Hardly any text-critical work has been undertaken on Ibn sina's major philosophical work, the Kitab al-Shifa. With the example of the two relatively late manuscripts of the Shifa' in the Leiden library an attempt is made to show how complex the textual material actually is.
Hardly any text-critical work has been undertaken on Ibn sina's major philosophical work, the Kitab al-Shifa. With the example of the two relatively late manuscripts of the Shifa' in the Leiden library an attempt is made to show how complex the textual material actually is.
Hardly any text-critical work has been undertaken on Ibn sina's major philosophical work, the Kitab al-Shifa. With the example of the two relatively late manuscripts of the Shifa' in the Leiden library an attempt is made to show how complex the textual material actually is.
(Leiden Institute of Area Studies) [j.j.witkam@hum.leidenuniv.nl]
Conference Prince of Physicians. Avicennas Legacy in the Islamic World and the West
Leids Universitair Centrum voor de studie van Islam & Samenleving (LUCIS), in cooperation with the Scaliger Institute. Leiden, Monday 16 J anuary 2012 Introduction
On Ibn Sns major philosophical work, the Kitb al-Shif, hardly any text-critical work has been undertaken. Each book in the multi- volume Cairo edition, which was made by a great number of learned editors over a long period of time, is based on a varying number of manuscripts which are used by the editors in a variety of ways, which usually was not accounted for.
The editorial principle applied by the many editors seems to be sound philological taste, rather than the application of a more formal and methodical approach. Erudition and taste cannot, however, be substitutes for the textual evidence in manuscripts. They can at best be materially complementary and instrumental.
With the example of the two relatively late manuscripts of the Kitb al-Shif in the Leiden library (Or. 4, estimated from the 7th-8th/13th- 14th century; Or. 84, dated 881/1476) an attempt is made to show how complex the textual material actually is. J acobus Golius (1596-1667), professor of Arabic and Mathematics in Leiden University. He acquired both manuscripts of the Shifa that are now in the Leiden library. He had gone to Aleppo and Istanbul to purchase scientific manuscripts. In 1629 he brought back more than 200 volumes for Leiden University, and about as many for himself. Source: 19th-century lithography by L. Springer after a posthumous painting. Use of the Leiden manuscripts in the Cairo edition
The two manuscripts of Ibn Sns Kitb al-Shif in Leidens library have played only a modest role in the transmission and edition of that text. They have been used in the Cairo edition of the Shif by three of the editors only:
- Georges Anawati has, in his introduction to the edition of De anima (1975, pp. xv-xvi), made an effort to work out a stemma of the different manuscripts, including the two Leiden ones, or at least to point out connections within the corpus of manuscripts.
- Zakary Ysuf has used MS Leiden Or. 84 for his edition of the book on music (1956, introduction, pp. 42-45) and gives as his overall impression of the quality of the text that it is full of mistakes, but he gives no details. - Amad Fud al-Ahwn used a Leiden manuscript for his edition of the Topica (1965, p. 1), but he does not indicate which one of the two, nor does he tell the reader how he used it. My own agenda
I here present the outlines of a codicological description of the two Leiden manuscripts. Codicology is, to say it both irreverently and incorrectly, everything about the manuscript except its content. A codicological viewing of a manuscript has, of course, consequences for our appreciation of its contents.
In my investigation I focus on the history of the making of either manuscript, as shown by the two manuscripts themselves. Neither manuscript is complete and one (Or. 4) has been, a long time ago, the object of heavy repair work. Either manuscript shows numerous traces of scholarly use. I try to find out what we must think of this.
