Delimitation

When the curriculum at the Parisian Arts faculty was fixed in 1366, only Parv. nat. 1 and Long. figured among the

Aristotelian books concerning natural philosophy, which was prescribed for study. The same list was to be repeated almost one century later, in the 1452 statute. As a result, one actually gets a copy of the pre-1260 situation when the study of the Parva naturalia focused on the same texts, yet for different reasons.

This curriculum appears to be reflected for the first time in manuscript Munchen, Bayerische Staatsbibl., Clm. 4376, written between 1365 and 1367. It contains, among other works, anonymous Quaestiones on Mem., De somno, and Long., as well as Quaestiones on Sens. that are attributed to Albert of Saxony. This ascription, however, is uncertain: another (Erfurt) manuscript attributes them to Nicholas Oresme, and even the name of John Buridan has been suggested (ed. Agrimi 1983; cf. Agrimi 1991).

All other commentaries with this composition date from the fifteenth century. Not surprisingly, they were mainly written by authors active in Paris: (1) Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (Lefevre d’lltaples; c. 1460-1536); (2) Joannes de Caulaincourt (fl. XV2), whose commentary was printed several times under the name of Joannes de Magistris; (3) Joannes Hennon (fl. XV2); (4) Joannes le Damoisiau (fl. XV2); (5) Joannes Versor (d. after 1482), who was very influential at the University of Cologne as well as at other Universities in Germany and Central Europe; (6) Georgius Bruxellensis (d. 1510), whose commentary was edited in 1482 by Thomas Bricot (d. 1516), who in turn added abbreviations of the Aristotelian texts as well as some Quaestiones; and (7) Petrus Tartareti (d. 1522).

Three other authors who focused on Parv. nat. 1 and Long worked only in Germany: (1) Johannes Hulshout de Mechlinia (d. 1475) (see also below); (2) Johannes Tinctoris de Tornaco (d. 1469); and (3) Nicolaus Theoderici de Amsterdam (d. c. 1460).

These commentaries have not yet been the object of profound research. An impression of what one might expect of them is given by the Tabula quaestionum, dubitationum and conclusionum of the works by Johannes Hennon, Johannes le Damoisiau, and Johannes de Caulaincourt (Bakker 2005, 2006, 2007).