[lit-ideas] Re: The 'Near-Eastern' influences on the Greek philosophy, sc...

  • From: Michael Chase <goya@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:21:15 +0200

Le mardi, 13 avr 2004, =E0 00:31 Europe/Paris, Robert Paul a =E9crit :

> Mike Chase asks, learnedly:
>
> What precisely are the Avicennian claims that led to the
> accusation of pantheism? How widespread was this accusation? There
> surely must be more to the claim than the alleged existence of a
> title-free work that appears to have been unavailable to the West. If
> the charge originates in Thomas, how well-acquainted was he with
> Avicenna's works? What Avicennian works had been translated into Latin
> by Thomas' time, and what was the quality of these translations?
>
> To the first question, I have no answer; as Mike well knows, I'm not a=20=

> scholar
> of ancient philosophy, especially of ancient Middle Eastern=20
> philosophy. However,
> although Avicenna may have been 'called many things,' it would seem=20
> that such a
> 'charge' would not have been merely an excuse to dismiss this=20
> meddlesome
> Persian, but something based on more than idle speculation. That is:=20=

> there are
> certainly other trumped up philosophico-theological charges one can=20
> imagine, if
> the aim was to dismiss him by whatever means.

M.C. Perhaps. This is the "where there's smoke there's fire" argument.=20=

I'm always wary of it, becuase there *are* accusations that have no=20
basis whatsoever in reality, and occasionally they wind up getting=20
believed.

Perhaps "pantheism" really was simply the first dismissive label that=20
came to hand. Or perhaps it arose from a poor translation of comments=20
by Averroes....

> What texts of Avicenna's support
> it, I have no idea, but neither am I driven to doubt the existence of=20=

> the lost
> text; for one doubts on the same sorts of grounds one believes, and=20
> where I have
> no grounds for belief, I have none for doubt either.

M.C. Then I'm surprised you used the allleged "existence" of this "lost=20=

text" as part of the evidence for your argument. In fact the work in=20
question is indeed the Oriental philosophy, and it's been the subject=20
of debate among experts for decades, if not centuries. Currently,=20
Dmitri Gutas denies such a work ever existed, while my friend Ali=20
Elamrani-jamal maintains the opposite.

        No modern scholar I know of would claim that the contents of =
this=20
work, if it existed, were "pantheistic".
>
> I have no axe to grind here. I'm more interested in the fact that=20
> there is an
> argument to the best hypothesis concerning why Avicenna (and his=20
> predecessors),
> and even the scholarly commentaries of someone as friendly to=20
> Aristotle as
> Averroes should have dropped out of the traditional picture presented=20=

> as the
> history of (Western) philosophy. And it is that between the great=20
> Middle Eastern
> scholars and the present day--although they may have begun to=20
> philosophize out
> of an admiration for or fascination with Plato, and then with=20
> Aristotle--came
> Scholasticism. 'Scholasticism' was hardly pure, disinterested inquiry,=20=

> carried
> out by Schoolmen living on Rockefeller Grants, and it was because of=20=

> the
> ideological conflict between say, the School of Paris, and the =
earlier,
> Neo-Platonic, Neo-Aristotelian Arab philosophers (as seen from one=20
> side of the
> mirror) that the latter were erased from the picture, the merit of=20
> their
> contributions to philosophy notwithstanding. Scholasticism became=20
> Western
> philosophy, not through overpowering argument but as a sociological=20
> fact.

M.C. Quite so. But this has implications for our knowledge of the role=20=

of Islamic philosophers in Medieval thought. For who has it been,=20
traditionally, who writes the history of Medieval Thought? Why,=20
Neo-Thomists, of course, the scions of Gilson, Chenu and Maritain, who=20=

produce things like the Catholic Encyclopedia.  We ought not to be=20
surprised that such Thomistic scholars tend to reproduce the view of=20
Islamic philosophy held by Thomas Aquinas. It therefore becomes=20
important to know to what extent Thomas (a) had and (b) sought to=20
transmit an *accurate* account of the actual development of Islamic=20
thought.
>
> Mike asks a number of questions, not all of which have any bearing on=20=

> this
> issue, and I would be rash to try to answer any of them in his=20
> presence, in any
> event. However, I'll guess in one case: I'll bet that the quality of=20=

> the Latin
> translations of whatever extant works of Avicenna's there were in=20
> Aquinas' time
> were pretty good.

M.C. I believe you would lose that bet. In a number of recent studies=20
(cf. Raison et foi, Paris 2003), Alain de Libera has tried to show that=20=

there was never any such thing as Latin Averroism, which was=20
traditionally supposed to dominate Paris universities in the 13th=20
century. De Libera claims this is a construct of 19th-century=20
scholarship, basing itself on the testimony of St.-Thomas. Yet Thomas=20
himself had only a rudimentary acquaintance with the thought of=20
Averroes, mediated as the latter was by the translations of Michael=20
Scot. De Libera wonders how anyone could make head nor tail of the=20
barbarous Latin of these translations which, like the pioneer works=20
they were, are primitive and more often than not misleading.

> If this isn't true, what would explain that, given the many
> years of easy exchanges of texts and translations

M.C. Sorry, what "easy exchange"? Translations of philosophical Arab=20
texts into Latin happened all of a sudden in the generation before=20
Thomas' master Albert the Great; prior to that there were none. Albert=20=

is the witness of the very first generation of Latin scholars that had=20=

access to virtually all of Aristotle"s texts, and to many not by the=20
Stagirite but attributed to him anyway. But there was nothing "free and=20=

easy" about such traffic: if and when a text was translated, it was=20
usually translated only once, and needless to say there was nobody=20
around who could tell whether a Latin translation of an Arabic text was=20=

faithful to the original or not. The translators themselves, whether=20
from 11th-century Toledo or the court of Frederic in Sicily, were=20
heroic pioneers, but the science of establishing critical editions did=20=

not yet exist. These fellows took whatever Arabic manuscript happened=20
to be handy, sweated blood as they tried to manhandle the Latin tongue=20=

into molds and patterns it had never known before, and came up with=20
more or less comprehensible results, often by inventing neologisms.


>  before ideology triumphed over
> wit? If _none_ of the translations of Avicenna into Latin were=20
> trustworthy,

M.C. I don't believe I said or implied that, but never mind.

> what's the line of descent from his texts to current pronouncements=20
> about
> Avicenna the philosopher and scientist?

M.C. Ah, well, one hopes there's been a little bit of progress over the=20=

last 800 years. For one thing, the art (or science) of textual=20
scholarship now exists: we now know how to compare and class=20
manuscripts, which allows us to produce critical editions of the Latin=20=

translations of A's work. Most importantly, any Avicenna scholar worth=20=

his or her salt today wil, unlike the Latin Scholastics, be just as=20
much at home in Arabic as with Latin: he or she can thus establish=20
critical editions, not only of translations, but of A's original Arabic=20=

texts. There are even some out there who know Persian as well, which=20
allows them to study the numerous treatises A. wrote in that tongue....

> Again, Mike would know everything here,
> and I would know nothing, so I'll prudently defer to him.

M.C. I'm not looking to be deferred to, just advocating a more critical=20=

stance with regard to our secondary sources.  Not believing something=20
is true just because some allegedly authoritative source says it is :=20
that, too is part of a philosophical stance, is it not?
>
> Mike jokingly or sarcastically pretends to be astonished that a=20
> 'scholar' (an
> epithet I recoil from) of my 'acuity' could assert that the accusation=20=

> of
> pantheism against Avicenna is true. Very well, I won't assert it. (But=20=

> neither
> will I deny it; surely the best course here is agnosticism.) It=20
> doesn't really
> matter to me though, because the tacit assumption behind my rambling=20=

> thoughts on
> the matter was that the variouslyheld beliefs that Avicenna was a=20
> pantheist
> (something Aristotle might also be seen as) were sufficient grounds=20
> for writing
> him out of the official story, and replacing his interpretations of=20
> Plato and
> Aristotle with more doctrinally friendly ones.

M.C. Perhaps. Henry Corbin has written nostalgically of the defeat of=20
Avicenna's world view by that of Averroes as a progressive=20
disenchantment of the world: from Avicenna's cosmology of=20
angel-intelligences, from the last of which - simultaneously Gabriel,=20
the Angel of Humanity and the Peripatetic Active Intelligence - our own=20=

minds emanate, in the midst of a cosmos filled with angelic and=20
cherubinic intelligences all activated by love and desire for their=20
hierarchical superiors - all this disappeared, says Corbin, with the=20
defeat and oblivion of what Gilson called 'l'avicennisme augustinisant.

        But I believe Robert and I have begun this debate on the wrong =
foot.=20
We should have begun by asking : what *is* pantheism, anyway? I suspect=20=

that this term, like others such as "animism", deosn't have any real=20
content, but is used, especially in late 19th and early-20th century=20
schlalrship, to dismiss ideas one doesn't really understand but=20
despises anyway.

        Be that as it may, I'm now appallingly late for work. If I get =
fired,=20
it's Robert's fault, and he'll soon find me on his doorstep, hat in=20
hand, looking for a job at the Mutton Institute.

        All best, Mike.
"



>
Michael Chase=09
(goya@xxxxxxxxxxx)
CNRS UPR 76/
l'Annee Philologique
Villejuif-Paris
France

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2004