Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:34:24.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Publishing History of the Aristotle Commentaries of Thomas Aquinas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

F. Edward Cranz
F. Edward Cranz*
Affiliation:
Connecticut College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Writers and thinkers of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries were widely engaged in the reception and transmission of a variety of earlier works, and 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 throw light on a different phase of the same general process, the Renaissance fortuna of a medieval rather than of an ancient author.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 34 , 1978 , pp. 157 - 192
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 New York, Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For a basic statement on the authenticity and probable dating of the Aristotle commentaries of Thomas, see Grabmann, M., Die Werke des hl. Thomas von Aquin (3rd ed.; Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophic und Theologie des Mittelalters XXII 1–2; Münster 1949) 272–85; Lohr, C. H., ‘Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors Robertus –Wilgelmus,’ Traditio 29 (1973) 93–197 at 159–72 (with full bibliographies). For a general evaluation of the commentaries see Grabmann, M., ‘Die Aristoteleskommentare des heiligen Thomas von Aquin,’ in his Mittelalterliches Geistesleben I (Munich 1926) 266–313.Google Scholar

2 Even in the early fourteenth century we find the story that William of Moerbeke translated all Aristotle's works of moral and natural philosophy; recent scholars have supposed that he profiled by direct consultation with William about obscure points of the translation. The editors of the Ethica and of the Politica in the Leonine edition of the Opera omnia have, however, shown that the story of the collaboration between Thomas and William is not supported by the evidence and further that Thomas does not seem to have been particularly interested in making use of the most recent translation, but often cites older ones, even those made from the Arabic, rather than the latest version from the Greek. See Aquinas, Thomas, Opera omnia (Rome 1882 ff.) XLVII 1 (Sententia libri Ethicorum) *232–34*; ibid. XLVIII (Sententia libri Politicorum) A 63, note 1. See also the Appendix to the edition of the Sententia libri Politicorum , Gauthier, R.-A., ‘Saint Thomas et l’Éthique à Nicomaque,' at pp. xviii xx.Google Scholar

3 Sixtus Medices, in the preface to the 1530 edition of the commentary on the De generatione (§57) writes: ‘… illudque iam per scholas vulgatissimum dictetur adagium, Ubi tacuerit Thomas, Aristotelem mutum fuisse.’ The statements of Nifo are found in Grabmann, ‘Die Aristoteleskommentare…,’ 310–11. Grabmann, also cites a remark of Pico comparable to the adage of Sixtus Medices: ‘Sine Thoma mutus esset Aristoteles…’ (p. 312).Google Scholar

4 For the document of the University of Paris, see Thomas, , Sententia libri Ethicorum 73*. On the significance of these exemplaria, see Destrez, J., La pecia dans les manuscrits uniuersitaires du XIII e et du XIV e siècle (Paris 1935); Fink-Errera, G., ‘Une institution du monde médiévale: la “pecia”,’ Revue Philosophique de Louvain 60 (1962) 184–243.Google Scholar

5 On Peter of Auvergne, see Lohr, C. H., ‘Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors Narcissus – Richardus’ Traditio 28 (1972) 281–396 at 334–46.Google Scholar

6 See Grabmann, , Die Werke… Google Scholar

7 Grabmann, M., ‘Hilfsmittel des Thomasstudiums aus alter Zeit,’ Mittelalterliches Geistesleben II (Munich 1936) 424–89 at 482–84. One might also compare the similar tools used for the study of Aristotle; see Grabmann, M., ‘Methoden und Hilfsmittel des Aristotelesstudiums im Mittelalter,’ Sb. Akad. Munich (1939) Heft 5.Google Scholar

8 See Thomas, , Sententia libri Ethicorum 37–50* and 259–63* .Google Scholar

9 Codices manuscripti operum Thomae de Aquino (Editores operum Sancti Thomae de Aquino 2—; Rome 1967–). Two volumes have so far appeared, covering the libraries in cities through Minister.Google Scholar

