{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_61593/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_61593","id":"gutenberg_61593","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/61593","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Philosophy, Arab"],"text":"_TRUBNER\u2019S ORIENTAL SERIES_\n\nPOPULAR RE-ISSUE AT A UNIFORM PRICE\n\n_Demy 8vo, dark green cloth, gilt._\n\n\n  ALBERUNI: =India.= An Account of the Religion, Philosophy,\n      Literature, Geography, Chronology, Astronomy, Customs, Laws, and\n      Astrology of India, about A.D. 1030. By Dr. Edward C. Sachau.\n      ARNOLD (Sir E.): =Indian Poetry and Indian Idylls.= Containing\n      \u2018The Indian Song of Songs,\u2019 from the Sanskrit of the Gita Govinda\n      of Jayadeva; Two Books from \u2018The Iliad of India\u2019 (Mahabharata);\n      \u2018Proverbial Wisdom,\u2019 from the Shlokas of the Hitopadesa, and\n      other Oriental Poems.\n\n  BARTH (Dr. A.): =The Religions of India.= Authorised Translation by\n      Rev. J. Wood.\n\n  BIGANDET (B. P.): =Life or Legend of Gaudama, the Buddha of the\n      Burmese;= With Annotations, the Ways to Neibban, and Notice on\n      the Phongyies or Burmese Monks.\n\n  BEAL (Prof. S.): =Life of Hiuen-Tsiang.= By the Shamans Hwui Li and\n      Yen-Tsung. With a Preface containing an Account of the Works of\n      I-Tsing.\n\n  BEAL (Prof. S.): =Si-Yu-Ki:= Buddhist Records of the Western World.\n      Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen-Tsiang.\n\n  BOULTING (Dr. W.): =Four Pilgrims.= I., Hiuen Tsiang; II., S\u00e6wulf;\n      III., Mohammed ibn abd Allah; IV., Ludovico Varthema of Bologna.\n\n  COWELL (Prof. E. B.): =Sarva-Darsana-Samgraha:= or, Review of the\n      Different Systems of Hindu Philosophy. By Madhava Acharya.\n      Translated by Prof. E. B. Cowell, M.A., and Prof. A. E. Gough,\n      M.A.\n\n  DOWSON (Prof. J.): =Classical Dictionary of Hindu Mythology and\n      Religion, Geography, History, and Literature.=\n\n  EDKINS (Dr. J.): =Chinese Buddhism:= A Volume of Sketches, Historical\n      and Critical. New and Revised Edition.\n\n  ROCKHILL (W. W.): =The Life of the Buddha and the Early History of\n      his Order.= Derived from Tibetan works in the Bkah-hgyur and\n      Bstan-hgyur. Followed by notices on the early history of Tibet\n      and Khoten.\n\n  HAUG (Dr. M.): =Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings, and Religion\n      of the Parsis.=\n\n  WEBER (Dr. A.): =History of Indian Literature.= Translated by John\n      Mann, M.A., and Theodore Zachariae, Ph.D. Fourth Edition.\n\n_Other Volumes to follow._\n\n                          LONDON\n          KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n\n  ARABIC THOUGHT AND\n  ITS PLACE IN HISTORY\n\n\n  BY\n  DE LACY O\u2019LEARY, D.D.\n\n  _Lecturer in Aramaic and Syriac, Bristol University_\n\n  London:\n  KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER & CO., LTD.\n  NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO.\n\n  1922\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nHistory traces the evolution of the social structure in which the\ncommunity exists to-day. There are three chief factors at work in this\nevolution; racial descent, culture drift, and transmission of language:\nthe first of these physiological and not necessarily connected with\nthe other two, whilst those two are not always associated with each\nother. In the evolution of the social structure the factor of first\nimportance is the transmission of culture, which is not a matter of\nheredity but due to contact, for culture is learned and reproduced\nby imitation and not inherited. Culture must be taken in the widest\nsense to include political, social, and legal institutions, the arts\nand crafts, religion, and the various forms of intellectual life which\nshow their presence in literature, philosophy, and otherwise, all more\nor less connected, and all having the common characteristic that they\ncannot be passed on by physical descent but must be learned in after\nlife. But race, culture, and language resemble one another in so far\nas it is true that all are multiplex and perpetually interwoven, so\nthat in each the lines of transmission seem rather like a tangled skein\nthan an ordered pattern; results proceed from a conflicting group of\ncauses amongst which it is often difficult to apportion the relative\ninfluences.\n\nThe culture of modern Europe derives from that of the Roman Empire,\nitself the multiple resultant of many forces, amongst which the\nintellectual life of Hellenism was most effective, but worked into a\ncoherent system by the wonderful power of organization, which was one\nof the most salient characteristics of that Empire. The whole cultural\nlife of medi\u00e6val Europe shows this Hellenistic-Roman culture passed on,\ndeveloped, and modified by circumstances. As the Empire fell to pieces\nthe body of culture became subject to varying conditions in different\nlocalities, of which the divergence between the Greek-speaking East and\nthe Latin-speaking West is the most striking example. The introduction\nof Muslim influence through Spain is the one instance in which we\nseem to get an alien culture entering into this Roman tradition and\nexercising a disturbing influence. In fact, this Muslim culture was\nat bottom essentially a part of the Hellenistic-Roman material, even\nthe theology of Islam being formulated and developed from Hellenistic\nsources, but Islam had so long lived apart from Christendom and its\ndevelopment had taken place in surroundings so different that it seems\na strange and alien thing. Its greatest power lay in the fact that it\npresented the old material in an entirely fresh form.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIt is the effort of the following pages to trace the transmission\nof Hellenistic thought through the medium of Muslim philosophers and\nJewish thinkers who lived in Muslim surroundings, to show how this\nthought, modified as it passed through a period of development in the\nMuslim community and itself modifying Islamic ideas, was brought to\nbear upon the culture of medi\u00e6val Latin Christendom. So greatly had\nit altered in external form during the centuries of its life apart,\nthat it seemed a new type of intellectual life and became a disturbing\nfactor which diverted Christian philosophy into new lines and tended to\ndisintegrate the traditional theology of the Church, directly leading\nup to the Renascence which gave the death-blow to medi\u00e6val culture:\nso little had it altered in real substance that it used the same\ntext-books and treated very much the same problems already current in\nthe earlier scholasticism which had developed independently in Latin\nChristendom. It will be our effort so to trace the history of medi\u00e6val\nMuslim thought as to show the elements which it had in common with\nChristian teaching and to account for the points of divergence.\n\n                                                            De L. O\u2019L.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  CHAP.                                                            PAGE\n\n     I  THE SYRIAC VERSION OF HELLENISM                                1\n\n    II  THE ARAB PERIOD                                               56\n\n   III  THE COMING OF THE `ABBASIDS                                   89\n\n    IV  THE TRANSLATORS                                              105\n\n     V  THE MU`TAZILITES                                             123\n\n    VI  THE EASTERN PHILOSOPHERS                                     135\n\n   VII  SUFISM                                                       181\n\n  VIII  ORTHODOX SCHOLASTICISM                                       208\n\n    IX  THE WESTERN PHILOSOPHY                                       226\n\n     X  THE JEWISH TRANSMITTORS                                      261\n\n    XI  INFLUENCE OF THE ARABIC PHILOSOPHERS ON LATIN SCHOLASTICISM  275\n\n        CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH                                         295\n\n        CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE                                          296\n\n        TRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE SYRIAC VERSION OF HELLENISM\n\n\nThe subject proposed in the following pages is the history of the\ncultural transmission by which Greek philosophy and science were passed\nfrom Hellenistic surroundings to the Syriac speaking community, thence\nto the Arabic speaking world of Islam, and so finally to the Latin\nSchoolmen of Western Europe. That such a transmission did take place is\nknown even to the beginner in medi\u00e6val history, but how it happened,\nand the influences which promoted it, and the modifications which took\nplace _en route_, appear to be less generally known, and it does not\nseem that the details, scattered through works of very diverse types,\nare easily accessible to the English reader. Many historians seem\ncontent to give only a casual reference to its course, sometimes even\nwith strange chronological confusions which show that the sources used\nare still the medi\u00e6val writers who had very imperfect information about\nthe development of intellectual life amongst the Muslims. Following\nmedi\u00e6val usage we sometimes find the Arabic writers referred to as\n\u201cArabs\u201d or \u201cMoors,\u201d although in fact there was only one philosopher\nof any importance who was an Arab by race, and comparatively little\nis known about his work. These writers belonged to an Arabic speaking\ncommunity, but very few of them were actually Arabs.\n\nAfter the later Hellenistic development Greek culture spread outward\ninto the oriental fringe of people who used Syriac, Coptic, Aramaic,\nor Persian as their vernacular speech, and in these alien surroundings\nit took a somewhat narrower development and even what we may describe\nas a provincial tone. There is no question of race in this. Culture\nis not inherited as a part of the physiological heritage transmitted\nfrom parent to child; it is learned by contact due to intercourse,\nimitation, education, and such like things, and such contact between\nsocial groups as well as between individuals is much helped by the\nuse of a common language and hindered by difference of language. As\nsoon as Hellenism overflowed into the vernacular speaking communities\noutside the Greek speaking world it began to suffer some modification.\nIt so happened also that these vernacular speaking communities wanted\nto be cut off from close contact with the Greek world because very\nbitter theological divisions had arisen and had produced feelings of\ngreat hostility on the part of those who were officially described as\nheretics against the state church in the Byzantine Empire.\n\nIn this present chapter we have to consider three points; in the first\nplace the particular stage of development reached by Greek thought at\nthe time when these divisions took place; secondly the cause of these\ndivisions and their tendencies; and thirdly the particular line of\ndevelopment taken by Hellenistic culture in its oriental atmosphere.\n\nFirst stands the question of the stage of development reached by\nHellenism, and we may test this by its intellectual life as represented\nby science and philosophy, at the time when the oriental off-shoot\nshows a definite line of separation. English education, largely\ndominated by the principles learned at the renascence, is inclined to\ntreat philosophy as coming to an end with Aristotle and beginning again\nwith Descartes after a long blank during which there lived and worked\nsome degenerate descendants of the ancients who hardly need serious\nconsideration. But this position violates the primary canon of history\nwhich postulates that all life is continuous, the life of the social\ncommunity as well as the physical life of an organic body: and life\nmust be a perpetual series of causes and results, so that each event\ncan only be explained by the cause which went before, and can only be\nfully understood in the light of the result which follows after. What\nwe call the \u201cmiddle ages\u201d had an important place in the evolution of\nour own cultural condition, and owed much to the transmitted culture\nwhich came round from ancient Hellenism through Syriac, Arabic, and\nHebrew media. But this culture came as a living thing with an unbroken\nand continuous development from what we call the \u201cclassic\u201d age. As the\nphilosophy of the great classic schools passes down to these later\nperiods it shows great modifications, but this alteration is itself a\nproof of life. Philosophy, like religion, in so far as it has a real\nvitality, must change and adapt itself to altered conditions and new\nrequirements: it can remain pure and true to its past only in so far as\nits life is artificial and unreal, lived in an academic atmosphere far\nremoved from the life of the community at large. In such an unnatural\natmosphere no doubt, it is possible for a religion or a philosophy to\nlive perfectly pure and uncorrupt, but it is certainly not an ideal\nlife: in real life there are bound to be introduced many unworthy\nelements and some which can only be described as actually corrupt. So\nit is inevitable that as a religion or a philosophy lives and really\nfulfils its proper functions it has to pass through many changes. Of\ncourse the same holds good for all other forms of culture: it may be\ntrue that a country is happy if it has no history, but it is the placid\nhappiness of vegetable life, not the enjoyment of the higher functions\nof rational being.\n\nIn considering the transmission of Greek philosophy to the Arabs we\nsee that philosophy still as a living force, adapting itself to changed\nconditions but without a break in the continuity of its life. It was\nnot, as now, an academic study sought only by a group of specialists,\nbut a living influence which guided men in their ideas about the\nuniverse in which they lived and dominated all theology, law, and\nsocial ideas. For many centuries it pervaded the atmosphere in which\nWestern Asia was educated and in which it lived. Men became Christians,\nfor a time the new religious interest filled their minds, but later on\nit was inevitable that philosophy should re-assert its power, and then\nChristian doctrine had to be re-cast to conform to it: the descendants\nof these people became Muslims and then again, after an interval,\nreligion had to conform itself to current philosophy. We have no such\ndominant philosophical system in force to-day, but we have a certain\nmass of scientific facts and theories which form an intellectual\nbackground to modern European life and the defenders of traditional\nreligion find it necessary to adjust their teaching to the principles\nimplied in those facts and theories.\n\nBut the important point is that then Christian teachers began to put\nthemselves into touch with current philosophy, and so when the Muslims\nlater on did the same, they had to reckon with philosophy as they found\nit actually living in their own days: they did not become Platonists or\nAristotelians in the sense in which we should understand the terms. The\ncurrent philosophy had changed from the older standards, not because\nthe degenerate people of those days could not understand the pure\ndoctrines of Plato and Aristotle, but because they took philosophy so\nseriously and earnestly as an explanation of the universe and of man\u2019s\nplace in it that they were bound to re-adjust their views in the light\nof what they regarded as later information, and the views had altered\nto adjust themselves with the course of human experience.\n\nFrom Plato onwards philosophy had been very largely concerned with\ntheories which more or less directly concerned the structure of\nsociety: it was perceived that a very large part of man\u2019s life, duties,\nand general welfare, was intimately concerned with his relations\nto the community in which he lived. But soon after the time of\nAristotle the general conditions of the social order were seen to be\nundergoing a profound modification: great empires with highly organised\nadministrations replaced the self-governing city states of the older\nperiod, and social life had to adjust itself to the new conditions.\nA man who was a citizen of the Roman Empire was a citizen in quite a\ndifferent sense from that in which one was a citizen of the Athenian\nRepublic. The Stoic philosophy, which is of this later age, already\npresupposes these new conditions and in course of time the other\nschools orientated themselves similarly. One of the first results is\na tendency to eclecticism and to combination of the tenets of several\nschools. The new outlook, broader in its horizon, perhaps shallower in\nother respects, impelled men to take what was an imperialist attitude\ninstead of a local or national one. Precisely similar changes were\nforced upon the Jewish religion. Hellenistic Judaism, at the beginning\nof the Christian era, is concerned with the human species and the race\nof Israel is considered chiefly as a means of bringing illumination to\nmankind at large. It was this Hellenistic Judaism which culminated in\nSt. Paul and the expansion of the Christian Church, whilst orthodox\nJudaism, that is to say the provincial Jewery of Palestine reverted\nto its racial attitude under the pressure of circumstances partly\nreactionary against the too rapid progress of Hellenism and partly\npolitical in character.\n\nThe old pagan religions showed many local varieties, and from those a\nworld-wide religion could only be evolved by some speculative doctrines\nwhich reconciled their divergences. Never has a religion of any\nextension been formed from local cults otherwise than by the ministry\nof some kind of speculative theology: sometimes the fusion of cults has\nspontaneously provided such a theology, as was the case in the Nile\nvalley and in Mesopotamia in early times, and when the theology was\nproduced it brought its solvent power to bear rapidly and effectively\non other surrounding cults. As many races and states were associated\ntogether in the Greek Empire which, though apparently separated into\nseveral kingdoms, yet had an intellectual coherence and a common\ncivilization, and this was still more definitely the case when the\ncloser federation of the Roman Empire followed, philosophy was forced\nmore and more in the direction of speculative theology: it assumed\nthose ethical and doctrinal functions which we generally associate\nwith religion, the contemporary local cults concerning themselves\nonly with ritual duties. Thus in the early centuries of the Christian\nera Hellenistic philosophy was evolving a kind of religion, of a high\nmoral tone and definitely monotheistic in doctrine. This theological\nphilosophy was eclectic, but rested upon a basis of Platonism.\n\nWhilst the philosophers were developing a monotheistic and moral\nsystem which they hoped to make a world religion, the Christians\nwere attempting a similar task on somewhat different lines. The\nearlier converts to the Christian religion were not as a rule drawn\nfrom the educated classes and shewed a marked suspicion and dislike\ntowards those superior persons, such as the Gnostics, or at least\nthe pre-Marcionite Gnostics, who were disposed to patronise them.\nGradually however this attitude changed and we begin to find men\nlike Justin Martyr who had received a philosophical education and\nyet found it quite possible to co-ordinate contemporary science and\nChristian doctrine. In Rome, in Africa, and in Greece the Christians\nwere a despised minority, chiefly drawn from the unlettered class,\nand ostentatiously ignored by the writers of the day. Like the Jew of\nthe Ghetto they were forced to live an isolated life and thrown back\nupon their internal resources. But in Alexandria and, to a lesser\ndegree in Syria, they were more in the position of the modern Jew in\nAnglo Saxon lands, though bitterly hated and occasionally persecuted,\nand were brought under the intellectual influences of the surrounding\ncommunity and thus experienced a solvent force in their own ideas.\nWhen at last Christianity appears in the ascendant it has been largely\nre-cast by Hellenistic influences, its theology is re-stated in\nphilosophical terms, and thus in the guise of theology a large amount\nof philosophical material was transmitted to the vernacular speaking\nhinterland of Western Asia.\n\nThe Arabic writer Mas\u00fbdi informs us that Greek philosophy originally\nflourished at Athens, but the Emperor Augustus transferred it from\nAthens to Alexandria and Rome, and Theodosius afterwards closed the\nschools at Rome and made Alexandria the educational centre of the Greek\nworld (Mas\u00fbdi: _Livre de l\u2019avertissement_, trad. B. Carra de Vaux,\nParis, 1896, p. 170). Although grotesquely expressed this statement\ncontains an element of truth in so far as it represents Alexandria\nas gradually becoming the principal home of Greek philosophy. It had\nbegun to take a leading place even in the days of the Ptolemies,\nand in scientific, as distinguished from purely literary work, it\nhad assumed a position of primary importance early in the Christian\nera. The schools of Athens remained open until A.D. 529, but had\nlong been out of touch with progressive scholarship. Rome also shows\ngreat philosophers, most often of oriental birth, down to a late age,\nbut although these were given a kindly welcome and a hearing, Roman\neducation was more interested in jurisprudence, indeed the purely Roman\nphilosophical speculation is that embedded in Justinian\u2019s code. Antioch\nalso had its philosophy, but this was never of more than secondary\nimportance.\n\nIn the course of what we may term the Alexandrian period the\nPlatonic school had steadily taken the first place. It was indeed\nconsiderably changed from the ancient Academic standards, chiefly by\nthe introduction of semi-mystical elements which were attributed to\nPythagoras, and later by fusion with the neo-Aristotelian school. The\nPythagorean elements probably can be traced ultimately to an Indian\nsource, at least in such instances as the doctrine of the unreality\nof matter and phenomena which appears in Indian philosophy as _m\u0101y\u0101_,\nand the re-incarnation of souls which is _avatar_. The tendency of\nnative Greek thought, as seen in Democritus and other genuinely\nGreek thinkers, was distinctly materialistic, but Plato apparently\nincorporates some alien matter, probably Indian, perhaps some Egyptian\nideas as well. We know there was a transmission of oriental thought\ninfluencing Hellenism, but very little is known of the details.\nCertainly Plotinus and the neo-Platonists were eclectic thinkers and\ndrew freely from oriental sources, some disguised as Pythagorean, by a\nlong sojourn in Greek lands.\n\nIn the 3rd century A.D. we find the beginnings of what is known\nas neo-Platonism. A very typical passage in Gibbon\u2019s _Decline and\nFall_ (ch. xiii.) refers to the neo-Platonists as \u201cmen of profound\nthought and intense application; but, by mistaking the true object\nof philosophy, their labours contributed much less to improve than\nto corrupt the human understanding. The knowledge that is suited to\nour situation and powers, the whole compass of moral, natural, and\nmathematical science, was neglected by the new Platonists; whilst\nthey exhausted their strength in the verbal disputes of metaphysics,\nattempted to explore the secrets of the invisible world, and studied\nto reconcile Aristotle with Plato, on subjects of which both these\nphilosophers were as ignorant as the rest of mankind.\u201d Although this\npassage is coloured by some of the peculiar prejudices of Gibbon it\nfairly represents a common attitude towards neo-Platonism and might\nequally apply to every religious movement the world has ever seen.\n\nThe neo-Platonists were the result, we may say the inevitable result,\nof tendencies which had been at work ever since the age of Alexander\nand the widening of the mental horizon and the decay of interest in\nthe old civic life. The older philosophers had endeavoured to produce\nefficient citizens; but under imperialist conditions efficient citizens\nwere not so much wanted as obedient subjects. Through all this period\nthere are very clear indications of the new trend of thought which\nassumes a more theological and philanthropic character, aiming at\nproducing good men rather than useful citizens. The speculations of\nPhilo the Jewish Platonist give very plain indications of these new\ntendencies as they appeared in Alexandria. He shows the monotheistic\ntendency which was indeed present in the older philosophers but now\nbegins to be more strongly emphasized as philosophy becomes more\ntheological in its speculations, though no doubt in his case this was\nlargely due to the religion he professed. He expressed the doctrine\nof a One God, eternal, unchanging, and passionless, far removed above\nthe world of phenomena, as the First Cause of all that exists, a\nphilosophical monotheism which can be fitted in with the Old Testament\nbut does not naturally proceed from it. The doctrine of an Absolute\nReality as the necessary cause of all that is variable, something like\nthe fulcrum which Archimedes needed to move the world, was one to which\nall philosophy, and especially the Platonic school, was tending. But,\nas causation to some extent implies change, this First Cause could not\nbe regarded as directly creating the world, but only as the eternal\nsource of an eternally proceeding emanation by means of which the power\nof the First Cause is projected so as to produce the universe and all\nit contains. The essential features of this teaching are, the absolute\nunity of the First Cause, its absolute reality, its eternity, and its\ninvariability, all of which necessarily removes it above the plane\nof things knowable to man; and the operative emanation ceaselessly\nissuing forth, eternal like its source, yet acting in time and space,\nan emanation which Philo terms the _Logos_ or \u201cWord.\u201d Although\nthese theories are to a large extent only an expression of logical\nconclusions towards which the Platonists were then advancing, Philo had\ncuriously little influence. No doubt there was a tendency to regard his\nteaching as mainly an attempt to read a Platonic meaning into Jewish\ndoctrine, and certainly the large amount of attention he devoted to\nexegesis of the Old Testament and to Jewish apologetics would prevent\nhis works from receiving serious attention from non-Jewish readers.\nAgain, although his ideas about monotheism and the nature of God were\nthose to which Platonism was tending, they represent also a Jewish\nattitude which, starting from a monotheistic stand-point was then,\nunder Hellenistic influence, making towards a supra-sensual idea of\nGod, explaining away the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament and\npostulating an emanation, the _Hochma_ or \u201cwisdom\u201d of God as the\nintermediary in creation and revelation. Undoubtedly Philo, or the\nPhilonic school of Hellenistic Judaism, was responsible for the Logos\ndoctrine which appears in the portions of the New Testament bearing the\nname of St. John. He had an influence also on Jewish thought as appears\nin the Targums where the operative emanation which proceeds from the\nFirst Cause is no longer the \u201cwisdom\u201d of God but the \u201cWord.\u201d He seems\nto have had no influence at all on the course of Alexandrian philosophy\ngenerally.\n\nThe tendencies which were at work in Philo were also leavening\nGreek thought outside Jewish circles and all schools of philosophy\nshow a growing definiteness in their assertion of One God eternal\nand invariable, as the source and First Cause of the universe. It is\na recognition of the principal of uniformity in nature and of the\nnecessity of accounting for the cause of this uniformity. The Gnostic\nsects, which were of philosophical origin, simply show the definite\nacceptance of this First Cause and, having accepted it as on a plane\nfar removed above imperfection and variation, suggest intermediary\nemanations as explaining the production of an imperfect and variable\nuniverse from a primary source which is itself perfect and unchanging.\nThe descriptive accounts of the successive emanations, each less\nperfect than that from which it proceeds, which ultimately produced\nthe world in which we perceive phenomena, are different in different\nGnostic systems, often crude enough and grotesque in our eyes, and\nfrequently drawing from Christianity or Judaism or some other of the\noriental religions which were then attracting the attention of the\nRoman world. But these details are of minor importance. All Gnostic\ntheories bear witness to the belief that there is a First Cause,\nabsolutely real, perfect, eternal, and far removed above this world\nof time and space, and that some emanation or emanations must have\nintervened to connect the resultant world, such as we know it, with\nthis sublime Cause: and such belief indicates in crude form a general\nconviction which was getting hold of all current thought in the early\ncenturies of the Christian era.\n\nComplementary to this was the psychological teaching represented by\nthe Aristotelian commentator Alexander of Aphrodisias who taught at\nAthens, A.D. 198-211. His extant works include commentaries on the\nfirst book of the Analytica Priora, on the Topica, Meteorology, _de\nsensu_, the first five books of the Metaphysics and an abridgment of\nthe other books of the Metaphysics, as well as treatises on the soul,\netc. Over and over again his treatise on the soul and his commentaries\nare translated into Arabic, paraphrased, and made the subject of\nfurther commentaries, until it seems that his psychology is the very\nnucleus of all Arabic philosophy, and it is this which forms the main\npoint of the Arabic influence on Latin scholasticism. It becomes indeed\nabsolutely essential that we understand the Alexandrian interpretation\nof the Aristotelian psychology if we are to follow the oriental\ndevelopment of Greek science.\n\nThe first point is to understand what is to be implied in the term\n\u201csoul.\u201d Plato was really a dualist in that he regards the soul as a\nseparate entity which animates the body and compares it to a rider\ndirecting and controlling the horse he rides. But Aristotle makes a\nmore careful analysis of psychological phenomena. In the treatise _de\nanima_ he says \u201cthere is no need to enquire whether soul and body are\none, any more than whether the wax and the imprint are one; or, in\ngeneral, whether the matter of a thing is the same with that of which\nit is the matter.\u201d (Aristot: _de anima_. II. i. 412. b. 6.) Aristotle\ndefines the soul as \u201cthe first actuality of a natural body having in\nit the capacity of life\u201d (id. 412. b. 5), in which \u201cfirst\u201d denotes\nthat the soul is the primary form by which the substance of the body\nis actualized, and \u201cactuality\u201d refers to the actualizing principle\nby which form is given to the body which otherwise would be only a\ncollection of separate parts each having its own form but the aggregate\nbeing without corporate unity until the soul gives it form; in this\nsense the soul is the realization of the body (cf. Aristot: _Metaph._\niii. 1043. a. 35). A dead body lacks this actualizing and centralizing\nforce and is only a collection of limbs and organs, yet even so it is\nnot an artificial collection such as a man might put together, but \u201ca\nnatural body having in it the capacity of life,\u201d that is to say, an\norganic structure designed for a soul which is the cause or reason of\nits existence and which alone enables the body to realize its object.\n\nThe soul contains four different faculties or powers which are not\nstrictly to be taken as \u201cparts\u201d though in the passage cited above\nAristotle uses the term \u201cparts.\u201d These are, (i) the nutritive, the\npower of life whereby the body performs such functions as absorbing\nnourishment, propagating its species, and other functions common to\nall living beings, whether animal or vegetable: (ii) the sensible, by\nwhich the body obtains knowledge through the medium of the special\nsenses of sight, hearing, touch, etc., and also the \u201ccommon sense\u201d by\nmeans of which these perceptions are combined, compared, and contrasted\nso that general ideas are obtained which ultimately rest on the\nsense perceptions: (iii) the locomotive, which prompts to action, as\ndesire, appetite, will, etc., also based, though indirectly, on sense\nperception, being suggested by memories of senses already in action:\n(iv) the intellect or pure reason, which is concerned with abstract\nthought and is not based on sense perception. All these, embracing life\nin its widest application, are classed together as soul, but the last,\nthe intellect, _nous_, or rational soul, is peculiar to man alone. It\ndoes not depend on the senses, directly or indirectly, and so, whilst\nthe other three faculties necessarily cease to function when the\nbodily organs of sense cease, it does not necessarily follow that this\nrational soul will cease as it is apparently independent of the organ\nsense. This _nous_ or \u201cspirit\u201d is reduced by Aristotle to a much more\nrestricted range than is usual in the older philosophers and is taken\nto mean that which has the capacity of abstract knowledge, independent\nof the information due, directly or indirectly, to sense perception. It\nwould seem, however, to be a distinct species of faculty for Aristotle\nsays: \u201cAs regards intellect and the speculative faculty the case is not\nyet clear. It would seem, however, to be a distinct species of soul,\nand it alone is capable of separation from the body, as that which is\neternal from that which is perishable. The remaining parts of the soul\nare, as the foregoing consideration shows, not separable in the way\nthat some allege them to be: at the same time it is clear that they\nare logically distinct.\u201d (Arist. _de anima._ II. ii. 413. b. 9). It is\nsuggested that (i) the rational soul is of a distinct species and so\npresumably derived from a different source than the other faculties\nof the soul, but nothing is said as to whence it is derived: (ii) it\nis capable of existence independently of the body, that is to say its\nactivity does not depend on the operation of the bodily organs, but it\nis not stated that it does so exist; (iii) it is eternal on the ground\nthat it can exist apart from the perishable.\n\nThe obscurity of this statement has led to a great divergence in its\ntreatment by commentators. Theophrastus offers cautious suggestions\nand evidently regards the rational soul as differing only in degree of\nevolution from the lower forms of soul faculty. It was Alexander of\nAphrodisias who opened up new fields of speculation, distinguishing\nbetween a material intellect and an active intellect. The former is a\nfaculty of the individual soul and this it is which is the form of the\nbody, but it means no more than the capacity for thinking and is of\nthe same source as the other faculties of the human soul. The active\nintellect is not a part of the soul but is a power which enters it\nfrom outside and arouses the material intellect to activity; it is\nnot only different in source from the material soul, but different\nin character in that it is eternal and so always has been and always\nwill be, its rational power existing quite apart from the soul in\nwhich the thinking takes place; there is but one such substance and\nthis must be identified with the deity who is the First Cause of all\nmotion and activity, so that the active intellect is pictured as an\nemanation from the deity entering the human soul, arousing it to the\nexercise of its higher functions, and then returning to its divine\nsource. This theistic interpretation of Aristotle was strongly opposed\nby the commentator Themistius who considers that Alexander forces\nthe statement of the text out of its natural meaning and draws an\nunwarrantable deduction from the two sentences \u201cthese differences must\nbe present in the soul,\u201d and \u201cthis alone is immortal and eternal.\u201d It\nseems, however, that Alexander\u2019s interpretation played an important\npart in the formation of neo-Platonic theory, and it certainly is\nthe key to the history of Muslim philosophy, and is not without its\nimportance in the development of Christian mysticism.\n\nThe neo-Platonic school was founded by Ammonius Saccas, but really\ntakes its definite form under _Plotinus_ (d. 269 A.D.). In sketching in\nbrief outline the leading principles of this system we shall confine\nourselves to the last three books of the _Enneads_ (iv-vi) as these,\nin the abridged form known as the \u201cTheology of Aristotle\u201d formed the\nmain statement of neo-Platonic doctrine known to the Muslim world.\nIn the teaching of Plotinus God is the Absolute, the First Potency\n(_Enn._ 5. 4. 1.), beyond the sphere of existence (id. 5. 4. 2.), and\nbeyond reality, that is to say, all that we know as existence and being\nis inapplicable to him, and he is therefore unknowable, because on\na plane which is altogether beyond our thought. He is unlimited and\ninfinite (id. 6. 5. 9.) and consequently One, as infinity excludes\nthe possibility of any other than himself on the same plane of being.\nYet Plotinus does not allow the numeral \u201cone\u201d to be applied to God\nas numerals are understandable and refer to the plane of existence\nin which we have our being, so that \u201cone\u201d as a mere number is not\nattributed to God, but rather singularity in the sense of an exclusion\nof all comparison or of any other than himself. As Absolute God\nimplies a compelling necessity so that all which proceeds from him\nis not enforced but is necessarily so in the sense that nothing else\nis possible; thus, for example, it results from him that two sides\nof a triangle are greater than the third side, they are not forced\ninto greater length, but in the nature of things must be so, and this\nnecessary nature has its compelling source in the First Cause. Yet\nPlotinus will not allow us to say that God \u201cwills\u201d anything, for will\nimplies a desire for what is not possessed or is not yet present (id.\n5. 3. 12); will operates in time and space, but necessity has for\never proceeded from the Eternal One who does not act in time. Nor can\nwe conceive God as knowing, conscious, or thinking, all terms which\ndescribe our mental activities in the world of variable phenomena; he\nis all-knowing by immediate apprehension ([Greek: athroa epibol\u00ea] \u1f00\u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03b1\n\u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u03ae) which in no way resembles the operation of thought but is\nsuperconscious, a condition which Plotinus describes as \u201cwakefulness\u201d\n([Greek: egr\u00eagorsis] \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u03ae\u03b3\u03bf\u03c1\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2), a perpetual being aware without the\nneed of obtaining information.\n\nFrom the true God, the eternal Absolute, proceeds the _nous_, a term\nwhich has been variously rendered as Reason, Intellect, Intelligence,\nor Spirit, this last being the term which Dr. Inge regards as the best\nexpression (Inge: _Plotinus._ ii. p. 38), and this _nous_ is fairly\nequivalent to the Philonic and Christian _Logos_. An external emanation\nis necessitated in order that the First Cause may remain unchanged\nwhich would not be the case if it had once not been a source and then\nhad become the source of emanation; there can be no \u201cbecoming\u201d in the\nFirst Cause. The emanation is of the same nature as its cause, but is\nprojected into the world of phenomena. It is self-existent, eternal,\nand perfect, and comprehends within itself the \u201cspirit world,\u201d the\nobjects of abstract reason, the whole of the reality which lies behind\nthe world of phenomena; the things perceived are only the shadows of\nthese real ones. It perceives, not as seeking and finding, but as\nalready possessing (id. 5. 1. 4.), and the things perceived are not\nseparate or external but as included and apprehended by immediate\nintuition (id. 5. 2. 2.)\n\nFrom the _nous_ proceeds the _psyche_, the principle of life and\nmotion, the world soul which is in the universe and which is shared by\nevery living creature. It also knows, but only through the processes of\nreasoning, by means of separating, distributing, and combining the data\nobtained by sense perception, so that it corresponds in function to\nthe \u201ccommon sense\u201d of Aristotle, whilst the _nous_ shows the functions\nwhich are attributed to it by Aristotle and has the character which\nAlexander reads into Aristotle.\n\nThe work of Plotinus was continued by his pupil Porphyry (d. 300 A.D.)\nwho taught at Rome, and is chiefly noteworthy as the one who completed\nthe fusion of Platonic and Aristotelian elements in the neo-Platonic\nsystem, and especially as introducing the scientific methods of\nAristotle. Plotinus had criticized adversely the Aristotelian\ncategories (_Enn._ vi.), but Porphyry and all the later neo-Platonists\nreturned to Aristotle. Indeed, he is best known to posterity as the\nauthor of the _Isagoge_, long current as the regular introduction to\nthe logical Organon of Aristotle. Then came _Jamblichus_ (d. 330),\nthe pupil of Porphyry who used neo-Platonism as the basis of a pagan\ntheology; and finally Proklus (d. 485) its last great pagan adherent\nwho was even more definitely a theologian.\n\nNeo-Platonism was the system just coming to the forefront when the\nChristians of Alexandria began to be in contact with philosophy. The\nfirst prominent Alexandrian Christian who endeavoured to reconcile\nphilosophy and Christian theology was _Clement of Alexandria_ who,\nlike Justin Martyr, was a Platonist of the older type. Clement\u2019s\n_Stromateis_ is a very striking work which shows the general body of\nChristian doctrine adapted to the theories of Platonic philosophy.\nIt does not tamper with the traditional Christian doctrine, but it\nis evidently the work of one who sincerely believed that Plato had\npartially foreseen what the Gospels taught, and that he had used a\nclear and efficient terminology which was in all respects suitable\nfor the expression of profound truths, and so Clement uses this\nterminology, incidentally assuming the Platonic metaphysics, and so\nunconsciously modifies the contents of Christianity. If we ask whether\nthis results in a fair presentation of Christian teaching we shall\nperhaps be inclined to admit that, in spite of modification and in view\nof the scientific attitude of the times it substantially does so: when\ntruths already expressed by those who have not received a scientific\ntraining are repeated by those who have and who are careful to cast\ntheir expression into logical and consistent form, some modification is\ninevitable. Whether the scientific assumptions and philosophy generally\nof Clement were correct is, of course, another matter; modern opinion\nwould say it was incorrect. But, so far as contemporary science went,\nit was obviously an honest effort. It has not been appreciated by all\nClement\u2019s successors and he is one of the few Christian leaders who\nhas been formally deprived of the honorific title of \u201csaint\u201d which\nwas at one time prefixed to his name. Within the next few centuries\nthe re-formulation of Christianity proceeded steadily until at last\nit appears as essentially Hellenistic, but with the Platonic element\nnow modified by the more spiritualistic influences of neo-Platonism.\nUndoubtedly this was a gain for Christianity, for when we read the\n_Didache_ and other early non-Hellenistic Christian material we cannot\nhelp feeling that it shows a narrower and more cramped outlook and one\nfar less suited to satisfy the needs and aspirations of humanity at\nlarge. It is curious to compare Clement of Alexandria with Tertullian,\none of the greatest, if not the greatest, of the literary lights of\nLatin Christianity, but severe, puritanically rigid, and suspicious\nand hostile in his attitude towards philosophy which he regards as\nessentially pagan.\n\nThe next great leader of Alexandrian Christian thought was Origen\nhimself a pupil of Plotinus, and one who found little difficulty in\nadapting contemporary philosophy to Christian doctrine, although this\nadaptation was by no means received with approval in all parts of\nthe Christian community. Under Clement and Origen the catechetical\ninstruction which was regularly given in all churches to candidates\nfor baptism was expanded and developed on the lines of the lectures\ngiven by the philosophers in the Museum, and so a Christian school of\nphilosophical theology was formed. This development was not regarded\nfavourably by the older fashioned churches nor by the philosophers of\nthe Museum, and even amongst the Alexandrian Christians there was a\nsection which viewed it with disapproval, especially evident when the\nschool became so prominent that it tended to overshadow the ordinary\ndiocesan organization.\n\nThis is not the place to consider the various intrigues which\nultimately compelled Origen to leave Alexandria and retire to\nPalestine. There, at Caesarea, he founded a school on the model of\nthat at Alexandria. This second foundation did not attain the same\neminence as its proto-type, perhaps because Origen\u2019s influence turned\nits activities into a direction too highly specialised in textual\ncriticism, but it prompted a development which ultimately played an\nimportant part in the history of the Syrian church where, for some time\nto come, theological activity mainly centered in these schools which\nhad their imitators amongst the Zoroastrians and the Muslims. The first\nsuch school in Syria was founded at Antioch by Malchion about 270 A.D.\nand deliberately copied the pattern set at Alexandria and ultimately\nbecame its rival.\n\nAbout fifty years later a school was established at Nisibis, the\nmodern Nasibin on the Mygdonius river, in the midst of a Syriac\nspeaking community. The church had spread inland from the Mediterranean\nshores and had by this time many converts in the hinterland who were\naccustomed to use Syriac and not Greek. For the benefit of these the\nwork at Nisibis was done in Syriac, Syriac versions were prepared of\nthe theological works studied at Antioch, and the Greek language was\ntaught so that the Syriac speaking Christians were brought into closer\ntouch with the life of the Church at large.\n\nThe acquiescence of the Church in the Alexandrian philosophy had\nfar-reaching consequences. The Church did not officially adopt the\nneo-Platonic philosophy in its entirety, but it had to adjust itself\nto an atmosphere in which the neo-Platonic system was accepted as the\nlast word in scientific enquiry and where the Aristotelian metaphysics\nand psychology were assumed as an established and unquestionable\nbasis of knowledge. It was impossible for churchmen, educated in this\natmosphere, to do otherwise than accept these principles, just as it\nis impossible for us to admit that the body of a saint can be in two\nplaces at once, our whole education training us to assume certain\nlimitations of time and space, although a devout Muslim of Morocco can\nbelieve it and honours two shrines as each containing the body of the\nsame saint who, he believes, in his life time had power of over-passing\nthe limitations of space. The general postulates of the later Platonic\nand Aristotelian philosophy were firmly established in the fourth\ncentury in Alexandria and its circle, and were no more open to question\nthan the law of gravity or the rotundity of the earth would be to us.\nIt was known that there were people who questioned these things, but\nit could only be accounted for by blind ignorance in those who had\nnot received the benefits of an enlightened education. The Christians\nwere no more able to dispute these principles than anyone else. They\nwere perfectly sincere in their religion, many articles of faith\nwhich present considerable difficulty to the modern mind presented no\ndifficulty to them; but it was perfectly obvious that the statements of\nChristian doctrine must be brought into line with the current theory of\nphilosophy, or with self evident truth as they would have termed it. It\nshows a strange lack of historical imagination when we talk slightingly\nabout how Christians quarrelled over words, forgetting what these words\nrepresented and how they stood for the established conclusions of\nphilosophy as then understood.\n\nThis comes out very plainly in the Arian controversy. Both sides\nagreed that Christ was the Son of God, the relation of Father and\nSon being, of course, not that of human parentage but rather by way\nof emanation: both agreed that Christ was God, as the emanation\nnecessarily had the same nature as the source from which it proceeded:\nboth agreed that the Son proceeded from the Father in eternity and\nbefore the worlds were created, the Son or Logos being the intermediary\nof creation. But some, and these, it would seem, mainly associated with\nthe school of Antioch, so spoke of the Son proceeding from the Father\nas an event which had taken place far before all time in the remoteness\nof eternity, it is true, but so that there was when the Father had not\nyet begotten the Son, for, they argued, the Father must have preceded\nthe Son as the cause precedes the effect, and so the Son was, as it\nwere, less eternal than the Father. At once the Alexandrians corrected\nthem. To begin with there are no degrees in eternity: but, most serious\nerror of all, this idea made God liable to variation, at one period of\neternity he had been alone, and then he had become a father: philosophy\ntaught that the First Cause, the True God, is liable to no change,\nif he is Father now, he must have been so from all eternity: we must\nunderstand the Son as the Logos for ever eternally issuing forth from\nthe Father as source. The actual merits of the controversy do not at\npresent concern us: we simply notice the fact that the current Greek\nphilosophy entirely dominated the theology of the Church and it was\nimperative for that theology to be expressed in terms which fitted in\nwith the philosophy. The result of the Arian struggle was that the\nEastern church came to recognise the Alexandrian philosophy as the\nexponent of orthodoxy, and in this it was followed by the greater part\nof the Western Church, though the West Goths still remained attached to\nthe Arian views which they had learned from their first teachers.\n\nBy the fifth century Arian doctrine had been completely eliminated\nfrom the state church and Alexandrian philosophy which had been the\nchief means of bringing about this result, was dominant, although there\nare indications that it was viewed with suspicion in some quarters.\nAmongst the controversies which took place in the post-Nicene age the\nmost prominent are those which concerned the person of the incarnate\nChrist, and these are largely questions of psychology. It was generally\nadmitted that man has a _psyche_ or animal soul which he shares with\nthe rest of the sentient creatures, and in addition to this a spirit\nor rational soul which, under the influence of the neo-Platonists\nor of Alexander of Aphrodisias, was regarded as an emanation from\nthe creative spirit, the Logos or \u201cAgent Intellect,\u201d a belief which\nChristian theologians supported by the statement in Genesis that God\nbreathed into man the breath of life and so man became a living soul.\nIn fact St. Paul had already distinguished between the two elements,\nthe animal soul and the immortal spirit, in accordance with the\npsychology which had been developed in his time. But Christian theology\nsupposed that in Christ was also present the eternal Logos which had\nbeen the creative Spirit and of which the spirit or rational soul was\nitself an emanation. What, therefore, would be the relation between the\nLogos and its own emanation when they came together in the same person?\nIf the Alexandrian philosophy and the Christian religion were both true\nthe problem was capable of reasonable solution: if its only answer\nwas a manifest absurdity then either the psychology or Christianity\nwas in error, and then, as always, it was assumed that contemporary\nscience was sure and religion had to be tested by its standard. To this\nparticular problem two solutions were proposed. The one, especially\nmaintained at Alexandria, was that the Logos and the rational soul or\nspirit, being in the relation of source and emanation, necessarily\nfused together when simultaneously present in the same body, the point\nbeing of course that the Logos was the agent of creation, the True\nGod not acting therein as it was an activity in time, but through the\nintermediary of the Logos, whilst the animal soul dispersed through\ncreation was ultimately derived from the Logos, but the spirit was\ndirectly proceeding from it, all of which represents the philosophical\ntheory formulated by Alexander of Aphrodisias and the neo-Platonists\nand then accepted as unassailable. The other solution, which found\nits chief advocates at Antioch, laid stress on the completeness of\nthe humanity of Christ so that the body, animal soul, and spirit were\nnecessarily complete in the humanity and the Logos dwelt in the human\nframe without subtracting the spirit which was one of the essentials\nof humanity, and so there could have been no fusion because this would\nhave implied the return of the spirit to its source and consequently\nits subtraction from the humanity of Christ. This solution, it will be\nobserved, postulates the same psychology as the other, and whichever\nview prevailed the Church would be irrevocably committed to the current\npsychology by this definition of its doctrine.\n\nBoth solutions offered perfectly logical deductions from the\npostulates assumed and it only wanted the advocates of one or the other\nto over-state the case so as to transgress against the teachings of\nphilosophy or of traditional religion. The first false move came from\nAntioch. Laying great stress on the completeness of the humanity of\nChrist so that body, soul, and spirit were necessarily connected in\nthe human frame, the view was so expressed as to describe the Virgin\nMary as the mother of the human Christ, body, soul, and spirit alone,\nwhich implied, or seemed to imply, that at birth Christ was man only\nand afterwards became God by the Logos entering into the human body, a\nconclusion possibly not intended by those who expressed their views but\npressed by their opponents. This had been the teaching of Diodorus and\nof Theodore of Mopseustia both associated with the school of Antioch,\nand defended in its extremer form by Nestorius, a monk of Antioch, who\nwas made bishop of Constantinople in A.D. 428. Violent controversies\nensued which resulted in a general council at Ephesus in 431, where\nthe Alexandrian party succeeded in getting Nestorius and his followers\ncondemned as heretics. Two years later the Nestorians, absolutely\nconfident that their opponents were utterly illogical in supposing\nthat the rational soul and the Logos in Christ were fused or united\ntogether, repudiated the official church and organised themselves as\nthe Church which had no part with the heretics of Ephesus. The state\nChurch, however, had the weight of the temporal authority behind it,\nand the heavy hand of persecution fell severely upon the Nestorians. In\nAntioch and Greek speaking Syria persecution did its work effectually\nand the Nestorians were reduced to the position of a fugitive sect, in\nEgypt, as might be expected, they had no footing, and the westerns as\nusual agreed with the dominant state church: only amongst the Syriac\nspeaking Christians the Nestorian teaching had a free course, and that\nsection for the most part adhered to it.\n\nSome time before this the school at Nisibis had been closed, or rather\nremoved to Edessa. In A.D. 363 the city of Nisibis had been handed over\nto the Persians as one of the conditions of the peace which closed the\nunfortunate war commenced by Julian, and the members of the school,\nretiring into Christian territory, had re-assembled at Edessa, where a\nschool was opened in 373, and thus Edessa in a Syriac speaking district\nbut within the Byzantine Empire, became the centre of the vernacular\nspeaking Syriac church.\n\nAt the Nestorian schism the school at Edessa was the rallying place\nof those who did not accept the decisions of Ephesus, but in 439 it\nwas closed by the Emperor Zeno on account of its strong Nestorian\ncharacter, and the ejected members led by Barsuma, a pupil of Ibas (d.\n457), who had been the great luminary of Edessa, migrated across the\nPersian border. Barsuma was able to persuade the Persian king Piruz\nthat the orthodox, that is to say the state, Church was pro-Greek, but\nthat the Nestorians were entirely alienated from the Byzantine Empire\nby the harsh treatment they had received. On this understanding they\nwere favourably received and remained loyal to the Persian monarchy\nin the subsequent wars with the Empire. The Nestorians re-opened the\nschool at Nisibis and this became the focus of Nestorian activity by\nwhich an orientalised phase of Christianity was produced. Gradually\nthe Nestorian missionaries spread through all central Asia and\ndown into Arabia so that the races outside the Greek Empire came\nto know Christianity first in a Nestorian form. It seems probable\nthat Muhammad had contact with Nestorian teachers (Hirschfeld: _New\nResearches._ p. 23), and certainly Nestorian monks and missionaries\nhad much intercourse with the earlier Muslims. These Nestorians were\nnot only anxious to teach Christianity but very naturally attached the\nutmost importance to their own explanations of the person of Christ.\nThis could only be made clear by the help of theories drawn from\nGreek philosophy, and so every Nestorian missionary became to some\nextent a propagandist of that philosophy: they translated into Syriac\nnot only the great theologians such as Theodore of Mopseustia who\nexplained their views, but also Greek authorities such as Aristotle\nand his commentators because some knowledge of these was necessary to\nunderstand the theology. Much of this work of translation shows a real\ndesire to explain their teaching, but it shows also a strong resentment\nagainst the Emperor and his state church; as that church used the Greek\nlanguage in its liturgy and teaching, the Nestorians were anxious to\ndiscard Greek, they celebrated the sacraments only in Syriac and set\nthemselves to promote a distinctly native theology and philosophy by\nmeans of translated material and Syriac commentaries. These became\nthe medium by which Aristotle and the neo-Platonic commentators were\ntransmitted to Asia outside the Empire, and so later on as we shall\nsee it was a group of Nestorian translators who, by making Arabic\nversions from the Syriac, first brought Hellenistic philosophy to\nthe Arabic world. But there was also a weak side, for the Nestorian\nChurch, cut off from the wider life of Hellenism, became distinctly\nprovincial. Its philosophy plays round and round that prevalent at the\nschism, it spreads this philosophy to new countries, it produces an\nextensive educational system, and elaborates its material, but it shows\nno development. If we regard the main test of educational efficiency\nas being in its research product and not simply the promulgation of\nmaterial already attained, then Nestorianism was not an educational\nsuccess: and it seems that this should be the supreme test, for\nknowledge is progressive, and so the smallest contribution towards\nfurther progress must be of more real value than the most efficient\nteaching of results already achieved. Yet it would be difficult to\nover-estimate the importance of Nestorianism in preparing an oriental\nversion of Hellenistic culture in the pre-Muslim world. Its main\nimportance lies in its being preparatory to Islam which brought forward\nArabic as a cosmopolitan medium for the interchange of thought and so\nenabled the Syriac material to be used in a wider and more fruitful\nfield.