'Old Translation' must have allowed himself considerable liberty in 'editing' or 'revising' Aristotle's text, since it is the version of the New Translation which correctly represents the text. The former must in fact have assumed the function taken upon themselves by some modern editors, and Giuliani in particular, in dealing with the text of the Convito. In short, he deliberately substituted for what he found in Aristotle a theory which he believed to be more correct. He took upon himself to bring Aristotle 'up to date'.' The assertion of Dante that the view attributed to Aristotle in the Old Translation corresponds with the theory of Avicenna and Ptolemy on this subject seemed to me to suggest the clue that this 'improvement' was probably introduced into the Arabic version of Aristotle's works. And this in fact proves to be the case. For since Albertus Magnus used Michael Scot's translation made from the Arabic, for this part at any rate of Aristotle's works (see Jourdain, pp. 312 seqq.), and St. Thomas Aquinas the later Graeco-Latin translation, we are able to test the point in this way. In Albertus Magnus, De Meteoris, Bk. I. Tract ii. c. 5, Aristotle is represented thus :-' Dicamus nunc quid est galaxia secundum veritatem: nihil aliud est galaxia nisi multae stellae parvae quasi contiguae in illo loco orbis. This is exactly what Dante says he found in the Old Translation. Turning now to Aquinas, Meteor., Lib. I. Lectio xiii, we read: ‘. . . quia videlicet in hac parte coeli est efficax virtus stellarum ad adtrahendam exhalationem, et non est causa vehemens [such as he has just explained the motion of the sun or moon to be, which 'citius disgregat exhalationem'] quae impediat eius adunationem, sicut accidit sub Zodiaco circulo. Ista igitur exhalatio adunata sub tali parte coeli facit ibi videri lacteam claritatem,' &c. And this is what Dante found in the New Translation, and what occurs also in the actual text of Aristotle. A curious instance of a similar liberty is recorded by Jourdain, where, in De Coelo, II. x. (fin.), the words ὥσπερ καὶ δεικνύουσιν οἱ μαθηματικοί are translated (?) sicut declaraverunt mathematici, sicut in Almagesti!' (p. 313). Thus Aristotle is made to quote Ptolemy! We conclude then that Dante's 'New Translation' corresponds with what has now become the 'Antiqua Translatio,' as printed in the works of Aquinas; and his 'Old Translation' corresponds with the still more ancient translation made by Michael Scot. I say 'corresponds' because there may possibly have been other translations based upon these to which he had access. They at any rate certainly represent the two families of translations which are here distinguished1. ' Dr. Henry Jackson has kindly drawn my attention to the following passage from the Epistolae of Lionardo Bruni (Aretino), Book VII. iv. ad fin. (vol. ii. p. 89, Ed. Florence, 1741): 'Nullam Boetii interpretationem habemus praeterquam Porphyrii et Predicamentorum et Perihermenias librorum; quos si accurate leges, videbis summum illum virum sine ullis ineptiis libros illos transtulisse. Textus est nitidus et planus et Graeco respondens. At enim in Ethicis et Physicis quid tandem est praeter ineptias meras? Non verba in iis Latina, non dicendi figura, non eruditio litterarum, praeterea ab ipso Graeco male accepta complura. Haec a Boetio longe absunt, viro in utraque lingua docto et eleganti. Nunquam ille architectonicam, nunquam bomolcos, nunquam agricos, quorum vocabula in Latino habemus, in Graeco reliquisset. . . Atque, ut scias, duae fuerunt ante me, quod equidem viderim, interpretationes Ethicorum: una quam ex Arabe lingua traductam constat post Averrois philosophi tempora, quae, quoniam anterior est, vetus appellatur. Altera haec posterior et novior a Britanno quodam traducta, cuius etiam proemium legimus. Quomodo igitur Boetii fuit ista nova interpretatio, cum vetusta illa et anterior post Averroim fuit, Boetius vero aliquot seculis Averroin anteeat....' Then, after denouncing the Englishman's work, both in respect of inelegance of style and actual blunders, he concludes: 'Equidem si in picturam Iocti quis faecem proiceret, pati non possem. Quid ergo existimas michi accedere cum Aristotelis libros omni pictura elegantiores tanta traductionis faece coinquinari videam? An non commoveri? an non turbari?' This passage occurs almost totidem verbis in another Epistle, Bk. IV. xxii. (vol. i. p. 139), and there the following sentence is added respecting the Britannus quidam':-'in quo et fratrem se ordinis Praedicatorum scribit, et rogatu confratrum de his transferendis laborem suscepisse.' Compare with this supra, p. 310. INDEX TO QUOTATIONS. No. I. [In the order of Authors quoted] [For explanations of a, b, c see sup., pp. 45, 46. * indicates a passage Quaest. xxi. 1. 69. Mon. III. iv. 1. 10. Mon. I. viii. 1. 10. Conv. IV. xii. l. 143. Epist. vii. 7. l. 156. Purg. xxviii. 121-124. Purg. xxv. 70-72. Purg. xxviii. 118-120 V. El. I. iv. l. 13. Purg. viii. 99; xxxii. 32. 'N. B. All references are given to chapters and verses as they stand in Y |