As a result I may give the authenticity of Ibn Sns text, as contained in the two Leiden manuscripts, more nuance than ever had been done before. It shows that codicological observation and analysis even precede textual criticism. The two Leiden manuscripts of Ibn Sinas Kitab al-Shifa
MS Leiden, Or. 4. Al-Shifa, without the mathematics. A manuscript of huge format, over 300 leaves, beautifully executed and expertly written. Numerous traces of use. Not dated, probably older than Or. 84. Princely copy (nuskha khazainiyya). MS Leiden, Or. 84. Al-Shifa, an almost complete text, dated 881/1476. Volume of handy proportion, over 660 leaves. Neatly and expertly written. Some traces of use. Scholars copy. Bibliographical confusion concerning the references to the two Leiden manuscripts
In the bibliographical literature (Anawati, Mahdavi, others) the two Leiden manuscripts of Ibn Sns Kitb al-Shif, Or. 4 and Or. 84, are known as MSS Leiden 1444 and Leiden 1445 respectively. These are the serial numbers of the old Leiden catalogue, Catalogus Codicum Orientalium Bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae (CCO), vol. 3 (by P. de J ong and M.J . de Goeje), Leiden 1865. It is also the most recent published description by autopsy of either manuscript! 1444 and 1445 are not shelf marks or class-marks in the Leiden library, and the numbers are not even found in the two manuscripts. Carl Brockelmann in his Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur has used these CCO serial numbers. That has, for over a century now, created considerable bibliographical confusion for the Middle-Eastern manuscripts in the Leiden library, with the creation of quite a few phantom manuscripts as a result. Illuminated title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4.
Title and author in the upper and lower panel. The Shamsa inbetween may have been meant for an ex-libris.
Several owners notes (tamallukat) on the title- page, two dated ones, 957 and 9?8 AH (=928 or 968 AH, corresponding with 1522 or 1560 AD).
Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a. Undated Tamalluk on the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4: Muhammad b. Mawlana Abd al-Karim. Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail. Dated Tamalluk in Turkish on the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4: 957 (1550). Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail. Dated Tamalluk of Abd al-Razzaq b. Abd al-Rahman b. Ali b. ? on the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4: Constantinople, Friday 1 Rabi II 9?8, which can only be 928 or 968 (1522 or 1560). Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail. Undated Tamalluk on the title-page of MS Leiden Or. 4: this owner, Ismail b. Yahya b. Ismail, could also be one of the collators. Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a, detail. Collation note in MS Leiden Or. 4, possibly written by one of the owners of the MS: Ismail b. Yahya b. Ismail. Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 194a, detail. Double illuminated opening page of the Kitab al-Shifa. A luxuriously made manuscript, possibly of Oriental origin. At the right is al-Guzganis introductory note, at left the beginning of al-Shifa. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 4, ff. 1b-2a The basmala and the survey of the contents of the entire work were added by a collator, possibly one of the 10th/16th-century owners. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 4, f. 2a, detail Four different copyists of MS Leiden Or. 4
At least four copyists seem to have written MS Or. 4, all using 39 lines to the page. Evident changes of hand are corroborated by the density of script (number of words to the line):
- Copyist 1. ff. 1b - 119b (line 35), ff. 179a (line 26) 259b (line 39), between 32- 37 words to the line.
- Copyist 2. ff. 119b (line 36) f. 169a (line 39), ff. 260a (line 1) 298a (end), between 34-39 words to the line. This is the copyist who signs with his name on f. 298a: Muammad b. al-asan b. Muammad al-Ktib. Note that the script on ff. 277b (line 10)-278a (entire page) seems to be written by a different copyist, with less density: 25-27words.
- Copyist 3. ff. 169b (line 1) f. 179a (line 25): 19-27 words to the line.
-Copyist 4. ff. 299b-339a (=end), with 21-26 words to the line, though, approaching the end of the volume, the writing seems to become more dense, as if the copyist felt paper would fail him.
Questions: Did they use the same exemplar? Did they work at the same time and/or at the same place? The signature of copyist No. 2: Muammad b. al-asan b. Muammad al-Ktib, the only copyist in Or. 4 who mentions his name. Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 298a. Point of transition from copyist No. 1 to copyist No. 2. There is not much difference in the number of words to the line, but the ductus is distinctly different. Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 119b, detail. Point of transition from copyist No. 3 (19-27 words to the line), back to copyist No. 1 (32-37 words to the line). The switch back to copyist No. 1 may point to teamwork in the production of the MS, and thereby possibly to the use of one and the same exemplar. And also to a unity of time and place of copying, maybe? Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 179b, detail. Simply drawn illustration in the Tabiiyyat (one out of three in all), done by hand, in a space left open by the copyist. A feature copied from the exemplar? Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 245b, detail. Internal organization of MS Leiden Or. 4
Three organizational devices can be observed in MS Leiden Or. 4, all of which seem to be later or even much later additions to the manuscript.
