Abstract
In this paper I explore how early modern Italian Aristotelians understood Aristotle’s De memoria by focusing on three key-points of Aristotle’s theory of memory and recollection: (a) the localization of memory in the perceptual part of the soul; (b) the characterisation of phantasia and its association with the notions of koinē aisthēsis and prōton aisthētikon; (c) the definition of recollection as “a kind of syllogism” and its account as an activity that implies the faculty of deliberating and is therefore restricted to humans. My aim is to show the interactions as well as the tensions between natural philosophical and medical theories in reading and interpreting Aristotle’s Parva naturalia in the Italian milieu.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
On the early Latin reception of the De memoria see Brumberg-Chaumont 2010.
- 2.
- 3.
Michael’s interpretations of De memoria are mentioned and discussed in 34 passages of King’s introduction and commentary. See also Péter Lautner’s contribution to this volume.
- 4.
- 5.
See Cunningham (1985 and 1997) (on the influence of Aristotle’s zoology on Fabrici d’Acquapendente anatomical project); Lennox (2006) (on the Aristotelian roots of William Harvey’s theory of animal generation); Lo Presti (2014) (with paragraphs on Cesare Cremonini’s and William Harvey’s reception of Aristotle theory of sexual generation).
- 6.
For Leonico Tomeo’s biographical profile see Russo (2005) (with bibliography).
- 7.
On Nifo’s life and works see Palumbo (2013) (with exhaustive bibliography).
- 8.
See Lohr (1988, 118).
- 9.
For Javelli’s biographical profile see von Wille (2004) (with bibliography).
- 10.
See Lohr 1988, 424–425.
- 11.
See Lohr 1988, 406–407.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
450a9–12: μέγεθος δ’ ἀναγκαῖον γνωρίζειν καὶ κίνησιν ᾧ καὶ χρόνον· [καὶ τὸ φάντασμα τῆς κοινῆς αἰσθήσεως πάθος ἐστίν] ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι τῷ πρώτῳ αἰσθητικῷ τούτων ἡ γνῶσίς ἐστιν. See Sorabji (2004, 74–76). For a discussion of this passage and an overall investigation on Aristotle’s notion of common sense see, among others, Gregoric (2007).
- 15.
In Parv. nat. 1.15–19 (in Wendland 1903): ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἡ μνήμη πάθος ἢ ἕξις ἐστὶ τῆς κοινῆς αἰσθήσεως, ὡς ἔσται δῆλον, ὅτε περὶ τούτων λέγει, ἥτις κοινὴ αἴσθησις ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ αἰσθητηρίῳ καθίδρυται, ἔστι δὲ πρῶτον αἰσθητήριον, ὡς πολλάκις εἴρηται, ἡ καρδία.
- 16.
Regarding Galen’s considerations on the localization of memory in the brain and as “part” of the hēgemonikon, see De Loc. Aff. VIII 174.16–175.7 Kühn; PHP 438.28–34 De Lacy; UP I 641.11–19 Kühn; QAM 11.1–9 Bazou (= IV 771–772 Kühn). Regarding the pathophysiology of memory, see De Loc. Aff. VIII 160.8–168.14 Kühn; De Sympt. Caus. VII 200.15–201.5 Kühn.
- 17.
Nemesius, On the Nature of Man,13.32–38 (trans. in Sharples and van der Eijk 2008, 121): τὸ μὲν οὖν φανταστικὸν παραδίδωσι τῷ διανοητικῷ τὰ φαινόμενα· τὸ δὲ διανοητικὸν ἢ διαλογιστικὸν παραλαβὸν καὶ κρῖναν παραπέμπει τῷ μνημονευτικῷ. ὄργανον δὲ καὶ τούτου ἡ ὄπισθεν κοιλία τοῦ ἐγκεφάλου, ἣν καὶ παρεγκεφαλίδα καὶ παρεγκρανίδα καλοῦσιν, καὶ τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ ψυχικὸν πνεῦμα.
- 18.
Averroes, Comp. de mem. et rem., 195vb44–64 (in Shields 1949, 57–59).
