Facts About the Islamic Golden Age (4)

This is the fourth in a series of videos correcting various claims made about the Islamic Golden Age. See the first article in this series for the context. This video addresses claims about the transmission of Greek and Roman texts to Western scholars by Muslim scholars.

It is claimed that Western scholars only started recovering these classical texts in the thirteenth century, when they finally had access to Arabic translations, which they translated to Latin. Let’s look at this video as an example of how the claim is typically made by Muslim apologists. Here are the claims it makes.

But what they failed to recognize was that most of these manuscripts were translated from Arabic, from the works of prominent Arab Muslim thinkers.

It was through the translations of Ibn Rushd’s commentaries on Aristotle into Latin in the thirteenth century, that the revival of true Aristotelieanism took place in the West. In fact it is acknowledged that these translations were largely responsible for the most important change in the history of medieval thought, which resulted from the introduction of Ibn Rushd’s Aristotle to the Christian West.

His volumes were translated into Latin in 1255 AD, and reprinted several times, surpassing all other medical works in the Middle Ages.

So one claim is that thirteenth century Western scholars recovered Aristotle by translating Arabic copies of his works back into Latin. However, Alison Abbott Senior European Correspondent for the scientific journal Nature makes the opposite claim, that Western scholars collected Arabic texts but didn’t translate or study them, because they couldn’t read Arabic. She says quote “Although European libraries and museums collected Arabic scripts, they sat in obscurity as they were largely indecipherable” end quote.

Although European libraries and museums collected Arabic scripts, they sat in obscurity as they were largely indecipherable. [1]

Regardless of the fact that these two claims contradict each other, neither claim is true. Firstly, as has already been demonstrated in part two of this series, Christian scholars in the Byzantine East never lost access to the works of Aristotle and the rest of the Greek classical tradition in the first place, and even though Christian scholars in the West had their access to these texts severely limited, they nevertheless continued to copy and study the significant number of Greek texts they did possess.

Secondly, contrary to Alison Abbot’s claim that Arabic scripts quote “sat in obscurity as they were largely indecipherable” end quote, Arabic translations of the Greek texts were translated by Western scholars as soon as they discovered them. Thirdly, Arabic translations of the Greek texts did not start to find their way to Europe until well after the West had already recovered almost all of the original classical tradition, directly from superior Greek texts, rather than translations into Arabic.

Contrary to popular belief, the event known as the “Recovery of Aristotle”, when Latin translations of the writings of Aristotle and other classical writers were made available to the Western scholarly tradition, did not take place as a result of the Islamic Golden Age, and did not result from Arabic translations of Greek texts being taken to the West and translated into Latin, though it did involve some Arabic translations.

Historian of philosophy Bernard Dod describes the Latin recovery of Aristotle in the West as taking place in three stages; the first “in the sixth century with Boethius’ translations”, the second “in the twelfth century with the gradual translation of the entire corpus of Aristotle’s works”, and the third “in the late fifteenth century”.

The works of Aristotle were made available in the Latin West in three clearly distinguishable stages. The first began in the sixth century with Boethius’ translations of Aristotle’s treatises on logic and his adaptations of various other works on logic and rhetoric. The second stage began in the twelfth century with the gradual translation of the entire corpus of Aristotle’s works. The third stage in the pre-modern study of Aristotle began in the late fifteenth century and concentrated rather on the text of Aristotle’s works than on the co-ordination of the sciences. [2]

So the recovery of Aristotle actually started just before the Islamic Golden Age itself, with its first peak occurring at the same time as the Muslim Translation Movement. Classical scholars Leighton Durham Reynolds and Nigel Guy Wilson describe the high point of the first period of recovery as “The classical revival of the late eighth and early ninth centuries”, under the Frank king Charlemagne, during which time Greek texts were re-introduced to formal education programs in Western Europe.

The classical revival of the late eighth and early ninth centuries, without doubt the most momentous and critical stage in the transmission of the legacy of Rome, was played out against the background of a reconstituted empire which stretched from the Elbe to the Ebro, from Calais to Rome, welded together for a time into a political and spiritual whole by the commanding personality of an emperor who added to his military and material resources the blessing of Rome. [3]

Reynolds and Wilson also describe how Charlemagne hired Alcuin of York (who had already been studying and translating the Greek classical tradition), to “to take charge of his palace school and be his adviser on educational matters”.

