Kalbarczyk - Maqulat Mukhtasar Final-Libre PDF

Oriens 40 (2012) 305354
brill.com/orie
he Kitb al-Maqlt of
the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq:

A Hitherto Unknown ource for

tudying Ibn ns eception
of Aristotles Categories*
Alexander Kalbarczyk
Bochum
Abstract
he present contribution pursues a twofold objective: he rst part (I), which is mainly
meant to lay out some rather introductory remarks, strives to give a general account of the
context in which Ibn ns hitherto neglected Middle Compendium of Logic (al-Muhta a
sar al-awsat f l-mantiq) must have been composed (I.1 and I.2) and to indicate, on
more specic
level, in which way the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar provides us with
tradition of the Catinteresting material for assessing Ibn ns reception of the exegetical
egories (I.3); it is concluded by some notes on the two most reliable manuscripts containing the Muhtasar (I.4) and on the editorial conventions that are subsequently observed
basis
(I.5). On the
of two manuscripts from Istanbul, the second part (II) oers, at least
to my knowledge, the editio princeps of the Kitb al-Maqlt (Book of the Categories),
i.e. the second treatise, of the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq.

Keywords
Ibn n, Categories, Arabic reception of the Organon, Middle Compendium of Logic
(al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq), Neo-Platonic commentaries on the Categories

*) I would like to express my deep gratitude to Heidrun ichner (Universitt Tbingen) for having drawn my attention to the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq and for having provided me with the
the present
editionof the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar
scans of the two manuscripts on which

al-awsat f l-mantiq is based. Moreover, I would like to acknowledge the fact that this publication
has been realised under the invaluable supervision of Cornelia chck (uhr-Universitt Bochum)
within the framework of the joint DG/AHC research project Major issues and controversies
of Arabic logic and philosophy of language (uhr-Universitt Bochum and University of Cambridge). I would also like to thank Jan hiele (reie Universitt Berlin) for his kind advice on how
to adjust the Classical Text ditor to the particular needs of Arabic editorial projects, Amos Bertolacci (cuola Normale uperiore di Pisa) for his precious remarks on a drat version of my article, and
Colin Guthrie King (Humboldt-Universitt zu Berlin) for having proofread part I of the present
contribution. All deciencies are, of course, solely mine. Alexander Kalbarczyk, eminar fr Orientalistik, uhr-Universitt Bochum, D-44780 Bochum, Alexander.Kalbarczyk@rub.de.
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012
DOI: 10.1163/18778372-00402006
306
Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354
Part I. Introductory emarks

Until recently, Ibn ns Middle Compendium of Logic (al-Muhtasar al-awsat f

l-mantiq), which comprises the rst ve works of the classical Alexandrian

logic
curriculum (i.e. Isagoge, Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics), has virtually been unknown, or rather, has not enjoyed any attention as an independent work. egarding the fact thatin spite of all the research
that still needs to be doneIbn ns writings have generally attracted continuous and intensive scholarly interest this neglect might appear to be somewhat
puzzling. et an examination of both contemporary and classical bibliographical
accounts quickly reveals why this work ultimately fell into oblivion.
1. he Non-Identity of al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq and Mantiq an-Nagt

In his elaborate 1954 bibliography of the extant manuscripts of Ibn ns works,

the Fehrest-e nosheh-ye mosannaft-e Ebn-e Sn, ahy Mahdav does list a log
entitled al-Mu
ical compendium
htasar al-awsat f l-mantiq. As alternative titles,
he records al-Awsat
under which this work has supposedly been transmitted,
al-Gurgn and al-Muhtasar al-asar. In his short description of the Muhtasar,
Mahdav remarks thatapart from small deviationsthis work must generally

be taken to be identical with the Logic of the Kitb an-Nagt. According to Mahdav, this can be attributed to the fact that when composing the Nagt Ibn n
did not bother to write a new section on logic but simply incorporated the previously written Muhtasar into the Nagt. Mahdav is aware of the fact that the end containing the Muhtasar do not correspond to the end
ings of the manuscripts
this by noting that the Mantiq
of the logic section of the Nagt. et he explains
of the Nagt is concluded with a short part on the Sophistical Refutations which
Ibn n copied from another previously written work, namely from the Hikma
Ardiyya.1
1) ahy Mahdav, Fehrest-e nosheh-ye mosannaft-e Ebn-e Sn (Teheran: ntert-e Dnegh-e

1954), 217218, no. 108.
With regard
Tehrn,
to the other modern bibliographies of manuscripts
containing Ibn ns works the following observation should be added: Whereas both the earlier
version of rgins bibliography and Anawatis bibliography list the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq

al-M
giz
solelyand without providing any justication from the manuscriptsunder
the title
al-kabr, rgins revised bibliography simply adopts Mahdavs equation of al-Muhtasar al-awsat f
gn and al-Muhtasar al-asar; see for the older version:

l-mantiq, al-Awsat, al-Awsat al-Gur
Osman
ve tb
stad bni Sn (Istanbul: Ahmet
rgin, bni nbibliyografyas,
in Byk Trk lozof
hsan Matbaas, 1937), 782, no. 196; for the revised version: Osman rgin, bni Sina bibliyografyas
(Istanbul: Osman aln Matbaas, 1956), 42, no. 108; and Georges Anawati, Muallaft Ibn Sn
(Cairo: Dr al-Ma rif, 1950), 115, no. 45.
307
ubsequent scholars, by and large, did not show great interest in verifying
whether the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq was indeed just an older title of the
that is today
as Mantiq an-Nagt or whether it

logical compendium
known
might actually be a hitherto unstudied autonomous work on logic from one of
Ibn ns earlier writing periods. Also, they generally did not question Mahdavs
assumption that the two titles al-Muhtasar al-awsat and al-Muhtasar al-asar
of Arabic
must refer to exactly the same work. Ina 1993

articleon literary genres
logical writings, Dimitri Gutas discussed, among other things, the general designation of a logical work as muhtasar. In this context, he repeated once again that
htasar al-awsat or al-Awsat al-Gur
gn on the
the Avicennian work called al-Mu
one hand and the Logic of the Nagt on the other hand are generally assumed to
be identical. But at the same time he indicated that there might be good reasons
to question this claim: To complicate matters even further, we have the testimony of the mathematician Ibn-as-alh (d. 548/1153), who quotes expressly

gn, but his quotation
from al-Awsat al-Gur
is not to be found in the Nagt,
which according to the manuscript evidence just discussed, is supposed to con gn!2 Due to the fact that Gutas at that time
tain the logic of al-Awsat al-Gur
did not have access to the manuscripts containing the Muhtasar al-awsat he
an autopsy
of
was not able to solve the puzzle and remarked that ultimately
the manuscripts of all the works involved would have to be undertaken. ortunately, a few years ago Heidrun ichner acquired the scans of two of the Istanbul
manuscripts already mentioned by Mahdav, namely ms. Nuruosmaniye 2763
(N) and ms. Turhan Valide ultan 213 (T), and kindly shared them with me. As
she observed, even a supercial look at the manuscripts undoubtedly shows that
the Muhtasar al-awsat cannot possibly be identical with the Logic of the Nagt,
striking
the most
dierence
being that the Muhtasar contains an entire treatise
gt the Isagoge part is immedion the Categories, whereas in the Logic of the Na
ately followed by a discussion of issues that resemble Aristotles On Interpretation. he reason why Mahdav and other scholars before and ater him were led
to falsely assume that the title al-Muhtasar al-awsat refers to exactly the same
in the fact that
the rst paragraphs of the
work as Mantiq an-Nagt must be seen
two works are, apart from the rather general opening remarks in the Muhtasar,

indeed almost identical (cf. Appendix 1). et ater not more than approximately
two folios in ms. N and roughly two pages in ahrs edition of the Nagt the
dierences between the two texts become quite obvious.3 Due to the fact that
Dimitri Gutas, Aspects of Literary orm and Genre in Arabic Logical Works, in Glosses and
Commentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts: he Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions, ed.
by Charles Burnett (London: he Warburg Institute, 1993), 36.
3) As illustrated in appendix 1, the dierences start to emerge already at the beginning of the Isagoge
part of the two works: ee on the one hand, Ibn n, Kitb an-Nagt, ed. by Mgid ahr (Beirut:
2)
308
in both texts Ibn n aims at providing his students with a concise exposition
of logic in the Aristotelian tradition there are, of course, numerous overlaps with
regard to structure and content. But in spite of being closely related to each other,
the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq and the Mantiq an-Nagt are, without a doubt,
works. Against this
background, we are now able to identify the
two separate
previously mentioned quote by Ibn as-alh, which Gutas had unavailingly been

looking for in the Mantiq an-Nagt.4 In his arh fasl f hir al-maqla at-tniya
nd
min Kitb Aristtls f l-Burhn wa-islh hatafhi (Commentary
on the
of the econd Book of Aristotles Posterior Analytics and Correction of a Mistake in it), Ibn as-alh extensively quotes a passage from an Avicennian logi
gn or, more exactly, as a specic
cal work which he refers to as al-Awsat al-Gur
chapter from that work called fasl f anna l-burhn al-kull afdal min al-guz (i.e.
is better than the particular
demonstration).5
that the universal demonstration
Whereas the Nagt, as Gutas correctly observed, indeed does not contain such a
chapter, the quoted passage can easily be identied in the two manuscripts containing the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq, namely ms. N, fol. 123a, ll. 610, and
herefore,
Ibn as-alhs quote indicates at least
b, l. 1.
ms. T, fol. 85a,l. 2385

two things: irstly, it conrms once again that the titles al-Muhtasar al-awsat f
(yet,
only judg
l-mantiq and al-Awsat al-Gurgn refer to one and the same work
ing from this piece of evidence, the question whether the designations al-awsat
gn
and al-asar both indicate one and the same logical treatise written in Gur
remains still open); and secondly, it shows that at least approximately one hun gn was
dred years ater Ibn ns death the Muhtasar al-awsat/Awsat al-Gur
still circulating as an independent work worth to be quoted and was not taken
to be part of the Nagt.
As already mentioned, the major distinguishing feature between the two
works is, clearly, the inclusion of a Kitb al-Maqlt in the Muhtasar, while in

