Questions concerning Aristotle's On Animals (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9): Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 9)

Introduction: Albert the Great’s Questions concerning “On Animals”

INTRODUCTION 3 INTRODUCTION Albert the Great’s Questions concerning “On Animals” During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, a number of previously unknown works by (or attributed to) Aristotle became available in Latin in medieval Europe. In the twelfth century, many of these were translated from Arabic sources, especially by translators in Spain like Gerard of Cremona. In the thirteenth century, scholars increasingly sought Greek exemplars on which to base their translations.1 Although some of the texts introduced new elements of Aristotelian logic, ethics, or metaphysics , a large body of material introduced Aristotle’s books on natural science, including his biological works that circulated in Latin under the title De animalibus, that is, On Animals. This is the title that translator Michael Scot gave to the Arabic version in nineteen books of Aristotle’s three treatises: Historia anima‑ lium (History of Animals),2 De partibus animalium (On the Parts of Animals), and De generatione animalium (On the Generation of Ani‑ mals). Michael Scot made his translation from Arabic ca. 1210.3 For a time, De animalibus was an immensely popular work and came to be read in two faculties of the medieval university, Arts and Medicine. It became a part of the medical curriculum be1 . For an extensive list of texts translated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see especially Michael McVaugh, “The Translation of Greek and Arabic Science into Latin,” in Edward Grant, ed., Sourcebook in Medieval Science (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1974). 2. Michael Scot’s version includes the apocryphal book ten of Historia animalium. 3. For a good discussion of Michael Scot’s role as translator, see Charles Burnett, “Michael Scot and the Transmission of Scientific Culture from Toledo to Bologna via the Court of Frederick II Hohenstaufen,” Micrologus 2: Le scienze alla corte di Federico II (Turnhout: Brepols, 1994). For a more general discussion of his life and work, see Lynn Thorndike, Michael Scot (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1965). 4 INTRODUCTION cause De animalibus concerns much more than animal anatomy, reproductive biology, and behavior; it also examines as part of the world of animals the human and therefore includes extensive materials useful to physicians on comparative anatomy and physiology, as well as diet and pharmacology. It appealed to the Arts faculty because in these books Aristotle examines the foundational or causal principles of Nature and discusses the character of scientific investigation, which proved interesting to both philosophers and theologians. The introduction of these works at the University of Paris in the thirteenth century did not proceed without controversy, as evidenced by the condemnation in Paris of Aristotle’s books on natural science or philosophy in 1210. Nevertheless, it is clear that this condemnation was weakened over the next half century, and by 1254 masters in the Arts faculty at the university had made De animalibus a regular part of the curriculum.4 The earliest extant medieval commentary on De animalibus is by Peter of Spain (later Pope John xxI, d. 1277).5 The most influential commentary on De animalibus, however, was produced by the Dominican theologian, philosopher, and scientist Albert the Great (d. 1280). Preserved in more than fifty-five manuscript copies, Albert’s commentary was likely begun in the period 1256–60. He certainly worked on this project while he was Bishop of Regensburg, completing it by 1263, Weisheipl asserts, at Viterbo (where he had gone to resign his bishopric).6 Regardless of the date one assigns to the completion of the work, it is clear that Albert occupied himself with De animalibus for many years, producing several versions, although perhaps never a final redaction.7 This very influential commentary on Aristotle’s nineteen books, which also includes extensive original investigations and speculations by Albert himself, joined to a bestiary 4. See especially Grant, 42–44. 5. See especially Miguel de Asúa, “Peter of Spain, Albert the Great, and the Quaestiones de animalibus,” Physis 34 (1997): 1–30. 6. James A. Weisheipl, “Albert the Great and Medieval Culture,” Thomist 4 (1980): 499. 7. This suggestion has been taken up by Eckert, who suggests that “Albert hat sich jahrzehntelang mit den Tierbüchern beschäftigt. Eine Endredaktion war ihm jedoch nicht mehr möglich.” Willehad Paul Eckert, Angelicum 57 (1980): 480–81. INTRODUCTION 5 portion at the end of the work, has recently been introduced and translated in its...