andrei iakovlevic borisov (1903-1942) and his studies of medieval arabic philosophy

7/29/2019 Andrei Iakovlevic Borisov (1903-1942) and His Studies of Medieval Arabic Philosophy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/andrei-iakovlevic-borisov-1903-1942-and-his-studies-of-medieval-arabic-philosophy 1/37

Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 17 (2007) pp. 159–195

doi:10.1017/S0957423907000409 2007 Cambridge University Press

ESSAY-REVIEW

Andrei Iakovlevic Borisov ( 1903–1942) and

his Studies of Medieval Arabic Philosophy*

ALEXANDER TREIGER

v A.Ia. Borisov, Materialy i issledovaniia po istorii Neoplatonizma nasrednevekovom Vostoke [ = Materials and Studies on the History of

Neoplatonism in the Medieval East], ed. by K. B. Starkova, PravoslavnyiPalestinskii Sbornik, Issue 99 (36), St. Petersburg, 2002, 256pp., ISBN5-86007-216-3.

Andrei Iakovlevic Borisov1 was born on May 11 / 24,2 1903 inthe village of Valgovicy near St. Petersburg to a peasant familyof Old Believers active in the revolutionary movement. Hespent his childhood and teenage years in Narva (Estonia) andenrolled in the University of Tartu (Estonia), where he studiedSlavic and Semitic languages, in particular Arabic and He-brew. In 1924 he returned to Leningrad3 and in the autumn of the same year enrolled in the Oriental Department of theLeningrad State University where he studied Semitic lan-guages and literatures with P. K. Kokovcov (Kokowzo# ) and

*I am grateful to Prof. Dimitri Gutas, Prof. Cristina D’Ancona, Prof. SarahStroumsa, Prof. Gad Freudenthal, Nikolai Seleznyov, and Lukas Muehlethalerwho read an earlier draft of this essay and o# ered useful suggestions as well as

encouragement.1 The following biographical information is based on K. B. Starkova’sintroduction to the volume under review. Borisov is only rarely mentioned in I.Iu. Krackovskii’s Ocerki po istorii russkoi arabistiki [A Survey of the History of Arabic Studies in Russia], in his Izbrannye socineniia, vol. 5 (Moscow /Leningrad, 1958), pp. 154, 169, 179; cf. also his ‘‘P. K. Kokovcov v istorii russkogovostokovedeniia’’ [P. K. Kokowzo# in the History of Oriental Studies in Russia],ibid., p. 427.

2 May 11, according to the Julian calendar, in use in Russia before therevolution = May 24, according to the Western (Gregorian) calendar.

3 St. Petersburg was renamed Petrograd after the start of WWI in 1914 andLeningrad after Lenin’s death in 1924. Its original name was restored to the cityonly in 1991.



I. Iu. Krackovskii (Kratchkovsky). In the summer of 1926 hevisited Central Asia ( Tashkent, Bukhara and Samarqand ),where he studied Islamic art and manuscripts as well as the lifeand customs of the local Muslim population.

In 1928 he submitted a thesis on the anonymous Arabictreatise Maqalat al-Wud*uh* ( = Pseudo-Bah*ya’s Ma‘anı al-nafs), preserved in a manuscript copy in the State PublicLibrary in Leningrad (now the National Library of Russia).4

In February 1930 he became a librarian in the HebraicDepartment of the State Public Library, where he began toprepare a catalogue of Hebrew, Judeo-Arabic and Samaritanmanuscripts. It is in 1930 that his most famous and influentialarticle appeared in print – ‘‘The Arabic original of the Latin

version of the so-called Theology of Aristotle,’’ – o#

ering for thefirst time an analysis of the Judeo-Arabic fragments, discov-ered by Borisov in the Firkovich collection, of the LongVersion of the Theology of Aristotle (previously known only ina 16th-century Latin translation).5

In autumn of 1933 Borisov continued his graduate studies atthe State Hermitage Museum where he focused on the cul-ture and art of Ancient Iran, specializing in Middle Persian( Pahlavi ) literature. At the same time he taught courses inArabic and Hebrew at the Leningrad State University. In

1935–37 he also taught Syriac and other Aramaic dialects andliteratures.

In 1935 Borisov prepared a catalogue of the collectionof Hebrew and Aramaic magical bowls at the Academy of Sciences. (Regrettably, the catalogue was lost at the publishinghouse.) In the same year he participated in the Third

4 On this treatise see his article ‘‘New materials on the question of Pseudo-Bah*ya’’ (Article 5 below).

5 ‘‘The Arabic original of the Latin version of the so-called Theology of

Aristotle,’’ Zapiski kollegii vostokovedov, Issue 5 (Leningrad, 1930): 83–98 (datedSeptember 1929). It is unfortunate that this article – perhaps the best known andmost influential among Borisov’s studies – is not included in the volume underreview (probably because it is largely superseded by Article 1). For itscontributions see references given by M. Aouad, ‘‘La Théologie d’Aristote etautres textes du Plotinus arabus,’’ in R. Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophesantiques, vol. I (Paris, 1989), pp. 541–90, at pp. 564–8, esp. S. Pines, ‘‘La LongueRecension de la Théologie d’Aristote dans ses rapports avec la doctrineismaelienne,’’ Revue des études islamiques, 22 (1954): 7–20, at pp. 7# . [repr. in S.Pines, Studies in the History of Arabic Philosophy, ed. S. Stroumsa ( Jerusalem,1996), pp. 390–403]. To Aouad’s references one should add the brief review of Borisov’s article by H. S. Nyberg in Le Monde oriental , 24 ( 1930), p. 116 (thisreview was not accessible to me).

160 ALEXANDER TREIGER



International Congress on Iranian Art and Archeology inLeningrad, where he gave a lecture on the illustrations of anastrological treatise by Tankalusha (Teucer) the Babylonian.6

In 1936 and 1937 respectively he participated in the First and

Second Congresses of Arabists of the USSR and gave papers onthe Mu‘tazilı manuscripts discovered by him in Leningrad andon Avicenna’s philosophical and medical works.

After graduating in 1938, Borisov continued to work at theState Hermitage Museum. In 1939 he started working on hisdoctoral dissertation entitled ‘‘ Problems in the study of theso-called Theology of Aristotle.’’ In May 1941 Borisov left forSamarqand in order to participate in the opening of Ulughbek’stomb. Thence he traveled to Tashkent to study philosophical

manuscripts, especially the manuscript copies of the Theologyof Aristotle and a commentary on it preserved in the CentralAsian Public Library (now the Collection of OrientalManuscripts at the Al-Beruni Institute for Oriental Studies,Uzbek Academy of Sciences).7

After the beginning of the war (on June 22, 1941), Borisovreturned to Leningrad and took part in the evacuation of theState Hermitage Museum’s collections. Despite severe cold andfamine of the autumn and winter 1941 / 42 he continued hiswork in the besieged and continuously bombarded city, devel-

oping his ideas on the Theology of Aristotle and writing anumber of short articles on the links between Old Russianliterature and the Islamic world. He planned to teach a courseon the history of Arabic and Hebrew medieval philosophy butthis plan was never realized.

Borisov died during evacuation from Leningrad in Orexovo-Zuevo near Moscow on July 10, 1942.

The present collection of Borisov’s articles, edited by the late

Klavdiia Borisovna Starkova (1915–2000) – Borisov’s student

6 Cf. his ‘‘ Sur le nom Tankaloucha,’’ Journal asiatique, fasc. 2 (1935): 300–5[repr. in F. Sezgin (ed.), Texts and Studies on Astrology, vol. 2, IslamicMathematics and Astronomy, 103 (Frankfurt am Main, 2000)] and ‘‘On anillustrated astrological treatise from the Sasanian period (PresentationAbstract),’’ in III Meždunarodnyi kongress po iranskomu iskusstvu i arxeologii,Doklady (Leningrad, sentiabr’ 1935 ) (Moscow / Leningrad, 1939), pp. 31–4.

7 See A. A. Semenov, Sobranie vostocnyx rukopisei Akademii nauk UzbekskoiSSR (Tashkent, 1955), vol. 1, MSS Nos. 1881–1882, pp. 14–15 (reference providedby K. B. Starkova in her Introduction, p. 12, n. 2).

ESSAY-REVIEW: BORISOV AND HIS STUDIES 161



and herself an eminent Semitist,8 who specialized in the DeadSea Scrolls – is an important contribution to Arabic, Jewishand Graeco-Arabic studies. It largely follows the plan con-ceived by Borisov himself (published in the collection as

Appendix C), which he did not live to realize.The collection is preceded by the editor’s introduction (in

Russian) entitled:

‘‘A. Ia. Borisov and his studies of the history of medieval philosophy inthe Near East’’ – pp. 3–13.

It includes the following studies by A. Ia. Borisov ( all inRussian):

1. ‘‘ Problems in the study of the Theology of Aristotle’’ – pp. 14–116;2. ‘‘ Isaac Israeli’s Book on Substances (Kitab al-G{awahir): Edition of

the text and translation’’ – pp. 117–75;3. ‘‘ An unknown Hebrew translation of Isaac Israeli’s Book of Defini-

tions’’ – pp. 176–184;4. ‘‘ New fragments of Isaac Israeli’s works’’ – pp. 185–91;9

5. ‘‘ New materials on the question of Pseudo-Bah*ya’’ – pp. 192–208;6. ‘‘ On the point of departure of Solomon ibn Gabirol’s voluntarism’’ –

pp. 209–18;7. ‘‘Mu‘tazilı manuscripts of the State Public Library in Leningrad’’ –

pp. 219–37;8. ‘‘ On the Mu‘tazilı manuscripts discovered in Leningrad and on their

significance for the history of Islamic thought’’ – pp. 238–249.

It also includes three appendices:

A. ‘‘ List of A. Ia. Borisov’s works’’ – pp. 250–1 ( includes 32 publishedand 9 unpublished works, two of which are published for the firsttime in the volume under review as Articles 2 and 3)10

B. ‘‘ List of courses and seminars taught by A. Ia. Borisov’’ – pp. 252–3C. ‘‘A. Ia. Borisov’s research plan in the Oriental Institute of the

Academy of Sciences, USSR’’ (dated May 18, 1942) – pp. 254–5

Three of Borisov’s articles published in the present collection(Articles 1, 2 and 3) appear in print for the first time, four(Articles 5, 6, 7 and 8) are reprinted from old and not easilyaccessible Russian publications, and one ( Article 4) is a

8 See her recently published autobiography Vospominaniia o prožitom: Žizn’ irabota semitologa-gebraista v SSSR [Recollections of the Past: Life and Work of aSemitist-Hebraist in the USSR], ed. by V. L. Vixnovic.

9 Russian translation of: A. Ia. Borisov, ‘‘Some new fragments of Isaak Israeli’sworks,’’ in Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Akademiku N.Ia. Marru: Sbornik (Moscow /Leningrad, 1935), pp. 621–8.

10 The article published in the present volume as No. 1 is not included in thelist.




re-translation into Russian of an article originally published inEnglish of which the Russian original is lost.11 Arabic andHebrew quotations in the book are sometimes corrupted (theorder of words is often wrong, obviously for technical reasons ).

Regrettably, the book has no indices.

1. ‘‘PROBLEMS IN THE STUDY OF THE THEOLOGY OF

ARISTOTLE ’’ (1942)12

This, unfortunately unfinished, study was planned as an ‘‘out-line’’ of a comprehensive analysis of the Theology of Aristotle[ThA], covering the most important issues pertaining to thistext.13 Borisov describes his study as provisional: ‘‘I will deemmy task fulfilled, if the present outline will serve as a seed

from which in the future will grow a study worthy of one of themost fascinating points in the [reception] history of Greekphilosophical legacy in the East’’ (p. 14). However even today,nearly 70 years after this study was written, it has much to o# erto Arabists and Graeco-Arabists working on the ThA and earlyArabic philosophy in general.

In what follows I will review Borisov’s discussions andanalyses. All the information presented derives from Borisovhimself. Where more recent findings are described (mainly in

the footnotes) this is explicitly noted.The article comprises a brief preface and five chapters: (1)

Manuscript Tradition; (2) Title; (3) Text; (4) Literary Historyof the ThA ( this chapter was left unfinished by the author); and(5) Contents of the ThA.

The first chapter (pp. 15–28) lays out the task of preparing anew critical edition of the ThA taking into account not onlythe Short Version published in 1882 by F. Dieterici but also its

11

See the editor’s introduction, p. 10. One may note in passing that there are afew mistakes in the Russian translation of the article: for example, ‘‘a question of a certain dialectician’’ is mistranslated as ‘‘ a question dialectical to a certaindegree’’ (p. 186).

12 The article was written (or at least revised) in 1942, just before Borisov’sdeath, since at p. 63 the author states that his 1929 discovery of the Arabicfragments of the Long Version of the Theology of Aristotle was made ‘‘13 yearsago.’’

13 This article is apparently identical with Borisov’s unsubmitted doctoraldissertation on the ThA. Paul Fenton, who has a copy of the thesis, refers to it inP. B. Fenton, ‘‘The Arabic and Hebrew versions of the Theology of Aristotle,’’ inJ. Kraye et al . (eds.), Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages: The ‘‘Theology’’ andOther Texts (London, 1986), pp. 241–64, at p. 261a, n. 21.




Long Version. The Long Version is preserved in its entiretyonly in a Latin translation by Petrus Nicolaus Faventius( Castellani) (editio princeps: Rome, 1519); fragments of theArabic original were discovered by Borisov in 1929.14 Borisov

notes that such an edition will also have to take into accountnumerous quotations from the ThA preserved in Arabic andHebrew literature.15

Borisov o# ers a comprehensive survey of the sources onwhich the future edition will have to be based. There follows alist of manuscripts of the ThA ( pp. 16–26). For the ShortVersion Borisov describes the following manuscripts (of which – were the basis of Dieterici’s edition).16

() Berlin, Staatsbibliothek, Sprenger 741 ( no date, but according to

paleographical data: ca. 1600).17

() Paris, Bibliotheque nationale de France (BNF) 2347 ( H˘

urasan,dated Rabı‘ 16, 934 AH [ = December 10, 1527 if Rabı‘ I ismeant / January 9, 1528 if Rabı‘ II]).18

() A modern copy of the Tabrız manuscript (see below) preparedfor Dieterici probably in the 1870s. The current location of thismanuscript is unknown.

() The Tabrız manuscript that served as the Vorlage for . Itslocation is unknown.19

() and () (At least) two manuscripts that served as the basis for theTehran lithographic edition of the ThA (1315ah = 1897–1898),

published on the margins of pp. 158–323 of Mır Damad’s Kitabal-Qabasat. The lithograph does not provide any details aboutthese manuscripts. (That there were at least two of them can beinferred from the fact that the lithograph often provides variantreadings. ) One can be certain, however, that none of thesemanuscripts is identical with , since their readings diverge from

14 A. Ia. Borisov, ‘‘The Arabic original of the Latin version of the so-calledTheology of Aristotle,’’ Zapiski kollegii vostokovedov (Leningrad, 1930), vol. 5,pp. 83–98; see also: id., ‘‘On the point of departure of Solomon Ibn Gabirol’svoluntarism’’ (1933, reprinted as No. 6 in the present collection).

15

For some of such quotations see Fenton [as in n. 13 above], pp. 259f., n. 2.Borisov does not specifically mention literature written in Persian, but it shouldalso be taken into consideration.

16 A more complete list of manuscripts can be found, e.g., in Fenton [as inn. 13 above], p. 249; see also other references given in Aouad [as in n. 5 above],pp. 545–6. The editor of Borisov’s collection also provides some information onthe manuscripts of the ThA – see her notes at p. 12, nn. 2 and 8 of theintroduction.

17 Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 249 gives the date as 1591.18 This manuscript is not in Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 249, unless it is the

one described by Fenton as Paris, BNF 2374 (dated 1624).19 Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 249 refers to this manuscript as ‘‘Tabrız Waqf.’’

Apparently, its location was unknown to him as well.




the latter in many places. On the basis of two colophons (quoted byhim on at p. 17) Borisov concludes that the lithographic edition wasprepared by a certain Abu al-Qasim b. al-Ah

˘und Mulla Rid*a on the

(first) Saturday of Rabı‘ I, 1314 ah, i.e. August 14, 1896.20 Borisovregisters all variant readings between the lithograph and the first

three pages of Dieterici’s edition (p. 18).Finally, Borisov notes that there was another oriental edition of

the ThA ( no place, 1296ah = 1878–1879), a reference which hefound in one of the catalogues of O. Harrassowitz-Verlag.21 Thisedition was not available to him and was apparently not evenknown to Dieterici.

For the Long Version the following manuscripts aredescribed:

() Leningrad State Public Library, II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., new

series, MS 1198 (according to paleographical data: from Syria,22

13th century or first half of 14th century at the latest).23 The textcorresponds to the following sections of Dieterici’s edition [D]:

20 Should be August 15, 1896, since August 14 was a Friday.21 No exact reference is given. Aouad [as in n. 5 above], pp. 562–3 does not

mention this edition.22 See Borisov, p. 26. But cf. Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 256 who stresses theEgyptian provenance of all manuscripts of the Long Version.

23 The following description is to be compared with Borisov, ‘‘Arabic original’’[as in n. 5 above], pp. 87–94. However, as noted by Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p.246, the present order of the folios in the codex di# ers radically from the originalone as described by Borisov: ‘‘The quire order in MS A had been seriously upsetand great e# orts were required to re-establish the correct page sequence.’’ Fentonthen o# ers a table of correspondences ( pp. 246–7) between the manuscript andBadawi’s edition of the Short Version; he indicates the correct sequence of thefolios in a separate column.

24 Here and below I transliterate into Arabic letters all information given inHebrew characters.




fols. 115–119 – lacking in D; correspond to the following sectionsof the Latin translation of the Long Version: fol. 115 = parts of Book X, chs. 7–8; fol. 116 = Book X, end of ch. 10 and most of ch. 11; fols. 117–118 = Book X, ch. 12 and the first half of ch. 13;fol. 119 = Book X, end of ch. 13 and most of ch. 14.The manuscript has title headings of the following treatises[mayamir]: II (fol. 4v), III (fol. 26v), VI (fol. 32v), VII (fol. 43v),

VIII (fol. 53r), XII (fol. 72v).The manuscript contains close to 70 marginalia [h*awaš in] addedby the same hand, some of which carry Biblical verses illustratingor related to the ideas in the text of the ThA (Borisov givesseveral examples of such marginalia at p. 20).27

Borisov further notices that the manuscript’s Vorlage (eitherdirect or indirect) was a manuscript written in Arabic characterswithout diacritical marks, probably produced in the 11th or, morelikely, the 10th century.

() Leningrad State Public Library, II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., newseries, MS 1197.28 The manuscript begins in the middle of Book IX

of the Long Version (included in Treatise VIII of the ShortVersion) with the word ( = D 97:9). On fol. 4r begins Book X

25 In Borisov mistakenly: D 86:16.26 Borisov, ‘‘Arabic original’’ [as in n. 5 above], p. 88, n. 2 notes that these

words also appear in the manuscript(s) used by Dieterici (cf. Dieterici’s Germantranslation of the ThA, p. 96, n. 1); cf. also discussion by Zimmermann, ‘‘Theorigins of the Theology of Aristotle,’’ in J. Kraye et al. [as in n. 13 above], pp. 110– 240, at p. 163.

27 Cf. Fenton [as in n. 13 above], pp. 255f. and p. 263b, n. 85.28 Cf. Borisov, ‘‘Arabic original’’ [as in n. 5 above], pp. 95–6; Fenton [as in n. 13

above], Manuscript B, p. 247.




of the Long Version [al-mımar al-‘ašir] (also partly included inTreatise VIII of the Short Version ).29 The end of the fragmentcorresponds to the end of Book X, ch. 17 of the Latin translation.

