Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Judah Messer Leon

  • Chapter
Hebrew Scholasticism in the Fifteenth Century

Part of the book series: Amsterdam Studies in Jewish Thought ((ASJT,volume 9))

  • 289 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. This hypothesis is questioned by Tirosh-Rothschild, Between Worlds, p. 253, note 104: according to her, Messer Leon died in Naples around 1497.

    Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  8. On this text, see Steinschneider, Hebraeischen Übersetzungen, pp. 79–80; Manekin, Scholastic Logic, pp. 146–147 (list of extant manuscripts).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cf. Manekin, Scholastic Logic, pp. 138 and 145–146.

    Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cf. Husik, Judah Messer Leon’s, pp. 25–27.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  15. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cf. Zonta, Scholastic Commentaries, pp. 383 and 396–399.

    Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cf. Husik, Judah Messer Leon’s, pp. 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Zonta, Scholastic Commentaries, pp. 385–390.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cf. F. Bottin, Gaetano da Tiene e i calculatores, in Poppi (ed.), Scienza e filosofia, 125–134, esp. p. 132.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 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”).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  28. 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”).

    Google Scholar 

  29. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Described in Bernheimer, Codices, pp. 98–99, number 80; cf. also Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, p. 111, number 34.

    Google Scholar 

  31. On this manuscript, see above, note 3.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cf. Zonta, Aristotle’s Physics, pp. 208–209, and Zonta, La filosofia antica, p. 234.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Cf. Pauli Veneti Expositio in Physicam Aristotelis et commentum Averrois, Venetiis 1499.

    Google Scholar 

  34. On Messer Leon’s use of these sources, see below.

    Google Scholar 

  35. 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)

    Google Scholar 

  36. For a list of the above quotations, as found in ms. Milan, S 38 sup., see below.

    Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cf. Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 2rb, ll. 35 ff.: Illud est adaequatum subiectum illius scientiae quod est communissimum in illa...

    Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Cf. also Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 3ra, ll. 12 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Cf. also Paulus Venetus, op. cit., f. 3ra, end of page.

    Google Scholar 

  44. The most recent description of the manuscript is in Tamani and Zonta, Aristoteles Hebraicus, pp. 91–93, number 4.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Described in Zotenberg, Catalogue, p. 178.

    Google Scholar 

  46. See ms. Florence, ff. 119r-120v; ms. Paris, ff. 91r–92r.

    Google Scholar 

  47. On this list of philosophical definitions, see above, p. 213.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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”.

    Google Scholar 

  49. In Hebrew: ’ot(ot) ha-shimmush. They are the letters used to alter the word roots to construct the various grammatical forms.

    Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Cf. Brito’s Quaestiones, f. 31ra, ll. 34–35: Utrum mortale sit differentia. Et arguitur quod sic.

    Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation