7/27/2019 191134

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/191134 1/3

On Paul Sigmund's "Review of Ralph Lerner's Averroes on Plato's Republic"Author(s): Charles E. ButterworthSource: Political Theory, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov., 1976), pp. 505-506Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/191134 .

Accessed: 28/07/2013 02:32

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:32:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/27/2019 191134

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/191134 2/3

COMMUNI CATIONS

On Paul Sigmund's"Reviewof Ralph Lerner'sAverroes n Plato'sRepublic"Volume , No. 2, May1975)

PaulSigmund'seview fRalphLerner's verroes nPlato'sRepublicis erroneousnd nadequate. igmund'srrors eemto arise rom faultyappreciation f thedifferencesetweenheoldRosenthalranslationfAverroes'sommentarynPlato'sRepublic ndLerner's ewtranslationof thatwork.

First, ontraryo whatSigmund laims, erner idnot use an earliermanuscripthanRosenthal. heybothusedthe amemanuscripts,ebrewtranslationsf the Arabicoriginal hich s itself ot extant.However,unlikeRosenthal, erner ook theoldestHebrewmanuscripts thebasicmanuscriptndusedtheothermanuscriptsohelp orrecthereadingsftheoldestmanuscript.osenthal adtaken he econdoldestmanuscriptas thebasicmanuscript.o putthematter s simplys possible:Lernerread as belonging o the text whatRosenthal ad understood o bevariants. hus the Lemer textdiffersubstantiallyrom heRosenthaltext. The reviewer'snabilityo follow erner'soherentxplanationfhismethod nd how tdifferedrom osenthal'sed him ocastdoubt nthevalueofLerner's ork na silly ndregrettableanner.

Second, it is simplyinaccuratefor Sigmund o claim that "acomparison f the two [translations]y the reviewerid not revealsubstantial ifferencesn theEnglishext."While heassertion assomevaliditywithrespect o the first aragraphf eitherwork, ts falsenessbecomes vident

mmediatelyhereafter. hat s

more, igmundeems otto believehisownassertion:aterhe admits hat twould"perhaps" e"4most seful" to combine the Lernertranslation ith Rosenthal'sintroductionnd hisotherwritingsn Averroe'shoughts.n the ontext,this uggestioneems o derive rom hereviewer'sispleasurehatLerner

[5051

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:32:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/27/2019 191134

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/191134 3/3

[5061 POLiTICAL THEORY /NOVEMBER 1976

was not more loquacious n his statementsbout Averroes's oliticalthoughtnd abouthisexplicit ejection f whatRosenthal ook to beAverroes'sntentionn thiswork,namely,he identificationf [Plato's]IdealStatewith he slamic,.e.,Shari'a tate."NowLerner id tatehis

reasons or hisdifference,lbeit n a diffident annerhatsdifficultofollow.The argumentf his ntroductionhows learlywhyRosenthal'swhole outlook is wrong nd indicateswhy referenceso Averroes'shistorical etting renothelpful orunderstandinghe text.He shouldtherefore ot be criticized or not doing what he showedto beunnecessary-unless,f course, t can be shownthathis reasoningsfallacious. hathasnotbeendonebecausethereviewerascompletelyfailed o grasp erner'sntention.

-Charles . ButterworthUniversityfMaryland

On Edward Andrew's"Theory nd Practice n Marx and Nitezsche"(Volume ,No. 3,August 975)

In his article A Noteon theUnity f Theory ndPracticen Marx ndNietzsche,"dwardAndrew uggestsn interestingarallelnMarx's ndNietzsche's nderstandingf the relation etween heoryndpractice. earguesthat both thinkers ejectthe idea of pure contemplationnd,consequently,hat both believethe essential ask of philosophys tochange heworld.Now theres indeed certain greementn thismatterbetween hese women;however,thinkhis greementrises na manner

very ifferentrom heone thatAndrewuggests.n this hort pace, cando nomore han rieflyndicateeveral laceswhere think ndreweadsusastray.

1. Professor ndrew laims hatMarx nd Nietzsche nderstandheirphilosophiesrimarilyn the modelof the naturalciences. n fact, heydo not. ndeed, f hey gree n anything,t s intheir ommon elief hatnaturalcience oes notrepresenthefinal orm f knowledge. oreover,it is ironically reciselyn terms f whatmight e called doctrine fthe

unity f theory nd practice hat heyformulateheir bjections o thescientific odel.For bothtry o prove hat lthoughcience laims o beempirical,t is actually ighly bstract ince t is based on a number funacknowledgedssumptionshich t simply akes or ranted. husboth

This content downloaded from 146.155.94.33 on Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:32:43 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions