{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"770","_score":null,"_source":{"id":770,"authors_free":[{"id":932,"entry_id":770,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":249,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Herbert A. Davidson","free_first_name":"Herbert A.","free_last_name":"Davidson","norm_person":{"id":249,"first_name":"Herbert","last_name":"Davidson","full_name":"Herbert Davidson","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/15814743X","viaf_url":"","db_url":"NULL","from_claudius":0,"link":"bib?authors[]=Herbert Davidson"}}],"entry_title":"The Relation between Averroes' Middle and Long Commentaries on the De anima","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"The Relation between Averroes' Middle and Long Commentaries on the De anima"},"abstract":"Where Averroes' commentaries on Aristotle can be dated, the Middle Commentary on a given work can be seen to predate the Long Commentary. As an accompaniment to his fine edition of Averroes' Middle Commentary on the De anima, A. Ivry has maintained that in this instance matters are reversed and the Middle Commentary on the De anima is \"an abridged and revised version\" of the Long Commentary on the same work. Ivry develops his thesis most fully in Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 5. There he argues that two passages in the Middle Commentary on the De anima refer to the Long Commentary by name, that a third passage alludes to the Long Commentary, and that in other passages the Middle and Long Commentaries use similar phraseology and the former can be seen to have abridged the latter. The present article replies as follows: The pair of passages in the Middle Commentary which Ivry reads as referring explicitly to the Long Commentary can plausibly be read as cross-references within the Middle Commentary itself. The passage that he takes as alluding to the Long Commentary does not in fact allude to that work, but is an unambiguous reference to a later section of the Middle Commentary. And there is no justification for regarding the passages in the Middle Commentary cited by Ivry which use phraseology similar to that of the Long Commentary as borrowings from the latter. In the course of his arguments, Ivry refers to Averroes' position on the nature of the human material intellect, the issue that gave Averroes the most trouble in his commentaries on Aristotle's De anima and that has most intrigued students of Averroes ever since. The present article points out that on the subject of the human material intellect, neither the Middle nor the Long Commentary on the De anima borrows from the other, for the conceptions of the material intellect which they espouse are different and incompatible","btype":3,"date":"1997","language":"English","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":12,"category_name":"Psychology","link":"bib?categories[]=Psychology"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"}],"authors":[{"id":249,"full_name":"Herbert Davidson","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":770,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"7","issue":null,"pages":"139\u2013151"}},"sort":["The Relation between Averroes' Middle and Long Commentaries on the De anima"]}