¹ One can mention such outdated works as Bochart, S., Hyerozoicon sive de animalibus Sanctae Scripturae…, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1793–1796);Google Scholar among more recent works, cf. Loew, I., Die Flora der Juden, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1924–1934),Google Scholar and id., Fauna und Mineralien der Juden, ed. Scheiber, A. (Hildesheim, 1969) — the latter containing a collection of articles already published. Die Flora der Juden gives only a brief account of botany in medieval Hebrew works (see vol. IV, pp. 431 ff., under the title “Philosophie und Wissenschaft”).Google Scholar More data about natural sciences in medieval Hebrew literature can be found in Steinschneider's, M. bibliographical inventory, Die hebraeischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893; repr. Graz, 1956) [hereinafter referred to as HÜb.], §§ 66–67, pp. 140–6;Google Scholar for further data on mineralogy in Hebrew, see Steinschneider's, essay “Lapidarien, ein kulturgeschichlicher Versuch,” in Kohut, G.A. (ed.), Semitic Studies in Memory of Rev. Dr. Alexander Kohut (Berlin, 1896), pp. 42–72.Google Scholar

² I will refer, hereinafter, to the complete edition of al-Šifā' by I. Maḏkūr et alii (Cairo, 1952 ff.; repr. Qom, 1404–1406 A.H.).Google Scholar

³ De incessu and De motu were almost unknown to Arabic scholars, except through the epitome by Nicolaus Damascenus, which was quoted by Averroes: cf. Lulofs, H.J. Drossaart, Nicolaus Damascenus, On the Philosophy of Aristotle, Fragments of the first five books translated from the Syriac (Leiden, 1969), p. 39.Google Scholar

⁴ An edition of these translations is given in Lulofs, H.J. Drossaart — Poortman, E.L.J., Nicolaus Damascenus, De Plantis. Five Translations, Verhandelingen der Koninklije Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, N.R. 139 (Amsterdam/Oxford /New York, 1989).Google Scholar

⁵ See Ruska, J., Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles (Heidelberg, 1912), where an extensive survey of the Eastern and Western tradition of this work is given.Google Scholar Cf. also the critical review of this book by Seybold, C.F. in Zeitschrift der deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 68 (1914): 606–25.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. e.g. al-Bīrūnī, Kitāb al-ǧamāhir fi ma'rifat al- ǧawāhir, ed. Krenkow, F. (Haydarābād, 1355 eg.), p. 41,8, where the author refers to kitāb al-aḥǧār al-mansūb ilā Arisṭūṭālīs – fa-mā aẓunnuhu illā manḥūlan 'alayhi (“the book On stones ascribed to Aristotle – but I think it has erroneously been attributed to him”).Google Scholar

⁷ The more recent edition of the Arabic text is: Fārābī, La statistique des sciences, ed. O. Amine ['U. Amīn] (Cairo, 1968). For a brief sketch of the fate of the Iḥṣā' in the Latin and Hebrew traditions, cf. Zonta, M., La “Classificazione delle scienze” di al-Fārābī nella tradizione ebraica (Torino, 1992), pp. xix–xxiii.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. Hein, Ch., Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie. Von der spätantiken Einleitungsliteratur zur arabischen Enzyklopädie (Frankfurt a.M. / Bern / New York, 1985): see in particular pp. 291–2 (about the place of mineralogy and botany among the sciences).Google Scholar

⁹ There is no comprehensive study of Bar-Hebraeus' writings on the natural sciences: scanty references are to be found in Benham, P., “La physique et la chimie dans les ouvrages des Syriaques” [in Arabic], Journal of the Syriac Academy, 1 (1975): 5–46. Apparently Bar-Hebraeus was not interested in mineralogy, botany and zoology qua sciences: he was actually a mere translator of Ibn Sīnā's words, interspersed with some quotations from Aristotle's writings.Google Scholar As for Albert, cf. the recent research in Weisheipl, J.A. (ed.), Albertus Magnus and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays 1980 (Toronto, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Latin translation of the De congelatione was published, together with the Arabic original, in Holmyard, E.J. — Mandeville, D.C. (eds.), Avicennae De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum, Being Sections of the Kitāb al-Shifā' (Paris, 1927).Google Scholar

¹¹ J.M. Riddle and Mulholland, J.A., “Albert on stones and minerals,” in Weisheipl (ed.), Albertus Magnus, pp. 203–34, on p. 204;Google Scholar see also P. Kibre, “Albertus Magnus on alchemy” (ibid., pp. 187–202) and N.F. George, “Albertus Magnus and chemical technology in a time of transition” (ibid., pp. 235–61), where some aspects of Albert's teachings about metals are studied.Google Scholar The most detailed and accurate work about Albert's De mineralibus is Wyckhoff's, D. annotated English translation: Albertus Magnus, Book of Minerals (Oxford, 1967). For some general observations about the structure and the sources of the work, see also the brief remarks in Weisheipl (ed.), Albertus Magnus, p. 568.Google Scholar

¹² I will refer to the critical edition by Meyer, E.H.F. and Jessen, C.: Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus libri vii (Berlin, 1867).Google Scholar

¹³ The Latin translation of the De plantis has been edited in Drossaart Lulofs — Poortman (eds.), Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, p. 515 ff.

¹⁴ See Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus, Meyer-Jessen ed., p. 339:In hoc sexto libro vegetabilium nostrorum magis satisfacimus curiositati studentium quam philosophiae. De particularibus enim philosophiae esse non poterit, “In this sixth book On Plants we satisfy more the curiosity of students than the (study of) philosophy. In facts, the (study of) particulars cannot pertain to philosophy.”

¹⁵ See the penetrating remarks in K. Reeds, “Albert on the natural philosophy of plant life,” in Weisheipl (ed.), Albertus Magnus, pp. 341–54, on pp. 341–3; on the “descriptive” section of the De vegetabilibus, cf.Google Scholar also J. Stannard, “Albertus Magnus and medieval herbalism,” ibid., pp. 355–77. A synthetic sketch of the contents of the work is given by Weisheipl, on p. 572.

¹⁶ The text of Averroes' De corde (actually a section of his Compendium, known to Albert in Scot's partial version) was incorporated “almost word for word” in Albert's De animalibus:Google Scholar see Siraisi, N.G., “The medical learning of Albertus Magnus,” in Weisheipl, (ed.), Albertus Magnus, pp. 379–404, on p. 393. The De animalibus has been edited in Albertus Magnus, De animalibus libri xxvi, ed. H. Stadler, 2 vols., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters 15–16 (Münster, 1916–1920).Google Scholar For a synopsis of its structure and sources, see Weisheipl, (ed.), Albertus Magnus, pp. 572–4.Google Scholar

¹⁷ A bio-bibliographical survey of Islamic authors dealing with these sciences (until 430 A.H. = 1000 A.D. ca.) is to be found in Sezgin, F., Geschichte des arabisehen Schrifttums [hereinafter GAS], vol. III (Leiden, 1970), pp. 341 ff. (zoology); vol. IV (Leiden, 1971), pp. 301 ff. (botany).Google Scholar A bibliography of German contributions about Arabic natural sciences is given in Sezgin, F., Bibliographie der deutschsprachigen Arabistik und Islamkunde, vol. V (Frankfurt a.M., 1991), pp. 544–87.Google Scholar As for mineralogy, Wiedemann, E., “Zur Mineralogie im Islam,” Sitzungberichte der Physikalisch-Medizinische Sozietät zu Erlangen, 44 (1912): 205–56Google Scholar [reprinted in Wiedemann, E., Aufsätze zur arabischen Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2 vols., ed. Fischer, W. (Hildesheim/ New York, 1970), vol. I, pp. 829–80] is outdated, but still useful as a source of data drawn from unpublished Arabic works about this subject.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, p. 5 (as for zoology): “Eine Zoologie, d.h. eine eigenständige Wissenschaft von den Tieren mit einer aus ihrem Gegenstand entwickelten Methodik, haben die Araber nicht besessen,” and p. 62 (as for botany): “Eine ‘Botanik’ als Einzelwissenschaft hat es im Islam nicht gegeben.” Mineralogy was more deeply studied from a “scientifical” point of view, probably because of its connection with alchemy. As for the analysis of the systematization attempts in Arabic literature on natural sciences,Google Scholar see ibid., pp. 50–4 (for animals), pp. 84–6 (for plants), 140–4 (for minerals).

