Stefano Perfetti. Aristotle's Zoology and its Renaissance Commentators (1521-1601).

(Ancient and Medieval Philosophy. De Wulf-Mansion Centre. Series 1:27.) Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2000. x + 258 pp. index, bibl. 40.90 [euro]. ISBN: 90-5867-050-3.

As the first systematic study of Renaissance Commentators on Aristotle's zoological works--De partibus animalium, Historia Animalia, and De generatione animalium--this work fills a large gap in the study of Renaissance Aristotelianism. Marked by careful philological scholarship and philosophical insight, Perfetti's work has illuminated the complex strands of a tradition known for its dialectical acumen and strong differences among its adherents.

Begun in the fifteenth century with the Latin translations of Aristotle's zoological works by the Byzantine scholar Theodore Gaza (1415-75), he presented an analysis filled with a combination of naturalistic, logical, and theological concerns. However, the university tradition, begun by Pomponazzi, tended for the most part, to concentrate on naturalistic issues.

Aristotle's zoological works, commented on in the Middle Ages, attracted no interest at all after the thirteenth century. They gained attention again only in the sixteenth century when the interest in natural philosophy, especially medicine, biology, and Aristotelian categories of living organisms, led professors in the Italian universities to reexamine them.

The commentators, Perfetti shows, can be divided into two distinct groups: thinkers in the first half of the sixteenth century were university professors, schooled in the Scholastic tradition; in the second group, thinkers were generally not philosophers and their interest shifted to philological issues and the theoretical foundation of zoology, both derived from a greater knowledge of Greek. While no longer interested in medieval authors, these later thinkers were well-versed in the works of their predecessors, citing them often, usually to disagree with their interpretations.

In an age where individual philosophical and linguistic interests varied so greatly, there is a distinct division (not always firm) between humanist and scholastic analysis. Yet it is still possible to find common themes in these disparate works. It is possible to go even further: the various authors show a growing awareness of weaknesses in Aristotle's explanations and errors or omissions in his descriptions of nature. These led to an increasing criticism of Aristotle and his medieval commentators. While this critical attitude certainly did not overthrow Aristotle as the main authority for scientific discourse, it certainly weakened his position.

The common themes, found in both scholastic and humanist commentators, involved criticisms of Aristotle's anatomical discussions, his observations of flora and fauna, and disagreements with some of his theoretical principles. By citing animal and human dissections, observations contradicting Aristotle's natural descriptions and pointing to unknown species in the newly discovered lands, Aristotle's system was made subject to correction and amplification. This is not the whole story Perfetti tells, but it is the most striking conclusion emerging from his study. The whole story involves much discussion of Aristotle's method, logic, and procedures. In many of the commentators in both parts of the century, we find a discussion of the principles of Aristotle's zoology. One major aspect of this discussion involves the issue of Aristotle's usage of scientia and peritia. Which, they ask, is the governing principle of zoology? Is it scientia (universal principles applicable to direct observation) or peritia (principles possessed by the man of wisdom derived from observation)?

Dissent from Aristotle begins with Pietro Pomponazzi (1462-1525). His acerbic critique of medieval scholastics emphasizing their failure to unravel the complexities of Aristotle's zoology ends with his own doubts and perplexities often expressed to his students. It even comes to the point where he asks his students to guide him through the maze of subtle, unresolved problems. Ultimately, Pomponazzi expresses disgust. Enough of commentators who explain nothing, he exclaims. Let's get back to Aristotle's text! An equally important aspect of Pomponazzi's criticism is based on his corrections of Aristotle's anatomical views. He has personally performed dissections, he says, which disprove Aristotle's views.

Agostino Nifo (1469/70-1538) continues Pomponazzi's criticism by his own observations of sparrows incorrectly described by Aristotle and by descriptions of pigs and snakes not found in Aristotle's works. On the theoretical side, Nifo holds that scientia and peritia can be successfully synthesized from Aristotle's theories although Perfetti thinks that this synthesis is not successful. As is customary in Nifo's other works, theological positions are interlaced within his views of nature.

In Francesco Vimercato (1512-20), we again find explicit discussions of anatomical dissections purportedly disproving some aspect of Aristotelian biology. Even in the humanist Julius Caesar Scaliger (1488-1558), far removed from Scholastic commentary, there is an emphasis on direct natural observation. Portuguese explorers, he notes, have observed large snakes in Senegal and Hispaniola, which have never been cataloged by Aristotle.

This brief discussion of some major aspects of Perfetti's work cannot adequately convey its breadth, richness, and subtlety. One criticism, however, is in order. Perfetti's use of an arcane English vocabulary and postmodern jargon at times obscures his text. Yet this is a small price to pay for an important work which, through a fine analysis of an unexplored field, has enlarged our knowledge of Renaissance Aristotelianism.

MARTIN L. PINE

Queens College, City University of New York