The Sixteenth-Century Transformation of the Aristotelian Division of the Speculative Sciences

  • Charles H. Lohr
Part of the Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idées / International Archives of the History of Ideas book series (ARCH, volume 124)


The Aristotelianism of the period 1450–1650 presents a picture which differs radically from the university philosophy of the Middle Ages. Despite the many late medieval developments in logic and physics which would eventually contribute to the breakdown of Aristotelian science, the Aristotelianism of the earlier period remained predominantly clerical and offered an essentially unified world-view. But in the sixteenth century this unity broke down, so that we must speak not of one but of several Aristotelianisms in the Renaissance.1


Sixteenth Century Speculative Science Latin Translation Aristotelian Philosophy True Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Charles Schmitt contributed a great deal to the formulation of the idea of a “Renaissance Aristotelianism” distinct from that of the Middle Ages and important in its own right. See his Critical Survey and Bibliography of Studies on Renaissance Aristotelianism, 1958–1969 (Padua, 1971)Google Scholar
  2. 1a.
    Charles Schmitt Aristotle and the Renaissance (Cambridge, Mass., 1983)Google Scholar
  3. 1b.
    Charles Schmitt the bibliography of his publications in Aristotelismus und Renaissance: In memoriam Charles B. Schmitt, ed. E. Kessler et. al. (Wiesbaden, 1988), 217–232.Google Scholar
  4. 2.
    Schmitt prepared a second edition of the important catalogue of sixteenth-century editions, Latin translations of and commentaries on Aristotle published by F. E. Cranz as A Bibliography of Aristotle Editions, 1501–1600 (Baden-Baden, 1971; 2nd ed. with addenda and revisions, Baden-Baden, 1984).Google Scholar
  5. 2a.
    Cranz’s study of the Latin tradition of the Greek commentaries on Aristotle by “Alexander Aphrodisiensis” in the Catalogus translationum et ommentariorum, I, ed. P. O. Kristeller (Washington, D. C., 1960), 77–135Google Scholar
  6. 2b.
    Schmitt’s article on “Philoponus’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics in the Sixteenth Century,” in Philoponus and the Rejection of Aristotelian Science, ed. R. Sorabji (London, 1987), 210–230.Google Scholar
  7. 2c.
    Schmitt also profited fom Cranz’s study of the “Editions of the Latin Aristotle Accompanied by the Commentaries of Averroes,” in Philosophy and Humanism: Renaissance Essays in Honor of Paul Oskar Kristeller, ed. E. P. Mahoney (Leiden, 1976), 116–128Google Scholar
  8. 2d.
    Schmitt “Renaissance Averroism Studied Through the Venetian Editions of Aristotle-Averroes,” in L’Averroismo in Italia, Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 40 (Rome, 1979), 121–142.Google Scholar
  9. 3.
    Schmitt “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries,” Traditio, 23–30 (1967–74)Google Scholar
  10. 3a.
    Schmitt Latin Aristotle Commentaries: II. Renaissance Authors (Florence, 1988).Google Scholar
  11. 4.
    W. Sparn, Wiederkehr der Metaphysik: Die ontologische Frage in der lutherischen Theologie des frühen 17. Jahrhunderts (Stuttgart, 1976)Google Scholar
  12. 4a.
    U. G. Leinsle, Das Ding und die Methode: Methodische Konstitutionen und Gegenstand der frühen protestantischen Metaphysik (Augsburg, 1985)Google Scholar
  13. 4b.
    U. G. Leinsle, “Metaphysics,” in The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy, ed. C. B. Schmitt et al. (Cambridge, 1988), 537–638.Google Scholar
  14. 5.
    Johannes Versor see Lohr, “Medieval Latin Aristotle Commentaries: Authors Johannes de Kanthi -Myngodus,” Traditio 27 (1971), 251–351 at 290–299.Google Scholar
  15. 8.
    Pomponazzi, Tractatus de immortalitate animae, cap. 9 (ed. G. Morra, Bologna, 1954, 110–128).Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    Caietanus, Commentarius in libros De anima Aristotelis, II, cap. 2 (ed. I. Coquelle, Scripta philosophica, II, Rome, 1939, 71–110).Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    Javellus, Tractatus de animae humanae indeficientia, I, cap. 5 (ed. Venice, 1536, fol. 28r).Google Scholar
  18. 13.
    C. H. Lohr, “Jesuit Aristotélianism and Sixteenth-Century Metaphysics,” in Paradosis: Studies in Memory of E. A. Quain (New York, 1976), 203–220Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    J. Gallego Salvadores, “La enseñanza de la metafísica en la universidad de Valencia durante el siglo XVI,” Analecta sacra tarraconensia, 45 (1972), 137–172.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    J. Gallego Salvadores, “La aparición de las primeras metafísicas sistemáticas en la España del XVI,” Escritos de Vedat, 3 (1973), 91–162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles H. Lohr

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations