El corpus de manuscritos árabes de los musulmanes de los territorios cristianos de la península ibérica medieval y temprano-moderna (mudéjares y moriscos) ha sido generalmente estudiado en menor medida que sus escritos en romance en caracteres latinos o árabes (aljamiado). Este artículo discute los nuevos datos en el códice misceláneo Árabe 1668 (El Escorial), copiado en 928 (=1522) probablemente por musulmanes en los territorios cristianos. MS Escorial Árabe 1668 no es totalmente desconocido por los (...) estudiosos, pero han sido pocos los intentos por investigar sus extraordinarios contenidos, que hasta ahora han permanecido en gran medida sin identificar. Destacable es la copia en árabe de la historia universal de ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Ḥabīb (s. IX), el Kitāb al-Taʾrīkh [La historia], considerada como el ejemplar más antiguo de literatura árabe en al-Andalus y que se preserva solamente en un único manuscrito árabe en Oxford. Además, MS Escorial Árabe 1668 contiene un número importante de narrativas adaptadas en aljamiado que ya se conocían, pero de las cuales aún no se habían identificado los originales árabes en circulación entre los musulmanes peninsulares. Estos materiales amplían los datos ya existentes de la producción tardía de manuscritos árabes de los musulmanes peninsulares y la preservación dentro de sus comunidades de originales provenientes de al-Andalus, el norte de África y el oriente islámico, algunos de los cuales contienen miniaturas. En el MS Escorial Árabe 1668 también encontramos un sermón árabe-Aljamiado (waʿẓ) que arroja luz sobre las reuniones de musulmanes que a veces se celebraron de forma clandestina debido a las crecientes restricciones impuestas a sus comunidades por los cristianos. (shrink)

En este artículo se da noticia de la existencia de un opúsculo gramatical anónimo en los fondos árabes de la Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo de El Escorial; sobre el citado opúsculo no hay información en los catálogos que hicieron tanto M. Casiri como H. Derenbourg. Esta omisión queda subsanada con esta publicación, en la que se presenta la descripción codicológica del manuscrito, contenido y diversas particularidades del mismo.

En este artículo se da noticia de la existencia de un opúsculo gramatical anónimo en los fondos árabes de la Real Biblioteca de San Lorenzo de El Escorial; sobre el citado opúsculo no hay información en los catálogos que hicieron tanto M. Casiri como H. Derenbourg. Esta omisión queda subsanada con esta publicación, en la que se presenta la descripción codicológica del manuscrito, contenido y diversas particularidades del mismo.

El ms. árabe num. 1.077 de El Escorial contiene una obra de Abū Isḥāq al-Garnāṭī, cuyo último capítulo lo constituye la enumeración de veintidós normas jurídicas, en cuatro de las cuales los andalusíes no siguieron la doctrina de Mālik, y en las dieciocho restantes se apartaron de la de Ibn al-Qāsim. Ese mismo texto aparece también al final de K. al-Mufīd del cordobés Ibn Hišām. En este artículo su autor, tras definir el concepto de ‛amal local, plantea la (...) cuestión de la autoría del citado texto, ofrece una edición crítica y traducción del mismo a partir de las dos fuentes mencionadas y hace un estudio diacrónico de la aplicación en al-Andalus de esas controvertidas normas. Dicho estudio muestra que tales diferencias con respecto a Mālik o Ibn al-Qāsim no siempre se mantuvieron, sino que caracterizaron más bien el fiqh «temprano» andalusí. (shrink)

El ms. árabe num. 1.077 de El Escorial contiene una obra de Abū Isḥāq al-Garnāṭī, cuyo último capítulo lo constituye la enumeración de veintidós normas jurídicas, en cuatro de las cuales los andalusíes no siguieron la doctrina de Mālik, y en las dieciocho restantes se apartaron de la de Ibn al-Qāsim. Ese mismo texto aparece también al final de K. al-Mufīd del cordobés Ibn Hišām. En este artículo su autor, tras definir el concepto de ‛amal local, plantea la (...) cuestión de la autoría del citado texto, ofrece una edición crítica y traducción del mismo a partir de las dos fuentes mencionadas y hace un estudio diacrónico de la aplicación en al-Andalus de esas controvertidas normas. Dicho estudio muestra que tales diferencias con respecto a Mālik o Ibn al-Qāsim no siempre se mantuvieron, sino que caracterizaron más bien el fiqh «temprano» andalusí. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:80 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY AVERROES' Quaesitum ON ASSERTORIC (ABSOLUTE) PROPOSITIONS UNTIL 1962 ONLY ONE logical work of Averroes existed in print in the original Arabic? At this late date, D. M. Dunlop published the Arabic text of the short tract by Averroes on the modality of propositions with which we shall be concerned here.' The text published by Professor Dunlop forms part of a collection of treatises by Averroes (...) which has long been known to exist in the immensely valuable collection of Arabic manuscripts of the Escorial Library, near Madrid.' The collection is simply entitled Mas~'il (Questions),' faithfully reflected in the rubric of Quaesita under which several of these treatises are given in Latin versions in the sixteenth-century editions of.4ristotelis Opera cure.4verrois Commentariis. The particular treatise published by Prof. Dunlop deals with the problem of the relationship of assertoric propositions to the modalities of possibility and necessity. This treatise has been accessible for over four centuries in two printed Latin versions, made in Renaissance times from medieval Hebrew translations. The earlier of the Latin versions was made by a Jewish scholar, Ella del Medigo, for the Renaissance luminary Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and was printed in the very rare Aldine incunabulum edition of the Quaesita Averrois in librum priorum (analytiorum Aristotelis) (Venice, 1497). A second Latin translation was made by Abraham de Balmes (d. 1523): and printed in several editions of the Juntine Latin Aristotle (Venice, from 1590): From these versions the main substance, at any rate, of Averroes' xMaurice Bouyges, ed., Averroes: Talkh~ Kitdb al-Maqouldt ("Middle Commentary on Aristotle 's Categoriae") Beyrouth, 1932 (-- Vol. IV of Bibliotheca Arabica-Scholasticorum, S6rie Arabe). sD. M. Dunlop, "Averroes (Ibn Rushd) on the Modality of Propositions," Islamic Studies (Journal of the Gentral Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi), Vol. I (1962), 23-34. sMichael Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (2 vols., Madrid; 1760, 1770), No. 629; Hartwig Derenbourg, Les Manuscrits Arabcs de l'Escurial (3 vols., Paris; 1884, 1903, 1928), No. 632. ' Prof. Dunlop states that "another copy" of the Masa'il (presumably made from the Escorial MS?) exists in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (No. 102 in the catalog of Robles). For information about this translator, see Bayle's Dictionary, art. "BALMIS, Abraham de," where note (B) describes some complaints about his translations from Hebrew to Latin. (I owe this reference to Prof. Richard Popkin.) Note (I) of Bayle's article on "AVERROES" gives some data concerning the Renaissance translations of Averroes, citing inter alia the opinion expressed by Keckermann in his PraecognitisLogicis (II, 2, nb. 32): "How much all Philosophy is indebted to Averroes, can then only be known, when God shall raise up a Genius, who will free our Latin Translations of him from the unintelligible Barbarisms everywhere to be met with, and render him in That Language, in a style, at least tolerable, and intelligible, for the Use of Students in Philosophy." eAristotelis Opera cure Averrois Commentariis, Vol. I. The edition of 1562 is now readily accessible in a photoreprinting made in Frankfurt am Main in 1962, and contains the "Averrois varii generis quaesita in libros logicae Aristotelis, Abramo de Balmes interprete," pp. 75 verso--- NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 81 Quaesitum has been determinable.' The present, reasonably literal translation of the Arabic text should facilitate the work of anyone wishing to form his own judgment about the character of the Latin versions of Averroes' logical treatises, or at any rate the not insignificant number of them that came from the pen of Abraham de Balmes. The Latin version in the present instance is, on the whole, literal to the point of obscurity. It is punctuated by occasional strange, and sometimes ludicrous renderings--as, for example, at 27:6, where "not used in the art of rhetoric" becomes "non uterent agricolae"l Occasionally the Latin incorporates a marginal explanation within the text (e.g., at 29:10), and sometimes it omits phrases of the Arabic text. In general, it is significantly more difficult to derive from the Latin than from the Arabic an exact idea just what it is that Averroes had in mind. Unquestionably the most interesting aspect of Averroes' treatise is the light it sheds... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:80 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY AVERROES' Quaesitum ON ASSERTORIC (ABSOLUTE) PROPOSITIONS UNTIL 1962 ONLY ONE logical work of Averroes existed in print in the original Arabic? At this late date, D. M. Dunlop published the Arabic text of the short tract by Averroes on the modality of propositions with which we shall be concerned here.' The text published by Professor Dunlop forms part of a collection of treatises by Averroes (...) which has long been known to exist in the immensely valuable collection of Arabic manuscripts of the Escorial Library, near Madrid.' The collection is simply entitled Mas~'il (Questions),' faithfully reflected in the rubric of Quaesita under which several of these treatises are given in Latin versions in the sixteenth-century editions of.4ristotelis Opera cure.4verrois Commentariis. The particular treatise published by Prof. Dunlop deals with the problem of the relationship of assertoric propositions to the modalities of possibility and necessity. This treatise has been accessible for over four centuries in two printed Latin versions, made in Renaissance times from medieval Hebrew translations. The earlier of the Latin versions was made by a Jewish scholar, Ella del Medigo, for the Renaissance luminary Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, and was printed in the very rare Aldine incunabulum edition of the Quaesita Averrois in librum priorum (analytiorum Aristotelis) (Venice, 1497). A second Latin translation was made by Abraham de Balmes (d. 1523): and printed in several editions of the Juntine Latin Aristotle (Venice, from 1590): From these versions the main substance, at any rate, of Averroes' xMaurice Bouyges, ed., Averroes: Talkh~ Kitdb al-Maqouldt ("Middle Commentary on Aristotle 's Categoriae") Beyrouth, 1932 (-- Vol. IV of Bibliotheca Arabica-Scholasticorum, S6rie Arabe). sD. M. Dunlop, "Averroes (Ibn Rushd) on the Modality of Propositions," Islamic Studies (Journal of the Gentral Institute of Islamic Research, Karachi), Vol. I (1962), 23-34. sMichael Casiri, Bibliotheca Arabico-Hispana Escurialensis (2 vols., Madrid; 1760, 1770), No. 629; Hartwig Derenbourg, Les Manuscrits Arabcs de l'Escurial (3 vols., Paris; 1884, 1903, 1928), No. 632. ' Prof. Dunlop states that "another copy" of the Masa'il (presumably made from the Escorial MS?) exists in the Biblioteca Nacional in Madrid (No. 102 in the catalog of Robles). For information about this translator, see Bayle's Dictionary, art. "BALMIS, Abraham de," where note (B) describes some complaints about his translations from Hebrew to Latin. (I owe this reference to Prof. Richard Popkin.) Note (I) of Bayle's article on "AVERROES" gives some data concerning the Renaissance translations of Averroes, citing inter alia the opinion expressed by Keckermann in his PraecognitisLogicis (II, 2, nb. 32): "How much all Philosophy is indebted to Averroes, can then only be known, when God shall raise up a Genius, who will free our Latin Translations of him from the unintelligible Barbarisms everywhere to be met with, and render him in That Language, in a style, at least tolerable, and intelligible, for the Use of Students in Philosophy." eAristotelis Opera cure Averrois Commentariis, Vol. I. The edition of 1562 is now readily accessible in a photoreprinting made in Frankfurt am Main in 1962, and contains the "Averrois varii generis quaesita in libros logicae Aristotelis, Abramo de Balmes interprete," pp. 75 verso--- NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS 81 Quaesitum has been determinable.' The present, reasonably literal translation of the Arabic text should facilitate the work of anyone wishing to form his own judgment about the character of the Latin versions of Averroes' logical treatises, or at any rate the not insignificant number of them that came from the pen of Abraham de Balmes. The Latin version in the present instance is, on the whole, literal to the point of obscurity. It is punctuated by occasional strange, and sometimes ludicrous renderings--as, for example, at 27:6, where "not used in the art of rhetoric" becomes "non uterent agricolae"l Occasionally the Latin incorporates a marginal explanation within the text (e.g., at 29:10), and sometimes it omits phrases of the Arabic text. In general, it is significantly more difficult to derive from the Latin than from the Arabic an exact idea just what it is that Averroes had in mind. Unquestionably the most interesting aspect of Averroes' treatise is the light it sheds... (shrink)

Löwe and von Hartel have drawn attention to the striking similarity between R's contents and those of a lost manuscript bequeathed by Philippe d' Harcourt to the library at Bee. This manuscript is described in a twelfth-century catalogue as follows:7 ‘in alio Seneca de naturalibus questionibus et Adelermus Batensis [Adhelardus Bathonensis Becker), Proba vates, Aurea Capra, et liber Hildeberti Turonensis archiepiscopi de dissensione interioris et exterioris hominis, et sermones eius et uita ipsius.’.

Löwe and von Hartel have drawn attention to the striking similarity between R's contents and those of a lost manuscript bequeathed by Philippe d' Harcourt to the library at Bee. This manuscript is described in a twelfth-century catalogue as follows:7 ‘in alio Seneca de naturalibus questionibus et Adelermus Batensis [Adhelardus Bathonensis Becker), Proba vates, Aurea Capra, et liber Hildeberti Turonensis archiepiscopi de dissensione interioris et exterioris hominis, et sermones eius et uita ipsius.’.

Los summaria alexandrinorum (conocidos como ǧawāmiʿ al-iskandarāniyyīn en árabe) son resúmenes de obras galénicas que solo sobreviven en versiones hebreas o árabes. Tradicionalmente, estas traducciones se han atribuido a Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (s. IX) y se han vinculado a la enseñanza de la medicina en la Alejandría de los siglos VI y VII. En este artículo presentamos la edición de uno de estos ǧawāmiʿ al-iskandarāniyyīn, en concreto el compendio árabe del De simplicium medicamentorum facultatibus de Galeno que se (...) conserva en el manuscrito Huntington 600/2 de la Bodleian Library de Oxford. Con la publicación de este texto inédito pretendemos contribuir a comprender mejor la naturaleza y el origen de este tipo de textos, así como a facilitar su consulta y estudio por parte de otros especialistas. Añadimos una breve introducción sobre los summaria alexandrinorum y su importancia en la enseñanza y la transmisión de la medicina en la Edad Media, seguida de una serie de apuntes acerca del De simpl. med. fac. A continuación, se describe el manuscrito fuente tanto en forma como en contenido y se fijan los criterios de edición. Asimismo, se han extraído del texto los usos y las características más comunes de la farmacopea galénica. Con el fin de ofrecer una edición rigurosa, se ha cotejado el texto con la traducción completa del De simpl. med. fac. al árabe, así como con otros tratados de simples andalusíes. (shrink)

Les travaux coraniques de Guglielmo Raimmondo Moncada, alias Flavius Mithridate (circa 1440-1489 ?), converti judéo-sicilien au parcours complexe et maître d'hébreu, d'araméen et d'arabe de Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, ont fait l'objet d'appréciations contradictoires, oscillant entre l'exaltation et la dépréciation. Une analyse de l'activité de collation, de traduction et de commentaire effectuée par Moncada (et d'autres mains) sur le coran « judéo-arabe » Vat. Ebr. 357 dévoile l'association étroite entre les aspects a priori les plus déroutants de la coranologie « (...) moncadienne » et son contexte de formation linguistique et culturelle, entraînant un réexamen de ce qui reste probablement le dossier le plus riche concernant l'étude du Coran en contexte italien à la fin du XVe siècle. (shrink)

Liber de orbe, attributed to Māshā'allāh (d.c.815), a court astrologer of the Abbasid dynasty, was one of the earliest Latin sources of Aristotelian physics. Until recently, its Arabic original could not be identified among Arabic works. Through extensive examination of Arabic manuscripts on exact sciences, I found two manuscripts containing the Arabic text of this Latin work, although neither of them is ascribed to Māshā'allāh: Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Ms. or. oct. 273, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania University Library, MS LJS 439. (...) In this paper, I describe these two manuscripts in great detail, so that I confirm their originality of theLiber de orbe, and then by analysing the contents of the Arabic text, I deny the attribution to Māshā'allāh, and identify the title and author asBook on the Configuration of the Orbby Dūnash ibn Tamīm, a disciple of Isaac Israeli (c.855–c.955). (shrink)

Recently, in ‘An inquiry on Fakhr al-Dīn Rāzī’s authorship of Al-manṭiq al-kabι¯r (MS Aḥmad iii, no. 3401)’, we refuted the quite common view among historians of Arabic logic as to attribute Al-manṭiq al-kabι¯r (Major [book on] logic) to Fakhr al-dīn Rāzī; however, in that paper, we could not identify the real author of the book. In this paper, we try to show that Al-manṭiq al-kabι¯r was written by Burhān al-dīn Nasafī (1203–1288), who authored another book, Sharḥ Asās al-kiyāsa whose logical (...) part is very similar to Al-manṭiq al-kabι¯r in the following significant features: the titles of chapters and sections, the style of writing, some technical as well as some non-technical terms, many sentences word by word. None of these features we find in any other Arabic logical work. So, Al-manṭiq al-kabι¯r and Sharḥ Asās al-kiyāsa are so close to each other that we might most possibly identify the authors of the books as the same scholar, i.e. Burhān al-dīn Nasafī. Fortunately, this has been verified recently by two manuscripts of a medieval Arabic logical book. (shrink)

Necromancy, the practice of conjuring and controlling evil spirits, was a popular pursuit in the courts and cloisters of late medieval and early modern Europe. Books that gave details on how to conduct magical experiments circulated widely. Written pseudonymously under the name of the astrologer and translator Michael Scot, Latin MS 105 from the John Rylands Library, Manchester, is notable for the inclusion, at the beginning of the manuscript, of a corrupted, unreadable text that purports to be the Arabic original. (...) Other recensions of the handbook, which generally travelled under the pseudo-Arabic title of Almuchabola Absegalim Alkakib Albaon, also stressed the experiments non-Western origins. Using Latin MS 105 as the main case study, this article aims to investigate the extent to which a magic books paratextual data conveyed a sense of authority to its contemporary audience. (shrink)

Written in the 12th century in Arabic by a faithful Jewish man, "The Guide" is a work that explores the contradiction a very intelligent mind clearly saw between the tradition he was raised to believe inherently and the growing philosophy of Arabian and Western culture. In Maimonides' time, there was an emerging disparity between the Law and a new level of philosophical sophistication, which he attempts to bridge in this work, primarily through the use of metaphor, though also acknowledging this (...) method's limitations. "The Guide" follows the form of a three-volume letter to a student, which was quickly translated to Hebrew and spread throughout the known world and carefully read by Jews and non-Jewish philosophers alike well through the Middle Ages. This work was so successful in its organization and arguments that it has long been a classic of the Jewish religion and of the secular world of philosophy. (shrink)

