The Parva naturalia was brought up for discussion mainly by Greek-Latin translations that were made from the twelfth century onwards. The first such translation (translatio vetus) was not the work of one author alone. Most treatises, namely, De memoria and Parv. nat. 2, were translated by James of Venice (Jacobus Veneticus Graecus). The remaining translations are anonymous: the twelfth-century translation of De somno and the translation of Sens., to be dated before c. 1230 (Galle 2008). Interestingly, these translations were not all equally disseminated. While Parv. nat. 1 and De long. were rather popular, only a few copies are extant of James’ Iuv., Resp., and Vit. (For traces of another translation by David of Dinant, see below.)
In turn, the Arabic-Latin input was limited to translations of Averroes’ Epitome of the Parva naturalia - there are no Long or Middle Commentaries on these texts. This Epitome, completed in January 1170, is entitled On Sense and the Sensible (De sensu et sensibili) and deals with Parv. nat. 1 and Long. It is divided into three treatises - the first discusses Sens., the second Mem. and De somno, and the third Long. Both the Epitome’s title and division go back to an older Arabic tradition (Martino 2003). In turn, the absence of Iuv., Resp., and Vit. is due to the fact that they had not been translated into Arabic. This might also count for Mot. an., which the Arabs did not possess either. On various occasions Averroes underlined that its subject was closely related to that of the Parva naturalia (De Leemans 2010). The Latin world became acquainted with the Epitome by means of two translations. While the anonymous Parisina is preserved in one manuscript only, the Vulgata was more widely disseminated. It was probably made by Michael Scot in about 1230, and soon influenced various Latin commentators.
Both the Greek-Latin and Arabic-Latin transmission of the Parv. nat. thus neglect Iuv., Resp., and Vit. (One might get the false impression - several studies err here - that at least James’ translation of Vit. circulated, since several medieval pre-1260 texts mention or comment on an Aristotelian treatise De morte et vita; yet, this was the title under which circulated the translation of Long.). The diffusion of the Greek-Latin translations of these texts might have been hindered by their absence in Averroes’ popular Epitome or by intrinsic (such as the quality of the translation) or purely circumstantial factors. Around 1250, in any case, several authors made clear that these texts were not at their disposal (see the texts quoted by Gauthier 1985:117*-118*).
For this period, one can make a distinction between commentaries written in Oxford and on the continent. The introduction of Aristotelian natural philosophy in Oxford probably took place at the end of the twelfth century (Burnett 1996). The oldest surviving commentaries are those by Alfred of Sareshel (Alfredus Anglicus) on the Meteorologica and De plantis. Alfred probably commented also on some Parva naturalia. This is at least what is suggested by the 1664 catalogue of the cathedral of Beauvais, which mentions commentaries by Alfred on De somno etvigilia and De morte etvita (= Long.) (Callus:14). Moreover, he might have read Resp., since he refers to - yet not explicitly quotes - the text in his De motu cordis.
The first and most important extant Oxford commentary was written by Adam of Buckfield (or Bocfeld), active in Oxford in the late 1230s and/or in the 1240s, and focused on all of the known Parva naturalia (Parv. nat. 1 and Long.). Several versions of these commentaries exist, yet it is unclear whether or not they should all be attributed to the same author: for one of the versions of his commentary on De somno, for example, the authorship of Siger of Brabant has been suggested (Dondaine and Bataillon 1966: cf. infra). Moreover, Buckfield’s commentary on Sens. was used as a source for composing the so-called ‘‘Oxford gloss,’’ a corpus of marginal and interlinear notes compiled in the Oxford schools in the (middle of?) the thirteenth century (Galle 2008). It is not unlikely that this counts also for the remaining Parva naturalia. One of the students attending these courses was Henry of Renham, who wrote glosses on the corpus vetustius in manuscript London, British Library, Royal 12.g. ii.
