Part One. Philosophy. Chapter One. Greeks. Logic

Manekin, Charles H.; Biesterfeldt, Hans Hinrich

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-76962-8_2

Charles H. Manekin⁴ &
Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt⁵

Part of the book series: Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy ((ASJT,volume 18))

93 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter presents a translation, revision, and update of the chapter on medieval logical writings in Hebrew from Moritz Steinschneider’s 1893 Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (The Hebrew Translations of the Middle Ages and Jews as Interpreters). The chapter includes translations of logical compendia and commentaries on the Aristotelian Organon, and the Hebrew literature they produced. Steinschneider listed these works in the section on “Greeks,” even though the works were written originally in Arabic and Latin. The revised chapter provides much supplementary material and an up-to-date manuscript inventory based on new identifications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

$34.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 39.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 54.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Part One. Philosophy. Chapter Three. Jews

Boethius

Notes

1.
Criticism that has met with approval is represented in V. Rose’s prize essay (Rose 1854), and in his edition of Aristotle (Aristoteles 1863). Cf. also Heitz 1865; Zeller 1868, 2.
2.
A collection of references, not quite complete, and also partly erroneous, is contained in the article ארסטו in Benjacob and Steinschneider 1880, 51, which is completed and corrected in the supplement volume.
3.
The eight books of Aristotle are named in Maimonides’s Logical Terms (chapter 10); the translation of Moses Ibn Tibbon presents the terminology that became prevalent. (According to Mordechai Comtino’s commentary on the Logical Terms (Maimonides 1865, 51). Porphyry’s Isagoge is included in the first book of Aristotle). The enumeration of Abraham Abulafia (in Jellinek 1854, 14) has for the last books: Sophistics, Rhetoric (הדרש), otherwise generally Homiletics, Topics (ניצוח) and Poetics, in the end. Moses Ibn Ḥabib, Darkhei Noam (Ibn Ḥabib 1806, f. 4–5) has the usual order of books and the usual titles together with a short summary, and not a “detailed exposition of the Aristotelian writings,” as Jellinek 1854, 99, says. Starting from the five modes of proof (Maimonides, Logical Terms, chapter 8, Steinschneider 1869a, 18 and 241, and above §10 n. 224), Moses ibn Tibbon (Commentary on the Song of Songs (Ibn Tibbon 1874), introduction p. 6; cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 240) calls the last five books מופת, מחלוקת הנצוח, ספר ההגדה או הספור, הטעאה, שיר. The name of Porphyry is garbled in Avicenna’s רסאיל, Ibn Sīnā 1881, 79. Moses Ibn Ezra, al-Muḥāḍara wa-l-Mudhākara [Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Hunt 549], f. 72, remarks: וגרץ' אלפילוסוף פי אלג'ז אלתאמן מן כתבה אלמנטקיה֞ והו אלמסמי יונמטיקא [בואיטיקה] פי צנאעה֞ אלשער...; f. 76 אלשער ויחסן פי אלת'אמן מן כתבה אלמנטקיה֞ הא יפצ'ל אלשער ויחסן פי אלת'אמן מן כתבה אלמנטקיה֞ פוג'דהא תמאניה֞; f. 80b והו אלמסמי באליונאניה֞ אנאלנטיקא [אנאלוטיקא] והו אלכתאב אלראבע מן כתב אלמנטק. [The passages are on pp. 134, 142, and 150, respectively, of Halkin’s Ibn Ezra 1975 edition.] --According to Joseph Gikatilia’s preface to his commentary on the Guide (Ashkenazi et al. 1574, f. 19b,c), logic comprises eight books and 175 general terms; Maimonides counts as many in his Logical Terms.
4.
The designation of logic as an instrument (כלי) is already emphasized by al-Fārābī in Steinschneider 1869a, 15; this has become a stereotype.
5.
My study on al-Fārābī (Steinschneider 1869a) serves as the nearest source. Lucien Leclerc 1876, I, 359, II, 504, is not aware of this monograph, and in general offers only very meager notes from Munk (whom he spells “Munck”).
6.
Steinschneider 1869a, 13 and 254 (quotation in Joseph ben Abraham Ḥayyun).
7.
Literal translation of נצר; Steinschneider 1869a, 13 no. 2 and 254.
^7b (a) התבות (b) המלות; (a) וההקשיות חמשה הפילוסופיא ומלאכת הנצוח והמלאכה...(?) ההלצה ומל' השיר (b)הויכוח והגבור והיא הנקראת אלג'דל והמלאכה הנצחונית והיא הנקראת אלסופסטליאה (כך!) ומל' הדבור והיא הנקראת אלכטאבה֞; (a) השוחק באשקקו, (b) המשחק באשטרוג (באשטראנג'); (a) ס' מליצה (b) ביאור; the four philosophical disciplines (a) 1 הלמודים, 2 הטבעית b הטבעיות, (a) 3 האלהות, 4 ח' המדינה (b) ח' המנהג כלומר מנהג המדינה; the four mathematical ones (למודים) 1 (a) המספר (b) המנין, 2 (a) התשבורת, 3 (a) and (b) הכוכבים, 4 (a) הניגון (b) adds והיא אלמוסיקא; (a) ברצון (b) בחפץ; (a) והכלל והסגולה (b) ופרק ויחוד; (a) הגדר והרושם (b) והגבול והתו.
8.
Steinschneider 1869a,15.
9.
Beginnings and endings are given in Steinschneider 1875b, 128.
10.
לג'יס and לאג'יס (probably Arabic). He is to be found in Leipzig, UBL B. H. 39/3 (cf. Delitzsch et al. 1838, 327: “forte Legis”): קבוץ מאמרים על אמתת החכמה האלהית, with a collection of sayings for the use of philosophy against al-Ghazālī and Avicenna (!), who charges the old philosophy with heresy and has degraded the truth to mere opinion; Leipzig, UBL B. H. 14, 247a–249b, contains a fragment (two folia) מאמר על אמתת החכמה האלהית, a dialogue between Plato and Averroes. Hamburg SUB Ms. Cod. Hebrew 256 (Steinschneider 1878b, 106) contained on f. 211 כלל המתהפכים (on the conversion of propositions) by the same Moses. [This latter work also appears in Paris, BNF héb 683/4, Florence, BM-L. Ms. Plut.I.22/2, and NY, Columbia U X893 Se/1.] – For a copyist Solomon לאגיס, cf. Steinschneider 1879c, 59.
11.
Thus (and not רושם) the word apparently has to be read; the codex is corroded by ink.
12.
Peyron puts the epigraph נשלמו) חמשת הפרקים) as title and remarks, “nuspiam tamen vidi hunc operis titulum.”
13.
Bedersi 1865, 246; cf. preface p. 9.
14.
Steinschneider 1877e, 124; cf. below §58 n. 140.
15.
Steinschneider 1869a, 17; cf. the epilogue of Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles (§18); for the terms used by Averroes, cf. Steinschneider 1865a, 74 and 152, by al-Ghazālī and Avicenna in Steinschneider 1874c, 102, and already in the Logic of the Sincere Brethren (Dieterici 1858, 29, cf. p. 175), briefly at the end of the Isagoge; cf. Steinschneider 1869g, 167.
16.
Steinschneider 1869a, 18. One sentence from the “large compendium” is quoted by Ibn ʿAqnīn in Güdemann 1880, 82, text p. 25: פי מכ'תצרה אלכביר.
17.
Wolf 1715–1733, III, 6, includes the writings of Shem Tov b. Joseph that follow in Paris, BNF héb 898. The variant readings in parenthesis come from héb 898, where they figure in the margin frequently tallying with héb 917. Cf. below n. 20.
^17b Renan and Neubauer 1877, 593, also denotes this reference as a “supposition du catalogue.”
18.
פרפרינוס (פורפוריוס) הצורי בספרו במבוא קורא המקרים מקרים המתפרקים; Steinschneider 1869a, 21; the author “from Tyre” also in Dieterici 1868, 12, where it says “sechs Worte” (cf. 24); the translation and the note are not precise.
19.
Steinschneider 1869a, 21. אבו נצר אלפראבי בס' המאמרות is quoted by Manoaḥ (?), Steinschneider 1858, 209. – Lasinio discovered the end of the Categories and the beginning of the Interpretation in the Codex Laurentianus 190 [Assemani 1742, 330–332] (Or. 85) [The most recent catalogue description obtained via the BM-L website is “Commentarius in librorum Praedicamentorum et Perihermeneias Aristotelis”]; the ms. seems to be a sciagraphy (see Steinschneider 1875b ad Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 307/9a [Steinschneider refers there to “Lasinio (1871),” but I was unable to find the reference; Lasinio announces his intention to discuss the manuscript elsewhere in Averroës 1872a, 7 n. 1. Perhaps it was in a personal communication; for correspondence between Lasinio and Steinschneider, see Salah 2012, 436–438.]
20.
In Steinschneider 1869a, 22, I could not anticipate that the Paris catalogue simply assumes the two translations in Paris, BNF héb 917/3c and Paris, BNF héb 898/1c to be the same, whereas it differentiates between Paris, BNF héb 917/3a and Paris, BNF héb 917/4.
21.
Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 63, f. 236b (Dukes 1848a, 490, no. 15, where one should read חשבו and הכלי היא מלת, then Jonah [Ibn Janāḥ] follows; Dukes no. 13 quotes imprecisely המבוא), f. 238, 239 (Abū Naṣr treats the subject at greater length, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 22); 239b he elucidates a longer passage, begins: והשם יהיה נוטה ופעמים יהיה נצב; as to the words חליפות לו הוספה he remarks that the other translation has הושבה; Paris, BNF héb 917/3c has הוסיפה, Paris, BNF héb 898/1c השיב, both being imprecise; on f. 240b מבלתי שיחובר בה קצת הדבוקים, in the other translation מבלי שיסמוך בה קצת המקיפות המגיעות; f. 249b: Abū Naṣr explains that extensively at the end of the ס' המליצה: f. 251 והכל מבואר בס' המליצה אשר לאבו נצר; f. 259 זה מבואר בס' אבו נצר; f. 263, מבואר בספר without names.
22.
Steinschneider 1869a, 29. For a quotation from the “Great Commentary to the Syllogism” (פירוש ההיקש הגדול) in Maimonides, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 31, 34.
23.
This is probably the book quoted by Abraham [?] Avigdor simply as ס' ההיקש (Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 63, f. 246b; cf. f. 246: עיין באבו נצר ובהיקש? Steinschneider 1869a, 30). [Cf. the pertinent passage in Jena, UB Rec. adj. f. 10/7,27a–b; Arabic: Fārābī 1985–1987, 1: 17–18.] – Zerahiah b. Isaac [b. Shealtiel Ḥen], in his commentary to the introduction to the Moreh [Fischl 15F, now Cambridge UL Add. 1527, 3/2] cites al-Fārābī for the explanation of four logical terms (concerning the [sixth] cause of contradiction mentioned at the end of Maimonides’s introduction). אמנם בסבה [השישית] (השלישית) זכר ארבע מלות הנזכרות בהגיון והם גזרה והקדמה והולדה והיקש. ואני אבאר לך כל אחת מהם כפי מהותם… וההקדמה אמר אבן רשד בס' ההיקש. וההקדמה היא מאמר מחייב דבר לדבר או תשולל דבר מדבר. ואמר אבו נצר אלפראבי והגזירה היא מאמר ורובו (?) בדבר על דבר ויוגד בו דבר בעבור דבר. ואמר עוד בשמיני ממיני ההיקש כי המחוייב מן ההיקש נקרא… (חסר) ונקרא הרדפה וכל היקש יתחבר משתי הקדמות ואמר בפרק ה' מההיקש וההיקש מאמר יונחו בו ענינים יותר מאחד משתי הקדמות…ואמר המחבר כי כמו זה הוא אשר יקרה אל החכמי' מחברי הספרים. ואמר על הגזרה בפרק ראשון מן הקש בהגיון אבונצר אלקציה (כך) ההגיון המאמר הגוזר אלגאזם הוא מאמר יובן בו בדבר על דבר ויוגד בו בדבר בעבור דבר כמו שזכרנו למעלה באמרך ראובן ילך והאדם בעל חיים.. [This is from the “abridged” version of Zerahiah’s introduction to the commentary on the Guide, but it differs little in this passage from the full version. See De Souza 2018, 201, 203 (Heb.), 200, 202 (Eng.). De Souza, 188 n. 57 and 58, refers to Rescher 1963, but that is a translation of the Small Syllogism; the definition here appears to be taken from the Syllogism. The reference to Ibn Riḍwān on 188 (Eng.) and 189 (Heb.) is more likely to his book On What is Used in Logic, the Sciences, and the Arts, for which see Aouad 1998.]
24.
Steinschneider 1869a, 30.
25.
Steinschneider 1869a, 44. Cf. below, §71, n. 313.
26.
Ibn Daud 1852, text, 65 [Ibn Daud 2018, 488–489]; Steinschneider 1869a, 53.
27.
אומנות “art / discipline”; cf. above, §10 n. 224b.
28.
In Steinschneider 1875b, 8, read: “anders in [n.] 110^7,6 in n. 244^6,5,” etc.”
29.
On the preface of the translator, see under Sophistics.
30.
התעיה is to be found only here, in Baṭalyawsī (Kaufmann 1880, 44 (variant reading …!)), and perhaps in the Long Commentary to the Metaphysics (see below, §88 n. 503). For the etymology of the Greek word see Steinschneider 1869a, 55, 241; cf. Steinschneider 1874e, 37. – For the ms. of the Arabic original, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 56.
31.
Krafft and Deutsch 1847, 130, 131, presents us with a horrible confusion, making al-Fārābī the translator, omitting the information of the three chapters, and identifying the three writings (Small Syllogism, Topics, and Sophistics) as three books translated by Jacob Anatoli, etc.! This is the translator that Casiri 1760, 1: 184, names, owing to a confusion in the Paris catalogue (Steinschneider 1869a, 56). Wüstenfeld 1840, 55, divides the Sophistics between nos. 15 and 17.
32.
אלקליפה in Averroes’s Compendium [Aristotle and Averroes 1562–1574, I.2], f. 50 b (cf. n. 70 below); כליפה in Isaac Arondi (around 1400, cf. Steinschneider 1876b, 110), in Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 217.
33.
Cf. §10. Already Averroes himself (Compendium of the Physics, beginning Steinschneider 1869a, 19) requires the knowledge of al-Fārābī’s Compendium or of his own.
34.
רשד, as in Arabic, rarely Rūshd with a vowel letter, as in Judah b. Solomon Kohen (Steinschneider 1858, 56 no. 1); תגמולי הנפש (Hillel ben Samuel 1874), f. 49; מקור חיים (Zarza 1559), f. 128, אבו רוזדו 994. –רשאד is an incorrect reading of more recent copyists, e.g., in Crescas’s commentary to the Moreh (Maimonides 1553), for instance, f. 74b; cf. also n. 52; שער החשך (Alemanno 1860), ms., for instance, f. 32 (cf. n. 38), in Joseph Delmedigo etc. – The “Averroisti” (אבן רואישיטי) are named by Hillel ben Samuel 1874, f. 13 (see Corrigenda XII).
35.
Sources on Averroes in general (for Averroes as a medical author, cf. §429) can be found in every history of medieval philosophy (Ritter, Ueberweg, etc., cf. also Tennemann’s article in Tennemann 1821, where Maimonides figures as student of Averroes, as in Schmölders 1842, 106, and further Dieterici 1858, I, 159). Falaquera (according to the corrected reading in Steinschneider 1852a, 2546) believes that Maimonides’s Guide has shown Averroes his way; David b. Judah Messer Leon (עין הקורא, Bodl. Ms. Reggio 41), too, thinks that Averroes is a younger contemporary of Maimonides. – Renan 1852 (see below) presents Arabic sources in appendices to Renan 1852 and Renan 1866 (cf. 8); d’Herbelot, article Roschd (Herbelot 1785, III, 283), German version with additional notes by R(eiske); Wolf 1715–1733, I, III, IV, no. 39; De Rossi 1807, 157; Delitzsch ad Aaron ben Elijah of Nicodemia 1841, 301; Wüstenfeld 1840, §191; al-Maqqarī 1840, I, ap XVII–XXI; Lebrecht 1841a, nos. 79, 83, 95 (copy of 30 pages not issued, cf. also Lebrecht 1841b, 252); Munk 1848, (available in Franck 1844–1852, III, 157); Munk 1859, 418; Renan 1852, Averroës 1852, 2^ème ed. 1861 (not available to me), 3^ème ed. 1866, especially II. Partie, ch. 1, “Averroës chez les Juifs”; Steinschneider 1852a, 763, Steinschneider 1869a, (see index); Steinschneider 1871b, 485; Leclerc 1876, II, 97, 502. For specific references (by Lasinio, Jos. Müller, Hercz, Freudenthal), cf. the writings.
36.
Leclerc 1876, II, 98, refers to one Ibn Rushd who is supposed to belong to the eleventh century (cf. I, 549–51, where the year 462 H. is assumed in the work of Muḥammad al-Tamīmī, being, however, not beyond any doubt). R(eiske?), in a note ad d’Herbelot, refers to the article Serag (Schultens and Reiske, IV, 753), where the latter identifies Abū Bakr al-Walīd b. Rushd from Tortosa with Averroes. According to Reiske, Muḥammad is the son (sic) of ʿAbdallāh to whom Abū Bakr, he says, has dedicated his book, Abū Bakr dying in 393 (1003). D’Herbelot uses, as usual, Ḥājjī Khalīfah 1835–1858, III, 589, who gives the death year as 1126/27, elsewhere 1164/65 (cf. Steinschneider 1877d, 145, note); Ḥājjī Khalīfah says merely that Abū Bakr mentions the Umayyad Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad (missing in Flügel’s index VII, 1008). Cf. also Renan 1852, 3 ed., 1866, 72, where reference is made to Dozy 1860, II, 66, 254 ff. – cf. Dozy 1881a, I, 361). For another Ibn Rushd around 1148, cf. Renan 1852, 13 n. 3. Abū Jaʿfar ʿAbdarraḥman b. Aḥmad b. al-Qaṣīrī from Granada, who heard Averroes’s lectures, died on Sunday 15 Rabīʿ II 576 H. (1180); cf. Casiri II, 104. Muḥammad b. Khalaf b. Mūsā al-Anṣārī al-Awsī (?) from Elvira, died 12 Rabīʿ II 557 (31 March 1161), is supposed to have refuted the opinions of Averroes פי מסלה֞ אלאסתוא; Casiri 1760, II, 87 translates: de aequinoctiis (?); Hammer-Purgstall 1850,VII, 515 n. 8099 does not translate these dubious words; Leclerc 1876, II, 115, does not take notice of this work. Hammer-Purgstall 1850 I, CLXXI n. 206: “The generations of Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad b. Rushd from Murcia” (cf. n. 398), without reference.
37.
Leclerc 1876, II, 10, 3, refers to Michael Scot and Hermannus Germanus; cf. Renan 1852, 162, 166 (Renan 1866, 205, 211); Leclerc 1876, II, 451, 459; Wüstenfeld 1840, 99, 91. It has not been established so far with the desirable accuracy and certainty which works of Averroes were translated by them; here and there we shall touch upon some details in this respect. Here we only want to remark that Scotus probably worked with the assistance of a (baptized?) Jew Andreas (§293, note 112). Hermannus can be credited with some certainty only with the Ethics and the Compendium of the Poetics (cf. §21). – It remains to establish the date of the Latin mss. and first edd. which do not name the translator (cf. Renan 1852, 162, Renan 1866, 205). The writings on Physics are extant in the parchment ms. Cajo-Gonville 486 in Cambridge (in Smith 1849, 242). The Vienna library has of Averroes: Comm. De anima, cum complemendo (End: hoc est maius), De memoria et remin. (End: De somno et vig.), Dicta super lib. De longit. et brev. vitae (Mantuani 1864, I, II 65 no. 1633); Epist. super quaest. De gen. anim. (ibid., II, 52 n. 2302¹⁰); De causis longit. et brev. vitae (Ibid., II, 75, n. 2438¹⁴); Tr. De gen. anim. In Arist. (ibid., III, 376 n. 4753¹⁴); auctoritates Averr. super De anima, Phys., De long. et brev. vitae, De sensu, De plantis, (?) De somno et vigil. (ibid., VII, 181 n. 13062). Particularly worthy of mention is: Paraphrasis in Librum De re publica Jacobo Martino (read: Mantino), interprete (ibid., II, 60 n. 2345), as being an example of a copy of a translation from Hebrew which was even printed. It is not inconceivable that Qalonymos b. Qalonymos, upon the order of Robert, translated some works of Averroes, except for the Destructio (§18b). Some Hebrew commentators of the fifteenth century mention Latin translations, for instance Abraham Bibago (1446), Judah b. Jehiel (around 1455), an anonymous author (§53, note 114). – For old translations of De anima, Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics (Rose 1854,142), cf. §53.
38.
For various statements about, for, and against Averroes, cf. the Endnote.
39.
החכם המפרש (Falaquera, דעות הפילוסופים, for which see Steinschneider 1858, 77, cf. 72); בן רשד המפרש Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 290 (Qalonymos, ס' המלכים?); הח' הגדול ראש המפרשים, Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles, epilogue of his compendium of the Logic; המפרש סתם נפש ארסטו והשלים כל החקירות וזה לדעת הכל, David b. Judah Leon, עין הקורא, Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Reggio 41, f. 66 (Steinschneider 1881h, 86, n. 1); נפש ארסטו ושכלו in Joseph Delmedigo (quoted by Delitzsch, in Renan 1852, 146, Renan 1866, 184; cf. 274, Renan 1866, 345, reporting that scholars called themselves thus; cf. n. 38 and Renan 1852, 293. This David says, speaking of Maimonides (l. c. f. 2b): “The sages of the (other) nations and in particular the Christians, who are far from the (true) principles of faith (the religion, הדת) on the basis of the principles (התחלות) of this speculative book (the Guide) that publicly reveals their shame, honor and respect him for the sake of scholarship, as they are doing in respect of Ibn Rushd, the commentator, and other scholars, which, in my opinion, is the right way,” etc.
40.
For how widely the works of Maimonides were known in the Orient, cf. Leclerc 1876, II, 102.
41.
Cf. n. 30.
42.
Munk 1842, 31; in Renan 1852, 140, Renan 1866, 177; on 142, 180 we read: “Sous la haute recommandation de Maimonide, ce nom devint presque instantanément chez les juifs la première autorité philosophique,” referring to a passage in a Hebrew letter to Joseph (also in Edelmann 1856, f. 16b, cf. Steinschneider 1852a,1906; without reference to the source in Maimonides 1859, II f. 29); here, Joseph does not call Maimonides and Averroes “amis”, as Munk 1842, 62, translates, but colleagues (חברים, for the reason of rhyme) in their bearing witness to philosophy (Steinschneider 1874e, 18). Maimonides reproaches (in the complete publication of his answer, in Edelmann 1856, f. 17b) his student (jokingly?) for making the Hebrew and the Arab colleagues, ובשני עדיך העברי עלי הגדלת ובין קודש לחול לא הבדלת. These correspondences have become known in the Provence probably at a later time, perhaps only after Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s journey to Egypt (around 1200 [1210 and 1213]). The information on the recommendation of Averroes’s commentaries in Maimonides’s letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon (1199) we have ascertained to be not quite reliable (cf. §13, n. 287, above). In Joseph’s guidance to the studies (§10), in his commentary to the Song of Songs, let alone in the Three Questions (around 1187, cf. Ibn Aqnin 1879, ix) Averroes is not named. [For Steinschneider’s identification of Joseph b. Judah Ibn ‘Aqnīn with Joseph b. Judah Ibn Simeon of Ceuta, see Steinschneider 2013, 123ff.] – Falaquera even goes so far as to make Averroes dependent upon Maimonides (see §2 n. 30, above). Joseph Kaspi (Steinschneider 1855b, 67) declares Maimonides to be independent from Averroes. David b. Judah Leon in his commentary to the Moreh (Bodl. Ms. Reggio 41, f. 6) refers to Averroes בדרוש הידיעה, adding: “But Maimonides did not see the writings of Averroes; in his time they were not yet widely publicized; for Averroes was young, when Maimonides was an old man, since the latter says in one of his letters that he had heard of Averroes” (ששמע שמעו). On the other hand, Abravanel (Ashkenazi et al. 1574, f. 18b) takes the passage in the Moreh II, 4, to refer to Averroes “and his student.”
43.
Perhaps also brother-in-law; Moses calls him “uncle” (Steinschneider 1874c, 101).
44.
“Le texte pur d’Aristote se rencontre très rarement dans les manuscrits hébreux” (Renan 1852, 146, Renan 1866, 185). In fact we do not know of any translation of Aristotle’s text from Arabic in the strict sense, except for the De anima. “La plupart des livres physicales que nous possédons aujourd’hui sont des écrits d’Averroès qui a abrégé les livres d’Aristote et y faisait des Commentaires” (Renan and Neubauer 1877, 681); שקצר ספרי ארסטו ועשה מהם ביאור (Abba Mari ben Moses ben Joseph 1838, 127).
45.
Wolf has not at all noticed this, and even a painstaking scholar like Wüstenfeld does not make the smallest reference to the different adaptations that he summarizes. It is owing to Munk that a more detailed delineation was initiated which, however, has not yet made its way into the worldwide-known work of Renan.
46.
“Ainsi dès le XIIIme siècle, il existait jusqu’à trois versions différentes des mêmes commentaires, et pourtant, durant la première moité du XIVme siècle, nous allons voir à l’œuvre une foule de nouveaux traducteurs” (Renan 1852, 149, Renan 1866, 189); cf. n. 54. Renan was primarily mistaken as to the extent of Moses Ibn Tibbon’s translations (149, still in Renan and Neubauer 1877, 593, “Great Commentary,” which Moses did not translate.)
47.
The Middle Commentaries on the Physics and De generatione are translated by Zeraḥiah and Qalonymos; on the Book of the Soul, by Shem Tov and Moses Ibn Tibbon, who were contemporaries in different countries.
48.
Thus the Compendium of Logic, purportedly by Samuel b. Judah. – Cf. on Maimonides’s Logic §251 below. Munk 1859, 431; Renan 1852, 44, Renan 1866, 59 (cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 7, 19, 167); also two passages from the Sophistics (Steinschneider 1869a, 238). In the Compendia, Averroes often promises to compose a commentary, e.g. in De sensu. Some postscripts of the commentaries show that the קצורים were composed in his youth, as Elijah Delmedigo remarks (Steinschneider 1881c, 69). – A witness of little trustworthiness, Judah Mosconi (in Ocrida, 1362), allegedly gives a quotation from the introduction (הקדמה) to the commentary on the Rhetoric on a disputation on the different forms of books in general, specifically on the three forms of presentation used by Averroes, of which nowhere a trace can be found (Steinschneider 1876c, 203). Maimonides talks about the different sorts of commentaries in general in the introduction to his commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms; cf. Joseph b. Shem Tov (Steinschneider 1883b, 515), Almoli (§9).
49.
[This footnote is missing.]
50.
Munk 1859, 432 [n. 1]. Jawāmiʿ is the term for Galen’s synopses of Plato’s dialogues, for the compendia of the Alexandrian commentators made from Galen’s writings (Hebrewקיבוצים ), the expositions of al-Fārābī etc. (cf. Steinschneider 1869a, index 265); one also finds jawāmiʿ for synagogue (Müller 1875, 25 n. 11). Moses Abulafia calls the jawāmiʿ of Averroes קיבוצים, perhaps also Simeon Duran 1785, f. 14. The Paris catalogue (Zotenberg 1866) uses various terms that are liable to confound the uninitiated, e.g. Paris, BNF héb 956 no. 4: Abrégé ou Resumé, no. 5: Résumé, no. 6: Analyse, no. 9: Paraphrase (De animalibus, see §66). – One recognizes in מאמרים הכרחיים the logical compendia (cf. n. 54) and in מ' מדעיים and similar terms, other compendia.
^50b תלכ'יץ or מכ'תצר are the terms for Arabic compendia of certain works of Galen, done by Maimonides (Steinschneider 1852a, 1917 and 1928, in Steinschneider 1869a, 167 read: “Pharaphrase [sic] bei Casiri [1760] I, 293”), which makes it their task to retain from the Galenian text as much as possible, as Maimonides himself states in the introduction to his Medical Aphorisms, (Steinschneider 1852a, 1929, and Addenda); ms. Wetzstein I 89 in the Royal Library in Berlin contains the books קטאג'אנעס, מיאמר, and De succedaneis. The same term is used in the explanatory excerpts by Maimonides from Galen’s writings (or their parts) in Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿah (Renan 1866, 454, also in Leclerc 1876, II, 109: “exposition”); Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿah has אול כתאב under the book De simplic. (Steinschneider 1858, 331, note; cf. section III); Solomon ibn Yaʿīsh (died in 1345 in Sevilla) quotes in his Arabic commentary on the Qānūn, the fourth מקאלה֞ of this book (Steinschneider 1879c, 94, cf. the quotations ibid.). We shall see, however, that the Compendium of De sensu is called תלכ'יץ in both mss. of the original. Cf. also §20 and for Theophrastus §89.
^50c Steinschneider 1875b, 48 note, should read “HB. VI, 107”; cf. §48, n. 30, §55, n. 125, §58, n. 146, §87, n. 496, §88, n. 507, 511, §89, n. 521 below; Steinschneider 1857b, 239, on the basis of which (Fränkel’s) remark in Alexander 1886, 52, is, in precisely this case, incorrect.
51.
The ambiguity of the word תפסיר (also “translation”) has perhaps contributed to the view that Averroes was the translator of his works, probably already with Joseph b. Shem Tov (Steinschneider 1855c, 8–90 n. 6n; cf. under De caelo. B. Beer (Munk 1852, 132) translates “paraphrase” (in Munk) by “translation.” – Saadia Gaon calls his translations תפסיר, and the commentaries שרח. – Renan 1852, 44, Renan 1866, 59 declares that al-Fārābī did not compose such commentaries, so that they were invented by Averroes. The major works of al-Fārābī, however, are lost, except for the commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge, ms. Bodl. (according to Uri 457), 80 folia, which is the reason why I have presumed (Steinschneider 1869a, 20) that the volume contains also other texts; but Neubauer confirms (private communication) the reference of Uri. [S. M. Stern established that the manuscript once listed as Uri 457, now Bodleian Marsh 28, is a commentary on the Isagoge by Ibn al-Ṭayyib. The work was edited and translated in Ibn al-Ṭayyib 1979.]
52.
בס' הנפש ארוך וקצר (Kaspi 1848, 116); cf. Narboni’s [Mordecai Natan’s] commentary on the Compendium of Logic (§18 n. 82) אבן רשאד...והוא הרחיב המאמר בן במה שאחר האמצעי והארוך במאמר הלמ”ד (Crescas ad Moreh (Maimonides 1553), II.4, 5 f. 85b, 87b, 88a,b). – ואנחנו אין אצלינו בארצות האלה מספרי ארסטו בלשונו עם פ' 'ן רשד על המלה אלא בספר המופת בהגיון ובס' השמע ובמאמר השליש מס' הנפש, Abravanel to Saul Kohen in Ashkenazi et al. 1574, f. 15b (written in Venice, cf. f. 18b); ביאור לשמע הטבעי על המלה (idem, צורת היסודות (Abravanel 1555), f. 53b); פ' על המלה ad Physics (נהר פישון (Aboab 1538), f. 95b,^, n. 52, according to a marginal pagination); for על המלה cf. also below, n. 361b, §49, n. 68, §53, n. 104, §85, n. 429, §87, n. 482, §100, n. 636, §111, n. 759 and §52. ע"ד פ' על המלה in Joseph b. Shem Tov, כבוד (Joseph ben Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov 1556), f. 9 and Steinschneider 1883b, 461. – Moses Ibn Ḥabib remarks à propos the saying “Time is a divine thing” (Ibn Ḥabib 1551, f. 51b) that it is not to be found in the Aristotelian text that is not mixed with the words (read: דברי) of Averroes, also not in the Compendium (קיצורו) or the Middle Commentary (באמצעי), but only in some exegetes; the saying is attributed to Galen in Maimonides, Moreh I, 33, II, 3 – he could have added: it is quoted thus by many authors without reference.
53.
Of old Latin editions the Berlin Royal Library has now only vol. III of the Metaphysics, edition 1472–4, Venice 1483 (Hain 1826–1838, no. 1660) incomplete, 1489 complete. The works on Physics and Metaphysics were published in Padua (Hain, nos. 1738–39) by Laur. Canozius, 1772–4, in three volumes “cum Comm.” (thus everywhere; where I do not give specific references the Long Commentary is meant), that is (cf. Antonelli 1842) Physics, De caelo, De generatione (Middle Commentary), Meteorology (only ad IV), De anima, De sensu (cf. §74), De subst. orbis, here also “cum Comm.”! – Venice 1483 (Hain, no. 1660): Logic, Isagoge, etc. (see further below), Ethics, and the other writings as given above. Ed. Venice 1489 (Hain, no.1661), altogether 472 folia in different sections with end dates (15 kal. Martii up to Nonis Sept.); index and registrum logice et phylosophie. Moralis (sic) is written on the backside of the Physionomia; it contains: Isagoge (Middle C.), Categories, Hermeneutics, Analytica Priora, the works on natural sciences, as above, for the Meteorology also the Summa (Elijah del Medigo, cf. §62 below), also Ethics and De subst. orbis. [All the above are found in Aristotle and Averroës 1489.] – The Royal Library has only vols. I-VIII of the first great edition Venice 1550–53 in folio (with Odo’s preface, which apparently has not been reprinted) and the ed. in octavo (from Ezekiel, Freiherr von Spanheim’s library); however, vol. I, part II and III, and vol. V and VI of the 1562–1574 edition (which figures in Renan 1852, 64, Renan 1866, 87) [are to be found in the library]. The 1560 ed. (in Renan 1852, 8, 59, 302, 304, Renan 1866, 9, 73, 380, 382) I have cursorily seen in Leiden; it is also to be found in the University library of Breslau.
54.
Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿah in Renan 1866, 454 (cf. 462 line 8) אלצ'רורי פי אלמנטק מלחק [מלכ'ץ?] בה תלכ'ץ כתאב ארסטו וקד לכ'צהא תלכ'יצא תאמא מסתופי; cf. אלצ'רורי פי אלנחו, ibid. 463 line 9 = באלערביה֞ 436 line 10. Renan 1852, 51, Renan 1866, 8, n. 10 identifies the introduction which is merely Porphyry’s Isagoge with this title. - ההכרחי is the title of the Compendium in Moses Narboni in his commentary (§52). [The commentary is by Mordecai Natan, not Moses Narboni; see, below, §52.] Abraham de Balmes, in his foreword to the Epistola Expeditionis of Avempace (Vatican, BA Cod. lat. 3897, f. 32, cf. §206) says: “Compendium necessarium Averrois totius logicae ac naturalis philosophiae et tandem divinae latinum vertimus.” Averroes himself uses the word “necessary” in the beginning of the Compendium (cf. n. 57); cf. beginning of the Compendium on the Physics, §45.
^54b Thomas 1873, I.IV, 162 n. 964. On the front page, the ms. is marked as a medical work by Avicenna, anno 1216. Cf. Averroës 1872a, part I, xvii; he is the editor, in Appendix A, of the Compendium of the Poetics on the basis of the two mss., adding notes from the Hebrew translation. One passage from the Demonstration (Hebrew, f. 49) in Arabic is in Munk, Maimonides 1856 Guide I, 107; another one (Hebrew f. 42) in Munk 1859, 108. In the Hebrew version there follows האלוהים [!] לא במה, Latin version f. 353b only: nisi de eo quo.
55.
The date 1298 in Renan 1852, 149 and Renan 1866, 189, seems to be a typo.
56.
This edition is the only one and has become somewhat rare. Franck (in Renan 1852, 149; Renan 1866, 189) speaks of several editions, apparently mixing up Averroes with Maimonides (Steinschneider 1852a, l. c.); cf. below n. 109.
57.
Wolf 1715–1733, 18, erroneously assumes Jacob Anatoli (following him, probably, Renan 1852, 148, Renan 1866, 188, and J. Kaufmann’s catalogue 1870, 2, no. 42, for the edition); he corrects the reference (following Gagnier) IV, 751 (however, wrongly, anno LV, whence the reference in Delitzsch et al. 1838, Cat. 307). Beginning (in Wolf 1715–1733) הכוונה בזה המאמר לקיטת המאמרים ההכרחיים ממלאכת ההגיון, as in the Arabic version after the introductory formula (which contains, along with the honorary name, אדאם אללה חיאתה, may God prolong his life) אלגרץ' פי הד'א אלקול תג'ריד אלאקואל אלצ'רוריה מן צנאעה֞ אלמנטק.
58.
Cf. the article on Caleb (Steinschneider 1882c, 119, n. 18).
59.
Graetz 1853–1876, VII, 262: “Münchener Cod. Katal. P. 385”; read: Katal. Michael 335.
60.
Steinschneider 1869a, 146. Simeon Duran 1785. f. 80b, emphasizes that Averroes in his פירוש to ח' הנפש retracts what he had presumed in the קיצור (according to Ibn al-Ṣā’igh).
61.
F. 15, 26b, 37a, b, 38a, b, (39a אבונצר בן אלצאיג, read אבו בכר Steinschneider 1869a, 44, 137), 40, 54 (בבאור איסאגוגי) 60.
62.
Balmes substitutes Socrates. The name also appears in garbled form: Pythagoras; cf. §3 n. 93 above.
63.
Balmes translates: Peripateticis, proof that he did not understand Arabic. אלחאב אלרואק is explained by al-Fārābī (in Schmölders 1836, 18, cf. 62); cf. al-Shahrastānī 1850, II, 137. Dozy 1881b, I, 572, quotes Ibn Khaldūn 1863, III, 90, who also mixes up the Peripatetics. Samuel of Marseilles (Alexander 1886, 17, see Steinschneider 1887, 193) translates “Stoics” as “People of darkness!” See Alexander, De intellectu, towards the end, we read, “Intelligentia scil. divina invenitur in rebus vilissimus [read: vilissimis] sicut putaverunt phy. (philosophi) tabernaculorum.” [Cf. the edition of Samuel of Marseilles’ translation of Alexander on the Intellect in Günsz 1886.]
64.
I.e. al-Juwaynī (Steinschneider 1877d, 414), al-Ghazālī’s teacher; cf.. M. Löwy, Ibn Aknin 1879, 32 (thus read VIII), who does not know our passage in which the book ההישרה (Arabicאלארשאד ) is quoted, as in Averroës 1875, 76, German tr. by J. Müller, Averroes 1875, 72; Leiden, UBL Cod. Or. 4753, f. 106 אבו מועל, otherwise correct (cf. §149, 2).
65.
מדברים, also on f. 57; on the other hand, מדברים מאנשי זמננו f. 33b, 54b (misprint מהדברים) are perhaps logicians.
66.
Balmes: “Secta autem quae Deum cognoscit”! Did he readאשר ידעו האל ? Chwolsohn 1856, 642, 826, translates “eclecticists” (cf. Ibn al-Nadīm 1871, II, 70 ad 190), Joseph Müller (Averroes 1875, 3, cf. 27, Leiden, UBL Cod. Or. 4753, f. 104: בקצת מכת הנקרים בערבי אלאשויה) “narrow-minded representatives of orthodoxy”; Munk 1859, 479 (to be added in Renan 1852, 132) says: “qui ne reconnaissent que le sens littéral et professent un grossier anthropomorphisme” Cf. al-Ghazālī 1891, 3 line 1 and cf. §196, n. 633, below.
67.
Arabic אלמאנעה֞, the Pyrrhonists, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 128, 249; for פורן and Jorah, cf. Catal. Libror. imprimend. at Libri 1838, I, 244; Labbe 1653, 259: “Phoron Chaldaeus, De animalibus.”
68.
The Latin version has “sicut almisteri (sic) quod est (here the passage “Jupiter, etc.” is missing) quod est canis in lingua Arabica quod dicitur de sydere et de latrabili (sic). Later on f. 3 line 4 from bottom בשם בשם כוכב read בשם כוכב, Latin “nomen almisteri” (!) for kaukab or kochab (Hebrew) which denotes, in particular, Mercury.
69.
From al-Fārābī, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 17.
70.
Read אלכליפא, as in al-Fārābī, above n. 32.
71.
Latin f. 355d, line 42 “alyzmel et alyuamal.”
^71b Also מלות ההסרה; Latin lib. II, f. 43² line 25: enunciationes de secundo adjacente, quae ex verbo constent infinito. The anonymous author in Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 46, f. 299 uses for it העדריות; cf. f. 305b, תיבות ההסרה or ת' השוללות. Todros, too, בי' הלצה, (Averroes 1877), 197 has המלות המוסרות.
72.
In Dukes 1848b, 358. – Carmoly 1844, 100, computes the year to be 1330.
73.
A stereotypical saying.
74.
This passage, interesting for the beginning of al-Fārābī’s work and for Averroes’s dependence, had escaped me earlier (Steinschneider 1869a, 17).
75.
והמעיד האל = Arabic ואללה שהיד; cf., in Maimonides האלוהים יודע ועד in אגרת השמד, Maimonides 1850, f. 3a; האלוהים יודע ונביאיו ובחיריו, Kuzari III, 49 (Judah Halevy 1869), 268 = ואללה אעלם.
^75b For sources and references for this commonplace, cf. the endnote.
76.
Narboni relates in the epilogue to his commentary on the Moreh, dated Soria, 1 Iyyar (26 April) 1362 (cf. §245 n.382 below, cf. Steinschneider 1880h, 106, Steinschneider 1881e, 5; Munk 1859, 502, 506; German by B. Beer in Munk 1852, 117) that he was occupied since 1355 with the composition of commentaries and [independent] works on theology and physics. Then he lets his son Joshua say: “You have commented upon (in Jellinek 1881, appendix, wrongly, פירשתי) the book כוונות, חי בן יקטאן, חכמת הגיון (our compendium, or the commentary on the Logical Terms of Maimonides, Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 289, חכמת האלוהות and sundry (other) books by non-Jewish authors.” It is probably not intended to indicate a chronological sequence of the commentaries; the first two are composed in 1342 and 1349; the commentary to the Logic seems to be datable before 1355, perhaps before 1344 [for further speculation see Hayoun 1983]; Levi b. Gershom (died 1344) is named in it (ms. Opp.) without eulogy for the deceased. On account of this, the remark (Steinschneider 1883b, 460) that Narboni mentions Levi nowhere is to be qualified. [Once again, this commentary is by Mordecai Natan and not by Moses of Narbonne, and so the remark is not to be qualified. Since Mordecai was the owner of a complete set of Levi’s commentaries on the Organon in Turin, BN A I 14, he could rightly say that he had not seen a commentary on the Compendium by Levi; in fact, his is the only one.]
77.
The printed catalogue of mss. in Franeker (which are now in Leeuwarden) has no notice of Narboni; cf. Neubauer 1876–7, II., 83.
78.
Begins: א'מ'נ'ה' (אמר משה נרבוני הקטן) [צ”ל אמר מרדכי נתן הבעלים או המבאר?] ראיתי לבאר קיצור ההגיון אשר לאבן רשד המכונה ס' ההכרחי, כי ראיתיו מספיק לכל מי שישתוקק לפקוח עיניו במלאכת ההגיון.
79.
החכמה התוריית רצוני תלמודה; for תוריי, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 52; Ibn Aqnin 1869, 12; §187, n. 516.
80.
Cf. §23.
81.
הפשטה (Arabic תג'ריד, see above) is perhaps the original reading which was later substituted by לקיטה (edition of the Compendium).
82.
האמצעיים והארוכים without noun, technically speaking, for the genres of the commentary.
83.
In Averroes למי שירצה להיות שלם, “who intends to be perfect.”
84.
ובין usually והבן (= Arabic פאפהם), as in the Talmudists, nota (bene) in the Latin authors; cf. Steinschneider 1866c, 123.
85.
Steinschneider 1852a, 1971.
86.
E.g., the translation “of this book” (העתקת המעתיק זה הספר) has the reading מועיל בסוג הכרחי וליותר משובח (different from the printed edition, f. 1); the translator of the ס' המבוא has הכרח ותועלת; according to the language of the translators (מלשון המעתיקים) they thus seem to be opposite terms (מקבילות). – Later (Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Opp. 575, f. 15): this translator offers a “wonderous” rendering (הפליא זה המעתיק), using גשמות instead of the הגשם chosen by the translator of the Categories.
87.
Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 293, f. 2, on אמות and למות; cf. Steinschneider 1874a, 11; cf. Kaufmann 1877, 279.
88.
This strange epigraph has often been reproduced; Delitzsch et al. 1838, 306, in the Hebrew section of the Leipzig catalogue; Dukes 1848c, 195, based on Paris, BNF héb 925 (titles of II–IV are missing!); Pinsker Ms. 25 in Bardach 1869; a literal Latin translation in De Rossi 1803, 162–3, (where, however, the date is missing), almost completely in Peyron 1880, 13; French in part in Carmoly 1842a, 81 (who makes Jacob a physician, translates מופת as Topics (cf. below, note 98), and calls Porphyry[’s work] an “introduction aux Catégories.” [This is the traditional interpretation, but there are others. See Porphyry 2006, xiv–xvi.] For some inaccuracies in Renan and Neubauer 1877, 586 (cf. Steinschneider 1879c, 96), cf. the following notes. On Jacob, see endnote.
89.
מלאכת הדרש (cf. §9, n. 200), also the beginning of the Categories (Lasinio 1873–1874, 9). [There is no footnote reference in the text for this note, and it is not clear where it belongs.]
90.
הספרים (ה)אחרים are the remaining four books of the Organon, and not “les autres ouvrages du même genre” (Renan and Neubauer 1877, 586). It is not established that he accomplished the revision, that is to say in Naples (Steinschneider 1850, 395, n. 14).
91.
“Pour accomplir le désir de l’empereur” (Renan and Neubauer 1877, l. c.), “di commissione di Federigo” (Lasinio 1873–1874, 6), does not figure in the text. We do not know of any commissions of Frederic. – Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Opp. 143/2 has the reading לכלכל אותי וביתי, and also Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 3023/6 and Turin, BN A I 14. In fact Jacob’s son Anatoli is mentioned by Moses b. Solomon from Salerno (around 1250?); Steinschneider 1864c, 63, Steinschneider 1877f, 68, Steinschneider 1881h, 88.
92.
Printed in Steinschneider 1878b, 182. – From the initial words מצרף לכסף a title was formed (in Assemani and Assemani 1756, 334; in Wolf 1715–1733 I, 168; De Rossi 1803, 43: “Liber Isagoge in (i.e.?) Comm. Porphyrii”; Carmoly 1842a: “Préface du traité de Catégories” (see under Paris, BNF héb 970/3), then the title: Mevo ha-Higayyon and “préface à ce traité.”
93.
חכמת התכונה, of “mathématiques” (Renan and Neubauer 1877, 587) there is nothing here in the text; they are the astronomical writings of Averroes, Ptolemy, Fergani, cf. section II. – Assemani and Assemani 1756, 334, substitute Burgos for Beziers.
94.
Here, חכמת ההגיון, perhaps said, in a more general sense, of speculation as such, in order to link to it an explanation, often repeated later on, of the Talmudic interdiction (cf. the quotations in Steinschneider 1874c, 44 and Steinschneider 1878b, 108; an older explanation in Harkavy 1887, 144 and 302; cf. Loria 1851, f. 31, Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Natan ha-Bavli (second half of fourteenth century, in his short manual of study (ms. Epstein, f. 3) recommends: a thorough study of logic; the Talmudic interdiction refers, he says, to השיחות הבטלות המוצאיים את האדם מהעולם. [Steinschneider refers here to Zofnat pa’neah (Revealer of Secrets), a rationalist commentary on scripture. The work has survived in a single ms., previously owned by A. Epstein, then by the library of the Jewish community in Vienna, and found now in the Russian State Military Archives, Ms. 70 3 6. Parts of it were published on the basis of photostats in Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Natan ha-Bavli 1965, unfortunately not the introduction, which contains a study programme that emphasizes the importance of logic. See Epstein 1887c.] In Abraham Abulafia (Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 28, f. 197b, and Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 341, f. 147) the passage is more complete than in Jellinek 1854, 38 n. 7: “The highest wisdom is not the ‘Greek’ wisdom, called לימודית, in Greek מתמתיקא (sic), and not the one called הגיון, in Greek דיאיליטיקא or לוייקא (= לוגיקא),” etc. Samuel b. Tibbon explains the interdiction wrongly אמר עליו פירושים זרים מהאמת שאמר כי ע”כ אמרו בניכם. The “Greek wisdom” here referred to is also mentioned by Jacob in his preface (cf. Steinschneider 1857a, 282, according to Löw 1875, 293, it means gymnastics!); Levi b. Abraham (Vatican, BA Cod. ebr. 192, Steinschneider 1869a, 24, nothing thereof in Renan and Neubauer 1877, 646) distinguishes between two kinds of Greek wisdom. Perhaps this subject is dealt with in a Notice [programma] by Joseph Christoph Sticht, inaccessible to me, De odio judaeorum quo philosophiam graecam persecuti sunt, quarto, Altona 1745. [The subject is not dealt with Sticht’s work, which is based entirely on scriptural (!) and rabbinic passages and rarely mentions the medievals.] – Abulafia quotes (in Jellinek 1854, 16) “the book ארמוניוס (read בארי ארמניאס) or מליצה according to the translation by Jacob. Is it possible that he might have mixed up above Samuel ibn Tibbon and Jacob? See also above, note 3.
95.
Jacob expressly mentions the Sophistics (also חכמת השלי); thus this should not be seen as the reason that restricted the study of the Organon among the Syrians and elsewhere (Steinschneider 1869a, 86 and 157; cf. also the Logic of the Sincere Brethren, in Dieterici 1868, 60, only up to Analytica posteriora. Joseph b. Todros (thirteenth century) maintains that the first Muslim rulers interdicted logic (הגיון) and Greek science (חכמה יונית) as heretical, see Steinschneider 1875c, 14.
96.
Delitzsch 1838, 306, considers the Sophistics of al-Fārābī as the promised continuation of the five books of Averroes. We have seen, however, that Jacob did not translate it.
^96b Krafft and Deutsch 1847, 132, provides fourteen manuscripts that contain I–V, but seven of them don’t contain them!
97.
Gross 1879, 557 n. 3, erroneously claims that the translator of the Posterior Analytics is Qalonymos.
98.
Biscioni 1757, Pl. I, C. 26/2, 3, supposes Moses ibn Tibbon; for the twelfth item of this manuscript see Lasinio 1872, 807, and the appendix to the Poetics in Lasinio 1872a, xi. Biscioni translates מופת erroneously as Topica; see Lasinio 1873–1874, 15 (cf. above n. 88). Lasinio 1874, 3 and 32. Under Codex 55 one should always read “Cod. XXXII” for “Cod. XXX.” Concerning the copyist Leon b. Joav and the eulogies see Zunz 1837, 51 (Zunz 1876a, b III, 171). Florence, BM-L. Ms. Plut.88.32 was written in 1473 by Abraham Farissol, consequently, Abraham was taken as an author of a Logic in Wolf 1715–1733, III, 42c, 17; cf. §28.
99.
The old catalogue, no. 337, erroneously called the translator Jacob b. Asher (in Renan 1852, 151, Renan 1866, 192).
100.
According to the catalogue, the postscript indicates that the earlier books (Categories and De Interpretatione) were found earlier in the same codex. Does this mean the postscript of the translator? See above n. 88 [Indeed, this is the postscript of the translator Jacob Anatoli at the end of the Posterior Analytics, so its presence here does not indicate that this ms. contained the translations of the earlier works.]
101.
Perhaps the translator of the Compendium? See §17.
102.
The note in this manuscript following the Isagoge about a remark of Averroes concerning several opinions of Porphyry may belong to Judah b. Jehiel Messer Leon (see below §28).
103.
“Etsi in hoc nostro (Cod.) Averrois expositio sit brevior” (De Rossi). According to Perreau’s communication, De Rossi 432 [Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 2443] contains more writings! [But not of the Middle Commentary on the Organon.]
104.
On the inscription of the De Interpretatione בארי ארמאנוס De Rossi remarks, “Quod singulare est.”
105.
De Rossi erroneously calls [the author] Levi b. Gershom (communication from Perreau, Sept. 1865.) [This error is in De Rossi 1803, 804. De Rossi also calls the following work, which is Gersonides’s Book of the Correct Syllogism: “Commentarius in Aristotelis Librum de syllogismo ex expositione Averrois.” See §25 below.]
^105b Firkovich gives in the Catalogue for Ms. Evr I 382 פריאורמיניאש (sic), Ms. Evr I 383: מליצה! -- the beginning of V reads in Ms. Evr I 391 תיכוני for תבוני; end in Ms. Evr I 395 both times כח יחס for יחס כוח?
106.
The designation פתרון at the end of the De interpretatione, also in Vatican, Urbinati 35 and in Vatican, Urbinati ebr. 37, and, whereupon ספר המליצה for the commentary of Levi ben Gershom follows, is perhaps due to copyists. Concerning Turin 134, see below under Physics.
107.
Assemani, too, gives the title as מצרף לכסף; see above, n. 92.
108.
The incomplete information provided by Assemani allows only for presumptions. Wolf 1715–1733, I, 18, gives only the imperfect notes of Bartolocci on Vat. Mss.
109.
In Nessel 1690, nos. 61, 70, 65 (this should be read under³ instead of 61, see Krafft and Deutsch 1847, under no. CXIV) and 173; but since 70 and 65 are bound together, Goldenthal has in his alphabetical directory s.v. the arbitrary title הגיון אבן רשד only three numbers 43, 33, 76. The middle one also contains the Treatise on Logical Terms of Maimonides; accordingly, Wolf 1715–1733 (I, 618, s.v. Jacob Anatoli) states it as coming from Lambecius 1665, 183. Wolf 1715–1733, I, 18 [s.v. Aben Rushd] has [Vienna ms.] 62 (read: 61) according to Nessel: “Compendium Comm.” then the other items 65, 70, 173, for which he notes the Riva da Trento edition 1560 (1559). De Rossi 1803, 90, already distinguishes the Compendium; Auerbach 1836, 288 and Krafft 1847 distinguish the logic of Maimonides. But Fürst 1849 I, 46, and Renan, 1852, 148, Renan 1866, 188, make Jacob a translator of a Compendium; see also above n. 56.
110.
Cf. Schorr 1854, 63. The ms. is perhaps intentionally bound falsely, in order to cover the defect in the Appendix. There follows another fragment of the Metaphysics, perhaps from another manuscript.
111.
“Animadversiones interpretis … in praedicta Aristotelis Analytica, eadem leguntur in Catalogo Mss. cod. Bibl. Reg. Parisiensis.” Peyron overlooks this remark of Pasinus (11 col. 2) and accuses him of scarcely indicating the date.
112.
The postscript closes actually with the words ועינינו רואות; then follows in Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Opp. 143 והנני מחבר לזה המתן (?) סימנין לדורש החכמה הוא המועט אשר חדשתי כאשר למדתי המעט אשר למדוני מן החכמה הזאת והוא ראוי ללומד ס' ההיקש כדי להזכיר התמונות השלש על סדרן ועל מדרגותן והוא זה. התמונה הראשונה צריך שתהיה הקטנה מחויבת והגדולה כוללת; only so far! In Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 2263 Perreau reads בינותן instead of המתן!, and after כוללת follows: השנית משותפת לה בכמות ונבדלת ממנה באיכות וכו', two pages, ending השיש כל ב' ג' וקצת ג' איננו א' א”כ קצת ג' אינו א'. והנה נשלם ש'ל'ע'. He does the same in Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 3023b.
113.
In Steinschneider 1852a, 1236, the question mark is to be deleted.
114.
We do not want to discuss the hypotheses which in Renan and Neubauer 1877, 583, are called “très peu plausibles.” The coincidence with the letter of Frederic II is remarkable, as already pointed out by Jourdain (cf. Steinschneider 1850 §11, n. 14, Steinschneider 1857a, 294, correctly: “middl. comm.”), who correctly refers the word sermoniales to logic (Steinschneider 1850 §12, n. 1, explains the word by דבר and Arabic מנטק). For Andreas, cf. above n. 37.
115.
Florence, BM-L. Ms. Or. 180, whose detailed description by Lasinio, along with the beginnings of the books and treatises, is to be found in Averroës 1872a, 1–6, and Lasinio 1874, 3. Renan 1852, 61, Renan 1866, 81, calls this ms. the “Commentaire moyen sur l’Organon et les paraphrases de la Rhétorique et de la Poétique”; thus also everywhere else for these two books, cf. below note 124. The commentary, however, is the same throughout all the books. That ms. also is not the one of Postell, but the latter is now in Leiden (Catal. V, 323 no. 2820, 2073). Both mss. are used by Lasinio for his edition, unfinished since 1875, of the Rhetoric.
116.
Beginning Categories (Lasinio 1873–1874, 8–13), Hermeneutics (Lasinio 1874, 5–9), Syllogism (ibid. 11–27), Analytica posteriora (ibid. 28–31), further variant readings (33–35). Beginning and end of Porphyry’s introduction in Hebrew and Latin in the foreword to the Rhetoric IX. – A fragment of a Latin translation of the text of Aristotle’s Hermeneutics is to be found in Hoffmann 1869, 85.
117.
והנה נשלמו הענינים שיכללם זה המבוא. והיה אשר הגיענו קצת אל ביאורם קצת חברינו המפולפלים והמשתדלים בעיון מכת מורסיא ירחם אותם השם (האל) ולולי זה כבר הייתי מתרשל לשני ענינים וכו'; cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 46 n. 61. Judah b. Jehiel Messer Leon read מורסיא (Steinschneider 1878d, 43) and presumes a philosopher. Cf. also notes 398 and 409. – Lib. Demonstr. fol 29d, Aristotle and Averroes 1489 (Aristotle and Averroes 1550–1553, 252) §50: propter quid bellum gessere familiares Har cum Ali et dicatur loco occisionis Atman; in Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 307. f. 9 למה מלחמת שנח ההרים עלינו (!) ויאמר למקום הריגת עתמן.
