Il Commento medio di Averroè alla Metafisica di Aristotele nella tradizione ebraica: Edizione delle versioni ebraiche medievali di Zera yah en e di Qalonymos ben Qalonymos con introduzione storica e filologica (Averroes' Middle Commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics in the Hebrew tradition: Edition of the Medieval Hebrew versions by Zera yah en and Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, together with a historical and philological introduction) (review) Yehuda Halper Philosophy East and West, Volume 63, Number 1, January 2013, pp. 96-99 (Article) Published by University of Hawai'i Press DOI: 10.1353/pew.2013.0011 For additional information about this article http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/pew/summary/v063/63.1.halper.html Access provided by National Taiwan University (17 Jul 2013 03:16 GMT)
Il Commento medio di Averroè alla Metafisica di Aristotele nella tradizione ebraica: Edizione delle versioni ebraiche medievali di Zeraḥyah Ḥen e di Qalonymos ben Qalonymos con introduzione storica e filologica (Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics in the Hebrew tradition: Edition of the Medieval Hebrew versions by Zeraḥyah Ḥen and Qalonymos ben Qalonymos, together with a historical and philological introduction). By Mauro Zonta. Pavia: Pavia University Press, 2011. 2 volumes (= 1 volume and 2 tomes). Pp. 150 + iv + 706. 22,00, isbn 978-88- 96764-14-5 (vol. 1). 68,00, isbn 978-88-96764-15-2 (vol. 2). Reviewed by Yehuda Halper Tulane University yhalper@tulane.edu Mauro Zonta s long awaited work Il Commento medio di Averroè alla Metafisica di Aristotele nella tradizione ebraica is really three books in one: a historical and philological account of the two medieval Hebrew translations of Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics and editions of both translations. The Arabic of Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics is not extant apart from a few fragments (see vol. 1, pp. 13 5). Nor is there a direct Latin translation of the Arabic indeed, Zonta states that there is no evidence of reliable citations of the work by any Latin authors (vol. 1, p. 18). Zonta s book, then, presents the only way of accessing Averroes monumental work in its entirety. Zonta presents this work as a revised and up-to-date version of his 1995 doctoral dissertation, 1 but it is far more than that. In the intervening fifteen and a half years, Zonta has been extraordinarily prolific: he has now published more than ninety scientific articles and ten books (vol. 1, p. 150), many of which concern topics he discusses in his introductory volume. Indeed, one of the main advantages of this introduction is that it gives us the most up-to-date version of Zonta s research on each topic. It collects important points made in numerous articles and books, not all of which are readily available, into a single place. This is perhaps most evident in his discussion of the topic that will likely be of greatest interest to his readers: the revisions of the Middle Commentary. Zonta has discussed these revisions in at least five different works published over the course of some years. 2 In the present book, he sums up all his discoveries. Through careful comparison of discrepancies in the Hebrew manuscripts of the Middle Commentary, particularly places where sections of the Metaphysics have been commented upon twice, Zonta elegantly restates and bolsters his argument that Averroes himself revised the Middle Commentary, entirely rewriting two sections: Book Δ, chapter 29, and a section of Book Z corresponding to 1045a7 1045b23 (see vol. 1, pp. 27, 40, 55 58). This is based on evidence of revisions in one of the Hebrew translations, namely that of Qalonimos ben Qalonimos, presumably made after encountering Averroes revised text either in a new Arabic manuscript or perhaps in the other Hebrew translation by Zeraḥyah Ḥen, made at least thirty years before (see 1 : 23 31). Qalonimos translation was apparently revised at least two more times, probably by entirely different writers (see 1 : 58 64). Unfortunately, Zonta does not tell us much about the philosophical content or importance of these revisions, and we are left to wonder whether they are of any significance beyond textual history. 96 Philosophy East & West Volume 63, Number 1 January 2013 96 99 2013 by University of Hawai i Press
Indeed, Zonta s introduction holds almost no philosophical content, but focuses entirely on establishing the details of the transmission of the text from Arabic into Hebrew. To this end, Zonta gives us meticulous descriptions of the two Hebrew translators and of Yehudah ben Shelomoh ha-kohen and Shem Ṭob Falaquera, whose encyclopedic works contained their own translations and summaries of sections of Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics. Yet, except for Falaquera, whose interest in Metaphysics Λ is mentioned, we do not learn of any special interest in metaphysics by any of these writers, or even by any of their readers. Rather, it seems that the metaphysical treatises were translated for the sake of having a complete canon of Aristotelian philosophical works. Both Zeraḥyah and Qalonimos worked with extreme haste, while at the same time translating numerous other of Averroes commentaries on Aristotle. The result was two nearly complete, but imperfectly translated collections of Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics. Moreover, Zeraḥyah s translation, though very literal, was probably based on a faulty Arabic manuscript. Zonta thinks it likely that Zeraḥyah s difficult style and language were responsible for the relative paucity of quotes from his translation (1 : 21 22). It was apparently Qalonimos haste that necessitated so many later revisions and corrections of his work (1 : 23 31). An entire chapter (chapter 5) is dedicated to Zeraḥyah s peculiar translation style. Zeraḥyah was removed, either geographically or by choice, from the mainstream Tibbonite translation style that dominated medieval Hebrew philosophical texts. Thus, Zeraḥyah to a large extent developed his own vocabulary. Additionally, he often tended to transcribe Arabic technical terms in Hebrew letters rather than use Hebrew equivalents and to add linguistic glosses, often at the margins of the page, explaining his choice of terms with reference to Arabic and Latin. However, he acknowledges his own terminological inconsistency and relies on the cleverness of the reader to sort things out. Zeraḥyah also apparently prefers to follow Arabic grammatical conventions for singular, plural, masculine, and feminine nouns and verbs, without regard to their proper use in Hebrew. The resulting Hebrew is indeed quite peculiar. In an appendix to the introduction, Zonta gives us a modern Italian translation of both Hebrew translations of Books I and II of the Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics. This translation is prefaced with a very accessible short discussion of the theory of literal translations (1 : 77 79). Zonta describes how medieval translators adhered to a religious view of textual authority causing them to render the texts word for word, even while recognizing that the resulting texts were consequently unreadable on their own. Without direct contact with Arabic as a living language, the translators created a kind of Hebrew code that would be used only for philosophical texts. As for his own Italian translation, Zonta notes that a literal word-for-word rendering of the Middle Commentary would be faithful to the Hebrew translation insofar as it, too, would be almost unreadable. Zonta, nevertheless, tells us that he has decided to give a less-literal translation, resembling a paraphrase, that will be readable while highlighting the difficulties inherent in translating a text whose original has been lost. Zonta cautions that this translation is provisional and that he has not been able to make a proper comparison of all passages with critical editions of both Hebrew Book Reviews 97
translations, the Arabic and Greek texts of the Metaphysics, other Arabic commentaries of Averroes, and other sources that may quote the Middle Commentary on the Metaphysics. Nevertheless, the translation that follows is remarkably well done. The notes are extensive and enormously helpful, particularly in their explanations of terminology. In these notes Zonta masterfully traces the history of a large number of terms that appear in the first two books of the Middle Commentary through Hebrew and Arabic, frequently mentioning and explaining the Greek and Latin equivalents. Zonta also directs us to the most important academic studies of the various terms. There is much to be studied here and we hope Zonta will be able to continue this project to produce a complete translation of the Middle Commentary with extensive philological notes. The edited Hebrew texts of the two translations, spanning about seven hundred pages, make up the majority of the book. The two translations are printed on facing pages, allowing one to compare them easily. Despite the resulting great length of the book, the constant confrontation between the two texts reminds the reader that both are only translations and imperfect renderings of a lost text. This presentation encourages the reader to engage actively in the philological work of reconstructing the lost text, rather than to be merely a passive reader of one of the translators. The apparatus also aid in this endeavor: not only does Zonta give an apparatus for each of the translations, he gives what he calls an external apparatus : one that records discrepancies between the two translations that are likely to have arisen either from different Arabic manuscripts or different interpretations of an Arabic passage (see 1 : 74). The edition of Zeraḥyah s text is a complete critical edition, primarily based on a manuscript (Cambridge University Library, Additional 173) genealogically close to a Hebrew manuscript autographed by Zeraḥyah himself that was almost completely destroyed in a 1904 fire in Turin s National University Library (Biblioteca Nazionale Universitaria di Torino A.II.13) (1 : 45 8, 73). Where Zonta feels the Cambridge manuscript to be in error, he corrects it against the remains of the Turin manuscript, where possible, and three other manuscripts, 3 though the apparatus records only the readings of the Cambridge and Turin manuscripts. The edition of Qalonimos translation, however, is a provisional edition, reconstructed on the basis of two manuscripts 4 (though a third 5 is used for Book VI, where the other manuscripts contain significant lacunae), and Zonta repeatedly cautions against using the text he prints here for anything other than comparing it with the text of Zeraḥyah s translation (1 : 53 55, 74 75). Nevertheless, Zonta promises us that he will bring out a complete edition of Qalonimos translation in the Averroes Hebraicus series of the Israel Academy of Sciences and the Humanities. In both editions here, Zonta appears to have chosen well, and the readings he presents are as readable as possible. The book is, in general, beautifully done and very useful to anyone interested in the transmission of Aristotelian metaphysics or philosophical terminology into medieval Hebrew. It is not clear to me, though, why the second volume, which contains the Hebrew texts, is divided into two tomes ( tomi ), one for Books I VII of the Metaphysics and one for Books VIII XIII. Why not simply break the book up into three volumes? The book uses numerous languages, and for the most part the editor has 98 Philosophy East & West
done a good job presenting them correctly; however, in one place (p. 67), the Hebrew letters are written in reverse order דוסי) for.(יסוד In another place (p. 55), we have what is probably a holdover from an earlier publication: a reference to recently ( recentemente ) published works from 1983 and 1992. Yet these errors are small and do not detract from the value of the book. Zonta s great achievement in this work is his clear, simple presentation of essentially everything that is known about Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics along with both translations of the work. By keeping his own metaphysical speculations out of the work, Zonta allows the reader the freedom to strive to understand Averroes text on terms that are as close as possible to its own. Notes 1 La tradizione ebraica del Commento Medio di Averroè alla Metafisica di Aristotele: Le versioni ebraiche di Zeraḥyah ben Iṣḥaq Ḥen e di Qalonymos ben Qalonymos: Edizione e introduzione storico-filologica (Ph.D. diss., University of Torino, 1995), 2 vols. 2 See Zonta s dissertation. Also see La filosofia antica nel Medioevo ebraica (Brescia: Paideia, 1996; reprint 2002), pp. 238 ff.; Il Commento medio di Averroè alla Metafisica nella tradizione ebraica: alcuni problemi testuali, in C. Baffioni, ed., Averroes and the Aristotelian Heritage (Naples: Guida, 2004), pp. 189 199; A Case of Author s Variant Readings and the Textual History of Averroes Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics, in Jacqueline Hamesse, Ecriture et réécriture des textes philosophiques médiévaux: Volume d hommage offert à Colette Sirat, ed. Olga Weijers and J. Hamesse, Textes et études du Moyen Àge, 34 (Brepols: Turnhout, 2006), pp. 465 483; and The Revisions of Qalonymos ben Qalonymos s Medieval Hebrew Version of Averroes s Middle Commentary on Aristotle s Metaphysics, Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 21 (2010): 457 473. 3 Formerly Jews College Library (London), no. 42; Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (Budapest), Kaufman collection A 284; and National Library of Israel (Jerusalem), ms. 4 1108. 4 Biblioteca Palatina (Parma), parmense 2613, and Bibliotexa Ambrosiana (Milan), D 85 sup. (Bernheimer 73). 5 Harvard University, Houghton Library, hebr. 41. The Lamp of Mysteries: A Commentary on the Light Verse of the Quran. By Ismā īl Anqarawī. Translated and edited by Bilal Kuşpınar. Oxford: Anqa, 2011. Pp. 102 (English) + 39 (Arabic). Paper 13.95, isbn 978-1-905937-42-4. Reviewed by Oliver Leaman University of Kentucky We owe a debt of gratitude to Bilal Kuṣpınar for his pioneering work on Ismā īl Anqarawī, this being the second book he has written on this important seventeenthcentury Ottoman thinker. Anqarawī was very much within the Islamic mystical tradition and incorporated within his thought some interesting aspects of both mashshā ī Philosophy East & West Volume 63, Number 1 January 2013 99 101 99 2013 by University of Hawai i Press