avicennas copyist at work

8/12/2019 Avicennas Copyist at Work

1/38

Avicennas copyists at work

presented by Jan Just Witkam

(Leiden Institute of Area Studies)[[email protected]]

Conference Prince of Physicians.Avicennas Legacy in the Islamic World and the West

Leids Universitair Centrum voor de studie van Islam & Samenleving (LUCIS),

in cooperation with the Scaliger Institute. Leiden, Monday 16 January 2012


2/38

Introduction

On Ibn Sns major philosophical work, theKitb al-Shif, hardly

any text-critical work has been undertaken. Each book in the multi-

volume Cairo edition, which was made by a great number of learned

editors over a long period of time, is based on a varying number of

manuscripts which are used by the editors in a variety of ways, which

usually was not accounted for.

The editorial principle applied by the many editors seems to be sound

philological taste, rather than the application of a more formal and

methodical approach. Erudition and taste cannot, however, be

substitutes for the textual evidence in manuscripts. They can at best

be materially complementary and instrumental.

With the example of the two relatively late manuscripts of theKitb

al-Shifin the Leiden library (Or. 4, estimated from the 7th-8th/13th-

14th century; Or. 84, dated 881/1476) an attempt is made to show

how complex the textual material actually is.


3/38

Jacobus Golius (1596-1667),

professor of Arabic and

Mathematics in Leiden

University.He acquired both

manuscripts of the Shifa

that are now in the Leiden

library.He had gone to Aleppo and

Istanbul to purchase

scientific manuscripts. In

1629 he brought back morethan 200 volumes for Leiden

University, and about as

many for himself.

Source: 19th-century lithography by L.

Springer after a posthumous painting.


4/38

Use of the Leiden manuscripts in the Cairo edition

The two manuscripts of Ibn SnsKitb al-Shif in Leidens

library have played only a modest role in the transmission and

edition of that text. They have been used in the Cairo edition of the

Shifby three of the editors only:

- Georges Anawati has, in his introduction to the edition ofDe

anima (1975, pp. xv-xvi), made an effort to work out a stemma of

the different manuscripts, including the two Leiden ones, or at least

to point out connections within the corpus of manuscripts.

- Zakary Ysuf has used MS Leiden Or. 84 for his edition of the

book on music (1956, introduction, pp. 42-45) and gives as his

overall impression of the quality of the text that it is full of

mistakes, but he gives no details.

- Amad Fud al-Ahwn used a Leiden manuscript for his edition

of the Topica (1965, p. 1), but he does not indicate which one of the

two, nor does he tell the reader how he used it.


5/38

My own agenda

I here present the outlines of a codicological description of the

two Leiden manuscripts. Codicology is, to say it both

irreverently and incorrectly, everything about the manuscript

except its content. A codicological viewing of a manuscript has,

of course, consequences for our appreciation of its contents.

In my investigation I focus on the history of the making of eithermanuscript, as shown by the two manuscripts themselves.

Neither manuscript is complete and one (Or. 4) has been, a long

time ago, the object of heavy repair work. Either manuscript

shows numerous traces of scholarly use. I try to find out what we

must think of this.

As a result I may give the authenticity of Ibn Sns text, as

contained in the two Leiden manuscripts, more nuance than ever

had been done before. It shows that codicological observation

and analysis even precede textual criticism.


6/38

The two Leiden manuscripts of Ibn SinasKitabal-Shifa

MS Leiden, Or. 4.Al-Shifa, withoutthe mathematics. A manuscript of

huge format, over 300 leaves,

beautifully executed and expertly

written. Numerous traces of use. Not

dated, probably older than Or. 84.

Princely copy (nuskha khazainiyya).

MS Leiden, Or. 84.Al-Shifa, analmost complete text, dated

881/1476. Volume of handy

proportion, over 660 leaves. Neatly

and expertly written. Some traces

of use. Scholars copy.


7/38

Bibliographical confusion concerning the references to

the two Leiden manuscripts

In the bibliographical literature (Anawati, Mahdavi, others) the twoLeiden manuscripts of Ibn SnsKitbal-Shif, Or. 4 and Or. 84, are

known as MSS Leiden 1444 and Leiden 1445 respectively. These are

the serial numbers of the old Leiden catalogue, Catalogus Codicum

OrientaliumBibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae(CCO), vol. 3

(by P. de Jong and M.J. de Goeje), Leiden 1865. It is also the most

recent published description by autopsy of either manuscript! 1444

and 1445 are not shelf marks or class-marks in the Leiden library, and

the numbers are not even found in the two manuscripts. Carl

Brockelmann in his Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur has usedthese CCO serial numbers. That has, for over a century now, created

considerable bibliographical confusion for the Middle-Eastern

manuscripts in the Leiden library, with the creation of quite a few

phantom manuscripts as a result.


8/38

Illuminated title-page of

MS Leiden Or. 4.

Title and author in theupper and lower panel.

The Shamsainbetween

may have been meant for

an ex-libris.

Several owners notes

(tamallukat) on the title-

page, two dated ones, 957

and 9?8 AH (= 928 or968 AH, corresponding

with 1522 or 1560 AD).

Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a.


9/38

UndatedTamallukon the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4:

Muhammad b. Mawlana Abd al-Karim. Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail.


10/38

DatedTamallukin Turkish on the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4:

957 (1550). Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail.


11/38

DatedTamallukof Abd al-Razzaq b. Abd al-Rahman b. Ali b. ? on the

title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4: Constantinople, Friday 1 Rabi II 9?8, which

can only be 928 or 968 (1522 or 1560). Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail.


12/38

UndatedTamallukon the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4: this

owner, Ismail b. Yahya b. Ismail, could also be one of the

collators. Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail.


13/38

Collation note in MS Leiden Or. 4, possibly written by one of the

owners of the MS: Ismail b. Yahya b. Ismail.Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 194a, detail.


14/38

Double illuminated opening page of the Kitab al-Shifa. A luxuriously made

manuscript, possibly of Oriental origin. At the right is al-Guzganis

introductory note, at left the beginning of al-Shifa. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 4, ff. 1b-2a


15/38

The basmalaand the survey of the contents of the entire work were

added by a collator, possibly one of the 10th/16th-century owners.Source: MS Leiden, Or. 4, f. 2a, detail


16/38

Four different copyists of MS Leiden Or. 4

At least four copyists seem to have written MS Or. 4, all using 39

lines to the page. Evident changes of hand are corroborated by the

density of script (number of words to the line):

- Copyist 1. ff. 1b - 119b (line 35), ff. 179a (line 26) 259b (line 39), between 32-

37 words to the line.

- Copyist 2. ff. 119b (line 36) f. 169a (line 39), ff. 260a (line 1) 298a (end),

between 34-39 words to the line. This is the copyist who signs with his name onf. 298a: Muammadb. al-asanb. Muammadal-Ktib.

Note that the script on ff. 277b (line 10)-278a (entire page) seems to be written by

a different copyist, with less density: 25-27words.

- Copyist 3. ff. 169b (line 1) f. 179a (line 25): 19-27 words to the line.

-Copyist 4. ff. 299b-339a (= end), with 21-26 words to the line, though,

approaching the end of the volume, the writing seems to become more dense, as if

the copyist felt paper would fail him.

Questions: Did they use the same exemplar? Did they work at thesame time and/or at the same place?


17/38

The signature of copyist No. 2: Muammad b. al-asan b.

Muammad al-Ktib, the only copyist in Or. 4 who mentions his

name. Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 298a.


18/38

Point of transition from copyist No. 1 to copyist No. 2. There is not

much difference in the number of words to the line, but the ductusis

distinctly different. Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 119b, detail.


19/38

Point of transition from copyist No. 3 (19-27 words to the line),

back to copyist No. 1 (32-37 words to the line).The switch back to copyist No. 1 may point to teamwork in the

production of the MS, and thereby possibly to the use of one and the

same exemplar. And also to a unity of time and place of copying,

maybe? Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 179b, detail.


20/38

Simply drawn illustration in the Tabiiyyat(one out of three in all),

done by hand, in a space left open by the copyist. A feature copied

from the exemplar? Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 245b, detail.


21/38

Internal organization of MS Leiden Or. 4

Three organizational devices can be observed in MS Leiden Or. 4, all

of which seem to be later or even much later additions to themanuscript.

1. Quire marks. The quires are distinguished by quire marks, being

an ordinal numeral, written in words, on the first leaf of each quire, in

the upper left corner. The regular quire of the manuscript was fivesheets (= ten leaves = twenty pages) => not-Oriental?

2. Catchwords, occasionally written at the bottom of some of the

verso pages. Evidently later work.

3. Folio numbers. There are in fact two number systems in the

manuscript, one by an Oriental librarian, in ink, the other one by a

(19th-century?) European librarian, in pencil. The two number

sequences diverge slightly. Much later work.


22/38

Means of internal organization of MS Leiden Or. 4

Leiden, Or. 4, f. 89a

Quire-mark 10, Oriental

foliation, Europeanfoliation.

Leiden, Or. 4, f. 169a

Quire-mark 18,

European foliation.

Leiden, Or. 4, f. 89a, quire mark

with short title.

Leiden, Or. 4, ff. 326b-327a,

catchword with offset on opposite page.


23/38

Repairs of damage in MS Leiden Or. 4 with text substitution

Old repairs, entire first quire, outer margins lost.

Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a

Repairs on

newer paper, in

the entire part oftheIlahiyyat.

Question:

Where does the

new text comefrom?

Evidence of

contamination.

Source: MS Leiden Or.

4, f. 323b


24/38

MS Leiden Or. 4 is a princely copy made by a team (?) of copyists, showing

numerous traces of repair, and has the most conspicuous codicological

details. Yet MS Leiden, Or. 84 (opening shown here), a scholars copy

containing the almost complete text of the Shifa, but without many traces of

use, nevertheless has a few interesting features of its own.


25/38

MS Leiden, Or. 84, binding, later

added to the volume, end 10/16th

or early 11/17th century AH?

Unusual order of the text withinthe volume:

- ff. 1b-68b: Metaphysics

- ff. 69a-312a: Logic

- ff. 313b-545a: Natural sciences- ff. 545b-664b: Mathematics

The four parts are four different

codicological entities, all ending

at the complete quire. Were theyat first separate entities? And

then bound in hierarchical order,

rather than the order chosen by

Ibn Sina?


26/38


27/38

The rubricator worked independently from the copyist: the

representant in the upper margin would be cropped during binding.

Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 652b, detail


28/38

Last words of theIlahiyyat (repeated), with false colophon, by

an owner or reader, Muhammad b. Abd al-Razzaq al-Gurgani,

dated 882 (1477-1478). Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 68b, detail.


29/38

Last words of the Tabiiyyat, with the other false colophon, by the

owner or reader, Muhammad b. Abd al-Razzaq al-Gurgani, dated 4

Shaban 882 (1477). Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 545a, detail.


30/38

Numerous expertly drawn illustrations (ruler and compass used) in the

part on mathematics (by the copyist or someone else?), here showing

the end of the Kitab al-Usul. The drawings are placed in space left

open by the copyist, a feature that may already have been present in

the exemplar. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 578b, detail.


31/38

Copyists technique of achieving the impression of justification.

(MS Or. 4 did not need that because its entire text was contained

within a frame.) Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 23a, detail.


32/38

Organizational technique: by catchwords only, probably written

by the copyist. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 3b, detail.


33/38

Collation with two sigla, here possibly meaning that somehow

two manuscripts are involved. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84,


34/38

Collation (balagha) note in outer margin, to be cropped

later, when the volume was bound.Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 16a, detail.


35/38

Correction: strike through, covered with red ink. No problem of

esthetics in a scholars copy. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 112a, detail.


36/38

Correction: written on erasure, adding of vocalization and ihmal

sign for clarification. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 113b, detail.


37/38

Evident emendation, with markza, forzahir, evident (?).

Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f.


38/38

Codicological conclusions concerning the two Leiden

manuscripts of theKitab al-Shifa

Difference of origin and use:

MS Or. 4 was made for a royal or princely patron. It is a luxurymanuscript (large format, illuminations). MS Or. 84 comes from a

scholarly environment (smaller format, scholars hand). Either

manuscript appears to have an Oriental origin, possibly Iran

(further analysis of the paper could confirm or reject this).

Differences inside the volumes:

MS Or. 4 has undergone most work: four copyists, illumination,

collation, later repairs. More copyists could imply more than one

exemplar. Collation implies the presence of one or more othermanuscripts. Repairs show substituted text, and cause a

contaminated text if taken at face value.

Or. 84 shows different order of the parts within the Shifa. It has

been collated and corrected. This may imply contamination as well.

avicennas copyist at work

Documents