The Date and Significance of the
De anima Gloss in Paris, BN lat. 6569
Jennifer R. Ottman
Washington DC, 2013
Text of the Paris BN lat. 6569 De anima Gloss
| As described by Georges Lacombe in his survey of Aristotelian codices, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569 is a Northern French manuscript containing a twelfth-century copy of Plato's Timaeus and thirteenth-century copies of a number of Aristotelian works included in the Corpus vetustius, the set of early translations of Aristotle's natural philosophy that circulated prior to the work of William of Moerbeke.1 | 1Georgius Lacombe, Aristoteles Latinus: Codices, with A. Birkenmajer, M. Dulong, and Aet. Franceschini, ... |
| Many of the works in this manuscript are accompanied by marginal and interlinear glosses, but the only gloss to have attracted scholarly attention, to my knowledge, is the one on James of Venice's translation of Aristotle's De anima, found on fol. 44r-63v. In his influential study of early Aristotelianism, D. A. Callus suggested that it represented a very early stage in the reception of Aristotle, possibly dating from between 1230 and 1240, although he was unable to study it in depth.2 More recent scholarship has tended to push back the absolute chronology of the thirteenth-century study of Aristotelian natural philosophy, but this gloss has continued to be located early in the tradition. For example, Olga Weijers gives a date of "about 1230?" in an article discussing the variety of genres used in early- and mid-thirteenth-century works on the De anima.3 |
2"A few hasty notes in the last weeks of August 1939"; D. A. Callus, "Introduction of Aristotelian Learning to Oxford,"... 3 Olga Weijers, "The Literary Forms of the Reception of Aristotle: Between Exposition and Philosophical Treatise,"... |
| As part of the Richard Rufus Project's research into early Latin De anima commentaries, I was asked to examine this gloss, with a particular view to testing the hypothesis that the divisio textus that is a characteristic feature of early Latin commentaries on Aristotelian natural philosophy originated in earlier glosses. What I found was that this gloss should instead be situated significantly later in the history of the tradition, with a probable date in the late 1240s, and that it draws on earlier continuous commentaries, rather than the reverse. | |
| In what follows, I will first briefly describe the divisio textus as an expository technique. Next, I will summarize the contents of Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569. I will then discuss the dating of the central section of the manuscript and its glosses, including the De anima gloss, first establishing a set of approximate outer bounds for the date and then refining them. Finally, I will turn to the De anima gloss itself and the evidence on which my conclusions about it are based, comparing the gloss to early continuous commentaries on the De anima. | |
| A prominent feature of many thirteenth-century commentaries, although seldom found later, the divisio textus is a method of segmenting the work to be commented on into conveniently small units for analysis, while also locating each segment within the larger architecture of the whole. Each segment or division of the text is identified by quoting its first few words, and its place in the whole is explained with a phrase or sentence giving its main topic or its role in the overall argument, providing the student with an overview of the structure of the passage before turning to more detailed exposition and making it easier to match up text and commentary across different copies of the text. The exact procedure varies, but one of the most frequent forms is a bifurcating regression in which the commentator first divides the passage under consideration into a first and second part, then subdivides the first part, then subdivides the first part again, repeating as desired. Each master's analysis is different, especially as the analysis proceeds to smaller and smaller units, sometimes down to the level of individual sentences or even phrases. | |
| The origin of this characteristically scholastic practice is unclear. It is not found in Averroes or in the ancient and early medieval commentators on Aristotle, and it is plausible to suppose that early glosses on the new translations of Aristotle's texts might have introduced the practice. However, a simple form of it can also be found in twelfth-century commentaries on the Psalms.4 Its use in Sentences commentaries can be traced to the mid-1220s.5 | 4 Olga Weijers, "La structure des commentaires philosophiques à la Faculté des arts: Quelques observations," ... 5 Francesco del Punta, "The Genre of Commentaries in the Middle Ages and Its Relation to the Nature and Originality of Medieval Thought," ... |
| For its part, Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569 primarily consists of a series of texts likely to have been of interest to a student or scholar of philosophy in the first half of the thirteenth century. | |
| A brief list of the contents follows: | |
|
|
| The codicology of the manuscript has not been studied, but the central Aristotelian section, fol. 29r-151v, items 5-17 on the list above (except for item 16), has a consistent layout, decoration, and script, suggesting that it was planned and copied together. This applies both to the main text and to what can be considered the primary or dominant gloss, although it should be noted both that the amount of glossing varies widely and that there are occasionally other notes or supplementary glosses in other hands. | |
| The presence in this section of the Ethica vetus and Ethica nova (items 5 and 6), the fragments of the Nicomachean Ethics that circulated prior to Robert Grosseteste's translation, allows a first rough dating. On the one hand, the Ethica nova owes its name to the fact that it was unknown at the universities before around 1220.6 Since the designations nova and vetus are used both in the gloss and in the explicits and rubrication of the Aristotelian text, this material is unlikely to date from much before ca. 1220. On the other hand, in view of the rapid adoption of Grosseteste's translation, completed in 1246-47, this section of the manuscript is unlikely to have been copied much after ca. 1250. Since the marginal gloss on the Ethics shows no obvious evidence of familiarity with Grosseteste's translation, a similar terminus ante quem can be tentatively supposed for the gloss as well. This is also consistent with the dates of 1249 and 1250 on the two documents copied elsewhere in the manuscript (items 2 and 4). | 6 Renatus Antonius Gauthier, "Praefatio," in Aristotle, Ethica Nicomachea, Aristoteles latinus, ... |
| A second approximation to a terminus post quem is provided by the fact that both the marginal gloss on the Ethics and the marginal gloss on the De anima, which are very similar in style, appear to derive from the lectures of a Latin arts master, not from the efforts of a translator or of a scholar working outside the university setting. The Ethics gloss even mentions the "present lecture" on more than one occasion.7 Since the De anima did not become part of the university curriculum until the 1230s, it is improbable that the glosses were composed earlier than that. Most often dedicated to dividing Aristotle's text, reformulating his arguments as syllogisms, or both, and without any evident special knowledge of or interest in Greek terminology or cultural references, both glosses approach the text from the perspective of the classroom. Indeed, the extant glosses may well have been excerpted from longer literal commentaries, although it is also possible to imagine that they originated in their current form, as a series of disconnected notes. In addition, the De anima gloss clearly demonstrates familiarity with Averroes, and both the De anima gloss and the Ethics gloss refer to the opinions of other anonymous commentators, suggesting the existence of a community of scholars. | 7 Fol. 30r, 34v, 36v, in margine |
| These anonymous opinions, in turn, make it possible to narrow down the date of the De anima gloss. Specifically, the author of the gloss appears to have been familiar with the commentaries of Adam Buckfield and the anonymous master edited by René A. Gauthier. Gauthier has dated the latter text to around 1246-47,8 so if the gloss was composed after this commentary, but before mid-century, for the reasons given above, it follows that it should be assigned to the late 1240s. In any event, it certainly cannot be placed at the head of the commentary tradition. | 8 Lectura in librum De anima a quodam discipulo reportata (Ms. Roma Naz. V. E. 828), ed. Renatus A. Gauthier, ... |
