2 James McEvoy Il, 8. - THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN GROSSETESTE'S ‘QUOTATIONS FROM THE LATIN TRANSLATION OF THE PHYSICS AND THE GREEK TEXT It is the merit of Dr Dales to have identified the version of the Physice sed by Grossetesta; it i that found in MS Vatican Urbinat. lat. 206 (. In an appendix to his edition of the Commentary on the Physics, Dales has reproduced from this MS all the elements of text which were quoted by Grossteste in his notes and comments €). Alongside these he hes printed the actual quotations from the Physics, as found in the three Surviving MSS of Grosetete’s Commentary. ‘My purpose here isto offer an essential sid to the study of the notes on the Physics, by providing references to the Greek text for each element fof the Physics commented or quoted by Groweteste in the course of his note-writing. [also wish to effer a few remarks upon what canbe ‘leaned from the comparison this instituted, by way of fuller understanding fof Grosseteste's working-methids and appreciation of his use of the translation. "A glance at the appendix te Dale's edition confirms, if confirmation were ‘needed, the very corrupt stato of the three extant MSS of the commentary of Grosseteste. On eight cceasions only do the three witnesses fattest literal agreement with esch other and with the Vatican MS; and in each case the quotation in question is a brit one, consisting of only 4 few words. For tho most part, the divergences are both frequent and ‘wide. Even between 4 and V, which aro of the same family, substantial Aiffeences exist @). In the eaily books D represents a somewhat bet text of the quotations and approximates more closely to the Vatican MS than do MY, V. Is fidelity should not however be ctaggersted, even as 42 witness 10 the text of tho first half of the commentary ; while aftr bk. IV it can be accorded no privileged status by comparison with M, V. (Clearly, if the textual tradition of the quotations from the Physics is bad, that of the notes which accompany them cannot be expected to be much superior in. quality. “The tracing of the quotations of the Latin version hack to the Greek text presents few problems which are not soluble by patient searching, Decause the extremely literal character of the translation, in addition perhaps to the fact that it derived directly from the Greek without the intermediary of Arabic, makes for easy identification of correspon= ences. One such problem, however, is that a few texts prove t0 be out RG Dates, ed. Robert Grosetese, Eplcopl Lincolatensis, Commn= ‘ays VHT Libros Psteorum Aries Boulder, Colorado, 1983, oi 12'pps p. sxx Se the review of Dale's edition in Bib rate (Rom) Xi, wes ) Tei, pp. 161-183. ‘apd Venice, Mayeo”VI.222, fos ‘230s, Ail three were known to Thomson (The Wrlunes of Robert Grover, Bishop of Lincoln 1235-1253, Canbeidge 194. 82).Correspondence between Grosetete's quotations 3 of sequence in respect of those immediately preceding and following them. Such isthe 6889 of the quotation on p. 46 line 108), which corresponds to. 197 22 in the Grook text, but is preceded by a comment on 198% 9410, and followed by & quotation from 1)8a 10-11, so that the sequence fof the texts is uptet. The ote on‘ vanum’ (46.1024) should have iimervened on p. 44, between the thirteenth andthe fourteenth proposition, there it would have adhered to the sequence of Aristotle's text. It could however be the ease that Grostetste delborataly chose not to place it there because it would have interuptel his treatment of fortuna and ‘cara, themes which quite obviously interested him greatly because they fouched upon the doctrine of providence, which he discussed in a highly personal way from 45.5 to 469. ‘Similarly on page 127-8-10 two texts of Aristotle are inverted : they are 2450 3-4, and 244a $9, It would seam that 245b 3.4 is in place fete, since it's introduced by the word ‘quarto’ (127.7), replying 10 3° (12627), and 2° (126.1), But if this is s0, then the quotation from 2éda 8-9 and the relevant comment are misplaced, More curiously stil the comment includes two quotations which regress even further back in the text of the Physier, namely 2432 17-18, and 2436 8 (or 11 — it i= too short to allow a decision); and it ends with a phrase which T Ihave not been able to trace (127.223), but which is not present in the relevant section of the Greek text. Clearly the order of this passage presents a problem, for which a satisfactory solution in terms of the fontent or the context not apparent. ‘The opening lines of bk VIII constitute, contrary to Grossetest’s ‘usual practice, @ summary of the whole book, consisting of a series of texts (or partphrasee) in which the six basic propositions of bk VIIT fre set forth (I3L1 - 132.1). The notes then recommence (132.2) at the beginning of the book, and continue in the ustal orderly fashion up to 14428, the lat text of the Physics commented being 258a 27-28, From this point onward the character of the discussion changes, the theme of the perpetuity of motion is te only one treated of, and the Prague MS containing the De Finitere Monus et Temporis commences (). ‘The initial summary of confonts of bk VIII is out of place only in the sense that jt marks a departure from Grossetest’s normal practice. ‘Our fist conclusion must then be, that these notes and comments which we possess on the Phosice follow the order of the Greek text “lmost perfectly, with only one, oF at the most two, deviations, We are Jhntied in cooclading that, if the Commentary in is present form is 2 posthumous compilation of Grossetete’s notes made up from marginalla fad scraps of parchment inserted in his copy of the Physics, its editor, working no doubt towards the close of tho thirteenth century, and probably in the Franciscan convent at Oxford (), respected the order @ All rcerenees to Grostetest’s Commentary are to Dale's edition. The ‘ai? oumbor of 4 teference indeater the poe, the second unit the line or Hes, (0) Pragee MS, Narodnt Mus, TLE. {9 Dates op cts pp. XIX (8 Stous i ie Zale writer known to have coasted the Commentary4 James McEvoy ‘of the various notes and Kept his intervention to the minimum necessary to produce a consecutive text A farther conclusion suggested by our inquiry i that the Commentary and the related treatise De Fhitete Motus ef Temporis differ ia, thet ‘manner of refering to the tramlation of Aristotle, and belong to different genres, Quotations found in the Commentary as whole ate taken directly from the Latin translation of tke Physic. On the other hand, the tracing of four apparent quotations oscurting in the De Finiate revealed that {in one case only (152.20-21) was the phrase in question am actual quotation (252b 5.6); the other three proved to be paraphrases, corresponding 10 certain texts of bk VIIT of the Physics 448.1314 = 15ta 17-20 149.920 = 2506 11 1512021 = (the instant i the continuation of the past and the future’) = 251b 20.22: however, ths ie an Aristotcleen commonplace ; as Groseteste formulates it tis peshaps closest to 2221 10; but ef. 2188 8-9, 208 43 and ‘The form of correspondence manifested between the Latin and Greek in these thre texts js not that of translation, but rather that of peraphrase o« reminiscence. Grosseteste had, we conclude, certain of the key texts of Aristotle in mind as he summarised and crtised the three arguments in favour of the perpetuity of motion; but only in one case did he Took Up the actual text in the trandation, Whereas it had been his practice ‘throughout the Commentary on the Physicr to quote in a very exact ‘manner from the Anistotslean text, This difference in the muancr of quoting betrays the diferent intentions present in the two works. Ia the De Finitce Grosseteste ft himself less bound to the text of Avisotle and more free to advance his own views, to restate the ‘Stagiite’s arguments, and to cise these as a Christian beliovr. AS Dales remarks, the De Finite was not intended as. patt of the Com. ‘mentary, rather it possesses a unity and purpose af its own). This conclusion is reinforced by our examination ‘The most important result simed at in a comparison of the Latin version used by Grosseteste with the Greck original i, of course, an assessment of the quality of tke translation judged from the point of view of its accuiacy. Al fullseale investigation of this problem would {involve the detailed ‘comparison of the Vatiean MS with the Greck text, but itis sufficient for our purpore here that such passages a3 are actually cited by Grosseteste and used by him as a basis of commentary be judged as to their reisbily, so that we may see whether and fo what ‘extent they mised the commentator. ‘Four passages from the Commentary demand scrutiny in this regard. © hid, paCorrespondence Between Grosstese's quotations 35 () 524 (@ 184b 11), All four Mss give the reading dffinitum” in tis brief phrase; it is therefore aot a simple variant. ‘The Greek text has however aBioplaubs (with a variant 2:cplaccy )s clearly, the translator has omitted to render the privative a= The effects of this error are not catastrophic ; Grosetst’s comment on the question is brief (524-27), and does ot depeed upon the word in question. (@) 52829 (= 184 b 2022). M, V, and D all read ‘ pura’, but the Vatican MS has ‘ plura infin’, 1 redundancy sevounted for by the context. The Greck text reads dneipovs, «0 that M, Vy D are ‘ite inexact, Groseteste follows chem in’ his brief commentary, Which in consequence loses the point of Aristotle's disjunction either the principles are finite in number, or they are infinite in number. (@) 43.25.26 (197a. 5-6), All four MSS have. ‘in minor, where the Gresk toxt reads nat mpoaipeny; evidently a considerable mistake. CGromotete, however, having quoted the text, passes on immediately te another point. (@ 619 Q0db 3-4). Unfortunately the editor has not given us enough of the taxt to enable us to judge whether oF not the words ‘in actu’, ‘which Grosetente sceme to consider part of the text of Aristotle, ‘occur in the translation which he used. The Greek text at this point hes 3 sj aban; the abbreviation of“ augment” or‘ augmento may have given rie to our “actu, but it is possible also that this text should be placed in relation to that quoted in 66.68 (206a 7-10), Where in a similar phrase ( actu corpus non sit infinitum’, * actu bocurs, this time correctly. Confusion becomes worse confounded, however, when we find that in thi commentary on the latter text (66.4), Grometeste states: *ortenso quod non est corpus infinitum In augmento’, which seems to indicate that he was aware of the correct reading in 61.9 abovs, ané that the origin of the reading Tin actu” found there is to be sought ia the MS-tradition of the Commentary, a5 a copyist’s ror, rather than in the translation. 7919.23. In the corresponding Greek text @212a 7-14) Aristotle remarks that place scems to be something grat and dlfffeult w grasp, both because matter and shape appear song with it, and because the Giplacement of the thing moved occur in a stationary container; for it seems there could be something in between different from the quantities ‘motion. |The air’, comments Arse, teontivutes something t0 this belief, since it appears 0 be incorporeal ; for place appears to be not ‘only the boundaries of the vesel, but also what is in between, considered as empty’. In commenting on this passage Groseteste points ut that the surface (of tte contsines) cannot of iWself be said to possess three dimensions, but it related to three dimensionality by being referred to what it cont within is and what surrounds i. Dimensions refer always and esentially to bodies, whence it follows that place caanot of its nature be emptied ff body. "Here Grossetste appeals to the words of Aristotle italicised Above his note: proficit autem aliquid id est apparens et., and explains56 James McEvoy them thus: ‘that is, i appears that such a space is a place, which of is nature is incorporeal, diferent that is to say from body and the magnitude of body (because of itself it licks dimensions). ‘The misunderstanding of the Arstotelean text here employed is evidently total. It is explained by the simple finding that, of the three MSS of the commentary, M and ¥ have ‘er ext apparens', D bas ‘id est apporens", While the Greek text reads “at 6 atip Boxy, which the ronan Vetus faithfully renders ‘et aer ayparens”. Evidently aer became corrupted to est in the Ms tradition, and by 4 seductive rationalisation D extended fest into. id est (apparens). ‘The fault therefore did not lie ith the translation isef, but with its textual tradition. The corruption effected ‘no chief doctrine of Aristotle, it merely enticed Groseteste into making Some kind of sense of the dialectical passage in which it occurs; and (his he achieved according to the best Aristotelean. principles, Despite a thorough search of the commentary, I have been Unable to uncover other misinterpretations of Aristotle which are attribuable. to inaccuracies in the translation. The conclusion of this inguiry must then bbe, that mistakes in translation occur only infrequeatly in the texts quoted by Grosseteste, In no ease af his reliance upon the Latin version was he seriously misled concerning a fundamental point of Adstotclean doctrine, though it did occur on one occasion that a discussion of Aristotle's tost part of its point due to an inaccuracy in the translation No doubt many passages of the frequently cbsoure book which is. the Physies of Aristotle were rendered even more unclear in the Latin version than they bad boen in the original; certainly, too, a fisthand Acquaintance with the Grock text would have permited a clearer grasp fof many of the finer points of argumentation and i greater surenes: of interpretation ; nevertheless, we must admit that Groseteste understood the text and the mind of Afistele with remarkable clarity, though the Latin version was, practically speaking, his sole guide. This is a great ‘tibute to his inteligence. ‘The following is the list of references to the pasages of the Physice which are quoted by Grosseteste in his commentary. They have beea worked out on the basis of MS Vatican Urbina. lat. 205 (cf. the Appendix to Daless edition of the Commentary, pp. 161-183). The first number refers to the page and fine of Dale” edition, the second to the text of Avistotle. I ave used Ross's ediion of the Greek text. BOOK 1 A 519.200 = 184 26-186 10 524 = ism 11 52329 184 20-22 623 184 24.25 667 185a 12-13 The first reference in each ewe is to Grostete's Commentary on the Physics, the second to the Grosk text of the Psi,Correspondence between Groseteste's quotations 7 68.10 = 18s 20-22 627 = 1858 20-21 S011 185b 7-8. 920 185 22-23 101 185b 25-26 1020 1360 4 1023 186 5-6 124 1860 12-13, reary 186213 1218 1860 22 1410 1866 12 1423-24 186b 35 1425 187s 3-4 143031 1872 6-8 1889 1882 19 1828-29 1882 26-27 1921 188b 9 201-2 189a 8-10 208 1894 11-12 23.18 1895 16 23.19.20 1396 18 245-6 189 28-29 2a 19a 3 255 i9ta 23-24 289 i9tb 35 BOOK IB 311 = related to 197a 34-35 aaas 192 20-23 3z10 1925 32-33 33.1416 1926 35 33.23 193a 3 3330 1938 9-10 352728 193 3-5 3531 1935 23 39.25 1958 3-4 forse 1950 45 40.22.23 195a 8-9 4189 1952 11-13 4110-11 1952 15-16 923 195b 16-38 esr 195b 21-22 and 24-25 a8 195 31 421819 = elated to 1970 3435 4224 feoms to. refer to a section: 1950 36 - 196b 9, ‘where Aristotle shows that the existence of chance was, however coafusedly, recognised by his prede-58 49.25.26 449.10 4412413 46.10 4625.26 4630 4632474 4167 a7 481 48.2223 49.2425 501719 5167 Suu Suis 521243 s7a.si S778 5723.24 5725.26 573031 507 617-8 619. eLtoar 61.25.28 63.25 655 65.19.20 65.20.21 66.58 6823.24 2123 629 7023-24 70.24.25 James McEvoy cessors; having thus established its existence, he will in what folews examine its nature. 1974 5-6 19% 13-15 198a 9-10 197% 22 198a 10-11 1988 14 1988 22 1994 7-8 1998 33 Book m 2006 12 2ola 10-11 2otb 31-32 2028 3-5 2028 5-6 202 9 2022 18 2026 30, 34-35 2038 16-18 2038 19-20 2038 27-28 2038 31-32 2oxb 4 203b 30-31 20ab 1-3 208 3-4 208b 5-6 ‘cf, Wisdom $4. 2058 7-8 2056 1-2 203 24-25 205b 26 2068 7-10 2066 33-34 201 10212 207 1-2 2062 9-10) 2088 5 22) The words ‘super tlm lem” indkate that the text of Aristotle is ote the correspondences verbal.Correspondence Between Grossteste's quotations BOOK IV A nia 2088 27-28 mrs 208 8-9 n27 2o8b 29 2 2008 4-5 28-73. 209% 6-7 RBIs 2004 7-8. 2324 2008 24 m1 200 2 142829 209 21-22 1578 20a 16-15, 759-10 2106 21-22 761 2106 22-23 76.28 aia 6 T134 dita 23-24 711920 2i1a 29-30 712028 211b 18 713233 21 11-12 96 21 29-30 Tet 227 p2021 212% 12 p23 = 2113 302 2128 20 82.28.29 212 21-22 8312 212a 31-32 334 21% 34 83.2223 212 29-30 841213 2idb 12 e512 26a 23-24 855 2168 26 8520 = 21 2 867 217 11 8617 217 29 8618 217 32-33, 362021 218b 5-6 362223 = 2192 1-2 262627 Treannot place thi phrase in the Greek text 8630 2198 1 90.2 2196 7-8 90.1849 2196 7-8 9123 219b 9 9821 2i9b 33 = 2208 1 9912 20a 4-5 99.1415 220 18-20 993031 220a 30-32 100.12 2200 32 - 2206 1 100.26 220b 5-6o James McEvoy 10134 = 220b 12-14 1rd 220b 14-16 10120 2218 7-8 1027-8 21a 26-27 1022021 210 28 10228 2aKb 3-4 103.1 2217 1039 221b 20-21 103.1213 221b 25 10332-1041 = 2222 10, 11-12, 222 2-3 1049-10 2a2b 25-25 1011-13, 222 30-31 105.6 223b 18-19 BOCK VE 106.1 24a 21 06-20-22 22th 4-6 108.2 224b 16-17 1083 224b 26-27 108.1415 2254 7-8 108.17-18, 2250 25 109.11 2250 26-27 wo. 2254 34 309.17 225 5 109.25 226b 26 199.28.29 Dre 13-14 1107-8 2a 17-18 11089 2274 18-20 110.10 22a 21 Hoan 2yTa 23-24 0.2.13 22Tb 4-5 1101516 20Th 21-22 e271 = 27 29 131 2288 20-21 1322 228» 19 nate 2298 30-31 141647 2290 32 11420 2sb 29-30 1426 2290 31-32 1142930 2300 7-8 mss 230 31-32 BOOK VIZ 116. 21a 2 1167-8 21a 24 n6.1041 231b 6-71162225 173 1734 nT nad 1724-22 11726 ng nas 1186 1188 11810 1g344 na. 194s 119.89 119.1314 i197 1971s i922 119.2426, 119.2829, 119.32-120.1 1205 1201314 12023-24 1213132 1225-6 1229-10 1220-11 12.112 121718 12489) 125 1259 10 12527 1262627 12789 1279-10 12047 12718 1272203, 89 1299-13 nasibis Correspondence benveen Grosseteste’s quotations 231b 15-16, 18-19 232a 23 22a 25-26 232 24-25 23a 31-32 233b 15-16 = 2b 33 253b 34 = 24a 26 234a 31-32, 2sab 10 24h 25-26 235b 6-7 235b 32-33 236a 13-15 2360 26-27 236 8-9 2366 20 236 22 2366 32-34 237 23-25 2380 20-21 238a 32-33, 238b 13-14 2386 26-27 23ub 24-25 238b 31-32 238b 36 - 239% 1 2398 8-9 2398 23, 2398 25-26 2408 19-20 240 8-9 BOOK vi H = 2th 34 22a 37-38 2é2a 52254 28a 32-33, 245b 3-4 Dada 8-9 2430 17-18, 2a3b 8 or IL T cannot place this phrase in the Greck text. = 24sb 5b - Se ef, De Gen. et Cor. 3295 5-10 2éTh 19-2480 1 6Bit 13146 BLIZ3 1BLIS16 Bre B21 Ba24 132.1 13220, 13227 1342324 1357-19 1362425, 137.1820 140.13 14028 142.7 14227 143.25 143.26, 144s 147.19-149.7 148.13-14 1499-10 15022-1514 151.1419 1512021 1522021 James McEvoy BOOK VII. @ 250 11 252 5-6 261a 27-28 26la 31-32 2658 13-14 2663 10 252a 11-13, 25282728 250 12713 253 28-29 25ab 24-26 2558 10-12 256 27-29 2514 17-29 25Tb 17 257b 17-18, 257 32-33 28a 5 2584 20 2584 27-28 258a 27-28 paraphrase and résumé of Aristotle's argumentation In Physics 251a 8 - 2516 10 does not seer 10 occur in the text of the Physics as such, but © be a paraphraso of Aristotle's thought in 151a 17-20, to which it is closely related. [sa paraphrae of 250b 11. is a résumé ef Phys. VIM 251a 23 - 2510 13, summarises Pays. 251b 19-28 represents a paraphrase of Phys. 251b 20-22. 252 5-6 James Mo Evor, Department of Scholastic Phitesophy, Queen's University, Belfast 7,