Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:58:52.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why is the Sea Salty? The Discussion of Salinity in Hebrew texts of the Thirteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2008

Resianne Fontaine
Resianne Fontaine
Affiliation:
Vrije Universiteit, Faculteit der Letteren 11 A 38, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The thirteenth-century Hebrew texts that discuss salinity all ultimately go back to Aristotle's treatment of the subject in the Meteorology. However, in these Hebrew texts the question of what exactly makes the sea salty is answered in diverging ways. The oldest of them, the Otot ha-Shamayim (1210), being the Hebrew translation of the Arabic paraphrase of the Meteorology, proposes various causes of the sea's salinity, to wit, the dry exhalation, the action of heat, and the admixture of an earthy substance. This is due partly to Aristotle's own ambiguity, and partly to the fact that his Greek commentators interpreted his words in different ways. Two later encyclopedias, the Midrash ha-Hokhma (c. 1245) and the De'ot ha-Philosofim (c. 1275?) base their expositions of salinity on Ibn Rushd, whose two commentaries on the Meteorology contain various theories. The first encyclopedia opts for the action of heat as the major cause in producing saltiness, whereas the second attempts to explain in which way the various causes are interrelated by advisedly combining Ibn Rushd's accounts.

Les textes hébraïques du XIIIe siécle, á caractére scientifico-philosophique, qui discutent le phénomène de la salure de la mer, prennent tous leur inspiration ultime dans le traitement de cette question par Aristote dans ses Météorologiques. Toutefois, la question de savoir exactement ce qui fait que la mer est salée reçoit des réponses divergentes. Le plus ancien de ces textes, le Otot ha-Shamayim (1210), qui est la traduction hébra¨que de la para phrase arabe des Météorologiques d'Aristote, semble proposer de multiples causes de la salure de la mer, à savoir l'exhalaison sèche, l'action de la chaleur et l'addition d'une substance terreuse. Ceci est dû d'une part à l'ambiguïté d'Aristote lui-même, et d'autre part au fait que les commentateurs grecs ont interprété de différentes manières la discussion d'Aristote. Deux encyclopédies plus tardives, le Midrash ha-Hokhma (c. 1245) et le De'ot ha- Pilosofim (c. 1275?), appuient leur exposé touchant la salure de la mer sur les deux commentaires des Météorologiques par Ibn Rushd, lesquels reflètent une connaissance de théories diverses. La première de ces encyclopédies opte pour l'action de la chaleur comme cause majeure de la salure de la mer. La seconde tente d'expliquer, en combinant de propos délibéré les exposés d'Ibn Rushd, de quelle manière les diverses causes sont reliées les unes aux autres.

Type
Research Article
Information
Arabic Sciences and Philosophy , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , September 1995 , pp. 195 - 218
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The letters of Ibn al-'Amīd to ‘Adud al-Dawla were edited recently by Daiber, H., Naturwissenschaft bei den Arabern im 10. Jahrhundert n. Chr. (Leiden, 1993).Google Scholar

2 Haskins, C., Studies in the History of Medieval Science (New York, 1960), p. 266.Google Scholar

3 Meteorology II. 1–3.Google Scholar

4 Meteor. 355a32–b20.Google Scholar

5 Meteor. 357a6–357b21.Google Scholar According to Gilbert, O., Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums (Leipzig, 1907; repr. Hildesheim, 1967), p. 403 n. 1, Aristotle's refutation of the view that saltiness is due to an admixture of earth is directed against Xenophanes, but according to Lee also against Anaxagoras.Google Scholar

6 Meteor. 357b24–358a27.Google Scholar

7 Meteor. 358b34–359b21. For Aristotle's use of ‘Signs’ and ‘proofs’ in his account of salinityGoogle Scholar, cf. Freeland, Cynthia A., ‘Scientific explanation and empirical data in Aristotle's Meteorology’, Appendix I in: Annas, J. (ed.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, vol. 8 (1990): 67–102, pp. 101–2.Google Scholar

8 Meteor. 358b34–359a5.Google Scholar

9 Ed. Hayduck, M., Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG), III/2 (Berlin, 1891), pp. 84.3–8; 84.25–28; 85.30–31.Google Scholar

10 Ed. Stüve, G., CAG, XII/2 (Berlin, 1900), pp. 156.26 ff.Google Scholar This passage is quoted and translated into English in Fortenbaugh, W.W. a.o. (eds.), Theophrastus of Eresus. Sources for his life, writings, thought and influence (Leiden, 1992), Pt. I, pp. 394–5.Google Scholar For a description of Theophrastus' position, see Steinmetz, P., Die Physik des Theophrast (Bad Homburg, 1964), pp. 296–8Google Scholar, and cf. also Strohm, H., ‘Zur Meteorologie des Theophrast’, Philologus, 92 (1937): 403–28, pp. 406–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 Steinmetz, Die Physik des Theophrast, p. 298.Google Scholar

