The Umma’s status in the Republic, however, remains ambiguous. Alfarabi normally concludes each section by naming the dialogue to which it belongs. In the passage situated between the naming of the Phaedo (PP 18.2–3) and the naming of the Republic (20.14), no other dialogue is cited. It therefore seems that Alfarabi ascribes this entire passage to the Republic, even though his summary of what is conventionally known as the Republic begins only with the investigation of justice in 19.15. The implication is that the various subjects discussed between 18.3 and 19.15 were very much on Plato’s mind when he wrote the Republic, even if they do not find direct expression in Alfarabi’s summary of the dialogue proper. The need for another Umma occurs last among these subjects, and its connection with the investigation of the other city is indicated by the the use of the word “therefore” (19.13–14). The shadow of the “other Umma” hangs over the Republic, with lingering effects on the argument of the dialogue. This hint of Alfarabi’s is borne out, I believe, in my analysis of the Republic. Socrates neither founds a new nation nor succeeds in integrating his city into any of the nations of the earth. The problem as Alfarabi sees it is that even if a new Umma is as dearly needed as a new city for attaining human happiness, it cannot be implemented in deed or even expounded in speech. The language and ways of life on which the Umma is based grew up over many generations, and cannot be produced anew by a mere legislator. The absence of a new Umma may well hinder the establishment of a new city. What is this city’s relationship to the existing Ummas? Alfarabi passes over the matter in silence, which might well indicate a quiet agreement with Plato: the new city in speech would not be accepted by any of the Ummas of the earth. When Alfarabi finally turns to the legislator who establishes the city in deed, he investigates him but does not explain how or whether he accomplishes his aim (21.11–14). At this juncture, Alfarabi’s Plato drops the new city entirely, and returns again to “the education of the inhabitants of cities and Ummas,” that is to say, the existing communities whose unjust opinions and ways of life his philosophic reveling had once so roundly rejected (21.15–17; cf. 16.11–17.1, 19.6–14).
Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato follows the structure of the Republic in one crucial respect: the elaboration of the perfect city in speech precedes the conclusion of the work. The supplement in the Republic is the discussion of Greek poetry and the myth of Er, which appears to be omitted from Alfarabi’s summary of the Republic (PP 20.13–14). But Alfarabi does hint at some awareness of the contents of Book X. He mentions Plato’s concern with the power of poetry to shape human ways of life (7.14–16; cf. Republic 606e1–607a2), as well as his dissatisfaction with the conventional poetic method (7.19–20). In Alfarabi’s prelude to the Republic, he describes Plato’s interest in the metamorphosis of humans into animals (18.3–19.3), a prominent theme of the myth of Er (Republic 619e6–620d5). Furthermore, Alfarabi’s successor Averroes refuses to treat Book X in his much longer summary of the Republic, even while admitting that he had access to it (Averroes 1974, 105.13–26). For reasons that I will examine in Chapter 5, the Muslim successors to Plato did not invent poetic myths in the manner of their Greek teachers. These considerations lead me to suspect that Alfarabi did have access to the final book, but was loath to discuss its subject matter. If Alfarabi’s Plato avoided any direct confrontation with poetic notions of virtue and the afterlife, what alternative course did he pursue?
Alfarabi’s Plato concludes by turning away from the establishment of the other city and back toward proposals for instruction and gradual reform among existing peoples. Since philosopher-kingship as such is impossible, not the least because it ignores particular communities, the philosopher eventually realizes that he needs to act within the conventional framework of cities and Ummas. He tries to reform the laws and ways of life of his own people, the Athenians (PP 23.4). Although we might expect Alfarabi’s Plato to call Athens a city, he prefers to designate his native country a qawm, a more generic term for “group.” By suggesting that both its laws and ways of life need to be reformed (23.4–5), Alfarabi’s Plato implies that the Athenian qawm contains elements of both a city and an Umma (22.18–23.1), such as the laws of Athens and the language and ways of life of the Greeks. The term qawm is employed quite sparingly by Alfarabi, and on only one other occasion in the Philosophy of Plato: Socrates tried to establish scientific investigation within his qawm and impress upon them the ignorance in which they were plunged (22.1–2). But while Plato’s teacher, Socrates, had so vehemently and publicly protested against Athens, and as a result died by its hand (18.2, 19.5), Plato employs all the discretion entailed by private letters, presumably written to prominent individuals (22.18).38 The philosopher can thereby incrementally improve the customs of his people, without exposing himself to any public backlash (see Strauss 1945, 383–84).
This approach seems similar in spirit, if not in substance, to Book X of the Republic. Alfarabi’s Plato, no less than Socrates in the Republic, supplements the account of the other city with education, an alternative to direct political action. Gradual, discrete reform of the existing peoples by means of instruction of their elite emerges as a more practicable project than trying to found a city anew, just as the reform of existing Greek poetry among a few interlocutors emerges in the Republic as an easier alternative to the construction of a city in speech.
The foregoing discussion has uncovered some intriguing parallels between the role of the nation in Plato’s Republic and Alfarabi’s account of it. In both cases, the deeply ingrained customs of the nation emerge not only as an incontrovertible obstacle to the establishment of the good city, but also as a stimulus for education. Alfarabi was not the first political philosopher to investigate the nation, and does not claim that distinction for himself, but takes the investigation many steps farther. The various hints about the nation already present in Plato’s Republic, and picked up by Alfarabi’s Philosophy of Plato, are developed in great detail in Alfarabi’s own work. The Umma constituted a more formidable presence in medieval Islam than the ethnos or genos ever did in classical Greece, and thus requires a firmer, more comprehensive treatment. Yet its basic contours remain the same: a community staunchly devoted to ancestral languages and ways of life that have established themselves inexorably over many generations, whose authority the philosopher can ill afford to ignore.
Nation and City in Aristotle and Alfarabi
The political thought of Aristotle is perhaps even more closely associated than the thought of Plato with the polis. This follows from the title of Aristotle’s most important political work, as well as its manifest focus on Greek cities. And yet this focus is not exclusive, since Aristotle also treats the ethnos on several occasions. In addition, some of the passages that deal with the ethnos seem to have had some influence on Alfarabi. The same old question inevitably arises: did Alfarabi have knowledge of Aristotle’s Politics? This issue has not engendered as much controversy as that of Alfarabi’s knowledge of Plato, but it may be no less enigmatic.
It has been universally accepted since the nineteenth century that most of Aristotle’s works, including the Organon, Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics, along with a number of shorter works, were translated into medieval Arabic.39 Alfarabi and Averroes both wrote numerous commentaries on them. The same cannot be said, however, of Aristotle’s Politics. No medieval translation of this work is known to have circulated, and Alfarabi never clearly refers to it.
I am aware of three important scholarly treatments of this subject. Taken together, they succeed admirably in bringing the principal questions surrounding it into focus. In 1975, Shlomo Pines examined the works of Alfarabi along with those of his less famous contemporary al-ʿĀmirī, finding a number of quotations