LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL : SOME RECENT TRENDS IN SCHOLARSHIP*

1. General Orientation

In this survey, I should like to present an overview of the scholarly literature that appeared during the last decade or so in the field of fourteenth-century natural philosophy1. This survey is partial in both senses of the term: it is fragmentary, and occasionally, it records my disagreements with some of the scholarly literature. Before narrowing down its scope it might be well to raise two methodological problems which one encounters when attempting to deal with the history of late-medieval of the sort with which this survey is

* Research for this article was financially supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (200-22-295). I wish to thank Christoph Lüthy and Paul Bakker for their helpful suggestions. 1. To my knowledge, no other surveys of scholarship in the field of late-medieval nat- ural philosophy have recently appeared. A useful introduction to the scholarly literature up until approximately 1989 is given in the following essays: J. COLEMAN, «The Oxford Calculatores: Richard and Roger Swineshead», in: G. FLØISTAD (ed.), Contemporary Phi- losophy. A New Survey, Dordrecht-Boston-London 1990, Vol. 6/1, pp. 467-471; J. SARNOWSKY, «The Oxford Calculatores», in: G. FLØISTAD (ed.), Contemporary Philosophy. A New Survey, pp. 473-480; E. GRANT et J. E. MURDOCH, «The Parisian School of Sci- ence in the Fourteenth Century», in: G. FLØISTAD (ed.), Contemporary Philosophy. A New Survey, pp. 481-493; J. ZUPKO, «The Parisian School of Science in the Fourteenth Cen- tury», in: G. FLØISTAD (ed.), Contemporary Philosophy. A New Survey, pp. 495-509. Fur- ther references can be found in: J. NEU, Isis Cumulative Bibliography 1986-95, 4 vol., Canton (Mass.) 1997, and Bibliographie Annuelle du moyen-âge tardif. Auteurs et textes latins, Paris — Turnhout 1991 sqq., and, moreover, in the collections of articles by lead- ing historians of medieval science which have been published over the years by Variorum reprints and by other publishers. To the older collections of essays by Clagett, Grant, Lindberg, Maier, Moody, and Weisheipl have been added over the last decade: J. D. NORTH, The Universal Frame. Historical Essays in Astronomy, Natural Philosophy and , London 1989; ID., Stars, Minds and Fate. Essays in Ancient and Medieval Cosmology, London 1989; G. BEAUJOUAN, Science médiévale d’Espagne et d’alen- tour, London 1989; ID., Par raison de nombres. L’art du calcul et les savoirs scientifiques médiévaux, London 1991; A. C. CROMBIE, Science, Optics, and Music in Medieval and Early Modern Thought, London 1990; ID., Science, Art and Nature in Medieval and Modern Thought, London 1996; G. MOLLAND, Mathematics and the Medieval Ancestry of , London 1995.

©RTPM 67,1 (2000) 158-190 LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 159 concerned. First, the terminology of «natural philosophy», and sec- ond, the relation between natural philosophy and in the late . As a convenient point of departure to address these two prelimi- nary issues, I have chosen a recent book by Roger French and Andrew Cunningham2. In it, the authors claim that it is a commonly held assumption among historians of medieval science today that medieval people were practising science (in which we customarily use that term today), and that their expression «Natural philosophy», philosophia naturalis, essentially meant the same thing to them as our expression «sci- ence» means to us (p. 4). In contrast to this approach, French and Cunningham want to draw a picture which highlights the God-oriented nature of natural phi- losophy and its «religio-political» motivation. According to the authors, the historiography of medieval science has suffered a major distortion, which is due to the fact that the modern category of science, both as a form of knowledge and as an activity, has been retrospectively cast back on men of religion and on to the secular masters of the of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. The elision of the subject-area the medievals were pursuing in their work on nature (that is, natural philosophy) with the modern subject they were not pursuing, because it had not yet been created (that is, science), has not been noticed. Partly this is because modern scholars have been particularly con- cerned with those respects in which natural philosophy appears most to resemble modern science, and they have thus been least concerned with those respects in which they differ. Partly, as hinted above, it is because the achievements (or otherwise) of these medievals in their work on nature is, for modern writers, part of a larger modern dispute about the relative status of secular and religious values. What the medievals were actually concerned with in their discussions of nature has therefore not been been a question that has been asked (p. 274). The above characterization of present-day historiography of medieval science is, I believe, fundamentally misleading, if not a caricature. Over the past few decades, the general consensus among historians of medieval science has been that the (and mathemat- ics) runs parallel to the history of philosophy. Or, as John Murdoch

