Part VIII
At this point of our assessment of the functioning of the House of Wisdom, it became obvious that there was only one institute in the Abbasid Caliph’s palace but which acquired two names. The first name was a straightforward depiction as a library to be mentioned with its founder or promoter’s name. The second name was an attribution to its collection of books related to the pre-Islamic knowledge of sciences (ulum al-awa’il) and philosophy (hikma) and becoming associated with a philosophically motivated school of thought. Thus, its depiction as the House of Wisdom became an established compound name.
To address the question raised in the title of this part of the book, it is imperative to answer another basic question: What was the relation of the House of Wisdom with the Inquisition (Mihna)?
To speak about the relation between the Mihna and the House of Wisdom cannot be sustained from the accounts mentioned in the primary sources. Abu al-Fida (d. 1331), a prominent historian from the Mamluk era, narrates that al-Ma’mun in 212/827 went public with his opinion on the createdness of the Qur’an. Eche endorses Abu al-Fida’s statement and contextualizes it with another Mamluk historian Ibn Taghribirdi’s statement that “al-Ma’mun brought closer the theologians and ordered them to debate in his presence”. Eche interpreted this statement freely with alteration to its meaning by saying that al-Ma’mun installed them in the House of Wisdom.1 This public disclosure of al-Ma’mun took place three years after the alleged “installation” of mutakallimun (philosophical theologians) at the House of Wisdom. Meanwhile, the Mihna occurred in 218/833, five years after the caliph’s declaration of his sponsorship and nine years after the said installation of mutakallimun in the House of Wisdom. In reference to scholarly meetings and discussions in the presence of the caliph at the House of Wisdom, the account of the debate between Abd al-Aziz al-Kinani and Bishr al-Marisi is quoted by Eche as an example par excellence for association of House of Wisdom with this debate, which we have already shown was not correct (see Part VI).
The policy of inquisition continued in the reign of al-Wathiq (d. 842/471) then the first three years of al-Mutawakkil (r. 847–861) when it was abandoned. Primary sources do not have clues to what was the fate of the House of Wisdom all these years. However, modern studies speak about the closure and the reopening of the House of Wisdom. Meyerhof says that it was “reopened” during the reign of al-Mutawakkil.2 De Lacy O’Leary in his study on how Greek science passed to Islam, in an unqualified and strange statement, states that al-Mutawakkil was of sadistic temperament, mischievous, and capriciously cruel. Though not himself a scholar like al-Ma’mun, he was a patron of science and scholarship and reopened the House of Wisdom, granting it fresh endowments (!). He also observes that the best work of translation was done during his reign as the training of the stuff and experience were bearing fruits.3 D. Sourdel casts doubt on the fate of the House of Wisdom after al-Mutawakkil stopped the inquisition and she maintains that the House of Wisdom does not appear to have survived the orthodox reaction.4
What we can gather from the statement of Ibn Taghribirdi is that besides al-Ma’mun’s well-known involvement and support to the issue of the createdness of the Qur’an and favoring their proponents, those who supported his views made use of his palace library where it held numerous books on Hikma/Wisdom, and furthermore that he supported them financially. Hence this library became known as Bayt al-Hikma/House of Wisdom because of its collection of books on Hikma/Wisdom and for being a place where they had philosophic deliberations and disputations. Between the death of al-Ma’mun in 833, four months after his declaration of the inquisition, and Mutawakkil’s abandoning the inquisition in 850, we can expect that the involvement of the royal library with such activities did not last long. Meanwhile, we have no information about what happened to the House of Wisdom and its relationship with the supporters of the inquisition. Nevertheless, since the capital of the Abbasid caliphate was moved from Baghdad to the newly established city of Samarra 125 km north of Baghdad three years after the death of al-Ma’mun, it is safe to conclude that “the House of Wisdom” lost its glamor and became known as the library of al-Ma’mun. So, it became known as other libraries have with its name attributed to its founder. We have many accounts from the tenth century that show that scholars had access to this library collection. Hamza al-Isfahani (d. 360/970) mentions in the introduction of his history book that he had access to a copy from Khizanat al-Ma’mun (library of al-Ma’mun).5
