Sergius of Reshaina: Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, Addressed to Philotheos 9789004325142, 900432514X

Citation preview

Sergius of Reshaina Introduction to Aristotle and His Categories, Addressed to Philotheos

Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus founded by H.J. Drossaart Lulofs is prepared under the supervision of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences as part of the Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi project of the Union Académique Internationale. The Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus project envisages the publication of the Syriac, Arabic and Hebrew translations of Aristotle’s works, of the Latin translations of these translations and the medieval paraphrases and commentaries made in the context of this translation tradition.

Volumes 1–4 have been published by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

General Editors H. Daiber (Frankfurt) R. Kruk (Leiden)

Editorial Board t.a.m. fontaine – j. mansfeld – j.m. van ophuijsen h.g.b. teule – th.h.m. verbeek

volume 24

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/asl

Sergius of Reshaina Introduction to Aristotle and His Categories, Addressed to Philotheos Syriac Text, with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary by

Sami Aydin

leiden | boston

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Aydin, Sami, 1979- author, editor, translator. | Aydin, Sami, 1979   editor, translator. | Sergius, Rescainae, -536, author. Introduction to    Aristotle and his Categories, addressed to Philotheos. | Sergius,    Rescainae, -536, author. Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories,    addressed to Philotheos. English. Title: Sergius of Reshaina : introduction to Aristotle and his Categories,    addressed to Philotheos / Syriac text, with introduction, translation, and    commentary by Sami Aydin. Other titles: Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, addressed to    Philotheos Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2016] | Series: Aristoteles    semitico-latinus, issn 0927-4103 ; volume 24 | English and Syriac. |    Slightly revised version of the author's thesis (doctoral)–Uppsala    universitet, 2015. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: lccn 2016027429 (print) | lccn 2016033882 (ebook) | isbn    9789004324954 (hardback : alk. paper) | isbn 9789004325142 (e-book) Subjects: lcsh: Aristotle. Categoriae. | Aristotle. Physics. | Sergius,    Rescainae, -536. Classification: lcc B491.C26 A93 2016 (print) | lcc B491.C26 (ebook) | ddc    185–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016027429

Want or need Open Access? Brill Open offers you the choice to make your research freely accessible online in exchange for a publication charge. Review your various options on brill.com/brill-open. Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. issn 0927-4103 isbn 978-90-04-32495-4 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-32514-2 (e-book) Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To the memory of my father Ḥanna Aydın (1932–1993)

∵

Contents Preface ix Abbreviations

xii

1

Introduction 1 1.1 Aim and Scope 2 1.2 Sergius’ Life 3

2

Sergius as Writer 10 2.1 Original Works 10 2.1.1 Philosophical Works Here Considered Authentic 10 2.1.2 Dubious Attribution of Philosophical Works 13 2.1.3 Philosophical Adaptations and Translations 15 2.1.4 A Lost Philosophical Work (?) and a Possible Translation 17 2.1.5 An Original Theological Introduction and a Translation 18 2.1.6 Lost Theological Works 20 2.1.7 Sergius’ Medical Adaptations and Translations 21 2.2 Some Rhetorical topoi in Sergius’ Extant Prefaces 26 2.3 Sergius’ Achievements as Translator 36

3

Sergius’ Educational Background 40 3.1 The City of Reshaina 40 3.2 The Various Curricula Offered at the Alexandrian School 41 3.3 The Medical Curriculum of the Alexandrian School 46 3.4 The Philosophical Curriculum of the Alexandrian School 47

4

Sergius as a Commentator of Aristotle 51 4.1 Why Sergius Composed Commentaries and Not Translations 4.2 Other Commentators Dealt with Here 52 4.3 Important Antecedent Commentators 52 4.4 Important Contemporary Commentators 54 4.5 Important Subsequent Commentators 58 4.6 The Question of Originality 61 4.7 Sergius’ Sources 63 4.8 Sergius and his School? 65

51

viii

contents

5

Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories and Introduction to Aristotle and His Categories 67 5.1 The Chronology of Sergius’ Two Texts 69 5.2 Aristotle’s Categories: How It Was Viewed and Read 70 5.3 A Synoptic Overview of the Contents of Sergius’ Two Works 72 5.4 Linguistic Observations, Especially of Some Particles 76 5.5 The Manuscript of Sergius’ Introduction 83 5.6 Concluding Remarks 88

6

Editorial Principles

7

Text and Translation of Sergius’ Introduction to Aristotle and His Categories 94 7.1 Textual Notes 170

8

Commentary

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Bibliography 261 Syriac-Greek Glossary 295 Greek-Syriac Glossary 303 Greek Names in Sergius’ Introduction Syriac-English Index 312 English-Syriac Index 319 Name and Place Index 326

91

176

311

Preface Syriac studies have slowly but gradually been flourishing during the last four decades, with an increasing number of researchers engaged in the field. Much research has, for understandable reasons, been devoted to theological works, since the Syriac literature, with its high output of religious prosaic and poetical texts, constitutes one of the most significant and beautiful witnesses to the Eastern branch of Christianity. But the Syriac language is also the bearer of many interesting and important literary works in other disciplines, which deserve the proper attention of scholars. Interest in philosophical texts has in fact increased in recent years, but many key texts in the field still remain unedited. Therefore, future research will hopefully aim to publish, translate, and elucidate thus far overlooked texts. Even if some religious literature in Syriac appeals to me, especially hagiographical material, yet since my early youth I have been equally interested in philosophy and its history. As a consequence, the first courses that I took as an undergraduate student were in the History of Ideas at Stockholm University, where the focus was of course on the history of Western philosophy. Later on, when I began my studies in Aramaic/Syriac at Uppsala University, new opportunities arose where I could combine my interest in the Syriac language with a neglected philosophical tradition, which was specifically dear to me because of my background. Besides, it felt right to be in search of this tradition’s source, where I found Sergius of Reshaina, heaving already dealt with Mara bar Serapion and Bardaisan in two papers in Swedish. It was truly fortunate that in 2010 I was given the chance to carry out my postgraduate studies at The Department of Linguistics and Philology (Uppsala University) on a project about Sergius. There are two related texts extant in Syriac written by the physician and commentator Sergius of Reshaina (d. 536) about the philosophy of Aristotle. This book provides a critical edition and a facing English translation of the shorter of these texts. The edition is based on the single preserved manuscript of the text (Berlin, Petermann i 9). An introduction to Sergius’ life and works, and an analysis of the text in its intellectual context, is also provided. His writing is one of the earliest analyses on Aristotelian philosophy in the Syriac language and presents concepts that were taught at the Neoplatonist school of Ammonius Hermeiou (d. 517–526) in Alexandria. Sergius received his philosophical and medical education in Alexandria and was active in the city of Reshaina as one of the first translators of profane Greek material into Syriac. He translated chiefly medical works by Galen, especially those that were studied in the Alexandrian school, but also the theological

