Averroes - Three Short Commentaries On Aristotle's Topics, Rhetoric, and Poetics
Averroes - Three Short Commentaries On Aristotle's Topics, Rhetoric, and Poetics
Averroes - Three Short Commentaries On Aristotle's Topics, Rhetoric, and Poetics
and ((Poetics"
EDITORIAL BOARD
Charles E. Butterworth
ALBANY
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK PRESS
1977
Lj CJ
~3~
~ CC'1
crll
I
I
I
I
I
II
To My Wife
PREFACE
THERE WAS A TIME when Dante could be certain that even an oblique
reference to Averroes would be immediately understood by any of his
readers. Indeed, over the course of several centuries, fierce debate
raged around the philosophy of Averroes: he was either extolled as
the foremost interpreter of Aristotle or vilified as the gravest menace
to Christian faith. Schools devoted to the study and propagation of
his commentaries on Aristotle flourished, while others zealously
committed to combatting the teachings of those commentaries had
equal success. Today, mention of his name evokes no passions, prompts
no discussions; rather, reference to Averroes is usually met with
querulous stares. Even in learned circles, little is known about the
man and still less about his teachings.
The contemporary neglect of Averroes can be traced to the very
reason for his celebrity during the Middle Ages: his reputation as the
commentator on Aristotle. Today, few people are interested in either
Aristotle or commentary. Philosophic study having been reduced to
scientific method or general culture, the passion for serious discussion
about perennial problems has waned. Thus knowledge of, much
less interest in, the problems raised by Aristotle is slight, and desire
for acquaintance with the momentous debates those problems have
occasioned nil. Moreover, with the spread of the assumption that all
things evolve through time, inventiveness has come to be a,cclaimed the
mark ofexcellent thought and commentary condemned as imitative or
servile. Consequently, Averroes has beenjudged as neither meriting an
important place in the history of philosophy nor deserving particular
study.
E.yen. tbose still attracted to the philosophy of Aristotle are little
inclin.ed to study the commentaries by Averroes. They seem to consider
the recovery <>fthe Greek manuscripts as having diminished the significancEOfthosecommentiiries. In their eyes, Averroes performed the
vii
viii
PREFACE
PREFACE
ix
ed
the treatises in the Organon. More import antly, the treatises present
the
of
s
treatise
ual
individ
on
ntaries
comme
short
here-w hich are
extend ed Organon-4)ffer excitin g interpr etation s and provoc ative
arts
applications ofAris totle's teachin g. Consid eration of the logical
es
Averro
which
behind
from
veil
a
than
more
appear s to be little
s
religiou
t,
though
phic
philoso
n
betwee
relation
evoked the problem atic
culture
and
time
of
s
horizon
the
Even
ion.
belief, and politica l convict
ted
peculia r to the discussion serve only as remind ers of how unlimi
the discussion really is.
It is especially pleasan t to be able to express my gratitu de to all
those who have given so generously of their time and learnin g and thus
facilitated my work on this book, as well as to acknowledge those
institut ions which have provid ed materia l aid.
Withou t the help of Norma n Golb, I would never have been able
g
to underta ke this project ; he gave unstint ingly of his time and learnin
ce
Lawren
ripts.
manusc
c
-Arabi
Judaeo
er
to teach me how to deciph
Marwic k and William C. William s helped me prepar e the Hebrew
le
part of the critical appara tus. George N. Atiyeh offered valuab
chus,
Aristar
us
judicio
but
severe
a
have
If!
criticism ofthe Arabic text.
the
it must be Miriam Galston ; she offered excellent criticism of
al
technic
te
transla
to
how
about
advice
ble
finished text and invalua
the
of
ation
present
final
the
all,
Above
.
Arabic into smooth English
book owes much to the careful eye and agile mind of Muhsin Mahdi
lly
and to his sound advice at each stage of the project . I am especia
.
persons
these
of
each
by
ed
extend
help
gratefu l for the friendly
I would like to acknowledge the assistance of the Gradua te School
the
of the Univer sity of Maryla nd which awarde d me a fellow8hip for
to
like
also
would
I
summe r of 1970 and a grant for typing expenses.
Amerithe
from
acknowledge the assistance provide d by a fellowship
can Resear ch Center in Egypt for the summe r of 1972. Finally, I wish
in
to thank the personn el of the Centre Univer sitaire Interna tional
Paris for their helpfulness.
I
I
,
CONTENTS
Introduction
The Text
19
43
57
79
Notes
85
135
143
Index
"
Arabic Texts
xi
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
the title page; it has no connection with any of the textual material.
The fourteenth century manuscript contains a Hebrew translation
opposite the Judaeo-Arabic text. The Arabic text was first translated
into Hebrew in the thirteenth century. Subsequently, it was translated
into Hebrew a number of other times, and one translation was eventually published in the mid-sixteenth century.3 Collating the Hebrew
translation with the Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts proved to be of
little help for establishing an accurate Arabic text.
Numerous Latin translations of Averroes's works were made in the
early thirteenth century, many of which were published in the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries. However, the only known Latin version of the
texts presented here is that of Abraham de Balmes who died in 1523
C.E. This translation, made directly from the Hebrew, was published
in Venice in the sixteenth century. It has gained wide acceptance
and is the principal source cited by those interested in the logical
thought of Averroes. It, too, was collated with the Judaeo-Arabic
versions, but was of even less help than the Hebrew translation for
establishing an accurate Arabic text.
To appreciate why only two manuscripts ofsuch an important work
have survived and why those manuscripts have survived in JudaeoArabic rather than in Arabic, it is necessary to reflect upon the suspicion in which Averroes was placed as a result of legal exile in the
later years of his life. It is also necessary to consider the significance
of the purge of unorthodox opinions carried out by the Almohad
dynasty shortly after his death. At that time, religious intolerance
reached such intensity that books suspected of heresy were frequently
burned before the public. It is probable that in this setting works
attributed to a figure as controversial as Averroes readily disappeared.
However, largely because of Maimonides's influence, Averroes had
very early gained such fame in the Jewish community that most of his
works were transliterated intoJudaeo-Arabic, translated into Hebrew,
and widely circulated in North Mrica and even France. The collection
to which the treatises presented here belong, as well as Averroes's
more formal commentaries on works by Aristotle, were of special
importance to those members of the Jewish community interested in
peripatetic philosophy and were consequently carefully preserved.
Even though Latin Aristotelian studies became more prominent than
Jewish Aristotelian studies in the later Middle Ages, Jewish interest in
Averroes and in Judaeo-Arabic or Hebrew versions of his works did
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
contained in the Florence manuscript of Averroes's Middle Commentaries
on Aristotle's Organon, which he had catalogued, were short commentaries. Although he recognized differences between the treatises on
rhetoric and poetics in the Florence manuscript and the Latin translations of these works by Hermannus Alemannus and Abraham de
Balmes, he never compared them with the manuscript discovered by
Munk. 7
Despite Renan's acknowledgement of the manuscript's existence
and Munk's subsequent reminder of its significance as the Arabic
source, the German historian oflogic, C. Prand, showed no awareness,
as late as 1861, that the treatise existed in any form but the old Latin
version. Some years later, Steinschneider attacked Prantl for this
apparent lapse of scholarship and used the occasion to announce his
discovery of the other manuscript containing the Judaeo-Arabic
version of this collection of treatises on the art oflogic. 8 Still, nothing
prompted anyone to edit the manuscripts. They remained neglected
after Father Bouyges mentioned their existence in 1922 and erroneously
identified a notebook manuscript he had found in Cairo as a possible
Arabic copy of the Short Commentary on Rhetoric. EvenWolfson's repeated
call for a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem did not lead to an
edition of the treatises. 9
Such neglect must be decried, for, in addition to the historical significance attached to these manuscripts, the treatises are important for
other reasons. Above all, they command serious attention because
of their daring critique of traditional Islamic thought and of the
dialectical theologians who considered themselves its true defenders.
Starting with the particular perspective of Islam, Averroes was able
to raise the universal question of the relation between philosophy,
politics, and religion. These treatises are also of special interest due to
their form or literary genre. So little is yet known about the different
kinds of commentaries and treatises composed by Averr.oes or about
their functions that careful attention must be paid to examples of
each. In that way it may be possible to learn what the art of commentary truly was for Averroes and how he used it to present his own,
as well as Aristotle's, thought. Only then will it be possible to form
correct opinions about the quality of Averroes's teaching. Finally,
these treatises are important because of what they teach about the
way Aristotle's logical writings were interpreted at that time.
THE TEXT
v:
THE TEXT
~urpose of this treatise is to abstract the necessary speeches pertainmg ~o. each ~nd .eve~ logical art)." However, he settled upon the
tradItIonal title m hIS final description of the two Judeao-Arabic
manuscripts. I3
. Steinschneider's earlier doubt about the accuracy of the traditional
title was better founded than he realized. The only other Arabic
reference to anything resembling the traditional title was Ibn alAbbar's vague allusion: "his book in Arabic; whose title was alJ)ariiri." When al-An~ari wrote a supplement to Ibn al-Abbar's book
he ma~~ no reference. to such a title and only spoke generally of
Averroes s commentane~ o~ Aristotle's philosophical and logical
books. Eve~ the noted histonan, master of tradition, and theologian
Shams al-Dm al-Dhahabi, who claimed to cite the works of Averroes
~ccordi~~ ,~o I?n Abu U~a!bi'ah's list, omitted the qualificative
al-'()arun, calhng the book SImply Kitab fi al-Man/iq (Book on Logic).14
An even more important difficulty with the traditional title is that
it does not explain what kind of a treatise Averroes wrote. However
I~n_ Abu U~a~bi'ah's list. does contain a long descriptive sub-title;
Kztab al-.()arun fi al-Man/zg, mullj,aq bih Talkh~ Kutub Aris/ilfiilis wa gad
lakJU:hfahii. ~alkhf~an tamman mustawfan (The Book of the Necessary in
Logzc, Contaznzng HzsComplete andExhaustive Middle Commentary on Aristotle's
Books).15 Although it purports to identify the kind of treatises contained in the collection, it cannot be considered aCCurate. In the first
place, t~e. w~rd "talkhi~" ("middle commentary"), usually used in
~,~ntr~d~s,~mctlOn to "s?ar~" or "tafsir" ("large commentary") and
'J~wa.mz' or "mukhta:ar '("short commentary"), is certainly not descnptIve of the treatIses contained in this collection. Even if the word
"talk~~" is understood in the loosest possible sense, these treatises
certamly do no~ provide a "complete and exhaustive" commentary
on the art of lOgIC. Averroes admitted as much in the opening words of
this collection by saying that the purpose of the work was to provide
an abstract ?r sum~ary ("tajri~") of what was necessary. Moreover,
the manuscnpt copIes of the Mzddle Commentaries on Aristotle's Organon
have been found; those treatises are much more extensive commenta:ies on logic than what is found in this collecton. Finally, there is no
e~denceth~t Averroes used anything resembling Ibn Abu U~aybi'ah's
tItle or subtitle to refer to this work, whereas he did refer to one of his
works in terms similar to the title reflected in the Munich catalogue
listing and in the way de Balmes used the word "compendium":
THE TEXT
,
8
THE TEXT
THE TEXT
throug hout the text, references which always take Aristotle's correct
le's
Aristot
ing
explain
simply
were
fs
Averro
ness for grante d-as though
though t. That argume nt is likewise unable to accoun t for the fact that
each treatise ends with remark s about the kind of considerations which
first promp ted Aristotle to write about the particu lar art. Above all,
that argume nt is unable to explain why the conten t of each treatise
should corresp ond roughly to a particu lar Aristot elian text.
By his frequen t references to Aristotle, Averro(!s gave the distinct
impression that his exposition was based on Aristotle's treatises about
d
the logical arts. At the same time, by means of the aforementione
he
,
Organon
le's
superficial and substantive divergences from Aristot
suggested that the exposition was in no w.ay limited to Aristotle's
text. Differently stated, while generally oriente d toward the logical
teachin g of Aristotle, these treatises of Averroes were addressed to the
larger subject rather than to the particu lar argume nts found in Arisas
totle's books on the logical arts. Because Averroes presented them
ed
explain
setting forth in summa ry fashion what Aristotle had fully
and because he tried to keep the image of Aristotle foremost in the
reader' s mind, they ought to be conside red as commentaries. The
l
kind of freedom from Aristotle's text and attenti on to the genera
been
has
nces
subject which is permit ted by the superficial diverge
observed to be charact eristic of Averrofs's proced ure in the short
t
commentaries, the middle and large being devote d to an explici
24
uently,
Conseq
conside ration of particu lar Aristotelian argume nts.
the descriptive title of the Munic h catalog ue appear s to be most accurate and most in keeping with Averrofs's own allusions to the work.
There are problem s of a similar sort with the titles of the treatises
presented here. Despite clear parallels with Aristotle's Topics, Rhetoric
and Poetics, as well as references to Aristotle's intenti on with respect
to each work, Averrofs used titles which did not suggest that these
treatises were comme ntaries on Aristotle's works. For example, the
ly,
first treatise is called The Book of Dialectic (Kitiih al-]adal) .25 Similar
ahout
Speech
The
the second of the treatises present ed here is called
Rhetorical Arguments (al-Qpwl fi al-Aqiiwil al-Kha!iihiyah),28 while the
il
last of the three treatises is entitled Ahout Poetical Speeches (Pi al-Aqiiw
al-Shi'riyah)
The reasoni ng which dictate d identify ing the larger work as the
Short Commentary on Aristotle's Organon also dictate s identifying these
treatises as the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, the Short Commen
11
10
THE TEXT
of.
THE TEXT
Of no less importance than the proper identification of these treatises is confirmation of their authenticity. While Prantl has been the
only one to. argue that they might be spurious, he has advanced
weighty objections worthy of serious consideration.
His suspicions were first aroused because of two innovations he
found in the technical vocabulary of the treatises: he was astonished
that the Latin terms definitio and demonstratio had been replaced by
the terms formatio and verificatio. (Both pairs of terms were used to
translate the Arabic terms tfawwur and ttdiq). Acknowledging the
possible temerity of founding his critique on the Latin translations
alone, Prantl insisted that the terminological innovation was of such
magnitude that it could not possibly be due to the translator. Steinschneider agreed with Prantl's acknowledgement of temerity, blamed
him for failing to note that Munk had never expressed doubts about the
authenticity of the treatises, as well as for neglecting Averroes's own
reference to his Short Commentary on logic, and then dismissed
Prantl's objection by citing similar examples of that innovative
3o
terminology in the translated works of al-Farabi and Avicenna.
Later, Lasinio, who agreed with Steinschneider's general condemnation of Prantl's scholarship, made the particular refutation more
convincing by citing a passage in which another Latin translator used
the terms formatio and verificatio or certificatio for tfawwur and ta~diq,
while de Balmes-whose translation had first aroused Prantl's suspicions-used yet other terms.31
Another reason for Prantl's doubts about the authorship of these
treatises was the difference he observed between Averroes's willingness
to preface these treatises with a commentary on Porphyry's Isagoge
and his reluctance to preface the Middle Commentaries on Aristotle'sOrganon
with a commentary on that work. Not believing that such inconsistency could be found in the work of one man and the authenticity
of the Middle Commentaries being beyond doubt, Prantl concluded
that these treatises were to be rejected as spurious.32 Because he failed
to understand the grounds ofAverroes's reluctance, Prantl's conclusion
was too hasty. Of prime importance to Averroes was the particular
context of the commentary: he considered the Middle Commentaries
to be, above all, commentaries "on the books of Aristotle."33 The
introductory remarks to his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Categories
limit the collection even more by defining its goal as that of commenting on Aristotle's books about logic, explaining and summarizing
12
THE TEXT
34
them. For that goal it was not necessary to comment on Porphyry.
That same emphasis on the particular context of the commentary
explains. Averroes's willingness to include remarks on Porphyry's
Isagoge In the Short Commentaries. Averroes introduced a new
ordering of the art oflogic in these treatises. He first identified concept
(t~a~wur) a~d assent (~diq) as fundamental terms and then explained
that Instruct~on about ea~h had to proceed from that which prepares
the "':..~y for It (a!-muwti!!z' lah) and from that which brings it about
(~l-fa zl lah!. ThIs meant that the art of logic fell into four parts:
(1) that whIch prepares the way for a concept, (ii) that which brings
a conce~t abo~t, (iii) that which prepares the way for assent, and (iv)
that whIch bnngs assent about. Averroes's discussion of words and of
Po~phy~'s account of the predicables corresponded to the first part,
whIle hIs commentary on the Categories corresponded to the second
part. Had Prantl been aware of the new ordering introduced by
Averroes, he would have understood what prompted him to discuss
Porphyry's Isagoge in these treatises even though he was reluctant
to do so in the Middle Commentaries.
Prantl ~ad an additional reason for doubting the authenticity of
these treatIses. He thought that the clearest indication of their spurious
character was the way they were ordered. Recalling Averroes's severe
criticism of Avicenna for suggesting that the inquiry into dialectical
method (that is, the Topics) precede the inquiry into demonstrative
method (that is, the Posterior Analytics), Prantl pointed to the way the
commentary on the Topics precedes that on the Posterior Analytics
in this .collec~ion.35 Still persuaded that Averroes was incapable
of such InCOnsisten~y, he concluded that the treatises were spurious.
Unfortunately for hIs argument, Prantl failed to understand Averroes's
reasons for criticizing Avicenna and failed to grasp the content of the
treatise which precedes the Short Commentary on the Posterior Analytics.
In criticizing Avicenna, Averroes admitted that probable premises
wer~ usually more readily at hand than certain premises, but insisted
upon the necessity of understanding the conditions of certainty in
order to be abl~ to distinguish among the kinds of probable premises
that were so easIly found. Consequently, it was logical for the Posterior
Analytics (insofar as it provided the proofs and rules by which certain
premises might be obtained) to precede the Topics (insofar as it
provided the proofs and rules by which probable premises might be
obtained).36 Averroes did not go against this reasoning by placing
TIlE TEXT
13
the treatise entitled On the Rules by Which Syllogisms Are Made (Pi
al-Q,awtinin allati ta'mal bihti al-Maqtiyis) before the Short Commentary
on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics. The former work was limited to the
discussion of the topics occurring in Books II-VII of the Topics, but
that discussion was designed to prepare the way to demonstration
by explaining how to make demonstrative syllogisms. It was in no
way concerned with dialectical reasoning. 37 In fact, dialectical
reasoning was not considered until Averroes discussed it in the
treatise presented here as the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics.
To impress this order upon the attentive reader, Averroes opened
the treatise by declaring that only because demonstrative reasoning
had already been considered was it now appropriate to consider
dialectical reasoning. 38
Prantl also failed to note the multiple indications that Averroes was
trying to explain the art of logic and the order of the traditionally
accepted Aristotelian books on the logical arts in an unprecedented
manner. In accordance with the previously mentioned fourfold division of the art, Averroes presented his Short Commentary on Aristotle's
De Interpretatione as corresponding to the third part of the art, that
which prepares the way for assent. This was made clear both by the
title of that commentary, On the Rules Peculiar to Assent (al-Qawtinin
allati takh~~ al- T~diq), and by the opening sentences of the treatise. 3D
The Short Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics was designed to provide
the rules for forming syllogisms, i.e., that by which assent is brought
about, and was appropriately entitled On the Knowledge for Bringing
about Assent (Pi al-Ma'rifah al-fti'ilah li al- T~diq). However, Averroes
did not consider this kind of exposition to correspond to the part of
the art which really treated what brought about assent and therefore
classed this treatise as a continuation of the third part of the art,
explaining that his treatise On the Rules by Which Syllogisms Are Made
(Pi al-QJlwiinin allati ta'mal biM al-Maqtiyis) constituted the fourth part
of the art. This meant that the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior
Analytics was an explanation of how one kind of assent-the most noble
kind, demonstration-worked. Similarly, the treatises on sophistics,
dialectic, rhetoric, and poetics were simply so many illustrations of
how the other kinds of assent worked. 40 It is clear, then, that Averroes
committed no logical inconsistencies by his novel ordering of Books
II-VII of the Topics and certainly did nothing to call his authorship
of these treatises into question. Consequently, this objection of
14
THE TEXT
Prantl's must be rejected along with his other ones and the treatises
constituting the Short Commentaries on Aristotle's Organon accepted as
authentic.
Now that the treatises have been properly identified and their
authenticity assured, it is appropriate to consider their formal
characteristics.
The Munich manuscript contains nine treatises and comprises 86
folios. Each folio measures 21.5 cm. in height and 14.5 Cm. in width,
with the writing occupying 15 cm. ofthe height and 8 cm. of the width.
Although not completely uniform, the folios usually contain 24 lines
of script.
