CHAPTER VII: MEDICINE AND THE NATURAL SCIENCES
The Canon of Medicine is Avicenna’s chief medical work, whilst his minor treatises deal with separate diseases and their treatment. Just as his Shifa was concerned with all aspects of philosophy, this voluminous undertaking, which was to become equally renowned in both the East and the West, is an encyclopedia of the medical knowledge of his day. The former was basically Aristotelian with important contributions of Avicenna’s own; this comprises in the main what Hippocrates and Galen had taught, together with the results of his medical practice and the experience that he had gained. It also includes what his immediate predecessors had written on the subject. In concept as well as in method there are points of similarity between the two books on which, we are told, he worked at the same time. TheShifa, though the whole of it has not yet been edited, has been frequently if not comprehensively studied, but the Canon though already printed in full, has been examined only in parts, and still awaits a patient and competent student. Avicenna may not be as great a physician as a philosopher, yet he is commonly referred to as “the prince and chief of physicians”; and it is supposed that with him Islamic medicine reached its zenith.
Greek medicine reached the Islamic world before philosophy. Already in Umayyad times a Persian Jew by the name of Masarjawaih had translated the Pandects of Ahron, a Christian monk who lived in Alexandria not long before the Arab conquest, into Arabic. In Baghdad, Persian and Indian medicine became incorporated with the Greek. The process had in fact already started in Gundishapur, and the teaching at that institution comprised all three elements. Thence a long line of celebrated physicians graduated and spread out over the Islamic world. They became particularly numerous at the court of the Caliphs. Some reached great eminence and even took part in public life; others helped to produce a till then non-existent Arabic literature on the subject. Among the latter, Hunain was one of the earliest and most noted. The outstanding contribution that he made to the creation of Arabic philosophical literature, through his numerous translations from Greek, has already been noted. His renderings of medical works, though smaller in number, were no less important. According to his own claim, he translated practically the whole corpus of Galenic writings which ran into some hundred and forty books. He also translated from Hippocrates, including his Aphorisms; and some of Galen’s commentaries on Hippocrates. In addition, he corrected the translation of the Materia Medica of Dioscurides; and made his own renderings of the Synopsis of Oribasius, and the Seven Books of Paul of Aegina. He did original work as well. He wrote Questions on Medicine which became well known; and another work called Ten Teatises on the Eye described as the earliest systematic textbook of ophthalmology known. His pupils continued the translation of medical books with just as much interest and care as they devoted to the philosophical works.
It has been observed that after an initial period of translation and minor works, the initiative seems to pass rapidly from the hands of the Christians and Harranians who were the pioneers, to the Muslims whether Arabs, Turks, or Persians. This is as true in medicine and the natural sciences as it was in philosophy. The time of the translators had hardly drawn to a close when Kindi and Farabi appeared on the scene, and totally eclipsed them with their original contributions. And the pupils of Hunain had not yet finished rendering Greek medical works into Arabic when Muslim physicians, mostly of Persian extraction, came along with the results of their clinical observations and personal experiences. Pandectsbecame replaced by substantial encyclopedias, and aphorisms by hospital reports of much value. The first and, by common consent, the greatest of these was Razi, of whose philosophical ideas some mention has already been made. According to a competent critic, “Rhazes was undoubtedly the greatest physician of the Islamic world, and one of the greatest physicians of all time”. Students of medicine must be grateful that in spite of a large practice and extensive travels, he found time to write about a hundred medical books, not all of which, however, can be classified as learned works. He has a treatise On the fact that even skilful physicians cannot heal all diseases; and another On why people prefer quacks and charlatans to skilled physicians. His most celebrated work is On Smallpox and Measles, two of the most common diseases in the East. And it should be remembered that smallpox had been unknown to Greek medicine. This was translated into Latin and various other languages including English, and was printed some forty times between 1498 and 1866.
This work, supposed to give the first clear account of these two diseases that has come down to us, is eclipsed by his magnum opus described as perhaps the most extensive ever written by a medical man. His al-Hawi, meaning “The Comprehensive” and known to the Latins as Liber Continens, was an enormous manual giving the results of a life-time of medical practice. This may have been actually finished by Razi’s pupils and the material afterwards collected by his patron. Only ten out of the original twenty volumes are extant today. For each disease Rhazes first cites all the Greek, Syrian, Arabic, Persian and Indian authors, and at the end gives his own opinion and experiences, and he preserves many striking examples of his clinical insight. In Latin the work was repeatedly printed from 1486 onwards, and its influence on European medicine was considerable.
Besides translations and extracts, Arabic medical literature had included manuals that often took the form of pandects. These were recapitulations of the whole of medicine beginning at the head and working down to the feet; and there were also the cram books in the form of questions and answers. Now the tendency was to collect all the available knowledge and add the author’s own contributions and the results of his practice. (These works differed in size. If the compilation of Razi ran into twenty volumes, that of another physician of Persian extraction, known to the Latins as Haly Abbas (d. 994) and called by them Liber Regius, was far more modest; and so was the Firdows al-Hikma of Tabari.) There was thus a whole tradition of medical writing in existence when the Canon of Avicenna appeared. It cannot therefore claim to be entirely original in form or in subject matter; but in more ways than one, it was the culmination of all that had been done before in this field. It occupies the same position in medical literature that the Shifa has in philosophical writings, and may actually have been meant to be a counterpart of the other. The Canon is a highly compact work, giving mainly facts; it rarely indulges in general discussions. It fills a big fat volume, and yet is not unwieldy for the general practitioner to whom it is undoubtedly addressed. Of all his sixteen medical works, this is the one to which the physician can most rapidly refer. One of its distinctive features is the system of classification used; this may be thought nowadays to have been carried too far, and to be rather confusing as a result. It is divided into five books, each of which is then subdivided into different fanns, then fasl and then maqala. Book One comprises a general description of the human body, its constitution, members, temperaments and faculties. Then follows a section about common ailments, their causes and their complications. Then one about general hygiene and the “necessity of death”; and finally one about the treatment of diseases. Book Two deals with Materia Medica. Book Three is devoted to separate diseases, and is composed of twenty-two fanns. Book Four deals with those diseases that affect the whole system of the sufferer, and not only the diseased part. This book is composed of sevenfanns. Book Five, which is the last, is on pharmacology, in the form known to the Islamic world as Aqrabadhin, a word mutilated and arabicized, corresponding to the Greekgraphidion, meaning a small treatise; and commonly found in Latin manuscripts asGrabadin. This was a subject of some importance when it is remembered that Islamic pharmacology comprised a good deal of original work, and survived in Europe down to the beginning of the nineteenth century.
