THE PUBLISHING HISTORY OF THE ARISTOTLE COMMENTARIES OF THOMAS AQUINAS Author(s): F.

EDWARD CRANZ Reviewed work(s): Source: Traditio, Vol. 34 (1978), pp. 157-192 Published by: Fordham University Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27831043 . Accessed: 12/04/2012 01:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Fordham University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Traditio.

http://www.jstor.org

THE PUBLISHING HISTORY OF THE ARISTOTLE COMMENTARIES OF THOMAS AQUINAS

By F. EDWARD CRANZ

and thinkers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were widely in the reception and transmission of a variety of earlier works, and engaged recent scholarship has perhaps concentrated too much on the special case of the reception and transmission of the Greek and Latin classics. A study of the publishing history of the Aristotle commentaries of Thomas Aquinas may Writers throw light on a different phase of the same general process, the Renaissance an ancient author.* a fortuna of medieval rather than of Thomas Aquinas did not produce a complete set of commentaries on Aris

his own position, his overwhelming

* An ence

Thomas expounded Aristotle through what are known as literal commen taries, in contrast not only to the paraphrases of his teacher Albert the Great, but also to the question commentaries which became dominant in the four teenth and fifteenth centuries. While Thomas does not deliberately conceal concern is with what Aristotle intended,

reportatio of his lectures, by Reginald of Piperno), and two books of the Parva naturalia In moral philo (De sensu et sensato, De memoria et reminiscentia). Thomas commented on the Ethica Nicomachea and the Politica sophy (Books I and II and Book III through Lectio VI). he wrote on Books I-XII of Finally, the Metaphysica.

In the field of natural philosophy he wrote on the Physica, the De coelo (Books III through Lectio VIII), and Book the De generatane et corruptione I through Lectio XVII theMeteora (Book I through Lectio Vili orX), ), (Book are written commentaries of Thomas; Book I is a the De anima (Books II-III I?II

totle, but he commented on a very considerable portion of the Aristotelian left a commentary on the De interpre corpus.1 Of the logical canon, Thomas I and Book II through Lectio II) and on the Analitica tation (Book posteriora.

and 1 For

to the New England earlier version of this paper was presented Renaissance Confer at the University of New Hampshire, October 1974. Numbers enclosed in parentheses of Editions to this article. preceded by ? refer to the items in the Check-list appended a basic statement on of Thomas, zur Geschichte C. H. see M. Grabmann, the authenticity Die of the Aristotle com probable dating des hl. Thomas von Aquin (3rd ed.; und Theologie des Mittelalters XXII 1-2; M?nster Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors Robertus Werke and

mentaries Beitr?ge 1949) Wilgelmus,' evaluation Thomas

272-85;

Lohr,

der Philosophie 'Medieval 93-197 see M.

Traditio 29 (1973) of the commentaries von Aquin/

at 159-72 For a general (with full bibliographies). ' Die Aristoteleskommentare des heiligen Grabmann, in his Mittelalterliches I (Munich Geistesleben 1926) 266-313.

158
the intentio Aristotelis.

TRADITIO

the context of the 'Latin Aristotle/ and it does not seem that he was actively interested in getting back of the Latin translation to the Greek original.2 In the area of the literal commentary, Thomas was unexcelled. He gained ' ' the title among the Latins of the Expositor, and his own followers thought his commentaries so essential to an understanding of Aristotle that there was an adage in the schools to the effect that where Thomas was silent, Aristotle remained mute. Thomas also won praise from philosophers of other schools, and Agostino Nifo.3 such as Pico della Mirandola ' It is still uncertain how many of the commentaries we possess were pub ' lished by Thomas himself. In the lateMiddle Ages, the standard way of making

He first divides the text in scrupulous detail. He then goes on to summarize and explain what Aristotle has said, with particular attention to difficult passages and to possible contradictions. Thomas bases his analysis on the medieval Latin translations of Aristotle; he remains with

a work public was to provide it with a personal dedication, and only the De Curiously, the De interpretatione was interpretatione has such a dedication. never completed by Thomas, and we must assume that the dedication in ques tion was

simply a letter to accompany a first installment of the commentary. In any case, the commentaries were surely 'public' in the first part of the fourteenth century, and most of them are listed among the official texts avail of Paris in 1304.4

able at the University

2 Even lated The

in the early

fourteenth

all Aristotle's

works

of moral and the

of Moerbeke trans century we find the story that William and natural recent scholars have philosophy; supposed with William about in the Leonine points of the translation. of the Opera edition omnia and William between Thomas is does not but seem to have been older par ones, often cites obscure

that he profited by direct editors of the Ethica however, shown the that

consultation

of the Politica

have, not

by supported interested ticularly even those made Opera

evidence

story of the collaboration and further that Thomas of the most rather than recent

in making

use

translation,

from the Arabic, omnia

the latest version

from the Greek.

See Thomas

1 (Sententia libri Ethicorum) 1882 ff.) XLVII *232-34*; (Rome Aquinas, A 63, note 1. See also the Appendix to the edition libri Politicorum) ibid. XLVIII (Sententia ' et l'?thique Saint Thomas R.-A. ? Nicomaque,' libri Politicorum, of the Sententia Gauthier, at pp. xviii-xx. 3 Sixtus Medices, tione tacuerit mann, (?57) 'Die writes: Thomas, to in the preface to the 1530 iam per fuisse.' edition The 'Sine of the commentary vulgatissimum statements of Nifo Grabmann Thoma also mutus Sententia dans 'Une on the De are esset gener a

'...illudque mutum Aristotelem of Sixtus

Scholas

dictetur cites

Ubi adagium, found in Grab of Pico . . .' 73*. Aristoteles

Aristoteleskommentare the adage

. . .,' 310-11. Medices: of Paris,

a remark

comparable

(p. 312). 4 For the document On

of the University exemplaria, si?cle (Paris

see Thomas, La pecia

libri Ethicorum institution

the significance et du XIVe taires du XIIIe la "pecia",'

of these Revue

see J. Destrez,

les manuscrits

universi du monde

m?di?vale:

Philosophique

1935); G. Fink-Errera, de Louvain 60 (1962)

184-243.

AQUINAS*

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

159

In tracing the later history of the commentaries, it will be convenient to consider the manuscript story first and then that of the printed editions, though we shall find that the invention of printing led to no sudden break in the tradition. First of all, in the period after Thomas' death, the incomplete commentaries were mostly 'completed/ many of them by Peter of Auvergne, perhaps a a It is clear that the booksellers as pupil of Thomas even if not Dominican.5 as the students wanted

commentaries on entire works of Aristotle, not on portions of them. Once the commentaries had been completed, the merely continued whole was usually attributed to Thomas, though some manuscripts to indicate where Thomas stopped and where the continuator began. For the well most were taken over into the printed editions, part these early completions some new ones were added later, such as that of Thomas de Vio on the though It is only in the present century that scholars such as De inierpretatione. Pierre Mandonnet truly Thomas Secondly, selves, were

is and notably Martin Grabmann have separated what in the commentaries fromwhat is later addition.6 like the Aristotelian works them the commentaries of Thomas,

soon accompanied by a host of study-tools, such as abbreviations, indexes to authors appear to be a concordances, and indexes. Alphabetical invention which became common only in the thirteenth cen post-Carolingian In the middle of the fourteenth century Hervaeus de Cauda compiled an tury. and the Englishman William index to the whole of Thomas, alphabetical the Aristotle commentaries, that on Sudbery did another around 1400.7 Of the Ethica was the most widely studied, and for it we have the largest number of summaries, indexes, and so on.8 It does not seem possible in the present state of knowledge to estimate how in the commentaries were available many manuscript copies of the Thomas

still survive, fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. As to how many manuscripts we shall have accurate figures when the Repert?rium of Thomas manuscripts has been completed.9 However, we already have excellent information on the in the exemplary editions manuscripts of the Ethica and Politica commentaries
5 On Peter of see G. H. Lohr, 'Medieval Auvergne, - Richardus' at 28 (1972) 281-396 Traditio Narcissus 6 See . . . Die Werke Grabmann, 7 M. des Thomasstudiums 'Hilfsmittel Grabmann, One might at 482-84. leben II (Munich 1936) 424-89 the study of Aristotle; see M. Grabmann, 'Methoden Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors

334-46. aus also alter Zeit,' Mittelalterliches compare the similar tools Geistes used for

und Hilfsmittel

des Aristotelesstudiums

Sb. Akad. Munich im Mittelalter,' (1939) Heft 5. 8 See and 259-63*. 37-50* libri Ethicorum Sententia Thomas, 9 Codices de Aquino Sancti Thomae Thomae operum (Editores operum manuscripti so far appeared, the libraries have Two volumes Rome covering 1967?). 2?; Aquino cities through M?nster.

de in

160
which have

TRADITIO

old catalogues, but can no longer be located.12 These figures can help us to determine the comparative popularity of Thomas' commentaries in relation to other works during the same period; they indicate, for example, that the Ethica commentary was widely read and studied. It is still probably too early to attempt to extrapolate from these figures to any simple contrast between the number of manuscript copies as against the later printed book copies. What we have noted so far has been a largely typical story of an established and important author. The crisis in the manuscript history of Thomas' Aris totle commentaries comes only with the humanists and their new translations of Aristotle. Leonardo The call to war Bruni's new translation

recently appeared.10 For the Ethica commentary, the editors list 86 complete or nearly complete manuscripts, 40 which are fragmentary, and 43 which are known to have existed, but which are now lost.11 For the Politica seven others are mentioned in commentary, there are 27 extant manuscripts;

is found in the opening sentence of the preface to of the Ethica, completed in 1417-18:

Aristotelis Ethicorum libros facer? Latinos nuper institu?, non quia prius traducti non essent, sed quia sic traducti erant, ut barbari magis quam La
tini effecti viderentur ?eque .... Constat enim illius traductionis auctorem ?eque Graecas Latinas litteras satis scivisse.

. . .

Bruni

antea

concludes his preface: Illud assecutum me puto ut hos libros nunc primum Latinos
non essent.13

fecerim, cum

specifically, in Thomas and the other commentators, to the older translations. If the translations are changed as fundamentally as they were in the case of Bruni's Ethica, the whole corpus of Latin commentary is left, as it were, in mid-air. Even more important, scholastic thought had built up its own phi losophic terminology in heavy dependence on the language of the medieval It might well prove im versions, and it had its home in this terminology. after two or more centuries of such thought, to learn to possible, 'philosophize' or even to think in the new and different terminology of Renaissance Latin.14
10 Thomas 1-2 and XLVIII. Aquinas, Opera omnia XVII 11 libri Ethicorum Sententia 19-37*. Thomas, 12 libri Politicorum Sententia A 10-14. Thomas, 13 Leonardo Bruni Aretino, Humanistisch-philosophische zur Geistesgeschichte und der Renaissance des Mittelalters 14 On this see the remarks of the author in problem De anima/ XVIe International de Tours: Platon Colloque 1976) 359-76.

The challenge is a clear one, and it ismore extensive than one might suspect at first glance; far more than a mere change in translations is involved. In the first place the vast commentary literature on Aristotle had been directed

Schriften

(ed. H.

Baron; 76-77.

Quellen of the (Paris

I; Leipzig 1928) 'The Renaissance et Aristote ?

Reading la Renaissance

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

161

Even printed

in the short period between Bruni's translation and the appearance of editions of the Thomas commentaries, we find two very different

responses to the humanist challenge. On the traditionalist side, a Spanish on Bruni's of Cartagena, launched a sharp counter-attack bishop, Alonso version and defended the old translation.15 In the exchange which followed Alonso's position was weakened by the fact that he was ignorant of Greek. Alonso's simple solution was to reject the new translation of Bruni and to use the traditional medieval version. only A very different solution, however, is suggested in a number of fifteenth of Thomas on the Ethica. Sometimes we find the com century manuscripts reader to the medie there are Ethica

mentary of Thomas, but the old catchwords, referring the val translation, have been omitted, and in their place catchwords to the Bruni translation or even the entire times, on the other hand, we findmanuscripts of the Bruni Thomas commentary, or parts of it, have been added

either the Some The

translation.16

to which the

in the margins.17

15 On Bruni

the debate,

see A. Birkenmajer, Vermischte zur Geschichte to the Liber of letters with Grabmann, I (Munich the der

'Der

Streit

des Alonso

von Cartagena XX

mit

Leonardo Phi 1922)

Aretino/ (Beitr?ge

in his

Untersuchungen Philosophie

zur Geschichte des Mittelalters

der mittelalterlichen 5; M?nster

losophie 129-210. and his

In addition exchange Bruni, see M.

against

of Alonso, Birkenmajer prints Bruni's preface to the Ethica For a later defense Alonso. of the medieval translation ' Eine ungedruckte der scholastischen Verteidigungsschrift Ethik 1926) gegen?ber 440-48. listed in the Sententia libri Ethicorum translation as in manuscripts Here the 9.E.I. dem Humanisten Lionardo Bruni/ Mit

?bersetzung

der nikomachischen

telalterliches Geistesleben 16 For see examples, l*f.: No. have No. 16. Cambridge, been omitted; 34. London, manuscript,

following 208. we

Peterhouse in their place British and

lemmata translation The

of the Grosseteste of Bruni. procedure were

find the entire Royal that

Museum, it appears

same

is followed

the above

the two manuscripts listed ibid.: Vat. of the lat.

produced

in the same

scriptorium. 17 For examples, No. tains not 79. Citt? the Ethica

see the following manuscripts del Vaticano, translated Biblioteca by Bruni;

Apostolica, a second hand

3003.