Another leading representative of early Oxford Aristo-telianism is Geoffrey of Aspall (d. 1287). Contrary to Buckfield he did not write straightforward expositions on the Parva naturalia, yet proceeded per modum questionis. We still possess questions on Sens., De somno, and Long.; the questions on Mem. appear in manuscript Oxford, New College, 285, and might be by his hand (Macrae 1968).
Less famous than the above authors is William of Clifford (d. 1306), Master around 1265 and author of a commentary on the Physics. Recently, it has been convincingly argued that he is also the author of the anonymous commentaries in manuscript Cambridge, Peterhouse, 157. Among these is a Sententia cum quaestionibus on De somno et vigilia, based on the translatio vetus (Donati 2008).
Noteworthy are also the abbreviations of, among other works of the corpus vetustius, Parv. nat. 1 and Long, in manuscript Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner, 116. These were sometimes ascribed to Simon of Faversham (d. 1306) on feeble grounds. Instead, D. A. Callus noticed the resemblance with the abbreviations of the Ethics by Robert Grosseteste, though without drawing any conclusions (Callus 1943:49-52). (On the contrary, Simon’s authorship of Questiones on the Parva naturalia, based on the translatio nova, appears to be certain - see below.)
Finally, Adam de Wyteby wrote glosses on Sens. and perhaps also on Mem. (Gauthier 1985:125*).
In Paris, Aristotle’s natural science was initially considered a threat to Christian faith. In 1210, for example, a prohibition was issued against the teaching of Aristotle in Paris, which resulted in the burning of the Quaternuli of David of Dinant. In this work, David had quoted, apart from other works, several of the Parva naturalia. (He, however, used none of the existing translations but paraphrased directly from the Greek - cf. Vuillemin-Diem 2003.) Still, this and other prohibitions, in 1215 and 1231, could not prevent the increasing popularity of the study of Aristotelian natural philosophy. This is strikingly illustrated by the presence of Aristotle’s works (among which Parv. nat. 1 and Long.) in a manual for students of the Arts faculty in Paris, written in c. 12301240 (manuscript Barcelona, Archivo de la Corona de AragiSn, Ripoll 109). In the 1240s Roger Bacon might have been among the first to lecture on Aristotle in Paris; his commentary on Sens. is sometimes dated in this period (ed. Steele). On March 19, 1255, the study of Aristotle at the University of Paris was officially adopted, when a new syllabus proclaimed by the Arts faculty imposed the study of all known works of Aristotle: six weeks were reserved for the study of Sens., five for De somno, two for Mem., and one for De morte et vita (= Long.).
In spite of the increasing popularity of Aristotle in this period, continental commentaries on the Parva naturalia are very rare. The main exception is the paraphrase of Albert the Great (c. 1200-1280), which is the most ambitious attempt to offer an interpretation of the Parva naturalia in the whole of the Middle Ages (ed. Borgnet). While other commentators limited themselves to the available texts, Albert wanted to offer a complete science of the soul. He thus completed his paraphrasing of Parv. nat. 1 and Long. - for which he heavily relied on Averroes’ Epitome - with treatises on youth and old age (De iuventute et senectute), on respiration (De spiritu et respiratione, a paraphrase of Qusta ibn Luqa’s De differentia spiritus etanimae), on the movement of animals (De motibus animalium), on nutrition (De nutrimento et nutribili), and on the intellect (De intellectu et intelligibili). All these topics were said to pertain to the second part of the science of the soul, dealing with the functions of the soul in the body (cf. Albert, Physics). (After the completion of this collection, written c. 1250-1260, Albert found a translation of Mot. an. and used it for another paraphrase, De principiis motus processivi - see De Leemans 2010:201-206.)
Another continental exception is the commentary on Long., by Peter of Ireland (Petrus de Hibernia), which was written in the middle of the thirteenth century and consists of a mixture of literal explanation and quaestiones (ed. Dunne 1993). In turn, Peter of Spain (1220-1277) wrote a Tractatus de longitudine et brevitate vitae (ed. Alonso 1952). This work, however, is not a commentary on the Aristotelian text, although it is clearly inspired by it (Dunne 2003:324-326).
World History