Dr al-fq al-Gadda,
1985), 44, ll. 17.; and an-Nagt min al-araq f bahr ad-dallt, ed. by
9, ll. 10.;
Mohammad Taq Dnepah (Teheran: ntert-e Dnegh-e Tehrn, 19851986),
and on the other hand, Ibn n, al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq, ms. N, fol. 2a, ll. 17.; and
3 a, ll. 5.
al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq, ms. T, fol.

any possible
4) Toavoid
confusion it should be mentioned that the name Ibn as-alh does not,
ar-a
in this context, refer to the famous qh and hadt scholar Ab Amr Utmn b. Abd
hmn
the
al-Kurd a-ahrazr (d. 643/1245), who is also known under the name Ibn as-alh, but to
Ibn
as-alh.
much less famous Nagm ad-Dn Ab l-uth Ahmad b. Muhammad b. as-ar, called

We do not possess much information about the latter; supposedly,
he studied logic, mathematics
and medicine in Bagdad and later lived and worked in Damascus where he died in 548/11531154;
cf. Abdelhamid abra, A Twelth-Century Defence of the ourth igure of the yllogism, Journal
of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965): 15.
5) Ibn as-alhs treatise was edited and translated into nglish by Nicholas escher; for the quote
tal-Gur
gn, see Nicholas escher, Ibn al-alh on Aristotle on Causation, in Studies
from al-Awsa
68,
ll. 1420.
in Arabic Philosophy
(Pittsburgh: University Press, 1966),
309
the Mantiq an-Nagt a separate treatise on the Categories is completely missing.

gt the ten genera (al-agns al-aara) are only briey outlined in one
In the Na
chapter of the Burhn part as Ibn n deems them to be useful devices for formulating correct denitions.6 ather unsurprisingly, the list of categories furthermore appears in the Metaphysics of the Nagt, wherein a chapter entitled
fasl f tartb al-mawgdt7it is dealt with as an exclusively ontological scheme.
in spite of the very scarce treatment of the categories in the Logic of the
et
Nagt, in the context of the Metaphysics of the Nagt Ibn n remarks that an
explanatory exposition of the categories had already exhaustively been undertaken in the Mantiq section: wa-amm anwu l-maqlti fa-qad arahn hlah

f l-mantiqiyyti bi-naw
in l yahtamilu hd l-mawdu ziydatan alayhi (as far
as the [dierent] kinds of categories are concerned, we have already explained

their state in the logical writings in such a manner that no further treatment of
this subject seems to be possible).8 If this remark cannot be taken to be an internal reference to the Burhn part of the Nagt, where the maqlt are treated only
quite sketchily (as has been indicated), it might be all the more likely that it refers
to the extensive treatment of the Aristotelian Categories contained within the
Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq. However, the precise extent of interrelatedness
closely connected works clearly still requires furanddependency

between
these
ther study and should ultimately be established on the basis of a systematic synopsis stretching across all logical treatises covered by them. In what follows, the
bio-bibliographical testimonies are consulted to contextualise the composition
of the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq and to obtainin passingat least a pre
the relationship
liminary hypothesis
about
between the Muhtasar and the Nagt.

2. he Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq in Classical Bio-Bibliographical Accounts

ortunately, the classical accounts of Ibn ns life and works provide us with
sucient information to determine when and under what circumstances the
Muhtasar must have been composed. One of the oldest bio-bibliographical
mentioning the Muhtasar is the so-called Tatimmat Siwn al-hikma by
works
al-Bayhaq (d. 565/11691170)
the folZahr ad-Dn b. Zayd b. unduq

where
lowing account can be found:
6) Ibn n, an-Na
gt (ed. ahr), 116117; and an-Nagt (ed. Dnepah), 153157; cf. Heidrun
ichner, he Categories in Avicenna:

Material for Developing a Developmental Account?, forthcoming in he Reception of Aristotles Categories in the Byzantine, Arabic and Latin Traditions, ed.
by ten bbesen, John Marenbon and Paul hom (Copenhagen: oyal Danish Academy, expected
publication year 2012).
7) Ibn n, an-Na
gt (ed. ahr), 244245; and an-Nagt (ed. Dnepah), 512514.
244, ll. 1617; and an-Nagt (ed. Dnepah), 512, ll. 1920.
8) Ibn n, an-Na
gt (ed. ahr),
310
He [i.e. Ibn n] was heading towards the amr ams al-Ma l Qbs b. Vomagr;
yet in the meantime it happened that Qbs was captured, was imprisoned in one
of his fortresses and died there. hen, he [i.e. Ibn n] went to Dihistn where
gn and the faqh Ab Ubayd al-Gz
gn
he became very ill. He returned to Gur
gn] visited him [i.e. Ibn
[] joined him (ittasala bihi) []. Ab Ubayd [al-Gz
the Almagest with him and to ask for dictation in logic
n] every day to read
(yastamil l-mantiq); and so he [i.e. Ibn n] dictated the Middle Compendium
sar al-awsat f l-mantiq) to him [i.e. al-Gz
gn]. herefore [i.e.
of Logic (al-Muhta
took place
in Gur
gn. []
gn] it is called al-Awsat al-Gur
because the dictation
And he composed in Gurgn many books, like the beginning of the Qnn, the
Compendium of the Almagest (al-Muhtasar min al-Magist) and numerous epistles

(rasil) and books.9
ince we know with certainty that ams al-Ma l Ab l-Hasan Qbs b. Voma
gn intermittently
gr b. Ziyr, who ruled in Tabaristn and Gur
from 366/977 to
gn
403/1012, was killed in the winter of 403/1013,10 Ibn ns return to Gur
and connected to that, the beginning of a prolic writing period in which, among
various smaller works, the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq was composedcan
at least roughly be dated. As it appears

probable
that Ibn n moved to ayy
in 404/1014,11 the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq must most likely have been
al-Gz
403/1013 and 404/1014. In
gn between
dictated to Ibn ns student
any case, the Muhtasar can be located within the intellectual phase which Gutas
transition
labelled Ibn ns
period and in whichamong other worksthe
Book of the Origin and the Return (Kitb al-Mabda wa-l-mad) and the Treatise
9) Bayhaq, Tatimmat Siwn al-hikma, vol. 1 (Arabic text), ed. by Muhammad af (Lahore: Uni
versity of the Panjab, 1935),
45, ll. 6.; and Tarh hukam al-islm [=Tatimmat Siwn al-hikma],
al- Ilm al- Arab, 1946), 58,ll. 9.
ed. by Muhammad Kurd Al (Damascus: al-Magma
tr, al-Kmil f t-tarh, vol. 9, newly set reprint of the edition by Carolus J. Tornberg
10) Ibn al-A
1966), 238240; cf. Clement Huart, Les Ziyrides, Mmoires
(Beirut: Drdir and Dr Bayrt,
de linstitut national de France: Acadmie des inscriptions et belles-lettres 42 (1922): 410412; and
dmund Bosworth, Ziyarids, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online dition (1 October 2010). Gutas
estimates that Qbs death must have taken place between January and March of 1013; cf. Dimitri
Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: Introduction to Reading Avicennas Philosophical
Works (Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 1988), 103.
11) According to Gutas, Ibn n must already in 404/1014 have been in ayy; cf. Gutas, Avicenna
and the Aristotelian Tradition, 99. Gohlman, on the other hand, limits Ibn ns stay in ayy to the
year 405/10141015; cf. William Gohlman, he Life of Ibn Sina: A Critical Edition and Annotated
Translation (Albany, N: tate University of New ork Press, 1974), 154. In this context, the only
certain date that can be established concerns the event that marks the end of Ibn ns stay in ayy,
i.e. the battle between the Byid ruler ams ad-Dawla (d. 412/1021) and the Kurdish chietain Hill
b. Badr b. Hasanwayh (d. 405/1015) in D l-Qa da 405/AprilMay 1015; cf. Ibn al-Atr, al-Kmil
9, 248251; Bayhaq, Tatimmat
ll. 1011;
f t-tarh, vol.
Siwn al-hikma (ed. Lahore 1935), 47,
Tarh hukam
al-islm (ed. Damascus 1946), 60, ll. 1213; and Gohlman, he Life of Ibn Sina,
127 n.63.
311
on the State of the Human Soul (Hl an-nafs al-insniyya) must have been com in the details of their accounts, this assumpposed.12 In spite of minor variations
tion is corroborated by the parallel passages of three other bio-bibiographical
works (or rather, one complex of three closely related works), i.e. Ibn ns
alleged Autobiography (in Arabic Srat a-ayh ar-Ras or Ahwl a-ayh ar
by his student
Ras, in Persian Sargozat),13 which was supposedly

completed
gn; the Tarh al-hukam by Ibn al-Qift (d. 646/1248);14 and the Kitb
al-Gz

Uyn al-anb f tabaqt al-atibb by Ibn Ab Usaybi a (d. 668/1270).15
he bio-bibliographical works furthermore can provide us with an additional

explanation of why the Muhtasar al-awsat and the Mantiq an-Nagt were later
ater
havingdescribed the dictation of the Muhtaconfused. everal paragraphs
gni l-Mansar al-awsat, the Tatimma remarks: wa-kna -ayhu sannafa bi-Gur
tiqa llad wa
daahu f awwali n-Nagti (i.e. in Gur
gn the ayh had composed

the Logic,
which
he placed at the beginning of the Nagt).16 Interestingly,

the
parallel passages of the three other bio-bibliographical works contain almost the
same account, yet they refer, in this context, more specically to the Smaller
gni l-Muhtasara
Compendium of Logic: wa-kna -ayhu qad sannafa bi-Gur
l-asara f l-mantiqi wa-huwa llad wadaahu bada dlika f awwali n-Nagti(i.e.
gn the ayh had already composed

in Gur
the Mu htasar al-asar f l-mantiq
of the Nagt).
17
and it is this [work] which he later placed at the beginning
herefore, it seems probable that Ibn n had written two dierent, albeit closely
gn: (1) he more elaborate Muhtasar al-awsat
related, logical compendia in Gur
was subse
f l-mantiq (including an entire book on the Categories), which
quently transmitted as an autonomous work and commonly referred to as al gn; and (2) the shorter Muhtasar al-asar f l-mantiq, which
Awsat al-Gur
as in 417/1026
eventually ceased to be an independent work,

or418/1027
Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, 145.

or the dierent titles of the work, see Gohlman, he Life of Ibn Sina, 78; for the parallel
passage in the Autobiography/Biography, see Gohlman, he Life of Ibn Sina, 42, l. 246, l. 1 (the
seemingly long extension of this passage is due to the continuous page count in Gohlmans Arabicnglish presentation of the text; also, the pages are only scarcely lled).
14) Ibn al-Qift, Tarh al-hukam, ed. by Julius Lippert (Leipzig: Dieterichsche Verlagsbuchhand l. 13418,
l. 4.
lung, 1903), 417,
15) Ibn Ab Usaybi a, Kitb Uyn al-anb f tabaqt al-atibb, ed. by August Mller (Cairo:
Uyn al-anb f tabaqt al-atibb,

al-Matba a al-Wahbiyya,
1882), part 2, 4, l. 265, l. 4; and Kitb
ed. byNizr id (Beirut: Dr Maktabat al-Hayt, 1965), 439, l. 21440, l. 6.
16) Bayhaq: Tatimmat

Siwn al-hikma (ed. Lahore 1935), 54, ll. 7.; and Tarh hukam al-islm
ll. 10.
(ed. Damascus 1946), 66,

17) Gohlman, he Life of Ibn Sina, 74, ll. 9.; Ibn al-Qift, Tarh al-hukam, 424, ll. 1.; Ibn Ab
Kitb
Uyn al-anb (ed. Beirut
Usaybi a, Kitb Uyn al-anb (ed. Cairo 1882), part 2, 8, ll. 3.;
1965), 443, ll. 17.
12)
13)
312
gn) Ibn n incor(i.e. approximately teen years ater his second stay in Gur
porated it, without further modications, into the Kitb an-Nagt.18 he alternative explanation would seem to be somewhat less convincing: Ibn n might
gn, which then one and the
have composed only one muhtasar f l-mantiq in Gur
same biographer would a bit sloppily call in one place al-awsat and, shortly ater all bio-bibliograwards, in another place al-asar and which latercontrary to
phical accountswas not really placed at the beginning of the Nagt, that is,
which was not copied verbatim, but which only could have served as a general
template for a newly composed logic section at the beginning of the Nagt.
3. A Few Preliminary Remarks on Ibn Sns Reception of the Exegetical Tradition of the Categories in the Muhtasar and Beyond

or the time being, I merely want to give a few preliminary hints as to why the
Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq could be an interesting work for further research.
present context,
In the
a general
answer to this question would seem to be quite
obvious: ince the Muhtasar provides us with a secondthat is, chronologically
al-Maqlt by Ibn n (besides that of the if),19
speaking, the rstKitb
we now possess some useful comparative material for tracing Ibn ns evolving reception of Aristotles Categories. Against this background, one can make
the following observation: Whereas already in the Maqlt of the Muhtasar Ibn
n is at times a bit sceptical towards some of the claims made by Aristotle

or,
particularly, by those commentators who by all means try to justify the necessity and utility of including this treatise into the Organon, at that early stage he,
by and large, seems to accept the content of the Categories as an integral part
of the standard curriculum of logic, i.e. as useful textbook knowledge for his
gn. If one takes a look at the table of contents of the Kitb alstudent al-Gz
Maqlt of the Muhtasar (cf. Appendix 2) one can see that, apart from a few
of chapters and apart from some standard supplements
inversions in the order
to the original exposition, the structure generally follows the Aristotelian tradition. In contrast to Aristotles transmitted text, Ibn n is not content to treat
merely the rst four categories in a thorough way, but deems it necessary to dedicate a separate chapter to each category. et this is by no means an Avicennian
or the dating and the composition of the Nagt, cf. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian
Tradition, 112.
19) uch a count implies, of course, that one does not consider the rather sketchy Maqlt sections of the Kitb Uyn al-hikma or of the Kitb al-Hidya to amount to full-edged treatises
Kitb Uyn al-hikma, ed. by Abd ar-ahmn Badaw (Cairo:
on the Categories; cf. Ibn n,
Manrt al-Ma had al- Ilm al-arans li-l-tr a-arqiyya,

1954), 23, and Kitb
al-Hidya, ed. by
Muhammad Abduh (Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhira al-Hadta, 1974, 2nd print), 7176, respectively.

18)
313
innovation; rather, already the ancient commentators had been trying to ll the
gapsa process which, arguably, reached its culmination in the highly elaborate
discussion of various systematisation eorts oered in the Commentary on the
Categories by implicius of Cilicia (d. ca. 560).20 As concurrently indicated by
Ibn uwrs marginal notes to the Arabic Organon,21 the preserved Arabic fragments of commentaries on the Categories,22 and a bibliographical entry in Ibn
an-Nadms Fihrist,23 implicius Commentary on the Categories must, at least partially, have been available in Arabic. And it seems safe to assume that already at
the time of composing the Categories of the Muhtasar, Ibn n must, whether
rich material contained in
directly or indirectly, have been able to draw on the
implicius or, at least, on some of the corresponding discussions oered by the
other post-Ammonian commentaries on the Categories.24
or a general introduction, see ainer hiel, inleitung, in Simplicius: Commentarium in

decem Categorias Aristotelis, with an introduction by ainer hiel and Charles Lohr (tuttgart-Bad
Cannstatt: rommann-Holzboog, 1999), VIII . On the Arabic reception of implicius commentary on the Categories (a topic which, clearly, is still in need of further research), cf. Helmut Gtje,
implikios in der arabischen berlieferung, Der Islam 59, no. 1 (1982): 10. and 20; Michael
Chase, he Medieval Posterity of implicius Commentary on the Categories: homas Aquinas
and al-rb, in Medieval Commentaries on Aristotles Categories, ed. by Lloyd A. Newton (Leiden
[a.o.]: Brill, 2008), 1112 and 1719; and, recently, Amos Bertolacci, implicius in Avicennas
eworking of Aristotles Categories, unpublished paper, presented at the conference he Reception
of the Categories in the Arabic Tradition (Les Catgories: la tradition arabe), organised by Ahmed
Hasnaoui et al., cole Normale uprieure Paris (34 April 2009); I am very grateful to Amos Bertolacci for having shared his paper with me.
21) he Fihrist lists implicius (Sinbilqiys ar-Rm) as the author of a Kitb arh Qtriys
treatise
li-Aristls, al-maqla ar-rbia (yet it is not certain what the restriction to the fourth
is meant to indicate); see Ibn an-Nadm, al-Fihrist, vol. 1, ed. by Gustav lgel (Leipzig: Vogel,
18711872), 268, ll. 1719.
22) Cf. the Arabic quotes from various commentaries on the Categories contained in ms. Ayasofya
2483; an edition and Turkish translation of these fragments has been provided by Mubahat Trker,
Katagoriler ve onun erhleri ile ilgili paralar, Aratrma 3 (1965): 87122; for quotes from implicius commentary (inbilqiys), see pp. 103, 104, 105, 122.
23) Ibn ns contemporary al-Hasan b. uwr (d. ater 1017) mentions the fact thataccording
to a commentator named imqliqlysa

certain Adrasts (the reference is to Adrastus of
Aphrodisias) had claimed the existence of another book on the categories by Aristotle. his account
corresponds almost verbatim to a passage from implicius commentary; for the marginal note,
see Aristotle, an-Nass al-kmil li-Mantiq Arist, vol. 1, ed. by ard Gabr
(Beirut: Dr al-ikr
ll. 11.; for thecorresponding
al-Lubnn, 1999), 17,

passage in the commentary, see implicius,
In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Karl Kalbeisch (Berlin: Georg eimer, 1907), 18,
ll. 16.
24) hat is, the transmitted version of Ammonius Commentary on the Categories, which was written
down by his pupils, and the closely related commentaries composed by his pupils, namely by implicius, Olympiodorus, John Philoponus and (as an alleged pupil of Olympiodorus) lias/David;
the long-disputed question whether the latter commentary was, in fact, written by lias or rather
by David is of no importance in the present context.
20)
314
his becomes, to mention one out of numerous possible examples, immediately evident in Ibn ns discussion of the Aristotelian criterion for accidentality, i.e.
(being in a subject/substrate), with the additional

