Peter Dinzelbacher's review of the Perrone Compagni critical edition, published in Mediaevistik in 1994, offers a medievalist's assessment of an edition primarily oriented toward the Renaissance and early modern period. Dinzelbacher evaluates the edition's handling of Agrippa's medieval sources and asks whether the editorial apparatus adequately tracks Agrippa's debts to scholastic theology and medieval occult traditions.

The review makes the important observation that Agrippa's DOP is not purely a Renaissance product: its sources include a substantial medieval layer — Albert the Great's natural philosophy, the Speculum astronomiae, Roger Bacon, and the Picatrix tradition — that sits alongside the more visible Ficinian and Pichian materials. Dinzelbacher finds that Perrone Compagni's apparatus is excellent on the classical and Renaissance sources but somewhat less thorough in tracking the specifically medieval strands, particularly in the areas of demonology and natural magic where the scholastic tradition is most directly relevant.

This observation is methodologically important: Agrippa's occult philosophy is in part a systematization of medieval magical theory in the language of Renaissance Neoplatonism, and the interplay between these two layers is crucial for understanding the DOP's historical position. Dinzelbacher's review, brief as it is, points toward a dimension of Agrippa scholarship — the medieval background — that has been relatively underdeveloped in comparison with the Renaissance context. It complements the more enthusiastic assessments of the Perrone Compagni edition provided by Pereira (1994) and other reviewers.