Pomponazzi (Pompacius, de Pomponaciis), Maestro Pietro

POMPONAZZI (Pompacius, de Pomponaciis), Maestro Pietro. - Aristotelian philosopher, b. at Mantua on 16 Sept. 1462, son of Gian Niccolò, d. at Bologna on 18 May 1525, and on account of his small stature commonly called the "Peretto mantovano." At Padua, before 1487, he had studied natural philosophy under Nicoletto Vernia (v.) and Pietro Trapolino, metaphysics under Francesco Securo da Nardò, a Dominican, and medicine under Pietro Roccabonella.

In 1488 he began teaching as "magister artium" in the second school of extraordinary philosophy, then passed to the first, and in 1492 to the second ordinary school. To this period belongs the beginning of the commentary on the De anima, which he had to interrupt after a few lectures, because that year he had to lecture on the Physica. After three years he passed to the first ordinary school, while to the second was promoted Agostino Nifo (v.), who thus became his competitor and with whom the first disputes began. But barely a year later he resigned in order to go, almost certainly, as Oliva has demonstrated, to the court of Alberto Pio da Carpi, whom he followed into exile at Ferrara. With Pio he discussed the doctrines of the calculatores that had come into fashion. In Oct. 1499, after the death of Vernia, he was called to succeed him at Padua, and in 1500 he delivered the commentary on the De anima preserved in the Bibl. naz. of Naples, cod. VIII. D. 81, in the hand of Antonio Surian, nephew of the patriarch of Venice, already pointed out by Kristeller. To these years must also belong the treatise De maximo et minimo (Bibl. Ambrosiana, cod. R. 96 sup.), concerning the well-known doctrine of Heytesbury. From 1504 is the second commentary on the De anima, of which only the part concerning Book I is preserved in the same Neapolitan code, together with a quaestio on the immortality of the soul (v.), another on the unity of the intellect, another on the act of understanding in the Averroist doctrine, and yet another deriving from a commentary on Book VIII of the Physica of 1500. In these years he had as a pupil Gaspare Contarini, who is perfectly right when he later reminds his teacher that he had changed his opinion on the subject of immortality, as on other subjects. In 1507 he commented on Averroes' De subst. orbis (cod. Vat. Reg. lat. 1279). In 1509, on account of the siege of Padua and following the closure of that Studio, he accepted the invitation to go to Ferrara, where he lectured on philosophy for barely a year, and then to Bologna, where he remained uninterruptedly until his death.

