Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
The Logic of Gersonides

Part of the book series: The New Synthese Historical Library ((SYNL,volume 40))

  • 84 Accesses

Abstract

The great intellectual awakening that took place in Christian Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries had its counterpart in the flowering of philosophical and scientific studies among the Jews of Provence and Languedoc of that period. Partly as a result of the new climate of learning in the West, but mostly because of certain political and cultural developments within the Jewish world itself, an absorbing interest in ‘Greek wisdom’ took firm root among communities that had previously been known for their accomplishments in the traditional fields of Biblical exegesis and Talmudic study.2 The pursuit of philosophy was fueled by the immigration into the region of prominent families from Islamic Spain, refugees from the persecutions of the Almohad rulers, who brought with them the fruits of centuries of Judaeo-Islamic culture.

Those who seek understanding as men seek ask

‘Where is the crucible that will refine out our dross?’

The science of Logic makes the reply:

‘The furnace for refining understanding has been mine of old,

Wherein one may remove dross from silver

So that there will come forth a vessel for the refiner’

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. From Anatoli’s introduction to his translation of Averroes’ Middle Commentary on the Isagoge of Porphyry. See Herbert Davidson, ed. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza’i shel Ibn Rushd ’al Sefer ha-Mabo’ lePorfiriusve-Sefer ha-Ma’ amarot le-’ Aristoteles, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versionum Hebraicum (Medium) I, a (Cambridge, Mass., 1969) 1. The translation is by Davidson in his Averroes’ Middle Commentary on Porphyry’s ‘Isagoge’ ... and on Aristotle’s ‘Categories’, Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem, Versio Anglica, I, a, 1–2 (Cambridge, Mass, 1969) 3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. For an overview of the intellectual activity of Provençal Jewry, see Isadore Twersky, ‘Aspects of the Social and Cultural History of Provençal Jewry’, rept. in Studies in Jewish Law and Philosophy (New York, 1982) 180-203, and Arthur Hyman, ‘The Liberal Arts and Jewish Philosophy’, Arts liberaux et philosophie au moyen âge, Actes du quatrieme congres international de philosophie medievale (Montreal-Paris, 1969) 98–110.

    Google Scholar 

  3. As in this case of Abba Mari Lunuel and Solomon b. Adret. See the former– Minhat Qena’ot (Pressburg, 1838) 96 and the latter’s Teshubot ha-Rashba’ (Jerusalem, 1967) 1:9, 60, 94.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Trans. in Israel Abrahans, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, 371; cited by Twersky, ‘Aspects’, 207.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Iggerot ha-Rambam, ed. I. Shiela (Maalah Adumim, 1988), 2:511–554.

    Google Scholar 

  6. See Moritz Steinschneider, Die Hebräischen Übersetzungen des Mittelalters und die Juden als Dolmetscher (Berlin, 1983; rept. Graz, 1956) 42–275

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 42–109; cf. Shalom Rosenberg, Logic and Ontology in Jewish Philosophy in the Fourteenth Century, 2 vols. (Ph.D. dissertation [Hebrew], Hebrew University, 1975) 1:11–13

    Google Scholar 

  8. See Israel Efros, ‘Maimonides’ Treatise on Logic’, in the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 8 (1937–8): 3–5 (English), 1–36 (Hebrew). See also Efros, ‘Maimonides’ Arabic Treatise on Logic’ PAAJR 34 (1966): 155–160. The earliest of the three translations of this work was by Moses Ibn Tibbon, the son of Samuel. A great many manuscripts have survived.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 42–109; Rosenberg, Logic and Ontology, 1:3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  10. The titles are recorded from the mss. as follows: (a) Iggeret bi-Fetihat Siferi ha-Higgayon, (b) Iggeret…be-Haza’ah li-Melekhet ha-Higgayon, (c) Hamishah Peraqim Haysharah le-Higgayon. Unless otherwise stated, all these works are extant only in manuscript, the locations of which are found in Steinschneider and Rosenberg. For the Arabic original see Risālah Suddira bihā al-Kitab ed. and trans. D. M. Dunlop, ‘AI-Farabi’s introductory Risālah on Logic’, The Islamic Quarterly 3 (1956–7): 224–35.

