Działalność translatorska Wilhelma z Moerbeke w odniesieniu do niektórych traktatów Arystotelesa

Abstrakt

The paper consists of two parts. In the first part the author confronts the results of modern research with the earliest mention on the translatory activity of Wilhelm of Moerbeke which comes from the 14th c. from Stams. It is pin-pointed here that after R. A. Gauthier's research one cannot bring the contacts with St Thomas Aquinas down to the formula „ad instantiam”, and the translations of Aristotle are not crucial for the relation between these two Dominican fathers. The contemporary stylistic analysis as a method of identifying the translator proves that the Middle Ages' tradition is right to the fact that Moerbeke worked on all Aristotle's writings on natural philosophy and on the whole Metaphysics. This analysis negates, however, that Moerbeke is the author of the revision of Ethics. The Middle Ages' note does not mention anything about Wilhelm's translations of Aristotle's logic. This paper discusses then the accuracy of the term „transtulit” in view of the fact that half of the translations of Aristotle by the Flemmish translator are revisions. Moerbeke both in those passages where he approved of the ancient translation and in those where he changed it he did it with every responsibility as a translator.

In the second part the author discusses some common questions concerning the research on the revisions on Metaphysics, Physics, De generatione et corruptione and De anima. It is concerned first with a common Greek model used by the translator (this does not concern De anima) which turned out to be, thanks to G. Vuillemin-Diem's research, the code Vindobonesis phil. gr. 100 which once belonged to Wilhelm. Then the author discusses the following questions: the division of the manuscriptial tradition of those treatises into a numerous Paris tradition and few independent evidences of the Italian origin, complex character of the revisions' autographs, the problem of double revisions of those treatises which comes out in the light of the analysis of differences as to the number and character of the elements of revision which occur in the tradition. Finally, the author writes about a different circulation of two versions of particular treatises which is illustrated by the diagram placed at the end of the paper.