All of the treatises but one are complete, and all are in the proper
order. The introductory statement explaining the purpose of the
collection (fo1. I a-b) is followed by the commentary on the Isagoge
of Porphyry (fols. 1b_6b). Mter these are the commentaries on the
Categories (fols. 6b-lOb), On Interpretation (fols. lOb_16b), and Prior
Analytics (fols. 16b-303 ). Then the commentary on Books II-VII of
the Topics (fols. 303 -41 b) follows. The commentary on the Posteroir
Analytics (fols. 4I b-63 3 ) and that on On Sophistical Rifutations (fols.
63 3 -72 3 ) come next. They are followed by the commentaries presented
here: Topics (fols. 72 3 -77 3 ), Rhetoric (fols. 77 b-863 ), and Poetics
(fols. 86B-b). Unfortunately, most of folio 86b is missing, but its
content can be reconstructed from the Paris manuscript, as well as
from the Hebrew and Latin translations.
Some damage has occurred to the manuscript, but it is still quite
legible. The first line of the first folio has been somewhat obliterated.
In addition, the upper corners ofmany folios, from folio 63 to the end of
the manuscript, have fallen off; as a consequence, portions of the first
few lines are sometimes missing. These page corners must have fallen
offfairly recently, for Lasinio's copy ofthe Short Commentary on Aristotle's
Poetics from the Munich manuscript contains readings which can no
longer be found due to those missing corners. Many wormholes may
also be found from folio 77 to the end of the volume. These holes are
sometimes so large that entire words are missing.
The manuscript has been bound, and the flyleaves of the binding
indicate the different stages of recognition of its contents. Thus, on
what might be considered to be the title page, the work was first
THE TEXT
15
identified as having been written by Averroes, but his name has been
crossed out and Avicenna's name written in with both Hebrew and
Latin characters. On the same page, the manuscript waS identified as
"lib. Merlicamenta" or "Sifer Rifuot," with an explanation in Hebrew
and German that the text is in Arabic with Hebrew characters. The
date of 1216 also occurs on this page, written in what seems to be the
same handwriting as the Latin and German notations. The other
flyleaves contain pencil and pen notes from Steinschneider, dated
1864.
The script, a very old Spanish rabbinical s~ript, is large and clear.
Although the script is sometimes almost undecIpherable, care has been
taken to place points, when needed, over the Hebrew letters used to
transliterate two Arabic letters. There is no indication of the name
of the scribe. Many corrections of an extensive nature are to be found
on the margins and above the lines. They are all written in a hand
different from that of the scribe.
The Paris manuscript contains the same nine treatises as the Munich
manuscript and comprises 103 folios, on 96 of which are contained the
treatises presented in the Munich manuscript. Each folio measures 31
cm. in height and 20 cm. in width, with the writing occ~pying 17.5 c~
of the height and 13 cm. of the width. With few exceptIOns, each foho
contains 25 lines of script.
Although all of the treatises are properly orde~ed a~d t~e ~a~u
script complete, the first folio of the Judaeo-ArabIc verSIOn IS mIssmg.The commentary on the Isagoge of Porphyry is co?tained on the fi~st
five extant folios. It is followed by the commentarIes on the Categones
(fols. 6-11), On Interpretation (fols. 11-17), and Prior Analytics (f?ls. 1733). Mter these is the commentary on Books II-VII ofthe !optCS (fo~s.
33-46). Then there are the commentaries on the Postertor Analyttcs
(fols. 46-69) and on On Sophistical Rifutation (fols. 69-79). These are
followed by the commentaries presented here: Topics (fols. 79-~5),
Rhetoric (fols. 85-95), and Poetics (fols. 95-96). Two short treatIses
by al-Flidibi are separated from the rest of the collection by a blank
folio both treatises are in Judaeo-Arabic alone: "The Speech about
the Conditions of Demonstration" (fols. 98 3 -1003 ) and "Sections
Which Are Necessary in the Art of Logic" (fols. 100b_I03b).41
Unlike that of the Munich manuscript, the script of the Paris manuscript is rabbinic rluktus tending toward cursive. However, it is much
smaller and not as clear as the other. Moreover, no care has been taken
16
THE TEXT
to place distinguishing points over the Hebrew letters used to transliterate two Arabic letters. The script is so small that the Paris manuscript is only nine folios longer than the Munich manuscript even
though it contains both the Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew versions of the
work. The Hebrew translation is placed opposite the Judaeo-Arabic
text, and each page of each version begins and ends with approximately the same words.
The. P.aris manuscript is in remarkably good condition. Except for
the mIssmg page ofthe Judaeo-Arabic text, no damage has occurred
to the manuscript. Each of the section titles is set off by flowerlike e~circlements ~n red ink. There are some marginal corrections,
many m a hand dIfferent from that of the scribe. In a colophon,
the scribe identified himself as Ezra ben Rabbi Shlomo ben Gratnia of
Saragossa. 42
Microfilm copies and full-size photographic prints of the manuscripts were used for most of the editing, but both manuscripts have
also been examined directly at various stages of the project. For
purposes of editing, the Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts were considered
to be of equal value. Both are deficient due to lacunae; transposition
of phrases, words, or letters; and simple grammatical mistakes.
Despite evidence of a later attempt to correct the Munich manuscript
(e.g., marginal additions and corrections in a different handwriting),
many errors still remain.43 Those lacunae which have not yet been
corrected appear to be simple errors of copying: the scribe often
dropped several words which occurred between two identical words
on different lines. Such elrors make it impossible to depend on the
Munich manuscript to the exclusion of the Paris manuscript. The
Paris manuscript is faulty in these ways and in other ways. It suffers
from n~~erous lacunae not encountered in the Munich manuscript."
The mIssmg passages often refer to technical terms or key verbs for
which the scribe usually left blank places, as though he had the
intention of filling them in later.
In both manuscripts, fine points of Arabic orthography are missed.
This appears to be a consequence of the limitations ofJudaeo-Arabic.
Generally the orthographic difficulties pose no major problem in discerning the sense of the argument.
When all of the evidence is considered, it appears that the Paris
and the Munich manuscripts are independent of each other. In
addition to the many instances of simple scribal errors which are not
17
THE TEXT
significant, there are numerous instances of errors where each manuscript differs from what might be considered to be the correct reading.
Moreover, some passages missing from the Paris manuscript were also
originally missing from the Munich manuscript; these were often
corrected in the margin, and the corrections must have been inspired
by readings from a manuscript other than either the Paris or Munich
manuscript.45 Although such an observation suggests that the manuscripts may still be faulty in ways not yet noticed, it only makes careful
study ofthe texts all the more necessary to those interested in Averroes's
teaching.
Another problem arises from the fact that many of the lacunae
encountered in the Judaeo-Arabic version Of the Paris manuscript
do not occur in the Hebrew version. Of the two explanations which
may be offered, only one is tenable: to assume that theJudaeo-Arabic
version is a poor translation of the Hebrew translation is to reason
falsely, for it is unlikely that a scribe could translate from the Hebrew
in a manner so faithful to the Arabic style of Averroes. It therefore
appears that the Hebrew translation was originally made from a
better version of the Arabic text than that which the Judaeo-Arabic
version represents. Since the Munich manuscript fills most of the
lacunae of the Paris Judaeo-Arabic manuscript, it may very likely be
based on, or have been corrected on the basis of, a text closer to the
one used by the Hebrew translator.
***
In the translation, every attempt has been made to combine
readable and intelligible English with fidelity to the original Arabic.
For two reasons, it has not always been possible to achieve that goal.
In the first place, the technical character of these treatises at times
made a certain kind of stiffness unavoidable. Averroes was clearly
addressing himself to an audience familiar with the general features
of logic and thus did not hesitate to use specialized terminology or to
speak in the arid style so appropriate to discourse about logic. Secondly, Some awkwardness in style has resulted because insofar as has been
consonant with intelligent speech, the same word has been translated
in the same way whenever it occurs. Here the idea was that a careful
reading of any text will at some point oblige the reader to note the
occurence and the recurrence of certain words. If words have been
translated differently to suit the taste of the translator, that path is
18
TI!E TEXT
closed to the reader. In sum, while every effort was made to arrive at a
faithful and readable translation, the path facilitating instruction was
chosen when there was no way to avoid choosing between literal
ineloquence and eloquent looseness.
Numerous notes accompany the translation. Their purpose is to
help the reader understand the text. For that reason, the notes explain technical terms or give more precise information about references
Averroes has made to different authors, books; and opinions. Similarly,
the dates of authors and of their writings, as well as page references
to their writings, have been included in the notes. When appropriate,
references to Aristotle have also been included so that a comparison
between Aristotle's definitions and Averroes's explanations may be
made. There are no marginal references to the books of Aristotle commented upon in these treatises because Averroes did not follow these
works in any orderly manner; as has already been explained, he
completely restructured them.
Each treatise or commentary has been divided into paragraphs
and into sections to permit the reader to follow Averroes's thought
more easily. One rule has been paramount in this task of editing:
the stages of the argument must be clearly set forth. Although paragraph division as understood today was not used by Arabic writers
in Averroes's time, certain conventions did prevail for denoting the
change of thought now expressed in the form of paragraphs. In
addition, thick pen strokes were used to indicate the change in
argument corresponding to the contemporary division of a treatise
into sections. Both of these conventions have been respected in the
translation as well as in the edition.
These three treatises even stand apart physically from the other treatises of the collection. Although neither the Rhetoric nor the Poetics was
traditionally viewed as belonging to the Organon, Averroes included the
Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric and the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics as the last two treatises in this collection of short commentaries on the Organon. He also reversed the positions of the Short
Commentary on Aristotle's Topics and the Short Commentary on Aristotle's
On Sophistical Refutations with respect to their order in the traditional
view of the Organon. As a result, the Short Commentary on Aristotle's
Topics, the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, and the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics are the last three treatises in the collection. So that the significance of this extensive reworking of the Organon
not escape attention, Averroes offered another indication of the
separate status ofthese treatises. Asjustification for having reversed the
order of the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics and the Short Commentary on Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, he limited the art of sophistry
19
20
21
***
However, the substantive teaching of these three treatises is not
immediately evident. It is so intimately related to the technical
exposition ofthe different logical arts that the treatises first appear to be
purely technical. Even though it is at once obvious that the technical
exposition was designed to correct prevalent misconceptions about
each one of the arts, the deeper significance ofthat correction must be
ferreted out. For example, another consequence of incorporating
rhetoric and poetics into logic is that it allowed Averroes to stress the
importance of each art for inquiry and instruction, as well as to
allude to the way each art shared in the attributes of logic. He thus
countered the prevailing tendency to restrict rhetoric and poetics to
eloquence and to examine each solely in terms of style. Then, by
reminding the reader that rhetorical proofs were quite far removed
22
23
24
* **
Although prepared by the earlier investigation, the critical evaluation is carried out in these three treatises by means of a very selective
presentation of each logical art. Thus, in setting forth his account of
dialectic, rhetoric, and poetics, Averroes stressed the technical aspects
relating to the first two arts. A very extensive explanation of the way
arguments are made in each art, of the way they are employed, and
of the value of those arguments took the place of an explicit discussion
about how these arts might actually be used, that is, to what substantive use they might be put. As a result, essential features of both arts
were neglected. For example, in the Short Commentary on Aristotle's
Topics, there is an account of the quality of dialectical premises, of
the extent of beliefdialectical argument provides, and of the proximity
of dialectic to demonstration, but there is no mention whatever of its
possible use for inquiring into the theoretical arts or into the same
subjects as metaphysics-uses clearly indicated in other commentaries. 51 Similarly, in the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, the
standard uses to which rhetoric may be put-deliberation, defense
and accusation, praise and blame-are passed over in silence until
the very end of the treatise; even then, they are mentioned only
incidentally. The Short Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics is presented in a
different manner, however. Very little is said about the technical
parts of the poetical art, and relatively much is said about the uses to
which it may be put. To p~rceive the details of this selectiveness more
clearly and to grasp its significance, it is necessary to look at the
summary of each art.
When speaking about the art of dialectic, Averroes emphasized that
it should not be confused with demonstration despite the appearance of
certainty which its arguments provide. The crucial difference between
the two arts is that dialectical premises may be false, whereas demonstrative premises are always certain and true. Consequently, not truthas with demonstration-but renown is the basic consideration in
25
26
27
28
recognized how useful the art of dialectic was for training in contentious speech. Again, even though Averroes obviously recognized the
need to indicate the partial character of his presentation and thus
admitted that dialectic had uses other than contentious argument,
he immediately reinforced his partial interpretation by dismissing
those other uses as irrelevant for the purposes of this treatise and did
so without even listing them. As presented here, the contentious art
of dialectic is more like the art of fencing: it is good for contending
with someone else, but it should be directed by another art.
This partial or restrictive insistence on the contentious character of
the art served two purposes. First of all, it drew attention to the
question of the audience whom the dialectical theologians usually
addressed. If dialectic is really suited for contentious argument
between men of equal capacity, it can have little effect when it is
employed by the learned to communicate with the usually uneducated
mass of people. It appears that the dialectical theologians were trying
to use dialectic for the wrong purpose; the art of rhetoric is much
better suited for instructing the general public. Secondly, this partial
account of the art provides a very accurate idea of the original duty
of the dialectical theologians: contending with each other or with the
misdirected in defense of the faith. 55 They seem to have neglected
their original duty, which was more consonant with the art ofdialectic,
to attempt activities for which dialectic is very poorly suited.
These thoughts, prompted by an attentive reading of the treatise,
show that in order to uncover Averroes's teaching it is as important
to ask about what is implied as to ask about what is said. Because the
omissions are as significant as the declarations, the only way to
explain the whole treatise adequately is to ask about what is missing.
A simple account of the technical description of dialectic would not be
sufficient, because that description is at such variance with Averroes's
other explanations of the art. Moreover, an account of the technical
characteristics of dialectic would neglect the allusions to a broader
issue. The interpretation set forth here not only explains all the parts
of the treatise, it also provides a means of relating this treatise to the
other treatises as part of one teaching.
The striking difference between the Short Commentary on Aristotle's
Topics and the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric is the emphasis on
the dialectical theologians in the latter. Abu al-Ma'ali and al-Ghazali
are named a number of times, and there are passing references to the
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
However, in presenting this view of the art, Averroes restricted rhetoric in an important respect. Until the very end of the treatise, rhetoric
was discussed in a context that made it seem to have use only for the
popular discussion of religion or for instruction. Every effort was made
to show the similarities and differences between dialectic and rhetoric.
It is only in the penultimate paragraph, just before turning to a consideration of poetics, that the political uses of rhetoric are mentioned.
The earlier portions of the treatise concentrated on the technical
aspects of the art and stressed its superficial similaritie~ with dialectic.
The end of the treatise stresses the uses to which rhetoric can be put,
and these uses turn out to be very similar to those of the art of poetics.
For the purposes of this collection of commentaries, then, rhetoric
can be said to occupy a middle ground between the art of dialectic and
the art of poetics. It is similar to dialectic in that its arguments can be
discussed and analyzed in terms of their formal characteristics; it is
similar to poetics in that it has great usefulness for political matters.
By neglecting the political uses of rhetoric and concentrating on the
ways rhetoric could be used in the popular discussion of religion or for
instruction, Averroes was able to set forth his criticisms of dialectical
theology. Since he could not remain completely silent about the
political uses of rhetoric, he did the next best thing and acknowledged
those uses briefly at the very end of the treatise when discussing the
reasons which prompted Aristotle to study the art of rhetoric. Such a
tactic allowed him to avoid explicit endorsement of Aristotle's views
while suggesting at least tacit agreement with them. More importantly,
that reference to Aristotle's views was sufficient to remind the thoughtful reader of what had been omitted from the preceding discussion
and thus to underline the corrective teaching about the dialectical
theologians.
36
37
A sig~ of the different status of the treatise on poetics is the abse,nce of any reference to the dialectical theologians or to the problems
they caused. The emphasis here is massively on what the art is for, not
on ways that it might be corrected. That does not mean, however,
that this treatise occupies a higher rank than the other two treatises.
Indeed, the art of poetics as presented here is hardly free from major
difficulties. The primary difficulty is the apparent inevitability of
deception in the poetic speeches that deal with concepts like God.
Implicitly, the argument is that such deceptiveness is part of poetic
38
~peeches
..
39
40
41
C. Classes of dialectical arguments which bring about assent, according to their forms (paras. 5-12):
1.
2.
3.
45
TOPICS
46
2.
DEDICATION
47
48
TOPICS
(4) Since that is the case, dialectical premises are often partially
false. If they are found to be entirely true, that occurs by accident,
that is, because it happens that what is generally accepted is the same
outside the mind as it is inside the mind.! However, as we have said,
we do not take it from this aspect in these syllogisms, but only from the
aspect of it being generally accepted. Therefore, a syllogism of sound
figure 2 composed from premises like these necessarily provides a
probable supposition.
(5) Since the extent of assent which this art provides has now
been made clear,! we shall speak about the classes of arguments
causing it. Accordingly, we say that the figure of syllogisms bringing
about something like this supposition approximate to certainty must
necessarily be sound; otherwise, they would be sophistical, contentious
arguments. Therefore, the specific kinds of syllogism used here are
the three specific kinds mentioned in the Prior Analytics, i.e., the
categorical,2 the conditional,3 and the contradictory syllogism4 -the
simple and the complex ones. Indeed, it might be possible both to
establish and to refute complex problems by means of complex,
dialectical syllogisms like these, since generally accepted premises
leading to the thing sought are right at hand.
[THE INDUCTION]
(6) This art might use another specific kind of assent which is particular to it, namely, induction. With this specific kind of thing which
causes assent, an affirmative or negative universal judgment is asserted
about a universal matter because that judgment applies to most of the
particulars subsumed under that universal matter. An example of
that is our asserting that every body is created because we find that
most bodies are of this description. That is an argument which has
the force of a syllogism in the first figure,! since the minor term 2
is that universal matter, the middle3 the particulars, and the major4
the judgment. Nonetheless, the procedure is contrary to the way it is
in the syllogism.
TOPICS
49
50
TOPICS
TOPICS
51
he would not admit this generalization until it had been made inductively clear to him. At that time, he would reach certainty about
its universality.
(12) This, then, is the form of dialectical arguments leading to
assent.
52
TOpICS
TOPICS
53
(17) It is clear that the descriptions [given] here are not sufficient
for each one of these to be conceived of completely, but for them to be
conceived of in this way is sufficient here. That is because a perfect
concept of the things from which definitions are put together is
[given] in the Posterior Analytics.1 Likewise, what is included in the
definition of genus here is clearly the ultimate genus of the genera. 2
Likewise, it is not sufficient for the differentia to be a predicate from
the aspect of quality without it applying specifically to the thing for
which it is a differentia. 3
(18) If the predicates pertaining to dialectical premises are one of
these five classes, the types of dialectical syllogisms must correspond to
what is composed from these five the way they are conceived of here.
Thus, l they might be taken as a predicate according to the natural
course and then converted, and the three terms in the syllogisms
might then be related to each other either by a single one of these five
relations (like definition or some other relation) or by a combination
of them (like one of the terms being related as a differentia and the
second as an accident or SQme other relation). Similarly, they might
be taken in another way; that is, two of the terms might always be
related to the third-either the major term and the middle to the
minor, or the minor and the middle to the major-but the two related
terms would be related to each other only by the predicate ofaccident.
This, too, might occur in two ways. Either the two terms might be
related to the other term in a single way (like the major term and the
middle being related to the minor only as definition or any other one
of the five relations). That might be also be done in an opposite
manner (i.e., the minor and the middle might be related to the major in
this way or in any other one of the relations). The other way is for
both terms to be related to the other term in two ways (like the major
term being related to the minor as definition and the middle being
related to the minor as differentia or some other relation). That, too,
54
TOPICS
[CONCLUSION]
(21) When Aristotle distinguished these dialectical arguments
from the demonstrative, not only with regard to the matters, but
according to the [form of the] argumentl as well, he was of the opinion
that syllogisms like these-even if they were not demonstrative-had
uses for training due to their being more generally accepted. That is
because, since several of the generally accepted premises are opposites,
it is possible on the basis of these premises to establish and refute the
very same thing. That is to say, he was of the opinion that if two
TOPlCS
55
2.
3.
The Enthymeme-a syllogism based on unexamined previously existing opinion (paras. 4-25).
a.
11.
59
60
RIlETORIC
(b)
2.
c.
d.
2.
b.
c.
d.
The.Example (paras..26-32Y."..
a.
b.
61
RH:ETORIC
62
RHETORIC
3.
Aristotle wrote about these things when he saw their value for
public discourse about political matters (para. 45).
2.
The purpose of this treatise has now been fulfilled (para. 46).
Dedication
63
64
RHETORIC
RJ{ETORIC
65
really being so. Now these kinds of arguments are still persuasive
because of their forms. An example of this is the combination of two
affirmative [premises] in the second figure. Similarly, the conclusive
types [of syllogisms] which are in the third figure are of this kind when
their conclusions are taken in a universal manner. 4 However, in
spite of this, one ought not to state the ellipsis in them explicitly but
ought to take them indefinitely so that the point of contention in them
might be more obscure.
(8) CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISMS are disjunctive-as previously stated
-and conjunctive. The conjunctive syllogism is made an enthymeme
by leaving a point ofcontention in it also. It has already been explained
in the Prior Analytics1 that the conjunctive syllogism becomes conclusive when the consequence is valid and when the selected term2
becomes evident by means of a categorical syllogism. s If the selected
term is self-evident, the consequence must necessarily be explained. It
was also explained there that the selected term and the conclusion
cannot be just any chance conditional or conditioned term. 4 Since
this is the case, this kind of syllogism is only made into an enthymeme
by placing some of these restrictions upon it. However, it becomes
persuasive primarily by the omission of the selected term. It may
become persuasive regardless of which term-that is, the conditional
or the conditioned term~r which of their contraries is brought forth
as a conclusion. In spite of this, however, when there is an invalid
conclusion, the selected term leading to it usually should not be
stated explicitly for fear the opponent might notice it-like the man
who selects the conditioned term itself and brings forth the conditional
term as a conclusion or who selects the contrary of the conditional
term and brings forth the contrary of the conditioned term as a
conclusion.s Still, one might explicitly state the selected term in something like this, and the argument will be persuasive; e.g., the argument
ofone of the ancients: "If being is created, it has a beginning; but it is
not created, thus it does not have a beginning."
(9) Galen1 and many anatomists use this kind ofsyllogism to deduce
the unknown causes of animal actions. For example, he says: "When
the reflexive nerve is eliminated, the voice is eliminated; thus, when
the reflexive nerve exists, the voice exists."2 But it does not necessarily
follow as stated: for when animals are eliminated, man is eliminated;
yet, from the existence of animals, the existence of man does not
necessarily follow. s
66
RHETORIC
RHETORIC
67
(18) Among these proofs are (a) those that are taken as proofs of the
existence of a thing without restriction1-like our taking the empty
vessel as proof of the existence of void-and (b) those that are taken
as proofs of the existence of a predicate for a subject. When the latter
are more universal than the subject and more particular than, or similar
68
RHETORIC
to, the predicate, they belong in the first figure; these were specifically
assigned the name "proof" by the ancients. 2 If they are more universal
than the two extreme terms, they belong in the second figure. If they
are more particular than both [of the extreme terms], they belong in
the third [figure]. These latter two were specifically assigned the
name "sign" by the ancients.3 The proofs wh:ch are taken up here
may be matters which are subsequent to the thing proved-e.g., its
consequences-and they may be prior [to it}-e.g., its causes.
(19) Now each ofthe two classes ofpremises-the generally received
propositions and the proofs-may occur in matters which are necessary,
possible for the most part, and equally possible. An example of the
generally received propositions occurring in the necessary matter is:
"everything which is done has a doer." An example of those occurring
in the matter which is possible for the most part is: "any sick person
who obeys his passions and does not heed the saying of the doctors
will not be cured." An example of those occurring in the equally
possible is: "whatever is more agreeable and easier is preferable."
However, in itself, this could be used to allege that the matter is not
preferable.
(20) PROOFS. The one in the necessary matter in the first figure
which is what is specifically assigned the name "proof," is like our
argument: "The brightness of the moon increases bit by bit, so it is
spherical." What occurs in the matter which is possible for the most
part is like our argument: "So-and-so is gathering men, preparing
arms, and fortifying his towns. There is no enemy near him. He is,
therefore, resolved upon revolting against authority." This was known
among the ancients as "specious proof." Those occuring in the matter
which is equally possible are like our argument: "So-and-so did not
budge from his position, and all of his companions retreated so that
he was felled. He is, therefore, courageous." However, in itself this
may also be used as proof of the cowardice which prevents a man
from fleeing. This proof, too, the ancients identified as "doubtful
proof."l
(21) SIGNS. The ones occurring in the necessary matter in the
second figure are like our argument: "The nerve grows out of the
brain because it is implanted in it." What occurs in the matter which is
possible for the most part is like our argument: "So-and-so showed the
enemy the vulnerability of the town because he climbed up on the wall
RHETORIC
69
and watched for the enemy, and the one who points out the vulnerability [of the town's walls] does that." Those occurring in the matter
which is equally possible have the same force as the proofs which
occur in this matter, since the universals in it have the same force as
particulars and particulars may be converted and brought back to
the first figure. So if they were taken universally, their falsity would be
as great as the falsity of particulars. For this reason, the ancients
rejected the type of signs which occur in this matter.
(22) PROOFS WHICH ARE IN THE THIRD FIGURE.l The ones in the
necessary matter are like our argument: "Time is the celestial sphere,
because all things are in time and all things are in the celestial
sphere." Those occurring in the matter [which is possible for the] most
part are like our argument: "Wise men are virtuous, because Socrates
~as a virtuous wise man." The reason for rejecting those occurring
In the matter which is equally possible [in the third figure] is the
very same reason for rejecting those in the second figure.
(23) You ought to be apprised that this division-i.e., the division
into the necessary and the possible-is not essential to the premises
ofenthymemes inasmuch as they are premises of enthymemes. That is
because the premises of enthymemes are taken insofar as they are
generally received according to unexamined opinion-as we have
saidl---or insofar as they are signs and proofs according to unexamined
opinion, not insofar as they occur in a necessary or possible matter.
For it is with regard to demonstrative syllogisms that premises are
taken according to this description; i.e., they are the ones which take
premises insofar as they are necessary or possible for the most part.
Those which are equally possible are thought to be more characteristic
of these arguments, since the demonstrative art does not employ them.
But this art-i.e., the art of rhetoric-does not employ them from the
standpoint oftheir being equally possible either; for ifit were to employ
them from this standpoint, one thing would not be more likely to follow
from them than would its opposite. Rather, they are used insofar as
one of them preponderates, even if slightly, according to unexamined
opinion, either at a certain moment or in a certain condition. Some
people who were ignorant of this idea, denied that this art could
employ a ~roof occurring in the matter which is equally possible,
for they claImed that no persuasion is brought about by that which is
equally possible.
70
RHETORIC
(24) As has been said, this art does not have a particular subject,
just as the art of dialectic does not have a particular subject. For the
premises employed in these two arts are not grasped in the mind in the
same way as they exist outside the mind. Rather, a predicate is always
asserted to apply to a subject because of what is generally accepted,
either according to unexamined opinion or according to the truth,
not because it is of the nature of the predicate to apply to the subject
or of the nature of the subject that the predicate should apply to it.
Nor does this art only take premises insofar as they are widespread
according to unexamined opinion, without qualifying them with
regard to mode of existence. Rather, it may take the necessary as
though it were possible according to unexamined opinion and,
similarly, the possible as though it were necessary. As for taking the
necessary as though it were possible, that is like someone who fancies
that the heavens could possibly exist in another form and that it is
possible for everything to be created out of any chanced-upon thing.
As for imagining that something is impossible when it is possible,
there are many things whose existence is not difficult when the beliefs
of the multitude about them are considered. However, the kind of
assent to which we have inclined since youth is that all things are
possible-to the extent that the argument of anyone who says this
thereby loses its necessary character. For instance, in Plato's confutation of Protagoras, when Protagoras said: "there is nothing that is
perceived," Plato replied: "there, now, is something that is perceived"
-meaning this assertion Protagoras had made. 1
(25) Now we have finished what we were about. So let us go back to
where we were and say that it appears likely that what compelled the
ancients to divide the premises ofenthymemes in accordance with their
matters is that premises which are widespread according to unexamined opinion are invested with weakness and strength in accordance
with each particular matter. For that reason, premises according to
unexamined opinion are more persuasive when they happen to occur
in the matter which is possible for the most part than when they occur
in the equally possible. Now it has become clear from this argument
how many classes of enthymeme there are from the standpoint of form
and matter.
RHETORIC
71
[THE EXAMPLE]
72
RHETORIC
that the heavens are created due to their similarity to created b~dies
with respect to extension, alteration, conne~tedness, a.nd other thl~gS.
For the heavens in this argument are the mmor term m the syllogIsm,
since they are the subject of the problem;2 being created. is the maj~r
term, since it is the predicate of the problem; and the mIddle. term IS
extension and alteration. Now when we compose the syllogIsm, we
speak in this manner: "The heavens have extension, and what has
extension is created, thus the heavens are created ."
(30) However, it is not sufficient that our saying "what has extension is created," be taken indefinitely, if we want "the heavens" to ~e
encompassed apodeictically under it; rather, w~, shoul~ e~en ~ake It
universally, i.e., "every extended thing is created. No~ If th~s umversal
had resulted from our scrutiny of some extended thmgs m the way
particular premises result, then to state it e:xplicitly by a~ exam?le
would be superfluous-unless it were t~ken as a me~ns of mst~uctlOn
and guidance for bringing about certamty concernm~ the umversal.
But if our having perceived some of the extended thmgs as created
did not lead us to universal certainty and this premise remained
indefinite for us, nothing would result necessarily from o~r. perceiving
it-except according to unexamined opinio~. From t~IS It appears:
(a) that with regard to these kinds of pr~Illlses, certamtyabout the
universal is not attained by sense perceptIon but by another power,
since by sense perception only individual instances ofa limited number
are discerned and (b) that the ranks ofsuppositionl are in accordance
with their nearness and their distance from this universal decision.
In general, supposition is a universal judgment based on sense perception alone.
(31) Because one of the later dialectical theologiansl-and he .is
the one called Abu al-Maclili [al-Juwayni]-was not aware of thIS,
he said: "The example provides certainty as a means of guidance,
not only as a way toward the syllogism and sc~tinY."2 ~owever,
since he did not speak of the syllogism of a vahd figure, It wo~ld
follow for him that all of the sciences are preexistent. Thus, nothmg
would be known by means of the syllogism, so that it could happen,
for example, that a man who has'" not theoretically investigated
anything'at "all'Telating'tO'.geomctPy'."wouldbe able to read the
Book of the al-Magesfl and that the origin of the world would be
self-evident.
RHETORIC
73
(32) The rank of the example with regard to assent has now been
explained. In this art it corresponds to the induction in dialectic, just
as the enthymeme here corresponds to the syllogism in dialectic.
74
RI!ETORIC
someone whose face has already become pale and whose voice has
already risen recounting a fearful matter.
[11]. Among them is distorting speeches and dropping much from
them and putting them into a form in which their repulsiveness
appears and opposition to them is simplified; now these enter more
into sophistry than they do into rhetoric.
These, then, are all of the external persuasive things.
(34) With many of these, it is immediately evident that they only
provide persuasion; with others, that may be somewhat obscure. We
will speak about the latter.
[TESTIMONY]
RHETORIC
75
(39) Certainty may be obtained about the existence of senseperceIved matters which have never been perceived and whose existence we have .no way of apprehending by means of a syllogism, but
very s~ldom-jus~ as we very seldom manage to conceive of them
accordmg to theIr essence.! However, even if individual instances
ofsuch matters cannot be distinguished by sensation there is no doubt
?ut what their names or what indicates them can b~ distinguished by
It., Now for the greater number of people, assent to something like
thIS Comes about by means of the continuous tradition and exhaustive
2
reports. However, it is clear that this is an accidental effect because
that about them which brings about assent rarely follows f:om what
RHETORIC
76
0:
77
RHETORIC
explicitly2 stated this idea about consensus in the first part of his
book called The Distinction Between Islam and Atheism.3 He said: "What
consensus -is has not yet been agreed upon."4
[CHALLENGING]
78
RHETORIC
them with one another for particular voluntary things which judges
decide are good or bad. Among the voluntary things which judges
decide are good or bad, some are to be found in a man himself and in
the present time; these are virtues and vices. Some are to be found in
the present time in another person; that is injustice and justice. Some
will occur to him in the future; these are useful and harmful matters.
Now speech addressed to others about the first kind of things is called
contradictory [epideictic] ;1 when it is about the second kind of things,
it is called forensic;2 and when it is about the third kind of things,
it is called deliberative. 3 Moreover, to the extent that man is a social
being and a citizen, he necessarily uses rhetorical arguments about
these three categories of things. [Once he recognized all of this,]
Aristotle began4 to set forth rules and things which would enable a
man to persuade about each and every one of these things in the best
possible manner with regard to that thing. Therefore, this art is
defined as being the means by which man is able to effect persuasion
about each and every one of the particular matters and to do so in
the most complete and most artful manner possible with regard to
each thing.
(46) Now we have said enough for our purposes.
All of the Rhetoric is completed. Praise be to God the Exalted.
81
In the name
83
84
POETICS
NOTES
(3) Even though this art is syllogistic, the syllogism is not actually
used in it, nor is there any kind of syllogism peculiar to it; rather,
when a syllogistic argument is actually used in it, it is in the manner of
deceit and in order to make it similar to another art.
(4) Aristotle came to the opinion that this art was highly useful,
because by means of it the souls of the multitude could be moved to
believe in or not believe in a certain thing and towards doing or
abandoning a certain thing. For that reason, he enumerated the
matters which enable a man to devise an imaginative representation
for any particular thing he wishes and to do so in the most complete
manner possible for that thing. Thus, the art of poetics is that which
enables a man to devise an imaginative representation of each particular thing in the most complete manner possible for it. However,
these are perfections external to the primary human perfection.
(5) In sum, anyone who has understood what we have written in
these treatises1 and had no knowledge about all this by nature is
now able to discern the rank of every argument he hears with respect
to assent or concept. This rank [of understanding] is part of what
is noble because man is prepared for ultimate perfection through it.
For if man's perfection comes about by his attaining true theory and
if he becomes prepared to accept it by this amount [oflogical study],
then by this amount [of logical study] he attains the rank which
prepares him for ultimate perfection.
1
God is the One who gives success to what is correct.
1. Henceforth, the dates of the Anno Hegirae will be given first and
separated from the corresponding date of the Common Era by a
slash (!) mark; for example, the above date would read 520/1126.
2. In the nineteenth century, the Italian orientalist Fausto Lasinio
transliterated the Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts of Averroes's Short
~omme~tary on .A~istotle' s Poetics into Arabic and published the translIteratIOn. LaSInI? used a copy of the Munich manuscript (cf. infra,
n. 10) sent to hIm by the well-known German orientalist Moritz
Steinschneider, to the point where the Munich manuscript b;oke off;
t~en he us~d a copy of the Paris manuscript (cr. infra, n. 11) sent to
h~m by MOIse Schwab of the Paris Bibliotheque Nationale. Because he
dId not have a full copy of the Paris manuscript, Lasinio had no way
to control the Munich manuscript readings. This transliteration
appea~ed a~ an appendix to his edition ofAverroes's Middle Commentary
on Arzstotle s Poetzcs; cf. Fausto Lasinio, "11 Commento Medio di
Averroe ana Poetica di Aristotele" in Annali delle Universita Toscane
XIII (1873), ~arte Prima, pp. xvii-xviii, Appendix A.
More attentIOn has been paid to the Middle Commentary on Aristotle's
Poetics. Lasinio's edition was based on a single Arabic manuscript
(Florence Laurenziano Manuscript CLXXX, 54). Once he became
aware of th.e .existe~ce of a second manuscript (University of Leiden
2073), LasIn~o. prInted the variants and suggested better textual
~eadI.ngs; cf. zhzd., pp. 1-45 (Arabic) and "Studi sopra Averroe, VI"
In Gzornale della Societa Asiatica Italiana XI (1897-1898), pp.14l-l52
and. ~~I (1899), .I~p. 197-206. .'Abd al-Rabman Badawi reprinted
La~lI~I~ ~ 1873 ed~,tI~n of the MIddle Commentary; cr, Talkh~ Kitah
Arzstutalzsji al-Shz r In Aris!u!l1lis: Fann al-Shi'r (Cairo: Maktabat alNah~ah al-Mi~riyah, 1953), pp. 199-250. Apparently, Badawi knew
not?Ing ~~out Lasinio'~ later publication of the variants. More recently
S~hm SalIm ha.s publIshed a new edition of the same commentary
USIn.g all the avaIlable manuscripts; cf. Talkh~ Kitah Aris/u/alisIi al-Shi'r
(CaIro: Dar al-Tabrir, 1971). It is not believed that Averroes wrote
a Large Commentary on the Poetics.
85
86
NOTES
There are no Arabic editions of the Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Topics by Averroes, even though it is known to be extant in the
Florence and Leiden manuscripts. It is not believed that Averroes
ever wrote a Large Commentary on the Topics.
Lasinio also published an early edition of part of Averroes's Middle
Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric. His edition, based on both the Florence
and Leiden manuscripts, stopped shortly before the end of the first
maqiilah of Averroes's commentary; cf. Fausto Lasinio, "!l ~o~mento
Medio di Averroe alIa Retorica di Aristotele" in Pubblzcazzom del R.
Instituto di Studi Superiori Pratici e di Perfezionamento in Firenze, Sezion~ di
Filosofia e Filologia, Accademia Orientale, I (1878), pp. 1-96 (ArabIc).
'Abd aI-Rahman Badawi was the first to edit the whole book; cf.
Talkhi~ al-Kha/iibah (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nah<;lah al-Mi~riyah, 19~0).
Salim Salim has also edited the work; cf. Talkhi~ al-Kha/iibah (CaIro:
Dar a1-Ta1;Irir, 1967). It is not believed that Averroes wrote a Large
Commentary on the Rhetoric.
3. The French orientalist and historian Ernest Renan identifie?
Jacob ben Abba-~aria ben Anatoli as. th: first to translate thIS
collection of treatlses on the art of lOgIC mto Hebrew. Although
Renan did not state the precise date that Anatoli completed the translation, the context suggests it was completed between 123~-1232.
Renan also cited a translation of the collection made by RabbI Jacob
ben Makhir ben Tibbon of Montpelier-known among the Christia?s
of his time as Profatius Judaeus-and claimed it was completed 10
1298. Cf. Renan, Auerroes et I'Auerroisme Paris: Michel Levy Freres
1866), 3rd. edition, pp. 188-189.
Some years later, Steinschneider challenged Renan's identificatio~
of Anatoli as a translator of this collection, asserting that Anatoh
had translated nothing more than the Middle Commentaries o~ Aristotle:s
Organon in 1232. He also contended th.at the first transl~tlon of thIS
collection was Rabbi Jacob's and that It was completed 10 1289, not
1298. (This date corresponds tp the one given in the Pari~ cat~logue:
Kislew 5050' cf. Manuscrits Orientaux: Catalogue des Manuscrzts Hebreux et
Samaritains de la Bibliotheque Imperiale [Paris: Imprimerie Imperiale,
1866], p. 160). Steinschneider also noted that Samuel ben yehuda. of
Marseilles expressed displeasure withRabbiJac~b's t~anslatlon. (whIch
is, incidentally, the translation published at Riva dl Trento 10 1559
as Kiaur mi-kol Meleket Higayyon, that is, Summary of the Whole Ar~ of
Logic) ~nd did a translation of his own in 13~9 or 1~30. Cf. M: Stemschneider, Alfarabi in MhnoirtstJec;I~AttlIlimieImpenale des. Scunc~ de
St. Petersbourg, VIle serie, XIII (1869), no. 4, p. 147 and Dze hebrazsche
Vbersetzungeit des Mittelalters (Berlin: Jtzkowski, 1893), p. 54, n. 55.
NOTES
87
(The dates 1189 and 5 Kislew 50 in the latter work are obvious misprints and should read 1289 and 5 Kislew 5050 respectively).
4. Cf. Renan, op. cit., pp. 29-42, 79-84, and 173-199. Consider
as well the remarks of the noted French orienta1ist, S. Munk, in
the article "Ibn Roschd" in Dictionnaire des Sciences Philosophiques
(Paris: L. Hachette et Cie., 1847), Vol. III, pp. 163-164 and in
Melanqes de Philosophie Juiue et Arabe (Paris: A. Franck, 1857), pp.
422-429 and 439-440. Leon Gauthier also discussed this problem
in his study of Averroes; cf, Leon Gauthier, Ibn Rochd (Auerroes)
(Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1948), pp. 9-11.
5. Father Maurice Bouyges edited the Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Categories in 1932; cf. Auerroes Talkhif Kitab al-Maqoulat (Beirut:
Imprimerie Catholique, 1932). In the introduction to this edition,
he noted that the work had been neglected in the West and among the
Arabs; only Jewish Aristotelians seemed to have had any concern or
knowledge about it (pp. v-vi). Cf. also R. de Vaux, "La Premiere
Entree d'Averroes chez 1es Latins" in Reuue des Sciences Philosophiques
et TMologiques XXII (1933), p. 193.