2. R. FRENCH et A. CUNNINGHAM, Before Science. The Invention of the Friars’ Natural Philosophy. Aldershot 1996. 160 RECHERCHES DE THÉOLOGIE ET PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALES once put it, a good part of the history of medieval science is part of the history of medieval philosophy3. For this reason, historians in this field have been agreeing for a long time that the most appropri- ate designation for the medieval study of nature is «natural philoso- phy» or «philosophy of nature» and that the alternative expression «science» should always be used with this connotation4. As is well known, the creation of medieval natural philosophy as a discipline is intimately linked to the introduction of ’s works into the curriculum5. By the end of the twelfth century, most of Aristotle’s works had been translated into Latin. They came, however, only slowly into circulation. The year 1255 is usually taken as a dramatic turning point in the world of medieval learning. In that year, the arts faculty at Paris passed legislation which made all known works by Aristotle compulsory reading to all students. Other univer- sities too had already introduced or introduced his works into their curricula. For the next four hundred years, these Aristotelian texts came to be continuously studied and commented upon at all the centers of learning in . One of the new domains of philoso- phy created by the introduction of Aristotle’s works into the curricu- lum was natural philosophy. It was variously designated as scientia naturalis, physica, philosophia naturalis, and, in the post-medieval period, as physiologia. The second preliminary observation concerns the religious and theological contexts of late-medieval natural philosophy. Roger French and Andrew Cunningham in their book maintain that «the science of the medieval people was highly religious», or that «religion

3. J. E. MURDOCH, «From Social into Intellectual Factors: An Aspect of the Unitary Character of Late Medieval Learning», in: J. E. MURDOCH et E. SYLLA (edd.), The Cul- tural Context of Medieval Learning, Dordrecht 1975, pp. 271-272. 4. See, for instance, D. C. LINDBERG (ed.), Science in the Middle Ages, Chicago 1978, pp. vii-xv, and ID., The Beginnings of Western Science. The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450, Chicago-Lon- don 1992, pp. 1-4. 5. This is not to say that natural philosophy did not exist before the transmission of Aristotle’s treatises to the West. A comprehensive discussion of natural philosophy in the twelfth century is given in A. SPEER, Die entdeckte Natur. Untersuchungen zu Begrün- dungsversuchen einer «scientia naturalis» im 12. Jahrhundert, Leiden-New York-Köln 1995. This study revives the notion of the School of Chartres as a coherent branch of Platon- ism, which, according to the author, ought not to be considered as the preparation for the entry of Aristotle in the West. LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 161 was the matrix in which science was shaped in medieval times» (p.4). This observation is only true in the very general sense that natural philosophers, like any Christian, were not supposed to contradict the truths of faith. What French and Cunningham, however, really mean by their observation is that there never existed an autonomous nat- ural philosophy during the Middle Ages. They state that late- medieval natural philosophy was God-oriented, that is, that natural philosophy was a study in which the central concerns were the detec- tion, admiration and appreciation of God’s existence, goodness, providence, munificence, forethought and provision for His creation (p. 4). The self-proclaimed purpose of their book is «to bring back into vis- ibility» this alleged nature of natural philosophy6. By their claims, the authors deny that natural philosophy consti- tuted an independent discipline pursued for its own sake, that is, independently from theology. In my view, the characterization given by French and Cunningham of medieval natural philosophy ignores the abundant evidence found in late-medieval texts that natural phi- losophy and theology were two separate, though connected, disci- plines. Medieval natural philosophers and theologians had a clear sense, for instance, that appeals to faith did not count as arguments in natural philosophy, and, moreover, that natural philosophers had to steer away from theological issues. Yet, some of the finest work in natural philosophy seems to have been done within a theological context. How is this phenomenon consistent with the supposed autonomy of natural philosophy7?

