Algazel Latinus

ALGAZEL LATINUS: THE AUDIENCE OF THE "SUMMA THEORICAE PHILOSOPHIAE",
1150–1600
Author(s): ANTHONY H. MINNEMA
Source: Traditio , 2014, Vol. 69 (2014), pp. 153-215
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24712431
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Traditio
This content downloaded from

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ALGAZEL LATINUS: THE AUDIENCE OF THE SUMMA
THEORICAE PHILOSOPHIAE, 1150-1600
By ANTHONY H. MINNEMA
The Latin translation of al-Ghazali's Maqäsid al-faläsifa was one of

works through which scholastic authors became familiar with the Arab
dition of Aristotelian philosophy after its translation in the middle
twelfth century. However, while historians haue examined in great det
impact of Avicenna and Averroes on the Latin intellectual tradition, th
of this translation of al-Ghazali, known commonly as the Summa
cae philosophiae, remains unclear. This study enumerates and descri
Latin audience of al-Ghazali by building on Manuel Alonso's researc
a new bibliography of the known readers of the Summa theoricae
phiae. It also treats Latin scholars' perception of the figure of al-Ghazal
Algazel in Latin, since their understanding in no way resembles the Ash
jurist, Sufi mystic, and circumspect philosopher known in the Muslim w
Latin scholars most commonly viewed him only as an uncritical foll
Avicenna and Aristotle, but they also described him in other ways duri
Middle Ages. In addition to tracing the rise, decline, and recovery of A
and the Summa theoricae philosophiae in Latin Christendom over a peri
four centuries, this study examines the development of Algazel's identi
shifts from a useful Arab to a dangerous heretic in the minds of Latin s
In 1963, Manuel Alonso published a Spanish translation of al-G

Maqäsid al-falâsifa.' Though Alonso was translating an Arabic work, he
intended his edition to have a wider audience than Arabists, since the
introduction contains a wealth of information about the work's trans
lation into Latin and circulation in Europe.2 The clearest indicat

this intention is a list of forty-eight Latin scholars who mention
zel or quote from the translation of the Maqâsid al-falâsifa from
twelfth to the sixteenth century.3 He confessed that the list is far f
exhaustive and lamented that many authors from the fourteenth and
teenth centuries had not yet been edited or were in early printed ed
1 Manuel Alonso Alonso, MaqSfid al-faläsifa: o Intenciones de los filosofos

lona, 1963).
2 Ibid., xv-lii. Alonso catalogs the Arabic and Latin manuscripts that conta
text and discusses al-Ghazali's life as much as the methods of the Latin translator,
Dominicus Gundissalinus. He also refers to al-Ghazali by the Latin rendering of his
name, Algazel, rather than a transliteration of his name from Arabic.
3 Ibid., xxv-xliii.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
154 TRADITIO
that were difficult to find and hard to search.4 The list indeed consists
mainly of thirteenth-century scholars, containing only five authors with

a terminus post quern of 1330. The limited source material available to
Alonso in 1963 inadvertently gives the impression that Algazel's audienc
decreased sharply in the early fourteenth century. Later studies endors
this timeline for the audience's decline, since it corresponds neatly wit
the generation of scholars who were educated after the backlash agains
Aristotelian philosophy that culminated in the condemnations of the lat
thirteenth century.5 However, Alonso gave no indication that the audi
ence declined in the fourteenth century and left the question open unti
more authors became available in modern editions.
Over the last half century, editions of medieval philosophical wo

have become more numerous and easier to search, but no one has
mented Alonso's list. As a result, our knowledge of Algazel's Latin
ership barely extends beyond the thirteenth century. This study re
the question of Algazel's Latin readership and takes up Alonso's task
providing resources for further study. As Alonso guessed, the Maq
al-falâsifa continued to enjoy a wide audience into the fourteenth
tury and beyond. As I searched for scholars who mention Algazel
quote from the Latin translation of the Maqâsid al-falâsifa, I expa
Alonso's list from forty-eight to one hundred and forty-seven known
anonymous authors. In doing so, however, I discovered that scholar
perception of Algazel and their engagement with the text changed s
icantly. The current study describes the Latin audience of the Maq
al-falâsifa in light of expansions to Alonso's list and examines how
4 "Aun entre los autores cuya actividad se desarrolla entre 1250 y los primer
aiios de siglo XIV, existen muchos que estân sin editar. Algunas cosas se han ed
al menos parcialmente, en Colecciones o en Revistas que no es fâcil tener a man
Ciertas obras impresas en el siglo XV y en el XVI tampoco son tan accesible
cualquiera pueda utilizarlas. Quedarân aqui omitidas a pesar de haberlas busc
El lector puede con derecho inferir que la influencia explicita de Algazel pudo h
sido mucho mayor que lo que nos dicen los siguentes autores." (Ibid., xxvi.)
5 "In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with the coming of Scholasticism
maturity and the more direct contact with Aristotle made directly from the G
the use of Algazel declines. The number of manuscripts falls off, and the cita
become fewer. Perhaps Giles of Rome's Tractatus de erroribus philosophorum pl
role here. His list of Algazel's sixteen errors came into the Directorium Inquisito
of Nicholas Eymerich." (Charles Lohr, "Logica Algazelis: Introduction and Criti
Text," Traditio 21 [1965): 223-90, at 231.) Lohr is familiar with Alonso's list and
offers a few additions to it, but he does not mention Alonso's concerns about the
text's later use. Jules Janssens draws directly from Lohr on the subject when dis
cussing the reception of the work. (Jules Janssens, "Al-Gazâlî's Maqâsid al-faläsifa,
Latin Translation of," in Encyclopedia of Medieval Philosophy, ed. H. Lagerlund [Dor
drecht, 2010], 387-90, at 389.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 155
Latin perception of Algazel's identity changed over time. The appen

dix provides a bibliography that builds on Alonso's work and illustrates
Algazel's audience from the twelfth to the sixteenth century.
Al-Ghazali and the Maqàçid al-falàsifa
The Muslim theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) is an essen

tial figure in the development of the Arabic intellectual tradition, but
his impact on Latin scholars is harder to assess because of their limited
access to and misinterpretation of his philosophy. The reason for his last
ing appeal in this tradition lies in his ability to argue from a variety of
intellectual systems, forging a middle way among the competing perspec
tives of Sufi spirituality, Ash'arite theology, and the Avicennian tradi
tion of philosophy. Yet several factors make it difficult to gain a compre
hensive view of his career.6 The size of his corpus and the variety of sub
jects that he treated confounds any systematic charting of his thought.
His spiritual autobiography has also been successful at obscuring his life
and has sparked debates about the development of his arguments. Fur
thermore, the wide range of responses to his arguments complicates the
scope of his contribution and obscures whether audiences formed their
opinions through the reading of his works or through his controversial
reputation. However, Latin scholars received none of this information
from their reading of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa.
The Maqâçid al-faläsifa is not the most popular or influential of al
Ghazali's works in the Arabic world. Al-Ghazali does not mention this
text in many of his works, perhaps because it is not an original

but rather an "interpretive translation" of Avicenna's Persian Däne
Nämeh.7 In the prologue to the Maqäsid al-faläsifa, al-Ghazali claims
the work is an objective introduction to the doctrines of philosop
and makes no attempt to point out the inconsistencies in their logic.8
6 Al-Ghazali negatively reexamined his philosophical approach to faith i

autobiography, Al-Munqidh min al-dalal. Despite the problems that the autobi
phy poses, historians traditionally follow the timeline laid out by al-Ghazali in
work and see a dramatic shift in his thought after his spiritual awakening. How
Frank Griffel sees little change in his arguments and argues that historians are
willing to accept al-Ghazali's revival as a turning point. The problems of the a
biography are compounded by the fact that al-Ghazali's works spread quickly
ing his lifetime and attracted followers and detractors throughout the Islamic w
(Frank Griffel, Al-Ghazali's Philosophical Theology [New York, 2009], 8-12, 61-7
7 Jules Janssens, "La Dänesh-Nämeh d'lbn Sina: Un text à revoir?" Bullet
philosophie médiévale 28 (1986): 163-77, at 163-64.
8 "You have desired from me a doubt-removing discourse, uncovering the inc
ence of the philosophers and the mutual contradictions in their views and how
hide their suppressions and deceits. But to help you in this way is not at all d

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
156 TRADITIO
informs the reader that he is preparing a critical review of

for a later volume, the Tahâfut al-falâsifa.9 With few e
scholars remained unaware of the magnitude of al-Ghaz
or his place within the wider Arabic philosophical tradition
formed their opinions of al-Ghazali solely through the Maq
which was his only work to be translated and circulated
the Middle Ages. The influential and controversial Tahâf
not widely available to Latin scholars until the late fifte
More importantly, the prologue to the Latin translation
al-falâsifa was lost shortly after the work was translate
prologue or the Tahâfut al-falâsifa to demonstrate al-G
as a critic of philosophy, Latin scholars assumed that a
with the doctrines in the Maqâsid al-falâsifa.
The Maqâsid al-falâsifa consists of three books on logic
and physics, in addition to the prologue." The order of t
able unless 1 first teach you their position and demonstrate their
to you. ... So I thought that I should preface an exposition of how
ent with a concise discourse containing a reproduction of their in
regarding the logical, physical, and theological sciences that they
distinguishing between the sound and the false in them. Thus, I in
intelligible the ultimate ends of their doctrine without anything
addition going beyond what they intend. I will explain by way of
of facts and reproduction together with what they hold to be pr
the book is the reproduction of the intentions of the philosopher
title." (Al-Ghazali, Maqâsid al-falâsifa: Mantiq wa-'l-ilahyât wa-tab
[Cairo, 1961), 31-32.) All translations are mine unless stated other
9 "When we have completed [the Maqâçid al-falâsifa] we will beg
and purposefully in another book that we shall call, if it is the wi
al-falâsifa." (Al-Ghazali, Maqâçid al-falâsifa, 32.) It is important to point out that
there is little continuity in the subject matter of the Maqâsid and the Tahâfut. The
arguments that al-Ghazali refutes in the Tahâfut are not extensively treated in the
Maqâçid and thus it is difficult to view these two works as volumes within the same
project.
10 Beatrice Zedier, Averroes' "Destructio Destructionum Philosophiae Algazelis" in the
Latin Version of Calo Calonymos (Milwaukee, 1961). A Latin translation of Averroes's
Tahâfut al-tahâfut was produced in 1328 by the Jewish scholar Calonymos ibn Cal
onymos of Aries, which contained the majority of al-Ghazali's Tahâfut al-falâsifa.
The translation was commissioned by Robert of Anjou, king of Naples, who was
familiar enough with Arab philosophy to quote Avicenna and Algazel in his works.
However, Robert does not quote from the translation, and the lack of any medieval
copy suggests that it failed to attract an audience until 1497, when Agostino Nifo
printed the work with his commentary at Venice. See nn. 66 and 69 below.
11 Al-Ghazali left out Avicenna's book on mathematics when he translated the
work from Persian. He explained in the prologue that there was little divergence of
opinion among philosophers on mathematical topics, so he left it out. (Al-Ghazali,
Maqâsid al-falâsifa, 31-32.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 157
a small degree of independence from the established tradition as well as

from the Dänesh-Nämeh, since it was customary to discuss physics before
metaphysics, progressing from natural to divine matters.12 Al-Ghazali
subdivides each of the books into five treatises. The Logic focuses on the
tools of the philosopher, explaining how words are used to signify and
describe qualities of being, and how they can be used to fashion state
ments. The most important of its treatises are the fourth and fifth, which
discuss the types of syllogisms and how to form and deploy them in a
range of arguments. The Logic is the simplest of the books since it treats
only dialectical matters and leaves descriptions of how the mind grasps
subjects to the other books.
The Metaphysics treats the Aristotelian conception of being, especially
the essence and actions of the First or Divine Being, a term that al
Ghazali uses interchangeably with God. This book includes an introduc
tion that explains the structure of philosophy, privileging theology as
the first science. The first treatise is an extended study of the subject
of metaphysics as being qua being and treats eight distinctions by which
being can be divided (i.e., essence and accident, universal and particular,
one and many, etc.). The second and third treatises treat the necessary
existence of the First Being and what can be known about his qualities
and characteristics. The fourth treatise explains the actions of the First
Being and how he operates in his creation through an intermediary First
Intelligence, thus maintaining a perfect, eternal state apart from the cor
ruptible world. The fifth treatise follows closely on the conclusions of
the fourth, since it describes the order of causation from the First Being
to ten intelligences whose realms of influence progress from the highest
heaven to the sublunary world.
The Physics deals with the philosophy of things that are subject to
change, motion, and rest. The first treatise begins the discussion of
changeable things with a discussion of motion and place. The second
and third treatises examine simple and complex bodies, respectively, and
observe the natures of the four elements and the results of their interac
tion with one another. The fourth treatise broadly treats the disposit
of souls, including those of plants, animals, and humans. The human sou
receives the most attention in this treatise, since al-Ghazali enters into a
discussion of psychology and explains how human beings discern physical
things with their exterior senses and how they perceive abstract matters
with their interior senses, memory and imagination. The fifth treatise
returns to the subject of its counterpart in the Metaphysics, intermedi
ary intelligences, but describes them in greater detail, elucidating the
12 Ibid., 133-34.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
actions of the tenth intelligence, the Agent Intellect, on the human soul.
Al-Ghazali outlines abilities that emanate from the Agent Intellect to the
human soul, such as the power to see visions or perform miracles. He
also discusses the soul's future happiness or punishment after death as
the continued connection or total disconnection from the Agent Intellect.
The Maqâsid al-falâsifa achieved modest popularity in the Arabic
world but became a very well-known work in Latin Christendom. Like
Avicenna before him, al-Ghazali intended the work to be a summary,
and thus the Maqâsid al-falâsifa is hardly as compelling as the polemical
Tahâfut al-falâsifa. However, there is much in this volume to recommend
it as a primer on the Aristotelian tradition. It continues many arguments
that Aristotle had left unfinished and on which Avicenna had elaborated,
such as the nature of the soul and the relationship between the First
Being and creation. Al-Ghazali's translation untangled Avicenna's dense
style and provided useful examples to illustrate abstract concepts. Even
without knowledge of the work's ultimate source in Avicenna, Arabic
scholars had a powerful reference tool in the Maqâsid al-falâsifa, and
Latin scholars benefited from the work's function as a useful compen
dium on the translations of speculative philosophy that were emerging
from Spain in the twelfth century.
From al-Ghazali to Algazel
The team of scholars that translated the Maqâsid al-falâsi

bic to Latin consisted of Dominicus Gundissalinus, archdeac
via, and a "magister Iohannes," his Arabic-reading associate
ducted their work at Toledo in the third quarter of the twelft
Their method of translation was quite literal and attempte
much of the Arabic syntax.14 The choice to translate this
13 The efforts of Gundissalinus and his colleagues represent a shift

tion movement toward philosophy, but Gundissalinus was unique am
since he authored his own treatises, borrowing from many of the A
rendered into Latin. (Alexander Fidora, "Dominicus Gundissalinus,
dia of Medieval Philosophy, 274-76.) As for Gundissalinus's associate,
translations by "Magister Iohannes" appears in twelfth-century Toled
ues to shroud him from our view. (Charles Burnett, "Magister Iohan
Towards the Identity of a Toledan Translator," in Arabic into Latin i
Ages: The Translators and Their Intellectual and Social Context [Burling
Article V.)
14 Alonso (Maqä$id al-falâsifa [n. 1 above], xx-xxiii) approves of Gun
translation and points out the specific faults of his style, but he attri
these errors to a lack of corresponding technical terms in Latin or a
Gundissalinus's Arabic-reading associate. Burnett describes a shift in th
twelfth-century translators. Early translations had been periphrastic

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 159
keeping with the development of the translation m

translators of the mid-twelfth century focused on t
Aristotelian philosophy of the "Arabs," which includ
authors whose works were available in Arabic.15 H
of Peripatetic scholars had discovered, Aristotle
tory without the help of introductory material,
ments are incomplete. For this reason, Arabic sc
preserve Aristotle's work but expanded and develo
a series of commentaries and original works, fashion
of Aristotelian philosophy for Latins to discover.16 T
ity of the Arabic treatment of Aristotelian philos
salinus and other scholars to translate many work
order to aid Latins in their comprehension of Ari
Gundissalinus translated works that were independen
the difficulty of matching Arabic and Latin syntax. Howe

changed by the middle of the twelfth century as Gundiss
scholars became more literal in their translations, perhaps
familiarity with the language and better collaboration betw
their Arabic-speaking associates. (Charles Burnett, "Transl
Latin in the Middle Ages: Theory, Practice, and Criticism,"
préter: essais de méthodologie philosophique, ed. S. Lofts a
la-Neuve, 1997], 55-78.)
15 The translations of the eleventh and the early twelth c
eclectic and included a wider range of genres, but the pre
focused on philosophical texts, particularly the Aristotelian
of the twelfth century. (Charles Burnett, "Arabic into Lati
Philosophy in Western Europe," in The Cambridge Compani
ed. P. Adamson and R. Taylor [Cambridge, 2005], 370-404.)
the proceeding sections on the Latin reception of the Maqâç
the tradition of philosophy as it was understood by Latin
Ages, who did not know that figures such as al-Ghazali or A
Persians and not Arabs. Hereafter I use "Arab" to denot
tion, which encompasses a variety of ethnicities and religio
Maghrebi and Andalusi Jews and Muslims.
16 "The main advantage of the Arabic Aristotle over the
part of a lively tradition of commentary and teaching up t
tors themselves" (Burnett, "Arabic into Latin," 374-75). Di
that the translators' interests mirrored those of the previou
scholars rather than the interests of Latins north of the
"What Was There in Arabic for the Latins to Receive? Remarks on the Modalities
of the Twelfth-Century Movement in Spain," in Wissen über Grenzen: Arabisches

sen und lateinisches Mittelalter, ed. A. Speer and L. Wegener [Berlin, 2006], 3-2
17 In addition to Gundissalinus's efforts, Gerard of Cremona focused his attent
on the Arabic corpus of Aristotle and several works of al-Farabi, Alexander of
rodisias, and Themistius. (Richard Lemay, "Gerard of Cremona," in Dictionary o
Scientific Biography, ed. C. Gillispie, vol. 12 [New York, 1981], 173-92.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
160 TRADITIO
corpus and represent the maturity of the Arabic philoso

including treatises by al-Farabi, parts of Avicenna's Kitâ
al-Ghazali's Maqâsid al-falâsifa.
Gundissalinus's translation of the Maqâsid al-falâsifa qu
Iberian Peninsula, but the explanatory prologue — whe
explains how the work should be read as an objective su
not reflect his views — survived in only one Latin man
BNF MS Lat. 16096. The prologue may have been lost in
uscript tradition, but differences in the terminology of th
other books suggest that the former was the work of a
or redactor.18 Without the prologue, scholars naturally
Ghazali, or Algazel as he was known in Latin, advocated
that appeared in his work, and few wrote anything to t
18 Historians have identified important differences between the

rest of the work, which suggest that a later scholar translated th
Gundissalinus, or that the prologue was not part of the original t
nique Salman remarked that the prologue displays a higher degree
Arabic original, which occasionally occludes the Latin sense. In ad
ences in terminology, the prologue introduces the work as De phi
tionibus and the author as "Abuhamedin Algazelin," which do not
manuscripts. Salman does not believe that these differences const
translation but rather a later redaction. (Dominique Salman, "Algazel et les La
tins," Archiues d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 10 [ 1935—36]: 103-27,
at 125.) Lohr ("Logica Algazelis" [n. 5 above], 229-30) discovered that this fidelity
to the Arabic original continues in the Logica found in BNF Lat. 16096. Although
he reiterates that these differences could indicate a thirteenth-century revision, he
argues that the prologue could also be a work of a second translator. Despite this
alluring hypothesis, Lohr leaves the question of another translator unresolved, since
he is treating only the Logica and not the entire work. There is the possibility that
Gundissalinus was working from an Arabic manuscript that did not contain the
prologue. Given that al-Ghazali was translating an existing work, it is likely that
he composed the prologue last or inserted it after the work had been allowed to
circulate. (Ghanem-Georges Hana, "Die Hochscholastik um eine Autorität ärmer,"
in Festschrift für Hermann Heimpel [Göttingen, 1972], 884-99, at 892-95.) The dif
ferences in terminology are stark, but it is difficult to reject the possibility that
Gundissalinus translated the prologue, especially since the STP in BNF Lat. 16096
appears to be a revision rather than a separate translation. I am inclined to side
with Salman that the prologue is part of a redacted version rather than suppose the
existence of an anonymous translator.
19 Three Latin scholars demonstrate knowledge of the Tahäfut al-faläsifa and
acknowledge al-Ghazali's complicated relationship to the Arabic philosophical tra
dition. Roger Bacon mentions the Maqâçid's prologue and the Tahäfut al-faläsifa
(De controversia philosophorum) in his Communium naturalium. (Roger Bacon, Com
munium naturalium, ed. R. Steele, Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi [Oxford,
1920], fasc. 3, 224.) He also described Avicenna and Algazel as mere reciters of oth
ers' doctrines and chastised scholars for ascribing ideas to the authors that they did

