Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY - De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series I volume 13) Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna), Jules L. Janssens-An Annotated Bibliography on Ibn Sînâ (1970-1989). Including Arabic and Persian Pu.pdf
(ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY - De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series I volume 13) Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna), Jules L. Janssens-An Annotated Bibliography on Ibn Sînâ (1970-1989). Including Arabic and Persian Pu.pdf
( 1970-1989)
Including Arabic and Persian Publications
and Turkish and Russian References
ANCIENT AND MEDIEVAL PHILOSOPHY
DE WULF-MANSION CENTRE
Series 1
XIII
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ON IBN SiNA
(1970-1989)
Leuven
University Press
1991
To Father G.c. ANAWAl1
Preface XI
Introduction XIII
p. Personal Letters 72
q. Varia 73
WORKS
AN.: ANAWATI G.C., Mu'alla/fit Ibn Sfnfi (Mahrajfin Ibn Sfnfi). Cairo,
Dar al-Ma'arif, 1950.
BADAWI, Histoire: A. BADAWI. Jlistoire de la philosophie en Islam.
Paris, Vrin, 1972.
GUTAS, Avicenna: D. GUTAS, Avicenna and the Aristotelian
Tradition. Introduction to Reading Avicenna's Philosophical
Works (I.P. T., 4). Leiden, Brill, 1988.
XVIII ABBREVIATIONS
GENERAL ABREVIATIONS
A.: Author
S.: Summary
Acc. to: According to
(N.C.): Not Consulted
List of Journals
Falsafat (Tehran)
Farhang-i Iran Zamin (Tehran)
Farmak. i Toksik. : Farmakologiya i Toksikologiya (Moscow)
Fel'dsher Akush. : Fel'dsher i Akusherka (Moscow)
Felsefe Arkivi (Istanbul)
Al-fikr al-'arabi (Beirut)
Fikrun wa-fann (Munich)
Filos. Nauki: Filosofskie Nauki (Moscow)
Fiziol. Zh. : Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal (Moscow)
Fiziol. Zh. SSR. : Fiziologicheskii Zhurnal SSR. lmemi I.M. Sechenova
(Moscow)
Fragua (Madrid)
Keletkutatas (Budapest)
Kardiologiya (Moscow)
Khirurgiya (Moscow)
Klin. Khir. : Klinicheskaya Khirurgiya (Kiev)
KIin. Med. : Klinicheskaya meditsina (Moscow)
Konevi (Ankara)
Koroth. A Bulletin Devoted to the History of Medicine and Science
(Haifa)
KOS (Milano)
Qa~Hiya'arabiyya (Beirut)
Quaderni di Studi Arabi (Venezia)
Al-lariq (Beirut)
Ter. Arkh. : Terapevticheskii Arkhiv (Moscow)
Al-thaqafa al-islamiyya (Damas)
The Thomist (Washington)
Toplum ve Hekim (Istanbul)
TTKB: Turk Tarikh Kurumu Belleten (Ankara)
Tunis med. : Tunis medical (Tunis)
Al-turath al-'arabi (Damas)
Yuval (Jerusalem)
Works-Editions and
Translations
(and Related Studies)
I. COLLECTIVE WORKS
(3) NADER A., Al-nafs al-bashariyya 'inda Ibn Sfna. Beirut, Dar al-
Machreq, 1968,31985,116 pp. - Abbreviated: NADER, Al-nafs.
includes several fragments of major and minor works. - Abbreviated: NADER,
al-nafs
1. AI-Mantiq (Logic)
2. At-Tabi'iyyiit (Physics)
3. AI-Riya9iyyat (Mathematics)
Psychologie d'Ibn Sfna (Avicenne), d'apres son luvre al-Shifa. Ed. and
Trans!. J. BAKOS. Prague, 1956. Repr. Paris, Ed. patriln. arabe et is!.;
Beirut, M.A.J.D., 1982 (only the volume of the edition).
Note: NADER, al-naJs, contains the text of De Anima, I, 1 (partly) and I, 2. E.
HOLMYARD's edition of parts ofII, 5 (to know: Maq. I, ch. 1 and 5, ace. to the
Cairo-cd.), in: Avicennae De Congelatione et Conglutinatione Lapidum. Paris,
1927, 69-86, was reprinted (together with the other parts of the work) at New
York, AMS Press, 1982 (and perhaps at Manford, Santarasa, 1986).
Noteworthy is also the edition by M. MOHAGHEH of M. NARAQI's (d. 1764)
6 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLAnONS
shar~ al-Ilahiyyat min Kitab al-Shifa (Wisdom of Persia, 34). Tehran, Tehran
Univ. Press, 1986 (A. clearly indicates the verbatim citations by Nadiqi of I.S.'s
text).
1. Logic
(1) AHRAM, A., Ibn Sina, Shifa, Al-Man(iq, b. I, 1-5 (Transl. into
Persian), in: Sophia Perennis, 12 (75), 23-27.
A. presents a good translation into Persian of the first book, chapters 1-5 of the
Isagoge of I.S., but offers no comments or notes.
(3) ID., Avicenna on the Division of the Sciences in the Imgoge of his
Shifa, in: JIIAS, 4 2 (80), 239-251.
A critical translation of chapter 2 of book 1 of the l'Wgoge is given in this paper --
the text is divided into several parts, and each part receives special comments
(see: Logic, C3).
(3) XROMOV, L., Book of the Soul (Russ. trans!.), in: ASIMOV,
Selected Phi/os. Works, 383-522.
8 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
(3) HORTEN, M., Avicennas Lehre vom Regenbogen nach seinen Werk
al-Shifa (mit Bemerkungen von E. WIEDEMANN), in: E.
WIEDEMANN, Gesammelte Schriften zur arabisch-islamischen
Wissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main, Inst. Gesch. Arab.-Isl. Wiss.,
Goethe Univ., 1984, 733-744.
Repr. of this transl. of Meteorology, Il, 2-3, originally published in:
Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 30 (13), 533-544.
Study
Finally, A. observes that I.S. innovates, when he links the meteorological and the
geological phenomena together, although remaining faithful to the scientific
principles of Aristotle.
It is worth mentioning that A. considers the Latin De Mineralibus to be a
selection of fragments of I.S.'s Meteorologica, 1 and 5 instead of a proper
translation. (Hereby, A. asks some pertinent questions!) A very valuable
paper.
Ill. Metaphysics
Although A. does not offer a complete translation of a whole chapter, his partial
translations (accompanied by a paraphrase, or a summary of the other parts of
the chapter) deserve attention, whenever they significantly differ from An.awati's
(see supra) (and undoubtedly even constitute valuable alternatives to it), or from
the Arabic text of the Cairo, I960-ed. However, and unfortunately, A. never
explicitly indicates when, and for what reason he differs from the printed Arabic
text.
(3) HYMAN, A., Translation of Shijd, Met., I, 6-7, VI, 1-2, in: A.
HYMAN and J. WALSH (Eds), Philosophy in the Middle Ages. The
Christian, Islamic and Jewish Traditions. Indianapolis, Hackett Publ.,
1970, 240-254.
Although this translation may in general be qualified as accurate, it is obvious
(in the light of 2) that it needs further improvement. One surely must regret the
absence of any explanatory notes (besides the basic description of the different
chapters, given by A. in an introductory section, 233-240, esp. 237-240).
Shifa-Avicenna Latinus
this book from the unique Vat. U rb. lat. 186-manuscript. Very useful, until the
final critical publication appears.
- E. HOLMYARD-D. MANDEVILLE, Maximi philosophorum Aristo-
telis De Mineralibus, in: ID., Avicennae de Congelatione et
C'onglutinatione Lapidum. Paris, 1927. Repr. New York, AMS, 1982,
45-55.
Offers the text of selections of I.S.'s Meteorologica, see: Garcia-Junceda, supra:
Natural Sciences, study-I.
Last but not least, we must mention the fundamental catalogue of the
manuscripts of the Avicenna Latinus, prepared by M.-TH.
D'ALVERNY, and published in 11 parts in the Archives d'Histoire
doetrinale et litteraire du Moyen Age, between 1961 and 1972. Its last
two volumes were published in AIIDLMA, 37 (70), 327-361 and 39
(72), 321-341.
One cannot overemphasize the exceptional value of these parts, completing an
unique catalogue, made according to the same principles as those of the
Aristoteles Latinus. Its importance is stressed several times by S. Van Riet, the
editor of the critical edition of the Avicenna Latinus. A. sometimes received help
from other scholars and always generously acknowledged their contributions, as
is shown in her: Richard Hunt and Avicenna Latinus, in : M. DE LA MARE and
B. BARKER-BENFIELD (Eds), Manuscripts at Oxford: An Exhibition in
Memory ofR. W Hunt. Oxford, BodI. Ubr., 1980,51-53. Nevertheless, the main
work is hers.
A brief, but important kind of supplement to the catalogue, is offered by A. in
her: Les traductions d'Avicenne. Quelques resultats d'une enquete, in: v:
Congr. Int. d'Arabisants et d'Islamisants. (Corr. d'Orient, 11). Bruxelles, Publ.
Centre et probl. du monde musulman cont., 1970, 151-158. In it, A. describes
some movements of translation, and different ways of distributing the
.manuscripts, and indicates topics for further investigation.
14 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLAnONS
Note: Important passages of the Ahwal are included in the Ma'ar(j (see:
Ibn Sfna and other Arabic Authors, 42), inter alia the entire section 13
(for its importance: see MICHOT, Prophetie (cited supra), 511-512).
- ZAYOUR 'A. has edited this text in: Al- 'irfan, 19702' 1212 and 19703'
1427-1446. (N.C.)
interesting, and very accurate (but one has to judge case by case).
A very meritorious work, but some caution is required when used.
Studies
(1) ACHENA, M., art. Avicenna. Persian Works, in: Enc. Ir., 99-
104.
Ace. to A., besides the medical Treatise On the Science of the Pulse, Andar
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 17
.dimesh-e rag, the only authentic Persian work by I.S. is the Diinesh-Nameh, Book
of Science. A. insists that both of them were intended as introductory manuals
for uninitiated persons. Further, A. offers a very detailed survey of the contents
of both works (presenting some comparisons with the Canon, resp. Najat and
Ishiiriit). Finally A. remarks that I.S. breaks more frankly with the Aristotelian
conceptions and tradition in the Danesh-Niimeh than in the Shifa, and offers
some concrete evidence for it. It may be noted that A. also mentions some
Persian poems, ascribed to I.S. (but only a few appear to be authentic), as well as
no less than 7 apocryphal treatises, usually ascribed to I.S.
A very valuable basic presentation of I.S.'s Persian works.
- MEHREN's 1891 partial edition of the last section has been reprinted
in: Traites (cf. Infra, Minor Works, a 5).
- Note: The comments of JUsi and F. aI-din Riizi seem to have been
published (in Arabic, or in Persian translation), at Qom, M. Ayiit Allah
Mar'ashi, 1985 (in one volume, or in 2 separate volumes?).
- INATI, SH., Ibn Sfna. Remarks and Admonitions. Part one: Logic.
Translated from the original Arabic with an Introduction and Notes
(Medieval Sources in Transl., 28). Toronto, Pont. Inst. of Med. Stud.,
1984, XI + 165 pp.
This translation provokes ambiguous feelings. On the one hand, it is clear that A.
does not take the same liberties with the text as Goichon's 1951-translation. But,
on the other hand, it is also clear that A. makes pertinent mistakes, due to
obvious misreadings (on several occasions, Goichon's translation appears to be
more correct). A.'s introduction outlines quite well the basic structures and ideas
of the logical part of the Isharat.
Notwithstanding some evident merits, this translation deserves to be treated
with caution.
Note
_.. DIDAl! S., Ibn Sfna riwayat Ashkevarf va-Ardakanf (Ibn Sfna,
according to the Tradition of Ashkevarf and Ardakanf). Tehran, Int.
20 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Amir Kabir, 1985, 61-109, offers the text of what seems to be A.'s
slightly reworked version of Ardakanl's 18th C. Persian translation of
Ashkevari 17th C. Arabic comment on the N. 9 and 10 -of the
Isharat.
Russian translation
- Al-mabda' wa al-ma 'ad (The Beginning and the End) by Ibn i Sina.
Ed. A. NURANI (Wisdom of Persia, 36). Tehran. Mc. Gill Univ., Inst.
of Is!. Stud., Tehran Univ., 1984, 121 pp.
A. offers the first printed edition of this early work of I.S. Ace. to the
introduction, A. used three manuscripts in preparing his edition, but there is
reason to believe that he may have used only one single manuscript (1. Michot
who is preparing a critical French translation of the whole work thus orally
informed me). If only one manuscript was used, it might explain why there is no
critical apparatus. Moreover, A. overlooked that the first part has almost
completely been reproduced in the Naja!. Thus it is obvious that the edition is in
need of serious improvement.
Very meritorious, but one cannot bypass the many deficiencies of the
edition.
- MICHOT, Destinee, passim (see Index, 232 -- see also 237 for
concordance with Nurani), presents the French translation of large
extracts.
Very fine translation.
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 21
- Alpago (see Minor Works, al), lr-39v gives the renaissance Latin
translation.
- BADAWI, A. has edited this text in his Aris(u 'inda al- 'Arab. Cairo,
1947, 122-239, 1-500, now reprinted at Kuwait, Wakalat
al-matbu'at, 1978.
22 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
- MICHOT, J., Destim!e, passim (see: index, 232), has translated into
French the 259, 252 (almost complete), 353, 355, 365, 366, 378, 464
and 468 (as well as some parts of 274, 348, 364, 368, 383, 425,
427).
- ID., Cultes (see Psychology, 17), App. Il, 230-233 contains the
translation of 457 and 467.
A very fine translation - the equilibrium between literality and philosophical
sense is striking.
(Int. Diin. Tehran, 1863). Tehran, Daneshgah Tehran, 1985, 120 + 783
pp.
A. provides an entirely new edition of the NCtjCtt. For his edition, A. used 5 mss.
(of different origin, but all present at Tehran on microfilm), of which Daneshgah
Tehran, 1348 has functioned as the basic manuscript. Of the mathematical parts,
reconstructed by Juzjani after I.S.'s death, A. has only provided a facsimile-
reproduction (not always very clear!) of the folio's of the J)Ctneshgah~manuscript.
For the edition of the other parts, A. has also taken into account the Cairo, 1913-
edition (and moreover seems to have consulted the Cairo, 1938-edition, as well
as the Rome, 1593-edition). In the long introduction (1-103), A. concentrates on
the reception of Aristotle in the Arabic world, especially the problems
surrounding the dialectical method, as well as the composition of the
metaphysics (A. scarcely mentions I.S. in this context). In the last part of the
introduction (70 ff.), A. presents a lot of bibliographical data and gives many
indications about manuscripts in Iranian libraries. A. also discusses the relation
between the Najat and other writings of I.S. (but compare in this respect
GUTAS, Avicenna, 112-114).
A very important edition, insofar as it offers new perspectives for a better
understanding of the Najat (at least, by presenting valuable alternative readings).
As such, an important step in the direction of a fully critical edition.
Note:
- NADER, Al-najs, 53-112, includes the complete text of the
psychological part, as well as one chapter of the metaphysical part.
- FERNANDEZ, CL., Los FilosoJos medievales (see supra, Av. lat.), 595-
618 presents the Spanish translation of fragnlents of the metaphysical
part.
This translation is directly based on Carame's 1926-Latin translation.
Polish translation
Study
- IBN SINA, AI-Qanun ,ff 'I-(ibb. Pub!. with Comm. and Index by I.
AL-QASHSH. Introd. by 'A. ZAYOUR. 5 vo!. in 3, plus Index vo!.
Altogether 4 vo!. Beirut, M. 'az aI-din, 1987, Ak + 18 (Fr) + 2498,285
pp.
A. copies the Bftlaq-text, but offers a much more readable text, insofar as he
enlarges the characters of the BUlaq-edition. Moreover, he adds some significant
explanatory notes. But, above all, the index volume largely facilitates the
accessibility of the text. It offers systematic lists of all named physicians, as well
as of all mentioned single and composed drugs, metals, plants and animals.
Moreover, it surveys all words, which have either a Persian or a Greek origin.
Finally, it presents a basic bibliography.
A valuable work notwithstanding its offering no really new edition. For the three
parts of the introduction (none of which is of a properly medical nature!), see:
General Studies, B 8 and C 71; and Politics and Ethics, 17.
- A'SAM, 'A. has edited a list of simple drugs, based on Canon, Il, 2,
according to a hand-written original (extant in Baghdad) of an 18th C.
author, S. IBN AI:JMAD, in his: Al-adwiya al-mufrada .If kitdb ((A 1-
Qanunfi 'l-(ibb" li-ibn Sfna. Baghdad, Jami'at aI-Baghdad, 1984,21986,
214 pp.
At first sight, a very complete list of all simple drugs, mentioned in Canon, n. An
essential description of the basic characteristics of each simple drug is given (A.
clearly tries to respect as much as possible the specificity of I.S.'s approach). It
may be noted that there is always a precise reference to the pagenumbers of the
BuHiq-edition.
Worth considering for the study (and edition) of b. Il of the Canon.
Comments-editions
Qamln-Hebraic tradition
Note
Qamln-Latin tradition
Studies
Modern translations
English
French
Persian
IBN SINA. Qanun dar (ibb. K. I, 11, Ill, 1 and 2. Transl. 'A.
SHARAFKANDI; Notes by A. PAKDAMEN and M. GAFFARI. 4 vol.
Tehran, Sorush, 1984, 1986, 1988-'89. (There seems to have been a
previous publication of the translation of b. I - Tehran, 'Erfani, 1978),
XV-527; 382; 576 + 440 pp.
A good translation, although the translator seems to use too modern terms for
rendering I.S.'s concepts Ca tendency even more evident in the notes by A.
Pakdamen and M. Gaffari). So, when used, caution is required.
Russian
Turkish
IBN SINA. $ifali bitkiler ve emraz. Al-kanunfi'l tibb isinli eserinden ila9
formiilleri (Medicinal Plants and Diseases. Formulae of Treatment,
Derived from the Work, called Canon). Ed. and trans!. A. PAMUK. 2
vo!. Istanbul, Ergin Offset, 1981, 293; 470 pp.
Urdu
Note
Book I
Book III
DE KONING, P., Traite sur le calcul dans les reins et dans la vessie par
A.B. al-Razf und weitere Texte zum gleichen Thema von al-Razi, al
Magusi, Ibn Hubal, Ibn Sina und al-Zahrawl. Hsg. F. SEZGIN (Veroff
Inst. Gesch. Arab.-Iril. Wiss., Reihe B. Abt. Med., B 2), Leyde, 1896.
Repr. Frankfurt am Main, Inst. Gesch. Arab.-Is!. Wiss., Goethe Ulliv.,
1986, 228-267 offers the French translation of Canon Ill, 18-19.
Note:
In volume 4 of the same work, four Ph.-D. theses are reprinted, all
directed by J. Hirschberg and all presenting the translation of one tract
of the third fenn of the Canon (These translations are based 011 the
Latin edition), i.e. :
CUEVA, J., Die Augenheilkunde des Avicenna. Nach der lateinischen
Uebersetzung des Kanon, Venedig 1564 (Buch Ill, Fen 3), zum
erstenmal ins Deutsche ubertragen. Berlin, 1899 (pp. 477-514, translates
Ill, 3, 1).
USPENSKY, P., Die Augenheilkunde des Avicenna. Nach dem ({Liber
34 WORKS~EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Book IV
ELTORAI, I., Avicenna's View on Cancer from his Canon, in: Am. J.
Chin. Med., 7 (79), 276-283.
A. offers a rather literal translation of Canon, IV, 3, 2 (the part regarding cancer,
based on the Biilaq-ed., Ill, 136-138, of which A. presents a handwritten copy).
A. also gives a list of the Materia Medica in this context.
Valuable, although some clarifications seem necessary.
Studies
ALl, S., Problems in Translating Al-Qiinun ft'l 'JIbb, in: Stud. Hist.
Med., 5 (81), 310-317; also in: Isl. Q., 25 (81), 122-128.
A. presents the problems a translator of the Canon has to face in an enlightening
way. He insists on the fact that the Canon has been written over several years,
and probably was based on lectures given by 1.S. (A. ascribes a lot of anomalies
in the actual text to this very fact). Moreover, A. judiciously remarks that a great
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 35
Note
Latin translation
English translation
Studies
(1) SIDDIQUI, H. and AZIZ, M., A Note on Ibn Sina's Tract on Cardiac
Drugs, in: Avicenna's Tract on Cardiac Drugs, 79-85.
Reprint from PlantaMedica, 11 (63), Heft 4).
Note:
THAMARI D., Poem on the Causes ofPassions by Ibn Sina, in: Al-mawrid, 144
(85), 243-268 (Ar) offers an annotated edition of a Poem, which he himself
ascribes to I.S., but which is of 'Abd Allah Effendi, as is shown by M. MU-
I;IAMMAD, Comment on the Case of an Edition (The Poem on the Causes of
Passions by Ibn Sina), in: Al-mawrid, 15 3 (86), 221-226 (Ar).
Latin tradition
Translations
Studies
(1) KAYYALI (AL-), T., The Poem of al-shaykh ai-fa' IS Ibn Sina on
Medicine, in: Proc. 1. Int. Symp. IIist. Ar. Science. 2 vol. Aleppo, Inst.
Hist. of Arabic Science, 1977-'78, t. I, 771-785.
After a rather general introduction (in which A. accuses some historians of
having falsified the real impact of the Arabic-Islamic culture), A. briefly
enumerates the editions and translations of the Poem on Medicine, as well as the
basic classical comments on it. Hereafter, A. presents a summary of the Poem,
large extracts are cited and supplemented by (rather obvious) comments.
Good, but rather introductory.
(2) QASSEM, M., Mother and Child in Ibn Sina's Poem, in : Al 'arabf,
Nr. 272 (81), 134-137.
A. has brought together all the verses of the Poem regarding the topic: mother
and child - he always cites the number of the verses, together with their first and
last words.
Of almost no value.
39
c. Minor Warks
(6) SHAMS AL-DIN, 'A., Al-madhhab al-tarbawi 'inda Ibn Sind min
khildl falsatihi al- 'amiliyya (The Paedagogical Doctrine ofIbn Sind, on
the Basis of his Practical Philosophy) (Mausu'a al-tarbiyya wa 'l-ta'lim
al-isldmiyya. q. al-Falosifa). Beirut, Al-sharka al-'alamiyya lil-kitab,
1988, 448 pp. (abbr. Shams ai-din).
No lesser than 23 texts by I.S. are edited (or reprinted) by A. in the second part
of the work (pp. 231 sqq.). The material(s), on which a given text has been
edited, is (are) specified by A. in the first part of his book, although not always in
a very precise manner (several obvious mistakes are present in the references,
offered by A.). Nonetheless, A.'s merits are great, not at least because of his
editing some texts for the first time. Let us still mention that the first part of this
work (esp. pp. 60-169) also includes a kind of commented gloss of I.S.'s Treatise
on Politics, besides some basis remarks on I.S.'s political and moral ideas, as well
as on I.S.'s life.
(7) N.N., Rasd'il shaykh al-ra'is... Ibn Sind. Qom, Intisharat Bidar,
1980, 519 pp. (abbr. Rasd 'il).
Reprint of a lot of minor works from several sources, but especially from
MajmCt' rasa'il al-shaykh al-ra'fs. Hayderabad, 1354 H. (abbr. Majmu'), and
from Jami' al-Bada'f. Cairo, 1917 (abbr. Jami').
b. Autobiography/Biography complex
Editions
GOHLMAN, W., The Life oflbn Sfnti. A Critical Edition and Annotated
Translation. New York, SUNY, 1974, 163 pp.
A. convincingly shows the existence of two traditions regarding the
autobiography/biography of I.S., i.e. the well-known tradition of al-Qiftl-Ibn Abi
U ~ybi'a, and another tradition present in several manuscripts (which form the
basis of this work), and presented La. by al-Kashi. It is obvious that A. has
prepared the Arabic text, and its English translation (as well as the many
explanatory notes) with great care, and that his work may therefore be
considered to be the first really critical edition of the autobiography/biography
complex - notwithstanding the need for some obvious corrections (especially in
the light ofM. Ullmann's critical review of the work, in: Der Islam, 52 (75),148-
151, and also Gutas' translation of the autobiography, see infra).
An important work.
JOHHA, F. and FAKHURI, M., Sfrat lbn Sfna (The Life of lbn Sina).
Damas, s.l., 1981, 87 pp. (Ar) + 36 pp. (Fr).
Authors (who did not have Gohlman's edition at their disposal during the
preparation of their work, but came in touch with it afterwards) explicitly
wanted to present a critical edition of the autobiography/biography complex in
the tradition of al-Qifti-Ibn Abi Usaybi'a (they clearly ignore the other
tradition). For the most part, they have succeeded in their (specific) objective, at
least as far as can be judged from a basic comparison with Gohlman (including
Ullmann's C.R.), although the critical apparatus is rather limited. However, it is
deplorable that the Arabic text has been presented in handwritten characters
instead of the usual printed characters.
For Homsi's French translation, which accompanies this edition, see infra.
Valuable, a useful complement to Gohlman.
Translations
English
French
A valuable translation, but entirely based on the al-Qifti tradition and in need of
more substantial explanatory notes than the ones given by A.
German
BRENTJES, B., Ibn Sfna (see General Studies, A 6), 30-47 otTers a
complete German translation.
An improved version of the translation by P. KRAUS, Eine arabische
Biographie Avicennas, in: Klin. Wochenschr., 11 (38), 1880-1884, repr.
Medizinhist. J., 1 (66), 261-274.
Persian
DIBAJI, S., Ibn Slna... (see supra), 33-57, offers the Persian translation
of the autobiography (provided with many significant annotations),
and of the biography (A. hereby cites some observations of Shahrazilri
and Ashkevari).
Valuable, especially since it brings to the fore some lesser known later Persian
sources.
Russian
- Piruzinoma, 11-34.
c. General Works
3. R. jf aqsam al- 'ulUm al- 'aqliyya (Tr. On the Division of the Intellectual
Sciences) (AN. 4; M. 32)
- Tis', 83-94.
_.. MICHOT, J., Paroles d'Avicenne sur la sagesse, in: Bull. Phi/os. Med.,
19 (77), 45-49 has provided an edition (based on 2 mss.) and a (rather
literal) French translation.
Very valuable.
46 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
- Tis' 63--82.
- AI-turath al~ 'arabf, 2 5_6 (81), MulJ:taq 5-50 offers a copy of a single
manuscript.
A critical, and very valuable translation, of the last section of the Book of
Guidance. It has to be mentioned that A. provides a complete Arabo-French
lexiCon of this section.
Note: The major work ofI.S.'s disciple Bahmanyar ibn Marzban, K. al-
Tab~fl, B. of "Summulae" (AN. 7; M. 143), has been edited by M.
MUTAHHARI at Tehran, Daneshkade--i Ilahiyyat, 1970.
NURANI, A. and DANESH PAZHUH, M. have moreover edited its
(old?) Persian translation, entitled Jam-i Jahan Numay (Wisdom of
Persia, XV). Tehran, Tehran Univ. Press, 1983, 52 + 610 pp.
d. Logical Works
e. Linguistics
- Tis', 105-110.
50 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
f. Poetry
- INAL-SAVI, S., Avicenna and his Persian Quatrains, in: Vlusl. I.s.
Semp., 455-460 (Tu), 461-454 (Pers. Quatrains); 466 (Engl S.).
The summary is not quite clear, but one gets the impression that A. has brought
together as many Persian quatrains by 1.S. as he could find (from various
sources), and discusses in the Turkish introduction the spurious ones.
Note: UNVER, A., Concerning Aphorisms of Ibn Sina, in: Ibn Sfna.
Dogumunun..., 243-248 (Tu), brings together aphorisms of I.S. from
various sources, and presents them in Turkish translation.
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 51
g. Physics
- Tis', 39-54.
- NASR, S.H. and MOHAGHEGH, M., Al-Bfrunf and Ibn Sfna. Al-
As'i!ah wa'l-Ajwibah (Questions and Answers). Including the Further
Answers of al-Bfruni and al-Ma'suml's Defense of Ibn Sina. Tehran,
Univ. Press, 1973, 12,91 pp. (Pers) + 14 pp (1"1').
This edition constitutes an important improvement compared to the Cairo,
1917-edition (Jami', 119-151), for two major reasons: 1. In using two additional
manuscripts, it offers an obviously more critical text of the ten questions
pertaining to Aristotle's De Caelo, and of eight further questions posed by al-
Biruni himself (but cfr. Tanci, regarding the ten questions); 2. It provides more
materials by adding to it the edition of the replica by al-Blrftni, and al-Ma'suml's
reaction against them on behalf of I.S. (based on 2 other mss.).
Very meritorious, and, indeed, valuable, but in need of further refinement as is
shown by Tanci (see infra).
through abstraction and induction, LS. clearly prefers the syllogistic method.
Very valuable.
Note: SEZGIN, GAS, VII, 223 shows that this text is a fragment from
Theophrast's Meteorology.
Rasli'il, 231-236, includes the reprint of Majmu', Tr. 2.
- PINES, S., Nouvelles etudes sur Awpad al-Zaman Abu'l Barakat al-
Baghdadi, in: Studies in Abu'l Barakiit al-Baghdiidf (Coli. Works, I),
Jerusalem, The Magness Press; Leiden, Brill, 1979, 96-173, 138-141.
Reprint from: Memoires de la Societe ]uive, L Paris, 1955, 15-88, 51-54.
.that A. had already paid some attention to this treatise (and offered a partial
translation of it) in his: La conception de soi chez Avicenne et chez Abft'l
Barakat al-Baghdadi, in: AHDLMA, 21 (54),21-98, esp. 22-23 and 96.
h. Psychology
1. R. fi 'l-nafs (Letter on the Soul, also known as: Letter on the Dis-
appearance of the Vain Intelligible Forms ajier Death) (AN. 81; M.
36)
Note: this poem has been printed (most of the time in a very uncritical
way!) and reprinted so many times that it is almost impossible to enu-
merate all editions. Therefore, two (commented) editions are listed:
- KHOLEIF, F., Ibn Sfna wa madhhabuhu if 'l-nafs (see Psychology,
13), 129-131 (not really critical edition, but at least the commentary is
significant);
- MILLA, M., Al-qa~ fda al- 'ayniyya... (see 1.8. and Other Arabic
Thinkers, 25), 31-33 (almost of no significance).
- Arberry, 77-78.
A Russian translation has been published in: Sadoi Sharq, 1971 8 , 115-
117, and another one in: HUSEINZODA, Saturna Predel (cfr. supra,
Poetry).
