INFLUENCE OF THE ARABIC PHILOSOPHERS ON LATIN SCHOLASTICISM
We have now followed the way in which Hellenistic philosophy was
passed from the Greeks to the Syrians, from the Syrians to the
Arabic-speaking Muslims, and was by the Muslims carried from Asia to
the far West. We have now to consider the way in which it was handed on
from these Arabic-speaking people to the Latins. The first contact of
the Latins with the philosophy of the Muslims was in Spain, as might
be expected. At that time, that is to say during the Middle Ages, we
can rightly describe the Western parts of Europe as “Latin,” since
Latin was used not only in the services of the church but as a means
of teaching and as a means of intercourse between the educated; it
does not imply that the vernacular speech in all the western lands
was of Latin origin, and of course makes no suggestion of a “Latin
race”; it refers only to a cultural group, and we are employing the
term “Latin” only to denote those who shared a civilization which may
fairly be described as of Latin origin. In Spain this Latin culture was
in contact with the Arabic culture of the Muslims. The transmission of
Arabic material to Latin is especially associated with Raymund, who
was Archbishop of Toledo from 1130 to 1150 A.D. Toledo had become part
of the kingdom of Castile in 1085, during the disordered period just
before the Murabit invasion. It had been captured by Alfonso VI., and
he had made it the capital city of his kingdom, and the Archbishop
of Toledo became the Primate of Spain. When the town was taken it
was agreed that the citizens should have freedom to follow their own
religion, but the year after its capture the Christians forcibly seized
the great church, which had been converted into a congregational mosque
about 370 years before, and restored it to Christian use. For the most
part, however, the Muslims lived side by side with the Christians
in Toledo, and their presence in the same city as the king, the
royal court, and the Primate made a considerable impression on their
neighbours, who began to take some interest in the intellectual life
of Islam during the following years. The Archbishop Raymund desired to
make the Arabic philosophy available for Christian use. At the moment,
it will be remembered, the Muwahhids were established in Spain, and
their bigotry caused a number of the Jews and Christians to take refuge
in the surrounding countries.
Raymund founded a college of translators at Toledo, which he put
in the charge of the archdeacon Dominic Gondisalvi, and entrusted it
with the duty of preparing Latin translations of the most important
Arabic works on philosophy and science, and thus many translations
of the Arabic versions of Aristotle and of the commentaries as well
as of the abridgments of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina were produced. The
method employed in this college and the method commonly followed
in the Middle Ages was to use the services of an interpreter, who
simply placed the Latin word over the Arabic words of the original,
and finally the Latinity was revised by the presiding clerk, the
finished translation usually bearing the name of the revisor. It was
an extremely mechanical method; and the interpreter was treated as of
minor importance. It seems that the preparation of a translation was
done to order in very much the same way as the copying of a text, and
was not regarded as more intellectual than the work of transcription.
The revisor did no more than see that the sentences were grammatical
in form: the structure and syntax was still Arabic, and was often
extremely difficult for the Latin reader to understand, the more so
as the more troublesome words were simply transliterated from the
Arabic. The interpreters employed in this college certainly included
some Jews; it is known that one of them bore the name of John of
Seville. We have very little information as to the circulation of the
translations made at Toledo, but it is certain that about thirty years
afterwards the whole text of Aristotle’s logical Organon was in use
in Paris, and this was not possible so long as the Latin translations
were limited to those which had been transmitted by Boethius, John
Scotus, and the fragments of Plato derived through St. Augustine.
But this material already in the possession of the West was the
foundation of scholasticism, and was developed as far as it would go.
Boethius transmitted a Latin version of Porphyry’s _Isagoge_ and of
the _Categories_ and _Hermeneutics_ of Aristotle, whilst John Scotus
translated the Pseudo-Dionysius. The further development of Latin
scholasticism came in three stages: first, the introduction of the rest
of the text of Aristotle, as well as the scientific works of the whole
logical canon, by translation from the Arabic; then came translations
from the Greek following the capture of Constantinople in 1204; and
thirdly, the introduction of the Arabic commentators.
The first Latin scholastic writer who shows a knowledge of the complete
logical Organon was John of Salisbury (d. 1182 A.D.), who was a
lecturer at Paris, but it does not appear that the metaphysical and
psychological works of Aristotle were in circulation as yet.
By this time Paris had become the centre of scholastic philosophy,
which was now beginning to predominate theology. This takes its form,
as yet untouched by Arabic methods, in the work of Peter Lombard (d.
1160 A.D.), whose “Sentences,” an encyclopædia of the controversies of
the time but a mere compilation, remained a popular book down to the
17th century. The methods and form used in the “Sentences” shows the
influence of Abelard, and still more of the Decretals of Gratian. It
is interesting to note that Peter Lombard possessed and used a newly
finished translation of St. John Damascene.
Early in the 13th century we find various controversies at Paris on
subjects very like those debated by the Arabic philosophers, but in
reality derived from quite independent sources. Nothing would seem more
suggestive of Arabic influence than discussion of the essential unity
of souls, which seems as though it were an echo of Ibn Rushd; but this
doctrine had been developed independently from neo-Platonic material
in the Celtic church, and, in its main features not at all unlike
the teaching of Ibn Rushd, was fairly common in Ireland (cf. Rènan:
_Averroes_, 132-133). So we find Ratramnus of Corbey in the 9th century
writing against one Macarius in refutation of similar views. Here
Arabic influence is out of the question; at the time, indeed, Ibn Rushd
was not yet born. So of Simon of Tournay, who was a teacher of theology
at Paris about 1200 A.D., we read that “whilst he follows Aristotle
too closely, he is by some recent writers accused of heresy” (Henry
of Gand: _Lib. de script. eccles. c._ 24 in Fabrisius _Bibliotheca_,
2, p. 121), but this simply means that he carried to an extreme the
application of the dialectical method to theology.
More interest attaches to the decrees passed at a synod held at
Paris in 1209 and endorsed by the decisions of the Papal Legate in
1215. These measures were provoked by the pantheistic teaching of
David of Dinant and Amalric of Bena, who revived the semipantheistic
doctrines of John Scotus’ _Periphysis_, and the prohibitions dealing
with them cite passages from Scotus verbatim. The _Periphysis_ itself
was condemned by Honorius III. in 1225. But the decrees of 1209 also
forbade the use of Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy and the “commenta,”
whilst the Legate’s orders of 1215 allowed the logical works of the
old and new translations where perhaps the “new translations” refers
to the “new” translations made from the Arabic as contrasted with
the “old” versions of Boethius, though it is just possible that some
version direct from the Greek was in circulation and known as the “new
translations,” and also forbade the reading of the Metaphysics, Natural
Philosophy, etc., all material which had become accessible through the
Arabic.
In 1215 Frederick II. became Emperor, and in 1231 he began to
reorganize the kingdom of Sicily. Both in Sicily and in the course of
his crusading expeditions in the East Frederick had been brought into
close contact with the Muslims and was greatly attracted to them. He
adopted oriental costume and many Arabic customs and manners, but, most
important of all, he was a great admirer of the Arabic philosophers,
whose works he was able to read in the original, as he was familiar
with German, French, Italian, Latin, Greek, and Arabic. Contemporary
historians represent him as a free-thinker, who regarded all religions
as equally worthless, and attributed to him the statement that the
world had suffered from three great imposters, Moses, Christ, and
Muhammad. This opinion of Frederick is expressed in passionate words by
Gregory IX. in the encyclical letter “ad omnes principes et prelatos
terrae” (in Mansi. xxiii. 79), where he compares the Emperor to the
blaspheming beast of Apocalypse xiii., but Frederick in reply likened
the Pope to the beast described in Apoc. vi., “the great dragon
which reduced the whole world,” and professed a perfectly orthodox
attitude towards Moses, Christ, and Muhammad. It is quite probable,
as Rènan (_Averroes_, p. 293) supposes, that the views ascribed to
Frederick really are based on a professed sympathy towards the Arabic
philosophers, who regarded all religions as equally tolerable for
the uninstructed multitude, and commonly illustrated their remarks
by citing the “three laws” which were best known to them. In 1224
Frederick founded a university at Naples, and made it an academy for
the purpose of introducing Arabic science to the western world, and
there various translations were made from Arabic into Latin and into
Hebrew. By his encouragement Michael Scot visited Toledo about 1217
and translated Ibn Rushd’s commentaries on Aristotle’s _de coelo et
de mundo_, as well as the first part of the _de anima_. It seems
probable also that he was the translator of commentaries on the
_Meteora_, _Parva Naturalia_, _de substantia orbis_, _Physics_, and
_de generatione et de corruptione_. Ibn Sina’s commentaries were in
general circulation before this, so that they were very probably the
“commentaries” referred to in the Paris decree of 1209, but we do not
know who was responsible for their rendering into Latin, save that they
almost certainly proceeded from the college at Toledo. The introduction
of Ibn Rushd, not of great repute amongst the Muslims, bears evidence
to the weight of Jewish influence in Sicily and in the new academy at
Naples. We know that Michael Scot was assisted by a Jew named Andrew.
Another translator of this period was a German Hermann who was
in Toledo about 1256, after Frederick’s death. He translated the
abridgment of the Rhetoric made by al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd’s abridgment
of the Poetics, and other less known works of Aristotle. Hermann’s
translations were described by Roger Bacon as barbarous and hardly
intelligible; he transliterated the names so as to show even the tanwin
in Ibn Rosd_in_, abi Nasr_in_, etc.
By the middle of the 13th century nearly all the philosophical works
of Ibn Rushd were translated into Latin, except the commentary on
the Organon, which came a little later, and the _Destruction of the
Destruction_, which was not rendered into Latin until the Jew Kalonymos
did so in 1328. Some of his medical works also were translated in
the 13th century, namely, the _Colliget_, as it was called, and the
treatise _de formatione_; others were translated from the Hebrew into
Latin early in the following century.
The first evidence of the general circulation of ideas taken from
Averroes (Ibn Rushd) is associated with William of Auvergne, who was
Bishop of Paris, and these show a considerable amount of inaccuracy in
detail. In 1240 William published censures against certain opinions,
which he states to be derived from the Arabic philosophers; amongst
these he expresses his disapproval of the doctrine of the First
Intelligence, an emanation from God, as being the agent of creation,
a doctrine common to all the philosophers, but which he attributes
specifically to al-Ghazali; he objects also to the teaching that the
world is eternal, which he attributes correctly to Aristotle and Ibn
Sina, but mentions Averroes as an orthodox defender of the truth; he
further condemns the doctrine of the unity of intellects, which most
incorrectly he attributes to Aristotle, and also refers to al-Farabi
as maintaining this heresy; throughout he cites Averroes as a sounder
teacher who tends to correct these ideas, but his description of the
doctrine of the unity of intellects reproduces the features which are
distinctive of Averroes. The arguments he uses against this latter
doctrine are, on the whole, very much the same as those employed
a little later by Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, viz., that the
doctrine undermines the reality of the individual personality, and is
inconsistent with the observed facts of diversity of intelligence in
different persons. He cites Abubacer (Ibn Bajja) as a commentator on
Aristotle’s _Physics_, but in fact this was a book on which Ibn Bajja
did not write a commentary, and the substance of the citation agrees
with the teaching of Averroes. At that time evidently the position was
that Aristotle and the Arabic commentators generally were regarded
with suspicion save in the treatment of logic, the one exception being
Averroes, who was considered to be perfectly orthodox. So strange a
perversion of the facts could only be due to Jewish influence, for the
Jews at that time were devoted adherents of Averroes.
When the friars began to take their place in the work of the
universities we note two striking changes: (i.) the friars cut loose
entirely from the timid policy of conservatism and begin to make free
use of all the works of Aristotle and of the Arabic commentators, and
also make efforts to procure newer and more correct translations of the
Aristotelian text from the original Greek; under this leadership the
universities gradually became more modern and enterprising in their
scientific work, though not without evidence of strong opposition
in certain quarters. (ii.) As a natural corollary a more correct
appreciation was made of the tendencies of the several commentators.
The leader in these newer studies was the Franciscan Alexander Hales
(d. 1245), who was the first to make free use of Aristotle outside the
logical Organon. His _Summa_, which was left unfinished and continued
by the Franciscan William of Melitona, was based on the _Sentences_
of Peter Lombard, and serves as a commentary to it. Peter Lombard,
however, had not quoted Aristotle at all, whilst Alexander uses the
metaphysical and scientific works as well as the logic. From this time
forth the Franciscans begin to use the Arabic commentators.
The more accurate study of Aristotle in mediæval scholasticism begins
with Albertus Magnus (1206-1280), the Dominican friar who first really
perceived the importance of careful and critical versions of the
text, and thus introduced a strictly scientific standard of method.
He studied at Padua, a daughter university of Bologna, but became a
Dominican in 1223. His methods were followed and developed by his
pupil, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), who arranged his work on the lines
already indicated in Albertus’ commentary on Aristotle’s _Politics_,
lines which became the regulation method in Latin scholastic writers,
and he was at pains to get new translations made directly from the
Greek, which was now freely accessible; a new translation direct from
the Greek was made by William de Moerbeka at the request of St. Thomas.
But there is a significant change from the time when Albertus delivered
his lectures: in the work of Albertus the commentator chiefly used was
Ibn Sina, but in that of St. Thomas there is a free use of Averroes
(Ibn Rushd), although St. Thomas shows that he is perfectly well aware
of the peculiar doctrines held by this latter philosopher, and guards
himself carefully from them.
St. Thomas frequently enters into controversy with the Arabic
commentators, and especially attacks the doctrines (i.) that there
was a primal indefinite matter to which form was given at creation
(cf. Summa. lae quaes. 66, art. 2); (ii.) that there were successive
series of emanations, a doctrine which had now assumed an astrological
character; (iii.) that the Agent Intellect was the intermediary in
creation (cf. Summa. 1, 45, 5; 47, 1; 90, 1); (iv.) that creation _ex
nihilo_ is impossible; (v.) that there is not a special providence
ruling and directing the world; and (vi.) most of all, the doctrine of
the unity of intellects, a doctrine which, as he shows, is not to be
found in Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Avicenna, or Ghazali, but
is a speculative theory of Averroes alone, at least in the form then
becoming popular as pampsychism. All these objections were essentially
the same as had been already brought forward by the orthodox
scholastics of Islam, and undoubtedly al-Ghazali is used in refuting
them. According to St. Thomas, the doctrine of pampsychism is entirely
subversive of human personality and of the separate individuality of
the _ego_, to which our own consciousness bears witness. God creates
the soul for each child as it is born; it is no emanation, but has
a separate and distinct personality. As a corollary he denies the
_ittisal_ or final “union,” which involves the reabsorption of the soul
in its source.
It is worth noting that St. Thomas received his education before
joining the Dominican order in the university of Naples, which had
been founded by Frederick II. and was a centre of interest in the
Arabic philosophers, and this probably goes far to account for his more
accurate appreciation of their teaching. Unquestionably St. Thomas
Aquinas must be regarded as the prince of the Latin scholastics, for
it is he who first draws freely upon metaphysics and psychology and
co-ordinates them with theology--the psychological analysis given in
the _Secunda secundae_ of the Summa is one of the best products of the
Latin scholastics--and also he was the first to appreciate correctly
the difficulties of translation and insist on an accurate rendering
as essential to an understanding of Aristotle. For the most part, as
we have noted, the mediæval scholars undervalued the translator’s
task and were content with a hack interpreter, and saw no reason for
applying themselves to the study of the original text, a view in which
the Arabic philosophers shared. Incidentally St. Thomas was the first
who makes free use of all the Arabic commentators and shows that he
is fully aware of their defects. Undoubtedly he regarded Averroes as
the best exponent of the Aristotelian text, and the supreme master in
logic, but heretical in his metaphysics and psychology.
About 1256 Averroes’ teaching about the unity of intelligences was
sufficiently widespread at Paris to induce Albertus to write his
treatise “On the unity of the intellect against the Averroists,” a
treatise which he afterwards inserted in his Summa. In 1269 certain
propositions from Averroes were formally condemned. At this time his
works were well known, and there was a distinct party at Paris which
had adopted his views and which we may describe as a semi-Judaistic
party. This time both Albertus and St. Thomas published treatises
against the doctrine of the unity of intelligences.
Again in 1277 various Averroist theses were condemned at Paris, for the
most part emanating from the Franciscans, who, as Bacon notes (opus
Tert. 23), were strongly inclined towards Averroes both at Paris and in
England, a condition which prevailed until the great Franciscan doctor
Duns Scotus (d. 1308) took a definitely anti-Averroist line. Still,
even in the 14th century, when Averroism was practically dead at Paris,
it still retained its hold amongst the Franciscans in the English
“nation.”
The Dominicans were less favourably disposed towards the Arabic
writers, at least after the time of Albertus, and show a much more
careful estimate of their work. This was no doubt due to the fact that
they had a house of Arabic studies in Spain, and were actually engaged
in controversy with the Muslims. As a rule a careful distinction is
drawn between Averroes the commentator, who is treated with great
respect as an exponent of the text of Aristotle, and Averroes the
philosopher, who is regarded as heretical. It seems as though there
was a deliberate policy to secure Aristotle by sacrificing the Arabic
commentators. Very characteristic of the work of the Dominicans was
the _Pugio Fidei adversum Mauros et Judaeos_ of Raymund Martini,
who lived in Aragon and Provence; he was familiar with Hebrew, and
freely uses the Hebrew translations of the Arabic philosophers. His
arguments are largely borrowed from al-Ghazali’s _Destruction of the
Philosophers_. It is curious to note that, in his anxiety to defend
Aristotle, he accuses Averroes of borrowing the doctrine of the unity
of intelligences from Plato, and in a sense there was an element of
truth in this, for the Averroist doctrine was ultimately derived from
neo-Platonic sources. Raymund also cites the medical teaching of
Averroes at a date earlier than any Latin version, and here again shows
familiarity with the Hebrew translations.
John Baconthorp (d. 1346), the provincial of the English Carmelites
and “doctor” of the Carmelite order, tends to palliate the heretical
tendencies of Averroes’ teaching, and was called by his contemporaries
“the prince of Averroists,” a title which was apparently regarded as a
compliment.
Amongst the Augustinian friars Giles of Rome in his _de Erroribus
Philosophorum_ was an opponent of the teaching of Averroes, especially
attacking the doctrine of the unity of souls and the union or
_ittisal_, but Paul of Venice (d. 1429), of the same order, shows a
tendency favourable to Averroism in his _Summa_.
The 13th century had generally used Ibn Sina (Avicenna) as a
commentator on Aristotle, but in the 14th century the general tendency
was to prefer Averroes, who was regarded as the leading exponent of the
Aristotelian text even by those who disapproved his teaching.
The University of Montpelier as a centre of medical studies might be
expected to use the Arabic authorities, but this university, though
traditionally founded by Arabic physicians driven out of Spain,
was re-founded as a distinctly ecclesiastical institution in the
13th century, and became the home of Greek medical studies based on
Galen and Hippocrates, though probably the earlier texts in use were
translated from the Arabic versions. To this more wholesome Greek
character the university remained faithful, and there was always a
tendency at Montpelier to regard the Arabic use of talismans and
astrology in medicine as heretical. It was not until the beginning of
the 14th century that the Arabic medical writers began to be used there
at all, and they remained in quite a secondary rank. In 1304 Averroes’
_Canones de medicinis laxativis_ was translated from the Hebrew, and in
1340 we find that i. and iv. of the _Canons_ of Avicenna are included
in the official syllabus set for candidates for medical degrees, and
from this time forward the lectures include courses on the Arabic
physicians. In 1567 the Arabic medical works were definitely struck
off the list of books required for examination in the schools at the
petition of the students, but occasional lectures on the _Canons_ of
Avicenna were given down to 1607.