The

manuscript century has

con added

late fifteenth

from the Thomas since these do commentary, though often omitting his 'divisions' translation. to the Bruni correspond 92. Cambridge, The No. of Thomas Library, Hh.1.6 has University (1620). commentary of the Bruni in the margins the lemmata been added of the Grosseteste translation; transla selections tion have No. been replaced Escorial, by those Real of Bruni. 93. El Biblioteca

del Monasterio de San Lorenzo, f.II.3. The manu In the margins translation. the Bruni there is a commentary script contains consisting from Albertus de Saxonia but also from Thomas of excerpts mainly and other writers. It so as to correspond that these excerpts have been 'revised' is noteworthy to the text of the 'liber... commentario instructus Bruni translation: est, e plurium commentariis scriptorum

162
solution

TRADITIO

implied is as simple as that of Alonso of Cartagena, but directly op we may throw away the medieval version and assume that Thomas posite; commented on the new translation of Bruni. Such was shall later have occasion the troubled state of affairs when printing was invented, and we to note the continuation and broadening of the same

dispute in the printed editions. First, however, let us look at the printed edi tions more generally. As far as the chronological spread of the editions is concerned, there were 140 editions of the commentaries in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries; one more

appeared in the first decade of the seventeenth century, and nine in the 1640s (in all of these calculations, the Opera omnia are counted as single editions, even though they contain all the commentaries). After 1649, none twentieth century. The commentaries of the commentaries were ever reprinted apart from the Opera omnia until the

first began to appear in the 1470s. They are absent from the earliest period of printing, of the incunabula incunabulorum, from 1450 to 1470. Indeed only one work of Aristotle himself was printed during this first period: Bruni's translations of the Et?lica, Politica, and Oeconomica, published at Strasbourg before April 10, 1469.18 Ifwe group the editions by decades, there is a steady increase from four in the 1470s up to sixteen in the 1500s and fourteen in the 1510s. The 1520s see an abrupt decline with only three editions; the decline in Thomas commentaries is paralleled by a comparable decline in all Aristotelian publications, and one assumes

that the storms of the beginning Reformation were at least in part In the 1530s and the 1540s publication resumes; a second high responsible. is reached with eighteen editions in the 1550s and seventeen in the point 1560s. The Thomas

increase of publication is clearly associated with the support of the Council of Trent and by the Jesuits. Beginning in the 1570s, by there is a gradual decline, and after 1600 publication of the commentaries almost ceases, apart from the burst of publication at Paris in the 1640s.

excerpto, commodata No. lat.

quorum sunt. Citt?

'

tarnen

verba

verbis

Libri

Ethicorum

a Leonardo

Aretino and No.

translati

ac

120. 1526.

In both

Biblioteca del Vaticano, Apostolica, Chigi E. VII.224, in the Bruni cases the Liber Ethicorum translation Politica 14:

121 Ottob. by where find the

is accompanied commentary we with

of Thomas. excerpts from the commentary of the Thomas I know of only one case among the manuscripts A libri Politicorum See the Sententia similar occurs. something Firenze, Biblioteca of Thomas, Medicea and Book Laurenziana, Gadd. Plut. Prologue taken from the Thomas commentary. 18 Hain 1762; GW 2367; Goff A-983. I of the Politica

XC sup. 86. Here in the Bruni translation,

glosses

co

20 CO CO OCO 0 IM CD ? ?5 "

16

"24"

"

150

"

00 0

" " ~ 2 "

CO 0 2 0

THOMASco 0 COMMENTARIES ARISTOTLE ON CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE

0 "

"

" ~
~ ~ " 0 ~ " " o To"

?"

"

o 00 o

V. De generatione De IV. III. Ethica coelo II. anima De Opera I. VI. Metaphysica VII. Meteora

Parva IX. Naturalia

Physica Vili. OrganonX. XI. Politica Totals

164

TRADITIO

and Agostino Nif o; like them Thomas may have seemed d'?taples of the times to represent a compromise between scholasticism and Ciceronianism. Finally, Thomas is unique among medieval authors in having as Lef?vre to the men so strong a revival after the middle of the sixteenth century. is concerned, the story of the Thomas As far as the place of publication commentaries is an overwhelmingly Italian one; of the 150 known editions, 128 were printed in Italy. The Italian printings are primarily Venetian, with

that his works continued to be published in the period from the 1520s through the 1540s. His fortuna during this period is associated with such Aristotelians

commentaries with those If one compares the publication of the Thomas ofAristotelian works in general, Thomas moves with most medieval commenta tors in the period up to the 1520s. He is unusual among medieval authors in

119 editions printed there. Finally inVenice itself the bulk of the editions were put out by the two great publishing houses of the Scotti, with 56 editions,19 and of the Giunti with 38 (or 39 ifwe count the Lyons editions with which they were associated: of the commentaries, ? 56).20 Both families did at least two editions of each and it is clear that after the first quarter of the sixteenth I am not sure whether their dominance century, they dominated the market. in Italy; it seems more likely that the reflected a greater study of Thomas two families had won control of the international trade in the Aristotle com

mentaries

of Thomas and that the sale of their publications was by no means to Italy. confined Of the editions in Italy outside Venice, all but one were printed before 1510. in the 1480s (?? 6, 24, 25, and 67), two at There were four editions at Pavia in 1493 and 1506 (?? 93 and 124), one at Genoa in the period 1470-80 Padua (? 118), and one at Vicenza in 1482 (?43). Rome produced the 1492 edition of the Politica

Of the editions printed outside Italy, the largest number appeared inFrance. There were two small editions of the logical commentaries in 1534 (?? 86 and 90); four commentaries on natural philosophy were printed by J. Kerver from 1535 to 1537, as the beginning of a larger plan which never came to

editionof 1570 (? 1).

(? 144) and, as a result of a papal

decision, the great Opera omnia

completion (?? 13A, 30, 58, and 130); finally there were nine Paris editions in the 1640s by Dionysius Moreau and his heirs (?? 3,41,50, 78, 85, 109, 117, 142, and 150). It is surprising that the Lyons presses, which were active in the of other works of Thomas as well as of the Aristotle commentaries

publication
19 On

the Scotti,

storico Lombardo 20 On the Giunti, Italiana XVII

' see G. Volpati, Gli Scotti 365-82. 59 (1932) see the short notice, with 331-33, and P. with Venice.

di Monza,

tipografi-editori

in Venezia/

Archivio

(1933) I, in two parts, deals

Camerini,

in the Enciclopedia bibliography, by G. Avanzi dei Giunti Annali 1962 ff.). Voi. (Florence

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

165

should have published only one Thomas commentary and that in connection with the Giunti of Venice (? 56). In Spain one can group together the two Barcelona editions of 1478, of the Ethica and the Politica (?? 42 and of Averroes, de Henares editions of the De 143), and the three Alcal? interpretatione from 1553 through 1570 (?? 86, 87, and 89). Finally to complete the non-Italian in 1496 editions, there was a 1496 edition of the De generatione at Salamanca Opera omnia edition of Antwerp in 1612 (? 3). Questions about the number of copies printed are hard to answer specifically. The preface to the Rome 1492 edition of the commentary on the Politica

(? 52), a 1509 editionof theDe anima atWittenberg in 1509 (? 10), and the

states that 1,500 copies were being printed; the reprint in 1500 was of only 800 copies.21 The usual figure for sixteenth-century editions is somewhere between a thousand and two thousand, and there is no indication that the

Thomas

commentaries were exceptional in this respect. In any case, there can no doubt that there were farmore printed books of the commentaries than be there had ever been manuscripts. The

early editions of the Thomas commentaries reflect the typical develop ments associated with the history of printing. In the beginning, the editions differ little from manuscripts. There is no title page and no dedication;

every bit of space is utilized. There are regularly only catch-words or very short lemmata of the Aristotelian text. But in a comparatively short time, the and new material is added. Fulsome title pages become stand space opens up ard; there are dedicatory letters and dedicatory poems. At least one Latin translation regularly accompanies the commentary, and by the sixteenth it is usual to have two translations, sometimes even three, century printed in their entirety along with the commentary. In the fifteenth century the medie val work of indexing was continued. The Tabula aurea to complete works of Thomas by Petrus de Bergamo was first published in 1475; it was frequently reprinted, and it is found in all the Opera omnia editions of Thomas.22 Once indexes attached printing had been well established, we also find alphabetical to the individual commentaries. These become standard in the great Venetian editions and were often remarkable achievements; one can excuse the enthu siasm of an indexer as he exclaims that everything not only in the work of

21 The bensis Volumina

information uno tenore

on the edition '. summa list of the cura

of 1492 . . librariis summaque

(? 144)

is found

in the

letter of Nimireus

Ar

at the end of the volume: alone has been

imprimenda

tradidisti

(? 145) the number 22 For a selected index itself, see M.

changed:

incunabular

diligentia expresserunt. . . . . expresserunt.' volumina. octingenta see Goff P-448 On the editions, through P-454. 'qui. . . .' 483.

et quingenta qui mille ' In the 1500 edition

Grabmann,

'Die Hilfsmittel

166

TRADITIO

clusively Latin. An Italian translation of what claims to be Thomas on the Meteora appeared in 1554, but in fact it derives from Albert the Great rather into account, there were than from Thomas.24 Indeed, ifwe take manuscripts more translations of Thomas commentaries into either Greek or apparently Hebrew than into any of the modern European vernaculars.25 Along with the absence of vernacular translations goes the absence of scarcely any but folio in 'portable' editions, editions. Even Averroes was occasionally available but it seems that only the learned folio was appropriate forThomas. commentaries are only rarely brought into direct Finally, the Thomas of Cremona in his important connection with the Greek text. Theophilus edition of the Physica commentary in 1492 (?120) wanted the Grecisms of the

Aristotle, but also in the Thomas commentary can now be seen 'with one '23 glance of the eye. The publishing tradition of the Thomas commentaries remains almost ex

medieval

Latin translation printed in Greek letters in the margin, but his was to prevent those ignorant of Greek from further corrupting the purpose transliterated terms. The 1530 edition of the commentary on the De genera tione (? 57) and some later editions contain a page dealing with the orthography and interpretation of the same transliterations. But both these instances are in the context exceptional, and by and large Thomas commentaries remained of the Latin translations of Aristotle. within which they had been written, that The basic reason was doubtless the fact that most of the philosophers concerned with Thomas were the De

edition of ignorant of Greek. Thus in a preface to the 1536 faces the objection of those who coelo (? 30) Antonius Demochares that since Aristotle prefer the Greek commentators to Thomas and who argue than a Greek. His reply wrote in Greek, no one can understand him better in which the milieu hardly meets the objection, but it surely illuminates commentaries were read: Thomas' Objiciunt
nomine,

enim quidam Graecos

quod Aristoteles

interpretes Thomae
scripserit, nec

praeferendos, vel ipso studiosos

quam a Graeco in

telligi posse.

Verum

graece

melius

quot

isti mihi

philosophiae

dabunt,

qui

et notabilia nec non doctoris sancti quaesita faciat ad omnia dicta philosophi quantum Quod ' erit iudicium. uno intuitu perspicienda, tuum, optime Pater, 24 d'Aristotile la Metaura naturale chiamata la quale tratta della filosofia nuova, Opera On the work, see G. Comin da Trino, da San Thomaso 1554). chiosata per (Vinegia: d'Aquino at 123-58. 5 (1917) 123-236 'Di alcuni volgarizzamenti Toscani/ Studj Romanzi Marchesi, 25 For Hebrew on the Metaphysica, commentaries of Thomas translations and/or Greek Physica, Meteora, with and the De anima, see Lohr, Traditio 29 manuscripts a translation of the Meteora commentary, (1973) 165-67. see ibid., 167. For two Italian

23 See the to the 1517 edition of the commentary Contarenus letter of Antonius dedicatory fidius mirabile sed m?dius 'Postremo on the Metaphysica alphabeticum compendiosum (? 71): menses elaboravi. circiter assiduos in quo elucubrando per duos contexui, repert?rium

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

167

graecas litteras calluerunt ? Item, ubi commentarli graeci in totum Aristo telem? Ubi chalcographi graece philosophiae? Demochares goes on to admit Agostino Nif o as a possible exceplion, but he is not suitable for beginners because of his difficulty and because of the unat tractive mass of varying opinions which he reports. As has already been noted, the first editions lacked prefaces, but in the late fifteenth and

valuable

all familiar with the topos of rescuing an ancient author from the dust and the grave; the early humanists used itmainly in connection with the discovery of of lost works, and printers such as Aldus Manutius manuscripts applied it to editiones principes. The topos was also applied to new translations of their ancient authors. Thus Giovanni Argiropulo is praised in the preface to an edition of his translations Erat
decor et norma

early sixteenth centuries, prefaces become standard and offer evidence on the context of the new editions. Perhaps the strongest impression left by these prefaces is a sense of how powerfully a first edition or an improved edition served as a symbol of new life and of rebirth. We are

of Aristotle printed in 1496: iam tot elapsis annorum curriculis apud Latinos
comitatis non solum barbaras et

tuos Aristoteles
verum

ipse
adeo

sive interpretis illius antiqui ignavia sive falsus, in tantum depravatus scriptorum inscitia ut non solum parum utilis sed et laboriosus nimium fastidiique plenus omnibus appararet. But Argiropulo ut Aristoteles
Latinus

incomptus,

has

reversus

labored long and successfully ipse in suam pristinam et Graecam

fuisset.26

elegantiam

comitatemque

find the same topos in the prefaces to the editions of the Thomas com mentaries on Aristotle, but with the significant difference that it is no longer an ancient author who is rescued and restored to light and life. Here is being Eugenius Brutus in the preface to an edition of the Ethica commentary of We

1505 (? 44), telling of his recoveryof thework:

Incidimus
luridos, ut putares, pentis rat:

in Expositoris
contaminatos, illud poetae

commentarios, quos
et dicere quos ausim: ex nigris 'Pectus

ille in hos De moribus

Vulcani et ora fornacibus leae, caudam

edide
exivisse ser

habebant.'27

Brutus wishes to restore them to their former countenance28 in contrast to the previous bad editions, and he writes that the reader may now accept the
et Gregorius de Gregoriis] Aristoteles, for Octavianus Opera Scotus (Venice: [Johannes The letter of dedication is found on folio 2a. 1495-96). 27 Gf. IX 648. Ovid, Metamorphoses 28 Here and below the references to 'former countenances' echo Ovid, Metamorphoses I 738-9: Ut lenita dea est, vultus ante fuit. capit illa priores 26

Fitque

quod

168

TRADITIO

commentaries which by his labor he has rescued from neglect and dust. Some earlier, in his preface to the 1498 edition of the commentary on the De alione (? 53), Brutus had told a similar story: when he found the com gener 'erat enim liber adeo squalidus ac incultus, ut desperarem eum in mentary, ' vultus priores reparare. In other prefaces, the notion of rebirth is made more explicit. Thus in an edition of the commentary on the De generalione of 1505 (? 54), we find a short poem, 'The Book to the Reader,' which states: what
Non sum

Pristina

cum fuerit reddita vita mihi.

qui

fueram:

mutilus,

mendosus,

et asper

The commentary on the De generatione was published again in 1530 (?57), with a new translation. Even at this late date we again find the story of the rescue: Tertiumque
corruptione

ante annum ex officio mihi

Aristoteles cum D. Thomae

iniuncto, libros De
expositione quibusdam

generatione et
condisci

pulis interpretarer, offendi codicem illum, Dii boni! adeo squalidum, cerum, ineffigiatum, et incultum, et ipsum legere desperarem. There with is a different poem 'The Book to the Reader,' the notions of generation and corruption: Nam livore olim poteras me dicere, Lector Corruptum; dicas nunc genitum, Medice.29

la

and this time it plays

commentary of 1532 (? 79), we begin with the usual account of the difficult discovery of the neglected work: In theMeteora Inveni commentarla
essent, iacebant tarnen

divi Thomae
in ?ngulo

in eum librum, quae

Praedicatorum fines,

licet diu quaesita

hostibus cariora

corrosa quam filiis. Quae ubi ego primum de situ substuli, licet pulvere tarnen in eis haud dubie Thomas velut in sui partus facie erant, visus est
collucere.

extra

The

editor is praised for having now presented the commentary 'emaculata et florentis quasi adolescentiae vultui restituta.' He prints the medieval translation, though he attacks it violently. He ' vivum nobis Aristotelem et also prints the new translation of Vatablus, who ' ore loquentem exhibuit. But the strongest statement on rebirth is found suo in the editor's own evaluation of his work: Vide quantum mihi tribuam. Mea quidem sententia non multo mihi minus hic liber d?bet quam genitori Thomae, quod ille eum mortalem genuit;
ego de coeno eductum immortalem fere regeneravi.

And

in his as a last example of the rebirth of Thomas, Antonius Demochares of the Physica commentary (? 129) speaks to his patron of Thom 1535 edition ' ' as, quern vides tuis auspiciis doctorem renatum.
29 The Medice of the last line, with a play on the name, is the editor Sixtus Medices.

AQUINAS*

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

169

medieval

should be prepared to find not only ancient but also authors being 'reborn* in the Renaissance. As a final variant on the notion of rebirth, one might again cite Eugenius Brutus from the preface to the Ethica commentary of 1505 (? 44). He is writing about the disgraceful neglect of Thomas: Indignatus sum tanti viri casum, quin potius miseram fortunam nostram qui in his libris eo doctore carebamus, qui primus apud Latinos sepultam philosophiam in lucem revocavit. Optabam eos in vultus priores reparare. The statement of Brutus we
Verum ut

citations have all been chosen from a comparatively small number of I believe that they could easily be commentaries; prefaces to the Thomas editions of medieval authors. paralleled from other prefaces to Renaissance They suggest that we should not give too narrow an application to the concept These of rebirth and that we

is not isolated,
ueritatem sua

gyric of Thomas

read:

for in an almost contemporary

sermonis claritate illuminaret

pane

e tenebrie excitaret, ut sua industria eloquentiae temque philosophiam campi lugentes fun?reas pullasque vestes abigerent, et explosis erroribus expulsaque barbaria [sic] repubesceret philosophia.30 If the earlier quotations from the prefaces suggested that Thomas and the Middle Ages were reborn in the Renaissance, we now find that antiquity was reborn in the Middle Ages. It is not clear what all this finally means for our sense of renascence. We should surely not understanding of the Renaissance discard all our old notions, but it does seem that we must make room for a
few new ones.

caligantem

senescen

commentaries of Thomas also publishing history of the Aristotelian throws light on another central problem of Renaissance thought: how the me dieval philosophic tradition could adjust to the demands of the humanists and

The

version and combine the commentary of Thomas with the translation ofBruni. The general debate continued past the invention of printing into the sixteenth for century, though we cannot here notice the details. Ermolao Barbaro, example, embodied a simple humanist position which condemned not only the medieval versions but also the scholastics themselves for their bad Latin and for their lack of eloquence. By contrast Pico della Mirandola defended Thomas

specifically to the new translations of Aristotle. As we have seen, the question had already been raised in the manuscript period by Brunfs translations of the Ethica and the Politica, and two opposed positions had emerged; on the one hand, Alonso of Cartagena had simply rejected the new translations as inferior, and on the other a number of scribes drop the medieval

30 Cited Quarterly

'Some by John W. O'Malley, 27 (1974) 174-92 at 184.

Renaissance

Panegyrics

of Aquinas,'

Renaissance

170

TRADITIO

manist

and the scholastics with the argument that philosophy calls for a different, and sometimes more difficult, Latin than does oratory.31 In the printed editions of Thomas, as in the manuscripts, the quarrel starts with the moral works, partly because both the Ethica and the Politica, as well as the Oeconomica, had been translated by Bruni into good humanist Latin and partly because these works, particularly the Ethica, lay at the center of hu interest.

Furthermore, the humanists seem to have been active in editions of the Bruni Ethica, and before 1480 it was printed eight promoting times in the Bruni translation and only twice in the medieval version.32 It is in this context that we must place the editions of the Thomas com in 1478 on the Ethica and the Politica mentaries published at Barcelona

of (?? 42 and 143). Both were edited by Johannes Ferrarius (Juan Ferrer), whom we know nothing except what we learn from the colophons where he is described as 'most loving of the studies of humanity' (studiorum humanitatis But this is enough to tell us where his interests lay and what amantissimum). his procedure will be. He wished to make the new and elegant translation of Bruni more accessible to those reading Thomas, and he has no doubt that the new translation Hence those seen serve

and the old commentary can be harmoniously combined. he has added many catchwords of the Bruni translation in addition to the approach referring to the medieval version. Ferrarius is continuing can explain Bruni, and Bruni can Thomas earlier in the manuscripts; as a base for the Thomas commentary.33
see Q. Breen, ' Giovan

31 For ni Pico of Ideas 413-26. 32 The 1473 2370;

of the main documents, a general account, with translations and Rhetoric, on the Conflict of Philosophy della Mirandola 13 (1952) 384-412 and 'Melanchthon's Reply to G. Pico

'

Journal of theHistory ibid. della Mirandola,'

Bruni

translation

is found

1469, with Bruni's

translations

c. 1479 (GW 2372). antiqua (GW 2360); Oxford 1479 (GW 2373; GoffA-987); Barcelona
The (GW translatio 2360), antiqua is found in editions of Louvain It might Acciaiolus, 1476, with the translation the 1470s of Bruni saw and Paris c. 1476 (GW 2375). of Donatus be noted actually that an also the of expanded Reportatio of the Ethica (Florence

(GW 2368); Barcelona Goff A-985); Bologna

before April 10, in the following editions: Strasbourg, Rome and Oeconomica (GW 2367; Goff A-983); not after 1474 (GW 1473? Valencia, (GW 2371; Goff A-984); Louvain c. 1475 (GW 2369; Goff A-986); 1476, with the tr. of the Politica

on his own new translation of Giovanni Argiropulo, = GW 140; Goff 1478 A-17). 'Commen 33 The on the Ethica to the commentary (?42) reads in part as follows: colophon libros foeli Ethicorum in Aristotelis fratris sacri ordinis praedicatorum tum Sancti Thomae amantissi humanitatis studiorum civem Barchinone, Ferrarium citer explicit, per Ioannem ad novam commentum huiusmodi ille idem uti legentibus sedulo emendatimi, mum, atque traductionem utique aditus, A similar virum textui eorundem in latinam etiam librorum Aristotelis cum summa Aretinum graeci per Leonardum suavitate dicendi factam, nuper facilior

publication the Lectures

of the commentary

statement

linguam cura vit...' novae huius textum traductionis subiungere antiquae on the Politica edited by Ferrarius (? 143). is found in the commentary

elegantem sit

aquinas*

aristotle

commentaries

171

But

it remained doubtful whether and the Bruni

commentary attempted. Thus we use of the ideas of Thomas, Here

enough simply to put the Thomas side by side, and other solutions were find the composition of new commentaries which make translation but which also work with the Bruni translations.

itwas

is Ferdinandus Rhoensis explaining why he had written the commentary on the Politica published in 1502:
. . . non

pretationes non scripserunt, sed quod illi in antiqua illa difficillima tra duzione laborantes multa dixerunt quibus nova Leonardi traductio (quam nos assumpsimus) minime indiget, nonnulla quoque hic aliter versa aliam
omnino aucuparer nostra expostulant. expositionem hunc laborem molitus diversitate studiosi ac Non sum, ad itaque sed ut manus ut quae ex aliorum illi non eorum non dictis tetigerunt, gloriam aut ea

quod

multi

et

quidem

praeclarissimi

viri

in

eosdem

libros

inter

traductionis opera

novitate

venerunt,

So Agostino sends this manuscript to Ludovicus de Valentia in the ' that he will edit it and that he will purify and expurgate whatever has hope been added or taken away by the scribe and whatever lacks harmony of style or is barbarous and uncouth.' At the same time Agostino urges that the commentary of Thomas be joined to the Bruni translation
... ut eum

first is from the young Agostino Piccolomineo to his teacher Ludo o.p. Agostino had found a very unsatisfactory vicus de Valentia, manuscript of the commentary in Tuscany, but neither there nor at Rome had he been able to locate a better one; he apparently knows nothing of the 1478 Barcelona ters.35 The edition.

