al-Risal l-Jami的作者重新审查

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 Q2 HISTORY
Arabica Pub Date : 2021-12-28 DOI:10.1163/15700585-12341605
J. Mattila
{"title":"al-Risal l-Jami的作者重新审查","authors":"J. Mattila","doi":"10.1163/15700585-12341605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nRasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ and its summary, al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa, are commonly attributed to the same authors. The strongest argument for this is the presence of references from the former to the latter. The aim of the present article is to analyze all of these references to establish their import for the theory of common authorship. When the fourteen references in the Beirut edition are compared with the oldest manuscripts, the result is that only six of these references appear in the latter, and even among these two are highly ambiguous. The only references from Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ to al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa unambiguously confirmed by the oldest manuscripts are the four references in version B of epistle 52, which is itself of dubious authenticity. Since all or most of the references outside epistle 52 are then clearly later interpolations, the conclusion is that the references in Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ do not support the theory of common authorship.","PeriodicalId":8163,"journal":{"name":"Arabica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Authorship of al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa Re-Examined\",\"authors\":\"J. Mattila\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15700585-12341605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nRasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ and its summary, al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa, are commonly attributed to the same authors. The strongest argument for this is the presence of references from the former to the latter. The aim of the present article is to analyze all of these references to establish their import for the theory of common authorship. When the fourteen references in the Beirut edition are compared with the oldest manuscripts, the result is that only six of these references appear in the latter, and even among these two are highly ambiguous. The only references from Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ to al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa unambiguously confirmed by the oldest manuscripts are the four references in version B of epistle 52, which is itself of dubious authenticity. Since all or most of the references outside epistle 52 are then clearly later interpolations, the conclusion is that the references in Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ do not support the theory of common authorship.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8163,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arabica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arabica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341605\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arabica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15700585-12341605","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ及其摘要al-Risālal-Ǧāmiʿa通常属于同一作者。对此最有力的论据是存在从前者到后者的引用。本文的目的是分析所有这些参考文献,以确定它们对共同作者理论的重要性。当将贝鲁特版本中的14篇参考文献与最古老的手稿进行比较时,结果是这些参考文献中只有6篇出现在后者中,甚至在这两篇中也是高度模糊的。Rasāʾil I的唯一参考文献ḫwān al-Ṣafāʾto al Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa最古老的手稿明确证实了书信52的B版本中的四个参考文献,其真实性本身令人怀疑。由于书信52之外的所有或大多数引用都是后来的插值,因此结论是Rasāʾil I中的引用ḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ不支持共同作者理论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Authorship of al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa Re-Examined
Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ and its summary, al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa, are commonly attributed to the same authors. The strongest argument for this is the presence of references from the former to the latter. The aim of the present article is to analyze all of these references to establish their import for the theory of common authorship. When the fourteen references in the Beirut edition are compared with the oldest manuscripts, the result is that only six of these references appear in the latter, and even among these two are highly ambiguous. The only references from Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ to al-Risāla l-Ǧāmiʿa unambiguously confirmed by the oldest manuscripts are the four references in version B of epistle 52, which is itself of dubious authenticity. Since all or most of the references outside epistle 52 are then clearly later interpolations, the conclusion is that the references in Rasāʾil Iḫwān al-Ṣafāʾ do not support the theory of common authorship.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Arabica
Arabica Multiple-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
50.00%
发文量
30
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信