* I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt, Marwan Rashed and Carlos Steel for their comments and criticism on drafts of this paper. My particular thanks go to James Wilberding, who offered substantial advice on the history of particular philosophical ideas and Proclus' sources, called my attention to a number of important publications, put some of his unpublished works at my disposal and, last but not least, corrected my English.

¹ Marinus, Proclus ou Sur le bonheur, texte établi, traduit et annoté par Henri-Dominique Saffrey & Alain-Philippe Segonds avec la collaboration de Concetta Luna, Collection des universités de France (Paris, 2002), § 13, p. 16. On the reliability of this information v. ibid., p. 112, note 12.

² For two other Greek fragments see Luna, Concetta & Segonds, Alain-Philippe, “Proclus de Lycie”, in Goulet, Richard (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, vol. V, 2^e partie–Vb: De Plotina à Rutilius Rufus (Paris, 2012), pp. 1546–657Google Scholar, esp. 1576–8.

³ Pfaff, Franz, “Kommentar des Proklos zu Platons Timaios C. 43 (89e–90c). Aus dem Cod. Arab. Agia Sophia 3725 (pgg. 214–218) übersetzt von F. P.”, in Galeni De Consuetudinibus, edidit Schmutte, Ioseph M., Corpus Medicorum Graecorum Supplementum III (Leipzig, 1941), pp. 53–60Google Scholar. Pfaff's translation omits the first paragraph of the fragment and is at many places wrong or dubious (cf. below, notes 40–41).

⁴ Proclus, Commentaire sur le Timée. Traduction et notes par André-Jean Festugière. Tome cinquième – Livre V. Index général, Bibliothèque des textes philosophiques (Paris, 1968), pp. 241–8Google Scholar.

⁵ Endress, Gerhard, Proclus Arabus. Zwanzig Abschnitte aus der Institutio Theologica in arabischer Übersetzung, Beiruter Texte und Studien 10 (Wiesbaden, 1973), pp. 24–6Google Scholar, and id., “Proclus de Lycie: Œuvres transmises par la tradition arabe”, in Goulet (ed.), Dictionnaire des philosophes antiques, Vb, pp. 1657–74Google Scholar.

⁶ Cf. Ritter, Helmut & Walzer, Richard, “Arabische Übersetzungen griechischer Ärzte in Stambuler Bibliotheken”, Sitzungsberichte der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Kl., 26 (1934): 801–46Google Scholar.

⁷ Cf. Biesterfeldt, Hans Hinrich, Galens Traktat, Dass die Kräfte der Seele den Mischungen des Körpers folgen‘ in arabischer Übersetzung, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XL, 4 (Wiesbaden, 1973), p. 10Google Scholar.

⁸ Cf. Klein-Franke, Felix, “The Arabic version of Galen's Περὶ ἐθῶν”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 1 (1979): 125–50Google Scholar. The Greek text has been edited five times. For the first four editions cf. Schmutte, Galeni De Consuetudinibus, pp. vi–vii. A fifth edition is available in Müri, Walter, Der Arzt im Altertum. Griechische und lateinische Quellenstücke mit der Übertragung ins Deutsche (München, 1938)Google Scholar, 6^th ed. in the series Sammlung Tusculum. (Düsseldorf, 2001)Google Scholar. For the Arabic reception and transmission cf. also Ullmann, Manfred, Die Medizin im Islam, Handbuch der Orientalistik. Erste Abteilung: Der Nahe und Mittlere Osten, Ergänzungsband VI, Erster Abschnitt (Leiden, 1970), p. 45Google Scholar; Sezgin, Fuat, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums. Band III: Medizin – Pharmazie – Zoologie – Tierheilkunde (Leiden, 1970), p. 105Google Scholar.

⁹ On the Arabic translations of Hippocrates' work and Galen's commentary cf. below, the Appendix.

¹⁰ For manuscripts and testimonies of this work cf. Ritter & Walzer, “Arabische Übersetzungen griechischer Ärzte”, p. 815f., Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam, p. 51, § 61, and Degen, Rainer, “Zur arabischen Überlieferung von Galens Erklärung des Buches ‘Über die Diät der akuten Krankheiten’”, Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der arabisch-islamischen Wissenschaften, 5 (1989): 178–89Google Scholar; Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, III, p. 123, § 75. It would be interesting to see whether both versions, the excerpt preserved in MS Aya Sofya 3725 and the integral version preserved in MS Paris hebr. 1203,2, draw on the Syriac translation by Ḥunayn or even represent one and the same Arabic version.

¹¹ This letter is found on fols. 193b7–194b1 of the manuscript. A (rather faulty) German translation has been provided by F. Pfaff in Schmutte (ed.), Galeni De Consuetudinibus, pp. xli–xlii. On Salmawayh ibn Bunān (d. c. 226/841) cf. Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam, p. 112.

¹² تفسيراً لشرح propos. M. Rashed (personal communication, September 1, 2012): تفسير الشرح MS.

¹³ مشروحاً scripsi : مشروح MS.

¹⁴ Or: the interpretation [found] in the commentary [tradition]. The second stem of the Arabic root f-s-r (“to interpret”) seems to be used in the present text both in the sense of “translation” as well as in the sense of “explanation, elucidation”.

¹⁵ Or: by way of syllogistic reasoning, ʿalā ṭarīqi al-qiyāsi.

¹⁶ Bergsträsser, Gotthelf, Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen, Zum ersten Mal herausgegeben und übersetzt von G. B., Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XVII.2 (Leipzig, 1925), p. 26Google Scholar.

¹⁷ This word is undotted in the unique manuscript used by Bergsträsser. Bergsträsser first thought erroneously of Herophilos and provided in his edition the reading ايروفيلس, but in a later publication (Neue Materialien zu Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq's Galen-Bibliographie, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XIX.2 [Leipzig, 1932]Google Scholar) corrected this error. It may be worth noticing that the spelling of the Arabic word, when written without diacritical points, allows also the reading Hierocles. However, taking into consideration that nothing is known about a Timaeus commentary by Hierocles of Alexandria and that the other Arabic testimonia point unmistakably to Proclus, there can be little doubt that all Ḥunaynian documents discussed here refer to a work by Proclus.

¹⁸ Bergsträsser translates the last sentence of Text 6 as follows: “Ḥubaiš hat sie [i.e. al-maqāla, R.A.] ins Arabische übersetzt für Aḥmad ibn Mūsā.” However, the suffix -hu in tarjamahu cannot refer to al-maqāla, i.e. Galen's Περὶ ἐθῶν, but must refer either to tafsīr mā atā bihi min qawl Buqrāṭ, i.e. the excerpts of Galen's commentary on Hippocrates' Περὶ διαίτης ὀξέων, or to all three texts mentioned in this paragraph in general. From Text 7 it is clear that it is the latter what is meant here by Ḥunayn.

¹⁹ The younger brother of Muḥammad ibn Mūsā, the famous sponsor and patron of science and scientific translations. On Aḥmad cf. Rashed, Roshdi, Apollonius de Perge, Coniques, Tome 1.1: Livre I, texte établi, traduit et commenté par R. R., Scientia Graeco-Arabica 1 (Berlin, 2008), pp. 25f., 42–5, 500–6Google Scholar; id., Les mathématiques infinitésimales du IX^e au XI^e siècle. Vol. 1: Fondateurs et commentateurs (London, 1996), pp. 1–7Google Scholar.

²⁰ Cf. Bergsträsser, Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen, p. 41 (Ar. text), p. 33 (German trans.).

²¹ Obviously, Klein-Franke did not take into consideration for his edition of Galen's Περὶ ἐθῶν the lemmata of Galen's commentary through which a number of scribal errors within the transmission of Περὶ ἐθῶν might be corrected (as well as vice versa).

²² Cf. note 5.

²³ Cf. my “Plato's Timaeus in the Arabic tradition. Legends – testimonies – fragments”, in Celia, Francesco & Ulacco, Angela (eds.), Il Timeo. Esegesi greche, arabe, latine. Greco, Arabo, Latino. Le vie del sapere. Studi 2 (Pisa, 2012), pp. 181–267Google Scholar.

²⁴ Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿa, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad, ʿUyūn al-anbāʾ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbāʾ, ed. Müller, August (Königsberg, 1884; repr. Westmead, 1972), part 1, p. 95Google Scholar.

²⁵ For an overview in Plato cf. Sedley, David, “The ideal of Godlikeness,” in Fine, Gail (ed.), Plato 2. Ethics, Politics, Religion, and the Soul (Oxford, 1999), pp. 309–28Google Scholar; for Proclus cf. Van Den Berg, Robbert, “‛Becoming like God' according to Proclus' interpretations of the Timaeus, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the Chaldaean Oracles,” in Leinkauf, Thomas & Steel, Carlos (eds.), Plato's Timaeus and the Foundation of Cosmology in Late Antiquity, the Middle Ages and Renaissance, Ancient and Medieval Philosophy De Wulf-Mansion Centre, Series 1, vol. 34 (Leuven, 2005), pp. 189–202Google Scholar.

²⁶ On the structure of Proclus' commentaries cf. Festugière, André-Jean, “Modes de composition des commentaires de Proclus”, Museum Helveticum, 20 (1963): 77–100Google Scholar; Lamberz, Erich, “Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars,” in Pépin, Jean & Saffrey, Henri-Dominique (eds.), Proclus, lecteur et interprète des anciens, Actes du colloque international du CNRS Paris (2–4 octobre 1985) (Paris, 1985), pp. 1–20Google Scholar.

²⁷ Procli Diadochi in Platonis Timaeum commentaria, ed. Diehl, Ernst, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1903–1906), vol. 1, p. 6.7–16Google Scholar (henceforth: In Plat. Tim.); trans. Tarrant, Harold, Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus. Vol. 1: Book 1: Proclus on the Socratic State and Atlantis (Cambridge, 2007), p. 98–9Google Scholar.

²⁸ On the structure of this commentary see the general introduction by Dirk Baltzly and Harold Tarrant in Tarrant, Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, I, p. 13ff.

²⁹ The fact that Plato's work is referred to, at the beginning of this “Preamble”, as “his book entitled Timaeus” (kitābuhu al-musammā Ṭīmāwus), which are certainly not Proclus' own words, does not disprove this assumption. This and similar types of periphrastic translation of simple references to the title of a book in the Greek original can be found in various paraphrastic and literal Arabic translations from the Greek (cf. Alexander of Aphrodisias, Qu. III 3, Kitābuhu alladhī yudʿā Kitāb al-Nafs, p. 168, ed. Ruland, for Περὶ Ψυχῆς, p. 82, ed. Bruns; id., Kitābuhu al-musammā al-Samāʿ al-Ṭabīʿī, Maqāla fī al-Mādda wa-al-ʿadam wa-al-kawn, p. 44, ed. Badawī; id., al-Kitāb al-musammā Bārī<a>rminiyās, Maqāla fī Inʿiqās al-muqaddimāti, p. 63, ed. Badawī; Philoponus, In De an. III, Kitābuhu alladhī yudʿā Baʿda al-Ṭabīʿa, p. 335, ed. Arnzen, for in Metaphisicis [= ἐν τοῖς Μετὰ τὰ φυσικά vel sim.], p. 111.49, ed. Verbeke; Ps.-Plutarch [Aetius], Placita philosophorum, Kitābuhu al-mawsūmu bi-al-awwali min al-Ṭabīʿiyyāti, p. 23, ed. Daiber, for τὸ πρῶτον Φυσικῶν, p. 326, ed. Diels, etc.).

³⁰ Lamberz, “Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars”, p. 7f.

³¹ For the scholarly literature on this problem cf. ibid., pp. 8–16 and the literature mentioned there.

³² Cf. also below, note 137.

³³ On these parts of the lesson or πρᾶξις cf. Festugière, “Modes de composition”; Lamberz, “Proklos und die Form des philosophischen Kommentars”, p. 16f.

³⁴ Cf. Tarrant, Proclus: Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, I, p. 15f.

