{"_index":"sire","_id":"1013","_score":null,"_source":{"id":1013,"authors_free":[{"id":1529,"entry_id":1013,"agent_type":null,"is_normalised":null,"person_id":32,"institution_id":null,"role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"},"free_name":"Allan, Donald J.","free_first_name":"Donald J.","free_last_name":"Allan","norm_person":{"id":32,"first_name":"Donald J.","last_name":"Allan","full_name":"Allan, Donald J.","short_ident":"","is_classical_name":null,"dnb_url":"http:\/\/d-nb.info\/gnd\/1158470029","viaf_url":"","db_url":"","from_claudius":null}}],"entry_title":"Mediaeval Versions of Aristotle, De Caelo, and of the Commentary of Simplicius","main_title":{"title":"Mediaeval Versions of Aristotle, De Caelo, and of the Commentary of Simplicius"},"abstract":"The main problem with which we shall be concerned is the authorship of the versions of De Caelo from the Greek that appeared during the thirteenth century. But it will be best to begin with a recapitulation of the facts ascertained by previous writers concerning the Arabic-Latin versions in which this treatise first became known in the lands of Western Europe.\r\nUntil the middle of the thirteenth century, the work was commonly known and quoted in one of two versions:\r\n1.\tA version of the text alone, beginning: Summa cognicionis nature et scientie ipsam demonstrantis. Its author, as we know from manuscript authority, was Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187).\r\n2.\tA version accompanying the commentary of Averroes, beginning: Maxima cognicio nature et scientia demonstrans ipsam. The translator, Michael Scot, dedicated his work to Stephanus de Pruvino, who, along with two others, was commissioned by Gregory IX in 1231 to examine Aristotle\u2019s writings on natural philosophy and to report on their contents.\r\nMoreover, Avicenna had compiled a summary of the doctrine of this treatise, arranged under sixteen headings, which had been translated into Latin even before Gerard\u2019s version appeared. It bears the title: Collectiones expositionum ab antiquis Graecis in libro Aristotelis qui dicitur liber caeli et mundi. Expositiones istae in sedecim continentur capitulis. Among the manuscripts of this work (which are, however, very numerous) are: Oxford, Balliol College 173A and 284; Bodleian, Selden supra 24; Paris, B.N. Lat. 16604\u2014all from the thirteenth century. A much-emended text can be found in the edition of Avicenna\u2019s scientific writings printed in Venice in 1308. This is not the place to discuss the origin of Avicenna\u2019s summary or its influence on scholastic philosophy; however, it may be said that the translation, like those of similar works of Avicenna, must have been due to the Toledo scholars, such as Gundisalvi and John Avendehut (c. 1150). The summary clearly foregrounds the Aristotelian doctrine of the eternity of the physical world, which naturally calls to mind the decree issued to the University of Paris in 1215: Non legantur libri Aristotelis de metaphysica et naturali philosophia, nec summa de iisdem. According to Roger Bacon, the attack was directed against the expositions by Avicenna and Averroes.\r\nIn the latter half of the thirteenth century, a translation from the Greek makes its appearance. No exact date can be given, but several indications point to the decade 1260\u20131270. Jourdain observed that De Caelo is quoted by Albertus Magnus only in the Arabic versions, and Grabmann has pointed out that Codex Urbinas Latinus 206, written in 1253, contains De Caelo and the first three books of the Meteorologica in Arabic versions, while Physics and De Generatione occur in versions from the Greek. The first author to quote the text in this new translation is, as far as is known, Roger Bacon in the Opus Majus (1266\u20131267). Finally, it is known from Balliol College MS. 99 that the version of Simplicius\u2019 commentary by William of Moerbeke was completed in 1271. This must have been accompanied by a translation of at least the Aristotelian passages quoted as \u201clemmata.\u201d\r\nAn attempt has been made to show that a version from the Greek was already current in the twelfth century. Haskins quotes the following passage from the preface to the version of the Almagest, completed around 1160 by a Sicilian translator: Tut ergo boni muneris memor, quo earum quas Aristoteles acrivellatas vocat artium doctrina\u2014animum sitientem liberaliter imbuit... etc. He sees in this a reference to De Caelo III 306b27, where, in the course of a criticism of the Timaeus, Aristotle says:\r\n\u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03ac\u03b3\u03ba\u03b7 \u03bc\u1f74 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03bd \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03bb\u03ad\u03b3\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03b5\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03b5\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2.\r\nHowever, at least two other passages must be borne in mind:\r\n1.\tMetaphysics 982a25:\r\n\u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03ad\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b1\u1f31 \u03bc\u03ac\u03bb\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\r\n2.\tNicomachean Ethics I 1141a16:\r\n\u1f65\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5 \u03b4\u1fc6\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03c3\u03c4\u03ac\u03c4\u03b7 \u1f02\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03b7 \u1f21 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1.\r\nIn neither of these passages do the earliest translators transliterate the Greek word, and it is possible that the writer of the preface is not quoting a current translation but referring to the Greek original. It seems improbable that the De Caelo passage should be the one he had in mind, as it is not part of an explicit discussion of scientific method, and the reference to mathematics is purely incidental. Much stronger evidence would be needed to justify the supposition of an otherwise unknown translation.\r\nThe commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on this treatise was certainly composed between 1271 and 1274. He uses throughout the version of Simplicius\u2019 commentary that William of Moerbeke completed on June 15, 1271. Balliol College MS. 99 ends with the note: Ego autem frater Guylermus de Morbeka de ordine fratrum predicatorum, domini papae penitenciarius et capellanus, hoc cum magno corporis labore et multo mentis tedio latinitati offero, putans in hoc translationis opere me plura Latinorum studiis addidisse. Expleta autem fuit haec translacio Viterbii A.D. MCCLXXI XVII Kal. Iulii post mortem bonae memoriae Clementis papae quarti, apostolica sede vacante. When St. Thomas died in March 1274, he had only completed his commentary as far as Book III, chapter 3. His manuscript of Simplicius may have temporarily passed into the possession of Peter of Auvergne, who was entrusted with completing the commentary. However, St. Thomas had apparently promised the manuscript to the Faculty of Arts in Paris. A. Birkenmajer, in Vermischte Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie, called attention to a letter addressed by the Faculty to the General Chapter of the Dominican Order, then meeting in Lyons, in which they asked for the dispatch of certain manuscripts, including Simplicius on De Caelo, in accordance with this promise. [introduction p. 82-85]","btype":3,"date":"1950","language":"English","online_url":"","online_resources":"https:\/\/uni-koeln.sciebo.de\/s\/yBMjK2X5ugL3938","doi_url":null,"categories":[],"authors":[{"id":32,"full_name":"Allan, Donald J.","role":{"id":1,"role_name":"author"}}],"book":null,"booksection":null,"article":{"id":1013,"journal_id":null,"journal_name":"Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies","volume":"2","issue":"","pages":"82\u2013120"}},"sort":["Mediaeval Versions of Aristotle, De Caelo, and of the Commentary of Simplicius"]}