() Leningrad State Public Library, II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS993.30 The fragment contains a small part of Treatise II = D 20:11

–23:3 .() Leningrad State Public Library, II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS

2173.31 The fragment contains the following passages ( end of Treatise II and parts of Treatises III and IV):

() The manuscript of the Long Version that was used, in the seconddecade of the 16th century, as the Vorlage for the Latin transla-

tion. At that time the manuscript was in Damascus; its presentlocation is unknown. The circumstances of the discovery of theDamascene manuscript were described in Francesco de Rossi’sletter to Pope Leo X, which Borisov rightly conjectured to havebeen published in the editio princeps of the Latin translation(Rome, 1519 – an edition that was not available to him).32

Borisov further quotes several other 16th and 17th centuryLatin testimonia reporting this discovery. These testimonia allindicate that a certain Jew, Moses Rovas, translated the text of the Damascene manuscript either into Italian or into ‘‘semi-barbaric’’ Latin. However, on the basis of a marginal note by the

translator himself – Moses Rovas (or better Arovas, ) – Borisov concludes that he translated the ThA into Hebrew ratherthan into Italian or Latin.33

29 The Arabic of Book X, chs. 1–6 was edited and translated into English byS. M. Stern, ‘‘Ibn H*asday’s Neoplatonist: A Neoplatonic treatise and its influenceon Isaac Israeli and the Longer Version of the Theology of Aristotle,’’ Oriens, 13– 14 (1961): 58–120 [repr. in his Medieval Arabic and Hebrew Thought, Variorum(London 1983), Essay VII], at pp. 82–7 (edition), 87–91 (translation).

30 Cf. Fenton [as in n. 13 above], Manuscript D, p. 247.31 Cf. Borisov, ‘‘Arabic original’’ [as in n. 5 above], p. 96; Fenton [as in n. 13

above], Manuscript C, p. 247.32 I wish to thank Lukas Muehlethaler for confirming that Francesco de Rossi’sletter appears in the editio princeps and for kindly providing me with a photocopyof it.

33 Moses Arovas’ note is preserved on the margins of Joseph b. S{em-T*obI of Segovia’s (15th century) Hebrew commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics, Paris,BNF, hebr. 996 [fol. 6v]. Borisov ( p. 24) quotes the text of Moses Arovas’ note asfollows: zeh has-sefer šeb-ba l e-yadIay ba-aravı be-dIammeseq we-he‘etaqtı otIo li-l ešonhaq-qodIeš (‘‘this book came into my hands in Arabic in Damascus, and Itranslated it into the Holy Tongue [i.e. Hebrew]’’). Stern [as in n. 29 above], atp. 79 n. 1 suggests that Moses Arovas translated the ThA into both Hebrewand Italian. This is also Borisov’s position in his 1930 article [as in n. 5 above],p. 84.




Borisov analyzes several features of the Long Version aspreserved in the Leningrad fragments and the Latin translationand comes to the following conclusions regarding : was close to; most likely it was written in Hebrew characters; some of itsfolios were in disarray (since one folio of the Latin translation,fol. 5r, has a section belonging to a di# erent part of the originalArabic); its format was very small (this observation is based onthe length of the displaced section ); since the folios were indisarray already by the beginning of the 16th century, themanuscript was probably written in the 13th or perhaps even the12th century ( i.e. approximately one hundred years before ).

On the basis of this survey Borisov comes to the conclusionthat the textual tradition of the ThA can be divided into twosecondary branches – Iranian and Judaic – to which all known

manuscripts of the text belong. Manuscripts of the latter aremore ancient, since the oldest known Iranian manuscript goesback to the 16th century at the earliest, whereas the oldestmanuscripts of the Judaic branch (including, in all likelihood,) seem to belong to the 13th century. Furthermore, all Iranianmanuscripts contain the Short Version of the ThA, whereasall Judaic manuscripts ( and the Latin translation ) containthe Long Version of the text. Borisov explains the interestaccorded to the ThA in the Iranian milieu as a consequence

of the spread of the Isma‘ıliyya and related religious andphilosophical teachings; the interest in the Jewish milieu isexplained as a result of the fact that Jewish thinkers espousedNeoplatonism for a long period, namely until the end of the 12th century, when Aristotelianism was already firmlyestablished in the Arabic falsafa (pp. 27–8).

The second chapter (pp. 28–37) deals with the title of theThA. In Dieterici’s edition and in the Tehran lithograph thetext is entitled (with small variants): Kitab Arist*at*alıs

al-faylasuf al-musamma bi-al-yunaniyya utI

ulugiya wa-huwaqawl ‘ala al-rububiyya. Di# erent versions of this title are alsoattested by al-Farabı (e.g. in his Kitab al-G{am‘ bayn ra’yayal-h*akımayn), by Ibn al-Nadım in the Fihrist (KitabUtIulugiya ), by the Ih

˘wan al-S*afa’ (al-T I alugiyyat ), by Ibn

al-Qift*ı ( Kitab UtIulugiya ), by Ibn Abı Us*aybi‘a and, apparentlyfollowing him, by H* aggı H

˘alıfa (Kitab al-Qawl ‘ala al-

rububiyya), by Ibn Sab‘ın (Kitab Tulugiya ), in MS (begin-ning of Treatise II, fol. 5v: Kitab T I alugiya wa-huwa al-kalam fı al-rububiyya ) and in the aforementioned marginal note by




Moses Arovas (Sefer Te’ologiyya, šrl sefer ha-’elohutI).34

Clearly, the second part of the title ( qawl ‘ala al-rububiyya) isa gloss explaining the Greek term theologia.

The Latin translation of the ThA is entitled in the editio princeps:Sapientissimi philosophi Aristotelis Stagiritae Theologia sive mys-tica philosophia. The second part of this title (mystica philo-sophia) is taken by the Latin translator, as was first noted by D.Haneberg in 1862, from the treatise itself. Indeed, for the follow-ing text of the Short Version, wa-ıyahum aradna fı kitabina alladIı sammaynahu Falsafat al-h

˘ as*s*a (‘‘it is to them that we addressed

the book of ours, entitled Philosophy of the Eu lite,’’ D 50:16–17)the Long Version gives: wa-ıyahum aradna fı kitabina hadIa

alladI

ı sammaynahu al-Falsafa al-h as*

s*

a (‘‘it is to them that weaddressed this book of ours, entitled the Special [i.e. Esoteric]Philosophy’’ MS , fol. 13)Latin translation, Book VI, ch. 5:qualem nos scripsimus in hoc libro tituli Philosophiae Mysticae.The addition of the word hadIa (‘‘this’’)hoc (which is alsoattested by the Tehran lithograph and hence can be regarded asderiving from the original) indicates that the title Falsafatal-h

˘ as*s*a (‘‘Philosophy of the Eu lite,’’ D and the Tehran

lithograph) or al-Falsafa al-h˘

as*s*a ( ‘‘Special [i.e. Esoteric]Philosophy,’’ and the Latin translation) refers to the ThAitself and goes back to its author. Borisov suggests that thistitle was the original title of the ThA, which goes back to thestage when the text had not yet been connected with the nameof Aristotle; the title ‘‘ Theology of Aristotle,’’ consequently,was given to it by the editor, who also added in the prologue tothe ThA two references to Aristotle’s Metaphysics as a purport-edly earlier treatise by the same author. One can thereforedistinguish between two phases in the history of the ThA: thefirst phase when it was called ‘‘The Philosophy of the Eu lite’’

and was not yet attributed to Aristotle, and the second phasewhen it was attributed to Aristotle and named ‘‘Theology of Aristotle.’’ Borisov suggests that both stages may belong to the‘‘pre-Arabic’’ period of the text’s history.

Borisov notices that the ThA was known under yet another,third title: Kitab al-Lu’lu’ (in Hebrew: Sefer hab-BedIolah* ). Thistitle is attested in Moses b. ‘Ezra’s Maqalat al-H *adıqa fı ma‘na al-magaz wa-al-h*aqıqa (in al-H*arızı’s Hebrew translation: Sefer

34 Cf. Zimmermann [as in n. 26 above], pp. 189–90.




‘ArugatI hab-bosem),35 who quotes under this title the famousekstasis passage from the ThA. Since the title al-Lu’lu’ ispreserved in a fragment of the Arabic original of the treatise (IIFirkovich Collection, hebr.-arab., MS 4811 [date: 638 =

1240–1241], fol. 10r ), the Hebrew Be

dI

olah* cannot be simply

explained away as a corruption of theologia ( this was suggestedby Steinschneider and Dieterici and accepted by all scholarsprior to Borisov). Borisov then rejects on philological groundsSteinschneider’s and Kaufmann’s view that this quotation wasborrowed by Ibn ‘Ezra from the Ih

˘wan al-S*afa’.36 In his view, it

is more likely that Ibn ‘ Ezra took it from the ThA itself, eitherin the Short or in the Long Version. The former possibility isperhaps more plausible, since Ibn ‘Ezra attributes this quota-

tion to Aristotle, whereas the Long Version ( in its Latintranslation, for the Arabic original of this passage is notpreserved) attributes it to Plato.37 However, Borisov admitsthat the origin of the title Kitab al-Lu’lu’ attributed by Ibn‘Ezra to the ThA still remains unexplained.38

The third chapter (pp. 37–81) o# ers a detailed and meticuloustextual analysis of the ThA. It begins with an interestingexcursus on the history of the belief that in his old age Aristotlerepented and wrote a book in which he retracted his olderviews. Borisov quotes in this context Joseph b. S{em-T*obI of

Segovia’s aforementioned Commentary on the NicomacheanEthics and Gedalia b. Yah*ya of Lisbon’s Book of the Chain of Tradition (Sefer S {alšeletI haq-qabbala ). Both sources reportthat Aristotle repented at the hands of the Jewish High PriestSimeon the Righteous (S{im‘ on has*-s*addıq) and even acceptedthe Law of Moses.39 When the ThA reached the West in Latin,

35 On this book, still unpublished in the Arabic original, see P. B. Fenton,Philosophie et exégèse dans ‘‘Le jardin de la métaphore’’ de Moïse ibn cEzra,

philosophe et poète Andalou du XIIe siècle (Leiden / New York / Koln, 1997), esp.pp. 36# . with comprehensive bibliographical information on the Arabic originaland the Hebrew translation.

36 This view is also maintained by Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 257.37 That the latter attribution must go back to the Arabic original is shown,

according to Borisov, by the fact that the attribution to Plato is also attested, asindicated by C. A. Nallino, in two treatises by al-Suhrawardı. But seeZimmermann [as in n. 26 above], at p. 145.

38 Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 257 and id., Philosophie [as in n. 35 above], p. 79suggests that Ibn ‘ Ezra misread utIulugiya without diacritical points as al-lu’lu’ .