³⁵ For examples in Proclus' Timaeus commentary cf. Festugière, “Modes de composition”, pp. 89–91.

³⁶ As brought to my attention by Carlos Steel (personal communication, April 11, 2012).

³⁷ I am grateful to the staff of the library for providing a digital copy of this section of the manuscript as well as to Professor Heidrun Eichner for her help in obtaining this copy.

³⁸ Cf. above, notes 6–8.

³⁹ Referred to, in the notes, through “Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt”. I wish to thank Dr. Roland Wittwer and the staff of the Corpus Medicorum Graecorum (Berlin) for granting me access to this part of the manuscript by means of a print of the Berlin microfilm.

⁴⁰ E.g., cf. Arabic text, ll. 91–92, where the text reads wa-ammā al-istiqāmatu fa-lā - mithālu dhālika mā najidu …, while Pfaff's translation (p. 58.10f.) seems to be based on the reading wa-ammā al-istiqāmatu fa-lā mithlu dhālika mā najidu…; ll. 143–144, wa-dhālika anna jamīʿa al-tamāmāti al-ukhari innamā yaḥudduhā al-nāsu fa-ammā hādhā al-tāmmu fa-laysa al-nāsu yaḥuddūnahu bal Allāhu, where Pfaff seems to have read forms of the verb yaʾkhudhu (or yajidu) instead of yaḥuddu, rendered through “erwerben” (p. 60.4–5), or l. 72, al-juzʾ al-ʿaqlī, translated by Pfaff through “die höchste Art” (p. 57.19), probably based on the reading al-juzʾ al-aʿlā. For Vajda, cf. below, l. 55, where Vajda realised that fa-ammā, as transmitted in the manuscript, makes no sense (v. p. 243, n. 2, of Vajda's translation), yet based his translation on the reading fa-innā, which does not really improve the text, instead of the correct emendation bi-annā. At l. 57, Vajda translated ka-mā (“comme”, p. 243.11), although the manuscript has clearly kay-mā (“in order that”); at l. 80, Vajda omitted wa-mabdaʾuhā. At l. 98, Vajda seems to have read fa-hiya al-khāliqu (“elle est créatrice”, p. 245.8). The manuscript is not quite clear (cf. below, n. 76), but the reading fa-hiya is definitely impossible (hence also the proposed translation), because the related noun, al-shakl, is masculine. Again, al-nawʿ al-mudabbir al-māʾit min anwāʿ al-nufūs, ll. 115–116, can hardly mean “celle des espèces de l'âme qui gouverne (la partie) mortelle” (Vajda, p. 246.4), which would require al-nawʿ al-mudabbir li-al-māʾit, etc.

⁴¹ E.g., ammā bi-al-nafsi fa-li-annā bi-hādhā al-juzʾi naʿrifu al-ajrāma allatī fawqanā (l. 75) does not mean “Was die Seele anbetrifft, deshalb, weil wir wissen, daß in diesem Teil die Körper sind, welche über uns sind” (Pfaff, p. 57.23), but rather “As for the soul, this is because it is through this part that we know the bodies superior to us”; ḥaythu mā kānat al-nafsu al-nāṭiqatu waḥdahā (l. 87) hardly means “da die denkende Seele die ‛Eins' ist” (Pfaff, p. 58.4), but “whenever the rational soul is on its own”; illā annahā takūnu mankūsatan (l. 95) cannot refer to the masculine noun al-jism (body), as translated by Pfaff (“sondern er [der Körper] ist nur nach unten geneigt”, p. 58.16), etc. (further mistakes have been noted by Vajda).

⁴² تداوى scripsi : يداوا MS

⁴³ يجب ] يجب ضرورةً Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.15

⁴⁴ وإذ ] وإذا Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.15

⁴⁵ sine punctatione MS

⁴⁶ scripsi : عَما (parum clare) MS; cf. E. Lane s.r. غمّ.

⁴⁷ قوام ] القيام in textu + قوام supra lin. MS

⁴⁸ ينجز scripsi : MS vix legitur, جز** vid.

⁴⁹ يحفظ scripsi : نحفظ MS ut vid.

⁵⁰ يخلوا MS

⁵¹ شيئاً واحداً scripsi : شي واحد MS

⁵² الأعضاء ومن scripsi : الاعضا من MS

⁵³ supplevi, cf. infra, l. 63, et παρ' ἡμῖν Tim. 90a2

⁵⁴ حبا clare MS (= δέδωκεν, Tim. 90a4) : خصّ Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.18

⁵⁵ بحسب ] يحسب Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.19

⁵⁶ يرفعنا ] ترفعنا Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.19

⁵⁷ بأنّا scripsi : فاما MS : أنّا Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.19

⁵⁸ نوع من ] inv. Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.19

⁵⁹ من scripsi (cf. ἐκεῖθεν, Tim. 90a7) : في MS, Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.20

⁶⁰ مدّ scripsi : مر vel مد MS : صد Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.21

⁶¹ قوام clare MS : فوق Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.21

⁶² sine punctatione

⁶³ sine punctatione et parum clare

⁶⁴ an نقرر ?, MS sine punctatione

⁶⁵ أن in marg. (cum ¬post نقدر)

⁶⁶ sine punctatione

⁶⁷ لسنا scripsi : ليس MS

⁶⁸ حيوانا MS

⁶⁹ مهيا MS

⁷⁰ والنفس scripsi : والنفس والنفس MS

⁷¹ ليست scripsi : ليس MS

⁷² موجودتان scripsi : موجودين MS

⁷³ منكبه MS

⁷⁴ ¬supra النفسين MS (an lacunam indicavit?)

⁷⁵ رأسه مركوزاً scripsi : رأسها مركوز MS

⁷⁶ يُهيّئ الخالق scripsi : يهى الحالو MS ut vid.

⁷⁷ ضرورةً ] + من Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.23

⁷⁸ كلها supra lin. et vix legitur; om. in lemma (l. 118), om. Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.23

⁷⁹ آراء ] scripsi : ارا MS : اذا ed. Klein-Franke, Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.23

⁸⁰ ويكون clare MS : فيكون Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.23

⁸¹ الحقّ ] + وتعبّد لهما in lemma (l. 120) : om. Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.25

⁸² يعجزه ] يعجز Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 148.26

⁸³ طبع ] طبيعة in lemma (l. 127)

⁸⁴ مدبّرنا scripsi : مديرنا MS ut vid.

