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 del Galluzzo, 2005), pp. xiv+567, 90.00 (paper), ISBN 88 8450 145 8. Among historians of philosophy and science and intellectual historians, Charles Lohr is clearly the minister of information about premodern studies of Aristotle. is volume complements his repertorium of medieval Latin commentators on Aristotle, published serially in Traditio beginning in 1967; his similar repertorium of Renaissance commentators rst published in Studies in the Renaissance and Renaissance Quarterly and subsequently collected and amplied in volume 6 of the Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi; and his analytical index of incipits and colophons of commentaries, published as volume 10 of CPMA. It supersedes an interim bibliography of secondary studies of the commentary literature published in 1988. e work is divided into three major sections. e rst (pp. 1-148) surveys the general accounts of Aristotles works in their various linguistic traditions, concluding with a survey of each work in the Aristotelian corpus, including subsections on the major translators of texts. e second (pp. 149-480) surveys literature about medieval commentators, using the format of the commentator name found in the Traditio repertoria. e nal section (pp. 481-565) does the same for the Renaissance commentators through 1650. is is an enormously helpful guide to anyone wishing to acquire a foundation in the literature of a particular commentator or survey the changes in premodern Aristotle scholarship over the past half-century. Little has escaped his net. Yet the enormity of this eld means it is inevitable that some materials will be omitted. For example, there appear to be no references to electronic scholarly sources for commentators, so that (for example) the various entries in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (plato. stanford.edu/index.html) and sites devoted to individual commentators, like Russell Friedmans Peter 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 of Nicolaus de Praga) have proven to be ghosts, and it would be helpful to note this in the bibliographical sections. Others have had esh put on the meager bones of their earlier entries (e.g. Petrus Guentin de Ortemberg [Traditio 28:354], now identied as Petrus Quentin de Ortenberg [d. 1450], [although my discussion of this in BPM 43: 125-128 should be corrected to note that the commentary on the Physics is really an anonymous thirteenth-century one related to a tradition investigated recently by Cecilia Trifogli]). ese are small quibbles, because anyone in this eld knows that an absolutely exhaustive bibliography is unattainable, something that must be addressed by consulting multiple overlapping sources. Professor Lohrs bibliography vastly reduces the time and eort of the search, and therefore constitutes the rst stop in any investigation of the premodern Aristotelian tradition. Steven J. Livesey University of Oklahoma Norman
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/157338207X231468

book_ESM12-4.indb 446

21-9-2007 9:50:13