    Google Scholar 

  11. (a) Peraqim Kolelim … be-’ Omanut ha-Davar [ha-Dibur], (b) Peraqim … ha-Be’ ur bi-Melekhet ha-Higgayon (Ibn Ladjis), (c) Peraqim ... ha-Hefez bi-Melekhet ha-Higgayon. For the Arabic original see Fusūl Tashtamil ‘alā Jamī .. fī sina’at al-mantiq, ed. and trans. D. M. Dunlop, ‘AI-Farabi’s Introductory Sections on Logic’, The Islamic Quarterly 2 (1955): 264-282. See Harry Blumberg, ‘Alfarabi’s Five Chapters on Logic’, Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 6 (1934–1935): 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  12. (a) Isagoge, (b) Mabo’, (c) [fragment, ends with Isagoge kelomar ha-Petihah le-Limud bi-Melekhet ha-Higgayon. For the Arabic original see Kitāb Īsāghūjī ay al-Madkhal, ed. and trans. D. M. Dunlop, ‘Al-Farabi’s Eisagoge’, The Islamic Quarterly 3 (1956–7): 117–138.

    Google Scholar 

  13. (a) Sefer Ma’ amarot, (b) Sefer Qatigorias … for the Arabic original see Kitāb Qātāghūriyās ay al-Maqūlāt, ed. and trans. D. M. Dunlop, ‘Al-Farabi’s Paraphrase of the Categories of Aristotle’, The Islamic Quarterly 5 (1959): 21–54.

    Google Scholar 

  14. (a) Sefer Biriaminas, (b) [no title]. For the Arabic original see Kitāb Bārī Armīniyās ay al- ’lbārah, ed. and trans. (Turkish) M. Küyei-Türker, ‘Farabi’nin Peri Hermeneias Muhtasari’, Arastirma 4 (1966) (Ankara, 1968): 1–85; trans. F. W. Zimmermann, Al-Farabi’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s ‘De Interpretatione’ (London, 1981) 220–259.

    Google Scholar 

  15. (a) Sefer Heqqesh Qazar (trans. by Moses Ibn Tibbon), (b) Sefer ha-Heqqesh (both translations). One version is extant in Arabic and was published as Kitāb al-Qiyās al-Saghīr, ed. and trans. Mubahat Türker, ‘Some Logical Workers of Farabi’ (Turkish) Revue de la Faculte de Langues, d’ Histoire et de Geographie de l’Universite d’Ankara 16 (1958): 165–286, Eng. trans. Nicholas Rescher, Al-Farabi’s Short Commentary on Aristotle’s ‘Prior Analytics’ (Pittsburgh, 1963).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ma’amar be-Tena’i ha-Heqqesh ha-Mofet … for the Arabic original see Sharā’ it al-yaqīn, ed. and trans. M. Küyel-Türker, ‘Fârbi’nin Serâ’ it al-yakīni’, Arastirma 1 (1963) (Ankara, 1964): 151–228.

    Google Scholar 

  17. (a) Omamut ha-Nizuah, (b) [no title].

    Google Scholar 

  18. (a) Sefer ha-Satisfani’, (b) Sefer ha-Hat’a’ah.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See M. David, ‘Schemtob ben Josef ibn Falaquera’s Propaedeutik der Wissenschaften’ (Berlin, 1902; rept. Jerusalem, 1970). The title of Qalonymous’s translation is Ma’amar be-Mispar ha-Hokhmot … For the Arabic original, see Ihsā’ al- ’ulūm, ed. O. Amine, Alfarabi, La statistique des sciences (Cairo, 1948).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Iggeret be-Siddur Qeri’ at ha-Hokhmot. On this work see Moritz Steinschneider, Al-Farabi, Mémoires de I’ Academie Impériale des Sciences de St. Petersburg, 8 serie, tome 13, no. 4 (St. Petersburg, 1869, rept. Amsterdam, 1966) 85.

