Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics, 2022
By: Esti Eisenmann
Title Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics
Type Article
Language French
Date 2022
Journal Revue des Études Juives
Volume 181
Issue 1-2
Pages 185–222
Categories Tradition and Reception, Gersonides, Commentary, Method
Author(s) Esti Eisenmann
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
The article analyzes Gersonides (1288-1344) as a commentator, through the lens of his supercommentary on Averroes’s Epitome of Aristotle’s Physics. In the first section of the article, we question the assumption that this work is indeed a supercommentary and explain why it may nevertheless be included in the genre. In the second section, the article provides examples of Gersonides’ exegetical procedure. Given that the supercommentary on the Epitome of the Physics was the first supercommentary Gersonides wrote, the analysis of Gersonides’ methods sheds light on his image as an exegete and can help us determine his objective in commenting on this text and the readership he envisaged. He seems to be adressing readers who were taking their first steps in Aristotle’s works on nature and to have endeavored to guide them in this field.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5386","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5386,"authors_free":[{"id":6238,"entry_id":5386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Esti Eisenmann","free_first_name":"Esti","free_last_name":"Eisenmann","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics"},"abstract":"The article analyzes Gersonides (1288-1344) as a commentator, through the lens of his supercommentary on Averroes\u2019s Epitome of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. In the first section of the article, we question the assumption that this work is indeed a supercommentary and explain why it may nevertheless be included in the genre. In the second section, the article provides examples of Gersonides\u2019 exegetical procedure. Given that the supercommentary on the Epitome of the Physics was the first supercommentary Gersonides wrote, the analysis of Gersonides\u2019 methods sheds light on his image as an exegete and can help us determine his objective in commenting on this text and the readership he envisaged. He seems to be adressing readers who were taking their first steps in Aristotle\u2019s works on nature and to have endeavored to guide them in this field.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"French","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.2143\/REJ.181.1.3290628","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":62,"category_name":"Gersonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Gersonides"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":72,"category_name":"Method","link":"bib?categories[]=Method"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5386,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Juives","volume":"181","issue":"1-2","pages":"185\u2013222"}},"sort":[2022]}

La position de Zabarella vis-à-vis d’Averroès dans son Commentaire sur le De anima, 2021
By: Jules Janssens
Title La position de Zabarella vis-à-vis d’Averroès dans son Commentaire sur le De anima
Type Article
Language French
Date 2021
Journal Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph
Volume 68
Pages 105–135
Categories Renaissance, Tradition and Reception, Commentary, De anima
Author(s) Jules Janssens
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Dans son commentaire sur le De anima d’Aristote Zabarella fait un usage non négligeable du Grand Commentaire sur le même ouvrage d’Averroès, le grand penseur andalou. On a pris l’habitude de considérer que Zabarella n’a pas pu finaliser son commentaire, étant donné qu’il fut publié à titre posthume. Il s’agirait donc d’un ouvrage incomplet. Toutefois, si on tient compte du fait que Zabarella s’intéresse avant tout, voire presque exclusivement, à l’étude de l’âme humaine, tout indique qu’il a consciemment choisi de ne pas commenter certains chapitres de l’ouvrage du Stagirite. Quant à l’impact d’Averroès sur la doctrine de l’âme exposée par Zabarella, elle a été diversement évaluée dans la recherche contemporaine, mais dans l’ensemble on y perçoit une attitude fortement critique du dernier envers le premier. Il est nécessaire de nuancer ce jugement. En effet, sur la base de trois fragments, répartis sur les trois livres, la présente recherche met en lumière qu’Averroès est considéré par Zabarella comme une vraie autorité, « auctoritas » ; que Zabarella souscrit parfois pleinement à l’interprétation du maître arabe ; et, enfin, que Zabarella explique certaines explications « erronées » de ce dernier comme l’effet inévitable de la traduction fautive du texte aristotélicien dont Averroès disposait. En somme, l’attitude de Zabarella vis-à-vis d’Averroès s’avère complexe, évitant aussi bien l’excès d’un rejet total que celui d’une acceptation aveugle.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5051","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5051,"authors_free":[{"id":5801,"entry_id":5051,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":655,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jules Janssens","free_first_name":"Jules","free_last_name":"Janssens","norm_person":{"id":655,"first_name":"Jules","last_name":"Janssens","full_name":"Jules Janssens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139312471","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/81614","db_url":"https:\/\/www.deutsche-biographie.de\/pnd139312471.html","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Jules Janssens"}}],"entry_title":"La position de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s dans son Commentaire sur le De anima","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"La position de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s dans son Commentaire sur le De anima"},"abstract":"Dans son commentaire sur le De anima d\u2019Aristote Zabarella fait un usage non n\u00e9gligeable du Grand Commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage d\u2019Averro\u00e8s, le grand penseur andalou. On a pris l\u2019habitude de consid\u00e9rer que Zabarella n\u2019a pas pu finaliser son commentaire, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 qu\u2019il fut publi\u00e9 \u00e0 titre posthume. Il s\u2019agirait donc d\u2019un ouvrage incomplet. Toutefois, si on tient compte du fait que Zabarella s\u2019int\u00e9resse avant tout, voire presque exclusivement, \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019\u00e2me humaine, tout indique qu\u2019il a consciemment choisi de ne pas commenter certains chapitres de l\u2019ouvrage du Stagirite. Quant \u00e0 l\u2019impact d\u2019Averro\u00e8s sur la doctrine de l\u2019\u00e2me expos\u00e9e par Zabarella, elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 diversement \u00e9valu\u00e9e dans la recherche contemporaine, mais dans l\u2019ensemble on y per\u00e7oit une attitude fortement critique du dernier envers le premier. Il est n\u00e9cessaire de nuancer ce jugement. En effet, sur la base de trois fragments, r\u00e9partis sur les trois livres, la pr\u00e9sente recherche met en lumi\u00e8re qu\u2019Averro\u00e8s est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 par Zabarella comme une vraie autorit\u00e9, \u00ab auctoritas \u00bb ; que Zabarella souscrit parfois pleinement \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du ma\u00eetre arabe ; et, enfin, que Zabarella explique certaines explications \u00ab erron\u00e9es \u00bb de ce dernier comme l\u2019effet in\u00e9vitable de la traduction fautive du texte aristot\u00e9licien dont Averro\u00e8s disposait. En somme, l\u2019attitude de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s s\u2019av\u00e8re complexe, \u00e9vitant aussi bien l\u2019exc\u00e8s d\u2019un rejet total que celui d\u2019une acceptation aveugle.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"French","online_url":"https:\/\/journals.usj.edu.lb\/melanges\/article\/view\/545","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":5,"category_name":"Renaissance","link":"bib?categories[]=Renaissance"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"}],"authors":[{"id":655,"full_name":"Jules Janssens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5051,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9langes de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph","volume":"68","issue":"","pages":"105\u2013135"}},"sort":[2021]}

Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle’s Physica and Averroes’ Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo, 2012
By: Horst Schmieja
Title Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle’s Physica and Averroes’ Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo
Type Article
Language English
Date 2012
Journal Oriens
Volume 40
Issue 1
Pages 149–167
Categories Physics, Commentary, Tradition and Reception
Author(s) Horst Schmieja
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Sixty-two thirteenth and fourteenth-century Latin manuscripts of Averroes’ commentary of Aristotle’s Physics are currently known. Many of these manuscripts have a substantial gap in Book 8, stretching from about the middle of commentary 76 to the end of commentary 79. The Cathedral Library of Toledo holds a thirteenth-century manuscript which not only contains Book 8 in its entirety, but also two different Arabic-Latin translations of significant parts of textus and commentum 76. Analysis of these two versions allows important insights into the translator’s work.