⁸⁵ خارجة scripsi : خارج MS

⁸⁶ من scripsi : عن MS

⁸⁷ vel بسُبُله?, parum clare

⁸⁸ المائت scripsi : vel sim. MS supra lin.

⁸⁹ sine punctatione, an ينتقص ?

⁹⁰ مناقبه scripsi : in textu parum clare : corr. infra lin. (an يليه ?)

⁹¹ يدبّر scripsi : يدبره في MS ut vid., where the suffix –hu and the preposition fī are crossed out

⁹² مائتاً ﻫ MS

⁹³ عيشه scripsi : علشه MS

⁹⁴ sic?, MS parum clare

⁹⁵ متقن ] متفق Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 149.1

⁹⁶ القوّة clare MS : Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 149.2

⁹⁷ المسرّة scripsi : المسره vel المنتره MS (parum clare); cf. Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 149.2

⁹⁸ وإتيان المسَرّّة والإرضاء scripsi : والإرضاء وإتيان المسره MS, Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 149.2

⁹⁹ بدل sine punctatione : ed. Klein-Franke, Gal., Fī al-ʿĀdāt, 149.2

¹⁰⁰ الخالات MS ut vid.

¹⁰¹ للنفس scripsi : النفس MS

¹⁰² بتلك scripsi : vel MS

¹⁰³ كذلك ] وكذلك MS

¹⁰⁴ يجاوزها scripsi : sine punctatione MS

¹⁰⁵ يجاوزه scripsi : sine punctatione MS

¹⁰⁶ حوى scripsi : MS vix legitur, حوا aut حعا vid.

¹⁰⁷ كالطبّ scripsi : بالطب MS ut vid.

¹⁰⁸ sic?, MS parum clare

¹⁰⁹ المؤْثِر للأمور scripsi : الموثر الأمور MS, v. infra, note 147

¹¹⁰ الفاضلة scripsi : sine punctatione MS

¹¹¹ للتشبيه scripsi : sine punctatione MS

¹¹² لأنّ scripsi : لا MS clare, deinde 1 aut 2 litt. in ras. aut corr. non leg.

¹¹³ Cf. above, note 29.

¹¹⁴ Cf. Tim. 87c1–89e2.

¹¹⁵ Here and in what follows I translate forms of the second stem of the root d-b-r through “to regulate”, “regulator”, etc. The relevant Arabic words possibly reflect forms and derivatives of κυβερνάω, κυβερνήτης, etc. in the Greek (this correspondence is also attested for the Arabic translation of Galen's Ὅτι ταῖς τοῦ σώματος κράσεσιν…, which has been prepared by the same translator, Ḥubaysh ibn al-Ḥasan al-Dimashqī, as well as for Isḥāq ibn Ḥunayn's translation of Aristotle's Physics; however, the same Arabic words served also as equivalents of various other Greek words [cf. http://telota.bbaw.de/glossga/], and further below, the participle mudabbir even stands for Plato's δαίμων, Tim. 90c4). At the present place, the supposed correspondence deserves special attention, because the application of the term κυβερνάω, etc., on the particular human soul does, as far as I see, not exactly correspond with Proclus usual terminology (while it is frequent in later Neoplatonic writings). Proclus rather applies this terminology In Plat. Tim. II, 106.29, on the souls of the heavenly bodies, and at other places on the world-soul as related to the entirety of bodily nature (cf. In Plat. Tim. II, 24.7; Théologie platonicienne, texte établi et traduit par Henri-Dominique Saffrey et Leendert G. Westerink, 6 vols., Collection des universités de France [Paris, 1968–1997], I, 64.16 [henceforth: Theol. Plat.]). Elsewhere, he uses κυβερνάω and its derivatives, in order to describe the guidance of the universe through the Nous (In Platonis Parmenidem commentaria, ed. Carlos Steel, Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis, 3 vols. [Oxford, 2007–09], 943.17 [Cousin]: I, 141 [Steel], 964.9: I, 169 [henceforth: In Plat. Parm.], In Plat. Tim. I, 403–404, 413.2) or the relation between Nous and world-soul (Theol. Plat. IV, 22.21, 43.17, Sur le Premier Alcibiade de Platon, texte établi et traduit par Alain-Philippe Segonds, Collection des universités de France, 2 vols. [Paris, 1985–86]Google Scholar, 77.11 [henceforth: In Plat. Alcib. I]). Furthermore, we find numerous references for this terminology in Proclus' descriptions of how the daemon is related to the individual life he guides (e.g., In Platonis Rem publicam commentaria, ed. Kroll, Wilhelm, Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana, 2 vols. [Leipzig, 1899–1901; repr. Amsterdam, 1965]Google Scholar, II, 94.26, 98.26, 299.17 [henceforth: In Plat. Rem publ.], In Plat. Alcib. I, 40.23, 45.14, 76.18, 79.15, 199.20, In Plat. Parm. 1128.1 : III, 114 [v. app. crit., p. 115, ad 1128.2, and p. 468, note 102, of the trans. by Morrow, Glenn R. & Dillon, John M., Proclus' Commentary on Plato's Parmenides [Princeton, 1987]Google Scholar, etc., as well as below in the present fragment). The application to particular sub-lunar souls must be based on the assumption that the one rational soul, which ensouls all living beings (“διὰ μόνης τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς”, In Plat. Rem publ. II, 284.4), transfers its cybernetical function to the individual souls. (Cf. also Proclus' comments on Tim. 34c4ff. explaining the role of the soul as ruler and master [ἀρχικός, δεσπότης] of body, In Plat. Tim. II, 117–119).

¹¹⁶ Ar. suggests the reading κίνησιν instead of κινήσεις.