    Google Scholar 

  21. For the translations of Averroes into Hebrew and Latin, see Harry A. Wolfson, ‘Plans for the Publication of a Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem’. Speculum 36 (1961): 88-104, rept. in his Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass., 1973) 1: 430–477.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Qol Melekhet Higgayon, trans. Jacob b. Machir (Riva di Trento, 1559). Samuel b. Judah of Marseilles’s translation, Qizzur ha-Higgayon, was intended to replace the earlier translation; see Steinschneider, HU, 56. For the Arabic original, see Kitāb al-Darūri fi ‘l-Mantiq, the last sections of which ed. and trans. by Charles E. Butterworth in Averroes’ Three Short Commentaries on Aristotle’s ‘Topics’, ‘Rhetoric’, and ‘Poetics’ (Albany, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza‘i shel Ibn Rushd ‘al Sefer ha-Mabo‘. This version was edited and translated into English by Herbert A. Davidson (for reference, see footnote 1 above).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ha-Be’ ur ha-‘ Emza‘i ‘al Sefer ha-Ma’ amarot. This version was edited and translated into English by Herbert A. Davidson (for reference, see footnote 1 above). For the Arabic original, see Talkīrs Kitāb al-Maqülāt, ed. Mahmoud Kassem, Charles E. Butterworth, and Ahmad Haridi (Cairo, 1980), trans. Charles E. Butterworth, Averroes’ Middle Commentaries on Aristotle’s ‘Categories’ and ‘De Interpretatione’ (Princeton, 1983). See also the Arabic edition of books (ii)-(viii) by Gérard Jehamy, Averroes: Paraphrase de la logique d’Aristote, 3 vols. (Beyrouth, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ha-Be’ ur ha-’ Emza’i ‘al Sefer ha-Melizah. The manuscript used for the present work is New York JTS ms. 2486 (ENA 1744). An edition is being prepared by Shalom Rosenberg, who was good enough to show me his preliminary draft. For the Arabic original, see Talkīs Kitāb al- ‘Ibārah, ed. Mahmoud Kassem, Charles E. Butterworth, and Ahmad Haridi (Cairo, 1981), trans. Charles E. Butterworth, Averroes’ Middle Commentaries on Aristotle’s ‘Categories’ and ‘De Interpretatione’.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ha-Be‘ ur ha-‘ Emza‘i ’al Seier ha-Heqqesh. The manuscript used for the present work is New York JTS ms. 2486 (ENA 1744). An edition of the Hebrew version is being prepared by Shalom Rosenberg, who was kind enough to show his preliminary draft.For the Arabic original, see Talkhīs Kitāb al-Qiyās, ed. Mahmoud Kassem, Charles E. Butterworth, and Ahmad Haridi (Cairo, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza‘i ‘al Sefer ha-Mofet. The manuscript used for the present work is New York ms. JTS 2486 (ENA 1744). For the Arabic original, see Talkhīs Kitāb al-Burhān, ed. Mahmoud Kassem, Charles E. Butterworth, and Ahmad Haridi (Cairo, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza‘i ‘al Sefer ha-Nizzuah. The manuscript used for the present work is New York JTS ms. 2486 (ENA 1744). For the Arabic original, see Talkhīs Kitāb al-Jadal, ed. Mahmoud Kassem, Charles E. Butterworth, and Ahmad Haridi (Cairo, 1979) ..

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza‘i ‘al Sefer ha-Hat‘a’h. For the Arabic original, Talkhīs Kitāb al-Mughālatah, see Jéhamy, Averroès Paraphrase de la logique d’ Aristote, 2: 668–732.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza‘i ‘al Sefer ha-Halazah. This version was edited by J. Goldenthal, Averrois Commentarius in Aristotelis de arte rethorica … (Leipzig, 1842). For the Arabic original, see Talkhīs Kitāb al-Khatābah, ed. ’Abdurrahman Badawi (Cairo, 1954).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ha-Be’ur ha-’ Emza‘i ‘al Sefer ha-Shir. See the edition by Fausto Lasinio, II Commento medio di Avveroe alia Poetica di Aristotele, Annale delle Universita toscane Pisa, pt. 2 (Pisa, 1872). For the Arabic original see Talkhīs Kitāb al-Shi’r, ed. Charles E. Butterworth and Ahmad Haridi (Cairo, 1986), trans. Charles E. Butterworth, Averroes‘ Middle Commentary on Aristotle‘s ‘Poetics’ (Princeton, 1986); Hebrew version ed. Fausto Lasinio (Pisa, 1872).

    Google Scholar 

  32. See Steinschneider, HÜ, 95–96.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See pp. 17–18 below.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Maqāsid al-Falāsifah (Egypt, 1331 A. H.).

    Google Scholar 

  35. (a) De‘ot ha-filosofim (Albalag), (b) Kavvanot ha-filosofim (Anonymous), (c) Kavvanot hafilosofim (Judah b. Solomon Nathan). Part of the anonymous translation has been edited; see The Logical Part of Al-Ghazali’s Maqasid al-Falasifa in an Anonymous Hebrew Translation with the Hebrew Commentary of Moses of Narbonne, ed. and trans. G. B. Chertoff (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1952). For Albalag’s translation, see Georges Vajda, Isaac Albalag: Averroïste juif, traducteur, et annotateur d’al-Ghazalf (Paris, 1960) 15-22. Cf. Georges Vajda, ed., Isaac Albalag: Sefer Tiqqun ha-De‘ot (Jerusalem, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Towards the second quarter of the fourteenth century one finds the beginnings of scholastic logic in Jewish Provence, via a translation of Peter of Spain’s Tractatus. Yet this work, which was translated into Hebrew several times in various places, only began to be influential at a later date. See Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 470–472; Rosenberg, Logic and Ontology, I: 40–43.

    Google Scholar 

  37. In Israel Abrahams, Hebrew Ethical Wills, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1948) 1: 144–145.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ya’ir Nativ, chap. 15, in M. Güdemann, Das Jüdische Unterrichtswesen wäEhrend der Spanischarabischen Periode (Vienna, 1873) Hebrew: 58-62, German: 152-83.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See, for example, the description by Nachmanides (thirteenth century, Spain) of the philosophers’ ‘ladder to the wisdom that they call the “knowledge of the Creator”: They spend their days studying the science of logic so that they will not err in the ways of demonstration, and afterwards they come to study the mathematical sciences, arithmetic and geometry … ’ From ‘Torat ha-Shem Temimah’ in Kitbei Rabbeinu Moshe ben Nahman, ed. C. Chavel, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1964) 1: 155. In Guide 1.34 Maimonides writes: ‘Accordingly, it is certainly necessary for whoever wishes to achieve human perfection to train himself at first in the art of logic, then in the mathematical sciences according to the proper order, then in the natural sciences, and after that in the divine science’. Trans. Shlomo Pines (Chicago, 1963) 75. But cf. the ‘[Epistle Dedicatory]’, from which it appears that Maimonides studied mathematics and geometry with his student Joseph prior to logic.

    Google Scholar 

  40. See Teshubot ha-Rashba, 46a. Responding to the charge of R. Solomon Ibn Aderet that in Provence children are taken from their mother's breasts to study philosophy, Yedaya states that only some young logicians have recently been forced to sell their wisdom and reveal their views in public places. But they should not be blamed for this, since the art of logic does not contain opinions harmful to, or even useful for, religious belief.

    Google Scholar 

  41. B.T. Berakhot, 28b.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Davidson, Averroes’ Middle Commentary, 4 (my emphasis).

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Teshubot ha-Rashba’ I.418; Teshubvot ha-Rosh 45.9.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 42–107;, cf. Rosenberg, Lgic and Ontology, I;14–34, 75–93.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Joseph Shatzmiller, ‘Gersonide:n pour une noivelle biographie’, lecture delivered at the International Colloquium on Gersonides in his Times, Paris, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  46. For Gersonides' life and works see Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 65-73; cf. E. Renan and A. Neubauer, Les ecrivains juifs fram;;ais du XIV eme siecle, Histoire litteraire de la France

    Google Scholar 

  47. Maximilien Curtze, ‘Die Abhandlung des Levi ben Gerson über Trigonometrie und den Jacobstab’, Bibliotheca Mathematica, ns 14 (1898): 97–112

    Google Scholar 

  48. ee Bernard R. Goldstein, The Astronomy of Levi ben Gierson (1288–1344) (New York, 1985) 52ff., 69ff.

    Google Scholar 

  49. The original Hebrew text has been edited and translated by Bernard R. Goldstein, The Astronomical Tables of Levi ben Gerson (New Haven, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  50. The first twenty chapters were edited, translated, and commented upon, in Goldstein, The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson (New Haven, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Sefer Maasei Choscheb--Die Praxis des Rechners, Ein hebriiisch-arithmetisches Werk des Levi ben Gerschom aus dem Jahre 1321, ed. and trans. Gerson Lange (Frankfurt am Main, 1909); cf. the partial edition by Joseph Carlebach in Levi ben Gerson als Mathematiker (Berlin, 1910).

    Google Scholar 

  52. These are included in Carlbeach, Levi ben Gerson als Mathematiker.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Few of the supercommentaries have been published. Partial editions and translations of the supercommentaries on Averroes’ epitomes of the Parva Naturalia and the De Anima have been prepared by Alexander Altmann in the Jubilee Volume of the Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, pt. 1 (1978–79) 1–31, and by Jesse Stephen Mashbaum (Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University, 1981), respectively. The supercommentaries on the logical writings will be considered below.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Eng. trans. (the text is still unedited) by Seymour Feldman, Levi ben Gershom (Gersonides): The Wars of the Lord (see note 51 above).

