Book on Plants, Liber de plantis
To prevent confusion, it is important to note that the Book on Plants, Liber de plantis, is also known as Liber de vegetabilibus and as Liber Aristotelis de vegetabilibus et plantis. While just five surviving manuscripts of this text exist in Arabic, a significant number of them are still preserved in Latin. The translation from Arabic to Latin, completed in 1200, is credited to Alfredus Anglicus, also known as Alfred of Sareshel. The translation was presumably done in Spain, as indicated by the usage of Spanish terms like acelga (chard) and belenum (henbane) and the Spanish method of transliterating Arabic words.
There is a single reference to another translation, cited by Roger Bacon in his Quaestiones supra De plantis, a source he utilized for teaching at Oxford. In Opus tertium, Roger Bacon criticizes the translator’s choice of the word “belenum,” stating that it is a Spanish word unfamiliar to anyone in Paris or England. Others also criticized the unclear and challenging translation, including Albert the Great in his extensive work De vegetabilibus, where he mentions Aristotle’s teachings on wood colors being difficult to understand due to the poor quality of the translation.
Thomas Aquinas stated that Theophrastus, not Aristotle, was the author of De Plantis. Peter of Auvergne believed that Theophrastus filled the void left by his mentor, Aristotle, by writing De plantis. In the nineteenth century, Ernst Meyer demonstrated that the true author was Nicolaus of Damascus, not Aristotle. De plantis should be considered a unique instance due to its numerous variations and translations, having been translated and re-translated multiple times. Alfredus Anglicus translated from Arabic to Latin, and then a retroversion from Latin to Greek was created in 1300.
The version, which would later become the most widely used translation, was translated back into Latin two more times in the sixteenth century, in 1542 and 1543, probably in an effort to rediscover the original treatise in its native language. The Latin translation from 1542 would be part of Averroes’ commentary on Aristotle in the Venice editions published by Iunctas between 1550 and 1562. The other one was composed by a certain Andrea a Lacuna, Secobiensi, Philiatro, interpreted in Colonia.
Another intriguing aspect of the historical evolution of this concise work is the scarcity of commentary published about it. While there are 159 surviving manuscripts, only nine Latin commentary exist. Only the works created by Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, Peter of Auvergne, Adam of Bockenfield, and Alfredus Anglicus, who translated the original text, have been revised.
The remaining manuscripts are attributed to Vincent de Beauvais in Speculum maius, Book IX, Speculum naturale. Two further manuscripts from the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century (Bodleian manuscripts Tanner 116 and Digby 17) may have been composed by Simon de Faversham. Sybil Douglas Wingate also references another manuscript located in Paris.59 Significance and Pertinence of De plantis To comprehend the influence of De plantis, it is important to consider the differentiation between subjectum materiale and subiectum formale as discussed in relation to the teachings of Thomas Aquinas.
The subiectum formale refers to the viewpoint of each scientific discipline when examining the nature of reality. The subjectum materiale is the material on which a science focuses. The content in De plantis presents a theoretical approach to botanical research, contrasting with the practical approach found in herbal texts, which focus on the medicinal, pharmaceutical, and agricultural uses of plants. The incorporation of Aristotle’s Physica and De anima into the medieval Latin West is crucial for grasping the fundamentals of this theoretical framework. Physica promotes the concept that natural entities are defined by their ability to move or be influenced by motion. Plants belonging to this category are considered a component of natural philosophy.
