Commentary on the First Three Books of Aristotle's Physics

nice in the year MDLVIII edited by Hieronymus Scottus contains the version of Dorotheus corrected in the earlier pages, it seems, by Ioannes Baptista Rasarius, a physician of Novara; finally, the third (γ) edited at Venice in the year MDLXIX by Vincentius Valgrisius reports a new interpretation by Rasarius. Hoffmann will give more in his Bibliographic Lexicon: but neither Hoffmann nor others explain by what pact at last, in the preface to γ, written indeed at "Venice, on the Kalends of July, MDLXIX", Rasarius does not even mention by a word the edition of the year MDLVIII. For he writes:

When I had translated into the Latin language the explanation of this (sc. Philoponus) on the four prior books ten years ago, I held myself back until now, so as not to bring into the open what a certain friend of mine had filled me with great hope, namely that he would send me the remaining four, which do not exist. But since I see that this is becoming further off than that anything should be expected beyond it, I have been forced, by the urging of many, to bring this part to light etc.

You might conjecture that Rasarius' name was falsely prefixed to copy β by the printer; but there is a letter of Rasarius himself ("Venice, the day before the Kalends of September, MDLVII") to Franciscus Badoarius the senator, where both many other reproaches against Dorotheus and these things are read:

In these months in which it is permitted for us to be free from public duty while the heat breaks, I have decided to read those books of Aristotle . . . . . for since very many had already carried to me that those commentaries, which John the Grammarian had composed on the first four books, had been translated in such a way that few things could be understood by the studious, I thought I should take up the labor, useful in my own opinion for those ignorant of the Greek language, and not necessary for myself, to join them with the Greek, and as far as it could be done by me, to correct them, which thing I indeed diligently did etc.

Let others see therefore how these things should be explained; for my part, I shall add specimens of the three copies, from which it will be clear how impudently it is said in copy β that the commentaries of Philoponus were restored "to the faith of the Greek codices" (Dorotheus had honestly said that he had translated "only from the common copies"), and innumerable errors were removed on individual pages, "so that now it seems clearly another interpretation."

Since there are two parts of Philosophy in Aristotle, one contemplative and speculative, the other active, Aristotle applied the highest study especially to the contemplative. For by this we know the nature of things, of which they consist. Again, since the contemplative is cut into three parts, namely into natural discipline and the science of divine things, and mathematics, Aristotle was mostly engaged in natural discipline, both because it is more related to our mind and nature, and also because many before Aristotle labored greatly in theology, that is, the knowledge of divine things, and mathematics, who did not so much keep vigil over the science of nature.

Since there are two parts of Philosophy according to the opinion of Aristotle, one contemplative, the other active, Aristotle applied the highest study especially to the contemplative. For by this we know the nature of those things which are, because they are. But since the contemplative is cut into three parts, into natural discipline and the science of divine things, and mathematics, Aristotle was mostly engaged in natural discipline, both because it is more related to our nature, and also because many before Aristotle labored greatly in the knowledge of divine things and mathematics, who did not so much keep vigil over the science of nature.