Liber de Causis (The Book of Causes)

A brief and partial glance at the divergent opinions and dialogue between two prominent scholars may serve to highlight the differences between Latinists and Arabists. Fr. A. Pattin, 26. in accordance with the attribution made by the Bodleian Library manuscript 27. and the testimony of Albertus Magnus 28. as well as others, attributes authorship to Ibn Daoud, a contemporary of Gerard and Dominic in Toledo. Fr. H.D. Saffrey 29. has leveled several criticisms against Pattin's thesis. He objects, for example, that Ibn Daoud, who was a rather modest figure, did not know enough Greek to work on the text of Proclus. Furthermore, Saffrey wonders why, if Ibn Daoud were the author of the text and since he was present in Toledo when Gerard made the Latin translation, there are two Arabic words, achili and yliathim, left untranslated in the Latin text. And, because he discerns an affinity between the vocabulary and doctrine of The Book of Causes and the so-called Theology of Aristotle, he contends that there is an affinity in their origins as well.

Pattin 30. responds to Saffrey's objections: Supposing gratuitously that Ibn Daoud did not know enough Greek to read Proclus' Elements, it is not inconceivable that he had access to an Arabic translation or excerpts of that work. As to the Arabic transcription of two words in the Latin text, this is easily explained by the fact that Ibn Daoud would have drafted his work for his Arabic coreligionists; and, when Gerard had seen how successful the treatise was, he took it upon himself to translate it, without the assistance of the author.

While there has not been universal agreement about the identity of the author of The Book of Causes, further information about him