^117b Turin, BN A V 19 contains the Physics (Peyron 1880, 135).
118.
For Topics one finds the final date 23 Elul, or 9 Elul; for Sophistics, 5 Tishri 74, i.e., 12 September 1313 (not 1314, as in Renan 1852, 150, Renan 1866, 190); cf. Gross Monatsschrift 1879, 557, 558; cf. Steinschneider 1855e. The date 12 Elul 1323 in Wolf 1715–1733, IV, 751 (Zunz 1838, 325) belongs to Levi b. Gershom’s commentary (Peyron 1880, 138). – In his controversy with Joseph Kaspi, Qalonymos ben Qalonymos 1879, 24, speaks of his knowledge of the Arabic language in a modest manner.
119.
In Zuckermann 1870, (8, 9, n. 63 and 75): “Qalonymos b. Meir.”
120.
Dukes 1848b, 359. – Paris a. f. 320 in Wüstenfeld 1840, 106 is Paris, BNF héb 929, where nothing of Qalonymos is mentioned.
121.
Biscioni 1757, 156, Florence, BM-L. Ms. Plut.88.34 is al-Ghazālī, cf. §172.
^121b Averroes distributes the eight books of the original in the following manner: חלק I. (Liber I), II. (II–VII), III. (VIII). At the end of part II, Lasinio, in Averroës 1872a, xiii, found the unknown date (the oldest one) 19 Rajab 563 (29 April 1168). The Hebrew translation does not have this date, at least not in Turin, BN A I 14, and in the three Munich mss. – Elijah Delmedigo remarks, ad Phys. I f. 135²: Haec dicta sunt a commentatore in 1. Topicorum in primo vel secundo quem non habetis traductum.
122.
A passage on Arabic תצור and תצדיק (cf. §8, n. 192 above, §38, n. 318 below) is in Averroes 1877, xxi.
123.
Lasinio, in Averroës 1872a, xv, promises to give variant readings for both books (E. F.); but in Lasinio 1874, 23, he calls that an error. – For the title of the Sophistics, cf. below, note 182.
124.
Munk 1859, 433 and Munk 1852, 108, no. 20: “Commentary” in the Latin editions, the two books are called “Paraphrasis”, also in Renan 1852, 46, Renan 1866, 61 sub 1174 and 61, Renan 1866, 81 (cf. above n.115), 302, Renan 1866, 380 in the notes, but 151, Renan 1866, 191 “commentaires”, probably because of the other translations of the Topics, Sophistics and Ethics, erroneously attributed to Todros; cf. Steinschneider 1852a, 2682. Codex Sorbonne 257 is Paris, BNF héb 977 and does not contain anything by Todros; Labbeus names him by mistake ad Anal. prior. (Steinschneider 1852a, l. c.) Todros (Averroës 1842, 2, the beginning of the Rhetoric, and Averroës 1872b, 33, the postscript of the Poetics) calls these two books the final ones: שתי אלה המלאכות הנעימות החותמות חכמת ההגיון – זה הס' החותם תכנית חכמת ההגיון.
125.
“Trenkatelies” and 1336 in Peyron 1880, 16, although he quotes Steinschneider 1852a, 2680; cf. also Steinschneider 1863d, 96; Steinschneider 1879c, 88; Gross 1880, 61.
126.
The number 5097 is given in words; on the age of the translator, cf. §160.
127.
ס' ההלצה London, D. Sofer 96/9 does not contain the translation of Todros (see Gross l. c. 63), but a peculiar adaptation, begins: אמר ההלצה מלאכת הקשית כונתה הספק (הספוק) בכל הסוגים העשרה; ends: תשועה הענין השני. More details in an endnote [Steinschneider’s communicants were unaware that this is a copy of al-Fārābī’s Short Treatise on the Rhetoric.] – Vatican, BA Cod ebr. 428 contains purportedly a פירוש על ס' המליצה by Aristotle: begins המקום הג' שנספר מה שאפשר שיתחייב אם יותר (?) זה הענין; that fits better with the Rhetoric; that, however, is not to be found in Renan 1852, 163 ff.
128.
באור אבן רשד לס' ההלצה Averrois Commentarius in Aristotelis de arte rhetorica libros tres hebr. versus a. Todroso… e Cod. Bibl. Senator. Lips.cum prolegom., ed. J. Goldenthal, Lips. 1842 – ביאור אבן רשד על ס' השיר (תלכ'יץ כתאב פי אלשער). Il Commento medio di Averroe alla Poetica di Aristotele…pubblicato in arab. ed in ebraico e recato in italiano [this third part has not yet been published] of F. Lasinio, Parte I. il testo arabo, II la versione ebr. di Todros Todrosi con note, Pisa 1872, in 4⁰ –Il Commento medio di Averroe alla Retorica… pubbl. da F. Lasinio (Firenze 1875, 1877). Beginnings and explicits from Vienna, Cod. hebr. ON 61/1 with French translation that Bendavid received from Hofrat [Christian Gottlob] Heyne, are to be found in Eichhorn’s Allgemeine Bibliothek VII, 775–82 (Steinschneider 1852a, 2681); cf. Lasinio in Averroës 1872b, 6. – The Latin translation of Hermannus Alemannus (1256–60) designates the book as “edictio determinativa” or “determinatio” (for talkhīṣ), that is, not “extract” (Wüstenfeld 1840, 93); it was edited in 1481 and 1515; the latter ed. is not known by Leclerc 1876, II, 460, and Wüstenfeld 1840, 94, although it is already mentioned in Steinschneider 1869a, 59, and in Lasinio, in Averroës 1872a, vii. (In the Tavola, etc., Lasinio promises the edition for part III). It was also Hermannus whom Jourdain (cf. Leclerc 1876, II, 460) wanted to credit with a translation of the whole Organon; see, however, Wüstenfeld 1840, 93. – The final date in the Hebrew translation is: In the third month of the year 570 H., in the Arabic original (Averroës 1872a, xii) 5 Muḥarram 571 = 26 July 1175.
129.
Steinschneider 1852a, 1236. Renan 1852, 302. Balmes begins as follows: “Intentio hujus sermonis est explicatio illius quod est,” etc; then “Nostra intentio in praesentis est loqui de arte poetica et de speciebus poematum.” He has diverse notes, e.g. 168: “Aliquando bonus dormitat Homerus cum noster Averrois (sic) not calluerit linguas, quae poetica facultate polleant,” etc. End on f. 168b: “Deus itaque est, qui dirigit sapientem, ut intelligat itinera felicitatis humanae, et prudens cognocsat, quod recta sunt Dei itinera et justi procedunt in eis [Hos. 14, 10], quibus eos procedere concordat.”
130.
The כתאב אלעין, named after the initial letter [of the first entry], is attributed to the famous al-Khalīl ibn Aḥmad [al-Farāhīdī]. It is mentioned by Abraham ibn Ezra and by an anonymous author of the Arabic precepts of slaughter (probably Samuel b. Jacob ג'מע, contemporary with Ibn Ezra; Steinschneider 1881a, 32, cf. §135). A compendium of this dictionary served Abū r-Rabīʿ Sulaymān ibn Yaʿīsh (died 1345? cf. Steinschneider 1869f, 94 [?]) for the compilation of a dictionary of problematic words in Arabic poets that A. Neubauer saw in the Escurial; cf. the quotations in Steinschneider 1852b, 414; Steinschneider 1865b, 157; Steinschneider 1871d, 136. Brüll 1863, 509 changes the Kitāb al-ʿAyn to an Arabic-Hebrew dictionary by Samuel ibn Tibbon.
131.
המשלי פעולות seems to be a mistake for הפעלות; cf. 22, 23, of the book itself: הפעלות and הפעלותיי, Arabic (28 and seqq.) אנפעאל and אנפעלייה֞.
132.
The quoted passage that Goldenthal does not indicate is on 207.
133.
The word שיר in the title has also been wrongly translated as music; cf. Averroës 1872b, note II, 1 and 6 and Nuove aggiunte a I, c II.
134.
The passage in the Rhetoric (Averroës 1842, 88) where למלל for Muḥammad has been probably intentionally garbled, unfortunately cannot be compared with the text so far.
135.
Averroës 1872a, note 18, Aggiunte, XIII. In Todros, 23, last line, המאמרים הפחותים is written before, variant reading הרעים (Averroes 1872b, note 5); however, evidently השיריים (= אלשעריה֞) has to be read.
136.
We shall return to Ḥisdai as interpreter in the [chapter on the] translation of Dioscurides.
137.
The word occurs not only in medical literature, it is also typical in philosophical writings as example for composition (honey water in Aristotle and Alexander, cf. Alexander 1886, 108) and found its way into Hebrew literature through Maimonides’s letter to Samuel Tibbon (Ashkenazi 1854, 77, with the misprint also in 1859, 28b.)
138.
This Arabic word is to be found in Samuel of Marseilles (below, §116 n. 838, cf. §91, n. 515) and (later?) in the titles of Hebrew hymns, in order to indicate the melody or the rhythm of the prototype; Steinschneider 1857a, 335; Steinschneider 1869a, 151; Steinschneider 1873c, 136.
139.
Lasinio 1873–1874, 11; cf. Levi b. Gershom below n. 61. On מוסרים, cf. note 71b. – כלי קאנוני Canone (preface line 2). For variant readings in Averroes, cf. Rose 1854, 138.
^139b With והשלמתיו a new paragraph begins; the formula חזק הסופר ואמיץ הקורא is that of a copyist.
140.
On עיר האזוב, cf. Loeb 1880, 79, and Steinschneider 1882b, 70 – he is called הגרשוני, e.g. in
Messer Leon 1577, f. 19, 22b (along with הנחמני) etc.
141.
Steinschneider 1864f, 83. For an evaluation from the year 1343, cf. Lattes 1885, 48.
142.
Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov 1557, f. 54b; cf. Steinschneider 1852a, 1609 add Additamenta; Steinschneider 1859c, 82.
143.
David b. Judah Leon, עין הקורא (Commentary to Moreh, ms.), published in Steinschneider 1878f, 64–65, [Steinschneider 1925, 263].
144.
Such quotations in Zunz 1838, 325; cf. 324 on the adversary Shabbetai b. Malkiel, for whom cf. my article: Steinschneider 1879e, 423 (cf. Steinschneider 1881h, 38), Steinschneider 1881b, 304. Cf. also Munk 1848, 32, Munk 1859, 497. Cf. also Joël 1860, 223 (cf. Steinschneider 1859b, 71), and Joël 1862, (cf. Steinschneider 1862b, 117; 118 has the quotation from Carmoly 1858, 89, under Joseph Esobi).
145.
Steinschneider 1869b, 162; cf. Loeb 1880, 79.
146.
He quotes, it seems, from Arabic writings only from translations; I remember for instance a quotation in Levi from הפלת ההפלה by Averroes that Levi had sufficient reason to give. The passage מצאנו בס' הערב, in De caelo Berlin, SPK Or. fol. 1055, f. 53, is probably not Levi’s; cf. below, note 200.
147.
Munk 1859, 498: “1321…et les deux années suivantes”; we shall also find 1324.
148.
Ibid.: “sur les comm. moyens, et sur quelques unes des paraphrases ou analyses.” Renan 1861, Averroës 152: “le grand commentaire;” but corrected in Renan 1866, 193: “les divers commentaires.” Under the Physics we will find Levi’s notes on the Compendium and on the Middle Commentary as separate ones. De substantia orbis in Renan, loc. cit., must be deleted; it is also Renan 1866 (in the note read: Wolf, III, 650, instead of II).
149.
He suspects a wrong understanding of the commentators to Aristotle, whose text is missing, in, e.g., Milḥamot ha-Shem 5.2.6, Levi ben Gershom 1560, f. 34a–b [trans. Levi ben Gershom 1999, 42, based on a different textual reading]. In Milḥamot 5.3.3, f. 40 [trans., 116] he presents a long passage from Averroes’s commentary to the Metaphysics and remarks that he has used the same word פישוט for the כל in Aristotle.
150.
Steinschneider 1858, 208; see also below.
^150b שהבין, also elsewhere, thus not to be amended to שהביא, as is correct in other places; see §25, n. 160, 162, 165, 170 below; לפי מה שהבינו in מלחמות 5.3.1 (beg.), 1 f. 36c. Cf.: “secundum quod ipse aliquid intelligibile eligere (elicere) potuit” (Hermannus Alemannus in Jourdain and Jourdain 1843, 141; Wüstenfeld 1840, 93).
151.
שהביא. I have translated almost literally. The meaning is probably that we have here passages from Averroes in which he speaks for himself, so that one is led to believe that Aristotle has not talked about that subject. [Or: “I shall discuss what Aristotle, according to what Averroes has cited of him, did not discuss.” On this reading there is no implication that Levi refers to places where Averroes “speaks for himself.”]
152.
Maimonides, in the preface to his unedited commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms, explains the difference between פירוש and חיבור. This passage is a locus classicus to which the commentators frequently refer. This is also done by Moses ibn Ḥabib in his commentary on בחינת עולם by ha-Penini (Ibn Ḥabib 1551, f. 4b). Soon thereafter he remarks: הלא תראה הרלב”ג בביאוריו לספרי אריסטו' אם בהגיון אם בפילוסופיא רוצה להראות כחו במה שהתחלפו דעותיו מדעת אריסטו' עד שבקצת תפישותיו היתה לו השתיקה יפה מן הדבור. -- פירוש as opposed to חיבור וחידוש [is] in Joseph Kaspi, cf. Steinschneider 1855b, 64. – Moses da Rieti calls what he takes from Levi’s commentary to the Isagoge and the Categories in his Divina commedia [מקדש מעט] as שלמויות (supplements, elsewhere commonly תשלום, without the plural form). [On these and other responses to Gersonides’s commentaries on the Organon see Manekin 1985 and Manekin 2020.]
153.
Only Peyron 1880, 15, indicates a commentary on the Rhetoric; but the first and last words that he quotes are those of Todros and show that Levi’s supercommentary does not exist. Cf. also below, note 158.
^153b May it be that these go back to Judah Messer Leon? He knows of Levi’s commentary.
^153c In it Levi is called הלוי הלביא and אריאל, and therefore Firkowitz thought that Judah Messer Leon was meant, without noticing the identity with [St. Petersberg Evr. I] nos. 396–8.
154.
Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 2723 contains the translation of Jacob Anatoli of the Posterior Analytics, not Levi’s notes, following a private communication of Perreau.
155.
[Steinschneider’s reference is missing, but it may have been to the Vatican catalogue.]
156.
The ms. is wrongly bound, perhaps on purpose, in order to cover up the deficient end.
157.
Wolf 1715–1733, IV, 751.
158.
Peyron 1880, 14, presents the postscript of the translator Qalonymos; he does not notice the note in Wolf, although on 10 he quotes him (only following Steinschneider 1852a?). Cf. above, note 153.
159.
Steinschneider 1852a, 1614 add Additamenta; Steinschneider 1858, 208.
160.
הביאור is apparently the correct (in any case, the emended) reading for החבור (note 152) which could mean the Compendium; Levi, however, calls that always קיצור. The title פי' לקיצורי in Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 39 (an inferior copy from the year 1550) has no critical value at all.
^160b Levi’s commentaries to the Logic are cited in several later supercommentaries, for example by Abraham Avigdor (born 1351) and Eli Habillo, called Manoel (fifteenth century, cf. Steinschneider 1878b, 111). Levi is being attacked by an author called maestro Geronimo (ג'רונימו) whose statements are frequently quoted by an anonymous super-commentary on the Isagoge (§37). Is Geronimo perhaps רא”ם? [רא”ם is Elijah Mizrahi.] For comparison, some quotations are given in an endnote. [On the citations of Gersonides in later supercommentaries on logic, see Manekin 2020.]
161.
That is also the beginning of Vatican, Urbinati ebr. 35/2. The division is not observed in Leiden, UBL Cod. Or. 4729.
162.
שאנחנו נשלים המאמר במה שלא זכרו ארסטו לפי מ שהביא מדבריו אבן רשד והיה מה שהשלים בו ארסטו המאמר.... Cf. above, n. 150^b.
163.
Hebrew in Steinschneider 1858, 120.
164.
הקדמנו, meaning: “we have remarked in the preface (הקדמה).”
165.
Here also, twice שהבין, and not שהביא (cf. notes 150b, 162, 170); in the second place, however, שהביא probably is to be read.
166.
המכוון מדבריו actually means: what Averroes means; but here it can only mean: the true result in the case [Sache].
167.
Neubauer has collated Paris, BNF héb 960/1.
168.
Boncompagni 1862–3, 753, was the first to present a brief note on this ms. in order to prove the identity of Levi b. Gershom and Leon de Bagnolas. More details, according to his private communication, in an endnote.
169.
Joël 1862, 14.
170.
Again הבין, cf. n. 150b above.
171.
וזה בהפוך המשפטים הצדדים ובצד התולדה בהקישים הצדדיים is modality; cf. Averroës 1560, f. 10.
172.
It is probably striking that Levi calls the small work a book (ספר). Joel translates inaccurately: במה שיגיע בו האמת באלו הדרושים “to investigate the correct [part] of the problem.”
173.
Thus not “Expositio in Syllogismum rectum,” as B. Peyron writes.
174.
Thus more complete following the textual formulation in Joel; the words במשפט ובמה שיתחייב ממנו in Delitzsch are probably the title of chapter 1 [They are the title of treatise 1.]
175.
Steinschneider 1870e, 163. I confine myself to give the reference: ולזה לא ראינו לטעון בזה המקום עליהם ואולם בבאורינו לספר היקש ביאור בן רשד ולאגרות בן רשד באלו הענינים ביארנו אופני הבטול ביאור רחב.
176.
ביאור is here an apposition, as sometimes elsewhere in titles; cf. §50.
177.
Evidently the logical quaesita which mostly are to be found after the commentary; cf. §43.
^177b Steinschneider 1871g, 105, where the oldest, albeit dubious, date 1353 is to be found. A sale’s mark dated 8 מייו 1362 [is] in Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 268.
178.
Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 46/5, in Steinschneider 1875b, 21: אמר ל' ב' ג' מאשר ראינו; after בארוכה dots indicating missing words are omitted, first: עניני זה הספר בג”ה.
179.
שהעיד עליו בהם, whether שהעיר?
180.
This shows that Levi had no knowledge of the Long Commentary to this book, which Qalonymos had translated in Avignon in 1314!
181.
Ibid., read אמר כוונת זה הספר and שזה התועלת.
182.
Aristotle and Averroes 1550–1553, (f. 260 column 4 Latin by Mantino) says only: “utile autem in Philosophia speculativa, ut cum dicitur utrum mundus sit creatus.” But Aristotle does not have this example at all in this final passage of the chapter.
183.
Arabic אלתבכיתאת אלסופסטניה֞ (Lasinio 1873–1874, 18). Paris, BNF Arabe 2346 contains four Arabic translations of the book Refutations des Sophistes by Aristotle (Munk 1859, 314); that may be the reason why Paris, BNF héb 920/7 presents this otherwise uncommon designation of the Sophistics.
184.
In 1847, I was able to read this passage only incompletely, and have not seen it since. Ad המחשבה הגוברת, cf. below §69 n. 294, §85 n. 428.
185.
Abraham “b. Solomon” b. Meshullam as author of סגולת מלכים (§181) is apparently an erroneous inversion of names. His father and grandfather (both “ben Avigdor”) are only known by the forger Carmoly 1842, 106, as among the “médecins plus remarquables de l’université de Montpellier”; of our Abraham he knows only his name (107); Meshullam and Abraham are missing from the index. Abraham’s remarks begin (Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 44, f. 50), as in Introductorium juvenum (in Avigdor’s translation, see §496 below) א'א'א' = אמר אברהם אביגדור.
186.
The misprint 1361 in Steinschneider 1852a, 2264, is corrected in Steinschneider 1869c, 171.
187.
This he remarks in the prefaces to some translations. According to Paris, BNF héb 1054, he translated a treatise in Arles in 1381; other mss. of the same treatise have nothing to tell of that; but a maestro Abram Avigdor owned a house in Arles in 1386; Gross 1879, 410, 411, does not take our Abraham into account. According to him (404) the term maestro (from magister) is supposed to designate originally “a higher rank” (of what?), later (when?) master in general, used for “distinguished persons.” In the passages known to me it is used in far most cases for physicians.
188.
In 1367 he wrote סגולת מלכים.
189.
Hence “Avigdor” in the book מבוא (!), in Dukes 1844, 173; Dukes 1848a, 490 twice; Dukes 1846, 26, on משאיים (Hebrew הולכים); Steinschneider 1869a, 195, cf. 22, 30; cf. Judah Halevy 1869, Cassel ad Kuzari, 406; Goldenthal 1850, 442; cf. Hercz in Averroes 1869, 17; Narboni ad חי, [Narboni’s commentary on Ibn Ṭufayl’s Ḥayy ibn Yaqẓān] Berlin, SPK Or. Qu. 648, f. 21b, ההולכים הם כת המשאים הנמשכים אשר דעות ארסטו ונקראו כן לפי שהיו מתעלמים בהליכה להנהגת הבריאות ואחשוב שהיו עושים זה ג”כ לבקשת ההתבודדות מן הצבועים והם ההמון או האפעים בהם הסכלים בחכמת הנמצאות האמתיות יחשבו שהם חכמים להתערבות מעט בחכמה מן החכמות. Judah Messer Leon, Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 27/6, f. 206b, explains it as מלשון ארץ שואה ומשואה (!) שהיו הולכים במדברות וממקום למקום להתבודד ולהשיג החכמה; Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 307/4, f. 144b, ר”ל כת המתבודדים ההולכים על צד הבריאות, הם דרכי הקודמים; that is, combining both of Narboni’s explanations. Joseph b. Shem Tov in the commentary to Averroes’s Epistle on the Conjunction (Berlin, SPK Or. Qu. 681, f. 326) defines כת ארסטו והם הנקראים ההולכים והמשאיים אשר היותם (היות) ממנהגם ההליכה וההתעדר (וההתבודד) בשדות ועזיבת העיירות לבקש הטיול וההפרדה מהמזיקים אנשי המדינות המעיקים כל שלמות. – The Munich ms. is so full of mistakes that one is perhaps allowed to assume that the word Abraham was omitted. The manuscript is deficient also in other respects, e.g. on f. 245b a table is missing; f. 246b refers to a marginal note which is missing from the ms.
190.
Is Adam as אבו אלבשר (Arabic) meant? The Latin translation (chapter 2 f. 2 ² line 1) has: is tamen modus non est in lingua nostra in usu, ut enim quis dixerit genus Bassar (!) et Wandalia genus Wandalorum.
191.
The same is quoted on f. 200. Isaac b. Joseph still lived in 1393 in Arles (imprecisely, 1394, in Gross 1879, 174); the older Isaac b. Mordechai in Salon (Steinschneider 1874f, 98, Gross, l. c., 423, 472) is known as an author; he was still alive in 1344. If the former were meant the commentary would not have been composed before 1393. The formulation of the quotation does not fit for a contemporary. – The reading הכשר is also rejected by Judah b. Jehiel Messer Leon in Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 27/6, f. 207).
192.
החלום probably instead of החולם.
193.
טרקטאק, f. 243b, a slip of the pen.
194.
As is well-known, לשון נוצרי in the Middle Ages is especially Latin.
195.
E.g. f. 239 אבליקש obliquus (casus); f. 245 חומה sign of quantity of the judgment (Steinschneider 1875b, 128, note; cf. also Aristotle and Averroes 1560, f. 10 last line; 10b); בלשונם שיקרא for signa.
196.
See above, 65; in כוונות of al-Ghazālī, translation by Judah Natan: נקרות (Steinschneider 1870a, 75).
197.
Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 63, f. 263b השלג, later on correctly בשלג: “frigiditas in neve”, f. 49c, penultimate line.
198.
כאשר יראה לי שאומר בין דבר גוזר, obviously corrupt, should one read אם לא שאומר כן?
199.
In the beginning of the Categories, f. 209, he differentiates between three kinds of הרחבת הלשון; among them ביאור, elucidation of the word with additional explanation, and קיצור.
200.
ובערב מצא כתוב (sic) I, ch. 4; Latin, f. 13 (cf. §23 above, n. 146), which probably means: in the Arabic translation of Aristotle, which, however, Abraham knew only from the Hebrew translation. Wherever else [a reference to] Arabic turns up (237b, 238b, 242: אנשי דקדוק הערבי) it [has to be understood as] passages from Averroes himself or al-Fārābī on the basis of the Hebrew translation. [It is not clear why Steinschneider rules out the possibility that the author was unfamiliar with Arabic versions of the Middle Commentary, or traditions of Arabic versions.] Ad f. 233b, cf. the marginal note in Mantino in Aristotle and Averroes 1550–1553, f. 23b. – On f. 239 (from al-Fārābī) and 244b the example name is זייד (actually Zayd, not Said, as Dieterici 1868, 75, writes), Latin 37b bottom: “Socrates”; shortly before (f. 244 from the Tractatus, see above n. 193), “Socrates and Plato” ([Steinschneider writes here, “cf. A. 319b, ⁴214b,” but I could not locate the references.]) The example names of the Arabs (like “Peter and Paul”, Titus and Gaius, Hinz und Kunz, Müller und Schulze) are Zayd and ʿAmr (עמרו, not “Omar”, as in Steinschneider 1876a, 90), and among the Jews, Reuben and Simeon (Genesis 48:5). The Greek names are substituted by those given here, alternating and without consequence. For references see the endnote.
201.
בביאור בלתי ר' לוי מצאתי כתוב Levi closes his explanation (Latin f. 13³): “sed forte interpretes ac expositores perverterunt eius sententiam,” etc.
202.
For details, cf. above, §15.
203.
וחלילה וחלילה לי לספור (צ”ל:לסתור) דברי אב”ר המבאר כי דעתו רחבה מדעתי אמנם כתלמיד המתלמד.
204.
Zunz 1856, 524. In Steinschneider 1852a, 1983, the year 1492 is indicated as “imprecise”; but Assemani has רי”ג.
205.
According to Renan 1866, 155, it contains “considerable extracts” from Averroes’s and Levi ben Gershom’s philosophies.
206.
עם זכר קצת שלמיות אשר השלים; cf. §23 note 152.
207.
Rieti 1851, 102b; cf. Steinschneider 1869f, 61 (against Graetz 1853–1876, VIII, 155; cf. Steinschneider 1869e, 16, Steinschneider 1874g, 90).
208.
This ms. (omitted in Steinschneider 1852a, 1986/5) contains (according to Perreau’s communication) in fact only two notes with the name of Rieti, Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 3026/1 several more, the longest (f. 1) begins with אמר השאל הגדול הר' משה הרופא מריאיטי הנה מה שיראה לנו שהביא פורפוריוס לחקור בחמשה אלו הדברים הוא כי הנמצאות כן חלוקתם בשני מינים מן הבחינה אחת מהם כי כבר נראה הנמצאות הם פרטיים ואם כוללים בתכלית וכו'; hence probably the statement of the catalogue.
209.
Cf. §177. [For another ms. with Rieti’s notes on Averroes’s Middle Commentary on the Isagoge, see Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 3026/1].
210.
Steinschneider 1857a, 206 (cf. 177). – For more detailed information on him, cf. the article, “Leon,” waiting to be printed for the Realencyklopädie of Ersch and Gruber [Steinschneider 1889c, rept. in Steinschneider 1925, 216–28]; cf. note 214.
211.
The certification signed by Judah in Paris, BNF héb 632, f. 323b, mentioned in Carmoly 1844a (skipped in Zotenberg 1866, 81–82), is for an examination of a ritual slaughterer, dated 1 Tevet 272, i.e. 1471.
212.
Zunz 1856, 525 (713) writes “Messir”, as does Rostgaard, cited in Wolf 1715–1733. Luzzatto 1864, ad London, BL Add. 27087, derives it from mio Sere (= Monsieur); I had thought (Steinschneider 1871j, 84) of Monsignore which is basically the same (Steinschneider 1879b, 118, and elsewhere). הרופא after the father’s name, Jehiel, probably refers to the latter.
213.
Not to be confused with maestro Leon (Levi b. Gershom) and Leo Hebraeus = Judah Abravanel (Jost 1827, 311), who is not a contemporary (Brüll 1863, 513 note 4); for the latter cf. Zimmels 1886 and my notice in Steinschneider 1879b. Joseph Delmedigo (Delmedigo 1630, 65b, cf. Dukes 1842, 822, says of him מה שמו ומה שם בנו בטבעיות. The slaughter regulations in Benjacob and Steinschneider 1880, 256 n. 61, are probably those of Judah Anav (Steinschneider 1878f, 99, Steinschneider 1879i, 55)? “Maestro Leon” is perhaps the commentator (?) of the astrological works of Ibn Ezra found in Paris, BNF héb 1048 [The IMHM catalogue suggests Levi ben Gershom] and St. Petersburg, RSL Evr. I 540–543, and again St. Petersburg, RSL Evr. I 547–549, Gurland 1865, 87 no. 17b; Gurland 1865–1867, 2:30), perhaps even Levi b. Abraham? The compendium of arithmetic in Wolf 1715–1733, III, no. 679c (Steinschneider 1852a, 1332) is by Judah Verga.
214.
On Judah cf. Wolf 1715–1733 I, no. 752 = III, 679; De Rossi 1839, 207 (with sundry mistakes, from Ghirondi 1853, 200); Steinschneider 1852a, 1331 add Additamenta; Steinschneider 1871j, 83; Brüll 1863, 509, 513; Steinschneider 1888, 59. Two letters from 1474 with obscure allusions in Steinschneider 1875e, 67.
215.