x

preface

corpus of Pseudo-Dionysius. Sergius composed some original works on Aristotle’s philosophy as well. Through his translation work and literary activity, he paved the way for the later engagement in medicine and Aristotelian philosophy among Syriac writers. His importance and influence is acknowledged by the historical testimonies to him, as well as by the numerous ways in which his works were read and used. The text of Sergius, edited here, treats themes that are primarily found in Aristotle’s Categories. After a preface, in which the author refutes potential criticism and justifies his writing, he begins his work with a traditional division of the philosophy into theory and practice with their respective subdivisions. He also presents the Platonist notion of universals, before introducing the ten categories of reality into which, according to him, Aristotle had arranged all existing things. However, Sergius discusses the categories of substance, quantity, quality, and relatives more extensively, since these four were considered to be the main categories. Many problems related to these categories are presented together with proposed solutions. Other topics described by Sergius are such as what is a distinctive property, the natural philosophers’ view of the four elements, the modes of opposition and its difference from contrariety, and the five kinds of priority. Moreover, Sergius provides a relatively lengthy discussion of the nature of space and whether it belongs to the category of quantity. This discussion is based on the Alexandrian commentators’ interpretations of Aristotle’s Physics rather than the Categories. In the commentary section of this edition, Sergius’ line of thought is clarified and compared to some Greek commentaries from the same tradition. Many individuals deserve my appreciation for their help in bringing this work, a slightly revised version of my dissertation, to a hopefully successful close, though I alone am fully responsible for all its shortcomings. I want especially to thank those persons who have directed me during my research on Sergius. First of all, I express my gratefulness to my principal supervisor Professor Mats Eskhult and assistant supervisor Witold Witakowski for the learned discussions and wise advice they have offered me, and for the improvements they have made to my text. I also wish to express my sincere gratitude to my second assistant supervisor Daniel King (Cardiff University) for his many valuable comments and for proofreading the entire text and also correcting my English. At my final seminar, I had Professor John W. Watt (Cardiff University) as the opponent, to whom I owe special thanks for several beneficial observations. In the same way, I wish to acknowledge my debt of gratitude to Professor Sebastian P. Brock (Oxford University), who was the faculty examiner of my thesis, at it public defence, for all his improvements and valuable remarks. I address my thanks also to Professor Denis Searby (Stockholm University), who read parts

xi

preface

of my material and proposed many useful changes. I extend my thanks also to Börje Bydén (University of Gothenburg), who offered a helpful course on the Greek version of Aristotle’s Categories at Stockholm University. I have often discussed various issues with my friend and colleague Ambjörn Sjörs, whom I thank for his sensible opinions on many questions. I am grateful also to Bo Isaksson, Lena Ambjörn, Anette Månsson, Jonathan Morén, Monica Hedlund, Christian Braw, and all the members of the Semitic Seminar for their comments and suggestions. Facing its publication, my text was also read by Professor Hans Daiber and Professor Jaap Mansfeld, who proposed many constructive remarks and improvements. I would therefore like to express my gratitude to both of them, as well as to the other general editors and members of the editorial board of Brill’s Aristoteles Semitico-Latinus series, for their decision to include my book in this esteemed series. Finally, my thanks go to my friends and family, above all my mother Naze, for encouraging and taking such good care of me, and also to my siblings for their support. I would also like to thank my nephews and nieces, especially Sara, for all the joy they have brought during my research on Sergius. Sami Aydin March 2016, Uppsala

Abbreviations A

Anonymous Syriac Categories: The Earliest Syriac Translation of Aristotle’s Categories, (ed. King, 2010). Anon. Anonymi categoriarum paraphrasis, (ed. Hayduck, 1883). Ammon. Ammonius, In Categorias, (ed. Busse, 1895). Anon. Syr. In Isag. Anonymous Syriac Commentary In Isagogen: Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom v.–viii Jahrhundert, (ed. Baumstark, 1900). Br./Sok. Sokoloff (2009), A Syriac Lexicon. A Translation … of C. Brockelmann’s Lexicon Syriacum. Br.LS. Carl Brockelmann, Lexicon Syriacum, editio secunda aucta et emendata, (Halis Saxonum, 1928). Dexip. Dexippus, In Categorias, (ed. Busse, 1888). Elias Elias, In Categorias, (ed. Busse, 1902). G George, Bishop of the Arabs’ translation of the Categories: La Categorie e gli Ermeneutici di Aristotele nella versione siriaca di Giorgio delle Nazioni, (ed. Furlani, 1933). H Hoffmann’s ‘Glossary’ in his: De hermeneuticis apud Syros Aristoteleis, (1869), pp. 154–216. J Jacob of Edessa’s translation of the Categories: Les Catégories d’ Aristote dans leurs versions syro-arabes, (ed. Georr, 1948). Olymp. Olympiodorus, Prolegomena et In Categorias, (ed. Busse, 1902). Philop. Philoponus, In Categorias, (ed. Busse, 1898). Philop. Syr. In Isag. Philoponus’ (?) Syriac fragments of In Isagogen: Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom v.–viii Jahrhundert, (ed. Baumstark, 1900). Porph. Porphyry, In Categorias, (ed. Busse, 1887). Simpl. Simplicius, In Categorias, (ed. Kalbfleisch, 1907). Steph. Syr. In Isag. Stephanus’ Syriac remnants In Isagogen: Aristoteles bei den Syrern vom v.–viii Jahrhundert, (ed. Baumstark, 1900). TS. Thesaurus Syriacus, ed. Robert Payne Smith, (Oxford, 1878–1897). (Reference to columns).

chapter 1

Introduction During the nineteenth century, when Western museums and libraries acquired Syriac manuscripts in large numbers, the scholars attached importance primarily to those manuscripts that contained Syriac translations of extant or lost Greek works. For the extant texts, new textual evidence came to the disposal of scholars, while a specific lost Greek work became available for the first time to the modern reader, even though in translation. Therefore, there was a tendency among the scholars of that period to edit the Syriac texts which were based on Greek originals, and to translate them into modern languages. This inclination to edit and translate Syriac translations of Greek works was especially applied to philosophical texts. Nonetheless, there were some exceptions, such as Hoffmann’s edition of Proba’s commentary on Aristotle’s On Interpretation in 1860, Land’s edition and translation of Paul the Persian’s treatise on Aristotle’s logic in 1875, and Baumstark’s edition of some material concerning Porphyry’s Eisagoge in 1900. A scholar who during the twentieth century made some contribution to the edition of Syriac philosophical works was Giuseppe Furlani (d. 1962). But many times, he confined himself to complete or partial Italian translation of such texts. Thus, many works composed in Syriac in the field of philosophy have remained unedited up to now. One of the more influential commentators from the Syriac tradition is Sergius of Reshaina. Yet, most of his few extant original philosophical texts have remained unedited, in contrast to Aristotle’s Greek commentators, whose texts were published more than a century ago in the famous series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (cag, 23 volumes, between 1882–1909). In addition to the great importance of Sergius’ philosophical production in its own right, it constitutes a significant complementary contribution to the Alexandrian Neoplatonist tradition, to which he can be connected. His place and contribution to this tradition increases our knowledge about the philosophical history and education of late ancient Alexandria. As a forerunner in the field of Greek philosophy and some other profane sciences in Syriac, he invented and adapted a new philosophical and scientific terminology for the Syriac language. However, due to the loss of most of his production, the unedited state of those extant works, and the false ascription of some anonymous texts to him, the individual with whom this study deals has yet not been properly assessed. He was certainly a very influential person, a pioneer, who gave direction to the subsequent engagement in certain parts of Greek philosophy and medicine

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325142_002

2

chapter 1

among Arameans/Syrians and later on among Arabs. He was a pragmatic transmitter who took pains with the introduction of Greek logic and medicine in the Syriac domain in order to serve an actual function, but also for its own purpose and to form a living part of his own heritage. He was the priest, the translator, the philosopher, and the physician Sergius of Reshaina.1

1.1

Aim and Scope

The chief aim of this work is to publish a critical edition of one of Sergius’ philosophical treatise, which centres on questions discussed by Aristotle in his two works, Categories and Physics. In order to make Sergius’ text accessible also to people who cannot read Syriac, a translation has been supplemented to the edition. Within the scope of the present book, a thorough introduction is given to Sergius’ life and his works from available evidence. A historical overview to his educational and intellectual background is also supplied, which enables the reader to place his text in its philosophical context. A section on some interesting linguistic matters in Sergius’ text is provided too in this first part. The second part of the book presents the critical edition and an English translation of Sergius’ Syriac text. The edition is based on the unique manuscript that preserves his treatise. The edited text is accompanied by a section that contains some textual notes, in addition to the necessary notes given in the critical apparatus. The facing English translation is fairly literal and has a vocabulary that is in use among translators of such texts from Greek, for the purpose of recognition and familiarity. The last part of this book consists of philological and philosophical annotations to Sergius’ text edited here. Some of these comments are more detailed than others, depending on the character of each issue and current discussions among scholars. This commentary section is important in placing Sergius’ discussions in the contemporary philosophical context in which they were conducted and to clarify his lines of reasoning. Finally, a Syriac-Greek glossary is added, which is based on readings from the related passages in the works of Greek commentators from the same tradition, as well as a Greek-Syriac glossary and some other useful indices.