- 19.
Simoni (1566, 271): “enumeravimus supra animae sentientis passiones seu facultates: has in corde tanquam in sua origine et fonte esse de sententia Aristotelis certum est; Galenus econtra cerebrum earum originem et sedem esse statuit.”
- 20.
Ibid.: “in hoc tamen conveniunt, quod simulachra et imagines rerum extrinsecus obiectarum in cerebro recipiantur.”
- 21.
Crippa (1567, 52): “unde memoriae vim, atque facultatem non in ipsa mente, sed in patibili, mortalique intellectu, qui est communis sensus, necessario sitam, atque locatam esse.”
- 22.
Leonico Tomeo (1546, f. 73r): “Quoniam enim memoria vel passio est et affectio vel habitus communis appellati sensus quem primum nuncupavimus sensum ut cum de illa verba fient manifeste comprehendere licebit: qui sane communis sensus in primo collocari constituique sensiterio censetur quod ipsum esse cor a physicis pene omnibus pro certo tenetur.”
- 23.
Ibid. f. 77r: “Peripateticos enim haud quaquam velle passiones impressionesque illas a sensilibus rebus in anima fieri sed in primo sensiterio: animae autem ipsius esse iudicium et actionem circa illa.”
- 24.
Javelli (1580, vol. 1, p. 334a): “Et adverte quod licet detur in homine memoria in parte intellectiva: tamen non potest exire in actum suum sine memoria sensitiva, quoniam homo pro hoc statu non intelligit universale nisi in phantasmate.”
- 25.
- 26.
Scaino (1599, 68b): “anima intellectiva est locus specierum potentia, antequam sit facta singula; facta deinde singula, sic in actu dicitur esse, ut possit intelligere, quod antea praestare non poterat. Intelligitur autem anima facta singula, quoniam sit formata virtute luminis intellectus agentis in ipsas species rerum.”
- 27.
Scaino (1599, 62b): “Unde supponendum est, in corde residere ipsum primum sensitivum, et in ipsius spiritibus consistere, tum sensum communem, eam nimirum facultatem animae, quae iudicat omnia sensilia sensuum exteriorum; ut explicatum est in libro de sensiteriis et sensilibus, et in libris de anima; tum phantasiam, quae proprie constituitur circa phantasmata, quatenus seorsum ab operatione sensuum exteriorum, species sensilis recepta apparet huic facultati animae, adeo ut illam persentiat, et quasi oculis perspiciens circa illam opus imaginandi perficiat; tum denique memoriam, quatenus contingit rei praeteritae notitiam in anima sentiente repeti sub quadam temporis connotatione.”
- 28.
453a6–13: διαφέρει δὲ τοῦ μνημονεύειν τὸ ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι οὐ μόνον κατὰ τὸν χρόνον, ἀλλ’ ὅτι τοῦ μὲν μνημονεύειν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων μετέχει πολλά, τοῦ δ’ ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαι οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν τῶν γνωριζομένων ζῴων, πλὴν ἄνθρωπος. αἴτιον δ’ ὅτι τὸ ἀναμιμνήσκεσθαί ἐστιν οἷον συλλογισμός τις· ὅτι γὰρ πρότερον εἶδεν ἢ ἤκουσεν ἤ τι τοιοῦτον ἔπαθε, συλλογίζεται ὁ ἀναμιμνησκόμενος, καὶ ἔστιν οἷον ζήτησίς τις. τοῦτο δ’ οἷς καὶ τὸ βουλευτικὸν ὑπάρχει, φύσει μόνοις συμβέβηκεν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ βουλεύεσθαι συλλογισμός τίς ἐστιν. See Sorabji (2004, 111–112); King (2004, 141–143).
- 29.
Leonico Tomeo (1546, f. 93r): “… [reminiscentia] illam esse corpoream passionem: Cum enim ipsum reminisci ad cogitativam animae spectet vim …, consultare namque mentis et intellectus est, cuius etiam est reminisci: cumque sine fantasiae opera<tione> istuc effici non possit.”
- 30.
Ibid.: “ipsum enim cor et in eo commorantem spiritum, in quibus simulacra illa et species quodammodo inesse dicuntur, movens et excitans animus reminiscentiae in nobis est causa.”
- 31.
Ibid.: “et idcirco reminiscentiam dixit inquisitionem et investigationem esse fantasmatis in eiusmodi corpore existentis: quemadmodum enim si quispiam Ciceronis orationem legere velit aliquam ex orationum illius commentariis literas prius quaerit inscriptas: ita cogitativae vis animae facere videtur: cor namque ipsum chartae habet loco: fantasmatibus vero ut literis utitur: ipsa autem legentis obtinet vicem.”
- 32.
Averroes, Comp., 196ra36–40 (in Shields 1949, 63): “et hoc accidit homini apud adunationem istarum trium virtutum. Et adunatio earum fit per animam rationabilem, scilicet per obedientiam earum ad ipsam.”
- 33.
Thomas Aquinas, Sententia de sensu, tr. 2, l. 8, n.11 (available online at http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/css02.html): “Sic ergo patet quod reminiscentia est corporalis passio, nec est actus partis intellectivae, sed sensitivae, quae etiam in homine est, nobilior et virtuosior quam in aliis animalibus propter coniunctionem ad intellectum. Semper enim quod est inferioris ordinis perfectius fit suo superiori coniunctum, quasi aliquid de eius perfectione participans.”
- 34.
Agostino Nifo, Parva naturalia, f. 84va: “Aristoteles in his libris non posuit nisi sensum communem, quem nunc phantasiam, nunc primum sensitivum appellat, et in corde. Amplius posuit quandam virtutem in cerebro, in qua servantur, et congregantur phantasmata, quam non sensum vocat, quoniam non cogniscit, aut sentit, sed servat apprehensa ipsa.”
- 35.
Crippa (1567, 76): “Quamobrem, etsi memoria et reminiscentia in re, quae illarum cognitioni ad proprium obeundum munus subiicitur, inter se conveniunt … tamen differunt, quod memoria est simplex phantasmatis apprehensio, tamquam propria communis sensus operatio, reminiscentia autem est multiplicium cognitionum connexio et ratiocinatio quaedam, quae certe sine intellectus functione praestari nullo modo potest.”
- 36.
Ibid., 72: “Nam, dum reminiscimur, anima ex phantasmatis contemplatione afficit et movet cor, ac simul etiam illum liquidum et humidum sanguinem, qui in eo est, qui, quia ad omnem mutationem perfacilis est, non prius desistit moveri, quam id, quod quaeritur, se obtulerit.”
- 37.
Scaino (1599, 77b–78a): “At reminisci, excepto homine, nulli ex cognitis animalibus inest. Quod ex hoc deducitur: quoniam in ipso actu reminiscendi contingit veluti quidam syllogismus; quo inquiritur id, quod rememorari velimus; scilicet imaginatio ex uno phantasmate in aliud movetur, et ad tempus, et ad alia plurima volutatur, donec superveniat recordatio rei memorandae, eo modo, ut expositum est antea. In hac enim operatione supponitur quasi quidam syllogismus ob discurrentem circa phantasmata imaginationem, et ita inquirentem, quod intendit homo reminisci mediante dicto discursu imaginationis. Etenim Aristoteles assimilat hanc operationem ipsi inquisitioni; quae ab homine in consultatione adhiberi solet; quae etiam perficitur percurrendo singularia, circa quae postea consultatio exercetur. Verum similitudo existit solum circa modum inquisitionis penes phantasmata peractae a phantasia; cum deinde in consultatione intellectiva cadat speculatio iuxta ea, quae sint eligenda; in quo prudentia virtus existens intellectiva necessario adhibetur. In ipso autem actu reminiscendi attendendus est solus discursus inquirendi, et percurrendi phantasmata ope phantasiae. Ex quo colligitur, posse hanc inquisitionem fieri etiam circa notiones non complexas; veluti circa nominis inquisitionem.”
