Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, vol. 10 (2000) pp.

159-180
Copyright 2000 Cambridge University Press

AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY

NATURE, CONTENTS, TRANSMISSION

DIMITRI GUTAS

I. INTRODUCTION

Avicennas Eastern philosophy, what has been predominantly

called Oriental in the secondary literature,1 became some-
thing of a minor cause clbre among Avicennisants in the cen-
tury that is just ending because it was assumed to present an
esoteric, mystical aspect of Avicenna that is not apparent in his
other works. After a review of all the evidence that was avail-
able to me in 1988, it became reasonably clear that Avicennas
book on Eastern philosophy differed from the rest of his works,
and especially from al-if (The Cure), only in form and not in
substance. As Avicenna himself claimed in the prologue of the
if (text quoted at the beginning of the next section), his pur-
pose in his book on Eastern philosophy was to present philoso-
phy as such, i.e., in a systematic and not historical way, to avoid
references to views of other philosophers, and to use a direct
form of exposition even if this meant contradicting some cher-
ished and traditional views (and thus ruffling some feathers).
He also intended, as he added in his introduction to the book on
Eastern philosophy,2 to be selective in his treatment: his pur-
pose was to include only those subjects in the fields of logic,
metaphysics, physics, and ethics that were controversial; the

1
It is now best to discontinue the use of Oriental as translation of the Arabic
mariqiyya. Although literally correct (oriens is Latin for East), the term is currently
loaded with cultural concepts, peculiar to the late twentieth century, that should not
be transferred to Avicennas use of mariqiyya, by which he merely intended to refer
to the Islamic East, i.e., ursn. It is more advisable to use the neutral English term
Eastern. See the discussion of this point in D. Gutas, Avicenna and the Aristotelian
Tradition. Introduction to Reading Avicennas Philosophical Works, Islamic
Theology and Philosophy, 4 (Leiden, 1988), p. 127 and note 26, with additional docu-
mentation in D. Gutas, Ibn fiufayl on Ibn Sns Eastern Philosophy, Oriens, 34
(1994): 222-41, p. 223 note 2.
2
See the text in Gutas, Avicenna, p. 120, 17.
160 DIMITRI GUTAS

rest, about which there was no disagreement, could be readily

studied in extant treatises and needed no further comment.3
In the decade since that review was conducted I have col-
lected some additional evidence that corroborates this view; I
have also not seen any studies that challenge it.4 The purpose of
this paper is to present this evidence as a further installment in
the efforts to round out the account about Avicennas Eastern
philosophy.

II. THE MYTHS OF THE MYSTICAL AND ILLUMINATIONIST

EASTERN PHILOSOPHY

The reasons why Avicennas book on Eastern philosophy should

be assumed in the first place to be esoteric or mystical without
any, or even against, prima facie evidence since for most of
this century what was known of it was only the section on logic5
are complicated and have a long history. It is well worth
retelling the highlights of the story, which continues to this day,
if only as a brief exercise in the sociology of knowledge.6
In the introduction to his ayy b. Yaqn, Ibn fiufayl creates
the fiction of an esoteric and exoteric Avicenna through deliber-
ate misinterpretation and misrepresentation of Avicennas
Prologue to the if. In that Prologue Avicenna says the fol-
lowing, comparing the if and his book on Eastern philosophy
(al-falsafa al-mariqiyya):
I also wrote a book other than these two [the if and the Lawiq
(Appendices)], in which I presented philosophy as it is naturally [perceived]7
and as required by an unbiased view which neither takes into account in

3
See the discussion in Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 115-30.
4
The more recent mantric statements by someone like S.H. Nasr will be discussed
in the following section.
5
The extant section on logic from Avicennas work on Eastern philosophy was first
published under the artificial title Maniq al-Mariqiyyn (Cairo, 1910). It was
reprinted in a photographic reproduction in Tehran by the Maktabat al-afar al-
Tabrz (no date given, but ca. 1970) and in Qum in 1985, and, in a new typeset, in
Beirut in 1982, with an introduction by ukr al-Naar. See now H. Daiber,
Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy (Leiden, 1999), vol. I, p. 477, no. 4607.
6
I have mentioned some of these reasons in a number of places; see Gutas,
Avicenna, pp. 129-30; D. Gutas, Avicenna: Mysticism, in Encyclopaedia Iranica, III,
82a-b; and Gutas Ibn fiufayl, pp. 231-4.
7
The Arabic has al m hiya f al-ab, as it is in nature. In my Avicenna book I
had translated it as it is in itself, taking the word ab, nature, to refer to the nature
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 161
[this book on Eastern philosophy] the views of colleagues in the discipline,
nor takes precautions here against creating schisms among them as is done
elsewhere; this is my book on Eastern philosophy. But as for the present
book [the if], it is more elaborate and more accommodating to my
Peripatetic colleagues. Whoever wants the truth [stated] without indirection,
he should seek the former book [on Eastern philosophy]; whoever wants the
truth [stated] in a way which is somewhat conciliatory to colleagues, elabo-
rates a lot, and alludes [talw] to things which, had they been perceived,
there would have been no need for the other book, then he should read the
present book [the if].8
The distinction in style between the two books to which
Avicenna is referring here Ibn fiufayl misinterprets as a differ-
ence in doctrine: he says, echoing the words of Avicenna,
As for the books of Aristotle, Avicenna undertook in the if to interpret
their contents, proceeding according to Aristotles doctrine and following the
method of his philosophy. But in the beginning of the book, Avicenna stated
explicitly that in his opinion the truth is something else [al-aqq indahu
ayru lika], that he wrote the if according to the doctrine of the
Peripatetics only, and that whoever wants the truth without indirection
should seek his book on Eastern philosophy.9
As is evident even from the quotations above, Avicenna
nowhere states explicitly that in his opinion the truth is some-
thing else than what he has in the if; he is not talking about
a difference in doctrine but one in style.10 Ibn fiufayl created