1 His name in Syriac is 焏q‫ܢ‬q‫ܥ‬rq‫ ܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܣ‬Sargīs Rēšʿaynāyā or 焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܥ‬rq‫ ܕܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܣ‬Sargīs dǝRēšʿaynā ‘Sargis of Rēšʿaynā’. I will be using the simplified form Sergius of Reshaina.

introduction

1.2

3

Sergius’ Life

Our sources related to Sergius’ life do not provide any information about the date or place of his birth.2 However, because of the emissary assignment he shouldered on behalf of Ephraem, the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch (526– 545), the last period of his life has been documented. The account of Sergius is written by a Miaphysite monk from Amid (now Diyarbakır), who translated the Greek chronicle of Zachariah of Mytilene (c. 465–after 536, also known as Zacharias Scholasticus or Rhetor) into Syriac. The Ecclesiastical History of Zachariah covered the time period from 451 to 491 (books 3–6) and was written in Greek. It is now lost and what is extant is the Syriac version and continuation of it by the anonymous monk from Amid, who is usually called PseudoZachariah Rhetor. In the Syriac version, some biographical notes about Sergius’ education, religious orientation, literary activity, and personal character are recorded. This and some other available historical data about Sergius’ life and works were presented and studied by Anton Baumstark in his 1894 study.3 Since then, a new edition and English translation of Pseudo-Zachariah’s valuable account of the events of his own time has appeared and therefore it is worth quoting the passage concerning Sergius from this chronicle anew, together with a translation. After all, most of our biographical information about Sergius, as well as that found in later historians such as Michael the Great (ca. 1126–1199) and Bar ʿEbroyo (1226–1286), goes back to the record of Pseudo-Zachariah. Since indeed, the account in the Chronicle of 846,4 the Chronicle5 of Michael the Great, and the Ecclesiastical History6 of Bar ʿEbroyo are almost literal citations from Pseudo-Zachariah’s chronicle, I will not include their texts, except when they provide some additional information. 2 Nutton’s (1984: 13) note that Sergius was born at Antioch does not have any support in the historical sources. Neither can he be the Σέργιος ὁ ἑρμηνεύς ‘Sergius the Interpreter’ (ibid. p. 13 n. 17) mentioned by the historian Agathias, since Agathias was born only in c. 532, about just four years before Sergius’ death. 3 Baumstark, Lucubrationes Syro-Graecae (1894). Many of the historical testimonies are more recently presented by Fiori (2010c: 79–118) in his unpublished doctoral dissertation in Italian. 4 The account of Sergius is found in Chronicon ad annum Domini 846 pertinens at 224.1–23 in Chronica Minora ii, edited by E.W. Brooks, Latin translation by J.-B. Chabot, pp. 170f. 5 It is found in the unique Edessa/Aleppo manuscript of Michael’s Chronicle, at fol. 141vb36– 142ra30, which is numbered as pp. 286–287 in Gorgias Press’ facsimile edition of 2009, translated into English by M. Moosa (2014: 329) = Chabot, Vol. 4, pp. 283b36–284a30, French tr. vol. ii, pp. 199f. 6 Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, vol. i, col. 205, 207, (eds. Abbeloos & Lamy), translated into English by D. Wilmshurst (2016).

4

chapter 1

The information about Sergius is found in book ix, chapter 19 in PseudoZacharias Rhetor’s chronicle, which is concerned with the schism between the supporters and opponents of the confession of the Council of Chalcedon. The individuals mentioned are the Chalcedonian Patriarch Ephraem of Antioch (526–545) and his ally Agapetus i of Rome (pope 535–536) who were battling against the Miaphysite bishops Severus of Antioch (patriarch 512–518, d. 538), Theodosius i of Alexandria (patriarch 535–536, d. 566), Anthimus i of Constantinople (patriarch 535–536)7 during the reign of Justinian i (emperor 527– 565). The Syriac text is taken from E.W. Brooks’ edition of 1924 (136.1–137.9, 137.13–16, 138.4–14). I have revised the English translation of Robert R. Phenix and Cornelia B. Horn, (pp. 368–371) in the volume edited by Geoffrey Greatrex (2011). It tells us the following about Sergius: 焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܥ‬rq‫ܘܣ ܕܪ‬rqqq‫ ܐܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܕܣ‬爯q‫ܫ ܕ‬煟‫ܓ‬8 爏‫ܠ ܥ‬熏‫ܟ ܕܢܩܒ‬熏qq‫ܢ‬焏‫ ܠ‬犟‫ ܣܠ‬爯q‫ܐ ܗܠ‬r‫ܡ‬熏̈q‫ܒ‬ 爟qr‫ܦ‬焏‫ܕܥ ܠ‬熏‫ ܡ‬煟q .爯‫ ܕܬܡ‬焏‫ܠ ܐܦܣܩܦ‬熏‫ܐܣ‬ 焏‫ܐ ܗܘܐ ܗܢ‬r‫ ܘܓܒ‬.煿‫ ܡܢ‬qq‫ ܕܐܬܢ‬焏qrqrq‫ܦ‬ 焏‫ܒ‬rq̈‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬qr‫ ܗܘܐ ܒܩ‬q‫ ܘܡܠ‬9焏‫ܢܢ‬r‫ܠ‬ ̈ ̈ .爿q‫ܓܢ‬q‫ ܕܐܘܪ‬煿‫ܠܦܢ‬熏q‫ ܘܒ‬10焏q‫ܢ‬熏q‫ܐ ܕ‬焏q‫ܣܓ‬ 焏‫ ܕ̈ܡܠܦܢ‬焏‫ܒ‬rq̈‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܩ‬r熏‫ ܒܦ‬爯q‫ ܕ‬煿‫ܐ ܗܘܐ ܠ‬r‫ܩ‬ .焏‫ܥ‬q煟q 焏‫ ܙܒܢ‬焏q‫ܪ‬煟‫ܣܢ‬q‫ܠ‬焏‫ ܒ‬焏‫ܢ‬rq‫ܐ‬

7

8

9

10

It happened that Sergius, a chief physician of Reshaina, in those days went up to Antioch in order to accuse Asylus, the bishop there [i.e. of Reshaina], making known to Patriarch Ephraem that he had been harmed by him. He was a man of eloquence and trained in the reading of many books of the Greeks, and in the teaching of Origen. He had studied the interpretation of books by other teachers in Alexandria for some time. He knew Syriac, both reading