This work is not by I.S. (see Janssens' critical remark on 1.8. and Other
Arabic Thinkers, 42). There exist two recent editions, both ascribing the
text to al-GhazztUi:
1. Edited by the Revival of Arabic Culture Committee at Beirut, Oar
al-afaq al-jadida, 51982;
2. Edited by SHAMS AL-DIN, 'A. at Beirut, Oar al-Kutub al-'alamiyya,
1988.
The former edition is based on 2 mss.; the latter edition is almost identical with
the former.
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 55
7. M"asa'i/ <an aJ:zwal al-ruJ:z (Questions on the State of the Spirit) (AN.
98; M. 135)
- MICHOT, J., Les Questions sur les hats de l'esprit. Problemes d'attri-
bution et essai de traduction critique, in: Bull. Phi/os. Med., 24 (82),
44-53.
A. convincingly shows that this treatise has to be ascribed either to Miskawayh,
or to an author belonging to the circle of the Ikhwan a~~afa. So, it is clearly non-
Avicennian.
i. Medicine
Note: Ace. to A. (see p. 118, N. 46) the Arabic text has previously been
published at Cairo, Dar al-katib al-'arabi, 1969.
Both the edition (based on the three actually known manuscripts) and the
translation appear valuable. A. indicates the correspondent passages between the
Poem and Canon, b. 1. The introduction consists of a general presentation of
I.s.'s famous Poem on Medicine, and of Canon, I).
5. Siyasat al-badan wafaq a'i/ al-sharab (The Conduct ofthe Body, and
the Qualities of Wine) (AN. 133; M. 83)
- HAMMAMI M., has edited the second part of this treatise in: M.
HAMMAMI, Kitab al-qulanj li A.B. al-Razf, ma'a dirasa muqabala li-
risalat lbn Sfna if 'l-qCtlanj (Orig. Fr. title: AL-RAZI, Kitab al-qulang (Le
Livre de la Colique). Aleppo, Inst. Hist. Ar. Se.; Alesco, Inst. Ar. Mss.,
1983, 144-175.
Meritorious insofar as it offers the first (partial) edition of this important
treatise.
- Shams al-dfn, 310-350 (offers the text of ch. 1-13; repr. from M.
KHAN's edition in: Avicenna Commemoration Volume. Calcutta, 1956,
261-307).
- IHSANOGLU, E., Ibn Sina, in: Vlusl. I.s. Semp., 105-116, 112-114
offers the edition of the Arabic text.
Based on three Istanbul mss., A.'s edition is rather valuable.
- WIEDEMANN, E., Ges. Werke (see supra, c.5), II, 1117-1203, ofTers
the reprint of E. WIEDEMANN and T. JUYNBOLL, Avicennas Schrift
liber ein von ihm ersonnenes Beobachtungsinstrument, in : Acta Or., 5
(27), 81-167 (The Arabic text; together with a German translation is
given at pp. 1122-1154, resp. 86-118).
60 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
l. Metaphysics - Theodicy
- Arberry, 38-41.
'-- DANESH PAZHUH, M., Qafa va-qadar Ibn Sina, in : Farhang-i Iran
Zamfn, 24 (79), 4. contrib. (separately numbered 1-85).
This is the first edition of this old Persian translation (based on two known
manuscripts).
Very interesting, and valuable.
- Alpago, 40r-l02r.
- (A~[, 289-294 offers what seems to be the first edition of this text
(based on 4 mss.).
Rather valuable.
Notes:
m. Qur'anic exegesis
n. Mystics
Note:
- 'A~f, 310-313.
- 'A.yf, 314~ 31 7.
- 'A~f, 321-335.
- Pirfizinoma, 45-62.
- 'Ji~f, 295-299.
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 67
Note: This text is not by I.S., but part of Miskawayh's Tahhfb al-akhlaq
(see MICHOT, Destinee, XXX).
- 'A~f, 270-280.
- 'A~f, 203-222.
- Arberry, 50-63.
- 'A~i, 336-343.
- Piruzinoma, 35-44.
- 'A~f, 241-269.
This same edition has also been reprinted, together with a Russian
translation in SEREBRYAKOV, S., Traktat Ibn Siny 0 Iyubvi. Tiflis,
1976.
- '1o$f, 182-202.
- Tis', 111-114.
- '1~f, 126-147.
- Tis(, 125-139.
- Piruzinoma, 63-72.
- (A~f, 148-18 1.
- 'A~I, H., The Treatise ((Kalimat a~"i-~ufiyya" between Ibn Sina and
Suhrawardi, in: MajallatMa(had al-makh(u(at al- (arabiyya (New Ser.
Kuweit), 27 (83), 139-186.
Having at his disposal one more manuscript (Le. Raghib, 1480), A. provides an
improved edition. At the same time, A. recognizes in the introduction (139-145)
that this work has to be ascribed to Sohravardl (a fact, already stated by
MahdavI!).
- (A~f, 223-240.
WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 71
- 'A~f, 306-309.
- 'A$i, 318-320.
- Tis', 95-104.
_. Tis', 115-124.
4. Tadbfr manzil al- 'askar (Preparation of the Camp Site of the Army)
(AN. 252; M. 46)
p. Personal Letters
~ A. BADAWI's edition in his Aris(u 'inda '1- 'Arab. Cairo, 1947, 119-
122 has been reprinted at Kuweit, Waka.1at al~matb{l'at, 1978.
q. Varia
- HERAVI, N., Mi'raj Nama-Abu All Sfna, with a rev. text by Sh. 1.
Abarquhf. Mashshad, Is1. Res. Found. A. Quds Razavl, 1984, 97-
119.
The edition is good (based on 4 fiSS.). The long introduction (11-76) is of a
rather general nature.
- Piruzinoma, 73-84.
74 WORKS-EDITIONS AND TRANSLATIONS
Bibliography
See also:
I, A II, Av. Lat. (d'Alverny);
I A-Ill, 3 St. 1;
I. A-Ill, 11 (Danesh-Pazhuh);
I, B-I1I, St. 1
Ill, 25
IV-B, 4, 6
V-A, 13
VII, 2
XI, B II, 11
XII, 6
XIII, 8
XIV, A 1
XV, A 1, 16
XVI, A 48, 56; XVI, R 4; XVI, S 16, 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY 77
(2) S.N., lbn Sina bibliografyasi (A Bibliography of (or: on) lbn Sfna).
Ankara, Bibliogr. Enstitiisii, 1983.
(6) ID., Bilan des etudes sur la philosophie medievale en terre d'Islam,
1982-1987, in: Bull. Phi/os. Med., 29 (87), 24-47; Avicenne, 30-31.
A useful, but incomplete (both in view of Butterworth (see infra, 13) and the
present bibliography) list, somehow complementing 5 and 7.
(10) BECKA, I., Avicenna in Czech and Slovak Science and Literature,
in: Axboroti AK Fanhoi SSR Tojikistan, 98 4 (79), 28-36 (Ru).
(11) ID., Central Asia to Her Son 'All ibn Sina, in: Archiv Orientalni,
50 (82), 242-247.
A. surveys the 1980 Millenary celebrations of LS. in Tajikstan, as well as in
Uzbekistan. But above all he points to a great number of publications (both
books and papers), published at this occasion. However, one wonders whether all
the mentioned publications deserve scholarly attention? Moreover, A.'s
references are not always very precise (for many papers, no exact number of
pages is given).
Good, useful as a primary survey of the incredibly high number of publications
in the mentioned area and period.
Sina : 67-73 (notes, 111-113); App. : 122-128; also (slightly altered, and
without the appendix) in: Middle East Studies Ass. Bull., 17 (83), 9-24
and 161-177 (I.S.: 14-17, notes 23-24), and in: Al-mustaqbal al-'arabf,
58]2 (83), 78-112.
A. offers a very fundamental survey of recent studies, text-editions and
translations regarding LS. The selection of items that A. presents in his paper, is
very relevant, at least as far as it concerns studies on lS. However, with respect
to recent editions of Avicennian texts, several important publications seem to
have escaped A.'s attention, e.g. the Physics of the Shljl1. It has to be mentioned
that A. classifies the studies according to their subject, and sometimes offers
brief, but significant critical evaluations.
A very valuable paper, which formed an important basis for the present
annotated Avicenna-bibliography.
(14) DUMAN, H., Ibn Sina and his Works, in: Musiki Mecmuasi, 33
(80), 9-19 (Tu).
A. gives a list of printed Turkish books (covering the period 1932-1976) and off-
prints of papers (covering the same period), actually present in the Beyazld-
Library at Istanbul. He also mentions a number of manuscripts, dealing with I.S.'s
own works, or commentaries on them. Finally, he seems to list several studies on
I.S., written in various languages, and present in different libraries in Istanbul.
(17) GUTAS, D., Notes and Texts from Cairo Manuscripts, 11 : Texts
from Avicenna's Library in a Copy by 'Abd-al-Razzaq a~~ignahi, in:
Manuscripts of the Middle East, 2 (87), 8-17.
A. describes in detail the collective manuscript I;-likma 6M of the MU~!afa Hi9il-
80 BIBLIOGRAPHY
collection of the Dar al-Kutub in Cairo. This manuscript was copied by a third
generation student of LS., 'Abd-al-Razzaq a~-~ighnakhl from texts originally
present in LS.'s library. So, the manuscript is very old, and it probably ha,s to be
dated in the first half of the 12th C. With respect to its scribe, 'Abd-al-Razzfiq, A.
carefully examines Bayhaql's information about him. A. also provides minute
details about the manuscript itself, more specifically about its codological and
palaeographical characteristics, its orthographic pecularities, its owners and its
copies (A. limits himself to a description of the (rather recent) copies made in the
Khedival Library itself). As to the proper contents of the manuscript, A. carefully
identifies its different parts, and gives its publication record (which he most
critically evaluates).
A very fine study, of great importance for further editions of Aviccnnian texts, as
well as for a critical evaluation of already existing editions.
(18) HAMEED, A. and BARI, A., Impact of Ibn Sina's Medical Works
in India, in: Stud. Hist. Med., 8 1_2 (84), 1-12.
The authors present several lists, dealing with the medical works of LS. (esp.
Canon and Tract on Cardiac Drugs), their translations (into Urdu, Persian or
English), and commentaries (or super-commentaries) on them (and their
translations), provided that they either have been edited in India (or, at least, by
a scholar who had some links with India), or are actually extant in India in
manuscript-form, at least as far as public collections are concerned.
A well-documented pioneering study, but one cannot but regret that the majority
of the references are rather vague (the precise location, i.e. number of a book or a
manuscript in a well-defined library, is never given).
(23) LEBEDEV, V., Ibn Sina's Works, and their Use in the Manuscript-
Funds Gosudarstvennoj of the State Library M.E. Saltykov-Shedrina,
in: Ibn Sina. k-lOOO letiju..., 243-248 (Ru).
A. presents the contents of a few manuscripts which concern I.S., available in the
Gosudarstvennoj-collection.
(24) LUNIN, B., Life and Works of Ibn Sina in Soviet Scholarship, in:
Ibn Sina. k-lOOO letiju... , 212-243 (Ru).
A. gives an overview of Soviet publications on I.S. published between 1950 and
1980, classified according to their topics.
(29) NESHAVI, N., Periodical Papers on Ibn Sina, in: Al-Turath al-
'arabf, 2 7 (82), 227-228 (Ar).
A. offers a very brief list of 9 papers on LS. in Arabic, published on the occasion
of the 1980-Millenary festivities.
Of almost no value.
(30) PERWAZ, R., Ibn Sina's Medical Works, in: Stud. Ilist. Med., 54
(81), 243-277; also in: Ind. J. Ilist. Se., 21 (86), 297-314.
A. gives a rather detailed list of editions, translations, or abridgments of the
Canon, as well as comments, or super-comments on it. He also presents a lot of
information about the other medical works of LS. (but one discovers a few
mistakes, e.g. his placing al- 'Ishq, On Love among LS.'s medical works ('1), or
important omissions, e.g. Alpago's translation of the Canon).
Useful in some respects, but to be handled with caution.
(34) SABRI, F., Bibliography of Ibn Slna, in: Al-turath al- 'arabf, 2 5_6
(81), Append. 51-90 (Ar).
A. lists all the works by I.S. (with reference to Brockelmann, Anawati and
Mahdavl), and tries to distinguish between the authentic works and the spuria
(in this respect, A. seems to be in complete agreement with Mahdavl, the only
relevant, but also highly questionable exception being: The Soul and
Resurrection (AN. 205. A. also mentions some printed editions,but her
references are very incomplete.
Good, but not really innovative.
(38) WILK, D., One Thousandth Anniversary of the Birth of Ibn Sina,
in: Koroth, 8 1_2 (81), 91-95.
A. concentrates on an early printing of a Hebrew translation of LS. 's Canon. as
well as two old Hebrew into Latin translations.
Useful, but (too?) brief, especially as far as the Hebraic tradition of the Canon is
concerned.
Notes
(1) DAIBER, H., New Manuscript Findings from Indian Libraries, in:
Manuscripts of the Middle East, 1 (86), 26-48, gives several important
references to I.S.
A. shows the importance of the Arabic (and Persian) manuscript collection in
Indian libraries. Regarding I.S., he offers a valuable complement to the
bibliographies of Anawati, Mahdavl and Ergin.
(2) Khuda Baksh Library Journal (ns. 29-31) deals exclusively with all
Arabic and Persian medical manuscripts extant in the libraries of India
and Pakistan (communicated to the author by M.S. Khan).
According to HAMEED, A. and BARI, A., Impact of Ibn Sina's Medical
Works in India, in: Stud. IIist. Med., 7 (84),1-12, p. 12, N. 13 and 14, a
paper specifically on the manuscripts regarding I.S. exists in'the Khuda
Baksh Library Journal, 1982, i.e. : W. AZMI, Ibn Sina's Manuscripts in
Khuda Baksh Library (approximately pp. 127-130; the number of the
volume is not specified).
Biography
See also:
V, C 32
XVII, 25
BIOGRAPHY 89
(1) AKHMEDOV, B., The Epoch of Ibn Sina, in: Ibn Sino. K-1000
Letiju, 6-26 (Ru).
(2) BRENTJES, B., Ibn 8ina - Avicenna - Zum Problem seiner geistigen
Heimat, in : Avicenna/Ibn Sfna, I, 9-16.
A. presents I.S. as a real "encyclopaedist", whose work splendidly reflects the
cosmopolitan character of the Samanide-civilisation (1.S. clearly defended the
Samanides, despite their obvious loss of power). Central Asia in I.S.'s time was
far from being purely Islamic (hence, the interest of 1.S.'s family (and of
himself?) in the Brethern of Purity and in the Ismailite movement). In fact,
Central Asia was open to many influences, not the least of which were Indian
and Chinese (Herein, A. agrees with Liiling (see infra, 12) regarding a possible
Chinese origin for I.S.).
One looks in vain for substantial justification of each of A.'s claims.
(3) GAWHARIN, ~ , I.Iujjat al-~aqq Aba 'Alf Sina (The Proof of Truth,
Ibn Sfna). Tehran, 11952, 21967, 3Tehran, Intisharat Tus, 1978, 12 +
723 pp.
He points inter alia to the fact that lsma'll al-Zahid, I.S.'s teacher of fiqh, was a
prominent ~Ianafi scholar (as testified by the standard l:Ianafl biographical
dictionaries) as also was Abfr Bakr al-Baraqi, to whom I.S. devoted two of his
earlier works (and who most probably was 1.S.'s own teacher). The very fact that
I.S., when he was staying in Gurganj at the court of 'All ibn Ma'nun, practized
law in order to carn his living, offers further evidence of his being a sunni-
l:Ianafi. In the appendix, A. raises a serious question about 1.S.'s date of birth
(based on 1.S.'s remarks about AbO. Baler al-Baraqi, A. inclines to place it as early
as 964).
A very valuable complement to 5, compare also to 13, which A. seems to be
unaware of.
(7) JAWAD, M., The Epoch of LS. - (A Cultural Approach), in: Al-
turath al- 'arabf, 2 5-6 (81), 212-226 (Ar).
Reprint of Le Livre du Milllmaire d'Avicenne. Teheran, Univ. de Teheran, 1956.
4 volumes. Vo!. Ill, 248-280.
(8) KAYYALI (AL-), T., D'ou vient le nom d'1bn 8inft?, in: Proc. 16th.
Int. Congr. Ifist. of Sciences, 388.
A French Abstract of A.'s lecture. The Abstract only affirms that the name: Ibn
Sfna is of Persian origin, and that the name: Avicenna is derived from I.S.'s
place of birth, Afshanah (sic!).
al-Muntasir, the last prince of the Samanides until his final fall. It has to be
noted that A. critically refers to Nizaml's Chahar Maqala, Four Treatises.
Further on, A. almost exclusively deals with the problem of I.S.'s origin. He
states that 1.S.'s father was governor of Kharmitan. A. judiciously points out the
fact that this city was a regional 'capital' and had been a Buddhist centre.
Moreover, it is quite conceivable that I.S.'s name as such signifies: "Son of a
Buddhist Sage". Finally, A. detects in the Samanide dynasty an outspoken
adherence to the Buddhist tradition (A. identifies Saman with the royal Chinese
city of Sftman).
In some respects a very perspicacious study, but in other respects open to
question.
(13) MASUMI, M., Fresh Light on Ibn Si'na's 'Sarguzasht', in: Indo-
Iraniea, 34 (81), 20-40.
Having presented the reader with some wrong formulations of 1.S.'s name, A.
indicates the different possible origins one may attribute to the name 'Sina'. A.
himself believes that the word 'Sina' is linked with one of the two ancient
branches of the Aryan language, and, more specifically, A. seems to be inclined
to accept an Indian-Buddhist origin. Further, after a few minor remarks, A.
concentrates on the adherence of I.S.'s father (as well as I.S.'s younger brother) to
the Ismailite claim, not adhered to by I.S. himself. For A., I.s.'s steadfastness in
his resistence to the Ismailite missionaries was due to the excellent religious
training he received from his l;Ianafi Jurist-teachers, as e.g. Isma'il al-Zahid (for
the latter's identification as a l:Ianafi-scholar, A. explicitly relies on the same
sources as those of 6), or Abft Bakr al-Baraql. Finally, A. poses the problem of
1.S.'s date of birth (in view of the unquestionable date of death of Abft Bakr al-
Baraqi, i.e. 986), and proposes a date as early as 353 A.H. (based on a verse by an
unknown Persian poet).
A very valuable paper, offering an excellent basis for further investigation.
(15) PANDITA, K., Central Asian Society in Ibn Sina's Time, in : Ind.
J. Iiist. Se., 21 (86), 251-256.
92 BIOGRAPHY
(17) SARBAZI, M., Zindagfe Abu 'Alf Sinii (The L~le q( Ifm Sinii).
Tehran, Sharkat Tusi'a Kitabkhanehhaye Iran, 1989.
A. adopts a rather unusual style for the presentation of I.S.'s life, e.g. by giving
poetical titles to the different chapters. Regarding LS.'s youth, his outline is
conventional, but with respect to 1.S.'s later life, he shows a clear tendency to
introduce tales (the historical value of which is very questionable) in order to
emphasize the extraordinary genius of 1.S.
Good, but not really critical.
(18) SELLHEIM, R., AI-Biruni and Ibn Sina, in: Yiidniima-i Eirunt.
Tehran, High Council of Culture and Art, 1974, 245-253 (Pers).
A. points out the difficulties being present in the classical "Tabaqat", i.e.
Biographical Literature. In view of illustrating these difficulties, A. refers to the
problem of a possible meeting between al-Biruni and 1.S., and of al-Biruni's
calling 1.S. his "youngster". Ace. to A., the earliest acceptable date of birth for
LS. is 363 H., so, that 1.S. is anyhow younger than al-Birilni's (hereby A.
summarizes the main arguments of his famous CR. of Ergin's Bibliography on
I.S., published in: Oriens, 11 (58), 232-239). Regarding a possible meeting
between al-Biruni and I.S., A. convincingly shows that, if it took place at all, it
has to be situated in the cavalry of Nilp. ibn Man~ ur (before LS.'s move to
Gurganj).
Useful, but limited in scope.
(19) SIMON, R., Ibn Sina, al-Gazali and Ibn ~-Ialdun. A Contribution to
the Typology of a Muslim "Intelligentsia", in: Acta Orient. Ac. Sc.
Flung., 35 (81), 181-200.
Only three autobiographies by classical Islamic thinkers seem to have survived,
i.e. those of I.S., al-GhazzaH and ibn Khaldun. Ace. to A., a basic comparison
shows the almost complete absence of subjective elements, although A. sees an
element of a rather childish pride in I.S.'s character. Moreover, for A., I.S.'s
status, and his activity in the public sphere, were based on his being a practising
physician (a strong conclusion, exclusively based on the autobiography!). Finally,
BIOGRAPHY 93
(23) TABATABA.'I, M., The Language of Ibn Sina, in: llaziirai Ibn
Sfnii, 117-127, and: Ayandeh, 7 (82), 655-660 (Pers); also in German
trans!': Die Sprache Ebn Sinas, in: Spektrum Iran, 13 (88), 51-58.
A. insists that Dad was the colloquial language in the area of BUkhara, at least at
the time of 1.8.'s birth. Ace. to A., the names of 1.8.'s parents are Fars! forms of
Middle Persian terms. Moreover, A. points out that Fars! was already a literary
language in the century before 1.8. However, 1.8. was the very first author to
write a philosophical work of great significance in Persian.
A classical defense of 1.8.'s Persian origin, and of the importance of the modern
Persian language in his time. Of limited value.
probably constitutes a "doublet", and, therefore, has been written after the
Introduction to the Cure. However, A. also remarks that the critical biography of
1.8. is still to be made (A. formulates interesting suggestions in this respect).
A limited, but valuable piece of information for further research on- 1.8.'s
biography.
(25) ZAKAD, S., The Epoch of Ibn Sina : (A) Political (Approach), in:
Al-turath al- 'arabf, 2 5_6 (81), 227-251 (Ar).
A. depicts a broad outline of the major political movements, which more or less
conditioned the specific framework ofI.S.'s lifetime (A. starts with the decline of
the Abbasides, and further focuses on the Samanide~, the Ghaznavides and the
Buyids, but without almost any specific reference to 1.S.). In view of the few curt
notes, it is almost impossible to determine A.'s sources.
Of no great value.
(26) ZAVADOVSKY, YU., A. Ali ibn Sina. Zizn i tvorcestvo (Ibn Sfna.
Life and Work). Dushanhe, Irfon, 1980, 204 + 98 pp.
The first part of this work is clearly devoted to 1.8.'s biography, while the second
part contains a bibliographical list of 1.S.'s works, as well as lists of both Russian
and non-Russian studies on 1.S.
Chapter IV
U nesco- Millenary
A. MONOGRAPHS AND
SPECIAL ISSUES OF JOURNALS
B. PAPERS
C. COLLECTIVE WORKS
(Other than Millenary Publications)
97
(1) UNESCO
(2) AFGHANISTAN
(3) (EAST)-GERMANY
GB. HANNA, Commemoration at Berlin East (sic!) in 1980, in: Al-turath al-
'arabf, 2 7 (82), 222-225 presents the table of contents in Arabic.
A special pamphlet seems to have been edited by E. WEHLER:
Avicenna. Ibn Sfna. Zur 1000. Wiederkehr des Tages seiner Geburt.
Berlin, Gesellschaft d. Deutsch.-Sowj. Freundschaft, 1980 (N.C.).
(4) FRANCE
(5) HUNGARY
(6) INDIA
(7) IRAN
(8) ISRAEL
(9) KUWAIT
(10) LEBANON
(11) MOROCCO
(12) POLAND
(13) ROMANIA
On the occasion of the 16th Int. Congress for the History of Sciences, a
special session was organized for the celebration of I.S.'s millenary
(Bucharest, July 1981). All papers presented (in complete or abstract
version) are included in: Proceedings of the 16th Int. Congr. Hist. of
Sciences. Bucharest, Acad. Soc. Rep. Romania, 1981, C-D, 353-392.
YAF! (AL~), A., The 16th Congress for the History of the Sciences, and
the Millenary Commemoration of Ibn Sina, in : Al~turath al- 'arabf, 27
(82),225-226, also in: RAA Damas, 56 (81),873-880 (Ar) enumerates
all contributions, but offers no real analysis.
(14) RUSSIA
(16) SPAIN
(17) SYRIA
(18) TUNISIA
(19) TURKEY
pages!) was published four years later: A. SAYILI (Ed.), Ibn Sfna.
Dogumunun bininci yili armagani (Ibn Sfna. Commemoration Volume
of the Thousandth Anniversary of His Day of Birth) (TTKY, VII.D.-Sa
80). Ankara, Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1984, 838 pp.
The journal Musiki Mecmuasi, 33 (80), Nr. 369 ofTers a special I.S.-
issue.
B. Papers
(1) N.N., Thousandth Anniversary of the Birth of Ibn Sina, in: Zh.
Nevropat. psikhiatr., 80 (80), 1221-1228 (Ru).
(3) BOGOLJUBOV, A., Millenary of the Birth of Ibn Sina, in: Narysy
1st. Prirodoznev. Tekhn., 29 (83), 35-38 (Ukrain).
(11) PULATOV, A., Abu 'All Ibn Sina. On the Millenium of his Birth,
in: Vestn. Khir., 124 1 (80), 142-146 (Ru).
(14) SEN, S., Birth Millenary of Avicenna, in: Sci. Cult. (Ind.), 47 6
(81), 193-196. (N.C.).
C. Collective Works
(Other than Millenary Publications)
(1) Ibni Sina (980-1037) (Ibni Sina Kongresi Kayseri 1984). Kayseri,
Erciges Univ. Matbaasi, s.d. (Tu), XV + 395 pp.
General Studies
(Philosophy)
A. MONOGRAPI-IS
B. PHILOSOPI-IICAL
ENCYCLOPAEDICAL ARTICLES,
OR CONTRIBUTIONS IN HISTO-
RIES OF ARABIC PHILOSOPHY
C. PAPERS
109
A. Monographs
(1) AFNAN, S., Avicenna. Ifis Life and Works. London, 1958, 298 pp.
Repr. Westport (Conn.), Greenwood Press, 1980; also in Italian
translation: Avicenna. Vita e opere. Trad. G. COLOMBl. Bologna,
Patron, 1969; and in Spanish translation: El Pensamiento de Avicena.
Mexico, Fondo de Cultura, 1978.
(2) 'AQQAD (AL-), A., Shayk al-ra'fs. Ibn Sfna (Iqrll, 46). Cairo, 1946.
Repr. Cairo, Dilr al-ma'arif, s.d. ( 1970), 144 pp.
(3) BLOCH, E., Avicenna und die aristotelische Linke, in: E. BLOCH,
Das Materialismusproblem, seine Geschichte und Substanz
(Gesamtausg., VII). Frankfurt am Main, Suhrkamp, 1972, 21974,
31977, 4(paperback) 1985, Anhang, pp. 479-546.
Reprint of the Frankfurt, 1963-edition. It has to be noted that the 1963-edition
was a reworked version of the Berlin, 1952-edition.
(5) BOLAY, N., Ibn-i Sina (Tiirk Baya/deri Dizisi, 82). Ankara, Sevin<;
Matbaasi, 1988, 126 pp.
(6) BOLTAEV, M., Ab{ 'Aff Ibn Sfna - Velikii myslitel ucenyi
enciclopedist srednevekovoya vostoken (Ibn Sfna - Great Thinker,
Scholar and Encyclopaedist ofthe Medieval East). Tashkent, Fan, 1980,
166 pp.
(8) CARRA DE VAUX, B., Avicenne, 980-1037 (Ibn Sfna). Paris, 1900,
302 pp. + Index. Repr. Amsterdam, Philo Press, 1974; also in Arabic
translation: Ibn Sfna. Beirut, 1970.
(10) GHALIB, M., Ibn Sfna. Beirut, al-Hilal, 1979,21981, 160 pp.
A rather general, and almost conventional expose of LS. 's major ideas, mainly
based on secondary sources. The work offers no new ideas. Nevertheless, it may
be used as an introduction to the "classical" interpretation of LS.
(12) HASAN, M., Ibn Sfna: abqarf al-falsafa wa 'l-(ibb wa-'i/m al-nafs
wa 'l-shi'r wa 'l-musfqa (Ibn Sfna. A Genius of PhilosophY,Medicine,
Psychology, Poetry and Music). Beirut, M. al-'alami, 21977, 221 pp.
A general introduction to the various aspects of LS.'s thought. Of almost no
value.
(13) HOSIM, R., Ibn Sino. Muchtasare dar borai davroni zindagf, sharhi
hol va osoras (Ibn Sfna. A Concise Treatise on the Time of his Life, his
Life Events and his Works). Dushanbe, Irfon, 1977, 96 pp.
dealing with a particular topic (in so doing, A. always uses existing (old or new)
Persian translations). Moreover, A. (over-)emphasizes the Iranian environment,
in which I.S. lived. It has to be noted that a well-documented bibliography of
Iranian publications, on I.S. (editions of his Persian texts, Persian translations of
his Arabic texts, and studies on him) is given at the end.
Very introductory. However, the bibliography is of great use.
(16) MAS'UDI, M., Ibn Sfna. Tunis, Dar siras a1-nashr, 1981, 190 pp.
(Ar).
After a rather long introduction about I.S.'s time and life, A. focuses on I.S.'s
main doctrines. Each topic is followed by a limited choice of text-fragments.
Sometimes, A. is very (too?) dependent upon secondary sources especially in the
chapter on the natural sciences. Moreover, he clearly adopts a (moderate)
Marxist-materialist interpretation (which particularly guides his analysis of I.S.'s
metaphysics and politics). Finally, he overrates I.S.'s originality, in all fields, he
attributes almost all contemporary insights to I.S.!
At most introductory (even if one accepts a materialistic interpretation of
I.S.).
(17) MUHAMI (AL.), M., Ibn Sfnli. Beirut, Mukt. 'Alami, 1977 (Ar).
Of no value. A.'s presentation is very superficial, and sometimes imprecise.
(20) QUMAYR, Y., Ibn Sfna (Falasifat al- 'Arab) (Ibn Sfna (The
Philosophers of the Arabs)). Beirut, Dar al-Machreq, 1982, 93 pp.
This edition seems to be an abbreviated version of A. 's original publication,
issued in 2 vol. at Beirut in 1955-'56 (same title, same series).
(25) SIDFAR, B., Ibn Sina (Avicenna). Moscou, Nauka, 1981, 184 pp.
(Ru).
(28) YAPP, M., Ibn Sfna and the Muslim World. St. Paul, Greenhaven
Press, 1980, 32 pp.
Of no value.