The real home of Averroism was the University of Bologna, with its
sister University of Padua, and from these two centres an Averroist
influence spread over all N.E. Italy, including Venice and Ferrara,
and so continued until the 17th century. It was a precursor of the
rationalism and anti-church feeling of the renascence, perhaps assisted
by Venetian contact with the East. At Bologna Arabic influence was
predominant in medicine; already in the later 13th century the medical
course centres in the _Canon_ of Avicenna and the medical treatises
of Averroes, with the result that astrology became a regular subject
of study, and degrees were granted in it. Most of the physicians of
Bologna and Padua were astrologers, and were generally regarded as
free-thinkers and heretics. Bologna had at one time enjoyed the favour
of Frederick II., and he had presented the University with copies of
the Latin translations prepared by his order from Arabic and Greek.
The “Great Commentary” was firmly established at Padua, and in 1334
the Servite friar Urbano de Bologna published a commentary on the
commentary of Averroes, which was printed in 1492 by order of the
general of the Servites. But it is Gaetano of Tiena (d. 1465), a canon
of the cathedral at Padua, who is generally regarded as the founder
of Paduan Averroism. He was less bold in his statements than the
Augustinian Paul of Venice, but still quite definitely an Averroist in
his teaching as to the Agent Intellect and the unity of souls, etc. He
seems to have had a great popularity, as many copies of his lectures
survive. This Averroist cult in Padua held good through the greater
part of the 15th century.
Towards the end of the century, however, the reaction begins, and
comes from two distinct sources. On one side Pomponat lectured at
Padua on the _de anima_, but interprets it by the aid of Alexander
of Aphrodisias and discards Averroes, setting forth his doctrines in
the form of essays instead of the time-honoured commentary on the
Aristotelian text. From this time (circ. 1495) the university of Padua
was divided into two factions, the Averroists and the Alexandrians.
Pomponat was at the same time a representative of more distinctly
rationalist theories, towards which the Italian mind was then tending.
It was not that Alexander was more difficult to reconcile with the
Christian faith than Averroes, but that those whose scepticism was
inclined to be more freely expressed took advantage of these new
methods of interpretation to give free vent to their own opinions.
Quite independent of these Alexandrians were the humanists proper, who
objected most to the barbarous Latinity of the text-books in general
use, and especially to the terminology employed in the translations
made from the Arabic commentators. Representative of these was
Thomæus, who about 1497 began to lecture at Padua on the Greek text
of Aristotle, and to treat it very largely as a study of the Greek
language and literature.
Philosophical controversy at this time was centred chiefly in
the psychological problems connected with the nature of the soul,
and especially with its separate existence and the prospects of
immortality. This indeed was perceived to be a crucial problem of
religion and was very keenly debated. In the early years of the 16th
century the controversy became even more prominent, until the Lateran
Council of 1512 tried to check such discussions and passed a a formal
condemnation, which, however, was powerless to restrain the debates.
It is to be noticed that these discussions did not arise from any
philo-pagan attitude of the renascence, although they favoured that
attitude, but from the topics suggested by the study of the Arabic
philosophers in N.E. Italy, and had their beginning in the problem as
to whether the soul at death could continue an individual existence
or was reabsorbed in the source, the reservoir of life, whether Agent
Intellect or universal soul.
Officially the University of Padua continued to maintain a moderate
Averroism. In 1472 the editio princeps of Averroes’ commentaries
was published at Padua. Then in 1495-7 Niphus produced a fuller and
more complete edition. Through the next half-century a series of
essays, discussions, and analyses of Averroes were produced almost
continuously, and in 1552-3 appeared the great edition of Averroes’
commentaries, with marginal notes by Zimara. In the course of the 16th
century, also, Padua produced a new translation of Averroes from the
Hebrew. The last of the Averroist succession was Cæsar Cremonini (d.
1631), who, however, shows strong leanings towards Alexandrianism. By
this time the study of the Arabic philosophers in Europe was confined
to the medical writers and to the commentaries of Averroes.
Outside Padua and Bologna Averroes retained his position as the
principal exponent of Aristotle to the end of the 15th century. In
the ordinances of Louis XI. (1473) it is laid down that the masters
at Paris are to teach Aristotle, and to use as commentaries Averroes,
Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and similar writers instead of William
of Ockham and others of his school, which is no more than saying that
the official attitude is to be realist and not nominalist.
With the 16th century the study of the Arabic commentators on Aristotle
fell into disrepute outside Padua and its circle, but for a century
more the Arabic medical writers had a limited range of influence in the
European universities.
The actual line of transmission in and after the 15th century lay
in the passage of the anti-ecclesiastical spirit developed in North
East Italy under the influence of the Arabic philosophers to the
Italian renascence. The arrival of Greek scholars after the fall of
Constantinople and the resultant interest developed in archæological
research diverted attention into a new direction, but this should not
disguise the fact that the pro-Arabic element in scholastic days was
the direct parent of the philo-pagan element in the renascence, at
least in Southern Europe. In northern lands it was the archæological
side which assumed greater importance and was brought to bear upon
theological subjects.
CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH
We have now traced the transmission of a particular type of
Hellenistic culture through the Syrian Church, the Zoroastrians of
Persia, and the pagans of Harran to the Islamic community, where it was
rather compromised by the patronage of those whom the official Muslim
teachers decided to regard as heretics. In spite of this censure it has
left a very distinct and enduring impression on Muslim theology and on
popular beliefs. After a chequered career in the East it passed over to
the Western Muslim community in Spain, where it had a very specialised
development, which finally made a deeper impression on Christian and
Jewish thought than on that of the Muslims themselves, and attained its
final evolution in North-East Italy, where, as an anti-ecclesiastical
influence, it prepared the way for the Renascence. But this main line
of development is not really the most important; all along that line it
was branching off on one side or another, and its richest fruits must
be sought in these side issues, in the scholasticism which, in Islam,
in Judaism, and in Christianity, was a reaction from its teaching, and
in the medical, chemical, and other scientific studies of the Middle
Ages, which largely owed their inspiration to its influence. It is the
most romantic history of culture drift which is known to us in detail.
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE
Years from the death of the Prophet Muhammad to the fall of the
Muwahhid dynasty in Spain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
A.H. A.D. MUSLIM YEAR LEADING EVENTS.
BEGINS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
11 632 Mar. 29 d. of Muhammad. Abu Bakr Khalif.
12 633 " 18
13 634 " 7 Umar Khalif.
14 635 Feb. 25
15 636 " 14
16 637 " 2
17 638 Jan. 23 Syria and Mesopotamia conquered.
18 639 " 12
19 640 " 2
20 640 Dec. 21 Egypt conquered.
21 641 " 10 Persia conquered.
22 642 Nov. 30
23 643 " 19 Uthman Khalif.
24 644 " 7
25 645 Oct. 28
26 646 " 18
27 647 " 7
28 648 Sept. 25
29 649 " 14
30 650 " 4
31 651 Aug. 24
32 652 " 12
33 653 " 2
34 654 July 22
35 655 " 11 `Ali Khalif.
36 656 June 30
37 657 " 19
38 658 " 9
39 659 May 29
40 660 " 17
41 661 " 7 Mu`awiya I. Khalif: _Umayyads_.
42 662 Apr. 26
43 663 " 15
44 664 " 4
45 665 Mar. 24
46 666 " 13
47 667 " 3
48 668 Feb. 20
49 669 " 9 Al-Hasan died. (2nd Imam.)
50 670 Jan. 29
51 671 " 18
52 672 " 8
53 672 Dec. 27
54 673 " 16
55 674 " 6
56 675 Nov. 25
57 676 " 14
58 677 " 3
59 678 Oct. 23
60 679 " 13 _Yazid_ Khalif.
61 680 " 1 Karbela and d. of al-Husayn.
62 681 Sept. 20
63 682 " 10
64 683 Aug. 30 _Mu`awiya_ II. Khalif: _Marwan_ Khalif.
65 684 " 18 _Abdu l-Malik_ Khalif.
66 685 " 8
67 686 July 28
68 687 " 18
69 688 " 6
70 689 June 25
71 690 " 15
72 691 " 4
73 692 May 23
74 693 " 13
75 694 " 2
76 695 Apr. 21
77 696 " 10
78 697 Mar. 30
79 698 " 20
80 699 " 9
81 700 Feb. 26
82 701 " 15
83 702 " 4
84 703 Jan. 24
85 704 " 14
86 705 " 2 _al-Walid_ Khalif.
87 705 Dec. 23
88 706 " 12
89 707 " 1
90 708 Nov. 20
91 709 " 9
92 710 Oct. 29
93 711 " 19
94 712 " 7
95 713 Sept. 26
96 714 " 16 _Sulayman_ Khalif.
97 715 " 5
98 716 Aug. 25
99 717 " 14 _Umar II._ Khalif.
100 718 " 3
101 719 July 24 _Yazif II._ Khalif.
102 720 " 12
103 721 " 1
104 722 June 21
105 723 " 10
106 724 May 29 Hisham Khalif.
107 725 " 19
108 726 " 8
109 727 Apr. 28
110 728 " 16
111 729 " 5
112 730 Mar. 26
113 731 " 15
114 732 " 3
115 733 Feb. 21
116 734 " 10
117 735 Jan. 31
118 736 " 20
119 737 " 8
120 737 Dec. 29
121 738 " 18
122 739 " 7
123 740 Nov. 26
124 741 " 15
125 742 " 4
126 743 Oct. 25 Al-Walid II. Khalif.
127 744 " 15 Yazid III.--Ibrahim Khalifs.
128 745 " 3 Marwan II. Khalif.
129 746 Sept. 22
130 747 " 11
131 748 Aug. 31
132 749 " 20 End of Umayyad dyn.--As-Saffah Khalif.
133 750 " 9
134 751 July 30
135 752 " 18
136 753 " 7 Al-Mansur Khalif.
137 754 June 27
138 755 " 16 Umayyads established at Cordova.
139 756 " 5
140 757 May 25 Ibn al-Muqaffa` killed.
141 758 " 14
142 759 " 4
143 760 Apr. 22
144 761 " 11
145 762 " 1 Baghdad founded.
146 763 Mar. 21
147 764 " 10
148 765 Feb. 27 Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq died.
149 766 " 16
150 767 " 6
151 768 Jan. 26
152 769 " 14
153 770 " 4
154 770 Dec. 24
155 771 " 13
156 772 " 2
157 773 Nov. 21
158 774 " 11 Al-Mahdi Khalif.
159 775 Oct. 31
160 776 " 19
161 777 " 9
162 778 Sept. 28
163 779 " 17
164 780 " 6
165 781 Aug. 26
166 782 " 15
167 783 " 5
168 784 July 24
169 785 " 14 Al-Hadi Khalif.
170 786 " 3 Harunu r-Rashid Khalif.
171 787 June 22
172 788 " 11 (Idrisids estab. in Morocco.)
173 789 May 31
174 790 " 20
175 791 " 10
176 792 Apr. 28
177 793 " 18
178 794 " 7
179 795 Mar. 27
180 796 " 16
181 797 " 5
182 798 Feb. 22
183 799 " 12
184 800 " 1
185 801 Jan. 20
186 802 " 10
187 802 Dec. 30 Fall of the Barmecides.
188 803 " 20
189 804 " 8
190 805 Nov. 27
191 806 " 17
192 807 " 6
193 808 Oct. 25 Al-Amin Khalif.
194 809 " 15
195 810 " 4
196 811 Sept. 23
197 812 " 12
198 813 " 1 Al-Ma´mun Khalif.
199 814 Aug. 22
200 815 " 11
201 816 July 30
202 817 " 20
203 818 " 9
204 819 June 28 Ash-Shafi`i died.
205 820 " 17
206 821 " 6
207 822 May 27
208 823 " 16
209 824 " 4
210 825 Apr. 24
211 826 " 13
212 827 " 2 Decree that Qur´an was created.
213 828 Mar. 22
214 829 " 11
215 830 Feb. 28
216 831 " 18
217 832 " 7 Bayt al-Hikma founded (circ.)
218 833 Jan. 27 Al-Mu`tasim Khalif, orthodox reaction.
219 834 " 16 (Capital removed to Samarra.)
220 835 " 5
221 835 Dec. 26
222 836 " 14
223 837 " 3
224 838 Nov. 23
225 839 " 12
226 840 Oct. 31 Abu Hudhayl died.
227 841 " 21 Al-Wasiq Khalif.
228 842 " 10
229 843 Sept. 30
230 844 " 18
231 845 " 7 An-Nazzam died.
232 846 Aug. 28 Al-Mutawakkil Khalif.
