8/10/2019 Pseudo-Filopon # Alexandru (a New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

1/6

A New Manuscript of Pseudo-PhiloponusCommentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

Containing a Hitherto UnknownAscription of the Work

STEFAN ALEXANDRU

In recent years much research has been done on the Greek Aristoteliancommentators. Numerous texts edited about a century ago in the collectionCommentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG) have lately become availablefor the rst time in an English translation and some of them are being re-edited. However, certain Greek exegetical writings on Aristotelian treatisesstill await their editio princeps. One such writing is a commentary on theMetaphysics ascribed in some manuscripts to John Philoponus. 1

A lacunose Latin translation of this text was published in 1583 underthe title Ioannis Philoponi breves, sed apprime doctae et utiles exposi-tiones in omnes XIV Aristotelis libros eos qui vocantur Metaphysici by theItalian humanist Francesco Patrizi da Cherso also known as FranciscusPatritius Venetus (1529-97).2 As the Latin title emphasizes, this is an

Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999 Phronesis XLIV/4

I would like to thank the Professors Michael Frede, Richard Sorabji and MichaelWinterbottom as well as Mr. Nigel Wilson and the editors of Phronesis for valuablecomments. To Dr. Louis Jordan (University of Notre Dame, Indiana) I am muchobliged for having sent me a good microlm of the manuscript before the re-openingof the Ambrosian Library. Last but not least I would like to thank the University ofOxford, Professor Francesco Del Punta from the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, andthe Gerda Henkel Foundation for having promoted my research in Italy. Equally, I amgrateful to theBibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, theBibliotheca Ambrosiana, the ster-reichische Nationalbibliothekand the Bibliothque Nationale de France for havinggiven me access to their collections.

1 C.A. Brandis published some excerpts from this commentary in the volume ofscholia which he edited for the Berlin Academy (cf. Scholia in Aristotelem ed. C.A.Brandis, Berlin 1836, 518 n.).

2 Bibliography on Franciscus Patritius Venetus (sometimes referred to as FrancescoPatrizzi) can be found in M.E. CosenzasBiographical and Bibliographical Dictionaryof the Italian Humanists and of the World of Classical Scholarship in Italy, 1300-1800,III, Boston, 21962, 2634-2639. For more recent titles see C. Vasoli,Francesco Patrizi

da Cherso, Rome 1989. Patritius translation of this commentary has been reprinted

8/10/2019 Pseudo-Filopon # Alexandru (a New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

2/6

348 STEFAN ALEXANDRU

expository treatise covering all the books of the Metaphysics, unlike mostof the commentaries published under the patronage of the Berlin Aca-demy in the collection mentioned above. In that collection the only workfurnishing each book of the Metaphysics with extensive comments is the

one entitled Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Metaphysica commen-taria which was edited by Hermann Bonitz in 1847 and by MichaelHayduck in 1891 (CAG 1). The comments on books A, a, B, G and D werewritten by Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd-3rd cent. AD), whereas thoseon books E-N are thought to be the work of the Byzantine commentatorMichael of Ephesus;3 in its present form this commentary lacks the nalpart of book Iota.

In the comments translated by Patritius the author of books E-N of theGreek commentary printed in CAG 1 is repeatedly referred to as the exe-gete ( jhghtw),4 being also called the Ephesian;5 this is a prominentreason why John Philoponus (5th-6th cent. AD) is nowadays denied theauthorship. 6 New evidence regarding this issue will be quoted towards theend of the article.

The hermeneutical remarks rendered into Latin by Franciscus Patritius

Venetus are to a very great extent borrowed from the commentary editedby Bonitz and Hayduck, but they also elucidate the nal part of the tenthbook. Since pseudo-Philoponus does not omit that section of book IotaHermann Bonitz suspected that he had access to a manuscript of pseudo-Alexander whichwas in some respects better than the oneswhicharecurrentlyavailable; Bonitz therefore suggested that an editor of that commentary

with an introduction by Charles Lohr (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1991 = Commentariain Aristotelem Graeca: versiones Latinae temporis resuscitarum literarum 2).3 Cf. Robert Sharples,ANRW II.36.2 (1987), 1182 and Scholia in Aristotelem ed.

Brandis, 734 n. Michael of Ephesus who is usually dated to the 11th-12th century wasaccording to a document published by Robert Browning a contemporary of AnnaComnena (b. 1083-d. after 1148), seeAristotle Transformed: the ancient commentatorsand their inuence, ed. by Richard Sorabji, London 1990, 399.

4 Patritius translates jhghtw with expositor, see e.g. fol. 51v b 44 and 52r a 3-4, relating to pseudo-Alexander p. 703, 1-2 ed. M. Hayduck. Another example ismentioned by Sten Ebbesen, Commentators and Commentaries on AristotlesSophistici Elenchi, III, Appendix 8, Leiden 1981, 87.

5 See cod. Vat. Urb. gr. 49 fol. 68r, 1 (fol. 25 r b 45 in Patrizis version). Cf. CAG1, p. 458, 5-6 and CAG 22,1 p. 149, 15.

6 See e.g. Paul Moraux, Alexandre dAphrodise exgte de la Notique dAristote,Lige 1942, p. 15 and Sten Ebbesen, op. cit., p. 87. For the sake of clarity it shouldperhaps also be mentioned that pseudo-Philoponus did not have access to thebooks E-N in the form in which they were written by Alexander of Aphrodisias

(see J. Freudenthal, S. Frnkel,Die durch Averroes erhaltenen Fragmente Alexanderszur Metaphysik des Aristoteles, Berlin 1885, 52).

8/10/2019 Pseudo-Filopon # Alexandru (a New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

3/6

might have something to gain from some good Greek manuscriptsof pseudo-Philoponu s if he had any such manuscripts at his disposal.7 Itshould be noted, however, that pseudo-Philoponus work is not exclusivelybased on the partly genuine Greek commentary of Alexander. Sporadically

the interpreter draws also upon other sources: so for instance in the rstbook of Patrizis translation one nds references to Ammonius and hisdisciple Asclepius8who for chronological reasons cannot have been men-tioned by Alexander of Aphrodisias.

Until now only two manuscripts of pseudo-Philoponus commentaryhave been known to be still extant, viz. cod. Vat. Urb. gr. 49 (14thcentury) and cod. Vind. gr. Phil. 189 (16th century, written by Mathusa-

las Macheir).9 However cod. Ambr. F. 113 sup. (14th century) hereafter

7 See Alex.Aphr. in Metaph. ed. H. Bonitz, Berlin 1847, XI. One should not forgetthat the partly genuine Greek commentary of Alexander inter alia reects readings ofvaluable lost manuscripts of Aristotles Metaphysics; for example in 1075 b 24 thereading ti which Ross and Jaeger have reconstructed from William of MoerbekesLatin version and which the latter has adopted in his edition is found also in CAG 1,720, 1. Unfortunately the Greek commentary printed in CAG 1 did not remain unal-tered throughout the process of transmission: so for instance the textual readingsattested by pseudo-Alexanders quotations repeatedly differ from those to which theparaphrase bears witness, cf. e.g. Arist.Metaph. ed. W. Jaeger, Oxford 1957, app. crit.ad 1069 b 32, 1072 b 23 or 1082 b 9. Jaeger does not record all such instances in hisapparatus. See e.g. p. 676, l. 37-38 and p. 677, l. 12-13 ed. Hayduck, relating to 1070a 18. This makes it plausible to assume that at some stage certain parts of that com-mentary (CAG 1) have been altered under the inuence of the direct manuscript tra-dition of the Metaphysics. Especially prone to such changes were those places of the

commentary where the textual discrepancy was most easily noticeable, e.g. literal quo-tations. Interestingly, pseudo-Philoponus sides in three of the four places mentionedabove, viz. in 1069 b 32, 1072 b 23 and 1070 a 18, with the paraphrases found in thecommentary ascribed to Alexander, not with the quotations, which in those instancesmirror the readings of the extant Greek manuscripts. At 1069 b 32 the reading found in pseudo-Alexanders paraphrase (674, 28) though not in his quotation(cf. 674, 24-25) as well as in pseudo-Philoponus paraphrase (cod. Vat. Urb. gr. 49,fol. 139v, 25) is also attested by the Arabic translation of Abu Bishr Matta (seeAverroes, Tafsir ma bad at-Tabiat ed. M. Bouyges, Beirut 1948 (Bibliotheca ArabicaScholasticorum, sr. arabe VII), 1448, 7-8). The vulgate readings o, keno mllontotou and Pltvn fh have not left any trace in pseudo-Philoponus commentary(cf. fol. 49v a8 ,51rb46and49v a 25 of Patritius translation, corresponding to fol. 139v