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 113
(29) AL-YASlN, J., Faylasul 'a1fm. Dirasat tal;1fliyyat li-/:tayat lbn Sfna
wa fikrihi 'l-falsafi (An Erudite Philosopher. Analytical Studies on lbn
Sfna's Life, and on his Philosophical Thought). Beirut, Dar al-Andalus,
1981,328 pp.
The book appears to be the direct result of oral lectures. From among some of
A. 's most striking observations, let us cite the following ones:
- A's characterisation of I.S.'s dispute with the Baghdadian philosophers as a
simple "tension" between two schools (not having been caused by the latters'
being 'Peripateticians');
- For A., I.S. expresses his basic opinion on resurrection in the Shifa. (For A.,
I.S.'s limited affirmation of the resurrection of the soul found only in the treatise
On Resurrection is due to the exclusive philosophical concern, consciously taken
by I.S. in it);
- A.'s inclination to accept that I.S. really bestows a knowledge of particulars to
God (based on I.S.'s insistence on the very particular nature of God's knowledge,
but A. recognizes that there remain serious difficulties inside the Avicennian
system in order to accept this affirmation unconditionally);
- Ace. to A., I.S. (being hereby a disciple of al-Farabi) derives his emanative
system from the Sabaeans of Harran, and only in a secondary way from Plotinus
(However, contrary to al-Farabi, I.S. affirms that the intelligible forms exist in
act, and he also attributes sensation and imagination to the celestial souls.).
It has to be added that the expose on logic contains the litteral reproduction of
large extracts of A.'s specific work on this topic (see Logic, A34).
No doubt, an innovative and interesting study (in spite of some controversial
ideas!).
114
(2) BADAWI, A., Avicenne (lbn Sina), in: BADAWI, Histoire, 11, 595-
695.
A.'s work is primarily an analysis of translations of large extracts from 1.S.'s
major philosophical works, i.e.: Shija (The Cure); Najat (Salvation); Isharat
(Remarks and Admonitions) and Danesh-Nameh (Book of Science) (some of the
translations A. prepared, but he also makes exstensive use of existing
translations). From a doctrinal point of view, A. stresses that 1.S. always
remained a Peripatetic philosopher (his so-called Oriental philosophy was in no
way intended as a new kind of philosophy). Acc. to A., 1.S. introduced no
innovation whatsoever in the logical field. 1.S.'s metaphysical and psychological
doctrines, on the contrary, seem to be judged to be worthy of closer attention by
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 115
(5) CRUZ HERNANDEZ, M., Ibn Sina (Avicena), in: Historia del
pensamiento en el mundo islamico. 2 vo!. (AU-T, 28-29). Madrid,
Alianza Ed., 1981, I, 205-249.
A. starts with a brief, but significant bio-bibliographical survey on 1.8. Then he
concentrate~ on the question of 1.8.'s authentic philosophy (he judiciously
remarks that the solution of this question is mainly influenced by each
interpretator's own ideology). A. seriously examines 1.8.'s statements about his
Oriental philosophy, and concludes that there is no single reason to accept a
fundamental difference between 1.8.'s major philosophical encyclopaedias and
his so-called esoteric writings. Hereafter, A. presents a serious basic outline of
1.8. '8 major philosophical ideas in the different fields of logic (A. believes that
1.8.'s logic brings no real innovation) and psychology (A. presents a very clear
116 GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY)
basic description of I.S.'s concepts of the soul and the intellect, morality and
politics (these latter two presented by A. in a rather conventional way), but A.'s
major contribution lies in his analysis of I.S.'s metaphysical ideas, e.g. :
1. The acceptance by I.S. of an analogy of Being, although I.S. himsdf never
specified which kind of analogy he defended (but for A. it is obvious that one has
to exclude a purely logical or essentialistic interpretation);
2. The absence of a real distinction between essence and existence in I.S., at least
in its usual scholastic form, since existence has no constitutive function in I.S.,
and is therefore comparable to an accident (although no identification with an
accident is allowed!);
3. I.S.'s proof for God's existence in the Ishiirat, Remarks and Admonitions, is
not really a version of the ontological proof, but may be characterized,as a proof
a simultaneo (whoever understands the notion of necessary Being, hasl~ accept
the necessary existence of such a Being); \
4. The idea of a creatio ex nihilo sui is really present in I.S., but one \may
seriously doubt whether the idea ofcreatio ex nihilo subjecti is also defended by
him.
A very fine, and interesting (esp. in the metaphysical domain!) contribution.
(6) FAKHRY, M., Ibn Sina, in: A History of Islamic Philosophy. New
York, 1970. 2nd edition. New York, Columbia Univ. Press; London,
Longman, 1983 (paperback-edition: New York, Columbia Univ. Press,
1987), 128-162; Fr Transl. : Histoire de la philosophie islamique. Paris,
Cerf, 1989, 150-184.
A. considers I.S. to be a major figure of Arab Neo-Platonism. In fact, I.S. was
much indebted to al-Hl.rabl, who inaugurated that current of thought (the
Epistles of the Brethern of Purity were another important source of
interpretation for 1.S.). Basically, A. defends the homogeneity of I.S.'s thought,
and categorically rejects any kind of alleged bipolarity in I.S.'s works. With
respect to the proper development of I.S.'s main philosophical theories, A. most
of the time only summarizes one of I.S.'s texts (while sometimes adding a few
remarks about I.S.'s relationship with Greek philosophy, or with al-Farabi). So,
he exclusively uses the Najat, Salvation for his description of I.S.'s logic, physics
and psychology, the Ahwal al-nafs, States of the soul, ch. 13-15, for the
presentation of I.S.'s theories of prophecy and resurrection, and Shifa,
Metaphysics for his basic outline of I.S.'s metaphysics. In the final part of his
work, A. concentrates on the mystical strain, which reveals itself in the Isharat,
Remarks and Admonitions, and in I.S.'s mystical treatises A. stresses the sudden
change in idiom which occurs in comparison with I.S.'s "classical writings". For
A., this very fact reveals I.S.'s obvious preoccupation with the problem of
philosophical expression (as was already the case in Plato).
A valuable basic outline of I.S.'s philosophical ideas, although one may regret
that A. does not present a more synthetic approach, based on a wider range of
works.
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 117
(7) GOHLMAN, W., art. Ibn Sina, in: The Encyclopedia of Religion,
1982, 568-571.
A very basic description of I.s.'s life, thought (esp. his cosmological ideas, and
the involved problems of the rclationship betwecn God and man, and of the
higher intelligences), and his influence both on the East and the West. A.
basically characterizes LS.'s philosophy as a synthesis between Aristotle's
philosophy, Neo-Platonism, Islamic religion and some Zoroastrian concepts (A.
appears to be highly dependent on Morewedge's interpretation. See:
Metaphysics, 42).
Good. Some valuable ideas, but too limited in scope, some of A.'s statements
(e.g. I.S.'s principle of the primacy of existence) are open to question.
(8) GOICHON, A.-M., art. Ibn Sina, in: Enc. Isl. (2. cd.), vo!. III (1971),
965-972.
A., one of the leading LS.-scholars in the West of this century, presents a slightly
reworked version of her article, entitled: Avicenna e Avicennismo, originally
published in: Encyclopedia Filosofica, 1957, 1'. I, 525-535; 21967, 1'. I, 666-678.
There occurs no fundamental change in A.'s basic interpretation of I.S.'s
thought. She always presents LS. as a rational-scientific thinker.
Note: IBN SINA, Al-Qanun..., Beirut, 1987 (see: Works, B 1), I, pp. tha-
ak, offers the translation into Arabic (by 'A. ZAYOUR) of part 3 of this
article (pp. 969-970), i.e. the part regarding LS.'s influence on the West,
and of: A.-M. GOICHON, Avicenne et son influence en Occident, in:
Encyclopedie mensuelle de la France d'Outre-Mer, sept. 1952, 257-
261.
(9) JANSSENS, J., Ibn Sina's Ideas of Ultimate Reality and Meaning.
Neoplatonism and the Qur'an as Problem.solving Paradigms in the
Avicennian Systetn, in: URAM~ 104 (87), 252-271.
A. first offers a brief, rather conventional bio-bibliographical outline. Then, he
discusses the major influences on I.S.'s thought. Acc. to A., 1.S. appears as a
proto-scholasticus, although he, like his predecessor al-Farabi, clearly rejected
the idea of philosophy as ancilla theologiae. (However, on the relation between
philosophy and religion, A. points out a significant difference between I.S. and
al-Farabi). In the main part of the paper, A. concerns himself with two ultimate
ideas in I.S. : the ultimate 'humanity' of the human Beings, and the ultimacy of
God. Concerning humanity, A. presents a basic outline of I.S.'s theory of the
soul. A. stresses that man is his soul, hence, the presence of an irreducible
dualism in I.S.'s concept of man, as well as man's need for the Agent Intellect,
and A. generally deals with I.S.'s theory on the eternal survival of each human
soul. A. accepts the possibility of a resurrection of the body, but interpreted by
I.S.as taking place on the imaginary (or better: imaginally - as Corbin interprets
it) level. Moreover, A. insists that I.S. never neglects the requirements of
practical life, although he givcs absolute priority to the intellectual life.
118 GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY)
Concerning the ultimacy of God, A. analyzes some of the most important names,
which I.S. attributes to God, i.e.: al-wajib al-wujCtd, the Necessary Being
(probably the result of a fusion between the notions of ontoos on and en); Allah (a
religious notion, but wich carries with it a philosophical reinterpretation); al- 'illa
al-Ctla, The First Cause (probably derived from I.S.'s Arabic Proclus-source,
where it means a monotheistic and creationistic correction of the original Neo-
Platonic view); Musabbib al-asbab, Causing causes (a term derived from Islamic
mysticism, and by which I.S. combines God's transcendence Vl(ith His
imminence); Mubdi', Creator out ofNothing (once more in the line ofthe\Proclus
Arabus); al-~hqq, The Truth (Qur'anic, although r.S. resorts to a mot~ Neo-
Platonic usage). \
A. received the URAM Award for Excellence in Creative Scholarly Writing in
1989 for this paper.
(12) NASR, S., Avicenna (Ibn Sina) and the Philosopher-Scientists, in:
Three Muslim Sages. Cambridge, Mass., 1964,21969. Repr. New York,
Caravan Books, 1976, 9-51 (this book has been published in Arabic:
Beirut, Dar an-Nahar li 'l-Nashr, 1971, and also in Persian: Tabriz,
1966, 3Tehran, K. Jiibi, 1975).
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 119
(14) ID., Ibn Sina and his Scientific and Philosophical Importance, in :
Iranzamin, I. (81), 51-64 (Pers).
This paper offers the translation into Persian of 13, p. 177-185.
(16) SAEED SHEIKH, M., Ibn Sina, in: Islamic Philosophy. Lahore,
1962; 2London, The Octagon Press, 1982, 67-84.
120
c. Papers
(1) ADUSZKIEWICZ, A., Life and Work ofI.S., in: Awieenna... (see IV,
A 12), 191-195 (Pol).
(3) AKA, I., The Historical Importance of Ibn Sina, in : Kayseri Kongr.,
10-16 (Tu).
(4) AKHMEDOV, B., The Time and Thought of Ibn Sina, in: Pasto Q.,
34 (80), 41-77 (Ru).
(5) 'ALA AL-DIN, M., Thousand Years after the Birthday of A.A. Ibn
Sina, in: Al-turath al-'arabf, 3 10 (83), 127-134 (Ar).
General, A. deals with various aspects of I.S.'s thought, paying special attention
to a few elements of Soviet investigations on I.S.
(6) 'AMMAR, S., Ibn Sina, le plus grand savant musulman et l'un des
plus grands de l'humanite, in: Avieenne, 17-27 (Ar).
Introductory, but A. pays some special attention to I.S.'s medical works and
ideas.
(7) ID., Life and Works ofIbn Sina, in: Al-shaykh al-ra'fs... , 171-182
(Ar).
Good - Introductory.
(8) ID., The Importance of the Life of Ibn Sina, and of his Cultivation,
in: Ma). 'arab. lil-thaqaJa, 2 1 (82), 213-225 (Ar).
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 121
A. adheres the thesis of a major evolution in I.S.'s thought. For him, 1.S. was an
outspoken scientific spirit, who gave abstraction an important place in his
thought.
(9) ARSLAN, A., The Philosophy of Ibn Sina and its Place in the
History of Thought, in: E. Sosyal Bilimler Fak. Dergisi, 2 (81), 253-261
(Tu).
(11) A~IK, M., The Great Turkish Scholar Ibn Sina, in : Konevf, Sept.
83, 16-17 (Tu).
(11) ASIMOV, M., Avicenna in the History of World Culture, in: Sov.
Stud. in Philos., 19 4 (81), 54-69; also in: Vopr. Filos., 19807 , 45-54
(Ru), 187 (Engl S.).
A. adheres to a Marxist-inspired interpretation, but recognizes the presence of
idealistic elements in I.S.
(13) ID., Ibn Sina and World Civilization, in : NAA, 19805, 77-88 (Ru);
also in: Proe. 16th. Int. Congr...., 357-360 (Ru).
(15) ID., The Greatness of Ibn Sina, in: Vopr. 1st., 19808 , 98-112
(Ru).
(16) ID., Poetic and Socio-ethic Views ofIbn Sina, in: Ind. J. Hist. Se.,
21 (86), 257-260.
Almost verbatim the same as the last part of 17. A. states that I.S. is a
humanist.
(17) ID., The Life and Teachings of Ibn Sina, in: Ind. J. liist. Se., 21
(86), 220-243.
A brief presentation ofI.S.'s bio~bibliography(for the biography A. makes largely
use of old Persian sources), and a basic outline of I.S.'s philosophical and
medical ideas, A. states that 1.S.'s ontology is idealistic in its principles, but that
materialistic tendencies prevail in his epistemology. Regarding medicine, A.
122 GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY)
stresses the presence of many novelties in LS.'s Canon, based on experience and
observation.
Some interesting ideas, but overemphasizing LS.'s innovations. Basically
Marxist in inspiration.
(20) ID., Veliky muislitel A.A.i. Sinui (The Great Thinker Ihn Sfna).
Tashkent, Fan, 1980 (brochure), 38 pp.
The same as, or an extended version of 19?
(21) BIN HASAN, E., The Genius of Aviccnna, in: Indo-Ira nica, 34
(81-82), 60-65.
A. pays some special attention to LS. 's political ideas.
(22) CARGEV, G., Avicenna (for the Millenary on his Birth), in: Filos.
Nauki, 19804 , 93-99 (Ru).
(23) CRUZ HERNANDEZ, M., Avicena, jefe de los sabios, in': llistoria
(Madrid), 6 (81), nr. 62, 95-102.
Valuable, although written for a large public.
(24) CUBUK<;U, I., Ibn Sina, in: Siimerhank, 15 (76), 33-36 (Tu); also
(or another version?) in: Bilim ve Technik, 14 (June 81), 11-13, and:
Silahli Kuvvetler Dergisi, 102 (Dec. 83), 81-84 (Tu).
(25) ID., La philosophie d'Ibn Sina, in: Vlus!. I.s. Semp., 93-98 (Tu),
99-100 (Fr S.); also (?) in: Kayseri Kongr., 231-234 (Tu).
Ace. to S., very superficial.
(26) ID., The Place of Ibn Sina in the Philosophy of Islam, in: Ihn
Sfna. Dogumunun..., 13-20 (Tu).
(27) CUMBUR, M., Some Important Notes on Ibn Sina, in: Millf
KultCtr, 41 (83), 5-6 (Tu).
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 123
(29) DINDAR, B., Ibni Sina, in: Vlusl. 1.8. Semp., 603-610 (Tu).
(30) DOGRAMICI, 1., Ibn Sina. Some Facets of his Life and Work, in:
Vlusl. 1.S. Semp., 77-84 (Tu); 85-92 (Eng!); also in: Proc. 1. 1nl. ConI.
IsI. Med., 137-137 (Eng!).
A rather confused paper, presenting various aspects of1.S.'s thought, but without
any cohesion, of no great value.
(31) ESIN, E., Ibn Sina and Turkish Culture, in: Vlusl. 1.8. Semp., 531-
552 (Tu), 552 (Engl S.); 553-562 (plates).
Ace. to S., A. tries to demonstrate that there existed elements of Turkish culture
in Bukhara at the time of 1.8.'s birth. Therefore 1.S. underwent Turkish
influences.
(34) GHASSEM, M., Ibn Sina's Way of Life: between Science and
Philosophy, in : M. al- 'arab. lil- 'ulUm al-insan., 4 (nr. 15) (84), 163-171
(Ar).
A. offers a classical outline of I.S.'s life, and presents I.S. as an extraordinary
genius both in the medical and in the philosophical fields. A.'s choice of items in
both areas is rather arbitrary, and, in some cases, even questionable (e.g. in the
case of 1.S.'s so-called psychosomatic healings).
124 GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY)
(36) HEGENBERG, L., Avicena (980-1037). Mil afios despots, in: Rev.
Portug. Pi/os., 36 (80), 121-130.
At most, a very introductory paper. A. shows a clear tendency to approach I.S.'s
thought exclusively from the point of view of the Latin Middle Ages.
(37) JOHHA, F., Ibn Sina in the Commemoration of the Millenary, in:
Al-mawq~fal- 'arabf,
nr. 119 (81), 144-160 (Ar).
A good, but rather conventional description of LS.'s life, works (with some
special attention to his major works) and influence, both in the East and the
West (philosophical and medical!). A. also deals with elements of the Unesco-
Millenary.
(38) ID., The Place of Ibn Sina in the Actual History of the Arabs and
of Humanity, in: Al-ma'rija, 19 (nr. 228) (81), 184-186 (Ar).
After a brief survey of some major contemporary publications on I.S., A.
mentions the classical sources for I.S.'s biography (in a rather conventional way),
and enumerates a few remarkable scientific and philosophical ideas of I.S.
(clearly based on secondary sources).
(40) KAHYA, E., Ihni Sina, in: Milli Kultur, 41 8 (83), 2-4 (Tu).
(41) KAUR, M., Avicenna: His Life, Works and Impact, in: Stud. Hist.
Med., 7 (83), 216-235.
Introductory, mainly based on secondary sources, A. himself affirms that the
paper does not claim any new findings on I.S.'s life or works.
(43) ID., The Turkish-Muslim Philosopher Ibn Sina, his Life and his
Works, in: Felsefe Arkivi, 22/23 (81), 1-53 (Tu).
(44) KHAN, M., rbn Sina and Rationalism, in: Islam and the Modern
Age, 15 2 (84),115-127.
A. characterizes I.S. as a rationalistic philosopher, who while adopting the
GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY) 125
rationalism and the scientific method of the Greeks, also attempted to bring
about a reconciliation between reason and revelation. A. hereby briefly mentions
LS.'s relationship with Aristotle and with Greek logic, LS.'s rejection of alchemy
and astrology, LS.'s attitude as a physician, and I.S.'s opinions on creation and
resurrection.
(45) ID., Ibn Sin3. : Philosopher, Physician and Scientist, in : Is/. Cult.,
56 (82), 249-264.
A good introductory study, based on a wide range of secondary sources, although
sometimes somewhat outdated.
(47) ID., Ibn Sin3. (Avicenna, 980-1037), Griinde fiir 1000 Jahre
Riickerinnerung, in : Deutsch Z. Philos., 28 (80), 1309-1323.
The same basic Marxist approach as in 46, but now emphasizing the naturalistic
foundation of I.S.'s philosophical and scientific system.
(48) MARTIN, M., Abfr 'All al-f,Iusayn bin 'Abdallah bin Sina
(Avicenna), in: J. HAYES (Ed.), The Genius of Arab Civilization:
Source of Renaissance. 2nd ed. London, Eurabia, 1983, 196-197.
A very brief description of some of I.S.'s major ideas, rather questionable at
times in his use of language (e.g. I.S. was eager for practical knowledge of the
illnesses he had studied).
(49) MAULA, E., Un mediateur entre trois cultures, in: Cultures, '7 4
(80), 188-193.
A popularized account portraying LS. as a mediator between the Greek, Islamic
and Christian cultures.
(50) MONTEIL, V., Ibn Sin3. et l'avicennisme, in: Cultures, '7 4 (80),
194-207.
A. discusses the 'Peripateticism' of I.S. as well as his "Oriental philosophy",
mainly on the basis of such classical authorities as Gardct, Corbin, Massignon,
etc. Moreover, A. gives primary consideration to I.S.'s Canon.
126 GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY)
(54) PAYZiN, S., The less known Ideas of Ibn-i Sina (Avicenna), in:
Usus!. I.S. Semp., 467-474 (Tu); 475-477 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., A. enumerates and discusses what he considers to be I.S.'s most
original ideas in different domains, e.g. geology, physics, physiology, medicine,
etc., as well as in philosophy.
(55) PETROV, B., Ibn Sina (In the Millenium of his Birth), in: Med.
Sestra, 39 8 (80), 45-51 (Ru).
(56) RAHMAN, A., On Relevance of Ibn Sina Today, in: Ind. J. Hist.
Se., 21 (86), 207-216.
A. accuses the West of having neglected the scientific tradition of Asia, as e.g. in
the case of I.S. (sic!). Of almost no value.
(57) REDL, K., Ibn Sina, in : Mayyar FilozoJ Szemle, 1981, 398-402
(Hung).
(61) SURDJ! (AL-), A., A Scientific Meeting with Ibn Sina, in: Al-
majalla al- 'arabiyya (Riadh), 4 3 (80), 74-77 (Ar).
Very general, laudatory. No single citation is specified!
(62) TERZIOGLU, A., Ibn Sina, in: Bilim ve Technik, 16 (March 1983),
32-33; also in: Millf Kultur, 41 8 (83), 13-14 (Tu).
(64) TUN<;, C., Ibn Sina, in: Kayseri Kongr., 181-182 (Tu).
(66) TURSUMOV, A., The Philosophy of Ibn Sina: its Origins, its
Problems and its Historical Destiny, in: Filos. Nauki, 1981 1, 80-92
(Ru).
(67) ULKEN, H., The Philosophy of Ibn Sina, in: Felse/e Arkivi, 22/23
(81), 55-82 (Tu).
(68) UNGOR, E., Life, Works, and Ideas of the Master of Music Ibn
Sina, in: Musiki Mecmuasi, 33 (80), 5-8 (Tu).
(69) VILASECA FORME, S., Avicenna, in: ConI Est. I-list. Org. Ciencia
(Cuba), 28 (82), 1-29.
A. discusses I.S.'s biography, the general historical context, and a summary
analysis of I.S.'s major works (based on secondary sources, mainly of Marxist
origin). Of almost no value.
128 GENERAL STUDIES (PHILOSOPHY)
(70) YUSUF, K., Avicenna: His Life and Works, in: Indo-Iranica,
25 3_4 (72), 158-170.
Of no value, includes many errors!
(71) ZAYOUR, 'A., Sketch of Ibn Slna's Everlasting Teachings, in: IBN
SINA, Al-Qanun... Beirut, 1987 (see: Works, B 1), I, pp. mim-shin
(Ar).
A basic outline of some of I.S.'s philosophical, political and religious ideas.
(72) ZOAKOS, C., Ibn SIna and the Dawn of the Humanist Heritage,
in: The Campaigner, 10 3 (77), 10-47.
A. presents I.S. as the founder of the humanist tradition, i.e. the tradition of
unified thought and action, and even as the first thinker, who put forward a
systematically elaborated "voluntarist" world outlook (sic!) and a precursor of
modern natural science. (Moreover, for A, I.S. solved Kant's antinomies (seven
centuries before their formulation, as he himself stresses!) by declaring that
human mentation transforms the laws of the universe.) A. places 1.S.'s rejection
of the Aristotelian split between vita activa and vita contemplativa at the basis of
this "progressive Avicennian attitude". In the main part of the paper A discusses
I.S.'s (auto-)biography, his metaphysics of the D{mesh-Nameh, and his influence
on the West. (A. always makes use of the existing English translations of 1.S.'s
texts, i.e. Gohlman (autobiography) and Morewedge (Danesh-Nameh, Book of
Science).)
This phantogorial interpretation is more significant regarding A.'s personal
convictions than for an historical understanding of I.S.
Chapter VI
A. LOGIC
B. NOETICS
C. DIVISION OF TI-IE SCIENCES
See also:
Ill, 5
V, C 16,17,44,46
IX, 9
XI, B-1, 3; XI, C 11
XII, 6
XIII, 9, 15, 28, 43
XIV, A-I, 10, 19; XIV, A-I1, 12;
XIV, A-Ill, 1, 6, 13; XIV, A-IV, 3
XV, A 3
XVI, A 1, XVI, P 12,21; XVI, R 6
131
A. Logic
(2) AKDOGAN, C., The Theory of Species in Avicenna, in: Ulus!. 1.s.
Semp., 223-226 (Tu), 226 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., Aristotle's theory of perception was converted by I.S. into a special
theory of species.
(9) DANESH PAZHUH, M., The Logic of Ibn Slna, in: IJazara-i Ibn
Sin a, 143-159 (Pers).
A. offers a classical description of the outline of I.S.'s logic, as well as of its
historical background. He also mentions those authors (mostly theologians), who
rejected the Avicennian (-Aristotelian) concept of logic.
Honest, but conventional.
(14) HADDAVY, H., Avicenna on Style, in: Alif. .I. Comp. Poetics
(Cairo), 1 (81), 21-37 (Ar S., 21-22).
A. first indicates the existence of two basic polarizations in I.S., i.e. 1. between
logic (and its demonstrative nature, destined to the elite) and rhetoric (being the
way to truth for the masses); and 2. between poetry (expression without
reflection!) and, once more, rhetoric (expression in search of meaning). A.
remarks, moreover, that I.S.'s Book ofRhetorics (book 8 of the logical part of the
Shijfi), while being a commentary on Aristotle differs from Aristotle in
organization, idea and emphasis. A. evokes inter alia the very fact that I.S.
attributes to style a middle position between the rational proof of demonstration
and the irrational imaginative response. He remarks also that I.S.'s tract is much
LOGIC AND EPISTEMOLOGY 135
more confused than Aristotle's, partly due to material reasons, and also partly
due to his wish to develop an original view. Out of an analysis of the first three
chapters of part five, A. brings to the fore I.S.'s rather reserved attitude towards
the use of metaphors in rhetoric; his conception of metaphor as juxtaposition;
his interpretation of the classical Arabic ornaments of style in terms of strict
Aristotelian functionalism; and, finally, his reducing rhetoric to a tool, albeit a
powerful one!, for philosophy.
A most valuable study, although one may wonder whether a detailed study of the
whole Book ofRhetorics is not necessary in order to establish the precise relation
between I.S.'s text and Aristotle's?
modalities;
- I.S.'s exigence that the quality required for the qualification of the subject by
the predicate in affirmative propositions has to reside in actu, not in potentia (as
in al-Farabi);
- The introduction by I.S. of the connective hypothetical syllogism, as well as of
the exclusive syllogism.
A. also presents in detail the great influence I.S.'s logic had on later Persian
thinkers. Finally, regarding Razi's criticism of I.S.'s logical ideas, and Tusi's
response, A. gives no fewer than 13 particular items.
A well-documented, and very interesting introduction, although A.'s acceptance
of a specific "Oriental philosophy" in the latc I.S. is questionable, sce Religious
Themes and Mysticism, C 11.
(21) MAR6TH, M., Die Topik Avicennas und ihre RoUe in den
arabischen Wissenschaften, in: Acta Ant. Ac. Sci. Flung., 29 (81), 33-
41.
The main part of the paper is devoted to the study of the difference bctween
Aristotle's definition of topics and that of Theophrastus (A. also develops this
topic, later, for authors such as Cicero, Boethius and Cassiodorus). In the final
part, completely devoted to I.S., A. indicates three sources for I.S.'s theory of
topics: Aristotle, Theophrastus and an unknown Oriental source. A. emphasizes
that I.S. opts for a deductive model of science (induction just being a dialectical
method, and, as such, belonging to the field of topics).
A good paper, containing elements essential to a basic understanding of I.S.'8
Topics.
(22) ID., Ibn Sina und die peripatetische "Aussagenlogik" (Isl. Phi/os.
and Theol., 6). Leiden, Brill,1989, 259 pp.
The title does not cover the contents. In fact, A. deals in a comprehensive way
with the overall development of the Peripatetic propositionallogic. I.S. is only
treated as one of the great representatives of this tradition (such as
138 LOGIC AND EPISTEMOLOGY
(23) MONINI (AL-), Q., The Doctrine of Poetry in Ibn Sina, in: AI-
Mawrid, 12 (81), 9-25 (Ar).
After a rather conventional introduction on I.8.'s theory of the inner senses, A.
states that for I.8. the poetical imagination works with the images of the
formative power - poetical imagination being directly linked with dramatic art.
The poet is not searching for any verification of his sayings - he just wants to
impress his audience. However, 1.8. stresses that the puet should guide the
behaviour of his audience in a positive direction, and that the subject of the
poetical imitation should be identifiable in reality (contrary to Aristotle).
Moreover, A. concentrates on poetical utterances (having stimulative principles
and sensitive principles). While paying special attention to the characteristics,
through which they differ from rhetorical utterances. A. concludes that although
1.S.'s theory has a historical precedent in several respects, it is at the same time
very innovative, especially insofar as it systematizes all the various elements in a
very critical fashion.
Valuable, a serious basic outline of I.S.'s theory of poetry.
(24) PARMAK8Z0GLU, I., The Great Philosopher Ibn Sina and his
Treatise on Logic (mantik risalesi), in: MUff Kultur, 41 8 (83), 21-27
(Tu).
LOGIC AND EPISTEMOLOGY 139
(26) ~AHtN, H., Logic in Ibn Sina's View, in: Kayseri-](ongr., 235-240
(Tu).
(27) SA'IDI, G., Ibn Sina, in: Innovations and Changes vis-avis
Aristotle's Logic, in: Ifazara-i Ibn Sina, 161-183 (Pers).
Having outlined 1.S.'s general concept of logic, and its specific place in the
history of Arabic logic, A. points to some of 1.S.'s logical doctrines: those which
deviated from Aristotle, and those which may be considered innovations with
respect to the Stagirite. A. points to such items as the conditional syllogism, the
two types of absolute propositions, the contradiction between absolute
propositions, the conversion of necessary propositions, and the introduction of a
temporal quantifier with respect to propositions (A. relies heavily on the Ishariit,
Remarks and Admonitions - most of the time paraphrasing the text of Tusi's
Comment). A. concludes with a comment about the Logic of Orientals. '.
Mainly introductory, offering a basic list of possible logical innovations in
1.S.
