A New Manuscript of Pseudo-Philoponus

Commentary on Aristotles Metaphysics

Containing a Hitherto Unknown
Ascription of the Work
STEFAN ALEXANDRU

In recent years much research has been done on the Greek Aristotelian
commentators. Numerous texts edited about a century ago in the collection
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca (CAG) have lately become available
for the rst time in an English translation and some of them are being reedited. However, certain Greek exegetical writings on Aristotelian treatises
still await their editio princeps. One such writing is a commentary on the
Metaphysics ascribed in some manuscripts to John Philoponus. 1
A lacunose Latin translation of this text was published in 1583 under
the title Ioannis Philoponi breves, sed apprime doctae et utiles expositiones in omnes XIV Aristotelis libros eos qui vocantur Metaphysici by the
Italian humanist Francesco Patrizi da Cherso also known as Franciscus
Patritius Venetus (1529-97). 2 As the Latin title emphasizes, this is an

I would like to thank the Professors Michael Frede, Richard Sorabji and Michael
Winterbottom as well as Mr. Nigel Wilson and the editors of Phronesis for valuable
comments. To Dr. Louis Jordan (University of Notre Dame, Indiana) I am much
obliged for having sent me a good micro lm of the manuscript before the re-opening
of the Ambrosian Library. Last but not least I would like to thank the University of
Oxford, Professor Francesco Del Punta from the Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, and
the Gerda Henkel Foundation for having promoted my research in Italy. Equally, I am
grateful to the Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, the Bibliotheca Ambrosiana, the sterreichische Nationalbibliothek and the Bibliothque Nationale de France for having
given me access to their collections.
1
C.A. Brandis published some excerpts from this commentary in the volume of
scholia 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 Francesco
Patrizzi) can be found in M.E. Cosenzas Biographical and Bibliographical Dictionary
of 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
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 1999

Phronesis XLIV/4

348

STEFAN ALEXANDRU

expository treatise covering all the books of the Metaphysics, unlike most
of the commentaries published under the patronage of the Berlin Academy in the collection mentioned above. In that collection the only work
furnishing each book of the Metaphysics with extensive comments is the
one entitled Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis Metaphysica commentaria which was edited by Hermann Bonitz in 1847 and by Michael
Hayduck in 1891 (CAG 1). The comments on books A, a, B, G and D were
written by Alexander of Aphrodisias (2nd-3rd cent. AD), whereas those
on books E-N are thought to be the work of the Byzantine commentator
Michael of Ephesus; 3 in its present form this commentary lacks the nal
part of book Iota.
In the comments translated by Patritius the author of books E-N of the
Greek commentary printed in CAG 1 is repeatedly referred to as the exegete ( jhghtw),4 being also called the Ephesian;5 this is a prominent
reason why John Philoponus (5th-6th cent. AD) is nowadays denied the
authorship. 6 New evidence regarding this issue will be quoted towards the
end of the article.
The hermeneutical remarks rendered into Latin by Franciscus Patritius
Venetus are to a very great extent borrowed from the commentary edited
by Bonitz and Hayduck, but they also elucidate the nal part of the tenth
book. Since pseudo-Philoponus does not omit that section of book Iota
Hermann Bonitz suspected that he had access to a manuscript of pseudoAlexander which was in some respects better than the ones which are currently
available; Bonitz therefore suggested that an editor of that commentary
with an introduction by Charles Lohr (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, 1991 = Commentaria
in 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 was
according to a document published by Robert Browning a contemporary of Anna
Comnena (b. 1083-d. after 1148), see Aristotle Transformed: the ancient commentators
and their in uence, ed. by Richard Sorabji, London 1990, 399.
4
Patritius translates jhghtw with expositor, see e.g. fol. 51v b 44 and 52r a 34, relating to pseudo-Alexander p. 703, 1-2 ed. M. Hayduck. Another example is
mentioned by Sten Ebbesen, Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotles
Sophistici 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. CAG
1, p. 458, 5-6 and CAG 22,1 p. 149, 15.
6
See e.g. Paul Moraux, Alexandre dAphrodise ex g te de la No tique dAristote,
Li ge 1942, p. 15 and Sten Ebbesen, op. cit., p. 87. For the sake of clarity it should
perhaps also be mentioned that pseudo-Philoponus did not have access to the
books E-N in the form in which they were written by Alexander of Aphrodisias
(see J. Freudenthal, S. Frnkel, Die durch Averroes erhaltenen Fragmente Alexanders
zur Metaphysik des Aristoteles, Berlin 1885, 52).

A NEW MANUSCRIPT OF PSEUDO-PHILOPONUS COMMENTARY

349

might have something to gain from some good Greek manuscripts

of pseudo-Philoponu s if he had any such manuscripts at his disposal. 7 It
should be noted, however, that pseudo-Philoponus work is not exclusively
based on the partly genuine Greek commentary of Alexander. Sporadically
the interpreter draws also upon other sources: so for instance in the rst
book of Patrizis translation one nds references to Ammonius and his
disciple Asclepius 8 who for chronological reasons cannot have been mentioned by Alexander of Aphrodisias.
Until now only two manuscripts of pseudo-Philoponus commentary
have been known to be still extant, viz. cod. Vat. Urb. gr. 49 (14th
century) and cod. Vind. gr. Phil. 189 (16th century, written by Mathusalas 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 forget
that the partly genuine Greek commentary of Alexander inter alia re ects readings of
valuable lost manuscripts of Aristotles Metaphysics; for example in 1075 b 24 the
reading ti which Ross and Jaeger have reconstructed from William of Moerbekes
Latin 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 unaltered throughout the process of transmission: so for instance the textual readings
attested by pseudo-Alexanders quotations repeatedly differ from those to which the
paraphrase 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 his
apparatus. See e.g. p. 676, l. 37-38 and p. 677, l. 12-13 ed. Hayduck, relating to 1070
a 18. This makes it plausible to assume that at some stage certain parts of that commentary (CAG 1) have been altered under the in uence of the direct manuscript tradition 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 quotations. Interestingly, pseudo-Philoponus sides in three of the four places mentioned
above, viz. in 1069 b 32, 1072 b 23 and 1070 a 18, with the paraphrases found in the
commentary ascribed to Alexander, not with the quotations, which in those instances
mirror 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 (see
Averroes, Tafsir ma bad at-Tabiat ed. M. Bouyges, Beirut 1948 (Bibliotheca Arabica
Scholasticorum, s r. arabe VII), 1448, 7-8). The vulgate readings o, keno mllon
totou and Pltvn fh have not left any trace in pseudo-Philoponus commentary
(cf. fol. 49v a 8, 51r b 46 and 49v 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 books
a, 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 the
Escorial in 1671.

350

STEFAN ALEXANDRU

referred to as M,10 also contains, in the margins of fol. 173 r-238v, an extensive part of this exegetical writing which relates to the books K-N.11
The marginalia found on fol. 1r-238v of this manuscript have traditionally
been thought to comprise the partly spurious commentary of Alexander. 12
This only partially correct view has been largely propagated by A. Martini
and D. Bassis catalogue of the Greek manuscripts preserved in the Biblioteca
Ambrosiana.13 The Inventario Ceruti does not contain any information
about the author of the scholia. 14
In fact, in the margins of fol. 173 r where book K begins the not entirely
authentic Greek commentary of Alexander extends only to line 3, ending 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 the
margins (which is easily legible on a good micro lm) starts to deviate
noticeably from pseudo-Alexanders comments. Michael Hayduck, who was
the rst to make use of M when editing the partly apocryphal commentary of Alexander realised that something unusual was going on, but failed
to notice that the text written in the margin was a Greek equivalent of
Patritius Latin version. The extracts from the marginalia of M which he
prints under the title Supplementum recensionis Laurentianae at the end
of his preface15 correspond to fol. 54r a 4-b 5 and 67r a 30-67 v b 13 of
Patrizis translation. 16
10
This is Bernardinellos siglum, see Silvio Bernardinello, Eliminatio codicum
della Meta sica 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 the
manuscript. The passage printed by Hayduck at the bottom of p. 581 in CAG 1 is
found also on fol. 105v, 18-106r, 10 of V and corresponds to fol. 37v b 13-33 of
Patrizis translation. A passage from pseudo-Philoponus commentary which is not
recorded 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 the
current inquiry.
12
Cf. e.g. Silvio Bernardinello, op. cit., 107, 1 or D. Harl nger, Zur berlieferungsgeschichte der Metaphysik, in tudes sur la M taphysique dAristote. Actes
du VIe Symposium Aristotelicum ed. by Pierre Aubenque, Paris 1979, 33, n. 63.
13
See A. Martini and D. Bassi, Catalogus codicum Graecorum Bibliothecae
Ambrosianae I, Milano 1906, 429.
14
Cf. Inventario Ceruti dei manoscritti della Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 3, Trezzano
sul 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 the Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana mentioned
in 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