qualication

(that
which is in something, not as a part and unable to subsist separately from what it
is in, Cat. 2, 1a2425).25 Compared to the generally condensed manner of exposition characteristic for the Muhtasar, Ibn n dedicates a rather extensive dis qualifying
cussion to the signicance of this

formula (cf. 1623 in the present
edition). In this context, both the ancient commentators and Ibn n are driven
by the motivation to remove any possible ambiguity from the Aristotelian criterion. or they all agree thatagainst the background of Aristotles discussion
of the various senses of
in Phys. 3being in something would,
without any further qualications, amount to a helplessly equivocal expression.
Hence, with an obvious resemblance to implicius detailed treatment of the
issue,26 Ibn n argues that Aristotles qualifying formula in Cat. 2, 1a2425
serves the purpose of discriminating being in something in the sense of signifying ontological dependence, namely (1) kawn al-arad f mawdihi (the being
being in someof the accident in its subject), from the other possiblemodes of
thing. According to Ibn ns presentation of the issue in the Muhtasar, eleven
other senses, which are not applicable in the context of Cat. 2, canbediscerned:
(2) wugd al-kull f l-agz (the being/existence of the whole in the parts, 17),
cf. Phys. 3, 210a1617:

(likewise in implicius); (3)
kawn al-guz f kullihi (the being of the part in its whole, 18), cf. Phys. 3,
210a16:

(likewise in implicius); (4) kawn a-ay f l-makn
(something being in a place, 19), cf. Phys. 3, 210a24:
(likewise in
It should be noted that this passage oers us within the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar one
qawlin
of the few instances where Ibn n appears to quote Aristotles text verbatim: wa-man
l-mawgdu f mawdin annahu l-mawgdu f ayin l ka-guzin minhu wa-l yasihhu qiwmuhu
translation
dna m huwa fhi[16]; interestingly, this quote is not identical with Ishq b. Hunayns
of this passage of the Categories: wa-an bi-qawl f mawdin al-mawgda f ayin l li-guzin minhu
wa-laysa yumkinu an yakna qiwmuhu min ayri llad huwa fhi; see Mantiq Arist, vol. 1, ed. by
ard Gabr,
33, ll. 34.
26) Cf. implicius, In Cat., 46, l. 547, l. 7; a very similar, albeit a bit more condensed treatment
of the issue, can be found in: Ammonius, In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarius, ed. by Adolf
Busse (Berlin: Georg eimer, 1895), 29, ll. 523; Olympiodorus, Prolegomena et In Categorias
Commentarium, ed. by Adolf Busse (Berlin: Georg eimer, 1902), 47, ll. 621; John Philoponus, In
Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Adolf Busse (Berlin: Georg eimer, 1898), 32, ll. 726;
and lias/David, In Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias Commentaria, ed. by Adolf Busse
(Berlin: Georg eimer, 1900), 149, ll. 1633. or a much more detailed exposition of the same
issue, see Ibn n, Kitb a-if, al-Mantiq, al-Maqlt, ed. by Ibrhm Madkr (Cairo: al-Hay a
1959), 2838.
al- mma li-u n al-Matbi al-Amriyya,
25)
315
implicius); (5) kawn a-ay f l-wi (something being in a container, 19), cf.
Phys. 3, 210a24:
as an instance of
(listed as a separate case
in implicius); (6) kawn a-ay f z-zamn (something being in time, 19), not
mentioned in Phys. 3, yet listed as in implicius; (7) kawn al-gawhar
f l-ard (substance being in the accidents, 19), neither mentioned in Phys.
3 nor in implicius and the other commentators, yet some of the previous cases
may be regarded as instances of a substance in an accident (i.e. the accidental
relationship of a substance to its place, container and time); (8) kawn al-illa f
l-mall (the being of the cause in what is caused, 19), neither mentioned in
Phys. 3 nor in implicius and the other commentators; by adducing this additional case of being in something it appears that Ibn n integrates the NeoPlatonic principle that the rst cause is in all of its eects27 into the discussion of
Cat. 2; (9) kawn al-hayl f s-sra (matter being in form, 21), neither men
tioned in Phys. 3 nor in implicius
and the other commentators, yet reminiscent of Aristotles formulation that matter, when existing in actuality, is in the
form (
, Met. 8, 1050a1516);28 (10) kawn as-sra f l-hayl

(form being in matter, 21), cf. Phys. 3, 210a21:
(likewise
in implicius); (11) al-agns f l-anw (the genera being in the species, 22),
cf. Phys. 3, 210a19:
(likewise in implicius); and (12) alanw f l-agns (the species being in the genera, 22), cf. Phys. 3, 210a18:
(likewise in implicius). he fact that Ibn n follows here the later

commentary tradition, as most extensively recorded in implicius, becomes even
more obvious if one compares Ibn ns exposition to the transmitted version
of Porphyrys Short Commentary on the Categories: or Porphyry, in the same
context, clearly states that among the nine ways in which, according to his enumeration, one can understand the expression being in something the sense of
form being in matter must be taken to be identical with the sense that applies
to Aristotles criterion of accidentality in Cat. 2for the simple reason that only
forms full the additional criterion of inseparability (
).29 Unfortunately, in the extant brief version of his commentary

he does not address the immediate problem which would ensue from his reading: he accidental beings of the Categories would then, unequivocally, share the
same fundamental feature as the substantial forms of Metaphysics, namely their
27) Cf. Liber de causis, ed. by Otto Bardenhewer (reiburg i. Br.: Herdersche Verlagsbuchhandlung,
1882), 102, l. 2 (23): al-illatu l-l tgadu f l-ayi kullih al tartbin whidin.
28) Considering the fact that in the same passage in Met.

8 Aristotle discusses
as ,
one might even speculate that Ibn ns kawn al-hayl f s-sra, in the sense of matter, when being
by implicius, namely
in its , is in the form, echoes one of the other senses listed
[
].
29) Porphyry, Isagoge et In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Adolf Busse (Berlin: Georg
eimer, 1887), 78, ll. 69.
316
being in a
.30 To avoid this diculty, the other commentators list the
being of the accident in the subject as a separate sense of being in something;
and implicius explicitly states thatcontrary to previous exegetical eorts
these two senses of being in something may not be equated, for there is a great
dierence between [being] as in a subject and [being] as in matter (
).31 Hence, by and large, Ibn

ns exposition in the Maqlt of the Muhtasar not only resembles implicius

account in connecting the Aristotelian characterisation
of accidental beings to
listing the various meanings of being in something but, more particularly, also
in assuming that Aristotle does intend a fundamental distinction between the
expressions being in matter (wugd f l-hayla), in the sense of the form (sra)
inhering in a material substrate, and being in the subject (wugd f l-mawd),
the
in the sense of the accident (arad) inhering in an underlying substance. At
same time, however, Ibn n indicates right from the onset of the whole discussion that a genuine understanding of this distinction would lie far beyond the
realm of the issues properly studied within logical propaedeutics (f hd l-kitbi
wa-m yagr magrhu mina l-madhili, as he puts it)with the consequence

that
due to pedagogical considerations accident and form must, at least provisionally,

be treated in exactly the same way (yagr l-aradu wa-s-sratu magran whidan).32
to
be well aware of the probherefore, already in the Muhtasar Ibn n appears
lem that within a purely logical context some of the most prominent issues raised
in the Categories can only be presented in quite an inadequate manner and thus
exigently require a thorough study in the further course of research, i.e. within
the realm of metaphysics.
As a second case in point, Ibn ns discussion of Cat. 1 might oer an apt,
albeit more intricate, example of his adaptation of the Neo-Platonic commentary tradition in the Muhtasar. Whereas impliciusagainst the background of
assuming the features
and
as the
two driving classication criteriahad deemed it necessary to justify why the
Aristotelian classes of
(i.e. same name, dierent accounts) and
(i.e. same name, same account) ought to be supplemented by their respective
systematic counterparts, namely
(i.e. dierent names, same account)
and
(i.e. dierent names, dierent accounts), Ibn n in the Maqlt
he whole problem revolves, of course, around the equivocity of the term

, which
Aristotle uses both in the predicative sense (i.e. a subject) and in the ontological sense, whereas
the latter, in dierent contexts, can refer both to an ontologically fundamental substance which
underlies other existents (as in Cat. 2) and an ontologically dependent material substrate (as Met.
Z 3 might suggest).
31) implicius, In Cat., 46, ll. 2223.
32) Cf. the edition below, 328, 14.
30)
317
of the Muhtasar takes the inclusion of these additional types simply for granted.
when discussing his own variant of
Besides that,
and predications (which implicius had treated as mere sub-classes of homonymy),33 Ibn
ns examples bear an obvious resemblance to the implician exposition: here
is a complete consonance in their adducing the being medical (
, tibb)
of book ( , kitb), scalpel ( , mibda), and drug (
,
daw) as an example for the
relation; and there is at least a strong correspondence to implicius in Ibn ns reference to the being healthy (
, sihh) of nutrition (
, id), medical art (tibb, whereas implicius
has
) and again book (kitb,
whereas implicius
has
) as
34
an example for the relation. To be sure, already Aristotle in Met. 2
had illustrated the predicative structure of
with recourse to a
range of various subject-terms that can fall under the common predicate-terms
or
; yet the detailed elaboration of these examples and their

integration into the exposition of Cat. 1 must, without a doubt, be attributed
to the ancient commentators, among whom implicius oers us the most extensive account of the issue. At the same time, one particular Avicennian feature,
whichagainst the background of the Aristotelian notion
(being is said in many ways, Met. 2, 1003a33)should later be further

developed in Ibn ns Metaphysics, surfaces already in the rst chapter of the
Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar: According to the classication of all possi ) and meanings (man), being/existence
ble relations between names(asm
(al-wugd) and one (al-whid) are said neither homonymously nor synonymously but bi-t-takk, i.e. in an ambiguous manner or rather, if translated ad
sensum, as modulated terms.35 It is interesting to note that already in this early,
implicius, In Cat., 33, ll. 319.

