The Book of Causes (1882) - Page 28

The Book of Causes

Professor J. Gildemeister of Bonn assisted me in deciphering several passages.

The aforementioned problem—that the ink has significantly faded—is particularly noticeable on the final page, Folio 29a Folio: A single leaf of a manuscript; 'a' refers to the front or recto side. Consequently, determining the age of the manuscript is somewhat difficult and uncertain.

According to the new catalog of Oriental manuscripts at the University Library of Leiden,¹ the work dates to the year 573 of the Hijra Hijra: The migration of Muhammad from Mecca to Medina, marking the start of the Islamic calendar; year 573 corresponds to roughly 1177 AD. Haneberg² cited the year 539. However, as evidenced by the addition "i.e., 1197," there is a typographical error here: 539 instead of 593. The latter is correct.

For I believe the colophon Colophon: A statement at the end of a manuscript giving details about its production should be read as follows:

Peace! What was available regarding this subject has come to an end. Praise be to God first and last, as is His due and right. May God bless Muhammad and his family and grant them abundant peace...³ He [the scribe] finished his copy on the night of Saturday, the twenty-fourth of Dhu al-Hijjah Dhu al-Hijjah: The twelfth and final month of the Islamic calendar in the year 593.

Later, the scribe⁴ added: It reached [the stage of] collation Collation: The process of comparing a copy against the original or another version to ensure accuracy on Wednesday, the twenty-fourth of Rabi' al-Awwal Rabi' al-Awwal: The third month of the Islamic calendar in the year 904...⁶ The year 593 Hijri corresponds to 1197 AD, while 904 Hijri corresponds to 1498 AD, suggesting the manuscript was checked or compared against another copy three centuries after it was originally written.

1 As cited above, vol. III, p. 312.
2 As cited above, p. 373.
3 Two indecipherable words.
4 In the aforementioned catalog, the individual who performed the collation of the manuscript and wrote the following words is distinguished from the copyist himself. However, I believe I can identify one and the same hand with certainty in the handwriting.
5 Before the word "fourth" original Arabic: "رابع" (rābi‘), there are several characters in the manuscript that are difficult to determine. I suspect it is a crossed-out "sixth" original Arabic: "ساد" (sād), the start of "sādis". It seems to me that the scribe intended to write "sixth" (6th) instead of "fourth" (4th), and had already written the first three letters before realizing his error and striking them out.
6 I am unable to decipher what follows.