Joseph Kolon, Responsa, 38, 149 (in Brüll 1863, 509); Ibn Yaḥyā 1587, f. 62b. Probably Judah went first from Padua to Naples where he got his approbation in אגור (1487–92), (Steinschneider 1852a, 1225). When Abr. de Balmes (in Wolf 1715–1733 1:407) calls him “di Napoli” this does not refer to the place of the grammar’s composition.
216.
But the “Theses academicae” [mentioned in De Rossi’s catalogue] in Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 1957 are not in Latin (as Graetz 1853–1876, VIII, 251, thinks), cf. Steinschneider 1871j, 82 and below, §54. – For his lack of Greek, cf. note 264.
217.
He mentions other languages besides Hebrew, and Christians as scholars of language, in the inedited grammar לבנת הספיר (from Messer Leon, Dukes 1857b, 104), finished 18 Elul 1554 (not 1553, as in Brüll 1863, 513). Other mss. are noted in Benjacob and Steinschneider 1880, 256 n. 61 (additional references in the Supplement). Dukes 1847c, 516 n. 7, had announced a note on the text; Delitzsch used it for the edition of Job 1875 (Steinschneider 1878h, 97).
218.
Messer Leon 1480, begun perhaps already before the expulsion (1475)? (Steinschneider 1852a 1332, Sachs 1845, 211); second edition by Jellinek (Messer Leon 1863) (which I quote), reviewed by Löw 1863, described in Brüll 1863.
219.
Brüll 1863, 513, indicates the year 1455, referring to De Rossi 214 (read 114), [Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 2477] where, however, only grammar is treated
220.
קיצורי לחכמת הדבר, for logic (above, n. 273), according to the context and in a shorter designation בקיצורי in the commentary to the Logic (Steinschneider 1878c, 44); cf. Brüll 1879, 176 (and below, n. 237). The latter remarks that the Grammar לבנת הספיר is quoted in Messer Leon 1863, 175, 196.
221.
Steinschneider 1871i, 32.
222.
כללי הדקדוק.
223.
Here, however, קיצור ההגיון.
224.
Generally Aristotle or “the Philosopher” in the book הלצה, most frequently from book 3.
225.
E.g., Messer Leon 1863, 16, 24, 132–34, virtues of youth and old age, in Averroës 1842, 142–4. The example כלבי, 143, Averroës 1842, 196; בן אבי עמר...שהקטטה Averroës 1842, 172 עאמר...שהתגרה. The variant readings seem to represent, for the greater part, intentional modifications for the sake of greater clarity and of elimination of Arabisms. Messer Leon has an elegant style and attaches importance to it.
226.
קצור ההלכה Messer Leon 1863, 16, 17, 30, 65, 68, 88, 98, 99. Brüll does not notice this.
227.
The former is, according to Löw 1863, 878: De oratore, the latter the Rhetorica ad Herennium.
228.
ויטורינו המפרש (Messer Leon 1863, 10, 88, 97) is Fabius (or Gaius) Marius Victorinus Afer, whose commentary on De inventione has been printed numerous times, and not Vittorinus Rambaldoni of Feltre (1378–1446), as Löw presumes (on Rambaldoni cf. Burckhardt 1877, I, 255 ff.). Messer Leon, as almost all Italian Jews, Italianizes the names. – The word ייליו (giglio), 60, already turns up in Ibn Ezra 1874, ad 2, 1; cf. Mathew’s preface, vii.
229.
Zunz 1841, 139, איליאנס should probably be read; I have not yet traced the passage.
230.
בואיציו aside שימליציאו (Simplicius) in the commentary on the De Interpretatione, Steinschneider 1878c, 44.
231.
Cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 67.
232.
Identical with Luzzatto 1841, 48? Not listed in Luzzatto 1868; Benjacob and Steinschneider 1880, 526 n. 1162 from Luzzatto.
233.
Complementing the imprecise description of Biscioni 1757, 536. I received, in September 1871, some corrections from F. Lasinio, mainly pertaining to the arrangement. The [date of the] copy is not two years later than [that of] the composition, i.e. Wednesday, 23 Kislew ארי”ה (sic), corresponding to 3 December 1455, [done] for Abraham b. Joab Finzi from Recanati in Ancona (for whom the Firkovich ms. was copied in the summer of the same year, namely לבנת הספיר along with other pieces by Messer Leon; was he in that period for a time in Ancona? cf. l. c.). The copyist Natan b. מררי (“Merari” in Biscioni) is probably b. Mordechai (?). Lange has fabricated from Abraham and the author Leon one Abraham Leon; Wolf 1715–1733, 3:28 identifies this person with the well-known archaeologist Abraham Portaleone (died 1612, Steinschneider 1863a, 48, “Abraham ben Hanassi” in Martin 1865, 4, from Kircher). – To our מכלל יופי pertains evidently the excerpt in Florence, BM-L. Ms. Plut.I.26 (Biscioni 1757, no. 56), viz. בס' מכלל יופי בענין התמונות המרובעות אמ' ששתי ההפכיות אפשר שתהיינה כוזבות יחד וכו'.
^233b According to the Firkovich catalogue, the ms. was written in 1455 and copied in 1471 by Abraham Farissol. [In fact, the ms. is a Karaite ms. from 1631, whose scribe reproduced the 1455 colophon. Concerning the handwritten Firkovich catalogue by Harkavy see Richler 2014, 192.]
234.
Steinschneider 1871j, 83.
235.
Steinschneider 1875d, 66. – The Florence and Cambridge mss. begin: אמר הרב הגדול מאור הגולה עבדא דאלהא עילאה החכם המובהק כמהר”ר יהודה המכונה מסיר ליאון אנכי עם לבבי לבנות בית.
236.
לכן אמרתי אלקטה בשבלי הספורים הדבוריים ואספתי בעמרים ההמה ואצבור אותם חמרים עד אכונן חיבור קוצר (קצר?) בזאת המלאכה כולל ענינים רבים חדשים גם ישנים בסידור נפלא בתכלית מה שאיפשר בערכי מן ההדור והיופי להמשיך הלבבות וכו' ויעלו מטיט היון באשר נלכדה רגלם וכו' והנה קראנו שם זה החבור מכלל יופי למה שבו מן הכללים מספר.
237.
Steinschneider 1875d, 67. Brüll 1879, 176 (see note 220) presumes that the Munich catalogue identifies the Compendium of Logic with part 2 of the מכלל יופי; cf. Steinschneider 1880c, 126, where “Jb. III” is a misprint.
238.
The Zotenberg catalogue refers to Fabricius Bibl. lat. V, 220 and ms. lat. de la Bibl. Nat. 6433; cf. Steinschneider 1871j, 84: Steinschneider 1872c, 119, Steinschneider 1880i, 126. – Paulus, originally from Udine, died in 1428 in Padua and wrote, among other [works], Super consequentiis Radulphi Strodii. His Logica parva et magna was published several times from 1474 onwards (Hain 1826–1838, nos. 12497–506). פאולו די וויניציא in the commentary on De caelo et mundo is referred to in Abravanel 1739, ch. 21 qu. 3, f. 38. Brüll 1885, 77, changes it to a translation with commentary and confuses P. with the translator Paulus Israelita, cf. below, §186, n. 496.
239.
This quotation comes probably from Paulus (?), cf. note 238. For Strodus, cf. Renan 1861, 275, Renan 1866, 344 (missing from the index).
240.
Steinschneider 1871i, 31.
241.
Already Widmanstad thought Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 307 to be Paulus’s Logic; but it is Petrus Hispanus’s Logic. [For J. A. Widmanstetter (Widmanstad), whose collection of Hebrew mss. were acquired by the Munich Stadtbibliothek, see Richler 2014, 229.]
242.
Aaron b. David in Messer Leon 1577, f. 97.
243.
Biscioni 1757, 360, summarizes the contents imprecisely and repeats Wolf’s confusion with Leo Abravanel.
244.
Mortara 1878, no. 52, [for the Mortara collection, see Richler 2014, 144] writes Judah. “b. Daniel”, probably because he has already on no. 17 (see note 288) repeated this name erroneously from the name of the nephew.
245.
Hardly in connection with the initial verse in the Compendium.
246.
Copied for his own use by Moses b. Sabbatai Levi (to be supplemented in Zunz 1863, II, 22), finished Tuesday, 5 Adar 1483 (in Mag. I, 17: 1484, misprint), according to the communication of Berliner.
^246b “Cod. varia Aristotelis tractans, in cujus exordio nominatur Messir Leon,” etc. The codex has different copyists’ hands. Wolf 1715–1733, III, 334 assumes a translation of Aristotle along with commentary.
247.
A. Pesaro (Vesillo 1879, 170) defends the corrupt name Perizol.
248.
Steinschneider 1864a, 27 (read Steinschneider 1880g, 27 [for another reference to literary plagiarism], cf. Steinschneider 1869c, 115; Steinschneider 1874e, 43.)
249.
There was a cantor Mordechai, perhaps Abraham’s father? The signature Abr. (Mord.) Farissol in עלילות דברים is dubious.
250.
Steinschneider 1877d, 380.
251.
אגרות ארחות עולם, Steinschneider 1852a, 689 and Additamenta.
252.
Here also Lange makes an Abraham the author, hence in Wolf 1715–1733, III, no. 42c.
253.
ספר המבוא. גדר הסוג הוא הכולל משני דברים עצמיים שראוי שיושב בשאלת מהו. זהו הכלל, בשנים שנים יבואו אליך והיותר כולל משניהם הוא הסוג והמעט כולל הוא המין ומזה התבונן כי דבר אחד תתקרא (כך!) מין וסוג ר”ל (!) גדר ההבדל הכללי העצמי אשר בו יוכר ויובדל כל מי הכללות סוגו ויושב בשאלת איזה; after four and a half folia: המכריח תשוב למקומה. עד כאן מס' המאמרות. ספר המליצה. גדר השם הוא תיבה מורה על ענין בלתי שיורה על זמן אותו. In the end a note on the birth of the niece (נכדתי) Julia (יוליא), daughter of the brother Joseph מהאדומים (de Rossi). – Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 1957, f. 49a begins וצריך שנבקש הנושא מזה הספר מהמלות כדי שלא יעמוד האדם משתומם ומתבהל בזה הספר ונותן טעם למי שעשה זה הספר ואמ' (?) שלא עשה בטוב ואיך יעמוד משתומם כמו שיאמר אם לא ידע האדם דרך משל הנושא הראשון מאבן סיני. After 7 folia: שער י”ג. גדר הסבה הוא אשר יחייב ממנה אחר נקרא מסובב, stopping here; then sundry notes. The whole text is apparently an adaptation of Definitions. [In fact, it is Farissol’s commentary on Maimonides’s Logical Terms.]
254.
Begins: אמר העבד בהקבץ עמים.
255.
Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Mich. 125/4 contains ספקות by an anonymous author on the Posterior Analytics. [This follows Gersonides’s supercommentary on 63a–15b, and should be compared with Messer Leon’s commentary in Paris BNF 998, 127b–228b.]
256.
קאסידוריא; this note is based on a non-Arabic source (cf. Müller 1873, 24). For the reading מורסיא in the end of the Isagoge cf. note 117.
257.
מיתר היה הספרים read הספרים היה?
258.
ואל הראשון נשיב, then הגדולה or הקטנה (major, minor) מבוארת or מפורסמת, then ואל הבאור אומר.
259.
Here he remarks, f. 256 and 257, that he has refrained from further explication, because he refers brevity (בחרתי הקצור וברחתי מהאריכות); a similar statement is found on f. 383, cf. note 295.
260.
חקירות דבריות f. 291; cf. note 236.
261.
הצרוף היא ענין מתחלף חלוף עניני מן הדבר אשר יוסר עליו..שני ספקות...האחד אם זה המאמר יש לו סוג אחד עליון .והשני אם
262.
הקשת מה read הקשה.
263.
העתקה הנוצרית 214b, 225, 231, 237 (does not have נקרים, only משתתפים), 250b (Metaphysics I), 279, 281b, 303, 307, 309, 311, 314b, 316, 319 (bis), 324b, 342b, 345, 346, 348b, 351. 362b, 363, 379. The two last passages have expressly ארסטו and הפילוסוף All quotations from the Latin translation are translated into Hebrew.
264.
F. 219a,b; Messer Leon seems to suppose there exists a connection between the Hebrew translation (of Averroes) and the Latin translation of Aristotle! On f. 362b, speaking of the use of the definite article, he remarks, after presenting the Latin translation: “The words ואם מותר in the Hebrew translation thus belong to Averroes, who has said them in regard to the Arabic [version]. The same applies to our language” (Hebrew). On f. 363 he remarks: In Latin the indefinite [noun] is understood in the partitive sense (הסתמיות במקום החלקיות); “perhaps this is also the case in Greek.” -משאיין comes from ארץ שואה (f. 206b, cf. note 289), אנדלוס denotes a town (207). – טלפא (316), שטמפא (stampa 245b).
265.
F. 225, 231, 281b, 282, 283b, 307 on change in Averroes (valuable remarks).
266.
F. 279, cf. 316. 342b, where Averroes raises doubts that Leon does not discuss.
267.
F. 309, cf. 345.
268.
ההעתקה הנוצרית מהאמצעי מב”ר, f. 207, 318, 353.
269.
F. 291 (note 260), cf. f. 255b. רוב המפרשים maintain that Aristotle has intentionally taken Plato’s words in another sense than Plato himself, in order to be seen as the head of the scholars, והעליל למען יהיה הוא לראש ולקצין לכל החוקרים והוא עמד עליהם, read יעמד, or (as in Arabic וקף עלי) “he understood them” (i.e. the words); cf. note 382.
270.
קצת המפרשים (as in Arabic בעד) often means a single person; the expression is found, e.g., on f. 277 (also ad Metaphysics, quoted ארקיטא, f. 278b = Archytas?), 354b, 398, 405 (עוד אמרו, cf., however, the following note), f. 398b has for it זה המחבר, 405b זה החכם; in this last passage says Judah that he omits the opinions of that scholar on השואת ההקדמות בעלות הצד.
271.
קצת החכמים בעיניהם - elsewhere החכם בעיניו f. 269, where [we have] המעיינים בספריו, perhaps בספרו?, likewise f. 368b for בספרי in the ms., that is to say, in his commentary? – F. 269, 304, 348b, 351 on the present tense (בינוני); the author that is attacked does not pay attention to grammar. In Arabic, he says, there is no particular form for the present tense, etc., the Christians (in Latin) do have a particular form, but not naturally בטבע, as the conceited [author] maintains, but conventionally (בהסכמה). On f. 364 he refers him to ס' ההקש; f. 368b–369b, where עד כאן דברי זה המחבר. From this long passage on מקבילות the anonymous author might perhaps be identified. [See the supplement to this section; Husik identified the anonymous authors as Gersonides.]
272.
Steinschneider 1878c, 44.
273.
E.g., f. 205, 236b (along with Simplicius; cf. Steinschneider 1878c, 44), 247, 252, 276b, 313b, 341 (בס' המאמרות), 347b, 348, 350. [This is a puzzling note since none of the references refer to Boethius or to our manuscript; something appears to have gone awry here and in the next note.]
^273b [Missing]
274.
F. 316 on מפזז ומכרכר (perhaps due to the translator into Hebrew, according to Leo), on casus rectus and obliquus (347, מוגבה is meant to signify Patach in the beginning or the end of a word – that is Arabic מרפוע). On privative verbs, f. 376).
275.
קיצורי with the formula ביארתי, or נתבאר באר היטב, or כבר התפרסם בקיצורי and similar [expressions] on f. 205, 215, 230b, 236b, 260 (בשער ההצעות, cf. n.1 181), 289b, 303b, 341, 360, 397, 398b).
276.
החקירה השלמה נעשה אותה בטבעיות בע”ה וזה אשר חשבנוהו עתה מספיק בזה המאמר; cf. further below.
277.
הייתי חולק על כוונת המחבר והמתן לדעת הנרצה בהם is equivocal, it may mean to deal with it in this place unintentionally, or against the opinion.
278.
Ms. נסכים, read נסיכם Deut. 32, 38.
279.
F. 340, Steinschneider 1878c, 44.
280.
Cf. note 187.
281.
“106” in Steinschneider 1875b, 102, is a misprint.
282.
פי' ספר המופת אל הגאון רב כולל מהר”ר מסיר ליאון די מנטובה.
283.
Begins: אמר המחבר נדרשתי ללא שאלו סברות חלושות ודעות ריקות ושתופות קדים וכונות נראו כצדק בתחלת המחשבה ורחוקות ממנו ברוחק מצד עם טוב התבוננות. אמנם אמרתי הנני אל גוי קורא להם שם כשם הגדולים.
284.
I have not, however, indicated quotations; that still needs closer investigation. – In David’s register right after I–III: ס' המופת אשר נכבדות מדובר בו והגיע אל גלות ירושלים אשר בספרד; that means that the book was circulated in Spain at an early stage
285.
F. 235, Steinschneider 1878c, 43: והשמיט השני ספרים אחרונים; usually השמיט denotes “to omit entirely.” Leon does not intend to indicate [its] spuriousness, since he quotes in his Rhetoric that of Aristotle.
286.
Cf. the “Theses” (n. 216) and the Compendium of the Physics (§54).
287.
David Vital lost it at the conquest of Patras (around 1532?), Steinschneider 1852a 1332. It is not mentioned in David’s list of works.
288.
Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 1947, Mantua, CI Ms. ebr. 16, Moscow, RSL Günz. 45; Mortara 1878,17, calls Messer Leon himself “b. David” by mistake, cf. n. 244. Mordecai adds to this name the eulogy י”ץ. Mordecai is perhaps a copyist named elsewhere, i.e. in Candia, 1474, cf. Steinschneider 1882a, 403.
289.
Printed along with the beginning of the commentary in Steinschneider 1875d, 66, incorrectly and without the name of Immanuel etc. in the Vienna catalogue.
290.
חי (Vita) is an additional name, according to Zunz (Zunz 1868, 190; Zunz 1876a, 207) [he is] in the audience of Judah; but המתלמד may mean a student in general (cf. n. 345). Immanuel is author of a hymn and probably the sender of money to Obadiah Bartinoro, 1488–9 (Sachs 1862, 223, cf. Steinschneider 1863b, 130, Steinschneider 1873e, 124); the passage does not say that Bartinoro has sent the travel account to Immanuel.
291.
Instead of כאשר התבאר in Vienna, Cod. hebr. ON 43,Wn., Florence, BM-L. Ms. Plut.89 Sup. 118/13 has יתבאר.
292.
Goldenthal 1851, 79.
293.
Prior Analytics (the end in Messer Leon Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Reggio 61,), Topics f. 58, Physics שמע טבעי 54, 59b, 69b, 71, De caelo 83, 84, Meteora (האותות) 86, De anima 66, 70, 92, all of them usually with the addition בטבעיות, Metaphysics 60b, 77b, 78b, 79b, 93, 95b.
294.
ומדברי אבן רשד…כל כך מעט…שבארנו בס' השמע.
295.
וכבר דובר בזה במקומם f. 92; cf. also לבחרנו הקצור ושלא לצאת מכוונת המאמר ונשענתי על מי שעיין בענינו בזולת זה המקום. f. 70. For brevity, cf. note 259.
296.
Steinschneider 1878b, 106.
297.
Begins: (according to Mortara’s communication) במאמר זה כו' ירצה למה שכבר היה מנהג בראש המלאכה להתחיל בלמוד זה הספר תוך ספרי ארסטו'. ואמנם הורה בזה הלשון פה כי אין הס' הזה הכרחי להגיון כמו שיבאר בסוף באורו לזה הספר; ends: ויכלול המין והמקרה והדבר אשר יקרה לו הנה יכללם עוד כי המין ינשא על מה שינשא תמיד ומה שנמצא לסגולה מן הכללות ואם היא מקרה היה אמנם להיותה נמשכה אחר הצורה המיניית כמו שקדם והנה נשלמו הענינים וכו' נשלם הבאור לס' המבוא.
298.
והנה בהעתקת הנוצרים העתיק חלוקה ומופת הפרידה ועיון כי קראו קצת המעתיקים מלאכת מופתית מלאכה עיונית; also ad יחס אל ערב ויחס אל ארמין (beginning of De genere), that the Latin translation purportedly renders this as משל בפרץ (?) ואברהם ומכה מן מרשה…וכן מרשה מקום מיכה המורשתי.
299.
אני הנקרא עכשיו מאישטרו מנואל, beginning of the Categories; cf. Baldi and Steinschneider 1874b, 55, 95; Steinschneider 1878b, 111, פ' הגיון לעלי מבוא מאמרות מליצה in a register; Steinschneider 1875c, 14.
300.
This, he says, is the definition of חכם according to טמאתו (Themistius?).
^300b Renan 1866, 396, has also failed to name the established first name.
301.
Also in the beginning of the four half-lines the letters אולב are to be found; is Albo perhaps the copyist? Read המלות instead of המולות. The commentary on Maimonides begins (according to the communication of M. Schwab): שאל שר אחד כו' למה שסופר לו ממנה כו' ר”ל הכונה היה (כך) לתת טעם למה זה השר שאל לשון קצר כל כך ושלא יאריכו הדברים ונותן הרב טעם לזה שאומר שמה שזה השר אינו רוצה באריכות הזה בעבור כי אין כונתו ללמוד המלאכי הזאת. - Beginning of the commentary on the Isagoge ספר המבוא. אמר שההקדמה בידיעת מבוא (?) הסוג וכו' היחס ומבוא (?) המקרה הכרחית ר”ל בעבור כי בספרי (בספר?) המאמר' יזכרו הרבה הסוג והמין וכן האחרים ופירושם לא נעשה באותו הספר קודם השתמש מהם כמו שהיה ראוי להעשות אבל בא בס' הנצוח בראשון אמר הנה פורפיריוס שזה הכרחי ואם יאמר החכם ב”ר בסוף זה הספר שאינו הכרחי . The commentary fills one page only and has no quotations from anybody.
302.
Steinschneider 1852a, 2363, and Additamenta; Reifmann 1859, 151; imprecisely Carmoly 1862. According to Assemani and Assemani 1756 ad Vat. 105, Shabbetai Bass is supposed to attribute some material to Solomon that goes back to Shabbatai Kohen (ben Malkiel) (cf. Steinschneider 1880a, 425; Steinschneider 1881b, 304). There is nothing to be found in Shabbatai, but Bartolocci in Wolf 1715–1733, 1:1078 quotes “conciones.”
303.
ספרי המפואר שחברתי בהנהגת הבית, Steinschneider 1852a 2363, cf. Heilprin 166b, in Benjacob and Steinschneider 1880 P. 142 n. 433.
304.
There is space left for the initial [letters] (אמר?).
305.
Cf. §278, n. 45, below.
306.
ממה שעלו על רוחם (Ez. 20, 33).
307.
The attacked author invokes Maimonides במלות = מלות ההגיון.
^307b ועלי הקשה על זה f. 31.
308.
כבר הצענו בס' המאמרות; soon thereafter ולזה התחיל ארסטו ואמר. וראוי שנאמר תחלה ירצה מאשר כוונתו בזה אל דבר המאמר החותך והמגיד הנקרא משפט או גזרה; ends: מאלו אשר תצדקנה יחד and a tasteless final formula of an ignorant copyist; cf. Steinschneider 1875b, 21.
^308b זה הלשון נמשך עד
309.
והנה בספר (כך) נתחדשה נוסחא ; f. 307b this reading seems to be for the author the correct one; he calls it soon thereafter נוסחה המתחדשת בספר הערב; and f. 308 החלוקות אחר (אשר) חודשו בספר מן הערב; f. 325b there are two readings in the book, one of them in the text (בתוך הס'), f. 329 כפי הנוסחא המוגהת מס' הערבי.
^309b Cf. above §26, n. 200.
^309c אבו נצר f. 288b, 289, 301; cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 22.
310.
His father’s name Yom Tov (Paris, BNF héb 747, and elsewhere) figures quite as frequently as Shem Tov so that one could be tempted to doubt the correctness of the latter, were it not that already Israel Arama has Shem Tov (Steinschneider 1852a 670 and Additamenta), though not the author’s identity. Next to nothing is known of his life; in his youth he conducted disputations at the court of King John with an excellent scholar on the subject of Trinity. Cf. Steinschneider 1883a, which I have made use of here, and the “Nachtrag,” 239; on the present commentary, see 126. ביבץ and Vivas are corrupt readings of Bibago.
^310b דרך אמונה, printed only in Constantinople (Bibago 1521), called ד' א' הגדול in Bass 1680, 18a, to distinguish it from the Kabbalistic work, bearing the same title, by Meir Gabbai (written in 1539); cf. Steinschneider 1883a, 80 (and 144 on the fragment with the title יאיר נתיב in Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 43). – Paris, BNF héb 856 [containing Gabbai’s work] is not distinguished in the Title Index [of Zotenberg’s catalogue] s.v. דרך אמונה [from manuscripts of Bibago’s work] and appears s.v. Abraham Bibago and Meir Gabbai in the author index. The former is missing the table of contents [of Bibago’s work] found in Paris, BNF héb 272.
311.
Wolf 1715–1733 I, III, and IV, no. 60; De Rossi 1839, 59; Munk, locis citatis; cf. also Steinschneider 1852a, Additamenta ad 1093; Steinschneider 1881h, 82.
312.
Probably in Paris, BNF héb 1004 and Parma 2631/17 [the former consists of short philosophical treatises (f. 37a–53b), the latter consists of two philosophical inquiries to Moses Arondi with his reply]; the anonymous מאמר בריבוי הצורות in Paris, BNF héb 1004 is apparently quoted in Bibago 1521, f. 33a; perhaps by Saul Kohen, cf. Steinschneider 1883a, 95 [the reference is to Ashkenazi et al. 1574, 6c, incorrectly paginated as י]. – London, Mon. 17, עץ חיים on the Pentateuch is attributed to Bibago by an owner, however, the author apparently calls himself Moses in the preface and quotes his מעין גנים.
313.
Steinschneider 1883a, 80 and 143; p. 81 n. 5, line 5, is to be corrected because in Schorr 1880, the phrase שמע עלי is indicated.
314.
Isaac Albalag, too, conducts disputations with clergymen. For Bibago who in his youth dealt with Christian theology in order to get to know the methods of its proofs, it is the same as the forbidden “Greek science” (cf. above §19, n. 94); it proves on the basis of what it is supposed to prove (תלי תניא בדלא תניא, a Talmudic phrase), and it resembles the purified לאטון (copper) which appears to be gold to the feeble sighted (Bibago 1521, f. 47a,b). Cf. Crescas 1860, 28 [Crescas 1990, 65].
315.
For Latin, cf. Steinschneider 1883a, 81 n. 7.
316.
For disputations in Italy, cf. Steinschneider 1883a, 82 n. 8, where one should read ‘Solomon b. Moses’; Güdemann 1880, I, 12, 321.
317.
Steinschneider 1883a, 82, n. 9.
318.
“The sages of our time who grasp the paring and throw away the pulp in order to appear before the great mass as pious, who mock and slander Maimonides” (Bibago 1521, f. 43b, cf. 45b). “Sages of our people who lack conception and assent” (ציור ואמות, f. 45d); cf. above §9, n. 192.
319.
He, too, as Judah ha-Levi, Simon Duran (§7), and others, praises the teachers of the Talmud for their knowledge of the profane sciences vis-à-vis the Greeks, as Euclid, Bibago 1521, f. 46b, cf. 10a (Steinschneider 1883a, 84, n. 11); Steinschneider 1888, 60.
320.
Assemani translates מופת by Analytica priora!
321.
Wolf 1715–1733, I, 35; Carmoly 1839, 312; Munk, locis citatis. Bibago quotes this commentary in the commentary on the Metaphysics, Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 357, f. 66, 70, 71 (Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 57, f. 108b, 116, 118b).
322.
See above, §16, n. 38.
323.
Bibago 1521, f. 21ff. elucidates Levi’s doubts against Maimonides (Levi ben Gershom 1560, treatise III., f. 21 ff.). – For the beginning of the preface, cf. Steinschneider 1883a, 127.
324.
יש שני פירושים, or יש לפרש פירוש אחר, or נוכל לפ' פ' א' לפי הנסחא, Berlin, SPK Or. Qu. 831c, f. 62, 69b, אין לי בזה טעם הנסחא, f. 72.
325.
יש להקשות, יש לדקדק -- On f. 74 he presents the geometrical diagram. Protagoras appears on f. 77 as אפרוטאגוריש; cf. §3, n. 93, above.
^325b Assemani lists under Vatican, BA Cod. ebr. 428 a פירוש ס' המליצה of Aristotle, begins: המקום הג' שנספר מה שאפשר שיתחייב אם יותר זה העון לכל וילך החוטא נקי מכל עונש מן הנזקים והסכנות ורעות רבות וצרות. המקום הד' שאם נשא זה העון ולא נעניש זה החוטא אנשים אחרים ג”כ לא ייראו מעשות תועבות גדולות מאלה…ויבדל זה המקום מאשר למעלה ממנו Here, Rhetoric is certainly rendered by מליצה; the passage, however, does not tally with Averroes 1842, 163 ff. [See above, n. 127.]
326.
אנבונופוש or אבונפוש; Natanel Kaspi calls him שין בונפוס in the ms. commentary on Kuzari (III:65, IV:15; Dukes 1848d, 571, Steinschneider 1878d, 113) and also the polemic of Qalonymos (Steinschneider 1865a, 77 n. 5); אבונפוס instead of אנב'. Paris, BNF héb 986 in Munk 1859, 496. For Argentière, cf. Steinschneider 1876f, 127 n. 4. – For his family and the latest data, cf. below, §117, n. 860.
327.
My article on Joseph Kaspi in Steinschneider 1855b [repr. in Steinschneider 1925, 89–135], (older sources in Steinschneider 1852a, 1448), treats his life and works in detail; Steinschneider 1869a, 242; Steinschneider 1866c, 125, 130; Steinschneider 1879b, 115, Zunz 1856, 575; Berliner 1872, 52 n. 5; Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 1:200. Most mss. are to be found in Munich (the catalogue had, however, to be restricted to the essential information) and Parma.
328.
Cf. Gross 1879, 468 (cf. 431); the date in ס' הסוד and two mss. of the latter (one belonging to the bookseller Netter, later on to Dr. Sänger in Hamburg) have already been indicated in Steinschneider 1852a, 1449; hence perhaps טעם הערכים (Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 1:133)? Presumably in 1315 Kaspi was already quoted by Levi b. Abraham (Vatican, BA Cod. ebr. 192); the name, however, has been added by a more recent hand (Renan and Neubauer 1877, 646, cf. also Schiller-Szinessy 1876 1: 204 n. 8; Steinschneider 1869c, 24, Steinschneider 1872c, 108).
329.
E.g., of the edited double commentaries on the Moreh, Steinschneider 1852a, 1449; Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 263, Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 264; cf. Paris, BNF héb 695; the supposed “Fragmentum operis metaphysici” in Turin, BN A VI 34, in Peyron 1880, 208, is merely the continuation of the commentary on the Moreh, as the beginning shows (cf. Peyron 1880, 229).
330.
