Journal of the History of Philosophy

396 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY ordinary terms, also). In a few cases, the italicized/roman distinction is used in a misleading way. We find both 'substance' and 'substance,' suggesting distinct Greek expressions, when what we actually have is cr0o~et in all cases: Apostle has simply marked two different senses of the same word by in effect opting for two different translations (the same thing happens with 'universal'/'universal' and xct06~.ov). Since these are matters of interpretation, they should not be presented in a way which suggests that they rest on textual distinctions. Apostle's commentary is in a number of ways rather idiosyncratic. In general, he has comparatively little to say about the interpretations offered by other commentators (he makes a very sweeping criticism of Jonathan Barnes on p. iii, but he only sees fit to say where he differs with Barnes on a few occasions, and then usually not very thoroughly). Instead, he seems to find it presumptuous to suggest that Aristotle may have made mistakes (especially logical ones), and he devotes most of his comments either to indicating difficulties of interpretation (sometimes with suggestions--only suggestions--for resolving those difficulties) or to the defense of Aristotelian doctrines as he understands them. This unfortunately leads him to pay little attention to certain recent developments of considerable importance in modern Aristotelian studies, especially as regards the Analytics. One of the primary reasons for the recent explosion of interest in the Posterior Analytics has been the application to Aristotle of techniques derived from contemporary logic; there is a growing conviction among Aristotle scholars (which 1 share) that Aristotle's interests and methods in the Analytics are in many respects akin to those of present-day logicians and philosophers of science, notwithstanding the many very real differences. It is, therefore, to be regretted that Apostle has not taken the time to acquire an understanding of these modern techniques, especially since he at times expends much effort to defend Aristotle from what he perceives to be an attack from such a quarter. Although the book is attractively produced, there are rather a large number of misprints. The index in particular is unreliable: far too often, authors are not mentioned on pages cited after their names or actual references in the text are not cited in the index. For example, Barnes is actually mentioned six times in the text (pp. iii, 244, 945, 266, 285 , 29i); one of these (244) is overlooked, and four additional erroneous citations (294, 226, 233, 241 ) are added. Given its limited approach to Aristotle and the availability of Barnes's version, Apostle's Posterior Analytics will be of restricted utility to scholars. ROBIN SMITH Kansas State University F. W. Zimmerman AI-Farabi's Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's De Interpretatione . London: The Oxford University Press, x98I. Pp. clii + 287. $I45.oo. Al-Farabi's Commentary and Short Treatise on Aristotle's De Interpretatione, introduced and translated by F. W. Zimmerman, serves many functions. First, and primarily, it presents an important work of Islamic philosophy in a form accessible to Western BOOK REVIEWS 397 readers. Second, the lengthy introduction has the merit not only of presenting the text at hand, but also of providing an entr6e into Islamic philosophy. Third, Zimmermann 's work fills a gap in the history of philosophy, and illustrates how the doctrines of late Greek philosophy were received and modified by the Muslims. AI-Farabi's Commentary is a greater, or more extensive, commentary than the Short Treatise. Like Greek commentators such as Ammonius, al-Farabi (c. 873-95o ) includes the text of On Interpretation, and explicates the test passage by passage. There are serious difficulties with the Arabic translation of On Interpretation. Unlike later Arabic translations, this one is quite inaccurate, and is laced with scholiathat reinforce the inaccuracies. Professor Zimmerman does an excellent job of pointing out where the Arabic translation differs from the Greek original, of citing some of the scholia and speculating as to their sources, and of noting where and how al-Farabi makes original contributions to the study of the text. The Arabic text of ai-Farabi's Commentary is available in a not too critical modern...