\n\nAlthough Nestorius had been condemned, the Church was left with a\nproblem. The objection was true that, if the Logos and the rational\nsoul in Christ were fused together so that the rational soul or spirit\nlost itself in its source, the Logos dwelt in an animal body and the\nfull humanity of Christ disappeared. The Nestorian view of a temporary\n\u201cconnection\u201d was now condemned as heretical, but was it necessary to\ngo to the other extreme of \u201cfusion\u201d which was the logical result of\nthe Alexandrian teaching? The Church wished to be philosophically\ncorrect and yet to avoid the conclusions which might be drawn from\neither view in its extreme form. In fact philosophy ruthlessly pressed\nhome was the danger of which the Church was most afraid, feeling in\nsome dim realm of sub-consciousness that the deposit of faith did\nnot quite fall into line with science, or at least with the science\nthen in fashion; and the Church\u2019s real enemies were the enthusiasts\nwho were confident that doctrine and philosophy were both absolutely\ntrue. Nor have we, even in these days, altogether learned the lesson\nthat both are still partial and progressive. Islam had to go through\nexactly the same experience in her day and came out of it with very\nsimilar results, that is to say both the Christian and Muslim churches\nfinally chose the _via media_ adopting the philosophical statement of\ndoctrine but condemning as heretical the logical conclusions which\nmight be deduced. The Alexandrian school, elated perhaps at its victory\nover Nestorius, became rather intemperate in the statement of its\nviews and pressed them home to an extreme conclusion. At once the\nwarning prediction of the Nestorians was justified: the teaching of a\n\u201cfusion\u201d between the Logos and the rational soul in Christ entirely\nundermined his humanity. Another controversy ensued and in this, as in\nthe former one, neither side suggested any doubt as to the psychology\nor metaphysics borrowed from the Aristotelian and neo-Platonic\nphilosophies, that was throughout assumed as certain, the problem was\nto make Christian doctrine fit in with it. Now those who opposed the\nAlexandrian conclusions maintained the theory of a \u201cunion\u201d between the\nLogos and the rational soul in Christ, so that the complete humanity\nwas preserved as well as the deity, and the union was such as to be\ninseparable and so safeguarded from the Nestorian theory. In fact this\nwas simply admitting the philosophical statement and forbidding its\nbeing pressed home to its possible conclusions. This is described as\n\u201corthodox\u201d doctrine and rightly so in the sense that it expresses,\nthough in philosophical terms, a doctrine as it was held before the\nChurch had learned any philosophy, and excluded possible deductions\nwhich came within range as soon as a philosophical statement was made.\nThis is the normal result when doctrine originally expressed by those\nignorant of philosophy has to be put into logical and scientific terms:\nthe only orthodox representation of the traditional belief must be a\ncompromise.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThis second controversy resulted in the Council of Chalcedon in A.D.\n448, at which the advocates of the theory of \u201cfusion\u201d were expelled\nfrom the state church, and thus a third body was formed, each of the\nthree claiming to represent the true faith. Practically the whole\nof the Egyptian Church followed the \u201cfusionists\u201d or Monophysites or\nJacobites, as they were called after Jacob of Serugh, who was mainly\ninstrumental in organizing them as a church: in Syria also they had\na strong following. Like the Nestorians they were persecuted by the\nEmperor and the state church, but unlike them they did not migrate\noutside the Byzantine Empire, but remained an important though strongly\ndisaffected body within its limits, though later on they sent out\noff-shoots into other lands. Like the Nestorians they tended to discard\nthe language of their persecutors and to use the vernacular Coptic and\nSyriac: it is rightly claimed that the golden age of Syriac literature\nand philosophy begins with the Monophysite schism. A curious line of\ndemarcation however, is observed in Syriac between the Jacobites in\nthe West and the Nestorians in the East: they used different dialects,\nwhich is probably the result of their geographical distribution,\nand they used different scripts in writing which was partly due to\ndeliberate intension, though partly also to the use of slightly\ndifferent implements for writing.\n\nWhen we consider the results of the Monophysite and Nestorian schisms\nwe begin to understand why so much Greek philosophical material was\ntranslated into Syriac, whilst the Nestorian movement was the effective\nreason why Syriac gradually became the medium for transmitting\nHellenistic culture into the parts of Asia which lay beyond the\nconfines of the Byzantine Empire during the centuries immediately\npreceding the outspread of Islam. It is obvious that the late\nAristotelian and neo-Platonic philosophers were of vital importance to\neveryone engaged in the theological controversies of the day, and the\nAristotelian logic was of equal importance as on it depended the way\nin which terms were used. After their separation from the Greek Church\nthe Nestorians and Monophysites turned to the vernacular speaking\nChristians, and so a large body of philosophical as well as theological\nmatter was translated into Syriac; very much less into Coptic, for the\nEgyptian Monophysites were not called upon to face so much controversy\nas their brethren in Syria.\n\nThe period between the schisms and the beginning of Muslim interest in\nphilosophy was one of prolific translation, commenting, and exposition.\nWhilst there is much interest in tracing the literary history of a\nnation, there is comparatively little in following the history of\na literature which is confined to activities of this sort, for it\ncannot be much more than a list of names. Commentary and essay might\nindeed open up a field of originality, but nothing of the sort appears\nin this type of Syriac work: it seems as though the provincialism\nwhich followed severance from the Greek world brought in narrowing\nrestrictions so that, although we get able and diligent workers, they\nnever seem able to advance beyond re-statement, more or less accurate,\nof results already achieved.\n\nBesides philosophy and theology we find a considerable interest in\nmedicine and the two sciences of chemistry and astronomy which were\ntreated as allied to it, for astronomy, regarded from the astrological\npoint of view, was supposed to be closely associated with the\nconditions of life and death, of health and disease. Medical studies\nwere especially attached to the school of Alexandria. Philosophy\nproper had been so largely taken over by theology that the secular\ninvestigators were rather impelled to turn to the natural sciences\nand as a centre of medical and allied studies the ancient school of\nAlexandria continued its development without loss of continuity, but\nunder changed conditions. John Philoponus, or John the Grammarian,\nas he was called, was one of the later commentators on Aristotle and\nalso one of the early lights of this medical school. The date of his\ndeath is not known, but he was teaching at Alexandria at the time\nwhen Justinian closed the schools at Athens in A.D. 529. The next\ngreat leader of this school was Paul of Aegina who flourished at the\ntime of the Muslim conquest, and whose works long served as popular\nmanuals of medicine. The founders of the medical school at Alexandria\nestablished a regular course of education for the training of medical\npractitioners, and for this purpose selected sixteen works of Galen,\nsome of which were re-edited in an abridged form, and were made the\nsubject of regular explanatory lectures. At the same time the school\nbecame a centre of original research, not only in medicine, but also in\nchemistry and other branches of natural science. Thus, on the eve of\nthe Muslim conquest Alexandria had become a great home of scientific\nenquiry. To some extent this was unfortunate as the existing traditions\nin Egypt directed those investigations very much into obscurantist\nlines and tended to the use of magical forms, talismans, etc., and\nto introduce an astrological bias. This afterwards became the great\ndefect of Arabic medicine as appears later even in medi\u00e6val Padua, but\nit was not the fault of Islam, it was an inheritance from Alexandria.\nSuch material as remains of Syriac research shows us a saner and\nsounder method in vogue there, but Alexandria had eclipsed the Syrian\nscientists at the time of the Muslim invasion, at least in popular\nesteem, and this was a determining factor in directing Arabic research\ninto these astrological by-paths.\n\nAmongst the famous products of this school was Paul of Aegina, whose\nmedical works formed the basis of much of the medi\u00e6val Arabic and\nLatin teaching, and the priest Ahrun (Aaron) who composed a manual\nof medicine which was afterwards translated into Syriac and became a\npopular authority. Alexandria was the centre also of chemical science,\nand as such was the parent of later Arabic alchemy. It appears from M.\nBerthelot\u2019s exhaustive study of Arabic chemistry (_La chimie au moyen\nage_: Paris, 1893) that the Arabic material may be divided into two\nclasses, the one based upon, and mainly translated from, the Greek\nwriters current in Alexandria, the other representing a later school\nof independent investigation. Of the former class Berthelot gives\nthree specimens, the Books of Crates, of al-Habid, and of Ostanes, all\nrepresenting the Greek tradition which flourished at Alexandria on the\neve of the Muslim invasion.\n\nWhilst the Alexandrians kept alive an interest in medical and the\nallied sciences the separated branches of the vernacular speaking\nchurches of Asia were more interested in logic and speculative\nphilosophy. It was perhaps natural that the Monophysites with their\nstrong Egyptian connection should adopt the commentaries of John\nPhiloponus, himself a Monophysite of a type, but both they and the\nNestorians invariably used Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_ as an introductory\nmanual. In the general treatment of metaphysics and psychology as\napplied to theology, and in the treatment of theology itself, the\nMonophysites inclined more towards neo-Platonism and mysticism than the\nNestorians, and their life centered more in the monasteries, whilst\nthe Nestorians adhered rather to the older system of local schools,\nalthough they too had monasteries, and in course of time the schools\nadopted the discipline and methods of the convent.\n\nThe oldest and greatest of the Nestorian schools was that of Nisibis,\nbut in A.D. 550 Mar Ahba, a convert from Zoroastrianism, who had become\n_catholicos_ or patriarch of the Nestorians, established a school at\nSeleucia on the model of Nisibis. A little later the Persian king,\nKusraw Anushirwan (Nushirwan, flor. 531-578 A.D.) who had been greatly\nimpressed by the view of Hellenistic culture which he had obtained\nduring his war with Syria, and had offered hospitality to the ejected\nGreek philosophers when Justinian closed the schools at Athens,\nfounded a Zoroastrian school at Junde-Shapur, in Khuzistan, where not\nonly Greek and Syriac works, but also philosophical and scientific\nwritings brought from India, were translated into Pahlawi, or Old\nPersian, and there the study of medicine taught by Greek and Indian\nphysicians was developed more fully than in the theological atmosphere\nof the Christian schools, although some of the most distinguished\nmedical teachers in this school were themselves Nestorian Christians.\nAmongst the alumni of Junde-Shapur were the Arab Hares b. Kalada,\nwho afterwards became famous as a practitioner, and his son Ennadr,\ncited in the 5th canon of Ibn Sina (Avicenna), an enemy of the Prophet\nMuhammad who was amongst those defeated at the battle of Badr and was\nput to death by `Ali. Several Indian medical writers are cited by\nRazes and others, notably Sharak and Qolhoman, whilst the treatise on\npoisons by the Indian Shanak was, at a later date, translated into\nPersian by Manka for Yahya b. Khalid the Barmecide and afterwards\ninto Arabic for the `Abbasid Khalif al-Ma\u00b4mun. Manka, who was medical\nattendant to Harunu r-Rashid, translated from Sanskrit various medical\nand other works. Besides the Christian and Zoroastrian schools there\nwas also a pagan school at Harran, of whose foundation we have no\nfurther information. Harran had been a centre of Hellenic influence\nfrom the time of Alexander the Great and remained a refuge for the old\nGreek religion when the Greek world at large had become Christian.\nAlthough it would appear that Harran had an inheritance from the\nancient Babylonian religion, which had a late revival during the first\ncenturies of the Christian era, this had been entirely overlaid with\nthe developments of paganism as revised by the neo-Platonists. Indeed\nHarran shows the last stand of Greek paganism and neo-Platonism as the\ntwo had been formulated by Porphyry and they continued there to live\nout a vigorous though secluded life.\n\nThere were thus several agencies at work developing and extending\nHellenistic influence in Persia and Mesopotamia which later on became\na Persian province, and besides these established schools there were\nmany secondary forces. The Persian armies returning from the invasion\nof Syria brought back many items of Hellenic culture, amongst them the\nGreek system of baths which was copied in Persia and continued by the\nMuslims who spread this refinement throughout the Islamic world, so\nthat what we call the Turkish bath is a lineal descendant of the old\nGreek bath passed through the Persians of pre-Muslim times, and then\nspread more widely by the Muslims. These armies brought home also a\ngreat admiration for Greek architecture and engineering, and Greek\narchitects, engineers, and craftsmen being amongst the most valued\nplunder brought back from Syria, by their help Persia endeavoured to\nstart building in the Greek style. Thus the centuries immediately\nbefore the outspread of Islam show a wide and steady extension of\nHellenistic influences in all the different forms of culture, in\nscience, philosophy, art, architecture, and in the luxuries of life:\nand even before this, ever since the days of Alexander the Great, there\nhad been a percolation of Greek influence, so that Western Asia was\nsteeped in Hellenistic art, in many cases very crudely represented\nand combined with native elements. When the oppressive control of the\nUmayyads was lifted and the native population came again to its own, we\ncan hardly wonder that this meant a revival of Hellenism.\n\nWe have already mentioned _Ibas_ (d. 457) as the teacher of Barsuma who\nled the Nestorian migration into Persia and re-opened the school of\nNisibis. This Ibas had been the great luminary of the school of Edessa\nin its last days and seems to have been the first to make a Syriac\ntranslation of Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_, the recognised manual of logic\npreparatory to Aristotle\u2019s Organon. This shows that logic had been\ntaken as the chief material of education amongst the Nestorians and\nvery much the same seems to have been the case amongst the Monophysites.\n\nAbout the same time flourished _Probus_, who is said to have been\na presbyter of Antioch, and produced commentaries upon Porphyry\u2019s\n_Isagoge_, and on Aristotle\u2019s _Hermeneutica_, _Soph. Elench._, and\n_Analytica Priora_, these commentaries becoming favourite manuals\namongst the Syriac speaking students of logic. Hoffman\u2019s _De\nHermeneuticis apud Syros_ (Leipzic, 1873) gives the text of the\ncommentary on the _Hermeneutica_ followed by a Latin translation. The\nmethod employed here and in all Syriac commentaries is to take a short\npassage, often no more than a few words, of the Text of Aristotle\ntranslated into Syriac and then give an explanation of the meaning\nsometimes extending to several pages, sometimes only a brief remark,\naccording to the difficulty of the text, very much as if a teacher\nwere reading aloud and explaining passages by passage as he read. This\nbecame the usual method of commenting and was afterwards copied by the\nMuslims in their commentaries on the Qur\u00b4an. The commentary on the\n_Isagoge_ has been published by Baumstark (_Aristotles bei den Syrern_,\nLeipzic, 1900), and that on the _Analytica Priora_ by the great Louvain\nscholar Prof. Hoonacker in the _Journal Asiatique_ for July-August,\n1900.\n\nThe greatest of the Monophysite scholars was _Sergius_ of Ras\nal-`Ayn (d. 536), who was both a translator and the author of original\ntreatises on philosophy, medicine, and astronomy. His medical work\nwas his chief interest and he left a permanent mark as a translator\ninto Syriac of a considerable part of Galen. He spent some time in\nAlexandria where he perfected himself in a knowledge of Greek and\nlearned chemistry and medicine in the Alexandrian medical school\nthen just beginning its career. Some of his translation of Galen\nis preserved in the British Mus. MSS. Addit. 14661 and 17156: in\nthe latter are fragments of the \u201cMedical art\u201d and \u201cFaculties of the\naliments\u201d which have been edited by Sachau (Inedita Syriaca, Vienna,\n1870). Of his philosophical work Sachau has given us the versions which\nhe made of the _Isagoge_ and _Table_ of Porphyry, and Aristotle\u2019s\n_Categories_ and the dubious _de mundo_, as well as a treatise on \u201cthe\nsoul\u201d which is not the _de anima_ of Aristotle. He wrote original\ntreatises on logic in seven books (incomplete--Brit. Mus. Add. 14660\ncontains that on the categories), on \u201cnegation and affirmation,\u201d on\n\u201cgenus, species, and individual,\u201d on \u201cthe causes of the universe\naccording to Aristotle\u201d and minor essays. In astronomy he has left a\ntract \u201con the influence of the moon\u201d which is based on the work of\nGalen (cf. Sachau, op. cit.) The writings of Sergius circulated amongst\nboth Nestorians and Monophysites, all regarding him as a leading\nauthority on medicine and logic, and in medicine it seems that he\nwas the founder of a Syriac school which became the parent of Arabic\nmedicine, certainly that school owed its impetus to him. Bar Hebraeus\nrefers to him as \u201ca man eloquent and greatly skilled in the books of\nthe Greeks and Syrians and a most learned physician of men\u2019s bodies. He\nwas indeed orthodox in his opinions, as the \u2018Prologue\u2019 bears witness,\nbut in morals corrupt, depraved, and stained with lust and avarice\u201d\n(Bar Hebraeus. ed. Abbeloos et Lamy. i. 205-7).\n\nIn the same century lived _Ahudemmeh_ who became bishop of Tagrit in\nA.D. 559, and introduced the commentary of John Philoponus as the\nregular manual of instruction amongst the Syriac speaking Monophysites.\nHe is said to have composed treatises on the definitions of logic, on\nthe freedom of the will, on the soul, on man considered as a microcosm,\nand on the composition of man as of soul and body, this last in part\npreserved in MS. Brit. Mus. Addit. 14620.\n\nAmongst the Nestorian scholars of the sixth century was _Paul the\nPersian_ who produced a treatise on logic which he dedicated to King\nKhusraw and has been published in M. Land\u2019s _Analecta Syriaca_ (iv).\n\nThis has brought us to the period of the Muslim invasion. In 638 Syria\nwas conquered, and the conquest of Mesopotamia followed in the course\nof the same year, that of Persia four years later. In 661 the Umayyad\ndynasty of Arab rulers was established in Damascus; but all this did\nnot greatly affect the internal life of the Christian communities who\nlived on in perfect liberty, subject only to the payment of the poll\ntax.\n\nAbout 650 the Nestorian Henanieshu\u00b4 wrote a treatise on logic (cf.\nBudge: _Thomas of Marga_. i. 79) and commented on John Philoponus.\n\nThe Monophysites had no great schools like the Nestorians, but their\nconvent at Qensherin, on the left bank of the Euphrates, was a great\ncentre of Greek studies. Its most famous product was _Severus Sebokt_\nwho flourished on the eve of the Muslim conquest. He was the author\nof a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s _Hermeneutica_ of which only fragments\nsurvive, of a treatise on the syllogisms of the _Analytica Priora_,\nand of epistles dealing with terms used in the _Hermeneutica_ and on\nthe difficult points in Aristotle\u2019s _Rhetoric_ (cf. Brit. Mus. Add.\n14660, 17156). In astronomy he wrote on \u201cthe Figures of the Zodiac\u201d and\non \u201cthe Astrolabe,\u201d the former of these is preserved in Br. Mus. Add.\n14538 and has been published by Sachau (op. cit.), the latter in Berlin\nMS. Sachau 186 and published by Nau in the _Journal Asiatique_ of 1899.\n\nAthanasius of Balad who became Monophysite patriarch in 684 was a pupil\nof Severus Sebokt, and is chiefly known as the translator of a new\nSyriac version of Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_ (Vatican Ms. Syr. 158. cf. Bar\nHebraeus _Chron. Eccles._ ed. Abbeloos et Lamy. i. 287).\n\n_James of Edessa_ (d. 708 A.D.) also was a pupil of Severus Sebokt\nat the same convent, was made bishop of Edessa about 684 and\nabandoned this see in 688 as the result of his failure to carry out\nthe reformation of the monasteries in his diocese: he retired to the\nmonastery of St. James at Kaishun, between Aleppo and Edessa, but left\nthis to become lecturer at the monastery of Eusebona, in the diocese of\nAntioch where \u201cfor eleven years he taught the psalms and the reading\nof the scriptures in Greek and revived the Greek language which had\nfallen into disuse\u201d (Bar Hebr. _Chron. Eccles._ i. 291). Attacked by\nthe brethren who disapproved of the study of Greek, he migrated to\nthe monastery of Tel`eda where he prepared a revised version of the\nPeshitta or Syriac Vulgate of the Old Testament, finally returning\nto Edessa about four months before his death. His _Enchiridion_, a\ntreatise on the terms used in philosophy, is preserved in the Brit.\nMus. MS. Addit. 12154.\n\n_George_, who became \u201cbishop of the Arabs\u201d in 686, was himself a pupil\nof Athanasius of Balad and translated the whole logical Organon of\nAristotle, of which his versions of the _Catagories_, _Hermeneutica_,\nand _Analytica Priora_ appear in Brit. Mus. Addit. 14659, each\nfurnished with an introduction and commentary.\n\nThese names cover the whole period between the two schisms and\nthe Muslim invasion and suffice to show that the Syriac speaking\ncommunity continued diligent in the study of the Aristotelian logic\nand metaphysics, and also gave attention to medical and scientific\nstudies. It is not exactly a brilliant or original form of cultural\nactivity, for the most part it was only the transmission of received\ntexts with the preparation of new translations, commentaries, and\nexplanatory treatises, but this itself fulfilled an important function.\nThe Muslim invasion made no change in the course of these studies: the\nUmayyads did not interfere with the schools and the Syriac students\nwent their own way living a life quite apart from that of their Arab\nrulers. Now and then unscrupulous or angry clergy appealed to the\nKhalif against their fellow clergy and this was the commonest cause\nof interference which the historians describe as persecution. Such\nwas the experience of _Henanieshu\u00b4_ who became Nestorian Catholicos\nin A.D. 686. The bishop of Nisibis made complaints against him to the\nKhalif `Abdul-Malik in consequence of which he was deposed, imprisoned,\nand then thrown over a cliff. He was not killed by his fall, though\nseverely lamed; by the kindness of some shepherds he was sheltered and\nnursed back to health, and then retired to the monastery of Yannan near\nMosul, resuming his patriarchal office after the death of the bishop of\nNisibis, and holding it until his own death in 701 (Bar Heb. _Chron.\nEccles._ Abbeloos et Lamy. ii. 135-140). Besides sermons, letters, and\na biography of Dewada, he wrote an educational treatise on \u201cthe twofold\nduty of the school\u201d as a place of religious and moral influence on the\none hand, and of an academy of the humanities on the other (cf. Asseman\nBO.) iii. part I. 154 and also an \u201cExplanation of the Analytica\u201d (id).\n\n_Mar Abha III._ became Nestorian Catholicos somewhere about 740 (133\nA.H.) and produced a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s logic (cf. Bar Heb. ii.\n153).\n\nThis brings us down to the period when the Muslim world began to\ntake an interest in these philosophical and scientific studies, and\ntranslations and commentaries began to appear in Arabic. But Syriac\nstudies did not at once disappear and it will be convenient to\nenumerate briefly some of those who appeared in later times down to\nthe age of Bar Hebraeus (d. A.D. 1286), with whom the literary history\nof Syriac comes to an end. In the latter part of the eighth century we\nfind _Jeshudena_ bishop of Basra writing an \u201cintroduction to logic.\u201d\nShortly afterwards _Jeshubokt_ metropolitan of Persia wrote on the\nCategories (cf. _Journ. Asiat._ May-June. 1906). Hunayn b. Ishaq,\nhis son Ishaq, and his nephew Hubaysh, with some other companions,\nformed the college of translators established at Baghdad by the Khalif\nal-Ma\u00b4mun to render the Greek and other philosophical and scientific\ntexts into Arabic, a work to which we shall refer again; but Hunayn,\nwho was a Nestorian Christian, was also occupied in making translations\nfrom the Greek into Syriac: he prepared, or revised, Syriac versions\nof Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_, Aristotle\u2019s _Hermeneutica_, part of the\n_Analytica_, the _de generatione et corruptione_, the _de anima_,\npart of the _Metaphysics_, the _Summa_ of Nicolas of Damascus, the\nCommentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias, and the greater part of the\nworks of Galen, Dioscorus, Paul of Aegina, and Hippocrates. His son\nIshaq also made a translation of Aristotle\u2019s _de anima_, and it is\nsignificant that this treatise and the commentary of Alexander Aphr.\nnow begins to take the most prominent place in philosophical study; the\ncentre of interest is moving from logic to psychology. About the same\ntime the physician _John Bar Maswai_ (d. A.D. 857) composed various\nmedical works in Syriac and Arabic. He, like Hunayn, was one of the\nintellectual group which the `Abbasids gathered together in their new\ncapital city of Baghdad. Contemporary also were the Syriac writers\n_Denha_ (or _Ibas_) who compiled a commentary on the Aristotelian\nlogical Organon: _Abzud_, the author of a poetical essay on the\ndivisions of philosophy, and then, after a series of minor writers on\nlogic, _Dionysius Bar Salibi_ in the twelfth century A.D., who composed\ncommentaries on the _Isagoge_, the _Categories_, _Hermeneutica_, and\n_Analytica_; and in the early part of the following century _Yaqub Bar\nShakako_, author of a collection of \u201cDialogues\u201d of which the second\nbook deals with philosophical questions of logic, physics, mathematics,\nand metaphysics.\n\nThe series of Syriac philosophical writers closes with _Gregory Bar\nHebraeus_, or _Abu l-Faraj_ in the thirteenth century A.D. whose \u201cBook\nof the Pupils of the Eyes\u201d is a compendium of logic summarising and\nexplaining the Isagoge, and Aristotle\u2019s Categories, Hermeneutica,\nAnalytica, Topica, and Sophistica Elenchi; his \u201cBook of the Upholding\nof Wisdom\u201d being a summary introduction to logic, physics, metaphysics,\nand theology. A third work \u201cThe Cream of Science\u201d is an encyclop\u00e6dia of\nthe Aristotelian philosophy, and this work appears also in an abridged\nform as the \u201cBusiness of Businesses.\u201d He was also the translator into\nSyriac of Dioscorus on simples, and author of a treatise on the medical\n_Questions_ of Hunayn b. Ishaq, and of a work on geography called \u201cthe\nAscent of the Spirit.\u201d Although esteemed as one of the greatest Syriac\nauthorities and for centuries holding a place of primary importance, he\nwas in reality no more than a compiler who produced encyclop\u00e6dic works\ndealing with the researches of his predecessors.\n\nThe great importance of the Syriac speaking Christian communities\nwas as the medium whereby Hellenistic philosophy and science was\ntransmitted to the Arabic world. There was no independent development\nin its Syriac atmosphere, and even the choice of material had already\nbeen made by the Hellenists before it passed into Syriac hands. It was\nnow definitely established that the basis of the \u201chumanities\u201d was the\nAristotelian logic, and that this as well as all other studies in the\nwork of Aristotle was to be interpreted according to the neo-Platonic\ncommentators. In medicine and chemistry the curriculum of the school\nof Alexandria was recognised as authoritative and this, in so far as\nit was based upon Galen and Hippocrates, and upon the teaching of\nPaul of Aegina in obstetrical medicine, was to the good: but there\nwas a mystical side of Alexandrian science mixed up with astrology,\nso that particular drugs had to be taken where certain planets were\nin the ascendant, and such like ideas, which gave a magical tone to\nAlexandrian and Arabic medicine which was not for its advantage,\nalthough it must be remembered that the ready contempt formerly\npoured upon Arabic science as mere charlatanism is now expressed more\ncautiously: we are prepared to admit that very much real and valuable\nwork was done in medicine and chemistry, although it is probable\nthat the Egyptian obscurantism did rather tend to hinder the steady\ndevelopment of the sounder tradition derived from Galen and the Greek\nphysicians.\n\nWe are thus able to understand that \u201cMuslim theology, philosophy, and\nscience put forth their first luxuriant shoots on a soil which was\nsaturated with Hellenistic culture.\u201d (Nicholson: _Mystics of Islam._\nLondon, 1914 p. 9.) The passage of Hellenism took place through five\nchannels:--\n\n(i) The Nestorians who hold the first place as the earliest teachers of\nthe Muslims and the most important transmitters of medicine.\n\n(ii) The Jacobites or Monophysites who were the chief influences in\nintroducing neo-Platonic speculations and mysticism.\n\n(iii) The Zoroastrians of Persia and especially the school of\nJunde-Shapur, although this had a strong Nestorian element.\n\n(iv) The Pagans of Harran who came forward at a later stage.\n\n(v) The Jews who, in this connection, occupy a somewhat peculiar\nposition: they had no contact with the tradition of Aristotelian\nphilosophy, their academies at Sora and Pumbaditha were concerned with\ntheir own traditional law and Bible exegesis only. Jewish philosophical\nstudies began later and were themselves derived from the Arabic\nphilosophers. But they shared with the Nestorians an inclination\ntowards medical studies so that Jewish physicians appear in the early\ndays of Baghdad. Yet they come distinctly second to the Nestorians.\nThus amongst the medical writers mentioned by Dr. Leclerc in his\n_Histoire de la m\u00e9decine arabe_ (Paris, 1876) we find amongst the names\ncited for the tenth cent. A.D. that there are 29 Christians, 3 Jews,\nand 4 pagans of Harran, though in the next century only 3 Christians\nappear, as against 7 Jews, the work then passing very largely into\nMuslim hands.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE ARAB PERIOD\n\n\nIslam in its earlier form was entirely an Arab religion. The temporal\nside of the Prophet Muhammad\u2019s mission shows him engaged in an effort\nto unite the tribes of the Hijaz in a fraternal union, to limit the\ncustom of the _razzia_ (_ghazza_) or marauding foray, and to form an\norderly community. These temporal aims were due to the influence of\nMadina on the Prophet and to the conviction that it was only in such a\ncommunity that his religious teaching could obtain a serious attention.\nIn Mecca he had been faced with constant opposition chiefly due to the\ntribal jealousies and strife which formed the normal condition of a\nBedwin community. Madina was a city in a sense quite different from\nthat in which the term could be applied to Mecca. It had developed a\ncivic life, rudimentary no doubt but very far in advance of the Meccan\nconditions, and had inherited a constitutional tradition from Aramaean\nand Jewish colonists. At Madina the Prophet began to perceive the\ndifference produced by the association of men in an ordered communal\nlife as contrasted with the incoherence of the older tribal conditions,\nand the accompanying difference of attitude towards religion. This\nlast was not really due to civic life but more directly to Jewish\ninfluence, although no doubt the conditions of city life were more\nfavourable to the evolution of speculative theology than those of the\nwilder tribes. The older Arabs seem to have accepted the idea of one\nsupreme God, but speculated little about him: they did not regard the\nsupreme deity as at all entering into their personal interests, which\nwere concerned only with the minor tribal deities who were expected\nto attend diligently to tribal affairs and were sharply censured when\nthey appeared to be negligent about the interests of their clients.\nThe desert man had no tendency to the sublime thoughts about God with\nwhich he is sometimes credited, nor had he any great reverence towards\nthe minor members of his pantheon. The Prophet found it one of his\nmost difficult tasks to introduce the observance of prayer amongst the\nArabs, and they do not appear very much attached to it at the present\nday. In Madina the Prophet was in contact with men whose attitude\ntowards religion was very different and who were more in sympathy with\nthe principles which he had learned from very much the same sources as\nthemselves.\n\nIn Madina, therefore, the Prophet added a temporal side to the\nspiritual work in which he had been previously engaged. It was not\nconsciously a change of attitude, but simply the adoption of a\nsubsidiary task which seemed to provide a most useful accessory to\nthe work which he had already been doing. Its keynote is given in the\nMadinian Sura 49.10, \u201cOnly the faithful are brethren, wherefore make\npeace between your brethren.\u201d It was a call to his fellow Arabs of the\nHijaz to cease their strife and to unite in the bonds of brotherhood.\nSuch a union on the part of those whose habits and ideals were warlike\nand who were disinclined to the arts of peace, necessarily produced\nan attitude of hostility towards persons outside their community.\nWas this militant attitude any part of Muhammad\u2019s plans? The answer\nmust certainly be in the negative. The military enterprises of early\nIslam were no part of its original programme. In those enterprises the\nProphet and his immediate successors show a hesitating and dubious\nattitude; obviously their hands were forced and they take the lead\nreluctantly. As Fr. Lammens says:--\n\n    Le Qoran travailla \u00e0 r\u00e9unir les tribus du Higaz. La pr\u00e9dication de\n    Mahomet r\u00e9ussit \u00e0 mettre sur pied une arm\u00e9e, la plus nombreuse, la\n    plus disciplin\u00e9e qu\u2019on \u00eaut vue jusque-l\u00e0 dans la P\u00e9ninsule. Cette\n    force ne pouvait longtemps demeurer sans emploi. Par ailleurs\n    l-islam, en imposant la paix entre les tribus, ralli\u00e9es \u00e0 la\n    nouvelle religion ou simplement \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tat m\u00e9dinois en formation,--le\n    _ta\u00b4l\u012bf al-qolo\u016bb_ poursuivait ce dernier objectif--l\u2019islam allait\n    fermer tout issue \u00e0 l\u2019inqui\u00e8te activit\u00e9 des nomades. Il pr\u00e9tendait\n    supprimer \u00e0 tout le moins limiter, le droit de razzia, plac\u00e9 \u00e0\n    la base de cette soci\u00e9t\u00e9 patriarcalement anarchique. Il fallait\n    s\u2019attendre \u00e0 voir le torrent; momentan\u00e9ment endigu\u00e9, d\u00e9border sur\n    les r\u00e9gions fronti\u00e8res.\n\n    \u201cQue Mahomet ait assign\u00e9 ce but \u00e0 leurs efforts? Il devient\n    difficile de d\u00e9fendre cette th\u00e8se, trop facilement accept\u00e9e\n    jusqu\u2019ici.\u201d\n\n    (Lammens: _Le berceau de l\u2019islam_. Rome, 1914, i. p. 175.)\n\nIn the expedition against Mecca a militant attitude was the inevitable\nresult of compelling circumstances. The Meccans were actively hostile\nand had adopted a persecuting attitude towards those who accepted\nthe new religion. At the time the Quraysh tribe, to which Muhammad\nbelonged, was so far in the ascendant that its adhesion was necessary\nfor the progress of Islam in the Hijaz: the championship of some\nprominent tribe was essential, and Muhammad himself was deeply attached\nto the traditional \u201cHouse of God\u201d at Mecca, to which his own family was\nbound by many associations; besides he desired the adherence of his\nown tribe as his mission was to it in the first place. Had the Meccan\nopposition not been broken down the Muslim religion could have been\nno more than the local cult of Madina, and even as such would have\nhad to be perpetually on the defensive. No doubt the \u201choly war\u201d as an\ninstitution was based on the traditions of this expedition, but such a\nwar is related to the later enterprises for the conquest of non-Arab\nnations by a line of development which the Prophet himself could hardly\nhave anticipated. The challenge to Heraclius is on a similar footing.\nAlthough we may not be disposed to accept the traditional account given\nby Bukhari, there no doubt was some such challenge. But Heraclius had\nonly recently re-conquered Syria for the Byzantine Empire, the land he\nhad acquired included a considerable portion of the Syrian desert which\nformed a geographical unity with Arabia, and amongst his subjects were\nArab tribes closely akin to those of the Hijaz.\n\nIslam became a militant religion because it spread amongst the\nArabs at a time when they were beginning to enter upon a career of\nexpansion and conquest, and this career had already commenced before\nMuhammad had got beyond the first--the purely spiritual--stage of his\nwork. The only reason why the earlier Arab efforts were not followed\nup immediately seems to have been that the Arabs were so surprised\nat their success that they were unprepared to take advantage of it.\nFor some time previously Arab settlements had been formed in the\ndebateable land where the Persian and Byzantine Empires met, but this\nencroachment had been more or less veiled by the nominal suzerainty\nof one or other of the great states. The Quda, a tribe of Himyaritic\nArabs, had settled in Syria and become Christian, and was charged by\nthe Byzantine Emperor with the general control of the Arabs of Syria\n(Masudi: iii., 214-5); that tribe was superseded by the tribe of Salih\n(id. 216), and that by the Arab kingdom of Ghasan which acknowledged\nthe Emperor of Byzantium as its overlord, whilst the Arab kingdom of\nHira acknowledged the Persian king. Somewhere between A.D. 604 and 610,\nwhen the first beginnings of persecution were falling on the Prophet\nin Mecca, the Arabs led by al-Mondir inflicted a crushing defeat upon\nthe Persian army under King Khusraw Parwiz, who, a few years before,\nhad led a victorious force to the invasion of the Byzantine province\nof Syria. This victory showed the Arabs that, in spite of its imposing\nappearance, the Persian Empire, and presumably the Byzantine also, were\nvulnerable, and a determined effort might easily place the wealth of\nboth at the disposal of the Arabs.\n\nThe Muslim conquests of the 7th century A.D. form the last of a series\nof great Semitic outspreads of which the earliest recorded in history\nresulted in the formation of the empire of Babylon some 2225 years\nbefore the Christian era. In all these the motive power lay in the\nArabs who represent the parent Semitic stock, the more or less nomadic\ninhabitants of the barren highlands of Western Asia, who have always\ntended to prey upon the more cultured and settled dwellers in the river\nvalleys and on the lower slopes of the hills.\n\n\u201cThe belts between mountain and desert, the banks of the great rivers,\nthe lower hills near the sea, these are the lines of civilization\n(actual or potential) in Western Asia. The consequence of these\nconditions is that through all the history of Western Asia there runs\nthe eternal distinction between the civilized cultivators of the plains\nand lower hills and the wild peoples of mountain and desert. The great\nmonarchies which have arisen here have rarely been effective beyond the\nlimits of cultivation; mountain and desert are another world in which\nthey can get, at best, only precarious footing. And to the monarchical\nsettled peoples the near neighbourhood of this unsubjugated world\nhas been a continual menace. It is a chaotic region out of which may\npour upon them at any weakening of the dam hordes of devastators. At\nthe best of times it hampers the government by offering a refuge and\nrecruiting ground to all the enemies of order.\u201d (Bevan: _House of\nSeleucus_, i., p. 22.)\n\nScornful of agriculture and with a strong distaste for settled and\nespecially for urban life, the Bedwin are those who have remained\nnomads by preference, and like all races at that stage of evolution,\nfind the most congenial outlet for their vigour in tribal warfare and\nplundering expeditions. From the earliest dawn of history they have\nalways been strongly tempted by the wealth of the settled communities\nwithin reach, and appear in the oldest records as robber bands.\nSometimes predatory excursions were followed by settlement, and the\ninvading tribes learned the culture of those amongst whom they settled:\nall the Semitic groups other than the Arabs had formed such settlements\nbefore the 7th century A.D., and these groups are distinguished one\nfrom another, and all from the parent stock, simply by the cultural\ninfluences due to the earlier inhabitants of the lands they entered;\nthe Arab stock itself remained high and dry, the stranded relic of more\nprimitive conditions, though itself not absolutely free from a reacting\ninfluence. The only thing that ever has restrained the incursions of\nthese nomadic tribes into such neighbouring lands as offer hope of\nplunder is the military power of those who endeavour to place a barrier\nfor the protection of the settled community of the cultivated area,\nand every Arab outspread has been due, not to the pressure of hunger\nresulting from the desiccation of Arabia, nor to religious enthusiasm,\nbut simply to the weakness of the power which tried to maintain a dam\nagainst them.\n\nIn the 7th century A.D. the two powers bordering on the Arab area\nwere the Byzantine and Persian empires. Both of these were, to all\nappearance, flourishing and stable, but both alike were in reality\ngreatly weakened by external and internal causes which were closely\nparallel in the two. Externally, both had been severely shaken by\nsome centuries of warfare in which they had disputed the supremacy\nof Western Asia, and both had suffered from rear attacks by more\nbarbarous foes. Internally, both alike had a thoroughly unsatisfactory\nsocial structure, though the details differ: in the Byzantine Empire\nalmost the whole burden of a very heavy taxation fell upon the middle\nclasses, the _curiales_, and the armies were mainly composed of foreign\nmercenaries, whilst in the Persian Empire a rigid caste system stifled\nnatural development. In both we see a state church engaged in active\npersecution and thereby alienating a large section of the subject\npopulation.\n\nThe career of Muslim conquest came with great suddenness. Between the\nyears 14 and 21 A.H. (A.D. 635-641) the Arabs obtained possession of\nSyria, Iraq, Egypt, and Persia. They owed to Islam the united action\nwhich made these conquests possible, but the older Muslims who had\nshared the ideals and labours of the Prophet, though put at the head,\nwere carried forward reluctantly and yet irresistibly by the expanding\nforce behind them. Many of them viewed these large accessions with\nvery real anxiety. When the second Khalif Umar saw the large number of\nprisoners and captives from Jal\u00fbl\u00e2 (Persia) flocking into Arabia, he\nexclaimed, \u201cO, God, I take refuge with thee from the children of these\ncaptives of Jal\u00fbl\u00e2.\u201d\n\nAlready the community of Islam contained three distinct strata. (i)\nThe \u201cold believers,\u201d i.e., the _sahibs_ or companions of the Prophet\nand the early converts who placed the religion of Islam first and\ndesired that religion to produce a real brotherhood of all believers,\nwhether Arab or not. Important by their prestige they were numerically\nin the minority. (ii) The Arab party, consisting of those who had\nembraced Islam only when Muhammad had shown his power by the capture\nof Mecca. They accepted Muslim leadership because Muhammad and the\nfirst two Khalifs were at the moment in the ascendancy, but they had\nno attachment to the religion of Islam. They were those who would have\ngone forward to conquest under any efficient leader as soon as it was\nclear that Persia and the Greek Empire were vulnerable, and to them\nit was a detriment that union under a leader incidentally involved\nadherence to a new religion. At the head of these purely secular Arabs\nwas the Umayyad clan of the tribe of Quraysh, and the main thing which\ngained their continued adherence to Islam was that the Prophet himself\nhad belonged to that tribe and so the prestige of Islam involved that\nof the Quraysh who thereby became a kind of aristocracy. Although\nthe Umayyads were thus able to gratify their personal pride, always\na strong factor in semi-civilised psychology, and even to obtain a\nconsiderable measure of control over the other tribes, this only served\nto perpetuate the pre-Islamic conditions of tribal jealousy, for the\nprimacy of the Quraysh was bitterly resented by many rivals. For the\nmost part the true Arab party was, and still is, indifferent towards\nreligion.\n\n\u201cThe genuine Arab of the desert is, and remains at heart, a sceptic\nand a materialist; his hard, clear, keen, but somewhat narrow\nintelligence, ever alert in its own domain, was neither curious nor\ncredulous in respect to immaterial and supra-sensual things; his\negotistical and self-reliant nature found no place and felt no need\nfor a God who, if powerful to protect, was exacting of service and\nself-denial.\u201d (Browne: _Literary Hist. of Persia_, i., pp. 189-190.)\n\nThe Arab certainly was not disposed to regard the conquered alien, even\nif he embraced Islam, as a brother. To him the conquest of foreign\nlands meant only the acquisition of vast estates, of great wealth\nand unlimited power: to him the conquered were simply serfs to be\nused as a means of rendering the conquered lands more productive. The\nconquered were allowed the choice either to embrace Islam or to pay the\npoll tax, but the `Umayyads discouraged conversion as damaging to the\nrevenue, although the cruel and hated Hajjaj b. Yusuf (d. 95) forced\neven converts to pay the tax from which they were legally exempt. (iii)\nThe third stratum consisted of the \u201cclients\u201d (mawla, plur. maw\u00e2l\u00ee),\nthe non-Arab converts, theoretically received as brethren and actually\nso treated by the \u201cold believers,\u201d but regarded as serfs by Arabs of\nthe Umayyad type. Owing to the wide expansion of Islam these rapidly\nincreased in number until, in the 2nd century of the Hijra, they formed\nthe vast majority of the Muslim world.\n\nThe two first Khalifs were \u201cold believers\u201d who had been companions of\nthe Prophet in his flight from Mecca. The third, `Uthman, had also been\none of the Prophet\u2019s companions, but he was a weak man and moreover,\nbelonged to the `Umayyad clan, which, as the aristocratic element in\nMecca, was then in the ascendant and, unable to free himself from\nthe nepotism which is an Arab failing, allowed the rich conquests\nof Syria, Egypt, `Iraq, and Persia to become the prey of ambitious\nmembers of the clan and thus suffered the complete secularising of the\nIslamic state. When, in 35 A.H., he fell a victim to the assassin,\nhe was succeeded by `Ali, one of the older Muslims and the Prophet\u2019s\ncousin and son-in-law. But at `Ali\u2019s accession the internal division\nappears as an accomplished fact. The purely secular Arabs, led by the\n`Umayyad Mu`awiya, who was governor of Syria, entirely refused to\nrecognise `Ali, affecting to regard him as implicated in the murder of\n`Uthman, or at least as protecting his murderers. On the other hand,\nthe Kharijite sect, claiming to represent the older Muslim type, but\nin reality mainly composed of the Arabs of Arabia and of the military\ncolonies, who were envious of the power and wealth of the Umayyad\nfaction, at first supported him, then turned against him, and in 41\nwere responsible for his assassination.\n\nAt `Ali\u2019s death Mu`awiya became Khalif and founded the Umayyad dynasty\nwhich ruled from 41 to 132 A.H. During the whole of this period the\nofficial Khalifate was Arab first and Muslim only in the second place.\nThis forms the second period of the history of Islam when the religion\nof the Prophet was allowed to sink into the background and the Arab\nregarded himself as the conqueror ruling over a subject population.\nThere was no forcible conversion of a subject population, indeed,\nsave in the reign of `Umar II (A.H. 99-101) conversions were rather\ndiscouraged as detrimental to the poll tax levied on non-Muslims. There\nwas no attempt to force the Arabic language: until the reign of `Abdu\nl-M\u00e2lik (65-86), who started an Arabic coinage, the public records\nwere kept and official business transacted in Greek, Persian, or\nCoptic, as local requirements demanded, and the change to Arabic seems\nto have been suggested by the non-Muslim clerks. When Arabic became\nthe official medium of public business then, of course, motives of\nconvenience and self-interest caused its general adoption. Hitherto it\nhad been used in prayer by those who had become Muslim, but now it had\nto be learned more accurately by all who had to do with the collection\nof the revenue or the administration of justice. Incidentally this\nbecame a matter of great importance, as it provided a common medium for\nthe exchange of thought throughout the whole Muslim world.\n\nAs rulers in Syria, the Arabs were in contact with a fully developed\nculture which was brought to bear upon them in various ways, in the\nstructure of society and in social order generally, in the arts and\ncrafts, and in intellectual life. The Greek influence was nearest\nat hand, but there was also a very strong Persian element in close\ncontact with them. The provincial officials of Syria, all trained\nin the methods of the Byzantine Empire, continued in their employ,\nand, as Syria was the seat of the `Umayyad government, the state came\nunder Greek influence. Yet, for all this, even in `Umayyad times,\nthe Persian influence seems to have been very strong in political\norganization. The governments already existing in Egypt and Syria were\nprovincial, dependent upon and subordinate to, the central government\nat Byzantium, and constantly recruited by Byzantine officials, at least\nin their upper grades. The Persian government, on the other hand, was\na self-contained one, fully organised throughout and including the\nsupreme and central authority. Until the fall of the `Umayyads, after\nwhich Persian influence became supreme, the political structure of the\nMuslim state was somewhat experimental; apparently the rulers left\nthe details altogether to the subordinate officials who adapted to\nthe needs of the state such elements as they could use from the old\nprovincial administration.\n\nIn the matter of taxation the early Khalifate continued the system\nalready in vogue and employed existing methods for the collection of\nthe newly imposed poll tax. It was on this side that the `Umayyad rule\nwas most unsatisfactory. Like many who have been bred in poverty and\nhave afterwards suddenly come into great wealth, the Arabs behaved\nas though their wealth was inexhaustible: each governor bought his\nappointment from the state and it became a recognised custom for him to\nexact a cash payment from the outgoing governor, and then he was free\nto raise what he could from his defenceless subjects to prepare for the\nday when his opportunities of exaction came to an end. The thoroughly\nunsatisfactory condition of the `Umayyad financial system was one of\nthe leading causes of their fall. One of the `Umayyad sheikhs, named\nMinkari, when asked the reason of their fall, replied:--\n\n\u201cWe gave to pleasure the time which should have been devoted to\nbusiness. Our subjects, harshly treated by us and despairing of\nobtaining justice, longed to be delivered from us: the tax payers,\noverburdened with exactions, were estranged from us: our lands were\nneglected, our resources wasted. We left business to our ministers who\nsacrificed our interests to their own advantage, and transacted our\naffairs as they pleased and without our knowledge. The army, with its\npay always in arrear, ceased to obey us. And so the small number of\nour supporters left us without defence against our enemies, and the\nignorance of how we stood was one of the chief causes of our fall.\u201d\n(Masudi: vi., 35-36.)\n\nIt will not be unfair to say, therefore, that during the `Umayyad\nperiod the Arabs learned practically nothing of the art of government\nand of the work of administration. They were in the position of\nprodigal young heirs who leave all details to their men of business and\ncontent themselves with squandering the proceeds.\n\nIn the case of civil law matters were rather different. The civil\nlaw is necessarily based on the social and economic structure of\nthe community, and in the acquired provinces this was so different\nfrom that prevailing in Arabia that it was necessarily forced on the\nattention of the Arabs. Moreover, in primitive Islam, the line was not\nclearly drawn between the canon law and the civil law. Inheritance,\nthe taking of pledges, and such like matters, were to the Arabs\nsubject to the direction and sanction of the law of God as revealed\nby his Prophet. Thus, for example, Sura 4, one of the later Madinian\nrevelations, contains a statement of the law relating to guardianship,\ninheritance, marriage, and kindred topics, according to the social\nconditions prevailing at Madina. But in the Greek and Persian dominions\nthe conquering Arab had to deal with more complex conditions for which\nthe revealed law made no provision, although what it did contain so\nfar touched the subject that it could not be treated regardless of\nrevelation. It seemed impossible to disregard the revealed precepts and\nsubstitute an alien legislation, although this has been done in the\nmodern Ottoman Empire, but not without many and grave protests; in the\nfirst century it would have been intolerable, for every disaffected\nfaction would have used it to break up the Muslim state which was\nonly held together by the prestige of the Prophetical tradition. We\nmay well suppose that the `Umayyads would have had no reluctance to\ntry the experiment, but it was too dangerous. The only alternative\nwas to expand the sacred law so as to include new requirements, and\nin the `Umayyad period this was done by the addition of a vast number\nof fictitious traditions professing to relate what the Prophet had\nsaid and done in conditions in which he had never been placed. In\ndescribing these traditions as \u201cfictitious,\u201d it is not necessarily\nimplied that they were fraudulent, although many were so, showing an\nobvious motive in increasing the privileges and rights of the dominant\nfaction or asserting the tribal pre-eminence of the Quraysh, etc.\nBut more often they are \u201cfictitious\u201d in the sense of legal fictions\nrightly correcting the actual law in the interests of equity. When\nentirely new conditions arose, the question would be asked, \u201cHow would\nthe Prophet have acted in this case?\u201d The early companions of the\nProphet, educated in the same environment as he had been educated,\nand confident that their outlook was essentially the same as his,\nhad no hesitation in stating what he would have done or said, and\ntheir statement was almost certainly correct: but they worded their\nevidence, or it was afterwards worded for them, as a statement of\nwhat the Prophet actually had done or said. And, later again, in a\nsubsequent generation, when new problems arose, no difficulty was felt\nin accepting the supposition that the Prophet would have admitted the\nreasonable and just solution which the Roman jurists proposed. Thus it\nfinally came to pass that a considerable portion of the Roman civil law\nwas embodied in the traditions of Islam (cf. Santillana: _Code civil et\ncommerciel tunisien._ Tunis, 1899, etc.) It is not to be supposed that\nArab governors and judges studied the Roman code, they simply accepted\nits provisions as they found them in force in Syria and Egypt, and\nthus learned its general principles from the usage of the civil courts\nalready existing. In many places material is found in the traditions\nwhich can be traced to Zoroastrian, Jewish, and even Buddhist sources,\nthough these deal rather with ritual and the description of the unseen\nworld and serve to show how readily Islam absorbed elements with which\nit was in contact. So far as the actual needs of the civil law are\nconcerned, the chief source was the Roman law, and these needs fill a\nvery large part of the traditions.\n\nIt was not until the close of the `Umayyad period that the Muslims\nbegan to develop a scientific jurisprudence and to make a critical\nexamination and codification of the traditions. In the case of\njurisprudence there were at first two schools, a Syrian and a Persian.\nThe Syrian school formulated its system under the leadership of\n_al-Awza`i_ (d. 157), and for some time it prevailed over all parts\nof the Muslim world which had been parts of the Byzantine Empire.\nThe Persian school owed its origin to _Abu Hanifa_ (d. 150) and, as\nthe seat of government was removed to `Iraq by the `Abbasids and Abu\nHanifa\u2019s system was enforced by his pupil Abu Yusuf (d. 182) who was\nchief Qadi under the Khalif Harunu r-Rashid, it had a tremendous\nadvantage over the Syrian school. It became the official system of the\n`Abbasid courts and still holds its own through Central Asia, North\nIndia, and wherever the Turkish element prevails, whilst the Syrian\nsystem has become extinct. Abu Hanifa\u2019s system represents a serious\nand moderate revision of the methods which had already come into use\nas extending the discipline of Islam to the needs of a complex and\nadvanced civilization. Under the `Umayyads the jurists had supplemented\nany deficiencies in the law by their own opinion (_ra\u00b4y_) which meant\nthe application of the judgment of a man trained under the Roman law\nas to what was just and fair. In that early period no derogatory\nsense was attached to \u201copinion\u201d which rested on the theory that the\nintellect could intuitively perceive what is right and just, thus\nassuming that there is an objective standard of right and wrong capable\nof apprehension by philosophical enquiry, a theory which shows the\ninfluence of Greek ideas embodied in the Civil Code. But the `Abbasid\nperiod experienced an orthodox reaction which tended to limit freedom\nin using speculative opinion, and Abu Hanifa shows this limitation.\nIn his system weight was attached to every positive statement of the\nQur\u00b4an which could be taken as bearing upon the civil law, only to a\nslight extent did he avail himself of the evidence of tradition, to a\nmuch larger extent he employs _qiyas_ or \u201canalogy,\u201d which means that\na new condition is judged by comparison with some older one already\ntreated in the Qur\u00b4an, and he also employed what he called _istihsan_,\n\u201cthe preferable,\u201d that is to say, what seemed to be equitable and\nright even when it diverged from the logical conclusion which could be\ndeduced from the revealed law. Only in this latter case did he admit\nwhat can be described as \u201copinion,\u201d and this is strictly limited to\nthe adoption of a course necessary to avoid an obvious injustice.\nAs thus stated, Abu Hanifa\u2019s system was broader, milder, and more\nreasonable than any other treatment of the Islamic law: but it is a\nmistake to suppose that it still is mild and reasonable, for in the\ncourse of time the decisions pronounced as to \u201cthe preferable\u201d have\nbecome hardened into precedents and the Hanifite code expresses only\nthose fixed decisions of early medi\u00e6val Islam without flexibility. The\ncase is parallel with the English treatment of equity. In older times\nequity shows us the philosophical principles of justice correcting the\ndefects of common law; but modern practice displays these principles\nfossilized as precedents and as rigid and formal in their application\nas the common law itself. As first conceived, \u201cthe preferable\u201d shows\nthe influence of Roman law and Greek philosophy, both of which\ncontemplated an objective standard of right and wrong which could be\ndiscovered by investigation, the Stoic teaching, predominant in Roman\nlaw, tending to treat this discovery as intuitive. Unsupported by other\nevidence, we might hesitate to suggest that _istihsan_ necessarily had\na Hellenistic basis, but when we compare the ideas of Abu Hanifa with\nthe contemporary teaching of Wasil b. `Ata (d. 131) in theology, we\nare forced to the conclusion that the same influences are at work in\nboth, and in Wasil these are certainly derived from Greek philosophy.\nWe are not justified in supposing that Abu Hanifa ever read the\nGreek philosophers or the Roman law, but he lived at a period when\nthe general principles deduced from these sources were beginning to\npermeate Muslim thought, though in fact his teaching tends to limit and\ndefine the application of the general principles according to a system.\nThe older Muslims supposed that good and evil depend simply on the\narbitrary will of God, who commands and forbids as he sees fit: it was\nthe influence of the Greek philosophy which brought in the idea that\nthese distinctions are not arbitrary but due to some natural difference\nexisting in nature between good and evil and that God is just in that\nhis decrees conform to this standard.\n\nIn orthodox Islam there are now four schools of jurisprudence showing\nallowable differences in the treatment of the canon law. Most absurdly\nthey are sometimes described as \u201csects\u201d: this they are not as the\ndifferences of opinion are fully recognised as all equally orthodox.\nThe followers of Abu Hanifa form the most numerous of these schools,\nthe other three being all more or less reactionary as compared with\nit. The contemporary Malik b. Anas (d. 179) was openly actuated by\ndislike of the admission of _istihsan_ and the recognition thereby\ngiven to \u201copinion\u201d for this he substituted what he called _istislah_\nor \u201cpublic expediency,\u201d allowing analogy to be set aside only when\nits logical conclusion would be detrimental to the community. The\ndifference seems to be more a verbal correction than a material change,\nbut the underlying motive is clear and indicates an orthodox reaction.\nAt the same time he attached much greater weight to the evidence of\ntradition, adding to it also the principle of _ijma_ or \u201cconsensus,\u201d\nwhich in his system meant the common usage of Madina. Undoubtedly Ibn\nMalik\u2019s position was theoretically sound: the Islamic state had taken\nform at Madina and nothing could give so clear light on the policy\nof the Prophet and his companions as the local customary law of the\nmother city. At the same time Ibn Malik took tradition quite seriously,\nindeed, the critical and scientific treatment of tradition begins with\nhis manual known as the _Muwatta_. To-day Ibn Malik\u2019s school prevails\nin Upper Egypt and North Africa west of Egypt. The third authority\n_ash-Shafi`i_ (d. 204) takes an intermediate position between Abu\nHanifa and Ibn Malik, interpreting _ijma_ as the general usage of\nIslam, and not of the city of Madina alone. The fourth authority,\n_Ahmad b. Hanbal_ (d. 241), shows an entirely reactionary position\nwhich reverted to a close adherence to Qur\u00b4an and tradition; it carried\ngreat weight amongst the orthodox, especially in Baghdad, but now\nsurvives only in remote parts of Arabia.\n\nIn the sphere of the arts and crafts, our best evidence lies in\narchitecture and engineering. In these the Arabs had no skill and\nwere conscious of their incapacity. The earliest mosques were simply\nenclosures surrounded by a plain wall, but a new type was developed\nunder the first `Umayyad Khalif Mu`awiya, who employed Persian\nnon-Muslim builders in the construction of the mosque at Kufa, and they\nworked on the lines of the architecture already used by the Sasanid\nkings. In this mosque the traditional square enclosure was retained,\nbut the quadrangle was surrounded by a cloister in the form of a\ncollonade with pillars 30 cubits high of stone drums held together by\niron clamps and lead beddings. From this the cloistered quadrangle\nbecame the general type of the congregational mosque and remained\nso until late Turkish times, when it was partly superseded by the\nByzantine domed church. The dome had been used in earlier times only as\nthe covering of a tomb, standing alone or attached to a mosque.\n\nThe same Khalif Mu`awiya employed bricks and mortar in restorations\nwhich he made at Mecca, and introduced Persian workmen to execute the\nrepairs. In 124 A.H. (A.D. 700) the fifth `Umayyad Khalif found it\nnecessary to repair the damage caused at Mecca by flood, and for this\npurpose employed a Christian architect from Syria.\n\nIn the time of the next Khalif al-Walid, the \u201cOld Mosque\u201d of Fustat\n(Cairo), that is now known as the \u201cMosque of `Amr,\u201d was rebuilt by the\narchitect Yahya b. Hanzala, who probably was a Persian. The earlier\nmosque had been a simple enclosure. The next oldest mosque of Cairo,\nthat of Ibn Tulun (A.H. 283) also had a non-Muslim architect, the\nChristian Ibn Katib al-Fargani.\n\nNot only in the earlier period, but also in the days of the Abbasids,\nthe Muslims relied exclusively upon Greek and Persian, to a less degree\non Coptic, architects, engineers, and craftsmen for building and\ndecoration. In Spain of the 2nd century (8th century A.D.) we find the\nByzantine Emperor sending a mosaic worker and 320 quintals of tessarae\nfor the adorning of the great mosque at Cordova.\n\nIn origin all Muslim art had a Byzantine beginning, but the traditions\nof Byzantine art received a peculiar direction by passing through a\nPersian medium, and this medium colours all work done after the close\nof the `Umayyad period. Only in the west, in Spain, and to a less\ndegree in North Africa, do we find traces of direct Byzantine influence\nin later times. But Persian art, as developed under the later Sasanids,\nwas itself derived from Byzantine models, and mainly from models and by\ncraftsmen introduced by Khusraw I. (circ. A.D. 528); but even at that\nearly stage there were also some Indian influences apparent in Persian\nand East-Byzantine work, as, for example, in the use of the horse shoe\narch which first appears in Western Asia in the church of Dana on the\nEuphrates, circ. A.D. 540. But the horse shoe arch in pre-Muslim times,\nas in India, is purely decorative and is not employed in construction.\n\nThus it appears that the real work of Islam in art and architecture\nlay in connecting the various portions of the Muslim world in\none common life, so that Syria, Persia, `Iraq, North Africa, and\nSpain shared the same influences, which were ultimately Greek or\nGraeco-Persian, the Indian element, of quite secondary importance,\nentering directly through Persia. Already before the outspread of\nIslam, Byzantine art had entirely replaced native models in Egypt,\nand this was largely the case in Persia as well. At most we can say\nthat Islam evolved a quasi-Byzantine style which owed its distinctive\nfeatures to the limitations of the Persian artists, but which\noccasionally attained a better level by the importation of Byzantine\ncraftsmen. Exactly the same general conclusions hold good in the\nhistory of the ceramic arts and in the illumination of manuscripts,\nthough here the observance of the Qur\u00b4anic prohibition of the portrayal\nof animal figures, strictly observed only in some quarters and least\nregarded in Persia and Spain, caused a greater emphasis to be laid on\nvegetable forms in decoration, and on geometrical patterns.\n\nIn the field of science and philosophy, where we get such abundant\nevidence in the `Abbasid period, we are left with very little material\nunder the `Umayyads. We know that the medical school at Alexandria\ncontinued to flourish, and we read of one Adfar, a Christian, who was\ndistinguished as a student of the books of Hermes, the occult authority\nwhich did most to divert Egyptian science into a magical direction, and\nwe are informed that he was sought out by a young Roman named Morienus\n(Marianos) who became his pupil and at his master\u2019s death retired to\na hermitage near Jerusalem. Later on the prince Khalid b. Yazid, of\nthe `Umayyad family (d. 85 A.H.--704 A.D.) is said to have become the\npupil of Marianos and to have studied with him chemistry, medicine,\nand astronomy. He was the author of three epistles, in one of which he\nnarrated his conversations with Marianos, another relates the manner\nin which he studied chemistry, and a third explains the enigmatical\nallusions employed by his teachers. Long before this medical and\nscientific studies had passed over to Persia, but Alexandria retained\nits reputation as the chief centre of such work throughout the `Umayyad\nperiod.\n\nTowards the end of the `Umayyad age the influence of Hellenistic\nthought begins to appear in the nature of criticism upon accepted\nviews of Muslim theology. As in jurisprudence, we have no ground for\nsupposing that Muslims at this stage were directly acquainted with\nGreek material, but general ideas were obtained by intercourse with\nthose who had been long under Hellenistic influences, and especially by\nintercourse with Christians amongst whom the premises of psychology,\nmetaphysics, and logic had encroached very largely upon the field of\ntheology by the nature of the subjects debated in the Arian, Nestorian,\nand Monophysite controversies which turned mainly upon psychological\nand metaphysical problems. The ideas with which the Muslims were\nbrought into contact suggested difficulties in their own theology, as\nyet only partially formulated, and in religious theories which had\ntaken form in a community entirely ignorant of philosophy. Some of the\nolder fashioned believers met these questions with a plain negative,\nsimply refusing to admit that there was a difficulty or any question\nfor consideration: reason (_`aql_), they said, could not be applied\nto the revelation of God, and it was alike an innovation to dispute\nthat revelation or to defend it. But others felt the pressure of the\nquestions proposed and, whilst strictly faithful to the statements of\nthe Qur\u00b4an, endeavoured to bring their expression into conformity with\nthe principles of philosophy.\n\nThe questions first proposed were concerned with (a) the revelation of\nthe Word of God, and (b) the problem of free will.\n\n(a) The Prophet speaks of revelation as \u201ccoming down\u201d (_nazala_) from\nGod and refers to the \u201cmother of the book\u201d which seems to designate the\nunrevealed source from which the revealed words are derived. It may be\nthat this refers to the idea of which the word is the expression, and\nthat in this the Prophet was influenced by Christian or Jewish theories\nwhich had originally a Platonic colouring, but it seems probable that\nhe had no very clear theory as to the \u201cmother of the book.\u201d At an early\ndate the view arose that the Qur\u00b4an had existed, though not expressed\nin words, that the substance and meaning were eternal as part of the\nwisdom of God, though it had been put into words in time and then\ncommunicated to the Prophet, which is now the orthodox teaching on the\nbasis of Qur. 80. 15. that it was written \u201cby the hands of scribes\nhonoured and righteous,\u201d this being taken to mean that it was written\nat God\u2019s dictation by supernatural beings in paradise and afterwards\nsent down to the Prophet. That is not the necessary meaning of the\nverse, which may refer to the previous revelations made to the Jews\nand Christians which the Prophet regarded as true but afterwards\ncorrupted, so that the Qur\u00b4an is simply the pure transcription of\nDivine Truth imperfectly represented by those earlier revelations.\nUnder the `Umayyads, when a rigid orthodoxy was taking form in quarters\nnot sympathetic towards the official Khalif, a view arose that the\nactual words expressed in the Qur\u00b4an were co-eternal with God, and it\nwas only the writing down of these words which had taken place in time.\nIt seems probable that this theory of an eternal \u201cword\u201d was suggested\nby the Christian doctrine of the \u201cLogos.\u201d It can be traced primarily\nto the teaching of St. John Damascene (d. circ. 160 A.H. = A.D. 776)\nwho served as secretary of state under one of the `Umayyads, either\nYazid II. or Hijam, and his pupil Theodore Abucara (d. 217 = 832),\nwho express the relation of the Christian Logos to the Eternal Father\nin terms very closely resembling those employed in Muslim theology to\ndenote the relation between the Qur\u00b4an or revealed word and God. (cf.\nVon Kremer: _Streifzuege_. pp. 7-9). We know from the extant works\nof these two Christian writers that theological discussions between\nMuslims and Christians were by no means uncommon at the time.\n\nThe _Mu`tazilites_ of whom _Wasil b. `Ata_ (d. 131) is generally\nregarded as the founder, were a sect of rationalistic tendencies, and\nthey were opposed to the doctrine of the eternity of the Qur\u00b4an and\nthe claim that it was uncreated because the conclusions to be drawn\nseemed to them to introduce distinct personalities corresponding\nto the persons of the Christian Trinity, and in these views they\nwere undoubtedly influenced by the form in which St. John Damascene\npresented the doctrine of the Trinity. As it was implied that there was\nan attribute of wisdom possessed by God which was not a thing created\nby God but eternally with him, and this wisdom may be conceived as not\nabsolutely identical with God but possessed by him, the Mu`tazilites\nargued that it was something co-eternal with God but other than God,\nand so an eternal Qur\u00b4an was a second person of the Godhead and God\nwas not absolutely one. Al-Muzdar, a Mu`tazilite greatly revered as an\nascetic, expressly denounces those who believe in an eternal Qur\u00b4an as\nditheists. The Mu`tazilites called themselves _Ahlu t-Tawhid wa-l-`Adl_\n\u201cthe people of unity and justice,\u201d the first part of this title\nimplying that they alone were consistent defenders of the doctrine of\nthe Divine Unity.\n\n(b) As to the freedom or otherwise of the human will, the Qur\u00b4an\nis perfectly definite in its assertion of God\u2019s omnipotence and\nomniscience: all things are known to him and ruled by him, and so human\nacts and the rewards and punishments due to men must be included: \u201cno\nmisfortune happens either on earth or in yourselves but we made it,--it\nwas in the book\u201d (Qur. 57. 22); \u201ceverything have We set down in the\nclear book of our decrees\u201d (Qur. 36); \u201chad We pleased We had certainly\ngiven to every soul its guidance, but true is the word which hath gone\nforth from me,--I shall surely fill hell with jinn and men together.\u201d\n(Qur. 32. 13). Yet the appeal for moral conduct implies a certain\nresponsibility, and consequently freedom, on man\u2019s part. In the mind\nof the Prophet, no doubt, the inconsistency between moral obligations\nand responsibility on the one hand, and the unlimited power of God on\nthe other, had not been perceived, but towards the end of the `Umayyad\nperiod these were pressed to their logical conclusions. On the one side\nwere the _Qadarites_ (_qadr_ \u201cpower\u201d), the advocates of free will.\nThis doctrine first appears in the teaching of _Ma\u00b4bad al-Yuhani_ (d.\n80 A.H.) who is said to have been the pupil of the Persian Sinbuya and\ntaught in Damascus. Very little is known of the early Qadarites, but it\nis stated that Sinbuya was put to death by the Khalif `Abdu l-Malik,\nand that the Khalif Yazid II. (102-106 A.H.) favoured their views.\nOn the other side were the _Jabarites_ (_jabr_, \u201ccompulsion\u201d) who\npreached strict determinism and were founded by the Persian _Jahm b.\nSafwan_ (d. circ. 130). It is baseless to argue that either free will\nor determinism were necessarily due to Persian pre-Islamic beliefs, it\nis evident that the logical deduction of doctrinal theology in either\ndirection was done by Persians; they were, indeed, the theologians of\nearly Islam. It must be noted that the full development of fatalism was\nnot reached until a full century after the foundation of Islam and that\nits first exponent was put to death as a heretic.\n\nThe earlier Qadarites had a Persian origin, but the reaction against\nthe Jabarites was led by Wasil b. `Ata whose teaching clearly\nshows the solvent force of Hellenistic philosophy acting on Muslim\ntheology. Wasil was the pupil of the Qadarite Hasan ibn Abi l-Hasan\n(d. 110) but he \u201cseceded\u201d from his teacher and this is given as the\ntraditional reason for calling him and his followers the _Mu\u00b4tazila_ or\n\u201csecession,\u201d and did so on the ground of the apparent injustice imputed\nto God in his apportionment of rewards and penalties. The details of\nthe controversy are quite secondary, the important point is that the\nMu`tazilites claimed to be \u201cthe people of Unity and Justice,\u201d this\nlatter meaning that God conformed to an objective standard of just and\nright action so that he could not be conceived as acting arbitrarily\nand in disregard of justice, an idea borrowed from Hellenistic\nphilosophy for the older Muslim conception regarded God as acting as he\nwilled and the standard of right and wrong merely a dependent on his\nwill.\n\nThroughout the whole `Umayyad period we see the conquering Arabs, so\nfar the rulers of the Muslim world, in contact with those who, though\ntreated with arrogant contempt as serfs, were really in possession of a\nmuch fuller culture than their rulers. In spite of the haughty attitude\nof the Arab there was a considerable exchange of thought, and the\ncommunity of Islam began to absorb Hellenistic influences in several\ndirections, and so the canon law and theology of the Muslims was\nbeginning, at the end of the `Umayyad period, to be leavened by Greek\nthought. It was, however, a period of indirect influence; there is no\nindication, save in a few instances in the study of natural science and\nmedicine, of Muslim teachers or students availing themselves directly\nof Greek material, but only that they were in contact with those who\nwere familiar with the work of Greek philosophers and jurists. It\nwas a period of suspended animation, to some extent, during which a\nnew language and a new religion were being assimilated by the very\ndiverse elements now comprised in the Khalifate, and those elements\nwere being welded together in a common life. However great were the\nsectarian and political differences of later times, the church of\nIslam long remained, and to a great extent still remains, possessed\nwith a common life in the sense that there is a mutual understanding\nbetween the several parts and that thus an intellectual or religious\ninfluence has been able to pass rapidly from one extreme to the other,\nand the religious duty of pilgrimage to Mecca has done much to foster\nthis community of life and to promote intercourse between the several\nparts. Such an understanding has by no means always produced sympathy\nor friendliness, and the various movements as they have passed from one\npart to the other have often been considerably modified in the passage;\nbut the motive power behind a movement in Persia has been intelligible\nin Muslim Spain--though perhaps intensely disliked there--and most\noften a movement beginning in any one district has sooner or later had\nsome contact with every other district. There is no such division in\nIslam as that which prevents the average English churchman from knowing\nabout and appreciating a religious movement at work in the Coptic or\nSerbian church. The common life of Islam is largely based on the use\nof the Arabic language as the medium of daily life, or at least of\nprayer and the medium of scholarship, and this was extremely effective\nbefore the inclusion of large Turkish and Indian elements which have\nnever really become Arabic speaking. It was this which made the\nArabic speaking community of Islam so favourable a medium of cultural\ntransmission. The `Umayyad period was a marking time during which this\ncommon life was being evolved, and with it was evolved necessarily the\nbitterness of sectarian and faction divisions which always result when\ndivergent types are in too close contact with one another.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE COMING OF THE `ABBASIDS\n\n\nThe rule of the `Umayyads had been a period of tyrannical oppression\non the part of the Arab rulers upon their non-Arab subjects and\nespecially upon the _mawali_ or converts drawn from the native\npopulation of the conquered provinces who not only were not admitted\nto equality, as was the professed principle of the religion of Islam,\nbut were treated simply as serfs. This was in no sense due to religious\npersecution, for it was the converts who were the most aggrieved, nor\nwas it due to a racial antipathy as between a Semitic and an Aryan\npeople, nor yet to anything that could be described as a \u201cnational\u201d\nfeeling on the part of the Persians and other conquered races, but\nsimply a species of \u201cclass\u201d feeling due to the contempt felt by the\nArabs for those whom they had conquered and hatred on the part of\nthe conquered towards their arrogant masters, a hatred intensified\nby disgust at their misgovernment and ignorance of the traditions of\ncivilization. There were other causes also which helped to intensify\nthis feeling of hatred especially in the case of the Persians. Amongst\nthese was a semi-religious feeling, even amongst those who had become\nconverts to Islam. It had been the old usage of the Persians to regard\nthe Sasanid kings, the descendants of the legendary _kayani_ dynasty\nof heroes who had first established a settled community in Persia,\nas _bagh_ not quite perhaps what we should understand as \u201cgods,\u201d but\nrather as incarnations of deity, the divine spirit passing on by\ntransmigration from one ruler to another, and so they ascribed to the\nking miraculous powers and worshipped him as the shrine of a divine\npresence. At the Muslim conquest the Sasanid kings had not only ceased\nto rule, but the dynasty had become extinct. Many of the Persians who,\nin spite of adopting Islam, still clung to their old ideas, were quite\nready to treat the Khalif with the same adoration as their kings, but\nfelt a distinct distaste for the theory of the Khalifate according to\nwhich the Khalif was no more than a chieftain elected in the democratic\nfashion of the desert tribes, a thing which seemed to them like\nreversion to primitive barbarism. Our own experience in dealing with\noriental races has shown us that there is a great deal which must be\ntaken seriously in ideas of this kind. Of course those who had been\nsubjects of the Roman Empire had no inclination towards deifying their\nrulers, unless perhaps some who had been only recently incorporated\nfrom more oriental elements: but those who had been under Persian rule\ncraved a deified prince. In A.H. 141-142 this took the form of an\nattempt to deify the Khalif by a fanatical sect of Persian origin known\nas the Rawandiyya which broke out into open revolt when the Khalif\nrefused to be treated as a god and cast their leaders into prison:\nthe members of the sect, and many other of their fellow-countrymen,\nconsidered that a Khalif was no valid sovereign who refused to be\nrecognised as a deity. From the second century of the Hijra down to\nmodern times there has been a continuous stream of pseudo-prophets\nwho have claimed to be gods, or successful leaders who have been\ndeified by their followers. The latest of these appears in the earlier\nphases of the Babi movement, A.D. 1844-1852, though the doctrines of\nre-incarnation and of the presence of the divine spirit in the leader\nseem to be less emphasized in present day Babism, at least in this\ncountry and America.\n\nThe most prevalent form of these ideas occurs in the essentially\nPersian movement known as the _Shi`a_ or \u201cschismatics.\u201d These are\ndivided into two types, both alike holding that the succession of the\nProphet is confined to the hereditary descendants of `Ali the cousin\nand son-in-law of the Prophet to whom alone was given the divine right\nof the _Imamate_ or leadership. The two types differ in the meaning\nof this Imamate, the one group contenting itself with maintaining\nthat `Ali and his descendants have a divine authority whereby the\nImams are the only legitimate rulers of Islam and its infallible\nguides; of this moderate type of Shi`a is the religion of Morocco\nand the form prevalent about San\u00b4a in South Arabia. The other group\npresses the claim that the Imam is the incarnation of a divine spirit,\nsometimes asserting that it was only by fraud that the prophet Muhammad\ninterposed and acted as spokesman for the divine Imam `Ali. Of this\ntype is the Shi`a which forms the state religion of modern Persia,\nspreading westwards into Mesopotamia and eastwards into India. The\ncommonest belief, prevalent in the modern Shi`a, is that there were\ntwelve Imams of whom `Ali was the first, and Muhammad al-Muntazar,\nwho succeeded at the death of his father the eleventh Imam al-Hasan\nal-Askari in 260 A.H. (= A.D. 873) was the last. Soon after his\naccession Muhammad Al-Muntazar \u201cvanished\u201d at Sam\u00e1rr\u00e1, the town which\nserved as the `Abbasid capital from A.H. 222 to 279. The mosque at\nSam\u00e1rr\u00e1 is said to cover an underground vault into which he disappeared\nand from which he will emerge again to resume his office when the\npropitious time has arrived, and the place whence he is to issue forth\nis one of the sacred spots visited by Shi`ite pilgrims. Meanwhile\nthe Shahs and princes are ruling the faithful only as deputies of\nthe concealed Imam. The disappearance of Muhammad al-Muntazar took\nplace more than a century after the fall of the `Umayyads but we have\nanticipated in order to show the general tendency of the Shi`ite ideas\nwhich were prevalent even in `Umayyad times, especially in Northern\nPersia, and did much to promote the revolt against the secularised\n`Umayyad rule.\n\nA curious importance also is attached to the date. The disaffection\nof the _mawali_ came to a head towards the end of the first century of\nthe Muslim era. There was a general belief that the completion of the\ncentury would see the end of existing conditions, just as in Western\nEurope the year 1000 A.D. was expected to mark the dawn of a new world.\nDissatisfaction was at its height, especially in Khurasan, and the\ndisaffected for the most part rallied round the `Alids.\n\nThe `Alid claims which did so much to overthrow the `Umayyad dynasty\nand indirectly led to the bringing forward of the Persian element by\nwhich the transmission of Hellenistic culture was most furthered, are\nbest understood by the help of a genealogical table.\n\n  al-Hanafiya + (1) `Ali + Fatima\n      |                 _____|___________\n  Muhammad          (2) Hasan  (3) Husayn\n      |                              |\n  Abu Hashim                   (4) `Ali Zayn\n          ____________________________________\n          |                            |\n        Zayd                (5) Muhammad al-Bakir\n                                       |\n                            (6) Ja`far as-Sadiq\n                 ________________|______\n                 |                     |\n             Isma`il        (7) Musa al-Qazam\n                 |                   |\n             Muhammad       (8) `Ali ar-Rida\n                                     |\n                            (9) Muham. al-Jawad\n                                     |\n                           (10) `Ali al-Hadi\n                                     |\n                           (11) Hasan al-Askari\n                                     |\n                           (12) Muham. al-Muntazar\n\n`Ali had two wives, (i) al-Hanafiya, by whom he had a son Muhammad,\nand (ii) Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet Muhammad, by whom he had\ntwo sons, Hasan and Husayn. All the `Alid party believed that `Ali\nshould have succeeded the Prophet by divine right and regarded the\nfirst three Khalifs as usurpers. Already under the third Khalif Uthman\nthe dissatisfied _mawla_ element had begun to look to `Ali as their\nchampion, and he in the true spirit of early Islam supported their\nclaim to the rights of brotherhood as fellow Muslims. This partisanship\nreceived its extreme expression in the preaching of the Jewish convert\n`Abdu b. Saba, who declared the divine right of `Ali to the Khalifate\nas early as A.H. 32. `Ali himself apparently did not take so pronounced\na view, but certainly regarded himself as in some degree injured by\nhis exclusion. In 35 `Ali was appointed Khalif and Ibn Saba then\ndeclared that he was not only Khalif by divine right, but that a divine\nspirit had passed from the Prophet to him, so that he was raised to a\nsupernatural level. This theory `Ali himself repudiated. When he was\nassassinated in 40 `Abdu declared that his martyred soul had passed to\nheaven and would in due course descend to earth again: his spirit was\nin the clouds, his voice was heard in the thunder, the lightning was\nhis rod.\n\nThe Umayyad party led by Mu`awiya never submitted to `Ali, although\nthey did not question the legitimacy of his appointment. At his death\nMu`awiya became the fifth Khalif, but had to face the claims of\nal-Hasan, `Ali\u2019s son. Al-Hasan made terms with Mu`awiya and died in 49,\npoisoned, it was commonly stated. The other son, al-Husayn, tried to\nenforce his claim, but met a tragic death at Kerbela. After al-Husayn\u2019s\ndeath some of the `Alid partisans recognised Muhammad the son of `Ali\nand al-Hanafiya as the fourth Imam; he, it is true, disowned these\nsupporters, but that was a detail to which they paid no attention. His\nsupporters were known as Kaysanites, and owed their origin to Kaysan,\na freedman of `Ali, who formed a society for the purpose of avenging\nthe deaths of al-Hasan and al-Husayn. When this Muhammad died in 81\nhis followers divided into two sections, some accepting the fact of\nhis death, others supposing that he had simply passed into concealment\nto appear again in due course. This idea of a \u201cconcealed\u201d Imam was a\nheritage from the older religious theories of Persia and recurs again\nand again in Shi`a history. The important point is that both sections\nof this party continued to exist all through the `Umayyad period,\nsteadily refusing to recognise the official Khalifa as more than\nusurpers, and looking forward to the day when they could avenge the\nmartyrdom of `Ali and his sons.\n\nWe need not linger over the family of al-Hasan and his descendants.\nThey were involved in `Alid risings at Madina, and after the\nsuppression of one of these in 169, long after the fall of the\n`Umayyads, Idris the great-grandson of al-Hasan escaped to the far West\nand established a \u201cmoderate\u201d Shi`ite Dynasty in what is now Morocco, so\nthat the subsequent history of that house concerns the history of the\nWest.\n\nMost of the Shi`ites regard the third Imam, al-Husayn as being\nsucceeded by his son `Ali Zayn. Al-Husayn, like al-Hasan, was not\nonly the son of `Ali, but also of the Prophet\u2019s daughter, Fatima. In\nal-Husayn\u2019s case moreover there was another heritage which ultimately\nproved more important than descent from either `Ali or Fatima: he\nwas generally supposed to have married the daughter of the last of\nthe Persian kings, the \u201cmother of the Imams,\u201d and this traditional\nmarriage with the Persian princess,--its historical evidence is\nvery dubious--has been regarded by the Persian Shi`ites as the most\nimportant factor in the Imamate, although this, of course, has nothing\nwhatever to do with the religion of Islam. That so great weight could\nbe attached to such a consideration serves to show how really foreign\nand non-Muslim a thing the Shi`a is. `Ali Zayn had two sons, Zayd and\nMuhammad al-Bakir. Of these Zayd was a pupil of Wasil b. `Ata and\nassociated with the Mu`tazilite movement: he is generally regarded as\na rationalist. Indeed, as we shall now see frequently, the heretical\nShi`ite party was very generally mixed up with free thought and\nfrequently shows adherence to Greek philosophy: it seems as though its\ninspiring spirit was hostility towards orthodox Islam, and a readiness\nto ally itself with anything which tended to criticize unfavourably\nthe orthodox doctrines. Zayd had a body of followers who established\nthemselves in North Persia where they held their own for some time, and\na branch of their party still exists in South Arabia, still suspected\nof rationalist proclivities. Most of the Shi`ites, however, recognised\nMuhammad al-Bakir as the fifth Imam, and Ja`far as-Sadiq as the sixth.\nThis latter also was a devoted follower of the \u201cnew learning,\u201d that\nis to say, of Hellenistic philosophy, and is generally regarded as\nthe founder, or at least the chief exponent, of what are known as\n_batinite_ views, that is to say the allegorical interpretation of the\nQur\u00b4an, so that revelation is made to mean, not the literal statement,\nbut an inner meaning, and this inner meaning generally shows a strong\ninfluence of Hellenistic philosophy. It is only the divinely directed\nImam who can expound the true meaning of the Qur\u00b4an which remains a\nsealed book to the uninitiated. Ja`far was, it would appear, the first\nof the `Alids who openly asserted that he was a divine incarnation as\nwell as an inspired teacher: his predecessors had done no more than\nacquiesce in such claims when made by their followers, and very often\nhad repudiated them.\n\nAbu Hashim, the son of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya, died in 98 A.H.\npoisoned, it was generally believed, by the Khalif Sulayman, and\nbequeathed his rights to Muhammad b. `Ali b. `Abdullah, a descendant of\nthe house of Hashim, to which the Prophet and `Ali had belonged, the\nrival clan of the Quraysh tribe opposed to the clan of the `Umayyads.\nAbu Hashim assumed that the Imamate was his to be passed on to whom he\nsaw fit, a view of the Imamate which was not accepted by the stricter\nShi`ites who were legitimists, but the partisans of Abu Hashim do not\nseem to have been extremists in spite of their Kaysanite origin. In\n99 the Khalifate passed to Umar II. the one `Umayyad who showed `Alid\nsympathies, putting an end to the public cursing of `Ali which had\nformed part of the public ritual in the mosques of Damascus since the\ndays of Mu`awiya and who represented a type of personal piety to which\nthe `Umayyad Khalifs had hitherto been strangers. His brief reign of\nless than three years did not, however, remove the evils of tyranny and\nmisgovernment, and he was followed by other rulers more in conformity\nwith the old bad type.\n\nAbout the time of Umar\u2019s death a deputation of Shi`ites waited upon\nMuhammad b. `Ali the Hashimite, a man of noted piety and the one\nwho had now become, as legatee of Abu Hashim the son of Muhammad b.\nal-Hanafiya, the recognised head of an important wing of the Shi`ites,\nand swore to support him in an endeavour to obtain the Khalifate \u201cthat\nGod may quicken justice and destroy oppression\u201d (Dinwari: _Akhbaru\nt-Tiwal_. ed. Guirgass, Leiden. p. 334): and Muhammad had answered that\n\u201cthis is the season of what we hope and desire, because one hundred\nyears of the calendar are completed.\u201d (id.)\n\nThe supporters of the family of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya, who had\nnow transferred their allegiance to Muhammad b. `Ali, were extremely\nimportant, not so much by reason of their numbers as by their excellent\norganisation. They had developed a regular system of missionaries\n(_da`i_, plur. _du`at_) who travelled under the guise of merchants\nand confined their teaching to private instructions and informal\nintercourse, a method which has become the standard type of Muslim\nmissionary propaganda. By Abu Hashim\u2019s death and legacy Muhammad b.\n`Ali found this very fully organised missionary work at his service,\nand its emissaries were fully confident that his acceptance of the\novertures of the Shi`ite deputation meant that he stood as the champion\nof Shi`ite claims. The stricter Shi`ites who followed the house of\nal-Husayn did not admit the claims of Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya or his\ndescendants, but they supported Muhammad b. `Ali\u2019s efforts under the\nimpression that he was a Shi`ite champion.\n\nThe propaganda in favour of Muhammad b. `Ali is sometimes referred\nto as `Abbasid because he was descended from al-`Abbas, one of the\nthree sons of `Abdu l-Muttalib, and so brother of Abu Talib the father\nof the Imam `Ali and of `Abdullah who was grandfather of the Prophet\nMuhammad. At the time, however, the missionaries claimed rather to be\nthe supporters of the Hashimites, a term which was ambiguous, perhaps\nintentionally so. It was afterwards explained as referring to the\nhouse of Hashim which was the rival clan of the Quraysh opposed to\nthe `Umayyads and that to which the Prophet, and `Ali, and al-`Abbas\nbelonged: but in the minds of many of the Shi`ites it was taken to mean\nthe followers of Abu Hashim, the grandson of Al-Hanafiya.\n\nMuhammad b. `Ali died in 126 A.H. leaving three sons, Ibrahim, Abu\nl-Abbas, and Abu Ja`far, the first of these being recognised as his\nsuccessor. About the same time Abu Muslim, who became governor of\nKhurasan in 129 comes into prominence. It is dubious whether he was an\nArab or a native of `Iraq (cf. Masudi. vi. 59), indeed, the claim was\nmade that he was a descendant of Gandarz, one of the ancient kings of\nPersia (id.) Now Khurasan was the area most disaffected towards the\n`Umayyads, and there the Hashimite missionaries had been most active\nand successful. Abu Muslim threw himself into this work heartily and\nbegan gathering together an armed body of men who before long numbered\n200,000. Information and warning was sent to the Khalif Marwan II. but\nwas ignored: indeed the court at Damascus took no notice until 130.\nAbu Muslim at length openly raised the black standard as the signal of\nrevolt against the `Umayyads whose official colour was white. Then all\nthe Khalif did was to seize Muhammad b. `Ali\u2019s son Ibrahim and put him\nto death. The other two sons escaped and fled to Kufa where they were\nsheltered and concealed by some Shi`ites, the second son Abu l-`Abbas,\nknown to history as _as-Saffah_ \u201cthe butcher\u201d being recognised as the\nHashimite leader.\n\nAbu Muslim\u2019s success was rapid and complete, and in 132 the `Umayyad\ndynasty was overthrown and partly exterminated, and so \u201cthe butcher\u201d\nbecame the first of the `Abbasid Khalifs, so called as being of the\nfamily of al-`Abbas the son of `Abdu l-Muttalib.\n\nAs soon as the Khalif Abu l-`Abbas was seated on the throne his chief\naim was to secure the establishment of his dynasty by getting rid of\nall possible rivals, and it was the vigour he showed in doing this\nwhich earned for him the title of \u201cthe Butcher.\u201d First of all he hunted\ndown and slew all the representatives he could find of the `Umayyad\nfamily. One of these escaped, `Abdu r-Rahman, and went to Africa where\nhe endeavoured to form a body of supporters without success, and then\ncrossed over to Spain where in 138 he established himself at Cordova,\nand there he and his descendants ruled until 422 A.H. These Spanish\n`Umayyads claimed to be legitimist rulers, but never assumed the divine\nclaims of the `Alid section.\n\nAbu Muslim, who had done most to establish the `Umayyad dynasty, next\nprovoked the Khalif\u2019s jealousy, probably with good cause for he was\nindignant to find that \u201cthe Butcher\u201d was no sooner on the throne than\nhe entirely discarded the Shi`ites who had helped to place him there,\nand so within the first year of the `Abbasid rule Abu Muslim was put to\ndeath.\n\nThe fall of the `Umayyads brought an end to the tyranny of the\nArab minority, as it now was, and placed the preponderance for a clear\ncentury (A.H. 132-232) in Persian hands. The government was remodelled\non Persian lines, and to Persian influence was due the institution\nof the _wazir_ or responsible minister at the head of the executive.\nThe title is probably identical with the Old Persian _vi-chir_ or\n\u201coverseer\u201d (thus Darmesteter: _Etudes Iraniennes_ i. p. 58. note 3.);\nbefore this the chief minister was simply clerk (_k\u00e0tib_) or adviser\n(_mushir_) and was simply one of the Khalif\u2019s attendants who was\nemployed to conduct correspondence, or to give advice when occasion\nrequired. In 135 the noble Persian family of Barmecides began to supply\n_wazirs_, and these controlled the policy of the Khalifate until\n189. From the time of al-Mansur (A.H. 136-158) onwards the Persians\nbegan to assert their pre-eminence and a party was formed known as\nthe _Shu`ubiyya_ or \u201canti-Arab party\u201d of those who held, not only\nthat the alien converts were equal to the Arabs, but that the Arabs\nwere a half savage and inferior race in all respects, contrasting\nunfavourably with the Persians, Syrians, and Copts. This party produced\nconsiderable mass of controversial literature in which free course was\ngiven to the general dislike felt towards the Arabs and which reveals\nthe intensity of the contempt and hatred felt towards these parvenus.\nThe Arabs had boasted of their racial descent and had devoted much\nattention to the keeping of their genealogies, at least in the century\nimmediately preceding the rise of Islam; as they had then only just\ncommenced to count descent in the father\u2019s line these genealogies were\npurely fictitious in so far as they dealt with pre-Islamic ancestors.\nThe Arabs were in fact a parvenu people only just emerging out of\nbarbarism (cf. Lammens: _Le berceau de l\u2019islam._ p. 117). But the\nPersians, no less careful about genealogical records, to which their\ncaste system had caused them to pay considerable attention, boasted\nauthentic genealogies of much greater antiquity. In literature, in\nscience, in Muslim canon law, in theology, and even in the scientific\ntreatment of Arabic grammar, the Persians very rapidly surpassed the\nArabs, so that we must be careful always to refer to Arabic philosophy,\nArabic science, etc., in the history of Muslim culture, rather than\nto Arab philosophy, etc., remembering that, though expressed in the\nArabic language, the common medium of all the Muslim world, only in a\nvery few cases was it the work of Arabs: for the most part the Arabic\nphilosophers and scientists, historians, grammarians, theologians,\nand jurists were Persians, Turks, or Berbers by birth, though using\nthe Arabic language. The fall of the `Umayyads and the replacing\nof the Arabs by the Persians commences the golden age of Arabic\nliterature and scholarship. The older Arabic literature, that namely\nwhich was written by Arabs as yet untouched by external influences,\nconsists entirely of poetry, the work of professional bards who sing\nof desert life and warfare, lament over the deserted camping grounds,\nboast of their tribe, and abuse their enemies. It forms a distinct\nclass of poetic composition, which has developed its own literary\nstandards, and attained a high standard of excellence in its way. In\nmany respects this older Arab poetry makes a special appeal to us,\nit shows an observation of nature which is very striking, it has an\nundercurrent of melancholy which seems an echo of the desert, and an\nemotional side which seems convincing in its reality. At the same time\nit has very distinct limitations in its range of interest and subject\nmatter. Undoubtedly a careful study of this early Arab poetry is a\nnecessary preparation for a proper appreciation of the literary forms\nof Arabic and of its oldest vocabulary and syntax, and of recent years\nmuch attention has been given to it. But this older Arabic poetry,\napparently a native production, but possibly influenced in pre-Islamic\ntimes by some external contacts as yet undefined, comes to an end soon\nafter the fall of the `Umayyads, save in Spain, where, under the exiled\nand fugitive remnant of the `Umayyad dynasty, the production of such\npoetry survived. But this type of poetry is really outside our present\nenquiry, save to note that it was a Persian scholar, Hammad b. Sabur\nar-Rawiya (d. circ. 156-159) who collected and edited the seven ancient\nArabic poems known as the _Mu`allaqat_ or \u201csuspended,\u201d i.e., the catena\nor series, and thus set what may be called the classical standard of\nthe ancient poetry and vocabulary. At the accession of the Abbasids the\nold Arab type passes away and the intellectual guidance of the Muslim\ncommunity passes into the hands of the Persians.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE TRANSLATORS\n\n\nOne of the first and most significant indications of the new\norientation of Muslim thought was the extensive production of Arabic\ntranslations of works dealing with philosophical and scientific\nsubjects, with the result that eighty years after the fall of the\n`Umayyads the Arabic speaking world possessed Arabic translations of\nthe greater part of the works of Aristotle, of the leading neo-Platonic\ncommentators, of some of the works of Plato, of the greater part\nof the works of Galen, and portions of other medical writers and\ntheir commentators, as well as of other Greek scientific works and\nof various Indian and Persian writings. This period of activity in\ntranslating falls into two stages, the first from the accession of the\nAbbasids to the accession of al-Ma\u00b4mun (A.H. 132-198), when a large\namount of work was done by various independent translators, largely\nChristians, Jews, and recent converts from non-Islamic religions; the\nsecond under al-Ma\u00b4mun and his immediate successors, when the work of\ntranslation mainly centered in the academy newly founded at Baghdad,\nand a consistent effort was made to render the material necessary for\nphilosophical and scientific research available for the Arabic speaking\nstudent.\n\nThe earlier translation work is especially associated with _`Abdullah\nb. al-Muqaffa`_, a native of Fars and originally a Zoroastrian, who\nmade his profession of faith before a brother of Muhammad b. `Ali,\nthe father of as-Saffah, and became his secretary. Presuming on his\nemployer\u2019s protection he ventured to make derisive and impertinent\nremarks to Arab dignitaries and especially to Sufyan, the governor of\nBasra, whom he used to salute with a lewd jest against his mother\u2019s\nchastity. It seems that men of Arab birth who held political office\nunder the early `Abbasids often had to put up with such insults from\nthe ex-serfs. After an unsuccessful attempt at revolt by another of the\nKhalif\u2019s uncles Ibn al-Muqaffa` was directed to prepare a draft letter\nof pardon to be presented to the Khalif al-Mansur, who succeeded his\nbrother as-Saffah, for his official seal, but he drew up the letter\nin such terms as to arouse the Khalif\u2019s indignation; amongst other\nthings the letter said, \u201cif at any time the Commander of the Faithful\nact perfidiously towards his uncle `Abdullah b. `Ali, his wives shall\nbe divorced from him, his horses shall be confiscated for the service\nof God (in war), his slaves shall become free, and the Muslims loosed\nfrom their allegiance to him.\u201d The Khalif enquired who had prepared\nthis letter and on being informed directed Sufyan to put him to death.\nPleased thus to gratify his personal rancour the governor of Basra\nexecuted Ibn al-Muqaffa` with great cruelty, though the details differ\nin different accounts, in A.H. 142 or 143.\n\nAlthough conforming to Islam, Ibn al-Muqaffa` was generally regarded\nas a _Zindiq_, a term properly signifying a Manich\u00e6an but used loosely\nby the Arabic writers to denote a member of one of the Persian\nreligions who professed outward conformity to Islam, but secretly\nadhered to his own creed, or as a term of abuse to denote a heretic\nof any sort. The word itself is a Persian rendering of _siddiq_ or\n\u201cinitiate,\u201d a title assumed by full members of the Manich\u00e6an sect.\nIt implies the possession of esoteric knowledge and from this idea\nrose the practice common amongst the Shi`ite sects of concealing\ntheir real beliefs from general profession and assuming the external\nappearance of orthodoxy. Masudi (viii. 293) states that \u201cmany heresies\narose after the publication of the works of Mani, Ibn Daysan, and\nMarcion translated from Persian and Pahlawi into Arabic by `Abdullah\nb. al-Muqaffa` and others.\u201d Under al-Mansur and by his orders,\ntranslations were made from Greek, Syriac, and Persian, the Syriac and\nPersian books being themselves translations from Greek or Sanskrit. The\nbest known work of Ibn Muqaffa, was the translation of the _Kalila\nwa-Dimna_ or \u201cFables of Bidpai\u201d from the Old Persian which was itself\na translation from the Sanskrit. Ibn al-Muqaffa\u2019s translation into\nArabic is generally regarded as a standard model of Arabic prose.\nThe Persian original is lost, but a version in Syriac made from it\nby the Nestorian missionary Budh, about A.D. 570, is extant and has\nbeen published (ed. Bickell and Benfey. 1876); the Sanskrit original\nalso is lost in what was presumably its earlier form, but we find\nits material in a much expanded form in two Sanskrit books, (i) in\nthe _Panchatantra_, which contains the stories which appear as 5, 7,\n8, 9, 10, 17, of de Sacy\u2019s Arabic text, and (ii) the _Mahabharata_,\nwhich contains chapters 11, 12, 13. Evidently the old Syriac of Budh,\na translation of the Persian translation of the original, is the best\nrepresentative of the older form of the text. The Arabic version of\nIbn al-Muqaffa` shows a number of interpolations and additions which\nall, of course, appear in the derived versions, in the later Syriac,\nthe several medi\u00e6val Persian translations which are made from the\nArabic and not from the old Persian, and in the numerous Latin, Hebrew,\nSpanish, Persian, and Greek versions. It was this Arabic translation\nwhich gave to the book a wider circulation than possessed before or\nthan it could ever have had, and introduced it to the western world.\nThe case was exactly parallel with Aristotle and similar material:\nArabic became a medium of extremely wide transmission and the additions\nmade as material passed through Arabic received a wide circulation also.\n\nIbn Muqaffa` lived in the reign of al-Mansur and during that same\nperiod we are told (Masudi. viii. 291-2) that Arabic versions were made\nof several treatises of Aristotle, of the _Almagesta_ of Ptolemy, of\nthe book of Euclid, and other material from the Greek. About 156 A.H.\nan Indian traveller brought to Baghdad a treatise on arithmetic and\nanother on astronomy: the astronomical treatise was the _Siddhanta_\nwhich came to be known to the Arabic writers as the _Sindhind_, it\nwas translated by Ibrahim al-Fazari and opened up a new interest in\nastronomical studies: some little time afterwards Muhammad b. Musa\nal-Kharizmi combined the Greek and Indian systems of astronomy, and\nfrom this time forth the subject takes a prominent place in Arabic\nstudies. The great Arabic astronomers belong to a later generation,\nsuch as Abu Ma`shar of Baghdad, the pupil of al-Kindi, who died in A.H.\n272 (= A.D. 885), known to the Latin medi\u00e6val writers as \u201cAbumazar,\u201d\nand Muhammad b. Jabir b. Sinan al-Battani (d. 317 A.H. = A.D. 929) who\nwas known as \u201cAlbategnius.\u201d The Indian work on arithmetic was even more\nimportant as by its means the Indian numerals were introduced, to be\npassed on in due course as \u201cArabic\u201d numerals, and this decimal system\nof numbering has made possible an extension of arithmetical processes\nand indeed of mathematics generally which would have been difficult\nwith any of the older and more cumbersome systems.\n\nAl-Mansur, after founding Baghdad in A.H. 148 (= A.D. 765) summoned a\nNestorian physician, George Boktishu`, from the school at Junde-Shapur\nand established him a court physician, and from this time there was a\nseries of Nestorian physicians connected with the court and forming a\nmedical school at Baghdad. George fell ill in Baghdad and was allowed\nto retire to Junde-Shapur, his place being taken by his pupil Issa b.\nThakerbokht, who was the author of a book on therapeutics. Later came\nBokhtishu` son of George who was physician to Harunu r-Rashid in 171\n(= A.D. 787), and then Gabriel, another son of George, who was sent to\nattend Ja`far the Barmecide in 175 and stood high in Harun\u2019s favour:\nhe wrote an introduction to logic, a letter to al-Ma\u00b4mun on foods and\ndrinks, a manual of medicine based on Dioscorus, Galen, and Paul of\nAegina, medical pandects, a treatise on perfumes, and other works. In\nmedicine, as will be remembered, the Indian system had been introduced\nat Junde-Shapur and combined with the Greek, but the latter clearly\npredominated. Another important settler in Baghdad was the Jewish\nSyrian physician John bar Maserjoye, who translated the _Syntagma_ of\nAaron into Syriac and presided over the medical school gathered in the\nMuslim capital. For a long time the Arabic work in medicine was limited\nto translation of the great Greek authorities and practice on the lines\nlearned in Alexandria. We have already referred to the unfortunate\ninfluence derived from the Egyptian school which diverted both medicine\nand chemistry into semi-magical lines, an evil tendency from which the\nArabic school never quite freed itself. A considerable time elapsed\nbefore the Arabic speaking community produced any original writers on\nmedicine. About the end of the third century we find Abu l-Abbas Ahmad\nb. Thayib as-Sarakhsi, a pupil of al-Kindi, who is stated to have\nwritten a treatise on the soul, an abridgment of Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_,\nand an introductory manual of medicine (Masudi. ii. 72). At that time\nmedical studies were still very largely in Christian and Jewish hands,\nand we find the Syriac physician John ben Serapion (end of 9th cent.\nA.D.) writing in Syriac medical pandects which were circulated in two\neditions, the latter of which was translated into Arabic by several\nwriters independently and long afterwards into Latin by Gerard of\nCremona.\n\nThe father of Arabic medicine proper was Abu Bakr Muhammad b.\nZakariyya ar-Razi (d. A.H. 311-320 = A.D. 923-932) who was known to\nLatin medi\u00e6val writers as \u201cRazes,\u201d a student of music, philosophy,\nliterature, and finally medicine. In his medical pandects he uses both\nGreek and Indian authorities, and the introduction of these latter\nin subordination to the classic authorities used at Alexandria was\nthe really important contribution made by the Arabic students to the\nprogress of science. Unfortunately ar-Razi\u2019s work suffered from the\ndefect that it greatly lacks order and arrangement, it is a collection\nof more or less separate treatises, and so not at all convenient to\nuse. For this reason more perhaps than any other he was replaced by\nIbn Sina (Avicenna) whose work, if anything, errs in the opposite\ndirection and suffers from an extremely elaborate arrangement and\nsystematization. It will be noticed that with the Arabic writers,\nas with their Syriac predecessors, the leading medical writers were\nusually also exponents of logic and commentators on Aristotle as well\nas Galen.\n\nThe Khalif al-Mansur was the patron who did most to attract the\nNestorian physicians to the city of Baghdad which he had founded, and\nhe was also a prince who did much to encourage those who set themselves\nto prepare Arabic translations of Greek, Syriac, and Persian works.\nStill more important was the patronage given by the Khalif al-Ma\u00b4mun\nwho in A.H. 217 (= A.D. 832) founded a school at Baghdad, suggested\nno doubt by the Nestorians and Zoroastrian schools already existing,\nand this he called the _Bayt al-Hikma_ or \u201cHouse of Wisdom,\u201d and this\nhe placed under the guidance of Yahya b. Masawaih (d. A.H. 243 = A.D.\n857), who was an author both in Syriac and Arabic, and learned also in\nthe use of Greek. His medical treatise on \u201cFevers\u201d was long in repute\nand was afterwards translated into Latin and into Hebrew.\n\nThe most important work of the academy however was done by Yahya\u2019s\npupils and successors, especially _Abu Zayd Hunayn b. Ishaq al-Ibadi_\n(d. 263 A.H. = A.D. 876), the Nestorian physician to whom we have\nalready referred as translating into Syriac the chief medical\nauthorities as well as parts of Aristotle\u2019s Organon. After studying at\nBaghdad under Yahya he visited Alexandria and returned, not only with\nthe training given at what was then the first medical school, but with\na good knowledge of Greek which he employed in making translations\nin Syriac and Arabic. With him were associated his son Ishaq and his\nnephew Hubaysh. Hunayn prepared Arabic translations of Euclid; of\nvarious portions of Galen, Hippocrates, Archimedes, Apollonius, and\nothers, as well as of the Republic, Laws, and Tim\u00e6us of Plato, the\nCategories, Physics, and Magna Moralia of Aristotle, and the commentary\nof Themistius on book 30 of the Metaphysics, as well as an Arabic\ntranslation of the Bible. He also translated the spurious Mineralogy\nof Aristotle, which long served as one of the leading authorities on\nchemistry, and the medical pandects of Paul of Aegina. His son, besides\noriginal works on medicine, produced Arabic versions of the Sophist of\nPlato, the Metaphysics, _de anima_, _de generatione et de corruptione_,\nand the Hermeneutica of Aristotle which Hunayn had translated into\nSyriac, as well as some of the commentaries of Porphyry, Alexander of\nAphrodisias, and Ammonius. A little later we find the Syrian Christian\nQuesta b. Luqa, a native of Ba`albek, who had studied in Greece,\nprominent as a translator.\n\nThe fourth century A.H. was the golden period of the Arabic\ntranslators, and it is worth noting that, although the work was done\nchiefly by Syriac speaking Christians, and inspired by Syriac tradition\na very large number of the translations were made directly from the\nGreek, by men who had studied the language in Alexandria or Greece;\nvery often the same scholar made Syriac and Arabic translations from\nthe Greek text. There were also translators from the Syriac, but\nthese usually come after the translators from the Greek. Amongst the\nNestorian translators from Syriac was _Abu Bishr Matta b. Yunus_ (d.\n328 A.H. = A.D. 939), who rendered into Arabic the Analytica Posteriora\nand the poetics of Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019 commentary on\nthe _de generatione et de corruptione_, and Themistius\u2019 commentary on\nbook 30 of the Metaphysics, all from the existing Syriac versions. He\nwas also the author of original commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Categories\nand the Isagoge of Porphyry.\n\nThe Jacobite translators come on the scene after the Nestorians.\nAmongst the Jacobites translating from Syriac to Arabic we find _Yahya\nb. Adi_ of Takrit (d. 364), a pupil of Hunayn, who revised many of the\nexisting versions and prepared translations of Aristotle\u2019s Categories,\nSophist. Elench., Poetics, and Metaphysics, Plato\u2019s Laws and Tim\u00e6us,\nas well as Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019 commentary on the Categories and\nTheophrastus on the Moralia. The Jacobite _Abu `Ali Isa b. Zaraah_\n(d. 398) translated the Categories, the Natural History, and the _de\npartibus animalium_, with the commentary of John Philoponus.\n\nThis is a convenient place to summarize briefly the range of\nAristotelian material available to Arabic students of philosophy. The\nwhole of the logical Organon was accessible in Arabic, and in this were\nincluded the Rhetoric and Poetics, as well as Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_.\nOf the works on natural science they had the _Physica_, _de coelo_,\n_de generatione et corruptione_, _de sensu_, the _Historia animalium_,\nthe spurious _Meteorologia_, and the _de anima_. On mental and moral\nscience they had the _Metaphysics_, the _Nicomach\u00e6an Ethics_ and the\n_Magna Moralia_. Strangely enough the _Politics_ was not included in\nthe Aristotelian canon, its place being taken by Plato\u2019s _Laws_ or\n_Republic_. Besides these the Arabic students accepted as Aristotelian\na _Mineralogy_, of which we have no knowledge, and a _Mechanics_.\n\nOf these the logical Organon always remained the basis of a humane\neducation, side by side with the indigenous study of grammar, and this\nessentially logical basis of education seems to have been influenced\nby the example of the existing system developed amongst the Syrians,\nalthough it must be remembered a similar system was developed quite\nindependently in Latin scholasticism prior to the earliest contact\nwith the Arabic writers. The Aristotelian logic has always remained\nan orthodox and generally accepted science. The philosophical and\ntheological controversies and the developments produced by the Arabic\nphilosophers centred mainly in questions of metaphysics and psychology,\nand so were particularly concerned with the 12th book of _Metaphysics_\nand the treatise _de anima_, more especially the 3rd book. As we have\nalready noted the psychology of Aristotle was interpreted in the light\nof Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019 commentary, and thus received a theistic\nand supernatural colouring which receives its fuller development in\nneo-Platonic teaching.\n\nMost important in the fuller development of this neo-Platonic doctrine\nwas the so-called _Theology of Aristotle_ which appeared in Arabic\nabout 226 A.H. It was in fact an abridged paraphrase of the last\nthree books (iv-vi) of the _Enneads_ of Plotinus made by Naymah of\nEmessa, boldly circulated and generally received as a genuine work of\nAristotle. It might be regarded as a literary fraud, but it is quite\npossible that Plotinus was confused with Plato whose name appears in\nArabic as _`Aflatun_, it seems indeed that this particular confusion\nwas made by some other writers, and the translators accepted the\ncurrent belief, maintained by all the neo-Platonic commentators, that\nthe teaching of Aristotle and that of Plato were substantially the\nsame, the superficial appearances of difference being such as could be\neasily explained away. By means of this _Theology_ the fully developed\ndoctrine of the neo-Platonists was put into general circulation and\ncombined with the teaching of Alexander of Aphrodisias and thus\nexercised an enormous influence on the philosophy of Islam in several\ndirections. In the hands of the philosophers properly so called it\ndeveloped an Islamic neo-Platonism which received its final form at the\nhands of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and in this form\nexercised a powerful influence over Latin scholasticism. Transmitted\nin another atmosphere it affected Sufism or Muslim mysticism, and was\nmainly responsible for the speculative theology which that mysticism\ndeveloped. In a modified form some of the resultant principles gathered\nfrom these two sources finally entered into orthodox Muslim scholastic\ntheology.\n\nThe main points of this neo-Platonic doctrine as it figures in Muslim\ntheology present the teaching of the active intellect of _`aql fa``al_,\nthe Agent Intellect of Alexander Aph. as an emanation from God, and the\n_`aql hayyulani_ or passive intellect in man only aroused to activity\nby the operation of this Agent Intellect, which is substantially the\ndoctrine of Alexander Aph.: the aim of man is to attain a union or\n_ittisal_ in which his intellect becomes one with the Agent Intellect,\nalthough the means of attaining this union and the nature of the union\ndiffer in the doctrines of the philosophers and the mystics, as we\nshall see in due course.\n\nNext to philosophy proper medical science is the most important\nheritage received by the Arabic world from Hellenism. But this\nscience derived through an Alexandrian medium had a serious defect\nin the accretions which the later Egyptian school had added to the\npure teaching of Galen and Hippocrates. As we have already noted\nthis accretion is of a quasi magical character and shows itself in\ntalismans, etc., and theories which are based on ideas which are now\nclassed as \u201csympathetic magic.\u201d\n\nThe real impetus came ultimately from transmitted Hellenism,\nbut this influence was derived immediately from the Nestorians in\nphilosophy proper, and from the Nestorians and the Zoroastrian school\nat Junde-Shapur in medicine. A good deal later comes the influence of\nthe pagan school at Harran, which also had a neo-Platonic tendency.\nWhen the second Abbasid Khalif al-Mansur passed by Harran on his way\nto fight against the Byzantine Emperor he was astonished to observe\nthe strange appearance of some of the citizens who came out to meet\nhim, wearing their hair long and having close fitting tunics. When the\nKhalif asked whether they were Christians, Jews, or Zoroastrians, they\nreplied that they were neither. He then enquired if they were \u201cpeople\nof a book,\u201d for it was only those who possessed written scriptures\nwho could be tolerated in Muslim dominions; but to this they returned\nsuch hesitating and ambiguous replies that the Khalif at length felt\nconvinced that he had discovered a colony of pagans, as was the case,\nand he ordered them to adopt some one or other of the \u201creligions of\nthe book\u201d before his return from the war, or to suffer the penalty of\ndeath. At this they were greatly alarmed: some of them became Muslims,\nothers Christians or Zoroastrians, but some declined to desert their\ntraditional beliefs. These latter naturally had the most anxious time,\nwondering how they could contrive to evade the Khalif\u2019s demands. At\nlength a Muslim lawyer offered to show them a way out of the difficulty\nif they paid him a substantial fee for doing so. The fee was paid and\nhe advised them to claim to be Sabians, because Sabians are mentioned\nin the Qur\u00b4an as belonging to a religion \u201cof the book,\u201d but no one\nknew who the Sabians were. There is a sect known as _Sabiyun_ or\n_Sabaean_, whose religion is a strange mixture of ancient Babylonian\nstate worship, Christian Gnosticism, and Zoroastrianism, living in the\nmashe lands near Basra, but they had always been careful to keep their\nreligious beliefs secret from all outsiders, and although they were no\ndoubt the sect mentioned in the Qur\u00b4an under the name of _Sabiyun_ or\n_Sabians_, none could prove that the pagans of Harran were not also\ncomprised under this term. The Khalif never did pass back by Harran,\nthe pagans who had assumed the name of Sabian continued to use it,\nthose who had become Christians or Zoroastrians reverted to their old\nfaith and submitted to its new name; those who had become Muslims were\nobliged to remain so as the penalty of death lay upon any who became\nrenegades from that religion.\n\nThe most distinguished of the _alumni_ of Harran was Thabit b. Qurra\n(d. 289 A.H.), a scholar familiar with Greek, Syriac, and Arabic, who\nproduced many works on logic, mathematics, astrology, and medicine, as\nwell as on the ritual and beliefs of the paganism to which he remained\nfaithful. Following in his footsteps were his son Abu Sa`id Sinan, his\ngrandsons Ibrahim and Abu l-Hasan Thabit, and his great grandsons Ishaq\nand Abu l-Faraj. All these specialized in mathematics and astronomy.\n\nIt seems that we ought to associate with Harran _Jabir b. Hayyan_\na perfectly historical character but of somewhat uncertain date, but\nbelieved to have been a pupil of the `Umayyad prince Khalid, who\ndistinguished himself by his researches in chemistry. Many chemical\ntreatises bear the name of Jabir and a great proportion of these are\nprobably quite authentic. M. Berthelot in the 3rd volume of his _La\nchimie au moyen age_ (Paris, 1893) has made a careful analysis of the\nArabic chemists and regards the whole material capable of division\ninto two classes, the one a reproduction of the investigations of\nthe Greek chemists of Alexandria, the other as representing original\ninvestigations, though based upon the Alexandrian studies in the\nfirst place, and all this original material he regards as due to the\ninitiative of Jabir who thus becomes in chemistry very much what\nAristotle was in logic. Berthelot publishes in this book six treatises\nclaiming to be by Jabir, and these he regards as representative of\nall Arabic chemical material, the later investigators continuing in\nthe lines laid down by this first investigator. For a long time the\nmain object in view was the transmutation of metals, but at a later\nperiod chemistry enters into closer connection with medical work though\nnever losing the metallurgical character which we imply when we speak\nof \u201calchemy.\u201d The object in view of the Arabic students of alchemy\ndoes not appeal to the modern scientist, although the possibility of\ntransmuting elements is no longer regarded as the impossible dream\nwhich it appeared to the chemists of the nineteenth century: and, at\nthe same time, it is perfectly clear that with admitted limitations,\nthe Arabic chemists were bona fide investigators, though not\nunderstanding correctly the results of the experiments they made.\n\nAll the texts published by M. Berthelot begin with the warning that the\ncontents are to be kept strictly secret, and often contain a statement\nthat some essential process is omitted in order that the unenlightened\nstudent may not be able to perform the experiments successfully, lest\nthe wholesale production of gold should be a means of corrupting the\nwhole human race. Undoubtedly the Arabic chemists did claim to have\nattained a knowledge of the means of transmuting the baser metals into\ngold but the histories contain various references which show that these\nclaims were adversely criticised by many contemporary thinkers, and\nthat a great many of the Arabic writers regarded chemistry, as it was\nthen understood, as a mere imposture. More than once it was noted that\nthe philosopher al-Farabi, who fully believed that it was possible to\nchange other metals into gold and wrote a treatise on how it might be\ndone, himself lived and died in great poverty, whilst Ibn Sina, who did\nnot believe in alchemy, enjoyed modest comfort and could have commanded\nwealth had he been willing to accept it.\n\nIn the course of the middle ages various treatises by Jabir were\ntranslated into Latin, where his name appears as Geber, and exercised a\nconsiderable influence in producing a western school of alchemy. Before\nlong many original alchemical works were produced in Western Europe and\na considerable proportion of these were published under the name of\nGeber but are pure forgeries. As a result the personality of Geber took\na semi mythical character and attempts have been made to account for\nthe diverse and contradictory statements about his life and death, and\nabout the country and century in which he lived by supposing that there\nwere several persons who bore the name; but the fact seems to be that\nhe early attained a position of great prominence as a chemical writer,\nand that later ages fathered on him a number of apocryphal productions.\nBerthelot considers that the best evidence associates him with Harran\nin the early part of the second century of the Hijra.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE MU`TAZILITES\n\n\nWhen the Aristotelian philosophy was first made known to the Muslim\nworld it was received almost as a revelation supplementing the Qur\u00b4an.\nAt that time it was very imperfectly understood and the discrepancies\nbetween it and orthodox theology were not perceived. Thus the Qur\u00b4an\nand Aristotle were read together and regarded as supplementing one\nanother in perfect good faith, but inevitably the conclusions, and\nstill more perhaps the methods, of Greek philosophy began to act as a\npowerful solvent on the traditional beliefs.\n\nMaqrizi refers to the Mu`tazilites as seizing with avidity on the\nbooks of the philosophers, and certainly now new difficulties begin to\nappear as well as the two great problems which had been prominent at\nthe beginning of the second century--the eternity of the Qur\u00b4an and the\nquestion of free will. The new difficulties were especially concerned\nwith the qualities of God and, later, with the Qur\u00b4anic promise of the\nbeatific vision. The problem of the qualities of God is very closely\nparallel to the earlier difficulty as to the eternity of the Qur\u00b4an,\nindeed it appears as an enlargement of it. Christian theologians\neducated in the methods of Greek philosophy had already debated this\nmatter, and in their hands it had taken the form of the question, \u201chow\nmany, and what, attributes are compatible with the unity of God?\u201d If\nGod\u2019s wisdom, whether expressed in the Qur\u00b4an or not expressed, were\neternal there was something which God possessed, and consequently\nsomething other than God which was equal to him in eternity and was not\ncreated by him, so that it could not be said that God was alone and\nthat all other things proceeded from him as their cause as the eternal\nquality always was side by side with God, and so Wasil b. `Ata declared\n\u201che who affirms an eternal quality beside God, affirms two gods.\u201d But\nthis applies equally to all qualities, justice, mercy, etc., and, as\nwas suggested by the study of Aristotle, all the categories, all that\ncould be predicated of God as subject, were either created by God and\nso were not essential and eternal attributes, or else were external\nthings equal with God.\n\nThe second generation of Mu`tazilites, of those who begin to show\ndirect acquaintance with Greek philosophy, begins with _Abu l-Hudayl\nal-Allaf_ of Basra (d. 226 A.H.), who lived at the time when Greek\nphilosophy was beginning to be studied with great ardour and was\nreceived without question. He admits the attributes of God and regards\nthem as eternal, but treats them on lines very similar to those\nemployed by the Christians in dealing with the divine hypostases, that\nis to say, they are not external things possessed by God but modes or\nphases of the divine essence. The will of God for example, he treats\nas a mode of knowledge, that is to say that God wills what is good\nis equivalent to saying that God knows it to be good. But in dealing\nwith the will we must distinguish between (a) that which exists in\nplace, as the moral rules in God\u2019s commandments to men, for there\ncould be no will against theft until the creation of things which\ncould be stolen; in such case the will exists in time and is created,\nfor it depends upon a created thing: and (b) that which exists not\nin place and without an object to which the will refers, as when God\nwilled to create before the thing to be created existed. In man the\ninner volition is free, but the outer acts are not free; sometimes\nthey are controlled by external forces in the body, or even outside\nthe body, and sometimes they are controlled by the inner volition.\nAristotle speaks of the universe as existing from eternity, but the\nQur\u00b4an refers to its creation, yet these are not inconsistent: we\nmust suppose that it existed eternally, but in perfect quiescence and\nstillness, as it were latent and potential rather than actual, and\nwithout those qualities which appear in the categories of logic and\nare to us the only known terms of existence. Creation meant that God\nbrought in movement so that things began to exist in time and space,\nand the universe comes to an end when it returns again to the state of\nabsolute rest in which it was at the beginning. Men can distinguish\nbetween good and evil by the light of reason, for good and evil have\nobjective characters which can be recognised so that our knowledge of\nthis difference does not depend only on God\u2019s revelation: but no man\ncan know anything about God but by the medium of revelation which is\ngiven principally for this purpose.\n\n_Ibrahim b. Sayar an-Nazzam_ (d. 231), the next great Mu`tazilite\nleader was a devoted student of the Greek philosophers and an\nencyclop\u00e6dic writer. In this he was typical of the earlier Arabic\nphilosophers whose endeavour was to apply Greek science to the\ninterpretation of life and nature generally, an aim which necessarily\ntended to produce encyclop\u00e6dic compilations rather than original\nstudies in any one field of knowledge. Already the Mu`tazilites had\nreached the position that good and evil represent objective realities\nand that God, knowing the good, does not will that which is contrary\nto it; but an-Nazzam presses this further and asserts that God can do\nnothing in the creature save what is for its good and is in itself\njust. To this the objection was raised that in such case God\u2019s own\nacts are determined and are not free. An-Nazzam replied that he\nadmitted this determination, not in action but in potentiality as God\nis restricted by his own nature. He attempted to reproduce the ancient\ndoctrine that the soul is the form of the body, as had already been\nasserted by Aristotle, but he misunderstood the terminology employed\nand represents the soul as of the same shape as the body. This implies\nthat the soul is a very subtile kind of substance permeating the whole\nbody in the same way as butter permeates milk, or as oil permeates\nthe sesame: both soul and body are equal in size and alike in shape.\nFreedom of the will is peculiar to God and man, all other created\nthings are subject to necessity. God created all things at once in\nremote eternity, but reserved them in a state of quiescence so that\nthey may be described as \u201cconcealed,\u201d and then projected them into\nactive existence at successive intervals.\n\nThe next great Mu`tazilite leader was _Bishr b. Mu`tamir_ (d. 226\ncirc.) in whose work we find a more definite attempt to apply\nphilosophical speculation to the practical needs of Islam. In the case\nof free will he enters directly into the question of how far external\ninfluences limit freedom of the will and so diminish responsibility.\nInfants cannot be condemned to eternal punishment because they have no\nresponsibility, having never exercised free will. Unbelievers, however,\nare condemned to punishment because, although they have not the help\nof revelation, it is possible for them to know that there must be a\nGod, and only one God, by the light of reason. In dealing with actions\nand their moral values we have to consider not only one agent and one\nobject, but often a series, the act being transmitted from one to the\nother so that each of the intervening objects becomes the agent to the\nnext object. This serial connection he termed \u201cbegetting\u201d (_tawullud_).\n\n_Ma`mar b. Abbad as-Sulami_ (d. 220) describes God as creating\nsubstances but not accidents, so that he produced a kind of universal\nmatter common to all existing things and to this matter or essence the\naccidents are added, some produced by a force inherent in the essence\ncreated, others by free will on the part of the creature. Following the\nneo-Platonic commentators on Aristotle he treats the attributes of God\nas purely negative, so that God is unknowable by man. In the case of\nwisdom or knowledge, that which is known must either be identical with\nGod, or external to him: if God is the agent who knows and that which\nis known as object is also himself, there is a distinction between\nGod the agent and God the object which implies two persons, and this\nis subversive of the divine unity: but if God is the agent and knows\nsomething external to himself, that knowledge depends on the external\nobject, and God therefore is not absolute but in some sense dependent\non something other than himself. Hence the attributes of God cannot\nbe such as the positive qualities which exist in man, but only the\nnegation of those which are distinctively human and dependent: we can\nonly say that he is infinite, meaning unlimited in space, or eternal\nas unlimited in time, or other like terms negative of the known things\nwhich can be predicated of man. The general tendency of Ma`mar\u2019s\nteaching is distinctly pantheistic: partly this is due to the logical\ndevelopment of a tendency already inherent in the neo-Platonic doctrine\nwith which all Arabic thought was now becoming saturated, and partly it\nwas due to oriental influences which were now beginning to appear in\nIslam.\n\nMa\u00b4mar\u2019s pantheism was more fully developed by _Tumameh b. al-Ashras_\n(d. 213) who treats the world as indeed created by God, but created\naccording to a law of nature so that it is the expression of a force\nlatent in God and not due to an act of volition. Tumameh entirely\ndeserts al-Allaf\u2019s attempt to reconcile the Aristotelian doctrine of\nthe eternity of matter with the teaching of the Qur\u00b4an, and quite\nfrankly states that the universe is eternal like God. This is by\nno means the last word in Islamic pantheism, but its subsequent\ndevelopment rather belongs to the doctrines of the extremer Shi`ite\nsects and to Sufism.\n\nReverting to an-Nazzam, the great leader of the middle age of the\nMu`tazilites, we find his teaching continued by his pupils _Ahmad\nb. Habit_, _Fadl al-Hudabi_, and _`Amr b. Bahr al-Jahiz_. On the\ntheological side all the Mu`tazilites admitted the eternal salvation\nof good Muslims, and most agreed that unbelievers would receive\neternal punishment: but there were differences of view as to those\nwho were believers but died unrepentant in sin. For the most part the\nMu`tazilites took the lax view that these would be favourably treated\nas against the rigorist opinion which reserved eternal salvation to\ngood Muslims, an opinion which appeared amongst the stricter believers\nduring the `Umayyad period. The two first named of an-Nazzam\u2019s pupils,\nhowever, introduced a new theory entirely repugnant to orthodox Islam,\nthough familiar to the extremer Shi`ite sects, that those neither\ndecisively good nor absolutely bad, pass by transmigration into other\nbodies until they finally deserve either salvation or damnation. With\nthese two thinkers also we are brought into contact with another\nproblem which now began to present itself to Islam, the doctrine of the\n\u201cbeatific vision.\u201d Islam generally had expected the vision of God to be\nthe chief of the rewards enjoyed in paradise, but the treatment of the\nattributes of God had been so definitely against the anthropomorphic\nideas expressed in the Qur\u00b4an that it became difficult to explain\nwhat could be meant by \u201cseeing God.\u201d Ahmad and Fadl dealing with this\nsubject deny that men ever will or can see God; the beatific vision\ncan at most mean that they are brought face to face with the \u201cAgent\nIntellect\u201d which is an emanation from the First Cause, and \u201cseeing\u201d in\nsuch a connection must of course mean something quite different from\nwhat we understand as vision.\n\n_`Amr b. Bahr al-Jahiz_ (d. 255), the third of an-Nazzam\u2019s pupils\nmentioned above, may be regarded as the last of the middle period\nof the Mu`tazilites. He was an encyclop\u00e6dic writer according to\nthe fashion of the time and wrote on literature, theology, logic,\nphilosophy, geography, natural history, and other subjects (cf. Masudi\nviii. 33, etc.) To free will he gives rather a new bearing. The will\nhe regards as simply a manner of knowing and so as an accident of\nknowledge; a voluntary act he defines as one known to its agent. Those\nwho are condemned to the fire of hell do not suffer eternally by it,\nbut are changed by its purification. The term \u201cMuslim\u201d must be taken\nto include all who believe that God has neither form or body, since\nthe attribution of a human form to God is the essential mark of the\nidolater, that he is just and wills no evil, and that Muhammad is his\nprophet. Substance he treats as eternal, accidents are created and\nvariable.\n\nWe have now reached the third stage of the history of the Mu`tazilites,\nthat which marks their decline. During this latter period they divide\ninto two schools, that of Basra giving its attention mainly to the\nattributes of God, that of Baghdad being chiefly occupied with the more\npurely philosophical discussion of what is meant by an existing thing.\n\nThe Basrite discussions received their final form in the dispute\nbetween _al-Jubbay_ (d. 303) and his son _Abu Hashim_ (d. 321). The\nlatter held that the attributes of God are distinct _modes_ of being,\nwe know the essence under such varying modes or conditions, but they\nare not _states_, nor are they thinkable apart from the essence, though\nthey are distinct from it but do not exist apart from it. Against this\nhis father objected that these subjective attributes are only names\nand convey no concept. The attributes are thus asserted to be neither\nqualities nor states so as to imply subject or agent, but they are\ninseparably united with the essence.\n\nAgainst all views of this sort the orthodox adhered, and still adhere\nto the opinion that God has real qualities. Those who laid emphasis on\nthis in opposition to the Mu`tazilite speculations are commonly known\nas _Sifatites_ (_sifat_, qualities), but they admit that, as God is\nnot like a man, the qualities attributed to him in the Qur\u00b4an are not\nthe same as those qualities bearing the same names which are referred\nto men, and it is not possible for us to know the real import of the\nqualities attributed to God.\n\nA more pronounced recoil against the Mu`tazilite speculations appears\nin Abu `Abdullah b. Karram (d. 256) and his followers who were known\nas Karramites. These returned to a crude anthropomorphism and held\nthat God not only has qualities of precisely the same kind as a man\nmay have, but that he actually sits on a throne, etc., taking in plain\nliteral sense all the statements made in the Qur\u00b4an.\n\nThe Mu`tazilite school of Baghdad concerned itself mainly with the\nmetaphysical question--\u201cwhat is a thing?\u201d It was admitted that \u201cthing\u201d\ndenotes a concept which could be known and could serve as subject to a\npredicate. It does not necessarily exist, for existence is a quality\nadded to the essence: with this addition the essence becomes an entity\n(_mawjud_), without this addition it is a non-entity (_ma`dum_) but\nstill has substance and accident, so that God creates by adding the\nsingle attribute of existence.\n\nThe whole course of Mu`tazilite speculation shows the influence of\nGreek philosophy as applied to Muslim theology, but the influence is\nfor the most part indirect. The ideas of Aristotle, as the course of\nspeculation projected to the forefront the problems with which he had\ndealt in times past, were received through a Syriac Christian medium,\nfor the most part imperfectly understood and somewhat modified by the\nemphasis which Christian controversy had given to certain particular\naspects. More or less directly prompted by the Mu`tazilite controversy\nwe have three other lines of development: in the first place we have\nthe \u201cphilosophers\u201d as the name is used by the Arabic writers, meaning\nthose students and commentators who based their work directly on the\nGreek text or at least on the later and better versions. In their hands\nphilosophical enquiry took a somewhat changed direction as they began\nto understand better the real meaning of what Aristotle had taught.\nIn the second place we have the orthodox theology of al-Ash`ari,\nal-Ghazali, and others, which represents Muslim theological science as\nmodified and partly directed by Aristotelian philosophy, consciously\nendeavouring to make a working compromise between that philosophy and\nMuslim theology. The older Mu`tazilite tradition came to an end in the\ntime of al-Ash`ari: men who felt the force of philosophical questions\neither adopted the orthodox scholasticism of al-Ash`ari and those\nwho came after him, or followed the course of the philosophers and\ndrift away from the traditional beliefs of Islam altogether. In the\nthird place we have the Sufi movement, in which we find neo-Platonic\nelements mingled with others from the east, from India and Persia. The\nMu`tazilites proper come to an end with the fourth century A.H.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE EASTERN PHILOSOPHERS\n\n\nThe Aristotelian philosophy was first made known to the Muslim world\nthrough the medium of Syriac translations and commentaries, and the\nparticular commentaries used amongst the Syrians never ceased to\ncontrol the direction of Arabic thought. From the time of al-Ma\u00b4mun\nthe text of Aristotle began to be better known, as translations were\nmade directly from the Greek, and this resulted in a more accurate\nappreciation of his teaching, although still largely controlled by\nthe suggestions of the commentaries circulated amongst the Syrians.\nThe Arabic writers give the name of _failasuf_ (plur. _falasifa_), a\ntransliteration of the Greek [Greek: philosophos \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03cc\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2], to those\nwho based their study directly on the Greek text, either as translators\nor as students of philosophy, or as the pupils of those who used the\nGreek text. The word is used to denote a particular series of Arabic\nscholars who arose in the third century A.H. and came to an end in the\nseventh century, and who had their origin in the more accurate study\nof Aristotle based on an examination of the Greek text and the Greek\ncommentators whose work was circulated in Syria, and is employed as\nthough these _falasifa_ formed a particular sect or school of thought.\nOther philosophical students were termed _hakim_ or _nazir_.\n\nThe line of these _falasifa_ forms the most important group in the\nhistory of Islamic culture. It was they who were largely responsible\nfor awakening Aristotelian studies in Latin Christendom, and it was\nthey who developed the Aristotelian tradition which Islam had received\nfrom the Syriac community, correcting and revising its contents by a\ndirect study of the Greek text and working out their conclusions on\nlines indicated by the neo-Platonic commentators.\n\nThe first of the series is _Yaqub b. Ishaq al-Kindi_ (d. circ. 260\nA.H. = 873 A.D.), who began very much as a Mu`tazilite interested in\nthe theological problems discussed by the members of that school of\nthought, but desirous of testing and examining these more accurately,\nmade use of the translations taken directly from the Greek and then\nonly recently published. By this means he brought a much stricter\nmethod to bear, and thus opened the way to an Aristotelian scholarship\nmuch in advance of anything which had been contemplated so far.\nAs a result his pupils and those who came after them raised new\nquestions and ceased to confine themselves to Mu`tazilite problems,\nand al-Kindi was their intellectual ancestor in those new enquiries\nwhich his methods and his use of the Greek text alone made possible.\nIt is a strange fact that al-Kindi, the parent of Arabic philosophy,\nwas himself one of the very few leaders of Arabic thought who was a\ntrue Arab by race. For the most part the scientists and philosophers\nof the Muslim world were of Persian, Turkish, or Berber blood, but\nal-Kindi was descended from the Yemenite kings of Kinda (cf. genealogy\nquoted from the _Tarikh al-Hakama_ cited in note (22) of De Slane\u2019s\ntrans. of Ibn Khallikan, vol. i. p. 355). Very little is known about\nhis life, save that his father was governor of Kufa, that he himself\nstudied at Baghdad, under what teachers is not known, and stood high\nin favour with the Khalif Mu`tasim (A.H. 218-227). His real training\nand equipment lay in a knowledge of Greek, which he used in preparing\ntranslations of Aristotle\u2019s _Metaphysics_, Ptolemy\u2019s _Geography_, and a\nrevised edition of the Arabic version of Euclid. Besides this he made\nArabic abridgments of Aristotle\u2019s _Poetica_ and _Hermeneutica_, and\nPorphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_, and wrote commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s _Analytica\nPosteriora_, _Sophistica Elenchi_, the _Categories_, the apocryphal\n_Apology_; on Ptolemy\u2019s _Almagesta_ and Euclid\u2019s _Elements_, and\noriginal treatises, of which the essay \u201cOn the Intellect\u201d and another\n\u201cOn the five essences\u201d are the most noteworthy (Latin tr. by A. Nagy in\nBaeumker and Hertling\u2019s _Beitr\u00e4ge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des\nMA._ II. 5. M\u00fcnster, 1897).\n\nHe accepted as genuine the _Theology of Aristotle_ which had been put\ninto circulation by Naymah of Emessa, and, we are told, revised the\nArabic translation. The _Theology_ was an abridgment of the last three\nbooks of Plotinus\u2019 _Enneads_, and presumably al-Kindi compared this\nwith the text of the _Enneads_, corrected the terminology and general\nsense in accordance with the original, and evidently did so without any\nsuspicion that it was not a genuine work of Aristotle. The _Theology_\nhad not been long introduced to the Muslim world, and it is certain\nthat the use of it made by al-Kindi was a main cause of its subsequent\nimportance. Endorsed by him it not only took an assured place in\nthe Aristotelian canon, but became the very kernel of the teaching\ndeveloped by the whole series of _falasifa_, emphasizing the tendencies\nalready marked in the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias. The\ninfluence of the _Theology_ and of Alexander appear most clearly in\nthe treatise \u201cOn the Intellect\u201d which is based on the doctrine of the\nfaculties of the soul as described in Aristotle\u2019s _de anima_ II. ii.\nAl-Kindi, developing the doctrine as presented by the neo-Platonic\ncommentators, describes the faculties or degrees of intelligence in the\nsoul as four, of which three are actually and necessarily in the human\nsoul, but one enters from outside and is independent of the soul. Of\nthe three former one is latent or potential, as the knowledge of the\nart of writing is latent in the mind of one who has learned to write;\nthe second is active, as when the scribe evokes from the latent state\nthis knowledge of writing which he desires to put into practice; the\nthird is the degree of intelligence actually involved in the operation\nof writing, where the knowledge now quickened into activity guides and\ndirects the act. The external faculty is the \u201cAgent Intellect\u201d (_`aql\nfa``al_) which proceeds from God by way of emanation and which, though\nacting on the faculties in the body, is independent of the body, as its\nknowledge is not based upon perceptions obtained through the senses.\n\nIt is futile to maintain that the history of Arabic philosophy shows a\nlack of originality in the Semitic mind; for one thing not one of the\nphilosophers of first rank after al-Kindi was of Arab birth, very few\ncould be described as Semitic. It would be more correct to say that the\nGreek philosophers stood alone, until quite modern times, in attempting\nanything which could be described as a scientific psychology. Until\nthe methods and material of modern natural science came to be applied\nto psychological research there was little, if any, advance on the\npsychological theories of the ancient Greek investigators, and the only\npoint of difference in later schools was as to which particular aspect\nof ancient research would be selected as the starting-place. Here\nlies the great importance of al-Kindi, for it was he who selected and\nindicated the starting-point which all the later Arabic philosophers\nbegan from, and selected the material which they developed. The\nparticular basis thus selected by al-Kindi was the psychology of\nAristotle\u2019s _de Anima_ as expounded by Alexander of Aphrodisias. This\nwas suggested but not in all respects clearly indicated by the Syriac\nphilosophers, and it seems certain that al-Kindi\u2019s development was\nvery largely influenced by the _Theology of Aristotle_, a work which\nhe evidently esteemed very greatly. The relation between Alexander\nAphr. and Plotinus, whose teaching appeared in the _Theology_, may be\ndescribed as being that Alexander\u2019s teaching contained all the germs\nof neo-Platonism, whilst Plotinus shows the neo-Platonic system fully\nworked out. As first presented this system must have seemed fully\nconsistent with the teaching of the Qur\u00b4an, indeed it would appear as\ncomplementary to it. In man was an animal soul which he shared with\nthe lower creation, but added to it was a rational soul or spirit\nwhich proceeded directly from God and was immortal because it was not\ndependent on the body. The possible conclusions which proved to be\ninconsistent with the teachings of revelation were not as yet fully\nworked out.\n\nWe need not linger over al-Kindi\u2019s logical teaching which carried on\nand corrected Arabic study of the Aristotelian logic. This was not a\nmere side issue, it is true, although logic did not play so important\na part in Arabic education as it did in Syriac. In Syriac it was the\nbasis of all that we should regard as the humanities, but in Arabic\nthis position was taken by the study of grammar, which was developed\non rather fresh and independent lines, though slightly modified by the\nstudy of logic in later times. Still, so long as the Muslim world had\nany claim to be regarded as fostering philosophical studies, and to a\nless degree even in later times, the Aristotelian logic has been only\nsecond to grammar as the basis of a humane education. Al-Kindi\u2019s real\ninfluence is shown in the introduction of the problems of psychology\nand of metaphysics, and the work of the _falasifa_ centres in these two\nstudies on the lines indicated by al-Kindi.\n\nIn psychology, as we have seen, al-Kindi introduced a system already\nfully developed by Alexander and the neo-Platonic commentators on\nAristotle, kept alive amongst the Syriac students of philosophy,\nand then further developed from this point by his successors. In\nmetaphysics the circumstances were different. Al-Kindi apparently\nwas the one who introduced the problems of metaphysics to the Muslim\nworld, but it is obvious that he did not clearly understand Aristotle\u2019s\ntreatment of these problems. The problems involved in the ideas of\nmovement, time, and place are treated by Aristotle in books iv., v.\nand vii. of the _Physics_, which had been translated by al-Kindi\u2019s\ncontemporary, Hunayn. b. Ishaq, and in the _Metaphysics_, of which at\nthe time no Arabic translation existed, so that, so far as it was used,\nal-Kindi must have consulted the Greek text.\n\nThe essay \u201cOn the Five Essences\u201d treats the ideas of the five\nconditions of matter, form, movement, time, and place. Of these he\ndefines (a) matter as that which receives the other essences but cannot\nitself be received as an attribute, and so if the matter is taken away\nthe other four essences are necessarily removed also. (b) Form is of\ntwo kinds, that which is the essential of the genius, being inseparable\nfrom the matter, and that which serves to describe the thing itself,\ni.e., the ten Aristotelian categories--substance, quantity, quality,\nrelation, place, time, situation, condition, action, and passion;\nand this form is the faculty whereby a thing (_shay\u00b4_) is produced\nfrom formless matter, as fire is produced from the coincidence of\ndryness and heat, the matter being the dryness and heat, the form\nbeing the fire; without form the matter is abstract but real, becoming\na thing when it takes form. As De Vaux points out (_Avicenne_, p.\n85) this illustration shows that al-Kindi does not grasp Aristotle\u2019s\nmeaning correctly. (c) Movement is of six kinds: two are variations\nin substance, as either generation or corruption, i.e., production or\ndestruction; two are variations in quantity by increase or decrease;\none is variation in quality, and one is change of position. (d) Time is\nitself akin to movement, but proceeds always and only in one direction;\nit is not movement, though akin, for movement shows diversities of\ndirection. Time is known only in relation to a \u201cbefore\u201d or \u201cafter,\u201d\nlike movement in a straight line and at a uniform rate, and so can only\nbe expressed as a series of continuous numbers. (e) Place is by some\nsupposed to be a body, but this is refuted by Aristotle: it is rather\nthe surface which surrounds the body. When the body is taken away the\nplace does not cease to exist, for the vacant space is instantly filled\nby some other body, air, water, etc., which has the same surrounding\nsurface. Admittedly al-Kindi shows a crude treatment of these ideas,\nbut he was the first to direct Arabic thought in this direction, and\nfrom these arose a new attitude towards the revealed doctrine of\ncreation on the part of those who came after him.\n\nAl-Kindi, the \u201cPhilosopher of the Arabs,\u201d as he was called (circ.\n365), contains our best account of the various sects existing in Islam\ntowards the end of the 3rd century A.H. as he met them in the course of\nhis travels. It has been published as the second volume of De Goeje\u2019s\n_Bibliotheca Geographorum Arab_. (Leiden., 1873).\n\nThe next great philosopher was _Muhammad b. Muhammad b. Tarkhan Abu\nNasr al-Farabi_ (d. 339), of Turkish descent. He was \u201ca celebrated\nphilosopher, the greatest indeed that the Muslims ever had; he composed\na number of works on logic, music, and other sciences. No Musulman\never reached in the philosophical sciences the same rank as he, and\nit was by the study of his writings and the imitation of his style\nthat Avicenna attained proficiency and rendered his own works so\nuseful.\u201d (Ibn Khallikan, iii. 307). He was born at Farab or Otrar near\nBalasaghum, but travelled widely. In the course of his wanderings he\ncame to Baghdad but, as at the time he knew no Arabic, he was unable\nto enter into the intellectual life of the city. He set himself first\nto acquire a knowledge of the Arabic language, and then became a pupil\nof the Christian physician Matta b. Yunus, who was at that time a\nvery old man, and under him he studied logic. To increase his studies\nhe removed to Harran, where he met the Christian philosopher Yuhanna\nb. Khailan, and continued to work at logic under his direction. He\nthen returned to Baghdad, where he set to work at the Aristotelian\nphilosophy, in the course of his studies reading the _de anima_ 200\ntimes, the _Physics_ 40 times. His chief interest, however, was in\nlogic, and it is on his logical work that his fame chiefly rests. From\nBaghdad he went to Damascus, and thence to Egypt, but returned to\nDamascus, where he settled for the rest of his life. At that time the\nempire of the Khalifa of Baghdad was beginning to split up into many\nstates, just like the Roman Empire under the later Karlings, and the\nofficials of the Khalifate were forming semi-independent principalities\nunder the nominal suzerainty of the Khalif and establishing hereditary\ndynasties. The Hamdanids Shi`ites, who began to rule in Mosul in 293,\nestablished themselves at Aleppo in 333 and achieved great fame and\npower as successful leaders against the Byzantine emperors. In 334\n(= 946 A.D.) the Hamdanid Prince Sayf ad-Dawla took Damascus, and\nal-Farabi lived under his protection. At that period the orthodox were\ndistinctly reactionary, and it was the various Shi`ite rulers who\nshowed themselves the patrons of science and philosophy.\n\nAt Damascus al-Farabi led a secluded life. Most of his time he spent\nby the borders of one of the many streams which are so characteristic\na feature of Damascus, or in a shady garden, and here he met and\ntalked with his friends and pupils. He was accustomed to write his\ncompositions on loose leaves, \u201cfor which reason nearly all his\nproductions assume the form of detached chapters and notes; some\nof them exist only in fragments and unfinished. He was the most\nindifferent of men for the things of this world; he never gave himself\nthe least trouble to acquire a livelihood or possess a habitation. Sayf\nal-Dawla settled on him a daily pension of four dirhams out of the\npublic treasury, this moderate sum being the amount to which al-Farabi\nhad limited his demand.\u201d (Ibn Khallikan, iii. 309-310.)\n\nAl-Farabi was the author of a series of commentaries on the logical\nOrganon, which contained nine books according to the Arabic reckoning,\nnamely:\n\n  (i.)    The Isagoge of Porphyry.\n  (ii.)   The Categories or al-Maqulat.\n  (iii.)  The Hermeneutica or al-\u00b4Ibara or al-Tafsir.\n  (iv.)   The Analytica Priora or al-Qiyas I.\n  (v.)    The Analytica Posteriora or al-Burhan.\n  (vi.)   The Topica or al-Jadl.\n  (vii.)  The Sophistica Elenchi or al-Maghalit.\n  (viii.) The Rhetoric or al-Khataba.\n  (ix.)   The Poetics or ash-Shi`r.\n\nHe also wrote an \u201cIntroduction to Logic\u201d and an \u201cAbridgment of Logic\u201d;\nindeed, as we have already noted, his main work lay in the exposition\nof logic. He took some interest in political science and edited a\nsummary of the laws of Plato, which very often replaces the Politics\nin the Arabic Aristotelian canon. In Ethics he wrote a commentary on\nthe Nicomach\u00e6an Ethics of Aristotle, but ethical theory did not, as\na rule, appeal greatly to Arabic students. In natural science he was\nthe author of commentaries on the _Physics_, _Meteorology_, _de coelo_\net _de mundo_ of Aristotle, as well as of an essay \u201cOn the movement\nof the heavenly spheres.\u201d His work in psychology is represented by a\ncommentary on Alexander of Aphrodisias\u2019 commentary on the _De Anima_,\nand by treatises \u201cOn the soul,\u201d \u201cOn the power of the soul,\u201d \u201cOn the\nunity and the one,\u201d and \u201cOn the intelligence and the intelligible,\u201d\nsome of which afterwards circulated in medi\u00e6val Latin translations,\nwhich continued to be reprinted well into the 17th century (e.g., De\nintelligentia et de intelligibili. Paris, 1638). In metaphysics he\nwrote essays on \u201cSubstance,\u201d \u201cTime,\u201d \u201cSpace and Measure,\u201d and \u201cVacuum.\u201d\nIn mathematics he wrote a commentary on the _Almagesta_ of Ptolemy, and\na treatise on various problems in Euclid. He was a staunch upholder\nof the neo-Platonic theory that the teaching of Aristotle and that of\nPlato are essentially in accord and differ only in superficial details\nand modes of expression; he wrote treatises \u201cOn the agreement between\nPlato and Aristotle\u201d and on \u201cThe object before Plato and Aristotle.\u201d In\nessays \u201cAgainst Galen\u201d and \u201cAgainst John Philoponus\u201d he criticised the\nviews of those commentators, and endeavoured to defend the orthodoxy\nof Aristotle by making them responsible for apparent discrepancies\nwith the teaching of revelation. He was interested also in the occult\nsciences, as appears from his treatises \u201cOn geomancy,\u201d \u201cOn the Jinn,\u201d\nand \u201cOn dreams.\u201d His chemical treatise called _kimiya t-Tabish_, \u201cthe\nchemistry of things heated,\u201d has been classed as a work on natural\nscience and also as a treatise on magic; this was the unfortunate\ndirection which Arabic chemistry was taking. He also wrote several\nworks on music. (Cf. Schm\u00f6lders: _Documenta Philos. Arab._ Bonn., 1836,\nfor Latin versions of select treatises).\n\nAs we have already noted, his primary importance was as a teacher of\nlogic. A great deal of what he has written is simply a reproduction\nof the outlines of the Aristotelian logic and an exposition of its\nprinciples, but De Vaux (_Avicenne_, pp. 94-97) has drawn attention\nto evidences of original thought in his \u201cLetter in reply to certain\nquestions.\u201d\n\nLike al-Kindi he accepted the _Theology_ as a genuine work of\nAristotle, and shows very clear traces of its influences. In his\ntreatise \u201cOn the intelligence\u201d he makes a careful analysis of the way\nin which the term _`aql_ (reason, intelligence, spirit) is employed\nin general speech and in philosophical enquiry. In common language\n\u201ca man of intelligence\u201d denotes a man of reliable judgment, who uses\nhis judgment in an upright way to discern between good and evil,\nand thus is distinguished from a crafty man who employs his mind in\ndevising evil expedients. Theologians use the term _`aql_ to denote\nthe faculty which tests the validity of statements, either approving\nthem as true or rejecting them as false. In the _Analytica_ Aristotle\nuses \u201cintelligence\u201d for the faculty by which man attains directly to\nthe certain knowledge of axioms and general abstract truths without\nthe need of proof; this faculty al-Farabi explains as being the part\nof the soul in which intuition exists, and which is thereby able to\nlay hold of the premises of speculative science, i.e., the reason of\nintelligence proper as the term is employed in the _de anima_, the\nrational soul which Alexander of Aphrodisias takes as an emanation from\nGod. Following al-Kindi, al-Farabi speaks of four faculties or parts\nof the soul: the potential or latent intelligence, intelligence in\naction, acquired intelligence, and the agent intelligence. The first\nis the _`aql hayyulani_, the passive intelligence, the capacity which\nman has for understanding the essence of material things by abstracting\nmentally that essence from the various accidents with which it is\nassociated in perception, more or less equivalent to the \u201ccommon sense\u201d\nof Aristotle. The intelligence in action or _`aql bi-l-fi`l_ is the\npotential faculty aroused to activity and making this abstraction.\nThe agent intelligence or _`aql fa``al_ is the external power, the\nemanation from God which is able to awaken the latent power in man\nand arouse it to activity, and the acquired intelligence or _`aql\nmustafad_ is the intelligence aroused to activity and developed under\nthe inspiration of the agent intelligence. Thus the intelligence in\naction is related to the potential intellect as form is to matter,\nbut the agent intelligence enters from outside, and by its operation\nthe intelligence receives new powers, so that its highest activity is\n\u201cacquired.\u201d\n\nAl-Farabi appears throughout as a devout Muslim, and evidently\ndoes not appreciate the bearing of the Aristotelian psychology on\nthe doctrine of the Qur\u00b4an. The earlier belief of Islam, as of most\nreligions, was a heritage from primitive animism, which regarded life\nas due to the presence of a perfectly substantial, though invisible,\nthing called the soul: a thing is alive so long as the soul is present,\nit dies when the soul goes away. In the earlier forms of animism this\nis the explanation of all movement: the flying arrow has a \u201csoul\u201d in\nit so long as it moves, it ceases to move when this soul goes away or\ndesires to rest. This involves no belief in the immortality of the\nsoul, nor is the soul invested with any distinct personality, all that\ncomes later; it is simply that life is regarded as a kind of substance,\nvery light and impalpable but perfectly self-existent. What may be\ndescribed as the \u201cghost\u201d theory marks a later stage of evolution,\nwhen the departed soul is believed to retain a distinct personality\nand still to possess the form and some at least of the sensations\nassociated with the being in which it formerly dwelt. Such was the\nstage reached by Arab psychology at the time of the preaching of Islam.\nThe Aristotelian doctrine represented the soul as containing different\nenergies or parts, such as it had in common with the vegetable world\nand such others as it possessed in common with the lower kinds of\nanimals: that is to say the faculties of nutrition, reproduction, and\nall the perceptions obtained from the use of the organs of sense, as\nwell as the intellectual generalisations derived from the use of those\nsenses, are simply laid on one side as forms of energy derived from the\npotentialities latent in the material body, very nearly the position\nindeed of modern materialism, as the term is used in psychology. This\ndoes not oppose a belief in God, who is the prime source of the powers\nwhich exist, although that is brought out more by the commentators than\nby Aristotle himself; nor does it infringe the doctrine of an immortal\nand separable soul or spirit which exists in man in addition to what we\nmay describe as the vegetative and animal soul. It is this spirit, the\nrational soul which has entered from outside and exists in man alone,\nwhich is immortal. Such a doctrine sets an impassible gulf between man\nand the rest of creation, and explains why it is impossible for those\nwhose thought is formed on Aristotelian lines, whether in orthodox\nIslam or in the Catholic Church, to admit the \u201crights\u201d of animals,\nalthough ready to regard benevolent action towards them as a duty. But\nmore, the highly abstract rational soul or spirit of the Aristotelian\ndoctrine, void of all that could be shared with the lower creatures,\nand even of all that could be developed from anything that an animal\nis capable of possessing, is the only part of man which is capable\nof immortality, and such a spirit separated from its body and the\nlower functions of the animal soul can hardly fit in with the picture\nof the future life as portrayed in the Qur\u00b4an. Further, the Qur\u00b4an\nregards that future life as incomplete until the spirit is re-united\nwith the body, a possibility which the Aristotelians could hardly\ncontemplate. The Aristotelian doctrine showed the animal soul not as\nan invisible being but merely as a form of energy in the body: so far\nas it was concerned, death did not mean the going away of this soul,\nbut the cessation of the functions of the bodily faculties, just as\ncombustion ceases when a candle is blown out, the flame not going away\nand continuing to exist apart; or as the impression of a seal on wax\nwhich disappears when the wax is melted and does not continue a ghostly\nexistence on its own account. The only immortal part of man, therefore,\nwas the part which came to him as an emanation from the Agent\nIntellect, and when this emanation was set free from its association\nwith the human body and lower soul it became inevitable to suggest its\nreabsorption in the omnipresent source from which it had been derived.\nThe logical conclusion was thus a denial, not of a future life, nor\nof its eternity, but of the separate existence of an individual soul,\nand this, as we shall see, was actually worked out as a result of\nArabic Aristotelianism. Thus the scholastic theologians, both of Islam\nand of Latin Christianity, attack the philosophers as undermining\nbelief in individual personality and in opposing the doctrine of\nthe resurrection, and in this latter, it must be remembered, Muslim\ndoctrine is committed to cruder details than prevail in Christianity.\nBut al-Farabi did not see where the Aristotelian teaching would lead\nhim: to him Aristotle seemed orthodox because his doctrines seemed to\nprove the immortality of the soul.\n\nAl-Farabi expresses his theory of causality in the treatise called\n\u201cthe gems of wisdom.\u201d Everything which exists after having not existed,\nhe says, must be brought into being by a cause which itself may be\nthe result of some preceding cause, and so on, until we reach a First\nCause, which is and always has been, its eternity being necessary\nbecause there is no other cause to precede it, and Aristotle has shown\nthat the chain of causes cannot be infinite. The First Cause is one\nand eternal, and is God (cf. Aristot. _Metaph._ 12. 7, and similarly\nPlato, _Tim\u00e6us_ 28). Being unchanged this First Cause is perfect, and\nto know it is the aim of all philosophy, for obviously everything would\nbe intelligible if the cause of all were known. This First Cause is\nthe \u201cnecessary being\u201d whose existence is necessary to account for all\nother existence; it has neither genus, species, nor differentia; it is\nboth external and internal, at once apparent and concealed; it cannot\nbe perceived by any faculty but is knowable by its attributes, and\nthe best approach to knowledge is to know that it is inaccessible. In\nthis treatment al-Farabi is mingling the teaching of philosophy proper\nwith mysticism, in his days rapidly developing in Asiatic Islam, and\nespecially in the Shi`ite community with which he was in contact. From\nthe philosophical point of view God is unknowable but necessary, just\nas eternity and infinity are unknowable but necessary, because God is\nabove all knowledge: but in another sense God is beneath all knowledge,\nas the ultimate reality must underline all existing things, and every\nresult is a manifesting of the cause.\n\nThe proof of the existence of God is founded upon the argument in\nPlato, _Tim\u00e6us_ 28, and Aristotle, _Metaphysics_ 12. 7, and was later\non used by Albertus Magnus and others. In the first place a distinction\nis made between the possible, which may be only potential, and the\nreal. For the possible to become real it is necessary that there should\nbe an effective cause. The world is evidently composite, and so cannot\nitself be the first cause, for the first cause must be single and not\nmultiple: therefore the world evidently proceeds from a cause other\nthan itself. The immediate cause may itself be the result of another\npreceding cause, but the series of causes cannot be infinite, nor can\nthey return as a circle upon themselves, therefore if we trace back we\nmust ultimately reach an _ens primum_, itself uncaused, which is the\ncause of all, and this first cause exists of necessity, but not by a\nnecessity caused by anything other than itself. It must be single and\nunchangeable, free from all accidents, absolute, perfect, and good,\nand the absolute _intelligentia_, _intelligibile_, and _intelligens_.\nIn itself it possesses wisdom, life, insight, will, power, beauty and\ngoodness, not as acquired or external qualities, but as aspects of\nits own essence. It is the first will and the first willing, and also\nthe first object of will. It is the end of all philosophy to know\nthis first Cause, which is God, because as He is the cause of all,\nall can be understood and explained by understanding and knowing Him.\nThat the first Cause is single and one and the cause of all agrees\nwith the teaching of the Qur\u00b4an, and al-Farabi freely uses Qur\u00b4anic\nphraseology in perfect good faith, supposing that the Aristotelian\ndoctrine corroborates the doctrine of the Qur\u00b4an. The most curious part\nof al-Farabi\u2019s work is the way in which he employs the terminology of\nthe Qur\u00b4an as corresponding to that of the neo-Platonists, so that the\nQur\u00b4anic pen, tablet, etc., represent the neo-Platonic, etc. It may be\nquestioned whether, even in al-Farabi, philosophy really does fit in\nwith Qur\u00b4anic doctrine, but the divergence was not yet sufficiently\nmarked to compel attention.\n\nAssured of the conformity of the teaching of Aristotle with the\nteaching of revelation al-Farabi denies that Aristotle teaches the\neternity of matter, and so is inconsistent with the dogma of creation.\nThe whole question depends on what is meant by \u201ccreation.\u201d God, he\nsupposes, created all things in an instant in unmeasured eternity, not\ndirectly, but by the intermediary operation of the _`aql_ or Agent\nIntelligence. In this sense Aristotle held that the universe existed\nin eternity, but it so existed as a created thing. Creation was\ntherefore complete before God, acting through the _`aql_, introduced\nmovement, at which time commenced; as movement and time came into\nexistence simultaneously, forthwith creation already existing in the\ntimeless came out of its concealment and entered into reality. The\nterm \u201ccreation\u201d is sometimes used as applying to this emergence from\ntimeless quiesence, but more properly may be taken as denoting the\ncausation, which, as it preceded time, came into unmeasured eternity,\nwhich is what Aristotle means when he speaks of the world as eternal.\nThus both Qur\u00b4an and Aristotle are right, but each uses \u201ccreation\u201d to\ndenote a different thing.\n\nIt is difficult to over-estimate the importance of al-Farabi.\nPractically all we afterwards meet in Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd is already\nto be found in substance in his teaching, only that these later\nphilosophers have realized that the Aristotelian system cannot be\nreconciled with the traditional theology, and so, having given up all\nattempt at formal reconciliation, are able to express themselves more\nclearly and to press home their tenets to their logical conclusions.\nWhen considering the reconciliation between philosophy and Qur\u00b4an\nattempted by al-Farabi it is important to compare and contrast the\nreconciliation attempted on quite other lines by al-Ash`ari and other\nfounders of orthodox scholasticism. It must be noted that the beginning\nof scholasticism was contemporary with al-Farabi.\n\nAs has been noted, al-Farabi was mixed up with the Shi`ite group; the\nsupporters of `Alid claims who held aloof from the official Khalifate\nat Baghdad. About the time of al-Kindi\u2019s death (circ. 260), the twelfth\nImam of the _Ithna `ashariya_ or orthodox Shi`ite sect, Muhammad\nal-Muntazar, \u201cdisappeared.\u201d In the year 320, within the period of\nal-Farabi\u2019s activity, the Buwayhid princes became the leading power\nin `Iraq, and in 334, five years before his death, they obtained\npossession of Baghdad, so that for the next 133 years the Khalifs\nwere in very much the same position as the Frankish kings when they,\nsurrounded with great ceremony and treated with the utmost reverence,\nwere no more than puppets in the hands of the Mayors of the Palace. In\nexactly the same way the Khalifs, half popes and half emperors, whose\nsign manual was sought as giving a show of legitimacy to sovereigns\neven in far-off India, possessed in Baghdad only ceremonial functions,\nand were treated as honoured prisoners by the Buwayhid Emirs, who\nthemselves were Shi`ites of the _Ithna `ashariya_ sect, and who,\nconsequently, regarded the Khalifs as mere usurpers. At this period\nthe Shi`ites were the patrons of philosophy, and the orthodox Sunnis\ngenerally took a reactionary attitude.\n\nBesides the _Ithna `ashariya_, the comparatively orthodox Shi`ites,\nthere was another branch of extremer type known as the _Sab`iya_ or\n\u201cseveners.\u201d The sixth Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq had nominated his son\nIsma`il as his successor, but as Isma`il was one day found drunk,\nJa`far disinherited him and appointed his second son Musa al-Qazam\n(d. 183). But some did not admit that the Imamate, whose divine right\npassed by hereditary descent, could be transferred at will, but\nremained loyal to Isma`il, and these preferred, when Isma`il died in\nJa`far\u2019s lifetime, to transfer their allegiance to his son Muhammed,\nreckoning him as the seventh Imam. These \u201cseveners\u201d continued to exist\nas an obscure sect until, it would appear, somewhere about the year\n220, when `Abdullah, the son of a Persian oculist named Maymun, either\nwas made their head or led a secession from them, and organised his\nfollowers with a kind of freemasonry in seven (afterwards nine) grades\nof initiation and a very admirably organised system of propaganda on\nthe lines already laid down by the Hashimites (cf. supra). In the\nearlier grades the doctrine of _batn_ or allegorical interpretation\nof the Qur\u00b4an was laid down as essential to a right understanding of\nits meaning, for the literal sense is often obscure, and sometimes\nrefers to things incomprehensible, a doctrine commonly attributed\nto Ja`far as-Sadiq. The initiate was then taught that the true\nmeaning could not be discovered by private interpretation but needed\nan authoritative teacher, the Imam, or, as he had disappeared, his\naccredited representative, the Mahdi `Abdullah, son of Maymun. In\nthe higher grades the disciple had this inner meaning of the Qur\u00b4an\ndisclosed to him, and this proved to be substantially the Aristotelian\nand neo-Platonic doctrine in general outline, together with certain\noriental elements derived from Zoroastrianism and Masdekism. These\noriental elements figured chiefly in the doctrines taught to the\nintermediate grades, the higher ones attaining a pure agnosticism with\nan Aristotelian background. The sect thus formed spread, developed,\nand finally divided. It had a successful career in the Bahrayn or\ndistrict near the junction of the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates,\nand there its followers were known as Qarmatians, after the name of\na leading missionary. It met with success also in and around Aden,\nbut we have no account of its subsequent history there. From Aden\nmissionaries passed over to North Africa, where it had its chief\nsuccess, and when Ubayd Allah, a descendant of `Abdullah, passed over\nthere an independent state was founded, with its capital at Kairawan\n(297 A.H.). From Kairawan a missionary propaganda was conducted in\nEgypt, then suffering from almost perennial misgovernment, and in\nthe days of the deputy Kafur a definite invitation was sent by the\nEgyptian officials asking for the Khalif of Kairawan to enter Egypt. At\nlength Ubayd Allah\u2019s great-grandson al-Mo\u00b4izz did invade Egypt in 356,\nand established there the Fatimite Khalifate, which lasted until the\ncountry was conquered by Saladin in 567.\n\nThe Sab`iya sect was thus geographically divided into two branches,\none in Asia represented by the Qarmatians, the other in Africa under\nthe Fatimite Khalifs. In the Asiatic branch the members were chiefly\ndrawn from the Nabat\u00e6an peasantry, and the sect took the form of a\nrevolutionary group with communist teaching, and violently opposed\nto the Muslim religion. In their contemptuous hostility they finally\nattacked Mecca, slew many of the dignitaries of the city and a number\nof pilgrims who were there, and carried off the sacred black stone,\nwhich they retained for several years. In the hands of the Qarmatians\nthe sect ceased to be a propaganda of philosophical doctrine, it became\nsimply anti-religious and revolutionary. The history of the African\nbranch took a different turn. Possession of an important state brought\nwith it a position of respectability, and political ambition replaced\nreligious enthusiasm. As the majority of the subject population was\nstrictly orthodox, the peculiar tenets of the sect were, to a large\nextent, allowed to drop into the background; candidates were still\nadmitted to initiation and instructed, but, although the Fatimite\nrulers in Egypt were liberal patrons of scholarship, and generally\nshowed a more tolerant attitude than other contemporary Muslim rulers,\nthey certainly did not carry out a wholesale Aristotelian propaganda;\nindeed, the line of \u201cphilosophers\u201d proper simply misses over Fatimite\nEgypt, although there were several distinguished medical workers there.\nFrom the Isma`ilians or Sab`iya of Egypt there came two interesting\noff-shoots. Towards the end of the reign of the sixth Fatimite Khalif,\nal-Hakim, who may have been a religious fanatic, perhaps insane, or\npossibly an enlightened religious reformer of views far ahead of his\nage--his real character is one of the problems of history--there\narrived in Egypt certain Persian teachers holding doctrines of\ntransmigration and of theophanies, which seem to be endemic in Persia,\nand these persuaded al-Hakim that he was an incarnation of the Deity.\nA riot followed the open preaching of this claim, and the preachers\nfled to Syria, then a part of the Fatimite dominions, and there\nfounded a sect which still exists in the Lebanon under the name of\nthe Druzes. Soon after this al-Hakim himself disappeared; some said\nhe was murdered, others said he had retired to a Christian monastery,\nand was recognised there afterwards as a monk; others believed he had\ngone up to heaven, and more than one claimant appeared asserting that\nhe was al-Hakim returned from concealment. The other off-shoot shows\na more definitely philosophical bearing. In the days of al-Mustansir,\nal-Hakim\u2019s grandson, one of the Isma`ilian missionaries, a Persian\nnamed Nasir-i-Khusraw, came from Khurasan to Egypt, and after a stay\nof seven years returned home. This seems to have coincided with a kind\nof revival in the Isma`ilian sect, which now regarded Cairo as its\nheadquarters. The Qarmatians had quite passed away; al-Hakim, whatever\nhis later eccentricities, had been a patron of scholarship, the founder\nof an academy, the _Daru l-Hikma_, or \u201cHouse of Wisdom,\u201d at Cairo, and\nhad enriched it with a large library, and was himself distinguished as\na student of astronomy. The reign of his grandson was the golden age of\nFatimid science, and apparently Shi`ites from all parts of Asia found\ntheir way to Egypt. In 471 another da`i or missionary, Hasan-i-Sabbah,\na pupil of Nasir-i-Khusraw, visited Cairo and was received by the\nChief Da`i, but not allowed to see the Khalif, and eighteen months\nlater was compelled to leave the country and return to Asia. There\nwere two factions in Cairo, the adherents respectively of the Khalif\u2019s\ntwo sons, Nizar and Musta`li; Nasir-i-Khusraw and Hasan-i-Sabbah had\nalready made themselves known as supporters of the elder son Nizar,\nbut the court officials in Egypt adhered to the younger son Musta`li.\nWhen the Khalif al-Mustansir died in 487 the Isma`ilian sect divided\ninto two new branches, the Egyptians and Africans generally recognising\nMusta`li, the Asiatics adhering to Nizar. This latter group had already\nbeen well organised by Nasir-i-Khusraw and Hasan-i-Sabbah, who for\nseveral years previously had been preaching the rights of Nizar. On\nhis return home, about 473, Hasan-i-Sabbah had secured possession of\na stronghold known as Alamut, \u201cthe eagle\u2019s teaching\u201d (cf. Browne:\n_Lit. History of Persia_, ii. 203, espec. note 13), and this became\nthe headquarters of the sect of Nizaris or Assassins, who figure so\nprominently in the history of the Crusades. They had many mountain\nstrongholds, but all were under the control of the Sheikh or \u201cOld\nMan of the Mountain,\u201d as the Crusaders and Marco Polo called him, at\nAlamut. These Sheikhs or Grand Masters of the order continued for eight\ngenerations, until Alamut was captured by the Mongols in 618 A.H. (=\n1221 A.D.), and the last was put to death. As the order grew it spread\ninto Syria, and it was the Syrian branch with which the Crusaders from\nEurope came most into contact. In this order we find the old system\nof successive grades of initiation. The _Lasiqs_, or \u201cadherents,\u201d had\nbut little knowledge of the real doctrines of the sect, and attached\nto them were the _Fida`is_ or \u201cself-devoted,\u201d bound to blind obedience\nand ready to execute vengeance at the bidding of their superiors;\nthese were the men to whom the Crusaders especially applied the term\n_Assassins_, that is _Hashishin_ or \u201cusers of hashish,\u201d referring to\nthe hashish or Indian hemp which they commonly used as a means of\nexaltation. Above these were the _Rafiqs_ or \u201ccompanions,\u201d and above\nthese was an ordered hierarchy of _da`is_ or missionaries, Chief\nMissionaries (_da`i i-Kabir_), and Supreme Missionary (_da`i d-Du`at_).\nIn the eyes of outsiders the whole sect had a sinister appearance; the\ncrimes of the Fida`is, usually committed under striking and dramatic\ncircumstances, and the reputed heresies of the superior grades were\nsufficient to secure this, and the general dread with which they were\nregarded was increased by incidents which showed that they had spies\nand sympathizers in all directions. The superior grades, however, were\ntrue heirs of the old Isma`ilian principles and ardent students of\nphilosophy and science. When the Mongols under Hulagu seized Alamut in\n654 (= A.D. 1256) they found an extensive library and an observatory\nwith a collection of valuable astronomical instruments. The Mongol\ncapture meant the downfall of the Assassins, although the Syrian branch\nstill continued in humbler fashion, and the sect has adherents even\nat the present day. Scattered relics survive also in central Asia, in\nPersia, and in India; the Agha Khan is a lineal descendant of Ruknu\nd-Din Khurshah, the last Sheikh at Alamut.\n\nThus the movement started by Abdullah, the son of Maymun, whose\noriginal purpose seems to have been to maintain a highly philosophical\nreligion as revealed by Aristotle and the neo-Platonists, but to\nsafeguard this as an esoteric faith disclosed only to initiates, the\nrank and file being apparently Shi`ite sectaries, produced a group\nof very curious sects. In the Qarmatians the esoteric tenets were\ncompelled to take a debased form because those who professed them,\nand into whose hands this branch fell altogether, were illiterate\npeasants. In the Fatimid state of Egypt they were minimised because\npolitical considerations rendered it expedient to conciliate orthodox\nMuslim opinion. And in the Assassins, confined, it seems, to the higher\ngrades of the initiates, they produced a rich intellectual development,\nthough allied to a system which shows fanaticism unscrupulously used\nby the leaders that they might live out their lives in a philosophical\nseclusion, protected from the dangers which surrounded them.\n\nBefore leaving this particular subject, which shows the promulgation\nof philosophy as an esoteric creed, we must refer to a society known\nas the _Ikhwanu s-Safa_ or \u201cthe brotherhood of purity.\u201d We do not\nknow what its connection with `Abdullah b. Maymun\u2019s sect may have\nbeen beyond the fact that they were contemporary and of kindred aims,\nbut it certainly seems that there was some connection: it has been\nsuggested that this brotherhood represents the original teaching of\nAbdullah\u2019s sect. It was divided into four grades, but its doctrines\nwere promulgated freely at an early date, though we do not know whether\nthis general divulging of its teaching was part of the original plan\nor forced upon it by circumstances. It appears openly about 360, some\nhundred years after Abdullah founded his sect, shortly after the\nFatimites had conquered Egypt and some time after the Qarmatians had\nreturned the sacred black stone which they had stolen from the \u201cHouse\nof God\u201d at Mecca. It seems tempting to suggest that it may have been\na reformation of the Isma`ilians on the part of those who wished to\nreturn to the original aims of the movement.\n\nThe published work of the brotherhood appears in a series of 51\nepistles, the _Rasa\u00b4il ikhwani s-Safa_, which form an encyclop\u00e6dia\nof philosophy and science as known to the Arabic-speaking world in\nthe 4th cent. A.H. They do not propose any new theories but simply\nfurnish a manual of current material. The whole text of these epistles\nhas been printed at Calcutta, whilst portions of the voluminous whole\nhave been edited by Prof. Dieterici between 1858 and 1872, and these\nwere followed in 1876 and 1879 by two volumes called _Makrokosmos_ and\n_Mikrokosmos_, in which an epitome is presented of the whole work. It\nappears that the leading spirit in the preparation of this encyclop\u00e6dia\nwas Zayd b. Rifa\u00b4a, and with him were associated Abu Sulayman Muhammad\nal-Busti, Abu l-Hasan `Ali az-Zanjani, Abu Ahmad al-Mahrajani, and\nal-Awfi, but it does not follow that these were the founders of the\nbrotherhood, as some have supposed.\n\nA great part of the _Epistles of the Brotherhood_ deals with logic\nand the natural sciences, but when the writers turn to metaphysics,\npsychology, or theology, we find very clear traces of the neo-Platonic\ndoctrines as contained in Alexander of Aphrodisias and matured\nby Plotinus. God, we read, is above all knowledge and above all\nthe categories of human thought. From God proceeds the _`aql_ or\nintelligence, a complete spiritual emanation which contains in itself\nthe forms of all things, and from the _`aql_ proceeds the Universal\nSoul, and from that Soul comes primal matter: when this primal matter\nbecomes capable of receiving dimensions it becomes secondary matter,\nand from that the universe proceeds. The Universal Soul permeates all\nmatter and is itself sustained by the perpetual emanation of itself\nfrom the _`aql_. This Universal Soul permeating all things yet remains\none; but each individual thing has a part-soul, which is the source\nof its force and energy, this part-soul having a varying degree of\nintellectual capacity. The union of soul and matter is temporary;\nby wisdom and faith the soul tends to be set free from its material\nfetters, and so to approach nearer to the present spirit or _`aql_.\nThe right aim of life is the emancipation of the soul from matter,\nso that it may be absorbed in the parent spirit and thus approach\nnearer to the Deity. All this is but a repetition of the teaching\nof al-Farabi and the neo-Platonists, slightly coloured, perhaps, by\nSufism, and expressed less logically and lucidly than in the teaching\nof the philosophers. In general character it shows a tendency towards\npantheism, akin to the tendency we have already observed in certain of\nthe Mu`tazilites. God, properly so called, is outside, or rather on\nsuch a plane that man does not know, and never can know, anything about\nHim. Even the _`aql_ is on a plane other than that on which the human\nsoul lives. But the Universal Soul which permeates all things is an\nemanation from this Spirit, and the Spirit emanates from the unknowable\nGod. Comparing this with the teaching of al-Kindi and al-Farabi it is\nclear that it is based upon the same material, but it is in the hands\nof those who have made it a religion, and this religion has entirely\nbroken away from the orthodox doctrine of the Qur\u00b4an. In al-Farabi\nthis breach is not conscious, although really quite complete; in his\nsuccessors we see a full realization of the cleavage. Comparing it\nwith Sufism the superficial resemblances are very close, the more so\nas Sufism borrows a great deal of philosophical, i.e., neo-Platonic\nterminology, but in fact there is an essential divergence: the Epistles\nof the brethren represent the emancipation of the soul from matter as\nthe aim of life, and the final result is reabsorption in the Universal\nSoul, but they represent this emancipation as due to an intellectual\nforce, so that the soul\u2019s salvation lies in wisdom and knowledge; it is\na cult of intellect. But Sufism is spiritual in another sense: it has\nthe same aim in view, but it regards the means as wisdom in the sense\nof religious truth as found by the devout soul in piety, not as the\nwisdom obtained by intellectual learning.\n\nWe seem, however, justified in saying that Sufism is the heir of\nthe philosophical teaching of al-Farabi and the Brethren of Purity,\nat least in Asia. After the first quarter of the fifth century\nphilosophical teaching seems to have disappeared altogether in Asia,\nbut this is only apparent. In substance it remains in Sufism, and we\nmay say that the essential change lies in the new meaning given to\n\u201cwisdom,\u201d which ceases to signify scientific facts and speculations\nacquired intellectually, and is taken to mean a supra-intellectual\nknowledge of God. This, perhaps, represents the Indian contribution\nworking upon elements of Hellenistic origin.\n\nThe doctrines of the _Brethren of Purity_ were introduced to the\nWest by a Spanish doctor, Muslim b. Muhammad Abu l-Qasim al-Majriti\nal-Andalusi (d. 395-6), and were largely influential in producing the\n_falasifa_ of Spain, who ultimately exercised so great an influence on\nmedi\u00e6val Latin scholasticism.\n\nBefore leaving this particular section of our subject it will be\nwell to note that all these sects and groups we have mentioned after\nal-Farabi, from the sect founded by Abdullah b. Maymun to the Brethren\nof Purity, agreed in treating philosophy, at least in so far as it had\nany bearing on theological topics, as esoteric, and not to be disclosed\nto any save the elect. This general attitude will appear again, in a\nslightly different form, in the works of the Spanish philosophers, and\nto some extent recurs in all Islamic thought.\n\nThe greatest product in Asia of the ferment of thought produced by\nthe general study of the Aristotelian and neo-Platonic philosophies\nappears in _Abu `Ali al-Husayn b. `Abdullah b. Sina_ (d. 428 = A.D.\n1027), commonly known as Ibn Sina, which is Latinized as Avicenna.\nHis life is known to us from an autobiography completed by his pupil,\nAbu `Ubayd al-Juzjani, from his master\u2019s recollections. We learn that\nhis father was governor of Kharmayta, but, after his son\u2019s birth, he\nreturned to Bukhara, which had been the original home of his family,\nand it was there that Ibn Sina received his education. During his youth\nsome Isma`ilian missionaries arrived from Egypt, and his father became\none of their converts. From them the son learned Greek, philosophy,\ngeometry, and arithmetic. This helps to remind us how the whole\nIsma`ilian propaganda was associated with Hellenistic learning. It\nis sometimes stated that the Egypt of the Fatimite age was isolated\nfrom the intellectual life of Islam at large: but this is hardly\naccurate; from first to last the whole of the Isma`ilian movement\nwas connected with the intellectual revival due to the reproduction\nof Greek philosophy in Arabic form, less so, of course, when the\nIsma`ilian converts were drawn from the illiterate classes, as was the\ncase with the Qarmatians, and when the attention of the members was\nengrossed with political ambitions, as was the case with the Fatimids\nwhilst they were building up their power in Africa before the invasion\nof Egypt. But even under the most unfavourable conditions it seems\nthat the _da`is_ or missionaries regarded the spread of science and\nphilosophy as a leading part of their duties, quite as much so as the\npreaching of the `Alid claims of the Fatimite Khalif. Learning Greek\nand Greek philosophy from these missionaries Ibn Sina made rapid\nprogress, and then turned to the study of jurisprudence and mystic\ntheology. Jurisprudence, that is to say, the canon law based on one of\nthe orthodox systems laid down by Abu Hanifa and the other recognised\njurists, or by their Shi`ite rivals, has always been the backbone of\nIslamic scholarship, and was thus parallel with the study of canon\nlaw in medi\u00e6val Europe: in each case it turned men\u2019s attention to the\ndevelopment of the social structure towards an ideal, and this had an\neducative influence of the highest value. We, holding very different\nprinciples, may be tempted to under-estimate this influence, but it is\nworth noting that, whilst our aims are opportunist in character, the\ncanonist of Islam or of Christendom had a more definitely constructed\nideal, with a more complete and scientific finality, which, in so\nfar as it was an ideal, was an uplifting power. In Muslim lands the\ncanonists were the one power which had the courage and ability to\nresist the caprices of an autocratic government, and to compel even the\nmost arbitrary princes to submit to principles which, however narrow\nand defective they may seem to us, yet made the ruler admit that he was\nsubordinate to a system, and defined the limits allowed by that system\nin conformity with ideals of equity and justice. It is interesting to\nnote that in Ibn Sina\u2019s time mystic theology had already taken its\nplace as a subject of serious study.\n\nA short time afterwards a philosopher named an-Natali arrived at\nBukhara and became a guest of Ibn Sina\u2019s father. Bearing in mind\nthe technical meaning of _failasuf_, we recognise this guest as a\nprofessed Aristotelian, and presumably one able to obtain his living\nas a teacher of the Aristotelian doctrine. From him Ibn Sina learned\nlogic and had his mind directed towards the Aristotelian teaching,\nwhich was then preached like a religion. After this he studied Euclid,\nthe _Almagesta_, and the \u201cAphorisms of the Philosophers.\u201d His next\nstudy was medicine, in which he made so great progress that he adopted\nthe practice of medicine as his profession. He attempted to study\nAristotle\u2019s _Metaphysics_, but found himself entirely incapable of\nunderstanding its meaning, until one day he casually purchased one of\nal-Farabi\u2019s books, and by its help he was able to grasp the meaning\nand purport of what had so far eluded him. It is on this ground that\nwe are entitled to describe Ibn Sina as a pupil of al-Farabi: it was\nal-Farabi\u2019s work which really formed his mind and guided him to the\ninterpretation of Aristotle; al-Farabi was, in the truest sense, the\nparent of all subsequent Arabic philosophers; great as was Ibn Sina\nhe does not enter into the tradition in the same way as al-Farabi,\nand does not exercise the same influence on his successors, although\nal-Ghazali classes him with al-Farabi, and calls them the leading\ninterpreters of Aristotle. Emphasis is sometimes laid upon the fact\nthat Ibn Sina treats philosophy as quite apart from revelation as given\nin the Qur\u00b4an; but in this he was not original: it was the general\ntendency of all who came after al-Farabi; we can only say that Ibn Sina\nwas the first important writer who illustrates this tendency.\n\nCalled to exercise his medical skill at the court of Nuh b. Mansur,\nthe Samanid governor of Khurasan, he enjoyed that prince\u2019s favour, and\nin his library studied many works of Aristotle hitherto unknown to\nhis contemporaries, and when that library was burned he was regarded\nas the sole transmitter of the doctrines contained in those books.\nThis represents contemporary Arabic opinion about him: there is no\nevidence in his existing writings that he had access to Aristotelian\nmaterial other than that generally known to the Syriac and Arabic\nwriters. When the affairs of the Samanid dynasty fell into disorder\nIbn Sina removed to Khwarazan, where he, with several other scholars,\nenjoyed the enlightened patronage of the Ma\u00b4muni Emir. But this Emir\nwas living a somewhat precarious existence in the neighbourhood of the\nTurkish Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna, the stern champion of orthodoxy and\nthe conqueror of India. It was obvious that the Sultan coveted the\nEmir\u2019s dominions, and that when he chose to seize them it would be\nimpossible to resist; he actually did take them in 408. Meanwhile the\nSultan was treated with the utmost deference by the Emir and such of\nhis neighbours as were allowed to live on sufferance. Mahmud wished to\nbe distinguished as a patron of learning, and \u201cinvited\u201d scholars to\nhis court--in plain words, he kidnapped scholars and took care that\nthey never afterwards transgressed the strictest limits of orthodoxy.\nAmongst others the Emir received a letter inviting such men of learning\nas were to be found in Khwarazan to his court. The Emir read out the\nletter to the five most distinguished scholars who were his guests,\nleaving them to act as they thought fit. Three of the guests were\nattracted by the Sultan\u2019s reputation for generosity and accepted the\ninvitation, but two, Ibn Sina and Masihi, were afraid to venture, so\nthey escaped privately and fled; overtaken by a sandstorm in the desert\nMasihi perished, but Ibn Sina, after long wanderings, finally found a\nrefuge in Isfahan, where the Buwayhid `Ala\u00b4u d-Dawla Muhammad held his\ncourt. His experiences show plainly that it was the Shi`ites who were\nthe supporters of philosophy, and that the growing Turkish power of\nMahmud of Ghazna and of the Seljuks who succeeded him was reactionary\nand unfavourably disposed towards philosophical research. It was the\nTurkish power which finally checked the progress of Arabic philosophy\nin the East.\n\nIbn Sina wrote many works in Arabic and Persian, and a number of\nthese are still extant. Amongst his productions were _as-Shafa_, an\nencyclop\u00e6dia of physics, metaphysics, and mathematics in eighteen\nvolumes (ed. Forget, Leiden, 1892), a treatise on logic and philosophy,\nand the medical works on which his fame so largely rests. The best\nknown of these are the _Najat_ abridged from the _as-Shafa_, and the\nmedical _Canon_, in which he reproduced the teaching of Galen and\nHippocrates with illustrative material from the later medical writers.\nThe _Canon_ is more methodical in its arrangement than the _al-Hawi_ of\nRazes, hitherto the popular manual of medicine in Arabic; indeed, its\nchief defect is an excessively elaborate classification. It became the\nleading medical authority, and, after translation into Latin by Gerard\nof Cremona, served for many centuries as the chief representative of\nthe Arabic school of medicine in western Europe, holding its place in\nthe universities of Montpelier and Louvain down to A.D. 1650.\n\nIbn Sina treats logic as of use rather in a negative than in a\npositive way: \u201cthe end of logic is to give a man a standard rule, by\nobserving which he is preserved from error in reasoning\u201d (_Isharat_ ed.\nForget, p. 2). His treatise on this subject in _Tis\u00b4 Rasa\u00b4il fi-l-Hikma\nwa-l-Tabi\u00b4yat_ (p. 79, pub. Stamboul, 1298), is divided into nine\nparts corresponding to the Arabic canon of Aristotle, which includes\nthe _Isagoge_ as well as the Rhetoric and Poetics. He makes special\nnote to the logical bearing of particular grammatical constructions\nwhich in Arabic differ from the forms used in Greek, as, for example,\nwhere the Greek expresses the universal negative by \u201call A is not B,\u201d\nbut Arabic renders this \u201cnothing of A (is) B.\u201d He lays great emphasis\nupon accurate definition, which he describes as the essential basis of\nall sound reasoning, and to this he devotes much attention. Definition\nproper must state the _quiddity_ of a thing, its genus, differentia,\nand all its essential characteristics, and is thus distinct from mere\ndescription, which need only give the propria and accidents in such a\nway that the thing may be recognised correctly.\n\nIn dealing with the universal and the particular he considers that the\nuniversal exists only in the human mind: the abstract idea of the genus\nis formed in the mind of the observer when he compares individuals\nand makes note of their points of similarity, but this abstract idea\nexists only as a mental concept and has no objective reality. The\nuniversal precedes the individual (genus ante res) only in the way\nthat the general idea existed in the mind of the Creator before the\nindividual was formed, just as the idea of an object to be made exists\nin the mind of the artificer before the work is executed. The general\nidea is realised in matter (genus in rebus), but only when accompanied\nby accidents: apart from these accidents it exists only as a mental\nabstraction. After the general idea is realised in matter (genus post\nres) it is possible for the intellect to make a mental abstraction and\nto use this as a standard of comparison with other individuals. The\ngeneric belongs only to the realm of thought, and such abstract ideas\nhave no objective existence, although they may be used as real in logic.\n\nThe soul is treated as a collection of faculties (_kowa_) or forces\nacting on the body: all activity of any sort, in bodies animal or\nvegetable, as well as human, proceeds either from such forces added\nto the body or from the mixture of elements from which the body is\nformed. The simplest soul condition is that of the vegetable whose\nactivity is limited to nutrition and generation and accretion by growth\n(_Najat_, p. 43). The animal soul possesses the vegetable faculties\nbut adds to them others, and the human soul adds yet others to these,\nand the addition made to the human soul enables it to be described as\na rational soul. The faculties present in the soul may be divided into\ntwo classes, the faculties of perception and the faculties of action.\nThe faculties of perception are partly external and partly internal: of\nthese the external faculties exist in the body wherein the soul dwells\nand are the eight senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, perception of\nheat and cold, perception of dry and moist, perception of resistance\nas by hard and soft, and perception of rough and smooth. By means of\nthese senses the form of the external object is reproduced in the soul\nof the percipient. There are four internal faculties of perception:\n(i.) _al-musawira_, \u201cthe formative,\u201d whereby the soul perceives the\nobject without the aid of the senses as by an act of imagination; (ii.)\n_al-mufakkira_, \u201cthe cogitative,\u201d by which the soul perceiving a number\nof qualities associated together abstracts one or more of them from the\nothers with which they are associated, or groups together those which\nare not seen as connected; this is the faculty of abstraction which is\nemployed in forming general ideas; (iii.) _al wahm_, or \u201copinion,\u201d by\nmeans of which a general conclusion is drawn from a number of ideas\ngrouped together; and (iv.) _al-hafiza_ or _az-zakira_, \u201cmemory,\u201d which\npreserves and records the judgments formed. Men and animals perceive\nparticulars by means of sense; man attains the knowledge of universals\nby means of reason. The _`aql_ or rational soul of man is conscious of\nits own faculties, not by means of an external, i.e., bodily sense, but\nimmediately by the exercise of its own reasoning power. This proves to\nbe an independent entity, even though accidentally connected with a\nbody and dependent on that body for sense perception: the possibility\nof direct knowledge without sense perception shows that it is not\nessentially dependent on the body, and the possibility of its existence\nwithout the body, which follows logically from its independence, is the\nproof of its immortality. Every living creature perceives that it has\nonly one _ego_ or soul in itself, and this soul, says Ibn Sina, did\nnot exist prior to the body but was created, that is to say, proceeded\nby emanation from the Agent Intellect at the time when the body was\ngenerated. (_Najat_, p. 51).\n\nUnder the head of Physics Ibn Sina considers the forces observed in\nnature, including all that are in the soul, save only that which is\npeculiar to the rational soul of man. These forces are of three kinds:\nsome, such as weight, are an essential part of the body in which they\noccur; others are external to the body on which they act, and are such\nas cause movement or rest; and others, again, are such as the faculties\npossessed by the non-rational souls of the spheres, which produce\nmovement directly without external impulse. No force is infinite; it\nmay be increased or diminished, and always produces a finite result.\n\nTime is regarded as essentially dependent on movement; although it is\nnot itself a form of movement, so far as the idea of time is concerned,\nit is measured and made known by the movements of the heavenly bodies.\nFollowing al-Kindi place is defined as \u201cthe limit of the container\nwhich touches the contained.\u201d Vacuum is \u201conly a name\u201d, in fact it is\nimpossible, for all space can be increased, diminished, or divided into\nparts, and so must contain something capable of increase, etc.\n\nGod alone is \u201cnecessary being,\u201d and so the supreme reality. Space,\ntime, etc., belong to \u201cactual being,\u201d and whatever necessity they\npossess is derived from God. The objects studied in physical science\nare only \u201cpossible being,\u201d which may or may not become \u201cactual being.\u201d\nGod alone is necessarily existent through all eternity: He is the truth\nin the sense that He alone is true absolutely, all other reality is so\nonly in so far as it is derived from God. From God by emanation comes\nthe _`aql_ or \u201cAgent Intellect,\u201d and from this proceeds the intellect\nor reason which differentiates the rational soul in man from the soul\nin other creatures. To every man this intellect is given, and in due\ncourse it returns to the \u201cAgent Intellect\u201d which was its source. The\nsoul\u2019s possible activity, independent of the body with which it is\nassociated, proves its immortality, but this immortality does not imply\nseparate existence, but rather reabsorption in the source. From the\n_`aql_ also proceeds the universe, but not like the reason of man by\ndirect emanation, but by the medium of successive emanations.\n\nIbn Sina was the last of the great philosophers of the East. Two\ncauses combined to terminate philosophy proper in Asiatic Islam. In\nthe first place it had become closely identified with the Shi`ite\nheresies, and was thus in bad repute in the eyes of the orthodox;\nwhilst the Shi`ite sects themselves, all of the extremer kind\n(_ghulat_), which had devoted themselves most to philosophical studies,\nhad also taken up a number of pre-Islamic religious theories, such as\ntransmigration of souls, etc., which were detrimental to scientific\nresearch. Neo-Platonism had shown itself at an earlier period prone\nto similar tendencies. As a result the Shi`ites tended towards mystic\nand often fantastic theories, which were discouraging to the study of\nAristotelian doctrines. The second cause lay in the rise of dominant\nTurkish elements, Mahmud of Ghazna, then the Saljuk Turks, which\nwere of uncompromising orthodoxy, and abhorred everything which was\nassociated with the Shi`ites or tended to rationalism. For all that it\nleft permanent marks in Asiatic Islam in two directions: in orthodox\nscholasticism and in mysticism.\n\nWe have already noted that Muslim b. Muhammad Abu l-Qasim al-Majriti\nal-Andalusi (d. 395-6), as his name denotes, a native of Madrid,\nbrought the teachings of the _Brethren of Purity_ to Spain, and so\nincidentally aroused an interest there in the philosophy which had been\nstudied in the East. For some time no important results appeared, then\nfollowed a series of brilliant philosophical writers and teachers,\nderiving their inspiration partly from the _Brethren_, and partly from\nthe Jewish students.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nSUFISM\n\n\nSufism or Islamic mysticism, which becomes prominent in the course\nof the 3rd cent. A.H., was partly a product of Hellenistic influences,\nand exercised a considerable influence on the philosophers of the time\nof Ibn Sina and afterwards. The name _Sufi_ is derived from _suf_\n\u201cwool,\u201d and so means \u201cwool-clad,\u201d thus denoting a person who from\nchoice used clothing of the simplest kind and avoided every form of\nluxury or ostentation. That this is the true meaning is proved by the\nfact that Persian employs as its equivalent the term _pashmina-push_,\nwhich also means \u201cwool-clad.\u201d By a popular error the Arabic writers on\nSufism often treat the word as derived from _safa_, \u201cpurity,\u201d and so\nmake it something akin to \u201cpuritan\u201d; and still more incorrectly certain\nWestern writers have supposed that it is a transliteration of the Greek\n[Greek: sophos \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03cc\u03c2]. The emphasis is laid upon the ascetic avoidance\nof luxury and the voluntary adoption of simplicity in clothing on the\npart of those to whom the term is applied. If we regard this as a\nform of asceticism it will be at once objected that asceticism has no\nplace in the teaching of the Qur\u00b4an and is alien to the character of\nearly Islam. In a sense this is true, and in a sense untrue according\nto the meaning we attach to the term \u201casceticism.\u201d As it is used in\nthe history of Christian monasticism, or of the devotees of several\nIndian religions, or even of the latter Sufis, it implies a deliberate\navoidance of the normal pleasures and indulgences of human life, and\nespecially of marriage, as things which entangle the soul and prevent\nits spiritual progress. In this sense asceticism is alien to the spirit\nof Islam, and appears amongst Muslims only as an exotic. But the term\nmay be used, not very accurately perhaps, of the puritanical restraint\nand simplicity which avoids all luxury and display, and deliberately\ntries to retain a primitively simple and self-denying manner of life.\nIn this latter sense asceticism or puritanism was a distinguishing mark\nof the \u201cold believer\u201d as contrasted with the secularised Arab of the\nUmayyad type, and this attitude always had its admirers. The historians\nconstantly refer with commendation to the abstemious lives of the\nearly Khalifs and the \u201cCompanions\u201d of the Prophet, and describe how\nthey were abstinent not from poverty but in order to put themselves on\nan equality with their subjects, and to preserve the traditional mode\nof life of the Prophet and his first followers, and very often in the\nrecognised Traditions we find mention of the bare and simple mode of\nlife of the first Muslims. Quite early this simplicity appears as the\ndistinctive mark of the strict Muslim, and emphasizes the difference\nbetween him and the worldly followers of the Umayyads, and similar\ninstances appear amongst the devout Muslims of the present day. Such\nwere not Sufis, but they may be regarded as the precursors of the\nSufis. The historian al-Fakhri, describing the abstemious life of the\nfirst Khalifs, says that they endeavoured by this self-restraint to\nwean themselves from the lusts of the flesh. This is reading a later\nidea into a much earlier practice, which was originally designed simply\nas a more accurate following of the Prophet, who was unable to enjoy\nany luxury or splendour; but it shows that later generations were\ninclined to ascribe a more definitely ascetic motive to the affectedly\nsimple life of the earlier Muslims, and no doubt that early puritanism,\nmisunderstood by later ages, contributed to spread asceticism.\n\nAl-Qushayri (cited Browne: _Lit. Hist. of Persia_, i. pp. 297-8),\nafter referring to the \u201cCompanions\u201d and \u201cFollowers\u201d of the first age\nof Islam, then mentions the \u201cascetes\u201d or \u201cdevotees\u201d as the elect of\na later age, those who were most deeply concerned with matters of\nreligion, and finally the Sufis as those elect of still later times,\n\u201cwhose souls were set on God, and who guarded their hearts from the\ndisasters of heedlessness.\u201d Historically this is an error, for the\nsaints of early Islam were inspired by a spirit of strict adherence\nto the traditional life of their desert ancestors and rejected luxury\nas an \u201cinnovation,\u201d very much the same spirit as that observed in the\nancient Hebrew prophets; whilst the Sufis were no enthusiasts for\ntradition, but eschewed bodily indulgence as an entanglement of the\nflesh which hindered the progress of the spirit, so that they were in\nno sense the successors of the \u201cCompanions,\u201d but were influenced by new\nideas unknown to early Islam. Yet superficially the results were very\nmuch alike, and this caused the two to be connected, and helped the\nlater custom of connecting the early puritans with the ascetics of a\nsubsequent age. In its earliest form, also, Islam made a strong appeal\nto the motive of fear, an appeal not based on divine severity so much\nas on divine justice and on man\u2019s consciousness of his own sinfulness\nand unworthiness, and on the fleeting passage of the life lived in\nthis present world. There was an intense concentration on the Day of\nJudgment and on the perils of the sinner, a teaching which is perceived\nin the Qur\u00b4an even by the most casual reader: but all this was not\naltogether congenial to the Arab, although he in poetry certainly\ninclined towards a tone of sadness. The inevitable result of this\nteaching was asceticism in the puritanical sense, or, perhaps we should\nsay, a tone of severity in religion.\n\nJami, one of the greatest Persian authorities on Sufism, tells us that\nthe name \u201cSufi\u201d was first applied to Abu Hashim (d. 162), an Arab of\nKufa who spent the greater part of his life in Syria, and is typical of\nthe early Islamic devotee who followed the simplicity of the Prophet\u2019s\nlife and was deeply influenced by the Qur\u00b4anic teaching about sin,\njudgment, and the brief passage of earthly life. Similar devotees,\nclaimed as Sufis by later Sufi writers, but more properly devotees who\nwere their precursors, appear in the course of the 2nd century, such\nas Ibrahim b. Adham (d. 162), Da\u00b4ud of Tayy (d. 165), Fadayl of `Iyad\n(d. 188), Ma\u00b4ruf of Karkh (d. 200), and others, both men and women.\nAmongst these there was gradually evolved the beginnings of an ascetic\ntheology in traditional sayings and narratives of their lives and\nconduct, a hagiology which lays great emphasis upon their penances and\nself mortification. Of this material the most important is the recorded\nteaching of Ma\u00b4ruf of Karkh, from which we may quote the definition of\nSufism as \u201cthe apprehension of divine realities,\u201d which, in a slightly\naltered sense perhaps, becomes the keynote of later Sufism.\n\nCan we trace the origin of these early recluses? Von Kremer (_Herrsch_,\np. 67) considers this type as a native Arab growth developed from\npre-Islamic Christian influences. Christian monasticism we know was\nfamiliar to the Arabs in the country fringing the Syrian desert and in\nthe desert of Sinai: of this we have evidence both in Christian writers\nlike Nilus and in the pre-Islamic poets, as in the words of Imru\nl-Qays:--\n\n  \u201cFriend, see the lightning--it flashed and is gone, like the flashing\n    of two hands on a crowned pillar:\n  Did its blaze flash forth? or was it the lamp of a monk who poured\n    oil on the twisted wick?\u201d\n\nThe hermit\u2019s life was known even in Arabia itself, and tradition\nrelates that Muhammad received his first call when he had retired\nto the cave of Hira and was living as a recluse there, returning\nperiodically to his home and taking back food with him to the cave (cf.\nBukhari: _Sahih_, i.). It seems likely, indeed, that the early recluses\nof Islam were inspired by the example of Christian monasticism, either\ndirectly or through the medium of Muhammad\u2019s traditional retirement.\nBut these recluses were not numerous, and admittedly neglect the\nQur\u00b4anic command to marry (Qur. 24, 32).\n\nThus the earlier asceticism shows the character of devout quietism,\nof a puritanical abstinence from display of wealth and from\nself-indulgence, of a strict simplicity of life rather than of a\nvoluntary poverty and mortification, of occasional retirement from the\nworld, and only in rare instances of the permanent adoption of the\nhermit life. An instance of this type occurs in Abu l-`Abbas as-Sabti\n(d. 184), son of the Khalif Harunu r-Rashid, who renounced rank and\nfortune for a life of meditation and retirement.\n\nIn the latter part of the 3rd cent. we begin to find evidences of a\n\u201cnew Sufism,\u201d which was inspired by religious ideals other than those\nwhich had been dominant in early Islam, and which developed from those\nideals a theology of its own, which for a long time was not admitted\nas orthodox. Asceticism still occurs, but whilst, on the one hand, it\nbegins to take a more definite character in the deliberate seeking\nof poverty and mortification, it is, on the other hand, relegated to\na subordinate place as a merely preparatory stage in the Sufi life,\nwhich is technically described as a \u201cjourney.\u201d Poverty, which amongst\nthe early Muslims was esteemed simply in so far as it reproduced the\nmodest life of the Prophet and his companions, and was a standing\nprotest against the secularisation of the Umayyads, now assumed greater\nprominence as a devotional exercise, a change which appears definitely\nin Da\u00b4ud at-Ta\u00b4i (d. 165), who limited his possessions to a rush mat, a\nbrick which he used as a pillow, and a leather water bottle. In later\nSufism poverty takes a position of great prominence: the terms _faqir_,\n\u201cpoor man,\u201d and _darwish_, \u201cmendicant,\u201d become synonyms for \u201cSufi.\u201d But\nin Sufi teaching religious poverty does not mean absence of possessions\nonly: it implies the absence of all interest in earthly things, the\ngiving up of all participation in earthly possessions, and desiring God\nas the only aim of desire. So mortification is the subjugation of the\nevil part of the animal soul, the _nafs_ which is the seat of the lust\nand passions, and so the weaning of the soul from material interests, a\n\u201cdying to self and to the world\u201d as a beginning of a living to God.\n\nWhat was the source of the theology developed in the newer\nSufism? Undoubtedly this was neo-Platonic, as has been proved by Dr.\nNicholson (_Selected Poems from the Diwan of Shams-i-Tabriz_, Camb.,\n1898, and _The Mystics of Islam_, Lond. 1914), and by Prof. Browne\n(_Literary Hist. of Persia_, Lond., 1902, chap. xiii.), and forms\npart of the influence which came into Islam at the introduction of\nGreek philosophy under the `Abbasids. But as in philosophy and other\ncultural transmissions direct Greek influence was preceded by an\nindirect influence brought to bear through Syriac and Persian, so it\nwas also in neo-platonic theology, for neo-Platonic influences had\nalready been brought to bear upon the Syrians and Persians in the\npre-Islamic period. In the forefront of the later direct influence\nmust be placed the so-called _Theology of Aristotle_, which it is\nno exaggeration to describe as the most prominent and the widest\ncirculated manual of neo-Platonism which has ever appeared. It is, as\nwe have already stated, an abridged translation of the last three books\nof Plotinus\u2019 _Enneads_. Now the mysticism of Plotinus is philosophical\nand not religious, but it lends itself to a theological interpretation\nvery easily, just as neo-Platonism as a whole very readily became a\ntheological system in the hands of Jamblichus, of the pagans of Harran,\nand such like; and the Sufis were inclined to make this application,\nwhilst the _falasifa_ confined themselves to its philosophical side. It\nseems probable that the influence of the Pseudo-Dionysius was brought\nto bear upon Islam about the same time. The Pseudo-Dionysian writings\nconsist of four treatises, of which two, a treatise \u201cOn Mystical\nTheology\u201d in five chapters, and a treatise \u201cOn the Names of God\u201d in\nthirteen chapters, have been the chief source of Christian mystical\ntheology. The first reference to these writings occurs in A.D. 532,\nwhen the claim was made that they were the work of Dionysius, the\nAreopagite, a pupil of St. Paul, or at least represent his teaching.\nIn several places the writer cites Hierotheus as his teacher, and this\nenables us to identify the source as a Syrian monk named Stephen Bar\nSudaili, who wrote under the name of Hierotheus (cf. Asseman, _Bibl.\nOrient._ ii. 290-291). This Bar Sudaili was abbot of a convent at\nEdessa, and was involved in controversy with James of Sarugh, so that\nwe may refer the writings to the latter part of the 5th century A.D.\nThey were translated into Syriac very soon after their first appearance\nin Greek, and, as familiar to Syriac Christians, must have become\nindirectly known to the Muslims. We have no direct evidence as to their\ntranslation into Arabic, but Mai gives fragments of other works of\nBar Sudaili which appear in Arabic MSS. in his _Spicilegium Romanum_\n(iii. 707). The traditional view of the relations between Sufism and\nphilosophy is described in the anecdote cited by Prof. Browne (_Lit.\nHist. of Persia_, ii. 261, from _Akhlag-i-Jalali_) of the Sufi Abu\nSa`id b. Abi l-Khayr (d. 441 A.H. = 1049 A.D.), who is said to have met\nand conversed with Ibn Sina; when they parted Abu Sa`id said of Ibn\nSina, \u201cWhat I see, he knows,\u201d whilst Ibn Sina said, \u201cWhat I know, he\nsees.\u201d\n\nBut there were other influences of a secondary character at work in\n`Iraq and Persia which become important when we remember that it was\nthe subject population of those parts which had, to a large extent,\nreplaced the Arabs as the leaders of Islam during the `Abbasid period.\nIn connection with the Sufis probably we cannot refer any influence\nto the Zoroastrian religion proper, which had a non-ascetic and\nnational character; but the Manich\u00e6an and Masdekite religions, the two\n\u201cfree churches\u201d of Persia, show a definitely ascetic tone, and when\nwe find, as is the case, that many of the early Sufis were converts\nfrom Zoroastrianism, or the sons of such converts, we are inclined\nto suspect that, though professing that recognised religion, they\nwere in all probability actually _Zindiqs_, that is to say secretly\nheretics and initiates of the Manich\u00e6an or Masdekite sect making\nexternal profession of the more recognised cult, as was the common\npractice of these _Zindiqs_. Note must also be made of the Gnostic\ninfluences transmitted through the Saniya of the fen country between\nWasit and Basra, the Mand\u00e6ans, as they are called to distinguish them\nfrom the so-called Sabians of Harran. The Sufi Ma\u00b4ruf of Karkh was\nhimself the son of Sabian parents. And again we must not ignore the\nprobability of Buddhist influences, for Buddhist propaganda had been\nactive in pre-Islamic times in Eastern Persia and Transoxiana. Buddhist\nmonasteries existed in Balkh, and it is noteworthy that the ascete\nIbrahim b. Adham (d. 162--cf. supra) is traditionally described as a\nprince of Balkh who left his throne to become a darwish. On closer\nexamination, however, it does not appear that Buddhist influence can\nhave been very strong, as there are essential differences between Sufi\nand Buddhist theories. A superficial resemblance exists between the\nBuddhist _nirvana_ and the _fana_ or reabsorption of the soul in the\nDivine Spirit of Sufism. But the Buddhist doctrine represents the soul\nas losing its individuality in the passionless placidity of absolute\nquiescence, whilst the Sufi doctrine, though also teaching a loss of\nindividuality, regards everlasting life as consisting in the ecstatic\ncontemplation of the Divine Beauty. There is an Indian parallel to\n_fana_, but it is not in Buddhism, but in the Vedantic pantheism.\n\nIt is generally accepted that the first exponent of Sufi doctrine\nwas the Egyptian, or Nubian, _Dhu n-Nun_ (d. 245-246), a pupil of\nthe jurist Malik b. \u00b4Anas, who lived at the time when there was much\npercolation of Hellenistic influence into the Islamic world. He was\nindeed nearly contemporary with `Abdullah, the son of Maymum, whose\nwork we have already noticed. Dhu n-Nun\u2019s teaching was recorded and\nsystematized by al-Junayd of Baghdad (d. 297), and in it appears\nessential doctrine of Sufism, as of all mysticism, in the teaching\nof _tawhid_, the final union of the soul with God, a doctrine which\nis expressed in a way closely resembling the neo-Platonic teaching,\nsave that in Sufism the means whereby this union is to be attained\nis not by the exercise of the intuitive faculty of reason but by\npiety and devotion. Still the two come very close when we find in\nthe teachings of the later philosophers that the highest exercise of\nreason consists in the intuitive apprehension of the eternal verities\nrather than in any other activity of the intellect. Al-Junayd is\nstated by Jami to have been a Persian, and it is chiefly in Persian\nhands that the doctrines of Sufism develop and turn towards pantheism.\nBoth agnosticism and pantheism are present practically in the later\nneo-Platonism; agnosticism as regards the unknowable First Cause, the\nGod from the Agent Intellect is an emanation, a doctrine which develops\nin the teaching of the philosophers and of the Isma`ilians and kindred\nsects; but Sufi teaching centres its attention upon the knowable\nGod, which the philosopher would describe as the Agent Intellect or\nLogos, and this develops more usually in a pantheistic direction.\nThe doctrines thus developed and expressed by al-Junayd were boldly\npreached by his pupil, _ash-Shibli_ of Kurasan (d. 335).\n\n_Al-Husayn b. Mansur al-Hallaj_ (d. 309) was a fellow-student of\nash-Shibli, and shows Sufism as allied with extremely unorthodox\nelements. He was of Zoroastrian descent and closely in touch with\nthe Qarmatians, and seems to have held those doctrines which are\nusually associated with the _ghulat_ or extreme Shi`ites, such as\ntransmigration, incarnation, etc. He was put to death as a heretic for\ndeclaring \u201cI am the truth\u201d, thus identifying himself with God. The\naccounts given of him show great differences of opinion: for the most\npart the earlier historians, approaching the subject from an orthodox\nstand-point, represent him as a wily conjurer who by pretended miracles\ngained a number of adherents, but later Sufi writers regard him as a\nsaint and martyr who suffered because he disclosed the great secret of\nthe union between the soul and God. The doctrine of _hulul_, or the\nincarnation of God in the human body, was one of the cardinal tenets of\nthe _ghulat_. According to al-Hallaj, man is essentially divine because\nhe was created by God in his own image, and that is why, in Qur. 2,\n32, God bids the angels worship Adam. In _hulul_, which is treated as\n_tawhid_ taking place in this present life, the deity of God enters\nthe human soul in the same way that the soul at birth enters the body.\nThis teaching is a fusion of the old pre-Islamic Persian beliefs as to\nincarnation and the philosophical theories of neo-Platonism, of the\nIntellect or rational soul or spirit, as it is more commonly called by\nEnglish writers, the part added to the animal soul is an emanation from\nthe Agent Intellect, to which it will ultimately return and with which\nit will be united (cf. Massignon: _Kitab al-Tawasin_, Paris, 1913).\nThis is an extremely interesting illustration of the fusion of oriental\nand Hellenistic elements in Sufism, and shows that the theoretical\ndoctrines of Sufism, whatever they may have borrowed from Persia and\nIndia, receive their interpretative hypotheses from neo-Platonism.\nIt is interesting also as shewing in the person of al-Hallaj a\nmeeting-point between the Sufi and the philosopher of the Isma`ilian\nschool.\n\nVery similar was the teaching of Abu Yazid or Bayazid of Bistam (d.\n260), who was also of Zoroastrian descent. The pantheistic element\nis very clearly defined: \u201cGod,\u201d he said, \u201cis an unfathomable ocean\u201d;\nhe himself was the throne of God, the preserved Tablet, the Pen, the\nWord--all images taken from the Qur\u00b4an--Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and\nGabriel, for all who obtain true being are absorbed into God and become\none with God.\n\nPantheistic views and the doctrine of _hulul_ occur frequently in Sufi\nteaching, but they are by no means universal. Indeed, we cannot make\nany accurate statement of Sufi doctrine in detail, but only of general\nprinciples and tendencies. The Sufis do not form a sect, but are\nsimply devotees of mystical tendencies spread through all the branches\nof the Muslim community. In the 3rd cent. they are most prominent\namongst the Shi`ites, and so Shi`ite views seem to be incorporated\nin Sufism, but they form no integral part of it. Precisely similar\nconditions occur in Christianity where mysticism has flourished in the\nextremer Protestant sects as well as in the contemplative orders of\nthe Catholic Church, and, in spite of theological differences, has a\nvery considerable amount of common material. Only it must be noted that\nno basis of mysticism exists unless some such relations between the\nhuman soul and God are pre-supposed, as are suggested by neo-Platonism.\nChristian mysticism, in the true sense, does not begin in the West\nuntil the works of the Pseudo-Dionysius were translated into Latin in\nthe 9th cent. A.D., and Muslim mysticism dates from the translation of\nthe _Theology of Aristotle_. On the other hand, it must also be noted\nthat mysticism exercises a strong modifying influence on theology\ngenerally. The tendency of mysticism is towards a latitudinarian type:\nit is consequently opposed, consciously or unconsciously, to definite\ndogmatic teaching and so to speculative theology and philosophy.\n\nSuperficially Muslim mysticism seems to be organised like a sect.\nReference is often made to the various \u201cgrades\u201d of Sufis. But these are\nnot official grades like those of the Isma`ilians and similar bodies,\nbut denote successive stages on the path of personal holiness: it is\nno more than a fanciful terminology, perhaps borrowed from some of the\nsects because it seems that Sufism flourished earliest and most freely\nin some of the extremer Shi`ite groups. It was, and is, most usual for\nthe beginner in the path of holiness to put himself under the direction\nof some experienced spiritual guide, who acts as his teacher, and is\nknown as _sheikh_, _murshid_, or _pir_. In many cases this pupilage\ninvolves absolute and blind obedience to the teacher, because the\nrenunciation of personal wishes and inclinations and all that can be\ndescribed as self-will is one of the forms of abnegation required of\nthose who seek to be weaned from earthly interests. From the grouping\nof devotees around some prominent teacher has arisen the foundation of\ndarwish confraternities, sometimes as sodalities of laymen, who pursue\ntheir secular occupations and meet from time to time for religious\nexercises and instruction, and sometimes as permanent communities\nliving in strict obedience under a sheikh. Traces of such monastic\ninstitutions appear in Damascus about 150 A.H., and in Khurasan some\nfifty years later. None of the existing orders of Islam, however, seem\nto be of so early a date. We hear of a sheikh Alwan (circ. 149), whose\nshrine is at Jedda, and who is the reputed founder of the Alwaniya\ncommunity, a body now existing only as a subdivision of the Rifa`ite\norder. There are also orders known as the _Adhamiya_, _Bastamiya_, and\n_Saqatiya_, which trace their origin to Ibrahim b. Adham (cf. above),\nto Bayazid Bastami, and to Sari as-Saqati respectively, but whose real\norigin is uncertain.\n\nIn the 6th century we are on surer ground. There is no reason to\nquestion the claim of the Rifa`ite order to trace its foundation to\n_Abu l-`Abbas Ahmad b. `Ali l-Hasan `Ali ibn Abi l-`Abbas Ahmad Rifa`i_\n(d. 578), a native of the village of Umm Abida, near the junction of\nthe Tigris and Euphrates. In his lifetime he gathered a large body\nof disciples, whom he incorporated in an order in 576, the members\nliving in community under a sheikh, to whom they owed unquestioning\nobedience, but having also, like other orders, a number of lay\nadherents. Dying without issue the headship of his order passed to\nhis brother\u2019s family. It exists to-day in two main branches (i.) the\nAlwaniya, already mentioned, and (ii.) the Gibawi, who are best known\nfrom their association with the ceremony of the _dawsa_, at which the\nsheikh used to ride over the prostrate bodies of his followers. Of\nall the orders now flourishing in Egypt it is the one most inclined\nto fanatical observances at its _zikr_ or prayer-meeting, the members\ncutting themselves, driving sharp skewers and knives into their bodies,\nswallowing snakes, etc., and in prayer allowing the name of God\noft-repeated to become at last no more than a half articulate groan.\nThey are usually distinguished by black-turbans. The Qadariya claim\n`Abdu l-Qadir Jilani (d. 561) as their founder. At their _zikr_ there\nis none of the fire-eating, serpent-swallowing, or self-mutilation of\nthe Rifa`ites, but only the name of God is repeated, always clearly\nenunciated and followed by a pause. The Badawiya were founded by Abu\nl-Fita Ahmad (d. 675), whose shrine is at Tanta, in Lower Egypt. The\n_zikr_ is of a sober kind, the Divine name being repeated in a loud\nvoice without cutting, fire-eating, etc. The Mawlawiya or dancing\ndarwishes were founded by the Persian mystical poet Jalalu d-Din Rumi,\nthe author of the poem known as the _Masnawi_. The _Suhrwardiya_ trace\ntheir origin to Shihabu d-Din, a pantheistic Sufi of Baghdad, who was\nput to death by Saladin in 587.\n\nIn each of these orders a special course of instruction has taken\na more or less conventional form, and there have been certain great\nteachers whose writings have come into use as manuals, and so have\nimpressed their views upon Sufism generally. Yet the fact remains that\nSufi teaching is essentially eclectic, and can be formulated only in\nbroad principles and tendencies. Of these the following seem to be of\nmost general application:--\n\n(i.) God alone exists; God is the only reality, all else is illusive.\nThis is the Sufi rendering of the doctrine of the unity of God.\nStrictly speaking \u201cGod\u201d here signifies the Agent Intellect, that is\nto say, the revelation of God who in Himself is unknowable, but the\nSufi does not make this philosophical distinction clear, or else\ndeliberately regards the revelation of God as God. But in man there is\na rational soul, which is to God as a mirrored image is to the object\nwhich it reflects, and is capable of approaching the Divine reality.\nAs other than God is merely illusive it is obvious that a knowledge of\nGod the Reality cannot be attained by the medium of created things,\nand thus the Sufis were led, like the neo-Platonists, to attach\ngreater value to immediate intuition by the rational soul than to the\nuse of arguments, and so to place direct revelation above what is\nordinarily described as reason. This is a line of development common\nto all forms of mysticism, and results in a preference for ecstasy or\nsimilar spiritual experience above the record of past revelation as\ngiven in the Qur\u00b4an. The doctrine of ecstasy (_hal_ or _maqama_) was\nfirst formulated by Dhu n-Nun, and implies _fana_ or \u201cpassing away,\u201d\ni.e., insensibility to the things of this world, and finally _baqa_ or\n\u201ccontinuance\u201d in God. Usually this experience is accompanied by loss\nof sensation, though this is not always the case, and there are many\nlegends of Sufi saints which represent them as totally unconscious\nof violence of wounds; and this is not confined to legend, for\nmost extraordinary sufferings are endured, apparently with perfect\nplacidity, by darwishes at the present day, perhaps in accordance with\npsychological laws which are imperfectly understood, and this is the\nunderlying idea in the exercises undergone by the Rifa`i darwishes and\nothers. The exercise known as _zikr_ (_dhikr_) or \u201cremembering,\u201d in\naccordance with the command in Qur. 33, 41, \u201cremember God often,\u201d is an\nattempt to make an advance towards the ecstatic state. It was perhaps\nunder Sufi influence that we find philosophy inclining to prefer\nknowledge obtained by immediate intuition; it was certainly under such\ninfluence that ecstasy is treated as a means of obtaining such direct\napprehension of truth in the later philosophers.\n\n(ii.) The Sufi doctrine of God as the only reality has a direct\nbearing not only on creation but also on the problem of good and evil.\nAs a thing can only be known by its opposite, light by darkness, health\nby sickness, being by non-being, so God could only be made known to\nman as reality contrasted with non-reality, and the mingling of these\ntwo opposites produces the world of phenomena in which light is made\nknown by a background of darkness, which darkness is itself only the\nabsence of light: or, as being proceeds by successive emanations from\nthe First Cause, and becomes weaker or less real in each emanation as\nit recedes further from the great Reality, it incidentally becomes\nmore perceptible as it becomes less real. Thus evil, which is merely\nthe negation of the moral beauty of the Reality, appears in the latest\nemanation as the unreal background which is the inevitable result of a\nprojection of the emanation from the First Cause, who is entirely good,\ninto a world of phenomena. Evil is therefore not real, it is merely\nthe result, the inevitable result, of the mingling of reality with\nunreality. In fact, this is implied in the doctrine that all other than\nGod is unreal.\n\n(iii.) The aim of the soul is union with God. This doctrine of\n_tawhid_, as we have seen, received early expression in Muslim mystic\ntheology. Dr. Nicholson is of opinion that \u201cthe Sufi conception of\nthe passing away (_fana_) of individual self in universal being is\ncertainly of Indian origin. Its first great exponent was the Persian\nmystic B\u0101yaz\u012bd of Bist\u0101m, who may have received it of his teacher, Ab\u016b\n`Al\u012b of Sind (Scinde.)\u201d (Nicholson: _Mystics of Islam_, p. 17.) But\nthis is only one particular way of presenting a doctrine which has a\nmuch wider range and is present in all mystical teaching, including\nthat of the neo-Platonists. In the highest sense it is the basis of\nSufi ethics, for the _summum bonum_ is defined as the union of the\nindividual soul with God, and all is good which helps towards this, all\nis evil which retards it, and this is true of Christian and all other\nforms of mysticism equally. We cannot say definitely that the doctrine\nof the unitive state is borrowed from neo-Platonism, from Buddhism, or\nfrom Gnosticism; it is the common property of all, and is the natural\nconclusion from the mystics premises as to the nature of God and of\nthe human soul. It may well be that certain presentations of this\ndoctrine show Indian details, but in this as in all other parts of Sufi\nspeculation it seems that the constructive theory employed in forming a\ntheological system was neo-Platonic: even in mysticism the Greek mind\nexercised its influence in analysing and constructing hypotheses.\n\nAt quite an early age the soul\u2019s desire for union with its Divine\nsource began to be clothed in terms borrowed from the expression of\nhuman love. With some hesitation we may say, perhaps, that this is\ndistinctly oriental, although it was so only as a means of expressing a\ndesire which is characteristic of all mysticism. We find the same, at\na later period, though in a much more restrained fashion, in Christian\nmysticism, and it is not easy to see the actual line of contact, if\nany. Perhaps we must be content to regard it as independently developed\nas a means of expressing the soul\u2019s longing.\n\nThe rise of Sufi teaching was not without opposition, and this was\nmainly on three grounds (i.) the Sufis advocated constant prayer\nin the form of unceasing silent intercourse with God, and by this\ntended to discard the fixed _salawat_ or five obligatory prayers at\nappointed hours, one of the compulsory duties of Islam and one of its\ndistinctive marks. Ultimately the Sufi position was that these fixed\nritual observances were for the people at large who had not made any\nadvance in the deeper spiritual knowledge, but might be disregarded\nby those who were more mature in grace, a position which is closely\nparallel to that attained by the philosophers. (ii.) They introduced\n_zikirs_ or religious exercises, consisting in a continuous repetition\nof the name of God, a form of devotion unknown to older Islam, and\nconsequently an innovation. And (iii.) many of them adopted the\npractice of _tawakkul_, or complete dependence on God, neglecting all\nkinds of labour or trade, refusing medical aid in sickness, and living\non alms begged from the faithful. All these were \u201cinnovations,\u201d and as\nsuch met with very definite opposition, mostly, no doubt, because they\nwere repugnant to the sober tone of traditional Islam, which has always\nbeen suspicious of oriental fanaticism. The more serious objection,\nthat it really dispensed with the religion of the Qur\u00b4an is implied if\nnot expressed; it introduced an entirely new concept of God and a new\nstandard of religious values; if Sufi ideas prevailed the practices of\nthe Muslim religion would be at best the tolerable and harmless usages\nof those who were not initiated into vital religion. In fact, however,\nthe philosophical principles brought forward by the neo-Platonic\nAristotelian works in general circulation were so far influential and\nregarded as reconcileable with the Qur\u00b4an that Sufism, in so far as it\nwas neo-Platonic, did not appear to be destructive of Islam, but only\nat variance with customary usage.\n\nNevertheless, Sufism was generally looked upon as heretical, not only\nfrom the \u201cinnovations\u201d we have mentioned, but because of the close\nalliance between the doctrines of its extremer advocates and those\nof the more advanced Shi`ites. It is indeed most significant that it\ndeveloped chiefly amongst the same elements which gave the readiest\nhearing to philosophy and still adhered to Zoroastrian and Masdekite\nideas. No doubt the ill repute of Sufism was largely due to the bad\ncompany it kept. It was not until the time of al-Ghazali (d. 505) that\nSufism began to take its place in orthodox Islam. Al-Ghazali, left\nan orphan at an early age, had been educated by a Sufi friend, and,\nafter becoming an Ash`arite and as such acting as president of the\nNazimite academy at Baghdad, found himself in spiritual difficulties,\nand spent eleven years in retirement and in the practices of devotion,\nwith the result that when he returned to work as a teacher in 449\nhis instruction was strongly leavened by mysticism, practically a\nreturn to the principles he had been taught in his early years. As\nal-Ghazali became in course of time the dominant influence in Muslim\nscholasticism, a modified and orthodox Sufism was introduced into Sunni\ntheology and has since held its own. At the same time he reduced Sufism\nto a scientific form, and gave, or rather supported, a terminology\nderived from Plotinus. Such a Sufism may be described as Muslim mystic\ntheology purged of its Shi`ite accretions. This admission of a modified\nSufism into the orthodox church of Islam took place in the sixth\ncentury A.H.\n\nIn the following century Sufism appeared in Spain, but there it arrived\nas transmitted through an orthodox medium, and hence differs from\nAsiatic mysticism. The first Spanish Sufi seems to have been _Muhyi\nd-Din ibn `Arabi_ (d. 638), who travelled in Asia and died at Damascus.\nHe was a follower of Ibn Hazm, who, as we shall see later, represents\na system of jurisprudence of a type more reactionary even than that\nof Ibn Hanbal. In Spain itself the leading Sufi was _`Abdu l-Haqq ibn\nSab`in_ (d. 667), who shows the more characteristic Spanish attitude of\na Sufi who was also a philosopher, for Spanish Sufism was essentially\nspeculative. Like many other philosophers of the Muwahhid period he\nadhered outwardly to the Zahirites, the most reactionary party of the\nnarrowest orthodoxy.\n\nIn the 7th century, also, we have _Jalalu d-Din Rumi_ (d. 672), who\npractically completes the golden age of Sufism. Although a Persian he\nwas an orthodox Sunni. He was a native of Balkh, but his father was\ncompelled to leave that city and migrate westward, and finally settled\nat Qonya (Iconium), where he died. Jalalu d-Din had been educated by\nhis father, and after his death he sought further instruction at Aleppo\nand Damascus, where he came under the influence of Burhanu d-Din of\nTirmidh, who had been one of his father\u2019s pupils, and continued his\ntraining in Sufi doctrines. After this teacher\u2019s death he came in touch\nwith the eccentric but saintly Shams-i-Tabriz, a man of great spiritual\npower but illiterate, who left a great impress on his age by his\ntremendous spiritual enthusiasm and the strange crudity of his conduct\nand character. It was after the death of Shams-i-Tabriz that Jalalu\nd-Din commenced his great mystical poem, the _Masnawi_, a work which\nhas attained an extraordinary eminence and reverence throughout the\nwhole of Turkish Islam. As already mentioned, Jalalu d-Din founded an\norder of Darwishes known as the Mawlawi order, or \u201cdancing darwishes,\u201d\nas they are called by Europeans.\n\nThe whole course of doctrinal Sufism begins with Dhu n-Nun and ends\nwith Jalalu d-Din; later writers do little more than repeat their\nteaching in new literary form, and it will be sufficient to select a\nfew typical examples. In the 8th cent. we have _`Abdu r-Razzaq_ (d.\n730), a pantheistic Sufi who wrote a commentary on and defended the\nteaching of Muhiyyu d-Din ibnu l-`Arabi. He advocated the doctrine\nof free will on the ground that the human soul is an emanation from\nGod, and so shares the Divine character. This world, he holds, is\nthe best possible world: differences in condition exist and justice\nconsists in accepting these and adapting things to their situation;\nultimately all things will cease to exist as they are reabsorbed in\nGod, the only reality. Men are divided into three classes: the first\ncontains the men of the world, whose life centres in self and who are\nindifferent towards religion; a second class contains the men of the\nreason, who discern God intellectually by his external attributes and\nmanifestations; and as a third class are the men of the spirit, who\nperceive God intuitively.\n\nAlthough Sufism has now taken a recognised place in the life of\nIslam, it was not allowed to pass without occasional challenge. The\nleading opponent was the Hanbalite reformer, Ibn Taymiya (d. 728), who\nrepresented the reactionary but popular theology. He rejected formal\nadherence to any school, dismissed all importance attached to _Ijma_\nor \u201cconsensus\u201d save that based on the agreement of the Prophet\u2019s\nCompanions; he denounced the scholastic theology of al-Ash`ari and\nal-Ghazali, and defined the Divine attributes on the lines laid down\nby Ibn Hazm. At that time the Sufi an-Nasr al-Manbiji was prominent\nin Cairo, and to him Ibn Taymiya wrote a letter denouncing the Sufi\ndoctrine of _ittihad_ as heresy. From this arose a quarrel between the\ntwo rival forces of Islam, traditional orthodoxy and mysticism, in the\ncourse of which Ibn Taymiya suffered persecution and imprisonment.\nTowards the end of his life, in 726, he issued a _fatwa_ or declaration\nof opinion against the lawfulness of the reverence paid to the tombs of\nsaints and of the invocation of saints, the Prophet himself included.\nIn this he was the precursor of the Wahibi reformation of the 18th\ncent. A.D. MSS. exist in which the works of Ibn Taymiya are copied out\nby the hand of `Abdu l-Wahhab, who was evidently a close student of\nthat reformer, all of whose theories he reproduces.\n\n_Ash-Sha\u00b4rani_ of Cairo (d. 973) is typical of the later orthodox\nSufi. He was a follower of Ibn `Arabi on general lines but without his\npantheism. His writings are a strange mixture of lofty speculation\nand lowly superstition, his life was full of intercourse with jinns\nand other supernatural beings. The truth, he states, is not to be\nreached by the aid of reason, but only by ecstatic vision. The _wali_\nis the man who possesses the gift of illumination (_ilham_), or\ndirect apprehension of the spiritual, but that grace differs from\nthe inspiration (_wahy_) bestowed upon the prophets, and the wali\nmust submit to the guidance of prophetic revelations. All walis\nare essentially under the _qutb_, but the qutb is inferior to the\ncompanions of Muhammad. Whatever rule (_tariqa_) a darwish follows\nhe is guided by God, but ash-Sha\u00b4rani himself preferred the rule of\nal-Junayd. The varying opinions of the canonists are adapted to the\ndifferent needs of men. Ash-Sha\u00b4rani was the founder of a darwish order\nwhich forms a subdivision of the Badawiya (cf. above). His writings\nhave considerable influence in modern Islam, and form the programme of\nthose who advocate a neo-Sufi reformation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nORTHODOX SCHOLASTICISM\n\n\nThe formation of an orthodox scholasticism within the Muslim church\nappears as a development spread over the 4th-5th centuries of the Hijra\n(10-11 cent. A.D.), and is in three strata associated with the three\nleaders, al-Ash`ari, al-Baqilani, and al-Ghazali. Such a development,\nof course, is principally of interest for the internal history of Islam\nand the evolution of Muslim theology, but it had its influence also on\nthe transmission of Arabic thought to Latin Christendom in two ways:\n(i.) directly, in that al-Ghazali was established as one of the great\nArabic authorities when the Latins began to study the interpreters of\nAristotle, and his teaching is quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas and other\nscholastic writers; and (ii.) indirectly, because a considerable part\nof the work of Ibn Rushd (Averroes) takes the form of controversy\nagainst the followers of al-Ghazali; his _Destruction of the\nDestruction_, for example, is a refutation of al-Ghazali\u2019s _Destruction\nof the Philosophers_. It thus becomes imperative to know something\nabout the position and teaching of al-Ghazali and the influences which\nprepared the way for his work.\n\nSuch a movement as orthodox scholasticism was inevitable. The position\nat the end of the third century was quite impossible. The orthodox\nMuslim adhered strictly to tradition, and entirely refused to admit\n\u201cinnovation\u201d (_bid`a_): he had been forced into this position as a\nreaction against his earlier ready acceptance of Plato and Aristotle\nas inspired teachers, for the later errors of the Mu`tazilites showed\nwhat extremely dangerous conclusions could be drawn by those who\ncame under Hellenistic influence, and the more accurately the Greek\nphilosophers were studied the worse the heresies gathered from them.\nOrthodox thought held itself carefully aloof from the Mu`tazilites\nand philosophers on the one side, and from the Shi`ites and Sufis on\nthe other, confining itself to the safe studies of Qur\u00b4an exegesis,\ntradition, and the canon law in which at Baghdad the reactionary\ninfluence of Ibn Hanbal was predominant. The whole of the third century\nhad been a time of reaction on the part of the orthodox, very largely\ndue to the unfortunate attempt of al-Ma\u00b4mun to force rationalism on\nhis subjects. Al-Ghazali tells us in his \u201cConfessions\u201d that some\nsincere Muslims felt themselves bound to reject all the exact sciences\nas of dangerous tendency, and so repudiated scientific theories as\nto eclipses of the sun and moon. All speculation lay under a ban,\nbecause it led to \u201cinnovation\u201d in belief or in practice; it was\ncontrary to orthodoxy to use the methods of Greek philosophy to prove\nrevealed doctrine as much as it was to impugn it, for both alike were\ninnovations on the traditional usage; nothing was known of spiritual\nmatters save what is actually stated in the Qur\u00b4an and tradition, and\nfrom this nothing could be deduced by the use of argument, for logic\nitself was a Greek innovation, at least as applied to theology: only\nthat was known which was actually stated, and no explanation of the\nstatement was lawful. Thus, when Ahmad ibn Hanbal was examined by\nthe inquisitors of al-Ma\u00b4mun he replied only by quoting the words of\nthe Qur\u00b4an or tradition, refusing to draw any conclusions from these\nstatements and admitting no conclusions drawn, keeping silence when\narguments were proposed to him, and protesting that such examination as\nto religious belief was itself an innovation.\n\nThis position was hardly satisfactory to those who had inherited any\npart of the Hellenic tradition, and it ultimately became impossible. An\norganic body which cannot adapt itself to its surroundings is doomed\nto decay. The Islamic state had sufficient vitality to meet the new\nconditions introduced by its expansion to Syria and Persia, and now the\ntime had come for Islamic theology to adapt itself to the new thought\nthat was invading it. As we have seen, the philosophers al-Kindi\nand al-Farabi were loyal Muslims, and had no suspicion that their\ninvestigations were leading to heretical conclusions, and such was\nundoubtedly the case with the earlier Mu`tazilites also, but results\nhad justified the orthodox in a suspicious attitude towards \u201cargument\u201d\n(_kalam_). Now, towards the close of the third century the attempt to\nfind an orthodox _kalam_ appears as a movement which originates with\nthe Mu`tazilites, of whom a section of the more conservative sought to\nreturn to an orthodox stand-point, and to use _kalam_ in theology in\ndefence of the traditional beliefs as against the heretical conclusions\nwhich were in circulation. Following a somewhat later usage we may\nemploy this term _kalam_ to denote an orthodox philosophical theology,\nthat is to say, one in which the methods of philosophy were used, but\nthe primary material was obtained from revelation, and thus one which\nwas closely parallel with the scholastic theology of Latin Christendom.\n\nWe have cited the name of al-Ash`ari as representative of the\nfirst stage of this movement, but it is equally represented by the\ncontemporary al-Mataradi in Samarqand and by at-Tahawi in Egypt. Of\nthese, however, at-Tahawi has quite passed into oblivion. For long\nthe Ash`arites and the Mataridites formed rival orthodox schools of\n_kalam_, and al-Mataridi\u2019s system still has a certain vogue amongst\nTurkish Muslims, but the Ash`arite system is that which commands the\nwidest assent. Theologians reckon thirteen points of difference between\nthe two schools, all of purely theoretical importance.\n\nAl-Ash`ari was born at Basra in 260 or 270, and died at Baghdad about\n330 or 340. At first he was an adherent of the Mu`tazilites, but one\nFriday in A.H. 300 he made a public renunciation of the views of that\nparty, and took up a definitely orthodox position; in the pulpit of\nthe great mosque at Basra he said, \u201cThey who know me know who I am;\nas for those who do not know me, I am `Ali b. Isma`il al-Ash`ari,\nand I used to hold that the Qur\u00b4an was created, that the eyes of men\nshall not see God, and that we ourselves are the authors of our evil\ndeeds; now I have returned to the truth; I renounce these opinions,\nand I take the engagement to refute the Mu`tazilites and expose their\ninfamy and turpitude\u201d (Ibn Khallikan, ii. 228). From this it will be\nperceived that the doctrines then regarded as characteristic of the\nMu`tazilites were (i.) that the Qur\u00b4an was created, (ii.) the denial of\nthe possibility of the beatific vision, and (iii.) the freedom of the\nwill.\n\nIn the period after this change al-Ash`ari wrote a controversial\nwork against the Mu`tazilites, which bears the name _Kitab ash-Sharh\nwa-t-Tafsil_, \u201cthe book of explanation and exposition\u201d; he was the\nauthor also of religious treatises called _Luma_ \u201cflashes,\u201d _Mujaz_\n\u201cabridgment,\u201d _Idah al-Burhan_ \u201celucidation of the Burhan,\u201d and\n_Tabiyin_ \u201cillustrations.\u201d His real importance, however, lay in\nfounding a school of orthodox scholasticism, afterwards more fully\ndeveloped by al-Baqilani, and gradually spreading through the Muslim\nworld, although strongly opposed on the one side by the _falasifah_,\nwho saw in its teaching the introduction of traditional beliefs\nlimiting and restricting the Aristotelian doctrine, and on the other\nside by the more reactionary orthodox, who disapproved the use of\nphilosophical methods as applied to theological subjects. This use of\nphilosophy in the explanation and defence of religion came to be known\nas _kalam_, and those who employed it were called _mutakallamin_.\n\nIn dealing with the old problems of Muslim theology, such as the\neternity of the Qur\u00b4an, the freedom of the will, etc., the Ash`arites\ndo seem to have produced a reasonable statement of doctrine, which yet\nsafeguarded the main demands of orthodoxy.\n\n(_a_) As to the Qur\u00b4an they held that it was eternal in God, but its\nexpression in words and syllables was created in time. This does not\nof course mean that the expression was due to the Prophet to whom it\nwas revealed, but to God, so that the doctrine of literal inspiration\nwas asserted in the strictest form. Nor was it thus created when it\nwas revealed, but long before in remote ages when it was first uttered\nto the angels and \u201caugust beings,\u201d and was afterwards disclosed by the\nangel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad. This, which is now the orthodox\nbelief, has furnished an opportunity for controversy to Christians and\nmodern rationalists, who have fixed upon the use of particular words,\nintroduced into Arabic as loan words from Syriac, Persian, and Greek,\nand appear in the Qur\u00b4an: how, they ask, can it be explained that words\nrevealed at a remote period of past eternity, long before the creation\nof the world, as it is commonly asserted, show the influence of foreign\nlanguages which were brought to bear upon Arabic in the 7th cent. A.D.?\nand Muslim apologists, who have always maintained the absolute purity\nof Qur\u00b4anic Arabic as one of the evidences of Divine origin, seem\nto regard this as a serious difficulty. The view that the Qur\u00b4an is\neternal in substance, and thus in substance revealed to the Prophet,\nwho was left to express it in his own words, which would thereby show\nthe limitations of his time, is not admitted by the orthodox. It will\nbe noted also that the Ash`arite teaching evades and does not answer\nan old difficulty: if the substance of the Qur\u00b4an is the wisdom of God\nand is co-eternal with Him, even though emanating from Him, we have\nsomething other than God, namely, His wisdom, eternally existing with\nHim, and this can be represented as parallel with the persons of the\nChristian Trinity, so as to be inconsistent with the absolute unity of\nGod.\n\n(_b_) This brings us to the attributes of God generally. The\nAsh`arites in this controversy side with the traditional school\nagainst the philosophers. Of the ten Aristotelian categories they\nregard only two--existence, i.e., _ens_, and quality as objectively\nreal; the other eight are merely relative characteristics (_i\u00b4tibar_)\nsubjective in the mind of the knower, and having no objective reality.\nGod has qualities--indeed, no less than twenty are enumerated, but\namongst these is _mukhalafa_, which is the quality of uniqueness in\nqualification, so that the qualities and attributes ascribed to God\nmust either be such as cannot be applied to men, or else, if the terms\ncan be used of created beings, they must have quite different meanings\nwhen applied to God, and these qualities thus signified must be such\nas could not be predicated of men or of any other created being. Thus,\nthat God has power and wisdom means that He is almighty and omniscient\nin a way which could not possibly be stated of any men. In practice\nthis works so that no attribute can be applied to God unless it is\nexpressly so applied in the text of the Qur\u00b4an; if it occurs there it\nmay be used, but must be understood as having a meaning other than such\na term would have when used in the normal way of men. It cannot be that\nGod\u2019s attributes differ from those of men only in degree, as that He\nis wiser and more powerful than man, but they differ in their whole\nnature. It is noted also that God is _qiyam bi-n-nafs_, or \u201csubsisting\nin Himself,\u201d that is to say, independent of any other than Himself, and\nso God\u2019s knowledge does not depend on the existence or nature of the\nthing known.\n\n(_c_) As to freedom of the will. God creates power in the man and\ncreates also the choice, and He then creates the act corresponding to\nthis power and choice. Thus the action is \u201cacquired\u201d by the creature.\n\nOf the categories existence is the first substratum, and to this the\nother predicables are added: none of these others are separable or\n_per se_, they can only exist in the essence. It is admitted that such\nqualities exist in the _ens_, but they are only adjuncts which come\ninto being with the _ens_ and go out of existence with it. Therefore\nthe world consists of _entia_ or substances on which the mind reflects\nthe qualities which are not in the thing itself but only in the mind.\nAgainst the Aristotelian theory that matter suffers the impress of\nform, he argues that all impress is subjective in the mind: if all\nqualities fall out substance itself ceases to exist, and so substance\nis not permanent but transitory, which opposes the Aristotelian\ndoctrine of the eternity of matter.\n\nThe substances perceived by us are atoms which come into existence\nfrom vacuity and drop out of existence again. Thus, when a body moves\nfrom one position to another the atoms in the first position cease to\nbe, and a group of new similar atoms come into existence in the second\nposition, so that movement involves a series of annihilations and\ncreations.\n\nThe cause of these changes is God, the only permanent and absolute\nreality. There is no secondary cause, as there are no laws of nature;\nin every case God acts directly upon each atom. Thus, fire does not\ncause burning, but God creates a being burned when fire touches a\nbody, and the burning is directly His work. So in the freedom of the\nwill, as, for example, when a man writes, God gives the will to write\nand causes the apparent motion of the pen and of the hand, and also\ndirectly creates the writing which seems to proceed from the pen.\n\nExistence is the very self of the thing. This is peculiar to\nal-Ash`ari and his followers: all others hold existence to be the state\n(_h\u0101l_) necessary to the essence, but in al-Ash`ari it is the essence.\nSo God exists, and His existence is the self (_`ayn_) of His essence.\n\nSuch a system involves ethical difficulties; it appears that there can\nbe no responsibility if there is no connection between action and the\nact done. Al-Ash`ari replied that there is a unity in the will of God,\nso that cause and effect are not isolated as though independent atoms,\nbut all is disposed according to a Divine plan. This answer, however,\ncan hardly be regarded as adequate.\n\nThis system is an attempt to deal with the difficulties raised\nby philosophy, but al-Ash`ari considers it preferable that the\ndifficulties should never be raised, and so strongly urges that the\nmysteries of philosophy should never be discussed with the multitude.\nWe shall see the same conclusion set forth by the later philosopher\nof the West, but on a somewhat different ground; they regarded the\nmysteries of philosophy as containing the supreme truth, for which the\nmultitude was not ripe, and so they should not be discussed publicly,\nas the people were not able to understand; but al-Ash`ari seems rather\nto regard these mysteries as likely to be not edifying, as introducing\nquestions which are of small importance compared with the great truths\nof revelation.\n\nThe Ash`arite system thus described was completed by al-Baqilani\n(d. 403), but it did not become general until it was popularised by\nal-Ghazali in the East and by Ibn Tumart in the West.\n\nAl-Mataridi, of Samarqand was a contemporary of al-Ash`ari, and reached\nvery similar results. Amongst the points peculiar to al-Mataridi we\nmay note (_a_) the attribute of _creating_ has been an attribute of\nGod from all eternity, but this attribute is distinct from the thing\ncreated; (_b_) Creatures have certain choice of action, and for the\nthings done by this choice they are rewarded or punished; good actions\nare only done by the pleasure (_rida_) of God, but bad actions are not\nalways by His pleasure; (_c_) Ability to do the action goes with the\nwill and the act, so that the creature cannot have an action imposed on\nhim as a task which is not in his power.\n\nHe agrees with al-Ash`ari in holding that the world and all it contains\nhave been created by God from nothing: it consists of substances and\nattributes. The substances exist in themselves, either as compounds,\nsuch as bodies, or as non-compounds, as essences which are indivisible.\nAttributes have no separate existence, but depend for their existence\non bodies or essences. God is not essence, nor attribute, nor body, nor\nanything formed, bounded, numbered, limited, nor compounded. He cannot\nbe described by _mahiya_ (quiddity), nor _kayfiya_ (modality); He does\nnot exist in time or place, and nothing resembles Him or is outside His\nknowledge or power. He has qualities from all eternity existing in His\nessence; they are not He nor is He other than they.\n\nFor some time the Ash`arites had to meet keen opposition and even\npersecution, and it was not until the middle of the 5th cent. that\nthey came to be admitted generally as orthodox Muslims. Their triumph\nwas assured in 459 A.H., when Nizam al-Mulk, the wazir of Alp Arslan,\nfounded at Baghdad the Nizamite academy as a theological college of\nAsh`arite teaching. Still the Hanbalites raised occasional riots,\nand demonstrated against those whom they regarded as free thinkers;\nbut these were put down by authority, and in 516 the Khalif himself\nattended the Ash`arite lectures. The Mu`tazilites were now merely a\nsurvival; as broad church theologians they had fallen into general\ndisrepute in the eyes of the orthodox, and they were equally disliked\nby the philosophers as defective in their adherence to the Aristotelian\nsystem. The educated fell now into three broad groups: on the one\nhand were the orthodox, who came under the influence of al-Ash`ari or\nal-Mataridi; on the other were those who accepted the doctrines of\nthe philosophers, and in the third place were those who rejected all\nphilosophy, and confined their attention solely to Qur\u00b4an tradition and\nthe canon law, and who should not be excluded from the ranks of the\neducated, although their studies ran in somewhat narrow lines.\n\nThe final triumph of the Ash`arite theology was the work of\n_al-Ghazali_ (d. 505). He was born at Tus in 450 (= 1058 A.D.); early\nleft an orphan he was educated by a Sufi friend, and then attended\nthe school at Naisabur. As his education progressed he cut loose from\nSufi influence and became an Ash`arite, and in 484 he was appointed\npresident of the Nazimite Academy at Baghdad. Gradually, however, he\nbecame a prey to spiritual unrest, and in 488 resigned his post and\nretired to Syria, where he spent some years in study and the practices\nof devotion. In 499 he returned to active work as a teacher in the\nNazimite Academy at Naisabur, where he became the leader of a modified\nAsh`arite system strongly leavened by mysticism, which we may regard as\nthe final evolution of orthodox Muslim theology.\n\nAl-Ghazali, following al-Ash`ari, taught that philosophical theory\ncannot form the basis of religious thought, thus opposing the position\nof the philosophers. By revelation only can the primary essentials\nof truth be attained. Philosophy itself is no equal or rival of\nrevelation: it is no more than common sense and regulated thinking,\nwhich may be employed by men about religion or any other subject; at\nbest it acts as a preservative against error in deduction and argument,\nthe primary material for which, so far as religion is concerned, can\nbe furnished only by revelation. But against this he appears also as\nthe transmitter of the teaching already given, by al-Qushayri, which\nintroduced the mysticism of the Sufis into orthodox Islam. Revelation\nindeed is given by means of the Qur\u00b4an and tradition, and it is\nsufficient to accept what is thus revealed, but the ultimate truth\nof revelation can be tested and proved only by the experience of the\nindividual. So far as men are concerned this is possible by means of\necstasy whereby one becomes a knower (_`arif_), and receives assurance\nand enlightenment by direct communication from God. The soul of man\ndiffers from all other created things; it is essentially spiritual, and\nso outside the categories which are applicable only to material things.\nThe soul has been breathed into man by God (Qur. 15, 29; 38, 72), and\nthis is comparable to the way in which the sun sends out its rays and\ngives warmth to those things on which its rays rest. The soul, which\nhas no dimension, shape, or locus, rules the body in the same way as\nGod rules the world, so that the body is a microcosm reproducing the\nconditions of the world. The essential element of this soul is not the\nintelligence which is concerned with the bodily frame, but the will:\njust as God is primarily known not as thought or intelligence, but\nas the volition which is the cause of creation. Thus God cannot be\nconsidered as the spirit animating the world, which is the pantheistic\nposition, but as volition outside the world which has willed it to be.\n\nThe aim of scholastic theology is to preserve the purity of\northodox belief from heretical innovation: \u201cGod raised up a school\nof theologians and inspired them with the desire to defend orthodoxy\nby means of a system of proofs adapted to unveil the devices of the\nheretics and to foil the attacks which they made on the doctrines\nestablished by tradition\u201d (Al-Ghazali: _Confessions_). Aristotle\nhimself was an unbeliever using arguments he should not, but, in spite\nof his errors, his teaching as expounded by al-Farabi and Ibn Sina\nis the system of thought which comes nearest to Islam (id.). Because\nof its unavoidable difficulties and the grave errors contained in\nAristotle and his Arabic commentators men are not to be encouraged to\nread philosophy (id.).\n\nThere are three different worlds or planes of existence (i.) the _`alam\nal-mulk_ is that in which existence is apparent to the senses, the\nworld made known by perception, and this is in a state of constant\nchange; (ii.) the _`alam al-malakut_, the changeless and eternal\nworld of reality established by God\u2019s decree, of which the world of\nperception is but the reflexion; (iii.) and the _`alam al-jarabut_ or\nintermediate state, which properly belongs to the world of reality,\nbut seems to be in the plane of perception. In this intermediate state\nis the human soul, which belongs to the plane of reality, though\napparently projected into the perceptible plane to which it does not\nbelong, and then returns to reality. The pen, tablet, etc., mentioned\nin the Qur\u00b4an are not mere allegories; they belong to the world of\nreality, and so are something other than what we see in this world of\nperception. These three worlds or planes are not separate in time or\nspace, they are rather to be considered as modes of existence.\n\nThe theories of the astronomers as to movements of the heavenly bodies\nare to be accepted--al-Ghazali adhered, of course, to the Ptolemaic\nsystem--but these deal only with the lowest plane, the world of sense.\nBehind all nature is God, who is on the plane of reality. This higher\nplane cannot be reached by reason or intellect, whose operations must\nrely on the evidence of sense perception. To reach the plane of reality\nman must be raised by a spiritual faculty, \u201cby which he perceives\ninvisible things, the secrets of the future and other concepts as\ninaccessible to reason as the concepts of reason are inaccessible to\nmere discrimination and what is perceived by discrimination of the\nsenses\u201d (op. cit.). Inspiration means the disclosing of realities to\nthe prophets or saints, and these realities can only be known by such\nrevelation or by the personal experience of ecstasy by which the soul\nis raised to the plane of reality. Not only are the religious truths\nin the Qur\u00b4an revealed, but all ideas of good and evil are similarly\nrevealed, and could not be attained by the unaided use of reason, a\nview which is obviously intended to refute the Mu`tazilite claim that\nmoral differences can be perceived by reason. The philosophers also\nhave attained truths by revelation, and the main substance of medicine\nand astronomy is based on such revelation (op. cit.).\n\nUnlike Ibn Rushd, al-Ghazali thus emphasizes supra-rational intuition\nattained in a state of ecstasy, whereby the soul is raised above the\nworld of shadow and reflection to the plane of reality. This was pure\nmysticism, and thus al-Ghazali introduces a Sufi element into orthodox\nIslam. At the same time he reduced Sufism to a scientific form, and\nendorsed the Plotinian terminology. Macdonald summarises his work\nunder four heads: (i.) he established an orthodox mysticism; (ii.)\nhe popularised the use of philosophy; (iii.) he rendered philosophy\nsubordinate to theology, and (iv.) he restored the fear of God when the\nelement of fear was tending to be thrust into the background, at least\nby the educated. From this time on the term _kalam_ was usually applied\nto philosophy adapted to the use of theologians.\n\nThe chief works left by al-Ghazali are the _Ihya `Ulum ad-Din_,\nof which it is understood that a translation by H. Bauer is in\npreparation, and the _Mi\u00b4yar al-`Ilm_, a treatise on logic. To\nposterity, however, he is best known by his _Confessions_, an\nautobiographical account of his spiritual life and development, which\nmay not unfitly be placed beside the Confessions of St. Augustine.\n\nAl-Ghazali completes the development of orthodox Muslim theology. From\nthis time forth it ceased to have any originality, and for the most\npart showed signs of decadence. Here and there we find Sufi revivals;\nindeed, Sufism is the only phase of Islam which kept free from the\nrigid conservatism which has laid its iron hand of repression upon\nMuslim life and thought generally. In Yemen the system of al-Ghazali\nwas kept alive by generations of Sufis, but for the most part Sufism\npreferred less orthodox paths. Against these Sufi movements we see\nfrom time to time others of a distinctly reactionary character, such\nas that of the Wahabis, who opposed the theology of al-Ghazali when it\nwas generally recognised as the orthodox teaching at Mecca, and in this\nthey were followed by the Sanusi.\n\n_Sayyid Murtada_ (d. 1205 A.H. = 1788 A.D.), a native of Zabid in\nYihama, wrote a commentary on al-Ghazali\u2019s _Ihya `Ulum ad-Din_, and\nthus revived the study of the great scholastic theologian. From that\ntime the Islamic community has not lacked neo-Ghazalian students, and\nmany consider that that school contains the best promise for modern\nIslam.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nWESTERN PHILOSOPHY\n\n\nMuslim rule in North Africa west of the Nile valley was commenced\nunder conditions very different from those prevailing in Egypt and\nSyria. The Arabs found this land occupied by the Berbers or Libyans,\nthe same race which from the time of the earliest Pharaohs had been a\nperpetual menace to Egypt, and which, on the Mediterranean seaboard,\nhad offered a serious problem to Ph\u0153nician, Greek, Roman and Gothic\ncolonists. For some thousands of years these Berbers had remained\nvery much the same as when they had emerged from the neolithic stage,\nand were hardy desert men like the Arabs in pre-Islamic times. Their\nlanguage was not Semitic, but shows very marked Semitic affinities,\nand, although language transmission is often quite distinct from racial\ndescent, it seems probable that in this case there was a parallel, and\nthis is best explained by supposing that both were derived from the\nneolithic race which at one time spread along the whole of the south\ncoast of the Mediterranean and across into Arabia, but that some cause,\nperhaps the early development of civilization in the Nile valley, had\ncut off the eastern wing from the rest, and this segregated portion\ndeveloped the peculiar characteristics which we describe as Semitic.\nThe series of Greek, Punic, Roman, and Gothic settlements had left no\npermanent mark on the Berber population, on their language, or on their\nculture. At the time of the Arab invasion the country was theoretically\nunder the Byzantine Empire, and the invading Arabs had to meet the\nresistance of a Greek army; but this was not a very serious obstacle,\nand the invaders were soon left face to face with the Berber tribes.\n\nThe Muslim invasion of North Africa followed immediately after the\ninvasion of Egypt, but the internal disputes of the Muslim community\nprevented a regular conquest. It was not until a second invasion\ntook place in A.H. 45 (= A.D. 665) that we can regard the Arabs as\ncommencing the regular conquest and settlement of the country. For\ncenturies afterwards the Arab control was precarious in the extreme,\nrevolts were constantly taking place, and many Berber states were\nfounded, some of which had an existence of considerable duration.\nAs a rule there was a pronounced racial feeling between Berbers and\nArabs, but there were also tribal feuds, and Arab policy generally\naimed at playing off one powerful tribe against another. Gradually\nthe Arabs spread all along North Africa and down to the desert edge,\ntheir tribes as a rule occupying the lower ground, whilst the older\npopulation had its chief centres in the mountainous districts. During\nthe invasion of 45 the city of Kairawan was founded some distance\nsouth of Tunis. The site was badly chosen, and is now marked only by\nruins and a scanty village, but for some centuries it served as the\ncapital city of _Ifrikiya_, which was the name given to the province\nlying next to Egypt, embracing the modern states of Tripoli, Tunis,\nand the eastern part of Algeria up to the meridian of Bougie. West\nof this lay _Maghrab_, or the \u201cwestern land,\u201d which was divided into\ntwo districts, Central Maghrab extending from the borders of Ifrikiya\nacross the greater part of Algeria and the eastern third of Morocco,\nand Further Maghrab, which spread beyond to the Atlantic coast. In\nthese provinces Arabs and Berbers lived side by side, but in distinct\ntribes, the intercourse between the two varying in different localities\nand at different times. For the most part each race preserved its own\nlanguage, the several Arabic dialects being distinguished by archaic\nforms and a phonology somewhat modified by Berber influences; but there\nare instances of Berber tribes which have adopted Arabic, and some of\nthe Arab and mixed groups have preferred the Berber language.\n\nThe religion of Islam spread rapidly amongst the Berbers, but it took\na particular development, which shows a survival of many pre-Islamic\nreligious ideas. The worship of saints and the devotion paid at their\ntombs is a corruption which appears elsewhere, on lines quite distinct\nfrom the Asiatic beliefs as to incarnation or transmigration, and in\nthe west this saint worship takes an extreme form, although here and\nthere are tribes which reject it altogether, as is the case with the B.\nMessara, the Ida of South Morocco, etc. Pilgrimages (_ziara_) are made\nto saints\u2019 tombs, commemorative banquets are held there (_wa\u00b4da_ or\n_ta\u00b4an_), and acts of worship, often taking a revolting form, are paid\nto living saints, who are known as _murabits_ or _marabouts_, a word\nwhich literally means \u201cthose who serve in frontier forts (_ribat_),\u201d\nwhere the soldiers were accustomed to devote themselves to practices\nof piety. These saints are also known as _sidi_ (lords), or _mulaye_\n(teachers), and in the Berber language of the Twaregs as _aneslem_,\nor \u201cIslamic.\u201d Very often they are insane persons, and are allowed to\nindulge every passion and to disregard the ordinary laws of morality.\nEven those living at the present day are credited with miraculous\npowers, not only with gifts of healing, but with exemption from the\nlimitations of space and from the laws of gravity (cf. Trumelet: _Les\nsaints de l\u2019islam_, Paris, 1881); in many cases the same saint has two\nor more tombs, and is believed to be buried in each, for it is argued\nthat, as he was able to be in two or more places at once during life,\nso his body can be in several tombs after death. All this, of course,\nis no normal development of Islam, to which it is plainly repugnant.\nHow thin a veneer of Muslim usages covers over a mass of primitive\nanimism may be seen from Dr. Westermarck\u2019s essay on \u201cBelief in spirits\nin Morocco,\u201d the firstfruits of the newly established Academy at Abo in\nFinland (_Humaniora._ I. i. Abo, Finland, 1920), and from Dr. Montet\u2019s\n_Le culte des saints musulmans dans l\u2019Afrique du nord_ (Geneva, 1905).\n\nAmongst the Berber tribes in perpetual conflict with the Arab garrisons\nthere was always a refuge and a welcome for the lost causes of Islam,\nand so almost every heretical sect and every defeated dynasty made\nits last stand there, so that even now those parts show the strangest\nsurvivals of otherwise forgotten movements. No doubt this was mainly\ndue to a perennial tone of disaffection towards the Arab rulers, and\nanyone in revolt against the Khalif was welcomed for that very fact.\n\nThe conquest of Spain towards the end of the 1st cent. A.H. (early 8th\ncent. A.D.) was jointly an Arab and Berber undertaking, the Berbers\nbeing in the great majority in the invading army, and most of the\nleaders being Berber. Thus in Andalusia the old rivalries between Arab\nand Berber figure largely in the next few centuries. At first Andalusia\nwas regarded merely as a district attached to the province of North\nAfrica, and was ruled from Ifrikiya.\n\nIn A.H. 138, after the fall of the Umayyads in Asia, a fugitive member\nof the fallen dynasty, `Abdu r-Rahman, failing in an attempt to restore\nhis family in Africa, crossed over to Spain, and there established a\nnew and independent power, with its seat of government at Cordova,\nand in A.H. 317 one of his descendants formally assumed the title\nof \u201cCommander of the Faithful.\u201d The Umayyads of Spain very closely\nreproduced the general characteristics of their rule in Syria. They\nwere tolerant, and made free use of Christian and Jewish officials;\nthey encouraged the older literary arts, and especially poetry, and\nemployed Greek artists and architects; but though doing much for the\nmore material elements of culture, there is no evidence under their\nrule of any interest in Greek learning or philosophy. Yet, though in a\nsense old-fashioned, the country was by no means isolated, and we find\nfrequent intercourse between Spain and the east. The religious duty of\nthe pilgrimage has always been an important factor in promoting the\ncommon life of Islam, and there is abundant evidence that the Spanish\nMuslims looked steadily eastwards for religious guidance, accepting\nthe _hadith_, the canon law, and the development of a scientific\njurisprudence as it took shape in the east. Both Muslims and Jews\ntravelled to Mesopotamia in order to complete their education, and thus\nkept in contact with the more cultured life of Asia. But Spanish Islam\nhad no feeling of sympathy with the philosophical speculation popular\nin the east, and certainly disapproved the latitudinarian developments\nwhich were taking place under the `Abbasids of the third century:\nits tendency was to a rigid orthodoxy and strict conservatism, its\ninterests were confined to the canon law, Qur\u00b4anic exegesis, and the\nstudy of tradition.\n\nThe reactionary character of Spanish Islam is well illustrated by\n_Ibn Hazm_ (d. 456 A.H.), the first important theologian which it\nproduced. Rejecting the four recognised and orthodox schools of canon\nlaw, and discarding even the rigid system of Ibn Hanbal as not strict\nenough, he became an adherent of the school founded by Da\u00b4ud az-Zahiri\n(d. 270), which has never been admitted as on the same footing as the\nother four, and now is totally extinct. In the teaching of that school\nQur\u00b4an and tradition were taken in their strictest and most literal\nsense; any sort of deduction by analogy was forbidden; \u201cit is evident\nthat here we have to do with an impossible man and school, and so the\nMuslim world found. Most said roundly that it was illegal to appoint a\nZahirite to act as judge, on much the same grounds that objection to\ncircumstantial evidence will throw out a man now as juror. If they had\nbeen using modern language, they would have said that it was because\nhe was a hopeless crank.\u201d (Macdonald: _Muslim Theology_, p. 110). This\nwas the system which Ibn Hazm now introduced into Spain, and it was\none calculated to appeal to the stern puritan strain which undoubtedly\nexists in the Iberian character. The novel point was that Ibn Hazm\napplied the principles and methods of jurisprudence to theology proper.\nLike Da\u00b4ud he entirely rejected the principles of analogy and _taqlid_,\nthat is, the following of authority in the sense of accepting the\ndictum of a known teacher. As this undermined all existing systems, and\nrequired every man to study Qur\u00b4an and tradition for himself, it did\nnot receive the approval of the canonists, who, in Spain as elsewhere,\nwere the followers of recognised schools, such as that of Abu Hanifa\nand the other orthodox systems, and it was not until a full century\nafterwards that he gained any number of adherents. In theology he\nadmitted the Ash`arite doctrine of _mukhalafa_, the difference of God\nfrom all created beings, so that human attributes could not be applied\nto him in the same sense as they were used of men; but he carried this\na stage further, and opposed the Ash`arites, who, though admitting\nthe difference, had then argued about the attributes of God as though\nthey described God\u2019s nature, when the very fact of difference deprives\nthem of any meaning intelligible to us. As in the Qur\u00b4an ninety-nine\ndescriptive titles are applied to God we may lawfully employ them, but\nwe neither know what they imply nor can we argue anything from them.\nThe same method is applied to the treatment of the anthropomorphical\nexpressions which are applied to God in the Qur\u00b4an; we may use those\nexpressions, but we have not the slightest idea of what they may\nindicate, save that we know they do not mean what they would mean as\nused of men. In ethics the only distinction between good and evil is\nbased on God\u2019s will, and our only knowledge of that distinction is\nobtained from revelation. If God forbids theft it is wrong only because\nGod forbids it; there is no standard other than the arbitrary approval\nor disapproval of God.\n\nAlthough it took a century for these views to obtain any number of\nadherents, Ibn Hazm was no obscure figure during his lifetime. He\nbecame prominent as a violent and abusive controversialist, an opponent\nof the Ash`arite party and of the Mu`tazilites, curiously enough\ntreating the latter more gently as having limited God\u2019s qualities.\n\nIbn Hazm lived at a time when the Umayyads of Cordova were already\nin their decay, and in 422 the dynasty fell. Very soon the whole of\nAndalusia was split into a number of independent principalities, and\nthis was followed by a period of anarchy, during which the country\nwas exposed more and more to Christian attacks, until at length\nMu`tamid, King of Seville, fearing that the Muslim states would\ndisappear altogether under the tide of Christian conquest, advised his\nco-religionists to appeal for help to the Murabit power in Morocco,\nwhich, with much misgiving, they did.\n\nThe Murabits, the name is that commonly applied to saints in Morocco,\nwere the product of a religious revival led by Yahya b. Ibrahim of the\nclan of the Jidala, a branch of the great Berber tribe of Latuna, one\nof those light-complexioned Berber races such as can still be seen\nin Algeria, and are apparently nearest akin to the Lebu as they are\nrepresented in ancient Egyptian paintings. In 428 (= 1036 A.D.) Yahya\nperformed the pilgrimage to Mecca, and was astonished and delighted\nat the evidences of culture and prosperity which he saw in the lands\nthrough which he travelled, so far exceeding anything which had\npreviously entered his experience. On his return journey he stopped\nat Kairawan and became a hearer at the lectures given there by Abu\nAmran. The lecturer was greatly struck by the diligence and attention\nof his pupil, and greatly surprised when he discovered that he was a\nproduct of one of the wild and barbarous tribes of the far west. But\nwhen Yahya asked that one of the alumni of Kairawan might be sent\nhome with him to teach his fellow-tribesmen no one was found willing\nto venture amongst a people who were generally regarded as fierce and\nsavage, until at last the task was undertaken by Abdullah ibn Jahsim.