Interestingly, as Amos Bertolacci has observed, in the parallel passage of the Kitb a-if,
Ibn n follows implicius with regard to his two other examples for the predication
of healthy, namely the healthiness of
(i.e. daw) and of
(
, i.e.
riyda); hence, if accumulating the examples presented in the Muhtasar and the if, all of impli
cius cases are covered; cf. Bertolacci, implicius in Avicennas eworking
of Aristotles Categories;
and Ibn n, a-if, al-Maqlt, 11, ll. 5.
35) In a recent essay, Alexander Treiger has convincingly argued that the Arabic expression ism
muakkikif referring to a type of name which is, in one way or another, related to the class of

(as Alexander of Aphrodisias calls them)should preferably not
be translated as amphibolous term (as Wolfson had done in his pioneering, but for the most
part misleading essay he Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy and Maimonides,
published in 1938); for both in Aristotle and the ancient commentators the expression
generally refers to syntactical ambiguities, not to a semantic phenomenon; cf. Treiger, Avicennas
Notion of Transcendental Modulation of xistence (takk al-wugd, analogia entis) and its Greek
and Arabic ources, in Islamic Philosophy, Science, Culture and Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri
Gutas, ed. by elicitas Opwis and David eisman (Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 2012), 342.
33)
34)
318
quite introductory logical compendium Ibn n reads a consequential metaphysical background into the ramied classication scheme generated by the
commentary tradition on the basis of Cat. 1: ince there could not be a unied, internally coherent science of a strictly homonymous notion, Ibn nin
the interest of preserving the unity of the subject-matter of metaphysicsneeds
to avoid that wugd could be thought to belong to the Aristotelian class of
homonyms. et at the same time, he is, of course, fully aware of the fact that
classifying wugd as a completely synonymous notion would create even greater
problems as it would then have to be conceived as an ultimate genus, under
whichnotwithstanding their ontological gradationboth substance and the
nine accident categories would equally have to be subsumed.36 To avoid the two
horns of the dilemma, already the commentary tradition had been trying to nd
some satisfying middle-ground. et the exposition oered by Ibn n in the rst
chapter of the Maqlt of the Muhtasar marks, in a sense, a new stage within

the continuous exegetical systematisation
eorts connected to Cat. 1: Without any further justication, he introduces the type of takk as on a par with
the classical two Aristotelian types for classifying the relations between names
and meanings, i.e. ittifq (homonymy) and tawtu (synonymy). or it is clear
that, at least in the Muhtasar, Ibn n does not conceive the muakkika as a

mere sub-class of homonymous
terms; this can be safely inferred from the fact
that, when discussing the sub-classes which together make up the muttaqa, he
only includes the mutaraka and mutabiha, not the subsequently introduced
muakkika. Moreover, it appears that already in the condensed discussion of the
Muhtasar, both modes in whichaccording to the more elaborate, later system of the ifthe term wugd can be said to be an ism muakkik are
atisation
alluded to: takk with regards to priority (awwalan); and takk with regards
to the degree of deservingness (awl). et while the parallel passage in the if
would allow the interpretation that only the rst case might refer to the predicamental level, whereas the latter case might refer to the transcendental level (i.e.
being per se, in the sense of necessary existence, vs. being per aliud, in the
sense of contingent existenceand hence the realm of the creator vs. the realm of
created beings, as Treiger reads it37), there can be no doubt that in the Muhtasar

Ibn n still envisages exclusively the predicamental level, i.e. the dierence
between the being of the rst category (substance) and the being of the other
nine categories (which are the highestinternally once again modulated
genera of accidents).
or Ibn ns rejection of the thesis that mawgd might be regarded as a supreme genus common
to all ten categories in the Maqlt of the Muhtasar, see the edition below, 331, 3032.
Modulation of xistence, 357; cf. Ibn n,
37) Treiger, Avicennas Notion of Transcendental
a-if, al-Maqlt, 10, l. 811, l. 7.
36)
319
Without being able to dwell on the details involved here, it should be stressed
that the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq provides us with a
and reconguration
of the Aristotelian
very early example of Ibn ns reception
relation, as elaborated by the ancient commentators. Whereas already
here Ibn n conceives the predication of being (wugd) as the most prominent case of takk al-ism, i.e. as the modulated application of one and the same
term and notion to ontologically distinct areas, at this stage he does not seem
to regard it as an issue belonging exclusively to the curriculum of metaphysics;
rather, the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar integrates the heavily ontologi the logical classication scheme of
cally charged issue of takk al-wugd into
basic relationships between names and meanings and abstains from any preceding caveat stating that the matter properly ought not to be studied as part of an
introductory lesson.
In this context, a short note on the general question of Ibn ns growing scepticism towards regarding the issues discussed in Aristotles Categories as genuinely
logical matters appears to be in place. As is well-known, the Kitb al-Maqlt
of the if begins with a chapter on the
(arad) of the Categories in
research approach
which Ibn n argues thatdepending on the respective
one ought to treat the doctrine of the ten categories either in metaphysics (alfalsafa al-l), psychology (haddun mina l-ilmi t-tabiyyi yusqibu l-falsafata
philosophy),
or linguistics
l-l; i.e. a fringe area of physics
neighbouring rst
(sinat al-luawiyyn), but not in logic.38 uch an elaborate meta-perspective
the Categories is absent from the much more condensed Kitb al-Maqlt
on
of the Muhtasar. et in spite of his general acceptance of the transmitted Peri Neo-Platonic
patetic and
custom of regarding the Categories as one of the rst
treatises to be studied in logic, Ibn n already in the Muhtasar clearly voices his
doubts and dislikes with regard to some of the exegetical eorts

undertaken by
the ancient commentators.
his critical attitude can briey be illustrated by referring to one obvious example. In the fourth chapter of the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasarater having
that each cateintroduced the list of ten categories and ater having announced
gory deserves separate treatmentIbn n unmistakably rejects any attempt to
argue for the exhaustiveness of this list or to prove that the number of categories
must be exactly ten. All such eorts have amounted to nothing but an idle aectation (takalluf) and have by no means resulted in something necessary (ayan
darriyyan).39 A very likely candidate for this harsh criticism would, at least in
this context, be the at times a bit forced justication eorts traceable in some
38)
39)
Ibn n, a-if, al-Maqlt, 5, ll. 911.

Cf. the edition below, 331, 29.
320
passages of the ancient commentators. Notwithstanding Ibn ns indebtedness

to much of the material provided by implicius, the latters attempt to argue for
the assumption that Aristotle had quite purposely limited his list of categories to
exactly ten constitutes a prominent instance of the attitude criticised by Ibn n:
Whereas in the second chapter of the Categories Aristotle, according to implicius, had introduced a four-fold scheme that represents the minimum number
of classes into which simple expressions in so far as they signify things can be
divided, subsequently, the list of ten categories must be understood as the maximum number of possible divisions; and implicius concludes this observation
by stating: Ater all, this would be the scientic procedure [
], and
the decad is contained within the tetrad, since when we add together one, two,
three, and four, we get the number ten; again, he also compresses the tetrad into
a dyad.40 his particular line of reasoning does indeed smack more of number
magic than of necessary knowledgeand I would assume that, already in the
Muhtasar, Ibn ns charge of takalluf targets any such forced tendencies of comingupwith justications for every peculiar detail of the structure and contents of
Aristotles writings. However, whereas in the Muhtasar Ibn n already seems to
generated by the Categories,
be sceptical towards some of the exegetical tradition
he does not yet seem to question the usefulness of the doctrine as such.
It appears that against the background of the new material derived from Ibn
ns al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq, we are nowat least tentativelyin a

position to identify
three stages in the development of Ibn ns reception of
the Categories: (1) In the Muhtasar we can observe his general acceptance of the
curriculum in spite of the emergence of minor
Categories as part of the logical
criticisms and adjustments with regard to the scope and the justications of the
doctrines at hand and especially with regard to the exegetical eorts of the entangled commentary traditions. (2) Later on, in the if Ibn n undertakes an
extremely critical reappraisal of the Categories in the course of which he arrives
at the conclusion thatboth with regard to the lack of its logical utility and
with regard to the logicians inadequate capacity to fully grasp its doctrinesthe
work should better be excluded from the logical curriculum. et notwithstanding the programmatic remarks in the rst chapter, in the further course of the
work Ibn ns Kitb al-Maqlt of the ifwhich, as printed in Madkrs edition, occupies nearly three hundred pagesperpetuates, and even signicantly
contributes to, the previous exegetical approach of dealing with the Categories
as an introductory treatise within logic. (3) inally, in his subsequent works
(particularly in the mantiq parts of the Nagt, the Mariqiyyn and the Irt
implicius, In Cat., 44, ll. 8.; nglish translation by Michael Chase, On Aristotle Categories
14 (London: Duckworth, 2003), 58.
40)
321
wa-t-tanbht), Ibn n tends to ignore the Categories as a separate logical treatise ormore exactlyto tacitly exclude them from his logical expositions. In
this vein, the Logic of the Irt wa-t-tanbht, for instance, briey provides us
with only an implicit justication of why the issues treated in Aristotles Categories can safely be ignored within the realm of logical studies: When discussing
the order (tartb) of genera und species in the second nahg, Ibn n states that
it is not upon the logician to elucidate (laysa baynuhu al l-mantiq) that into
41 ather,
which the genera and species ultimately terminate (il md yantah).
the logician should be satised with knowing quite unspecically that there
are some highest genera (anna hhun ginsan liyan aw agnsan liyatan hiya
agnsu l-agnsi);42 for any investigation which aims at establishing how many
highest genera there are (kammiyyat agns al-agns) would deviate from what is
necessary and would ultimately cause the mind to go astray.43 ejecting both the
necessity and possibility of conducting within logic a thorough investigation of
the highest genera amounts to nothing else than banning the Categories from the
logical curriculum altogether. It seems, therefore, that in the Mantiq of the Irt,
Ibn n ultimately carries out what he had already before programmatically

postulated, i.e. in the rst chapter of the Maqlt of the if. ince the contents of
Isagoge and On Interpretation convey to the student a perfectly sucient knowledge of the constitutive parts of syllogisms, within the limited context of purely
logical matters the student should not bother with a shaky doctrine of ten highest
genera or with other related schemes which merely use linguistic considerations
for revealing facts about the structure of existing things, that is, which blend into
logical propaedeutics a project of proleptic metaphysics.
4. he Manuscripts Used for the Present Edition of the Kitb al-Maqlt of the
Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq44

(1) he only manuscript containing the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq in its

quite conveniently,
is written
entirety is ms. Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 2763 which,
in a clearly legible nash script. At the end of the Kitb al-Burhn (fol. 137a)
Kitb al-Muhtasar al-awsat; and on the very last folio
the scribe notes: tamma

(fol. 137b) we can nd the following colophon:
41) Ibn n, al-Irt wa-t-tanbht, ed. by Mu

g tab az-Zr (Qom: Bstn-e Ketb, 2008), 58,
ll. 57.
42) ibidem, ll. 78.
43) ibidem, ll. 1113.
44) Unfortunately, at the moment I cannot oer an exact codicological description of the two
manuscripts used for the present edition as I have, until now, only been able to see the scans, not the
originals.
322

he transcription was nished by the hand of Abdallh b. Muhammad b. Ab
Garda
on 28 D l-Higga 528.
Hence, ms. N was completed on 19 October 1134 ad, i.e. roughly one hundred years ater Ibn ns death (428/1037) or ca. 125 years ater the composi gn (403404/10131014). Moreover the
tion of the Muhtasar al-awsat in Gur

a marginal note reecting on the scribes proofcolophon is supplemented
by
reading practice:
he original source, from which the transcript had been copied, has been compared (qbila) to this transcript (nusha) and corrections have been made as far as
possible (bi-hasab al-imkn) [].
Judging from the handwriting, the same scribe must have subsequently inserted
corrections and additions throughout the manuscript, which he typically introduced by one of the following formulae: tahrgun f hiyati nushatin hikyatuhu,
correcting
an omission]
45 in a mari.e. an editorial insertion/intervention [e.g.

ginal gloss of a copy/version [of the text], giving the following account; tahrgun
f nushatin hikyatuhu, i.e. an editorial intervention in a copy/version [of the
text],giving the following account; or simply f nushatin, i.e. in a copy/version
[of the text]. Due to its old age and accurate handwriting
and due to the fact
that the scribe provides us both with information on his practice of comparing
his newly written nusha to a previous nusha, which had served as his asl, and, in
addition to that, witha typology of the various

types of insertions, ms.N may be
regarded as quite a reliable source.46
(2) Contrary to the Nuruosmaniye manuscript, I have, unfortunately, not yet
been able to date the second manuscript, i.e. ms. Istanbul Turhan Valide ultan
213. ince at the end of fol. 94b the text breaks o in the middle of the penul45) Gacek lists various meanings which the term tahr
g could indicate within the context of producing and reading a manuscript; among these, the rather general sense of edition or composition involving correction, selection and/or rearrangement (tabwb) of the material from the original
work and, if referring to a hiya from the copy used by the scribe, the more specic sense of writ appear to apply to the marginal notes of ms. N; cf. Adam Gacek, he
ing an omission in the margin
Arabic Manuscript Tradition: A Glossary of Technical Terms and Bibliography (Leiden [a.o.]: Brill,
2001), 39.
46) It should be noted that at the beginning of the Maqlt section of ms. N two folios must, at a
later stage, have mistakenly been transposed for they were arranged in the following way: 5b, 7a, 7b,
6a, 6b, 8a, 8b.
323
timate chapter of the Burhn (a chapter entitled faslun f annahu kayfa yunu
one folio is missing. he
l-hissu f mabdii t-tasdqi), we can assume that at least
corrections in the margins appear to be subsequent additions by a second hand

and, mostly, are not accompanied by specic introductory or explanatory formulae. On the basis of my present knowledge, I can only provide a relative dating of
ms. T: It must, in any case, be older than the three additional manuscripts in
which the Muhtasar al-awsat has been transmitted, namely ms. Carullah 1441,
and ms. Nuruosmaniye
ms. Kprl 869

4894; for these are, quite evidently, later
collective manuscripts based on ms. T (and have been neglected for my edition
of the Maqlt of the Muhtasar).47 urthermore, I could not detect any direct
dependency between ms. N and ms. T. To some extent, however, one can nd
the sameor at least almost the sameadditions and corrections in the margins of both mss.48 herefore it seems probable that the scribe of ms. N, whoas
we have seenhad undertaken the eort of correcting the nusha himself, and
possibly one later reader of ms. T must, whether in a direct or mediated

manner,
have had access to a common vorlage.
5. Formal Remarks on the Present Edition
igla
N
T
NA
TA
ms. Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 2763

ms. Istanbul Turhan Valide ultan 213
Margins of ms. Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 2763
Margins of ms. Istanbul Turhan Valide ultan 213
he fact that they must all depend on ms. T has been safely established by Heidrun ichner as
she observed that each of these three mss. breaks o in the midst of exactly the same sentence as ms.
T does, yet, contrary to ms. T, not at the end of a folio but in the middle of a folio; the scribe of ms.
Carullah 1441 only adds the exclamation Allhu alam, God knows best, to the abrupt end. As
David eisman has shown in another context, ms. Kprl 869, in turn, had approximately in the
11th/17th or 12th/18th century been copied from ms. Nuruosmaniye 4894 and is therefore rather
late; see eisman, he Making of the Avicennan Tradition (Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 2002), 17 and 75;
hence, eisman has corrected the Kprl catalogue which dates ms. Kprl 869 to the 10th/16th
century, see amazan een et. al., Kprl ktphanesi yazmalar katalou (Istanbul: slam Tarih
anat ve Kltr Aratrma Merkezi, 1986), vol. 1, 428429 (there een refers to the Muhtasar

al-awsat f l-mantiq as Muqaddima f l-mantiq and Usl al-mantiq).
48) Within
the Categories section, two longer additions in the margins of both mss. are completely
identical: (1) he insertion of a whole sentence that discusses an additional case of crossing being
in and said of predications (cf. the edition below, 330, 27); (2) and the insertion of the remark
wa-fasluhu al-mutarak huwa al-n (cf. the edition below, 334, 41, l. 15), which, in the context of
discussing
the various kinds of quantities, aims at underlining the fact that time must be regarded
as a continuous quantity. Apart from that, within the Categories section only minor corrections can
be found in the margins of the two mss.
47)
324
Abbreviations
addiditadded
correxitcorrected (refers to the corrections observable within the mss.
and hence does not necessarily indicate correctness)
del.
delevitdeleted
dub.
dubitanterdoubtfully
em.
emendaviI have emended
om.
omisitomitted/missing
ut vid. ut videturapparently/as it seems
add.
corr.
tyle of Notation
{ }and { NA}
curly brackets contain the remark with which a marginal note is introduced in the mss. (e.g. sahha, cor
rected); if clarity requires it, the respective siglum is
included in the brackets
NA et TA add., N et T om. text missing in the main text of both mss. and only
contained in the margins
TA add., T om.
text missing in the main text of T and added in the
margins of T; the respective piece of text is contained
in the main text of N
A Note on Orthography and Grammar
In contrast to the text transmitted in the mss., the present edition strives to
include hamza und adda throughout the text (exceptions to this rule are, mainly,
the tadd in the nisba suxes -iyyun and -iyyatun and cases where tadd is
due to the assimilation of the article al-). Minor orthographical variations are,
by and large, not listed in the apparatus; this concerns especially the following
cases:
Inconsistent use of hamza, e.g. ( T) or ( T) instead of ( N)
etc.
Omission of alif, e.g. besides , besides etc.
Ungrammatical alif at the end of a verb, e.g. both in N and T ( sing.)
instead of ( sing.)
Omission of double consonants, e.g. in T always instead of
(non-horse) etc.
besides
besides , besides etc.
325
he few occurrences of presumable ungrammaticalitysuch as lahu when it

should, in my assessment of the context, be lah or, even more severely, such as an
kna when it should, in my assessment of the context, be an yakna (and not in
kna, which would save both grammaticality and the transmitted rasm)have
been adjusted to the rules of classical Arabic grammar and have been marked
as emendations. Almost needless to say, since the diacritical dots above t and
below y are generally omitted in both mss., the gender of a verb in the imperfect, as recorded in the present edition, in most cases follows my own reading of
a given passage and would, in a few instances, allow for quite a dierent interpretation.
Part II. Edition

|
]
N 5b
T 5a
] [1
.
] [2

.
.
.
] [3 |

.

.
[ } TA corr.
[ T
N 7a
327
] [4
.

] [5
.
] [6
.
] [7
.
.

.
.
]
N 7b
] [8
| .
.
] [9 .

. .
.
] [10 .

[ NA add., N om.
[ NA add.
[ } TA add., T om.{
[ T
T 5b
328

. .

.
]
] [11 :

.
.
.
.
] [12

| . .
. .

] [13 :

. .
] [14
. .

. .
.
[ T
N 6a
329
] [15 .
| .
] [16
.
] [17 .
.

.
] [18 .
] [19 |

.

.
.
.
.
] [20 .
] [21

.
] [22
.
.

[ T
[ T
[ N et T, em.
[ T
[ T om.
T
[ NA corr.
[ T
ut vid. N del.
T 6a
N 6b
330

.
.
] [23
] [24 .
.
.
|
.
. |
.
] [25

.
] [26
.
] [27

.
] [28
. .
.
[ T
[ T om.
[ T om.
[ TA
TA} NA et TA add., N et T om.{ } NA {
N 8a
T 6b
331
] [29

.

.
.
.
.

] [30

. .
] [31 | .

. .
.

.

.
.

] [32 .
.
.
.
[ T dub. )(
} NA corr. {
[ TA add., T om.
[ T
N 8b
332
] [33 | .
.
.
.
.
.
| .
.

] [34 :
.
.

.
.
.
] [35 .

. .

.
.
] [36
.
.
.
T 7a
N 9a
333
] [37
| .

. .
. |
. .
] [38
.
.
. .

.
.
.
] [39 . .
.

.
. | .
.
[ TA add., T om.
[ T
N 9b
T 7b
N 10a
334
] [40
. .
.
.
.
] [41 :
.
.
. .
. .
.
. |
. .
. .
] [42 : .
] [43 :
.
. |
.
.
.
[ } NA add. {
[ NA} NA et TA add., N et T om.

[ T
[ } NA add. {
{

T 8a
N 10b
335

.

.
.
.

.
.
. .
.
.
] [44

| .
] [45 | .
.
.
.
.
.
.
[ T
NA add., N om.
[ T
[T
[ T
N 11a
T 8b
336

.

] [46 .
.

.
.
.
] [47 .
.
.
.

. .
|

.
. .
. .
.
] [48 .

|
. .
. .
[ T
[ NA add., N om.
N 11b
T 9a
337

.
] [49 .

.

. .
.
.
] [50 .
| .
.

.
.
] [51 .
.
.

. .

.
.
[ TA add.
[ T
[ } NA add. {

[ TA add., T om.
[ T om.
[ TA
N 12a
338
] [52 :

.
.
. |

. .
] [53 |

.
.

.
.
.
] [54 .
.

.
. .
.

.
[ N
T 9b
N 12b
339
.

. |

.
.
] [55 .

. .

. |
.

.
.
] [56 :

.
.
|
. .
[ NA et TA add., N et T om.
[ T
[ T
[ TA add., T om.
[ N
N 13a
T 10a
N 13b
340
] [57

. .
.

. :
] [58 .
.
.
.
] [59 .
. .
.
] [60
. |
. :
|

.

.
.
[ T
[ } NA corr. {
[ T
T 10b
N 14a
341
] [61
.
.

.

] [62
.
.

. .
. .
.
.
|
.
. .
. .
]
] [63
. .
[ T
[ N om.
N 14b
] [64
]
342
] [65 |
.

.
.
]
T 11a
] [66 .

. |
.
.

. .
[ T
[ T om.
[ T
N 15a
343
] [67
.

.
.
.
.
]
] [68 .
.
. .
.
. .
| .
.
] [69 |
.
.
.
N 15b
T 11b
344
] [70 :
.
.
] [71 .
.
] [72 . .
.
.
. .
.
.
] [73 .
.

] [74
.
|
.

.
.
.
.
N 16a
345
] [75 .
. .
.
]
] [76
. .
|
.
] [77 .

.

.
| . .
.

.
. .

.
[ } NA corr. {
[ T
[ N et T, em.
[ N om.
[ T om.
[ N et T, em.
T 12a
N 16b
346
] [78
] [79 .
.

.

.
] [80 .
. .
.
.
.
| | .
.
.

. .
] [81
.

.

.
.
.
. .
[ N
[ T
[ T
N 17a
T 12b
347
.
.
] [82 .
.
.
.
| .
.
.
.
. .

.
.
.
] [83
| .
.
.
.
.
] [84
.

.
.

[ N et T, em.
[ NA add.
[ T
[ T om.
[ NA add., N om.
[ T
N 17b
T 13a
348
.
| .

.
.
] [85
.
.
. .
] [86
. .
] [87
.

.
.

.
. |
.
.
] [88
|
.
[ T

[ N
[ T
[ } NA corr. {
[ T om.
[ T
N 18a
T 13b
N 18b
349

. .
.
.
.

.
] [89

.
.
. .
.

.
] [90 .
.
| .
.
.
. .
.

[ NA add., N om.

[ T } TA corr.,{

[ TA add., T om.
[ N om.
[ N
N 19a
350
Appendix 1. Beginning of the Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq and of the

Mantiq an-Nagt
al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq

] [Isagoge part
Mantiq an-Nagt
[Isagoge
]part
)(ed. ahr, Beirut 1985
)(ms. Nuruosmaniye 2763
| fol. 1b, l. 1

:
.

.
. .
.
.
| p. 43, l. 2

.

[] .
| fol. 1b, l. 6

.

[] .
.
Both texts continue to be almost identical ( fol. 1b, l. 9fol. 2a, l. 17; p. 43, l. 4p. 44,
l. 15); then, however, in spite of numerous overlaps with regard to content and structure,
the dierences become quite apparent.
| p. 44, l. 12

.
| p. 44, l. 17

[] .
| fol. 2a, l. 14

.
| fol. 2a, l. 17

[] .
351
Appendix 2. Table of Contents of the Kitb al-Maqlt of the Muhtasar

al-awsat f l-mantiq
Corresponding
Chapters in
Aristotles
Cat.
Translated Headings in ed. N
Book of the Categories
17
Headings in N 2763 & T 213
5b
5a
5b
5a
he elationship
between Names and
Meanings
3 (1b16.)
he elation of the
810
Genera to the pecic
Dierences
7a
5a
2 (1a20.),
3 (1b1015)
he elation of
1128 7b
ubjects to Predicates
5b
What is aid in
2932 8a
Combination and not
in Combination
6b
ubstance
3339 8b
6b
Quantity
4051 10a 7b
elatum
5256 12a 9a
Quality
5762 13b 10a
Where
63
14b 10b
When
64
14b 10b
Position
65
14b 10b
9 , 15
he Category of
Having
66
14b 11a
Doing and Being

Aected
67
15a 11a
14
Motion
6869 15a 11a
12
Prior and Posterior
7074
15b
11b
13
imultaneous
75
16a 11b
1011
Opposites
7690 16a 11b
352
Bibliography
Ammonius Hermiae. In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarius, ed. by Adolf Busse. Berlin:
Georg eimer, 1895.
g ]. Muallaft Ibn Sn. Cairo: Dr al-Ma rif,
Anawati, Georges O.P. [Qanawt, Gr
1950.
Aristotle. Categoriae et Liber de Interpretatione, ed. by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello. Oxford:
University Press, 1949.
. Physics, ed. by William David oss. Oxford: University Press, 1936. eprint
1998.
. Metaphysics, 2 volumes, ed. by William David oss. Oxford: University Press, 1924.
eprint 1997.
. an-Nass al-kmil li-Mantiq Arist, vol. 1, ed. by ard Gabr.

