Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos.

• Author: McGinnis, Jon
• Position: Book Review

Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos. By CHARLES GENEQUAND. Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Science, Texts and Studies, 44. Leiden: BRILL, 2001. Pp. 187. $54.

Charles Genequand's Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Cosmos offers a welcome addition to our understanding of later Greek thought and specifically the thought of Alexander. It provides an introduction to, critical edition and overall a very competent translation, of Alexander's Maqalat al-Iskandar al-Afrudisi fi l-qawl fi [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] al-Kull bi-hasab [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] Aristatalis al-faylasuf (Treatise of Alexander of Aphrodisias on the Doctrine Concerning the Principles of the Cosmos in Accordance with the Opinion of Aristotle the Philosopher"). Genequand's work without doubt will be beneficial to the specialist in Hellenistic philosophy and science, as well as the Graeco-Arabist interested in the subsequent influence of classical thought on Arabic philosophy. More generally it will also be of interest to those concerned with the history of philosophy and science and the shaping of our intellectual heritage.

The work consists of six parts: introduction; critical edition and translation; commentary; bibliography; glossary; and a brief index to the introduction and commentary. The introduction is subdivided into two sections: (1) Alexander's cosmology and (2) the text. Under the first subdivision Genequand deals with a number of issues related to the text's historical context and the general themes. The introduction begins with Alexander's authorship of the work, and cogently, and to my mind convincingly, responds to the concerns of Shlomo Pines and Dimitri Gutas that the treatise may not be an authentic Alexandrian work. Genequand then takes up several of the major themes found in the treatise, such as Alexander's conception of heavenly motion and the relation between the heavens and the realm of nature, with particular emphasis on Alexander's notion of providence. The first subdivision of the introduction ends with the influence of Alexander's cosmology on subsequent philosophy, most particularly Arabic philosophy. The second subdivision describes the manuscripts consulted, the general rationale behind the editing, a discussion of the Arabic translator(s), and a very useful, even if somewhat limited, discussion of the language of the translation.

The overall summary of the arguments of the treatise presented in the introduction is in turn further supplemented by Genequand's commentary, which in fact can more correctly be described as "copious notes." At least half of the comments in the commentary involve citing parallel passages or closely related doctrines of our treatise and other works by Alexander, or indicating possible Aristotelian sources for the positions. The other half of the comments involve clarifying obscure passages in the treatise, and discussing both the harmony and disharmony in the text. Much of the commentary in both Genequand's introduction and commentary are intended for specialists with knowledge of Greek or Arabic, or preferably both. Thus, for the general reader, these comments may not be as helpful as one would like, since they often involve providing a proof text or analysis of a text that is presented in Greek (or Arabic) and left untranslated. Still, for specialists Genequand's observations and scholarship are invaluable.

Of course the real value of Genequand's contribution is his edition and translation of Alexander's [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]. He provides a quite readable Arabic edition of the text and overall a fine translation. In general I have a high regard for Genequand's work, but would like to offer some suggestions and possible alternative understandings of this influential text. First, concerning style, one would have liked him to provide a few more paragraph breaks within the text. The (average) seven-page paragraphs can be, to say the least, taxing on the reader. The rationale for such long paragraphs is clearly to break up the text into its thematic sections, but this could just as easily have been done by introducing section breaks, with paragraph breaks within each section.

More substantively, Genequand's translation occasionally fails to break up the arguments at what appears to me to be their natural joints. For instance, Alexander wants to deny that there is a multiplicity of unmoved movers and he does this by arguing that there is no philosophically acceptable way to differentiate simple, wholly immaterial substances. The first he considers and rejects is that the unmoved movers can agree in species, but differ in number. Genequand translates Alexander's first argument thus: "... if the moving causes are many, they must be specifically different from one another, since they cannot agree in species; for those which agree in species can only acquire difference through matter, but when they are separate from matter, they are the same thing. (87) The first cause is free from matter, (fa) so that if their diversity resides...