¹¹⁷ For the equation of the intellect and the intellectual daemon subsisting in the human rational soul with the role of a king cf. Proclus, In Plat. Tim. I, 251, also In Plat. Alcib. I, 78.1ff.: “Seul le démon met toutes nos affaires en mouvement, les gouverne toutes et les met en ordre […]; et il est le seul souverain (βασιλεύς) de tout ce qui est en nous et autour de nous, pilotant la totalité de notre vie.” (trans. Segonds, vol. 1, p. 63).

¹¹⁸ Al-mutammima li-nafsihā possibly stands for αὐτοτελής, usually applied by Proclus to the One, the divine henads, and the participated intellect (ὁ μετεχόμενος νοῦς), e.g. Proclus, The Elements of Theology, A Revised Text with Translation, Introduction and Commentary by Dodds, Eric R., Second Edition (Oxford, 1963), §§ 114–116Google Scholar, In Plat. Alcib. I, 66.3ff., In Plat. Tim. I, 371.23, II, 92.5, 313.3, etc. For the conception of the individual human soul as self-perfecting entity, cf. In Plat. Tim. II, 129.18: ὁρῶμεν … ἐπὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν· κινοῦσι γὰρ ἑαυτὰς καὶ τελειοῦσι καὶ ἄγουσιν ὅπῃ βούλονται (“[…] we see in the case of our souls, for our souls move themselves, perfect themselves and proceed where they wish”, trans. Baltzly, Proclus. Commentary on Plato's Timaeus, vol. 4, p. 88). On the relationship between self-perfection, self-motion and self-thinking of the rational soul in Proclus' philosophy cf. Menn, Stephen, “Self-motion and reflection: Hermias and Proclus on the harmony of Plato and Aristotle on the soul”, in Wilberding, James & Horn, Christoph (eds.), Neoplatonism and the Philosophy of Nature (Oxford, 2012), pp. 44–67, esp. 58ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹⁹ Cf. Proclus, In Plat. Tim. I, 33f.: τὸ ἐπιθυμητικόν, ὃ δὴ τὰς χρείας ἐκπορίζει τοῦ σώματος, τὸ θυμικόν, ὃ πᾶν τὸ τοῦ ζῴου λυμαντικὸν ἀναστέλλειν τέτακται. The conception of the vegetative soul displayed here may be influenced by Galen's interpretation of Tim. 77b6ff.; cf. Wilberding, James, “The secret of sentient vegetative life in Galen”, in Adamson, Peter & Wilberding, James (eds.), Galen and Philosophy, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement (London, forthcoming)Google Scholar.

¹²⁰ Cf. Plato, Rep. II, 357b ff., Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I 4.

¹²¹ The former is good for the soul itself, the latter for the whole of body and soul; cf. Proclus, In Plat. Tim. II, 118: “The property of masterhood extends to the soul because it does all things for the sake of its own good, but the property of being a ruler belongs to it because of the fact that it fills all things with what is good.” (trans. Baltzly, vol. 4, p. 76), also In Plat. Tim. II, 158.

¹²² A reference to Plato's famous arguments for the tripartition of the soul, Rep. IV, 436b ff. (Cf. also Proclus, In Plat. Tim. II, 39: “things that have the most contrary motions are themselves most contrary”, trans. Baltzly, vol. 3, p. 86, similarly In Plat. Tim. II, 29f.)

¹²³ Of course, this applies only to the embodied soul employing bodily organs, not to the rational soul as such; cf. Diadochos, Proklos, Über die Vorsehung, das Schicksal und den freien Willen an Theodoros, den Ingenieur (Mechaniker), Nach Vorarbeiten von Theo Berger übersetzt und erläutert von Michael Erler (Meisenheim am Glan, 1980), p. 61Google Scholar, and ibid., note 2.

¹²⁴ The translator took ἐκεῖθεν γάρ (sc. ἐστι) as predicate of τὸ θεῖον.

¹²⁵ The translator took τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ ῥίζαν ἡμῶν ἀνακρεμαννὺν ὀρθοῖ πᾶν τὸ σῶμα as a new, separate sentence with ὀρθοῖ in the optative expressing the purpose of what is said in the preceding sentence (therefore connected through the conjunction kay-mā, “in order that”).

¹²⁶ Or: mediator, al-safīr. In all likelihood, the expression al-malʾak wa-al-safīr (“angel and messenger”) is a hendiadys for one Greek word, presumably ἄγγελος.

¹²⁷ For the daemons as mediators or messengers between man and the Gods cf. also Proclus' In Plat. Parm. 663: I, 51f. (trans. Morrow & Dillon, p. 50), I, 71f. (trans. Morrow & Dillon, p. 62). At an earlier place of the Timaeus commentary, Proclus mentions that Porphyry ascribed this role to the archangels (τοῖς ἐν οὐρανῷ ἀρχαγγέλοις, In Plat. Tim. I, 152.13).

¹²⁸ I have not been able to find any Greek equivalent of this expression in Proclus' writings. In all likelihood, this toponymic terminology is based on Proclus' doctrine of hierarchically ordered vertical chains of hypercosmic and encosmic divine, daemonic and human intellects. The “closest regulator” thus must be the lowest daemonic intellect which is located immediately above the human soul, i.e. a particular intellect (μερικὸς νοῦς) participated by the human intellect (cf. In Plat. Tim. I, 245). Presumably, Proclus draws at the present place on Plato, Phaedrus 247c7, where this intellect is called the κυβερνήτης (mudabbir) of the human soul (v. also Chlup, Radek, Proclus. An Introduction [Cambridge, 2012], pp. 127–36, 158–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

¹²⁹ Cf. Plato, Symposium 202e, where Plato assigns to the daemon the functions of “translation and mediation” (ἑρμηνεῦον καὶ διαπορθμεῦον) between man and the Gods and vice versa.

¹³⁰ The MS allows the reading kathrata Īrūʾīs (as translated above) or kuthruhu Īrūʾīs (meaning perhaps “that which is called – in the plural [form] – Heroes”). Vajda obviously read kathīratan Īrūʾīs and translated “qui est nommée souvent Iroas” (p. 243.27).

¹³¹ In Plato's Laws, there is no clear correspondence to this tripartite conception. At several places, Plato locates there between man and the Gods the three strata of Daemons (δαίμονες), Heroes (ἥρωες), and Private Statues or Shrines (ἱδρύματα ἴδια) dedicated to ancestral deities (cf. Laws 717b, 718c–d, 738d, 818c, etc.). The present Arabic terminology points to another division by Proclus. The expression “that which belongs to the genus of angelic things” (al-shayʾu alladhī min jinsi al-malāʾika) seems to paraphrase the word δαίμων (or its plural δαίμονες, as it occurs in this use also in the translation of Tim. 90a3 above). Īrūʾīs is obviously a transliteration of ἥρωες. Yet, it is not clear what the third term, al-malāʾika, translates. The underlying Greek term may be either a derivative of δαίμων, e.g. τὰ δαιμόνια, or, as already proposed by Franz Pfaff (Galeni De Consuetudinibus, p. 57, note 1), οἱ ἄγγελοι. The intermediate trias of δαίμονες, ἥρωες and ἄγγελοι is indeed mentioned in various writings by Proclus, e.g. in In Plat. Tim. I, 137 (trans. Tarrant, vol. 1, p. 233), In Plat. Tim. II, 112 (trans. Baltzly, vol. 4, p. 69), In Plat. Tim. III, 109, 164, 178, 196, In Plat. Parm. 952.20: II, 153 (trans. Morrow & Dillon, p. 302), etc. At other places, Proclus rather seems to correlate Heroes or heroic souls with Plato's ἱδρύματα ἴδια, e.g. In Plat. Tim. II, 230 (trans. Baltzly, vol. 4, p. 213, cf. also Baltzly's note 436). In any case, assuming that al-malāʾika translates here οἱ ἄγγελοι presupposes a certain inconsistency in Ḥubaysh's terminology (cf. above, note 126).

¹³² Cf. Plato, Statesman 272e, where Plato seems to equate the Highest Daemon (ὁ μέγιστος δαίμων) with the Steersman of the Universe (ὁ τοῦ παντὸς κυβερνήτης). Obviously, this Highest Daemon has to be kept apart from “the daemons” (οἱ δαίμονες), who, only shortly before (Statesman 271d), are described as divine herdsmen (νομῆς θεῖοι), each of whom is a sufficient or independent (αὐτάρκης) guardian of the individual species of living beings he is assigned to. At In Plat. Tim. II, 112 (trans. Baltzly, vol. 4, p. 69), Proclus equates the Demiurge with the Highest Daemon, yet there are at least two further types of daemons: At In Plat. Rem publ. II, 256, 271–3 (trans. Festugière, vol. 3, pp. 214, 229–31), Proclus distinguishes between angelic daemons guarding individual souls and fused with the realm of generation and a higher class of daemons, which exist οὐσιώδεις and prior to any interrelation between the individual souls and their fate, both types of which being different from the Highest Daemon. On the Middle Platonic and Neoplatonic debates on the classes and numbers of daemons cf. also Harold Tarrant, “Must commentators know their sources? Proclus In Timaeum and Numenius”, in Adamson, Peter, Baltussen, Han, Stone, Martin W. F. (eds.), Philosophy, Science and Exegesis in Greek, Arabic and Latin Commentaries. Vol. 1, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 83.1 (London, 2004), pp. 175–90Google Scholar, esp. 182f.

¹³³ Al-juzʾ al-ʿaqlī, “the intellectual (or: intellective) part”, for ὁ νοητικός (i.e. δαίμων)? For the equation of Nous and Demiurge in Proclus' philosophy cf. Van den Berg, Robbert M., Proclus' Hymns. Essays, Translations, Commentary, Philosophia antiqua 90 (Leiden, 2001), pp. 49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁴ For Plato's theory of human posture cf. Gregorić, Pavel, “Plato's and Aristotle's explanation of human posture”, Rhizai, 2 (2005): 183–96Google Scholar.

¹³⁵ Accordingly, Proclus ascribes to the embodied soul rectilinear motion and to the Nous circular motion, cf. Procli Diadochi in primum Euclidis elementorum librum commentarii, edidit Friedlein, G., Bibliotheca Scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana (Leipzig, 1873; repr. Hildesheim, 1967), p. 147Google Scholar (trans. Morrow, Glenn R., A Commentary on the First Book of Euclid's Elements [Princeton, 1970], p. 117Google Scholar). For the priority of the circle among geometrical figures and the sphere among regular solids cf. ibid., pp. 146–51 (trans. Morrow, pp. 117–20), and In Plat. Tim. II, 69: “For that which the One is among the divine things … this role is played in the same way by the sphere among the solid shapes” (trans. Baltzly, vol. 3, p. 125), also In Plat. Tim. II, 99 (trans. Baltzly, vol. 3, p. 161). For Proclus' correlation of circular and rectilinear motions with different types of soul and with the concepts of πρόοδος, κατάκαμψις and ἐπιστροφή cf. also Menn, “Self-motion and reflection”, pp. 59–65.

¹³⁶ An allusion to Aristotle's critical comments on the idea that any type of soul can reside in any type of body regardless of their essential interrelation (De An. I 3, 407b12–26, against Pythagorean reincarnationists). In the background of this incidental remark lies Proclus' approach to the Timaeus and to Platonic Physics in general, which conceived the Aristotelian natural philosophy basically as an emulation of Plato's teaching without any substantial progress (cf. Steel, Carlos, “Why should we prefer Plato's Timaeus to Aristotle's Physics? Proclus' critique of Aristotle's causal explanation of the physical world”, in Sharples, Robert W. & Sheppard, Anne [eds.], Ancient Approaches to Plato's Timaeus, Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, Suppl. 78 [London, 2003], pp. 175–87Google Scholar).

¹³⁷ As Marwan Rashed points out to me (personal communication, August 1, 2012), the Arabic translation may be based on the reading διακονοῦντι instead of διαπονοῦντι.