(29) ID., The Logic of Ibn Sina, in: G. ASHUROV (Ed.), Ibn Sino...,
59-83 (Ru).
(30) SCHOELER, GR., Avicenna liber Ziel und Anliegen der Dichtung,
and: "Kunstgriffe" in Dichtung und Rhetorik, in: GR. SCHOELER,
Einige Grundprobleme der autochtonen und der aristotelischen
140 LOGIC AND EPISTEMOLOGY
(31) ID., Der poetische Syllogismus. Ein Beitrag zum VersHindnis der
logischen Poetik der Araber, in: ZDMG, 133 (83), 43-92.
After a general introduction, A. concentrates on I.S.'s and al-Farabi's theories of
the poetical syllogism. Inter alia, A. notes that for I.S.. the poetical premisses are
more important than the poetical syllogism itself; that I.S. links evocation of an
image in the listener directly with the arousing of admiration (a fact unknown to
al-Fadibi); that for I.S. not all poetical premisses are "imitations" (contrary to al-
Farabi); and that I.S. always claims that poetical statements may be true or not.
A. concludes that the Arabic theory of the poetical syllogism, is basically
Aristotelian, although Aristotle himself did not explicitly mention such kind of
syllogism.
A valuable and very interesting study. For a somewhat different interpretation,
see supra, 3 and 17.
(32) SHAPIROV, A., Ibn Sina on the Relation between Logic and
Poetry, in : Machmuai Filologii,Makholakhoi Aspirantkhoi Fak. Pi!.
Tadj. Dushanbe, Ak.Tadj., 1971,3-7 (Tadj., or Ru?).
B. Noetics
(1) 'AUWN, F., Na?lriyyat al-ma'rifa 'inda Ibn Sfna (lbn Sfna's Theory
of Knowledge). Cairo, J. 'Ain Shams, 1978, 7 + 408 pp.
A deals in detail with the various aspects of I.S.'s theory of knowledge. He starts
from a basic distinction between three kinds of knowledge: sensitive, intellectual
and mystical. As far as sensory perception is concerned, A presents a rather
classical outline of the external and the internal senses. Nevertheless, he stresses
that I.S.'s common sense somehow replaces Aristotle's phantasia, and pays
attention to Razl's criticism of various aspects of I.S.'s doctrine of the internal
senses. But of utmost importance is his opinion that I.S. is neither a materialistic
nor an idealistic thinker (sensory perception being for him the starting point of
the process of abstraction). Regarding intellectual knowledge A. deals, once more
in a rather conventional manner, with such items as the substantiality of the soul
(but A. multiplies its proofs in a somewhat artificial way!), the universal form, or
the Agent Intellect. For A, the basic perspective remains Aristotelian,
notwithstanding the introduction of many Neo-Platonic elements. Worth
mentioning is A.'s remark that I.S. defines the role of the intellect in very similar
terms to 'Abd aI-Jabbar as the verification of the sensible data. As to mystical
knowledge, A. detects an intellectual mysticism in I.S. (in the same way as
Gardet). It may be indicated that in this part A. especially stresses I.S.'s notion of
~ads, intuition. In a final chapter A. discusses the influence of I.S.'s theory of
knowledge both in the East and the West (however mainly based on secondary
sources). A.'s use of some of the lesser known LS.'s texts does deserve special
attention.
Very meritorious, probably the first really encompassing-study on this particular
topic, although it is not profoundly innovative, and, above all, does not really
resolve the obvious difficulties in I.S.'s theory of knowledge.
progressive deification of the Agent Intellect. A. insists that LS.'s ideas are
evolutionary in this respect, due to the fact that he considers the growth of
ability to abstract 'ideas' to be analogous to the growth of ability to receive the
'forms' of the Agent Intellect! LS. moreover had no eye whatsoever for the
secularizing tendency inherent in Aristotle's epistemology, but simply adopts the
Platonic 'way' of diairesis, hence defending a contemplative, non-discursive
conception of knowledge, as well as the existence of separated ideas that are not
reflected by sensible objects. This becomes very evident in LS.'s so-called
mystical writings - but A. stresses that this 'mysticism' can at most signify the
kind of mysticism one may also ascribe to Plato.
A good paper, but does A. not interpret LS.'s theory too exclusively in the light
of Greek thought?
(5) JABRE, F., Le sens de l'abstraction chez Avicenne, in: Mel. Univ.
St. Joseph (Beirut), 50 (84), vol. I, 281-310.
The Arabic philosophers were faced with a serious problem in transhiting the
Greek word aphairesis (there existed no standard Arabic equivalent for it ~
comparable to e.g. istiqra for the Greek epapoge). AI-Farabi, and also 1.S.,
rendered it mostly by words derived from the root J R D which was not without
some ambiguity, since they also meant the Greek choristos, and, as such, were
synonymous with Arabic (M) F R Q. Ace. to A., it is rather doubtful whether 1.8.
understood abstraction in the usual Western sense, because of his wide-ranging
terminology in this respect. This suspicion is only strengthened by two passages
in the Shija, K.al~Burhan (Cure, Anal. Post.), in which 1.S. discusses Aristotle
(Anal. Post., I, 74a35-b4 and 81bl-9). Having carefully studied the basic
materials (the original Greek text (in Tricot's French version) slightly revised);
the Arabic translation of this Greek original (according to the edition of Ibn
Suwar), and 1.S.'s paraphrase (in critical French translation by A. himself), A.
convincingly demonstrates that induction in 1.S. is no longer an integral part of
abstraction as it was in Aristotle. For 1.S. the intelligible reality of an object is
perceived at the occurrence of its perception by the senses, but is nowhere
directly derived from the sensible! Sure, the intellect 'divests' the essentially
sensible things from their material accidents in order to arrive at the ma 'na,
intentio. Nevertheless there exists no more than an accidental link between the
acquisition of the intelligible, on the one hand, and the presence of sensible or
imaginary facts, on the other. Induction is no longer the principle of the
universal. Ace. to A., 1.S. somehow prefigures modern empiricism (1.S.'s primary
concern being not the problem of abstraction as such, but the problem of the
immortality of the soul).
A very fine paper!
(6) ID., The Agent Intellect in Ibn Sina, in: Al-dhikr..., 13-40 (Ar).
In some sense, this paper may be considered to be a primary basis for 5. A.
offers a general outline, as well as the basic principles of 1.S.'s theory of the
human intellect (based on Isharat, Remarks and Admonitions,' Najat, Salvation,
and R. fi '1- 'ishq, Tr. On Love). Then, he concentrates on the theory of
intellection. A. presents a rather detailed analysis of Shija, De Anima, V, 5 and
6. He points inter alia to the grasp by the intellect of the 'intention' of the
particulars in the imagination, to the fact that intellection is the search for the
middle term in a syllogism, to the 'aql basit, simple intellect, which may bring
the soul to the state of intellect in actu, namely when the soul has the truth in
itself; and to the acquired intellect and the act of the dhihn, ratio, by which the
middle term is rigorously captured. A. stresses also the central place that the
notion of intuition, ~ads, occupies in 1.S.'s theory of knowledge, especially on
the level of the acquired intellect. Finally, A. wonders whether one may find in
1.S.'s system an act of intuition without any direct contact with the Agent
Intellect. His answer is positive, because there is a way leading from the
material intellect, together with intellection and intuition, to abstraction, and
hence not to the Agent Intellect.
LOGIC AND EPISTEMOLOGY 145
(1) 'ABDUH, M., Wisdom, and its Relation with Logic in Ibn Sina, in :
M. 'ABDUH, Ibn Sfna - K. al-l-Iidaya. Cairo,M. al-Qahirat al-haditha,
1974, 25-50.
A. states that the precise meaning of ~ikma, wisdom, always depends on which
division of science it is used in. Therefore, A. examines the question whether I.S.
considers logic to be a part of wisdom or to be just an instrument for it. From an
analysis of I.S.'s different works, A. concludes that logic is both instrument for
and part of wisdom. A. also pays special attention to the division of the sciences
in the K. al-Hidaya-Book of Guidance.
Valuable, especially as introduction to the edition of the Book of Guidance.
(4) MAR6TH, M., Das System der Wissenschaften bei Ibn Sina, in:
Avicenna - Ibn Sina, 11, 27-32.
A. indicates that I.S.'s hierarchical structure of the sciences deviates from
Aristotle, and Philoponus - albeit I.S. accepts with the latter the primacy of
metaphysics. Hence, ace. to A. the Tabula Porphyriana and the Liber de Causis
are the real sources for I.S.'s structure. Finally, A. remarks that the same rules
dominate 1.S.'s theory of sciences and his Nco-Platonic concept of the
Universe.
A brief, but interesting paper.
(5) SHAYKH AL-ARP, T., The Concept of Science in Ibn Sina, in: Al-
turath al-'arabi, 2 5_6 (81), 160-178; also in: AI-shaykh al-ra'is, 235-258
(Ar).
For A. a strong parallel exists in I.S. between metaphysics (as distinguished from
Divine science) as the basis for all theoretical sciences, on the one hand, and
prophecy as the basis for all practical sciences, on the other. Moreover, 1.8.
considered logic to be a pure instrumental science, and derived the contents of
the theoretical sciences mainly from Aristotle, while he derived the contents of
the practical sciences mainly from Islamic religion. To conclude, A. compares
I.S.'s concept of scientific investigation with his contemporaries. A. observes
fundamental differences, but also points out possible similarities.
A rather general and superficial exposition of I.S.'s concept of science, mainly
concentrated on the division of the sciences.
(6) DOUR, A., Ibn Sina's Classification of Sciences, in: Vlus!. 1.s.
Semp., 443-444 (Tu); 445 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., a very general paper, almost without value.
Linguistics,
Terminology,
Poetry
See also:
I, A-II, Av. Lat. (Van Riet);
I, B-1, Lat. Tr., St. 2
Ill, 23
VI, A-I, 25
LINGUISTICS, TERMINOLOGY, POETRY 151
(1) ABADANI, F., Avicenna and the Persian Language, in: Indo-
Iranica, 26 (73), 27-30; also in: Milla wa-milla, 7 (67), 49-52.
A. points to the 'great performances' of LS. in the domains of philosophy,
medicine and poetry, both in his Arabic and Persian works.
Of no real value.
(3) AHVLEDIANI, V., The Linguistic Heritage of Ibn Sina, in: Ibn
Sfnii. K.-lOOO letiju, 201-212 (Ru).
(4) 'AMMAR, A., Efforts of Ibn Sina with Respect to Language and
Sounds, in : M. al-babth al- 'ilmf wa 'l-turiith al-isliimf (Mekka), 5 (1402-
1403 H.), 115-132 (Ar).
A. first concentrates on the two works, written by LS. on the subject oflanguage :
Asbab huduth al-huruf, On Phonetics, and the R. Nayruzfya, The New Year
Treatise offering some details of editions, translations and manuscripts.
Hereafter, he elaborates a rather systematic exposition of LS.'s theory of sounds
(Shijii., Canon and On Phonetics are the sources of A.'s analysis). I.S.'s most
important sentences on this matter are brought together by A., his comments
here are very succinct. However, I.S.'s classification of the Arabic sounds is
discussed in detail. A. presents a comparison with some major ancient Arabic
grammarians (and stresses the many differences). A. offers no personal judgment
on the difficulties surrounding some anatomical aspects of I.S. 's theory of voice
and speech.
A rather introductory paper, but offering valuable information as to the
classification of sounds, both in I.S. and his contemporary Arabic grammarians.
(5) 'AYAN, R., Ibn Sina, Who wrote Persian Tetrastichs out of an
Intellectual Aim, in: Indo-Ira nica, 34 1_4 (81), 44-50 (Pers).
A. says that I.S. was as great a poet as he was a philosopher or a physician! He
discovers a philosophical-intellectualistic input in I.S.'s tetrastichs (as to the
152 LINGUISTICS, TERMINOLOGY, POETRY
(6) BADI', M., Wazhah-nameh basf madf mi'yar al- 'uqul Ibn Sfna
(Linguistic Science is much indebted to the Standard of Ibn Sfna's
Judgments) (Int. Farh. zab{m Iran, 6). 2. Ed. Tehran, Farhang Zaban
Iran, 1974 (N.C.).
(8) DIRIOZ, M., Literary Personality of Ibn Sina, in: Kayseri Kongr.,
363-384 (Tu).
(10) HASAN PUR, M., Wazhah-nameh basa madf risala'i jaudf-i Ibn
Sfna (The Science ofLinguistics is much indebted to the Excellent Tracts
of Ibn Sfna) (Int. Farh. zaban Iran, 11). Tehran, Farhang Zaban Iran,
1975 (N.C.).
LINGUISTICS, TERMINOLOGY, POETRY 153
(11) KIPADSE, M., Some Philosophical Terms in Ibn Slna, Ibn Rushd
and the Gregorian Thinker Johannes Petrus, in: Ibn Sino... , 139-145
(Ru).
(13) MAJEWSKA, B., The Poetic Art of Ibn Sina, in : Przeglad 0., 116
(80), 299-306 (Pol).
(17) RUSHP, P., Ibn Sina on Speech Articulation, in: Ind. J. IIist. Se.,
21 (86), 368-372.
For A., it is evident that I.S.'s approach to speech phenoma is positively
empirical, and that its presentation is revealingly functional. After a brief
summary on the Tr. on Phonetics, A. deals with some particular ideas, e.g. the
description of the immediate cause of sound, the formation of speech sounds,
etc.
Some interesting ideas, although A. overemphasizes I.S.'s originality.
(19) SHAWISH, B., Ibn Sln~l's Treatise on Phonetics and the Supposed
Influence of the Ancient Greeks and Indians, in : Int. J. Is/;, Ar. Stud, 11
(84), 113-126.
Having said that there exists no evidence that during the translation movement
Greek or Indian grammatical works were made accessible to the Arabs but
admitting that there might have been an indirect knowledge of Greek or Indian
grammatical ideas, A. offers a brief summary of I.S.'s M'akhdrij al-huruf, Tr. On
Phonetics. Hereafter, he also briefly mentions Greek (esp. Thrax) and Indian
phonetics, and then proceeds to a comparison with I.S.'s theory, noticing that
there is almost nothing in common between them. A. points out inter alia that
I.S. ignores the syllable and the diphtongs (contrary to Thrax), and also ignores
the function of the glottis in speech, and hence the distinction between voiced
and voiceless sounds (contrary to Indian phonetics). A. considers I.S.'s
anatomical descriptions of the larynx and the tongue to be highly original
contributions (but see 15-16).
From the pure grammatical point of view, the paper contains some interesting
observations, although the complexity of the problem involved no doubt
requires much more investigation.
LINGUISTICS, TERMINOLOGY, POETRY 155
(22) SULTONOV, U., Ibn Sina and Linguistics, in: .Maktabi Sovieti,
1973 12 , 21-24 (Ru).
Chapter VIII
Psychology and
Paedagogics
See also:
I, B-II, St. 2
VI, B 4, 6
XI, B-II, 8, 10, 11
XIII, 15, 24
XIV, A-II, 2, 13, 15, 16;
XIV, A-IV, 1, 3, 9, 10-12
(and the totality of XVI, C-I: psycho-
somatics)
PSYCHOLOGY AND PAEDAGOGICS 159
(4) ARMANER, N., The Comparison of the Psychology ofIbn Sina and
Contemporary Psychology, in: Vlusl. I.S. Semp., 191-199 (Tu); 200
(Engl S.).
Ace. to S., A. compares I.S. with Bergson, with respect to some psychological
ideas.
(6) DAG, M., The Psychology oflbn Sina, in: Ibn Sfna. Dogumunun...,
319-404 (Tu).
160 PSYCHOLOGY AND PAEDAGOGICS
(7) DURRANY, K., Ibn Sina's Concept of Man, in : Stud. Iiist. Med., 6 3
(82), 161-194.
A. stresses the importance I.S. attributed to convenient philosophical as -well as
psychological insights into the fundamental nature of man in order to ensure
human health. Then he offers a concise, almost classical description of I.S.'s
view on man, from the psychological, metaphysical and medical points of view.
However, the problem of the soul is analyzed in a much more detailed way.
When discussing the ultimate goal of human life, A. begins to develop an original
solution to the problem of freedom and determinism in I.S. A suggests that the
yearning of the soul for perfection (as expressed in I.S.'s so-called 'esoteric
writings') could mediate between the determinism of men's lives resulting from
their being created, and man's ability to choose the "right path".
On the whole, a rather introductory paper, although a more profound view is
expressed concerning the determinism~freedom tension in I.S.
the rational soul (as an intellect in potentia), and the Agent Intellect;
2. I.S.'s extreme efforts to save empiricism;
3. the very special attention paid by I.S. to the wahm, aestimatio and its object,
the ma'tini, intentiones, I.S. elaborating a whole system of mediation between
sensation and intellection;
4. the complexity of the process of tajriba, abstraction (A. offering in this respect
a most significant analysis of Shifti, K.al-Burhtin, esp. HI, 5 and IV, 10), which
plays a very useful role in the acquisition of knowledge, in spite of not being an
original source for 'Um, knowledge.
A. concludes that I.S.'s illuminationist theory of knowledge diminishes the
desirability of natural philosophy and mathematized sciences. It has also to be
noted that A. makes some pertinent remarks concerning the proper reading of
I.S. Aside more obvious remarks A. points judiciously to the inevitability of
serious lexicological analysis, requiring extreme care in equating unqualifiedly
Avicennian terms with their so-called Greek counterparts.
A very significant paper, which deserves due attention.
(10) I::IULW (AL-), 'A., Ibn Sina, faylarilfal-nafs al-bashariyya (Ibn Sina,
The Philosopher ofthe lluman Soul). Beirut, 1967; 3rd. ed. Beirut, Bayt
al-pikma, 1978, 109 pp.
(12) KHALIDI (AL-), S., Ibn Sina and the Care of Motherhood and
Childhood, in : Al-turath al- 'arabi, 2 4 (81), 66-75; also in : Al-shaykh al-
ra'is, 157-170 (Ar).
After a general introduction, A. proceeds to a brief presentation of Canon, b. I,
F. 3, T. 1, ch. 1-4 (presenting long citations from ch. 1-2, and summarizing ch.
3-4). Hereafter, A. offers a more systematic analysis of I.S.'s paedagogical
doctrine, presenting the well-known basic ideas (e.g. the 'good example', etc.) in
the conventional way. In the final part of his paper, A. emphasizes the proper
evolution of the science of paedagogics from the Islamic perspective, and
evaluates I.S.'s contribution in this respect.
Introductory.
idealistic and realistic. Thereafter, A. deals in a rather classical way with I.S.'s
theory of the soul. However, A. brings some original interpretation to the fore by
stressing the definite Islamic (and Platonic) character of I.S.'s famous "flying
man" argument, at least in its Isharat-version. A. finishes his work with a very
detailed, and well presented analysis of the Poem on the Soul (using several older
commentaries). It has to be noted that after examination A. does not doubt I.S.'s
authorship of the Poem.
Although A.'s extreme Islamic (-Platonic) interpretation of I.S. is open to
question, his study is worth considering.
(14) MADADI, P., The Psychology of Ibn Sina, in: Aryana, 403_4
(82-83), 30-50 (Pers).
A. surveys the major elements of I.S.'s psychological doctrine (i.e. the proof for
the existence of the soul; the soul's unity and immortality; the intellectual powers
of the soul, etc.). However, he limits himself to I.S.'s major works, and, at the
same time, gives the impression that he is the very first to investigate this topic.
Unfortunately, his personal interpretations lack serious foundation.
Almost of no value.
(16) ME~BAHY (AL-), M., The Role of the Concept of 'Perfect' in the
Characterization of the Soul between Aristotle and Ibn Slna, in: M.
Kull. al-adab wa '1- 'ulum al-insan. if-Pas, 4-5 (80-81), 121-147; also in :
Pensee arabe..., 427-450 (Ar).
A. first offers a classical summary of Aristotle's doctrine on the perfection of the
soul. Then he points out that I.S., in order to be able to explain the soul's
immortality, introduced the new notion of 'separate perfection'. Ace. to A., I.S.
distinguished between a passive perfection, linked with the practical intellection
of the soul, and an active perfection, linked with the theoretical face of the soul.
PSYCHOLOGY AND PAEDAGOGICS 163
(18) MUJTABAVr, J., The Substantiality of the Soul in Ibn Slna's View,
in: Hazara-i Ibn Sfna, 45-66 (Pers).
A. points out some striking differences between I.S.'s and Aristotle's concept of
the soul, before he offers a basic description of what he considers to be I.S.'s
arguments for the substantiality of the soul. In fact, A. hereby gives an
introduction to L. GOODMAN's paper: A Note on Avicenna's Theory of the
Substantiality of the Soul, in: Phi/os. Forum, I (69), 547-554 (app. 555-562), of
which he presents a Persian translation (pp. 56-66).
Good, but as far as concerns A.'s own introduction not really innovative.
(19) NAJA-rr, M., Al-idrak al-flissf 'inda Ibn Sfna. Babth ji' 'ilrn al-nafs
'inda al- 'Arab (Sensitive Perception according to lbn ,S'fna. An Inquiry on
the Science of the Soul along the Arabs). Cairo, 1948, 21961, 3rd. rev.
ed. : Cairo, Dar al-Shurfrq, 1980, 243 pp.
This third revised edition contains only two minor additions with respect to the
previous edition. They consist in offering more elements of comparison with
present-day psychology.
part of his study, he offers a classical survey of LS.'s life and times, and of some
central issues of I.S.'s psychological, political and moral theories. The second
part of the study, addresses 1.8.'s paedagogical insights, as well as I.S.'s theory on
the division of the sciences. As to paedagogics, A. concentrates on the way in
which I.S. defines its goal, and consequently spells out the different methods of
education required by the different age groups. In this respect, A. cites some
contemporary paedagogical doctrines, declaring most of the time that LS. was
the first to prescribe them. A. offers a very general introduction to I.S.'s
paedagogical theory.
(25) RAHMAN, F., art. Avicenna. Psychology, in: Enc. Ir., 83-84.
A. basically characterizes I.S.'s doctrine of the soul as Aristotelian-based,
PSYCHOLOGY AND PAEDAGOGICS 165
(26) STOLNICI, C., The Problem of the Soul and its Place in Ibn Sina,
in: al-babth al- 'ilmf, 18 (82), 197-203 (Ar); 292-293 (Engl S.).
Ace. to A., I.S. located the pneuma between the heart and the brain cellules, to
which he linked a direct cognitive function. As to mystical experience, he, in
accord with Orphic sources, based it on a corporeisized illumination. So, I.S.
established a perfect mediation between thought and matter, the human body
being a matter animated by vital forces.
A highly compressed paper, including some interesting features, but highly
questionable as to its basic assumption of a unified view of spirit and matter in
I.S.
(28) UTHMA.N, H., The Psychological Ideas of Ibn Sina, in: Majallat
Kulliyyat al- 'ulum al-ijtima'iyya, 5 (81), 259283 (Ar).
A. deals with some major issues of I.S.'s psychology, e.g. the proofs for the
existence of the soul; the external and the internal senses; perception and
intellection (A.'s account is based on various works of I.S., and on secondary
Arabic sources).
A valuable, but introductory study.
(31) ZAHIDOV, V., Some Aspects of the Philosophy of Life oflbn Sina,
in: Ibn Sino. K-IOO-letiju, 47-61 (Ru).
(32) ZEDLER, B., The Prince of Physicians on the Nature of Man, in:
The Modern Schoolman, 55 (77-78), 165-177.
A. wonders whether I.S. presents a coherent view of man both in his
philosophical and in his medical works? In order to settle this question, A. first
develops a very succinct, but significant synthesis of I.S.'s philosophical, and
medical concepts of the nature of man. At first sight, a contradiction seems to
exist between them. As a matter of fact, LS., the philosopher, posits a
spiritualistic human ego, while LS., the physician, conceives of man as a
fundamental part of the natural world. However, ace. to LS.'s own view,
philosophy and medicine cannot contradict each other, in view of their both
belonging to the natural sciences. And indeed, as soon as one takes into account
LS.'s theory of the two 'faces' of the soul, the above-mentioned (apparent)
contradiction clearly disappears.
A very valuable paper, sketching a first, but fundamental orientation for a
thorough study of LS.'s conception of man.
Chapter IX
Politics and
Ethics
See also:
I, C - ab
XIV, A-Ill, 9
POLITICS AND ETHICS 169
(1) AHMAD, I., Ibn Sina and the Philosophy of Law and the State, in :
Jernal Undang-Undang, 7 (80), 175-199.
A. believes that I.S., in his political philosophy, links the ideal state ofIslam with
the ideal state of Plato's philosopher-king (with references to both the Republic
and the Laws). However, A. observes that I.S. shows more reliance on the law
than Plato, who had stressed above all the influence of morals. A. also offers a
brief analysis of LS.'s theories on the intellect (based on De Anima, V, 6), on
prophecy (in its intellectual and law-giving functions), and on different aspects
of proper politics. A. presents many basic text-fragments concerning I.S.'s
political theory but his exegesis of them is very limited in scope as well as in
contents.
(3) AYDIN, M., Ibn Sina's Ethics, in: Ulusl. I.S Semp., 117-128 (Tu);
129-130 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., a general, but accurate analysis of the major themes of I.S.'s
ethics.
philosophy: al-Farabi and 1.S. The former unconditionally adheres the idea of
the subordination of ethics to virtue, while his affirmations (and silences) suggest
that virtue must ultimately be considered to be knowledge or correct opinion. As
to I.S., he clearly deviates from his Arabic predecessor in several respects,
i.e. :
1. By subordinating politics to prophecy;
2. By not perceiving all the virtues to be intellectual or to be grounded in sound
intellectual understanding;
3. By starting from human need, when dealing with the subject of law-giving;
4. By accepting the possibility of the acquisition of the virtues of temperance,
courage, and practical wisdom without theoretical wisdom, even if it is superior
to them!
So, LS. seems not to accept the subordination of ethics to virtue (in this point
also deviating from his Greek predecessors). A. also affirms that there exists in
1.S. a deep-rooted, and never resolved tension between the demands of political
life and the lure of the life to come. Let us finally note that A.'s analysis of LS.'s
thought is mainly based on Shiffi. Met., X, but that A. also refers to a few other
texts, among them the R. j'i 'l-Akhlfiq, On Morals (but he does not examine the R.
j'i '1- 'Ahd, On the Pact, which might constitute the second part of the very same
treatise! If this is true, then some of A. 's secondary remarks are in need of
revision, but his basic thesis is not directly threatened).
A very valuable paper, a useful complement to 7, which A. seems to be unaware
of.
(8) ISMA'IL, M., Philosophy according to I.S., in: Al-fikr al- 'arabf,
7 10_11 (82-83), 152-159 (Ar).
A. tries to specify I.S.'s political and social ideas by establishing a more or less
POLITICS AND ETHICS 171
(9) MAHDI, M., art. Avicenna. Practical Science, in: Enc. Ir., 84-88.
A states that I.S.'s account of practical science is laconic. I.S. offers two (at first
sight incompatible!) views of practical science. The first view emphasizes ethics,
and subordinates practical life to theoretical life; the second view has as its point
of departure "human governance" (divided into the single individual, the
household and the city). So, what the philosophers meant by nomos in political
philosophy is precisely the shari'a, in other words political science can justify
some of the characteristics of the Law and of prophethood. Alongside the
practical science proper, one also finds many practical things inside the
theoretical sciences. Moreover, the subsidiary divisions of the theoretical
sciences can be seen as applied for practical arts, e.g. the science of return, a
subdivision of the divine science, shows that true divine Law complements what
reason cannot know, Le. the resurrection of the body, and the existence of bodily
rewards and punishments in the hereafter. A. concludes that I.S. abandoned the
Platonic and Farabian theories of political science as the architectonic practical
science (if not the architectonic science simply!). Instead, I.S. revived the
Aristotelian division of wisdom into theoretical and practical science. Moreover,
I.S., contrary to his predecessors, placed the main accent on private perfection,
subordinating practical science to theoretical knowledge.
A somewhat provocative, but, no doubt, stimulating and most valuable
contribution.
ideas, but a qualified judgment in this respect requires a proper analysis of 1.S.'s
texts in their own right!
(11) NAHI (EN-), S., Ibn Slna's Ideas on the Philosophy of Religion and
of Legislation, in Vlusl. I.S. Semp., 179-182 (Tu), 183 (Engl S.), 184-
190 (Ar).
A. declares justice the very foundation of 1.S.'s theory of legislation, but I.S.
derives this theory from divine Providence, not from the sensus communis as in
Mu'tazilism. Moreover, A. observes a clear-cut distinction in I.S. between
legislation and morality. Furthermore, he points to I.S.'s defense of prophecy as
an expression of universal, not specifically Islamic religiosity, and as a conditio
sine qua non for the education of the masses. Finally, he discusses the influence
of 1.S.'s ideas on later thought.
It has to be noted that the English summary is a confused translation of A.'s
conclusion, taken from the original Arabic text.
A valuable paper, containing interesting insights.
(13) SAID (AL-), R., Ibn Slna as Political and Social Thinker, in: Al-
dhikr, 131-155; also in : Al-jikr al- 'arabf, 1981, nr. 22, 331-323; and in :
M. alWabda (Beirut), 6 (80), 52-66 (Ar).
Having noted that the expression that the human subject is "social by nature", A.
emphasizes that for I.S. the Law is necessary in order to keep the human
community together. Hence, I.S. accepts that the Law (shari'a) is sunna,
tradition or norm. But he seems not to have considered it as a kind of structural
Law in Plato's sense. Moreover the lawgiver is identified by him with the
prophet of the Islamic-Arabic tradition - although I.S.'s understanding of
prophecy is not genuinely Islamic (ace. to A., most probably under Farabian
influences). Nevertheless, he admits, and even stresses thatI.S. clearly splits with
Greek thought, when he follows up aI-Amid and rejects the existence of
universal rules needed to control the city. Finally, with respect to the problem of
the imamat, A. places it generally in a pure Islamic context, and more
particularly points to some shi'ite influence. In his conclusion, A. stresses the
fact that the scope of I.S. 's political views is fundamentally Islamic.
A. enumerates the different possible sources of 1.S.'s main political ideas very
well. But one may wonder whether he does not underestimate the involved
rupture with Plato (and alFarabl), esp. in the light of 6 and 7.
(16) ID., Social, Political and Moral Conceptions oflbn Sina, in: Vopr.
Fi/os., 19809' 99-105 (Ru).