12 Ed. Stüve, , CAG, XII/2, pp. 157.6–7 and 158. 4–6.Google Scholar

13 This version was made by Hunayn, Ishāq b. after a translation by his father (Cf. Sezgin, F., Geschichte des Arabischen Schrifttums, vol. VII [Leiden, 1979] pp. 229–30).Google Scholar By F. W. Zimmerman and H. B. Brown it is characterized as “eine relativ knappe Paraphrase des aristotelischen Stoffes”. It is questioned by them whether the paraphrase really goes back to Olumpiodorus; it seems that it has incorporated also material from the Alexandrinian tradition after the time of Olympiodorus, cf. ‘Neue Arabische Übersetzungstexte aus dem Bereich der spätantiken griechischen Philosophie’, Der Islam, 50 (1973): 313–24, pp. 321–2.Google Scholar

14 Ed. Badawi, A., Shurūh alā Aristmafqūda fi al-yunāniyya wa rasā'il ukhrā (Beirut, 1972), p. 111.9.Google Scholar

15 Ed. Badawi, Shurūh l'alā Aristū mafqūda, p. 114.22.Google Scholar

16 Ed. Badawi, Shurūh ‘alū mafqūda, p. 114.2–11.Google Scholar

17 It is not clear whether this interpretation is that of the author of this work or whether he has taken it from earlier works. In this connection it is interesting to note that Hunayn ibn Ishāq is reported to have composed a treatise on the salinity of sea water, cf. Frakhry, M., A History of Islamic Philosophy (New York, 1983), p. 15. I owe this reference to Kruk, R. (Leiden).Google Scholar

18 Ed. Stüve, CAG, XII/2, pp. 156.26–157.1.Google Scholar Metrodorus had held the same view, Gilbert, Die meterologischen Theorien, p. 408 n.1.Google Scholar

19 Ed. Badawi, Shurūh 'alā mafqūda, p. 111.10–16.Google Scholar

20 Lulofs, H. J., ‘Aristoteles. Over de Zee’, in Geographische en geologische mededeelingen. Physiographisch-geologische reeks, no (Utrecht, 1930), p. 26.Google Scholar

21 Strohm, H., Meteorologie. Über die Welt, Aristoteles, Werke in deutscher Übersetzung, Bd. 12 (Darmstadt, 1970), p. 171.Google Scholar

22 Gilbert, Die meteorologischen Theorien, p. 421.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., p. 424.

24 Lulofs, ‘Aristoteles. Over de Zee’, p. 30.Google Scholar

25 For this translation and its title, see Steinschneider, M., Die herbtāischen Überset- zungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1893), pp. 132–6.Google Scholar

26 The text has been edited by Badawi, A., Aristūtālīs fi al-samā’, wa al-āthār al-‘ulwiyya (Cairo, 1961) and later by Petraitis, C., The Arabic Version of Aristotle's Meteorology. A critical edition with an introduction and Greek-Arabic glossaries (Beyrouth, 1967).Google Scholar DrSchoonheim, P. (Middlenurg) is preparing a new critical edition of this translation.Google Scholar The first book, together with the Latin translation by Gerard of Cremona, has been published by him as a Ph. D: Aristoteles' Meteorologie in arabisher und lateinischer Uebersetzung. Textkritische Ausgabe des ersten Buches (Leiden, 1978).Google Scholar

27 Otot ha-Shamayim, London, British Library, MS Add. 14.763, fol. 184r.Google Scholar This is the oldest extant manuscript of Ibn Tibbon's translation (it was copied in 1273), Cf. Steinschneider, DiehebräischenÜberserzungen, p. 132.Google Scholar

28 British Library, MS Add. 14.763, fols 187v–188r.Google Scholar

29 Ibid., fol. 188v.

30 Ibid., fol. 189r.

31 Ibid., fol. 188r.

32 This sentence is absent from the two Arabic versions avaliable to us, but it has been preserved in the Latin translation of the Arabic, cf. the Latin translation to I. 543–4 in the forthcoming edition of P. Schoonheim (n.26).Google Scholar

33 Ed. Hayduck, CAG, III/2, pp. 78.9–79.12.Google Scholar

34 For further detail on why Ibn Tibbon was interesrted in an explanation of the Meteorology and for the relation between the Otot ha-Shamayim and his own philosophical writings, cf. Ravitzky, A., ‘Aristotle's Meteorologica and the Maimonidean exegesis of creation’, (Hebr.), Jerusalem Studies of Jewish Thought, 9 (1990): 225–50.Google Scholar

35 It appears from other sections of his translation that Ibn Tibbon has resorted to the compendium.Google Scholar

36 al-'ulwiyya, Jawāmi' al-Āthār, ed. Dā'irat al-ma'ārif al-'uthmāniyya (Hyderabad, 1947), p. 30.9–10.Google Scholar

37 Ibid., p. 31.4–14.

38 Cf.n.18 and Strohm, ‘Zur Meteorolofie des Theopharast’.Google Scholar

39 Jawāmi' al-Āthār al-'ulwiyya, p. 30.11–18.Google Scholar

40 ‘Concoction’, is a rendering of the Arabic term nadj. Nadj (ripeness, maturity) refers to something that is well-cooked. I have used ‘concoction’ an alternative would be ‘digestion’. By the author of the ha-Hokhma, Midrash (cf.text to n.48) it is translated with bishshull. Ibn Rushd, when describing the operations of natural heat (Jawāmi' al-Āthār al-'ulwiyya p. 83.12) identifies several stages, the first of which is tabkh, followed by nadi and finally hadm. This last stage is the completion of the action.Google Scholar

41 Talkhīs (Oxford, Bodleian, Hatton MS Or. 34. This manuscripts is written in Hebrew characters), fols. 85r–86r.Google Scholar Cf. Kalonymus Hebrew translation of this Commentary, ed. Levey, I. M., The middle commentary of Averroes on Aristotle's Meterologica. (Ph. D.dissertation, Harvard University, 1947), pp. 65.1–70.6.Google Scholar

42 Meteor. 358a16–21.Google Scholar

43 Hippocrates, De aere aquis locis VIII.5.Google Scholar

44 Cf. for example Gätje, H., Das Kapitel über das begehren aus dem Mittleren Kommentar des Averroes zur Schrift über Seele, Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus, Verhandelingen der Koninlkijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde. N. R. 129 (Amesterdam, 1985), pp. 26–7Google Scholar, and Hernandez, M. Cruz, ‘El sentido de las tres lecture de Aristoteles por Averroes’, in Atti dell' Academia Nazionale dei Lincei. ser. viii. 28 (Rome, 1973), pp. 567–85. It should be noted, however, that the complicated question of the relationship between Ibn Rushd's commentaries requires further study.Google Scholar

45 Talkhīs, Bodleian, MS Or. 34, fol. 88r19; Kal. p. 82.3.Google Scholar

46 Ed. Heidenheim, W. (Roedelheim, 1801), 5v–6r. A part of this account has found its way into the Sefer ha-Sha ‘ashu’im (The Book of Delight) by Joseph ibn Zabara, cf. the edition of I. Davidson (New York, 1914), pp.110–11. In his introduction (pp. 58–9) Davidson points out that this passage is a later interpolation, for the Sefer ha-Sha ‘ashu ‘im Presumably dates from the second half of the twelfth century.Google Scholar

47 For the author and his work, cf. Sirat, C., A History of Jewish Philosophy in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 250–5Google Scholar and id., ‘Ha-Cohen, Juda B. Salomon. Philosophe, astronome et peut-être kabbaliste de la première moitié du XIIIe siècle’, Italia, 2 (1977): 39–61.Google Scholar

48 ha-Hokhma, Midrash, Leiden, MS Or. 4758, fol. 38r.Google Scholar

49 Talkhīs, Bodleian, MS Or. 34, fol. 85v1–2, tr. Kalonymus, p. 66.7–8.Google Scholar The explanation that the heat of the sun is the cause of the sea water's salty taste also occurs in Berachia ha-Naqdan's Dodi we-Nechdi, which is in facr an adaptation of Aderland of Bath's Quaestiones Naturales, cf. the edition of Gollancz, H. (London, 1920), question no. 5 (p. 6 of the Hebrew text; p.10 of the English transl.). In this text, however, no references is made to the dry exhalation. In another passage (Hebr. p. 8 and tr. p. 13) Aristotle is reported to have advised Alexander the Great that in order to obtain fresh water he should filter sea water through sand that had been brought from land that was not salty.Google Scholar

50 For Falaqera's purpose in writing the DP, see Jospe, R., Torah and Sophia (Cincinnati, 1987) pp. 50–1.Google Scholar

51 De'ot ha-Pilosofim, Leiden, MS Or. 4758, fol. 169r col.1 1.1-col. 21. 11. I have translated the relevant sections in the Midrash ha-Hokhma and De'ot ha-Pilosofim literally, even if this results in awkward English.Google Scholar

52 It corresponds to Jawāmi' al-Āthā al-'ulwiyya, pp. 28.18–31.6.Google Scholar

53 Leiden, MS Or. 4758. fol. 169r col. 21. 11–25.Google Scholar

54 Cf. Jospe, Torah and Sophia, p. 51.Google Scholar

55 Leiden, MS Or. 4758, fols. 169r col. 21.25–269v col. 1 1.8. Cf. also next note.Google Scholar

56 Ed. Lulofs, H. J. Drossaart and Poortman, E. L. J.. Nicolaus Damascenus. De Plantis. Five translations Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus, Verhandelingen der Koninklijike Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd. Letterkunde. N. R.139 (Amsterdam, 1989). The translation given above follows the translation made by Drossaart Lulofs in this edition (pp. 184–4). Falaqera's account is a little shorter. According to the editoe, Ibn Falaqera had no access to the Tafsīr itself, but to an abridged version of it, referred to by him as the “Book of Aristotle on plants which the Alexandrinians have abridged”. Ibn Falaqera translated this work into Hebrew, cf. pp. 349–50.Google Scholar