Adelard of Bath delard of Bath (ca. 1080-ca. 1152) is best known for his translation of Euclid's geom- etry into Latin from an Arabic translation of the original Greek text, which was written around 300 B.C.E. He also translated other works, including a-Khwarizmi's astronomical tables (see Chapter 9), and he is credited with introducing the use of the abacus, a Chinese mechanical calculator that uses beads, to the treasury officials of the English king Henry I. Most likely born in Bath, he studied first in France in Laôn and then went to Salerno, Italy, and Syracuse, Sicily, both centers of Islamic learning. Adelard of Bath consistently praises Islamic learning, but scholars have not found any quota- tions from Arabic books in his writing. Although he studied in Italy, his transcriptions of Arabic words reflect Spanish pronunciation, not Italian as one would expect. It seems likely, therefore, that he spoke Arabic to an informant, probably from Spain, who explained Islamic books to him. This kind of translation using native informants is exactly how the early Buddhist translators in China handled difficult Sanskrit texts (see Chapter 8). The selections below are drawn from Adelard A of Bath's Questions on Natural Science, a series of dialogues with his "nephew," who may have been a fictitious conversational partner like those appearing in the Neo-Confucian records of conversations (see Chapter 12). Their conversation illustrates how the great teachers of the twelfth century, including Peter Abelard, taught by using the Socratic method (see Chapter 6), in which they guided their students with pointed ques- tions. The nephew's suspicion of Islamic learning was the typical European view; few learned Arabic, and most saw Islam as the source of teachings that were contrary to Christianity. The uncle and nephew agree to accept reason as their guide, a conclusion that both the ancient Greeks and Peter Abelard would have applauded. Source: From Charles Bumett, Italo Ronca, Pedro Mantas Espaa, and Baudouin van den Abeele, Adelard of Bath, Convarsations with Hà Nephaw, Cambridge University Press, 1998. Reprinted with permission of Cambridge Uhiversity Press. ADELARD: You remember, dear nephew, that, seven years ago, when I dismissed you (still almost a boy) with my other students in French studies at Laôn, we agreed amongst ourselves that I would investigate the stud- ies of Arabs according to my ability, but you would become no less proficient in the insecurity of French opinions. NEPHEW: I remember, and all the more so be- cause when you left me you bound me with a promise on my word that I would apply myself to philosophy. I was always anxious to know why I should be more at- tentive to this subject. This is an excellent opportunity to test whether I have been successful by putting my study into prac- tice, because since, as a listener only, I took note of you when often you explained the opinions of the Saracens [Muslims], and quite a few of them appeared to me to be quite useless. I shall for a brief while refuse to be patient and shall take you up as you expound these opinions, wherever it seems right to do so. For you both extol the Arabs shamelessly and invidiously accuse our people of Ignorance in a disparaging way. It will therefore be worthwhile for you to reap the fruit of your labor, if you acquit yourself well, and likewise for me not to have been cheated in my promise, if I op- pose you with probable arguments. ADELARD: Perhaps you are being more bold in your presumption than you are capable. But because this disputation will be use- ful both to you and to many others, I shall put up with your impudence, as long as this inconvenience is avoided: that no one should think that when I am putting for- ward unknown ideas, I am doing this out of my own head, but that I am giving the vlews of the studies of the Arabs. For I do not want it to happen that, even though what I say may displease those who are less advanced, I myself should also displease them. For I know what those who profess the truth suffer at the hands of the vulgar crowd. Therefore, I shall defend the cause of the Arabs, not my own. NEFHEW: Agreed, so that you may have no oc- themselves, have used too great a license to write, to such an extent that they have not hesitated to trick brutish men with false words instead of true. For why should you not fill pages, why not write on the back too, when these days you generally have the kind of listeners that demand no argu- ment based on judgment, but trust only in the name of an ancient authorty? For they casion for silence. ADELARD: Well then, I think we should begin from the easier subjects. For if I speak sen- sibly about these, you may have the same hope concerning greater things. So let us start from the lowest objects and end with the highest. (The two then disauss the sources of nourishment for plants, and then the nephew asks about animals.) ADELARD: About animals my conversation. with you is difficult. For I have learnt one thing from my Arab masters, with reason as gulde, but you another: youfollow a halter, being enthralled by the picture of author- Ity. For what else can authority be called do not understand that reason has been given to each single individual in order to discern between true and false with reason as the prime judge. For unless it were the duty of reason to be everybody's judge, she would have been given to each person in vain.... Rather I assert that first, reason should be sought, and when it is found, an author- ity, if one is at hand, should be added later. But authority alone cannot win credibility for a philosopher, nor should it be adduced for this purpose. Hence the logicians have agreed than an argument from authority is probable, not necessary. Therefore, if you wish to hear anything more from me, give and receive reason.... NEPHEW: By all means let us do as you demand, since it is easy for me to oppose with rea- sonable arguments, nor is it safe to follow the authorities of your Arabs. Therefore, let us keep to this rule: between you and me reason alone should be the judge. other than a halter? As brute animals are led wherever one pleases by a halter, but do not know where or why they are led, and only follow the rope by which they are held, so the authority of written words leads not a few of you into danger, since you are enthralled and bound by brut- Ish credulity. Hence too, certain people, usurping the name of "an authority" for