Beirut: Dr al-ikr
1999.
al-Lubnn,
al-Bayhaq, Zahr ad-Dn Ab l-Hasan b. unduq. Tatimmat Siwn al-hikma, vol. 1
ed. by Muhammad
af . Lahore: University of the Panjab,
1935 [1351
(Arabic text),
h.q.].
. Tarh hukam al-islm [= Tatimmat Siwn al-hikma], ed. by Muhammad Kurd
1946 [1365
Al. Damascus:
al-Magma al- Ilm al- Arab,
h.q.].
Bertolacci, Amos. implicius in Avicennas eworking of Aristotles Categories. Paper
presented at the conference he Reception of the Categories in the Arabic Tradition (Les
Catgories: la tradition arabe). Organised by Ahmed Hasnaoui et al. cole Normale
uprieure, Paris, 34 April 2009.
Bosworth, dmund. Ziyarids. In Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online dition, 1 October
2010, retrieved 2 April 2012, via http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ziyarids.
Chase, Michael. he Medieval Posterity of implicius Commentary on the Categories:
homas Aquinas and al-rb. In Medieval Commentaries on Aristotles Categories,
ed. by Lloyd A. Newton. Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 2008, 929.
ichner, Heidrun. he Categories in Avicenna: Material for Developing a Developmental Account? orthcoming in he Reception of Aristotles Categories in the Byzantine,
Arabic and Latin Traditions, ed. by ten bbesen, John Marenbon and Paul hom.
Copenhagen: oyal Danish Academy, expected publication year 2012.
lias/David. In Porphyrii Isagogen et Aristotelis Categorias Commentaria, ed. by Adolf
Busse. Berlin: Georg eimer, 1900.
rgin, Osman. bni n bibliyografyas. In Byk Trk lozof ve tb stad bni Sn.
Istanbul: Ahmet hsan Matbaas, 1937, 727820.
. bni Sina bibliyografyas. Istanbul: Osman aln Matbaas, 1956.
Gacek, Adam. he Arabic Manuscript Tradition: A Glossary of Technical Terms and Bibliography. Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 2001.
Gtje, Helmut. implikios in der arabischen berlieferung. Der Islam 59, no. 1 (1982):
631.
Gohlman, William. he Life of Ibn Sina: A Critical Edition and Annotated Translation.
Albany, N: tate University of New ork Press, 1974.
Gutas, Dimitri. Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition: Introduction to Reading Avicennas Philosophical Works. Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 1988.
. Aspects of Literary orm and Genre in Arabic Logical Works. In Glosses and Com-
353
mentaries on Aristotelian Logical Texts: he Syriac, Arabic and Medieval Latin Traditions, ed. by Charles Burnett. London: he Warburg Institute, 1993, 2976.
Huart, Clment. Les Ziyrides. Mmoires de linstitut national de France: Acadmie des
inscriptions et belles-lettres 42 (1922): 357436.
Ibn Ab Usaybi a. Kitb Uyn al-anb f tabaqt al-atibb, ed. by August Mller. Cairo:
a al-Wahbiyya, 1882 [1299 h.q.]. Corrections
al-Matba
published in a separate vol
ume, Knigsberg: elbstverlag, 1884.
. Kitb Uyn al-anb f tabaqt al-atibb, ed. by Nizr id. Beirut: Dr Maktabat
al-Hayt, 1965.
Ibn al-Atr. Al-Kmil f t-tarh, vol. 9, newly set reprint of the edition by Carolus J. Torn 1863. Beirut: Dr dir and Dr Bayrt, 1966 [1386 h.q.].
berg, originally published in
Ibn an-Nadm. Kitb al-Fihrist, 2 volumes, ed. by Gustav lgel. Leipzig: .C.W. Vogel,
18711872.
Ibn al-Qift. Tarh al-hukam, ed. by Julius Lippert. Leipzig: Dieterichsche Verlags
1903.
buchhandlung,
Ibn n. Kitb al-Hidya, ed. by Muhammad Abduh. Cairo: Maktabat al-Qhira al-Ha
dta, 1974, 2nd print.
. Al-Irt wa-t-tanbht, ed. by Mug tab az-Zr . Qom: Bstn-e Ketb, 2008 [1387
h..].
. Kitb al-Magm aw al-Hikma al-Ardiyya, ed. by Muhsin lih. Beirut: Dr
al-Hd, 2007 [1428 h.q.].
. Kitb an-Nagt, ed. by Mgid ahr. Beirut: Dr al-fq al-Gadda,

1985.
. An-Nagt min al-araq f bahr ad-dallt, ed. by Mohammad Taq Dnepah.
h..].
Tehrn,
19851986 [1364
Teheran: ntert-e Dnegh-e
. Kitb a-if, al-Mantiq, al-Maqlt, ed. by Ibrhm Madkr. Cairo: al-Hay a
al-Amriyya, 1959 [1378 h.q.].
al- mma li-u n al-Matbi
. Kitb Uyn al-hikma, ed. by Abd ar-ahmn Badaw. Cairo: Manrt al-Ma had
al- Ilm al-arans li-l-tr a-arqiyya, 1954.
John Philoponus. In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Adolf Busse. Berlin:

Georg eimer, 1898.
Liber de causis [= Die pseudo-aristotelische Schrit Ueber das reine Gute, bekannt unter dem
Namen Liber de causis (Ktb al-dh f l-hayr al-mahd)], ed. by Otto Bardenhewer.

eprint in Islamic Philosoreiburg i. Br.: Herdersche Verlagsbuchhandlung,

1882.
phy, vol. 105, rankfurt a. M.: Institut fr Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaten, 2000.
Mahdav, ahy. Fehrest-e nosheh-ye mosannaft-e Ebn-e Sn. Teheran: ntert-e D
h..].
negh-e Tehrn,
1954 [1333
Olympiodorus. Prolegomena et In Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Adolf Busse. Berlin:
Georg eimer, 1902.
Porphyry of Tyre. Isagoge et In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Adolf Busse.
Berlin: Georg eimer, 1887.
eisman, David C. he Making of the Avicennan Tradition: he Transmission, Contents,
and Structure of Ibn Sns al-Mubhatt (he Discussions). Leiden [a.o.]: Brill,

2002.
escher, Nicholas. Ibn al-alh on Aristotle on Causation. In Studies in Arabic Philos Press, 1966, 5468.
ophy. Pittsburgh: University
354
abra, Abdelhamid. A Twelth-Century Defence of the ourth igure of the yllogism.

Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965): 1528.
een, amazan et al. Kprl ktphanesi yazmalar katalou, 3 volumes. Istanbul: slam
Tarih anat ve Kltr Aratrma Merkezi, 1986 [1406 h.q.].
implicius of Cilicia. In Aristotelis Categorias Commentarium, ed. by Karl Kalbeisch.
Berlin: Georg eimer, 1907.
. On Aristotle Categories 14, translated by Michael Chase. London: Duckworth,
2003.
hiel, ainer. inleitung. In Simplicius: Commentarium in decem Categorias Aristotelis,
reprint of the edition Venice 1540, with an introduction by ainer hiel and Charles
Lohr. tuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: rommann-Holzboog, 1999, VVII.
Treiger, Alexander. Avicennas Notion of Transcendental Modulation of xistence (takk al-wugd, analogia entis) and its Greek and Arabic ources. In Islamic Philosophy,
Science, Culture and Religion: Studies in Honor of Dimitri Gutas, ed. by elicitas Opwis
and David eisman. Leiden [a.o.]: Brill, 2012, 327363.
Trker, Mubahat. Katagoriler ve onun erhleri ile ilgili paralar. Aratrma Ankara niversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Corafya Fakltesi Felsefe Blm Dergisi 3 (1965): 87122.
Wolfson, Harry A. he Amphibolous Terms in Aristotle, Arabic Philosophy and Maimonides. he Harvard heological Review 31, no. 2 (1938): 151173.

Kalbarczyk - Maqulat Mukhtasar Final-Libre PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Kalbarczyk - Maqulat Mukhtasar Final-Libre PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

A Hitherto Unknown ource for

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

Part I. Introductory emarks

l-mantiq), which comprises the rst ve works of the classical Alexandrian

In his elaborate 1954 bibliography of the extant manuscripts of Ibn ns works,

al-Gurgn and al-Muhtasar al-asar. In his short description of the Muhtasar,

Mahdav remarks thatapart from small deviationsthis work must generally

1) ahy Mahdav, Fehrest-e nosheh-ye mosannaft-e Ebn-e Sn (Teheran: ntert-e Dnegh-e

gn and al-Muhtasar al-asar; see for the older version:

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

as Mantiq an-Nagt or whether it

must refer to exactly the same work. Ina 1993

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

al-Muhtasar al-awsat f l-mantiq, ms. T, fol.

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

the Mantiq an-Nagt a separate treatise on the Categories is completely missing.

as the [dierent] kinds of categories are concerned, we have already explained

closely connected works clearly still requires furanddependency

the folZahr ad-Dn b. Zayd b. unduq

lowing account can be found:

ichner, he Categories in Avicenna:

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

(rasil) and books.9

at least roughly be dated. As it appears

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

Ras, in Persian Sargozat),13 which was supposedly

he bio-bibliographical works furthermore can provide us with an additional

gn the ayh had composed

he placed at the beginning of the Nagt).16 Interestingly,

l-asara f l-mantiqi wa-huwa llad wadaahu bada dlika f awwali n-Nagti(i.e.

gn the ayh had already composed

eventually ceased to be an independent work,

Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian Tradition, 145.

Uyn al-anb f tabaqt al-atibb,

ed. byNizr id (Beirut: Dr Maktabat al-Hayt, 1965), 439, l. 21440, l. 6.

16) Bayhaq: Tatimmat

(ed. Damascus 1946), 66,

1965), 443, ll. 17.

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

n is at times a bit sceptical towards some of the claims made by Aristotle

Manrt al-Ma had al- Ilm al-arans li-l-tr a-arqiyya,

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

or a general introduction, see ainer hiel, inleitung, in Simplicius: Commentarium in

to a commentator named imqliqlysa

al-Lubnn, 1999), 17,

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

(being in a subject/substrate), with the additional

cussion to the signicance of this

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

, Met. 8, 1050a1516);28 (10) kawn as-sra f l-hayl

(likewise in implicius). he fact that Ibn n follows here the later

).29 Unfortunately, in the extant brief version of his commentary

28) Considering the fact that in the same passage in Met.

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

).31 Hence, by and large, Ibn

wa-m yagr magrhu mina l-madhili, as he puts it)with the consequence

due to pedagogical considerations accident and form must, at least provisionally,

he whole problem revolves, of course, around the equivocity of the term

Alexander Kalbarczyk / Oriens 40 (2012) 305354

; yet the detailed elaboration of these examples and their

(being is said in many ways, Met. 2, 1003a33)should later be further