Paul of Venice As a Reader of Averroes the Case of Essence and Definition

chapter six

PAUL OF VENICE AS A READER OF AVERROES THE CASE OF ESSENCE AND DEFINITION

Introduction

Averroes’s Long Commentary occupies a peculiar position when compared to all the other sources Paul of Venice may have used in drafting his commentary on the Metaphysics. For in some sense Averroes is not only the instrument which Paul employs, implicitly or explicitly, for understanding Aristotle’s text, but is also an object of his interpretation alongside Aristo- tle himself. This is shown by the fact that Paul almost invariably appends to his exposition of the diferent sections of Aristotle’s littera one or more quotations from Averroes’s Long Commentary in order to put into sharper focus some of the issues emerging from Aristotle’s text. The quotations from Averroes, which take the form of long notes (notanda), are interpreted, com- mented upon and evaluated both textually and philosophically. Thus, it is clear that Paul does not con ne himself to interpreting Aristotle’s text but also provides a detailed and rather systematic reading of large sections of Averroes’s Long Commentary as well. This feature of Paul’s commentary is important for at least two reasons. First, since in most cases Paul nds himself in agreement with Averroes’s reading of Aristotle, it is evident that Averroes constitutes the basis for Paul’s literal and doctrinal understanding of the Metaphysics. Second—and this is probably the most signi cant point—when commenting on Averroes’s text Paul ofers one particular interpretation of the Arabic commentator, which may be diferent from that of other medieval interpreters as well as from ours. If this is the case, the most important question becomes to ascertain whether Paul’s reading of Averroes obeys some consistent logic and follows some well-de ned pattern. Although it is di cult to draw general conclusions concerning the char- acter of Paul’s interpretation of Averroes, at least in the commentary on Book Z there seems to emerge a certain tendency on Paul’s part to read the Arabic commentator in light of Aquinas’s doctrinal framework. In other words, when possible, Paul tries to bring Averroes’s reading of Aristotle into line with Aquinas’s and more in general with the Dominican Master’s 422 chapter six metaphysical convictions. This is a particularly interesting phenomenon, at least from an historical point of view. For we have seen in the previous chapters that Averroes’s and Aquinas’s interpretations of Met. Book Z are fundamentally divergent in their general results as well as concerning particular points of detail. Thus, it becomes particular signi cant to understand how, i.e. by means of which conceptual and exegetical tools, Paul succeeds in harmonising Averroes’s and Aquinas’s diferent readings of Aristotle. The issue of essence and de nition, which Aristotle discusses in Met. Z 10–11, is a particularly striking example of Paul’s general strategy. In this case, in fact, Paul’s attempt at re-interpreting Averroes in light of Aquinas’s doctrine seems to be particularly accurate and systematic. For, not only does Paul provide a general interpretation of Averroes’s doctrine of essence and de nition which is line with Aquinas’s views, but he also goes out of his way to explain away those passages in Averroes that seem to be in direct opposition to Aquinas’s doctrine of essence and de nition. This chapter falls into ve parts. In Section 1, I shall analyse the general structure of Paul of Venice’s commentary on the Metaphysics, by putting emphasis, among other things, on the crucial role that Averroes plays in the Austin Master’s interpretation of Aristotle’s text. In Section 2, I shall briey provide the general background against which Paul’s interpretation of Met. Z 10 should be understood by taking an overall look at Averroes’s and Aquinas’s diferent interpretations of the chapter as well as at Alexander of Alexandria’s assessment of their diferent readings. In Section 3 I shall present in some detail Paul’s interpretation of Met. Z 10. In Sections 3 and 4 I shall do the same thing with Met. Z 11 by rst presenting a synthetic picture of Paul’s predecessors’ interpretations and then by outlining Paul’s peculiar contribution to the debate.

1. The Structure of Paul of Venice’s Commentary on the Metaphysics and the Role of Averroes’s Long Commentary

1. The general form of Paul’s commentary can be synthetically reconstructed in the following way. First of all, Paul divides up Aristotle’s text through a complete logical re-structuring of the Greek philosopher’s argument. The text, in other words, is put into some kind of syllogistic or deductive form: Paul singles out a series of premisses or assumptions, a certain number of conclusions which follow from the assumptions and, nally, some fur- ther derivative conclusions or corollaria which are not explicitly drawn in Aristotle’s text. The discussion of each element of Paul’s division—i.e. each