VI

PREFACE

LXXII 5, almost contemporary with the Parisian P, and the Reginensis 116 (14th century) seem to belong here, insofar as can be judged from the excerpts.

A middle position between these two classes seems to be held by the 14th-15th century Vatican 1021 (Q), which, where the manuscripts of the other class fail, has preserved the truth as often as it has deviated from the true record of the others. Finally, the Ottobonianus 169 (15th century) acts sometimes with this one, sometimes with the books of the common class.

It is fortunate that where the other class fails, starting from page 119, the so-called paraphrase of Themistius (S) begins, conflated from the commentaries of Alexander and Philoponus. 1 For although many things are changed and compressed to the whim of the paraphraser, and many things are corrupted by the scribes of the Parisian 2054 (14th-15th century), in which alone the paraphrase is preserved, and the other intervening codices, nevertheless the paraphrase contributes somewhat to both correcting and judging the record of our manuscripts. Nor does it seem that a greater similarity exists between the paraphrase codex and any of our others, except that it perhaps agrees slightly more often with U than with the rest.

The second book of the commentary is transmitted only by the manuscripts of the common class, for even the Parisian 2062 (14th century), which is added here, must be assigned to that class. But one must be careful not to attribute to the scribes and correct what I suspect may have been admitted through the fault of the commentator himself. I could not persuade myself that this is always Philoponus; rather, I wonder at Brandis, 2 who, although he had judged correctly in general about the four later books of the commentary of Alexander on the Topics, did not perceive the difference between the first and second books of the Philoponean commentary. For the brevity itself of the commentary should have aroused suspicion, as it barely fills a fourth part of this interpretation, even though the second book of the Prior Analytics is about a third shorter than the first and contains no fewer things to be interpreted. Furthermore, not only does the second book differ greatly from the first in usage of language 3, but also the entire method of interpretation sometimes appears to be significantly inferior and more obscure, descending to the likeness of marginal notes. 4 For which reasons I suspect a similar relationship exists between books I and II of this commentary as between the earlier and later four books of the commentary of Alexander on the Topics.

1) Edited by me in 1884. vol. XXIII 3.
2) Über die griech. Ausleger des Aristotel. Organons. Abhandl. der k. pr. Akad. d. W. z. Berl. 1833 p. 290.
3) Cf. p. 448, 17-18 krybein to hide, krybomen we hide; p. 481, 25-26 touto ginetai to proton schema labontes ton meson this becomes the first figure taking the middle [term]; and similarly p. 435, 17-18; 466, 4; 479, 8, 21.
4) The fact that in Vatican 209 (Paris 1846, Vatican 1018) the scholia of the second book signed with Philoponus's name do not agree with the rest of the codices (except for one) is, in my opinion, of no moment; for even things completely alien are attributed to Ammonius, cf. vol. IV 6 p. XII—XIV.