Avicennas copyists at work

presented by J an J ust Witkam

(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?

Unusual order of the text within
the volume:

- ff. 1b-68b: Metaphysics
- ff. 69a-312a: Logic
- ff. 313b-545a: Natural sciences
- ff. 545b-664b: Mathematics

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.