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 161
Many saw a strong similarity between the arguments of Algazel and Avi
cenna, leading them to call Algazel a sequax or abbreviator of Avicenna.20
Another result of the loss of the prologue was that the literal transla
tion of the title, De philosophorum intentionibus, never caught on, since
the phrase does not appear again after the prologue. Instead, scholars
commonly referred to the work as Summa theoricae philosophiae, which
accurately depicts the work's function in Latin Christendom as a com
pendium of speculative philosophy.
The transition from al-Ghazali to Algazel created a fundamentally new
figure that does not at all reflect the Arabic understanding of this Muslim
theologian. Gundissalinus's choice to translate a helpful primer on Arabic
Aristotelian philosophy inadvertently enabled Latin scholars to ascribe
philosophical teachings to Algazel that al-Ghazali condemned in other
works. The prologue's absence further obscured the identity of al-Ghazali
to the point that he appeared no different from Avicenna. Thus, Algazel
is not al-Ghazali for the duration of the Middle Ages, but a wholly other
philosopher who existed only on parchment. For this reason, I refer to
the Latin translation of the Maqâçid al-falâsifa as the Summa theoricae
philosophiae (STP) and its author as Algazel to reflect their Latin iden
tity and to distance them from the Arabic understanding.
The Historiography of the Latin Translation of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa
Al-Ghazali's dynamic course of study and large library encourage fre

quent reassessment of his career and influence. Studies of the Maqâçid
al-falâsifa are no exception, given the work's origin as a Persian-to-Ara
bic translation of Avicenna's Dânesh-Nâmeh and its later life as an Ara
bic-to-Latin translation in the STP. The Maqâsid. al-falâsifa languis

the scholarship of Arabists, since, as a summary of philosophy, it pa
comparison with more controversial works in al-Ghazali's corpus.
not endorse: "Et hoc omnino considerandum est pro libris qui Avicenne ascr
et Algazeli, quoniam eis non sunt ascribendi nisi tanquam recitatoribus non
ribus, sicut ipsemet volunt in prologis illorum librorum" (ibid., 249). Ramon
mentions the Tahäfut al-faläsifa ("De ruina philosophorum") and other work
Ghazali, though not the MaqOfid, in his Pugio fidei. (Ramon Marti, Pugio fide
sus mauros et judaeos [Leipzig, 1687], 226.) Mark of Toledo mentions that Al
was a Muslim in the preface to his translation of Ibn Tumart (see n. 113
However, Ramon Marti's and Mark of Toledo's knowledge of al-Ghazali and A
philosophers is far from typical in Latin Christendom given their knowledge
Arabic language, and Roger Bacon's knowledge of al-Ghazali remains unexpla
20 Scholars often referred to Algazel as Avicenna's abbreviator, which explai
relationship to Avicenna and that of the Summa theoricae philsophiae to Av
corpus. The title of Avicenna's sequax was also common, though it simply ex
the affiliation of the arguments of Avicenna and Algazel (see nn. 82 and 84

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
162 TRADITIO
covery that the Maqâsid al-falâsifa is a paraphrase o

further discouraged Arabists from approaching the tex
represent the original thought of al-Ghazali.21 For the
formed their opinions of the Maqâsid al-falâsifa thr
ment of the STP and largely ignored the Arabic un
work.22 Thus, the prologue's absence in Latin Christ
effect on the fate of this work in modern scholarsh
adopted the medieval understanding of the Maqâsid
that al-Ghazali was a devotee of Avicenna early in h
An alternative vision of the Maqâsid al-falâsifa an
to appear in the middle of the nineteenth century
attempted to correct the confusion in 1857 when he
version of the Maqâsid al-falâsifa and discovered th
explaining that al-Ghazali was only repeating the i
losophers.23 Yet his findings were ignored by all ex
medievalists continued to accommodate the Latin u
Ghazali, arguing that the Maqâsid al-falâsifa was re
early career as a philosopher before he became a res
In the 1920s, Maurice Bouyges and Leon Gauthier r
findings and emphasized that the Maqâsid al-falâsi
21 Scholars suspected that the Maqä$id al-faläsifa was

Dänesh-Nämeh but lacked the linguistic ability to confirm t
al-faläsifa, xlv-lii) demonstrates the corresponding sections of
and Dänesh-Nämeh in the introduction to his Spanish translat
son study leaves little doubt that the work is a translation o
Nämeh, but he conducted his research with a French translation (M. Achena and
H. Massé, eds., Le livre de science [Paris 1955; repr., Paris, 1986]) and could only
speculate as to al-Ghazali's method of translating Persian into Arabic. Janssens ("Le
Dänesh-Nämeh d'Ibn Sina" [n. 7 above], 163-77) provides clarity on this question
and found that al-Ghazali simplifies Avicenna's prose and occasionally provides sum
maries and examples. Even with the changes and additions, Janssens concludes that
much of the work preserves the argumentation of Avicenna and thus labels the work
an "interpretative translation."
22 Instead of any work by an Arabist on the subject, August Schmoelders uses the
1506 printed edition of the STP, which lacks the prologue, to demonstrate the simi
larity between the thought of al-Ghazali and Avicenna, which he believes is proof of
al-Ghazali's early career as a philosopher. (August Schmoelders, Essai sur les écoles
philosophiques chez les Arabes et notamment sur la doctrine d'Algazzel [Paris, 1842],
219-20.)
23 Salomon Münk, Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe (Paris, 1857), 369-73.
24 Pierre Duhem, Le système du monde: histoire des doctrines cosmologiques de Platon
à Copernic, 4 vols. (Paris, 1913-17), 4:501. Duhem's argument was echoed by schol
ars for another decade. (Louis Rougier, La Scolastique et le Thomisme [Paris, 1925],
316.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 163
Ghazali's views.25 Finally, Dominique Salman's 1936 article settled the

issue by publishing the Latin version of the prologue.26 Al-Ghazali's
erstwhile career as a devotee of Avicenna finally ended after more than
seven centuries and has given way to more nuanced examinations of al
Ghazali's use of Avicenna.27
The long process of discovery encouraged the creation of editions of

the Maqäsid al-faläsifa and the STP in the 1930s. There are several Ara
bic editions of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa, but attempts at an edition of
the STP to replace the sixteenth-century printed editions yielded mixed
results.28 In 1933, Joseph Mückle published an edition that he derived
chiefly from one manuscript.29 Although scholars expressed gratitude
for the long-awaited volume, it was received poorly on account of his
choice of manuscript and continuation of medieval conceptions about the
work.30 While the text that Mückle chose is good, it lacks the Logica and
25 Maurice Bouyges upheld Munk's argument in "Notes sur les philosophes arabes
connus des latins au Moyen Âge," Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale 7 (1921): 397-406.
Léon Gauthier also refuted Duhem in Scolastique musulmane et scolastique chrétienne
(Paris, 1928), 358-65.
26 Salman, "Algazel et les Latins," 125-27. The effect of Salman's article can be
seen in a series of articles by Duncan Macdonald, who wrote a positive review of
Muckle's edition of the STP in 1936. In 1937, however, he wrote a scathing addition
to his review, citing Muckle's errors and the necessity of Salman's article (see n. 31
below).
27 Jules Janssens, "Al-Ghazzali and His Use of Avicennian Texts," in Problems in
Arabic Philosophy, ed. M. Maroth (Piliscsaba, Hungary, 2003), 37-49.
28 The most useful edition is that of Sulaiman Dunya, which provides commen
tary and textual variations embedded in the text: Maqâçid al-faläsifa: Mantiq wa-'l
ilahyät wa-tabT'Tya (Cairo, 1961). An older edition was conducted by Muhyi al-Din
Sabri al-Kurdi (Cairo, 1936), which Bejou later revised in his edition (Damascus,
2000). The first print edition of the STP appeared in 1506 with the title Logica et
philosophia Algazelis Arabis, ed. Peter Liechtenstein (Venice, 1506; repr., Frankfurt,
1969) and was reprinted at Venice under the same title in 1536 (repr., Hildesheim,
2001). Both versions lack the prologue.
29 Al-Ghazali, Algazel's Metaphysics: A Mediaeval Translation, ed. J. T. Mückle
(Toronto, 1933). Mückle primarily used Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
MS Lat. 4481 and consulted the 1506 printed edition in Paris, BNF Reserve 809 and
five other manuscripts (Paris, BNF MSS Lat. 6443, 6552, 14700, 16096, 16605) for
variants.
30 "Cette ancienne [1506] édition étant depuis longtemps introuvable, le Rév. J.

T. Mückle eut l'heureuse idée de rééditer une partie. Une étude insuffisante de la
tradition manuscrite lui a malheureusement fait choisir le médiocre Vat. Lat. 4481
comme base de l'édition, les variantes du Paris N. L. 6552 étant seules reproduites en
appendice: double choix d'autant plus regrettable que les bons manuscrits parisiens
avaient, semble-t-il, été examinés. ... On regrettera surtout que l'éditeur ait intitu
'Metaphysics' un ouvrage qui contient à la fois la Métaphysique et la Physique, et que
les plus mauvais manuscrits, voire l'édition de Venise, n'avaient jamais appelée que

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
164 TRADITIO
the prologue. Scholars found the choice of a trunca

STP to be inexplicable since Mückle consulted five o
of which contain the Logica, as well as the one manu
the prologue.31 He also entitled the edition "Algazel'
though it contains the Metaphysica and Physica.32
monly referred to the entire text as the Metaphysica,
that it was unnecessary to follow the convention, espec
researched copies with more inclusive titles.33 Styli
served the medieval punctuation and mise-en-page w
broken up by semi-colons and paragraphs that exten
the work only slightly easier to read than the sixteent
Scholars have tried to fill in the gaps left by Mü
lished the prologue in 1936, but the Logica appeared
which Lohr edited critically in 1965 by consulting fift
Little has been done to improve upon Muckle's wor
Philosophia, terme qui dans son imprécision n'était pas ine

soit, M. Mückle a mis à la disposition des médiévistes un text
sable de la majeure partie du Maqâcid latin, et tous lui en ser
(Salman, "Algazel et les Latins" [n. 18 above], 123-24.)
31 Macdonald wrote a note less than a year after his review
Muckle's "ignorance" allowed him to neglect to use the prolo
in his edition. He adds a final exasperated shot: "Finally, an A
himself from adding here that a great part of the confusion
refusal of western Medievalists to pay any attention to the A
is very much as though a student of Cicero's philosophical wr
learn Greek and to consult Cicero's Greek teachers. In 1859 S
ter perfectly clearly with citations of Arabic, Latin and Heb
1928 the point was restated with still more Arabic authoriti
in the Revue d'histoire de la philosophie for that year, pp. 3
perfectly conclusive article by Fr. Salman, one of themselve
journals, make any impression on them? May it even lead som
some Arabic!" (Duncan Macdonald, "Note on 'The Meanings of
al-Ghazzali,"' Isis 27 [1937]: 9-10.)
32 He observes (Al-Ghazali, Algazel's Metaphysics [n. 32 abov
titles in some manuscripts but does not use them.
33 "We are deeply indebted to Professor Mückle for his most
first two books on Metaphysics and Physics — he does not g
there is no word of admonition in the preface that these do
own position. On the title-page they are called 'Algazel's Met
word 'translation' is almost the only hint given that they were
in Latin. Otherwise 'Algazel' might be a mediaeval European p
ald, "The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzali," 14.)
34 Charles Lohr, ed., "Logica Algazelis," Traditio 21 (196
239-88.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 165
Clair published a critical edition of the fourth treatise

Even Alonso, who expended considerable effort on the
and was a vehement critic of Muckle's edition, abandoned the Latin
and published a Spanish translation of the Maqä?id al-faläsifa.36 There
remains no complete edition of the STP, and scholars must consult three
publications or use one of the reprints of the sixteenth-century editions
to view the entire work.
The lack of an adequate edition complicates the study of the STP,

which already resides in limbo between disciplines as a Latin translation
of an Arabic work. Arabists have little use for the STP as a Latin trans
lation of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa and have even less interest in the figure
of Algazel since he is a figment of the Latin imagination. This senti
ment also affects medievalists, who seem to feel keenly that they are not
describing al-Ghazali but a case of mistaken identity. No study of the
STP is complete without a discussion of how distorted the Latin image
of al-Ghazali was — some of them verging on hyperbole. Scholars call
the fate of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa and al-Ghazali in Latin Christendom
"a singular irony of history" and "one of the most unfortunate misunder
standings in the history of philosophy."37 The result of this preoccupation
is that more attention is paid to how wrong Latins were about al-Ghazal
than to how Latins described Algazel or how they used the STP. While
an explanation of this misunderstanding is obligatory, this mistake did
not prevent the STP from having a large audience, nor did it prevent
the figure of Algazel from having a long career in the Latin philosophical
tradition, neither of which has been studied in detail.
35 Eva St. Clair, ed., "Algazel on the Soul: A Critical Edition," Traditio 60 (2005):
47-84, edition on 60-84. The corresponding text can be found in Al-Ghazali, Algazel's
Metaphysics, 162-82.
36 Alonso points out that Mückle created his edition with no thought as to how
the text in Vat. Lat. 4481 compared to the Arabic original. He demonstrated that
the text in BNF Lat. 6552, whose textual variations appear only in the appendix of
Muckle's edition, is more faithful to the Arabic than that of Vat. Lat. 4481. (Manuel
Alonso, "Los Maqâçid de Algazel: Algunas deficiencias de la edition canadiense," Al
Andalus 25 [I960]: 445-54.)
37 Salman ("Algazel et les Latins," 103) calls the separation of the work from
the Tahâfut and the medieval ignorance of its prologue "une singulière ironie de
l'histoire." Macdonald ("The Meanings of the Philosophers by al-Ghazzali," 9) sees
the loss of the prologue as "one of the most unhappy misunderstandings in the his
tory of philosophy." Lohr ("Logica Algazelis," 224) echoes this sentiment almost ver
batim, explaining that the loss of the prologue and Tahäfut in Latin meant that "in
the West, the [Maqâçid] fell victim to one of the most unfortunate misunderstand
ings in the history of philosophy."

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
166 TRADITIO
The Composition of Algazel's Audience
The STP found readers in Latin Christendom for more than three cen
turies before it was printed in 1506. Alonso's list demonstrates as much
but the distribution of the scholars that he found gives a distorted view
of Algazel's Latin audience.
Algazel's Audience by Century
Century
Century Authors (Alonso's list)
Twelfth 2(1)
Thirteenth 41 (24)
Early Fourteenth 38 (20)
Late Fourteenth 12(1)
Fifteenth 11 (1)
Sixteenth 43 (1)
Total 147 (48)
It is easy to conclude from Alonso's list that Algazel's audience reached

its height in the late thirteenth century and declined soon after in the
wake of condemnations of Aristotelian philosophy. The number of authors
decreases with each successive decade in the fourteenth century and all
but disappears by the end of the century.38 Furthermore, the later schol
ars in Alonso's list are hardly an endorsement of the STP. The lone late
fourteenth-century author is Nicholas of Autrecourt, who quoted Algazel
in his Exigit ordo, which he was forced to burn at Paris in 1347 and which
survives in only one copy.39 The new evidence brings several changes
to our understanding of Algazel's audience. The number of fourteenth
century scholars alone now exceeds those from the thirteenth century,
though several early fourteenth-century scholars began their careers in
the previous century and can be counted in either column. Most impor
tantly, the sharp and lasting fourteenth-century decline that occurs in
Alonso's list cannot be found here. The audience of Algazel outlives the
generation that sees the thirteenth-century condemnations of Aristote
lian philosophy. The narrative of Algazel's readership now sees a steady
38 Alonso's list of authors (Maqäsid al-faläsifa [n. 1 above], xxv-xliii) tails off
quickly in the fourteenth century. He lists eleven authors who died between 1301
and 1310, five between 1311 and 1320, three between 1321 and 1330, and only one
between 1330 and 1340.
39 Nicholas of Autrecourt, Exigit ordo executionis, ed. R. O'Donnell, Media

Studies 1 (1939): 179-280.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 167
increase during the thirteenth century that proceeds into the fourteenth.
A decline starts in the late fourteenth century and continues into the fif
teenth, only to see a renewal of interest in the sixteenth. While this new
list moves the period of decline a century later, the sixteenth-century
recovery raises questions about the composition of Algazel's readership
and how it changed over four centuries.
The Thirteenth-Century Audience
University-trained masters comprise the majority of the thirteenth

century authors who quoted Algazel, and almost all have a connection
to Paris, Oxford, or other universities as students or masters.40 There is
an even distribution among the secular clergy, Dominicans, and Fran
ciscans among these masters, which suggests that the STP caught the
early attention of mendicants as they grew in number within the student
body. Some of Dominic's earliest recruits were familiar with the STP and
quoted from it in their own works, including the first regent Domini
can master at Paris, Roland of Cremona.41 Albert the Great appreciated
the STP perhaps more than any other Latin scholar, and his quotations
greatly exceed those of other authors who frequently cited Algazel, such
as Denis the Carthusian, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Aquinas.42 Thus,
Algazel's early audience could count most of the academic elite among
their number. Although the STP never became part of the curriculum, it
appears to have been one of the most frequently read non-required texts
for thirteenth-century university scholars.
The STP arrived in the universities during a formative period, when
there was some uncertainty about how to make use of the translations
of philosophical works of foreign authors. Early readers of the transla
40 Only two of the scholars who cited Algazel before the fourteenth century,
Dominicus Gundissalinus and Ramon Marti, cannot be placed at any university with
certainty. Additionally, only three scholars from this group do not appear to have a
connection to Paris or Oxford but spent time at other universities: Moneta of Cre
mona (Bologna), Peter of Ireland (Naples), and Bernard of Trilia (Montpellier).
41 Roland of Cremona, Summa Magislri Rolandi Cremonensis O.P. Liber terlius, ed.
A. Cortesi (Bergamo, 1962), fol. 62r.
42 Alonso (Maqäfid al-faläsifa, xxix-xxxiii) found 146 citations of Algazel in the
works of Albert the Great. I was able to find more since recent editors of Albert's
works found many quotations from the STP that Albert did not credit to Algaze
In his De causa et processu universitatis a prima causa alone, there are many passag
in which he quotes or paraphrases passages from the STP with no mention of Alg
zel. Since earlier editors only located quotations in the STP when Albert mention
Algazel by name, the extent of Albert's use of the STP is not yet fully known. See
the appendix and Albert the Great, De causa et processu universitatis a prima cau
ed. W. Fauser, Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 17, pars 2 (Münster, 1993), passim

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
168 TRADITIO
tions seem to have been unsure whether their colleagu

the authority of Arabic philosophers, whose works had
circulate in Latin Christendom, and thus chose to copy
the STP without mentioning the work or author by name.4
the translator Gundissalinus did not believe his readers
Arabic authors such as Algazel or their authority and ch
Arabic sources anonymous in his own treatises.44 The anony
of the STP extended into the thirteenth century. The u
of De anima ei de polenliis eius, who composed the treat
and Phillip the Chancellor (d. 1236) quoted the STP but
tion of the work or its author.45 This practice ended by
the century, indicating that scholars needed time to ad
citable authority and become more familiar with its relatio
Aristotelian texts.
Algazel's early audience quoted the STP in a variety of texts that are
associated with the activities of thirteenth-century university scholars.
Algazel's name appears frequently in three genres of works: treatises on
the soul, commentaries on Aristotle, and philosophical summae. While
Algazel discusses the soul only in the last half of the Physica, quota
tions from the STP can be found in a host of psychological works from
the thirteenth century.46 Scholars also discussed Algazel and Aristotle
43 The twelfth-century translator Adelard of Bath omits the names of Arabs in

his works and explains that he was merely relating the positions of Arabs rather
than arguing for their validity: "He [Adelard's nephew] urged me to put forward
some new item of the studies of the Arabs. . . . For the present generation suffers
from this ingrained fault, that it thinks that nothing should be accepted which is
discovered by the 'moderns.' Hence it happens that, whenever I wish to publish my
own discovery, I attribute it to another person saying: 'Someone else said it, not I!'
Thus, lest I have no audience at all, some teacher came up with ail my opinions, not
I." (Adelard of Bath, Questions of Natural Science, trans. C. Burnett, Adelard of Bath:
Conversations with His Nephew [Cambridge, 1998], 83.)
44 Alexander Fidora points out that Gundissalinus derives much of the beginning
of De divisione philosophiae directly from the introduction to the STP. (Dominicus
Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae, trans. A. Fidora and D. Werner [Freiburg,
2007], 62-66, 70-73, 76.)
45 Anonymous, De anima et de potentiis eius, ed. R-A. Gauthier, "Le Traité De anima
et de potentiis eius d'un maître ès arts (vers 1225)," Revue des sciences philosophiques
et théologiques 66 (1982): 27-55, at 53; and Phillip the Chancellor, Questiones de
anima, ed. L. Keeler, Phitippi Cancellarii Summa de bono (Münster, 1937), 65, 77, 91.
46 John Blund, Tractatus de anima, ed. D. Callus and R. Hunt (London, 1970),
2-3, 5, 13, 27, 28, 58, 75, 91, 94, 97; William of Auvergne, De anima, ed. B. Le
Feron, Guilielmi Alverni opera omnia (Paris, 1674), 112b; Peter of Spain, Scientia
libri De anima, ed. M. Alonso (Madrid, 1941), 476; Albert the Great, De anima, ed.
C. Stroick, Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 7, pars 1 (1968), 195; Thomas Aquinas, De
potentiis animae, ed. R. Busa, S. Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia [TAOO], vol. 7 (Stutt