6. The thesis of French and Cunningham has also been criticised by Edward Grant, though along different lines than here. Grant examined the intrusion of God and matters of faith into commentaries on Aristotle’s «libri naturales» and reached the conclusion that they were minimal. See E. GRANT, «God, Science, and Natural Philosophy in the », in: L. NAUTA et A. VANDERJAGT (edd.), Between Demonstration and Imag- ination, Leiden-Boston-Köln 1999, pp. 243-268. 7. The question of the autonomy of natural philosophy with regard to theology is, of course, interwoven with the larger discussion of whether there ever existed an autonomous . This is not the place to discuss this question in any detail. See the following informative and interesting representatives of the most recent lit- erature on this theme: S. J. LIVESEY, «Science and theology in the 14th century: The sub- alternate sciences in Oxford commentaries on the «Sentences»», in: Synthese 83 (1990), pp. 273-292; J. D. NORTH, «One Truth or More? Demarcation in the Universe of Dis- course», in: S. UNGURU (ed.), Physics, Cosmology and Astronomy, 1300-1700: Tension and Accomodation, Dordrecht-Boston-London 1991, pp. 253-294; A. DE LIBERA, «Faculté des 162 RECHERCHES DE THÉOLOGIE ET PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALES

The relationship between natural philosophy and theology can be evaluated from two different angles. It can be viewed from the per- spective of the absorption of theological concerns into natural phi- losophy, or from the perspective of the absorption of themes from natural philosophy into theology8. The fact that theological treatises, in particular commentaries on the Sentences, are important sources for our understanding of late-medieval natural philosophy, does, of course, not derogate anything from the autonomy of this discipline. Medieval theologians were allowed to introduce natural philosophy into their theological discussion, whenever it seemed appropriate to them, and they did so extensively. John Murdoch attributed this phe- nomenon to what he labelled «the unity» of natural philosophy and theology9. This unity had both a sociological and a doctrinal basis. In sociological terms, the unification of (natural) philosophy and theol- ogy had its foundation in the common arts education at the univer- sity. In doctrinal respect, the unification manifested itself through the systematic application of Aristotelian conceptions and principles to theological subjects, such as the Eucharist, God’s infinite attributes,

arts ou Faculté de théologie?», in: O. WEIJERS et L. HOLTZ (edd.), L’enseignement des dis- ciplines à la faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, XIIIe-Xve siècles), Turnhout 1997, pp. 429- 444; R. IMBACH, «Autonomie des philosophischen Denkens? Zur historischen Bedingth- eit der mittelalterlichen Philosophie», in: J. A. AERTSEN et A. SPEER (edd.), Was ist Philosophie im Mittelalter?, Berlin 1998, pp. 125-137; G. KLIMA, «Ancilla theologiae vs. domina philosophorum: Thomas Aquinas, Latin Averrois and the Autonomy of Philoso- phy», in: AERTSEN/ SPEER (edd.), ibid., pp. 393-402; R. SCHÖNBERGER, «Begriff und Vollzug der Philosophie bei Johannes Buridan», in: AERTSEN/SPEER (edd.), ibid., pp. 505- 514; O. BOULNOIS, «Le chiasme: La philosophie selon les théologiens et la théologie selon les artiens, de 1267 à 1300», in: AERTSEN/SPEER (edd.), ibid., pp. 595-607; J. ZUPKO, «Sacred Doctrine, Secular Practice: Theology and Philosophy in the Faculty of Arts at Paris, 1325-1400», in: AERTSEN/SPEER (edd.), ibid., pp. 656-666; E. SYLLA, «God and the Continuum in the Later Middle Ages: The Relations of Philosophy to Theology, , and Mathematics», in: AERTSEN/SPEER (edd.), ibid., pp. 791-800. 8. See, for instance, E. GRANT, «Science and Theology in the Middle Ages», in: D. C. LINDBERGH et R. L. NUMBERS (edd.), God and Nature, Historical Essays on the Encounter between Christianity and Science, Berkeley-Los Angeles-London 1986, pp. 49- 75, and A. FUNKENSTEIN, Theology and the Scientific Imagination from the Middle Ages to the Seventeenth Century, Princeton 1986. 9. J. E. MURDOCH, «From Social into Intellectual Factors: An Aspect of the Unitary Character of Late Medieval Learning», in: J. E. MURDOCH et E. SYLLA (edd.), The Cul- tural Context of Medieval Learning, Dordrecht 1975, pp. 271-339. LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 163 or the beginninglesness of the world10. In brief, natural philosophy was used to clarify theology. Sometimes, this theological context was even obscured, as E. Sylla has recently argued with respect to ’s De continuo. Even though this work was meant to be read at the arts faculty, it was, according to Sylla, moti- vated by theological arguments about God’s absolute power11. It is still a debated question whether in the process natural philosophy came to be modified to suit the special demands of theological doc- trine, or whether theological doctrine was modified under the pres- sure of considerations that belonged to the realm of natural philoso- phy. To mention one example, did Henry of Harclay, for instance, entertain his specific theory of the infinite, because he believed that the world could have existed since eternity, or was his view concern-

