ArOMa (ERC CoG-2024 – GA 101171020) is a research project financed by the European Research Council, hosted by the Dipartimento di Civiltà e Forme del Sapere, University of Pisa (Italy, E.U.)

About

The Project Aristotle One and Many. The Arabic Pseudepigrapha (ArOMa) is focused upon a group of seminal sources, part and parcel of the formation of intellectual discourse in the Middle Ages, and forming a common basis of understanding between the cultures on both sides of the Mediterranean, until the today. One of the prominent features of Medieval Aristotelianism, both Arabic and Latin, is the fact that Aristotle has been credited with writings that, albeit different in origin and sometimes of differing philosophical affiliations, circulated under his name. ArOMa focused on the works falsely attributed to Aristotle in the Arabic philosophical literature translated or forged in the 9th-10 cent. The corpus of ‘Pseudo-Aristotelica Arabica’ includes two categories of texts: A. Arabic versions of works falsely attributed to Aristotle already in Greek. B. Medieval Arabic forgeries. To these will be added: C. Commentaries on such works (including abridgements, paraphrases etc.).

Pertinence and innovative aspects of our research programme

Scientific Problem

The impact of some of the works falsely attributed to Aristotle in the creation of this image has been noticed in the scholarship, but a complete assessment of the facets of the false Aristotle is still a desideratum ArOMa sets for itself the task of filling this gap. This assessment calls for questioning the reception of Aristotle’s original writings and the Arabic pseudo-Aristotelica in parallel, simultaneously considering the changes introduced into Aristotle’s thought by Aristotle’s late antique commentators as reflected in the creation of new Arabic pseudo-Aristotelica. Before this assessment can be made, it is necessary to solve the problem that has hitherto prevented its realisation: knowing how many and which are the Arabic Aristotle(s), at the same time, having all the data concerning the circulation in Arabic of the late antique commentary tradition.

Grand Challenge

Far from being a mere inventory, ArOMa will raise, and hopefully solve, the question ‘does the Arabic Aristotle reflect one or many images of Aristotle? If the second, are they consistent with one another, or are we facing a series of scattered fragments whose common feature is only pseudepigraphy?’. ArOMa is devoted to discover, classify, and discuss all the instances of this mutliple “Aristotle”. As a result, the idea of the medieval Aristotle as a counterfeit of the genuine Aristotle will fade forever, replaced by the more realistic image of a plurality of facets, where genuine and spurious works interact with one another in a complexity which will be available for exploration in different fields of the Aristotelian scholarship.

What will research gain from ArOMa results?

How can other researchers use these results in their research? The expected potential impact is to attract academic interest on a subject which is not fully exploited, with a high research potential, and to provide an instrument for future inquiries on the topic. An example is revealing. The medieval representation of the cosmos has its origin in Aristotle, but it cannot be explained by Aristotle alone. Indeed, one must consider the elements that, albeit Neoplatonic in origin, were attributed to Aristotle in the exegesis of his writings and in many writings falsely attributed to him. Aristotle’s cosmos depends on a single first principle that moves by being motionless. It moves by attraction, like an object of love (Metaphysics) and is an incorporeal principle of the infinite movement of the heavens (Physics). The medieval cosmos is similar, but not the same. As in the philosophical cosmology of classical antiquity, in the medieval cosmos everything is in motion due to a single transcendent first principle. Added to the Aristotelian inspiration are the idea of a hierarchy of the parts of the cosmos, the outpouring of divine power that is more or less intense depending on rank in this hierarchy, and the theme of the vision of God by a created intellect, that of man.

Background

The pseudo-Aristotles and ArOMA

The translations of Aristotle’s works from Greek into Syriac and Arabic have been the object of intense scholarly research (WALZER 1950, PETERS 1968, ROSENTHAL 1975, ENDRESS 1987/1992). These translations count as one of the major factors in the rise of the medieval epistemic community (ENDRESS 1992, GUTAS 1998, WATT 2010/11 and 2014ab); however, if one considers the fact that in the same span of time several spuria also were translated, we can conclude that the strong tendency to modify or supplement Aristotle’s teachings with tenets derived from other philosophical, religious or scientific sources must be taken into account. In this way a more comprehensive picture can be obtained of the twin process of assimilating the Greek heritage and creating a new understanding of the cosmos. It is this twin process that in many respects paved the way for the intellectual developments of later eras (VAN OPPENRAAY-FONTAINE 2012, HASSE 2016). Since the beginning of modern historiography, the scientific community has recognized the need to explore in detail the Aristotelian material circulating in the Middle Ages, both in the Arabic-speaking and Latin-speaking areas. Pioneering works such as STEINSCHNEIDER 1889/96, THORNDIKE 1922, BIRKENMAJER 1932 served as the basis for the Aristoteles Latinus (1949—), which received major contributions from the Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus (1975—) and the pseudo-Aristoteles Latinus (1985), the Averrois Opera Omnia (1949—), the collection of texts and studies on the Arabic pseudo- Aristotelica published within the series Islamic Philosophy directed by F. Sezgin (2000), the Aristoteles Hebraicus (1997), the Plotinus Arabus (2010––).

Commentaries on Aristotle and ArOMa

The systematic structure into which Aristotle’s doctrines were organized in the curricular teaching of the schools of late Antiquity paved the way for their transmission to Latin and Arabic thought. The work inspired by Richard Sorabji and expanded in the series “Commentaries on Aristotle” (SORABJI 1990/2016, FALCON 2016, IERODIAKONOU-GOLITSIS 2019), helped to highlight the connection with the reception of Aristotelian philosophy in the Arabic, Latin, and Jewish areas. The works published in the frame of these research enterprises play a decisive role in understanding the engagement with “Aristotle” during the Middle Ages. ArOMa addresses this issue from the vantage point of the interaction between the systematization of Aristotle’s thought from the Imperial Age to late Antiquity on the one hand, and of the creation, translation, and circulation of writings falsely attributed to Aristotle on the other.