¹⁹ I will refer to Rasā'il Iḫwān al-Ṣarā' wa-Ḫullān al-Wafā', ed. Bustani, B., 4 vols. (Beirut, 1957) [hereinafter: Iḫwān, Bustani ed.].Google Scholar

²⁰ The relationship between the mineralogical theories of the Iḫ;wān, those reflected in the Corpus Jabirianum, and the common Ismā'īlī background has been recently stressed (maybe with some exaggeration) in Marquet, Y., La philosophie des alchimistes et l'alchimie des philosophes. Jābir ibn Ḥayyān et les “Frères de la Pureté” (Paris, 1988).Google Scholar [Greek sources explicitly mentioned in the encyclopaedia of the Iḫwān are listed in Baffioni, C., Frammenti e testimonianze di autori antichi nelle epistole degli Iḫwān as-Ṣafā' (Roma, 1994)].Google Scholar

²¹ Edited in Badawī, 'A., Rasā'il Falsafiyya li-l-Kindī wa-l-Fārābī wa-Ibn Bāǧǧa wa Ibn 'Adī (Bengazi, 1973), pp. 65–107, according to the MS of Taškent, n. 2385, fols. 308^r–315^v.Google Scholar

²² This section (corresponding to chapters 24–29) has been published in Drossaart Lulofs - Poortman, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, pp. 218–32, on the basis of the MS of El Escorial, Derenbourg 888 [Casiri 883]. Ibn al-Ṭayyib also wrote a commentary on Aristotle's Liber de animalibus,Google Scholar now almost entirely missing: the relevant data are given in Zonta, M., “Ibn al-Ṭayyib zoologist and Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq's revision of Aristotle's De animalibus: new evidence from the Hebrew tradition,” Aram, 3 (1991): 235–47.Google Scholar

²³ Published and translated into Spanish in Palacios, M. Asín, “Avempace botánico,” Al-Andalus, 5 (1940): 255–99, according to the MS of Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Ahlwardt 5060 (now in Krakow, Jagellonian Library), fols. 124^r–129^r.Google Scholar

²⁴ Still unpublished: only some excerpts (concerning De partibus, book 2, and De generatione, book 1) are preserved in the MS of Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Ahlwardt 5060, fols. 129^r–145^v (as pointed out in Ullmann, , Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, 29), and in the MS of Oxford, Pococke 206, fols. 89^v–111^v.Google Scholar

²⁵ The proofs and testimonies about Averroes' On Plants are collected and studied in Drossaart Lulofs — Poortman, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, pp. 363–7: Drossaart Lulofs believes (erroneously, as I will show) that a fragment of this work is preserved in the first part of the third chapter of book 4 of Falaquera's De'ot.

²⁶ Cf. the Latin translation in Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois commentariis (Venice, 1562–1574; repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1962), vol. V, p. 466^vb, end of the page, which is based upon the Hebrew version by Moshe ibn Tibbon (cf. the MS of Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense 2623 [De Rossi 208], fol. 112^rb, II. 29–34): Et propterea quia corpora homogenea sunt duorum modorum: unus est quod ita est dispositus, quod non componatur ex eo aliud, sicut mineralia: & de hoc debemus loqui separatim, & proprie…, “Homogeneous bodies are of two kinds: one is so disposed that there is nothing which is composed by it, like minerals; and we have to speak about it separately and properly…”.Google Scholar

²⁷ Averroes' Compendium of De partibus and De generatione animalium is preserved only in the still unpublished Hebrew translation by Ya'aqov ben Makir ibn Tibbon (dating back to 1302: cf. HÜb. § 66, pp. 144–5) as well as in some Latin fragments translated by Michael Scot directly from the now lost Arabic textGoogle Scholar [cf. Lacombe, G. (ed.), Aristoteles Latinus, Codices. I (Roma, 1939), pp. 108–109] and in an abridged paraphrasis by Petrus Gallegus, bishop of Cartagena (d. 1267), who included it in the books 11- 12 of his Liber de animalibus. The latter will be published by R. Kruk in the series “Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus”: the only extant MS is that of Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, vat. lat. 1288, containing the relevant books at fols. 155^r–161^r.Google Scholar The complete Latin version by Jacob Mantino, found in the Renaissance editions of the Latin translation of Aristotle's works and first published in Paraphrasis Averrois… de partibus et generatione animalium (Roma, 1521), was translated from the Hebrew.Google Scholar

²⁸ As for Ibn Abī al-Aš'at, see Sezgin, GAS, III, 301–2; Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, p. 25.Google Scholar The “scientifical” approach to zoology to be found in his Kitāb al-ḥayawān has been stressed by Kruk, R., “Some late mediaeval zoological texts and their sources,” in Actas del XII Congreso de la U.E.A.I. (Malaga 1984) (Madrid, 1986), pp. 423–9, on pp. 427–9. Kruk insists on “the existence of original Arab efforts in zoology proper, from a scientific, not a literary point of view.”Google Scholar

²⁹ About al-Qazwīnī and his work, see Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, pp. 32–3; as for the 'Aǧā'ib al-maḫlūqāt, in the edition by Wüstenfeld, F., Zakarija… el-Cazwini's Kosmographie, 2 vols. (Göttingen, 1848–1849), the passages concerning the systematization of natural sciences are found as follows: vol. I, pp. 203–4 (about minerals); 245–6 (about plants); 301–2 (about animals).Google Scholar

³⁰ For pseudo-Aristotelian literature in the field of natural sciences, one can consult Dubler, C.E., “Über arabische Pseudo-Aristotelica. Beitrag zur Kenntnis des angeblich hellinischen Wissens unter den Muslimen,” Asiatische Studien, 14 (1961): 33–92, on pp. 75–88.Google Scholar

³¹ For some bibliographical informations about the De lapidibus, see Sezgin, GAS, IV, 103, and the detailed account (concerning the sources of the De lapidibus and its fate in the Arabic world) in Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, pp. 105–10.Google Scholar The first study of this text is Rose, V., “Aristoteles de lapidibus und Arnoldus Saxo,” Zeitschrift für Deutsches Altertum, N. F. 6 (1875): 321 ff.Google Scholar The Arabic text of the MS of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, ar. 2772, was published by Ruska in Die Steinbuch, pp. 93–125, together with a German translation (ibid., pp. 126–82). Ruska compared the text in the Paris MS with the quotations drawn from it by various Arabic authors, and the textual witnesses of the Latin and Hebrew translations. According to the scheme reported by Ruska (Die Steinbuch, pp. 53–5), the Arabic Vorlage of the Latin version preserved by the MS of Montpellier, Public Library, n. 277 (published by Rose, “Aristoteles de lapidibus,” pp. 384–97) is very close to that of the Hebrew translation – as shown by the two MSS of Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, hebr. 418 (fols. 118^r–131^v), and Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, hébr. 930 – but quite different from the Latin translation in the MS of Liège, Public Library, n. 77 (published by Rose, “Aristoteles de lapidibus,” pp. 349–82, and Ruska, Die Steinbuch, pp. 183–208) as well as from the Arabic text in Paris. Steinschneider, dealing with the De lapidibus in HÜb., § 127, pp. 240–1, credited the MSS of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Mich. 358 (now Mich. 169 [Neubauer 1597]), and Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, De Rossi 773 (now parmense 3025) with a second Hebrew translation of the work; they actually contain an abridged version of the translation preserved in the Munich MS (see about this the Appendix I below).

³² See e.g. Galeni Opera ex octava Iunctarum editione, vol. VII (Venice, 1609), 120^r–122^v: according to the epigraph, the Latin translation from the original Arabic text was prepared by Grumerus of Piacenza and by a certain Abraham medicum. The Hebrew version of this work is apparently lost; we know about its existence from a brief notice contained in the MS of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale, hébr. 1190, fol. 403, where twenty-four medical writings translated into Hebrew in 1197–1199 are listed – among them, a certain Sefer ha-'asavim, Book on Herbs, which Steinschneider, who first discovered this notice, supposed to be the same thing as the De plantis.Google Scholar See Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie, 39 (1867): 326–9, and cf. Steinschneider, HÜb., pp. 142 and 972 (where it is suggested that the translation of the De plantis may be ascribed to Abraham of Tortosa).Google Scholar About this work, see also Thorndyke, L., “Pseudo-Galen, De plantis,” Ambix, 11 (1962): 87–94.Google Scholar

³³ No edition of this work has yet appeared; one has to consult the study by Mayrhofer, H., Kritische Einleitung zu einem arabischen Tierbuch, Diss. (München, 1911); an abstract of this dissertation was published in 1925: cf. Sezgin, GAS, III, 351–2; Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, pp. 23–4.Google Scholar The MS in London, British Library, Or. 2784 [Rieu 778] contains, according to the description in Ch., Rieu, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic Manuscripts in the British Museum (London, 1894), pp. 531–2, parts of the Nu'ūt al-hayawān included in the text of another Arabic zoological treatise, the Kitāb manāfi' al-hayawān (The Book of Utilities of Animals) by ‘Ubayd Allāh ibn Bahtišū'.Google Scholar The latter has been translated into Spanish: Bakhtišū', Ibn, Libro de las utilidades de los animales, transl. Villasante, C. Ruiz-Bravo, Publicaciones de la Fundación Universidaria Española – facsímiles 6 (Madrid, 1980).Google Scholar

³⁴ Edited in Ahrens, K., Das Buch der Naturgegenstände (Kiel, 1892).Google Scholar

³⁵ No comprehensive study on medieval Hebrew encyclopaedias exists, apart from the detailed bibliographical data in HÜb. § 1–7, pp. 1–28.Google Scholar For Neoplatonic encyclopaedias dating back to the 10th-12th centuries, one can read Sermoneta, G.B., “Le enciclopedie nel mondo ebraico medievale. Tre trattati neo-platonizzanti a carattere enciclopedico,” Rivista di storia della filosofia, 40 (1985): 7–49.Google Scholar

³⁶ The only essay devoted to this encyclopaedia is Sirat, C., “Judah b. Salomon haCohen, philosophe, astronome et peut-être kabbaliste de la premiére moitié du XIII siècle,” Italia, 2 (1978): 39–61; unfortunately, it gives little information about the sources and general features of the work. Midrash ha-Ḥokmah, still unpublished, is preserved in 35 MSS (of which 18 contain only fragments not including the zoological section), according to the catalogue of the “Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts” (IMHM) in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem; I will refer to one of the best and most complete of them: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, vat. hebr. 338.Google Scholar

³⁷ Cf. the MS vat. hebr. 338, fols. 73^r–93^v.Google Scholar

³⁸ Although such works as Abraham ibn Da'ūd's Kitāb al-'aqīda al-rāfi'a (better known as Sefer ha-Emunah ha-Ramah, The Book of Exalted Faith), written in Arabic in the second half of the 12th century and later translated into Hebrew, have often been called “Aristotelian encyclopaedias,” they give only incomplete accounts of some parts of Aristotelian philosophy (in this case, metaphysics and psychology).Google Scholar

³⁹ The De'ot ha-Filosofim is preserved only in two manuscripts: Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense 3156 [De Rossi 164] and Leiden, University Library, Or. 4758 [Warner 20]. A useful list of the contents of the work is given by Jospe, R., Torah and Sophia. The Life and Works of Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera (Cincinnati, 1988), pp. 53–61, where a good bio-bibliographical introduction to this author is also found.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Until now, no effort to discover the Arabic sources of Falaquera's treatises about natural sciences has been made; only slight and sometimes misleading remarks are found in Steinschneider, HÜb., § 2, pp. 7–8;Google Scholar see also ibid., pp. 141 and 144. Further data are given in Zonta, “Ibn al-Ṭayyib,” and id., “Sangue e antropologia: un tema della zoologia di Aristotele nelle enciclopedie ebraiche medievali,” in Vattioni, F. (ed.), Atti della VII Settimana “Sangue e antropologia nel Medioevo” (Roma, 1993), pp. 1113–139.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Parma MS, fol. 5^v, II. 8–17 (general introduction to the De'ot): “What is reported in this work is Aristotle's wording as commented on by the philosophers belonging to his school: in fact, the understanding of the exact wording (tofes) of Aristotle is very difficult…”.Google Scholar

⁴² See Parma MS, fol. 120^r, II. 20ff. (beginning of book 3): “The book written by Aristotle On Minerals is not at our disposal. Some claim that it was not translated into Arabic at all. Also the book On Plants is not at our disposal, except from some excerpts. Therefore, I have not dwelt on this subject and on plants, as I have done on the remaining subjects; and what I have written is taken from the words of his [Aristotle's] followers.” Falaquera's introduction to his treatise on minerals shows some similarities with Albert's own introduction to De mineralibus.Google Scholar See Magnus, Albertus, Opera Omnia, ed. Jammy, (Lyon, 1651), vol. II, p. 210: De his [mineralibus] autem libros Aristotelis non vidimus, nisi excerptos per partes. Et haec quae tradidit Avicenna de his in tertio capitulo sui libri quem fecit de his, non sufficiunt.Google Scholar

⁴³ In full agreement with this view, Falaquera says at the beginning of book 5 of De'ot (On animals): “I say that Aristotle spoke on the nature of animals in his well- known book… In the first ten books (ma'amarim), he discussed the different animals… Ibn Rushd did not comment on this books, as he did on the others, because they are merely what is told on the basis of what the eye sees. But whatever was discussed in these chapters on the basis of logical deduction and reasoning, I took, however little it was relevant to the intention of this book [our italics]” (transl. in Jospe, Torah and Sophia, pp. 56–7; cf. Parma MS, fol. 137^r, II. 20 ff.).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The texts of the five printed editions of the Sha'ar (Venice, 1547; Roedelheim, 1801; Zolkiew, 1805; Warsaw, 1876; Jerusalem 1944) rely one on the other; as a rule, I will refer to the current one: Warsaw's edition (repr. Jerusalem, 1968).Google Scholar All of them are affected by a great number of textual errors and lacunae (especially in the last sections, devoted to psychology and astronomy: see Lay, J., L'astronomie et la méta physique de Rabbi Gershom ben Salomon d'Arles, Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Paris III [Paris, 1978]), shared also by some of the MSS (34 in all, according to the catalogue of the IMHM).Google Scholar An English translation is found in d'Arles, Rabbi Gershon ben Shlomoh, The Gate of Heaven (Shaar ha-Shamayim), transl. Bodenheimer, F. (Jerusalem, 1953). Bodenheimer's is a pioneering work, yet containing a defective translation, for it is based on current editions; one can find some textual emendations, drawn from the text of some MSS,Google Scholar in Kopf, L., “The words in vernacular language in The Gate of Heaven” [in Hebrew], Tarbiz, 24 (1955): 150–66; 274–89; 410–25).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For a general survey of the contents of this chapter, see Loew, , Die Flora der Juden, IV, 438–45.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ A study – now outdated – about Gershon's sources is to be found in Gross, H., “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Arles,” Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums, 28 (1879): 17–25; 62–9; 121–30; 228–38; 323–32; 350–9; cf. also HÜb., § 3, pp. 12–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Despite this, cf. Kopf's statement (in “The words in vernacular,” p. 153) that, although Gershon “took the matter from Hebrew translations of Arabic and Latin works, he himself was not unaware of the original language of his sources.” Gershon's knowledge of Latin is not proved by his employment of Domingo Gundisalvi's De anima as source of the Sha'ar, as stated by Furlani, G., “Pseudo-Aristotele fi n-nafs,” Rendiconti della Regia Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali, s. V, 24 (1915): 117–37, on pp. 120–1;Google Scholar in fact, Teicher, J., in his article “The Latin-Hebrew school of translators in Spain in the twelfth century,” in Homenaje a Millás Vallicrosa, vol. II (Barcelona, 1956), pp. 403–44, on pp. 413–14, shows that Gershon used a Hebrew translation of this work (to be found in the MS of Cambridge, University Library, Add. 1858, fols. 183^r–230^r). As for natural sciences, the only sign of Gershon's awareness of Latin sources may be given by a quotation from Avicenna's De animalibus: in point of fact, during the Middle Ages, this work was translated into Latin but, as far as we know, not into Hebrew (see below, pp. 308–9).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. Kopf's, L. article “Gershon ben Solomon of Arles,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, VII, 515–16.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For the possible date of composition of De'ot (between 1263 and 1280), see Jospe, Torah and Sophia, 32.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Cf. the list in Sermoneta, “Le enciclopedie,” pp. 14–15, note 8; for Abraham bar Ḥiyyā's “neoplatonic” encyclopaedia,Google Scholar see ibid., pp. 26–37: only the introduction and a fragment about mathematical sciences are extant, and have been edited by Millás-Vallicrosa, J.M., La obra enciclopédica Yessodè Ha-Tebunà u-Migdàl Ha-Emunà de R. Abraham bar Ḥiyya Ha-Bargeloni (Madrid/ Barcelona, 1952).Google Scholar For Liwyat Ḥen, see a survey of the contents of the extant sections of the work (which, apparently, did not include any reference to natural sciences) in Sirat, C., “Les différentes versions du Liwyat Ḥen de Levi b. Abraham,” Revue des études juives, 122 (1963): 167–77;Google Scholar for Levi ben Abraham, cf. the bio-bibliographical sketch in Sarton, G., Introduction to the History of Science, 3 vols. (Baltimora, 1927–1948), vol. II/2, p. 885.Google Scholar

