Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
OnJudah Messer Leon’s life and works, see the detailed study in Judah Messer Leon, The Book of the Honeycomb’s Flow, Sepher Nophet Suphim, ed. I. Rabinowitz, Ithaca-London 1983, pp. xvii–l (including the bibliography); cf. also the sketch in H. Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds. The Life and Works of Rabbi David ben Judah Messer Leon, New York 1991, pp. 25–33. For Messer Leon’s role in Medieval Jewish philosophy, cf. Sirat, A History, pp. 403–404.
According to Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds, pp. 35–37, the order of studies in Messer Leon’s academy is the same as that of Yohanan Alemanno (d. 1504), a Jewish philosopher active in Padua and Florence and one of Messer Leon’s best known students. It includes many Hebrew translations of Medieval Arabic philosophical texts (mostly Averroes’s commentaries on Aristotle), but no translations of Latin Scholastic texts (see M. Idel, The Study Program of R. Yohanan Alemanno [in Hebrew], “Tarbiz” 48 [1979], 303–330).
On the contacts between Messer Leon and Farissol (a Jewish scholar from Avignon, active in Northern Italy in the second half of the fifteenth century), see D.B. Ruderman, The World of a Renaissance Jew. The Life and Thought of Abraham ben Mordechai Farissol, Cincinnati 1981, pp. 17–18, 112–113, 173–174 note 4, 176 note 26, pp. 179–180 note 49; cf. also E. Engel, Abraham ben Mordecai Farissol: Sephardi Tradition of Book Making in Northern Italy of the Renaissance Period, “Jewish Art” 18 (1992), 149–167, esp. pp. 156–158. Ruderman and Engel locate the traces of Farissol’s work as a student (in Avignon, 1467–1468) and as a teacher of philosophy (in Ferrara, 1473–1474), including a correspondence with Messer Leon (some of whose philosophical works he copied and summarised for use in his school) preserved in the ms. Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, parmense 1957 (olim De Rossi 145). On this manuscript, cf. the recent description in Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts, pp. 375–376, number 1349; cf. also Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, pp. 120–121, number 50.
This hypothesis is questioned by Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds, p. 253, note 104: according to her, Messer Leon died in Naples around 1497.
An important source for reconstructing Messer Leon’s bibliography is a letter written in Hebrew by his son, David ben Judah Messer Leon, to David of Tivoli, preserved in the ms. Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo LXXXVIII, n. 12, ff. 1r–2r, and published several times; an English translation by Israel Rabinowitz is in Judah Messer Leon, Honeycomb’s Flow, pp. xlvi–l. A list of Messer Leon’s writings is in M. Steinschneider, Leon, in Allgemeine Encyklopaedie der Wissenschaften und Kuenste, eds. J.S. Ersch and J.G. Gruber, Sektion I, Band 43, Leipzig 1852, pp. 118–122 (reprinted in M. Steinschneider, Gesammelte Schriften, eds. H. Malter and A. Marx, Vol. 1, Berlin 1925, pp. 216–228).
See Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds, pp. 26 and 33; see also H. Tirosh-Samuelson, Messer Leon, Judah, in Craig, Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Vol. 6, 331–335.
Some brief remarks on Messer Leon’s role as a “Hebrew Schoolman” (on his use of Latin philosophical sources, his possible relationship with the Paduan School and his technique) are in Robert Bonfil’s introduction to Judah Messer Leon, Nofet Zufim. On Hebrew Rhetoric, Jerusalem 1981, pp. 22–32 (including bibliography and lists of manuscripts); Zonta, Scholastic Commentaries (quoted above, Historical Introduction, note 113).
On this text, see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 79–80; Manekin, Scholastic Logic, pp. 146–147 (list of extant manuscripts).
Cf. Manekin, Scholastic Logic, pp. 138 and 145–146.
Paul of Venice’s Logica Parva, also called Summulae, written in 1395–1396, was adopted as a textbook in the University of Padua in the fifteenth century: cf. F. Bottin, Logica e filosofia naturale nelle opere di Paolo Veneto, in A. Poppi (ed.), Scienza e filosofia all’Università di Padova nel Quattrocento, Trieste 1983, 85–124, pp. 89–91.