| In the remainder of this study, I will discuss two passages from the gloss that lead me to this conclusion. Both are drawn from the divisio textus of the marginal gloss, although the gloss also includes other types of exposition. The first passage comes from the opening of the second book of the De anima and suggests that the gloss's author had a range of previous commentaries to draw on. The second passage, the division of the section on sound later in the second book, suggests more specifically that he had Buckfield's commentary and that of Gauthier's master available to him. | |
In the first passage to be considered here, at the opening of the second book, the gloss lists three possible ways of describing a division in which the first part starts at the beginning of the book (2.1.412a3) and the second at "Quoniam autem ex incertis" (2.2.413a11):
Prima dividitur. In prima determinat de anima per viam divisionis sive inductionis; in secunda per modum demonstrationis determinat. Vel aliter in prima inquirit definitionem animae communem; in secunda vero propriam definitionem animae inquirit. Vel aliter potest dici quod in prima inquirit definitionem animae dicentem quid tantum; in secunda vero investigat definitionem animae dicentem quid et propter quid. Quocumque modo dicitur, semper secunda pars ibi incipit, "Quoniam autem ex incertis" etc.9 |
9 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569, fol. 49r, in margine. |
At 413a11 itself, the gloss repeats the first and the third of these options:
Hic demonstrat de anima actor per modum demonstrativum communem <communis P>. Vel dicendum quod hic ponit definitionem animae propriam dicentem quid et propter quid.10 |
10 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569, fol. 49v, in margine. |
The second and perhaps disfavored option, common definition/proper definition, comes from Averroes, who speaks of the universal and proper definitions:
Et primo debemus invenire diffinitionem que est magis universalis omnibus partibus eius. Cognitio enim universalis debet precedere cognitionem propriam. |
11 Averroes, Commentarium magnum in Aristotelis De anima libros, ed. F. Stuart Crawford, ... |
Richard Rufus takes from Averroes the contrast between whole and parts, but is uninterested in the contrast between types of definitions that is important to the gloss. Rufus was writing in Paris before 1238.12
Et <Et primo] Dividitur haec pars in duas in quibus prima E> primo determinat de anima in communi, secundo <in secunda E> specialiter secundum eius <om. E> diversas <pos. potentias F> potentias, ibi: "Quoniam autem ex incertis."13 |
12
Rega Wood, "Richard Rufus's De anima Commentary: The Earliest Known, Surviving, Western De anima Commentary," ...
13 Erfurt, Universitätsbibliothek Dep. Erf. Ampl. Quarto 312, fol. 22va; Florence, Biblioteca nazionale Conv. soppr. G.iv.853, fol. 199va. |
The gloss's third option, definitio dicens quid/definitio dicens quid et propter quid, is found in Peter of Spain and in an anonymous master edited by B. Carlos Bazán, although when Peter of Spain comes to 413a11 in the course of his exposition, several lectures after his initial division, he follows Averroes rather than his own previous analysis. Peter was perhaps writing in Toulouse around 1240.14
Prima autem pars recipit divisionem in duas, in quarum prima determinat de substancia anime et eius diffinitione, prout est perfectio corporis per quod diffinitur dans eius diffinitionem que dicit quid est ipsa per inherentiam quam habet ad corpus. In secunda, scilicet, in hac: Quoniam autem ex incertis certioribus autem fit, etc., determinat de anima et essentia eius assignans eius diffinitionem que dicit quid est et propter quid est determinans de ipsa prout secundum diversitatem suarum differentiarum est principium diversarum operationum, per quas manifestatur existentia ipsius in corpore. |
14
René-A. Gauthier, "Préface," in Thomas Aquinas, Sentencia libri De anima, Opera omnia iussu Leonis XIII ...
