ABSTRACT
In exploring the body of modal definitions provided by Ibn Kurr most individual items were reviewed in isolation, but it was sometimes found helpful in tackling difficulties to refer to Systematist accounts, thereby revealing certain similarities that the very different theoretical discourses employed tend if anything to camouflage, and pointing to an area that merits further investigation. Such similarities suggest that while Ibn Kurr’s account of the rhythmic cycles is singularly resistant to reconciliation with those of the early Systematist theorists, setting his modal definitions alongside the parallel body of material offered by al-Urmawī and Šīrāzī, might, in contrast, actually shed further light on both, improving our understanding of Ibn Kurr’s account and at the same time helping on occasion to clarify problematic aspects of its Systematist counterpart.