I. Husik, Judah Messer Leon’s Commentary on the “Vetus Logica”, Leyden 1906. For a list of manuscripts, see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 81–85.
Cf. Husik, Judah Messer Leon’s, pp. 25–27.
Cf. the list of manuscripts compiled by R. Bonfil, in Judah Messer Leon, Nofet Zufim, p. 26 notes 50–51; cf. also Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 85.
David ha-Sefardi wrote: zeh ha-perush she-‘asah maestro Paolo, u-Messer Leon he‘etaqo mi-leshon noseri’ el ha-‘ivri, “this commentary (i.e., that on the Posterior Analytics) was written by Master Paul (of Venice), and Messer Leon translated it from Latin into Hebrew” (cf. R. Bonfil’s introduction, in Judah Messer Leon, Nofet Zufim, pp. 26–27 and note 53). It is unclear whether David ha-Sefardi is referring to Paul of Venice’s Expositio in libros Posteriorum or to his Conclusiones Posteriorum.
A possible candidate is Abraham Farissol, who wrote a Hebrew compendium of the Perfection of Beauty: cf. Manekin, Scholastic Logic, p. 138. Steinschneider (Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 80) was the first to ascribe these texts tentatively to Judah Messer Leon.
Cf. Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 92. These texts are found on ff. 108r–120v of the Florence manuscript, and on ff. 84r–92r of the Paris manuscript.
M. Zonta, New Data on Judah Messer Leon’s Commentaries on the Physics, in “Aleph” 1 (2001), 307–323, pp. 312–316; Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 125. This text is found in the Paris manuscript, on ff. 116r–139r.
Cf. Zonta, Scholastic Commentaries, pp. 383 and 396–399.
Cf. Zonta, New Data, pp. 317–321; cf. Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 93. The text is found in the Florence manuscript, on ff. 143v–164r.
Cf. Husik, Judah Messer Leon’s, pp. 80–92.
Cf. A.D. Conti, Alcune note sulla Expositio super universalia Porphyrii et artem veterem Aristotelis di Paolo Veneto: analogie e differenze con i corrispondenti commenti di Walter Burley, in A. Maierù (ed.), English Logic in Italy in the 14th and 15th Centuries. Acts of the 5th European Symposium on Medieval Logic and Semantics, Rome, 10–14 November 1980, Napoli 1982, 293–303, esp. p. 295: Conti points out that Paul of Venice refers to Burley’s opinions, shares his doctrines and even incorporates long passages of his commentary—just like Judah Messer Leon.
See Zonta, Scholastic Commentaries, pp. 385–390.
Cf. F. Bottin, Gaetano da Tiene e i calculatores, in Poppi (ed.), Scienza e filosofia, 125–134, esp. p. 132.
This is also the opinion of Charles Manekin (cf. Manekin, Scholastic Logic, p. 137: “With Judah ben Jehiel Messer Leon [... ] we encounter something new: a Jewish scholastic logician writing in Hebrew”; pp. 139-140: “Judah Messer Leon [... ] is the only Jew who deserves the title of a scholastic logician. His works on logic are not merely influenced by scholastic logic—they are part of scholastic logic, and ought to be studied alongside other works of scholastic logic from the fifteenth century”).
The same can be said of the whole of Italian “Hebrew Scholasticism” (see above, Historical Introduction). This fits in with Manekin’s remark that “Messer Leon’s use of scholastic logic was not directed against the older logical tradition of the Arab peripatetics. On the contrary, he saw himself as a defender of Averroes and Aristotle against the bold and audacious attacks of the heretic Gersonides” (Manekin, Scholastic Logic, p. 138).
M. Zonta, Aristotle’s Physics in Late-Medieval Jewish Philosophy (14th–15th Century) and a Newly-Identified Commentary by Yehudah Messer Leon, “Micrologus” 9 (2001), 203–217, esp. pp. 207–211. This article rectifies the first description of this commentary in Zonta, La filosofia antica, pp. 233–235, where I was unable to identify the author.
Described in C. Bernheimer, Codices Hebraici Bibliothecae Ambrosianae, Firenze 1933, pp. 97–98, number 79; cf. also Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 110, number 33.
The watermark of this manuscript is very similar to n. 2669 in Briquet’s list (cf. C.M. Briquet, Les filigranes, Leipzig 1923, Vol. 1, p. 192, “basilisc”).
The contents of this manuscript were already known to Moritz Steinschneider (cf. Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 122–123), who failed to identify the author. See also the description in S.C. Reif, Hebrew Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library, “University of Cambridge Oriental Publications” 52, Cambridge 1997, pp. 378–379 (where, however, no reference to Judah Messer Leon is found).
Described in Bernheimer, Codices, pp. 98–99, number 80; cf. also Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 111, number 34.
On this manuscript, see above, note 3.
Cf. Zonta, Aristotle’s Physics, pp. 208–209, and Zonta, La filosofia antica, p. 234.
Cf. Pauli Veneti Expositio in Physicam Aristotelis et commentum Averrois, Venetiis 1499.
On Messer Leon’s use of these sources, see below.
Some of these quotations are found in book II of Messer Leon’s commentary: cf. ms. Cambridge, Add. 631, ff. 44v, l. 5–46r, l. 1, quoting Guillelmi de Ockham Opera philosophica. Vol. 4, Expositio in libros Physicorum [books I–III], eds. V. Richter and G. Leibold, St. Bonaventure, N.Y. 1985, pp. 259,16–261,80 and pp. 263,152–265,193 (from book II, chapter 3)
For a list of the above quotations, as found in ms. Milan, S 38 sup., see below.
Cf. also Johannes Jandunus, Quaestiones in libros Physicorum, Venetiis 1488 [copy in Rome, Biblioteca Corsiniana, Col. 53 C 29], f. 2va, ll. 56–59: Quaeritur de subiecto scientiae naturalis utrum ens mobile vel corpus mobile sit subiectum eius. Et arguitur primo quod non. Also the three subsequent arguments are inspired by very similar ones by John of Jandun: see ibidem, ff. 2vb, ll. 21–24, 46–53, and 2vb, ll. 28–32. Cf. also Zonta, Aristotle’s Physics, pp. 212–214.
Cf. Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 2rb, ll. 35 ff.: Illud est adaequatum subiectum illius scientiae quod est communissimum in illa...
Cf. Alberti Magni... Physica, pars I. Libri 1–4, ed. P. Hossfeld, Monasterii Westfalorum 1987, l. I, tr. I, cap. 3, pp. 5, 84–6,8.
To these arguments there is no reply in Gaetano de Thiene’s commentary, where it is stated: Ad argumenta vero alia pro ultima opinione facientia respondeat qui scit respondere (Caietanus de Thienis, op. cit., f. 2vb, ll. 31–33).
Messer Leon’s treatment of the last parts of natural philosophy, namely De anima, De plantis, De animalibus, De sensu, seems the result of a combination of Burley’s and Paul of Venice’s treatments of these subjects. Cf. Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 2rb, ll. 7–19: Sexto considerat corpus animatum, cui considerationi spectat sexta pars philosophiae quae dicitur de anima (... ). Septimo considerat ut corpus animatum habens solum operationes animae vegetativae (... ) et ad istam considerationem sequitur septima pars philosophiae quae dicitur de vegetabilibus et plantis (... ). Octavo considerat ut corpus animatum habens operationes animae sensitivae (... ) cui considerationi correspondet octava et ultima pars philosophiae quae dicitur Parvorum Naturalium.
Cf. also Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 3ra, ll. 12 ff.
Cf. also Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 3ra, end of page.
The most recent description of the manuscript is in Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, pp. 91–93, number 4.
Described in Zotenberg, Catalogue, p. 178.
See ms. Florence, ff. 119r-120v; ms. Paris, ff. 91r–92r.
On this list of philosophical definitions, see above, p. 213.
See Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, p. 80: “Es wäre... zu untersuchen, ob diese Stücke nicht ebenfalls Auszüge aus Leon’s Schriften, oder Materialien für dieselben, enthalten”.
In Hebrew: ’ot(ot) ha-shimmush. They are the letters used to alter the word roots to construct the various grammatical forms.
An identical question (with a different development, but a similar conclusion) is in Messer Leon’s supercommentary: cf. the ms. Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo III, n. 5, f. 56v ff.
An identical question (in different terms) is in Messer Leon’s above mentioned supercommentary: see ms. Florence, Biblioteca Mediceo-Laurenziana, Pluteo III, n. 5, ff. 23v, l. 19-24v.
Cf. Radulphus Brito, Quaestiones in veterem artem, Venetiis 1499 [copy in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Inc. 292], f. 15ra, ll. 37–41 (q. Utrum sint tantum quinque praedicabilia nec plura nec pauciora): Item arguitur quod sint plura. Quia diffinitio est praedicamentum et praedicamentum et praedicabile sunt idem. Ergo diffinitio est praedicabile et sic ad minus erunt sex praedicabilia.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 15ra, ll. 41–45: Item individuum est quoddam praedicabile dicendo Socrates est individuum, Plato (in the published text: + et) est individuum, et sic de aliis. Ergo plura sunt praedicabilia quam quinque.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 15rb, ll. 18–28: Dico quod praedicabilia sunt tantum quinque (... ). Primum declaratur quod praedicabilia distinguuntur (... ). Omne quod praedicatur aut habet modum praedicandi essentialiter, aut accidentaliter. Si essentialiter, aut est in quid aut in quale. Si in quale, sic est differentia. Si in quid, aut praedicatur de pluribus differentibus numero, aut specie. Si specie, sic est genus. Si secundo modo, sic est species. Cf. also f. 15va, ll. 9–12: Aliqui autem dicunt sic. Si praedicatur in quale accidentale, aut hoc est convertibiliter, aut non convertibiliter etc.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 16ra, ll. 12–21: Ad aliam, cum dicitur individuum est quoddam praedicabile, etc. Dico quod individuum potest accipi vel pro re subiecta intentioni, vel pro ipsa intentione. Si accipiatur pro ipsa re subiecta secundae intentioni, sic non praedicatur de pluribus, sed solum de se ipso. Si autem accipiatur pro intentione, sic praedicatur denominative, sicut accidens de subiecto.
The same question (in different terms, not as an independent question) is in Pauli Veneti Universalia Predicamenta Sexque Principia, Venetiis 1494 [copy in Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Inc. 424], ff. 24ra-rb.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 31ra, ll. 34–35: Utrum mortale sit differentia. Et arguitur quod sic.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, ff. 31ra, l. 36–31rb, l. 1: Illud quod praedicatur de pluribus differentibus specie in eo quod quale est differentia; sed mortale est huiusmodi; ergo, etc. Maior propositio est nota per diffinitionem differentiae, et minor apparet: quia mortale praedicatur de homine et equo, et sic de aliis quae differunt specie et praedicatur de eis in quale. Quod si quaeratur quale est convenienter respondetur mortalem.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 31rb, ll. 1–3: Item, illud per quod differunt species ad invicem est differentia, sed mortale est huiusmodi, ergo etc.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 31rb, ll. 8–16: Item quod ponitur in diffinitione alicuius et non est genus est differentia. Sed mortale ponitur in diffinitione hominis et non est genus; etc. Maior patet, quia diffinitio constat ex genere et differentia. Minor patet quia in diffinitione hominis ponitur mortale secundum Porphyrium, qui dicit quod homo est animal rationale mortale.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 30vb, ll. 30–35: Consequenter quaeratur de diffinitione differentiae qua dicitur differentia est quae praedicatur de pluribus differentibus specie in eo quod quale, utrum ista diffinitio sit bona. Et arguitur quod non.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, ff. 31va, ll. 31–32 (Utrum proprium sit predicabile, et arguitur quod non) and 33ra, ll. 17–19 (Utrum proprium sit predicabile distinctum ab accidente, et arguitur quod non). However, Brito’s arguments are different from Messer Leon’s.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 35vb, ll. 1–4: Utrum diffinitio accidentis qua dicitur accidens est quod adest et abest praeter subiecti corruptionem sit bene data, et arguitur quod non.
Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 35vb, ll. 12–16: Mors est accidens homini, et combustio domui, et nigredo in corno, et tamen illa non possunt adesse et abesse praeter subiecti corruptionem.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2006). Judah Messer Leon. In: Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century. Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3716-3_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-3716-3_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-3715-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-3716-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)