Apud Urbem Toletanam in Capella Sanctae Trinitatis:
Medieval Translators in Spain and the Toledo Affair
Dr Ruggiero Pergola (Imperial College London)
It was probably as a result of Raimundo’s encouragement that the
Toledan School of translators developed. Some effort to make
available to Christians the learning of the Spanish Arabs had
already begun, but Raimundo encouraged Spanish scholars to
translate many important Arabic and Jewish works, unknown to
Christians, into Latin.
©2013 Encyclopædia Britannica
Medieval civilization mainly developed from Latin translations of Greek, Arabic and Hebrew
texts. Throughout the Middle Ages, two interrelated translation currents can be identified. The
first, the religious one, developed during the Early Middle Ages and was characterized by
translations of hagiographical, canonical and liturgical texts. After its climax with Jerome
between the 4th and 5th c., this current developed with different modalities in different areas,
from Rome to Naples (9th – 10thc.), and from Amalfi to Constantinople (11th c.).
The second current was scientific and it included translations of mathematical,
astronomical/astrological, medical and philosophical texts.
It began in Italy around the middle of 11th c., and expanded across Spain, Sicily and partially
Constantinople throughout the 12th c., until the middle of the 13th c. If we exclude sporadical
exceptions such as Calcidius and Boethius, the scientific current of the High Middle Ages
represents a turning point in the Western translation panorama of the period: at the very base of
this current, there is the awareness, within the Western European tradition, of existing gaps in
scientific subjects, in particular mathematics, astronomy/astrology and medicine.
The translation activity of scientific texts began around the middle of the 11th c. with
Constantine the African, the first translator of medical literature from Arabic. This activity
increased significantly during the 12th and 13th c. The main translation centre from Arabic was
Spain: it was in Toledo - where Christians, Muslims and Jews had established a close
relationship based on knowledge - that some of the most impressive translation work in history
was carried out. John of Seville, Herman of Carinthia, Robert of Ketton, Avendauth, Domenicus
Gundisalvus, Gerard of Cremona, Mark of Toledo and many more, all worked in Toledo: thirsty
for the knowledge that was available in Muslim Spain, they dedicated themselves to intense
translation activity.
Translations from Greek, on the other hand, were circumscribed to Sicily and Constantinople.
In Sicily, where distinguished scholars such as Henry Aristippus, Emir (or Admiral) Eugene and
the anonymous translator of the Almagest were all based, the activity was modest but relevant.
Constantinople was also a very lively centre, although theological interests prevailed over
scientific ones. The translators working in Constantinople mainly came from Italy: among them,
James of Venice, Moses of Bergamo, Burgundio of Pisa, Hugh Eteriano and Stephen of
Antioch.
In spite of showing different orientations and characteristics, the translators who dominate
this period all shared with each other the yearning to rediscover – directly or through Arabic and
Hebrew – the lost Greek texts, considered as repositories of knowledge. Their aim was to
broaden the cultural horizons and bridge the gaps in science and philosophy.
Plato, Aristotle, Ptolemy, Euclid and Galen were the most searched for authors.
According to Edward Grant, it was “the translation of scientific and natural philosophy works
from Greek-Arabic into Latin, together with the establishment of the medieval university and
the emergence of theologian-natural philosophers that set the preconditions for the development
of a new medieval intellectual world and made the Scientific Revolution possible”.
1
1. The birth of a legend
The expression "School of Toledo" typically refers to the translation work of scientific texts
from Arabic into Latin, which developed in Spain between the 12th and 13th centuries. This
label, however, does not do justice to the great cultural significance of the phenomenon.
Moreover, it has also given rise to a legend: it is a popular belief that in Toledo there used to be
an actual education centre for training translators, supposedly founded by Raymond, archbishop
of Toledo, also known as a patron of translators. Today, the hypothesis of the existence of this
school, although attractive, seems to be unreliable and not supported by evidence.