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Touati, La Pensée, 545 and 550.

    Google Scholar 

  56. The Astronomy of Levi ben Gerson, 9.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Sefer ha-Heqqesh ha-Yashar.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Be‘ur la-Higgayon. This title is found in only a few mss. (e.g., Bodley Mich. ms. 209 (01. 71) [Neubauer 1383]) but as it is accepted by Steinschneider (HÜ, 68) I shall use it here. For a complete list of the extant mss. of Gersonides’ logical writings, see Charles Manekin, ‘Preliminary Observations on Gersonides’ Logical Writings’ , PAAJR 52 (1985): 109-113. (Henceforth, references to the individual books of the Commentary on Logic (C. Logic) will be of the form, ‘Commentary on the Isagoge’ (‘C.lsagoge’), etc.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Be‘ ur ha-Ma’ amar ha-Rishon ha-Nimza‘ la-Filosof Ibn Rushd bi-Qezat ‘Inyanei Sefer haHeqqesh. There follows Be‘ur ha-Ma’amar ha-Sheni .... (Henceforth, Commentary on the Logical Questions [or C. Logical Questions]). All page references are to Bodley Mich. ms. 209 (01. 71) [Neubauer 17211].

    Google Scholar 

  60. The Rhetoric and the Poetics were translated by Todros Todrosi into Hebrew in 1337. See Steinschneider, Hebräischen Ubersetzungen, 626–627.

    Google Scholar 

  61. For the C.Isagoge see S. Rosenberg, ‘Gersonides’ Commentary on the Mavo“ (Hebrew) Da’ at 22 (Winter, 1989): 85–99. The C. Categories has recently been edited by Alan Siniora as a doctoral dissertation for Cambridge University. Extracts from both commentaries can be found in the notes for Davidson’s edition and translation of Averroes Middle Commentary thereon (see note 1 above). All subsequent page references for these works, and to the C. De lnterpretatione, will be to Vatican ms. Urbinate 35.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Levi Ghersonidis in Porphyrium, in PraedicamentaArist., in Lib. de lnterpretatione, et in Averoim Annotationes, in Aristotelis Opera Cum Averrois Cordubensis Commentaria, 14 vols. (Venice apud Junctas, 1652-1574; rept. Frankfurt am Main, 1962) 1, 1, 1–106.

    Google Scholar 

  63. This point was made to me in correspondence bynGad Freudenthal.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Cited by Steinschneider. Hebräischen Übersetzungen. 67. This passage is not in the edition of the C.I sagoge by Shalom Rosenberg, which is based on only several of the extant mss. See S. Rosenberg, ‘Gersonides’ Commentary on the Mavo” , 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cited by Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen., 70.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Hebrew: hetero be-zeh ra’ ui ii-zhoq ’alav. See C. Prior Anaiytics, Bodley Mich. MS 209 (Ol. 71) [Neubauer 17211], fol. 195v. Unless otherwise noted, subsequent references will be to this ms.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Isaac Husik, Judah Messer Leon’s Commentary on the ‘Vetus Logica’ (Leiden, 1906) 93.

    Google Scholar 

  68. In his commentary to the Behinat ’Olam of Yedayah ha-Penini (Ferrara, fol. 4b) cited in Steinschneider Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 67.

    Google Scholar 

  69. C. Logocal Qextions, fol. 274r.

    Google Scholar 

  70. C. Logical Questions, fal 274v. The passage is cited in Steinschneider, Hebräischen Übersetzungen, 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Cf. C. Categories, Leiden Warnero ms. 42 (Or. 47809) fol. 23v, where Gersonides erroneously assumes a sentence of Averroes to be Aristotle’s, which he proceeds to emend on the basis of what he feels to be correct, and C. Prior Analytics, fol. 1 86r, where he argues that Averroes' interpretation cannot reflect Aristotle’s true opinion.

    Google Scholar 

  72. See p. 32 below

    Google Scholar 

  73. See p. 32 below.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Judah Cohen’s commentary on Averroes’ Middle Commentary on the Organon, Christ Church ms. 201 [Neubauer 2452], fol. 89v.

    Google Scholar 

  75. These discrepancies led Prand to regard the Logical Questions as spurious, a view which he retracted in the second edition of his history of logic as a result of Steinschneider's arguments. See Pranti, Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1855–1870, rept. Graz, 1953) 2: 381.

