No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Although Averroes is well known as a commentator on Aristotle—the scholastics called him The Commentator—very few scholars have so far taken any notice of his commentary on Plato's famous treatise. This paraphrase, however, deserves a thorough critical study, for a variety of reasons. First, it belongs to the Corpus of Averroes’ philosophical writings, even though—as Averroes states himself in his preface—it be only as a substitute for Aristotle's “Politics” which were not known to Averroes and which were not accessible to the scholastics until 1260. Secondly, it is an interesting example of the treatment of Platonism by Islamic scholars. Then: are the changes and deviations due to Islamictheory and thought, or to Averroes’ own way of adapting the “Politeia” to the Islamic “Empire” ? Was there any Platonic influence on Islam in its political theory and when, how, and where can we trace it ? Is it Plato himself or Plato in the light of Neo-Platonism that Averroes’ more or less inadequate paraphrase gives us ? These questions show that the linguistic task is only a preliminary towards the more importantand interesting question of the position and meaning of this treatise within the history of medieval political theory and of the interrelations between Eastern and Western conception of Man and State.
page 737 note 1 It is mentioned only in Steinschneider, M., Die hebräischen Ueberaetzungen des Mittelalters, und die Juden als Dolmetscher, etc., Berlin, 1893, § 116Google Scholar; and in Renan, E., Averroès et l'averroïsme, Paris, 1925Google Scholar.
page 738 note 1 This epilogue, not belonging to the actual text, is missing in the two Bodleian MSS., the copyists of which may have not been interested in personal matters. As mentioned above, the translator apologizes for having been unable to use the commentaries of Averroes on Aristotle's writings, because of his imprisonment, so that he has not always understood the right meaning of Aristotle's writings which he madeuse of as a means of comparison. He also claims to have examined Alfāraāi's writings. The style and contents of this epilogue are equally interesting. Biblical (especially Isaiah and Job) and Mišnaic quotations are numerous. He concludes with a strong appeal to his readers to listen carefully to what “those two divine kings” (i.e. Plato and Averroes) have to teach them.
page 739 note 1 This MS. is not mentioned in Steinschneider and I happened to notice it in an article on Šemūēl b. Yehūdā, in The Jewish Encyclopedia, vol. ixGoogle Scholar. Inquiries by myself and learned bodies of this country and of Germany at the Biblioteca Ambrosiana were not answered, although the MS. is catalogued in Carlo Bernheimer's recently published Catalogue of the Hebrew MSS. of that Library. I still hope, therefore, to secure access to the MS. before completing the edition.
page 738 note 2 Here I should like to mention with thanks that I started this work under the auspices and active financial support of the “Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft” and the scholarly advice of my former academic teachers, Professors Bergstraesser, Mittwoch, and Brackmann. The study is meant for Medievalists as well and especially those interested in Political Theory. As it cannot be assumed that all interested in the subject understand Rabbinical Hebrew and are able to follow the often difficult text, it was thought necessary to accompany the Hebrew text by an exact translation with notes and explanatory remarks, because the Latin translation—by Jacob Mantino of the year 1539 for Pope Paul III—is often incorrect. By resorting to the Platonic original he sometimes gets a good meaning which is not in accordance with the Hebrew text and probably also not with Averroes' original arguments. When I prepared a “Survey of the most important Islamic Political ideas” for the “Seminar” of Professor Brackmann (Staatsanschauungen im Zeitalter Friedrichs II von Staufen), Dr. Leo Strauss drew my attention to this Latin translation which led me on to Steinschneider, and suggested an edition and interpretation of the Hebrew version.
page 740 note 1 The glossary is intended to follow the plan of the “Corpus Averrois” which is in preparation by the “Medieval Academy of America”. The editor-in-chief of the Hebrew Series, ProfessorWolfson, , Harvard University, has issued his programme in Speculum of 10, 1931Google Scholar. My study will probably be published within this “Corpus”.
page 740 note 2 The Spanish scholar Rodriguez mentions in the introduction to his Averroes Compendio de metafiska, p. xxvi, a MS. of the Arabic original of our Hebrew version. I tried to get information about this MS. through the publishers of Rodriguez' book, but received no reply. Thus, I suppose, the remark is based upon Renan, who mentions in the appendix of his Averroès et l'averroïsme an Arabic MS., part of which is said to cover Averroes' “Paraphrase”.But neither do the catalogues of both Spanish libraries bear out this statement, nor does Bouyges in an article in Mélanges de l'Université de St. Joseph know anything of it. It is out of the question that Steinschneider, who refers to Renan's remark in the paragraph dealing with the Hebrew version, would have failed to find out and describe this MS. in his Arabische Uebersetzungen, etc.
page 742 note 1 Renan, op. cit., refers to this important fact, saying: “en général, cette paraphrase est pleine (!) de détails intéressants pour l'histoire de l'Espagne musulmane” (p. 162, note 3). I am afraid we cannot agree with this eminent authority in his judgment of the “Paraphrase”: “Rien de plus bizarre que de voir prise au sérieux et analysée comme un traité technique cette curieuse fantaisie de l'esprit grec” (p. 160).
page 743 note 1 It would be instructive to trace this question in Muslim political authors. Although the time is not yet ripe for such a task—we urgently need a critical history of Muslim Political Theory—to have this question in the background may be of some help in investigating the political ideas of Muslim philosophers, theologians, jurists, and historians. As a model of method and description Fr. Meinecke's excellent study Die Idee der Staatsraison in der Neueren Geschichte would be of great value, although we are naturally not entitled to apply the standard of modern times to problems of the Middle Ages, especially where Islamis concerned.