\nHelped by his companion Yahya commenced a religious revival amongst\nthe Berbers of the West, and seems to have modelled his work on the\nexample of the Prophet, by force of arms urging his reforms upon the\nneighbouring tribes and laying the foundation of a united kingdom, a\nwork which was continued by his successor, Yusuf b. Tashfin, and so\nat length a powerful kingdom was established, which extended from the\nMediterranean to the Senegal. Many such Berber states were established\nat various times, but, as a rule, they fell into decay after a couple\nof generations.\n\nYusuf b. Tashfin was the champion now invited by the Muslims of Spain,\nnot without misgivings in many quarters, but the choice seemed to lie\nonly between Christian or Berber, and the Berbers were at least of\ntheir own religion and of the same race as the majority of the Spanish\nMuslims. Yusuf came as a helper, but a second time invited he stayed on\nand established his authority over the country, and thus Spain became\na province under the rule of the Murabit princes of Morocco. Yusuf was\nsucceeded by `Ali, who was successful in restraining the Christians,\nand at one time even formed plans to drive them out of Spain altogether.\n\nMurabit rule, which lasted 35 years, brought many changes and itself\nexperienced many changes. The rulers were rough men of uncouth manners\nand fanatical outlook. Not many years before, it will be remembered,\nthe Arabs of Kairawan were reluctant to venture into their land, such\nwas their ill repute. They were partially humanised by a religious\nmovement, and thus naturally show a religious character which bordered\non fanaticism. `Ali himself was entirely in the hands of the _faqirs_\nor mendicant devotees and qadis, and the government was liable to\ninterference from these irresponsible fanatics at every turn. It was a\nstate of affairs which awakened the impatience of the cultured Muslims\nof Spain, who expressed their feelings in many caustic epigrams and\nsatirical poems. But very soon a change began to work. The Murabits\nand their followers did not become less attached to the devotees, who\nswarmed unchecked on every side and received idolatrous attentions\nfrom the multitude, but they learned the luxuries and refinements of\nthe cultured life then prevailing in Spain and showed themselves apt\npupils. Indeed, their downfall may be explained either as due to effete\nluxury or to faqir-ridden superstition, as we shall see later on.\n\nThe intellectual life of Muslim Spain up to the Murabit period was\nconservative rather than backward. Its literary men were nearer the old\ntraditional Arab type than was the case in the eastern Khalifate, where\nPersian influences had pushed the Arab so much into the background;\nits scholars were still occupied exclusively with the traditional\nsciences, exegesis, canon law, and traditions. The Murabit invasion\noffered a stimulus to satirical verse, but otherwise did nothing to\npromote either literature or science. Yet it is under Murabit rule\nthat we find the first beginnings of western philosophy, and the line\nof transmission is from the Mu`tazilites of Baghdad through the Jews\nand thence to the Muslims of Spain. The Jews act as intermediaries who\nbring the Muslim philosophy of Asia into contact with the Muslims of\nSpain.\n\nFor a long time the Jews had taken no part in the development of\nHellenistic philosophy, although in the latter Syriac period they\nhad participated in medical studies and in natural science, of which\nwe have seen evidence in the important work of Jewish physicians and\nscientists at Baghdad under al-Ma\u00b4mun and the early `Abbasids. Outside\nmedicine and natural science Jewish interest seems to have been mainly\nconfined to Biblical exegesis, tradition, and canon law.\n\nOne of the few exceptions to this restriction of interests was\n_Sa`id al-Fayyumi_ or Saadya ben Joseph (d. 331 A.H. = 942 A.D.), a\nnative of Upper Egypt, who became one of the Geonim of the academy\nat Sora on the Euphrates, and is best known as the translator of the\nOld Testament into Arabic, which had now replaced Aramaic as the\nspeech of the Jews both in Asia and in Spain. As an author his most\nimportant work was the _Kitab al-Amanat wa-l-\u00b4Itiqadat_, or \u201cBook of\nthe articles of faith and dogmatics,\u201d which was finished in 321-2 (=\nA.D. 933), and was afterwards translated into Hebrew as _Sefer Emunot\nwe-De\u00b4ot_ by Judah b. Tibbon. He was the author also of a commentary\non the Pentateuch, of which only a portion (on Exod. 30, 11-16)\nsurvives, as well as other works; but it is in the first-named and\nin the commentary that his views appear most clearly. For the first\ntime a Jewish writer shows familiarity with the problems raised by\nthe Mu`tazilites, and gives these a serious attention from the Jewish\nstand-point. It does not seem, however, that we should class Sa`id as\na Mu`tazilite; he more properly represents the movement which produced\nhis Muslim contemporaries, al-Ash`ari and al-Mataridi, that is to say,\nhe is one of those who use orthodox _kalam_ and adapt philosophy to\napologetic purposes. His position is shown most clearly in the \u201cBook of\nthe articles of faith and dogmatics\u201d in dealing with the three problems\nof (_a_) creation, (_b_) the Divine Unity, and (_c_) free will. In the\nfirst of these he defends the doctrine of a creation _ex nihilo_, but\nin giving proofs of the necessity of a creator he shows in three out of\nthe four arguments employed distinct traces of Aristotelian influences.\nIn treating the doctrine of the Divine Unity he is chiefly concerned\nwith opposing the Christian teaching of the Trinity, but incidentally\nis compelled to deal with the idea of God and the Divine attributes,\nand in doing so maintains that none of the Aristotelian categories can\nbe applied to God. As to the human will he defends its freedom, and his\ntask is mainly an effort to reconcile this with the omnipotence and\nomniscience of God. In the fragment on Exodus he refers to the commands\nof revelation and the commands of reason, these latter, he asserts,\nbeing based on philosophical speculation.\n\nEvidently the _Mutakallamin_ movement, professedly an orthodox\nreaction from the Mu`tazilites, represents a great widening of\nphilosophical influences. Philosophy was no longer a subject confined\nto one group of scholars who were interested in Greek writings, but\nhad spread out until it reached the mosques, and could no longer be\nthrust aside as an heretical aberration, and in its outspread it had\npenetrated the Jewish schools as well. But Sa`id produced no immediate\ndisciples, and those who followed him in the Jewish academies of\nMesopotamia showed no interest in his methods. Yet his work, apparently\nbarren, was destined to have results of the widest importance after a\ncentury\u2019s interval. In spite of distance and the difficulties of travel\nthere was a very close and frequent intercourse maintained between all\nthe Jews of the Sefardi group, those, namely, who had adopted Arabic\nas their ordinary speech and who were living under Muslim rule. The\nAshkenazi Jews in the north and centre of Europe who lived in Christian\nlands and did not use Arabic were definitely separated from these\nothers by the barrier of language, and thus in different surroundings\nthe two groups developed marked differences in their use of Hebrew,\nin their liturgical formularies, and in their popular beliefs and\nfolk-lore. Thus we must bear in mind that a synagogue in Spain would\nnaturally be in close touch with synagogues in Mesopotamia, but it was\nnot likely to have any contact with one in the Rhine valley.\n\nAlthough the earlier Jewish settlers in Spain and Provence had enjoyed\nconsiderable freedom, restrictions had been imposed by the council\nof Elvira (A.D. 303-4), and they had to suffer considerable severity\nunder the later West Goths. The coming of the Muslims had greatly\neased their position, chiefly because the Jews had taken a leading\npart in assisting and probably in inviting the invaders; they often\nfurnished garrisons to occupy towns which the Muslims had conquered,\nand were the means of supplying them with information as to the enemy\u2019s\nmovements. It seems probable that they had been in correspondence with\nthe Muslims beforehand, so that they shared with Witiza\u2019s partisans\nthe responsibility of inviting the invasion. Under Umayyad rule their\nprosperity continued and increased. Very often we find Jews occupying\nhigh positions at court and in the civil service, and these favorable\nconditions seem to have prevailed until the time of the Muwahhids, for\nit does not appear that the Murabits, for all their fanaticism, took\nany measures against Christians or Jews.\n\nImportant amongst the Jews of the Umayyad period was _Hasdai ben\nShabrut_ (d. 360 or 380 A.H.), a physician under `Abdu r-Rahman, who\nsent presents to Sora and Pumbaditha, and carried on a correspondence\nwith Dosa, son of the Gaon Sa`id al-Fayyumi. Hitherto it had been the\ncustom for the western Jews to refer all difficult problems of the\ncanon law to the learned of the academies in Mesopotamia, just as their\nMuslim neighbours referred to the East for guidance in jurisprudence\nand theology. But Hasdai took advantage of the accidental presence\nof Moses Ben Enoch in Cordova to found a native Spanish academy for\nrabbinical studies there, and appointed Moses its president, a step\nwhich received the warm approval of the Umayyad prince. This turned\nout to be more important than its founder had anticipated; it was\nnot merely a provincial school reproducing the work of the eastern\nacademies, but resulted in the transference of Jewish scholarship to\nSpain. At that time Asiatic Islam was beginning to feel the restricting\npower of the orthodox reaction, whilst Spain, on the other hand, saw\nthe opening of a golden age. Shortly before this date the Umayyad Hakim\nII. had been working to encourage Muslim scholarship in the west, and\nhad sent his agents to purchase books in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad,\nand Alexandria. In the reactionary age of Mahmud of Ghazna (388-421)\nMuslim b. Muhammad al-Andalusi had been instrumental in introducing\nthe teachings of the \u201cBrethren of Purity\u201d to the Muslims of Spain. We\ncannot say that the Jews anticipated the Muslims of Spain in their\nstudy of philosophy, but it is clear that the Jews were associated with\nthe first dawn of the new learning in Spain, and thus as the sun was\nsetting in the East a new day was beginning to break in the West.\n\nThe first leader of Spanish philosophy was the Jew _Abu Ayyub Sulayman\nb. Yahya b. Jabirul_ (d. 450 A.H. = 1058 A.D.), commonly known as Ibn\nGabirol (Jabirul), and hence \u201cAvencebrol\u201d in the Latin scholastic\nwriters. He is chiefly known as the author of _Maqor Chayim_, \u201cThe\nFountain of Life,\u201d a title based on the words of Psalm 36, 10, which\nwas one of the works translated into Latin at the college of Toledo\nand so well known to the scholastic writers as the _Fons Vitae_ (ed.\nBaumer: _Avencebrolis Fons Vitae_, M\u00fcnster, 1895). It was this work\nwhich really introduced neo-Platonism to the West. Ibn Jabirul teaches\nthat God alone is pure reality, and He is the only actual substance;\nHe has no attributes, but in Him are will and wisdom, not as possessed\nattributes but as aspects of His nature. The world is produced by\nthe impress of form upon pre-existing universal matter. \u201cSeparate\nsubstances\u201d in the sense of ideas abstracted from the things in which\nthey exist (cf. Aristot. _de anima_. iii. 7, 8, \u201cand so the mind when\nit thinks of mathematical forms thinks of them as separated, though\nthey are not separated\u201d) do not exist apart in reality; the abstracting\nis only a mental process, so the general idea exists only as a concept,\nnot as a reality. But between the purely spiritual being of God and\nthe crudely material observed in the bodies existing in this world are\nintermediate forms of existence, such as angels, souls, etc., wherein\nthe form is not impressed upon matter.\n\nBesides this \u201cFountain of Life\u201d Ibn Gabirol was the author of two\nethical treatises, the _Tikkun Midwoth han-Nefesh_, \u201cthe correction of\nthe manners of the soul,\u201d in which man is treated as a microcosm after\nthe kabbalistic fashion; and _Mibchar hap-Peninim_, a collection of\nethical maxims collected from the Greek and Arabic philosophers. The\nformer has been published at Luneville in 1804, the latter at Hamburg\nin 1844.\n\nAt the beginning of the sixth century A.H., a younger contemporary\nof al-Ghazali, we have _Abu Bakr ibn Bajja_ (d. 533 A.H. = 1138\nA.D.), the first of the Muslim philosophers of Spain. By this time,\nsome three-quarters of a century after the death of Ibn Sina,\nArabic philosophy was almost extinct in Asia and was treated as a\ndangerous heresy. In Egypt, it is true, there was a greater degree of\ntoleration, though less than in the golden age of the Fatimids, but\nEgypt was regarded with suspicion as the home of heresy and of forms\nof superstition which were uncongenial to the philosopher. Spain thus\nbecomes the place of refuge for Muslim philosophy as it had already\nbecome the nursery of Jewish speculation. Ibn Bajja, known to the\nLatin schoolmen as \u201cAvempace,\u201d found in Murabit Spain the freedom\nand toleration which Asia no longer afforded. He continues the work\nof al-Farabi, not, it will be noted, of Ibn Sina, and develops the\nneo-Platonic interpretation of Aristotle on sober and conservative\nlines. He wrote commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s Physics, _de generatione\net corruptione_, and the _Meteora_; he produced original works on\nmathematics, on \u201cthe soul,\u201d and a treatise which he called \u201cThe\nHermit\u2019s Guide,\u201d which was used by Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and by the\nJewish writer Moses of Narbonne in the 14th cent. A.D. In this last\nwork he makes a distinction between \u201canimal activity,\u201d in which action\nis due to the prompting of the emotions, passions, etc., and \u201chuman\nactivity,\u201d which is suggested and directed by abstract reason, and from\nthis distinction draws a rule of life and conduct. He is chiefly cited\nby the Latin schoolmen with reference to the doctrine of \u201cseparate\nsubstances.\u201d \u201cAvempace held that, by the study of the speculative\nsciences, we are able by means of the images which we know from these\nideas to attain to the knowledge of separate substances\u201d (St. Thomas\nAq. _c. Gentiles_, 3, 41). This question as to the possibility of\nknowing substances separated, i.e. abstracted, from the concrete bodies\nin which they exist in combination--and the \u201cseparate substances\u201d were\nregarded as spiritual things--was prominent in medi\u00e6val scholasticism,\nwhich inherited it from the Arabic philosophers, and from it came the\nfurther question whether the contemplation of such abstract ideas gives\nus a better knowledge of realities than observation of the concrete\nbodies. Both Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas associate Avempace\nespecially with this question and with the doctrine of the \u201cacquired\nintellect,\u201d to which we have already referred in our notes on Ibn Sina,\nand which completes the theory of \u201cseparate substances\u201d by supposing\nthat intelligible forms stream into our souls from an outside Agent\nIntellect by way of emanation as substantial forms descend on corporeal\nmatter. St. Thomas Aquinas shows direct knowledge of Avempace\u2019s\ntreatment of these subjects, but this is not so evident in Albertus.\nAvempace, like all other Arabic philosophers, describes _ittisal_ or\nunion of the human intellect with the Agent Intellect, of which it is\nan emanation, as the supreme beatitude and final end of human life. By\nthe operation of the Agent Intellect on the latent intellect in man\nthis is awakened to life, but eternal life consists in the complete\nunion of the intellect with the Agent Intellect. In Avempace the Sufi\nstrain is much weaker than in al-Farabi; the means of attaining this\nunion is not by ecstasy, but by a steady disentangling of the soul\nof those material things which hinder its pure intellectual life and\nconsequent union. This leads us to the teaching of asceticism as the\ndiscipline of the soul for its spiritual progress, and the ascetic\nand solitary life is the ideal proposed by Avempace. This ascetic and\ncontemplative hermit life is not, however, in any sense a religious\nlife, for in this respect Avempace has advanced far beyond al-Farabi;\nhe is fully conscious that pure philosophy cannot be reconciled with\nthe teachings of revelation, a conviction which now marks the definite\nseparation of the \u201cphilosophers\u201d from the orthodox scholastics of\nIslam, such as al-Ghazali and his school; he regards the teachings\nof revelation as an imperfect presentation of the truths which are\nmore completely and correctly learned from Aristotle, and only admits\nthe Qur\u00b4an and its religion as a discipline for the multitude whose\nintelligence neither desires nor is capable of philosophical reasoning.\nStrangely enough he lived in security, protected from the attacks of\nhostile theologians, under the protection of the Murabit princes.\n\nWithin a few years after the death of Avempace the Murabit dynasty came\nto an end. The succeeding dynasty, the Muwahhids, were of Berber origin\nlike the Murabits, and, like them, had their origin in a religious\nrevival.\n\nThe foundation of the Muwahhids is associated with _Ibn Tumart_\n(d. 524 A.H. = 1129 A.D.). He was a native of Morocco, and a strange\ncombination of fanatic and scholastic. He claimed to be a descendant\nof `Ali, and posed as the \u201cMahdi\u201d possessing the supernatural grace\nof _isma_ or \u201csecurity from error,\u201d and thus introduced Shi`ite ideas\ninto Morocco; and at the same time it was he who introduced to the West\nthe orthodox scholasticism of al-Ghazali, although at the same time he\nprofessed to be a follower of Ibn Hazm. He travelled in Asia, where,\nno doubt, he learned of al-Ghazali and his doctrines. Roughly treated\nat Mecca he removed to Egypt, where he rendered himself prominent and\nobjectionable by his puritanical criticisms on the manners of the\npeople. Setting out from Alexandria in a ship travelling westwards\nhe occupied himself with a reformation of the morals of the crew,\ncompelling them to observe the correct hours of prayer and the other\nduties of religion. In 505 he appeared at Mahdiya, where he took up\nhis abode in a wayside mosque. There he used to sit at the window\nwatching the passers-by, and, whenever he saw any of them carrying a\njar of wine or a musical instrument, he used to sally out and seize the\noffensive article and break it. The common people reverenced him as\na saint, but many of the wealthier citizens resented his activities,\nand at length brought a complaint against him before the Emir Yahya.\nThe Emir heard their complaints and observed Ibn Tumart and took note\nof the impression he had made upon the populace. With characteristic\ncraft the Emir treated the reformer with all possible respect, but\nadvised, nay rather urged, him to bestow the favour of his presence\nupon some other town as soon as convenient to him, and so he removed to\nBijaiya (Bougie in Algeria). Here his ways were extremely unpopular,\nand he was driven away. He next settled at Mellala, where he met a boy\nnamed `Abdu l-Mumin al-Kumi (d. 558), a potter\u2019s son, whom he made his\ndisciple and declared to be his successor. At this time the Murabit\ndynasty had fallen from its original puritanism and was distinguished\nfor the wealth and luxury which had been made possible by the conquest\nof Spain, and the splendour and ostentation of the royal family at\nMorocco laid it open to criticism. One Friday a faqir entered the\npublic square where a throne was made ready for the Emir, and, pushing\nhis way through the guards who stood round, boldly took his seat upon\nthe throne and refused to leave. It was the Mahdi Ibn Tumart, and,\nso great was the superstitious reverence accorded to all faqirs, and\nto him above all, that none of the guards standing round ventured to\nremove him by force. At length the Emir himself appeared and, finding\nwho had occupied his official seat, declined to interfere with the\nredoubtable faqir\u2019s will, but it was privately made plain to Ibn Tumart\nthat it would be wise for him to leave the city for a while. The Mahdi\ntherefore retired to Fez, but soon afterwards returned to Morocco.\nOne day he met in the streets the Emir\u2019s sister, who had adopted the\nshameless foreign custom of riding in public without a veil. The Mahdi\nstopped her and poured out a stream of abuse at her for this neglect\nof established custom, then, overcome by his indignation, he pulled\nher off the beast she was riding. He seems, however, to have felt some\nalarm at his own temerity and fled forthwith to Tinamel, where he\nopenly raised the standard of revolt against a corrupt and unfaithful\ndynasty. At first this rebellion did not meet with much success, but,\nafter the Mahdi\u2019s death, the leadership fell to his pupil, `Abdu\nl-Mumin, who took Oran, Tlemsen, Fez, Sale, Ceuta, and in 542 became\nmaster of Morocco, and in due course seized all the empire of the\nMurabits. The new dynasty established by `Abdu l-Mumin is known by\nthe name of the Muwahhids or \u201cUnitarians,\u201d a title which the Spanish\nhistorians render by \u201cAlmohades,\u201d and their rule endured until 667 A.H.\n(= 1268 A.D.).\n\nIbn Tumart professed to be a follower of al-Ghazali, and introduced\nhis system of orthodox scholasticism to the West. In canon law he\nfollowed the reactionary school of Da\u00b4ud az-Zahiri and Ibn Hazm, like\nthe Murabits who preceded him. To the multitude he was the champion of\nBerber nationality; he translated the Qur\u00b4an into the Berber language,\nand caused the call to prayer to be made in Berber instead of Arabic.\n\nMuwahhid rule introduced a period of bigotry and of religious\npersecution. It was under the rule of this dynasty that we find the\nJews leaving the country in large numbers and migrating to Africa or to\nProvence, and many Christians also fled to join the Castilian forces in\nthe north. Modern historians tend to condemn the later severities of\nChristian rulers towards their Muslim subjects, and often seem to speak\nof those subjects as the peaceable and cultured population which had\nlived under the Umayyads and the Murabits. But Spain\u2019s last experience\nof the Muslims was of the fierce, bigoted, and persecuting Muwahhids,\nwhose tone was very different. Strangely, however, it was under these\nintolerant rulers that Spanish Islam passed through its golden age\nof philosophical speculation, and not only so, but the philosophers\nwere protected and favoured by the Muwahhid court. Quite early in\nthis period the position seems to have been tacitly arranged that the\nphilosophers were absolutely free in their work and teaching, provided\nthat teaching was not spread abroad amongst the populace: it was to be\nregarded as a species of esoteric truth reserved for the enlightened.\nIt seems almost certain that this attitude was deliberately arranged\nby the philosophers themselves; it had already been sketched out by\nsome of the Asiatic writers, and definitely laid down by al-Ash`ari\nand al-Ghazali, and the Muwahhids, it must be remembered, professed to\nbe Ghazalians. But whilst the philosophers enjoyed this exceptional\nfreedom of speculation, so different from the repressive orthodoxy\nof the Turkish dynasties in Asia, and defended the system in their\nwritings, the rulers officially were enforcing amongst the multitude of\ntheir subjects the severest orthodoxy and the most reactionary system\nof jurisprudence, so reactionary that it was never admitted by the\nAsiatic sultans.\n\nThe first great leader of philosophical thought in Muwahhid Spain\nwas _Ibn Tufayl_ (d. 581 = 1185), who was wazir and court physician\nunder the Muwahhid Abu Yaqub (A.H. 558-580). His teaching was in\ngeneral conformity with that of Ibn Bajja (Avempace), but the mystic\nelement is much more strongly marked. He admits ecstasy as a means of\nattaining the highest knowledge and of approaching God. But in Ibn\nTufayl\u2019s teaching this knowledge differs very much from that aimed at\nby the Sufis: it is mystic philosophy rather than mystic theology. The\nbeatific vision reveals the Agent Intellect and the chain of causation\nreaching down to man and then back again to itself.\n\nIn his views as to the need of removing the doctrines of philosophy\nfrom the multitude he shows the same principles as Ibn Bajja, which\nare those which came to be recognised as the proper official attitude\nunder the Muwahhids, and defends them in a romance called _Hayy b.\nYaqzan_, \u201cthe Living One son of the Wakeful,\u201d the work by which his\nname is best remembered. In this story we have the picture of two\nislands, one inhabited by a solitary recluse who spends his time in\ncontemplation and thereby raises his intellect until he finds that he\nis able to apprehend the eternal verities which are in the One Active\nintellect. The other island is inhabited by ordinary people who are\noccupied in the commonplace incidents of life and follow the practices\nof religion in the form known to them. In this way they are content\nand happy, but fall far short of the complete and perfect happiness of\nthe recluse on the other island. In course of time the recluse, who is\nperfectly well aware of the neighbouring island and its inhabitants,\nbegins to feel great pity for them in that they are excluded from the\nmore perfect felicity which he enjoys, and in an honest desire for\ntheir welfare, goes over to them and preaches the truth as he has found\nit. For the most part he is quite unintelligible to them, and the only\nresult is that he produces confusion, doubt, and controversial strife\namongst those whom he desired to benefit, but who are incapable of the\nintellectual life which he has led. In the end he returns to his island\nconvinced that it is a mistake to interfere with the conventional\nreligion of the multitude.\n\n_Ibn Rushd_ (A.H. 520-595), known to the West as Averroes, was the\ngreatest of the Arabic philosophers, and was practically their last.\nHe was a native of Cordova and the friend and prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of Ibn Tufayl,\nby whom he was introduced to Abu Ya\u00b4qub in 548. He was, however, more\noutspoken than Ibn Tufayl, and wrote several controversial works\nagainst al-Ghazali and his followers. The family to which he belonged\nwas one whose members usually became jurists, and Ibn Rushd acted as\nQadi in various Spanish towns; like most of the Arabic philosophers\nhe studied medicine, and in 578 was appointed court physician to Abu\nYa\u00b4qub. By this time he had finished his career as an author. Under\nthe Muwahhid Abu Yusuf al-Mansur he was censured as a heretic and\nbanished from Cordova. It must be remembered that the Muwahhids, like\nthe Murabits, were really Moroccan rulers, to whom Spain was a foreign\nprovince. It was whilst the Emir was in Spain and at Cordova, making\nready for an attack upon the Christians, that Ibn Rushd was disgraced,\nand it seems probable that this was mainly a matter of policy, as the\nEmir, on the eve of a religious war, was desirous of proving his own\nstrict orthodoxy by the public disapproval of one who had been rather\ntoo outspoken in his speculative theories. As soon as the Emir returned\nto Morocco the order of exile was revoked, and later on Ibn Rushd\nappears at the court of Morocco, where he died in 595.\n\nAmongst the Muslims Ibn Rushd has not exercised great influence; it was\nthe Jews who supplied the bulk of his admirers, and they, scattered in\nProvence and Sicily by Muwahhid persecution, seem to have been chiefly\ninstrumental in introducing him to Latin Christendom.\n\nHis chief medical work was known as the _Kulliyat_, \u201cthe universal,\u201d\nwhich, under the Latinized name of \u201ccolliget,\u201d became popular as a\nmanual in the medi\u00e6val universities where the Arabic system of medicine\nwas in use. He wrote also on jurisprudence a text-book of the law of\ninheritance, which is still extant in MS., and also produced works on\nastronomy and grammar. He maintained that the task of philosophy was\none approved and commended by religion, for the Qur\u00b4an shows that God\ncommands men to search for the truth. It is only the prejudice of the\nunenlightened which fears freedom of thought, because for those whose\nknowledge is imperfect the truths of philosophy seem to be contrary\nto religion. On this topic he composed two theological treatises--\u201cOn\nthe Agreement of Religion with Philosophy\u201d and \u201cOn the Demonstration\nof Religious Dogmas,\u201d both of which have been edited by M. J. Mueller.\nThe popular beliefs he does not accept, but he regards them as wisely\ndesigned to teach morality and to develop piety amongst the people\nat large; the true philosopher allows no word to be uttered against\nestablished religion, which is a thing necessary for the welfare of the\npeople. Aristotle he regards as the supreme revelation of God to man:\nwith it religion is in total agreement, but as religion is known to the\nmultitude it only partially discloses Divine truth and adapts it to the\npractical needs of the many; in religion there is a literal meaning,\nwhich is all the uneducated are able to attain, and there is an\n\u201cinterpretation,\u201d which is the disclosing of deeper truths beneath the\nsurface which it is not expedient to communicate to the multitude. He\nopposes the position of Ibn Bajja, who inclined to solitary meditation\nand avoided the discussion of philosophical problems; he admits and\ndesires such discussion provided it is confined to the educated who are\nable to understand its bearing, and not brought before the multitude\nwho are thereby in danger of having their simple faith undermined. He\nagrees with Ibn Bajja, however, as against Ibn Tufayl in disapproval\nof ecstasy; such a thing may be, but it is too rare to need serious\nconsideration.\n\nThere are different classes of men who fall roughly into three groups.\nThe highest of these are those whose religious belief is based on\ndemonstration (_burhan_), the result of reasoning from syllogisms which\nare _\u00e0 priori_ certain; these are the men to whom the philosopher makes\nhis appeal. The lowest stratum contains those whose faith is based on\nthe authority of a teacher or on presumptions which cannot be argued\nout and are not due to the exercise of pure reason; it is mischievous\nto put \u201cdemonstration\u201d or reason or controversy before people of this\ntype, for it can only cause them doubt and difficulty. Intermediate\nbetween these two strata are those who have not attained the use of\npure reason--which, with Ibn Rushd, seems to be simply intuition--but\nare capable of argument and controversy by means of which their faith\ncan be defended and proved; \u201cdemonstration\u201d proper is not to be laid\nbefore these, but it is right to enter into argument with them and to\nassist them to rise above the level of those whose belief is based only\nupon authority.\n\nMost of all, Ibn Rushd opposed the teaching of the _mutakallimin_\nor orthodox scholastic theologians, whom he regarded as subverting\nthe pure principles of the Aristotelian philosophy, and of these he\nconsidered the worst to be al-Ghazali, \u201cthat renegade of philosophy.\u201d\nHis leading controversial work is the _Destruction of the Destruction_\n(Tahafat at-Tahafat), which he designed as a refutation of al-Ghazali\u2019s\n_Destruction of the Philosophers_.\n\nBut it was as a commentator on the text of Aristotle that he became\nbest known to subsequent generations amongst the Jews and the later\nLatin scholastics; he was the great and final commentator. Strangely,\nhowever, Ibn Rushd never perceived the importance of reading Aristotle\nin the original; he had no knowledge of Greek, and gives no sign of\nsupposing that a study of the Greek text would at all assist a student\nof the philosopher. The method of his commentaries is the time-honoured\nform derived from the Syriac commentators: a sentence of the text is\ngiven and the explanatory comments follow.\n\nIn main substance Ibn Rushd reproduces the psychology of Aristotle\nas interpreted by al-Farabi and Ibn Sina, but with some important\nmodifications. In man is a passive and an active intellect: the active\nintellect is roused to action by the operation of the Agent Intellect,\nand thus becomes an acquired intellect; the individual intellects\nare many, but the Agent Intellect is but one, though present in\neach, just as the sun is one, but there are in action as many suns\nas there are bodies which it illuminates. This is the form of the\nAristotelian doctrine as it had been transmitted through Ibn Sina; the\nAgent Intellect is one, but it is as by emanation present in each, so\nthat the quickening power in each one is part of the universal Agent\nIntellect. But Ibn Rushd differs from his predecessors in his treatment\nof the passive intellect, the _`aql hayyulani_, which is the seat of\nlatent and potential faculties upon which the Agent operates. In all\nthe earlier systems this passive intellect was regarded as purely\nindividual and as operated on by the emanation of the universal Agent,\nbut Ibn Rushd regarded the passive intellect also as but a portion\nof a universal soul and as individual only in so far as temporarily\noccupying an individual body. Even the passive powers are part of a\nuniversal force animating the whole of nature. This is the doctrine of\n_pampsychism_, which exercised so strong an attraction for many of the\nmedi\u00e6val scholastics, and has its adherents at the present day; thus\nJames (_Principles of Psychology_, p. 346) says: \u201cI confess that the\nmoment I become metaphysical and try to define the _more_, I find the\nnotion of some sort of an _anima mundi_ thinking in all of us to be a\nmore promising hypothesis, in spite of all its difficulties, than that\nof a lot of absolutely individual souls.\u201d Ibn Rushd regards Alexander\nof Aphrodisias as mistaken in supposing that the passive intellect is\na mere disposition; it is in us, but belongs to something outside; it\nis not engendered, it is incorruptible, and so in a sense resembles\nthe Agent Intellect. This doctrine is the very opposite to what is\ncommonly described as materialism, which represents the mind as merely\na form of energy produced by the activity of the neural functions. The\nactivity of brain and nerves, according to Ibn Rushd, are due to the\npresence of an external force; not only, as Aristotle teaches, at least\naccording to Alexander Aph.\u2019s interpretation, is the highest faculty of\nthe reason due to the operation of the external one Agent Intellect,\nbut the passive intellect on which this agent acts is itself part of\na great universal soul, which is the one source of all life and the\nreservoir to which the soul returns when the transitory experience of\nwhat we call life is finished.\n\nIbn Rushd\u2019s views do not receive much attention or criticism\nfrom Muslim scholars, but the Christian scholastics brought two\nmain arguments against this theory, one psychological, the other\ntheological. The psychological objection is that it is entirely\nsubversive of individuality: if the conscious life of each is only\npart of the conscious life of a universal soul there can be no real\n_ego_ in any one of us; but there is no fact to which consciousness\nbears clearer witness than the reality and individuality of the _ego_.\nThis did not touch the possibility that the individual soul might be\ndrawn from a universal soul as its source, nor did it disprove that\nthe individual soul might be reabsorbed again in the universal soul,\nbut in so far as Ibn Rushd\u2019s view represented the soul as throughout\na part of the universal soul it was argued that this is contrary to\nexperience, which makes it clear that in this present life the _ego_\nis very distinctly individual. The theological argument was that Ibn\nRushd\u2019s view denied the immortality of the soul, and so was contrary to\nthe Christian faith. This objection deals more specifically with the\nreabsorption of the soul of the individual in the universal soul; such\ncessation of separate and individual existence, it was argued, meant\nthat the soul as such no longer existed.\n\nAs we have already noted, Aristotle gives a rather narrow range to the\nhighest faculty of reason, confining its activity to the perception\nof abstract ideas; \u201cas to the things spoken of as abstract (the mind)\nthinks of them as it would of the being snub-nosed, if by an effort of\nthought it thinks of it _qua_ snub-nosed, not separately, but _qua_\nhollow, without the flesh in which the hollowness is adherent: so\nwhen it thinks of mathematical forms, it thinks of them as separated,\nthough they are not separated\u201d (Aristot. _de anima._ iii. 7, 7-8).\nThose who followed Alexander Aph. and the neo-Platonists took this\n\u201cabstract\u201d in a very narrow sense, and in the Arabic commentators\nthese abstractions even become non-substantial beings, as it were\ndisembodied, or rather bodiless, spirits: \u201cin quibusdam libris de\nArabico translatis substantiae separatae, quae nos angelos dicimus,\nintelligentiae vocantur\u201d (S. Thos. Aquin. _Quaest. Disp. de anima._\n16). Can man know these _substantiae separatae_ by his natural\nfaculties? Ibn Rushd says he can: if otherwise nature has acted in\nvain, for there would be an _intelligibile_ without an _intelligens_ to\nunderstand it; but Aristotle has shewn (_Polit._ 1, 8, 12) that nature\ndoes nothing in vain, so that if there be an _intelligibile_ there\nmust be an _intelligens_ capable of perceiving it. \u201cThe commentator\n(i.e. Ibn Rushd) says in 2 Met. comm. i. (in fine) that if abstract\nsubstances cannot be understood by us then nature has acted in vain,\nbecause it made that which is by nature understandable in itself to\nbe not understood by anyone. But nothing is superfluous or in vain in\nnature. Therefore immaterial substances can be understood by us.\u201d (S.\nThos. Aquin. _Summa._ 1, 88.)\n\nAs the Agent Intellect enters into communication with relative being\nit has to suffer the conditions of relativity, and so is not equally\nefficient in all; it acts on sensible images as form acts on matter,\nyet the Agent Intellect never becomes corruptible as that on which it\nacts.\n\nThese are in outline the points in the teaching of Ibn Rushd, which\nshow the most marked differences from that of his predecessors,\nand which afterwards provoked most controversy amongst the Latin\nscholastics.\n\nIbn Rushd really ends the illustrious line of Arabic Aristotelians.\nA few Aristotelian scholars followed in Spain, but with the decay of\nthe Muwahhid power these came to an end. Of those later scholars we\nmay mention Muhyi ad-Din b. `Arabi (d. 638) and `Abdu l-Haqq b. Sab`in\n(d. 667). The former of these was primarily a Sufi, and shows a strong\ninclination towards pantheism. `Abdu l-Haqq, the last of the Muwahhid\ncircle, was also a Sufi, but at the same time an accurate student of\nAristotle. In modern Islam there is no Aristotelian scholarship, save\nonly in logic, where Aristotle has always held his own.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nTHE JEWISH TRANSMITTORS\n\n\nWe have already seen that the Jews took a prominent part in bringing\na knowledge of philosophical research from Asia to Spain, and Ibn\nJabirul (Avencebrol) takes his place in the line of transmission by\nwhich Spanish Islam was brought into contact with these studies. This\ndid not end the participation of the Jews in philosophical work, but\ntheir subsequent writers do not form part of the regular series of\nAristotelian students influencing the Muslim world, but are rather\nconfined to Jewish circles. Yet they are of an importance wider than\nmerely sectarian interests, for it was by means of Jewish disciples of\nIbn Rushd that he was raised to a position of much greater importance\nthan he has ever enjoyed in the Muslim world. Amongst the Jews, indeed,\nthere arose a strong Averroist school, which later on was the chief\nmeans of introducing Ibn Rushd\u2019s theories to Latin scholasticism. As\nwe shall see later the transmission of philosophy from Arabic to Latin\nsurroundings falls into two stages: in the earlier the Arabic material\npasses directly, and the works used are those which had attained a\nleading importance in Islam, but in the later stage the Jews were the\nintermediaries, and thus the choice of text-books and authorities was\nlargely influenced by an existing Jewish scholasticism.\n\nIbn Jabirul shows the Aristotelian philosophy introduced to Jewish\nsurroundings, just as Sa`id al-Fayyumi in Mesopotamia shows the\nentrance of Mu`tazilite discussions amongst the Jews. In fact, all the\nintellectual experiences of the Muslim community were repeated amongst\nthe Jews. In Islam the Mu`tazilites and the philosophers were followed\nby the scholastics, who took their final form under al-Ghazali, and so\nin Judaism also al-Ghazali has his parallel.\n\nThe founder of an orthodox Jewish scholasticism was the Spanish Jew,\n_Jehuda hal-Levi_ (d. 540 A.H. = 1145 A.D.), who lived during the\nMurabit rule and the coming of the Muwahhids. His teaching is known\nby a work entitled _Sefer ha-Kuzari_, which consists of five essays,\nsupposed to be dialogues between the King of the Chazars and a Jewish\nvisitor to his court. These dialogues discuss various topics of a\nphilosophical and political character. The study of philosophy is\ncommended, but it is pointed out that good conduct is not attained\nby philosophy, which is occupied with scientific investigations, and\nmany of these have no direct bearing upon the duties of practical\nlife; the best means of promoting right conduct is religion, which is\nthe established tradition of wisdom revealed to men of ancient times.\nEven in speculative matters a surer guidance is often furnished by\nreligious tradition than by the speculations of philosophers. God\ncreated all things from nothing; the attempt to explain the presence\nof imperfection and evil in the world by the theory of the eternity of\nmatter, or by the operation of laws of nature is futile; those laws\nthemselves must refer back to God. The difficulty arising from the\nmingling of evil with good in creation is admitted; the real solution\nis unknown, but it must be maintained that creation was the work of God\nin spite of the difficulties which this presents.\n\nAs to the nature and attributes of God, the distinction which Sa`id\nal-Fayyumi tried to make between the essential and other attributes is\nuntenable. The attributes stated in the Old Testament may be applied\nto God because they are revealed, which is exactly the same teaching\nas that of al-Ash`ari and al-Ghazali. These attributes are either\nreferring to active qualities, or to relative, or to negative. Those\nwhich are active and those which are relative are used metaphorically;\nwe do not know their real significance.\n\nThe fifth essay is more especially directed against the philosophers\nas teaching doctrines subversive of revelation. In the first place\nhe disapproves the theory of emanations; the work of creation was\ndirectly performed by God without any intermediary; if there were\nemanations, why did they stop short at the lunar sphere? This refers to\nthe descriptions given by the Arabic writers who endeavour to explain\nthe successive emanations from the First Cause as reaching down to\ndifferent spheres. He opposes also the attempt of the Mutakallimin to\nreconcile philosophy and theology as tending to undermine the truths of\nrevealed religion, so that he takes a more reactionary position than\nal-Ghazali. This was inevitable, for Jewish thought had as yet been\nmuch less influenced by philosophy than was the case with the Muslims.\nHe objects also to the description of the soul as intellect, more it\nwould appear because common usage confined \u201cintellectual activity\u201d too\nmuch to philosophical speculation, and especially he protested against\nthe implication that only souls of philosophers were finally united\nto the Agent Intellect. The soul of man is a spiritual substance and\nimperishable; it does not win immortality by intellectual activity but\nis necessarily immortal by its own nature. He admits, however, that\nthe passive soul in man is influenced by the Agent Intellect, which he\nseems to regard as the wisdom of God personified. Generally, therefore,\nHal-Levi defined Jewish orthodoxy as against the teachings of the\nphilosophers: he recognises the force of philosophical speculation,\nbut is himself distinctly conservative. God was literally the creator,\nand no philosophical definition of creation which tended to explain it\notherwise than according to traditional belief was permissible. But\nHal-Levi does not seem to have had any great influence outside Judaism,\nand his work rather tends to show how far Jewish thought of the 6th\ncent. of the Hijra was out of sympathy with current philosophical\nspeculation, though no longer ignorant of it.\n\nIt was in Spain that the Jews especially distinguished themselves as\nphysicians, reproducing and extending the investigations of the Arabic\nauthorities, who were pupils of the Nestorians and Jews in the first\nplace. The most distinguished of these Spanish Jews who became leaders\nin medical science was _Ibn Zuhr_ (d. 595 A.H. = 1199 A.D.), commonly\nknown to the medi\u00e6val West as \u201cAvenzoar.\u201d He was a native of Seville\nand member of a family of physicians. Jewish philosophy does not take\na leading place until the appearance of _Abu Imran Moses b. Maymun b.\n`Abdullah_ (d. 601 A.H. = 1204 A.D.), a contemporary and follower of\nIbn Rushd and the one who did most to establish an Averroist school,\nand so passed on his work and influence to Latin Christendom. He was\nthe son of a pupil of Hal-Levi, and, it is said, a pupil of one of Ibn\nBajja\u2019s pupils. His family retired to Africa to avoid the persecution\nof the Muwahhids and settled for a time in Fez, then removed to Egypt.\nIt was whilst he was at Cairo that Ibn Maymun, or Maimonides as he is\nmore commonly called by European writers, first heard of Ibn Rushd.\n\nHis chief work is known as _Dalalat al-Ha\u00b4irin_, \u201cthe Guide of the\nPerplexed,\u201d which, like all his other books, was produced in Arabic;\nabout the time of his death this work was translated into Hebrew by\nSamuel b. Tibbon as _Moreh Nebukin_. The Arabic text, edited by Munk,\nwas published at Paris (3 vols.) in 1856-66, and in 1884 an English\ntranslation by Friedl\u00e4nder was published in London. Next to this in\nimportance is the treatise _Maqalah fi-t-Tawhid_, a treatise on the\nunity of God, of which a Hebrew translation was made in the 14th cent.\nA.D. His other works were mainly medical, and include treatises \u201con\npoisons and their antidotes,\u201d \u201con h\u00e6morrhoids,\u201d \u201con asthma,\u201d and a\ncommentary on Hippocrates.\n\nMaimonides\u2019 teaching reproduces the substance of that already\nassociated with al-Farabi and Ibn Sina put into a Jewish form. God\nis the Intellect, the _ens intelligens_, and the _intelligibile_:\nHe is the necessary First Cause and the permanent source. He is\nessentially and necessarily one, and attributes cannot be so used as\nto imply plurality: only those attributes which describe activity\nare admissible, not those which imply relations between God and the\ncreature. Like Ibn Rushd he disapproves of the Mutakallimin, whom he\nregards as mere opportunists in their philosophy and without any staple\nprinciples, besides which their method of compromise does not face\nfairly the law of causality. The Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity\nof matter cannot, however, be admitted; creation must have been from\nnothing, as follows from the law of causality; that such was the case\ncannot be proved, but every contrary supposition is untenable. All the\nproperties of matter, the laws of nature, etc., had their beginning at\ncreation. On the first day God created the beginnings (_reshit_), that\nis to say the intelligences, from which proceeded the several spheres,\nand introduced movement, so that on this day the whole universe and all\nits contents came into existence. On the succeeding days these contents\nwere disposed in order and developed; then on the seventh day God\nrested, which means that He ceased from active operation and laid the\nuniverse under the control of natural laws, which guided it henceforth.\n\nThe teaching of Maimonides shows a somewhat modified form of the system\nalready developed by al-Farabi and Ibn Sina adapted to Jewish beliefs.\nIt had a rapid and wide success, spreading through the greater part\nof the Jewish community in his own lifetime. But this success was not\nwithout some opposition--the synagogues of Aragon, Catalonga, and of\nProvence, where a very large number of Jews had sought refuge from the\nMuwahhids; the synagogue at Narbonne, on the other hand, defended him.\nIt was not until the following century, and chiefly by the efforts of\nDavid Kimchi, that Maimonides was at length generally accepted as the\nleading doctor of the Jewish church.\n\nAlthough Maimonides was known to the Latin scholastics, it was not his\nwork nor that of any other Jewish teacher which really made the Jews\nimportant to medi\u00e6val western thought so much as the work they did in\npopularising Ibn Rushd, whom they called \u201cthe soul and intelligence\nof Aristotle.\u201d Jewish MSS. of Aristotle are rarely found without Ibn\nRushd\u2019s commentary, and his paraphrases very commonly bear the name of\nAristotle at their head. It was as the commentator that he held so high\na position in Jewish thought, and it was as the final and authoritative\ncommentator that he finally took his place in Latin scholasticism\nintroduced by Jewish teachers.\n\nThe Muwahhid persecution scattered many of the Spanish Jews to\nAfrica and to Provence and Languedoc. Those who took refuge in Africa,\nlike Maimonides, retained the use of the Arabic language, but Arabic\nquickly became obsolete amongst those who had fled north. No doubt the\nrefugees in Provence found it necessary to use the Provencal dialect\nfor communication with their Christian neighbours, but that dialect\nhad never yet been used for scientific or philosophical purposes; in\nWestern Christendom Latin was invariably used for all educational\nand scholarly purposes, but the refugee Jews did not feel disposed\nto adopt a language which had no traditional associations for them\nand was altogether a foreign tongue never as yet employed for Jewish\npurposes. Under these circumstances the Jewish leaders deliberately\ncopied the actual condition prevailing amongst their Jewish neighbours\nwhere the ancient Latin was in use as a learned language, whilst its\nderived dialects were the speech in everyday use, and so they revived\nthe use of Hebrew as the medium of teaching and literature. Throughout\nHebrew had retained its place as a liturgical language; there had been\nsynagogue liturgies in Greek, but those belonged to a much earlier\nperiod. The revival of Hebrew produced a neo-Hebrew which does not\npreserve a line of historical continuity with the ancient Hebrew.\nFor some time Hebrew had been a dead language in the East, and it\nhad never spread as a living speech to the West. But this artificial\nrevival, which has more than one parallel in history, was not so\ndifficult a feat as it sounds at first. The vernacular speech of the\nSpanish Jew was Arabic, and philologically Arabic is very nearly a\ndialect if not of Arabic, yet at least of a proto-Arabic, which shows\nmany close parallels with Hebrew. Of course at that time the true\nphilological relations were not understood: influenced by theological\nprepossessions the Jew rather tended to regard Arabic as a derivative\nof Hebrew; yet the kinship was obvious, and in the early translations\nmade from Arabic to Hebrew it is not uncommon to find that most of the\nwords are translated in such a way that the same root-form is used\nas in the original. Secondly, it was not only the case that Hebrew\n\u201ccame easily\u201d to those who knew Arabic, but there had been serious\nphilological studies by Jehudh Chayyug, David Kimchi, and others which\nhad emphasized this close kinship, and had indeed adapted all the rules\nof Arabic grammar to the use of Hebrew; it was therefore possible to\ncompose and even to speak a tolerable Hebrew by the conscious rendering\nof the Arabic vocabulary into Hebrew. It is not suggested that the\ninaugurators of neo-Hebrew ignored the characteristics of the classical\nspeech; in fact they did not do so, but they were in a position to use\nHebrew as though a dialect differing from Arabic only in detail, and\nin this attitude they were more strictly correct than they supposed.\nBefore long Arabic began to be entirely discarded, and Hebrew, whose\nrevival flattered Jewish susceptibilities, was taken up with vigour as\na language of the schools; how far it came into use in the home we do\nnot know.\n\nThis change necessitated the translation of the later theological\nand philosophical writers from Arabic into Hebrew. Tradition puts the\nbeginning of this work of translation in the 12th century, but this is\nnot possibly true. It was not until well into the 13th century that\nHebrew translations begin to appear. The most famous translators were\nof the family of Jehuda ben Tibbon, who cannot himself be accepted as a\ntranslator. The first work was done by Samuel ben Tibbon, who compiled\na Hebrew \u201cOpinions of the Philosophers,\u201d which is a catena of passages\nfrom Ibn Rushd and other Muslim _falasifah_. This production was in\ngeneral use as a popular manual until it was replaced by complete\ntranslations of the actual texts, when, of course, such compilations\nwent out of use. The principal part of the work was done by Moses ben\nTibbon (circ. 1260 A.D.), who translated most of the commentaries of\nIbn Rushd, some portions of his medical works, and Maimonides\u2019 \u201cGuide\nof the Perplexed.\u201d About this time Frederick II. was strongly desirous\nof introducing the Arabic writers to the knowledge of the West, a\nmatter to which we shall refer again when we come to consider the\ntranslation of the Arabic philosophical works into Latin, and so we\nfind him protecting and pensioning Yaqub ben Abba Mari, a son-in-law\nof Samuel ben Tibbon, at Naples, and this Yaqub employed in preparing\na Hebrew translation of Ibn Rushd\u2019s commentaries on the Aristotelian\nOrganon.\n\nThe thirteenth century A.D. shows us a continuous series of Hebrew\nscholars either preparing compilations and abridgments or actually\ntranslating the full text of the leading Arabic philosophers, and\nespecially of Ibn Rushd. About 1247 Jehuda ben Salomo Cohen, of\nToledo, published his Hebrew \u201cSearch for Wisdom,\u201d an encyclop\u00e6dia of\nAristotelian doctrines mainly based upon the teachings of Ibn Rushd.\nA little later Shem-Tov b. Yusuf b. Falaquera also reproduced the\ndoctrines of Ibn Rushd in his essays, and later again in the 13th\ncentury Gerson b. Salomo compiled \u201cThe Door of Heaven,\u201d which shows the\nsame influence.\n\nAbout 1257 Solomon b. Yusuf b. Aiyub, a refugee who had come from\nGranada to B\u00e8ziers, translated the text of Ibn Rushd\u2019s commentary\non the _de coelo_ and _de mundo_, and in the latter part of this\ncentury complete translations begin to take the place of abridgments\nand collections of extracts. About 1284 Zerachia ben Isaac from\nBarcelona translated Ibn Rushd\u2019s commentaries on the _Physics_, the\n_Metaphysics_, and the treatises _de coelo_ and _de mundo_. R\u00e8nan has\ndrawn attention to the fact that the same works are translated again\nand again, sometimes by translators who were very nearly contemporary\nand lived in the same neighbourhood. Evidently these translations did\nnot quickly enter into wide circulation, and it does not seem that the\ntask of the translator was held in any great esteem; it was regarded\nas a purely mechanical work, and not credited with any literary\npossibilities.\n\nEarly in the 14th century Kalonymos b. Kalonymos b. Meir translated\nIbn Rushd\u2019s commentaries on the _Topica_, _Sophistica_, and _Analytica\nPosteriora_ (completed 1314); then his commentaries on the _Physica_,\n_Metaphysics_, _de coelo_ and _de mundo_, _de generatione_ and _de\ncorruptione_, and the _Meteora_ (completed 1317), and followed these by\na translation of the _Destruction of the Destruction_. An independent\nHebrew translation of this latter work was made about the same time\nby Kalonymos b. David b. Todros. About 1321 Rabbi Samuel ben Jehuda\nben Meshullam at Marseilles prepared Hebrew versions of Ibn Rushd\u2019s\ncommentaries on the Nicomach\u00e6an Ethics and his paraphrase of the\nRepublic of Plato, which was regarded by the Arabic writers as part of\nthe Aristotelian canon. It is rather interesting to note that somewhere\nabout the same time Juda ben Moses ben Daniel of Rome prepared a\nHebrew translation of _de substantia orbis_ from the Latin translation\nwhich was itself derived from the Arabic. To a great extent the Hebrew\nand Latin translations were being made contemporaneously but quite\nindependently; it was not until well into the 14th century that they\nbegin to influence one another. It was during this later stage that so\nmany of the Arabic philosophical works were translated into Latin via\nHebrew, and this gave a marked preponderance to Ibn Rushd, the result\nof the Jewish vogue of his writings; the earlier translations into\nLatin from the Arabic rather tend to lay weight on Ibn Sina.\n\nIn the course of the 14th century A.D. the Hebrew commentators on Ibn\nRushd begin. Chief amongst these was Lavi ben Gerson, of Bagnols, who\nwrote a commentary on Ibn Rushd\u2019s _Ittisal_ on the doctrine of the\nunion of the soul with the Agent Intelligence, and on Ibn Rushd\u2019s\ntreatise \u201con the substance of the world.\u201d Levi\u2019s teaching reproduces\nthe Arabic Aristotelianism much more freely and frankly than was\nventured by Maimonides; he admits the eternity of the world, the primal\nmatter he describes as substance without form, and creation meant only\nthe impress of form on this formless substance.\n\nContemporary with Levi was Moses of Narbonne, who, between 1340 and\n1350, produced commentaries on the same works of Ibn Rushd as had\nalready been treated by Levi, as well as other of the treatises on\nphysical science.\n\nThe fourteenth century was the golden age of Jewish scholasticism and\nthe following century sees it in its decay. Ibn Rushd was still studied\nand commentaries were still compiled. About 1455 Joseph ben Shem-Tob of\nSegovia produced a commentary on Aristotle\u2019s _Ethics_ which he intended\nto supplement Ibn Rushd, who had not written a commentary on this\nportion of Aristotle. Elias del Medigo, who taught at Padua towards the\nend of the 15th century, is regarded by R\u00e8nan as the last great Jewish\nAverroist. He wrote a commentary on the _de substantia orbis_ in 1485,\nand also published annotations on Averroes.\n\nThe 16th century shows the final decay of Jewish Averroism. In 1560 an\nabridgment of the logic of Averroes was published at Riva di Trento,\nand this has remained a standard work amongst Jews, but outside logic\nAverroes was beginning to fall into disrepute. Rabbi Moses Almosnino\n(circ. 1538) uses al-Ghazali\u2019s work against the philosophers to oppose\nIbn Rushd, and evidences occur of an interest in Plato by those who\ndespised Aristotle as a relic of the dark ages. The later Jewish\nphilosophers such as Spinoza are not in touch with the medi\u00e6val\ntradition, whose continuity is severed towards the end of the 16th\ncentury; later work shows the influence of post-renascence non-Jewish\nthought.