Thread by @IslamicOrigins

*The first caliph who translated knowledge: a short thread on an early Arabic tradition*

There is a classic debate in modern Anglophonic scholarship on the history of early Arabic scholarship and learning: when did Arabic scientific writing commence?

More specifically, the debate is about which caliph oversaw the first translation of ‘foreign’ scientific, philosophical, and related works into Arabic (i.e., the famous Arabic “translation movement”): was it an Umayyad or an Abbasid?

George Saliba argued that the first translations commenced under the Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 680s-705), in connection to the famous Arabicisation of the imperial bureaucracy around that time.

Saliba argued this on the basis of a story recorded in the Fihrist of al-Nadīm (d. c. 995), a story recorded in the ʾAwāʾil of al-ʿAskarī (d. post-1005), and the sophistication of Arabic translations already at the beginning of the Abbasid period.

By contrast, Dimitri Gutas argued that the first translations commenced under the Abbasid caliph al-Manṣūr (r. 754-775), in connection to lingering Sasanid traditions of imperial patronage and legitimacy.

Gutas argued this primarily on the basis of four Arabic reports, recorded in:
1) the Murūj al-Ḏahab of al-Masʿūdī (d. 956);
2) the Ṭabaqāt of Ṣāʿid al-ʾAndalusī (d. 1070);
3) the ʿUyūn al-ʾAnbāʾ of Ibn ʾabī ʾUṣaybiʿah (d. 1270);
4) the Muqaddimah of Ibn Ḵaldūn (d. 1406).

Al-Masʿūdī’s report is an auto-biographical anecdote narrated by an earlier historian named Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Ḵurāsānī, who was close with the Abbasid caliph al-Qāhir (r. 932-934).

According to Muḥammad, al-Qāhir demanded that he recount to him the true history of the Abbasids, which Muḥammad obliged.

When it came to Caliph al-Manṣūr, Muḥammad recounted to al-Qāhir all of his innovations:

(1) he was the first to split the Banū Hāšim into conflicting Abbasid and Talibid factions;
(2) he was the first to patronise astrologers;

…
(3) he was the first to patronise the translation of foreign knowledge;
(4) under him, the first Islamic biography of the Prophet was composed;
and finally, (5) he was the first to hand over high government offices to non-Arabs.

Here is Lunde & Stone’s translation of the text:

Gutas treats al-Masʿūdī’s report as the earliest available source on the genesis of the Arabic translation movement, but back in 2015 (when I was researching this subject), I somehow discovered an even earlier source…

The Mušākalat al-Nās, a short treatise by al-Yaʿqūbī (d. post-905) summarising the innovations of caliphs. This work is a simple prosopographical list, seemingly in the words of the author—it is not a narrative, nor a collection of narratives.

I have no memory of how I first encountered this text, but I when I read it, I was struck by his entry on Caliph al-Manṣūr:

(1) he was the first to split the Banū Hāšim into conflicting Abbasid and Talibid factions;
(2) he was the first to patronise astrologers;

…
(3) he was the first to patronise the translation of foreign knowledge;
(4) under him, the first Islamic biography of the Prophet was composed;
and finally, (5) he was the first to hand over high government offices to non-Arabs.

Here is Millward’s translation of the text:

Déjà vu! This is exactly the same sequence that we just encountered in the story recorded half a century later by al-Masʿūdī!

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the science-related parts of the texts, in both Arabic and English – I retranslated both of them in order to have consistent translations thereof.

[I’m still learning Arabic, so corrections are very welcome!]

Here is a visual breakdown of the similarities and differences between these texts:

Here is another comparison of the texts, showing the omissions and additions between them:

There is no question about it: these texts are very closely related. Either one was derived from the other, or both descend from a recent common ancestor.

It turns out that Millward was aware of all of this, documenting 43 parallel traditions between al-Yaʿqūbī and al-Masʿūdī! He thought that both were drawing on a single, earlier, unspecified common source (‘Adaption’, pp. 331-332).

Given that al-Yaʿqūbī’s version is (1) attested earlier and (2) simpler, his has the better claim to representing the original in the case of the tradition about al-Manṣūr, in my opinion.

By contrast, al-Masʿūdī’s version is framed as the verbatim quote of an interlocutor in the middle of a conversion, which is very dubious: absent stenographers, it is fairly certain that historical quotes are literally fictitious, even if the underlying *content* is authentic.

In this particular case, the story is even more dubious: the caliph’s demand is suspiciously convenient, since it provides the story with an excuse for a character to provide a lengthy ‘exposition dump’ regarding the Abbasids.

This is actually a fairly well-known tendency in early Arabic traditions and storytelling: historical and doctrinal expositions are framed within discussions and other such scenarios, to give them verisimilitude or an ‘authentic touch’.

[For more on these kinds of fictional narrative or literary features and framing in early Arabic reports, see especially Berg, The Development of Exegesis in Early Islam, p. 17, and Pavlovitch, The Formation of the Islamic Understanding of Kalāla, pp. 49-52.]

Thus, regardless of whether there truly was some kind of conversation involving Caliph al-Qāhir and a court historian, either al-Masʿūdī or the story’s ostensible narrator (Muḥammad b. ʿAlī) probably fashioned the section on al-Manṣūr out of a pre-existing written source.

It was common in early Arabic reports for tradents, collectors, and writers to rework and remix earlier material, even without acknowledgement. Hawting has a nice summary of this sort of thing:

Case in point, al-Masʿūdī’s version has undergone noticeable elaboration: it has been situated in an elaborate scenario, and it incorporates more details about al-Manṣūr’s patronage of astrologers. The original text was not simply copied – it was ‘improved’!

In short, al-Yaʿqūbī’s prosopographical treatise is the earliest source that I am aware of concerning the genesis of the Arabic translation movement, and through comparison with al-Masʿūdī’s later chronicle, illustrates the way that traditions can grow and change!

I have not kept up with the field since Gutas and Saliba, so I’m out of the loop now. If anyone knows of any earlier sources than al-Yaʿqūbī, please let me know!