A lexicon of Hebrew terms and their Romance equivalents from Maimónides’ treatise on logic and philosophy, al-Maqālah fi-ṣināʻat al-manṭiq, circulated in Hebrew aljamiado among Jews and conversos immersed in 15th-century humanism. This lexicon is one of several texts included in a manuscript which also includes literary works by converso authors such as Alfonso de la Torre’s Visión deleytable and Alfonso de Cartagena’s translation of sentenciae by Seneca, as well as three other philosophical lexicons. This collection of texts recorded in MS (...) Parma 2666 reveals that 15th-century Jews and/or conversos –the only people capable of reading the Hebrew aljamiado– read and interpreted De la Torre’s Visión in the context of the Judeo-Arabic philosophical tradition, which is also the basis for Maimónides’ Manṭiq, available in Hebrew and Latin translations. In this article I examine how the philosophic vocabulary developed in al-Manṭiq, accessible in Romance in the lexicons in MS Parma 2666, reflects the Maimonidean epistemology as it survived and developed among 15th-century Jewish and converso readers of the Visión deleytable. (shrink)

In his paper ‘The wrong text of Euclid: on Heiberg's text and its alternatives', published in 1996, W.R. Knorr resuscitated the debate which had taken place in the 1880s between the orientalist M. Klamroth and the editor of Euclid's Elements, J.L. Heiberg. In nuce the debate concerned the fundamental question of which manuscript tradition of the Elements should be assigned textual anteriority: the Greek tradition or the Arabic tradition. Whereas Klamroth argued for the latter position, Heiberg, whose view became the (...) prevailing one, endorsed the anteriority of the Greek tradition. (shrink)

In his catalogue of Arabic manuscripts at the Université St. Joseph, Beirut, L. Cheiko describes MS 223,20 as follows: Traité d'Aristanés (?) sur la construction des deux moyennes proportionelles par la méthode de la géométrie fixe. The purpose of this note is to point out that the tract mentioned is actually an Arabic translation of a letter concerning the construction of two mean proportionals between two given straight lines, purporting to be by Eratosthenes, and of which several copies are extant.

Dans son histoire, la philosophie a traversé des périodes de grande effervescence. Le milieu du XIIIe siècle en Europe est une de ces périodes: ayant désormais accès à la plupart des textes grecs et arabes en traduction latine, les philosophes de cette époque se sont livrés à un travail d’acculturation intense. Encore empreints de l’enseignement philosophique dispensé sur le modèle des sept arts libéraux, ils ont petit à petit intégré le corpus péripatéticien dans un cadre institutionnel en voie de constitution, (...) le cadre universitaire et, plus particulièrement, au sein de la Faculté des arts. (shrink)

The manuscript preserved in the Bibliothèque National de France, arabe 4235 is a fragmentary copy of Abū ‘Alī l-Qālī’s al-Bāri‘ and belonged to a certain Ibrāhīm b. Ḥumām Ibn Aḥmad. Although we know nothing about him, we have information about his father, Ḥumām Ibn Aḥmad al-Uṭrūš, who lived in Cordoba between 357/968 and 421/1030. He was a professor of Language and Poetry and, at the same time, he copied books for living during the crisis of the cordovan Caliphate. A marginal (...) note in f.22b, in a personal codex of Abū ‘Alī l-Qālī allows the author to believe that the manuscript comes from a privileged Cordovan environment. The orthographic and philological care with which the copy was made, as well as the graphic style makes also evident that the manuscript was the work of a language professor and not of an expert copyist. The context of its production and the data provided by a codicological and paleographical analysis, make also clear that the dating of this manuscript should be the end of the IV/X century or the beginning of next century. (shrink)

The Arabic text of Boethus fr. 44 Rashed has, pace Rashed, a parallel in a Greek scholium to Galen's De elementis ex Hippocratis sententia. The scholium occurs in the sets of scholia to De elem. in Paris BNF suppl. gr. 634 and in El Escorial Φ.II.15. The former set was edited by G. Helmreich in Handschriftliche Studien zu Galen, vol. I. The relevant passage occurs in Π fol. 21 r ult. – v 3 and in Σ fol. 136 r (...) 7-11. The polysyllogism ascribed to Boethus reads: τὸ ὅμοιον ὑπὸ τοῦ ὁμοίου γινώσκεται. ἡ αἴσθησις τὰ στοιχεῖα γινώσκει. ἡ αἴσθησις ἄρα ὁμοία τοῖς στοιχείοις … ἡ αἴσθησις ὁμοία τοῖς στοιχείοις. τὸ ὅμοιον ἐκ τοῦ ὁμοίου [γινώσκεται]. ἡ αἴσθησις ἄρα ἐκ τῶν στοιχείων [γινώσκεται]. (shrink)

