Historia de la tradición textual del comentario de Alejandro de Afrodisias a los Tópicos de Aristóteles

492 Pages·2014·4.3 MB·English

TESIS DOCTORAL

Historia de la tradición textual del
comentario de Alejandro de Afrodisias
a los Tópicos de Aristóteles

Autor:
Juan Felipe González Calderón

Director:
Dr. Francisco Lisi Bereterbide
Catedrático de Filología Griega

DEPARTAMENTO DE HUMANIDADES: HISTORIA, GEOGRAFÍA Y
ARTE

Getafe, octubre de 2014
Tabla de Contenido
Abstract.............................................................................................................................. 3
Prólogo ............................................................................................................................. 11
Bibliografía abreviada ................................................................................................... 15
Abreviaturas de autores y obras .................................................................................. 19
Conspectus siglorum ..................................................................................................... 23
Introducción: justificación, objetivo y método ........................................................... 25
1. Alejandro de Afrodisias y sus in Top. fuera del ámbito de la tradición
medieval griega ...................................................................................................... 33
1.1. Alejandro y otros comentaristas antiguos de los Top. .................................. 33
1.2. Los in Top. de Alejandro en la tradición medieval árabe y latina .............. 40
1.3. Los in Top. de Alejandro tras la edición Aldina ............................................ 47
2. Catálogo de manuscritos ....................................................................................... 55
3. Filiación de los testimonios ................................................................................... 66
3.1. Hiparquetipo‖α‖y‖sus‖descendientes‖vetustissimi .......................................... 66
3.1.1. Vaticanus Graecus 270 (D) .......................................................................... 70
3.1.2. Parisinus Graecus 1843 (A) ......................................................................... 87
3.2. Hiparquetipo‖β‖y‖sus‖descendientes............................................................. 111
3.2.1. Parisinus Graecus 1917 (B) ........................................................................ 126
3.2.2. Marcianus Graecus IV.9 (Mb) ................................................................... 149
3.2.3. Laurentianus Pluteus 85.1 (F) ................................................................... 162
3.2.4. Marcianus Graecus Z 256 (Ma) ................................................................ 175
3.3. La familia del Parisinus 1874 ......................................................................... 197
3.3.1. Parisinus Graecus 1874 (P) ........................................................................ 198
3.3.2. Vaticanus Urbinas Graecus 52 (E) ........................................................... 216
3.3.3. Vaticanus Graecus 1361 (C) ...................................................................... 235
3.3.4. Laurentianus Pluteus 72.9 (G) .................................................................. 247
3.3.5. Marcianus Graecus IV. 33 (Mc) ................................................................. 256
3.3.6. Oxoniensis Collegii Novi 231 (Hb) ........................................................... 265
3.3.7. Vindobonensis philosophicus Graecus 34 (Hc) ...................................... 274
1
3.4. La recensio Neapolitana ..................................................................................... 289
3.4.1. Datación y autoría de la recensio Neapolitana ...................................... 292
3.4.2. Recensio minor ........................................................................................... 299
3.4.3. Recensio maior ............................................................................................ 309
3.4.4. Parisinus Graecus 1832 (H) ....................................................................... 343
3.4.5. Vaticanus Latinus 4564: la traducción de Musuro................................. 353
3.5. Tradición fragmentaria ................................................................................... 361
3.5.1. Vaticanus Graecus 244 (Z)......................................................................... 361
3.5.2. Parisinus Graecus 1972 (Za) y Parisinus Coislinianus 157 (Zb) ............ 376
3.5.3. Darmstadt miscellaneus Graecus 2773 (Q) ............................................. 384
3.5.4. Guelferbytanus 24 (R) y sus descendientes ............................................ 391
3.5.5. Parisinus Graecus 1845 (Ha) ...................................................................... 401
3.5.6. Otras colecciones de escolios y testimonios fragmentarios .................. 414
3.6. Tradición indirecta .......................................................................................... 421
3.6.1. León Magentino .......................................................................................... 421
3.6.2. Juan Ítalo ...................................................................................................... 431
3.6.3. Suda .............................................................................................................. 439
Conclusion:‖ Alexander’s‖ commentary‖ on‖ Topics, the archetype and its
reconstruction........................................................................................................ 451
Stemma codicum .......................................................................................................... 459
Láminas .......................................................................................................................... 461
Bibliografía .................................................................................................................... 463
Álbumes de manuscritos datados ......................................................................... 463
Catálogos .................................................................................................................. 463
Ediciones................................................................................................................... 466
Literatura especializada ......................................................................................... 468
Páginas web ............................................................................................................. 489

