflect their
chronological order of composition, since on both versions
appears the year 4908 A.M. (=1148) as the year of composi-
tion,150 and in some manuscripts of the first version there also
appears the date of composition as MarΩeshvan 4909 A.M.
(=November 1148).151 Sefer ha‘Olam may be thought to be the
final component of Ibn Ezra’s astrological encyclopedia since in
both versions we find only retrospective references referring to
previous astrological works already composed during 1148.
Thus, in the first version of Sefer ha‘Olam Ibn Ezra refers the
reader to Reshit ºokhma and Sefer haMibΩarim,152 whereas in
the second version he alludes to Keli haNeΩoshet, Reshit
ºokhma and Sefer haMoladot.153 As said before, both versions
were composed in the same year and we assume that a gap of a
few months separates them. Perhaps Ibn Ezra composed the
second version fulfilling the request of a new student or audi-
ence, after he delivered the manuscript of the first version, or
after he moved from Béziers to another city in Provence.
Both versions describe at the outset, following clearly Ab‚
Ma‘shar’s Kit®b al-qir®n®t, the periodical conjunctions of
Saturn and Jupiter as divided in three main groups: big (960
years), medium (240 years) and short conjunctions (20 years).154
Nevertheless, both versions differ plainly one from the other in
other aspects. Ibn Ezra began the introduction to the first ver-
148
Sefer ha‘Olam, edited by J. L. Fleischer (using Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 390) in
‘Otzar Haim, 13 (1937): 33-49. See also Sefer ha‘Olam in Me’ir Y◊Ωaq Bak’al (ed.),
Sefer Mishpeflei haKokhavim (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 36-54. I used the following extant
manuscripts: Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 80v-83v;
Cambridge, Classmark ADD 1517, fols. 50v-53v.
149
Sefer ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 86v-95r;
Cambridge, Classmark Add 1186, fols. 74v-83v.
150
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 82v; Sefer ha‘Olam
(second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 91v.
151
Concerning this point, see the introduction to Sefer ha‘Olam (1937), p. 34.
152
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 83v, 86r.
153
Sefer ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 90r, 92r, 93v.
154
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 80v; Sefer ha‘Olam
(second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fols. 86v-87r. Cf. Albumasar, De magnis
conjunctionibus, fol. a (3).
sion with a harsh attack on Ab‚ Ma‘shar, who in his opinion
was astronomically wrong in relying on the mean motion of the
planets according to Hindu theory and Hindu astronomical
tables.155 Next Ibn Ezra developed a remarkable and detailed
combinatorial analysis aimed to explain why the total number
of the conjunctions of the seven planets is precisely one hundred
and twenty, a piece of information that he extracted from the
fiftieth article belonging to one of the most popular medieval
treatises, the apocryphal Centiloquium, attributed to Claudius
Ptolemy.156 On the other hand, the second version is easily dis-
tinguishable from the first by a remarkable passage giving an
astrological explanation of the history of the monotheistic reli-
gions, more precisely, endowing some special conjunctions of
Saturn and Jupiter with the capacity of bringing about and
exerting influence in the birth of powerful figures and prophets
in history, such as Moses, Jesus and Mohammed, which subse-
quently created new religions.157
3. Translations from Arabic into Hebrew
Three translations of Arabic scientific treatises into Hebrew are

ascribed to Ibn Ezra. However, only in one case may we assert
safely that Ibn Ezra was actually the translator, while there are
good reasons to cast serious doubts on Ibn Ezra’s part in the
two remaining cases. We will now discuss these two questionable
translations – an astrological treatise of M®sh®’all®h and a text
dealing with astronomy of Ibn al-Muthann® – both of them par-
ticularly important since they are no longer extant in the origi-
nal Arabic. The first of them is the Book of M®sh®’all®h on
Eclipses of the Moon and the Conjunctions of the Planets, and the
Tequfot of Years (revolutiones annorum). Ibn Ezra’s authorship
155
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 80v. Nevertheless,
Abraham bar ºiyya endorsed the mean motion of the planets astronomical method-
ology. See Sefer Megillat ha-Megalle von Abraham bar Chija, published by
A. Poznanski with introduction and notes by J. Guttman (Berlin, 1924), p. 117.
156
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 80v. Cf. Claude
Ptolémée, Les cent sentences astrologiques (Paris, 1938), p. 25. For an Hebrew
medieval translation see Sefer haPri, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1055, fols. 52r-72r. A sim-
ilar though shortened combinatorial treatment of the 120 conjunctions motif, but
theologically oriented, may be found in Ibn Ezra’s Long Commentary to Exodus
33:21.
157
Sefer ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 88v.
132 SHLOMO SELA
of this translations was first affirmed, with some reservations,

by Moritz Steinschneider.158 Later, B. R. Goldstein translated
the work to English and added some commentaries on it,
accepting Ibn Ezra as its translator.159 The second debatable
translation was also attributed to Ibn Ezra, again with some
precautions, by Moritz Steinschneider. This is one of the two
extant Hebrew translations, preserved in MS Oxford, Bodleian
Library, Michael 400, fols. 45r-74r of Ibn al-Muthann®’s
Commentary on the Astronomical Tables of al-Khw®rizm¬.160
The Hebrew text of the “Michael version” was edited and trans-
lated into English by B. R. Goldstein, who in this case negated
Steinschneider’s claim for Ibn Ezra’s authorship.161
We will now see on what grounds Ibn Ezra’s authorship in
these two cases may be rejected. First of all, in neither of these
translations does the translator identify himself, a trait not
common for Ibn Ezra, whose presence is clearly and explicitly
felt in all his works, and who normally presents himself in the
introduction to his works as Abraham the Spaniard. An addi-
tional, noteworthy and in my opinion crucial argument that
may be brought forward is related to Ibn Ezra’s especial
approach to overcoming the formidable task of filling the lin-
guistic void of the Hebrew language, when coming to transfer
Arabic sciences into a Hebrew mold. An exploration of the sci-
entific terminology implemented by Ibn Ezra shows a remark-
able characteristic, namely the consistent use of some old
biblical Hebrew words, which in Ibn Ezra’s opinion express cen-
tral scientific concepts. This approach leads Ibn Ezra to adopt in
some particular cases a very peculiar and conspicuous position
as a translator, significantly different from that adopted by
other Jewish contemporary writers and translators, who also
wrote in Hebrew but adopted a translation strategy based
mainly on the coinage of new Hebrew words, which were either
cognates of Arabic words or loan translations of Arabic terms.
In clear contrast with them, Ibn Ezra obstinately avoided the
158
Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, par. 378-379; id., “Abraham Ibn
Esra”, p. 497.
159
B. R. Goldstein, “The Book on Eclipses of Masha’allah”, Physis, V. 6 (1964):
205-13. Cf. id., “Astronomy and astrology”, pp. 14-15. For a printed edition of the
Hebrew text, see Sefer leMasha’allah bekadrut halebana vehashemesh, in Me’ir
Y◊Ωaq Bak’al (ed.), Sefer Mishpeflei haKokhavim (Jerusalem, 1971), pp. 1-15.
160
Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen, par. 356.
161
Goldstein, Muth., especially pp. 9-11, 15-144, 306-404.
use of cognate or loaned words stemming from the Arabic lan-
guage, particularly in cases where in his opinion original scien-
tific Hebrew terms were available in the biblical text.162
It is precisely the violation of these translation rules, obsti-
nately observed by Ibn Ezra in all his work, that leads us to
assert that the two above-mentioned translations were not done
by Ibn Ezra. As far as The Book of M®sh®’all®h on Eclipses is
concerned, its translator used consistently, in at least 12
instances, the Hebrew word aqlim, which is the cognate trans-
lation of the Arabic term iqlim, a word that served to describe
each of the seven climates.163 But in his genuine works Ibn Ezra
completely avoided using the word aqlim, and instead he con-
sistently and frequently used in both his exegetical and scien-
tific works the Hebrew biblical word gevul.164 As far as the
Michael version of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary is con-
cerned, we note the disregard of the above-mentioned as well as
other central Ibn Ezra’s translation rules. On the one hand, it is
possible to detect in the Michael version the use of the Hebrew
word aqklim, and the absence of the word gevul.165 On the other
hand, in order to express the fundamental concept of center, we
notice in the Michael version the use of the Hebrew word
merkaz, a cognate word borrowed from the Arabic markaz. But
the Hebrew word merkaz was completely avoided by Ibn Ezra,
who employed instead in his works the biblical word mu◊aq.166
162
Regarding this especial feature of Ibn Ezra’s scientific terminology see Sela,
Astrology and Biblical Exegesis, Part II, ch. I, pp. 209-16. Cf. Sarfatti, Mathematical
Terminology, pp. 145-6.
163
Sefer leMasha’allah bekadrut halebana vehashemesh, pp. 1-15.
164
The word gvul was taken by Ibn Ezra from Psalms 74:17 to express the concept
of the seven climates. Actually the Hebrew word gvul, more precisely gevulot are◊,
appears in Psalms 74:17, a verse on which Ibn Ezra commented as follows: “and he
mentioned that the seven climates stand forever and the inhabited part of the earth
will not change, and the reason for writing ‘summer and winter’ is because the over-
whelming majority of the inhabited part of the earth is in the north and only a slight
part is in the south, and the reason for mentioning this together with the ‘borders of
the earth’ (gevulot are◊) is because when in one place it is summer in the other it is
winter”. See also above p. 116.
165
Goldstein, Muth., p. 357.
166
Abraham ibn Ezra endowed the rather bizarre Hebrew word mu◊aq, meaning
literally solid, stable or strong, with a variety of correlated meanings: from the basic
notion of point, the meaning of mu◊aq shades into the concept of the geometric center
of the circle, and thus is viewed as a synonym of the earth, located at the cosmic cen-
ter of the spheres. Ibn Ezra believed that this extremely wide semantic field is part of
the underlying meaning of the biblical text, particularly in the verses Job 36:16, 37:10
and 38:38. See Ibn Ezra’s Commentary on these verses. The use of the word merkaz
134 SHLOMO SELA
Ibn Ezra’s authorship of the second extant Hebrew transla-

tion of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary on the Astronomical
Tables of al-Khw®rizm¬, the so-called “Parma version” (extant
in Parma, Bib. Palatina, MS 2636, fols. 1-13v) is indisputable.
That can be safely affirmed on the basis of the fact that Ibn
Ezra attached to it an outstanding introduction, where he not
only plainly revealed his identity as Abraham the Spaniard and
specified the year 1160 as the date of composition but also pre-
sented his own version of the transmission of Hindu and Greek
astronomy to the Arabic sciences.167 This translation was dis-
covered by Moritz Steinschneider, who published its introduc-
tion for the first time.168 Millás Vallicrosa, in an article
published in 1938, was the first to establish that the author of
this work was AΩmad ibn al-Muthann® ibn ‘Abd al-Kar¬m, who
according to —®‘id al-Andalus¬ authored a work named Ta‘d¬l
Z¬j al-Khw®rizm¬.169 The Parma version, alongside the Michael
version, were edited and translated into English by B. R.
Goldstein. J. Millás Vallicrosa as well as B. R. Goldstein showed
that parts of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary were introduced
into Liber de rationibus tabularum, the Latin version of Sefer
fia‘amei haLuΩot, an additional ground for asserting that Ibn
Ezra was engaged in its composition.170
Regarding the aforementioned characteristics of Ibn Ezra’s
scientific terminology, the Parma version is the antipode of the
Michael version. The above-mentioned word mu◊aq, completely
absent in the Michael version, is most conspicuous in the Parma
version, and is used precisely in the places where the word
was adduced by B. R. Goldstein, in addition to stylistic traits which distinguish in his

opinion the Michael version from the Parma version, in order to claim that the
Michael version translation was actually not carried out by Ibn Ezra. See Goldstein,
Muth., pp. 9-11.
167
See the introduction in Goldstein, Muth., pp. 300-2.
168
Steinschneider, “Zur Geschichte der Uebersetzungen”, ZDMG, 24 (1870),
pp. 325-92; 25 (1871), pp. 388-428; for the text of the introduction see ZDMG, 24
(1870), pp. 356-9; see also id., Die Hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters
(Berlin 1893; Graz 1956), par. 356. Later D. Smith and Y. Ginsburg translated
Steinschneider’s Hebrew text of the introduction into English and added a commen-
tary. See D. Smith and Y. Ginsburg, “Rabbi ben Esra and the Hindu-Arabic prob-
lem”, The American Mathematical Monthly, XXV (1918): 99-108.
169
J. Ma. Millás Vallicrosa, “The work of Abraham Ibn Ezra in astronomy” (in
Hebrew), Tarbiz, IX (1938): 306-22. Cf. —®‘id al-Andalus¬, Book of the Categories of
Nations, p. 53.
170
Millás, Tablas, pp. 51-4; Goldstein, Muth., pp. 11, 200-8, 218, 231, 234.
merkaz is employed in the Michael version.171 Besides, Ibn Ezra
made use in the Parma version of another outstanding biblical
expression, namely nahasΩ bariaΩ, taken from Job 26:13 and
Isaias 27:1. This expression means literally the slant serpent,
but is used by Ibn Ezra to express the astronomical technical
term of the nodes, that is, two points of intersection between
two spheres: the sphere of the zodiac and the sphere of inclina-
tion. In this particular case Ibn Ezra adopts a peculiar way to
introduce this expression in the translation. In a special chap-
ter, in which is dealt the question “what is the node and what is
the meaning of this word”, Ibn al-Muthann® goes on to remind
his readers that this astronomical term is called in Persian
kazohar, and in Arabic al-jawzahar. When coming to translate
the Arabic term, Ibn Ezra first uses the literal expression, prod-
uct of a loan translation, rosh hatanin uzenabo, that is, the head
and tail of the dragon – caput et cauda draconis. But it is com-
pletely clear that this translation was indeed unsatisfactory for
Ibn Ezra. So, he abruptly interrupted the thread of the transla-
tion, burst into the text, and added his own gloss: Abraham
said: and this (i.e. the head and tail of the dragon) is called in
the holy tongue naΩash bariaΩ.172
PART II: GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE

SCIENTIFIC CORPUS
Having dealt separately with each of Ibn Ezra’s scientific works,

we wish now to delineate the general features of this corpus.
With this purpose, the following questions will be asked: How
171
To corroborate this point, inter alia, the following two parallel passages may be
collated:
a) Parma version, Goldstein, Muth., p. 197:
b) Michael version, Goldstein, Muth., p. 395:
172
Parma version, Goldstein, Muth., p. 296; cf. English translation, p. 154. This is
an additional and remarkable case in which Ibn Ezra found out an “original” Hebrew
word endowed with scientific meaning. For a study of the special case of naΩash
bariaΩ see Sela, Astrology and Biblical Exegesis, part II, ch. IV, pp. 270-3.
136 SHLOMO SELA
was Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus organized and shaped? What

was its scope? How did Ibn Ezra envisage the scientific book as
such? For what main purpose was it aimed? Are there any spe-
cial features which reveal the unique contribution and special
personality of the author?
1. Organization and Scope
At first sight, after having described, one by one, Ibn Ezra’s sci-
entific works, we may assume that this corpus was divided into
many parts: a sum-up of all the above shows that Ibn Ezra’s sci-
entific corpus was composed of 26 different works, dealing with
multiple and various subjects. Nevertheless, a more scrutinizing
assessment reveals additional and essential characteristics.
(a) The large total number of books does not signify that the
corpus is composed of completely distinct and independent trea-
tises, since this number (26 works) is mainly the result of the
sum of the multiple versions of Ibn Ezra’s treatises. Two cases
are particularly suggestive: Abraham ibn Ezra wrote presum-
ably four different version of the Book of the Reasons Behind
Astronomical Tables (see above p. 97) and of the Book on the
Astrolabe (see above p. 104) as well. What is more, the absolute
majority of Ibn Ezra’s astrological treatises were composed in at
least two different versions. This is a quality that characterizes
the scientific corpus as well as the biblical commentaries of Ibn
Ezra,173 and in both cases the same motives are at work. On the
one hand, the pen was Ibn Ezra’s main means of subsistence; on
the other hand, he was required to satisfy a demand that
increased during his wandering in Latin Europe. Thus, prob-
ably when he arrived in a new town, he wrote a new version for
a new audience.
(b) As a matter of fact, if we disregard the multiple versions,
we get only 14 distinct treatises, including one translation from
Arabic into Hebrew, which will be next presented, sorted
173
Abraham ibn Ezra wrote commentaries on the majority of the biblical books,
and in most of the cases he wrote two different commentaries on the same book, a
short commentary as well as a long one. Ibn Ezra wrote two different versions to the
following biblical books: Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, Daniel, Song of Songs, Esther,
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Ovadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi. On Ibn Ezra’s exegetical work see U. Simon, “Spanish commen-
tators”, in Jewish Biblical Exegesis (in Hebrew), (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 47-60.
chronologically by the date of the first version, but including
also a short note about the different versions and their place
and date of composition.
Hebrew Name Translation of the Name Versions

Sefer haMispar Book of the Number 1. Hebrew, Lucca, ca. 1146
Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot Book of the Reasons 1. Hebrew, Lucca, ca. 1146
behind Astronomical 2. Latin, Pisa, ca. 1146
Tables 3. Hebrew, Narbonne, ca.
Liber de rationibus 1148
tabularum 4. Latin, France, 1154
Keli haNeΩoshet Book on the Astrolabe 1. Hebrew, Lucca, 1146;
2. Hebrew, Mantova, 1146;
3. Latin, Mantova, 1146;
4. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
Sefer ha‘Ibbur Book of Intercalation 1. Hebrew, Verona, 1146
Mishpeflei haMazzalot Book of the Judgments of 1. Hebrew, Lucca, 1146
the Zodiacal Signs
Reshit ºokhma Beginning of Wisdom 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
Sefer hafie‘amim Book of Reasons 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
2. Hebrew, France, after
1148
Sefer haMoladot Book of Nativities 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
2. Hebrew, France, 1154
Sefer haMibΩarim Book of Elections 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
1148
Sefer haMe’orot Book of Luminaries 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
1148
Sefer haShe’elot Book of Interrogations 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
1148
Sefer ha‘Olam Book of the World 1. Hebrew, Beziers, 1148
2. Hebrew, France, 1148-
1149
Sefer ha’Ehad Book on the Unit 1. Hebrew, ?, ?
fia‘amei al-Muthann® Translation of Ibn al- 1. Hebrew, England, 1160
Muthann®’s Commentary
on the Astronomical
Tables of al-Khw®rizm¬
138 SHLOMO SELA
(c) Yet the scope of the corpus may be limited further if the sub-
ject-matter of these treatises is taken into consideration. In this
case, the corpus falls into two main sections. (i) The first section
includes works designed to develop technical-theoretical skills
related mainly to astronomy and mathematics, especially
designed to teach the use of scientific tools and instruments,
such as the astrolabe and the astronomical tables, or to explain
the astronomical foundations and determine the Hebrew calen-
dar. (ii) In contrast with that, the second section is composed
exclusively of astrological treatises, which may be divided into
two main groups: In the first group we find general reference
books, designed to describe, teach and explain the fundamentals
of astrology. In the second group we find a series of astrological
works designed to deal with the various branches of astrology.
(d) Notwithstanding this double division and despite the multi-
ple topics included in them, the scientific corpus may be well
regarded in an overall view as a single body of texts, dealing with
a rather homogenous body of knowledge. This assertion may be
argued on the basis of several factors. First, we may consider the
most common term with which Ibn Ezra himself referred to his
own scientific praxis and to the scientific branches which make
up his scientific corpus. For this, Ibn Ezra coined a new Hebrew
expression: Ωakhmei hamazzalot – that is, the persons engaged in
the “science of the zodiacal signs” (Ωokhmat hamazzalot). The
range of meanings of this extremely conspicuous term is wide,
and an analysis of the contexts in which it was used plainly
reveals that Ibn Ezra referred collectively with one and the same
expression to a broad variety of activities belonging to three main
scientific branches: mathematics, astronomy and astrology. Thus,
the Ωakhmei hamazzalot are described in Sefer haMispar as con-
cerned with trigonometric problems.174 Besides, on the one hand,
the Ωakhmei hamazzalot are depicted as engaged in typically
astronomical tasks such as, mapping the skies,175 writing and
using astronomical tables and the astrolabe,176 establishing the
relative order of the planets’ spheres,177 calculating time reckon-
174
Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, p. 79.
175
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 63r, right col.;
Short Commentary on Exodus 23:20.
176
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, p. 11 (a); Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, p. 27; Ben
Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 22. Keli haNeΩoshet (third version),
Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 65r, right col.
177
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 35r.
ing parameters, such as the tropical year length, the exact timing
of the equinoxes and solstices,178 calculating the planets’ motions,
especially of the sun and moon, and particularly the timing of
conjunctions and eclipses.179 On the other hand, the Ωakhmei
hamazzalot are very frequently described as theoretical and prac-
tical astrologers engaged, inter alia, in writing books and dealing
practically with genethlialogical astrology180 or universal astrol-
ogy,181 and facing common astrological technical problems, such
as the arrangement of the astrological houses,182 or the technique
called as nihug hakokhab (ductus planetae).183
(e) A similar picture emerges when exploring the subject-mat-
ter of Ibn Ezra’s scientific treatises. Thus, a clearly astronomi-
cal book, such as the Liber de rationibus tabularum, begins
precisely by describing the astrological attributes of the sun,184
allots a similar treatment to the moon,185 and includes a chapter
dealing with the arrangement of the astrological houses and
other technical problems related to casting the horoscope.186
178
These parameters are calculated not only with the purpose of establishing and
explaining the fundamentals of the Hebrew calendar but also with astrological aims,
such as the determination of the Tequfat hashanim (see above p. 122). See: Sefer
hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 37v; Sefer ha‘Olam (first
version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 81r; Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb.
1056, fols. 59r-59v; Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, p. 3 (a).
179
Long Commentary on Exodus 12:2; Commentary on Leviticus 25:9.
180
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 58r Commentary on Exodus
23:25; Long Commentary on Daniel 2:2.
181
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 84r; Long
Commentary on Exodus 32:1.
182
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 36v, 40v.
183
Reshit ºokhma, ch. X, p. lxxv. Regarding this procedure, see above note 72.
184
Millás, Tablas, p. 73-4: “Dixit Abraham Iudeus: Cognitum est corpus solare
habere magnitudinem et secundum eam omnia vincere corpora, eiusque effectus tam
in simplicibus quam in compositis manifestos esse, eumque in mundo caloris natu-
ralis in corde sedem habentis vicem optinere… Item omnia iudicia astronomica
secundum proportionem aliarum planetarum ad solem fiunt, secundum quod sunt
orientales vel occidentales et secundum respectus eoram ad ipsum vel secundum
quod subiacent luci eius.”
185
Millás, Tablas, p. 97: “Nunc vero de luna, cuius potestas super noctem. Primum
ergo de natura eius, quam astronomici asserunt humidam et frigidam, dicemus, et
Phtolomeus dicit in libro 4 capitulorum quod ab adunatione solis et lune eius natura
est calida et humida usque distiterit a sole per quadrantem integrum, et ab eo qua-
drante usque ad oppositum calida et sicca; ab opposito vero usque ad quadratum a
sole frigida et sicca; a quadrato usque ad adunationem frigida et humida.”
186
Millás, Tablas, pp. 84-5: “He tabule quas composuimus utiles sunt ad… coequa-
tionem domorum… et omnes ductus qui sunt secundum latitudinem terre, et signa
mobilia et fixa et bicorpa et recta signa et obliqua et longa et curta…”. See also
pp. 159-61.
140 SHLOMO SELA
Also, although the astrolabe is known as an instrument essen-

tially oriented to astronomical uses, all three Hebrew versions
of Keli haNeΩoshet as well as the Latin version of the Book on
the Astrolabe include, as has been said above (see p. 110), cen-
tral chapters dealing with typically astrological procedures,
such as the arrangement of the astrological houses, the calcula-
tion of the astrological aspects and the nihug hakokhab (Latin
ductus planetae) with the help of the astrolabe.187 But, on the
other hand, a stark astrological book such as Reshit ºokhma,
the main component of Ibn Ezra’s astrological encyclopedia,
begins by mapping the skies into 48 constellations and by listing
the number of stars in each of the constellations188 – a list which
follows closely and summarizes Ptolemy’s star catalogue in
Almagest VII,5 – and it must be borne in mind that the fixed
stars have little incidence in astrology. Also, another clearly
astrological book such as Sefer haMoladot contains an interest-
ing chapter dealing with the exact length of the tropical year,
reviewing and comparing the opinions of major Greek, Hindu,
Persian and Arabic astronomers on this particular topic.189
(f) The scientific corpus may be also grasped as an homoge-
nous body of texts because it is internally interconnected in a
net of cross-references, in a way reminiscent of a modern hyper-
linked electronic text. This is especially true as far as the astro-
logical encyclopaedia is concerned; and we have already
presented above, when dealing separately with each of the
astrological treatises, many cases illustrating this point. But the
same assertion may be corroborated by observing the interdisci-
plinary character of many cross-references that connect various
treatises of Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus. Thus, for example, from
within Sefer haMispar, a mathematical treatise, Ibn Ezra refers
the reader on two occasions to the Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot.190
Also, from within the first version of Keli haNeΩoshet, that is
187
There is nothing surprising in the fact that astrology took such a conspicuous
part of the astrolabe book, the main reason for that being that the use of the astro-
labe simplified the solution of astronomical problems closely related to the horoscope
casting. This idea is concisely and plainly expressed by Ibn Ezra himself at the begin-
ning of the chapter dealing with the arrangement of the astrological houses in Liber
de rationibus tabularum. See Millás, Tablas, p. 160: “Nos vero in astrolabio docuimus
facile distinguere domus.”
188
Levy and Cantera, The Beginning of Wisdom, ch. I, p. vi-viii. Cf. Toomer,
Ptolemy’s Almagest, VII, 5, pp. 341-99.
189
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 59r-59v.
190
Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, pp. 27, 79.
the Astrolabe Book, Ibn Ezra not only alludes implicitly to his
Sefer haLuΩot,191 but also explicitly directs the reader several
times to consult two still non-existent astrological treatises:
Sefer haMishpaflim, that is the Mishpeflei haMazzalot, and Sefer
haMoladot.192 Also, from within the third version of Keli
haNeΩoshet, Ibn Ezra refers, on the one hand, to the Sefer
haLuΩot, but on the other hand, refers also for the first time to
the emblem of his astrological encyclopaedia, the Reshit
ºokhma, at this stage still a non-existing treatise.193 On the
other hand, the Keli haNeΩoshet is referred to from within sev-
eral of Ibn Ezra’s astrological works, such as from the first ver-
sion of Sefer hafie‘amim and the second version of Sefer
ha‘Olam.194
(g) The reconstruction of the scientific corpus produces an
additional insight, which illustrates a remarkable feature of Ibn
Ezra’s works. It turns out that the above-mentioned two-part
division of Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus is not only a matter of
distinct subject areas but also a chronological partition. From
the sorting of Ibn Ezra’s scientific corpus by chronological order
it emerges that all of the four first scientific works Ibn Ezra
composed at the beginning of his career as writer of scientific
treatises in Italy – Sefer haMispar, Sefer fia‘amei haLuΩot, Keli
haNeΩoshet, Sefer ha‘Ibbur – belong precisely to the first sec-
tion, which was designed to develop mathematical and astro-
nomical skills. Only afterwards, mainly in Provence though
beginning in Northern Italy, Ibn Ezra turned his attention to
the second section of his scientific corpus, which contained
mainly seven treatises written in a concentrated effort as part
of an astrological encyclopaedia.
(h) The same chronological feature described in the last para-
graph is also highly suggestive, in a quite wider scenario, of
some central traits in the process of reception of Greek-Arabic
sciences in Western Europe. We may assume that the above-
mentioned particular chronological ordering of the scientific
corpus was not a product of Ibn Ezra’s will, whose pen was his
main means of subsistence and who wrote mainly to satisfy the
191
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), p. 29.
192
Edelman, Keli haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 9, 14, 25, 29, 30, 31.
193
Keli haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fols. 59v, 60r, 65v, 66r,
right col.
194
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version) Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 45v; of Sefer
ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 93v.
142 SHLOMO SELA
demand of his disciples. If this is true, the scope of Ibn Ezra’s

scientific corpus and its chronological ordering may be envis-
aged as reflecting not only the priorities of the local European
learned audiences, Jewish and Christian as well, but also the
way by which the Greek-Arabic sciences made their impact on a
confused Europe. Latin and Jewish scholars, confused and per-
plexed after the initial impact of Greek-Arabic sciences, had in
this initial stage poor tools and little knowledge to understand
astronomical and mathematical theories. Therefore, they gave
precedence to the understanding of problems involved in the
mere practical handling of scientific tools and instruments: the
astrolabe and the astronomical tables enabled simple and quick
solutions to astronomical and astrological technical problems,
in clear contrast with the difficulties and cumbersomeness
involved in solving the same problems with sheer geometric and
mathematical tools. Also, they were highly interested in the
practical and immediate benefits arising from astrological fore-
casting, for whom the practical handling of astronomical tables
and the astrolabe were crucially important. This assertion may
be seen as corroborated by the scope and inner organization of
Ibn Ezra scientific corpus, composed mainly of recurrent ver-
sions of treatises teaching the use of astronomical tables and
the astrolabe, written in Hebrew as well as in Latin, and espe-
cially of an astrological encyclopedia.195
2. The scientific book of Ibn Ezra, its aims and peculiar traits
If a common factor is required, reflecting the most essential aim

and most representative aspects of Ibn Ezra’s scientific book, a
close to true answer may be that Ibn Ezra’s scientific book was
designed mainly as a textbook, planned to provide his disciples
with easy access and understanding of terms, concepts and
general principles related to astrology, astronomy and mathe-
matics, and particularly intended to teach the use of technical-
theoretical tools and instruments. This assertion may be
justified, inter alia, on the basis of Ibn Ezra’s own explicit and
195
For a discussion of the impact of Islamic astronomy on Latin scholars, and espe-
cially about the decisive influence exerted at this stage by the astrolabe and the astro-
nomical tables, see O. Pedersen, “Astronomy”, in D. Lindberg (ed.) Science in the
Middle Ages (Chicago, 1978), pp. 308-14.
relevant remarks: He is accustomed to admit expressly that
when shaping some conceptual or formal idea or trait of his
books, he is guided by the need or wish to make the study easy
for the students. Thus, for example, in the first version of Sefer
hafie‘amim, as usual in astrological books, the planets’ astro-
logical qualities are described implementing physical attributes
of sub-lunar bodies (such as saying that Sun is hot, or that
Saturn is cold), infringing thereby basic principles of Aristotelian
physics. But Ibn Ezra is aware of the fault. Therefore, he feels
himself obliged to apologize for such an inexact expression, and
so he goes on to explain that “you have to understand that all I
said (about the planets) was meant to convey the idea that they
(the planets) generate cold and heat, and if it was expressed in
such a crude way, it was done only because of the need to facili-
tate the understanding of the students”.196
Also in the shaping of the scientific book Ibn Ezra was led by
didactic criteria. Thus, just before beginning the central part of
Sefer haMoladot, which was dedicated to interpreting the charac-
teristics of the astrological houses, Ibn Ezra saw fit to add a
methodological remark, and so wrote that “only in order to facil-
itate the learning of the students I chose to follow the method of
the astrologers, and therefore I decided to discuss the issue of the
Nativities by dealing (separately) with the twelve houses”.197 A
central feature that characterizes Ibn Ezra’s scientific books and
emphasizes its didactic nature is the inclusion of solved exercises,
which illustrate and make easy to understand some theoretical
doctrine. In this context, it is noteworthy that such solved
exercises are numerous in Ibn Ezra scientific books. Moreover,
Ibn Ezra provided these solved exercises with a special external
sign that make them easy to detect: He used to begin them with
the words “next I will present you an ‘illustration’ (Hebrew:
dimyon)” and immediately after he goes on to present the solu-
tion of a problem which usually involves some calculations.198
196
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 37r.
197
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 48r. The same concern may be
detected in Sefer haShe’elot (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 63v: “and
I, Abraham say that… in order that the student will not be confused, I was obliged to
divide this treatise into twelve chapters”.
198
See examples of solved exercises in the following places: Edelman, Keli
haNeΩoshet (first version), pp. 40-1; Sefer haShe’elot (first version), Paris, BNF, MS
Héb. 1056, fols. 63r, 96r-96v; Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056,
fols. 83v-84r; Reshit ºokhma, ch. III, p. xxxix; ch. VII, p. lviii; Sefer haMoladot, Paris,
BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 53v.
144 SHLOMO SELA
We come to the conclusion that Ibn Ezra’s scientific books are

mainly textbooks or reference books, aimed chiefly at conveying
to the layman conventional scientific knowledge. Naturally, as
such, Ibn Ezra’s books are endowed with a clear didactic char-
acter and do not have any pretension of innovation. The bulk of
the included scientific material is brought, explicitly or implic-
itly, as paraphrases or quotations of previous sources. In this
context, Ibn Ezra’s treatises are an excellent means of learning
about scientific data and sources available in al-Andalus in the
twelfth century or earlier, and especially of identifying the most
prominent astronomers and astrologers.199 Nevertheless, we
have to do justice to the author. Although these works are
mainly textbooks, we can still discern in them features that
clearly reveal the unique contribution and personality of the
author. We turn now to present these special features.
(a) Even in these scientific and technical textbooks it is possi-
ble to detect Ibn Ezra’s inclination, we may rather say his
obsession, to comment on and explain everything that falls into
his hands, a trait that is highly reminiscent of the fact that he
excelled chiefly as a biblical commentator. An unmistakable
expression of this feature is that he wrote two different versions
of Sefer hafie‘amim, a treatise openly aimed at explaining and
commenting on the astrological terms and concepts included in
Reshit ºokhma (see above p. 121), Ibn Ezra’s chief astrological
treatise. Another expression of the same trend is that Ibn Ezra
does not content himself in some places with a merely rudimen-
tary and basic presentation of some doctrine but goes on to add
some rational explanation, beyond what his sources were ready
to convey on the same topic. Thus, for example, in the first ver-
sion of Sefer haMoladot, Ibn Ezra paraphrases Claudius
Ptolemy, who in Tetrabiblos (iv, 10) dealt with the seven ages of
man, each of them allotted to a planet, and wrote that the moon
takes over the first four years of infancy. But Ibn Ezra was
clearly not content with this rather simple observation; hence
he added the following observation: “So wrote Ptolemy, but he
did not provide any reason for this division. Here is the reason:
199
See, for example, the list of scientists provided by Ibn Ezra at the end of the
introduction he attached to his translation of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary on the
Astronomical Tables of al-Khw®rizm¬ [Goldstein, Muth., p. 300], which includes the
following prominent scientists: ºabash the Arab (al-º®sib), YaΩy® ibn Ab¬ Man◊‚r,
al-Marw®dh¬, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, al-—‚f¬, Ya‘q‚b al-Kind¬, Th®bit ibn Qurra, Ibr®h¬m al-
Zarq®l, al-Batt®n¬, Ibn al-‘Ist¬, Ibn al-A‘lam.
the moon takes over until the boy is weaned, so that four years
will elapse over him, each year under the power of one zodiacal
sign, until four zodiacal signs will be completed, each of them
corresponding to each of the four natural elements”.200
(b) Even although, as said above, the scientific material is
brought in these textbooks as paraphrases or quotations of pre-
vious sources, Ibn Ezra avoids as much as possible a narrow and
unilateral presentation of issues. Thus, in his Sefer haMoladot,
before coming to deal with the central and technical issues of
the treatise, Ibn Ezra added the following remark: “I will next
mention all that the ancient sages have tested and examined (on
this subject); but because countless books dealing with astrol-
ogy (in Hebrew: Ωokhmat hamazzalot) are available, and since
some of them include observations which are contradicted by
common sense, and in view of the fact that the astrologers are
divided by divergent opinions, I was obliged in this book to pre-
sent everything that is clear and all that in which there is agree-
ment in the opinions of the old sages, and with which I myself
have experimented numerous times.”201 Ibn Ezra kept his
promise and actually implemented in most of his scientific
books the two methodological observations he mentioned in the
last passage: first, to present the achievements of his predeces-
sors; secondly, to add also his own ideas and the results of his
own experimentation.
Consequently, Ibn Ezra is prone to convert the presentation
of some specific subjects into an arena where scientists and
scientific schools belonging to different times, nations and reli-
gions meet together and clash on some scientific issue. The most
outstanding example is that related to establishing the length of
the tropical year, a debate in which Ibn Ezra brings together the
best of the scientists of India, Persia, Greece and Islam. It must
200
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 52r. See other examples of the
same pattern in the following places: Fleischer, Sefer haMibΩarim (first version),
p. 9. Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 14; Mishpeflei haMazzalot,
Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 68v; Sefer ha‘Olam (second version), Rome, Vatican
MS Ebr. 477, fols. 90r-94r; Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056,
fols. 84v-86v; Reshit ºokhma, ch. X, p. lxxv.
201
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 47r. Cf. also what Ibn Ezra
wrote at the end of the first chapter of Reshit ºokhma, ch. I, p. viii: “I shall mention
in this book all that in which there is agreement in the opinion of the ancient
Babylonians and the wise men of Persia, India, and Greece, whose chief is Ptolemy…
until my book will be complete and there will be no need for any other book besides
it in the introduction to this science.”
146 SHLOMO SELA
be borne in mind that this is an issue involving not only astro-

nomical parameters 202 but also very strong astrological203 and
religious overtones.204 Other specific scientific subjects which
are similarly treated as academic debates by Ibn Ezra are, inter
alia, the different values of the solar declination,205 the relation
between the diameter and the perimeter of the circle,206 the con-
troversy related to the position of the spheres of the Sun, Venus
and Mercury,207 the question whether the sun apogee is static or
is moving,208 the different explanations of the fixed stars
motion.209 It is in the context of these disputations that Ibn Ezra
sometimes fulfills the second of the above-mentioned promises,
202
On this subject see, for example, Millás, Tablas, pp. 74-6: “Huius motus quanti-
tas in 365 diebus et quarta parte diei perficitur, quam fraccionem diei philosophi
egypci neglexerunt… Ptholomeus medium cursum solis composuit… Greci vero et
omnes qui noticiam computacionis suorum annorum a diebus Alexandri vel Christi
sumunt … Sapientes vero Indie secundum dies mundi, quos dies apellant dies de
Scindehind… Sapientes vero persarum asserunt additamentum supra 4am diei esse
115m partem diei… Philosophi sarracenorum geometrie periti discipline secundum
raciones Ptholomei et per instrumenta Ptholomei multa de celestibus probaverunt.”
Cf. similar reports in the following additional places: Millás, Tablas, pp. 82-83; Keli
haNeΩoshet (third version), Warsaw, MS Pinsker 26, fol. 59r, right col.
203
The problem of finding the length of the tropical year is analogous and closely
related to that of finding the exact time when the sun (in a geocentric cosmos) enters
the sign of Aries, a crucial parameter in universal astrology. See the following places,
where Ibn Ezra deals with this issue of the length of the year, regarded as a clearly
astrological problem but involving an international debate: Sefer haMoladot, Paris,
BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 59r-59v; Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb.
1056, fols. 81r-81v; Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols.
37v-38r; Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), pp. 34-5, 40, 41-2.
204
The problem of finding the length of the tropical year is crucial in establishing
the soli-lunar Hebrew calendar. Therefore, Ibn Ezra handles the problem not only in
his Sefer ha‘Ibbur but also in his exegetical commentaries and theological mono-
graphs, in a way reminiscent of that implemented in his scientific works. See
Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, pp. 8 (a), 9 (b); cf. especially commentary on Leviticus
25:9; long commentary on Exodus 12:2, 34:21; M. Friedlander (ed.), Igeret haShabbat
in Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England, 2 (1894/5), pp. 64-5.
205
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 81r-81v; Millás,
Tablas, pp. 77, 92, 93.
206
Silberberg, Sefer haMispar, p. 44; Millás, Tablas, pp. 79, 124; for a comparative
examination and a discussion of this subject see Sela, “Puntos de contacto”, pp. 39-
47.
207
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 43r-43v; Ben
Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 9; Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome,
Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 74v; Fleischer, Sefer haMe’orot, p. 7; Millás, Tablas,
pp. 120-2.
208
Millás, Tablas, pp. 77-8; 91-2; Goldstein, Muth., p. 300 (Ibn Ezra’s introduction);
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 91v.
209
Millás, Tablas, pp. 78, 81-83, 94; Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS
Héb. 1056, fol. 81v; Halberstam, Sefer ha‘Ibbur, p. 10 (a).
when he presents his own personal contribution in two main
ways: on the one hand, Ibn Ezra allows himself to present his
own view, as part of the quasi academic debate, generally in a
compromising manner or giving precedence to one of the pre-
sented opinions,210 but sometimes expressing disagreement and
presenting an independent opinion as well;211 on the other hand,
Ibn Ezra makes express mention of empirical experiments that
he carried out in order to corroborate or refute some of the
arguments referred to in his scientific treatises.212
An additional quality that characterizes the scientific writings
of Ibn Ezra is the extremely sharp criticism with which he
sometimes attacks his predecessors, the most famous Greek and
Arabic scientists. Thus, Ibn Ezra does not find a better way to
begin the first version of Sefer ha‘Olam than with a harsh
attack on Ab‚ Ma‘shar’s Kit®b al-qir®n®t, his main source in
universal astrology. These are the first words of this treatise: “If
you have by chance found the book of Ab‚ Ma‘shar on the plan-
ets conjunctions, you would surely not like it and you should not
observe its rules, since Ab‚ Ma‘shar relies on the mean motion
of the planets and there is no other sage that agrees with him,
for the correct motion of the planets refers to the zodiacal
sphere”.213 Ibn Ezra also castigates M®sh®’all®h – also one of his
main astrological sources – in the first version of Sefer
haMibΩarim, by applying arguments grounded on common
sense and rational explanations.214 Ibn Ezra criticizes also
ºanoch (Hermes), who embodies several hermetic traditions, by
asserting that he was accustomed to present his ideas without
210
Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 9; Sefer haMoladot, Paris,
BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 49v, 53v 54v; Millás, Tablas, pp. 77, 80, 81, 82, 93.
211
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 39r; Millás,
Tablas, p. 92; Reshit ºokhma, ch. VII, p. lvii.
212
Ibn Ezra uses not only general expressions, implying loosely that he carried out
some empirical experiment, but also introduces explicit assertions, where he reports
the use of the astrolabe in order to undermine some argument. See, for example Sefer
haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fols. 47r-47v. See also: Sefer haMoladot, fol.
49v; Mishpeflei haMazzalot, Rome, Vatican MS Ebr. 477, fol. 73v; Sefer ha‘Olam (first
version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 85v; Sefer haShe’elot (first version), Paris,
BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 63r; Fleischer, Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), pp. 12,14;
Ben Menachem, Sefer hafie‘amim (second version), p. 36.
213
Sefer ha‘Olam (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 80v. See also fol.
85v. Nevertheless, in other places Ibn Ezra regards positively the work of Ab‚
Ma‘shar. See, for example: Sefer haShe’elot (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056,
fol. 62v; Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 36r.
214
Fleischer, Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), p. 12.
148 SHLOMO SELA
reasons, that is without rational explanations.215 Ibn Ezra’s crit-

icism of his colleagues sometimes turns to very sharp expres-
sions, as for example when in Sefer haMoladot he wrote as
follows: “the sage Al Abzidag brought in his book some tables,
which were called ovens and were intended to find out the
life expectancy of the newborn; but they deserve to be burned in
the fire ovens , since they the are completely wrong”.216
Particularly remarkable is the way in which Ibn Ezra criti-
cizes Claudius Ptolemy, his chief and most admired source, the
sole source that Ibn Ezra dared to introduce explicitly in his bib-
lical commentaries in order to strengthen some arguments.217 In
his criticism, Ibn Ezra opted for drawing a sharp distinction
between Ptolemy’s astronomical and astrological contribution.
Thus, he wrote the following words in the first version of Sefer
hafie‘amim: “I will now give you a rule: everything that you
may find of Ptolemy that deals with the spheres is excellent and
nothing is available that surpasses it, but his assertions related
to the judgments of astrology do not befit his wisdom”.218 But
even some parts of the non-astrological and sheer astronomical
output of Claudius Ptolemy came as well under Ibn Ezra’s crit-
icism. Thus, in the Liber de rationibus tabularum, Claudius
215
Fleischer, Sefer haMibΩarim (first version), p. 14.
216
Sefer haMoladot, Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 50r.
217
Claudius Ptolemy is explicitly mentioned and referred to on three outstanding
occasions in Ibn Ezra’s biblical exegesis. (a) In the Commentary on Leviticus 25:9,
where Claudius Ptolemy stands by Moses, in order to provide astronomical data
related to the length of the year as an argument against the Karaite Yehuda haParsi;
(b) In the Commentary on Amos 5:8, where Ibn Ezra makes use of two of the main
doctrines appearing in Ptolemy’s Almagest – that there are two different motions in
the heavens (Almagest I, 8), and that the sphere of the fixed stars has a very slow
motion (Almagest III, 1) – in order to prove that the biblical stars khsil and khima,
referred to in Amos 5:8, were each created in each of the equinoxes, but that they
subsequently moved to other places in the skies; for a discussion of this commentary,
see Sela, Astrology and Biblical Exegesis, pp. 308-14; U. Simon, Abraham Ibn Ezra’s
Two Commentaries on the Minor Prophets (in Hebrew), (Ramat Gan, 1989), pp. 209-
215. (c) In the Long Commentary on Exodus 33:21, where Ibn Ezra identifies
Claudius Ptolemy with Ptolemy the King, who in Ibn Ezra’s opinion promoted the
translation of the Torah into Greek in order to “steal” some astrological secrets
immersed in the biblical text. For a discussion of this commentary and also of the
myth converting Claudius Ptolemy into Ptolemy the King, see Sela, Astrology and
Biblical Exegesis, pp. 37-62.
218
Sefer hafie‘amim (first version), Paris, BNF, MS Héb. 1056, fol. 39r. In another
place in the same treatise, see Sefer hafie‘amim, fol. 35r, Ibn Ezra dares to raise the
assumption that Claudius Ptolemy was not the actual author of Tetrabiblos, asserting
that this book includes arguments which completely contradict any rational explana-
tion and are unsupported by empirical experimentation.
Ptolemy is not spared for having committed in his book
Algeraphie (that is, the Arabic transliteration of Geography)
some inaccuracies related to the geographic parameters of the
city of Cordoba.219 Besides, in the introduction to the translation
of Ibn al-Muthann®’s Commentary on the Astronomical Tables
of al-Khw®rizm¬, Ibn Ezra wrote that Ptolemy’s astronomical
tables in the Almagest are “useless and contradicted by obser-
vation”, even though he goes on to explain that the errors were
due in fact to his predecessors.220
219
Millás, Tablas, p. 79: “et invenimus in libro Ptholomei, qui est Algeraphie, quod
longitudo Cordube est 9 graduum, latitudo vero 36 graduum, multis vero temporibus
et diversis probata est eius longitudo, eclipsi solis et lune, 27 graduum, et latitudo,
racione perfecta, 37 graduum et 30 minutorum, et in fine ostendam unde error con-
tingit, nam longitudo et latitudo terre nec augescit nec decrescit.”
220
Goldstein, Muth., pp. 300-1, 149-50: “The tables in the Almagest are useless and
contradicted by observation, since the apogees are not fixed with respect to the con-
stellations. Ptolemy himself did not commit these errors, which are due to his prede-
cessors.”

ASP 2001 Vol.11 Issue.1

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

ASP 2001 Vol.11 Issue.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy

Volume 11 Number 1 March 2001

RUTH GLASNER Ibn Rushd’s Theory of Minima Naturalia 9

A. MARK SMITH The Latin Source of the Fourteenth-Century Italian

FAÏZA BANCEL Les centres de gravité d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ 45

AHMED AARAB, PHILIPPE PROVENÇAL AND MOHAMED IDAOMAR

SHLOMO SELA Abraham ibn Ezra’s Scientific Corpus – Basic

DR AHMED AARAB Groupe de recherche et de documentation sur les sciences

FAÏZA BANCEL Centre d’histoire des sciences et des philosophies arabes et

PROFESSOR RUTH GLASNER Program for the History and Philosophy of

PROFESSOR MOHAMED IDAOMAR Faculté des sciences, B.P. 2121, Tétouan,

DR PHILIPPE PROVENÇAL Naturhistorisk Museum, Århus, Universitetsparken

DR SHLOMO SELA Department of General and Inderdisciplinary Studies, Faculty

PROFESSOR A. MARK SMITH Department of History, 101 Read Hall, University

Ibn Rushd’s Theory of Minima Naturalia

The Latin Source of the Fourteenth-Century Italian Translation of Alhacen’s

Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬ on Centers of Gravity

The Mode of Action of Venom according to J®Ωi˙

Abraham ibn Ezra’s Scientific Corpus – Basic Constituents and General

Abraham ibn Ezra’s (ca 1089-ca 1167) scientific corpus represented an

L’essence de la théorie des minima naturalia réside dans l’affirmation selon

La source latine de la traduction italienne du XIVe siècle du De aspectibus

Les centres de gravité d’Ab‚ Sahl al-Q‚h¬

Le mode d’action du venin selon J®Ωi˙

L’objet de ce travail est de présenter les théories toxicologiques proposées

Le corpus scientifique d’Abraham ibn Ezra – composants de base et carac-

Le corpus scientifique d’Abraham ibn Ezra (ca 1089-ca 1167) représente un

IBN RUSHD’S THEORY OF MINIMA NATURALIA

The essence of the theory of minima naturalia is the contention

impression that the theory is of a Scholastic origin.4 The only

[I] ARISTOTLE’S TWO APPROACHES

The basic question with which we are dealing is whether a phys-

continuous.16 Aristotle’s major project in Physics VI was to gen-

There are a few statements in other places suggesting that

[II] THE TWO TRADITIONS

Aristotle’s two answers to the question whether a physical body

Commenting on the same passage from Physics I.4 quoted

According to these interpretations matter is infinitely divisible,

The other channel through which the theory of minima natu-

minima.33 Recent studies have shown that Epicurus distin-

[III] IBN RUSHD’S THEORY OF MINIMA NATURALIA

Ibn Rushd’s statement of the theory of minima naturalia is

The question arises as to what made Ibn Rushd adopt an inter-

The association between body and motion is a central issue in

involve serious difficulties.57 Ibn Rushd develops his theory of

there is an intermediate, but not between F and the first T.

In conclusion I would like to summarize briefly the history of

particular. Aristotle’s analysis of the continuum in Physics VI

THE LATIN SOURCE OF THE FOURTEENTH-

Composed in the early eleventh century, Ibn al-Haytham’s

And, as Graziella Vescovini has recently shown, Lorenzo

1. London, British Library: MS Royal 12.G.7, fols. 1r-102v

seven Latin manuscripts listed all include Ibn Mu‘®dh’s brief De

and Italian. But, as it turns out, the Italian translation hews so

In so doing, I counted as substitutions several variants that

Since it would serve little or no purpose to multipy examples, or,

Table 1 lists all the variants unique to L relative to the sixteen

Table 2, for its part, provides a comparison between L and I on

Next in order, Table 3 provides a comparison between I and L in

Table 4, finally, gives an overview of all the variants that are

I has no links whatever to any of the Latin manuscripts other

When the comparative results for all three textual segments in

As this table indicates, of L’s 200 idiosyncratic variants

Following is a list of all phrase-omissions and phrase-insertions