^{page 188 note 1} Averroes wrote two commentaries on rhetoric, both based on Aristotle's Rhetoric. Contrary to what M. Bouyges thought (Melanges de VUniversite de St. Joseph, 1922), the shorter commentary has only recently been edited. It has also been translated into English but is not yet published. The text is extant in two Judaeo-Arabic manuscripts: Catalogue des Manuscrits Orientaux, Bibliothéque Nationale, Paris, No. 1008; and Verzeichnis der orientalischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staats-bibliothek, Miinchen, Cod. Arab. No. 650°. Moreover, there is a Hebrew translation of the text in the Paris manuscript and a Latin translation published in the Juncta edition of Aristotle's works: Aristotelis, Opera cum Averrois Commentariis (Venetiis: Apud Junctas, 1562-74), Vol. n, folios 192D_196M. The Summary was probably written prior to 1159 (cf. P. Manuel Alonso, Teologia de Averroes [Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, 1947l] PP- 55_61)- The longer, or middle, commentary was edited and published by Abd al-Rahman Badawi in i960. Averroes, Talkhis al-Khatdbah, ed. 'Abd al-Rahman Badawi (Cairo, Maktabat al-Nahdah al-Misriyah, i960). Salim Salim has also edited the middle commentary: Talkhis al-Khatdbah, ed. Salim Salim (Cairo, Dar al-Tahrir li al-Tab'wa al-Nashr, 1967). A Latin translation of the commentary exists in the Juncta edition, and a Hebrew translation was published in Leipzig in 1842. Averroes indicated that he finished the middle commentary in 1174. Hereafter, the shorter commentary will be cited as S, and references to parts of it will reflect the paragraphing that I have adopted in my edition. The middle commentary will be cited as T, and references will be to the pages and lines of the Badawi edition.Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} The only evidence of a reason for Averroes having composed any of the treatises is in the very opening lines of the whole collection. At that point, he explained that he intended ‘to abstract the necessary speeches from each and every one of the arts of logic in order to make clear the ranks of the kinds of concept and conviction employed in each and every one of the five arts, i.e. demonstrative, dialectical, sophistical, rhetorical, and poetical’. He thought that to know a certain amount of logic was ‘most necessary in order to study the arts which have already been completed in the way that most of the arts [have already been completed] in this time of ours’. As an example of a completed art which logic would help a person to study, he cited medicine.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} al-Qur'ân, xvi. 125.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 2} This was his Kitâb al-Kashf 'an Manahij al-‘Adillah FV Aqd’idal-Millah (The Book of Uncovering the Clear Paths of the Signs about the Beliefs of the Religious Community which he claims to have completed in about 1179, i.e., about 5 years after he completed the Talkhis.Google Scholar

^{page 193 note 1} Cf. also T 247:13-19.Google Scholar

^{page 197 note 1} This divergence from Aristotle is possibly part of what Averroes meant when he appealed to al-Farabi's authority to assert that many of Aristotle's ideas were either incomprehensible or not useful to the Arabs (T 252:19-253:2).Google Scholar