2
Abstract

Alexander’s‖commentary was edited more than a century ago (1891)
by the German philologist Max WALLIES, and not a single systematic
attempt to prepare a new edition of the text has been made since.
A thorough study of the textual tradition is the precondition before
embarking upon a new edition. A study such as this covers the crucial
stage of textual criticism, the recensio, which includes: (1) listing extant
manuscripts, (2) working out witness-relationships by analyzing their
common errors, (3) placing and arranging manuscripts and indirect
sources in a genealogical tree, a stemma codicum, and (4) establishing the
oldest recoverable form of the text.
Stemmatics, as concisely and accurately formulated by Paul MAAS in
his Textkritik, constitutes the methodological framework for the present
study. The abstract data obtained through stemmatics are controlled with
the help of codicology and palaeography. Furthermore, a historical
overview has been provided in order to contextualize every stage in the
tradition of the text.
A‖number‖of‖ancient‖authors‖dealt‖with‖Aristotle’s‖dialectics‖and‖not‖
only Alexander wrote a commentary on Topics. However, other exegeses
on the same treatise are only fragmentarily or indirectly preserved. One
can‖assert‖that‖Alexander’s‖was‖regarded‖as‖the canonical commentary on
Topics already in Late Antiquity, and therefore was continuously copied
until the exemplar of most of the extant tradition was produced.
Undoubtedly, several Arabic and Latin translations of at least selections of
passages existed during the Middle Ages. Besides, some excerpts of the
translation probably produced by the Western scholar James of Venice,
3
can‖ be‖ read‖ in‖ a‖ couple‖ of‖ commentaries‖ on‖ Aristotle’s‖ Sophistical
Refutations.‖Likewise,‖manuscripts‖transmitting‖Alexander’s‖in Top. were
still transcribed after the editio princeps was issued by the Aldine press
(1513). Nonetheless, as a consequence of the explosion of interest on Greek
Aristotelian commentators during the 16th century,‖ Alexander’s‖
commentary was mostly spread through a number of Latin translations
composed in a row.
As previously mentioned, four different tasks are included in the
recensio.
(1) A catalogue of twenty five manuscripts dating before the editio
princeps is provided. Some basic codicological features are detailed and
after each description an account of relevant bibliography follows. Every
manuscript listed will be placed and arranged later in the stemma codicum.
(2) Relationships among witnesses are worked out. Dealing with
exactly these relationships is also what takes up the main part of the
present investigation. Six manuscripts, which share extensive lacunae in
Book VIII and a number of significant errors, are regarded as descendants
of the same common source. Such a source was likely a direct copy of the
archetype, and hence is recognized as a variant-carrier hyparchetype.
WALLIES dated both Parisinus Graecus 1843 and Vaticanus Graecus 270 as
13th century manuscripts and considered them as vetustissimi codices. His
dating should however be rectified since both manuscripts might have
been independently and directly copied from the same hyparchetype.
Brother-manuscripts Parisinus Graecus 1917 and Laurentianus Pluteus 85.1
were dated by WALLIES as slightly earlier and, certainly, both refer to the
last quarter of the 13th century. Besides them, there is another brother-
manuscript of Parisinus 1917 and Laurentianus 85.1, even though it was
4
unknown to WALLIES, namely, Marcianus Graecus 256 dating from the
beginning of the 14th century. These three brother-manuscripts exhibit the
same extensive lacunae and the same common-errors as Parisinus 1843 and
Vaticanus 270. However, they exhibit several further common errors,
enough to recognize another non-extant exemplar, a secondary copy of the
archetype and in turn an independent witness of the same hyparchtype,
whose primary witnesses are Parisinus 1843 and Vaticanus 270. Finally,
Marcianus Graecus IV.9, dating either from the end of the 15th century or
from the beginning of the 16th, is, in general terms, an apograph of
Parisinus 1917 and, consequently, must be regarded as belonging to the
same branch of the tradition.
Seven manuscripts, which transmit the text as a running commentary
and not as a collection of excerpts or fragments, belong to the second
branch of the tradition. These seven manuscripts consist in Parisinus
Graecus 1874 and its offspring. Parisinus 1874 is also credited by WALLIES
as vetustissimus. Despite the fact that he wrongly assigns it to the 13th
century, while on palaeographic grounds it has been recently referred to
the early 12th century, Parisinus 1874 is likely the earliest direct witness of
Alexander’s‖in Top. Among codices descripti, the oldest one dating from the
last quarter of the 13th century is Vaticanus Urbinas 52. Some historical data
about Urbinas 52 can explain long signs of contamination between both
branches of the tradition, insofar as it could have been produced in the
same scholarly environment as Parisinus 1917 and Laurentinaus 85.1.
Vaticanus Graecus 1361 and Laurentianus Pluteus 72.9, dating from the last
quarter of the 15th century, are brother-manuscripts descending from
Urbinas 52. Marcianus Graecus IV.33 is in turn an almost contemporary
apograph of Vaticanus 1361, although Stammvater Parisinus 1874 has been
5
extensively used to correct Marcianus IV.33 and to restore some missing
parts in its exemplar. Oxoniensis Collegii Novi 231 and Vindobonensis
philosophicus Graecus 34 dating from the beginning of 16th century are both
descendants of Marcianus IV.33. Once again Parisinus 1874 was used to
correct Oxoniensis 231. These emendations, along with a number of
common errors, suggest that Vaticanus 1361, Marcianus IV.33 and
Oxoniensis 231 are connected in a certain way to the context in which the
Aldine edition was produced. Even, Vindobonensis 34 could have been the
Druckvorlage of Books I-IV.
One manuscript, Neapolitanus III.D.37, dating from the third quarter of
the 14th century‖ testifies‖ an‖ interpolated‖ version‖ of‖ Alexander’s‖
commentary on Topics. I follow Sten EBBESEN in calling it recensio
Neapolitana.‖Alexander’s exegesis, besides being extensively summarized
and rewritten, appears in the recensio Neapolitana mixed with materials
from two different sources. WALLIES did not realize a number of common
features between Neapolitanus III.D.37 and Parisinus 1843, which are
significant enough to assume that Parisinus 1843 served directly or
indirectly as exemplar of the recensio Neapolitana. One of the interpolating
sources‖was‖correctly‖identified‖by‖him:‖Leo‖Magentenos’‖commentary‖on‖
Topics, while the other one was not. Nevertheless, an anonymous
commentary, whose oldest extant witness is Parisinus Graecus 1845 and
which is also testified by Vaticanus Reginensis Graecus 116 and
Hierosolymitanus Sancti Sepulcri 150, will be revealed here as a second
source for interpolations. The byzantine mathematician and scholar Isaac
Argyros has been credited as author of the recensio Neapolitana. He was
capable enough to improve his sources; nonetheless, he can be claimed as
well responsible of the highly interpolated text currently edited under the
6
name‖of‖Alexander.‖One‖of‖the‖witnesses‖of‖Argyros’‖exegesis,‖Parisinus
Graecus 1832, dating from the early 16th century served as exemplar for
Marcus‖Musurus’‖Latin‖translation,‖as‖well‖as‖the‖likely‖Druckvorlage for
editing Books V-VIII in the Aldine edition. While Argyros’‖exegesis‖is of
undeniable interest from the point of view of the history of scholarship, its
value‖for‖reconstructing‖Alexander’s‖text‖is‖rather‖doubtful.‖‖
Alexander’s in Top. is transmitted either as a running commentary or
as a collection of selected passages. Manuscripts transmitting fragments or
excerpts of the text belong to the second branch of the tradition. Two of
them, Vaticanus Graecus 244 and Darmstadt Landes- und Hochschulbibliothek
2773, are independent witnesses, not descendants of Parisinus 1874. A
different non-extant variants-carrier hyparchetype, whose direct
descendants are Parisinus 1874, Vaticanus 244 and Darmstadt 2773 must
therefore be postulated. Vaticanus 244 is a fragmentary witness as old as
WALLIES’‖vetustissimi, insofar as renowned palaeographers have recently
proposed dating it back to the 12th century. Two careful and reliable
descendants were produced during the first half of the 14th century:
Parisinus Graecus 1972 and Parisinus Coislinianus 157. A slightly earlier
descendant was transcribed towards the end of the 13th century or the
beginning of the 14th, Parisinus Graecus 1845, which partially reproduces
the same excerpts as Vaticanus 244, Parisinus 1972 and Coislinianus 157, and
also contains a number of rewritten passages shared by a different set of
fragmentary witnesses. Darmstadt 2773 is a florilegium dating from the
second half of the 14th century and, in spite of some deliberated alterations
of the text, its value for reconstructing extensive passages of Books I-II of
Alexander’s‖exegesis‖must‖be‖recognized.‖Other‖manuscripts‖transmitting‖
as an isolated fragment the passage 518.3-519.5 of Book VIII are most
7
likely descendants of Parisinus 1843. Heading such a set of fragmentary
testimonies we find Guelferbytanus 24 Gudianus Graecus, dating from the
12th century, and Monacensis Graecus 222 dating from the last quarter of 13th
century, Laurentianus Pluteus 72.18, dating from the first half of the 15th
century, and Vaticanus Graecus 2173 dating from the last quarter of the
same 15th century can be mentioned among its descendants.
Alexander’s‖ commentary‖ on‖ Topics is also indirectly transmitted.
Three indirect sources thereto are worth considering: Leo‖Magentenos’‖
commentary on Topics, John‖Italos‘‖Paraphrase of‖Alexander’s‖commentary‖
and, finally, the Suda. Leo Magentenos likely wrote his commentaries on
Aristotle’s‖logical‖treatises‖at‖a‖certain‖time‖between‖1150‖and‖1250.‖His‖
commentary on Topics does not seem to be of great utility to reconstruct
Alexander’s‖text;‖however,‖his‖dependence‖on‖Alexander‖became‖evident‖
through careful analysis of his prooemion. John Italos is an important figure
for the history of Byzantine philosophy, whose writings can be dated to
the second half of the 11th century. In contrast to Magentenos, Italos can be
used for the constitutio textus, insofar as he closely follows Alexander
while‖ writing‖ what‖ he‖ regarded‖ simply‖ as‖ a‖ synopsis‖ of‖ Alexander’s‖
exegesis. Finally, the Suda was likely written during the second half of the
10th century and, along with some previous lexicographical and
grammatical‖works,‖a‖direct‖witness‖of‖Alexander’s‖commentary‖on‖Topics
was undoubtedly available to his compilers. Although the research about
the quotations of Alexander’s‖commentary on Topics in the Suda cannot be
considered complete, this indirect source is provisionally regarded
representing a different recensio from the archetype of our medieval
manuscripts.

8
(3) Some of the readings listed by WALLIES as errors already present in
the archetype are scrutinized in order to verify whether or not they can be
properly considered errors. Some speculations about how the archetype of
the tradition could have been composed are also proposed. Instructions to
reconstruct the oldest recoverable form of the text from extant witnesses,
as well as cautions to be kept in mind, are provided.
(4) Even if not historically accurate, a unified stemma codicum is
proposed. Every direct and indirect witness of the text, whose
relationships have been established, is placed in the stemma. A
chronological line is given alongside this and, whenever possible, lines of
interpolation and contamination are drawn. Undoubtedly, more research
remains to be done to either confirm or reject the stemma, and to clarify
some of the remaining obscure corners in the tradition.

9