| Title | Averroes' Middle Commentary on Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics |
| Type | Article |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Oriens |
| Volume | 42 |
| Issue | 1-2 |
| Pages | 254-287 |
| Categories | Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, Commentary |
| Author(s) | Steven Harvey , Frédérique Woerther |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The conventional view of the previous century that Averroes’ middle commentaries (talāḫīṣ) on Aristotle are all of the same form and style is no longer tenable. A full and accurate account of the similarities and differences among Averroes’ talāḫīṣ on Aristotle must consider all of them. Perhaps the least studied and least known of these middle commentaries is the one on the Nicomachean Ethics, a text which is extant today only in a critically edited medieval Hebrew translation and an as yet unedited medieval Latin translation. The two authors of the present article have each studied chapters of this commentary independently of each other and have reached different conclusions concerning its value. In this article they present a careful examination of the first book of Averroes’ commentary via its Hebrew translation and Latin translation (primarily through the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts of it) in comparison with the medieval Arabic translation of the Nicomachean Ethics that was used by Averroes (and in light of Aristotle’s Greek text). This study shows an Averroean middle commentary that is not very original and not particularly helpful, especially, for example, when compared to the quite different middle commentaries on Aristotle’s books on natural science. Indeed, he often seems to do little more than copy—not even paraphrase—the Arabic translation. On the other hand, Averroes does not hesitate to insert words as he copies in order to make the text clearer and easier to understand. Where lengthier explanations are needed, they too are attempted, at times in response to problematic translations in the Arabic text before him. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"2048","_score":null,"_source":{"id":2048,"authors_free":[{"id":2492,"entry_id":2048,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":642,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Steven Harvey","free_first_name":"Steven","free_last_name":"Harvey","norm_person":{"id":642,"first_name":"Steven","last_name":"Harvey","full_name":"Steven Harvey","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1051482674","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/97890242","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Steven Harvey"}},{"id":2493,"entry_id":2048,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1286,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther","free_first_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique","free_last_name":"Woerther","norm_person":{"id":1286,"first_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique","last_name":"Woerther","full_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13670932X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther"}}],"entry_title":"Averroes' Middle Commentary on Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Averroes' Middle Commentary on Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics"},"abstract":"The conventional view of the previous century that Averroes\u2019 middle commentaries (tal\u0101\u1e2b\u012b\u1e63) on Aristotle are all of the same form and style is no longer tenable. A full and accurate account of the similarities and differences among Averroes\u2019 tal\u0101\u1e2b\u012b\u1e63 on Aristotle must consider all of them. Perhaps the least studied and least known of these middle commentaries is the one on the Nicomachean Ethics, a text which is extant today only in a critically edited medieval Hebrew translation and an as yet unedited medieval Latin translation. The two authors of the present article have each studied chapters of this commentary independently of each other and have reached different conclusions concerning its value. In this article they present a careful examination of the first book of Averroes\u2019 commentary via its Hebrew translation and Latin translation (primarily through the two oldest and most reliable manuscripts of it) in comparison with the medieval Arabic translation of the Nicomachean Ethics that was used by Averroes (and in light of Aristotle\u2019s Greek text). This study shows an Averroean middle commentary that is not very original and not particularly helpful, especially, for example, when compared to the quite different middle commentaries on Aristotle\u2019s books on natural science. Indeed, he often seems to do little more than copy\u2014not even paraphrase\u2014the Arabic translation. On the other hand, Averroes does not hesitate to insert words as he copies in order to make the text clearer and easier to understand. Where lengthier explanations are needed, they too are attempted, at times in response to problematic translations in the Arabic text before him.","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1163\/18778372-04201009","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"}],"authors":[{"id":642,"full_name":"Steven Harvey","role":1},{"id":1286,"full_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":2048,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens","volume":"42","issue":"1-2","pages":"254-287"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Les translittérations dans la version latine du Commentaire moyen à l’Éthique à Nicomaque d’Averroès |
| Type | Article |
| Language | French |
| Date | 2014 |
| Journal | Bulletin de Philosophie médiévale |
| Volume | 56 |
| Pages | 61–89 |
| Categories | Commentary, Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, Transmission |
| Author(s) | Frédérique Woerther |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| The present discussion derives from a larger research project that concerns the medieval Latin translation of Averroes’ Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. The translation was carried out by Hermann the German in Toledo in 1240. I am concerned here specifically with nine passages that are distributed over three chapters of the Commentary (II.7; IV.1-3) in which the Latin translation is sprinkled with transliterations based on Greek and Arabic terms. These transliterations, which are not glosses, can be understood on several levels, and these, in turn, raise questions about the boundary between transliteration proper and translation that borrows from the source language a term which is then integrated into the Latin lexicon in the form of a calque or ‘loan translation’. Examining these transliterations makes it possible, first, to show that the translator does not follow a uniform method throughout the text, which could imply the existence of several translators or several collaborators with distinct and exclusive areas of expertise, and second, to advance the hypothesis that a Greek copy of the Nicomachean Ethics was available at the time the translation was being executed in 1240. Finally, the discussion of transliterations makes it possible to confirm certain emendations proposed by Ullman in the Arabic edition of the Nicomachean Ethics published by Akasoy and Fidora, as well as to suggest a primary classification of the surviving manuscripts of the Latin version of the Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5291","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5291,"authors_free":[{"id":6110,"entry_id":5291,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1286,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther","free_first_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique","free_last_name":"Woerther","norm_person":{"id":1286,"first_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique","last_name":"Woerther","full_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/13670932X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther"}}],"entry_title":"Les translitt\u00e9rations dans la version latine du Commentaire moyen \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9thique \u00e0 Nicomaque d\u2019Averro\u00e8s","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Les translitt\u00e9rations dans la version latine du Commentaire moyen \u00e0 l\u2019\u00c9thique \u00e0 Nicomaque d\u2019Averro\u00e8s"},"abstract":"The present discussion derives from a larger research project that concerns the medieval Latin translation of Averroes\u2019 Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. The translation was carried out by Hermann the German in Toledo in 1240. I am concerned here specifically with nine passages that are distributed over three chapters of the Commentary (II.7; IV.1-3) in which the Latin translation is sprinkled with transliterations based on Greek and Arabic terms. These transliterations, which are not glosses, can be understood on several levels, and these, in turn, raise questions about the boundary between transliteration proper and translation that borrows from the source language a term which is then integrated into the Latin lexicon in the form of a calque or \u2018loan translation\u2019. Examining these transliterations makes it possible, first, to show that the translator does not follow a uniform method throughout the text, which could imply the existence of several translators or several collaborators with distinct and exclusive areas of expertise, and second, to advance the hypothesis that a Greek copy of the Nicomachean Ethics was available at the time the translation was being executed in 1240. Finally, the discussion of transliterations makes it possible to confirm certain emendations proposed by Ullman in the Arabic edition of the Nicomachean Ethics published by Akasoy and Fidora, as well as to suggest a primary classification of the surviving manuscripts of the Latin version of the Middle Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics. ","btype":3,"date":"2014","language":"French","online_url":"","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":40,"category_name":"Transmission","link":"bib?categories[]=Transmission"}],"authors":[{"id":1286,"full_name":"Fr\u00e9d\u00e9rique Woerther","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5291,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Bulletin de Philosophie m\u00e9di\u00e9vale","volume":"56","issue":"","pages":"61\u201389"}},"sort":[2014]}
| Title | Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat |
| Type | Book Section |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2022 |
| Published in | Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary |
| Pages | 233–252 |
| Categories | Nicomachean ethics, Politics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Joshua Parens |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume—namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions—that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions—form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics—putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10—and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17–74.12). |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5357","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5357,"authors_free":[{"id":6208,"entry_id":5357,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1783,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Joshua Parens","free_first_name":"Joshua","free_last_name":" Parens","norm_person":{"id":1783,"first_name":"Joshua","last_name":"Parens","full_name":"Joshua Parens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"https:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/172958881","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null,"link":"bib?authors[]=Joshua Parens"}}],"entry_title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"},"abstract":"As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's \u201cRepublic,\u201d one is struck from the beginning by how much he omits from his commentary. Typically, this would be taken to indicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato's intention. Indeed, the author can seem at times to confirm what many readers assume\u2014namely, that he would rather have commented on a work by Aristotle. We will try to show that his major omissions\u2014that is, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especially what he substitutes for these omissions\u2014form a coherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profound commentary on the omitted passages. That coherent pattern is already set within the first few pages of the work. From the beginning he seems to focus on the place of the Republic in relation to practical science and theoretical science. This comes as little surprise in a commentary on a work devoted to what I would like to call the philosopher-king conceit. The Republic is at least in part Plato's consideration of the relation between theoretical and practical science, as encapsulated in the person of the philosopher-king. Although Socrates does not get around to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes is on it from the beginning. He does so in part in order to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to his commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics\u2014putatively the more theoretical of the two works. Be that as it may, we are most interested in what ties together the omissions of books 1, 6, and 10\u2014and especially what Averroes substitutes for those omissions. We hope to show that the golden thread running through what Averroes substitutes is the theme of human perfection, in at least two senses: the philosopher-king and immortality. In each case, there is some element in Plato's original that Averroes needs to take into another register (from conventionalism in book 1 to fiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; from separate forms in book 6 to the active intellect in the Second Treatise; and from immortality of the soul in book 10 to conjunction with the active intellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, all these omissions are drawn together in the Second Treatise. For that reason, eventually, we will comment more closely on the most relevant section of the Second Treatise (60.17\u201374.12).","btype":2,"date":"2022","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983.012","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":4,"category_name":"Politics","link":"bib?categories[]=Politics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1783,"full_name":"Joshua Parens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":{"id":5357,"section_of":5346,"pages":"233\u2013252","is_catalog":null,"book":{"id":5346,"bilderberg_idno":null,"dare_idno":null,"catalog_idno":null,"entry_type":"bibliography","type":4,"language":"en","title":"Plato's Republic in the Islamic Context. New Perspectives on Averroes's Commentary","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","short_title":"","has_no_author":null,"volume":null,"date":"2022","edition_no":null,"free_date":null,"abstract":"","republication_of":0,"online_url":"","online_resources":null,"translation_of":"0","new_edition_of":"0","is_catalog":0,"in_bibliography":0,"is_inactive":0,"notes":null,"ti_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/9781800104983","book":{"id":5346,"pubplace":"","publisher":" Boydell & Brewer","series":"","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"persons":[{"id":6196,"entry_id":5346,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":" Alexander Orwin","free_first_name":" Alexander","free_last_name":" Orwin","norm_person":null}]}},"article":null},"sort":["Natural Perfection or Divine Fiat"]}
| Title | Phantasia in Aristotle’s Ethics: Reception in the Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin Traditions |
| Type | Edited Book |
| Language | English |
| Date | 2019 |
| Publication Place | London |
| Publisher | Bloomsbury Publishing |
| Series | Bloomsbury studies in the Aristotelian tradition |
| Categories | Aristotle, Nicomachean ethics, Tradition and Reception |
| Author(s) | Jakob Leth Fink |
| Publisher(s) | |
| Translator(s) |
| In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle suggests that a moral principle ‘does not immediately appear to the man who has been corrupted by pleasure or pain’. Phantasia in Aristotle’s Ethics investigates his claim and its reception in ancient and medieval Aristotelian traditions, including Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin. While contemporary commentators on the Ethics have overlooked Aristotle’s remark, his ancient and medieval interpreters made substantial contributions towards a clarification of the claim’s meaning and relevance. Even when the hazards of transmission have left no explicit comments on this particular passage, as is the case in the Arabic tradition, medieval responders still offer valuable interpretations of phantasia (appearance) and its role in ethical deliberation and action. This volume casts light on these readings, showing how the distant voices from the medieval Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin Aristotelian traditions still contribute to contemporary debate concerning phantasia, motivation and deliberation in Aristotle’s Ethics. |
{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5110","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5110,"authors_free":[{"id":5885,"entry_id":5110,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":2,"role_name":"editor"},"free_name":"Jakob Leth Fink","free_first_name":"Jakob Leth ","free_last_name":"Fink","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Phantasia in Aristotle\u2019s Ethics: Reception in the Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin Traditions","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Phantasia in Aristotle\u2019s Ethics: Reception in the Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin Traditions"},"abstract":"In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle suggests that a moral principle \u2018does not immediately appear to the man who has been corrupted by pleasure or pain\u2019. Phantasia in Aristotle\u2019s Ethics investigates his claim and its reception in ancient and medieval Aristotelian traditions, including Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin.\r\n\r\nWhile contemporary commentators on the Ethics have overlooked Aristotle\u2019s remark, his ancient and medieval interpreters made substantial contributions towards a clarification of the claim\u2019s meaning and relevance. Even when the hazards of transmission have left no explicit comments on this particular passage, as is the case in the Arabic tradition, medieval responders still offer valuable interpretations of phantasia (appearance) and its role in ethical deliberation and action. This volume casts light on these readings, showing how the distant voices from the medieval Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin Aristotelian traditions still contribute to contemporary debate concerning phantasia, motivation and deliberation in Aristotle\u2019s Ethics. ","btype":4,"date":"2019","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5040\/9781350028036","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":70,"category_name":"Nicomachean ethics","link":"bib?categories[]=Nicomachean ethics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":{"id":5110,"pubplace":"London","publisher":"Bloomsbury Publishing","series":"Bloomsbury studies in the Aristotelian tradition","volume":"","edition_no":"","valid_from":null,"valid_until":null},"booksection":null,"article":null},"sort":["Phantasia in Aristotle\u2019s Ethics: Reception in the Arabic, Greek, Hebrew and Latin Traditions"]}