De historia animalium lib. IX, de partibus animalium, et earum causis libri IIII, de generatione animalium libri V...

Venice: Hieronymus Scotus, 1545. Hardcover. Very Good. 8vo (157 x 106mm). [8], 307pp., [13] leaves, including final blank. Woodcut printer’s device of Scotus with personification of globe and motto “FIAT PAX IN VIRTUTE” (Peace be with thee). Latin translation by Theodore Gaza. 12-line woodcut historiated initials at beginning of first chapter and at beginning of the Universalis generationis partitio... (p. 224) of heraldry. Few woodcut initials throughout. Contemporary vellum; (worn; spine and covers darkened; scattered stains, worming affecting title, next leaf, and last 3 leaves; edges stained brown and gauffered to floral pattern). Sound copy enhanced by Latin marginalia in an contemporary hand. The Renaissance public, as a part of their reading system, frequently engaged Aristotle’s natural writings. Even at the height of this period, at a time when Theodore Gaza had already produced his celebrated versions of Aristotle’s zoological corpus, these works obtained wide recognition.

Aristotle’s zoological works, edited by Theodore Gaza, with Italian Renaissance commentary sparked on by the availability of Gaza’s text. Gaza’s version of the treatises, were paraphrases of Aristotle’s zoological works but also included personal observations and information drawn from the other authors. Gaza, in fact, held a virtual monopoly on the biological works of Aristotle, his translation completely overshadowing those before him and especially of his rival George of Trebizond. Gaza’s text had been used mainly as a source of quotations and only in philological and medical works, such as Castigationes plinianae by Ermolao Barbaro or Benedetti’s Historia corporis humani. By 1521, starting with a course on the De Partibus animalium, held in Bologna, did the official Renaissance tradition of interpretation on Aristotle’s zoology take form. The Latin text, which contributed to this renewed interest, was none other than the elegant translation by Gaza. University Aristotelianism, specifically that concerning the zoology, was approached by the various interpreters in the context of systematic exploration of the encyclopedic work as a whole. The ample annotations of this volume showcase precisely this type of interaction with the evolving conversation. Gaza’s work throws light on Renaissance Aristotelianism carried out through the grid of scholastic commentary.