Kusyar Ibn Labban's Introduction to Astrology.

• Author: GUO, LI
• Position: Review

Kusyar Ibn Labban's Introduction to Astrology. Edited and translated by MICHIO YANO. Studia Culturae Islamicae, vol. 62. Tokyo: INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF LANGUAGES AND CULTURES OF ASIA AND AFRICA, 1997. Pp. xxviii + 319.

Kushyar ibn Labban ibn Bashahri al-Jili's al-Madkhal fi sina[subset]at ahkam al-nujum (hereafter Madkhal) is an introduction to astrology written around the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh. Although less original than the other famous Arabic astrological works, such as Abu [Ma.sup.[subset]]shar's (d.886) The Abbreviation of The Introduction to Astrology and al-Biruni's (d. 1048?) al-Tafhim li-[awa.sup.[contains]]il [sina.sup.[subset]]at al-tanjim, it was highly acclaimed and widely circulated for its clear presentation and handy format. Its popularity in the eastern half of the Islamic world is attested to by numerous surviving Arabic manuscripts as well as Persian and Turkish translations. The story of its success did not stop there. It was further introduced to China in the year 1383, in the early Ming period. The Chinese translation, entitled Ming-yi tien-wen shu, attracted, in its turn, scholarly attention in Japan and has generated an interest in its Arabic original since the 1950s. The book under review is the newest result of this long-standing effort within the span of several generations of Japanese scholars in the field. It is also the fruit of nearly two decades of persistent hard labor by Michio Yano, who submitted its earlier version to Kyoto University in 1996 as his D. Litt. dissertation. The work was assisted in various ways also by European and American scholars--David Pingree, E. S. Kennedy, and Merce Viladrich, among others.

The book consists of a preface, an introduction with bibliography, a critical edition of the Arabic text of the Madkhal, and an English translation. Three multilingual appendixes include the Chinese text of the Ming-yi tien-wen shu, index of Arabic words with Chinese and English translation, and English-Arabic glossary.

The introduction begins with a brief account of the author of the Madkhal: his date, which remains uncertain, his works, his sources, and the influence of the Madkhal within the context of the Islamic Arabo-Persian astrological tradition (pp. v-viii). This is followed by an outline of the content of the MadKhal and a brief discussion of Kushyar's own view of astrology (pp. viii-x). Elements of mathematical astrology found in the Madkhal are discussed in great detail (pp. x-xii). Next are the editorial notes that deal with technical aspects, such as the manuscripts used in the preparation of the edition, the process of edition, and editorial principles (pp. xii-xvi). For Western readers, of special interest may be the two sections that conclude the introduction. The first is an overview of the previous and, until recently, exclusively Japanese scholarship on the Madkhal, which started from the Chinese version of the work with which the original in Arabic was later identified. The next section contains a detai led discussion of the Chinese translation, including the historical background surrounding its production, the differences between it and the Arabic original, and the new examples it added to the original (pp. xvii-xxv).

The Arabic edition--the heart of the book--is based on a Princeton manuscript (Garrett 969), the oldest among the nine manuscripts at the editor's disposal. The portions missing from the incomplete Princeton manuscript are made up from an Istanbul manuscript (Fatih 3426). The variants of other manuscripts are put in footnotes. There are, however, a considerable number of cases in which the variants seem to offer better choices as against the Princeton manuscript. Some of these are trivial (e.g., I.15.6 bi-nahar wa-al-layl; II.11.10. mabaniyan; III.6.12. sini; III.8.8. shabihah; III.10.8. wa-li-hal al-[[blank].sup.[subset]]amm), but others result in substantial differences. Such is the case in III.8.6: The Princeton manuscript has, as we are told in the footnote, an unclear wording kathir al-hal; the editor skipped the reading given by manuscripts J and V, namely kathir al-[haya.sup.[contains]], "very shy," and offered his own reading kathir al-hiyal which he subsequently translated as "of many tricks." The problem is: first, hiyal is not a correct spelling of the word "trick" hilah, pl. hiyal); second, it does not fit the context, which speaks of a person who is "adherent to the matters of God, chaste," and "protective of his soul," a far cry from "of many tricks." Another example is to be found in III.8.10. where the text has muhibban... lil-[sina.sup.[subset]] at wa-al-[ghina.sup.[contains]] wa-al-sharwah, rendered by the editor as "fond of works, wealth, and buying"; however, the [sina.sup.[subset]] at means "arts, crafts," and [ghina.sup.[contains]] (not al-ghina!) signifies "singing, songs," while the problematic sharwah, "buying," makes no sense at all. In comparison, a better choice is provided by manuscript J, al-shurah, namely "giving good advice" (also cf. below III.8.11. husn al-mashirah); here, we are more likely talking about someone who is "fond of arts and sciences, music, and good company." It is of course a matter of choice as to whether the editor should stick to one basic codex, even if it contains o bvious errors, while putting all the variants in the footnotes or otherwise. The point is that the editor's judgment and guidance in such cases is also needed, especially when a translation is presented as well.

The Arabic edition is marred by numerous spelling and typographical errors. Since lapses of all kinds can be found on nearly every page of the more than two-hundred-sixty-page edition, I will confine myself to discussing the general problems.

There are, in my opinion, three serious flaws in regard to the Arabic edition.

First is the misreading of formulaic Arabic-Islamic phrases and idioms. Three examples must suffice: 1)I.22.4. s-[[blank].sup.[contains]]-l allah, for [nas.sup.[contains]]alu allah, "we ask God for..."; and it is missing from the translation as well. 2)III.21.11. wa-h-wa h-s-n-a wa-[ni.sup.[subset]]ma al-wakil (hence the wrong rendering "who improves us and is pleased with His representative"), for wa-h-wa hasbuna wa-[ni.sup.[subset]] ma al-wakil, which means "Our sufficiency is in Him (i.e., God). What an excellent trustee He is!" 3) IV.3.4. This passage, the last of the entire work, is full of stock expressions used for the concluding of a book; these are commonplaces that one would reasonably expect to be free of error, but unfortunately the...