The volume under review, published in the series Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina (CAGB), is a critical edition by Eleni Pappa of two Byzantine works that are based on the commentary by Michael of Ephesus (11th–12th cent.) on Aristotle’s Parts of Animals (PA).
The volume has two parts, an Introduction (Prolegomena) and the two editions. The latter are the “Redaktion” by the anonymous writer (Anonymi in Aristotelis libros De partibus animalium commentaria), which was transmitted in a 13th-century manuscript, the Codex Hierosolymitanus Sancti Sepulcri 108 (H), and the “Redaktion” by George Pachymeres (Georgii Pachymeris in Aristotelis libros De partibus animalium commentaria), which was transmitted, among other manuscripts, in a manuscript written by its author (autographon), the Codex Vaticanus gr. 261 (Y).
The volume offers the first critical edition of these two works, which have the character of “Redaktionen” (I keep the German “Redaktion” that Pappa adopts, but I will come back to this term). Pappa’s book sheds light on the Byzantine reception of Aristotle’s PA and, since the Byzantine commentary by Michael of Ephesus is the first Greek commentary on the PA, the significance of the volume is not negligible. Based on an examination of the manuscript tradition, Pappa clearly shows that the text printed as Michael’s commentary in Hayduck’s edition in the series Commentaria Aristotelem Graeca (CAG)[1] is a compilation of Michael’s actual commentary and Pachymeres’ work based on Michael’s commentary. The importance of Pappa’s research lies therefore not only in the editions of the two unknown Byzantine works, but also in what her research says about the close relationship between Michael’s commentary and these two works. For, as Pappa shows in her book, the reference text of the “Redaktionen” is Michael’s commentary on the PA, and not Aristotle’s PA.[2] I would therefore state that a challenge in the editing of the “Redaktionen” is to distinguish between them and Michael’s commentary.
In the Prolegomena, Pappa starts with the scope of the volume and briefly outlines the content and the character of the “Redaktionen,” so that she can then deal with their textual transmission. Based on examination of all available manuscripts, Pappa clarifies the relationship between Michael’s commentary and its later “Redaktionen” by Anonymous and by Pachymeres. Pappa also demonstrates that a new critical edition of the work of Michael of Ephesus is needed, as manuscripts with the later “Redaktionen” by Anonymous and by Pachymeres have been miscategorized as Michael’s commentary. In the second chapter of the Prolegomena (entitled “Georgios Pachymeres alias Michael von Ephesos in der CAG-Edition”), Pappa explains the confusion in the textual transmission of Michael’s commentary and its relationship with Pachymeres’ work and ends the chapter with a diagram that clears up the confusion.
It is helpful to begin with a peculiarity of Michael’s commentary on the PA: that it does not comment on PA II.1–4 (646a8–651a35). In Hayduck’s CAG edition we find this gap filled in with the corresponding sections of Pachymeres’ “Redaktion,” presented under the authorship of Michael. Based on further analysis, Pappa draws the conclusion that Anonymous and Pachymeres had a text of Michael’s commentary that already contained this gap, but, in addition to this, that each had a further source (it remains unclear to me, whether this source was a text with Michael’s commentary) that supplemented the missing part of Michael’s commentary (that is, PA II.1–4).
Pappa continues with a brief analysis of the character of these two “Redaktionen” and suggests that they were used as textbooks in scholarly circles. Here I should comment on the terminology with which Pappa characterizes these two works. The German term “Redaktion” refers to an editing process. Pappa adopts this term in the sense of “editions, editings” and avoids the term “commentary” in the Prolegomena. That is because these works do not count as “commentaries” on Aristotle’s PA; rather, they explain some sections of it, based on what Michael says in his commentary. Anonymous does so through brief explanatory comments (introduced as ἑρμηνεία in the codex) and scholia, either as marginalia[3] or between the lines[4] – Pappa calls this practice “Scholienkommentar.” Georgios Pachymeres does so in a flowing text, in the manner of a short commentary. But neither author addresses the Aristotelian text itself. Pachymeres organizes his text into lemmata; each lemma modifies or paraphrases Michael’s commentary on PA. Interestingly, he seems not to have given any title to this editorial activity. Pappa explains this by appeal to her assumption that this manuscript was Pachymeres’ “notebook” for personal usage. (Nevertheless, since the first folium of his autographon, the cod. Y, is lost, we cannot conclude with certainty that there was no title at all).
At the end of the Prolegomena, Pappa provides an additional, useful concordance. Here she lists the lemmata in the “Redaktionen” with citations of the relevant Aristotelian text. Since Pappa follows the edition of Louis,[5] the list must be compared to the edition of Aristotle’s PA under preparation by Peter Isépy. It is understandable that Pappa could not consider the preliminary texts of the new edition of PA; nevertheless, a comparison between the list and the new edition could be very fruitful, considering that the “Redaktionen” also transmit unknown Aristotelian readings, as Pappa argues based on the edition by Louis.
The second part of the volume contains Pappa’s edition of the “Redaktionen.” Pappa, who has edited two other works,[6] shows here her editorial experience and expertise in Greek scholia and commentaries on PA. Her editions here are authoritative. Moreover, the well-structured print layout – she enumerates the scholia and uses symbols to show whether they are in textu, marginalia, or inter lineas – allows the reader to follow the commented sections. The reader will not find a stemma codicum since, for the text written by Anonymous, Pappa adopts (when there is no reason not to do so) the text of the codex Hierosolymitanus H, dated to the 13th cent., which is a complete version and the earliest text in which the author of the reference text, Michael of Ephesus, is mentioned. On the other hand, for the text of Pachymeres she mainly follows and edits the autographon as found in the codex Vaticanus Y (end of 13th century–early 14th century).
The editorial decisions therefore mainly concern punctuation, orthography, typography, and accentuation – which are indeed challenging, considering the inconsistency in the use of diacritics and other markings found in Byzantine manuscripts – and they are less “critical,” in that there is often no decision to be made between two (or three) variants.[7] Beneath the edited text we find three apparatuses: references to Michael’s commentary; an apparatus fontium et parallelorum; and finally the critical apparatus. Transmitted with the text of Anonymous’ ἑρμηνεία are also diagrams. I would rather have seen these within the text instead of in an appendix (pp. 175–76); that is because diagrams contribute to the better understanding of a text and, provided they are written by the same hand, belong within the text.
At the end of the volume there is an index with names and manuscripts mentioned in the introduction and then three separate indices, based on the editions of the Anonymous and Pachymeres (nomen, verba notabilia, index locorum), which considerably simplify the task of finding terms.
The volume undoubtedly deserves the attention of scholars and contributes to the field of the reception of Aristotle’s PA. Pappa’s research in this field considerably clarifies the manuscript transmission of Michael’s commentary on the PA. In particular, the results of her research demand a new edition of Michael’s commentary and should be used for the forthcoming edition of Aristotle’s PA as part of the indirect tradition of the Aristotelian treatise.
Notes
[1] M. Hayduck, Michaelis Ephesii in libros De partibus animalium. CAG 22.2. Berlin 1904.
[2] Pappa notes, by contrast, that Pachymeres’ reference for the compendium of PA in the sixth book of his synopsis of the whole of Aristotelian philosophy, the so-called Φιλοσοφία, is the Aristotelian treatise itself, not Michael’s commentary on it; see the edition by E. Pappa, Georgios Pachymeres, Philosophia. Buch 6: Kommentar zu De partibus animalium des Aristoteles. Einleitung-Text-Indices. CPhMA-CAB 4/1. Athens 2008. Pappa points out that Theodoros Metochites’ paraphrase of PA (which remains unedited, but is under preparation as part of the project Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca et Byzantina) was also based on Aristotle’s PA and not on Michael’s commentary on the Aristotelian treatise.
[3] See, e.g., the explanatory remarks τὸν ἔχοντα ἀρχὰς μιᾶς φύσεως (n. 9), which refers to 693a10 τὸν δέ; περὶ μέρος τινὸς ἐπιστήμης (n. 10), which refers to 639a11–12 περὶ μόριον; οὐ γάρ τι μικρὸν διαφέρει τὸ ζητεῖν περὶ τοῦ πράγματος αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ ζητεῖν περὶ τῆς γενέσεως αὐτοῦ (n. 50), which refers to 640a12 οὐ γάρ τι μικρὸν διαφέρει τοῦτο ἐκείνου.
[4] See, e.g., the editorial remarks λείπει <τὸ> δῆλον (n. 180), λείπει τὸ φανερόν (n. 182); the explanatory remarks ἤτοι λέγειν περὶ τῶν δύο, ὕλης καὶ εἴδους (n. 177), τοῦ περιψύχεσθαι τὴν καρδίαν (n. 197), which refers to 642a31–32 ἡ ἀναπνοὴ τουδὶ χάριν; and the glossa τὸν ὁρισμόν (n. 186), which refers to 642a20 τὸν λόγον.
[5] P. Louis, Aristote, Les parties des animaux. Texte établi et traduit. Paris 1956.
[6] Besides the edition mentioned in n. 2 above, she also published Georgios Pachymeres. Scholien und Glossen zu De partibus animalium des Aristoteles (Cod. Vaticanus gr. 261). Einleitung-Text-Indices. CPhMA-CAB 4/2. Athens 2009.
[7] I use the term “variants” as a terminus technicus: following P. Maas (Textkritik. Leipzig 1950), variants in the field of textual criticism are the readings after the first split in the textual tradition, that is, the readings of the hyparchetypi, and not all the readings we find in the manuscript tradition.