39 Cf. The Jewish Encyclopedia, art. ‘‘Aristotle in Jewish legend’’ [L. Ginzberg],vol. 2 (New York / London, 1902), pp. 98b–99b; Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 260a,n. 3.




similar ideas appeared in the discussions of humanists whovindicated the authenticity of the ThA; Borisov paraphrasesat length Francesco Patrizi’s ( 1529–1597 ) article ‘‘Plato etAristoteles mystici atquae exoterici.’’40 Other scholars, notably

C. Fabricius in the end of the 17th century, rejected theattribution to Aristotle.41

Borisov next surveys the history of modern research on theThA. The interest in the ThA was revived in mid-19th century,when scholars began to study the Arabic original of this work.The first to have suggested that the ThA is a Neoplatonictreatise dependent on Plotinus’ Enneads was S. Munk, whoalso noted that the Arabic text of the ThA known to us ‘‘di# ersvery significantly from that which was translated into Latin’’;

in this he was followed by D. Haneberg. V. Rose, in hisimportant review of F. Dieterici’s edition of the Arabic text,elaborates on these conclusions. He believed that the ThA wasbased on a Greek paraphrase of the Enneads, most likely byPorphyry. (Rose gives a table of correspondences between theThA and the Enneads, which is reproduced by Borisov atpp. 44–5.) He thought that the text was translated directly fromthe Greek and that a Syriac intermediary was unlikely;the attribution to Aristotle was due to a copyist’s mistake. TheLatin translator introduced deliberate modifications in the

original Arabic text, and in particular interpolated passageswritten in the spirit of Christian scholastics; there may nothave been, according to Rose, a di# erent recension of theArabic text itself ( an assumption disproved by Borisov’sdiscovery of Arabic fragments of the Long Version).

Following this survey, Borisov formulates the following sixinterrelated problems that he will attempt to tackle in theremaining part of his study: (1) How textually close is the ThAto Plotinus’ Enneads? (2) Which of the two versions of the ThA

is closer to Plotinus’ text? (3) Which of the two versions of theThA is the original one? (4) What are the characteristics of theLong Version and in particular of those sections that have nocorrespondence in the Short Version? ( 5 ) How close is the

40 See C. D’Ancona, Plotino, La discesa dell’anima nei corpi (Enn. IV 8[6]),Plotiniana Arabica (pseudo-Teologia di Aristotele, capitoli 1 e 7; ‘‘Detti del Sapiente Greco’’) (Padova, 2003), pp. 81–2, n. 216, where the relevant passage isquoted. I am grateful to Cristina D’Ancona for this reference.

41 On the history of the ThA in Europe see: J. Kraye, ‘‘The pseudo-AristotelianTheology in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe,’’ in J. Kraye et al. [as inn. 13 above], pp. 265–86.




Latin recension to its Arabic original? (6) What is the originallanguage of the ThA? (p. 45).

In order to answer these questions Borisov presents a detailedphilological analysis of a small section of the ThA, correspond-

ing to Enn. IV.8.1:1–34 (the ‘‘ekstasis’’ passage). He quotes thecorresponding passages of this section as they appear in theEnneads, in the Short Version (according to Dieterici’s edition,with an apparatus of variant readings from the Tehran litho-graph), in (the preserved part of) the Arabic original of the LongVersion (in Hebrew characters) and in the Latin translation( pp. 46–53), and translates both the Short and the Long Versioninto Russian (pp. 53–5). There follows a detailed comparison of the text of the Short Version with the Enneads (pp. 55–9).42

Borisov draws the following conclusions from his analysis( pp. 59–61 ). The Vorlage of the ThA was not the Enneadsthemselves, but rather a paraphrase thereof, which was, how-ever, fairly close to them. This paraphrase was most likelycomposed in Greek, then translated into Syriac ( see discussionbelow), and finally into Arabic. The ThA departs from the textof the Enneads in the following ways, (1) additions of threetypes – stylistic (connections, amplifications, introductory andconcluding phrases, etc.), interpretive ( often changing themeaning of the original or attenuating its pantheistic ideas)

and interpolative (doctrinal additions due to the paraphrast,derived, in part, from extra-Plotinian sources);43 (2) omissions;( 3 ) substitutions ( resulting from combination of omissionsand additions ); and ( 4 ) discrepancies due to accidents intextual transmission ( variants in the Greek text of theEnneads, misreadings or misunderstandings of the Greek bythe paraphrast, and copyists’ mistakes in Syriac or Arabic).

One should remark that the case presented by Borisov for aSyriac intermediary is rather weak since it is based on only one

word: the puzzling rendering, in the context of a reference toEmpedocles, of the Greek antron, ‘‘cavern’’ by s*ada’ ( spelled ),‘‘rust.’’44 Borisov follows S. Horovitz’s suggestion that

42 Cf. D’Ancona [as in n. 40 above], pp. 118–19 (Greek with facing Italiantranslation), 131–44 (commentary on the Greek), 229–33 (Arabic with facingItalian translation), 280–97 (commentary on the Arabic). Dimitri Gutas ispreparing a critical edition of the Arabic Plotinus texts ( ThA, al-sayh

˘al-yunanı,

Ps.-Farabı’s Risala fı al-‘ilm al-ilahı ).43 For the doctrinal background of the ThA see now P. Adamson, The Arabic

Plotinus: a Philosophical Study of the ‘‘Theology of Aristotle’’ ( London, 2002 ).44 The Latin translation at this point surprisingly gives carcer: corrupted

into ?




this rendering is due to a confusion between two Syriac words:, ‘‘cleft’’ and , ‘‘rust.’’45 He finds this explanation ‘‘ingen-

ious and convincing’’ and regards it as a proof of the existence of a Syriac intermediary. However, Horovitz’s suggestion, although

not impossible, can hardly be regarded as compelling: First, be-cause the words and are less easily confusable in Syriacthan they are in Hebrew characters.46 And second, because, al-though puzzling, there is nothing in the rendering antrons*ada’ that unequivocally suggests a Syriac substratum, and in suchcases one only needs su$cient creativity to come up with ahypothetical Syriac intermediary: indeed, both Horovitz himself and other scholars found alternative pairs of Syriac words whoseassumed confusion would explain the antrons*ada’ correspon-

dence.47

Moreover, recently, an emendation that makes no re-course to Syriac has also been proposed.48

There follows a comparison between the Long and the ShortVersions with a list of variants between them (p. 62). Borisovretracts the view presented by himself in his earlier publica-tions and proves, on philological grounds, that the Short andnot the Long Version is the original one. This is shown by thefact that in many cases the Short Version is closer to theEnneads than the Long one (pp. 64–5). The Long Version thus isa reworking of the Short Version, which includes modifications,

45 S. Horovitz, Die Psychologie bei den jüdischen Religionsphilosophen desMittelalters von Saadia bis Maimuni (Breslau, 1898–1912), pp. 86–7, n. 21 (quotedby Borisov, p. 59).

46 Both Horovitz and Borisov cite these words in Hebrew characters and do nottake notice of the problem.

47 Horovitz [as in n. 45 above], p. 87, n. 21 ( , ‘‘cavern’’>the Talmudic ,‘‘rust,’’ which is however not attested in Syriac); Remi Brague, ‘‘La philosophiedans la Théologie d’Aristote: Pour un inventaire,’’ Documenti e Studi sullaTradizione Filosofica Medievale, 8 (1997), p. 369, quoting suggestions of G. Lewis (šeqıfo, ‘‘cavern’’>šuqfo, ‘‘rust [of plants]’’) and P. Thillet (qoh*t*o,

‘‘cavern’’>šoh*

t*

o, ‘‘rust’’). These suggestions, too, seem inadequate, for šeqıfo [orš eqıfa ] can mean ‘‘cavern’’ but its primary meaning is ‘‘rock’’; similarly, šuqfo, orrather šuqqafa , can mean ‘‘rust of plants’’ but its primary meaning is ‘‘beating,’’and it is doubtful that the Arabic translator would have understood it, given theabsence of context, in such a specific sense. Thillet’s qoh*t*o, however spelled, isattested neither in R. Payne Smith’s Thesaurus Syriacus nor in C. Brockelmann’sLexicon Syriacum; šoh*t*o is equally unattested, and the related šuh*h*at*a , means‘‘corruption.’’ For the question of Syriac intermediary see Brague [as above],pp. 368–9; Aouad [as in n. 5 above], pp. 556–7 and references given there, esp.Zimmermann [as in n. 26 above], pp. 113–18.

48 D’Ancona [as in n. 40 above], p. 233 (text) / pp. 296–7 (commentary) followsDe Smet’s conjecture and emends s*ada ( ) into s*adaf – a word that can mean‘‘cavity’’ but primarily means ‘‘shell.’’




longer and shorter additions and a few omissions. The additionsare divided into three groups: glosses (whose origin Borisovsees in marginalia introduced in the text by copyists), amplifi-cations of ideas found in the text, and interpolated passages,

sometimes very extensive (especially in Treatise X of the LongVersion), which must be derived from external sources. Borisovgives examples for all three classes of additions. He notes thatone of the examples (either an amplification or an interpola-tion) is interesting from the stylistic point of view: it is writtenin rhymed prose [sag‘ ] and seems to imitate the language of the Qur’an ( pp. 68–9). As far as interpolations are concerned,Borisov quotes the beginning of Treatise X of the Long Versionand refers, for a more detailed discussion, to his earlier study on

Ibn Gabirol’s voluntarism (see Article 6 below). He adds thatdespite the fact that the Short Version is the original one,manuscripts of the Long Version may preserve better readings,and furthermore, that textual additions in the Long Versionshould not a priori be considered as later modifications of the original text, for the author of the Long Version may havehad access to al-H* ims*ı’s original translation rather than toal-Kindı’s recension underlying the Short Version (pp. 72–73).

Borisov finally turns to an analysis of the Latin translation(pp. 73–81). He compares it to fragments of the Arabic original

and to the49 fragment from Moses Arovas’ Hebrew translationof the ThA preserved on the margins of Joseph b. S{em-T*obI’saforementioned Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics.50 Hisconclusion is that the Latin translation is not uniform in itsrendering of the Arabic text of the Long Version: althoughsometimes it follows the Arabic quite closely, in many cases itdeviates from the original, abridging and paraphrasing it atwill. Still, in the absence of the integral Arabic original of theLong Version, the Latin translation is extremely important and

deserves a critical edition and a thorough study (p. 81).

49 Borisov believed this fragment was the only one, but another fragment hassince been published by Fenton [as in n. 13 above], p. 259 (together with therelevant section of the Latin translation).

50 Paris, BNF, hebr. 996, fol. 45v. Borisov quotes the fragment on p. 75 andprovides an Arabic retroversion (his statement that the relevant part of MS isillegible is obviously incorrect, since this section has since been edited by Stern[as in n. 29 above], p. 86). Borisov also thought that the fact that Arovas’ Hebrewfollowed almost mechanically the ( reconstructed) Arabic suggested that Arovasfollowed the translation methods of the Tibbonid school; but cf. Fenton [as in n.13 above], pp. 258–9.




The fourth – programmatic – chapter of this article, in whichBorisov planned to deal with the literary history of the ThA, wasregrettably left unfinished.51 It was to be divided into sectionsdealing with the four main linguistic phases of the literary

history of the ThA: the Greek, the presumed Syriac phase, theArabic, and the Latin (including the two intermediaries: theHebrew and, presumably, the Italian). Only the beginning of thesection on Greek was written (pp. 82–5), containing a generaldiscussion of the main characteristics of Hellenistic philosophy.

The basic structure of Borisov’s view of the literary history of the ThA can be pieced together from the existing parts of hisessay. It can be presented in the form of the following stemma.

51 Cf. the editor’s introduction, p. 9.52 Porphyry’s role in the history of the ThA is not discussed by Borisov (except

where he reports Dieterici’s and Rose’s views on this question, pp. 42–3).However, Borisov suggests (p. 61) that the ThA was based on a paraphrase of theEnneads, and that this paraphrase was written in Greek. He indicates that he has‘‘an additional reason for the [latter] suggestion, which will be discussed below.’’This discussion was never written, and so we can only speculate about what thisadditional reason could have been. Quite possibly it had to do with theidentification of the supposed paraphrast with Porphyry.

53 These tentative identifications are based on Borisov’s remark ( p. 33) thatboth stages – that of the ‘‘Philosophy of the Eu lite’’ and that of the ‘‘Theology of Aristotle’’ – belong to the ‘‘pre-Arabic’’ period of the text’s development.




The fifth chapter (pp. 85–110) contains a very detailed anduseful summary of the ThA, following Dieterici’s edition. Itwas left by Borisov unfinished (covering Mımars 1–7) and wascompleted by the editor.54

2. ‘‘ISAAC ISRAELI’S BOOK ON SUBSTANCES ( KITAzB

AL-G{AWA HIR): EDITION OF THE TEXT AND TRANSLATION’’

This article includes an introduction (pp. 117–29), an edition(pp. 130–62) and an annotated Russian translation (pp. 162–73,notes pp. 173–5) of Isaac Israeli’s Kitab al-G{awahir. Borisovregards Isaac Israeli as one of the representatives of the‘‘natural philosophy’’ trend in early Arabic philosophy, whosegreatest representative was al-Kindı.55 This trend attempted

to synthesize into a coherent system ‘‘various elements of antique thought received by the Arabs from the Syrians:metaphysics of late Neoplatonism and number mysticism of thePythagoreans, Peripatetic logic and psychology, medical teach-ings of Hippocrates and Galen, Ptolemaic cosmology andEuclidean geometry’’ (p. 117).

The author notes, and in the subsequent analysis proves, thatthe Arabic and Hebrew sources giving Isaac Israeli’s date of death all depend, directly or indirectly, on a single source:Abu Qasim b. S*a‘id al-Qurt*ubı’s ( S*a‘id al-Andalusı’s) T *abaqatal-umam, reporting that Isaac Israeli died ca. [qarıban min]320 ( = ca. 932 ) when he was more than 100 (lunar) yearsold (p. 118).56 There follows a list and a detailed analysis of fivesuch sources that include: Ibn Abı Us*aybi‘a’s ‘Uyun al-anba’ ,H* aggı H

˘alıfa’s Kašf al-z*unun, Ibn H*asday’s introduction to his

Hebrew translation of Isaac Israeli’s Kitab al-Us*t*uqissat[sic!],57 Isaac Lattes’ Commentary on the Pentateuch (QiryatIsefer ) and Gedalia b. Yah*ya of Lisbon’s Book of the Chain of Tradition (Sefer S {alšeletI haq-qabbala ) ( pp. 118–20). Borisov

next dates Isaac Israeli’s death to approximately 935 and hisbirth to the early 830s; this means that his literary activity fallswithin the second half of the 9th century (p. 120).

54 Cf. the editor’s introduction, p. 11.55 The term is borrowed from T. J. de Boer, Geschichte der Philosophie im Islam

(Stuttgart, 1901), pp. 69–77, to which Borisov refers at p. 128, n. 1.56 Stern in his ‘‘Biographical note’’ (in A. Altmann and S. M. Stern, Isaac

Israeli: A Neoplatonic Philosopher of the Early Tenth Century [Oxford, 1958],pp. xvii–xxiii), at p. xviii indicates that S*a‘id’s account itself is dependent on thatof Ibn G{ulgul, which was unknown to Borisov.

57 This is the form given by Borisov.




Borisov gives a list of Isaac Israeli’s philosophical works thatincludes the following treatises: (1) Kitab al-Us*t*uqissat [sic!](preserved only in Hebrew and Latin ), ( 2 ) Kitab al-H *ududwa-al-rusum (preserved in fragments of the original Arabic and

of two Hebrew translations58 and in a Latin version), (3 )Bustan al-h*ikma fı masa’il min al-‘ilm al-ilahı (lost), (4) Kitabal-Madh

˘ al ila al-mant*iq (lost), (5 ) Kitab fı al-h*ikma in 11

chapters [mımar] (lost), (6) ‘‘Book of Spirit and Soul’’ ( Seferha-ruah* we-han-nefeš ) (preserved in one fragment in Arabic59

and in an integral Hebrew version)60 and finally ( 7) Kitabal-G{awahir (of the Arabic text of this book approximately onehalf is preserved, and the whole treatise seems not to have beenlonger than Kitab al-Us*t*uqissat [sic!]); the author shows on

philological grounds that there is no reason to suspectthe attribution of this work to Isaac Israeli ( given in themanuscript) (pp. 121–3).

Borisov suggests that Isaac’s Neoplatonic ideas go back notto the Liber de Causis as suggested by Jacob Guttmann,61 but tothe ThA, most likely in its Long Version.62 He then compares apassage from the Long Version63 with several places of Kitabal-G{awahir (esp. fol. 10) (pp. 123–5).

Borisov next presents his discovery, made in 1929, of 14 foliosof Kitab al-G{awahir ( in addition to three other previously

known folios) and o# ers a detailed description of the manu-script: Leningrad, State Public Library, II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., new series, MS 1197 ( p. 125). He also reports thatbetween the folios of Kitab al-G{awahir he discovered anadditional folio, carrying part of Qust*a b. Luqa’s (? ) Risala fı al-Farq bayna al-ruh* wa-al-nafs; he then gives a list of variantreadings o# ered by this folio in comparison to L. Cheikho’sedition of this treatise (pp. 125–6).64

58

See Borisov, Article 3.59 Published by Borisov, Article 4, pp. 187–8.60 This is why the title is given by Borisov in Hebrew.61 J. Guttmann, Die philosophischen Lehren des Isaak ben Salomon Israeli

(Munster, 1911), p. 18, to which Borisov refers at p. 129, n. 32.62 Cf. Stern [as in n. 29 above], who posits a source common to the Long

Version, Isaac Israeli, and Ibn H*asday; Stern’s hypothesis is criticized byZimmermann [as in n. 26 above], pp. 190–6.

63 Fragm. B [ = MS in Borisov, Article 4], fol. 5, quoted (in Arabictransliteration) and translated on p. 124; the passage corresponds to Stern [as inn. 29 above], p. 84:2–14.

64 L. Malouf, G. Edde and L. Cheikho (eds.), Traités inédits d’anciens philosophes arabes musulmans et chrétiens ( Beirut, 1911), pp. 117–33 [reprinted




Finally, Borisov o# ers a brief characteristic of Isaac Israeli.Israeli is presented as a Neoplatonist, especially in that hefollows the tendency to ‘‘confuse the psychological and subjec-tive [dimension] with the cosmic and objective – resulting in

a psychologization of the universe and, especially, in thedoctrine of emanation.’’65 Israeli is far from being an originalthinker (in Borisov’s view, even al-Kindı can hardly be consid-ered to be so), but precisely this characteristic is important fora historian of philosophy, who can regard Israeli’s work as anillustration of some typical features of 9th-century Arabicphilosophical thought (pp. 127–8).

There follows an edition in Arabic characters (pp. 130–62)and an annotated Russian translation (pp. 162–75) of Isaac

Israeli’s Kitab al-G{

awahir. The edition is published in a muti-lated form, with the omission of two sections (including, mostregrettably, the beginning ), which, as a footnote indicates,were lost ‘‘due to technical di$culties that arose at the timeof preparation of the manuscript [i.e. Borisov’s handwrittenedition] to print.’’66 The Russian translation is complete andincludes the omitted passages.

It seems useful to compare Borisov’s edition and translationwith those published by Stern.67 Stern slightly rearranged thefragments, whereas Borisov followed the original sequence.

Stern’s edition is in Hebrew, Borisov’s – in Arabic characters.The textual basis of Stern’s edition is broader than that of Borisov’s: in addition to the Leningrad fragments, Stern usedtwo folios found by him in 1949 among the Genizah fragmentsin the British Library (Or. 5564 B, fols. 8–9), as well as twoadditional textual witnesses: Ibn H*asday’s The Prince and theAscetic and the Long Version of the ThA. However, in somecases Borisov’s edition o# ers superior readings. Borisov’s

with a few changes from L. Cheikho (ed.), ‘‘Risala fı al-Farq bayna al-ruh*

wa-al-nafs,’’ Al-Mašriq, 14 (1911): 94–109] (the fragment discovered by Borisovcorresponds to pp. 122:19–123:16); cf. also another edition and Italian translationof the same treatise: G. Gabrieli, ‘‘ La Risalah di Qust*a b. Luqa Sulla differenzatra lo spirito e l’anima,’’ Rendiconti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei (Roma),Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche, serie 5, 19 (1910): 622–55.