15 Peter of Spain, Comentario al "De anima" de Aristóteles, ed. Manuel Alonso, ... |
Bazán's master, for his part, correlates the quid/quid et propter quid contrast with two others, secundum materiam/secundum speciem and conclusio demonstrationis/medium in demonstratione. According to Bazán, this commentary postdates Rufus (whom Bazán knows as Pseudo-Peter of Spain) and Buckfield and predates the anonymous master edited by Gauthier.16
Prima pars diuiditur in duas: in prima Aristotiles diffinit animam secundum materiam et diffinitionem dicentem quid; in parte secunda diffinitione secundum speciem diffinit eam, siue diffinitione dicente propter quid et causam, ut ibi: Quoniam autem ex incertis quidem etc. |
16 Sententia super II et III De anima, Oxford, Bodleian Libr., Lat. Misc. c. 70, f. 1ra-25rb; ... 17 Sententia, ed. Bazán, bk. 2, lect. 1 and 4, p. 3 and 32. |
Buckfield, perhaps writing in Oxford in the early 1240s, cites Averroes explicitly, but rejects his analysis in favor of the gloss's first option, division/demonstration:
Prima adhuc in duas dividitur, in quarum prima venatur diffinitionem anime communem per divisionem; in secunda, ibi: Quoniam autem ex incertis, venatur ipsam per demonstrationem. |
18 Adam Buckfield, In Aristotelis De anima, ed. Helen Powell, ... |
Gauthier's master is familiar with both the division/demonstration and quid/quid et propter quid options, but prefers the former:
Pars autem prima, in qua determinat Aristotiles <de anima> in communi, diuiditur in duas partes, quoniam inuestigat diffinitionem anime in communi, et primo inuestigat eam per diuisionem; secundo procedit inuestigando eam demonstratiue uel ostensiue, ibi: Quoniam autem <ex> incertis quidem, certioribus. |
19 Lectura, ed. Gauthier, bk. 2, lect. 1 and 3, p. 136 and 166. |
This master also rejects Rufus's analysis in no uncertain terms, and like Buckfield in rejecting Averroes, he cites Aristotle's conclusion to the section in support:
Volunt autem quidam quod in isto capitulo determinat de partibus anime. Set certe, <per> prohemium quod ponit, ut per hoc quod dicit "tentandum" [413a12], item "agredi sic de ipsa" [413a13], et per recapitulationem huius capituli, manifestum est quod ipsi mentiunt.20 |
20 Lectura, ed. Gauthier, bk. 2, lect. 4, p. 183 |
| Several combinations of these commentators, not including Rufus, could have provided the author of the gloss with his information about the variety of opinions he cites. Bazán's master seems less likely than the others, given how much more elaborate his version of the quid/quid et propter quid opinion is, but the gloss's telegraphic style means that he cannot be ruled out. The combination of Gauthier's master and Buckfield suggested by the division of the section on sound is a plausible one, and Gauthier's master alone would also be sufficient in this case, in conjunction with Averroes. Multiple other combinations are also possible. What does seem highly likely is that the gloss is drawing on the combined wisdom of previous commentators, not the reverse. | |
The second passage to be discussed here, the division of the section on sound, suggests more specifically that the author of the gloss was drawing on Buckfield and on Gauthier's master. To simplify the discussion, I will isolate two elements of the larger division for comparison. First is the division in which the second part starts at "Echo autem fit" (2.8.419b25). Averroes says that at 419b25 Aristotle begins to discuss an accident of sound:
Cum declaravit ea ex quibus fit sonus, et quomodo fit, incepit declarare esse cuiusdam accidentis soni, quod dicitur ecco.21 |
21 Averroes, ed. Crawford, bk. 2, com. 80, p. 251. |
Rufus refers to a passion of sound in his initial division of the text and to an accidental being of sound in his exposition:
Et prima pars dividitur in duas, in quarum prima determinat de sono secundum suam substantiam; in secunda, de passione quadam soni, scilicet ibi: "Echo autem fit." |
22 Florence, Biblioteca nazionale Conv. soppr. G.iv.853, fol. 204va-205ra; Madrid, Biblioteca nacional 3314, fol. 72ra-rb; ed. as Peter of Spain, Expositio libri De anima, ed. Manuel Alonso, ... |
Perhaps under Rufus's influence, Buckfield similarly refers first to a passion and then to an accident or passion:
Adhuc <pos. pars B> prima pars dividitur in duas, in quarum prima determinat generationem soni secundum suam formam et substantiam; secundo <in secunda vero B>, ibi, "Echo autem," determinat de generatione eius secundum quandam sui passionem. |
23 Bologna, Biblioteca universitaria 2344, fol. 39v-40r, in margine; Oxford, Merton 272, fol. 12vb-13ra. |
Bazán's master refers to an accidental property of sound:
In prima agit de generatione soni; in secunda agit de quadam proprietate accidentali soni, ut de echo, ut ibi: Echo autem fit.24 |
24 Sententia, ed. Bazán, bk. 2, lect. 16, p. 183 |
| Although the terminology differs, the basic idea is the same for these four authors. | |
Gauthier's master, on the other hand, takes a somewhat different approach, seeing this division as one between two different kinds of sound, produced in different ways. In his initial division, he merely shifts the emphasis from the accident to the sound characterized by the accident, but he sharpens the contrast later, when he makes this break the start of a new lecture:
Prima in duas: in prima determinat de sono simpliciter sine additione; in secunda de sono cum fit additio accidentalis differencie, ut repercussio, ibi: Echo autem fit. |
25Lectura, ed. Gauthier, bk. 2, lect. 15 and 16, p. 327-28 and 333. |
Finally, the gloss offers two alternatives, the first of which looks like Buckfield or Rufus, and the second of which looks like Gauthier's master:
Prima iterum dividitur. In prima de sono determinat secundum eius substantiam et generationem; in secunda quandam soni passionem determinat. Vel aliter quod in prima determinat de sono agenerato non per reflectionem; in secunda de sono generato per reflectionem, ut ibi, "Echo autem fit" etc.26 |
26 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569, fol. 52v, in margine. |
| The second comparison of interest is the division in which the second part starts at "Altera quidem enim" (2.8.419b6). Averroes, Rufus, and Bazán's master all refrain from recognizing a division here. | |
Buckfield, however, while not descending this far in his initial division, does identify a textual break in the course of his exposition:
In prima parte sic procedit: primo dividit sonum in sonum actu et in <om. B> sonum in <om. B> potentia ... Secundo, ibi <cum dicit B>, "Alia quidem non <enim ant. quidem B>," exsequitur illas <illas duas vias] illos duos modos B> duas vias <? O> soni, determinando principia utriusque soni. Et primo determinat principia soni in potentia.27 |
27 Bologna, Biblioteca universitaria 2344 (1180), fol. 39v, in margine; Oxford, Merton 272, fol. 12vb. |
Gauthier's master indicates a division in the same place, but describes the second part as dealing with the arms of the distinction made in the first part:
Et diuiditur in duas: in prima diuidit sonum per sonum in actu et in potencia; in secunda de membris diuidentibus determinat, cum dicit: Alia quidem non dicimus habere.28 |
28 Lectura, ed. Gauthier, bk. 2, lect. 15, p. 328. |
The gloss once again offers two alternatives, the first of which this time looks like Gauthier's master, and the second of which looks like Buckfield:Prima iterum dividitur, quia primo ponit quandam divisionem soni. Secundo vero de membris dividentibus determinando prosequitur, sive secundo determinat de principiis soni, ut ibi, "Altera quidem enim" etc.29 |
29 Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569, fol. 52v, in margine. |
| Especially taken together, and in light of the passage from the beginning of the second book discussed above, these two divisions of the text suggest that the author of the gloss had both Buckfield and Gauthier's master available to him. | |
| In summary, while the gloss on Aristotle's De anima in Paris, Bibliothèque nationale lat. 6569 almost certainly dates from before ca. 1250, and thus can be considered "early" in the grand scheme of scholastic philosophy as a whole, there is no reason to believe that it is at the origin of the Latin commentary tradition or of the practice of divisio textus, and there is considerable reason to suppose that it postdates several commentaries that have survived in more extended form. | |
| The most likely date for its composition seems to be the late 1240s. Like the so-called "Oxford gloss" on the Physics, De sensu, and De differentia spiritus et animae, which draws on the commentaries of Adam Buckfield and his school,30 and the "English gloss" on De plantis, which extensively quotes Alfred of Sareshel's commentary,31 this gloss is thus another reminder not to assume that glosses were simply succeeded by continuous commentaries. Rather, on the Continent just as in England, glosses not only continued in use for pedagogical purposes after full length commentaries appeared, but may reflect some of the same lively discussion and debate found in more extended commentaries, even if in abbreviated form. |
30
Griet Galle, "Edition and Discussion of the Oxford Gloss on De sensu 1," ...
31 Roger French, "The Use of Alfred of Shareshill's Commentary on the 'De plantis' in University Teaching in the Thirteenth Century," ... |
