## 1. Bio, Works, Sources and Influences




Jewish Neoplatonist Solomon ben Judah Ibn Gabirol (Shelomoh ben
Yehudah Ibn Gabirol in Hebrew; Abu Ayyub Sulaiman ibn Yahya Ibn
Jubayrol (or Ibn
 Jabirul)[1]
in Arabic; Avicebron / Avicembron / Avicenbrol /
Avencebrol in Latin) was born in Malaga Spain in 1021/2 (Guttman
offers 1026) and died, most likely in Valencia, most likely in 1057/8
(Guttman offers 1050; Sirat offers 1054-8; Joseph Ibn Zaddik
offers
 1070).[2]
From his own
autobiographical remarks in his poems, it appears that this important
poet-philosopher was orphaned, infirm and unattractive (it seems he
suffered a disfiguring skin
 ailment).[3]
While there was a time during which he was
involved with a circle of Jewish intellectuals in Saragossa, and while
he did enjoy the patronage of a respected (though, eventually murdered)
Jewish patron for a short while, it is also clear that Ibn Gabirol had
an anti-social
 disposition[4]
and a mostly strained relationship with the Jewish community. This
latter point has perhaps been overemphasized to full blown misanthropy
due to a translation error: in his sharp criticism of Ibn Gabirol's
philosophy (as repetitive, wrong-headed and unconvincing), Ibn Daud
concludes (in his *ha-Emunah ha-Ramah*) that through his
philosophy Ibn Gabirol "led the Jewish people into error,"
which through a mistranslation of the Arabic into Hebrew got wrongly
conveyed as the claim that he slandered the Jewish people
(*diber sarah gedolah al ha-um*a) (see Pines
1977a; for brief discussion in English, see Sirat 1985, p. 81). That
aside, a poem he wrote upon leaving Saragossa does lambast the
community ("...giants they deem themselves, for me to rate
no more than grasshoppers...I am away, beneath my feet like mire
I stamp them hard...") (for translation and references for
this poem, see Loewe 1989, p. 21, and footnote 9, p. 170), and it does
seem that he had a hard time finding patrons and friends (legend tells
of his having created some sort of female automaton for house chores
[apparently this story circulated in the 17th century; see Ashkenazi
1629, part 1, 9; see Bargebuhr 1976, p. 62; Loewe 1989 fn. 9
p. 170]--perhaps a legend built on his reputation as having had
few companions). Perhaps we may root his generally surly disposition
in his rather hard life or, on the other hand, in his self-assured
sense of what was, to be sure, his own keen intellect and poetic
genius. On this latter point, we might consider another Ibn Gabirol
legend--a mythic tale of his death: killed by a jealous poet, Ibn
Gabirol's remains are discovered when curious townsmen dig under a fig
tree to determine why its flowers, fruit, and fragrance exceed the
beauty of anything they've ever experienced (see Loewe 1989, p. 23
with reference details in footnote 14, p. 170).




Complementing a vast corpus of Hebrew poetry (see section 7 below),
Ibn Gabirol's most expansive work is his philosophical treatise,
the *Fons Vitae* (*The Fountain of Life*, or
*yanbu' al-hayah* in
 Arabic,[5]
and the *meqor
hayyim* in its later Hebrew
 translation).[6]
Originally written in Arabic in
the 11th century in the form of a dialogue between a teacher and his
student, the *Fons Vitae* was translated into Latin in the 12th
century by the translation team of Dominicus Gundissalinus and John of
Spain (Johannes
 Hispanus),[7]
and made into an abridged Hebrew version (one
which loses the dialogue format and is something more of a summary of
the original) by Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera in the 13th century. The
original Arabic text is lost to us, though we do have some extant
fragments in the form of citations of the original Arabic version in
the Arabic language texts of other Jewish medieval
 philosophers.[8]
Because the Arabic
fragments are sparse, the main version of the text is the Latin 12th
century translation--it is considered more true to the original
than the later 13th century Hebrew translation both because it is an
earlier translation, but also because unlike the Hebrew summary
translation, the Latin edition is (ostensibly) a complete translation,
maintaining--as the Hebrew summary does not--the original
dialogue format of Ibn Gabirol's original text. That said, it is
worth noting that sometimes the 13th century Hebrew translation is more
helpful than the Latin because it is able to resonate with various
Hebrew terms at play in Ibn Gabirol's own vast corpus of Hebrew
poetry which is often helpful in shedding light on some given
philosophical point in the *Fons Vitae*.




Ibn Gabirol also authored (in Arabic) *On the Improvement of the
Moral Qualities* (*islah al-'akhlaq* in
the Arabic, or *tikkun midot ha-nefesh*,
the Hebrew title of the translation by Judah Ibn Tibbon) a blend of
physiological and philosophical insights on the nature of the human
soul. We also have evidence in other medieval Jewish authors of what
might be part of an allegorical commentary on the Bible by Ibn Gabirol
(as found in Abraham ibn Ezra's commentary on the Bible; see
Friedlaender 1877, p. 40; Kaufmann 1899, p. 63ff.; for English see
Sirat 1985, p. 79), and it is debated whether he might also be the
author of *Choice of Pearls* (*mukhtar
al-jawahir*, lit. *Choice (or: Selection) of Jewels*;
or *Mivhar ha-Peninim, Choice of Pearls,* in its
Hebrew
 translation),[9]
a collection of maxims aimed at cultivating a
virtuous soul. It might be further noted that there are medieval lists
by later thinkers enumerating a total 21 treatises by Ibn Gabirol (see
Loewe 1989, pp. 24-5) including an entire [non-extant] treatise on
Divine Will to which Ibn Gabirol himself alludes in his *Fons
Vitae*. All this, of course, in addition to his having authored a
vast corpus of Hebrew poetry, including a number of lengthy
philosophical poems (see section 7).




Although we are not certain of what traditions most influenced his
work, we might certainly see in the pages of his philosophy and poetry
a unique blend of Jewish, Islamic, Neoplatonic, Pythagorean,
philosophical, Biblical, and mystical (Jewish and Islamic) source
materials. We find overt use of Biblical quotes throughout his poetry,
though (and this is something for which other Jewish thinkers
criticized him) no overt references to the Bible or Jewish tradition in
his *Fons Vitae* (though the title arguably references
*Psalms* 36:10). In his notion of a Divine Word (in the *Fons
Vitae*), we might hear resonances of the *Longer Theology of
Aristotle*; in his interest in a Divine Throne (in the *Fons
Vitae* and in his *Keter Malkhut* [*Kingdom's
Crown*] poem), we might hear resonances of Muslim and Jewish
"Throne
 theologies";[10]
in his reference to God creating out of letters, we might hear resonances of the
*Sefer Yezirah* (*The Book of Formation*,
possibly known to Ibn Gabirol through the commentary edition of Saadya
Gaon; for discussion of *Sefer Yezirah* and Ibn
Gabirol, see Schlanger 1965 and Liebes 1987); in his causal
metaphysical hierarchy we might discern the influence of the *Liber
 de Causis*;[11]
and in his emphasis on a principle called "*al-'unsur
al-awwal*" in his Arabic writing (generally translated as
first matter) and called "*yeso*d"
(foundation) in his Hebrew poetry, we might hear resonances of a
tradition which scholars have dubbed "Pseudo Empedoclean"--an 
imprecisely understood tradition of ideas found in an
eclectic array of medieval Jewish and Islamic texts (where authors
sometimes refer overtly to Empedocles by name) in which there emerges a
notable focus on a principle of pure supernal matter
(*al-'unsur al-awwal*, literally "the first
element") at the core of being which is itself either coupled
with a principle of first form or described as itself composite of the
duality of "love and strife." The exact nature of this
tradition or traditions remains unclear, but can be found in
al-Shahrastani, al-Shahrazuri, Ps. Ammonius, and al-Amiri (for
references, see the entry on "*anbaduklis*"--the 
Arabic transliteration of "Empedocles"--in 
*Encyclopedia of Islam*), in some medieval Hebrew
Kabbalistic
 traditions,[12]
and has been linked to ideas in Ibn Masarra (see Asin-Palacios
1978), Isaac Israeli and Ibn Hasday (See Stern 1983a). Linking Ibn
Gabirol to this tradition seems warranted not only in light of his own
emphasis on *al-'unsur al-awwal* (followed in turn by an
unusual focus on the role of matter/s in the cosmos), but in light of
a claim by his 13th century translator Shem Tov Ibn
Falaquera who in the introduction to his Hebrew edition
of *Meqor Hayyim* (*Fons Vitae*) writes that
Ibn Gabirol seems to have been influenced by
"Empedocles' *Book of the Five Substances*"
(cf. Falaquera in *Fons Vitae* 1962, p. 435). Leaving aside what
this might refer to (scholars debate both the title as well as what it
refers to), it does seem that Ibn Falaquera was right to note some
link between Ibn Gabirol's *Fons Vitae* and some set of ideas
circulating under the name of
 Empedocles.[13]




While some later medieval Jewish thinkers--such as Shem Tov
Ibn Falaquera, Moses Ibn Ezra, Abraham Ibn Daud, Joseph ibn Zaddik and
Isaac and Judah Abrabanel--were familiar with his philosophy,
Ibn Gabirol is probably most well-known among medieval and modern
Jewish authors for his Hebrew poetry, the best known of which being the
*Keter Malkhut* (variously translated as
*Kingdom's Crown*, *The Kingly Crown*, *The
Royal Crown*, et
 al.),[14]
a long devotional poem exploring the ineffable
splendor of the divine and tracing God's presence throughout the
various cosmological spheres which make up the universe. In fact, this
poem is included in many Jewish prayer books for recitation on
*Yom Kippur* (The Day of Atonement), the highest of
Jewish holy days.




The *Fons Vitae* is arguably the most influential of his
works, though mostly among medieval Christians. Available in Hebrew
summary form by the 13th century, and quoted in Arabic in
Moses Ibn Ezra's
 work,[15]
the *Fons Vitae* left its strongest
imprint not on medieval Jews but on the medieval Christian world.
Translated into Latin in the 12th century, and circulating
no longer under Ibn Gabirol's name per se, but now under the
Latinized version of his name (variously as Avicebron, Avicembron,
Avicenbrol and Avencebrol), the *Fons Vitae* was engaged
(variously criticized and hallowed) by centuries of medieval Christian
scholars, who either assumed the author to be a Muslim or a Christian,
none suspecting the author to be the accomplished medieval Jewish poet,
Solomon Ibn Gabirol.




Following the Christian reception of Ibn Gabirol's text
further, we might note that whole groups of medieval Christian
philosophers assumed the text to have been written in particular by an
Augustinian Christian. Taken up by many Franciscan philosophers in just
this way, Ibn Gabirol's *Fons Vitae* text became a
cornerstone in many theologically charged debates between Franciscans
and Dominicans, the Franciscans pointing to many of the *Fons
Vitae* doctrines in support of what they took to be true, untainted
Christian ideas as laid out by Augustine--in contrast to the
more heavily Aristotelianized ideas of Dominicans like St. Thomas
Aquinas. It was not until the middle of the 19th century
that the *Fons Vitae* began its return to its Jewish roots when
Solomon Munk uncovered the 13th century Hebrew summary by
Shem Tov Ibn Falaquera in which the text is attributed to Solomon Ibn
Gabirol. In this way, Munk recognized the *Fons Vitae* to have
in fact been penned by the 11th century Jewish poet.




It is worth noting that in spite of this discovery, many scholars
continue to tacitly read Ibn Gabirol's *Fons Vitae*
through Augustinian and other inappropriate lenses. (See section 2 on
methodology below).


## 2. A Word on Method: Moving Beyond Aristotle, Augustine, and *Kabbalah*




While there is no neutral lens through which to engage the history
of ideas, it is important to guard against three particularly
distorting lenses in the study of Ibn Gabirol: Aristotelian,
Augustinian, and Kabbalistic.


### 2.1 Aristotelian Lenses in the Study of Ibn Gabirol




One of Ibn Gabirol's key interests in his *Fons Vitae* is a
study of matter and form (and in particular a doctrine which later
thinkers have called "Universal Hylomorphism"). While
there is no question that Ibn Gabirol is in some sense influenced by
Aristotelian concepts of form, matter, substance, categories, etc.,
there is no reason to think that he is generally using those concepts
in anything even close to an Aristotelian way. As hopefully will
become clear in this study, the primary notions of matter and of
substance in Ibn Gabirol are deeply (and obviously)
non-Aristotelian [see sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3], revealing instead deeply
Platonic and Neoplatonic sensibilities, and--even more
uniquely--deeply "Empedoclean" influence. (In this
regard, Pessin 2009 (pp. 287-288) uses the novel term
"Grounding Element" to replace the Latin
"*materia prima*" and its English translation as
"prime matter" as a translation for Ibn Gabirol's Arabic
"*al-'unsur al-awwal*"; see too Pessin
2004). It is critical to note that "prime matter" is a
misleading term to use in a study of Ibn Gabirol as it at imports
undue Aristotelian resonances to--and masks Pseudo (henceforth,
"Ps.") Empedoclean resonances at play in--Ibn
Gabirol's Arabic terminology.




Noting that Ibn Gabirol is not an Aristotelian goes a long way to
invalidating the deepest grounds (as opposed to the details) of Thomas
Aquinas' and other medieval thinkers' criticisms of Ibn
Gabirol's metaphysics as essentially being some kind of
misunderstanding of Aristotle. Since Ibn Gabirol is not trying--tacitly 
or otherwise--to do what many scholastics are trying to
do (viz. to "get Aristotle right"), it is methodologically
strained to critique Ibn Gabirol from an Aristotelian vantage point. An
Aristotelian lens does not open us to understanding the metaphysical
picture that Ibn Gabirol is trying to paint for us.


### 2.2 Augustinian Lenses in the Study of Ibn Gabirol




Another of Ibn Gabirol's key interests in the *Fons
Vitae* is the Divine Will. This focus in part explains why many
Christian Franciscans thought the *Fons Vitae* to have been
authored not only by a Christian but by what they would have seen as a
right-minded Augustinian Christian. While we have known since the
19th century that the *Fons Vitae* was in fact
authored by a Jewish poet, this has arguably not altered much of the
Augustinian-lensed scholarship on the *Fons Vitae*. Some
scholars, for example, have concluded simply on the basis of the idea
of a Divine Will in Ibn Gabirol that he (like Augustine) must mean by
this some divine power at odds with emanation. While the details of Ibn
Gabirol's cosmogony are complex, and while it is indeed possible
that his notion of Will rules out emanation, another equally strong
option is that he uses the term "Divine Will" in a way that
(contra Augustine) is deeply compatible with Plotinian emanation. My
point here is simply to caution the reader: just because something
sounds Augustinian does not mean that it is, and if it is not, we need
to keep all our conceptual options open. Certainly "will"
is consistent with emanation in the pages of Plotinus; we should not
start out--tacitly wearing Augustinian lenses--with any
assumptions to the contrary in the *Fons
 Vitae*.[16]
(In this regard, Pessin 2009, p. 286 with note 54, 
uses the term "Divine Desire" to replace the
Latin "*voluntas*" and the English
"Will" as a translation of Ibn Gabirol's Arabic
"*al-irada*").




For our current purposes, we must at least bear in mind that since
Ibn Gabirol is not a Christian Augustinian, it is methodologically
strained to read Ibn Gabirol from an Augustinian vantage point. An
Augustinian lens does not open us to understanding the metaphysical
picture that Ibn Gabirol is trying to paint for us.