1. Quire marks. The quires are distinguished by quire marks, being an ordinal numeral, written in words, on the first leaf of each quire, in the upper left corner. The regular quire of the manuscript was five sheets (=ten leaves =twenty pages) =>not-Oriental?
2. Catchwords, occasionally written at the bottom of some of the verso pages. Evidently later work.
3. Folio numbers. There are in fact two number systems in the manuscript, one by an Oriental librarian, in ink, the other one by a (19th-century?) European librarian, in pencil. The two number sequences diverge slightly. Much later work. Means of internal organization of MS Leiden Or. 4 Leiden, Or. 4, f. 89a Quire-mark 10, Oriental foliation, European foliation. Leiden, Or. 4, f. 169a Quire-mark 18, European foliation. Leiden, Or. 4, f. 89a, quire mark with short title. Leiden, Or. 4, ff. 326b-327a, catchword with offset on opposite page. Repairs of damage in MS Leiden Or. 4 with text substitution Old repairs, entire first quire, outer margins lost. Source: Leiden, Or. 4, f. 1a Repairs on newer paper, in the entire part of the Ilahiyyat.
Question: Where does the new text come from?
Evidence of contamination.
Source: MS Leiden Or. 4, f. 323b MS Leiden Or. 4 is a princely copy made by a team (?) of copyists, showing numerous traces of repair, and has the most conspicuous codicological details. Yet MS Leiden, Or. 84 (opening shown here), a scholars copy containing the almost complete text of the Shifa, but without many traces of use, nevertheless has a few interesting features of its own. MS Leiden, Or. 84, binding, later added to the volume, end 10/16th or early 11/17th century AH?
The four parts are four different codicological entities, all ending at the complete quire. Were they at first separate entities? And then bound in hierarchical order, rather than the order chosen by Ibn Sina? Copyists signature and dating: Fadl Allah b. Abd al-Aziz Hafiz, Tuesday 8 Rabi` II 881 (1476). Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 312a, detail The rubricator worked independently from the copyist: the representant in the upper margin would be cropped during binding. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 652b, detail Last words of the Ilahiyyat (repeated), with false colophon, by an owner or reader, Muhammad b. Abd al-Razzaq al-Gurgani, dated 882 (1477-1478). Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 68b, detail. Last words of the Tabiiyyat, with the other false colophon, by the owner or reader, Muhammad b. Abd al-Razzaq al-Gurgani, dated 4 Shaban 882 (1477). Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 545a, detail. Numerous expertly drawn illustrations (ruler and compass used) in the part on mathematics (by the copyist or someone else?), here showing the end of the Kitab al-Usul. The drawings are placed in space left open by the copyist, a feature that may already have been present in the exemplar. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 578b, detail. Copyists technique of achieving the impression of justification. (MS Or. 4 did not need that because its entire text was contained within a frame.) Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 23a, detail. Organizational technique: by catchwords only, probably written by the copyist. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 3b, detail. Collation with two sigla, here possibly meaning that somehow two manuscripts are involved. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84,
Collation (balagha) note in outer margin, to be cropped later, when the volume was bound. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 16a, detail. Correction: strike through, covered with red ink. No problem of esthetics in a scholars copy. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 112a, detail. Correction: written on erasure, adding of vocalization and ihmal sign for clarification. Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f. 113b, detail. Evident emendation, with mark za, for zahir, evident (?). Source: MS Leiden, Or. 84, f.
Codicological conclusions concerning the two Leiden manuscripts of the Kitab al-Shifa
Difference of origin and use: MS Or. 4 was made for a royal or princely patron. It is a luxury manuscript (large format, illuminations). MS Or. 84 comes from a scholarly environment (smaller format, scholars hand). Either manuscript appears to have an Oriental origin, possibly Iran (further analysis of the paper could confirm or reject this).
Differences inside the volumes: MS Or. 4 has undergone most work: four copyists, illumination, collation, later repairs. More copyists could imply more than one exemplar. Collation implies the presence of one or more other manuscripts. Repairs show substituted text, and cause a contaminated text if taken at face value. Or. 84 shows different order of the parts within the Shifa. It has been collated and corrected. This may imply contamination as well.