Averroes' Middle Commentaries on Aristotle's "Categories" and "De Interpretatione"

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Dec 2000 by Stansbury, R J

Averroes' Middle Commentaries on Aristotle's "Categories" and "De Interpretatione." Translated, with notes and introduction, by Charles E. Butterworth. South Bend: St. Augustine's, 1998, xx 193 pp., $35.00.

Islamic philosopher, lawyer, and physician Ibin Rushd, known to the West as Averroes (1126-1198), is best known for his commentaries on Aristotle's logical works. In the early thirteenth century, these commentaries were translated into Latin and eventually made their way into the intellectual centers of Western Europe. Almost instantly, Averroes became known as "the Commentator" on Aristotle. His commentaries would have profound influence on the subsequent development of Aristotelianism in the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, and the early modern world.

First published in 1983 by Princeton University Press, this book is part of a larger series of projected English translations of Averroes's middle commentaries on Aristotle. The translation is based on a new edition and careful examination of recently discovered Arabic manuscripts. Butterworth offers a helpful preface to the volume in which he discusses the manuscript tradition of the commentaries and the history of Aristotelianism in the West. Each commentary is then preceded by a substantial introduction which compares Averroes's commentary with the original text of Aristotle. The goal of this translation is to provide a coherent and faithful presentation of Averroes's text and thought in modern English prose.

Butterworth argues that these commentaries are valuable for at least two reasons. First, they are important for their "own intrinsic merit as philosophical treatises" (p. ix). Second, and perhaps more important, these works contributed significantly to the re-introduction of Aristotle to the West. Butterworth reminds us that for hundreds of years there were two distinct Aristotelian traditions: the Western tradition-represented best by Boethius-which all but came to an end in the sixth century, and the Eastern tradition-represented in part by Averroes-which offers a more complete legacy from the classical world, through the schools of Alexandria and Baghdad, to North Africa and Spain. Students interested in Aristotle can now study the similarities and differences between these two interpretative traditions by comparing Boethius's commentaries with those by Averroes.

Averroes's commentaries were also indirectly important for the development of Western theology. Averroes was a rationalist par excellence. Aristotelian philosophy offered him a world-view that could stand alone, apart from theology. As one might expect, this view brought him into conflict with his conservative Muslim contemporaries. Western scholastics who adopted Averroes's rationalism (called Latin Averroists) ignited a controversy in the thirteenth century over the relationship between reason and faith, science and religion, Aristotle and Augustine. Of particular importance and concern for Christian theologians were Aristotle's views regarding the eternality of the material world and the mortality of the soul. The Parisian scholastics who first adopted these views found themselves facing sharp criticism and even censure from the Church. It would be up to the Dominican theologian, Thomas Aquinas, to answer the Averroists and show how Aristotle could be successfully united to Christian theology. Aquinas eventually won this debate; but in the process he offered a complete reformulation of the Christian faith in rational, Aristotelian terms.

Finally, do these commentaries actually help us understand Aristotle? Butterworth thinks that they will. On the Categories he writes, "without such a commentary, it would be extremely difficult to understand Aristotle's treatise" (p. 17). On De Interpretatione he writes, "Averroes' unusual approach succeeds in making Aristotle's text clearer and more orderly" (p. 101). This is perhaps slightly overstated. Averroes's ability to explain Aristotle depends on how faithful Averroes adheres to Aristotle's text. In the case of his commentary on the Categories, Averroes follows Aristotle closely; in the case of his commentary on De Interpretatione, he does not. In addition, readers should keep in mind that Averroes did not know Greek. He had to rely on Arabic translators who, as translators sometimes do, often injected their own ideas into the text. So while on the one hand these commentaries can certainly "alert us to problems we might otherwise neglect" in Aristotle (p. 115), this reviewer thinks that the commentaries are far more valuable for the information they offer us on Averroes himself.

Butterworth and St. Augustine's Press should be commended for keeping this text in print. The preface and introductions are well written and clear, as is the translation itself. There is a useful index and a simple but helpful critical apparatus. Students interested in medieval Islamic philosophy, the history of commentary or the history of Aristotelianism will certainly benefit from this important contribution to the field.