Michael the Great and Bar ʿEbroyo mention also the Syrian monk ‫ܪܐ‬熏‫ܝ ܙܥ‬r‫ ܡ‬焏rq煟‫ܩ‬ 焏q‫ܢ‬熏q‫‘ ܐܣ‬The Holy Mar Zoora the Stylite’ as involved in these events on the side of the Miaphysite bishops. He is also mentioned in the acts of these synods of 536 as Ζωόρας τις Σύρος ‘Zooras a certain Syrian’. On him see 25.29–27.10, 32.35–33.9, 43.11–44.15, 111.24–125.35 passim in the Collectio Sabbaitica (ed. Schwartz), and its index at p. 245; and especially John of Ephesus, Lives of the Eastern Saints, i, ed. Brooks, (1923: 18–36). None of the Sergiuses mentioned in these acts is Sergius of Reshaina, since he died just before the recorded gatherings. Manuscript c (bl Add 12154) fol. 151v has a title here, which among others gives (p. 136 n. 1): ‫ܘܣ‬rqqq‫ ܐܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܗ̣ܘܐ ܠܣ‬焏‫ܠܡ‬熏r 焏‫ܢ‬q‫ ܕܐ‬焏q熏q‫ܐ ܕܡ‬rq‫ܥ‬r‫‘ ܬ‬the account that shows which end befell Sergius the archiatros’. ̈ ̈ The Chronicle of 846 has (224.3–5): 焏q‫ܢ‬熏q 焏‫ܒ‬rq‫ ܒ‬焏r‫ܪ‬煟‫ ܘܡ‬焏‫ܠ‬q‫ ܡܠ‬.焏‫ܢܢ‬r‫ܐ ܠ‬r‫ܓܒ‬ ‫ ܗܘܐ‬rq‫ ܓܡ‬q‫ ܣܓ‬r‫ܐ ܕܠܒ‬r‫ܡ‬qq‫ ܘܐܦ ܒ‬.焏qqr熏‫‘ ܘܣ‬a man of eloquence, articulate and experienced in Greek and Syriac books, and was also much accomplished in profane wisdom’. ̈ ̈ Bar ʿEbroyo has (col. 207.1 f.): ‫ܬܐ‬熏q‫ܣ‬焏‫ ܘܒ‬.焏qr熏‫ ܘܣ‬焏q‫ܢ‬熏q 焏‫ܒ‬rq‫ ܕ‬焏‫ܢ‬qr‫ ܒܩ‬qq̣‫ܕܡܠ‬ ‫ ܗܘܐ‬爿‫ ܡܦ‬rq焏‫ܐ ܬܩܢ‬r‫‘ ܕܦܓ‬who was trained in the reading of books of the Greeks and of the Syrians, and was firmly versed in the healing of the bodies’.

introduction .焏‫ܢ‬r‫ܘܠ‬

焏‫ܢ‬qr‫ ܗܘܐ ܩ‬爟qq rq焏qq‫ܪ‬熏‫ܘܣ‬ 焏‫ܡܢ‬q煿‫ ܡ‬煿‫ܢ‬q‫ܒ‬犏‫ ܘܒ‬11.‫ܬܐ‬熏q‫ ܕܐܣ‬焏q‫ܒܠ‬q‫ܘ̈ܒ‬ 焏‫ܩ‬r熏‫ ܘܦ‬.‫ܣ‬熏‫ܠܓ‬r‫ܕ ܐܦ ܦ‬煿‫ ܕܣ‬qq‫ܗܘܐ ܐ‬ ‫ܣ‬熏‫ܓ‬焏‫ ܘܠ‬.煟‫ ̣ܥܒ‬rq焏‫ܡ‬q‫ ܠ‬焯q‫ܣ ܕ‬熏q‫ܣ‬熏‫ܢ‬q‫ܕܕ‬ 焏‫ܒ‬q‫ܒ‬q q‫ܡ‬熏̈q‫ܬܐ ܒ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q‫ ܗ‬爏‫ ܥ‬煿‫ ܠ‬煟q‫ܕܥܒ‬ ‫ܗܝ‬熏‫̈ܢ‬熟‫ ܒ‬爯q‫ܡ ܕ‬r‫ ܒ‬.焏‫ܡܢ‬q煿‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܣ ܐܦܣܩܦ‬rq‫ܦ‬ ̈ .焏r‫ ܢ‬r‫ܓ‬r‫ ܒ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܣ‬焏‫ ܗܘܐ ܗܢ‬qqrr q‫ܣܓ‬ r‫ܡ‬qr‫ ܒ‬爯q‫ ܗܘܐ ܕ‬爯‫ܥ‬q .牯q‫ ܢ‬焏‫ ܗܘܐ ܘܠ‬爏q‫ܘܙܠ‬ 煿qqr‫ ܘܐ‬爟qr‫ ܐܦ‬煿q‫ ܢܣ‬煟q 焏‫ܢ‬煿‫ ܠ‬.焏‫ܣܦ‬q ‫ܗܘܡ‬r‫ ܠ‬煟q .‫ܪ‬熏‫ܠ ܢܣܥ‬焏r‫ ܕ‬爏q‫ܘܕܝ ܕ‬rr‫ ܐ‬.‫ܪܫ‬煟‫ܕܡ‬ rq‫ ܪ‬焏qq‫ܬ ܐܓܦ‬熏‫ܬܐ ܠ‬r‫ܓ‬焏‫ ܒ‬煿‫ ܡܢ‬q‫ܠ‬rr‫ܢ‬ ‫ ܘܐܙܕܘܕ‬爏‫ ܩܒ‬爯q‫ ̣ܗܘ ܕ‬.‫ܟ‬熏‫ܦ‬煿‫ ܘܢ‬爯‫ ܕܬܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬煿̈q ‫ܬ‬熏‫ܐ ܠ‬r‫̈ܒ‬qrq 爏‫ܩ‬r‫ ܘ‬.爟qr‫ ܐܦ‬爯‫ܐ ܡ‬r‫ܩ‬q焏‫ܒ‬ 煟q 焏q‫ܠ‬q rq‫ ܐܘܣ‬煿‫ ܠ‬牯q‫ ܢܩ‬煟q .‫ܐ‬r‫ܓܒ‬ 爏‫ ܥ‬焯q‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕܡ‬.煟‫ ܐܡ‬爯‫ܢ ܡ‬熏q‫ܩ‬qqq‫ܐܪ‬ 焏q‫ ܢ‬焏‫ ܘܕܠܡ‬.‫ܝ‬rq熏‫ܡ ܕܢ‬煟‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬r‫ܥ‬熏‫ ܣ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ܣ‬ 爯q煟‫ ܡ‬熏qq‫ ܐܬܡ‬.煿‫ ܠ‬焏‫ܒ ܐܢ‬rq‫ ܡ‬焏‫ ܠ‬焏q‫ܘ‬r‫ܠܩ‬ 熏‫ܒ‬煿q‫ ܘ‬.焏qq‫ܬ ܐܓܦ‬熏‫ܗܘܡ ܠ‬r‫ ܠ‬爯q‫ܘܗܠ‬ ‫ܬܗܘܢ‬r‫ܓ‬焏‫ ܒ‬q‫ ܘܐܬܗܢ‬.熏‫ܬܐ ܘܐܬܩܒܠ‬r‫ܐܓ‬ .煿‫ܢ‬q‫ܬܐ ܕܨܒ‬熏‫ܠܡ‬r 爯q煿‫ ܒ‬qqr‫ܐ ܕܐ‬r‫ܓܒ‬ ‫ܕܪ‬焏‫ ܒ‬.爿q‫ܠ‬熏‫ܢܦ‬qq‫ܢ‬q‫ܣ‬熏‫ܘܢ ܠܩ‬煿‫ܘܐܬܐ ܥܡ‬ .‫ܘܪܐ‬焏‫ ܗܘܐ ܣ‬爯‫ ܬܡ‬煟q .焏q‫ܩ‬煟‫ܣܩ‬r‫ܣ‬q‫ ܕ‬焏qrq 焏qq‫ ]ـ ـ ـ[ ܐܓܦ‬.‫ ܗܘܐ‬焏‫ܢ‬煿̈q rq‫ܣ ܪ‬熏‫ܡ‬qr‫ܘܐܢ‬ 爏‫ ܐܬܩܒ‬rq焏‫ ܪܘܪܒ‬焏q‫ܝ ܠܡܠ‬熟q‫ ܐܬ‬煟q 爯q‫ܕ‬ ‫ ܕܐܬܪܐ‬焏‫ܢ‬煿̈q rq‫ ܘܪ‬.‫ ܗܘܐ‬煿‫ܢ‬r‫ ܠ‬r‫ ܕܒ‬.煿‫ܡܢ‬ [‫ ]ـ ـ ـ‬.煿‫ ܠ‬煟‫ܥܒ‬rr‫ ܘܐ‬r‫ܒ‬q‫ ܕܐܬ‬.焏q‫ܠ‬qq‫ܕܐ‬ ‫ܗ‬煟‫ܬܗ̇ܘܢ ܘܥܒ‬熏‫ ܕܠ‬焏q‫ ܕܡܠ‬煿‫ܒ‬熏q‫ ܠ‬牯‫ܠ‬qr‫ܘ‬ .‫ܐ‬r‫ܢ‬q煟‫ ܡ‬爯‫ܢ ܡ‬熏‫ ܐܢ‬焏q‫ ܘܕ‬.‫ܐ‬rq焏‫ܘܢ ܒ‬煿q‫ܥܠ‬ ‫ܘܪܣ‬焏‫ܣ ܘܣ‬熏‫ܡ‬qr‫ܕܐ ܐܢ‬煟q̈‫ ܠ‬熏q‫ܘܐܬܐܘ‬ 爯‫ܡ‬r‫ܬܐ ܕܪ‬r‫ܓ‬焏‫ ܒ‬焏q‫ܪ‬煟‫ܣܢ‬q‫ ܕܐܠ‬爿q‫ܘܬܐܕܣ‬