Metaphysics
See also:
I, C-I, 3 (Meyer)
V, B 1,2, 5, 6, 9, 10
VI, A 20; VI, C 3
XI, B-II, 11
XII, 1, 2, 5, 6, 12
XIII, 7, 11, 14, 20, 27, 28, 29, 35
XIV, A-I,ll, 16, 17;
XIV, A-I1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, la, 17
XIV, A-Ill, 10, 11; XIV, A-IV, 13
METAPHYSICS 177
(2) ALTINTA~, H., Ibn Sfna metajizigi (The Metaphysics of Ibn Sina)
(Ankara Ilah. Fak. Y., 177). Ankara, Univ. Ilah. Fak., 1985, VI + 159
pp.
(5) ATAY, H., lbn Sina da varlik nazariyesi (The Theory of Existence
according to lbn Sina). Ankara, Gelism Matbaasi, 1983, VIII + 236
pp.
(6) ID., The Distinction of Essence and Existence, in: Ulus!. I.s.
Semp., 139-166 (Tu).
Valuable, but not really innovative. One regrets that A. uses the 1495-ed. of the
Avicenna Latinus instead of the critical edition (which she knows).
it a cosmological proof - although a genuine one. A. does not deny that I.S.
himself conceives of it as a purely metaphysical proof, and an attempt to surpass
Aristotle's physical proof from motion. But here I.S. did at most develop some
suggestions of the Stagirite.
A. presents solid grounds for his interpretation, but his argument has only
convincing force if one accepts that the lshiiriit-proof is of the very same nature
as the one offered in the Najdt.
(17) FAKHRY, M., The Object of Metaphysics in Ibn Sina and in his
Forerunners, in: Al-dhikr, 103-129 (Ar).
A. stresses the genuine Aristotelian (and Farabian) character of LS.'s definition
of metaphysics as the study of being qua being. However, A. estimates that LS.'s
conception of causality (the second main theme of his metaphysics) is largely
indebted to Plotinus (and aI-Kind]'). A. also discovers some totally non-
Aristotelian elements, such as I.S.'s theories of providence, evil and resurrection.
Finally, A. points out that some aspects of LS.'s metaphysical doctrine, C.g. the
statement that an accident may subsist in a subject, are closely linked with
theological doctrines of his time.
Very valuable. A. opens interesting perspectives for further investigation.
totally confusing logical and ontological order. A. also discusses I.S.'s influence
on Thomas Aquinas.
A. 's analysis still reflects in some essential points the "Thomistic" spirit of the
beginnings of this century.
METAPHYSICS 183
(25) ID., Awicenna. MetaJyzika ze zbiora pt. Ksiega wiedzy (Ibn Sfna.
Metaphysics in the Work Danesh-Nameh). Warszawa, Ak. Theo!. Kat.,
1973, 206 pp.
Includes pp. 5-58 a general outline in Polish of I.S.'s metaphysics.
(30) JOLIVET, J., Aux origines de l'ontologie d'Ibn Sina, in : Etudes sur
Avicenne, 19-28; also in: Pensee arabe... , 581-562.
A. takes into consideration I.S.'s concept of essential structures (conceived in a
non-Platonic way!), by discussing 1.S.'s notions of shay', thing and mawjCtd,
existent, and also by analyzing I.S.'s theory of the relationship between the
universal and the particular. Although not contradicting Aristotle, the ontology
presented by 1.S. in this context is clearly non-Aristotelian, insofar as it
introduces a logic-based problematic, i.e. the focus imaginarius of an existence-
free essence. Having shown this in a very convincing way, A. points to the fact
that no such theory was present in Arabic philosophy before 1.S. He then
demonstrates that in mu'tazilite theology, on the contrary, some similar
considerations had been developed (a fact, which Shahrastani and F.D. Razl had
already pointed out). Moreover, the relationship between thing and existence
also functioned in the sunni theology of 1.S.'s time as a central issue of
debate.
A very fine paper. Compare also: Annuaire. Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes.
(V Section-Sc. Rei.), Vol. 88 (Comptes rendus 79-80), 401-405.
Necessary Being does not have an essence that is distinct from its existence. The
other (adopted by 1udy (see Influences, A 11, 10) and Gilson) holds that God has
no quiddity. Correcting some fragments, and translations of Judy, A. concludes
that, at least, in a preliminary way, one may accept with Verbeke that for I.S. the
essence of God is the same as His being in the sense of anity. However, A. notes
that Gilson's position can be rescued, insofar as I.S. adheres to the principle that
everything which has a quiddity other than anity is caused. From this principle,
and from the fact that the First has a quiddity - namely, to be necessary of Being
- I.S. concludes that God has no quiddity. It is worth mentioning that A. in an
appendix gives an English translation of a few passages of the Isagoge of the
Shija.
Very interesting, but in need of further elaboration (especially regarding the
involved notion of anity).
(44) ID., Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Malcolm and the Ontological
Argument, in: The Monist, 54 (70), 234-249.
A. demonstrates those features of 1.5.'s essence-existence distinction which
preclude the formulation of the first version of the ontological argument.
Hereafter, A. states that 1.5. offers a second version of the ontological argument,
as distinguished by Malcolm, but arrives at a concept of God, which is quite
different from Malcolm's. While for the latter the Necessary Existent is the God
of ordinary language, He is for 1.S. the principle of sufficient reason.
The same evaluation as used in 43 suggests itself. Compare also 13, which
opposes the interpretation that 1.S.'s God is the principle of sufficient reason.
(45) ID., Ibn Sina's Concept of the Self, in : Phi/os. Forum, 4 (73), 49-
73.
Based on the Danesh-Niimeh, Book of Science, A. discovers two paradoxes in
1,S.'s metaphysical system:
1. Although for 1.5. all actual entities are either substances or accidents, the
Necessary Existent, albeit an actual entity, is neither a substance nor an
accident;
2. No substance can be united with any other entity, but there exists a union
between the self-person and the Necessary Existent in the so-called mystical
state.
Further, A. repeats some basic elements of his 47.
It has to be noted that A. adheres to a process-language type interpretation of
1.8.'s concept of God.
Very interesting. There are indeed serious problems involved in 1.S.'s denial of
God as a substance, whichever interpretation one defends!
(47) ID., The Metaphysica of Avicenna (Ibn Sfna). (Pers. Her. Ser., 13).
London, Routledge and Kegan, 1973, Comm.: 145-291.
A. first observes that there are several basic similarities betwecn LS.'s and
Aristotle's metaphysical theories. But, as far as LS. 's cosmology is concerned, its
anti-Aristotelian, and, at the same time, rather anti-Islamic bias cannot be
dismissed. However, A stresses that 1.S. is well aware of the difference between
logical possibility and ontological contingency, and hence does not confuse
logical and ontological order in the elaboration of his Neo-Platonic-based theory
of emanation. Ace. to A, LS. did not succeed in combining Aristotclianism and
Neo-Platonism. A also detects elements of Zoroastrian and mystical influences
in LS.
The major part of A.'s comment is devoted to 1.S.'s concept of the Necessary
Existent. First of all, A. distinguishes threc groups of terms which I.S. uses to
describe the Necessary Existent, i.e. semiotic, epistemic and normative concepts.
Then he focuses on the Necessary Existent as the cause of the entire realm of
entities (LS. hereby adhering a Proclean rather than an Aristotelian view of
causation). Further A. concentrates on the problem of God's knowledge in its
twofold aspect of Self-knowledge and of knowledge of things outside of Himself.
In this context, A. introduces three fundamental ways by which I.S. considers the
Necessary Existent, and relates each of them to one specific major philosophical
work by I.S. So, he ascribes to the Danesh-Nameh, Book oj Science, a basically
ontological approach, while he links with the Shija, The Cure a religious view
and with the Isharat, Remarks and Admonitions, a phenomenological (~mystical)
interpretation. Finally, A. points to a paradox, raised by 1.8.'s contention that
God is not a substance (see also 45).
Interesting, but does A. not introduce a too great distinction between I.S.'s three
major philosophical writings? Regarding the use of tools of analytical
philosophy, cf. supra, 43.
(49) NETTON, I., Ibn Sina's Necessary and Beloved Deity, in: 1.
NETTON, Allah Transcendent. Studies in the Structure and Semiotics of
Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Cosmology (Exeter Ar. and Isl: Ser.,
5). London, New York, Routledge, 1989, 149-202.
Ace. to A., I.S.'s description of God's necessity and unity (and also His other
attributes) is largely indebted to al-Farabi. Monotheism and transcendence
constitute the two major bases of I.S.'s concept of God (there existing a
possibility to equate I.S.'s God with Plotinus' One). Regarding I.S.'s cosmology,
A. affirms that it is infiltrated by an angelology (in the line of Corbin), but that it
is radically different from the religious doctrine of creatio ex nihilo (following
Morewedge, see supra, 47). Then A. insists that I.S. does not succeed in
reconciling his ontological scheme with his cosmological scheme. Finally, after a
brief discussion of I.S.'s proofs for God's existence (A. accepting the presence of
an ontological proof in the Ishiirat, Remarks and Admonitions), A. concentrates
on I.S.'s mystical philosophy. For A., it is obvious that I.S. has much in common
with sufism, especially regarding his concept of love. A. concludes that I.S. holds
a double theology (God as necessary and God as love) - allegory as mirror
functioning as a structure for this theology. In order to illustrate this conclusion,
A. offers a brief analysis of .E;-Iayy ibn Yaq~an, according to some principles of
Barth's semiology.
Some interesting ideas, but A.'s basic approach - esp. the introduction of modern
semiotical means - appears risky (as already mentioned regarding the use of
modern analytical philosophy by Morewedge, see supra, 43).
(52) RAHMAN, F., Essence and Existence in Ibn Sina. The Myth and
the Reality, in: Hamdard Islamicus, 4 1 (81), 3-14.
A. further elaborates on his Essence and Existence in Avicenna, in: Med. and
Ren. Stud., 4 (58),. 1-16. He pays special attention to the concept of contingency.
In analyzing the form-matter relationship, he points to I.S.'s introduction of a
third principle which bestows existence on everything (an idea, which is not
present in Aristotle, but I.S. remains basically inside an Aristotelian framework).
In the light of this element, form appears as a contributory cause of matter - and
as such its priority over matter is safeguarded. Now, whereas the form-matter
composition entails a real contradiction between existence and non-existence,
this very same contradiction does not follow in the case of a pure essence-
METAPHYSICS 191
(53) RIORDON, J., God, Intellect, and Avicenna, in: R. ROTI-I (Ed.),
God, Knowable and Unknowable. New York, Fordham Univ. Press,
1973, 23-41.
A. discusses Nasr's thesis that "Western philosophy failed to distinguish between
intellect and reason, in sharp contrast with truly Islamic philosophy". I.S., at
least in his Peripatetic writings, is considered by Nasr to be among the historical
sources of the positivism, so characteristic for the former. However, A. notes
that I.S. in his Peripatetic De Anima (Shija) explicitly distinguishes between
single intellect and discursive reason - the former helping man to grasp reality by
offering an intuition of the necessity in Being. As to I.S.'s esoteric writings, A.
agrees with Nasr (and Corbin) that they include a pure symbolic vision (A.
remarks that for Nasr only a vision such as this leads to the true insight regarding
the difference between intellect and reason).
The paper includes valuable features, but is it not dealing with Nasr rather than
with I.S.?
metaphysical sense. The former implies that existence is not part of the essence
of the subject, while the latter underscores the contingency of created things.
Further A. believes that 1.S.'s logical sense of essence in itself always refers to
essence as essence of something - the 'in itself-status indicating a mode of Being,
but not meaning an independent mode of existence! A. also observes a sharp
distinction in 1.S. between existence, as analytically implied in the idea of
substance, and existence, as being part of the nature of caused things (and, as
such, evoking their contingency, and hence their being 'accidental'). So, it
becomes evident that existence can never be external to God, who is sheer
existence. For A., the main reason for 1.S.'s refusal to call God a substance, is
most probably given by the fact that a substance may not exist. However, A.
wonders why 1.S. did not therefore declare God as infinite substance?
A very valuable contribution, although there might have been other reasons for
1.S.'s denial of substantiality in God than the one suggested (e.g. the material
reference which always seems to be implied in the Arabic notion of jawhar
substance).
(57) TABATABA'I, M., Naqd-i ara-i Ibn Sfna dar Ilahiyyat (The Spirit
of Ibn Sfna's Metaphysical Conceptions). Tehran, Nashir, 1983, 88
pp.
In this booklet, A. deals with three major items:
1. The relationship between 1.S. and some of the most important Arabic and
Persian thinkers subsequent to him;
2. The sharp distinction between God and the sensible world in I.S.;
3. Three religious themes of I.S.'s metaphysics, i.e. his doctrines of the divine
One, of prophecy and of resurrection.
Ace. to A., all of I.S.'s doctrine, including the religious themes, is guided by
Aristotelian principles - sometimes to the detriment of authentic religion! It is
worth mentioning that A. offers many citations from different works, in the
original Arabic as well as in a (rather) critical Persian translation.
Valuable, although introductory.
(59) TURKEL-KUYEL, M., May one indicate the Kut" source of the
Agent Intellect in al-Farabi' and Ibn Si'na?, in: Ibn Sina. Dogumunun...,
489-590 (Tu).
Note: "kut" is an old Turkish term, derived from Sumerian and Babylonian
sources, and meaning: 'Holy Spirit' or 'Favour of the Heavens'.
METAPHYSICS 193
(60) ID., The Sources of I.S.'s Agent Intellect, in: Ibid., 591-670
(Tu).
(61) ID., Farabi's Politics, a Step towards Ibn Sina's Agent Intellect,
in : Ibid., 671-706 (Tu).
(62) ID., Ibn Sina and the Agent Intellect, in: Ibid., 707-748 (Tu).
(63) ID., Ibn Sina and Mystical Ideas, in: Ibid., 749-792 (Tu).
59-63: Taken together these papers seem to constitute one large monograph on
the problematic of the Agent Intellect, both in its historical sources and in its
actual significance inside I.S.'s own philosophical system. From the very outset,
one gains the impression of dealing with a very fundamental study.
Unfortunately, one's ignorance of the Turkish language obliges one to withhold
any critical evaluation.
.- I.S. agrees with Aristotle that the proper object of metaphysics is Being qua
Being, but he deviates from the Stagirite when he states that God can only be
discussed inside the science of metaphysics;
- I.S. adheres a 'mitigated realism', insofar as he does not defend an absolute
parallelism between logical and ontological order;
- I.S. (re-)thinks the notions of possible and necessary in an existential
dimension;
- The probable presence in I.S. of a transcendental analogy of Being;
- I.S.'s keeping with Aristotle, and rejecting Plotinus, in holding the
accidentality of unity;
- I.S.'s defense of the reality-involved character of the metaphysical inquiry
(based on his specific theory on universals);
- The ultimate originality of I.S.'s doctrine of causality;
- r.S.'s justification of monotheism in a philosophical way, e.g. by conceiving
God's perfection in terms of pure Being;
-- r.S.'s acceptance of the idea of a necessary and mediated creation.
A very fine basic outline and analysis of the Metaphysics.
(67) YAZDI, M., The Relation between Existence and Essence in the
Philosophy of Ibn Sina, in: Hazara-i Ibn Sfna, 11-29 (Pers).
For A., I.S.'s affirmation of the "accidentality" of existence requires a specific
semantic analysis, which he develops (based on Najat, The Salvation and !sharat,
Remarks and Admonitions, and paying attention to Ibn Rushd's critical
remarks). A. concludes that for I.S. the accidentality of existence has to be placed
on a purely mental level, and that I.S. gives existence its full value on the
ontological level. With Mulla ~adrii Shirazi, the reversed expression, i.e. essence
is an accident of existence, is even true. Therefore, A. wonders whether Mulla
~adra's and I.S.'s opinions can be put together in one symmetric relationship (in
the sense it has in analytical logic)? For A., the answer is in the affirmative, since
the otherness of essence from existence is necessarily implied by both
systems.
Interesting, but the textual basis on which A argues appears rather weak
(especially in view of the importance of the conclusion).
(68) ZEDLER, B., Another Look at Avicenna, in: New Scholast., 50
(76), 504-521.
A. believes one may accept the existence of a real, but not reified distinction of
essence and existence in I.S. For the sake of clarification, she offers a brief, but
accurate description of r.S.'s emanation scheme. Then, she observes that r.S.'s
originally logical analysis of essence becomes a metaphysical composition of
essence and existence in "created" beings. Similarly, I.S. glides from the logical
into the ontological order, when dealing with the order of the possibles (in both
cases, A. finds some historical support in Ibn Rushd). For A, this 'gliding' results
from the very fact that I.S. tries to preserve, even within the context of necessary
universe, the Qur'anic teaching of God as the creative cause of all things.
Valuable, a defense of the classical Western interpretation of I.S., but in a
nuanced way.
Chapter XI
See also:
In, 19
v, B 6; V, C 28, 53
VIII, 17
IX, 9, 11
X, 11, 45, 47, 53, 63
XIV, A-I, 2
XV, D 4; XV, E 5
197
(3) GHORABA, H., Ibn Sfna bayn al-dfn wa 'l-falsafa (Ibn Sfna between
Religion and Philosophy). Cairo, 1948. Repr. Cairo, M. al-buhuth al-
isHimiyya, 1972.
(4) GOLCOK, ~, The Philosophy of Ibn Sina and its Relationship with
Kalam, in: s.o.
Selr;uk Dergisi, 2 (88), 125-133 (Tu).
(5) GUNGC)R, H., The Philosophy of Religion in Ibn Sina's View, in:
Kayseri Kongr., 263-269 (Tu).
198 RELIGIOUS THEMES AND MYSTICISM
(8) MAHDI, M., Introduction to art. Avicenna, in: Enc. Ir., 66-67.
In this introduction, A. limits himself to the problem of the relation between
philosophy and religion in I.S. For A., r.S. sustained al-Farabi's view of religion,
but without its original formulation and political framework. Instead of
discussing the relation between philosophy and religion, r.s. tried to offer a
philosophical interpretation of religion. Therefore, his philosophy was
appreciated by a large number of educated Muslims. So, notwithstanding the
development within philosophical circles of an anti-Avicennian tradition, many
later authors, as e.g. al-Ghazzali or AI-Sahrastani, almost identified philosophy
with I.S.'s doctrine.
A valuable contribution, but clearly in need of some further development.
199
B. Religious themes
1. PROPHECY
(1) AMALI, A., Ibn Sina's Attitude towards Prophecy, in: Hazara-i Ibn
Sin a, 31-44 (Pers).
A. studies the different aspects of I.S.'s theory of prophecy, mainly based on
I.S.'s major works, al-Shifa, Najat and [sharat. He insists on the necessary
character of prophecy in the Avicennian system. However, A. affirms I.S.'s
doctrine to be superogatory with respect to the original Qur'anic conception of
prophecy.
A rather superficial account of I.S.'s theory of prophecy.
forms - hence he seems to be the only person capable of having at the same time
universal knowledge and knowledge of singulars. As to prophecy by motion, it is
based on an almost similar ground as the prophecy by imagination. It concerns
once more the opportunity for the soul to act without undergoing any influence
from the sensible realm, i.e. its capacity to act efficiently on the sensible things in
a way totally independent of any material causality. As to the third kind of
prophecy, the intellectual one, A. only mentions its formal side - an immediate,
intuitive knowledge, free of any discursivity.
The paper contains some interesting ideas, but one may wonder if A.'s
interpretation is not based on a somewhat too narrow basis?
(3) 'A~I, M., AI-Aflbawiyya fi 'l-ma'ad li-Ibn Sfna (Ibn Sfna's Treatise
On Resurrection). Beirut, al-mu'assasat aI-jam. li 'l-dirasat wa 'l-nashr
wa 'l-tawzi, 1984, Part I : al-ma 'ad, 14-70.
In this introductory part, A. focuses on the concept of ma 'ad in its different pre-
philosophical meanings (esp. in common language, Qur'an and hadfth-
literature), before he turns to I.S.'s particular interpretation of it. As to this
latter, A. briefly evokes its spiritualistic overtone, its moral foundation (the life
in the hereafter being directly dependent upon this life), as well as Ghazzali's and
Ibn Rushd's discussions of I.S.'s theory. He, moreover considers the work as
authentic, but dating of a latcr period of I.S.'s life - an earlier dating, on thc
RELIGIOUS THEMES AND MYSTICISM 201
(5) AYDIN, M., Analysis of Happiness (sa'ada) in Ibn Sina, in: Ibn
Sfnii. Doifumunun. .., 433-452 (Tu).
(7) KAYA, M., The Conception of Happiness in Ibn Sina, in: Vlusl.
1.8. Semp., 495-500 (Tu).
some Islamic input, insofar as for I.S. each human soul individually survives.
But, in fact, the revealed work of the Qur'an is primarily of an educative nature -
Revelation being destined to the common people, the full, i.e. philosophical,
truth being only accessible to a small elite. Of course, revelation expresses the
same truth as philosophy, but it does so on a purely allegorical level. A. declares
that 1.S., due to his Platonism, rejects any kind of bodily resurrection, although
he seems to search for a satisfactory solution for the imperfect souls by accepting
the eventuality of an imaginary projection by means of a celestial body.
Valuable, although one may wonder if A. is not over-Platonizing I.s.'s views?
For other possible objections, see also 10 and, most of all, 11.
in his conception of the love for beautiful faces - to cite a few examples out of
this rich and extensive material. One has to observe that A. leaves open (but does
not examine himself) the possibility of a common Neo-Platonic heritage as an
explanation for these striking similarities.
A well-documented study, although one may wonder to what extent A:s
conclusion remains valid when one takes into account the basic philosophical
character of the treatise which A. himself recognizes?
(7) CORBIN, H., Avicenne et le recit visionnaire. Etude sur le cycle des
recits avicenniens. Teheran, Paris, 1954. Reed. Paris, Berg, 1979. Engl.
Transl. W. Trask, Avicenna and the Visionary Recital. New York, 1960.
Repr. Texas, Spring Pub!., 1980.
Reprints of both the original and the English translation of this study.
(8) DEMIRCI, A., Islamic Mysticism according to Ibn Sina, in: Kayseri
Kongr., 259-262 (Tu).
(12) lABARI (AL:-), M., Ibn Sina and Oriental Philosophy. Excavations
in the Roots of the Arabic-Islamic Philosophy in the East, in : Pensee
arabe. ", 89-179 (Ar).
Having presented the basic texts regarding the problem of 1.S.'s "Oriental
philosophy", A. first concentrates on 1.S.'s relationship with al-Hirabl. Ace. to
A., 1.S. accepted the basis of al-Farahl's metaphysics, but adhered to a "spiritual"
philosophy instead of al-Farabi's "intellectual" philosophy - a fact proven inter
alia by 1.S.'s ascribing sensation and imagination to the celestial bodies (an idea
which was not accepted by the "Occidental" philosophers). Further, A. points to
the Occidental readings of 1.S.'s "Oriental" philosophy by Ibn Rushd and Ibn
Tufayl, to the two major sources of that very same philosophy, i.e. the "religious
philosophy" of the school of Harran, and Neo-Platonism; and to the existence of
two competing philosophical schools in I.S.'s time, i.e. the Occidental school of
Baghdad and the Oriental school of Khorasan. In the final part, A. explains I.S.'s
turn towards an "Oriental" philosophy as motivated by ideological factors (A.
hereby also refers to Sohravardi and the Ikhwan a~-~ara).
The paper contains some valuable elements, but the very basis of its
interpretation is highly questionable. See especially 11.
third kind, i.e. the mystical. He refers to 1.S.'s emanative scheme (presenting it as
dyadicl), and his theory of the mystical return of the creatures to the ultimate
Being (although as recognized by A. himself, this theory fails in e.g. the Shijd).
1.8.'s adherence to the reality of a mystical union becomes more evident in his
doctrine of a purely intellectual afterlife - but A. formulates some reserve against
his own interpretation (invoking the almost total absence of critical editions of
1.S.'s texts).
An interesting paper - but compare with supra, 11 (where a totally different
interpretation is offered - a thorough investigation is undoubtedly required in
order to choose between both interpretations), and also with supra 2.
(16) RAVAN FARHAOI, A., Ibn Sina and Sufism, in : Afghanistan Q.,
33 2 (80), 1-8.
A. believes that 1.8. in his later life was living a crisis of conscience, but did not
accept its full consequences. He offers a partial English translation of Man(iq al-
mashriqiyyfn, Logic ojOrientals (based on Nasr's Persian translation!), as well as
a selective bibliography of French and English works on the topic of 1.8. and
sufism.
Of a rather limited value.
(17) ID., Ibn Sina's Inclination towards Sufism, in: Ibn Sina and
Sufism, 1-30 (Pers).
Ace. to A., 1.8.'s theory of 'ishq, love, reveals an Islamic inspiration, and hence is
RELIGIOUS THEMES AND MYSTICISM 209
(19) SAMANDAR GHURYANI, A., Ibn Slna and Sufism, in: Ibn Sfna
and Su./ism, 3139 (Pers).
The title is highly misleading. A., in fact, presents a classical survcy of I.S.'s
doctrine of Being, and an even more classical account of the way in which al-.
Farabi tries to harmonize Aristotle with Plato. As to I.S.'s 'mysticism', he scems
to understand it as the latter's Hegel-like synthesis bctwecn man and God!
A rather confused study. Of not great value.
(22) lJLKEN, H., Novelties of Ibn Sina and Mysticism, in: Ibn Sfnii
and Sufism, 40-45 (Pers). (The English table of contents reads: Ibn
Sina. Treatise on the Nature of Love).
A Persian translation by Ravan Farhadl of a paper written in French (or C.R.?)
by Ulken, probably many years ago, however, the original publication was not
identified.
explanation, before he properly deals with I.S.'s (and often one looks in vain for
a real comparison).
Of very limited value. A. is clearly unaware of 'A~l, see supra, 2.
(24) ZIADAT, M., Mystical Thought in Ibn Sina, in: Al-dhikr, 79-101
(Ar).
A. distinguishes three kinds of mysticism in Ibn Sina:
1. Philosophical mysticism (A. pointing to I.S.'s emanationism and his theory of
'ishq, love, both in the perspective of generation (cf. Ishiiriit) and the perspective
of return (cf. R. Ff '[- 'ishq, Tr. On Love));
2. A reflection on his mystical practice (A. citing large extracts of the last
chapters of the Ishiiriit);
3. Oriental philosophy (present in I.S.'s so-called esoteric writings. A. leans
heavily on Nasr in this part).
A. concludes that I.S.'s mysticism represents a philosophical or intellectualistic
mysticism.
Not very original, and highly questionable, cfr. supra, 11.
Chapter XII
Sources (Greek)
See also:
I, C - j 2 (Pines)
V, A 29 (Sabaeans); V, B 7 (Zoroastrism)
VI, A 7, 11, 21, 22; VI, B 2, 5; VI C 4
VIII, 16, 24
IX, 1, 6, 7, 13, 18
X, 15, 36, 47 (Zoroastrism), 64-66
XI, C 9, 13, 14 (Zoroastrism), 18
XIII, 6, 11, 16
XIV, A-II, 8
XV, A 6 (Indian), 14,24,28-29; XV, B 1,
2 (Indian), 6; XV, B 2, 1, 2 (Iranian), 9;
XV, D 3
SOURCES (GREEK) 215
(1) BOOTH, E., Ibn Sin a and the Re-ordening of Aristotle's Thought,
in : E. BOOTH, Aristotelian Aporetic Ontology in Islamic and Christian
Thinkers (Cambridge Stud. Med. Life and Thought, ser. 3, vo!. 20).
Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983, ch. IV, 2, 107126.
Acc. to A., I.S. showed respect for the "radical" interpretation of Aristotle, and
even wished to clarify and develop it. Having discerned three ontological
orientations in I.S., A. concentrates on I.S.'s re-arrangement of Aristotle's
aporetic ontology, mainly based on the Isagoge of the Shifii. A. shows how I.S.
unproblematically works out the aporetic distance between the factor of
universality in the individual and thc factor of true individuality (referring
hereby to I.S.'s distinction between the logical and physical conceptions of the
essential). A. moreover remarks that I.S.'s categorialisation didn't protect the
logical constructions from being severed from the reality to which they were
supposed to refer (A. speaks in this context of I.S.'s "proto-scholasticism"). A.
finally evokes the crucial role accorded by I.S. to the species ~ because it permits
the relation between logical and physical genera (but Aristotle's aporetic of Met.
VII automatically comes to the fore here). A "radical" Aristotelianism is also
observed by A. in I.S. 's Plato-critique - but the presence of more outspoken N eo~
Platonic themes is recognized by him where it regards the ontology of some other
Avicennian works (Ishiiriit, Remarks and Admonitions; Danesh-Nameh, B. of
Science, and the Comm. on the Theol. Arist.).
A significant contribution, although one may wonder whether A. is not
overemphasizing somewhat the presence of a "radical" Aristotelianism in
I.S.?
the philosopher.
A very important monograph - clarifying several essential issues - but one may
wonder whether A. does not underestimate the significance of the Islamic impact
on LS.'s thought (may-be by being too confident in Goichon's interpretation)?
Regarding the proposed chronology of LS.'s works, it has to be handled with
caution (more substantial arguments are needed than the ones given).
(9) PINES, S., The Arabic Recension of Parva Naturalia and the
Philosophical Doctrine concerning Veridical Dreams according to al-
Risala al-Manamiyya and Other Sources, in: Israel Oriental Studies, 4
(1974),104-153; repr. in: Studies in Arabic Versions o/Greek texts and
in Medieval Science (CoIl. Works Shl. Pines, 2). Jerusalem, Magness
Press; Leiden, Brill, 1986, 96-145.
The R. al-Manamiyya, Tr. On Interpretation ofDreams, may be considered to be
an authentic work by I.S. - notwithstanding the fact that it is not mentioned in
SOURCES (GREEK) 219
the most ancient lists of his works. One of its central notions, esp. in the chapters
6-9, is that of "Divine Force". Although A. accepts that some Islamic additions
have been introduced, he believes, and convincingly shows, that one has to
accept an ultimate Greek source. He specifies the Greek's influence as Stoic, but
also probably entailing some Peripatetic-derived (however not Aristotelian!)
materials (A. more specifically refers to Cratippus). Hereafter, in what appears to
be a second part, A. compares the so-called citation of Aristotle's Parva
Naturalia in this Risdla with its version in Averroes' Epitome, contrasting both
of them with the known Greek recension. In his well-known prudent way, A.
concludes that there may have existed another Greek recension of the Parva
Naturalia, to be ascribed possibly to the young Aristotle, or, more probably, to a
Stoic (or relatively late Peripatetic) adaption of the Treatise, or to an Hellenistic
substitution of it. The Arabic philosophers considered this other version no
doubt to be genuinely Aristotelian, as is proved by Averroes' unreserved
commitment to it, or by al-Farabi's theory of veridical dreams and prophecy.
It has to be noted that A. offers an excellent translation (based on MS. Brit. Mus.