10. One of the groundbreaking articles on the physics of the Eucharist still is E. SYLLA, «Autonomous and Handmaiden Science: St. Thomas Aquinas and on the Physics of the Eucharist», in: J. E. MURDOCH et E. SYLLA (edd.), ibid., pp. 349-391. See further E. STUMP, «Theology and Physics in ‘De sacramento altaris’: Ockham’s Theory of Indivisibles», in: N. KRETZMANN (ed.), Infinity and Continuity in Ancient and Medieval Thought, Ithaca-London 1982, pp. 207-230. The first book-length study which deals with the application of natural philosophy to the late-medieval theo- logical discussion of the Eucharist is P. J. J. M. BAKKER, La raison et le miracle. Les doc- trines eucharistiques (c. 1250-c. 1400). Contribution à l’étude des rapports entre philosophie et théologie, 2 vol., Ph.D. dissertation, Nijmegen University 1999, which provides edi- tions of many important passages from commentaries on the «Sentences». Two impor- tant studies about how theologians addressed the tension between the Aristotelian notion of infinity and Christian views on creation are L. BIANCHI, L’errore di Aristotele. La polem- ica contro l’eternità del mondo nel XIII secolo, Firenze 1984 and R. C. DALES, Medieval Discussions of the Eternity of the World, Leiden-New York-København-Köln 1990. Exam- ples of how medieval theologians applied concepts of natural philosophy to deal with God’s attributes such as his infinite power and the infinite distance between God and cre- ated being are discussed in J. E. MURDOCH, «‘Subtilitates Anglicanae’ in Fourteenth- Century Paris: John of Mirecourt and Peter of Ceffons», in: M. PELNER COSMAN et B. CHANDLER (edd.), Machaut’s World: Science and Art in the Fourteenth Century, New York 1978, pp. 51-86, and, more recently, in E. JUNG-PALCZEWSKA, «Wylton’s Solution of the Aristotelian Problem of God’s Infinite Power», in: J. MARENBON (ed.), Aristotle in Britain during the Middle Ages, Turnhout 1996, pp. 311-322, and ID., «La Question quodlibé- tique ‘De infinitate vigoris Dei’ de Thomas Wilton», in: Archives d’histoire doctrinale et littéraire du moyen âge 64 (1997), pp. 335-403. 11. E. SYLLA, «Thomas Bradwardine’s ‘De continuo’ and the Structure of Four- teenth-Century Learning», in: E. SYLLA et M. MCVAUGH (edd.), Texts and Contexts in Ancient and Medieval Science. Studies on the Occasion of John E. Murdoch’s Seventieth Birth- day, Leiden 1997, pp. 148-186. 164 RECHERCHES DE THÉOLOGIE ET PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALES ing the world’s eternity a logical consequence of his theory of the infinite12? Even though theological works provided an important context for late-medieval natural philosophy, they will not be the main concern of this survey. Rather, the survey will concentrate on that tradition of fourteenth-century natural philosophy which developed at the arts faculty, in particular in relation to Aristotle’s Physics, and, to a lesser degree, to De caelo, De generatione et corruptione, and De anima. In the fourteenth century, these «natural books» (libri naturales) were understood to provide a discussion of the principles and properties of natural objects and to constitute the core of natural philosophy. Occasionally, this bibliographical essay will include scholarship which concerns natural philosophy from other periods than the four- teenth century, in particular when it sheds light on fourteenth-cen- tury developments. As was mentioned above, the main focus will be on the scholarly literature that has appeared since the last decade. Yet, whenever pre-1989 scholarship helps to explain current research trends, it will be mentioned, too. The following subjects will be addressed, in this order: (1) the translation and transmission of Aris- totle’s works on natural philosophy and their institutional context; (2) doctrinal developments.