of philosophy. In his review of my book, M. Marmura (Plotting the course of

Avicennas thought, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 111 [1991]: 333-42,
pp. 339-40) suggested that ab refers to the natural cognitive activity of the person
doing philosophy. The parallels which Marmura adduces from Avicenna all have the
expression bi-al-ab, by nature, and not f al-ab, in nature, and thus are not
precisely relevant; it is only al-azl who uses f al-ab (p. 337a), which is a differ-
ent matter. I am much more swayed to Marmuras interpretation by the words al-
ray al-ar (unbiased view) in the text of Avicenna immediately following. They
clearly refer to the view of the person studying philosophy, and as such they can be
taken to be parallel to the word ab, which would also refer to the nature, i.e., nat-
ural intelligence, of the same person. In either case, however, the meaning would be
roughly the same: a person who has an unbiased view, i.e., who is not misled by his-
torical or accidental misinterpretations in his study of philosophy, can have a clear
view of philosophy as it is in itself by letting his natural intelligence guide him.
8
Translation in Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 52-3, 4. Text in Ibn Sn, al-if, al-
Maniq, al-Madal, ed. El-Ahwani, Anawati, El-Khodeiri (Cairo, 1952), p. 10.11-17.
9
Translation in Gutas, Ibn fiufayl, p. 226a; text in L. Gauthier, ayy Ben
Yaqdhn. Roman philosophique dIbn Thofal (Beirut, 1936), pp. 14-15.
10
Ibn fiufayl is defended against my thesis by A. Elamrani-Jamal Exprience de la
vision contemplative et forme du rcit chez Ibn fiufayl, in M.A. Amir-Moezzi (ed.),
Le voyage initiatique en terre dIslam (Louvain-Paris, 1996), p. 165, note 25. He says
162 DIMITRI GUTAS

this fiction in order to foist upon Avicenna, and thereby gain

authority for his own epistemology in which the mystical vision
plays a leading role.11 In addition to this passage, which is quite
explicit, it is also clear from the whole tenor of Ibn fiufayls
introduction that he meant to generate the impression that
Avicennas Eastern philosophy has somehow to do with mysti-
cism. The fact that Ibn fiufayl had no access to a book by
Avicenna by this title made the fiction all the more plausible as
the actual book was not available for verification. Given a free
hand, Ibn fiufayl also added to his ayy b. Yaqn a subtitle
that went farther along in this direction: he called it f asrr al-

that Ibn fiufayl did not oppose the if to the Eastern philosophy in terms of doc-
trine. This objection, however, overlooks Ibn fiufayls unambiguous statement that
Avicenna claimed that the truth was something else than what was contained in the
if (al-aqq indahu ayru lika), a phrase which Elamrani-Jamal conveniently
disregards. I do not see how else this phrase can be interpreted than as a statement
of difference of doctrine between the two books. Ibn fiufayls phrase was understood
to indicate a difference in doctrine also by his Arabophone contemporaries and suc-
cessors, and possibly even by Averroes himself. There is a work against Avicenna that
has survived only in Latin translation and would appear to be by Averroes (C. Steel
and G. Guldentops, An unknown treatise of Averroes against the Avicennians On
the First Cause, Recherches de thologie et philosophie mdivales, 64 (1997): 86-
135, pp. 98-9; I am grateful to Carlos Steel for bringing this publication to my atten-
tion.) Averroes says there that he had met a man who had studied the works of
Avicenna (possibly Ibn fiufayl himself?) and who claimed that Avicenna held views
which he secretly demonstrated in his Oriental Philosophy. That man further
believed that Avicenna had explained the truth only in that Philosophy, whereas he
had established in his writings many other theses to agree with his contemporaries
(et hoc est quod demonstravit occulte in sua philosophia orientali, in qua solum cre-
didit se explanasse veritatem et quod multa posita in libris suis posuit ad concordan-
dum cum eis). The phrase I emphasize here in both English and Latin is highly
reminiscent of Ibn fiufayls statement that for Avicenna the truth is something else
than what he had in the if, which accordingly posits a doctrinal difference.
Avicenna never said anything of the sort, and this fiction is therefore Ibn fiufayls
creation. Elamrani-Jamal further argues that rather than creating a fiction, as I
claim, about an exoteric and esoteric Avicenna, Ibn fiufayl was justifiably led to such
a view from Avicennas own mention of allusions (talw) in the if in the passage
cited above. This can hardly be maintained in this case because talw, allusion, is to
be understood here in the context of the preceding mamaa (indirection) in
Avicennas sentence, as any unbiased reader of Arabic would have done: the book of
the Easterners does not contain any indirection, while the if does; what this indi-
rection consists of is a conciliatory, elaborating, and allusive style rather than a
straightforward exposition. It is impossible from this sentence to supposer un aspect
sotrique dans le if, as Elamrani-Jamal claims Ibn fiufayl did, unless one delib-
erately wanted to create such a fiction against the literal sense of Avicennas words,
as I claim. See also Gutas, Ibn fiufayl, p. 231 top. For examples of the conciliatory,
elaborating, and allusive style of Avicenna in the if as opposed to the direct style
of Eastern philosophy see below, section VI, and especially the example in 2.
11
See the details of this argument in Gutas, Ibn fiufayl, pp. 235-41.
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 163
ikma al-mariqiyya, On the Secrets of Eastern Philosophy,
compounding the mystical effect he wished to generate.
Ibn fiufayls fiction and suggestions found fertile ground in
the work of A.F. Mehren, one of the earliest Western oriental-
ists to work systematically on Avicenna. In a series of articles
that he wrote in the first six volumes of the periodical Le
Muson (1882-87), and especially in one which he entitled Vues
thosophiques dAvicenne,12 he started with Ibn fiufayls asso-
ciation of Avicennas Eastern philosophy with mysticism, devel-
oped it further, and even established, again following largely the
suggestions of Ibn fiufayl, a canon of writings by Avicenna
which presumably contain his mysticism. Mehren was by no
means the first Westerner to interpret Avicennas Eastern phi-
losophy as mystical,13 but he was the first to identify a number
of specific works by Avicenna as allegedly containing this mysti-
cal Eastern philosophy. These texts he published in a series of
fascicles whose Arabic collective title was borrowed once again
from Ibn fiufayl: Rasil ... Ibn Sn f asrr al-ikma al-
mariqiyya, or, Treatises by Avicenna on the Secrets of the
Eastern Philosophy. The French title of the same fascicles was
interpretive, not literal: Traits mystiques dAvicenne (Leiden,
1889-1899). In this fashion Avicennas Eastern philosophy
became formally identified with mysticism despite the fact that
in none of the treatises included in these volumes is there any
mention of either Eastern philosophy or mysticism as such.14

12
Le Muson, 4 (1885): 594-609, pp. 594-5.
13
A list of such scholars both before and after Mehren is provided by E. Panoussi
in his dissertation, La notion de participation dans la philosophie dAvicenne
(Louvain, 1967) [now in Louvain-la-Neuve], pp. 28-9, repeated by R. Macuch in his
article, Greek and oriental sources of Avicennas and Sohrawardis theosophies,
Graeco-Arabica [Athens] 2 (1983): 9-22, p. 11.
14
In chapter (nama) 9 of Part II of al-Irt wa-al-Tanbht (Pointers and
Reminders) Avicenna describes, in the highly figurative language that characterizes
his indicative style (cf. Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 307-11), the grades of philosophical
knowledge. He does so in terms of his own epistemological theory, but with occasional
use of sufi vocabulary (e.g. irda, waqt) in an effort to incorporate its referents also
into his philosophical system, much as he had done earlier with other manifestations
of religious life (prayer, visitation of saints tombs, etc.); this chapter is not a mysti-
cal treatise in the sense intended by Mehren (and all those who followed this
implication). Far al-Dn al-Rz, who is usually cited in support of a mystical inter-
pretation of the last three chapters of the Irt (e.g., by Marmura, below in this
note, and by Inati, as in note 20 below), actually said the following of this 9th chap-
ter: Avicenna arranged in it the varieties of knowledge of the sufis in a way that was
both unprecedented and unsuperseded (fa-innahu rattaba ulma al-fiyyati tartban
m sabaqahu ilayhi man qablahu wa-l laiqahu man badahu), in aray al-Irt
164 DIMITRI GUTAS

C.A. Nallino strenuously objected in 1925 to the Arabic title of

Mehrens collection as being completely unfounded on any man-
uscript evidence, but it was to no avail.15 The canon of writings
established arbitrarily by Mehren as mystical gained printed
legitimacy through his fascicles and it appears, years later, in
Anawatis bibliography under the rubric taawwuf (mysticism).16
The harm done by this unfounded identification began to spread
even into the editions and translations of these texts: Sulaymn
Dunys edition of Avicennas al-Irt wa-al-tanbht intro-
duces under the heading taawwuf the last three chapters of the
book (nama 8-10), which were among the texts published in
Mehrens collection.17 This is unconscionable tampering with the
manuscript evidence: the manuscripts of the Irt do not have
any such heading in this place,18 nor do the three commentaries
on the Irt by Far al-Dn al-Rz, Nar al-Dn al-fis, and

(Cairo, 1325), vol. 2, p. 100.-3. From the context it is clear that what Far al-Dn means
by ulm al-fiyya is the knowledges of the sufis, i.e., the varieties or grades of
knowledge, and not the sciences of the Sufis as translated by Marmura, Plotting the
course of Avicennas thought, p. 342a top. This is clear because Avicenna does not talk
in this chapter about all (or any of) the sciences of the sufis but only about the grades
of knowledge of those who know (rifn). Regardless whether or not one wants to
identify those who know with sufis Avicenna never uses the word f once in
that chapter the fact remains that even Far al-Dn al-Rz is not claiming that this
chapter is about all of sufism or all the sciences of the sufis, as those modern inter-
preters who cite him for support claim. Second, and this is even more egregious, Far
al-Dn al-Rz claims a sufi subject only for chapter/nama 9 of Part II of the Irt not
for all of the last three chapters, not for the Irt as a whole, and certainly not for all
those other treatises published by Mehren as mystical and unreflectingly accepted as
such by most modern scholars. Finally, and it is well worth mentioning here, it is
instructive to see what Avicenna really thought of sufism when he does mention the
word. At the very beginning of the Physics of the if (al-Sam al-ab, ed. Sad
Zayed [Cairo, 1983], p. 21.4), when discussing inappropriate, confusing, and anthropo-
morphic (matter = female, form = male) use of technical terminology, he compares it
to the way sufis talk and contrasts it with the discourse of philosophers: From these
things it becomes difficult to understand this talk (kalm) which resembles more the
talk of the sufis than it does the talk of philosophers (al-kalm alla huwa abahu bi-
kalmi al-fiyyati minhu bi-kalmi al-falsifa). Avicenna had a low opinion even of
dialectical talk by theologians, let alone sufi talk, for which he exhibits here even
greater contempt. Manifestly he is not endorsing sufism or all the sciences of the
Sufis in the Irt. For a similar sentiment about sufi talk see his letter to the schol-
ars of Baghdad in Ehsan Yarshater (ed.), Pan Resla (Tehran, 1332 ), p. 74.
15
For the documentation on all of the above see Gutas, Ibn fiufayl, p. 233, note 22.
16
G.C. Anawati, Muallaft Ibn Sn (Cairo, 1950), nos 213-44.
17
First printing (Cairo, 1958), p. 747; second printing (Cairo, 1968), Part 4, p. 5.
18
I checked MS Istanbul Nuruosmaniye 4894, fol. 229r, middle of the page. Also the
nine manuscripts upon which are based the editions by Forget and Mehren himself
have no such indication: J. Forget, Ibn Sn, Le livre des thormes et des avertisse-
ments (Leiden, 1892), p. 190; Mehrens second fascicle (Leiden, 1891), p. 1 (Arabic).
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 165
Quflb al-Dn al-Rz.19 In her recent translation of these three
chapters, Sh. C. Inati not only reproduces Dunys unfounded
title (p. 67: Sufism), but even calls it traditional in the
Introduction (p. 4), both without presenting a single piece of
evidence, and while acknowledging that Avicenna never uses
the term sufi in the Irt.20 Clearly Avicennas mystical
Eastern philosophy has become a matter of faith here.
Similar developments can be seen in the line of interpretation
adopted by Henri Corbin and his followers. Corbin, influenced
by his lifelong preoccupation with the work of Suhraward, saw
in the Eastern philosophy of Avicenna the same illuminationist
philosophy of Suhraward, despite Suhrawards explicit repudi-
ation of such a pedigree for his philosophy.21 Undaunted by the
lack of evidence, Corbin elaborated upon a late Iranian tradition
of reading Avicenna and fashioned visionary recitals about
Avicennas alleged illuminationism through imaginative inter-
pretations of Avicennas allegories.22 In this he was followed
faithfully by some disciples, most notably by Seyyed Hossein
Nasr who, as recently as 1996 could still write an essay on
Avicennas Oriental Philosophy and repeat his claim that it
marks a step in the direction of that intellectual universe
dominated by Illumination and gnosis, without pointing to a
single text by Avicenna other than the introduction to the
Kitb al-Mariqqiyyn (The Book of the Easterners), which says
nothing about either Illumination or gnosis.23 As in the case

19
For the first two see aray al-Irt (Cairo, 1325), vol. 2, p. 86; for the last two
see al-Irt wa-al-Tanbht maa al-ar li-al-s wa-ar al-ar li-
Qub al-Dn al-Rz (Qum, 1375), vol. 3, p. 334.
20
Ibn Sn and Mysticism (London and New York, 1996).
21
See the text from his al-Mari (195 Corbin) cited in my Avicenna, p. 118, no. 13.
22
On Avicennas use of the symbolic method of composition and its significance see
Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 299-307. The Iranian tradition of reading Avicenna in an illu-
minationist way is so dominant, even to this day, that scholarly investigations of the
historical Avicenna (and not what later tradition made of him) cannot even be envis-
aged by its followers. A pertinent example is provided by the astonishment exhibited
by Ch. Jambet, Corbins hierophant, who could not believe how anyone could deny
(as I did), against the entire Iranian tradition, that Avicenna was a mystic and illu-
minationist. Reviewing my entry on Avicenna and mysticism in the Encyclopaedia
Iranica (III, 79-83), he exclaimed, rhetorically, Il faut que les avicenniens dOrient
(Sohravardi en tte) et toute une tradition de la philosophie iranienne se trompe, et
que D. Gutas ait raison, Abstracta Iranica, 13 (1990): 81-2.
23
S.H. Nasr, Ibn Sns Oriental philosophy, in S.H. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds),
History of Islamic Philosophy (London and New York, 1996), p. 250. Nasrs essay is
written in an almost complete bibliographical vacuum: apart from the lack of refer-
ences to primary sources, the only secondary references are to the works of Corbin and
166 DIMITRI GUTAS

of the mystical Eastern philosophy, so also in that of the illu-

minationist, the approach of its advocates is that of the reli-
gious devotee whom no amount of factual evidence can sway
from his faith. These views have nothing to do either with the
historical Avicenna or his Eastern philosophy; they simply
inform us about the personal beliefs of their proponents who try
to present them as scholarship.