The “discovery” of an alleged Toledo school of translators belongs to the historian Amable
Jourdain, considered to be the first scholar to have drawn attention to the Spanish translation
phenomenon. His research, published posthumously in 1819, with the title Recherches critiques
sur l’âge et l’origine des traductions latines d’Aristote et sur des commentaires grecs ou arabes
employées par les docteurs scolastiques, was continued by his son Charles, who published a
new updated edition in 1843. The third chapter of the 1843 edition, the last one rectified by
Amable Jourdain himself, mentions the Toledo school twice:
Ce fut sans doute ce motif qui engagea D. Raimond [sic], archevêque de Tolède, à faire passer
dans la langue latine les traités philosophiques des Arabes. Parmi les personnages qui coopérèrent
à cette entreprise, il en est deux surtout dont les travaux sont restés tout à fait inconnus. Nous
l’avouons avec une jouissance que l’homme de lettres peut apprécier, la découverte de ce collége
des traducteurs nous a dédommagé des épines sans nombre dont est semée la route que nous avons
parcourue1.
All the key elements of the school seem to be in this passage. But a detail is worth noting:
Jourdain did not use école, but collége.
According to the Trésor de la Langue Française, a collège is a «corps de personnes revêtues
d’une même dignité ou chargées d’une même fonction» and, in technical language, a synonym
of corporation. Both definitions are close to what the Toledo school really was, that is a
movement of translators. Apparently, Jourdain merely recognizes the existence of a group of
translators, rather than an actual physical location.
The second mention, a few pages after the first one, makes Jourdain’s idea more explicit:
En rapprochant les diverses circonstances données par les manuscrits, nous pouvons déterminer
l’époque où la philosophie arabe pénétra chez les Latins, et cette époque est de 1130 à 1150. Soit
que l’on admette l’identité de Johannes Israelita, Johannes Avendeath, soit qu’on la rejette, il n’en
reste pas moins certain que Raymond est le créateur d’un collége des traducteurs2.
1
A. Jourdain, Recherches critiques sur l’âge et l’origine des traductions latines d’Aristote et sur des commentaires grecs ou
arabes employées par les docteurs scolastiques (1819), Paris, Joubert, 18432, pp. 107-108.
2
A. Jourdain, Recherches critiques, cit., p. 119.
2
As can be seen, we now move from the “discovery” (découverte) to the “creation” (créateur)
of the collège by archbishop Raymond. The passage is not obscure, but its interpretation is
somewhat problematical. The first concern is with the use of the word “creation”, which has
been understood as “foundation”: this means interpreting collège as the second meaning in the
Trésor, namely “institute”. But unfortunately there is no mention of the institute location;
Raymond could simply have surrounded himself with a group of translators. The second
concern is with archbishop Raymond himself, whose biography is almost unknown: he was
from Gascony, was archbishop of Toledo from 1126 to 1152 and obtained several benefits for
his church after supporting Alphonse VII’s policies. Raymond went down in history, however,
as the patron of the Toledan translators thanks to Jourdain’s conjecture.
To support his thesis, Jourdain quotes Avicenna’s De anima prologue, possibly the most
important existing document about the history of translation from Arabic in Spain. The prologue
contains precious information on the archbishop of Toledo, on the two translators and on the
methodology used while translating. It is Jourdain’s incorrect transcription which causes a series
of misinterpretations to be analised later on:
Liber Avicennæ de anima translatus de arabico in latinum a Dominico Archidiacono.
Prologus ejusdem ad archiepiscopum Toletanum Reimundonem.
Reverendissimo Toletanæ sedis archiepiscopo et Hispaniarum primati, Joannes Avendehut
Israëlita, philosophus, gratum debitæ servitudinis obsequium3.
Jourdain declares that he has followed two manuscripts, both belonging to the Bibliothèque
Royale:
 BN lat. 1793, which is not Avicenna’s De anima, as Jourdain thought, but Domenicus
Gundisalvus’s De anima;
 BN lat. 6443.
