4P Li gç(' TRANSACTIONS

788 LE LIVRE l)E YCONOMIQUE D'ARISTOTE [TRANS. AMER. PHIL. Soc.
ham's translation is referred to as rcccns-io Dtrandi and
the fourteenth century version is called vet us trans1atio,'
since Lacombe, alone among modern scholars, judged
the Latin version in three Books to he older than William's
version of the first and third Books. It is clear
that Lacombe did not utilize the investigations of Mandonnet,
although the latter's articles are included in the
list of works consulted; nor does he include the Arahico-
Latin summaries ']it list of Latin texts.
As the many variant readings recorded in Susemihi's
edition indicate, 13 considerable textual divergencies exist
among the manuscript copies belonging to each of the
two families of Greco-Latin versions of the Economics.
There is, moreover, a copy of a Latin commentary on the
Economics by Ferrandus de Hispania, made about 1310,
which contains in its margins portions of textual passages
that point to the existence of a third independent
Latin version of which nothing definite is known.
Suscnnhl deemed these marginal notes sufficiently important
to include portions of them in his variant readings
for the third Book; indubitably, they do serve to
clarify several doubtful passages. The source from
which these marginal excerpts were derived remains
unsolved.
This general survey of the various Latin translations
of the Economics available in the fourteenth century may
serve to underscore the difficulties confronting anyone
who might wish to undertake the task of turning this
work into a modern language. Certainly it would have
been much simpler to work from a Greek original; but in
fourteenth-century France knowledge of Greek was at
its nadir and the author of Le Livrc dc Yconomiquc had
no other recourse than to utilize the available Latin
versions. Our examination of his French translation
will demonstrate that he had at his disposal recensions
of the Latin versions of the Economics that have since
disappeared. However, these additional textual resources
were of little use to him. Often he complains
in his glosses that his originals are corrupt and defy
intelligent interpretation. Modern translators of this
treatise have echoed his complaint and have found the
Greek original equally troublesome. His struggle to
Georges Laconibe, Arislo/cics !utijzus 1: 166-167, Rome,
Libreria dello Stato, 1939. Lacombe states, p. 77: "Nos autem
commentationes magni momcnti expectaimis quas preparant d.
Pctrus Mandonnet et Ilirkenmajer, quisque sua pro parte.
inlerduns silcamus." The fact that this distinguished work was
published posthumously doubtless accounts for the confusion.
13 Susemihl published Book I of the Latin version of William
of Moerbeke separately: Occononiicoru,n, quac Arstote/i vu/go
tribuun/ur, libri /irind re/usia trans/u/jo Latina, 7 pp., Berlin,
1870, with variant readings from three manuscripts. Book Ill
is found in his Aristotelis quac feruniur Occonoinica, 40-63,
Leipzig, Teubner, 1887, with variants from eight manuscripts and
also the anonymous Latin version of ca. 1310 and the Scholia
of Ferrandus de Hispania. For convenience in comparing William's
version with Oresme's French translation, we have included
Susemihl's reconstructed text, minus the variant notes,
in the Appendix to this edition of the I ' 'iw inquc. I ''' pp
extricate the sense from doubtful passages was not
uniformly successful and his working methods were
quite elementary ; nevertheless, in making the attempt,
he produced one of the earliest examples of textual
criticism in a modern language.
For ready reference, the following summary of the
Mediaeval Latin versions of the Economics will be
helpful
SUMMARY OF MEDIAEVAL LATIN VERSIONS
OF THE ECONOMICS
(1) Translation from Arabic of Averrhoes' synoptic
paraphrase, made by Pedro Gallego, bishop of Cartagena,
ca. 1260.
(2) Translation of same Arabic synopsis, made by
Armengaud Blazius for Pope Clement V. Ca. 1310.
There is no textual evidence that either of these
Arabico-Latin versions was used in connection with Le
Livrc de Yconomique.
(3) William of Moerbeke's translation of Books I and
III front Greek original. 1267. The two Books are
uniformly numbered I and II.
(4) Aiiorivmous translation of Books 1, II, and III
from Greek original, ca. 1310.
(5) Excerpts from anonymous Greco- I .atin translatiofl,
now lust, of Books I an(l III. Contained in
marginal and interlinear scholia in Commentary on the
Economics by Fcrrandus de Hispania, Ca. 1310.
Following the precedent of (3) above. Le Livre de
Yconomquc omits entirely the second Book of the Greek
text nor is there any hint of its existence in either Greek
or I.atiti. Further reference to this excluded second
Book will not be required in our present stud y. We are
here concerned onl y with Books I and III of the original
Greek Economics. For convenience," we shall adopt
henceforth the numbering found ill the French version.
Thus
Livre I hcak I of both the Greek and I .atin texts.
I .ivre II Book II of William of Moerbeke's Latin
version; Book III of the anon ymous Latin text and
presumably Book III, now host, of the Greek original.
IV. LE LIVRE DR YCONOMIQUE
1. THE TRANSLATOR, NICOLE ORESME
The intellectual climate of Europe in the fourteenth
century stands in marked contrast to that of the two
preceding centuries. During the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries the vast structure of mediaeval Christian
The Loeb Classical Library edition of the Os'cono,nica, 321-
424, Harvard Univ. Press, 1935, contains the Greek text of
Books I and II and the William of Mocrbeke version of Book
III as established by Susemihl iii the Teubncr edition, with a
parallel English translation by Cyril Armstrong. This Loeb
edition is to he recommended for its convenient format and the
excellence of the En glish translation.