Miguel Carmona Tabja

The aim of the following paper is to evaluate a possible influence of Galen’s Institutio logica on al-Farabi’s logic, following Zimmermann’s and Lameer’s evidence for certain parallelisms between them. Among the scholars of al-Farabi’s logic, we find at least two authors that affirm such a textual relation, Zimmermann (1981) and Lameer (1994). However, this influence is explicitly denied by at least another study on al-Farabi’s logic, Hodges (2020). This paper then will focus on establishing what are the arguments for this influence, in Zimmermann’s and Lameer’s terms, to then re-evaluate, comparing al-Farabi’s and Galen’s writings if we can still defend that this is the case.

This paper critically examines three unresolved or problematic aspects of the current scholarly consensus on al-Fārābī’s conception of the poetic syllogism. The consensus, as articulated in key articles by Schoeler and Hodges & Druart, builds on earlier work by Aouad & Schoeler, and we will consider three main aspects of it: (1) the structure of the poetic syllogism and the interpretation of al-Fārābī’s examples given in the _Discourse on Proportion and Composition_ (_Qawl fī l-tanāsub wa-l-ta’līf_), (2) the dismissal of certain passages as irrelevant to understanding his conception, in particular a passage of the _Treatise on the Canons of the Art of the Poets_ (_Maqāla fī qawānīn ṣinā’at al-shu’arā’_), and (3) the relationship between the _Discourse_ and other texts on poetry written by al-Fārābī. While these contributions have significantly advanced the field, this paper identifies areas where the consensus remains open to debate and calls for further scholarly attention. First, we challenge the assumption that the two examples of the poetic syllogism provided by al-Fārābī in the _Discourse_ are structurally identical. Instead, we argue that they represent two distinct formal variations of the poetic syllogism, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of its structure. Second, we contest Schoeler’s dismissal of a passage from the _Canons_ as irrelevant to al-Fārābī’s conception of the poetic syllogism. Contrary to this view, we propose that this passage may be closely related to the second example of the poetic syllogism in the _Discourse_. This connection, if substantiated, could provide new insights into al-Fārābī’s conception of the poetic syllogism and its relation with other texts written by him. Third, we highlight two significant points of divergence between the _Canons_ and the _Discourse_. The first concerns the classification of syllogisms, where the _Canons_ and the _Discourse_ appear to differ in their treatment of poetic discourse. Whereas in the _Canons_ poetic utterances or statements are usually considered to be false, the _Discourse_ says explicitly that whoever says that poetry is false is mistaken. The second point of divergence pertains to al-Fārābī’s identification of “analogy” (_tamthīl_) as the poetic syllogism par excellence in the _Canons_.This form of syllogism does not align with the structure exemplified in the _Discourse_, raising questions about the Discourse’s attribution to al-Fārābī. While this paper does not propose definitive solutions to these issues, it underscores their importance and calls for further research to address these unresolved questions. However, even if this paper does not propose definitive solutions, it offers some guidelines to find some of these solutions. From this perspective, we propose that a fuller account of al-Fārābī’s poetic syllogism must link the examples of the poetic syllogism in the _Discourse_, al-Fārābī’s so-called ‘procedure’ in the _Canons_, and the syllogistic structure of analogy. Some links between these elements are hinted at in the present paper, such as the relationship between analogy and the _Discourse_, and the relationship between the ‘procedure’ in the _Canons_ and the _Discourse_. Further research should be undertaken to prove or disprove these relations, or make explicit new ones, so that we could have a better understanding of the poetic syllogism. By critically engaging with the existing consensus, this study aims to stimulate a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of al-Fārābī’s poetic syllogism.

El presente artículo ofrece una traducción anotada del _Tratado acerca de las reglas del arte de los poetas_ (_Qawānīn fī ṣināʿat al-šuʿarāʾ_) de Abū Naṣr al-Fārābī. Acompañamos esta traducción de una introducción dividida en tres partes. En primer lugar, se ofrece un contexto general acerca del lugar del Qawānīn en la obra de al-Fārābī y en la tradición filosófica árabe. En segundo, se plantea una posible división temática del texto. Y finalmente, en tercer lugar, se especifican las peculiaridades de la traducción, referente al texto tomado como base y las principales decisiones de traducción.