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1697","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1697,"authors_free":[{"id":1960,"entry_id":1697,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":917,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Horst Schmieja","free_first_name":"Horst","free_last_name":"Schmieja","norm_person":{"id":917,"first_name":"Horst","last_name":"Schmieja","full_name":"Horst Schmieja","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/109279034","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/71959432","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Horst Schmieja"}}],"entry_title":"Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle\u2019s Physica and Averroes\u2019 Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle\u2019s Physica and Averroes\u2019 Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo"},"abstract":"Sixty-two thirteenth and fourteenth-century Latin manuscripts of Averroes\u2019 commentary of Aristotle\u2019s Physics are currently known. Many of these manuscripts have a substantial gap in Book 8, stretching from about the middle of commentary 76 to the end of commentary 79. The Cathedral Library of Toledo holds a thirteenth-century manuscript which not only contains Book 8 in its entirety, but also two different Arabic-Latin translations of significant parts of textus and commentum 76. Analysis of these two versions allows important insights into the translator\u2019s work.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1163\/187783712X634698","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":37,"category_name":"Physics","link":"bib?categories[]=Physics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":917,"full_name":"Horst Schmieja","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1697,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens","volume":"40","issue":"1","pages":"149\u2013167"}},"sort":[2012]}

Questions of Methodology in Aristotle’s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective, 2012
By: Ahuva Gaziel
Title Questions of Methodology in Aristotle’s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective
Type Article
Language English
Date 2012
Journal Journal of the History of Biology
Volume 45
Issue 2
Pages 329–352
Categories Aristotle, Tradition and Reception, Commentary, Gersonides
Author(s) Ahuva Gaziel
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
During the Middle Ages Aristotle’s treatises were accessible to intellectuals via translations and commentaries. Among his works on natural philosophy, the zoological books received relatively little scholarly attention, though several medieval commentators carefully studied Aristotle’s investigations of the animal kingdom. Averroes completed in 1169 a commentary on an Arabic translation of Aristotle’s Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. In 1323 Gersonides completed his supercommentary on a Hebrew translation of Averroes’ commentary. This article examines how these two medieval commentators interpret the first book of Aristotle’s Parts of Animals, at the center of which stand methodological questions regarding the study of animals. Aristotle’s discussion of classification is presented by Averroes and Gersonides in light of an epistemological debate concerning the requisite method for scientific inquiries and discoveries. Sense perception is contrasted with rational reasoning, and ultimately a combined method is proposed, sense perception maintaining supremacy. These commentators outline a clear link between the systematic arrangement of animal species as offered by Aristotle, and his subsequent logical demonstrations which, according to them, form the core of biological investigations.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5313,"authors_free":[{"id":6144,"entry_id":5313,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ahuva Gaziel","free_first_name":"Ahuva","free_last_name":"Gaziel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Questions of Methodology in Aristotle\u2019s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Questions of Methodology in Aristotle\u2019s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective"},"abstract":"During the Middle Ages Aristotle\u2019s treatises were accessible to intellectuals via translations and commentaries. Among his works on natural philosophy, the zoological books received relatively little scholarly attention, though several medieval commentators carefully studied Aristotle\u2019s investigations of the animal kingdom. Averroes completed in 1169 a commentary on an Arabic translation of Aristotle\u2019s Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. In 1323 Gersonides completed his supercommentary on a Hebrew translation of Averroes\u2019 commentary. This article examines how these two medieval commentators interpret the first book of Aristotle\u2019s Parts of Animals, at the center of which stand methodological questions regarding the study of animals. Aristotle\u2019s discussion of classification is presented by Averroes and Gersonides in light of an epistemological debate concerning the requisite method for scientific inquiries and discoveries. Sense perception is contrasted with rational reasoning, and ultimately a combined method is proposed, sense perception maintaining supremacy. These commentators outline a clear link between the systematic arrangement of animal species as offered by Aristotle, and his subsequent logical demonstrations which, according to them, form the core of biological investigations.