Liber de causis

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The beginning of the Liber de causis in a manuscript owned by Cardinal Bessarion . Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana , Lat. 288, fol. 2r (around 1470)

Liber de causis ( Book of Causes ) is the title of a high medieval Latin translation of an Arabic philosophical text from the early Middle Ages .

Original Arabic version

The author of the original Arabic version was an unknown scholar who probably lived in the 9th century, probably in Baghdad . His work was distributed under various titles, including Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr ("Treatise on Pure Good"). It is a compilation of texts by ancient Neoplatonic philosophers. The main source - but not, as was previously believed, the only source - were the foundations (or: elements ) of the theology of the Neo-Platonist Proclus (5th century). The structure of the Arabic work, however, does not coincide with the main source; its author arranged the material according to different points of view than Proclus and also used Neoplatonic writings that contained teachings from the school of Plotinus , including the Theologia Aristotelis ("Theology of Aristotle") , which was wrongly attributed to Aristotle . The framework is made up of 31 theorems, each of which is accompanied by a reasoning and explanatory comment. Only later, in the manuscripts of the Latin translation, was it divided into 32 chapters by splitting the fourth sentence and chapter into two parts.

The original Arabic version seems to have been neglected by major Muslim thinkers; only three Arabic manuscripts have survived. Since the oldest of these manuscripts dates from 1197, the Jewish philosopher Abraham ibn Daud (Avendauth) , who worked in Toledo in the 12th century, was considered as the author. Later it turned out, however, that as early as the 10th century, Arab authors had used the work; Relevant quotations can also be found in the Jewish philosopher Moses ibn Esra (11th / 12th centuries).

content

Following the Neoplatonic way of thinking, the author assumes that everything arises from the first cause, from the One , which he equates with pure goodness. Its main theme is the question of how the emergence of multiplicity from unity is to be explained. He tries to solve this problem by not assuming a plurality of mediating authorities between the one and the many, but a single authority, the spirit. He regards the mind both as a unity and as a principle of multiplicity that contains the multiplicity of forms. In this context he deals with time and eternity, arising and passing away. He thinks that the one is as the first cause "before eternity", the spirit that emerged directly from it as "second being" is "with eternity", the soul as the third - in Neoplatonism what is meant is the world soul - is below eternity, but over time. The one as the primary cause does not create the being of the soul directly, but “through the mediation of the spirit”. This doctrine of the indirect creation of the soul, characteristic of the Liber de causis , posed a challenge for Muslim and Christian interpreters.

One of the goals of the Muslim author is to use elements of the Neo-Platonic doctrine of emanation for the philosophical foundation of the monotheistic belief in creation of his religion. To this end, if necessary, he deviates from Proclus' views and falls back on the teachings of Plotinus . In this way he identifies the first ground of all reality with pure being, while Proclus thinks that the first ground, the one, is "overseeing", that is, still above beings.

The Latin translation and its reception

Gerhard von Cremona († 1187), one of the most fruitful translators of his era, translated the Arabic work in Toledo into Latin (probably after 1167). He tried to translate it as literally as possible, without taking into account the stylistic requirements of the Latin language. As a title he chose, true to the Arabic model, Liber de expositione bonitatis purae ("Book for the declaration of pure goodness"). It was not until the 13th century that the title Liber de causis caught on. They held the Liber first for a work of Aristotle , an addition to its metaphysics , because you saw the metaphysics as an incomplete representation of their subject area. However, some scholars believed that only the doctrines contained in Liber came from Aristotle, but the subsequent arguments and explanations from the early medieval Arab Aristotle commentator al-Fārābī .

One of the first recipients of the Latin Liber was a colleague of Gerhards von Cremona, who was also active in Toledo, the scholar Dominicus Gundisalvi (Gundissalinus), who dealt with the heterodox doctrine of creation set out in it , which he partially misunderstood. He did not understand the terms “spirit” (in the Latin translation intelligentia ) and “soul” used by the author of the Liber as designations for two high-ranking hypostases (hierarchically ordered levels of reality) in the original Neoplatonic sense . Under intelligentia he rather understood "intelligences," which disembodied in the former terminology beings (angels) were meant. The statement that the soul emerged from the spirit did not refer to the world soul, but to the individual human soul. This misunderstanding also shaped the later medieval reception.

Another contemporary of Gerhard von Cremona who was influenced by Liber's understanding of creation was Alanus ab Insulis . He tried to reconcile the Neoplatonic conception with the ecclesiastical one by considering God as the active cause in the creation of the soul, but assigning the role of the formal cause to "intelligence"; Because of his unity, God is not considered as the cause of form.

When the university system flourished in the 13th century, the Liber de causis became a basic text for teaching in the faculties of the Artes Liberales . As a result, at least 237 Latin manuscripts have been preserved, a high number for a medieval text.

Probably between 1241 and 1245 the philosopher Roger Bacon wrote what is probably the oldest medieval commentary on the Liber de causis under the title Quaestiones supra librum de causis ("Questions about the Book of Causes"). In it he took a critical position on individual theses of the commented work. When the Artes Faculty of the then leading University of Paris determined its study program in 1255, it was determined that the Liber de causis should be the subject of instruction for seven weeks a year. Numerous scholars wrote comments on the work, including Albert the Great , who said the author was "a certain Jew David," as well as other prominent masters such as Siger von Brabant , Aegidius Romanus and Walter Burley . At least 29 Latin commentaries were made by 1500.

The late medieval commentators valued Liber very much, but distanced themselves from his teaching in individual places where they saw a contradiction to the Christian faith, for example with regard to the thesis that the soul was not created directly by the primary cause, but through the mediation of the spirit. The tendency established itself to limit the importance of the involvement of the spirit (the “intelligence”) in the creation process, which was offensive according to the church's understanding of the time. “Intelligence” was no longer accepted as a formal principle required for the creation of the soul, but assigned a subordinate, ontologically insignificant role in this process . It was no longer viewed ontologically as a principle of being, but was only allowed to apply epistemologically as a principle of knowledge.

Numerous traces of the use of the Liber can be found in Dante , both in the Divina commedia and in the Monarchia and the Convivio . Meister Eckhart often quoted Liber , as his doctrine of transcendence and emanation was suitable to underpin his theology.

Initially, the name of Proclus was hardly known to the Western scholars of the Middle Ages. This only changed after Wilhelm von Moerbeke had completed his translation of Proklos' Fundamentals of Theology on May 18, 1268 . From this translation Thomas Aquinas realized that the Liber de causis is mainly a summary of the content of Proclus' work. In his commentary on the Liber de causis , written in Paris in 1272 , Thomas pointed out this connection and described the commented script as an excerpt from the foundations of Proclus by an Arab philosopher . Thomas compared the two texts and found that that of Proclus was more complete and differentiated, but the Liber offered a progression of knowledge in terms of content (from a Christian perspective). The discovery of the work's non-Aristotelian origin did little to detract from its popularity; interest only slowly faded.

There were also four Hebrew translations, one of which is based on the Arabic text, the rest on the Latin text, and three Hebrew commentaries.

Research history

The first modern edition was presented in 1882 by the theologian Otto Bardenhewer , who edited both the Arabic and Latin versions, albeit on an inadequate handwritten basis. The 1966 edition of the Latin text by Adriaan Pattin was groundbreaking, but Pattin himself did not regard it as the final critical edition, but as a provisional arrangement. An editorial problem is that some Latin manuscripts offer a more authentic text that is closer to the Arabic original, while others show a younger, already modified text form, which is, however, important in terms of reception history. An editor of the Latin Liber de causis thus has the choice between the text-critical principle (reconstruction of the oldest accessible text form) and the tradition-critical principle (decision for a relatively author-independent, but strongly received version).

Editions and translations

Arabic text

  • Richard C. Taylor : The Liber de Causis (Kalām fī maḥḍ al-ḫayr). A Study of Medieval Neoplatonism. Dissertation Toronto 1981 (contains critical edition of the Arabic text with English translation and commentary)
  • Otto Bardenhewer : The pseudo-Aristotelian book about pure good, known under the name Liber de causis . Herder, Freiburg 1882 (contains a critical edition of the Arabic text with a German translation. Limited preview in Google Book Search - USA )

Latin text

  • Andreas Schönfeld (Ed.): Anonymus, Liber de causis. The book of causes . Meiner, Hamburg 2004, ISBN 3-7873-1639-6 (Latin text and German translation)
  • Alexander Fidora, Andreas Niederberger: From Baghdad to Toledo. The “Book of Causes” and its reception in the Middle Ages . Dieterich'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, Mainz 2001, ISBN 978-3-87162-053-9 (Latin text and German translation)
  • Adriaan Pattin (Ed.): Le Liber de causis. Edition établie à l'aide de 90 manuscrits with introduction and notes . In: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 28, 1966, pp. 90–203 (edition of the Latin text; also distributed as a special print)

Hebrew translations

  • Jean-Pierre Rothschild: Les traductions hébraïques du Liber de causis latin . Dissertation Paris 1985, Vol. 1, pp. 172–243 (synoptic edition of part of the Hebrew translations)

Commentary by Thomas Aquinas

  • Jakob Georg Heller (Ed.): Thomas Aquinas: Expositio super librum de causis. Commentary on the book of the causes (= Herder's library of the philosophy of the Middle Ages. Volume 39). Herder, Freiburg 2017, ISBN 978-3-451-37601-6 (Latin text with German translation and introduction)

concordance

  • Paloma Llorente Megías: Liber de causis. Indice y Concordancia . Olschki, Firenze 2004, ISBN 88-222-5351-5

literature

Overview display

  • Cristina D'Ancona, Richard C. Taylor: Le Liber de causis. In: Richard Goulet (ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques. Volume supplément. CNRS Editions, Paris 2003, ISBN 2-271-06175-X , pp. 599-647

Investigations

  • Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis. Vrin, Paris 1995, ISBN 2-7116-1225-2
  • Thomas Ricklin: The 'Physica' and the 'Liber de causis' in the 12th century. Two studies. Universitätsverlag, Freiburg / Switzerland 1995, ISBN 3-7278-0994-9
  • Richard C. Taylor: The Kalām fī maḥḍ al-khair (Liber de causis) in the Islamic Philosophical Milieu . In: Jill Kraye et al. (Ed.): Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages . Warburg Institute, London 1986, ISBN 0-85481-065-X , pp. 37-52

Web links

Remarks

  1. ↑ Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis , Paris 1995, pp. 155–194 pleads for identifying him with al-Kindī . This hypothesis had already been put forward by prominent orientalists such as Louis Massignon and Carl Brockelmann , who also considered someone from al-Kindī's circle of students.
  2. ↑ On these sources see Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis , Paris 1995, pp. 25–46.
  3. ↑ To refute this assumption, see Richard C. Taylor: The Kalām fī maḥḍ al-khair (Liber de causis) in the Islamic Philosophical Milieu . In: Jill Kraye u. a. (Ed.): Pseudo-Aristotle in the Middle Ages , London 1986, pp. 37–52, here: 37 ff.
  4. ↑ Liber de causis 2.19-26.
  5. ↑ Liber de causis 3.32. See also Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis , Paris 1995, pp. 73-95.
  6. ↑ On the differences between his metaphysics and that of Proclus see Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis , Paris 1995, pp. 33–46, 63–72, 133–153.
  7. ↑ On the attributions, see Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis , Paris 1995, pp. 215–217.
  8. ↑ Alexander Fidora, Andreas Niederberger: From Baghdad to Toledo. The “Book of Causes” and its reception in the Middle Ages , Mainz 2001, pp. 205–208.
  9. ↑ On this comment see Cristina D'Ancona Costa: Recherches sur le Liber de causis , Paris 1995, pp. 197–201.
  10. ↑ Alexander Fidora, Andreas Niederberger: From Baghdad to Toledo. The “Book of Causes” and its reception in the Middle Ages , Mainz 2001, pp. 220–222.
  11. ↑ The view held in older research that the connection with Proclus was already recognized before or around 1250 has proven to be incorrect; see Helmut Boese : Wilhelm von Moerbeke as translator of the Stoicheiosis theologike des Proclus , Heidelberg 1985, p. 11 and note 3.
  12. ↑ Cristina D'Ancona, Richard C. Taylor: Le Liber de causis. In: Richard Goulet u. a. (Ed.): Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques , supplementary volume, Paris 2003, pp. 599–647, here: 607–609, 617–619, 623 f.