- 38.
Ibidem, 78a: “Quamquam soli homini vim reminiscendi statutum sit inesse, et non aliis animalibus, quae carent ratione, qua homo praeditus est, attamen docet Aristoteles, hanc passionem reminiscendi pertinere ad corpoream facultatem, ut excludat, quod non sit facultatis intellectivae. Idque manifestat hoc illustri indicio, ex perturbatione scilicet, quam nonnulli patiuntur, cum quae vellent reminisci, haec assequi nequeant; qui quidem inhibentes, et remorantes graece τὴν διάνοιαν … ne ultra progrediatur; attamen in vanum id conantur, non obtinentes, quominus commotio in ipsis facta ultra extendatur, atque progrediatur. Ex quo colligitur, passionem reminiscendi omnino corpoream esse, uti ea, quae ad motiones imaginationis pertineat. Neque obiciat aliquis, quod etiam in opere intelligendi concurrat motio facta in phantasia circa imagines. Nam et si id verum est, attamen dicimus, quod actus intelligendi seiungitur ab actu imaginandi; adeo quod intellectio est specierum omnino separabilium a materia; actus vero imaginandi, et consequenter reminiscendi consistit circa phantasmatum comprehensionem; prout certae materiae coniuncta assistunt; neque ulterius extenditur haec operatio.”
Bibliography
Beare (1908) = De memoria et reminiscentia, trans. J. I. Beare. In The Parva Naturalia, trans. J. I. Beare and G. R. T. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted in The Works of Aristotle, translated into English under the editorship of W. D. Ross, vol. 3. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1931.
Bloch, David. 2007. Aristotle on memory and recollection: Text, translation, interpretation, and reception in western scholasticism. Leiden: Brill.
Brumberg-Chaumont, Julie. 2010. La première reception du De memoria et reminiscentia au Moyen Âge latin: le commentaire d’Adam de Buckfield. In Les Parva naturalia d’Aristote: Fortune antique et médiévale, ed. Christophe Grellard and Pierre-Marie Morel, 121–141. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Coleman, Janet. 1992. Ancient and medieval memories: Studies in the reconstruction of the past. Cambridge: CUP.
Crippa, Bernardino. 1567. In Aristotelis Librum de Memoria et Reminiscentia. Bologna: apud Alexandrum Benacium.
Cunningham, Andrew. 1985. Fabricius and the ‘Aristotle Project’ in anatomical teaching and research at Padua. In The medical renaissance of the sixteenth century, ed. Andrew Wear, Roger K. French, and Iain M. Lonie, 195–222. Cambridge: CUP.
———. 1997. The anatomical renaissance: The resurrection of the anatomical projects of the ancients. Aldershot: Ashgate.
De Angelis, Simone. 2010. Anthropologien: Genese und Konfiguration einer Wissenschaft vom Menschen in der Frühen Neuzeit. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter.
Förster (1942) = Aristotelis De sensu et De memoria libri. Ed. Aurél Förster. Budapest: Academia Litterarum Hungarica.
Gregoric, Pavel. 2007. Aristotle on the common sense. Oxford: OUP.
Javelli, Chrisostomo. 1580. Epitome in librum De memoria et reminiscentia. In Chrysostomi Iavelli Canapicii, Ordinis Praedicatorum, Philosophi & Theologi nostrae aetatis eruditissimi omnia, quotquot inveniri potuerunt, Opera quibus quicquid ad Rationalem, Naturalem, Moralem ac Divinam Philosophiam pertinet, breviter simul ac dilucide summa cum eruditione complectitur, vol. 1. Lugduni: Honorat.
King (2004) = Aristoteles, De memoria et reminiscentia, übersetzt und erläutert von Richard A. H. King. Aristoteles, Werke in deutscher Übersetzung 14/2. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
King, Richard. 2010. Aristotle’s De memoria and Plotinus on memory. In Les Parva naturalia d’Aristote: Fortune antique et médiévale, ed. Christophe Grellard and Pierre-Marie Morel, 101–120. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.
