SUPPLEMENT TO THE PREFACE

p. 1,2 "scholia and" original: σχόλια καὶ as in G.

p. 119,1—120,4 (folio 184 verso). 1 "By the same author, on the first of the Prior Analytics, from the lectures of Ammonius, son of Hermeias. The second of those in three parts" inscribed. || 8 "but is able" original: ἀλλὰ δύναται in the margin: "but those things being able" original: δυνάμενα δὲ in the text || "neither belongs to" || 9 "belongs to" || 10 "second" and "third" are omitted || 12 after "simply" add "and more universally" || 13 the second "the" is omitted || "of the" omitted || 17 "belonging to" || 120,1 "and those that are possible."

p. 386,1—389,13 (folio 198 verso). 1 after "of the good" add "he says" || 387,1 before "of John" add "beginning of the second book" || 5 after "becomes" add "every" || 7 "to say," omitting "he says" || 11 "matters" or materials; original: ὕλαι || 12 "we have demonstrated" || 13 "and" omitted || 16 after "according to" add "the" || 388,8 "partially" || 10 the first "and" is omitted || 12 "it is not" || 16 lemma A lemma is a short passage from the original text (Aristotle) used as a heading for the commentary that follows. is omitted || 20 "it is, so that no one might say" || 22 "for" omitted || 24 the first "the"] "is" || 25 and 26 "the—to the" || 389,1 "so that this one is different from the one before. How" || 2 "whole" || 4—6 "likewise—to the A" placed after line 6 "syllogisms" || 6 "therefore" omitted.

p. 432,25—433,7 (folio 199 recto). 25 "things" || "all" omitted || 433,1 "the minor" referring to the minor premise in logic || 2 "another"] "if it should be" || 5 "it should be."

p. 452,31—454,24 (folio 200 verso). 31 "not" placed before the second "to all" || 32 "or the"—453,1 "to the C" omitted || 2 "from those" || 5 "to the" omitted || 6 "and" omitted || "let it be"—7 "of the same"] "of the" || 10 "concerning" || 16 "to no C" (corrected) || 19 "concerning" || 21 "to be turned" or converted || 23 "according to"] "and" || 24 "concerning" || 25 "converting" || 26 "and" omitted || 454,3 "to the A—to the B" || 4 "they make" || 5 "for" omitted || 7 "falling" || 11 "since the" begins on folio 201 recto || 12 "the B" || 13 "without guile" or straightforwardly; original: ἀδόλως || 14 "but" omitted || 15 "the" (before B) corrected from "to the" || "to the"] the 'o' is written over an erasure || 16 "it appears that" [written twice] || "around the" || 20 "it should be"] "toward" || 22 "the."

p. 483,23 (folio 202 recto) after "that" add "not" || 24 "of this demonstrative proofs" thus written || 484,1 "if anyone gives" omitted || after "at the same time" add "on the one hand" || "to partake" || 2 after "as many as" add "at least" || 3 "it contributes."

p. 485,6 "perhaps" || 7 "greater" || "to the minor" || 8 "perhaps" || 11 the third "the" is omitted.

U MARCIANUS 225 [Zanetti p. 118] formerly belonging to Cardinal Bessarion, a paper manuscript of 467 folios, written in the 14th century (not the 12th, as the catalog claims). After the commentaries of Ammonius on Porphyry's Five Terms (cf. volume IV part 3, page XIII) and Simplicius on the Categories, beginning at folio 214 recto, where it bears the title in red ink: John Philoponus of Alexandria, Scholia on the Mixtures Referring to the "mixtures" of modal premises (necessity, possibility) in syllogisms. of Aristotle, from the lectures original: ἀπὸ φωνῆς, literally "from the voice." of Ammonius, son of Hermeias. Up to folio 340 verso, it contains the commentary of Philoponus from page 29b, line 29 (p. 119,1), which is why it is described in the catalog as being mutilated missing pages at the beginning. Folios 240 recto – 286 recto (p. 186,26 – 314,24) and folios 311 recto – 340 verso (p. 387,1 – 485,14) were collated by me in Venice.

On folio 312 verso, after "let me take the E" (p. 391,22) it adds, "Otherwise: and likewise in the case of the other figures logical figures: up to the point 'or also in these.' He says in the same way as happens in the second and third figure of the particular syllogisms. For in these cases as well, it is not possible to form a syllogism of the major term for those things falling under the minor The 'rasura' noted in the text indicates a second hand corrected the manuscript here.. For the major premise becomes particular in the first figure. However, there is a syllogism of the major term also for those falling under the middle term. For whenever the major premise is universal and negative, it is in the second and third figures. And in the second figure it is convertible, but in the third it is not. But when it is universal and affirmative, it produces a syllogism in the third figure and only there, and for those falling under the middle term. Except, he says, it was not through the syllogism—the one that concludes that the major term belongs or does not belong to those under the minor—or even in the universal syllogisms in the second and third figure, that the major term was taken as belonging or not belonging to those under the middle term in an indemonstrable way. And it was not through a syllogism. For those under the minor term, however, it is through a syllogism. Thus it is clear from this that either it is not possible even in the universal syllogism to conclude the major term for those under the middle, as we showed also in the case of the particular syllogism, or if it is possible in those, it must necessarily be the same in these as well."

On folio 313 verso below the text (after page 394,18 "such as the A to every") "Otherwise on the same point: A statement is entirely false whose contrary is true. For example, 'Every human is winged' is entirely false because its contrary is true."