2. Aristoteles Latinus: Its Transmission and Institutional Context

Over the last decade, two important critical editions have appeared of Aristotle’s Latin libri naturales: the De generatione et corruptione, edited by Joanna Judycka, and the Physics, edited by Fernand Bossier and Jozef Brams13. The translatio vetus of the Physics was made by James of Venice. The correct identity of the translator of De genera-

12. Harclay’s views are discussed in J. E. MURDOCH, «Henry of Harclay and the Infi- nite», in: A. MAIERÙ et A. PARAVICINI-BAGLIANI (edd.), Studi sul XIV secolo in memoria di Anneliese Maier, Roma 1982, pp. 219-261. One of Harclay’s quaestiones is edited in R. C. DALES, «Henricus de Harclay Quaestio ‘Utrum mundus potuit fuisse ab aeterno’», in: Archives d’histoire doctrinales et littéraire du moyen âge 50 (1983), pp. 223-255. 13. ARISTOTELES LATINUS, De generatione et corruptione. Translatio Vetus (ed. J. JUDYCA, Aristoteles Latinus 9/1, Leiden 1986); Physica. Translatio Vetus (edd. F. BOSSIER et J. BRAMS, Aristoteles Latinus 7/1, Leiden 1990, 2 vol.). LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 165 tione et corruptione has only recently been established as Burgundio of Pisa14. The complex story of this whodunit, and the light it sheds on the transmission of this text to the Latin West is told by James Otte15. William of Moerbeke’s translation of the Physics is in the process of being edited, and so is the translation attributed to William of Moerbeke of the translation of De generatione et corrup- tione16. The authorship of the latter translation, however, is contro- versial17. Critical editions of the translations of De caelo et mundo and De anima have not yet appeared. However, some work has been done on De anima. Robert Wielockx has shown that William of Moerbeke twice revised James of Venice’s old translation18. Moerbeke’s transla- tion is accessible in the critical edition of Thomas Aquinas’ com- mentary on De anima by R. A. Gauthier19. Closely attached to Aristotle’s texts were ’s paraphrases, which during the Middle Ages were known as the Sufficientia. The section on natural philosophy was translated in 1280 from the Ara- bic original by Juan Gonsalvez de Burgos and his Jewish colleague Solomon. It comprises eight books which do not fully correspond to

14. R. J. DURLING, «The Anonymus Translation of Aristotle’s De generatione et cor- ruptione (translatio vetus)», in: Traditio 49 (1994), pp. 320-330. 15. J. K. OTTE, «Burgundio of Pisa. Translator of the Greco-Latin Version of Aristo- tle’s De generatione et corruptione, translatio vetus», in: J. M. M. H. THIJSSEN et H. A. G. BRAAKHUIS (edd.), The Commentary Tradition on Aristotle’s ‘De generatione et corruptione’. Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern, Turnhout 1999, pp. 79-87, which also provides all the relevant literature concerning the identification of this translator. 16. See, for instance, J. BRAMS, «Guillaume de Moerbeke et Aristote», in: J. HAMESSE et M. FATTORI (edd.), Rencontres de cultures dans la philosophie médiévale. Tra- ductions et traducteurs de l’antiquité tardive au XIVe siècle, Louvain-la-Neuve-Cassino 1990, pp. 317-337, and also ID., «L’édition critique de l’Aristote latin: le problème des révisions», in: J. S. G. LOFTS et P. W. ROSEMANN (edd.), Éditer, traduire, interpréter: Essais de méthologie philosophique, Louvain-la-Neuve 1997, pp. 39-55. 17. J. JUDYCKA, «L’attribution de la ‘Translatio nova’ du ‘De generatione et corrup- tione’ à Guillaume de Moerbeke», in: J. BRAMS et W. VANHAMEL (edd.), Guillaume de Moerbeke. Receuil d’études à l’occasion du 700e anniversaire de sa mort (1286), Leuven 1989, pp. 247-253, who argues against L. Minio-Paluello that the translation is not a variant redaction of the text which she edited as the «translatio vetus», but is really a dis- tinct translation or revision by William of Moerbeke. 18. R. WIELOCKX, «Guillaume de Moerbeke réviseur de sa révision de ‘De anima’», in: Récherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale 54 (1987), pp. 113-185, and also G. VER- BEKE, «Les progrès de l’Aristote latin: Le cas du De anima», in: J. HAMESSE et M. FAT- TORI (edd.), Rencontres de cultures dans la philosophie médiévale. Traductions et traducteurs de l’antiquité tardive au XIVe siècle, Louvain-la-Neuve-Cassino 1990, pp. 187-203. 19. THOMAS AQUINAS, Sentencia libri De anima (ed. Leon. 45/1, Roma 1984). 166 RECHERCHES DE THÉOLOGIE ET PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALES

Aristotle’s treatises. This section has survived in only one single man- uscript. In the 1970s Michel Renaud published a transcription of the second book, that is, Avicenna’s exposition of De caelo20. This text is not to be confounded with the Liber celi et mundi which, from c. 1250 onward was falsely attributed to Avicenna, whereas certain British authors attributed the text to Aristotle. Oliver Gutman has argued that Hunain ibn Ishaq is the probable author of this text. Its translation predates all four Latin translations of Aristotle’s De caelo21. In addition to the transcription that was made of Avicenna’s genuine De caelo, Simone van Riet has, over the past decade, criti- cally edited three of Avicenna’s «natural»books: De generatione et cor- ruptione, De actionibus et passionibus qualitatum, and De causis et principiis naturalium22. A doctrinal introduction by Gerard Verbeke precedes each edition. Furthermore, Simone van Riet has studied Avicenna’s De generatione and corruptione and its impact on late- medieval philosophy in an article that appeared posthumously23. Much work has been done lately on the medieval reception and study of Aristotle’s libri naturales at the arts faculties at Oxford. Scholarship in this area was somewhat lagging behind compared to what we know of the study of Aristotle’s natural philosophy at Paris University. The Oxford History of the contains a survey by J. M. Fletcher about the arts curriculum24. This study is complemented by a book edited by John Marenbon which examines the fortuna of Aristotle in Britain. Particularly significant for this sec-

20. M. RENAUD, «Le ‘De celo et mundo’ d’Avicenne», in: Bulletin de philosophie médiévale 15 (1973), pp. 92-130. 21. O. GUTMAN, «On the Fringes of the ‘Corpus Aristotelicum’. The Pseudo-Avi- cenna ‘Liber celi et mundi’», in: J. M. M. H. THIJSSEN (ed.), Medieval Cosmologies (Spe- cial issue Early Science and Medicine 2 (1997), pp. 107-128). 22. AVICENNA LATINUS, Liber tertius naturalium de generatione et corruptione (ed. S. VAN RIET, Louvain-la-Neuve 1987); Liber quartus naturalium de actionibus et passionibus qualitatum primarum (ed. S. VAN RIET, Louvain-la-Neuve 1989); Liber primus natural- ium. Tractatus primus de causis et principiis naturalium (ed. S. VAN RIET, Louvain-la-Neuve 1992). 23. S. VAN RIET, «Le ‘De generatione et corruptione’ d’Avicenne dans la tradition Latine», in: J. M. M. H. THIJSSEN et H. A. G. BRAAKHUIS (edd.), The Commentary Tra- dition on Aristotle’s ‘De generatione et corruptione’. Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern, Turnhout 1999, pp. 69-78. 24. J. M. FLETCHER, «Developments in the Faculty of Arts, 1370-1520», in J. I. CATTO et R. EVANS (edd.), The History of the University of Oxford. Vol. 2: Late Medieval Oxford, Oxford 1992, pp. 315-345. LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 167 tion are the papers by Charles Burnett, R.J. Long, and Stephen Brown. Burnett discusses the entry of the first translations of Aristo- tle’s libri naturales into England up to the period of the formation of what the editors of the Aristoteles Latinus have labelled the corpus vetustius25. This collection, which originated in the thirteenth cen- tury and which contains the twelfth-century pre-Moerbeke transla- tions, became the most important text book at the faculty of arts at Oxford University. The emphasis of Burnett’s article is on the manu- script evidence, rather than on the influence of Aristotle’s works on British authors. It should be read in conjunction with the papers by Long and Brown, which examine the influence of Aristotle on the first Dominican theologians at Oxford, in particular in the commen- taries on the Sentences of and Richard Fishacre26. A comprehensive study of British commentaries on the Physics has been carried out by Silvia Donati, Cecilia Trifogli, and Francesco del Punta27. The more remote aim of this impressive enterprise is to pro- vide the broader intellectual context for their study and edition of Giles of Rome’s commentary on the Physics, who in the fourteenth century was often quoted as the Expositor. As a matter of fact, how- ever, their findings have become an indispensable tool in itself, and go two steps beyond the pioneering surveys by Charles Lohr and Albert Zimmermann28. Two steps, because their extensive studies not only provide in-depth examinations of individual unpublished com-

25. CH. BURNETT, «The Introduction of Aristotle’s Natural Philosophy into Great Britain: A Preliminary Survey of the Manuscript Evidence», in: J. MARENBON (ed.), Aris- totle in Britain during the Middle Ages, Turnhout 1996, pp. 21-50. 26. S. BROWN, «The Reception and Use of Aristotle’s Works in the Commentaries of Book I of the Sentences by the Friar Preachers in the Early Years of Oxford University», in: J. MARENBON (ed.), Aristotle in Britain during the Middle Ages, Turnhout 1996, pp. 351-369; R. J. LONG, «The Reception and Use of Aristotle by the Early English Domini- cans », in: J. MARENBON (ed.), ibid., pp. 51-56. 27. F. DEL PUNTA et S. DONATI et C. TRIFOGLI, «Commentaries on Aristotle’s ‘Physics’ in Britain, ca. 1250-1270», in: J. MARENBON (ed.), ibid., pp. 265-285; F. DEL PUNTA et S. DONATI et C. TRIFOGLI, «Les commentaires anglais sur la Physique d’Aris- tote au XIIIe siècle», in: O. WEIJERS et L. HOLTZ (edd.), L’enseignement des disciplines à la faculté des arts (Paris et Oxford, XIIIe-XVe siècles), Turnhout 1997, pp. 271-280. 28. Ch. LOHR, «Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries», in: Traditio 23 (1967), pp. 313-413; 24 (1968), pp. 149-245; 26 (1970), pp. 135-216; 27 (1971), pp. 251-351; 28 (1972), pp. 281-396, 29 (1973), pp. 93-197, 30 (1974), pp. 119-144, and A. ZIMMER- MANN, Verzeichnis ungedruckter Kommentare zur Metaphysik und Physik des Aristoteles aus der Zeit von etwa 1250-1350, Leiden 1971. 168 RECHERCHES DE THÉOLOGIE ET PHILOSOPHIE MÉDIÉVALES mentaries on the Physics, but also because they give a first doctrinal analysis of these texts29. It has been generally assumed that in the early years of the thir- teenth century, members of the arts faculty at Oxford were more familiar with Aristotle’s libri naturales than their colleagues at Paris. The trait d’union between the two centers of learning was established by who, coming from Oxford, seems to have been the