Is it by chance that his commentary on the Secrets of Ibn Ezra is anonymous in almost all mss.? Steinschneider 1866c, 130; Berliner 1872, 52. n. 5; Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 55, 61, 132, and Steinschneider 1876b, 106; Milan, BA O 100 Sup. (Berliner 1877, 115); Paris, BNF héb 178 is supposed to be written by “Pinḥas b. Yair” (?). – For a quotation from al-Fārābī, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 342; Steinschneider 1879b, 118, line 1. Schiller-Szinessy 1876’s assumption (202) that פרשת הכסף contained the commentaries on רקמה and Ibn Ezra is not likely. [See Kasher 1990.]
331.
For the manner in which he disregards the restriction of Maimonides, cf. Steinschneider 1855b, 67, n. 46, and Steinschneider 1879b, 118.
332.
In his “Book of the Secret” and in the commentary on Proverbs (Munich, BS Cod. hebr. 265/1, f. 2, as cited in Qalonymos ben Qalonymos 1879, vii) he establishes the principle: “All words of the Torah and of the Bible (המקרא, cf. n. 343) are, in my opinion, to be explicated simply (כפשוטם), as are the books on Logic and Physics by Aristotle, except where the simple sense is impossible.” But this impossibility is exactly the point of controversy! The primeval history up to Abel is a myth (הכל הבל) for him. For his theological position, cf. Steinschneider 1855b, 72.
333.
Dukes 1857b, 105 denies him any knowledge of another language, without references. According to Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 209, it is “known that he was well-versed in Arabic”! המעתיק אל הלטין ספרי הקדש (in שרשות כסף root שאל, Dukes 1857b, 103), i.e. Hieronymus, quoted also elsewhere, e.g. in שלחן כסף, Steinschneider 1855b, 65 (cf. Steinschneider 1877d, 366). Cf. also לשון רומי in Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 206, 208, 299. Peyron has overlooked Wolf 1715–1733, IV, 855 (thus read in Steinschneider 1855b 65, n. 39k) and produces Massiminus from הגמון.
334.
I do not find in his work any quotation from Averroes’s Tahāfut al-tahāfut; פרקי אבו חמד in Dukes 1857b, 103, is probably a slip of the pen for אבו נצר (al-Fārābī). For quotations, see Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 204, par. 2. According to Kaspi, Aristotle has a lower rank than Moses.
335.
Peyron 1880, 208 calls his מנורת כסף (Steinschneider 1855b, 62, n. 8, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 242) “lib. kabbalist. (!) de creatione…ab opin. Plat. et Arist.”
336.
The preface from Paris, BNF héb 1244 is printed in Dukes 1847a, 48. The passages indicated in Steinschneider 1855b, 62, are to supplemented by those given in Dukes 1857b, 102 ff. The supposed fragment in Vatican, BA Cod. ebr. 429 is, as the beginning shows, the מלות ההגיון of Maimonides! [It is a commentary by Kaspi on the מלות ההגיון, for which see Kasher and Manekin 2009.]
337.
סכלות in philosophical terminology, ignorance (Arabic: ג'הל).
338.
Steinschneider 1855b, 62, n. 25; Dukes 1857b, 104; Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 209, n. 2; Steinschneider 1879, 115–6.
339.
Steinschneider 1855b 61, n. 3. In the preface to שרשות כסף we read expressly הס' השני הפרקים הכוללים דרכי לה”ק הנקרא רתוקות כסף; the preface to the Logic refers to the same; one is at a loss to understand why Dukes 1857b, 103–4 wants to identify the פרקים with the Logic.
340.
Renan 1852, even in the third edition, has not taken notice of this work (Steinschneider 1855e, 71, Steinschneider 1858, 263).
341.
Communicated by Dukes from Paris, BNF héb 986, Dukes 1847b, 328 (contents in Steinschneider 1855b, 71), containing some mistakes that I correct on the basis of Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Mich. 536 and Oxford, Rawl. Or. 34 and Steinschneider 1858, including a number of variant readings: line 6 אמר read אבל, 7 עם read שהם, 9 מדרגה read מגדרה, 12 וידע בשאר read בהבנת, 24 read במנוחה מן העיון, 30 במוסר and 36 הוא delete, 329 l. 8 לחכמים read לחפצים.
342.
Qalonymos illuminated this pretense. [Steinschneider may be referring to Qalonymos’s criticism of Kaspi’s rhetorical device of appealing to “my sons” in his Sefer ha-Sod. See Qalonymos ben Qalonymos 1879, 24 (My thanks to Hannah Kasher for pointing this out.)] We shall see presently that the book was meant for his contemporaries.
343.
Thus according to Oxford, Rawl. Or. 34; Paris, BNF héb 986 has “with the other Sacred Books.” This separation is found in Kaspi frequently; Steinschneider 1855b, 60 column 1, and cf. n. 332; Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 204, par. 8 inserts with reason “historical” before “books.” Cf. Falaquera 1837, 6 [Falaquera 2001, 115].
344.
באורך ובקוצר is probably meant to signify the Middle Commentary and Compendium; one must not, against the mss., emend to בארוך ובקצור, since ארוך means the Great Commentary.
345.
מתלמד means here self-taught, cf. n. 290.
346.
Cf. n. 94. This is what he refers to in his commentary on Lamentations 3: 62; see Steinschneider 1855b, 71. n. 72; Schiller-Szinessy 1876, 210, par. 7, has overlooked the quotation.
347.
Reggio attributed to Kaspi a compendium of most writings of Aristotle; Zunz puts in its stead three books of the Logic.
348.
Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 2264 is not by Kaspi, but by Petrus Hispanus (Steinschneider 1872c, 118, Perreau 1880, 42).
349.
This ms. is probably what Bartolocci in Wolf 1715–1733 1:541 has in mind; Assemani connects it by mistake with Vatican, BA Cod. ebr. 296; cf. §117. – Vatican, BA Cod. ebr. 283 appears in Assemani as פירוש על עשר מאמרות לארסטו, Categories by Kaspi (Steinschneider 1855b 71 n. 70a); already the beginning shows that it is the Metaphysics, and on f. 334b we read אות הלמד ממה שאחר הטבע.
350.
Assemani indicates here the Categories, but the beginning that he is presenting comes from the Isagoge and the beginning is ספר המבוא והמאמרות שעשה…, in the margin אבן כספי ז”ל.
351.
הענינים הנפרדים הם חמשה סוג מין (ומין)..המאמר בסוג ומין. הנה אלו נבאר יחד כי הם מצטרפים והם כמו אב ובן; ends: לפי שאינו דבר עצמי. ובזה נשלם המכוון (הרצון) בכאן במה שיכלול ס' המבוא.
352.
המאמרות עשרה ר”ל כי איזה דבר שיהיה או איזה שם תאמר הנה הוא בהכרח אחד מאלו; ends: וחללה שיהיה שם אחד מונח להוראות הפכחיות מצד עצמו כמו שאמר המפרשם וזכור זה מאד.
353.
השער הא' אומר ראוי שנאמר… המלה כלומר הפועל עוד נאמר אחר זה מהו החיוב ומהו השלילה; ends: וכאשר היה זה לא נשאר לנו כ”א המין השלישי והוא הקבלת החיוב והשלילה וזהו החזק בהקבלה ובזה נשלם ההכרחי בס' המליצה.
354.
Ends: אבל לא המינים מישרים אותנו לדעת עניני' רבים בדברים האמורים.
355.
Ends: ולא תעשה זאת הגבול האמצעי בהקשים המופתיים ובכאן נשלם המכוון בס' המופת.
356.
Averroës 1560, f. 42–45. In Steinschneider 1855e, 71, the reference is not quite exact. Oxford, Rawl. Or. 34 does not have this passage; thus it is probably a more recent addition.
357.
Begins: אמר ראוי שנדבר בדברים אשר מהם יטעה המעיין בדברים ויטה מדרך האמת; ends: ואמר ארסטו כי כמו שהאדם נאמר בשתוף אך יצטרך לזה מה שכתוב בס' הקדוש על אמרו כי “יברכך… יכול בטל תל בכל אשר תעשה.
358.
Gross 1879, 557, does not mention Parma, BP Cod. Parm. 3022/2ת but rather Breslau (Saraval 22) [now London, D. Sofer 96]; however, according to Zuckermann’s catalogue it is the Middle Commentary. Krafft and Deutsch 1847, 137, should have referred to Paris, BNF héb 933/4 (a. f. 332) rather than to Paris, BNF héb 932/5 (a. f. 322). Renan 1852, 150, Renan 1866, 190, does not indicate in the text that it is the Long Commentary; the passages in the note do not refer to our book.
359.
Steinschneider 1867b, 139.
360.
The relations to al-Fārābī have perhaps not been dealt with exhaustively in Steinschneider 1869a, 46.
361.
On this Oddi writes (preface to Aristotle and Averroes 1550–1553, 7v–8r): Nam cum Averrois super hunc librum magna commentaria ab Abramo de Balmes, a Burana Veronensi, Jacoboque Mantino conversa essent, cumque Abrami translatio mendosa esset, atque obscura, manca vero ac depravata Buranae versio foret, quod et ipse in codice suo manuscripto, qui ad nos post obitum Bagolini pervenit, testatur, Mantini autem traductio solum à primo contextu ad centesimum quinquagesimum usque primi libri appareret, Bagolinus unam duntaxat alijs scilicet meliorem elegerat caeterarum collatione, atque ope conformatam, nulla facta additione ex se ipso. quod quidem unus initio fermè cursus destituere, coactus est. Ego itaque hanc rem aggressus sum eamque ad finem usque viventis illius ordinem secutus perduxi: has enim tres conversiones ad verbum comparavi, et illam Buranae quam, velut basim, Bagolinus fecerat, quae adjicienda videbantur, illius more adieci, corrigenda correxi, conversionum diversitates, sensuum, vocabulorumque repertas in margine signavi. – These translations are missing from Steinschneider 1852a. 667, 763, 1236, because I had before me only the 1550 ed.
^361b Cf. the quotation below §182 n. 446 and above, §16 n. 52.
^361c Burana: verificationis nostrae, Balmes: ver. illius, perhaps following a variant reading, or due to a mistake in the Latin ms. that he used?
362.
In addition to the brief notes in Biscioni 1757, 54, I am indebted for more detailed information to Berliner’s communication;⁸ f. 45 ביאור על מאמר המצטרף בס' המאמרות. דע שהדברים שיאמרו בהצטרף יצטרפו בהם ה' ענינים, נושא הצירוף היסוד הגבול אשר ממנו הגבול אשר אליו והמצטרף בעצמו. ¹⁴ f. 56 כללים מה מס' המבוא. דע שא”א להיות שום דבר נושא לחכמה מה אם לא יתן בם (יהיו בו?) שלשה תנאים התנאי הראשון שיהיה היותר נגלה והיותר מפורסם בחכמה ההיא – ¹⁶ f. 117(?) בבאור המאמרות...; ends: הקבלת ההפכים [In fact, this section goes on to f. 122a] ²⁶ f. 181, on the Syllogism, 7 chapters, end deficient. פרק א' פרק ענין ההיקש והשרשים הגדולים. ההקש הוא מאמר כשסודרו בו והונחו הקדמות מה יתחייב בהכרח דבר אחא מההקדמות המסודרות והמונחות ההנה. -- ²⁷ [This chapter is from Judah Messer Leon’s Perfection of Beauty, III.1] ²⁷ f. 193 “tract. logicus et physicus ex Averroe” (Biscioni), begins: אמר אלא שהוא אם היה שכבר נשלמה הגדרת הדברים אשר מן המצטרף באשר אמרנו שהמצטרפים הם בדברים אשר מהותור (מהותם?) יאמר בהקש אל זולתם כבר יקשה; ends הכלל מספיקים. [This is from Averroes’s Middle Commentary on the Categories, the Treatise on Relatives.]
363.
This is expressly noted in some of them in the beginning, e.g. מסאלה֞ פי עלם אלנפס שיל ענהא פאג'אב פיהא; cf. also the title of the fragments on the soul in Renan 1866, 464, l. 3, which is not “Questions sur le livre de l’âme par demandes et par réponses” (Renan 1852, 53, Renan 1866, 71 n. 25), on the faculties of the soul, perhaps Madrid, Escorial 632/10? [Steinschneider bases himself on the description in Casiri 1760, I:184: “decima De animae potentiis,” but the manuscript at this point deals with logic, and his “perhaps” reflects his view expressed above that the table of contents is unreliable.] The idea of a fiction is not probable since we know that such things happened. It is told of Avicenna that he was sent doubts about passages in his Najāt via the express, etc. (Steinschneider 1870e, 19). As to the dating, Renan 1852, 46 (Renan 1866, 61), takes the year 1195 of quaesitum V as valid for all of them; but see Steinschneider 1869a, 150, and ad quaesitum III.
364.
See below.
365.
Steinschneider 1881c, 65.
366.
But cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 37, 57, 150; cf. §17.
367.
The term חאשיה֞ (marginal note) or חואשי (plural form) does not occur. For תעליק cf. n. 396 and N. [?] XIX.
368.
Steinschneider 1869a, 11.
369.
Ms. Esc. 629, now Madrid, Escorial 632, seems to be re-bound recently in a different order; cf. Derenbourg 1884, 439, where we have the title al-Masā’il only from the postscriptum, imprecisely “Dissert. logiques.”
370.
Steinschneider 1869a, 38, from communications of Prof. Jos. Müller who, as he wrote to me, was “chased away by the malicious monks of the Escurial before accomplishing his work.”
371.
Cf., however, below ad quaesitum II.
372.
More detailed information can be found in Steinschneider 1875b, 13–15; Steinschneider 1881c, 64, 65, and Steinschneider 1869a, locis citatis. –דרושים corresponds to Arabic מבאחת'.
^372b Logicalia quaesita epistolasque cum Averrois tum aliorum Arabum, quae mendose ab Abramo translata erant, nulloque ordine servato legebantur, ad librorum logicalium ordinem redegi et castigavi. (Oddi in Aristotle and Averroes 1550–1553, I, f. 8.)
373.
A Talmudic saying (B Sanh. 29).
374.
Dukas 1876, 25; Sachs 1862, 193; Steinschneider 1881c, 64 and vii [Berichtigungen und Nachträge]; cf. Steinschneider 1852a, 945. – 1477 in Renan 1866a, 382, is a misprint; see Renan 1852, 204. I am consulting a copy of Averroès 1497 in the Berlin library. The first work of the volume is by Maiolus, cf. Dukas 1876, 2. – Elia points out at the end contradictions between the quaestio and Averroes’s commentary. – Renouard 1834, 14, no. 10, remarks: “Ces pièces, extrèmement rares, manquent à la plupart des collections Aldines. Elles sont au reste d’un intérêt à-peu-près nul (?) et au nombre de ces livres, qu’on ne lit plus, et qu’on a raison de ne pas lire.” – The questions are signed by the letters A–D in every sheet until IIIJ, then there are four unsigned folia.
375.
Hebrew ארדימס or ארדימם, cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 41; cf. the digression ad syllogism I C. 10 de syllogismis mixtis (Steinschneider 1869a, 41) and Averroës 1560, f. 15b. For the last paraphrase of Themistius, cf. Valentin 1867, 207, who is not aware of the translation of Elia.
376.
וכבר בארנו זה בשלמות בפירוש דבור ארסטו בזה המקום כי שבח לאל כבר נשלם המאמר ברובם (ברבו?) ומי שירצה בזה יעיין בספר ההוא (cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 44); Elia (f. A 3b): “in expositione dicti Arist…sermo de majori parte eorum” (!). Balmes (f. 79 L): “verba Arist…sermo majoris partis illorum.” Ends: והאל יודע (= ואללהו אעלם); Elia: “et deus scit.” Balmes: “Deus autem novit veritatem”; cf. below §176, n. 372; al-Baghdādī 1810, p. 276.
377.
Steinschneider 1869a, 41. Elia: “et jam respondit Alpharabius in possibili responsionem., quam refutat Avic., et hoc est quod vult ut puto in quibusdam exemplis (exemplaribus?) et nos respondemus ei sec. qd. videtur nobis qd. sit magis propinquum in remotione confusionum et postea dicemus responsionem Alphar. et argumenta eius contra ipsum.” Balmes: “Et jam respondit Abunazar de contingenti responsione (sic) quam ipse non admittit: quod prout puto ipse intendit contra quosdam egregios. Nos autem respondemus ei per ea, quae nos credimus, aut putamus (! such vel and aut in various translations, also in Elia) esse expedientius in cõnibus (sic, read: confusionibus, missing; removendis), et dein feremus in medium responsionem ipsius Abunazar. Et argumentum eius contra ipsum.”
378.
וכבר נשלם הדבור בהתרתם והדבור במה שכבר כלה ונשלם מותר. Elia: “Loqui autem de illo quod jam completum est, est superfluum.” Balmes: “De eo autem quod propositum (probably a reading mistake?) fuerat, jam satis completus est sermo.”
379.
Dukas 1876, 27 and 52, leaves us in doubt whether the addition in Paris, BNF lat. 6508, is identical with the subsequent remark. It reads: “secundum doctrinam Averrois in quaestionibus de mistione de speciebus inventorum.” – Dukas’s inferences as to the date of composition are untenable; Steinschneider 1881c, 65.
380.
Dukas 1876, 28; Steinschneider 1881c, 64.
381.
The passages concerning al-Fārābī (Steinschneider 1869a, 41, 42) f. 81 B, 82 A (more correctly quod Alph.) K, 83 B, 85 B, K, 86 B, M, 87 F, are to be found in Averroès 1497, f. A 7 (where “in sermone nostro”, for “libello” in Balmes, that is to say the Compendium), ibid., 7b; 8b twice (see below), Balmes: 4, 5, 5b, 7b. It is worth remarking that the end of ch. 2, f. 82 J, where the subject is Christian philosophers, is quite different in Elia A 8b; the beginning of chapter 2 is not given, and Balmes f. 82 L – 83 B is missing; however, in chapter 3 in Balmes, f. 85 A: “Et ideo contradicit”, in Elia B 3b: “Et per hoc voluit Themistius contradicere.” – Elia: B 4b: “Commentum primum” as heading line, then a new line: “Debes scire.” for “Primum debes scire.” – Variant reading from Balmes 83 B: “fortasse…in idiomate” etc., in Elia: B 8b “et forte hoc fuit famosum in idiomatis eorum secundum quod videtur ex verbis (sic) quod intentio sua haec est dividendo propositiones.”
382.
Actually, the end of Paris, BNF héb 960 is on f. 104b (wrongly bound after the deficient commentary of Levi) and of Paris, BNF héb 950 on f. 85b (according to a communication of M. Schwab) ולכן אין יותר חלש עיון במעשים או יותר מעט מהם בשיעורו בחכמה ממי שיעמוד על הספק עליו והשיב מאמרו (מאמר) במה שיראה לו וביחוד כאשר לא יראה למי שקדמו כמו שנמצא לאבן סיני יעשה זה שספריו כלם אמנם הם בספקות על זה האיש ובייחוד בשאלות הגדולות ומהיותר רע מה שעשה (ומי שירצה מה יעשוהו 950) המתאחר (כך!) זה הנטיה (הנוטה) מלמודו ולכתו דרך אחרת זולת דרכו כמו שיקרה לאבו נצר בספריו ההגיוניים ולאבן סיני בחכמות הטבעיות והאלהיות והנה נשלם (cf. the following note); Elia: “Et ideo nullus est debilioris speculationis ex hominibus vel minoris gradus in gradu scientiae quam ille qui firmat dubitationem super ipsum dicens in suo sermone illud quod ei videtur et maxime quum illud non videtur alicui antiquorum ut invenimus Avicennam fecisse hoc. omnes enim libri eius quasi sunt dubitatationes super istum virum et maxime quaestionibus magicis (read: magnis), et peius est quum declinavit aliquis a doctrina eius, et processit, alia via (lacking a via) eius, ut accidit Alpharabio in suis libris logicalibus, et Avicenna (sic) in scientiis naturalibus et divinis. Et jam completus est sermo de eo cuius declarationem intendimus. Etsi est brevis dirigit ad rectitudinem.” יעמוד על here in fact seems to be not the common Arabic usage (n. 269), but “firmat”, too, is awkward.
383.
Ends in Oxford, Bodl. Ms. Mich. 219a: ומי שירצה מה שיעשוהו המתאחרים ולכתו דרך אחרת זולת דרך ארסטו כמו שקרה זה לאבו נצר ואבן סינא לאבן סינא (כך) בחכמות הטבעיות והאלהיות אמר לוי הנה זה מה שחתם בו זה האיש זה המאמר. ובכלל החלק הא' מן ספר ההקש הוא רב הספקות מאד ונחשוב בו אחד מב' ענינים למה שהתבאר לנו מטוב עיון ארסטו ודקותו אם שאיננו לארסטו אם שהוא טעות נפל בספרים אם אורך הזמן כי אין אצל המפרשים כתיבת ידי אריסטו בזה והנה היה אפשר שהיו דברי ארסטו עמוקים מאד בזה המאמר כפי מנהגו וכתיבתו (כך) בגליון באורים בלתי מסכימים למה שירצוהו. עוד כתבום המעתיקים עם הספר על שהם דברי ארסטו בעצמם וזה אינו רחוק כש אורך הזמן. ובכאן נשלם המכוון לנו מהבאור בזה המאמר. והיה השלמתי (כך) מזה המאמר לא”ר בחמשה עשר לחדש רביעי (כך) האחרון אשר משנת חמש מאות ותשעים ואחד. The final date is of course that of the text. Thus Levi presumes that marginal glosses have made their way into the text of Aristotle.
384.
ביאור ב' מאמרים נמצאים לא”ר על קצת דברי זה הספר נטה בהם (כך) אחרים בדברי אריסטו זולתי הפרושים אשר נמשך אליו בזה הספר ונעיין ב”ה עם ביאורנו המאמרים ההם במה שבהם מן האמת או הפכו לפי מנהגנו ובאלהים נעזר.
This heading line has been skipped by Neubauer and Cowley 1886, no. 1633. אחרים stands in the beginning of the line; is אחר before missing?
385.
D. 5 line 4 from bottom connects correctly with “sed rhetorica si utitur possibilius”; in Balmes 87 K. follows: “vel sic nos invenimus” until 88 E.: “quod dixerat ipse Philosophus” (which is followed by “Oratio itaque; si fuerit contingens”), hence in Elia D. 7b line 16: “semper igitur non syllogismus.” – In the end Elia has an general postscript with incorrect punctuation: “in quaestione ultima, de mistione”, tacitly corrected in Balmes; cf. Steinschneider 1881c, 65 and VII. Cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 42.
^385b Elia f. C 7b, before the lacuna, presents “proportio” where Balmes has “habitudo.”
386.
Cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 42. The passage ורוב ספרי זה האיש המכונה באלשפא, etc. (Steinschneider 1870, 55) reads in Elia (f. D 1): “et maior pars libri tertii (read therefore השלישי) intitulati, (so) alsafa est compositus ex talibus obliquis sermonibus in logicalibus. Et in non logicalibus. Sed opportet fugere libros…” Balmes (f. 96 C): “Et maior pars lib. sufficientiae Philsophiae huius viri est contexta….sermonibus perversis” etc.
387.
Information on these mss. according to Neubauer’s communications.
388.
Munk 1859, 436 in Renan 1852, Renan 1866a, 68.
389.
נמצא בסוף חיבור האפשרי וההכרחי בתמונה הראשונה מביאור ההיקש לאבן רשד. Balmes (or the editors) supplied not only the explicative “Quaesitum hoc” in the beginning, but also added “in quibusdam libris”, probably because one did not find this excursus in Anatoli’s translation, and because it says in the treatise itself (Steinschneider 1869a, 37 n. 48): “Nos autem in nostra expositione horum locorum in exactis produximus etc.”
390.
וכבר ישאל שואל ויאמר איך אמר ארסטו בהקשים המתערבים אשר הגדולה בהם שוללת ; Elia: (f. B 7b): “Sed (!) jam quaeret aliquis dicens”; B. “Jam est alicuius quaerentis.”
391.
Cf. above ad qu. V. – The end is in Levi: אמר ואם יאריך הבורא חיינו נבאר זה המקום מדבריו מלה במלה כי זה המקום עד עתה לפי מה שאחשוב לא התבאר באור שלם; Elia (f. 2b) “et si Deus prolongaverit vitam nostram exponemus verba eius in hoc loco de verbo in verbo (that would mean a Great Commentary, cf. above n. 376), nam iste locus usque nunc ut puto non declaratus fuit declaratione perfecta” (Elia: has declaratio almost in every place where Balmes has expositio). Balmes: “Si autem Deus … qua declarabimus hunc locum ex suis verbis ad literam perfecta expositione, dico combinationem possibilem in secunda figura. Gaudeat scriptor…Amen.” The concluding formula is of course the copyist’s (Steinschneider 1869a, 37, n. 47). Qalonymos concludes in Paris, BNF héb 977c, with חבור האפשרי בתמונה השנית.
392.
Steinschneider 1881c, 65.
393.
Steinschneider 1869a, 37. Elia, too, f. B. 8 and f. C 2b, has “expositione eius.” The passage referring to Aristotle (C 2b) reads: “et quam mirabilis est dispositio huius viri et quam fortis diversitas creationis eius a reliquis creationibus humanis, ita quod quasi ipsum produxit sollicitudo divina ad producendum nos genus hominum in esse ultimae perfectionis in specie humana sensibilem et demonstratum, seu sensibili et demonstrata in eo, quod (sic) homo, et ideo antiqui vocabant ipsum divinum. Et nos in expositione nostra in his locis jam prius diximus sermonem in eis secundum quod apparet ex huius verbis in principio cogitationis,” etc.
394.
Steinschneider 1869a, 44, 45. – On ʿAbd al-Raḥmān טאריס (Tharis), quoted in this passage, see §44.
395.
Steinschneider 1869a, 38; Renan 1852, Renan 1866a, 456 l. 8, abridged in al-Dhahabī ibid. 458 line 10, 52, Renan 1866a, 69 n. 15: Sur les critiques qu’Alfarabi a adressées au livre des Secondes quant à l’ordre aux règles du syllogisme,” etc.
396.
The other title referring to al-Fārābī in Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿah, Renan 1866a, 455 l. 9, abridged in al-Dhahabī, ibid., 458 l. 4; cf. Renan 1852, 38) מקאלה֞ פי אול תעליק…, in Munk 1859, 438–9, only according to contents: “Exposé comparatif de l’Organon” etc., in Renan 1852, 51 (Renan 1866a, 69), no. 13: Exposé des opinions…dans son traité de logique… et sur le progrès que leur sentiment a fait faire à la science.” I translate according to the sense: On the opinions of al-Fārābī in his logical books which one possesses and on the opinions of Aristotle in his book on the quantity of what (is to be found) in every single logical book of Aristotle and (of this?) on the quantity of what has increased the difference of opinion between the two. – Renan 1866a has added “peut-être” to “par la liste.” I am unable to establish a correspondence between the three titles in this list with the above which also does not tally with any treatise known to me. The תעליק נאקץ עלי ארא ברהאן אבי נצר Renan 1866a, 463, last line, is perhaps Esc. 629, f. 87, beginning ומן כתאב ברהאן לאבי נצר (Steinschneider 1869a, 51); cf. also under no. 19.
^396b A passage on al-Fārābī (Steinschneider 1869a, 50) reads וזה כלו יורה על שספר אבונצר במופת לא היה עדיין נשלם כי זאת המחשבה יותר ראויה על אבו נצר מהמחשבה שנעלמו ממנו הדברים האלו בגלל עמקו בזאת המלאכה.
397.
ואלו השאלות אשר העמדנו אותם בזה המאמר היה אשר הגיענו אליהם המעולים מהחברנו מאנשי מורסיא ואם היה בם דבר שיהיה ראוי להחזיק טובה עליו הנה להם יתרון העלוי מזה אשר שהיו משותפים בו כי החוקר מהדבר והמניע אליו הוא אחד מהמשותפים בו נשלמה השאלה וכו'.
398.
“Hi autem qui contulerunt nobis hunc modum huius tractatus, fuerunt nostri socii studiosi Morsiani,” etc. Marginal note: “Nota quod hi sunt populi finitimi ex Morthala (!).” Cf. n. 36 above. Ibn al-Ṣā’igh Ibn Bājja met in Murcia with a traveller Dā’ūd from the country of בריאטניה (or ברטאניה); Berlin Wetzstein I 87, f. 193b of the Kitāb al-Wadāʿ, reads בתרסיה for מורסיא of the Hebrew translation.
399.
Cf. n. 117.
400.
וזה כלו כבר בארנוהו בפירושנו לס' המופת לארסטו וזה המאמר הוא אשר התבאר לי בסוף והתאמת אצלי שהוא סברת ארסטו במופתים אשר יתנו הגדרים, וכבר היה לי בזה כתוב זולת זה וראוי להשען עליו כי הוא האמתי והוא אשר נראה לי אחר חקירה חזקה והשגחה מופלאת והוא דבק לא עמד עליו אחד מהמפרשים ממי שהגיענו מאמרו ולא יראה מדבור אבו נצר שהוא יגיע לו מדבור ארסטו ואם התבאר מדבורו במופת ובס' האותות והאל המפיק הרצון והחזק יתעלה שמו אמן; Latin “Totum autem hoc jam ostendimus in nostris Commentariis supra lib. Poster. Aristo., et hic est sermo, qui ostensus est in ultimo Poster…in libro elenchorum [s. Steinschneider 1869a, S. 50]… qui educit vota et effectum et roborat sapientiam, cuius nomen exaltetur.”
401.
See this II C. 5 comma 38; cf. Steinschneider 1869a, 48.
402.
Steinschneider 1869a, 51.
403.
Cf. ad VII.
404.
Renan 1852, too, 51, Renan 1866a, 68 n. 9, distinguishes between them.
405.
These authors are first named more correctly and discussed in Steinschneider 1852a, Additamenta ad 668, 712 twice, 713 twice (cf. 1972), Steinschneider 1869a, locis citatis; Mn. 13; Steinschneider 1881c, 64, 65; cf. §96.
406.
In the Hebrew version these two treatises come in reverse order. The Latin version has probably ordered them according to the books of Logic.
407.
Steinschneider 1869a, 20. On this Ibn Ṭāhir, referred to several times, cf. below, XXVI. Judah b. Isaac quotes the end of our source in his supercommentary, cf. p. 73, §26.
408.
The name varies as טמלס and טלמס, like Shaprut and Bashrut. Abū l-Hajjāj Yūsuf b. Muḥammad ibn “Ṭumlūs” from Xucar died in 620 H. (1223–4); Abū Isḥāq b. Ṭamlūs from Xucar under [the reign of] al-Nāṣir (1199–1213) died in Bulda (?); Steinschneider 1881c, 64. Ṭumlūs was found by Derenbourg 1884, 455–457, in ms. Esc. 649 (Casiri 1760, no. 647, thus read 457, 525).
409.
והאל המוששר לנכונה (sic), Latin, “Deus autem nos semper dirigat ad id quod conveniens est.”
410.
Steinschneider 1869a, 37, should be corrected accordingly.
411.
Latin: philosophus declamatur, a wrongly resolved abbreviation, perhaps [correctly] enucleator, or castigator, because of no. XXV? Steinschneider 1869a, 51, 118.
412.
Read בהכרח?
413.
Steinschneider 1869a, 21, 45, 52, where the quotation from his work De combinationibus demonstrativis is verified.
414.
Cf. n. 117.

References*

Aaron ben Elijah of Nicodemia. 1841. ʿEs hayim: Ahron ben Elia’s aus Nikomedien, des Karäers, System der Religionsphilosophie… nebst einem… Tractat des Karäers Kaleb Abba Afendopolo, eds. Franz Delitzsch, and Moritz Steinschneider. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Abba Mari ben Moses ben Joseph, Astruc. 1838. Sefer Minḥat Qen’aot, ed. Mordecai Leib Bisliches. Pressburg.
Google Scholar
Aboab, Isaac. 1538. Nahar Pishon. Constantinople.
Google Scholar
Abravanel, Isaac. 1555. Ẓurat ha-Yesodot. Sabbionetta.
Google Scholar
Abravanel, Isaac. 1739. ʿAteret zekenim. Amsterdam. 1979.
Google Scholar
Abravanel, Isaac. 1828. Shamayim Ḥadashim. Rödelheim.
Google Scholar
‘Alawī, Jamāl al-Dīn 1986. al-Matn al-Rushdī: madkhal li-qirāʼah jadīdah. al-Dār al-Bayḍā’.
Google Scholar
Albo, Joseph. 1844. Sefer ^ʿIqqarim = Buch Ikkarim, ed. W. Schlesinger, trans. W. Schlesinger, and Ludwig Schlesinger. Frankfurt am Main.
Google Scholar
Alemanno, Jochanan. 1860. Sha’ar ha-ḥesheq. Halberstadt.
Google Scholar
Alexander of Aphrodisias. 1886a. Die durch Averroes erhaltenen Fragmente Alexanders zur Metaphysik des Aristoteles, ed. Jacob Freudenthal. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Alexander of Aphrodisias. 1886b. De anima liber cum mantissa, ed. Ivo Bruns. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Anawati, Georges C. 1978. Mu’allafāt Ibn Rushd. Algier.
Google Scholar
Antonelli, Giuseppe. 1842. Sulle opere di Aristotele col commento dell Averrhoe impresse in Padova dal la nozio negli anni 1472, 73 e 74. Ferrara.
Google Scholar
Aouad, Maroun. 1998. “Le texte arabe du chapitre sur la rhétorique d’ Ibn-Ridwan.” In Rhétorique d’ Aristote: traditions et commentaires de l’ antiquité au 17e siècle, eds., Gilbert Dahan, and Irene Rosier-Catach. Paris.
Google Scholar
Aristoteles. 1863. Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus: anecdota Aristotelica, ed. Valentin Rose. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Aristotle. 1953. Fann aš-šiʻr: maʻa l-tarǧama al-ʻarabiyya al-qadīma wa-šurūḥ al-Fārābī wa-Ibn-Sīnā wa-Ibn-Rušd = De poetica = Peri poiētikēs, ed. ʻAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī. Cairo.
Google Scholar
Aristotle and Averroes. 1489. Opera latina cum commentariis Averrois. Venice.
Google Scholar
Aristotle and Averroes. 1550–1553. Aristotelis… omnia quae extant opera…. Venice.
Google Scholar
Aristotle and Averroes. 1562–1574. Aristotelis Opera cum Averrois commentariis. Venice.
Google Scholar
Aristotle and Averroes. 1574. Aristotelis De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, Meteorologica, De plantis. Venice.
Google Scholar
Ashkenazi, Eliezer. 1854. Taʿam zeqenim: qoveẓ ḥibburim u-khetuvim ve-shirim be-ʿinyanei ha-ḥokhmah ve-ha-’emunah ve-ha-madaʿ. Frankfurt am Main.
Google Scholar
Ashkenazi, Saul Cohen, Isaac Abravanel, and Joseph Gikatilia. 1574. She’elot le-he-Ḥakham Sha’ul ha-Kohen…. Venice.
Google Scholar
Assemani, Stefano Evodio. 1742. Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae et Palatinae codicum mms. orientalium catalogus. Florence.
Google Scholar
Auerbach, Jakob. 1836. “Aus einem Schreiben des Herrn D. J. Auerbach in Wien, vom 29. Nov. 1836.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 2: 287–288.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1497. Quaestio Averrois in librum Priorum, traducta per Heliam Hebraeum, trans. Elia del Medigo. Venice.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1560. Kol melekhet higgayon le-Aristoteles, trans. Jacob ben Makhir. Riva di Trento.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1574. Bernardini Tomitani Patavini Logici. Venice.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1842. Beur Ibn Rushd le-Sefer ha-halaẓah le-Arisṭo, ed. J. Goldenthal. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1859. Philosophie und Theologie, ed. Marcus Joseph Müller. Munich.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1869. Drei Abhandlungen über die Conjunction des separaten Intellects mit dem Menschen, ed. J. Hercz. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1872a. Il commento medio di Averroe alla Poetica di Aristotele. P. 1, Il testo arabo con note e appendice, ed. Fausto Lasinio. Pisa.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1872b. Il commento medio di Averroe alla Poetica di Aristotele. P. 2, La versione ebraico del Todros Todrosi con note, ed. Fausto Lasinio. Pisa.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1875. Philosophie und Theologie von Averroes, ed. Marcus Joseph Müller. Munich.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1877. Il commento medio di Averroe alla Retorica di Aristotele, ed. Fausto Lasinio.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1932. Talkhiç Kitāb al-Maqoulāt: Texte arabe inédit publié avec une recension nouvelle du Kitāb al-Maqoulāt (Catégories) d’Aristote, ed. Maurice Bouyges. Beyrouth
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1960. Talkhīṣ al-Khiṭāba, ed. ʻAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī. Cairo.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1965. Averois cordubensis commentarium medium in Aristotelis poetriam, ed. William Franklin Boggess. The University of North Carolina doctoral diss. Chapel Hill.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1967. Talkhīṣ al-Khiṭāba, ed. Muḥammad Salīm Sālim and Muḥammad Tawfīq ʻUwayḍa. Cairo.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1968. De arte poetica, ed. Lorenzo Minio Paluello. Bruxelles; Paris.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1969. Ha-Be’ur ha-’emtsaʿi shel’Ibn Roshd ʿal sefer ha-Mavo’ le-Porfuriyus ve-sefer ha-Ma’amarot le-’Aristotelis, ed. Herbert A. Davidson. Cambridge, Mass., Berkeley.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1971. Talkhīṣ kitāb Arisṭūtālīs fī l-shiʻr, ed. Muḥammad Salīm Sālim. al-Qāhira.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1972. Talkhīṣ al-Safsaṭa, ed. Muḥammad Salīm Sālim. Cairo.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1978. Talkhīṣ kitāb Arisṭūṭālīs fī l-ʿIbāra, ed. Muḥammad Salīm Sālim. [al-Qāhira].
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1980. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Maqūlāt, ed. Maḥmūd Qāsim, Charles Butterworth and Aḥmad ʻAbd al-Majīd Harīdī. [Cairo]
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1980. Talkhīṣ kitāb Arisṭūṭālīs fī l-Jadal, ed. Muḥammad Salīm Sālim. [Cairo].
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1981a. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-ʻIbāra, ed. Maḥmūd Qāsim, Charles E. Butterworth and Aḥmad ʻAbd al-Majīd Harīdī. Cairo
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1981b. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Jadal, ed. Charles E. Butterworth and Aḥmad ʻAbd al-Majīd Harīdī. Cairo.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1982a. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Burhān, aw kitāb Anālūṭīqī al-thānī. In Talkhīṣ manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. Gérard Jéhamy. 3 vols. 2: 267–495. Beirut.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1982b. Talkhīṣ kitāb Sūfisṭīqī (al-Safsaṭa), aw kitāb al-Mughālaṭah. In Talkhīṣ manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. Gérard Jéhamy. 3 vols. 2: 667–732. Beirut.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1982c. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Qiyās, aw kitāb Anālūṭīqī al-awwal. In Talkhīṣ manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. Gérard Jéhamy. 3 vols. 1: 135–366. Beirut.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1982d. Talkhīṣ kitāb ṭūbīqī, aw kitāb al-Jadal. In Talkhīṣ manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. Gérard Jéhamy. 3 vols. 2: 497–666. Beirut.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1982e. Talkhīṣ kitāb Bārī armīnās, aw kitāb al-ʻIbārah. In Talkhīṣ manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. Gérard Jéhamy. 3 vols. 1: 79–133. Beirut.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1982f. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Burhān, ed. Charles E. Butterworth and Maḥmūd Qāsim. Cairo
Google Scholar
Averroès. 1982g. Talkhīṣ kitāb Qāṭīgūriyās aw k. al-Maqūlāt. In Talkhīṣ manṭiq Arisṭū, ed. Gérard Jéhamy. 3 vols. 1: 1–77. Beirut.
Google Scholar
Averroës. 1983a. Maqālāt fī l-manṭiq wa-l-ʿilm al-ṭabīʿī, ed. Jamāl al-Dīn al-ʿAlawī. Al-Dār al-Baiḍā’.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1983b. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Qiyās, ed. Charles E. Butterworth and Aḥmad ʻAbd al-Maǧīd Harīdī. Cairo
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1984. Sharḥ al-Burhān li-Arisṭū wa-talkhīṣ al-Burhān, ed. ʻAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī. Kuwait.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1985. “The Middle Commentary of Averroes of Cordova on the ʽPoetics’ of Aristotle.” In Medieval Literary Criticism: Translations and Interpretations, ed. Alex Preminger, O. B. Hardison, and Kevin Kerrane. New York.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1986. Talkhīṣ kitāb al-Šiʻr, ed. Charles E. Butterworth and Aḥmad ʻAbd al-Maǧīd Harīdī. [Cairo].
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1988. Talkhīṣ “al-qiyās” li-Arisṭū, ed. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Badawī. al- Kuwayt.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 1996. Commentum medium super libro Peri hermeneias Aristotelis, ed. Roland Hissette. Louvain.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 2000. Averroes’s Middle Commentary on Aristotle’s Poetics, trans. Charles E. Butterworth. South Bend, Ind.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 2002. Commentaire moyen à la Rhétorique d’Aristote, ed. Maroun Aouad. Paris.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 2010. Commentum medium super libro praedicamentorum Aristotelis Translatio Wilhelmo de Luna adscripta, ed. Roland Hissette. Louvain.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 2012. Averroes’s Three Short Commentaries on Aristotle’s “Topics,” “Rhetoric,” and “Poetics”, trans. Charles Butterworth.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 2014. Averroes’s Middle Commentaries on Aristotle’s “Categories” and “De interpretatione”, trans. Charles E. Butterworth. Princeton.
Google Scholar
Averroes. 2014. Kitāb al-muqaddimāt fī l-falsafah, aw, al-Masāʼil fī l-manṭiq wa-l-ʻilm al-ṭabīʻī wa-l-ṭibb, ed. Asʿad Jumʿah. 2. Tūnis.
Google Scholar
Averroès. 2016. Commentum medium super Libro Porphyrii translatio Wilhelmo de Luna adscripta, ed. Roland Hissette.Averroès. 1968. De arte poetica, ed. Lorenzo Minio Paluello. Bruxelles; Paris.
Google Scholar
Avicenna. 1508. Avicene. Opera in luce redacta: ac nuper quantum ars niti potuit per canonicos emendata. Logica… [Venetiis].
Google Scholar
Avicenna. 1593. Kitāb al-najāt, ed. Mahmoud Saba. Rome.
Google Scholar
al-Bag̲h̲dādī, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf. 1810. Relation de l’Egypte, par Abd-Allatif, médecin arabe de Bagdad: suivi de divers extraits d’écrivans orientaux, et d’un état des provinces et des villages de l’Egypte dans le XIVe siècle, ed. Sylvestre de Sacy. Paris.
Google Scholar
Baldi, Bernardino and Moritz Steinschneider. 1874. Vite di matematici arabi. Rome.
Google Scholar
Bardach, Judah. 1869. Mazkir li-venai Reshef. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Bashyatchi, Elijah ben Moses. 1835. Aderet Eliyahu. Yevpatoriya.
Google Scholar
Bass, Shabbetai ben Joseph. 1680. Siftei yeshenim. Amsterdam.
Google Scholar
Bedersi, Abraham ben Isaac. 1865. Chotam Tochnit: Hebräische Synonymik, ed. G. I. Polak. Amsterdam.
Google Scholar
Beit-Arié, Malachi, Benjamin Richler, and Nurit Pasternak. 2008. Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library: Catalogue. Vatican City.
Google Scholar
Benjacob, Isaac and Moritz Steinschneider. 1880. Oẓar ha-sepharim. Thesaurus librorum hebraicorum tam impressorum quam manuscriptorum. Vilna.
Google Scholar
Berliner, Abraham. 1872. Pletath Soferim: Beiträge zur jüdischen Schriftauslegung im Mittelalter nebst Midrasch über die Gründe der defectiva und plena. Breslau.
Google Scholar
Berliner, Abraham. 1877. “Hebräische Handschriften in Mailand.” Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 7: 110–120.
Google Scholar
Bibago, Abraham. 1521. Derekh emunah. Constantinople.
Google Scholar
Biscioni, Antonio Maria. 1757. Bibliothecae Ebraicae Graecae Florentinae, sive Bibliothecae Mediceo Laurentianae catalogus: codices orientales omnes…. Florence.
Google Scholar
Blumberg, Harry. 1935. “Alfarabi’s Five Chapters on Logic.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 6: 123–138.
Google Scholar
Blume, Friedrich. 1824. Iter italicum. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Boethius. 1906. Anicii Manlii Severini Boethii In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta, ed. Samuel Brandt. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Boethius. 1966. Categoriarum supplementa. Porphyrii Isagoge. Translatio Boethii… Accedunt Isagoges fragmenta M. Victorino interprete… et anonymi fragmentum vulgo vocatum “Liber sex principiorum” [attributed to Gilbertus Porretanus]…, ed. L. Minio-Paluello with the assistance of Bernard G. Dod. Bruges.
Google Scholar
Boncompagni, Baldassare. 1862–3. “Intorno ad un trattato d’aritmetica stampato nel 1478.” Atti dell’ Academia Pontificia dei Nuovi Lincei 16: 1–164, 101–228, 301–364, 389–452, 503–630, 683–841.
Google Scholar
Brüll, N. 1863. “Zur Geschichte der rhetorischen Literatur bei den Juden. Forsetzung.” Ben Chananja: Wochenblatt für jüdische Theologie 9: 505–513.
Google Scholar
Brüll, N. 1879. “Review of Steinschneider’s ‘Die hebräischen Handschriften der k. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München,’ and ‘Katalog der hebräischen Handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg’.” Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte 4: 173–178.
Google Scholar
Brüll, N. 1885. “Sprüchwörter in der nachtalmudischen Literatur des Judenthums.” Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte 7: 18–30.
Google Scholar
Brüll, N. 1887. “Review of ‘Jubelschrift zum neunzigsten Geburtstag des L. Zunz ’.” Jahrbuch für jüdische Geschichte 8: 76–93.
Google Scholar
Burckhardt, Jacob. 1877. Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien: Ein Versuch. 3rd ed. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Burnett, Charles. 1999. “The ‘Sons of Averroes with the Emperor Frederick’ and the Transmission of the Philosophical Works by Ibn Rushd.” In Endress and Aertsen, eds. 1999. 259–299.
Google Scholar
Carmoly, Eliakim. 1839. “Historische und Literarische Analecte: 12. Ueber mehrere ältere didaktische Gedichte.” Israelitische Annalen 1: 188–191, 312 (Nachträge und Berichtigungen).
Google Scholar
Carmoly, Eliakim. 1842. “Histoire des médecins juifs.” Revue orientale 2: 2–24, 96–109, 121–144, 192–205, 265–289, 382–392, 429–452. 464–490.
Google Scholar
Carmoly, Eliakim. 1844a. Histoire des médecins juifs anciens et modernes. Bruxelles.
Google Scholar
Carmoly, Eliakim. 1844b. “Vocabulaire de la géographie rabbinique de France Recueil périodique d’histoire, de géographie et de littérature 3: 99–100, 338–340, 411–412, 459–160.
Google Scholar
Carmoly, Eliakim. 1858. La France israélite: Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire de notre littérature. Frankfurt am Main.
Google Scholar
Carmoly, Eliakim. 1862. “Bilder und Büsten 3. Salomo ha-Levi.” Ben Chananja: Wochenblatt für jüdische Theologie 5: 68–69.
Google Scholar
Carpi, Daniel. 1974. “Notes on the Life of Rabbi Judah Messer Leon.” In Studi sull’ebraismo italiano in memoria di Cecil Roth, ed. Elio Toaff. Rome. 37–62. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Casiri, Miguel. 1760. Bibliotheca arabico-hispana escurialensis; sive, librorum omnium mss. quos Arabicè ab auctoribus magnam partem arabo-hispanis compositos Bibliotheca Coenobii Escurialensis complectitur. Madrid.
Google Scholar
Chahlane, Ahmed. 2005. “Averroes’s mittlerer Kommentar (talḫīṣ) zur Rhetorik des Aristoteles: Die hebräische Übersetzung.” In The Trias of Maimonides: Jewish, Arabic, and Ancient Culture of Knowledge, ed. Georges Tamer. 107–122.
Google Scholar
Chwolsohn, Daniel. 1856. Orientalische Quellen zur Geschichte der Ssabier und des Ssabismus. St. Petersburg.
Google Scholar
Crescas, Ḥasdai. 1860. Bittul ʿiqqarei ha-noẓrim, trans. Joseph b. Shem Tov. [Place of publication not identified.].
Google Scholar
Daiber, Hans. 1999. Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Daiber, Hans. 2007. Bibliography of Islamic Philosophy. Supplement. Leiden.
Google Scholar
De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo. 1803. Mss. codices hebraici Bibliothecae Parmae. Parma.
Google Scholar
De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo. 1807. Dizionario storico degli autori arabi più celebri e delle principali loro opere. Parma.
Google Scholar
De Rossi, Giovanni Bernardo. 1839. Historisches Wörterbuch der jüdischen Schriftsteller und ihrer Werke, trans. C. H. Hamberger. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
De Souza, Igor H. 2018. Rewriting Maimonides: Early Commentaries on the “Guide of the Perplexed.” Berlin/Boston.
Google Scholar
Delitzsch, Franz, Robert Naumann, and Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer. 1838. Catalogus librorum manuscriptorum: qui in bibliotheca senatoria civitatis Lipsiensis asservantur. Grimma.
Google Scholar
Delmedigo, Joseph Solomon. 1630. Sefer Novelot ḥokhmah. Basil.
Google Scholar
Derenbourg, Hartwig. 1884. Les manuscrits arabes de l’Escurial. Paris.
Google Scholar
Dieterici, Friedrich Heinrich. 1858. Die Philosophie der Araber im IX. und X. Jahrhundert…. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Dieterici, Friedrich Heinrich. 1868. Die Logik und Psychologie der Araber im zehnten Jarhrhundert n. Chr. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
DiPasquale, David M. 2019. Alfarabi’s Book of Dialectic (Kitāb al-Jadal): On the Starting Point of Islamic Philosophy. New York, NY.
Google Scholar
Dozy, Reinhart P. 1860. Recherches sur l’histoire et la littérature de l’Espagne pendant le Moyen Age. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Dozy, Reinhart P. 1881a. Recherches sur l’histoire et la littérature de l’Espagne pendant le Moyen Age. 3rd ed. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Dozy, Reinhart P. 1881b. Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes. 2 vols. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Dukas, Jules. 1876. Recherches sur l’Histoire Littéraire du Quinzième Siècle. (Notes bio-bibliographiques sur un receuil d’opuscules très-rares imprimés par Alde l’Ancien en 1497). Paris.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1842. “Jüdische Zeitschriften.” Literaturblatt des Orients 3: 819–822.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1844. Literaturhistorische Mittheilungen über die ältesten hebräischen Exegeten: Grammatiker und Lexicographen. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1846. Die Sprache der Mischnah: lexicographisch und grammatisch betrachtet. Esslingen.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1847a. “Das hebräische Lexikon des Josef Caspi.” Literaturblatt des Orients 8: 481–486.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1847b. “Das צרור הכסף von Josef ibn Caspe.” Literaturblatt des Orients 8: 327–330.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1847c. “Studien. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Exegese.” Literaturblatt des Orients 8: 513–520.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1848a. “Jehuda ben Bala’am und Seine Werke (Fortsetzung).” Literaturblatt des Orients 9: 488–492.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1848b. “Kurze Anzeigen. 13. Die handschriftlichen hebräischen Werke der k. k. Hofbibliothek zu Wien beschrieben von Albert Kraft…” Literaturblatt des Orient: 305–311, 321–325, 342–346, 357–363.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1848c. “Literaturhistorische Miscellen. Das Sod ha-Sodot angeblich von Aristoteles.” Literaturblatt des Orients 9: 193–197.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1848d. “Über den Kommentar des Netanel Nechemjah Caspi zum Buche Kusari des Jehuda ha-Levi.” Literaturblatt des Orients 9: 571–572.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1857b. “Schreiben des Herrn Dukes an Herrn Ignaz Blumenfeld in Wien.” Oẓar Neḥmad 2: 101–117. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Dukes, Leopold. 1858. Schire Scholomo: hebräische Gedichte von Salomo ben Gabirol aus Malaga. Hannover.
Google Scholar
Dunlop, Douglas Morton. 1955. “Al-Fārābī’s Introductory Sections on Logic.” The Islamic Quarterly 2: 264–282.
Google Scholar
Dunlop, Douglas Morton. 1956. “Al-Fārābī’s Eisagoge.” Islamic Quarterly 3 (1956): 117–138.
Google Scholar
Dunlop, Douglas Morton. 1957. “Al-Fārābī’s Introductory Risālah on Logic.” The Islamic Quarterly 3: 224–235.
Google Scholar
Dunlop, Douglas Morton. 1957–58. “Al-Fārābī’s Paraphrase of the Categories of Aristotle.” The Islamic Quarterly 4: 168–197, 5: 121–154.
Google Scholar
Duran, Simeon ben Zemah. 1785. Magen avot. Livorno.
Google Scholar
Edelmann, Zevi Hirsch. 1856. Ḥemdah genuzah maḥberet rishonah…. Königsberg.
Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Dror. 2018. “A Commentary on Maimonides’s ‘Treatise on Logic (Millot Ha-Higgayon)’ Attributed to R. Joseph Albo.” Daat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah: 103–112.
Google Scholar
Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Natan ha-Bavli. 1965. Revealer of Secrets, ed. Solomon Rappaport. Johannesburg.
Google Scholar
Elior, Ofer, Gad Freudenthal, and David Wirmer. 2020. Gersonides’ Afterlife. Studies on the Reception of Levi Ben Gerson’s Philosophical, Halakhic and Scientific Oeuvre in the 14th through 20th Centuries. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Endress, Gerhard and Jan A. Aertsen, ed. 1999. Averroes and the Aristotelian Tradition. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Endress, Gerhard. “Averrois Opera: A Bibliography of Editions and Contributions to the Text.” In Endress and Aertsen, ed. 339–381.
Google Scholar
Epstein, A. 1887. “Elasar Aschkenasi.” Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 14: 90–94.
Google Scholar
Ezzaher, Lahcen E. 2015. Three Arabic Treatises on Aristotle’s Rhetoric: the Commentaries of al-Fārābī, Avicenna, and Averroes. Carbondale, Illinois.
Google Scholar
Falaquera, Shem Tov ben Joseph. 1837. Moreh ha-Moreh, ed. M. Bisliches. Pressburg.
Google Scholar
Falaquera, Shem Tov ben Joseph. 2001. Moreh ha-Moreh, ed. Yair Shiffman. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1958. “al-Tawṭiʼah fī l-Manṭiq.” In Fârâbî’nin bazi mantik eserleri, ed. Mubahat Türker. Ankara.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1959. Kitāb al-shiʻr li-Abī Naṣr al-Fārābī, ed. Muhsin Mahdi.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1971. Deux ouvrages inédits sur la Réthorique, ed. Mario Grignaschi and Jacques Langhade. Beirut.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1985–1987. al-Mantiq ʿinda al-Fārābī, ed. Rafiq Ajam. Beirut.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1987. Al-Fārābī’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s “De interpretatione”, ed. F. W. Zimmermann. Oxford; New York.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1987. Kitāb al-burhān; wa-kitāb sharāʼiṭ al-yaqīn, ed. Majid Fakhry. Bayrūt.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1988–1990 al-Manṭiqiyyāt li-l-Fārābī, ed. Muḥammad Taqī Dānispažūh and al-Sayyid Maḥmūd al-Marʿashī. Qumm.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 1990. Külliyat 1 Fârâbî’nin bazi mantik eserleri, ed. Mübahat Türker-Küyel. Ankara.
Google Scholar
al-Fārābī, Abū Naṣr. 2020. Al-Fārābī. Syllogism: An Abridgement of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics, trans. Saloua Chatti and Wilfrid Hodges. 2020.
Google Scholar
Firkovich, Abraham. 1872. Avnei Zikkaron. Vilna.
Google Scholar
Forte, Doron. 2016. “Back to the Sources: Alternative Versions of Maimonides’ Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon and Their Neglected Significance.” Jewish Studies Quarterly 23: 47–90.
Article Google Scholar
Franck, Adolphe. 1844–1852. Dictionnaire des sciences philosophiques. Paris.
Google Scholar
Fürst, Julius. 1849. Bibliotheca Judaica: bibliographisches Handbuch der gesammten jüdischen Literatur. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Fürst, Julius. 1862. Geschichte des Karäerthums: eine kurze Darstellung seiner Entwickelung, Lehre und Literatur, mit den dazugehörigen Quellennachweisen. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Geiger, Abraham. 1869. “Plan zu einem neuen Gebetbuche.” Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 7: 241–280.
Google Scholar
Geiger, Abraham. 1872. “Aus Briefen. Von Hrn. Neubauer, Bodl. Library, Oxford d. 21 Juli 1871.” Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 10: 224–228.
Google Scholar
al-Ghazālī and Averroës. 1885. Hādhā sifr badīʻ jalīl wa-majmūʻ gharīb qalīl al-mathīl iḥtawá ʻalá thalāthat kutub. Cairo.
Google Scholar
al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid. 1839. Mīzān al-ʿamal sive Compendium Doctrinae Ethicae, ed. J. Goldenthal, trans. Abraham bar Ḥasdai. Lipsiae.
Google Scholar
al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid. 1885. Kitāb al-Maḍnūn al-ṣaghīr. Miṣr.
Google Scholar
al-Ghazālī, Abū Ḥāmid. 1891. Kitāb iljām al-ʿawāmm ʿan ʿilm al-kalām. Egypt.
Google Scholar
Ghirondi, Mordecai. 1853. Toldot gedolei Yisra’el u-geʿone Italyah. Trieste.
Google Scholar
Glasner, Ruth. 2002. “On Gersonides’s Knowledge of Languages.” Aleph: Historical Studies in Science and Judaism 2: 235–257.
Article Google Scholar
Glasner, Ruth. 2003. “On the Writings of Gersonides’s Philosophical Commentaries.” In Les méthodes de travail de Gersonide et le maniement du savoir chez les Scolastiques, ed. Sara Klein-Braslavy, Colette Sirat, and Olga Weijers. 90–103. Paris.
Google Scholar
De Goeje, M. J. and M. Th Houtsma. 1888. Catalogus codicum arabicorum bibliothecae academiae Lugduno-Batavae. Editio secunda. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Goldenthal, Jacob. 1850. Grundzüge und Beiträge zu einem sprachvergleichenden rabbinisch-philosophischen Wörterbuche. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Goldenthal, Jacob. 1851. Die neuerworbenen handschriftlichen hebräischen Werke der k.k. Hofbibliothek zu Wien: beschrieben sammt Ergänzungen zum Krafft’schen Catalog. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Gorgoni, Francesca. 2017. La traduction hébraïque du Commentaire Moyen d’Averroès à la Poétique d’Aristote: étude, édition du texte hébreu et traduction française avec glossaire hébreu-arabe-français. Sorbonne doctoral diss. Paris.
Google Scholar
Graetz, Heinrich Hirsch. 1853–1876. Geschichte der Juden von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Greenspan (Shailat), Y. 1977. Sefer ha-Meliẓah (De interpretatione) le-Aristo be-targumo shel R’ Yaʿakov Anatoli ʿal pi ʿibudo “ha-emẓa’I” shel Ibn Rushd.” The Hebrew University of Jerusalem master’s thesis. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
Gross, H. 1879. “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Arles.” Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 28: 17–25, 62–69, 121–130, 228–230, 323–332, 350–359, 418–431, 468–474, 541–563.
Google Scholar
Gross, H. 1880. “Zur Geschichte der Juden in Arles.” Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft 29: 58–67, 167–175, 404–416, 514–528.
Google Scholar
Güdemann, Moritz. 1880. Geschichte des Erziehungswesens und der Cultur der abendländischen Juden während des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Guetta, Alessandro. 2003. “Moses Da Rieti and His Miqdash Me’at.” Prooftexts 23: 4–17.
Google Scholar
Günsz, Aron. 1886. Die Abhandlung Alexanders von Aphrodisias über den Intellekt: aus handschriftlichen Quellen zum erstem Male hrsg. und durch die Abhandlung, “Die nûs-Lehre Alexanders von Aphrodisias und ihr Einfluss auf die arabisch-jüdische Philosophie des Mittelalters” eingeleitet. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Gurland, H. Y. 1865. “Zekher Eliyahu (cont.).” Ha-Magid 10: 86–87. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Gurland, H. Y. 1865–1867. Ginze Yisrael be-St. Piturburg: neʿetaqim me-oẓar kitvei yad. Lyck.
Google Scholar
Hain, Ludwig. 1826–1838. Repertorium bibliographicum. Stuttgart.
Google Scholar
Hājjī Khalīfah. 1835–1858. Lexicon bibliographicum et encyclopaedicum, ad codicum Vindobonensium, Parisiensium et Berolinensis fidem primum edidit, ed. G. L. Flügel. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Halevy, Judah. 1869. Sefer ha-kuzari. Das Buch Kusari, ed. David Cassel. 2nd ed. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph Freiherr von. 1850. Literaturgeschichte der Araber. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Hardinson, O. B. 1985. “The Middle Commentary of Averroes of Cordova on the Poetics of Aristotle.” In Medieval Literary Criticism: Translations and Interpretations, ed. Alex Preminger, O. B. Hardison, and Kevin Kerrane. 349–382. New York.
Google Scholar
Harkavy, Albert. 1887. Zikhron kamah geonim. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Harvey, Steven. 1992. “Did Maimonides’s Letter to Samuel Ibn Tibbon Determine Which Philosophers Would Be Studied by Later Jewish Thinkers?” Jewish Quarterly Review 83: 51–70.
Article Google Scholar
Harvey, Steven and Charles H. Manekin. 2006. “The Curious Segullat Melakhim by Abraham Avigdor.” In Ecriture et réécriture des textes philosophiques médiévaux. Mélanges offerts à C. Sirat, eds. J. Hamesse et O. Weijers. Turnhout. 215–252.
Google Scholar
Hasse, Dag Nikolaus. 2017. Success and Suppression: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy in the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA.
Google Scholar
Hayoun, Maurice. 1989. La philosophie et la théologie de Moise de Narbonne (1300–1362). Tübingen.
Google Scholar
Hayoun, Maurice. 1983. “Le commentaire de Moise de Narbonne sur la terminologie logique de Maimonide.” Daat 10: 33–38. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Heitz, Émile. 1865. Die verlorenen Schriften des Aristoteles. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
d’Herbelot, Barthélemy. 1785. Orientalische Bibliothek: Universalwörterbuch, welches alles enthält, was zur Kenntniss des Orients nothwendig ist. Halle.
Google Scholar
Hillel ben Samuel. 1874. Tagmulei ha-nefesh, ed. S. J. Halberstam. Lyck.
Google Scholar
Hillel ben Samuel. 1981. Tagmulei ha-nefesh, ed. J. Sermoneta. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Johann Georg Ernst. 1869. De Hermeneuticis apud Syros Aristotelicis…. Leipzig, Berlin.
Google Scholar
Huillard-Bréholles, J. L. A. 1852–1861. Historia diplomatica Frederici Secundi. Paris.
Google Scholar
Husik, Isaac. 1906. Judah Messer Leon’s Commentary on the “Vetus Logica”, A Study Based on Three Mss. with a Glossary of Hebrew Logical and Philosophical Terms by Isaac Husik. Leyden.
Google Scholar
Ibn Abī Uṣaybiʿah, Aḥmad ibn al-Qāsim. 1884. ʿUyūn al-anbāʼ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbāʼ, ed. August Müller. Königsberg.
Google Scholar
Ibn Aqnin [read: Simeon], Joseph. 1879. Drei Abhandlungen, ed. Moritz Löwy. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Ibn al-Nadīm, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq. 1871. Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. Gustav Flügel. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Ibn al-Ṭayyib, Abū al-Faraj ʻAbd Allāh. 1979. Arabic Logic: Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s commentary on Porphyry’s Eisagoge, ed. and trans. Kwame Gyekye. Albany, N. Y.
Google Scholar
Ibn Daud, Abraham ben David. 1852. Das Buch Emunah ramah, oder: Der erhabene Glaube, trans. Simson Weil. Frankfurt a.M.
Google Scholar
Ibn Daud, Abraham ben David. 2018. Emunah ha-ramah, ed. Amirah Eran. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meïr. 1874. Commentary on the Canticles, after the first recension, ed. H. J. Mathews. London.
Google Scholar
Ibn Ezra, Moses. 1975. Sefer ha-ʿiyyunim ve-ha-diyyunim = Kitab al-muḥāḍara wal-mudhākara = Liber discussionis et conmemorationis: (poetica hebraica), ed. Abraham S. Halkin. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
Ibn Ḥabib, Moses. 1551. Commentary on Beḥinat ‘Olam. Ferrara.
Google Scholar
Ibn Ḥabib, Moses. 1806. Darkhei Noam. Rödelheim.
Google Scholar
Ibn Khaldūn. 1863. Les prolégomènes d’Ibn Khaldoun, trans. William MacGuckin de Slane. Paris.
Google Scholar
Ibn Sīnā, Abū ʿAlī. 1881. Tisʿ rasā’il fī l-ḥikmah wa-l-ṭabīʿiyyāt. Constantinople.
Google Scholar
Ibn Tibbon, Moses. 1874. Perush ʿal Shir ha-Shirim. ed. L. Silbermann. Lyck.
Google Scholar
Ibn Yaḥya, Gedaliah ben Joseph. 1587. Sefer Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah. Venice.
Google Scholar
Jellinek, Adolph. 1854. Philosophie und Kabbala. Erstes Heft, enthaelt Abraham Abulafia’s Sendschreiben über Philosophie und Kabbalah. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Jellinek, Adolph. 1881. Quntres ha-mafteaḥ. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Joël, M. 1860. “Notizen zu R. Lewi ben Gerson (Gersonides).” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 9: 223–226.
Google Scholar
Joël, M. 1862. Lewi ben Gerson (Gersonides) als Religionsphilosoph. Breslau.
Google Scholar
Joseph ben Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov. 1556. Kevod Elohim. Ferrara.
Google Scholar
Jost, Isaak Marcus. 1827. Geschichte der Israeliten. Vol. 7. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Jourdain, Amable and Charles Jourdain. 1843. Recherches critiques sur l’âge et l’origine des traductions latines d’Aristote et sur des commentaires grecs ou arabes employés par les docteurs scolastiques. Paris.
Google Scholar
Judah ha-Levi. 1869. Sefer ha-Kuzari. Das Buch Kusari, ed. David Cassel. 2. verb. Aufl. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Kahan, Moshe. 2018. Ha-safah ha-ʻivrit bi-reʼi ḥokhmat ha-higayon: mishnato ha-logit-ha-filosofit-ha-balshanit shel Rabi Yosef Kaspi. Ramat-Gan.
Google Scholar
Kasher, Hannah. 1990. “On the Question of the Author of the ‘Explanation of the Secrets of R’ Abraham Ibn Ezra’ ascribed to Joseph ibn Kaspi.” In ʿAlei shefer: meḥqarim be-sifrut he-hagut ha-Yehudit mugashim li-khevod … Alexander Shafran, ed. Moshe Hallamish, 89–108. Ramat Gan.
Google Scholar
Kasher, Hannah and Charles Manekin. 2009. “The Commentary of Joseph ibn Kaspi to the Logical Terms of Maimonides.” Tarbiz 78: 383–398.
Google Scholar
Kasher, Hannah and Moshe Kahan. 2019. “Joseph Kaspi”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), ed. Edward N. Zalta, URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/kaspi-joseph/>.
Kaspi, Joseph. 1848. ʿAmudei Qesef u-Masqiyot Qesef: Shnei Perushim ʿal Sefer ha-Moreh le-ha-Rambam, ed. Salomon Werbluner. Frankfurt am Main.
Google Scholar
Kaufmann, David. 1877. Geschichte der Attributenlehre in der jüdischen Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters von Saadja bis Maimūnī. Gotha.
Google Scholar
Kaufmann, David. 1880. Die Spuren al-Bataljusi’s in der jüdischen Religionsphilosophie. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Klein-Braslavy, Sara. 2011. Without any Doubt: Gersonides on Method and Knowledge, ed and tr. Lenn J. Schramm. Leiden, Boston.
Google Scholar
Kleven, Terence. 2013. “Al-Fārābī’s Introduction to the Five Rational Arts with Reference to ‘The Five Aphorisms’ (al-Fuṣūl al-khamsa) and Ibn Bājja’s “Comments” (Taʿālīq).” Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph. 65: 165–194.
Google Scholar
Krafft, Albrecht and Simon Deutsch. 1847. Die Handschriftlichen hebräischen Werke der Hofbibliothek zu Wien, beschrieben von Albrecht Krafft und Simon Deutsch. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Labbe, Philippe. 1653. Philippi Labbei… Nova Bibliotheca MSS. Librorum…. Paris.
Google Scholar
Lambecius, Petrus. 1665. Petri Lambecii Commentariorum de Bibliotheca Cæsarea Vindobonensi liber I.(–VIII.). Vienna.
Google Scholar
Lasinio, Fausto. 1872. “Ricordi presi da codici orientali della Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana di Firenze.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 29: 805–808.
Google Scholar
Lasinio, Fausto. 1873–1874. Studii sopra Averroe. Florence.
Google Scholar
Lasinio, Fausto. 1874. Studii sopra Averroe. Prima Continuazione. Florence.
Google Scholar
Lattes, Isaac ben Jacob de. 1885. Shaʿare Ẓiyyon: kollel seder ha-kabbalah me-’Adam ha-rishon ʿad ’anshe keneset ha-gedolah, ve-seder tana’im ve-amora’im, ed. Salomon Buber. Jaroslaw.
Google Scholar
Lebrecht, Fuerchtegott. 1841a. “Beleuchtungen zur Lebensgeschichte des Averroes aus hebräischen Quellen.” Magazin für die Literatur des Auslandes 19 (79, 83, 95).
Google Scholar
Lebrecht, Fuerchtegott. 1841b. “Juden als Arabische Dichter.” Literaturblatt des Orients 17: 244–254.
Google Scholar
Lebrecht, Fuerchtegott. 1843. “Oxforder Briefe an Dr. S… [Steinschneider].” Magazin für die Literatur des Auslandes 23: 497–498, 537–538, 570–571.
Google Scholar
Leclerc, Lucien. 1876. Histoire de la médecine arabe. 2 vols. Paris.
Google Scholar
Levi ben Gershom. 1560. Milḥamot ha-Shem. Riva di Trento.
Google Scholar
Levi ben Gershom. 1999. The Wars of the Lord, trans. Seymour Feldman. Philadelphia.
Google Scholar
Libri, Guillaume. 1838. Histoire des sciences mathématiques en Italie. Paris.
Google Scholar
Loeb, Isadore. 1880. “La ville d’Hysope.” Revue des études juives 1: 72–82.
Google Scholar
Loria, Dawid. 1851. Maamarim Yeqarim. Warsaw.
Google Scholar
Löw, Leopold. 1863. “Literärische Anzeigen.” Ben Chananja: Wochenblatt für jüdische Theologie 6: 817–819.
Google Scholar
Löw, Leopold. 1875. Die Lebensalter in der jüdischen Literatur: von physiologischem, rechts-, sitten- u. religionsgeschichtlichem Standpunkte betrachtet. Szegedin.
Google Scholar
Luzzatto, S. D. 1841. “Letter 4.” Kerem Hemed 5: 26–50. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Luzzatto, S. D. 1864. Catalogue de la bibliothèque de littérature hebraïque et orientale de feu Mr. Joseph Almanzi. Padua.
Google Scholar
Luzzatto, S. D. 1868. Catalogue de la bibliothèque de littérature hébraïque et orientale de feu mr. S.D. Luzzatto…. redigé par son fils Joseph, ed. Isaia Luzzatto. Padua.
Google Scholar
Maimonides, Moses. 1553. Moreh nevukhim, ed. Samuel Ibn Tibbon. Sabbioneta.
Google Scholar
Maimonides, Moses. 1850. Iggeret ha-Shemad ve-ʿod ʿinyanim, ed. Abraham Geiger. Breslau.
Google Scholar
Maimonides, Moses. 1856. Le guide des égarés, ed. Salomon Munk. Paris.
Google Scholar
Maimonides, Moses. 1859. Qoveẓ teshuvot ha-Rambam ve-iggerotav, ed. Abraham Lichtenberg. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Maimonides, Moses. 1865. Beur millot ha-higgayon…ʿim perush, ed. David Slucki. Warsaw.
Google Scholar
Majus, Johann Heinrich. 1720. Catalogus manuscriptorum codicum qui in bibliotheca Zachariae Conradi ab Uffenbach…. Halle.
Google Scholar
Mallet, Dominique. 1992. La dialectique dans la philosophie d’Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī. Bordeaux.
Google Scholar
Manekin, Charles H. 1985. “Preliminary Observations on Gersonides’s Logical Writings.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 52: 85–113.
Article Google Scholar
Manekin, Charles H. 1992. The Logic of Gersonides: A Translation of “Sefer ha-Heqqesh ha-Yashar” (The Book of the Correct Syllogism) of Rabbi Levi ben Gershom with Introduction, Commentary, and Ana1ytical Glossary. Dordrecht.
Google Scholar
Manekin, Charles H. 1997. “When the Jews Learned Logic from the Pope: Three Medieval Hebrew Translations of the Tractatus of Peter of Spain.” Science in Context 10 (3): 395–430.
Article Google Scholar
Manekin, Charles H. 1999. “Scholastic Logic and the Jews.” Bulletin de Philosophie Médiévale 41: 123–147.
Article Google Scholar
Manekin, Charles H. 2009. “Propositions and Propositional Inference.” In The Cambridge History of Jewish Philosophy. Volume 1. From Antiquity through the Seventeenth Century, ed. Steven M. Nadler and Tamar Rudavsky. 167–187. Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Manekin, Charles H. 2020. “‘Composition, Not Commentary’: Gersonides’s Commentary on the Isagoge of Porphyry and Its Afterlife.” In Gersonides’s Afterlife: Studies on the Reception of Levi ben Gerson’s Thought in the Medieval and Early Modern Hebrew and Latin Cultures, ed. Ofer Elior, Gad Freudenthal, and David Wirmer. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Mantuani, Joseph. 1864. Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter Graecos et orientales in bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Marenbon, John. 2013. “Ernest Renan and Averroism: The Story of a Misinterpretation.” In Renaissance Averroism and Its Aftermath: Arabic Philosophy in Early Modern Europe, ed. Anna Akasoy and Guido Giglioni. 273–283. Dordrecht.
Google Scholar
Martin, Thomas Henri. 1865. Observations et théories des anciens sur les attractions et les répulsions magnétiques et sur les attractions électriques. Rome.
Google Scholar
al-Maqqarī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad. 1840. The history of the Mohammedan dynasties in Spain: extracted from the Nafhu-t-tíb min ghosni-l-Andalusi-r-ratíb wa Taríkh Lísaní-d-dín ibni-l-khatib, ed. Pascual de Gayangos. London.
Google Scholar
Mehren, August Ferdinand Michael. 1883. Les rapports de la philosophie d’Avicenne avec l’Islam considéré comme religion révélée et sa doctrine sur le développement theorique et pratique de l’âme. Louvain.
Google Scholar
Mehren, M. S. F. 1879. “Correspondance du philosophe soufi Ibn Sabʿīn avec l’empereur Fréderic II de Hohenstaufen.” Journal Asiatique XIV: 341–354.
Google Scholar
Messer Leon, David b. Judah. 1577. Sefer Tehilah le-David. Constantinople.
Google Scholar
Meser Leon, Judah b. Jehiel. 1480. Nofet ẓufim. Mantua.
Google Scholar
Meser Leon, Judah b. Jehiel. 1863. “Nofet zufim”, R. Jehuda Messer Leon’s Rhetorik nach Aristoteles, Cicero und Quintilian, etc., ed. A. Jellinek. Wien.
Google Scholar
Meser Leon, Judah b. Jehiel. 1983. The Book of the Honeycomb’s Flow, trans. Isaac Rabinowitz. Ithaca.
Google Scholar
Metz, Isaac. 1826. Collectio Davidis, i.e. Catalogus celeberrimae illius Bibliothecae hebraeae. Hamburg.
Google Scholar
Meyer, Egbert. 1984. “Der Mittlere Kommentar des Averroes zur Aristotelischen Hermeneutik: Bericht über die vorliegenden Editionen.” Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabisch-Islamischen Wissenschaften 1: 265–287.
Google Scholar
Moroni, Gaetano. 1840. Dizionario di Erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorno. Venezia.
Google Scholar
Mortara, Marco. 1878. Catalogo dei manoscritti ebraici della biblioteca della comunità di Mantova. Livorno.
Google Scholar
Moses b. Joshua of Narbonne. 1852. Beur le-Sefer Moreh Nevukhim, ed. Jacob Goldenthal. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Müller, August. 1873. Die griechischen Philosophen in der arabischen Überlieferung. Halle.
Google Scholar
Müller, August. 1875. “Das arabische Verzeichnis der aristotelischen Schriften.” In Morgenländische Forschungen: Festschrift Heinrich L. Fleischer zu seinem fünfzigjährigen Doctorjubiläum 1874; sieben Beiträge zur semitischen und persischen Sprach- und Literaturgeschichte; mit Textausgaben und kritischen Anmerkungen, ed. Hermann Ethé, Heinrich Leberecht Fleischer, and August Müller. 1–32. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Munk, Salomon. 1842. Notice sur Joseph ben-Iehouda, ou Aboul’hadjadj Yousouf ben-Ya’hya al-Sabti al-Maghrebi, disciple de Maïmonide. Paris.
Google Scholar
Munk, Salomon. 1848. La Philosophie chez les Juifs… Article extrait du Dictionnaire des Sciences philosophiques, et augmenté de notes historiques et bibliographiques, par l’auteur, etc. [Paris].
Google Scholar
Munk, Salomon. 1852. Philosophie und philosophische Schriftsteller der Juden: eine historische Skizze, ed. B. Beer. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Munk, Salomon. 1859. Mélanges de philosophie juive et arabe, renfermant des extraits méthodiques de la Source de vie de Salomon ibn-Gebirol (dit Avicebron). Paris.
Google Scholar
Narbonne, Moses b. Joshua of. 1852. Beur le-Sefer Moreh Nevukhim, ed. Jacob Goldenthal. Wien.
Google Scholar
Nessel, Daniel. 1690. Catalogus, sive, Recensio specialis omnium codicum manuscriptorum Græcorum nec non linguarum Orientalium augustissimæ Bibliothecæ cæsareæ Vindobonensis quem… in publicam lucem edidit Daniel de Nessel J.U.D. Vienna and Nürnberg.
Google Scholar
Neubauer, Adolf and A. E. Cowley. 1886. Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts in the Bodleian Library and in the college libraries of Oxford. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Neubauer, Adolf. 1876–7. “Handschriften in Kleineren Bibliotheken.” Israelitische Letterbode 2: 83–94.
Google Scholar
Neubauer, Adolf. 1886. Catalogue of the Hebrew manuscripts in the Jews’ College, London. Oxford
Google Scholar
Nuriel, Avraham. 2000. Galuy ve-samuy ba-filosofiya ha-yehudit bi-mei ha-beinyaim. Jerusalem 2000.
Google Scholar
Perles, Jacob. 1863. R. Salomo b. Abraham b. Adereth: sein Leben und seine Schriften. Breslau.
Google Scholar
Perreau, Pietro. 1880. Catalogo dei codici ebraici della Biblioteca di Parma non descritti dal De-Rossi. Florence.
Google Scholar
Perreau, Pietro. 1884. Trattato del Paradiso di Hajjim Israel. [Berlin].
Google Scholar
Peyron, Bernardino. 1880. Codices hebraici manu exarati Regiae bibliothecae quae in Taurinensi Athenaeo asservatur. Rome.
Google Scholar
Porphyry and Jonathan Barnes. 2006. Porphyry: Introduction, trans. and comm., Jonathan Barnes. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Puig Montada, Josep. 2000. Abu ʿAbd ar-Rahman Ibn Tahir: addenda a “Averroes, vida y persecución de un filósofo.” [Saragossa].
Google Scholar
Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, Meir. 1879. Kalonymos ben Kalonymos’ Sendschreiben an Joseph Kaspi, ed. J. Perles. München.
Google Scholar
Reifmann, Jacob. 1859. “History of R. Shlomo from the House of Levi and His Books.” Ha-Maggid 3: 151. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Renan, Ernest. 1852. Averroès et l’averroïsme: essai historique. 1861. 2. éd. Paris. 1866. 3. éd. Paris.
Google Scholar
Renan, Ernest and Adolf Neubauer. 1877. Les Rabbins français du commencement du quatorzième siècle. Paris.
Google Scholar
Renan, Ernest and Adolf Neubauer. 1893. Les Ecrivains juifs français du XIVe siècle. Paris.
Google Scholar
Renouard, Antoine-Augustin. 1834. Annales de l’imprimerie des Alde ou histoire des trois Manuce et de leurs éditions 3me éd. Paris.
Google Scholar
Rescher, Nicholas. 1963. Al-Fārābī’s Compendium of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. Pittsburgh.
Google Scholar
Richler, Benjamin. 2014. Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections 2nd ed. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
Rieti, Moses da. 1851. Sefer Miqdash meʿat, ed. Jacob Goldenthal. Vienna.
Google Scholar
Robinson, James T. 2007. Samuel Ibn Tibbon’s Commentary on Ecclesiastes: the Book of the Soul of Man. Tübingen.
Google Scholar
Robinson, James T. 2012. “Al-Farabi, Avicenna, and Averroes in Hebrew: Remarks on the Indirect Transmission of Arabic-Islamic Philosophy in Medieval Judaism.” In The Judeo-Christian-Islamic Heritage: Philosophical & Theological Perspectives (Marquette Studies in Philosophy), ed. Richard C. Taylor and Irfan A. Omar. Milwaukee, Wisc.
Google Scholar
Rose, Valentin. 1854. De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Rose, Valentin. 1867. “Über eine angebliche Paraphrase des Themistius.” Hermes 2: 191–213.
Google Scholar
Rosemann, Philipp W. 1988. “Averroes: a catalogue of editions and scholarly writings from 1821 onwards.” Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 30: 153–221.
Article Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Shalom. 1973. Logiqah ve-ontologyah ba-filosofyah ha-yehudit ba-meah ha-14. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem doctoral diss. Jerusalem.