Arabic 978) of the ch. 6-9, 15, 25 and 39 of I.S.'s treatise.
A most remarkable paper!
(11) SALIBA, G., Min Ajlatun ita Ibn Sfna (From Plato to Ibn Sfna).
Damas, 1935. 3Beirut, Dar al-Andalus, 1983.
Chapters 4-6 (pp. 81-144) deal explicitly with I.S.
See also:
I, A-Ill, 3 St. 2; I, A-Ill, 12, St.;
I, C-m (Michot)
VI, A 3; VI, B 7; VI, C 2
VIII, 8
IX, 6, 7
X, 3, 8, 15, 27, 30, 40, 61, 67
XI, A 6; XI, C, 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13
XII, 9
XIV, A-I, 2, 4, 13; XIV, A,Il, 8, 14;
XIV, A-IV, 2
XV, A 4, 8, 18; XV, B-1, 2, 5; XV, B-II, 12;
XV, C 12; XV, D, 5, 6; XV, E, 3
IBN SINA AND OTHER ARABIC THINKERS 223
(1) ATAY, H., Farabi ve Ibn Sina'ya gore yaratima (Being in the
Philosophy of al-Farabf and Ibn Sfna). Ankara, Univ. IHih. Fak., 1974,
158 pp.
(4) ID., The Criticism of Atomism in al-Kindi and Ibn Sina, in : Ibid.,
471-580 (Tu).
(5) BELENISKI, A., Ibn Sina and al-Binlni, in: Ibn Sino v ego epokhe,
161-180 (Ru).
Faraj ibn al- ',fayyib. Abfi Bisr Matta, who was a disciple of Yapya, went even
further, and posited not only the principle of motion in the particular thing but
also an immanent creative being - Active Nature. I.S., however, firmly rejected
such an interpretation - accepting only God as the real cause for the being of
everything in the world, hence nature being no agent at all. Acc. to A., this
"different attitude" toward nature may be one of the things that provoked I.S.'s
violent attacks on the "philosophers of the West".
A serious study about significant historical developments in Aristotle's concept
of nature (in Greek as well as in Arabic philosophy), but is this sufficient to
support A. 's final conclusion about the "orientalism" of I.S.?
(8) DAIBER, H., art. Bahmanyar Kia, in: Enc. Jr., 501-503.
A. rightly presents Bahmanyar as a commentator and transmitter of I.S.'s
philosophy, although he differed from his master in his teaching on the soul in
the afterlife. A. also offers important bibliographical considerations, not at least
concerning such works as the Muba~athat, Discussions and the Ta'lfqat, Notes,
which, at least partly, result from Bahmanyar's discussions with I.S.
A fine article.
(9) DAVIDSON, H., Alfarabi and Avicenna on the Active Intellect, in:
Via tor. Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 3 (72), 109-178.
A. most accurately shows that the famous problem of the nous poietikos arises
IBN SINA. AND OTHER ARABIC THINKERS 225
outof Aristotle's De Anima, Bk. 3. Further on, he discusses the antecedents of al-
Farabi's and 1.8.'s solutions for it. Hereby, he concentrates on four topics:
I. The type of entity the Active Intellect is (for both Arabic authors, it is the last
of the celestial Intelligences - A. stresses that this particular interpretation is
totally original in al-Farabl);
2. The manner in which it serves as a cause for human thought (with special
attention to the notion of acquired intellect);
3. The manner in which it serves as a source for the existence of the whole or of
a part of our world, and
4. The manner in which it causes certain religious phenomena.
Out of a profound analysis of these four major points, Alexander of Aphrodisias,
Plotinus and al-Kindi (and to a lesser extent Themistius and the Arabic treatise
On the Soul, attributed to Porphyry) are revealed to be of a particular historical
significance for the Farabian-Avicennian doctrine of the Active Intellect. Then,
A. examines in detail, but separately, al-Farabi's and I.8.'s opinions. As to the
former, we may note here inter alia that A. distinguishes no less than three views
within al-Farabl's different works, that A. characterizes al-Farabl's declaration of
the heavens as emanating the matter of this world as original in al-Hirabi, and
that A. makes it obvious that al-Farabi excludes a strict individual survival (at
most, he accepts the immortality of the acquired intellect, but in his lost
Commentary on the Nichomachean Ethics al-Farabi would even have rejected
any kind of human survival after death). As to 1.8., we notice the following
items:
1. Prime matter is emanated by the Active Intellect, together with the aid of the
movements of the celestial sphere - on this point, A. stresses the existential
impact of 1.8.'s considerations;
2. Moreover, the Active Intellect emanates the forms appearing in matter as well
as the individual human souls;
3. Further, it is the direct source of human thought (the human intellect being
typified by a fourfold division) - acc. to A., I.S. goes beyond al-Farabi in this
respect, and takes a position close to Plotinus' view;
4. The human intellect may have a conjunction with It - through it I.S. assures
the individual immortality of each human Being, and also the phenomenon of
prophecy (A. stressing however that it concerns an intellectual type of
prophecy).
A most essential study (almost a monograph!) of one of the very central issues of
1.8.'s philosophy, including a highly illuminating comparison with the latter's
famous predecessor al-Farabl.
(12) EGRI, B., The Arabic Triad: Hunain ibn Ishak, Rhazes, Avicenna,
in: Orv. Hetil., 122 (81), 1595-1600 (Hung).
(17) IRISOV, A., AI-Farabi and Ibn Sina, in: Soc. Sciences Uzb., 1974 6 ,
71-79 (Ru).
(18) KAYA, M., Averroes' Critique on Ibn Sina, concerning the Subject
of Essence and Existence, in: Ibn Sfna. Dogumunun..., 453-460
(Tu).
(19) KHAIRULLAEV, M., AI-Farabi and Ibn Sina, in: Ibn Sino. K-IOOO
letiju, 61-71 (Ru).
blind (and hence how to explain justice in the retribution of the hereafter?);
2. A replacement from the Deity to the celestial souls as concerns the problem of
omniscience in relation to future contingents (acc. to A., I.S.'s and al-Farabi's
solutions are almost similar in this respect). The major part of A.'s contribution
is however devoted to Ibn Rushd, who, by separating the philosophical and the
theological aspects of the problem, elaborated a fundamentally different
solution.
A good paper, but, A.'s observations about I.S. are (too?) heavily dependent
upon Marmura's interpretation.
(24) MARMURA, M., Ghazali and the Avicennian Proof from Personal
Identity for an Immaterial Self, in: R. LINK-SALINGER (Ed.), A
Straight Path. Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture (Essays in
Hon. ofA. Hyman). Washington, The Catholic University, 1988, 195-
205.
Ghazza1!'s refusal of the ninth proof of the philosophers for the existence of an
immaterial soul (proof which states that the human self remains the same
notwithstanding all bodily changes) consists of two parts, as is most convincingly
shown by A. The first part compares animal and vegetative Beings (whose
growing old does not prove that they have an existence other than body). As to
the second part, it concerns the retention of the forms in the imagination (how
may these forms be retained in the brain, while they are material?). But
Ghazziill's criticisms, cogent as they are, do not cover all the facets of the
philosophical argument, as can be seen by a critical examination of I.S.'s own
two versions of the proof, in his Muba~athtit, Investigations (however, A. stresses
several obscurities in its actual formulation) and in his R. jf ma'rifat aL-nap;; al-
na(iqa wa A/:MJiUiha, Treatise on Knowing the RationaL Soul and its States. In fact,
onc misses the notion of one's awareness of self-identity, which is clearly implied
in thesc texts, esp. thc latter.
One cannot but hope that this study will function as a model for further dctailed
analysis of Ghazziili's different criticisms of several philosophical theses (derived
mainly from I.S.'s works) as formulated in his Tahafut aI-Falas(fa, The
Incoherence of the Philosophers.
(26) MILLA, A., AI-Qa~'fda al- 'ayniyya, or the Rational Soul, by Ibn
Sina, and the (manu-)Script Ma'rifa 'l-nafs of Ibn J:Iazm, in: Fikr wa-
fann, 19 37 (80), 30-38 (Ar).
Having presented the texts (in a rather uncritical way) of both LS.'s Poem on the
Soul and Ibn I:-Iazm's Knowledge of the Soul (acc. to the unique Istanbul-ms.
230 IBN SINA AND OTHER ARABIC THINKERS
2704) (the first is enlarged with a few footnotes, the second with a brief
introduction on the life and works of Ibn ~Iazm). A. briefly compares some
major doctrinal points implied by both texts. They reveal a fundamental
difference in approach. Whereas I.S. starts from a philosophical (metaphysical)
point of view, Ibn l:Iazm adheres a religious point of departure.
A rather superficial paper.
(27) MOHAGHEGH, M., The Influence ofIbn Si'na on Mi'r Damad, in:
I-Jazara-i Ibn Sfna, 273-286 (Pers).
A. examines an exemplary case of Avicennian influence on Mlr Damad: the
doctrine of the becoming of the world. Before dealing with this topic, A. insists
that Mlr Damad, notwithstanding his knowledge of I.S.'s illuminative
philosophy, relied heavily on the latter's Occidental philosophy of existence. As
to the problem of the origin of the world, Mlr Damad took as its starting point
the Avicennian doctrine that it is a dialectical problem of two extremes.
However, Mlr Damad tried to bridge these extremes by introducing the notion
of an eternal innovation (~udCtth dahrf) in an "imaginary time" (by this solution,
he came close to the kaHim). A. hereby summarizes the main premisses of the
theory of Mlr Damad. Then, he presents a survey of several of Mlr Damad's
citations of I.S. in relation to the concepts of time and eternity, and in particular
in relation to the problem of origin. Finally, A. discusses the Platonic and
Aristotelian origin of I.S.'s theory in this field, as reviewed by Mlr Damad.
A very interesting paper, revealing one of the high points of Avicennian influ
ence, although one may wonder whether I.S. himself ever endorsed any other
philosophy than a "Occidental philosophy of existence" (as it is called by
A.)?
ideas in his analysis of classical texts (see Metaphysics, 43), as well as his sharp
distinction between I.S.'s different works (see Metaphysics, 47).
(33) ID., Quelques notes sur les rapports de l'lpya aI-din d'al-Ghazzall
avec la pensee d'lbn Sina, in: Ghazali. La raison et le miracle (Islam
d'hier et d'aujourd'hui). Paris, Maisonneuve-Larose, 1987, 11-16.
The place mystical science occupies in Ghazzall's classification of the sciences,
as stated in the Marvels ofthe Heart (l~ya, IH, 1), cannot but evoke I.S.'s opinion
on it, as formulated in the [sharat, Remarks and Admonitions, H, 9-10. Besides
this major idea, A. points also to the presence of a refutation of LS.'s theory of
the eternity of the world a parte ante in Ghazzall's Book ofthe Foundations ofthe
Faith (IJ;ya, I, 2) quite comparable to the one in his Tahiifut, Incoherence of the
Philosophers. It has to be noted that A. presents Ghazzall's Maqiifjid, Intentions
of the Philosophers, as a faithful summary of LS. 's system, as developed in the
Shifii (but see Works, A HI, 3, St. 2, which shows it to be an almost pure
translation of the latter's Diinesh-Nameh, Book of Science).
232 InN SINA. AND OTHER ARABIC THINKERS
(34) PREISZLER, H., Ibn Sina und Miskawayh, in: Avicenna -/ Ibn
Sfna, 11, 35-42.
Comparing I.S. and Miskawayh, A. refers to their common encyclopaedial mind,
and stresses also the presence in both of a tendency to harmonize religion and
philosophy (ace. to A., in a secularizing way!).
A general paper, clearly based on Marxist premisses.
(35) RAHMAN, E, The Eternity of the World and the Heavenly Bodies
in post-Avicennian Philosophy, in: G. HOURANI (Ed.), Essays on
Islamic Philosophy and Science. New York, Albany, SDNY, 1975,222-
237.
Having outlined Aristotle's arguments in favour of the eternity of the world, and
Philoponus' reaction against it, A. shows how r.S. introduces a subtle but
important change vis-a-vis Aristotle, by positing the existence of Beings outside
God as possible - making the heavens not intrinsically different from any other
body in the world. Moreover, I.S. did consider the body of the heavens as
eternal, without, as A. judiciously observes, offering any justification for this
claim. Among the many Islamic thinkers, who took into consideration this
problematic, A. concentrates more specifically on Ghazzall, F.D. Razi, Abfi '1-
Barakat al-Baghdadi, Sohravardi and Mulla Sadra.
A. offers a brief, but accurate synthesis of the different positions of the authors
he takes into consideration.
(39) TAMIR, 'A., Ibn Sfnii fi marabf' Ikhwiin a/f-$afa (Ibn Sfnii in the
Footsteps of the Ikhwiin a/f-~afii). Beirut, M. 'izz ai-din, 1983, 264
pp.
A. first surveys 1.S.'s life, especially the political context, in which it was
embedded - paying special attention to the Ismailite input. Then, he presents the
system of the Ikhwa-ll a~-~am, focusing on such major themes as creation, the life
in the hereafter, alchemy, etc. He points to their extensive use of symbolism, but,
above all, to their peculiar vocabulary that largely differs from 1.S.'s
philosophical terminology. A,., however, considers this to be of no essential
significance. So, he does not hesitate to identify the soul, asserted by the Ikhwan
as a second hypostasis in a Plotinian inspired way, with the second higher
Intelligence of I.S.'s emanation scheme (sic!). Finally, he tries to prove I.S.'s
dependence upon the Ikhwan, mainly in two ways:
1. The evidence of their common rejection of such doctrines as the
transmigration of the soul, or incarnation (but were such ideas not discarded by
almost all Muslim thinkers?);
2. The juxtaposition of (at least, at first sight) parallel texts (but A. fails to
develop a proper analysis in order to show that they really partake of the same
doctrinal community).
It has to be noted moreover that A. many times gives no exact reference for his
citations.
At most, A. has assembled some basic material in order to study possible
influences of the Ikhwan on I.S. - a subject, no doubt, worth considering.
(40) ID., N a,~ir aI-din at-'l.usf fi mariibi' Ibn Sina ('rusf in the Footsteps
of Ihn Sfnii). Beirut, M. 'izz ai-din, 1983.
The general outline, as well as the method used in the work are almost the same
as in 39, although the comparison seems a little more natural, and also more
objective than in the former. Nevertheless, A. offers at best a 'point of departure'
for further investigation.
precious (although not always very precise), and, as he himself suspected far
from complete. Some further investigation permitted me to discover fragments,
derived from other Avicennian works, but also a lot of texts, which are
parallelled in Ghazzalian works. Hence, the problem of the attribution of the
work is much more complicated than suspected by A. (I am preparing a
publication on this topic).
(43) YAHANGIRI, M., Cavillors of Ibn Sina, in: Hazara-i Ibn Sfna,
225-271 (Pers).
I.S.'s thought was criticized in many respects by Islamic authors of all walks of
life in his own and later times. A. offers a well-documented survey of the most
significant criticisms, and their representatives. Besides the more familiary
names (and their well-known objections), e.g. Ghazzall, Ibn Rushd, Ibn
Taymiyya, al-Biruni, Miskawayh, etc. A. pays special attention to what he calls
the intelligentsia of Shiraz: al-Kirmani, Abu 'l-Khayr and Ibn Sab'in. On the
basis of a manuscript, he translates (or paraphrases?) I.S.'s (supposed?) answers
to Kirmani (out of this, appears some kind of difference in the method of
investigation and argumentation - logic versus linguistic analysis). Also on the
basis of a manuscript, he summarizes I.S.'s discussion with Abu 'l-Khayr. A.
mentions also some latcr authors, almost unacknowledged in the West, as e.g.
Kamal aI-din ibn Yunas, Zuhayr aI-din Bayhaqi or Muh. Baqir Khwansari -
providing always useful information.
A significant survey of the main objectors, and objections against I.S., although
sometimes a little 'rough' (esp. with respect to the 'great names').
Chapter XIV
Influences
Sce also:
X,3
XI, B 11, 6
XIII, 2
XV, A 18; XV, C 9, 10, 18; XV, D, 1,2
237
I. GENERAL
(3) ECER, A., The Reputation of Avicenna in the West, in: Kayseri
Kongr., 183-192 (Tu).
(7) GUASHOV, A., Ibn Sina's Influence on the West, in: Ibn Sino...,
153-166 (Ru).
(9) KHODEIRY, Z., Ibn Sfna wa talamfdhuhu al-latfn (Ibn Sfna and his
Latin Disciples). Cairo, M. al-Khanji, 1986, 207 pp.
A. offers a detailed survey of I.S.'s influence on the Latin Middle Ages, but offers
almost no new insights. Sometimes, one finds outdated ideas. A. seems to be
240 INFLUENCES
unaware of the most important studies of the last twenty years in the field - for
example she ignores such a major project as the edition of the Avicenna Latinus.
The very fact that most of the secondary literature, cited by A., date from.(1ong)
before 1960 seems to us highly relevant in this respect.
At most, a very first introduction to the problematics of I.S.'s influence on the
Latin West, but in several respects out-dated.
theory of the real distinction between essence and existence) and Duns
Scotus.
Rather insignificant.
(17) ID., Avicenna's Metaphysics and the West, in: M. WAHBA (Ed.),
Islam and Civilization (Proc. 1. Int. IsI. Phi/os. Congr.). Cairo, Ain
Shams Univ. Press, 1982, 53-64.
A. concentrates on one central topic of 1.S.'s metaphysics: creation. Having
clarified the precise nature of the connection of I.S.'s theory of creation with
Plotinus' conception of creation (A. indicating both resemblances and
incongruities), A. specifies the proper significance of I.S.'s theory of creation for
the Latin Middle Ages by examining the doctrines of two major authors, whose
relevance in this respect is not doubted: Guillaume of Auvergne and Thomas
Aquinas. The former refutes I.S.'s argument against creation in time, not,
however, without presenting it in an objective way, while the latter accepts I.S.'s
idea of God as a permanent source of Being, but criticizes him heavily for not
having conceived the creative act as a free (divine) initiative - I.S. having
introduced an element of chance in the arrangement of the universe by
conferring creative activity to the higher Intelligences.
A well-documented and clarifying paper.
Avicennian influence:
1. The division between theoretical and practical science (being based on the
division between what is not and what is related to us and to our action);
2. The attribution of the perfection of the soul to speculative knowledge as
such;
3. The epistemological foundation of the tripartition of the theoretical sciences
(A. refers in this respect to Thomas' Comment on Boethius' De Trinitate, but
seems to be unaware of Wippel, see infra, II 17);
4. The further elaboration of Aristotle's subdivision of the physical sciences;
5. The idea of a close 'collaboration' between the three speculative sciences;
6. The adopted noetics in Albert (Kilwardby clearly differs with I.S., and prefers
to adhere the Augustinian tradition).
A. concludes that the history of this influence shows that I.S. was not just a Neo-
Platonic, but, above all, an original thinker, and that it makes the thesis of an
"augustinisme avicennisant" rather suspect.
A well prepared paper, highly significant with respect to the theory of the
division of the sciences in the midst of the 13th c., however, one may wonder if
A.'s criticism concerning Gilson's discernment of an "augustinisme
avicennisant" is not too overhasty?
n. THOMAS AQUINAS
(7) FLYNN, J., St. Thomas and Avicenna on the Nature of God, in:
Abr Nahrain, 14 (73-74), 53-65.
Ace. to A, Thomas agreed with I.S., at least in his Shiffi., the Cure (this work
being the only one known in the Latin Middle Ages), about the following items
concerning God:
1. The need for proving the divine existence by way of causality (but for I.S. the
more appropriate way is to proceed from universal, self-evident principles - an
idea clearly dismissed by Thomas);
2. The absolute simplicity of the divine Being (God being no substance);
3. God having no essence other than His existence (ace. to A., Thomas would
not have fully understood I.S. on this topic).
Thomas however disagreed with I.S. on the doctrines of divine attributes,
emanation and God's knowledge of particulars. A discusses Thomas' criticisms
in an utmost classical way.
A rather conventional paper, which moreover appears to be rather questionable
in its (few) original ideas.
compared to the critical edition of the Avicenna Latinus, and so may have misled
A., in his interpretation (see Metaphysics, 33).
(12) LEE, P., St. Thomas and Avicenna on the Agent Intellect, in : The
Thomist, 45 (81), 41-61.
A.'s point of departure is the distinction between three landmarks in the history
of Aristotelianism :
1. Its Neo-Platonic transformation by I.S.;
2. Averroes' attempt to resolve all the inconsistencies in the Aristotelian
psychology, on purely Aristotelian grounds;
3. Thomas' enterprise to remove these same inconsistencies by moving beyond
Aristotle.
By way of illustration A. concentrates on the theory of the Agent Intellect
(however paying little attention to landmark 2). In this respect, he offers a
succinct, but valuable summary of I.S.'s theory of knowledge (based on the
critical edition of the De Anima of the Avicenna Latinus). He observes that I.S.'s
doctrine, although Aristotelian in language and inspiration, turns out to be more
Neo-Platonic in a larger frame. He even remarks most significantly that I.S.'s
Aristotelianism slides back by its own momentum into a Platonic view of man.
More specifically the spirituality of the intellect pushed I.S. to 'platonize man'.
Thomas rejected this Avicennian step. By placing the Agent Intellect inside man,
Thomas arrived at the inclusion of matter inside intelligibility.
Although not really innovative, a most valuable paper, insofar as it synthesizes
the most essential features.
the acceptance of the soul's substantiality and simplicity). However, she is not
blind to the evident differences that separate Thomas from I.S., especially since
they concern such important topics as the soul-body relation, or the very idea of
abstraction.
A valuable case study of Avicennian influence on Thomas (not supported by
explicit references), although one may wonder whether A. does not
underestimate the real significance of the tremendous distance that separates
Thomas' fundamental concept of man from I.S.'s point of view in this
matter?
(14) SILVA CASTRO, E., Santa Tomas, Avicenna, Averroes, in: Est.
PP. de la Merced, 30 (74), 371-406.
After a long introduction treating Thomas' dependence on previous Arabic (and
Jewish) thought, A. discusses in more detail the relationship of the Aquinate
with I.S., and, in an even more laborious way, Averroes. His views are almost
exclusively based on secondary literature (of which he seems to have a good
knowledge, although he clearly ignores such an important contribution as
Vanstcenkiste's, concerning the Avicenna-citations in Thomas, in: Tijdschrift
voor Filosofie, 15 (53), 457-507).
A good, but rather unscholarly paper.
(3) DRUART, TH.-A., The Soul and Body Problem: Avicenna and
Descartes, in: TH.-A. DRUART (Ed.), Arabic Philosophy and the West.
Continuity and Interaction. Washington, Georgetown U niv., Center for
Cont. Arab. Stud., 1988, 27-49 (followed by: MCTIGHE, Th., Further
Remarks on Avicenna and Descartes, ibid., 51-54); also in: A!-
mustaqba! al-'arabf, 58 6 (83), 113-126 (Ar).
A. carefully compares Descartes' idea of the cogito with 1.S.'s "Flying Man"-
argument. In both cases, the method of access of the human soul, or of the
256 INFLUENCES
(5) RUSSELL, G., The Impact of Ibn Sina via~Iayy ibn Yaq,?an, in:
Vlusl. 1.8. Semp., 307-315 (Engl), 315 (Tu S.).
A. argues that I.S.'s psychology, mediated by Ibn 1'ufayl's l!ayy ibn Yaq;an, had
a great influence on 17th and 18th C. European thought, due especially to
Pocock's Latin translation of 1'ufayl's work. Such thinkers as Leibniz and Locke
expressed their great admiration for 1'ufayl's tale. A. situates the impact of !iayy
also inside the wider cultural context of both centuries (the becoming aware of
the perfectibility of human nature).
A good paper, but precisely to what extent does 1'ufayl's lfayy reflect the basic
psychological insights of I.S.?
INFLUENCES 257
(6) ID., The Impact ofIbn Sln~i's Psychology via J:Iayy ibn Yaq?iin, in:
Proe. 16th Int. Congr. Hist. Sciences, 390.
Summary of 5.
(11) ID., Chaj ben Mekitz - die unbekannte QueUe der Divina
Commedia, in: Deutsches Dante Jahrbuch, 55/56 (80-81), 191-207.
(1) GLUSKINA, G., "Chaj benM*fz}} of Ibn Ezra and "fiayy ibn Yaq-
?Un}} of Ibn Sina, in: Vostokovendenio I (74) (= Ucenye zapiski
Leningradskoyo-univ. 374, ser. vost. nauk, v. 17), 93-106 (Ru).
(2) PINES, S. and SULER, B., art. Avicenna, in: Encyclopedia Judaica.
Jerusalem, 1971, vo!. 3, 955-960.
Both authors present I.S.'s major contributions in the philosophical and medical
fields respectively, before discussing the ancient Hebrew translations of I.S.'s
works in each of the two fields. As far as philosophy is concerned, Pines presents
concrete elements of A vicennian influence in Jewish thinkers, especially in
Maimonides (but A. warns of a too Avicennian interpretation of Maimonides'
philosophy) and in Abraham ibn Daud.
A useful basic outline for further research.
(1) RIZVI, A., Ibn Slna's Impact on the Rational and Scientific
Movements in India, in: Ind. J. Hist. Se., 21 (86), 276284.
Having reviewed the vehement struggle against Rationalists and Scientists by
both theologians and mystics in classical Islamic times, A. points out that I.S.'s
thought always remained influential, even in the Indian subcontinent. Especially
during the 15th and 16th centuries, a vivid interest existed in that area regarding
I.S.'s medical, scientific and philosophical ideas (e.g. Miyan Bhuwa, Sultan
Sikandar Lodi, Khatib Abu'l-Fazl, Fathu'l-lah Shirazi). Even in the 17th-19th
centuries, one still finds elements of Avicennian influence, as is shown by A.
A very interesting paper, especially since it enlightens us on an unexplored
domain of Avicennian influence - but still in need of a more detailed
presentation.
Chapter XV'
Sciences
A. GENERAL
B. 1. MATHEMATICS
2. MUSIC
C. PHYSICS
D. OPTICS
E. ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY
F. CHEMISTRY AND ALCHEMY
G. GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY
I-I. APPLIED SCIENCES
See also:
I, A II, Tr. 11, S1. 1
IV, A 14 (nr. 5-6)
XI, A 1; XI, C 3
XII, 3
XVI, A 36 (Biology)
263
A. General
(2) ANAWATI, G.C., art. Ibn Sina. Philosophy and Science, in:
Dictionary of Scientific Biography. New York, 1975, Suppl. I, 494-
498.
A. presents a basic outline of I.S.'s most important scientific ideas, Le. body,
movement, time-space and the classification of the sciences.
Valuable, although introductory.
(6) BAG, A., Ibn Sina and Indian Science, in: Ind. J. Hist. Se., 21 (86),
270-275.
Ace. to A., Ayurvedic medical works, as well as Indian mathematical and
astronomical writings were available to I.S., and somehow influenced his
scientific thought. A. gives a few concrete indications of such influence, as e.g.
I.S.'s acceptance of the method of testing the simplest function by using the
number 9. An interesting case-study on one of I.S.'s sources in the scientifico-
medical field, although one may wonder whether A. does not overrate its
significance?
(7) BARATOV, R., Ideas of Ibn Sina in Natural Science, in: Aeta Ant.
Acad. Se. Hung., 29 (81), 49-55; also in: Izv. Akad. Nauk Tadj. SSR.
Otdel. Fiz.-Mat. i Geol.-Khim. Nauk, 1981 1, 52-57 (Ru).
A brief enumeration of different scientific topics and/or observations in I.S.
Honest, but of no great importance.
(12) FARRUKH, M., Ibn Sina, the Scientist, in: Al-dhikr... , 41-58; also
in: Qaaya 'arabiyya, 9 1 (82), 31-39.
I.S. was not a slavish follower of the Greeks, as al-Ghazzali, Ibn rufayl and Ibn
Rushd already admitted. Instead, he was the Islamic Aristotle - although he did
not attain the same originality as the Stagirite. In order to demonstrate the
validity of this claim, A. evokes I.S. 's general contribution to the progress of
human knowledge, and, more specifically, to the development of the sciences.
The larger part of A.'s paper is devoted to a few concrete examples in this latter
respect, i.e. : I.S.'s theory of mutual attraction (acc. to A., it somehow prefigures
Newton - but I.S.'s approach, notwithstanding its great ingenuity, remains
theoretical-philosophical); some of I.S.'s opinions linked with the opposed
couple heat-cold, or with the senses of hearing and seeing (A. always
distinguishes between correct and erroneous opinions); and, finally, I.S.'s
chemical doctrine (A. insists that it is basically a theory of coloration, and that
I.S. rejects any substantial change). It has to be noted that A. always uses primaly
text-fragments from various works of I.S.
Notwithstanding its introductory character, a very fine study.
(13) HOME, W., Ibn Sina and Western Historians of Science, in : Isl.
Q., 25 (81), 75-85.
A. uses I.S. just as an example case in order to demonstrate that ancient
scientists were either ignored (esp. in the 17th C.), or looked upon with disdain
(esp. in the 19th C.) by Western historians of science. A. suggests that ancient
thinkers have to be studied in their own right.
The basic assumption of A. is right, but almost trivial!
(14) 'IRAQI (AL.), M., Al-falsafat a{(abi'iyya 'inda Ibn Sina (Natural
Philosophy in Ibn Sfna). Cairo, Daf al-ma'arif, 1971, 448 pp.
Books 1-3 of the Natural Sciences of the Shi!fi, The Cure, form the main source
for A.'s basic overview of the central issues of I.S.'s natural philosophy. So, after
an analysis of some fundamental preliminary notions, such as substance, matter,
form or cause, special attention is paid to the main physical issues: movement,
time, place, the void, and the structures of the infra- and the supra-lunar
worlds.
Among A.'s most significant insights, we may cite the following:
1. The existential, not essential need of the corporeal form for prime matter (in
266 SCIENCES
this respect A. largely bases his interpretation on P.D. Razl's and rusl's
Commentaries on I.S.'s Isharat);
2. I.S.'s criticism - in the line of Aristotle - of the contention that matter is the
nature of things;
3. I.S.'s failure to formulate a substantial criticism of Democritus' theory on
coincidence;
4. I.S.'s rejection of the kumun-theory of al-Na~fam;
5. I.S.'s acceptance of the unity of movement, proving it out of the unity of
form;
6. I.S.'s attributing a kind of material meaning to the present time;
7. I.S.'s refutation of the existence of the void;
8. I.S.'s distinction between natural and violent inclination.
A. offers a good summary of the Sama' a(-Tabf'f of the Shifa, but of a rather
general, and sometimes even redundant kind. Nevertheless, one may find some
interesting insights.
