On Paul Sigmund's "Review of Ralph Lerner's Averroes on Plato's Republic" Author(s): Charles E. Butterworth Source: Political Theory, Vol.

4, No. 4 (Nov., 1976), pp. 505-506 Published 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 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COMMUNI CATIONS

on Plato's On Paul Sigmund's "Review of Ralph Lerner'sAverroes Republic" (Volume3, No. 2, May1975) Paul Sigmund's Averroes of RalphLerner's on Plato'sRepublic review is erroneous a faulty errors seemto arisefrom and inadequate. Sigmund's appreciation of the differences the old Rosenthal translation of between Averroes's Commentary newtranslation on Plato'sRepublicand Lerner's ofthatwork. Lerner First,contrary to whatSigmund claims, did not use an earlier thanRosenthal. manuscript Hebrew Theybothusedthesamemanuscripts, translations of the Arabicoriginal not extant.However, whichis itself unlikeRosenthal, as thebasic Lerner took the oldestHebrew manuscript thereadings and used the other to helpcorrect manuscript of manuscripts theoldestmanuscript. Rosenthal had takenthesecondoldest manuscript as the basic manuscript. To put thematter as simply as possible:Lerner to the text what Rosenthal read as belonging had understood to be variants. from the Rosenthal Thus the Lemer text differs substantially Lerner's text.The reviewer's to follow coherent inability of explanation his method and how it differed from Rosenthal's led himto castdoubton thevalueof Lerner's workin a silly andregrettable manner. Second, it is simply inaccuratefor Sigmundto claim that "a of the two [translations] comparison by the reviewer did not reveal in the English substantial differences text."While theassertion has some to the first of either validity withrespect paragraph work,its falseness becomes evident thereafter. What is more, immediately Sigmund seems not to believehis own assertion: laterhe admits thatit would"perhaps" be "4mostuseful" to combine the Lernertranslation with Rosenthal's introduction and his other writings on Averroe's thoughts. In thecontext, thissuggestion seemsto derive from thereviewer's displeasure thatLerner
[5051

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

[5061 POLiTICAL THEORY / NOVEMBER 1976

political about Averroes's was not more loquacious in his statements took to be of what Rosenthal and about his explicitrejection thought of [Plato's] the"identification namely, in thiswork, intention Averroes's didstatehis i.e., Shari'aState." Now Lerner Ideal StatewiththeIslamic, to is difficult that manner albeitin a diffident forthisdifference, reasons whyRosenthal's showsclearly of his introduction follow.The argument to Averroes's whole outlook is wrongand indicateswhy references the text.He should forunderstanding are not helpful setting historical not be criticizedfor not doing what he showed to be therefore is of course,it can be shownthat his reasoning unnecessary-unless, has completely That has not been done becausethe reviewer fallacious. intention. Lerner's to grasp failed E. Butterworth -Charles
of Maryland University

On Edward Andrew's"Theoryand Practicein Marx and Nitezsche" (Volume3, No. 3, August 1975) In his article "A Noteon theUnity of Theory andPractice in Marx and Marx's in and an Edward Andrew suggests interesting parallel Nietzsche," He andpractice. Nietzsche's understanding of the relation between theory arguesthat both thinkers rejectthe idea of pure contemplation and, is to task of philosophy that both believethe essential consequently, is indeeda certain in thismatter change theworld.Now there agreement I think arises in a manner thisagreement between these twomen;however, very different from theone thatAndrew suggests. In thisshort space,I can I think do no more thanbriefly several indicate placeswhere Andrew leads us astray. 1. Professor Andrew claims thatMarxand Nietzsche understand their sciences. In fact, philosophies primarily on themodelof thenatural they do not. Indeed,ifthey it is intheir common belief that agree on anything, natural sciencedoes not represent thefinal form ofknowledge. Moreover, it is ironically precisely in terms of whatmight be calleda doctrine ofthe unityof theory and practice thattheyformulate their objections to the scientific model.For bothtryto provethatalthough science claims to be empirical, it is actually highly abstract since it is based on a number of unacknowledged assumptions which itsimply takesfor granted. Thusboth

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