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 169
together, since quotations from the STP appear in th

mentaries on works of the Philosopher.47 Since Latin
the STP to be a summary of the Peripatetic tradition tha
the arguments in translations of Avicenna's works, th
nized its value as a resource for their own summae on
ences to Algazel appear in large compendiums such as A
Metaphysica, Vincent of Beauvais's Speculum naturale,
of England's De proprietatibus rerum,48 These discussion
divine matters, and references to Algazel and quotatio
turn up in theological summae and biblical commenta
from the STP appear with less frequency in other tex
the early scholastic project, including quodlibeta and
the Sentences. However, Algazel's presence in these tex
fourteenth century as scholars became more adept wi
and Aristotelian philosophy in general.
gart-Bad Cannstatt, 1980), 638; John Pecham, Quaestiones de

mann (Münster, 1918), 75, 77; Bernard of Trilia, Quaestiones de
separalae a corpore, ed. S. Martin (Toronto, 1965), 113, 131, 337
thew of Aquasparta, Quaestiones disputatae de anima, vol. 6,
Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 24 (1957
47 Anonymous, Lectura in librum de anima, ed. R-A. Gauthier
49, 57, 351; Peter of Ireland, In Aristotelis librum De interpret
and C. Baeumker (Leuven, 1996), 89, 180; Richard Rufus of Cor
Aristotelis, ed. R. Wood, Richard Rufus of Cornwall: In Physicam
2003), 89, 148, 149, 170, 172; Peter of Spain, Commentum in lib
M. Alonso (Madrid, 1944), 63, 67, 68, 79, 118, 137, 173, 195, 292,
459, 484, 544; Siger of Brabant, Questiones super physicam, ed. F
(Leuven, 1931), 188, 190; and Adam of Buckfield, Sententia super
sicae, ed. A. Mauer, Nine Mediaeval Thinkers: A Collection of Hit
(Toronto, 1955), 101, 103. See also Albert the Great's many cita
his Aristotelian commentaries in the appendix.
48 Albert the Great, Metaphysica, ed. B. Geyer, Alberti Magni o
pars 1 (1960), 138, 214, 217; vol. 16, pars 2 (1960), 495, 526; V
Speculum naturale (Venice, 1591), fols. 41 v', 287r"-va, 290V, 309
312vb, 313r", 314rb, 332vb; and Bartholomew of England, De p
(Nuremberg, 1519), Lib. VIII, c. xxxiii, xl; Lib. XIX, c. x.
49 Alexander of Hales, Summa theologica, ed. B. Klumper
120, 508, 509-10, 511, 512, 513, 525, 527, 529, 530; Robert Gros
in epistulam sancti Pauli ad Galatas, ed. R. Dales, CCM 130 (T
Bonaventure, Collationes in Hexaemeron, ed. F. Delorme, S. Bonaventura Collaliones
in Hexaemeron et Bonaventuriana selecta quaedam (Rome, 1934), 75, 222; idem,
"Quaestiones de Theologia," ed. G. H. Tavard, Recherches de théologie ancienne et
médiévale 17 (1950): 218; and Henry of Ghent, Commentarium in Hexaemeron, ed.
B. Smalley, "A Commentary on the Hexaemeron by Henry of Ghent," Recherches de
théologie ancienne et médiévale 20 (1953): 83.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
170 TRADITIO
Fourleenth-Cenlury Continuity and Diversity
The number of authors who cite the STP increased in the fourteenth
century as its university audience grew, but references to Algazel

began to emerge in the works of scholars outside the university and
vernacular texts. As in the previous century, the audience of the S
continued to include prominent philosophers. This audience knew n
intellectual boundaries and consisted of Averroists (John of Jandu
inquisitors (Nicholas Eymerich), Spiritual Franciscans (Peter John Oli
and adherents and critics of Ockham (Adam Wodeham, Walter Chatt
as well as advocates of papal supremacy (James of Thérines) or roy
power (John of Paris). Though Algazel remained outside the curric
lum, university-trained scholars had to have some knowledge of the
in order to understand the references that consistently appeared in
works of their colleagues. In this way, to be educated in the fourtee
century meant that one had to be familiar with Algazel.
References to Algazel also appeared in the works of notable fourtee
century scholars who did not attend a university. Dante Alighieri m
tions Algazel twice in II Convivio, on both occasions in relation to P
Aristotle, and Avicenna.50 Ramon Llull read the Maqäsid al-faläsifa
Arabic early in his career and translated his own version of the ch
ter on logic into Latin as the Compendium logicae Algazelis.5i Rober
Anjou took a great interest in Arab philosophy and quoted both Av
cenna and Algazel in his treatise on the beatific vision dedicated to P
John XXII, in which he argued that Algazel's argument was clearer
(manifestius) on the matter than that of Avicenna.52 Thus, the STP
read by scholars who were outside academe but were nonetheless fam
with new intellectual authorities and were often capable of discussing th
finer points of Algazel's doctrines.
50 Dante Alighieri, II Conviuio, ed. C. Vasali, Opere minori, vol. 1, Pars 2 (Mila
Naples, 1988), 216, 753. It is likely that Dante learned of Algazel from his reading
Albert the Great's De somno et vigilia. (Dante Alighieri, Das Gastmahl: Viertes B
trans. T. Ricklin [Hamburg, 2004], 262-63 n. 242.)
51 Ramon Llull, Compendium logicae Algazelis, ed. C. Lohr, "Raimundus Lu
'Compendium logicae Algazelis': Quellen, Lehre und Stellung in der Geschichte d
Logik" (PhD diss., University of Freiburg, 1967).
52 "Ratio autem huius purgationis post mortem est quam dicit Avicenna, l
nono. . . . Istam autem rationem pene, eterne et non eterne, exprimit manifesti
Algazel in sua Metaphysica, tractatu quinto, dicens quod cum anima est separata
felicitate ei débita secundum suam naturam tunc est ipsa in cruciate." (Robert o
Anjou, De visione beata, ed. Marc Dykmans, La vision bienheureuse: traité envoy
pape Jean XXII [Rome, 1970), 62.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 171
In addition to extending beyond the university, Algazel's audience

became more diverse in the fourteenth century as the STP appeared in
vernacular languages. There is little evidence to suggest that Algazel
had Latin readers in medieval Spain, but fourteenth-century vernacu
lar translations of the STP indicate that Algazel had a following on the
Iberian Peninsula. Ramon Llull not only translated his own Latin ver
sion of the Logica, but he also composed a versified Catalan translation,
Logica del Gatzell, in rhyming couplets.53 An anonymous scholar appears
to have translated the STP into Castilian in the late fourteenth century,
and Manuel Alonso found a Castilian scholar's notebook that contains
extensive notes drawn from the work.54 Jews comprised al-Gha

largest non-Latin audience in fourteenth-century Europe. Jewish
ars from northern Spain and southern France translated the Ma
al-faläsifa three times from Arabic into Hebrew during the fourt
century.55 However, there was little or no interaction between Latin
Jewish readers, since the latter, having access to more Arabic wor
al-Ghazali, understood well his position regarding philosophy but d
share this information.
Latin authors began to cite Algazel in a variety of different works as

their interests shifted between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
The number of philosophical treatises on the soul diminishes greatly with

increased contact with Aristotle's De anima and Averroes's commentar
ies, and with the growing interest in the physiology of the soul put
by medical writers.56 Likewise, large philosophical summae give
commentaries on philosophical authorities as the primary activity
versity scholars. The quotations of the STP shift along with these new
interests and practices. While the presence of Algazel in commentaries
on Aristotle was well established in the thirteenth century, passages from
the STP and citations of Algazel are common in fourteenth-century com
53 Ramon Llull, Logica del Galzell, ed. J. Rubio i Balaguer, Ramon Llull i el
Lullisme (Montserrat, 1985).
54 Moritz Steinschneider, Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und
die Juden als Dolmetscher: Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des Mittelalters, meist
nach handschriftlichen Quellen (Berlin, 1893), 299. Alonso supplies lengthy Castilian
excerpts from the STP found in Madrid, BN MS Lat. 10011 ("Influencia de Algazel
en el mundo latino," Al-Andalus 23 [1958]: 371-80, at 375-80).
55 Al-Ghazali's Hebrew audience far outnumbers his Latin readers since there are
seventy manuscripts that contain the Hebrew translation of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa.
(Steven Harvey, "Why Did Fourteenth-Century Jews Turn to Aigazeli's Account of
Natural Science?" Jewish Quarterly Review 91 [2001]: 359-76.)
56 Dag Hasse identifies similar reasons for the declining use of Avicenna's De
anima. (Dag Hasse, Avicenna's "De Anima" in the Latin West: The Formation of a
Peripatetic Philosophy of the Soul 1160-1300 [London, 2000], 75-79.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
172 TRADITIO
mentaries on the Sentences,57 Algazel also appears with gre

in quodlibeta and quaestiones disputaiae.58 Later in the four
scholars begin to write commentaries on the works of Aqui
and amending his arguments, and scholars often juxtapo
of Algazel with this new philosophical authority.59 Surpris
to find a reference to Algazel in commentaries on Albert's
the fact that Albert was one of the most dedicated readers of the STP.
Instead, scholars chose to compare the two authors in other texts.60
57 Algazel's presence in commentaries on the Sentences can be seen in the

thirteenth century (see Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great in the appendix)
become more prominent in the fourteenth century. See entries for John Duns
tus, Peter Aureoli, William Crathorn, Walter Chatton, Adam Wodeham, Gregor
Rimini, Peter of Aquila, and Marsilius of Inghen in the appendix. The practice
including Algazel in Sentences commentaries was continued into the fifteenth cen
by Jan Hus, John Gerson, and Denis the Carthusian.
58 The quodlibeta of Gerard of Abbeville, Thomas Aquinas, John Peckham, an
Henry of Ghent testify that Algazel appeared in disputations as early as the m
of the thirteenth century. As with the Sentences, the references to Algazel in q
libeta and quaestiones disputatae increase in the fourteenth century. See Godfrey
Fontaines, James of Viterbo, Giles of Rome, Henry of Harclay, James of T
nes, Vital du Four, William of Alnwick, Henry of Lübeck, and Peter Thomas in
appendix. However, Algazel disappears from quodlibets in the fifteenth century.
59 Algazel appears in the Correctorium series of texts entitled "Correctorium"
debate Thomas's arguments. William of Macclefield, Le Correctorium Corruptorii
endum," ed. P. Glorieux (Paris, 1956), 294; John of Paris, Le correctorium corrup
"Circa," ed. J. P. Müller (Rome, 1941), Metaphysica, 2, 12, 35, 47, 60, 64, 65, 68
74, 75, 98, 106, 158, 202; Physica, 71, 73, 160, 202, 239; William de la Mare, Le
rectorium Corruptorii "Quare," ed. P. Glorieux (Kain, 1927), 211, 218, 299; Ram
de Primadizzi de Bologne, Apologeticum veritatis contra corruptionium, ed. J. P.
ler (Vatican City, 1943), 163, 167, 168-69; and Thomas de Vio, In De ente et esse
divi Thomae Aquinatis Commentaria, ed. M. H. Laurent, Thomas de Vio Cardina
Caietanus (1469-1534): Scripta philosophica; Commentaria in praedicamenta Aristo
(Turin, 1934), 34, 40, 87, 157.
60 Scholars as early as the thirteenth century compare the arguments of Alb
and Algazel. Vincent of Beauvais or his continuators discuss the positions of Al
and Albert in the Speculum naturale on two occasions. (Vincent of Beauvais, Sp
lum naturale, fols. 309r\ 312vb.) This practice remains consistent into the fourt
and sixteenth centuries: Radulfus Brito, Quaestiones in Aristotelis Librum tertiu
anima, ed. W. Fauser, Der Kommentar des Radulphus Brito zu Buch III De an
(Münster, 1974), 281; Bartholomew of Bruges, De sensu agente, ed. A. Pattin, Po
l'histoire du sens agent: La controverse entre Barthélémy de Bruges et Jean de Ja
ses antécédents et son evolution; étude et textes inédits (Leuven, 1988), 72; Jam
Thérines, Quodlibet I et II, 272-73; John of Jandun, Quaestiones super très libros
totelis de anima (Venice, 1587), 327; Thomas de Vio, In De ente et essentia, 222,
and Agostino Nifo, De intellectu libri sex (Venice, 1503; ed. L. Spruit [Leiden, 201
148, 372.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 173
The use of the STP as a quotable authority changes

ests of its fourteenth-century readership. That the ST
in the public forum of the quodlibet indicates that schola
to understand these references and be able to respond
importantly, the increased presence of Algazel's argum
taries on the Sentences suggests that the STP was a w
discussed inside and outside of the university. Quotati
in commentaries on Aquinas illustrate how the place o
alongside its audience. Algazel continued to function
tradition of Aristotelian philosophy as it began to ge
authorities and arguments.
The Fifteenth-Century Decline
The decline of the STP's audience was not as swift as Alonso's list
implies, but the work was losing its popularity among scholars by
fifteenth century. The reasons for the decline are not immediately
ous. The few scholars who did cite the STP continued to be unive
trained and included notable figures, such as John Gerson and Jan
With the exception of Gerson, scholars with close connections to P
and Oxford are no longer well represented in the fifteenth-century
ence, but instead the STP finds readers in Padua, Cologne, and Pr
It appears that Algazel was read less and less by those at the institu
traditionally associated with scholastic thought and more by those on t
periphery of the scholastic world. It is more significant that few scho
associated with early humanism cite the STP in the fourteenth or
teenth centuries. The failure to catch the attention of this new audience
offers a better explanation than the condemnations for the fifteenth-c

tury decline of Algazel's audience.
The new list of Algazel's readers indicates that thirteenth-centu
resistance to and condemnations of Aristotelian philosophy could har
be responsible for a decline that occurred more than a century lat
There are also no comparable fourteenth-century condemnations t
could account for this decline. The one exception is Nicholas Eymer
late fourteenth-century manual for inquisitors, Directorium Inqui
rum. Although the work condemns Algazel's arguments, Eymerich
ied them verbatim from De erroribus philosophorum along with the err
of Aristotle, Averroes, Avicenna, al-Kindi, and Maimonides.61 Thus, the
61 See Nicholas Eymerich, Directorium Inquisitorum (Venice, 1595), 238-41, at

239-40 for Algazel's errors. There is also reason to believe that Eymerich's read
ers disagreed with his identification of the heresy in this case. The sixteenth-cen
tury commentator of the above edition of the Directorium, Francisco Pena, writes

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
174 TRADITIO
Diredorium Inquisitorum cannot be interpreted as renew

Aristotle and his Arabic continuators. On the contrary
ence in the Diredorium Inquisitorum demonstrates an
log previous literature on condemned Aristotelian teachi
that the STP was still read in the late fourteenth centu
there is little evidence that condemnations of Algazel or
losophy in general were instrumental in the decline in
ence because scholars rarely cited the Condemnation of 127
philosophorum, or Eymerich's Diredorium Inquisitorum to
arguments.62
The reasons for the decline in the citations of the STP in the fifteenth
century are far less dramatic than the condemnations imply. It is likely
that the STP outgrew its usefulness with scholars by the fifteenth cen
tury, which corresponds to the maturation of the Latin philosophical
tradition during the Middle Ages. When the STP arrived in the early
thirteenth century, scholars quoted it without mentioning the title or
author, but by the middle of the century they regularly cited Algazel
and the STP by name. Citations from the STP in Latin commentaries
on Aristotle as well as in quodlibeta and commentaries on the Sentences
testify to the work's utility in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. In
the same period, Latins developed their own tradition and weaned them
selves from their Arab supports while preserving Aristotle as an author
ity. Since Algazel did not discuss Aristotle at length, the STP steadily
lost ground as an authoritative text in the Aristotelian tradition. How
ever, scholars continued to cite the work in their commentaries on new
a lengthy comment at the end of the section that contains the list of Algazel's her
esies where he explains that the pagan (gentiles) philosophers discussed here cannot
be heretics because they never claimed to adhere to the Christian faith. See Pena's
"Commentarium XXIX" in Directorium Inquisitorum, 241-42.
62 While several scholars appear to quote from the Condemnation of 1277 when
discussing Algazel's arguments, they do not mention the edict by name. The earliest
explicit references to this condemnation together with Algazel appear in the works
of John Gerson more than a century after the condemnation: "Intellectus agens,
secundum Avicennam et Algazel, erat primo Deus respectu primae intelligentiae, et
secunda intelligentia respectu tertiae, et ita deinceps usque ad animam rationalem
quae habeat ultimam intelligentiam pro intellectu agente, aut forte plures, differendo
in hoc a Commentatore, ita quod motum orbium causabant influentias corporeas in
corpora et formas spirituales in animas, et hoc est articulus parisiensis merito dam
natus." (John Gerson, Notulae super quaedam verba Dionysii De coelesti hierachia, ed.
P. Glorieux, Jean Gerson: Oeuvres complètes, 8 vols. [New York, 1962], 3:210, refer
ring perhaps to errors 30, 65, or 74 in the Condemnation of 1277.) "Contra hanc
imaginationem est parisiensis articulus quamquam Avicenna et Algazel de beatitu
dine intelligentiarum visi fuerint huius imaginationis extitisse" (ibid., 3:263).

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 175
Latin authorities and regularly compared them with Algazel's arguments,

thus keeping the study of the STP alive into the sixteenth century.63
Algazel's decline also matches that of the scholastic endeavor at large,
which loses much of its vigor during the fifteenth century. While where
scholasticism declined and survived is debatable, the fifteenth century
represents a low point in scholasticism as alternative intellectual projects
take shape in the form of the ethical and philological concerns of Renais
sance humanism, and thus Algazel is noticeably absent from the works of
early Renaissance authors.64 Later scholastic thinkers had little need to
look to the STP for material when discussing the new arguments of fig
ures such as Ockham. The STP and Arab philosophy in general could be
seen as some of the first casualties of the retreat of scholasticism. Algazel
would have died a natural death within the Latin tradition if a second
wave of translations and the printing press had not revived the stu
Arab philosophy.
The Sixteenth-Century Recovery
The increase in the citations of the STP in the sixteenth centur

much easier to explain than the decrease during the previous centu
since it can be attributed to two events. The printing of the STP a
Logica et philosophia Algazelis Arabis in 1506 and again in 1536 at V
allowed for a reinvigoration of the study of the STP throughout L
Christendom, despite the fact that both editions lack the prologu
Also, the rediscovery and subsequent printing of Averroes's Tahâ
al-tahâfut by Agostino Nifo at Venice in 1497, which lacked Alga
name in its title, and a revised edition printed in 1527, known in L
as the Destructio destructionum philosophiae Algazelis, allowed sch
to read passages of Algazel's work that accurately reflected his att
toward philosophy.66 Both of these printings at Venice, where the stu
of Algazel continued unabated throughout the Middle Ages, were
of a larger second revelation of Arab philosophy that occurred in
63 Hasse ascribes a similar fate to Avicenna's De anima, which once had been m
popular than Aristotle's De anima, only to lose its appeal in the wake of g
accessibility to Aristotle and Averroes. (See n. 56 above.)
64 One important exception is Marcilio Ficino, Theologica Plalonica (Paris, 15
fol. 189r.
65 Al-Ghazali, Logica et philosophia Algazelis Arabis (Venice, 1506).
66 Agostino Nifo, In librum Destrudio destrudionum Averrois commentarium
ice, 1497). For more information on the translation, the various editions, and th
circulation, see Zedier, Averroes' "Destrudio Destrudionum Philosophiae Algaze
(n. 10 above), 18-31.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
176 TRADITIO
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.67 Despite the renewed in

printed editions and their sixteenth-century audience re
from the medieval readership of Algazel.
Nifo's printing of the Destructio had the potential to des
eval image of Algazel and replace it with a newer figure
to the Arabic understanding of al-Ghazali. As a refutation o
al-faläsifa, Averroes's Tahäfut al-tahäfut contained larg
al-Ghazali's work that contradicted many positions he
Maqâçid al-faläsifa. Nifo was not the translator of the Tahä
but instead he popularized the translation that had bee
fourteenth century by Calonymos ibn Calonymos.68 N
Destructio with his commentary, but his edition is defectiv
lacks the last chapters. The poor quality of Nifo's editi
traction of his commentary prompted another Jewish scho
Calonymos to fashion a new edition in 1527, which was
times throughout the sixteenth century.69 Additionally, N
both the STP and the Destructio in his De intellectu, presen
arguments by the same person.70 By presenting a very dif
of his philosophy, these three works threatened to rep
vision of Algazel that had endured for centuries.
The printing of the STP correlates with the increase
there is some evidence that points to its role as a cause.
tury scholars continue the medieval practice of refere
ters of Algazel's work (i.e., "in sua metaphysica"). Give
readers viewed the Logica as a separate work from the M
Physica, references by sixteenth-century authors to Al
67 Marie-Thérèse d'Alverny, "Survivance et renaissance d'Avicen

Padoue," in Venezia e l'Oriente fra tardo Medioevo e Rinascimento
75-102; and Charles Burnett, "The Second Revelation of Arabie Ph
ence," in Islam and the Italian Renaissance, ed. A. Contadini (Lond
68 See n. 10 above. Latins paid little attention to the work and f
the differences between the Algazel of the STP and that of the De
two centuries. Only Pietro del Monte (d. 1456), a Venetian legal sc
the difference between these two conflicting figures of Algazel bef
the Destructio: "Quod si Algazel sedit quandoque super thalamo irr
losophorum cognita alia maiori veritate surrexit et inde abiit." (Pie
unius legis veritate et sectarum falsitate opus [Venice, 1509], Lib. I
69 Calo Calonymos, a Jewish scholar working in Venice, noticed
of Nifo's edition, which was missing two of the disputations on m
four of the disputations on phyiscs. Calo provided a better editio
was reprinted in 1550, 1560, and 1573. (Zedier, Auerroes' "Destruc
Philosophiae Algazelis," 26-29.) Nifo's edition of the Destructio was
1529, and 1542 in Lyons.
70 See Agostino Nifo, De intellectu in appendix.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 177
philosophia suggest that they were citing the print edition and not a
manuscript copy.71 However, the citations of Algazel in sixteenth-century
works also indicate that, apart from Nifo, few scholars read the STP and
the Destructio together.72 Thus, the old perception of Algazel as Avicen
na's follower and abbreviator was able to endure.73
The easy access to Algazel's arguments provided by the printing of
the STP brought about decisive changes in Algazel's readership and the
works that possess citations of the STP. The sixteenth-century audience
defies categorization and transcends both the university and languages
as easy divisions. References to Algazel appear in German, French, and
Italian texts as well as in the works of Catholics and Protestants.74 The
genres of texts that possess quotations from the STP are also hard to
typify. The quodlibeta and commentaries on Aristotle and the Sentences
produced by sixteenth-century authors rarely contain quotations from
the STP. Instead, Algazel appears in a much wider variety of works than
71 "Cum, ut ait Algazel anima humana habeat duas faciès unam erectam ad supe
riora speculanda, reliquam inclinatam ad corpus regendum tract(atus) [quintus] in
logica et philosophia." (Antonio Polo, Abbreviatio verilatis animae rationalis [Venice,
1578], 180.)
72 Apart from Nifo, only Pietro Niccolô Castellani cites both the STP and the
Destrudio together: "ita Algazel quoque in sua metaphysica concedit infinitatem in
rebus abstractis maxime per accidens coordinatis. Sed huic obiicit Averrois in Antilo
gia [Destructions] Algazelis d.i d.vii quod tunc infinitum reciperet additionem, siqui
dem cotidie infinitatem multitudini animarum superstitium, accedunt novae animae
defunctorum, sed hoc facile solvit." (Pietro Niccolô Castellani, Opus de immortalitate
animorum [1525], c. 55.)
73 In addition to the widespread practice of citing Avicenna and Algazel together,
scholars occasionally describe Algazel as Avicenna's adherent. "Algazel Avicen
nam praeceptorem sequens . . ." (Francesco Romeo, De libertate operum et necessi
tate [1538], 224); "Ad Avicennam et Algazelem dico quod nihil contradicunt . . ."
(Thomas de Vio, In De ente et essentia [n. 59 above], 40). Even Nifo refers to Algazel
as Avicenna's abbreviator. "Avicenna et suus abbreviator Algazel de intellectu agente
et possibili eodem modo loquuntur" (Agostino Nifo, De intellectu [n. 60 above], 398).
74 The majority of the sixteenth-century authors who cite the STP were Catholic,
but a few references to Algazel in the works of Protestant authors indicate that
the audience of Arab philosophy was not divided along sectarian lines. Protestant
authors were more likely to discuss Algazel in the vernacular. The Italian Protestant
Girolamo Zanchi mentions Algazel in his De natura dei seu de divinis attributis libri
V (1577), 52. Kaspar Franck was born a Lutheran before converting to Catholicism
later in life and included Algazel in his German list of heretics of the Catholic faith
(Catalogus Haereticorum [Ingolstadt, 1576], 23). French Protestant Philippe de Mornay
discussed Algazel in his work De la vérité de la religion chrestienne (Paris, 1585), 107,
247. Catholic authors also mentioned Algazel in their vernacular works. Federico
Pellegrini cites Algazel's discussion of the separation of the soul from the active
intellect in his Italian treatise Conversione del peccatore overo riforma della mala vita
dell'huomo (Venice, 1591), 393.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
178 TRADITIO
in previous centuries. Expositors of "hidden" philosoph

balistic arts as well as defenders of Catholic dogma quot
though for very different reasons.75 Algazel appears eve
century Dominican's sermon notes on the subject of hell.76
The sixteenth-century audience differed from previo
Algazel in two important ways. For the first time, Lati
exposed to Algazel's criticism of the Arabic tradition of
losophy, but this revelation did not subvert the establis
of Algazel. The relative silence of the fifteenth-centur
bined with the proliferation of copies of the STP in th
tury allowed for a new, disparate group of readers to em
ideas about Algazel and the application of his ideas to th
To understand the newness of the later audience and their interests, we
must look at the medieval perceptions of Algazel and how they changed
over three centuries.
Perceptions of Algazel
Historians have long held that the STP was one of the wor
which Latins came to understand Arab Aristotelian philoso
STP arrived in Latin Christendom with little description of
of Algazel. The best source of information, the prologue, was a
existent in Latin. The translator Gundissalinus also failed to mention
Algazel in his own works despite including several extensive quot

from the STP. Thus, scholars were free to construct an image of A
from their reading of the work. The image that scholars constructed
75 The Hebraist scholar Johann Reuchlin mentioned Algazel in his De arte

tica (1530), fol. 2v, which was copied in later works on the same subject. See
Colonna Galatino, Opus de arcanis catholicae verilatis (Basel, 1561), 435; and J
Pistorius the Younger, De arte cabalista (Basel, 1587), 613. Defenders of C
doctrine also make reference to the STP. Algazel appears in the Malleus Malefic
along with Avicenna on the matter of fascination. (Jacob Sprenger and Hein
Kramer, Malleus Maleficarum, ed. C. Mackay [Cambridge, 2006], 231.) The Ma
(ibid., 238) also discusses the enchanter's power to throw a camel into a pit, wh
an anonymous reference to Algazel's discussion of the same in Al-Ghazali, Al
Metaphysics (n. 29 above), 194.
76 Johann Aquilanus, Sermones quadragesimales (Venice, 1576), 346.
7' Etienne Gilson, "Les sources gréco-arabes de l'augustinisme avicennis
Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 4 (1929): 5-129, at 7
Salman, "Algazel et les Latins" (n. 18 above), 110; Dario Cabanelas, "Notas p
historia de Algazel de Espana," Al-Andalus 17 (1953): 223-32; Alonso, "Influenc
Algazel en el mundo latino" (n. 54 above), 371-80; and Lohr, "Logica Algaz
34 above), 230.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 179
three constant elements that lasted throughout the M

was undestood to be an Arab, a follower of Avicenna, and a member of
a wider group of Peripatetic philosophers. Previous scholarship has been
so focused on the Latin misunderstanding of al-Ghazali that no one has
systematically treated how scholars described Algazel beyond his position
as Avicenna's abbreviator. Yet if we look at the other adjectives applied
to the author of the STP, we find that the perception of Algazel changed
several times. The first scholars to read the STP in the thirteenth cen
tury received Algazel as a new authority and occasionally referred to h

as one of the "modern" philosophers. Algazel lost his novelty during
fourteenth century and moved from a new to an old or ancient ph
pher alongside the Greeks in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
zel's religion also became more of an issue in later centuries. Thirte
and fourteenth-century scholars considered Algazel to be an Arab w
religious leanings were not explicitly stated. Readers of the STP did
emphasize his Muslim identity until later, and his errors, which
readers regarded as philosophically incorrect, gradually became the
cally dangerous heresies in the eyes of fifteenth- and sixteenth-cen
scholars.
The Consistent Image of Algazel
Arabs, sequax Avicennae, and Peripateticus were the most consistent

adjectives applied to the figure of Algazel during the Middle Ages. Arabs
was used by early authors such as Thomas Aquinas and Albert the Great
and by later authors such as Denis the Carthusian and Agostino Nifo.78
The term is ambiguous since it could carry geographical, ethnic, and lin
guistic connotations, but it lacks a religious distinction since there were
Arabic-speaking Christians that were known to exist in Spain and the
Middle East. For this reason, Algazel was never mistaken for a Latin
or Greek, but his religion appears to have been unclear since he was
sometimes called a Jew or a Christian.79 However, there is no explicit
78 "Algazel enim Latinus non fuit, sed Arabs" (Thomas Aquinas, De unitate intel
lectus, TAOO, 3:583); "Et hoc probat Avicenna et Alpharabius et Algazel et omnes
Arabes sic" (Albert the Great, De praedicabilibus, ed. A. Borgnet, Beati Alberti Magni
opera omnia, vol. 1 [Paris, 1890], 64-65.); "Quod ergo ex his accipimus est positio
media, quam Avicenna, Algazel et Constabel et alii Arabes dixerunt" (Agostino
Nifo, De intellectu, 381); "Denique Avicenna et Algazel Arabes philosophi in con
templatione beatitudinem hominis statuerunt" (Denis the Carthusian, Contra perfi
diam Mahomeli, in Doctoris ecstatici D. Dionysii Cartusiani Opera omnia, vol. 36, ed.
D. Loër [Tournai, 1908], 282).
79 A few anonymous authors regarded Algazel as a Jew in the thirteenth century.
(René Antoine Gauthier, "Trois commentaires 'averroistes' sur l'Ethique à Nico

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
180 TRADITIO
reference to his Muslim identity until the fifteenth ce

to his distinctly non-Latinate name, scholars could
Algazel was an Arab through one or more channels
scribes were responsible for spreading this inform
rubrics mention that the work is a translation from Arabic into Latin.80
Most authors who cited Algazel were reading the STP in a manuscript
that also contained other Arabs' works, typically those of Avicenna, and
Algazel likely appeared an Arab by association.81 Algazel's identity as
an Arab seems to have been well established among scribes and authors
in the thirteenth century, and Arabs continued to be the most common
adjective used to describe him.
The practice of compiling the STP with the works of Avicenna allowed
scholars to discover the close relationship between the two philosophers.
Authors introduced Algazel with a variety of terms to indicate his posi
tion as one who summarized Avicenna's philosophical corpus and agreed
with many of his teachings. Albert the Great and William of Ockham
stressed Algazel's position as Avicenna's sequaxP Henry of Ghent called
Algazel an expositor of Avicenna.83 The author of De erroribus philoso
phorum, Dietrich of Freiberg, Agostino Nifo, and even Albert were more
specific and described Algazel as Avicenna's abbreviator.84 The frequent
maque," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 16 [1947-48]: 187—

336, at 260, 281, and 283.) The anonymous author of the Summa philosophiae places
Algazel among the Arabic-speaking Christians. (See n. 99 below.)
80 "Liber philosophie Algazer [sic] translatus a magistro Dominico archidiacono
Sedobiensi apud Toletum ex arabico in latinum" (BNF Lat. 6552, fol. 43r). Sev
eral manuscripts that contain the STP have similar rubrics: Vatican City, Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana MS Ott. Lat. 2186, fol. lr; and Venice, Biblioteca Nazionale
Marciana MS Lat. 2546, fol. lr. (Marie-Thérèse d'Alverny, Simone van Riet, and
Pierre Jodogne, Avicenna Latinus: Codices [Leiden, 1994], 82, 110, 274.)
81 Thirty of the manuscripts that contain a copy of the STP have one or more
translated works of Arab philosophers or Aristotle. Avicenna's works and the STP
appear together in twenty-six manuscripts. (Anthony Minnema, "The Latin Readers
of Algazel, 1150-1600" [PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2013], 89-113.)
82 Albert the Great, Liber de natura et origine animae, ed. B. Geyer and E. Filthaut,
Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 12 (1955), 23, 63; Albert also referred to Algazel
as Avicenna's insecutor (idem, De anima, Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 7 [Mün
ster, 1968], 219). William of Ockham, Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis, ed.
R. Wood, Guillelmi de Ockham Opera philosophica et theologica, vol. 5 (St. Bonaven
ture, NY, 1985), 705.
83 Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet IX, ed. R. Macken, Henrici de Gandavo Opera omnia,
vol. 13 (Leuven, 1983), 177.
84 Giles of Rome (dub.), De erroribus philosophorum, ed. and trans. J. Koch and
J. Riedl, Errores Philosophorum: Critical Text with Notes and Introduction (Milwaukee,
1944), 38; Dietrich of Freiberg, De intelleclu et intelligibili, ed. B. Mojsisch, Opera
omnia, vol. 1 (Hamburg, 1977), 144; Agostino Nifo, De intelleclu (n. 60 above), 398;

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 181
citation of the two philosophers together, almost as inseparable collabo

rators, reinforces Algazel's connection to Avicenna even when these titles
do not appear.
These terms could suggest that scholars considered Algazel to be an
unoriginal disciple of Avicenna, whose work was inferior to the volumi
nous texts of the latter. Historians85 who make this case cite a state
ment from Albert about Algazel's similarity to Avicenna: "Algazel says
the same thing [as Avicenna] in his Metaphysica because Algazel's judg
ments are nothing but an abbreviation of Avicenna's judgments."86 While
this claim seems to be an indictment of Algazel, Albert's use of the STP
provides a counterargument. No author mentioned Algazel more than
Albert, who cited him by name 150 times and often quoted the STP
without crediting the author.87 Given Albert's proclivity for quoting from
the STP, the above statement should not imply that Albert is degrad
ing Algazel. Moreover, there is evidence that scholars respected Algazel
arguments even in relation to those of Avicenna. Peter of Abano referred
to Algazel as Avicenna's "colleague," indicating a parity between the
two, while Agostino Nifo went as far as to call him Avicenna's "subtl
and insightful colleague."88 More importantly, the endurance of the co
nection between Algazel and Avicenna raises the question of why schol
ars continuously referred to the two authors together if it was widely
understood that one was better. If Avicenna had been superior in the
minds of scholars, Algazel should have fallen into disuse, but this is no
the case.
There are several explanations for the continued use of Algazel despite
the constant connection to Avicenna. On a practical level, medieval
authors wanted their readers to understand and access the references that
they used in their works, but they could not expect readers to have
of Avicenna available to them. By citing Avicenna's text with the cor
and Albert the Great, De generatione et corruptione, ed. P. Hossfeld, Alberti Mag
opera omnia, vol. 5, pars 2 (Münster, 1980), 44.
85 Salman ("Algazel et les Latins," 106) cites this quotation from Albert as
"unflattering" assessment of Algazel. Other scholars come to similar conclusions. S
Hasse, Avicenna's "De anima" in the Latin West (n. 56 above), 63; and Janssens,
"Al-Gazâlî's Maqäfid al-FalSsifa, Latin translation of" (n. 5 above), 389.
86 "Idem omnino dicit Algazel in sua Metaphysica, quia dicta Algazelis non nisi
abbreviatio dictorum Avicennae" (Albert the Great, De homine, ed. H. Anzulewicz
and J. Söder, Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 28, pars 2 [Münster, 2008], 408).
87 See n. 42 above.
88 "Avicenna maxime de anima IIII et Algazel ipsius collega volentes . . ." (Peter
of Abano, Conciliator controversiam quae inter philosophos et medicos uersantur [Ven
ice, 1565], Differentia XXXVII, fol. 56v, col. 2G); and "Item, Algazel Avicennae
collega subtilis ac profundus ..." (Agostino Nifo, De intellectu, 303).

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
182 TRADITIO
responding passage in the work of his abbreviator Alg

greater number of readers to find these arguments an
meaning. Most readers likewise found the STP to be
viation of Avicenna's corpus and dense argumentat
movement and the growth of its readership were driv
different approaches to and short summaries of the
of Aristotelian philosophy. Furthermore, Algazel was n
philosopher to be given a title. Even Avicenna was
totle's sequax, and Aquinas mentions that Avicenn
sequaces,89 Averroes's moniker of "the Commentato
his relationship to Aristotle "the Philosopher." To
titles degrade Arabic authors misrepresents the me
ing of authority and the scholastic project, since t
of medieval philosophers was to be commentators
the texts of others. For these reasons, the titles are best understood as
describing the relationship between Algazel and Avicenna rather than
implying the inferiority of Algazel.
The title of Peripateticus appears with less frequency than the other
two, but it is prevalent enough to indicate that scholars associated Alga
zel with the Aristotelian tradition. In addition to Thomas and Albert,
Siger of Brabant, Matthew of Aquasparta, and Agostino Nifo call atten
tion to Algazel's membership in the Peripatetic tradition.90 Trends in
manuscript compilation were likely responsible for the early connection
89 "Ex quibus fuit Aristoteles, et sequaces eius, videlicet Alpharabius, Algaxel

[sic], et Avicenna, et plures alii qui post eum et per eum forsitan a via veritatis
in parta ista deviaverunt" (William of Auvergne, De anima [Paris, 1674], c. 5, pars
secunda, 112b). "Aristoteles autem et sui sequaces, ut Avicenna et Algazel, posu
erunt quidem non unam animam totius caeli vel mundi" (Matthew of Aquasparta,
Quaestiones de anima [n. 46 above], 295). "Et ideo alii dixerunt, scilicet Avicenna et
Algazel, et sequaces eorum, quod Deus cognoscit singularia universaliter; quod sic
exponunt per exemplum." (Thomas Aquinas, In quattuor libros sententiarum, Lib. 1,
d. 36, q. 1, a. 1 [TAOO, 1:93].)
90 "Quod antiquiores Peripateci ut dicunt Alfarabius et Algazel in quinque modis."
(Albert the Great, Super Porphyrium de quinque universalibus, in Alberti Magni opera
omnia, vol. 1, pars 1A [Münster, 2004], 6.) "Et hoc est quod dicunt Algazel et Avi
cenna et omnes Peripatetici." (Siger of Brabant, Questiones super Physicam, ed.
F. Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant d'après ses œuvres inédites, Les philosophes
Belges, vol. 12 [Leuven, 1931], 188.) "Maxime Aristotelis et eius sequacium sive
peripateticorum; nam et substantias et intelligentias separatas eos appellant, sicut
Aristoteles, II Metaphysicae, et Avicenna et Algazel, omnino a materia et a corpore
immunes." (Matthew of Aquasparta, Quaestiones de anima, 235.) "His acceptis ac
perfecte expositis scientia omnium Peripateticorum est, ut Alexandri, Themistii,
Simplicii, Averrois, Avicenna, Algazelis, Alpharabii, Avempace et omnium antiquo
rum." (Agostino Nifo, De intellectu, 571.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 183
between Peripatetic philosophy and Algazel, since scribes frequently

bound the STP with Aristotle and Aristotelian commentaries. The three
references to Aristotle in the STP also provide clues to the reader th

Algazel is in dialogue with the wider Aristotelian corpus.91
While these descriptors are consistent throughout the Middle Ag
they leave much to be desired regarding the attitudes of scholars toward
Algazel. Arabs indicated a linguistic, geographical, or ethnic distinct
but reveals little about whether scholars viewed Algazel's teachings
something positive or new. Sequax Avicennae and Peripateticus are al
quite bland, indicating only Algazel's relationship to other philosoph
and intellectual trends. However, there are other telling adjectives t
scholars applied to Algazel over the period of three centuries that give u
a better picture of Latin perceptions of the STP and its author.
The Early Identity of Algazel
Scholars could not have been wholly certain about the identity of
Algazel when the first copies of the STP arrived in Latin Christendo
At most, they could infer that he was an Arabic follower of Avicen
and Aristotle. However, they understood that Arabic philosophy rep
sented something new. The notion that Arabs possessed something no
in their philosophy was present already in the twelfth century and c
pelled some to seek knowledge at the edges of Christendom as translator
of Arabic texts. Adelard of Bath applied the term "modern" to the id
he gleaned from his Arabic studies, though he clarified that he was o
relaying arguments and not his own opinions.92 While Adelard impl
that modern ideas were to be praised, the term "modern" could also
used in a pejorative sense, and scholars did not universally accept t
new doctrines were always beneficial.93 Despite the negative connotation
of modernity, twelfth- and thirteenth-century scholars often expres
admiration for the Arabs and the fresh approach that their ideas brough
to the study of philosophy.94
91 Al-Ghazali, Algazel's Metaphysics (n. 29 above), 85 line 25, 141 line 2, and 15
line 25.
92 Adelard of Bath often juxtaposed the "ancients" and the "modems" in his
works and he seems to have been keenly aware that being "modern" was not often a
positive quality. (See n. 43 above.)
93 Adelard's near contemporary Alan of Lille decried the "unsophistication of the
moderns" ("ruditatem modernorum") in his Anticlaudianus. (Alan of Lille, Aniiclau
dianus, ed. R. Bossuat [Paris, 1955], 55.)
94 Like Adelard, Daniel of Morley voiced dismay at the hidebound study and slav
ish reliance on authority that he found in England and Paris, which prompted him
to travel to Toledo in search of the learning of the Arabs. While he does not describe

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
184 TRADITIO
There is some evidence that thirteenth-century sch

zel among the newer philosophers. When Albert the
commentary on De somno et vigilia, he explains his a
and his reliance on new authors for help in interpretat
Since we possess a book of Aristotle on that science [D

we follow him in the same way we follow him in oth
digressions from it whenever something imperfect o
ment appears, dividing a work by books, treatises, an
have done in other works. Having omitted the works
we follow only the positions of the Peripatetics and
Averroes, al-Farabi, and Algazel, whose books we con
ment on this matter. We sometimes will touch on th
and others.95
Albert judiciously limits his reference material for the

to the more recent Peripatetics, which comprise Ar
ing Algazel, while he sparingly uses older authors lik
similar language to describe Algazel's place on the p
uum in his De causis et processu universitatis, juxtap
of "antiquos Peripateticos" (Theophrastus, Porphyry
with those of "posteriores" such as Avicenna, Algaz
For Albert, Algazel occupies a position among the n
Aristotle.
Algazel also appears as a new philosopher in the enigmatic thirteenth

century work Summa philosophiae, which was attributed to Robert Gros
seteste but now appears to be the work of another late thirteenth-cen
them expressly as moderns, he speaks of Arab scholars as a remedy for the present
ills of Latin philosophers. (Daniel of Morley, Philosophia, ed. G. Maurach, Mittella
teinisches Jahrbuch 14 [1979]: 204-55.)
95 "Quia vero librum Aristotelis de scientia ista habemus, sequemur eum eo modo
quo secuti sumus eum in aliis, facientes digressiones ab ipso ubicumque videbitur
aliquid imperfectum vel obscurum dictum, dividentes opus per libros et tractatus et
capitula, ut in aliis fecimus. Nos autem omissis operibus quorumdam modernorum
sequemur tantum Peripateticorum sentencias et praecipue Avicennae, et Averrois et
Alpharabi et Algazelis, quorum libros de hac materia vidimus concordantes; tange
mus etiam quandoque opinionem Galeni, etcetera." (Albert the Great, Liber de somno
et vigilia, Beati Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol. 9 [Paris, 1890], 123.)
96 "Si autem quaerimus exemplum huius, quo aliqualiter manifestari possit tanta
subtilitas, dicendum, quod ab antiquis Peripateticis, Theophrasto scilicet et Porphy
rio et Themistio et a posterioribus, Avicenna scilicet et Algazele et Alfarabio, quod
dam inter cetera convenientius exemplum positum est." (Albert the Great, De causis
et processu universitatis a prima causa, ed. W. Fauser, Alberti Magni opera omnia, vol.
17, pars 2 [Münster, 1993], 32.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 185
tury English scholar.97 The author divides philosophers into temporal

categories, beginning with Plato, Aristotle, and their contemporaries,
followed by a group of Greek and Roman philosophers up to the time
of the Arabs, and ending with "the more famous philosophers, Arabic
or Spanish, and others, either contemporary with or succeeding them,
even Latins."98 The author gives an extensive register of Arabic authors,
but he subdivides the list into Muslims, Christians, and Jews.99 Oddly
enough, Algazel does not appear with Muslim philosophers, but among
the Christians and is associated with his translator, Gundissalinus. He
concludes the chapter and timeline with the names of notable and recent
Latin philosophers:
There are many other men of exceptional philosophy, and although we
examined their philosophy, nevertheless we either do not know their
names or leave them unnamed, not without reason. Yet, we reflect
upon John the Peripatetic [?] and Alfred [of Shareshill] and more mod
ern scholars (moderniores), the Franciscan Alexander [of Hales], and the
Dominican Albert of Cologne, judging them to be exceptional philoso
phers, but not holding them as authorities.100
97 Evidence of Grosseteste's authorship is mostly circumstantial. One of the three

manuscripts has a cryptic couplet that refers to the year of Grosseteste's death, fol
lowed by a "Robertus G." Historians have attributed this work to Roger Bacon
or one of his disciples, Bartholomew of Bologna, and Robert Kilwardby. (Charles
McKeon, A Study of the "Summa philosophiae" of Pseudo-Grosseteste [New York,
1948], 7-13, 22-23.)
98 "De philosophis magis famosis arabis vel hispanis et aliis eis vel contempora
neis vel succedentibus etiam Latinis." (Pseudo-Grosseteste, Summa philosophiae, ed.
L. Baur [Münster, 1912], 279.) The author misplaces the Jewish scholars Ibn Gabirol
and, shockingly, Isaac Israeli among the Muslims and identifies Gundissalinus as an
Arab rather than as a Latin, implying that his work as a Latin translator of Arabic
works supersedes his position as a Latin author. (See n. 99 below.)
99 "A tempore autem Heraclii imperatoris, quo gens Arabum per Machometum
arabem pseudoqueprophetam seducta etiam Romano imperio distenso paulatimque
serpendo Aegyptum Africamque nec non et Hispaniarum partem Galliarum sube
git, in gente ilia praeclarissimi philosophi extiterunt, videlicet Avicenna, Alfarabius,
Alguegi, Avempache, Avencebrol, Alkindi, Averroës peripatetici; mathematici vero
Albumazar, Arzachel, Albategni, Thebit, Avennalperi, Avennarcha, Alfraganus vel
correctius Affarcus, Iulius Firmicus; medici autem Isaac, Haly, Almanzor, qui et
Rasi dicitur, horumque certissimus supradictus Avicenna, qui medicam completissi
mus omnium edidit. Ceteri vero Christiani: Plato Tiburtinus, Costa ben Lucae, Alga
zel et Gundissalinus, Constantinus, Theophilus Macer ac Philaretus. Hebraei vero
utrique Rabbi Moyses quorum tamen posterior conversus egregium volumen pro fide
contra Iudaeos scripsit." (Pseudo-Grosseteste, Summa philosophiae, 279-80.)
100 "Sunt et alii quam plures eximiae philosophiae viri, quorum etsi philosophiam
inspeximus, nomina tamen ignoramus vel non sine causa reticemus, quamquam et
Iohannem peripateticum et Alfredum modernioresque Alexandrum minorem atque

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
186 TRADITIO
The author of the Summa philosophiae is keen to sh

the most recent Latin philosophers, but he also dem
in ascribing too much authority to modern thinkers
no such disclaimer about the authority of Arabs. T
proposed by the author of the Summa philosophiae
scholars stand near the end of a historical continuu
modern philosophers, but they are not so new that th
yet recognized.
Like their twelfth-century counterparts who transla
traveled to Toledo for translations, thirteenth-century
Arabic philosophy as something new, though inextr
the Aristotelian tradition, and Algazei was no except
both Greek and Arabic philosophers as Peripatetics
that Algazei and the Arabs offered new insights tha
the ideas of Aristotle, even if they owed many of t
Philosopher. The author of the Summa philosophiae
temporal distinctions within the philosophical pan
Plato and Aristotle from later Greek philosophers.
poraries of some Arabic and Latin philosophers of p
and connects the period of the Arabs to the prese
thirteenth-century scholars were able to express ho
previous generations of philosophers related to their own. However, the
quality of novelty associated with Algazei and Arabic scholars would be
lost over time, while Aristotle remained ageless.
The Middle Age of Algazei
While there is evidence to suggest that some scholars considered Alga

zei to be a new and modern philosopher, there is more evidence of his
maturity within the Latin tradition. The association of Algazei and Ara
bic philosophy with new scholarship appears to have lasted through the
thirteenth century but begins to show signs of age in the fourteenth.
Thomas of Sutton made a distinction between modern scholars and Alga
zei while struggling with the notion of whether Aristotle argued for the
existence of a single intellect or a multiplicity of intellects:
It must be said that what the Philosopher thought on this matter cannot
be known, that is, whether there are multiple intellects, or whether it
is inconsistent for infinite souls to exist in reality or not (just as Alga
zei said that it is not inconsistent), because not only moderns, but even
those very commentators of Aristotle, as is clear from Averroes and
Albertum Coloniensem praedicatorem philosophos eximios censendos reputemus, nec

tarnen pro auctoritatibus habendos." (Pseudo-Grosseteste, Summa philosophiae, 280.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 187
Algazel, say that the Philosopher thought in a variety

ever this matter was considered in the mind of the Phi
be realized, truly and certainly, that the generation of
other things, had a beginning in time, and that souls a
[the number of] bodies and are finite.101
Thomas acknowledges that Algazel remains an author

Averroes on the interpretation of Aristotle, he implies t
to be counted as one of the modern interpreters. Anothe
tury scholar, Nicholas of Strasbourg, offers a similar
zel's position on the continuum between modern and a
It must be known that, although the opinions of earlier
cerning the making of a substantial form, that is, that
agoras on the latency of forms and that of Plato, Avic
on the introduction of forms by external and separate a
and refuted commonly by all in the modern age, never
quite particular to one of those [opinions] . . . but only
to that [latter] position.102
Again, Algazel is an authority whose opinions belong to a

earlier age, and some of his positions are dismissed by
Despite this rejection, Nicholas is familiar with Algazel an
scholars to understand his allusion to Algazel's positio
passing reference reinforces that the STP has lost its mo
it also complicates the question of Algazel's relevance
Nicholas rejects Algazel's position on the role of exter
101 "Dicendum quod non potest sciri quid Philosophus sens

utrum, scilicet, intellectus multiplicenter vel non, nec utrum si
tas animas esse in actu vel non, sicut Algazel dixit quod non est
non solum moderni dicunt Philosophum diversimode sensisse, s
tores Aristotelis, ut patet de Averois et Algazel. Sed quomodocu
Philosophi hoc pro vero et pro certo tenendum est quod generat
aliarum rerum, habuit initium temporis et quod anime sunt mu
et sunt finite." (Thomas of Sutton, Quaestiones ordinariae, ed.
of Sutton, 0. P.: His Place in Scholasticism and an Account o
Revue néo-scolastique de philosophie 36 [1934]: 332-54, at 342.)
ring to the sixth division of being (finite and infinite) in the
Metaphysial. (Al-Ghazali, Algazel's Metaphysics [n. 29 above], 40
102 "Propter quartum sciendum, quod, quamvis opiniones philo
de formae substantialis productione, ut scilicet ilia Anaxagorae
marum et ilia Piatonis et Avicennae et Algazel de introductione
bus extrinsecis et separatis, quantum ad modum positionis ab o
moderni temporis respuantur et refutentur . . . sed tantum in
habere." (Nicholas of Strasbourg, Summa, ed. G. Pellegrino, Niko
Summa, vol. 1, Liber 2, Tractatus 1-2 [Hamburg, 2009], 10. See
Metaphysics, 16-19.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
188 TRADITIO
admits there are some who cling to these erroneous pos

he feels the need to mention Algazel's position even though
do not adhere to it. The wrongness of Algazel's argumen
clude Thomas or Nicholas from citing the STP, and whi
ments may not be as novel or effective as they once were,
he is still part of the Latin philosophical tradition and t
a topic of conversation among fourteenth-century scholars
There are other indications that the use of Algazel w
within a developing Latin program of Aristotelian philo
generations in the thirteenth century had compared th
Arabs with those of Aristotle and Greek philosophers, b
familiarity with Aristotle and his Arabic commentators all
Latin authors to become quotable authorities on Aristo
fourteenth century, scholars began to juxtapose the arg
Latin authorities with the older corpus of Aristotelian w
the STP. John of Paris believes he sees the thought of A
chapter 52 of Book II of Aquinas's Summa contra Gentil
nas makes no mention of Algazel here.103 While disputing
the world, William of Alnwick reiterates Scotus's reject
ments of Avicenna and Algazel before addressing the questi
Aristotle believed the world to be eternal.104 Fourteenth-ce
regularly compare the arguments of Algazel with those of Albert the
Great.105 The practice of connecting the thought of Thomas, Albert, and
other Latin philosophers with Algazel persisted into the next two centu
ries as Aristotelian thought in Latin Christendom continued to evolve.
Algazel aged within the Latin philosophical canon in the fourteenth
century to become a recognized authority whose arguments were con
103 "Item Thomas, Contra Gentiles, lib. II, cap. 52, in ultimo argumento dicit quod
'esse competit primo agenti secundum propriam naturam, et ideo non convenit aliis
nisi per modum participationis, sicut calor aliis corporibus ab igne.' Hoc idem dicit
Algazel, a quo forsan frater Thomas accepit dictum suum." (John of Paris, Quaestio
de unitate esse et essentiae, ed. P. Glorieux, "Jean Quidort et la distinction réelle de
l'essence et de l'existence," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médievale 18 [1951]:
151-57, at 156-57.) John also connects the arguments of Algazel and Aquinas else
where in his rebuttal to the charges brought against Aquinas, but he does not cite a
specific work by Aquinas. (See article 6 in John of Paris, Le correctorium corruptorii
"Circa" [n. 59 above], 47.)
104 William of Alnwick, "Determinationes," ed. A. Ledoux, Fr. Guillelmi Alnwick
O.F.M. Quaestiones disputatae de esse intelligibili et de quodlibet (Florence, 1937), xxx
xxxi. Ledoux found a list of disputed questions by William entitled "Determinatio
num" in a single manuscript, which he did not edit, but instead provided a redacted
version in the preface of this larger work.
105 See n. 60 above.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 189
tinually compared with those of more recent scholars. There appears to

be no decline in readership from the thirteenth to the fourteenth cen
tury since the number of scholars who cite Algazel from each period is
roughly equal. What is different in the evidence from the thirteenth to
the fourteenth century is the volume of references to Algazel by indi
vidual authors. Fourteenth-century authors do not quote from Algazel as
much as Albert the Great, Roger Bacon, or Thomas Aquinas. However,
few fourteenth-century authors are as prolific as these three, and thus
a decrease in the volume of citations is perhaps understandable. Nev
ertheless, it is difficult to find a fourteenth-century philosopher of note
who did not cite the STP, since many prominent scholars continued to
mention Algazel, including John of Jandun, William of Ockham, Nicole
Oresme, and Marsilius of Inghen. A decline manifests itself in the fif
teenth century along with radical changes to scholars' views of Algazel.
Algazel the Ancient Saracen and Heretic
The late fifteenth and early sixteenth century was a watershed period
for the study of Algazel. The printing of the STP placed Algazel in the
hands of many more scholars, and the printing of the Destructio destruc
tionum Algazelis Arabis had the potential to dismantle an image of Alga
zel that had endured for three centuries — but the old view of Algazel
as "sequax Avicennae" survived. Although scholars did not embrace the
Algazel that appeared in the Destructio, his identity underwent profound
temporal and religious transformations. Later writers counted Algazel as
an ancient and made him indistinguishable from the Greeks. Algazel's
religion also became increasingly important as scholars began to identify
him as a Muslim and a heretic. While previous generations had been con
tent to point out Algazel's flaws as philosophical errors, sixteenth-century
scholars considered his ideas to be a threat to faith as well as reason.
It was not until the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centurie
scholars placed Algazel among the ancients. The early sixteenth-
tury Dominican Thomas de Vio was one of the first to place Alg
in the past: "This opinion seems to have come from the old [phi
phers] (antiquis), that is, Plato, al-Farabi, Avicenna, Algazel, Boe
Hilarius, Albert [the Great], and their followers."106 Unlike the a
of the Summa philosophiae, who is meticulous though sometimes
rect in his categorization, Thomas de Vio makes no distinctions be
106 "Videtur etiam haec opinio ab antiquis derivata, Platone scilicet Alphar
Avicenna, Algazele, Boetio, Hilario, Alberto, et eorum sequacibus, licet ab Aris
nihil manifesti in hac re habeamus. . . (Thomas de Vio, In De ente el essentia
59 above], 157.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
190 TRADITIO
Greek, Latin, or Arab, but collapses space and time so t

"old" philosopher alongside Plato and Albert. Jacopo N
wise distances Algazel from the current age when he discus
of the idea of the eternal prime mover, saying that this
pied scholars such as Algazel, Isaac Israeli, and Moses Ma
were (fuerunt) most wise in their time."107 Algazel pos
that occupied another age and belongs to the complete
losopher Antonio Persio offers a similar list of "old" p
which Algazel appears as the penultimate figure.108 Serafin
calls Algazel old in his commentary on Aquinas's Summa
the space of three centuries, Algazel had gone from a
alongside his Arab colleagues to an ancient philosopher
among Greeks who had been dead for a millennium.
Algazel's identity as a Muslim philosopher became an i
slightly earlier than his new identity as an ancient. The
make this distinction was Denis the Carthusian, who dis
philosophical works and a polemical text against Islam. W
various philosophical positions on the disposition of Hel
quatuor hominis novissimis, Denis groups Algazel with othe
the Qur'an.
The infernal place is without measure, deep without b

incomparable fire, incredible pain, and unending punishm
matter, a consecrated [monk] asserted in his treatise De q
mis that Averroes the Commentator said: "In the inferna
is continuous sadness and grief without comfort." Yet it
among those learned in philosophy that Averroes did not
first he adhered to the law of Muhammad, just as Avicen
107 "Qui suo tempore fuerunt sapientissimi." (Jacopo Nacchiante

primi motoris," in Theoremata Metaphusica sexdecim et Naturalia d
1567], 169.)
108 "Quorum nomina nimirum antiquorum ut animam quorunda
difficiliores ad credendum sunt; magna ex parte recensebo, hi sun
Avicenna, Algazel, Avempates." (Antonio Persio, Liber novarum p
ricis, dialecticis, ethicis, iure civili, iure pontificio, physicis [Venice
109 "Caeterum et rationem ampliorem et damnationem per Eccl
tra Algazelem vide infra, q. 21 art. 2. Pro nunc sufficiat audite D
universaliter damnantum sic: Antiqui phiiosophi etcetera Algazel
haereses contra fidem sanctam nostram posuerunt, quod patet pr
tur. Et postea inter alios récitât sententiam Algazel supradictam 4
vicisim ex his firmentur conclusiones." (Seraphino Capponi, Elucid
totius Summae Theologiae sancti Thomae [Venice, 1588], 18.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 191
zel, but later he abandoned the law of the most wicked Muhammad on
account of the most blatant falsities that are contained in the Qur'an.110
While Averroes rejected Muhammad's law, Algazel and Avicenna were

life-long Muslims. Despite his disregard for the Qur'an, Denis seems
to approve of the faithfulness of Algazel and Avicenna, since Averroes
rejected not only the law of Muhammad, but also Christ and Moses, and
"fell into many very serious errors."'" However, Denis observes some
tension between Muhammad and Muslim philosophers in the matters of
bodily pleasure and the afterlife:
This teaching of Muhammad is so very rigid that it cannot be accepted

in any way except by carnal persons. Our holy doctors bring forth many
and various most subtle rationales against those arguments, which I pass
over for the sake of brevity. In the first treatise above, I already proved
from the scriptures of the Old and New Testament that the beatitude
of men in no way resides in those carnal delights, but in the clear and
fruitful vision of the divine essence. Indeed, the Arabic philosophers Avi
cenna and Algazel placed the beatitude of a man in contemplation, but
Muhammad was given to wild and ugly sensualities more than the phi
losopher Epicurus, whom all the later, better philosophers derided.112
Denis echoes an old rationale developed by members of the translation

movement to explain the dissonance between the wisdom of Arab phi
110 "Infernus locus est sine mensura, profundus sine fundo, plenus ardore incom
parabili, dolore innarrabili, ac poena interminabili. Ad quod quidam devotus in
suo Tractatu de quatuor novissimis, allegat Averrois commentatorem dicentem: 'In
inferno continua est tristitia, et moeror sine consolatione.' Veruntamen bene erudi
tis in Philosophia constat, quod Averrois hoc non dicat. Fuit enim primo de lege
Mahumeti, quemadmodum Avicenna et Algazel. Postmodum vero legem impiissimi
Mahumeti reliquit, propter apertissimas falsitates, quae in Alchorano continentur."
(Denis the Carthusian, De quatuor hominis novissimis, in Doctoris ecstatici D. Dionysii
Cartusiani Opera omnia, vol. 41, ed. D. Loër [Tournai, 1912], 554.) The "devotus" is
Gerhard von Vliederhoven in De quatuor novissimis.
111 "Sprevit quoque legem Christi, propter multa incomprehensibilia et supematu
ralia, quae in evangelica lege habentur. Similiter vituperavit et Moysi legem, volens
esse naturali lege contentus; sicque iusto Dei iudicio permissus est cadere in multos
errores gravissimos." (Denis the Carthusian, De quatuor hominis novissimis, 554.)
1,2 "Haec autem Mahon doctrina talis certissime est, ut nequaquam nisi a carnali
bus credi possit hominibus. Ad ista probanda sancti Doctores nostri multas adducunt
alias subtilissimas rationes, quas brevitati studens dimitto. In primo quoque libello
iam supra ex scripturis novi ac veteris Testamenti probavi, quod nequaquam in car
nalibus illis deliciis, sed in clara ac fruitiva divinae essentiae visione hominum beati
tudo consistât. Denique Avicenna et Algazel, Arabes philosophi, in contemplatione
beatitudinem hominis statuerunt. At vero Mahometus magis rudis, turpis carnalisque
fuit, quam Epicurus philosophus, quem omnes posteriores meliores philosophi derise
runt." (Denis the Carthusian, Contra perfidiam Mahometi, 282.)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
192 TRADITIO
losophers and the carnality of Muhammad's law. T

