VIII

Introduction.

...it was prepared according to the Latin text,¹ it certainly did not correspond to the intentions of Jourdain Amable Jourdain (1788–1818), a French historian who specialized in the recovery of Aristotelian texts via Arabic translations.

E. Vacherot went deeper into the matter by demonstrating, likewise on the basis of the Latin text and through various examples, that the propositions of the book On Causes Latin: de causis were taken—sometimes word-for-word, sometimes in substance—from the Elements of Theology Greek: stoicheiosis theologike which bears the name of the Neoplatonist Proclus.²

It was, however, an all too great a sense of complacency when Munk Salomon Munk (1803–1867), a German-French orientalist, referring to the analyses of Hauréau and Vacherot, wrote of the book On Causes: *this book is already sufficiently known.*³ original French: "ce livre est déjà suffisamment connu"

Haneberg’s tireless pen undertook a more comprehensive appreciation of this work, which upon closer inspection is so mysterious in many respects. From a correct recognition of its literary-historical significance emerged his treatise, “On the Neoplatonic Work 'On Causes' (liber de causis)”.⁴ He illuminated the high prestige which the work enjoyed in the Middle Ages in both Christian and Jewish circles; he then tested the value and reliability of the Latin translation using a copy of the Arabic original belonging to the University Library at Leiden; he also gave noteworthy hints and evidence regarding the obscure question of the work’s origin; and finally, he discussed in a very thorough manner its relationship to the aforementioned Elements of Theology.⁵

1 On Scholastic Philosophy Latin/French: De la philosophie scolastique (Paris 1850) I, 384—389. Hauréau also included this very summary of the contents in his History of Scholastic Philosophy French: Histoire de la philosophie scolastique (Paris 1872—80) II, 1, 48—53. The preface to this newer work begins with the words: This ‘History of Scholastic Philosophy’ is not a second edition of the memoir that I published under a nearly identical title. original French: "Cette ‘Histoire de la Philosophie scolastique’ n’est pas une seconde édition du mémoire que j’ai publié sous un titre presque semblable."
2 Critical History of the School of Alexandria French: Histoire critique de l'école d'Alexandrie (Paris 1846—51) III, 96—100.
3 Miscellany French: Mélanges II, 259.
4 Reports of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences in Munich. German: Sitzungsberichte der k. b. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu München. Year 1863. Vol. I. pp. 361—388.
5 A more detailed report on Haneberg’s treatise was provided by M. Schneid in the report on the proceedings of the philosophical section of the Görres Society from August 29, 1877 — appendix to the annual report of the Society for 1877 (Cologne 1878) — pp. 57—58. Schneid overlooked the critique of M. Steinschneider, which will be mentioned shortly. His report is also not free of individual inaccuracies. The repeated statement that the book On Causes was also “well known” to the Arabs and...