⁵¹ The existence of efforts towards a classificatory approach to mineralogy, botany and zoology in Hebrew literature of the late Middle Ages can be inferred from some traces: for instance, a scanty but interesting sixfold classification of minerals, plants and animals that is found in the MS of Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo I, n. 26, fol. 181^v, ll. 25–36. It is remarkable that, although the precedent pages of the MS (fols. 180^r–181^v) are plenty with quotations from Falaquera's writings (Reshit Ḥokmah and Sefer ha-Ma'alot), this classification has nothing to do with Falaquera's doctrines, as taught in the De'ot or other works.Google Scholar

⁵² There exists no critical edition of this work, which is preserved in six incomplete manuscripts, according to the IMHM catalogue; we have to rely on Jacob Marcaria's 16th-century edition (Riva di Trento, 1559; repr. Jerusalem, 1990 ca.).Google Scholar For its contents, see Sarton, , Introduction to the History of Science, vol. III/2, 1442–4; for its sources, cf. also HÜb., § 4, pp. 16–17; § 6, pp. 24–7.Google Scholar

⁵³ Cf. Me'ir Aldabi, Shevile Emunah, Marcaria ed., p. 82^r ff.; for a quick survey of the vegetable species mentioned in it, see Loew, Die Flora der Juden, IV, 448–9.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ About this author (b. 1361 – d. 1444), living in Spain until 1391, then in Algier, see Sirat, C., A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge/ Paris, 1985), pp. 372–4.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See the editio princeps of the Magen Avot (Leghorn, 1785; repr. Jerusalem, 1970), pp. 35–93, and cf. the MS of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Marsh. Or. 22 [Neubauer 1293], where the digression on plants and animals begins at fol. 110^v and goes on till to fol. 202^r. A summary of the contents of the botanical section is given in Loew, Die Flora der Juden, IV, 449–54. Duran's writing is interspersed with some information about minerals, too:Google Scholar see Steinschneider, “Lapidarien,” p. 63; id., Zur pseudoepigraphischen Literatur des Mittelalters (Berlin, 1862; repr. Amsterdam, 1965), p.82 (cf. Magen Avot, Leghorn ed., 10^r, where a quotation from pseudo-Aristotle's De lapidibus is given).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Cf. Steinschneider, HÜb., p. 28 note 179.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ da Rieti, Mosè, Filosofia naturale e Fatti de Dio. Testo inedito del secolo XV, ed. Hijmans-Tromp, I. (Leiden, 1989): for bio-bibliographical data about the author, see pp. 3–10.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Cf. the Italian textGoogle Scholaribid., pp. 340–84, and the notes by the editor (pointing out the very close relationship with Gershon's work) at pp. 527 ff.

⁵⁹ The only known MS containing this writing is London, British Library, Or. 1058 [Margoliouth 922]; the zoological section, being an excursus of book 3, chapter 33, is found at fols. 171^r–189^r. For its close dependence on Gershon's treatment, see e.g. the description of the elephant (Hebrew fil) in the London MS, fol. 176^r, II. 14 ff., which is identical to that in Gershon, Sha'ar, Warsaw ed., 36a.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See Steinschneider, HÜb., § 262, pp. 448–9; the Book of Substances has been published by M. Grossberg (London, 1901).Google Scholar

⁶¹ I have consulted this section, being the fifth “discourse” [ma'amar] of the book, in the MS of Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense 2615 [De Rossi 1355], fols. 36^r–37^r.Google Scholar

⁶² New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, microfilm 2511, fols. 1^r–14^v. It includes quotations from all the relevant Arabic and Hellenistic literature, from Mihrārīs to Ṭabarī, Māsarǧawaih, Salmawaih, Ibn Zuhr and others. It would deserve a special study, for it seems to be the only witness of this literature in Hebrew language translated from Arabic sources; in point of fact, other similar works are to be found, but they probably were translated from Latin. This is the case of the following books: Mi-segullot 'evare ba'ale ḥayyim we-to 'aloteha (On the Poperties of Animals' Limbs and Their Utilities), preserved in a Paris MS (Bibliothèque nationale, hébr. 1122); Ma'amare habehemot we-ha-ḥayyot (Treatises on Beasts and Animals), in the MS of London, British Library, Add. 27001 [Margoliouth 934], fols. 97^r–105^v; Sefer qatan me-hayyot we-'ofot (The Little Book on [Terrestrial] Animals and Birds) (MS in Florence, Bibl. MediceoLaurenziana, Pluteo XLIV, n. 22). Steinschneider supposed (HÜb. § 470/7, pp. 728–9) they were translations of al-Rāzī's De proprietatibus membrorum… animalium, a work known only through the Latin tradition: despite this, a perusal of the MS of Florence has shown that it contains a totally different work. Moreover, although the title may suggest something similar, Ma'amar ha-tanninim (Treatise on Sea-Monsters) by Moshe ibn Tibbon has nothing or little to do with this literature; it is a commentary on the opus creationis, as is seen from its unique MS: Rome, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, vat. hebr. 298, fols. 15^r–22^vGoogle Scholar [cf. Sirat, C., “La pensée philosophique de Moïse Ibn Tibbon,” Revue des études juives, 138 (1979): 505–15, on p. 506].Google Scholar

⁶³ One can mention only the De plantis attributed to Rabbi Moyses Aegypcius (that is to say, Maimonides), being an elencation of vegetable remedia: it is preserved only in a Latin translation, and I have consulted it in the MS of Graz, Universitätsbibliothek, lat. 482, fols. 169^v–172^v.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ For a general review of them, see Steinschneider, “Lapidarien,” pp. 61–4; cf. also HÜb., §§ 124–127, pp. 234–41; § 575, pp. 963–5.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Commentaries by Hebrew authors on translated Arabic writings about these subjects are extant, such as Levi ben Gershon's Supercommentary on Averroes' Compendium of De partibus and De generatione animalium, written in 1321 (HÜb. § 67, p. 145), and the anonymous Hebrew commentary on some parts of Nicolaus' De plantis, preserved in the unique MS of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Hunt. 576 [Neubauer 1316], which has been discussed and published in Drossaart Lulofs - Poortman, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, pp. 373 ff. They do not give any new contribution to a general theoretical study of zoology and botany, but only deal with questions occasionally arising from their source-books.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ The common term for “mineral” in medieval Hebrew scientific literature is maḥaṣav or simply even, “stone”; domem, indeed, seems to imply a more precise definition, because it points out the main characteristic of minerals: the lack of self-motion. It is employed by the anonymous author of Ruaḥ Ḥen, a small compendium of science dating back to the beginning of the 13th century (see e.g., in the edition of Krakau 1884, at p. 2 ff.), and by few other writers.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ I quote the Arabic text according to the edition by K. Rifat Bilge, in Büyük Türk filozof ve tib üstad Ibni Sina sasiyeti ve eserleri hakkinda tetkikleri (Ankara, no date) [the text of the treatise follows a special pagination within this volume]; I also quote the Latin translation by Arnaldus of Villanova, as published in Avicenna, Liber canonis, de medicinis cordialibus, et cantica (Venetiis, 1555).Google Scholar An English translation is available, too: see Hameed, H.A. (ed.), Avicenna's Tract on Cardiac Drugs and Essays on Arab Cardiotherapy (Karachi, 1983).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ For the correspondences between De lapidibus and Falaquera's description, see below, Appendix I.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ This passage by Averroes is found in Rušd, Ibn, Kitāb al-Kulliyyāt fi l-ṭibb, ed. Besteiro, J.M. Fórneas and Álvarez de Morales, C., vol. I (Madrid, 1987), pp. 294, 12–295, 9, and corresponds to Parma MS, fol. 124^v, 1. 18 - fol. 125^r, 1. 8.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ See Parma MS, fol. 122^v, II. 22–23.Google Scholar

⁷¹ See Preus, A., Science and Philosophy in Aristotle's Biological Works, Studien und Materialien zur Geschichte der Philosophie, K.R. I (Hildesheim / New York, 1975).Google Scholar

⁷² De medicinis cordialibus was twice translated into Hebrew (from the Arabic original text and from the Latin version as well): see Steinschneider, HÜb. § 446, pp. 700–1. It is remarkable that the philosophical importance of this book was noticed by a late-15th-century Jewish author, Baruk ibn Ya'īsh, who provided it with a commentary (still unpublished and preserved in the unicum of Oxford, Bodleian Library, Mich. Add. 16 [Neubauer 2110]) in which various Greek, Arabic and Latin philosophical writings are quoted (one can find amongst them the Long Commentary on Metaphysics by Averroes and Albert the Great's De anima):Google Scholar see ibid., § 447, pp. 701–2.