' ' Perhaps the most radical and most successful attempt to humanize Thomas is found in the edition of his commentary on the Politica published in 1492 and the rationale of the edition is clearly stated in the attached let (? 144),

perciperent.34

colas et expurges, quid

inconcinnum mentarios pressa est, barbarum Thomae] ut ne

quam

maxime

horridum

in eo quod

a scriptore additum
legatur .... ut

immundumque,

quod

diminutumve
eos [sc. confuse

confidimus,

ex

sit
im

incultumque Leonardi Aretini quidem

si forte

com

verbum in

possimus uno tempore Aristotelem mendis

tenebris latitantem, lucem emittere.

ita translationi, quae Aretini adnectare contineat,

vacuum

divumque

Thomam

velimus,

in

The

next letter is from Ludovicus

young Agostino,
34 Ferdinandus

de Valentia and is addressed to his uncle the Cardinal Francesco. but Ludovicus

not to the tells of the

Commentarli in Politicorum other short works of Rhoensis, libros, with Ferdinandus and Bruni's translation of the Oeconomica 1502) fol. IIa. (Salamanca 35 On this Harvard edition, see the author's dissertation, 1938, with summary University, in Harvard ...1938 C. Martin, 'The University, Summary of Theses 133-36; (Cambridge 1940) Text of Aquinas's on Aristotle's Studies Dominican 5 (1952) Vulgate Politics,' Commentary 'Le Super Politicam de saint Thomas: 35-64; H.-F. tradition manuscrite Dondaine, Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Th?ologiques 48 (1964) 585-602; prim?e,' Thomas libri Politicorum A 15-18. nas, Sententia et im Aqui

172
assignment Bruni: Hoc
veterem non neum telis

TRADITIO

given him and

comments

on the proposal

to join Thomas

with

certe satis mihi difficile visum

translationem,

est, eos recte sentire existimans, qui

Thomas enim vetus commentatus consonum fuit, non con

sentiri Aristoteli

censent. Verum

quam

tarnen Nihil quam Thomas utramque

experimento didici eiusmodi viros quod

magis novaque apertam et novam eodemque consenta Aristo tarnen sensu Politicorum

temere iudicare. intelligunt esse potest et coaptatum translatio. Nam videtur. etsi Divus Thomas

veterem planam

exposuerit,

nulloque penitus discrimine reddit. In what

interpretan

reveals that the humanist critics of the old transla follows, Ludovicus firstmain tion were also critics of Thomas and of scholasticism. Ludovicus tains that these critics should be treated gently because of their ignorance of philosophy; they are content with verbal charm, and they have not been taught to penetrate to the nature of things. These critics should recognize their limi

tations; let them learn philosophy, and thus armed, let them go ahead to is in sympathy with their aim, and he correct the errors they find. Ludovicus He praises the that 'philosophy may be made Latin.' vehemently hopes work of Leonardo
. . . cum valeat tatio,

Bruni and of Theodore

sit magis translatio me et ac rem culta ei

Gaza

in this program. He
et instruere Aquinatis et gratam Thomae

concludes:
oblectare

aperta Leonardi sum

quae

videlicet omnibus

et

consentanea facturum

arbitratus

interpre commodam

illam recognitam Ludovicus

cum Thomae

expositione

imprimendam Augustino

tuo

committere.

has not only defended in theory the program of 'making ' in his editing of the Thomas philosophy Latin, he also carried it out in practice commentary. How he did this is explained in the third letter of the 1492 But Nimireus con from his pupil M. Nimireus Arbensis. edition, to Ludovicus the editor on his work; he has not only restored the translation gratulates revised and of Bruni, but he has also added the commentaries of Thomas, put into proper style (reconcinnata).
. . . commentarla dem servato disti. verbis etiam Divi Aretini Thomae Aquinatis doctoris necessarium ipsa Aristotelis tui se

dulo abs te recognita reconcinnataque

quae propter religiosissime novam alioqui sensu,

peregregia

addidisti. commutatisque
translationem illa commentarla

paucis qui
erat, ser

moni, vel ipsius Leonardi

traduction! coaptata

librariis imprimenda tradi

lies in the phrase de Valentia The key to the editorial work of Ludovicus did first of all was to 'the change of a very few words.' What Ludovicus delete from the Thomas commentary all the explanations of the transliterated Grecisms of the medieval version, since none of these remained in the transla tion of Bruni. purging Thomas' As if this were own discussion also went far toward not enough, Ludovicus of the Grecisms inherited from the medieval

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

173

versions.

Thus, for example, politia is usually replaced by respublica, oligar chia by paucorum status, and democratia by popularis status. but In short, Thomas has been indeed been 'reborn' in the Renaissance, as an urbane humanist, and his editor has made Thomas' philosophy this time ' ' is the more amazing into what Ludovicus de Valentia believes is Latin. What is that all later editions of the Politica

minor

commentary through 1971, except for this heavily revised text of the 1492 edition; later edi changes, reprint tors, ?ke Ludovicus, ignored the edition of 1478. Not until 1558 was the translatio antiqua even printed, in an appendix, with the Thomas commentary. The 1558 editor observes that he is printing it, first because itmay help with 4 the emendation of the Greek text, and second, because it is the translation on which Thomas commented'36 (though one could hardly guess this from the revised text of Ludovicus de Valentia). But in 1971 the Leonine edition of the has at last provided us with a model of proper scholarly commentary form. editing; here Thomas is reborn in his true medieval as was other commentary of Thomas was so successfully 'humanized' No

Politica

De anima commentary published at Wittenberg in 1509 (? 10). The title

reads: Liber De
Romanum

commentary in the edition of 1492. A somewhat comparable at revision may, however, be found in the edition or adaptation of the attempt the Politica

anima Aristotelis nuper per Johannem Argiropilum

sermonem elegantissime ducalis Academiae traductus cum

de Graeco
Divi

in

commentariolis

Thomae
dinarium

Aquinatis
processum

iterum, explosa barbarie, is made in the colophon:

castigatis

et revisis iuxta or

Wittenburgensis.

Much

the same claim

candidissime lector, tres libros De anima Aristotelis in politiorem Habes, Latinitatem nuper traductos cum commentariolis Divae [sic] Thomae Aqui natis per Chilianum Reutherum revisis ac rhetorica claritudine illustratis uber quibus philosophiae alumni magnum profectum eloquiique Romani
tatem sequestrata barbarie valeant ingenue adipisci.

of material with

In his letter of dedication, Reuther explains that what he offers is a collection and opinions from Thomas and others such as Themistius. He that he has tried to write in polished language and he quotes emphasizes approval the position of Ermolao Barbaro on the need for good style in

philosophy.37
of the 1558 edition the title-page 'Aristotelis Politicorum (? 147): Compare Stagiritae libri octo Leonardo Aretino sive De rep?blica interprete, cum D. Thomae Aquinatis explana . . . quibus eorundem adiecta est quae tion Politi (ut se habebat) antiqua delitescebat, 36

olim exponendo secutus est . . corum interpretatio, See also the letter quam Divus Thomas fol. 133v. to the Reader, Rota of Julius Martinus 37 Reuther and goes on to say that they are wrong, Barbarus mentions 'qui liberalium sordi dis ex intima plebei artium studia aut docere aut scribere ingressi, vocabulis sermonis

174
The De

TRADITIO

little attention, and, except in the the attempt to detach Thomas completely commentary, translation and the medieval from the medieval vocabulary was a failure. the best and most influential statement of the reasons for continuing Perhaps case of the Politica to associate Thomas with the medieval translations preface ofTheophilus of Cremona to the 1492 edition of thePhysica is found in the important commentary

anima edition of 1509 attracted

Theophilus planned a complete edition of all the Aristotle commentaries of Thomas, and the preface is not specifically to the Physica commentary, but to the whole corpus.38 It is addressed to Domenico Grimani, later Cardinal, who appears as the driving force behind the plan for such a complete edition Grimani played a long and active role in encouraging and publication of the Averroes commentaries on Aristotle, and it is interesting to find him here attempting to do the same forThomas.39 begins with the praise of all those who have proclaimed truth Theophilus of the commentaries. the translation

(? 120).

'istius siquidem profundissimi doctoris singularis and in particular of Thomas' ' in dies magis atque magis revirescit ac floret. But Theophilus doctrina, quae has been shocked by the inadequacy of the editions of the Aristotle commen hence he has finally yielded to the requests of Grimani and of others that he edit them himself. and earlier editions, Grimani in part In his criticism of the manuscripts the usual complaints of additions, subtractions, and distortions. More repeats significant for our purposes is his point that the Aristotle texts printed with taries of Thomas; are often not in accord with thinking of the combination
translation. In hac enim emendatione operae pretium non minus textu est a commentariis divo ipsis commentariis doctore Nonnumquam textus video, etiam

Thomas

of a Thomas

the commentary;

Grimani

commentary with

is clearly a Renaissance

Aristot?licos

textus ipsi tanta laborant mendositate, ut quod a fidissimo commentatore Thoma quam accurate expositum extat in plerisque latinis codicibus mini
me reperiatur.

et plerumque alterum tum esse,

quos anteponere, alterum verbum vero

mendosos collocatum.

in commentariis

commenta

in mendoso

fece accommodatis iuvenum explicare 38 The omnium

verborum et contaminant, ruditate tot praeclara foedant qui barbara a philosophis ea quae traduntur rhetorico fuco ingenia, arbitrantes corrumpant entium rationis notiones.' intricatas non posse propter calls itself: '. . . pro singulari Grimani letter to Domenico dedicatory impressione divi Thomae in Aristotelis libros Aquinatis . . . prooemialis epis

commentariorum interest

tola/ 39 On Grimani's Latin ism: Aristotle Renaissance

in the commentaries by in Honor of Paul

of Averroes, Oskar

Accompanied Essays at 119-23.

the Commentaries

' see the author's Editions of the ' and Human Philosophy Kristeller Leiden (ed. E. P. Mahoney; of Averroes,

1976)116-28

AQUINAS* . . . textus

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

175
et inter se discrepan

Aristotelis

tes atque multis in locis commentationi divi doctoris, et si non in sensu etiam sententiis orationis, in dictionibus tarnen repugnantes, aliquibus
truncatos, quae in ipsis commentariis expositae reperiuntur.

quos

haud

modicum

vitiatos

insists that the commentaries But Theophilus from the text: be separated Habent enim hoc
barbara

of Thomas commentarla,
ita enim

are not intended to ut nisi cum textu

a verborum super

ipsius sancti doctoris

propemodum

fluitate abstinere curavit ut quod alii longo protrahunt sermone, is paucis simis gravissimisque verbis lucidius sit complexus. x\t si commentationi textum ipsum coniunxerimus, nihil apertius nihil clarius nihil suavius com
mentatione ipsa reperietur.

conferantur,

videantur,

carefully (he is always speaking of versions), and he has even compared them with the Greek in order to present a good text. He has not only left in the transliterations of the Greek, but he hopes that these will be written in Greek letters in the margins. His explanation for doing this again throws light on what one may term the 'Latin context' in which the commentaries of Thomas were studied: Theophilus the medieval
Graecas vero dictiones

has examined

the versions

tas in codicis margine

quod barbarae

quas

latinus dictionum

collocandas

indicavi, id in hac re utilitatis auspicatus,

pronunciationes, quae a nostris theo

interpres

mutare

noluit

graece

transcrip

graecarum

logiae et philosophiae professoribus graecarum litterarum ignaris inconside ratae fiunt, hac fida conscriptione visa corrigendae sint. Neque dubito quod si
sine hac graeca

bum multis
bus

in locis corruptum castigassem, plerique

fidem quam meae correctioni

transcriptione

tanquam

fido veritatis

testimonio

caeteris vitiatis codici

graecum

ver

ampliorem

praestitissent.

Finally Theophilus defends the Thomas commentaries against two opposing forms. First he praises the literal commentary as against the wide-ranging in which all manner of extraneous and theological question commentaries questions are introduced: Nec nos commentatorem ilium laudabimus, qui cum Aristotelicum sensum lectoribus exponere promittat, modo theologicas contorquet quaestiones,
a remotis calculatorum advocat altercation

modo

marginem Theophilus

impleat medicinarum

em,

modo

ingerit opiniones. attack:

importune

ut

also notices

the humanist

modum

Impetitur etiam divinus Thomas nonnullorum morsibus, qui profecto nec nomen quidem (ut ita dixerim) philosophiae audierunt, et ipsum veluti hominem indoctum arbitrantur, tanquam qui primus extiterit qui in ex ponendo Aristotelem elocutionem contempserit eumque sit secutus dicendi
qui intellectum non aures demulcere possit.

He

replies with an account of the Aristotelian definition of rhetoric and of Aristotle's insistence that the language be adapted to the subject.

176

TRADITIO

Sic itaque divinus doctor, Aristotelica disciplina monitus, talem sibi sump sit scribendi modum, qui summ?m prae se ferat gravitatem, nec expolitione
verborum aliquam obscuritatis notam incurrat.

Thus Theophilus hopes that in his revised edition Thomas will be accepted \ . . et ab omnibus veluti fidissimus interpres ac praeceptor in intelhgendo sensum eligatur.' Aristotelicum Thus

is to medieval translations, but also from the medieval vocabulary; Thomas ' ' On the other hand there is the careful argument of Theophilus be humanized. of Cremona that Thomas' commentary has its value only when read in close conjunction with error who would the medieval translations, and that the rhetoricians criticize his use of the medieval vocabulary which is ap

the year 1492 saw the publication both of Thomas' Politica commen de Valentia and of his Physica commentary tary in the edition of Ludovicus of Cremona. The two alternatives which had in the edition of Theophilus era are both still present and have been in the manuscript appeared given one hand there is the position of Ludovicus programmatic statements. On the de Valentia that Thomas' commentaries are to be detached not only from the

are in

Indeed, it was not unusual to print three, as for example in the 1519 edition of the Ethica commentary (? 45), where we find in addition to the medieval version the translations both ofBruni and of Argiropulo. Many of the editors version very grudgingly and sometimes they are un include the medieval of it, but they include it nevertheless. When both sparing in their criticism translations are praised, the translatio antiqua is credited with fidelity and the version with elegance. Thus we read in the preface to the De Renaissance

propriate It does not seem that the sixteenth century was ever able to make a clear choice between these two alternatives, or even to find any very satisfactory as to what translation to print with Thomas' compromise. On the question what happened was that with the greater resources available commentary, in printed books, it became the practice to publish two translations, both the version, in every edition of Thomas. translatio antiqua and a Renaissance

for philosophy.

coelo editionof 1506 (? 27):

Caeterum
non satis

traductionem
elegantem,

tibi dedimus,
tarnen.

iucundissime
ut ne

lector, veterem
in hoc

illam
volu

fidelem

Verum

mine There was

desiderare won

posses, Argiropyli

quoque

translationem

elegantiam

adiecimus.

version to use. All in all about which Renaissance far the widest support as a compromise acceptable both by Argiropulo He retained much of the medieval ter to philosophers and to humanists. itwithin a good Latin style; he was felt to have avoided minology, but placed both medieval barbarisms and unphilosophic rhetoric. some debate

The table of contents of the great Opera omnia edition of 1570 (?1) may serve to illustrate the rough consensus which had emerged by the second half

AQUINAS*

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

177

were

of the sixteenth century. For every commentary of Thomas, two translations included. The first was always the translatio antiqua; the following Renaissance versions were included in the respective volumes: I. II. De interpretatione,Argiropulo Posteriora, Argiropulo Physica, Argiropulo De coelo et mundo, Argiropulo De yeneratione et corruptione, Argiropulo
Meteora, Franciscus Vicomercatus

III.

De

anima, Michael
naturalia,

Sophianus
Leonicenus

Parva

Nicolaus

Cardinal Bessarion IV. Metaphysica, V. Ethica, Argiropulo

Politica, Bruni.

translations nus made

But Sophianus found the translatio antiqua so bad that a mere revision struck him as out of the question, and he was forced to attempt a new version of his own. But even here he felt himself under restraint and could not entirely extricate philosophic Latinity: ... itame temperavi, ut non ita longe me a ratione veteris interpretationis et usitatis scholarum vocabulis removerim, quin illius vestigia inmea con
relinquantur. . . . Necesse habui, quoad eius facer? possem, verba

the translation in the early 1560s in connection with the great edi tion of the Latin Opera omnia of Aristotle with the commentaries of Averroes. He had first been asked to revise and correct the medieval version, and such revision had been tried before as a compromise between the old and the new.

is the most recent of the of the De anima by Sophianus included in the edition of 1570, and it can illustrate the difficulties still attached to the choice between 'philosophic' or humanist Latin. Sophia The translation

himself

from scholastic

and

versione

et genera loquendi, quae ab hoc eodem auctore [i.e. William of Moerbeke] et Averrois locutione iam inde ab initio in Scholas irrepserant, quamvis h?rrida parumque Latina reti?ere, ac veteris huius auctoris interpretatio nem corrigere, qui quamvis incultus nec admodum fidelis, tamen nescio quo modo, quod perquam religiose ad verbum omnia de Graeco exprim?t, ab omnibus habetur inmanibus, et ad hoc tempus publice legitur.40 decision on translating the De anima may be taken to reflect Sophianus' the dominant position among philosophic students of Thomas, and ofAristotle, In addition to the translatio in the second half of the sixteenth century. a more 'modern' version. At the same time, as Thomists antiqua, they wanted
40 De anima His libri tres cum Averrois eorundem usum is found accommodata, at commentants Michaele et antiqua nova tralatio,

Aristoteles, restitu?a.

tralatione ad Graeci

suae

in

tegritati veritatem plaris 1562). tiiv The

accessit

librorum Aristotelis the beginning;

exem

et scholarum

letter of Sophianus

Sophiano interprete (Venetiis the cited passage is found on fol.

178

TRADITIO

and philosophers, they could not break away entirely from the terminology of the medieval translations, nor could they accept any purely humanist or Ciceronian version. incompatability ofwhat one may call the philosophic and the Ciceronian traditions may be illustrated by the new translation of the De anima published The

by Joachim P?rion in 1549. This translation did indeed break completely with the medieval tradition; it was titled De animo and the text is replete It was used only once, so far as I know, as the sole basis with Ciceronianisms. for a philosophic commentary, and on that occasion the author felt compelled to provide a glossary so that one could translate the Ciceronian Latin of P?

rion back into the philosophic Latin of the old translation, the Latin that men still had to use for philosophic thinking.41 On another occasion, in 1575, it was used along with the medieval version for a super-commentary on Thomas' De anima.*2 But P?rion's De berg in 1509, appears animo, like the De anima published at Witten to have had no influence on the general philosophic

development. It is worth noting, however, that P?rion translated not only the De anima, but also the bulk of the Aristotelian corpus into this same Ciceronian Latin.43 His translations, particularly in the revisions of Nicolas Grouchy, were con

defeat.

stantly reprinted in the second half of the sixteenth century, and it is my educated reading public preferred them impression that the humanistically to any of the earlier translations. In the end the humanists had won a partial victory and suffered a partial It may be agreed that P?rion and Grouchy had indeed 'made Aris in so far as Aristotle was a classical author read by educated men.

totle Latin'

On the other hand

was

regularly Argiropulo, not P?rion. At the end of the century Giacomo still lectured on the De anima in the medieval Zabarella translation, while used the version of Argiropulo. Su?rez
41 Augustinus 42 Vincentius qui De anima

in they had not succeeded in 'making philosophy Latin' or of P?rion. Thomas de Valentia continued to be the sense of Ludovicus printed with the translatio antiqua always present, and the second translation

Faba

Saviliensis, Brixiensis

In

tres

libros De

anima

commentarli trium

Quintianus

(Patinas),

Dilucidationes

S. Doct. Aquinatis inscribuntur, necnon commentariorum et Joachini sc. antiquae [sie] Perionii (Bologna: typis A. Benacii, 1575). of Pennsylvania in the BN and in the University Library. Copies 43 On sur Aristote du b?n?dictin 'Les observations see A. Stegmann, J. P?rion,' P?rion, et Aristote ? la Renaissance Platon de Tours: International XVIe (Paris 1976) Colloque duplici, translations 377-89. and Editions, For some indication number with an of the extent of editions Introduction of P?rion and of the tremendous 1501-1600, Aureliana of their works, and 1971) Indexes ss.vv. activities Grouchy's translating see A Bibliography of Aristotle Cranz by F. Edward (Bibliotheca and Grouchius.

(Saviliani 1596). librorum Aristotelis, in eosdem, cum textu

Bibliographica

38; Baden-Baden

Perionius

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

179

known, Thomas and Thomism stood in high repute in the second half of the sixteenth century. His doctrine had won a large measure of approval at the Council of Trent; even more important, the Jesuits had accepted him as their

In conclusion, there remains what may publishing* of the Aristotle commentaries

be called the problem of the 'un In general, as is well of Thomas.

primary theologian and as their primary expositor of Aristotle. The importance of Thomas in this period is reflected in the large number of commentary editions during this period, and also in the impressive Opera omnia edition published at Rome in 1570 (? 1), where the first five volumes contain the Aristotle commentaries. But itwill be remembered that there was last decades

though not so influential, set of Aristotle commentaries was put out by the Carmelites in the Collegium Complutense at Alcal? de Henares in the Discalced ' 1620s and 1630s; all the Aristotle commentaries are here titled: Iuxta miram '45 Angelici Doctoris D. Thomae et scholae eius doctrinam. So the question remains why the commentaries of Thomas were not used by this revived contemporary First of all, the commentaries of Thomas still had their close connection with the decline of Ciceronianism translations. With the old medieval this may have caused less trouble to theologians and philosophers, but it must have been a real drawback in schools where education in good Latin was a central goal. More and vigorous Thomistic Aristotelianism. I have found no and what follows is only a tentative hypothesis. explanations,

explanation will not work. The Jesuits continued to use Aristotle as the basis of their educational program, and already in the last years of the sixteenth century the Jesuit College at of their famous and often reprinted series Coimbra had begun publication And a comparable, of Aristotle commentaries, the Cursus Conimbricensis.u

a rapid decline in commentary editions during the and an almost total cessation, apart from the Opera One might be tempted to explain the decline of the alleged collapse of Aristotelianism, but the

of the century omnia editions, after 1600. as one further illustration

important, I believe, is the fact that in a long development the a whole new superstructure had developed sixteenth-century Aristotelians of terms and ideas through which to discuss Aristotle. These terms and ideas had made it possible to modernize Aristotle and in some cases to move to new non-Aristotelian
44 On II (1958) the

or even anti-Aristotelian
see

positions.
the short note

But

this meant
F.

that to
LThK

Commentarli G. H.

Conimbricenses, Lohr, 'Renaissance

by

Stegm?ller,

Renaissance Commentaries,' For a list of the editions, see A. de Backer, 28 (1975) at 717-19 with bibliography. Quarterly de J?sus (nouv. ed. by C. Sommervogel, de la Compagnie 12 vols.; Brussels and Biblioth?que 1890-1932 Paris ) II cols. 1273-78. 45 On the Cursus see O. Norl, Lexikon und Kirche III (1959) f?r Theologie Complutensis, Latin Aristotle 'Renaissance Renaissance 28 Commentaries,' 29; C. H. Lohr, Quarterly 1251-52;

Latin

Aristotle

(1975) at 716 f.

180
start with

traditio

and it too had permitted the adaptation ofAristotle to contemporary problems. During the period of humanism and of the Reformation, the literal commen

approach through a short paraphrase followed by questions, as in the Cursus Conimbricensis. Indeed, it will be remembered that during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the question-commentary had been the dominant form,

a strictly literal commentary like those of Thomas would leave a long journey still to be traversed before one reached the contemporary issues; as educators the Jesuits may well have found this less satisfactory than the

as rapidly developing as Aristotelianism. Hence the courses of Coimbra and were better able to incorporate and communicate the living Aristote Alcal? lianism of their time than any merely literal commentary, even though itmust be remembered Aristotle Thomas the time. Connecticut in Latin,

taries may well have been in better tune with the general program of 'back to the authors' and 'back to the texts/ But by the end of the sixteenth cen tury such a procedure was no longer practicable for a tradition as vital and

that the courses of Coimbra regularly added the full text of and often Greek as well. So the Aristotle commentaries of disappeared from the educational and philosophic life of

gradually

College

Check-list Aristotle

of

the

editions

before of Thomas

1650

of

the

commentaries

Aquinas

The following list presents in short-title form all the editions of Thomas' Aristotle commentaries known to me. The listmay be presumed to be virtually libraries complete for incunabula; my impression is that a search of European
might

For each edition I have, where possible, indicated the Latin translation or custom in translations associated with it. I have followed the Renaissance calling a medieval version the translatio antiqua, without attempting any more precise identification; in most cases it is what the Aristoteles Latinus calls the trans latio nova, or a variant of it. I have examined, or seen photos, of all the editions listed, except where the number is followed by an asterisk. I have not tried to include editions found only in bibliographies and which are almost certainly ghosts. Two of these are, however, of sufficient importance
to deserve special mention here.

uncover

a good

many

more

sixteenth-century

editions.

a) 1471, Venice. The edition is said to contain all the Aristotle commentaries of Thomas. Qu?tif-Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum I 286 cite what is allegedly from the Preface of Theophilus of Cremona to the edition, but the citation is from the Preface to his edition of the commentary on the Physica to Domenico Grimani (1461 published in 1492 (? 120). This preface is addressed and is dated 'ex Venetiis nono kalendas Februarias. M. CCCCLXXXXII'; 1523) further, it refers to the legation to the Emperor Frederick III undertaken when Grimani was twenty-seven, as well as to his being named Apostolic Notary by