    Google Scholar 

  76. In the C. Prior Analytics, fol. 219r, Gersonides remarks concerning hypothetical syllogisms that, Avicenna called these syllogisms “connective”, as Averroes has mentioned in his treatise on certain points in the Prior Analytics’. This reference appears to be to the eighth of the Logical Questions.

    Google Scholar 

  77. See the Excursus below, as well the brief remarks in Simo Knuuttila, ‘Modal Logic’, in the Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, ed. Nonnan Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg (Cambridge, 1982) 352–53.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hence the topics covered in the Correct Syllogism have their source in the De Interpretatione and the Prior Analytics and not in the Posterior Analytics, as stated in Renan-Neubauer, Les écrivainsjuifs français du XlVème siècle, Histoire littéraire de la France 27 (Paris, 1877) 602, and repeated subsequently by almost everyone who wrote about this work.

    Google Scholar 

  79. On this point see Simo Knuuttila, ‘The ‘Statistical’ Interpretation of Modality in Averroes and Thomas Aquinas’ Ajatus 37 (1978) pp. 79–98.

    Google Scholar 

  80. See Simo Knuuttila, ‘Modal Logic’, in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy, eds. Norman Kretzmann, Anthony Kenny, and Jan Pinborg (Cambridge, 1982) 287–291.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Many, though not all. The most famous attempt to analyze syllogistic as a subdivision of propositional logic was by Jan Lukasiewicz in Aristotle’s Syllogistic From the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic, 2nd edition (Oxford 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  82. The proper interpretation of the dici was the subject of the ninth of Averroes’ Logical Questions, which was commented upon by Gersonides. See n. 62 above.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Tractatus, De locis, trans. in Norman Kretzmann and Eleonore Stump, eds., The Cambridge Translations of Medieval Philosophical Texts: Volume One: Logic and the Philosophy of Language (Cambridge, 1988) 234.

    Google Scholar 

  84. See Eleanore Stump, ‘Topics: Their Development and Absorption into Consequences’ in The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge 1982) 287-291.

    Google Scholar 

  85. See I. Bochenski, A History of Formal Logic, trans. Ivo Thomas (Notre Dame, 1975) 71; cf. Jan Lukasiewicz, Aristotle’s Syllogistic, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  86. For characteristic statements see A. N. Prior, ‘Logic, Traditional’, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Collier-Macmillan, 1967), and William Kneale and Martha Kneale, The Development of Logic (Cambridge, 1962) p. 183, who write, ‘ ... we have no trace of anyone who defended the doctrines of four figures before the end of the Middle Ages’.

    Google Scholar 

  87. See Hubert Hubien, ‘Jean Buridan on the Fourth Figure of the Syllogism’, Revue Internationale de la philosophie (1975): 271-285. Hubien exaggerates Buridan’s ‘acceptance’ of the fourth figure. Buridan does mention the fourth figure and its relationship to the first, but he then writes, ‘Since allthis is evident, it is clear that if the first figure has been discussed it will be needless to discuss the fourth, and that is the reason why Aristotle did not establish it’ (Tractatus de Consequentiis, lib. 3, cap. 2, cited according to Hubien’s translation).

    Google Scholar 

  88. See the commentary to II.6 below.

    Google Scholar 

  89. This is precisely what Aristotle’s student Theophrastus was said to have done, and it has been suggested Aristotle proceeded in a similar fashion. See Kneale and Kneale, Development of Logic, 100. On Aristotle’s acceptance of the fourth-figure moods, cf. Lukasiewicz, Aristotle’s Syllogistic, 55–83, Bochenski, A History of Formal Logic, 70–72, and G. Patzig, Aristotle’s Theory of the Syllogism, trans. Jonathan Barnes (Dordrecht, 1977) 55–83.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Middle Commentary on the Prior Analytics, fols. 67v, 78r-v. The charge of ‘unnaturalness’ is found in the writings of Avicenna, although it is probably older. See Livre des directives et remarques (Kitab al-’ [shārāt wa’l-Tanbīhāt) trans. A. M. Goichon (Paris: J. Vrin, 1955) 198. Cf. I. Madkour, L’ Organon dans Ie monde arabe, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969) 206.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Middle Commentary on the De lnterpretatione, fol. 41v (trans. Butterworth, p. 138)

    Google Scholar 

  92. See An Examination of Sir William Hamilton’s Philosophy in Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, eds. J. M. Robson and Alan Ryan (Toronto, 1977) 9: 399–401.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Kneale and Kneale, Development of Logic, 91.

    Google Scholar 

  94. See especially Jaakko Hintikka, Time and Necessity: Studies in Aristotle’s Theory of Modality (Oxford 1973), Richard Sorabji, Necessity, Cause and Blame: Perspectives on Aristotle’s Theory (Ithaca 1980), and Sarah Waterlow, Passage and Possibility: a Study of Aristotle’s Modal Concepts (Oxford 1982). For many more sources, see L. Alanen and S. Knuuttila, ‘Modality in Descartes and His Predecessors’ in Modern Modalities: Studies of the History of Modal Theories from Medieval Nominalism to Logical Positivism, ed. S. Knuuttila, Synthese Historical Library 33 (Dordrecht, 1988) 41–42, n. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Hintikka, Time and Necessity, 103. Cf. discussions in Sorabji, Necessity, Cause, and Blame 128- 137, and Waterlow, Passage and Possibility, 14,55.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Simo Knuuttila, ‘The Statistical Interpretation of Modality in Averroes and Thomas Aquinas’, Ajatus 37 (1978): 79-98. Cf. Nicholas Rescher, ‘The Theory of Temporal Modality in Arabic Logic and Philosophy’, in Studies in Arabic Philosophy (Pittsburgh 1963) 81–111.

    Google Scholar 

  97. ‘Time and Modality in Scholasticism’, Reforging the Great Chain of Being, ed. S. Knuuttila, Synthese Historical Library 20 (Dordrecht 1981) 163–257, esp. 217–35. For a critique of the HintikkaKnuuttila thesis, see Klaus Jacobi, 'Statements about Events: Modal and Tense Analysis in Medieval Logic’, Vivarium 21 (1983): 85–108.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Hintikka, Time and Necessity, 136–140.

    Google Scholar 

  99. See Shalom Rosenberg and Charles Manekin, ‘Themistius on Modal Logic: Excerpts of a Lost Commentary on the Prior Analytics’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 11 (1988): 83–103.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cited in C. Logical Questions, fol. 264v–269v.

    Google Scholar 

  101. See C.Isagoge, fol. 15r. The passage to which Gersonides refers can be found in ben Machir’s translation entitled Kol Melekhet Higgayon (Riva di Trento, 1553), fol. 59b. Another reference to the Epitome can be found in the C. Prior Analytics, fol. 216r, on the matter of hypothetical syllogisms.

    Google Scholar 

  102. See C. De lnterpretatione, fol. 67r. The full quotation is: ‘We have found that Abu Nasr (Alfarabi) also says that this derived noun is not an utterance, I mean, a verb’. Cf. C. Categories, fol. 46v, where Gersonides mentions Alfarabi’s opinion that the category of substance does not possess movement. This opinion is not mentioned by Averroes, at least not ad loco

    Google Scholar 

  103. See Al-Farabi’s Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle’s ‘De lnterpretatione’ ,trans. F. W. Zimmermann, 221. Thus it is the Short Treatise and not the Long Commentary that was translated twice into Hebrew; this mistake occurs in Manekin, ‘Preliminary Observations’, 100.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Correct Syllogism 11.6. See §263 below and Commentary.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Millot ha-Higgayon, ch. 7. Ed. Efros, Heb.: 34, Eng.: 42.

    Google Scholar 

  106. C. Song of Songs, fol 9a.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Cf., e.g., Rescher, ‘Averroes’ Quaesitum’, 94.

    Google Scholar 

  108. See F. W. Zimmermann, ‘Some Observations on Al-Farabi and Logical Tradition’, in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition: Essays Presented by His Friends and Pupils to Richard Walzer on His Seventieth Birthday, eds. S.M. Stem, Albert Hourani, and Vivian Brown (Oxford, 1972) 524.

    Google Scholar 

  109. La pensee, 39.

    Google Scholar 

  110. For the position favoring scholastic influence on Gersonides’ theology and metaphysics, see Shlomo Pines, ‘Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas, and the teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his predecessors’, Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Arts and Sciences 1.10 (Jerusalem, 1967).

    Google Scholar 

  111. On the diffusion of the Tractatus in southern France during our period, see Peter of Spain, Tractatus, ed. L.M. de Rijk (Assen, 1972) xcv-xcviii. Gersonides and Ockham lived in Avignon during 1322; see Touati,La pensé, 44, n. 91.

    Google Scholar 

  112. On this comment and its implications, see Manekin, ‘Preliminary Observations’, 100, n. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  113. See Steinschneider, Hebräischen Ubersetzungen, 470–474.

