Abstract
In this commentary there are variations from the version by Abū Bishr and additions to it. Margoliouth says that the commentary is based on the version by Abū Bishr and suggests that Avicenna had a copy which had been annotated by one who had had access to the Syriac translation. If this should prove to be correct it will still not explain all the additions. That Avicenna uses for Úποκρîτης and not the of Abū Bishr may be due to the Syriac, but al-Fārābī before him had used tragodia and komodia instead of the (panegyric) and (invective) of Abū Bishr. Other changes may be explained by Avicenna's ability to get out of the faithful but obscure Arabic rendering more than the ordinary reader; as when he prefers to for γλττα (1457 b 1) and to for εύΧ (1456 b 11).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