11 12

13

5 and speaking, and the books of medicine. In his conviction [lit. will] he was a believer, as also the prologue bears witness, and the translation of Dionysius that he made very correctly, and the treatise on faith that he wrote in the days of the renowned Peter, the believing bishop.12 However, of his habits this Sergius was very lascivious in the desire for women; he was wanton and shameless, and greedy with love for money. When Ephraem examined him and found him to be experienced, he promised to do anything he would ask, if he would be sent from him to Rome with letters for Agapetus, the head of the priests there, and return. He accepted and was supplied with gifts by Ephraem, and carried the writings to the man, while he was accompanied by the youth Eustathius, an architect from Amid, who related about Sergius an act that is strange, and lest it harms the reader, I do not record it. Afterwards, they arrived at Rome before Agapetus, gave the letters and they [i.e. the men] were received. The man was pleased with their letters, in that he found agreement with his conviction. He came with them to Constantinople in the month of March in the fourteenth year of indiction [i.e. 536], while Severus was there and Anthimus was the head of the priests. [—] When Agapetus appeared before the emperor, he was received by him magnificently, because he (spoke) the same language and was the chief of the priests of the region of Italy, which had been conquered and subjugated by him [i.e. Justinian]. [—] He [i.e. Agapetus] changed the love of the emperor towards them and turned him against them in anger, and he [i.e. Justinian] drove them out from the city.13 Anthimus, Severus,

Michael the Great has here (fol. 142ra5 f., p. 287): ‫ ܗܘܐ‬爿‫ܐ ܡܦ‬r‫ܬܐ ܕܦܓ‬熏q‫ܣ‬焏‫‘ ܘܒ‬and he was versed in the healing of the body’. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, ed. Greatrex (2011: 369 n. 300): “pz [i.e. PseudoZachariah] refers to Peter, bishop of Reshʿaina, banished in 519, who took part in the talks of 532.” The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, ed. Greatrex (2011: 371 n. 310): “Incorrect: Severus probably left Constantinople in March 536 (…), but Anthimus, having resigned his office, remained there, hidden in a palace by Theodora, up to and beyond her death in 548.”

6

chapter 1

爯‫ܘܪܣ ܡ‬焏‫ ܘܣ‬爿‫ܡ‬qr‫ ܐܢ‬熏q‫ܢ‬r‫ ܘ‬.rqr‫ ܠ‬爯‫ܡ‬ ‫ ܐܬܪ‬.rq焏qrq‫ܘܢ ܡ‬煿‫ ܡܢ‬煟q 煟q 焏q‫ ܕܢ‬.爯‫ܬܡ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬熏q‫ ܡܠ‬r‫ܢ‬q煟‫ ܒܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬焏‫ ܡ‬爯q‫ ܗܘܐ ܕ‬.煿‫ ܠ‬q‫ܕܦܩ‬ 爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܣ‬爯‫ ܬܡ‬爏‫ ܥܓ‬rq‫ ܘܡ‬.爿‫ܡ‬qr‫ܪ ܐܢ‬r‫ܒ‬ ‫ܘܢ‬煿‫ܪܗ ܒ‬r‫ ܒ‬焏qq‫ ܘܐܓܦ‬.‫ܘܣ‬rqqq‫ܐܪ‬ 煿‫ܢ‬r‫ ܠ‬r‫ܦ‬r‫ ܐܬܦ‬煟q ‫ܪܬܐ‬熏‫ܕܡ‬r‫ܐ ܒ‬r‫ܡ‬熏̈q‫ܒ‬ 焏‫ܗܘܡ‬r‫ܪܗ ܒ‬r‫ ܘܗܘܐ ܒ‬.‫ܗܝ‬熏̈‫ܢ‬r‫ ܒ‬煿rr‫ܘܢ‬ .爿qr‫ܠܒ‬q‫ܣ‬

and Theodosius of Alexandria became united with one another in the letters that we have copied out below, and Anthimus and Severus departed from there, so that each of them would live in hiding [in] the place that was suitable to him. Menas [536–552] became [bishop] in the royal city after Anthimus. Sergius the archiatros suddenly died there, and Agapetus [died] after him in those days by a miracle, his tongue being cut off and he bit it with his teeth. After him Silverius [536–537] became [bishop] in Rome.

Book ten, chapter one begins (174.14–21, ed. Brooks): 焏‫ܡܢ‬q煿̈‫ ܡ‬焏‫ܢ‬煿̈q qrqr 爿‫ܡ‬qr‫ܘܪܐ ܘܐܢ‬焏‫ ܣ‬煟q 爏‫ ܠܥ‬爯‫ ܕܡ‬焏‫ܥ‬r‫ ܕܬ‬焏‫ܒ‬rr‫ ܒ‬rq‫ ܕܐܡ‬qq‫ܐ‬ r‫ܢ‬q煟‫ ܡ‬爯‫ ܡ‬熏q‫ܢ‬r‫ ܘ‬.焏q‫ ܡܠ‬爯‫ ܡ‬熏qq‫ܐܬܕ‬ .焏‫ ܕܪܗܘܡ‬焏qq‫ܗ ܕܐܓܦ‬r‫ܬܐ ܒܡܥܠ‬熏q‫ܡܠ‬ .rq‫ ܡ‬焏qrq ‫ܗ ܕܐܕܪ‬r‫ ܒܡܦܩ‬爏‫̇ܗܘ ܕܥܓ‬ ‫ܣ‬rqqq‫ ܐܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܘܣ‬.焏q‫ܩ‬煟‫ܣ ܩ‬r‫ܣ‬q‫ܕ‬ ‫ܟ‬熏qq‫ܢ‬焏‫ ܕܒ‬爟qr‫ ܐܦ‬爯r‫ ܐܬܥ‬.煿‫ܒܠܢ‬q‫ܡ‬ .r‫ ܘܐܬܓܒ‬.焏q‫ܢ‬煟‫ܕܒܡ‬

When Severus and Anthimus, the believing chief priests, were expelled by the emperor, as was said above in the ninth book, and they departed from the royal city at the entering of Agapetus of Rome, who suddenly died at the end of the month of March of the fourteenth year of indiction, also Sergius the chief physician who brought him [died], Ephraem, who was in Antioch in the East, became strong and powerful.

First of all, the chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah informs us that Sergius was an archiatros,14 that is a ‘chief physician’ or civic physician at Reshaina, and from the title of some of his works we know that he was a priest too. We are told also that he was involved in a dispute with Asylus, the bishop of his city, and therefore, in 535,15 he went up to Antioch to complain about

14

15

According to Nutton (1977), an archiatros was from beginning the title of the king’s personal physician. This term for a royal physician came eventually to be used as a general title for a court physician and later on applied also to a civic physician who had tax immunity and was paid if he at the same time was teaching medicine. It is likely that Sergius was teaching, but we do not know if this condition was valid in the entire Roman Empire. However, Nutton (2002, col. 987) states: “In late antiquity, the term designated in Greek as well as Latin any high-ranking and well-known physician regardless of his occupational sphere (imperial court, city, or institutions such as hospitals).” During the reign of Justinian the salary privilege was abolished for the archiatroi. The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor, ed. Greatrex (2011: 369 n. 302): “Since Agapetus only became pope in May 535 (…) and Anthimus patriarch in June 535 (…), and one must

introduction

7

him to patriarch Ephraem. The ground for their conflict cannot have been Christological, since Sergius is viewed as actually a man of “true faith”, which means that he belonged to the Miaphysite confession, while Asylus, the bishop of Reshaina, is known as one of the interrogators of bishop John of Tella (483– 538), a strong opponent of the Chalcedonian Dyophysite doctrine.16 We are told also that Ephraem found Sergius learned and eloquent. He convinced Sergius to take with him letters to the recently appointed bishop of Rome, Agapetus, and bring him to Constantinople for a common fight against the opponents of the Chalcedonian doctrine, and likely also against those who were opposed to Ephraem’s position as the rightful patriarch of Antioch. We should take into account that Ephraem saw his position threatened, because at this time the deposed patriarchs Severus and Theodosius were in Constantinople under the protection of Empress Theodora.17 The reason why Sergius, who is viewed as a man of right faith, consented to Ephraem’s wish to bring his letters to Rome may have been money, or at least it was perceived so, which might explain the accusation against him of being a greedy man, who betrayed his confessional group by accepting this mission (cf. Fiori 2014: 62). He was also accused of having been a dissolute person with a strong desire for women, and the story concerning him, that his fellow traveller Eustathius of Amid spread, but which our Syriac chronicler from the same city considers to be deleterious to record, was also probably of sexual character, if there was any such event at all. As noted by Greatrex et al. (2011: 378 n. 302), the mention of Eustathius clearly indicates that he was the source of our anonymous chronicler regarding the information about Sergius. In addition to Sergius’ postulated knowledge of Greek, we are told that he could read and speak Syriac. That he was well-versed in Greek is assumed from the fact that he had studied in Alexandria for some years and was a trained physician, who along with the many Greek medical books had studied some

16

17

allow time for the news to reach Antioch, Sergius can only have been sent to Rome in late summer 535 at the earliest, probably in October.” Vita Iohannis Episcopi Tellae auctore Elia, 76.14f., Lat. tr. 18.27f., (ed. Brooks), cf. also Honigmann (1951: 149 n. 4). Sergius would simply not go to a Chalcedonian patriarch to lodge a complaint against one of his fellow believing bishops in a religious matter. The chronicle tells us that Sergius accused Asylus of having harmed him. ̈ q qrqr ‫ܐ‬r‫ ܬܠ‬爯q‫ ܗܠ‬煟q Indeed, Pseudo-Zachariah writes (135.22–24): ‫ ܗܘܘ‬爯q‫ ܐܘ‬焏‫ܢ‬煿 ̈ q‫ܟ ܘܣܓ‬熏qq‫ ܕܐܢ‬爟qr‫ ܐܬܪܗܒ ܐܦ‬.‫ ܗܘܘ‬爯qrqr‫ ܦ‬焏‫ܕܐ ܠ‬煟q 爯‫ܬܐ ܡ‬熏‫ܡܢ‬q煿‫ ܘܒ‬焏‫ܒ‬熏q‫ܒ‬ q‫‘ ܐܬܕܠ‬when these three heads of priests [i.e. Anthimus, Severus, and Theodosius] had joined in love, and were inseparable from one another in faith, Ephraem of Antioch was alarmed and became very disturbed’.

8

chapter 1

theological works as well, among them the works of Origen.18 After having returned to Constantinople together with Agapetus from Rome in March, he died unexpectedly there a short time before the death of Agapetus, which occurred on 22 April 536. The year of Sergius’ death is also reported by Elias of Nisibis (also ʾElīyā bar Šīnāyā, 975–1049), who in his Syriac/Arabic Chronicle, for 牟‫ܒ‬r‫ ܘ‬爯q‫ܐ ܘܐܪܒܥ‬焏‫ ܬܡܢܡ‬r‫ܢ‬r ‘the year 847’,19 among other things, writes (119.19): ‫‘ وفيها مات سرجس الراسعينىّ الطبيب‬and in this (year) Sergius of Reshaina the physician died’. Strangely enough, our chroniclers do not mention Sergius’ philosophical knowledge and writings, although Pseudo-Zachariah notes that he was “trained in the reading of many books of the Greeks”. Nevertheless, he was certainly known as an important philosopher too, as is indicated by the testimony of the Melkite bishop Agapius (also known as Maḥbūb ibn Qusṭanṭīn) of Manbij (Syriac Mabbog and Greek Hierapolis), who probably wrote his chronicle in the 940s. In his Universal History (written in Arabic), he gives the following account of Sergius:20 And in that year [the year 8 of Justinian’s reign, i.e. 535], Sergius ar-Raʾsī (‫ )الراسى‬was well-known, a man who was a philosopher, translator, and interpreter of books, author of many works, and he was also a doctor. He came to Ephraem, patriarch of Antioch, and stayed with him (some time). Then, Ephraem sent him to Agapetus, bishop of Rome, about the matters that had happened to him over there. He [i.e. Sergius] died in Constantinople.21

18

19 20 21

Yet, as Fiori (2014: 63–67) emphasizes, there is no explicit accusation of Sergius being an Origenist and the statement that he had read Origen does not imply such a thing, even if it is sometimes interpreted so, cf. King (2011a: 208–211). This year is given according the system of numbering years from the Seleucid era or “the year of the Greeks” beginning in 312/1 bc. The year 847 minus 311 is 536. For a list of these sources, see Martindale (1992: 1123f.). Agapius (169.8–11). Its editor Vasiliev’s French translation on the same page as the Arabic text is: “En cette année, se rendit célèbre Sergius de Râsʿayn, qui était philosophe, traducteur et interprète des livres, auteur de nombreux ouvrages, et en outre médecin. Il arriva près d’Éphrem, patriarche d’ Antioche, et resta (quelque temps) chez lui. Ensuite Éphrem l’envoya chez Agapet, évêque de Rome, au sujet des affaires qui lui étaient arrivées là-bas. Sergius mourut à Constantinople.” A similar account is found in Bar ʿEbroyo’s Arabic An Abridged History of the States, based on his Syriac Secular Chronicle, (ed. Salihani, p. 149, see also p. 201).

introduction

9

Furthermore, the East Syrian patriarch Timothy i (727/8–823) makes the following request, in a letter to a priest also by name Sergius at the West Syrian monastery of Mar Zena (焏‫ܢ‬q‫ܝ ܙ‬r‫)ܡ‬: 焏‫ܩ‬r熏‫ܘܢ ܦ‬煿‫ ܒ‬qqr‫ ܬ‬焏‫ܕܠܡ‬ 爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ܣ ܐܘ ܕܣ‬熏‫ܦܢ‬q‫ ܐܘ ܕܐܣ‬.‫ܬܐ‬熏‫ܠ‬q‫ ܕܡܠ‬焏‫̈ܒ‬rq 爯q‫ܪܘܣ ܕܗܠ‬煟q‫ܡܦ‬熏‫ܕܐܠ‬ ‫ܪܘܣ‬煟‫ܣܢ‬q‫‘ ܐܘ ܕܐܠ‬whether you can find among them [i.e. the books of your monastery] the commentary of Olympiodorus on the books of the logic, or of Stephanus or of Sergius or of Alexander’.22 Also, Abdisho bar Berikha (d. 1318), in his The Metrical Catalogue of Syriac Writers listing chiefly East Syriac writers and their works, reports concerning Sergius that (p. 87, ed. Assemani): 爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ܣ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬熏‫ܠ‬q‫ ܕܡܠ‬焏‫ܩ‬r熏̈‫ ܦ‬爟‫ ܣ‬焏q‫ܢ‬q‫ܥ‬rq‫‘ ܪ‬Sergius of Reshaina composed commentaries on logic’. Evidently, along with being an experienced physician and translator of medical books, Sergius was considered to be a celebrated philosopher and commentator, whom patriarch Timothy i mentions along with some famous Greek commentators of Aristotle. 22

Timothy i, Letter no. 19 (at 129.16–18, ed. Braun), cf. also Watt (2013: 30).

chapter 2

Sergius as Writer Many of the translations Sergius made and commentaries he composed were part of the Alexandrian curriculum. From his preface to the Commentary on the Categories (to Theodore), we understand that he had already translated some medical works before he wrote this philosophical text. A more recent evaluation of Sergius’ writings was done by Hugonnard-Roche in 1997 (reprinted in 2004: 123–142, and see now idem, 2016: 214–227).

2.1

Original Works

Sergius’ original works and translations will be arranged according to the scientific branch, dealing, in the first place, with the extant works, beginning with his philosophical production, which is most relevant to our study. The Syriac headings will also be given in order to illustrate how Sergius and his works are labelled: 2.1.1

Philosophical Works Here Considered Authentic

– Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, to Theodore of Karkh Guddan,1 which in the later Syriac manuscripts (Paris and Mingana) bears the title:

‫ܬܗ‬熏‫ܒܢ‬rq̈‫ ܕܡ‬焏rq‫ ܢ‬爏‫ܘܣ ܥ‬rqqq‫ ܐܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ܝ ܣ‬r‫ ܠܡ‬煟q‫ܬܐ ܕܥܒ‬熏‫ܒܢ‬rq‫ܡ‬

1 He was falsely identified with a Theodore, bishop of Merv (‫ܘ‬r‫ ܡ‬and ‫مرو‬, a city of Khurasan in today’s Turkmenistan, see Renan 1852a: 320 n. 1), until Hugonnard-Roche (2004: 126 n. 2) showed that he must be the little known Theodore, bishop of Karkh Guddan. This city is known from Arabic sources as ‫ كرخ جدان‬Karḫ Ǧuddān (see e.g. Chronicle of Seert, 27.5, ed. Scher). In Hunayn ibn Ishaq’s famous Risāla, he is called ‫“ ثيادورى أسقف الـكرخ‬Theodoros, den Bischof von al-Karḫ” (Arabic text ١٢/12.22, tr. Bergsträsser 1925: 10), but in a different recension of his Risāla ‫‘ ثياذورس اسقف كرخ جدان‬Theodore, bishop of Karḫ Ǧuddān’ is given (p. 80.21f., ed. Bergsträsser 1932, see also p. 51.13). And Fiey (1968: 71 n. 8) states correctly that Karkh Guddan is not the same city as Karkh Samarra, as some sources indicate (cf. e.g. Streck & Lassner 1978: 653), but it was located close to the border between Iraq and Iran, opposite to the landscape Khanaqin (‫ خانقين‬Ḫānaqīn), which forms the boundary between Shahrazur (‫ شهرزور‬Šahrazūr) and Iraq (Fiey 1968: 71 f.; cf. also Takahashi 2014b: 36 n. 12). Theodore of Karkh Guddan was closely associated with Sergius, to whom he dedicated several of his

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004325142_003

sergius as writer

11

爿q‫ܠ‬qq‫ܣ‬q‫ ܕܐܪ‬爯q煿‫ܠ‬q ‘The writing composed by Mar2 Sergius the archiatros on the aim of all of Aristotle’s writings’. This is Sergius’ major extant philosophical work which, in spite of the Syriac title of these manuscripts, is a proper commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, both to contents and disposition similar to those from the Alexandrian school of Ammonius. It is divided into seven books and is preserved in five manuscripts.3 There is a partial Italian translation of it by Furlani (1922) and also by Furlani (1937) an edition and translation of the section on Bardaisan (L.47ra1-vb26/P.87v17–89r6, see comm. to §80–87). There is a French translation with discussion of its prologue, which treats many of the introductory themes of the Alexandrian introductions, by Hugonnard-Roche (2004: 165–186), and also of its first book (ibid, pp. 187–231), and an English translation of parts of its introduction and epilogue by Brock (1997: 201–204). Most recently, John W. Watt published an English translation of the greater part of book two with commentaries (Watt 2014a). Sergius’s account at L.3ra14–29/P.17v1–8 of Aristotle’s logical works is quoted almost word for word by Bar Bahlul (col. 289 f.) in his lexicon under the entry 爿q‫ܠ‬熏q焏q‫ܣ‬q‫‘ ܐܪ‬Aristotle’. – Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, to Philotheos, who is otherwise unknown, and it bears the Syriac title: 爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܠܣ‬rq‫ܐ ܕܐܡ‬r‫ܡ‬焏‫ܡ‬ 焏‫ܦ‬熏‫ܠܣ‬q‫ ܦ‬爿q‫ܠ‬q熏q‫ܣ ܕܐܪܣ‬熏qr‫ܓ‬q‫ ܩ‬爏‫ ܥ‬焏q‫ܢ‬q‫ܥ‬rq‫ܘܣ ܪ‬rqqq‫‘ ܐܪ‬The memra said by Sergius the archiatros of Reshaina on the Categories of Aristotle the Philosopher’ in the unique Berlin manuscript (Petermann i 9, Sachau Syr. no. 88, fol. 83v–104r), which is the object of the present study. Though this is most likely written after the Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories (to Theodore) and is in fact an abridgment or epitome of it, it should be perceived as a general introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle, as stated by Hugonnard-Roche (2004: 152). As a compromise, I have chosen the title Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories. Most of its contents are to be found in his commentary proper on the Categories, but to its form it is more

writings and who is also said to have assisted Sergius with his translation of some of Galen’s works (see below at 2.1.7 and 4.8). 2 In spite of the unflattering description of Sergius by Pseudo-Zachariah, in some manuscripts, he bears the title ‫ܝ‬r‫ ܡ‬Mār(y) ‘my lord’, which is an honorific title given to saints (!), but also used before the assigned Christian name of bishops, being that of a saint. 3 These are: London bl Add 14658 (= L here), Paris BnF Syr. 354 (= P), Mingana Syr. 606, Baghdad Chaldaean Monastery 169 and 171, see Hugonnard-Roche (2004: 187f.). The famous manuscript of British Library, Additional 14658, is the oldest one and contains some of Sergius’ other texts. My readings from Sergius’ Commentary on the Categories, addressed to Theodore, are based on L and P manuscripts.

12

chapter 2

like a manual. It includes, like the Commentary, some descriptions of Aristotle’s philosophy not present in the Categories, but also a presentation of Platonic and Stoic ideas. Its Syriac title is most likely secondary and might have been assigned to it by confusion with his commentary proper on the Categories or as an effect of their common contents.4 There is only a very partial French translation of this work with some discussion also by HugonnardRoche (2004: 143–164, and also 136–142).5 – On Genus, Species, and Individuality, which is extant in bl Add 14658 (fol. 124va30–129ra34) and still unedited, with the heading information: 6焏‫ ܓܢܣ‬爏‫ܐ ܕܥ‬rqqq‫ ܘܐܪ‬焏rqr‫ ܩ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ܝ ܣ‬r‫ ܠܡ‬煟q‫ܐ ܕܥܒ‬r‫ܡ‬焏‫ܡ‬ ‫ܬܐ‬熏q煟qqq‫ ܘܐ‬焏r̈‫‘ ܘܐܕ‬The memra written by Mar Sergius, the priest and chief physician, on genus, species, and individuality’. To judge from its language in general, its terminology and contents, it is certainly a genuine work of Sergius. There is a full Italian translation of it by Furlani (1925). – Concerning the Division of Substance, also extant in bl Add 14658 (fol. 168ra1– 172rb33) with the short heading: 焏q‫ ܐܘܣ‬焿‫ܠ‬熏‫ ܦ‬爏q‫‘ ܡ‬Concerning the division of ousia’. It is not only concerned with the term ‘substance’ and its division, but also some other philosophical matters are treated and clarified. The tract is not attributed to Sergius in the ms, but is probably authored by him, since it contains some quotations from his Introduction to Aristotle and his Categories, to Philotheos,7 with which we are concerned here. To its character, it is a synopsis of some philosophical questions and was probably used in an educational context. It is sometimes referred to as A scholion on the term ousia. Hugonnard-Roche (2004: 131) places it among the falsely attributed or unfounded works of Sergius (“Attributions fausses ou non fondées”).

4 For more on the relation of these two original works of Sergius, see below at chapter 5. 5 There is also an unpublished translation of excerpts from the Berlin ms into French (of §1–2) and Latin (of §3, 98–99, and 105–109) in a block containing material from Sergius’ writings and on him preserved (until recently) in the Monastery of the Dominican Friars of Mosul (see Sony 1997, no. 152). This block has been digitized by Hill Museum & Manuscript Library (with hmml Project Number dfm 00152, Shelf mark 152; see description at http://www.vhmml.us/ research2014/catalog/detail.asp?MSID=134327). ̈ 6 At the end of the text (fol. 129ra31–34) the ms has 焏‫‘ ܓܢܣ‬genera’ (i.e. ‫ܝ‬r‫ܐ ܕܡ‬r‫ܡ‬焏‫ ܡ‬爟‫ܠ‬r ̈ ̈ ‫ܬܐ‬熏q煟qqq‫ ܘܐ‬焏r‫ ܘܐܕ‬焏‫ ܓܢܣ‬爏‫ ܥ‬焏rqr‫ ܩ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫)ܣ‬. 7 And consequently from his Commentary on the Categories. For example the section at 169va28–b22 is an almost verbatim quotation of § 43 in my edition, and that at 170va35–b5 is part of §41, and 170vb24–38 of § 61. Cf. also the close relation of 171va7–27 with §66 and that of 171va27–b7 with § 21.

sergius as writer

13

– A Natural Demonstration, preserved in bl Add 12155 and consisting of less than one whole folio (178ra21-rb43) with the heading ‫ܐ‬rq‫ܢ‬qq ‫ܐ‬rq熏q‫ܬ‬ ‫ܘܣ‬rqqq‫ ܐܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫‘ ܕܣ‬A natural demonstration by Sergius the archiatros’. Though it is a very short scholion, it is important as it provides us with a direct link to the first Syriac version of Porphyry’s Eisagoge, which is held to be anonymous. A quotation from it in this tract indicates perhaps that Sergius might be its translator (see 2.1.4). Furlani (1926: 140 f.) made an Italian translation of it, but rejected Sergius as its author, even indirectly (ibid, pp. 141f.), and instead proposed that an anonymous writer has compiled it from various works. Nonetheless, its language and contents suggest that Sergius is its source, though it is just in this scholion that we find the use of 爟q‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕܣ‬for ὑποκείμενον ‘subject’ in Sergius.8 Neither does HugonnardRoche (2004: 129) find Furlani’s arguments conclusive and chooses to keep Sergius as its author. If not written by Sergius himself, it might at least be written by a pupil of his, since both contents (in the form of citations) and terminology can be traced to Sergius. This very short survey gives different definitions and was also probably used in a didactic context. 2.1.2 Dubious Attribution of Philosophical Works As Hugonnard-Roche (1989: 1ff.) notes, many of the anonymous philosophical texts and translations concerned with Aristotle’s Organon in bl Add 14658,9 were attributed by Ernest Renan (1852a: 329f.) to Sergius. This manuscript contains inter alia Sergius’ large Commentary on Aristotle’s Categories, while the attribution of other texts to Sergius was often made just on the basis that they were compiled in the same manuscript as some of his original works. Later, Sachau (1870) attributed also the translation of some gnomological tracts in this manuscript to Sergius, and further translations of scientific works were attributed to him by Baumstark (1894: 368ff.). These ascriptions were usually accepted and repeated by later scholars. In his important studies from 1989 and 1997 (the latter reprinted 2004), Hugonnard-Roche reviewed all such attributions that were not well-founded and was able to exclude many of them from Sergius’ list of translations. However, ancient scribes probably also made the same mistake and attributed unidentified texts to a famous person such as 8 Yet, I believe that Sergius most likely coined the expression 爟q‫ ̇ܗܘ ܕܣ‬for ‘subject’, since there were intimations of its usage in his texts, although it did not become his preferred alternative (see also comm. to § 50). 9 For the contents of this manuscript, see Wright (1872, vol. 3, pp. 1154–1160), and especially for the philosophical texts, see Furlani (1915: 297–300), and the recent extensive study of King (2011a).

14

chapter 2

Sergius, particularly if he had composed works on similar topics. The following ones are most likely examples of this tendency: – A Scholion on the Term ‘schema’, preserved in bl Add 1466010 (fol. 79v– 81r), with the Syriac title: ‫ܐ‬熏q‫ ܕܡ‬焏q‫ܢ‬q‫ܥ‬rq‫ ܪ‬爿q‫ܓ‬r‫ ܠܣ‬煟q‫ ܕܥܒ‬爯q焏‫ܠ‬熏q‫ܣ‬ 焏‫ܡ‬q‫ ܐܣ‬熏‫‘ ܕܡܢ‬A scholion written by Sergius of Reshaina, which shows what schema (‘figure’) is’. Furlani (1926: 143–145) gave an Italian translation of this scholion together with the previous one, and again, questioned its Sergian authorship. Regarding this scholion I am much inclined to agree with Furlani, even though it is ascribed to Sergius in the manuscript and also Hugonnard-Roche (2004: 130) prefers to keep the attribution to Sergius. Both the style and terminology are foreign to Sergius. Especially, the use of a large number of Greek loan words is uncharacteristic of him. His usual term for κατηγορεῖσθαι ‘predicated of’ is 爏‫ ܥ‬r‫ ܐܬܐܡ‬and nowhere in his original works do we find 爏‫ܓ ܥ‬rq‫