    Google Scholar 

  114. For references to specific philosophers, see Manekin, ‘Preliminary Observations’, 101–108.

    Google Scholar 

  115. Steinschneider, Hebräischen Ubersetzungen, 59.

    Google Scholar 

  116. See Rosenberg, Logic and Ontology,, 1: 55.

    Google Scholar 

  117. See I.B. De Rossi, MSS Codices Hebraici Bibliothecae … (Panna, 1803), 1.180. De Rossi incorrectly describes the Correct Syllogism as Commentarium in Aristotelis Librum de syllogismo ex expositione Averrois. At the end of the ms. there are two dates (written by someone other than the scribe), 1595 (?) and 1619, along with the statement of the censor.

    Google Scholar 

  118. The script is very similar to that of Paris BN Héb ms. 921, fol 109v, which is dated Spain (?) 1476. See Colette Sirat et Malachi Beit-Arié, Manuscripts médiétivaux en caractéres hébraiques … (Paris/Jérusalem, 1986) vol. 3, plate 12.

    Google Scholar 

  119. See F. Delitzsch, Catalogus hebraeus manuscriptorum .. Libsiensis (Grimma, 1838) 303. Jacob Klatzkin published chapter 10 of the second treatise of the Correct Syllogism on the basis of ‘Hamburg Municipal Library (sic) ms. 40’. I have not been able to locate this manuscript, which does not appear in Stein schneider nor in the catalogue of the Hamburg collection. The text is almost identical (though not completely) with Leipzig ms. 40. Perhaps Klatzkin mistook ‘Hamburg’ for ‘Leipzig’. See his Ozar ha-Munahim ha-Filosofiyyim ve- ’Antologyahfilosofit, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1927) 3: 291-93. (Gad Freudenthal called my attention to this source.)

    Google Scholar 

  120. See I. Mendelson, Descriptive Catalogue of Semitic Manuscripts (Mostly Hebrew) in the Libraries of Columbia University (Typewritten, n.d.) 255.

    Google Scholar 

  121. See I. Mendelson, Descriptive Catalogue of Semitic Manuscripts (Mostly Hebrew) in the Libraries of Columbia University (Typewritten, n.d.) 255.

    Google Scholar 

  122. See B. Peyron, Codices Hebraici Manu Exarati Regiae Bibliothecae quae in Tauriensis … (Turin, 1880) 12. Cf. I. Pasinus, Codices Manuscripti Bibliothecae R. Tauriensis … (Turin, 1749) 47. For a recent report on the status of this ms see Lawrence V. Berman, Ha-Nusahim ha- ‘Ivriyim shel haMa’ amar ha-Revi ‘i she I ha-Be’ ur ha-‘ Emza ’i shellbn Rushd Ie Sefer ha-Middot … (Jerusalem, 1981) 17-18.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Professor Leonardo Selvaggi of the Biblioteca Nazionale writes (personal communication, May 1988): ‘Le carte corrispondenti ai numeri non elencati, devono essere considerate, allo stato attuale dei ricuperi e restauri, perse nell’incendio. Restaurato dopo l’incendio della biblioteca del 1904; parecchie carte, soprattutto nell'ultimo quarto del codice, mutile; macchie di umidita e carta con chiazze dovute ad acidità; a volte la scrittura é molto sbiadita’.

    Google Scholar 

  124. The Breslau ms. is tentatively included in Group II on the basis of Steinschneider’s description in Hebräischen Ubersetzungen, 71–72, and the lines cited in the catalogue description of Loewinger and Weinryb, 101.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Hebriiischen Ubersetzungen, 72.

    Google Scholar 

  126. This was a common practice of Gersonides; see Touati, La pensée, 49–53. I have found evidence of revision in the C. Categories and the C. De lnterpretatione.

    Google Scholar 

  127. See Timothy Smiley, ‘What Is a Syllogism’ in Journal of Philosophical Logic 2 (1973) and John Corcoran, ‘Aristotle’s Natural Deduction System’ in Ancient Logic and Its Modern Interpretations, ed. J. Corcoran (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1974).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Benson Mates, Elementary Logic (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965) chs. 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland, Maryland, USA

    Charles H. Manekin

Authors
  1. Charles H. Manekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Manekin, C.H. (1992). Introduction. In: The Logic of Gersonides. The New Synthese Historical Library, vol 40. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2614-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-2614-4_1

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-5155-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-011-2614-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation