The Mediaeval Latin Versions of The Aristotelian Scientific - Anna's Archive

: sutih
iit
bith
‘i
igen itbe
ihe i
ih Hs
fi
ceri
hk
ieat
i
18a resin
a
r ulioe
a * Si
ale Lf}
isa ae
Ae Rai
reinbierk
|
Ii
ae nibetes
“iA
ae
it eh
ae
Wi
Pisieyel Y
a i :
Ha 4sti
fat Ke
The Mediaeval Latin Versions
of the Aristotelian Scientific Corpus,
with Special Reference to the Biological Works
Thesis approved for the degree of Ph.D. in
the University of London, December, 1930, and
published with the aid of a grant from the
Publication Fund of the University of London.
The Mediaeval Latin Versions of the
Aristotelian Scientific Corpus,
with Special Reference
to the Biological
Works
BY
S. D. WINGATE
THE COURIER PRESS

53 Fleet Street, London, E.C.4
and Leamington Spa
1931
Wn. C.D rour

REPRINT LIBRARY
185 SOUTH LOCUST STREET @ DUBUQUE, IOWA
TO
DR. CHARLES SINGER.
Tibi hoc opus, velut maturas Baccho palmites,

vel aureos Cereri culmos, rectissime devovt.
(From the dedication of his version of the De Plantis

by Alfredus de Sareshel to Roger of Hereford).
PREFACE
This work was undertaken under the inspiration of Dr. Charles Singer, and
could not have been completed without his unstinted help and encouragement.
To Dr. Singer's other pupils, and to all those interested in the history of science,
it will be unnecessary for me to enlarge on the debt that such work owes to his
generous assistance. In addition to his other kindnesses, I have to thank him
for having been at the immense pains of going carefully through the whole
Look in proof.
Secondly, I am indebted to Mr. R. Steele for various valuable suggestions

and corrections, and in particular for having drawn my attention to the evidence
afforded by Roger Bacon’s unpublished commentary of the existence of a second
mediaeval version of the “ De Plantis.”
In collecting the material for this book I have visited thirty-eight libraries in
Spain and Portugal and twenty-seven in Italy, in addition to many in France
and England. In all of them I have met with much courtesy and assistance
from the authorities. In particular, I should like to express my thanks to P.
Delorme, of the Collegio S. Bonaventura, Quaracchi, who examined for me a
manuscript in the Biblioteca Nazionale at Florence; to Mons. Mercati and
Pelzer, of the Vatican, who have communicated to me information concerning
manuscripts under their charge; and to Monsignor Grabmann, of Munchen,
who has corresponded with me on various points in connection with his own
valuable works in this field.
I am aware of the forbidding character of the lengthy sections of notes at

the end of each chapter of my work, but, rather than overload the text with
documentary references, I have proceeded on the Shakespearian principle: “ If
thou wilt hold longer argument, do it in notes.”
S. D. WINGATE.
June, 1931.
(* ° uqI) SoOTIEAY peor (°° ‘uqtl) seorzraAy 104 O¢T
orllg [e peor oiltg ‘Te 104 6c1
TOIpeW Op OWTSOD peor IOIPSW ,ep OUITSOD JOY wioj}j0g Wor
y auly ‘¢ ered ‘/ZT
oq peer Iq 104 py OUT, ‘Tg 910U “CZT
‘['a peer ‘a 104 T oul] ‘8 910U ‘PTI
ap nuuosuy peor
___ apnuuosy] 104 I OUTT ‘OZ 910U ‘66
So[BOIZOT oReTNUIUUINS peor SdTBOIZOT SeUTUNS 104 T
‘08
eulT
aq pee ed 404 Faull ‘7 ered ‘FL
*ZJaSIoqn peer Zjasieqn 104 OZ a10U ‘ZS
—pewionb peor peurenb 104 8 OUT] ‘puey IYysII ‘TS
WIA peor WIdITA 104 f OUT, ‘/p~ o}0U ‘
owisIsAS peor auiaisXkS 104 Z OUI, ‘EE D10U ‘ZF
"+ +7 a8eiileg peor °° "p'z o8eiiteg 104 T OUT] ‘61 a10U “Og
ISUIOUOIISY
Injerail]
PISASATUL],[
Stolefellj peor *sIolelanW 104

"yosey pror yosey Ioy L oultT “Gg 910U ‘CZ
peor
injez9ii1] ION € oul, ‘T 930U ‘OT
peor
(ereJ-[-nqy
oe[NUIUINS*punyzyel[
usWIOUOTISY 104 T oul, ‘6T 930U ‘FT
peorpeor
alsiaatuy Jep 104
OP
WisTeIoIsir1y Pp surly
Suesizye[
punyszyef 104 T oulyT ‘T ajo0u ‘ET
peor
fere4—l-Inqy 104 ¢ oul, ‘Z ‘ered ‘ET
peor
SOTBOIBOT
sunsaye{ 104 € OUT, ‘ZZ a10U ‘6
peor
WMNTSI0ISTIY 104
“STATPU]
‘oqJOU ‘/
peorpeor
9 ouTT
STOUT]
SedISOT OB[NUIWING 10,4 ™
STSNeD
"1UeTd
STATPU] STOUT] oq IO
oqOC
peer
juej{d STsNeD oq 104
x
xT
‘
a3eg
VANHSDIYYOO
THE MEDIAEVAL LATIN VERSIONS OF THE ARISTOTELIAN
SCIENTIFIC CORPUS, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE
BIOLOGICAL WORKS.
I, PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
page
(1) Introduction .... ‘ visas z
(2) Works in Pésseision of the asins eatin the New
Translations. The Boethian Problem ...) ... ase 4
(3) The Arabic Aristotle soe Vasa Betsey Say ey wyareene ie.
(2) hes By vantitie (Aristotle yc: vary veempirn) aesche ee cee > LO
I]. ARISTOTLE IN THE WEST.

(1) The Historical Setting of the Translations of Pa i
(2) Some Notes on the Manuscripts of the Scientific orpue eee |
(3) Early Evidences of Diffusion of Natural Works i, as OO
(4) Some Aristotelian Florilegia and Concordances... ... ... 29
(5) The Beginnings of the Mediaeval Translating Movement ... 32
(a) The Sicilies.
(b) The Arabic Near East.
(c) The Byzantine Near East.
(d) Aragon and Castille.
lil. TWELFTH-CENTURY VERSIONS OF ARISTOTLE.

(1) The Physical and Certain Other Works... ... ... «. 37
(2) Biological Works: from the Arabic.
De Generatione et Corruptione Oe ae ene yea ae
Dé Sensu et Sensato sey se ane ee a ue 88
De Memoria et Reminiscentia ... 0. we ee te 46
(3) Biological Works: from the Greek.
De Generatione et Corruptione «1 se ve ve 4
PUrIa NOIWIAUA joss ets pes ee eee BS
1V. THIRTEENTH-CENTURY VERSIONS OF ARISTOTLE.

(1) Biological Works: from the Arabic.
De Plantis . idea eiaoepaceeeeet POO
De Animalibus of NiichaeScbte es es 8
(2) Biological Works: from the Greek.
DUA HAO DUS rater un ees beh eas Fale ek atlas Be
Parva Naturalia R
of
Physiognomia and other Versions by the School
. Barthol omew of Messina ..._ .. veh aaa | oe
other Works ... ) ee eso 94
(3) Physical and certain
_V. THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY TRANSLATORS.
page
Evidence of Roger: Bacon (0! i... ter ss ik ett) emcee
VI. VERSIONS OF COMMENTARIES.

(1) sArabian Commentators.) vlog .e yp) ae, Men
(2) Greek Cotimentators Wei) fees) Geo fess ee ec ets
VII. SOME LATER LATIN VERSIONS OF THE Boys et

WORKS. ane - 126
INDEX OF WORKS.
Abbreviatio de Animalibus (Avicenna), 23, 24, 84-5.
De Alimentis Animalium, 89.
De Anima, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 16, 19, 21-24, 26-29, 32, 35, 39, 40, 45-7, 49-51, 69,
78, 80, 81, 87, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, ‘96, "127.
Sra, (Avicenna), 30, 34, 35, 40, 114, 120.
oan an (Philoponus), 124,
ant hg (Themistius), 31, 123-4,
Bae (Alex. Aphrod.), 123.
De Animalibus, 2, 11, 19, 21-24, 26-28, 30, 31, 35, 59, 65, 69, 72-85, 89, 91,
92, 94, 112, 123, 127.
3 a (Alb. Magnus), 80, 81-3, 84, 89, 91.
oe a (Greg. de Brolio), 92.
aS i (Petr. de Alvernia), 83-4.
rs 5 (Petr. Gallego), 80-81.
re “i (Petr. Hispanus), 79-80.
e A (Joh. Tydenshale), 83.
Almagest (Ptolomaeus), 18, 32, 83, 35, 39, 46, 77.
Analytica Posteriora of Themistius, 123.
De Arte Venandi, (Fred II.), 79, 85.
Athenian Constitution, 117.
Averroan Commentaries, 21, 24, 39, 46, 71-2, 81, 95, 97, 112, 116, 120-2.
Alexandrine Abridgement, 97, 112.
In Boetii de Consol. (Alf. Angi.), 56, 57.
De Bona Fortuna, 23, 65, 94, 117.
Bonum Universale (Cantimpré), 85.
Categoriae (Simplicius), 123.
De Caelo, 4, 11, 12, 19, 21-23, 24, 26-31, 34, 38-40, 45, 46, 48, 78, 81, 92,
94, 95, 96, 116, 127.
as $590 (Avicenna),,.34, 120,
», (Simplicius), 124,
Catalogus (Boston of Bury), 56.
De Cometis (Grosseteste), 113.
Commentarii (Leland), 56.
Commentum ad Artem Parvam Galeni (Petrus Hispanus), 80.
Compendium Studii Philosophiae (Roger Bacon), 112, 115.
Compendium Studii Theologiae (Roger Bacon), 116.
Characteres Theophrasti, 127-8.
De Causis (Proclus), 17, 19, 23, 30, 87.
De Causis Plant (Theophrastus), 29, 127.
Compotus (Roger of Hereford), 55.
Compilatio (Alb. Magn.), 30.
Chronica (Robt. of Mont-St. Michel), 37.
De Congelatis (Avicenna), 58-9.
De Coloribus, 23, 71, 94.
De Diff. Spiritus & Animae (Costa ben Luca), 12, 19, 22, 23, 69, 87.
De Divisione Philos, (Gundisalvi), 22, 34, 46, 120.
e (Michael Scot), 35.
De Divinis Nominibus (Pseudo-Dionysius) 115.
De Dogmate Platonis, 17.
Euclid’s Elements, 33.
De Essentiis (Hermann), 40, 65.
a (Ptolomaeus), 34,
Elementatio Theologica (Proclus), 87.
De Educatione Accip. (Alf.), 56-8.
Economica, 97, 115, 126.
Ethicas 5, 12--15,.31,.40,.77, 95, 97,417.
Eudemian Ethics, 98, 117, 126.
Ethica Nicomachea, 97, 112, 115, 123, 127.
Commentaries on Ethica Nicomachea, 123.
Fons Vitae, 80.
De Fato, 123.
De Generatione & Corruptione, 2, 4, 7, 12, 19, 21-24, 26-29, 31, 34, 37-40,
45-8, 76, 78, 81, 87, 92, 94, 116, 127, 128.
” ”
Animalium, 2, 23, 72, 78, 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 127.
Stellarum (Grosseteste) , 78.
, Historia Animalium, 2, 12, 28, 72, 76, 79, 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 127.
Historia Naturalis (Pliny), 74-5.
De Hist. Plant. (Theophr.), 127.
Hexaemeron (of Ambrose), 86.
De Intelligentia, 23.
De Iudiciis Astrologiae (Haly), 114.
De Inundatione Nili, 28, 65, 98, 94.
De Iride (Grosseteste), 78, 112.
Liber de Astrologia, 34.
5» 59, Rebus Memorabilibus (Henry of Hereford), 86.
De Lineis Indivis, 23, 94.
Logica, 5-8, 11, 12, 15-17, 26, 27, 33, 37, 69, 116, 117, 127.
e (Avicenna), 120.
Magna Moralia, 938, 97, 115, 128.
Meno, 17, 33, 37.
Metalogicus, 26, 33.
Metaphysica, 5-7, 12, 19, 28, 24, 26, 27, 29, 39, 40, 41, 68, 78, 87, 91, 92,
115, 116, 127.
(Avicennae), 34, 120.
Meteora, 4, 11, 19, 21-24, 26- 31, 33, 34, 387, 40, 45-48, 50, 58, 69, 78, 81, 87,
90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 115, 116, 128.
ir (Alfredus) 56-8, 69.
56 (Alex. Aphrod.), 90, 97, 123.
De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus, 938, 94.
De Mineris, 35.
De Motu (Proclus), 32.
De Motu Animalium, 2, 23, 31, 81-83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91.
», Motibus _,, (Albertus), 91.
», Motu Cordis (Alfredus), 1, 6, 27, 40, 41, 49, 55, 56, 58, 59, 66, 112.
De Mundo, 11, 93, 94, 128.
De Mystica Theologia (Pseudo-Dionysius), 115.
De Musica (Alfredus), 56-8.
De Natura Locorum (Grosseteste), 71.
De Nat. Rerum (Cantimpré), 78, 79, 85.
st a (Alex. of Neckam), 26, 27, 74-5.
een », Alfredus, 52, 56 (i.e. missing comments ?), 57.
De Nominibus Utensil. (Alex. of Neckam), 26.
De Nutrimento (Albertus), 89.
Optica (Ptolomaeus), 33.
Opus Tertium (Bacon), 98, 115.
Opus Majus (Bacon), 71, 72, 116, 117.
De Partibus Animalium, 2, 15, 23, 72, 79, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 97, 115, 127,
», Passionibus _,, 89.
Parva Naturalia, 2, 4, 7, 12, 15, 16, 19, 22-24, 27-29, 81, 85, 39, 45-52, 69,
78, 81, 87, "89, 90, 92, ‘93, 96, 116, 117, 128.
Phaedo, 17, 33, 37.
Philos. Arist. Nic., 81.
Physica, 7, 12, 15, 19, 21-24, 27-29, 31, 34, 38, 39, 45, 77, 78, 81, 92, 94, 95,
115, 116, 127.
- (Alfarabi), 120.
ae (Avicennae) , 84, 120.
Ammonius on Perihermenias, 124.
Physiognomia, 1, 2, 8, 27, 45, 98, 94, 97, 112, 115.
i (Michael Scot), 85, 93.
Planisphere (Ptolomaeus), 34.
De Plantis, 1, 2, - 12, 15, 19, 21-3, 27, 29-31, 35, 46, 47, 54-72, 76, 78, 81,
94, 112.
Febner (Alfredus), 27, 38, 57-9, 65, 66, 69, 76.
(Albertus), 65, 67-8.
eras 8 (Simon of Faversham), 69.
(Joh. Cronisbenus), 68.
Ao Meee (Petr. de Alvernia), 59, 66-7.
(Bacon), 61-4, 68.
Problemata, 93, 94, 127, 128.
De Principiis, 93, 94.
De Proprietatibus Rerum (Bartholomaeus), 78.
», De Principiis Motus Processivi (Albertus), 89, 91.
Hr a Element, 4, 80, 45, 57, 65, 81.
», Progressu Animalium, 2, 23, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 128.
», Pomo, 28, 94.
Politica, 87, 92, 115, 126,127.
Poetica, 12.
Premnon Physicon, 32, 34.
Questiones Naturales (Adelard), 39.
Rhetorica,'12, 87, 127.
Sacerdos ad Altare Accessurus (Alex. of Neckam), 26, 41, 47.
Sentences (Aquinas), 83.
De Sensu of Alex. Aphrod., 123.
De Scientiis (Alfarabi), 22, 34, 46, 120.
Secreta Secretorum, 1, 11, 33, 70.
De Signis, 93, 94.
Speculum Naturale (Albertus), 67, 68, 78.
- Doctrinale (Albertus), 22.
De Sphaera (Alpetragius), 73, 76, 77, 95.
Stamser Catalogue, 87.
Summa Adversus Catharos, 71.
”
de Bono (Philip of Gréve), 28, 77.
», contra Gentes (Aquinas), 88, 90.
De Substantia Orbis (Averroes), 31, 121.
Liber Sufficientiae (Avicenna), 120.
Summa Philosophiae (Pseudo-Grosseteste), 91.
Summulae Logicae (Petr. Hisp.), 80.
De Tempore (Alex. Aphrod.), 121.
Theologiae Arist., 1, 17.
Timaeus, 12, 17.
De Triumphis Ecclesiae, 19.
De Universo of Wm. of Auvergne, 28, 77.
>
cnr oe
DE ee
J. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS.
@)._ INLRODUCLION.
I have aimed in this work at giving some outline of the process by

which those Aristotelian works which deal with science, and more par-
ticularly with biological science, were restored to the Latin west during
the period which followed upon the close of the Dark Ages. The process
is of great importance for the history of scientific thought and of the
contact of cultures. The Renaissance versions, however they may have
surpassed their predecessors in accuracy or literary elegance, are not com-
parable in significance with the translations of the earlier period, which
constituted the main source of scientific knowledge among the Latins.
For the sake, however, of completeness, I have included a brief section
dealing with some of the more eminent Renaissance translators of Aristotle.
I have concentrated on the scientific, and especially the biological
works, and on genuine rather than pseudo-Aristotelian treatises. It is,
however, impossible to avoid dealing with the logical and other works in
describing the appearance of the ‘‘ new Aristotle ’’ in the schools of
Western Europe. Moreover, where the same author is responsible for
versions of scientific works and of works on metaphysical and other
subjects, exclusion of all mention of the latter would be both artificial
and misleading.
I have, moreover, included some discussion of the Latin translations
of certain works now generally regarded as spurious, such as the Physiog-
nomia and especially the De Plantis, since certain of these undoubtedly
embody Peripatetic doctrine, though not actually the work of Aristotle
himself. JI have, however, omitted such spurious treatises as the Secreta
Secretorum and the so-called Theologia Aristotelis, which are neither
derived from Aristotle nor represent his teaching in any sense.
With the De Plantis I have dealt at a length doubtless dispropor-
tionate to its importance, since the alleged existence of a second Latin
version of this work formed the starting point of my researches, and since
almost nothing has been written on this tractate, since the account given
by E. H. F. Meyer in 1841, though both Barach and Baeumker have
discussed it incidentally in dealing with the De Motu Cordis of Alfredus
de Sareshel.’
With regard to arrangement, I have followed the chronological order
of the translations except where a rigid adherence to it would cause an
unnatural separation of versions made by the same translator or otherwise
logically connected. I have also suspended the chronological sequence,
in the interests of clarity, in grouping together versions from the Arabic
and again those from the Greek, as also to some extent in the classification
of the translations according to the subject-matter. As my primary
I
PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
, separated
interest 1s with the biological works, I have, as far as possible purely
the discussion of them from that of works dealing with more
physical topics.
In dealing with the biological works I have in each case devoted some
attention also to the earlier commentaries, since they exemplify the
diffusion and influence of these versions. The scanty numbers, moreover,
‘of such commentaries, when compared with those on the more purely
physical works, makes it possible to treat them with a detail which is
less feasible for the other works. In the case of the De Aximalibus in
the version from the Arabic, and of the De Plantis, I have endeavoured
to give some account of all the extant mediaeval commentaries.
As regards the dividing line between biological and_ more purely
physical works, I have included in the former category the De Generatione
et Corruptione, the Historia Animalium, De Partibus Animalium, De
Generatione Animalium, De Causa Motus Animalium, De_Progressu
Animalium, De Planiis, Physiognomia and Parva Naturalia. Border-line
cases are the Parva Naturalia and the De Anima. The former I have
treated as in the biological field, since some of its constituent tracts are
almost exclusively physiological in content. These form a bridge between
the pure psychology of the De Anzma and the later, strictly physiological
work.’
The history of the mediaeval Latin versions of Aristotelian works is
buried in a vast and diffuse literature, in which, however, the biological
works have been more or less neglected. The field has often been surveyed
in a general way in works dealing with the history of philosophy and
mediaeval thought,? though few of these exhibit direct contact with the
documents. The pioneer work, based on first-hand knowledge, was that
of Amable Jourdain, first published in 1819 and revised and enlarged
by Charles Jourdain in 1843. The only later comprehensive treatise on
the whole subject is Grabmann’s Forschungen tiber die Lateinischen
Aristoteles-Ubersetzungen des XIII Jahrhunderts.’ Even this devotes
comparatively little attention to the biological works, and, is moreover,
confined to the thirteenth century.
Before entering on the subject of our study, it will be convenient to
survey briefly, firstly, the earlier Latin translations from the Greek that
survived from the ancient classical learning through the Dark Ages;
secondly, the Aristotelian material that was accessible in the Arabic-
speaking world from which mediaeval scholasticism derived its Aristotelian
tradition; and thirdly, the state of Aristotelian studies at Byzantium
during the period.
+H. H. IF. Meyer, Nicolai Damasceni de plantis libri duo Aristoteli vulgo adscripti.
Lipsiae, 1841; C. 8S. Barach, Excerpta e libro Alfredi Anglici de motu cordis etc.
(Bibl. Philos. Med. Aetat, 2 Bd.) Innsbruck, 1878; Cl. Baeumker, Die Stellung
des Alfred von Sareshel und seiner Schrift de Motu Cordis in der Wissenschaft
des beginninden XIII. Jahrhunderts, (Sitzungsberichte d. Kéniglich Akad. d.
Wissenschaften, Philos-philol, & Hist. Klasse, Jahrgang 1913, 9. Abh.), Miinchen,
1913. An account of the Arabic text of the De Plantis has been given by
P. Bouyges in the Mélanges de l'Université St, Joseph, Beyrouth, Tom, IX,
2
Introduction
Fasc. 2, 1924. Pp. 71 et seqq. (For a further bibliography see pp. 98 et seqq.
of this work).
2 Jn this connection it is interesting to note that Brandis suggests that only the
first half of the Parva Naturalia were composed immediately after the De Anima,
and that the rest of these works (as is suggested by theiy position in the catalogue
of Ptolemy) werd not written until after the works on the Parts, Movement and
Generation of Animals. (Cf. Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, II Teil, 2 Abh.,
Leipzig, 1921, Pp. 95-6, note).
* Especially in the section devoted to the Aristotelian versions in Ueberweg
Geschichte der Philosophie, Zweiter Teil, (Geyer), Berlin, 1928.
4 Recherches critiques sur l’Age et sur l’origine des traductions latines d’Aristote,
Paris, 1819; Nouveile Edition, revue et augmentée par Charles Jourdain, Paris,
1843.
* Beitrage zur Geschichte der Philosophie des Mittelalters, Siebzehnter Band,
Miinster, i.W., 1916.
(2). WORKS IN POSSESSION OF THE LATINS BEFORE THE

NEW TRANSLATIONS. THE BOETHIAN PROBLEM.
At an early date versions of various works of Aristotle were associated
with the name of Boethius (480-525 A.D.). This association introduces
us into a highly controversial field.
Boethius himself tells us: ‘‘ Ego omne Aristotelis opus quodcumque in
manus venerit in Romanum stylum vertens, eorum omnium commenta
Latina oratione perscribam, ut si quid ex logicae artis subtilitate, et ex
moralis gravitate peritiae, et ex zaturalis acumine veritatis ab Aristotele
conscriptum est, zd omne ordinatum transferram, atque id quodam lumine
commentationis illustrem, omnesque Platonis dialogos vertendo vel etiam
commentando in latinam redigem formam’.”’ He intended, then, to
translate into Latin all the works of Aristotle, logical, moral and natural,
accompanying them with his own commentaries. How far did he carry
out this scheme?
The Boethian authorship is unquestioned only in the case of the Logica
vetus. For the other works the evidence is conflicting.
Cassidorus (477—c. 570), in the De artibus ac disciplinis liberalium
litterarum,’ (cap 3), mentions only logical works as having been translated
by Boethius.*
Much caution is, moreover, needed in accepting the numerous
unsupported attributions of Boethian authorship to be found in
mediaeval writers. The scholastics commonly ascribed to Boethius
Latin versions of nearly all the Aristotelian works. Thus, a mid-
thirteenth century list of books by Richard de Fournival mentions a
volume containing the following Aristotelian works ‘‘ ex translatione
Boetii ”*:—Liber de Caelo & Mundo, Liber de proprictatibus Celi &
Mundi, Liber de Generatione, corruptione & Mixtione, Liber de Metheoris,
Liber de Vegetabilibus et Plantis, Liber de Anima, Libelli de sensibus &
Sensibilibus, de Memoria et Reminiscentia, de Somno & Vigilia et de
Morte & Vita vitaeque Longitudine.* Now it is utterly improbable that
certain, at least, of these items existed then in Boethian versions. Thus
the Liber de proprietatibus celi et mundi, more usually found under the
title De Proprietatibus Elementorum, is frequently found in the manu-
scripts, but only in a version made by Gerard of Cremona from the Arabic.
Again, of the Meteora there were in fact two Latin versions, neither of
which was by Boethius. In the case of the De Vegetabilibus only the
Arabic-Latin version has been found in the manuscripts. This somewhat
wholesale attribution therefore of Aristotelian versions to Boethius
interesting chiefly as an example of the widespread belief in the Boethianis
translation of most if not all of the works of Aristotle.
4
The Boethian Problem
Again, a thirteenth-century Paris manuscript contains a copy of the

Metaphysica to which a later hand has prefixed the note ‘“ Decem libri
Metaphysicae ex versione Boethici.’’* At the end is repeated ‘‘ Trans-
latio nova, sive Boethici.’? Further, Radulfus de Longo Campo, in his
Commentary on the Axticlaudianus of Alanus de Insulis, written about
the year 1216, says :—‘‘ Boetius fuit translator a greco in latinum :
Boetius enim exposiut ommes libros Aristotelis et invenit commenta super
eos.’’® Other examples of mediaeval Boethian ascriptions are to be found
in the catalogue for the Sorbonne of 1338 and in the Recensio of the Papal
Library at Avignon for 1375, where references are made to a Boethian
version of the E¢hica.’
Some modern authors sweep the whole of these attributions aside,* and
reduce the number of genuine Boethian versions to those of the Categories
and the Perihermenias,’ particularly on the grounds of the absence between
the sixth and twelfth centuries of all manuscripts of other versions, and of
the silence of library catalogues and similar documents during the same
period regarding these versions. There is, however, a considerable body
of evidence against this wholesale rejection.
We may consider the matter under two heads, (a) the versions of the
Logica Nova which passed during the mediaeval period as Boethian °°;
and (b) those of the Metaphysica and of the moral and natural works.
Since the ‘‘ new Aristotle ’’ made its first appearance in the second quarter
of the twelfth century with versions of the Logica Nova ascribed by
contemporaries to Boethius, we should perhaps briefly summarize some of
the main conclusions on these versions."
(a) With regard then to the question whether the versions of the Tofzca
and of the Azalytica Priora and Posteriora and of the Sophisticz Elenchi
which passed under the name of Boethius were in reality his work, the
weight of the evidence is against a sweeping rejection of these versions.
In the first place, in addition to the intention expressed in his commentary
on the Perihermenzas (Cf., p. 4) of translating all the Aristotelian works
into Latin, Boethius explicitly states that he carried out this intention in
the case of the Zofica and the two Analytics. In the second place,
although an explanation is needed of the fact that these versions were so
rare between the sixth and twelfth centuries that no mention of them
has survived in the catalogues® nor in contemporary literature, yet when
the first mention of them does occur (namely in works dating from the
second quarter of the twelfth century) there is a consensus in ascribing
them to the hand of Boethius.
Among those who made this attribution were Otto of Freisung “
(fl. 1150), Burgundio the Pisan (fl. 1136-1193) and the anonymous Poet
of the seven liberal arts. The version used by all these writers is that
commonly ascribed to Boethius throughout the middle ages.
The writings of Abelard (1079-1142) mark the first impact of the ‘‘ new
Aristotle ’’ on the schools of the West. In his Dialectic, written somewhat
before 1125, he says that the Latins know only the Categories and the
Perihermenias.* _ Later,’* however, he cites the Azalytica Priora and the
Sophistici Elenchi. In the second quarter, also, of the twelfth century
citations from the works which comprised the Logica Nova begin to appear
in the works of other authors, notably Thierry of Chartres (fl. 1140-50).*”
5
Now, in the chronicle of Robert de Torigny (1 106 ?-86), Abbot of Mont

St.-Michel, under the year 1128 occurs a well-known entry concerning
these versions, which runs :—‘‘ Jacobus, clericus de Venetia, transtulit de
greco in latinum quosdam libros Aristotelis et_ commentatus est, scilicet
Topica et Analyticos Priores et Posteriores et Elencos, quamvis antiquior
translatio super eosdem libros haberetur.** The author of this *' antiquior
translatio ’’ has been generally taken to be Boethius.
There has, however, recently been described a new version of the
Posterior Analytics, represented by a manuscript at Toledo, in_the
preface of which we read “‘. . . et erat certum noticiam eius (i.e. of the
Posterior Analytics) nostris temporibus Latinig non patere. Nam érans-
latio Boetii (i.e. of the Posterior Analytics) apud nos integra non inveniiur,
et id ipsum quod dé ea reperitur vitio corruptionis obfuscatur. Transla-
tionem vero lacobi (i.e. Jacobus de Venetia, cf. p. 37) obscuritatis tenebris
involvi silentio suo peribent Francie magistri.. .’’ This passage
confirms the general opinion of the period that the earlier version of the
Topica and the two Analytics was the work of Boethius.*
(b) Did there exist in the mediaeval period versions by Boethius of the
works of Aristotle other than the logical? e
St. Thomas Aquinas refers more than once” to a ‘‘ litera Boethii,”’
‘‘ translatio Boethii,’’ both in the casé of the Metaphysica and of the
De Anima, which he contrasts with thé versions on which his own
commentaries are based. In the case of the De Anima,?* Aquinas based
his commentary on a revision by William of Moerbeke of the older Greek-
Latin version, of which there is a copy at Nurnberg,” cited by Alfredus
Anglicus in his De Motu Cordis, written probably between 1210 and 1215.
In a fourteenth-century Venice manuscript * of the older version from
the Greek there occurs a marginal note expressly attributing the transla-
tion to Boethius. This note reads :—‘‘ Traductio huius partis reperitur
a boetio in commentario Marii ** Perihermenias, ubi probat ex hoc textu
aliud imagimationes esse aliud intellectus. Est autem imaginatio
diversa. . .”’
As regards the Metaphysica, the ‘‘ litera Boethii ’’ of Aquinas is not
identical with that current in the schools under the title ‘‘ Metaphysica
vetus,’’ which ends in the fourth chapter of the fourth book, while Aquinas
cites the fifth book of his ‘‘ translatio Boethii.’’** This ‘‘ translatio
Boethii,’’ however, did not include all the twelve books commented on by
Aquinas.” In the first three and part of the fourth books, it has been
shown to be nearly identical with the Metaphysica vetus.**
Another witness as to the Boethian authorship of these versions is Roger
Bacon. Boethius is the only translator besides Robert Grosseteste to
whom Bacon will allow the necessary qualifications for his task. Having
condemned all the contemporary translators, he says:—‘‘ Solus enim
Boetius scivit de omnibus interpretationibus linguas sufficienter. | Solus
Dominus Robertus . . . praé aliis hominibus scivit scientias.2? And
elsewhere he writes :—‘‘ Sed nullus scivit linguas nisi Boetius de transla-
toribus famosis, nullus scientias nisi dominus Robertus, episcopus
Lincolniensis.*° As regards the identity of the works translated by
Boethius, Roger tells us :—“‘ Boetius quidem fuit . . . qui primus incepit
libros Aristotelis plures transferre.** Logicalia et guaedam alia translata
6
fuerunt per Boetium de Graeco’’ (Opus Majus, 1267). And again ;:—
‘“Et ipse (Boetius) aliqua logicalia et pauca de aliis transtulit in
Latinum.’’* In one manuscript (Vatican 4086) this passage runs :—‘‘ Et
ipse aliqua logicalia e¢ pauca naturalia et aliquid de metaphysicalibus
transtulit in latenum.’’** These statements, so far as they go, support the
existence of Boethian versions of other than logical works.
A Boethian origin has also been suggested * for the Ethica Vetus (the
second and third books of the Nicomachean Ethics), which together with
the Ezhica Nova (or first book of the complete work) is, apparently, the
only portion of that work extant in Latin before the thirteenth century.
This suggestion, however, lacks the strong contemporary evidence avail-
able in the case of the Logica Nova.
There is at least evidence tending to establish the existence of Latin
versions of most of the physical Aristotelian works before the coming of
the new translations,* versions often referred to by the scholastics as
‘* Boethian.’’ If we accept this attribution, we have to account for the
seemingly complete, submergence of the ‘‘ Boethian’’ versions until the
arrival of the new Aristotle in the twelfth century. It may be that these
works fell into obscurity and were forgotten during the Dark Ages for
lack of competent, readers,** and that the scientific awakening of the
twelfth century which gave the impetus to the production of the new
versions from the Greek and Arabic also led to a rediscovery of the
Boethian texts. It is at least certain that traces are to be found of an
older Latin version of several Aristotelian works.**
Lastly, we may note that some writers *’ have attempted to assign
the ‘‘ Boethian ’’ versions to one Boetius of Dacia, who was condemned
along with Siger de Brabant for Averriostic teaching by Stephen Tempier,
Bishop of Paris; in 1277. This identification cannot be sustained. The
date alone makes it impossible, and an examination of the passages in
scholastic writings alluding to the ‘‘ Boethian ’’ translations makes it
clear that the reference is not to. a contemporary but to the sixth-century
Manlius Severinus Boethius. Moreover, Boethius of Dacia is not known
as a translator, nor does he figure in that capacity in contemporary
allusions, nor in the list of Aristotelian translators given by Roger Bacon.*
Whether these versions were the work of Boethius recovered under the
stimulus of the intellectual awakening of the twelfth century, or whether
they were the work of some unknown forerunners of the school of translators
from the Greek that flourished in Sicily from the middle of the century,
it is certain that they made their appearance in the schools and began to
exercise an effective influence on European thought for the first time during
the earlier years of the twelfth century. Only the Logica Vetus can be
traced either in the works of contemporary writers or in early library
catalogues before that date.
* Some of these versions are, in fact, extant, as we shall see below in the case of the
Metaphysica (pp. 40-41), De Anima (p. 9, note 23, and elsewhere), and Parva
Naturalia (pp. 46-7 and 48-52). Dr. A. Birkenmajer, moreover, writes to me that
he has’ identified the earlier wersions from the Greek of the Physica and the De
Generatione, and is publishing his results in Fasc. II. of the Prolegomena in
Aristotelum Latinum, to be produced by the Académie Polonaise des Sciences & des
Lettres. The versions themselves are to be published in the Corpus Philosophorum
Medii Aevi, which is projected by the Union Académique Internationale.
7;
of the new
Another source of Aristotelian knowledge before the coming which was
translations was an anonymous compen dium on physio gnomy
.* It
known to the Latins from an early date and has been twice printed
embodies considerable sections of the pseudo- Aristot elian Physto nomia,
and was the only form in which that work was available to the Latins
until the translation made by Bartholomew of Messina about the middle
of the thirteenth century.*° It was probably composed in the third or
fourth century A.D.** We have, moreover, definite manuscript evidence as
to the early date at which the work was current among the Latins. Thus,
there is extant a codex of the early twelfth century containing this work,
which was written for the use of Bishop Marbodius of Rennes (1096-1123),
another dated 1132, and a third 1152.** The tractate, which consists of
citations of passages on physiognomy taken from the works of Loxus,
Aristotle and Polemon (c. 150 A.D.), opens as follows:—‘‘ Ex tribus
auctoribus quorum libros prae manu habui, loxi videlicet medici, Aris-
totelis philosophi, Polemonis declamatoris, qui de phisionomia scripserunt,.
ea elegi que ad pristinam institutionem huius rei pertinent, ut que facilius
intelligantur. Sane ubi mihi enim difficilis fuit translatio vel interpretatio
graeca ipsa nomina et verba posui. Primo igitur constituendum est quid
phisionomia profiteatur. . . .”’
The citations from Aristotle’s Physzognomia embodied in this work are
fairly numerous and lengthy,“ and are more in the nature of paraphrases
than of verbatim extracts. The importance of the work for us lies in the
fact that it was the only form in which any portion of Aristotelian or
pseudo-Aristotelian biology was available to the Latins before the transla-
tions of Gerard of Cremona in the twelfth century.
1 In librum de interpretatione, editio secunda, lib. secund. I.c. (Migne, Patrologie

Cursus Completus, Tom. 63-4, Paris, 1847, col. 433), i
2 Cassiodorus embodied in this work a summary of the Aristotelian logical works.
*> Cf. Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l’Averroisme latin au XILlIe siécle. (Les
Philosophes Belges. Institut Supérieur de Philosophie de l'Université de Louvain.
Tom, VI, Louvain, 1911). P. 7, note 3.
4T.. Delisle, Le Cabinet des MSS de la Bibliothéque Nationale, II (Paris, 1874), 528.
5 Jourdain, Recherches Critiques sur l’Age et l’Origine des Traductions Latines
d’Aristote, 1848 edition, p. 58. The manuscript is now Cod. lat. 14694 of the
Bibliothéque Nationale. ;
* Paris, Bibl. Nat. Cod. lat., 8083, F. 23.
ifpase are Ae L’Etica Nicomachea nella tradizione latina medievale, ‘Messina
1904, p. 32.
*Grabmann, Die Lateinischen Aristoteles-Ubersetzungen des XIII Jahrhunderts,
Minster i.W., 1916. (Beitrage z. Gesch. d. Philosophie d. Mittelalters, Band
XVII. Heft. 5-6), pp. 127-180; and Geschichte d. Scholastischen Methode
Freiburg, 1911, Vol. II, pp. 75 et seqq. :
® Sandys, also, recognises only the versions of the logical works as being genuinely
from the hand of Boethius. (Ci. A History of Classical Scholarship from the
Sixth Century, B.C., to the end of the Middle Ages, 3rd ed., Cambridge
1921, p. 253).
10 Manuscripts ascribing versions of the Logical works to Boethius are not un-
common. E.g. Milan, Ambrosiana H.41 Inf. contains a version of the Topica
ascribed in a fourteenth century hand to Boethius, and Cesena, Malatest. Plut
Dest. XXII.6. ascribes the version of the Analytica Priora to him (though in a
hand of a later date than the text).
"1 The matter has been discussed in some detail by Professor Haskins, Studies in
the History of Mediaeval Science, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1927, Chapter XI. (Reprint
from Harvard Studies in Classical Philol. XXV, 1914).
"Tn Topica Ciceronis, Migne LXIV, 1051 & 1052; De Diff. Topicis, Migne, loc. cit.,
1178, 1184, 1193, 1216.
43 Cf. Th. Gottlieb, Uber Mittelalterliche Bibliotheken, Leipzig, 1890; G. Becker,
Catalogi Bibliothecarum Antiqui, Bonn, 1885. See also J. S. Beddie, Ancient
Classics in Mediaeval Libraries, Speculum, Vol. V, No. 1, Jan., 1930, etc.
44 Otto of Freisung, in his Chronicon (1143-1146), is the first author to cite all the
works of the Organon, although Thierry of Chartres in his Heptateuchon, written
between 1135 and 1141, names them all except the Analytica Posteriora.
** And the Isogoge of Porphyry in the version of Boethius. There was also a version
of this work by Victorinus (c. 350).
*6 Cf. Migne, op. cit., Vol. 178, Col. 354 (Abaelardi Epistolae XIII) and Abelard,
Glossae super Porphyrium, (Ed. B. Greyer, Peter Abaelards Philos. Schriften in
Beitriige z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters, Bd. XXI., Heft. 1, Minster i. W.,
1919), p. 2, ‘‘ sicut et princeps noster Aristoteles fecit, qui ad sermonum doctrinam
Praedicamenta perscripsit, ad propositionum Periermenias, ad argumentationum
Topica et Analytica.’’ Cf. also B. Greyer, Die alten lat. Ubersetz. (Philos.-
Jahrbuch, 1917), p. 82. In the Theologia Christiana, (Migne, Patrologiae
Cursus, Vol, 178, Col. 1238) is a citation of the Aristotelian Physica. ‘‘ Unde
Aristoteles in secundo Physicorum: ‘ Nihil, inquit, differt dicere hominem
ambulare et hominem ambulantem esse.’’’ [cf. Ed. V. Cousin & Ch. Jourdain,
Petri Abaelardi Opera, Paris 1849, Tom. II. Pp. 474-5. But see the Editor's
note there, referring the citation to the De Interpretatione.] Migne (Vol. 178,
p. 38), also notes that in the Library of Mont St.-Michel were two MSS contain-
ing what purported to be commentaries by Abelard on the Phystca and on the
De Generatione et Corruptione.
‘7 Cf. Clerval, Les Ecoles de Chartres au Moyen-Age, Paris, 1895, pp. 244-245.
‘8 Monumenta Germaniae Hist. Scriptores, VI., 489.
1° Haskins, (loc. cit. above, note 11).
20 For further consideration of this question cf. Haskins, op. cit., Chapter XI.
21 e.9. Summa contra Gentes, Lib. II, Cap. 61.
22 Cf. Cl. Baeumker, Die Stellung des Alfred v. Sareshel und sein Schrift De Motu
Cordis etc. (Sitzungsberichte d. Koniglich. Akad d. Wissenschaft. Philos-philol.
und Hist. Klasse, Jahrgung 1913, 9 Abh.), pp. 87 et seqq.
28 Niirnberg, Cent. V, 59. Other copies of this older version exist in Vienna, Hofbibl.
Cod. lat. 2318 (Grabmann, Lateinischen Ubersetz, p. 196); and in Venice, Bibl.
Marciana, Cl. VI. Cod. 47, and Vat. Palat. Lat. 1033. It also appears in Naples
VITI. F. 12, and Paris, Bibl. Univ., 56.8 and elsewhere.
24 Venice, Marciana, Cl] VI. Cod. 17, F. 140.
25 2i.e. Caius Marius Victorinus, d. 870, author of versions of Categoriae and De
Interpretatione, and of Porphyry’s Isagoge, and of commentaries thereon.
2° Cf. Grabmann, op. cit. p. 127. Nor can it be the Metaphysica vetustissima, which
covers the same portion of the complete work as the Metaphysica vetus. For the
various Latin versions of the Metaphysica, see pp. 40-41.
27 Cf, Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant et l’Averroisme latin, Louvain, 1911, p. 7, note 3.
28 Cf. B. Geyer, Ubersetzungen d. Arist. Metaphysik bei Alb. Magnus ¢ Th. Aquin.
(Philos. Jahrbuch 30 (1917), 392-415).
1859, p. 471.
29 Compendium studii philosophiae, cap. 8, Brewer’s edition, London,
3° Op, Tert., cap. 25, Brewer's edition, p. 91.
9
21 Opus Majus, ed. Bridges, 2 vols., Oxford, 1897, Vol. ep a2:

32 Bridges, III, p. 161.
33 Whether this is the insertion of a scribe, and whether it is perhaps, as Mandonnet
(op. cit., p. 9) suggests, based on the authority of Aquinas, it is impdssible at
this stage to say. But, as the Sxmma contra Gentes was not completed until
1264, and Aquinas’ commentaries on the Metaphysica and other works perhaps
about the same date, while Bacon composed the Opus Majus in 1267, it does not
seem. very likely that he was already drawing upon such recent works.
34 T,’Etica Nicomachea nella tradizione latina Medievale, Messina, 1904, p. 82.
Jourdain, op. cit., p. 77, remarks ‘‘ Plus j’examine l’Ethica vetus, plus je pense
qu'elle est antérieure aux siécles de la scolastique.’’ He contradicts himself,
however, on p. 179, where he expresses doubts as to the early date of the Hthica
vetus. Cf. also pp. 40 and 97 below.
35 Cf, Haskins, op. cit., p. 233.
36 Cf. also the statement of Aventinus re the versions used by Albertus, cited below
on p. 107, note 173.
87 Jourdain, op. cit., pp. 57 and 400. Cousin, Journal des Savants, 1848, p. 282.
Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, (trans. from German), London, 1857, p. 97.
38 Cf, Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, pp. 240—241. E. Charles, Roger Bacon,
Bordeaux, 1861, p, 324.
°? Editionof Antonius Molinius Matisconenses, Lugduni, 1549, under the title
De Diversa hominum natura; and in R. Foerster’s Scriptores Physiognomici,
Vol. II, pp. 3-145, Leipzig. 1893. It is also extant in a number of manuscripts
given by: Foerster.
«9 See pp. 93-4.
41 Foerster (op. cit. I, exxxvi) deduces from one passage that he was a pagan, and
Kelter (Apulei quae fertur physiognomia quando composita sit, 1890, pp. 22 and
48) has suggested that he was of African origin. Several scholars have attributed
the work to Apuleius of Madaura, although Foerster rejects the suggestion. Cf.
also Foerster, op. cit., Vol. I, Prolegomena, P. CXLI.
*? Leodiensis Univ. 77, Berolinensis lat. qu. 198, and Bodleian, Ashmole 3899
respectively.
48 Occupying practically the whole of pages 111 to 118 of Foerster’s edition.
10
(3) THE ARABIC ARISTOTLE.
The Arabic-speaking peoples in the great age of Arabic learning, when

both their philosophic and scientific thought was built upon the foundation
of that of Greece, were familiar with Aristotle’s work only in their own
tongue. The Nestorians of Asia Minor, to whom a knowledge of Greek
was necessary for religious purposes, were the bearers of the science of
antiquity to their Saracen rulers.’
More particularly, it was through translations made by Nestorians that
the Arabian world first received the works of Aristotle and of Galen.
Some of these works had already been translated into Syriac before the
advent of the Arabs. Before 435 Ibas, who became Bishop of Edessa in
that year, had rendered into Syriac the commentaries of Theodore on
the works of Aristotle.* Again, Sergios of Resh’Aina (d. 536 A.D.), who
had studied Greek at Alexandria, translated into Syriac the De Mundo
and the Categoriae of Aristotle, as well as other works of Greek science.‘
Another Syriac version of the Categoriae was made by Bishop Jacob of
Edessa, who died in 708 A.D. In 765 we hear of the Nestorian sician,
Georgios, who was summoned to Bagdad from the school of Jondé-Shapar,
and who is said to have translated numerous Greek words into Arabic for
the Khalif, al-Mansur. These are a few of the forerunners of the great
Ganslatiag school that flourished at Bagdad during the ninth century
of our era.°
The first chief of this school, during the Khalifate of Maman (813-833),
was the physician, ibn el-Batric, the translator of the nineteen books of
the De Animalibus,* the De Celo and the Meteora, and author of a number
of fairly faithful if too literal translations, including the pseudo-
Aristotelian work known to the Latins as the Secreta Secretorum. The
greatest period, however, of translation from the Greek into Syriac and
Arabic was that during which Hunain ibn Ishaq presided over the school
at Bagdad, assisted by his son Ishaq ibn Hunain and his nephew Hubaish.
Hunain ibn Ishaq (809—873 A.D.) was a Christian who had travelled in
Greece and Egypt, and was well versed in Greek, Arabic and Syraic, He
and his school turned out translations of many works of Greek science,
especially those dealing with medical subjects. It was in the versions of
this many-sided man, wonderfully modern and critical in his methods,’
and in those of his school, that the’bulk of the scientific works of classical
antiquity became known to the Arabic-speaking world,
Hunain® made two types of translation from the Greek, those into
Syraic for his medical and scientific colleagues, and those into Arabic for
his Arabic-speaking patrons, the Khalif and other prominent statesmen.’°
In some cases, where the Greek text of a work was not available, and an
earlier Syriac version was extant, a translation was made from the Syriac
II
into Arabic. There were also a number of translators from the Syriac
who were not acquainted with Greek. But, so far as the versions of
Hunain and his school are concerned, a translation was always made
direct from the Greek if a manuscript was available, and Hunain has
left it on record that he went to great pains to obtain copies of a work in
Greek, It is, therefore, probable that in general the Arabic versions were
made direct from the Greek, and not through the medium of Syriac.”
Of the works of Aristotle, Hunain translated into the Syriac a part of
the Organon, the De Generatione et Corruptione, the De Anima and part
of the Metaphysica™”; into the Arabic the Categoriae, the Rhetorica, the
Summary of the Philosophy of Aristotle by Nicolaus of Damascus, and,
according to the evidence of a Leyden manuscript of the Fihrist,” the
Ethica and Physica.
He also revived an Arabic version of the Azalytica Priora.* Hunain,
moreover, translated into Arabic most of the Tzmaeus of Plato, the version
being finished by his son Ishaq, and was also responsible for several
oe of the Greek commentators on Aristotelian natural and other
works.
Hunain’s vast translating activities were almost surpassed by those of
his son Ish4g (d. gio A.D.), who was responsible for versions of: the
Analytica Priora and Posteriora, the Perihermenias, Topica, Rhetorica,
Poetica, De Generatione & Corruptione, De Anima, part of the Meta-
physica and the pseudo-Aristotelian De Plantis.* In addition to these,
Ishaq made versions of various Greek commentaries on Aristotle, including
those of Alexander Aphrodisias on the Topica and the De Generatione
et Corruptione, and of Themistius on the De Anima.**
A younger contemporary of Ishaq was the writer known to the Latins
as Costa-ben-Luca ee 3.A.D.). He exercised a considerable influence
on the West through his very popular De Differentia intra spiritum et
animam, which appears in a large number of mediaeval manuscripts,
together with the works of Aristotle. Of the Aristotelian works them-
selves Costa-ben-Luca seems only to have translated a portion of the
Physica, but he was the author of several versions of the commentaries on
Aristotle of Alexander Aphrodisias, Johannes Philoponus and other writers
of the Alexandrian school.
Another translator of Hunain’s circle was concerned in the production
of the Arabic version of the pseudo-Aristotelian De Plantis..’ In the copy
of the Arabic version of this work which has been recently discovered at
Constantinople** it is described as the translation of Ishaq ibn Hunain,
corrected by Thabit ibn Qurra. This Thabit ibn Qurra (826—goI A.D.)
was an older contemporary of Ishaq ibn Hunain, and his revision of the
younger man’s version of the De Plantis most probably took place almost
ee eee Ae ie poe pes agin: non-Aristotelian works
ich are said to have been translated from the Greek by Ishaq 1 1
and revised by Thabit ibn Qurra.’” ny UR aaa
Hunain and his circle were followed by a number of lesser men with
whose activities we are not in general concerned. A few words must,
however, be said on the question of the Arabic version of the Parva
Naturalia.*” The translator or translators of these opuscula cannot be
12
The Arabic Aristotle
identified, nor do we know the exact date at which the Arabic versions
were made, a state of affairs which we shall find paralleled with the
twelfth-century Latin version. There is no trace of them in Arabic
literature of the tenth century, but they appear and are commented upon
in the twelfth,”* among others, by the great Averroes, and we shall discuss
later” the history of the Latin versions of these paraphrases of his.
One more translator into Arabic should be mentioned in connection
with the versions of the Aristotelian works, although he falls outside the
great translating period. This is the Syrian priest, Abul-l-Faraj**
(d. 1043 A.D.), doctor at Bagdad and secretary to the Nestorian patriarch,
Elia I. Abu-l-Faraj left, among other Arabic writings, paraphrases of
Hippocrates and Galen and versions of and commentaries on Aristotle.
Steinschneider™ discovered in a Hebrew manuscript of the Bibliothéque
Nationale at Paris, in addition to commentaries by Averroes, some
extracts or ‘‘ collectanea ’’ translated from the Arabic text of Abu-l-Faraj
on Books I—X of the Historia Animalium of Artistotle.** Abu-l-Faraj
seems to have had a certain circulation in Arabic-speaking Spain during
the twelfth century, and is not infrequently cited by Averroes, who quotes
his commentary on the De Sensu & Sensato, and also refers to his version
of the De Celo, which, says Averroes, was not literal.
Such is the bare outline of the transmission into Arabic of the heritage
of Greek science, and particularly of the works of Aristotle, of which the
Arabic-speaking peoples were later to be the mediators to the Latin West.
1 For fuller information on this subject, see: G. Bergstrasser, Hunain ibn Ishék und
Seine Schule, Leiden, 1918; G. Gabriele, Hunayn ibn Ishdq, (Isis, Vol. VI),
Brussels, 1924, pp. 282-292; M. Meyerhof, New Light on Hunain ibn Ishdéq and
His Period, (Isis VIII), Brussels, Oct., 1926; Mélanges del-Université Saint-
Joseph, Beyrouth, passim. L. Teclerc, Histoire de la Médecine Arabe, Paris,
1866; H. Suter, Die Mathematiker und Astronomiker der Araber, Leipzig, 1900;
M. Steinschneider, Die Arabischen Ubersetzungen aus dem Griechischen, Beihefte
z. Centralblatt f. Bibliothekswesen, H.5., Leipzig, 1889; J. G. Wenrich, De
auctorum graecorum versionibus et commentariis syriacis, arabicis, etc., 1842;
KE. Renan, De Philosophia peripatetica apud Syros, Paris, 1852; A. Baumstark,
Aristoteles bei den Syrern in V-VIII. Jahrhund, etc., 1900; E. G. Browne,
Arabian Medicine, Cambridge, 1€21: etc., etc.
2 Leclerc, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 122 et seqq.
3 Leclerc, loc. cit.
4M. Meyerhof, op. cit., p. 703.
5‘ The philosophy of Aristotle had already found acceptance in the fifth century
among the Syrians at Edessa, and about the middle of that century, Syriac
commentaries on the De Interpretatione, the Analytica Priora and the Sophistict
Elenchi, had been produced by Probus. The school at Edessa, closed by Zeno in
489, was succeeded by that at Nisibis, which attracted the notice of Cassiodorus,
and that at Jénde-Shaptr, which. sent. forth Syrian students to instruct the
Arabians in philosophy and medicine respectively.’ (Sandys, op. cit., p. 394).
® See p. 72.
7 To the Latins Hunain was known as ‘‘ Johannitius,’’ the author of the Ysagoge,
a work which was known in the twelfth century to the school of Chartres.
® On Hunain’s methods of translation, see Meyerhof, op. cit. above (note 1).
13
®*The members of the band of translators which surrounded Hunain seem to have
drawn for the most part from the medical schools of Jondé-Shaptr and
Bagdad; Hunain gives a description of the latter school from which, ‘‘ We learn
that in the middle of the ninth century A.D. the habits and traditions of the
Alexandrian school were still plainly followed by the band of Christian scholars
and medical men of Bagdad.’’ Meyerhof, op. cit., p. 702.
19 Meyerhof, loc. cit.
11 Leclerc, op. cit., p. 144 (Vol. J).
12 Leclerc (op. cit., p. 145) notes that Abi-l-Farag, (Gregorius Barhebraeus (d. 1286),
known to the Latins as Abulfaragius, cf. note 23 below), said that he possessed
a Syriac version of De Plantis by Hunain. Cf. pp. 12 & 55.
13 See note 15, below.
14 Leclerc, op. cit., pp. 204-209.
1° Ci. Kitab al-Fihrist, ed. G. Fliigel, Leipzig, 1871-1872, 2 vols.
16 Cf. p. 123, below.
™ See p. 55, below.
*S Cf. Bouyges, Notes sur les Philosophes Arabes connus des Latins au Moyen Age,
VIII, (Melanges de 1’Université Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, Tom IX., Fasc 2),
Beyrouth, 1924, p. 78..
19 Be oe iis Mathematiker und Astronomen der Araber und ihre Werke, Leipzig,
GO, p. 40.
29 See p. 46.
71 Cf. Steinschnieder, Die Parva Naturalia bei den Arabern, 1883.
72 Pp. 120 & seq.
7° Not to be confused with Gregorius Barhebraeus (cf. note 12 above).
** Die. Arab. Ubersetz, etc., pp. 65 et seqq.
25 Cf. p. 81.
14
(4). THE BYZANTINE ARISTOTLE.
While the Arabic-speaking peoples were acquiring the works in which
was contained the scientific knowledge of antiquity, the Aristotelian
writings had been preserved and to some extent utilized at Byzantium.
After a period of intellectual decadence in the eighth century, during
which, however, John Damascene (c. 700—-752) expounded the Aristotelian
dialectic in his IInyj yvworews, the patriarch Photius of Constantinople
(c. 820—897) instituted something of a revival of letters, and both he and
his pupil Arethas (860—c. 932) were responsible for commentaries on the
logical works of Aristotle.
Nor were the zoological works neglected. Anonymous compendia of
the Aristotelian works on animals are extant which date from the reigns
of Constantine Porphyrogennetos (g12—959), and of Constantine
Monomachos (1042).? These writers were followed by Nicetas, who held,
during the first half of the eleventh century, the chair of grammar at the
academy founded for classical studies in 863 at Byzantium. A pupil of
Nicetas was Michael Psellos (1018—1078 or 1096), perhaps the most
eminent of Byzantine Hellenists.
Psellos, while his primary interest was in the Platonic rather than in the
Aristotelian doctrines, was well acquainted with the works of Aristotle,
and has left commentaries and abstracts of the logical works and the
Physica.*
Aristotelian scholars who were pupils of Psellos were Johannes Italos
and Michael Ephesios. The latter was author of noteworthy commentaries
on a part of the O7vganon, the Nicomachean Ethics, the Parva Naturalia
and the De Partibus Animalium, one of which was translated into Latin
by Grosseteste.*
Contemporary with Michael Ephesios were Eustratios, Metropolitan of
Nicea (c. 1050—1120), who was also responsible for Aristotelian commen-
taries,° and Theodorus Prodromos (fl. 1143), author of commentaries on
the logical works. Eustratios was followed by Michael Italicos (1118—
1143), author of a synthesis of the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophies.
Another writer of the twelfth century who concerned himself, among
other things, with the Aristotelian works, was Johannes Tzetzes (c. 1110—
1185), who wrote commentaries on Porphry’s /sagoge and on the De
Partibus Animalium.
In the thirteenth century the succession was continued by Nikephoros
Blemmydes (d. 1272), Georgios Pachymeres (1242—1310), author of a
compendium of Aristotelian logic, Manuel Holobolos (B.C. 1250), author
of a commentary on the Logica. Maximos Planudes (1260—1310) was
the probable author of the Greek re-translation of the De Plantis from
fe
15
the Latin.* Numerous other, Latin works were translated into Greek by
Maximos, who is one of the most prominent intermediaries in the
intellectual intercourse of the Eastern and Western cultures. At the end
of the thirteenth and beginning of the fourteenth centuries we find the
monk Sophonias writing paraphrases of the Categories, Analytica,
Sophistici Elenchi, De Anima, De Memoria and De Somno.
The authority of Aristotle seems to have been always less absolute
among the Byzantines than in the Latin West. In the fourteenth century
we find an anticipation of the strife waged later between Platonists and
Aristotelians among the humanists of the Italian Renaissance. Two of
the chief Byzantine protagonists were Theodorus Metochites (d. 1332),
who openly attacked the authority of Aristotle, and his pupil, Nicephorus
Gregoras (d. 1359?), a noted Platonist, and advocate of calendarial
reform. At the same time, Johannes Pediasimos (fl. 1282—1341) was
the author of commentaries on various Aristotelian works.
During the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a considerable number
of scholars of Greek birth were teaching the classics and making transla-
tions in the Universities of Italy. Like William of Moerbeke in the
thirteenth century,’ these men made from the Byzantine Greek texts of
the Aristotelian works numerous Latin versions whose history we discuss
below.’ As is well known, the arrival in Western Europe of the Greek
texts from Byzantium was an important factor in the humanistic
Renaissance of the end of the mediaeval period.
* For a fuller account of Aristotelian studies at Byzantium see Iwan Miller,

Handbuch d. Klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Band IX, Abt. I; Krumbacher,
Byzantinische Litteraturgeschichte, Minchen, 1897; Grabmann, Geschichte d.
Scholastichen Methode, Freiburg, 1909-1911, Vol. II, p. 74 et seqq; L. Stein,
Die Kontinuitat der griech. Philosophie in der Gedankenwelt der Byzantiner,
(Archiv. f. Gesch. d. Philos. 9, 1896, pp. 225,246); A. Heisenberg, Die Grundlagen
der Byzantinischen Kultur, (Neve Jahrbuch f.d. Klass. Altertums, 23, 1909) ;
C. Zervos, Michael Psellos, Paris, 1920; and other works. A good bibliography
will be fourd in Uberweg-Geyer, op. cit., pp. 713-715.
2 Cf. Krumbacher, op. cit., pp. 263-264.
‘It is interesting to note that the Summulae logicales of Petrus Hispanus (cf.
p. 79-80) contain passages identical with a Synopsis of the logical works which
has hitherto been attributed to Psellos. (Cf. Karl Prantl, Geschichte der Logik im
Abendlande, Leipzig, II, 264-293; III, 18; Thurot, Revue Archéologique, Nouvelle
Série, Tom, X, (1864, pp. 267-281). Chr. Zervos, however, questions the
attribution. (Michael Psellos, Paris, 1920, p. 39).
* Cf. p. 128, below.
* Eustratios’ commentaries on the Posterior Analytics and the Nicomachean Ethics
were utilized by Groeseteste, Albertus and Aquinas, (cf. Zervos, op. cit., p. 226,
and Pelzer, Versions Latines des Ouvrages de Morale, etc. for Grosseteste’s
version of Eustratios).
* See p. 60, below.
” See p. 85 et seqq.
* Pp. 126 et seqq.
16
I]. ARISTOTLE IN THE WEST.
(7). LHE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE TRANSLATIONS.
By the beginning of the twelfth century there was in the schools of the
West an eager audience’ for the new doctrines that were just beginning
to make their appearance. This was combined with the favouring outward
circumstances of a greater stability and security of life, which had
succeeded the strife and confusion of the preceding centuries. New sources
of knowledge, moreover, were being opened up in Spain and Southern
Italy, which provided the stimulus for the production of the new
translations.
During a century and a half countless works by many translators, known
and unknown, were made accessible to the Latins in versions from the
Greek or Arabic, or sometimes from Hebrew.
The philosophic teaching of the schools (such as that of Chartres and
others) was still mainly Platonic in colour,? though the Timaeus was
almost the only work of the Platonic corpus generally available to the
Latins® until about the middle of the twelfth century, when Henricus
Aristippus‘ translated the Meno and Phaedo from the Greek. Previous to
these versions of Henricus, the West possessed a portion of the Timaeus
in the version of Chalcidius (fourth century) together with his commentary
thereon, and a few other Neo-Platonic treatises, such as the De Dogmate
Platonis attributed.to Apuleius of Madaura, and one or two mystical
works circulated under the name of Hermes Trismegistus.* Many Platonic
doctrines, however, were transmitted through the works of St. Augustine
and of some of the Neo-Platonists, though often in a somewhat distorted
-form. Along with these Platonic or Neo-Platonic documents the Latins
possessed from the beginning the Categories and the Perithermenias of
Aristotle, together with Porphyry’s Isagoge.
The Arabic-speaking world, on the other hand,‘ was in possession, not
only of almost the whole cycle of Aristotelian works, but also of the
greater part of the works of Plato, and of many Neo-Platonic treatises,
such as the so-called Theologia Aristotlis, and the work of Proclus which
appeared later in Latin under the title Liber de Causis." There was a
considerable Neo-Platonic school among the Arabian philosophers, whose
influence can be traced in thirteenth-century Latin scholasticism. Efforts
were also made by the Arabic writers as later by the Latin scholastics to
reconcile the teachings of Plato and Aristotle.°
Nevertheless, the task of the pioneers in the process of introducing to the
West the science of the Arabic-speaking world was on the whole that of
superseding, or at least of profoundly modifying, the Platonism of the
cathedral schools, such as that of Chartres, by the modified Aristotelianism
of the Arabic teachers to whom Aristotle was ‘‘ the philosopher ’’ par
17
ARISTOTLE IN THE WEST
excellence. Incidentally, it may be noted that the school of Chartres was
among the first centres to welcome the new Aristotle.”
There were certain external political circumstances which aided the
process. Europe at this period was sub-divided by feudal rather than by
national boundaries. But in the world of scholarship it was an organic
whole united by a common literary tongue. In spite of the difficulties of
travel there was from the very beginning an interchange of personnel
between the different schools of Western Europe. Scholars wandered
from one centre of learning to another, drawn by the renown of individual
teachers, or in search of new material when they had exhausted what was
available elsewhere.”
In 1060 the Norman Count, Roger de Hauteville, with a handful of
knights, had taken possession of Messina, and by 1091 the whole of Sicily
had been reconquered from the Saracens. Under the enlightened rule of
the Norman kings the Greek, Saracen and Latin populations lived together
in unity, and the Norman court was a rendezvous of eminent men of all
nationalities and languages."
A school of translators from the Greek arose in Sicily, among whom was
Henricus Aristippus, and the ‘‘ Emir’’ Eugene of ‘Palermo. To the
former is due the first translation of an Aristotelian natural work to which
an approximate date can be assigned (see pp. 37-8); to the latter an
early translation from Greek into Latin of the Almagest of Ptolemy.
The Crusades, and still more, the growing Eastern trade of the North
Italian communes, although they were a fresh channel of communication
between East and West, produced surprisingly few translations either
from the Arabic or from the Greek. As no Aristotelian version can be
shown to have passed to the Latins through this channel, it does not
directly concern us here. Nor was it ever of an importance in the trans-
mission of Greek and Arabian science comparable with that of the schools
of Spain and Southern Italy.
Meanwhile the process of reconquest which went on continuously in
Spain from the eighth to the fifteenth centuries was gradually making
accessible to the Latins an Arabic-speaking population among whom could
be found men to act as intermediaries in the task of restoring to Europe
the treasures of Greek science. The movement found patrons in the
persons of Raymond, Archbishop of Toledo (1126—1151), and Michael,
Bishop of Tarazona (1119—1151), and attracted scholars from all
countries. Toledo became the centre of its activity.”
When the new translations of the Aristotelian works, and more
particularly of the Arabian commentators thereon, began to be widely read
and discussed in the schools, they created something of an intellectual
sensation, and were at first looked upon with considerable suspicion by
the authorities. In the University of Paris this distrust was carried to
the length of a formal prohibition of the reading of the Aristotelian texts
and the commentaries thereon. Precisely what 1s meant by the terms of
the two prohibitions has been a matter of some discussion.*, The
principal importance of these decrees, however, for our present purpose
is the evidence they afford that the natural works of Aristotle and
commentaries thereon (perhaps those of Averroes, cf. p. 121 below) were
18
Historical Setting of Translations
being read in the schools of Paris as early as 1210. The first prohibition
was enacted in 1210 at the provincial council held at Paris under Peter
of Corbeil. This refers to the ‘‘ libri Aristotelis de naturali philosophia ”’
and to ‘‘commenta’’ thereon. In 1215 the Cardinal-legate, Robert of
Courcon, confirmed the enactment, as follows: ‘‘ Non legantur libri
Aristotelis de methafisica et de naturali philosophia, nec summe de eisdem
aut de doctrina magistri David de Dinant aut Amalrici heretici, aut
Mauricii hyspani.’’** In this ‘‘ Mauritius hyspanus ’’ has been seen
Averroes, the ‘‘ Moor of Spain.’’ Whether or no the Averroan
commentaries on Aristotle were available in Latin form as early as 1215
(cf. p. 121 below), it is fairly certain that it was the exposition and
interpretation of the Aristotelian text according to the Arabic tradition,
rather than the actual content of that text itself, which excited the alarm.
In point of fact the scope of these prohibitions seem to have been quite
limited. In the De triumphis ecclesie of Johannes de Garlandia (1229)
we are told that the ‘‘ libri naturales ’’ prohibited at Paris were freely
read at that time at Toulouse. Even at the University of Paris itself
attempts seem to have been made to evade the decree, and it has been
suggested’ that the ‘‘ summe de eisdem ”’ of the second prohibition had
been composed between 1210 and 1215 by the Paris masters as a substitute
ior the forbidden works.
Nor did the prohibitions long remain effective at Paris. In 1231, Pope
Gregory IX appointed a commission consisting of William of Auxerre,
Stephen of Provins (to whom Michael Scot dedicated one of his versions)
and a third member, with the object of revising the Aristotelian corpus
prior to the lifting of the ban. This body seems to have succeeded, after
the manner of commissions, in burying the whole matter in a decent
obscurity. Nothing more is heard of the revised edition of Aristotle. By
1234 we have definite evidence in the writings of Johannes de Garlandia,
Philip of Greve and others,”* that the Aristotelian writings were freely
studied in the schools of Paris, and it was not long before they were
prescribed by the faculties as subjects of examination. For example, in
1254, the statutes of the Faculty of Arts’’ mention the Physica, Meta-
physica, De Animalibus, De Celo, Meteora, De Anima, De Generatione,
De Causis, Parva Naturalia, De Plantis and De Differentia Spiritus et
Animae.
the beginnings of scholastic philosophy, and_ the rise of the monastic,

1 For
* cbitbiedtat a patass schools, from the time of the Carolingian Renaissance see :—
Episcopales et monastiques de Voccident depuis Charle-
L. Maitre, Les Ecoles
magne jusqu’a Philippe Auguste, Paris, 1866; C. Schmeidler, Die Hofschule und
Karls d. Grossen, 1872; Hastings Rashdall, Universities of
die Hofakademie
Europe in the Middie Ages, Oxford, 1895; M. Roger, L’Enseignement des Lettres
e,
Classiques d’Aussone & Alcuin, 1905; E. Patzelt, Die Karolingische Renaissanc
(Beitrage z. Gesch, d. Kultur des Frithen Mittelalters), 1924; R. Stachnik, Die
auf Ludwig den
Bildung des Weltklcrus im Frankenreiche von Karl Martell bis
Frommen, 1926; and many other works.
Eek fie ; : h
a work muc
2 Thierry of Chartres (fl. 1140-1150) in his De Sex dierum operibus,
infinanioad by the Timaéus, sought to reconcile the feachings of Plato with those
of Scripture.
19
3 Cicero, however, had translated, besides the Timaeus, the Protagoras and several
portions of the Phaedrus and Republic (Cf. Jowett Plato’s Dialogues, Vol. III,
Oxford, 1892, p. 433).
“ See p. 33 below.
5 Cf. Uberwerg, pp. 148-9, and W. Scott, Hermetica, 3 Vols., Oxford, 1925.
® See pp. 11-14, above.
7 This work was known to Gilbert de la Porrée. (Cf. Berthaud, Gilbert de la
Porrée, Poitiers, 1892, pp. 129-192). See A. Baumstark, Griechische Philosophen
und ihre Lehren in Syrischer Uberlieferung : Oriens Christianus V, 1905, Heft 1-2;
L. Malouf, C. Eddé & L. Cheikho, Traités inédits d’anciens philosophes arabes,
musulmans et chrétiens. Avec des traductions de traitées grecs d’Aristote, de
Platon et de Pythagore par Ishaq ibn Honein. (Revue Al-Machriq, Beirut, 1908,
2e éd. 1911). See also the bibliography given on p. 16.
® Carra de Vaux, Avicenne, Paris, 1900, pp. 79, 272.
° Cf. p. 39, below. Thus, Haskins, op. cit., p. 55, describes Thierry of Chartres
(fi 1121, d. 1155) as ‘‘ fundamentally Platonist, but quick to assimilate the new
Aristotle.”’
10Thus Abelard (d. 1142) drew to Paris scholars from every country of the
West. For scholars wandering further afield in search of new material, compare
the account of Gerard of Cremona’s expedition to Toledo to obtain the Almagest
of Ptolemy given in the account of his translations printed by Boncompagni
(Della vita e delle opere di Gherardo Cremonese, Rome, 1851) and elsewhere; and
Daniel of Morlay’s description of his disgust at the narrow curriculum of Paris
aud consequent journey to Toledo (V. Rose, Ptolemiius und die Schule von
Toledo, Hermes VIII, 327-349, 1874). Every scholar of note had taught and
studiedin the halls of more than one university in the course of his career. Even
as early as the ninth century, the Irish-born and trained John Scotus Eriugena
was one of the leaders of the court schooli at Paris. John of Salisbury, one of the
first students of the ‘‘ new Aristotle,’’ who died in 1180, seems to have made
no i than ten journeys to Italy, although in an official capacity rather than as
a student.
11 Cf. Haskins, op. cit., pp. 155-156.
12 Members of this school were Gerard of Cremona, Daniel of Morlay, Michael Scot,
and Herman the German, to menticn no others. For other Toledo translators
see below passim.
18 Cf, Mandonnet, op. cit., p. 17.
st (eh ahi cee Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis, I, p. 70, and pp. 78-9.
*®* Mandonnet, loc. cit. As regards the reading of these works at Toulouse, see also
Denifle, Chart. Univ. Paris, I. 181.
® Grabman, op. cit., pp. 26-27.
17 Denifle-Chatelain, Chartularium Univers. Paris. Paris, 1889, I. 278. The prohibi-
tions were, in fact, formally repeated by later Popes, but apparently without
practical effect. (Cf. Denifle, op. cit. I. 427, and Ueberweg-Geyer, op. cit. Bd.
II., pp. 350-1).
20
Qe De MErNOLLS ON SHE LATIN MANUSCRIPTS OF THE
SCIENTIFIC CORPUS.
A consideration of the order and arrangement in the surviving Latin
manuscripts of the Aristotelian works is of assistance in elucidating the
history of the versions themselves. We shall not discuss codices containing
only the logical, ethical or political works, but the bulk of the natural
works frequently appear in company with the Metaphysica. In the large
majority of such codices we find some works in translations from the
Greek and some from the Arabic. The proportions, however, of versions
from the two languages vary considerably according to the date of the
manuscript, and by a comparison of the incidence of these versions in
codices which can be dated we can obtain light on the diffusion of the
new translations.
Natural works of which there are extant mediaeval versions both from
the Greek and from the Arabic are :—
Physica: Two versions from the Azadic, one (much the commonest)
from the Greek (excluding the early Greek-Latin version. See note
on p. 7 above, and p. 39 below).
De Celo: Two versions from the Avadbic, one from the Greek.
De Generatione: One version from Azabic, one from Greek (exclud-
ing the version of the Averroan commentary, probably by Scot.
See p. 122).
Meteora: One composite version (cf. pp. 37-8 below), one from Greek.
De Anima: Two from the Greek, one from the Avadzc.
De Animalibus: (i.e. Historia Animalium, De Partibus and De Gen.
Animalium).
Of certain other Aristotelian works of which only one version is now
extant we shall see reason to believe that another version has perished.
There is good evidence, for example, of the existence of a second version
of the De Plantis, although no copy is known. In the case of some of
these translations we are able to assign a definite date or at least limiting
dates, a fact which helps us to establish in some cases the dates of other
versions found in the same codices.
Two facts stand out prominently from an examination of the codices.
One is the very generally accepted grouping and sequence of the
Aristotelian natural works. The other is the fact that the De Celo et
Mundo and the Meteora are almost always found either both in the
versions of Gerard from the Arabic or both in the Greek-Latin versions.’
With regard to the general sequence of the natural works in the manu-
scripts, this is by no means invariable, but, in spite of frequent deviations,
21
the thost usual grouping of the physical works in the thirteenth-century

manuscripts? is: Physica, De Celo et Mundo, De Generatione, Meteora,
De Anima, Parva Naturalia. The De Animalibus rarély occurs in the
same manuscript as the rest of the natural works, while the De Plantzs,
when it occurs, is placed sometimes before the De Axima, sometimes
among the Parva Naturalia, or indeed in almost any position. A similar
though not quite identical arrangement with that found in the Latin is
usual in the Arabic lists of the Aristotelian works.* Thus, in the De
Scientiis of Alfarabi we get a very similar division of the natural works
into eight parts. The De Divisione Philosophiaeof Gundisalvi, which
is based upon Alfarabi, was largely utilized by Michael Scot in his lost
Divisio Philosophica. Of this lost work considerable fragments are
embedded in the Speculum Doctrinale of Vincent of Beauvais.
Gundisalvi’s paraphrase of Alfarabi, moreover, exerted an influence on
the thirteenth-century classification of the natural works by way of the
writings of Robert Kilwardby and others (see p. 35), so that there is
reason to suppose that the current scholastic classification was based upon
that of the Arabs.
The current mediaeval arrangement of these works is reflected in the
systematization of the knowledge of the time in the great encyclopaedias
of writers such as Albertus Magnus,* and is based on the thesis that
‘““ corpus mobile est subiectum naturalis philosophiae,’’ and the division
of the ‘‘ corpus mobile ’’ into ‘‘ simplex ’’ and ‘‘ compositum.’’ This
dictum seems to have originated with Albertus, who, in his commentary
on the fourth book of the Meteora, says: ‘‘ In scientia naturali corpus
mobile subiectum est, ut dictum est multociens. Est autem in natura
duplex corpus mobile, scilicet simplex et mixtum....’’ It occurs
constantly as a gloss in manuscripts of the natural works.°®
If we examine now two dated thirteenth-century manuscripts containing
the main body of the natural works, with the exception of the De
Animalibus, the first of 1253 and the second of 1288, we find in both
substantially the same arrangement and sequence of the works as that
just discussed, but there is a considerable difference in the incidence of
versions from the Arabic and from the Greek in the two codices. The
first is the well-known Vatican manuscript, Urbinas Lat. 206, which bears
the date 1253, and is the earliest dated manuscript of the main body of
the natural works.
This manuscript, which represents on the whole the earlier form of the
Aristotelian corpus, contains only the De Celo and the first three books
of the Meteora, of genuine Aristotelian natural works, in versions from
the Arabic. All the rest are already found in versions from the Greek.
The second manuscript, whose date is 1288, shows an almost identical
sequence of the natural works, but an even greater proportion of versions
from the Greek. Every work, in fact, with the exception of the De Plantis
and the De Dzfferentia (neither of which is a genuine Aristotelian work),
is In a version from the Greek. We find all the works given in Urb. lat.
200, in almost the same sequence and in their revised forms, with the
addition, however, of the fruits, or some of the fruits of the new impetus
given to translation from the Greek about the middle of the century, both
by William of Moerbeke and by the school of Bartholomew of Messina,*
22
Latin Manuscripts of the Scientific Corpus
Table showing the comparative incidence in two dated manuscripts of

verstons from the Arabic and those from the Greek :—
Versions used in| Versions used in

Work. Urb. lat. 206 Barb. lat. 165 Remarks.
(7253) (7288)
Physica From the Greek**| From the Greek
De Celo et Mundo eG. owArabic eo ee ee
De Generatione Heecrreekey
Meteora ia prac eee n
(except 4th book)
De Anima From the Greek*? baer As
De Memoria oz) ” eae ” ” ”
De Somno et Scary Pde aes
Vigilia
De Sensu et oe) ” daten a” oe) ”
Sensato é
De diff. Spiritus ah ep oArabic »» 4, Arabic} No version
et Animae from Greek
De Long. et Brev.| ;, ,, Greek*?} ,, ,, Greek
Vitae
De Causis sae, orabic coer ” :
De Plantis ae ee es: x: ». Arabic] No version
from Greek
1 Greek In 14 bks. Wm.
aeShee S Me if , of Moerbeke’s
Animalium Se:
De Progressu ” 9 ”
Animalium
De Iuventute et feels Ks
Senectute
De Respiratione rs) yo 99
De Morte a” om) my
De Lineis ” ” ”
Indivisibilibus
De Pomo ” ” ”
De Intelligentia ” 9 ”
De Coloribus ” ” ”
Physiognomia swell fide ”
De Inundatione ” ” oe)
Fluviorum
De Bona Fortuna syert Sg’ ’
*1 Probably the earlier version (cf. notes on pp. 7 and 39).
*? Appears in this MS. in the earlier version from the Greek.
These two dated thirteenth-century manuscripts are good types of the

earlier and later form of the Aristotelian corpus in so far as concerns the
natural works, with the exclusion, however, of the three great_zoological
treatises, the Historia Animalium, the De Partibus and the De Generatione
23
Animalium. These three are rarely found in the same codices as the
rest of the natural works. So far as I am aware, no exactly dated
manuscript of them exists,” although the De Animalibus in its Arabic-
Latin form exists in a number of thirteenth-century codices, and we have
five copies of the exemplar of the Addreviatio Avicennae which was made
at Frederick’s order in 1232.°
There is an interesting class of manuscripts in which the same work
occurs in two parallel versions. A good example is the Naples, Codex
Biblioteca Nazionale, VIII. E, 36, where the following versions occur :—
(a) Physica in the version from the Greek.
(b) ede ‘ », 9, Arabic, probably by Scot,’
(c) De Celo erate he » 99 Greek.
ches Sais ae »» yy Arabic, probably by Seot.*
(e) Metaphysica nee - »» », Greek in fourteen books,
(f) Metaphys. Nova ,, ,, Be »» 5, Arabic in eleven books.*°
(g) De Anima oy ee - »» 4,Greek, revised by William
of Moerbeke”™
(h) 3 ariel ‘a »» », Arabic, probably by Scot.’
These works are accompanied in each case by the commentary of
Averroes.
(i) De Generatione in the usual version from the Greek, also with the
Averroan commentary.
(j) The Averroan paraphrase-commentaries’” on the De Somno, De
Logitudine et Brevitate Vitae, De Sensu, De Memoria and the
fourth book of the Meteora.
1 There are other common combinations of versions from the Arabic or of versions
from the) Greek, but this is the only one that I have found with only one true
exception, namely, Assisi 283 (cf. p. 110, note 246).
2 As far as I know, there is no authenticated twelfth-century manuscript of an
Aristotelian work other than the parts of the Organon, except MS. Avranches 232,
where the section containing the Metaphysica, (Ff. 201-225), is certainly of the
later twelfth century. Moreover, in a twelfth-century catalogue of the library
of St. Peter’s at Salzburg appears the item: ‘‘ Metaphysica et Topica Aristotelis.”’
(Cf. J. S. Eeddie, in Speculum, Jan., 1930, p. 6). In this connection it should
be noted that the printed dates given in the catalogues, especially in the less
modern ones, should not be accepted without reservation,
* Baur, op. cit., p. 211, states that this division into eight parts was taken over
by the Arabs from the Neo-Platonic writers as regards the logical works, and
that they applied it also to the natural. Steinschneider, Die Parva Naturalia bei
den Arabern, p. 479, gives the following as the customary sequence of the
natural works in the Arabic texts: Physica, De Celo, De Generatione, Meteora,
Mineralia (i.e. the fourth book of the Meteora, but cf. note 4, below), Vegetabilia,
Animalia, and as the eighth part the De Anima and Parva Naturalia.
* Jourdain, op. cit., p. 82, gives a list of Albertus’ commentaries on the Aristotelian
or pseudo-Aristotelian works in what he conceives to be their order of composi-
tion, in which the sequence of the physical works is as follows :—Physica, De
24
Latin Manuscripts of the Scientific Corpus
Velo, De Géneratione, Meteora, De Anima, Parva Naturabia, De Plantis, De

Animalibus. Joannes de Janduno (fl. 1811-1328) gives a very similar ordering of
these works. (Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 95). Compare also a note in the
fifteenth-century manuscript, Venice, Marciana, Cl. VI, 37, F. 3lv:—
Liber physicorum = Prima pars in scientia naturali
De Celo & Mundo = Secunda,, ,, Ap 5
Dea Generatione = Tertia 999 ” ”
De Metallis = Quarta 9999 ” a9
De Mineralibus is Quinta ss ” ”
(sed illum non habemus)
De Anima sexta pars in scientia naturali
De Vegetabilibus Septima _,, as ¥:
De Animalibus Bt Octava > 9 ae
Then follow the Parva Naiuralia, the whole arrangement being clearly derived
from that of Albertus.
5 And also in commentaries on those works. Cf. e.g. Siena, Bibl. Com. L.III.21,
(fourteenth century), an anonymous commentary on the Meteora, which opens
thus: ‘‘ Cum secundum magistrorum sententias, corpus mobile sit subiectum
naturalis philosophiae ..... ’, and many other codices. The dictum, like the
airangement of the natura] works, seems to be ultimately derived from Gundi-
salvi’s De Divisione Philosophiae. (Cf. the ed. of that work by Ludwig Baur, in
the Beitrige z. Gesch d. Phil. des Mittelalters., Miinster, 1903. Bd. IV, Heft.
2-3, pp. 12-18).
® Cf. pp. 92 and 98 et seqq.
7 Except the two mentioned on p. 73 which contain a note referring to an event
in the year 1220. Professor Haskins (op. cit., p. 277) considers that this note
was written by Scot in his own copy of the work in that year.
® Cf. p. 84.
* Cf. pp. 94 and seqq.
19 Cf, pp. 41.
a? Of, Pp, 96.
12 Cf, pp. 121-2.
25
(3). EARLY EVIDENCES OF DIFFUSION OF THE NATURAL

WORKS.
Let us now consider some evidences of a knowledge of the natural works
of Aristotle in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.
John of Salisbury (b. 1110-20, d. 1180) in a letter which the editor of
his works dates 1167’, mentions that he has already requested his corres-
pondent, Richard the Bishop, to send him a copy of the works of Aristotle
possessed by the latter. This cannot refer to the logical works, of which
John must have possessed a copy as he had already commented upon the
whole cycle of the Organon in his Metalogicus (finished 1159).2 The
reference, therefore, must either be to the first of the translations of Gerard
from the Arabic, perhaps brought to England by Gerard’s pupil, Daniel
of Morlay (though 1167 is rather an early date for this*); or to the fourth
book of the Meteora translated from the Greek by Henricus Aristippus
before 1160 ;* or to the anonymous Greek-Latin versions of several of the
natural works which there is reason to suppose existed during the twelfth
century.°
One of the earliest works in which definite citations exist from the
biological works of Aristotle is the anonymous ‘‘ Sacerdos ad altare
accessurus,’’ attributed by Haskins to Alexander of Neckam, with the
suggested date of c. 1190.°
This mentions among the list of works to be studied on the liberal arts,
the Metaphysica, De Gen. & Corrupt. and De Anima, and although it is
doubtful whether this passage is of the same date as the rest of the text,’
it remains one of the earliest pieces of definite evidence of the diffusion of
these works. Alexander of Neckam (d. 1217), though not himself engaged
in the work of translation, was one of the earliest to welcome the ‘‘ new
Aristotle ’’? and shows considerable traces of the influence of the new
learning in his works. His citations of Aristotle are for the most part
general in nature, and the only ones that can be identified) with certainty
are the quotation in the De Naturis Rerum of the second book of the De
Celo et Mundo, probably in the version of Gerard of Cremona and that of
the De Animalibus discussed below (pp. 74-5). Hauréau® states that
Alexander in the De nominibus utensilium also cites the De Anima, but
gives no reference, and the citation cannot be identified. The importance
of Neckam, however, lies not so much in the number of specific citations
of identifiable works as in his frequent appeal to the authority of Aristotle
on questions connected with natural science, appeals which, in the words
of Professor Thorndike,* ‘‘ make it evident that the ‘ truth of Aristotelian
doctrine ’ was known in the twelfth century.”
Generally speaking, the order in which the Latins become possessed of
the works of Aristotle in the twelfth century is as follows. The first
26
Early Evidences of Diffusion of the Natural Works
works to be transmitted were the new versions of the Ovganon, and this
was to be expected, both on account of the natural priority of the subject
and also because the Latin world was already familiar with at least a
part of the Organon in the Boethian version. Following the logical works
came the Metaphysica and for the most part the non-biological natural
works, in the versions of Gerard of Cremona from the Arabic. In
addition, as we have seen, there was a twelfth-century version from the
Greek in the case of some of these works.*® Of the biological works only
the version from the Arabic of the De Gen. & Corrupt. can be assigned
to a definite translator and probable date in the twelfth century, though,
as has already been said, both this work, and the Parva Naturalia
existed in versions from the Greek during some part of this century.
But the great zoological works which made up the collection known
to the mediaevals as the De Animalibus, the Physiognomia and
probably also the pseudo-Aristotelian De Plantis (though a late twelfth-
century date is possible here)? had to wait for translation until the early
years of the thirteenth century, (and in the case of the Physiognomia, of
course, until the middle of that century).””
This later growth of interest in biological subjects is manifested not
only in the relative dates of the Latin versions of Aristotelian works, but
also in the comparative scarcity of earlier commentaries on the biological
works and the few traces of the influence of these works on the earlier
writers.
There is no twelfth century commentary on a biological work, and the
citations from such works, although, as we have seen, they exist, are on
the whole fragmentary and few. And, although the interest in these
works grew with the thirteenth century, it is not until the middle of that
century, with the great encyclopaediae of Vincent of Beauvais and
Albertus Magnus,” that the biological works exert their full influence.
The De Sensu, the Physica and the De Caelo, perhaps from the Gerardian
versions from the Arabic, are cited by Daniel of Morlay in the last quarter
of the twelfth century.
The first writer to show a wide knowledge of the Aristotelian texts
themselves, and especially of the biological works, was Alfredus de
Sareshel,'* with whom we deal more fully below. In his De Motu Cordis
Alfredus cites the fourth book of the Meteora in the version of
Aristippus, all three books of the De Anzma, in the earlier version from
the Greek, the De Somno & Vigilia in a Greek-Latin version, the Phzsica
and his own Arabic-Latin version of the De Vegetabilibus. In view of
the fact that the De Motu Cordis is certainly prior to 1217, the wide
range of Aristotelian citations is noteworthy. In his probably earlier
commentary on the De Vegetabilibus, Alfredus cites, of the natural works,
the De Generatione et Corruptione, the De Anima and the Meteora. (See
p. 100, note 33).
Shortly before the writings of Alfredus, his friend, Alexander of
Neckam (1157-1217), to whom he dedicates his De Motu Cordis, had
shown some acquaintance with the new Aristotle, in his work De Natura
Rerum, though his knowledge in this field is not comparable with that
of his younger contemporary.
27
Several other writers of the earlier part of the thirteenth century make
increasing use of the versions whose history we have discussed so far.
Thus Philip of Gréve (d. 1236) in his Summa de bono makes nearly
seventy citations from Aristotle, including among the works used the
De Celo & Mundo in the version from the Arabic, the De Gen. & Corrupt.,
the Physica and the De Anima in versions from the Greek.”
William of Auvergne, again, in his De Universo, written between 1231
and 1236, cites the Meteora, the De Anima and the De Somno & Vigilza,
the two latter in their earlier Greek-Latin forms, and also the De Animali-
bus of Michael Scot. This last, however, is not a twelfth-century but a
thirteenth-century translation, and we shall have more to say on this
citation below.'® Several other instances might be quoted to show the
increasing use of the twelfth-century versions during the earlier years of
the century that followed. But, about the middle of the century, with
the rise of the great encyclopaedists, there came a demand for new and
more accurate versions, a demand which occasioned the translating work
of the Dominican, William of Moerbeke, and other later translators.
1 C{. Migne, op. cit., Vol. 199, Col. 235.

? Cf. Mandonnet, op. cit., p. 18.
* See pp. 6-7, 85 and 52, note 16.
* See p. 37.
° See pp. 6-7, 39-40, 47 and 52, and elsewhere.
® Cf. Haskins, op. cit., Chap. XVIII.
7 Bauemker, Philosophisches Jahrbuch, XXVIII, 1914, pp. 455 f., holds that it is
a later interpolation. Haskins, op. cit., p. 374, note 15, accepts the possibility
of this, but considers that, even so, it may still be from the hand of Alexander
of Neckam !
* Histoire de la Philosophie Scolastique, II., 1 (Paris, 1872), 63.
® Lynn eens History of Magic and Experimental Science, New York, 1923, II.,
Dp. ;
™ See p. 6, and elsewhere; and note on p. 7.
"1 See p. 59.
See p. 93 et seqq.
** See p. 67-8, and elsewhere. The De Naturis Rerum of Bartholomaeus Anglicus,
however, is an earlier work containing frequent citations from these works.
4 See pp. 55 et seqq.
**P. Parthenius Minges, Philosophiegeschichtliche Bemerkungen iwiber Philip von
Gréve (d. 1236). (Philos. Jahrbuch. XXVII (1914), 21-32.
Other writers to utilize the versions of Gerard were Richard Stanington, R.
Lavenham, and Thomas Bungay, who wrote commentaries on the Arabic-Latin
versions of the De Celo and De Anima. (See Little, Initia Operum Latinorum,
etc., pp. 17 and 241; The Grey Friars in Oxford, by A. G. Little, Oxf. Hist. Soc.,
1892, for Thomas Bungay; and Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, etc.,
London, 1748. Lavenham’s commentaries on the De Celo and De Anima are to
be found also in Siena, Bibl. Com., L.III, 21.)
6 See p. 77.
28
(4). SOME ARISTOTELIAN FLORILEGIA & CONCORDANCES.
When the study of the Aristotelian works became general in the West,
a natural outcome of their use was the production of a number of com-
pendia of Aristotelian doctrine on various points, extracts ot significant
passages from the works, and indices and concordances for the use of
students. From this literature it is sometimes possible to glean some
information about the diffusion of the various mediaeval Latin versions.
For example, the fifteenth-century Paris manuscript, Bibl. Nationale
7177, contains a series of Excerpta e libro Aristotelis de vegetabilibus et
plantis juxta litteram alphabeti seriem, which might perhaps throw some
light on the question of the alleged second version of this work,’ but
which presents difficulties which I am not at present able to clear up.
This work opens with the words (F. 73) :—‘‘ Incipiunt quaedam extracta
ex libro sezxto aristotelis de vegetabilibus et plantis, secundum ordinem
alphabeti. Et primo de arboribus. Abies in latino sermone dividitur
eo quod longissimo cremento abit in excessu super alias arbores... .”’
The word ‘‘ sexto ’’ here might seem to suggest that the work in question
is the De Causis Plantarum of Theophrastus in six books, rather than the
pseudo-Aristotelian De Plantis, but this is contradicted both by the title
of the work, and by the sub-title on F. 89v, ‘‘ Incipit tractatus secundi
libri vegetabilium in quo agitur de herbis specialiter,’’ which certainly
suggests the pseudo-Aristotelian opuscule. I have not, however, been
able to identify any of the passages cited with the version of Alfredus.
Is it possible that we are here on the track of the missing second version?
Another collection of chapter headings from the various natural works
is of interest from its early date and the use of the mainly Arabic-Latin
form of the Aristotelian corpus. This is to be found in Plut. 27. Dest.
Cod. 4, of the Laurenziana Library. It is of the thirteenth century, and
contains a series of ‘‘ capitula ’’ from the Physica, the De Generatione &
Corruptione, the Meteora, the De Celo & Mundo, De Anima, De Memoria
et Reminiscentia, De Sensu & Sensato, De Somno & Vigilia, De Morte
& Vita, De Vegetabilibus and the Metaphysica Nova.” On F. 6v follows
a ‘‘ Tabula super libros naturales, metaphysice et ethicorum,’’ which is
a kind of concordance of the words used in the Aristotelian works. In
the series of ‘‘ Capitula ’’ which occupy the first six folios of the manu-
script, the versions used are those from the Arabic in the case of the
Meteora, the De Celo (Gerard of Cremona’s version), the De Vegetabilibus
and the Metaphysica. In the case of the Physica the version used is that
from the Greek, but with considerable verbal differences from the usual
type. We may possibly conjecture that we have here a trace of the older
form of the Greek-Latin version.°®
This table of chapter headings is a good representative of the
earliest of these indices, and corresponds to the form of the Aristotelian
29
corpus found in the older manuscripts, where the versions from the Arabic
appear with more frequency than in the later codices.
We may mention hére a much later Compendium of the Aristotelian
works by one Hilarion the monk, of whom nothing 1s known, which was
composed during the earlier years of the fifteenth century and dedicated
to Pope Sixtus IV. Hilarion’s Compendium, which was based, as one
would expect from the date, on the later form of the Aristotelian corpus,
is only to be found in the Vatican manuscript, Vat. lat. 3009. It utilizes
the De Plantis in the version of Alfredus, together with the latter’s
commentary thereon. Vat. lat. 3010, however, contains a series of
excerpts representing the Arabic-Latin form of_the Aristotelian natural
works, including the De Animalibus in Michael Scot’s version, Avicenna’s
Abbreviation of the same work, and most of the natural works, including
the De Plantis, as well as Avicenna’s De Anima in the version of
Gundisalvi and Avendeath, and some treatises of John Damascene. This
manuscript, which is of the second half of the fourteenth century,
corresponds to those codices in which we find the natural works mainly
in the versions from the Arabic, together with versions of the Arabian
commentators and others, and which, although not necessarily earlier in
date than those manuscripts which contain the Moerbekian translations
from the Greek, yet represent an altogether different source of the
Aristotelian tradition. As such it is of some interest, for the larger part
of the mediaeval florilegia and Aristotelian concordances and similar
works date from the period subsequent to the appearance of the mid-
thirteenth century versions from the Greek and are based upon those
versions. Another manuscript of the same type as Vat. lat. 3010 is Codex
1481 of the Biblioteca Angelica at Rome, which belongs to the early
fourteenth century, which, in spite of its comparatively late date, contains
‘* Flores ’’? excerpted from Michael Scot’s version of the De Animalibus
and from Gerard’s Arabic-Latin translation of the first three books of the
Meteora, followed by the _ pseudo-Aristotelian De Proprietatibus
Elementorum and the De Causis, both of them translated from the Arabic
by Gerard of Cremona. We have in this fourteenth-century series of
excerpts an instance of the persistence of the Arabic-Latin versions
alongside even the later revised forms from the Greek.
A good example of an Index of the earlier form of the Aristotelian
corpus is to be found in the thirteenth-century manuscript, Naples VIII.
F. 13, in which the De Celo, the Mezeora, and the De Plantis appear in
versions from the Arabic, Alfredus’ commentary on the last work being
also used.
These indices and concordances of the Aristotelian versions were, of
course, often compiled by the scholar for his own individual use and
never attained any circulation, existing only in one manuscript. Some
of them, however, seem to have attained a certain circulation and are to be
found in several codices of widely differing date and place of origin. This
is the case, for instance, with the anonymous Comfilatio de libris
naturalibus, attributed to Albertus Magnus.* This work occurs in eleven
manuscripts mentioned by Grabmann,’* to which I can add the fifteenth-
century codex a.Q.7.26 of the Biblioteca d’Estense at Modena. Another
example of a series of ‘‘ Auctoritates ’’ from the Aristotelian works which
30
Florilegia and Concordances
occurs in more than one manuscript is to be found in the fourteenth-

century codex 1324 of the Biblioteca Comunale at Perugia, and again in
MS. VIII. F. 43 of the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples. In the Perugia
copy it is preceded by the Avs Dictaminis of Johannes de Garlindia.
Then follow ‘‘ Auctoritates ’’ from eleven books of the Metaphysica (i.e.
the version from the Arabic, in which part of the first book was omitted),*
from the ten books of the Nzcomachean Ethics and a number of other Aris-
totelian and pseudo-Aristotelian works on similar subjects. Then follow
citations from the Physica, the De Celo, Meteora, De Generatione et
Corruptione, the Parva Naturalis, the De Motibus Animalium, the De
Animalibus in nineteen books, the De Substantia Orbis of Averroes, and
a number of logical and other works. In the case of the natural works
frequent citations are also given from the commentaries of Averroes.
Although, however, the De Animalibus is used in the Arabic-Latin
versions, the compendium was clearly compiled subsequent to the Greek-
Latin versions of William of Moerbeke, since it utilises his version of the
De Motibus Animalium and of the commentary of Themistius on the De
Anima.’ That the larger number of the authorities quoted in this work,
however, belong to an earlier period than the end’ of the thirteenth century
may be seen from the closing words, from which we learn that the sources
included the works of ‘‘ Aristotelis . . . ut vero aliorum quorundam,
videlicet, platonis, boeti1, senece, porphirii autem apulei, compendiose hic
in unum collocatarum. .. .’’
A very similar selection of ‘‘ Auctoritates ’’? taken from the same works
as in the series of extracts just discussed is to be found in the Naples
manuscript VIII. F. 35, which is dated 1399. This work seems to have
been largely taken over from the Compendium in the two manuscripts
which we have just discussed, with a few later additions, notably that
of the Prologue to Alfredus’ version of the De Plantis, a work which does
not figure in the earlier series of selections, but which appears here under
the title ‘‘ Empedocles. Tria sunt que in tota rerum varietate. .. .”
This list of Aristotelian Florlegia, Indices and similar compilations
might be prolonged indefinitely. An age in which the works of Aristotle
held the place of prime authority in all questions of natural and meta-
physical science, was naturally prolific in such aids to the study of his
works. We have not space here to discuss any other examples of this
type of work, but a thorough investigation of this body of literature
could not fail to yield valuable results for the history of the Aristotelian
versions. *®
See pp. 61 et seqq.
? See pp. 40-41.
* The Incipit of the Physica given here is ‘‘Quoniam autem oportet intelligere et
oe
scire,’’ while the usual Greek-Latin version opens, ‘‘ Quoniam quidem igitur
intelligere et scire contingit,’’ and there are similar verbal differences in other
citations. See note on p. 7, above.
Cf. Grabmann, Lat. Ubersetz, p. 74 et seqq.
* Loc. cit.
° Of. p. 44, note 54.
7 Cf, p. 128-4.
® Other examples will be found in Paris, Bibl. Nat. 6552, Ff. 69v.-70v.; Volterra,
Biblioteca Guarnacci 6365; Pisa, Bibl. sta. Caterina, MS, 124; Vut. Lat, 4425
and elsewhere.
31
(5). THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEDIAEVAL TRANSLATING

MOVEMENT.
(a) The Sicilies. Of the personality, even of the identity of many
of the twelfth-century translators we know little. The pioneers of the
movement in particular are almost lost in the mists of time. It is
interesting, however, to note the subjects which first attracted their
attention.
Among the first introducers of the science of the Greek and Arabic
worlds was Constantine the African. Born at Carthage, according to his
own story, he spent more than thirty years travelling in Egypt and the
East, during which time he acquired many medical and other works. It
is quite possible, however, that he was a bilingual Sicilian who had not
travelled widely. He appeared in Salerno about 1077, and soon after
betook himself to the great Benedictine Abbey at Montecassino, where he
spent the remaining ten years of his life in the translation of the works of
Greek and Arabian medicine from the Arabic into Latin. His versions
found a wide acceptance and were the beginnings of the restoration to
the West of the heritage of Greek science.’
Contemporary with Constantine was Alfanus, Archbishop of Salerno
(1058—-1085), whose Latin version of the Premnon Physicon from the
Greek of Nemesius of Emesa® provides a distinct link with the Peripatetic
biological tradition. The physiological portions of this work are drawn
from Galen and Aristotle. Of the latter the De Anima and zoological
works are cited, as well as the physical.*
In the following century, under the Norman kings of Sicily and
Southern Italy, there arose a school of translators from the Greek among
whom the most noteworthy figures were Henricus Aristippus, Eugene of
Palermo and an anonymous translator of Ptolemy’s Almagest. ‘To this
school were probably due also the early versions of various Euclidean
works and the De Motu of Proclus.
Henricus Aristippus was born at Severina in Calabria. For the ‘last
six years of his life we have precise data. He became Archdeacon of
Catania in 1156, and in 1160 was given a high position at the court of
William I of Sicily. In 1162 he fell into disfavour and was imprisoned at
Palermo, where he shortly afterwards died. Henricus was of considerable
importance as a translator from the Greek.
The anonymous author of the version of the Almagest (c. 1160) describes
in his preface how he travelled to Sicily to obtain from Aristippus the
copy of this work which the latter had brought back from Byzantium as a
gift from the Emperor to King William of Sicily. He found Aristippus,
he tells us, engaged in investigating the phenomena of Etna, a fact
which is of interest as indicating the’scientific spirit of the man.®
32
Beginnings of the Mediaeval Translating Movement
It has been suggested that* Henricus Aristippus was the author of the
“nova translatio’’ of the Analytica Posteriora referred to by John of
Salisbury in his Metalogicus (lib. II, cap, 20),”7 and he has also been seen
in the ‘‘ grecus interpres ’’ from whom John learnt Greek in Southern
Italy. There is, however, at present no evidence to confirm these
conjectures.
Aristippus is best remembered as the translator of the fourth book of
the Aristotelian Meteora. He was also the author of several other
important translations from the Greek, among which were the Meno and
Phaedo of Plato.
Eugene of Palermo, known by the Arabic title of ‘‘ the Emir,’’ was
a student of Greek mathematical works, and translated into Latin the
Optica of Ptolemy.’
The anonymous author of a version from the Greek of Ptolemy’s
Almagest, made in Sicily shortly before the year 1160, was another
member of the translating circle that surrounded Aristippus. This
version, however, never enjoyed a wide circulation, and Gerard of Cremona
seems to have been unaware of its existence when he set out for Spain
in order to make the version from the Arabic.’
(b) The Arabic Near East, The number of scholars who came into
contact with Arabian learning in Syria and the Near East is surprisingly
small.*° The list is practically complete with Stephen of Antioch, Philip
of Tripoli and Adelard of Bath. Philip was the author of the Latin
version of the very popular pseudo-Aristotelian Secreta Secretorum. The
Pisan, Stephen of Antioch, was responsible, as early as 1127, for a Latin
version of the medical writings of Ali-ben-Abbas. While these translators
turned their attention to medical writings, Adelard (fl. 1109—1142) was
the first translator of a considerable body of works on mathematics and
astronomy. These subjects, together with astrology with which they are
she en linked, made an early appeal to the enquiring mind of the
est.
To Adelard the Latins owed versions of the astronomical tables of
al-Khwarismi, Euclid’s Elements, and one or two astrological works. It
is noteworthy that neither Constantine nor Adelard drew much, if any,
of their material from Spanish sources, and, although it seems probable
that Adelard was at one time in Spain, his first and most fruitful travels
were in Sicily and the Near East during the early years of the twelfth
century. The great Spanish translating period began during the second
quarter of the twelfth century, when, under the patronage of Bishops
Raymond and Michael (see p. 18), Toledo and Tarazona became centres
of the new movement,
(c) The Byzantine Near East. There was a considerable growth in
intercourse between the Byzantine and Latin cultures during the twelfth
century. This expressed itself principally in controversy between the
Eastern and Western churches, resulting in the translation of a number
of theological] works from Greek into Latin.”
Among the translators of these Greek works were James of Venice, the
translator of the Logica Nova,’* Moses of Bergamo and Burgundio the
Pisan, all of whom took part in a disputation held at Byzantium before
33
the Emperor Johannes Comnenus in 1136. Moses of Bergamo was in the

Emperor’s service in 1130 (when he lost a collection of Greek manuscripts
which he had carefully amassed, and, for which he had paid three pounds
in gold). He tells us that he learned Greek in order to introduce to the
Latins works then inaccessible to them. No trace, however, has survived
of any scientific work translated by him. Burgundio the Pisan, however,
‘was responsible for versions of ten worksof Galen, the Aphorisms of
Hippocrates, and in 1160, a second translation, dedicated to Barbarossa,
of the Premnon Physicon of Nemesius, already rendered by Alfanus of
Salerno (See p. 32 above). Two other twelfth-century translators from the
Greek, more purely theological in their interests, were Leo Tuscus and
Hugo Eterianus.
(d) Aragon and Castille. The earliest learned Latin contact with
Arabian science in the Spanish Peninsula is represented by Gerbert of
Aurillac, afterwards Pope Silvester II (999—1003). He is known to have
studied mathematics in the county of Barcelona, and in the year 984
he wrote to Gerona near Barcelona for an arithmetical treatise by Joseph
the Wise, and to Lupitus of Barcelona for a liber de astrologza which
the latter had translated from the Arabic.
More than a century later we find the converted Jew, Petrus Alfonsi
(who was baptised at Huesca in Aragon in 1106), engaged in the trans-
mission of Arabian astronomy to the Latins. He was the author of
chronological tables and similar works, and was a contemporary of
Adelard, with whom he seems to have had some literary connections.
Another worker on Arabian astronomical science during the first half
of the twelfth century was Plato of Tivoli (fl. 1134—1145), who, with his
Jewish colleague, Savasorda, was responsible for versions of a number of
astrological and other works. Contemporaries of Plato were Hermann
of Carinthia and Robert of Chester, who worked in partnership on
mathematical, astronomical and other subjects. Hermann produced
translations of Ptolemy’s Planisphere and the De Essentiis, while Robert
rendered the Algebra of al-Khwarismi, whose astronomical tables had
already been translated by Adelard of Bath.**
The translations of the works of Avicenna and Alfarabi by Gundisalvi
and his collaborator the Jew, Johannes Avendeath,* may be said to have
been the earliest source of knowledge of the Aristotelian biological works
among the Latins.** Gundisalvi, or Gundissalinus, Archdeacon of
Segovia, under Archbishop Raymond (1126—1151),** was the author of
Latin versions of the Metaphysica, Physica, De Celo et Mundo and Dé
ree of Avicenna,’’ all of which were neoplatonic expositions of
ristotle.
Another source of knowledge of the main outline of the Aristotelian
natural works was drawn upon, about the year 1150, by Gundisalvi in his
De Divisione Philosophiae. This was the De Scientiis, and to a lesser
extent the De Ortu Scientiarum, of Alfarabi (d. 950).** In the section of
Gundisalvi’s De Divisione Philosophiae dealing with ‘‘ Scientia
Naturalis ’’ is a system of classification of the Aristotelian natural works
taken over from Alfarabi’s De Scientiis.* The natural works are here
divided into eight parts”: Part I, the Physica; Part II, De Celo &
34
Beginnings of the Mediaeval Translating Movement
Mundo; Part III, De Gen. & Corrupt; Part IV, the first three books of
the Meteora, Part V, the fourth book of the Meteora, Part VI, the pseudo-
Aristotelian De Mineris*; Part VII, De Vegetabilibus; Part VIII, De
Animalibus, De Anima and Parva Naturalia.
Gundisalvi gives a brief outline of the subject-matter of each of these
works, but, since this summary of the contents of the natural works is
taken over almost verbatim from Alfarabi,”? this is no proof that
Gundisalvi had himself read those works. It is, in fact, noticeable that
the only actual citations by Gundisalvi of passages from Aristotle are
from the logical works or from the De Anima, an exposition of which by
Avicenna Gundisalvi himself had translated. It is, however, possible
that Gundisalvi lived to see the De Generatione et Corruptione and the
Meteora in the versions of his younger contemporary and fellow-translator,
Gerard of Cremona.” It is interesting to find in Gundisalvi the whole
cycle of the Aristotelian natural works thus systematically classified as
early as 1150. His classification is probably the basis of those that figure
in the great mediaeval encyclopaediae of a century later, derived by way
of the lost Divisio Philosophica of Michael Scot.**
The greatest of all the Toledan school of translators was unquestionably
Gerard of Cremona (1114—1187). Ina list of his translations drawn up
by his pupils,** we are told that he first visited Spain to obtain a copy
of Ptolemy’s Almagest.** Finding there a great number of works
inaccessible to the Latins, he remained at Toledo and devoted the rest
of his life to the work of translation from the Arabic. He produced a
greater number of versions than any other translator. According to
Daniel of Morley, Gerard, in his earlier work at least, employed a Mozarab
collaborator, Galippus,
The date at which Gerard began his labours is not known, but in view
of the very large number of works translated by him, it would seem most
probable that it was at least before the middle of the century. From the
list of his translations, however, we may gather that a version of Ptolemy’s
Almagest was his first considerable task. Now there exists a thirteenth-
century manuscript of Gerard’s translation of the Almagest bearing the
somewhat doubtful date 1175.7* Daniel of Morlay, also, who returned
from Toledo, probably shortly after the year 1175, tells us that he found
Gerard there engaged on the Almagest, with the assistance of Galippus
the Mozarab”’ (a touch which itself suggests that this is one of Gerard’s
earlier versions). On the other hand, it is hardly credible that Gerard
can have completed the eighty odd versions that stand to his credit
between the years 1175 and 1187. Further, when he set out for Toledo
he was evidently unaware of the anonymous version of the Almagest from
the Greek made in Sicily shortly before 1160,% a fact which would
suggest that he left Italy before that date. On the whole, therefore, we
may conjecture that Gerard’s activities at Toledo cover approximately
the period 1160—1187.
1Cf. Karl Sudhoff, Constantin d. Afrikaner (Archiv f. Geshch. d. Med., Bd. 23,
Heft. 4, p. 298).
2On Constantine see Steinschneider, Const. Afric. und seine arabischen quellen
(Archiv fiir pathol. Anatomie & Physiol., 27, 1866, pp. 351-410); Wiistenfeld.
Ubersetzungen Arabischer Werke, 1877, 10-20; L. Thorndike, History of Magic,
etc., I, 742-749; etc.
35
’ Nemesius (Alfanus) ed. C. Burkhard, (Bibl. Teubner), Leipzig, 1916. Manitius,

Geschichte d. Lat. Literatur d. Mittelalters, II Teil., p, 631.
«A later version of the same work was made by Burgundio the Pisan and dedicated
to the Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, in 1155-1160, (cf. Tiraboschi, Storia della
Letteratura Italiana, Naples, 1777, (Vol. III, pp. 264-265), and Uberweg-Geyer,
op. cit., p. 118), In this version the work was usually attributed to Gregory of
‘ Nyssa, but it is in fact the Premnon Physicon of Nemesius.
5 Ms Vat. lat. 2056, Ff. I-IV, described by Prof. Lockwood, Harvard Studies in
Classical Philology (XXI, 78 et seqq), 1910. Cf. also Haskins, op. cit., p. 159.
*Y, Rose, Hermes I, 886-889, 1866. Grabmann, Scholastischen Methode, 1911,
Vol. II, pp. 76-77. Haskins, however, (op. cit., p. 286) dismisses the suggestion
as without foundation.
7 Kd. of C, C, J. Webb and cf. V. Rose, loc. cit.
* Printed by G. Govi, L’Ottica di Claudio Tolomeo da Eugenio, Ammiraglio di
Sicilia, Torino, 1885.
° See p. 35.
10 On the subject of Latin translators in Syria during the Crusades, see Haskins, op.
cit. Chap. VII.
11 Even during the Dark Ages versions of some theological and other works had been
made from the Greek. E.g. Eriugena’s version of the works of Pseudo-Denis
(858.860).
12 Cf. p. 6.
Ci. Haskins, op. cit,, Chap. VIII.
13 Of, p, 33,
4 Avendeath (or ibn-David) is commonly identified with John of Seville, author of a
large body of versions of astrological and similar works.
7 With the possible exception of the earlier versions of their contemporary, Gerard
of Cremona (although it is doubtful if these can be put so early), or perhaps of
the twelfth-century versions from the Greek.
+8 Cf. p,. 18:
7 Cf. p. 120.
** A version of the De Scientiis is also attributed to Gerard of Cremona in the list of
his versions referred to above. (Note 10 on p. 20). This version, however, is not
known, and the ascription is probably an error.
*° Cf, L, Baur, Dominicus Gundissalinus De Divisione Philosophiae, (Beitrage z.d.
Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters, IV, 2-8, Minster, 1903), pp. 20-23.
2° See p. 22.
** L Baur, op. cit., p. 214, suggests that this work may be the pseudo-Aristotelian
Ilepi MerdAAwv, probably by Theophrastus, and used by the commentators
Simplicius and Olympiodorus.
727, Baur, op. cit,, p. 216.
23 See pp. 88 and 45.
4 See p. 22.
*5 Printed by Boncompagni, Gherardo Cremonese, traduttore del secolo duodecimo,
etc., Rome, 1851, pp. 3.7.
** A version of this work was also made from the Greek in Sicily about the year 1160.
The Laurentiana manuscript of Gerard’s version, with the date 1175,
has been
generally accepted, although Steinschneider (op. cit., p. 19, 36) questions it;
and
from the wording of the manuscript (Cf. Haskins, op. cit., p. 104, note
139), it
would appearto be not impossible that the date refers to the year in which the
; work was copied by the original scribe, Thaddeus of Hungary.
’ Daniel’s Philosophia, edited by Sudhoff, Archiv fiir Geschichte
der Naturwissen-
schaften, viii, 1-40.
**'Cl,. Pp, 88.
36
II. TWELFTH-CENTURY VERSIONS OF ARISTOTLE.
(2). The Physical and Certain Other Works.
The first date that we can fix for an actual Aristotelian version is 1128,
when James of Venice rendered into Latin the Logica Nova.’ The next
is 1160, the terminus ad quem for the version of the fourth book of the
Meteora by Henricus Aristippus. Both these versions were from the
Greek. Then follow the translations of Gerard of Cremona from the
Arabic. There were, moreover, twelfth-century Latin versions of various
of the natural works from the Greek, which were afterwards revised to
form the standard thirteenth-century texts.”
In the redactions of 1169 and 1182 of the Chvonica of Robert of Mont.
St.-Michel for the year 1128, there is a note in a contemporary hand
(perhaps of Robert himself)* which runs as follows :—‘‘ Iacobus clericus
de Venetia transtulit de greco in latinum quosdam libros Aristotelis et
commentatus est, scilicet Topica, Analyticos Priores et Posteriores et
Elencos, quamvis antiquior translatio super eosdem libros haberetur.’’
These versions of James of Venice, however, appear to have passed
practically unnoticed, and to have been little used. Their importance
lies in the fact that they mark the advent of the ‘‘ new Aristotle.’? There
are also three other twelfth-century versions of the logical works: (1) the
anonymous version of the Posterzor Analytics in the Toledo manuscript
17-14°; (2) a version by a certain John who has not yet been identified,
which is cited by Albertus Magnus,* but has not yet been traced; (3) the
version of the Posterior Analytics from the Arabic by Gerard of Cremona
(Gy 1ts7).”
A number of the natural works of Aristotle were translated from the
Greek by unknown authors at some time previous to the thirteenth century
(see pp. 6-7, etc.). It is possible that some of these versions, and still
more the Arabic-Latin version of the De Gen. & Corrupt. by Gerard of
Cremona,* may be anterior to the earliest version of the Meteora. But,
for the rendering of the fourth book at least of this version, it is possible
to fix a definite terminus ad quem, and this is the earliest Aristotelian
natural work of which this can be said. The translator was Henricus
Aristippus, whom we have already discussed.* He was the author also of
several other important translations from the Greek, including the Meno
and Phaedo of Plato. These literary activities, involving considerable
time and labour, could hardly have been accomplished during his period
of office at the Norman court. The Greek-Latin version, therefore, of the
fourth book of the Meteora may be taken as having been made prior to
the year 1160. As with his versions of the Platonic dialogues, which
continued in use well into the fifteenth century, this translation of the
fourth book of the Meteora was on the whole accurate and trustworthy,
and was very little changed by William of Moerbeke a century later,
on
TWELFTH-CENTURY VERSIONS
who reproduced it substantially unaltered as the fourth book of his Greek-

Latin version of the Mezeora.”*
The first commentary known to me on the fourth book of the Mezeora™
is extant in a Paris manuscript,’? which contains works of various Arabic
authors, as well as of Aquinas, Albertus Teutonicus and others. The
codex itself is of the fourteenth century, but the commentary in question,
~ on the fourth book of the Meteora, is explicitly dated, ‘‘ Completus est
tractatus de metheoris a magistro W. anglico, mathematico, anno domini
m°cc°xxx’.’’? In addition to dealing with the fourth book, this
commentary contains a section on the chapter of the third book of the
Meteora on the Yris. From this section it is clear that the author was
acquainted with the missing commentary on the Meteora by Alfredus
Anglicus, of which only fragmentary citations are still extant. The
‘“ Magister W. Anglicus ’’ may perhaps be the ‘‘ Wervillinus Anglicus ”’
whom we meet in a manuscript” of the Colombina Library at Seville:
‘‘ Explicit astrologia magistri Werbillini, civis Massiliensis, qui anglicus
est natione, professione medicus, astronomus appellatus, compilata per
ipsum anno domini 1220,’’ and is almost certainly identical with the
‘“ Gullielmus, natione Anglicus, professione medicus, ex scientiae merito
astronomus, nunc autem curiae Marsiliensis,’? mentioned by Duhem,
Systeme du Monde, Vol. 3, Paris 1915, pp. 287-291. The work is
interesting as a commentary on one of the natural works at a date when
few such commentaries were extant.
_The version of Aristippus gained rapid currency, for it was known to
Gerard of Cremona, who therefore omitted to translate the fourth book
when he rendered the Mezeova from the Arabic.
In connection with the composite version of the Meteora by Gerard and
Henricus Aristippus, several interesting questions arise. Thus, to the
fourth book of this version is appended in all the copies a short tractate
of three capitula, translated from the Arabic. This is sometimes called
‘“ Liber de generatione lapidum et montium,’* while its translator,
Alfredus Anglicus, refers to it in his commentary on the De Vegetabilibus
as ‘‘ Liber de congelatis.’’
We may here dispose of the Arabic-Latin version of the fourth book of
the Meteora referred to by Jourdain.** This version is not a translation
of the text but of the Averroan commentary, and is attributed by
Steinschneider’’ to Michael Scot.
_The next Aristotelian work (if we except the possibly earlier De
Generatione et Corruptione by Gerard of Cremona)* to make “its
appearance in an Arabic-Latin version was the De Celo. The only clue
as to its date is a possible reference by Daniel of Morlay (A. 1173—1178).’®
Its attribution to Gerard is established by the list of his works”* and also
by the thirteenth-century manuscript 2318 of the Vienna Hofbibliothek,”*
where this version from the Arabic appears together with that from the
Greek. The Arabic-Latin version opens thus :—‘‘ Incipit liber celi et
mundi Aristotelis translatus a magistro Gerardo. Summa cognitionis
nature et scientie ipsam significantis in corporibus existit et in reliquis
magnitudinibus. .. .”’
This is the version also which appears in Venice, Marciana Cl. Vi,
Cod. 37, together with the De Generatione et Corruptione, and the Physica,
the two latter explicitly ascribed in this codex to Gerard.”
38
Physical and Other Works
There is much less evidence in the case of the De Caelo than in that of
some others of the natural works that there was extant a Greek-Latin
version prior to that of the second half of the thirteenth century. Evidence
that has been adduced,” that the original Greek of the De Caelo was
known to the Sicilian translator of the Almagest, does not, of course,
indicate that there was current a Greek-Latin version at that date. Again,
Thierry of Chartres (fl. 1140—1150) seems to have been acquainted with
the contents of the Physica and the De Caelo, but this knowledge may
have been derived from the versions of Avicenna by Gundisalvi and
Avendeath.* On the whole, then, we have no means of establishing the.
existence of an earlier version from the Greek in the case of the De Caelo,
and Gerard’s translation may be said to have held the field until the
version from the Greek which was probably made by William of Moerbeke
about the middle of the thirteenth century.”
To Gerard of Cremona again is due the twelfth-century version from the
Arabic of the Physica, of which version there are at present only four
manuscripts known.”* Of these manuscripts one, namely that at Venice,”
explicitly states that it is ‘*‘ secundum translationem Gerardi.’’ The
authorship is also established by the list of Gerard’s versions (cf. p. 27, 2).
This Arabic-Latin version begins:—‘‘ Quoniam dispositio scientie et
veritatis in omnibus viis quibus sunt principia. . . .”’
There is extant in various MSS.” a somewhat similar version,” 9 also
from the Arabic, which begins:—‘‘ Quoniam dispositio scientie et
certitudinis in omnibus viis habentibus principia. . . .’’ This version
appears together with Averroes’ Commentary on the Phisica. It is
probable, as is the case with other Averroan commentaries, that both
were. translated from the Arabic by Michael Scot.*°
The earliest trace of Gerard’s version of the Physica in the works of
his contemporaries is a citation by Daniel of Morlay,” his pupil (fl. 1173—
78).
There are, moreover, grounds for the suggestion’ that the current
thirteenth-century version of the Physica, that used by Aquinas as the
basis of his commentary, was a revision of an earlier version,* as with
the De Anima, De Gen. & Corrupt., De Sensu & Sensato and Metaphysica.
Thus, for instance, it is probable that the school of Chartres was acquainted
with the contents of the Physica, as well as of the De Celo & Mundo, as
early as the time of Thierry of Chartres (fl. 1140—1150). In this case,
however, an alternative source is not improbable.** Again, Adelard of
Bath* (fl. 1109—1142), in his Questiones naturales, refers to ‘‘ Aristoteles
in phisicis,’? and also cites a ‘‘ sententia Aristotelis,’’ which is, in fact,
derived from the Physica, though that work is not named in connection
with it.*® There has, moreover, recently been discovered an incomplete
copy of a version of the Physica from the Greek which dates, at latest,
from the first years of the thirteenth century.** While, therefore, we have
not as yet the material for definite conclusions as to date and authorship,
the bulk of the evidence is in favour of the existence of an early Greek-
Latin version of the Physica, of which that in use during the great period
of scholasticism is a revision.*’
* When I wrote this paragraph I was not aware of the fact that Dr. Birkenmajer
has succeeded in identifying this earlier version in the MSS. Cf. note on p. 7, above.
39
We have already discussed® the pre-Thomist version of the De Anima

from the Greek, upon which William of Moerbeke based his revision.
This older Greek-Latin version was cited by Alfredus Anglicus in his
De Motu Cordis, of c. 1210—15.°° It may also be the version referred to
=n the ‘‘ Sacerdos ad altare accessurus ’’ of about 1190,*° although this
reference may be an interpolation. That William of Moerbeke’s revision
- followed the earlier text very closely may be seen from a comparison of
the opening passages.*’ It is found, as a rule, in manuscripts of the
older form of the Aristotelian corpus, where the Meteora and De Celo &
Mundo appear in their older Arabic-Latin form.“ It occurs, together
with the Greek-Latin forms of both these works, in a codex of the later
type:**
Now it has been shown‘ that the De Azima was cited directly and by
name in the De Essentiis of Herman of Carinthia, a pupil of Thierry of
Chartres. Hermann was one of the earliest of the school of translators
from the Arabic in Spain, and was employed, together with his
collaborator, Robert of Ketene, in 1141 by Peter the Venerable on a Latin
version of the Koran. The De Essentiis was written in 1143, and besides
its citations of the De Anima, it shows acquaintance with the contents of
the De Gen. & Corruft.*® and the Meteora. By a comparison of
Hermann’s citations of the De Anima with the older Greek-Latin version
discussed above, and with the Arabic-Latin version (which, however, is
almost excluded as a possible source on account of the strong probability
of its having been made by Michael Scot),** it may be seen that neither
of these two was the version used by Hermann of Carinthia.*”
The question, therefore, arises whether Hermann of Carinthia was
referring to the De Anima of Avicenna in the version of Gundisalvi and
Avendeath, or whether there was extant in 1143 a Latin version of the
Aristotelian text with which he was familiar.
The Nicomachean Ethics were not known in their entirety in the twelfth
century. The first complete version was probably that of Grosseteste from
the Greek** (probably c. 1240—3) which was cited by Hermann the
German shortly before 1250.*° But there was extant in the twelfth century
a version of the second and third books of the Nicomachean Ethics, which
assed during the scholastic period under the name of the Ethzca vetus.
[ts author is unknown, but it is improbable that, as has been suggested,
it was due to Boethius. It is one of the increasing body of Aristotelian
works translated from the Greek, which modern research is tending to
attribute to the twelfth century.°° Whether the Latin version of that
portion of the Nicomachean Ethics known as the Ethica Nova, which
corresponds to the first book of the work, was also extant in the twelfth
century is less certain.**
There is another Aristotelian work, part of which was extant in the
twelfth-century, the history of which bears to some extent upon that of
the versions of the biological works. It is not relevant to our present
purpose to discuss in detail the history of the Latin versions of the
Metaphysica, but the main conclusions already established may be briefly
summarized as follows. There was extant in the XII-century a version
from the Greek of the first three books and a part of the fourth. This
40
has been styled by Birkenmajer” the Metaphysica vetustissima. The

Translatio media, discovered by Pelster,** was another version from the
Greek which included all but the eleventh book, and was extant at latest
before 1230. The Metaphysica vetus (which covered the same portion of
the work as the Metaphysica vetustissima) was an amalgam of the Meza-
physica vetustissima and the Metaphysica media. William of Moerbeke
based his revised version, in twelve or fourteen books, on the Metaphysica
media. In addition to these versions from the Greek was the Metaphysica
Nova, translated from the Arabic, which, together with the Averroan
commentary thereon, was probably the work of Michael Scot.”
The earliest citation (if it be genuine) of the Metaphysica seems to be
that in the ‘‘ Sacerdos ad altare accessurus.’’** In mentioning the works
to be used by a student of the liberal arts, the author remarks :—
** Inspiciat etiam methafisicam Aristotelis et librum eiusdem de genera-
tione et corruptione et de anima.’’ This sentence, even if an interpolation,
Iay not improbably be of the twelfth century, or at least prior to the
Paris decrees of 1210 and 1215.”
The Metaphysica also, like various other Aristotelian treatises, was
cited by Alfredus Anglicus in his De Motu Cordis, prior at latest to 1217,
though the citation here may be from the Metaphysica Nova (see above).
These are the first citations which can be definitely established for the
Metaphysica, although some have attempted to trace earlier instances.*°
Another early mention of the Mezaphysica is by Guglielmus Brito (d.
1226). With reference to the year 1210, he says:—‘‘ In diebus illis (i.e.
1210) legebantur Parisius libelli quidam ab Aristotele, ut dicebantur,
compositi, qui docebant metaphysicam, delati de novo a Constantinopoli
et a graeco in latinum translati.’’
1 Monumenta Germaniae Hist. Scriptores, VI, 293, and Haskins, op. cit., p. 227.
2 See pp. 6-7 and elsewhere.
3 For detailed discussions of this version cf. V. Rose, Hermes I, 381 et seqq., 1866;
Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, etc., p. 9; Haskins, op. cit., p. 227, etc., etc.
4 See p. 6.
> See p. 6.
‘ Opera Omnia, ed. Borgnet, Paris, 1890, Vol. II, p. 108.
7 Cf. Steinschneider, EHuropdischen Ubersetz., p. 16.
* See pp. 45-6.
® See pp. 32-3, above.
10 The subject-matter of this fourth book is such as to separate it to some extent from
the other three books of the Meteora, a fact which was noted by more than one
mediaeval commentator. Thus, St. Thomas, in the opening chapter of his
Meteora commentary, remarks on the discrepancy of subject. The author, also,
of an anonymous commentary on the Meteora in the fourteenth-century
manuscript, Siena, Biblioteca Communale, L.III, 21, on F. 227, remarks— Hie
primo queritur utrum iste liber (i.e. the fourth) debeat continuari cum aliis libris
methaurorum, ita ut sit eius pars vel non. Et videtur quod non... . Sed iste
tractatus non est de huiusmodi, immo de generatis in ventre terre, quare non est
pars metheororum. . .’’ As we saw above (p. 24-5, notes 3 and 4), the fourth
book of the Meteora is regarded as a separate work from the preceding three in
Al
lvi in
of the natural sciences by Alfarabi, reproduced by Gundisa
ification
ae pate Philosophiae. Alexander Aphrodisias and Aegeus had, at a
earlier date, proteste d against the inclusion of the fourth book with the other
three. (Cf. Baur, Gundiss alinus De Divisione Philosophiae, p. 213, note ne 5
Anglicus, of whic
11 Except the missing commentary on all four books by Alfredus
some fragments are extant. See p. 56-7, below.
12 Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Lat., 6552, Ff. 39v-4lv.
* 13 Colombina, 5-1-25.
14 Por this fact, as for the general history of this partly Arabic-Latin, partly Greek-
Latin version of the Metcora, there is abundant evidence in the manuscripts.
Thus, for example, in the account mentioned above (p. 20, note 10), containing the
list of Gerard’s translations drawn up by his pupils, occurs the following passage :
‘‘ Liber Aristotelis Methaurorum, tractatus ili. Quartum autem non transtulit, e0
quod sane invenit eum translatum.’’ For the share of Henricus Aristippus in this
version, and for the addition of the last three capitula with which we deal above,
there is evidence in a number of manuscripts. A good example is to be found in
the Biblioteca Nacional at Madrid, MS 1428, F. 171, where, at the end of the
Meteora, we read: ‘‘Istius libri, ut dicitur, tres libros transtulit magister
Gerardus, magnus filosofus, de arabico in latinum. Tria ultima capitula
transtulit alfredus anglicus de arabico in latinum.’’ The next lines are concerned
with the authorship of the last three capitula. (Cf. p. 58). A similar note is
found appended to the copy of the Meteora in Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 9726,
and in many other manuscripts.
18 Printed by Holmyard and Mandeville (see below, p. 100, note 29).
16 Op. cit., p. 416, Spec. XVI.
17 Op. cit., p. 56 (c).
18 See pp. 45-6, below.
19 Cf, Lynn Thorndike, op. cit., II, 177. The second book of the De Celo € Mundo
was also cited by Alexander of Neckam, in his De Nat. Rerum, Lib. I, cap. 6,
a work which was composed at least before 1217 and may have been considerably
earlier.
20 See p. 20, note 10. Although Steinschneider, p. 17 (11), and Haskins, op. cit.,
p. 162, note 21, seem to express doubt on the point.
21 Cf, Grabmann, op. cit., p. 176.
22 See p. 45. For the other Arabic-Latin version, given by Jourdain (op. cit., Spec.
VIII, p. 407), see pp. 94-5, below. Cf. also Steinschneider, op. cit., pp. 17 (11)
and 56 (a).
23 Haskins, op. cit., pp. 162 and 183.
74 Cf, note 33 below.
25 Although Haskins, op. cit., p. 149, considers that there existed a twelfth-century
version of the De Caelo from the Greek.
26 Fonds de Sorbonne 936 (Jourdain, p. 167); Vienna, Hofbibliothek, Cod. lat. 234 and
' 2318; and Venice, Marciana, Cl. VI, Cod. 37.
27 Marciana, Cl. VI, Cod. 37.
78 For example, in Vat. lat. 2079.
2° Cf. p. 111, note 241.
8° Cf. p. 95, below, and Jourdain, op. cit., p. 167.
51 See p. 35 above.
82 Grabmann, op. cit., p. 174.
33 Cf, Duhem, De Tempg ow la Scolastique Latine a connu la physique d’Aristote
(Revue de philosophie, 1909, 163-178) and Le Systeme du Monde, Vol. V, Paris,
1917, p. 237, where, however, he suggests that Thierry derived his knowledge from
the versions of Avicenna by Gundisalvi and Avendeath (cf, p. 62 above), which
seems not improbable in view of Thierry’s connection, through his pupil Hermann
of Carinthia, with the Spanish school of translators (cf. p. 65). We may note,
however, that Abelard (d. 1142) also cites the Physica (cf. p. 9, note 16, above).
42
*4 See p. 33.
** The Physica seems also to have been known to David of Dinant before the year 1210
to Judge by the reference made by Albertus in his Summa Theol., IT, quest. 4,
membr. 4, quest. 72, art. 2.
°° Haskins, op. cit., p. 224, note (4). The MS is Vat. Regina, 1855, ff. 88-94,
*7 It is possible that: the note ‘‘ Explicit liber phisicorum aristotelis de nova trans-
latione ’’ in Naples, Bibl. Naz., VIII, E. 24, refers to this earlier version from
the Greek, though more probably the allusion is to Gerard’s version from the
Arabic. The same remark applies also to the occasional appearance of the usual
Greek-Latin version of the De Anima as ‘‘ nova translatio ’’ in the MSS (e.g. in
Cesena Malatest. Plut. Sin. VII, Cod. I. ‘‘ Explicit . .. liber de anima
secundum novam translationem ’’) and in the 14th century MS, Bibl. de St.-Omer,
615). The reference here, however, might be to the Arabic-Latin version which
usually occurs together with the commentary of Averroes, and is probably the
work of Michael Scot. See p. 95.
58 See p. 6, and elsewhere.
%° See p. 100, note 33.
49 See p. 26 and p. 47.
41 Barlier Greek-Latin Tect. Revision of William of Moerbeke.
Bonorum honorabilium notitiam Bonorum honorabilium notitiam opin-
opinantes, magis autem alteram antes, magis autem alteram altera, aut
altera, quae est secundum certi- secundum certitudinem, aut ex eo quod
tudinem aut ex eo quod meliorum quidem et meliorum et mirabiliorum. . .
et mirabiliorum. ....
42 For example in Seville, Biblioteca Colombina, 82-6, in Naples, VIII., F. 12 (together
with the Greek-Latin version), and in the Nurnberg manuscript, Cent. V. 59.
43 Vat. Palat. lat. 1033.
44 Cf. Haskins, op. cit., p. 62.
4° See p. 45.
45 See p. 95.
47 Citations of De Anima in De Essentiis. Older Greek-Latin Version. :
(From Naples VIII, C. 50, F. 71v. erit itaque actus primus corporis physici
Aristoteles vero in libro de anima sic; organici. ... anima actus est primus
anima est, ait, perfectio corporis corporis physici potentia vitem habentis.
naturalis, instrumentalis potencia
viventis. Et alibi, anima est per-
fectio agentis et viventis potencia.
Arabic-Latin Version.
est prima perfectio corporis
naturalis OLCANICIasac a geus
anima est perfectio prima
corporis naturalis habentis
vitam in potentia.
48 With reference to Grosseteste’s version, however, Pelzer, Versions Latines des
Ouvrages de Morale, etc. (Revue Néo-Scolastique de Philosophie, Louvain, Aug.
and Nov., 1921), while making out a good case for the attribution of such a work
to Grosseteste, fails to allude to the extraordinary fact that Roger Bacon, the pupil
and admirer of Grosseteste, was apparently quite unaware of this work of his
master’s, and both discusses Grosseteste as a translator and also criticizes the
work of contemporary translators of Aristotle (cf. p. 115) without a word as to the
Bishop of Lincoln’s being included in that category.
49 Michael Scot (d. 1235 at latest) knew that the Nicomachean Ethics consisted of ten
books, beginning ‘‘ Omnis ars et omnis doctrina.’’ It was presumably in the
version of Grosseteste that Scot knew the Ethica, but in that case the date would
have to be somewhat earlier than that given by Pelzer; see above.
5° Baeumker (op. cit., p. 47), mentioning the citation of the Ethica’ vetus by Alfredus
de Sareshel in his work De Motu Cordis (1210-1215), says that the Ethica vetus
is probably previous to the rise of scholasticism, and was anyway known long
43
before the beginning of the thirteenth century. Some support is given to this
statement by Ravaisson’s (Rapports sur les Bibls. des départements de l'Ouest,
Paris, 1841) description of a MS. (Avranches 232) of the late twelfth
in one hand. (Cf. p. 24, note 2, above). Grabmann, however (op. cit., pp.
216-217), holds that the fact that it is not cited by any of the theological Summae
from Peter of Poitiers, fi. 1169-1205) to Praepositinus (whose work extends well
into the thirteenth century), is conclusive against a date much before 1200 for
the Ethica vetus. It is cited, as we have just said, between 1210 and 1215 by
Alfredus de Sareshel; in the Summa of Philip of Gréve, (fl. 1218-1236); by William
of Auvergne in the Summa Aurea, circa 1220; and by Arnaldus Saxo in the De
virtutibus rerum naturalium, a work which Rose (Arist. De Lapidibus ¢ Arnaldus
Saxo, Zeitschrift f.d. Deutsche Altertum 18 (1875), dates between 1220 and 1230.
From a reference in MS Vat. Borghes, 108, to an “‘ alia translatio de fine nove
ethice,’’ combined with many marginal allusions in that MS to “ alia translatio,’’
both in the case of the Ethica vetus and of the Ethica nova, Pelzer (op. cit., 333),
deduces that there existed several Greek-Latin versions or revisions of the Ethica
nova and probably also of the vetus, before the version of Grosseteste. The date,
however, and the identity of the authors of these versions is unknown, nor does
Pelzer think it probable that they are previous to 1200.
51 Mandonnet (loc. cit., p. 8, note 3, above) mentions a manuscript at St. Omer
attributing the Ethica nova to Michael Scot. This, however, seems unlikely in
view of Scot’s use of the complete version, mentioned above.
52 Cf, Ueberweg-Geyer, op. cit. Zweiter Teil, § 30, p. 346.
59 BF. Pelster, Die Griechisch-lateinischen Metaphysikibersetzungen des Mittelalters,
(Beitrage z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters Supplement-Bd. II, Minster, 1923,
89-118). Cf. p. 111, note 261, below.
*4 This Arabic-Latin version omits a portion of the first book of the original, and begins
as follows :—‘‘ Consideratio quidem in veritate difficilis est uno modo facilis
alio.’’ It follows in this the Arabic version, where part of the first book was
omitted, the Arabs holding that it was spurious. According to Bonaventure and
Albertus Magnus, the Arabs attributed the first book to Theophrastus. There is
a note to this effect, also, in the copy of the Metaphysica (Greek-Latin), which
occurs in the fourteenth-century MS, Venice, Marciana, Fond. antico 235. This
note (which is in the same hand as the text) occurs in the margin of F. 1, and
runs as follows—‘* Hune librum primum andronicus (?) quidam et ermippus
ignorant. Nec enim memoriam ipsius omnino fecerunt in numeratione librorum
Theofrasti. Nicholaus autem, in theoria metaphisice Aristotelis, memoratur
ipsius, dicens esse theofrasti.’’
*5 Cf. p. 26, above.
aC ivepr 28.enote i.
44
(2). BIOLOGICAL WORKS: FROM THE ARABIC.
In the case of the biological, unlike most of the other Aristotelian works,
the transmission may have been in the first instance via the Arabic
except for the pseudo-Aristotelian Physiognomia' and the Parva
Naturalia.
De Generatione et Corruptione :
The earliest surviving Latin version of the De Generatione et
Corruptione is probably that of Gerard from the Arabic. There is, how-
ever, evidence also for a translation from the Greek dating from the
twelfth century, of which the later Greek-Latin version current in the
thirteenth and subsequent centuries was perhaps a revision.’
Gerard’s version opens thus: ‘‘ Oportet nos determinare de esse
generationis et corruptionis in eis que generantur et corrumpuntur. . .’’
It is rare in the manuscripts. Jourdain® was only able to find one,‘ to
which three more may now be added.* In two of these the nature of its
companions suggests a Gerardian authorship,* and in the third it is
specifically attributed to him. This last codex (Venice, Cl. VI. Cod. 37)
is of the first half of the fifteenth century,’ but 1s probably a direct copy
of a much earlier manuscript, since it contains the De Celo, the De
Generatione and the Physica* all in the versions from the Arabic. The
De Celo here is in the familiar version of Gerard. Then follows the De
Generatione in the Arabic-Latin whose Incipit we have given above. At
the beginning is a gloss of the same date as the text, which seems to
have been unnoted hitherto. It runs :—‘‘ Liber Aristotelis de generatione
et corruptione ¢vanuslatus a magistro Girardo Cremonensi in toleto.’’ This.
is the only explicit attribution of authorship found anywhere in association
with this text. Then follows the Physica in the Arabic-Latin version with
a similar note above, ‘‘ Liber physicorum secundum translationem
Gerardi.”’
There is confirmatory evidence of the Gerardian origin of this version
in the list of Gerard’s translations,’ in which we find the entry ‘‘ Liber
Aristotelis de Generatione et Corruptione,’’ between the De Causis Pro-
prietatum Elementorum and the Meteora."
With regard to the date of this version of the De Generatione, we have
nothing definite beyond the fact that Gerard died in 1187. Nor are the
earliest citations and references of much assistance. Hermann of
Carinthia in his De Essentiis, composed in 1143, shows acquaintance
with the contents of the De Generatione’ and of the Meteora, besides
referring to the De Amima.’* In view of his Spanish and Arabian con-
nections, it is hardly likely that he used the twelfth-century version from
the Greek.'* He may, however, have derived his knowledge of these
works from the same source as Gundisalvi, whose De Divisione Philoso-
45
phiae of about 1150, is largely based upon the De Scientzis of Alfarabi.”

Hermann must have been acquainted with the work of both Gundisalvi
and Gerard, although his travels in Spain seem to have been confined to
the northern part of the peninsula, and he only mentions Toledo in a
geographical connection. Now 1143 is somewhat early for either the De
Divisione or Gerard’s version of the De Generatione, especially for the
- latter. The only date we have for a work of Gerard’s is 1175 for the
version of Ptolemy’s Almagest, and even that is not quite certain.’’
Moreover, it was certainly not from Gerard’s version that Hermann
derived his knowledge of the Meteora as early as 1143, since Gerard’s
version of that work is subsequent to 1160. The probable source, then,
of Hermann’s knowledge of both works in 1143 was not Gerard but the
De Scienttis of Alfarabi, which he knew by way of the work of Gundisalvi.
De Sensu & Sensato.
Jourdain was able to identify only one version of the De Sensu &
Sensato. It was made from the Greek by an unknown translator, probably
at the time of the first Greek-Latin version of the rest of the Parva
Naturalia.* Neither the De Sensu & Sensato nor any of the smaller
natural works, except the De Plantis, were known to the scholastics in
versions from the Arabic. The De Sensu & Sensato is one of the com-
monest of mediaeval Aristotelian texts, and occurs in hundreds of manu-
scripts, usually in company with the rest of the Parva Naturalia.
The Arabs seem to have grouped this work, together with the rest of
the Parva Naturalia, as a kind of appendix to the De Anzma. This is
indeed their natural position, and there they most often appear in the
Latin manuscripts of the Aristotelian corpus. The Arabic versions’? of
them do not seem to have been sufficiently well-known to have attracted
the attention of the translators from the Arabic into Latin. It has been
asserted that there is a version from the Arabic”® opening with the words:
‘“ Virtutes quidem sensibiles, quaedam sunt necessariae aliis et quaedam
sunt propter melius. . .’’?* This is, in fact, the paraphrase-commentary
of prenss on the De Sensu,”* and not a version of the Aristotelian work
itself.
De Memoria et Reminiscentia.
This tractate appears in most of the Aristotelian manuscripts of the
later, predominantly Greek-Latin type, with the Incipit :—‘‘ De memoria
autem et reminiscentia (07 memorari) dicendum quid est et propter quam
causam fit.’’ It is, however, found in codices of the earlier part of the
thirteenth century, (in which the De Celo and Meteora are in the Arabic-
Latin forms), with the opening words:—‘‘ Reliquorum autem primum
considerandum est de memoria et memorari quidem quid sit, et propter
quas causas sit.’’
_ It has been assumed * that that form of the De Memoria which appears
in the codices of the earlier type, (together with the Arabic-Latin versions
of the De Celo and Meteora), is ‘‘ the version from the Arabic,’’ while
the other is regarded as forming part of the anonymous version of the
Parva Naturalia from the Greek. In point of fact, this is an error, and
there was no Arabic-Latin version of the De Memoria, as is plain from
a comparison of the texts. The supposed ‘‘ two’’ versions are, in fact,
substantially identical, though with verbal differences throughout. There
46
Biological Works: from the Greek
are, however, five or six words which are found in the Greek, and which
in the older type of manuscript are regarded as the opening words of the
De Memoria, while in most of the later codices they are placed at the end
of the De Sensu & Sensato.** In the 1253 codex, Urb. lat. 206, these
words occur at the beginning of the De Memoria et Reminiscentia, which
has therefore been said to be the version from the Arabic. But in another
Vatican manuscript (Vat. lat. 2083), which is dated 1284, they occur at
the end of the De Sensu,** and the De Memoria opens with the words :—
““De memoria autem et memorari dicendum quid est . . .”? With
the exception of these five or six words there is no substantial difference
in the supposed two versions, although a considerable variation of words
and phrases.
It seems probable, since it is always in the earlier type of codex that
these words are found at the beginning of the De Memoria, that the text
in these cases is the earlier, twelfth-century or ‘‘ Boethian ’’ version, of
which a revision formed the standard text after the middle of the thirteenth
century. (Cf. pp. 50 & 92-3).
(3). BIOLOGICAL WORKS: FROM THE GREEK.

De Generatione et Corruptione.
In addition to the Arabic-Latin version by Gerard of Cremona of the
De Generatione et Corruptione already discussed,”* there is extant in a
very large number of codices a version from the Greek beginning, ‘‘ De
generatione autem et corruptione et natura generatorum et corruptorum et
universaliter de omnibus .’ In connection with this Greek-Latin
version there arises as for the De Azzma and other works,”’ the question
whether there was an earlier form, dating from the twelfth century, or
earlier, of which the later version was a revision. That this is the case
has been established for the De Anima, for which William of Moerbeke
used the already existing version from the Greek as the basis of his
revision. He did the same thing with the fourth book of the Meteora.”
It 1s, however, not proved that the version of the De Gen. & Corrupt.
current in the thirteenth century was the work of William of Moerbeke.
Let us now consider the indications of the existence of a Greek-Latin
version of this work prior to 1200.* Hermann of Carinthia’s knowledge
of the De Gen. & Corrupt. in 1143 is probably traceable to Arabic rather
than to Greek sources”. The De Gen. & Corrupt., however, is also one
of the works mentioned in a sentence in the ‘‘ Sacerdos ad altare,’’ (c.
11907), (Cf. pp. 26 and 40 above). This sentence may be a later
addition,*® but it is probable that the reference here is to a version from
the Greek and not from the Arabic, since the whole list is en rapport with
the stream of transmission from the Greek, but shows no acquaintance
with works derived through Arabian channels.**
The next work in which we can definitely trace the knowledge of the
De Generatione et Corruptione is the Commentary on the De Vegetabilzbus
written by Alfredus Anglicus on his translation of that work from the
Arabic. Alfredus, who shows a wider knowledge of the natural works
* This XII-century version has now been identified and is to be published in the
forthcoming Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. See note on p. 7, above.
47
of Aristotle than his contemporaries, made this version about the turn of
the century,*? and probably wrote the commentary thereon soon
afterwards.
It is possible that the De Gen. & Corrupt. was-included in the “‘ libri
naturales ’’ of Aristotle prohibited at Paris in 1210 and 1215 (Cf. p. 19
above). Whatever works were included in these terms, they had been
- extant sufficiently long for commentaries and abridgments of them to
have come into current use.
Evidence for an early Greek-Latin version of the De Gen. & Corrupt.
is the appearance of ‘is work in its Greek-Latin form in those codices
where the Meteora and the De Celo et Mundo appear in Arabic-Latin
versions, and which represent the earlier form of the Aristotelian corpus.
We may, therefore, place the De Generatione et Corruptione among
those works of which a version from the Greek was extant before the close
of the twelfth century.**
Parva Naturalia.
The biological and psychological opuscules known in mediaeval times
under the title of the Parva Naturalia® included the following works :—
1. Lhe De Sensu & Sensato.
2. The De Mem. & Rem.
3. The De Somno & Vigilia (comprising also the De Divinatione per
somnia, which is sometimes treated as a separate work).
4. The De Long. & Brev. Vite, frequently also entitled De Morte
& Vita.
The De luvent. & Senect.
The De Insp. & Exs.
The De Morte & Vita.
AH
OM Another De Morte & Vita, sometimes regarded as a separate work
from the previous one, and appearing in the later type of codex.
The translation is alleged (cf. Ueberweg-Geyer, op. cit., p. 348)
to be the work of William of Moerbeke. ;
9. De Motu Cordis.
The last four items are more properly regarded as chapters of item (s),
and all five items sometimes appear in the codices as one work, entitled
De Inventute & Senectute, De Inspiratione & Exspiratione et De Morte
& Vita. Frequently, however, one or more of items (6)—(9) appear as
separate works. Perhaps the commonest arrangement is for items (7),
(8) and (9) to appear as parts of item (6).
No Arabic-Latin version exists of the Aristotelian text of any of these
opuscules,** though the Averroan commentaries or paraphrases of them
were translated into Latin, probably by Michael Scot during the beginning
of the thirteenth century (pp. 121-2).
With regard to the Greek-Latin versions of these texts, it seems on the
whole probable that they were all translated from the Greek at the same
date and by the same translator. A version of all the Parva Naturalia,
and of other Aristotelian works, was attributed to Boethius in a thirteenth-
48
century list by Richard de Fournival.** Without attaching too much

importance to this unsupported statement, we remark that as in the Greek,
Arabic and Latin texts of the Aristotelian corpus, the Parva Naturalia
almost invariably follow immediately upon the De Anima, occur in a fixed
order and are naturally regarded as a sort of appendix to that work,*”
it 1s perhaps permissible to hazard the suggestion that the first Greek-
Latin version of the De Anima (cf. p. 40) was accompanied by that of the
Parva Naturalia.
Now (cf. p. 100, note 33) Alfredus in his De Motu Cordis, composed
before 1217. cites both the De Somno & Vigilia and the De Insp. & Exsp.
These citations agree in the main with the standard text of the Greek-Latin
versions of the De Somn. & Vig., but with minor alterations which suggest
a later revision of the original translation.**
The quotations by Alfredus and the parallel passages in the standard
mediaeval Greek-Latin text are given by Baeumker as follows:—
Alfredus de Motu Cordis. Standard Thirteenth - Century
Greek-Latin Text of De. Somn. &
C. 6. Unde in libro de somno et Vig. (from ‘‘ antiqua translatio ’’
vigilia sic ait: ‘‘ Communis printed together with commentary
utriusque thalami qui medius. of Aquinas).
Haurit vero uterque ex utroque; in Lect. 6. Qui in corde utrinque
medio autem fit discretio.’’ thalami communis est qui est
C. 76. In libro quoque de somno medius: quorum uterque suscipit
sic ait: ‘‘ Quoniam quidem igitur ex utraque vena .. . in medio fit
sensus principium ab eadem parte discretio.
fit animalibus a qua quidem et Lect. g. Quod igitur sensus
motus determinatum est prius in principium sit ab eadem parte
aliis. Ipsa vero est trium locorum animalibus, a qua quidem et
determinatorum media capitis et motus, determinatum est prius in
deorsum ventris Sanguinem aliis. Ipsa vero est trium deter-
quidem igitur habentibus haec est minatorum locorum qui medius
circa cor pars; universa enim san- est inter caput et inferiorem ven-
guinem habentia cor habent, et trem. Habentibus quidem igitur
principum motus et primi sensus sanguinem haec est quae circa cor
hinc est. Motus quidem ergo et pars; omnia enim habentia san-
spiritus manifestum quoniam prin- guinem cor habent et sensus prin-
cipium et prorsus incohatio refrige- cipalis hinc est. Motus quidem
rationis hinc, et respirare quidem igitur et spiritus manifestum
et humido refrigerari ad salutem quoniam principium et omnino qui
elus qui in hac particula est (?) refrigerationis est hic, et
caloris natura adepta est. respirationem (al. lect. respirantia)
autem et humido refrigerationem
(al. lect. refrigerantia) ad salutem
elus qui est in hac particula caloris
natura tribuit.
The substantial agreement, combined with minor differences, shows, ©
as with Alfredus’ citations from the De Anima (cf. p. 40) that the Parva
Naturalia, like the De Anima, were extant in a version from the Greek
during the latter part of the twelfth century at least, and that this version
49
underwent subsequent revision. The position is thus the same as with the
fourth book of the Meteora (cf. pp. 37-8).
We may note that the fourteenth-century manuscript, Vat. lat. 7670,
which contains the De Sensu & Sensato in the usual Greek-Latin version
(FF. 85-94) has several marginal notes prefaced by the word “‘ alias ”’
and indicating the change of a word or two in the text. Too much
emphasis, however, cannot be laid on this, as such glosses frequently’ refer
merely. to slight variations between different copies of the same text.
Of the De Memoria et Reminiscentia® we have in the earlier codices a
version from the Greek, substantially the same as that in the later manu-
scripts, yet showing considerable verbal differences of a type very similar
to those between the citations of Alfredus from the De Somuno and the
standard mediaeval text of that work. This earlier version of the De
Memoria, also, opens with five or six words which in the later type occur
at the end of the De Sensu. We may regard, this earlier form as the
anonymous twelfth-century or ‘‘ Boethian ’’ version of the De Memoria.”
The close similarity between the two texts may be seen from a
comparison of the opening passage in each :—
Earlier Form. Later Form.
BM, Royal i2,7G.Va fF2riy, Jourdain, op. cit., Spec. XXII.
(Late XIII Century) De memoria autem et reminis-
(and Harley 3487). centia dicendum quidem _ est,
(Reliquorum autem) propter quam causam fit, et cul
primum quidem considerandum animae partium haec accidit passio
de memoria et memorari quid sit et reminisci. Non enim iidem sunt
et propter quas causas fit, et cul memorativi et reminiscitivi, sed ut
animae partium haec _accidit frequenter memorabiliores quidem
passio, et reminisci. Non autem qui tardi, reminiscibiliores autem
sunt iidem rememorativi et qui veloces et bene discentes.
reminiscibiles, sed sicut in multis Primum quidem igitur accipien-
memorabiliores sunt quidem tardi, dum est qualia sunt memorabilia;
reminiscibiliores quidem veloces et multocies enim decipit hoc; neque
bene discentes. Primum quidem enim futura contingit memorari,
accipiendum qualia sunt memora- set est opinabile et sperabile; erit
bilia, multociens enim decipit hoc. autem utique et scientia quaedam
Nec enim futurum memorari con- sperativa, quam quidam divinati-
tingit sed opiniabile et sperabile vam dicunt, neque praesentis est,
esse. Sit autem et scientia sed sensus; hoc enim neque
quidam sperativa quemadmodum futurum neque factum cognos-
quaedam et divinam dicunt esse. cimus, sed tum praesens.. . .
Nec praesentis est sed sensus, hoc
autem nec futurum cognoscimus,
sed tamen praesens.. .
There is another thirteenth-century manuscript” which is of interest in
connection with this question of the earlier and later forms of the Parva
Naturalia.
This manuscript opens with the Greek-Iatin version of the Metaphysica
in fourteen books. Then follows the De Anima in the older of the two
versions from the Greek.*® Then comes the De Sensu & Sensato, which
1s followed by the De Memoria & Reminiscentia, opening with the words:
Reliquorum autem primum considerandum est de memoria.’’ In the
margins of this work there are five citations of “‘ alia translatio.’? The
first occurs opposite the opening sentence, and reads :—‘‘ Alia translatio.
De memoria & reminiscentia.’’ Since both the text opening with the words
“* Reliquorum autem primum considerandum est,’’ and that which opens
with the following sentence, ‘‘ De memoria et memorari,’”’ are plainly
from the Greek (as may be seen by a comparison with the Greek text),
and the differences, though frequent, are only verbal, we may surely
assume that the latter was a revised edition of the former.“*
We come next to the De Sompno & Vigilia, Ff. 76-81v. In the margins
of this Paris manuscript there are no fewer than nine explicit citations of
“‘ alia translatio’’ of the De Somno.
Text. Marginal Note.

F.76v. Cum autem determinatum sit prius in Alia translatio: quod
aliis de hiis que dicuntur quasi anime particule quidem separatur ab
et de Auribili quod quidem separatur ab aliis aliis in corporibus
in hits que habent corpus. ... habentibus vitam .
F.77, Amplius autem (ex) quibus in cervice Alia translatio: collo.
vene apprehenduntur... .
F.78. Et ideo accidit pluribus principium huius Alia translatio: capiun-
passionis dormientibus et dormientes quidam tur. (Cf. p. 54, note 39).
consumuntur, vigilantes vero non. .
F.78. Ventosum enim vinum ef hoc magis Alia translatio: hoc
autem magis nigrum.
F.78v. Sic est qui in capite pori (sic) et loca Alia translatio: sursum
infrigidantur origi. “ine lata.
F.78v. Solum enim animalium rectum cadendo Alia translatio: desipi-
quidem alterztatem facit. ... entiam.
F.79v. Oportet vero intelligere tamquam Alta translatio : expolia-
attritionem esse aeris tactum et tamquam tionem.
extrusionem et explicationem propter mun- Alia ftranslatio: ablu-
aditiam vero manifesta fit qualiscumque sit tionem.
F.80. Si, eodem modo, movetur quemad- Alta translatio: quemad

modum et a semszbilz, dico autem velut terra modum et sensibill.
videtur
aspictentibus moveri dum movetur visus ab Alia translatio: a navi-
aliquo.... gantibus.
F.8z. Omnino autem et quum _ aliorum Alia translatio : Demonia
animalium sompniant, quidam a deo missa non tum natura enim
sunt sompnia utique. ec facta huius gratia demonia non divina.
divinitus, naturaliter enim haec scientia est non
atvinay 54.6
The writer of these citations, then, had before him a copy of another
version of the De Somno & Vigilia,** which was almost certainly the earlier
version of slightly different form already extant in some of the MSS.“
51
Among the vanished works of Alfredus was a commentary upon the

be
De Senne & Vigilia and the De Morte & Vita." If this work could
interest in connect ion with the earlier Greek-L atin
found it might be of
version of the Parva Naturalia.”
1 See p. 93 et seqq.
2 Pp, 47 et seqq. and cf, note on p. 7, above.
3 Op. cit., p. 168.
4 Paris, Bibl. Nat., Fonds Lat. 6506.
2089; and Venice,
5 Vienna, National Bibliothek, Cod. lat. 2318; Vatican, Vat. lat.
Marciana, Cl. VI, Cod. 37.
‘Thus, in the Vienna codex it occurs in company with Gerard’s versions of the De
Celo et Mundo and the Physica; while in Vat. lat. 2089 we find it together with
Gerard’s version of the De Celo and the Liber Sextus Naturalium, which is here
attributed not to Gundisalvi but to Gerard. In this manuscript the De
Generatione occurs together with the Averroan commentary thereon (see p. 121
et seqq).
7Tt contains a note stating that it belonged (like several other Venetian codices) to
Johannes Marchanova in 1438.
® Cf. p. 38 above.
® See p. 20 above, note 10.
10 The only other author that has been suggested is Michael Scot. Steinschneider
(op. cit., p. 17 (18)) appears to question the attribution of this version to Gerard,
as being based upon an uncertain copy in only one manuscript, namely, that
mentioned by Jourdain (see p. 45 and note 4 above), and to consider Michael
Scot a better candidate for the work (Steinschneider, op. cit., p. 56). He seems,
however, to regard the Arabic-Latin version which we are discussing (which
begins : ‘‘ Oportet nos determinare de esse generationis ’’) as identical with the
commentary of Averroes beginning ‘‘ Intentio nostra in hoe libro est quod oportet
determinare causas universales omnium generatorum et corruptorum.’’ This was
probably the work of Michael Scot, see p. 121-2, below.
11 See p. 40.
12 See also Haskins, op. cit., pp. 61 and 66.
18 See p. 40.
14 See p. 6-7, and elsewhere.
15 See p. 22.
16 Tt has been stated that the first date for Gerard’s work at Toledo is 1134, but there
seems no evidence for the assertion, which is on the face of it improbable. Cf.
Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, p. 13, note, and Uberweg-Geyer, p. 344.
17 Steinschneider, Huropdischen Ubersetzungen, No. 46 (86), queries this date, and
from the wording in the single manuscript which gives it (cf. Haskins, op. cit.,
p. 104 (139)), it is not absolutely certain that the date 1175 belongs to the version
itself rather than to the copy made by the scribe Thaddeus of Hungary. Cf. p. 36,
note 26.
® See p. 48 et seqq.
1° See pp. 12-13 above, et seqq.
7° To be found in a fourteenth-century Paris MS, Bibl. Nat., 16082, F. 44, and else-
where; Grabmann, Lat. Ubersetz, pp. 198-9.
21 The title of the work in the Paris MS attributes the translation to Gerard, and not
to Michael Scot. Cf. p. 122.
22 See p. 122.
7° Grabmann, Lateinische Ubersetzungen, pp. 199 and 264.
52
24 Some other manuscripts in which the words “ Reliquorum autem primum

consider-
andum est de memoria et memorari ’’ occur at the end of the De
Sensu are :—
Escorial f.11.4, Vat. lat. 10542, Vat. Borgh. 309, Vat. Borgh. 127,
Naples
E.VIII.24, etc. In these manuscripts the De Memoria follows, with the Incipit,
‘““ De Memoria autem et memorari dicendum quid est et propter quam causam,"’
1.e. in the later form. In a few manuscripts the words in question are repeated
occuring both at the end of the De Sensu, and again immediately afterwards
at
the beginning of the De Memoria (e.g. Naples VIIIT.E.21). Occasionally also we
get these words at the end of the De. Sensu where the text following is not the
De Memoria (e.g. Vat. lat. 6747).
** The fourteenth century MS F. 146. Sup. of the Ambrosiana at Milan contains
(ff. 31-34) the earlier form of the De Mem. ¢ Rem., and on F. 31 occurs a note to
the effect that this tractate may be considered as part either of the De Anima or
of the De Sensu ¢ Sensato. The note continues :—‘ in quibusdam libris in fine
eiusdem libri (i.e. De Sensu ¢ Sensato) invenitur haec littera: Reliquorum autem
considerandum de memoria et rememorari. Quidam tum dicunt quod non est
tractatus sed ultimum capitulum tertii de anima.’’ Cf. also Pelzer, Une Source
Inconnue de Roger Bacon, (Arch. Francisc. Hist. XIT. 1919), p. 52, note 1.
27 See pp. 6-7, 39 and 40, etc.
28 See pp. 96-7 and pp. 37-8.
29 See p. 40.
3° See p. 26.
51 Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., 178.
52 See p. 59, below.
$3 Cf. note on p. 7, above.
34 It is impossible to say who first applied the term Parva Naturalia to these works.
Aristotle himself never cites them by a general title, but refers always to individual
works. They were regarded by Arabic writers as one work, and almost as a part
of the De Anima. The name Parva Naturalia seems to occur first in the works of
Aegidius Colonna, a pupil of St. Thomas (Cf. Rhein. Museum, Vol. 24, 1869,
p-. 81), but was not used either by Aquinas or by Albertus Magnus.
35 See pp. 46-7 for the alleged ‘‘ Arabic-Latin ’’ version of the De Mem. & Rem.
$6 Cf. =p. 4;
37 Steinschneider, Parva nat. bei den Arabern, 1883, p. 479, states that the Arabians,
having made eight divisions of the Organon by the addition to it of the Rhetorica
and Poetica, divided the natural works in a similar manner into eight parts, for
which purpose it was necessary to consider the De Anima and the Parva Naturalia
as forming one book. The Parva Naturalia as a whole were designated by Arabic
writers by the title of the first work, De Sensu ¢ Sensato.
38 Baeumker, op. cit., p. 41, note 1.
6
39 Similarly, in the case of the De Somno et Vigilia, we have a reference to an “‘ alia
littera,’’ in two marginal glosses in the Vatican codex, Chig.H.VII.238, F. 164.
In each case, however, the alternative reading refers only to one word (“‘ corrum-
puntur '’ for ‘‘ capiuntur ’’ and ‘‘ frigiditas '’ for ‘‘ caliditas ’’), and reference is
probably to another manuscript of the same version.
*° Cf. pp. 46-7 above.
41 See p. 147.
42 Paris, Bibliothéque de l'Université, 568.
43 Cf. pp. 6-7 and 40, above.
44 Cf. pp. 46-7 above.
+5 The marginal citations in this manuscript are particularly clear and are in the same
hand as the text.
53
46 For another piece of evidence, furnished by Roger Bacon, in favour of the existence
at the beginning of the thirteenth century of a Latin version of the Parva
Naturalia, see below, p. 117.
47 Omont, Recherches sur la bibliothéque de l’église cathédrale de Beauvais (Mémoires
de l’Académie des Inscriptions, XL), Paris, 1914, p. 48, No. 145, mentions among
the MSS possessed by this library in the seventeenth century, ‘‘ Alfredus Anglicus
in Aristotelem de mundo et celo, de generatione et corruptione, de anima, de
somno et vigilia, de morte et vita, de colore celi.”’ Of. p. 99, note 24.
48 Uberweg-Geyer, op. cit., p. 247, states that Rudolfus de Longo Campo in his Com-
mentary on Anti Claudian, written about 1216, cites the De Somno & Vigilia,
together with Averroes’ commentary thereon. Daniel of Morlay’s citation of the
De Sensu (c. p. 27, above) more probably goes back to Arabian than Greek sources.
54
IV. THIRTEENTH-CENTURY VERSIONS OF
ARISTOTLE.
(4). BIOLOGICAL WORKS: FROM THE ARABIC.
De Planiis.
The history of the pseudo-Aristotelian De Vegetabilibus et Plantis is
particularly obscure and perplexing. The original Greek text is entirely
lost, and the Arabic version has only recently been discovered. Most
modern opinion follows Meyer’ in attributing the work to Nicolaus of
Damascus (fl. 37—4 B.C.) the peripatetic philosopher who spent most of
his life at the court of King Herod the Great. They find some confirmation
in a few of the Arabic writers (although most of these attributed the work
to Aristotle), and in the Arabic text itself.2 Meyer notes that Hadji-
Halfa (1658A.D.) stated that the De Planiis of Aristotle, in two books,
commented upon by Nicolaus, was translated by Yshaq ibn-Hunain, and
corrected by Thabit ibn-Quorra.* Meyer, followed by most modern
scholars, thinks Hadji-Halfa had before him only a work by Nicolaus,
which he mistakenly attributed to Aristotle. Nevertheless, the Arabic
text bears out the statement that the fundamental work was by Aristotle,
although it was modified in some way by Nicolaus. The titles of the first
and second books in the Arabic run as follows* :—
‘*The book of Aristotle on Plants.’? ‘‘ Tafsir’’ (exposition) of
Niqtiolaois, translation of Ishaq son of Hunain, with corrections of Tabit
son of Qurra. It is in two maqalat. The philosopher Aristotle said:
“Litte-exists , ..”’
Second maqalat of the book on Plants by Aristotle. ‘‘ Tafsir ’’ of
Niquolaois, translation of Ishaq son of Hunain, with corrections by Tabit
son of Qurra. Aristotle said: ‘‘ The plant has three powers. . .’’
Thabit ibn-Qurra (826—go! A.D.) was a member of the great translating
school® of Hunain ibn-Ishaq.
It is evident, then, from the Arabic text that the ninth-century
translators, who were not uncritical, regarded the original work as
Aristotelian, and as having been revised or commented upon by Nicolaus
of Damascus. There are, moreover, various references in the acknowledged
works of Aristotle which speak of a work on plants, either as projected
or as already extant.°
There is in many manuscripts a Latin version made from the Arabic by
Alfredus de Sareshel’ at the end of the twelfth century or the beginning
of the thirteenth, prefaced by a dedication to his friend, Roger of
Hereford. Of the latter we have a Compotus of 1176, and astronomical
tables of 1178. Alfred’s last work, De Motu Cordis, was dedicated to
Alexander of Neckam, who died in 1217. These dates are our only
material for fixing the period of literary activity of Alfredus.*
55
THIRTEENTH-CENTURY VERSIONS
Of Alfred’s authorship of the current mediaeval version of the De Plantis

there is abundant evidence. . Thus, for example, a Naples manuscript of
the De Plantis opens :—‘‘ Translatus est iste liber secundum quosdam a
domino Alfredo de arabico in latinum ad instantiam magistri Rogeri de
Herefordia.’’ And many other instances might be given.’
Alfredus Anglicus, or Alfredus de Sareshel,” is one of the most
interesting writers of the early thirteenth century." There is, however,
‘considerable confusion in the works attributed to him by the earlier
historians, who seem to have identified him with a later writer of the same
name.
Thus, John Boston of Bury (fl. 1410), in his Catalogus Scriptorum
Eccleste, writes :—‘‘ Aluredus Anglicus, et domini Octoboni cardinalis
capellanus commensalis, floruit A.C. . . . et scripsit De Musica, lib. 1.
(P7. Licet mihi inter meditandum . . . Fim. . . . et submissa.) Super
Boettum De Consolatione Philosophiae.’’** John Leland (1506 ?—1552)
again, in his Commentarti de Scriptoribus Britannicis,“ gives the
following list of works by Alfredus Anglicus :—
1. De Motu Cordis.
2. De Educatione Acciptrum (of which he says he had seen a copy).
3. Vegetabilia Aristotelis, ‘‘ doctis illustravit commentariis.’’
John Bale, in a later work,'’* goes at some length into the career of the
second Alfredus Anglicus who is said to have flourished about the year
1270, and, after being in the service of Cardinal Othoboni, was sent to
England as legate by Pope Urban IV to mediate between Henry III and
his barons. To this Alfredus Bale (on the authority of Boston of Bury
and Leland,"*) attributes the following works : —
. De Motu Cordis, lib. i.
. De Musica.
. In Boethium de consolatione, \ibb. v.
. In Aristotelem de vegetabilibus, lib. i.
. In Meteora ejusdem, \ibb. iv.
De educatione acctpitrum, lib. i.
& . De rerum
OWN
N
WN naturis, lib. i.
atque alia nonnulla.’’
Meyer discusses the identity of Alfredus, and comes to the conclusion,
which is probably justified, that there were two Alfreds, the earlier of
about 1180—1217, author of the Latin version of the De Plantis, and the
later of the second half of the thirteenth-century. Which, then, was the
author of the seven works mentioned above?
Jourdain states that items (2), (3) and (6) were entirely unknown to him.
Item (5), he says, was extant in a manuscript of the Bibliothéque du Roi.*®
Here he is mistaken. This manuscript is not the Commentarium in
Meteora of Alfredus, but a treatise by one Alphidius (an Arabic writer,
whose name is also written Asfidous).”
Although no complete copy of Alfred’s Commentary on the Mezeora is
known, there are considerable fragments of it extant in the form of
manuscript glosses and citations in other works.” One chapter of this
commentary (that dealing with Lib. III, Cap. 2, of the original on
the
Yris) was used extensively by Roger Bacon, who refers to Alfredus as
56
De Plantis
‘‘ The commentator.’’** It seems probable, therefore, that Bacon only knew

the work in an anonymous copy of this one chapter.
There are, moreover, a number of manuscripts which contain these
citations and a few others from this missing commentary. It is note-
worthy that the same five or six citations are almost always given. Some
of these are of considerable length, which suggests that the commentary
may have been known only as extracts in other writings.”
Of the remaining works attributed to Alfredus, Jourdain suggests that
item (7), De Naturts Rerum, is identical with a treatise De Proprietatibus
Elementorum which appears frequently in the mediaeval codices of Aris-
totelian works. This, however, 1s an error. The common De
Proprietatibus Elementorum was a pseudo-Aristotelian work translated
from the Arabic by Gerard.”* It is more probable that the De Naturis
Rerum attributed to Alfred is a series of commentaries by him on the
natural works, which are mentioned as being in the library of Beauvais
Cathedral as late as the seventeenth century.”
With regard now to the missing items (2), (3) and (6) of Bale’s list
(see p. 56 above).
The De Musica, of which Bale had seen a copy, and which opened with
the words ‘‘ Licet mihi inter meditandum,’’ is not now extant.** It may
be tentatively ascribed to the later Alfredus, the papal legate of 1270.
The In Boetzum de consolatione is almost certainly a confusion for the
translation of this work of. Boethius into Anglo-Saxon by King Alfred,
who is also frequently called ‘‘ Alfredus Anglicus.’’ The recognised
works of Alfred de Sareshel show no interest in subjects of moral or more
strictly ‘‘ philosophical ’’ content, all his known works being of a physical
or biological character. A confusion, moreover, between King Alfred and
the later ‘‘ Alfredus Anglicus ’’ was made as late as the eighteenth century
by Schneider.”
The De Educatione accipitrum is also no longer extant, and it is possible
that the attribution of a work on this subject to Alfredus is again a
confusion for a work of King Alfred. Thus, the catalogue of the Harleian
manuscripts of the British Museum,”’ in connection with an old French
poem on the keeping of birds used in falconry, states that the author says
he took his matter from the book of King Edward of England. The
catalogue remarks :—‘‘ Perhaps he might mean King Alfred, who wrote a
book De Accipitribus, which, I believe, is now lost.”’
Of the seven works attributed to Alfredus de Sareshel (see p. 56), it is
thus probable that three at least were the work of other authors. Thus
we have :—
(a) ORIGINAL WORKS.
1. Ix Boetium de Consolatione Philosophiae, a confusion with the Anglo-
Saxon version of this work by King Alfred the Great?
2. In Metheora Aristotelis, by Alfredus of Sareshel, but only now extant
in fragmentary citations. ;
3. In eundem de Vegetabilibus, by Alfredus de Sareshel and extant in
manuscript form, though never printed. 3
4. De Naturis Rerum, perhaps the series of commentaries on the natural
works by Alfredus de Sareshel which was in the Beauvais library in
the seventeenth century, but which has now disappeared.
57
5. De Musica, not now known. Was it the work of the later Alfredus,
the papal legate of 1270?
6. De Motu Cordis, by Alfredus de Sareshel, composed probably between
1210 and 1215, and extant in various manuscripts. Portions of this
work have been published by Barach.”* ,
7. De Educatione accipitrum. Unknown. Possibly the work of King
Alfred or of the later Alfredus, papal legate of 1270.
(b) VERSIONS.
In addition to the three certainly genuine original works of Alfredus de
Sareshel (2, 3 and 6), there are also his versions from the Arabic of the
De Plantis and of the three chapters appended in the older version to the
fourth book of the Meteora.
These three capitula, which begin with the words ‘‘ Terra pura lapis
non fit... ,’’ are an extract from the Kitab-as-Sifa,”? of Avicenna, as
was usually recognised in the manuscripts. Thus, in Madrid, Bibl.
Nacional 1428, F.171,°° at the end of the Meteora is a note:—“‘ Istius
libri ut dicitur tres libros transtulit magister gerardus, magnus filosofus
de arabico in latinum. Quartum vero transtulit Henricus Aristippus de
greco in latinum. Tria ultima c*pitula transtulit Alfredus de arabico in
Jatinum. Dicitur a quibusdam quod tria ultima capitula sunt composita
ab avicenna et maxime dicitur hoc de ultimo capitulo, quod incipit ibi:
“corpora mineralia,’ in quibus dicuntur multa contraria superius
determinatis in hoc libro.’’™
What, now, can be definitely stated as to the dates of these works of

Alfredus? For his life we have two facts only of a chronological order,
namely his dedication of his version of the De Plantis to Roger of
Hereford (a writer for whose work we have the two dates 1176 and 1178°*7);
and his dedication of his De Motu Cordis to Alexander of Neckam who
died in 1217. From its displaying a more extensive knowledge of the
‘new Aristotle’? than the other words, we assume that the De Motu
Cordis was Alfred’s last work. It must be later than the version of the
De Vegetabilibus, which it cites.**
From the facts at our disposal, then, we may suggest the following
order for the works of Alfredus de Sareshel:—Version of the Liber de
Congelatis, or appendage to the Meteora; Commentary on the Meteora,
Version of the De Plantis; Commentary on the De Plantis; De Motu
Cordis; of which the last work is not later than 1217. Writings on
mathematical, astronomical and physical subjects usually preceded
biological works in point of time, in the output of individual writers as
well as in the order of transmission of Greek and Arabic science as a
whole. Alfred, moreover, was something of a pioneer, if not in the
translation at least in the diffusion of the biological works of Aristotle,
and it seems probable that his first efforts would be in the more familiar
field of astronomy and physics and that the biological writings and
versions were the works of his maturer years. Moreover, the Lzber de
Congelatis at least was certainly prior to the commentary on the De
Vegetabilibus. Roger, as we have seen,** was a comparatively young
man in 1176. How long he lived we have no means of saying,** but it
was probably towards the end of his life that Alfredus dedicated to him
58
De Plantis
the version of the De Plantis. The whole tone of the dedication suggests
that Roger is a man of mature age, already familiar with the available
Aristotelian and other philosophical works. Cf. also the remarks of
Petrus de Alvernia in his commentary on the De Plantis (p. 66 below).
All, therefore, that we can say of the date of this version is that it must
have been made about the year 1200 or soon after. The commentary on
it belongs probably to the period to which the De Motu Cordis has to be
assigned (1210—5). It can hardly be earlier than this, since it cites the
De Animalibus.**
With regard to the place of translation of the De Plantis, there is
evidence that this was Spain, and not improbably Toledo. Roger Bacon,
in one of his complaints of the inadequacy of the extant versions of
Aristotle, says :—
‘“* Atque, quod vile est, propter ignorantiam (of the translators) linguae
Latinae posuerunt Hispanicum, et alias linguas maternas, quasi infinities
pro Latino. Nam, pro mille millibus exemplis unum ponatur de lib7o
Vegetabilium Aristotelis, ubi dicit ‘ Belenum in Perside pernitiosissimum
transplantatum Jerusalem fit comestibile.’ (Lib. I, cap. XVII, Meyer,
op. cit., 23-4). Hoc vocabulum non est scientiale sed laicorum
Hispanorum. Nam jusquiamus, vel semen cassilaginis, est ejus nomen in
Latino; quod sicut multa alia prius ab Hispanis scholaribus meis derisus
cum non intelligebam quae legebam, ipsis vocabula linguae maternae
scientibus, tandem didici ab eisdem.’’*”
Moreover, ** in his version of the De Congelatis, Alfredus uses a word
from the Spanish vernacular (a7vvova for a measure of weight), and his
sources generally are such as to suggest at least a period of travel in Spain.
This version of Alfredus Anglicus begins as follows :—Prol. Inc.: Tria,
ut ait Empedocles, in tota rerum varietate praecipua excellentissimum
divine munificentie donum, philosophiam, extollunt magnifice, mobilis
affluencie contemptus, futurae felicitatisque appetitus, mentis illustratio.
Que ego considerans et cum tante excellentie parvitatis mee michi
concius nichil proprium adiciendum scribere presumerem, quod tum non
infirmorum parvulam essentialem tum philosophiae particulam, librum
scilicet Aristotelis de vegetabilibus ex arabico in latinum transferrens in
nostri ydiomatis angustias quantulacumque adiectione ampliavi. Tuibique
hoc opus, dilectissime mi ‘R’ (Rogere in some MSS.), velut maturos
baco rectissime palmites, vel ramos vel aureos cereri culmos ne im quo
boetio discentiam, rectissime devovi. . . .
Prol. Exfl.: . . . ex tam hoc fluido loquendi genere quidem apud
arabes est, expressa sit attencius scilicet (si libet in some MSS.) inspicias.
Op. Inc: Vita in animalibus et plantis inventa est; in animalibus est
manifesta et apparens, in plantis vero occulta non evidens. Ad huius
assertionem igitur multam necesse est inquisitionem pretentere. .
Lib. Il. Inc: Planta tres habet vires, primam ex generatione (in most
MSS. genere) terre, secundum ex generatione aque, tertiam ex
generatione ignis... .
Op. Expl: ... deinceps vero ascendit calor naturans sursum et adiuvabit
eum calor solis extrinsecus; vincit ergo calor et siccitas et erit fructus
amarus. Explicit liber plantarum.*?
59
This Arabic-Latin version of Alfredus de Sareshel appears in a large

number of manuscripts of the natural works and there are a few
commentaries on it extant. It was the only form in which the De Plantis
was known to the Latins throughou t the Middle Ages (with the exception
of Roger Bacon who seems to have known a second version which we shall
discuss below). At a later date the De Plantis was translated into Greek
by an unknown author,‘ identified with Maximus Planudes (1260—1310)
(cf. p. 15), by Hermolaus Barbarus (1454—1495), who says:—‘‘ Haec
commentatio Graecis perierat; habebatur in Arabico; demum conversa est
in Graecum sermonem a quodam, ut ferunt, Maximo.’’** Scaliger also
expressed the same opinion.*? This Greek version has in some editions a
preface which discusses at some length the vicissitudes through which the
work has passed. After describing how the work was translated into
Latin and Arabic, but had entirely disappeared in the original Greek
(‘‘ apud nos,’’ the writer being a Greek), it goes on:—‘‘ At vir quidam
natione Celta, sed ad tantum Italorum sapientiae gradum pervectus, ut
inter primates nemini cederet, deinde exiguum hoc, etiamsi tanta sit
res, apud sese reputans, nisi Arabum quoque scientiae una cum Latinis
fieret particeps, pulcherrimasque facultates excoleret, totus negotio
incumbit, consiliumque ad finem usque persequi ac quovis modo voti
compos fieri decernit.’’ The reference here is presumably to one of the
two Arabic-Latin versions. The writer later describes how he has
translated the work into Greek, in the following terms :—‘‘ Idcirco igitur,
necnon adjuvante deo, opus perfeci atque in publicum proposui librum
omnibus eo perfrui cupientibus, multamque inveni difficultatem atque
nominum confusionem propter frequentes translationum vices, e nostra
lingua (i.e. Greek) in Italicam, inde in Arabicam, ex Arabico rursus in
Italam, ac postremo ex hac in nostram.’’
From this anonymous Greek version was made the Renaissance Latin
version, whose author is unknown, but which appeared in all the editions
of Aristotle which printed the De Plantis (with the exception of one at
Venice in 1482 and that of Gregorius de Gregoriis, which, as we have
said, printed the version of Alfredus), until Meyer’s edition of Alfred’s
version in 1841.
This Latin text opens with the words :—‘‘ Vita et in animalibus et in
plantis esse deprehensa est, in animalibus quidem patens, et manifesta: in
plantis vero occultior, nec adeo evidens. Ad huiusce igitur confirma-
tionem, multam inquisitionem praecessisse est necesse. Neque enim
constat, habeantne plantae animam. . . Anaxagoras itaque, et Empedocles
desiderio eas duci aiunt... .”’
By a comparison with the version of Alfredus and with the Renaissance
Greek text, it is evident that this later Latin version printed in the
Renaissance editions of Aristotle is a fairly faithful rendering of the Greek
which was itself made from an earlier Latin version. The Renaissance
Latin version may be found, among other editions, in the complete works
of Aristotle printed at Basle in 1542, in the Junta editions of the
Aristotelian works together with the Averroan commentaries printed at
Venice in 1550 and in 1562, and in the Aristotelis stagiritae . . . Opera,
in four volumes, printed at Leyden in 1579.
60
De Plantis
One other Renaissance version of the De Plantis may be mentioned

here, namely that produced in 1543 at Cologne by a certain ‘‘ Andrea a
Lacuna, Secobiensi, Philiatro, Interprete Coloniae,’’ as he styles himself
on the title-page of his work.** This also was a translation into Latin
from the Greek attributed to Maximus Planudes. The text is as follows:
Inc: Vita frui tum animalia, tum plantas, sed animalia quidem
manifeste et perspicue, obscure autem atque occulte ipsas plantas, com-
pertum est. Ad cuius sane rei confirmationem et fidem necessarium fuerit
impraessentiarum inquisitionem magnam praecedere, quae nimirum est
talis. An videlicet plantae fortiantur animam . . . Anaxagoras igitur et
Empedocles plantas desyderio moveri aiunt, ....
Lib. I. Expl:.. . . et quo pacto nonnulli quidem Venerem moueant,

nonnulli autem somnum concilient, nonnulli veri dissoluant atque
corrumpant animal, necnon quo pacto alii fructus lac gignant, alii
nequaquam, atque alias differentias complures.
Lib. II. Inc: Arbos autem habet treis facultates; primam enim ex
terrae, secundam ex aquae, tertiam. ex ignis genere propagatam. .. .
Op. Expl: . . . Hine rursus ascendit quaedam naturalis caliditas, ad

superna cui quidem auxiliatur solis calor extrinsecus, necnon caliditas et
siccitas dominatur, ac sic demum amarulenti reddentur fructus.
To return now to the mediaeval Latin versions. Although the version

of Alfredus is the only one now extant, and the version used by all the
scholastic writers with one exception, yet there is evidence of the existence
of another version whose author and language of origin are unknown.
In a MS. at Amiens, of the early fourteenth century,‘* is a series of
‘* Questiones naturales ’? by Roger Bacon on various of the natural works
of Aristotle. Among these are the Questiones supra librum de Plantis
a magistro Rogero Baccon (Fo. 57). I am indebted to Mr. R. R. Steele
for a transcript of this work, which is of great importance as establishing
the existence of a second, and hitherto untraced, version of the De
Planiis.*°
The works opens with the title: Incipiunt questiones super librum de
plantis a magistro Rogero Bacco. These ‘‘ questiones ’’ begin as follows:
‘“« Tria ut ait Empedocles in tota rerum varietate praecipue etc. (1.e. the
opening words of Alfred’s dedication).** Supposito quod hec sciencia de
corpore mobili animato composito anima vegetativa, ut planum est.
Primo dubitatur de hiis que dicuntur in prologo. . . .”’
On Fol. 6ov (in the passage dealing with Lib. I, cap. vi) occurs a
specific reference to an ‘‘ alia translatio’’ in the following terms :—
‘‘ Queritur de cortice utrum sit simplex vel composita. (Quod simplex
videtur; quia istud dicit Aristoteles z li¢era. Item: hoc patet per
rationem, quia illa pars dicitur simplex que habet eandem formam in
qualibet parte; set cortex est hujusmodi, quare etc. Contra: 7 alia
61
translatione dicit quod est composita, et per rationem patet, quia partes
plante nutriuntur sicut alie; set vena est de compositione corticis et
similiter nodus, quare est pars et homogenea. Solutio: dico quod cortex
est pars simplex quia non componitur ex partibus etherogeneis, non tamen
est simpliciter simplex. Ad aliam translationem dicimus, quod
compositio multipliciter; aut ex elementis, aut ex humoribus, aut tertio
modo ut potuit; dico quod partes tertio modo sunt maxime composite ut
. ramus et stirpes, partes alie ut cortex et vene et nodi dicuntur isto tertio
modo simplices, unde sic cortex est pars simplex, et sic sumitur z”
translatione nostra; quando dicit quod est composita iz alia translatione,
quia ille vene sunt capillares minutissime, et illud quod interjacet est
cortex, sicut in cute et carne animalis.
Queritur postea de ligno, utrum sit pars simplex vel composita; quod
sit simplex patet per literam, per aliam translationem,; et hoc patet, quia
lignum proportionatur carni in animalibus; set caro est pars simplex in
animali, ergo, etc. Contra: nodi sunt colligatio partium et ligamenta,
ut dicit in litera; sed lignum est compositum ex nodis, ergo sunt ibi
diverse partes colligate per nodos, quare est compositum.”’
We have here several specific references to an ‘‘ alia translatio ’’ whose
reading is compared with that of ‘‘translatio nostra.’’ This actual
cOmparison of the two texts, however, only occurs in connection with
one word, the ‘‘translatio nostra’’ reading ‘‘ simplex’’ where the
‘“translatio alia’’ reads ‘‘ composita.’? Roger here is attempting to
reconcile the statement of his ‘‘ translatio nostra,’’ that ‘‘ cortex est pars
simplex,’’ with that of the ‘‘ translatio alia,’’ that it is ‘‘ composita.’’
But if we compare with this passage of Roger’s the parallel passage in
the text of Alfredus, we find that Alfredus agrees with Roger’s ‘‘ alia
translatio ’’ in stating that the ‘‘ cortex ’’ is ‘‘ pars composita.’’ Thus,
we have :—
‘* Et partes arboris simplices sunt, ut humor inventus in ea, et nodi et
vene; et quaedam partes sunt compositae ex his, ut rami et virgae et
similia.”? (Lib. I, cap. viii.)*”
‘““Et quaelibet partium plantae compositae sunt similes membris
animalis, guza cortex plantae similis est cuti animalis.’’ (Lib. I, cap. ix).
And throughout this commentary of Roger we find citations of
‘* litera,’ ‘‘ dicit Aristoteles ’’ and similar expressions, which seem to
differ in expression in every case from the version of Alfredus. We will
give some samples of this difference, which although only verbal, is
nevertheless considerable in some cases.
Roger’s citations. Meyers edition of
text of Alfredus.
quia dicit zz litera Lib. I, cap. xi. et ideo vocant eam
radix est causa vite in (p. 17). Graeci radicem et cau-
planta et adducit ei sam vitae plantarum,
Vitam! os quia ipsa causam vitae
plantis adducit.
62
De Plantis
Roger’s citations. Meyers edition of

text of Alfredus.
quedam sunt plante Bibel cap. Xu. Sunt autem herbae
que non habent stipi- (p. 18). quae non habent stip-
dem set sclum ramos item, sed folia ex sua
et folia, ut dicit zx radice.
litera.
Plantarum alia est Dib."t, cap. X11. Plantarum quaedam
arbor alia herba, quam (pp. 17-18). sunt arbores, quaedam
ponit Aristoteles 72” inter arbores et herbas
litera. . et quaedam sunt
herbae, et quaedam
sunt olera.
Plantarum alia domes- 9) a, 9 xiiis Plantarum quaedam

tica, alia _hortensis, (p. IQ). est domestica, quae-
alia silvestris. dam _ hortensis quae-
dam silvestris,
quia, exclusa cultura, Puto quoque quod
(p.
a” a”
omnis planta silvestris, rr). omnes species plantae,

ut dicit 2” litera. quae non fuerint cul-
tae, silvestrescunt.
Queritur de hoc verbo a” a)» ill. Natura tamen animalis
Avistotelis, natura ani- (p. 7): vitam in morte cor-
malis corrumpit animal rumpens ipsam in
in morte, et continue ‘genero suo conservat.
operatur ad corruption-
em animalis.
Avistoteles dicit in Iv. Et proprie eget animal
litera quod omnia que
cibantur cibantur ex
(p. 9). cibo humido et cibo
SICCO.
sicco et humido.
quia dicit in litera a” ” a”D
Sed planta non est de
quod habet animam (p. 8-9). his quae carent anima,
imperfectam, et iterum quia in illa est aliqua
operatio nature est pars anime .. . et
imperfecta in ipsa omne animal habet
respectu animalis, ut animam, sed _ planta
dicit 27 litera. est res imperfecta. . .
Queritur de illa parte, ” Vill. Quaedam arbores hab-
* Quedam arbores pro- (p. 13); ent gummi, ut resinam
ducunt gummi etsi et gummi amigdali. .
resinam etc.’
‘ Arborum autem aro- Arborum aromatic-
maticarum etc.’ (i.e. a (p. 22). arum quarundam.. .
citation from text).
63
We may note also that the citation already given (see p. 59), from the
of
Opus Majus, Pars Tertia, does not tally exactly with the version
Altredus.
| Alfredus’ Version, Lib. I, cap.
Opus Majus, Pars Tert.
“de libro vegetabilium Aristotelis, xVI1.
ubi dicit ‘ Belenum in Perside (Meyer’s edition, pp. 23-4).
pernitiosissimum transplantum Belenum _quoque _perniciosum
Jerusalem fit comestibile.’ ”’ natum in Persia transmutatur et
transplantatum in Aegyptum et in
Syriam factum est comestibile.
(Many of the MSS. omit the
‘‘transmutatur ’’? here, and read
‘‘ Jerusalem ’’ for ‘‘ Syriam.’’
Thus Ambrosiana, C. 148, Inf.
reads :—‘‘ Boletum (sic) quoque,
perniciosum natum in Persia,
transplantatum in egiptum et ier-
husalem factum est comestibile.”’
There are many other citations similar to the above which might be
given, some of which show an even more striking divergence from Alfred’s
text, but those we have chosen suffice to show that in no case does the
quotation tally exactly with the text of Alfredus.
In the passages where Roger explicitly cites a ‘‘ translatio nostra ’’ and
a ‘‘ translatio alia,’’ it is the latter which agrees with Alfredus. This
fact, supported by the differences existing in every case between Roger’s
citations of the “‘ litera’’ and the extant text of Alfredus, leads us to
suppose that Roger’s ‘‘ alia translatio’’ is the version of Alfredus de
Sareshel, and that his ‘‘ translatio nostra’’ has disappeared. An
interesting point is that in the first chapter of the work, where Alfred’s
version cites Anaxagoras and ‘‘ Abrucalis,’’ Roger, like the Renaissance
Latin version, reads ‘‘ Empedocles ’’ for the latter name. Albertus,**
who used the text of Alfredus, said that for ‘‘ Abrucalis ’’ should be
substituted ‘‘ Pythagoras,’’ nor do I know of any other mediaeval author
making the substitution favoured by Roger and the Renaissance text.*®
Is it possible that ‘‘ Empedocles ’’ was the reading in the lost ‘‘ nostra
translatio ’’ of Roger, and that the Greek and later Latin version were
based upon this, and not upon the version of Alfredus? Who then was
the ‘‘ vir quidam natione Celta ’’ who is spoken of in the preface to the
Greek version as the translator from the Arabic? (See above, p. 60).
Against the theory that Roger was using the missing version, however,
is the fact that the commentary seems to be based upon Alfred’s version
and opens with the first words of his prologue dedicating the work to
Roger of Hereford, and with the usual Incipit.*° It seems possible that
Roger himself confused the two. Where, then, is this second version, and
is there any other trace of its existence ?*
The De Plantis is extant in a large number of manuscripts’? of the
thirteenth and subsequent centuries. The manuscript version is in every
case that of Alfredus. Moreover, in the extant commentaries on the
De Plantis, and citations from that work in the writings of other
mediaevals, there is no trace whatever of any knowledge of any other
version.
64
De Planiis
I have been able to find only one exception to this rule, in a Paris
manuscript, Bibliotheque Nationale, Fonds Latins 478. This manuscript
is attributed by the catalogue partly to the fourteenth and partly to
the fifteenth centuries, but Item 3 in the manuscript, the De Causis
Proprietatum Elementorum, is dated 1286 by the scribe. ‘‘ Et hic
terminatur opus istud anno ab incarnatione domini m°cc° octogesimo
sexto, mense septembris, concedente divino, Domino gratias.’? This
item is in the same hand as the preceding and the two following works,
namely the De Plantis, and the De Inundatione Nili and De Bona
Fortuna. We may take it then that the copy of the De Plantis in this
manuscript belongs to the late thirteenth century. It is the version of
Alfredus de Sareshel, with the title: ‘‘ Liber Aristotelis de Vegetabilibus
et Plantis translatus ab arabico in latinum a magistro aluredo de Sareshel.
Prologus euisdem ad magistrum, R. de h‘eford.’’’ Then follows the
usual dedicatory preface of Alfredus, followed by the text. But at the
end of the work we find :—‘‘ Explicit liber secundus et per consequens
totus aristotelis de vegetabilibus et plantis de nova translatione magistri
aluredi de sareshel anglict. Finito libro reddatur gloria Christo.’? Here
we have the version of Alfredus styled ‘‘ nova translatio,’? with the
consequent implication that there was an earlier version.** This is the
sole confirmation that I have been able to find of the existence of Roger’s
second version.**
One possible source of confusion on the matter has been noted by
Jourdain.** Bartholomaeus Anglicus® attributed the translation of the
De Plantis to Albertus Magnus, being misled by a passage in Albertus’
De Vegetabilibus. In chapter ix of the first book of this work,
complaining of the obscurity of Alfredus’ version,*’ Albertus expresses
himself as follows :—
‘‘ Omnia autem que a principio libri huius dicta sunt satis obscura
videntur esse, praeter ea sola que in primo capitulo ex nostra scientia
tradimus. Hanc autem obscuritatem accidisse arbitror ex vitio
transferentium librum Aristotelis de plantis, ¢uzus ego sum interpres et
translator in capitulis inducitis.’’
By this ambiguous expression Albertus of course means to convey that
he had expounded and commented upon not translated, the De Planiis.
Another false hare started on this question of the authorship of the
versions of the De Plantis is discussed by Meyer. Pliier,*’ in his
catalogue of the Escorial manuscripts, mentions “‘ Aristotelis liber de
animalibus et vegetabilibus, per Michaelem Scotum traductus.’’ I have
examined this manuscript, which is Escorial f. III. 22., and, as Meyer
conjectured, the title given by Pliier is due to a confusion from the
inclusion of Alfredus’ version of the De Plantis in the same manuscript
as the De Animalibus of Michael Scot.
The first commentary written on the De Plantis was that of Alfredus
himself, written probably between 1210 and 1215.°° If, as we shall show
below,” there is reason to suppose that Alfredus used in this commentary
the Arabic-Latin version of the De Animalibus by Michael Scot, it can
hardly have been composed earlier than 1210. Moreover, the number
of Aristotelian natural works utilized by Alfredus in this commentary,
65
a number only exceeded in his De Motu Cordis, suggests that the

commentary on the De Plantis belongs to the last period of Alfred’s
literary activity. There is no work known to have been composed at
this date which shows so wide an acquaintance with the biological and
natural works. On the other hand,” it is probable that this commentary
was composed before the De Motu Cordis, which seems to have been the
last of the extant works of Alfredus. The De Motu Cordis is certainly
later than the version of the De Plantis, which it cites, and its wider use
of Aristotelian and other works makes it natural to suppose that it is also
subsequent to the commentary on that work.
Alfredus’ commentary exists in several manuscripts, although never
printed. We will give here the opening passage :"*
Tit: Commentum aluredi super librum aristotelis de vegetabilibus.
Inc: Vita in animalibus et plantis, etc. Inferioris mundi corporum
quatuor sunt prima genera, confusa, congelata, plante, animalia. Sunt
autem confusa que sola mixtione ab elementari extremitate distorta
elementorum quam proprie servant vestigia ut que vulgus dicit elementa.
Congelata vero sunt que generationem alimentumque tantum recipiunt
crementum vero et sensum repudiant. Sunt enim substantia, corpora,
inanimata, terminata, planta que radice fulta generacionem suscipit et
crementum. Est enim substantia animata insensibilis. Animal vero est
substantia generatione crementum, sensumque suscipiens. . .”’
The work ends on F.394v of the manuscript :—
Ex~l: . .. Unde sit ponticus sapor postea augmentata constrictione
augmentatur frigiditas et siccitas in fructu, unde et intensior ponticitas.
Ad ultimum vero, convalescente calore naturali ex opilatione pororum,
tandem vehementer perumpit poros, aperit et calore exteriori adiutus
vehementer agit in fructum, eum decoquendo et calorem et siccitatem
inducendo. Unde fit amarus.
Another commentary on the version of Alfredus of which several
manuscript copies exist but which has also never been printed is that of
Petrus de Alvernia (d.1304), a disciple of St. Thomas in the theological
faculty at Paris.“* The prologue to this commentary® is particularly
interesting for the information it affords as to Petrus’ views on the
authorship of the De Plantis and some other matters, and as it has never
been printed, we will give some portions herewith.
F.204. Oportet autem intellectus discipline amatorem prudentissime
principalem naturae causam non . . . Verba sunt platonis in thymeo,*
quibus descendem in philosophia praecipue naturali efficaciter instruentis
Manifestum est igitur quod non sufficit scire res in communi sed
oportet descendere ad particularia . . . Sed oportet scire in particulari
de omnibus mixtis, tam viventibus sicut de animalibus et plantis, quam
non viventibus sicut de mineralibus et impressionibus in aere factis, et de
aliis hujusmodi, de quibus sunt libri particulares. Unde hujusmodi
libri sunt particulares docentes scientiam rerum naturalium in particulari,
ut contingit, philosophus quidem Aristoteles, cum sufficienter tradiderit
scientiam rerum naturalium in communi, non omnino tradidit eam in
speciali, quia de mineralibus non tractavit, nisi valde modice in fine
terti1 metheororum, librum etiam de plantis non edidit, sed cum mortuus
66
De Plantis
fuisset habuit duos discipulos sibi volentes in regimine succedere, quorum

unus vocabatur Theofrastus, alius Philemon. Sed ab aliis theofrastus
fuit in magistrum proelectus. Iste theofrastus defectum magistri sui,
Aristotelis, complevit, guum librum de plantis composuit. Apparet igitur
ex titulo hujus libri de plantis repetendus quis est materialis causa vel
subjectum, et quis causa efficiens. Sed forma et finis est similis fini et
forme aliorum librorum naturalium. Hiis praenotatis ad _literam
exponendam sit accessus.
Tria ut ait empedocles. Mos fuit usitatus apud quosdam antiquorum
translatorum ut cum librum aliquem transferebant prologuin quemdam
proponebant . . . sicut patet de Calcidio in Thimeo et de Boecio
in arismetica.
F. 204v. Similiter aluaredus volens hunc librum transferre premisit
prologum, et ideo patet liber iste dividi in duas partes . . . nichil addidit
super librum Aristotelis de vegetabilibus quem transtulit de arabico in
latinum nisi quod ipse addidit paucas additiones ut ampliaret angustias
nostri ydyomatis, et addidit quaedam ne esset nimis breve in ydyomate
latino. . . . Notandum quod _ dicit librum Aristotelis non quia
Aristoteles fecerit sed quia ab Aristotele fuerit sumptus cum eius discipulus
ipsum fecerit, vel theofrastus dicitur Aristoteles junior, sicut Plato dictus
est saepe ab Aristotele Socrates junior.
Demum dicit cuz hoc opus. Hic ostendit quia et propter quem hoc opus
incepit dicens quod pro quodam dilectissimo amico suo, qui vocabatur
rogerus puer de heborbia®’ cui devovit hoc opus. Licet ille sit abundans
in philosophia, in studio et ingenio, sed loquendo metaphorice dicit quod
ipse est sicut ille qui mittit uvas bacco maturas, vel ramos aureos cerel
. . . nisi cum magno sudore potuit hoc facere. In hoc finitur prologus
Aluaredi.
Vita in animalibus et plantis et cetera. Finito prologo translatoris,
sequitur processus auctoris. .. .
It will be seen that Petrus de Alvernia, like Aquinas, held that the
De Plantis was in reality the work not of Aristotle but of his disciple
Theophrastus.*?
It is noteworthy, too, that in the last lines of the prologue Petrus refers
to Roger of Hereford as ‘‘ abundans in philosophia, in studio et ingenio,’’
and to the comparative inexperience of Alfredus. This confirms what we
have already gathered from Alfredus’s prologue to his version (cf. p. 58-9
above), that Roger was of mature years at the date when this version
‘was made.
By far the most important mediaeval commentaries on the De Planiis,
however, were two which appeared about the middle of the thirteenth
century, namely those of Albertus Magnus and Vincent de Beauvais.
These two great encyclopaedists were familiar with almost the whole
cycle of the Aristotelian natural works in the earlier form. Vincent’s
Speculum was divided into four parts, of which the first was the Speculum
Naturale.” He tells us himself that this was completed in 1250. The
Speculum Naturale contains a number of lengthy citations of the De
Plantis, especially in the ninth book. The citations of the De Plantzs
are not sufficiently exact for us to be able to say with certainty from which
67
version Vincent was quoting. It is probable, however, that he was using,

the version of Alfredus, since in the Speculum doctrinale (lib. V. cap. 128)
he quotes the preface in which Alfredus dedicated his version to Roger.
Opinions differ among scholars as to the date of the De Vegetabilibus
in seven books of Albertus Magnus, but it seems. on the whole probable
that it belongs to the decade 1260—1270." In this work, as in that of
Vincent, and indeed often in mediaeval commentators, the citations are
‘ of the substance rather than of the letter of the text, so that it is not
easy to determine with certainty the version used. Jourdain” and others”™
are convinced that it was on the version of Alfredus that Albertus was
working, and this seems on the whole probable. But none of his quota-
tions” are sufficiently definite to enable us to state quite certainly that
he was not using the missing second version known to Roger Bacon, of
which we have spoken above. It is, however, plain that Albert’s version
was derived from the Arabic.”
We have already mentioned the commentary of Roger Bacon on the
De Plantis, in which he gives evidence of a knowledge of another version
besides that of Alfredus de Sareshel.”*
One or two other mediaeval commentaries or fragments of commentaries
on the De Plantis may be noted here, as this was probably the least
studied of the biological works during the mediaeval period.”
In a fifteenth-century Venice manuscript” is to be found a series of
paraphrase-commentaries on a number of the Aristotelian natural works
and the Metaphysica. Among these is the De Plantis (Ff. 95v-100).
These works are all of them in the nature of a fairly close paraphrase of
the Aristotelian text, and in the case of the De Plantis the version used
is pretty clearly that of Alfredus. It begins as follows :—
De Vegetabilibus et Plantis. Inc: Vita in animalibus et in plantis
communiter est inventa. Sed in animalibus manifesta quia sentiunt et
moventur. In plantis, in contrarium, est occulta, quia solum vegetantur
et fructificant et augentur . . . The second book opens on F.97, with
the words: ‘‘ Plante tres habent vires, primo habent soliditatem ex natura
terre,’’ and closes on F.100 with the words:—‘‘. . . propter quod
ipsorum sapor sit ultimo stirpitus et amarus.”’
The author of all the paraphrases in this manuscript is stated on F.1.
to be. a certain Joannes Cronisbenus (or Corisbenus as he appears in
Quetif and Echard). The title on F.1 runs as follows:—‘ Incipit
philosophia fratris Joannis Cronisbeni, ordinis fratrum predicatorum,
cum metaphysica.’? Of this Joannes Cronisbenus nothing is known,”
not even the date at which he wrote. Quetif and Echard* refer the
reader to Tomasini’s Bibliothecae Patavinae Manuscriptae etc." for a
‘“ Physica et Metaphysica Johannis Corisbeni, Ordinis fratrum Praedica-
torum,’’ which was doubtless the same series of works as we have in
the Venice manuscript. Neither Tomasini, however, nor Quetif and
Echard, have anything to tell us of the personality of the writer.
Another commentary on the De Plantis, this time by an author of the
late thirteenth or early fourteenth century, is to be found in two Bodleian
manuscripts, Tanner 116 and Digby 17. The first of these manuscripts
contains, besides other works, a number of commentaries on the
68
De Pig
Aristotelian or pseudo-Aristotelian natural works, whichthe (with

exception of that on the De Differentia Spiritus et Anime,
which
perhaps the work of Albertus Magnus) are ascribed both in a later noteis
on the flyleaf of the manuscript and in the Catalogue to Simon de
F ey On F.88 begins the tractate on the De Plantis, with the
words :—
“Vita in animalibus et plantis inventa est. Capitulum primum. Et
primo ponit sententiam opiniantium plantas esse animalium quedam, ut
anaxagore dicentis eas tristari . . .”’ It is obviously based on the version
of Alfredus, a sentence from which occurs at the beginning of each chapter
of the text. Another copy of the same commentary is found in Digby 17,
also of the thirteenth or fourteenth century. It occurs here in company
with the same commentary on the De Differentia Spiritus et Anime as we
found in Tanner 116 (see above). This commentary on the De Plantis is
prepeden by a portion of Alfredus’ dedicatory preface to Roger of
ereford. Simon of Faversham, the author of this treatise on the
De Plantis, was the author of a number of philosophical works, some of
them commentaries on Aristotle, who wrote during the last years of the
thirteenth and the first of the fourteenth centuries. The first date we have
for him is 1289, in which year he was ordained a sub-deacon at Croydon.
In 1304 he was chancellor of the University of Oxford. Commentaries
are ascribed to him on the logical works, the De Anima and the De
Animalibus, as well as those on the De Sensu, the Meteora and the De
Plantis which occur in the Bodleian manuscript discussed above.
One or two more commentaries, of some of which only a portion is still
extant, complete the list of mediaeval writings dealing with this work, a
fact which is in itself sufficient to show how much less was the interest
awakened by the De Plantis during this period than by other Aristotelian
or pseudo-Aristotelian works. Both are based on the version of Alfredus.
In a fourteenth-century Paris manuscript“ we find Alfredus’ version of
the De Planiis, with the usual dedicatory preface to Roger of Hereford.
From F.206 to F.208v there is an anonymous commentary which occupies
the lower margin of the pages, beginning with the words :—‘‘ T7ia ut ait,
etc. Quidam anglicus, nomine Alueredus, qui librum transtulisse dicitur
de arabico in latinum, edidit hunc prologum, in quo primo extollit
philosophiam, generaliter. . . .’’ The same manuscript contains also
marginal citations of Alfredus’ own commentary on the De Plantis, and
from the missing commentary of Alfredus on the Meteora. (Cf. pp. 56 ff.).
The other commentary of which a portion remains is to be found in a

manuscript of the late fifteenth century in the Bzblioteca Nazionale at
Florence.**.. In spite of its late date, the manuscript opens with the older
composite version of the Mezeora by Gerard and Henricus. The version
of the De Plantzs is the usual one by Alfredus, and thereis an anonymous
commentary which occupies the lower half of the first eight pages of the
book. It opens as follows:—‘‘ Tria autem empedocles. Ayluedius (sic)
intendens hunc librum transferre ab arabico in latinum intendit in hoc
prologo dicere causam istius translationis, unde non est istud de substantia
huius doctrine: quare non sunt verba aristotelis sed tamen translatoris.
69
of the De Plantzs
There is another commentary or paraphrase on a part date are as yet
interes t, but whose author and
which is of considerable tion
unknown. This work, so far as I know, is to be found only in a collecscus
opuscu les which was publis hed at Pavia by Franci
of miscellaneous
only copy in a
Taegius in 1516-17. This very rare book (of which the the following
that in the Univer sity of Naples ), contai ns
public library is
works : i
Pythagorae philosophi aurea verba.
Socratis philosophi symbola, isavuh aoe ae
Pseusippi Platonici Liber de omnium rerum diffinitionibus.
Xenocratis Platonici liber de morte
Aristotelis (pseudo) Secretum Secretorum,"*
De Animae immortalitate,
De conservatione sanitatis,
De regimine principum.
Aristotelis de plantis e greca in linguam latinam nuper
translatus.
Aristotelis liber Magnorum Moralium.
Francisci Taegii Oratio de excellentia naturalis philosophiae.
In the dedicatory preface of the volume these works are stated to have
been printed from a manuscript in the library of Pico della Mirandola.
The work here entitled De Plantis and said to have been recently trans-
lated from the Greek is in reality a commentary in which fragments of the
Latin version of Alfredus are embedded. After two pages, the com-
mentary ceases in the first book of the De Plantis, and the rest of the
work is a commentary on the last section of the De Colorzbus (a section
which itself is not infrequently entitled ‘‘ De Plantis ’’ in the manuscripts).
The commentary opens as follows :—
Tit: Aristotelis liber de plantis: e graeca in linguam latinam
nuper translatus.
Inc: Dictum est a nobis et demonstratum plantas esse animatas:
licet habeant tantum virtutem vegetandi. Nam in his quae
de anima probavimus stipites et arbusta habere animam
quia moventur ad omnem differentiam positionis in aug-
mento et nutritione. Ea autem quae sunt inanimata
moventur tantum ad unam differentiam positionis: gravia
deorsum levia sursum.. Et dicebat Empedocles hominem
esse plantam inversam; nam planta habet radices inferius,
quae sunt loco capitis in homine, unde capiunt nutrimentum;
palmites habent superius loco pedum.
Nam vita in animalibus et plantis communiter inventa est:
in animalibus est manifesta, in plantis vero occulta.
The last sentence here is the first of the Latin version of Alfredus
Anglicus. (Cf. p. 59). The next few sentences of the text are then
omitted, and we get again :—
Anaxagoras et Abrucalis (a corruption of the Arabic-Latin
version, cf. p. 64) desiderio eas moveri dicunt. .. .
The work continues thus, a few lines of Alfredus’ text being interspersed
with commentary, until the eighth chapter (in Meyer’s text) of the first
70
De Plantis
book; when it breaks off and is followed by a commentary on the latter

part of the De Coloribus, beginning: ‘‘ In omnibus autem plantis prin-
cipilum colorum herbeum est, nam palmites, frondes and fructus fiunt in
principio herbei.’’
Now it is improbable that the work is, as stated, a translation from the
Greek, not only because it embodies almost verbatim extracts from the
Latin version of Alfredus, but because it contains repeatedly the corrup-
tion ‘‘ Abrucalis’’ which was found in the Arabic-Latin version of
Alfredus, but was translated as ‘‘ Empedocles ’’ in the Greek of Maximus
Planudes and reappeared as ‘‘ Empedocles ’’ when that version was trans-
lated back into Latin again. (See p. 64 above.) It is given again as
Empedocles in the second Latin version, by Andrea a Lacuna, made from
the same Greek text. (See p. 61 above.)
We have probably here two separate mediaeval commentaries by an
unknown author on the De Plantis and the De Coloribus (which may very
well have figured under the same title, see above) which have been amal-
gamated (whether by Pico della Mirandola or by Taegius) and styled
a new translation of the De Plantis from the Greek.**
Among the earlier authors to utilise the version of Alfredus was Grosse-
teste (d. 1253), who seems to have been familiar with every Aristotelian
work available in his day. He also knew Alfredus’ Commentary on the
De Plantis. Thus, in his tractate De Natura Locorum," he writes: ‘‘ Et
idem Avzstoteles dicit secundo de vegetabilibus, quod ubi prolongantur
dies, non sunt animalia nec plantae eo quod calor solis combussit materiam
animalium et plantarum. E¢ commentator dicit ibidem quod hoc est apud
eos, ubi dimidius annus est dies et dimidius annus nox; et hoc est sub
polo, ut planum est.’’ The ‘‘ commentator ’’ here referred to is Alfredus
himself, and it is interesting to note that Roger Bacon in the Opus Majus,
Pars 4, makes the same citation from the second book of the De Planiis,
and accompanies it with the same quotation of ‘‘ commentator super illud
verbum."*
Another early citation of Alfredus’ version of the De Plantis is to be
found in the Summa adversus Catharos et Waldenses of the Dominican,
Moneta of Cremona, a work composed in 1244, and which utilises almost
all the Aristotelian works then extant.*
There is some evidence to suggest that there may once have existed a
commentary on the De Plantis by Averroes (who was also known simply
as ‘‘ Commentator ’ y Thus Duval, Avzistotelis Opera Omnia, graece et
latine, Paris, 1654, Vol. IV., p. 49, alludes to such a work, and in the
Index auctorum at the end of the volume states that ‘‘ Averroes Magna
comment. in libros duos de plantis Arist. scripsit.”’ There was also a
Hebrew translation made by Calonymos ben-Calonymos in 1314, of the
De Plantis accompanied by what purported to be the commentary of
Averroes.*° Moreover, Bernard Navagero, in a letter written to the Junta,
(edit. Junta, 1552, Tom. I, F.20v, Prohemion), declares that he had seen
at Constantinople the Great Commentary of Averroes on the two Books
of the De Plantis. We come also in the manuscripts upon traces of what
purports to have been a Latin version of a commentary on the De Plantzs
attributed to Averroes, but in this case we can show that the attribution
=
71
arose from a confusion of names, and that Alfredus, and not Averroes,
is the commentator meant.
A clear case of this confusion is provided by an Escorial manuscript,
g.III, 17, which contains various mathematical works of Roger Bacon.
On F.g of this manuscript occurs a note:—‘‘ Secundo libro de plantis
dicit stc Artstoteles,; loco vero a sole remoto non erunt (species ?) multarum
plantarum, animalium quoque similiter, quia sol longitudinem diei producit
in remotione sua et comburit illum humorem nec habet planta vires dedu-
cendi folia et fructus. The passage cited here occurs in Alfredus’ version
of the De Planiis, Lib. II, cap. 7. (Meyer, p. 36). On the same folio of
the Escorial manuscript occurs the following comment :—‘‘ Commentator
Avenroes super illo verbo Aristotelis dicit sic: existentibus (sic) sub
septentrione habent diem continue per medium annum, per reliquum
noctem. Ibi ergo raro nascitur vel crescit planta vel animal. In aestate
enim non potest propter continuationem caloris, in hyeme non potest
propter continuationem frigoris. Incipit autem illud commentum hic:
vita in animalibus et plantis inventa est . . .’’ (The note here goes off
the folio).
The passage here cited as from a commentary on the De Plantis by
Averroes is in fact taken verbatim from Alfredus’ commentary on his own
version of that work.*' The name ‘‘ Avenroes ”’ is, no doubt, a scribe’s
explanatory gloss on the word ‘‘ Commentator ’’ which he found in the
body of the text here. The text of this part of the manuscript is, in fact,
Pars. 4 of the Opus Majus, in which Roger makes the same citation from
Alfredus’ commentary on the De Plantis, attributing it to
‘* Commentator.’’”
We can say, therefore, that whether Averroes did or did not in fact
compose a commentary on the De Plantis, no Latin version of such a
work is now extant, and such allusions to it as exist in the manuscripts
can be shown to be due to a confusion of names or the misunderstanding
of the copyist.
THE DE ANIMALIBUS OF MICHAEL SCOT.
We come now to the most important of the biological works, both for
scope and length and for the influence it exerted on subsequent biological
thought. The three main zoological works of Aristotle, the Hzstoria
Animalium in ten books (of which the tenth is generally held to be
spurious), the De Partibus Animalium, in four books, and the De
Animalium Generatione, in five books, were translated®* by Ibn el-Batric,
a doctor in the service of Mamun (813—833), and the predecessor of the
school of Hunain (see p. 11), and were regarded by Arabic writers as one
great work on animals, consisting of nineteen books.
This work, in nineteen books, was known to the Latins under the title
De Animalibus in a version from the Arabic,** which held the field without
a rival until the appearance, about the year 1260, of the Greek-Latin
versions of William of Moerbeke. The version from the Arabic exists in
numerous manuscripts,** which provide us with full information as to the
translator’s name and the place at which the version was made. An
instance may be taken from the thirteenth-century manuscript, Vienna,
Hofbibliothek, 2412, which contains a copy with the title :—‘ Incipit
72
De Animalibus
primus liber de animalibus translatus a ma istro

de arabico in latinum.’’ That Michael Scot was Michaele Scotto i
in many of the manuscripts, and Toledo is the eee . sson
given
performed the task in four other manuscripts besideas the place at which he
this version Michael appended a prologue which s this at Vienna.** To
of the manuscripts” and which runs as follow is found in a number
ee ; s :—
rs.
& an pos domini nostri: ee Christi te : : Peat
omnipotentis misericordis et
p11 translatio tractatus primi libri quem exposuit aristoteles
in cognitione
naturali animalium agrestium et marinorum. . . .”’
The version itself opens with the words :—‘‘ Quaedam partes corporum
ta dicuntur non compositae, et sunt partes que parciuntur in partes
SIMMES: oss.
Michael Scot is probably the best known of the mediaeval translators
of Aristotle, at least to the ordinary reader.** Like most students of
Arabian literature at that time, Scot seems to have taken a considerable
interest in astrology and the occult sciences, in addition to his services
to the cause of biological knowledge. Various astrological works were
extant under his name during the mediaeval period,*® and it is in this
capacity that he appears primarily to have impressed the imagination of
his time. A poem is extant of Henry of Avranches, written in 1235, from
which we learn that Michael was court astrologer to Frederick II. Stories
were current of his predictions of future events, and no doubt the associa-
tion of Scot with the court of Frederick did no good either to his own
reputation in such respects or to that of his master. We have no
information as to the date of his birth, which must have taken place
during the second half of the twelfth century. The first definite fact in
his career of which we can be certain is that he was at work on translations
from the Arabic in the school of Toledo some time before the year 1217.
It has hitherto been supposed that this date marks the beginning of his
literary activities, since his version of al-Bitrogi (Alpetragius) On the
Sphere was completed, as we are specifically told by three manuscripts,’*°
in 1217. This work of Alpetragius has hitherto been regarded as Scot’s
first translation, the De Azimalibus being looked upon as the second and
as following closely on the other, since a note appended to the De
Animalibus by Scot himself gives us 1220 as the ‘‘ terminus ad quem ”’
of that version. This note (first described by Professor Haskins’),
appears in two of the manuscripts now extant of the De Anzimalzbus,
namely Cambridge, Gonville & Caius 109, F.107v (XIII century), and
MS. 11 of the Convento of Santa Caterina at Pisa, F.133, also of the
thirteenth century. The note embodies a description by Scot himself
of a case of calcified tumour which he had observed at Bologna on the
21st October, 1220. It begins as follows: ‘‘ Et iuro ego Michael Scotus,
qui dedi hunc librum latinitati, quod in anno mccxxi (this is the Pisan
dating, and corresponds to 1220)'” xii kal. novembr., die mercurii, accessit
nobilior domina. . .’’ This note is appended to the end of the De
Animalibus in the two manuscripts mentioned above, and both M. R.
James and Professor Haskins regard it as having been copied from Scot’s
own copy of the De Animalibus, and the latter ** considers that it
establishes the translation of the De Animalibus as having been completed
before the year 1220. This is certainly so, if the note in question was
73
written by Scot in his own copy of the De Animalibus in the year 1220.
It is not, however. quite clear why the note must have been written in the
same year as the event to which it refers.
There is, however, a piece of evidence available which serves to push
back still further the date for the composition of this version of De
Animalibus. One of the earliest writers to betray the influence of the
“new Aristotle,’? Alexander of Neckham, in his encyclopaedic work, De
’ Natura Rerum, twice cites Aristotle by name in connection with quotations.
from the Historia Animalium and the De Generatizone Animalium
respectively. It has been suggested’ that Alexander derived these
quotations from the Historia Naturalis of Pliny, a work which was avail-
able to the Latins from an early period,’** and that he had no direct
acquaintance with the Aristotelian De Animalibus. A comparison, how-
ever, of Alexander’s citations with the parallel passages, in the De
Animalibus of Michael Scot and in the Historia Naturalis of Pliny
respectively, establishes the fact that Alexander was using the former and
not the latter work. We append the relevant passages below, and it will
be seen that in neither case does Pliny refer his statement to the authority
of Aristotle, whereas Alexander explicitly names Aristotle as his source,
and in both cases the text of Alexander’s citation conforms much more
closely to Michael Scot’s version of the De Animalibus than to the work of
Pliny. It may, in fact, be said that between the citations of Alexander
and the parallel passages in Pliny there is hardly a general resemblance
of content, and certainly nothing like verbal similarity.
Alexander, De Pliny, Historia Nat. Amstotle, De Ani-
Natura Rerum. ed. ed. Detlefsen, Berlin, malibus, Version of
Th. Wright (Rerum 1866, Vol. II. Michael Scot, from
Brittanicarum Medii Brit. Mus. Royal 12.
Aevi Scriptores), C. XV (XIII cen-
London, 1863. tury).
P. 116.—Thorndike,
P. 156. — Narcos op. cit. {see note F782 50a ate
piscis est tantae vir- 104) states that Operatio piscis qui
tutis, ut dicit Aris- the substance of the dicitur barchis mani-
toteles, quod passage is to be festum est quod
mediante lino et found in Pliny, stupefacit manus.
calamo ad manum though he gives no
piscatoris calamum reference. He states,
tenentis accedit however, that Pliny
stupor et insensibili- does not refer the
tas. ©(Lib. Ik} 44.) statement to Aris-
totle, nor use the
word ‘‘ narcos.’’ The
nearest passage I
have been able to find
is Pliny, Lib. IX, 67.
(Detlefsen, p. 116)
‘“ Novit torpedo vim
suam ipsa non tor-
pens mersaque in
limo se occultat
74
De Animalibus
Alexander, De Nat. Piny, Hist. Nat. Aristotle, De Ani-

Rerum. malibus (Royal 12C,
pisclum qui securi xv).
supernantes obtor-
puere corripiens.
Il. 759 (Wright, p. VIII. 69. (Detlefsen, F.221v. Genus vero
265). Ut docet Aris- Vole. 70). ‘Ob-= mulorum totum est
toteles, omnis mula servatum ex duobus Sterile, et mentitus
sterilis est. Concipere diversi generibus est democritus et em-
quidem non potest, nata_ tertil generis pedocles in eo quod
tum propter angustos fieri et neutri paren- locuti sunt de causa
Matricis meatus, tum tium esse similia, illius. Democritus
propter. formam eaque ipsa quae sunt autem non dicit in
matricis debita ita nata, non gignere hoc sermone manifes-
naturalis monetae im- in omni animalium tum. Empedocles
pressione carentem. genere, idcirco mulas vero dixit sed non
Adde quod mula est non parere. Est in recte, cum finxit
animal siccum_ et animalibus _nostris quod causa illius est
durum, quod patet peperisse saepe, digestio coeuntium
per membra et car- verum prodigii loco ad unicem sine con-
nem et nervos. Unde habitum. venientia in genera-
et multum _laboris tione. Et democritus
potest tolerare. Unde fingit quod multe
tam parva est de- mularum in_ parte
cisio seminis in mula, matricum sunt cor-
quod non - sufficit rupte, quia potentia
semen ad conceptum. generatio illarum non
Si autem aliqua con- fuit ex animalibus
cipit, degenerat convenientibus in
semen propter mul- genere, et possible est
tam matricis siccita- quod accidit hoc
tem, quae semen animalibus _onanti-
exurit bus. . . Empedocles
autem fingit ut causa
sterilitatis mularum
est mixtio spermatis.
From these passages it is clear that Alexander of Neckham was using,

not the Hzstoria Naturalis of Pliny, but Aristotle’s De Animalibus, of
which the only version then available was that of Michael Scot. Now,
it 1s a well-established fact that Alexander died in the year 1217. For
this fact we have the testimony of two independent chroniclers, one of
them at least a contemporary of the event.’ The De Naturis Rerum,
therefore, was completed at the very latest in 1217, and probably a few
years earlier, and as we have shown that this work unmistakeably cites
Michael Scot’s version of the De Animalibus, the latter must by that
time have found its way to England, and must therefore, presumably,
have been made some years before that. Scot’s De Animalibus was for
half a century the only form in which the great zoological work of the
Stagyrite was available to the Latins, and if, as is not improbable, it
rf)
was translated before Alfredus’ version of the De Vegetabilibus, it was,

with the exception of the De Generatione et Corruptione, of Gerard of
Cremona, the first of the biological works to assume a Latin form during
the mediaeval period.
That this version served its purpose with some success is evidenced
by the fact that it was by no means entirely superseded by the later
translation from the Greek. It exists in many manuscripts of the four-
teenth and some of the fifteenth century, and, as we have seen,
commentaries exist which are based on the version of Michael Scot though
written some time after the appearance of the Greek-Latin translation.
Nevertheless, like most of the earlier versions, especially those made from
the Arabic, it suffered from the vice of over-literalness, and was deformed
by the simple transliteration of words not known to Michael or his
collaborator (if, as seems probable, he used the services of a collaborator
in preparing this translation), and Roger Bacon was not the only one to
complain of its obscurities.
It seems, therefore, inherently probable that the Arabic-Latin De
Animalibus achieved a rapid diffusion in the schools, and it is reason-
able to assume that the earliest citations we can trace were made soon
after the translation itself. Its date, then, may be fixed as within
the very first years of the thirteenth century, probably somewhere between
1200 and 1210. That it can hardly have been later than the latter. year
is also shown by the fact that it is cited in the commentary by Alfredus
de Sareshel on his version of the De Vegetabilibus, a commentary which,
as we have said above,’*’ was probably composed during the lustrum
1210—1215. This citation of the De Animalibus occurs near the
beginning of the commentary. In Paris, Bibl. Nat. 14700, F.391, it runs
as follows :—‘‘ Animata enim sunt predicta corpora. Quid vero naturam
disiungat ab anima zfse determinat in animalibus.’’ The reference here
is to the Historia Animalium, Lib. VIII (Lib. VII in Scot’s version),
Cap. I, which, in the version of Michael Scot, reads:—‘‘ Et similiter
natura graditur paulatim a non animato ad animalia . . . et hoc genus,
quum confertur ad alia corpora, videbitur magis simile animato, quum
remotio inter ipsum et animal est continua . . .’?!%
We may take it then that Michael completed his version of the De
Animalibus in Toledo about 1210 (and certainly before 121 Fda Arent
was probably his first considerable work, being prior to the version of
Alpetragius on the Sphere, which has hitherto been regarded as occupying
that place.*’? Now," it was in his first essays at the art of translation
that the scholar was most likely to employ the services of an assistant,
whether Jew, Saracen or Mozarab, whose acquaintance with Arabic was
better than his own. Roger Bacon accuses Michael Scot of having
appropriated to himself the credit for translations which more properly
belonged to one Andreas the Jew." The unsupported testimony of
Roger, writing nearly seventy years after the version of the
De
Animalibus, would not perhaps be worth much, but we know from other
sources'"* of such a practice among translators from the Arabic, although
there is much less evidence for it in the case of versions of Aristotelian
than of some other works. Michael Scot, in fact, is the only case of a
translator of Aristotelian works frem the Arabic whom we
know to have
76
De Animalibus
had a collaborator. The practice of collaboration, however, with an

Arabic-speaking colleague, was in fact almost necessary, at least in the
scholar’s first attempts at translation and before he had gained a thorough
knowledge of the language, in an age in which there were no written
grammars, and every language had to be acquired viva voce. In the
case of Michael Scot, moreover, we have direct testimony in the manu-
scripts of his version of Alpetragius On the Sphere, that he worked with a
Jewish helper. Thus, in the note at the end of one of these manuscripts,***
we find that the work is stated to have been translated ‘‘ cum abuteo
levite.’’*** Dr. Charles Singer has suggested to me that this ‘‘ Abuteus ’’
or ‘‘ Andreas ”’ as Roger calls him, may be identical with Jacob Anatoli,
the Jewish translator into Hebrew of Averroes on the Logica and of
Ptolmey’s Almagest. Anatoli was at Frederick’s court at Naples about
the year 1232, and is known to have come into contact with Michael
Scot.”* Another suggestion, however, has recently been made."* <A
certain Andrew, canon of Palencia and formerly a Jew, appears in 1225
in a papal bull which mentions his knowledge of Hebrew, Latin and
Arabic. Since Michael himself figures in various documents of the papal
curia round about this date (one dated less than a month after that
concerned with Andrew of Palencia), it certainly seems probable that we
have here the ‘‘ Andrew the Jew ’’ to whom Bacon attributes the versions.
of Scot. The same man is probably also to be recognised in the
‘* Abuteus levita ’’ who assisted in the translation of Alpetragius Ox the
Sphere. Since, as we have already seen, there is reason to think that
this translation was subsequent to that of the De Animalibus, we may
take it that Michael in the earlier work employed the services of the same
collaborator.
The two earliest citations of the De Animalibus, after those of Neckam
and Alfredus, which we have already discussed, are to be found in the
Summa of Philip of Gréve, a work composed between the years 1228 and
1236, and the De Universo of William of Auvergne, which was written
between 1231 and 1236.
Two writers during the first half of the thirteenth century who give
evidence of a fairly extensive use of Michael’s version are Robert
Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln, (c. 1175—1253), and Thomas of
Cantimpreé.
Roger Bacon,’’’ in his desire to stress his master’s preference for the
experimental method as against that of reliance upon authority, tells us
that Grosseteste entirely neglected the Aristotelian works and arrived by
his personal researches much nearer to the conclusions of the Stagyrite
than those who spent their lives in a study of his works. And it is true
that the great Bishop of Lincoln attached a high importance to the
experimental method. Nevertheless, if we examine his works we shall
find that, far from exhibiting the neglect of the Aristotelian writings
suggested by Bacon, he everywhere shows acquaintance with them.
Grosseteste, in fact, was one of the foremost Aristotelian scholars of his
day and among the first to utilize the new versions. In addition to
writing commentaries on the logical works and the Physica, and himself
making the first complete version of the Nicomachean Ethics, he
frequently cites the Aristotelian natural works. Grosseteste quotes from
V7.
the Metaphysica, Physica, De Anima, De Celo, Meteora, De Generatione

etc eaheney and ihe De Sensu. He used Alfred’s version of the De
Plantis,“* and in several of his works he quotes the De Aximalibus of
Michael Scot. Thus, in his De Generatione Stellarum,” he writes :—
“Item dicit Aristoteles in xviii de animalibus (i.e. De Gen. An. IV.2.
767a) quod secundum revolutionem solis et lunae et combinationes
secundum eorum coniunctiones et operationes, determinata sunt tempora
_ uniuscuiusque generationis naturaliter. . .’? Again, in his De Irzde,™ he
cites Avistoteles in libro de animalibus ultimo, dicens: ‘‘ oculus profundus
videt remote,’”? nam motus eius non dividitur neque consumitur, sed exit
ab eo virtus visualis et vadit recte ad res visas.’” This passage in
Michael’s versions runs :—’*‘‘ Nam oculus prominens non videbit bene a
remoto, et oculus profundus videt a remoto. Nam motus eius non dividitur
nec consumetur, sed exit ab eis virtus visibilis et valde recte ad res visas.”’
If the version utilized by Grosseteste were not already fixed by the fact
that there was no other available at the date at which he wrote, this
quotation would be sufficient to establish the fact that he was working on
the translation of Michael Scot.
Thomas of Cantimpré is stated by various authorities to have been a
disciple of Albertus Magnus.’* It may have been for this reason that
Thomas (a writer who shows less trace of Aristotelian influence than many
of his contemporaries) makes fairly frequent citations from the De
Animalibus, a work on which Albertus lectured at Cologne’** and composed
his great commentary in twenty-six books. The earlier portion of
Thomas’ De Naturis Rerum, perhaps written between 1235 and 1250, is
occupied mainly with biological subjects, and has a large number of
citations from Michael’s version of the De Animalibus.
Another writer to use Michael’s version extensively was the encyclo-
paedist, Vincent of Beauvais, who constantly cites the De Anzmalibus in
his Speculum Naturale, a work which he tells us himself was completed in
1250. Vincent, like Bartholomaeus Anglicus and Albertus Magnus,
customarily cites the Aristotelian works in the spirit rather than literatim,
a practice which makes it difficult to establish the version used in any
given case. From a comparison, however, of the main bulk of his citations
of the De Aximalibus, it is plain that he is working upon the version of
Michael Scot. There was, indeed, no other available at the date at which
he wrote, for he tells us that the Speculum Naturale was finished in 1250,
while the Greek-Latin text of William of Moerbeke did not become avail-
able until another decade had elapsed.
One of the last writers to cite the De Animalibus exclusively in the
version of Michael Scot is Bartholomaeus Anglicus, whose De Proprie-
tatibus Rerum was probably begun while he was teaching at Paris between
1225 and 1230, but which Duhem thinks was completed as late as the
period 1250—75.
After his version of the De Animalibus, Michael’s greatest contribution
to the Aristotelian knowledge of his time was his translation of the
Averroan commentaries, with which we shall deal later.}?°
Before discussing the other biological works and translations of
Michael Scot, we may mention here that the De Animalibus, having
78
De Animalibus
rapidly gained a fairly wide popularity, was not only utilized in such
compendia on natural subjects as the De Naturis Rerum of Thomas of
Cantimpré, or in the De Arte Venandi of Scot’s master, Frederick II,’
a work which is probably to be dated between 1244 and 1248, and similar
treatises, but was also made available in a more condensed form than
that of the full nineteen books of Michael Scot. Three typical examples
ot these abridgements are to be found at Cambridge and in the British
useum.,*”*
That at Cambridge, of the thirteenth century, breaks off in the middle
of the seventh book of the complete work.
A rather longer abridgement exists in another thirteenth-century manu-
script,’”® with the title De Anzmalibus. The work begins with a sentence
reminiscent of the opening of the version of Michael Scot. This abridge-
ment is divided into eighteen books, of which i-viii correspond to the
Historia Animalium (omitting the eighth and ninth books of that work),
1x-x11 to the De Partibus Animalium, and xiii-xvili to the five books of
the De Generatione Animalium (but differently divided).
The third abridgement of this work is to be found in another British
Museum manuscript of the early fourteenth century, and the fact that the
abridgement is based on the version of Michael Scot is evidence of the
continued popularity of his version, for some time after that of William
of Moerbeke from the Greek became extant.*® The abridgement does
not cover the whole of the De Animalibus, breaking off in the fourteenth
book (which corresponds to the fourth book of the De Partibus
Animalium). It opens with the words :—‘‘ Quaedam partes corporum
animalium dicuntur non compositae, et sunt partes cum partiuntur. . .’’
As was the case with all the Aristotelian works, there were a number of
‘‘florilegia ’’ (cf. pp. 20ff.) or collections of notable extracts from the
De Animalibus, of which a late thirteenth-century example is to be seen
in B.M. Royal 12.G.IV, Ff. 129v.-131v. It is entitled, ‘‘ Incipiunt
notabiles abstractiones de animalibus,’’ and opens with the words :—
‘‘ Quantum pluma in avibus ita est squama in piscibus.’’ This part of
the codex dates from about the year 1300, a date at which William of
Moerbeke’s version had been extant for some forty years.
The earliest surviving commentary on the De Aximalibus is that by
Petrus Hispanus, discovered in Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional 1877." This
MS. is unique, although the work is referred to in two manuscripts of the
Biblioteca Malatestiana at Cesana.’*? Petrus Hispanus, born at Lisbon
probably between 1210 and 1220, studied at Paris under William
Shryeswood. In one of his medical tractates he describes himself as a
pupil of Magister Theodore, who succeeded Michael Scot as court
astrologer to Frederick II. Connected as he thus was with the scientific
circle that surrounded that monarch, it is not surprising that Petrus
should be the first to write a commentary on the De Anzimalibus of
Michael Scot. It is, indeed, possible that he knew Scot personally.
In 1246 he appears as a teacher of medical subjects at Siena, which had
established a Studium in that year, and in 1276 he became Pope John
XXI, dying a year later. He is cited by Dante among the ‘ sommi
dottori’’ in the Heaven of the Sun. His best known work during the
79
mediaeval period was the Summae Logicales, but he wrote also a number
of medical works, as well as commentaries on the Aristotelian De Anima
and De Sensu & Sensato, to'which he refers in his Commentary on Isagoge
ad Artem Parvam Galeni of Honain, but which have now disappeared.***
It is almost certain that Petrus composed his commentary on Michael’s
translation during the earlier part of his career, and perhaps before he
took up his professorial duties at Siena, and so prior to the date of the
great De Animalibus of Albertus Magnus, and also to that of Petrus
Gallego, with which we deal below.
Now there is another commentary on the De Amimalibus in the version
of Michael Scot which exists, so far as I know, only in the late thirteenth-
century manuscript Cod.G.4.853, Ff. 79-19IV, of the Bibliotect Nazionale
at Florence. This commentary opens with the words:—‘‘ Omnis
perscrutatio anime aut est de natura sui et in se aut in relatione ad id
cuius est actus, quod dividitur in vegetabile, rationale, sensibile sive
animale de quo praesens est intentio.’’
It follows in the manuscript upon the commentary on the E¢thica by
Johannes Peckam, who studied at Paris under Bonaventura, taught both
at that University (c. 1269) and at Oxford, became lector of the Roman
curia, and in 1279 succeeded Robert Kilwardby in the see of Canterbury.
He died in 1292. Peckam is not known to have been interested in
biological subjects nor to have written on the scientific works of Aristotle,
and it seems to have been merely the fact of its juxtaposition with his
Ethica commentary which caused the attribution of this commentary on
the De Animalibus to him.*** P. Delorme, however, has kindly examined
the manuscript for me, and tells me that, on F. 192, at the close of the
commentary on the De Animalzbus, after a gloss in a late hand ‘‘ Scriptum
super libro De Animalibus,’’ is the note in an early script, ‘‘ Scriptum
magistri Petri his(pant).’’ According, then, to this early indication, we
have here a second work on the De Animalibus from the hand of Petrus
Hispanus, which may be previous to that in the Madrid manuscript, and
perhaps embodies notes of his lectures at Siena. The sources utilized in
the work (which is divided into sixteen books) are almost entirely Arabian,
frequent citations being given from the Fons Vitae of Avencebrol (ibn-
Gebirol, c. 1020—1070), Algazel and Avicenna.
Constant reference is also made to the other Aristotelian works, and in
particular to the De Anima, on which as we know Petrus Hispanus was
the author of a commentary. The manuscript attribution to Petrus,
therefore, is confirmed by the internal evidence of the sources utilized.
Another work on the De Animalibus, half commentary half translation,
has recently come to light in the Tvactatus de Animalibus of the Fran-
ciscan, Petrus Gallego, a Spaniard and first Bishop of Cartagena (fl.
1236—67),** whose work has survived in a unique manuscript. It was
probably composed between 1250 and 1267, and consists in part of a sort
of précis of portions of the De Animalibus of Aristotle, and in part of
selections from the commentaries of Averroes and other works. At the
end of the tenth book of his work (Vat. lat. 1288, F.1 55) Gallego thus
refers to some of his sources :—
eit tysciat inspector huius nostre translationis quod a principio huius
libri in summa secuti sumus, ut in pluribus, vevba antecer et ordina-
80
De Animalibus
tionem eius, in quibusdam vero locis paucis processimus secundum aben-

farag, et glosas super antecer et auenfaragm et secundum intellectum
nostrum ordinavimus unum cum alio secundum metas et terminos philo-
sophi primi. Ab isto autem loco voluntatis et propositi nostri est usque
ad finem libri continuare pro maiore parte secundum ordinationem et
sensum senis et sapientis indicis abulatit avenroyz.’’ Pelzer’** suggests
that the word ‘‘ antecer ’’ here is equivalent to the Arabic ‘‘ ikhticar,’’
or ‘‘ abridgement,’’ and that the work referred to is the abridgement in
five books of the Philosophy of Aristotle made by Nicolas of Damascus,
and stated by the Firhist’*? to have been translated into Arabic and
** purified ’? by Ibn Zar’a, a Christian doctor of Bagdad who died in
1008. This abridgement contained also the De Motu Animalium, and
was known to Averroes, who states in his Commentary on the De Anima
(Lib. III, Text. Comment. 54), ‘‘ Et ipse (Aristoteles) locutus fuit de hoc
in tractatu quem fecit de motu animalium; sed iste tractatus non venit
ad nos; sed quod transferebatur ad nos fuit modicum de abbrevatione
Nicolai.’? By ‘‘ Abenfarag’’ Gallego means the Syrian priest,
Aboulfaradj ibn-ab-Tayib (doctor at Bagdad and secretary to the
Nestorian patriarch, Elie I), who died in 1043,*°* leaving paraphrases of
Hippocrates and Galen and versions of and commentaries on the works
of Aristotle. Neither his work on the De Animalibus nor the work of
Nicolaus achieved a Latin translation, and Gallego must have used them
in the Arabic forms. The work of Gallego in the Vatican manuscript
consists of twelve books, although he seems to have planned a larger
treatise.**?
The circulation of the works on the De Animalibus of Petrus Hispanus
and Petrus Gallego must have been small. But there was one treatise on
the subject which enjoyed a very wide popularity, survives in many
manuscripts, was utilized by almost all subsequent writers on the subject,
and was early printed.*° This was the De Animalibus in twenty-six
books, by Albertus Magnus.
Albertus was by no means the first to write commentaries on the
Aristotelian natural works. His importance, for our present subject, lies
in the fact that he was the first to produce a systematic and complete
organization and exposition of the whole cycle of Aristotelian doctrine for
his age, in the form of a great series of paraphrase-commentaries. Albertus,
in fact, did for the Latins much what Averroes had done for the Arabic-
speaking world. He tells us, in his commentary on the Physica, that his
intention is to make the whole of Aristotle intelligible to the Latins.“
Albertus stands out as a populariser and exponent of the Aristotelian
works, and more especially of those dealing with natural science. He
wrote treatises on the following Aristotel ian or pseudo-Ar istotelia n natural
works :—Physica, De Celo & Mundo, De Proprietatibus Elementorum, De
Generatione & Corruptione, De Meteoris, De Anima, De Sensu& Sensato,
De Memoria et Reminiscentia, De Somno et Vigilia, De Spiritu et Respira-
tione, De Motibus Animalium, De Morte et Vita, De Vegetabilibus, De
Animalibus.*”
With regard to the date at which Albertus completed his twenty-six
books on the De Animalibus there is still a difference of opinion, Jourdain,
81
Sighart, Jessen and Stolz placing the work after Albertus’ resignation of
his bishopric in 1262, while Endres and Mandonnet hold that it was
completed by 1250."** F.:Pelster’** holds that the date was probably
about 1268. There is, however, no doubt that the translation used by
Albertus as the basis of his work was that of Michael Scot, although he
seems, in some parts at least of the work, to have utilized also the Greek-
Latin version of William of Moerbeke. Spengels’** was the first to suggest
the possibility of this, and was followed by Dittmeyer, who adduces the
Greek words in the tenth book of Albertus’ De Animalibus as evidence
that in compiling that book he had the version from the Greek before his
eyes.’*® But words of Greek origin may equally be traced in the version
of Michael Scot. For example, the words ‘‘apostematio,’”’ ‘‘raginoneon,”’
‘* Ydropsis,’’ ‘‘ embrio,’’**? etc., which occur in the tenth book of
Albertus’ work, are also to be found in the tenth book of the De Animalibus
in the version of Michael Scot, from which Albertus in fact is clearly
quoting. Thus, we find Albertus saying: ‘‘ Et hoc accidens infirmitatis
Graecorum medici vocant raginoneon,’’*** while the parallel passage in
Michael’s translation runs: ‘‘ Et illi ponunt istam infirmitatem in passione
que dicitur raginoneon.’’*® Again, Albertus writes:—‘‘ Et in veritate
patiuntur id quod Graece molyn, Latine autem mola matricis vocatur,’’
while Michael’s version runs :—‘‘ Et post accidit ei dissinteria et peperit
multam carnem, que dicitur molin, id est mola.’? And where Michael’s
version reads: ‘‘ Et quibusdam mulieribus accidit infirmitas que dicitur
hanemusa, et est quando implentur vento,’’ Albertus. speaks of the
‘“infirmitatem quam hanemissam Graeci vocant medici.’’ Dittmeyer’s
suggestion, therefore, that traces of a utilization of William of Moerbeke’s
version are to be found in the tenth book of Albertus’ De Animalibus, is
groundless, and Albertus follows in the tenth book the same sources as in
the rest of the work, that is the version of Michael Scot.’*° It has been
suggested’**’ that the tenth book of the Hzstoria Animalium in the version
from the Greek was not the work of William of Moerbeke. Nevertheless,
since modern opinion tends to place the date of the De Animalibus of
Albertus after 1260, there is no reason why he should not have utilized
the later translation for purposes of comparison and correction, while
basing his commentary in the main upon the earlier. Moreover, in his
commentary on the De Motu Animalium, Albertus tells us himself that
the work first came his way while he was ‘‘ in Campania iuxta Graeciam.”’
This work only existed in a version made from the Greek and it was
almost certainly the translation by William of Moerbeke of the De Motu
Animalium which Albertus utilized—a translation which nearly always
appears in the mediaeval codices as an integral part of the body of
Aristotelian zoological works translated by the Dutch Dominican. "If,
therefore, in his commentary on this opuscule, a commentary which
originally formed part of his De Animalibus, and which was probably
written about 1262, Albertus was working on the version of William of
Moerbeke, it seems inherently probable that he would also utilize that
version in the rest of the De Animalibus.'”
There is also
; {
extant in the fourteenth-century manuscri pt H.44.Inf. of
the Ambrosiana Library at Milan, Ff. 17-87v, a second sake ie on
the De Animalibus by Albertus Magnus. It takes the common mediaeval
82
De Animalibus
form of a series of Questiones with solutions, and is entitled ‘‘ Questiones

super libris de animalibus.’’ It opens with the first words of the Prologue
of Michael Scot’s version (thus indicating that it was upon this version
that the Questiones were based), ‘‘ Ix nomine domini nostri Jesu Christi,
omntpotentis. Primo queritur utrum iste liber sit de animalibus tanquam
de subiecto. Videtur quod non, quia omnis scientia est universalium et
rerum incorruptibilium. Sed omne animal singulare est corruptibile.
Ergo etc. . .’’ The Commentary on the actual text begins thus :—
Quedam partes corporum etc. Queritur utrum diversitas partium
organicarum sit necesse animali. WVidetur quod non. . .’’ On F.87v,
at the end of the work, we get the following very interesting account of
its compilation : —
‘““Expliciunt questiones super de animalibus quas disputavit frater
Albertus, repetendo librum animalium fratribus colenie, quas reparavit (?)
quidam frater et collegit ab eo audiens dictum librum, nomine cunradus
de austria. Hoc actum est anno domini M°cc°lviii.’’
This, then, is a series of lecture-notes, taken down by one Conrad of
Austria, from the mouth of Albertus Magnus as he lectured on the De
Animalibus of Michael Scot in the convent of Cologne in the year 1258.
If we accept the now generally prevalent view which dates the completion
of Albertus’ treatise De Animalibus in twenty-six books somewhere in the
later sixties of the thirteenth century, we may regard these Questiones
in the Ambrosiana manuscript as a sort of preliminary study for the longer
work, based entirely on the version of Scot, which was the only one then
available, whereas in the later treatise Albertus seems to have used the
versions from the Arabic and from the Greek side by side, though relying
in the main upon the former.***
There are a considerable number of later commentaries on the De
Animalibus of Michael. Some even date from a period after the appear-
ance of the Greek-Latin version of William of Moerbeke.*** But writers
after 1260 tended to use the version of William of Moerbeke in preference
to that from the Arabic. This fact is of some assistance in dating works
which cite the De Animalibus. An example is to be found in the writings
of Aquinas, who uses Scot’s version in his Commentary on the Sentences,
which dates from before 1260, and that of William of Moerbeke in his
later works.’** Again, in a fourteenth-century manuscript at Oxford,’**
we find a number of anonymous commentaries on various of the natural
works, followed (F.270) by Questiones Magistri Johannis Tydenshale
super Aristotelis libros de animalibus, the version used being that of
Michael Scot. Nothing is known of this Johannes Tydenshale, nor have
I been able to trace another copy of the work. Owing, however, to its
use of the version of Michael Scot, it seems probable that it dates from
the first half of the thirteenth century, and must be of an earlier origin
than the anonymous commentary which follows it (F.320v) on the De
Motu Animalium, since that work was not included in the nineteen books
of the De Animalibus in Michael Scot’s version. (Cf. p. g1, below).
Another thirteenth-century commentator on the De Animalibus was
Petrus de Alvernia (d. 1304). The fourteenth-century manuscript,
Vienna, National Bibliothek 2303,'* Ff. 9-42, contains a commentary by
83
Petrus on the De Animalibus, entitled ‘‘ Petrus de Alvernia. Questiones

in librum animalium.’’’”
There is an anonymous ‘commentary which has not, so far as I know,
been noticed hitherto, and is of some interest, both as being based on the
version of Michael Scot and because the authorities cited suggest a fairly
wide acquaintance with Arabian medical sources, being not unlike those
used by Albertus in his De Animalibus. This commentary, which exists
in two MSS. in Italian libraries,’*° opens :—‘‘ Intentio auctoris huius est
determinare de modis animalium; finis est cognitio, efficiens Aristotelis.
Modus procedendi in quatuor dividitur . . . et dividitur ista scientia in
19 volumina...’’ Among the authors cited are Galen, Averroes,
Algazel, Haly, Ysaac, Rabbi Moyses and Alexander Aphrodisaeus. One
copy is followed by the note:—‘‘ Explicit commentum sine auctoris
nomine super libros de animalibus Aristotelis, mire atque inaudite com-
pendiositatus ex vetustissimo exemplari carie semeso extractum; solerti
diligentia reverendissimi patris et domini, Petri de Nigrono, ianuensis,
abbatis sancti Gregorii in urbe dignissimi, in loco secretissimo reperto,
atque hic pro eodem scriptum per me Raymundum de Saleta . . . quinto
nonas luni, qui fuit vigilia individuae Trinitatis, 1498. Deo et matri
elus gratias.”’ Amen.”’
Such are some of the earlier traces of Michael Scot’s version from the
Arabic of the zoological works of Aristotle. But this was not Scot’s only
contribution to the knowledge of Aristotelian zoology. Some years later
he also made a Latin version of the Compendium or Abbreviation of the
De Animalibus by Avicenna. Frederic II, to whom this version was
dedicated, had a copy in his library which, it is not improbable, is still
extant in the Vatican.** In the manuscript in question Scot’s version of
the Compendium is followed by a complimentary interpretation of the
Emperor’s name in four languages. It runs thus :—
Latinum Arabicum Solonicum Teutonicum Arabicum
Felix Elmelic Dober Friderich Salemelich.
It is certainly plausible to suggest, with Mercati,’* that this copy was
the one made for Frederick himself, especially as the dedicatory preface
to the Emperor, which belongs properly only to the Compendium of
Avicenna, 1s here placed also on the first folio of the manuscript at the
beginning of Scot’s version of the De Animalibus.
Moreover, one Henry of Cologne made a copy of the Compendium from
the Emperor’s own manuscript at Messina in 1232. It ends with the
note :—‘‘ Completus est liber avicennae de animalibus scriptus per
magistrum henricum coloniensem ad exemplar magnifici imperatoris
domini frederici apud messinam,’® civitatem apulie, ubi dominus imperator
eidem magistro hunc librum premissum commodavit, anno domini
m°cc°xxx1j, in vigilia beati laurentii in dofo magistri volmari, medici
imperialis.’” There are five extant manuscripts’ bearing this note, of
which one is probably the holograph of Henry of Cologne.
The date 1232 provided by these manuscripts is the terminus ad quem
for Scot’s version of the Compendium, and the fact of its dedication to
the Emperor makes it probable that it is not earlier than 1220, shortly
84
De Animalibus
after which date Scot’s association with the court of Frederick seems
to have begun.
The work was at least as popular during the earlier mediaeval period
as Scot’s version of the De Animalibus, and was used by a number of
authors, notably Albertus Magnus and Frederick II in his De Arte
Venandi.’* Unlike his version of the De Animalibus, Scot’s translation
of Avicenna’s Compendium has been printed (Venice, 1 509).
With Scot’s own biological work, the Physionomia, we are not here
concerned. It was dedicated to Frederick Ii, and was largely based on
oe sources. It has been printed a number of times, from 1474
onwards.’***
Michael Scot died in 1235 or shortly before, if we may rely upon a poem
by one Henry of Avranches, written early in 1236, which refers to him
as being recently deceased and sums up his career as court astrologer.
There was a tradition that he was in Germany at the time, in the following
of the Emperor. The Ambrosiana Library possesses a manuscript (D.
172. Inf.), ‘‘ Sopra il sepolero di Scoto in Colonia,” but there is no
satisfactory evidence on the matter.
(2). BIOLOGICAL WORKS FROM THE GREEK.
De Animalibus.
As the thirteenth century wore on, and the ‘‘ doctrine of Aristotle ’’
became the official subject for a degree course at all the universities, the
demand for more accurate and less obscure versions became general.
Halfway through the century, Albertus Magnus was still using in the
main the older, partly Arabic-Latin versions. He was, however, aware
of their defects,**” and when new and better versions made their appear-
ance he was not slow to take advantage of them.
The general demand for new and more accurate translations of the
Aristotelian works created a supply early in the second half of the century.
According to general tradition the work was undertaken by William of
Moerbeke at the request of Thomas Aquinas, as a preliminary to his series
of commentaries on the Aristotelian works, written soon after 1260.'
According to one account, these commentaries were commissioned by
Pope Urban IV.
During the later mediaeval period a number of false attributions were
made of William’s versions to other authors. Among these are the alleged
Aristotelian translations of Thomas of Cantimpré. This writer was born
in Brabant, and entered the Dominican order in 1232. In 1246 he was
Sub-Prior and Lector at Louvain. The year of his death is not known,
but it must have been subsequent to 1263. His two chief works were a
moralizing treatise entitled Bonum universale de Apibus, and the De
Naturis Rerum, a work which he tells us himself took him fifteen years
to compile, and which was completed by 1250 at latest.’*® In the Prologue
to this work Thomas gives a list of the authors upon whose writings it
is based. It begins with Aristotle, ‘‘ Primus omnium Aristoteles est, qui
non solum in hiis sed in omnibus ad philosophicam disciplinam pertin-
entibus eminentior cunctis effloruit.’”’ Other authors named are Pliny,
Solinus, St. Ambrose, Ysidore, Jacobus de Vitriaco, Galen, Platearius,
85
and two anonymous tractates ‘‘ De naturis rerum.’ It will be noticed

that, in spite of its comparatively late date, this list is drawn largely
from the authors current before the new awakening which followed the
introduction of the natural works of Aristotle. Though in the first part
of the work, dealing with physiolo gical and kindred subjects, he draws
frequently upon the biological works of the Stagyrite, yet elsewhere, when
we should expect an Aristotelian citation he falls back upon the Hexae-
meron of Ambrose and similar standard works of the earlier period. This
is especiall y true of the large section De Arboribu s et H. erbis. If, there-
fore, we compare the Aristotelian knowledge displayed by Thomas with
that exhibited by other writers of the same date or slightly earlier,’”” we
shall conclude that his knowledge of Aristotle was rather less than might
have been expected at that date.
Nevertheless, he has been singled out by some authors as the translator
of a whole cycle of the biological and other works. Thus, Trithemius,
in his De scriptoribus ecclestasticis, writes :—
‘‘ Thomas de Cantimprato, natione Brabantinus, . . . fertur quaedam
praeclara scripsisse volumina ...e quibus exstat opus de Apibus
mysticis . . . Claruit . . . Anno Domini 1270. Et sunt qui scribunt
eum graeci sermonis habuisse peritiam, e¢ lzbros Avistotelis, quorum 1am
usus in scholis est, transtulisse.”’
Leander again (De viris illustribus ordinis Praedicatorum, lib. 4),
makes the same statement, referring to ‘‘ Tomas Brabantinus, auctor libri
Apum ... quem etiam asserunt Aristotelis philoscphiam Graecam
Latinam fecisse iussu Thomae Aquinatis.”’
It is fairly clear'” that these writers are confusing Thomas of Brabant
with William of Brabant, i.e. William of Moerbeke, the author of the
standard version of the natural and other works from the Greek.*”
To increase the mystification, a third figure was added to whom were
attributed the Aristotelian versions of William of Moerbeke. This was
Henry of Brabant, who, according to a passage in the Liber de rebus
memorabilibus of the Dominican, Henry of Hereford (d. 1370), ‘‘transtulit
omnes libros Aristotelis naturalis et moralis philosophie et metaphysice
de greco in latinum, verbum a verbo, quibus nunc utimur in scolis, ad
instantiam fratris Thome de Aquino. Nam temporibus domini Alberti
translatione vetere omnes communiter utebantur.*”
““Henricus_ Brabantinus’’ Henry of Hereford identifies with
‘Wilhelmus Brabantinus, Chorinthiensis,’’ that is William of Moerbeke.
At a later date, however, ‘‘ Henricus Brabantinus ’’ was identified as one
Henry Kosbien, perhaps an imaginary character,’ although a Johannes.
Kronsbein is known to whom are due commentaries on Aristotle.
It seems then, that Thomas of Brabant, Henry of Brabant and Henry
Kosbien, as translators of Aristotle, can all be swept aside in favour of
William of Moerbeke, the true author of the versions from the Greek
compiled for S. Thomas. In the case of Thomas of Cantimpré the error
has been_ peculiarly persistent, lasting down to comparatively modern
times. Thus, even Jourdain’® suggests that, although Thomas is not
the author of the new versions from the Greek made by William of
86
Biological Works from the Greek
Moerbeke at the request of Aquinas, he may yet have made some trans-
lations which are not yet known to us of Aristotelian works.
Again, the Catalogue of the Arundel MSS. in the British Museum!”
attributes to Thomas of Cantimpré the Latin versions of the De Genera-
zzone et Corruptione, the De Memoria, De Sensu, De Anima, De Causis,
De Differentia Spiritus et Animae, De Morte et Vita et De Somno, to be
found in the fourteenth-century manuscript, Arundel 25. This attribution
1s probably based on some of the authorities we have already examined,
although the versions occurring in this manuscript are not those of William
of Moerbeke, but for the most part belong to the older form of the
Aristotelian corpus.
Roger Bacon’” is very scathing in his denunciation of William of
Moerbeke. His testimony is, however, valuable on one point, for he
regards William as quite as much a reviser of already existing volumes
as a maker of new versions. ‘‘ Omnes translationes factas,’’ he says,
speaking of William, ‘‘ promisit immutare et novas cudere varias.’’ Our
next testimony for the work of William of Moerbeke is to be found in
the Stamser Catalogue (1312), which says of him:—‘‘ Fr. Wilhelmus
Brabantinus Corinthiensis transtulit omnes libros naturalis et moralis
philosophie de greco in latinum ad instantiam fratris Thome. Item
transtulit libros Procli et quedam alia.’’’”
William was one of the most important of all the mediaeval translators
of Aristotle, and surpasses even Gerard of Cremona in the number of
Aristotelian versions to his credit.
He was born about 1215 in the town of Moerbeke in Holland. Of his
early life nothing is known, nor can we say at what date he joined the
Dominican order. There is manuscript evidence, however, for the fact
that he was at Thebes in 1260. He next appears as Papal Confessor to
Clement IV and Gregory X (1265—1276). During the first three years
of this period, William and Aquinas were together at Rome, for the latter
was then teaching at the Papal Studium. Their acquaintance, however,
must date from an earlier period, for one at least of the translations which
William is said to have undertaken at the request of Aquinas is dated
Ras: In 1277 he was appointed Archbishop of Corinth, and died in
1286.
In addition to the Elementatio Theologica of Proclus, two commentaries
of Simplicius on Aristotle, and other works, William is responsible for
the following Aristotelian translations:—AHuistoria Animalium, De
Partibus Animalium, De Generatione Animalium, De Motu Animalium,
De Progressu Animalium (these five works usually occur together in the
manuscripts), De Anima, Meteora, Metaphysica, Politica and Rhetorica,
and probably also revisions of the twelfth-century versions of other works.
Not all of these versions are established on manuscript evidence as the
work of William of Moerbeke, but there is very little doubt of his author-
ship of any of them, and none in the case of the zoological works.
The first dated translation of William is the De Partibus Animalium.
A fifteenth-century manuscript at Florence’*® contains the Hzstoria
Animalium, the De Progressu, the De Partibus and the De Generatione
87
Animalium, all in the versions from the Greek. Of these, the De Partibus
:
Animalium is preceded by the words :—‘‘ Inquit Willelmus interpres
iste liber qui inscribit ur de partibus animali um immedia te sequitur librum
Meteorologicorum, ut dicit Alexander...” At the end of the De
Partibus we find the dating :—‘‘ Explicit completa anno domini 1260. x
Kal. Ianuarii Thebis.’’ In a fourteenth-century Cesena manuscript,’ at
the end of the De Generatione Animalium, we find:—‘‘ Explicit liber de
animalibus Aristotelis (from the word ‘ Aristotelis’ onwards, this note
is in another hand) cuius graeca translatio completa est anno gratiae 1260,
decima calendas ianuarii.’? Although this is the earlierof the two
manuscripts, it is probable that the dating is a later addition, copied
from the other codex,'** and that the date 1260 refers only to the De
Partibus Animalium, from whence it was transferred, in the Cesena
manuscript, to the end of the whole group of zoological works.
The De Partibus Animalium, then, was translated from the Greek by
William of Moerbeke at Thebes in the year 1260. It may be regarded as
certain that the versions of the Historza Animalium and the De Genera-
tione Animalium which accompany it in nearly all the manuscripts are by
the same translator and of about the same date. In most of the manu-
scripts we also find the De Motu Animalium along with the larger
zoological works and often the De Progressu Animalium,'** although the
last two opuscules are not infrequently placed among the Parva Naturalia
in manuscripts which do not contain the three main works on animals.
G. Rudberg’* gives eight manuscripts containing the Greek-Latin
versions of the zoological works, in seven of which the series is complete.
Moreover, as we have seen above,’** the three longer works at least were
so much regarded as one whole that the scribe of a fourteenth-century
Cesena manuscript has appended to the whole series the date that
probably more rightly belongs only to the De Partibus.
The style of these versions also, and their use by Aquinas after 1260,
go to establish that they are by the same author as the known translations
of William of Moerbeke.'*”
As regards the date of these works, we may be sure that they were
completed during the sixties of the thirteenth century. St. Thomas
utilized them in his commentaries, and in the Summa contra Geniiles,
written before 1264.'** We have evidence, moreover, that a manuscript
existed prior to 1271 which contained the De Motu Animalium, the
De Partibus and the De Generatione Animalium in this version. Thus,
the catalogue of the Sorbonne Library for 1338 mentions a codex :—‘‘ In
uno volumine...de motu animalium, de partibus animalium libri
quatuor, de generatione animalium libri quinque, de nova translatione, ex
legato magistri G. de Abbatisvilla.’’*** Now Gerard of Abbeville died in
271, so that these versions must have travelled by then from Greece to
aris.
The interesting possibility has been suggested’? that William of
Moerbeke did not translate the spurious tenth book of the Hzstorza
Animalium, but that it was found by some anonymous translator’ in a
Greek manuscript of another type than that used by William, and
translated into Latin soon after the completion of William’s work, and
83
subsequently added in the manuscripts to the nine genuine books of the

Historia Animalium. Rudberg reasons that the tenth book is omitted in
certain manuscripts of William’s version, while Albertus Magnus, in the
tenth book of his De Animalibus, uses not that version but depends
entirely on Michael Scot’s translation from the Arabic.’ For this
argument to be valid, however, it would have to be shown that Albertus
used the version of William of Moerbeke for the other books. This has
not been established except for the De Motu Animalium, a work which
did not exist in the translation from the Arabic. Moreover, the Greek-
Latin version of the tenth book of the Historia Animalium certainly took
its place without comment at the end of the other nine books in the
manuscripts of William’s versions of the zoological works from a very
early date. It must therefore stand as his work pending the production
of more definite evidence to the contrary. In fact there exist manuscripts’*
of William’s version which state that the whole De Animalibus consists
of nineteen books, a statement which may have been copied from the
manuscripts of the Arabic-Latin version of Michael, but nevertheless could
not have been made if the tenth book of the Historia Animalium had been
missing, or regarded as not properly a part of the whole.
It is probable that both the De Motu Animalium and the De Progressu
Animalium (of which the latter is probably genuine, while the former is
spurious) were translated after the De Partibus Animalium (1260), but
before the De Generatione Animalium, at least if we adopt the order
given in the note attributed to ‘‘ Willelmus interpres ’’ in the Faesulani
codex (see text below).*** In any case, it is improbable that the translation
of the De Motu Animalium was later than 1262, in which year it seems
to have come into the hands of Albertus Magnus. The latter, in his
De principits motus processivi (a commentary on the De Motu Animalium)
describes how that work first came his way ‘‘ nobis in Campania iuxta
Graeciam agentibus,’’ which probably refers to a journey in Southern
Italy undertaken by Albertus during his stay in that country between
1260 and 1263.**
The translator’s note given in Codex Faesulani 168, which opens with
the words ‘‘ Inquit Willelmus interpres,’’ consists of a list of the biological
works in the following sequence :—De Partibus Animalium, De Progressu
Animalium,*** De Anima, De Memoria et Reminiscentia, De Divinatione
zn Somuniis (i.e. the third book of the De Somno et Vigilia), De Motu
Animalium, De Generatione Animalium, De Alimentis Animalium, De
Passionibus Animalium, De Longa et Brevi Vita, De Morte et Vita, De
Iuventute et Senectute, De Respiratione, De Sanitate et Egritudine. “‘ Et
in hiis completur tota scientia de animalibus.’’ It is not clear what is
meant by the work De Alimentis, or the following work De Passionibus
Animalium, although a treatise De Nutrimento was commonly regarded
as forming part of the cycle of the natural works, and Albertus has a
work so entitled among his Parva Naturalia.
This note professes to be the statement of ‘‘ Willelmus interpres ’’ as
regards the proper sequence of the biological works, and may, therefore,
not unnaturally be taken as embodying the order in which he translated
them. Apart fom this, it affords fresh evidence of a fact conjectured on
other grounds, namely that William of Moerbeke was the author of the
89
later Greek-Latin versions or revisions of the Meteora (see p. 88 above)

and the Parva Naturalza.
The sentence of this note which refers to the Historia Animalium runs:
‘‘ Liber vero qui inscribitur historia animalium non est numerandus inter
libros naturalis methodi sicut nec liber de anathomiis animalium, pro eo
quod non sunt eiusdem modi, et sic iste remanet primus.’’ The last
words would lead us to suppose that the Hzstorza Animalium was
translated by William before his versions of the De Partzbus and the
De Generatione Animalium, that is before 1260. It is to be noted, how-
ever, that the oldest manuscript of these works of which we have
evidence,’*” namely that mentioned by the Sorbonne Catalogue for 1338,
a manuscript written before 1271, did not contain the Hzstorza Animalium.
And certain later manuscripts’ contain the De Partibus, De Motu, De
Progressu and the De Generatione Animalium in the versions from the
Greek, without the Hzstoria Animalium.
There is, however, no doubt that the Historia Animalium, along with
the rest of the zoological works, was translated from the Greek by William
of Moerbeke not long after the year 1260. It was utilized by Aquinas in
the Summa (written before 1264), and it rapidly makes its appearance at
the head of the group of zoological works in the manuscripts.
As regards William’s methods of translation, he seems to have been
on the whole very faithful to the Greek original, though less slavishly
literal than the versions from the Arabic. His translations were rightly
regarded by his contemporaries as an improvement on those of his
predecessors, which they supplanted more or less completely. The
versions of William remained the standard versions of Aristotle until well
on into the fifteenth century, and have even been used by a modern
scholar to determine at times the original text.*”®
In his own copy of these versions William seems to have inserted a
number of notes as to the Greek text, a few of which have survived,
particularly in the case of the Meteora and of the commentaries of
Simplicius. Thus, a Paris manuscript?’ of Alexander Aphrodisias on the
Meteora in the version of William of Moerbeke contains a note probably
copied from William’s own holograph, ‘‘ Hic deficiebat in exemplari
greco circa unam paginam quam nondum habemus.’’ And in several of
the manuscripts of his version of the Mezeorva, for example in the thirteenth-
century manuscript 568 of the University of Paris, there occur marginal
notes relating to a geometrical figure in the Greek original of the third
book, ‘‘ in alio libro graeco lineae h.r. et p.r. non pertrahuntur ultra lineam
m.p. ita quod linea p.r. est eadem cum linea p.m... .’? Again, in a
Venetian manuscript” is a dated copy of his version of Simplicius on
the Categories, followed by the translator’s note: —‘‘ . . . Sciat etiam qui
haec inspexerit, exemplar grecum valde fuisse corruptum, sed in multis
locis sensum nullum ex littera potui extrahere, feci tamen. Melius enim
erat sic corruptum habere, quam nihil translatum. Anno Christi
MCCLXVI, mense martii, confectum.’’ The last sentence here might
serve as the apology for all the early translators. They did the best that
was possible at that date and with the material available, and it was
better to have a corrupt translation than no translation at all. William,
go
however, made a distinct advance in intelligibility and accuracy, and had

the advantage of a more direct derivation from the original than the
translators from the Arabic.
In the prologue of an anonymous commentary on William’s version of
the Meteora*”’ we find this well brought out. This runs :—
‘“‘ Nota primo quod duplex est translatio libri metheororum, nova et
antiqua, et ideo sciendum est (quod) quando facta est nova translatio et
quare, et dico quod anno domini millesimo ducentesimo sexagesimo trans-
latus est textus de greco in latinum apud niceam urbem et simul cum hoc
translata est expositio Alexandri Afrodisii. Causa fuit quia antiquus
textus est in multis corruptus et discordans a verbis et sententia philo-
sophi; nec mirum, quia libri Aristotelis translati fuerunt primo de greco
in arabicum et deinde ab arabico in latinum, et non fuerunt istae trans-
lationes factae de verbo ad verbum?” sed de sententia ad sententiam, et
ideo in multis est diminutus et in quantitate minor quam nova translatio,
et multae partes deficiunt, et alique quae non sunt de textu aristotelis
adduntur. . .”’
The early popularity and rapid diffusion of William’s translation of the
zoological works’ is reflected in the number of manuscripts and in the
frequency of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth century commentaries
on his text.
The first of these was undoubtedly the De Motibus Animalium of
Albertus Magnus, a work which was completed by about 1262. Albertus
wrote two commentaries on this subject, the De Motibus Animalium and
the subsequent De principits motus processivi,’”* the former a commentary
on the De Progressu and the latter on the De Motu Animalium, both of
which existed only in versions from the Greek.
Whether, as Dittmeyer suggests, other portions of Albert’s De
Animalibus are based on the version from the Greek it is not possible to
say with certainty. It seems probable, however, that as Albertus knew
and utilized Moerbeke’s versions of the two opuscules on the motions of
animals, he also used the Greek-Latin versions of the three larger
zoological works, at least for purposes of correction, although his
commentary is mainly based on the translation of Michael Scot.”
Aquinas, though he wrote no commentaries on the zoological works,
nevertheless cites them throughout his works, utilizing the Arabic-Latin
version in those written before 1260, while in those of his works which were
written after that date he regularly used the translation of William of
Moerbeke.”””
William’s version is also cited a number of times in the Summa
Philosophiae, a work previously attributed to Grosseteste (d. 1253), but
which, on that account, cannot be by him.
Although it never attracted the attention of commentators to the same
degree as some of the other natural works or as the Metaphysica, the
treatises dealing with the De Aximalibus in the version of William of
Moerbeke during the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries are fairly
numerous. A discussion of them all would be an enormous task. There
1s, however, one of some interest which has come to light in recent years,
QI
In one
and which exists, so far as is known, in only three manuscripts. *”*
of these, that namely at Milan, we read the title ‘* Gregorius de Brolio
tly
super librum de animalibus Aristotelis.”’ The version used is sufficien
indicated by the division into the Hzstorza Animalium, the De Partibus
and the De Generatione Animalium, instead of the single work in nineteen
books of Michael Scot,” as well as by the occurrence of the typical incipits
of the Greek-Latin translation. The commentary opens with a citation
of the sixth book of the Metaphyics, ‘‘ Sicut dicit philosophus in sexto
metaphysice, si nulla esset substantia praeter existentes natura, scientia
naturalis esset prima philosophia,’’ followed by a classification of the
natural works in eight parts, of which the eighth is occupied by the
De Animalibus,® including the two opuscules on the motions of animals,
although these latter do not occur in the commentary. _
Of Gregorius de Brolio himself nothing is known, nor is there any work
of his extant besides this commentary on the De Animalzbus.
Parva Naturalia.
We have evidence?" that William of Moerbeke translated ‘‘ all the works
of natural and moral philosophy ’’ from the Greek, which would surely
imply in the natural field something more than the De Anzmalibus and
the Meteora. Henry of Hereford (d. 1370), as we have seen, tells us
that Henricus Brabantinus (whom he identifies with William of Moerbeke)
‘‘transtulit omnes libros Aristotelis naturalis et moralis philosophie et
metaphysice de greco in latinum.’’ And there are other witnesses to the
same effect.
Now Roger Bacon?” regards William rather in the light of a reviser than
a translator. ‘‘ Omnes translationes factas,’? he says, ‘‘ promuisit
immutare et novas cudere varias.’’ In his version of the zoological works,
as well as of the Politica and of one or two other works, William of
Moerbeke was an entirely independent translator. He was either working
on an Aristotelian treatise of which no Latin version was in existence, as
in the case of the Polztica, or producing a Greek-Latin version of a work
previously known only in translation from the Arabic, as with the De
Animalibus and the first three books of the Meteora.
There is, however, reason, apart from the evidence of Roger Bacon, to
believe that William was also responsible for new versions which differed
so little from their predecessors as to be revisions rather than translations.
This is certainly the case with the De Anima, the Metaphysica,** and the
fourth book of the Meteora. It is highly probable for the De Generatione
et Corruptione’™ and the Physica.
As regards the Parva Naturalia, the revised form of the numerous
opuscules covered by this title appears in the manuscripts at the same date
as William’s period of greatest activity. It happens that the change from
older to newer form is specially easily tested in the case of the De Memoria
et Reminiscentia, since the older form opens with a few words which, in
the later type, are placed at the end of the De Sensu.*** An examination
of the manuscripts reveals the fact that the De Memoria in its earlier form
is always found in company with the Arabic-Latin versions of the De
Caelo and the Meteora, and in its later form with their Greek-Latin
versions. The date of this change can be fixed as between about 1260
and 1283,7* while the death of William of Moerbeke occurred in 1286.
g2
There is no other writer known to have been engaged in the work of

revision of the already existing versions from the Greek at this date.
Moreover, as we have seen,””” the Parva Naturalia figure in the note of
‘* Willelmus interpres ’’ in the codex Faesulani 168. We may take it,
then, as reasonably probable, if not actually proved, that the versions of
the Parva Naturalia, as of the De Anima, current from the middle of the
thirteenth century were the revision of William of Moerbeke, based on the
older, anonymous, twelfth-century versions from the Greek.
“* Physiognomia’’ b
and other versions by the school of Bartholomew
of Messina.
From the famous letter to the University of Paris, once held to be by
Frederick II, but now attributed to his son, we learn that a regular school
of translators had been established in Sicily. ‘‘ Volentes igitur,’’ Manfred
writes, ‘‘ ut veneranda tantorum operum (Aristotelis) simul auctoritas
apud nos non absque multorum commodis communibus vocis organo
traductione innotescat, ea per viros lectos, et in utriusque linguae prola-
tione peritos, instantes jussimus, verborem fideliter servata virginitate,
transferri. . .’’”* This ambitious programme does not seem to have been
realised in fact, the only Aristotelian translations traceable to the school
of Bartholomew of Messina being those of the Magna Moralia and seven
pseudo-Aristotelian works, chief among which was the Physiognomia.
Roger Bacon, in the Opus Tertium which was written between 1266
and 1268, refers among Aristotelian translators to a ‘‘ translator Mein-
fredi nuper a domino rege Carolo devicti’’ who can be identified as
Bartholomew of Messina, the chief of the school set up by King Manfred.
From this reference of Rogers’, then, we may gather that the versions of
Bartholomew and his school were available in North-West Europe at the
date of the Opus tertium, that is almost as soon as they were made.*”
We may now turn to the version of the pseudo-Aristotelian
Physiognomia which was one of the most important products of this
Sicilian school. Considerable sections of this work had been extant at
least since the eleventh century, in a composite work of the same name.””
These sections had been drawn upon by Michael Scot in his Physzognomia,
which, however, relied mainly on Arabic sources. Thus the matter rested
during the reign of Frederick, whose interests were Arabic rather than
Greek.?"_ With his son and successor, Manfred, King of Sicily (1258—
66), there was a turning towards the Greek.
From Manfred’s court emanated a whole series of translations from the
Greek. Among these were the first Latin versions of various pseudo-
Aristotelian opuscules which were translated from Greek by Bartholomew
and by Nicholas of Sicily.
Our principal source of information about the versions of pseudo-
Aristotelian works by Bartholomew of Messina and his school is a
fourteenth-century Paduan manuscript described by Marchesi in his
L’Etica Nicomachea.*” This codex contains the Prcblemata, the De
Principiis, the De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus, the Physiognomia, the
De Signis, the De Inundatione Nili and the De Mundo, in addition to an
extract from the Magna Moralia and the Eudemian Ethics which went
93
during the mediaeval period under the name of De Bona Fortuna,” 223 and
various of the natural works.”* The first five of this list are explicitly
stated to have been translated by Bartholomaeus de Messina. For
example, the Physiognomia, with which we are here primarily concerned,
bears the following title:—‘‘ Incipit liber physiognomiae Aristotelis
translatus de greco in latinum a magistro Bartholomaeo de Messina in
curia illustrissimi manfredi, serenissimi regis Sicilie, scientie amatoris, de
mandato suo. Quoniam et animae sequuntur corpora et ipsae secundum
selpsas non sunt impassibiles. . .’’
This version of the Physiognomia attained a rapid and wide circula-

tion, formed the subject of various commentaries and was first printed at
Cologne in 1472, and no less than thirteen times reprinted in the course
of the fifteenth century. The definitive modern edition is that of R.
Forster, Scrzptores Physiognomici graeci et latent (Teubner), Lipsiae 1893,
VEG EONi
Of the other pseudo-Aristotelian opuscules in this Paduan codex the

Problemata, the De Principiis, the De Mirabiltbus Auscultationibus and
the De Signis are explicitly attributed to the hand of Bartholomew in the
same terms as the Physiognomia. The De Inundatione Nili and the De
Mundo are without a translator’s name here, but for the latter a Venice
manuscript (Marciana, Cl. VI. Cod. 49) gives us the information that it
was translated ‘‘ a Nicholao Siculo ex graeco in latinum.”’
From their frequent occurrence in the manuscripts in company with the
works discussed above, it is probable that two other small pseudo-
Aristotelian treatises are to be attributed to this school of translators.
These are the De Lineis Indivisibilibus and the De Coloribus, both of
which are constantly found in manuscripts of the later type of the
Aristotelian corpus, the De Coloribus being often found next to the
De Plantis.”**
Another work emanating from the translating school set up by Manfred
was the spurious De Pomo or De Morte Aristotelis, which seems to have
been translated from the Hebrew for the young king during an illness
from which he suffered in the year 1257.77
We know nothing of any members of this school beyond Bartholomew
and Nicolaus, and even of them we have almost no details relating to their
life or personality.?**
(3). PHYSICAL AND CERTAIN OTHER WORKS.

To Michael Scot, in addition to his Arabic-Latin De Animalibus,
have been ascribed also versions from the Arabic of the De Caelo et
mean the De Anima, the Physica, and the De Generatione (see note 242,
ow).
Of the De Caelo there were three mediaeval versions, two from the
Arabic and one from the Greek by William of Moerbeke.??® The earlier
of the Arabic-Latin versions was by Gerard of Cremona,?* the later by
94
Michael Scot. It occurs in the manuscripts in company with the Averroan

commentary*”’ and frequently with a dedicatory preface, which runs :—
““ Tibi, Stefane, de primo hoc opus, quod ego Michael Scotus dedi
latinati ex dictis arabum, specialiter tibi commendo; et si aliquid Aris-
toteles incompletum dimisit de constitutione mundana in hoc libro eius,
supplementum recipies ex libro alpetragii, quem _ similiter dedi
latinitati. ..’’ The reference to the ‘‘ Liber Alpetragii ’’ shows that the
translation of the De Caelo and the accompanying Averroan commentary
was accomplished after the year 1217, when the De Sfhera of al-Bitrogi
was given its Latin form by Scot.?*? The dedicatee of Scot’s version of
the De Caelo, Stephen of Provins, Canon of Rheims and Archdeacon of
Paris, was appointed in 1231 by Pope Gregory IX as head of the abortive
commission to revise the Aristotelian works for use in the University.”*
We may perhaps connect with this fact Roger Bacon’s statement that it
was in the year 1230 that Michael Scot appeared in Paris from Spain
bearing versions of the Aristotelian works and commentaries thereon.”*
Of the De Anzma there were again three mediaeval versions, but in this
case one was from the Arabic and two from the Greek (that is, the
anonymous twelfth-century form, and its revision by William of
Moerbeke).”**
The version from the Arabic of the De Anima is the work of Scot. It
frequently occurs in the manuscripts (together with the commentary of
Averroes), with the De Caelo in Scot’s version also with its Averroan com-
mentary.”* The Averroan commentary on the De Anima is in several
manuscripts” explicitly stated to have been translated by Michael Scot.
Of the Physica also there are two mediaeval versions from the Arabic
and one from the Greek, apart from the anonymous twelfth-century
version. (See note on p. 7, above). The last-named, which is probably
William of Moerbeke’s nevision of the earlier version,”** occurs far more fre-
quently in the manuscripts than both the versions from the Arabic together.
The earlier translation from the Arabic is the work of Gerard. The
evidence for attributing the later to Scot is based on general style, on
the fact that there 1s no other likely author,” and that, as with
other versions by Scot, it appears in the manuscripts along with the
Averroan commentary (which was also probably Scot’s work).%*° This
evidence does not amount to certainty, but it may be said that Scot is
the most likely candidate for the authorship of this version of the
Physica.**
We need only mention to dismiss the attribution to Scot of the E¢hzca
Nova in a manuscript of the Bibliothéque de St. Omer mentioned by
Wiistenfeld.*? The translation is here said to be from the Greek. The
attribution is a scribe’s error and need not be taken sericusly.
We turn now to discuss the versions of the physical works by the
translator of most of the Aristotelian canon, William of Moerbeke. To
him are in all probability due the later mediaeval forms of the De Caelo,
the De Anima, the Physica and the Meteora, as well as works of
Greek commentators on these and other Aristotelian works.
95
With regard to the De Caelo e¢ Mundo, in addition to the two versions

from the Arabic by Gerard of Cremona and Michael Scot (see above,
p. 94-5) there is extant in a large number of the manuscripts an anonymous
translation from the Greek, which opens:—‘‘ De natura scientia fere
plurima videtur circa corpora et magnitudines. . .’’ This version, we
are told in a number of the manuscripts,”** was translated from the Greek.
There is, however, as in the case of the De Anima, Parva Naturalia and
other versions, only circumstantial evidence to connect it with William of
Moerbeke. But we know that in 1271 William completed a version of
the commentary on the De Caelo e¢ Mundo from the Greek of Simplicius.**
This version of Simplicius, together with the Greek-Latin text of the
Aristotelian De Caelo itself, was used by Aquinas in his commentary on
that work. St. Thomas’ commentary on the De Caelo (which was
completed by Petrus de Alvernia) was written in the period 1270—1272,
and probably the translation of the work itself immediately preceded that
of the commentary of Simplicius thereon in 1271.%° Moreover, this
thirteenth-century Greek-Latin text of the De Caelo is almost invariably
found in the manuscripts in company with William’s version of the
Meteora from the Greek.”**
The current text of the De Anima during the later mediaeval period
was a revision, almost certainly by William of Moerbeke, of the
anonymous twelfth-century version from the Greek.**7 The date of its
appearance, and its use by Aquinas, combine to fix the responsibility upon
William. It is, moreover, inherently probable that a revision of this version
would have preceded that of the Parva Naturalia which form a kind of
appendix to the De Anima, and which we have seen reason to attribute in
their later form to William.*** The situation, indeed, for the Latin versions
of the De Anima and the Parva Naturalia is exactly similar. Both existed
in an earlier form from the Greek during the twelfth century, in versions to
which no translator’s name can be assigned. Both appear in a revised
form which closely follows the earlier version, during the later half of the
thirteenth century. In both cases this revised form is probably the work
of William of Moerbeke.
The De Anima of William of Moerbeke was printed a number of times,
notably with the works of Aquinas in Antwerp, 1612.
The reasons for attributing to William of Moerbeke the Greek-Latin
version of the Physica current during the thirteenth and subsequent
centuries are similar to those which we have discussed above in the
case of the De Caelo, although rather less cogent in this case. There
is reason to suppose that there was an earlier, anonymous version from
the Greek current in the twelfth century, which underwent revision during
the thirteenth century,“ and since William is known to have performed
this task in other cases, and this version of the Physica was used by
Aquinas for whom William’s translations were made, it seems most
reasonable to attribute the work to him.
With regard to the version of the Mezeora from the Greek, although we
have only one manuscript”®* in which this translation is explicitly ascribed
to Moerbeke, it may be taken as certain that it is his work. One
96
thirteenth-century codex** contains the commentary on the Meteora

by Alexander Aphrodisias, with the title: —'‘ Alexandri Aphrodisiae
expositio libri metheorologicorum Aristotelis, translata de greco in latinum
apud Niceam, urbem grecie, anno Christi 1260.’ Then follows the
Incipit of the Greek-Latin version of the Meteora, ‘‘ De primis quidem
igitur causis naturae et de omni motu naturali. Incipiens metherorlogica
primo nobis ad memoriam reducit. . .’’ At the end (F.57) we read :—
‘“. .. que sunt ex his. Anno domini m°ducentesimo 1x°, in vigilia marchi
evangeliste. Explicit.’? We find this same commentary of Alexander on
the Mezeora, with the same date, the Eve of St. Mark, 1260, in other
manuscripts.” Place, dating and the whole wording of the note suggest
the similar notices of date to be found on known works of William, such
as the De Partibus Animalium.*** Moreover, we have definite evidence
in an anonymous commentary on this Greek-Latin version of the
Meteora®*™ that this version was made at Nicea at the same time as the
commentary of Alexander Aphrodisias.*** In the same year (1260), then,
William finished his translation of the De Partibus Animalium, and those
of the Meteora and of the commentary of Aphrodisias upon it. (For
evidence of the enormous output of versions by William, cf. Birkenmajer,
Op. GIL., pe 31):
Three more works, the Nicomachean Ethics, Magna Moralia and the
Economica, were translated from the Greek for the first time during this
century. They may be considered as rounding off the mediaeval
acquisition of the Aristotelian corpus.
The history of the Latin versions of the Ethica Nicomachea and of the
commentary of Averroes on it has been exhaustively considered by other
writers.”° We need only note here that the mediaeval Latin version of
the ten books of the Nicomachean Ethics (as distinct from the Ethica vetus
and Ethica nova, which together comprised the first three books of the
complete work, and which were extant in several slightly varying forms
of unknown date), was the work of Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln,
and was produced by him between the years 1240 and 1243.7” The
Middle Commentary of Averroes on the Nicomachean Ethics was
translated from the Arabic by Hermann the German, in June 1240 at
Toledo, and the reduced form of the work known as the Alexandrine
Abridgement by the same author in 1243—1244.
The Latin version of the Magna Moralia was the work of Bartholomew
of Messina (see p. 93 above), and was produced at the court of Manfred
of Sicily during the same period as the versions of the five or six pseudo-
Aristotelian natural works of which the Physiognomia is the most
important.”**
The Economica seems to have been the last of the Aristotelian or pseudo-
Aristotelian versions of the thirteenth century.” It is difficult to see in
the ‘‘ Archiepiscopus de Graecia ’’ mentioned as translator in the Venice
manuscript of this work, anyone but William of Moerbeke, although a
difficulty of date then arises which has given rise to the suggestion that
there was an earlier version by William dated 1267 (a suggestion which
finds support in the citations of this work in the manuscripts), and that
this version was revised by Durandus de Alvernia in 1295.7° & ”*.
97
Thirteenth-Century Verstons
1E. H. F. Meyer, Nicolai Damasceni de plantis libri duo Aristoteli vulgo adscripti.
Ex Isaaci Ben Honain versione arabica latine vertit Alfredus. Lipsiae, 1841.
2 P. M. Bouyges, Notes sur Les Philosophes Arabes connus des Latins au Moyen Age,
No. VIII, Sur le De Plantis d'Aristote-Nicolas, 4 propos d'un manuscrit arabe de
Constantinople, (Mélanges de l’université Saint-Joseph), Beyrouth (Syrie), Tome
IX, Fasc. 2, 1924.
> Cf. G. Fliigel, De Arabicis scriptorum graec. interpretibus, 1841. Hadji had
prohably seen a MS of the family of that discovered by Bouyges.
“Cf. Bouyges, op. cit., p. 78.
* See p. 11.
* The question of these references has been discussed by Professor Senn, (Philologus,
Band LXXXV, Heft. 2, Leipzig, 1930), Hat Aristoteles eine selbstandige Schrift
uiber Pflanzen verfasst? Protessor Senn believes that the only three of these
references to a treatise De Plantis in Aristotelian works which can be definitely
identified, correspond to the De Causis Plantarum of Theophrastus.
7 Alfredus is among the most elusive of mediaeval writers, if only because of the
Protean forms under which his name appears. His surname is found as Sarchel,
Sareshel, Sereshel, Sarewell, and in many other variations of spelling, and it has
not yet been successfully identified with any known English place-name. The
variants on ‘‘ Alfredus ’’ are no less numerous, and were the cause of consider-
able confusion; works by him being attributed to ‘‘ Aurelius,’’ (in Paris, Bibl.
Nat. 6319, F. 182v, and Steinschneider, op. cit., p. 7 (23)); Albertus, (a confusion
easily arising from the fact that the abbreviation ‘‘ al.’’ serves equally for both
names); Alfarabi, (e.g. in the Summa philosophiae of the pseudo-Robert Grosse-
teste, (ed. des Robert Grosseteste, p. 878, L. Baur, Beitrage z. Gesch. d. Philos.
d. Mittelalters, IX, 1912) a passage from Alfredus’ De Motu Cordis, cap. 1, is
at under the title ‘‘ iuxta Alfarabium ’’); and even to Averroes. (Cf. pp. 71
and 72).
8 In the Compotus (1176) Roger refers to himself as still ‘‘ iuvenis,’’ although he had
already given many years to study, and therefore, presumably, cannot have been
far short of thirty at the youngest. He appears in some of the manuscripts with
the designation ‘‘ infans,’’ or ‘‘ puer.’’ Whether this is a Latin version of the
surname Yonge, attributed to him by Leland, (J. Leland, Comentarii de Scrip-
toribus Britannicis, Oxon., 1709. Cf. the cognomen ‘‘ Parvus "’ given to John
of Salisbury, which was apparently a translation of his surname. Many other
examples might be given of this practice), or whether it is a reference to his state-
ment in the Compotus, it is impossible to say. Thus, Petrus de Alvernia, in his
commentary on the De Plantis, (Cf. p. 67), ‘* qui vocabatur rogerus, puer de
heborbia, cui devovit hoc opus.’’ (Leclerc, Histoire de la Médicine Arabe, Paris,
1876, II, 437-41, wrongly read ‘‘ heborbia ’’ here as ‘‘ hibernia ’’ and therefore
states that the version was dedicated to ‘‘ Roger, enfant de l'Irlande.'’) With
regard to the title ‘‘ Puer ’’ or ‘‘ Infans,"’ again, Roger’s Compotus is prefaced by
an introduction with the title ‘‘ Praefatio magistri Rogeri’ infantis in compotum.”’
(Haskins, op. cit., p. 124). Again, in Escorial MS G.III, 17, which contains
various mathematical tractates of Roger Bacon, occurs on F. 26 a note, ‘‘ Istud
dicit rogerus infans Herfordiae in compoto. . ."’ Cf. p. 72 below.
* One of the most explicit manuscript references, however, seems to have disappeared.
Haskins, op. cit., p. 128, note 47, states that MS 7-2-6 of the University of
Barcelona contains the De Plantis with the title ‘‘ Incipit liber de plantis quem
Alveredus de arabico transtulit in latinum mittens ipsum magistro Rogero de
Herfodia.’’ P. Duhem, Systéme du Monde, Tom. III (1915), p. 521, repeats
the statement. I have, however, examined the manuscript, and can find no trace
of this title.
The names of both translator and dedicatee sometimes appear in very dis-
torted forms; e.g. in a Laurentiana MS, Plut. XIII, Sin.Cod.V, a note occurs at
the end of the Prologue : ‘‘ Liber Aristotelis de vegetabilibus translatus de arabico
98
Thirteenth-Century Versions
in latinum a magistro alfredo de chorel (sic), prologus eiusdem ad magistrum
rogerum de herfordo.’’ And in Paris, Bibl. Nat. 6823, in the dedicatory prologue,
we find, . . . . tibique hoc opus, dilectissime mi ausselline. . . ."’ for “ Rogere,”’
perhaps a confusion for one of the many forms in which the name of Alfredus
appears in the MSS. Cf. p. 98, note 7, above.
1° There are many versions of this name, which appears as ‘‘ Sarchel, Sarewel.
Sereshel,”’ etc. No place of that name has been identified. It is perhaps identical
with the old English surname, Sarewell.
™’ For information on Alfredus, see Baeumker, op. cit.; A. Jourdain, op. cit., pp.
104-106; C. 8. Barach, Excerpta e libro Alfredi Anglici de motu cordis, etc. (Bibl.
Philos Med. Aetat. 2 Bd.), Innsbruck, 1878, etc.
Printed (with some omissions) by Tanner, Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica, (ed.
1748), pp. xviii-xliii. The entry referred to above occurs on p. xxviii.
*8 These two works, De Musica and Super Boetium de Consolatione were also ascribed
to the later Alfredus of 1270, by John Bale (1495-1563), in his Index Britanniae
Scriptorum, written probably between 1548 and 1557. (Cf. Index Britanniae
Scriptorum, etc., John Bale’s Index of British and Other Writers, edited by R. L.
Poole and Mary Bateson, Oxford, 1902, p. 28). In this work Bale states that he
derives his information from Boston of Bury..
‘* First printed by Anthony Hall, Oxford, 1709. The entry given above occurs on
p. 214.
*5 John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Majoris Britanniae Catalogus, Ed. Basle, 1557,
Vol. I, 822. The work was based on those of Boston of Bury and Leland.
16 This list, however, is not to be found in that portion of Boston’s catalogue which
was published by Tanner, which contains only the extract given above. Nor does
it seem to be in Leland’s Commentarii (quoted above), nor in his Collectanea, ed.
T. Hearne, 6 vols., Oxford, 1715, nor in the later edition, London, 1770. There
are, however, several works attributed to Aluredus in the lists of MSS scattered
about this work and Bale’s list is probably drawn from these.
‘7 The list was repeated by Pits, De rebus anglicis, Paris, 1619.
18 Now Bibliotheque Nationale, MS lat. 6514.
19 Cf. Steinschneider, op. cit., 135.
20 Monsignor Pelzer, (Une Source Inconnuede Roger Bacon, etc., Arch. Franc. Hist.
12 (1919) 44-67) has dealt at length with the citations from the commentary of
Alfredus which are to be found in MS Vat. Urb. lat. 206, both in the form of
marginal glosses and in the commentary of Adam de Bocfeld. Pelzer suggests
that the missing work may be found in an anonymous commentary on the Meteora
in the Oxford manuscript, Merton, 272. I have, however, examined this
manuscript, and find that the conjecture cannot be confirmed.
21 Bacon’s citations may be found in the Opus Majus, Bridges, Vol. I, pp. 55 and 212;
Opus Tertium, Brewer, p. 78, etc.
22 Manuscripts in which these citations may be found are:—Niirnberg Cod.
Cent. V.59, Escorial £.11.4., (these two mentioned by Grabmann, Hand-
schriften Spanischer Bibliothek, Mimchen, 1918, pp. 49-50) and Florence,
Laur, Plut. XIII. Sin Cod. V., Madrid, Bibl. Nacional, 1428, and 1427, Sevilla,
Colombina 82-6, Oxford, Bodl. Lib. Digby 204, and many others. The com-
mentary is also cited in the anonymous ‘‘ Compilatio de libris naturalibus "
attributed by Grabmann (Lateinische Ubersetzungen, p. 75) to Albertus Magnus,
in an anonymous commentary on the Meteora in Siena, Bibl. Comunale L.III.21.
and other commentaries on the Meteora. The sum total, however, of additions
to the text to be gleaned from these citations, beyond what Pelzer has found in
Urb. lat. 206, is small.
23 Cf. Steinschneider, op. cit., p. 17 (12). Gerard seems, however, only to have
translated part of it. :
24 Omont, Recherches sur la bibliothéque de l’église cathédrale de Beauvais (Mémoires
de l’Académie des Inscriptions, xl.), Paris, 1914, p. 48, No. 143, where the follow-
99
ing works are attributed to Alfredus :—‘‘ Alfredus Anglicus in Aristotelem de

mundo & celo, de gen. & corrupt., de anima, de somno & vigilia, de morte & vita
& de colore celi.’’ Cf. p..54, note 47.
25 The XV century manuscript, Oxford, Bodl. Lib. Bodley 77, contains a number of
musical tractates, of which the last folio, 1388v, is alleged by the Catalogue to be
part of Alfredus Anglicus’ De Musica. The only confirmation of this in the
manuscript itself is the word *‘ Anglici,’’ which is half cut away from the top
of the page.
26 Reliqua Librorum Frederici II, etc., 1788. Schneider quotes Bartholomaeus
Anglicus on Alfredus, whom he identifies with King Alfred.
27 Vol. I, p. 489, MS 978, Ff. 187v-139v.
28.¢, §. Barach, Excerpta e libro Alfredi Anglici De Motu Cordis, ete. (Beitrage zur
Geschichte der Anthropologie & Psychologie des Mittelalters. Bibliotheca
Philosophorum mediae aetatis, II.), Innsbruck, 1878. On the De Motu Cordis
see also C. Baeumker, Die Stellung des Alfred von Sareshel, etc. (Sitzungsberichte
der Kéniglich Bayerischen Akadamie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-philol. & Hist.
Klasse, Jahrgang, 1913, 9 Abh.), Miinchen, 1913.
7? This has been definitely established by E. J. Holmyard and D. C. Mandeville, who
have printed the work, together with the Arabic text, Avicennae de congela-
tione . . . being sections of the Kitab-al-Shifa, Paris, 1927.
5° See p. 42, note 14.
*1 This note occurs also at the end of the anonymous commentary on the Meteora to
be found in Merton 272, F. 71. (Cf. p. 99, note 20).
22 See p. 55.
°° As well as the fourth book of the Meteora, the De Anima, the De Somno & Vigilia,
De Respiratione, the Metaphysica, and the Physica. The commentary on the De
Plantis cites, of Aristotelian works, the De Generatione et Corruptione, De
Meteoris, De Anima, the Analytica Posteriora, the Liber de Congelatis, (i.e. the
last three chapters added by Alfredus to the Meteora), and in one passage the De
Animalibus, a citation which we shall discuss below. See p. 76.
°4 See p. 98, note 8.
°° Haskins, op. cit., p. 126, suggests that he may be the Roger, clerk of Hereford, who
acted as itinerant justice with Walter Map in 1185.
86 See p. 48, note 36.
*? Opus Majus, Pars Tertia, Bridges, Vol. III, pp. 81-82. Roger, however, as we shall
see, seems to have known two versions of the De Plantis, and it is not possible to
identify the one quoted in this passage.
** Baeumker, op. cit., p. 23. Bacon gives the same example of the word ‘‘ belenum ”’
appearing in the De Vegetabilibus instead of ‘‘ jusquiamus,’’ in the Op. Tert,
Cap. 25 (Brewer, op. cit., I, 91).
°° T have taken this text from Vat. Urb. lat. 206, Ff. 355-371, which is
the earliest
dated manuscript of the work, and bears the date 1253. This text of Alfred’s
was
printed in the edition of the Aristotelian natural works, together with the
Meta-
physica and Averroes’ De Substantia Orbis, at Venice, in 1482. It was
again
printed for Fontana by Gregorius de Gregoriis, Venice, 1496. It has been
printed
only once since these editions, namely by E. H. F. Meyer, op. cit., who
based
his text on two Guelpherbitani manuscripts and one at Basle.
** But with regard to the question which Latin version was used
for this Greek text,
see below, p. 64.
“1 In Dioscoridem corollariorum, Lib. I, cap. 28.
shel Ug OF Scaliger, In Libros duos, qui inscribuntur De plantis.
Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, Hamburg, 1707, Vol. . . Lutetiae, 1556, p. 15.
II, p. 185, suggests as alter-
native authors of the Renaissance Greek version
of De Plantis Musurus, Lascar,
or (as Simon Grynaeus, De Plantis, 1539, thought)
Theodore, Gaza. In support
100
of the authorship
(Paris 1654). p of Planudes, see Duval, Oper 7 i Omnia,
pera Aristotelis | Vol. IV, p. 48.
“ Aristotelis De Natura stirpium liber unus et alter, exigui quidem, si chartas
sereway ee ae gemmis ornati; hactenus nondum in lucem editi. Nunc
vero
closedex Graecis Latini facti. . Andrea a Lacuna, S ecobiensi,
ea Colonias, iensi Philiatro,
ili Interprete
“ This manuscript is described in Tom. XIX (pp. 196-198) of the Catalogue Général
des MSS des Bibliothéques Publiques de France, Departements, Paris, 1898.
It was also discussed by V. Cousin in the Journal des Savants, 1848, (459-472).
(Description d'un manuscrit inédit de Roger Bacon, qui se trouve dans la Biblio-
théque d’Amiens). Cousin (op. cit., p. 459) states that the manuscript is of the
fourteenth century. For a full, modern account of the manuscript see Opera
hactenus inedita Rogeri Baconi, Fasc. X, p. xiii. (Oxford), where The
Metaphysica and the first series of Physica Questiones have been edited by Mr.
Steele and P. Delorme. Fasc. XI of the series, which is about to be published,
will contain Mr. R. R. Steele’s edition of the Questiones de Plantis in this
manuscript.
4° A list of the titles of some of the ‘‘ Questiones ’’ is given by V. Cousin, op. cit.,
pp. 466-467. They are being edited by Mr. Steele as Fasc. XI. of the Opera
Lactenus inedita. (See previous note).
46 See p. 59.
47 T quote from the version of Alfredus as printed by Meyer, op. cit.
“8 Albertus, De Vegetabilibus, (Lib. I., cap. 2).
“9 The Didot edition of Aristotle, however, which prints The Renaissance Greek and
Latin texts in parallel columns, gives HymedoxAns in the former, and ‘* Abru-
calis ’’ in the latter.
5° See p. 61.
*1 For another manuscript reference to what may be a second version of the De
Plantis, see note 54, below.
52 T have examined over sixty in the libraries of England, France, Spain, and Italy,
and there are many others.
53 Tt is, however, clear from Alfredus’ prologue, that he, at least, knew of no earlier
version. (Cf. p. 59).
54 There is one MS (Assisi, Biblioteca Comunale 283, XIV Century) which contains
the usual version of Alfredus, with a number of marginal emendations of individual
words, involving little or no change of sense, each prefaced by the word “ alias.”’
This, however, is almost certainly a reference merely to another copy of the same
version. (Cf, p. 50 above).
55 Op. cit., p. 23.
56 De Proprietatibus Rerum.
57 On this point, Albertus (De Veg., Lib. I, cap. xii, Jessen'’s edition, p. 45) says
later :—‘‘ Que verba non pervenerunt nisi ex imperitia transferentium. Aristotelis
....’ The reference here, however, is to the De Animalibus and not to the
De Plantis.
Ss Op cit:
59M. Carl Christoph Pliier, Reisen durch Spanien, Liepzig, 1777, pp. 146-202 (Cata-
logus der MHebraischen, arabischen und griechischen MHandschriften in der
Bibliothek des Escorials).
6° The period in which, in the opinion of Baeumker, Alfredus also wrote his De Motu
Cordis. Op. cit., pp. 44-45. See p. 58 above.
51 See p. 76.
82 See p. 58.
®$ T have taken this from the thirteenth-century manuscript, Paris, Bibl. Nationale,
Fonds latines, 14700, Ff. 391-4v., corrected in some points from MS Vienna, 2302.
Other copies exist in Oxford, Balliol, 105, Paris, Bibl. Nat. 14000, Vienna,
Hofbibliothek 2302, and Durham Cathedral, CIII. 15 (VII).
IOI
64 Petrus finished the commentary of Aquinas on the De Celo ¢ Mundo, (printed,
together with the Greek-Latin version of the De Celo, in 1495), and wrote com-
mentaries of his own on the Physica and the Metaphysica, as well as other works.
(Cf. Hauréau, Histoire de.la Philosophie Scholastique, II, 2, 157).
65 Which occurs in Paris, Bibl. Nat. lat., 16097, Fl. 204-225v.
6° Timaeus, 46.e. (Didot edition, Vol. 2, p. 215). -rov 6€ vot Kav émornmns
épariy aveykn Tas TIS Eugpovos Pbaews auTiag mpwTas peTadidKeLV - ~~...
*7 Cf. p. 98, note 8.
*3 De Sensu & Sensato.
6° Tt is probable that this opinion was based on a passage in the commentary of
Alexander Aphrodisaeus on the De Sensu et Sensibili, where Alexander states
that the treatise on plants referred to in the text is that of Theophrastus, not
Aristotle. (Alexander Aphrodisaeus, Commentaria in librum de sensu & sensibili,
Venice, 1527, F. 109a:—7ra yap GAAa wé0n rv xuudv...... oiketa
gjow elves 7g] TEplL OuT@V gvTLoAoyia Kat EaTL mEpi gvToV DcoppdcTw
Tpayparéa ‘yeypeupévn. ‘'ApiororéAovs yap ob gépera, On this subject see
G. Senn, Hat Aristoteles eine selbstandige Schrift iiber Pflanzen verfasst? (Philo-
logus, (Zeitschrift fir das klassische Altertum & sein Nachleben. Sonderdruck
aus Band LXXV, Heft 2, Leipzig, 1930)). It is a matter of dispute whether
Alexander’s Commentaria in librum de sensu et sensibili was translated into Latin
by Gerard of Cremona (see p. 123 below) from the Arabic, or by William of
Moerbeke from the Greek. This passage in the commentary of Alexander on the
De Sensu seems actually to have been cited in connection with the De Plantis,
in the Vatican manuscript, Vat. lat. 7096. On F. 86 of this manuscript (after the
close of the Compendium de Animalibus of Avicenna with the note of its having
been copied by Henry of Cologne in 1232. Cf. pp. 84) occurs the usual Prologue
to Alfredus’ version of the De Plantis, followed by the work itself. In the margin,
beside the Prologue, is a half-obliterated note in the same hand as the text, of
which all that can be deciphered is :—‘‘ Alexander dicit in commento suo super
librum de sensu et sensato aristoteli (word obliterated) librum de... .’’ A
citation of Alexander’s commentary on the De Sensu in connection with the open-
ing words of the De Plantis would almost certainly be of the passage relating to
the authorship of that work, and confirms us in the opinion! that it was from this
source that Aquinas and Petrus de Alvernia derived their theory that the De
Plantig was the work of Theophrastus.
7 The Speculum Naturale, like the other parts of Vincent’s encyclopaedia, is extant in
a large number of manuscripts, and several incunables, of which the earliest seems
to be the edition which was probably printed at Weidenbach, near Cologne, in
1472. It was also printed by H. Liechtenstein, Venice, 1494, and a number of
times since.
1 On this question of the date see F. Pelster, Kritische Studien zum Leben und zu
den Schriften Alberts des Grossen (Erganzungshefte zu den Stimmen der Zeit.
Zweite Reihe : Forschungen, 4, Heft), Freiburg im Breisgau, 1920, and the writers
there discussed.
7 Op. cit., Dp. 322-8.
°C, Jessen, Alberti Magni de Vegetabilibus libri VII, etc., Berlin,
1867.
* Unless his substitution of ‘‘ Pythagoras ’’ for ‘‘ Abrucalis ”” (Cf. p. 64).
de Jourdain, p. 323, and this book, p. 64, . Albertus’ De Vegetabilibus
has been
many times printed. The definitive edition is that of C. Jessen,
A. M....
Vegetabili
bus libri VII, etc., Berlin, 1867. de
7° Pp. 61 et seqq.
elt appears, however, as we have said (p. 19 above), in the list of Aristoteli
an writings
prescribed for students in the faculty of arts at Paris in 1254,
as follows :—
. . . librum de sensu et sensato in sex septimanis; librum de sompno
et vigilia
102
in quinque septimanis; librum de plantis in quinque septimanis. . . . [Denifle-

Chatelain, Chart. Univ. Paris, Vol. I, p. 278.]
78 Marciana, Cl. VI, Cod. 99.
7 Unless he is identified with Henricus Kosbien discussed below. (See p. 86).
®° Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Recensiti, Paris, 1719, Vol. I, p. 902.
§1 Utini, 1689, p. 32. ;
82 Catalogi Codicum Manuscriptorum Bibliothecae Bodleianae, Pars Quarta (Tanner
MSS), A. Hackmann, Oxford, 1860, p. 494.
83 Bibliothéque Nationale, Fonds Latins 63823, Ff. 206-217.
84 Conventi Soppressi I., Iv. 22.
8° Cf. R. R. Steele, Secretum Secretorum Fratris Rogeri, Intr. (contd.), xxxi, (12).
(Opera hactenus inedita Rogeri Bacon, Fasc. V. Oxon, 1920).
8° We may mention here two more mediaeval works dealing with the De Plantis, which
are to be found at Peterhouse, Cambridge. One of these is a collection of Notabilia
and chapter-headings from the De Plantis, and is in the Peterhouse MS 208,
ff. 6-6v. The other is a detailed commentary on that work, by an anonymous
author, to be found in Peterhouse 157, Ff. 165 et seqq. In both cases the version
used is that of Alfredus, as is proved by citations from his dedicatory prologue to
Roger of Hereford.
87 L. Baur, Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, etc. (Beitrige z.
Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters, IX, 1912), p. 68.
88 See note 92, below.
89 Cf. Grabmann, Latein Ubersetz., pp. 48-9.
°° Cf. Bouyges, Sur le De Plantis d’Aristote-Nicolas, etc., (Mélanges de l’Université
Saint-Joseph, Beyrouth, Tom. IX, Fasc. 2), Beyrouth, 1924, p. 85, note 1.
*1 See Paris, 14,700, F. 393. It is possible, however, that a reference is also intended
to Averroes in Meteora, Lib. II, (Opera Aristotelis ... cum commentariis
Averrois. . . Junta, Venice, 1550, Vol. V, p. 200), which contains a similar
passage :—‘‘ Et dicamus quod locus qui est sub polo septentrionali declarari
potest quod est inhabitabilis. . . Et praeterea propter id quod accidit illic
de parvitate habitudinis brevitatis diei ad longitudinem noctis & brevitatis
noctis ad longitudinem diei, ita quod accidit ut unus dies sit annus, cuius
medietas est nox, & alia medietas est dies. . . (Elsewhere in his Commentary on
the Meteora Averroes refers to a work by himself on the De Plantis.)
92‘* Sed gi. . . . addamus auctoritatem Aristot. secundo de vegetabilibus, dicentis
quod apud eos ubi prolongatur dies etc. : Et hoc est, ut docet commentator super
illud verbum, ubi est dimidius annus dies et: dimidius annus nox, non sunt
animalia nec plantae, quia calor combussit| materiam eorum, videbitur quod illa
loca sub polis sint inhabitabilia propter calorem, non propter frigus.’’ (Roger
Bacon, Opus Majus, Pars 4, dist. 4, cap. 3. Bridges, Vol. I., 183). Roger
himself seems to have taken the citation from Grosseteste’s De Natura Locurum;
see p. 71. Grabmann, Neu aufgefundene Werke des Siger v. Brabant ¢ Boetius
v. Dacien, (Sitzungsberichte d. Bayerischen Akad. d. Wissensch., Philos.-philol.
& Hist. Klasse. Jahrgang, 1924, Abh. 2.), mentions a ‘*‘ Commentum super librum
de plantis ’’ to be found in MS. 485 of the Chapter Library at Admont, which he
attributes to Averroes. Birkenmajer, however, (Philos. Jahrbuch d. Gérres-
Gesellschaft, Bd. 38, Heft 3, Bonn 1925), points out that this is probably the
commentary of Alfredus on the De Plantis.
93 See Leclerc, Histoire de la Médicine Arabe, Paris, 1866, p. 181; M. Meyerhof,
New Light on Hunain Ibn Ishaq and His Period, (Isis Vilt), Brussels, Oct.,
1926, p. 705. The De Partibus Animalium was translated into Arabic from the
Syriac by Isa ibn Zera. Cf. Leclerc, op. cit., pp. 204-9.
°4 Tt, may perhaps be mentioned here that F. Wistenfeld, (Ubersetzungen Arabischer
Werke ins Lateinische seit dem 11 Jahr. (Gottingen, 1877, p. 103), suggests
that Michael’s version was made not from the Arabic but from the Hebrew.
Rudberg,
This view, however, has been generally repudiated by Dittmeyer,
Stadler, and others. Steinschneider has shown that, on the contrary, the
103
Thirteenth-Century Verstons
version was derived from the Latin one. (Hebraischen Ubersetz, 1893,
Hebrew
. 478). :
ae Finke oe never been printed, with the exception of the tenth book, which
was published by G. Rudberg, Zum Sogenannten Zehnten Buche der Arist.
(Skrifter Utgifna af K. Humanisti ska Vetenskap s-Samfund et 1
Tiergeschichte
Uppsals, XIII, 6, 1911).
°° These four manuscripts are given by Haskins, op. cit., p. 277, note 382.
°7 Of, Escorial, f. II, 22, Vat. Chig. 251 and 252, Cusa 182, etc.
98 ‘* A wizard of such dreaded fame,
That when in Salamanca’s cave
Him listed his magic wand to wave,
The bells would ring in Notre Dame.”’
—Seott, ‘‘ Lay of the Last Minstrel.”’
° Cf, Haskins, op. cit., p. 285. The whole of this chapter may be referred to with
profit for further information on aspects of the work of Scot which do not directly
concern us here.
100 Two cited by Jourdain, op. cit., p. 183, and one by Haskins (op. cit., p. 278 and.
p. 274), Madrid, 10053, F. 156v, which runs :—‘' Perfectus est liber Avenal-
petraur. Laudetur Jesus Christus qui vivit in eternum per tempora. Trans-
latus a magistro Michaele Scotto toleti in decimo octavo die veneris august,
hora tertia, cum abuteo levite, anno incarnationis ieshu Christi, 1217.’’ This
date varies in some of the MSS (Cf. Haskins, op. cit., p. 274, note 9, (N.B.—
Haskins states that Harley MS I. has the date 1217. This is an error. In
Harley I. the reading is 1255), but there is no doubt that 1217 is the correct
reading.
Lo Ops cits. peal
102 Cf, Haskins, op. cit., p. 274.
HON OFos, elisa: CAC
104 By Lynn Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, II, 194.
105 Barly in the eighth century, Bede possessed a copy of the whole work and Alcuin
in the ninth century sends to Charlemagne for a copy of the earlier books. Pliny
is constantly cited in mediaeval works on natural subjects.
106 BLM. Cotton, Vesp. A.XVI. (Printed Annales Monastici, II, 129, in the Rolls
Series) contains the item Annales Waverleiensis, A.D. 1-1291. This chronicle,
under date 1217, says, ‘‘ Magister Alexander cognomento Nequam. Abbas
Cicestriae, literarum scientia clarus, obiit.’’ This entry re Alexander’s death must
be practically contemporaneous, at any rate written not more than two years
after 1217. Another source for the same fact is to be found in the fourteenth-
century manuscript, B.M. Cotton Caligula A. 10, which contains the item
Monach: Wigorniensis Annales de rebus ecclesiae Wigorniensis. This chronicle,
under the year 1217, says ‘‘ Anno MCCXVII..... Magister Alexander,
Abbas Cirencestriae, obiit apud Kemeseue, et sepelitur Wygorniae.”’
107 See p. 59.
108 B.M. Royal 12, C. XV., F. 172v. (XIII century).
109 Tt has, however, been suggested that the Liber Introductorius, the Liber Par-
ticularis, and the Phisionomia were all written prior to the year 1216. (Cf.
Lynn Thorndike, op. cit., II, 309). Tha ground for this suggestion is that the
MSS state that these works were composed during the pontificate of
Innocent IV. In view of the fact that Michael is known to have died before
the accession of this Pope, it has been thought that Innocent III. may be the
pontiff intended, which would date the works in question before 1216. It seems
questionable, however, whether so considerable an antedating of the bulk of
Scot’s work can safely be based on a conjectural emendation of an admittedly
corrupt reading.
oP Lay
104
OP 13.
2225P ella:
73 Madrid, Biblioteca Nacional, 10053, note 100, above.
114 This name occurs in the same form ‘‘ abuteo levite,’’ also in Harley MS 1, F. L5v.
5 Renan, Histoire Littéraire, xxvii, 580-589.
me Haskins, Michael Scot in Spain, (Extracto del Homenaje a Bonilla y San Martin,
publicado por la Facultad de Filosofia y letras de la Universidad Central, T.II,
pp. 129-134). Madrid, 1930, pp. 4 et seqq.
™7 Cf. p. 118 below.
118 Cf. pp. 40 and 97.
119 See p. 71.
%72°1T,. Baur, Die Philosophischen Werke des Robert Grosseteste, Bischofs von
Lincoln, (Beitrige z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalt. Bd. IX., 1912), p. 32.
121 Baur, op. cit., p. 73.
‘22 Roger Bacon seems to refer to this passage in the Opus Tertium, (Little’s edition,
1912, p. 29), when he writes: ‘‘ Et primo quare homines habentes oculos pro-
fundos longius vident.’’
123 B.M., Royal 12, C. XV, F. 238.
224 Pp. 107, note 172 et seqq.
225 See p. 83.
126 See pp. 120 et seqq.
7 On the De Arte Venandi see Haskins, op. cit., Chap. XIV, pp. 299 et seqq.
128 These are :Cambridge, St. John’s 99, Fl. 67-71, XIII century; B.M. Royal 9.A.
XIV., Fl. 287-247v., XIII century; B.M. Royal 12.F. XV., Fl. 3lv-65, early
XIV century.
129 BLM. Royal 9.A. XIV., Fl. 287-247v.
739 See also the commentaries discussed on pp. 29, ff. It was perhaps as much
through the media of these abridgments as in the complete form that Michael's
version was diffused among the Latins.
*31 Opening with the words :—Super prologum. Utrum sit possibile esse scientiam
de omnibus animalibus..... M. Grabmann, Lateinischen Ubersetzungen
und Aristoteles-kommentare der spanischen bibliotheken ..... 1928. Section
II., pp. 104 et seqq.
182 Plut. VII Sin.Cod.5 and Plut. VIII. Sin.Cod.2. (Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 105).
133 Oxford, Corpus Christi Coll., 243, ff. 15v-28v, contains the commentaries of Petrus
on the De Morte et Vita and the De Causis Longitudinis Vitae, which have
hitherto been supposed lost. (Cf. Grabmann, Reciente descubrimiento de obras
de Petrus Hispanus, in Investigacién y progreso II, 1928).
134 By the Quaracchi editors of Peckam’s De humanae cognitionis ratione, Quaracchi,
1883, p. xvi. Grabmann, Bibl. Span., p. 109, note (2), notes Florence, Bibl.
Naz. G.4.853, as containing an anonymous commentary on the De Animalibus.
‘85 The only manuscript at present known of this work is Vat. lat. 1288, Ff. 131-161.
Cf. Auguste Pelzer, Un Traducteur Inconnu: Pierre Gallego, Franciscain et
Premier Evéque de Carthagéne (1250-67). Miscellanea Francesco Ehrle, Vol. I.
1924, pp. 405-456.
136 ()p. cit., p. 418.
187 See p. 14, note 15.
4388 See p. 14, note 23.
139 For the text and contents reference should be made to the description by Pelzer,
already cited (see note 135, above).
149 The first edition of Albertus’ De Animalibus is that printed at Rome in 1478.
Other early editions are those at Mantua in 1479 and at Venice in 1495, the
latter being that of Gregorius de Gregoriis, which included his other com-
mentaries on the natural works. The definitive edition is that of H. Stadler in
105
XV, 1916. For the
the Beitrige zur Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalters, Band
and other questions, see
date of this work, the versions upon which it is based
Magnus, 1857, pp. 351
also:—Jourdain, op. cit.,° 800-358; Sighart, Albertus
Alb. Magni De Vegetabi libus, Berlin, 1867, p. 679; J. A.
et seqq.; C. Jessen, net in the Revue
v. Hertling , 1913, 95 et seqq.); Mandon
Endres, (Festschrift fir
tsblatter XXIV/XXV,
Thomiste, V, 98 et seqq.; E. Stolz (Reutlinger Geschich
zum Leben & zu den
1914, p. 44 et seqq.); and F. Pelster, Kritische Studien
Schrifte n Alberts des Grossen (see p. 102, note 71).
metaphysicam et mathe-
141 Nostra intentio est omnes dictas partes (physicam,
maticam) facere Latinis intelligibles ’’ (Phys. Lib. I, tr. 1, cap. 2).
to these were such works as the De Natura Locorum and the De
142 Ty addition works, were not
though based on the Aristote lian natural
Mineralibus, which,
al treatise, but were inserted to complete the
commentaries on any individu
scheme of natural philosophy as synthetized by Scholasticism.
143 See note 140, above.
(Ergan-
144 Kritische Studien zum Leben und zu den Schriften Alberts des Grossen
zungshefte zu den Stimmen der Zeit. Zweite Reihe), p. 144. See p. 102, note 71.
45 De Arist. libro decimo Historiarum Animalium, Heidelberg, 1842.
46 Dittmeyer, ed. of De Animalibus Historia, Lipsiae, 1907. (Teubner series)
Preface, Part III, De versionibus latinis.
147 Albertus, again, uses the word ‘‘ entelechia’’ in his De Vegetabilibus, Lib. I
tract. i, cap. IX. Ed. Jessen, Berlin, 1867, p. 33. : :
148 Stadler’s edition, II.786 (15).
49° G. Rudberg, Zum Sogenannten Zehnten Buche der Aristotelischen Tiergeschichte
ne utgifna af K. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet i Uppsala, XIII.
150 Tn Hranos, Vol. VIII, Fasc. 4, 1908.

151 See Pp. 88-9.
7 seh acres Kritishche Studien, etc.
is Ambrosiana, manuscript has been noted by F. iti 1
Leben und zu den Schriften Alberts des Griinon! Traber Le. Cinotte ns
zungshafte zu den Stimmen der Zeit, Reihe 2 H f ane pee
154 The XIV Cent. codex, Pi (6 Ce C sae vs
index of most of the. Faber tts eee ar eer: Ay Fe ata
version of Michael] Scot. : Oe Ona cea
+55 Of, Grabmann, Lateinischen Ubersetzunge
156 Oriel College, 33. ae
187 See Pp. 66-7.
188
- Tabulae
at CodicumNee
manuscriptorum
tees Vol. .... 1
i, p. me ibli
Bibliotheca j
Palatina i
Vindobonens? ;
a ee prerel was also responsible for a work on the De Causa Motus

nimalium, which was based on the version of William of Moerbeke and exists in
Hi ee 2330 of the Vienna Nationa Bibliothek, Ff. 12v-19.
ae Seen. rina a Oeenaey the fourteenth century manuscript Plut.
: . 24, s in the Venice codex, Marciana Cl. VI. Cod.
peat
234 ich oei dated 1498, but professes to have been copied ied ‘*
‘ ex vetustissimo
issl
61 Chigiana E.VIII. 251. F. 209.

OE Miscellanea Franc. Ehrle, V. 121.
163 TJuillard-Bréholles, Historia diplomatica Friderici Secundi, IV, 1, Paris, 1854,
pp. 381-2, gives this place as Melfi instead of Messi b i
manuscripts does not bear this out. Messen Mae tae «
Madea
164 Vat. Biol Vat.
lat. 7096, Nee lat.seat
4428, : Barb. . lat.
lat. 805,805, L Laur. Plut. XIII. Sin.
i Cod. 9, and
*65 Cf. Haskins, op. cit. pp. 314.

abe
166 See A. H. aia:
Querfeld, Michael cottus
Scott und seine
i Schrift
1 De secretis1 naturae,
106
167 See p. 65.
*68 William of Tocco in his Vita S. Thomae Aquinatis (1818-1323), cap. 17, (D.
Primmer, De Vita et doctrina 8S. Th. Aquin. etc., p. 88), tells us :—'‘ Scripsit
Thomas etiam super philosophiam naturalem et moralem ct super metaphysicam,
quorum librorum procuravit ut fieret nova translatio quae sententiae Aristotelis
contineret clarius veritatem.’’ The name of the translator is not given here, but
this sub-contemporary statement confirms the traditional account that the origin
of the new versions was Aquinas’ desire for a more accurate Aristotelian text.
+69 A, Kaufmann, Thomas von Chantimpré (Gérres-Gesellschaft zur Pflege der Wissen-
schaft in Katholischen Deutschland, Kéln, 1899, p. 33), dates it between 1235 and
1250, while Ch. Ferckel, Die Gyndkologie des Thomas von Brabant, ausgewdahlte
Kapitel aus Buch I, De Naturis Rerum, beendet um 1240, (1912. In G. Klein,
Alte Meister der Medizin und Naturkunde), places it in the period 1235-1240.
7° For example, Philip of Gréve, who died, in 1236, cites in his Summa de bono, the
De Caelo in the Arabic-Latin version, and the De Generatione, the Physica, and
the De Anima in the versions from the Greek. (Cf. P. Minges, Philosophie-
geschichtliche Bemerkungen iiber Philipp von Gréve (gest. 1236), in Philos,
Jahrbuch XXVII. (1914).
171 Cf. Jourdain, op. cit., p. 65.
‘72 Thus, Antonius Senensis, in the Bibliotheca Fratrum Praedicatorum, writes :—
‘‘ Frater Gulielmus Brabantinus, S. Theologiae Baccalaureus, vir ingeniosus,
linguae Latinae et Graecae notitia clarus, philosophus eximius, et Theologus non
ignobilis, ad instantiam D. Thomae dicitur ex Graeco in Latinum transtulisse
textum Aristotelis. Composuit etiam librum de naturis et proprietatibus rerum,
quem quidam perperam et falso tribuunt fratri Bartholomaeo Anglico, ord.
Minorum. Composuit etiam lib. 1 de apibus. Claruit anno 1262. Citatur
etiam frater Gulielmus Corinthiensis, vir pius et doctus tanquam auctor
libri de apibus. Sed an diversi sint libri de eodem argumento tractantes,
scilicet de apibus, an unus tantum, vel etiam unus et idem auctor sit
hic et ille, me fugit.’’ Another passage later in the same work runs :—‘‘ Frater
Thomas de Cantimprato, natione Brabantinus, Alberti Magni quondam discipulus,
qui sui magistri doctrinam et regularem observantiam emulatus, evasit quoque
magnus, scripsit opus de apibus mysticis, quod vocavit Bonum Universale. Vitam
quoque D. Christinae. Librum unum de naturis rerum, cuius ipsemet meminit in
praefatio libro de apibus. Hunc librum de naturis rerum putant aliqui esse illum
qui de proprietatibus rerum inscribitur, et Bartholomaeo Anglico, ord. Minorum,
supponitur. Aliqui etiam scribunt hunc Thomam, cognomento dictum de Bar-
bansane, et fuisse natione Gallicum, et episcopum Lusentinum, et patriarcham.
Hierosolymitanum. Sic enim legi Toleti in convento nostro D. Petri Mart., in
libro antiquo manuscripto, coniuncto summi Alberti Brixiensis, Sunt et qui
seriptum reliquere, quod idem Thomas iussu D. Thomae, vel suasibus, libros
Aristotelis ex Graeca lingua in Latinum transtulerit. Claruit anno 1260.”
178 Henrici de Herford, Liber de rebus memorabilibus, (ed. Potthast, Gottingae, 1859),
p- 208. It is probably to this passage of Henry’s that the other statements on the
subject can be traced. For example, Peter of Prussia, author of a life of Albertus
Magnus written at the end of the fifteenth century, quotes the chronicle of
Jacobus de Zuzato to the effect that Thomas of Cantimpré translated word for
word from Greek into Latin ‘‘ all the books of Aristotle, in rational, natural and
moral philosophy and metaphysics which we now use in the schools, and this at
the instance of St. Thomas Aquinas, for in Albert’s time all commonly used the
old translation.’’ This is an obvious quotation from Henry of Hereford (Cf. Lynn
Thorndike, op. cit., II, pp. 394-5). Again, in the chronicle of the Bavarian
historian, Johannes Turmair, known as Aventinus, who died in 1534, under the
year 1271 we find an entry discussing the alleged Aristotelian translations of one
‘‘ Honoricus Brabantinus Dominicanus.’’ Aventinus goes on to say :—'' Albertus
magnus usus est veteri translatione, quam Boethianam vocant.’’ Aventinus does
not state his source, but this was almost certainly Henry of Hereford, to whose
107
words, given above, Aventinus has added the gloss 6 ‘‘ quam Boethianam vocant.”’
See Johannes Turmairs genannt Aventinus samtliche Werke, (Minchen, 1883),
III, 331). Marchesi, L’EHtica Nicomachea, etc., 1904, p. 60, attempts to reconcile
the divergence of names by suggesting that Aquinas approached two Dominican
scholars, Henricus PBrabantinus and William of Moerbeke, with a view to their
dividing the work of translation between them.
174 Cf. A. Pelzer, Les Versions Latines des Ouvrages de Morale Conservés sous le nom
- d'Aristote en Usage au XIIIe siécle, (Revue Néo-Scolastique de Philosophie, Aug.-
Nov., 1921), Louvain, 1921. Henry Kosbien first appears in the Formicarius of
Jean Nider (c. 1436), who remarks ‘‘ Sileo de textibus philosophi quos Henricus
Krosbein de greco transtulit.’’ (Lib. I, cap. 10). Pelzer holds that Nider is here
attaching Henry of Hereford’s statement already quoted, about Henricus Braban-
tinus, to one Johannes Kronsbein, a Dominican, who is known to have written
commentaries on Aristotle (Cf. p. 68 above), although the reason for the change
from Henricus to Johannes is not obvious. Quétif and Echard (Script. Ord. Pred.
I, 469) quotes a manuscript in the Dominican Convent of St. Honoré at Paris
(which disappeared in the French Revolution), bearing the date 1500, and con-
taining a version of the Nicomachean Ethics, with the attribution, ‘‘ interprete,
ut nonnulli asserunt, F. Henrico Kosbien, ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, quem
et omnes textus eiusdem philosophi traduxisse dicunt, adiuncta familiari explana-
tione litterali per totum. .. .’’ The confusion is perpetuated by Bellarmine, De
scriptoribus ecclesiasticis, who writes of ‘‘ Thomas Cantimpratensis, quem alii
Gulielmum, alii Henricum appellarunt.”’
ME Op cits ps Gos
176 Catalogue of MSS in the British Museum, New Series, Vol. I, 1840, p. 93.
8 Denifle, Archiv. f. Litteratur-wnd-Kirchengeschichte, d. Mittelalters, II. (1887), pp.
226 227. For further light on the versions of William see A. Birkenmajer,
Vermischte Untersuchungen z. Gesch. d. Mittelalt. Phil. (Beitrige z. Gesch. d.
Philos. d. Mittelalters, Bd. XX, Heft 5), 1922.
179 See p. 88.
189 Laurenziana, Faesulani, 168.
**" For the rest of this note, see p. 89, above.
a gee Malatestiana, Plut. VII, Cod. 4. The catalogue
of the Malatestiana
sibrary dates this manuscript thirteenth century. Rudberg, however,
ie
has pointed
out that it is, in fact, of the fourteenth century.
“Gioiien Ustihonunaiiotle HedaScheie nakMae

eee nae eee
4), Freiburg im Breisgau, 1920, p. 154. taciiae bere
184 Of these two opuscules on the motions of animals, the De
Motu is now regarded
as probably spurious and the De Progressu as probably genuine.
185
Adnotationes in quosdam codices Moerbekenses, (Eranos
12)
186 See Pp. 87-8. :
TEg ie G. Uae Teatstudien Zur Tiergeschichte des Aristoteles,
Upsala, 1908, Kap.
-: Pp. 27-50. (In this work Rudberg prints the first book of the Historia
Animalium in William of Moerbeke’s version).
88 Tn the Summa Theologicae also, (Aquinas’ last work), Aquinas
cites the ‘‘ lib. 2.
Hania: Rineeos jes ae aie version of William | of Moerbeke
, for the
1079). was not subdivided in this way. (Migne, 2nd Series, Tom. 1,
Re L. Delisle, Cabinet des Manuscrits, 3, Paris, 1881, ps
56:
on G. Rudberg, Zum Sogenannten Zehnten Buche, etc., pp.
85-6.
Rudberg, (Op. cit., p. 85), denies Spengels’ theory (De Arist.
libro decimo
historiarum animalium, Heidelberg, 1842, p. 8) that the extent
Greek version of
the tenth book is due to a fourteenth or fifteenth-century Greek
translator from
the Latin.
192 See p. 82 above.
108
293 In MS Vat. lat. 2098, F.1., this statement is made explicitly with reference to the
‘“ nova translatio.”’ The note runs :—‘‘ Nova translatio libri de animalibus con-
tinent libros 19, et habet tres partes principales. Prima, quae vocatur de hystoriis
animalium, continet x libros primos. .. .”
**4 Pelster, however, (Kritische Studien, etc., p. 155), holds that the De Generatione
Animalium was translated immediately after the De Partibus, and the De Motu
shortly after that.
195 Cf, Pelster, loc. cit.
196 Tt is to be noted that the De Progressu in William’s version ends with the words :—
‘* Hiis autem determinatis, consequens est de anima contemplari,’’ which supports
the sequence of the translator’s note in Faesulani 168.
197 See p. 88 above.
1°8 K.g., the fourteenth-century MS Vat. Borghes, 1384.
79° Cf. Dittmeyer’s edition of the De Animalibus Historia in the Teubner Aristotle,
1907, Preface, p. xx; and Susemihl in his edition of the Politica prints, with the
Greek, the Latin version of William of Moerbeke, as does Spengel for the
Rhetorica.
200 Bibl. Nationale 16097, Ff. 72-107v.
201 Marciana, Class. X, Cod. 20. Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 178.
702 Bodleian, Digby 153, XIV century. Cf. F. H. Fobes, Mediaeval Versions of
Aristotle’s Meteorology, (Classical Philology X, 1915), 297-314.
203 Compare with this the statement of Henry of Hereford that the versions of William
of Moerbeke were made ‘‘ de verbo ad verbum ”’ (p. 86 above). This statement.
of Henry’s, however, is an overestimate of their literalness.
204 This version was not often printed, owing to its supersession during the fifteenth
century by the new translations of Theodore of Gaza and Trapezuntius. (See
p. 126-7). In modern times, the first books of the Historia Animalium and of
the De Generatione Animalium respectively, have been edited by G. Rudberg and
D. Dittmeyer.
205 See H. Stadler, De Principiis Motus Processivi ad fidem Coloniensis archetypt
(Programm des Koéniglichen Maximilian-Gymnasiums, 1908-9), Miinchen, 1909.
206 See p. 82, above.
208 Cesena, Plut. VII. Sin. Cod. V, (XIV century), and Milan, Abrosiana, H. 107. Sup.
and 202 Inf.
209 This distinction between the two versions, however, is not absolutely invariable.
In the fourteenth-century codex, Padua, Biblioteca Antoniana, Scaff. XVII, Cod.
370, we find the De Partibus and the Dc Generatione Animalium in the versions
of William of Moerbeke, under the title ‘‘ Liber de animalibus, libb. XI-XITX.”’
210 See p. 24, note 3, above, for a similar division.
212 See p. 113, below.
213 Of, Die Stellung des Alfred von Sareshel, etc. (Baeumker), pp. 37-8 and pp. 40-41
above.
214 See p. 47 et seqq. above, and p. 39.
216 See, for example, the two manuscripts compared on p. 23 above. It is to be
noted that Albertus in his commentary on the Parva Naturalia used the earlier
form.
217 See p. 89 above. : :
218 This letter hag several times been printed, the most recent text being that given
by Denifle-Chatelain, Chartul. Univ. Parisiensis, I. 894, pp. 435-6.
219 We may perhaps see in the statement of Roger quoted above a hint that Bartholo-
mew of Messina at least transferred his services to Manfred’s successor, Charles
109
of Anjou. But the school as a whole seems not to have survived the death of
Manfred.
221 Tt is to be noted that Michael Scot is the only Aristotelian translator connected with
the court of Frederick, and of his versions the De Animalibus was certainly com-
pleted before that connection began, and very possibly also the De Caelo and De
Anima. (See pp. 94-5). Thus the last Aristotelian work to be translated from
the Arabic was probably completed before 1230.
222 ‘The MS is Biblioteca Antoniana Scaff. XVII, Cod. 370. (Cf. Marchesi, op cit.).
223 See p. 111, note 258.
224 See note 209, above.
225 See also Forster, De translatione latina physiognomonicorum quae feruntur
Aristotelis, (Kiliae, 1884).
228 The last section of the De Coloribus, which deals with colour in plants, sometimes
appears in the manuscripts under the title De Plantis, a fact which has led to
some confusion. (See p. 70, above).
227 Cf, Haskins, op. cit., p. 269, and Steinschneider, Hebraischen Ubersetz, p. 268.
228 Unless we are to attach any weight to a MS in the Ambrosiana Library (Cl. VI,
49), dated 1340, where the De Mundo is stated to have been translated by
Nicholaus in Paris.
One other translator of this school may be mentioned, a certain Stephen of
Messina, of whom nothing is known beyond the fact that he translated from the
Arabic for King Manfred a work known as the ‘‘ Centilogquum Hermetis.’’ (Cf.
Haskins, op. cit., p. 270).
It may be noted here that the XIV century Bodleian MS, Ashmole 1471, in
addition to a copy of the anonymous physiognomical compilation discussed on
p. 8 above, contains a work entitled : ‘‘ Phisionomia Aristotelis,’’ which opens
‘* Natura occulte operatur in hiis et cetera. Hoc verbum intitulatur ab auctore
sex principiorum quo quantum ad presentem tractatum duo notantur..... a
23° See pp. 38-9.
231 Hg. in Vat. lat. 2089, in Naples VIII, EK. 36, and in Vat. Urb. lat. 221.
232 See p. 73.
33 See p. 19.
284 See p. 116.
735 See p. 40 above, etc.
286 Wustenfeld (Die Ubersetzungem Arabischer werke, pp. 106-7) takes this juxta-
position in the manuscripts as evidence in itself of a common origin. Stein-
schneider, however, (Huropdischen Ubersetzungen, p. 57(e)), holds that the
Averroan commentary on the De’ Anima is very questionably a translation by
Michael Scot.
237 Eg. the XIII-century codex Paris, Bibl. Nat., lat. 16156, F. 188, and 14885.
According to Grabmann (op. cit., p. 172), the text itself, as well as the com-
mentary, is here attributed to Scot. Renan, Averroes, p. 205, gives four Paris
MSS in which the version of Averroes on the De Anima is expressly attributed
to Scot, in one of which the translation is said to have been from the Greek!
288 See p. 39.
239 The only other known translators of Aristotelian works from the Arabic, besides
Gerard and Michael Scot, are Alfredus de Sareshel and Hermann the German.
It certainly was not the former who translated the Physica, and the latter is not
known to have occupied himself with any work of natural science.
249 See p. 122 below. MSS. in which the two occur together are Vat. lat. 2079, Paris,
Bibl. Nat. 14385, and Naples VIII, E. 86. Im the second of these, the De Caelo
and De Anima also occur, each with the Averroan commentary explicitly ascribed
to Scot. (Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., p. 172).
IIo
741 Jourdain gives the opening passage of this second Arabic-Latin version of the
Physica as his Specimen V, entitling it ‘‘ Translatio arabica-latina prima.’’
742 Op. cit., p. 106. Cf. also the Catalogue des MSS des Bibliothéques Publiques
p. 18 note. As regards Michael's version of the De Generatione, cf. p. 52, note
10, and p. 121, below.
*43 'Ti.g. the XIII-century MSS Marciana, Cl. VI, 33, and Paris, Bibl. de 1’ Université
568, and many others.
*44 See p. 124, below, and cf. Birkenmajer, Vermischte Untersuchungen, etc., p. 9.
745 See p. 124.
*46 Assisi, Bibl. Com. 283, is, as far as I know, the only manuscript in which the
Greek-Latin version of the De Caelo is accompanied by the Arabic-Latin version
only of the Meteora. But there are one or two MSS (such as Vat. lat. 10658 and
Naples VIII, E. 36), where Gerard’s or Scot’s version of the De Caelo from the
Arabic is placed alongside the XIII-century Greek-Latin version, the former being
entitled ‘‘ vetus ’’ and the latter ‘‘ nova ’’ translatio. In these manuscripts the
Meteora also commonly appears in both versions.
747 Baeumker, op. cit., pp. 37-40, and pp. 5 and 40 above.
249 See p. 39, and p. 7, note.
75° Toledo, 47-11, Ff. 1-44. (Cf. Grabmann, Bibl. Span., p. 19).
751 Laur. Plut. 84, Cod. 17.
752 Paris, Bibl. Nat. 16097, Vat. lat. 2178, F. 1.
254 Tn Bodleian, Digby 153.
255 See p. 123.
256 Concetto Marchesi, L’Htica Nicomachea etc., Messina, 1904.; A. Pelzer, Les Ver-
sions Latines des Ouvrages de Morale Conservés sous le nom d'Aristote en Usage
au XIIle siécle. (Revue Néo-Scolastique de Philosophie, Aug. and Nov., 1921).
757 See pp. 77 and 40.
258 Pelzer, op. cit., holds that the opuscule De Bona Fortuna, which contained an
extract from the Magna Moralia, was translated by another worker, using a Greek
manuscript to which Bartholomew had not access.
259 At least, if we accept the testimony of a XIV-century MS, Marciana Cl. VI, Cod. 39,
in which it occurs with the Explicit: ‘‘ Explicit yconomica Aristotelis translata
de greco in latinum per unum Archiepiscopum et unum Episcopum de Grecia et
magistrum Durandum de Alvernia, latinum procuratorem universitatis parisiensis
tune temporis in curia romana. Actum Anagniae in mense augusto, pontificatus
D. Bonifacii papae octavi, anno primo.”’ (i.e. 1295). The same note occurs also
in a Paris manuscript of the Hconomica discussed by Jourdain, op. cit., pp. 71-73.
Another Venice codex, Cl. VI, Cod. 82, contains a commentary on the Economica
by Bartholomew of Bruges, dedicated to Jacobus Gaietanus de Anagnia, nephew
of Pope Boniface VIII. (Cf. V. Rose, Aristoteles Epigraphus, Lipsiae, 1863,
pp. 639 ff.).
269 Cf. Grabmann, op. cit., pp. 241-2, and Susemihl, Aristotelis quae feruntur
Oeconomica, Lipsiae, 1887, and Mandonnet, Siger de Brabant, I’, 14, etc.
261 We are not here concerned with William’s versions of works on non-physical
subjects, such as the Metaphysica, Politica, and Rhetorica. For the manuscript
evidence of the identity of-the translator, of these, and a discussion of the versions,
see Grabmann, op. cit., pp. 158-8, 238-40, and 242-3, F. Pelster, Die griechisch-
lateinischen Metaphysikiibersetzungen des Mittelalters (Beitrage z. Gesch. d.
Philos. d. Mittelalters, Supplement Bd. II. Miinster, 1923, pp. 89-118), and other
authors.
III
V. THE THIRTEENTH-CENTURY TRANSLATORS.
Evidence of Roger Bacon.
By the year 1200 the Latin West possessed in at least one version, either
from Greek or Arabic, Latin translations of the natural works of Aristotle
with the important exception of the De Animalibus (including the two
opuscules on the motion of animals). They were also without the pseudo-
Aristotelian Physiognomia, probably without the De Plantis, and without
one or two other smaller pseudo-Aristotelian natural works. The
considerable body of the versions of the natural works which they
possessed, was, however, unsatisfactory in various respects. In the first
place the versions were usually almost slavishly literal. This is not
altogether a vice in tranlations made entirely for the sake of the matter
and not at all for the manner.’ It was, moreover, the result of the
enormous respect in which Aristotle was held. But, especially in cases
where the version had passed through languages of quite dissimilar type,
the real meaning of the text was often obscured. Moreover, proper names
or words not understood by the translator were not infrequently simply
transliterated from one language to the other, and sometimes deformed
out of all recognition in the process. Thus, we get such strange meta-
morphoses as ‘‘ Abrucalis ’’ for ‘‘ Pythagoras ’’ (or, as the Renaissance
Greek text reads it, ‘‘ Empedocles ’’?) in the opening passage of the
De Planiss.
Bitter complaints on the score of these defects in the extant versions of
Aristotle were voiced during the second half of the thirteenth century by
Roger Bacon. In spite of the fact that his statements on this subject
are apt to be prejudiced and violent in tone, and not infrequently
maccurate in point of fact,® it is nevertheless necessary to consider his
evidence on the translators of his time, since he is almost the only writer
to give us specific contemporary information on the matter. Moreover,
as the pupil of Grosseteste, as a student and teacher in the University
of Paris, and as a writer on scientific subjects, he was in a position to obtain
information about these versions.
In the Compendium Studii Philosophiae, Cap. 8. (c. 1271-8),* Roger
writes as follows of the contemporary translators :—
‘““Unde cum per Gerardum Cremonensem, et Michaelum Scotum, et
Alvredum Anglicum, et Heremannum Alemannum, et Willielmum
Flemingum, data sit nobis copia translationum de omni scientia, accidit
tanta falsitas in eorum operibus, quod nullus sufficit admirari. Nam ad
hoc quod translatio fiat vera, oportet quod translator sciat linguam a qua
transfert, et linguam in quam transfert et scientiam quam vult transferre.
Sed quie est hic, et laudabimus eum? Fecit enim mirabilia in vita sua.
112
Evidence of Roger Bacon
Certe nullus predictorum scivit aliquid dignum de linguis et scientiis, ut

manifestum est illud non solum ex eorum translationibus, sed ex con-
ditionibus personarum. Omnes enim fuerunt temporibus nostris, ita quod
aliqui iuvenes adhuc fuerunt contemporanei Gerardo Cremonensi, qui fuit
antiquior inter illos. Heremannus quidem Alemannus adhuc_ vivit
episcopus, cui fuit valde familiaris. Qui, mihi sciscitanti eum de libris
logicae quibusdam, quos habuit transferendos in Arabico, dixit ore
rotundo quod nescivit logicam, et ideo non ausus fuit transferre. Et
certe si logicam nescivit, non potuit alias scire scientias, sicut decet. Nec
Arabicum bene scivit, ut confessus est, quia magis fuit adiutor transla-
tionum quam translator; quia saracenos tenuit secum in Hispania, qui
fuerunt in suis translationibus principales. Similiter Michael Scotus
adscripsit sibi translationes multas. Sed certum est quod Andreas
quidam Judaeus plus laboravit in his. Unde Michaelus, sicut Heremannus
retulit, nec scivit scientias neque linguas. Et sic de aliis. Maxime iste
Willielmus Flemingus, qui nunc floret. Cum tamen notum est omnibus
parisius literatis, quod nullam novit scientiam in lingua Graeca, de qua
praesumit. Et ideo omnia transfert falsa et corrumpit sapientiam
Latinorum. Solus enim Boetius scivit de omnibus interpretationibus
linguas sufficienter. Solus Dominus Robertus, propter longitudinam
vitae et vias mirabiles quibus usus est, prae aliis hominibus scivit scientias :
quia Graecum et Hebraeum non scivit sufficienter ut per se transferret, sed
habuit multos adiutores. Omnes alii ignoraverunt linguas et scientias et
maxime hic Willielmus Flemingus, qui nihil novit dignum neque in
scientiis neque in linguis; tamen omnes translationes factas promisit
immutare et novas cudere varias. Sed eas vidimus et scimus esse omnino
erroneas et vitandas.”’
And earlier in the same chapter he says again :—
‘“ Certus igitur sum quod melius esset Latinis, quod sapientia Aris-
totelis non esset translata, quam tali obscuritate et perversitate tradita,
sicut els qui ponuntur ibi triginta vel quadraginta annos, et quanto plus
laborant, tanto minus sciunt, sicut ego probavi in omnibus qui libris
Aristotelis adhaeserunt. Unde dominus Robertus, quondam episcopus
Lincolniensis sanctae memoriae, neglexit omnino libros Aristotelis et vias
eorum et per experientiam propriam, et auctores alios, et per alias scientias
negotiatus est in sapientialibus Aristotelis, et melius centies milesies scivit
et scripsit illa de quibus libri Aristotelis loquuntur, quam in ipsis perversis
translationibus capi possunt. Testes sunt tractatus domini episcopi de
Iride, de Cometis, et de aliis quod scripsit. Et sic omnes qui aliquid
sciunt negligunt perversam translationem Aristotelis, et quaerunt remedia
sicut possunt. Haec est veritas quam nolunt homines perditi in sapientia
considerare, sed quaerunt solatium suae ignorantiae sicut bruta. Si enim
haberem potestatem super libros Aristotelis, ego facerem omnes cremari,
quia non est nisi temporis amissio studere in illis, et causa erroris et multi-
plicatio ignorantiae ultra id quod valeat explicari. Et quoniam labores
Aristotelis sunt fundamenta totius sapientiae, ideo nemo potest aestimare
quantum dispendium accidit Latinis, quia malas translationes receperunt
philosophi.’’*
In the first of these passages Roger mentions five translators whom he
regards as contemporary with one another, and of whom he says ‘‘ omnes
113
THIRTEENTH-CENTURY TRANSLATORS
enim fuerunt temporibus nostris.’? The dates of these five men are as
follows:—Gerard of Cremona, 1114—1187; Michael Scot, died shortly
before 1235°; Adjredus Anglicus wrote his De Motu Cordis (probably the
last of his extant works) between 1210 and 1215; Hermann the German
wrote his translation of the Middle Commentary of Averroes on the
Nicomachean Ethics in 1240, and of the Summa Alexandrinorum in
1243—44,’ and died in 1272; William of Moerbeke, c. 1215—1286. Now,
if the reading of line thirteen of the first passage given above is correct,
’ Roger must be taken to state that Hermann the German was “‘ valde
familiaris ’? with Gerard of Cremona who died nearly a century before
him! As Roger himself was writing in the early seventies of the thirteenth
century, a hundred years after the first of his five translators and about
fifty years after the second and third, his statement that they were all
‘* of our times ’’ is loose. Indeed, the whole of this sentence is somewhat
obscure. Presumably the remark ‘‘ Ita quod aliqui iuvenes fuerunt con-
temporanei Gerardo Cremonensi, qui fuit antiquior inter illos,’’ may be
taken to mean that the younger members of the group were young men
when Gerard was an old man. This may be true of Alfredus de Sareshel,
since what is probably his last work was written some thirty years after
Gerard’s death; but Michael Scot seems to have begun his translating
activities at Toledo about twenty years after the death of Gerard,’ and
the latter had long been in his grave when Roger’s last two translators,
Hermann and William of Moerbeke, were born.
Leaving the question of Roger’s accuracy in his dates, let us consider
his severe strictures on this group of translators.*° With regard to the
accusation against Hermann and Michael Scot that they employed the
services of Saracens and Jews in compiling their versions, this seems to
have been the common practice of the Toledo translators." Most of them,
at least in their earlier translations and before they had thoroughly
mastered the Arabic language, worked in collaboration with a Mozarab,
Jew or ‘‘ Saracen,’’ who translated from Arabic into the vulgar tongue,
which his employer then turned into Latin. An example of such a
partnership has already been given” in the case of Dominicus Gundisalvi,
Archdeacon of Segovia, and the Jew, Johannes Avendeath. One of the
great advantages of Spain as a translating centre was just this possibility
of finding men to aid the scholar in the acquisition of Arabic, a matter
of some importance in an age when there were no written grammars.
It may be of interest to note here the description given by Avendeath,
in the dedication of the ‘‘ Sextus Liber Naturalium ’’ to Archbishop
Raymond of Toledo, of the respective shares in the work taken by himself
and Archdeacon Gundisalvi. He writes :—‘‘ Habes ergo librum, et me
an singula verba vulgariter preferente, et dominico archidiacono singula
in latinum convertente, ex arabico translatum.’’*®
An example of a similar partnership may be found in the Arabic-Latin
version of the De iudiczs astrologiae of ‘‘ Haly filius Habenragel,’’
““quem Iuda filius Mosse preceptor D. Alfoncii, romanorum et Castellae
regis (i.e. Alfonso the Wise, 1252—84), illustris, transtulit de arabico in
maternum, videlicet yspanicum idioma; et quem Egidius de tebaldis,
parmensis, aulae imperiolis notarius, una cum Petro de regio, ipsius aulae
protonotario, transtulit in latinum.”’
114
Evidenceof Roger Bacon
From the second of the two passages quoted above 113)
gather the very remarkable fact that Roce knew epee
the Nicomachean Ethics made by his master Robert Grossete the Gerson es
of Lincoln (1175—1253), nor presumably did he know
ste, Bishop
anything of
Grosseteste’s commentaries on the logical works and the
Physica. The
works of Grosseteste, indeed, are full of Aristotelian citations through
and. the influence of the ‘‘ new Aristotle ’’ is more clearly to
out
be
his writings than in those of almost any of his contemporaries traced in
."*
true that Bacon speaks elsewhere of translations made by Grosseteste It is
with
the aid of ‘‘ many helpers ’? whom he brought from Greece for the
purpose
but this must be taken as referring to the versions of the De Divinis
Nominibus and De Mystica Theologia of pseudo-Dionysius, and the works
of John Damascene, translated by Grosseteste from the Greek. In view
of
Roger’s explicit statement that “ dominus Robertus, quondam episcop
Lincolniensis, sanctae memoriae, neglexit omnino libros Aristotelis
us
” (see
p. 113 above), and the omission of Grosseteste’s name from Rover’s list
of the translators of Aristotle, it is almost impossible to suppose that
Roger was aware of the version of the Erhica."* On the other hand, in
view of the relations between the two men, this ignorance is very extra-
ordinary, and, but for Roger’s other inaccuracies on the question of
the
Aristotelian versions, would almost make it necessary to reject the
attribution of this translation to Grosseteste, in spite of the strong evidence
in its favour.*®
We have introduced this question of Roger’s ignorance of Grosseteste’s
work as a translator of Aristotle and of his Aristotelian studies generally,
as evidence that it is not always necessary to interpret too literally his
statements concerning his contemporaries. There are, however, a number
of other passages on the subject in his works in which he gives us valuable
information.
The passage in the Ofus Tertzum quoted (above p. 7) in connection
with the ‘‘ Boethian ’’ versions, continues thus :—‘* Alii vero, qui infinita
quasi converterunt in Latinum, ut Gerardus Cremonensis, Michael Scotus,
Alvredus Anglicus, Heremannus Alemannus, et translator Meinfredi
nuper a domino rege Carolo devicti; hi praesumpserynt innumerabilia
transferre sed nec scientias nec linguas sciverunt, etiam non Latinam.’’’’
We have here the same list of translators as in the passage previously
cited (p. 112), with the exception of William of Moerbeke, in whose place
we find the “‘ translator Meinfredi nuper a domino rege Carolo devicti.’’
This man, whose name Roger seems not to have known, was Bartholomew
of Messina, translator of the Magna Moralia, and of the Physiognomia
and other pseudo-Aristotelian natural works, whom we have discussed
above.'® Now the Opus Terttum was written in 1266-68, some seven
years or more before the Compendium studi philosophiae, which we have
already quoted (p. 112). In that period Roger evidently became
acquainted with the work of William of Moerbeke, whose name is sub-
stituted for that of Bartholomew in the later work. William’s versions
of the Meteora and of the De Partibus Animalium are dated 1260," the
Politica and Metaphysica were translated about the same date and the
Economica perhaps about 1267.7” The versions of Moerbeke were made
at Thebes and Corinth, and they thus seem to have taken about ten
115
years to find their way to Oxford, a point of some interest in the history
of the diffusion of these versions.
In a passage in the Opus Majus,” after referring to the Boethian trans-
lations, (‘‘ alia logicalia et quaedam alia translata fuerunt per Boethium
de greco ’’), Roger continues thus :——‘* Tamen tempore Michael Scoti, qui
annis domini 1230 transactis apparuit deferens librorum Aristotelis partes
- aliquas de Naturalibus et Metaphysicis cum expositionibus authenticis,
magnificata est philosophia Aristotelis apud Latinos. Sed respectu multi-
tudinis et magnitudinis suae sapientiae in mille tractatibus comprehensae,
valde modicum adhuc in linguam latinam est translatum, et minus est in
usu vulgi studentium.’’ The implication here is certainly that until the
appearance of Michael Scot with the new versions in 1230, the Latins
possessed only the ‘‘ Logicalia et quaedam alia’’ in the versions of
Boethius. How far this is from being the truth we have already seen,
and as Roger himself elsewhere refers to the translations of Gerard of
Cremona, it might be supposed that he knew of the Arabic-Latin versions
of the Physica, De Celo, Meteora and De Generatione which were due to
Gerard, not to mention other versions from the Greek which were all
extant long before the year 1230; only that, as we have already seen (p.
114), Roger seems to have been exceedingly vague about the date of
Gerard. Lynn Thorndike” says of this passage of Roger’s :—‘‘ Although
many writers have quoted this statement as authoritative in one way or
another, it must now be regarded as valuable only as one more illustration
of the loose and misleading character of most Roger’s allusions to past
learning and to the work of previous translators.’’ There is, at least, no
doubt that Roger assigns to Michael Scot too important a role in the
transmission of the Aristotelian works to the West, since, as we have
seen, some at least of the natural works were in use in the schools of Paris
before the year 1210.77 We have seen also that there were Latin versions
of the Metaphysica and of nearly all the natural works extant long before
1230. Roger, however, does not say that Michael himself was the author
of all the versions which he brought with him. Scot was, however, the
probable author of the Latin versions of almost all the Averroan com-
mentaries on the natural works,™% and these are presumably the treatises
referred to in the phrase ‘‘ cum expositionibus authenticis.’’
We will cite one more passage from Roger on this question of the
diffusion of these versions. In the last of his works, the Compendium
studi theologiae, written in 1292, Bacon expresses himself as follows :—
‘* Tarde vero venit aliquid de philosophia Aristotelis in usum latinorum,
quia naturalis philosophia eius et metaphysica et commentaria Averroys
et aliorum similiter hiis temporibus nostris translata sunt: et Parisius
excommunicabantur ante annum Domini 1237 propter eternitatem mundi
et temporis, et propter librum de divinacione sompniorum, qui est tertius
de sompno et vigilia et propter multa alia erronee translata. Etiam
logicalia fuerunt tarde recepta et lecta. Nam Beatus Edmundus Can-
tuariensis Archiepiscopus primus legit Oxonie librum elencorum temporibus
meis: et vidi magistrum Hugonem, qui primo legit librum posteriorum et
verbum eius conspexi, Pauci igitur fuerunt qui digni habiti sunt in
philosophia predicta Aristotelis respectu multitudinis latinorum immo
paucissimi, et fere nulli usque in hunc annum Domini 1292%™, quod in
116
sequentibus capitulis copiosissime et evidentissime patefiet. Et tardius

communicata est Ethica Aristotelis et nuper lecta a magistris et raro:
atque tota philosophia reliqua Aristotelis in mille voluminibus in quibus
omnes scientias tractavit nondum translata est, nec communicata Latinis:
et ideo fere nihil dignum de philosophia scitur.’’
Perhaps the most interesting statement here for our purpose is that the
third book of the De Somno et Vigilia constituted one of the reasons for
the prohibition of the Aristotelian works at Paris in 1210 and 1215, a
piece of evidence (if we may regard it as trustworthy) for the existence
of a Latin version of the Parva Naturalia at that date. It is difficult,
however, to attach much weight to Roger’s testimony on this point, in
view of the misstatements with which the rest of the passage abounds.
Roger here implies that the ban on Aristotle in the University of Paris
was lifted in 1237. In point of fact, as far as can be ascertained, the ban
was never officially lifted, but the prohibition, as we have seen,”* was a
dead letter after 1231.
With regard to Bacon’s statements about the late date at which the
logical works began to be used in the schools, we must remember that he
seems to be speaking chiefly of Oxford, though even with regard to that
University his language is probably exaggerated. In any case, the works
comprising the Logica Nova (not to speak of the Logica Vetus) were
utilized by various writers during the twelfth century, more than a
hundred years before the date at which Roger was writing. It is also to be
noted that we get an explicit reference to the E¢hica without a hint of
Grosseteste’s version of half a century earlier. And in the closing words
we have the same belief as Roger had already expressed in the Opus Majus
(Cf. p. 116 above), that there existed a large number of Aristotelian works
still untranslated.”” This was in fact a delusion. The whole of the Aris-
totelian works which we now possess were extant in Latin versions well
before 1292, at which date Roger wrote the above passage, with the excep-
tion of the Athenian Constitution and the Eudemian Ethics (a small
portion of which was embodied in the De Bona Fortuna).”*
1Tt should be noted in this connection that, while the mediaevals busied themselves
with procuring in Latin versions the scientific works of the Greeks, it was left
to the humanistic Renaissance of the fourteenth century to discover the literary
masterpieces of Greece. What the mediaeval world wanted was not the poetry
or drama, but the knowledge of the ancients.
? See p. 64 above.
* This is pretty generally recognised now by editors of Bacon and other scholars con-
cerned with his work. Thus, Hastings Rashdall, in the introduction to his
edition of the Compendium studii Theologiae (Brit. Soc. of Franciscan Studies,
Vol. III, Aberdeen, 1911), p. 28, writes :—‘‘ What we know from other sources
makes it certain that there must be considerable exaggeration in the statement
that ‘ almost nothing is known of the philosophy of Aristotle.’ .. . .It may be
suspected that the statement about so little being known of Aristotle arose partly
from his antagonism to the dominant Thomist school of Aristotelian interpretation,
and partly to his greatly exaggerated view of the untrustworthiness of the existing
translations. Bacon was no doubt somewhat inordinately proud of the little Greek
which he knew, and found it convenient to pretend that what he objected to in
the current scholasticism could not really lay claim to the great authority of
Aristotle." And compare the verdict of Lynn Thorndike cited below, p. 116.
117
“J. S. Brewer, Fr. Rogeri Bacon Opera quaedam hactenus inedita, London, 1859,
p. 471. :
5 Brewer, op. cit., p. 469.
® See p. 85 above. :
7 Of. Pelzer, Versions Latines de Ouvrages de Morale etc. (Revue Néo-Scolastique de
Philosophie, Aug. and Nov., 1921).
® The word ‘‘ fuit ’’ is clear in the XV-century manuscript in the British Museum,
: which is the only one extant of the Compendium. Brewer also reads ‘“‘ fuit.’’
Nevertheless it is tempting to read ‘‘ fui,’’ which would convert the sentence into
an assertion that Roger himself was ‘‘ valde familiaris’’ with Hermann the
German, which is confirmed by the following sentences. The sense of the
preceding sentences, however, perhaps rather leads one to expect ‘‘ fui.”’
* See pp. 73 and 76.
40 It is perhaps not necessary to take seriously the reflection on the personal character
of the translators, which immediately precedes the first passage quoted above
(p. 112), where Roger accuses them of being quite indifferent to the virtues of a
saintly life, an indifference which he implies has had an adverse effect on their
translations! ‘‘ Quia si sancti erraverunt in suis translationibus, multo magis
alii qui parum aut nihil de sanctitate curaverunt.”’
™ See pp. 76-7.
12 See p. 34.
ST have taken this passage from the copy in MS Vat. Urb. lat. 187, and the next
example from Bologna, Univ. Lib. 853.
4 See pp. 77-8.
*° In view of the reference, in the passage quoted on p. 113 above, to Grosseteste’s
works on optics and similar subjects, we may perhaps (having regard to Roger’s
habitually loose and exaggerated manner of expressing himself on such subjects)
restrict the phrase ‘‘ neglexit omnino libros Aristotelis ’’ to the works of natural
science only. Roger still, however, ignores the commentary on the Physica, and
Grosseteste’s numerous citations throughout his works of the Aristotelian treatises
on natural subjects. (See pp. 77-8 above).
Another passage which strengthens the impression that Bacon knew nothing
of the Bishop of Lincoln’s version of the Ethica is to be found in the Opus
Tertium, cap. 25, where he writes of Grosseteste’s activities as a translator:
‘* Sed non bene scivit linguas ut transferret, nisi circa ultimum vitae suae, quando.
vocavit Graecos, et fecit libros Grammaticae Graecae de Grecia et aliis congregari.
Sed isti pauca transtulerunt.’’ (Brewer, op. cit., p. 91).
16 Cf. Pelzer, Versions Latines des Ouvrages de Morale, etc. Pelzer, however, does
not discuss the question of Roger’s ignorance of this version. TRoger’s silence is
perhaps still more remarkable in the case of Grosseteste’s well-known commen-
taries on the logical works and the Physica, works which were bequeathed to the
convent at Oxford in which Bacon lived. Bacon’s own commentary on the
Physica, moreover, seems to have been based to some extent on that of Grosse-
teste, (Cf. V. Cousin, (work cited on p. 101, note 44), p. 463), and he elsewhere
ee use of his master’s Aristotelian citations. (Cf. p. 108, note 92, and Dee,
above).
"7 Op. Tert. Cap. 25. Brewer, op. cit, p. 91.
7? See pp. 88 and 97.
70 See p. 97.
* Pars II, Cap. 13. See p. 7 above.
* History of Magic and Experimental Science, New York, 1923, II, p. 312.
7° See pp. 18-19,
*4 See p. 121 et seqq.
25 Hastings Rashdall, Fr. Rogeri Bacon Compendium Studii Theologiae, (Brit. Soc.
of Franciscan Studies, IIT), Aberdeen, 1911, p. 33.
118
eeESeerD.1LOs
*7 In the Compendium Studii Philosophiae, (Brewer, op. cit., p. 478), also Bacon
repeats his belief in the existence of a fabulous number of Aristotelian works not
yet translated into Latin, and even goes so far as to state that he himself had
seen a work in fifty (1!) books by Aristotle on the subject of animals in the original
Greek. ‘‘ Nam Aristoteles fecit mille volumina, ut legimus in vita sua, et non
habemus nisi tria quantitatis notabilis; scilicet lLogicalia, Naturalia, Meta-
physicalia..... Quinquaginta etiam libros fecit de animalibus praeclaros, ut
Plinius dicit octavo naturalium et vidi in Graeco (!)....’’ The reference to
Pliny is to the Naturalis Historia, VIII, 17 :—‘‘ Alexandro Magno rege inflammato
cupidine animalium naturas noscendi, delegataque hac commentatione Aristoteli
fe dan a quinquaginta ferme volumina illa praeclara de animalibus condidit.’’
One is tempted to conjecture that ‘‘ vidi ’’ in the passage of Roger’s Compendium
is a corruption, (perhaps for videlicet?). For it is impossible to conjecture what
work on animals in fifty books, in Greek, and purporting to be by Aristotle, Roger
could have seen.
28 Roger was not alone in finding inadequate and obscure at least the earlier trans-
lations, and perhaps especially those made from the Arabic. Albertus (see p. 65
and p. 101, note 57) and Aquinas (see p. 106, note 168) voiced the same com-
plaint. Where Roger differs from them is not in his realisation of the need for
better versions, but in the wholesale nature of his condemnations, and the great
inaccuracy of his statements on all matters of fact connected with the Aristotelian
translations,
119
VI. VERSIONS OF COMMENTARIES.
(1) Arabian Commentators.
The first of the Arabic compendia of Aristotelian knowledge to become
accessible to the Latins was the De Scientiis of Alfarabi (d. 950), which
was largely paraphrased in the De Divisione of Gundisalvi.' The work
figures also in the list of Gerard’s translations.” Gerard, moreover, was
responsible for the Latin version of the ‘‘ Distinctio super librum_Aristo-
telis de naturali auditu ’’ which is Alfarabi’s commentary on the Physica.
Another important Arabic interpreter of Aristotelian thought, Avicenna
(d. 1037), first became known to the Latins about the middle of the
twelfth century through the labours of Johannes Hispalensis (Avendeath)
and Gundisalvi, Archdeacon of Segovia.*
Avicenna composed for the Arabic-speaking world a sort of encyclopedia
of Aristotelian doctrine, comparable to the series of paraphrase-com-
mentaries given to the Latins by Albertus Magnus. This Kztab-as-Szfa,
or Liber Sufficientiae as it was known to the Latins, did not find its way
complete into Latin. We know, however, the authors of the Latin versions
of some parts. Thus, the Logzca was translated by Avendeath about the
middle of the twelfth century, and the Physica, (being the first part of the
‘* Collectio secunda de naturalibus ’’), about the same time by Gundisalvi
and Avendeath working in collaboration. The second part of this
‘* Collectio secunda ’’ was the De Caelo et Mundo.* This was translated
again by Avendeath, while the ‘‘ Liber sextus de Naturalibus,’’ that is
the De Anima, was the work of Gundisalvi and Avendeath jointly.*
Finally, the Metaphysica, or fourth part of the Kztab-as-Sifa, was trans-
lated from the Arabic by Gundisalvi as we are told in the manuscripts.*
It is often difficult to separate the history of the Latin version of an
Aristotelian work itself from that of a commentary thereon. This is
especially true of the Arabic commentaries, and above all of those of
Averroes.’
Averroes® wrote three main types of commentary on works of Aristotle,
the Great Commentary, the Middle Commentary, and the Paraphrase. The
first of these three consisted of alternate passages of text and commentary,
the former of considerable length and always clearly differentiated from
the latter. Each book is divided into Summae, themselves divided into
chapters and texts. This method was used from time to time by Latin
commentators throughout the mediaeval period.’ In the Middle Com-
mentary only a few words of the portion of the text under discussion are
placed at the head of each paragraph of the commentary, in the body of
which no clear distinction is maintained between the citations and the
remarks of the commentator. This method was very commonly followed
120
Arabian Commentators
by Latin authors, and is their standard form. The Paraphrase form,

which was that already used by Alfarabi and Avicenna, is similar to the
great paraphrase-commentaries of Albertus Magnus among the Latins,
in which the text and gloss are indistinguishable.
Of these three types of commentaries, then, the first alone embodied
in itself the unaltered text of Aristotle, and a version of a Great Com-
mentary of Averroes on an Aristotelian work becomes therefore a version
of that work itself.*° But large portions of the text, as we have said, were
also embedded in the commentaries of the Middle and Paraphrase type,
so that a citation of ‘‘ Aristotle ’’ in a work by a Latin author will often
be drawn from one of these.
We possess all three types of commentary on the Posterior Analytics,
Physica, De Caelo, De Anima and Metaphysica.'' Of the other works
we have only the Middle Commentary or Paraphrase or both. The Hzstorza
Animalium and the Politica are the only genuine” Aristotelian works on
which there remain no commentaries by Averroes. But all the Averroan
commentaries were not known in a Latin form during the mediaeval
period.**
By whom then were the Averroan commentaries on the physical works
(the only ones with which we are here concerned) translated into Latin?
Those on the De Caelo and the De Anima were by Michael Scot.’* The
authorship of the versions of the rest is more doubtful. They occur
frequently in the manuscripts, but the translations are anonymous. For
instance, in Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, VIII, E.36, we find (in addition
to versions of the text of each work), Averroan commentaries on the
Physica, De Caelo, Metaphysica, De Anima, De Generatione, the fourth
book of the Meteora, and the paraphrase-commentaries on the Parva
Naturalia. Numerous writers, from Bale and Pits’* onwards, have
attributed to Scot the versions of all these works, as well as of the Sud-
stantia Orbis. Neither Bale nor Pits, however, gives any authority for
this attribution, which is perhaps based simply on the occurrence in the
manuscripts of these commentaries together with those on the De Caelo
and the De Axima which are known to be by Scot. Some modern authors
accept this view, and regard juxtaposition with the De Caelo and De
Anima in the manuscripts as sufficient evidence for the Scotian origin of
the Latin versions of Averroes on the Physica, the fourth book of the
Meteora, the De Generatione and the Parva Naturalia.**
Moreover, we may see in the commentaries on the Aristotelian works
with which, according to the testimony of Bacon,” Scot made his appear-
ance in Paris in 1230, these treatises of Averroes. But can we say that
the first appearance of the Averroan works in the University of Paris took
place as late as 1230? We have already seen’® in connection with the
prohibitions of 1210 and 1215, that there were extant at that date com-
mentaries of unnamed authorship on the Aristotelian works. The pro-
hibition of 1210 ran as follows:—‘‘ Nec libri Aristotelis de naturali
philosophia ec commenta legantur. . .’’ It has, moreover, been suggested
that ‘‘ Mauritius Hyspanus ’’ whose works were censured at this date 1s
intended for Averroes, ‘‘ the moor of Spain.’’ It thus seems arbitrary
to defer until the advent of Michael the translation of all the Averroan -
leet
VERSIONS OF COMMENTARIES
commentaries. There is, moreover, a rival candidate for one or two of

these versions.
In a Paris manuscript” the translation of the Averroan paraphrases of
the Parva Naturalia is attributed to a certain Gerardus. Further, there
is at Paris a fourteenth-century codex” which contains the De Caelo and
De Anima in Scot’s version together with the Averroan paraphrase-com-
mentary on the De Sensu which it attributes to one ‘‘ Geraldus.’’ Again,
in another fourteenth-century Paris manuscript” we find a “ liber Aristo-
telis de sensu en sensato, quem Gerardus transtulit in latinum.’’ This is
the paraphrase-commentary of Averroes. Was the‘‘ Gerardus ’’ of these
three manuscripts Gerard of Cremona? Averroes died in 1198 and Gerard
in 1187, and the latter is not known to have translated any living author,
nor is there any Averroan commentary in the list of his translations.
Nevertheless, the dates of composition of most of Averroes’ commentaries
are preserved in the Hebrew versions, and fall for the most part in Gerard’s
lifetime. The Great Commentary on the Physica is dated 1186, the
Middle Commentary on the same work was completed in 1170, and that
on the De Caelo in 1171.”
Now the De Sensu was cited together with the Physica and the De
Caelo, by Daniel of Morlay, who returned to England with manuscripts
from Toledo about the year 1175. As Daniel was a pupil of Gerard at
Toledo, and probably included some of his works among the “‘ pretiosa
multitudo librorum’’ which he carried, back to England with him,™*
citations by Daniel of Aristotelian works tend, so far as they go, to
establish the existence of Gerardian translations of such works.
Further, in one of the four manuscripts in which the very rare
Arabic-Latin version of the De Generatione by Gerard is found,”
it occurs together with the Averroan commentary, the two being
entitled: ‘‘ Incipit liber de generatione et corruptione ex translatione
arabica cum commento Averrois.’’ Were this the only manuscript
evidence on the point, we might perhaps regard it as pointing to the
same authorship for the translations of both original work and com-
mentary, but the Averroan commentary on the De Generatione occurs in
See pbs where this version of Gerard’s of the Aristotelian text is not
ound.
It is then impossible at present to name with certainty the translator of
the Averroan commentaries on the De Generatione, the Physica, the
Meteora or the Parva Naturalia. They occur most frequently in the
manuscripts in company with the versions known to be the work of Michael
Scot, and it is on the whole most probable that he is the translator.?”
We are not directly concerned with the commentaries on works not
dealing with natural science, but it may be noted that another translator
who concerned himself with the transmission of Averroes to the Latins
was Hermann the German (not to be confused with Hermann of
Dalmatia).** He concerned himself chiefly with the less-known works, and
was responsible for the Latin versions of the Averroan Middle Com-
mentaries on the E¢hica, the Poetica and probably also the Rhetorica,
versions which he completed at Toledo between 1240 and 1256.”*
122
Greek Commentators
(2) Greek Commentators.

There are three Latin versions of Greek commentators on Aristotle
which are commonly held to have come by way of the Arabic, through
Gerard of Cremona, namely Simplicius on the Categoriae, Themistius on
the Analytica Postertora and Alexander Aphrodisias on the De Sensu.
The first two are beyond dispute the work of Gerard. The third occurs
in the list of Gerard’s works*’ as :—‘‘ Tractatus unus alexandri affrodisii
de tempore, et alzuwm de sensu, et alium de eo quod augmentum et incre-
mentum fiunt in forma et non in yle.’’ We find it, again, in a thirteenth-
century Assisi manuscript** where it occurs in company with the other
two tractates of Aphrodisias mentioned in the list of Gerard’s versions,
(the De Tempore and the De eo quod Augmentum . . .fiunt in Forma et
non in Yle), and with other known translations of Gerard. We have thus
the combined evidence of the list of Gerard’s versions and of the manu-
scripts that this version of Alexander Aphrodisias on the De Sensu was
the work of Gerard.** Derivation through the Arabic has, however, been
questioned in modern times on grounds of style** (which is held to resemble
that of William of Moerbeke). Again, the numerous Greek words found
in this version have led some to suppose that it was translated direct from
the Greek, although (as we saw in the case of the De Animalibus),** this
argument is not in itself sufficient to prove direct transmission from the
Greek. The reasons, then, for questioning Gerard’s authorship cannot
outweigh the explicit statement in the list of his versions that he was
responsible for the translation of Alexander’s commentary on the De
Sensu, together with the fact of its occurrence in the manuscripts along
with other Gerardian versions.
Another translator of Greek commentators on Aristotle is Robert
Grosseteste. In addition to his version of the Nicomachean Ethics,**
made between 1240 and 1243, Grosseteste translated also from the Greek
a number of commentaries on that work. Thus, we have from him
Eustratios on the first six books, an anonymous writer on books II—V,
Michael of Ephesus on books V, IX and X, and Aspasios on book VIII
of the Nzcomachean Ethics. Jf Roger Bacon is to be believed,** Grosse-
teste employed the services of a whole staff of Greeks whom he had
specially brought to Oxford for the purpose of compiling these and other
versions. No other translator from the Greek is known to have been
occupied on the works of these commentators nor are any versions by
Grosseteste known on other than the ethical works of Aristotle.
The work De Fato ad Imperatores, together with the last chapter of
the second book of Alexander’s commentary on the De Axima (which
deals with the same subject as the De Fato) were translated into Latin
during the thirteenth century by the Sicilian school of translators, and the
De Fato is found in an Oxford codex in company with Platonic versions
by Henricus Aristippus.*” No other version of a Greek commentator on
Aristotle is known to have proceeded from this school.
William of Moerbeke translated from the Greek the commentary of
Aphrodisias on the Arisotelian Meteora in the year 1260 at Nicea.** He
was also responsible for a second translation of the Categorzae of Sim-
plicius which had already been turned into Latin from the Arabic by
123
VERSIONS OF COMMENTARIES
Gerard of Cremona. This version William completed in March 1266.

Some time before 1270 he had also completed his version of Themistius
on the De Anima, and on the 15th June, 1271, he finished the Greek-
Latin version of the commentary of Simplicius on the De Caelo. For
nearly all of these, as often with the versions of William of Moerbeke,
we have definite manuscript evidence of date and authorship. _ More
doubtful is the case of that portion of the third book of Johannes
Philoponos (Grammaticus) on the De Anima which was the only work of
that commentator available to the mediaevals in a Latin form. The Latin
version of this work, which has previously been attributed to William of
Moerbeke, but without manuscript evidence for the attribution, exists in
the Vatican manuscript 2438, Ff. 60-73v, where it is dated 1248. Grab-
mann,** while admitting that nothing definite can be proved on the point,
holds that it is improbable that this version is the work of William, both
on account of the early date (no other translation of his being known
before 1259-60), and because the Aristotelian text of the De Anima given
in this version of the Philoponus commentary differs from that of William’s
revision of the ‘‘ translatio vetus’’ of the De Anima, which was used by
Aquinas.*° It is also probable that William of Moerbeke was the trans-
lator of the commentary of Ammonius on the Perzhermenias.
* See p. 34 above.
2 See p. 20, note 10.
* See p. 34 above.
“For the dedication of this version to Archbishop Raymond, to whom also the De
Anima was dedicated, see above, p. 114.
* See p. 84 above. In one MS., namely Vat. lat. 2089, the translation of the De Anima
is ascribed to Gerard of Cremona, but that this is an error is plain from the
prologue of the work itself, which is given in the manuscript.
®°1.G. Vat. lat. 4428, I’. 78.
7 See pp. 94-5 et seqq.
* lor the works of Averroes and their translation into Latin see J. E. Renan, Averroes
et l’Averroisme, 38rd edition, Paris, 1866; F. Wiistenfeld, Die Uberstezungen
Arabische werke ing Lateinische, (Abhandlungen d. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften
zu Géttingen, 1877); Steinschneider, Huropdischen Uberstezungen, etc.
° It is the Great Commentary to which Dante refers in the fourth canto of the Inferno.
*° Averroes frequently contrasted different Arabic versions of the text of an Aristotelian
work which he had before him.
*1 See Renan, op. cit., p. 61.
“ Averroes, however, did not comment upon the spurious Magna Moralia and
Eudemian Ethics, the former of which the Arabs combined with the Nicomachean
Hthics. It is, moreover, very doubtful whether there was an Averroan com-
mentary on the De Plantis. (See p. 72 above).
** There were, however, mediaeval Latin versions in some cases of more than one
type of Averroan commentary on the same work.
74 See p. 95 above.
J. Bale, Script. Illust. Majoris Britanniae, 1557, p. 851, and Pits, De Rebus
Anglicis, p. 874.
** Renan, op. cit., p. 208.
7 See p. 116.
*8 See pp. 18-19.
*® Mandonnet, op. cit., p. 17, and other authors.
70 St. Victor 171. Cf. Renan, op. cit., p. 206, note 2.
124
Greek Commentators
71 Bibl. Nat. lat. 14885. Delisle, Inventaire des MSS Latines.

22 Bibl. Nat. lat. 16182, F. 44.
23 Renan, op. cit., p. 61.
** Ct. Daniel’s Philosophia, edited by Sudhoff, Archiv f.d. Gesch. d. Naturwissenschaft,
VIII, 140.
25 Vat. lat. 2089.
7° And in some cases in manuscripts which contain also the De Caelo and De Anima
commentaries in Scot’s version, (e.g. Urbinati 221).
*7 MS Vat. lat. 4550 contains a version of the commentary of Averroes on the four
books of the Meteora of which, according to the Catalogue, a certain Elias
Hebraeus was the interpreter, (i.e. Elijah of Crete?).
78 Hermann the German figures in Roger Bacon’s list of Aristotelian translators.
Cf. p. 112 above.
2° For Hermann’s version of the Ethica see Pelzer, (work cited in note 7, on p. 118
above).
°° See p. 20, note 10 above.
31 Biblioteca Comunale 663. This MS contains the Problemata in the version ot
Bartholomew of Messina; the Averroan commentaries on the Parva Naturalia, the
‘“ Tractatus Alexandri Afrodisii de Tempore, traditus a magistro Geraldo
eremonense, in toleto ’’; the ‘‘ Tractatus Alexandri Afrodisii Dt Sensu,’’ and De
Augmento & Incremento; Alfarabi on the Physica and Aphrodisias De Intellectu
(both in Gerard’s version).
52 Wistenfeld; G. Théry, Autour du décret de 1210 etc. (Bibl. Thomiste VII), 1926,
p. 86; and, Steinschneider, op. cit., p. 16 (46), agree in accepting this version as
the work of Gerard.
83 Cf. Ch. Thurot, Alexandre d’Aphrodisias. Commentaire sur le traité d’Aristote De
Sensu etc. (Notices et, extraits des manuscrits de la bibliothéque nationale et
autres bibliothéques. Tom. XXV., P. II, Paris, 1875, p. 386); P. Wendland,
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, III.1, P. VIII.; A. Pelzer, Section on
Aristotelian versions in De Wulf, Histoire de la Philosophie Médiévale, I, Louvain,
1924; M. Grabmann, Mittelalterliche lateinische Ubersetzungen von Schriften d.
Aristoteles Kommentatoren etc. (Sitzungsberichte d. Bayerisch. Akademie d.
Wissenschaften. Philos-Hist. Abteilung, Jahrgang, 1929, Heft 7), Miinchen, 1929.
°4 See p. 82 above.
85 See p. 40 above.
8° See pp. 113 and 118, note 15.
87 See p. 33 above. The codex in question is Corpus Christi College 243.
38 See p. 97, above. On the versions of William, see also Birkenmajer, Vermischte
Untersuchungen, etc. (Beitrage z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalt. Bd. XX. Heft. 5).
89 Mittelalterliche lateinische Ubersetzungen von Schriften d. Aristoteles Kommen-
tatoren etc., p. 21.
4° See p. 6 above.
125
VII. SOME LATER LATIN VERSIONS.
Although almost the entire Aristotelian cycle, together with a consider-
able apocryphal corpus and the works of several of the Greek commentators,
was accessible in Latin well before the close of the thirteenth century, yet
the process of translation continued long after this date. The appetite
grew with what it fed on. The prestige of ‘‘ the Philosopher ’’ provided
a constant demand for new and better versions of his works. The scientific
Renaissance of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was almost devoid of
interest in literature as such. The work of the translators of that period
was confined almost exclusively to scientific and philosophic writings.
With the Humanistic Renaissance which began in Italy and Southern
Europe as early as the middle of the fourteenth century, the attention
of the learned world was turned to the literary masterpieces of antiquity.
The old versions of Aristotle’s works now came to be regarded as barbaric
and clumsy even by those who did not scruple to make use of them in com-
piling the new translations." These humanistic versions came to supplant
so entirely those of the scholastics that very few’ of the latter are to be
found among the numerous Aristotelian incunables.
Leonardo Bruni of Arezzo (1369—1444), commonly known as Aretinus,
was the first of the humanistic translators of Aristotle.* Born at Arezzo in
1369, he studied Greek under the Byzantine, Manuel Chrysoloras (d.
1415), and was secretary to the Papal Chancery under Popes Innocent VII
and John XXII. From 1427 to his death in 1444 he was chancellor to
the Florentine Republic and wrote the History of Florence by which his
name is most frequently remembered. His translations of the Politica,
Economica and Eudemian Ethics attained a wide popularity, and were
often printed, notably in the edition of Gregorius de Gregoriis, Venice,
ee Aretinus made no version of a scientific or biological Aristotelian
work.
_The next important Aristotelian versions are due to two men of Greek
birth who appeared in Italy about the year 1430. These were George of
Trebizond, born in Crete in 1395, and Theodore Gaza. George,
commonly known as Trapezuntius, visited Italy between the years 1430
and 1438, and became secretary to the humanist Pope, Nicholas V, who
was an ardent Aristotelian. ~ Under his encouragement, Trapezuntius
produced a very large number of versions of Aristotelian and other works
from the Greek, which, however, suffered from the speed with which
they were composed. This, combined with the violence of his attacks on
Plato, whose reputation was then at its height in Italy, did great damage
to his reputation as a scholar. It is perhaps on this account that most
of his versions never attained to the dignity of print. An important
exception, however, is his translation of the Rhetorica, which
appeared
126
Some Later Latin Versions
in numerous editions. His De Animalibus is fairly common in fifteenth-

century manuscripts, which less often contain his versions of the De Anima,
Physica, De Generatione, De Caelo and Problemata.*
A contemporary of Trapezuntius, who was also for a time in the employ
of Pope Nicholas V, was Theodore Gaza. He was born at Thessalonica
about the year 1400, and in 1430 fled to Italy, a fugitive from the Turks.
In 1447 he was Professor of Greek at Ferrara, and in 1450 was invited to
Rome by the Pope in order that he might make versions of Aristotle and
other Greek authors. Theodore was the most skilful and popular of the
Renaissance translators of Aristotle. His versions appear in numerous
early printed editions, as well as in many fifteenth-century manuscripts,
particularly the longest and most important of them, the De Animalibus
in eighteen books, consisting of the nine books of the Historia Animalium
(excluding the spurious tenth book), four of the De Partibus Animalium
and five of the De Generatione Animalium. This work was the standard
version of the Aristotelian zoological works throughout the Renaissance
period and later. It was printed in Venice in 1476 (by Johannes de
Colonia and Johannes Manthem de Gherrezem), in the great Aldine
edition, Venice, 1503-4, and on many subsequent occasions. It was
dedicated to Pope Sixtus IV. Theodore’s version of Theophrastus De
Historia Plantarum and De Causis Plantarum (the first Latin versions of
these works), contain a prologue addressed to Pope Nicholas V (Editio
princeps, Treviso, 1483). Theodore was also responsible for a version
from the Greek of the pseudo-Aristotelian Problemata (Editio princeps,
Mantua, 1473), and the commentary of Alexander Aphrodisias thereon
(Editio princeps, Venice, 1488).
Another prominent translator contemporary with Theodore Gaza and
George of Trebizond was Johannes Argyropulos (c. 1416—1486), who was
born and first taught at Constantinople. In 1434 he was teaching at
Padua, of which University he subsequently became Rector. About 1456
he was professor of Greek at Florence, and between 1471 and his death in
1486 he was teaching that language at Rome. The versions of
Argyropulos achieved a wide circulation. They included the Categoriae,
De Interpretatione, Analytica Posteriora, Physica, De Caelo, De Anima,
Metaphysica, Ethica Nicomachea and Politica, of Aristotelian works.
Most of these versions belong to the period between 1456 and 1471, when
Argyropulos was Professor of Greek at Florence, and the Physica, Meta-
physica and De Anima were dedicated to Piero and Cosimo de’ Medici,
the great Florentine patrons of the Revival of Learning. Argyropulos
versions appeared in a number of early editions, thefirst being the great
Opera Aristotelis published by Gregorius de Gregoriis at Venice in 1496.
These four men were the outstanding figures in the process of Aris-
totelian translation during the fifteenth century. A slightly earlier worker
was Cardinal Bessarion (c. 1395—1472), a munificent patron of the
classical revival and himself a translator. He too was a native of
Trebizond, and titular patriarch of Constantinople, and was created a
cardinal by Eugenius IV in 1437. Thereafter he resided permanently in
Italy. The only Aristotelian version for which Bessarion was responsible
was the Metaphysica, but he also produced translations of the Characteres
Theophrasti and some other peripatetic works. Other workers of this
127
Some Later Latin Versions
period were Augustinus Niphus (1473—-1546), author of a version of the

De Generatione (Editio princeps, Venice, 1495), and editor of the works
of Averroes, of whom he was a prominent defender in the University of
Padua; Georgius Valla, translator of the Magna Moralia and of Alexander
Aphrodisias on the Prodlemata (printed Venice, 1488); Simon Grynaeus
(1493—1541), the friend of Melancthon; and others. A late translator
was Peter Alcyonius (1487—1527), a corrector to the Aldine Press. He
- printed at Venice in 1521 the De Generatione, Meteora, De Mundo, De
Communi Animalium Gressu, De Sensu and others of the Parva Naturalia.
Most of the copies of this edition were burnt by its author in pique at the
criticisms which had been levelled against it. We may also mention
Andronicus Callixtus (d. 1478), a Byzantine, tutor of Valla and later
Professor at Paris. To him is due a version of the De Generatione
dedicated to Lorenzo de’ Medici. But these and many other Renaissance
and subsequent translations of the Greek classics, however superior in
coherence and literary style to their mediaeval predecessors, yet lack the
quality of uniqueness which gave to the latter their great importance for
the history of thought. The mediaeval versions of Aristotle formed the
single channel for the current of Greek thought in a way which was
impossible at a later date, when there were numerous versions of every
individual work.
* See pp. 90-1.

2 A notable exception is furnished by the excessively rare Canozius edition of Aristotle
published at Padua, 1472-5, in which the Metaphysica, Physica, De Caelo, De
Generatione, De Anima, Meteora, and Parva Naturalia appear in the mediaeval
Greek-Latin, and Arabic-Latin versions, and with the Averroan commentaries.
The only copy in this country is in the Cambridge University Library.
* Already during the fourteenth century the poet Petrarch (1304-74) had helped to
spread enthusiasm for classical learning, and Leontinus Pilatus, who was himself
a pupil of Petrarch’s teacher, Barlaam, made a translation of Homer and held a
chair of Greek literature at Florence. Nor were these isolated instances.
There was also during the late 13th and early 14th centuries a limited
amount of translation by Byzantine scholars from Latin into Greek. The most
noteworthy of these was Maximos Planudes (1260-1310). (See pp. 15-16 and 60
above). On Aretinus, see also A. Birkenmajer, Der Streit des Alonso von Cartagena
mit Leonardo Bruni Aretino, (Vermischte Untersuchungen z. Gesch. d. Mittelalt.
Philos. Beitrage z. Gesch. d. Philos. d. Mittelalt. Bd. XX. Heft. 5), 1922.
“A complete list of the writings of Trapezuntius is given by Fabricius, Bibliotheca
Graeca, (Ed. Harles) XII.
128
INDEX OF NAMES.
Abelard, 5, 9, 20, 42.

Abu-l-Faraj (Gregorius Barhebraeus), 13, 14.
Abu-l-Faraj ibn ab-Tayib, 81.
Adam de Bocfeld, 99.
Adelard of Bath, 33, 34, 39.
Aegeus, 42.
Aegidius Colonna, 53.
Alanus de Insulis, 5.
Albertus Magnus, 10, 16, 22, 25, 27, 80, 87, 43, 44, 53, 65, 67, 68, 69, 78,
80, 81-3, 84, 85, 89, 91, 99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 109,
119, 120, 121.
fr Teutonicus, 38.
Alcuin, 104.
Alcyonius, Peter 128.
Alexander Aphrodisaeus, 12, 42, 84, 81, 90, 91, 97, 102, 128.
Alexander of Neckam, 26-8, 42, 55, 74, 75, 77, 104.
Alfanus of Salerno, 32, 34, 386.
Alfarabi, 22, 34, 35, 42, 46, 98, 120, 121.
Altonso the Wise, 114.
Alfred, King, 57, 100.
Alfredus de Sareshel, 1, 6, 9, 27, 29, 80, 31, 388, 40, 41, 42, 48, 44, 47, 49,
50, 52, 58, 54, 55-72, 76, 77, 78, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102,
103, 110, 112, 114, 115.
F the Papal Legate, 56-7, 99.
Algazel, 80, 84.
Ali-Ben-Abbas (Haly), 33, 84, 114.
Al-Khwarismi, 38, 34.
Al-Mansur, Caliph, 11.
Alpetragius (al. Bitrogi), 73, 76, 77, 95.
Alphidius (Asfidous), 56.
Amalric, 19.
Ambrose, St., 85, 86.
Anatoli, Jacob, 77.
Anaxagoras, 60, 61, 64, 70.
Andrea a Lacuna, 61, 71, 101.
Andreas the Jew, 76, 77, 114.
Apuleius of Madaura, 10, 17. i
Aquinas, St. Thomas, 6, 10, 16, 38, 39, 41, 53, 66, 67, 83, 85, 87, 88, 90,
91, 96, 102, 107-8.
Arethas, 15.
Arnaldus Saxo, 44.
Avencebrol (ibn-Gebirol), 80.
Avendeath, Johannes (ibn-David), 30, 34, 36, 39, 40, 42, 114, 120.
Aventinus (Joh. Turmair), 10, 107-8, 128.
129
Averroes (ibn. Rushd), 18, 18, 19, 81, 39, 41, 48, 52, 54, 71, 72, 77, 80, 81,
84, 95, 97, 98, 100, 103, 110, 121, 122, 124.
Augustine, St., 17.
Avicenna (ibn-Sina), 24, 80, 34, 35, 39, 42, 80, 84, 85, 102, 120, 121.
Bacon (Roger), 6, 10, 48, 54, 56-7, 59, 60, 61-5, 68, 71, 72, 76, 77, 87, 92,
93, 95, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 105, 109, 112-19, 121, 123.
Baeumker, Clemens, 1, 2, 9, 28, 43, 49, 53, 99, 100, 101, 111.
Bale, John, 56, 57, 99, 121, 124.
Barach, C. S., 1, 2, 99, 100.
_ Barbarossa, 34, 36.
Bartholomaeus Anglicus, 28, 65, 78, 100.
4s of Messina, 8, 22, 98-4, 97, 111, 115.
Bateson, Mary, 99.
El-Batric, ibn, 11, 72.
Baumstark, A., 18, 20.
Baur, L., 24-5, 36, 42, 108, 105.
Beddie, J. S., 9, 24.
Bede, 104.
Bergstrasser, G., 13.
Berthaud, A., 20.
Bessarion, Cardinal, 127.
Birkenmajer, A., 7 (note), 89 (note), 41, 97, 103, 111, 125.
Boethius, Manlius Severinus, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 40, 48, 67, 116.
5 of Dacia, 7.
Boncompagni, B., 20, 36.
Bonaventura, 44,
Borgnet, 41.
Boston, John of Bury, 56, 99.
Bouyges, P. M., 2, 14, 98, 108.
Brandis, 3.
Brewer, 9, 99, 100, 118, 119.
Bridges, J. H., 10, 99, 100, 103.
Browne, E. G., 18.
Bruni, Leonardo (Aretinus), 126.
Bungay, Thomas, 28.
Burkhard, C., 36.
Burgundio the Pisan, 5, 38, 84, 86.
Callixtus, Andronicus, 128.
Calonymos ben-Calonymos, 71.
Cassiodorus, 4, 8, 13.
Chalcidius, 17, 67.
Charlemagne, 104.
Charles of Anjou, 93.
Charles, 10.
Chatelain (see Denifle).
Cheikko, 20.
Cicero, 20.
Clement IV, Pope, 87.
Clerval, 9.
Conrad of Austria, 83.
Constantine the African, 82, 35.
= Porphyrogennetos, 15.
5s Monomachos, 15.
130
Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi, 7 (note), 47 (note).
Costa-ben-Luca, 12.
Cousin, V., 9, 10, 101.
Daniel of Morlay, 20, 26, 27, 35, 36, 38, 39, 54, 122, 125.
Dante, 79.
David of Dinant, 19, 43.
Delorme, P., 80, 101.
Delisle, 8, 108.
Democritus, 75.
Denifle and Chatelain, 20, 103, 108, 109,
Detlefsen, 74, 75.
Didot, 101, 102,
Dittmeyer, 82, 91, 103, 106, 109.
Duhem, P., 38, 42, 78, 98.
Durandus de Alvernia, 97, 111.
Duval, G., 71, 101.
Echard (see Quetif).
Eddé, C., 20.
Ehrle, F., 105.
Elia I, 18.
Empedocles, 31, 60, 61, 64, 67, 70, 71, 112.
Endres, J. A., 82, 106,
Eriugena, Johannes Scotus, 20, 86,
Euclid, 32, 34.
Eugene of Palermo, 18, 32, 33.
Eustratios, 15, 16.
Fabricius, 128.
Ferckel, Ch., 107.
Fluegel, G., 14, 98.
Fobes, F, H., 109.
Foerster, R., 10, 94, 110,
Frederick II, 24, 73, 79, 84, 85, 93.
Gabriele, G., 13.
Galen, 11, 32, 34, 84, 85.
Galippus the Mozarab, 35.
George of Trebizond, 109, 126-7.
Georgios, 11.
Georgios Pachymeres, 15.
Gerard of Abbeville, 88.
Gerard of Cremona, 4, 8, 20, 21, 26-29, 38, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 48, 45, 46,
47, 52, 57, 69, 76, 87, 94, 95, 96, 99, 102, 110, 111,
112-114, 115, 120, 122, 123, 124.
Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope Silvester II), 34.
Geyer, B., 9.
Gilbert de la Porrée, 20.
Gottlieb, T., 9.
Govi, G., 36.
Grabmann, M., 2, 8, 9, 16, 20, 25, 380, 31, 36, 42, 44, 53, 99, 103, 105, 106,
110, 111.
Gregorius de Brolio, 92.
Gregorius de Gregoriis, 60, 100, 105.
Gregory IX, Pope, 19, 95.
” 9 87.
», of Nyssa, 36.
131
Grosseteste, Robert, 6, 5, 16, 40, 48, 44, 71, 77, 78, 91, 97, 98, 112, 113,
115, 118, 123.
Grynaeus, Simon, 100, 128.
Gundisalvi, Dominicus, 22, 80, 34, 35, 36, 89, 40, 42, 45, 46, 52, 114, 120.
Hackmann, A., 103.
Hadji-Halfa, 55, 98.
Hall, Anthony, 99.
Haskins, Ch. H., 9, 10, 20, 25, 26, 28, 36, 41, 42, 48, 52, 73, 98, 100, 104,
105, 110.
Hauréau, 26, 102.
Heisenburg, A., 16.
Henry of Avranches, 73, 85.
»» 9», Cologne, 84, 102. )
»» 9) Brabant, 86, 92. /
»» 9») Hereford, 86, 92, 107, 109.
Henricus Aristippus, 17, 18, 26, 27, 82, 38, 37, 38, 42, 69, 123.
Hermann the German, 20, 40, 97, 110, 112-14, 115, 122, 125.
3h of Carinthia, 34, 40, 42, 45, 46, 47.
Hermes, Trismegistus, 17.
Hermolaus, Barbarus, 60.
Herod, King, 55.
Hilarion, 30.
Hippocrates, 34.
Hubaish, 11.
Holmyard, E. J., 42, 100.
Hugo, Eterianus, 34.
Huillard-Bréholles, 106.
Hunain ibn Ishaq, 11-14, 55, 72.
Ibn Zar’a, 81.
Ibas of Edessa, 11.
Innocent III, Pope, 104.
Ishaq ibn Hunain, 11-12, 55.
Isaac, Judaeus, 84.
Isidore, St. of Seville, 85.
Jacob of Edessa, 11.
Jacobus de Vitriaco, 85.
James of Venice, 6, 33, 37.
so eeyEe RIS:
Jessen, C., 82, 102, 106.
Johannes Argyropulos, 127.
. Comnenus, 34,
ar Cronisbenus, 68, 86.
ue de Garlandia, 19, 31.
Italos, 15.
de Janduno, 25.
fe Pediasimos, 16.
= Philoponus, 12, 124.
e Tydenshale, 83.
John, 37.
», Damascene, 15, 30.
», Of Salisbury, 20, 26, 33.
Joseph the Wise, 34.
132
Jourdain, Ch. and A, 2, 8, 8, 9, 10, 24, 38, 45, 46, 52, 56, 57, 68, 81, 86,
102, 104, 106, 107, 111.
Jowett, B., 20.
Junta, 60, 71, 1083.
Kaufmann, A., 107.
Kelter, 10.
Krumbacher, 16.
Lavenham, R., 28.
Leander, 86.
Leclerc, L., 18, 14, 98, 108.
Leland, John, 56, 98, 99.
Leo Tuscus, 34.
Liechtenstein, H., 102.
Little, A. G., 28.
Lockwood, 36.
Loxus, 8.
Lupitus of Barcelona, 34.
Maitre, L., 19.
Malouf, F., 20.
Mamun, 11, 72.
Mandeville, 42, 100.
Mandonnet, 8, 9, 10, 20, 28, 41, 44, 52, 82, 106, 124.
Manfred, King of Sicily, 93, 94, 97.
Manitius, 36.
Manuel Holobolos, 15.
Marbodius, Bp. of Rennes, 8.
Marchanova, Johannes, 52.
Marchesi, C., 8, 93, 111.
Maximos Planudes, 15-16, 60, 61, 71, 101, 128.
Meyer, E. H. F., 1, 2, 55, 56, 60, 62, 65, 70, 72, 98, 100, 101.
Meyerhof, M., 13, 14.
Michael Ephesius, 15, 123.
Italicus, 15.
* Scot, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 28, 30, 35, 38, 39, 40, 41, 48, 44, 48, 52,
65, 72-85, 89, 91, 92, 94, 95, 96, 103, 104-6, 110, 111, 112-14,
115, 116, 121, 122.
‘ of Tarrazona, 18, 33.
Migne, 8, 9, 28.
Minges, Parthenius, 28, 107.
Moneta of Cremona, 71.
Monumenta Germ. Hist., 9, 41.
Moses of Bergamo, 33, 34.
Moyses, Rabbi, 84.
Mueller, I., 16.
Navagero, Bernard, 71.
Nemesius of Emessa, 82, 34, 36.
Nicephorus Gregoras, 16.
“3 Blemmydes, 15.
Nicetas, 15.
Nicholas of Sicily, 93-4.
Nicolaus of Damascus, 12, 55, 81.
Niphus, Augustine, 128.
Olympiodorus, 36.
133
Omont, 54, 99.
Otto of Freisung, 5, 9.
Othoboni, Cardinal, 56.
Patzelt, E., 19.
Peckam, John, 80, 105.
Pelster, F., 41, 44, 82, 102, 106, 108, 109, 111.
Pelzer, A., 16, 48, 44, 58, 99, 105, 108, 111, 118.
Petrarch, 128.
Peter of Corbeil, 19.
»> 95) Poitiers, 44.
ee Me russia, 107.
», The Venerable, 40.
Petrus Alfonsi, 34.
», de Alvernia, 59, 66, 67, 83-4, 96, 98, 102, 106.
5, Gallego, 80-81,
», Hispanus (Pope John XXI), 16, 79, 80, 81, 105.
Philemon, 67.
Philip of Gréve, 19, 28, 44, 77, 107.
“ 5, Tripoli, 33.
Photius of Constantinople, 15.
Pico della Mirandola, 70, 71.
Pits, |y0 Oey Lal,
Platearius, 85.
Plato4, 42) 17,. 195 383.1387.
5, Of Tivoli, 34.
Pliny, 74-5, 85, 104.
Plier, M., 65, 101.
Polemon, 8.
Porphyry, 9, 15, 17.
Praepositinus, 44,
Prantl, K., 16.
Probus, 13.
Proclus, 17, 32, 87,
Psellos, Michael, 15, 16.
Pseudo-Denis, 36, 115.
Pseusippus, 70.
Ptolemy, 3, 18, 20, 32, 38, 34, 35, 46, 77.
Pythagoras, 64, 70, 112.
Querfeld, A. H., 106.
Quetif and Echard, 68.
Radulfus de Longo Campo, 5, 54.
Rashdall, Hastings, 19, 117, 118.
Ravaisson, 44.
Raymond, Archbp. of Toledo, 18, 33, 34, 114, 124.
Renan, E., 18, 105, 110, 124.
Richard the Bishop, 26.
i de Fournival, 4, 49.
os de Stanington, 28.
Robert of Chester, 34.
»» yy, Courcon, 19.
», yy Ketene, 40.
» 9», Kilwardby, 22, 80.
» 9» Mont St. Michel, 37.
3». de Torigny, 6,
134
Roger de Hauteville, 18.
is . nee. 55-6, 58-9, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 98, 99, 100, 103.
Rose, V., 20, 86, 41, 44.

Rudberg, G., 88, 89, 103, 104, 106, 108.
Sandys, E., 8, 13.
Savasorda, 34.
Scaliger, J. C., 60, 100.
Schmeidler, C., 19.
Schneider, 57, 100.
Scott, W., 20.
Senensis, A., 107.
Senn, G., 98, 102.
Sergios of Resh’Aina, 11.
Shyreswood, Wm., 79.
Siger de Brabant, 7, 8, 41.
Sighart, 82, 106.
Simon of Faversham, 69.
Simplicius, 36, 87, 90, 96, 123.
Singer, C., 77.
Sixtus IV, Pope, 30.
Socrates, 67, 70.
Solinus, 85.
Sophonios, 16.
Spengels, 82, 109.
Stachnik, R., 19.
Stadler, H., 103, 105, 106, 109.
Stamser Catalogue, 87.
Steele, R. R., 61, 101, 108.
Stein, L., 16.
Steinschneider, M., 10, 18, 14, 24, 35, 36, 88, 41, 42, 52, 53, 98, 99, 103, 124.
Stephen of Antioch, 33.
» 9» Provins, 19, 95.
»» Tempier, 7.
Stolz, E., 82, 106.
Sudhoff, K., 35, 36.
Susemihl, 109, 111.
Suter, H., 13, 14.
Taegius, Franciscus, 70, 71.
Tanner, 28, 99, 103.
Thabit ibn Qurra, 12, 55.
Thaddeus of Hungary, 36, 52.
Themistius, 12, 31.
Theodore, 11.
Theodore, Magister, 79.
i of Gaza, 100, 109, 126-7.
Theodorus Metochites, 16.
ae Prodromus, 15.
Theophrastus, 29, 67, 98, 102.
Thierry of Chartres, 5, 9, 19, 20, 39, 40, 42.
Thomas, St. (see Aquinas).
i of Cantimpré, 77, 78, 79, 85-86, 107-8.
Thorndike, Lynn, 26, 28, 35, 42, ‘104, 117.
135
Thurot, Ch., 16, 125.
Tira Boschi, G., 36.
Tomasini, 68.
Trithemius, 86.
Tzetzes, Johannes, 15.
Ueberweg (Geyer), 3, 16, 20, 36, 44, 52, 54.
Urban IV, Pope, 85.
Valla, Georgius, 128.
Vaux, Carra de, 20.
Victorinus, 9.
Vincent of Beauvais, 22, 27, 67, 68, 78, 102.
Webb, C. C. J., 36.
Wenrich, J. G., 13.
William I. of Sicily, 82.
%” of Auvergne, 27, 44, 77.
oA of Auxerre, 19.
a the Breton, 41.
9 of Moerbeke, 6, 16, 22, 28, 51, 57, 39, 40, 41, 43, 47, 72, 78, 79, 82,
88, 85-97, 102, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112-18, 115, 128-4.
ei the Englishman, 38.
‘5 of Tocco, 107.
Wright, Th., 74, 75.
Wuestenfeld, 35, 98, 108, 110, 125.
Wulf, De, 125.
Xenocrates, 70.
Zeller, 3.
Zeno, 18.
Zervos, Ch., 16.
The Courter Press, Leamington & London

KP-273-654

The Mediaeval Latin Versions of The Aristotelian Scientific - Anna's Archive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Mediaeval Latin Versions of The Aristotelian Scientific - Anna's Archive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

: sutih

THE COURIER PRESS

Wn. C.D rour

DR. CHARLES SINGER.

Tibi hoc opus, velut maturas Baccho palmites,

(From the dedication of his version of the De Plantis

Secondly, I am indebted to Mr. R. Steele for various valuable suggestions

I am aware of the forbidding character of the lengthy sections of notes at

Stolefellj peor *sIolelanW 104

I]. ARISTOTLE IN THE WEST.

lil. TWELFTH-CENTURY VERSIONS OF ARISTOTLE.

1V. THIRTEENTH-CENTURY VERSIONS OF ARISTOTLE.

VI. VERSIONS OF COMMENTARIES.

VII. SOME LATER LATIN VERSIONS OF THE Boys et

I have aimed in this work at giving some outline of the process by

(2). WORKS IN POSSESSION OF THE LATINS BEFORE THE

Again, a thirteenth-century Paris manuscript contains a copy of the

Now, in the chronicle of Robert de Torigny (1 106 ?-86), Abbot of Mont

1 In librum de interpretatione, editio secunda, lib. secund. I.c. (Migne, Patrologie

21 Opus Majus, ed. Bridges, 2 vols., Oxford, 1897, Vol. ep a2:

The Arabic-speaking peoples in the great age of Arabic learning, when

* For a fuller account of Aristotelian studies at Byzantium see Iwan Miller,

the beginnings of scholastic philosophy, and_ the rise of the monastic,

the thost usual grouping of the physical works in the thirteenth-century

Table showing the comparative incidence in two dated manuscripts of

Versions used in| Versions used in

These two dated thirteenth-century manuscripts are good types of the

Velo, De Géneratione, Meteora, De Anima, Parva Naturabia, De Plantis, De

(3). EARLY EVIDENCES OF DIFFUSION OF THE NATURAL

1 C{. Migne, op. cit., Vol. 199, Col. 235.

occurs in more than one manuscript is to be found in the fourteenth-

(5). THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MEDIAEVAL TRANSLATING

the Emperor Johannes Comnenus in 1136. Moses of Bergamo was in the

’ Nemesius (Alfanus) ed. C. Burkhard, (Bibl. Teubner), Leipzig, 1916. Manitius,

who reproduced it substantially unaltered as the fourth book of his Greek-

We have already discussed® the pre-Thomist version of the De Anima

has been styled by Birkenmajer” the Metaphysica vetustissima. The

phiae of about 1150, is largely based upon the De Scientzis of Alfarabi.”

(3). BIOLOGICAL WORKS: FROM THE GREEK.

century list by Richard de Fournival.** Without attaching too much

Text. Marginal Note.

F.80. Si, eodem modo, movetur quemad- Alta translatio: quemad

Among the vanished works of Alfredus was a commentary upon the

24 Some other manuscripts in which the words “ Reliquorum autem primum

Of Alfred’s authorship of the current mediaeval version of the De Plantis

‘‘ The commentator.’’** It seems probable, therefore, that Bacon only knew

What, now, can be definitely stated as to the dates of these works of

This Arabic-Latin version of Alfredus de Sareshel appears in a large

One other Renaissance version of the De Plantis may be mentioned

Lib. I. Expl:.. . . et quo pacto nonnulli quidem Venerem moueant,

Op. Expl: . . . Hine rursus ascendit quaedam naturalis caliditas, ad

To return now to the mediaeval Latin versions. Although the version

Roger’s citations. Meyers edition of

Plantarum alia domes- 9) a, 9 xiiis Plantarum quaedam

omnis planta silvestris, rr). omnes species plantae,

a number only exceeded in his De Motu Cordis, suggests that the

fuisset habuit duos discipulos sibi volentes in regimine succedere, quorum

version Vincent was quoting. It is probable, however, that he was using,

Aristotelian or pseudo-Aristotelian natural works, whichthe (with

The other commentary of which a portion remains is to be found in a

book; when it breaks off and is followed by a commentary on the latter

primus liber de animalibus translatus a ma istro