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10739-011-9284-6","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":62,"category_name":"Gersonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Gersonides"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Biology","volume":"45","issue":"2 ","pages":"329\u2013352"}},"sort":[2012]}

Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averroès à Phys. I, 1, 2009
By: Cristina Cerami
Title Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averroès à Phys. I, 1
Type Article
Language French
Date 2009
Journal Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume 19
Issue 2
Pages 189–223
Categories Thomas, Commentary, Physics, Tradition and Reception
Author(s) Cristina Cerami
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
The present article aims to provide a reconstruction of the interpretation offered by Thomas Aquinas of the cognitive process described at the beginning of Aristotle's Physics and of his criticism of Averroes' interpretation. It expounds to this end the exegesis of ancient Greek commentators who opened the debate on this question; then, it puts forward a reconstruction of Aquinas' doctrine by means of other texts of his corpus, as well as an explanation of his criticism of Averroes' exegesis; it finally reconstructs Averroes' interpretation worked out in his Great Commentary to Phys. I, 1, in order to show that Aquinas' disapproval is partly due to an incorrect interpretation of Averroes' divisio textus of Phys. I, 1. It suggests as well that, concerning some fundamental points, Aquinas' exegesis doesn't diverge from the interpretation proposed by Averroes.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":1574,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cristina Cerami","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"Cerami","norm_person":{"id":1285,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"Cerami","full_name":"Cristina Cerami","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139713840","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/317111513","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Cristina Cerami"}}],"entry_title":"Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s \u00e0 Phys. I, 1","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s \u00e0 Phys. I, 1"},"abstract":"The present article aims to provide a reconstruction of the interpretation offered by Thomas Aquinas of the cognitive process described at the beginning of Aristotle's Physics and of his criticism of Averroes' interpretation. It expounds to this end the exegesis of ancient Greek commentators who opened the debate on this question; then, it puts forward a reconstruction of Aquinas' doctrine by means of other texts of his corpus, as well as an explanation of his criticism of Averroes' exegesis; it finally reconstructs Averroes' interpretation worked out in his Great Commentary to Phys. I, 1, in order to show that Aquinas' disapproval is partly due to an incorrect interpretation of Averroes' divisio textus of Phys. I, 1. It suggests as well that, concerning some fundamental points, Aquinas' exegesis doesn't diverge from the interpretation proposed by Averroes.","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":37,"category_name":"Physics","link":"bib?categories[]=Physics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1285,"full_name":"Cristina Cerami","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1382,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"19","issue":"2","pages":"189\u2013223"}},"sort":[2009]}

Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle’s Physica and Averroes’ Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo, 2012
By: Horst Schmieja
Title Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle’s Physica and Averroes’ Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo
Type Article
Language English
Date 2012
Journal Oriens
Volume 40
Issue 1
Pages 149–167
Categories Physics, Commentary, Tradition and Reception
Author(s) Horst Schmieja
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Sixty-two thirteenth and fourteenth-century Latin manuscripts of Averroes’ commentary of Aristotle’s Physics are currently known. Many of these manuscripts have a substantial gap in Book 8, stretching from about the middle of commentary 76 to the end of commentary 79. The Cathedral Library of Toledo holds a thirteenth-century manuscript which not only contains Book 8 in its entirety, but also two different Arabic-Latin translations of significant parts of textus and commentum 76. Analysis of these two versions allows important insights into the translator’s work.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1697","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1697,"authors_free":[{"id":1960,"entry_id":1697,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":917,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Horst Schmieja","free_first_name":"Horst","free_last_name":"Schmieja","norm_person":{"id":917,"first_name":"Horst","last_name":"Schmieja","full_name":"Horst Schmieja","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/109279034","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/71959432","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Horst Schmieja"}}],"entry_title":"Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle\u2019s Physica and Averroes\u2019 Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle\u2019s Physica and Averroes\u2019 Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo"},"abstract":"Sixty-two thirteenth and fourteenth-century Latin manuscripts of Averroes\u2019 commentary of Aristotle\u2019s Physics are currently known. Many of these manuscripts have a substantial gap in Book 8, stretching from about the middle of commentary 76 to the end of commentary 79. The Cathedral Library of Toledo holds a thirteenth-century manuscript which not only contains Book 8 in its entirety, but also two different Arabic-Latin translations of significant parts of textus and commentum 76. Analysis of these two versions allows important insights into the translator\u2019s work.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":" https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1163\/187783712X634698","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":37,"category_name":"Physics","link":"bib?categories[]=Physics"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":917,"full_name":"Horst Schmieja","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1697,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Oriens","volume":"40","issue":"1","pages":"149\u2013167"}},"sort":["Arabic-Latin Reception of Aristotle\u2019s Physica and Averroes\u2019 Commentarium magnum. Two Versions in a Manuscript from Toledo"]}

Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics, 2022
By: Esti Eisenmann
Title Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics
Type Article
Language French
Date 2022
Journal Revue des Études Juives
Volume 181
Issue 1-2
Pages 185–222
Categories Tradition and Reception, Gersonides, Commentary, Method
Author(s) Esti Eisenmann
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
The article analyzes Gersonides (1288-1344) as a commentator, through the lens of his supercommentary on Averroes’s Epitome of Aristotle’s Physics. In the first section of the article, we question the assumption that this work is indeed a supercommentary and explain why it may nevertheless be included in the genre. In the second section, the article provides examples of Gersonides’ exegetical procedure. Given that the supercommentary on the Epitome of the Physics was the first supercommentary Gersonides wrote, the analysis of Gersonides’ methods sheds light on his image as an exegete and can help us determine his objective in commenting on this text and the readership he envisaged. He seems to be adressing readers who were taking their first steps in Aristotle’s works on nature and to have endeavored to guide them in this field.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5386","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5386,"authors_free":[{"id":6238,"entry_id":5386,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Esti Eisenmann","free_first_name":"Esti","free_last_name":"Eisenmann","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics"},"abstract":"The article analyzes Gersonides (1288-1344) as a commentator, through the lens of his supercommentary on Averroes\u2019s Epitome of Aristotle\u2019s Physics. In the first section of the article, we question the assumption that this work is indeed a supercommentary and explain why it may nevertheless be included in the genre. In the second section, the article provides examples of Gersonides\u2019 exegetical procedure. Given that the supercommentary on the Epitome of the Physics was the first supercommentary Gersonides wrote, the analysis of Gersonides\u2019 methods sheds light on his image as an exegete and can help us determine his objective in commenting on this text and the readership he envisaged. He seems to be adressing readers who were taking their first steps in Aristotle\u2019s works on nature and to have endeavored to guide them in this field.","btype":3,"date":"2022","language":"French","online_url":"","doi_url":"10.2143\/REJ.181.1.3290628","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":62,"category_name":"Gersonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Gersonides"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":72,"category_name":"Method","link":"bib?categories[]=Method"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5386,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Revue des \u00c9tudes Juives","volume":"181","issue":"1-2","pages":"185\u2013222"}},"sort":["Gersonides as Commentator in the Light of his Supercommentary on Averroes's Epitome of the Physics"]}

La position de Zabarella vis-à-vis d’Averroès dans son Commentaire sur le De anima, 2021
By: Jules Janssens
Title La position de Zabarella vis-à-vis d’Averroès dans son Commentaire sur le De anima
Type Article
Language French
Date 2021
Journal Mélanges de l’Université Saint-Joseph
Volume 68
Pages 105–135
Categories Renaissance, Tradition and Reception, Commentary, De anima
Author(s) Jules Janssens
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
Dans son commentaire sur le De anima d’Aristote Zabarella fait un usage non négligeable du Grand Commentaire sur le même ouvrage d’Averroès, le grand penseur andalou. On a pris l’habitude de considérer que Zabarella n’a pas pu finaliser son commentaire, étant donné qu’il fut publié à titre posthume. Il s’agirait donc d’un ouvrage incomplet. Toutefois, si on tient compte du fait que Zabarella s’intéresse avant tout, voire presque exclusivement, à l’étude de l’âme humaine, tout indique qu’il a consciemment choisi de ne pas commenter certains chapitres de l’ouvrage du Stagirite. Quant à l’impact d’Averroès sur la doctrine de l’âme exposée par Zabarella, elle a été diversement évaluée dans la recherche contemporaine, mais dans l’ensemble on y perçoit une attitude fortement critique du dernier envers le premier. Il est nécessaire de nuancer ce jugement. En effet, sur la base de trois fragments, répartis sur les trois livres, la présente recherche met en lumière qu’Averroès est considéré par Zabarella comme une vraie autorité, « auctoritas » ; que Zabarella souscrit parfois pleinement à l’interprétation du maître arabe ; et, enfin, que Zabarella explique certaines explications « erronées » de ce dernier comme l’effet inévitable de la traduction fautive du texte aristotélicien dont Averroès disposait. En somme, l’attitude de Zabarella vis-à-vis d’Averroès s’avère complexe, évitant aussi bien l’excès d’un rejet total que celui d’une acceptation aveugle.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5051","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5051,"authors_free":[{"id":5801,"entry_id":5051,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":655,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Jules Janssens","free_first_name":"Jules","free_last_name":"Janssens","norm_person":{"id":655,"first_name":"Jules","last_name":"Janssens","full_name":"Jules Janssens","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139312471","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/81614","db_url":"https:\/\/www.deutsche-biographie.de\/pnd139312471.html","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Jules Janssens"}}],"entry_title":"La position de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s dans son Commentaire sur le De anima","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"La position de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s dans son Commentaire sur le De anima"},"abstract":"Dans son commentaire sur le De anima d\u2019Aristote Zabarella fait un usage non n\u00e9gligeable du Grand Commentaire sur le m\u00eame ouvrage d\u2019Averro\u00e8s, le grand penseur andalou. On a pris l\u2019habitude de consid\u00e9rer que Zabarella n\u2019a pas pu finaliser son commentaire, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 qu\u2019il fut publi\u00e9 \u00e0 titre posthume. Il s\u2019agirait donc d\u2019un ouvrage incomplet. Toutefois, si on tient compte du fait que Zabarella s\u2019int\u00e9resse avant tout, voire presque exclusivement, \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9tude de l\u2019\u00e2me humaine, tout indique qu\u2019il a consciemment choisi de ne pas commenter certains chapitres de l\u2019ouvrage du Stagirite. Quant \u00e0 l\u2019impact d\u2019Averro\u00e8s sur la doctrine de l\u2019\u00e2me expos\u00e9e par Zabarella, elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 diversement \u00e9valu\u00e9e dans la recherche contemporaine, mais dans l\u2019ensemble on y per\u00e7oit une attitude fortement critique du dernier envers le premier. Il est n\u00e9cessaire de nuancer ce jugement. En effet, sur la base de trois fragments, r\u00e9partis sur les trois livres, la pr\u00e9sente recherche met en lumi\u00e8re qu\u2019Averro\u00e8s est consid\u00e9r\u00e9 par Zabarella comme une vraie autorit\u00e9, \u00ab auctoritas \u00bb ; que Zabarella souscrit parfois pleinement \u00e0 l\u2019interpr\u00e9tation du ma\u00eetre arabe ; et, enfin, que Zabarella explique certaines explications \u00ab erron\u00e9es \u00bb de ce dernier comme l\u2019effet in\u00e9vitable de la traduction fautive du texte aristot\u00e9licien dont Averro\u00e8s disposait. En somme, l\u2019attitude de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s s\u2019av\u00e8re complexe, \u00e9vitant aussi bien l\u2019exc\u00e8s d\u2019un rejet total que celui d\u2019une acceptation aveugle.","btype":3,"date":"2021","language":"French","online_url":"https:\/\/journals.usj.edu.lb\/melanges\/article\/view\/545","doi_url":"","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":5,"category_name":"Renaissance","link":"bib?categories[]=Renaissance"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":46,"category_name":"De anima","link":"bib?categories[]=De anima"}],"authors":[{"id":655,"full_name":"Jules Janssens","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5051,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"M\u00e9langes de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 Saint-Joseph","volume":"68","issue":"","pages":"105\u2013135"}},"sort":["La position de Zabarella vis-\u00e0-vis d\u2019Averro\u00e8s dans son Commentaire sur le De anima"]}

Questions of Methodology in Aristotle’s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective, 2012
By: Ahuva Gaziel
Title Questions of Methodology in Aristotle’s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective
Type Article
Language English
Date 2012
Journal Journal of the History of Biology
Volume 45
Issue 2
Pages 329–352
Categories Aristotle, Tradition and Reception, Commentary, Gersonides
Author(s) Ahuva Gaziel
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
During the Middle Ages Aristotle’s treatises were accessible to intellectuals via translations and commentaries. Among his works on natural philosophy, the zoological books received relatively little scholarly attention, though several medieval commentators carefully studied Aristotle’s investigations of the animal kingdom. Averroes completed in 1169 a commentary on an Arabic translation of Aristotle’s Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. In 1323 Gersonides completed his supercommentary on a Hebrew translation of Averroes’ commentary. This article examines how these two medieval commentators interpret the first book of Aristotle’s Parts of Animals, at the center of which stand methodological questions regarding the study of animals. Aristotle’s discussion of classification is presented by Averroes and Gersonides in light of an epistemological debate concerning the requisite method for scientific inquiries and discoveries. Sense perception is contrasted with rational reasoning, and ultimately a combined method is proposed, sense perception maintaining supremacy. These commentators outline a clear link between the systematic arrangement of animal species as offered by Aristotle, and his subsequent logical demonstrations which, according to them, form the core of biological investigations.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"5313","_score":null,"_source":{"id":5313,"authors_free":[{"id":6144,"entry_id":5313,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":null,"person_id":null,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Ahuva Gaziel","free_first_name":"Ahuva","free_last_name":"Gaziel","norm_person":null}],"entry_title":"Questions of Methodology in Aristotle\u2019s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective","title_transcript":"","title_translation":"","main_title":{"title":"Questions of Methodology in Aristotle\u2019s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective"},"abstract":"During the Middle Ages Aristotle\u2019s treatises were accessible to intellectuals via translations and commentaries. Among his works on natural philosophy, the zoological books received relatively little scholarly attention, though several medieval commentators carefully studied Aristotle\u2019s investigations of the animal kingdom. Averroes completed in 1169 a commentary on an Arabic translation of Aristotle\u2019s Parts of Animals and Generation of Animals. In 1323 Gersonides completed his supercommentary on a Hebrew translation of Averroes\u2019 commentary. This article examines how these two medieval commentators interpret the first book of Aristotle\u2019s Parts of Animals, at the center of which stand methodological questions regarding the study of animals. Aristotle\u2019s discussion of classification is presented by Averroes and Gersonides in light of an epistemological debate concerning the requisite method for scientific inquiries and discoveries. Sense perception is contrasted with rational reasoning, and ultimately a combined method is proposed, sense perception maintaining supremacy. These commentators outline a clear link between the systematic arrangement of animal species as offered by Aristotle, and his subsequent logical demonstrations which, according to them, form the core of biological investigations.","btype":3,"date":"2012","language":"English","online_url":"","doi_url":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/s10739-011-9284-6","ti_url":"","categories":[{"id":21,"category_name":"Aristotle","link":"bib?categories[]=Aristotle"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":62,"category_name":"Gersonides","link":"bib?categories[]=Gersonides"}],"authors":[],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":5313,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Journal of the History of Biology","volume":"45","issue":"2 ","pages":"329\u2013352"}},"sort":["Questions of Methodology in Aristotle\u2019s Zoology: A Medieval Perspective"]}

Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averroès à Phys. I, 1, 2009
By: Cristina Cerami
Title Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averroès à Phys. I, 1
Type Article
Language French
Date 2009
Journal Arabic Sciences and Philosophy
Volume 19
Issue 2
Pages 189–223
Categories Thomas, Commentary, Physics, Tradition and Reception
Author(s) Cristina Cerami
Publisher(s)
Translator(s)
The present article aims to provide a reconstruction of the interpretation offered by Thomas Aquinas of the cognitive process described at the beginning of Aristotle's Physics and of his criticism of Averroes' interpretation. It expounds to this end the exegesis of ancient Greek commentators who opened the debate on this question; then, it puts forward a reconstruction of Aquinas' doctrine by means of other texts of his corpus, as well as an explanation of his criticism of Averroes' exegesis; it finally reconstructs Averroes' interpretation worked out in his Great Commentary to Phys. I, 1, in order to show that Aquinas' disapproval is partly due to an incorrect interpretation of Averroes' divisio textus of Phys. I, 1. It suggests as well that, concerning some fundamental points, Aquinas' exegesis doesn't diverge from the interpretation proposed by Averroes.

{"_index":"bib","_type":"_doc","_id":"1382","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1382,"authors_free":[{"id":1574,"entry_id":1382,"agent_type":"person","is_normalised":1,"person_id":1285,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Cristina Cerami","free_first_name":"Cristina","free_last_name":"Cerami","norm_person":{"id":1285,"first_name":"Cristina","last_name":"Cerami","full_name":"Cristina Cerami","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":0,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/139713840","viaf_url":"https:\/\/viaf.org\/viaf\/317111513","db_url":"","from_claudius":1,"link":"bib?authors[]=Cristina Cerami"}}],"entry_title":"Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s \u00e0 Phys. I, 1","title_transcript":null,"title_translation":null,"main_title":{"title":"Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s \u00e0 Phys. I, 1"},"abstract":"The present article aims to provide a reconstruction of the interpretation offered by Thomas Aquinas of the cognitive process described at the beginning of Aristotle's Physics and of his criticism of Averroes' interpretation. It expounds to this end the exegesis of ancient Greek commentators who opened the debate on this question; then, it puts forward a reconstruction of Aquinas' doctrine by means of other texts of his corpus, as well as an explanation of his criticism of Averroes' exegesis; it finally reconstructs Averroes' interpretation worked out in his Great Commentary to Phys. I, 1, in order to show that Aquinas' disapproval is partly due to an incorrect interpretation of Averroes' divisio textus of Phys. I, 1. It suggests as well that, concerning some fundamental points, Aquinas' exegesis doesn't diverge from the interpretation proposed by Averroes.","btype":3,"date":"2009","language":"French","online_url":null,"doi_url":null,"ti_url":null,"categories":[{"id":51,"category_name":"Thomas","link":"bib?categories[]=Thomas"},{"id":23,"category_name":"Commentary","link":"bib?categories[]=Commentary"},{"id":37,"category_name":"Physics","link":"bib?categories[]=Physics"},{"id":43,"category_name":"Tradition and Reception","link":"bib?categories[]=Tradition and Reception"}],"authors":[{"id":1285,"full_name":"Cristina Cerami","role":1}],"works":[],"republication_of":null,"translation_of":null,"new_edition_of":null,"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1382,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Arabic Sciences and Philosophy","volume":"19","issue":"2","pages":"189\u2013223"}},"sort":["Thomas d'Aquin lecteur critique du Grand Commentaire d'Averro\u00e8s \u00e0 Phys. I, 1"]}

  • PAGE 1 OF 1