### 2.3 Kabbalistic Lenses in the Study of Ibn Gabirol




In his elaboration on the metaphysics of matter, Ibn Gabirol
frequently uses the Arabic term "*al-'unsur*"
(instead of the more common Arabic terms
"*al-hayula*" and
"*al-madda*") for matter. In fact, as outlined in
section 1, this is one of the key pieces of evidence for identifying a
uniquely "Empedoclean" strain in his thinking. That said,
many readers instead simplistically fall into a Kabbalistic reading of
Ibn Gabirol since the Arabic "*al-'unsur*" is
correlated to the Hebrew term "*yesod*" both
in Ibn Gabirol's own Hebrew poetry as well as in
Falaquera's 13th century Hebrew translation of the
*Fons Vitae*. While to be sure, the Hebrew term
"*yesod*" (literally "foundation")
is a cornerstone term and concept in Jewish mysticism, the desire to
read Ibn Gabirol Kabbalistically (as a proto-Zoharian) is simply
under-supported by the mere fact that he (and his Hebrew translator)
use the term "*yesod*". While there might be
Kabbalistic traces in Ibn Gabirol, it is methodologically inadvisable--and 
distorting--to simply start out assuming there are.
We might note, for example, F. E. Peters' boldly claiming--with
no stated evidence--in his "Avicebron" entry in
the New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The true philosophical home of
Avicebron is in the Zohar and in the speculative sections of the
Cabala" (see Peters 1967, volume 1, p. 1130). Such a claim is not
prima facie evident. In an obviously more methodologically careful
spirit, there are scholars of Jewish mysticism who recommend
connections to Ibn Gabirol (usually with reference to Ibn
Gabirol's poems, not his *Fons Vitae*) (see, for example,
Idel, who offers the suggestion of mystical overtones in an Ibn Gabirol
poetic reference to "ten *sefirot*" (Idel
1982, p. 278); see too: Idel 1992; Liebes 1987; Heller-Wilensky 1967).
While we needn't dismiss the idea of links between Ibn Gabirol
and Jewish mysticism (he was most likely familiar with the
*Sefer Yetzirah* tradition, and possibly other
traditions, of *sefirot*), we must be
methodologically cautious to not over-Kabbalize Ibn Gabirol (and
especially his *Fons Vitae*): use of terms like
"*sefirot*,"
"*yesod*," et al. do not necessarily reveal
Jewish mystical overtones or influence. Scholem reminds us (in his
study of Ibn Gabirol's influence on Kabbalah) that even after
many studies of the link between Ibn Gabirol and the Kabbalah, we have
no clear conclusions (Scholem 1939, p. 160). (Avoiding reading Ibn
Gabirol as a proto-Zoharist is not to deny any impact of Ibn Gabirol on
later Kabbalists; but even this question of forward-influence must be
treated with care; as Scholem also notes, the mere use of the term
"Divine Will" in Kabbalistic thinkers *after* Ibn
Gabirol does not necessarily reveal a Gabirolean influence (Scholem
1939, p. 161)).




Since we have strong reason to claim that Ibn Gabirol's use of
the term "*yesod*" reflects a Ps. Empedoclean
tradition, it is methodologically strained to read Ibn Gabirol from a
Kabbalistic vantage point. A Kabbalistic lens does not open us to
understanding the metaphysical picture that Ibn Gabirol is trying to
paint for us.


## 3. Knowledge and Deeds: the Purpose of Human Being




Like any engaged Neoplatonist, Ibn Gabirol is first and foremost
interested in understanding the nature and purpose of human being: we
must understand what we are (our nature) so that we know how to live
(our purpose). This set of interconnected human questions is what Ibn
Gabirol is interested in even in the midst of what might sometimes seem
to be rather laborious cosmological and metaphysical explorations. Ibn
Gabirol, like other Neoplatonists, explores layers of cosmological and
metaphysical realities in an attempt to understand how to live the best
human life possible.




Emphasizing that this is Ibn Gabirol's main concern, we find
in the opening pages of his *Fons Vitae* text a reminder that
the goal of the entire inquiry is to understand why human beings were
made ("*Quare factus est homo*?," "Why was man
made?"--*Fons Vitae* 1.1, p. 2, line 8)--which 
is to say, to understand the ends (or purpose) of human being
(the *Fons Vitae* teaches that a human ought to "pursue
knowledge of his final cause [or: purpose] according to which he was
composed," *Fons Vitae* 1.2, p. 4, lines 8-9). In spelling
out the true, divinely ordained goal of human life (the purpose of the
human life is described as a product of God's Will
at *Fons Vitae* 1.2, p. 4, lines 10-12), the text describes a
twofold endeavor: the pursuit of knowledge and the doing of good deeds
(*Fons Vitae* 1.2, p. 4, line 27).




While the remaining hundreds of pages of the *Fons Vitae* go
on to offer highly obscure elaborations on matter and form, the overall
point of the entire study (and one might argue, of Ibn Gabirol's
entire *oeuvre* of poetry as well) is not obscure at all: his
goal is to understand the nature of being and human being so that he
might better understand and better inspire the pursuit of knowledge and
the doing of good deeds:



> 
> 
> Knowledge indeed leads to deeds, and deeds separate the soul from
> the contraries which harm it...In every way, knowledge and deeds
> liberate the soul from the captivity of nature and purge it of its
> darkness and obscurity, and in this way the soul returns to its higher
> world. (*Fons Vitae* 1.2, p. 5, line 27-p. 6, line 4)




"And in this way, the soul returns to its higher world."
The ends of humanity (reached through the pursuit of truth and
goodness) are imagined by Ibn Gabirol--as we find is the case
among Neoplatonists more generally--through the evocative image
of a "return" coupled with the image of a "higher
world":



> 
> Student: What is the purpose of man?
>   
> 
> Teacher: The inclination [*applicatio*] of his soul to the
> higher world in order that everyone might return to his like.
>   
> 
> (*Fons Vitae* 1.2, p. 4, lines 23-25)
> 




The joint imagery of a "return" and a "higher
world" are themselves part of a conceptual framework in which all
of existence is seen to follow a principle of similitude whereby lesser
beings mirror higher beings. This idea, often expressed as the idea
that "the microcosm mirrors the macrocosm"--a common
Platonic, Pythagorean, and Neoplatonic trope--has a strongly
prescriptive overtone: it's not simply that lesser things mirror
greater things, but that in this mirroring, we find the purpose of the
lesser things, viz. to be just like the greater things. Depending on
the context, the "lesser things" and "greater
things" might vary, but the most popular version of this
"microcosm mirrors the macrocosm" idea, and the one at play
in the above Ibn Gabirol passage, envisions the human being (sometimes
human soul, sometimes human intellect) as the "lesser
thing" and the wisely ordered cosmos (and sometimes, relatedly,
the mind of God or, alternatively, the cosmic Intellect) as the
"greater thing." In this descriptive idea that humans
mirror something greater there emerges the strongly prescriptive
reminder that we ought to emulate that which is better than ourselves
(viz. through the pursuit of knowledge and good deeds). This
prescriptive call to human perfection through truth and goodness is the
essence of the idea of Neoplatonic Return, and it is this idea which
lies at the core of Ibn Gabirol's claim that we ought purge our
souls of darkness and "return to our like[ness]".




