Handbook of the History of Logic: - Fordham University Faculty

The Assimilation of Aristotelian and Arabic Logic up to the Later Thirteenth Century 285
philosophiae, but it was also printed in Venice in 1506 under the title Logica
et philosophia Algazelis arabis. The twelfth century translation is by Dominicus
Gundissalinus and was commissioned by John Archbishop of Toledo (1151-66). 9
The Latin translation of the Maqāsid was very much read and became, at least
in the thirteenth century, the basic text from which the Latin authors gained their
knowledge of Arabic philosophy. The reason it became so much read was because
it mentions some of the ‘hot’ topics of the period, for example the divisions of the
sciences, the distinction between essence and existence, the eternity of the world,
the number of souls etc. 10 It was also a very controversial work. In his work
the Tractatus de erroribus philosophorum, Giles of Rome lists 18 errors of Al-
Ghazālī taken from the Maqāsid. They later found their way into the Directorium
Inquisitorum from 1376 by Nicholas Eymerich. 11 The logic became very well
known as well. Albert the Great uses it quite extensively and it was used or
copied by Ramón Lull. 12
Althought the Maqāsid was a summary of Al-Farabi’s and Avicenna’s doctrine,
the Latin thirteenth century also had some knowledge of Al-Farabi’s and Avicenna’s
logics directly. A twelfth century translation of the beginning, namely the
part on Porphyry’s Isagoge, of Avicenna’s encyclopedic worked called in Arabic
Kitab al-Shifa (‘The Book of Healing’) was circulating. 13 And also a fragment of
the part on the Posterior Analytics from the same book existed in Latin. 14 Small
fragments of some of Al-Farabi’s logic works have also been discovered in Latin. 15
In the early thirteenth century, some of Averroes’ commentaries on the Organon
were translated in to Latin. William of Luna translated the middle commentary
on Porphyry’s Isagoge and the middle commentaries on Aristotle’s Categories, De
interpretatione, Prior Analytics, andPosterior Analytics between the 1220’s and
30’s 16 , but Latin writers seem to have had knowledge of other logic works by
Averroes than these.
Averroes’ commentaries were important for a general understanding of Aristotle’s
very difficult texts. They are generally, as mentioned already, helpful in
expounding the text and clearing up mistakes otherwise easily made, but the middle
commentaries do not really go beyond Aristotle’s own text. If you read them
carefully, however, an interpretation is usually indicated, but what influence, if
any, they had in the subsequent thirteenth century commentary tradition has not
been carefully studied. It seems clear that the strong connection between logic
and metaphysics emphasised in these commentaries had some influence, though.
In what follows, I will outline the view on the matter and form of a syllogism
9 See the introduction to Al-Ghazālī, Tractatus de logica, 229.
10 See [Alonso, 1958].
11 See Giles of Rome, Errores philosophorum.
12 See [Johnston, 1997].
13 See Avicenna, Avicenne perypatetici philosophi.
14 See D. Gundissalinus, De divisione philosophiae, 124-33.
15 See [Salman, 1948]. In [Salman, 1939] it is argued that there was knowledge of a commentary
of the Posterior Analytics by Al-Farabi in the thirteenth century.
16 See [Wolfson, 1963] and [Hissette, 1997]