Renan first described the Florence Laurenziano Manuscript
CLXXX, 54 to the learned community in a letter from Rome dated 27
February, 1850; cf. "Lettre aReinaud" in Journal Asiatique XV (1850),
Serie IV, pp. 390-391. By 1874, Lasinio was aware of the existence of
the University of Leiden Manuscript 2073; cf. "Studi sQpra Averroe,
V" in Annuari della Societa !taliana per gli Studi Orientali II (1874),
pp. 234-267. For the Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts, cf. infra, p. 4, n. 7.
6. Although still under the influence of the older opinion to some
extent, Gauthier noticed a tendency toward independence in Averroes's
thought; cf. op. cit., pp. 15 with 257-258 and 278-281. Like Gauthier,
Alonso could not deny that Averroes explicitly differed with Aristotle
on certain issues; however, he could not completely relinquish the
notion that the commentaries were less original than the other works;
cf. P. Manuel Alonso, Teologta de Auerroes (Madrid: Maestre, 1947),
pp. 26, 36-41 with pp. 33,89, and 99.
In recent years, there have been more careful arguments about the
way in which Averroes is to be considered a disciple of Aristotle. Cf.
Michel Allard, "Le Rationalisme d'Averroes d'apres une Etude sur la
Creation" in Bulletin d'Etudes Orientales XIV (1952), pp. 21, 23, 25, and
53-55; G.F. Hourani, Auerroes on the Harmony of Religion and Philosophy
(London: Luzac and Co., 1961), p. 25; H. Blumberg, Auerrois CorduheTl;Sis Compendia Libromm Aristotelis qui Parva Naturalia vocantur (Cambndge: The Mediaeval Academy of America, 1954), p. xi, and Auerroes
Epitome of Parua Naturalia (Cambridge: The Mediaeval Academy of
88
NOTES
NOTES
89
(1922), p. 10. The Cairo publication which Father Bouyges cited bears
no resemblance to the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rlr.etoric presented
below,. bu.t is simply a haphazard copy of different paragraphs
occurrmg m the first maqiilah of Averroes's Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Apparently, these paragraphs were taken from Lasinio's
early partial edition of that middle commentary; cf. Lasinio, "11
Commento Medio di Averroe alla Retorica di Aristotele," op. cit. In
short, the Cairo publication cited by Father. Bouyges is of no value
for the serious study of Averroes's rhetorical thought.
Cf. also Harry A. Wolfson, "Plan for the Publication of a Corpus
Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem" in Speculum VI (1931), pp. 412427 and "Revised Plan for the Publication of a Corpus Commentariorum
Averrois in Aristotelem" in Speculum XXXVIII (1963), pp. 88-104. The
extent to whic~ the existence of the Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts has
been neglected m the academic community is amply illustrated by the
f~ct that, as la~e as 1943, Wolfson appeared to have no knowledge of
eIther manuscnpt and restricted himself to the Riva di Trento Hebrew
translation and the Venice 1574 Latin translation for speculations
about the Arabic equivalents of certain Hebrew words appearing in
the t:xt; ~f. Harry A. Wolfson, "The Terms t~awwur and ta1diq in
ArabIC PhIlosophy and their Greek, Latin, and Hebrew Equivalents"
in The Moslem WorldXXXfII (1943), p. 114, n. 9 and p. 115, notes 20,
23, and 25. Similarly, as late as 1969, a scholar publishing a logical
work as part of the Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem project
w~s unaware of the Munich Judaeo-Arabic manuscript; cf. Averroes
~uldle G.?mmentary on Porphyry's Isagoge and on Aristotle's Categoriae, op.
Clt., p. xu, n. 8.
1o. ~f: Verz~ichnis der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und
St~tsbz?lzothek zn Munchen (Munich, 1875), Vol. I, pars quarta, p. 162:
Dze E.pztome des Organon von Aristoteles mit der Einleitung des Porphyrius,
Arablsch von Averroes. The manuscript is identified in the catalogue
by the number 964, but it carries the number 650a in the Munich
Codex Arabicus and is also identified by the number 309 in the Munich
Codex Hebraicus.
90
NOTES
12. Cf. Georges Vajda, Index General des Manuscrits Arabes Musulmans
de la Bibliotheque Nationale de Paris (Paris: Centre Nationale de Recherches Scientifiques, 1953), pp. v and 320.
13. Renan published the biography by Ibn Abu U~aybi'ah in the
second and third editions of his study; cr. op. cit., pp. 448-456, and especially p. 454.-Born in 600/1203 in Damascus, Ibn Abu U~aybi'ah
was a renowned physician who composed a book of biographies about
famous physicians and professors of medicine: 'Uyiln al-Anba' fi
Tabaqiit al-A/ibba'. The selection published by Renan is taken from
that book. Ibn Abu U~aybi'ah died in Sarkhad, near Damascus, in
668/1270.
Renan also published a copy of the Escurial manuscript 884,
folio 82; cf. ibid., p. 462.
Cf., as well, Steinschneider, "Une Dedicace d'Abraham de Balmes
au Cardinal Dom. Grimani" in Revue des Etudes Juives V (1882), pp.
115-117. This use of the title occurs in Vatican manuscript 3897,
which contains a translation by de Balmes of Ibn Bajjah's Risiilat
al-Wadii'. Cf. also Steinschneider, Die hebriiische Vberset;:,ungen, op. cit.,
p. 54, n. 54.
14. Ibn al-Abbar, an historian and master oftradition, was born in
Valencia in 595/1199 and died in Tunis in 658/1260. He wrote Kitiib
al- Takmilah li Kitiib al-$ilah, a supplement to the biographical dictionary, Kitiib al-$ilah fi Ta'rikh A'immah al-Andalus (Biographical
Dictionary about the Leading Men of Andalusia), of the master of tradition
from Cordoba, Ibn Bashkuwal (494/1101-578/1183). Renan reprinted
the portion of Ibn al-Abbar's book relating to Averroes; cf. op. cit.,
pp. 435-437, esp. p. 436. Although al-An~ari's dates are not known,
he obviously lived after Ibn al-Abbar, for Renan presented the
selection from his book as a supplement to the books of Ibn Bashkuwal
and Ibn al-Abbar; cf. op. cit., pp. 437-447, esp. p. 444.
Shams aI-Din Mul).ammad ibn Al).mad ibn 'Uthman al-Dhahabi
was born in Damascus in 673/1274 and died there in 748/1348 after
travel and residence in many other cultural centers of the Muslim
world. Although the list of works given by al-Dhahabi is not as
exhaustive as Ibn Abu U~aybi'ah's, it does follow that list quite
faithfully, except in this instance. cr. Renan, op. cit., pp. 456-460,
esp. p. 457.
15. There are some technical problems with Ibn Abu U~aybi'ah's
subtitle. First, the text reads "KitahAris!il!iilis (Aristotle's Book)," not
"Kiltuh 'Art!fii!iilis t:Aristotle~sBtmks)~~' here; the plural object
"ha" of the verb "lakhkh~" dictates the correction. Secondly, the text
continues after "mustawfan" with the words "Talkhi~ al-Iliihiyiit li
NOTES
91
92
NOTES
logical arts can be traced back to two representatives of the Alexandrian school, Olympiodorus and Elias; cf. Richard Walzer, "Zur
Traditionsgeschichte der Aristotelischen Poetik" in Richard Walzer,
Greek into Arabic, Essays on Islamic Philosophy (Oxford: Bruno Cassirer,
1962), pp. 129-136, esp. pp. 133-135; originally published in Studi
Italiani di Filologia Classica, N.S., Vol. XI (1934), pp. 5-14. Although
al-Farabi and Averroes followed the idea of including rhetoric and
poetics among the logical arts, neither accepted it without preliminary
consideration; ef. al-Farabi IMii' al-'Ulum, ed. 'UthmanAmin (Cairo:
Dar al-Fikr al-'Arabi, 1949), pp. 63-74 and Averroes Talkh~ alKha!iibah, ed. 'Abd al-Ral:;lman Badawi, op. cit., 4, 9-10, 11-13, 18, and
248-249.
19. Cf. the Munich Judaeo-Arabic manuscript (hereafter referred
to as M.), folios Ib line 24-3b line 2 and also the Paris Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript (hereafter referred to as P.), folios 2a line 2-3a line 15.
(Henceforth, references to folio and line will be cited without explaining
that the first number refers to folio and the second to line; thus, the
above references would read M.lb24-3b2 and P. 2a2-,-3a15). Cf. also
Aristotle Categories la 1-15.
20. In the introduction to his Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Topics,
Averroes said: "This art has three parts. The first part sets forth the
speeches from which dialectical conversation is composed-i.e., i~
parts, and the parts of its parts on to its simplest components. ThIS
part is found in the first treatise on Aristotle's book.
"The second part sets forth the topics from which syllogisms are
drawn-syllogisms for affirming something or denying it with respe~t
to every kind of problem occurring in this art. This is in the next SIX
treatises of Aristotle's book.
"The third part sets forth how the questioner ought to question and
the answerer answer. It also sets forth how many kinds of questions and
answers there are. This is in the eighth treatise of Aristotle's book."
Cf. Florence Laurenziano Manuscript CLXXX, 54, folio 88a, as cited
by Fausto Lasinio in "Studi sopra Averroe, II" in Annuari della Societa
Italiana per gli Studi Orientali I (1873), pp. 140-142.
21. The title On Sophistical Refutations or, more literally, On Sophistry
exists only in M.; P. has no title.
22. This is the title in M. In P., the title Treatise on Assent (al-Q,awl fi
al- T04diq) is followed by the subtitle Treatise on the Knowledge Preparing
the Way to Assent (al-Q,awl fi al-Ma'rifah al-muwa!ti'ah Ii al-T04diq).
23. As part of the title in P., the words "and they are called Topics"
(wa hiy al-musammiit MawMi') are added. Although these words
occur in M. as well, they are not placed in the title.
NOTES
93
94
NOTES
NOTES
95
NOTES
96
NOTES
97
39. "There are two kinds of assent. One kind is for verifying the
problem and dividing it into one of the two parts of the contradiction
so that what is true is contained within one of them. The second kind
is for verifying the composite argument bringing about assent; it is
called syllogism. We shall begin with the first kind, since it is the one
which ought first to be verified with regard to the problem, as it
constitutes the knowledge preparing the way to assent." As has already
been noted (supra, n. 22), the subtitle in the Paris Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript is even more explicit: Treatise on the Knowledge Preparing
the Way to Assent (al-Qawl fi al-Ma'rifah al-muwat#'ah li al- Tafdiq).
Cf. M. 10b19-11a2, P. llalo-15.
40. Cf. On the Rules by Which Syllogisms Are Made, M. 30a19-30b3,
P. 33a2o-25: "We say: since the rules given in this art are of two types
(a type which brings about and a type which makes known) and since
the discussion which preceded has been about the things by which
the species and classes of syllogisms are made known, we now ought
to speak about the rules enabling us to make syllogisms." Cf. also M.
30b3-3la8, P. 33a25-34a18, and M. la4-8 (the corresponding folio
in P. is missing).
41. The "Sections Which Are Necessary in the Art of Logic" were
mentioned by Munk (Melanges, op. cit., pp. 351-352, n. 1) and Steinschneider (Alfarabi, op. cit., pp. 15-16), but Professor H. Blumberg was
the first to discuss them in any detail. Cf. "Alfarabi's Five Chapters on
Logic" in Proceedings f!f the American Academy for Jewish Research VI
(1934-1935), pp. 115-121. Although Blumberg promised a subsequent
edition of the treatise, it never appeared. Only twenty years later when
Professor D.M. Dunlop discovered the manuscript, apparently without
ever having heard of Blumberg's article, were the "Sections" edited.
Dunlop viewed the Paris manuscript as an inferior source and preferred
to depend on the Istanbul Hamidiye Manuscript 182, folios 3a--5b.
The treatise was edited and translated by Dunlop as "al-Farabi's
Introductory Sections on Logic" in The Islamic Quarterly II (1955), pp.
26~~82. Professor Mubahat Tiirker edited the treatise again, using
addItIOnal manuscripts, and translated it into Turkish; cr. "Farabi'nin
bazi Manti!.;: Eseleri" in Ankara (}niversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Cografya
Fakilltesi Dergisi XVI (1958), pp. 165-181, 195-213.
Professor Tiirker has also edited "The Speech about the Conditions
of Demonstration"; cr. "Farabi'nin Sera'it ul-yakini" in Araftirma I
(1963); Felsefe Ara~tirmalari Enstitiisii, Ankara (}niversitesi Dil ve
Tarih-Cografya Fakilltesi Dergisi, pp. 173 ff.
42. This is the same scribe who made the copy of Kitab al-Jfiss wa
al-Maf:zsils found in Modena (Biblioteca Estensis Manuscript 13, J.D.
NOTES
98
c:r.
NOTES
99
100
NOTES
of ours most of the arts, like medicine and others, are like this [i.e.,
perfected]." The corresponding folio in P. is missing.
50. Cf. infra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics, paras. 4-5. The
prior judgment was made in the Short Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior
Analytics where it was explained that man's ultimate perfection
consisted in having certainty about the most remote causes of the beings
and that philosophy provided such knowledge. It was also explained
that a further development of the issue belonged in another work.
Cf. M. 57a 17-19, P. 63a 2-4. The same sort of judgment applies to
rhetoric, for the final definitions of rhetoric and of poetics are nearly
identical; cf. infra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, para. 45.
Poetics, however, can only be spoken of in terms of what it allows one
to make and do, because Averroes denied that it had any contribution
to make towards understanding; cr. infra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Poetics, paras. 1-2.
51. Cf. infra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, para. 21. Cf. also
Averroes Short Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, M. 56b 2257a24, P. 62a 15-63a6; Averroes Talkhi~ Kitiib mii ba'd al-Tabi'ah
ed. by 'Uthman Amin (Cairo: Mu~tala. al-Babi al-J:Ialabi, 1958),
pp. 1:10-2 :8, 5: 12-6:14; and Aristotle Posterior Analytics n a29-35,
86a22-30.
52. Cf. infra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, paras. 1-4, 6,
8-11, 15-19.
53. Cf. ibid., para. 21 and n. 3.
54. Cf. The Incoherence of the Incoherence, op. cit., pp. 207-209, 356-358,
427-430, 514-515, 527-528. Concerning al-Ghazali, cr. infra, Short
Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric, para. 42, n. 2.
55. Cf. al-Farabi IIHii' al-'Ulum, op. cit., chapter 5, pp. 107-108:
"The art of dialectical theology is a skill enabling a man to use arguments for defending the established opinions and actions declared by
the Lawgiver and for refuting anything which contradicts them. This
art [like jurisprudence] is divided into two parts: one concerning
opinions and one concerning actions. It is unlike jurisprudence in that
the jurist takes the opinions and actions declared by the Lawgiver as
indisputable and considers them as principles from which he deduces
their consequences, while the dialectical theologian defends the things
used by the jurist as principles without deducing other things from
them. Ifit happens that one man has a facility for both tasks, then he is
a jurist and a dialectical theologian-a dialectical theologian insofar
as he defends these [principles] and a jurist insofar as he deduces
[other things] from them." The same role is assigned the dialectical
NOTES
101
57. Ibid:, paras. 12, 29-30, 31, 36, and 44. For a fuller discussion of
cr. "Rhetoric and Islamic Political Philosophy" in Internattonal Journal of Middle East Studies III (1972), pp. 187-198.
t~is issue,
60. Ibid., paras. 4-5, 6-7, 8-13, 14, 15, 16-22, 23-24, and 26-32.
61. Ibid., paras. 1-5, 12, 29 and 31.
62. Ibid., paras. 5, 15-17, and 23-24.
63. Ibid., para. 43.
64. Ibid., paras. 12 and 31.
65. Ibid., paras. 33-44.
66. Ibid., para. 34.
67. Ibid., paras. 35-36.
68. Ibid., paras 38-39 and
Topics, para. II.
cr.
n.
Ibid., para. 2.
102
NOTES
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid. "For the most part these represe ntation s cause error
concer ning the things which can be conceived ofonly by their represe
ntations or which can be conceived of only with difficulty; thus, there
is much error about the latter... "
80. Ibid.
INVOCA TION.
1. The clause "[I beseech] your succor, 0 Lord" was omitted from
the Paris manusc ript. In its place is the clause: "I have recours
e to
Him, and in Him I place my trust".
PARAGR APH
(1).
1. The word transla ted here as "assent " (tafdiq) is one of two key
terms for Averroes, the other being "conce pt"; cf. below, n. 2. At
the
very beginn ing of the collection ofthese Short Comme ntaries , Averro
es
explain ed that his whole analysis centere d around these two terms
since all the problem s conside red in the rationa l arts may be explain
ed
by means of them. "Assen t is the firm assertion or denial of someth
ing,
and it comes about in two ways: (a) either absolutely, like our saying
'does vacuum exist?' or (b) with qualific ation, like our saying 'is
the
world created ?' Now this sort of seeking is always asked about by
the
particle 'does' [or 'is' (hal)]." Cf. M. lb3-5; there is no corresp onding
folio in the Paris manusc ript, as has been noted in the Introdu ction.
Cf. also Harry A. Wolfson, "The Terms tafawwur and tafdiq in Arabic
Philosophy and their Greek, Latin, and Hebrew Equiva lents," op.
cit.,
pp. 114-128.
2. "Conce pt" (tafawwur) is "the unders tanding of someth ing
in
accorda nce with what gives an analogy of its essence or with what
is
supposed to give an analogy of its essence, and it is asked about
for the most part and primar ily-by the particle 'what'; like
our
saying 'what is nature ?' and 'what is the soul?' " Cf. M. la23-l
b2.
Because the word "form" (furah) is derived from die same root, the
term "conce pt" is used in a very strict sense; i.e., the mental image
of
the form of something.
3. The word transla ted here and in what follows as "argum ents"
could literally be transla ted as "speech es" (aqiiwil). Because the word
means "argum ents" in this context , becaus e "speech es" are used
as
argume nts in the art of dialecti c, and because both here and in
the
following Short Commentary on Aristotle's Rhetoric the word is used
to
refer to those aspects of speech which produc e assent rather than
to
the whole speech, this transla tion has been adopte d.
103
104
PARAGRAPH
NOTES
(2).
(3).
(4).
NOTES
105
(5).
1. Cf. supra, para. 2: "We say: the extent [of assent] they provide
is supposition which approximates certainty." The meaning of this
statement was explained in paras. 2-4.
2. All of the syllogisms which are divided into figures fall under
the grouping "categorical syllogism" according to Averroes. Cf.
Short Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics M. 24a6-8, P. 26a5-6.
Such a distinction does not occur in Aristotle's Prior Analytics because
Aristotle insisted that all syllogisms are brought about by means of one
of the three figures. Cf. Prior Analytics 40b22-23 and 41 bI-5. Because
106
NOTES
NOTES
107
(6).
108
NOTES
NOTES
PARAGRAPH
109
(7).
110
NOTES
(9).
PARAGRAPH
(13).
(14).
(8).
III
NOTES
(11).
1. The word translat~d here as "matter" (mliddah) is to be understood in both a material and a qualitative sense. It refers to the
materials which constitute the syllogism-i.e., to the premisesand to their quality-i.e., whether they are "necessary," "possible
for the most part," or "equally possible."
PARAGRAPH
(15).
112
NOTES
(16).
(17)
113
NOTES
(18).
114
NOTES
(19).
(21).
NOTES
115
116
NOTES
INVOCATION
. 1. The ~lause "[I beseech] your succor; our Lord" was omitted
III
TITLE
(I)
(2)
118
PARAGRAPH
NOTES
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
NOTES
119
meant ~he prem!se which brings about the conclusion. This is usually
the. major premIse; cf. infra, para. 16 "al-muqaddamah... al-malikah li
al-zntiij."
2.. For Aristotle, the second figure occurs "when the same term
apphes to all of one subject and to none of the other or to all or none
of both," cf. Prior Analytics 26b34-36. Aristotle als~ said that in this
~~ure the middle term is the one that is predicated of both subjects; cf.
zbzd.,. ~6b37. Averroes made this latter statement the basis of his
d~fill1tlOn of ~he second figure, saying that it is the one in which the
mIddle term IS the predicate of the major and the minor extremes. Cf.
Short Commentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics M. 17b23-18al' P 19a9
Cf. also ibid., M. 21b2l-23a11; P. 23a15-25a3.
,..
3. Aristotle explained that the third figure is the one in which
"o~e of the terms applies to all and the other to none of the same
subject, or both. terms apply t? all or none of it"; cf. Prior Analytics
28a1?-l ~. In thIS figure the mIddle term is "that of which both the
predI~atlOn~ are made"; cr. ihid., 28a13. Averroes expressed this last
Idea.m a s.hghtly different way by saying that the third figure is the
one m whIch the middle term "is a subject for the two extremes."
Cf. Short .C?mmentary on Aristotle's Prior Analytics M. 18al-2; P. 19a9-1O.
Cf. als? zlnd. M. 23all-24a8; 25a4-26a6. The conclusion of the third
figure IS not usually stated as a universal.
