Moerbeke, William of

views updated


also known as Guillelmus de Moerbeka (b. Moerbeke, Belgium [?], ca. 1220–1235; d. before 26 October 1286)

philosophy, geometry, biology.

Moerbeke, a Dominican, was one of the most productive and eminent translators from Greek into Latin of philosophical and scientific works written between the fourth century b.c. and the sixth century a.d. A spectacular widening and increase of the Greek sources for study and speculation in the second half of the thirteenth century and later times were due to Moerheke’s insatiable desire to pass on to Latinreading students the yet undiscovered or rediscovered treasures of Greek civilization, his extensive linguistic knowledge, his indefatigable search for first-class works, and his philosophical vision.

There is little evidence concerning Moerbeke’s life apart from some names of places and dates at which he produced a particular translation: they are enough, however, to suggest reasons why he did not have much time to write original works. He was at Nicaea, Asia Minor, in the spring of 1260, and in Thebes—where Dominicans had been present at least since 1253—in December of that same year. He was at Viterbo, then a papal residence, in November 1267, May 1268, and June 1271. From 1272, at the latest, until April 1278 Moerbeke held the office of chaplain and penitentiary to the pope: in this capacity he visited the courts of Savoy and France pleading for help with the Ninth Crusade (March 1272), absolved an Augustinian prior from excommunication (1272, from Orvieto, seat of the papal curia), and authorized Albertus Magnus to absolve two abbeys in Cologne from censures (November 1274). In the same period (May-July 1274) he took pari in the Second Council of Lyons, which was meant to bring about the reunion with the Greek Church; there, with Greek dignitaries, he sang the Creed in Greek in a pontifical mass. In October 1277 he was active at Viterbo. From April 1278 until his death he was archbishop of Corinth.

The three or four contemporaries with whom it is definitely known that Moerbeke had some contact were all scientists. The Silesian Witelo, who was in Viterbo toward the end of 1268, dedicated his Perspectiva to Moerbeke. In the introduction Witelo sheds some light on Moerbeke’s philosophical doctrines and explains that they were never put in writing because Moerheke was kept too busy by his ecclesiastical and pastoral duties and by his work as a translator. Henry Bate of Malines, a distinguished astronomer, was asked by Moerbeke, whom he met at Lyons in 1274, to write a treatise on the astrolabe; Henry immediately obliged and dedicated his Magistralis compositio astrolabii to his compatriot (October 1274). The physician Rosellus of Arezzo, who may have attended Pope Gregory X at his death-bed in Arezzo (1276), is the addressee of Moerbeke’s dedication of his version of Galen’s De alimentis (Viterbo, October 1277). Finally, some evidence seems to suggest that Moerbeke met the mathematician and astronomer Campanus of Novara at the papal curia.

Moerbeke may well have been in touch with Aquinas at or near Rome before 1269 or between 1271 and 1274, but there is no reliable direct evidence of any personal relationship. It is a commonplace, repeated ad nauseam by almost all historians and scholars concerned with either Aquinas or Moerbeke, that the latter was prompted by the former to undertake his work as a translator, especially as a translator of Aristotle. This is most probably nothing more than a legend originating in hagiography, when “evidence” was offered by William of Tocco, a confrère of Aquinas, for the latter’s canonization, about forty years after his death. What remains true is that Aquinas, like other philosophers of his time, used some—by no means all—of Moerbeke’s translations soon after they were made.