When it came to creating an educated class out of next to nothing, the Anglo-Saxons were past masters, and it was a shrewd move on the part of Charles to turn to York, at this time the educational centre of England and indeed of Europe, and in 782 to invite Alcuin, the head of its school, to take charge of his palace school and be his adviser on educational matters. [4]

So not only was there a continuous line of Western scholars copying and studying the Greek classical texts (though initially on a small scale), by the eighth century there was a deliberate effort made to increase access to these works and include them in formal educational programs. This was taking place well before Arabic translations of the Greek texts found their way to Western Europe. In fact it was happening at the same time that most of the Greek texts were being translated into Arabic in the first place.

The second peak of the Western recovery of Aristotle started in the twelfth century, and it was during this period that most of Aristotle was recovered. Ending in the thirteenth century, this recovery was completed before the Arabic translations were transmitted to the West.

The main Western translation sources of this period were James of Venice (in the twelfth century), Burgundio of Pisa (in the twelfth century), Robert Grosseteste (in the twelfth century), and the outstanding William of Moerbeke (in the thirteenth century), who not only singlehandedly translated or copied almost all of Aristotle’s genuine works from Greek texts by earlier Christian scholars, but also translated many earlier Christian commentaries on Aristotle.

Marshall Clagett, Professor of the History of Science at Princeton, New Jersey, notes that James of Venice “was probably the first to have translated Aristotle’s Physics, his De anima, his Metaphysics, and parts of his Parva naturalia”. He further mentions that James retranslated Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics, and Sophistici Elenchi, replacing the earlier sixth century translation of Boethius.

Minio has shown that James was probably the first to have translated Aristotle’s Physics, his De anima, his Metaphysics, and parts of his Parva naturalia. Further James translated anew (after Boethius) the Prior Analytics, the Posterior Analytics, the Topics, and the Sophistici elenchi — in short, the New Logic of Aristotle. As Minio tells us, “Ten generations of Latin-speaking scholars and philosophers read the Posterior Analytics almost exclusively in his translation.” [5]

Clagett also cites an anonymous writer in Sicily, who translated three of Euclid’s works directly from the Greek, and another anonymous writer who translated Euclid’s “Elements” and Ptolemy’s “Almagest”.

I also point to the translations made from the Greek in Sicily of three short Euclidian works: the Data, the Optics and the Catoptrics, which together with Proclus’ Elementatio physica were made by an anonymous translator toward the middle of the century. One scholar, who has edited the Data, believes that this translator may be identical with the anonymous translator from the Greek of Euclid’s Elements and Ptolemy’s Almagest,” a conclusion which I believe to be erroneous but whose refutation demands detailed textual studies of the latter two translations which have not yet been made. [6]

Burgundio of Pisa was another twelfth century translator directly from the Greek. Reynolds and Wilson describe how Burgundio spent several years in Constantinople as a translator, where he also collected Greek texts to translate into Latin, including copies of the works of Galen, the famous Roman doctor.

In the twelfth century the range of translations was increased substantially. Much of the credit belongs to Burgundio of Pisa (1110–93), who had spent the years 1135–8 in Constantinople as an interpreter and returned there later, taking the opportunity to collect books. Copies of Galen which he used for his translations can be identified by marginal annotations in his own hand. [7]

Still in the twelfth century, Henricus Aristippus in Sicily supervised the translation into Latin of works by Plato, Euclid, and Ptolemy. Reynolds and Wilson mention that quote “Aristippus himself translated Plato’s Phaedo and Meno, some works of Aristotle, and perhaps Hero’s Pneumatica, which discusses steam-engines, ‘penny-in-the-slot’ machines, and other gadgets” end quote.

Slightly better known are the inelegant and literal versions of Plato, Euclid, and Ptolemy made in Sicily c. 1160 under the aegis of Henricus Aristippus, archdeacon of Catania (d. 1162), who is said to have acquired some manuscripts sent as a gift by the Byzantine emperor to the Norman king of Sicily. Aristippus himself translated Plato’s Phaedo and Meno, some works of Aristotle, and perhaps Hero’s Pneumatica, which discusses steam-engines, ‘penny-in-the-slot’ machines, and other gadgets which have a surprisingly modern ring about them. He is praised also for his assistance in making the versions of Euclid, Proclus, and Ptolemy. [8]

During the thirteenth century, William of Moerbeke produced an astonishing volume of Latin translations, directly from copies of the Greek classical texts, including virtually all of Archimedes, and almost all of Aristotle. Professor Richard Lorch writes that William translated almost all of Archimedes directly from the Greek.

In 1269 William of Moerbeke translated almost all of Archimedes (and also Eutocius’s commentary on the Sphere and Cylinder) direct from Greek. [9]

Medieval historian Paul Edward Dutton likewise says “William of Moerbeke translated virtually all the genuine works of Aristotle from Greek into Latin”. Most importantly, Dutton mentions that William translated these texts from Greek manuscripts produced by Western scholars, not Muslim scholars.

William of Moerbeke translated virtually all the genuine works of Aristotle into Latin, not from Arabic but directly from Greek texts. [10]

Moerbeke made his translations and revisions using Greek manuscripts preserved in Europe through the careful work of earlier Western scholars such as Isidore of Seville (sixth century), and Alcuin of York (ninth century). Marshall Clagett, Professor of the History of Science at Princeton, New Jersey, notes that Moerbeke was responsible for superior translations of Aristotle’s works which had previously been translated into Greek, translations of Aristotle’s works which had never previously been translated from Greek, and translations of Aristotle’s works which had never been translated from any language.

We note that William’s translations included the following categories: (1) works of Aristotle never before translated from any language (e.g., the Politics, the Poetics, the De motu animalium), (2) works of Aristotle never before translated from Greek (like the Historia animalium, the De partibus animalium, and the De generatione animalium, (3) works of Aristotle translated anew from the Greek (such as the Categories, the Meteorology, the Rhetoric, and Books I and II of the De caelo)… [11]

William’s translations were not only an invaluable resource for Western scholars who only read Latin, they were also superior to the translations in the Muslim world. Dutton notes that “some of these original works were already known through less accurate versions from the Arabic”, and adds “Studies have shown that Moerbeke had access to old and excellent Greek manuscripts”.

Although some of these original works were already known through less accurate versions from the Arabic, several others were completely new to the Latin West, as in the case of De progressu animalium, the Politica, and Book XI of the Metaphysica. Moerbeke’s philosophical works include translations of Aristotelian commentaries by Alexander of Aphrodisias, Ammonius, John Philoponus, Simplicius, and Themistius, and of Neo-Platonist treatises by Proclus. [12]

Studies have shown that Moerbeke had access to old and excellent Greek manuscripts. [13]

So as a result of Moebeke’s work Western scholars were able to read translations made directly from Greek, rather than translations made from Arabic Latin. Consequently, Dutton writes, Moerboke’s translations quote “laid the basis for the rich scholastic commentary tradition”, disproving the claim that the Western medieval scholarly tradition, and later Renaissance, were founded on the Arabic translations and commentaries of the Muslim world.

They laid the basis for the rich scholastic commentary tradition. [14]

So the Western medieval recovery of Aristotle was not dependent on translations from Arabic; on the contrary, it enjoyed access to superior Latin translations directly from the Greek. In fact William of Moerbeke’s translations were so accurate that modern scholars today still use his text as a source for scholarly reconstructions of Aristotle’s writings, instead of using the Arabic translations.

Commenting on the remarkable accuracy of William’s translations, Dutton notes that “Since he mostly used Greek manuscripts of high quality as his model, Moerbeke’s translations are still valued critical editions of the originals”. He adds that in some cases where there are no surviving copies of any Greek manuscript, William’s translations are “the only complete witness to the text”.

Since he mostly used Greek manuscripts of high quality as his model, Moerbeke’s translations are still valued critical editions of the originals. In some cases where all Greek manuscripts are lost, his versions are the only complete witnesses to the text. [15]

So by the time Arabic translations of Aristotle were available to Western scholars, they had already recovered almost all of Aristotle, and most of the available classical Greek literature.

Copleston notes that Aristotle’s work De Anima was translated from the Greek in 1215, whereas the translation from Arabic was not made until later.

The De Anima was translated from the Greek before 1215, the translation from the Arabic by Michael Scot being somewhat later. [16]

Copleston lists three other works by Aristotle, Physica, De Generatione et Corruptione, and Politica, which were translated directly from Greek by Western scholars, before the Arabic was available.

Similarly there was a translation of the Physics from the Greek before the two translations from the Arabic by Gerard of Cremona and Michael Scot, while a translation of the De Generatione et Corruptione from the Greek preceded the translation from the Arabic by Gerard of Cremona. The Politics was translated from the Greek about 1260 by William of Moerbeke (there was no translation from the Arabic), who probably also translated the Economics about 1267. [17]

He concludes “modern investigation has shown that translations from the Greek generally preceded translations from the Arabic”, adding that “even when the original translation from the Greek was incomplete, the Arabic-Latin version soon had to give place to a new and better translation from the Greek”.

As modern investigation has shown that translations from the Greek generally preceded translations from the Arabic, and that, even when the original translation from the Greek was incomplete, the Arabic-Latin version soon had to give place to a new and better translation from the Greek, it can no longer be said that the mediaevals had no real knowledge of Aristotle, but only a caricature of his doctrine, a picture distorted by the hand of Arabian philosophers. [18]

Maria Mavroudi, professor of history at the University of California Berkeley, likewise says that “the entire Aristotelian corpus reached the Latin schools from Greek before it did from Arabic”. She notes only three exceptions; Aristotle’s work On the Heavens, and some parts of two other works, Meteorology and Zoology.

Work on the Latin Aristotle carried out or directed by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello in the middle of the twentieth century firmly established that, except for the De coelo and part of the Meteorology and the Zoology, the entire Aristotelian corpus reached the Latin schools from Greek before it did from Arabic. [19]

During this recovery of Aristotle, Western scholars had a significant advantage over their counterparts in the Muslim world, since the Western scholars could read Greek. The Muslim scholars were themselves sometimes using Arabic translations of Latin or Syriac translations of Greek source texts rather than Greek originals. This led to some translation errors and misrepresentations of the author’s meaning. In contrast, Western scholars were reading directly from the Greek, ensuring their translations into Latin were far more accurate.

Look again at the claim typically made by this video by Muslim apologists.

But what they failed to recognize was that most of these manuscripts were translated from Arabic, from the works of prominent Arab Muslim thinkers.

It has now been demonstrated that the claim that Aristotle was recovered through the transmission of Arabic translations and commentaries to the West, is untrue. Arabic translations, and the commentaries of Muslim scholars such as Ibn Rushd, were not responsible for the Western recovery of Aristotle, which had already started by the time Greek texts were being translated in the Muslim world, and was almost over by the time Arabic translations were being read in the West. It is true that some Greek texts did find their way to the West via an Arabic translation. However, it is important to note which texts were transmitted in this way, and when.

Contrary to common expectation, Western scholars typically had great respect for their Arab counterparts, and actively sought out their work for their own study. In the twelfth century, Adelard of Bath praised the Muslim teachers from whom he learned during his travels to Muslim lands. In the same century, Peter the Venerable referred to the Muslims as “clever and learned men”, citing their libraries full of books, and Herman of Carinthia wrote of “the treasures of the Arabs”, a reference to Muslim knowledge.

Thus Adelard of Bath, in his Quaestiones naturales, praises the learning and rational method of his Muslim teachers; shortly before 1150 Peter the Venerable writes that the ‘Saracens’, as he calls them, are ‘clever and learned men’ whose libraries are full of books dealing with the liberal arts and the study of nature, and that Christians have gone in quest of these. Hermann of Carinthia, at about the same time, reminds Robert of Ketton of ‘the trappings and decorations which long vigils, and [their] most earnest labour, had acquired for [them] from the depths of the treasures of the Arabs’; [20]

Look again at Alison Abbot’s claim regarding the Western treatment of Arabic texts. She writes “Although European libraries and museums collected Arabic scripts, they sat in obscurity as they were largely indecipherable”.