4. Cf. Aristotle Prior Analytics 27blO-39, 29a15-l7.
PARAGRAPH
(8)
NOTES
120
(9)
(11)
121
NOTES
PARAGRAPH
(12)
1. AbU al-Ma'ali 'Abd aI-Malik ibn 'Abd Allah ibn Yusuf alJuwayni, known as Imam al-.ij:aramayn, was born in Bushtanikan,
a village near Nishapur, Iran in 419/1028 and died in the same village
in 478;1085. During his lifetime, he taught in Baghdad, Mecca, and
Medina. He was especially noted for his work in dialectical theology
and for havmg been the teacher ofal-Ghazali (cf. infra, para. 42, n. I),
but he spent much time as well in the study of Islamic jurisprudence.
2. This book, Kitiib al-Irshiid ilii Qawii/i' al-Adillahfi U~ill al~I'tiqiid,
has been edited and partially translated by J.-D. Luciani (Paris:
Imprimerie Nationale, 1938).
3. Cf. ibid., Chapter XIX, Section XVII, pp. 215-216 of the translation and pp. 133-135 of the Arabic text. Although Averroes did not
quote Abu al-Ma'ali literally, he expressed the core of this author's
thought very accurately. The divergence from lIteral quotation
permitted Averroes to summarize Abu al-Ma'ali's argument.
4. Oxymel (Arabic: sakanjabin) is a mixture of honey and vinegar.
The Arabic word is derived from the two Persian words which describe
the elements of the compound: sukar (honey, sugar) andjabin (vinegar).
Averroes was apparently referring to the fact that if these two
liquids are cooked long enough, they will form a hard, chewy substance; thus, a new kind of existence arises from the mixture of the
two ingredients.
PARAGRAPH
(13)
122
PARAGRAPH
NOTES
(14)
(17)
1. Cf. supra, para. 4. Note, however, that the earlier definition was
actually the definition of "unexamined previously existing opinion."
Averroes apparently considered the terms "unexamined opinion"
(biidi' al-ra'y), "unexamined common opinion" (biidi' al-ra'y al-musktarak), and "unexamined previously existing opinion" (biidi' al-ra'y alsabiq) to be equivalent in meaning. Cf. infra, para. 23.
2. Cf. supra Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, paras. 3-4, 13-17,
and 21.
PARAGRAPH
123
(22)
(23)
1. Cf. supra, para. 17: "Thus we say that the premises used in this
~lass of arguments, especially the major premise, are taken here
Insofar as they are generally accepted according to une~amined
~ommon?pinion... What is generally accepted according to unexamIned prevIOusly existing opinion is divided into (a) generally received
propositions... and into (b) sense perceptible things..."
(18)
NOTES
(20)
PARAGRAPH
(24)
124
NOTES
(29)
(30)
(31)
1. Although the term "dialectical theologian" (mutakallim) OrIgInally referred to any Muslim theologian, it later came to have a more
specific connotation. Both the term for theology ('ilm al-kallim) and
that for theologian were used to refer to scholastic theology with an
atomistic basis, taking its roots from Democritus and Epicurus. It is
to this distinction that Averroes was obviously alluding when he said
that those authors who wrote about physics in verse could more
properly be called dialectical theologians than poets. Just prior to
this observation, Averroes had mentioned the name of Empedocles.
Cf. Averroes Talkhif Kitiih Aris/ii/litis fi al-Shi'r, Badawi edition, op. cit.,
204:1-10 and Aristotle Poetics 1447b9-23.
2. Partially because of textual difficulties; it is not easy to seize the
precise nature of Averroes's criticism. All texts but one read: "The
example only provides certainty as a means of guidance and scrutiny."
Unfortunately, it has not been possible to locate anything resembling
this statement in the few works ofAbu al-Ma'ali that are now available.
Averroes's criticism of Abu al-Ma'ali seems to be based on the
argument of the preceding paragraph about the inadequacy of the
125
NOTES
example for acquiring certainty about a universal (cf. also supra, paras.
27 and 29). Because Abu al-Ma'ali only partially understood the
limits of the example, he failed to account for the role of the syllogism
in instruction and in scientific investigation. Averroes had already
demonstrated the inadequacy of the induction for scientific investigation (cf. supra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, paras. 6-11,
esp. para. 10) and carefully prepared the way for the role of the
syllogism in that task (cf. Short Commentary on Aristotle's Posterior Analytics, end). The larger problem here is how to get at the fundamental
principles of each science: since it is not possible to do that by means
of the principles peculiar to the science, one must have recourse to
reasoning based on probable opinion-the dialectical syllogism; but
Abu al-Ma'ali's statement has the consequence of eliminating that
tool, since neither induction nor example can provide the needed
premises. As Averroes pointed out here, that consequence is disastrous
for learning-unless it is presupposed that the sciences already exist
and one has only to select premises as one wishes. Abu al-Ma'ali's
other major error was forgetting that examples are based on sense
perceptions and could not therefore be used to reason about a science
whose subject is free from matter, a science like geometry. Cf. also
Aristotle Prior Analytics 68b30-37, 69aI2-l8; and Topics 101a33-lOl b3.
3. The reference is to the Almagest of Ptolemy. Ptolemy, or Claudius
Ptolemaeus, was an astronomer, geographer, and mathematician who
lived during the 2nd century C.E. He was born in Greece but passed
most of his life in Alexandria, and it was there that he composed his
encyclopedic work on astronomy called The Mathematical Collection.
This work was translated into Arabic in the 9th century C.E. and came
to be known as the Almagest or "the Great." It was widely read and
commented on by Arab thinkers.
PARAGRAPH
(33)
(35)
126
PARAGRAPH
NOTES
(36)
PARAGRAPH
(37)
127
NOTES
PARAGRAPH
(38)
(39)
(40)
128
NOTES
often to be explained as coincidences than as sigm or as caus~s of something. Since Averroes considered the treatise On Prophecy in Sleep
to be part of the book Kitiib al-lfiss wa al-Ma/.tsiis (Sense and Sensible
Objects), he may have been referring to that argument. When he later
commented on that collection, he paid careful attention to the question
of prophecy in dreams, denying that there was any basic mystery
about it. He attributed the phenomenon to the kind of knowledge
of causes that arises from a highly developed imaginative faculty. Cf.
Averroes TaWzif Kitiib al-lfiss wa al-Ma/.tsiis li Aris!ii in Aris!ii!iilis fi
al-Najs, ed. by 'Abd al-Ra1)man Badawi (Cairo: Maktabat al-Nah<;lah
al-Mi~riyah, 1954), pp. 224-226.
If Alonso and Gatje are correct in their dating, the commentary on
Sense and Sensible Objects was written eleven years after these commentaries (554/1159 versus 565/1170). Consequently, Averroes's
reference here would be to Aristotle's work, not his own. Alonso,
Gatje, and Wolfson also argue that despite the title of Talkhif (Middle
Commentary), Averroes's book on Sense and Sensible Objects is a Short
Commentary (jawiimi'). Cf. Alonso, op. cit., pp. 55-82 and the corroborations from the secondary literature cited by him; Gatje, Die Epitome
der Parva Naturalia des Averroes, op. cit., p. v, n. 2 and pp. x-xi, and
Wolfson, "Revised Plan for the Publication of a Corpus Commentariorum
Averrois in Aristotelem," op. cit., pp. 90-94.
PARAGRAPH
(42)
NOTES
129
130
NOTES
(43)
(45)
NOTES
131
INVOCATION
1. Although the word aqawi! has often been translated as "arguments" (cf. supra, Short Commentary on Aristotle's Topics, para. 1, n. 3),
it seemed more appropriate to translate it as "speeches" in this context.
PARAGRAPH
(2)
133
NOTES
PARAGRAPH
(5)
134
NOTES
INDEX
EPILOGUE
A.
On Sophistical Rifutations
Posterior Analytics
Prior Analytics
Sense and Sensible Objects
Topics
Rhetoric, 9
Rhetoric, 8, 18,20, 21, 25,44
Topics, 21
Rhetoric, 45
Poetics, 4
Poetics, 2
Topics, 17
Topics, 5
Rhetoric, 8, 29
Rhetoric, 40
Topics, 21
Dialectical Theologians
Divine Law
Empedodes
Poetics, 2
al-Farabi
Topics, 18, 19
135
Galen
al-Ghaz~ili
The Balance
Distinction between Islam and
Atheism
B.
INDEX
136
Rhetoric, 9, 33
Rhetoric, 42, 43
Rhetoric, 43
Absolute (i!liiq)
Rhetoric, 42
Accident ('arat/)
ij:ashawiyah
Hippocrates
Rhetoric, 36
Topics. 13
Affirmative (miljab)
al-Juwayni
The Spiritual Directive
Rhetoric, 12, 31
Rhetoric, 12
Analogy (muniisabah)
Argument (qawl)
al-Magest
Mecca
Medina
Mu1:lammad
Rhetoric, 31
Rhetoric, 38
Rhetoric, 38
Rhetoric, 36, 38
Plato
Prophet, see Mu1:lammad
Protagoras
Rhetoric, 24
Socrates
Rhetoric, 22
Themistius
Topics, 19
Rhetoric, 24
Art
(~inii'ah)
Assent
(t~diq)
Topics, 16
Rhetoric, 15
Topics, 4, 10, 15, 16, 18
Rhetoric, 17, 38, 39, 40
Topics, 6
Rhetoric, 6, 7, 13
Rhetoric, 28
Topics, 1,3,5,6,8, 12, 13, 19,21
Rhetoric, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 17,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29, 33, 44, 45
Topics, 1, 3, 5, 9, 13, 15, 21
Rhetoric, 2, 23, 24, 32, 36, 40, 44,
45
Poetics, 1, 2, 3, 4
Topics, 1, 3, 5, 6, 12, 19
Rhetoric, 1,24,32,33,37,38,39,45
Poetics, 5
Conclusion (natijah)
Conjunction (itti~iil)
Consensus (ijmii')
Consequence (luzilm)
Convention (wal')
Topics, 5, 6, 19
Rhetoric, 2, 6, 7, 18, 19, 36, 39, 40
Topics, 13
Topics, 2, 5, 9, 10, 11, 19
Rhetoric, 30, 31, 38, 29, 40, 44
Rhetoric, 33, 43
Topics, 5, 13, 15, 18, 19
Rhetoric, 2, 3, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 25,
26,28
Poetics, 2
Topics, 1, 16, 17, 18
Rhetoric, 39
Poetics, 2, 5
Rhetoric, 4, 5,6, 7, 8, 10, 13, 16
Rhetoric, 6, 7, 10
Rhetoric, 33, 42
Rhetoric, 8, 14
Topics, 7
Rhetoric, 9, 36
('illah)
Certainty (yaqin)
Challenge (taJ;,addan)
Class (~anf)
Concept (t~awwur)
137
INDEX
138
Definition (~add)
Demonstration (burhiin)
Description (~ifah)
Dialectic (jadal)
Differentia (f~l)
Divine Law (shari'ah)
Element (is!aqis)
Ellipsis (i(!mar)
Enthymeme ((!amir)
Essence (mii huw, dhat)
Example (mithiil)
Figure (shakl)
Form
(~ilrah)
J udgment
(~ukm)
Knowledge (ma'rifah)
139
INDEX
Likeness (shabih)
Logic (man/iq)
Matter (maddah)
Meaning (ma'nan)
Medicine (/ibb)
i.e., Drug (dawii')
Metaphor (isti'arah)
Multitude (jumhilr)
Nature (tab')
Negative (siilib)
Oath (yamin)
Opinion (ra'y)
Topics, 13
Rhetoric, 26, 27, 28
Topics, 19
Topics, 11,
Rhetoric, 4,
Topics, 16
Topics, 11,
Rhetoric, 2
Poetics, 2
Topics, 13
Rhetoru, 5,
Poetics, 4
13
16, 19,20,21,22,23,25
13
24, 36,45
Topics, 7, 18
Rhetoric, 3
Poetics, 5
Topics, 6
Rhetoric, 6, 13
Rhetoric, 2, 33
Topics, 3, 10, 13, 21
Rhetoric, 4
Poetics, 4
Rhetoric, 4, 5, 7, 13, 17, 23, 24, 25,
25,30
Peculiar Characteristic,
see Property
Persuasion (iqna')
Topics, 8
Rhetoric, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13,
14, 16, 23, 25, 33, 34, 36,
42,43,44,45
Poetics (shi'r)
Poetics 1 4
Point of Contention (mawda' 'ina!) Rhetoric
7 8 10
Predicate (ma~mi1l)
.
Topics,
'10:
15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Rhetoric, 18, 24, 26, 29
6
8, Ii,
140
INDEX
Premise (muqaddamak)
Topics, 21
Rhetoric, 6, 7, 16
Topics, 4
Rhetoric, 1
Topics, 5, 8, 9, 19, 21
Rhetoric, II, 29
Rhetoric, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Rhetoric, 2
Rhetoric, 20
Rhetoric, 20
Topics, 2, 15, 16
Topics, 8, 15
Rhetoric, 17
Topics, 16, 17
Relation (nisbah)
Religious Community (millah)
Report (khabar)
Exhaustive Report (mustafit/)
Representation (khayalah)
Rhetoric (kha!iibah)
Topics, 18, 21
Rhetoric, 36, 42
Rhetoric, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40
Rhetoric, 39
Poetics, 2
Topics, 2, 9
Rhetoric, 23, 33, 45
Topics, 1
Rhetoric, 45
Rhetoric, 45
Rhetoric, 45
(baliighak)
Epideictic (munafariy)
Deliberative (muskiiwariy)
Forensic (mushiijariy)
Science ('ilm)
Scrutiny
(t~affih)
Sign ('alamah)
Simile (tashbih)
Topics, 11, 13
Rhetoric, 31, 40
Topics, 10
Rhetoric, 2, 30
Rhetoric, 18, 21, 23
Poetics, 2
141
INDEX
Sophistry (saJsa!ah)
Species, see Specific kind
Specific kind (naw')
Speech (qawl)
Subject (mawr/il')
Substance (jawhar)
Substitution (taMi!)
Supposition (~ann)
Statement which is neither
definition nor description (rasm)
Syllogism (qiyiis)
Categorical
(~amaliy)
Conditional (shar/iy)
Conjunctive (mutta~il)
Disjunctive (munf~il)
Contradictory (qiyiis al-khulf)
Term (larj,
~add)
Conditional (muqaddim)
Conditioned (tiilin)
Major (!arf a'{..am)
Middle (larf awsa!)
Minor Uarf a~ghar)
Selected (mustathnii)
Testimony (shahiidah)
Topic (mawr/a')
Topics, 5
Rhetoric, 23
Poetics, 2
Topics, 5, 6, 15, 16
Rhetoric, 5, 7, 24
Poetics, 3
Rhetoric, 29, 30, 33
Poetics, 1, 2
Topics, 8, 9, 19, 21
Rhetoric, 18, 24, 26, 29
Topics, 19
Poetics, 2
Topics, 2, 4, 5
Rhetoric, 1, 4, 30, 39, 40, 43, 44
Topics, 15
Topics, 3,4,5,6, 7,8,9, 14, 18,21
Rhetoric, 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16,
23, 29, 31, 32, 36, 38, 39
Poetics, 3
Topics, 5
Rhetoric, 8
Topics, 5
Rhetoric, 8
Rhetoric, 8, (9, 10)
Rhetoric, 8, 11, (12, 13)
Topics, 5
Rhetoric, 14
Topics, 18
Rhetoric, 18
Rhetoric, 8
Rhetoric, 8, 10
Topics, 6, 18
Rhetoric, 29
Topics, 6, 18
Rhetoric, 29
Topics, 6, 7, 18
Rhetoric, 29
Rhetoric, 8, 10, 11, 13
Topics, 3, 13
Rhewru, 2,33,35, 36,37,40,42, 44
Topics, 21
142
INDEX
Tradition (sunTUZh)
Continuous (matawiitar)
Recorded (sunTUZh maktfibah)
Rhetoric, 44
Rhetoric, 37, 39, 40
Rhetoric, 41
Type (rJarb)
Rhetoric, 7, 13
Universal (kull)
Widespread (dhii'i')
Topics, 3
Rhetoric, 25
ARABIC TEXTS
JI
~.r/
y:Jt\ ~\ 41:.#
I...J
t.
~..>
I.i!\
Cf'
c:.
~\1~)
'-?'
. <' 0"\'
'.'
~.})
J -[]
J ~ - <>
~~\ } 41:.~1
<~I>
J \:..li ~lJ .,
Y' JI ~~~\ J ~~ ~ \:..liJ
J J4:.U tl.t.:i
w~..l.,4;;)1
44\
~~ if vi..li-'J . W.f
J ~)J..rP
<~"'J:-I J!J\i~I ~
~ ~1:...aJ1 o.Lt. ~
-f [J 1\. ~]
. 44 1 Ju\i~4
0~ 0\
..c.J
Lo J~ ~i ~~I
..c.
''-:''-
(f
. '-:" 4:i
(t
"iJp
(0
'io~
i.s...l;:J)
(V
....... , i
J~
0i Y'
44 Y-j;J1i
~i ~\>. ~.lJJ . ~ ~I Lo 0~
:~~I
("\
. J(Y)
....... .i
'jal~
('
(Y
"
....... ~
.
(Y
~t
...
"i . r-11
151
<'
(')
('
(Y
152
ARABIC TEXTS
'Y \.. ~~1 0~ tl..lA.J . 1".)~ J.JY. 'Y 01 ~6:- -0li 01A)\ ~
J~~
,J41
\..lA.J O.)~.J ~
JaJl yo
. ~ <,>..kL:\
~1:..,.zJ1 0..lA
o ':? JlI
YO.J
153
ARABIC TEXTS
J ~.J~ i J! o!Jl-U.J
(J"l:AJI [.JVf i]
. i~~ Q; "I~
.J-:. 01/
o.)~ A
00.) ~ A ':? JlI YO.J
1.1A
'+!
4-!
c!!
u \....t4..
-r)ll ~ \.. 0~ Wi
~..l.,a:\\ I:J
~J:,~ (J"l:i ;.
(f
if
I'
~I
' ~I
J.-
~ i J!
JI 4.-~)l1
lo \..
)..lA..
0-d
"u ~ 1.J . 0
-J:ZJI
....:s
.s:..
o!Jl~
y..: \J,lkd"
. ~)kl\ Jl ~ ~~ u\....t4..
~.JJ~
4-:i o!Jl~ ~.Y. Lo.:j!i .~~ .o.)L,., u~~ 01.J . ,.};-4 Y~~\S'
J&- ~I C..>6:- O.)~.J J 0\S' 01 ..>~ ~.r \.. ~~ :.r- ,:?1
yo \..
0..lA :.r- o~)l1 0..lA
.J
.i
J Wi
lS""
. t, t ''''':' -
('\
. i ]531
(A
."",:", -
(\
o,b:.\;
t-("
. i \..
(f
(0
(t)
.i
()WI Jj)
~I
."",:",~..ill
('
(Y
, i o..l:A1'
(f
""':"' ..::,,~~lS'"
('
(Y
()z-ll Jj)
(f
'i ~
'i ~)l1
(t
."",:", -
(t
(0
."",:",
(0
,t
O'l":1'M~M
J5'
Pi
(f)
.i
..J--A.J ~ t,., 6:- ~..l.,a:\\ :.r- .r=J i~y ~ 1:..,.zJ\ 0..lA ~ "u.J . i
-r1 J&- ~ 01 yo ~..l..<z::.ll &1AJ1 ,.~)l1 :.r- u:J1 1.1A.J . ,.~'YI
J5'
YuL;J:.\ ps--1 J
o!Jl~ ~) ~L. } ~y 1
~
.:...-~ ~.J5"" 01 ~ 01 ~ij~ J\:.. . :;ts:J\ -r)l\ ~ij~ 1"~
(t
(H
J~
(V
()z-ll j) ) ('
<~~~I>
.i
J&-
i\~)l1 ps--i
'i ~
(V
(A
\j~~ ('
. '-' .i
"::"~);-I
('
(Y
. '-' -
(f
04
('\
(0)
..
.i
(J..U.I
J)
. ""':"' JA:.li
."",:",
('
(Y
."",:",0...
(f
' i 4lk-iY'"
(t
. ""':"' ~I.r"
(0
U) U lA
('\
('\)
.J4
JI
."",:", (~ ~jJ
154
ARABIC TEXTS
155
ARABIC TEXTS
~ ~ ~.r.-i" Lo
01-;1
-JS"'
ifL--
0~Z""
-y
ifL-U. J>- b 4A
-04
4.JL.
0\S'"
01.J
o ~)4 ~ ~1 lolA
Y~ll.J
J 4~
~l.,.;
"y
0l:!