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

181

It appears that Qu?tif-Echard and all later citations from Pope Innocent VIII. the alleged edition of 1471 go back to Pedro d'Alva y Astorga, Radii solis zeli seraphici coeli ueritatis (Louvain 1666) 83 col. 838, where the erroneous date appears. Since the preface of Theophilus of Cremona is a general preface to all the commentaries of Thomas, itwas assumed that a 1471 preface implied a 1471 A6, complete edition of the commentaries. See Thomas, Opera omnia XLVIII note 1 and A 16, note 2. lists this second edition allegedly b) 1496, Venice. Under Nr. 1492 Hain containing all the commentaries of Thomas. No trace of such an edition has been found; itmay be that Hain was misled by a Sammelband of some kind, perhaps one containing the commentaries of the Organon of 1496 (? 95). The editions are grouped chronologically under the following headings: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. Vili. Thomas, Opera omnia ?? 1-3 De anima ?? 4-23 De coelo ?? 24-41 Etilica ?? 42-50 De generatione et corruptione ?? 51-66 Metaphysica ?? 67-78 Meteora ?? 79-85 Organon ?? 86-109 a) The commentary on the De interpretatione alone ?? 86-89 b) The commentary on the Analytica posteriora alone ? 90 c) The commentaries on the De inter pretatione and the Analytica teriora ?? 91-109 Parva naturalia ?? 110-17 Physica ?? 118-42 Politica ?? 143-50.
used through in Check-list 1500 of Books I-IX; Printed London in the XVth Century now in the British Museum

pos

IX. X. XI.

Abbreviations 1. For BMC G Goff GW books

Catalogue (Parts

1908-62) toHain's Copinger, W. A., Supplement Repert?rium (2 vols.; London in American Libraries Goff, F. R., Incunabula (New York 1964) Gesamtkatalog HHain, Ludwig, R D., Reichling, (6 vols, Vindel, F., El der Wiegendrucke Repert?rium (Leipzig 1925 ff.) (2 vols.; bibliographicum Stuttgart ad Hainii-Copingeri Appendices Repert?rium and index; Munich 1905-11) Arte tipogr?fico en Espa?a durante el siglo XV

1895-1902)

1826-38) bibliographicum (9 vols.; Madrid

Vindel

1945-51) 2. For books printed Adams, Col. Biblioteca after 1500 H. on the Continent M., Catalogue of Books Printed of Europe, in Cambridge Libraries (2 vols.; Cambridge 1968) de sus libros impresos Seville Colombina, Catalogo (7 vols.; 1501 1888

Adams Bibl. BM BN

1600,

Madrid 1948)

British Museum, General Catalogue of Printed Books (263 vols.; London 1965-66) Nationale, Biblioth?que Catalogue g?n?ral des livres imprim?s (Paris 1897 ff.). The is found in vol. 187, and the items are numbered section on Thomas

182
Camerini Camerini, Venice Catalogo Chandler Cranz Primo Paolo, Annali

TRADITIO

dei Giunti

(Florence

1962

ff). Vol. 1962

I, Parts

I and

II:

collettivo delle biblioteche Italiane (Rome catalogo and Philosophical Portions Catalogue of the Aristotelian late Henry William Chandler (Oxford 1891) A Bibliography with Editions, 1501-1600, of Aristotle Indexes by F. Edward 1971) der preussischen Mass?na, Bibliotheken Les Livres (6 vols.; Berlin Cranz (Bibliotheca Baden-Baden

ff.) of the Library Introduction Aureliana

of the and 38;

an

Bibliographica

DK Gesamtkatalog Essling Isaac d'Essling, ence Isaac,

1931-34). (4 vols.; Museum. Flor Part Europe de

Victor

Prince, to the Early II:

? figures Books

v?nitiens

1907-14) Frank, An Index

Printed Italy; del

in the British

II, MDI-MDXX.

Section

III: a

Switzerland 1650 Paris and

and Eastern del

(London 1938)
Junta Filosof?a Legrand, Short-title Abroad, Marshall; Mostra NUC Palau Manoscritti presso The National Palau Su?rez; Legrand Marshall Espa?ola Madrid y Portuguesa 1948) (4 vols.; in Italy 1885-1906) of Books in Italian Libraries Printed (ed. R. G. 1500 (Junta Centenario

E.,

Catalog

hell?nique Bibliographie of Books Printed 1501-1600, 3 vols.; Held Boston Venete

in Selected 1970)

North

American

e stampe Union

dell'Aristotelismo Marciana 956 Imprints

e Averroismo: (Venice (London 1958) 1968

Catalogo ff.) (2nd

di mostra

la Biblioteca

Nazionale pre-I del

Catalog,

y Dulcet,

A., Manual Annales Annales . .

1948 ff.)
Panzer Renouard Panzer, Renouard, G. W., A. A.,

librero hispanoamericano (11 vols.; Nuremberg (Paris

ed.; Barcelona

typographici

1793-1803) 1834), esp. 'Notice ...

de l'imprimerie Texts

des Aldez

des Junte Riley Risse Riley, Risse, L. W., W.,

in fine. and Commentaries 1961) und Materialien 1467 zur Geschichte der I to 1700 in the University of

Aristotelian Library

Pennsylvania

(Philadelphia logica

Bibliographia Le Livre

(Studien

Philosophie Sander Sander, Max, 1942-43). I. Opera

I; Hildesheim ? figures

1965) italien depuis fusq'? 1530 (6 vols.; Milan

Thomas,

omnia

1. 1570, Rome, apud heredes An tonii Bladii et Ioannem Osmarinum Li liotum socios (apud Julium Accoltum).
18 vols. The Aristotle commentaries are

are The Aristotle commentaries found in vols. I-V (Adams A-1397; Andover-Harvard BM). Theological
Library. 3*. 1612, bergium. The Antwerp, 18 vols. apud commentaries J. Keer are

Aristotle

found in vols. I-V; they are described below under the listings of the separate . 1, works (Adams A-1394; BM; BN with full description). New York Pub lic Library.
2. 1592-94, Venice, 18 vols. cum Nicolinum. apud Domini

found in vols. I-V (BN

II. De anima

. 4).

4.

1481, Venice,
with

per Raynaldum
catch-words

de

Novimagio. Commentary of tr.

antiqua

1519; Goff T-237).

AQUINAS' ARISTOTLE COMMENTARIES 183 5.

lielmum

1485, Venice,
de Plano

per Antonellum
et Gu of tr.

de Barasconibus

Mediolanensem Gereto. with catch-words

Academy of Medicine. Jean Loys, 13A*. 1539, Paris,

Jacques Kerver.

pour

antiqua (H 1520; Goff T-238). 6. 1488, Pavia, per Martinum

Lavalle. Commentary with catch-words

Commentary

de
of tr.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli, recognita ab Antonio De mochare Ressoneo (Renouard 510). 14*. 1543, Venice, expensis heredum
Luce Antonii Juntae. with tr. antiqua and tr.

antiqua
7.

c.

1521 (I); Goff T-239).

per Venice, for Alexander tr. Simonem Calcedo Do super

1496,

Bevilaquam, nius.

de Flandria, Argyropyli; Dominicus . 491). Quaestiones (Camerini 15. 1549, Venice, apud Iuntas.
Commentary with

Commentary

with Commentary de Flandria, minicus

tres librosDe anima (H 1517 = 7124,1 = ? C 2520; BMC V 521). 8. 1501, Venice, per Magistrum Pe
trum de Quarengis. tr. antiqua; Do (Pan Quaestiones

antiqua; Recollecta

Flandria, Argyropyli; . 549; Catalogo Quaestiones (Camerini 6.5934). University of Southern Cali
fornia, San

Dominicus

tr. antiqua

and

tr.

de

16.
mum

Diego.

1550,
Scotum.

Venice,

apud

Hierony

with Commentary de Flandria, minicus

zer X 33 n. 65b; Essling, Part I 2, 295). Catholic University of America.

9. 1507, Venice, with S. tr. de Luere. antiqua and Commentary

nen!

tr. Argyropyli (Isaac 12976; BM). BL. 10. 1509, Wittenberg, per Joan
The Gronenberg. title reads: Liber de anima . . .

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. de Flandria, Argyropyli; Dominicus Quaestiones (Riley n. 59; Catalogo 6.5936). 17. 1559 ( ? in the one copy known to me, the last digit of the date appears to have been inked in), Venice, apud
Hieronymum Commentary Scotum. with

cum commentario lis divi Thomae Aqui natis, but it is actually a separate tr. Argyropyli (Panzer others. With . 141). IX 67 n. 11; Legrand III 167 Universit?tsbibliothek. Leipzig, 11. 1518, March 9, Venice, sumptu
ac expensis Commentary heredum with Octaviani tr. antiqua Scoti. and tr. commentary based on Thomas and

Argyropyli; Quaestiones. 18. 1560,

mum Scotum.

de Flandria, of Virginia. University Venice, apud Hierony

Dominicus

tr. antiqua

and

tr.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. de Flandria, Argyropyli; Dominicus Quaestiones (BM; Catalogo 6.5950). BL.
19*. 1565, Venice, with de BL.

Argyropyli (not identified); Dominicus de Flandria, Recollecta (Panzer XI 525 . 893c; Isaac 12493; BM). BL. 12*. 1518, July 24, Venice, per Lu
cantonium Commentary de Giunta. with tr.

Argyropyli, and tr.Michaelis

Dominicus .

Commentary,

apud tr.

Juntas. antiqua, Quaestiones tr.

Sophiani; IV 116

(BM; Chandler ?
628).

Flandria,

p. 7; Legrand

1570.

tr. Argyropyli; Dominicus Quaestiones

1533, sis heredum 13.

(Camerini
Venice, Octaviani with Dominicus

de Flandria, . 211).
ac expen

antiqua

and

See ? 1, above, vol. III.

with tr. antiqua and tr.

Commentary Sophiani. mum

20*. 1570,
Scotum. Commentary,

Venice,
with

apud
tr.

Hierony
and

sumptu Scoti.

Commentary Argyropyli;

collecta

(Marshall

I 99).

tr. antiqua and tr. de Flandria, Re

New York

de Flandria, Quaestiones (Adams A-1456; Chandler pp. 7 and 13).

tr. Argyropyli; Dominicus

antiqua

184

TRADITIO de Giunta. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Savonarola, De divisione omnium scientiarum (Bibl. Col. VII 44). Munich, Staatsbibliothek. Jacobum 30. 1536, Paris, apud Lueantonium
er ver.

21. 1587 (1586), Venice, apud here dem Hieronymi Scoti. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. de Flandria, Argyropyli; Dominicus Quaestiones (Adams A-1457; Riley n. 62). ? 1593. See ? 2, above, vol. III.
Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr.

Argyropyli. 22*. 1597, Venice,

Scoti.

apud

heredem

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. de Flandria, Argyropyli; Dominicus Quaestiones (Adams A-1458; Catalogo 6.5960). ? 1612. See ? 3, above., vol. III. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. 23. 1649, Paris,
Commentary with

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. . 334; Legrand III Argyropyli (BN . 2616). . 252; Panzer Vili 201 362 University of Cincinnati; University of Illinois. 31. 1537, Venice, apud Iuntas. Argyropyli; Savonarola, De divisione omnium scientiarum (reported by Pro fessor C. B. Schmitt, The Warburg Institute). Oxford, Bodleian Library;
Salamanca, Biblioteca Iuntae. Universitaria. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr.

apud D. Moreau.
tr. antiqua and tr.

32.

Argyropyli; Quaestiones

de Dominicus . 328). (BN III. De coelo

1543, Venice,

expensis heredum

Flandria,

Luceantonii

24.

1486,
de

[Pavia],
Carchano.

per magistrum

Antonium

Commentary with catch-words of tr. antiqua ( 1530; Goff T-240). 25. 1495, August 18, Venice, sump tibus Octaviani Scoti. Commentary with tr. antiqua (GW 1689 = 1531; Goff A-978). 2355; 26. 1495, October 31, Venice, per Gregorium et Johannem de Gregoriis
fratres.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Savonarola, De divisione . 489). omnium scientiarum (Camerini Harvard College Library. 33. 1545, Venice, apud Hierony
mum Scotum.

Commentary with tr. antiqua (GW 2356; HC 1532; Goff A-979). 27. 1506, Venice, per Simonem de Alexandri Calcedonii. Luere, impensu Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Savonarola, De divisione omnium scientiarum (Isaac 12951; Ri ley n. 67). im 28. 1516, January 9, Venice, heredum Octaviani Scoti. pensu
Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr.

Commentary with tr. antiqua (Cranz . 69). Munich, Staats 108.080; Riley bibliothek. 34. 1551, Venice, apud Juntas. with tr. antiqua and tr. Commentary . 569; Catalogo Argyropyli (Camerini 6.5989). Catholic University ofAmerica. 35. 1555, Venice, apud Hierony
mum

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. Harvard College Library.
36. 1562, Venice, with Commentary apud tr. antiqua . Scotum. and tr.

Scotum.

Argyropyli (BM; Legrand University of Illinois. 37*. 1564, Venice, per Dominicum
Nicolinum, tonii Iuntae. expensis heredum Lucean

IV 86

. 611).

Argyropyli; Savonarola, omnium scientiarum. Dublin,

College.

De

divisione Trinity per

Commentary with tr. antiqua and . 685). tr. Argyropyli (Camerini ? See ? 1, above, vol. II. 1570. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli.

29.

1516, December

4, Venice,

AQUINAS'

ARISTOTLE

COMMENTARIES

185

38*. 1572, Venice, ap?d Iuntas. with tr. antiqua and Commentary . 748). tr. Argyropyli (Camerini 39. 1575, Venice, apud heredem Scoti. Hieronymi Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli (Adams A-1459; Cata logo 6.6000). Harvard College Library. 40*. 1590, Venice, apud heredem H.
Scoti.

1 56*). 101; Thomas, Opera XLVII, 47*. 1539, Venice, apud heredes Lu
ceantonii Juntae. with tr. antiqua, tr.

Argyropyli, and tr. Bruni (Thomas, 1 52*). Paris, Bibl. Maza Opera XLVII,
rine.

Commentary

48.
des

1563

(1562), Venice,
Iunctae. with tr.

apud here
antiqua, tr.

Luceantonii

Commentary with tr. antiqua and . 335). tr. Argyropyli (BN ? 1593. See ? 2, above, vol. II.
Commentary with tr. antiqua and

tr.

Argyropyli, and tr. Johannis Bernardi Feliciani (Adams A-1460; Catalogo . 660). Yale Uni 6.6135; Camerini
versity.

Commentary

Argyropyli. ? 1612.
Commentary

See ? 3, above, vol. II.

with tr. antiqua and tr.

Argyropyli. 41. 1649, Paris,

Moreau.

apud

viduam

D. and

1570. See ? 1, above, vol. V. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. ? 1593. See ? 2, above, vol. V. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. apud
tr.

Commentary with tr. antiqua . 336). tr. Argyropyli (BN

IV. 42. 1478, Ethica Petrus catch-words

Argyropyli. 49. 1595, Venice, Hieronymi Scoti.

Commentary with

heredem
tr.

nus et Nicolaus
Commentary

Barcelona, with

Bru of tr.

Spindeler.

Argyropyli, and tr. Johannis Bernardi Feliciani (Thomas, Opera XLVII,1 53*). Duke University.
? 1612. See

antiqua,

antiqua and tr. Bruni (H 1514a; Goff T-241; Vindel I 26-28). 43. c. 1482, [Vicenza], per magis
trum Jacobum de Dusa.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. 50. 1644, Paris, apud Dionysium
Moreau.

? 3, above,

vol.

V.

Commentary with catch-words of tr. antiqua ( 6522 = 6403; CR 3334; Goff T-242). 44. 1505, Venice, per Bonetum Lo catellum, expensis heredum Octaviani
Scoti.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. . 338; Thomas, Argyropyli (BM; BN Opera XLVII,1 54*).
V. De generatione et corruptione

51.
valle].

Commentary with tr. antiqua (Pan zer XI 514 n. 299c; Thomas, Opera XLVII,1 55*). Poznan, University Li brary. University of Illinois. 45. 1519, Venice, per Lucantonium
de Giunta. Commentary with tr. antiqua, tr.

1488, Pavia,

[Martinus de La

of Commentary with catch-words the tr. antiqua (HR 1534; Goff T-243).
52*. 1496, Salamanca,

dum Alemanum
Navarrum

et

socios.

fratrem Lupum

per

Leonar

Argyropyli, and tr. Bruni (NUC NA Harvard 0402249). College Library.

46.

Commentary with short lemmata of tr. antiqua (C 570a; Vindel II 94-7).

53. 1498, Venice, mandato catellum, viani Scoti. per Bonetum et expensis Lo Octa

dum Octaviani
Commentary Argyropyli,

1531,

Venice,

Scoti.

expensis tr. antiqua,

here tr. n.

with and

tr. Bruni.

(Riley

Commentary with 1535; Goff T-244).

tr. antiqua

(HR

186 54.
Luere,

TRADITIO de Thomas, De mistione (re Professor C. B. Schmitt, The ported by Warburg Institute). Madrid, Bibliote tr. Vatabli;
ca Nacional.

1505, Venice,
expensis

per Simonem
Galcedonii,

Alexandri

Commentary with tr. antiqua (Bibi. Col. VII 43). Dublin, Trinity College; Leipzig, Universit?tsbibliothek.
55*. Octaviani n. 1519, Venice, Scoti. impensa heredum

1570. See ? 1, above, Vol. II. Commentary with tr. antiqua and

tr. Vatabli.

Commentary.
956).

(Panzer

VIII

453

56. 1520, Lyons, in aedibus Jacobi Myt, impensis honorati viri Jacobi q. et Francisci de Giunti et sociorum. Commentary with tr. antiqua (Ca Indiana University. talogo 6.6014). 57. 1530, Venice, apud heredes Oc
taviani Scoti. with tr. antiqua and tr. Commentary

65*. 1584, Venice, apud heredem Hieronymi Scoti. Commentary with tr. antiqua and De mistione tr. Vatabli; Thomas, 6.6040). (Catalogo
? 1593. See

Commentary with
tr. Vatabli. 66*. 1609, Venice.

?2,

tr. antiqua

above,

vol.

II.

and

Petri Alcyonii.
lege. 58. ver. 1537, Paris,

Dublin,
apud

Trinity
Jacobum

Col
Ker

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Vatabli (Chandler pp. 7 and 12). ? 1612. See ? 3, above, vol. II. Commentary with tr. antiqua and
tr. Vatabli. VI. Metaphysica

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Francisci Vatabli; Aristoteles, De colo . 340). University of Cin ribus (BN cinnati; University of Illinois.
59*. tum. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. 1539, Venice, per B. et O. Sco

67. 1480, Pavia, Girard enghis.

Commentary with

per Franciscum
catch-words

de

of tr.

antiqua (HC 1508; Goff T-245). 68. 1493, Venice, per Simonem Be
vilaquam donii. impensa Alexandri Calce

Alcyonii (Catalogo 6.6017). 60. 1549, Venice, apud

num Scotum D. Amadei with Commentary

Octavia
and tr.

filium.

Alcyonii Illinois.
61. 1551,

(Riley n. 80).
Venice, with De

tr. antiqua

University

of

Commentary with tr. antiqua (HC 1509; Goff T-246). 69. 1502, Venice, per Petrum Ber gonensem [sic], impensa Alexandri Cal
cedoni!.

Commentary Vatabli; Thomas,

Iuntas. apud and tr. tr. antiqua Catho mistione.

lic University ofAmerica. 62. 1555, Venice, apud

Scotum. with tr. Commentary

Hierony
and

Commentary with tr. antiqua (Pan zer VIII 357 n. 150; 150; Adams A 461). Yale University. 70. 1503, Venice, per Bonetum Lo
catellum viani mandato Scoti. et impensis Octa

mum

tr. Vatabli; Thomas, De mistione BM; Riley n. 80A; Catalogo 6.6030).

63. mum Venice, 1565, Scotum. with apud tr. Hierony antiqua and

antiqua

Commentary with tr. antiqua Col. VII 44-5).

71. nium Venice, 1517, de Gionta. with per

(Bibi.

Luceanto and tr.

tr. Vatabli;
64.

Commentary

Thomas, talogo 6.6036). Commentary with

1566, Venice,

De mistione
apud Juntas.

(Ca and

tr. antiqua

de Spina, Argyropyli; Bartholomaeus Defensiones (Catalogo 6.6199). Dublin, Trinity College; Leipzig, Universit?ts bibliothek.

Commentary

tr. antiqua

AQUINAS* ARISTOTLE COMMENTARIES 187 72*. 1518 (1519), Venice,

redum O. Scoti.

impensa he

Vatabli 6.6246).
Bethesda.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and de Spi tr. Argyropyli; Bartholomaeus na, Defensiones (Catalogo 6.6200). 73. 1548, Venice, apud Juntas. de Spina, Argyropyli; Bartholomaeus Defensiones (Catalogo 6.6207; Came rini . 542). Princeton University. 74. 1552 (1551), Venice, apud Hie
ronymum Scotum. with tr. antiqua and tr. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr.

. 359; Catalogo (Camerini National Library ofMedicine, in officina Lu

80.

1537, Venice,
Juntae.

ceantonii

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Vatabli (Camerini n. 402; Riley n. 131).
81. 1547, Venice, with

Argyropyli (Catalogo 6.6210; Marshall 1106). Folger Shakespeare Library.

75.

Commentary

mum

. 534; Catalogo tr. Vatabli (Camerini 6.6255). Catholic University ofAmerica. 82. 1561, Venice, apud Hierony
Scotum. with tr. antiqua and tr. Commentary

Commentary

Juntas. apud tr. antiqua

and

Commentary with
tr. Bessarionis;

1560,

Venice,

apud

Iuntas.

Vatabli

tr. antiqua
de

and
Spi

Bartholomaeus

mum

na, Defensiones; Aristoteles, Metaphy sica XIII-XIV (Adams A-1462; Cata logo 6.6214). University of Virginia. 76. 1562, Venice, apud Hierony
Scotum. tr. antiqua Bartholomaeus de with and tr. Commentary

(BM; Catalogo 5.6266). Uni versity of Illinois. 83. 1565, Venice, apud Iuntas.
Commentary and with tr. Francisci tr. antiqua, Vicomercati tr.

. 690; Catalogo (Camerini National Library of Medicine,

da.

Vatabli,

6.6267). Bethes III.

tr.

1570.

See

? 1, above, vol.
tr. antiqua

Bessarionis;

Uni Defensiones (Catalogo 6.5218). versity of Illinois; University of Texas.

? 1570. See

Spina,

Commentary Vicomercati.

with

and

1593.

See

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr.

Bessarionis.

? 1,

above,

vol.

IV.

Commentary Vicomercati.

with

? 2, above, vol.
tr. antiqua

III.
tr.

and

1588, Venice, apud heredem Hieronymi Scoti. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Bessarionis (Adams A-1463; BM).
? 1593. See Commentary Bessarionis. ? 1612. Commentary tr. Bessarionis. 78*. 1647, ? 2, above, tr. antiqua with ? 3, with vol. and IV. tr. IV. and

77.

84*. 1595, Venice, apud heredem Hieronymi Scoti. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr.Vatabli (Adams A-1858). University of Illinois. ? 1612. See ? 3, above, vol. III.
Commentary Vicomercati. with tr. antiqua and tr.

See

vol. above, tr. antiqua

85.
Moreau

1649, Paris,
et D. Moreau with

apud

viduam
and

D.
tr.

filium. tr. antiqua

Paris,

Dionysius Thomas,

Moreau.

Vatabli

Commentary

(BN
Vili.

. 343).

on the De causis; Thomas, De ente et essentia (A. Michelitsch, Thomasschrif ten I [Graz-Vienna 1913) 243]).
VII. Venice, 1532, ceantonii Iuntae. Commentary with 79. Meteora in aedibus and Lu tr. 86.

Commentary;

commentary

Organon

a) The commentary on theDe

terpretatione 1534, Paris, with Alcal? Mey. alone Calvarinus.

in

Commentary,

*107.942).
87. apud

Munich,

Staatsbibliothek.
de Henares,

tr. antiqua

(Cranz

tr. antiqua

1553, Ioannem

188 TRADITIO
Commentary with tr. antiqua and

tr. Argyropyli; Fallaciae Thomas, (Junta n. 1097; Risse 64; Palau XX . 300340). 47
88. nes 1555, Brocar. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Alcal? de Henares, Ioan

Thomas, Fallaciae (HC 1494; Goff T 255). 95. 1496, Venice, per Otinum de Luna Papiensem, impensa Alexandri
Calcedonii. Commentaries with Thomae Thomas,

minicus
teriorum; cus,

Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae (Junta n. 1098; Risse 66). Madrid, Biblioteca

Nacional.

de Flandria,

tr. antiquae;

Do

Quaestiones
super libris Fallaciarum Pos Domini

in

commentarla

Fallaciae; in Opus

89.
Ioannem tierrez

1570, Alcal?
a Villanova, with bibliopolae.

de Henares,
expensis tr. antiqua

apud
Gu and

+ (HC [ Add] 1495; Goff T-256). 96. 1507, Venice, [S. de Luere].
Commentaries with

Quaestiones

tr.Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae (Jun . 676; ta n. 1099; Legrand IV 169 . 300341; Risse 79). Palau XX 47 Biblioteca Nacional. Madrid, b) The
teriora

Commentary

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae; Do minicus de Flandria, Quaestiones in

commentario libris minicus, Thomae Posteriorum Quaestiones de Aquino super Do Analyticorum; in Opus Fallacia

tr. antiquae

and

commentary on the Pos

Analytica alone

90.
Calvarin.

1534, Paris,
with et

rium (Catalogo 6.6330; Risse 31). Mu nich, Staatsbibliothek. 97. 1514, Venice, iussu ac impensis
de Giunta. with tr. antiquae and Commentaries

apud
tr.

Prigentium
Tho *107.

Lucantonii

Commentary De ente mas,

antiqua; (Cranz

essentia

941).

Munich,

Staatsbibliothek.

c) The commentaries on the De interpretation e and on the

Posteriora 91. 1477, Venice, Analytica impensis Johan

tr. Argyropyli; other works as in ? 96, . 708; Bibi. above (Panzer Vili 423 Col. VII 45). Leipzig, Universit?ts bibliothek.
98. Octaviani 1517, Venice, Scoti. with tr. antiquae and impensa heredum

Commentaries

nis de Colonia
de Manthen. Commentaries

sociique
with

eius Johannis
of

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae (Ca talogo 6.6333). Harvard College Library.
99*. 1526, Venice, Juntae. with tr. antiquae and iussu ac impensis Luceantonii Commentaries

catch-words

tr. antiquae; Thomas, Fallaciae (HC 1497 + HC 1496; Goff T-252). 92. 1481, Venice, impensis Ray naldi de Novimagio.
Commentaries tr. antiquae; with Thomas, catch-words Fallaciae of (C

Fallaciae tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, 497 n. 1343; Camerini (Panzer Vili n. 309; Catalogo 6.6335).
100. dum 1548, Venice, Lucantonii Juntae. with expensis tr. antiquae here and

569; Goff T-253). 93. 1489, Venice,

Tridinensem Commentaries

Commentaries

per Guilelmum
tr. antiquae;

de Monteferato. with

minicus

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae;

de Flandria, Quaestiones

Do
in

Posteriora 6.6338). 101*. 1550,

mum Scotum.

Thomas,
T-254). 94. 1495,

Fallaciae
Venice,

(HR
per

1493a;
Bonetum

Goff
Lo

(Camerini Venice,
with

. 541; Catalogo apud Hierony

and

catellum, ani Scoti.

mandato

et expensis

Octavi

Commentaries

Commentaries

with

tr.

antiquae;

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae talogo 6.6339).

tr. antiquae

(Ca

AQUINAS' ARISTOTLE COMMENTARIES 189 102. 1553, Venice,

Commentaries with

apud

Iuntas.
and

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Summa totius . 595; Catalogo logicae (BM; Camerini College Library. 6.6341). Harvard 103. 1557 Venice, apud (1555),
Hieronymum Commentaries Scotum. with tr. antiquae and

tr. antiquae

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Fallaciae . 348, Pt. I).

IX. Parva naturalia

(BN

De

Note: Only the commentaries on the sensu et sensato and on the De

et reminiscentia,

memoria Thomas.

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Summa totius logicae (Catalogo 6.6346 and [ ?] 6.6344; . 196). Trier, Stadtbibliothek; Mostra University of Virginia. 104. 1562, Venice, apud Hierony
mum Scotum. with tr. antiquae and Commentaries

Grabmann, 110.
de De

are

to be

attributed

according

to

to

1493, Padua,
on with on

Durantis. Commentaries memoria

per Hieronymum
the De sensu The and vol

ume

also

attributes
the

tr. antiquae.

to Thomas

the

commentaries

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Summa totius logicae (BM; Risse 73). University of Chicago; University of Illinois.
105. Venice, 1568, with Commentaries

naturalia
Thomas,

and on the De
Commentary

remaining on De

Parva causis.

bona fortuna; Lo
Oc

111.

1507, Venice,
mandato Scoti.

per Bonetum
sumptibusque

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Summa totius . 714; Catalogo logicae (Camerini of California at 6.6347). University
Berkeley. ? 1570. See vol. I. ? 1, above, tr. antiquae with

Iuntas. apud tr. antiquae

catellum, and taviani

Commentaries on the De sensu and De memoria with tr. antiquae. The volume attributes to Thomas the com mentary on the De somno and to Petrus
de Alvernia the

Commentaries tr. Argyropyli.

and

106.

1570,
Scotum.

Venice,
with

mum

apud

Hierony
and

on De turalia; Aegidius Romanus, bona fortuna; Thomas, Commentary on the De causis (DK 6.6020). Indiana
University.

remaining

Parva

na

Commentaries

tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Summa totius Staats logicae (Risse 79). Munich, bibliothek. 107. 1583, Venice, apud heredem Hieronymi Scoti. Commentaries with tr. antiquae and tr. Argyropyli (Adams A-1872; Cata logo 6.6349). Princeton University.
? 1593. Commentaries tr. Argyropyli. See vol. ? 2, above, tr. antiquae with I. and

tr. antiquae

112.

1525, Venice,
Octaviani Scoti.

dum

sumptibus

here

108.

1594,
Scotum.

Venice,
with See

mum

apud

Hierony
and I. and

in ? 111, above (Cata Harvard College Library. logo 6.6518). 113. 1551, Venice, apud Iuntas. Commentaries on the De sensu and the De memoria with tr. antiquae and tr. Nicolai Leonici. The volume also attributes to Thomas commentaries on the De somno, De somniis, De divina tione,Pars libriDe motu animalium, as well as two opuscula: De motu cordis and De lumine. The remainder of the Contents
commentaries on

as

Commentaries

tr. Argyropyli
? 1612. Commentaries tr. Argyropyli. 109. 1646, Commentaries

tr. antiquae

(Catalogo
?3, with

6.6350).

vol. above, tr. antiquae

are attributed to Petrus de Alvernia. 114*. 1551, Venice, apud Octavium

Scotum f. Amadei.

the

Parva

naturalia

Paris, with

D. Moreau. apud and tr. antiquae

tonium

Contents as in ? 111, above (Catalogo 6.6525). Venice, Biblioteca Marciana. 115. 1566, Venice, apud Luc?m An
Iuntam.

190

TRADITIO
catellum dum mandato Scoti. et sumptibus here

. Contents as in ? 113, above (BN Princeton Uni 345; Catalogo 6.6530).

versity.

Octaviani

1570. See Commentaries

tr. Leonici.

? 1, above, Vol. III. tr. antiquae with apud

the De

tr. antiqua; with Ro Commentary bertus Summa. Harvard Linconiensis,

and

1588, Venice, Hieronymi Scoti.

Commentaries De memoria, with on tr.

116.

heredem
sensu and and tr.

College Library. 124. 1506, August 25, Padua,

ventu sancti Joannis de Viridario.

in con

Leonici.
consin.

Contents as in ? 113, above (Marshall I 119). University ofWis 1593.

Commentaries

antiquae

Commentary with tr. antiqua (Ad ams A-1464; Isaac 13836). Dublin, Trinity College. 125. 1506, December 23, Venice, per
Simonem cedonii. Commentary with tr. antiqua and Summa tr. de Luere, aere Alexandri Cal

See

with

? 2, above,

vol.

III.
and

tr. antiquae

Argyropyli;
formis;

Thomas,

Quaestiones

de

tr. Leonici.

Robertus

1612.
Commentaries

See

with

? 3, above, vol.
tr. antiquae D.

III.
and

tr. Leonici. 117. 1646.

Contents as in ? 113, above 348, Pt. II).

X. Physica

Paris,

apud

Moreau.

(BN

heredum

(DK 6.7024; NUC NA 0402937). G?t Uni tingen, Universit?tsbibliothek; versity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. 126. 1517, July 14, Venice, impensis
Octaviani Scoti.

Linconiensis,

118.
Moravus].

[c. 1474-80,
with

Genoa,

Matthias
of tr.

1525; Goff T-247). antiqua ( 119. 1480, [Venice, unassigned].

Commentary with catch-words

Commentary

catch-words

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum ma 524 n. 833d; Isaac (Panzer XI . 194). 12485; Legrand III 231
127. 1517, November de 21, Venice, Giunta. im

of tr.

antiqua (HC 1527; Goff T-248). 120. 1492, Venice, per Johannem
Gregorium de Gregoriis fratres.

et

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum . 204; Legrand III 231 ma (Camerini
.

pensis

Lucantonii

Commentary with tr. antiqua (HC 1528; Goff T-249). de 121. 1500, Venice, per Petrum Calcedo [for Alexander Quarengis
nius].

128*. 1518,
ceantonii

195).

Venice,

de Giunta.

impensis

Lu

Commentary with
Linconiensis,

tr. antiqua; Ro
Summa super li

bertas

bros Physicorum R-206).

122. giis. Commentary with 1501, Venice,

(HCR
Petrus

10110;

Goff

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum ma (Sander n. 7281). 129. 1535, Paris, Iacobum apud
Kerver. Commentary with tr. antiqua and Summa tr.

de Quaren and Summa tr.

Argyropyli;
formis;

Thomas,

Quaestiones

de

Robertus

tr. antiqua

Argyropyli;
formis;

Thomas,

Quaestiones

de of
Lo

(Panzer VIII

of Cincinnati.

187 n. 2471).

Linconiensis,

University

Robertus

Linconiensis,

130.

University 0402932). (NUC NA North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

123. 1504, Venice, per Bonetum

1535, Venice,
Juntae.

in officina Lu

ceantonii

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones

AQUINAS* ARISTOTLE COMMENTARIES 191 de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum . 387). Harvard Col ma (Camerini lege Library. in officina here 131. 1539, Venice, Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum ma (Camerini n. 423). Venice, Bi
blioteca Marciana. dum Luceantonii Juntae.

132.
heredum

1545

(1535), Venice,

in officina

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum ma (Camerini n. 504; Catalogo 6.6554). 133. 1551, Venice, apud heredes L.
A.

Luceantonii

Juntae.

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Robertus Linconiensis, Argyropyli; Summa; Thomas, De principiis natu
rae, De natura materiae, De loco, De

Iuntae.

versity ofWisconsin. 139*. 1586, Venice, apud heredem Scoti. Hieronymi Contents as in ? 133, above (Cata logo 6.6581). ? 1593. See ? 2, above, vol. II. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. heredem 140. 1595, Venice, apud Scoti. Hieronymi Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli; Thomas, Quaestiones de formis;Robertus Linconiensis, Sum C. B. ma (reported by Professor Schmitt, The Warburg Institute). Ox ford, Merton College Library. heredem 141. 1608, Venice, apud Hieronymi Scoti, Contents as in ? 133, above (BN 1612. See ?3, above, vol. II. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. 142. 1649, Paris, apud viduam D.
Moreau.

350).

tempore, De aeternitate mundi; Tho mas de Vio Cajetanus, Quaestiones duo (BM; Camerini n. 561; Catalogo 6.6561). Harvard College Library. 134. 1552 (1551), Venice, apud Hie Contents as in ? 133, above (Cata Indiana University ; logo 6.6566). of Illinois. University 135. 1557 (1558), Venice, apud Hie Contents as in ? 133, above (Catalogo . 197). 6.6568; Marshall I 120; Mostra Harvard College Library. 136. 1564, Venice, apud Hierony
mum ronymum Scotum. ronymum Scotum.

Contents as in ? 133, above.

XI. 143. 1478, Politica Petrus Bru

Barcelona,

mentary ofAlbertus Magnus (H 1514b; Goff T-250; Vindel I 29-31). 144. 1492, Rome, per Eucharium
Silber, alias Franck.

Spindeler. Commentary with catch-words of the tr. antiqua and tr. Bruni; in place of the usual supplement of Petrus de Al vernia, this edition supplies the com

nus et Nicolaus

Contents as in ? 133, above (Cata of Illinois. logo 6.6576). University 137. 1566, Venice, apud Iuntas. Contents as in ? 133, above (Came . 695). Folger Shakespeare Li rini 1570. See ? 1, above, vol. II. Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Argyropyli. 138. 1573, Venice, apud Hierony
Scotum.

Scotum.

Commentary with tr. Bruni; Ludo vicus de Valentia, Conclusiones (GW 2448; HC 1768; Goff A-1024). arte Simonis de 145. 1500, Venice,
Luere

brary.

Commentary with tr. Bruni; Ludo Conclusiones vicus de Valentia, (H 1516; Goff T-251). 146. 1514, Venice, per Georgium Ar
rivabenum, viani Scoti. mandato et impensa Octa

impensis

Andreae

Torresani.

mum

Contents

as

in ? 133, above.

Uni

192 Commentary with

vicus de

TRADITIO
tr. Bruni. ? 1593. tr. Bruni.

tr. Brun?; Ludo

(Pan

. 667d; Catalogo 6.6678). Uni Paris, Biblioth?que Mazarine; versity of Illinois. 147. 1558, Venice, apud heredes Lu zer XI 522
c?? Antonii Commentary Iuntae. with are

Valentia,

Conclusiones

See

Commentary with 149.

mum

? 2,

above,

vol.

V.

tr. antiqua apud

and

1595, Venice,
Scotum.

Hierony

antiquae
(Economica

of the Politica
printed

tr. Bruni; after

the the

tr.

and

of the
com

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Bruni (Thomas, Opera XLVIII A 16). Duke University.
? 1612. See

mentary; Thomas, De regimine prin . 627; NUC NA cipum (Camerini . 199). 0403503; Riley 148. 1568, Venice, apud Iuntas. Contents as in ? 147, above (Ca . 712; NUC NA 0403506). merini ? 1570. See ? 1, above, vol. V. Commentary with tr. antiqua and

Commentary with
tr. Bruni.

? 2,

above,

vol.

V.

tr. antiqua

and

150.
Moreau.

1645, Paris,

apud

Dionysium

Commentary with tr. antiqua and tr. Bruni (Chandler p. 8; Thomas, A 16). Opera XLVIII