of Toledo posited that Muslim philosophers were n
Muhammad but rather paid lip service to the re
cions."3 Denis suggests that Algazel and Avicenna m
pious Muslims given their theological disagreement wi
are the practices of Muhammad's law. Yet he identi
lim nonetheless and is the first medieval scholar to
Algazel's identity.114
References to Algazel's affiliation with Islam beco
sixteenth century as the STP regains its popularity
Agrippa associates Algazel with "Mahomistae philos
philosophia.115 Pietro Colonna Galatino also refers to A
of Muhammad in his De arcanis catholicae veritatis.
nized as a Saracen in vernacular texts by Spanish T
Protestants.117 It is unclear why Algazel's affiliatio
113 In the preface to his translation of Ibn Tumart, De unio

argues that the work is esteemed by many philosophers on ac
and not its use of the Qur'an. In fact, the author is only no
only places quotations from the Qur'an in his work on accoun
"maioris ponderis sunt apud discretos uiros et prudentes arg
quas Habentometus [Ibn Tumart] induxit in libello Vnionis q
Alchorano . . . quoniam quidem hic Habentometus necessariis i
ad probandum unum Deum esse primum et nouissimum, sua
tionem; et reprehenditur tamen a nonnullis sapientibus in e
esseque unam essentiam rationibus probat efficacissimis, ins
Alchorani; et de ipso credatur quod purus fuerit Maurus, cum
legem, utpote philosophus Algazelis didasculus." (Mark of To
ed. M-Th. d'Alverny and G. Vajda, "Marc de Tolède, traducte
Andalus 16 [1951]: 99-140, 259-307, at 269.)
114 Both Ramon Marti and Mark of Toledo mentioned that
but neither scholar was as widely read as Denis the Carthusi
this aspect of Algazel's thought. Mark's oblique reference to A
leaves considerable room for interpretation, since the transla
Ibn Tumart did not follow Islam strictly, but instead adhere
Algazel. (See nn. 19 and 113 above.)
I|D "Et Algazel in libro de scientia divina, caeterique; Arabe
losophi, sentiunt quod operationes animae coniuncto corpori
in animam usus et exercitii characterem." (Heinrich Corneliu
philosophia libri 1res, ed. V. Perrone [Leiden, 1991], Lib. 3, 4
116 "Non ignoravit Algazel Marrane tuus, ille Mahumeti
in anima motus sursum et deorsum homini docto quam infe
libro de scientia divina demonstrat, quod ex contrarietate hui
impressionum fit cruciatus in anima fortissimus et maxime
Colonna Galatino, Opus de arcanis catholicae veritatis [Basel,
117 "Por lo qual dixo aquel illustre Sarraceno de Algazel
llego a la composicion del hombre." (Juan de Pineda, Historia

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 193
an important matter in the sixteenth century or how scholars deduced

that Algazel was a Muslim, since writers in previous centuries were either
ambivalent or unaware of his religion. The Deslructio perhaps played a
role in this regard since it contains more references to Islamic concepts
than the STP, but this hypothesis must be tempered by the fact that
few scholars quote these two works together. However, Algazel's quality
as a philosopher did not suffer in the eyes of sixteenth-century scholars
because of his Muslim identity. It is possible that they possessed a view
similar to that of Mark of Toledo and Denis the Carthusian, who made a
distinction between the universally reviled Muhammad and Muslim phi
losophers, who were good philosophers and therefore reluctant Muslims.
Sixteenth-century scholars were far more concerned with what they
saw as Algazel's heretical teachings than with his Muslim identity. This
charge not only represents a shift from previous views of Algazel, but it
also alters the nature of heresy itself, since no medieval author considered
Algazel to be a Christian, aside from the author of the Summa philoso
phiae, and therefore he could not apostatize. Medieval scholars instead
referred to the faults in Algazel's arguments as philosophical errors.
These errors could have theological implications and, as the Condemna
tion of 1277 demonstrated, those who taught them could be threatened
with excommunication, but the errors were not heretical by themselves.
Only Nicholas Eymerich identified the flaws in Algazel's arguments in
his Diredorium Inquisitorum as both heresies and errors, but no other
medieval author categorized Algazel as a heretic."8
The distinction between error and heresy in Algazel's teachings appears
to break down in the sixteenth century. The German theologian Konrad
Wimpina composes the longest and most detailed list of Algazel's errors,
which he often describes as contrary to the Christian faith as well as
reason.119 Serafino Capponi drew directly from Eymerich when discussing
Algazel's heresies, which he believes are doubly damned by the Direc
y excelencias de S. Juan Bapiisla [Medina del Campo, Spain, 1604], Lib. 2, a. 3, c.

3, fol. 106v.) "Que le Monde a esté créé de Dieu, voire de rien, et Algazel Sarrazin
contra Averroes." (Philippe de Mornay, De la vérité de la religion chreslienne [n. 74
above], 107.)
118 Nicholas Eymerich, Directorium Inquisitorum (n. 61 above), 238.
119 "Quibus haec quae de Algazelis erramentis perhibuimus liquent; et quamquam
philosophis se quadrent in naturae lumine quaeque rimantibus, tarnen a fidei veritate
dissonant, quo perhibetur in lumine videri lumen: hoc est nequaquam per naturam
sed per gratiam nos sublumine gloriae contingere beatifici obiecti visionem." (Kon
rad Wimpina, In libros de sex sophorum erramentis, ed. J. Sotorem, Farrago miscel
laneorum [Cologne, 1531], fol. 128r.) "Sed nequaquam assentit Christiana fides prae
dictis nec consonat Peripatetica doctrina illis" (ibid., fol. 129r).

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
194 TRADITIO
torium inquisitorum and Holy Scripture.120 Also, A

to appear in Latin and vernacular indices of hereti
century among more serious offenders such as Ariu
baptists, and Arnold of Villanova.121 The catalogers
of Algazel's errors as heresies, but rather focused on h
the punishment of wicked souls as merely the separati
intellect. However, a telling distinction between me
sance mindsets arises in these brief entries. All of them cite the same
chapter in Aquinas's Summa contra Gentiles (Lib. 3, c. 145) as pr

the heretical nature of this teaching. Though Aquinas refutes th
trine, he does not call the argument heretical, but instead he recomm
that Algazel's position be rejected (excluditur).m Thus, later writer
more willing than their medieval counterparts to apply the label
esy to Algazel's arguments.
120 "Ex articulo habes primo quomodo per rationem interimas haeresim
rois et Algazel (Direct[orium] inquis[itorum] 2 par[s] Q. 4 blasphemantium
Deus non cognoscit singularia in propria forma. Haec ex seipsa haeresim addu
etiam supra ar[ticulo] 6 quia et contra ilium articulum pugnabat in alio quodam
modo sensu inquantum s[cilicet] res non cognosci a deo propria cognitione, continet
secundo habes: quomodo per rationem offendas, hanc merito damnari ibi a Directo
rio universaliter, sic: Antiqui philosophi ut etc. Averroes Algazel multos errores et
haereses contra sanctam fidem nostram posuerunt, ut patet prosequendo ut infra
et particulariter damnari a psal[mo] 138." (Serafino Qapponi, Elucidationes Summae
Theologiae [n. 109 above], 17.)
121 "Algazel: De hoc haeretico divus Thomas (lib. 3, contra gent., cap. 145) scri
bit ilium in hac fuisse haeresi, ut affereret, hanc solam poenam reddi peccatoribus,
quod pro amissione ultimi finis affligerentur contra illud Concilii Florentini decretum
agentes, quod ita habet: Diffinimus, illorum animas, qui post baptisma susceptum
nullam omnino peccati maculam incurrerunt, illas etiam quae post contractam pec
cati maculam, vel in suis corporibus, vel eisdem exutae corporibus sunt purgatae,
in caelum mox recipi, et intueri clare ipsum Dominum trinum et unum, sicuti est,
pro meritorum tamen diversitate, alium alio perfectius: illorum autem animas, qui
in actuali mortali peccato, vel solo originali decedunt, mox in internum descendere,
poenis tamen disparibus puniendas." (Gabriel du Préau, De vitis, sedis et dogmatibus
omnium haerelicorum elenchus alphabeticus [Cologne, 1569], c. 27, 21-22.) "Algazel
hanc seminauit haeresim, quod pro peccato redderetur poena, quod pro amissione
ultimi finis affligerentur animç. Ut Dfivus], Thofmas]. ait 3. cont[ra]. Gent[iles]."
(Paolo Grisaldi, Decisiones fidei calholicae et apostolicae [Venice, 1587], 44.)
122 "Per hoc autem excluditur opinio Algazelis, qui posuit quod peccatoribus haec
sola poena redditur, quod affligentur amissione ultimi finis." (Thomas Aquinas,
Summa contra Gentiles, Lib. 3, c. 45, n. 6 [TAOO 15:108].)

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 195
Conclusion
Alonso's admittedly incomplete list of scholars who cited the STP gi

the impression that Algazel's tenure within the Latin tradition was br
encompassing only the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. For
reason, historians were correct in searching for signs of decline i
late thirteenth century and arguing for the condemnations as the
By testing Alonso's hypothesis that more citations of Algazel mig
found in the works of later scholars, I discovered evidence that co
a revision of the narrative of Algazel's audience that can be summ
in four points.
First and most importantly, there is little indication that the
audience disappeared in the fourteenth century, since there is a ro
equal number of authors who cite the STP in the thirteenth and
teenth centuries. Algazel's audience is also far from static. The ma
of Algazel's early readers in the thirteenth century came from the u
sities, which is a trend that would continue throughout these four ce
ries. The fourteenth-century audience shows more diversity and inclu
scholars who were not trained at a university and wrote in verna
languages. Scholars began to read elements of the STP in Catalan
Spanish, and references to Algazel appear in a variety of languag
the sixteenth century. The endurance and diversity of the scholar
cite the STP indicate that knowledge of Algazel was more widespre
Second, a decline in citations of the STP occurs during the fifte
century, but it was short-lived and more complicated than Alons
suggests. The decline begins in the late fourteenth century and be
more pronounced in the fifteenth. The deterioration of Algazel's
ness might be symptomatic of the fate of Arabic philosophy in
Christendom. There is also a decline in the citation of other Arabic
authors who do not directly discuss the works of Aristotle, while
mentaries of Averroes remain in use. Both the degeneration of the
lastic audience, which had borrowed extensively from Arabic philosoph
and the rise of humanism, which had little use for the Arabic tradition
in its return to classical philology and its emphasis on ethics rather than
metaphysics, played a likely role in the decline of Algazel's influence.
However, any assessment about the extent of the decline must be mod
erated by the increase in citations of the STP in the sixteenth century.
The printing of the STP made the work more accessible to readers, and
the Destructio increased interest in Algazel, but these incidents do not
explain why scholars began citing the STP again after a century of rela
tive silence. It is possible that Algazel was cited by more fourteenth- and
fifteenth-century authors whose works have not yet been edited. At the

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
196 TRADITIO
very least, the STP did not disappear completely d

century or to the point that later scholars would ha
troduced to the work.
Third, the use of the STP changed along with Latin intellectual trends.
One reason why scholars were able to pick up the STP so quickly again
in the sixteenth century is because earlier authors frequently referenced
Algazel in works that were essential to the development of the Latin
philosophical tradition. The STP had been translated as part of a larger
twelfth-century project to understand Aristotelian philosophy. Scholars
in as early as the thirteenth century dutifully quoted Algazel's argu
ments and debated their merits in commentaries on the works of Aristo
tle. Yet scholars also found quotations from the STP to be useful in their
discussions on the nature of the soul, commentaries on the Sentences, and
later on the works of Thomas Aquinas. Later authors were confronted
continuously with the STP as they came across references to Algazel
made by Thomas Aquinas, Albert the Great, and a host of new Latin
authorities on philosophy. In this way, the fate of Algazel was uniquely
tied to the scholastic project, since the continuous referencing of the STP
in authoritative texts kept Algazel current within the Latin philosophical
tradition. Rather than a quick disappearance brought about by condem
nations, the use of the STP grew, matured, and declined with the intel
lectual system that fostered it.
Finally, the perception of Algazel transformed in important ways, but
the changes were most drastic between the readers of the fifteenth and
sixteenth centuries. Only the image of Algazel as an Arab remained con
stant. The printing of the Destructio in the late fifteenth century had lit
tle effect on the notion that Algazel was a follower of Avicenna and Aris
totle. Algazel was able to age gracefully within the Latin canon, enjoying
an identity as a modern in the thirteenth century and a period of middle
age in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries in which he was neither new
nor old. It was only in the sixteenth century that scholars called him an
ancient. Also, medieval scholars seem unaware of or unfazed by Alga
zel's religion, while sixteenth-century scholars point out his adherence to
Islam. In spite of the thirteenth-century condemnations, medieval schol
ars were consistent in maintaining a distinction between philosophical
error and theological heresy when discussing Algazel's arguments. This
distinction began to blur with Nicholas Eymerich in the late fourteenth
century and vanished in the sixteenth century when Algazel appears in
lists of heretics. These changes illustrate the differences in medieval and
Renaissance visions of Algazel. Later scholars stressed the elements that
distanced Algazel from the present and orthodoxy by identifying him as
an antique philosopher, indistinguishable from the Greeks, as well as a

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 197
Muslim or a heretic. Conversely, earlier scholars

Arabic and Greek philosophers and were more inc
cussed Algazel's errors without the charges of he
zel's identity changed from useful philosopher to dan
space of four centuries.
The omission or discounting of the STP in the n
philosophy can be attributed to a lack of reliable
hampered the study of this work. Historians of
gravely misunderstood the Maqâçid al-faläsifa, th
of al-Ghazali until the publication of the Latin p
revelation corrected several errors, Muckle's edition hindered as much
as it helped the study of the STP since it provided a serviceable yet
flawed version of the work. Alonso hoped that his Spanish translation
of the MaqQ?id al-faläsifa would provide a useful resource for Arabists
and medievalists alike. However, in his attempt to promote the work as
a text that was well-known to scholastic philosophers, he inadvertently
gives the impression that the STP's audience quickly declined in the
fourteenth century. The following appendix builds on Alonso's attempt
to bring a greater awareness of the STP by providing a reference tool for
further study into the use of Algazel's arguments and their influence on
the development of the Latin philosophical tradition.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
198 TRADITIO
Appendix: The Latin Readers of Algazel
This list of authors and works is an expansion of the list pr

Manuel Alonso in his edition of the Maqâçid al-falâsifa. It inclu
dred and forty-seven authors, the works in which they cite th
to Algazel, and the page numbers or folios on which the citati
have updated Alonso's citations wherever possible, since many
of medieval philosophers' works have appeared since Alonso
in 1963. I have also indicated when an author cited the Destrudio and not
the STP. I made use of the biographies in the Cambridge History of Medi
Philosophy and the Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Philosophy for
spelling of authors' names.123 For those authors that are not listed in t
works, I chose the vernacular rather than the Latin spelling of the nam
keeping with the parameters of Alonso's list, I included sixteenth-centu
authors in order to examine changes in Algazel's audience after the prin
of the STP in 1506. As Alonso guessed, there could be more readers of A
zel from the sixteenth century than those I have listed, which may be fo
as more editions become available or as the digital scanning of early pri
texts improves. Yet in the case of medieval readers, I believe this lis
ably demonstrates the STP's audience. Underlined page numbers ind
that the author has quoted from the STP without referencing the autho
Italicized page numbers indicate that the author mentions Algazel witho
quoting from the STP.
Adam of Buckfield
Sententia super secundum Metaphysicae, ed. A Maurer, Nine Medie
ers: A Collection of Hitherto Unedited Texts (Toronto, 1955), 101, 10
Adam Wodeham
De notitia intuitiva sine re visa, ed. R. Wood and G. Gâl, Lectura secunda
in librum primum Sententiarum, vol. 1, Prologus et distinctio prima (St.
Bonaventure, NY, 1990), 69.
Agostino Nifo
De intellectu, ed. L. Spruit (Leiden, 2011), 143, 148, 202, 204, 241, 242, 243,
303, 341, 372, 374, 377, 381 (Destructio destructionum), 398, 423 (Destrudio
destrudionum), 458, 460, 463, 565, 571, 639.
Albert the Great

Beati Alberti Magni Ratisbonensis Episcopi Ordinis Praedicatorum o
omnia, ed. A. Borgnet, 38 vols. (Paris, 1890-99).
De praedicabilibus, vol. 1 (1890), 6, 9, 21, 64, 126, 156, 157, 162, 189-
289.
Peri hermencias, vol. 1 (1890), 408.
Analytica posteriora, vol. 2 (1890), 4-7, 9-10.
Topica, vol. 2 (1890), 256.
123 Robert Pasnau, ed., The Cambridge History of Medieval Philosophy, 2 vo

(Cambridge, 2009); James Hankins, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Renaissa
Philosophy (Cambridge, 2007).

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 199
Ethica, vol. 7 (1891), 400.

De sensu et sensato, vol. 9 (1890), 8.
De somno et vigilia, vol. 9 (1890), 122, 123, 133, 178 (Algazel Adamidin),
184.
De motibus animalium, vol. 9 (1890), 261 (Algazel Adamidin), 267.

De unitate intellectus contra Averroem, vol. 9 (1890), 439.
De intellectu et intelligibili, vol. 9 (1890), 492.
Commentarii in I Sententiarum (dist. I-XXV), vol. 25 (1893), 606-7.
Commentarii in I Sententiarum (dist. XXVI-XLVIII), vol. 26 (1893), 272.
Commentarii in II Sententiarum, vol. 27 (1893), 62, 153.
Summae theologiae, Pars prima, vol. 31 (1895), 30, 130, 139, 196, 293,
437, 439, 473.
Summa theologiae, Pars secunda, vol. 32 (1895), 11, 21, 65, 66, 82, 143,
527, 529.
Summa theologiae, Pars tertia, vol. 33 (1895), 64, 202, 459.
De quindecim problematibus, ed. P. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, 39-40.
Commentarii in librum Boethii De Divisione, ed. P. M. de Loë (Bonn, 1913),
tr. 2, c. 1, 21.
Alberti Magni opera omnia edenda curavit Institutum Alberti Magni Coloniense
Bernhardo Geyer praeside, ed. B. Geyer et al. (Münster, 1951—).
Super Porphyrium de quinque universalibus, ed. M. Santos-Noya, vol. 1,
pars 1A (2004), 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, H, 12, 14, 69, 133.
Liber divisionum, ed. H. Möhle, vol. 1, pars 2 (2006), 85.
Physica, ed. P. Hossfeld, vol. 4, pars 1 (1987), 100.
Physica, ed. P. Hossfeld, vol. 4, pars 2 (1993), 570. 571, 574. 575. 576.
577.
De causis proprietatum elementorum, ed. P. Hossfeld, vol. 5, pars 2 (1980),

77.
De generatione et corruptione, ed. P. Hossfeld, vol. 5, pars 2 (1980), 174.
Meteora, ed. P. Hossfeld, vol. 6, pars 1 (2003), 22, 28, 58, 68, 83. 85,
107, 158, 190, 201, 259.
De anima, ed. C. Stroick, vol. 7, pars 1 (1968), 166, 188, 195, 219.
Liber de natura et origine animae, ed. B. Geyer, vol. 12 (1955), 21, 30, 35.
Super Ethica, ed. W. Kübel, vol. 14, pars 1 (1968-72), 71.
Super Ethica, ed. W. Kübel, vol. 14, pars 2 (1987), 451, 455.
Metaphysica, ed. B. Geyer, vol. 16, pars 1 (1960), 138, 214, 217, 254.
Metaphysica, ed. B. Geyer, vol. 16, pars 2 (1964), 495, 526.
De quindecim problematibus, ed. B. Geyer, vol. 17, pars 1 (1975): 37.
Problemata Determinata, ed. J. Weisheipl, vol. 17, pars 1 (1975): 48, 50,
51
De causis et processu uniuersitatis a prima causa, ed. W. Fauser, vol. 17,
pars 2 (1993), 22, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 52,
58, 73, 82, 103, JL91.
Quaesliones de quiditate et esse, ed. A. Fries, W. Kübel, and H. Anzule
wicz, vol. 25, pars 2 (1993), 272.
De bono, ed. H. Kühle, C. Feckes, B. Geyer, and W. Kübel, vol. 28
(1951), 1.
De homine, ed. H. Anzulewicz and J. Söder, vol. 27, pars 2 (2008), 8, 52,
57, 76, 98, 99, ifil, 120, 126, 131, 134, 148, 175, 182, 191, 1%, 197,

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
200 TRADITIO
202, 206, 207, 210, 213, 222, 223, 236, 243, 245, 253, 271, 272, 282,
283, 284, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 296, 297, 301, 304, 305,
310, 319, 321, 322, 323, 330, 339, 351.
356, 358, 361, 369, 320, 384,
387, 388, 389, 390, 396, 400, 401, 408,
409, 410, 412, 413, 420, 421,
429, 444, 456, 461, 462, 463, 466,
512, 585 473,
Summa theologiae, ed. D. Siedler, vol. 34, pars 1 (1978), 23, 95, 102, 144,
217, 307, 322, 323, 348.
Super Dionysium De caelesti hierarchia, ed. P. Simon and W. Kübel, vol.
36, pars 1 (1993), 40, 73.
Super Dionysium De ecclesiastica hierarchia, ed. M. Burger, vol. 36, pars
2 (1999), 13.
Super Dionusium De diuinis nominibus, ed. P. Simon, vol. 37, pars 1
(1972), 41, 124.
Albert of Saxony
Expositio et Quaestiones in Aristotelis Physicam ad Albertum de Saxonia
attributae, vol. 3, Quaestiones (L. IV-L. VIII), ed. B. Patar (Leuven, 1999),
943.
Alexander of Hales
Summa Theologica, ed. B. Klumper (Rome, 1924-48).

Vol. 1, 118, 120.
Vol. 2, 508, 509-10, 511, 512-13, 525, 527, 529, 530.
Vol. 4, 89.
Alfonso Âlvarez Guerrero

Thesaurus christianae religionis et speculum sacrorum summorum (Venice,
1559), 232.
Alfonso Vargas Toledano

In très Aristotelis libros de anima quaestiones (Venice, 1566), Lib. III, q. 2,
art. 3, 94.
Anonymous
"Les pérégrinationes de l'âme dans l'autre monde d'après un anonyme de la
fin du xiie siècle," ed. M.-Th. d'Alverny, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et lit
téraire du Moyen Âge 13 (1942): 285, 2M, 290, 292-93. 294. 299.
De anima et de potentiis eius, ed. R. A. Gauthier, in "Le Traité De anima et

de potentiis eius d'un maître ès arts (vers 1225)," Revue des sciences philoso
phiques et théologiques 66 (1982): 53.
Lectura in librum de anima, ed. R. A. Gauthier, Lectura in librum de anima:
a quodam discipulo reportata (Rome, 1985).
Lib. 1, q. 1, 9, 44; q- 2, 49; q. 4, 57.
Lib. 2, q. 1, 185; q. 16, 344, 351.
"Utrum Deus creaverit vel creare potuerit mundum vel aliquid creatum ab
eterno," in Medieval Latin Texts on the Eternity of the World, ed. R. Dales
and 0. Argerami (Leiden, 1991), 95, 111.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 201
Antonio Persio
Liber novarum positionum in rhetoricis, dialecticis, ethicis, iure ci
pontificio, physicis (Venice, 1575), Oratio tertia.
Antonio Pierozzi
De terraemotu et cometis in Chronicorum opus in très partes diuisu
(1586), c. 15, 583.
Antonio Polo
Abbreviatio Veritatis animae rationalis (Venice, 1581), 41, 160, 180,
Bartholomew of Bologna
Quaestiones disputatae de fide, ed. M. Muckshoff, Die Quaestiones disputatae
de fide des Bartholomäus von Bologna, O.F.M. (Münster, 1940), 17, 66, 75-76,
89.
Bartholomew of England
De proprietatibus rerum (Nuremberg, 1519), Lib. 8, c. 33, c. 40; Lib. 19, c.
10.
Bartholomew of Bruges
De sensu agente, ed. A. Pattin, Pour l'histoire du sens agent: La controverse
entre Barthélémy de Bruges et Jean de Jandun; ses antécédents et son évolution
(Leuven, 1988), 71, 72, 86-87.
Benito Pereira
De communibus omnium rerum naturalium principiis (Paris, 1579),
Berthold of Moosburg
Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli, 183-211: De animabus, ed.
L. Sturlese (Rome, 1974), 21, 61.
Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli: Prologus; Propositiones

1-13, ed. L. Sturlese, vol. 1 (Hamburg, 1984), 5, 77, 167, 172, 199, 210, 212.
Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli: Propositiones 14-34, ed. L.
Sturlese, vol. 2 (Hamburg, 1984), 126, 137, 146, 148.
Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli: Propositiones 108-35, ed.
F. Retucci, vol. 5 (Hamburg, 2007), 200.
Expositio super Elementationem theologicam Procli: Propositiones 160-82, ed.
U. Jeck (Hamburg, 2003), 147, 180.
Bernard of Trilia
Quaestiones de cognitione animae separatae a corpore, ed. S. Martin (To
1965), 113, 131, 337, 370, 386.
Bonaventure
Collationes in Hexaemeron, ed. F. Delorme, Collationes in Hexaemeron et
Bonaventuriana selecta quaedam (Rome, 1934), Visio I, collatio II, 75; Visio
III, collatio VII, 222.
De existentia animae in corpore, ed. F. Delorme, Collationes, 309, 313.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
202 TRADITIO
Quaestiones de theologia, ed. G. H. Tavard, "St. Bona

Questions De theologia," Recherches de théologie ancien
(1953): 244.
Caspar Franck
Catalogus haereticorum (Ingolstadt, 1576), 23.
Giovanni Grisostomo Javelli
Commentarii in octo libros Physicorum Aristotelis (Leiden, 1555),
Claude Rapine
De his quae mundo mirabiliter eveniunt (Paris, 1542), fol. 20r.
Conrad Gesner
Elenchus scriptorum omnium, veterum scilicet ac recentiorum, extantiu
extantium (Basel, 1551), 37-38, 108 (Destructio destructionum).
Dante Alighieri
II Convivio, ed. P. Mengaldo, Dante Alighieri Opere Minori (Milan/Naples,
1979), 216, 753.
Denis the Carthusian

Doctoris ecstatici D. Dionysii Cartusiani Opera omnia, ed. D. Lo
(Tournai, 1896-1935):
In Exodum, XX-XL, Leviticum, Numeros, Deuteronomium, vol
269.
In Job XXXVII1-XL1I, Tobiam, Judith, Esther, I-II Esdrae, I-II Macha
baeorum, Psalmos I-XLIIII, vol. 5 (1898), 67.
In Lucam X-XXI et Joannem, vol. 12 (1901), 283.
In De coelesti hierarchia S. Dionysii Areopagite, vol. 15 (1902), 16, 69,
181.
In De divinis nominibus S. Dionysii Areopagite, vol. 16 (1902), 66, 142.
Summa fidei orthodoxae, Libri /-///, vol. 17 (1899), 33.
Dialogion de fide, vol. 18 (1899), 302, 341, 342, 352, 358, 420.
In IV Libros Sententiarum, Liber I, Dist. 1-16, vol. 19 (1902), 73, 83, 86,
115, 396, 449.
In IV Libros Sententiarum, Liber I, Dist. 17-48, vol. 20 (1902), 177, 216,
323, 422, 489, 490, 564, 581, 582.
In IV Libros Sententiarum, Liber II, Dist. 1-11, vol. 21 (1903), 60, 62, 68,
89, 195, 211, 263, 522, 566.
In IV Libros Sententiarum, Liber II, Dist. 12-44, vol. 22 (1903), 58, 74,
89, 183.
In IV Libros Sententiarum, Liber III, Dist. 1-10, vol. 23 (1904), 335.
In IV Libros Sententiarum, Liber IV, Dist. 1-23, vol. 24 (1904), 287, 545.
In V Libros B. Boeti De consolatione philosophiae, vol. 26 (1906), 38, 74,
142, 217, 272, 296, 303, 335, 389, 451, 472, 564, 634.
Opera minora 1, vol. 33 (1907):
Elementatio philosophica, 50, 54, 59, 61, 68, 85, 93.
De lumine Christianae theoriae, 238, 277, 326, 338, 362, 365, 372, 411.
Opera minora II, vol. 34 (1907):
De natura aeterni et veri Dei, 42, 46, 65, 75, 96.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 203
Creatarum in ordine ad Deum consideratio theologica

Opera minora IV, vol. 36 (1908):
Contra vitia superstitionum quibus circa cultum veri
Contra perfidiam Mahometi, 282.
Dialogus disputationis inter Christianum et Sarracenu
Opera minora VII, vol. 39 (1910):
Summa de vitiis et virtutibus, 17, 139.
Opera minora VIII, vol. 40 (1911):
De puritate et felicitate animae, 405, 406.
Opera minora IX, vol. 41 (1912):
De contemplatione, 143, 262.
De quatuor hominis novissimis, 554.
Protestatio ad superiorum suum, 626.
Dietrich of Freiberg
De intellectu et intelligibili, ed. B. Mojsisch, Dietrich von Fr
vol. 1 (Hamburg, 1977), 144.
Dominicus Gundissalinus
De divisione philosophiae, ed. A. Fidora and D. Werner (Frei
62-72. 76, 92, 100, 164-66. 202.
Federico Pellegrini
Conversione del peccatore overo riforma della mala vita dell'huomo, vol. 1 (Ven
ice, 1591), 393.
Francesco Romeo
De libertate operum et necessitate adversus pseudophilosophos Chris
(Basel, 1538), 224.
Francisco de Toledo
Commentaria una cum quaestionibus in octo libros Aristote

cultatione (Venice, 1573), 170.
Gabriel Biel
Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum: Prologus et Liber
(Tübingen, 1973), d. 30, q. 4, 593.
Gabriel Du Préau
Elenchus de vitis, sectis et dogmatibus omnium haereticorum (Cologne, 1
Gabriel Vazquez
Commentariorum ac disputationum in primam partem S. Thomae, vol. 1
(Alcalâ de Henares, 1598), 198, 481.
Gaspar do Casai
De quadripartita juslitia (Venice, 1563), fols. 69v, 71 r (Destructio philosophorum).
Gerard of Odo
De intentionibus, ed. L. De Bijk, Opera philosophica, vol. 2 (Lei

576.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
204 TRADITIO
Quodlibet, ed. C. Trottmann, La vision de Dieu aux multi

tenu à Paris en décembre 1333 (Paris, 2001), 136, 138.
Gerard of Abbeville
Quodlibeta, ed. A. Pattin, L'anthropologie de Gérard d'Abbeville
1993), 16, 20, 22, 41, 55, 60, 108.
Quaestiones de cogitacione, ed. A. Pattin, L'anthropologie de Gérard d

(Leuven, 1993), 289, 320.
Geronimo Tagliapietra
Summa divinarum ac naturalium difficilium quaestionum (Venice, 1506), Lib.
1, tr. 1, c. 1; tr. 2, c. 10; tr. 5, c. 2; tr. 5, c. 3; Lib. 2, tr. 1, c. 8.
Giles of Rome
Quaestiones disputatae de esse et essentia (Côrdoba, 1702), q. IX, fol.
(dub.) De erroribus philosophorum, ed. J. Koch and J. Riedl, Errore
phorum: Critical Text with Notes and Introduction (Milwaukee, 1944)
Super librum I Sententiarum (reportatio), ed. C. Luna, "Fragme
reportation du commentaire de Gilles de Rome sur le premier livre
tences: Les extraits des mss. Clm. 8005 et Paris, B. N. Lat. 15819," Revue
des sciences philosophiques et théologiques 74 (1990): d. 36, q. 1, a. 1.
Giles of Viterbo
Commentarium ad mentem Piatonis, ed. D. Nodes, Commentary on t
tences of Petrus Lombardus (Leiden, 2010), 159 (Destructio destruction
Girolamo Armellini da Faenza

Jesus vincit: Pernecessarium opus contra Tiberianicum Apologeti
1525), fol. 31v.
Girolamo Cardano
Commentarii in Hippocratis de aere, aquis et locis opus (Basel,
Girolamo Zanchi
De natura dei seu de divinis attributis, libri V (Heidelberg, 1577),
Godfrey of Fontaines
"Utrum essentia creaturae sit aliquid indifferens ad esse et non e
de Wulf and A. Pelzer, Les quatre premiers Quodlibets de Godefr
taines (Leuven, 1904), Q. II, q. 2, 57.
Gregory of Rimini
Gregorii Ariminensis OESA Lectura super primum et secundum se
vol. 1, ed. D. Trapp (New York, 1979), 202.
Gregorii Ariminensis OESA Lectura super primum et secundum se
vol. 4, ed. D. Trapp (New York, 1979), 287, 289.
Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa

De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum declamatio invectiva (Cologne, 1536),
c. LI (De mundi pluralitate et eius duratione).

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 205
De occulta philosophia libri très, ed. V. Perrone Compa

225, 226, 384, 524.
Henry of Ghent
Commentum in Hexaemeron, ed. B. Smalley, "A Commen
meron by Henry of Ghent," Recherches de théologie ancie
(1953): 83.
Quodlibeta IX, ed. R. Macken, Henrici de Gandavo opera o

ven, 1983), 116, 177, 249-50.
Summa quaestionum ordinariarum, Art. I-V, ed. G. Wilso
davo opera omnia, vol. 21 (Leuven, 2005), 192, 248.
Henry of Harclay
Henry of Harclay: Ordinary Questions, I-XIV, ed. M. Henninger (Oxford,
2008), 474, 500.
Henry of Harclay: Ordinary Questions, XV-XXIX, ed. M. Henninger (Oxford,
2008), 1036, 1050, 1060, 1096.
Henry of Lübeck
Quodlibeta, ed. M. Perrone (Hamburg, 2009), Q. I, 138. 152, 251: Q. II, 102.
Hugh of St. Cher (Pseudo-)

Super Apocalypsim expositio I: ('Vidit Iacob') in editionibus quibusdam cum
Thomae de Aquino operibus impressa (Turnhout, 2010), 405.
Jacob Sprenger
Malleus Maleficarum, ed. C. Mackay (Cambridge, 2006), 231, 238.
Jacopo Nacchiante
Theoremata Metaphysica sexdecim et Naturalia duodecim, in Opera, vol. 2
(Venice, 1567), 169.
Jaime Pérez de Valencia

Expositiones in centum et quinquaginta psalmos Davidicos (1518),
351 v, 382r.
James of Thérines
Quodlibets I et II, ed. P. Glorieux (Paris, 1958), 89, 98, 270, 273, 275
James of Viterbo
Disputatio prima de quolibet, ed. E. Ypma, 4 vols. (Rome, 1968-75).

Vol. 1, pars 1: 8, 9, 151.
Vol. 1, pars 2: 127, 128, 129, 134, 135.
Vol. 1, pars 3: 170.
Jan Hus
Super IV Sententiarum, ed. W. Flajshans and M. Kominkova (Osna

1966), Lib. 2, dist. 3, 217.
Disputationis de Quolibet Pragae in Facultate Artium mense Ianuar

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
206 TRADITIO
1411 habitae Enchiridon, ed. B. Ryba, CCM 211 (Turnhou

159,124 166.
Jean Bodin
De daemonomania magorum (Basel, 1581), 98.m
Johann Faber
De miseria vitae humanae deque Mundi contemptu Homiliae XXX

werp, 1564), 23.
De cognitione sui ipsius sermo primus, in Declamationes diuine de

miseria (1520).
Johann Pistorius the Younger

Artis Cabalisticae, hoc est, recondilae theologiae et philosophiae scriptorum, vol.
1 (Basel, 1587), 39, 305, 516, 576, 613, 619.
Johannes Aquilanus
De inferno: Sermo XXVIII, in Sermones quadragesimales (Venice, 1509), 346.
Johannes Eck
Aristotelis Stagyritae Acroases Physicae Libri VIII (Augsburg, 1518)
Responsio ad Paulum Ricium de anima (Ingolstadt, 1519), Praemi
coelum sit animatum, ii.
D. Dionysii Areopagitae De mystica theologia: Joan. Eckius Commen

ecit pro theologia negativa (Ingolstadt, 1519), Propositio V.
Johannes Reuchlin
De arte cabalistica (Haguenau, 1530), Lib. 1, fol. IIv.
Johannes de Sancto Geminiano

Summa de exemplis et rerum similitudinibus locupletissima verbi
1576), Lib. III, c. xxvii, 81; Lib. VI, c. Ix, 171.
John Blund
Tractatus de anima, ed. D. Callus and R. Hunt (London, 1970), 2-3
27, 28, 58, 75, 91, 94, 97.
John Capreolus
In secundo sententiarum, ed. C. Paban and T. Péques, Defensiones theo
divi Thomae Aquinatis, vol. 3 (Tours, 1902), 21, 74, 75, 84.
124 In the two citations, Jan Hus quotes from a work De forma speculi, wh
attributes wrongly to Algazel. Although Algazel discusses a mirror as a metap
the soul (Lohr, "Logica Algazelis" [n. 34 above], 242, line 88), the passage
by Hus do not correspond to any part of the STP.
125 See also the 1581 German printing, De daemonomania magorum: Vom A
nen Wütigen Teuffelsheer der Besessenen, 204.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 207
John Duns Scotus

Ioannis Duns Scoti dodoris subtilis . . . In Librum I Sententiarum (Lyon,
1639), d. 3, q. 6, fols. 515, 541.
Ordinatio liber primus, distinctio teriia, ed. Carolus Balic, Opera omnia, v
(Vatican City, 1954), 203, 234
Ledura in librum primum sententiarum, prologus et distindiones a prima a
timam, ed. Carolus Balic, Opera omnia, vol. 16 (Vatican City, 1960), 326,
Ledura in librum primum sententiarum, a distindione odava ad quadragesi
quintam, ed. Carolus Balic, Opera omnia, vol. 17 (Vatican City, 1966)
John Gerson
Notulae super quaedam verba Dionysii De coelesti hierachia, ed. P. Glorieu
Jean Gerson: Oeuvres complètes, vol. 3 (New York, 1962), 210, 246, 263.
Colledorium super magnificat, ed. P. Glorieux, Jean Gerson: Oeuvres
plètes, vol. 8 (New York, 1971), 391.
De passionibus animae, ed. P. Glorieux, Jean Gerson: Oeuvres complètes,
9 (New York, 1973), 16.
De consolatione theologiae, ed. P. Glorieux, Jean Gerson: Oeuvres complè
vol. 9 (New York, 1973), 210.
John of Jandun
"Utrum aeternis repugnet habere causam efficientem," ed. A. Maurer, "Joh
of Jandun and the Divine Causality," Mediaeval Studies 17 (1955): 199.
Quaestiones super très libros Aristotelis de anima (Venice, 1587; repr., Fra
furt a. M., 1966), III, 22 col. 327.
John of Paris
Corredorium corruptorii, ed. J.-P. Müller, Le corredorium corrupt

de Jean Quidort de Paris (Rome, 1941), 7, 12, 35, 47, 60, 64, 65, 68
74, 75, 98, 106, 158, 160, 189, 202, 239.
Apologia, ed. J.-P. Müller, "À propros du Mémoire justificatif de Jean

Quidort," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 19 (1952): 344, 345.
"The First Quodlibet of Jean Quidort," ed. A. Heiman, in Nine Medieval
Thinkers (Toronto, 1955), 284.
Commentarium in libros sententiarum
Liber Primus, ed. J.-P. Müller, Studia Anselmiana 47 (1961): 43, 344,
382, 477.
Liber Secundus, ed. J.-P. Müller, Studia Anselmiana 52 (1964): 33, 116, 131.
John Peckham
Quaestiones de anima, ed. H. Spettmann (Münster, 1918), q. 7, 75-77

Quodlibet Romanum, ed. F. Delorme (Florence, 1938), q. 2, 77, 79
q. 7, 89, 90
Quaestiones disputatae, ed. G. Etzkorn (Rome, 2002), q. 8, 417, 419.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
208 TRADITIO
"Utrum mundus potuit ab eterno creari," in Medieval La

Eternity of the World, ed. R. Dales and 0. Argerami (Leiden
John of Ripa
"Présentation de Jean de Ripa," ed. A. Combes, Archives d'h
et littéraire du Moyen Âge 23 (1956): 166 n2.
John of Sècheville
De prinicipiis naturae, ed. R. Giguère (Montreal, 1956), 46, 113.
Juan de Pineda
Libro de la vida y excelencias maravillosas del glorioso sant Iu

(Barcelona, 1596), Lib. 2, 281, 291.
Julius Caesar Scaliger

Exolericarum exercitationum liber quintus decimus De subtilitate (Frankfurt,
1582), 225, 1100, 1111 (Destructio destructionum).
Konrad Wimpina
In Libros de sex sophorum erramenlis, in Farrago miscellaneorum (Cologne,
1531), fols. 114v, 125v-129r [c. 9-c. 14].
Marcello Donati
De medica historia mirabili (Venice, 1588), 36-37.
Marco Antonio Passeri

In très libros Aristotelis de Anima exactissimi Commentarii (Venic
fols. 119v, 138r, 154v, 158r, 164r.
Marco Antonio Zimara
Theoremata seu Memorabilium Propositionum limitationes (Ven

6v, 8r, 20r, 73r, 73v.
Mark of Toledo
De unione Dei, ed. M-Th. d'Alverny and G. Vajda, "Marc de To
ducteur d'Ibn Tumart," Al-Andalus 16 (1951): 269.
Marsilius of Inghen
Quaestiones super quattuor libros Sententiarum, vol. 1, Super prim
nes 1-7, ed. M. Santos Noya (Leiden, 2000), 179.
Marsilio Ficino
Theologia platonica de immortalitate animae (Paris, 1559; repr., H

1995), Lib. 12, c. 1, 189.
Matthew of Aquasparta
Quaestiones disputatae de aeternitate mundi, ed. E. Longpré, "Tex
sur le problème de la création," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et li
Moyen Âge 1 (1926—27): 299.
Quaestiones de fide et cognitione (Rome, 1903), 278, 415, 419, 423

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 209
Quaestiones disputaiae de productione rerum et de Providen

ence, 1956), 94, 118, 145, 210, 314.
Quaestiones disputatae de anima VI, ed. A. Gondras, Archiv
nale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 24 (1957): 235, 245. 275, 2
Moneta of Cremona
Adversus Catharos et Valdenses libri quinque (Rome, 1743), Lib. V, c. 9
Nicholas of Autrecourt
Exigit ordo executionis, ed. R. O'Donnell, "Nicholas of Autrecourt,"
val Studies 1 (1939): 208.
Nicholas Eymerich
Directorium inquisitorum (Venice, 1595), 239-40 (copied from Giles of Rome
[dub.], De erroribus philosophorum).
Nicholas of Strasbourg
Summa philosophiae, ed. Tiziana Suarez-Nani, Nikolaus von Strassburg,
Summa, vol. 3, Liber 2, Tractatus 8-14 (Hamburg, 1990), 19-20, 189.
Summa philosophiae, ed. G. Pellegrino, Nikolaus von Strassburg, Summa, vol.
1, Liber 2, Tractatus 1-2 (Hamburg, 2009), 10.
Summa philosophiae, ed. G. Pellegrino, Nikolaus von Strassburg, Summa, vol.
2, Liber 2, Tractatus 3-7 (Hamburg, 2009), 33, 86, 156.
Nicholas Trivet
(dub.) Librum viginti quattuor philosophorum, ed. F. Hudry, C
(Turnhout, 1997), 79.
Nicole Oresme
De configurationibus qualitatum et motuum, ed. M. Clagett, Nicole
the Medieval Geometry of Qualities and Motions (Madison, WI, 19
374, 382.
De causis mirabilium, ed. B. Hansens, Nicole Oresme and the Marvels of
Nature (Toronto, 1985), 249 nlOO. 287 n28. 314 n71. 315 n72. 356.
Quaestiones de anima, ed. A. Pattin, Pour l'histoire du sens agent: La con
troverse entre Barthélémy de Bruges et Jean de Jandun ses antécédents et son
evolution (Leuven, 1988), 293.
Paolo Grisaldi
Decisiones fidei catholicae et apostolicae ex sanctarum scripturar
1587), 44.
Paolo Riccio
De coelesti agricultura (Augsburg, 1541), fol. 22v.
Paul Skalic
Occulta occultorum occulta (Vienna, 1556), 70, 71, 73, 74, 75.
Peter of Abano
Conciliator controversiarum quae inter philosophos et medicos vers
ice, 1565), fols. 20v, 21v, 27v, 32r, 56v, 59r, 96v, 109v, 141v, 150

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
210 TRADITIO
Peter Aureoli
Scriptum super primum Sententiarum, ed. E. Buytaert, vol. 2 (St.

ture, NY, 1956), 885.
Peter of Aquila
Quaestiones in IV Sententiarum libros (Venice, 1584), Lib. 1, p. 25,
Peter of Auvergne
Quaestiones in Metaphysicam Petri de Alvernia, ed. A. Monahan, Nine Medi
eval Thinkers (Toronto, 1955), 151, 165, 171.
"Utrum deus potuerit facere mundum esse ab eterno," in Medieval Latin
Texts on the Eternity of the World, ed. R. Dales and 0. Argerami (Leiden,
1991), 147.
Peter of Ireland
In Aristotelis librum De longitudine et brevitate vitae, ed. Michael

Magistri Petri de Ybernia Expositio et quaestiones in Aristotelis Libru
gitudine et brevitate vitae (Leuven, 1993), 79, 81, 109.
In Aristotelis librum De interpretation, ed. M. Dunne and C. Baeum
ven, 1996), 89, 180.
Peter John Olivi

Quaestiones in secundum librum Sententiarum, ed. B. Jensen, vol. 2 (R
1924), q. 57, 369.
Peter of Spain
Commentum in librum De anima, ed. M. Alonso Alonso, Obras filosôfic
Pedro Hispano, vol. 2. (Madrid, 1944), 63, 67, 68, 79, 118, 137, 173, 195
298, 390, 392, 403, 459, 484, 544.
Scientia libri De anima, ed. M. Alonso Alonso (Madrid, 1941), 476.
Peter of Tarentasia
Questio de eternitate mundi (Tours, Bibilothèque municipale MS

eval Latin Texts on the Eternity of the World, ed. R. Dales and
(Leiden, 1991), 65
Peter Thomas
Quodlibet, ed. R. Hooper and E. Buytaert, Petrus Thomae OFM, Q
(St. Bonaventure, NY, 1957), 128, 129, 131, 209, 211.
Phillip the Chancellor

Questiones de anima, ed. L. Keeler, Philippi Cancellarii Summa d
(Münster, 1937), 65. 77, 9L
Philippe de Mornay
De la vérité de la religion chrestienne (Paris, 1585), 111, 139, 158, 32
Pietro Colonna Galatino

Opus de arcanis catholicae veritatis (Basel, 1561), 67, 435, 441.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 211
Pietro del Monte

De unius legis veritate et sectarum falsitate opus (Milan, 1509), Lib.
(Destructio destructionum), c. 97, 98, 104\ Lib. 4, c. 45.
Pietro Niccolö Castellani

Opus de immortalitate animarum (Fuenza, 1525), Lib. 4, c. 55.
Pietro Pomponazzi
Tractatus contradidionum [Apologia] (Bologna, 1515), fol. 2r.
Rambert de' Primadizzi of Bologna

Apologeticum veritatis contra corruptorium, ed. J.-P. Müller (Vatican City,
1943), 163, 167, 169.
Radulphus Brito
Quaestiones in Aristotelis Librum tertium De anima, ed. W. Fauser, Der Kom
mentar des Radulphus Brito zu Buch III De anima (Münster, 1974), 95-96,
207, 281.
Ramon Llull
Compendium logicae Algazelis, ed. C. Lohr, "Raimundus Lullus' Comp
logicae Algazelis: Quellen, Lehre und Stellung in der Geschichte der L
(PhD diss., University of Freiburg, 1967).
Logica del Gatzell, ed. J. Rubio i Balaguer, Ramon Llull i el Lullism
serat, 1985).
Ramon Marti
Explanatio symboli apostolorum, ed. J. M. March, "La 'Explanatio S
obra inedita de Ramon Marti, autor del 'Pugio Fidei,'" Anuari des I
d'Estudis Catalans (Barcelona, 1910), 54.
Pugio fidei adversus mauros et judaeos (Leipzig, 1687), 226 ("De rui
sophorum"), 249.
Richard of Campsall (Pseudo-)

Logica Campsale Anglici ualde utilis et realis contra Ocham, ed. E. Synan, The
Works of Richard of Campsall, vol. 2 (Toronto, 1982), 344,404,405,409,412,414.
Richard of Middleton
Sacratissimi theologi Ricardi de Mediavilla . . . In primum Sententiarum ques
tiones persubtilissime (Venice, 1509), fols, lr (false attribution), 108r, 108v,
109r, 135r.
Authorati theologi Ricardi de Media Villa . . . Quodlibeta (Venice, 1509), Q. 1,
q. 7, fol. 4v; Q. 4, q. 12, fol. 35v.
Quaestio de unitate formae, ed. R. Zavalloni, Richard de Mediavilla et la con
troverse sur la pluralité des formes (Leuven, 1951), 175.
Richard Cornwall
In physicam Aristotelis, ed. Rega Wood, Richard Rufus of Cornwall: I
cam Aristotelis (Oxford, 2003), 89. 148. 149. 170, 172.
In Aristotelis De generatione et corruptione, ed. R. Wood (Oxford, 2011). 1

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
212 TRADITIO
Robert of Anjou
De visione beata, ed. M. Dykmans, La vision bienheureuse: Traité envoyé au
pape Jean XXII (Rome, 1970), 62, 63, 65.
Robert Grosseteste
Expositio in epistulam sancti Pauli ad Galalas, ed. R. Dales, CCM
hout, 1995), 73.
Robert Grosseteste (Pseudo-)

Summa philosophiae, ed. L. Baur (Münster, 1912), 279, 301, 435-36, 479,
513, 515, 562-63, 571.
Robert Holkot
In librum sapientiae regis Salomonis Praelediones CCXIII (Basel, 1586), 6
Roland of Cremona
Summa Magistri Rolandi Cremonensis O.P. Liber tertius, ed. A. Co
gamo, 1962), fol. 62r.
Roger Bacon
Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, ed. J. Brewer, vol. 1 (Londo
Opus tertium, 55.
Compendium studii philosophiae, 407.
Opus maius, ed. J. Bridges (Oxford, 1897), 1:55; 2:170.
Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, ed. R. Steele (Oxford, 1909-
Liber primus communium naturalium, fasc. 3 (1911), 248 ("De c
sia philosophorum"), 249—50.
Secreium secretorum, fasc. 5 (1920), 10-11.
Questiones supra undecimum prime philosophie Aristotelis (Me
XII, Primae et secundae), fasc. 7 (1926), 61, 64, 142, 143, 146.
Questiones supra libros prime philosophie Aristotelis (Metaphys
V-X), fasc. 10 (1930), 96, 227, 241, 311, 312, 321.
Questiones altere supra libros prime philosophie Aristotelis (Met
IV), fasc. 11 (1932), 1, 53, 101, 151.
Questiones supra librum de causis, fasc. 12 (1935), 61, 62, 78, 10
120, 135.
Quaestiones supra libros octo physicorum Aristotelis, fasc. 13 (19
327, 417.
Liber de sensu et sensato, fasc. 14 (1937), 15.
Summule dialectices, fasc. 15 (1940), 215, 232, 294, 295, 306.
Communia mathematica, fasc. 16 (1940), 16, 17.
De argumentatione, ed. A. de Libera, "Les summulae dialectices
Bacon III," Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âg
197, 208-9.
Roger Nottingham
Insolubilia, ed. E. Synan, "The 'Insolubilia' of Roger Nottingham, O.F.M.,"
Mediaeval Studies 26 (1964): 262.
Serafino Capponi
Elucidationes formales totius Summae Theologiae S. Thomae de Aquino (Venice,
1588), fols. 17r, 18r.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 213
Servasanto da Faenza
Liber de virtutibus et vitiis, ed. Livorio Öliger, "Servasanto da Fae
M. e il suo 'Liber de virtutibus et vitiis,'" Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, vol.
1 (Roma, 1924), 177.
Siger of Brabant
Questiones super physicam, ed. F. Van Steenberghen, Siger de Brabant d'après
ses œuvres inédites (Leuven, 1931), 188, 190.
De anima intellectiva, ed. B. Bazân, Quaestiones in tertium De anima (Leu
ven, 1972), 107.
Siger of Courtrai
Sophismata, ed. G. Wallerand, Les oeuvres de Siger de Courtrai (Leuven,
1913), 139.
Simon of Faversham
Quaestiones super tertium de anima disputate a magistro Symone
sham, ed. D. Sharp, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du M
9 (1934): 330.
Thomas Aquinas126
S. Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia [TAOO], ed. R. Busa, 7 vols. (Stuttgart
Bad Cannstatt, 1980).
Vol. 1: In quattuor libros sententiarum
Lib. 1, d. 36, q. 1, a. 1 (p. 93).
Lib. 1, d. 38, q. 1, a. 3 (p. 101).
Lib. 2, d. 1, q. 1, a. 5 (p. 127).
Lib. 2, d. 3, q. 3, a. 4 (p. 137).
Lib. 2, d. 11, q. 2, a. 2 (p. 156).
Vol. 2:
Summa contra Gentiles
Lib. 2, c. 80, n. 10 (p. 52).
Lib. 3, c. 103, n. 2 (p. 94)
Lib. 3, c. 145, n. 6 (p. 108).
Summa theologiae
Pars prima, q. 7, a. 4 (p. 194).
Pars prima, q. 46, a. 2 ad 8 (p. 255).
Vol. 3:
Quaestiones disputatae de veritate
q. 1, a. 12 ag. 3 (p. 7).
q. 2, a. 1 ag. 6; q. 2, a. 1 ad 6 (p. 8).
q. 2, a. 5 ag. 14 (p. 12).
q. 2, a. 10 (p. 16).
q. 8, a. 14 sed c. 3 (p. 54).
q. 21, a. 2 ag. 3 (p. 123).
q. 26, a. 1 (p. 157).
Quaestio disputata de potentia, q. 3, a. 4 (p. 198).
126 Compare with Terry Hanley, "St. Thomas' Use of al-Ghazali's Maqasid al
Falasifa," Mediaeval Studies 44 (1982): 247-70, especially at 248-49.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
214 TRADITIO
Quaestio disputata de spiritualibus creaturis

q. unica, a. 1 sed c. 5 (p. 353).
q. unica, a. 9 ag. 6 (p. 365).
Quaestiones disputatae de virtutibus, q. 4, a. 2 ag 3 (p. 431).
Quodlibet 7, q. 1, a. 2 (p. 475).
Quodlibet 9, q. 1, a. unicus (p. 488).
Quodlibet 9, q. 4, a. 2 (p. 491).
De unitate intellectus, c. 2 (p. 580), c. 5 (p. 583).
De principiis naturae (p. 588t.
Vol. 7: Known and unknown continuators
(Anon.) In De generatione et corruptione, vol. 7, Lib. 1, lect. 25, n. 8(p. 607)
(dub.) De potentiis animae, c. 4 (p. 638).
Thomas of Sutton
"Thomas of Sutton, O.P.: His Place in Scholasticism and an Account of his
Psychology," in Hommage à monsieur le professeur Maurice de Wulf, ed. D.
Sharp (Leuven, 1934), 342.
"Un traité inconnu De esse et essentia," ed. W. Senko, Archives d'histoire doc
trinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 35 (1960): 258.
Thomas de Vio (Gajetan)

In De ente et essentia D. Thomae Aquinatis Commentaria, ed. M. H. Laurent
(Turin, 1934), 34, 40, 87, 157.
Thomas of York
Sapientiale, ed. E. Longpré, "Thomas d'York et Matthieu d'Aqu
Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 1 (1926):
275, 278, 287, 288.
Ulrich of Strasbourg
De summo bono, ed. A. Beccarsi (Hamburg, 2007), 15, 194, 243.
Vincent of Beauvais
Speculum naturale (Venice, 1591), fols. 41va, 287f, 287va, 290v\ 3
309vb, 310r\ 311r\ 312vb, 314rb, 332vb.
Speculum doctrinale (Venice, 1591), fols. 288ra, 288va.
Vincenzo Patina
Dilucidationes trium librorum Aristotelis qui de anima (Bologna,
Vital Du Four
Quaestiones disputatae de cognitione, ed. F. Delorme, "Huit Que
putées sur le problème de la connaissance," Archives d'histoire doc
littéraire du Moyen Âge 2 (1927): 211-12, 280.
Walter of Bruges
Quaestiones disputatae du B. Gauthier de Bruges, ed. E. Longpré (Leuven,
1928), 34
"Questiones inédits du commentaire sur les Sentences de Gauthier de Bru
ges," ed. E. Longpré, Archives d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge
7 (1932): 258-59, 260, 265.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC
ALGAZEL LATINUS 215
Walter Bur ley

De potentiis animae, ed. M. Kitchel, "The De potentiis animae of Walter Bur
ley," Mediaeval Studies 33 (1971): 105.
Quaestiones in librum Perihermenias, ed. S. Brown, Franciscan Studies 34
(1974): 261.
Walter Chatton
Reportatio super Sententias, ed. G. Etzkorn and J. Wey (Toronto,
2:122, 145, 316.
William of Alnwick
"Utrum possibile fuerit entia permanentia alia a Deo fuise ab aeterno
A. Ledoux, Quaestiones disputatae de esse intelligibili (Florence, 1937
William of Auvergne
Guilielmi Alverni opera omnia, ed. Blaise Le Feron, 2 vols. (Paris, 1674).
De anima, vol. 2, c. 5, 112b.
De universo creaturarum, vol. 2, pars 1, c. 21, 615a: vol. 2, c. 9, 816b.
William Crathorn
In primum librum Sententiarum, ed. Fritz Hoffmann, Quästionen zu
Sentenzenbuch: Einführung und Text, Beiträge zur Geschichte der P
und Theologie des Mittelalters n.s. 29 (Münster, 1988), 247.
William of Falgar
De gradibus formarum, ed. P. Glorieux, "Le De gradibus formarum de Guil
laume de Falegar, O.F.M.," Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 24
(1957): 310.
William of Macclesfield
Le Correctorium Corruptorii "Sciendum,"ed. P. Glorieux (Paris, 1956)
William de la Mare
Correctorium corruptorii, ed. P. Glorieux, Le Correctorium corr
(Kain, 1927), 211, 218, 299.
William Ockham
Expositio in libros Physicorum Aristotelis, ed. B. Wood, Opera

vol. 5 (St. Bonaventure, NY, 1985), Lib. 8, c. 1, 705.
William of Ware
In Sententiarum primum, ed. L. Amorso, "La teologia como cienci

en la escuela franciscana en los tiempos que preceden a Escoto,
d'histoire doctrinale et littéraire du Moyen Âge 9 (1934): 291, 300.
William Wheatley
(dub.) In Boethii De scholarium disciplina, in Thomae Aquinatis opera omnia,
vol. 24 (Parma, 1869), c. 3, 179.

132.248.9.41 on Thu, 26 Aug 2021 21:53:23 UTC

Algazel Latinus

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Algazel Latinus

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALGAZEL LATINUS: THE AUDIENCE OF THE "SUMMA THEORICAE PHILOSOPHIAE",

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24712431

This content downloaded from

The Latin translation of al-Ghazali's Maqäsid al-faläsifa was one of

In 1963, Manuel Alonso published a Spanish translation of al-G

lation into Latin and circulation in Europe.2 The clearest indicat

1 Manuel Alonso Alonso, MaqSfid al-faläsifa: o Intenciones de los filosofos

This content downloaded from

mainly of thirteenth-century scholars, containing only five authors with

Over the last half century, editions of medieval philosophical wo

This content downloaded from

Latin perception of Algazel's identity changed over time. The appen

Al-Ghazali and the Maqàçid al-falàsifa

The Muslim theologian Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) is an essen

text in many of his works, perhaps because it is not an original

6 Al-Ghazali negatively reexamined his philosophical approach to faith i

This content downloaded from

informs the reader that he is preparing a critical review of

This content downloaded from

a small degree of independence from the established tradition as well as

This content downloaded from

From al-Ghazali to Algazel

The team of scholars that translated the Maqâsid al-falâsi

13 The efforts of Gundissalinus and his colleagues represent a shift

This content downloaded from

keeping with the development of the translation m

the difficulty of matching Arabic and Latin syntax. Howe

of the Twelfth-Century Movement in Spain," in Wissen über Grenzen: Arabisches

This content downloaded from

corpus and represent the maturity of the Arabic philoso

18 Historians have identified important differences between the

This content downloaded from

The Historiography of the Latin Translation of the Maqäsid al-faläsifa

Al-Ghazali's dynamic course of study and large library encourage fre

bic-to-Latin translation in the STP. The Maqâsid. al-falâsifa languis

This content downloaded from

covery that the Maqâsid al-falâsifa is a paraphrase o

21 Scholars suspected that the Maqä$id al-faläsifa was

This content downloaded from

Ghazali's views.25 Finally, Dominique Salman's 1936 article settled the

The long process of discovery encouraged the creation of editions of

30 "Cette ancienne [1506] édition étant depuis longtemps introuvable, le Rév. J.

This content downloaded from

the prologue. Scholars found the choice of a trunca

Philosophia, terme qui dans son imprécision n'était pas ine

This content downloaded from

Clair published a critical edition of the fourth treatise

The lack of an adequate edition complicates the study of the STP,

This content downloaded from

The Composition of Algazel's Audience

Algazel's Audience by Century

It is easy to conclude from Alonso's list that Algazel's audience reached

39 Nicholas of Autrecourt, Exigit ordo executionis, ed. R. O'Donnell, Media

This content downloaded from

The Thirteenth-Century Audience

University-trained masters comprise the majority of the thirteenth

This content downloaded from

tions seem to have been unsure whether their colleagu

43 The twelfth-century translator Adelard of Bath omits the names of Arabs in

This content downloaded from

together, since quotations from the STP appear in th

gart-Bad Cannstatt, 1980), 638; John Pecham, Quaestiones de