As already explained in Part III, Al-Nadim’s Fihrist provides ample and clear evidence for the change in the qualifications of the palace library. So, when he speaks about the palace library during the reign of Harun al-Rashid and al-Ma’mun, he refers to it as Khizanat al-Hikma (the repository of Wisdom) or Bayt al-Hikma (the House of Wisdom).6 When he mentions his personal experience with this library one and a half centuries after the death of al-Ma’mun, he says simply Khizanat al-Ma’mun (the repository of al-Ma’mun).7
The same al-Nadim, when speaking about the same institution during the reign of Harun al-Rashid and al-Ma’mun, qualifies the repository as the library of wisdom of Harun al-Rashid8 and the same for al-Ma’mun, respectively.9
These accounts of al-Nadim clearly showed that the library was there, and that scholars could consult its collections.10
The famous biographer Ibn Abi Usaybi’a (d. 633/1245) in his biography of Hunayn Ibn Ishaq tells us that he has seen a number of Galen’s books and other books carrying remarks written in the Greek language by Hunayn Ibn Ishaq and carrying the sign of al-Ma’mun’s [library].11 Ibn Abi Usaybi’a does not clarify where he had access to these books. Was that in Baghdad at what remained of the library of al-Ma’mun, or had these books found their way to the book market? Al-Nadim in a previous quotation tells us that he “has seen certain books in the library of al-Ma’mun” or he has copied certain parts from books existing in the library of al-Ma’mun.12 In one place he says that he had got an old copy of a book that seems to belong to al-Ma’mun’s library.13 When this account is read with the account of Ibn Abi Usaybi’a who spent his life in Damascus and Cairo and did not live in Baghdad, we can understand that the books belonging to this royal library found their way out into the hands of bibliophiles up to the thirteenth century.
The date of Ibn Abi Usaybi’a’s death was one decade before the sack of Baghdad by Ilkhanate Mongol forces (656/1258). Al-Qalqashandi (d. 1418) narrates in his encyclopedic work Subh al-’Asha, in an account on famous libraries in Islam, that the library (khizana) of the Abbasid Caliphs in Baghdad was one of the most magnificent ones and that it survived until the Mongols sacked Baghdad and killed the Caliph al-Musta’sim (r. 1248–1258) and that “the library has gone among other things, its signs were lost and its remains were erased”.14
After this brief account of al-Qalqashandi, we can come back to our own assessment. The claim of the closure and reopening of the House of Wisdom comes from a basic assumption that there was an independent institution with this name and since it was associated with the Mu’tazilas and the inquisition, so too must it have been a target of the anti-Mu’tazile policy. However, it is clear from the different examples given above that this was not the case and that this specific appellation of the House of Wisdom given to the Abbasid palace library was subsequently abandoned. We can conclude further that the library was maintained under the name of library of al-Ma’mun. The account of al-Qalqashandi shows that this library survived until the invasion of Baghdad by the Mongols.
The assumption that there was a closure date of the House of Wisdom is as baseless as the claim of its establishment date of 830 (see Part II). So, fixing a date of closure for House of Wisdom in the time of al-Mutawakkil has no historic evidence, any more than the date of its establishment during the reign of al-Ma’mun.
To answer the question raised in the title of this part of the book, what happened to the House of Wisdom after the death of al-Ma’mun? The answer is very simple and straight forward: nothing, since there was no independent and separate institution with the appellation of the House of Wisdom. The library that acquired this appellation because of its collection of books and for being a place for deliberation and philosophical discussions faced the same destiny as other large libraries.
Notes
1. Y. Eche, pp. 53, 54.
2. M. Meyerhof, Alexandria, p. 403.
3. De Lacy O’Leary, How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs, Goodword Books, 2002, p. 168. This is the first time there is a mention to the House of Wisdom that was granted a fresh endowment as if there was an “old endowment”.
4. Dominique Sourdel, EI2;Also see this book Part V, footnote 24.
5. J.M.E. Gottwaldt, pp. 8, 9.
6. AN I, pp. 25, 373, 374; AN II, 142, 235, 326.
7. AN I, pp. 13, 14, 44, 51.
8. AN II, p. 234; Dodge, p. 651.
9. AN II, p. 235; Dodge, p. 652; see also, AN I, 24; Dodge, p. 18.
10. AN I, pp. 13, 14, 44, 51.
11. Ibn Abi Usaybi’a, p. 260.
12. AN I, pp. 13, 14, 44.
13. AN I, p. 51.
14. Al-Qalqashandi, Subh al-Asha, Dar al Kutub, Cairo, 1963, Vol. I, p. 466.