THE MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC COMMENTARY ON PLATO’S REPUBLIC: IBN RUSHD’S PERSPECTIVE ON THE POSITION AND POTENTIAL OF WOMEN

This paper investigates the twelfth-century commentary on Plato’s Republic by the Andalusian Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd (Averroes). Ibn Rushd is considered to be the only Muslim philosopher who commented on the Republic. Written around 375 BC, Plato’s Republic discusses the order and character of a just city-state and contains revolutionary ideas on the position and qualities of women, which remained contested also in Ibn Rushd’s time. This Muslim philosopher is primarily known as the most esteemed commentator of Aristotle. However, for the lack of an Arabic translation of Aristotle’s Politics, Ibn Rushd commented on the political theory of Aristotle’s teacher, i.e. Plato’s Republic, instead. In his commentary, Ibn Rushd juxtaposes examples from Plato’s context and those from contemporary Muslim societies. Notably, when he diverges from the text, he does not drift off toward more patriarchal, Aristotelian interpretations. On the contrary, he argues that women are capable of being rulers and philosophers, that their true competencies remain unknown as long as they are deprived of education, and that this situation is detrimental to the flourishing of the city. This article aims to critically analyse Ibn Rushd’s statements on the position of women, as well as their reception in scholarly literature.

“Metempsychosis” and “Marvelous Affinities”: Re-Imagining the Past in the Ilyāḏah by Sulaymān al-Bustānī (1904) and in the Divano di ʿOmar ben al-Fared by Pietro Valerga (1874)

This article focuses on the image of the past in two translations produced in the contexts of the Arab Nahḍah and of the Italian Risorgimento. The first translation is the Italian rendering of ʿOmar ibn al-Fāriḍ’s mystical poems, published in 1872 by Pietro Valerga (1821-1903). The second is the Arabic translation of the Iliad, published in 1902 by Sulaymān al-Bustānī (1856-1925). Both translators refer to the past as a translation strategy: Pietro Valerga reads Ibn al-Fāriḍ through the verses of Petrarch and, in his work’s introduction, emphasizes the transmission of medieval Arab poetry to Italy; Sulaymān al-Bustānī reconstructs the world of the Iliad through Arabic poetic tradition and compares Greece to the ǧāhiliyyah (pre-Islamic age). The article sheds light on the potential of translation as a space of re-imagination of the past and invites us to read the works as two distinct, yet akin, attempts to express original interpretations of Italian and Arabic literary histories based on syncretism and cross-cultural translatability.

With Ibn Ḫaldūn in His Workshop: What He Read in Ibn al-ʿAmīd, What He Retained, and Why

Ibn Ḫaldūn spent the last 24 years of his life in Egypt. There he enlarged the scope of his history, venturing beyond the boundaries of his own civilization. In this process, three authors played a crucial role: the Copto-Arabic historian Ibn al-ʿAmīd al-Makīn, the Josippon, and the Arabic translation of Orosius. Adopting a “coring method”, and based on Ibn al-ʿAmīd’s forthcoming edition, this article studies the use of the Coptic historian in a very limited, but significant, sample of Ibn Ḫaldūn’s history, i.e., the passage devoted to the Achaemenids. The comparison between the two texts allows to draw some conclusions regarding the process of transmission of historical materials from late antiquity to Islam. First, historiography was perceived by Ibn Ḫaldūn and several other Muslim authors as a discipline in which non-Muslims could participate, and the Bible was generally considered as a reliable source of information. Second, the accounts on pre-Islamic history which were more likely to be preserved shared three traits: they were mostly understandable, relevant to the readers, and non-controversial.