| Incipit: | De motu animalium eo ... Sicut patet per Philosophum in tertio Phisicorum considerantem de natura necesse est ... |
| Manuskript: | ------ |
| Autorschaft: | zweifelhaft |
| Verfügbarkeit: | im Manuskript |
| Entstehungszeit: | ------ |
| Daten zur Entstehung: | ------ |
| Einzelbemerkungen: |
Mss.: • Oxford, Merton College 275, fol. 220-232v, 233v; • Rom, Bibl. Angel. 549, fol. 115v-121v [enthält nur die letzten 11 Qu.].
Teiled.: De Leemans, Pieter: "Peter of Auvergne on Aristotle's De motu animalium and the MS Oxford, Merton College 275", in: AHDLMA 71 (2004), S. 129-202 (Ed.: 185-191) [Ed. der Einleitung].
"It is a remarkable observation that one recension of Peter's Sententia does not offer sufficient ground to explain the content and wording of the Oxford text. Although Q [=Quaestiones in De motu animalium] is more relatied to the second recension, parallels must be sought in the first as well. Herein lies a firm argument in favour of Peter's authorship of the Oxford Questions. It is, in my opinion, unlikely that anyone else than Peter himself would have had at his disposal not only the recensio communis, but also the second recension (which is conserved, as I said, in only three manuscipts). When we combine this consideration with the parallel structure, content and wording of the introduction and with the fact that the Oxford and Rome manuscripts are the only text witnesses of Peter's commentaries per modum questionis on (some of) the Parva Naturalia, we cannot exclude the possibility that Peter was the author of the Oxford questions on De motu animalium as well." [De Leemans (2004), S. 181.]
|
| Stichwörter: | Kommentar: Aristoteles, De motu animalium |
|
Benutzte Literatur zu diesem Werk: |
|