David Lines

Music education is a social act oriented around interactions between people in public spaces. These spaces provide opportunities for what Hannah Arendt calls natality, which we interpret as new and unexpected actions that arise in a shared space. Drawing from a range of ideas and experiences of Arendt, bell hooks, Joan Baez, Martha Nussbaum, and music education philosophers and practitioners, we argue that it is important for music educators to make room for this space by becoming more critically aware of their emotions. Opening up to the unexpected in human interactions can at times be difficult and elicit fear. It also calls for a civic love. Cultivating this kind of love includes recognizing that our emotions and matters of the heart are instruments of power that can support or hinder others from becoming actors in their own right. As agents within music education, we can strive to realize this by developing a critical pedagogic consciousness and reflecting on the unexpected and emotional spaces of interaction.

This special issue aims to help bridge this gap: it provides a flavour of how philosophical translation in particular was conceived in Renaissance Europe. It is also meant to help stimulate a debate concerning the viewpoint of Renaissance practitioners of the art of «interpretation»: when working from Latin or Greek, did they see the activities of translation and vernacularization, for instance, as identical? Did they conceive of “vertical” and “horizontal” translations as separate, according to an influential distinction outlined by Gianfranco Folena? Did they adopt a broadly similar approach to translation, regardless of whether they were dealing with literary, scientific, or religious texts? Did they think of translations as clearly separate from other forms of interpretation, such as paraphrases or other renderings?

This special issue aims to help bridge this gap: it provides a flavour of how philosophical translation in particular was conceived in Renaissance Europe. It is also meant to help stimulate a debate concerning the viewpoint of Renaissance practitioners of the art of «interpretation»: when working from Latin or Greek, did they see the activities of translation and vernacularization, for instance, as identical? Did they conceive of “vertical” and “horizontal” translations as separate, according to an influential distinction outlined by Gianfranco Folena? Did they adopt a broadly similar approach to translation, regardless of whether they were dealing with literary, scientific, or religious texts? Did they think of translations as clearly separate from other forms of interpretation, such as paraphrases or other renderings?

This article investigates the claims made in the dedicatory epistle to Girolamo Manfredi’s De homine to have effected an Italian translation of various earlier works. First published in 1474, the De homine is strongly dependent on the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems, for which several translations into Latin were available by Manfredi’s time as well as the highly influential commentary by Pietro d’Abano. Focusing on one particular section of the De homine, on voice, this article offers an analysis of the various sources used and of the extent to which Manfredi is indeed offering a translation or something different. This study concludes that Manfredi closely followed the translation by Bartolomeo da Messina and the commentary by Pietro d’Abano; it finds no clear evidence of his use of the translations by George of Trebizond or Theodore Gaza. Other sources used include especially Rhazes’ Ad Almansorem.

This article investigates the claims made in the dedicatory epistle to Girolamo Manfredi’s De homine to have effected an Italian translation of various earlier works. First published in 1474, the De homine is strongly dependent on the pseudo-Aristotelian Problems, for which several translations into Latin were available by Manfredi’s time as well as the highly influential commentary by Pietro d’Abano. Focusing on one particular section of the De homine, on voice, this article offers an analysis of the various sources used and of the extent to which Manfredi is indeed offering a translation or something different. This study concludes that Manfredi closely followed the translation by Bartolomeo da Messina and the commentary by Pietro d’Abano; it finds no clear evidence of his use of the translations by George of Trebizond or Theodore Gaza. Other sources used include especially Rhazes’ Ad Almansorem.

This essay considers the way and manner in which a musician and music educator approaches his or her work. It is suggested that anthropomorphic conceptions of music have endured in music education practice in the West. It is proposed that our view of the ‘processes’ of music making, music reception and music learning can be challenged and reconsidered. Heidegger's theory of art is used as a way of rethinking these processes, and of reconsidering our relational dimension with music. The unfolding of music in music‐events occurs as people ‘work‐with’ music and interact with its dimensions in a way that is culturally and dialogically vibrant. Music education can thus become more responsive to changing ‘modes of beings’ in the moment.

This volume challenges readers to think about what music means in contemporary society, and how music education can remain culturally relevant in the new millennium. A collection of thought-provoking philosophical perspectives on music education. Explores the changing ways in which music is being produced, disseminated and received. Considers how current phenomena such as the commoditization of music, the use of new technologies, and access to hybrid music forms, relate to music education. Covers themes such as pragmatism, performativity, cultural identity, emotion, autonomy and globalization. Asks how music teaching and learning can remain culturally relevant

This special issue aims to help bridge this gap: it provides a flavour of how philosophical translation in particular was conceived in Renaissance Europe. It is also meant to help stimulate a debate concerning the viewpoint of Renaissance practitioners of the art of «interpretation»: when working from Latin or Greek, did they see the activities of translation and vernacularization, for instance, as identical? Did they conceive of “vertical” and “horizontal” translations as separate, according to an influential distinction outlined by Gianfranco Folena? Did they adopt a broadly similar approach to translation, regardless of whether they were dealing with literary, scientific, or religious texts? Did they think of translations as clearly separate from other forms of interpretation, such as paraphrases or other renderings?

In the Italian universities, there was traditionally a strong alliance between natural philosophy and medicine, which however was all to the advantage of the latter; its teachers were better regarded and better paid than others in the faculty of Arts and Medicine, and this led to career paths that sought out the teaching of medicine as soon as possible. This article examines a reversal of this trend observable in sixteenth-century Bologna and some other Italian universities , leading to careers concentrating on natural philosophy and on the interpretation of Aristotelian works. It appears that financial incentives were part of the context leading to specialization in philosophy. An appendix listing the careers of nearly 200 teachers of natural philosophy in Bologna between 1340 and 1600 illustrates the developments

This volume studies the teaching of Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics (the standard textbook for moral philosophy) in the universities of Renaissance Italy. Special attention is given to how university commentaries on the Ethics reflect developments in educational theory and practice and in humanist Aristotelianism. After surveying the fortune of the Ethics in the Latin West to 1650 and the work’s place in the universities, the discussion turns to Italian interpretations of the Ethics up to 1500 (Part Two) and then from 1500 to 1650 (Part Three). The focus is on the universities of Florence-Pisa, Padua, Bologna, and Rome (including the Collegio Romano). Five substantial appendices document the institutional context of moral philosophy and the Latin interpretations of the Ethics during the Italian Renaissance. Largely based on archival and unpublished sources, this study provides striking evidence for the continuing vitality of university Aristotelianism and for its fruitful interaction with humanism on the eve of the early modern era.