As a matter of fact, he fails to mention that he followed a third ms, BN lat. 8802. This is the
only ms bearing Raymond (Reimundonem) as dedicatee of the Latin translation, with respect to
more than 40 codices bearing John, Raymond’s successor. If we then exclude BN lat. 1793,
Jourdain’s transcription is the result of a mixture of information from mss BN lat. 6443 e BN
lat. 8802. Moreover, the De anima critical edition, edited by Simone van Riet and Gerard
Verbeke, maintains that the rubric bearing Raymond’s name was added by a second copyist at a
later stage, and that this is in conflict with the real dedicatee, which appears on the following
line.
But now a second problem arises: Jourdain transcribes Joannes instead of Joanni and adds a
comma before the first name, thus believing that one of the two translators was a person named
«Joannes Avendehut».
If we delete the rubric from ms 8802 (Prologus ejusdem ad archiepiscopum Toletanum
Reimundonem), we replace Joannes with Joanni and we move the comma after the first name,
the situation becomes clear and Jourdain’s hypothesis is obviously wrong.
Reverendissimo Toletanæ sedis archiepiscopo et Hispaniarum primati Joanni, Avendehut Israëlita,
philosophus, gratum debitæ servitudinis obsequium. [My reconstruction]
3
A. Jourdain, Recherches critiques, cit., p. 449‐450.
3
To sum up, we can affirm that: firstly, Raymond has nothing to do with the present
translation; secondly, the translation of De anima is clearly dedicated to archbishop John;
finally, the mysterious translator is a Jewish philosopher named «Avendehut».
The second piece of evidence used by Jourdain to prove Raymond’s patron role is a small
treatise named De differentia spiritus et animae by Qusṭā ibn Lūqā, translated by John of
Seville. In one of the mss, before the prologue, it is written:
In Dei nomine et ejus auxilio: Incipit liber de differentia inter animam et spiritum, quem filius
Lucæ medici, nomine Costa ben Lucæ, cuidam amico suo, scriptori cujusdam regis, edidit.
Johannes Hispanensis ex arabico in latinum reverendo Toletano archiepiscopo transtulit4.
After this, Jourdain adds the transcription of a second ms, which contains the following
intriguing line:
Et Johannes Hispanensis ex arabico in latinum Ramirando Toletano archiepiscopo transtulit5.
Jourdain concludes that reverendo and Ramirando are corruptions of Raimondo. From this he
convinced himself that Raymond played a crucial role among translators.
Except for a few inaccuracies in transcription, this brief passage indeed testifies that the
translation is dedicated to archbishop Raymond, but it does not prove anything else: it does not
say either what role Raymond played, or what translations he commissioned, or the existence of
a real school. The translator’s mild dedication seems to be just an innocent attempt to win the
powerful archbishop’s favour. Whatever the reasons for it, it is anyway difficult to maintain on
the basis of such a quotation that Raymond was the patron of translators or the founder of a
school.
2. From collège to Schule
Although Jourdain has always been regarded as the discoverer of the Toledo school, as we have
seen, he never spoke of it in that way: instead, he limited himself to recognizing the existence of
a group of translators who worked hard in order to spread new scientific and philosophical
works from the Arabs to the West. The idea of a “school”, as a matter of fact, was introduced by
the German classicist, Valentin Rose.
In 1874, Rose published a brief paper which increased misinterpretations and
misrepresentations about the history of translation in Spain, many of which still exist today. In
this paper, Rose imperiously stated that:
4
5
A. Jourdain, Recherches critiques, cit., p. 116.
A. Jourdain, Recherches critiques, cit., pp. 116-117.
4
a. there used to be a Toledo school, an actual ‘physical’ institute, where the translators
described by Jourdain translated Arabic texts into Latin;
b. Gerard of Cremona, the most prolific translator of the school, was the head of such
institute;
c. at the school, besides translating, lectures were also delivered;
d. the school location was inside the Toledo cathedral.
The starting point of Rose’s research, and also his most reliable proof, is a short treatise
named Philosophia, written by Englishman Daniel of Morley after a study trip to Toledo.
This treatise would prove the existence of a kind of school where scholars from all over
Europe used to meet.