On the intrinsic value of the Canon as a permanent contribution to medical science, we are not competent to judge. Suffice it to say that when translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the twelfth century, it became so highly prized that in the last thirty years of the fifteenth it was issued sixteen times; and more than twenty times in the sixteenth century. This apart from editions of separate parts of the work. In the second half of the seventeenth century it was still being printed and read, and constantly used by the practitioners. And it is supposed to have been studied as a textbook in the medical school of Louvain University as late as the eighteenth century. The medical curriculum in Vienna and Frankfurt on the Oder, in the sixteenth century, was largely based on the Canon of Avicenna and the Ad Almansorem of Rhazes. The translation of the Canon by Andrea Alpago (d. 1520) of Italy was followed by even later versions which were taught in various European universities especially in Italy and France. It superseded to a great extent the Liber Regius; and it was not until human dissection came to be allowed that European anatomists detected certain anatomical and physiological errors of Galen which had been transmitted to Europe through the works of Avicenna.
On the occasion of the celebrations in honor of Avicenna’s millenary in Tehran, competent judgments were passed on certain parts of the Canon. It appears that in pharmacology some of his contributions were original and important; e.g. he introduced many herbs into medical practice that had not been tried before; he seems to have been aware of the antiseptic effects of alcohol, for he recommends that wounds should be first washed with wine. This was probably a common practice long before him, since Zoroastrian rituals had used wine from early times, and had even provided for washing parts of the body with it.
Yet Avicenna may have been the first to realize its antiseptic properties. He also recommended the drinking of mineral waters, quite fashionable nowadays. And he suggests that experiments should be made on animals. In the field of chemistry, perhaps his greatest service was the total discrediting of alchemy. This practice had developed a regular tradition in the Islamic world. Kindi and Farabi had both argued for it as a legitimate pursuit. But it was associated mainly with the name of Jabir, known to the western world as Geber. The identity of this man has puzzled modern scholars. There was a mystic by that name, yet he could hardly have been the author of some one hundred books on the subject. In any case many had taken up alchemy and wasted their years over it. And when Avicenna came, he repudiated its whole basis clearly and emphatically. “Its possibility”, he says, “has not been made evident to me. I rather find it remote, because there is no way of splitting up one combination into another differentiae being unknown. And if a thing is unknown, how is it possible to attempt to produce or destroy it?”
The Problem of Matter
We have to return to his philosophical works to take note of Avicenna’s views on the natural sciences, which he discusses in the tradition of Aristotle. Large sections of the Shifaand the Najat are devoted to such matters and correspond to the Physica and other treatises of the Stagirite and frequently bear the same titles. In his classification he had divided the theoretical sciences in true Aristotelian fashion into metaphysics which he calls the higher science, mathematics, the middle science, and physics, the lower science. Again, like his predecessor he states that the subject of physics is existing natural bodies that are changeable and that have in them different manners of movement and rest. Unlike metaphysics which is a universal science that has to prove its principles and the correctness of its premisses, physics is only a particular science dealing with specific subjects.
Natural bodies, as the subject of physics, are things composed of matter, which is their substratum, and form which comes into it. And what is common to them all is the three-dimensional form which constitutes extension. These dimensions do not enter into the definition of matter, they are just external accidents and not part of its existence even though they determine its state. In fact natural bodies, in an absolute sense, have only two principal constituents, matter and form; the attributes are accidents accruing from the general categories. Accidents come after matter by nature, and form precedes matter by causality. And that separate principle, which governs all natural bodies, is not the cause of their existence only, but of their two principal constituents as well. To matter it gives permanence through form, and with them both it gives permanence to the natural bodies. It is itself separate, and consequently the state of its nature does not concern natural science. It is to the essence and to the perfections of natural bodies that it gives permanence; and these perfections are either primary or secondary. Without the primary perfections they could not exist, while the secondary perfections are given permanence by means of certain powers or faculties placed in them which produce their actions. It is because of the presence of these powers that they react to outside forces, be they movement or emanation. These powers which are innate in them are of three kinds:
(1) natural forces that pervade them and keep their perfections and shapes and natural positions and reactions, and that determine their movement and rest, and that they all have in common;
(2) forces that act through different means; without knowledge or will as in the case of the vegetative soul, with knowledge and will as in the case of the animal soul, and with knowledge of the reality of things through thought and investigation as in the case of the human soul. And
(3) forces that act independently without the intermediary of any means or instrument, and with a single directing will, and they are called the celestial souls. These forces are all to be found in one or other of the natural bodies affecting their matter and their form.
Now everything that comes to be, after not being, must necessarily have matter as a subject in which or from which or with which it can exist. In natural bodies this can be well perceived through the senses. It must also necessarily be preceded by a state of non-being otherwise it would be pre-eternal. It must also necessarily have a form which it immediately took with its matter, otherwise nothing would have come to be. Hence, in true Aristotelian fashion, there are three principles attached to all existing natural bodies: form, matter, and privation. Form comes first, then primary matter or substratum, then privation which is only a state. The existence of such bodies has two causes which are in essence external to it, the agent or efficient cause, and the end or final cause. The end is that thing for which it exists. Some count the means and the instruments among the causes, and also the original Ideas, but it is not as they would think it. All natural bodies are led in their existence towards an end and a good, nothing in them is superfluous or by chance except in rare cases. They follow an imperative order, and they have no part that is unused or useless.
The explanation of generation and corruption, or coming into being and passing away, was of interest to philosophers and theologians alike. Aristotle recognized two earlier views, that of the monists who reduced both processes to a qualitative change of the same single substance, and that of the pluralists who explained generation as the association of certain elementary bodies forming a whole, and corruption as their dissociation. It was this theory that was given a more definite form by the Atomists. Yet Aristotle himself had shown in hisPhysica that the belief in atoms leads to some impossible consequences. The theory as developed by the Atomists had an added importance for Avicenna because the Islamic theologians had almost an adopted it as an explanation of generation and corruption, with some slight modifications. It was therefore only natural that he should follow Aristotle and raise the matter in his physics. Some, he says, claim that natural bodies are composed of an aggregate of indivisible parts, and that they can be divided actually and potentially into a finite number of these parts; others believe that their number is infinite; and still others think that bodies are composed of single and composite parts, and that the composite are made up of similar and dissimilar components of those single parts. These single parts actually are not composed of any smaller ones but they have the potentiality of being divided into an infinite number of parts one smaller than the other, though never into an indivisible part. And if none of these three descriptions is correct, then the single body has actually no parts
An argument which he proceeds to advance in refutation of the atomic theory is this. Whenever a part touches another it makes contact with it, with or without an empty space being left between the two. If, however, it happens that a third part makes contact also with the first, then there must be some empty space left between them, and the same is true if more parts make contact. Hence the aggregate becomes divisible as a whole, and everything that makes contact in this way can be separated from the original part. Taking the contrary case, it may be said a part is indivisible from another when it does not make contact with it except by way of entering into it and becoming completely unified with it to form one single part. And when that happens it does not become the component part of a greater composite body. Consequently indivisible parts cannot go to compose a complex body or a quantity. And again, let us suppose that two indivisible parts are placed on two others with one in between them. Each set is able to move, and neither prevents the movement of the other except by way of friction, for there is no internal or external opposition between them. That being the case, it is possible that they should move together until they meet some obstruction. Supposing they did move and did meet an obstruction, the impact would be either on the middle part or on one of the two extremities. If the obstruction is against either extremity, it will stop it from motion and the other extremity will continue moving; and if the obstruction is against the middle part, then it will become separated itself and will thereby separate the extremities, and that shows that they are divisible. The impact may even make the original sets of two separate from one another. Avicenna adduces various arguments against Atomism and refers to it at length in the Isharat also, though he had already discussed it in the Shifa and the Najat and in some minor treatises. The reason for that is that it was a very live issue among the theologians of the Islamic world, since the Mutazelites had adopted the atomism of Democrites and with some modifications applied it to their explanation of God’s creations on earth. Atomism thus has a long history in Islamic theology. It made what was originally a purely materialistic theory result from divine wisdom.
Having disposed of Atomism, Avicenna turns to movement and rest, and to time, place and the void, which are thought to be implied in movement. Contrary to his predecessors, Aristotle had maintained both the reality and the continuity of change; and had said that it was the actualization of that which is potentially, as such. Avicenna’s definition is not very different and he calls it a change in the state established in the body that is gradual and directed towards something, and that which is to be reached is potentially not actually so. Thus motion is separate from the state of the body, and that state must be liable to increase and decrease. It is for this reason, he says, that it has been said that movement is the actualization and first entelechy (completeness) of a thing that is potentially as such. Thus when a body is actually in one place and potentially in another, so long as it is at rest in its place it is potentially movable and able to reach the other place; and if it moves it attains its first entelechy and actualization which is the motion itself, and through it attains its second entelechy and actualization which is the reaching to the other place. This is how movement becomes the first entelechy of what is potential. That being the case, the existence of movement is placed in the time between pure potentiality and pure actuality, and is not one of those things that actually take place completely and permanently. All movement is in things that are liable to growth and shrinking, and does not involve substance, which does not suffer such changes. There is, therefore, no movement in substance; and its generation and corruption is not change, because it takes place all at once and not gradually,
Aristotle had said that in order to discover the kinds of movement one must find to which category movement belongs, and had come to the conclusion that there are only three kinds of movement - severally in respect of quality, quantity and place. Avicenna, in considering the same question, decides that in addition there is movement with respect toposition and falling under that category. This he calls “our special opinion” and gives as an example the movement of a circular body upon itself. It may not move around anything, but it is in motion all the same and moves round its own position. In a lengthy justification of his view, he examines each of the categories one by one and arrives at the result that it must be conceded that there is no essential movement except in quantity, quality, place andposition, thus dissenting from the view of Aristotle. As to rest, it is nothing but the privation of movement. But every movement found in a body is due to a cause that originates it. If as a body it moved of itself then all bodies would be in motion. The cause that makes it move is something besides its primary matter and form; it is a force or some other form that creates in it a property which becomes the source of the movement and its principle. Not that the body moves itself by it, but it moves the body, and the property of doing so belongs to it alone. When the cause producing motion is found in a body, it is said that it is a body that moves by itself; and when it is found outside the body then it moves but not of itself. What moves by itself may do so through its will, or by nature; and when that is forced upon it, then it is by force of nature, and when it is by a natural win of its own, it is said to move through the action of the celestial soul.
Besides the kind, there is the form that movement takes. Reasoning from the essential nature of a thing, and from the fact that movement is something separate from it, and that the natural state is not one of movement, and that when a thing is involved in movement it is not in its natural state, but moves in order to return to it, it can be shown that every movement that is by force of nature takes place when the thing is in an uncongenial state. This movement must necessarily be in a straight line if it is with respect to place, for it is because of a natural inclination, and that seeks the shortest path, namely a straight line. Hence it may be seen that the movement with respect to place, when in a circle rather than in a straight line, as when round an external axis, is not by force of nature. A thing becomes involved in a circular form of motion not because of the forceful exigencies of its own nature, but in consequence of a psychical principle, i.e. , a power that moves that particular thing by choice or by will. The same is true of circular motion when it is with respect to position. How could it in fact be otherwise when it was seen that every movement that is by force of nature is an escape from a state that is not natural to it? And nature does not work by choice but by force of compulsion. The fact that the movement is not in a straight line but in a circle is evidence that it is not by force of nature. It is rather by choice or will that comes from the moving power of a soul that does not work, through blind force. The same may be said of all kinds of circular motion.
Furthermore, movement with respect to place cannot be indivisible as the Atomists claim, Avicenna says. The existence of indivisible units of motion entails the existence of indivisible units of distance, and as this latter idea cannot possibly be entertained, the former must also be rejected. If motion corresponds with distance, and distance can be divided to infinity, then surely there can be no end to the division of motion. If movement were composed of indivisible units of motion, there could not be one movement more rapid than another unless one had less and the other more units of rest intervening in between it. But this could not conceivably be the case because motion is continuous, and if one is rapid and the other slow it is because of the very nature of the motion and not of intervening units of rest. There can therefore be no indivisible units of motion, no matter how rapid it may be. Movement, it should be remembered, may be of a single genus or of a single species or of a single individual. It is of a single genus when it falls under one category or one of the genera coming under it. Growth and diminution, for instance, are one in genus because they both fall under the category of quantity; and there could be examples falling under the category of quality. It is of a single species when it is from one supposed direction to another single direction within a fixed period of time, like rising or falling. And it is of a single individual when even while of a single genus or species it is due to a single individual mover at a single time, and its unity lies in the existence of continuity in it.
The problem of Time
From movement Avicenna passes on to consider time. A movement within a supposed distance and at a certain velocity is found to differ from another within the same distance but with a different velocity. Hence there is the possibility of its taking place with greater or less velocity, and this has a corresponding measure, and within that measure fall movement and all its parts. Now since movement is continuous that measure must be continuous also, and it becomes a period that is liable to elapse. This period is expected to exist in matter because it has one part coming after another, and all that follows this order has some part that is supposedly more recent, and everything that newly comes to be is in matter or from matter. In this case it could not be from matter, for the union of matter and form do not produce an original creation. It is rather the disposition and the form that do so. And every measure that is found in a matter or subject is either a measure of the matter itself or of the disposition in it. It is not a measure of the matter itself for that would mean that with its increase or decrease there would be a corresponding increase or decrease of the matter. This is not the case and therefore it is a measure of the disposition. And there is an established and an unestablished disposition. It is not the measure of a permanent and established disposition following matter. It is the measure of an unestablished disposition which is movement. It is for this reason that time cannot be imagined except in connection with movement. And Aristotle had said that time implies change.
Avicenna argues further to show that “time is not created as a temporal creation but as an original creation, in which its creator does not precede it in time and duration, but in essence”. By temporal creation he means that there was a time when it did not exist and that then it came to exist. If it had had a temporal beginning, its creation would have taken place after a period of non-existence, that is after some prior time; and since time by then had not yet come to exist, it must have taken place after a non-existent before. It would then have been after a before and before an after; and what is so, is not the beginning of before, and what is not the beginning of before, is not the beginning of all time. Time, then, must have had an original creation, not preceded by anything except its creator. The same might be said of movement: not of all movement but the circular only, whether it be with respect to place or position. So that time becomes the measure of a circular motion with relation to priority and posteriority, not in connection with distance. And because motion is continuous, time also is continuous. And just as every continuous thing may appear to be divisible to the imagination, time when divided is found to have imaginary limits which we call moments. Not everything that is with time is “in time”. Of the things that are “in time”, there is first its parts which are the past and the future, together with the limits which are the moments; then second, the movements; and third, the movables. For the movables are in movement, and movement is in time, so the movables become, in a sense, in time. And moments may be said to be in time in the same manner as there are units in a number; and the past and the future are analogous to division in numbers; and the movables to the things that are numbered. Besides these there is nothing that could be said to be “in time”. It may be added that just as all continuous amounts of distance when separated and divided fall into numbers, so time when split up in the imagination falls into years and months and days and hours, either by convention or according to the number of movements involved. There are, however, according to Avicenna, certain distinctions to be made. There is first what has been shown to constitute time. There is then that which if compared with time and measured by it, is found to have a permanence corresponding exactly to the permanence of time, and to what is in it. This correlative is called eternal duration; so that it is correct to say that eternal duration encompass time. And then there is a time which is absolutely fixed and unchanging. Thus we see that for him there may be said to be three varieties of time, each with a different
Because of its religious implications, the subject of time occupied philosophers and theologians a great deal; and we find them all devoting much space to it, and discussing it from various angles. The Mutakallemun maintained that it was “a definitely created thing with which to measure other created things. Among the Falasifa, Kindi said that it was a period determined by movement and of which the parts are not fixed. Farabi’s definition did not differ much from the Aristotelian conception. The authors of the Epistles said that it was nothing save the motion of the spheres in its repetitive turning; though Avicenna insists that “it is older than the initial movement”. And Suhrawardi, the mystic, claims that it was before the creation of the world. Sajistani, another Persian mystic, remarks that time cannot be associated with the Deity; and Abu al-Barakat believes that it is only the measure of existence. We have already seen how Razi divided time into the absolute and the limited; and centuries later Averroes says that it is nothing except what the mind perceives from the extension inherent in motion. For some reason, probably connected with the principal beliefs of that heterodoxy, Nasir Khosrow, the Ismaili poet and philosopher, devotes a long section of one of his books to a discussion of time and its implications. And when it is recalled that there was a religious movement in ancient Persia that considered Time a Deity known by the name of Zurvan, the importance attached to the whole question becomes more comprehensible. As regards dahr we find a lexicographer defining it as “that continuous moment which is the extension of the divine presence. It is the core of time, and by it unites pre-eternity with post-eternity”.
The Problem of Space
From the consideration of time we proceed to the consideration of place. Place is the thing in which the body is, and which contains it. And it may also be said to be the thing on which the body settles. The first is the sense in which it is taken and studied by the physicists. It encompasses that which occupies it, and yet is separate from it in movement. Two bodies cannot be found in the same place. Place is not something in what occupies it; and primary matter and form are in the body that occupies them. Therefore place is neither primary matter nor form. Nor indeed is it the intervening distances that are claimed to separate matter from that which the body has come to occupy. And what of the interstices within the body itself, are they full, as some maintain, or empty, as the believers in the existence of the void insist? Avicenna, like Aristotle, sets himself to disprove the existence of the void. If we were to suppose an empty void, he argues it could not be pure nothingness but some essence or quantity or substance; since for every supposed void there is another more or less empty than the first; and it is found to be divisible in itself. What is just nothing cannot be in this state, consequently the void cannot be a nothingness. Moreover, if everything that had these qualifications is a quantity, then the void would have to be a quantity also. And quantity is either continuous or discontinuous. The void cannot be discontinuous. It is the counterpart of “the full” which is continuous, so the void must be continuous as well. Besides continuity in its parts, it has permanence in itself and spatial directions, and what possesses these is a quantity that has in addition a position. Hence the void is quantity with a position. The void also has the property of extension and well-imagined divisibility, and therefore three dimensions similar to a mathematical body that is divested of matter. Finally, and after various arguments, Avicenna comes to the conclusion that the void as an empty nothingness does not exist and that, in the words of Aristotle, it is an empty thought. But to return to place. It is not matter nor form nor a void nor the interval between limits. Place is the limit of the containing body that touches the limit of the contained body and that is not very different from Aristotle’s definition.
What of the problem of the infinite: does it exist? A continuous quantity existing as a whole and having position cannot be infinite. Nor can a number that is successive and existing simultaneously. On the other hand if the parts of a quantity do not end and are not simultaneous and existed in the past and will exist in the future, then it is not impossible that they should be infinite, provided they are successive. And a number that is not successive in position nor in nature may be simultaneous and at the same time infinite. Examples of the first are time and movement. There is no end to their parts which are not simultaneous and are infinitely divisible, and there is no end to their successive continuation. Yet in themselves they do not exist as an infinite given whole. And an example of the second is a form of angles that are not successive in position or by nature, but seem to exist simultaneously and in an endless number. There are thus things which in one sense can and in another cannot be actually infinite. Number and movement are not infinite in themselves, though they have a certain potential existence in which they could be. Potential not in the sense that they could ever become completely actualized, rather meaning that number theoretically could go on increasing by addition to an endless limit. Finite and infinite are applicable to what is a quantity in itself, and when used with respect to some forms of body, it is only in relation to what is a quantity. We speak of a power as being finite or infinite not because power is a quantity by itself, but because it varies in intensity and duration. Hence the infinite is not an individual substance of its own.
The consideration of the infinite leads to the consideration of space. Every body has a place that it naturally occupies, and that place is in space. Not every place is suitable to it, it has to seek that position in space which conforms best with its nature. And not all spatial points are equally proper for all bodies to occupy. It can be observed that one body moves upwards and another downwards. Hence there must be some inner force that determines the place of a body in space; and that force either possesses choice and will-power, or is simply natural to the body. Whether there is or is not a force possessing choice and will-power, the movement of the body to find its proper place in space is due to a natural force and depends upon its particular species. Now if this natural force is only one, the place that the body shall occupy is determined by it. If it be composed of two equal forces acting contrary to one another, the place of the body will be midway between the two because of their powers of attraction, and if one be stronger than the other then the place is more towards it. Consequently the exact position of the body is determined by the forces acting upon it, and these come to be part of its nature, so that every single body comes to occupy its own particular place which is the space that it makes its own. Similarly every body has a natural shape, since it is finite and everything finite has a limit which may be one or many. And the shape may be natural to it or may be the result of some force. In the latter case it might take different shapes, but when it has a natural figure which is that of simple bodies, it is spherical in shape because there is only one natural force acting in one single matter equally from every direction. It cannot produce an angle on one side and a straight line on the other.
There is no special reason why bodies as bodies should not be continuous. If we find that actually they are not, it is because their forms differ and do not fit into one another. Simple bodies, however, which have similar forms, whether supposedly continuous or otherwise, find the same place in space. And even when they separate they occupy similar positions, since the acting forces are the same. A body cannot occupy two places at the same time, and those that have similar forms and forces by nature find similar positions in space, and their natural directions are also the same. It may thus be gathered that there cannot be two earths in the centre of two universes with two fires and enveloping spaces. By nature there can be no earth except in one universe, similarly fire and all the heavenly bodies. If the simple bodies - whose natural shape is circular - occupy the first places, then beyond them there can be no bodies at all, and the whole constitutes one single universe. If we were to suppose that there is another universe it would be in the same form and order, and in between the two there would necessarily be a void. But it was already shown that there can be no such thing as a void. It is therefore impossible that there should be another universe besides this one.
The universe is one and only one. And we, like all terrestrial elements, move in straight lines as compared to the circular motion of simple bodies. The influence of Aristotle’s De Caelo on these views is evident; they had been further elaborated by Hellenistic commentators; and are here critically restated by Avicenna. Moreover, it should be noted that Avicenna, like Aristotle, held to the geocentric theory of the universe; and the central position of the earth seemed to him a necessary assumption. (It was Aristarchus of Samos who taught the heliocentric theory, and he is often called the Copernicus of antiquity.)
Geology
Corresponding to Aristotle's Meteorologica, sections of the Shifa and of the Najat are devoted to the consideration of the “things on high” and of what Avicenna calls the formation of inanimate things. In about 1200 Alfred of Sareshel, an Englishman, translated part of this section of the Shifa and paraphrased it into Latin directly from the Arabic and entitled it De Mineralibus. The descriptions given there of the formation of rocks and mountains are surprisingly accurate, and show a remarkable insight into geological phenomena. Stones, he says, are generally formed in two ways, one by the formation of porous pottery-like things, and the other by regular solidification. Clay often dries out of aqueous mixtures, and changes into something intermediate between clay and soft stone, which later turns into hard stone. Agglutinative clay lends itself more easily to the formation of stones; what is not of this kind crumbles before it petrifies. Stones may also be formed out of flowing water, either by solidification as the water falls drop by drop, and here he is obviously referring to stalactites, or during its now, meaning stalagmites; and still another way is by the deposition from flowing water of things which adhere to the surface of the bed and then petrify. Avicenna illustrates these statements by his own observations along the banks of the Oxus river where he spent his childhood days. He relates that he had seen deposits of clay there which people were in the habit of using to wash their heads, presumably because it contained sodium carbonate, and that some twenty years later he saw all these deposits solidified into stone. He adds, further, that the stones formed out of water are sometimes pebbles of different colors, and this is because of the mineralizing, solidifying element of earthiness in them. This earthiness becomes predominant, as with salt when it coagulates, and this is a peculiarity that does not depend on quantity. The reason for the coagulation may be contact with heat, or it may be that the virtue is yet another, unknown to us. Then there is the case of two liquids that when mixed produce a white precipitate, and that they call the Virgin's Milk. And if what they say about the petrifaction of animals and plants be true, then the reason must be the presence of some mineral and petrifying element that manifests itself in stony spots or is released suddenly from the earth during an earthquake, and petrifies everything that comes into contact with it. It is not impossible, says Avicenna, for compounds to be converted into a single element, if that element becomes preponderant and converts the others into its like; and that is how things that fall into fire are converted into fire. The rapidity or slowness of the conversion depends on the nature of the element. In Arabia, a country he had never seen, there was, he tells us, a tract of volcanic land that turned to its own color everyone who lived in its vicinity, and every object that fell upon it. Then he assures us that he himself had seen a loaf of bread, though petrified, retaining its original color and showing the mark of a bite in it. He carried it about for a time as a curiosity. These things, he repeats, all have natural causes.
In proof of his wide interests that extended beyond the study of books to the observation of natural phenomena, it may be mentioned that Avicenna asserts that there are certain varieties of stone that are formed during the extinction of fire; and it is not infrequent that ferrous objects originate during thunder storms. In the country of the Turks, he had seen coppery bodies in the shape of arrowheads fall from the skies amid thunder and lightning. He had once seen a much larger object, dry and coppery, fall and penetrate into the earth close to the shores of the Caspian Sea. Once he himself attempted to fuse a lump of this kind. But it would not melt; only greenish fumes continued to come from it, nothing remaining at last except some ashy substance. In another case, what must have been a large meteoric stone fell to the ground, then rebounded once or twice like a ball, and finally penetrated into the ground again. People had heard a terrifying noise when this happened. And the Governor tried to remove it and send it on to the Sultan to whom the news had been carried. But it proved too heavy. After much difficulty they chopped off a piece. The Sultan ordered that a sword should be struck from it, but that was found very difficult to do, as the substance was composed entirely of small rounded granular particles closely adhering to one another.
As regards the formation of large stones, this may occur all at once through the effect of intense heat suddenly turned upon a large mass of clay, or gradually with the passage of time. The cause of the formation of hills may be essential or have some accidental reason. Like Aristotle, Avicenna believed that it is winds that produce earthquakes, and that these sometimes cause the sudden formation of hills. Erosion caused by wind and floods is an accidental cause. That is how valleys come to be; and deep depressions. He thinks it is quite likely that this world was not habitable in former days; and that it was actually submerged beneath the ocean (a suggestion going back to the early Greeks, that was later adopted by Aristotle). Through exposure it may have petrified little by little: petrifaction could have taken place beneath the waters due to the intense heat confined under the sea. It is, however, more probable that the petrifaction occurred after the exposure of the earth with the assistance of the agglutinative clay. This is why certain stones when broken have the fossil of some aquatic animal found in them. The Greeks also had observed that seashells are sometimes seen in regions far from the sea; but orthodoxy would not concede the idea that all or certain parts of the earth might have been at one time covered by water, until Leonardo da Vinci courageously reaffirmed it. The reason for the abundance of stones in mountains, is the clay previously submerged and now exposed. Winds and floods carried away what was between them, causing deep hollows. And mountains are at the present time in a stage of decay and disintegration, except where there is still clay deposited upon them. It is also possible that the bed of the sea may have been originally in the shape of plains and mountains, and that when the waters ebbed away, they were exposed. It may be noticed that some mountains are in layers, and this may be because each layer was formed at a different period. The clay forming the bed of the sea is either sedimentary or primeval, and it is probable that the sedimentary is due to the disintegration of the strata of mountains.
Avicenna then considers the mineral substances and their properties. Mineral bodies may be roughly divided into four groups, viz.. stones, fusible substances, sulphurs and salts. Some of these are weak in composition and others are strong; some are malleable, others are not; some have the nature of salt, others are oily. He then proceeds to give a description of the properties of some of the minerals.
With regard to the air, he says he has seen it suddenly thicken and change, mostly or entirely, into rain or hail or snow, then clear up again just as before. He had also noticed it turn into clouds or into mist that covers the mountain-tops or even the surface of the plain because of the cold. And then there is frost that forms on cold nights. All these are not due to the water found in the air being attracted to itself as a result of the cold, because water can by nature move only downwards. It is due to the transformation of the air into water because they have some matter common between them; and water by evaporation turns into air. And air when agitated violently develops a burning property, and men make special instruments for this purpose, such as bellows; air can ignite wood and other things, and fire is nothing else than air possessing this property, namely to ignite. Here he adds the reflection that it appears that the elements are actually derived from one another; and that the corruption of one leads to the corruption of another. It is when they actually change in quality that there is alteration and transformation. And when that happens the disposition for the form most suited to it changes and therefore it takes a new form. Water-vapor can rise very high, and the cold of the upper regions turns it into clouds because of condensation. When it turns into drops it falls down. When it settles over the land, and the cold of the night comes, it turns into dew. If the cloud should freeze, it comes down as snow; and if it first turns into rain and then freezes, in that case it is hail.
Avicenna proceeds to record ins observations of various natural phenomena, and give an explanation for each. If these do not always conform to modern scientific knowledge, some come remarkably close to it and others are in entire agreement. The reddish and black marks that make a dreadful appearance around the discs of certain stars, are gases that have caught fire because of their constant motion. And when these gases are very thick and trail behind a star, the fire burns fiercely and forms a tail to it and we have a comet. The halo is caused by the reflection of light passing through clouds surrounding the luminary. In the case of the rainbow, the cloud must be opposite the source of light, and then it is the angles in it that cause the reflection. When the sun is on the horizon, the rainbow appears as a complete semicircle to the onlooker, because it is on the same line with him, but when it rises the semicircle diminishes. Winds lose their moisture and become warm after passing over hot land. Water-vapor can become trapped in the earth, and then condense into water, then rise again with force in the form of fountains. Winds are formed when certain regions are cold and others are hot. Cyclones take place when violent winds meet one another, then start turning around. And certain gases when trapped in the earth come to form different minerals according to the place and the time involved, such as gold and silver and mercury and even oil.
Astronomy and Mathematics
Much of what Islamic thinkers and scholars knew about astronomy and mathematics came from Greece and India; but there was a great deal of lasting value that they contributed themselves from the Abbasid age onwards. The Fihrist contains an impressive list of the books they translated; and those they wrote themselves on these two subjects were just as numerous. There are retained in their Arabic versions some Greek books the originals of which have been lost, such as parts of the Conics of Apollonius, the Spherics of Menelaus, and the Mechanics of Hero of Alexandria. Besides Arab and Persian astronomers and mathematicians at the court of the Abbasid caliphs, there was a Hindu by the name of Manka who introduced the Siddhanta, a treatise known in its Arabic translation as Sindhind, dealing with astronomy according to Indian methods of calculation and observation. Christian Syriacs as well as Harranians were active in the translation of Greek mathematical and astronomical works. The Elements of Euclid and the Almagest of Ptolemy were translated into Arabic a number of times, and became established as standard textbooks. Observatories were erected; and Farghani’s Compendium of astronomy gained widespread recognition. It was to be translated during the Middle Ages into Latin and carefully studied. Arithmetic and algebra flourished alongside astronomy, and Khawarizmi (d.c. 844) with his many contributions, including a treatise on the Indian method of calculation, became the most famous mathematician of his time. Some of his works were done into Latin by Adelard of Bath and Gerard of Cremona. His Algebra has been praised for its lucidity; and we find even an important Italian mathematician of the eighteenth century acknowledging his great debt to him. It has been stated that the use of zero in arithmetic was known to the Arabs at least two hundred and fifty years before the West; and the Latin cifra in the sense of zero comes from the Arabic sifr meaning empty. Just as Hunain was the most accomplished and prolific among the translators of philosophical and medical treatises, Thabit ibn Qurra of Harran was the most able among those who translated mathematical works into Arabic. Besides the Caliph, he had rich and generous patrons who appreciated his services and handsomely rewarded him. He became known as the master of geometry.
In the account of his life, Avicenna’s contributions to the field of astronomy and mathematics have already been noted. Farabi had refuted astrology, so prevalent in those days, in a separate book; and his successor did not pay any attention to it, though he continued to take a lively interest to his last days in astronomy; unfortunately he did not live to complete all that he had planned to do in association with his pupil. In the Shifa after a section on plants and another on animals, corresponding to what Aristotle had written about them, there are a number of fanns concerning mathematics. Avicenna has a commentary on the Elements of Euclid and the principles of geometry; and in a complete section gives his views on the Almagest, and the new observations that he thought ought to be added to those of Ptolemy because of their deficiency. That is followed by a section on arithmetic, which includes a description of the Indian methods of addition and subtraction, learnt, as he tells us, when as a young boy he was sent by his father to work in a grocery shop specially for that purpose.
Mathematics was a distinctive branch of learning in which a philosopher was expected to be proficient, if not to excel. It was seen that Kindi attached great importance to it, and considered it a preliminary to philosophy. In the classification of the sciences as given by the authors of the Epistles, we find it stated as the first of the four branches of true philosophy. Mathematics was itself divided into four, viz. arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Thus the science as such comprised a very wide field, and was then subdivided into various others. Farabi by one general division differentiates between theoretical and applied arithmetic; and by another divides mathematics into seven subjects. Geometry he also divides into theoretical and applied, or as the Epistles put it, into intellectual and sensual geometry. Astronomy is in one place divided into theoretical and applied and in another into the science of the celestial spheres, the preparation of astronomical tables, and applied astronomy which includes foretelling the future. The science of the celestial spheres was based on the Almagest. Besides these there were the mechanical sciences which curiously enough are divided by one author into the Greek and the Persian Sasanian mechanics, thus showing the existence of non-Greek sources. Those that were supposed to have come from Greece, and for which they used the term mechanike sometimes, included the science of weights and the science of pulleys; then the science of spheres mainly based on the Sphericaof Theodore translated into Arabic partly by Qusta ibn Luqa and the rest by Thabit ibn Qurra; and the science of moving spheres based on a book by Autolycus. There was also the science of optics and the science of stereometry which they called Al-Mujassamat. The mathematical sciences were studied generally for their practical applications in the construction of buildings and cities; but there were also those who were devoted to the subject itself, and may be called pure mathematicians or scientists.
Music and Poetry
Avicenna defines music as a mathematical science in which there is discussed the state of melody in so far as it is in harmony or it is in discord, and the state of the intervening periods; and includes such things as rhythm, both simple and compound. So far as is known, it was a member of that remarkable class of clerical writers known as katibs, to whom we attributed the origin of literary prose in the introduction to this book, who wrote the first treatise on the theory of music. Yunus al-Katib (d. c. 765), a clerk of Persian extraction, was followed by one of the same origin. Al-Kallil (d. 791) was the man who systematized Arabic prosody and became the first lexicographer of the Arabic language. And the Fihrist attests that in addition he was the author of a Book of Notes and a Book of Rhythms. He was succeeded by an Arab named Ishaq al-Museli (d. 850), who recast the old system and put down his theories in a Book of Notes and Rhythms.
Arabian music was indigenous, and its principles were based on a Semitic theory and practice of early date, which had also greatly influenced the Greek music, if it did not actually form its foundation. The Pythagorean scale is supposed to have come originally from the Semites. In the early days of Islam, Persian and Byzantine music were engrafted upon the Arab, thus producing something characteristically different from the rest; and they in turn borrowed from it. There seems to have been a free combination of the different elements. Between the eighth and the tenth centuries many of the Greek works on the theory of music were translated into Arabic and had some influence. Nevertheless the Arabian, Persian and Byzantine systems of music remained distinctly different. Kindi’s extant works on musical theory are the earliest existing in Arabic, and already show the influence of Greek authors. Some of his pupils continued his work in that held; and Thabit ibn Qurra, the mathematician, and Razi, the physician-philosopher, contributed also. But by far the greatest of the Islamic theorists was Farabi. His Grand Book on Music has been the subject of a modern study. He also wrote on the Styles of Music, and On the Classification of Rhythms; and in popular Arabic literature is known far more for his talent and ability as a musician than for his philosophical works. After him came a mathematician by the name of Buzjani (d. 998) who wrote a Compendium on the Science of Rhythm. And the authors of the Epistles had a treatise on music that was widely known. Various other minor figures discussed the subject; though it was Avicenna who, after Farabi, made the most valuable contribution to the theory of music. He told us in the account of his life that this was because he felt that what had been written by the Greeks was not complete and required additions and clarifications. He treats it in the Shifa at some length, and in independent works such as in his Introduction to the Art of Music, and in occasional references here and there. One of his pupils named Ibn Zaila (d. 1040) wrote a Book of Sufficiency in Music; and his contemporary, the great mathematician and physicist Ibn al-Haitham (d. 1039), compiled two studies based on writings attributed to Euclid, first a Commentary on the Introduction to Harmony, and second a Commentary to the Section of the Canon.
It has been considered that mensural music was the most important legacy left by Arab and Islamic musicians. And in so far as the theory is concerned, what Farabi wrote in the introduction to his Grand Book of Music has been declared as certainly equal, if not superior, to anything that has come down to us from Greek sources. The names of some of the musical instruments actually come from Arabic; and Avicenna was the first to introduce the Persian names of some of the modes, to be later adopted by his successors. There is no trace in Latin of the musical section of the Shifa, though Roger Bacon quotes him on one aspect of the subject that was of much interest to him, and on which he had written with great emphasis. That was the therapeutic value of music, and the effect of different forms of composition on a man’s moods. It had been discussed by Farabi before him, who, it is often related, could put people into a cheerful mood, or drive them to tears, and even put them to sleep through music. Avicenna, who was much more occupied with the theory than the practice of it, maintained that it constituted one of the ways in which the soul was made ready to attain wisdom; and we know that Aristotle had written much along the same lines.
From music Avicenna turns to poetry. This was different from his commentary on thePoetica which, as has been said, was considered a part of the Organon and therefore of logic. Here he treats it as a subject closely related to music and rhythmic language. “Poetry”, he says, “is imaginative language composed of words than have rhythm, harmonious and equal, repeated according to the metre”. “What has no rhyme, could hardly be considered poetry by us”, he remarks, referring to the blank verse of Greek poetry. In so far as poetry is language, its study concerns chiefly the linguist and the grammarian; and in so far as it is imaginative, it concerns the logician but why this, he does not say. As regards metre, its principles and requirements, as well as the reasons for its existence, these are connected with music; while the question of the varieties of metre, as found in the literature of one country and not in that of another, is for the prosodist to explain. With these considerations in mind, Avicenna enters into a discussion of consonants and vowels; long and short syllables; and other matters connected with rhythm and metre, clearly under the influence of Greek works.
There are a good many minor treatises attributed to Avicenna, not all of which are authentic. One of these, the authenticity of which has been reasonably established, is entitled the Book of Politics. For the Islamic thinkers the term politics had different connotations. As the equivalent of the Greek politiké it was sometimes associated with the idea of a man’s relationship with his fellow-men in an orderly and well-established society; and the principles that should govern his behavior. It was on a national and not an international level, for the simple reason that Islamic society was then viewed as one unified entity. It was only gradually that national feeling came to assert itself; and different groups in the empire chose to secede from the supreme authority of the Caliph in Baghdad. Farabi, who had been interested in politics, had written a treatise with a similar titles in which he had discussed the principles that ought to direct a man’s relationship with, first, his superiors; then his equals; then his inferiors; and finally with himself. It is quite possible that Avicenna should have seen this short essay, but what he wrote was divided differently. He devoted the first section to the methods by which a man should govern himself; the second, to the way in which he should control his income and expenses; the third, to the basis on which he should place his relationship with his family and kinsmen; the fourth, to the means by which he should guide his son; and the fifth, to the management of his servants. (There was also the treatise or Themistius on politics which had been translated into Arabic and which Avicenna may have read.)
Human beings, Avicenna believes, would have never survived if they were all kings, or all slaves; if all rich or all poor. Their jealousy of one another is so fierce that it would have made them exterminate each other. It is because they are unequal in their social status that they can live together, complement each other's functions in society, and form an orderly group. There must be people with more money than brains, and those with more brains than money. It is when the two combine that something useful results. He does indulge in moralizing, though he realizes that advice can burn deeper than fire, and cut sharper than the sword. Men of merit, he says, should choose one of three professions. Either an intellectual pursuit, and that includes states manship; or a literary career; or a life of valor and action in the army or in the administration of large provinces. Although himself a bachelor, he has a charming description of the ideal wife. He wants her especially “short-tongued”. On the education of children, he advocates strong discipline, and insists that they should begin with the study of religion. Probably because of Greek influence, he prefers the children of the upper classes to be educated separately. They must be brought up among their equals in order that the spirit of emulation may develop in them.
Politics in its academic sense was known to the Islamic philosophers as “the civic science” which is a literal translation of the Greek. Farabi, who uses this term, proceeds to explain that it was based on the book on Politics of Aristotle, and the book on politics of Plato, which is probably a reference to the dialogue known as the Statesman. Avicenna says “it is known as the management of the city, and it is called the science of politics; and elsewhere he adds that by it are known the varieties of politics and rule and civil organizations . they are included in the books of Plato and Aristotle on politics”. And in Persian he states more clearly that it is concerned primarily with the management of the city. There was, however, still another sense to the term politics. For them siasa also meant the form of rule or government. Thus we find Farabi speaking of the “rule of the prophet monarchy democracy aristocracy autocracy. . and oligarchy. All these are literal translations from the original Greek and we find them adopted by Avicenna, though he has various others to add, all coming directly from the Greek source.
A closely related subject was the science of the management of the house. This again was a literal translation of the Greek and stood for economics. It was based on a number of Greek books. The authors of some had their names so badly mutilated when transcribed into Arabic that it is now extremely difficult to ascertain exactly who they were. As a branch of practical philosophy, it had been treated by Aristotle and some of his immediate pupils. After them, a number of Hellenistic authors had taken it up, and their works, when put into Arabic, became very popular. In one such treatise we find the opening lines asserting that the affairs of the house require four things for perfection. The first is wealth, the second is domestic service, the third is a wife, and the fourth is children.
It might be added that although Ethics was generally translated after the Greek original into Ilm-al-akhlaq Avicenna chooses to call it in Persian the science of the management of one’s own self, and in Arabic the science of the management of man.
Politics
There are a good many minor treatises attributed to Avicenna, not all of which are authentic. One of these, the authenticity of which has been reasonably established, is entitled the Book of Politics. For the Islamic thinkers the term politics had different connotations. As the equivalent of the Greek politiké it was sometimes associated with the idea of a man’s relationship with his fellow-men in an orderly and well-established society; and the principles that should govern his behavior. It was on a national and not an international level, for the simple reason that Islamic society was then viewed as one unified entity. It was only gradually that national feeling came to assert itself; and different groups in the empire chose to secede from the supreme authority of the Caliph in Baghdad. Farabi, who had been interested in politics, had written a treatise with a similar titles in which he had discussed the principles that ought to direct a man’s relationship with, first, his superiors; then his equals; then his inferiors; and finally with himself. It is quite possible that Avicenna should have seen this short essay, but what he wrote was divided differently. He devoted the first section to the methods by which a man should govern himself; the second, to the way in which he should control his income and expenses; the third, to the basis on which he should place his relationship with his family and kinsmen; the fourth, to the means by which he should guide his son; and the fifth, to the management of his servants. (There was also the treatise or Themistius on politics which had been translated into Arabic and which Avicenna may have read.)
Human beings, Avicenna believes, would have never survived if they were all kings, or all slaves; if all rich or all poor. Their jealousy of one another is so fierce that it would have made them exterminate each other. It is because they are unequal in their social status that they can live together, complement each other's functions in society, and form an orderly group. There must be people with more money than brains, and those with more brains than money. It is when the two combine that something useful results. He does indulge in moralizing, though he realizes that advice can burn deeper than fire, and cut sharper than the sword. Men of merit, he says, should choose one of three professions. Either an intellectual pursuit, and that includes states manship; or a literary career; or a life of valor and action in the army or in the administration of large provinces. Although himself a bachelor, he has a charming description of the ideal wife. He wants her especially “short-tongued”. On the education of children, he advocates strong discipline, and insists that they should begin with the study of religion. Probably because of Greek influence, he prefers the children of the upper classes to be educated separately. They must be brought up among their equals in order that the spirit of emulation may develop in them.
Politics in its academic sense was known to the Islamic philosophers as “the civic science” which is a literal translation of the Greek. Farabi, who uses this term, proceeds to explain that it was based on the book on Politics of Aristotle, and the book on politics of Plato, which is probably a reference to the dialogue known as the Statesman. Avicenna says “it is known as the management of the city, and it is called the science of politics; and elsewhere he adds that by it are known the varieties of politics and rule and civil organizations . they are included in the books of Plato and Aristotle on politics”. And in Persian he states more clearly that it is concerned primarily with the management of the city. There was, however, still another sense to the term politics. For them siasa also meant the form of rule or government. Thus we find Farabi speaking of the “rule of the prophet monarchy democracy aristocracy autocracy. . and oligarchy. All these are literal translations from the original Greek and we find them adopted by Avicenna, though he has various others to add, all coming directly from the Greek source.
A closely related subject was the science of the management of the house. This again was a literal translation of the Greek and stood for economics. It was based on a number of Greek books. The authors of some had their names so badly mutilated when transcribed into Arabic that it is now extremely difficult to ascertain exactly who they were. As a branch of practical philosophy, it had been treated by Aristotle and some of his immediate pupils. After them, a number of Hellenistic authors had taken it up, and their works, when put into Arabic, became very popular. In one such treatise we find the opening lines asserting that the affairs of the house require four things for perfection. The first is wealth, the second is domestic service, the third is a wife, and the fourth is children.
It might be added that although Ethics was generally translated after the Greek original into Ilm-al-akhlaq Avicenna chooses to call it in Persian the science of the management of one’s own self, and in Arabic the science of the management of man.
![Avicenna [Ibn Sina]: His life (980-1037) and Work](https://alhassanain.org/templates/Capusan/images/wait.gif)
0%
![Avicenna [Ibn Sina]: His life (980-1037) and Work](books/1105-avicenna_ibn_sina/images/cover.jpg "Avicenna [Ibn Sina]: His life (980-1037) and Work")
Author: Soheil M. Afnan