Google Scholar
Rosenberg, Shalom. 1983. “Sepher Ha-Hatʿa’a (Sophistical Refutations) of Joseph ibn Kaspi.” Iyyun: The Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly 32: 275–295. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Roth, Pinchas. 2019. “Mordechai Nathan and the Jewish Community of Avignon in the Late Fifteenth Century.” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal 17: 1–17. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Sachs, Senior. 1845. “Literatur=Berichte.” Literaturblatt des Orients 6: 210–211.
Google Scholar
Sachs, Senior. 1862. “Zwei Briefe Obadjah’s aus Bartenuro aus dem Jahre 5248 und 5249.” Jahrbuch für die Geschichte der Juden und des Judenthums 3: 192–270.
Google Scholar
Salah, Asher. 2012. “Steinschneider and Italy.” In Studies on Steinschneider: Moritz Steinschneider and the Emergence of the Science of Judaism in Nineteenth-Century Germany, ed. Reimund Leicht and Gad Freudenthal. 411–456. Leiden, Boston.
Google Scholar
Sallam, A. M. A. 1952. Averroes’s Commentary on the Third Book of Aristotle’s Rhetoric: First Edition of the Arabic Text, English Translation, Notes and Indices. University of Oxford doctoral diss. Oxford.
Google Scholar
Schiller-Szinessy, Salomon Marcus. 1876. Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts Preserved in the University Library, Cambridge. Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Schmölders, August. 1842. Essai sur les écoles philosophiques chez les Arabes et notamment sur la doctrine d’Algazzali. Paris.
Google Scholar
Schoenblum, Samuel. 1885. Catalogue de manuscrits hebreux collection Schoenblum. Lemberg.
Google Scholar
Schorr, Joshua Heschel. 1854. “Letter 9.” Kerem Ḥemed 8: 54–76. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Schorr, Joshua Heschel. 1880. “Beware, Sages!” He-Ḥalutz 11: 76–88. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Schultens, Hendrik Albert and Johann Jacob Reiske. 1777–1779. “Additions à la Bibliothèque orientale et observations critiques sur plusieurs articles qui s’y trouvent.” Bibliothèque orientale: 681–765.
Google Scholar
Sezgin, Fuat, Carl Ehrig-Eggert, and Eckhard Neubauer. 2007. Averroes Latinus. texts and studies. Vol. 1. Frankfurt am Main.
Google Scholar
Shapiro, Isaiah Meir Kahana. 1870. “On Truthful Matters.” Ha-Magid 14: 390–391. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
al-Shahrastānī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Karīm 1850. Abu-’l-Fath’ Muhammad asch-Schahrastâni’s Religionspartheien und Philosophen-Schulen, ed. and trans. Theodor Haarbrücker. Halle.
Google Scholar
Shatzmiller, Joseph. 1992. “Etudiants juifs à la faculté de médecine de Montpellier, dernier quart du XIVe siècle.” Jewish History 6: 243–255.
Article Google Scholar
Shem Tov ibn Shem Tov. 1557. Sefer ha-Emunot. Ferrara.
Google Scholar
Smith, John James. 1849. A Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Library of Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. Cambridge.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1850. “Jüdische Literatur.” In Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. J. S. Ersch and J. Gruber. 2: 27, 357–471. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1852a. Catalogus librorum hebraeorum in bibliotheca Bodleiana. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1852b. “Miscellen (Fortsetzung).” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 6: 414–416.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1855b. “Josef Caspi.” In Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. Johann Samuel Ersch and J. G. Gruber. 2: 31, 58–73. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1855e. “Kalonymos ben Kalonymos.” In Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. Johann Samuel Ersch and J. G. Gruber. 2: 32, 169–175. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1855c. “Josef ben Schem Tov ibn Schem Tov.” In Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. Johann Samuel Ersch and J. G. Gruber. 2: 31, 87–93. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1857a. Jewish Literature from the Eighth to the Eighteenth Century. London.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1857b. “Notes on the Life of R. Zeraḥya ben Yisḥaq.” OẓarNehmad 2: 229–245. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1858. Catalogus codicum Hebraeorum Bibliothecae Academiae Lugduno-Batavae. Leiden.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1859b. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 2: [54, 56, 71, 110]; 133,145–148,148–149,174–179,172–174,125–126, 154–155.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1859c. “Review of ‘M. Kayserling. Sephardim’.” Hebräische Bibliographie 2: 81–83.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1862b. “Notice on M. Joel, ‘Lewi ben Gerson (Gersonides) als Religionsphilosoph’.” Hebräische Bibliographie 5: 117–118.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1863a. “Die Familie Portaleone-Sommo.” Hebräische Bibliographie 6: 48–49.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1863b. “Note on Jahrbuch für die Geschichte der Juden und des Judentums, III, etc.” Hebräische Bibliographie 6: 130–131.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1863c. “Ueber das neuplatonische Werk: Theologie des Aristoteles von Haneberg; Ueber die neuplatonische Schrift von den Ursachen (liber de causis) von Haneberg “ Hebräische Bibliographie 6: 107.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1863d. “Verkäufliche Handschriften.” Hebräische Bibliographie 6: 70–72;92–96;125–127.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1864a. “Bibliographie. Periodische Literatur. Oẓar Neḥmad, Vol. 4.” Hebräische Bibliographie 7: 25–28.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1864c. “Kaiser Friedrich II. über Maimonides.” Hebräische Bibliographie 7: 62–66,136.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1864f. “Levi b. Gerschom’s Todestag.” Hebräische Bibliographie 7: 83–84.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1865a. “Note to ʿChotam Tochnit (Hebräische Synonymik) von Abr. Bedarsche’, etc.” Hebräische Bibliographie 8: 74–77, 152.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1865b. “Schlachtregeln in arabischer Sprache (XII. Jahrhundert) (Fortsetzung).” Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 4: 155–160.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1866c. “Supercommentare zu ibn Esra: Zur Orientierung in verschiedenen Handschriften.” Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 6: 121–131.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1867b. “Hebräische Handschriften in München (K. Bibliothek) über arabische Philosophie.” Hebräische Bibliographie 28: 128–141.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869. “Anzeigen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 9: 79–80, 164–170.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869a. Al-Fārābī (Alpharabius) des arabischen Philosophen Leben und Schriften. St. Petersburg.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869b. “Literarische Beilage. Levi ben Gerson.” Hebräische Bibliographie 9: 162–164.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869c. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 9: 23–26, 59, 90–93, 115–116, 170–175, 147–152.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869e. “Zur Alexandersage.” Hebräische Bibliographie 9: 13–19, 44–53.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869f. “Mittheilungen aus dem Antiquariat von Julius Benzian (I. Mss.).” Hebräische Bibliographie 9: 60–62, 94.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1869g. “Zur Religions-philosophie der Juden.” Hebräische Bibliographie 9: 167–170.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1870a. “Anzeigen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 10: 72–82, 109–111.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1870e. “Philosophie.” Hebräische Bibliographie 10: 16–23, 53–59, 72–78, 161–167.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1871b. “Die toxicologischen Schriften der Araber bis Ende des XII. Jahrhunderts. Ein bibliographischer Versuch, grossentheils aus handschriftlichen Quellen.” Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medicin 52: 340–375, 468–503.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1871d. “Hebräische Handschriften in Spanien und Portugal.” Hebräische Bibliographie 11: 133–137.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1871g. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 11: 22–25, 55–57, 75–76, 76–79, 103–104, 105–106, 141–142.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1871i. “Two Letters of R. Judah Named Messer Leon Based on a Ms.” Jeschurun 7: 26–32. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1871j. “Two Letters of Messer Leon.” Jeschurun 7: 81–93. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1872c. “Hebräische Handschriften in Parma, etc.” Hebräische Bibliographie 12: 31–37, 53–57, 104–120.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1872d. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 12: 20–21, 65–6 91–93.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1873c. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 13: 16–18, 43–44, [64–65], 68–69, 91–94, 115–116, 136–140.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1873e. “Note on ‘Miscellany of Hebrew Literature. Vol. 1’.” Hebräische Bibliographie 13: 125–126.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1874a. “Brief an Halberstamm.” In Sefer Tagmulei ha-Nefesh, ed. S. Halberstamm. 7–27. Lyck. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1874c. “Exegese [Reviews].” Hebräische Bibliographie 14: 99–103, 124–131.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1874e. “Geschichte des Unterrichts [Review].” Hebräische Bibliographie 14: 15–18, 37–45.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1874f. “Poeten und Polemiker in Nordspanien um 1400.” Hebräische Bibliographie 14: 77–79, 95–99.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1874g. “Note on Abraham Ibn Ezra, Sefer ha-’Ibbur.” Hebräische Bibliographie 14: 90.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1875b. Die hebræischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen. Munich.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1875c. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 15: 14–18, 36–37, 61–68, 89–94, 112–113, 133–136.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1875e. “R. Judah Named Messer Leon’s Commentary on Beḥinat ha-olam.” Jeschurun 8: 66–71. Hebrew.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1876a. “Anzeigen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 16: 63–70, 89–92.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1876b. “Letteratura italiana dei Giudei.” Il Buonarroti 11 (Second Series): 82–95, 113–136.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1876d. “Bibliographie [Review].” Hebräische Bibliographie 16: 63–65, 106–111.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1876f. “Frat (Prat?) Maimon und seine Schüler.” Hebräische Bibliographie 16: 126–132.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1876c. “Jehuda Mosconi.” Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 3: 94–100, 140–153, 190–206.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1877b. “Karaitische und verschiedene Handschriften.” Hebräische Bibliographie 17: 108–114.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1877c. “Note on ‘Miscellany of Hebrew Literature. Vol. 2’.” 17: 103–104.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1877d. Polemische und apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden, nebst Anhängen verwandten Inhalts. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1877e. “Zur Kritik und Methode.” Hebräische Bibliographie 17: 120–125.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1877f. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 17: 13–14, 44, 62, 66–69, 94–95, 126–128.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1877h. “Note on A. Berliner, ‘Ein Gang durch die Bibliotheken Italiens’.” Hebräische Bibliographie 17: 76–77.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1878b. Catalog der hebräischen Handschriften in der Stadtbibliothek zu Hamburg. Hamburg.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1878d. Die Handschriftenverzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1878e. “Jehuda b. Jechiel (Messer Leon’s) Commentar zur Logik (Cod. München 27).” Hebräische Bibliographie 18: 41–44.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1878f. “Literaturgeschichte [Review.].” Hebräische Bibliographie 18: 62–66.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1878h. “Note on Delitzsch’s Hebrew edition of the minor prophets.” Hebräische Bibliographie 18: 97–98.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1878j. “Note on H. J. Mathews ‘Binyamin zeev yitraf’.” Hebräische Bibliographie 18: 98–100.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1879a. “Anzeigen (Polemik).” Hebräische Bibliographie 19: 115–118.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1879b. “B. Zimmel’s Leo Hebraeus, ein jüdischer Philosoph der Renaissance.” Vierteljahrsschrift für Kultur und Litteratur der Renaissance 2: 290–296.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1879c. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 19: 15–23, 40–44, 71–72, 93–95, 118–119, 136.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1879d. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek zu Berlin. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1879e. “Candia. Cenni di storia letteraria.” Il Mosè 2: 411–416, 456–462.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1879j. “Note on Società di Fratellanza per il progresso civile degli Israeliti poveri, etc.” Hebräische Bibliographie 55–56: 99–102.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1880a. “Candia. Cenni di storia letteraria.” Il Mosè 3: 53–59, 281–285, 421–426.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1880c. “Geschichte [Review].” Hebräische Bibliographie 20: 42–45, 124–127.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1880f. “Karaitische Literatur.” Hebräische Bibliographie 20: 69–72, 91–99, 121–124.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1880g. “Note on Jekutiel b. Jehuda Loeb ha-Rofe, Megilla “ Hebräische Bibliographie 20: 27.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1880h. “Periodische Literatur.” Hebräische Bibliographie 20: 105–109.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1880i. “Anzeigen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 20: 124–130.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1881a. “Anzeigen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 21: 26–35.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1881b. “Candia. Cenni di storia letteraria.” Il Mosè 4: 303–308.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1881c. “Elia del Medigo.” Hebräische Bibliographie 21: 61–71.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1881e. “Periodische Literatur.” Hebräische Bibliographie 21: 1–21.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1881h. “Miscellen.” Hebräische Bibliographie 21: 35–40, 82–88.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1882a. “Candia. Cenni di storia letteraria.” Il Mosè 5: 267–270, 401–406.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1882b. “Jüdische Geschichte von der Zerstörung Jerusalems bis zur Gegenwart.” Historische Jahresberichte 5: I, 33–51.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1882c. “Kaleb Afendopolo Ben Elia.” In Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. Johann Samuel Ersch and J. G. Gruber. 2: 32, 118–122. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1883a. “Abraham Bibago’s Schriften.” Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 32: 79–96, 125–144, 239–140.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1883b. “Josef b. Schemtob’s Commentar zu Averroes’s grösserer Abhandlung über die Möglichkeit der Conjunction.” Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 32: 459–479, 514–421.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1884b. Letteratura italiana dei Giudei. Rome.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1887. “Zu Alexander von Aphrodisia.” Magazin für die Wissenschaft des Judenthums 14: 190–195.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1888. “Zur Frauenliteratur.” Israelietische Letterbode 12: 44–95.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1889c. “Leon.” In Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. Johann Samuel Ersch and J. G. Gruber. 2: 43, 118–122. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1892–1893. “Miscellen (Endnoten zu “Die hebräische Uebersetzungen”).” Monatsschrift für die Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 37: 79–81, 127–130, 185–188, 230–238, 311, 403–409, 517–522.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1893b. Die hebraeischen Uebersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturgeschichte des Mittelalters, meist nach handschriftlichen Quellen. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1895. Die hebräischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in München. 2. grossenteils umgearbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Munich.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 1925. Gesammelte Schriften, Bd. 1, ed. H. Malter and A. Marx. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Steinschneider, Moritz. 2013. The Hebrew Translations of the Middle Ages and the Jews as Transmitters, ed. Charles Harry Manekin, Y. Tzvi Langermann, and Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt. Dordrecht, New York.
Google Scholar
Tamani, Giuseppe. 1994. “La versione ebraica del Compendio della Logica di al-Fārābī: la Retorica e la Poetica.” Henoch 16: 253–269.
Google Scholar
Tennemann, W. G. 1821. “Averroes.” In Allgemeine Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, ed. Johann Samuel Ersch and J. G. Gruber. 1: 6, 51. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Thomas, Georgius M. 1873. Catalogus codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Regiae Monacensis: Secundum Andreae Schmelleri indices composuerunt Carolus Halm, Georgius Thomas. Munich.
Google Scholar
Wolf, Johann Christoph. 1715–1733. Bibliotheca Hebraea. Hamburg and Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Wolfson, Harry A. 1931. “Plan for the Publication of a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem.” Speculum 6 (3): 412–427.
Article Google Scholar
Wolfson, Harry A. 1963. “Revised Plan for the Publication of a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem.” Speculum 38 (1): 88–104.
Article Google Scholar
Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand. 1840. Geschichte der arabischen Aerzte und Naturforscher. Göttingen.
Google Scholar
Zarza, Samuel ibn. 1559. Sefer Meqor Ḥayyim. Mantua.
Google Scholar
Zeller, Eduard. 1868. Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung Th. 3, Abth. 2, Die nacharistotelische Philosophie: Hälfte 2. Leipzig.
Google Scholar
Zimmels, Bernhard. 1886. Leo Hebraeus, ein jüdischer Philosoph der Renaissance. Breslau.
Google Scholar
Zonta, Mauro. 1996a. La filosofia antica nel Medioevo ebraico: le traduzioni ebraiche medievali dei testi filosofici antichi. 2. Brescia.
Google Scholar
Zonta, Mauro. 1997. “Fonti antiche e medievali della logica ebraica nella Provenza del Trecento.” Medioevo (Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale) 23: 515–594.
Google Scholar
Zonta, Mauro. 2000. “Una disputa sugli universali nella logica ebraica del Trecento: Shemuel di Marsiglia contro Gersonide nel ʿSupercommento all’ Isagoge’ di Yehudah b. Ishaq Cohen.” Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 11: 409–458.
Google Scholar
Zonta, Mauro. 2002. “Scholastic Commentaries in Hebrew: Some Notes about Judah Messer Leon (Italy, 15th Century).” In Il Commento Filosofico nell’Occidente Latino (Secoli XIII–XV): Actes du Colloque International de Florence-Pise, Octobre 2000, ed. G. Fioravanti, C. Leonardi, and S. Perfetti. 379–400. Turnhout.
Google Scholar
Zonta, Mauro. 2006. Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century: A History and Source Book. Dordrecht.
Google Scholar
Zonta, Mauro. 2011. “Medieval Hebrew translations of philosophical and scientific texts: a chronological table.” In Science in Medieval Jewish Cultures., ed. Gad Freudenthal. 17–73. New York.
Google Scholar
Zotenberg, Hermann. 1866. Manuscrits orientaux. Catalogues des manuscrits hébreux et samaritains de la Bibliothèque impériale. Paris.
Google Scholar
Zuckermann, B. 1870. Katalog der Seminar-Bibliothek. Breslau.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold (Yom tov Lippman) 1841. “Letter 13.” Kerem Hemed 5: 131–158.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1837. “Analekten. 5. Joab.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift für jüdische Theologie 3: 39–58.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1838. “Additamenta.” In Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum qui in Bibliotheca Senatoria Civitatis Lipsiensis Asservantur, ed. F. Delitzsch. Grimma.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1856. Literaturgeschichte der synagogalen Poesie. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1863. “Toledot Rabbi Azariah min ha-Adumim.” In Sefer Me’or ʿEinayim of Azariah di Rossi, ed. Isaac A. Benjacob and Z. H. Jaffe. 1–30. Vilna.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1868. “Analekten. 10. Begleitnamen in Chiffern.” Jüdische Zeitschrift für Wissenschaft und Leben 6: 187–196.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1875. Zur Geschichte und Literatur. 2. Aufl. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1876a. “10. Begleitnamen in Chiffern.” In Gesammelte Schriften. 204–214. Berlin.
Google Scholar
Zunz, Leopold. 1876b. Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin.
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Charles H. Manekin
Seminar für Orientalistik und Islamwissenschaft, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt

Authors

Charles H. Manekin
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Charles H. Manekin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Philosophy, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Charles H. Manekin
Seminar für Orientalistik und Islamwissenschaft, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany
Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Manekin, C.H., Biesterfeldt, H.H. (2022). Part One. Philosophy. Chapter One. Greeks. Logic. In: Manekin, C.H., Biesterfeldt, H.H. (eds) Moritz Steinschneider. The Hebrew Translations of the Middle Ages and the Jews as Transmitters. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Philosophy, vol 18. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76962-8_2

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-76962-8_2
Published: 18 October 2022
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-76961-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-76962-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Part One. Philosophy. Chapter One. Greeks. Logic

Abstract

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Similar content being viewed by others

Part One. Philosophy. Chapter Three. Jews

Boethius

Boethius

Notes

References*

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Publish with us

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Navigation

Part One. Philosophy. Chapter One. Greeks. Logic

Abstract

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Similar content being viewed by others

Part One. Philosophy. Chapter Three. Jews

Boethius

Boethius

Notes

References*

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Download citation

Share this chapter

Publish with us

Search

Navigation