See Aouad and Woerther, “Le commentaire par Averroès du chapitre 9 du livre X,” p. 360. One example of such points of departure negated by the Hebrew translation is that the deletion in the Latin translation of the phrase in the Arabic text, “and the things through which these pleasures come,” (NE-Ar, X 9, 1179b 14, p. 571, l. 9; Dunlop trans., p. 570) is found word for word in the Hebrew translation (NEmc-Heb, X 9, p. 346, l. 581), and is thus not a deletion of Averroes, but of the Latin translator. Similarly, the reformulation noted in NEmc-Lat (si non est in sermonibus sufficientia in virtute) of the Arabic text “unless there is enough in discourses” (NE-Ar, X 9, 1179b 3, p. 571, ll. 3–4; Dunlop trans., p. 570) is not a reformulation of Averroes as the Hebrew of this passage is a word-for-word translation of the Arabic, although it adds “[to attain] virtue” (NEmc-Heb, X 9, p. 346, l. 574) with NEmc-Lat and the Greek text of NE. The added word in NEmc-Heb, ba-maʿalah ([to attain] virtue) along with the Latin translation, in virtute, likely translate the Arabic term, bi-ʾl-faḍīla. This could be a word of explanation added by Averroes or it could be a missing term that translated Aristotle’s πρὸς τὸ ποιῆσαι ἐπιεικεῖς although faḍīla does not usually translate ἐπιείκεια in NE-Ar (on the use of the root f-ḍ-l to translate forms of ἐπιείκεια in NE-Ar, see Manfred Ullmann, Die Nikomachische Ethik des Aristoteles in arabischer Übersetzung: Teil 2: Überlieferung, Textkritik, Grammatik [Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 2012], pp. 279–80). An example of a brief reformulation of the text by Averroes, provided by the authors, is that the Latin term expavescere, translated as ‘effrayer’ (in the sentence: Plures autem non potest expavescere, ut moueantur ad bonum), is not a precise translation of the Arabic of Aristotle, which translates ‘to rouse them up’ (NE-Ar, X 9, 1179b 10, p. 571, l. 7; Dunlop trans., p. 570). However, in Woerther’s forthcoming critical edition of the text, the passage now reads correctly: Plures autem non potest expergefacere ut moveantur ad bonum, and accords with the Hebrew, which translates the Arabic literally as ‘to rouse them up’ or more literally ‘to rouse [or spur] them to movement’ (NEmc-Heb, X 9, p. 346, l. 579). In all these cases, Averroes does not part from the Arabic translation of the Ethics, but copies it.

See Aouad and Woerther, “Le commentaire par Averroès du chapitre 9 du livre X,” p. 360. One example of such points of departure negated by the Hebrew translation is that the deletion in the Latin translation of the phrase in the Arabic text, “and the things through which these pleasures come,” (NE-Ar, X 9, 1179b 14, p. 571, l. 9; Dunlop trans., p. 570) is found word for word in the Hebrew translation (NEmc-Heb, X 9, p. 346, l. 581), and is thus not a deletion of Averroes, but of the Latin translator. Similarly, the reformulation noted in NEmc-Lat (si non est in sermonibus sufficientia in virtute) of the Arabic text “unless there is enough in discourses” (NE-Ar, X 9, 1179b 3, p. 571, ll. 3–4; Dunlop trans., p. 570) is not a reformulation of Averroes as the Hebrew of this passage is a word-for-word translation of the Arabic, although it adds “[to attain] virtue” (NEmc-Heb, X 9, p. 346, l. 574) with NEmc-Lat and the Greek text of NE. The added word in NEmc-Heb, ba-maʿalah ([to attain] virtue) along with the Latin translation, in virtute, likely translate the Arabic term, bi-ʾl-faḍīla. This could be a word of explanation added by Averroes or it could be a missing term that translated Aristotle’s πρὸς τὸ ποιῆσαι ἐπιεικεῖς although faḍīla does not usually translate ἐπιείκεια in NE-Ar (on the use of the root f-ḍ-l to translate forms of ἐπιείκεια in NE-Ar, see Manfred Ullmann, Die Nikomachische Ethik des Aristoteles in arabischer Übersetzung: Teil 2: Überlieferung, Textkritik, Grammatik [Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 2012], pp. 279–80). An example of a brief reformulation of the text by Averroes, provided by the authors, is that the Latin term expavescere, translated as ‘effrayer’ (in the sentence: Plures autem non potest expavescere, ut moueantur ad bonum), is not a precise translation of the Arabic of Aristotle, which translates ‘to rouse them up’ (NE-Ar, X 9, 1179b 10, p. 571, l. 7; Dunlop trans., p. 570). However, in Woerther’s forthcoming critical edition of the text, the passage now reads correctly: Plures autem non potest expergefacere ut moveantur ad bonum, and accords with the Hebrew, which translates the Arabic literally as ‘to rouse them up’ or more literally ‘to rouse [or spur] them to movement’ (NEmc-Heb, X 9, p. 346, l. 579). In all these cases, Averroes does not part from the Arabic translation of the Ethics, but copies it.)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Cf. Josep Puig Montada, “Philologia ancilla philosophiae,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 21 (2011): 289–98, on 289: “Although Averroes wanted no more than to be a truthful interpreter of Aristotle, he was nevertheless a creative thinker in two particular fields that drew his interest, namely, how to explain intellection and the unity of the human species and how to explain the motion and unity of the world, sublunary and celestial.”

Cf. Josep Puig Montada, “Philologia ancilla philosophiae,” Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 21 (2011): 289–98, on 289: “Although Averroes wanted no more than to be a truthful interpreter of Aristotle, he was nevertheless a creative thinker in two particular fields that drew his interest, namely, how to explain intellection and the unity of the human species and how to explain the motion and unity of the world, sublunary and celestial.”)| false
• Search Google Scholar
• Export Citation

Ibid., p. 36. Berman suggests that the annotator may have been the copyist of the Fez manuscript, and thus may have written his annotations in 1222.