Es ist fast unmöglich die Sache anders vorzustellen, und doch gibt es meines Wissens nur e i n
mittelalterliches Zeugniss dafür dass Toledo in dieser Zeit förmlich eine Art Hochschule war,
wenn auch kein studium generale, wie es etwas später Alfons VIII in Palencia gründete nach
Pariser Vorbild, das die Gelehrten die hier zusammenkamen nicht bloßs Bücher machten, sondern
wie zuerst sich, dann auch wieder andere unterrichteten, öffentliche Vorlesungen hielten. [...] Der
es bietet ist ein Engländer, magister Daniel, welchen die englischen Bibliographen seit Pits Daniel
von Morley nennen (Morilegus bei Leland)6.
Daniel of Morley himself provides us with first-hand information in the preface of his
Philosophia, where he says that he moved to Paris in search of good masters but was
disappointed by their ignorance:
Cum dudum ab Anglia me causa studii excepissem et Parisiis aliquamdiu moram fecissem,
videbam quosdam bestiales in scolis gravi auctoritate sedes occupare, habentes coram se scamna
duo vel tria et desuper codices inportabiles, aureis litteris Ulpiani traditiones representantes,
necnon et tenentes stilos plumbeos in manibus, cum quibus asteriscos et obelos in libris suis
quadam reverentia depingebant7.
When he found out that Arabic studies flourished in Toledo, he moved there in order to listen
to the most learned philosophers in the world; during his stay, he was able to collect a large
number of books:
Sed quoniam doctrina Arabum, que in quadruvio fere tota existit, maxime his diebus apud
Tholetum celebratur, illuc, ut sapientiores mundi philosophos audirem, festinanter properavi.
Vocatus vero tandem ab amicis et invitatus, ut ab Hyspania redirem, cum pretiosa multitudine
librorum in Angliam veni8.
When he went back to England, he was asked by the bishop of Norwich to give a written
account about the marvels and the disciplines of Toledo; the result was his treatise Philosophia:
6
V. Rose, Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo, «Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie», 8 (1874), pp. 327-349, p.
329.
7
8
G. Maurach, Daniel von Morley, ‘Philosophia’, «Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch», 14 (1979), pp. 204-255, p. 212, § 1.
G. Maurach, Daniel von Morley, cit., p. 212, § 2.
5
[...] a domino episcopo de mirabilibus et disciplinis Tholetanis satis quesitum esset9.
As Rose underlines, the most relevant part of the treatise is the last one, where Daniel of
Morley speaks of his teacher, the translator Gerard of Cremona, and talks about the dispute he
had with him. Obviously, what is remarkable is not the dispute itself but the terminology used to
describe it, which gives Rose precious evidence in favour of the existence of a formal school:
Cum vero predicta et cetera talium in hunc modum necessario evenire in YSAGOGIS JAPHARIS
auditoribus suis affirmaret GIRARDUS THOLETANUS, qui Galippo mixtarabe interpretante
ALMAGESTI latinavit, obstupui ceterisque, qui lectionibus eius assidebant, molestius tuli eique
velut indignatus HOMILIAM BEATI GREGORII, in qua contra mathematicos disputat, obieci. At
ille: «Intelligo» inquit «versutias tuas; dicis quod ille, qui sub Aquario natus est, piscator erit;
deinde procedis: Sed Getulia pisces non habet; postremo concludis: Qualiter ergo, qui ibi natus est,
sub Aquario piscator erit?»10.
This passage highlights the fact that a lecture was in progress, that Gerard of Cremona was
the master and also that there were students. However reliable this piece of evidence might be, it
does not appear to sufficiently prove the fact that Toledo had a formal school where translators
gave lectures. Indeed, there is no other proof besides this one: the case of Gerard of Cremona
seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
Doubts have been cast on the reliability of Daniel of Morley’s testimony. After analyzing the
book titles quoted by Daniel in his Philosophia and then making a comparison between this
work and other texts by Adelard of Bath, Charles Burnett maintains that Daniel had copied his
work entirely from Adelard’s Quaestiones naturales and De opere astrolapsus. Furthermore,
Daniel would have modelled his treatise on the very structure of Adelard’s works.