(22) SADYKOV, A., Abfi 'All Ibn Sina and the Development of Natural
Sciences, in: Vopr. Filos., 1980, 54-61 (Rn); 87 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., A. considers I.S. to be a systematizer of the classical heritage, but also
an innovator in some specific scientific fields.
(23) SAID, M., Ibn Sina as a Scientist, in : Ind. J. Hist. Se., 21 (86),261-
269.
A. presents I.S. as having introduced many original ideas in different scientific
268 SCIENCES
disciplines (geology, meteorology, etc), but he offers no precise textual basis for
such claims.
A. clearly overemphasizes LS.'s originality!
(24) SALIBA, G., art. Avicenna. Mathematics and Physical Science, in:
Enc. Ir., 88-92.
A. surveys LS.'s mathematical theories (based on the Shija). He insists that I.S.'s
geometrical text is not an abridgement, but a paraphrase of Euclid's Elements (A.
sustains his thesis by referring to I.S.'s additional definition of irrationals). He
also stresses I.s.'s critical attitude towards the Ptolemaic astronomy, and
discusses at some length I.S.'s curious note about his alleged observation of the
disk of Venus. Having dealt with I.S.'s mathematics, A. proceeds to examine
I.S.'s physical opinions, at least three of them: his refutations of both alchemy
and astrology and his theory of vision. Ace. to A., the latter is an explicit
restatement of Aristotle's theory, while 1.S.'s refutations of alchemy and
astrology appear to be confused.
Regarding mathematics, valuable, but with respect to physics highly incomplete,
and, no doubt, less convincing.
(27) TIRMIZI, S., Ibn Sina as a Scientist, in: Isl. Q., 26 (82), 211-215;
also in: Stud. Hist. Med., 5 (81), 233-238.
A. portrays I.S. as a model of the 'modern' scientist - exalting LS.'s "empirical
bent of mind". A. tries to show this by citing several of I.S.'s scientific theories
from different domains.
A. indicates some interesting features of I.S.'s scientific thought, but he bypasses
important 'conservative' elements in it.
B.1. Mathematics
(5) RASHED, R., Mathematics and Philosophy in Ibn Sina, in: Vlus/.
I.S. Semp., 131-138.
A. points to the fact that I.S. incorporates mathematics completely into the
philosophical realm - notwithstanding his total agreement with the traditional
view on the status of mathematics. A. also observes that I.S. distinguishes
between Arithmfitfqf, the classical study of natural numbers, and J:Iisfib, the study
SCIENCES 271
(9) USMANOV, A., Ibn Sina and his Contribution in the History of the
Development of the Mathematical Sciences, in: Matematika, 55-58
(Ru).
B.2. Music
(1) BARKASHU, M., Ibn Sina's Music, in: Hazara-i ibn Sfna, 305-329
(Pers).
A. starts his paper by indicating the place of music among the mathematical
sciences. Hereafter, he discusses the origin of Oriental music - stressing the
Iranian contribution to it. Although A. accepts that the foundation of I.S.'s
theory of intervals and degrees of harmony lies mainly in a Greek-inspired
cosmological model, he is also convinced of a typical Iranian-Islamic impact on
I.S.'s theory of music, at least with respect to the concept of harmony. It may be
noted that for A. the expose of the Shija, The Cure forms the common ground of
all of I.S.'s musical treatises. A. gives a list of mss. of this part of the Shifa -
unfortunately in a not very precise manner.
A. offers a good basic analysis of I.S.'s theory of music.
(4) ID., Ibn Sina and Music, in: al-turlith al-'arabf, 52-7 (84),220-230
(Ar); also in: Sadoi Sharq, 19803, 145-151 (Ru).
A. concentrates on the social and aesthetic aspect of I.S.'s theory of music. He
hereby pays special attention to I.S.'s attitude towards his Greek predecessors
(esp. Pythagoras), as well as to his Arabic predecessors, or contemporaries (esp.
Ikhwan a~- ~ara, al-Farabi and al-Birfini). Ace. to A., I.S.'s theory of music was
inspired by a physical approach (and hence, not based on the movements of the
SCIENCES 273
(5) FARMER, H., The Lute Scale of Avicenna, in: H. FARMER, Studies
in Oriental Music. Second vol. Instruments and Military Music.
Nachdruck von Schriften, erschienen in der Jahren 1925-1969. Hsg. E.
NEUBAUER (Vero!f. Inst. Gesch. Arab.-Isl. Wiss., Reihe B. Abt. Musik,
Bd. 1, 2). Frankfurt am Main, Inst. Gesch. Arab.-Isl. Wiss., Goethe
Dniv., 1986, 173-187.
Repr. from: H. FARMER, Studies in Oriental Music Instruments. Second Series,
Glasgow, 1939, 45-57.
(6) GORON, M., The Turkish Descendence ofIbn Sina, and Music, in:
Musiki Mecmuasi, 33 (80), 20-21 (Tu).
(8) NISAMOV, A., Ibn Sina and his Works on the Theory of Music, in:
Ibn Sfna ve ego epokha, 181-190 (Ru).
(9) SHEHADI, F., Art and Imitation: Plato and Ibn Sina, in: R. LINK-
SALINGER (Ed.), Of Scholars, Savants, and their Texts: Studies in
Philosophy and Religious Thought (Essays in Hon. ofA. IIyman). New
York, P. Lang, 1989,217-227.
Based on the opening section of I.S.'s introduction to his Book oj Music of the
Shijd, A. shows inter alia I.S.'s (relative) independence from the ancients, I.S.'s
rejection of a Pythagorean-type approach to music-theory, and I.S.'s holding a
fundamental separation between the musical and the extra-musical domains. A.
characterizes I.S.'s approach to music as close to what we call nowadays an
aestetician approach (but I.S. does acknowledge the therapeutic value of music).
Although music has biological and social functions, it is above all a source of
enjoyment. Moreover, although I.S. recognizes with Plato, that music is
imitative, he, unlike Plato, does not consider imitation to be a central
characteristic of music. For I.S., it is the structural or formal aspect of music that
is the source of the greatest delight.
A valuable case-study having several basic ideas in common with 4, which A.
seems to be unaware of.
(10) UNGOR, E., The Musical Side of Ibn Sina, in: Vlusl. 1.S. Semp.,
101-1 04 (Tu).
274 SCIENCES
(12) WRIGHT, D., art. Avicenna, Music, in: Enc. fr., 92-94.
A. observes that I.S.'s approach to music is very similar to al-Farabi's. I.S.
elaborated a sophisticated adaptation and development of material derived from
the Greek theorists (empirical observation playing almost no role). Concerning
rhythm, I.S. took his main analytical tools from the Arab science of prosody,
while his doctrine of melody seems to represent an interesting transitional phase
between the early diatonic system and the later system of Safi aI-din Ormavi.
A. provides the reader with a valuable basis for further investigation on I.S.'s
theory of music.
275
c. Physics
(6) MARUPOV, N., Ibn Sina and the Nature of the Rainbow, in: Vopr.
1st. Estest. Techn' 67-68 (80), 107-110 (Ru).
J
(9) SAYILI, A., Ibn Sina and Buridan on the Dynamics of Projectile
Motion, in : Ibn Sina. Dogumunun." 141 ~ 160.
J
A. observes that Philoponus is the first thinker, who claimes that the hurled body
acquires a motive power from the throwing agent, and that this power, not the
ambiant medium (as held by Aristotle), secures the continuation of the motion.
However, he considered this impressed virtue as temporal. Now, I.S. probably
for the first time in history, attributed a permanent character to it. Since Buridan
holds some similar concept, it seems natural to consider I.S. as a forerunner for
the latter. And, indeed, there is a close resemblance between some expressions
and/or ideas, as presented by I.S. in the Physica of the Shija, and Buridan's
wording. A. very carefuly remarks that some of them were not available in Latin
translation at least as far as one can actually discover. Moreover, he offers a most
critical and balanced evaluation of the significance of I.S.'s contribution -
stressing its fundamental failure to mathematize dynamics, but also to the
presence of some significant new ideas in it - even if most of them were still in
need of further development (Buridan having done a great job in this
respect).
A very fine paper, in which A. consciously avoids making too many unilateral
judgments.
(12) SHAMSI, F., rbn Sina's Argument against the Atomicity of Space/
Time, in: IsI. Stud., 23 2 (84),83-102; almost unchanged, but differently
entitled: rbn Sina's Argument against Atomicity, in: Vlusl. I.S. Semp.,
479-494.
A. claims that I.S. has invented one of the two possible valid arguments one may
express against the finpos-atomic hypothesis. In order to offer a better
understanding of I.S.'s argument, A. develops a large historical survey of the
most important anti-atomistic theories before I.S., esp. Zeno, Plato and
Aristotle, presenting with each a refutation (for Zeno, out of Ashoarite
metaphysics; for the others, out of contemporaneous considerations). Then, he
analyzes three arguments of LS. against the finpos-atomic hypothesis, two of
which he declares valid. According to A., one of the valid arguments is unique to
LS. (GhazziUl should have developed in greater detail the second - A. ignores,
however, that Ghazzall's Maqa~id is a slightly reworked translation of 1.S.'s
Danesh-Ntimeh, Book of Science (see Works, A Ill, 3, St. 2).
The basic idea of A. looks very tempting, but his analysis of LS.'s thought is
incomplete, insofar as he neglects the Danesh-Nameh.
(14) ID., Ibn Stna's Role in the History of the Development of the
Physico-Mathematical Sciences, in: Izv. Ale. Nauk Vzb. SSR., Otd. Fiz-
Mat., 1980 5, 29-32, 99 (Ru).
(15) 'UBAIDI (AL-), H., Na,?ariyyat al-makan fi falsafat Ibn Sfna (The
Conception ofSpace in Ibn Sfna's Philosophy). Baghdad, Oar al-shu'un
al-thaqafa al-'amma "Ifaq 'arabiyya", 1987, 198 pp.
Having summarized the pre-philosophic, the Greek and the preAvicennian
Arabic theories on space, A. presents and analyzes LS.'s theory on this topic.
From the rich contents, we may cite:
1. LS.'s fidelity to Aristotle in his basic definition of body;
2. LS.'s clear distinction between the logical, the mathematical and the physical
analysis of space;
3. I.S.'s well-founded criticism of all theories which deny space;
4. I.S.'s reflecting the "transmitted" Plato, not the "historical" Plato (as regards
278 SCIENCES
(17) VIRK, H., Ibn Si'na's Approach to Physics, in: Ind. J. Hist. Se., 21
(86), 374-378.
A. describes in rather general terms some basic physical concepts in I.S., e.g.
power, time and movement. A. notes that I.S. hardly manages to rid himself of the
errors of Peripatetic physics. A. also stresses that for I.S., contrary to Aristotle, the
ultimate Being is a remote cause for the material aspects of the world.
Good - introductory.
D. Optics
This study resembles in many respects 4. However, it has some new insights in
addition to it (and also in addition to 2 and 3).
(7) ID., Light, Visual Perception, and the Rainbow in Ibn Sina, in: Ibn
Sfna. Dogumunun.. 0' 203-242 (Tu).
283
(3) SAUBA, G., Ibn Sina and Abfi 'Ubayd al-Juzjani - the Problem of
the Ptolemaic Equant, in: JHAS, 4 2 (80), 376-403 (Engl-Ar).
A. offers in fact an edition and an English translation of a treatise of al-Juzjani, a
pupil of 1.8. In the introduction A. observes that there is no proof that al-
Juzjani's idea concerning the Ptolemaic Equant was already present in 1.8.
(4) SAYILI, A., Astronomy and Astrology in rbn Sina, in: Ibn Sfna.
Dogumunun..., 161-201 (Tu).
(5) SCRIMIERI, G., Ibn Sina tra 'ilm (sdenza) e bikma (sagezza). Per
un' introduzione all'astronomia di Ibn Sina, in: G. SCRIMIERI,
Testimonianze medievali e pensiero moderno. Bari, Levante, 1970, 159-
192.
A. considers 1.S. to be an "illuminated Oriental thinker" (in the line of Corbin).
I.S.'s wisdom transcends temporal limits - astrological intuition being a part of
its basis. Hereafter, one finds a classical description of 1.8.'s emanative system.
Finally, A. offers a (partly) Italian translation of a R. fi 'I-hay'a, Tr. on
Astronomy, ascribed to 1.8. (see Works, C-k 4).
One gets the impression of a rash publication .. A. does not really settle the
problem of the authenticity of the Tr. on Astronomy.
(6) SEZGIN, F., Arabische Astronornen. Ibn Sina, in: F. SEZGIN (Ed.),
Geschichte des arabischen Schri/ttums. Bd. VI. Astronomie. Leiden,
Brill, 1978, 276-280.
Based on secondary sources, A. presents 1.8.'s astronomical theory as a further
development of the Ptolemaic system.
284 SCIENCES
(5) KAHYA, E, Avicenna and his Thought about Chemistry, in: V/us!.
1.8. Semp., 173-177 (Tu); 178 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., A. offers a general survey of the history of chemical ideas from pre-
history to the Latin middle ages .. pointing to I.S.'s acceptance of chemistry, and
also to his rejection of some misuses of alchemy.
(6) OZER, U., ASIAN, M. and DIRIOZ, M., Avicenna and Chemistry,
in: Kayseri-Kongr., 357-362 (Tu).
286 SCIENCES
(1) FREUDENTHAL, G., Ibn Sina's Petrology, in: Proc. 16th Int.
Congr. Ilist. Sciences, 385.
Summary of an allocution. Ace. to A., 1.S. drew on contemporaneous chemical
theories in order to explain geological processes.
H. Applied Sciences
(2) ROZANSKAYA, M., Ibn Sina and Mechanics, in: Ibn Sino. K-1000
letiju, 163-183 (Ru).
Chapter XVI
Medicine
A. GENERAL
B. DEONTOLOGY AND BEDSIDE
MANNER
1. Deontology
n. Diagnostics
C. PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGY AND
PSYClIIATRY
I. Psychosomatics
n. Psychiatry
D. HYGIENE
E. PEDIATRICS
F. GERIATRICS
G. ANATOMY
H. PHYSIOLOGY
I. GENERAL DISEASES
J. OPHTALMOLOGY
1(. STOMATOLOGY
L. DISEASES OF SPECIFIC ORGANS
M. SKIN DISEASES AND COSMETICS
N. SURGERY AND ANAESTI-IESIA
O. OBSTETRICS
P. PHARMACOLOGY
Q. NEUROLOGY
R. SOURCES
(and Contemporary Physicians)
S. HISTORICAL INFLUENCES
See also:
II,4, 12, 16, 18,22,26,30,31,32,33,35,
36, 38, and Notes 2 and 5
V, A 23; V C 58
VII, 15, 16
VIII, 12, 32
XIV, A-I, 1; XIV, A-IV, 9
XV, A 3,6
291
A. General
(1) ABO RIDA, M., Avicennian Medicine: its Philosophy and its
Method of Investigation (on basis of the Canon), in: Qatjliya 'arabfya,
9 1 (82), 107-120 (Ar).
A. affirms the Canon to be a perfect academic work as well as a useful manual,
which is developed along logical lines. He presents such well-known items as LS.'s
dcfinition of medicinc (its peculiar, but limited area; its proper object); his views
on disease, and its treatment; his theory of the soul and some of his medical
experiments (in this lattcr respect, A. compares 1.S. to John Stewart!).
Good - can serve as a first outline of the relationship between medicine and
philosophy in I.S.
(3) ID., Les ecrits d'Avicenne; Ibn Sina : "Le maitre par excellence";
L'apport d'Avicenne a la medecine; Avicenne, le psycho-somaticien;
Maximes et citations d'Avicenne, in: Tunis med., 58 (80), 543-555.
A slightly reworked version of 2.
(4) ARIPOV, S. (et alia), Abil 'AU ibn Sina, ego medicininskia i
nekotorie filosofskie vozzrenija (Ibn Sfna: His Medical and
Philosophical Ideas). Tashkent, Meditsina, 1974.
(6) BECKA, J., The Father of Medicine, Avicenna, in our Science and
Culture: Abfi 'All Ibn Sina, in: Cas. Lek. res, 119 (80), 17-23
(Czech).
292 MEDICINE
(7) BRANDENBURG, D., Das POlirait des Ibn SIna (Avicenne), in:
Med. Welt, 34 (83), 682-684.
After a brief bio-bibliographical outline, A. discusses some Russian studies on
I.S. 's skull.
Of almost no value.
(8) BRATESCU, OH., Avicenne, le medecin, in: Proc. 16th Int. Congr.
Hist. Sciences, 367-372.
A. stresses that I.S.'s greatest achievements as a physician are of a theoretical
kind. Moreover, Galen, not Hippocrates, constitutes LS.'s main source - but one
finds in I.S. also some real innovations. A. concludes that I.S. was the latest
scholastic thinker who realized a "Summa" of the complete medical knowledge,
but, at the same time, sometimes prefigures the modern experimental
medicine.
A valuable, well-balanced study.
(9) BRENTJES, S., Ibn SIna als Mediziner, in: Ibn Sfnii. Der furstliche
Meister, (V, A 5), 78-90.
A. considers I.S. to be a physician who continued the tradition of Galen, but who
introduced some modifications due to the influence of the Pneumatic school. A.
also shows some originalities in I.S., but, at the same time, points out that he
sometimes relapses with respect to Galen.
A valuable paper.
(12) CHIKIN, S., Abu 'All ibn SIna - An Outstanding Physician and
Philosopher of the Middle Ages, in: Sov. Med., 19803' 119-121
(Ru).
(14) DEMIRHAN, A., Ibn S1nft's Canon and some Patterns, in: .Med.
Bull. Istanbul Med. Fac., 1979 12 , 158-162.
A. enumerates some (so-called) innovative ideas in I.S.'s Canon.
Of limited value.
(15) GHAUSSY, A., If Avicenna had a Computer, in: Proc. 1. Con! Is!.
.Med., 160-162.
Almost science-fiction! Of no value.
(20) ISHAKI, YU., Ibni Sino i meditsinskaya nauka (Ibn Sfnii and
Medical Science). Dushanbe, Irfon, 1984.
294 MEDICINE
(22) ISHAKOV, I., Abuali ibn Sino i ego meditsinskie vozzreniya (Ibn
Sina and His Medical Ideas). Dushanbe, Donish, 1980, 45 pp.
(23) ISKANDAR, A., Critical Studies in the Works of al-Razi and Ibn
Sina : an Assessment of Their Influence on Medical Research, in : Proc.
1. Con! Isl. Med., 194-203.
A. examines Razl's and I.S.'8 respective contributions to medicine in general. He
carefully avoids any exaggeration or simplification by recognizing both's
dependence upon the Greek medical and/or philosophical tradition whenever
evident, but he also takes into account their personal approaches (including
similarities and differences between both of them). Proceeding this way, A.
convincingly shows that both a1-Razl and I.S. formulated some new insights in
some respects, which were quite relevant for the further development of
medicine.
A most valuable paper although the references (in Arabic!) are not explicit in the
text itself.
(26) KATAYE, S., Le Canon d'Avicenne, in: Adyat Halab, 1 (75), 109-
125 (Ar); 10-11 (Fr S.); also partly in: Avicenne, 33-38 (Ar).
A. first presents (in a rather conventional way) a survey of those physicians, both
in the East and the West, who underwent the influence ofI.S.'s Canon, as well as
of the editions and translations of the Canon, both in ancient and more recent
times. A. also deals with the well-known facts of I.S.'s life and works. Finally, A.
offers a broad outline of the Canon. In his final conclusion, A. stresses the
scientifico-Iogical spirit of I.S.'s medical investigations, and ascribes to I.S. an
all-encompassing knowledge of all medicine previous to him (not only Graeco-
Roman, but also Syrian and Indian).
A good introductory paper.
MEDICINE 295
(30) KUCHARZ, E., Avicenna. His Life and Medical Activities, in:
Wiad. Lek, 34 (81), 1405-1409 (Pol).
(31) KUZ'MIN, M. and BUKHAROV, P., Ibn Sina and Folk Medicine,
in: Fel'dsher Akush., 46 3 (81), 50-52 (Ru).
(32) LEIBOWITZ, J., Ibn Sina in Hebrew, in: Koroth, 8 1-2 (81),3*-8*
(Engl Sect.), 3-8 (Hebrew).
The title is highly misleading. In fact, A. insists that 1.8. (Maimonides following
him in this respect) borrowed much more from Aristotle than from Galen.
Nevertheless, 1.8. adhered to some of Galen's ideas, especially his teleological
tendency. This is illustrated by A. by means of 1.8.'s expose on the spine in the
Canon (A. making use here of the 1491-'2 Hebrew translation). A. concludes that
this teleological approach (notwithstanding its being contrary to sound scientific
investigation!) served as an incentive for future physiological inquiry.
An interesting paper, but somehow (too?) succinct.
(33) MADZHIDOV, N., Abu 'Ali ibn Sina and His Influence on the
Medical Science of the World, in: Acta Ant. Ac. Sc. Hung., 29 (81),57-
64.
A. presents a wide variety of medical 'novelties' in 1.8. - even claiming that in
some way 1.8. is more progressive than present-day medical science! Moreover,
he does not hesitate to state that 1.8. appears in many of his works as a consistent
mediator of materialist ideas (sic!).
An over-glorification of 1.8.'s medical innovations, presented inside an
outspoken materialistic frame of interpretation.
296 MEDICINE
(35) MOSA, J., Ibn Sina and his Book: "The Canon", in: Pensee
arabe..., 482-502 (Ar).
A. offers a classical survey of 1.S.'s major medical ideas regarding such items as
the relationship between philosophy and medicine; symptoms and treatment of
diseases; diagnostics, and preventive medicine (based on the Canon).
Valuable, although introductory.
(36) MUSALLAM, B., art. Avicenna-Biology and Medicine, in: Enc. Ir.,
94-99.
Ace. to A., the contest between Galen and Aristotle was nowhere as dramatic as
in 1.S.'s works. Although 1.S. was committed to the Aristotelian point of view, he
accepted the new (post-Aristotle!) Galenic evidence in anatomy and physiology,
and tried to interpret it so as to fit the Aristotelian theory. As to the Canon, A.
stresses that it is unique as a magisterial exposition of Galenic medicine in the
Arabo-Islamic world of the 9th-11 th C. But, in contradistinction to his famous
predecessor a1-Majusl, 1.S. explicitly wished to delineate the proper area of
medicine, and specify how it differs from natural philosophy. With respect to
1.S.'s biological views, A. concentrates on the K. al-lfayawan, Book ofAnimals of
the Shifa, Cure. In this work, he distinguishes three different kinds of texts:
1. Summaries of Aristotle's Historia Animalium and De Generatione Animalium
(according to Ibn al-Bi!r1q's Arabic translation);
2. Elements of a new synthesis by the introduction of Gah;mic materials - but
saving Aristotle's theory in the end (A. mentions in this respect I.S.'s theories of
the heart and of sexual generation);
3. Substitutions - almost the entire palt paralleling Aristotle's De Partibus
Animalium is directly derived from the Canon (A. offers a table of concordance
between the K. al-l!ayawan and the Canon).
A. remarks that the space devoted to anatomy in the Canon is more than double
than that found in Aristotle, and that there is a clear tendency to narrow the
focus of biology from the living creation as a whole to man. He concludes that
1.S. probably never finished the K. al-lfayawan himself having only written the
basic outline of the main topics (B. 11 contains such an original outline by
I.S.).
A significant paper, especially with respect to 1.S.'s Book of Animals, and the
basic background of 1.8.'s conception of medicine.
MEDICINE 297
(39) PETROV, B., Study of Ibn S1n&'s Medical Heritage, in: 27. Int.
Congr. Hist. Med., 11, 746-749; also in: Klin. Med. (Moscow), 59 1 (81),
7-12 (Ru), and in: E. SCHULTHEISZ (Ed.), History of Physiology.
London, Elmsford; New York, Pergamon, 1981, 11, 49-51.
A. formulates some kind of program for further research on 1.8. as a physician
and as a scientist. He hereby defends an outspoken Marxist approach, and
sharply criticizes Western scholars (in a very general, and totally unfounded
way).
Of no importance.
298 MEDICINE
(40) ID" The Medical Legacy of Ibn Sina, in : Sov. Zdravookh., 19809'
53-56 (Ru) (the same as 39?).
(41) PITSKHELAURI, G., Abft 'Ali ibn Sina and His Canon of
Medicine, in: Sov. Zdravookh., 1973 12 ,73-75 (Ru).
(42) PULATOV, A., Ibn Sina and his Scientific and Medical Legacy, in :
Vrac. Delo, 19809' 1-6 (Ru).
(43) SAID, K., Ibn Sina as a Physician, in: Stud. Hist. Med., 5 (81),
298-307.
A. presents I.S. as a kind of super-human Being, and the Canon as an almost
sacred book. He discovers great originality in I.S.'s medical ideas, general as well
as specialized (in almost all fields!).
A. clearly overemphasizes the merits of I.S., and his innovations.
(47) SALIM, F., Ibn Sina, the Physician, in : Al-dhikr..., 59-77 (Ar).
In the introduction of this paper, A. insists that for I.S. medicine is subordinated
to philosophy, and he hereby points to the doctrines of the unity of body and
soul (citing Thomas Aquinas!), and of man as microcosm (referring to I.S.'s R. fi
'[- 'ishq, Tr. On Love). For A., it is certain that I.S.'s medicine is the result of a
MEDICINE 299
synthesis between Greek thought and Islamic wisdom. So, not only philosophy,
old and contemporary medicine, and experimentation, but also shari'a (Islamic
Law) can be found among its roots. The basic principles ofI.S.'s medicine are
presented in a rather conventional way, while r.S.'s innovations are briefly dealt
with (ace. to A., they consist in the introduction of causality; prevention; transfer
of diseases; experimentation; psychosomatics and pharmacology!). To conclude,
A. situates r.S. in the history of medicine.
Introductory - but it is certain that A. overestimates the "Islamic impact" on
I.S.'s medicine.
(49) SCnUB, M., Avicenna, in: S. Afr. Med. J., 45 (72), 675-676.
Very general, based on doubtful sources.
Of no value.
(56) WEISSER, U., Ibn Sina und die Medizin des arabisch-islamischen
Mittelalters. Alte und neue Urteile und Vorurteile, in: Med.-Inst. J.,
18 4 (83), 283-305.
A. discusses three major tendencies one may find in the interpretation of I.S.'s
medicine during the last two centuries. The first tendency had a genera!. negative
prejudgment against the Islamic culture. Some authors (Sprengel among them)
criticized I.S. for his major contribution to the stagnation of the development of
medicine. Another tendency, shown by Neuburger, had its origin in historicism,
and described I.S. as a genius who systematized in a most logical way the total
Graeco-Arabic corpus of medical knowledge - although I.S. is presented at the
same time as being above all a theoretician, who possesses almost no practical
experience. The trend to glorify I.S. even became stronger during the last
decennia - some authors presenting I.S. a real innovator on the theoretical as well
as on the practical plane. A. judiciously remarks that particular attention has to
be paid to the specific terminology (and that the Latin translation by Gerard of
Cremona may be useful in this respect), to historical circumstances and to the
possibility of new discoveries by pure theoretical means. A. hereafter enumerates
a lot of innovations which were wrongly ascribed to I.S., and observes that it is
sometimes very difficult to 'remove' them - even from scientific publications! A.
concludes that I.S.'s contribution to the development of medicine was mainly of
a theoretical kind - I.S. practicizing medicine in a rather sporadic way, as
becomes evident in his autobiography, and his considering medicine not to be a
science of primary importance.
A very fine, and most fundamental paper.
MEDICINE 301
(58) ZAMAN HUSAYNI ~AJ:IIB, M., Shaykh Abl1 'All Ibn Slna, the
Genius of the Canon of Medicine, in: Indo-Iranica, 34 (81), 1-43
(Pers).
After a general introduction, A. examines I.S.'s fundamental purposes for writing
his Canon, paying attention to some latcr Arabic sources, which discussed I.S.'s
work. Further, A. expounds several, according to him innovative remedies, as
well as some rarc diseases present in the Canon. Finally, A. discusses the
influence of the Canon, and offers extensive lists of I.S.'s own medical writings,
as well as of compendia of, and commentaries on his Canon.
Good, but introductory, and not always critical with respect to I.S.'s real
originality.
302
1. DEONTOLOGY
11. DIAGNOSTICS
I. PSYCHOSOMATICS
n. PSYCHIATRY
(2) GOKAY, F., Turkish and Islamic Psychiatry and Ibn Sina, in:
Vlusl. I. Turk-Islam Belim ve Tekn. Tarihi Kongr., 5 vo!. Istanbul,
1981, II, 191-196 (Tu).
(3) GOKSEL, A., Psychology and Psychiatry of Avicenna, in: Vlusl. I.s.
Semp., 563-566 (Tu), 567 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., A. stresses the central place that the concept of psyche occupies in
I.S.'s system, paying attention to I.S:s theory of pathogenesis in mental
disorders, as well as to his psychodiagnostic method.
305
D. Hygiene
(3) ID., L'hygiene et la prevention chez Ibn Sina, in: Tunis med., 58
(80), 556-559.
A slightly reworked version of 1, ch. 2-3.
(6) ID., The Protection and the Conservation of Health, in: RAA
Damas, 61 (86),49-80, 273-304, 504-552 and 678-710 (Ar).
An improved version of 1 - the general structure has been ameliorated, the
citations are specified, and some parts (e.g. on parasites) are presented in more
detail. But A.'s basic perspective remains unchanged. For a critical supplement
to this study, see supra, A, 17.
306 MEDICINE
(9) MOSHKOV, V., A.A.i. SIna on Physical Exercices and Massage, in:
Vopr. Kurort. Fizioter., 1981 1, 66-67 (Ru).
(10) MUSALLAM, n., Sex and Society in Islam (Cambridge Stud. in IsI.
Civ.). Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1983,21986 deals with I.S.'s
theory of conception (46-49), and I.S.'s discussion of contraception in
the Canon (67-68; 86).
Ace. to A., I.S., in his K. al-8ayawiin, B. ofAnimals, integrates the post-Aristotle
biological observations (e.g. the discovery of the ovaries) into the Aristotelian
system. However, one finds another, more eclectic treatment of generation in the
Canon. For A., this fact well illustrates that for I.S. medicine is an independent
art, having different requirements than those of natural philosophy. Regarding
I.S.'s theory of contraception in the Canon, A. points out I.S.'s dependence on al-
Razl. He also pays attention to the way in which the European churchmen
masked birth control information, although the Latin version of the Canon
shows no sign of censorship.
A significant contribution.
(12) OZUGUL, Y., Sport during the Lifetime and Termal Spring (sic!)
according to Avicenna, in : Kayseri-Kongr., 170-172 (Tu).
(13) PAYZIN, S., The Sunlmaries related to the Effect of Climate and
Environment to (on?) Health and Diseases in the Canon of Avicenna,
in: Kayseri-Kongr., 161-169 (Tu).
(14) PETROV, B., Problems of Public Health in the Canon oflbn Sina,
in: Gig. i. san., 19805' 22-25 (Ru).
E. Pediatrics
(1) DILMEN, D., Avicenna and Diseases of Children, in: Vlusl. 1.8.
Semp., 569573 (Tu); 573 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., a short enumeration of all diseases in children known to I.S.
(5) TERZIOGLU, A., Ibn Stna and Turkish Infantile Psychiatry, in: Ibn
SfnG.. Dogumunun..., 257-273 (Tu).
(6) YURDAKOK, M., Avicenna and Baby Care, in: Vlusl. 1.8. Semp.,
425-432 (Tu), 432 (Engl S.).
Ace. to S., A. concentrates on I.S.'s remarks about breast-feeding, as well as on
other aspects of baby care.
309
F. Geriatrics
(2) HOWELL, TR., Avicenna and His Regimen of Old Age, in: Age and
Ageing, 16 (87), 58-59.
(3) ID., Avicenna and the Care of the Aged, in: The Gerontologist, 12
(72), 424-426.
2-3: enumeration of the most important passages in the Canon concerning
gerontology, particular attention is paid by A. to thesis 3 of B. I in his 3.
Both papers together offer a serious basic outline for 1.S.'s gerontological
views.
G. Anatomy
(4) ORTUG, G" Uber die Arbeit von Ibni Sina fiir die Bliitgefasse, von
denen man Blut entnommen werden kann (sic!), in: Vlus!. I.S Sernp.,
257-272 (Tu); 272 (Germ S.),
Ace. to S., a study on the veins that I.S. believed to be candidates appropriate for
venesection (based on LS.'s treatise Al-fa~d, On Venesection), and a comparison
with contemporary opinion.
MEDICINE 311
H. Physiology
(2) HUSSAIN, S., Body Fluids according to Avicenna, in: Bull. Ind.
Inst. Ifist. Med., 13 (83), 52-58; also in (differently entitled: Fluid
Dynamics, according to the Canon): Hamdard Med., 26 3 (83), 76-
83.
A. presents I.S.'s theory of bodily fluids as highly innovative, and, even from the
present point of view, very unique. He points inter alia to I.S.'s distinction
between primary and secondary fluids (indicating that I.S. probably knew about
the distribution and exchange of electrolytes between the various body fluids),
his connecting bodily fluids with germinal continuity (I.S. prefiguring
Weismann) and his postulating a very ingenious concept of fluid dynamics
which can be termed as "Calorie-Fluid Relationship" (and beIng the basis for
growth and senescence). It has to be noted that A. always cites I.S.'s original
Arabic terminology, and offers two tables - concerning the classification of body
fluids, and concerning fluids and germinal continuity.
A.'s explicit attention to I.S.'s own terminology is most gratifying, but his
identification of it with present terminology is highly questionable since there
exists no real basis for any kind of valuable comparison in the physiological
field.
growth and ageing can be contradicted by the modern advocates of the positive
and negative nitrogen balance.
For critical evaluation, see 2.
(4) KHAN, Z., Reproductive Physiology as seen by Ibn Sina - Need for
Research, in: Med. Times (SPEM), 172_3 (82), 18-20 (N.C.).
(6) RAHMAN, S., Avicenna on Digestion of Food, in: Bull. Ind. Inst.
Hist. Med., 11 (81), 59-63.
A. first outlines the basic anatomical and physiological knowledge, which the
Oreeks had elaborated, and which was commonly accepted in I.S.'s times. He
most lucidly uses this knowledge as an appropriate background for the
presentation and analysis of I.S.'s theories on digestion and on the formation of
humours (significant in this respect is his observation that "in the absence of the
knowledge of digestive juices, it had to be assumed that the food was digested by
the heat of the body"). He does not hesitate to state that I.S. 's description of the
formation of urine is unclear (I.S. probably ignoring Oalen's explanation).
A valuable paper - but A. unfortunately does not indicate his text-source
(probably Canon, b. I), and his treatment of the subject is certainly not
exhaustive.
exchange and circulation), its description (largely based on Galen), its rhythm
(almost musical, as in Galen, as well as in Chinese medicine), its various names
when being irregular, its designation as natural (A. hereby remarks that LS. does
not understand it as simply referring to a mean between two extremes, as was the
case in Galen); the causes of its production (A. hereby gives a few brief
indications about similar ideas in classical Chinese and classical Indian
medicine).
Valuable - but in need of further development as to possible sources, or historical
parallels.
See also: S. 5.
315
I. General Diseases
I. CONTAGIOUS DISEASES
(4) SARI, N., Ibn Sina's Views on Rabies, and its Influence on Ottoman
Medicine, in: Vlusl. I Turk-Islam Bilim ve Tekn. Tarihi Kongr. 5 vo!.
Istanbul, 1981, 11, 59-69; also in : Ibn Sfnii. Dogumunun... , 309-316,
318 (Tu); 317 (Engl S.).
A. discusses the different aspect of I.S.'s theory on rabies in the Canon (using
316 MEDICINE
some manuscripts). A. stresses that I.S.'s description of rabid animals reveals the
qualities of the perfect observer - these qualities being confirmed by I.S.'s
detailed account of the prognoses and the progress of the illness in man (with its
particular attention to the symtom of hydrophobia). I.S.'s prescriptions
concerning the treatment of the wound (the application of various ointments,
blisters and drugs, but, above all, the cauterization of the wound) are considered
by A. as clear progress in the history of medicine. The great importance ofI.S.'s
contribution to this field becomes evident in some later Ottoman medical
writings (14th-18th centuries).
A well-documented paper.
(6) THEODORIDES, J., Ibn Sina et la rage, in: 27. Congr. Int. IIist.
Med., 11, 756-760.
A. presents a rather detailed description of I.S.'s theory on rabies in the Canon
(A. hereby uses a French translation by H. CAMUSSI of this part of the Canon,
which was published as a seperate tract in Journal Asiat., 1888). A. affirms that
this description is highly precise and detailed, but points at the same time to the
absence in I.S. of an attempt to specify the etiology and the localisation of the
disease (as Caelius Aurilianus had done before him). Nevertheless, I.S. excelled
in some respects, i.e. his insistence on the presence of urinary troubles in a rabid
man, and his therapeutical advice (most especially his description of
preparations based on Lytta vesicatoria L.).
A valuable paper.
See also: R. 2.
11. CANCEROLOGY
(2) MUSAEV, T., Views of Ibn Sina on Tumorous Diseases, in: Vopr.
Onkol., 19809, 72-74 (Ru).
MEDICINE 317
(3) PAKDAMEN, A., Ibo Sina's Opinions about Cancer and its
Heredity, in : flazara-i Ibn Sina, 345-367 (Pers).
A. concentrates on the causes, the diagnostics, the prevention, and treatment of
cancer - dealing sometimes extensively with contemporary views, the relevance
of which is not always clear with respect to I.S. Moreover, there appears to be
some tendency in A. to overvalue the significance of I.S.'s contribution (as well
as that of classical 'Iranian' (usually referred to as Arabic) medicine.
From an historical point of view, of no great value.
Ill. DIABETES
(1) NAFISI, A., Ibn Sina and Diabetes (disease of sugar), in: IIazara-i
Ibn Sina, 331-344 (Pers).
After a brief survey of the history, the nomenclature and the present knowledge
of diabetes, A. outlines I.S.'s physiological, pathological and therapeutical ideas
(in a rather vague way - no single text-reference being present!).
At most, introductory.
IV. MICROBIOLOGY
V. PARASITOLOGY
J. Ophtalmology
(1) HAMARNEH (AL-), N., Medicine of the Eye in the Canon, in: Al-
turath al-'arabf, 2 7 (81), 100-113; also in: Al-shaykh al-ra'fs, 197-214
(Ar).
After some general remarks on I.S. as philosopher and as physician (and on his
Canon and Poem on Medicine), A. concentrates on the classical Arabic works on
ophtalmology, and formulatcs somc fundamental questions about I.S.'s possible
sources in the field of ophtalmology (with special attention to al-Razi), as well as
on the exact influence the Canon had on later generations. However, A. does not
formulate any answer, not even in a tentative way. In the final part of the paper,
A. presents some observations about the K. al-istibsar, On Visual Perception (a
work belonging to the dubia).
A. poses some valuable questions - but one looks in vain for possible
answers.
(2) ISMAIL, M. and RAHEEM RAFEEQ, M., Anatomy of the Eye and
the Mechanism of Vision according to Avicenna, in : Bull. Ind. Inst.
I-list. Med., 11 (81), 146-151.
General work on the anatomy of the eye, as well as of the humours present in the
eye (according to the Canon). Authors ascribe great originality to I.S.
Introductory - but uncritical in the evaluation of I.S.'s originality.
(3) KAHYA, E., Eye and Eye's Diseases in Avicenna's l\,1edicine, in:
Kayseri-Kongr., 121-130 (Tu).
319
!(. Stomatology
I. OTORINOLARYNGOLOGY
(1) ISKHAKI, YU. and KAL'SHTEIN, L., Role of Ibn Sina In the
Development of Otolaryngology, in: Vestn. Oto-rino-laryng., 1980 5,
81-85 (Ru).
(2) KATAYE, S., La paralysie faciale selon Avicenne, in: Ann. Oto-
Laryng., 92 1_2 (75), 79-82.
A. summarizes 1.S.'s view on facial paralysis according to Canon, Ill, F. 2. A.
claims that 1.S. is the first physician who distinguished between peripheric facial
paralysis and central facial paralysis. A. also deals with I.S.'s ideas regarding
therapeutics, as well as surgical treatment.
Good, but does A. not overemphasize I.S.'s originality?
elaborate. At the end of his paper, A. also deals with I.S.'s description of
meningitis, which he considers innovative and very precise.
Good, but not really innovative.
n. NEPHROLOGY
( 1) KAHYA, E., Renal Calculi and Their Treatment in Ibn Sina, in : 27.
Congr. 1nl. lIisl. Med., 11, 734-738.
A. states that I.S.'s description of renal calculi in the Canon is much more
detailed than those in other ancient medical works. In considering the different
aspects of I.S.'s theory, A. notices that some of 1.S.'s views are still valid today
(e.g. his analysis of the causes of the formation of renal calculi, as well as some of
the drugs he mentioned as specific for the treatment of renal calculi). Ace. to A.,
the surgical instrument which I.S. used to crumble and eject renal calculi was
most probably the lithotomus.
A valuable paper .- but in need of some further work developing precise
information regarding I.S.'s (direct and indirect) historical sources.
(2) ID., Renal Diseases and Their Treatment in Ibn Sina, in : lbn Sfna.
Dogumunun..., 275-291 (Tu); 293-307 (Engl).
Includes 1, but adds an analysis of the description by 1.S. of five other renal
diseases: ptosis, renal weakness, renal swellings, renal trauma, and ulcers in the
kidney and urinary passages. The basic approach is almost the same as in 1. A.
sometimes (but not systematically) indicates a historical source, and insists on
some occasions that a particular principle of I.S. is still correct according to
contemporary medicine (but, on the whole, the tendency to ascribe 'modern'
views to I.S. predominates).
A good study - but one may wonder if A. does not overemphasize somewhat
1.S.'s originality?
(3) ID., Urology in Ibn Sina, in: Ankara tip Bill., 1983, Suppl. 1, 59-68
(Tu).
(5) MUJAIS, S., Nephrologic Beginnings: The Kidney in the Age ofIbn
Sina, in: Am. .I. Nephrol., 7 (87), 133-136.
Out of the Canon, the different aspects of I.S.'s theory of the kidney (anatomy,
function, diseases...) are briefly discussed. A. indicates some remarkable
observations by I.S., but mentions also some evident errors, or some diffused
322 MEDICINE
Ill. CARDIOLOGY
(4) KHAN, M., The Section on Cardiac Diseases and their Treatment
in the QanCtn of Ibn Sina, in: Ind. J. Hist. Se., 21 (86), 315-325.
A.'s analysis concerns Canon, Ill, 9. A. first deals with the anatomical and
physiological aspects of I.S.'s writing on the heart. In this respect, A. observes the
absence of any significant difference with the view(s) ofI.S.'s predecessors. Then
A. summarizes the different elements-symptoms, causes, effects and treatment -
of I.S.'s doctrine concerning heart diseases. Finally, A. judiciously remarks that
this section of the Canon is very similar to the same section of al-Majusl's Kamil
a~-~ina 'at aHibbiyya, Perfection of the Medical Practice, but that there exi.sts
sufficient evidence that 1.S. also used his personal knowledge and experience
when writing it. A. concludes that this section of the Canon is well organized, but
is still imperfect.
A very valuable case study - compare also infra, P 9.
MEDICINE 323
IV. GASTROENTEROLOGY
JJ
(1) ARZUMETOV, Y., "Kanon vrachebnoi nauki Ibn Sinui v istorii
gepatologii (Ibn Sfna's Canon ofMedicine in the lfistory ofHepatology).
Tashkent, Meditsina, 1980, 40 pp.
(2) ID., Topics of Hepatology in the Canon of Ibn SIna, in: Sov.
Zdravookh., 19805' 67-69 (Ru).
See also: R 7.
324
I. SURGERY
(1) BILGE, A., Surgery of Avicenna and His Role in Today's Surgical
Notion, in: Kayseri-Kongr., 149-155 (Tu).
For A., I.S. was not only a theoretical systematizer of the medical knowledge of
his time, but undoubtedly also a practicizing physician. Acc. to A., I.S.'s
extensive and detailed observations on surgical interventions constitute a ,:ery
decisive proof of his having been a regular 'practicus'. In fact, such major
interest in the very topic of surgery was rather uncommon in the 11 th C. A.
however quite objectively remarks that I.S.'s attitude towards surgery was rather
reserved (it was just an ultimate therapeutical mean), and furthermore that I.S.
in the spirit of the "Ancients", considered medicine (and its practice) to be part
of a universal science. In the main part of the paper, A. offers a very systematic
and very detailed survey of a wide variety of (minor and major) surgical
interventions (using many passages of Canon, b. Ill, but also using some material
from b. 11). Several times he points to possible historical sources (mostly Greek,
but sometimes also Indian) for some particular items, presented by I.S. He also
mentions some important lacunae in I.S.'s treatment of the matter. In his final
conclusion, A. discusses the reasons for the great success of the Canon in the
history of medicine. Ace. to him, I.S.'s success finds its major explanation in the
didactic character of the Canon, in its being a homogeneous medico-
philosophical system and in its revaluation of ophtalmology.
A highly informative, most valuable paper, although one may regret that A. does
not indicate more explicitly which elements of I.S.'s doctrine are undoubtedly
practice-based (and eventually may be considered to be original).
See also: S. 4.
n. TRAUMATOLOGY
(3) ID., Treatment of Traumatic Injuries in the Works of Ibn Sina, in:
Fel'dsher Akush., 19808' 47-48 (Ru).
327
O. Obstetrics
(1) ASIMOVA, M., KUZNETSOV, V. and PIOTROSKII, S., Ibn Sin a and
the Influences of His Scientific Heritage in the History of Gynaecology,
in: Fel'dsher Akush., 43 5 (80), 59-61 (Ru).
See also: R. 8.
328
P. Pharmacology
(3) AROUA, A., Scientific Methods for the Knowledge of Single Drugs
in Ibn Sina, in: Al-turath al-'arabf, 2 5_6 (81), 123-129; also in: AI-
shaykh al-raJls, 227-234 (Ar).
Based on the Canon, A. describes six methodological ways, used by 1.S. in his
classification and description of single drugs. However, A. limits himself to citing
the most relyvant texts (although he does not offer any precise reference!).
At most introductory - for a more significant study in this respect, see 12.
(4) DEMIRHAN, A., Ibn Sin a and His Opinion about Opium, in: Vlusl.
I.s.Semp., 365-370 (Tu); 370 (Engl S.); 371-375 (5 plates).
Ace. to S., an analysis is given of 1.S.'s opinion about opium (based on the
Canon) comparing it to the point of view of modern medicine.
MEDICINE 329
(7) BABIB, K. and ZUBAIRY, H., The Materia Medica in the 'Canon'
of Ihn Sina: an Evaluation, in : Hamdard Med., 29 1_2 (86), 82-92.
In the first part of the paper, LS.'s passion for classification is stressed - authors
pointing to LS.'s arrangement of the drugs in a tabular form. I.S. recognized the
characteristics of a drug in two ways: through inductive reasoning and through
actual experimentation. Authors detect in I.S.'s description of the action of drugs
a "modern note", but they also criticize him because of his too casual approach
regarding the occurrence and habitat of medicinal plants. In the second part of
the paper, authors discuss a few concrete examples of drug taxonomy and
therapy, as described by LS.
A valuable paper - offering a serious basis for further investigation.
(9) KHAN, M., Ibn Sina's Treatise on Drugs for the Treatment of
Cardiac Diseases, in: Isl. Q., 22 (85), 49-56.
After a few general remarks on the B. of Cardiac Drugs regarding its title,
authenticity, editions and translations, A. states that the first part of this work is
medico-philosophical in character. Ace. to A., the philosopher in I.S. always
predominates over the physician. At the basis of the second part of the treatise,
which is completely devoted to the prescription of simple and compound drugs
for the treatment of heart diseases, A. detects the Galenic concept of the four
humours (but A. notes that I.S. also uses the works of his famous Arabic
predecessors in medicine). For A., I.S.'s originality lies in his presentation of
personal clinical notes, and, above all, in his discussion of the relation between
pneuma, heart and medicine. But A. does not fail to mention also some obvious
demerits of I.S.'s tract, i.e. a too great dependence upon Galen, imprecisions,
incompleteness, etc.
A valuable study - especially with respect to a general critical evaluation of I.S.'s
doctrine on cardiac drugs (and in some ways even on medicine in general).
(12) MOUSSA, J., Materia Medica and its Faculties by I;Iunayn- ibn
Isl'Rq and Ibn Sina, in : Proc. 1. Int. Symp. Hist. ofArabic Science. 2 vo!.
Aleppo, Inst. Hist. of Arabic Science, 1977-78, 1. I, 805-822 (Ar); t. ll,
341-342 (Engl S.).
I;Iunayn ibn Ispaq, in his Questions and Answers on Medicine for Scholars,
mentioned eight rules for testing the faculties of single drugs, while I.S.
formulated seven rules for the same purpose. A. establishes a systematic
comparison between both lists, and shows that they are strikingly similar. But, at
the same time, A. detects in both catalogues of rules, the very same spirit as that
which prevails in Bacon's idea of the necessity of both continuity and diversity
in experimentation (cf. esp. Novum Organum, b. II, Aph. 13). Moreover, for A.
some of the expressed rules correspond almost verbatim to Mill's agreement rule,
disagreement (difference) rule, and concomitant variance-rule.
An interesting paper - but is A.'s interpretation of I;Iunayn and LS. not too much
influenced by his knowledge of Bacon and Mill?
(17) SIDDIQI, T., Ibn Sina on Materia Medica, in: Stud. I-Iist. Med., 5
(81), 243-277; also in: Indian J. Hist. Se., 21 (86), 326-357.
A paraphrases book II of the Canon. A. considers it necessary to reconstruct the
tables of drugs (established by I.S. in the 2nd chapter) by scanning and gathering
together the actions and properties from the descriptions of all single drugs I.S.
has dealt with in the first chapter, and to correlate them with each class. At the
end of his paper, A gives a detailed account of a few significant drugs.
MEDICINE 331
(19) ID., Ibn Sln~i's Cardiac Drug "Zarnab", in: Is!. World Med. J., 2 3
(86), 60-62.
Ace. to A., zarnab is identical with Taxus baccata L. (Engl. Yew) (A. herefore
invokes Indian sources). Then, A. concentrates on actual chemical and
pharmacological research on this later substance. A. concludes that I.S. is an
early forerunner of the use of drugs inhibiting I na and lea'
A. completely ignores the medieval context of I.S.'s pharmacology!
(2) OCER, M., Concerning Drugs made of Honey and Harma in the
Canon of Avicenna, in: Vlus!. 1.8. Semp., 323-331 (Tu); 331 (Engl
Abstract).
Ace. to Abstract, A. surveys the drugs made of honey and of harma in the Canon.
Moreover, A. considers their effect on contemporary folk medicine, as well as
their importance for modern medicine.
Q. Neurology
Note: Because of the vagueness of the Russian titles, the two works
dealing with this topic were placed under a separate heading.
(2) PULATOV, A., Ibn Sina i ego vklad v nevrologiya (Ibn Sfna and His
Contribution to Neurology). Dushanbe, Irfon, 1981, 36 pp.
333
(1) ABOULLAEV, A., The Teachers of Ibn SIna, in: Klin. Med.
(Moscow), 1978 5, 142-145 (Ru).
(2) DABOOB, E., Measles from al-Razi to Ibn Sina, in: RAA DAMAS,
57 (84), 690-701 (Ar).
AI-Razi, al-Majusi and 1.8. are the three major representatives of classical Arabic
medicine. A. offers a summary of their respective descriptions of the disease of
measles, as well as their observations regarding its treatment. In each case, A.
also presents a critical evaluation. For him, the superiority of alRazi over the
two others is evident. With respect to 1.S., A. stresses his adherence to a rather
logico-philosophical approach of the medical matter. It has to be noted that A.
rejects unambiguously the opinion that Arabic medicine is no more than a copy
of Greek medicine (cf. also infra, 3).
An interesting paper - illustrating the existence of different currents in classical
Arabic medicine, but for a still better approach, see 5-6.
(3) ID., Medical Philosophy from Hippocrates to Ibn Sina, in: Al-
turath al- 'arabf, 2 5_6 (81), 204-212; also in : AI-shaykh al-ra 'fs, 259-270
(Ar).
A. tirst outlines the fundamental (logical) basis on which Greek medicine was
based, Le. the acceptance of four elements, and mixtures of them (paralleled in
the living being by the acceptance of four humours, and their blending). Then he
affirms that the classical Arabic physicians were not slavish followers of the
Greek medical tradition, although they inherited much from their Greek prc
decessors. Finally, A. discusses original contributions by the three great Arabic
physicians of the classical period: al-Razl, alMajfrsl and 1.S. .. his major
attention going to al-Razi (whom he presents as an almost present-day physi-
cian!). For A., the originality of the Arabs consists in the introduction of a
scientific, experimental methodology. However, one finds this kind of approach
in 1.8. only in some of his particular observations.
Somehow in the same line as 2 - but A.'s (exaggerated?) admiration for al-Razi is
still more pronounced (cr. also this time 5-6).
(4) FELLMANN, I., 1st del' Qanun des rbn S'ina cin Plagiat des K.
al-I-Jawf von al-Rfizi'?, in: Z. Gesch. arab-isl. Wiss., 1 (84), 148-154.
A. examines whether the manuscript WMS Or. 123 really contains the final
334 MEDICINE
redaction by al-Razi himself of the first four books of his K. al-l;Iawf? The
assumption that this was indeed the case formed the very basis of Iskandar's
affirmation (in his A catalogue ofArabic Manuscripts on Medicine and Science.
London, 1967, 1-32) that I.S.'s Canon largely plagiarizes the K. al-1tawf. A.
rather convincingly shows that this manuscript most probably includes a later
reworking of the Canon, and cannot be identified with the K. al-1:It1wf of al-
Razl.
A very important paper insofar as WMS Or. 123 is concerned, but it leaves the
fundamental question of a possible dependence of I.S. on al-Razi unanswered.
(5) GRACIA, D.-VIDAL, S., Avicena, sabre el carazon, in: 27. Congr.
Int. I-list.Med., I1, 711-722.
Authors first outline the existence of two great currents in ancient Greek
medicine, i.e. a cerebro-centered current (shown by Plato, Galen and the Galeno-
Alexandrian tradition) and a heart-centered current (shown by Aristotle, the
Hippocratic School of Sicilia and the Aristotelian-Antiochian tradition) as far as
the fundamental scat of life and the soul are concerned. In classical Arabic
medicine there also arose two currents, i.e. one of the medicos (ibn Ridwan, ibn
Zuhr and Haly Abbas being its major representatives) and another of the
philosophers (whose major adherents were ibn Butlan, Rhazes and Averroes).
Ace. to authors, I.S. tried to link both traditions, although he always
subordinated the former to the latter, as becomes evident in his cardio-centrism.
However, I.S. linked with his cardiocentrism the Galenic doctrine of the three
principal organs and their specific virtues - hereby giving a dynamical aspect to
his theory on the tripartition of the 'spirit' (Authors pay in this respect special
attention to I.S.'s description of the spirit in his De viribus cordis).
A very valuable and stimulating paper, esp. when taken together with 6.
(7) HAMMAMI, M., Colic between al-Razl and Ibn Sina, in: M.
HAMMAMI, K. al-qCtlanj... (see Minor Works, i 7), 177-201 (Ar).
MEDICINE 335
A. points out some similarities and dissimilarities bctween al-Razl and I.S., as
becomes evident from their respective theories on colic. A. states that both
physicians defended a two-fold basic division of colic, although not in precisely
the samc terms. Moreover, they both were unaware of many nowadays well
known facts. Finally, as to both's methodological approach a fundamental
difference reveals itself: al-Razl busied himself with the analysis of the
individual case, whereas LS. paid much more attention to the description of the
general causes and symptoms of the disease.
A valuable case-study.
(9) WEISSER, D., Beitdige Ibn Sina's zur Kenntnis der weiblichen
Genitalien und zur Embryology. Eine kritische Betrachtung, in: 27.
Congr. Int. IIist. Med., II, 761-765.
Through a critical analysis of the Arabic terminology, A. shows that I.S.'s
description of female genitals is based on Galen. In some sense, this is also true
for I.S.'s embryological theory - although I.S. reinterprets the Galenic doctrine in
an Aristotelian perspective. So, A. ascribes a 'theoretical-scholastic' attitude to
I.S.
A valuable case-study - but does it suffice in order to substantify the general
conclusion?
See also:
A: 8, 9, 23, 32, 48;
C-I: 2, 4;
D: 10, 11;
G: 3;
H: 1, 5, 6, 7, 8;
I-I : 2, 3, 6;
K: 3;
L-III: 4, 6;
P: 9, 12;
S: 16
336
S. I-listorical Influences
(3) BRENTJES, S., The Use of Ibn Slnft's Canon in the Medical
Teachings of Leipzig and Wittelberg, in : Ibn Sino ve ego epokhe, 203-
204 (Ru).
(8) GOKAY, F., The Place of Ibn Sina in Turkish and World-wide
Literature, in: Ulusl. 1.8. Semp., 167-172 (Tu).
(11) KARIMOV, D., On the Medical Heritage ofIbn 8ina, in: Ibn Sfna.
K-1000 letiju, 122-149 (Ru).
(19) TADJEEV, Y. and ISHAKOV, I., The Work of Ibn Sina in the
Teaching of the History of Medicine in the TadjikiMedical Institute,
in: Ibn Sino ve ego epokhe, 212-214 (Ru).
(21) TUNJ! (AL-), M., Ibn Sina and Arab Medicine in China, in: Al-
'arabf, 297 (83), 154-159.
Having evoked the general historical circumstances which contributed to the
introduction of Arabic ideas into China (and Mongolia), A. concentrates on the
specific influence of classical Arabic medicine in China, with some particular
attention to I.S. (in order to show that even in modern China there still exists an
interest in I.S., A. stresses the very fact that there was a millenium-celebration of
I.S. in China in 1952!). To substantiate this Arabic influence on Chinese
medicine, A. refers to some technical terms in Chinese medicine, clearly Arabic-
or Persian-derived, as well as to some 'medieval' Chinese texts (mainly 13th C.),
directly related to classical Arabic medicine.
A valuable primary outline, but in need of further development.
See also:
I-I: 4.
Chapter XVII
Varia
VARIA 343
(1) AINI, L., Iskusstvo Srednej Azii Epokhe Avicenny (The Central
Asian Art of Ibn Sfna's Epoch). Dushanbe, Irfon, 1980, 200
reproductions (+ Ru and Engl text).
(2) AKMAL AYYUBI, N., An Important Turkish Book on Ibn 81na, in:
Indo-Iranica, 34 (81-82), 57-59.
A. enumerates the major contributions of the famous Turkish book: "Bilyiik
Turk ve rib Ustadi Ibni Sina... ", published in 1937.
Although no one doubts the exceptional merits of this publication, one may
wonder whether its actual value is still as great as suggested by A.?
(3) AKYUZ, Y., The Place of Ibn 81na in Turkish and World-wide
Education, in: A.o. Egitim Fak. Dergisi, 15} (82), 113 (Tu).
(6) BAYAT, A., Tales and Reflections on Ibn S1na in the Turkish-
Muslim Societies, in: Vlus. 1.S Semp., 575-585 (Tu).
(7) BAYRAM, M., Ibn S1na and Ahi Evren, in: Ibn Sfna.
Dogumunun..., 481-488 (Tu).
(12) DUN, A., The Heritage of Ibn Sina in the Ukraine, in : lbn Sino ve
ego epokhe, 197-202 (Ru).
(14) FAYYAJ?, S., Ibn Sfnfi. Aba al-(ibb al-basharf (Ibn Sfnfi. Father of
the Human Medicine) ('Ulama' al-'Arab, 7). Cairo, al-Azhar, 1987,56
pp.
A booklett for children, including several drawings.
Of no significant value.
(16) GORDON, N., The Physician. New York, Simon and Schuster,
1986.
A novel, in which I.S. plays an important role. It has to be noted that this novel
has been translated into several languages.
the Canon - at least, as a casual reader. (A. devotes the rest of his paper to the
general conceptIon of poison in Chaucer's time, and to the ambivalence of the
Pardoner as serpent.)
A significant paper, insofar as it shows how influential LS.'s Canon was in the
West - even outside medical (and philosophical!) circles.
(25) SAKAOGLU, S., The Influence of Ebu Ali SIna Stories on Turkish
Folk Tales, in: Ulusl. 1.8. Semp., 501-509 (Tu); 509 (Engl S.); 510-522
(2 concrete examples in Turkish?).
Ace. to S., A. points to the existing similarity in motifs between an old story on
1.S.'s life, preserved in 4 mss., and (still) told stories in oral tradition, as well as
to the disappearance (at least in part) of this resemblance when the latter turned
into tales.
Series 1
CORPUS LATINUM
COMMENTARIORUM IN ARISTOTELEM GRAECORUM
Editioni curandae praesidet G. Verbeke