l. 25, 146r l. 25 and 140r, l. 12 in cod. Vat. Urb. gr. 49).8 See e.g. fol. 4r b, cf. Ascl. in Metaph. 50, 23.9 See Sten Ebbesen, op. cit., p. 86. Cf. p. XII of C. Lohrs introduction to the reprint

mentioned supra, n. 2. It should be noted that in cod. Vind. gr. Phil. 189 the booksa, B, G, D and E as well as several sections of book A are missing. The Greek

manuscript used by Franciscus Patritius Venetus probably burnt during the re of theEscorial in 1671.

A NEW MANUSCRIPT OF PSEUDO-PHILOPONUS COMMENTARY 349

8/10/2019 Pseudo-Filopon # Alexandru (a New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

4/6

referred to as M,10 also contains, in the margins of fol. 173r-238v, an exten-sive part of this exegetical writing which relates to the books K-N.11

The marginalia found on fol. 1r-238v of this manuscript have traditionallybeen thought to comprise the partly spurious commentary of Alexander.12

This only partially correct view has been largely propagated by A. Martiniand D. Bassis catalogue of the Greek manuscripts preserved in theBibliotecaAmbrosiana .13 The Inventario Ceruti does not contain any informationabout the author of the scholia.14

In fact, in the margins of fol. 173rwhere book K begins the not entirelyauthentic Greek commentary of Alexander extends only to line 3, end-ing with the words nvyen d plin =hton found on p. 633, l. 6 ed.

M. Hayduck. Strikingly, a few lines further down the text written in themargins (which is easily legible on a good microlm) starts to deviatenoticeably from pseudo-Alexanders comments. Michael Hayduck, who wasthe rst to make use of M when editing the partly apocryphal commen-tary of Alexander realised that something unusual was going on, but failedto notice that the text written in the margin was a Greek equivalent ofPatritius Latin version. The extracts from the marginalia of M which he

prints under the title Supplementum recensionis Laurentianae at the endof his preface15 correspond to fol. 54r a 4-b 5 and 67r a 30-67v b 13 ofPatrizis translation.16

350 STEFAN ALEXANDRU

10 This is Bernardinellos siglum, see Silvio Bernardinello, Eliminatio codicumdella Metasica di Aristotele, Padua 1970, p. 17. In the following cod. Vat. Urb. gr.49 will be referred to as V and cod. Vind. gr. Phil. 189 as W.

11 Cf. fol. 45r a 11-67v b 13 of Patrizis Latin version. It should be pointed out that

some smaller sections of pseudo-Philoponus commentary occur earlier in themanuscript. The passage printed by Hayduck at the bottom of p. 581 in CAG 1 isfound also on fol. 105v, 18-106r, 10 of V and corresponds to fol. 37v b 13-33 ofPatrizis translation. A passage from pseudo-Philoponus commentary which is notrecorded in Hayducks apparatus is found in M on fol. 151v, 43-50 (cf. V fol. 105v,8-18). A detailed discussion of all the marginalia of M is outside the scope of thecurrent inquiry.

12 Cf. e.g. Silvio Bernardinello, op. cit., 107, 1 or D. Harlnger, Zur berlie-ferungsgeschichte der Metaphysik, in tudes sur la Mtaphysique dAristote. Actesdu VIe Symposium Aristotelicum ed. by Pierre Aubenque, Paris 1979, 33, n. 63.

13 See A. Martini and D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum Graecorum BibliothecaeAmbrosianae I, Milano 1906, 429.

14 Cf. Inventario Ceruti dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 3, Trezzanosul Naviglio 1977, 496.

15 See CAG 1, p. XI-XIII. Given that those passages do not in fact occur in cod.Laur. 87.12, the only manuscript from theBiblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana mentionedin Hayducks preface, this title is rather misleading.