Rose’s reasoning, however, relies on further proof, which is admittedly less convincing than
Daniel of Morley’s Philosophia. The first proof concerns Gerard of Cremona and refers to a
document named Vita, Commemoratio librorum and Eulogium11. This document offers some
biographical information, a list of translated works and a brief poem in hexameter. The present
document, which is of the utmost interest because of its uniqueness, was written by Gerard’s
socii: the purpose was to correct his habit of not putting his name on his translated works.
Thanks to this, nowadays we know who Gerard was and can identify his translations. Rose’s
attention was drawn by the word socii, which would stand for Gerard’s students.
During the Middle Ages, a student was usually named sc(h)olaris, discipulus or studens.
Socius meant “friend”, except for the University of Bologna, where it meant “student” but only
if connected with the word dominus, which stood for master. The usage of this term, however,
disappeared at the beginning of the 12th c. In this document, Gerard is defined as a translator, not
as a teacher.
9
G. Maurach, Daniel von Morley, cit., p. 212, § 4.
G. Maurach, Daniel von Morley, cit., pp. 244-245, § 192.
11
C. Burnett, The Coherence of the Arabic-Latin Translation Program in Toledo in the Twelfth Century, «Science in
Context», 14 (2001), pp. 249-288.
10
6
Although we cannot demonstrate the presence of students in the case of Gerard, we have to
recognize nonetheless that documents from the Toledan period contain the generic term magistri
(which stood for “master”) innumerable times. In particular, two documents dated 1174 and
1176 and kept in the Toledo cathedral archive, mention a person named Gerardus dictus
magister, who has been identified as Gerard of Cremona. It is worth noting the participle dictus,
which, although ambiguous, seems to indicate that magister was a kind of nickname Gerard
gained due to his authoritative personality and his wealth of knowledge, and not his post at a
school.
The last piece of evidence provided by Rose about the existence of a school is a brief note by
Herman the German. At the end of his translation of Averroes’s Middle commentary to
Nicomachean Ethics, Herman recorded the time and place of his work. Rose recovers the
information provided by the translator:
Dixit translator: et ego complevi eius translationem ex arabico in latinum tertio die iovis mensis
iunii anno ab incarnatione MCCXL. apud urbem Toletanam in capella Sanctae Trinitatis, unde sit
domini nomen benedictum12.
The document was already known by Jourdain, but Rose, relying on it, believed he would be
able to identify the location of the Toledo School in the cathedral chapel of the Holy Trinity:
Wir verdanken es Hermann dem Uebersetzer. Denn in dieser Kapelle, offenbar der Kathedrale, hat
er seine Uebertragung der Aristotelischen Ethik (Paraphrase) des Averroes verfertigt. Sie war
(damals) das „Schullokal“. [...] So sehen wir also von Raimund bis auf Roderich, von c. 11501250, die Uebersetzerschule in Verbindung mit dem Erzbisthum und der erzbischönflichen Kirche
von Toledo. Kein Zweifel dass auch die Vorlesungen Gerards von Cremona — „Gerardus nostri
fons lux et gloria cleri“ —, wie der übrigen „mundi philosophi“, dass die Schule arabischer
Wissenschaft, das studium philosophiae generale unter dem Schutz und Dach der alten Kirche
stand, welche „in forma mezquitae a tempore Arabum adhuc stabat“13.
It is important to underline that the Biblioteca Laurenziana ms, used by Rose, is the only one
bearing the specification apud urbem Toletanam in capella Sanctae Trinitatis; this reference is
absent in a second ms kept in the Toledo cathedral. Even if we are willing to take this single
quote at face value, can we really believe in the existence of a school in Toledo only because a
translator maintains he has completed his work in the chapel of the Holy Trinity?