Lennox, James G. 2006. The comparative study of animal development: William Harvey’s Aristotelianism. In The problem of animal generation in early modern philosophy, ed. Justin E.H. Smith, 21–46. Cambridge: CUP.
Leonico Tomeo, Nicolò. 1546. Aristotelis Stagiritae parva quae vocant naturalia. Venice: Jacobus Fabrianus Cartolarius Patavinus.
Lohr, Charles. 1988. Latin Aristotle Commentaries, vol. II: Renaissance Authors. Florence: Leo S. Olschki.
Lo Presti, Roberto. 2014. Wissenschaftliche Revolution und Embryologie: Ablehnung oder Transformation der Antike? Ein Vergleich zwischen den Zeugungslehren Cesare Cremoninis, William Harveys und René Descartes. Sudhoffs Archiv: Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftsgeschichte 98 (1): 1–27.
———. 2015. “For sleep, in some way, is an epileptic seizure”: empirical background, theoretical function, and transformations of the sleep/epilepsy analogy in Aristotle and in medieval Aristotelianism. In The frontiers of ancient science: Essays in honor of Heinrich von Staden, ed. Brooke Holmes and Klaus-Dietrich Fischer, 339–393. Berlin/München/Boston: De Gruyter.
Nifo, Agostino. 1550. Parva naturalia Augustini Niphi medices philosophi Suessani. Venice: apud Hieronymum Scotum.
Palumbo, Margherita. 2013. Agostino Nifo. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 78. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/agostino-nifo_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/.
Ross (1906) = Aristotle, De sensu and De memoria. Text and Translation with Introduction and Commentary by G. R. T. Ross. Cambridge: CUP.
——— (1955) = Aristotle, Parva Naturalia. A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary by Sir David Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Russo, Emilio. 2005. Niccolò Leonico Tomeo. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 64. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/niccolo-leonico-tomeo_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/.
Salatowsky, Sascha. 2006. De Anima: Die Rezeption der aristotelischen Psychologie im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Amsterdam: B. R. Grüner.
Scaino, Antonio. 1599. In librum de Memoria et Reminiscentia. In Paraphrasis Antonii Scayni Salodiensis cum adnotationibus in lib. Arist. de Anima. Venice: apud Laurentium Pasquatum.
Sharples and van der Eijk (2008) = Nemesius, On the Nature of Man, translated with an introduction and notes by Robert W. Sharples and Philip J. van der Eijk. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.
Shields. 1949. Averrois Cordubensis Compendia librorum qui Parva naturalia vocantur. In Corpus Commentariorum Averrois in Aristotelem VII, ed. A.L. Shields. Cambridge, MA: The Mediaeval Academy of America. 1949.
Simoni, Simone. 1566. In librum Aristotelis Περὶ τῶν αἰσθητηρίων καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, hoc est, de sensuum instrumentis et de his quae sub sensum cadunt, commentarius unus. Geneva: Joannes Crispinus.
Sorabji, Richard. 2004. Aristotle on memory. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wendland (1903) = Michaelis Ephesii in Parva naturalia commentaria, ed. Paul Wendland. CAG 22.1. Berlin: Reimers.
Wille von, Dagmar. 2004. Giovanni Crisostomo Javelli. In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 62. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana. http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/giovanni-crisostomo-javelli_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/.
Wolter, Allan B. 1990. The philosophical theology of John Duns Scotus. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Wolter, Allan B., and Marylin M. Adams. 1993. Memory and intuition: A focal debate in fourteenth-century cognitive psychology. Franciscan Studies 53: 175–230.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lo Presti, R. (2018). Localizing Memory and Recollection: The Sixteenth-Century Italian Commentaries on Aristotle’s De memoria et reminiscentia and the Question Concerning the Degrees of (dis)embodiment of the “Psychic” Processes. In: Bydén, B., Radovic, F. (eds) The Parva naturalia in Greek, Arabic and Latin Aristotelianism. Studies in the History of Philosophy of Mind, vol 17. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26904-7_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26904-7_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26903-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26904-7
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)