Abstract

Scholars disagree about whether Avicenna’s corporeal form exists in the elements as a numerically distinct substantial form. By translating texts that have not yet been brought to bear on this debate, I argue that it is. I also look at two attempts by contemporary scholars to show that the disunity of corporeal and elemental forms is incompatible with Avicenna’s understanding of substance. I argue that both attempts fail since the relationship between corporeal and elemental forms is such that the elemental form can exist in the corporeal form without turning the elemental form into an accident and without violating Avicenna’s rule that substances do not exist in a subject.