As a reader of Averroes's Commentary on Plato's “Republic,” one isstruck from the beginning by how much he omits fromhis commentary. Typically, this would be taken toindicate that Averroes does not comprehend Plato'sintention. Indeed, the author can seem at times toconfirm what many readers assume—namely, that hewould rather have commented on a work by Aristotle.We will try to show that his major omissions—thatis, of books 1, (most of ) 6, and 10, and especiallywhat he substitutes for these omissions—form acoherent pattern and ultimately reveal a profoundcommentary on the omitted passages. That coherentpattern is already set within the first few pages ofthe work. From the beginning he seems to focus onthe place of the Republic in relation to practicalscience and theoretical science. This comes aslittle surprise in a commentary on a work devoted towhat I would like to call the philosopher-kingconceit. The Republicis at least in part Plato's consideration of therelation between theoretical and practical science,as encapsulated in the person of thephilosopher-king. Although Socrates does not getaround to the centrality of this theme until Republic book 5, Averroes ison it from the beginning. He does so in part inorder to place his discussion of the Republic in relation to hiscommentary on the NicomacheanEthics—putatively the more theoretical ofthe two works. Be that as it may, we are mostinterested in what ties together the omissions ofbooks 1, 6, and 10—and especially what Averroessubstitutes for those omissions. We hope to showthat the golden thread running through what Averroessubstitutes is the theme of human perfection, in atleast two senses: the philosopher-king andimmortality. In each case, there is some element inPlato's original that Averroes needs to take intoanother register (from conventionalism in book 1 tofiat transplanted into the Second Treatise; fromseparate forms in book 6 to the active intellect inthe Second Treatise; and from immortality of thesoul in book 10 to conjunction with the activeintellect in the Second Treatise). In effect, allthese omissions are drawn together in the SecondTreatise. For that reason, eventually, we willcomment more closely on the most relevant section ofthe Second Treatise (60.17–74.12).