Lo studio verte sulla terminologia avicenniana utilizzata per richiamare l'idea di «emanazione» e quella di «creazione». Il vocabolario avicenniano è comparato in particolare alla terminologia della Theologia Aristotelis.

The last four sections of the first book of Abū al-Barakāt al-Baghdādī’s summa, entitled Kitāb al-Mu‘tabar, deal with dialectics, sophistical refutations, rhetoric, and poetics in full line with Aristotle’s Organon. However, they are not so much based on Aristotle’s works, but on a work of the young Ibn Sīnā, namely al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya. Both texts have much in common not only in their structure, but also in their very wording. The article presents a basic survey of the correspondences for all four (...) sections and also highlights the most significant differences. However, important part of these differences has a counterpart in an logical text, which is present in the manuscript Nuruosmaniye 4894 and which is, in turn, very close to, albeit not identical, with Ibn Sīnā’s al-Ḥikma al-‘Arūdiyya as conserved in the unique manuscript Uppsala 364. Therefore, it is obvious that Abū al-Barakāt takes over many formulations and, at once, many ideas from Ibn Sīnā. However, he adds clearly personal elements that often seem to have been religiously inspired and, on occasion, consciously returns to Aristotle’s wording. (shrink)

English summary: This Arabic edition and French translation of Avicennas commentary on Aristotles Lambda offers a clear opportunity to better understand the Greek philosophers influence on medieval Arabic philosophy, especially concerning the hierarchy of the universe. French description: Ce texte d'Avicenne est l'un des seuls commentaires sur Aristote laisses par le philosophe persan. Il s'attaque au noyau theologique de la Metaphysique du Stagirite, les chapitres 6 a 10 du livre Lambda. Avicenne depend d'une tradition greco-arabe (Alexandre d'Aphrodise, Themistius, l'ecole "peripateticienne" (...) de Bagdad). La tradition arabe a aussi attribue a Aristote plusieurs oeuvres d'origine neoplatonicienne, notamment une Theologie adaptee de Plotin, et un Livre du Bien pur, adaptation des Elements de Theologie de Proclus. Le Dieu d'Aristote est ainsi pour Avicenne la Cause premiere efficiente de l'etre. La structure hierarchique de l'univers resulte de l'emanation produite par l'autointelligence du premier Principe. Il ne fait pas de doute, pour Avicenne, que ces doctrines aient ete celles du Stagirite. (shrink)

In the present paper it is shown that al-Ämidî has tried to integrate somehow pilosophy into theology in way that reveals closer to al-Ghazâlî's than to F.D. al-Râzî's way of combining both currents of thought. Based on an analysis of several ideas taken from different works it is shown that al-Ämidî not only accepts the logic of the philosophers, but also their views that may be considered as scientifically established beyond any reasonable doubt.

That Ibn Sīnā’s “Canon of medicine” figures among the major classics of the history of medicine is doubted by no serious historian of medicine, eastern or western, Islamic or non-Islamic alike. It is therefore all the more surprising that so far no serious critical edition of this text was available. Certainly, a first, very timid step toward a really critical edition was made at the Institute of the History of Medicine and Medical Research, under the direction of Hakeem Abdul Hameed. (...) It compared the four existing editions: Rome 1593; Būlāq 1877; Tehran 1878; and Lucknow 1905. In addition it used an ancient manuscript of Aya Sophia, dated 618, i. e. MS Aya Sophia 3686. With this new edition a further important step toward a full critical edition is made. Even if it is obvious that it does not yet present a “critical edition” in the full sense of the word, it has important merits. (shrink)

Al-Ghazzālī a toujours utilisé les travaux de ses prédécesseurs. Le Mi‘yār al-‘ilm fī fann, sorte de manuel de logique aristotélicienne adaptée au droit et à la théologie islamiques, contient ainsi une grande variété d’écrits avicenniens, du K. jusqu’à certaines parties du Šifā’. Mais quelques écrits farabiens, en particulier al-Qiyās et al-Maqūlāt, y sont mêlés. C’est la première et, à notre connaissance, la seule fois qu’al-Ghazzālī combine ainsi des éléments empruntés à ces deux grands maîtres.

Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa contra Gentiles, cites by name and quotes Avicenna seventeen times explicitly. A detailed examination of all these passages reveals that Thomas sometimes, although rarely—in fact, only with regard to the discussion of the divine attributes of truth and liberality—makes a positive assessment of Avicenna’s ideas. Much more often, Thomas is highly critical of the latter’s doctrines. It comes as no surprise that Thomas strongly opposes Avicenna’s theories of emanation and of knowledge acquisition by an illumination (...) of the agent intellect. However, it is astonishing that he qualifies Avicenna as a “Platonist.” This understanding seems to result partly from Averroistic influences, partly from Thomas’s desire to make Avicenna’s system—in spite of the presence of obvious tensions in it—completely coherent, and partly from some rewordings which fit better Thomas’s own system. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Avicenna was for Thomas a real “auctoritas.”. (shrink)

Le grand humaniste, Andrea Alpago, médecin et philosophe, fut aussi un traducteur notoire. Parmi ses traductions d’œuvres arabes en Latin figure une œuvre de jeunesse d’Avicenne, le Kitāb fī l-nafs ‘alā sunnat al-ikhtiṣār. Mais il ne se contenta pas de traduire simplement ce traité. Il ajouta à sa traduction un commentaire suivi. Même si tout indique que ce commentaire ne fut pas entièrement achevé, il mérite l’attention. En effet, on n’y trouve pas seulement l’expression de la façon dont Alpago a (...) compris ce texte, mais aussi des indications concernant les motifs qui l’ont poussés à le traduire, ainsi qu’à traduire d’autres textes avicenniens en relation avec l’âme. Comme la compréhension d’un texte est inévitablement liée à la façon dont celui-ci a été traduit, l’analyse du commentaire est précédée par une brève étude de la méthode de traduction d’Alpago, en prêtant particulièrement attention à ce qui en constitue les points forts, mais aussi les points faibles. (shrink)

Nella seconda parte del _Libro della condanna dello status e dell’ostentazione_ il ventottesimo libro della sua opera principale, _La rinascita delle scienze religiose_ – al-Ghazālī trae molta ispirazione da al-Muhāsibī, soprattutto dalla sua opera _al-Ri’āya al-huqūq Allāh _(_L’osservanza dei diritti di Dio_). Il fatto che al-Ghazālī menziona esplicitamente il nome di al-Muhāsibī non meno di quattro volte in questa sezione testimonia la sua ammirazione profonda per questo grande mistico delle origini. Un attento esame di questi riferimenti e del loro contesto (...) rivela una grande familiarità e un ampio uso della _Ri’āya_, così come un accesso diretto a un’altra grande opera di al-Muhāsibī, cioè il _Kitāb al-Wasāya_ (_Il Libro dei Comandamenti_). Inoltre, la scelta di al-Ghazālī di specifici versetti coranici e delle Tradizioni, sia profetiche che di storie, è molto debitrice della _Ri’āya_, come diventa chiaro sulla base di un esame del primo capitolo di questa seconda parte che consiste interamente in citazioni di versetti coranici e delle Tradizioni riguardanti la questione dell’ostentazione. Per quanto riguarda il secondo capitolo, che si concentra sui modi usati per attirare l’attenzione della gente su di sé sia negli atti religiosi che in quelli verbali, esso condivide molte caratteristiche con l’esposizione di al-Muhāsibī nella _Ri’āya_, compresa la copia quasi letterale di alcuni passaggi. Infine, l’uso che al-Ghazālī fa della _Ri’āya_ in ciascuno degli altri capitoli è brevemente indicato. Questo studio mostra che al-Muhāsibī non era solo una fonte importante per al-Ghazālī – un fatto già noto da quasi un secolo – ma _la_ fonte principale, almeno per questa sezione della sua _Rinascita_. Tuttavia, allo stesso tempo, questo studio chiarisce che al-Ghazālī non è colpevole di cieco plagio. In the second part of the _Book of the Condemnation of Status and Ostentation_ – the twentieth-eight book of his major work, _The Revival of the Religious Sciences_ – al-Ghazālī draws much inspiration from al-Muhāsibī, above all from his work _al-Ri’āya al-huqūq Allāh_ (_Eyeservice to God’s Laws_). The very fact that al-Ghazālī explicitly mentions al-Muhāsibī’s name no less than four times throughout this section clearly testifies to his profound admiration for this great early mystic. A close examination of these references and their context reveals a great familiarity with and an extensive use of the _Ri’āya_, as well as a direct access to another major work of al-Muhāsibī, i.e., _Kitāb al-Wasāya_ (_The Book of Commandments_). Moreover, al-Ghazālī’s choice of specific Qur’anic verses and of Traditions, both prophetic and stories, is much indebted to the _Ri’āya_, as becomes clear on the basis of an examination of the first chapter of this second part which consisting entirely of quotations of Qur’anic verses and Traditions concerning the issue of ostentation. As to the second chapter, which focuses on the ways used to draw people’s attention to oneself both in religious as well as in wordly acts, it shares many features with al-Muhāsibī’s exposition in the _Ri’āya_, including the almost verbatim copying of some passages. Finally, al-Ghazālī’s use of the _Ri’āya_ in each of the other chapters is briefly indicated. This study shows that al-Muhāsibī was not just a major source for al-Ghazālī – a fact already known for nearly a century – but _the_ major source, at least for this section of his _Revival_. However, at the same time, this study makes clear that al-Ghazālī is not guilty of blind plagiarism. (shrink)

The World of Image in Islamic Philosophy: Ibn Sīnā, Suhrawardī, Shahrazūrī, and Beyond. By L. W. C. van Lit. Edinburgh Studies in Islamic Apocalypticism and Eschatology, vol. 2. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017. Pp. viii + 278. $110, £75.

Inspired Knowledge in Islamic Thought: Al-Ghazālī’s Theory of Mystical Cognition and Its Avicennian Foundation. By Alexander Treiger. Culture and Civilization in the Middle East, vol. 27. London: Routledge, 2012. Pp. xi + 183. £75, $125.

Musique et danse selon Ibn Taymiyya. Le Livre du «Samâ'» et de la Danse compilé par le shayk Muhammad al-Manbijî. Traduction de l'arabe, présentation, notes et lexique par Jean R. Michot.