A NEW MANUSCRIPT OF PSEUDO-PHILOPONUS COMMENTARY

351

Stemmatic aspects cannot be discussed here in detail, but it should be

brie y mentioned that, as a collation of the marginalia found on fol. 189 v202 v of M shows, this manuscript is independent; fortunately, for the section 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.
191 v, 1. 42 there is a small lacuna (resulting from a saut du m me au
m me) which does not occur in the other witnesses. Furthermore, on fol.
173 r one discovers on close examination of the manuscript in situ
between the last comments of pseudo-Alexander and the rst ones copied
from what is nowadays referred to as the commentary of pseudoPhiloponus 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 that
the highest ecclesiastical of ce which he held was that of a prvtekdkow17
and since the Prosopographische s Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit does not
mention any other Paxumrhw holding that of ce,18 virtually no doubt remains
about the identity of the author to whom cod. Ambr. F 113 sup. ascribes
this commentary.19 Georgios Pachymeres is from chronological point of
view an acceptable candidate, given that he in any case lived after Michael
of Ephesus. 20 Stylistic comparisons of this commentary with works whose
attribution to Pachymeres is undisputed would be useful to dispel further
doubts; at the moment I see no reason to reject the ascription found in M.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 when
coming by accident across a Greek manuscript of pseudo-Philoponus did not realise
its correlation with the version of Patritius shows that he did not give suf cient
attention to Bonitz suggestion mentioned earlier.
17
See G. Pachymeres, Relationes historicae ed. A. Failler, Paris 1984 (= Corpus
fontium historiae Byzantinae vol. XXIV/1), p. 23. On the of ce of prvtekdkow see
J. Darrouz s, 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 to
most 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 der
Byzantiner I, Munich 1978, 34.
21
The method of interpretation applied in the commentary translated by Franciscus
Patritius Venetus is, for example, similar to the one used in Pachymeres exegetical
compendium entitled Filosofa. The Byzantine writer concentrates on the sections

352

STEFAN ALEXANDRU

First and foremost, however, a critical edition of this commentary is

required, As Professor Jean Irigoin points out to me, Dr. Jrgen Wiesner
from Berlin is currently working on such an edition and the newly discovered witness will certainly help to solve a series of dif cult textual
problems.
Balliol College Oxford

which he regards as important; he reproduces many passages almost literally, paraphrases others, fits the parts together through transitions of his own making and occasionally 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 abbreviated
and made more accessible to the reader with such a method is not a series of
Aristotelian treatises (this applies to the Philoso a) but the voluminous commentary
on the Metaphysics partly written by Alexander of Aphrodisias. It will be easy to draw
stylistic comparisons as soon as a critical edition of the part of Pachymeres Philosophia which summarizes the Metaphysics becomes available; as I hear, Miss
E. Pappa has been doing research for this purpose at Hamburg under the supervision
of the Professors A. Kambylis and D. Harl nger.