29. S. DONATI, «Studi per una cronologia delle opere di Egidio Romano. Le opere prima del 1285. I commenti aristotelici», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 1 (1990), pp. 1-112; ID., «Studi per una cronologia delle opere di Egidio Romano. Le opere prima del 1285. I commenti aristotelici (Parte II)», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 2 (1991), pp. 1-74; ID., «Per lo studio dei com- menti alla Fisica del XIII secolo. Commenti di probabile origine inglese degli anni 1250- 70 ca. (Parte I)», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 2 (1991), pp. 361-441; ID., «Il commento alla Fisica di Adamo di Bocfeld e un commento anonimo della sua scuola. Parte II», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 10 (1999), pp. 233-298; ID., «Per lo studio dei commenti alla Fisica del XIII secolo. Com- menti di probabile origine inglese degli anni 1250-70 ca. (Parte II)», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 4 (1993), pp. 25-133; ID., «Wissenschaft und Glaube bei der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Materie in einigen ungedruckten Physikkommentaren aus dem 13. bis zum Anfang des 14. Jahrhunderts», in: I. CRAEMER- RUEGENBERG et A. SPEER (edd.), Scientia und ars im Hoch- und Spätmittelalter, Berlin- New York 1994, pp. 399-420, ID., «Commenti parigini alla Fisica degli anni 1270-1300 ca.», in: A. SPEER (ed.), Die Biblioteca Amploniana. Ihre Bedeutung im Spannungsfeld von Aristotelismus, Nominalismus und Humanismus, Berlin-New York 1995, pp. 136-256; ID., «L’interpretazione dei commentatori inglesi della ‘Translatio vetus’ e la loro recezione del commento di Averroè», in: Medioevo 21 (1995), pp. 75-225; ID., «Il commento alla Fisica di Adamo di Bocfeld e un commento anonimo della sua scuola. Parte I», in: Doc- umenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 9 (1998), pp. 111-178; ID., «Materie und räumliche Ausdehnung in einigen ungedruckten Physikkommentaren aus der Zeit von etwa 1250-1270», in: J. A. AERTSEN et A. SPEER (edd.), Raum und Raumvorstellun- gen im Mittelalter, Berlin-New York 1998, pp. 17-51. ID., «Il commento alla Fisica di Adamo di Bocfeld e un commento anonimo della sua scuola. Parte II», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 10 (1999), pp. 233-298, and further C. TRI- FOGLI, «Le questioni sul libro III della Fisica in alcuni commenti inglesi intorno alla metà del sec. XIII. Parte I», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 2 (1991), pp. 443-501; ID., «Le questioni sul libro III della Fisica in alcuni commenti inglesi intorno alla metà del sec. XIII. Parte II», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 4 (1993), pp. 135-178; ID., «Le questioni sul libro IV della Fisica in alcuni commenti inglesi intorno alla metà del sec. XIII. Parte I», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 7 (1996), pp. 39-114; ID., «Le questioni sul libro IV della Fisica in alcuni commenti inglesi intorno alla metà del sec. XIII. Parte II», in: Documenti e studi sulla tradizione filosofica medievale 9 (1998), pp. 179-261, and ID. «An Anony- mous Question on the Immobility of Place from the End of the XIIIth Century», in: J. A. AERTSEN et A. SPEER (edd.), Raum und Raumvorstellungen im Mittelalter, Berlin-New York 1998, pp. 147-167. LATE-MEDIEVAL NATURAL PHILOSOPHY 169 first to comment on the Physics at Paris around 124030. However, this picture has now somewhat changed. Rega Wood has convincingly attributed an anonymous commentary on the Physics contained in the MS Erfurt, Q 312, to Richard Rufus of Cornwall and has argued that these lectures date from around 123531. Most recently, she has also identified Richard Rufus’ commentary on De anima32. We have come to be rather well informed about teaching practices at the arts faculty of Paris. Charles Lohr recently has written about the entry of Aristotle’s libri naturales at the Paris arts faculty as an ordered body of doctrine33. Francesco del Punta has studied the lit- erary format of the commentary as a philosophical genre34. Olga Weijers has started an extremely useful new repertory of masters of arts who are somehow connected to Paris University, either because they lectured there themselves or because their works were read or used there for lectures35. The emphasis is not on the prosopography of the masters, but on the texts they produced in the context of the faculty of arts. Each entry also provides a selection of modern studies on the works of a specific master, if available. The chronological boundaries of the repertory are 1200-1500. Moreover, Weijers has

30. See now J. HACKETT (ed.), Roger Bacon and the Sciences. Commemorative Essays, Leiden 1997, especially the essay by Richard Lemay on Bacon’s attitude vis-à-vis the Latin translators, and Jeremy Hackett’s article on Bacon’s views on scientia experimentalis. 31. R. WOOD, «Richard Rufus of Cornwall on Creation: The Reception of Aris- totelian Physics in the West», in: Medieval Philosophy and Theology 2 (1992), pp. 1-30; ID, «Richard Rufus and Aristotle’s Physics», in: Franciscan Studies 52 (1992), pp. 247- 281; and ID, «Roger Bacon: Richard Rufus’ Successor as a Parisian Physics Professor», in: J. HACKETT (ed.), Roger Bacon and (Special issue Vivarium 35 (1997), pp. 222-250, which compares Richard Rufus and Roger Bacon as lecturers on Aristotle’s Physics. 32. R. WOOD, «Richard Rufus’ ‘Speculum animae’.