Although European libraries and museums collected Arabic scripts, they sat in obscurity as they were largely indecipherable. [21]

This is untrue. In fact Arabic texts were translated into Latin as soon as Western scholars acquired them. In some cases Western scholars such as Adelard of Bath, in the twelfth century, even traveled to Muslim lands, seeking out Arabic texts specifically with the intention of translating them into Latin. Contrary to common expectation, it was not Muslims who translated Arabic texts into Latin for the benefit of Europeans. It was actually almost exclusively Western scholars to who translated the Arabic texts into Latin for other Western scholars, since the Arabs themselves could not read or write Latin. In addition to these Western scholars, some Jewish and African scholars also made valuable contributions to this translation work. However, most of the Arabic texts translated in this way were not copies of the original Greek scientific works, and some of the translated texts weren’t written by Muslims

In the eleventh century, Constantine of Africa, a North African Berber, translated medical texts by al-Rāzī an anti-Muslim skeptic, Ishaq Ibn Imran, a Muslim, Isaac Israeli ben Solomon, a Jew, and Ibn al-Jazzar, a Muslim.

In the first place, that scientific works were being translated well before philosophical ones: by the end of the eleventh century, certain medical texts had been translated by Constantine of Africa; [22]

During the twelfth century Adelard of Bath, John of Seville, Hermann of Carinthia, and Robert of Ketton translated a number of Arabic texts. These included works by Ibn al-Haytham, a Persian who contributed greatly to the study of optics, Thabit b. Qurra, a Sabian who contributed to mathematics, physics, and astronomy, al-Rāzī, an anti-Muslim skeptic who contributed to medical diagnosis and treatment, surgery, ophthalmology, and equipment for chemistry, Abu Ma’shar, a Muslim who contributed to astronomy, and al-Khwarizmi, a Muslim whose most notable contribution was a revolutionary system of algebra, which was quickly adopted by Western mathematicians. Adelard also translated Euclid’s work “Elements” from Arabic to Latin, which proved immensely useful to Western scholars.

Later, in the twelfth century and at the same time as works of philosophy, other astronomical studies were translated from the Arabic: by Adelard of Bath, by John of Seville (d. n 57; his translations include works by Abu Ma’shar and Thabit b. Qurra) and by Hermann of Carinthia (Abu Ma’shar); there were mathematical treatises — al-Khwarizmi’s algebra was translated in 1145 by Robert of Ketton.9 By the twelfth century there were Latin versions of Arabic works on optics (Ibn al-Haytham), chemistry (Razi), alchemy and pharmacology. [23]

Also in the twelfth century, the Jewish scholar Avendauth translated Arabic commentaries on Aristotle, which had been written by the Muslim scholar Avicenna.

The Prologue to the De anima, like that to De scientiis, deserves examination, both in itself and in comparison with that to the translation of the De anima of Avicenna. In the latter, Avendauth, its co-translator, writes that thanks to the munificence of the dedicatee, Archbishop John of Toledo, and to his own work, [24]

Meanwhile Spanish philosophers Dominicus Gundissalinus and Johannes Hispanus collaborated with Avendauth to translate nearly two dozen texts by Muslim scholars, almost all of which were philosophical in nature.

The outstanding name in this second wave is that of Dominicus Gundissalinus, Archdeacon of Toledo, whose apogee was about 1180, and who worked in collaboration with Avcndauth, translating several sections of the Sifa .n [25]

Near the end of the twelfth century therefore, a range of Arabic texts had been translated into Latin. However these texts did not represent much of the intellectual brilliance of the Muslim world. Most of the texts were philosophical rather than scientific or mathematical, nearly all of them were commentaries on Aristotle or other subjects, rather than actual translations of Aristotle and other Greek classics, and some of them were not written by Muslim scholars at all. Adelard’s translations of Euclid’s “Elements” from the Arabic is one of the most significant exceptions.

It was not until the last quarter of the twelfth century that a greater proportion of Greek classical texts would be translated from Arabic into Latin. Eugenius of Palermo was a Spanish scholar who translated Ptolemy’s work on Optics, a valuable contribution.

Another important figure in this circle was the admiral Eugenius, who translated Ptolemy’s Optics from the Arabic into Latin (the Greek is now lost). [26]

Gerard of Cremona in Italy was a prodigious translator of Arabic, contributing at least 70 Latin translations, including various works by Ptolemy, Archimedes, Euclid, and Aristotle. However, he only translated one or two books from each of these authors, and in some cases he translated from Arabic works which Western scholars had already translated into Latin from a Greek copy. For example, Reynolds writes “Cremona seems to have translated Ptolemy’s Almagest from the Arabic in Toledo in circa 1175, apparently in ignorance of the existing version”.

Yet the influence of these translators was perhaps slightly less than would have been expected, for Gerard of Cremona seems to have translated Ptolemy’s Almagest from the Arabic in Toledo c. 1175, apparently in ignorance of the existing version. [27]

Additionally, Gerard’s translation of Aristotle had little influence in comparison with his other translations. Professor Charles Burnett of the History of Islamic Influences at the Warburg Institute writes “Nevertheless, Aristotelian philosophy was not Gerard’s main interest, nor did his translations in this field have such a large influence as those in other fields”.

Nevertheless, Aristotelian philosophy was not Gerard’s main interest, nor did his translations in this field have such a large influence as those in other fields. [28]

Burnett goes on to comment Gerard’s translations were also quickly superseded by more accurate translations directly from the Greek, later in the twelfth century.

Arabic-Latin translations of Aristotle’s works were eventually replaced by translations directly from Greek — first, by those of James of Venice and Burgundio of Pisa, and then, towards the end of the thirteenth century, by those of William of Moerbeke — and his translations of Arabic commentaries and other accompanying works were eclipsed by the great commentaries of Averroes. [29]

However, Gerard’s translations would still have a significant impact, as will be explained later. So although Muslim philosophers had been writing commentaries on the Greek texts since the eighth century, and although some Muslim medical texts had been translated into Latin in the eleventh century, it was not until the middle of the twelfth century, that Arabic philosophical and scientific texts began to find their way to the West. Consequently, Jolivet writes “Not that all the philosophy and theology of the twelfth century was influenced by Arabic thought; in fact it was mainly in the second half of that century that Arabic philosophical texts were translated into Latin”.

Not that all the philosophy and theology of the twelfth century was influenced by Arabic thought; in fact it was mainly in the second half of that century that Arabic philosophical texts were translated into Latin. [30]

Impact of Arab translations of Greek text

What then was the impact of those Greek texts which were translated from Arabic into Latin? Ironically the impact of Latin translations of Arabic copies of the Greek classics, arguably had less impact than Latin translations of Arabic commentaries on those Greek classics.

There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, it must be understood that some of the classical Greek texts were translated into Arabic but never translated back into Latin at all, so these texts weren’t transmitted to the Western world by the Arabs; the Western world had to wait until they uncovered previously lost Greek or Latin copies. For example, the Muslim world had Plato’s Republic, and translated it into Arabic, but never translated it into Latin, so it wasn’t transmitted from them to the Western world.

Secondly, very few of the Greek texts were actually returned to the West via the Arabic translations. Although almost all of the Aristotelian corpus was available to Muslim scholars by the end of the tenth century, hardly any of it was transferred to the West through Arabic; Western scholars recovered almost all of it themselves, through Greek texts.

French philosopher and medievalist Jean Jolivet noted that some works by Euclid and Ptolemy were recovered via the Arabic translations. Nevertheless, he also wrote that “most of the works of Aristotle, however, were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary”. He concludes “translations from the Arabic must be given their full importance, but not more”.

Note that Latin versions of a number of learned Greek works (Euclid, Ptolemy) came through translations from the Arabic; most of the works of Aristotle, however, were translated directly from the Greek, and only exceptionally by way of an Arabic intermediary (L. Minio-Paluello, ‘Aristotele dal mundo arabo a quello latino’, in L’Occidente e I’Islam, pp. 610–13): translations from the Arabic must be given their full importance, but not more. [31]

Copleston likewise comments that “it is a mistake to imagine that the Latin Scholastics were entirely dependent on translations from Arabic or even that translation from the Arabic always preceded translation from the Greek”.

