The Vernacular Aristotle: Translation as Reception in Medieval and Renaissance Italy

Starting from the early twelfth century, Aristotle becomes the uncontested authority in philosophical matters throughout Europe and his name is synonymous with philosophical investigation. The core of the matter is how his texts were disseminated and read and the first issue to consider is language, since Greek was no longer known and Aristotle is handed down, not so much in Latin, but thanks to vernacular translations. As the historical and cultural distancing from his texts increases, it becomes more and more important to understand the culture of reference in which they were received. In this book, Refini deals with the complexity of these elements and comes to the conclusion that, if translating means interpreting, it also takes into account the cultural milieu in which the translation is received. In the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, translation is not simply—and no longer—the transferring of texts from one language to another; it becomes synonymous with readers’ reception, with the texts’ admission into and appropriation by a different cultural ambience. The book is comprised of an Introduction, five chapters, and a Conclusion. Chapter One discusses the debasement of Aristotle in the culture of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance as an image (which is not simply a metaphor) for Aristotle’s appropriation in the vernacular, with the complexity of making his philosophical thinking adequate to the new age through new languages. The “space of difference” articulates the dynamic interaction between academic Latin and the increasing importance attributed to the more “natural” mother tongue, by referring to both written texts as well as visual artifacts and representations. This discussion transitions seamlessly into Dante Alighieri’s revolutionary arguments in favor of the vernacular as academic language in Chapter Two, where the sommo poeta’s criticism of Taddeo Alderotti’s Italian translation of Summa Alexandrinorum invites a reconsideration of Dante’s ideas on the relationship between his two languages, Latin and the vernacular, as he articulated them in Convivio. The reception of the Nicomachean Ethics occupies the largest portion of the book and, in Chapters Three and Four, the discussion veers towards couching translation even more in the milieu in which it took place. The Venetian mercantile ambience sought legitimation through commissioning the vernacular translation of Aristotle’s well-known book and, in this context, it is clear how “vernacularization” also means “vulgarization,” an adaptation to the tastes and needs of vernacular readers. The scene moves to reading practices in Florence in Chapter Four, where the emphasis is placed more on the common ground occupied by readers from very different backgrounds than on the contrasts between opposite perspectives on Aristotle’s moral philosophy, which inevitably also becomes a political issue. Cultural hybridism is at the center of Chapter Five, where the intricate reception of Aristotle’s ethical thought is designed by retracing the creation and dissemination of some of its compendia and anthologies, which display reading tastes and practices, but also an intentional project of adaptation for specific purposes. The two contrasting images of Aristotle enthroned as uncontested cultural and philosophical authority, the most illuminated intellect of all time, and his degradation at the hands of Phyllis, the dominatrix who subjugates and rides him, are the polar opposites in