Works . Only one original work by Moerbeke is preserved, under the title Geomantia (“Divination From Earth”). It was dedicated to his nephew Arnulphus and seems to have been quite popular: several manuscripts in Latin and one manuscript of a French translation made in 1347 by Walter of Brittany are still extant, but the treatise does not seem to have been studied by modern scholars. The authenticity of the attribution has been doubted on the ground that a “faithful follower of Aquinas” could not have written a treatise on matters condemned by the master, but the premise is unfounded. There is no reason to believe that the Geomantia is a translation from the Greek or Arabic. Witelo’s evidence strongly supports the evidence for the attribution found in the manuscripts. Addressing himself to Moerbeke in the introduction to his Perspectiva, he says:

As an assiduous investigator of the whole of reality, you saw that the intelligible being which proceeds from the first principles is connected in a causal way with individual beings; and when you were inquiring into the individual causes of these individual beings, it occurred to you that there is something wonderful in the way in which the influence of divine power flows into things of the lower world passing through the powers of the higher world …; you saw that what is acted upon varies not only in accordance with the variety of the acting powers, but also in accordance with the variety of the modes of action; consequently you decided to dedicate yourself to the “occult” inquiry of this state of affairs.

Preliminary studies of the Geomantia have shown a vocabulary consistent with Moerbeke’s translations; explicit mentions of the causal chain from God through the heavens to events on earth, of the occult nature of at least some part of geomancy, as indicated by Witelo; and attribution to “Frater Guillelmus de Moerbeka domini pape penitentiarius.” MCCCLXXXVII in some manuscripts should be MCCLXXVI because of Moerbeke’s death date, Witelo’s statements, and the description “penitentiarius” and not “archiepiscopus Corinthiensis.”

We do not know whether Moerbeke wrote any other original works; but we still possess many, if not all, of the translations which he made from the Greek. He undertook this activity, he says,“in spite of the hard work and tediousness which it involves, in order to provide Latin scholars with new material for study” and “in order that my efforts should add to the light to which Latins have access.” His knowledge of the Greek language, perhaps scanty when he first embarked on translations, improved greatly in the course of the more than twenty years which he devoted partly to them. In this field Moerbeke was a very exacting scholar and philologist, comparable only, in the thirteenth century, with Robert Grosseteste. The unfavorable criticism brought against his versions—even against his latest and best—does not take into account two facts: first, that Greek scholarship among Latins in the thirteenth century was not the product of a long tradition and well-organized schools but the hard-won possession of isolated individuals; and second, that a very sound philosophy of language, accompanied by the need for detailed, literal interpretation of authoritative texts—biblical, legal scientific, philosophical—required that translations should be strictly faithful, word by word, to the original. Within these limits Moerbeke was often excellent, although, like all translators, he made mistakes, He was meticulous in his quest for exactitude: he would search the Latin vocabulary with a sound critical sense and great knowledge, in order to find words which could convey to the intelligent reader the meaning of the Greek terms. If his search failed to produce the necessary results, he would form new Latin words by compounding two terms, or adding prefixes and suffixes on the Greek pattern, or even combining Greek and Latin elements: a typical example would be his rendering of a̓훕oḱv?τov by “automobile.” In extreme cases he would resort to that great source of enrichment of a language, the transliteration, with slight adaptations, of foreign—in his case Greek-words. A test of Moerbeke’s care in trying to pass on as much as possible of Aristotle’s “light” can be found in his revisions, based on Greek manuscripts, of translations produced by such scholars as Boethius and James of Venice: in most cases where he introduced a change, a misinterpretation was put right, a serious mistake corrected, or a more appropriate shade of meaning introduced if his predecessor had missed a finer point. His scientific attitude toward language is also revealed by his attempt to reproduce the exact Greek sounds (mainly those of Byzantine Greek) in his transliteration of names or of newly introduced technical terms, for instance, by using “kh” for the Greek X.

Moerbeke applied his interest and gifts as a translator to four aims: (a) completing and improving the Latins’ knowledge of Aristotle’s works in all their encyclopedic extent; (b) making available to Latin readers some of the most valuable and comprehensive elaborations of Aristotle’s treatises on logic, philosophy of nature, and psychology which had been written between about a.d. 200 and 550; (c) propagating the doctrines of Proclus, the greatest systematizer of Neoplatonic philosophy, on which Moerbeke’s own philosophy so much depended; (d) introducing into the Latin West a more exact and extensive knowledge of Archimedes’ achievements in mathematics and physics. He also contributed in a smaller measure to the knowledge of Greek medical literature and of works by Ptolemy, Hero, Alexander of Aphrodisias, and Plato.