⁷³ For the fate of this wide-spreading doctrine among medieval Arabic and Latin writers, see Bertola, E., “Le fonti medico-filosofiche della dottrina dello spirito,” Sophia, 26 (1958): 48–61.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ Hebrew hakanah, corresponding to the Arabic term isti'dād.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Cf. in particular, Iḫwān, Bustani ed., II, 109, where a similar process of minerals' generation is described.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ In this point, the text of the Parma MS is not correct (fol. 120^v, 1. 26), for it speaks about “substances of tin” ['aṣme ha-bedil]; the correct reading is found in the Leiden MS of the De'ot ha-Filosofim (fol. 182^vb, 1. 28).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See on this Marquet's remarks, in La philosophie des alchimistes, pp. 16–32 (containing a summary of epistle 19 of the Rasā'il): cf. in particular, p. 24 note 3, where the influence of Aristotle's Meteorology is stressed. Some similarities to Iḫwān's theory are found e.g. in a big Arabic medical-scientific work dating back to the 9th century, ‘Alī ibn Rabbān al-Ṭabarī's Firdaws al-ḥikma (The Paradise of Wisdom):Google Scholar see Firdausu'l-Ḥikmat or Paradise of Wisdom of 'Ali b. Rabban-al-Ṭabari, ed. Siddiqi, M.Z. (Berlin, 1928), p. 369.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ This is the canonical number found in most of the so-called “Jābirian”, writings: see Kraus, P., Jābir et la science grecque, Mémoires présentés à l'Institut d'Égypte 45 (Cairo, 1942; repr. Paris, 1986), pp. 18–30 (for a list of the countless alchemical works ascribed to Jābir, one can consult Sezgin, GAS, 1V, 231–69), and in Albert the Great (De mineralibus, book 4) too. See also Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, pp. 140–4. Six metals, on the contrary, are listed in pseudo-Aristotle's De lapidibus: see Ruska, Das Steinbuch, pp. 121–3 [Arabic text] and pp. 177–80 [German translation], and cf. the Hebrew translation, in the MS of Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, hebr. 418, fols. 130^r132^r: this list excludes tin and includes quicksilver (unlike the Iḫwān and Falaquera, who place the latter among the “roots” [Arabic uṣūl, Hebrew šoršim], that is to say the “sources,” of metals).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ This doctrine, ultimately going back to Hellenistic alchemy, was in such Jābirian works as The Seventy Books: see Kraus, Jābir, p. 21 n. 5.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ The description of gold is almost totally omitted in the Parma MS, due to a saut du même au même: it can be read in the Leiden MS, fol. 183^rb, II. 19–21. Cf. Albertus, De mineralibus, Jammy ed., 264b–266b.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Cf.Google Scholaribid., 262b, II. 40 ff.: …. oportet quod [argentum] habeat rationem argenti vivi multum digesti et depurati et per subtilissima commixti….

⁸² Cf.Google Scholaribid., 263b, II. 47 ff. (about copper): argentum vivum esse bonum non faeculentum sive lutulentum, non tamen ab humore extraneo omnino purgatum, et substantiam sulphuream esse faeculentam et adurentem et in parte accensam….

⁸³ Cf.Google Scholaribid., 266b, II. 41 ff.: Est autem compositio eius [ferri] ex argento vivo terrestri ponderoso et lutulento et immundo valde, et ex sulphure immundo terrestri….

⁸⁴ Cf.Google Scholaribid., 261b, II. 57 ff.: stannum albius etpurius…. quod suum argentum vivum mundius est quam plumbi et forte de sulphure habet parum….

⁸⁵ Cf.Google Scholaribid., 261a, II. 2–4: Argentum vivum plumbi…. est non bonum, sed aquosum et lutulentum.

⁸⁶ Cf. Holmyard - Mandeville, Avicennae De congelatione, pp. 38–40 [English translation]; pp. 84–5 [Arabic text], pointing out the affinities between Avicenna's text and pseudo-Jābir's Summa perfectionis (Sum of Perfection) (recently published by Newman, W. [Leiden, 1991]).Google Scholar

⁸⁷ For the fate of the Jābirian (and pseudo-Jābirian) writings in the late Middle Ages, see Thorndyke, L., A History of Magic and Experimental Science, vol. III (New York, 1934), PP. 41 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ As found in epistle 52: cf. Marquet, La philosophic des alchimistes, pp. 32 ff.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ One can remark that, although in al-Fārābi's Iḥṣā' al-'ulūm no space was given to alchemy, the Hebrew translator, Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, inserted in his version (dating back to 1314) a special chapter devoted to this science (cf. Zonta, La“Classificazione delle scienze,” pp. xxv–xxvi; pp. 27–8 [Hebrew text]; p. 93 [Italian translation]). He might have done this in order to give to Hebrew scientific literature a sort of counterpart to the Latin alchemical writings circulating at the court of Robert of Anjou king of Naples, where he stayed for a period. As is known, European courtesan circles in late Middle Ages were often interested in alchemy, while a treatment of this science is very difficult to find in medieval Hebrew literature.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Cf. Sha'ar, Warsaw ed., 13a, beginning of treatise 2, chapter 1, and the corresponding passage of the Ma'amar be-yiqqawu ha-mayim, ed. Bisliches, M. (Pressburg, 1837), p. 7,14 ff. Ibn Tibbon's treatise was composed between 1221 and 1230;Google Scholar an analysis of its main philosophical themes is provided by Vajda, G., “An analysis of the Ma'amar Yiqqawu ha-Mayim by Samuel b. Judah Ibn Tibbon,” Journal of Jewish Studies, 10 (1959): 137–49;CrossRefGoogle Scholarcf. id., Recherches sur la philosophie et la kabbale dans la pensée juive du Moyen Age (Paris / La Haye, 1962), pp. 14–31. The first pages of the book are full of quotations from Ibn Sīnā's al-Šfrā', as well as from Averroes: see Vajda, Recherches, pp. 14–15 and ff.Google Scholar

⁹¹ The Meteorologica (378a17–378b4) are quoted by Gershon according to the Hebrew version by Shmuel ibn Tibbon (cf. the MS of London, British Library, Add.14763 [Margoliouth 904], fol. 195re, II. 10–34). See also the Arabic translation by Ibn al-Biṭrāq in Aristotelis, De Caelo et Meteorologica, ed. Badawī, 'A. (Cairo, 1961), pp. 87,12–89,14.Google Scholar

⁹² Cf. Holmyard - Mandeville, Avicennae De congelatione, pp. 41–2 [English translation]; pp. 85–6 ‘Arabic text]. The Avicennian origin of this well-known passage was pointed out by Albert the Great in his De mineralibus, book 1, chapter 9 (ed. Jammy, 251b): quod quidam Aristotelem dicunt dixisse [as happens in Gershon's text], cum secundum rei veritatem dictum sit Avicennae, quad videlicet sciant artifices alchimiae species permutari non posse….Google Scholar

⁹³ I will give a detailed analysis of the contents of Gershon's list in the Appendix I below.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Recently published in Drossaart Lulofs — Poortman, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, pp. 388–405.

⁹⁵ For a detailed discussion about the origin of these excerpts, which are a summary of the Arabic current translation of De plantis,Google Scholar see ibid., pp. 347–52. I have discovered two other fragments of this summary in book 2 of the De'ot: see my article “Shem Tob ibn Falaquera e la filologia ebraica medievale,” Sefarad, 53 (1993): 321–43, on pp.338–40.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ This quotation cannot be traced back to any known work by Aristotle; Falaquera literally translated it from a passage of Moshe ibn ‘Ezra's Kitāb al-ḥadīqa (The Book of the Garden), a Judaeo-Arabic Neoplatonic writing dating back to the end of the 11th or the beginning of the 12th century, where the quotation is ascribed to Aristotle. I have consulted this work in the MS of Jerusalem, The Jewish National and University Library, 8° 5701. The correspondence between Falaquera and Moshe runs as follows: De'ot, Parma MS, fol. 130v, 1. 21 - fol. 131r, 1. 3 = Kitāb al-ḥadīqa, Jerusalem MS, p. 99, 1. 13 - p. 100, 1. 2. It is worth noting that another Aristotelian passage in Falaquera passed through Kitāb al-ḥadīqa: it is a quotation from ps.Aristotle's Theology,Google Scholar found in Falaquera's Moreh ha-Moreh, ed. Bisliches, M. (Pressburg, 1837), p. 29,Google Scholar and corresponding to a passage found in the Jerusalem MS, p. 34 - as pointed out by Fenton, P., “Shem Toy ibn Falaquera and the theology of Aristotle” [in Hebrew], Da'at, 29 (1992): 27–39, on p. 30 n. 18.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ I will refer to the edition of the Arabic text of the former, given in Rasā'il Ibn Rušd - Kitāb al-ātār al-'ulwiyya (Hyderabad, 1947),Google Scholar to the Arabic text of the latter edited by 'Alawī, Ǧ. in Talḫiṣ al-ātār al-'ulwiyya li-Abī-Walīd Muḥammad Thn Rušd (Beirut, 1994),Google Scholar and the Latin translations of both works, as found in Aristotelis opera cum Averrois commentariis (Venice, 1562–1574; repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1962), vol. V.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ The edition of this chapter is to be found in Drossaart Lulofs - Poortman, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, pp. 440–3.Google Scholar The origin of this quotation is discussed ibid., at pp. 363–71.

⁹⁹ I would suggest to read here nizzon (“nourished”) instead of mazon (“food, nourishment”), as written in the Parma and Leiden MSS.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ This argument is typical of Avicenna's On Soul (a section of al-Šifā'), although no literal correspondence can be pointed out. However, at the beginning of his On Plants (see the relevant section of al-Šifā', Maḏkūr ed., 3,13–4,4), while speaking about the relevant discussion in Nicolaus Damascenus’ homonymous treatise, Avicenna concludes that, if life is bound to nourishing only, plants are living beings (ḥayy); if it is bound to sense perception and voluntary movement too, they are not living at all; but these last features are typical of animals (ḥayawān) rather than living beings. One should note the variance between these lines and Falaquera's own statement (drawn from Nicolaus) in chapter 1Google Scholar (see Lulofs-Poortman, Drossaart, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, 389, 31–32): “it is sense [and not nourishing] which makes the difference between life and death.” This variance is typical of Falaquera's eclecticism.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See e.g. the psychological section of al-Šifā' as edited in Avicenna's De Anima (Arabic text), ed. Rabman, F. (London, 1959), pp. 40,14–41,3, showing a passage which is very similar to, if not literally identical with Falaquera's.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Cf. Nogales, S. Gomez (ed.), [Averrois] Epitome de anima, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem A XXXI (Madrid, 1985), pp. 24–30.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ For the dating of Averroes' works, see Alonso, M. Alonso, Teología de Auerroes (estudios y documentos) (Madrid / Granada, 1947), pp. 52–98;Google Scholarcf. Hernandez, M. Cruz, “El sentido de las tres lecturas de Aristoteles por Averroes,” Rendiconti dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, s. VIII, 28 (1973): 567–85, on pp. 577 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Even the otherwise accurate essay of Kaufmann, D., Die Sinne, Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest für das Schuljahr 1883–1884 (Budapest, 1884), does not mention it in the section devoted to taste (pp. 157–71; for the classification of tastes in Hebrew scientific literature, see in particular 164 n. 8 ff.); he refers only to book 6 (On Soul) of Falaquera's De'ot, in which an “Aristotelian” treatment of this matter is given.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ The insertion of this discussion in a botanical treatise could be justified by resorting to Aristotle himself: one can compare his self-quotation, in the De sensu et sensato, of a detailed treatment of “taste and flavour” to be given in his work “Physiología perì tōn phytōn,” which is now missing (442b26–27).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ For this doctrine, cf. Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus, Meyer-Jessen ed., p. 195,14–24, quoting, in its turn, Avicenna, Canon: cf. the Latin translation of this work (Venice, 1507; repr. Hildesheim, 1964), p. 83^va, last lines – p. 83^vb, 1. 2;Google Scholar cf. the Arabic text, in Sīnā, Ibn, Kitāb al-Qānūn fi l-Ṭibb (Roma, 1593), p. 117,31–32.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Here Falaquera (or his source) inserts a quotation: “Galen says that it is impossible that all that nourishes has not in itself some sweetness.” Cf. Galen, , De simplicibus medicamentis, book 4, in Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia, ed. Kühn, K.G., vol. XI (Leipzig, 1826), p. 671,14–15: “without sweetness, no [food] can nourish [átrofoi…. eisì]”).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ One can compare the Arabic text of this chapter in Ibn Sīnā, Kitāb al-Qānūn, pp.116–18.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Colliget, book 5, chapter 27: “and we have already explained what we have said concerning bitter in the Book on plants…”. (Fórneas - Alvarez ed., 312,9).Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Gershon did not read De plantis in the Hebrew translation by Qalonymos ben Qalonymos (which was completed in 1314, long after the possible date of composition of the Sha'ar), but he could rely upon Falaquera's “Alexandrian” summary. See the observations in Drossaart Lulofs - Poortman, Nicolaus Damascenus, De plantis, p. 367.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Cf. the Latin translation of the relevant passage of the Cantica (as commented by Averroes) in Averrois Colliget…. Cantica item Auicennae cum eiusdem Averrois commentariis (Venice, 1552), 107; see the Arabic text of the Urǧūza (Cantica) in Avicenne,Google ScholarPoème de la Médecine, ed. Jahier, H. - Noureddine, A. (Paris, 1956), p. 19, n.115.Google Scholar

¹¹² An Aristotelian source (De generatione animalium, 783b15–20) is quoted here:Gershon compares the falling of leaves to that of the hair in men.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Here too, Gershon refers to an Aristotelian authority: small plants produce many fruits, just as little birds produce many eggs (De generatione animalium, 749b26 ff.).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Cf. Gross, “Zur Geschichte,” p. 126.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Like the previous one, this passage shows many similarities with Falaquera's quotation, so that one can suppose that Gershon found the passage in the De'ot and quoted it according to Falaquera's translation.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ These quotations are not found in Falaquera; they must have been taken from one of the two Hebrew translations of Colliget (HÜb. ξ 429, pp. 672–5). Steinschneider suspected Gershon relied upon the anonymous translation preserved in the MS Munich, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, hebr. 29Google Scholar (see ibid. p. 673), although his conclusion (based on deductive evidence) has not yet been ascertained.

¹¹⁷ I will refer to the Arabic text as published by Blumberg, H., Averrois Cordubensis Compendia Librorum Aristotelis qui Parva Naturalia vocantur textum arabicum, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versionum Arabicarum VII (Cambridge, Mass., 1972) - another edition had been previously published byGoogle ScholarGätje, H., Die Epitome der Parva Naturalia des Averroes. I. Text (Wiesbaden, 1961) — as well as to the Hebrew translation by Moshe ibn Tibbon (1254) — the direct source of Gershon's quotation — as edited byGoogle ScholarBlumberg, H., Averrois Cordubensis Compendia Librorum Aristotelis qui Parva Naturalia vocantur, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versionum Hebraicarum VII (Cambridge, Mass., 1954).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ This quotation is actually drawn by Falaquera not directly from Aristotle, but from Moshe ibn 'Ezra: see note 96 above.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See Kopf, “The words in vernacular,” p. 283 n. 63, who traces it back to the Latin solsequia.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ The same information is repeated some lines below (p. 24b, II. 25 ff.), where it is ascribed to Aristotle, De animalibus (who actually does not mention anything similar). Gross (“Zur Geschichte,” p. 236) pointed out a similar passage in the De animalibus by Albert the Great.Google Scholar

¹²¹ The quotation is drawn from the third section of the book, devoted to “number and qualities of the elements.” The Arabic original of Sefer ha-Yesodot is lost; see the Hebrew translation by Abraham ben Ḥasdai, published in Fried, S., Das Buch über die Elemente…. von Isaak b. Salomon Israeli, nach dem aus dem Arabischen ins Hebräische übersetzen Texte (Frankfurt am Main, 1900): cf. Steinschneider, HÜb., p.393 n. 166.Google Scholar

¹²² Cf. Gershon, Sha'ar, Warsaw ed., p. 17b, II. 26 ff.: “Iṣḥaq Israeli wrote…. that sense has many meanings: natural, psychic [nafsī] and intellectual;…, the thing which has natural sense, has a natural perception: this is the sense typical of plants, for they are “natural” without being “psychic” [nafsiyim]…”; cf. Albert's De vegetabilibus, book 1, treatise 1, chapter 10, in Meyer-Jessen ed., p. 36, II. 12 ff.: Ipsi enim, sicut testatur Isaac, duplex distinxerunt desiderium et duplicem sensum…. uno modo quidem animal iter, et alio naturaliter, dixerunt, hos natural iter et non animaliter inesse plantis.Google Scholar

¹²³ Gross noticed some data in Gershon's work identical with those found in Albert's writings (see e.g. “Zur Geschichte,” pp. 236 n. 2; 324 n. 3; 325, n. 6), but in effect it is not enough to prove Gershon's direct knowledge of Albert, as hastily stated byGoogle ScholarTeicher, J., “Geršon ben Šelomoh e Gundissalino,” Rendiconti della Regia Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Classe di Scienze Morali, s.VI, 9 (1933): 6–25, on p. 9.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ As quoted in Albertus Magnus, De vegetabilibus, Meyer-Jessen ed., pp. xxxviii–xxxix.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Cf. Gershon, Sha'ar, Warsaw ed., p. 17b, 1. 26 – p. 18a, 1. 3 and Isḥāq Israeli, Sefer ha-Yesodot, Fried ed., pp. 67,3–68,3.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ This translation (including Historia Animalium [= HA], De partibus animalium [= PA] and De generatione animalium [= GA]) has been published more than once: HA, by 'A. Badawī (Kuwait, 1977) and will be republished in the series “Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus” by L. Filius, H. den Heijer and J. Mattock; PA has been edited by Badawī himself (Kuwait, 1977) as well as by R. Kruk: The Arabic Version of Aristotle's Parts of Animals. Book XI–XIV of the Kitāb al-Hayawān, Verhandelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afdeeling Letterkunde, N.R. 97 (Amsterdam, 1979);Google Scholar GA has been published by Brugman, J. and Lulofs, H.J. Drossaart: Aristotle, Generation of Animals. The Arabic Translation Commonly Ascribed to Yahyâ Ibn al-Bitrîq (Leiden, 1971).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ The translation of GA by Michael Scot has been recently edited by Van Oppenraay, A.M.: Aristotle De Animalibus. Michael Scot's Arabic-Latin Translation. Part Three: Books XV–XIX, Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus 5 (Leiden, 1992).Google Scholar

¹²⁸ No serious study has yet been made to determine the relationship between the various MSS which are said to contain this translation: cf. Zonta, “Sangue e antropologia,” p. 1136, n. 65. The only essay devoted to this translation and its relationship to its Latin source (apart from some remarks in Steinschneider, HÜb., ξ 293, pp. 478–83)Google Scholar is Furlani, G., “Le antiche versioni araba, latina ed ebraica del De partibus animalium di Aristotele,” Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 9 (1922): 237–57.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Aristotle himself was clearly aware of this difference; see PA II,1, 646a8ff.: “I have already described with considerable detail in my Researches upon Animals what and how many are the parts of which the various animals are composed. We must now leave on one side what was said there, as our present task is to consider what are the causes through which each animal is as I there described it” [quoted from Aristotle, , Parts of Animals, transl. Peck, A.L. (London / Cambridge, Mass. 1937), 107].Google Scholar

¹³⁰ See Gross, “Zur Geschichte,” p. 237 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹³¹ For the direct sources of Falaquera's summary of HA, see Zonta, “Ibn al-Ṭayyib Zoologist.” The “corrected” translation by Ḥunayn is almost entirely missing; ps.Themistius' text (apparently incomplete) has been published in 'Badawī, A., Commentaires sur Aristote perdus en grec et autres èpîtres (Beirut, 1971), pp. 193–280. It is to be noticed that this summary of HA by Falaquera had a quite independent tradition: three copies of it, without any indication of the name of the author and including some minor changes in terminology, are to be found in the MSS of Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin — Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Or. 811 qu. (Steinschneider 212), fols. 157^r-170^v, and New York, Jewish Theological Seminary, microfilm 2445 (corresponding to MS Adler 1524/16), fols. 1^r-15^v, and microfilm 2516, fols. 1^ra–13^vb. On the basis of the first New York MS (likely a mere copy of the Berlin one), F. Bodenheimer and L. Kopf published an English translation of two chapters of Falaquera's summary (corresponding to HA 1 and 6); they recognized its Aristotelian source, but could not ascertain Falaquera's authorship:Google Scholar see “A Hebrew history of animals of Aristotle in the 12th century,” in Bodenheimer, F.S., Studies in Biology and its History, vol. I (Jerusalem, 1957), pp. 91–105 (I am grateful to G. Freudenthal for having pointed out this essay to me); cf. also L. Kopf in Osiris, 12 (1956): 427 note.Google Scholar

¹³² The MSS employed for the texts of the Midrash and the De'ot are Rome, vat. hebr. 338 [= V] and Parma, parmense 3156 [= P] respectively. One has to notice that the text of the Parma MS stops at the beginning of chapter 7 of the first part of book 5 of the De'ot: for the remaining section, we have to rely upon the MS of Leiden, University Library, Or. 4758 [= L] (containing book 5 of the De'ot at fols. 193–267). Gershon's text is quoted according to the Warsaw edition.Google Scholar

¹³³ The use by Yehudah of his main zoologic-biological source (Averroes) is discussed in two recent contributions by Fontaine, R. (T.A.M. Smidt Van Gelder Fontaine): “Aristotle vs. Galen in the zoological part of R. Judah ben Salomon's Midrash ha-Hochmah,” in Proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of Jewish Studies, Division C, vol. II (Jerusalem 1994), pp. 41–6;Google Scholar “The facts of life. The nature of the female contribution to generation according to ha-Cohen's, JudahMidrash ha Ḥokhma and contemporary texts,” Medizinhistorisches Journal, 29 (1994): 333–62.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Cf. e.g. Yehudah's statement at the end of the summary of the 7th book of Ptolemy's Almagest, in the second part of the Midrash ha-Ḥokmah, according to the MS of Rome, vat. hebr. 338, fol. 253^v; while explaining the lack of any reference to the 8th book of the Almagest (containing a merely “descriptive” catalogue of stars), Yehudah writes: “Our aim in this book was (to make) an abridgment [qiṣṣur]; for that reason, I have not written them [i.e. the names of stars].”Google Scholar

¹³⁵ The quotations from Bekorot to be found in this section of Midrash ha-Ḥokmah are introduced by this sentence: “I have decided to write here a little part of what I have found in the Talmud — in the treatise Bekorot ” about the above-mentioned species of animals.” They run as follows: MH, MS vat. ebr. 338, fol. 91^v, ll. 19–21 = Bekorot 7b46–8a2; MH, fol. 91^v, ll. 21–24 = Bekorot 8a5–13; MH, fol. 91^v, 1. 25 – fol. 92^r, 1. 11 = Bekorot 8a21–42; MH, fol. 92^r, 1. 11 = Bekorot 8a46; MH, fol. 92^r, ll. 11–18 = Bekorot 8b8–13.

¹³⁶ Here a list of Aristotle's quotations in De'ot, book 5, section 2 (according to the Leiden MS [= L]: figures refer to folio and lines): L 213^rb19–25 = PA 648a9–13; L 213^va1–13 = PA 650b14–33; L 214^rb33–214^va1 = PA 651b20–21; L 216^ra4–8 = PA 653a33–37; L 221^va6–10 = PA 664a31–35; L 222^va18–23 ~ PA 665b18ff.; L 223^va29–32 = PA 667a19–21; L 223^rb18–21 = PA 667a6–9; L 223^va8–16 = PA 667a23–28; L 223=29–31 PA 666a20–21; L 225^rb4–11 = PA 669b17–18 + 25–35; L 226^vb22–29 = PA 671b1–2 +5–11; L 228^rb1–18 ~ PA 678a10–20; L 232^va24–26 PA 687a21; L 235^rb6–16 = PA696b12–13 + 16–22; L 236^ra22–27 = GA 715b21–25; L 245^rb4–8 ~ GA 734a16 ff.; L248^ra16–29 = GA 738b24–36; L 248^rb712 = GA 739a36–739b1; L 248^vb30–249^ra4 = GA 741b17–22; L 254^vb21–31 = GA 761b16–22; L 257^va8–25 = GA 766a17–28; L 259^ra17–^rb13 GA 770a10–770b1; L 259^rb13–28 = GA 770b35–771a14; L 259^rb28–^va1 = GA773a8–13; L 260^rb15–260^va15 = GA 771b21–772a25; L 261^ra12–23 = GA 772b26–35; L262^ra33–262^rb17 = GA 775a31–35 + 775b22–33 + 776a9–12; L 266^rb1623 = GA 784b24–34; L 267^ra20–26 = GA 787b15–20. These quotations are probably the only extant fragments of PA and GA in a Hebrew translation taken directly from the Arabic version.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ E.g. Averroes' Colliget (not expressly quoted, but employed to fill some gaps: see e.g. L 212^rb24–33 = Colliget, book 1, chapter 10: cf. Colliget, Forneas — Alvarez ed., 21,10 ff., where the various kinds of flesh, which are not discussed by Aristotle in PA, are described).

¹³⁸ Avicenna's quotations are, in point of fact, very scanty. I have identified two of them: L 198^ra 13–16 = Sīnā, Ibn, al-Šifā' — al-Ṭabī'iyyāt. 8 —A1-ḥayawān, ed. Madkūr, I. (Cairo, 1970; repr. Qom, 1406 A.H.), 49, 13–15: (why man becomes bald);Google Scholar L 215^vb25–27 = ibid., 226, 5–6 (why man's brain is so big).

¹³⁹ See Sha'ar, Warsaw ed., p. 50a, 1. 37–p. 50b, 1. 2: it is a passage about the order of the generation of limbs in the foetus, according to the teaching of “his [scil. Avicenna's] great book” (in Gershon, usually meaning al-Šita'). Cf. the Latin translation of al-Sifā' published in Avicenne… opera (Venice, 1508; repr. Frankfurt am Main, 1961), De natura animalium, book 9, chapter 4.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ The direct sources of Gershon's quotations from Aristotle, which are mostly pointed out in the notes of Bodenheimer's translation, are likely two: the summary of HA corresponding to the first section of book 5 of the De'ot, and the complete Hebrew translation based upon Scot's Latin one, which I have consulted in the MS of Vienna, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, hebr. 63 [= Schwartz 156], fols. 16^v–282^r.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Cf. Rieu, Supplement to the Catalogue of the Arabic manuscripts, p. 532.Google Scholar

¹⁴² In point of fact, the great bulk of al-Šifā' was left untranslated into Hebrew: cf. Steinschneider, HÜb. ξ150, pp. 279 ff. Only the arithmetical and geometrical sections of itGoogle Scholar (see Lévy, T., “Les Éléments d'Euclide en hébreu (XIII^e-XVI^e siècles),” in Hasnaoui, A. — Aouad, M. — Elamrani-Jamal, A. [eds.], Perspectives médiévales arabes, latines, hébraïques sur la tradition scientifique et philosophique grecque [forthcoming]) were translated into Hebrew; moreover, some passages of al-Sifā' on logic were quoted by Todros Todrosi (1330 ca.) in his Hebrew philosophical anthology, pre. served in the MS of London, British Library, Add. 27559 [Margoliouth 890].Google Scholar

¹⁴³ Pace Bodenheimer, who, in Rabbi Gershon ben Shlomoh, The Gate of Heaven, p. 41, states that “there are no traces of the Rasā'il in Gershon's book.” A reference to the influence of the Iḫwān on Gershon's mineralogy is found, indeed,Google Scholar in Sefer ha-Tamar. Das Buch von der Palme des Abu Aflaḥ aus Syracus, ed. Scholem, G. (Jerusalem, 1926), p. 3, note 2 (as pointed out to me by G. Freudenthal).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ For the influence of the Iḫwān on a “popular” encyclopaedia (not dealing with natural science) by Shem Tov ibn Falaquera himself, the Sefer ha-Mevaqqesh (The Book of the Searcher), see Pines, S., “Une encyclopédie arabe du 10.e siècle. Les Épîtres des Frères de la Pureté, Rasā'il Ikhwān al-Ṣafā,” Rivista di storia della filosofia, 40 (1985): 131–6, on p. 132,Google Scholar and my “Shem Tob ibn Falaquera e la sua opera,” Henoch, 12 (1990): 207–26, on pp. 219–21. One has to remember that the well- known writing by Qalonymos ben Qalonymos,Google Scholar the Iggeret Ba'ale Hayyim (The Epistle on Animals), first edn (Mantua, 1557), is an adapted translation of the corresponding epistle (n. 22) of the Rasā'il; however, Qalonymos translated only the “literary” section of this writing, so excluding any reference to a systematic treatment of zoology.Google Scholar

¹ The MSS of Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense 3025, fols. 63^ra3–64^va32, and Oxford, Bodleian Library, Mich. 169, fols. 21^r24^v7 (as well as the MS of Cambridge, University Library, Dd. 10. 68, fols. 218^vb1–221^rb19), contain an abbreviated version of this translation, including the description of the first 15 stones (only al-sanbargi is omitted) of the list found in the Munich MS, with some omissions and lexical alterations. The correspondences between the Parma and Oxford MSS and the Munich MS are given in the notes to the table below.Google Scholar

² The names of the various stones are given according to the spelling of the Munich MS (cf. also Ruska, Das Steinbuch, pp. 53–5), for the current edition of the Sha'ar is very defective.Google Scholar English translations of these names are provided after a comparison with the Latin names listed by Ruska (ibid.) and the names given by Bodenheimer (in Rabbi Gershon ben Shlomoh, The Gate of Heaven, pp. 347–9), and according to the results of the study of Kopf, “The words in vernacular”). Where two names are given, the second of them refers to Bodenheimer's nomenclature.

³ Cf. parmense 3025, 63^ra6–63^rb4; Mich. 169, 21^r3–26.Google Scholar

⁴ Cf. parmense 3025, 63^rb5–20; Mich. 169, 21^v27–21^v7.Google Scholar

⁵ Cf. parmense 3025, 63^va5–16; Mich. 21^v28–22^r8.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. parmense 3025, 63^rb21–63^va4; Mich. 169, 21^v8–27.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. parmense 3025, 63^va17–25; Mich. 169, 22^r9–15.Google Scholar

⁸ Cf. parmense 3025, 63^va41–63^vb19; Mich. 169, 22^r28–22^v15.Google Scholar

⁹ Cf. parmense 3025, 64^ra2–39; Mich. 169, 23^r6–23^v10.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Here, Gershon's alleged authority is the fourth book of Aristotle's Meteorologica: see there, chapter 6 (383a5 ff.). The relevant stone is not kéramos, as erroneously supposed by Kopf (“The words in vernacular,” p. 278 n. 34), but pyrímakhos, which is rendered in the Hebrew version of Meteorologica (by Shmuel ibn Tibbon) as qornamus: see the MS of London, British Library, Margoliouth 904, 196^rb21ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Cf. parmense 3025, 64^ra40–64^rb5; Mich. 169, 23^v11–16.Google Scholar

¹² Cf. parmense 3025, 64^rb14–23; Mich. 169, 23^r23–29.Google Scholar

¹³ Confused with the magnet by Gershon, as noticed by Kopf (“The words in vernacular,” p. 279, n. 37–38).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. parmense 3025, 64^rb24–33; Mich. 169, 24^r1–9. The treatment of this stone in the Hebrew version of the pseudo-Aristotelian writing is different from that in Gershon's text.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The text of the Warsaw edition is corrupt here, for it has the reading almugim, “corals,” which does not fit the sense of the passage.Google Scholar

¹⁶ This passage is lacking in ps.-Aristotle's Hebrew version; however, it is read in the Latin version of Liège (Ruska, Das Steinbuch, p. 198, 12 ff.),Google Scholar as well as in the Arabic edited text (ibid., p. 109,4 ff. [Arabic text]; p. 155, note 16 [German translation]).

¹⁷ Cf. parmense 3025, 64^va14 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Cf. parmense 3025, 64^va8 ff.; Mich. 169, 24^r10 ff.Google Scholar

¹⁹ This passage is allegedly quoted from Avicenna (through Falaquera), but I have not been able to trace it in his works.Google Scholar

²⁰ Falaquera's treatment of coral looks like a gloss inserted in his report of Iḫwān's theories about the generation of minerals; it is drawn from a source partially different from the Hebrew version of ps.-Aristotle, and more similar to Qazwīnī's discussion on this subject (cf. Ruska, Das Steinbuch, p. 176 n. 2).Google Scholar

²¹ References to this stone are to be found in the Arabic version only: see Ruska, Das Steinbuch, p. 114, 13 [Arabic text]; pp. 165–6 [German translation].Google Scholar

²² The last line of Falaquera's treatment of this stone (“when this stone is bound to a man, nothing happens to him, although his sleep is long”) finds a correspondence only in the Latin version of Liege. See Ruska, Das Steinbuch, p. 203, 34–35: Et hoc quidem non accidit habentibus supra se hunc lapidem licet multum vigilent.Google Scholar

²³ See about this Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften, p. 105, referring to Kraus, Jäbir, p. 76 n. 1, who first discovered this text.Google Scholar

²⁴ Cf. Scholem, G., Sefer ha-Tamar. Das Buch von der Palme des Aba Aflah aus Syracus. Ein Text aus der arabischen Geheimwissenschaft. Nach der allein erhaltenen hebräischen Übersetzung, herausgegeben und übersetzt von Scholem, G.. Hefte I:Text; Heft II Übersetzung (Jerusalem, 1926, 1927). An English translation of this book is given in Patai, The Jewish Alchemists, pp. 98–118.Google Scholar

²⁵ Cf. the penetrating observations by Nallino, C.A., “Abū Aflaḥ arabo siraeusano o saragozzano?”, Rivista degli Studi Orientali, 13 (1931–1932): 165–71 [repr.Google Scholar in Nallino, C.A., Raccolta di scritti editi e inediti, vol. VI (Roma, 1948), pp. 321–8].Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Sefer ha-Tamar, ed. Scholem, pp. 39–50.Google Scholar

²⁷ Cf. Patai, The Jewish Alchemists, pp. 98–9.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. the English translation givenGoogle Scholaribid., p. 105.

²⁹ Cf. the Hebrew text in the Em ha-Melek given in Sefer ha-Tamar, ed. Scholem, p. 42, and the corresponding passage in Sha'ar, Warsaw ed., p. 14b, II. 43–45.Google Scholar