A renewed impetus to the study of the Parva naturalia was given by a translation of the entire collection (translatio nova), made in 1260-1270, by William of Moerbeke (d. 1286). While Moerbeke appears to have made entirely new translations of Parv. nat. 2, he revised the vetus of Parv. nat. 1. The Flemish Dominican is also credited with a translation of Aristotle’s Mot. an. and Inc. an. - known in the Middle Ages as De progressu animalium - as well as of the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias on De sensu, which highly influenced Thomas Aquinas (Gauthier 1985).
Except for Alexander’s commentary (five extant manuscripts), all these texts were soon widely disseminated. This eventually led to the reformulation of the content of the Parva naturalia (as illustrated by several divisions of science of this period): not only Parv. nat. 1 and Long., but also the rediscovered Juv., Resp., and Vit., the newcomers Mot. an. and Inc. an., as well as the allegedly ‘‘lost’’ treatises De nutrimento et nutribili and De sanitate et egritudine. (Note: Iuv., Resp., and Vit. were considered as one text, often called De morte et vita, which was the vetus title of Long.!) Yet, this fixed content was mainly theoretical as it seems (even if one leaves the ‘‘lost’’ treatises out of consideration). For example, no commentaries on Inc. an. in this context have been preserved, a situation which is probably due to the text’s very technical nature and limited philosophical relevance (De Leemans 2006).
The most influential commentaries on the Parva naturalia ‘‘new style’’ were written by Thomas Aquinas and Petrus de Alvernia. Aquinas wrote a commentary on Sens. and Mem. (ed. Gauthier 1985), whereas Petrus wrote Sententiae on Long., De morte et vita, and Mot. an. Although it is nowhere explicitly said, it is not unlikely that, by commenting on these texts, Petrus intended to complete Thomas’ commentary on the Parva naturalia, just as he had completed Aquinas’ commentaries on De celo and the Politica (De Leemans 2004). In any case, their commentaries are often found in the same manuscripts and have been printed together, sometimes under the name of Aquinas only, up to the middle of the seventeenth century. Moreover, Petrus wrote Quaestiones on Parv. nat. 1 (ed. White; see also White 1990, 1991, 1993) and (perhaps) on Mot. an. (De Leemans 2004).
Other authors whose commentaries reflect the reformulated content of the Parva naturalia are, at the end of the thirteenth century, Simon of Faversham, and in the first half of the fourteenth century, John of Jandun, Walter Burley, and John Buridan. Simon of Faversham (d. 1306), regent master in Oxford and Paris and Chancellor of the University of Oxford from 1304 to 1306, wrote Quaestiones on De somno, Parv. nat. 2, and Mot. an., whereas Quaestiones on Mem. might be lost. John of Jandun’s (c. 1285-1328) Quaestiones on Parv. nat. and Mot. an. date from the very beginning of his career (cf. manuscript Vaticano, bibl. Apost., Vat. lat. 6768, fol. 145ra: Expliciunt questiones supra librum de sompno et uigilia scripte per Johannem de Ganduno et ad hunc ordinem quem habent reducte anno Christi 1309). They remained to be copied in the fifteenth century and were printed several times in the sixteenth century. From about the same time date Walter Burley’s (c. 1275-c. 1346) literal commentaries on Parv. nat. 1, Long., and Mot. an. While his notes of Mot. an. are largely influenced by Peter of Auvergne (De Leemans 2001:279; ed. Scott and Shapiro), Averroes is his guide in interpreting Long. (Dunne 2003:332). John Buridan (c. 1300 - post 1358) wrote both commentaries per modum scripti and per modum quaestionis on the Parva naturalia. The difference is that his literal commentary includes a brief exposition on Mot. an. (ed. Scott and Shapiro) whereas questions by his hand on this text have not been preserved. His Quaestiones were printed for the first time in Paris in 1516.
Other commentators commented on only a few texts (or better: commentaries on only a few texts have been preserved). More or less contemporary with Petrus de Alvernia’s are the commentaries on De somno and Long. by James of Douai which offer an intermingling of Sen-tentia and Quaestiones. James might have commented on Sens. and Mem. as well. Questions on De somno and on De morte in manuscript Miinchen, Bayerische Staatsbibl. Clm. 9559 have been ascribed (but not on compelling grounds) to Siger of Brabant (d. c. 1284) (Van Steenberghen 1931). Moreover, it has been argued that there are good reasons to assume Siger’s authorship of the literal commentaries on De somno and Long. in manuscript Wien, C)NB, 2330 (Dondaine and Bataillon 1966). In turn, Boethius of Dacia’s (d. c. 1284) De somniis is not a commentary on the Aristotelian text, although it is clearly inspired by it (ed. Pedersen; see also Fioravanti).
Other preserved commentaries are (1) Henricus de Alemannia’s Quaestiones on Iuv., Resp., and Vit. (c. 1310), which exhibit striking similarities with the Quaestiones of John of Jandun (Kouri and Lehtinen 2000); (2) Quaestiones on the same texts as well as on Mot. An. by the otherwise unknown Petrus de Flandria; (3) Jacobus de Blanchis de Alexandria’s Compilatio super totam philosophiam naturalem et moralem, which deals with Parv. nat. 1 only; (4) Raimundus de Biterris’ commentary on Long.; (5) John Felmingham’s (?) commentary on Sens.
World History