65 Cf. Borisov, Article 4, pp. 83–4.66 P. 130. The omitted sections correspond to p. 19:3–17 and p. 19:25–33 of

Stern’s edition (see reference in n. 67 below).67 Edition: S. M. Stern, ‘‘The fragments of Isaac Israeli’s Book of Substances,’’

Journal of Jewish Studies, 7 (1956): 13–29 [repr. in his Medieval Arabic andHebrew Thought, Essay X], at pp. 19–29; English translation: Altmann and Stern[as in n. 56 above], at pp. 81–95 (followed by ‘‘comments’’ at pp. 95–105).




Russian translation is generally more literal and precise thanStern’s English. In Appendix I, I give a list of the mostimportant variant readings between the two editions.

3. AN UNKNOWN HEBREW TRANSLATION OF ISAAC ISRAELI’S

BOOK OF DEFINITIONS’’

This article, written in the mid-1930s68 ( but after 1935),presents Borisov’s discovery, announced in his 1935 publica-tion ‘‘New Fragments of Isaac Israeli’s Works’’ ( Article 4below, third section), of (fragments of) a second Hebrewtranslation of Isaac Israeli’s Book of Definitions. The articlecontains a brief introduction, a critical edition of the fragments(II Firkovich Collection, hebr., MSS 388 and 412), a textual

commentary and an analysis.The introduction (pp. 176–7) deals briefly with the textual

tradition of the Book of Definitions: a fragment of the Arabicoriginal, Nissım b. Solomon’s Hebrew version, and the Latinversion by Gerard of Cremona ( the latter was available toBorisov only in quotations in Guttmann’s Die philosophischenLehren des Isaak ben Salomon Israeli ).69 Borisov then brieflydescribes the new fragments.

There follows an edition of, and a textual commentary on, the

fragments (pp. 178–82). Since these were independently editedin 1957 by A. Altmann, it is useful to compare the twoeditions.70 In many cases Borisov’s readings are superior toAltmann’s, who was unable to consult the original manu-script and worked from a microfilm; in several cases Borisovalso completes lacunas in Altmann’s edition. By contrast,Altmann’s edition has the advantage that its critical apparatustakes into account the Latin version. In Appendix II, I give alist of the most important variant readings between the twoeditions.

68 See the editor’s introduction, p. 9.69 For up-to-date information the reader is referred to Altmann and Stern [as in

n. 56 above], pp. 3–6; Ch. I of this work (pp. 3–78) contains an English translationand a detailed analysis of Isaac Israeli’s Book of Definitions.

70 A. Altmann, ‘‘Isaac Israeli’s Book of Definitions: Some fragments of a secondHebrew translation,’’ Journal of Semitic Studies, 2 (1957): 232–42. Altmann wasaware of Borisov’s discovery, since a typewritten copy of Borisov’s ‘‘Newfragments of Isaac Israeli’s works’’ (Article 4) was available to him, and he refersto it at the beginning of his article. However he did not have access to Borisov’sedition of the fragments.




Borisov (pp. 182–4) shows that the terminology of the trans-lation is close to that of the Tibbonids: he illustrates this witha chart comparing the Hebrew renderings of 19 Arabic techni-cal terms in Nissım’s translation, in the anonymous transla-

tion, and in standard Tibbonidean terminology.71 He suggeststhat the anonymous translator belonged to the ‘‘Spanish-Provencal’’ school of translators but, since there are somediscrepancies between his and the Tibbonidean terms, was nothimself one of the Tibbonids.72 Borisov further suggests thatNissım b. Solomon was of Italian origin and was a$liated withthe ‘‘Italian-Sicilian’’ school.

4. ‘‘NEW FRAGMENTS OF ISAAC ISRAELI’S WORKS’’ (1935)

This article, in its English version,73 was available to severalscholars in the West, notably S. Pines, S. M. Stern, and A.Altmann. Stern used it in his studies on Isaac Israeli.74 Sternmentioned that he was unable to provide a bibliographicalreference: it was not included in the o# print available to him,and the reference given in a bibliographical survey that heconsulted turned out to be erroneous.75 It may therefore beuseful to give here the correct reference to the completeEnglish text of the article: A. Ia. Borisov, ‘‘Some new frag-

ments of Isaak Israeli’s works,’’ in Akademiia Nauk SSSR,Akademiku N.Ia. Marru: Sbornik (Moscow / Leningrad, 1935),pp. 621–8.76

The article consists of a brief introduction and three sec-tions. The introduction (p. 185) provides basic information onIsaac Israeli and notes, inter alia, that his works were ‘‘quiteunpopular’’ in the Islamic world, both among Muslims andamong Jews. Borisov thus quotes Maimonides’ famous letter to

71

Cf. Altmann [as in n. 70 above], p. 234.72 Gad Freudenthal kindly suggested to me that this is a weak argument, sincethere are significant terminological di# erences even between Judah and Samuelibn Tibbon.

73 See above, near n. 11 and the editor’s introduction, p. 10 for the textualhistory of this article.

74 S. M. Stern, ‘‘Isaac Israeli’s Book of Substances,’’ Journal of Jewish Studies,6 (1955): 135–45 [repr. in his Medieval Arabic and Hebrew Thought, Essay IX]; andother studies referred to in n. 67 above.

75 ‘‘Abstracta Islamica’’ (with separate pagination), Revue des étudesislamiques, 10 (1936), at p. A318.

76 The correct reference was already given by Fenton [as in n. 13 above],p. 261b, n. 39.




Samuel ibn Tibbon as an example of the prevalent disparag-ing attitude to Isaac Israeli.77 By contrast, Borisov notesIsraeli’s importance for medieval scholastic philosophy and theexistence of Hebrew and Latin translations of his works.

The first section of the article (pp. 185–7) deals with IsaacIsraeli’s Kitab al-G{awahir, 14 folios of which were discoveredby Borisov himself in 1929 ( in addition to three previouslyknown folios).78 This section of the article is incorporated inone of Stern’s studies on Isaac Israeli, in which he alsoreproduces verbatim (with an appropriate acknowledgement)much of Borisov’s analysis of this text.79 For a comparativeanalysis of Borisov’s and Stern’s editions and translations of Kitab al-G{awahir see Article 2 and Appendix I above.

The second section of the article (pp. 187–8) presentsBorisov’s discovery of a fragment of the Arabic original of Isaac Israeli’s Sefer ha-ruah* we-han-nefeš ).80 Borisov editsthe fragment together with the relevant section of theHebrew version of the treatise originally published by M.Steinschneider.81 Since then, this text has been translated intoEnglish by Stern, who also provides an analysis.82

Finally, the third section (pp. 189–90) announces Borisov’sdiscovery of about four folios of a second Hebrew translation of Isaac Israeli’s Book of Definitions. The author publishes in

77 ‘‘ The Book of Definitions and the Book of the Elements by Isaac Israeli arealso futile and vain, because he, too [like Abu Bakr al-Razı], was only aphysician’’ – quoted in Altmann and Stern [as in n. 56 above], p. xiii withreferences in n. 1.

78 Borisov here refers to ‘‘15 folios,’’ but as he himself notes in a later study(Article 2, p. 125) and as Stern also noted (‘‘Fragments’’ [as in n. 67 above], p. 15)the number of folios is 14, since the 15th folio carries a fragment of Qust*a b.Luqa’s ( ?) Risala fı al-Farq bayna al-ruh* wa-al-nafs – see Article 2, pp. 125–6 andthe corresponding section of the review above.

79 Stern, ‘‘Isaac Israeli’s Book of Substances’’ [as in n. 74 above], pp. 135–8

(pp. 137–8 are a verbatim quotation, corresponding to pp. 186:17–187:7 of thevolume under review).80 The title is given in Hebrew for the reason indicated in n. 60 above.81 M. Steinschneider, ‘‘Devarım ‘attıqım: Ma’amar ha-ruah* we-han-nefes,’’

Ha-Karmel , 1 (1871): 400–5.82 Altmann and Stern [as in n. 56 above], Ch. III, pp. 106–17. S. M. Stern’s

critical edition of the Hebrew versions of Isaac Israeli’s Book of Definitions andBook on Spirit and Soul , in which he planned to reproduce Borisov’s edition of the Arabic fragment (see Altmann and Stern, pp. 6 and 106) and which heintended to publish in Hebrew Union College Annual , was never published andseems to be untraceable now; see F. W. Zimmermann’s note on this in hisintroduction to Stern’s Medieval Arabic and Hebrew Thought [as in n. 29 above],p. ii.




parallel columns a fragment of this second translation and of the previously known Hebrew version by Nissım b. Solomon.For a complete edition of the preserved part of the secondtranslation and for a fuller discussion of the subject see Article

3 above.

5. ‘‘NEW MATERIALS ON THE QUESTION OF PSEUDO-BAH*YA’’

(1929)83

This article deals with the anonymous treatise entitled Ma‘anı al-nafs and falsely attributed in the Paris manuscript (BNF,hebr. 1430) to Bah*ya b. Joseph b. PaqudIa, the author of thefamous Jewish pietistic treatise Kitab al-Hidaya ila fara’id*al-qulub ( last quarter of the 11th century ). In his article,

Borisov presents his discovery, in the Second Firkovich Col-lection in Leningrad State Public Library, of a second, pre-viously unknown manuscript and of fragments of a thirdmanuscript of Ma‘anı al-nafs: II Firkovich, old series, MS 4815(manuscript), old series, MS 4888 (8 folios) and new series, MS1198 (17 folios) (fragments).84

Borisov begins with a detailed history of the research andnotes on status quaestionis (pp. 192–5). He refers to studies of several scholars, notably Jacob Guttmann, who proved false

the attribution of the treatise to Bah*

ya,85

D. Neumark, whoattempted to refute Guttmann’s arguments,86 and I. Goldziher,who, in his edition of the treatise, prepared on the basis of theParis manuscript, accepted Guttmann’s conclusions.87 Therefollows a detailed description of the manuscripts discovered byBorisov and a list of the most important variant readingsbetween the first among these manuscripts and Goldziher’sedition (pp. 195–9).

83 Originally published in Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie gumanitarnyx nauk (Moscow / Leningrad, 1929), pp. 775–97.

84 The fragments in old series, MS 4888 and new series, MS 1198 originallybelonged to the same manuscript.

85 J. Guttmann, ‘‘Eine bisher unbekannte dem Bachja Ibn Pakuda zugeeigneteSchrift,’’ Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, 41(1897): 241–56.

86 D. Neumark, Geschichte der jüdischen Philosophie des Mittelalters (Berlin,1907), vol. 1, pp. 493–4.

87 I. Goldziher (ed.), Kitab Ma‘anı al-nafs, Buch vom Wesen der Seele, voneinem Unbekannten (Berlin, 1907) [ = Abhandlungen der königlichen Gesellschaftder Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Neue Folge, 9 (1907)].




Borisov next points out that both the beginning and the endof the treatise are completely di# erent in the Paris manuscriptand in the manuscripts of the Second Firkovich Collection.He then provides an edition and a Russian translation of

both versions of the beginning (pp. 199–201) and of the end(pp. 201–4 ). A careful analysis of both versions and theircomparison with the main body of the treatise (pp. 201, 204)lead him to the conclusion (pp. 204–5) that it is the Leningradmanuscript that contains the authentic beginning and con-clusion of this work (the latter, unfortunately, is not preservedin its entirety: several folios seem to be missing at the end).

Borisov concludes that the authentic title of the treatise is‘‘A Lucid Treatise on the Meaning of Soul and Spirit’’

(Maqalat al-Wud*

uh*

fı ma‘na al-nafs wa-al-ruh*

, as given in theLeningrad manuscript) and not Ma‘anı al-nafs ( the Parismanuscript and Goldziher’s edition). The fact that the Parismanuscript did not preserve the authentic beginning and endof the treatise is easily explained on the assumption that itsVorlage was incomplete. The beginning and the end in theParis manuscript were composed by a copyist who attempted tocomplete the treatise. Borisov suggests that the attribution toBah*ya ( lacking in the Leningrad incipit) resulted from acopyist’s erroneous assumption that the reference, given in

the treatise, to an earlier work of the same author – a poem[šıra ] on the Psalm ‘‘Bless, my soul, the Lord,’’ – points toBah*ya’s Hebrew poem TokIeh*a starting with the same words(p. 205).88

6. ‘‘ON THE POINT OF DEPARTURE OF SOLOMON IBN

GABIROL’S VOLUNTARISM’’ (1933)89

This article presents a revised version of the theory, first putforward by S. Munk, that in his voluntarist doctrine IbnGabirol was influenced by the ThA. By ‘‘voluntarism’’ Borisovmeans the central position accorded in Ibn Gabirol’s system tothe notion of God’s ‘‘Will’’ [voluntas], sometimes identified

88 Borisov indicates (p. 208, n. 93) that given the philosophical interests of theauthor of the treatise, it is certain that his poem was based on Ps. 104 [103], noton Ps. 103 [102] as was Bah*ya’s TokIeh*a ; furthermore, Bah*ya never calls hisTokIeh*a ‘‘šıra .’’

89 Originally published in: Izvestiia Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenieobšcestvennyx nauk (Moscow / Leningrad, 1933), pp. 755–68.




with ‘‘Wisdom’’ [sapientia] or ‘‘Word’’ [verbum].90 Munk’stheory was rejected by Guttmann, who pointed out that Munkused the Latin translation of the ThA, which diverges signifi-cantly from the Arabic text published by Dieterici. Guttmann

thus showed that the passages on which Munk based hiscontention were not in the Arabic text (sc. of the shortversion), and concluded that they were later interpolations bythe Latin translator; therefore, in his view, Ibn Gabirol’sdoctrine could no longer be regarded as dependent on theThA.91

Borisov notes that the situation changed radically when hediscovered fragments of the Long Version of the ThA – a textthat is much closer to the Latin translation than the Short

Version published by Dieterici. In his article, Borisovincludes, this time in the original Arabic, the fragments onwhich Munk’s a$rmation was based. At this point Borisovo# ers some observations on the ThA. He rea$rms his earlierview (presented in the 1930 article,92 but subsequentlyretracted in a later study published as Article 1 above) thatthe Long Version is the original recension of the ThA, whichwas later abridged and purged by al-Kindı from ‘‘Christian-ized Philonic and Neoplatonic notions.’’ He notes howeverthat the doctrine of kalimat Allah = ho lógos tou Theou is not

su$cient to prove the work’s Christian origin, since this ideadid not originate with Christianity but was borrowed by itfrom Jewish Alexandrian philosophy ( Philo ). Borisov thenargues in favor of a Pagan origin of this work and suggeststhat ‘‘the ThA belongs to that vulgar syncretistic trend of Late Hellenistic philosophy which gave origin to Poimander’shermetical treatises and remnants of which survived till theend of the first millennium in the worldview of theso-called S*abians of H*arran’’ ( p. 211).93

90 ‘‘Nous retrouvons ici [in the ThA] le germe, sinon le developpement, de ladoctrine de la Volonte exposee par Ibn Gebirol, qui identifie expressement laVolonte avec le Verbe divin, mais qui developpe sa doctrine sous une formeparticuliere et sous l’influence des dogmes religieux, auxquels il se croyait obligede faire de larges concessions’’ (S. Munk, Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe[Paris, 1859], p. 259, quoted in Borisov, p. 216).

91 J. Guttmann, Die Philosophie des Salomon ibn Gabirol ( Gottingen, 1889),pp. 25–38, summarized by Borisov, p. 210.

92 Borisov, ‘‘Arabic original’’ [as in n. 5 above].93 For a discussion of this view see Aouad [as in n. 5 above], p. 568.




Borisov next gives a sequence of seven relevant passages: foreach he gives the original Arabic (transcribed from Hebrewinto Arabic characters), a Russian translation of the Arabic,and the Latin translation (pp. 212–16). The analysis yields the

conclusion that the Long Version construes God’s Word ‘ ‘moreas a substance than as a power; [. . .] [this substance] is beyondboth rest and movement, but at the same time is a creativeprinciple and the immediate cause of all causes, since throughit the first among the created things – the [first] active intellect[al-‘aql al-awwal al-fa‘‘al ] – was created. As an active andcreative principle, the Word is also called ‘Command’ and‘Will’ [amr, irada]. In the general hierarchy of being it islocated between the Creator and the first intellect, being

inseparably united with the latter and serving only as a remotecause of other things ( through the mediation of the firstintellect)’’ (p. 216).

Borisov further compares this doctrine with that of IbnGabirol. ‘‘The Word of the ThA, being removed from both restand movement, is a pale abstraction, to which the function of an active cause is only superficially and very unconvincinglyascribed. Ibn Gabirol’s voluntas, by contrast, is thoroughlydynamic and gives the impression of a powerful and accom-plished philosophical construct’’ (p. 216). Once again following

Munk,94 Borisov suggests that Jewish philosophers writing inArabic felt obliged to make concessions to certain religiousdogmas, notably to that of the creatio ex nihilo. This is why theyintroduced into the emanationist hierarchy an additional ele-ment – the hypostasized attribute of the divine Will – and bydoing so ascribed voluntary nature to the preeternal outflow of creation from the Creator. Borisov here adduces such notionsas ‘‘power and will’’ [qudra wa-irada] in Isaac Israeli’s Book of Substances, ‘‘will’’ [ras*on] in Joseph b. S*addıq’s Book of the

Microcosm [Sefer ‘Oz lam qat*

an], ‘‘divine will’’ [al-mašı’a al-ilahiyya] in the anonymous (Pseudo-Bah*ya’s) ‘‘Lucid Treatiseon the Meaning of Soul and Spirit’’ [Maqalat al-Wud*uh* fı ma‘na al-nafs wa-al-ruh*]95 (apparently borrowed from SaadiaGaon’s Commentary on the Sefer Y es*ıra [Tafsır Kitab al-Mabadi’ ]) and amr ilahı in Judah Halevi (perhaps borrowed

94 See the passage quoted in n. 90 above.95 See Borisov, Article 5 (the expression al-mašı’a al-ilahiyya occurs at p. 202,

near n. 61 [Arabic] = p. 203, near n. 85 [Russian], and cf. p. 208, n. 85).




from sı‘ite notions).96 Yet, according to Borisov, the idea of divine Will was fully elaborated only by Ibn Gabirol, whoimproved on the ‘‘ primitive understanding of emanation’’ in‘‘naively spatial terms,’’ prevalent in Syriac and Arabic

thought, by restoring some of ‘‘Plotinus’ deep psychologism’’(p. 217).

7. ‘‘MU‘TAZILIz MANUSCRIPTS OF THE STATE PUBLIC

LIBRARY IN LENINGRAD’’ (1935)97

The present article o# ers a description of 13 fragments of Muslim Mu‘tazilı treatises, discovered by Borisov in theFirkovich Collection in the Leningrad State Public Library.98

It was used and elaborated upon by H. Ben-Shammai in his

1974 article ‘‘A note on some Karaite copies of Mu‘tazilitewritings.’’99

Only one of the fragments described by Borisov contains acolophon, which gives the date of copying – Rajab 472 100 – and the name of the scribe: ‘Alı b. Sulayman, whom Borisovidentifies as the well known Karaite author Abu al-H*asan ‘Alı b. Sulayman al-Muqaddası.101 Other fragments are undated butseem to belong to 11–12th centuries. They are most likely of North African provenance, but some may originate from the

Middle East. The texts preserved in the fragments belong to theBas*ran school of the Mu‘tazila, yet not to the period of the peakof its activity (associated with the names of Abu ‘Alı al-G{ubba’ı, d. 915, and his son Abu Hasim, d. 932), but to the

96 Borisov (p. 218, n. 27) refers to I. Goldziher, ‘‘ Melanges judeo-arabes: LeAmr ilâhî (hâh-‘inyân hâ-élôhî ) chez Juda Halevi,’’ Revue des études juives, 50(1905): 32–41. But see now also S. Pines, ‘‘Shi‘ite terms and conceptions in JudahHalevi’s Kuzari,’’ Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 2 (1980): 165–251, atpp. 172–8 [repr. in W. Z. Harvey and M. Idel (eds.), S. Pines, Studies in theHistory of Jewish Thought ( Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 219–305]; EI 2, art. ‘‘Amr’’ [S.

Pines], vol. 1, p. 449b–450b.97 Dated March 17, 1935; originally published in: Bibliografiia Vostoka, Issues8–9 (Moscow, 1935): 69–95.

98 Borisov also notes other Muslim works preserved in the Firkovich Collection(the ThA, Ih

˘wan al-S*afa’, al-Farabı, Ibn Sına, al-G~azalı) – see p. 236, n. 4.