It will be seen from what has already been said that it is a mistake to imagine that the Latin Scholastics were entirely dependent on translations from Arabic or even that translation from the Arabic always preceded translation from the Greek. [32]

Professor and historian of science Edward Grant also makes the point that “Of the translations of Aristotle’s works, those made directly from Greek were far more numerous than those made from Arabic”.

Of the translations of Aristotle’s works, those made directly from Greek were far more numerous than those made from Arabic. [33]

Nevertheless, even though few Greek texts were transmitted to Western Europe through Arabic translations, those which were transmitted were of great value. Additionally, the writings of several Arab or Persian philosophers, translated from Arabic to Latin, also gave Western scholars deep insights, even when they disagreed with the texts (which they frequently did). Consequently Grant says “Indeed, translations by Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) alone drastically altered the course of Western science”.

Indeed, translations by Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) alone drastically altered the course of Western science. [34]

Grant further adds “Because of the importance of the translated works, the civilization of Islam must be allotted a considerable share of the glory for the Western achievement in science”. This must always be remembered. The legacy of this Muslim contribution will be assessed at a later point.

Because of the importance of the translated works, the civilization of Islam must be allotted a considerable share of the glory for the Western achievement in science. [35]

_________________

[1] Alison Abbott, “Rebuilding the Past,” News, Nature, 15 December 2004, https://www.nature.com/articles/432794a.

[2] Bernard G. Dod, “Aristoteles Latinus,” in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, ed. Arthur Hilary Armstrong (Cambridge University Press, 1997), 68.

[3] L. D Reynolds and N. G Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 92.

[4] L. D Reynolds and N. G Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 93.

[5] Marshall Clagett, “William of Moerbeke: Translator of Archimedes,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 126.5 (1982): 358.

[6] Marshall Clagett, “William of Moerbeke: Translator of Archimedes,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 126.5 (1982): 358.

[7] L. D Reynolds and N. G Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 119.

[8] L. D Reynolds and N. G Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 119–20.

[9] Richard Lorch, “Archimedes”, in Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2014), 42.

[10] Paul Edward Dutton, “William of Moerbeke”, in Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2014), 515.

[11] Marshall Clagett, “William of Moerbeke: Translator of Archimedes,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 126.5 (1982): 360.

[12] Paul Edward Dutton, “William of Moerbeke”, in Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2014), 515.

[13] Paul Edward Dutton, “William of Moerbeke”, in Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2014), 515.

[14] Paul Edward Dutton, “William of Moerbeke”, in Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2014), 515.

[15] Paul Edward Dutton, “William of Moerbeke”, in Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, and Faith Wallis, Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2014), 515.

[16] Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy (A&C Black, 1999), 207.

[17] Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy (A&C Black, 1999), 207.

[18] Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy (A&C Black, 1999), 207–208.

[19] Maria Mavroudi, “Translations from Greek into Latin and Arabic during the Middle Ages: Searching for the Classical Tradition,” Speculum 90.1 (2015): 54.

[20] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 113–114.

[21] Alison Abbott, “Rebuilding the Past,” News, Nature, 15 December 2004, https://www.nature.com/articles/432794a.

[22] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 114.

[23] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 115.

[24] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 141.

[25] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 116.

[26] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 114.

[27] L. D Reynolds and N. G Wilson, Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), 120.

[28] Charles Burnett, “Translation and Transmission of Greek and Islamic Science,” in The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 2, ed. David C Lindberg (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013), 17.

[29] Charles Burnett, “Translation and Transmission of Greek and Islamic Science,” in The Cambridge History of Science. Vol. 2, ed. David C Lindberg (New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013), 17.

[30] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic Inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 114.

[31] Jean Jolivet, “The Arabic inheritance,” in A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, ed. Peter Dronke (Cambridge University Press, 1992), 116.

[32] Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy (A&C Black, 1999), 206.

[33] Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 26.

[34] Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 24.

[35] Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (Cambridge University Press, 1996), 171.