Evidence for Moerbeke’s authorship of the versions ascribed to him varies in strength. In a number of instances—all concerning works by Aristotle—he only revised, more or less thoroughly, versions made by earlier scholars. In the following survey two asterisks indicate the titles of translations for which the evidence of authorship is direct (the translator’s name accompanying the text itself); a single asterisk indicates the titles of versions for which evidence is elicited from a linguistic analysis. Dates and places where the translations were made are given only in the relatively few instances for which the evidence is found at the end of the translation itself. Within square brackets is a short indication of the best existing edition, whenever this has been ascertained, or of one old edition (original or a reprint). Some additional information on editions will be found in the bibliography.

The translations or revisions so far identified and ascribed with some degree of probability to Moerbeke are the following:

I . Plato (see Proclus).

II . Aristotle.

(1) Works never before translated into Latin:

**Politica, *one version of bks. I-II.11 [P. Michaud-Quantin, Bruges, 1961] and **one complete K. Susemihl, Leipzig, 1872; bks, I-III.8, with Aquinas’ commentary, H. F. Dondaine and L. Bataillon, Rome, 1972].

*Poetica 1278 [L. Minio-Paluello, Brussels, 1968].

**Metaphysica, bk. XI [Venice, 1562, and with Aquinas’ commentary].

*De motu animalium [L. Torraca, Naples. 1958].

**De progressu animalium [unpublished].

(2) Works never before translated into Latin from the Greek:

*Hisroria animalium [bk. I, G. Rudberg, Uppsala, 1908; bk. X.6, Rudberg, Uppsala, 1911; bks. II-IX unpublished].

**De partibus animalium, Thebes, 1260 [unpublished].

*De generatione animalium, two recensions [H. J. Drossaart Lulofs, Bruges, 1966].

**Meteorologica, bks, I-III [with Aquinas].

*De caelo, bks. III-IV [with Aquinas].

(3) Works of which Latin translations from the Greek already existed and which were translated anew by Moerbeke:

*Categoriae 1266 [L.. Minio-Paluello, Bruges, 1961: also (first half) A. Pattin, Louvain, 1971].

*De interpretations, 1268 [G. Verbeke and L. Minio-Paluello, Bruges, 1965].

**Meteorologica, bk. IV [with Aquinas’ commentary].

*De caelo. bks, I-II [with Aquinas’ commentary].

**Rhetorica, *first recension [unpublished];

**second recension [L. Spengel, Leipzig, 1867].

(4) Works translated from the Greek by other scholars and revised by Moerbeke:

*Analytica posteriora, translated by James of Venice [L. Minio-Paluello and B. G. Dod, Bruges, 1968].

*De sophisticis elenchis, translated by Bocthius [B. G. Dod and L. Minio-Paluello, in press].

*Physica, translated by James of Venice [with Aquinas’ commentary].

*De generatione et corruptione, translated by an unknown scholar [with Aquinas];

*De anima, translated by James of Venice [with Aquinas].

*Parva naturalia, translated by various scholars: *De sensu and *De memoria [with Aquinas]; *De somno et vigilia [H. J. Drossaart Lulofs, n.p., 1943]; *De insomniis et De divinatione [H. J. Drossaart Lulofs* Leiden, 1947]; *De longitudine, *De inventute, *De morte, *De respiratione [Venice, 1496].

*De coloribus, incomplete, translated by an unknown scholar [E. Franceschini, Louvain, 1955].

**Metaphysica, bks. I-X and XII-XIV [Venice, 1562] and l-X, XII [with Aquinas].

*Ethica Nicomachea, translated by Robert Grosseteste [R.-A. Gauthier, Leiden-Brussels, 1973].

III . Commentators on Aristotle.

(1) Alexander of Aphrodisias:

**In meteorologica, Nicaea, 1260 [A. J, Smet, Louvain, 1968]; *In De sensu [C Thurot, Paris, 1875].

(2) Themistius:

*In De anima, Viterbo, 1267 [G. Verbeke, Louvain, 1957],

(3) Ammonius:

*In De interpretatione 1268 [G. Verbeke, Louvain, 1961].

(4) Philoponus:

*In De anima, bks. 1.3 and **III.4–9, 1268 [G. Verbeke, Louvain, 1966].

(5) Simplicius:

*In categorias, 1266 [Venice, 1516; also (first half) A. Pattin. Louvain, 1971]; **In De caelo, Viterbo, 1271 [Venice, 1540].

IV , Proclus.

**Elementatio theologies, Viterbo, 1268 [C. Vansteenkiste, 1951],

**De decem dubitationibus, **De providentia et fato **De malorum subsistentia, Corinth, 1280 [H. Boese, Berlin, 1960].

*In Platonis Parmenidis partem commentarium including Plato’s Parmenides as far as 142a (shortly before 1286; authenticated by Henry Bate) [extensive sections edited by V. Cousin, Paris, 1820; last section, lost in Greek, and Plato’s text edited by R. Klibansky and L. Labowsky, London, 1953].

*In Platonis Timaeum commentarium, extracts, containing also a few passages from Plato’s Timaeus [G. Verbeke, Louvain, 1953].

V . Alexander of Aphrodisias (see also above, under Commentators on Aristotle).

*De fato ad imperatores and *De fato, which is De anima, bk. II (authorship authenticated by the surviving Greek manuscript owned by Moerbeke and carrying his autograph title of possession) [P. Thillet, Paris, 1963].

VI . Archimedes.

*De quam pluribus theorematibus, which is De lineis spiralibus 1269 [J. L. Heiberg, Leipzig, 1890].

*De centris gravium, which is De plants aeque repentibus, 1269 [N. Tartaglia, Venice, 1543].

*Quadratura parabolae, 1269 [L. Gauricus, Venice, 1503].

*Dimensio circuli, 1269 [L. Gauricus, Venice, 1503; partly, J. L. Heiberg, Leipzig, 1890].

*De sphaera et cylindro, 1269 [introduction to bks. I and II, J. L. Heiberg, Copenhagen, 1887, and Leiden, 1890, respectively].

*De conoidalibus et sphaeroidalibus, 1269 [unpublished].

*De insidentibus aquae, 1269 [bk. I, N. Tartaglia, Venice, 1543; both books, Curtius Troianus, Venice, 1565; collations by J. L. Heiberg, Leipzig, 1890; several sections edited by Heiberg, Leipzig, 1913].

VII . Commentator on Archimedes and Eutocius.

*On the De sphaera et cylindro, 1269 [a small section edited by J. L. Heiberg, Leipzig, 1890]; *On the De centris gradum, 1269 [unpublished].

VIII . Hero of Alexandria.

*Catoptrica, which is Pseudo-Ptolemy, De speculis. 1269 [W. (G.) Schmidt, Leipzig, 1901].

IX . Ptolemy.

*De Analemmate, 1269 [J. L. Heiberg, Leipzig, 1907].

X . Galen,

**De alimentis, Viterbo. 1277 [Venice, 1490].

XI . Pseudo-Hippocrates.

**De prognosticationibus aegritudinum secundum motum lunae, which is (?) Astronomia [Padua, 1483].

Some Latin translations attributed at different times to Moerbeke have been proved or can be proved not to be by him. Among them are the PseudoAristotelian Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (by Anaximenes of Lampsacus) and Oeconomica and Hero of Alexandria’s [?] Pneumatica or De aquarum conductibus.

Influence . Moerbeke’s influence can be assessed from different points of view.