'
~'~ ~
04
0
~~ J'i-.J );.J~
..\
\" I
\Y \
\. \\'"
....J.I))
I~
o...\A.J
'~)'J
~I.O.J
~!JA.J JU
...... r--'
4:j1~ (.)~ ~I)::....~\ \t~1 cj" ~i \'1 . ~'~
J-J~I
0
0
rJ:.\;
r J~ o..:.".lk.-
.~* \A~
wJ
\'1J~\
r.J ~~A::....~4
r.5~\
'I
4.--..L4lI ~
;s-<JI
J ~I)::....":J\
v..:..C;.JJ:.I ;S-i q.;A::....1 ..u C:s" 01 t:;i ~~.J ~ti J'i- ~i \..Lot> y.. J
~~ J q.;A::....\ \ Lo ..l:>-i ~~ r A.J r.5~1 4.--..L4l1 U. 4.l:;.1..\11
0
"":"
t,)~I!\~)
(/\
..::...~I);-I
(0
('
. t. f'l~''t:lM
i <'>.J Lo
o
"":"
(\t
(/\)
<.>..*' \ i .~":/I
t. Mn '''":'' ~~)
. i 4i1
oJ -
('
(Y
(r
(t
('
(Y
(r
oJet,t.""":".J
(t
o~i..w
(0
. i ()a..J' Jj)
i lSJLo
('
(V
(~~JI<<~.l.i'"J!L.JS'")
I~
(~)
t.
f'l'~C''t:l M~l:t''t:lM
. "":" r.l
"":" "!.,ro4i
. i <.>1);-1
."":,, ~ ..*'
. i iJ... ('/\
(V)
!.lL..4ll (' 0
0"":,,
(\Y
.,,":,,!.l~ (""
(t
"":" ..r....:.i (~
<.>..*' \ i <.>1);-1 (,.
. "":" -
0"":,, -
'i
lAAlI
(V
(r
. Jaqua
. J terra
(/\
(t
"::"'~~I
(V
,,":,,)1
(/\
(~
'i-("
oiL....:.. ("
(0
. "":" .~ (\Y
o
. i iJ... (~
t-a..l>i (,.
"":"
('
~ , ~~
(Y
('
. i (J..lJ.1
(,
(0
"":"
..
~)
(,r
. i iJ...
('0
. i (~I!:~)
("
156
ARABIC TEXTS
~'.'.: II
\..
""li~
iJ:":'
J ''I
,,-:,,)kl\
L__
u---
) kll ~Y
" \
~Y ,o4~1
~ 4::.)/ Yl" X~
yy
0~.J ~i ~ ~
~ J..t:l:-I ~~ ~
. X~
~ ~ t.:.~\ 01.J 4::.li .~I
'r
*.J~
YI
c::-
.,-:-, ~ (n
~
t. -
. r ,)..P-:' (n
~ r fl~1 (T\"
(\ .)
J! to JS"') ("
.t. - ( t."";'."..
4I...J:-4JJ JI ~. ~ ~ to JS"') (\ T
~ r "::"~4-*1
(T
"::"4';:1:-1
(\"
.J -
(\0
.r ; J fit ~ t. l"'1ll':V~M
. J fit ~ t. M~:V'
.t. "n'~pM ~ '-:-' 4;,) It ~ r <li..ult
':' J fit ~ t. M~:V~~
. J utile
(1
. '-:-' -
("
(0
perficitur~,-:-,~~r~ (\V
('
.J
(V
.,-:-, - (\/\
(/\
(~
rl
y.. , ~~i
..:,,\..-..l4l1 ~
.#'
(-I~ .,j~
;>'1\
d\;.}\ ~ I~
J
J
r-W
. r ()a-ll J)
~'-:-'
. J oportet
J ,~~ ~
. r (~~I
(\
.r
[J; Vf
y..
~~
JI ,-:-,#1. ~
.,-:-, -
':' t. c'p!mM
J.>.)/ ~! .~\'I
J ,. ~k.,.a; U,
J ~ J l"..:" Y):-\ ct: \Y~
~, "~ JI ..:,,\..-..l4l1
.~
- .~I,
Pi
4-!
0i J1 .~\'4
4.o-'A.l,
157
ARABIC TEXTS
~I
.J
(\~
r ~I (T'
perfeetione
~
. J non oportet (\
. r I.1AJ
(V
,.,'C:t.,~
(/\
. '-:-' ;r
(~
~'-:-'~ ~ r ~ (\T
'-
. t. ,.,at:1r"~
. J ut (\.
r ~ ("
. J oportet ~ t. ,.,'CK' (\ T
. J sentiamus (\ \"
. J indigemus (\ 1
. J faeere ~ t. n'''ll'ol' (\ 0
. t. l~n;"=
~ r ~4'?-
("
.t.-
(W
.J diceremus ~ t. "=at~ ~ r Ji (\ /\
. '-:-' ,)I..l.;\ (\~
.r
..::..4;1:-1
(\\"
(\\)
~t.
~ '-:-' ..,-1a..ai
. J indigebimus
(\
t. n""~:v
(T
.t.-
(\"
t '.,'CZ"
(1
. r ~.,..LI
(0
,.,'C:t~
. J faeere ~
. J indiget
.,-:-,
~-*\
('
158
ARABIC TEXTS
.YT~~IYY ~
e
.
~ ~
,o..L-A.J
.
. i-JAj I.S""
Y\t>? ~ T'~I o~ ~~
<y!..wdl
~~\ uL:..ill1 ~
c.tt . n"
: ~I;..,.,i
<./' \..
'L# ~~ ~ ~I
. ~~ "~..u!Jl' ~.l
0i
if.' \j"j.;;;
~ A~, ~ -0iA
..c.
<./' \..
,
<, >
y..
,.~I T'J+-;
~~ 0i ~ if C:l:...all
~'}.>. ~,;
IV
~I
.l 'If'~
0
<i>
J \..
T\;.Ll~ 0~J~1 ~
<t>
I.f...l
<y>
<,-:,,>
<./' \..
,vlA)a;.l
1.f...J
r-";S""i ~
~~ 0i ~ if ~1:.....aJ1 ~i ,,~
1"'-4(.l
T"
y..
<,-:,,>
,~l:...all ~i
-.
i...l..4;:..
. r-";S""i ~
<2
J..c.,.
..J':f'
y.. , J"'~
J.
<f>
.~ ..l>~
~~I I.f...l
,.Ic-ll -0i J~
oJ ~
, J~I ~,;
,IA-,,!y
. 4"'.?
o-4-i .'"
OJ"''''''
0('"'")11
159
ARABIC TEXTS
.t
C~"~:P'
(V
t C","OMn
M~mm
("
.J
.~
o~.;:...~,(y
~ ~
t;.-..::-r
.s~ (y,
(~
oJ -
.r
p~Mn'C
.,n'"
~lJI ('0
~ ~I (T"
.J -
(T~
t -
(f-
. i ..>~\
(f'
('
~n'Nnm ~ ~
. Jregionarum \ t
nT' (T
tC'?lll
'i o~ 0"
~ J)\.~
(t
~ rL.'1\
(0
- ~i
('\
,,~
t. ;:ll:N ~~N
N~,mn
c.:r..J:
"I...L-"llt (ft
t. -
(W
('"
i ~
i jlaJ-l
~ J...\J.4
(y-
~ ..l.~1
(Tf
(ff
(T\
(TT
. J labores ~ i ~y'1l (T t
oJ inimico
o
(\'\
i 1;::..4.-11 (\ ~
oJ amico
'P~Mn
~t-~~.J(""
JI tjS"l rf ~ L.~) (H
,~ - (<< ~ .JI If;l..ll
oJ, t
\.lA
('
("")
.i
. t+J1
(\T)
. J inquirat
. J illius universalitas (T Y
commendatio studiosorum
. ~ ~.ll~'
<i>
(f O
~ ..>L,.; (f'\
~ i .;:....)IJ,.I
; ~ 'i ..>..c..
,
(To
(T'\
~ ~li (TV
160
ARABIC TEXTS
J. ;(j
[.JAr ~] ~i
. lA)L.
u\$'" ~1 ,uL;ls'"
I~.J~
if
C~ ~i ~ ~I
if
l"~(~
&
Yuq):.1
J ..b:-y
l..:il
\.c.:i
'0
1,;..\1
...
t~ ~
,~\:...,all o..k J ~ l"~ ~ l!~ ~I
.!.l.l.i.S'.J . o..b-~ 01.+<'; u\$'" ~1 ~lJ,:1 J J>b .J+i r)l Gb . ':/~
J J>b rJ
\t
r"'tmt~
(V
. O>'M~
(A
('
.t1"'CM mlM
(\
. J in enuntiatione
(T
'-:' oW \
. '-:' , f (Y'V
':")L,.; (t \
(H)
i \:..II u.~ (t
. i 4r.,i (0
.J - ('
.J~.. (Y'~
~)J~
(\
. '-:' ':"~I.hl
(T
.i
. J latentes
. '-:' ' i
(~
(Y'
yJ :~) ~l4I.l
(t
i ~J
(0
~li
'J.a.4l1 Gb . yo L.
~;.
if u:J4
,-J.J-I
44!Ji
Gi ."
~ 0!.#' ~ iJ~'
~ ~I yo l. ~
II - J~
11"(---;'
~li '~.rJ1
O..b-~J
Gb . 'ilbJ
&
&
J I '.JlS"" .)JJ.J-I ~ ~
. J - (Y'A
(\ 0)
. '-:'
161
ARABIC TEXTS
(")
'-'
.J
i l.k
(\
(T
.~
:C'.
(\
J-
(T
(Y'
(\V)
. '-:' 4:tts""
'4A
~,m~"
\'-:' '
u.~
(t
J i ~i J~\
(0
('
. t 1:1 '03
.J -
(Y'
J -
(V
i l.k
(t
'i""
(A
. '-:'
J~
(0
(A
1:1'"
(~
.t
.t-
J - (~
\ '-:' .s..ul (\
t-(\\
\'-:'
. '-:' ~y (\T
'i i~i ("f. (\ Y'
162
ARABIC TEXTS
ARABIC TEXTS
j .,p)ll H~
d \:.;:-)1 \ if
4..lJ:.\
o.lA if ~~ I.e ~
4..lJ:. 1 ~L4l\
~.,~ 0P 0i ~., , ~\
. r
.
..
..
bl <L,I ~~.1 . J~::ll if ~I YI-4! ~~ d" I.e ~ if ~\
.j U'*!\ ~.,J.:LI ~.1 'J-~ ~I t.s..i~\ J;- ~~ u.b:.f
~...
;.;sf
v~ 0P 0i J=.Col.1 ' ~I if tA~ } i wJ.:L1 ~ J=., ~I if tA~ [.1At ~].,i ..Jojtll ~ JW), J-.:Ull ~ ~.1J.:L\ ..b-i
,.
~
~
~
~
~
f ~
JI~ ~..b- \~\ \+~ ~ 0\ yo., .sri ~ J;- A\~I u.b:. .11
W
'"
J ' ~\
II
-:.J WI
~)all'i ~ ,o0P 0i
J=.- '
. J uno
(~
. i "':'i~1 ( "
. J ponamus ~ i ~ ('Y
t.
001"l'l (' f
. J illorarum
.J -
('1
(J-oU,1
J=.-
L;tA~JI
n.s~1 J;-
jJ-4
i] ~1.,
~~L4l1 ~.1.ri' ifH ~~}.1 tY'~~ {.cJ.1 . JI..il\ jJ-4 ':1., ~kll
;;'" ~ J,a". ~i ~\;;S'" to.j ..kA.... ~i dl:J\ if ~ W;} H~tA)1
. i:J..b- ~ \.4.. 4.W.:L1 . tv if.1 . L;tA'l
~ ~ L4l1 ti......o'J~.
. i oJf
. J propositionibus
'i o~
.i -
~)zll ~ 0~ 0i
olr, JI
-;
amborarum
163
D "'"
J! \.. JS')
(\V
J ' ~\&. ~I
. J unius
...I.>~ ('A
(f
'-:' ~I
(t
(oJ.?'"")
(0
. ' ,,-
.i
('
(Y
i ')J..l:L1
('\
.J,t.-
(V
. J semper
(A
(fY
(ff
. t"ll'N~' (ft
t.
'~~;l"l ~ i ~..lS'
. J processerimus
J combinationibus (f'\
(f O
t. -
(fV
. t. nNT~ ~ i olA
t. ,::l"l"l ~ i ..;WI
(fA
(f~
'i 0t....,..1 (t
. J servant ~ '-:' ' i ~ (t,
t.
~4 (y
t. ' '-:' -
i ,-:,.."...ill (' ~
'-:'
~ '-:'
om'l'lll'
(Y\
~ (n
J proportionetur
. i JI (Yf
. J alterius illorum ( yt
o
. J ponamus
o
t. 'OM'I
JI dL.~,.~rl D
o
J -
'-:' ~ (yo
~ '-:' ~j (Y,\
J! \.. JS')
"'"
(<<
...\=ll
(YV
4.:-i D
~I (ty
. '-:' J
(YA
. J assimilationis ( t f
i - (tt
i (O)'~4)
'i ~i ~~I
(Y~
'-:'
. '-:' "'" ( t 0
oJ o
'-:'
(t'\
.J"'J ( t V
J! \.. JS')
JI ..l:LI "'"
~ , ~\&. 4.:-i ~~I
.i
(J-oIJ,I
(f'
(f'
164
ARABIC TEXTS
o \:..pi if fi ~ ~J ., ~
JI ~.)~, ~\..-..lAlI if c...Al;~ <,?..ul > ~\ ~J. ~I J.J\i~4
~ ~ ~ . '~ ~ JI ~\ if -ri ~ J ~\~ ~
..
.. ..
til
_,
~i ~I I~
\;b . -~
J r...~
~i t.o)
-A
~I~
C.b . -J~
r..,..~\; C.i . -~ ~i ~
if .;~ ,?.llli
0"';
~ 'y'i
~ ~ o~ L..J
1..4l1 if.'J
~ H,.;
i
~
~
0
".AI
I.:>
-J~
O;J/
.
4A 'w.;.
Y0\S"
J ~..L.,a;:!1
oW ,?..ul )..l4l1
I~; . .,.
0\S"
~ ..l>!,J1 ~~I
,r-0i
0~ 0i
t.. \
(\ ~)
(~
i - (\
i - ("
~)
'-:'
(\
i li~.f
. i JiS"
. i "",t1L-.tJ
. J verborum ~ i 41::i
t.. "'l:lllt~
(0
(Y
('\
jf
(\
(Y
~~'1\
(~
quod
i -
(t
(t
~~mllt'\
. t.. :l'lllM
(~
nos autem
. J dieimus
. t..- ~ '-:' ' i ~~
L. B iJ.Ps ~t ',.r..J) ~ L.
(\
(\
(Y\)
oJ -
'lA'\ (Y
i "::'
~
(Yo)
o
'-:'
t.. 'IllEl~M
'A~
I~LJI
.
lJ
1__
~'"J
()a..ll Jj , j B .J) ~
"0\.::..-..lAl1
. ~'"J
0
(.S.;,;.,.,a)1
J ~~l o~
J~i
I~\...~ ~1.:.."aJ1 o~ ~ I~
I~i
lJ
-u~
-.
.J:I
{.V""
c::.~
';1I ~l.,.::.)1 ~~
.i -
~.J ((
c::.
~b
~I
. Y0..l>\
i -..l> J i Yo
if
'JJ
. ~\
YA~J j-JLJI
. i ~~
. i ..:..YlAJ.
(\V
~ '-:' ~ (\ A
.:r- .}.
L.
JS') (' ~
.,-:, -(<<~~~
. J modum instituit (Y
'i ~ (Y\
. J sicut (H
. i .11;~1~ (T~
..I>~J ..I>~ ~
~ (U
. '":"' 'i
I~ (Y '\
J~ (TV
.~J~~)a..lIJjo.iA) (YA
.i
()a..l' ~~
YV
JL~
(0
('\
(V
(A
J - 'i ('1J i
. '-:' J-! ~ i
(A
\Y0~lA:1.\
'?1'r
(V
oJ putatur in anima
i] '~\..-..l4l1 o~ if
. '-:'
.,''Ill''Ill
[JVV
.#'
'\.:r.j;l:.::l.1 J~I
t'
4,.-..lA1.\ J1
~ nl~
<,.\p~' >
165
ARABIC TEXTS
)a..l'
Jr-i
WS::~ I-Ulb)
(~
(<<~')
..:..L;..l4.. ..:..L....L4l.\ (\
'i
.i
'-:'
("
(' Y
(\ ~
0!J;t:::.l1 (\ t
J et eveniet (' 0
~ ...... ~l::ll ~ i L.4il::l1 (\'\
.J dialectica ~ t.. n,''l:l,n
ARABIC TEXTS
166
~\;,.,.zJ' oolA
Y"
.:./1.:..
\..~.1l!J . ~I
y~ - r..r.~-.E. l.?-\1 "'\.pll
__
- 'Y'J
tJI~W\Y~
'Y'J
. '-:' (O)-~)
.ill
crr
. J manifestioris (,..t
. J , t' '-:' - ("'0
J..l:L-1 t.J'
. .Y'o
.,
'-:' -
. '-:'
~~
(Y ..
(,..
. J propositionibus (""
. i v4~1 ("'Y
o~ L. )..u..
~t ~t o~
c::-
~I ~1
J.J
4~1
L. l"~I..u..
-; ~~
L.
. -J2l1 yo L. ~
jAil;
Yli,)-~ "u.J
~ ~1.J .,
,~...\...dl ~
YO.J . t~~1
. O~~ lA.J""";
. t' "':" -
"J
(t
':>!p
~ "':" oyf "':") 'Y
(Y)
".,:1 <j~~>
JS'"ji
jT~ l;'''~
~J
''1;)7'
,n,'T
'i~Ii;"''Y1
(\
. i J!JIi)r1
i iJW'Y1)
(Y
(r
.J
.J -
(\
(Y
tn,~,'C~.::l
.i
':"I~I
(t
.J -
(0
. i (O)~)
(.i
(\)
(\
(Y
(r
171
ARABIC TEXTS
170
ARABIC TEXTS
-0~ ~I : ~ J~
J"J
r+-"
JI:..
...\>-~ )u,i
~ ~ : 'Y~ J~ Ji '~4 ~
. ~ 0J~~
.1~J... '~ ~~\
:r
, ~ ~\i' ~I "t".>\t
L: ....; .. ~ J ~.15"""J ' ' "(I I.15"""J 1.15"""
..Ii
.)1J .\"'
-f ':Jji W J4:.U
J..,AlI J1 ~.) ~ ~
l../'J ' ~ :r ~ 0~ 0i
'J~Jli~1 :r .:.r;..i~1
y - ~i 4.5" oJ... ..:..;\5" .)1 ' ;:;. ~I ~~I
"
. ~4 1. ~ ;s--i
<~,>
Ji :r
(t)
.r
. '-:'
argumentatio-
n'~:n:l
('
. J nes
J!L..
(Y
;s--~;s--i
(\"'
. '-:' &
(oJ"}:..)
.r
. J concludunt
""n ~ '-:'
'r
(0
('
.r 1J')U
~ r~::"
(V
.r -
(A
. J sed
(~
t..
.r c!JJ
. '-:' -
(t
(V
(A
.r (O)~)
.r I~~
(\Y
.r
(Ja-ll Jj)
->.r\
(Y
(Y
'-:' 0)-"""
('"
. J concludunt
(Y
'-:' OJJ~
(t
.r (,b-JI Jj)
('"
..:..l:..IAl.1
JJ'11 ~I ~..:..VSJ~)
.r (OJ~ t.:..;..
(0
.r \j '1
.r ~J\l.I
(H"
r J-=-i (\
.sA'
negligunt ~
('
(V
(A
("
('Y
(' (0)
t ';pm:1 ~ '-:' - (t
.J
. t ,.,0\"1'" ("
. t' r - ('
t.. ''':1~'''G' ~ '-:' - ~ r J~ (V
. J observunt
.r -
'-:' t...:il (,
("')
("
. t np;n'G'~ ~ r u..l>\ (~
("
(\,
.r
. ,-:,.l>~ (~
~~
. J nominis
. '-:' -
<~\Al' )~>
v4.>-J
.r
to
~.ilJ
.r tJil
r j...ai
(A
(~
(,
("
. J rhetoricorum (' Y
'r\il ('(')
172
ARABIC TEXTS
Yw
r \~
\~
->.;A...<zJ1 (j~ ~
(ji 1~L,.; 'w~~
[.1; VA
'"
~ ~i ':? 111
JoJ J-o
c:!'r
\\ t>,)~
\.
~~
~~
~I
i.,?1!>
\0($
~\;;;\O
~.\l~ c:. ~~
. ~i ~~
1J
.,:.,~t-;J\ t?;i
'"
.,..
y"
..