16

Thus for instance the passage from fol. 203r

, 4-203v

,18 of M printed on p. XI

8/10/2019 Pseudo-Filopon # Alexandru (a New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

5/6

Stemmatic aspects cannot be discussed here in detail, but it should bebriey mentioned that, as a collation of the marginalia found on fol. 189v-202v of M shows, this manuscript is independent; fortunately, for the sec-tion just mentioned, it lls all the lacunae marked by dots in Patritius

translation and by fenestrae in V and W. On the other hand in M on fol.191v, 1. 42 there is a small lacuna (resulting from a saut du mme aumme) which does not occur in the other witnesses. Furthermore, on fol.173r one discovers on close examination of the manuscript in situ between the last comments of pseudo-Alexander and the rst ones copiedfrom what is nowadays referred to as the commentary of pseudo-Philoponus the following words, written in faint red ink: jghsiw ath

to Paxumrouw st to prvtekdkou.Since the Byzantine polyhistor Georgios Pachymeres (1242-ca. 1310)

tells us at the beginning of his chronicle of the Palaeologus emperors thatthe highest ecclesiastical ofce which he held was that of a prvtekdkow17

and since the Prosopographische s Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit does notmention any other Paxumrhw holding that ofce,18 virtually no doubt remainsabout the identity of the author to whom cod. Ambr. F 113 sup. ascribes

this commentary.19 Georgios Pachymeres is from chronological point ofview an acceptable candidate, given that he in any case lived after Michaelof Ephesus.20 Stylistic comparisons of this commentary with works whoseattribution to Pachymeres is undisputed would be useful to dispel furtherdoubts; at the moment I see no reason to reject the ascription found inM.21

ed. Hayduck can also be read in the Greek manuscripts of pseudo-Philoponus which

were hitherto known, viz. on fol. 183v

of cod. Vind. gr. Phil. 189 (W) and on fol.154v, l. 24-155v l. 8 of cod. Vat. Urb. 49 (V). The fact that Michael Hayduck whencoming by accident across a Greek manuscript of pseudo-Philoponus did not realiseits correlation with the version of Patritius shows that he did not give sufcientattention to Bonitz suggestion mentioned earlier.

17 See G. Pachymeres, Relationes historicae ed. A. Failler, Paris 1984 (= Corpusfontium historiae Byzantinae vol. XXIV/1), p. 23. On the ofce of prvtekdkow seeJ. Darrouzs, Recherches sur les ffkia de lglise Byzantine, Paris 1970, 323-32.

18 See Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit, Fasz. 9, Vienna 1989,

177-79.19 As A. Failler points out in the preface of his edition Georgios Pachymeres bears

the title of a prvtekdkow (as well as that of a dikaioflaj) in the subscriptions tomost of his works, cf. G. Pachymeres, op. cit., ed. A. Failler, p. XX, n. 4.

20 Cf. supra, n. 3 and Herbert Hunger,Die Hochsprachliche Profane Literatur derByzantiner I, Munich 1978, 34.

21 The method of interpretation applied in the commentary translated by FranciscusPatritius Venetus is, for example, similar to the one used in Pachymeres exegetical

compendium entitled Filosofa. The Byzantine writer concentrates on the sections

A NEW MANUSCRIPT OF PSEUDO-PHILOPONUS COMMENTARY 351

8/10/2019 Pseudo-Filopon # Alexandru (a New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

6/6

352 STEFAN ALEXANDRU

First and foremost, however, a critical edition of this commentary isrequired, As Professor Jean Irigoin points out to me, Dr. Jrgen Wiesnerfrom Berlin is currently working on such an edition and the newly dis-covered witness will certainly help to solve a series of difcult textual

problems.

Balliol College Oxford

which he regards as important; he reproduces many passages almost literally, para-phrases others, fits the parts together through transitions of his own making and occa-

sionally inserts his own comments (cf. Herbert Hunger, op. cit., p. 37 and e.g. cod.Paris. gr. 1930, fol. 172v-195v). In our case, of course, the script which is abbreviatedand made more accessible to the reader with such a method is not a series ofAristotelian treatises (this applies to the Philosoa) but the voluminous commentaryon the Metaphysics partly written by Alexander of Aphrodisias. It will be easy to drawstylistic comparisons as soon as a critical edition of the part of Pachymeres Phi-losophia which summarizes the Metaphysics becomes available; as I hear, MissE. Pappa has been doing research for this purpose at Hamburg under the supervision

of the Professors A. Kambylis and D. Harlnger.