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nINFLUENCE OF THE ARABIC PHILOSOPHERS ON LATIN SCHOLASTICISM\n\n\nWe have now followed the way in which Hellenistic philosophy was\npassed from the Greeks to the Syrians, from the Syrians to the\nArabic-speaking Muslims, and was by the Muslims carried from Asia to\nthe far West. We have now to consider the way in which it was handed on\nfrom these Arabic-speaking people to the Latins. The first contact of\nthe Latins with the philosophy of the Muslims was in Spain, as might\nbe expected. At that time, that is to say during the Middle Ages, we\ncan rightly describe the Western parts of Europe as \u201cLatin,\u201d since\nLatin was used not only in the services of the church but as a means\nof teaching and as a means of intercourse between the educated; it\ndoes not imply that the vernacular speech in all the western lands\nwas of Latin origin, and of course makes no suggestion of a \u201cLatin\nrace\u201d; it refers only to a cultural group, and we are employing the\nterm \u201cLatin\u201d only to denote those who shared a civilization which may\nfairly be described as of Latin origin. In Spain this Latin culture was\nin contact with the Arabic culture of the Muslims. The transmission of\nArabic material to Latin is especially associated with Raymund, who\nwas Archbishop of Toledo from 1130 to 1150 A.D. Toledo had become part\nof the kingdom of Castile in 1085, during the disordered period just\nbefore the Murabit invasion. It had been captured by Alfonso VI., and\nhe had made it the capital city of his kingdom, and the Archbishop\nof Toledo became the Primate of Spain. When the town was taken it\nwas agreed that the citizens should have freedom to follow their own\nreligion, but the year after its capture the Christians forcibly seized\nthe great church, which had been converted into a congregational mosque\nabout 370 years before, and restored it to Christian use. For the most\npart, however, the Muslims lived side by side with the Christians\nin Toledo, and their presence in the same city as the king, the\nroyal court, and the Primate made a considerable impression on their\nneighbours, who began to take some interest in the intellectual life\nof Islam during the following years. The Archbishop Raymund desired to\nmake the Arabic philosophy available for Christian use. At the moment,\nit will be remembered, the Muwahhids were established in Spain, and\ntheir bigotry caused a number of the Jews and Christians to take refuge\nin the surrounding countries.\n\nRaymund founded a college of translators at Toledo, which he put\nin the charge of the archdeacon Dominic Gondisalvi, and entrusted it\nwith the duty of preparing Latin translations of the most important\nArabic works on philosophy and science, and thus many translations\nof the Arabic versions of Aristotle and of the commentaries as well\nas of the abridgments of al-Farabi and Ibn Sina were produced. The\nmethod employed in this college and the method commonly followed\nin the Middle Ages was to use the services of an interpreter, who\nsimply placed the Latin word over the Arabic words of the original,\nand finally the Latinity was revised by the presiding clerk, the\nfinished translation usually bearing the name of the revisor. It was\nan extremely mechanical method; and the interpreter was treated as of\nminor importance. It seems that the preparation of a translation was\ndone to order in very much the same way as the copying of a text, and\nwas not regarded as more intellectual than the work of transcription.\nThe revisor did no more than see that the sentences were grammatical\nin form: the structure and syntax was still Arabic, and was often\nextremely difficult for the Latin reader to understand, the more so\nas the more troublesome words were simply transliterated from the\nArabic. The interpreters employed in this college certainly included\nsome Jews; it is known that one of them bore the name of John of\nSeville. We have very little information as to the circulation of the\ntranslations made at Toledo, but it is certain that about thirty years\nafterwards the whole text of Aristotle\u2019s logical Organon was in use\nin Paris, and this was not possible so long as the Latin translations\nwere limited to those which had been transmitted by Boethius, John\nScotus, and the fragments of Plato derived through St. Augustine.\nBut this material already in the possession of the West was the\nfoundation of scholasticism, and was developed as far as it would go.\nBoethius transmitted a Latin version of Porphyry\u2019s _Isagoge_ and of\nthe _Categories_ and _Hermeneutics_ of Aristotle, whilst John Scotus\ntranslated the Pseudo-Dionysius. The further development of Latin\nscholasticism came in three stages: first, the introduction of the rest\nof the text of Aristotle, as well as the scientific works of the whole\nlogical canon, by translation from the Arabic; then came translations\nfrom the Greek following the capture of Constantinople in 1204; and\nthirdly, the introduction of the Arabic commentators.\n\nThe first Latin scholastic writer who shows a knowledge of the complete\nlogical Organon was John of Salisbury (d. 1182 A.D.), who was a\nlecturer at Paris, but it does not appear that the metaphysical and\npsychological works of Aristotle were in circulation as yet.\n\nBy this time Paris had become the centre of scholastic philosophy,\nwhich was now beginning to predominate theology. This takes its form,\nas yet untouched by Arabic methods, in the work of Peter Lombard (d.\n1160 A.D.), whose \u201cSentences,\u201d an encyclop\u00e6dia of the controversies of\nthe time but a mere compilation, remained a popular book down to the\n17th century. The methods and form used in the \u201cSentences\u201d shows the\ninfluence of Abelard, and still more of the Decretals of Gratian. It\nis interesting to note that Peter Lombard possessed and used a newly\nfinished translation of St. John Damascene.\n\nEarly in the 13th century we find various controversies at Paris on\nsubjects very like those debated by the Arabic philosophers, but in\nreality derived from quite independent sources. Nothing would seem more\nsuggestive of Arabic influence than discussion of the essential unity\nof souls, which seems as though it were an echo of Ibn Rushd; but this\ndoctrine had been developed independently from neo-Platonic material\nin the Celtic church, and, in its main features not at all unlike\nthe teaching of Ibn Rushd, was fairly common in Ireland (cf. R\u00e8nan:\n_Averroes_, 132-133). So we find Ratramnus of Corbey in the 9th century\nwriting against one Macarius in refutation of similar views. Here\nArabic influence is out of the question; at the time, indeed, Ibn Rushd\nwas not yet born. So of Simon of Tournay, who was a teacher of theology\nat Paris about 1200 A.D., we read that \u201cwhilst he follows Aristotle\ntoo closely, he is by some recent writers accused of heresy\u201d (Henry\nof Gand: _Lib. de script. eccles. c._ 24 in Fabrisius _Bibliotheca_,\n2, p. 121), but this simply means that he carried to an extreme the\napplication of the dialectical method to theology.\n\nMore interest attaches to the decrees passed at a synod held at\nParis in 1209 and endorsed by the decisions of the Papal Legate in\n1215. These measures were provoked by the pantheistic teaching of\nDavid of Dinant and Amalric of Bena, who revived the semipantheistic\ndoctrines of John Scotus\u2019 _Periphysis_, and the prohibitions dealing\nwith them cite passages from Scotus verbatim. The _Periphysis_ itself\nwas condemned by Honorius III. in 1225. But the decrees of 1209 also\nforbade the use of Aristotle\u2019s Natural Philosophy and the \u201ccommenta,\u201d\nwhilst the Legate\u2019s orders of 1215 allowed the logical works of the\nold and new translations where perhaps the \u201cnew translations\u201d refers\nto the \u201cnew\u201d translations made from the Arabic as contrasted with\nthe \u201cold\u201d versions of Boethius, though it is just possible that some\nversion direct from the Greek was in circulation and known as the \u201cnew\ntranslations,\u201d and also forbade the reading of the Metaphysics, Natural\nPhilosophy, etc., all material which had become accessible through the\nArabic.\n\nIn 1215 Frederick II. became Emperor, and in 1231 he began to\nreorganize the kingdom of Sicily. Both in Sicily and in the course of\nhis crusading expeditions in the East Frederick had been brought into\nclose contact with the Muslims and was greatly attracted to them. He\nadopted oriental costume and many Arabic customs and manners, but, most\nimportant of all, he was a great admirer of the Arabic philosophers,\nwhose works he was able to read in the original, as he was familiar\nwith German, French, Italian, Latin, Greek, and Arabic. Contemporary\nhistorians represent him as a free-thinker, who regarded all religions\nas equally worthless, and attributed to him the statement that the\nworld had suffered from three great imposters, Moses, Christ, and\nMuhammad. This opinion of Frederick is expressed in passionate words by\nGregory IX. in the encyclical letter \u201cad omnes principes et prelatos\nterrae\u201d (in Mansi. xxiii. 79), where he compares the Emperor to the\nblaspheming beast of Apocalypse xiii., but Frederick in reply likened\nthe Pope to the beast described in Apoc. vi., \u201cthe great dragon\nwhich reduced the whole world,\u201d and professed a perfectly orthodox\nattitude towards Moses, Christ, and Muhammad. It is quite probable,\nas R\u00e8nan (_Averroes_, p. 293) supposes, that the views ascribed to\nFrederick really are based on a professed sympathy towards the Arabic\nphilosophers, who regarded all religions as equally tolerable for\nthe uninstructed multitude, and commonly illustrated their remarks\nby citing the \u201cthree laws\u201d which were best known to them. In 1224\nFrederick founded a university at Naples, and made it an academy for\nthe purpose of introducing Arabic science to the western world, and\nthere various translations were made from Arabic into Latin and into\nHebrew. By his encouragement Michael Scot visited Toledo about 1217\nand translated Ibn Rushd\u2019s commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s _de coelo et\nde mundo_, as well as the first part of the _de anima_. It seems\nprobable also that he was the translator of commentaries on the\n_Meteora_, _Parva Naturalia_, _de substantia orbis_, _Physics_, and\n_de generatione et de corruptione_. Ibn Sina\u2019s commentaries were in\ngeneral circulation before this, so that they were very probably the\n\u201ccommentaries\u201d referred to in the Paris decree of 1209, but we do not\nknow who was responsible for their rendering into Latin, save that they\nalmost certainly proceeded from the college at Toledo. The introduction\nof Ibn Rushd, not of great repute amongst the Muslims, bears evidence\nto the weight of Jewish influence in Sicily and in the new academy at\nNaples. We know that Michael Scot was assisted by a Jew named Andrew.\n\nAnother translator of this period was a German Hermann who was\nin Toledo about 1256, after Frederick\u2019s death. He translated the\nabridgment of the Rhetoric made by al-Farabi, Ibn Rushd\u2019s abridgment\nof the Poetics, and other less known works of Aristotle. Hermann\u2019s\ntranslations were described by Roger Bacon as barbarous and hardly\nintelligible; he transliterated the names so as to show even the tanwin\nin Ibn Rosd_in_, abi Nasr_in_, etc.\n\nBy the middle of the 13th century nearly all the philosophical works\nof Ibn Rushd were translated into Latin, except the commentary on\nthe Organon, which came a little later, and the _Destruction of the\nDestruction_, which was not rendered into Latin until the Jew Kalonymos\ndid so in 1328. Some of his medical works also were translated in\nthe 13th century, namely, the _Colliget_, as it was called, and the\ntreatise _de formatione_; others were translated from the Hebrew into\nLatin early in the following century.\n\nThe first evidence of the general circulation of ideas taken from\nAverroes (Ibn Rushd) is associated with William of Auvergne, who was\nBishop of Paris, and these show a considerable amount of inaccuracy in\ndetail. In 1240 William published censures against certain opinions,\nwhich he states to be derived from the Arabic philosophers; amongst\nthese he expresses his disapproval of the doctrine of the First\nIntelligence, an emanation from God, as being the agent of creation,\na doctrine common to all the philosophers, but which he attributes\nspecifically to al-Ghazali; he objects also to the teaching that the\nworld is eternal, which he attributes correctly to Aristotle and Ibn\nSina, but mentions Averroes as an orthodox defender of the truth; he\nfurther condemns the doctrine of the unity of intellects, which most\nincorrectly he attributes to Aristotle, and also refers to al-Farabi\nas maintaining this heresy; throughout he cites Averroes as a sounder\nteacher who tends to correct these ideas, but his description of the\ndoctrine of the unity of intellects reproduces the features which are\ndistinctive of Averroes. The arguments he uses against this latter\ndoctrine are, on the whole, very much the same as those employed\na little later by Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas, viz., that the\ndoctrine undermines the reality of the individual personality, and is\ninconsistent with the observed facts of diversity of intelligence in\ndifferent persons. He cites Abubacer (Ibn Bajja) as a commentator on\nAristotle\u2019s _Physics_, but in fact this was a book on which Ibn Bajja\ndid not write a commentary, and the substance of the citation agrees\nwith the teaching of Averroes. At that time evidently the position was\nthat Aristotle and the Arabic commentators generally were regarded\nwith suspicion save in the treatment of logic, the one exception being\nAverroes, who was considered to be perfectly orthodox. So strange a\nperversion of the facts could only be due to Jewish influence, for the\nJews at that time were devoted adherents of Averroes.\n\nWhen the friars began to take their place in the work of the\nuniversities we note two striking changes: (i.) the friars cut loose\nentirely from the timid policy of conservatism and begin to make free\nuse of all the works of Aristotle and of the Arabic commentators, and\nalso make efforts to procure newer and more correct translations of the\nAristotelian text from the original Greek; under this leadership the\nuniversities gradually became more modern and enterprising in their\nscientific work, though not without evidence of strong opposition\nin certain quarters. (ii.) As a natural corollary a more correct\nappreciation was made of the tendencies of the several commentators.\n\nThe leader in these newer studies was the Franciscan Alexander Hales\n(d. 1245), who was the first to make free use of Aristotle outside the\nlogical Organon. His _Summa_, which was left unfinished and continued\nby the Franciscan William of Melitona, was based on the _Sentences_\nof Peter Lombard, and serves as a commentary to it. Peter Lombard,\nhowever, had not quoted Aristotle at all, whilst Alexander uses the\nmetaphysical and scientific works as well as the logic. From this time\nforth the Franciscans begin to use the Arabic commentators.\n\nThe more accurate study of Aristotle in medi\u00e6val scholasticism begins\nwith Albertus Magnus (1206-1280), the Dominican friar who first really\nperceived the importance of careful and critical versions of the\ntext, and thus introduced a strictly scientific standard of method.\nHe studied at Padua, a daughter university of Bologna, but became a\nDominican in 1223. His methods were followed and developed by his\npupil, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274), who arranged his work on the lines\nalready indicated in Albertus\u2019 commentary on Aristotle\u2019s _Politics_,\nlines which became the regulation method in Latin scholastic writers,\nand he was at pains to get new translations made directly from the\nGreek, which was now freely accessible; a new translation direct from\nthe Greek was made by William de Moerbeka at the request of St. Thomas.\nBut there is a significant change from the time when Albertus delivered\nhis lectures: in the work of Albertus the commentator chiefly used was\nIbn Sina, but in that of St. Thomas there is a free use of Averroes\n(Ibn Rushd), although St. Thomas shows that he is perfectly well aware\nof the peculiar doctrines held by this latter philosopher, and guards\nhimself carefully from them.\n\nSt. Thomas frequently enters into controversy with the Arabic\ncommentators, and especially attacks the doctrines (i.) that there\nwas a primal indefinite matter to which form was given at creation\n(cf. Summa. lae quaes. 66, art. 2); (ii.) that there were successive\nseries of emanations, a doctrine which had now assumed an astrological\ncharacter; (iii.) that the Agent Intellect was the intermediary in\ncreation (cf. Summa. 1, 45, 5; 47, 1; 90, 1); (iv.) that creation _ex\nnihilo_ is impossible; (v.) that there is not a special providence\nruling and directing the world; and (vi.) most of all, the doctrine of\nthe unity of intellects, a doctrine which, as he shows, is not to be\nfound in Aristotle, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Avicenna, or Ghazali, but\nis a speculative theory of Averroes alone, at least in the form then\nbecoming popular as pampsychism. All these objections were essentially\nthe same as had been already brought forward by the orthodox\nscholastics of Islam, and undoubtedly al-Ghazali is used in refuting\nthem. According to St. Thomas, the doctrine of pampsychism is entirely\nsubversive of human personality and of the separate individuality of\nthe _ego_, to which our own consciousness bears witness. God creates\nthe soul for each child as it is born; it is no emanation, but has\na separate and distinct personality. As a corollary he denies the\n_ittisal_ or final \u201cunion,\u201d which involves the reabsorption of the soul\nin its source.\n\nIt is worth noting that St. Thomas received his education before\njoining the Dominican order in the university of Naples, which had\nbeen founded by Frederick II. and was a centre of interest in the\nArabic philosophers, and this probably goes far to account for his more\naccurate appreciation of their teaching. Unquestionably St. Thomas\nAquinas must be regarded as the prince of the Latin scholastics, for\nit is he who first draws freely upon metaphysics and psychology and\nco-ordinates them with theology--the psychological analysis given in\nthe _Secunda secundae_ of the Summa is one of the best products of the\nLatin scholastics--and also he was the first to appreciate correctly\nthe difficulties of translation and insist on an accurate rendering\nas essential to an understanding of Aristotle. For the most part, as\nwe have noted, the medi\u00e6val scholars undervalued the translator\u2019s\ntask and were content with a hack interpreter, and saw no reason for\napplying themselves to the study of the original text, a view in which\nthe Arabic philosophers shared. Incidentally St. Thomas was the first\nwho makes free use of all the Arabic commentators and shows that he\nis fully aware of their defects. Undoubtedly he regarded Averroes as\nthe best exponent of the Aristotelian text, and the supreme master in\nlogic, but heretical in his metaphysics and psychology.\n\nAbout 1256 Averroes\u2019 teaching about the unity of intelligences was\nsufficiently widespread at Paris to induce Albertus to write his\ntreatise \u201cOn the unity of the intellect against the Averroists,\u201d a\ntreatise which he afterwards inserted in his Summa. In 1269 certain\npropositions from Averroes were formally condemned. At this time his\nworks were well known, and there was a distinct party at Paris which\nhad adopted his views and which we may describe as a semi-Judaistic\nparty. This time both Albertus and St. Thomas published treatises\nagainst the doctrine of the unity of intelligences.\n\nAgain in 1277 various Averroist theses were condemned at Paris, for the\nmost part emanating from the Franciscans, who, as Bacon notes (opus\nTert. 23), were strongly inclined towards Averroes both at Paris and in\nEngland, a condition which prevailed until the great Franciscan doctor\nDuns Scotus (d. 1308) took a definitely anti-Averroist line. Still,\neven in the 14th century, when Averroism was practically dead at Paris,\nit still retained its hold amongst the Franciscans in the English\n\u201cnation.\u201d\n\nThe Dominicans were less favourably disposed towards the Arabic\nwriters, at least after the time of Albertus, and show a much more\ncareful estimate of their work. This was no doubt due to the fact that\nthey had a house of Arabic studies in Spain, and were actually engaged\nin controversy with the Muslims. As a rule a careful distinction is\ndrawn between Averroes the commentator, who is treated with great\nrespect as an exponent of the text of Aristotle, and Averroes the\nphilosopher, who is regarded as heretical. It seems as though there\nwas a deliberate policy to secure Aristotle by sacrificing the Arabic\ncommentators. Very characteristic of the work of the Dominicans was\nthe _Pugio Fidei adversum Mauros et Judaeos_ of Raymund Martini,\nwho lived in Aragon and Provence; he was familiar with Hebrew, and\nfreely uses the Hebrew translations of the Arabic philosophers. His\narguments are largely borrowed from al-Ghazali\u2019s _Destruction of the\nPhilosophers_. It is curious to note that, in his anxiety to defend\nAristotle, he accuses Averroes of borrowing the doctrine of the unity\nof intelligences from Plato, and in a sense there was an element of\ntruth in this, for the Averroist doctrine was ultimately derived from\nneo-Platonic sources. Raymund also cites the medical teaching of\nAverroes at a date earlier than any Latin version, and here again shows\nfamiliarity with the Hebrew translations.\n\nJohn Baconthorp (d. 1346), the provincial of the English Carmelites\nand \u201cdoctor\u201d of the Carmelite order, tends to palliate the heretical\ntendencies of Averroes\u2019 teaching, and was called by his contemporaries\n\u201cthe prince of Averroists,\u201d a title which was apparently regarded as a\ncompliment.\n\nAmongst the Augustinian friars Giles of Rome in his _de Erroribus\nPhilosophorum_ was an opponent of the teaching of Averroes, especially\nattacking the doctrine of the unity of souls and the union or\n_ittisal_, but Paul of Venice (d. 1429), of the same order, shows a\ntendency favourable to Averroism in his _Summa_.\n\nThe 13th century had generally used Ibn Sina (Avicenna) as a\ncommentator on Aristotle, but in the 14th century the general tendency\nwas to prefer Averroes, who was regarded as the leading exponent of the\nAristotelian text even by those who disapproved his teaching.\n\nThe University of Montpelier as a centre of medical studies might be\nexpected to use the Arabic authorities, but this university, though\ntraditionally founded by Arabic physicians driven out of Spain,\nwas re-founded as a distinctly ecclesiastical institution in the\n13th century, and became the home of Greek medical studies based on\nGalen and Hippocrates, though probably the earlier texts in use were\ntranslated from the Arabic versions. To this more wholesome Greek\ncharacter the university remained faithful, and there was always a\ntendency at Montpelier to regard the Arabic use of talismans and\nastrology in medicine as heretical. It was not until the beginning of\nthe 14th century that the Arabic medical writers began to be used there\nat all, and they remained in quite a secondary rank. In 1304 Averroes\u2019\n_Canones de medicinis laxativis_ was translated from the Hebrew, and in\n1340 we find that i. and iv. of the _Canons_ of Avicenna are included\nin the official syllabus set for candidates for medical degrees, and\nfrom this time forward the lectures include courses on the Arabic\nphysicians. In 1567 the Arabic medical works were definitely struck\noff the list of books required for examination in the schools at the\npetition of the students, but occasional lectures on the _Canons_ of\nAvicenna were given down to 1607.\n\nThe real home of Averroism was the University of Bologna, with its\nsister University of Padua, and from these two centres an Averroist\ninfluence spread over all N.E. Italy, including Venice and Ferrara,\nand so continued until the 17th century. It was a precursor of the\nrationalism and anti-church feeling of the renascence, perhaps assisted\nby Venetian contact with the East. At Bologna Arabic influence was\npredominant in medicine; already in the later 13th century the medical\ncourse centres in the _Canon_ of Avicenna and the medical treatises\nof Averroes, with the result that astrology became a regular subject\nof study, and degrees were granted in it. Most of the physicians of\nBologna and Padua were astrologers, and were generally regarded as\nfree-thinkers and heretics. Bologna had at one time enjoyed the favour\nof Frederick II., and he had presented the University with copies of\nthe Latin translations prepared by his order from Arabic and Greek.\n\nThe \u201cGreat Commentary\u201d was firmly established at Padua, and in 1334\nthe Servite friar Urbano de Bologna published a commentary on the\ncommentary of Averroes, which was printed in 1492 by order of the\ngeneral of the Servites. But it is Gaetano of Tiena (d. 1465), a canon\nof the cathedral at Padua, who is generally regarded as the founder\nof Paduan Averroism. He was less bold in his statements than the\nAugustinian Paul of Venice, but still quite definitely an Averroist in\nhis teaching as to the Agent Intellect and the unity of souls, etc. He\nseems to have had a great popularity, as many copies of his lectures\nsurvive. This Averroist cult in Padua held good through the greater\npart of the 15th century.\n\nTowards the end of the century, however, the reaction begins, and\ncomes from two distinct sources. On one side Pomponat lectured at\nPadua on the _de anima_, but interprets it by the aid of Alexander\nof Aphrodisias and discards Averroes, setting forth his doctrines in\nthe form of essays instead of the time-honoured commentary on the\nAristotelian text. From this time (circ. 1495) the university of Padua\nwas divided into two factions, the Averroists and the Alexandrians.\nPomponat was at the same time a representative of more distinctly\nrationalist theories, towards which the Italian mind was then tending.\nIt was not that Alexander was more difficult to reconcile with the\nChristian faith than Averroes, but that those whose scepticism was\ninclined to be more freely expressed took advantage of these new\nmethods of interpretation to give free vent to their own opinions.\nQuite independent of these Alexandrians were the humanists proper, who\nobjected most to the barbarous Latinity of the text-books in general\nuse, and especially to the terminology employed in the translations\nmade from the Arabic commentators. Representative of these was\nThom\u00e6us, who about 1497 began to lecture at Padua on the Greek text\nof Aristotle, and to treat it very largely as a study of the Greek\nlanguage and literature.\n\nPhilosophical controversy at this time was centred chiefly in\nthe psychological problems connected with the nature of the soul,\nand especially with its separate existence and the prospects of\nimmortality. This indeed was perceived to be a crucial problem of\nreligion and was very keenly debated. In the early years of the 16th\ncentury the controversy became even more prominent, until the Lateran\nCouncil of 1512 tried to check such discussions and passed a a formal\ncondemnation, which, however, was powerless to restrain the debates.\nIt is to be noticed that these discussions did not arise from any\nphilo-pagan attitude of the renascence, although they favoured that\nattitude, but from the topics suggested by the study of the Arabic\nphilosophers in N.E. Italy, and had their beginning in the problem as\nto whether the soul at death could continue an individual existence\nor was reabsorbed in the source, the reservoir of life, whether Agent\nIntellect or universal soul.\n\nOfficially the University of Padua continued to maintain a moderate\nAverroism. In 1472 the editio princeps of Averroes\u2019 commentaries\nwas published at Padua. Then in 1495-7 Niphus produced a fuller and\nmore complete edition. Through the next half-century a series of\nessays, discussions, and analyses of Averroes were produced almost\ncontinuously, and in 1552-3 appeared the great edition of Averroes\u2019\ncommentaries, with marginal notes by Zimara. In the course of the 16th\ncentury, also, Padua produced a new translation of Averroes from the\nHebrew. The last of the Averroist succession was C\u00e6sar Cremonini (d.\n1631), who, however, shows strong leanings towards Alexandrianism. By\nthis time the study of the Arabic philosophers in Europe was confined\nto the medical writers and to the commentaries of Averroes.\n\nOutside Padua and Bologna Averroes retained his position as the\nprincipal exponent of Aristotle to the end of the 15th century. In\nthe ordinances of Louis XI. (1473) it is laid down that the masters\nat Paris are to teach Aristotle, and to use as commentaries Averroes,\nAlbertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and similar writers instead of William\nof Ockham and others of his school, which is no more than saying that\nthe official attitude is to be realist and not nominalist.\n\nWith the 16th century the study of the Arabic commentators on Aristotle\nfell into disrepute outside Padua and its circle, but for a century\nmore the Arabic medical writers had a limited range of influence in the\nEuropean universities.\n\nThe actual line of transmission in and after the 15th century lay\nin the passage of the anti-ecclesiastical spirit developed in North\nEast Italy under the influence of the Arabic philosophers to the\nItalian renascence. The arrival of Greek scholars after the fall of\nConstantinople and the resultant interest developed in arch\u00e6ological\nresearch diverted attention into a new direction, but this should not\ndisguise the fact that the pro-Arabic element in scholastic days was\nthe direct parent of the philo-pagan element in the renascence, at\nleast in Southern Europe. In northern lands it was the arch\u00e6ological\nside which assumed greater importance and was brought to bear upon\ntheological subjects.\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUDING PARAGRAPH\n\n\nWe have now traced the transmission of a particular type of\nHellenistic culture through the Syrian Church, the Zoroastrians of\nPersia, and the pagans of Harran to the Islamic community, where it was\nrather compromised by the patronage of those whom the official Muslim\nteachers decided to regard as heretics. In spite of this censure it has\nleft a very distinct and enduring impression on Muslim theology and on\npopular beliefs. After a chequered career in the East it passed over to\nthe Western Muslim community in Spain, where it had a very specialised\ndevelopment, which finally made a deeper impression on Christian and\nJewish thought than on that of the Muslims themselves, and attained its\nfinal evolution in North-East Italy, where, as an anti-ecclesiastical\ninfluence, it prepared the way for the Renascence. But this main line\nof development is not really the most important; all along that line it\nwas branching off on one side or another, and its richest fruits must\nbe sought in these side issues, in the scholasticism which, in Islam,\nin Judaism, and in Christianity, was a reaction from its teaching, and\nin the medical, chemical, and other scientific studies of the Middle\nAges, which largely owed their inspiration to its influence. It is the\nmost romantic history of culture drift which is known to us in detail.\n\n\n\n\nCHRONOLOGICAL TABLE\n\nYears from the death of the Prophet Muhammad to the fall of the\nMuwahhid dynasty in Spain.\n\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  A.H.   A.D.    MUSLIM YEAR   LEADING EVENTS.\n                 BEGINS.\n  --------------------------------------------------------------------\n  11     632     Mar.  29      d. of Muhammad. Abu Bakr Khalif.\n  12     633      \"    18\n  13     634      \"     7      Umar Khalif.\n  14     635     Feb.  25\n  15     636      \"    14\n  16     637      \"     2\n  17     638     Jan.  23      Syria and Mesopotamia conquered.\n  18     639      \"    12\n  19     640      \"     2\n  20     640     Dec.  21      Egypt conquered.\n  21     641      \"    10      Persia conquered.\n  22     642     Nov.  30\n  23     643      \"    19      Uthman Khalif.\n  24     644      \"     7\n  25     645     Oct.  28\n  26     646      \"    18\n  27     647      \"     7\n  28     648     Sept. 25\n  29     649      \"    14\n  30     650      \"     4\n  31     651     Aug.  24\n  32     652      \"    12\n  33     653      \"     2\n  34     654     July  22\n  35     655      \"    11      `Ali Khalif.\n  36     656     June  30\n  37     657      \"    19\n  38     658      \"     9\n  39     659     May   29\n  40     660      \"    17\n  41     661      \"     7      Mu`awiya I. Khalif: _Umayyads_.\n  42     662     Apr.  26\n  43     663      \"    15\n  44     664      \"     4\n  45     665     Mar.  24\n  46     666      \"    13\n  47     667      \"     3\n  48     668     Feb.  20\n  49     669      \"     9      Al-Hasan died. (2nd Imam.)\n  50     670     Jan.  29\n  51     671      \"    18\n  52     672      \"     8\n  53     672     Dec.  27\n  54     673      \"    16\n  55     674      \"     6\n  56     675     Nov.  25\n  57     676      \"    14\n  58     677      \"     3\n  59     678     Oct.  23\n  60     679      \"    13      _Yazid_ Khalif.\n  61     680      \"     1      Karbela and d. of al-Husayn.\n  62     681     Sept. 20\n  63     682      \"    10\n  64     683     Aug.  30      _Mu`awiya_ II. Khalif: _Marwan_ Khalif.\n  65     684      \"    18      _Abdu l-Malik_ Khalif.\n  66     685      \"     8\n  67     686     July  28\n  68     687      \"    18\n  69     688      \"     6\n  70     689     June  25\n  71     690      \"    15\n  72     691      \"     4\n  73     692     May   23\n  74     693      \"    13\n  75     694      \"     2\n  76     695     Apr.  21\n  77     696      \"    10\n  78     697     Mar.  30\n  79     698      \"    20\n  80     699      \"     9\n  81     700     Feb.  26\n  82     701      \"    15\n  83     702      \"     4\n  84     703     Jan.  24\n  85     704      \"    14\n  86     705      \"     2      _al-Walid_ Khalif.\n  87     705     Dec.  23\n  88     706      \"    12\n  89     707      \"     1\n  90     708     Nov.  20\n  91     709      \"     9\n  92     710     Oct.  29\n  93     711      \"    19\n  94     712      \"     7\n  95     713     Sept. 26\n  96     714      \"    16      _Sulayman_ Khalif.\n  97     715      \"     5\n  98     716     Aug.  25\n  99     717      \"    14      _Umar II._ Khalif.\n  100    718      \"     3\n  101    719     July  24      _Yazif II._ Khalif.\n  102    720      \"    12\n  103    721      \"     1\n  104    722     June  21\n  105    723      \"    10\n  106    724     May   29      Hisham Khalif.\n  107    725      \"    19\n  108    726      \"     8\n  109    727     Apr.  28\n  110    728      \"    16\n  111    729      \"     5\n  112    730     Mar.  26\n  113    731      \"    15\n  114    732      \"     3\n  115    733     Feb.  21\n  116    734      \"    10\n  117    735     Jan.  31\n  118    736      \"    20\n  119    737      \"     8\n  120    737     Dec.  29\n  121    738      \"    18\n  122    739      \"     7\n  123    740     Nov.  26\n  124    741      \"    15\n  125    742      \"     4\n  126    743     Oct.  25      Al-Walid II. Khalif.\n  127    744      \"    15      Yazid III.--Ibrahim  Khalifs.\n  128    745      \"     3      Marwan II. Khalif.\n  129    746     Sept. 22\n  130    747      \"    11\n  131    748     Aug.  31\n  132    749      \"    20      End of Umayyad dyn.--As-Saffah  Khalif.\n  133    750      \"     9\n  134    751     July  30\n  135    752      \"    18\n  136    753      \"     7      Al-Mansur Khalif.\n  137    754     June  27\n  138    755      \"    16      Umayyads established at Cordova.\n  139    756      \"     5\n  140    757     May   25      Ibn al-Muqaffa` killed.\n  141    758      \"    14\n  142    759      \"     4\n  143    760     Apr.  22\n  144    761      \"    11\n  145    762      \"     1      Baghdad founded.\n  146    763     Mar.  21\n  147    764      \"    10\n  148    765     Feb.  27      Imam Ja`far as-Sadiq died.\n  149    766      \"    16\n  150    767      \"     6\n  151    768     Jan.  26\n  152    769      \"    14\n  153    770      \"     4\n  154    770     Dec.  24\n  155    771      \"    13\n  156    772      \"     2\n  157    773     Nov.  21\n  158    774      \"    11      Al-Mahdi Khalif.\n  159    775     Oct.  31\n  160    776      \"    19\n  161    777      \"     9\n  162    778     Sept. 28\n  163    779      \"    17\n  164    780      \"     6\n  165    781     Aug.  26\n  166    782      \"    15\n  167    783      \"     5\n  168    784     July  24\n  169    785      \"    14      Al-Hadi Khalif.\n  170    786      \"     3      Harunu r-Rashid Khalif.\n  171    787     June  22\n  172    788      \"    11      (Idrisids estab. in Morocco.)\n  173    789     May   31\n  174    790      \"    20\n  175    791      \"    10\n  176    792     Apr.  28\n  177    793      \"    18\n  178    794      \"     7\n  179    795     Mar.  27\n  180    796      \"    16\n  181    797      \"     5\n  182    798     Feb.  22\n  183    799      \"    12\n  184    800      \"     1\n  185    801     Jan.  20\n  186    802      \"    10\n  187    802     Dec.  30      Fall of the Barmecides.\n  188    803      \"    20\n  189    804      \"     8\n  190    805     Nov.  27\n  191    806      \"    17\n  192    807      \"     6\n  193    808     Oct.  25      Al-Amin Khalif.\n  194    809      \"    15\n  195    810      \"     4\n  196    811     Sept. 23\n  197    812      \"    12\n  198    813      \"     1      Al-Ma\u00b4mun Khalif.\n  199    814     Aug.  22\n  200    815      \"    11\n  201    816     July  30\n  202    817      \"    20\n  203    818      \"     9\n  204    819     June  28      Ash-Shafi`i died.\n  205    820      \"    17\n  206    821      \"     6\n  207    822     May   27\n  208    823      \"    16\n  209    824      \"     4\n  210    825     Apr.  24\n  211    826      \"    13\n  212    827      \"     2      Decree that Qur\u00b4an was created.\n  213    828     Mar.  22\n  214    829      \"    11\n  215    830     Feb.  28\n  216    831      \"    18\n  217    832      \"     7      Bayt al-Hikma founded (circ.)\n  218    833     Jan.  27      Al-Mu`tasim Khalif, orthodox reaction.\n  219    834      \"    16      (Capital removed to Samarra.)\n  220    835      \"     5\n  221    835     Dec.  26\n  222    836      \"    14\n  223    837      \"     3\n  224    838     Nov.  23\n  225    839      \"    12\n  226    840     Oct.  31      Abu Hudhayl died.\n  227    841      \"    21      Al-Wasiq Khalif.\n  228    842      \"    10\n  229    843     Sept. 30\n  230    844      \"    18\n  231    845      \"     7      An-Nazzam died.\n  232    846     Aug.  28      Al-Mutawakkil Khalif.\n  233    847      \"    17\n  234    848      \"     5\n  235    849     July  26\n  236    850      \"    15\n  237    851      \"     5\n  238    852     June  23\n  239    853      \"    12\n  240    854      \"     2\n  241    855     May   22\n  242    856      \"    10\n  243    857     Apr.  30\n  244    858      \"    19\n  245    859      \"     8\n  246    860     Mar.  28\n  247    861      \"    17      Al-Muntasir Khalif.\n  248    862      \"     7      Al-Musta`in Khalif.\n  249    863     Feb.  24\n  250    864      \"    13\n  251    865      \"     2\n  252    866     Jan.  22      Al-Mu`tazz Khalif.\n  253    867      \"    11\n  254    868      \"     1\n  255    868     Dec.  20      Al-Muhtadi Khalif.\n  256    869      \"     9      Al-Mu`tamid Khalif returns to Baghdad.\n  257    870     Nov.  29      Al-Bukhari died.\n  258    871      \"    18\n  259    872      \"     7\n  260    873     Oct.  27      (circ) al-Kindi died.\n  261    874      \"    16\n  262    875      \"     6\n  263    876     Sept. 24\n  264    877      \"    13\n  265    878      \"     3\n  266    879     Aug.  23\n  267    880      \"    12\n  268    881      \"     1\n  269    882     July  21\n  270    883      \"    11\n  271    884     June  29\n  272    885      \"    18\n  273    886      \"     8\n  274    887     May   28\n  275    888      \"    16\n  276    889      \"     6\n  277    890     Apr.  25\n  278    891      \"    15\n  279    892      \"     3      Mu`tadid Khalif.\n  280    893     Mar.  23\n  281    894      \"    13\n  282    895      \"     2\n  283    896     Feb.  19\n  284    897      \"     8\n  285    898     Jan.  28\n  286    899      \"    17\n  287    900      \"     7\n  288    900     Dec.  26\n  289    901      \"    16      Al-Muktafi Khalif.\n  290    902      \"     5\n  291    903     Nov.  24\n  292    904      \"    13\n  293    905      \"     2\n  294    906     Oct.  22\n  295    907      \"    12      Al Muqtadir Khalif.\n  296    908     Sept. 30\n  297    909      \"    20      Fatimite Khalif at Kairawan.\n  298    910      \"     9\n  299    911     Aug.  28\n  300    912      \"    19      Al-Ash`ari professes orthodoxy.\n  301    913      \"     7\n  302    914     July  27\n  303    915      \"    17\n  304    916      \"     5\n  305    917     June  24\n  306    918      \"    14\n  307    919      \"     3\n  308    920     May   23\n  309    921      \"    12\n  310    922      \"     1\n  311    923     Apr.  21\n  312    924      \"     9\n  313    925     Mar.  29\n  314    926      \"    10\n  315    927      \"     8\n  316    928     Feb.  25\n  317    929      \"    14\n  318    930      \"     3\n  319    931     Jan.  24\n  320    932      \"    13      Al-Qahir Khalif.\n  321    933      \"     1\n  322    933     Dec.  22      ar-Razi Khalif.\n  323    934      \"    11      al-Mataridi d.\n  324    935     Nov.  30      Buwayhids seize Baghdad.\n  325    936      \"    10\n  326    937      \"     8\n  327    938     Oct.  28\n  328    939      \"    18\n  329    940      \"     6      al-Muttaqi Khalif.\n  330    941     Sept. 26\n  331    942      \"    15\n  332    943      \"     4\n  333    944     Aug.  24      al-Mustakfi Khalif.\n  334    945      \"    13      Al-Muti` Khalif.\n  335    945      \"     2\n  336    947     July  23\n  337    948      \"    11\n  338    949      \"     1\n  339    950     June  20      al-Farabi d.\n  340    951      \"     9\n  341    952     May   29\n  342    953      \"    18\n  343    954      \"     7\n  344    955     Apr.  27\n  345    956      \"    15\n  346    957      \"     4\n  347    958     Mar.  25\n  348    959      \"    14\n  349    960      \"     3\n  350    961     Feb.  20\n  351    962      \"     9\n  352    963     Jan.  30\n  353    964      \"    19\n  354    965      \"     7\n  355    965     Dec.  28\n  356    966      \"    17      Fatimites in Egypt: Cairo founded.\n  357    967      \"     7\n  358    968     Nov.  25\n  359    969      \"    14\n  360    970      \"     4\n  361    971     Oct.  24\n  362    972      \"    12\n  363    973      \"     2      At-Tai` Khalif.\n  364    974     Sept. 21\n  365    975      \"    10\n  366    976     Aug.  30\n  367    977      \"    19\n  368    978      \"     9\n  369    979     July  29\n  370    980      \"    17\n  371    981      \"     7\n  372    982     June  26\n  373    983      \"    15\n  374    984      \"     4\n  375    985     May   24\n  376    986      \"    13\n  377    987      \"     3\n  378    988     Apr.  21\n  379    989      \"    11\n  380    990     Mar.  31      Al-Qadir Khalif.\n  381    991      \"    20\n  382    992      \"     9\n  383    993     Feb.  26\n  384    994      \"    15\n  385    995      \"     5\n  386    996     Jan.  25\n  387    997      \"    14\n  388    998      \"     3      Rise of Mahmud of Ghazna.\n  389    998     Dec.  23\n  390    999      \"    13\n  391   1000      \"     1\n  392   1001     Nov.  20\n  393   1002      \"    10\n  394   1003     Oct.  30\n  395   1004      \"    18\n  396   1005      \"     8\n  397   1006     Sept. 27\n  398   1007      \"    17\n  399   1008      \"     5\n  400   1009     Aug.  25\n  401   1010      \"    15\n  402   1011      \"     4\n  403   1012     July  23\n  404   1013      \"    13\n  405   1014      \"     2\n  406   1015     June  21\n  407   1016      \"    10\n  408   1017     May   30\n  409   1018      \"    20\n  410   1019      \"     9\n  411   1020     Apr.  27\n  412   1021      \"    17\n  413   1022      \"     6\n  414   1023     Mar.  26\n  415   1024      \"    15\n  416   1025      \"     4\n  417   1026     Feb.  22\n  418   1027      \"    11\n  419   1028     Jan.  31\n  420   1029      \"    20\n  421   1030      \"     9\n  422   1030     Dec.  29      Al-Qa\u00b4im Khalif.\n  423   1031      \"    19\n  424   1032      \"     7\n  425   1033     Nov.  26\n  426   1034      \"    16\n  427   1035      \"     5\n  428   1036     Oct.  25      Ibn Sina (Avicenna) d.\n  429   1037      \"    14\n  430   1038      \"     3\n  431   1039     Sept. 23\n  432   1040      \"    11\n  433   1041     Aug.  31\n  434   1042      \"    21\n  435   1043      \"    10\n  436   1044     July  29\n  437   1045      \"    19\n  438   1046      \"     8\n  439   1047     June  28\n  440   1048      \"    16\n  441   1049      \"     5\n  442   1050     May   26\n  443   1051      \"    15\n  444   1052      \"     3\n  445   1053     Apr.  23\n  446   1054      \"    12\n  447   1055      \"     2      Saljuk Turks in Baghdad.\n  448   1056     Mar.  21\n  449   1057      \"    10\n  450   1058     Feb.  28\n  451   1059      \"    17\n  452   1060      \"     6\n  453   1061     Jan.  26\n  454   1062      \"    15\n  455   1063      \"     4      Ash`arites tolerated.\n  456   1063     Dec.  25\n  457   1064      \"    13\n  458   1065      \"     3\n  459   1066     Nov.  22\n  460   1067      \"    11\n  461   1068     Oct.  31\n  462   1069      \"    20\n  463   1070      \"     9\n  464   1071     Sept. 29\n  465   1072      \"    17\n  466   1073      \"     6\n  467   1074     Aug.  27      Al-Muqtadi Khalif.\n  468   1075      \"    16\n  469   1076      \"     5\n  470   1077     July  25\n  471   1078      \"    14\n  472   1079      \"     4\n  473   1080     June  22\n  474   1081      \"    11\n  475   1082      \"     1\n  476   1083     May   21\n  477   1084      \"    10\n  478   1085     Apr.  29\n  479   1086      \"    18\n  480   1087      \"     8\n  481   1088     Mar.  27\n  482   1089      \"    16\n  483   1090      \"     6\n  484   1091     Feb.  23\n  485   1092      \"    12\n  486   1093      \"     1\n  487   1094     Jan.  21      Al-Musta`dhir Khalif.\n  488   1095      \"    11\n  489   1095     Dec.  31\n  490   1096      \"    19\n  491   1097      \"     9\n  492   1098     Nov.  28\n  493   1099      \"    17\n  494   1100      \"     6\n  495   1101     Oct.  26\n  496   1102      \"    15\n  497   1103      \"     5\n  498   1104     Sept. 23\n  499   1105      \"    13\n  500   1106      \"     2\n  501   1107     Aug.  22\n  502   1108      \"    11\n  503   1109     July  31\n  504   1110      \"    20\n  505   1111      \"    10      Al-Ghazali died.\n  506   1112     June  28\n  507   1113      \"    18\n  508   1114      \"     7\n  509   1115     May   27\n  510   1116      \"    16\n  511   1117      \"     5\n  512   1118     Apr.  24        Al-Mustarshid Khalif.\n  513   1119      \"    14\n  514   1120      \"     2\n  515   1121     Mar.  22\n  516   1122      \"    12\n  517   1123      \"     1\n  518   1124     Feb.  19\n  519   1125      \"     7\n  520   1126     Jan.  27\n  521   1127      \"    17\n  522   1128      \"     6\n  523   1128     Dec.  25\n  524   1129      \"    15      Ibn Tumart the Mahdi died.\n  525   1130      \"     4\n  526   1131     Nov.  23\n  527   1132      \"    12\n  528   1133      \"     1\n  529   1134     Oct.  22      Ar-Rashid Khalif\n  530   1135      \"    11      Al-Muktafi II. Khalif.\n  531   1136     Sept. 29\n  532   1137      \"    19\n  533   1138      \"     8      Ibn Bajja (Avempace) died.\n  534   1139     Aug.  28\n  535   1140      \"    17\n  536   1141      \"     6\n  537   1142     July  27\n  538   1143      \"    16\n  539   1144      \"     4\n  540   1145     June  24      Jehuda hal-Levi died.\n  541   1146      \"    13\n  542   1147      \"     2\n  543   1148     May   22\n  544   1149      \"    11\n  545   1150     Apr.  30\n  546   1151      \"    20\n  547   1152      \"     8\n  548   1153     Mar.  29\n  549   1154      \"    18\n  550   1155      \"     7\n  551   1156     Feb.  25\n  552   1157      \"    13\n  553   1158      \"     2\n  554   1159     Jan.  23\n  555   1160      \"    12\n  556   1160     Dec.  31\n  557   1161      \"    21\n  558   1162      \"    10\n  559   1163     Nov.  30\n  560   1164      \"    18\n  561   1165      \"     7\n  562   1166     Oct.  28\n  563   1167      \"    17\n  564   1168      \"     5\n  565   1169     Sept. 25\n  566   1170      \"    14      Saladin in Egypt: end of the Fatimites.\n  567   1171      \"     4\n  568   1172     Aug.  23\n  569   1173      \"    12\n  570   1174      \"     2\n  571   1175     July  22\n  572   1176      \"    10\n  573   1177     June  30\n  574   1178      \"    19\n  575   1179      \"     8      An-Nasir Khalif.\n  576   1180     May   28\n  577   1181      \"    17\n  578   1182      \"     7\n  579   1183     Apr.  26\n  580   1184      \"    14\n  581   1185      \"     4      Ibn Tufayl died.\n  582   1186     Mar.  24\n  583   1187      \"    13\n  584   1188      \"     2\n  585   1189     Feb.  19\n  586   1190      \"     8\n  587   1191     Jan.  29\n  588   1192      \"    18\n  589   1193      \"     7\n  590   1193     Dec.  27\n  591   1194      \"    16\n  592   1195      \"     6\n  593   1196     Nov.  24\n  594   1197      \"    13\n  595   1198      \"     3      Ibn Rushd (Averroes) d.\n  596   1199     Oct.  23\n  597   1200      \"    12\n  598   1201      \"    12\n  599   1202     Sept. 20\n  600   1203      \"    10\n  601   1204     Aug.  29      Maimonides died.\n  602   1205      \"    18\n  603   1206      \"     8\n  604   1207     July  28\n  605   1208      \"    16\n  606   1209      \"     6\n  607   1210     June  25\n  608   1211      \"    15\n  609   1212      \"     3\n  610   1213     May   23\n  611   1214      \"    13\n  612   1215      \"     2\n  613   1216     Apr.  20\n  614   1217      \"    10\n  615   1218     Mar.  30\n  616   1219      \"    19\n  617   1220      \"     8\n  618   1221     Feb.  25\n  619   1222      \"    15\n  620   1223      \"     4      Ibn Tumlus died.\n  621   1224     Jan.  24\n  622   1225      \"    13      Az-Zahir Khalif.\n  623   1226      \"     2      Al-Mustansir Khalif.\n  624   1226     Dec.  22\n  625   1227      \"    12\n  626   1228     Nov.  30\n  627   1229      \"    20\n  628   1230      \"     9\n  629   1231     Oct.  29\n  630   1232      \"    18\n  631   1233      \"     7\n  632   1234     Sept. 26\n  633   1235      \"    16\n  634   1236      \"     4\n  635   1237     Aug.  24\n  636   1238      \"    14\n  637   1239      \"     3\n  638   1240     July  23      Ibn `Arabi died.\n  639   1241      \"    12\n  640   1242      \"     1      Al-Musta\u00b4sim Khalif.\n  641   1243     June  21\n  642   1244      \"     9\n  643   1245     May   29\n  644   1246      \"    19\n  645   1247      \"     8\n  646   1248     Apr.  26\n  647   1249      \"    16\n  648   1250      \"     5\n  649   1251     Mar.  26\n  650   1252      \"    14\n  651   1253      \"     3\n  652   1254     Feb.  21\n  653   1255      \"    10\n  654   1256     Jan.  30\n  655   1257      \"    19\n  656   1258      \"     8      Halagu takes Baghdad: end of Khalifate.\n  657   1258     Dec.  29\n  658   1259      \"    18\n  659   1260      \"     6\n  660   1261     Nov.  26\n  661   1262      \"    15\n  662   1263      \"     4\n  663   1264     Oct.  24\n  664   1265      \"    13\n  665   1266      \"     2\n  666   1267     Sept. 22\n  667   1268      \"    10      Fall of the Muwahhids.\n\n\n      Printed in England by The Clarendon Press, Ltd., Cheltenham.\n\n\n\n\nTRANSCRIBER\u2019S NOTE\n\n\nObsolete, archaic, unusual and inconsistent spellings have been left\nin the text as in the original book. Obvious typos have been fixed, as\ndetailed below.\n\nArabic words and names appear transliterated throughout the text. `Ayn\nis represented by `, and hamzah is represented by \u00b4. The same word or\nname will appear throughout the text with and without diacriticals\nover the vowels, and both with and without indications of `ayn and\nhamzah.\n\nMy research indicates that the book _Bibl. Orient._ by Asseman,\ncited in the text, is referring to _Bibliotheca orientalis\nClementino-vaticana..._ by Giuseppe Simone Assemani (modern spelling of\nname).\n\nIn the following, the correction is shown in square brackets:\n\n  Page\n\n   10 matter, probably Indian, perhaps some Eygptian[Egyptian]\n\n   11 the new Plantonists[Platonists]; whilst they exhausted their\n\n   12 to which all philosophy, and especially the Plantonic[Platonic]\n\n   15 Topica, Meterology[Meteorology], _de sensu_, the first five books\n\n   16 \u201cparts.\u201d These are, (1[i]) the nutritive, the power of\n\n   19 in the formation of neo-Plantonic[neo-Platonic] theory, and it\n\n   26 where the Aristotelian metaphysics and phychology[psychology]\n\n   41 commentaries of John Philoponus, himself a Monophysit[Monophysite]\n\n   43 what we call the Turkish bath is a lineal decendant[descendant] of\n\n   48 patriarch in 684 was a pupil of Severus Sekobt[Sebokt], and\n\n   50 persecution. Such was the experience of _Henanyeshu`[Henanieshu\u00b4]_\n\n   50 to the Khalif \u00b4Abdul-Malik[`Abdul-Malik] in consequence of which\n\n   50 the humanities on the other (cf. Assemsan[Asseman] BO.)\n\n   54 luxurant[luxuriant] shoots on a soil which was saturated with\n\n   54 and the most important transmittors[transmitters] of medicine.\n\n   55 the medical writers mentioned by Dr. Leclerq[Leclerc] in his\n\n   55 _Histoire de la m\u00e9dicine[m\u00e9decine] arabe_ (Paris, 1876) we find\n\n   59 d\u00e9border sur les r\u00e9gions fronti\u00e9res[fronti\u00e8res].\n\n   78 \u201cOld Mosque\u201d of Fustat (Cairo), that [is] now known as the\n\n   83 The _Mu\u00b4tazilites[Mu`tazilites]_ of whom _Wasil b. `Ata_ (d. 131)\n\n   84 possessed by him, the Mu\u00b4tazilites[Mu`tazilites] argued that it\n\n   84 eternal Qur\u00b4an as ditheists. The Mu\u00b4tazilites[Mu`tazilites]\n\n   85 moral obligations and reponsibility[responsibility] on the one\n\n   85 to death by the Khalif \u00b4Abdu[`Abdu] l-Malik, and that the\n\n   86 \u00b4Ata[`Ata] whose teaching clearly shows the solvent force\n\n   86 and did so on the ground of the apparant[apparent] injustice\n\n   91 is confined to the hereditary descendants of \u00b4Ali[`Ali] the\n\n   92 is one of the sacred spots visited by Shi\u00b4ite[Shi`ite] pilgrims.\n\n   95 risings at Madinna[Madina], and after the suppression of one of\n\n  105 production of Arabic tranlations[translations] of works\n\n  108 treatises of Aristotle, of the _almajasta[Almagesta]_ of Ptolemy,\n\n  110 al-Ma`mun[al-Ma\u00b4mun] on foods and drinks, a manual of medicine\n\n  114 Metaphysics, Plato\u2019s Laws and Tim\u00e6as[Tim\u00e6us], as well as\n\n  118 in the Qur`an[Qur\u00b4an] as belonging to a religion \u201cof the book,\u201d\n\n  119 the sect mentioned in the Qur`an[Qur\u00b4an] under the name of\n\n  123 Qur`an[Qur\u00b4an] and the question of free will. The new\n\n  129 and _`Amr b. Bakr[Bahr] al-Jahiz_. On the theological\n\n  130 _`Amr b. Bakr[Bahr] al-Jahir[Jahiz]_ (d. 255), the third of\n\n  135 time of al-Ma`mun[Ma\u00b4mun] the text of Aristotle began to be\n\n  137 (22) of De Slane\u2019s trans. of Ibn Kkallikan[Khallikan], vol. i. p.\n\n  137 _Beitrage[Beitr\u00e4ge] zur Geschichte der philosophie[Philosophie]_\n\n  139 which particular aspect af[of] ancient research would\n\n  143 _Muhammmad[Muhammad] b. Tarkhan Abu Nasr al-Farabi_ (d. 339),\n\n  146 _Almajesta[Almagesta]_ of Ptolemy, and a treatise on various\n\n  147 _aql[`aql]_ (reason, intelligence, spirit) is employed in general\n\n  152 12. 7, and similarly Plato, _Timaeus[Tim\u00e6us]_ 28). Being unchanged\n\n  153 the argument in Plato, _Timaeus[Tim\u00e6us]_ 28, and Aristotle,\n\n  156 attempted on quite other lines by al-Ash\u00b4ari[Ash`ari] and\n\n  156 twelfth Iman[Imam] of the _Ithna `ashariya_ or orthodox\n\n  156 emperers[emperors], whose sign manual was sought as giving\n\n  157 son Isma\u00b4il[Isma`il] as his successor, but as Isma\u00b4il[Isma`il] was\n\n  157 be transferred at will, but remained loyal to Isma\u00b4il[Isma`il],\n\n  160 the Isma\u00b4ilians[Isma`ilians] or Sab`iya of Egypt there came two\n\n  160 monastry[monastery], and was recognised there afterwards as a\n\n  161 In 471 another da\u00b4i[da`i] or missionary, Hasan-i-Sabbah,\n\n  161 the younger son Musta\u00b4li[Musta`li]. When the Khalif al-Mustansir\n\n  163 the Agha Khan is a lineal descendant af[of] Ruknu\n\n  163 Thus the movememt[movement] started by Abdullah, the son\n\n  165 the Ishma\u00b4ilians[Isma`ilians] on the part of those who wished\n\n  165 founders of the brotherhood, as some have suppposed[supposed].\n\n  169 al-Juzjanl[Juzjani], from his master\u2019s recollections. We learn\n\n  169 classes, as was the case with the Qarmations[Qarmatians], and when\n\n  171 After this he studied Euclid, the _Almajesta[Almagesta]_, and the\n\n  177 formed. Men and animals perceive pariculars [particulars]\n\n  189 Syraic[Syriac] very soon after their first appearance in Greek,\n\n  189 Sa\u00b4id[Sa`id] b. Abi l-Khayr (d. 441 A.H. = 1049 A.D.), who\n\n  189 Ibn Sina; when they parted Abu Sa\u00b4id[Sa`id] said of Ibn Sina,\n\n  191 \u00b4Abdullah[`Abdullah], the son of Maymum, whose work we have\n\n  192 Isma\u00b4ilians[Isma`ilians] and kindred sects; but Sufi teaching\n\n  194 Sufi and the philosopher of the Isma\u00b4ilian[Isma`ilian] school.\n\n  196 of the Rifa\u00b4ite[Rifa`ite] order. There are also orders\n\n  199 undergone by the Rifa\u00b4i[Rifa`i] darwishes and others. The\n\n  199 produces the world of phenoma[phenomena] in which light is made\n\n  204 Sufi was _`Abdu l-Haqq ibn Sab\u00b4in[Sab`in]_ (d. 667), who shows\n\n  220 and in 484 he was appointed president of the Nazmiite[Nazimite]\n\n  224 the Plotinian terminloogy[terminology]. Macdonald summarises\n\n  226 eastern wing from the rest, and this segrated[segregated] portion\n\n  230 seat of goverment[government] at Cordova, and in A.H. 317 one\n\n  234 more to Christian attacks, until at length Mu\u00b4tamid[Mu`tamid],\n\n  238 work was the _Kitab al-Amanat wa-l-I\u00b4tiqadat[\u00b4Itiqadat]_,\n\n  247 he learned of al-Ghazili[Ghazali] and his doctrines. Roughly\n\n  253 and grammer[grammar]. He maintained that the task of philosophy\n\n  260 `Abdu l-Haqq b. Sab\u00b4im[Sab`in] (d. 667). The former of these\n\n  263 which is exactly the same teaching as that of al-Ash\u00b4ari[Ash`ari]\n\n  272 _Mataphysics[Metaphysics]_, and the treatises _de coelo_ and\n\n  272 _Mataphysics[Metaphysics]_, _de coelo_ and _de mundo_,\n\n  272 on the Nichomach\u00e6an[Nicomach\u00e6an] Ethics and his paraphrase\n\n  278 and phychological[psychological] works of Aristotle were in\n\n  282 the Jew Calonymos[Kalonymos] did so in 1328. Some of his\n\n  287 to the study of the original test[text], a view in\n\n  297 41  661  \"    7  Mu\u00b4awiya[Mu`awiya] I. Khalif: _Umayyads_.\n\n  298 64  683 Aug. 30  _Mu\u00b4awiya[Mu`awiya]_ II. Khalif: _Marwan_ Khalif.\n\n  303 204 819 June 28  Ash-Shaf`i[Shafi`i] died.\n\n  304 218 833 Jan. 27  Al-Mu\u00b4tasim[Mu`tasim] Khalif, orthodox reaction.","title":"Arabic Thought and Its Place in History","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":77650}