SISMEL. EDIZIONI DEL GALLUZZO « Documenti e studi sulla tradizione ilosoica medievale » XXVIII (2017) ISSN 1122-5750 — ISBN 978-88-8450-812-6 RICCARDO STROBINO Avicenna’s Kitāb al-Burhān, II.7 and its Latin Translation by Gundissalinus : Content and Text* IntroductIon The relevance of Dominicus Gundissalinus’ De divisione philosophiae for (i) the development of Western classiications of the sciences in the 12th century, (ii) its signiicance for the Toledan translation movement, and (iii) its extensive dependence on a broad array of sources, Greek, Latin, Arabic, and Jewish, not only in style and method but also in content, are all well-established facts 1 . Equally uncontroversial is the importance for Gundissalinus’ De divisione philosophiae of the famous Summa Avicennae de convenientia et differentia subiectorum, the Latin translation of chapter II.7 of the Kitāb al-Burhān (Book of Demonstration) of Avicenna’s Kitāb al-Šifāʾ, which Gundissalinus inserts in his own original work as a watershed separating the treatment of the theoretical sciences and that of the practical sciences. The very position of this ‘treatise within the treatise’ is arguably a culmination of the project and offers a conceptual justiication for the classiication and analysis of the irst part of the De divisione. Avicenna’s text provides the main theoretical underpinnings for Gundissalinus’ own model and classiication. As the Arabic title (fī ḫtilāf al-ʿulūm wa-štirākihā bi-qawl mufaṣṣal) * I would like to express my deepest gratitude to three anonymous readers whose valuable comments have helped improve signiicantly an earlier version of this article. I am indebted to their remarks and criticisms, especially in the textual section, more than space allows me to acknowledge analytically. All shortcomings are mine. I should also thank the adminstrators of the Advanced Project ‘Philosophy on the Border of Civilizations and Intellectual Endeavours : Towards a Critical Edition of the Metaphysics (Ilāhiyyāt of Kitāb al-Šifāʾ) of Avicenna (Ibn Sīnā)’ (Acronym ‘PhiBor’ 2014-2019), inanced by the European Research Council (www.avicennaproject.eu), for their gracious willingness to grant me access to their database of Avicenna’s manuscripts. Without this single point of access, this article could not have seen the light in a remotely comparable time frame. 1 On (i) and (iii), see the classic H. Hugonnard-rocHe, La classiication des sciences de Gundissalinus et l’inluence d’Avicenne, in J. JolIvet, r. rasHed eds., Études sur Avicenne, Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1984 (Sciences et philosophies arabes. Études et reprises), pp. 41-75 ; cf. also A. FIdora, Domingo Gundisalvo y la teoria de la ciencia arábigo-aristotélica, EUNSA, Pamplona 2009 (Colección de pensamiento medieval y renacentista), pp. 227-243. On (ii), see c. Burnett, The Coherence of the Arabic-Latin Translation Program in Toledo in the Twelfth Century,« Science in Context », 14, 2001, pp. 249-288.