233 847 " 17
234 848 " 5
235 849 July 26
236 850 " 15
237 851 " 5
238 852 June 23
239 853 " 12
240 854 " 2
241 855 May 22
242 856 " 10
243 857 Apr. 30
244 858 " 19
245 859 " 8
246 860 Mar. 28
247 861 " 17 Al-Muntasir Khalif.
248 862 " 7 Al-Musta`in Khalif.
249 863 Feb. 24
250 864 " 13
251 865 " 2
252 866 Jan. 22 Al-Mu`tazz Khalif.
253 867 " 11
254 868 " 1
255 868 Dec. 20 Al-Muhtadi Khalif.
256 869 " 9 Al-Mu`tamid Khalif returns to Baghdad.
257 870 Nov. 29 Al-Bukhari died.
258 871 " 18
259 872 " 7
260 873 Oct. 27 (circ) al-Kindi died.
261 874 " 16
262 875 " 6
263 876 Sept. 24
264 877 " 13
265 878 " 3
266 879 Aug. 23
267 880 " 12
268 881 " 1
269 882 July 21
270 883 " 11
271 884 June 29
272 885 " 18
273 886 " 8
274 887 May 28
275 888 " 16
276 889 " 6
277 890 Apr. 25
278 891 " 15
279 892 " 3 Mu`tadid Khalif.
280 893 Mar. 23
281 894 " 13
282 895 " 2
283 896 Feb. 19
284 897 " 8
285 898 Jan. 28
286 899 " 17
287 900 " 7
288 900 Dec. 26
289 901 " 16 Al-Muktafi Khalif.
290 902 " 5
291 903 Nov. 24
292 904 " 13
293 905 " 2
294 906 Oct. 22
295 907 " 12 Al Muqtadir Khalif.
296 908 Sept. 30
297 909 " 20 Fatimite Khalif at Kairawan.
298 910 " 9
299 911 Aug. 28
300 912 " 19 Al-Ash`ari professes orthodoxy.
301 913 " 7
302 914 July 27
303 915 " 17
304 916 " 5
305 917 June 24
306 918 " 14
307 919 " 3
308 920 May 23
309 921 " 12
310 922 " 1
311 923 Apr. 21
312 924 " 9
313 925 Mar. 29
314 926 " 10
315 927 " 8
316 928 Feb. 25
317 929 " 14
318 930 " 3
319 931 Jan. 24
320 932 " 13 Al-Qahir Khalif.
321 933 " 1
322 933 Dec. 22 ar-Razi Khalif.
323 934 " 11 al-Mataridi d.
324 935 Nov. 30 Buwayhids seize Baghdad.
325 936 " 10
326 937 " 8
327 938 Oct. 28
328 939 " 18
329 940 " 6 al-Muttaqi Khalif.
330 941 Sept. 26
331 942 " 15
332 943 " 4
333 944 Aug. 24 al-Mustakfi Khalif.
334 945 " 13 Al-Muti` Khalif.
335 945 " 2
336 947 July 23
337 948 " 11
338 949 " 1
339 950 June 20 al-Farabi d.
340 951 " 9
341 952 May 29
342 953 " 18
343 954 " 7
344 955 Apr. 27
345 956 " 15
346 957 " 4
347 958 Mar. 25
348 959 " 14
349 960 " 3
350 961 Feb. 20
351 962 " 9
352 963 Jan. 30
353 964 " 19
354 965 " 7
355 965 Dec. 28
356 966 " 17 Fatimites in Egypt: Cairo founded.
357 967 " 7
358 968 Nov. 25
359 969 " 14
360 970 " 4
361 971 Oct. 24
362 972 " 12
363 973 " 2 At-Tai` Khalif.
364 974 Sept. 21
365 975 " 10
366 976 Aug. 30
367 977 " 19
368 978 " 9
369 979 July 29
370 980 " 17
371 981 " 7
372 982 June 26
373 983 " 15
374 984 " 4
375 985 May 24
376 986 " 13
377 987 " 3
378 988 Apr. 21
379 989 " 11
380 990 Mar. 31 Al-Qadir Khalif.
381 991 " 20
382 992 " 9
383 993 Feb. 26
384 994 " 15
385 995 " 5
386 996 Jan. 25
387 997 " 14
388 998 " 3 Rise of Mahmud of Ghazna.
389 998 Dec. 23
390 999 " 13
391 1000 " 1
392 1001 Nov. 20
393 1002 " 10
394 1003 Oct. 30
395 1004 " 18
396 1005 " 8
397 1006 Sept. 27
398 1007 " 17
399 1008 " 5
400 1009 Aug. 25
401 1010 " 15
402 1011 " 4
403 1012 July 23
404 1013 " 13
405 1014 " 2
406 1015 June 21
407 1016 " 10
408 1017 May 30
409 1018 " 20
410 1019 " 9
411 1020 Apr. 27
412 1021 " 17
413 1022 " 6
414 1023 Mar. 26
415 1024 " 15
416 1025 " 4
417 1026 Feb. 22
418 1027 " 11
419 1028 Jan. 31
420 1029 " 20
421 1030 " 9
422 1030 Dec. 29 Al-Qa´im Khalif.
423 1031 " 19
424 1032 " 7
425 1033 Nov. 26
426 1034 " 16
427 1035 " 5
428 1036 Oct. 25 Ibn Sina (Avicenna) d.
429 1037 " 14
430 1038 " 3
431 1039 Sept. 23
432 1040 " 11
433 1041 Aug. 31
434 1042 " 21
435 1043 " 10
436 1044 July 29
437 1045 " 19
438 1046 " 8
439 1047 June 28
440 1048 " 16
441 1049 " 5
442 1050 May 26
443 1051 " 15
444 1052 " 3
445 1053 Apr. 23
446 1054 " 12
447 1055 " 2 Saljuk Turks in Baghdad.
448 1056 Mar. 21
449 1057 " 10
450 1058 Feb. 28
451 1059 " 17
452 1060 " 6
453 1061 Jan. 26
454 1062 " 15
455 1063 " 4 Ash`arites tolerated.
456 1063 Dec. 25
457 1064 " 13
458 1065 " 3
459 1066 Nov. 22
460 1067 " 11
461 1068 Oct. 31
462 1069 " 20
463 1070 " 9
464 1071 Sept. 29
465 1072 " 17
466 1073 " 6
467 1074 Aug. 27 Al-Muqtadi Khalif.
468 1075 " 16
469 1076 " 5
470 1077 July 25
471 1078 " 14
472 1079 " 4
473 1080 June 22
474 1081 " 11
475 1082 " 1
476 1083 May 21
477 1084 " 10
478 1085 Apr. 29
479 1086 " 18
480 1087 " 8
481 1088 Mar. 27
482 1089 " 16
483 1090 " 6
484 1091 Feb. 23
485 1092 " 12
486 1093 " 1
487 1094 Jan. 21 Al-Musta`dhir Khalif.
488 1095 " 11
489 1095 Dec. 31
490 1096 " 19
491 1097 " 9
492 1098 Nov. 28
493 1099 " 17
494 1100 " 6
495 1101 Oct. 26
496 1102 " 15
497 1103 " 5
498 1104 Sept. 23
499 1105 " 13
500 1106 " 2
501 1107 Aug. 22
502 1108 " 11
503 1109 July 31
504 1110 " 20
505 1111 " 10 Al-Ghazali died.
506 1112 June 28
507 1113 " 18
508 1114 " 7
509 1115 May 27
510 1116 " 16
511 1117 " 5
512 1118 Apr. 24 Al-Mustarshid Khalif.
513 1119 " 14
514 1120 " 2
515 1121 Mar. 22
516 1122 " 12
517 1123 " 1
518 1124 Feb. 19
519 1125 " 7
520 1126 Jan. 27
521 1127 " 17
522 1128 " 6
523 1128 Dec. 25
524 1129 " 15 Ibn Tumart the Mahdi died.
525 1130 " 4
526 1131 Nov. 23
527 1132 " 12
528 1133 " 1
529 1134 Oct. 22 Ar-Rashid Khalif
530 1135 " 11 Al-Muktafi II. Khalif.
531 1136 Sept. 29
532 1137 " 19
533 1138 " 8 Ibn Bajja (Avempace) died.
534 1139 Aug. 28
535 1140 " 17
536 1141 " 6
537 1142 July 27
538 1143 " 16
539 1144 " 4
540 1145 June 24 Jehuda hal-Levi died.
541 1146 " 13
542 1147 " 2
543 1148 May 22
544 1149 " 11
545 1150 Apr. 30
546 1151 " 20
547 1152 " 8
548 1153 Mar. 29
549 1154 " 18
550 1155 " 7
551 1156 Feb. 25
552 1157 " 13
553 1158 " 2
554 1159 Jan. 23
555 1160 " 12
556 1160 Dec. 31
557 1161 " 21
558 1162 " 10
559 1163 Nov. 30
560 1164 " 18
561 1165 " 7
562 1166 Oct. 28
563 1167 " 17
564 1168 " 5
565 1169 Sept. 25
566 1170 " 14 Saladin in Egypt: end of the Fatimites.
567 1171 " 4
568 1172 Aug. 23
569 1173 " 12
570 1174 " 2
571 1175 July 22
572 1176 " 10
573 1177 June 30
574 1178 " 19
575 1179 " 8 An-Nasir Khalif.
576 1180 May 28
577 1181 " 17
578 1182 " 7
579 1183 Apr. 26
580 1184 " 14
581 1185 " 4 Ibn Tufayl died.
582 1186 Mar. 24
583 1187 " 13
584 1188 " 2
585 1189 Feb. 19
586 1190 " 8
587 1191 Jan. 29
588 1192 " 18
589 1193 " 7
590 1193 Dec. 27
591 1194 " 16
592 1195 " 6
593 1196 Nov. 24
594 1197 " 13
595 1198 " 3 Ibn Rushd (Averroes) d.
596 1199 Oct. 23
597 1200 " 12
598 1201 " 12
599 1202 Sept. 20
600 1203 " 10
601 1204 Aug. 29 Maimonides died.
602 1205 " 18
603 1206 " 8
604 1207 July 28
605 1208 " 16
606 1209 " 6
607 1210 June 25
608 1211 " 15
609 1212 " 3
610 1213 May 23
611 1214 " 13
612 1215 " 2
613 1216 Apr. 20
614 1217 " 10
615 1218 Mar. 30
616 1219 " 19
617 1220 " 8
618 1221 Feb. 25
619 1222 " 15
620 1223 " 4 Ibn Tumlus died.
621 1224 Jan. 24
622 1225 " 13 Az-Zahir Khalif.
623 1226 " 2 Al-Mustansir Khalif.
624 1226 Dec. 22
625 1227 " 12
626 1228 Nov. 30
627 1229 " 20
628 1230 " 9
629 1231 Oct. 29
630 1232 " 18
631 1233 " 7
632 1234 Sept. 26
633 1235 " 16
634 1236 " 4
635 1237 Aug. 24
636 1238 " 14
637 1239 " 3
638 1240 July 23 Ibn `Arabi died.
639 1241 " 12
640 1242 " 1 Al-Musta´sim Khalif.
641 1243 June 21
642 1244 " 9
643 1245 May 29
644 1246 " 19
645 1247 " 8
646 1248 Apr. 26
647 1249 " 16
648 1250 " 5
649 1251 Mar. 26
650 1252 " 14
651 1253 " 3
652 1254 Feb. 21
653 1255 " 10
654 1256 Jan. 30
655 1257 " 19
656 1258 " 8 Halagu takes Baghdad: end of Khalifate.
657 1258 Dec. 29
658 1259 " 18
659 1260 " 6
660 1261 Nov. 26
661 1262 " 15
662 1263 " 4
663 1264 Oct. 24
664 1265 " 13
665 1266 " 2
666 1267 Sept. 22
667 1268 " 10 Fall of the Muwahhids.
Printed in England by The Clarendon Press, Ltd., Cheltenham.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obsolete, archaic, unusual and inconsistent spellings have been left
in the text as in the original book. Obvious typos have been fixed, as
detailed below.
Arabic words and names appear transliterated throughout the text. `Ayn
is represented by `, and hamzah is represented by ´. The same word or
name will appear throughout the text with and without diacriticals
over the vowels, and both with and without indications of `ayn and
hamzah.
My research indicates that the book _Bibl. Orient._ by Asseman,
cited in the text, is referring to _Bibliotheca orientalis
Clementino-vaticana..._ by Giuseppe Simone Assemani (modern spelling of
name).
In the following, the correction is shown in square brackets:
Page
10 matter, probably Indian, perhaps some Eygptian[Egyptian]
11 the new Plantonists[Platonists]; whilst they exhausted their
12 to which all philosophy, and especially the Plantonic[Platonic]
15 Topica, Meterology[Meteorology], _de sensu_, the first five books
16 “parts.” These are, (1[i]) the nutritive, the power of
19 in the formation of neo-Plantonic[neo-Platonic] theory, and it
26 where the Aristotelian metaphysics and phychology[psychology]
41 commentaries of John Philoponus, himself a Monophysit[Monophysite]
43 what we call the Turkish bath is a lineal decendant[descendant] of
48 patriarch in 684 was a pupil of Severus Sekobt[Sebokt], and
50 persecution. Such was the experience of _Henanyeshu`[Henanieshu´]_
50 to the Khalif ´Abdul-Malik[`Abdul-Malik] in consequence of which
50 the humanities on the other (cf. Assemsan[Asseman] BO.)
54 luxurant[luxuriant] shoots on a soil which was saturated with
54 and the most important transmittors[transmitters] of medicine.
55 the medical writers mentioned by Dr. Leclerq[Leclerc] in his
55 _Histoire de la médicine[médecine] arabe_ (Paris, 1876) we find
59 déborder sur les régions frontiéres[frontières].
78 “Old Mosque” of Fustat (Cairo), that [is] now known as the
83 The _Mu´tazilites[Mu`tazilites]_ of whom _Wasil b. `Ata_ (d. 131)
84 possessed by him, the Mu´tazilites[Mu`tazilites] argued that it
84 eternal Qur´an as ditheists. The Mu´tazilites[Mu`tazilites]
85 moral obligations and reponsibility[responsibility] on the one
85 to death by the Khalif ´Abdu[`Abdu] l-Malik, and that the
86 ´Ata[`Ata] whose teaching clearly shows the solvent force
86 and did so on the ground of the apparant[apparent] injustice
91 is confined to the hereditary descendants of ´Ali[`Ali] the
92 is one of the sacred spots visited by Shi´ite[Shi`ite] pilgrims.
95 risings at Madinna[Madina], and after the suppression of one of
105 production of Arabic tranlations[translations] of works
108 treatises of Aristotle, of the _almajasta[Almagesta]_ of Ptolemy,
110 al-Ma`mun[al-Ma´mun] on foods and drinks, a manual of medicine
114 Metaphysics, Plato’s Laws and Timæas[Timæus], as well as
118 in the Qur`an[Qur´an] as belonging to a religion “of the book,”
119 the sect mentioned in the Qur`an[Qur´an] under the name of
123 Qur`an[Qur´an] and the question of free will. The new
129 and _`Amr b. Bakr[Bahr] al-Jahiz_. On the theological
130 _`Amr b. Bakr[Bahr] al-Jahir[Jahiz]_ (d. 255), the third of
135 time of al-Ma`mun[Ma´mun] the text of Aristotle began to be
137 (22) of De Slane’s trans. of Ibn Kkallikan[Khallikan], vol. i. p.
137 _Beitrage[Beiträge] zur Geschichte der philosophie[Philosophie]_
139 which particular aspect af[of] ancient research would
143 _Muhammmad[Muhammad] b. Tarkhan Abu Nasr al-Farabi_ (d. 339),
146 _Almajesta[Almagesta]_ of Ptolemy, and a treatise on various
147 _aql[`aql]_ (reason, intelligence, spirit) is employed in general
152 12. 7, and similarly Plato, _Timaeus[Timæus]_ 28). Being unchanged
153 the argument in Plato, _Timaeus[Timæus]_ 28, and Aristotle,
156 attempted on quite other lines by al-Ash´ari[Ash`ari] and
156 twelfth Iman[Imam] of the _Ithna `ashariya_ or orthodox
156 emperers[emperors], whose sign manual was sought as giving
157 son Isma´il[Isma`il] as his successor, but as Isma´il[Isma`il] was
157 be transferred at will, but remained loyal to Isma´il[Isma`il],
160 the Isma´ilians[Isma`ilians] or Sab`iya of Egypt there came two
160 monastry[monastery], and was recognised there afterwards as a
161 In 471 another da´i[da`i] or missionary, Hasan-i-Sabbah,
161 the younger son Musta´li[Musta`li]. When the Khalif al-Mustansir
163 the Agha Khan is a lineal descendant af[of] Ruknu
163 Thus the movememt[movement] started by Abdullah, the son
165 the Ishma´ilians[Isma`ilians] on the part of those who wished
165 founders of the brotherhood, as some have suppposed[supposed].
169 al-Juzjanl[Juzjani], from his master’s recollections. We learn
169 classes, as was the case with the Qarmations[Qarmatians], and when
171 After this he studied Euclid, the _Almajesta[Almagesta]_, and the
177 formed. Men and animals perceive pariculars [particulars]
189 Syraic[Syriac] very soon after their first appearance in Greek,
189 Sa´id[Sa`id] b. Abi l-Khayr (d. 441 A.H. = 1049 A.D.), who
189 Ibn Sina; when they parted Abu Sa´id[Sa`id] said of Ibn Sina,
191 ´Abdullah[`Abdullah], the son of Maymum, whose work we have
192 Isma´ilians[Isma`ilians] and kindred sects; but Sufi teaching
194 Sufi and the philosopher of the Isma´ilian[Isma`ilian] school.
196 of the Rifa´ite[Rifa`ite] order. There are also orders
199 undergone by the Rifa´i[Rifa`i] darwishes and others. The
199 produces the world of phenoma[phenomena] in which light is made
204 Sufi was _`Abdu l-Haqq ibn Sab´in[Sab`in]_ (d. 667), who shows
220 and in 484 he was appointed president of the Nazmiite[Nazimite]
224 the Plotinian terminloogy[terminology]. Macdonald summarises
226 eastern wing from the rest, and this segrated[segregated] portion
230 seat of goverment[government] at Cordova, and in A.H. 317 one
234 more to Christian attacks, until at length Mu´tamid[Mu`tamid],
238 work was the _Kitab al-Amanat wa-l-I´tiqadat[´Itiqadat]_,
247 he learned of al-Ghazili[Ghazali] and his doctrines. Roughly
253 and grammer[grammar]. He maintained that the task of philosophy
260 `Abdu l-Haqq b. Sab´im[Sab`in] (d. 667). The former of these
263 which is exactly the same teaching as that of al-Ash´ari[Ash`ari]
272 _Mataphysics[Metaphysics]_, and the treatises _de coelo_ and
272 _Mataphysics[Metaphysics]_, _de coelo_ and _de mundo_,
272 on the Nichomachæan[Nicomachæan] Ethics and his paraphrase
278 and phychological[psychological] works of Aristotle were in
282 the Jew Calonymos[Kalonymos] did so in 1328. Some of his
287 to the study of the original test[text], a view in
297 41 661 " 7 Mu´awiya[Mu`awiya] I. Khalif: _Umayyads_.
298 64 683 Aug. 30 _Mu´awiya[Mu`awiya]_ II. Khalif: _Marwan_ Khalif.
303 204 819 June 28 Ash-Shaf`i[Shafi`i] died.
304 218 833 Jan. 27 Al-Mu´tasim[Mu`tasim] Khalif, orthodox reaction.