8/23/2019 26942714

1/2

446 Book Reviews / Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007) 433-465

Charles H. Lohr, Latin Aristotle Commentaries. V. Bibliography of Secondary Literature,(Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi. Subsidia 15) (Florence: SISMEL-Edizioni delGalluzzo, 2005), pp. xiv+567, 90.00 (paper), ISBN 88 8450 145 8.

Among historians of philosophy and science and intellectual historians, Charles Lohris clearly the minister of information about premodern studies of Aristotle. is vol-ume complements his repertorium of medieval Latin commentators on Aristotle,published serially in Traditio beginning in 1967; his similar repertorium of Renais-sance commentators first published in Studies in the Renaissance and RenaissanceQuarterlyand subsequently collected and amplified in volume 6 of the Corpus Phi-losophorum Medii Aevi; and his analytical index of incipits and colophons of com-

mentaries, published as volume 10 of CPMA. It supersedes an interim bibliographyof secondary studies of the commentary literature published in 1988.e work is divided into three major sections. e first (pp. 1-148) surveys the

general accounts of Aristotles works in their various linguistic traditions, concludingwith a survey of each work in the Aristotelian corpus, including subsections on themajor translators of texts. e second (pp. 149-480) surveys literature about medievalcommentators, using the format of the commentator name found in the Traditio rep-ertoria. e final section (pp. 481-565) does the same for the Renaissance commenta-tors through 1650.

is is an enormously helpful guide to anyone wishing to acquire a foundation inthe literature of a particular commentator or survey the changes in premodern Aristo-tle scholarship over the past half-century. Little has escaped his net. Yet the enormityof this field means it is inevitable that some materials will be omitted. For example,there appear to be no references to electronic scholarly sources for commentators, sothat (for example) the various entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato.stanford.edu/index.html) and sites devoted to individual commentators, like Russell Fried-mansPeter Auriol Homepage (www.igl.ku.dk/~russ/auriol.html), are not included.Furthermore, since the publication of the original repertoria, a few commentators(like Jacobus Pappatikius, whose commentary on De anima is actually the work ofNicolaus de Praga) have proven to be ghosts, and it would be helpful to note this inthe bibliographical sections. Others have had flesh put on the meager bones of theirearlier entries (e.g. Petrus Guentin de Ortemberg [Traditio 28:354], now identified asPetrus Quentin de Ortenberg [d. 1450], [although my discussion of this in BPM43: 125-128 should be corrected to note that the commentary on the Physicsis reallyan anonymous thirteenth-century one related to a tradition investigated recently byCecilia Trifogli]).

ese are small quibbles, because anyone in this field knows that an absolutely

exhaustive bibliography is unattainable, something that must be addressed by consult-ing multiple overlapping sources. Professor Lohrs bibliography vastly reduces thetime and effort of the search, and therefore constitutes the first stop in any investiga-tion of the premodern Aristotelian tradition.

Steven J. LiveseyUniversity of Oklahoma Norman

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157338207X231468

8/23/2019 26942714

2/2