~\::S""
J 0-~
t~
l.</
(H"
(H
JI
~\
~I ~J~~
..::.Jl5"
~r (j~ ~
J>.YJ
\.iIl>
c..1\
y:::
i0~
(0
('
. '"':" 4:t (Y
. i .:"l,.'..l4tl
~ t. l'"I';'r'l~ ~ i c:\;:i~1 r~
(\"
(t
. J rem in conc1usione
\0
J .
\.iIl>
(0
'i 0~
('
~1..l>1
(V
(A
J.:;...f..
'i~
. '"':" 4:t
O)J~
.::;
ViJ ),
~ ~I ~~ ~ i
jA
\.~
.AI
J~
} \II",JI; } i...LQ..
'"
\V
~-
'ki.
W,. ~I ~~i
.u;
y,. J
~4
,(j~~ ~)I
. J - ~ i (o.J~) (y.
. J - (Y\
4i~
(n
. t. M~"'~M ,'"':"p'
. t. l'"I~m"m M~m,"m
''"':'' J (Y"\
. '"':" ~t...
(A
'i Jl;
...... .;;1 ~
(\
t...)
('
(.;1' ("
t. ,~ ~'T)'''m~
~ i ~ (' \"
.,",:"
(\)
('
(V
. J subtrahemus
. '"':" ..b:1rJ1 (H
. '"':" - (Y"
. i J-il
('
. J coniunctio
(H
(yo
(~l1\ ;j , 4..a..~)
. '"':" ' i (~ ~~
. J putet (Y\"
tp~ ("
.:,,~~) (\Y
. J - (<<0~
.i
,,",:,,~l (YV
.i
01 ~ <f ~
,.
\..
(\
\t .1
, .....
.,",:" -
. '"':"
(\"
. i 4:t
tJA.
I,
I.:..
.,
(Y
(t
~ JI; }
jA
~\~
"Jji W<;J
. '"':" J.:;.,j ~
.,",:" -
~I \.~c5- ~i 'lJ ~ ~I
t:.jJ1
..~ 11
~
C. -12 ~ . li-4\.io
(")
l..:...j
4-:;t
. J signa
.i
~i
II!JO
''"':'"
('
I-.~
(V)
;j 0~ ~I 0.1.-. ~~s')
. (':"lk~1
.J -
~ ~ji
I,
~ \tA...:.A..
\.If>.).t""
"
~ J~
~-,..li'J . ~
',('
~
u~, 4.-A:.~
~ (jt
1.:...,
: \~fJ\ u~~L4l\
J~\ 1-.1 . ~~ - [JAV~] i...lA;
"1>
<U,)
w<;J
)!;..J\
. .?ll
'ii
'.:r;::.........- II 1J>.y u ~\
-I ~ .
.,:.,.b:-f
".)Ic,.;)f~ \~ c..~
J ~ u~ \..
\Y
J ~":"r
"
~ I"
if
JI:lI ~I
,v
(.1
173
ARABIC TEXTS
- ('0
174
ARABIC TEXTS
175
ARABIC TEXTS
~lj t~..l>~
VI ...
""Y'
[J;y"
s:, '-'. t; JI ~
'-'.)-'.
JJAlI \.lAJ
I>
~~ ~i ~~J '
J:!; JJ" ;J.:~<:...II
<S.
(.1 .''''
,-:"..r2l\
~\;;;I
J )fJ
~0~
\.:... ..I..,Q.j
~I ~~ ~i ~
. wUI
"-rv.
II C
~ ,~)I
~i I:.fA ~I ~J~ ~i
(--4i
t.1:.i\
J..!.. ,r:h
~ ~ w( J ,~111 ts,)4
c:!'r ~
,,~~
t ' ~~~ JJ ~
:~I dl:i
c.)
'J . \t
(t
(0
. i I.i!-UI
('
<-;~!
(V
J -
y.J ~) Abualmaphal
I t.
.J
'i
(~
,)\.)1
(T
(r
'i ~
(\
.i
(\
(T
(t
(\.)
(A
(\ T)
. '-:' <-;.;JI
(r
It.
1,-:, ~
. J insinuetur
. i J.a=;)'1
(T
.t.-
(t
l'CtlO'l'll)
(r
(\\)
(r
....... -
(\
. t. 'O~M Ollt (T
J),
. <-;
. '-:' ' i
.,-:, 'i
....... - Ii
I..+--
(t
(0
u.
(V
Ii JS" ('
. J ambas
Accipiamus itaque
. '-:' (~ ~.J ~) ~
. i ( IJ"A. Jj ~~ ~)
(A
'r.
(\
(\
. <-;
. J - (\.
(\
( \r)
( \t)
.,-:, -
. J Notemus I......
.J,t.''-:'- (\
. J subtrahemus (T
(\
(T
J'
~'.
,j"
J. lA JS')
(r
176
ARABIC TEXTS
-JS'
~1
'ILl--
0~;::>-
-JS'0
. ~l:J1 ~\
, ti....l..>-
0W1
-JS'
. ( 0~
'{'~
"
. J ~U.l~
.'0
..r:~ ill\
<~\Al' . ,)~>
1.1A
0y
177
ARABIC TEXTS
'Y ..l.iJ
4t,)L,.:. }
ts,)~ J ~~
if
4A
.b:.j;
.la,i''''.;'
~itl ts,)~. .j ? i .ui
'i I ~
; YJ~
J"Y,) .b:.Y
-~b
\.. ~ J~"Y..ll1
\..
I",
t L.:lI
(\V)
~
.r Jp cllJ5J
t.. m'D,p'PM ~ r 4:..lA!.1
(\
..l:.&-
J .:....i.l:1\
0~ 01.1AJ . ~l:l\
,~ I'.b:.y
~~
(Y
"",t..-
. J praemissa
. J facta
r .:,,')\...,,::..}.I
..... ~I
.r \...r.i
. J exactis
. '-:" iJ...
et quae non ~ '-:" iJj::l~
. J sint
('\
. t.. 'P'M
~ '-:" ~;lAlI
.r Jf~,)
t..
.,-:"
(0
('\
('\
(V
(A
'-:"
. J Signorum
. '-:" II
(\
(~
(\.
r;(\\
( \ '\)
. '-:"
(0
.J ~
(\0)
('"
(t
JS"y
(\
. '-:" I~t:.. (H
. i .:,,\..",)lA!.1
(Y
~y ~
(V
.,-:,,~I
(A
.r
~l;.,~
('"
(t
'-:" Ijo...a!I
(0
~] f"~
\....lA! I
(t
(0
., A
.r iJ... O
('\
I o.1AJ
t~U'i1 '{'\j.b:.is"
. J Rhetorica
..;11
L..: j1 ~~ ~i ':11 ,~
J ~~ if' ~ if J.>.Y 1...:;1 4~1 .. ..:..\..-..illl -0i LS"" ',-? 11'
,":"'Y.,,~ ~Ui J1 ~ J!LlI '-?111ts,)~ J .;' ~~~ . .b.4; ~,
"'.~i "J1J ' I'J!WI 1$111 ts,)~ J Qs' .1,:,y ,,:,,\,,-..lL. if'J
i./'
J ~*.
LS""J . ~I
'-?111 ts,)~ J
.r
.r .:,,\..'..llo
.r
(~
IJ,I J ,t,a..\&. ~I
~.
. 4..A..)
".J ( \\
(\ Y
(\ '"
(\A)
(\
(~"j:...) (\t
'-:"
J~l
(Y
'-:" l;J.>.ti
('"
~~I
(t
4.:..llo (\
.r
178
ARABIC TEXTS
'~J (. :JU:zW1
J.,
~S::.J.~ ,;~~I ~ ~~
-:"i 1"~
.P ' ;S--~I
... c.
Y4)J~1
~ ~I
,"
J
J
{.)1l1
0-.)1.\.\
4~J.rZl1
i] {.)1l1 J
:J",s:,; JI u~",~1 I C.i . l>J\~11
,
JI
[.t Ao
C.1 . tJ.,1.t
.,....
J:l?
oil"
.. _ ,
..
, ~Jl-il'
J~; -~
.J
-~ -:Ji
~ ~U\
>t
r"~
W{.)111
J\
i ft.il
~ "U ~ ~\ 1.lA
'~J
JI
:Jlt
t :J~)
t.~
: IAI:J",; ~ '~Jl-ill ~
~
:J';l ."...;, Y. ~ f~';:> ~\.-'\
(f.:'
0
'"
..
IY
-A
~.1l1
",II>J
,Jj~1 ~I
u..J
J~~...lll c.~
~I
10 ~
179
ARABIC TEXTS
"
toJy;,
O.)")~
1"~ Y
rAJ I)
~J' C")l..lI
-
A-
: c::;-' ~ ~o c.>~
Luna auget suum lumen
paulatim secundum lunarem figuram ipsa itaque
oJ (est spherica
t..
('
. i 0;-'.riJ1 (Y
i~ (r
(t
(0
(V
.,,:",~
(A
q~~'CM' t'1,~.,n
(\
'"
lA \;1:'"
, t..
,:z.,llt n''C,n
. J suae terrae
(t
. ":"' ,?jJl
(0
i:J~ ,. i .>~
":"' ':? jJ\
('
('
-~t
;\;1:,..)
.t.. C:lO,'C
(V
(A
(\
i (J..-l.l.1
....... JS"
( ,
i ~ ("
.J - (\Y
. J arma
moenia
J~
'0..>",.,
~\
J 4..>J.rZl1 {.)Il\ tJ
~~ -J\...ll~
,
JI;l\
~Jl-ill
J.)
0 -
[J A\
jJ;'"
(yo)
.i -
("
... .,rAIl
4\ oJ." ..:...<-:)-,)
r] , J..wl
.? o:J.\
{.) 11I
'U"'; ~
.i -
i ~~I
.,,:",~
: I I:J"'; ~
('
(Y
. i L..Jb
('
(Y
(r
oJ dicendo (t
. J percussit (0
oi \J." ib yJl ('
tf ~1 ol.-A ~ ..:...<-:)-,)
:r:;.-4' J}:- ~o (I \J." ))JI ~-'))
et obviam factus est ei
ipse inimicus: significans
autem injuriam est hic
.J (actus
.i ()a.-ll Jj ( Jl I) .}J-,) <J~
JrJ ( 1I ~)) .}J-,) O;y
(V
, t..'~
oJ-
(n)
(' \)
o":"' -'~
0,,:", 0;.".... , i ~
oi (';"'l.l.I.)
. J n:cere
enses et ,
II :
C.1
: u\..")W1
utitur
, t..
(\Y
~~ (H"
M~,~nt'1 M'll'" ('1
oJ versutia
.,,:", 0 ......
('0
~\r~ ('
(yo
oi ()a.-ll
. i - ('
or .)~I (H
. J primi (yr
180
ARABIC TEXTS
i'".;
..;:.J,b.:.f
o 0-.)\1\ 0..L.
J J'
:
."'~I o~~
\;
Ji
~~I J~I
,4).J~1 0-.)\11
~ .~)1~ '01..jl
J~
0\S'1.. C.i
J 0..L.
~ JI
~\.4....1
~ .~)11 -0)1 ~I (~
L.1
J '~
JI C.1
~\ 4./"
"'.1\.4....1 J
'rW
-iJi ~~J
0i if-2.J .r,",
~l..')\&. 4./" ~ ~ }
o~ ~ ~l..-..ill\ ,b.:.j; JI t~~)1\ -0)1 , 4:S..l .,i 4-'J~ {.)l..
oJ dicere
. J philosophi
. J studiosi ~ '-:' ~ Ii
J philosophus
. J studiosus
\ .
'i ~
o
('\
o,-:,~.hl ~ i(~J.r~1
(A
(Yr)
. '-:'
(J-.oIJ,\
~.;..
(,
. '-:' -
(r
(Y
,t,4,.\&;)
(t
.J , t i t'WI
sicut, exempli gratia
(t
J,t''-:'
.,i 4-,~~
o4Xi 4:S..l
4./"
J ~.) ~UI
If .U""b:- ~y U
.t
M-al,n ('A
.i
IJ.. ('"
(Y'
. '-:' J-&.J -
(Y \
(yt)
o
~L,..
('
~t.
(Y
u:~l:..,.all
(r
i ~
(t
'-:'
0i
o
(r
o
i
'-:'
'
'i '+.:i
(0
J judicant
('\
~~
yt
(~i"l~ W1
'-:' (,J"'!.1A1.1
,-altlnm'l (' t
J l+:i
J JJ..$I -0i
Y\
(n)
. '-:' iJL.j
~I "I G1
. i - (,r
'i iJ~ (H
. '-:' ~.hl ~ i ~lj-I (' 0
(Y
'-:'
oJ sciamus ('
o
J'
J J~\'.)J
(0
(V
~\j
. J~I
}\c.,al\ ~l..-..ill 4:;\~ ..::..-~ 4.-.411 0..L. -0i
181
ARABIC TEXTS
.i
i W1J
('\
(V
J ,t,4,.\&;)
(A
Om'tlm
(J-.olkl
(0
l'l~ ''IM'I~
.t
,~I
. '-:' ~I ( ..
0i iJ~ (,.
o
-.>.l>I ( "
. t'l'C ("1'
(' r
182
ARABIC TEXTS
,\~~
J J~\
.? ~~J~I \0J.:,,:.~
c..i . ~JJ.ri' ~i
J '.)~J ~~ ~ j,'A 0i
.Ai
"ls.)4 ~ :l~ ~i
\V0J~ 0i ~ "WI 0i ~~ if ~ , ~ ~i
. ~I
"&
~i if ,,~
oR
\..ll.)~J ~ ~
-
-JS'
,,~\j
&
J&- ~JJ~I
c.
',:r.
.JIbJ
.,
4,j\
J.:,,:.i
\'\.fI A
',?~1I
yf:- if
J-:>-~
&.,
183
ARABIC TEXTS
4....,j1
Jp , C:s""
~ J1
C;.!i
YV.}JJplji
0.,,1~i
Y'l4..,Qj1:.,.
!JJoM
J J:i
I.e .. ~ 'YJ ))
.<LII"\I,~
r~..l+
~) .AiJ . yo
rS'
.jl:."",i v
JJAlI 1..iA if ~
J&- ~I {.)\1.1 tY 0P 0i l!
..w . ',?JWlI J&- JI 'I J ~\5"' 1';1
. {.)\1.), 'OJ J..al l ~ tY )\c,.2l1
t c.t~
0
C:s"" \ II
~I n \:l. ',?.ill J~\ 0\5"' 01J ' ~ J~\ ul.)~1 J.l; Y\~
: YV.}JJplji ~ Jli ~
JWlI
Y~ 0i ~ : .jl:.....,i J~), . \J~\
~ ~} ~I
'Ip 0i o~:"J
J JJ~I
J o.)~J 0\5"'
~J
J Jr
J&-
~r
J J~
.)~J~
. i \..
.J
(Y'
qui vero (Y\
.i
(~U.I ~ ,~~)
(V
~~ ~I:..,..
("
.i
~.l,:.Y.
. ~ ~ (n
.~
J:i JI
~l:-ll (yr
'11 D If ~ \..
.t 'i
.1$')
(<<
'i
-.?.JJ~ (Yo
~ .l,:.~
(n
. J notae divulgatae ~ t
.~ -
.J
. J Scitur (Y"
. i iJ."blii (Y\
. J Scitam (r
. i o~ (r\
.~
4--J . v~
~ .l,:.~
'->,)~
~i if ~ ~i "WI
\. }
'Ip 0i
J&-
~~) J~ .)~J~
(\
(\Y
,~~) (\r
. i ()L.J' Jj
0i
('iu, (\.
~ .l,:.Y. (\\
(H
,\P
. (S:U'
. J enuntiemus , t ~,~;,~
. i .j.r\ ~
. i j\
(Y
.~tr~i\..0'"
(\
(r
.J -
(Y
.~ ~
(0
. i ()L.Jl Jj)
'i ~ ('
. ~ 4A::.. (V
. i ~ ("
.t '
('
. J quod sunt
(V
(\ t
(\ 0
J (\'
~ iJ~ (W
. ~ ~i ('"
. ~ - ('\
(YO)
(t
. i (o.J~)
(r
~WI
(t
(0
. ~ t""';.,...u (\
.t
. i (o.J~) (\
it""';)' (\\
N;"~;' ~ ~ ,
(n)
('
184
u.,.;}\ ~
\1" J~'
J~' ~
"*J ~IS'"
1~1
'~~}
\Y ~).I l!.U~
-~~ ~ ~(..lll.I :
~ ~
1...:;1
.0"'JS'
~I:J.I
J;o:.\,~
Jft"0
f:LI ~~ ~J .YV
\t (I~
1...:;1
\.Jl..b-i [.1
AY -i]
if
J 41)'1S'" ~..ul yo J
.~I
YJ&-:?~ ~ ~ ~
~!\;l.lJ\~.Y.'::/J .;.>\'I if
. ~I o.l~ if
\0
Y'o~
. t. 1'"'C'''
.i
, '-:'
J.- (Y
()a-ll J})
t.
1:I"~rl'tD'C ~
. '-:' Coi
(t
(Y\)
'-:'
t.
. '-:' Jw'4
(\
(Y
. '-:' ~..1>i
(r
(t
t. "MN:l
(r
(t
M~t"l'lD'CM ~ '-:' ~1
. J solidum
'-:' lJ~
. J sit
. J concludere ~ '-:' l.$}:w
. '-:' o).J,r4l1i
(V
(0
....... o.1>L
(A
~ '-:' ~
(\
(YA>
...A.~J.\..Y~) (\
~)=JI ~
\:.Di
. \V J:i'=lI
";-:..
t.
t. M~n'lD'l:I
-JS"" -~1)1
~
(0
(V
. '-:'
'-:' -
. i '?.,,-II (\ r
~...... .r';II J
. J sit in ahero
J J~~I
(\
(Y
\A
\. ~~A
0& ( Y
(Y
(r
\Y ~~ \\ ~I
. J solidum
. '-:' J'1
(YV)
(\
Wi
"J
~~ .\;-It; 'lJ~ Y\ ~~
" '-:' ~I ~ i
. i "",\All (\\
. J dicenti
(r
L. yo
''-:'~~i~ (H
0';;'"
: I~ \:..li , \"dt:Al1
.. \;-ll))
(r')
.t. N'lD"~M
J);'
~ ~I
185
ARABIC TEXTS
ARABIC TEX'rs
.i
(4..,.i...~)
('\
(A
(\
.,-:, - (\.
nT"MN ~ '-:' ~I ~
i ;._.....::11 (\ \
. J solidatem ~ t. I:I"P'C
equalitatem ~ t. t"l'~C"I'lDnM
~
t. n'p:l,n
(\ Y
~ '11 (\r
. J contrarietatem
(t
(0
('\
,J solidum
'-:' L>~ (\.
yoJ
t.
1:I,i''C t"lT"MN
~ '-:' -
(\ 0
. J soliditas
equalitas et
'-:' -
(\'\
t. r'~n1CMM
(\ V
.J caetera
("';\All Jj"'; ~.J) I:.::AlI (\A
186
ARABIC TEXTS
,yo
IV ~I
[.JAr'
\t ~.r;a;.l\.
Jw'4
, 1"'4):-\ ..:..\..-.illl
Ht:.....\.....:.-l tY'
r~
'1'''' ~
JJ
,. ~ I!..\l~
, 'I'\s?i 0"'; ,:r J -~I ,:r Y'~l ..:..\..-.illl oolA J~i J i:;lSJ4
-~I "-?~ -0~ ~ ,)..uJ\ O,).JJ..~ t,.,~i ~ !JJ~ L..:jl-~I 0\S"" ~1
'I'
.Yt' 44 -Jil~
\:.A if-' .
. \A~.J ~I
i.,?!)1 ts,) 4
Pi
'J ~k.,.; 4
lolA if ~:} ~
'-:t L..:il
~I
.Yt'.J '
~ '1 ,)~J)'\ ~
. J veritatis (Y 0
.r ~ 4:;i ('"
o
'-:'
'-:'
~i
r ~W,
J..4Al1 ~
. '-:' ~4
~
t."nm '0':1'
~ '-:' ~
(YV
(Y"
(YI\
(r\)
(\
. J imaginati sunt
.J
t.
",,:lM'
. '-:' '-4!
(Y
. t. "Z"l'l:llltM
, t. ' '-:' -
(r
(t
Z"l'''~':1Z''lMM'
(0
. J advertentiae
t. C1"~Z"lm'l:lM
~ '-:' .;..~\ (\ \
oJ solida
.r k (\Y
oJ expertae ~ '-:'- ~ r ~ p::ll (\ r
t. ,"lIt:1:1 ~ '-:' ~~4 ~ (\ t
ot.-(\O
o
.J - (<<r~t
: '-:' l:-> (Y'
(Y \
(n
(yr
187
ARABIC TEXTS
,.~
')ij
J 1u ~~ ~ if o~ 0i ~ ~f'1
.~
~UI oolA
. J.tJ:.1
J yo I.J
,~...t.,a;ll
~\::S"" ~ 0~ ~
.jl ~1A;.i\.1>
."
f.
,j->"
.....1.
4:.J\)
<,>
0L..i)'1 '~
,~...t.,a;ll
,.
oJ
o'-:'''~
(V
. '-:' lJ~
.J aliquod quod doceatur
Prout possible est in verificatione audientis affectus, cogens eius verifica.J tionem
.r
'Jl..4i1 (\r
("
(rY)
(V
or
(o.)~)
(\
. J simile et conforme
(Y
. t 'Z"lOMM'I' ~ r ~I
oJ simile et conforme
(r
(t
(rr)
()a..J1 Jj J\
J .1) .;..~
.r
(\
or~
. r ll.:lli
.
(r
o'-:'
(t
(Y
......
(0
o'-:'
('\
188
ARABIC TEXTS
'i lolA.J
[j; 1\ 'r \]
'0 4.1-)
.Ji
Wu
. ~..l..a:ll JI ~W)'I
. t'~~)rl
~ ,y
ttJ~. t1"~1~:r-!J
w -II J.:tl
'r'
~i .;AU; t~i
n;...
y \..r".J:.:J ~
y ..
~ LS"" Yi
"~\i ,Yllo~.J
, ..~.aJ~.J . ~1
, yo ('
1, .wI l.l...,.A,
(J'":'-
~\ ..:..;1$""
I.
<" >
. 1"iwb,+~1 ~.J
<, >
<V>
<1\ >
. t. ,~~~,
. '-:" ':'>4
, t.")
, J declivis
()a..J1 Jj)
'-:" -
(Y~
(",.
(""
.0olA
(,t
~ t.
''-:'' u...I:Cl'
.. . iULCL. (' -.
.,-:"
. J fideiussio
~ t.
J~ (y.
. '-:' 1$ (Y'"
J utitur
~ t.
,":a,l"I
. J perversus ~ t. .,':lM
. J , t.' '-:" -
tv
i ....,:.J ........'...;r-~
J J.JA;
I+-- .#'
";11
J I+--
J ..,-)rl
~.J . ~\b. ~ ~~
.?: ..u
'+~
("'0
.'T~.J
top
i ~ ("''''
t. T1::1pM
. J conciones
et de illis sunt
J>.:li ~I
. ~)\>. ,y
("'Y
i t.1,.;.:-)l1
tll,,~
. ~~I
. J dolore
J.JAlI
~....,"'o
t.1?-)l1
1"1I~;JI
I'
. ~ 1"V --.J;.;JI
.
",",".J
, J purificatio (Y I+.
.~
..I'::""
~ ~. 1"Y
J'....r--->
'$'"
1"0
.i
<t >
,
ty~~
c ~i
t..~.J \.'.
"t"""'
I......~.......r-'
,1'"
J.-
LAS
.
A~
t .....I .
. "'.J4'
~.J
1"'J:..i
189
ARABIC TEXTS
(H
Y
(
(n
. t. "")l"I (YV
~ '-:"
~ (0'
; J detegat
("'t)
.i
',y.J . f"
(.1 '
.;fl"
J'!.JI
('
.,-:" ~
(Y
'-:" .:.>...
(H
.,-:,,~
('"
(t'"
("'0)
o..L...)
('
(..:..lc-:;1I J~ ~lo,)~I.
.,-:" Y:
(H
. '-:" J:';
(to
'-:".$"'"
.,-:"
. J pallescit et erubeseit
. '-:" ' i ~
(Y
. i..1>lJ ('"
(t V
(tl+.
190
ARABIC TEXTS
191
ARABIC TEXTS
J 0~
, oJJ~
10 ~ ItU~
I\"0 ~ \Y ,("t
,~~
JI
(.b
,.~)rl
.....;\.,l\
J-
,y""\
Gb
J ~\ J
It'
.~,)
. i iJ~
(t
oJ universitas
. '-:"' iJj....
(0
. i Ii- ('0
(r,)
oJ immorandum ~
t. i'~Il'l:l~
('
oi
(Y
. i Jil
. J invenimus , i ~
(r
i~
M"t1M m,;p
(0
radieibus ~ t.
legis super attestione legis
oJ
. '-:"' ~UzlI
secta autem, ~ t. M~'1I)n;~
oJ quae Deum cognoscit
o i ~";)'
(t
('
('
(V
(/\
. J lateant ~
(/\
. i (O)~)
(-.
.,-:", ~.
("
J'1
('Y
'-:"' ' i
(,
.J 'i ..u.~
(Y
(r
. J videmus
oJquod fortificetur ~ '-:"'i ~
(t
(-.
(H
JA
oJ aliquo modo
t.~\
0,-:",
t. '~"~OM , i ),.;:...-'
~~ (H
'-:""
(0
i iJA
(1
(V
('
(Y
(r
t. ~rJ~
, '-:"' ...l:$'
(rA)
(V
(rv)
. ,-:",
t. - (/\
'-:"'
-:'
r3 (-.
l.:j! (,
i-
(t
t. ~"M
(0
innumerabilis , t. ,,1l0;
oJ universitas
o
M~M
'-:"'
!,>I ('"
192
ARABIC TEXTS
"uJ .
~ -I' L.
.? ~i "WJ J!
:r
..,J-I
:r
..h.4t ":"I.1J~ ~
J.a-s:
ul..u~ ..:..\....~I ~~ ~i ~I
JWI ~J""" ~ ~ '1 ~I \'1 ' ,,. 0~ <\li , .~ ~b- IJA -0i
'"
, W;
. ":"\ll~ d"\J:1
fabrieatum
;,~~~
~I G~ .'"'~
.J
J; ~I ~~) .r.
.JpenetreH-,-:, ~ ~r(~~
)z-ll
.i
~
(t
(0
r ~ ('\
. '-:' ~
(V
(~~)
(/\
~ '-:'
t'1'1''1t'1;,
.J\;ll
(~
. J legibus
~
O"''1rlC;'
.f'?- '11
'tl)M'1'C;'
j"~';'
('\
. J satam
<"
. J historiis
J,t''-:'-(\\
~J .;..1.1J4 J...d: JI
~ .;..1'; ... .;..L.J-'""<" >D
~I 0..LA ~J\jJ ~l!1
.t
(~
(,.
.r
~ (H
.i
J4 (,r
(r~)
.J , t -
('
L. ;"":"
,....
\t, I"
..s-
.t-
,t J~ t "Wi . ":"lllI~ ~I ~
: !,J\i
4A
0\S'" } ~1i
'
.:f-l
.J - ~
r (O)"'.f,..) J4 (\\
.r
. J historia
. J res divulgate
. t."
'1'''t'1'tl);,m
r f"') (' /\
. J innituntur
l"I'i:lMM (' r
tot, ~ '-:' ~
'1 (H
0
(t)
('0
.r
(~~)
<'
j'C ~ '-:' , f
(r
. '-:' ~I!
(t
. t ''1~'~'1
. '-:' ,.;~
. J historia ~ t ;,.,:lM
. t ..,'tl)tot~'1 ~ ":" o.J
(0
('\
(/\
~...
(~
.r
t-(W
J!
(eJ"'.f,..) (' Y
'1~'l:l'C "i'El~'tl)
'0 ~-.
1.,L..,.i"
..:..G...J.I
......
. .
'0:..AJ1 lJA J~ J ~I G~
l$lll
'-:' ..\:so
.r (~J;:
.t
L. @ ~i J..l.,a.ll 0~
.JY
tot'1;''tl)
. '-:' -
J J:a.~. 4:;1)
L. ,)~ ,.
..;,Jl. U. iJ"
I I!.JJ~ -0i ...11.... ~
,. .J.l>~tl
\ -I-II
If..
v
u "~I
.
)!J J':J"
~
."w
-II
'f"
.;J::!
v:;.
rem sen-
~ ~i
n JAJ <\J
(y
(r
Ji~1
YP
193
ARABIC TEXTS
(Y
(V
194-
ARABIC TEXTS
yo 4
Y\:.r.:.4:1\ .w-. ~ ~i
J ";' :f
yt
J
J
ol-AJ .
1"\ 1.'<".
"t"""
J&-
1"1".,6:.~
I"Y
k;lt . -jail
YOJ '
195
ARABIC TEXTS
4;s--i I"Y
J&-
fi
t~jk~.J UI.\ ~i
I"J\.j1
yo ',?..ill
t.k-)'I
<t.~)'I>
\G1 .n
r.!
W.J . ~~
<~~I ~...J'>
'C:.p~ ~~
"l~i
f)/lj
~ O!.~I
\- J'::"""Y
. II .~ ~i;.u. / J
A.~
(.e"""
J::'-'
,f
(1 ')
. J Statuorum , ~ , J , t.. -
('
(Y
\Y
,f
~ l.t l".:,sJ
Vl.S'
'.J"
~..il'J
r-+~ J~ \Y ':1
. '1(..t>,
.:"lj
,~J~
(f
. J - ('"
(1
.J-'~~'i~ (H
,i
(~~~I
c.i"'-
,~I...\...o
('\
,~~
'i ~ (V
, t.. '1'C , i II (/\
.~ ~
:lM~'C ,~
.Jl:-!I
'r
(\
.Jl:-!I (,.
. J consuetudine , t..
,~0J..lA:.U ( "
I?
, t.. .,~o
(0
t.k-)'I
"0...l4::N
ili~1
!J
'
,~
(Yf
, t..
l:l'l~olt''O'Il)'1M
, t..
l"li":"~~"
'i0!('f
(H
'i i ')\...1
. J Mauros
, ~ ~~)1 (' 0
. J Amazonides
Jli ) ,y ~ ~I o.k) (\'\
o.k .AA:J J-oill .) (I t..to-:~I ))
JI
:~!~~~J~I.)~I
~I
..u
~I '0i .!.U~J ))
t..~'i l ))
(f'
(f'
(~ LS"" ~l"li'j1
~ j,~ (Y\
(fY
(f.f
. ~~ (f1
("
, ~ ~)::ll.) (' Y
(Y1
(yo
(H)
at..~)),y~ ;'1...J:.1 o.k .::J:)
~J
. i 4=;i (\V
. t..- ('/\
('
:~;f~a~4))JI
(Y
i..;..z;1
(f
i ~If
. t.. ":'1l:~''Il)
. t.. ..'Il) .,.,~,~.,
. t.. '~"::l'll)'C1tJ , ~
. t.. ~MPl"l
at.. to-:~I))JI (I~)),y J! L. JS")
t..~ 'i l )) t.. .)J) 'i (J--Ill')
.) LS"" 1"~i'M ~ ;.;..,;..
. t.. (Y r-i.J ~lJ.1
. t.. ."El::l" , ~)~
.,~~ , ~ - Y.' ~ i - 0!1
(1
~ JlA;\ ,
(0
('I
(V
(/\
(\
(,
196
ARABIC TEXTS
197
ARABIC TEXTS
<'i..bdl)
l",:?~\
~ ~i v($)
iJ~
,\~.~11 (.1.t\"
..w
J'
II~ . ?I ~
.... lli\~ IY ~I.AJ l.f"'
1:.1\.
.Co ~
, cl...,.;j
~.
,j->.J~
..l..4J
':J [J; 1\0 i ] ~li
..
i
~\I'I 10~1::S"" J. 1t..Lol> 'y' c~ .At.J. 'l"~':J1 .r)/I iJlS' 1~1
Js-
1,\ ~\
Y:!- yo
y~
~~
IVJ--')~
v"'~\ ~>
iJW.)f\ : Jli)
iJ1.J
1_
'~.)K. ~.r yo
~ t ''l:lM 'I~~
t .,ElC (\0
~I (\/\
~~
. J lassi
.i
~
\-4~
lJ"1.k-.4J4
,C.l
I~
iJ~\
4.C".)"
0J~.)
~ ~
(\ \
l:I~"~''DM ~ i ~, (y.
. J loquentes
J contentiones ~ t ''IM~~M
Jin differentiis verborum
(\
J contentiones ~ t ''IM~~n
de ~ t MT ;~~ ~ ~ p~'
. J lasso
(r
(t
. J scindente ~ t ""'I'~
promisiones ~ t t'1'1~'I'Il)C'1n
. J legis
(0
(U)
.i
!+i,)-.U>
(\
~ I.S'"
(Y
'i~ (r
-; J veritas ~ t r'I'l:l~
Rhetorica autem residui
. J huius est nota
~ J signa ~ t l:I~:l'l:lCM
(t
(0
~i
J..a.s:
l"
(H
. J Aigazel
~t
1'1
y..
tf
t'1'1~~t'1'l:lM
('\
vJ
. J - (a ~.)b:.
. J , t'~ -
(yo
l:In~ 'I'Il)'l:lt'1'1l)~m
( Y'\
(to)
.~ ~
(V
. ~ "':J
. J agens
(/\
(\
~ ~ ~~I (\\
. J maxime enormis
.~ ~':JI
.j y~.r .0 ~j
.J
t '1t'1;"'El~ (\ Y
('\
(y
'i - (\.
~t
<~\f:i~l)
(\r
t l:IM3,,'l:l ~
(\
(,:1 ,~)
'" W1
(.1
.to
. J ignotis esse
ignotum ~ i e':Jl 4 .;f
. Jesse
~
iJ~ ~ i iJ~
(V
(/\
(\
. i l?.illi (H
. t
~'Il)n'll)
.t
(\0
n~;~ (\'\
4-:~
(Y
. J veritate
. J-
(r
(t
t 'Im'l:lC'1'1l)~ (\ V
.~~
(0
~ ";"b~ (\\
oppor- ~ t 'OU'll) ~ i .. ~
. J tunitas
('\
t t 1:I~"~'~ 1:IC'1'1~
(V
(/\
. t M~;~ (\/\
.1i
199
ARABIC TEXTS
198
ARABIC TEXTS
~i
u!r.>
\I"i@\
\t
~ ~
J.1 <\j\~ J
i:,.)\
~I
')&
_<:.L \. 1$"1
r-;.
~.)~~\ .. ~~\
JI
"81-\
~I..,;,~\
.'f:"
~\;ll
c..i -
n~\:..p ~ .. ~I ~~
J\ W';'
0i ~
J ,.t.
nc..b, Y\"~)\:J.I
i]
Lo I.T.r
-~ ,- 0'"
. YA 0W~ I 0\S'".1 _ wi:,.J.1 WI ~
.
.....1:.>- ~\ o..l-A ,.;- : ?
G<t>kJ:\
1"\ I. \i~l 1'" L_~.... Lo\""
.:.\1
1.1
.
c.r--~.1..;--I!
Y" G...I.o.1
_
!.IJ~YA
JtA!
c..b '
t t.\:.i)'l
'"
Y~\S'" \ lolA
oA
.T
&
(J..1
~ l+~ JI ~~~I
~~
\"0.1
I"t0;j~1 \"\"~~l
ri ~I"V oolA y
J J.;..
Lo -
~) I"Y U
J 1"'\ 8
.. ~ .. ~
' ~".>\=ll
01 0\-;)'1
.J
. i c..~ ~}\:... c..~
. J judicialis
. t. t'I"I~:VM
t. t'I"I""eM
(n
. J quomodo (YA
. t. "''l:IMM
. J Quod autem fiant
(Y\
(Y'"
. t. C""OM
. '-:" J
.0t. C'lltM 'Y"''''' , i r:?
(Y"t
(Y"o
(Y'"
. i - (Y"V
. '-:" .>~ (Y"A
. t. t'I"I""I~lltM
. i ~I)-I (~
. i ~..lJi (\
(H
(Y"~
. J judicium
JI ..:;..~ , f
t. 'C~"'l:IM (\ \
J! \.. JS") (\ Y
. i - (<<..:;..~ ~I
. J decernit ~ t. t:l~"'l:IM
(\ Y"
(\t
\.. D JI
'i -
(~y.
. t. t'I"I.,t'lM~M'
.J equitas ~ t. ,"'"M
. J et iniquitas ~ t. ,':VM'
(\'
. i~.i
(\A
. '-'
(\ 0
(\ V
.i
~ (\~
. i J}JI
'i ~
. t.
demonstrativa, t. t'I!'M''l:lM
(YY"
(Y
Lit>
(y.
(Y\
M'1)M ( YY
JIS"
'i
(<<
ifu B .:...?
JW) (\
~J,t.''-:''-
. i e~1 (t
. i ~I)-I (t \
(t Y
(t,
. t. - (\
1"
Ji ' ..
W!J . J~I
(;l
JI
[j; Ai
i]
JI JU li)/\
10
IY
AS'
)y)/\ ~IJ
if'
if' ~ .. ~I
('\
: 0!PJ1
.J
,.
I ;. ~:r'
I :1\,.
u-
I :11
~-:r'
.J -
, '-:' JS"..,;i ~J ~I ~J
t...., '~''Il)~ ,,~, ,~,
(V
, '-:' '
';1.iJ~
('
(Y
J- ,
. t... t"l'~"i't"lMM
'Ji .;:..1.iJ ~
t...
(A
C~"<"''IlM
C~'r.l~r.l~
(r'
. t... ,,~,
<'
~.iJ1 '~I
I~) v-=:ll
C;I) ,~':J y j ...D,...
(Y
. i 0~ (~
. i 'Y.;:i (,.
, d" ~I
Ji ) j..j4 ~I
1.1l.
. (1.1l.
(')
204
ARABIC TEXTS
J.
J
.,
"Jr ..l>L.
j~ ~i j~
l'A
\~ ~!,l\
,~I
l't
if"!iJ1
"~
.u J . ~
IA~~I
4:;i
~~I
II" u,),~1
o.1AJ ~ ( ~I
It.b:.t ~
U"'1;.l1 if
-#'
('A
. i - ('\
.,-:, ~ (Y'
. '-:' J ~i
. '-:' -
(n
(n
. J sumuntur (Yf
. i .Jy. (H
.Ji ''-:'
.t
f"l';'l:l~ ~
'-:'
~ (Yo
....;.J~ (n
. J assimilationis (YV
. J maior autem pars (Y A
. Ji 'i
~ (Y\
similitudines sit quando (f'
sumuntur secundum mo. J dum permutationis
. '-:' .)~ (f'
~......
205
ARABIC TEXTS
. J , t - (fY
I' f'''Yt.>
~
L,"Yl..1
'.
i't"
.. (ff
.t OM~ l''l'l:l,n
.~I,",=,,\::S"'JIIil~1
I-~IL
LAl\
~.U"'.
l"
L_.~
LlJ
V
- - Y~
..
.
';1 Y~l:.iJ1 ~
4&-1:...aJ1 o.1A I~
')' }
I . ~1
".:"i($1 0. ~j~
yi j~'
')'J
..kl;JI
~J
U"'"A;
!J.r
"r
YJ ~ ~J ~J\i~' o.1A
J!...t..a::ll
J ~ J; "Y
. J valet
. t ,~,n ~ Ji .-fJ1 (0
. t '~'M ~ Ji -.s:J4 ('
t~f J;t
. t-
(f
~ t;~''l
(1
. J estimat ~
.t t "m"
n''l:l;m~
I"
(,.
.J-
(i ~~I4iIl:.A)
; J instituat
.J -
.:"i ~i ~4
~j\;.:.
4t.;M
(f1
(f o
(fV
. i 0-4! (fA
(V
(f)
(A
(\
. i 41lf" (,
t n''l:l;mM ("
(A
(\
c:.r
o~ L. ~ if 1a..J;.1 J;JI .0
'i A
(0
Ji 'i ~ ('
(V
. J sudor est
. J industriae (' f
. J sumat (\1
. J - ('0
tf
~ "~ u
. \:....4..
($r.i ~
duae species
t''-:'- ('
. Ji 'i ~ (Y
i
(' (0)
J-:-!
(f
t Mm,n (1
(H
': t n''l:l,nMM'
~ '-:'~),
(0
Ji 4..i\:...
('
(Y
(1)
(Y
(f
(1
",:11'1
Ji 'i
"l;.,J1
. J necessitatis
206
ARABIC TEXTS
o.)~~
\T
J~\ ~ (.M:-o
JI
4J. 0~
4i)1 J J~
\ __ II
. ,,......,::--
.t -
(0
('\
l:I'1";l l~":lM
In
. J honor et prestantia
.t
.t
(V
'n~tl,m
(A
. Ji lo\
(~
'-:' o~ (,.
,'c" ("
JJ
Excellus autem : J
~
Deus est, qui est Deus
adiutor, et sustenens, et
non est Deus nisi ipse qui
semper laudetur. Amen.
l"l~'r.l'mM
.t
. t l"l'1:;mM (' Y
: lolA ~
o,~, ,~,
M'Ml"l
'~""MM l"l~~''l:l
Cl,m~~
,,:11'
Cll"l
c,m~