III. TITLE OF THE WORK

I have so far refrained from giving the title of Avicennas work

on Eastern philosophy because the uncertainty which I dis-
cussed in my earlier study remains.24 Briefly, the problem is
that we have no concrete evidence about the precise title of the
book from Avicenna himself and his immediate disciples. The
earliest and apparently the most reliable indication that we
have is that provided in the manuscript of Avicennas works
(Cairo, Dr al-kutub, ikma 6M) copied by Abd al-Razzq
al-in (about the middle of the 6th/12th century), who calls
it Kitb al-Mariqiyyn (The Book of the Easterners).25 Almost at
the same time, however, Abd al-Razzqs younger contempo-
rary and acquaintance, ahr al-Dn al-Bayhaq (d. 565/1169),
gives the title as al-ikma al-mariqiyya (Eastern Philosophy).26

his own. Substantiated interpretations of the Eastern philosophy that differ from
Nasrs, such as those of Nallino, Goichon, Pines, or my own, are completely disregarded
without argumentation (though some of the names are mentioned). This type of doing
scholarship, which can be called the ostrich method of hiding the head in the sand, is
particularly inappropriate for a book such as that in which this essay appeared, which
purports to have the nature of an encyclopedia containing mainstream views.
24
Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 121-2.
25
On the Cairo manuscript and its scribe see D. Gutas, Notes and texts from Cairo
manuscripts, II: Texts from Avicennas Library in a copy by Abd-ar-Razzq a-
in, Manuscripts of the Middle East, 2 (1987): 8-17. I would like to take this
opportunity to make two additions to that article, with thanks to David C. Reisman
and Ahmad Hasnawi respectively who brought them to my attention. On p. 12b, add
to paragraph 4.iii. or : MS Ankara, Ismail Saib 4605, copied 696H, referred to in
M.T. Dnipajh, Fihrist-i Mkrflm-h-yi Kitbnah-i Markaz-i Dnigh-i
ihrn (Tehran, 1348), vol. I, p. 449, no. 6; no ff. references given. On p. 13a, add
a new paragraph, numbered 4.1, before 5: f. 151v. ua Afln al baq an-
nafs, ed. Badaw 73.15-74. Translation and study by Ahmad Hasnawi, Deux textes en
arabe sur les preuves platoniciennes de limmortalit de lme, Medioevo, 23 (1997):
395-399.
26
Tatimma [sic] iwn al-ikma of Al b. Zaid al-Baihai, ed. M. Shaf (Lahore,
1935), p. 56 = Gutas, Avicenna, p. 117, no. 11a.
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 167
Al-Bayhaqs evidence is corroborated slightly later by Far al-
Dn al-Rz (d. 606/1209), who quotes from the extant segment
on logic under the title also of al-ikma al-mariqiyya.27 In all
later manuscripts, the title is given predominantly as al-ikma
al-mariqiyya. To simplify the references, and since I will be
speaking mostly about these manuscripts, I will also call the
work al-ikma al-mariqiyya.

IV. CONTENTS OF AL-H RIQIYYA

. IKMA AL-MAS

Though the entire work has not survived, Avicenna gives in the
extant introduction both a classification of the sciences (or parts
of philosophy), which can be taken as an outline of the potential
contents of the work, and a statement about which of these
parts he was going actually to include. His classification of the
sciences is different from that he has given elsewhere and con-
sistent with the development of his thinking away from tradi-
tional Aristotelian models.28 He follows a strict procedure of
classification by division and arrives at the following schema:29

(Classification of the sciences)

All sciences of all times are divided into
A. Sciences relevant and needed only for a limited period
B. Sciences relevant and needed for all time (am az al-dahr) = philos-
ophy (ikma)
I. Derivative sciences (tawbi wa-fur), e.g., medicine, agriculture,
astrology, etc.
II. Fundamental sciences (ul)
1. Instrumental science (la): logic (maniq)
2. Substantive sciences
a. Theoretical sciences (ilm naar)
i. Physics (ilm ab)
ii. Mathematics (ilm riy)
iii. [Metaphysics 1] Theology (ilm ilh)
iv. [Metaphysics 2] Universal science (ilm kull)

27
ar Uyn al-ikma (Tehran, 1373/1415H), Part II, pp. 6, 13, referring to
what corresponds to pp. 7-8 in the old Cairo edition of the logic published under the
invented title Maniq al-Mariqiyyn [above, note 5].
28
See the discussion of this point in Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 286-96.
29
Maniq al-Mariqiyyn, pp. 5-8.
168 DIMITRI GUTAS

b. Practical sciences (ilm amal)

i. Ethics (ilm al-alq)
ii. Household management (tadbr al-manzil)
iii. City management (tadbr al-madna)
iv. Prophetic legislation (al-ina al-ria)
Avicenna ends his introduction by adding that in al-ikma al-
mariqiyya he would not write about all these parts of philosophy
but only about those which give rise to disagreement. He names
in order, presumably the order in which they actually appeared
in the book, logic, both parts of metaphysics (universal science
and theology), physics, and only that part of practical philoso-
phy as is needed by the person who seeks salvation (p. 8). On
this basis, and on the evidence of the extant manuscripts, the
contents of the al-ikma al-mariqiyya can be summarized as
follows (parts of the work which have not survived or not yet
located are given in square brackets):

(Contents of al-ikma al-mariqiyya)

II. Fundamental sciences (ul)
1. Instrumental science (la): logic (maniq)
a. First fann on taawwur and tadq
i. Taawwur
. Eisagoge
. De Interpretatione
ii. Tadq
. Prior Analytics
[. Posterior Analytics]
[b. Second fann on dialectics, sophistics, rhetoric, poetry (?)]30
2. Substantive sciences
a. Theoretical sciences (ilm naar)
[iii. Metaphysics 1: Theology (ilm ilh)]
[iv. Metaphysics 2: Universal science (ilm kull)]
i. Physics (ilm ab)31
. Physics (al-sam al-ab)
. On Heavens (al-sam wa-al-lam)
. On Generation and Corruption (al-Kawn wa-al-fasd)
. On Acting and Being acted upon (al-Afl wa-al-infilt)

30
This would seem to be a justifiable extrapolation: a first fann (i.e., no. 1.a above)
must be followed by a second, while the Irt, the other work by Avicenna which is
roughly contemporary with al-ikma al-mariqiyya, also has sections on these parts
of logic except poetry.
31
See the detailed list of contents in the table below, Section VII.
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 169
. Meteorology (al-r al-ulwiyya)
. De anima (F al-nafs)
[. Zoology (al-ayawn)]
[b. Practical sciences (ilm amal)]
[iv. Prophetic legislation (al-ina al-ria)]32
We are thus in possession of about half of the entire work. More
than enough has survived to allow a relatively accurate picture
of its nature and tendency.