This chapter discusses about the description of two manuscripts MS 139a and MS 139b. It explains about the typescript TS 207. The manuscript of MS 139a is held at the Wren Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. It comprises 12 loose sheets written in pencil, both in recto and in verso, with many corrections and marks. The content is oriented in landscape position with the original binding edge at the bottom. The manuscript of MS 139b is held at the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, (...) Vienna. The manuscript comprises 10 loose sheets written in pencil, both in recto and verso, except for the last page, which is written solely in recto. The typescript TS 207 is held at the Wren Library of Trinity College, Cambridge. The text bears neither title nor date. They are numbered with Arabic numerals typed in the upper left corner and handwritten in the upper right corner. (shrink)

Among the graphic peculiarities that the manuscript T 235 presents, the famous Alcoran in letter of the Christians kept in the Library of Castilla-La Mancha, it is noticeable the use of the abbreviation al̶h. to translate the term Allāh. Examined the different techniques used to that end in other manuscripts in Latin characters coming from the different Hispanic Islamic communities between the 16th and 17th centuries, ranging from non-translation to the equivalent coined and through the loan with different transcripts, we (...) propose an interpretation of the aforementioned abbreviation in terms of intersemiotic translation, i.e. as a reduction to a simple visual form that aims to keep in the Spanish version the fiction of retaining the term Allāh in its original form in Arabic spelling by means of Latin characters. (shrink)

Pretendemos, en este trabajo, mostrar cómo la erudición orientalista de árabes cristianos venidos a España desde Oriente (a través de Italia) se aproximó a la literatura de los moriscos, cómo la entendió y para qué la utilizó. Mostramos que estos eruditos, de entre los que elegimos los casos de Marcos Dobelio y Miguel Casiri, no pudieron realizar su trabajo orientalista, que se basa en una fuerte vinculación con los manuscritos árabes de la Biblioteca de El Escorial, sin evitar el (...) problema morisco en forma de su producción escrita aparecida en diversos fondos requisados por la Inquisición. Sus saberes y su actividad sirven para trazar los contornos amplios de una historia intelectual de la lengua árabe en Europa, en la que el hecho morisco es interpretado en función de sus variables lingüsticas y doctrinales, a partir de la constitución de una disciplina erudita (el orientalismo), en medio de las polémicas religiosas entre Reforma y Contrarreforma, a partir, en fin, de la historia de la disidencia religiosa y del escepticismo en la Europa Moderna. (shrink)

En este artículo tratamos da reconstruir la vida de Diego de Urrea, uno de los traductores e intérpretes más importantes de finales del s. XVI y principios del XVII en España. Sus actividades como catedrático en Alcalá de Henares, traductor de los Plomos del Sacromonte, catalogador de los manuscritos árabes de El Escorial, negociador intermediario y espía en asuntos marroquíes, hacen de él una figura paradigmática de lo que significó en su época el conocimiento y la utilización del (...) class='Hi'>árabe, como instrumento para cuestiones de importancia política y estratégica inmediata y también en su dimensión humanística y académica. (shrink)

It is quite common among historians of Arabic logic to attribute MS Aḥmad iii, no. 3401, entitled Al-manṭiq al-kabīr, to Fakhr al-Dīn Rāzī. This view is expressed explicitly...

It is well known that Maimonides rejects the Kalam argument for the existence of God because it assumes the temporal creation of the world, a premise for which he says there is no “cogent demonstration (burhan qat'i) except among those who do not know the difference between demonstration, dialectics, and sophistic argument.”Moses Maimonides, The Guide of the Perplexed, trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), I:71:180. All references are to this translation; parenthetic in-text references are to part, chapter, (...) and page. By contrast, he claims to establish belief in the existence of God “through a demonstrative method as to which there is no disagreement in any respect” (I:71:182). Taken at his word, Maimonides’ proofs for the existence of the deity, like Aquinas’s five ways, have traditionally been read as models of medieval natural theology: of the power of human reason to independently establish revealed truth. In recent years, however, the same demonstrations have assumed a second kind of significance. For scholars, like myself, who argue that Maimonides holds severe views about the limitations of human knowledge of divine science and metaphysics, these demonstrations are the strongest conceivable counterevidence.The locus classicus for this view is Shlomo Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge According to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. I Twersky, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), I:82–109. See also his “Les Limites de la Métaphysique selon Al-Farabi, ibn Bajja et Maimonide; Sources et Antitheses de ces Doctrines chez Alexandre d’Aphrodise et Chez Themistius,” Miscellanea Mediaevalia 13 (1981): 211–25; “Dieu et L’Etre Selon Maimonide: Exégese d’Exode 3,14 et doctrine connexe,” in Celui qui est: Interprétations juives et chrétiennes d’Exode 3, 14, ed. A. de Libera et E. Zum Brunn (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf [Collection “Patrimoines”], 1986), 15–24; and “The Relation between Maimonides’ Halakhic and non-Halakhic Works,” in Maimonides and Philosophy, ed., S. Pines and Y. Yovel (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987). Pines concludes, on the basis of the limitations of the intellect with respect to knowledge of metaphysics, that Maimonides, like Kant, gives priority to the practical over the theoretical. For arguments drawing different ‘skeptical’ conclusions, see my “Maimonides in the Skeptical Tradition,” ms.; “Maimonides on the Growth of Knowledge and the Limitations of the Intellect,” to appear in Tony Levy, ed., Maimonide: Traditions philosophiques et scientifiques médievales arabe, hébraique, latine; “Logical Syntax as a Key to a Secret of the Guide of the Perplexed,” (in Heb.), Iyyun 38 (1989): 137–66; “Maimonides on Language and the Science of Language,” in Maimonides and the Sciences, ed., H. Levine and R. Cohen (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2000), pp. 173–226; and The Matter and Form of Maimonides’ Guide (forthcoming). If Maimonides really held that humans cannot apprehend metaphysical truths about the deity, how could he have demonstrated (or even thought he could demonstrate) the existence of God? If he does demonstrate it, then humans evidently do have knowledge of metaphysics. As one distinguished scholar has recently protested, it is nothing less than “perverse” to interpret Maimonides as “meaning that the existence of God is unknowable when he in fact prides himself on having demonstrated the existence of God in four different ways.”Herbert A. Davidson, “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge,” Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992–1993): 49–103, 86. See also Alfred L. Ivry, “The Logical and Scientific Premises of Maimonides’ Thought,” in Perspectives on Jewish Thought and Mysticism, ed. Alfred L. Ivry, Elliot R. Wolfson, and Allan Arkush (Amsterdam: Harwood Publishers, 1998), pp. 63–97, 70. (shrink)

Within Emile Littreés classification of Hippocratic works, class ten consists of three lost works, two of which appear to have been treatises on the treatment of serious wounds and on the extraction of arrows. The sources for their titles—Erotian, Galen, an eleventh-century Arabic MS and the twelfth-century MS Vat.graec.276–disagree on minor points, but it is clear that they are all referring to the same works.

The Tahāfut al-tahāfut is Averroes' response to the Tahāfut al-falāsifa written by Abū Hāmid al-Ghazālī. The work in its Latin translation from the Arabic was entitled Destructio destructionum, and an incomplete edition of this translation was published by Agostino Nifo in 1497.The MS. Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, VIII E 31, unknown until now to scholars, belonged to Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. It is a manuscript of the Destructio destructionum, translated into Latin in 1328 by Calonymos ben Calonymos ben Meir of Arles (...) for Robert of Anjou, and extensively annotated by Pico. The manuscript differs from Nifos' edition in that it also includes the second part of the Destructio destructionum with the until-now unpublished disputations on the natural sciences. (shrink)