In one especially important *Fons Vitae* passage, we find a
description of this Neoplatonic return which very much reflects
Plotinus' own famous ascent passage (at *Enneads* 4.8.1),
a passage reproduced (with important changes) in what misleadingly
became known as the *Theology of Aristotle*, an Arabic
compilation-edition of books 4-6 of Plotinus'
 *Enneads*.[17]
Here is the final part of Ibn Gabirol's version:



> 
> 
> ...But if you should lift yourself to the first universal
> matter and [are] illumined by its shadow, you will then see the most
> wondrous of wonders. Devote yourself to this and be filled with love
> for it, since here lies the meaning for which the human soul exists,
> and here lies too amazing delight and utmost happiness (*Fons
> Vitae* 3.56; my translation from the Arabic and Latin; for Wedeck
> translation, see his *Fountain of Life* (Ibn Gabirol 1962/2008),
> pp. 110-111)




In addition to many other changes from Plotinus and the *Theology
of Aristotle*, one special point of difference is the reference
here to universal matter (see section 5). It is precisely Ibn
Gabirol's unique focus on "universal matter" (a grade
of spiritual materiality at the very core of existence) which leads him
to uniquely envision the ultimate moment of Neoplatonic return as a
moment of "illuminated shadow": since there is a material
element just "above" Intellect for Ibn Gabirol, the return
to Intellect will be characterized by the light of Wisdom set within
the shade of the supernal first matter.




In the closing sentences of the *Fons Vitae*, Ibn Gabirol
further describes this state of "return" as a liberation
from death and a cleaving to the source of life ("*Evasio
mortis et applicatio ad originem vitae*," *Fons Vitae*
5.43, p. 338, line 21). Following on general Neoplatonic intuitions,
this means that when one has attained the heights of truth and
goodness, one will have reverted to one's truest life, a pure
state of soul which transcends mortal life--we might describe it
as a kind of immortality while in the mortal body. This directly
resonates with what A.H. Armstrong, in his study of Plotinus, has
described as the Neoplatonic doctrine of "Double Selfhood,"
a sensitivity to the human condition being at one and the same time (1)
already fully imbued with the fullest state of intellect, but somewhat
paradoxically also (2) fallen from--and needing to return to--the 
fullest state of intellect.




While Ibn Gabirol's quest towards the Neoplatonic Return
centers, as we have seen, on the pursuit of truth and goodness, it also
includes an attempt to know the unknowable God. In laying out the kinds
of truth that the human soul must aim to acquire, the *Fons
Vitae* speaks of "the knowledge of all things according to
what they are" (*Fons Vitae* 1.4, p. 6, lines 13-14), and
most of all of the knowledge of the First Essence [Latin, *essentia
prima*, Arabic, *adh-dh**at
al-'**ul**a*, as evidenced in some
of the extant Arabic fragments of the *Fons Vitae*; see Pines
1958/77 and Fenton 1976] that sustains and moves all things. While we
are asked to know God--understood by Ibn Gabirol in tripart
terms as a hidden First Essence and as an active, manifesting Will and
Wisdom--we are cautioned a few lines later that it is impossible
to truly know the First Essence, and that we can only aspire to know
the things which He makes and sustains (*Fons Vitae* 1.4, p. 6,
lines 19-22). As it relates to Ibn Gabirol's more general
characterization of God in the *Fons Vitae* in tripart terms as
an essential hidden reality and an active manifesting Will and Wisdom,
we might say that for Ibn Gabirol, we can only know God through the
manifestation of his Will and Wisdom in the ordered structure of
existents in the universe (i.e. through the things which He makes and
sustains, and in particular, through the wisdom revealed by them).


## 4. The Divine Creative Act




Ibn Gabirol describes God's creative act in many ways across
his philosophical and poetic writings. While it is certainly possible
to find a single overall theological picture emerging from across Ibn
Gabirol's work, it is at least worth noting a degree of tension
between a range of different and sometimes seemingly conflicting ideas.
In what follows, we will look at the complex play of creation,
emanation, Will, Wisdom, Word, and desire in Ibn Gabirol's
cosmo-ontology.


### 4.1 Creation *ex nihilo* and the Fountain of Life




To begin with, Ibn Gabirol's God is described as a Creator God
who is an absolute simple unity--so simple as to exceed the
grasp of the human mind and tongue. This apophatic theme (a theme which
in any philosopher highlights the absolute unity of God) can be seen
for example, in the very first canto of his *Keter
Malkhut* [*Kingdom's Crown*] depiction of God:
"Yours is the name hidden from the wise..." God, for
Ibn Gabirol, is, in proper Neoplatonic fashion, an absolute unity. That
said, God is nonetheless described in the *Fons Vitae* by Ibn
Gabirol in dual--and in some sense, tripart--terms:
God's unity consists on the one hand in a purely hidden Essence
and on the other hand in the manifesting activity of a Divine Will. We
also learn (thirdly) of God's Wisdom (and in related fashion, of
the Divine Word). Emphasizing more of a dual--and less of a
tripart--vision of this absolutely simple Creator, Ibn Gabirol
sometimes directly identifies the Divine Will with the divine Wisdom
(though that does not always seem clear throughout Ibn Gabirol's
writings).




While God's creative act is described by Ibn Gabirol as a
creation *ex nihilo* (see *Fons Vitae* 3.3, p. 79, line
18; FV 3.25, p. 139, lines 24-25) a view normally seen in opposition to
doctrines of emanation, he also uses common emanation metaphors--the 
flow of light and the flow of water--to describe the origins
of the cosmos. For example, drawing on the *Psalms* 36:10 image
of a "fountain of life," in the very title of his *Fons
Vitae*
 text[18]
Ibn Gabirol seems to at least beckon to Greek and Muslim Neoplatonic
visions of an emanating
 God.[19]
Similarly stressing an emanating cosmos (though
not necessarily the idea of an emanating God per se), Ibn Gabirol--in 
what appears to be part of a commentary on *Genesis*--likens 
the material core of being (to which we will return in
section 5) to a river. Allegorically rendering the Garden of Eden
waters to the pure matter which sits at the root of the unfolding
cosmos, Ibn Gabirol envisions the pulse of existence as a River of Life--a 
vibrant outpouring which links all of existence to a single
overflowing source (see Sirat 1985, p. 79). Of course, this particular
image does not necessarily suggest that God Himself emanates (i.e. the
idea that existence emanates forth from matter is still consistent with
God creating that matter *ex nihilo*, and not via
emanation).




Attempting to put all the pieces of Ibn Gabirol's complex
cosmogony together, we can find pieces of creation *ex nihilo*,
emanation, and creation *ex aliquo*; God's formative act
begins with creating matter and form (possibly a creation *ex
nihilo*, but described fluidly enough as to leave open other
interpretations), and He then draws out, in an emanating flow, the
remainder of existence from these dual starting points (emanation, but
also creation *ex aliquo* in the sense that all of existence is
being formed through the mediation of matter, as opposed to each
existent being created *directly*--in the sense of
'unmediated'--by God as in other versions of
creation *ex nihilo*
 accounts).[20]
In the end, Ibn Gabirol's conceptual play--with 
notions of creation and emanation side by side--ought 
leave us open to various interpretations of how precisely to
understand his cosmogony.




In his *Keter Malkhut* poem (*Kingdom's
Crown*), Ibn Gabirol further describes God's creative act as
a splitting open of nothingness: "...*ve-qara el
ha-'ayin ve-nivqa*...," ("...and
He called out to the nothing and it split open..."; in
Gabirol's poem, *Keter Malkhut*, canto 9; See
Schirmann 1967, p. 262, line 82; for a treatment of this line, see
Pines 1980). Here, the void of precreation--the pre-existent
*'ayin*, or "nothingness"--is
split open by God's own voice in the moment of creation--a
moment arguably described by Ibn Gabirol in his poem
*ahavtikha* ("I Love You") as the material
"proto-existence" (*kemo-yesh*) awaiting
its fulfillment through
 form,[21]
and described in the *Fons Vitae* as a
complex unfolding of and downward manifesting of a first pure matter
through the introduction of (or unfolding of) forms by the Divine Will.
The material nothing--in all three images--is the ground
of existence, as it is at once the site of desire, a yearning to be
en-formed, which is to say, to become more and more manifest. We will
say more about this emphasis on desire below (see section 4.3).




Central to Ibn Gabirol's cosmogony is also the notion of the
Divine Will, an emphasis for which the *Fons Vitae* is
highlighted in the history of ideas.


### 4.2 Will, Wisdom, Word, Intellect and the Cosmos




Early on in the *Fons Vitae*, we learn that the Divine Will
is one of three central concepts that the human mind must set out to
grasp (the workings of matter and form, and the reality of a divine
Essence as primal cause are the other two central concepts). We also
learn of Will that it is some sort of cosmic "intermediary
between the extremes," a role described as central to the basic
underpinning of the universe (*Fons Vitae* 1.7, p. 9, lines
28-30; see too *Fons Vitae* 5.36, p 322, line 20-p. 323, line 1
for another statement of the three divisions of knowledge; in this
latter context, Will is identified with Word). We learn that Will is
the power of God infused in and penetrating through all things, that it
is the power of unity in the universe, and that it is that which both
brings forth and moves all of existence. It is also described as the
divine force that maintains and sustains the essence of all things (see
*Fons Vitae* 5.39, p. 327, lines 14-15: Will is the power
[*virtus*] of God infused in and penetrating all things; 5.39,
p. 327, lines 26-27: Will is the power [virtus] of unity; 1.2, p. 4,
lines 14-15: Will is the divine power [*virtus*] bringing forth
and moving all things; 1.5, p. 7, line 15: Will maintains and sustains
the essence of all things).




Turning further to Will's mediating cosmic role, while the
Latin text translates "intermediary between the extremes,"
the Arabic text uses a dual grammatical form, translating more
specifically as "intermediary between the two extremes." In
the context of this claim, the "intermediation" role
between the "two extremes" is ambiguous between two
different claims which are both equally true within the context of Ibn
Gabirol's worldview: on the one hand, Ibn Gabirol might mean that
Will intermediates between (1) matter and form on the one hand and (2)
divine Essence on the other (the items corresponding to two of the
three "divisions of knowledge" which he describes [see
section 5]); on the other hand, Ibn Gabirol might mean that Will
intermediates between (1) matter and (2) form, the two cosmic
"building blocks" out of which all reality is
comprised.




Will is further described as taking its own root in God's
Essence, and is sometimes (but not always) described as the immediate
creative source of (and not just intermediary between) matter
and
 form.[22]
Complicating this picture of Will's creation of matter and form,
we also learn on the contrary that Will is the direct source only of
form (and not
 matter)[23]--a 
point supported further by the claim
that Will is (1) identical to Wisdom (and the source of form; see
*Fons Vitae* 5.42, p. 335, lines 4-5), and (2) that Wisdom is
the source only of form (and not matter), with the divine Essence
itself being the direct source of matter: "...*materia
est creata ab essentia, et forma est a proprietate essentiae, id est
sapientia et unitate...*" ("...matter is
created from Essence, and form is from the property of Essence, viz.,
from Wisdom and Unity..."; *Fons Vitae* 5.42, p.333,
lines 4-5; see too 5.42, p. 335, lines 4-5).




Leaving the complexities of these competing claims aside in the
context of this study, it is sufficient here to emphasize that Ibn
Gabirol's theology includes a Divine Will not only responsible
for the generation of one or both of matter and form, but responsible
in some way for the "connection between matter and form" in
all things, and, as such, responsible for sustaining all existing
things (all of which are, for Ibn Gabirol, form and matter composites;
see section 5). By sustaining the matter and form composition of all
things, Divine Will signifies the permeation of God's creative
force at the core of Being itself, and as such at the core of every
individual being.




In addition to identifying Will with Wisdom, Ibn Gabirol also
identifies Will with Word (*Fons Vitae* 5.36, p. 323, line 17).
Following on this identification, in a rather evocative set of
passages, Ibn Gabirol likens the act of creation to God's
utterance of word (*Fons Vitae* 5.43). While this theme is
certainly not new within the history of Neoplatonic and Jewish ideas
(suggesting resonance with the *Longer Theology of
Aristotle*'s reference to the Word [Ar. *kalima*], as
well as resonance with *Sefer Yezirah*'s
emphasis on God's creation via Hebrew
 letters[24]),
what is new is Ibn
Gabirol's unique way of fleshing that idea out in light of his
overall metaphysics: Creation, writes Ibn Gabirol, is like a word that
God utters, and that word is itself the coming together of voice (the
universal matter), the audible sounds that make up a given word
(manifest forms), and the actual meaning of the word (the hidden
universal form which contains and sustains all manifest forms). For Ibn
Gabirol, this analogy helps highlight his view of the unfolding divine
Wisdom / Will giving way to a cosmos which is a complex blend of
matters and forms, with a principle of pure universal matter and pure
universal form at the very root of all existence.




Here, we may speak of a revised Neoplatonic cosmos in which
principles of form, matter and Will (if we are to think of that as
something separate from God's Essence) emerge
"between" God and the principle of Intellect (the principle
which follows directly upon God in standard chartings of the
Neoplatonic cosmos):




|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Standard Neoplatonic talk of the "first reality" after God | Gabirolean Neoplatonic talk of the "first realities" after God |
| 1. One/God | 1. God |
| 2. Intellect | 2-4. Pure Matter, Pure Form, Will/Wisdom/Word

[leaving undecided
the relationship between all of these
and the relationship between
all of these and God]
 |
|  | 5. Intellect |




In Ibn Gabirol's cosmology, Intellect is highlighted as the
 first created being, as the Divine Glory
 (*Kavod*),[25]
and as the first
occurrence of "form in matter" composition (see *Fons
Vitae* 5.10, p. 274, line 19; 5.11, p. 277, line 4; for the related
idea that God creates *esse* in a composite way out of matter
and form, cf. *Fons Vitae* 5.40, p. 329, line 4). At times, Ibn
Gabirol emphasizes that this matter is pre-existent (that it does not
have existence on its own without form), and at times, he can be taken,
on the contrary, as emphasizing the "*per se
existens*" nature of matter (as for example in his very
definition of matter at *Fons Vitae* 1.10, p. 13, lines 15-17
and 5.22, p. 298, lines 13-7). While the precise meaning of Ibn
Gabirol's idea is open for interpretation, Schlanger suggests
that matter *per se* exists for Ibn Gabirol only as an idea in
the mind of God, and not as an actual reality prior to Intellect (see
Schlanger 1968, p. 294). In this vein, we may note Ibn Gairol's
claim that the existence (*esse*) of matter is in the wisdom of
God (*Fons Vitae* 5.10, p. 275).




Reflecting on Ibn Gabirol's idea of some kind of "form
and matter before Intellect" (either in an actual or in some
conceptual sense), it is worth considering to what extent this suggests
(as the above two discrete charts seem to suggest) a genuine departure
from Plotinian Neoplatonism. On the face of it, Plotinus does not
emphasize a principle of matter and form prior to Intellect. As such,
we may say that Ibn Gabirol's emphasis introduces a Ps.
Empedoclean change (either an actual ontological change or a
conceptual "shift in focus") into the standard Plotinian
picture. That said, Plotinus certainly is sensitive to the duality of
the unity of Intellect (as compared with the unity of the One), and
even occasionally overtly emphasizes the notion of Intellect's
composition out of "intelligible matter" (See
*Enneads* 2.4.1-5, 5.4.2 and 5.5.4; on the conceptual resonance
of "intelligible matter" in Plotinus and Ibn Gabirol, see
Dillon 1992). While these sections of the *Enneads* in which
Plotinus overtly emphasizes this theme are not part of the Arabic
Plotinus materials which we would presume Ibn Gabirol to have had
access, it is worth noting that Ibn Gabirol's emphasis on
"form and matter prior to intellect" does not necessarily
represent any conceptual departure from Plotinus (or, we might add,
from Platonic and Pythagorean sensitivities to the principle of an
indefinite dyad at the core of reality). Clearly Plotinus is sensitive
to the "duality" of any grade of reality outside of the
One: while Intellect is for Plotinus a unity, it is clearly a
"dual" (or even plural) sort of unity as compared with the
utter unity of the One. In this sense, Plotinus is deeply sensitive to
the "duality" outside of God (and, as such, the duality of
Intellect), even in passages where he is not overtly referencing the
composition of Intellect/Being out of intelligible matter (which is to
say, even in passages where he is not emphasizing the dual nature of
Intellect). In this sense, it is arguably conceptually appropriate to
align even Ibn Gabirol's most emphatic sense of the dual
"matter-with-form" composition of Intellect (or, relatedly,
his emphasis on a grade of matter "prior to" Intellect)
with even Plotinus' staunchest insistence on the unity of
Intellect (as for Plotinus, the unity of Intellect, as compared with
the unity of the One, is dual by nature).


### 4.3 God, Matter and the Omnipresence of Desire




Returning to our earlier discussion, Ibn Gabirol describes pure
matter as stemming directly from the Divine Essence itself, with form,
on the contrary, arising somewhat secondarily
from the Divine Will. While this is not to suggest that God is Himself
made up of matter (as concluded by some fans of Ibn Gabirol such as
David of Dinant in the history of Christian philosophy who ran into
trouble with the Church for theorizing God as matter), there is
arguably in Ibn Gabirol an intimate link between God and matter. Such a
link between materiality and God is not much of a conceptual stretch
(though in standard Platonic, Neoplatonic, and Aristotelian contexts we
would tend to link God with form): both matter and God are utterly
hidden and utterly grounding for all else, while form (and the
Will/Wisdom with which it is associated) mark the lesser
"active" or "manifesting" mode of divinity and
of the cosmos. While of course for Ibn Gabirol God is an utter unity,
we may nonetheless theorize with Ibn Gabirol as follows: As God's
essential hiddenness moves forward into action (Wisdom/Will/Word), so
too pure material pre-existence moves forward into manifest being (i.e.
becomes more and more en-formed). Here, in an important sense, the
images of "darkness and the hidden" trump the images of
"light and the manifest" both as they relate to God and to
the cosmos: as God's hidden Essence precedes and grounds his
acts, so too matter precedes and grounds enformed being (and as such,
all existents). Here, God and matter--in their dark / hidden
respects--have something very important in common. (See Pessin
2009, p. 290, for chart mapping the superiority in this regard of the
material over the formal).




It ought be noted that herein lies a paradox found in one form or
another in all versions of Neoplatonism: on the one hand, there is a
sense that moving forward (or downward) in the great chain of being is
a tragic fall away from the purity of divine unity; on the other hand,
there is a sense (not, for example, found in Gnostic materials) that
there is beauty and light in the creation, which is to say that in the
continual downward manifesting of being we find the trace of Divine
Will. In the context of Ibn Gabirol's conceptual space in which
(as we will see in more detail in section 5) reality is seen as the
process of moving from a more hidden / material to a more manifest /
formal reality, the result is at once (1) a sense of loss in the move
away from God's own hiddenness (with a sense that darkness is
sublime) and (2) a sense of beauty and increasing grace as more and
more forms continue to manifest ("joining" to matter
through the intermediation of the Divine Will), resulting ultimately in
the fullness of the cosmos (with a sense that light is sublime). These
dueling images of the sublimity of unity (or pre-creation) on the one
hand and manifestness (or creation) on the other (here in terms of the
sublimity of darkness on the one hand and light on the other) offer an
insight into what we may call a Neoplatonic "theology of
paradox" which is very much at play in Ibn Gabirol.




In his conception of God's relation to matter in the act of
creation, we must also emphasize Ibn Gabirol's focus on desire.
Providing a bit more context to (and a different translation of) Ibn
Gabirol's *Keter Malkhut* [*Kingdom's
Crown*] rehearsing of God's "splitting of the
nothing" (see section 4.1), consider:



> 
> 
> You are wise, and your wisdom gave rise to an endless desire in the
> world as within an artist or worker--to bring out the stream of
> existence from Nothing...He called to Nothing--which split;
> to existence--pitched like a tent...With desire's span
> he established the heavens... (Canto 9 of the *Keter
> Malkhut*; translation from Cole 2001, p. 149)




In these poetic lines, as elsewhere throughout his writing, Ibn
Gabirol emphasizes the central motion of desire at the core of the
universe. This can be seen throughout the *Fons Vitae*
in the dual reminders that (1) all things have matter at their core,
and (2) matter's own reality consists essentially in desire (viz.
a desiring-after-form). These two simple ideas lead to a much more
arresting insight, viz. inasmuch as all things are grounded in matter,
and inasmuch as matter is a marker of desire, it follows that all
reality is grounded in desire. Desire--in the guise of matter--is 
in this sense a central principle of Ibn
Gabirol's
 universe.[26]


## 5. Matter, Form and "Universal Hylomorphism"




In his vision of the world, Ibn Gabirol's focus is on God,
Divine Will, and the duality of form and matter. From an early section
in his *Fons Vitae*, we learn:



> 
> 
> In the whole of existence, there are three divisions of knowledge:
> (1) the knowledge of matter (*al-'unsur*) and form
> (*as-sura*), (2) the knowledge of Will
> (*al-irada*), and (3) the knowledge of the First Essence.
> Among substances, there is nothing other than these three. First
> Essence is cause; matter and form, effect; and Will is the intermediary
> between the two extremes (*Fons Vitae* 1.7; for Arabic, see
> Pines 1958/77, p. 71; for slightly different translation with reference
> to "The All of Existence," see Pessin 2009, p. 286 and note
> 53 in that study)




Matter and form--referred to in his Hebrew poetry under the
alluring Hebrew labels of "*yesod*"
(foundation) and "*sod*" (secret)--are,
along with the doctrine of Divine Will, cornerstones of the *Fons
Vitae*. In particular, the *Fons Vitae* teaches (rather
unusually within the history of ideas) that all things--including 
spiritual simples such as soul and intellect (but not God)--are 
comprised of matter and form. This doctrine is called
"Universal Hylomorphism" by later scholastics in contrast
to ordinary Aristotelian hylomorphism in which all substances
*other* than soul/intellect are said to be comprised of matter
(Greek: *hule*) and form (Greek:
*morphe*). This doctrine of Universal Hylomorphism emerges
as a central theological and philosophical point of contention between
Augustinian Franciscans (who embrace it) and Aristotelian Dominicans
(who reject it). (It might be noted that one popular way that the
*Fons Vitae* doctrine comes up in medieval Christian debates is
on the question of whether angels (the separate intellects) are made up
of matter and form, or just
 form).[27]




Hand in hand with the doctrine that all things (including spiritual
simples) are matter+form composites is Ibn Gabirol's idea of a
pure spiritual matter at the core of being which grounds even Universal
Intellect in the great Neoplatonic chain of being. In the extant
Arabic, we find that Ibn Gabirol uses the term
"*al-'unsur*", or the more descriptive
"*al-'unsur al-awwal*," first matter (in
contrast to other more common Arabic philosophical terms for matter
which Ibn Gabirol himself uses at other points in his
 work).[28]
In spite of the
fact that this term is translated as "*materia
prima*" in the Latin, and is as such often translated as
"prime matter" in English, we need to keep in mind that
whatever Ibn Gabirol is talking about is not best thought of as
Aristotelian prime matter (which is what may readers undoubtedly
overtly or covertly think of when they hear the term "prime
matter"; see section 2). First of all, Ibn Gabirol's pure
matter is part of an overtly Neoplatonic world-view which, contra
Aristotle, privileges spiritual/intelligible substances over
sensible/corporeal reality, and which, contra Aristotle and Plato,
emphasizes the emanation of the sensible realm from the spiritual
realm. Further emphasizing that we are not talking of Aristotelian
prime matter is the fact that Ibn Gabirol's use of the Arabic
term *al-'unsur* (literally "the element," and
translated by the 13th century Hebrew editor as
"*yesod*" (foundation)) expressly mirrors a
Ps. Empedoclean tradition of a spiritual matter (called
*al-'unsur*) immediately outside of God. For these
reasons, it is important to avoid Aristotelian resonances when
constructing Ibn Gabirol's ontology, and as such, one ought use
the term First Matter over "prime matter."




Of this first pure matter we learn at the very start of the *Fons
Vitae* that it is "...*per se existens, unius
essentiae, sustinens diversitatem, dans omnibus essentiam suam et
nomen*" ("...existent in and of itself, of a
single essence, sustaining diversity, and giving to everything its
essence and name"; *Fons Vitae* 1.10, p. 13, lines 15-17).
And, in similar manner we learn at the very close of the *Fons
Vitae* that it is: "...*substantia existens per se,
sustentatrix diversitatis, una numero; et...est substantia
receptibilis omnium formarum*" ("...a substance
existent in and of itself, the sustainer of diversity, one in number;
...it is a substance receptive to all forms"; *Fons
Vitae* 5.22, p. 298, lines 13-7; compare with facing Arabic text at
Pines 1958/77, p. 53, section 9:2). Related to its status as the
"sustainer of diversity," pure matter is presented as the
fundamental receiver that always seeks to receive its partner, viz.
form. Pure universal matter is thus coupled--in a process
overseen by Divine Will--with a pure universal form to yield the
first fully existing substance, Universal Intellect. In their coupling,
matter and form thus mark the permeating presence of Divine Will in the
universe. Related to his vision of a matter-to-form coupling through
Will, Ibn Gabirol envisions the Neoplatonic emanating chain of being as
an ever-descending series of matter-to-form couplings, and so:



> 
> Intellect (matter + form)1
>   
> 
> Soul (matter + form)2
>   
> 
> Celestial Body (matter + form)3
>   
> 
> Terrestrial Body (mater + form)4
> 




Here, a hylomorphic lens is put onto the standard Neoplatonic
hierarchy emphasizing the composition of all things (spiritual simples
as well as bodies) in terms of matters and forms (and highlighting
three kinds of matter: spiritual, celestial, and
 terrestrial).[29]
And with this
hylomorphic lens emerges too the emphasis on Divine Will, the active
presence of God responsible in some way for "mediating"
between these matters and forms.




In the context of this hylomorphic vision, we find a confounding
flipping in the *Fons Vitae* between ordinary negative and
unexpected positive descriptions of the notion of
 matter.[30] 
 The universal pure matter certainly has a positive set of associations
with it in Ibn Gabirol as compared with "corporeal" (or
"lower") matter: in contrast to "lower" matter
which carries the 9 Aristotelian categories, "higher"
matter is the matter of pure spiritual simples and carries no quantity
or quality (or any of the 9 categories). Again, mindful of the
Empedoclean tie-in and of his Hebrew terminology of
"*yesod*" (foundation), we are looking at
something quite sublime, a reality which sits, as it were, directly
outside of God prior even to Intellect, which he likens to a Divine
Throne (see *Fons Vitae* 5.42, p. 335, lines 23-4), and which
he correlates to the more essential (and hidden) reality of God. In
these and related contexts in Ibn Gabirol, matter often emerges
(somewhat unexpectedly within the history of ideas) as more sublime
 than even pure form.
And yet, there are plenty of passages in
the *Fons Vitae* in which it is form which reigns supreme (as
we would expect in standard Platonic, Aristotelian, and Neoplatonic
traditions): for example, form is identified as the cosmic source of
unity and light, and it is form which is said to perfect or complete
matter by bringing being to it (although, as we have emphasized, it is
still plausible that for Ibn Gabirol matter *per se* still has
some kind of pre-existent--and perhaps superior--subsistence 
prior to and independent of this gift of being from
form). Further highlighting form's supremacy, Ibn Gabirol
argues, for example, that the substance of Intellect is superior to
the substance of body precisely because the former contains all forms
and the latter contains only some forms (see *Fons Vitae* 3.9,
p. 98, line 24- p. 99, line 3), an argument which relies on the
intuition that formality (not materiality) is the ontological marker
of supremacy (and an argument which seems directly at odds with the
intuitions behind another of his ideas, viz. that we ought call
a higher substance "matter" with respect to a lower
substance). In the final account, we can see Ibn Gabirol as
uniquely sensitive to the equal importance of both matter and form,
their intimate interdependence one upon the other, and, ultimately,
their unity as a single whole--a dynamic arguably mirroring his
vision of God's own reality in terms of essential and active
"moments" which are ultimately one inseparable unity.


### 5.1 Ibn Gabirol's Neoplatonic Hylomorphism 1: Plato's Participation Revised




One way to think of Ibn Gabirol's hylomorphic levels of
reality (although Ibn Gabirol does not himself theorize it in this way
overtly) is in terms of his Neoplatonizing the Platonic notion of
participation. For Plato, participation is in a form, and a highest
form--participated in by all--is the form of being. For
the Neoplatonist, as for Ibn Gabirol, the focus on the form is replaced
(or amplified) by the focus on the Universal Intellect that contains
all forms (simultaneously, in potency, as one nested in the next).
Imagine the conceptual implication of this Neoplatonic focus on
Intellect (versus a Platonic focus on the form of being) for a
participation theory--if we think of it carefully, we will find
that the Neoplatonic model can quite organically gives rise to the kind
of hylomorphic focus we find in Ibn Gabirol: In a Neoplatonic
Intellect, all the forms are "in" Intellect, a notion which
can easily be seen as emphasizing Intellect's material role as
sustainer. This would mean that the move from Platonic talk of forms to
Neoplatonic talk of Intellect organically invites a new focus on the
role of [spiritual] matter (viz. the matter of Intellect by which it
receives or holds all the forms). This immediately transforms the
Platonic concept of participating in form/s to the concept of
participating in matter (the receiver) (or, we might say, participating
in matter as the means to participating in forms). And so, whereas for
Plato all things participate in the form of being, for Ibn Gabirol, all
things are grounded in / have as their underlying "true
substrate" the substance of Intellect which is to say, they
participate in matter (viz. the spiritual matter of pure intellect)
plus forms.


### 5.2 Ibn Gabirol's Neoplatonic Hylomorphism 2: Aristotelian Substance Revised




Ibn Gabirol's metaphysics are obviously influenced by
Aristotle's talk of substance and its 9 categories. And yet, it
would be a mistake to think of Ibn Gabirol as an Aristotelian in much
of his use of the term "substance."




To confuse things, Ibn Gabirol does use the term substance in an at
least somewhat Aristotelian sense when he talks of corporeal substance--the 
substance which, a la Aristotle, receives the 9 categories.
Ibn Gabirol argues that this substance is first enformed by the form of
corporeity, or quantity (one approach among many ancient and medieval
interpretations of Aristotle, even if not actually
Aristotle's
 view).[31]
Moving
already, though, from anything even loosely Aristotelian and
manifesting a more Platonic impulse, this substance is seen by Ibn
Gabirol as "lower substance" marking the lowest extremity
of reality. Continuing on this Platonic move away from Aristotle, Ibn
Gabirol's main talk of "substance" refers, contra
Aristotle, to "simple substances," by which he means the
Neoplatonic Universal Intellect and Soul(s), each understood by Ibn
Gabirol as a joining of spiritual matter to spiritual form, and each
devoid of any of the 9 categories plaguing the "lower"
corporeal (i.e. Aristotelian) substance. These simple substances
(exemplified in the simple substance of Intellect) are theorized as the
intermediaries between God and lower substance.




We may begin to understand this sense of substance by noting that
with other Platonists and Neoplatonists, and deviating from
Aristotelian sensibilities, Ibn Gabirol envisions a "higher
realm" as that which is most real. However, whereas standard
Platonisms identify forms as the truest realities within that realm,
Ibn Gabirol adopts a hylomorphic (but by no means
Aristotelian) sensibility in his conception of the higher
realities: unlike Aristotle for whom only items in the corporeal realm
are form+matter composites, for Ibn Gabirol, the realities in the
"higher realm" (a Platonic idea avoided by Aristotle) are
also comprised of form+matter. This move turns a number of standard
Aristotelian, Platonic and Neoplatonic sensibilities on their heads in
a Gabirolean metaphysics, including the notion of substance.




Speaking of substance in the sense of "true substance"
separate from (and higher than) corporeal substance, Ibn Gabirol, in
line with other Platonisms and contra Aristotle, is referring to a
"higher realm." However, unlike Plato, Ibn Gabirol focuses
(with Neoplatonists) on the substances of Intellect and Soul(s)--which 
is to say, the reality of all forms "in" the simple
spiritual substances (of Intellect and Soul), not on forms per se (see
section 5.1 above). In this sense, the spiritual simples are primarily
not the forms (as we might expect in Plato), but (in Neoplatonic
spirit) the Universal Intellect and Soul. Relatedly, unlike other
Platonisms, Ibn Gabirol's higher realm is not theorized as a
realm of forms but as a realm of form and matter (again see section 5.1
on how the talk of Intellect leads us to the talk of forms
"in" matter). This also means that with Aristotle, Ibn
Gabirol employs a lot more hylomorphic talk than Platonists (though
applied to a completely non-Aristotelian "higher
realm").




This also means that contra the standard Neoplatonic (and Platonic)
rhetorics of "matter as evil," there emerges in Ibn Gabirol
a concurrent discourse of "matter as supreme": for Ibn
Gabirol, both form and matter in the "higher realm" carry
with them all the positive associations which form carries in standard
Platonic pictures (including a trajectory of thought in Ibn Gabirol on
which pure matter arguably emerges as more sublime than pure form).


### 5.3 Ibn Gabirol's Neoplatonic Hylomorphism 3: Plurality of Forms




In the context of this analysis, we might also say a word about the
doctrine of "the plurality of forms," a doctrine associated
with the *Fons Vitae* by later Christian scholastics. Taken in
contrast to the Aristotelian doctrine that each existent has a single
substantial form (ensuring its unity as a substance), "the
plurality of forms" doctrine describes the Universal Hylomorphic
sense in which each existent has a number of essential forms (and
matters). In our highly Neoplatonic Gabirolean context (but less so in
Roger Bacon and other Christian Universal Hylomorphists), we can simply
take this doctrine as an extension of the standard Plotinian idea that,
as part of the great chain of being, any given existent is saturated
through with the reality of the hypostases Soul and Intellect: in this
sense, each existent has a number of essences, corresponding to the
various "layers" (for Ibn Gabirol,
"form+matter" spiritual simples) in the great chain of
being.


## 6. Cosmic Landscape, Soul Landscape: From Heavenly Circuits to Human Return




Ibn Gabirol can be seen as offering us a revised version of the
Neoplatonic great chain of being, adding an emphasis on Will, matter
and form (and, in light of section 5, we might say a number of levels
of matters and forms). With other Jewish Neoplatonists (see Isaac
Israeli for example), Ibn Gabirol also envisions not one but three
World Souls, and a Universal Intellect which he describes in his
*Keter Malkhut* [*Kingdom's Crown*] as "the
Sphere of Intellect" (in his Hebrew, *galgal
ha-sakhel*), an odd and creative locution which blurs
astronomical and metaphysical conceptions: generally the languages of
"sphere" and "intellect" do not mix, the former
referring to the celestial realm, and the latter referring to
something well beyond the celestial realm. To these Neoplatonic layers
of Intellect and Souls, and following mostly in the spirit of astronomy
of his day (with the exception, that is, of his positing Intellect as a
so-called "10th sphere" in contrast to the more
accepted Ptolemaic system of 9 spheres; see Tanenbaum 1996 and Loewe
1979), Ibn Gabirol also envisions a hierarchy of star fields and
planetary orbs, a cosmic picture which he lays out in great detail in
his *Keter Malkhut* poem. Moving from God outward, we find the
layers as follows:



> 
> (God)  
> 
> 10. "Sphere of Intellect" (*galgal ha-sekhel*) (cantos 24-25)  
> 
> 9. Encompassing Sphere (canto 23)  
> 
> 8. Zodiac / Fixed Stars (cantos 21-22)  
> 
> 7. Saturn (canto 20)  
> 
> 6. Jupiter (canto 19)  
> 
> 5. Mars (canto 18)  
> 
> 4. Sun (cantos 15-17)  
> 
> 3. Venus (canto 14)  
> 
> 2. Mercury (canto 13)  
> 
> 1. Moon (cantos 11-12)  
> 
> (Earth)
> 




Above even the "Sphere of Intellect" is the Divine
Throne, which we know from the *Fons Vitae* refers to pure
universal matter "between" God and Intellect (on matter as
Throne, see *Fons Vitae* 5.42, p. 335, lines 23-4; for a great
diagram see Loewe 1989, p. 114).




It should be noted that it is in reference to the above chart of the
celestial levels of stars and planets that we find in various medieval
Muslim and Jewish thinkers--for example in al-Farabi and in
Maimonides--a Neoplatonized Aristotelian focus on a hierarchy of
"separate intellects," the last of which (generally
construed as the 10th intellect lowest down--with God
conceived either as the first such Intellect or as an Intellect above
this enumeration altogether) being described as the "Active Intellect"
which governs the sublunar realm, and is that to which human minds
"conjoin" (through the process of
 *ittisal*).[32]
It is important to
distinguish this system from the one at play in Ibn Gabirol: whereas
al-Farabi, Maimonides, and others focus their attention on a Return to
(or a "conjunction with") the 10th lowest down
of the separate intellects (the Active Intellect as the intellect
associated with our earthly realm below the moon), Ibn Gabirol's
focus is, as in Plotinus, on an Intellect at the very heights of the
celestial world, and just outside of God's own being: Whereas Ibn
Gabirol's "10th sphere" is a Sphere of Intellect just
outside of God, Maimonides' "10th
Intellect" corresponds to the sphere of Moon (just above Earth).
This point is often confused in secondary literature, and can lead to
problematic misunderstandings and misconstrued correlations between
philosophical systems.




Returning full circle to our start (see section 3), Ibn
Gabirol's emphasis even in his elaboration on a celestial
hierarchy centers on the Neoplatonic concern with the cultivation of
the human soul--its Return to its highest fullness in Intellect:
from a series of planets, we immediately move to Intellect
("*galgal ha-sekhel*"), the ground and goal of
the virtuous human life.



> 
> Student: What is the purpose of man?
>   
> 
> Teacher: The inclination of his soul to the higher world in order
> that everyone might return to his like.
>   
> 
> (*Fons Vitae* 1.2, p. 4, lines 23-5)
> 


## 7. The Poet




In addition to his philosophical writing, Ibn Gabirol is
author to an extensive corpus of Hebrew poems (generally categorized
into "religious" and "secular" poems) which it
is beyond the scope of this entry to
 address.[33]




Aside from Ibn Gabirol's technical prowess as a poet, it is
worth noting that Ibn Gabirol's own self-conception as a poet (a
theme overtly and self-referentially explored in many of his poems)
opens important philosophical questions about the nature of language,
selfhood and divinity. In, for example, drawing parallels between
God's act of creation (by Word), and the poet's /
philosopher's own act of writing, Ibn Gabirol arguably invites us
to reconceptualize human subjectivity, the sacred, and the relationship
between philosophical theory-building and imagino-poetic play.