V. MANUSCRIPTS AND TRANSMISSION

To the manuscripts of the work listed in my earlier study,33 the

following may be added:

A. Logic:
MS Qum, Mara 286, fols. 24-32. On the basis of the begin-
ning and end phrases cited in the catalogue, it is possible to
determine that the manuscript contains a large portion of the
text edited in Cairo (Maniq al-Mariqiyyn), from the begin-
ning to what corresponds to p. 37, line 7 of the edition. The end
is obviously missing. This philosophical collective manuscript is
dated 1072/1661-2.34
MS Tehran, Malis-i San 82, fols. 129-141. No date of copy-
ing is listed, though the catalogue mentions that the text is
incomplete at the end.35

32
Of the practical sciences, ethics and household and city management can be con-
sidered to have been omitted by Avicenna in al-ikma al-mariqiyya, consonant with
his intention stated in the introduction, cited above, to include only as much of these
sciences as is needed by the person who seeks salvation. This concern with the life
to come, al-mad, would be addressed in the new category devised by Avicenna in
the practical sciences, that of Prophetic legislation. See the discussion in Gutas,
Avicenna, p. 260.
33
Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 120-1. Two of those manuscripts are described in two
articles by G.C. Anawati, Un manuscrit de la Hikma Mashriqiyya dIbn Sina,
MIDEO, 1 (1954): 164-5, and Le manuscript Nour Osmaniyye 4894, MIDEO, 3
(1956): 381-6.
34
A. usayn and M. Mara, Fihrist-i nusah-h-yi a-i Kitbnah-yi
umm-i arat-i yatullh al-um Naaf Mara (Qum 1354/1975), vol. I,
p. 313.
35
M.T. Dnipajh, Fihrist-i kitb-h-yi a-i Kitbnah-yi Malis-i San
(Tehran, 1355 ), vol. I, p. 44. I am grateful to David C. Reisman for bringing this and
the previous manuscript to my attention.
170 DIMITRI GUTAS

B. Physics
MS Istanbul, III. Ahmet 2125, fols. 597r-695r. The colophon
on fol. 695r states that it was copied by Muammad b. Abdallh
al-u al-Fris on 21 D- al-Qda 893/27 October 1487. The
title is given on p. 597r as, Kitb ikmat al-mariq al-ab
[sic], tanf al-ay al-Ras Ab Al b. Sn raimahu Allhu.
Other than the Cairo MS ikma 6M, which contains only the
Logic, I have been able to inspect four MSS of the Physics part
(Istanbul III. Ahmet 2125, Ayasofya 2403, Nuruosmaniye 4894,
and Leipzig 796 Vollers [= DC 196]). Although it is premature
at this stage to describe these manuscripts in detail, some gen-
eral remarks can be made. It is clear that these four MSS, rela-
tively of late date as they are, all go back to a single archetype.
There is a significant lacuna in all of them, which cuts the text
in the middle of one sentence and splices it to the second half of
another sentence five pages down. This text, which corresponds
to Book IV, chapters 1-2, of the De anima part of the if, runs
as follows (cited from MS III. Ahmet 2125, fol. 674v):

The text runs continuously in the MSS where I indicated a

lacuna above. The lacuna begins after the word al-mutaakkar
(p. 167, last line in Rahmans edition of the De anima of the
if),36 and ends with the word before the word tarkb (on
p. 172.6 Rahman). That there is a lacuna here and not merely a
collage effected by Avicenna himself is indicated, apart from the
fact that the sentence in the al-ikma al-mariqiyya MSS that
contains the words al-mutaakkar tarkb makes no sense, also
by the word wa-al-n toward the end of the quotation above,
which has no corresponding aaduhum, as in the complete
text in the if (p. 172.5 Rahman).
It seems likely that more manuscripts will be identified in the
future, though whether they will include new material from the

36
F. Rahman, Avicennas De Anima (London, 1959).
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 171
parts of the work that have been lost is doubtful. What is prob-
lematic, however, is that its two parts, the Logic and the
Physics, have yet to be found together in a single manuscript. It
would appear that they were transmitted separately from the
very beginning, a particularity in the transmission of the work
that is possibly due to the varied circumstances of its partial
loss and destruction. The fact that the four Physics MSS dis-
cussed above all derive ultimately from a single archetype would
also tend to indicate that it was the one manuscript that sur-
vived destruction. However, the precise relationship among
these MSS will have to await for the prospective edition of the
text; for the moment, it would be untimely for me to speculate
on these problems of transmission without sufficient evidence.37
These MSS of the Physics part also raise interesting ques-
tions about the transmission and dissemination of the extant
parts the work. One of the MSS, Leipzig 796 Vollers, is written
in a Marib hand, which would indicate at least a Western
scribe if not a Western point of origin. Was al-ikma al-
mariqiyya known in North Africa and al-Andalus? And if so,
when? Second, another MS, that in the Bodleian (Pococke 181
= Hebrew 400 Uri), is in Hebrew characters. Was the scribe
who copied it and the people who owned it living in the East or
in al-Andalus?38 Finally, I have been informed that the 13th-
14th century Rabbi Abner of Burgos, who converted to
Christianity, mentions in some of his works that survive in

37
The text of the Physics part of the work was printed in a Marmara University
dissertation by Ahmet zcan, bn Snann El-Hikmetul-Mesrikiyye adl eseri ve
tabiat felsefesi (Istanbul, 1993). zcan transcribed the text from MS Nuruosmaniye
4894 and added an occasional variant from MS Aya Sofya 2403 (which, however, is
given in his Bibliography, p. 219, as Nuruosmaniye 2403!). There is no critical appa-
ratus or notes in the body of the work, which does not contribute anything to
research; one is advised to use MS Nuruosmaniye 4894 directly. (I am indebted to
Jules Janssens for first bringing this dissertation to my attention and to Jean Michot
for providing me with a copy of the text.)
38
The scribe of this, the second, part of the manuscript is listed as Yaqob ben
Yiaq hal-Levi Yrushalmi by A. Neubauer, Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in
the Bodleian Library (Oxford, 1886), p. 475a, no. 1334; the scribe mentioned by Tzvi
Langermann is, according to Neubauer again, responsible for the first part of the
manuscript: see Y. Tzvi Langermann, Arabic writings in Hebrew manuscripts: A
preliminary listing, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, 6 (1996): 137-60, p. 157. The
owners include Abraham bar Yoseph, Shmuel bar ananel ben Yayah, and his son
Yoseph. My investigations and inquiries so far have not yielded their identity.
Charles Manekin and Mauro Zonta inform me, on the basis of Malachi Beit-Aries
Supplement to Neubauers Catalogue (Oxford, 1994), that the script of the Bodleian
MS is oriental cursive. My thanks go to them both.
172 DIMITRI GUTAS

Spanish Avicennas al-ikma al-mariqiyya (filosofia orien-

tal).39 Although the passages mentioned by Rabbi Abner as com-
ing from Avicennas Eastern philosophy look suspect and
cannot be readily identified in any of the extant portions of the
work, the question remains; the likelihood that the Arabic
original of al-ikma al-mariqiyya was known in al-Andalus
may indeed be remote, but given the Marib hand of the
Leipzig MS it cannot be completely discounted either. All these
intriguing questions have yet to be resolved on the basis of fur-
ther research on the manuscripts and text of al-ikma al-
mariqiyya.

VI. COMPARISON OF THE STYLES OF COMPOSITION

OF AL-H RIQIYYA AND AL-S
. IKMA AL-MAS IFA

The part of al-ikma al-mariqiyya devoted to the theory of the

soul is the most extensive in the extant portions of the book,
something which well illustrates the significance Avicenna
attached to the subject. It occupies 37 fols. in the III. Ahmet MS
(fols. 658b-695a), while everything that preceded it in Physics
occupies only 61 fols. (597b-658b). It is also the part that follows
the text of the if very closely; it is, in essence, a verbatim
transcript with numerous omissions and rephrasings. Avicenna
clearly had the text of the if in front of him as he transcribed
it, with alterations, to create the text of al-ikma al-
mariqiyya. This allows a very detailed comparison between the
two and enables us to understand precisely what the differences
in composition between the two works were. We are able to test,
in other words, Avicennas statement in the Prologue to the
if that the two differed in approach and style but not in sub-
stance. In what follows I will present some of the evidence to
that effect.
The best indication of what Avicenna meant in that Prologue
when he said that he did not take into account in [al-ikma al-
mariqiyya] the views of colleagues in the discipline [i.e., philos-
ophy], is in the section that corresponds to Book I, Chapter 2,
of the De anima part of the if, which treats in detail the

39
In a private communication by Charles Manekin, to whom I am deeply indebted.
Manekin refers me, i.a., to Walter Mettmann, Mostrador de justicia (Opladen, 1994),
pp. 160, 235.
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 173
views of the ancients on the subject of the soul, a section of the
if which in turn is parallel to Aristotles chapters in his De
anima. In al-ikma al-mariqiyya, Avicenna dispenses with the
entire subject in one sentence:
The views of the ancients on what the soul is and their disagreements on the
subject have been told in Aristotles book [De anima] and in the if, and
their refutations have been presented in both places together, to which those
wishing to find out about this matter are referred. We will confine ourselves
here to the exposition of the true view.40
This statement, which hardly needs comment, makes it plain
that the nature of al-ikma al-mariqiyya was systematic, not
historical; it aimed to present what Avicenna considered the
true view on each subject treated, without regard to argu-
ments that had been at one time advanced but since then satis-
factorily refuted. The if was clearly more comprehensive: it
offered not only the true view but also arguments by other
philosophers and their refutation. A dogmatic presentation of
the true view without consideration of opposing opinions is
bound to create controversy the schisms Avicenna mentions
in the prologue to the if while the detailed argumentation
against opinions considered false by Avicenna and for those he
held to be true is obviously the precautions against creating
schisms that he refers to in the same passage.
This constitutes one kind of omission in the text of al-ikma
al-mariqiyya as compared with the fuller text in the if.
Another consists of omissions of whole sentences or paragraphs
in the if that explain a detail, elaborate a point, and thus
break the continuity of the main argument, together with an
occasional rearrangement of the text in a way that presents the
argument more directly. The elaborate and encumbered style of
the if suggests, hints, or alludes to what the argument would
have been like had it been stated plainly; the direct style of al-
ikma al-mariqiyya presents the argument as it would occur
to someone naturally intelligent, who has not been subjected to
the misleading influence of erroneous views. This is what is
indicated by Avicennas description of the style of the if in

40
MS III. Ahmet 2125, fol. 660r5-7: innahu qad ukiya f al-talmi al-awwali wa-
f kitbi al-ifi ru al-qudami f mhiyyati al-nafsi wa-itilftuhum fh wa-
rida f al-mawiayni aman munqtuhum fa-man aabba marifata lika
fa-l-yari ilayh wa-hun naqtairu al bayni al-rayi al-aqqi. It is to be noted
that by al-talm al-awwal Avicenna always refers to the works of Aristotle.
174 DIMITRI GUTAS

the prologue: it is somewhat conciliatory to colleagues, elabo-

rates a lot, and alludes to what the direct statement of the
argument would have been.
As example we can follow in detail the contents of Book
(maqla) I, Chapter (fal) 5 in the if (pp. 39.13-51.16 Rahman)
and its corresponding section in al-ikma al-mariqiyya, fols.
662r-665r in the MS III. Ahmet 2125. This chapter, a rapid
review of the faculties of the soul, was originally composed by
Avicenna in his treatise l al-nafs al-insniyya (The State of the
Human Soul) and belongs to what I have called the transition
period of his creative activity (the first decade of the 5th/11th cen-
tury).41 It was copied in the Nat (The Salvation), the if, and
now in al-ikma al-Mariqiyya, and through slight editorial revi-
sions made to support the different purposes served by these var-
ious works. An eventual serious study of Avicennas theory of the
soul will have to analyze all these works simultaneously; for the
present we will confine ourselves to comparing the if with al-
ikma al-mariqiyya alone. The paragraphs discussed below are
numbered in order to facilitate reference.
1 (39.13-40.4 Rahman = MS fol. 662r10-15) is almost verba-
tim identical in the two texts except for the definition of food in
the if (39.16-18) which is omitted in al-ikma al-mariqiyya.
This definition harks back to, and is indeed a distillation of, the
discussion in Aristotles De anima II.4, 416a20-b20, which pre-
sents alternative views on the nature of food. Because this defi-
nition has these historical overtones, it is omitted in al-ikma
al-mariqiyya; it adds nothing to the subject under discussion,
which is the definition of the vegetative soul as the first perfec-
tion of a natural body having organs insofar as it is capable of
(re)generation, growth, and nutrition. The laymans under-
standing of nutrition (i) in this definition was sufficient
for Avicennas purposes, and he accordingly excised its defini-
tion from the text of al-ikma al-mariqiyya. The definition
was first included by Avicenna in his l al-nafs al-insniyya,42
apparently for reasons of precision and, possibly, ostentation:
Avicenna had assimilated all ancient philosophical knowledge,
and at this relatively early stage of his career desired to distill it

41
Gutas, Avicenna, pp. 99-100, 145. The later dating for this work proposed by
J.R. Michot, La destine de lhomme selon Avicenne (Louvain, 1986), p. 6, n. 29, even
if correct, does not affect my argument here.
42
In A.F. al-Ahwn, Awl al-nafs (Cairo, 1371/1952), p. 57.4-6.
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 175
in his own works. It was retained in the Nat (Cairo, 1331, p.
258.4-6) and the if, in the latter definitely for reasons of com-
prehensiveness, but eliminated from the text of al-ikma al-
mariqiyya for the reasons stated above.
2 (40.4-13 Rahman = MS fol. 662r15-19). The structure of
this paragraph in the two texts brings out best the stylistic dif-
ference between them, what Avicenna described in the prologue
to the if as the conciliatory and allusive (talw) style of the
if versus the direct approach of al-ikma al-mariqiyya. The
text of the if can be read in Rahmans edition, that of al-
ikma al-mariqiyya is given here, with the corresponding lines
of Rahmans text noted on the side to facilitate comparison:

First of all, one is to notice the qualifying phrases Avicenna uses

in the if (emphasized below). After having defined the three
souls in succession in 1, he goes on to say at the very beginning
of 2, had it not been customary, (law l al-datu) i.e., to list
the definitions of the three souls, vegetative, animal, and
human, one after the other without any mention of their
generic interrelations, it would have been better to make each
one an explicit precondition in the description of the next, if
indeed one wishes to give a description of the soul and not the
faculty of the soul which it has with regard to a specific func-
tion. And a few lines later he adds how he would have done it
had it not been customary to do it as he actually did it in the
if: But if you want to be precise, the correct thing to do is to
(fa-in aradta al-istiqa fa-al-awbu an) make the vegetative
176 DIMITRI GUTAS

soul a genus of the animal, and the animal soul a genus of the
human, and include the more general in the definition of the
more particular.
In al-ikma al-mariqiyya, the qualifying phrases and excuses
have disappeared, and the paragraph is turned upside down in
order to put first what he considers to be the correct way, with-
out saying explicitly that this is the correct way:
We should have made each one [of the preceding three definitions] an explicit
precondition in the description of the next, and made the vegetative soul a
genus of the animal, and the animal soul a genus of the human, and include
the more general in the definition of the more particular, especially if we
wish to define the soul and not the faculty of the soul which it has with
regard to a specific function.

In this recasting, because the first part of the sentence is con-

nected with the second through the inferential especially (l
siyyam), the explanatory sentence in the if (p. 40.7: fa-inna
al-kamla maun f addi al-nafsi l f addi quwwati al-
nafsi), which provides a hint (talw) for the correct under-
standing of the paragraph, is omitted in al-ikma al-mariqiyya.
It is also to be noted that this paragraph was composed fresh
for the if: it appears neither in l al-nafs al-insniyya nor
in the Nat. Obviously this was a fine-tuning of Avicennas
understanding of the relationship of the three souls which
occurred to him later, while composing the if, and further
refined in al-ikma al-mariqiyya. The final formulation in al-
ikma al-mariqiyya is just as polite as that in the if, i.e., it
is not aggressive toward those who have been following cus-
tomary practice, though it is not as obsequious, or, as Avicenna
put it, taking precautions against creating schisms.
3 (43.2-12 Rahman = MS fol. 663r7-13). In this paragraph
about the internal perceptive faculties, al-ikma al-mariqiyya
omits one sentence (43.3-5 Rahman) in which Avicenna draws a
distinction between perception with action and perception with-
out action and between primary and secondary perception.
4 (43.13-44.3 Rahman). This entire paragraph, a further
elaboration on the theme of perception with corresponding
action and perception without action and primary and sec-
ondary perception, is omitted in al-ikma al-mariqiyya just as
the sentence dealing with this subject was omitted in the pre-
ceding paragraph (43.3-5 Rahman).
5 (44.11-45.2 Rahman). This paragraph was written anew
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 177
for the if; it is found neither in l al-nafs al-insniyya nor
the Nat; and al-ikma al-mariqiyya also omits it. It con-
cerns the elucidation of the difference between the external
senses, the common sense (fanasiy = iss mutarak), and the
form-bearing faculty (muawwira).
6 (47.1-7 Rahman). Al-ikma al-mariqiyya omits this para-
graph in the if about aspects of human character stemming
from bodily faculties.
7 (48.6-17 Rahman). Al-ikma al-mariqiyya omits this
paragraph in the if on the different meanings of potentiality.
A third kind of alteration in the text of al-ikma al-
mariqiyya vis--vis that of the if, finally, consists of omis-
sions of single words or phrases, and the occasional rearranging
of the syntax of a sentence. A detailed comparison between
them, which cannot be undertaken here, ought to nuance fur-
ther our understanding of their stylistic differences.

VII. CONTENTS OF AL-H

. IKMA AL-MAS RIQIYYA

IN RELATION TO THE SIFA

For the Logic part of al-ikma al-mariqiyya, Avicenna appar-

ently wrote the text anew. Although it is quite parallel to his
numerous other compositions on logic, there is no sustained lit-
eral correspondence with i.e., copying from earlier works. By
contrast, the entire part on Physics is copied verbatim from the
if with such alterations in the text as have been just
described in the preceding section. To gain an understanding of
the precise contents of the Physics part, I am listing below its
entire contents as they relate to the if.
Headings in the left hand column are titles of sections as they
occur in al-ikma al-mariqiyya; those in square brackets [ ]
were added by me (on the basis of the if) when there was no
corresponding title heading in the MSS of al-ikma al-
mariqiyya and the text ran on. The order of the headings is
that in the if.
Column two: folio and line number of the text of al-ikma al-
mariqiyya from MS III. Ahmet 2125.
Column three: Book (maqla) and chapter (fal) in the if
to which the text of al-ikma al-mariqiyya corresponds.
Column four: page and line numbers in the Cairo and Rahman
editions of the Physics of the if to which corresponds the
178 DIMITRI GUTAS

beginning of that section in al-ikma al-mariqiyya. After the

initial paragraph(s), the text in al-ikma al-mariqiyya fre-
quently skips some paragraphs and resumes further down; the
continuity can be traced relatively easily. The Cairo edition was
used for the text of the if from Physics through Meteorology,
the Rahman edition for the text of the De anima.
The sign (~) indicates that the correspondence between the
if text and that in al-ikma al-mariqiyya is approximate.

Subject headings fol. of MS III. book. pp. in Cairo

Ahmet 2125 chapter in ed. of the
if if

PHYSICS (al-Sam al-flab)

introduction 597v-598r15 I.1 7.5
al-hayl 598r15-599r12 I.2 14.4
al-r 599r13-v14 I.2-3 14.2; 22.13
al-adam 599v14-600r18 I.2 16.18
al-fil 600r18-602r6 I.2; I.10 15.7; 48.14
al-ya 602r6-v4 I.10-11 52.14
al-bat wa-al-ittifq 602v4-603r12 I.13 ~62.5; 64.6
al-araka 603r12-607v6 II.1 81.7
al-sukn 607v7-608r17 II.4 108.5
al-makn 612v10-613v8 II.6 114.13
al-al 613v8-615v7 II.7-8 119.9; 123.13
al-zamn 608r17-612v10 II.11 155.7
man alf yutu il marifatih 615v7-616r7 III.2 178.6
al-asm wa-al-araka wa-al-zamn 616r7-619r2 III.4-6 ~188.11
tanh al-asm wa-al-quw 619r2-625r10 III.7-8 209.12; 212.6
iht al-asm wa-iht al-arakt 625r11-628r6 III.13-14 ~246.6; 251.5
awl al-araka an awri lah 628r6-636v7 IV.1-9 262.4
DE CAELO (al-Sam wa-al-lam)
anf al-quw wa-al-arakt al-basfla 636v8; 637v1-639r13 I.1-2 1.7; 6.5
ayn al-asm al-basfla 639r13-v12 I.3 16.11
[awl al-ism al-mutaarrik
bi-al-istidra] 639v13-641v11 I.4 26.5
[awl al-kawkib wa-al-qamar] 641v11-642r12 I.5 37.4
[arakt al-kawkib] 642r12-643v18 I.6 ~45; 49.11
[l al-ayz al-flabiyya] 643v18-644v2 I.10 73.2
DE GENERATIONE ET CORRUPTIONE (al-Kawn wa-al-fasd)
al-kawn wa-al-fasd 644v2-14 I.1 77.8
[al-istila] 644v14-646r13 I.6 122.8
[imtiz al-anir] 646r13-v15 I.7 133.12
[al-numuww] 646v16-647r6 I.8 140.4
usfluqusst al-anw 647r6-v8 I.9 147.4
[al-kayfiyyt al-arba] 647v8-648v19 I.11 167.13; 154.13
[arakt al-anir] 649r1-15 I.13 186.10; 184.11
[infilt al-anir baih min bain] 649r15-650r4 I.14 189.5
[adwr al-kawn wa-al-fasd] 650r4-v10 I.15 195.4
 AVICENNAS EASTERN (ORIENTAL) PHILOSOPHY 179
Subject headings fol. of MS III. book. pp. in Cairo
Ahmet 2125 chapter in ed. of the
if if

(al-Afl wa-al-infilt)
[f flabaqt al-anir] 650v10-651r1 I.1 202.5
[awl al-bar wa-al-ar] 651r1-v8 I.2 205.4; 202.13
al-afl wa-al-infilt 651v8-652r4 I.5 221.5
[al-kayfiyyt al-massa li-al-anir] 652r4-653r5 II.1 250.8
[tawbi al-miz] 653r6-17 II.2 261.4

METEOROLOGY (al-r al-ulwiyya)

f al-madin wa-ilalih 653r17-v16 I.1 3.9
[manfi al-ibl] 653v16-654r14 I.2 10.4
[al-awhir al-madiniyya] 654r14-655r6 I.5 20.4
f al-r al-ulwiyya 655r6-v11 II.1 39.1; 35.4
[al-sabab al-fil li-al-hla
wa-qaws quza] 655v12-656r6 II.2 40.5
[al-hla wa-qaws quza] 656r7-657r10 II.3 47.4
[al-r] 657r10-v5 II.4 58.5
[al-rad] 657v5-658r15 II.5 67.4
[al-flfn] 658r15-v2 II.6 75.4

DE ANIMA (F al-nafs; references to the Rahman ed.)

ikr al-nafs 658v3-660r5 I.1 1.12
[r al-qudam] 660r5-7 I.2 Mariq. says it
will omit
[awhariyyat al-nafs] 660r7-661r10 I.3 27.15
quw al-nafs wa-tadduh 661r10-662r10 I.4 33.7
[i al-quw al-nafsniyya] 662r10-665r1 I.5 39.13
l al-quw al-mansba il al-nafs
al-nabtiyya 665r1-v5 II.1 52.4
al-quw al-mudrika 665v5-666v16 II.2 58.4
ssat al-lams 666v17-668r17 II.3 67.6
ssat al-awq wa-al-amm 668r17-v15 II.4 75.3
ssat al-sam 668v16-669v19 II.5 81.16
ssat al-baar 669v19-671r3 III.1 91.5
[f amr al-nr wa-al-u] 671r3-v2 III.2 95.8
[f al-nr wa-al-lawn] 671v2-12 III.3 104.8
[al-ruya] 671v12-672r2 III.5 115.20
[ruyat al-ay al-wid ayayni] 672r2-673v15 III.8 151.11
al-awss al-bflina 673v15-674v13 IV.1 163.5

[lacuna in all MSS corresponding to pp. 167.18-172.6 in Rahmans ed.]

[al-muawwira wa-al-mufakkira] 674v13-677r14 IV.2 172.6
al-wahmiyya wa-al-mutaakkira 677r14-678v13 IV.3 182.14
at hihi al-quw il lt 678v13-679v1 IV.3b 188.2
usmniyya
al-quw al-muarrika 679v1-681v7 IV.4 194.6
quw al-naar wa-al-amal 681v7-682v18 V.1 202.6
qiwm al-nafs al-nfliqa 682v18-685r19 V.2 209.16
[intif al-nafs bi-al-awss] 685r19-685v19 V.3 221.17
180 DIMITRI GUTAS

Subject headings fol. of MS III. book. pp. in Cairo

Ahmet 2125 chapter in ed. of the
if if

ud al-nafs al-insniyya 685v19-686v17 V.3b 223.11

[al-nafs l tamtu] 686v17-688v3 V.4 227.13
al-aql wa-al-mutaaqqil 688v3-689v15 V.5 234.14
[afl al-aql] 689v15-692r8 V.6 239.3
tawaud al-nafs wa-takaur quwh 692r9-693v11 V.7 250.9
[lt al-quw al-nafsniyya] 693v11-695r end V.8 263.9