1. The popularity of many of his Aristotelian translations is evidenced by the surviving manuscripts of the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries; printed editions of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and later centuries; and versions or adaptations into French, English, Greek, and Spanish made in the fourteenth, sixteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. From about 100 to nearly 300 manuscripts and up to a dozen printed editions exist of works which had never before been translated into Greek, or older translations of which had been superseded or revised. This means that these works became accessible—and to a large extent comprehensible—to most Latin-reading students of philosophy and that the philosophical language adopted by Moerbeke (and in some cases his interpretations) has influenced philosophical culture since the thirteenth century.

2. The introduction into the Western Latin world—and the consequent extensive study in universities and ecclesiastical and monastic schools, or the less extensive but still very influential study by specialists—of works of Aristotle, Proclus, and Archimedes which had been practically lost sight of for several centuries. An extreme example is provided by Aristotle’s Politica, which had never been the object of more than exceptional study—and that only among Greeks before the fifth and in the eleventh century -and was almost discovered for the world at large, and introduced as one of the basic classics of political thought, by Moerbeke through his translation. Again, it was through Moerbeke’s translations that some of Proclus’ works were taken up by eminent philosophers and became essential ingredients of philosophical outlooks which affected the background and contents of some of the great schools of thought of the later Middle Ages, Renaissance, and more recent times. This is particularly true for the

Elementatio theologiea, in which Moerbeke discovered the original text of those propositions which formed the nucleus of the De causis, possibly the most influential carrier of Neoplatonic doctrines, transmitted via the Arabic to the Latin schools of the late twelfth and following centuries; it is also true of Proclus’ In Platonis Parmenidis. , commentarium and De providentia et fato., A similar influence was exerted by the translations of Themistius’ and Philoponus’ commentaries on the De anima’ of Simplicius’ on the Categoriae and De caelo, and of Ammonius’ on the De interpretatione. The importance of Moerbeke’s translations of Archimedes has been sketched in a masterly way by M. Clagett in his article on Archimedes in vol. 1 of this Dictionary.

3. A better knowledge of the actual Greek texts of several works came about through Moerbeke’s versions. In a few cases they are the only evidence for lost Greek texts (the whole of Hero’s Catoptrica and Pseudo-Hippocrates’ De prognosticationibus secundum motum lunae; an important section of Proclus’ Commentary on the Parmenides: and some sections of Proclus’ smaller treatises and of Archimedes’ De insidentibus aquae). Apart from two instances, Moerbeke used for his translations manuscripts now lost or not yet identified; on many points some of them provide us with better evidence of the Greek originals than the known Greek manuscripts: this is especially the case for Aristotle’s Politica. For every single work Moerbeke’s translations add to our knowledge of the tradition and history of the Greek texts.


I. Original Works. Abundant bibliographical information can be found in G. Lacombe, L. Minio-Paluello et al. Aristoteles Latinus, Codices: Pars prior (Rome, 1939; Bruges, 1957), 21–38; Pars posterior et supplementa (Cambridge, 1955), 773–782. 1277; and Supplementa altera (Bruges, 1961), 7–17, See also M. Grabmann, Guglielmo di Moerbeke O.P., il traduttore delle opere di Aristotele, vol II of I papi del duecento e l’ Aristotelismo, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae, XI (no. 20) (Rome, 1946), passim; and in the relevant sections of Bulletin thomiste and Bulletin de théologie ancienne et médiévale.

The existing MSS of translations from Aristotle and his commentators are listed and described in the 3 vols. cited above of Aristoteles Latinus, Codices; those of Archimedes in V. Rose, Deutsche Literaturzeitung (1884), 210–213, and J. L. Heiberg,“Neue Studien zu Archimedes,” in Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Mathematik, 5 (1890), 1–84; for Pseudo-Hippocrates, see H. Diels,“Die Handschriften der antiken Aerzte I,” in Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (1905). Most scholarly eds. contain additional information on the MSS. No survey was made of the printed eds. of Latin versions of Aristotle, accompanied or not accompanied by commentaries by Ibn Rushd, Aquinas, or others. The Gesamtkatalog der Wiegendrucke contains, under “Aristoteles” and the names of commentators, short descriptions of most eds. printed, or thought to have been printed, before 1501 but does not give sufficient identifications of the authors of the translations. The oldest eds. of some of Moerbeke’s Aristotelian translations are found in fifteenthand sixteenth-century printed texts. The eds. of Aristotelian writings mentioned in the text and carrying dates later than 1960 are contained in the series Aristoteles Latinus (part of the Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi); those of Aristotelian commentaries cited in the text dated 1957 and later are part of the Corpus Latinum Commentariorum in Aristotelem Graecorum; and most of those mentioned as being “with Aquinas” are found in the modern critical ed. of Aquinas’ works, the Leonine ed. (Rome, 1882-). A critical ed. of all the translations from Archimedes and Eutocius based on Moerbeke’s autograph is in vol. II of M. Clagett, Archimedes in the Middle Ages. The MSS of the Geomantia known to date are listed in L. Thorndike and P. Kibre, A Catalog of Incipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin (1963).

II. Secondary Literature. By far the most exhaustive study of Moerheke’s life and the best collection of evidence, information on the works which he translated and on the opinions expressed on them through the centuries, and references to modern scholarly studies is Graabmann’s Guglielmo di Moerbeke, il traduttore … (cited above). This work suffers, however, from the wartime circumstances in which the material was being assembled and from the fact that it was left to be edited and translated into “Germitalian” by rather incompetent hands; the misprints affecting essential data are far too numerous. Its extreme bias in favor of Aquinas’ and the popes’ share in providing Moerbeke with the initiatives which were in fact his own is all-pervasive and misleading. Among the older works mention should be made of the article on Moerbeke in I. Quétif and I. Échard, Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum, I (Paris, 1791), 388–391. The best modern, concise, and critical survey listing Moerbeke’s translations and their more important eds. is in P. Thillet’s version of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ De fato (cited in text); unfortunately, he ascribes to Moerbeke more recent Latin translations of Archimedes and Eutocius. For Moerbeke’s early stay in Greece, see O. van der Vat, Die Anfänge der Franziskaner Missionim nahen Orient … (Werl, 1934); B. Altaner’s two long articles on the missionaries’ linguistic knowledge in the Middle East, in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, 53 (1934) and 55 (1936); V. Laurent, “Le Pape Alexandre IV et l’empire de Nicée,” in Échos d’Orient, 38 (1935), 26–55; K. M. Setton,“The Byzantine Background to the Italian Renaissance,” in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 100 (1956), esp. 31–35.

On Witelo and Bate, see C. Baeumker, Witelo, ein Philosoph …, III, pt. 2 of Beiträge zur Philosophie des Mittelalters (Münster, 1908); G. Wallerand,“Henri Bate de Malines et Thomas d’Aquin,” in Revue néoscolastique de philosophie, 36 (1934), 387–410, and his ed. of the first part of Bate’s Speculum, Les philosophes belges, XI, pt. 1 (Louvain, 1931). On the question of Aquinas’ influence on Moerbeke, the best critical assessment is in R.-A. Gauthier’s intro. to Sententia libri ethicorum, I, which is vol. XLVIII of S. Thomae de Aquino opera omnia (Rome, 1969), 232*-235*, 264*-265*. A page from Moerbeke’s holograph of his Archimedes is reproduced in B. Kattenbach et al., Exempla scripturarum, II (Rome, 1929), pl. 20; and his autograph inscription of property of the Greek MS of Alexander’s De fato is reproduced in L. Labowsky,

“William of Moerbeke’s Manuscript of Alexander of Aphrodisias,” in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, n.s. 5 (1961), 155–162.

Studies on Moerbeke’s works and on their influence have been directed mainly to aspects of his method as a translator, particularly to his vocabulary, often for the purpose of ascertaining or suggesting his authorship or of distinguishing his version from those by other scholars. Apart from the extensive “indices verborum” which accompany most modern eds. of his texts (esp. the vols. in Aristoteles Latinus and Corpus Latinum Commentariorum Graecorum and the eds. by Drossaart Lulofs and Thillet cited in text as well as the forthcoming vol. II of Clagett’s Archimedes) and linguistic analyses in some of the introductions (again by Clagett, Lulofs, Thillet, Verbeke, Vansteenkiste, and Rudberg), there are many special inquiries: F. H. Fobes,“Mediaeval Versions of Aristotle’s Meteorology,” in Classical Philology, 10 (1915), 297–314; F. Pelster,“Die griechisch-lateinischen Metaphysikuebersetzungen des Mittelalters,” in Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, supp. 2 (1923), 89–118; L. Minio-Paluello,“Guglielmo di Moerbeke traduttore della ’Poetica’ d’Aristotele, 1278,” in Rivista di filosofia neoscolastica, 39 (1947), 1–17;“Henri Aristippe, Guillaume de Moerbeke et les traductions latines médiévales des Météorologiques et du De generatione et corruptione,” in Revue philosophique de Louvain, 45 (1947), 206–235; D. J. Allan,“Mediaeval Versions of Aristotle De caelo and the Commentary of Simplicius,” in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 2 (1950), 82–120.

Various points and aspects of Moerbeke’s influence, the dates of his translations in relation to the dates of works in which use was made of them, and commentaries based on his versions have been the object of scholarly study in many books and articles devoted to wider issues. To those already mentioned one may add D. A. Callus,“Les sources de Saint Thomas,” in Aristote et Saint-Thomas d’Aquin: Journées d’études (Louvain-Paris, 1957), 93–174; A. Dondaine, reviews in Bulletin Thomiste (1924 ff.); R. A. Gauthier’s intro. to Thomas Aquinas, Contra gentiles, livre premier (Paris, 1961); B. Geyer,“Die Uebersetzungen der aristotelischen Metaphysik bei Albertus Magnus und Thomas …,” in Philosophisches Jahrbuch, 30 (1917), 392–415; J. Isaac, Le Peri Hermeneias en Occident de Boèce à Saint Thomas (Paris, 1953); R. Klibansky,“Ein Proklosfund und seine Bedeutung,” in Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., 5 (1928–1929); and “Plato’s Parmenides in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,” in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, 1 (1943), 281–330; H. Lohr,“Mediaeval Latin Aristotle Commentaries,” in Traditio, 23 (1967 ff.); A. Mansion,“Le commentaire de Saint Thomas sur le De sensu et sensato d’Aristote,” in Mélanges Mandonnet (Paris, 1930), 83–102; C. Martin, “The Commentaries on the Politics of Aristotle in the Late Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries” (D. Phil.thesis, Oxford University, 1949; copy at the Bodleian Library, Oxford); and B. Schneider, Die mittelalterlichen greichisch-lateinischen Uebersetzungen der Aristotelischen Rhetorik (Berlin, 1971).

The study of the Greek tradition through Moerbeke’s texts has been carried out extensively both in the process of editing the Greek texts—see, for instance, Heiberg’s ed. of Archimedes and Eutocius (Leipzig, 1910–1915) and W. L. Newman’s ed. of Aristotle’s Politica (Oxford, 1887)—and as part of the Aristotles Latinus (every vol. contains the results of this study). Many separate studies were devoted to problems in this field, including E. Lobel, “The Medieval Latin Poetics,” in Proceedings of the British Academy, 17 (1931), 309–334, and the work of B. Schneider cited above.

Lorenzo Minio-Paluello

About this article

Moerbeke, William of

Updated About content Print Article