10 Aquinas, Thomas, Opera omnia XVII 1–2 and XLVIII.Google Scholar

11 Thomas, , Sententia libri Ethicorum 19–37 *.Google Scholar

12 Thomas, , Sententia libri Politicorum A 10–14.Google Scholar

13 Aretino, Leonardo Bruni, Humanistisch-philosophische Schriften (ed. Baron, H.; Quellen zur Geistesgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance I; Leipzig 1928) 76–77.Google Scholar

14 On this problem see the remarks of the author in ‘The Renaissance Reading of the De anima,’ XVI e Colloque International de Tours: Platon et Aristote à la Renaissance (Paris 1976) 359–76.Google Scholar

15 On the debate, see Birkenmajer, A., ‘Der Streit des Alonso von Cartagena mit Leonardo Bruni Aretino,’ in his Vermischte Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Philosophie (Beiträge zur Geschichte der Philosophic des Mittelalters XX 5; Minister 1922) 129–210. In addition to the Liber of Alonso, Birkenmajer, prints Bruni's preface to the Ethica and his exchange of letters with Alonso. For a later defense of the medieval translation against Bruni, see Grabmann, M., ‘Eine ungedruckte Verteidigungsschrift der scholastischen Übersetzung der nikomachischen Ethik gegenüber dem Humanisten Lionardo Bruni,’ Mittelalterliches Geistesleben I (Munich 1926) 440–48.Google Scholar

16 For examples, see the following manuscripts listed in the Sententia libri Ethicorum1*f.: Google Scholar

No. 16. Cambridge, Peterhouse 208. Here the lemmata of the Grosseteste translation have been omitted; in their place we find the entire translation of Bruni.

No. 34. London, British Museum, Royal 9.E.1. The same procedure is followed as in the above manuscript, and it appears that the two manuscripts were produced in the same scriptorium.

17 For examples, see the following manuscripts listed ibid.: Google Scholar

No. 79. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica, Vat. lat. 3003. The manuscript contains the Ethica translated by Bruni; a second hand of the late fifteenth century has added selections from the Thomas commentary, though often omitting his ‘divisions’ since these do not correspond to the Bruni translation.

No. 92. Cambridge, University Library, Hh.I.6 (1620). The commentary of Thomas has been added in the margins of the Bruni translation; the lemmata of the Grosseteste translation have been replaced by those of Bruni.

No. 93. El Escorial, Real Biblioteca del Monasterio de San Lorenzo, f.II.3. The manuscript contains the Bruni translation. In the margins there is a commentary consisting of excerpts mainly from Albertus de Saxonia but also from Thomas and other writers. It is noteworthy that these excerpts have been ‘revised’ so as to correspond to the text of the Bruni translation: ‘liber… commentario instructus est, e plurium scriptorum commentariis excerpto, quorum tamen verba verbis Libri Ethicorum a Leonardo Aretino translati accommodata sunt.’

No. 120. Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica, Chigi E. VII.224, and No. 121 Ottob. lat. 1526. In both cases the Liber Ethicorum in the Bruni translation is accompanied by excerpts from the commentary of Thomas.

I know of only one case among the manuscripts of the Thomas Politica commentary where something similar occurs. See the Sententia libri Politicorum A 14:

Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Gadd. Plut. XC sup. 86. Here we find the Prologue of Thomas, and Book I of the Politica in the Bruni translation, with glosses taken from the Thomas commentary.

18 Hain, 1762; GW 2367; Goff A-983.Google Scholar

19 On the Scotti, see Volpati, C., ‘Gli Scotti di Monza, tipografi-editori in Venezia,’ Archivio storico Lombardo 59 (1932) 365–82.Google Scholar

20 On the Giunti, see the short notice, with bibliography, by Avanzi, G. in the Enciclopedia Italiana XVII (1933) 331–33, and Camerini, P., Annali dei Giunti (Florence 1962 ff.). Vol. I, in two parts, deals with Venice.Google Scholar

21 The information on the edition of 1492 (§ 144) is found in the letter of Nimireus Arbensis at the end of the volume: ‘… librariis imprimenda tradidisti qui mille et quingenta volumina uno tenore summa cura summaque diligentia expresserunt.’ In the 1500 edition (§ 145) the number alone has been changed: ‘qui… octingenta volumina… expresserunt.’ Google Scholar

22 For a selected list of the incunabular editions, see Goff P–448 through P–454. On the index itself, see Grabmann, M., ‘Die Hilfsmittel…’ 483.Google Scholar

23 See the dedicatory letter of Antonius Contarenus to the 1517 edition of the commentary on the Metaphysica (§ 71):‘ Postremo compendiosum sed medius fidius mirabile alphabeticum repertorium contexui, in quo elucubrando per duos circiter assiduos menses elaboravi. Quod quantum faciat ad omnia dicta philosophi nec non doctoris sancti quaesita et notabilia uno intuitu perspicienda, tuum, optime Pater, erit iudicium.’ Google Scholar

24 Opera nuova, la quale tratta della filosofia naturale chiamata la Metaura d'Aristotile chiosata da San Thomaso d'Aquino (Vinegia: per Comin da Trino, 1554). On the work, see Marchesi, C., ‘Di alcuni volgarizzamenti Toscani,’ Studj Romanzi 5 (1917) 123–236 at 123–58.Google Scholar

25 For Hebrew and/or Greek translations of Thomas commentaries on the Metaphysica, Physica, Meteora, and the De anima, see Lohr, , Traditio 29 (1973) 165–67. For two Italian manuscripts with a translation of the Meteora commentary, see ibid., 167.Google Scholar

26 Aristoteles, , Opera (Venice: [Johannes et Gregorius de Gregoriis] for Octavianus Scotus 1495–96). The letter of dedication is found on folio 2a.Google Scholar

27 Cf. Ovid, , Metamorphoses IX 648.Google Scholar

28 Here and below the references to ‘former countenances’ echo Ovid, , Metamorphoses I 738–9:Google Scholar

Ut lenita dea est, vultus capit illa priores

Fitque quod ante fuit.

29 The Medice of the last line, with a play on the name, is the editor Sixtus Medices.Google Scholar

30 Cited by O'Malley, John W., ‘Some Renaissance Panegyrics of Aquinas,’ Renaissance Quarterly 27 (1974) 174–92 at 184.Google Scholar

31 For a general account, with translations of the main documents, see Breen, Q., ‘Giovanni Pico della Mirandola on the Conflict of Philosophy and Rhetoric,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 13 (1952) 384–412 and ‘Melanchthon's Reply to Pico della Mirandola, G.,’ ibid. 413–26.Google Scholar

32 The Bruni translation is found in the following editions: Strasbourg, , before April 10, 1469, with Brum's translations of the Politica and Oeconomica (GW 2367; Goff A–983); Rome 1473 (GW 2368); Barcelona 1473? (GW 2371; Goff A–984); Valencia, not after 1474 (GW 2370; Goff A 985); Bologna, c. 1475 (GW 2369; Goff A–986); Louvain 1476, with the tr. antiqua (GW 2360); Oxford 1479 (GW 2373; Goff A–987); Barcelona, c. 1479 (GW 2372). The translatio antiqua is found in editions of Louvain 1476, with the translation of Bruni (GW 2360), and Paris c. 1476 (GW 2375). It might be noted that the 1470s also saw the publication of the commentary of Donatus Acciaiolus, actually an expanded Reportatio of the Lectures of Giovanni Argiropulo, on his own newr translation of the Ethica (Florence 1478 = GW 140; Goff A–17).Google Scholar

33 The colophon to the commentary on the Ethica (§ 42) reads in part as follows: ‘Commentum Sancti Thomae fratris sacri ordinis praedicatorum in Aristotelis Ethicorum libros foeliciter explicit, per Ioannem Ferrarium civem Barchinone, studiorum humanitatis amantissimum, sedulo emendatum, atque ille idem uti legentibus huiusmodi commentum ad novam traductionem eorundem librorum Aristotelis graeci per Leonardum Aretinum elegantem utique virum in latinam linguam cum summa dicendi suavitate nuper factam, facilior sit aditus, textui etiam antiquae traductions textum huius novae subiungere curavit…’ A similar statement is found in the commentary on the Politica edited by Ferrarius (§ 143).Google Scholar

34 Rhoensis, Ferdinandus, Commentarii in Politicorum libros, with other short works of Ferdinandus and Brum's translation of the Oeconomina (Salamanca 1502) fol. I It* .Google Scholar

35 On this edition, see the author's dissertation, Harvard University, 1938, with summary in Harvard University, Summary of Theses… 1938 (Cambridge 1940) 133–36; Martin, C., ‘The Vulgate Text of Aquinas's Commentary on Aristotle's Politics,’ Dominican Studies 5 (1952) 35–64; Dondaine, H.–F., ‘Le Super Politicam de saint Thomas: tradition manuscrite et imprimée,’ Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 48 (1964) 585–602; Aquinas, Thomas, Sententia libri Politicorum A 15–18.Google Scholar

36 Compare the title-page of the 1558 edition (§ 147): ‘Aristotelis Stagiritae Politicorum sive De republica libri octo Leonardo Aretino interprete, cum Thomae, D. Aquinatis explanation… quibus antiqua (ut se habebat) eorundem adiecta est quae delitescebat, Politicorum interpretatio, quam Divus Thomas olim exponendo secutus est…’ See also the letter of Julius Martinus Rota to the Reader, fol. 133v.Google Scholar

37 Reuther mentions Barbarus and goes on to say that they are wrong, ‘qui liberalium artium studia aut docere aut scribere ingressi, vocabulis sordidis ex intima plebei sermonis fece accommodatis foedant et contaminant, qui barbara verborum ruditate tot praeclara iuvenum corrumpant ingenia, arbitrantes ea quae a philosophis traduntur rhetorico fuco explicarc non posse propter intricatas entium rationis notiones.’ Google Scholar

38 The dedicatory letter to Domenico Grimani calls itself: ‘… pro singulari impressione omnium commentariorum divi Thomae in Aristotelis libros Aquinatis… prooemialis epistola.’ Google Scholar

39 On Grimani's interest in the commentaries of Averroës, see the author's ‘Editions of the Latin Aristotle Accompanied by the Commentaries of Averroës,’ Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller (ed. Mahoney, E. P.; Leiden 1976) 116–28 at 119–23.Google Scholar

40 Aristoteles, , De anima libri tres cum Averrois commentariis et antiqua tralatione suae integritati restituta. His accessit eorundem librorum Aristotelis nova tralatio, ad Graeci exemplaris veritatem et scholarum usum accommodata, Michaele Sophiano interprete (Venetiis 1562). The letter of Sophianus is found at the beginning; the cited passage is found on fol. †iiv Google Scholar

41 Saviliensis, Augustinus Faba, In tres libros De anima commentarii (Saviliani 1596).Google Scholar

42 Vincentius Quintianus Brixiensis (Patinas), Dilucidationes trium librorum Aristotelis, qui De anima inscribuntur, necnon commentariorum S. Doct. Aquinatis in eosdem, cum textu duplici, translationis sc. antiquae el Joachini [sic] Perionii (Bologna: typis A. Benacii, 1575). Copies in the BN and in the University of Pennsylvania Library.Google Scholar

43 On Périon, see Stegmann, A., ‘Les observations sur Aristote du bénédictin J. Périon,’ X VI6 Colloque International de Tours: Platon et Aristote à la Renaissance (Paris 1976) 377–89. For some indication of the extent of Périon and Grouchy's translating activities and of the tremendous number of editions of their works, see A Bibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501–1600. with an Introduction and Indexes by Edward Cranz, F. (Bibliotheca Bibliographica Aureliana 38; Baden-Baden 1971) ss.vv. Perionius and Grouchius.Google Scholar

44 On the Commentarii Conimbricenses, see the short note by Stegmüller, F., LThK II (1958) 1251–52; Lohr, C. H., ‘Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries,’ Renaissance Quarterly 28 (1975) at 717–19 with bibliography. For a list of the editions, see de Backer, A., Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus (nouv. ed. by Sommervogel, C., 12 vols.; Brussels and Paris 1890–1932) II cols. 1273–78.Google Scholar

45 On the Cursus Complutensis, see Norl, O., Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche III (1959) 29; Lohr, C. H., ‘Renaissance Latin Aristotle Commentaries,’ Renaissance Quarterly 28 (1975) at 716 f.Google Scholar