99 H. Ben-Shammai, ‘‘ A note on some Karaite copies of Mu‘tazilite writings,’’Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 37 (1974): 295–304.

100 Borisov gives the corresponding mıladı date as November-December 1083,but this is incorrect. Rajab 472 = December 1079–January 1080.

101 See A. Ia. Borisov’s article ‘‘On the time and place of the Karaite ‘Alı b.Sulayman’s life’’ ( in Russian ), published posthumously in Palestinskii Sbornik,Issue 2 ( 64–65) ( Moscow / Leningrad, 1956 ): 109–14. See also Borisov, Article 8,p. 245.




later period: second half of the 10th and first half of the11th century.

Borisov provides information on two authors whose treatisesare found among the Leningrad fragments: Qad*ı ‘Abd al-

G{abbar ( d. in Rayy 414 or 415 [ = 1023–1025 ]) and theimamı author al-S{arıf al-Murtad*a ( d. in Bagdad 1044 )(pp. 222–3 ). He admits that he was unable to identify theauthors and titles of other treatises. However they must belongto the first quarter of the 11th century or later, since almost allof them quote or refer to ‘Abd al-G{abbar (e.g. to his Kitabal-Mugnı ) (p. 223). The fragments also quote earlier Mu‘tazilı authors, notably: al-G{ubba’ı (Kitab al-Ta‘dıl wa-al-tagwır,Kitab Naqd* al-tag ),102 Abu Hasim (al-Kitab al-G{ ami‘ , Kitab

al-Insan, Naqd*

Kitab ‘Abbad, Naqd*

al-abwab, al-Bagdadiyyat),103 al-G{ ah*iz*, al-Naz*z*am, Abu ‘Abdallah al-H*usayn b. ‘Alı al-KagidIı al-Bas*rı (Naqd* Kitab al-H

˘ at*ir li-Ibn

al-Rawandı ), Abu al-HudIayl, Abu al-Qasim al-Ka‘bı al-Balh˘

ı,Abu al-Fad*l G{a‘far b. H*arb and Bisr b. al-Mu‘tamir. Ananonymous refutation of Ibn al-Rawandı’s Kitab al-Ma‘rifa isalso quoted (p. 225).

In the introductory section of the article, Borisov notes thatthe old Karaite literature in Arabic is an important andhitherto neglected source of Muslim Mu‘tazilı material and

notes that Karaites were more influenced by Mu‘tazilı thought than Rabbanites (pp. 219–20). He describes some of the most salient features of the Mu‘tazila. In his view thisis the only intellectual current in the ‘‘Mediterranean philo-sophical complex’’ – this is the term Borisov coins for thesystem of philosophical traditions that originated in AncientGreece – that created a fairly complete epistemological system(p. 224).

Borisov provides a description of the fragments (pp. 226–235),

which I summarize below. Where possible, Borisov quotestables of contents, samples of text, and other relevantinformation.

( 1) Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS 1104, 131 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı treatise onepistemology (probably was originally part of the same manuscript

102 Borisov, p. 225 notes that this is most likely a refutation of Ibn al-Rawandı’sKitab al-Tag .

103 On these treatises see Borisov, p. 237, n. 23.




as No. 13 below);104 the author seems to belong to the Bas*ranschool.105

( 2 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS 3033, 30 fols.: ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s Kitabal-Muh*ıt* bi-al-taklıf .106

( 3 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS 3093, 75 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı treatise on

atomism.107

( 4 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS 3097, 94 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı treatise ondivine attributes.

( 5 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., MS 4814, 71 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı polemicaltreatise against muh

˘ alifun (as‘ arites?); part of the same treatise as

No. 10 below.( 6 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., new series, MS 1215, 33 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı

treatise on ethics.108

( 7 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., new series, MS 1224a, 67 fols.: a treatiseby ‘Abd al-G{abbar.109

( 8 ) II Firkovich, hebr.-arab., new series, MS 1224b, 83 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı

treatise on metaphysics and natural philosophy.( 9 ) II Firkovich, arab., MS 3, 79 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı treatise on ethics.110

(10) II Firkovich, arab., MS 16, 147 fols.: part of the same treatise as No.5 above.

(11) II Firkovich, arab., MS 21, 110 fols.: al-S{arıf al-Murtad*a’s KitabDIah

˘ ırat al-‘ alim wa-bas*ırat al-muta‘allim.111 The treatise contains

a colophon (fol. 110v), on which see above; the manuscript wascopied only 39 years after al-S{arıf al-Murtad*a’s death.

(12) II Firkovich, arab., MS 25, 49 fols.: a Mu‘tazilı treatise, probably onepistemology.

(13) II Firkovich, arab., MS 28, 91 fols.: probably was originally part of

the same manuscript as No. 1 above.112

104 Borisov, p. 226 notes that 3 folios in II Firkovich, arab., MS 2 and 19 foliosin II Firkovich, arab., MS 16 also belong to the same manuscript.

105 Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], p. 302 identifies this fragment as belongingto ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s al-Mugnı .

106 As noted by Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], p. 296, this fragmentcorresponds to pp. 295–326 (fols. 8–30) and pp. 333–9 (fols. 1–7) in ‘Umar al-Sayyid‘Azmı’s edition (Cairo, 1965).

107

Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], pp. 301–2 identifies this fragment (togetherwith another fragment from the British Library: Or. 2529, fols. 89–95) asbelonging to ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s S {arh* kašf al-a‘rad*.

108 Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], pp. 302–303 identifies this fragment asbelonging to ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s al-Mugnı .

109 According to Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], p. 296, this fragment belongsto ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s Kitab al-Muh*ıt*.

110 Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], p. 303 tentatively identifies this fragmentas belonging to ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s al-Mugnı .

111 Borisov, p. 223 notes that this treatise is mentioned neither by H* aggı H˘

alıfanor by Brockelmann.

112 See n. 104 above. Ben-Shammai [as in n. 99 above], p. 303 identifies thisfragment as belonging to ‘Abd al-G{abbar’s al-Mugnı .




8. ‘‘ON THE MU‘TAZILIz MANUSCRIPTS DISCOVERED IN

LENINGRAD AND ON THEIR SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE HISTORY

OF ISLAMIC THOUGHT’’ (1935)113

Slightly enlarged version of the introduction to the previous

study (Article 7); several passages are repeated verbatim.

Other studies by Borisov that are not included in this volumebut may be of interest to scholars of Arabic and Hebrew includethe following (all in Russian; titles given in my translation):114

(a) ‘‘The Arabic original of the Latin version of the so-calledTheology of Aristotle,’’ Zapiski kollegii vostokovedov, Issue 5(Leningrad, 1930): 83–98;115

(b) ‘‘Notes on the literary heritage of Yusuf al-Bas*ır,’’ Izvestiia

Akademii Nauk SSSR, Otdelenie obšcestvennyx nauk (Moscow /Leningrad, 1935), pp. 273–85;

(c) ‘‘Notes on Moses b. ‘Ezra’s poetry,’’ Izvestiia Akademii NaukSSSR, Otdelenie obšcestvennyx nauk (Moscow / Leningrad, 1936),pp. 99–117;

(d) ‘‘Miniatures of al-H*arırı’s Kitab al-Maqamat,’’ in Pamiatnikièpoxi Rustaveli (Leningrad, 1938), pp. 171–8;

(e) ‘‘ Avicenna as a physician and a philosopher,’’ Izvestiia AkademiiNauk SSSR, Otdelenie obšcestvennyx nauk ( Moscow / Leningrad,1938), pp. 51–73;

(f) ‘‘New information on the editor of Judah Halevi’s Dıwan,’’ in

Pamiati akademika N.Ia. Marra (Moscow / Leningrad, 1938),pp. 338–43;

(g) ‘‘Sasanian Iran,’’ in Istoriia SSSR (Moscow / Leningrad, 1939),pp. 64–72;

(h) ‘‘Arab culture,’’ in Istoriia kul’tury (Moscow, 1941), pp. 554–68;(i) ‘‘Additions to the list of works of Ibn al-Rawandı,’’ Sovetskoe

vostokovedenie, Issue 4 (Moscow, 1947): 81–2;(j) ‘‘On the time and place of the Karaite ‘Alı b. Sulayman’s life,’’

Palestinskii Sbornik, Issue 2 (64–65) (Moscow / Leningrad, 1956):109–114;

(k) ‘‘ A. Firkovich’s collection of Samaritan manuscripts,’’ Palestin-

skii Sbornik, Issue 15 (78) (Moscow / Leningrad, 1966): 60–73;(l) ‘‘On oriental elements in old Russian literature,’’ PalestinskiiSbornik, Issue 29 (92) (Leningrad, 1987): 154–67 and Issue 32 (95)(St. Petersburg, 1993): 93–9;

(m) ‘‘ Jewish secular poetry in Muslim Spain,’’ Pravoslavnyi Palestin-skii Sbornik, Issue 98 (35) (St. Petersburg, 1998): 230–49.

113 Dated June 16, 1935; originally published in Trudy Pervoi sessii arabistov(Leningrad, 1937), pp. 113–25.

114 The references are taken from Appendix A. Brief information on articles b,e and j can be found in the editor’s introduction, p. 10.

115 On this article see n. 5 above.




One article published in French should be noticed as well:(n) ‘‘Sur le nom Tankaloucha,’’ Journal asiatique, fasc. 2 (Paris,

1935), pp. 300–5 [repr. in F. Sezgin (ed.), Texts and Studies onAstrology, vol. 2, Islamic Mathematics and Astronomy, 103(Frankfurt am Main, 2000)]116

To conclude, the volume under review deserves high praise forputting Borisov’s important, in some cases previously unpub-lished studies at the disposal of scholars. Professor Starkova’sintroduction to the volume – used in the introductory section of the present essay – o# ers important information on Borisov’slife and academic achievements.

In the introduction to the volume (p. 9), Professor Starkovaalso mentions the project to publish a facsimile edition of the

text of ( the Arabic fragments of) the Long Version of theTheology of Aristotle, accompanied by a bibliographical essay.In the absence of a critical edition of the Long Version such apublication would be extremely helpful. It would be an appro-priate homage to the talented Russian scholar, who died duringthe war at the age of 39, giving a new life to his most importantand influential discovery.

116 Cf. n. 6 above.


andrei iakovlevic borisov (1903-1942) and his studies of medieval arabic philosophy

Documents