cannot take place without some kind of binding authority (BL 138.4–8, #120), and the influence of the Umma’s linguistic elite (143.5, #130). In these passages the word “governor” (mudabbar) and its cognates are indeed used. But Alfarabi restricts the governor’s authority to linguistic matters (143.5–6, #130). It seems unlikely that purely linguistic authority could be upheld without the help of some kind of external force, such as a king or a warlord. By saying nothing about political authority, Alfarabi may imply that it does not help or hinder the linguistic development of the Umma as much as one might think. The Greek Umma flourished under a large variety of mixed regimes, mostly in cities, while the Arab Umma flourished under tribalism followed by multinational empire.
While there are some vague references to politics in Alfarabi’s account of the origin of languages and Ummas, there are no references to religion at all. Alfarabi invokes the Arabs once, as a model of the proper method of collecting the words and phrases on which linguistic science is based (BL 145–47), but says nothing about the more famous exploits of their prophet Muhammad and his followers. In Alfarabi’s two thematic accounts of the Umma in the Book of Letters and the Political Regime, no connection between religion and Umma is established. This omission may have helped convince some scholars that Alfarabi ignores the religious Umma (cf. Vajda, 250), an impression that can and will be corrected by considering other passages.
The Umma is therefore reduced to two things: natural, physical traits caused by climate and nutrition, and the mainly conventional trait of language. Of the two sets of qualities, those arising from language are in every way the more dynamic. Although language is passed down from generation to generation, it is not merely a static, inherited trait. In an earlier passage in the Book of Letters, Alfarabi quotes the anonymous opinions of people who designate an Umma according to natural qualities inherited from parents, and moral qualities inculcated by them. These opinions employ the Arabic terms sha‘b and qabīla, frequently translated as “tribe” or “clan,” as synonyms of Umma (BL 98.11–12). The implication is that these people fail to properly distinguish between clan and Umma. By occupying themselves merely with ancestry and the moral upbringing afforded by parents, they are left unable to properly define the Umma (98.9–14, 100.5–7).15 Alfarabi points out an error that must have been endemic in his genealogy-obsessed age.16 He reminds his contemporaries that even if parents and ancestry determine the material constituents of the child, they do not fix its form, or moral and intellectual character, any more than strong wood fixes the shape of a bed (99.21–100.5). While education within the home has an undeniable effect on character, it is wrong to assume17 that all education takes place there (98.17–99.4). Language is learned from elders, but not solely from parents (142.1–2, #128, 143.8–9, #130). The broad, public dissemination of language lends the evolution of the Umma a vitality that could not be sustained within individual families or even small tribes. It allows some members of the Umma to enjoy a much richer education than could ever be provided by their immediate clans.18
The significance of the link between the Umma and language for Alfarabi is sharpened by comparing his teaching with the views set forth by David Hume in the essay “Of National Characters.” Hume distinguishes between “moral” and “physical causes” of the differences among nations, attributing far greater significance to the former than to the latter (Hume, 198 ff.). Physical causes include “those qualities of air and climate, which are supposed to work insensibly on the temper, by altering the tone and habit of the body and giving a particular complexion.” Moral causes include “the nature of the government, the revolutions of public affairs, the plenty or penury in which the people live” (198). Hume’s understanding of physical causes, and rejection of their importance, resemble Alfarabi’s. Both philosophers agree that air and climate have minimal influence on manners and culture. Hume gives a number of persuasive historical and empirical arguments against reducing any differences in manners and culture to physical causes (204 ff.). But he speaks of moral causes rather than language as the defining feature of the nation. He traces the moral causes of the nation above all to legislation and politics (198, 204). Hume’s political understanding of the nation is ultimately closer to Rousseau’s than Alfarabi’s. We will have occasion to consider this question at greater length in Chapter 7.
For the present discussion, it is most crucial to note that Hume minimizes the connection between linguistic eloquence and cultural sophistication, since language depends less on manners than on the power of the original stock of sounds. Moreover, the perfection of manners tends to fix the language and dull its power. Thus the modern English are more civilized than the Homeric Greeks, even though the Homeric Greeks had a more expressive language (Hume, 209). Alfarabi, in contrast, understands manners as secondary or corollary to language in determining the development of the Umma. It is the eventual perfection of the language and stories told in it that establish the manners (adāb) of a given nation (BL 144.11, #130). Ādāb is the plural of adab, a wide-ranging term that means “literature” and “culture” as well. It also occurs in 98.19–20 of the Book of Letters, in the context of education within families. Both families and Ummas cultivate adab, but Ummas do so on a broader scale. Translated as “upbringing” by Charles Butterworth and “formation of character” by Muhsin Mahdi, adab plays an important role in the political education of both rulers and citizens (see AH 39.12–18, Ar. 78.43–44, SL 146.7–147.8, Ar. 134.7–8). The presence of this term in Alfarabi’s account of the Umma serves as a hint of the Umma’s broader political and religious significance, which will be explored in the ensuing chapters. For now, we restrict ourselves to the claim that the emphasis on language, its advance toward rhetoric, poetry, and linguistic science, and its enduring effects on the cultural sphere are characteristic of Alfarabi and his understanding of the Umma.
If this definition of the Umma is correct, then strict equality among all Ummas can hardly be expected: some Ummas will be linguistically, and therefore culturally, more sophisticated than others. Alfarabi begins to employ the term Umma immediately after the first sounds of a language have been formulated (BL 137.1, #118), indicating that any group possessing a language of its own qualifies in some sense as an Umma. Although Alfarabi describes a gradual progression toward the more sophisticated linguistic arts, such as poetry, rhetoric, and linguistic science, he never presents this progression as natural or inevitable. It appears particularly unpredictable when compared to other phases of intellectual development discussed in the Book of Letters: while the onset of dialectic inevitably leads toward philosophy, and the founding of religion eventually produces jurisprudence and kalām (132.5–8, #110),19 no comparable necessity determines the development of language. This is indicated by a subtle shift in vocabulary. While the movements from dialectic toward philosophy and from religion toward kalām are described by the verbs taqaddam and ta’ākhar, which signify an ordered progression in time (129.12–13, 130.1–3, 132.5–11, #110),20 the sequence that characterizes the development of the Umma and its language is described only with the words sabaq and ba‘d, which signify anteriority and posteriority in time without any clear reference to causality (134.18, #114; 141.6, #127; 145.1, #132; 150.2, #140). The choice of terms implies a large measure of unpredictability in the evolution of the Umma, and therefore a considerable degree of variation among Ummas with regard to their level of linguistic development. The movement of the Umma toward the full perfection of its linguistic arts is hardly a foregone conclusion.
Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that Alfarabi himself is most interested in the more sophisticated Ummas, as is revealed by a quick glance at the Ummas mentioned in the Book of Letters. Alfarabi cites the Ethiopians, Indians, Persians, Assyrians,21 Syrians, and Egyptians as neighbors of the Arabs (BL 147.9–10, #135). He gives linguistic examples from the Persian, Soghdian, Greek, and Syriac languages (111.1–3). With the exception of the speakers of Soghdian, a common language in Alfarabi’s native region, all these peoples constituted major civilizations at some point in history, and some retain that status today. To return to the examples from another region of the world given by Ernest Gellner, Alfarabi would recognize the Czechs and Estonians as Ummas,
