We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
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).
page 188 note 1 Analecta Orientalia ad Poeticam Aristoteliám, Londini, 1887Google Scholar.
page 188 note 2 Loc. cit., p. 37.
page 188 note 3 Ed. Arberry, , RSO., vol. 17, p. 266Google Scholar.
page 188 note 4 Fihrist (Cairo), p. 350.
page 188 note 5 Περί Ποιŋτν ed. A. Rostagni.
page 189 note 1 Analecta, p. 80.
page 189 note 2 p. 85.
page 189 note 3 p. 86.
page 189 note 4 p. 87.
page 189 note 5 p. 90.
page 189 note 6 p. 90.
page 189 note 7 p. 91.
page 189 note 8 p. 93.
page 189 note 9 p. 14.
page 190 note 1 p. 93.
page 190 note 2 p. 108.
page 190 note 3 p. 112.
page 190 note 4 
(Cairo).
page 190 note 5 Islamica 4, 546.