To the Paduan period, besides the writings mentioned, belong also the fragments of a commentary on the Physica in the hand of his pupil and later faithful friend and colleague Lazzaro Bonamico (cod. Ambros., J. 220 inf., ff. 89-149). All the other writings, published and unpublished, so far known belong to the Bolognese period, in this order: 1) The commentary on the first 22 texts of Book XII of the Metaph. (preserved in two distinct reportations: one in the cod. of the Bibl. naz. of Paris, lat. 6537 and in cod. Ambros. A. 52 inf., and another in the cod. of the Frat. de Laici of Arezzo, 390, and in the same cod. Ambros. where sheets of two different mss. have been badly stitched together), bears the date 1511-12. 2) The commentary on the Physica of the Paris code, lat. 6533, for the first 5 books, and of the Aretine cod. 389 for Book I and part of Book II, and 390 for Book III, and of 1513-14. From the summer of 1514 is an accusation of heresy which, however, had no sequel. 3) From 1514 is also the Quaestio de intens. et remiss. formarum. 4) In the De reactione of 1515, dedicated to Gaspare Contarini, the doctrines of Susset, Heytesbury, Giovanni Marliani, Giacomo da Forlì, etc., are again discussed. 5) Between 1511 and 1515 the commentary on the De Anima was delivered (mss. lat. 6448-49 of the Bibl. naz. of Paris; the cod. of the Angelica of Rome 1317 is an extract of quaestiones from this commentary, and from others later; the same must be said of the cod. Magliabechiano XII, 16). The problem of the immortality of the soul is treated there at length pro and contra; in the end it appears that P. still considers a rational demonstration of immortality possible. 6) From 1515 are the Quaestiones breves XXIV (cod. Ambros. R. 96 inf.). 7) From 1515 is also the Quaestio an actio realis immediate fieri possit per species spirituales. 8) From 1515-16 is the commentary on Book I of the De caelo (ms. lat. 6534 of the Bibl. naz. of Paris). 9) De immortalitate, with dedication to M. A. Flaminio Contarini, Sept. 1516. 10) Apologia, finished on 21 Dec. 1517 and published together with the Tractatus contradictoris in Feb. 1518. In June of the same year Leo X threatened to have P. prosecuted unless he recanted, but Card. Bembo averted the storm. 11) In Nov. 1517 P. began the commentary on Book VII of the Physica (cod. of Arezzo, 389, ms. lat. 6533 of the Bibl. naz. of Paris and ms. n. 45 of the Campana collection of Osimo). 12) From 1518-19 would appear to be the commentary on Book VIII of the Physica (in the aforementioned manuscripts of Arezzo and Paris, which also contain an important fragment of an earlier commentary [1514]). 13) In May 1519 the Defensorium against Nifo appeared. 14) Between 1519 and 1520, P. commented on the last 5 books of the De caelo (cod. lat. 6534 Bibl. naz. of Paris, 15) From 1520 are the Quaestiones on the De anima (cod. Angelico 1317, ff. 248-67; of those that precede, ff. 193r-247r, the date is uncertain. 16) In 1520 the De fato etc. appeared. 17) In the same year, the De inconstatissibus (Basel 1556) was completed. 18) In Sept. 1521 the De nutrit. et augment. dedicated to Card. Domenico Grimani was finished. 19) The commentary on the De generat. et corrupt., begun in 1519, resumed from Apr. 1521 to May 1522 (Vat. Regin. lat. 1279 and, for Book I, cod. Campana of Osimo). 20) In Nov. 1521 P. began the commentary on the De partibus animalium, then left unfinished (ms. lat. 6537 of Paris, for Books I and II; ms. Ambros. D. 417 inf. for all three books, but in a shorter reportation). 21) To May 1522 dates the commentary on the Meteors, probably prolonged to Dec. 1523 and perhaps beyond (ms. lat. 6535 of Paris, for the first three books; ms. lat. 6448 for Book IV; another reportation of Books II and III in cod. Ambros. R. 96 sup. Excerpta in the cod. of Osimo). The lectures on the Meteors were also attended by the young son of the marquis of Mantua, the future Card. Ercole Gonzaga. 22) The Dubitationes in quartum Meteor. (Venice 1563) are another matter; the date of composition is uncertain, but they seem to be from the Bolognese period. 23) P.'s last labor appears to be the commentary on the De sensu et sensato, finished by Easter 1523 (ms. lat. 6536 of Paris; identical with that of Osimo, Bibl. collez. Campana, n. 45; Arezzo, ms. 390, incomplete and in a different reportation). Shortly before his death, he was able to see gathered in a single volume the De intens. et remiss., the De react., the Q. au actio realis, the De immort., the Apol., the Defens. and the De nutr. et augm. (Venice 1525). Other writings mentioned by Tomasini (Bibl. patav., Udine 1639, p. 97 ff.) remain unknown.

As can be seen, P.'s activity embraces the whole of Aristotelian philosophy of nature, although he likes to dwell particularly on certain problems that were then most discussed, such as that of the eternity of the world, of the immortality of the soul, of the unity of the intellect (v.), of the freedom of the will, and others no less important, such as that of periodic deluges and of the "great cosmic year," or that of the Averroistic copulatio of the possible intellect with the agent intellect. But the attention of historians has dwelt above all on the problem of the immortality of the soul (v. ALESSANDRISMO) and on the violent polemic that arose from it, as though P. had denied immortality and not rather the impossibility of demonstrating it with Aristotelian arguments: "Dico Aristotelem errasse, et tu plus erras dicendo Aristotelem omnia scivisse" (In VII Phys., Arezzo, ms. 389, f. 228ᵛ). Obliged by the academic statutes to expound at Bologna the Aristotelian text and the Averroistic commentary, he replied to Nifo, who was striving to induce Leo X to condemn him (Defens., 29): "Ex mandato D. n. Leonis decimi et Senatus Bononiensis teneor legere et interpretari et secundum iudicium meum sententiare quid senserit Aristoteles quod per principia naturalia haberi potest: et de hoc quaesio et de aliis adstrictus sum ex iuramento fideliter mentem Aristotelis aperire...". And the Pope left him in peace.

An Aristotelian, he does not have the stubbornness of the Averroist; on the contrary, he maintains before Aristotle a certain independence of his own, which often makes him declare that he does not understand him, so that once, regarding the habitability of the southern zone, he exclaims: "Ea quae hic dicuntur ab Aristotele sunt fatuitates" (In 2ⁿᵈ Meteor., ms. Ambros. R. 96 sup., f. 69ᵛ). Ignorant of Greek, he excels over the other Aristotelians through a particular acuteness of his own in the interpretation of the text; he scorns the "lectio fucata" of the humanists and does not disdain to be considered a "Bergomensis subtilis ingenio, grossus verbis" (Paris, ms. lat. 6533, f. 426ᵛ), as he truly was. In P.'s lectures one perceives something that tells us that Aristotelianism is by now about to dissolve; a grave problem looms: when there is a conflict between reasoning and experience, "cui standum"? It is already the problem of method. And P. feels it, or at least foresees it.

Bruno Nardi