Die philosophischen Abhandlungen des al-Kindi

assertive and descriptive in nature and lacks any argumentation. It relies solely on authorities and general statements. Also, the method for which he was reproached by ibn Rośd 1 can be recognized in it, that is, his excessive preference for mathematical divisions and for symmetry. However, these two faults, which one can also notice in "de somno et uisione" and "de quinque essentiis", are not to be regarded as exclusively peculiar to him, but were generally widespread at that time and correspond to the circumstances and tendencies of that period.

As already noted above, two Latin redactions of the Al-Kindian work on reason exist. They differ, however, merely in the rendering of a few words. For example, while one renders the Arabic words ‘aql (nous), ma‘qūlāt (nooumena), ‘aql (noeisthai), etc., as "intellectus", "intelligibile", "intelligere", etc., the other translates them as "ratio", "rationale", "rationari", and so on. For mustafād acquired, one has "adeptus", the other "adquisitus" or "repositus"; for bi-ḥasab or min qibal according to or on the part of, one has "secundum", the other "ex parte". In terms of content, they are perfectly identical. They are, accordingly, two translations of one and the same Arabic original text. Jourdain 2 and, following him, Flügel 3 have erroneously regarded them as two different works. Both are printed in my edition in two parallel rows next to each other, so that the agreements and the deviations appear more clearly.

It is of importance to focus on the relationship of this treatise "de intellectu" to those of the same name by Alexander Aphrodisiensis and by al-Fārābī: with the former, to determine the use of the same as a source and the further development thereof, with the latter, to determine the influence of the Al-Kindian work on al-Fārābī.

1) Averroes, Colliget, Vol. V, ch. 57.
2) Jourdain, ibid. p. 123.
3) Flügel, ibid. p. 34. — Compare p. 13 note 2.