¹³⁸ The second half of this complicated Platonic sentence (Tim. 90b1-6) is poorly represented in the Arabic. This is at least partly due to variant readings in the translator's Vorlage. First, there can be little doubt that the translator read καθ' ὅσον μάλιστα δυνατὸν ἀθανάτῳ γίγνεσθαι instead of καθ' ὅσον μάλιστα δυνατὸν θνητῷ γίγνεσθαι, rendered by allatī yumkinu an takūna khāṣṣatan li-man lā yamūtu. Secondly, he took μηδὲ σμικρὸν ἐλλείπειν in the sense of μηδὲ σμικρὸν ἐλλείπει (pres. ind. act. 3rd sg.), interpreted as wa-yakūnu laysa lahu al-battata wa-lā aqallu al-qalīli. Due to these variant readings, the translator was urged to interpret τούτου in the phrase τούτου μηδὲ σμικρὸν ἐλλείπειν as referring to the lacking disposition of immortality (min al-ḥāli allatī hiya khilāfa ḥāli al-ashyāʾi al-māʾita). The reason for the subsequent omission of ἅτε τὸ τοιοῦτον ηὐξηκότι may be sought either in an omission in the Greek manuscript or in the fact that this clause made little sense in view of the preceding confusion.

¹³⁹ The end of this sentence, i.e. the place or state into which the psychic regulator returns, is not clear in the manuscript (cf. above, note 90). The infralinear correction may suggest the reading mā yalīhi (“and returns to the next [i.e., the next higher stratum?]”). The Arabic expression rendered here by “becomes interrelated with” (ṣārat lahu nisbatun ilā…) points to some sort of interaction between essentially separate entities rather than any kind of substantial intermingling or blending (as one might assume in view of Porphyry's psychology; cf. Wilberding, James, “Porphyry and Plotinus on the seed”, Phronesis, 53 [2008]: 406–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

¹⁴⁰ In In Plat. Tim. III, 215–218, Proclus distinguishes between different modes of immortality: “«Immortel» se dit au sens le plus propre et primordial de ce qui se procure à soi-même l'immortalité […]. Ainsi donc est «immortel» au sens vrai ce qui est immortel par soi-même et ce qui se procure à soi-même l'immortalité, en revanche ce qui ni n'est vie par tout soi-même ni n'est subsistant par soi (αὐθυπόστατον) ni ne possède par soi-même l'immortalité n'est pas primordialment immortel. Dès lors, de même que ce qui est être à titre second n'est pas «être» (ὄν), de même ce qui est immortel à titre second n'est pas «immortel». Pourtant ce n'est pas non plus du mortel. […] Il semble que, dans la catégorie de l'immortel, une première sorte soit commune à toutes les espèces diverses du non-mortel: c'est ce qui n'est pas privé de la vie qu'il possède […]. Une autre sorte est propre aux Intelligibles: c'est l'immortel qui est tel en tant qu'existant toujours (ἀεὶ ὄν). Une autre sorte est celle des dieux encosmiques: c'est ce qui est immortel en tant que devenant toujours (ἀεὶ γιγνόμενον), puisqu'il a sa substance dans le «devenir toujours» (γίγνεσθαι ἀεί). Dès lors, tu pourrais dire qu'immortel et mortel s'opposent sans intermédiaire (ἀμέσως) si tu prends la signification commune de l'immortel, et qu'ils ne s'opposent pas sans intermédiaire si tu prends le primordialement immortel, qui est l'immortel en tant qu'existant toujours: car, entre celui-ci et le mortel, il y a comme intermédiaire l'immortel en tant que devenant toujours. Cependant l'immortel au sens propre est ce qui a complètement sa vie dans l'éternité: l'être qui a sa vie se développant dans toute la durée du temps et non pas la même toujours dans une unique indivisibilité, cet être-là est immortel en tant que devenant, et non en tant qu'étant.” (trans. Festugière, vol. 5, pp. 76–9). This latter type of immortality is presumably the one applied here to the individual human soul, which thus mirrors the qualities of the world-soul inasmuch as this “is generated and ungenerated at the same time, a fact by virtue of which it always has being and life (being always living and existent); but on the other hand, it is also by virtue of this fact that it always receives them (perpetually coming to be Being and life). It thus exists from two sources – being both from itself and also from the things prior to it. […] Therefore time and eternity pertain to the soul simultaneously. In as much as it is ungenerated, it is eternal. But as something generated, time applies. As a result it is, in a certain sense, eternal in so far as it is indestructible, but it is not eternal simpliciter”, In Plat. Tim. II, 124f. (trans. Baltzly, vol. 4, p. 83).

¹⁴¹ Al-quwwa wa-ityān al-masarrati is a hendiadys for εὐδαίμων (provided my reading and emendation of the MS is correct, cf. notes 97–98).

¹⁴² Badala kulli shayʾin suggests the reading ἀντὶ παντός instead παντὶ παντός, Tim. 90c6; for badala = ἀντί cf. Endress, Gerhard & Gutas, Dimitri (eds.), A Greek & Arabic Lexicon. Materials for a Dictionary of the Mediæval Translations from Greek into Arabic (Leiden, 1992-), fasc. 8, p. 130Google Scholar (henceforth: GALex), Ullmann, Manfred, Wörterbuch zu den griechisch-arabischen Übersetzungen des 9. Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden, 2002)Google Scholar, Supplement I–II (Wiesbaden, 2006–2007)Google Scholar, Suppl. I, p. 130 (henceforth: WGAÜ).

¹⁴³ ʿUsru al-zawāl may render a word like δυσμετάβλητος or δυσμετάθετος (cf. Proclus, In Plat. Alcib. I, 107.31, In Plat. Parm. 989.28: II, 204; for ʿusr + noun as etymological translation of compounds with δυσ- as first element cf. Ullmann, WGAÜ, p. 861, WGAÜ Suppl. II, p. 877).

¹⁴⁴ Min ṭarīqi anna, presumably translating ὡς or ᾗ, cf. Ullmann, Manfred, Die Nikomachische Ethik des Aristoteles in arabischer Übersetzung. Teil II: Überlieferung, Textkritik, Grammatik (Wiesbaden, 2012), p. 318fGoogle Scholar (§ 96), id., WGAÜ, p. 793, WGAÜ Suppl. I, p. 440.

¹⁴⁵ The MS reads clearly aʿamm, which might be a corruption of atamm (“more complete”).

¹⁴⁶ The Arabic text is not clear (cf. note 106). I do not see what Arabic text Vajda had in mind when translating “et elle seule peut émettre une telle prétention” (p. 247ult.).

¹⁴⁷ Possibly a reference to Plato's concept of the musician who is said to love beautiful things in general (τὰ τοῦ καλοῦ ἐρωτικά), that is beauty “in connection with actions and things”, but has not yet acquired the philosopher's sense of absolute beauty (cf. Rep. III, 403c, V, 476–479). Proclus refers repeatedly to the musician as φιλόκαλος (In Plat. Alcib. I, 206.10, In Plat. Rem publ. I, 59.1, etc.), which is why I read al-muḥibb al-muʾthir li-al-umūr al-jamīla (with muḥibb muʾthir as hendiadys for the element φιλο- in φιλόκαλος) at the beginning of the sentence (cf. also GALex I, p. 38).

¹⁴⁸ Namely, in the case of the soul, the participation in the Intellect, “for perfection comes to each when it becomes like its intelligible Form. As the aim of Soul is likeness to Intellect, so the good of all things sensible is likeness to the intelligible and divine Forms. Whence, then, comes this common and perfecting element if not from intelligible Likeness? Or, if you prefer, whence comes the factor that fills up their being? For the being of each thing is defined by this, I mean by its likeness to intelligibles, and it is through being like its Idea that each thing is what it really is”, In Plat. Parm. 853.18–25: II, 21f. (trans. Morrow & Dillon, p. 222). Additionally, participation is an instrument or means of assimilation: “Participation, then, takes place by assimilation (ὁμοίωσις). He [i.e., Socrates/Plato, R.A.] has introduced this concept by calling the Forms patterns and the things participating them likenesses, and this participation for this reason assimilation”, In Plat. Parm. 906.27–30: II, 92 (trans. Morrow & Dillon, p. 265, v. also In Plat. Parm. 910: II, 96f.). However, the Intellect qua Idea of the soul is not the final cause of the latter's assimilation, “for even if we say that it creates by reason of its very essence, and that becoming like to it is an end for all generated things, nevertheless the final cause of all things in the strict sense and that for the sake of which all things are is superior to the Ideas”, In Plat. Parm. 888.18-21: II, 67 (trans. Morrow & Dillon, p. 249, v. also In Plat. Parm. 912: II, 99f.).

¹⁴⁹ Al-taʿajjub, presumably for τὸ θαῦμα or a form of θαυμάζω, cf. Proclus, In Plat. Tim. I, 133: προηγεῖται μὲν οὖν τὸ θαῦμα, διότι καὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ἀρχὴ τοῦτό ἐστι τῆς τῶν ὅλων γνώσεως, ἐν δὲ τοῖς θείοις συνάπτει τῷ θαυμαζομένῳ τὸ θαυμάζον (“So amazement comes first, because in us too it is the origin of the cognition of the whole, while among things divine it joins the subject of amazement with its object”, trans. Tarrant, vol. 1, 228f.). For θαυμάζειν as the beginning of philosophy cf. Plato, Theat. 155d, Arist., Metaph. A 2, 982b11ff. On the role of amazement (θαῦμα) and the wish to participate in the One and the Good in Proclus' conception of the process of ὁμοίωσις θεῷ, cf. Beierwaltes, Werner, Proklos: Grundzüge seiner Metaphysik, Zweite, durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage, Philosophische Abhandlungen 24 (Frankfurt am Main, 1979), pp. 294–313Google Scholar.

¹⁵⁰ Corresponding with pp. 123–5 of the edition by Kühlewein, Hugo, Hippocratis Opera quae feruntur omnia. Vol. 1 (Leipzig, 1894)Google Scholar; and pp. 48–51 of the edition by Joly, Robert, Hippocrate. Tome VI. 2^e Partie: Du régime des maladies aiguës. Appendice. De l'aliment. De l'usage des liquides (Paris, 1972)Google Scholar.

¹⁵¹ Lyons, Malcolm C., Kitāb Tadbīr al-amrāḍ al-ḥādda li-Buqrāṭ (Hippocrates: Regimen in Acute Diseases), edited and translated with introduction, notes and glossary, Arabic Technical and Scientific Texts, vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1966)Google Scholar.

¹⁵² Cf. Degen, “Zur arabischen Überlieferung”, p. 185; Lyons, Tadbīr al-amrāḍ, p. XII.

¹⁵³ Cf. Bergsträsser, Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen, p. 41 (Ar. text), p. 33 (German trans.), and the comments by Degen, “Zur arabischen Überlieferung”, p. 186.

¹⁵⁴ Cf. Ullmann, Die Medizin im Islam, p. 101f.

¹⁵⁵ Cf. above, note 19.

¹⁵⁶ Cf. Lyons, Tadbīr al-amrāḍ, p. XIII.

¹⁵⁷ Cf. Bergsträsser, Ḥunain ibn Isḥāq über die syrischen und arabischen Galen-Übersetzungen, p. 36 (Ar. text), p. 30 (German trans.).

¹⁵⁸ Cf. Degen, “Zur arabischen Überlieferung”, pp. 186–9.

¹⁵⁹ It goes without saying that the wording of the Hippocratic excerpts preserved in S must have been more or less identical with the lemmata of Ḥunayn's Syriac translation of Galen's commentary, even if we assume that Ḥunayn did not simply extract his appendix to Galen's Περὶ ἐθῶν from his already existing translation, but prepared S separately or at an earlier stage of his career.

¹⁶⁰ Cf. Denniston, John Dewar, The Greek Particles, Second Edition Revised by Dover, K. J. (Oxford, 1950; repr. London, 1996), pp. 116–19Google Scholar; γέ, attested in the manuscripts MV, is rejected by Joly.

¹⁶¹ Furthermore, L omits μέγα (rendered through taghyīran ʿaẓīman in Ḥ), but that may have been caused by the manuscript transmission.