3. What remains of a legend
Throughout the 19th c. the general acceptance of Jourdain and Rose’s opinions prevented many
scholars from studying the translation phenomenon in Spain and from carrying out new research
on the Toledo School. Only in 1924, in his Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, did the
historian Charles Homer Haskins critically examine Rose’s proof on the Toledo School, and
concluded that:
12
13
V. Rose, Ptolemaeus, cit., p. 346.
V. Rose, Ptolemaeus, cit., p. 346.
7
Of a formal school the sources tell us very little, but the succession of translators is clear for more
than a century, beginning about 1135 and continuing until the time of Alfonso X (1252-84). The
first initiative seems to have been due to Archbishop Raymond, 1125 to 1151, as seen in the
dedications of the two Toletan translators of this period, Dominicus Gondisalvi, or Gundissalinus,
and a converted Jew named John14.
From Haskins onward, the hypothesis that a real translation school never existed slowly
became accepted, although it still had to combat Jourdain’s widely spread thesis: namely, that
archbishop Raymond was the patron of Toledan translators. After all, Raymond was still
unknown because of the limited information available.
In his book published in 1942, Ángel González Palencia tried to fill the information gap
about the archbishop of Toledo. Thanks to the extensive use of primary sources, for the first
time he succeeded in clearly outlining this mysterious ecclesiastic figure. The truth slowly began
to emerge, and González Palencia had to acknowledge with regret that the role played by
Raymond in the translation field in Spain remains unclear.
A pesar del avance que mi investigación supone, he de confesar sinceramente que todavía no
queda aclarada en detalle la intervención del arzobispo don Raimundo en el asunto de las
traducciones de obras árabes15.
Of course the idea that the archbishop of Toledo was the patron of Toledan translators is
attractive; and it would be far more attractive if we could extend it to his successors. Evidence
would not be lacking: for instance, Avicenna’s De anima prologue, believed to be dedicated to
Raymond, is addressed to his successor John; Qusṭā ibn Lūqā’s De differentia spiritus et animae
treatise, is dedicated to Raymond himself; La Fazienda de Ultra Mar, is once again dedicated to
Raymond; Mark of Toledo’s translation of the Koran is dedicated to don Rodrigo Jiménez,
archbishop of Toledo from 1209, and to reverend Maurice, archdeacon in the same church.
The evidence in our hands, however, is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Church had
begun a cultural translating policy aimed at transferring knowledge from the Middle East to the
West. Scholars such as Marie-Thérèse d’Alverny and Charles Burnett have helped to reassess
the numerous myths built around the Toledo school over two centuries. Because of their work, it
is now highly unlikely that a school of translators existed in Toledo and that archbishop
Raymond played a role in the flourishing world of translations in Spain.
14
C.H. Haskins, Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (1924), Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, 19272,
pp. 12-13.
15
Á. González Palencia, El Arzobispo Don Raimundo de Toledo, Barcelona, Labor, 1942, p. 48.
8
Select references
Alverny M‐T. d’ (1982), “Translations and Translators”, in R.L. Benson, G. Constable, C.D. Lenham (eds.),
Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University Press, pp. 421‐462.
Burnett C. (1995), “The Institutional Context of Arabic‐Latin Translations of the Middle Ages: A Reassessment of
the ‘School of Toledo’”, in O. Weijers (ed.), Vocabulary of Teaching and Research between Middle Ages and
Renaissance: Proceedings of the Colloquium London, The Warburg Institute, 11‐12 March 1994, Turnhout,
Brepols, pp. 214‐235.
González Palencia Á. (1942), El Arzobispo Don Raimundo de Toledo, Barcelona, Labor.
Haskins C.H. (1927) [1924], Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science, Cambridge (Mass.), Harvard University
Press.
Jourdain A. (1843) [1819], Recherches critiques sur l’âge et l’origine des traductions latines d’Aristote et sur des
commentaires grecs ou arabes employées par les docteurs scolastiques, Paris, Joubert.
Maurach G. (1979), “Daniel von Morley, ‘Philosophia’”, Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch, 14, pp. 204‐255.
Riet S. van, Verbeke G. (eds.) (1968‐1972), Avicenna Latinus: Liber de anima seu Sextus de naturalibus, Louvain,
Peeters ‐ Leiden, Brill, 2 vols.
Rose V. (1874), “Ptolemaeus und die Schule von Toledo”, Hermes: Zeitschrift für Klassische Philologie, 8, pp.
327‐349.
9