CEU eTD Collection ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY:STRUCTURE,INTENTION, SOPHONIAS THE PHILOSOPHER. A PREFACE OF AN OF APREFACE THEPHILOSOPHER. SOPHONIAS MA Thesis in Medieval Studies in Medieval Thesis MA Central Central University European AND AUDIENCE Divna Manolova Divna May 2008 Budapest CEU eTD Collection ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY:STRUCTURE,INTENTION, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements SOPHONIAS THE PHILOSOPHER. A PREFACE OF AN OF APREFACE THEPHILOSOPHER. SOPHONIAS Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies Chair, Examination Committee Examination Chair, AND AUDIENCE Thesis Supervisor Divna Manolova Divna (Bulgaria) May 2008 Examiner Examiner Budapest by CEU eTD Collection ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY:STRUCTURE,INTENTION, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements SOPHONIAS THE PHILOSOPHER. A PREFACE OF AN OF APREFACE THEPHILOSOPHER. SOPHONIAS Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies AND AUDIENCE External Examiner Divna Manolova Divna (Bulgaria) May 2008 Budapest by CEU eTD Collection ARISTOTELIAN COMMENTARY:STRUCTURE,INTENTION, Central European University, Budapest, in partial fulfillment of the requirements SOPHONIAS THE PHILOSOPHER. A PREFACE OF AN OF APREFACE THEPHILOSOPHER. SOPHONIAS Accepted in conformance with the standards of the CEU Thesis submitted to the Department of Medieval Studies, ______of the Master of Arts degree in Medieval Studies AND AUDIENCE External Supervisor Divna Manolova Divna (Bulgaria) May 2008 Budapest by CEU eTD Collection Budapest, 26 May Budapest, 2008 forinstitution of an higher education academic degree. I alsodeclare thatno part of the hasthesis in beensubmitted form this to any other of andothers, no part of thesisthe infringes onany person’s orinstitution’s copyright. nounidentifiedbibliography. use Ideclare illegitimate that was made and work the of on based my as and innotes information properly credited research and only such external work, own my exclusively is thesis present the that herewith declare Studies I, theundersigned, Divna Manolova , candidate forcandidate , in MA the degree Medieval ______Signature CEU eTD Collection GREEK 64 – ENGLISH INDEX, SOPHONIAS’ ...... PREFACE 61 ...... APPENDIX II 57 APPENDIX I...... 54 ...... BIBLIOGRAPHY 52 CONCLUSIONS...... 39 III. THE PREFACE. COMPARATIVE ...... ANALYSIS OMNAIS...... 14 ...... COMMENTARIES PREFACE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ARISTOTELIAN ANDITS CONTEXTUALIZATION OFSOPHONIAS’ PARAPHRASIS II. I. LIFE, 4 POLITICAL AND ...... SCHOLARLY ACTIVITY 1 INTRODUCTION...... LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... ii hmsis rfc ...... 45 ...... ’ preface Aquinas, Thomas A model of a preface. 40 General framework...... Audience 33 and purposes of the commentary...... Sophonias’ preface within the In Aristotelis Categorias Prefaces Sophonias’ to paraphrases:other 17 Commentary: ...... a definition 12 Works, editions, ...... translations Educational 11 background...... 10 Negotiations with ...... Frederick III 8 The embassy...... 7 Sophonias’ Conversion...... The correspondence with 7 Simon of Constantinople...... A prosopographical 4 reconstruction...... The dating of the of dating The Description 30 of Sophonias’ method...... ‘Innovation’ Limitations and rules of both exegesis 27 and paraphrasis...... Categorization of the previous commentators according 23 to their . methodology Lectio Prima De AnimaParaphrasis ...... 21 ...... TABLE OFCONTENTS TABLE De AnimaParaphrasis ...... 42 ...... In Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos ...... 37 ...... 23 ...... and i CEU eTD Collection coffee-breaks, the midday midday their andfor friendship. the coffee-breaks, coffee-breaks, midnight for the Goran, Luka,andÜnige– TheFamily:thank Edina,Seda, Özden, to Somfai for their suggestionsencouragement they have said.Then, Iwouldlike to thank toOleg Popov and Anna and the attention they revisionstheir during numerous the of patience for andthis text all little the words of have paid to my work. appreciation.Finally, First, let me thank to my supervisors György I Geréby and Niels Gaul for support of friendsseveral towhom expressI wouldlike my to and gratitude It would not be possible to complete this study without the care and the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii CEU eTD Collection An.Post UU Uppsala,Universitetsbibliotek SE REB PLP Laurenziana Medicea Biblioteca Laur. Florence, DA Cat CAG BAV Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Categoriae Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca De Anima Analytica Posteriora Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit Revue des Études Études Byzantines Revue des Sophistici Elenchi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iii CEU eTD Collection paraphrasis of ’s treatise Aristotle’s of paraphrasis analysis of Sophonias’ preface of his paraphrasis of subsequentthe discussion and of purpose audience of text. the of historical The contextualization Sophonias’ paraphrasis. willresult be employed in availableinformation, biographical butalso to providenecessary the basis for a of an the presentoverview is only to not of chapter this objective The and activities. prosopographical based reconstruction on extantthe evidence aboutSophonias’ life preface. itsand an text between exegetical and relation the essenceof the commentary the tradition Aristotelianof commentary. Iwill also address several general such as place in wholethe corpus of Sophonias’ paraphrases, andits contribution to the puzzling questions concerning the purpose, audience, andintention of treatise,the its analysisthe of introductorythis part of Sophonias’ paraphrasis I will elucidate method. This preface andits various constitute aspects core the of this study. Through approaches of previous followed commentators by a description of Sophonias’ own a the on discussion presents which preface byamethodological accompanied distinguish relation its the otherparaphrases by written to Sophonias regarding the will I Secondly, tradition. commentary in the itself places paraphrasis Sophonias’ In aspects intoaccount. to do order Iwillthat, discuss first in way the which aspects of takingconsidered, both Byzantine and history the of scholarship textual on the preface, I will establish the general textual framework in which it needs to be At the end of the thirteenth century Sophonias the Philosopher wrote a wrote Philosopher the Sophonias century thirteenth the of end the At In the second chapter I will present the main part of my research, namely, an a presents firstThe one main sections. three study comprises present The INTRODUCTION De Anima []. This exegetical work is work exegetical This Soul]. the [On De Anima . Before focusing only 1 CEU eTD Collection paraphrasis of paraphrasis index of Sophonias’ terminology complements these. isthirdwith chapter illustrated helpthe of the intable Appendix AGreek-English II. in the presented comparison the Secondly, argumentation. relevant the of following the facilitate to in order I Appendix in preface Sophonias’ of translation English commenting, and terminology. Thefinal section of the study will present conclusions. based on three criteria – relation to the previous tradition, methodology of prefaces are three between the comparison and juxtaposition The same category. tradition, inquiry herethe group addresses arestricted of texts which all belong tothe placedprevious chapter Sophonias’ preface in general scheme of commentary the the of commentaries todifferent prefaces attached of three acomparative analysis presents on paraphrasis following the and preface the of audience and intention probable the for hypothesis regarding Finally, subchapter. allseparate in a works Aristotle’s on the commenting of method the of conclusions reachedcase), Iwill in its Sophonias’“innovation” mainfeatures detail.address discuss Iwill at this stage individualthe framework to (from general the procedure organized hierarchically of the inquiry, I will propose parts of same distinct itsthe addressthese audience. treatise a way the and exposition main the and preface the between interrelation the explore will I analysis of focus the narrowing by Finally, prefaces. their of characteristics De Anima Hereafter I will use “Sophonias’ preface” to indicate Sophonias’ preface of the of preface Sophonias’ indicate to preface” “Sophonias’ will I use Hereafter inquiry. accompany Several appendices this the onehand,Iprovide One afull The third section of inquiry The third differently. Sophonias’ this preface It approaches section of After havingestablishedthe theoretical contextof prefacethrough thisthe , composed by Aquinas, Thomas Sophonias, and While Themistius. the De Anima De Anima unless indicated differently in the footnotes. In the same way . 2 CEU eTD Collection differently. Finally, Aristotle’s treatise “Sophonias’ paraphrasis” will tohisrefer paraphrasis of De Anima will be hereafter abbreviated as abbreviated will behereafter De Anima , unless specified DA . 3 CEU eTD Collection 3 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 212 (hereafter: Laiou, background asthe one of Sophoniasif the not philosopher, same.the Charlessupportto thehypothesis of a Valois seemto similarof biographical of some although details has identified his letter beenThe latter still not satisfactorily of his and letter probabilitythe hisof identification with Sophonias. ambassador the and monk content mentions a the discusses Sophronias Byzantinecertain supporters, letters between exchange of 1307 and 1310between Charles of Valois andhis the of Angelov than account detailed more much a gives who Laiou, Angeliki in discussed literature and secondary the mostbe perhapsthe difficult proved.to monk Sophronios presented recently (2007) byDimiter Angelov is the one least To my knowledge, the possible identification Sophoniasof and ambassador the the is unknown. name whose associate another and Limpidaris, Constantine Constantine, Valois (1270—1325)togetherwith latter’sJohn Monomachos,the brother – acertain Sophronios II Andronikos rule of the against conspirator was a there Finally, treatises. Aristotle’s Montferrat. Second, Sophonias the commentator wrote several paraphrases of family of house the and Byzantine imperial between the in negotiations the ambassadorAndronikos of IIPalaiologos (r.1282—1328)named part Sophonias took First, an century, havebeen of fourteenth of suggested. the the thirteenth/beginning nameSophronias/Sophronios),the wholived atthe end (or Sophonias of andworked 2 Cambridge University Press, 2007), 131(hereafter: Angelov, 1 Ibid., 215-216. AngelikiE.Laiou, DimiterAngelov, Three different identifications for Three different historical which the figure we know under I. LIFE, POLITICAL ANDSCHOLARLYACTIVITY I. LIFE, POLITICAL Imperial Ideology and Political Thought in Byzantium (1204-1330) Constantinople and the Latins: the Foreign Policy of Andronicus II, 1282-1328 1 who conducted a secret correspondence with Charles of Charles with correspondence secret a conducted who A prosopographical reconstruction Imperial Ideology Constantinople and the Latins ). (Cambridge: ). 4 3 2 CEU eTD Collection 9 165-174 (hereafter: Congourdeau: “Frère SimonLe Constantinopolitain”). 8 7 6 5 54. footnote 4 Chales of Chales of in Valois France, “as if he wereaccustomed tosuch trips.” meeting is thepossibility concerning of of 1294 letter theremarkof author the from ambassador Byzantine the Sophonias with Sophronias of identification plausible the for argument Final two. other the of trustworthiness the of guarantee of kind letter functionedto theValois contrary, his cause. Onthe asa confirm his dedication and himself introduce to have not did he them unlike Limpidaris; and Monomachos monastic style.” monastic the and other two, soundsless sincere; this wasprobably resultthe of his florid it “wasof morethose flattering than and of Valois respectively, Catherine Courtenay letters of John Monomachos and Constantine Limpidaris addressed to Charles of same name. the of version monastic the and secular the be might two these that or discreteness, of names could be causedbyreasons inthe difference same person the and that this evidence Laiou concludesthat Sophonias Sophroniasand mighthave been the Filio of Simon of Constantinople (ca.1235—ca. 1325)and Sophonias, based on analysisthe Ibid., footnote 22. footnote Ibid., Ibid. Ibid., 216. Ibid., 215. Forthe publication of thiscollectionof letters, see Laiou, M.-H. Congourdeau, “Frère Simon Le Constantinopolitain, O.P. (1235?-1325 ?),” Tractatus de Objectionibus Graecorum contra Processionem Spiritus Sancti a 9 letter to ofthe author Sophonias the was suggests thepossibility that also According to Laiou’s interpretation of Sophronias’ letter Marie-Hélène Congourdeau, Marie-Hélène 7 However, it is hard to prove or disprove this hypothesis. 5 In addition Sophronias wrote in a much more familiar manner than manner familiar more much ina wrote Sophronias addition In 8 between correspondence the discussing while Constantinople and the Latins 4 , compared to the 6 On the basis of REB 45 (1987): , 213, 5 CEU eTD Collection Hayduck, “Preface.”) The problem of dating the time of composition of the composition of time the of dating problem The “Preface.”) Hayduck, Sophonias,” in Sophonias,” 13 Aristotle’s “Sophistici Elenchi” Commentary”); Angelov, Néoplatonismephilosophie et médiévale “Note sur les Dominicains;” Henry J. Blumenthal, J. Henry Dominicains;” les sur “Note Dominicains de Constantinople au début du 14e siècle.” 12 11 Congourdeau gives different dating to the same letter: 1306 1307.or negotiations with Frederick III (1296—1337), and conversionCatholicism. later (1296—1337), the III to Frederick negotiations with Constantinople, theembassy O.P., Italy between to 1294—1296, theprobable Sophonias’ biography: andfollowing the dispute correspondence with of Simon in events principal several can differentiate one period, early Palaeologan the on any case, Hayduck’s dating of manuscriptthe urgently needs beto revisited. Charles of inValois written 1310, 10 attributed to him, and thatresearch itstill looks probable thatSophonias composed all paraphrases normally the he did so towards the endmuchfound support sofar and asSten Ebbesen pointed out “at present the ofstage of the thirteenth century.” Anima paraphrasis Hayduck in the prefacebased ofon histhe datingcritical of literature. the edition manuscripts of of theAristotle paraphrases ascribed are to almosthim. Michael unanimouslyRomans.” identified as the same person in the secondary the samethe was sentwho person toApuliain 1294. be far tooearly from was mainly written based, handto his the edition of critical See Congourdeau:“Frère Simon Le Constantinopolitain:” M.-H. 168; Congourdeau “Note surles Congourdeau: “Frère SimonLe Constantinopolitain:” 169. In “Note sur les Dominicains de Constantinople au début du 14e siècle,” 14e du début au Constantinople de Dominicains les sur “Note In Michael Hayduck, “Preface to “Preface Hayduck, Michael Based on the identification accepted by the majority of scholarsthe by working majority of accepted the identification Based on the On the hand,Sophoniasother the ambassador and commentatorthe of 12 11 identificationregardingthisraised Somecertain doubts have scholars CAG 23, 1, ed. Michael Hayduck (Berlin: Berolini, 1883), v, footnote 2 (Hereafter: claims that the codex A, Florence, Laur. MS Gr 7. 35 Imperial Ideology Imperial 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 333 (hereafter: Ebbesen, (hereafter: 333 1981), Brill, 1 (Leiden: Sophoniae in libros Aristotelis De Anima paraphrasis 10 in which the latter is addressed as “emperor of the , 6 (1997): 309 (hereafter: Blumenthal:“Sophonias’ 131; Sten Ebbesen, Sten 131; “Sophonias’ Commentary onAristotle’s REB Sophoniae inlibros Aristotelis De 45(1987): 180 (hereafter: Congourdeau: 13 However, his opinion has not Commentators and Commentaries on De AnimaParaphrasis REB 45 (1987): 175-181, Commentators De Anima on which ). 14 , by In ,” is 6 CEU eTD Collection 21 20 19 18 17 has been preserved, andstill though edited,not ithas been by discussed Marie-Hélène 1949), 246 (hereafter: Tatakis, (hereafter: Trapp, Walther, and Beyer, and Walther, Trapp, (hereafter: (Vienna: Verlag derÖsterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1976-1983), entry 26424 of Constantinople (ca.1235—ca.1325). 16 15 homeland. as state forinof the Empiremustbe affairs preoccupation interpreted his the the the This being so, the particular concern of that monkthe speaksAsia Minorabout where Turks the were mostly in active 1307. Sophroniaslogical more much is it that forargues she the situationHowever, whole. a as in Byzantium in this conditions region of they they brought to“cities, forts, andlands.” Charles “barbarians”letter whiletheinvasion andthedestruction of to the describing here.introduced stated not explicitly, Although by informationis this suggested the beAsia he can Minor camefrom Angeliki that Laiou by reached conclusion the identical with Sophronios or Sophronias, the monk who wrote to Charles of Valois, evidencedirect for hisprovenance. If accepts one figure the that Sophonias of is contemporary andfriend of Joseph Philosopherthe (ca. 1280—1330). livedmonk, who therule during Andronikos IIPalaiologos. of Emperor Hewas a 14 discipline. advanced avery not still discussed inChapter II. One has to take in consideration that in the late 1800s Greek palaeography was Cf. Vatican City, BAV MS Gr 1104, f.23 See also Laiou, Seealso Ibid., 216. Laiou, above. discussion Seethe Ibid. See also Basile Tatakis, Beyer, Hans-Veit and Walther, Rainer Trapp, Erich Ebbesen, As was mentioned above, Sophonias corresponded with the Dominican Simon Sophonias (before1294—1351) Constantinople and the Latins Commentators 19 Constantinople and theLatins The correspondence with Simon ofConstantinople. Simon The correspondencewith , 333. La Philosophie Byzantine La Philosophie Byzantine Sophonias’ Conversion Prosopographisches Lexikon , 215. - 46v. , 51 and 126; Hayduck, “Preface,” v, footnote 2. 15 18 20 Laiou points out that this may refer to the to refer may this that out points Laiou Sophonias to thatSimonwrote A letter was a Byzantine scholar and a learned a and scholar Byzantine a was Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit ). , (Paris: Presses Universitaires France, de Universitaires Presses , (Paris: ). 16 There is no is There 21 17 7 CEU eTD Collection Doukas Doukas Angelos Komnenos Palaiologos (r. 1294—1320) with Charles’ niece 1309) in negotiateNaples, to amarriage between Andronikos’ son, Michael IX Andronikos II,isAndronikos identical commentator with Sophonias, on Aristotle. of ambassador Simon’s Sophonias, argues addressee, Congourdeau that Therefore, useof extensive Aristotle, whome he apply not did in rest of the his correspondence. Simon made text in that mentions particular this in letter she detail, of the content the on position Latin the regarding as inthan 1305, Simon letter the asa addresses Sophonias friend tobeconvinced converted converted to Catholicism by 1305. after waswritten 1294. letter the in negotiations with future pope the Rome. Congourdeau points out that this dispute wasused by as Sophonias preparation for his Euripos, where in monastery Simon Dominican in the had Sophonias and Simon resided discussion a theological from the age of twenty-six to the age of sixty-four. Congourdeau inCongourdeau her brief study on Simon and hiscorrespondence. 28 I base the information introduced on here Congourdeau, “Note sur lesDominicains,” 176-178. faith. Catholic the to converted already had Sophonias events ofthese time the by Therefore, faith. true the to Greeks conversion ofthe his of behalf because on persecution his by provoked Sophonias, monk, Greek certain ofa complaints the mentions he There 1307. and 1305 between Constantinople in events the describes Toulousain The death. Planoudes’ of Maximos mention onthe based is conclusion This Pera. in 1307 that it later written have must Gaillac that argues Congourdeau UU 55. MS Uppsala, the in preserved tract 27 26 25 24 23 Dominicains:” 175-181. 22 Congourdeau, “Note sur les Dominicains,” 180 and footnote 25. footnote and 180 Dominicains,” les sur “Note Congourdeau, Sophonias’ conversion isattested by Toulousainthe preacher Guillaume Bernard de Gaillac in his Ibid. Ibid., 181. 180. Dominicains:” les sur “Note Congourdeau, Congourdeau, “Frère SimonLe Constantinopolitain:” 166. les “NotesurConstantinopolitain:” idem,Le“Frère andCongourdeau, Simon165-174; In 1294Sophoniasto Italy wassent Charles court the to of IId’Anjou (1254— 25 At the same time, it must have been written earlier itmusthave beenwritten sameAt time, the 27 The embassy The filioque discussthe not does AlthoughCongourdeau 24 26 Therefore, as Congourdeau concludes, Congourdeau as Therefore, and it is known that Sophonias had Sophonias that known is it and 22 The letter recalls letter The 28 23 8 CEU eTD Collection 33 θατέρῳ τῶν ἀξιούντων τὰ τοῦ κήδους συστήσασθαι καὶ ἄλλως τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ πάπα τῆς Ῥώμης ὑπειδόμενος ὑπερηφανίαν ἐκ τοῦ ἐν ἐκ τοῦ τῇ Κύπρῳ ῥηγὸς ἔνθενδὲ ἐξἈρμενίων καὶ μέγιστον γίνεσθαι οὐχὶ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον γράμμασιν ἱκανοῦτο τοῖς ἐκ βασιλέως διαπρεσβεύσεσθαι εοόαο Σοφονίαν ἱερομόναχον 32 31 30 Bekker, 2, Bekker, Pachymeres, negotiations could be concluded.” thepapacy with before marriage the for themselves toreconcile Byzantines the need Aragon Aragon Frenchand the court. strongly desired not by only Andronikos II,but also from behalf housethe of of was Catherine of Courtenay dowry the of empire.Nevertheless, restored the towards the negotiations would have meant a Byzantine triumph against the Western claims ἱστορίαι hisintentions. of for theaccomplishment obstacle formed another address the pope as according totheprotocol. Namely, “in suchletter itwould‘most have beennecessary to Holy,’ whichletter of toavoid writing an official inthe order Andronikos of emissary as apersonal would have been the greatest crime in the Catherine of Courtenay (1274—1307/8). 29 had the inherited title of empress titular of Constantinople. as she maneuver, asadiplomatic perceived was CatherineCourtenay of to marriage which II Andronikos started in 1288, when Michael IX waseleven years old. The (1294—1303)in VIII part ofthemarriage embassy Rome. This was negotiations, Laiou, Pachymeres, Ibid. Laiou, George Pachymeres, George . Sophonias’ embassy was by Pachymeresdescribed in George his 32 Constantinople and the Latins Constantinople and the Latins According toLaiou “the embassy Sophonias pointsof up once again the Historiae Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae Historiae . , ὡς δ ὡς ὡς τοῖς ἀσφαλέσι τὴν πίστιν ἐδόκει , ’ ). Georgii Pachymeris de Michaele et Andronico Palaeologis libri tredecim νρ σφν ε α συνετόν καὶ τε σοφόν ἄνδρα ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ ἀπελθὼν περιήργει ἀπελθὼν μεταξὺ τῷ ἐν , 202.8-203.3: 31 Andronikos’ renunciation of unionthe of churchesthe , 50. , 49. Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς πρέποντα γάμον τῷ παιδὶ παρεσκεύαζε 33 Pachymeres comments that Sophonias was sent was Sophonias that comments Pachymeres . , τὰ ἐνχερσὶ τῶν προσδοκωμένων ποιούμενος περὶπλείονος 29 ), After that he was sent to pope Boniface pope to sentwas he that After , πολλοὶ δ , οἷς ἔδει ἁγιώτατον γράφειν τὸν πάπαν καὶ κρῖμα τὸ ( ππμε πὸ Πυίν ὸ ιομνν κῆδος κινούμενον τὸ Πουλίαν πρὸς ἀποπέμπει (Bonn: Weber,1835): 3-652 (hereafter: ἐδέησε γὰρ καὶ εἰς πάπαν ἐκεῖνον γενέσθαι ἐκεῖνον πάπαν εἰς καὶ γὰρ ἐδέησε ’ , ἦσαν οἱ προσλιπαροῦντες ἄλλοθεν τῆς φροντίδος ἐκείνης ἀπαλλαγεὶς ἔγνω ἐπὶ 30 A successful ending of Συγγραφικαὶ . καὶ τὸν μὲν , ἔνθεν μὲν , ed. I. , κἂν 9 , CEU eTD Collection 37 36 35 ἀσφαλέσι τὴν πίστιν ἐδόκει ἱκανοῦτο τοῖς ἐκ βασιλέως ἐκ τοῖς ἱκανοῦτο finally married Rita-Maria ofArmenia. marriedfinally Rita-Maria Constantinople in March 1296. As far as the marriage of Michael IX is concerned, he might more easily than a layman deal with the probable overtures of the papacy.” man “such a wasnotincidental: choicemonk of the that asambassador a argues suggested by Laiou, marriage with kingthe of Aragon and Frederick Sicily III 1296—1337)(r. as faith.” [Orthodox] inthe secure those of estimation 34 with these discussions. these with Sophonias, and perhapshis return to Constantinople in March 1296was connected is in question Byzantine the probably that suggests she Therefore, in Italy. time that negotiations not with Andronikos Frederick), apparently LaioumustFrederickto arguesthatunknown have held these II, but with some letter timewas written the Michael(April married3, 1296), (an was already event accredited Byzantine marriageresiding of atFrederick’s the for negotiations of aresult as expected was aid The island. the on hold his for help sister Yolanda to Michaelannounces totheByzantine-Aragonese turn hisintention assureto allianceto inorder IX. Based on he the letter the In Sicily. of fact king as coronation his he announces that inwhich II, James by the Ibid., 56. Ibid., 51. Laiou, Laiou:Ibid.,202.11-14,tr. Sophonias’ embassy,did however, succeed not and he therefore, returned to Possibly, during hisstaying he inItaly also discussed aByzantine-Aragonese Constantinople and the Latins , 37 . οἷς ἔδει ἁγιώτατον γράφειν τὸν πάπαν καὶ κρῖμα τὸ μέγιστον γίνεσθαι μέγιστον τὸ κρῖμα καὶ πάπαν τὸν γράφειν ἁγιώτατον ἔδει οἷς who presents an account on Frederick’s letter to his brother his to letter Frederick’s on account an presents who ἐδέησε γὰρ καὶ εἰς πάπαν ἐκεῖνον γενέσθαι ἐκεῖνον πάπαν εἰς καὶ γὰρ ἐδέησε Negotiations with Negotiations Frederick III , 50. 36 34 Laiou evidence, this Based on , κἂν οὐχὶ πρὸς ἐκεῖνον γράμμασιν ἐκεῖνον πρὸς οὐχὶ κἂν , ὡς τοῖς ὡς 35 10 CEU eTD Collection 40 focus of study.this the is beyond areconstruction such other), each knew they suggest might Aristotle in interest common their with together Italy to embassy his mentions Pachymeres (e.g., George fact that acquaintances concerningthe hypotheses Sophonias’ onemay Although in likewise unknown. offer he are participated circle(s) scholarly assumption. isevidenceextant butthere used themfor no activities, that confirming teaching 39 The EarlyPalaeologan Renaissance lettrés pendant l’époque desPaléologues [ edition of Sophonias’ paraphrasis that he also used Aristotle’s Iamblichus and John Philoponus. the of paraphrasis in his commentary, Ephesus’ of Leo the Magentine. Blemmydes’acquainted with Nikephoros compendium logic andwithof the Sophonias uses these two sources, as well as Michael of 1982), 125 (hereafter: Constantinides, Thirteenththe andEarlyFourteenth Centuries (1204—ca. 1310) to. According to Sten Ebbesen in his account of account his in Ebbesen Sten to According to. access had and knew he sources of kinds the writings, his on based infer might One must have received athorough rhetorical well as philosophicalas education though. 38 Sense andSensibilia Blumenthal: “Sophonias’ Commentary:”310. Ebbesen, On Byzantine late eduaction ingeneralsee C.N. Constantinides, De Anima ParaphrasisDe Anima As C. N. Constantinides observes, Sophonias’ paraphrases suggest that he that suggest paraphrases Sophonias’ observes, Constantinides N. As C. There is noevidence concerning educational background the of Sophonias; he Commentators and Commentaries 42 Where and with whom Sophonias received his education and what ]. 41 , as has been shown by Henry Blumenthal were the texts of texts the were Blumenthal Henry by shown been has as , (Leiden: Brill, 2000). Educational background 40 Higher Education Higher (Athens: Kentron Ereunes Byzantiou, 1996), and E. Fryde, Hayduck points out in his preface to the critical , 333. Sophistici Elenchi Sophistici ), Sophia Mergiali, Sophia ), Sophistici Elenchi , (Nikosia:, Cyprus Research Centre, Higher Education in Byzantium in . DeSensu etSensibili The main sources for L’enseignement et les , 39 Sophonias was scholia 11 38 CEU eTD Collection several partial translations of its as ofits of content. preface, aswell afew paraphrases several translations partial 3, 1-164. compared other tothe two. This discussion is in presented following the chapter. 49 however, is however, of thepreface the Only firstthe three of by them are accompanied of The focus a preface. this inquiry, Categoriae 48 paraphrasis on paraphrasis presentprefaces. The study and accompanying the translations from Sophonias’ is authorship of however, by Michael discussedSophonias, in Hayduck respective the 47 Themistius, those on the on those Themistius, the on 46 Sophistici Elenchi Analytics 45 5, 6, ed. Paul Wendland, G. Reimer (Berlin: Berolini, 1903) (hereafter: Commentaria inAristotelemGraeca have not found, however, evidence supporting that statement. that 44 supporting evidence however, found, not have [ three paraphrases more: of more: paraphrases three 43 [ 42 41 On theSoul Idem, Themistius, Sophonias, Namely,in Constantinides, Hayduck, “Preface,” v, footnote 3. Blumenthal:“Sophonias’ Commentary:”309. Interestingly Constantinides attributes toSophonias Anonymi in Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Paraphrasis Anonymi in Aristotelis Categorias Paraphrasis Themistii QuaeFertur in Aristotelis Analyticorum Priorum Librum IParaphrasis So far, the I limit this study to publishedmaterial,the namely paraphrasesthe of the Sophonias wrote paraphrases of several of Aristotle’s treatises: Aristotle’s of several of paraphrases wrote Sophonias Analytica Priora ]. 43 , Sophoniae De Anima Paraphrasis ], CAG Themistii (Sophoniae) In Parva naturalia in most the Critical paraphrasesarepublished of of Sophonias’ editions Sophistici Elenchi Parva ], DA Higher Education , 23, ed. Michael Hayduck, (Berlin: Berolini, 1883) (hereafter: Analytica Priora are based on the edition describe above. De Anima Paraphrasis , 46 Naturalia De Anima, Ethica Nicomachia and Categoriae Works, translations editions, , , 125. De AnimaParaphrasis , Sophistici Elenchi 47 Parva Naturalia De Anima naturalia, Parva and , 44 , and namely the paraphrases of the of paraphrases the namely Physica , in , in , Analytica Posteriora has not been translated. There are, however, are, There been translated. not has CAG , CAG Sophistici Elenchi Sophistici Parva naturalia and , in , 23, 1,1-175. , 23, 2, 1-87. , in , CAG were edited under the name of [ Metaphysica 48 CAG and its rather different character different andits rather , 5, 6, 1-44. and , 23,4,1-68. AnalyticaPriora CAG (in , and [ , 5, 6). as anonymous. The anonymous. as Higher Education Prior Analytica Priora CAG and Categoriae , 23) and ], Categoriae , in DeAnima . Posterior 49 CAG , 125). I Those CAG , 23, 12 , 45 . , CEU eTD Collection a full translation of Sophonias’ preface which is placed in Appendix I. have paraphrased the preface. For the purposes of this study, I have chosen to provide Philosophy and its Ancient Sources 54 181 (hereafter: Ierodiakonou: “Psellos’ Paraphrasis.”) lines 1.11-14. article: of Praechter’s into English by the translator itis on later German; retranslated Karl quotesapassage from itPraechter paraphrasis and into translates originally the 53 1990): 49, footnote 61. Ancient Commentators and Their Influence paraphrase on paraphrase Bydén has translated into 1.22-2.3 and English 1.11-19, Sophonias’ lines1.5-8, Most recently, Golitsis Pantelis has aFrench published translation of 1.4-22. 50 51 100, 2 (2007): 637-676 (hereafter: Golitsis: “Uncommentaire perpetual.”) 52 translation.Hereafter Iwill refer the page to numbers of the unpublished manuscript Iused. published Greekin only. the With help of Katerina Ierodiakonou,I have usedauthor’s the English Anima Tatakis, Karl Praechter, “Review of the of “Review Praechter, Karl Pantelis Gollitsis, “Un commentaire perpetuel de Georges Pachymérès”, Georges de perpetuel commentaire “Un Gollitsis, Pantelis BörjeBydén, Ierodiakonou,Aristotle’sKaterinaon“Psellos’Paraphrasis ,” Hypomnema 4 (2006): 221-251 (hereafter: Bydén: “Literary Innovation.”) The essay is essay The Innovation.”) “Literary Bydén: (hereafter: 221-251 (2006): 4 Hypomnema ,” La Philosophie Byzantine 52 DA “Literary Innovationin the Early Palaeologan Commentaries onAristotle’s Ierodiakonou, Katerina 2.1, 412a3-11, 2.1, though his essayhas been published in only Greek. Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca , ed. Katerina Ierodiakonou, (ClarendonPress: Oxford, 2002):157- , 246. , ed. Richard Sorabji, (London: Cornell University Press, 53 Tatakis Basile 54 ,” in ,” and Henry Blumenthal Henry and Aristotle Transformed. The Byzantinische Zeitschrift Byzantinische ,” in ,” Byzantine 50 Börje 13 De 55 51 CEU eTD Collection 61 Tatakis, 60 59 58 57 Constantinople and the Latins Byzantine with early the andapproach see how inmethod it is one compares to its importance. In his brief study, he based his discussion on two main questions. “The Elenchos paraphrasis. of preface the the to exclusively their comments havelimited scholars passage. Other Metochites’ same the interpretation of andTheodore Pachymeres’ with George Consequently,Bydén thefragments discusses from taken in Sophonias comparison the towards in general commentators of early Palaeologan approach focus his of brief isstudy, however, Sophonias’ not by itself,work but rather the 56 nevertheless was intriguedquite by Sophonias’ paraphrasis onthe approach andhisparaphraseon closely approach preface Sophonias’ analyzing 55 Ebbesen only two accountsinteresting. even or novel outstanding, as which analyse in detail Sophonias’ paraphrases, those of Sten See Ierodiakonou: “Psellos’ Paraphrasis:” 164-166, Golitsis: “Un commentaire perpetuel:” 641, and Bydén: “Literary Innovation:” 14-18. Blumenthal: Ebbesen, Blumenthal: Tatakis,See Anonymi in Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Paraphrasis II. CONTEXTUALIZATION OF SOPHONIAS’ PARAPHRASISANDITS II. CONTEXTUALIZATIONOFSOPHONIAS’ PREFACE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE ARISTOTELIAN THEFRAMEWORK PREFACE WITHIN La Philosophie Byzantine Analyzing used thesources by inSophonias his Scholars generally do not classify Sophonias’ achievements in commentating achievements Sophonias’ classify not do generally Scholars 57 , 61 Commentators and Commentaries and Henry Blumenthal. Henry and Ebbesen claims that his interpretation of the text is standard. Blumenthal is standard. text the of interpretation his that claims Ebbesen 60 “Sophonias’ Commentary:”307-317. “Sophonias’ Commentary:”307-317. La Philosophie Byzantine , 51, footnote 73, where Sophonias’ commentary as described as “dull.” , 246. COMMENTARIES , Ebbesen, 58 , 333-341. differenta demonstrated has Bydén Börje 56 In the process of research, I have found have I research, of process the In Commentators and Commentaries , in , CAG , 23,4,1-68. Paraphrasis inSophisticos DA and defended DA , and Laiou, , and 2.1. 59 The DA 14 . CEU eTD Collection compared the‘proper’ commentary, to of paraphrasis the characteristics in explains He before him the Greektradition. the andof the clarification for interpretation methods and therefore commentary treatise. to puzzlingthe problem concerning purposes the and audience the of Sophonias’ paraphrasis in particular. An additional aim of the present chapter is to offer a solution the of natureof and the commentary the about in general the discussion integrated be will inquiry the of results the hand, other the On there. placed commentators preface tothe the of analysis and description detailed a hand, one the on implies, This approach. “novel”is understanding exegetic offer of chapter presentSophonias’ to accurate an through descriptionthe methodology.andhis understanding of My objective inthe distinguishbetter Sophonias’ place in the tradition of Aristotle’s commentators than Blumenthal. By analyzing the preface of the paraphrasis of the of paraphrasis the of preface the analyzing By Blumenthal. than way different in aslightly but methodology, in his interested I ammostly it. applying possible for reasons his choice of of type commentary, and the peculiarities in as ‘lemmatic’. HereafterI will refercommentary to it using ‘proper’ both the to expressions: refer to specific more ‘lemmatic’it is then or ‘proper’Philoponus, by commentary.John produced commentary different treatises of Aristotle. If one considers, the to however, refers he that Sophonias’commentary by main‘proper’ source speaking is the Generally lemmatic paraphrasis. and Sophonias differentiates two groups of Aristoteliancommentary in his preface: ‘proper’ commentary of . field the to also 64 and ofmusic, theory the to instance for related connotations different has 63 Sophonias’ understanding of the type of commentary as paraphrasis, of typeto the commentary Sophonias’referred understanding of treatise….” Aristotle’s commentaries, the other to look at the interpretations it offers on a few key points of 62 I prefer to use the term ‘paraphrasis’ instead of the anglicized version ‘paraphrase’, because the latter the because ‘paraphrase’, version anglicized of the instead ‘paraphrasis’ term the use to prefer I Blumenthal: These two technical terms are discussed thoroughly after the introduction to the present chapter. present the to introduction the after thoroughly discussed are terms technical two These In his provides Sophonias preface, aclassification of types the of Aristotelian Following the direction indicated by Blumenthal,in my study I aim discussto “Sophonias’ Commentary:”308. De Anima Paraphrasis 62 , especially of , especially classification the of previous the 64 andintroducesfinally,he hisownway of DA scholia , his aim is to written to DA 63 used the 15 CEU eTD Collection 66 Its subdivisions,Its such as asawhole. for theclass of exegetic texts denomination asacollective “commentary” genre, question the is In she raises important. this am study, I theterm applying a separate or isatype of aparaphrasis commentary theproblem whether address paraphrasis. andto the it reapplies Psellos’ Aristotle’s texts to approaches Sophonias’ accepts differences understandingof Ierodiakonou the the between two list ofthe to Sophonias’ preface criteria, (the commentary the between which distinguish the paraphrasis from the employs their most useful features. useful most their employs as a combination hismethod whichthey before, both, hedefines own were applied of add anythingunable to commentary newtothe ‘proper’ and paraphrasis intheway reflection writingon the method a commentary in depth. as Accordinga separate totype. him, Blumenthalas Sophonias does sees not himself discuss this self- 65 ‘paraphrasts’, namely ‘exegetes’. To refer to its practitioners I will appropriate the Greek term used by Sophonias in opposition to Ierodiakonou Katerina of paraphrasis Psellos’ of Michael study In hercase “paraphrasis”. defineisto be whatunder understood to commentary” labels“proper the and of understandingisitaccurate notenoughonly summarize histo claimsin preface.the commentary needs tobe analyzed in contextthe of purposes the of his anditstext for Aristotelian of genre the elaborating of intention Sophonias’ that mention to enough is it moment, the For chapter. present the within on later in detail discussed be will Ierodiakonou: “Psellos’ Paraphrasis:” 157-181. Blumenthal: Despite the anachronistic nature of her approach and the fact that she does not Before proceeding to proceedingBefore analysisthe to it of prefaceitself,is Sophonias’ necessary “Sophonias’ Commentary:”312. 66 explores the question of whether there is a difference isa there whether of question the explores De AnimaParaphrasis synopsis scholia , 65 eisagog The character of Sophonias’ exegetic approach exegetic Sophonias’ of The character ) and the paraphrasis. ) andthe ē , epitom in order to extract conclusions as a ē , stoichei 67 To answer it she uses she it answer To ō sis, De Interpretatione scholia paraphrasis or . That is, That . 16 CEU eTD Collection Dreams] and encounters in Aristotle’s treatises – unclear diction or unclear argumentation. diction or –unclear inAristotle’s treatises encounters Thisby matter. theoretical needwasprovoked variousthe whichone difficulties Aristotle’s texts in order to provide and explanations better understanding of the haveit appears tobeen more Both of types widespread. to commentary were applied texts of extantthe from evidence the and paraphrasis with the coexisted commentary [On the Soul], importance of making this distinction in his preface. A discussion of in Adiscussion and his of essence makingthe preface. of distinction this importance the and two the between distinction is Sophonias’ ultimately matters what for commentary types (lemmatic commentary and paraphrasis), their origin and specifics, stoichei treatises: Themistius (ca.317–338). He paraphrasescomposed of several of Aristotle’s moreexplanation. and thorough deserve aseparate they reflection methodological own Sophonias’ in discussion main the of subject the are paraphrasis the and commentary lemmatic As the exposition. main the from distinguished is clearly it paraphrasis the Unlike text. the within statement particular a to asareference functions commentary lemmatic The subject. acertain regarding that the is it in Although not it commentary. focuscan of the be main specified the discussion, first three genre the of under classified I am assubgenres addressing commentary lemmatic types of commentary mentioned above ( 67 Ibid. 164. It is not an aim of this study to give an account of the development of the two the of development the of account an give to study this of aim an isnot It The paraphrasis as a type of commentary is first attested in the works of ō sis Analytica Posteriora ) function) mainly as summary and introduction to Aristotle’s theory De Divinationepersomnum De Memoria [], Commentary: adefinition [], [On Divination in [On The lemmatic Sleep].Divination De Somno Physica [], [], eisagog De insomniis ē , De Anima epitom [On 17 ē , CEU eTD Collection Ruprecht, 1999):206-223. in Dialogues,” Sophonias’ paraphrasis. into the problem identifyingof the intention, audience the and the motivation behind insight additional an provide will however, ingeneral, commentary the of function 68 aim aim explore whethertheparaphrasisandto its specifically preface canfunction within theology) I teaching, (diplomacy, ofactivity That is,bydefining theareas Sophonias’ historicalthe of contextSophonias’ inidentify order paraphrasis to probableits target. general a that istext assumption a intendedcertain to Ihaveaudience, reconstructed the discussion of the relation between a commentator and a commentary. Based on the abasisfor as statement use Dillon’s to rather but personality, Sophonias’ rediscover which is supported by obviously biographyhisis well.as It task,however, notthe to theological disposition,” or “of Sophoniasa philosophical isaperson conclude tat can one therefore and described above texts exegetical of type second tothe belongs Sophonias’ paraphrasis argue One that he/she couldcertainly commentary produces. commentary: Plato’s dialogues, discusses two possible basic impulses for the composition of a John“A Dillon, Case-Study in Commentary: Neoplatonicthe Exegesis of the John Dillon, in his case study on the Neoplatonic exegesis of the Dillon discusses how the personality of the commentator relates tothetype of commentator the personality of the how discusses Dillon phenomenon at two different levels of reality. refer, say, different two stages of to a given to process, samethe or by them to taking can be reconciled evenpassages or contradictory beapparently that literally,inconsistent a given two passage to taken or enormously work,by respected showing the did that author intend not inconsequentialities in, orunworthy aspects of, anotherwise or inconsistencies away explain to seeks which disposition, theological or a philosophical of persons in particular afflicting is one impulse commentary of philological the type…The second and antiquarian in reference diction work,and a or a source thisto leads naturally in obscurities toexplain desire scholarly straightforward is the first The 68 Commentaries – Kommentare , ed. Glenn W. Most (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 69 Prooimia prooimia ofPlato’s of 18 CEU eTD Collection certain preconditions, such as the availability and accessibility of the original text and text original the of accessibility and availability as the such preconditions, certain that the text itself is not self-explanatory. expansion tool. or areference,clarification functioning as characterized by a certain “secondariness.” bya characterized certain independentexistence is andfunction: nature inevitably commentary’s the by Dillon’s definition cited above. issuggested work the secondaspect well-known significant a respected, on produced on. commented of treatise the authority the itself.” 73 72 71 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999): vii-xv (hereafter: Most, “Preface.”) points out points preconditioned by textupon the which interpretationthe is As produced. Most Glenn andis acommentary of dependent essenceof aspects commentary. First, the the commentaries provides some additional information concerning two of the main before. so much for writinga subject discussed on motivation offeringis intended not only for his audience, but itis alsoa self-reflection on the ‘novel’ methodology of commenting one could argue that the justification he is him/herself. case In the of Sophonias’ preface andthepresentation of Sophonias’ for is a toclarify problem attempt one’s result a certain of also text exegetical some of them. The paraphrasis, however, can also address its own author. That is, an 70 69 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., viii. Ibid., 206. G enMs, Peae” in “Preface,” Most, Glenn 71 The appearance and the existence of a commentary prove, on hand, on one the prove, of a commentary existence the and The appearance The “relatedness” of the commentary constructs it as an entity without an it as an entity without constructs of commentary the The “relatedness” Dillon’s rather expanded “definition” of the types of commentators and commentators of types the of “definition” expanded rather Dillon’s in its it accompanies it thetext; from arises commentary is,the That 70 “there is nothing natural about the general form of the commentary the of form general the about natural nothing is “there Commentaries – Kommentare 72 On the other hand, it states and confirms and states it hand, other the On 73 74 The fact that a commentary is always is commentary a that fact The Therefore it is always dependent on , ed. Glenn W. Most (Göttingen: 19 CEU eTD Collection that thethat “deficiency” inthe understanding originalthe of unlessittext, is due to sohowever, itIt hasmakesagain. tobenoted, that sense text, original the paraphrase it concisely – the commentary’sof the original in such a way so that it is perceived bypurpose the reader as coherent. To state is meaning the totransmitand taskof the commentator the Therefore, context. respective intention is to interpret,in its functional is of anymore text perception the orthe nolonger confirmed summarize be re- andneed to forgotten its are importance for reasons the either becomeor unclear, deficiency in understandingthe of original.the Themeaning has beenlost either or other casesthe samenot. way as A thecommentary, primary exposition, inhowever, some cases preserving is always its structure, provoked in by some sort of to re-establish the meaning of the original in its initial integrity. aim its and is time distance to overcome the Nevertheless, posterior. chronologically is commentary the hence, on; commented text isthe commentary the behind reason The aspects. functional its of some and aim its mention is to isonly left what authority. own his/her establish to(re-) and therefore, on subject, inthe partake thescholarly to tradition intention by but commentator’s the commentary is provoked not by the need of re-establshing the authority of the text, distributed and re-imposed within a certain social context. social a certain within re-imposed and distributed text and its authority. commented of the importance the created that context institutional cultural and the 77 76 75 74 longer entirely self-evident” is “no its authority that shows also but on, commented of treatise the importance Ibid. Ibid., x. Ibid., viii-ix. Ibid., vii. Finally, in order to conclude the overall discussion of the commentary genre, commentary the of discussion overall the conclude to in order Finally, 75 Furthermore, a commentary does not only demonstrate the demonstrate only not does commentary a Furthermore, 76 and therefore, it needs to be re-confirmed, re- re-confirmed, be to needs it therefore, and 77 In some cases, however, a 78 Thus,it in proceeds 20 CEU eTD Collection address subjects; differentquite while the paraphrases on the on paraphrases 83 juxtapose itwith juxtapose hecomposed. prefaces other the of Sophonias’ preface the among the other treatises written by the Byzantine monk. As the focus of this study is paraphrasis, it is necessaryphilosophy. to distinguish its orlackarguments enough forexplanation place someoneless in knowledgeable on a more concrete providegeneral) aim level,to which understanding of texts either contain difficult namely in commentary the (like commentaries Aristotelian the is, That is placed. paraphrasis presented in serve subchapter this in as framework a conceptual which Sophonias’ in change shiftthe according places. to problematic interpreters the the of solutions the Consequently, explanation. additional of need in therefore and different from samethe theses contexts treatise areperceivedasproblematic, unclear, coming frombut inherent, not is exposition, the the contains physically which contemporary material, the to damage perception of that work. That is to say, in different 82 intense)”. 81 and great is to him intellective was what (for message his of “forcefulness the 80 solution?” a find cannot he that admit commentator the can circumstances what Under solution? asa counts What ? these it. What counts to takes he approach of the as aresult a part in problem least at are text his in discover will in differenta commentator problems periods? How do different kindsreading of commentaries which try to solveasks questions79 of the text78 to which the text only partially responds. Hence the kinds of Hereafter I refer to I refer Hereafter Hereafter I refer to I refer Hereafter only. material published the to Irefer and ofAristotle phrasing” “obscure the describes he where I, Appendix in preface Sophonias’ See on. commented text of the meaning ofthe coherence the to I refer here By ‘integrity’ Most, “Preface,” xiii: “But problems are not an inherent aspect of a text: they are created by by a created are they text: of a aspect inherent an not are problems “But xiii: “Preface,” Most, Prefaces toSophonias’other paraphrases: Sophonias complemented only only of three his with Sophonias complemented prefaces: paraphrases The conclusions for the nature and purposes of the commentary ingeneral commentary the of purposes and nature the for conclusions The 80 Sophonias’ of context conceptual the established having After Categoriae Sophistici Elenchi DA , Sophistici Elenchi as De AnimaParaphrasis and Cat as . In Aristotelis Categorias SE . , 82 and DA In Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos is concerned with problems of Categoriae , in the next subchapter I will I subchapter next in the , . 83 These three treatises three These 79 81 the 21 CEU eTD Collection discuss the possible purposes and audience of the text. description hisof ownmethod of commenting andits ‘novelty’, andfinally I will his own classification of the explanatoryindependently. preface Sophonias’ analyse to prefer I Therefore, texts. three the texts related to the butproved, has been arguedas worksa hypothesis based on stylisticthe similarities between of Aristotle, the the Analytica Posteriora consider, first, that not all of Sophonias’ paraphrases are published (the paraphrasis on about the“uniqueness” preface.conclusion has one of Nevertheless, Sophonias’ to exegetical approaches to approaches exegetical Aristotle’s psychological theory at all: it is dedicated to a discussion of the different At the same time, Sophonias’ preface of the Aristotle’s theory which will be explained in detail in the main text of the paraphrasis. a summary namely,of present is they entirely different, subjectthey the address lines in print, while the preface of lines inwhile thepreface of the print, than prefaceof than the the prefaces also differ. The prefaces of of paraphrases of The prefaces the differ. also prefaces andpsychology biology, other deal two the logical Their matters. with respective SE paraphrasisandthe Consequently, Iwill deal with the specifics of Sophonias’ preface, that is, with has notbeen publishedfar), and so second, his that authorship of De Anima Paraphrasis DA Cat . Based on this comparison it is plausible to draw a paraphrasis has been postulated but not yet fully been not but hasbeenpostulated paraphrasis De AnimaParaphrasis De AnimaParaphrasis : they : they extend respectively 24 andto 18 SE and extends to 79. Secondly, 79. to extends Cat does not deal with are much shorter 22 CEU eTD Collection separate unit – both separate spatially and conceptually: is as a attached in its interpretation text they originalthe form.transmit clarifying The ( diction the preserve They text. main the to bit after diction of Aristotle in lemmasthe and clarifying itby attaching the interpretation bit appropriating Greekthe term 85 86 Sophonias, 84 commentators methodologies.according their to theso-called Thefirst group, ‘proper’ task of commentatingin different ways two anddivides that themintogroups two His of types have the writingAristotle’s on texts. exegetic accomplished predecessors of the two berepresentatives he most what prominent the considers to enumerates he then and and commentary aparaphrasis, of features a ‘proper’ distinctive tradition. Straightforwardly, describes Sophonias in what, his understanding, arethe purposes. and intention author’s the about most the says and the audience of his work. This particular piece of the text, however, is the one that information at the beginning of the paraphrasis, nor does he specify the motivation for give doesnot anypersonal Sophonias itsof for identification peculiarities. the extends to79 Categorization oftheprevious commentatorsaccording theirmethodology to Sophonias, Throughout this study I choose to refer to the “proper commentators” either as to ‘exegetes’ by Sophonias, Observing the diction of theindividual manner and inits theinterpretation.Philosopher attached specifics, sound as well in text the expounding commentators, were proper who ones, For the as [at the same The preface contains a categorization of the preceding Greek commentary Greek preceding of the acategorization contains The preface As I have mentioned above, Sophonias’ preface to hisAs Ihave mentioned to on above, paraphrasis preface Sophonias’ De Anima De Anima Sophoniae in libros Aristotelis De Anima paraphrasis 84 85 lines in print and is considered the most “profitable” part of the text ( Sophonias’ preface within the οἱ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἐξηγηταί τοῦτο αὐτὸ οἱ ,) 1-186. , 1.5. ἐξηγηταί , or as to ‘scholiasts’ when relevant. when ‘scholiasts’ to as or , ), 86 original the by keeping ischaracterized De Anima Paraphrasis λέξις ) of Aristotle as it is, that is that is, it as Aristotle of , in CAG 23, 1 (hereafter: 23, DA 23 CEU eTD Collection συνταξάμενοι 89 88 προσέφερον εἰς σαφήνειαν ρηεα ἐπισυνῆψαν ἑρμηνείαν proper comments (through which [methodology] diction the is notunited orcomplemented by the of the commentator explanation” 87 the paraphrasts the Sophonias’ opinion of rolethe of ofboth individuality the exegetes the the text, because their method of clarification consists mainly of extending it by using by it extending of mainly consists clarification of method their because text, the not keep is,paraphrasts do the Aristotle, primary original that the of form diction of and the iteasiertoread makes understand thepassage.Unlike exegetes, therefore which exposition, the of body main in the is embedded a paraphrasis commentary, Simplicius, Ammonius, and John Philoponus. Aphrodisias, of Alexander are commentators Such theory. Aristotle’s explain author in hisimportantly,itis a withproduct clearly authorship.distinguished The exegete own Most exposition. rightmain the to related content parallel with text independent an of status – presenting a style and asifcomposed itwere Aristotle explaining. argumentation is commentary from delivered name the itsof while author, theparaphrasis is that support and Ibid. 1.8: l.5-8: Ibid. 1.13-14: Ibid. If comparesone this final regarding clarification remark the of “their own sake of claritythe [of for the original]. explanation own their forth brought also they in division, time] The second group Unlike ‘proper’ includesThe secondthe theso-called group paraphrasts. the has which interpretation, an intend to seems commentary ‘proper’ The καὶ τὰ παρ · ἱ ὲ γάρ μὲν οἱ 88 with the description of the paraphrastic methodology which follows , ( ὴ μν έι πρκν αὐτήν παρῆκαν λέξιν μὲν τὴν παραφρασταὶ ’ σώαν τε κἀν τῇ διαιρέσει τὴν λέξιν τοῦ φιλοσόφου τηρήσαντες καὶ τὰ παρ . ἑαυτῶν [emphasis mine] , σιε ατ τῦο ἐξηγηταί τοῦτο αὐτὸ ὅσοιπερ

προσέφερον εἰς σαφήνειαν ). According toSophonias’ description ‘proper’ the 87 89 ), that suggests a certain conclusion about conclusion certain a suggests that ), , ὔε ιρμνν οὔθ διῃρημένην οὔτε , . δω ἐθμνι καὶ ἐκθέμενοι ἰδίως ’ κατὰ μέρος τὸ κείμενον τὴν νμνν ος ὑπομνήμασι τοῖς ἡνωμένην ( ἐξηγηταί ’ ἑαυτῶν ) and ) is an 24 CEU eTD Collection 93 Commentators and Commentaries onAristotle’s “Sophistici Elenchi” 92 mentioning. 91 σχήμασι καὶ περιόδοις κοσμήσαντες Ἀριστοτέλην Sophonias it formulates toputon garmentthe Aristotle of ( καὶ τῇ τῆς ἀπαγγελίας δεινότητιἀπαγγελίαςτῆς τῇ καὶ connected important most emphasized the to eachchapter, arguments connected paraphrasts the within achievements multitude forward andbybringing topic the of a theories knowledge it delivers. primary contribute text to the easierof paraphrasisand comprehensibility the the were Aristotle himself. of author paraphrasis asif the singular person the προσωπείῳ προσχρησάμενοι αὐταγγελίας τῆς meaning and to clearmeaning andto reasoning. the rhetorical figures by or inserting sentences in proper tounfoldorder the concise 90 the philosophicalthe matters. in instruction elementary relatively a of needs the serve to meant originality particular without texts ascompilated of paraphrases general perception for the this isthe reason Perhaps suggests. least asfarmethod paraphrasticthe description of asSophonias’ paraphrast does not leavereasoning Aristotleis of perfected, is that completed.Itseems as though the traces and marksis simulatedof as if ithis were Aristotle own himself who clarifiesindividuality his theory. In such a way, the as a thinker, at Psellos). it has been disproved by research on individual cases (e.g. Themistius, Michael Ierodiakonou: “Psellos’ Paraphrasis:” 164 and 166. For similar usage of the I choose to preserve the Greek term without translating it. I provide its meaning immediately after its Ibid.1.14-17: The preservation of the diction, the diction, of the The preservation A second feature of is the so-called paraphrasis feature of the A second 94 ) and to make use of maskthe of fromspeaking Aristotle’s mask ( μόνον δὲ τὸν νοῦν συνεσταλμένον τῇ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς περινοίᾳ ἤ που κἂν τῇ περὶ τὴν λέξιν ἀσαφείᾳ λέξιν τὴν περὶ τῇ κἂν ἤπου περινοίᾳ ἀνδρὸς τοῦ τῇ συνεσταλμένον νοῦν τὸν δὲ μόνον αὐταγγελία By adding some insights, which they found as the most useful most the as found they which insights, some adding By 93 ( . Such ageneral however, should beavoidedconclusion, as πολὺ γὰρ τὸ νοερὸν αὐτῷ καὶ γοργόν καὶ αὐτῷ νοερὸν τὸ γὰρ πολὺ , see 90 Ierodiakonou:“Psellos’ Paraphrasis:”165 Sten and Ebbesen, ), that is, to keep the exposition in the first in the exposition the keep to is, that ), αὐταγγελία , and the completion of the of completion the , and ) 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 64-82. ἐξαπλώσαντες καὶ καθάραντεςκαὶ ἐξαπλώσαντεςκαὶ αὐταγγελία ὐὸ γρ ὑποδύντες γὰρ αὐτὸν , 92 91 A situation A namely,as καὶ τῷ καὶ 25 CEU eTD Collection ὑπολείποντες 97 ἀπορίαις γενναιοτάτας τὰς λύσεις ἐπήνεγκαν ἀκρότητος 96 αὐτοὺς ὑπολείποντες ἔλεγχον τοῦ τε πολυμαθοῦς καὶ τῆς διὰ πάντων ἀκρότητος ἐπισυνῆψαν καὶ θεωρημάτων πλῆθος ἑκάστῳ τῶν κεφαλαίων προσέφερον κεφαλαίων τῶν ἑκάστῳ πλῆθος θεωρημάτων καὶ ἐπισυνῆψαν 95 (Duckworth, 1996), 1-13 (hereafter: Todd, “Introduction;” Ierodiakonou: “Psellos’ Paraphrasis.” transmitting knowledge andin introducing the language and of rhetorical techniques it succeeds both in Therefore, andway methodology, of expression. treatise, a constructing of ways shows also but text, the of meaning the presents only not exposition, a periphrastic theparaphrasis, In contrast, tool. asareference perceived is it text, main the from is distinguished itAs theory. distinct, but a complementary, explanation, sometimes anindependent Itpresents style. with individual text separate physically situated Thelemmaticis commentary, important. prepares “apprentice” the two these beside or belowmake abletodeal one matters with proper the each how Therefore, of philosophy. of the main sense,that both types of commentary could havehadapropaedeutictext, function – to or interspersed, exists on its own as a preparatory preparatory for dealing with philosophy On hand, other philosophical paraphrasis areconsidered the enterprises. they are both the and commentary lemmatic the that statement general the marks it hand, and enriched the knowledge availablefor thosewho study philosophy. 94 ( is illustrated by his claim its usage that leaves the road philosophyto “easy follow”to paraphrasis the passages, is much more successful as an instrument of That education. thedifficult explaining and clearer making text goal the the have of paraphrasis the excellence. their scholarly havethey demonstrated εὔπορον Robert“Introduction”Todd, in Themisius, 1.26-27: Ibid., Sophonias, 1.25-28: Ibid., Sophonias seems to imply that although both the lemmatic commentary and commentary lemmatic the both although that imply to seems Sophonias ). , 97 εὔπορον ἐντεῦθεν τὴν εἰς φιλοσοφίαν ὁδὸν τοῖς μετ . [emphasis mine] That expression, in my opinion, leads in at least two directions. On the one On the directions. two least in at leads my opinion, in expression, That De Anima καὶ τῆς διὰ πάντων ἀκρότητος πάντων διὰ τῆς καὶ . ῆ τ ἐπιστημονικῆς τε τῆς [emphasis mine] , 1.23-27: ἱ ὲ α ἐιτσα κὶ ἐπιβολάς καὶ ἐπιστασίας καὶ δὲ οἱ · αὐτῶν ἕξεως ἔλεγχον τοῦ τε πολυμαθοῦς καὶ τῆς διὰ πάντων [emphasis mine] , On Aristotle On the Soul εὔπορονἐντεῦθενφιλοσοφίανεἰςμετ τοῖςὁδὸν τὴν per se per , εὔπορον ἐντεῦθεντὴνφιλοσοφίαν εἰς ὁδὸνμετ τοῖς , namely, with Aristotle’s theory. In ’ 96 αὐτοὺς ὑπολείποντες , τῆς τε ἐπιστημονικῆς αὐτῶν ἕξεως αὐτῶν ἐπιστημονικῆς τε τῆς , , tr.Robert B. Todd, London ς ἐφεῦρον ἃς , ας ε ἀνακυπτούσαις τε ταῖς , 95 ὰ χρησιμωτάτας τὰς By so, doing ’ αὐτοὺς 26 ’ CEU eTD Collection ἐπήνεγκαν εἰς φιλοσοφίαν ὁδὸν τοῖς μετ τοῖς ὁδὸν φιλοσοφίαν εἰς ἀκρότητος πάντων διὰ τῆς καὶ πολυμαθοῦς τε τοῦ ἔλεγχον ἕξεως αὐτῶν ἐπιστημονικῆς ἐφεῦρον προήχθησαν 100 2008). http://www.umds.ac.uk/kis/schools/hums/philosophy/aca/cag-guide.pdf; Internet; (accessed 24May 99 Paraphrasis.” with Projectwith Volumes Arranged Accordingly ed. Richard Sorabji of which was Michael Psellos. wasMichael which of latest the others, by then and by Themistius, first done was work exegetic of sort that him, According to of from paraphrases. authors the Sophonias examples givessome an educational tool intended mainlyfor initial the levels studiesof the of philosophy. philosophy inan fluenteasy and way the reader.Thus, aparaphrasisto be appears to 98 criticizing the weaknesses ofboth methods of commenting: Limitations andrules of both exegesis and paraphrasis was indeed well-acquainted with the commentary tradition before him. although one should this take evidence as itpartial,can be concludedSophonias that commentators of Aristotelian presentedcommentators in Sophonias’ includespreface all the See analysisparaphrasesone ofPsellos’For(of of Sophonias, Ancient Commentators on Aristotle , τὰς χρησιμωτάτας ἐπισυνῆψαν καὶ θεωρημάτων πλῆθος ἑκάστῳ τῶν κεφαλαίωνπροσέφερονχρησιμωτάταςτῶνθεωρημάτων ἐπισυνῆψαντὰςἑκάστῳ πλῆθος καὶ Finally, at the end of the revision of the preceding commentary tradition difficulties which had emerged. So, to say it all in a conclusion a in all it pertainingsay to to all,So, each of them approached hisemerged. task inhad his own way.which difficulties the to solutions noble most offered they them, after came] [who those leaving the pathtophilosophy easy tofollowfrom point that for on scholarly skill, their and knowledge their in excellence all[regards]; multitude of proof regardingtheoretical insights eachchapter, of their considerations, which they had discovered, andbrought forward a and observations (authoritative) useful most some added paraphrasts] [the others the all: for once method systematical the following clarify meaning,asfar the phrasingthe thoroughly permitted, And those [the exegetes] were induced only to show the content and to Sophonias clarifying the continues between difference groups, while two the · καὶ τὸ ὅλονὑπὲρ ἁπάντων εἰπεῖν , σν έι ἐχώρησε λέξις ἡ ὅσον De Anima DA , chronologically than , chronologically Sophonias’,to us known earlier today, and ’ , 1.23 -2.4: αὐτοὺς ὑπολείποντες αὐτοὺς , ῷ ενκ κθπξ ἑπόμενοι καθάπαξ τεχνικῷ τῷ 98 Here is the place to mention that the “catalogue” of “catalogue” the that mention placeto Here isthe , kαὶ οἱ μὲν μόνον σαφηνίσαι τὸ κείμενον καὶ τὸν νοῦν ἐκφάναι in Guide to the CAG Edition of the Ancient Commentators, οἰκείως τῇ ἑαυτοῦ προθέσει ἀπήντησεν ἕκαστος , ταῖς τε ἀνακυπτούσαις ἀπορίαις γενναιοτάτας τὰς λύσεις τὰς γενναιοτάτας ἀπορίαις ἀνακυπτούσαις τε ταῖς De Interpretatione · ἱ ὲ α ἐιτσα κὶ ἐπιβολάς καὶ ἐπιστασίας καὶ δὲ οἱ ) see Ierodiakonou: “Psellos’ see Ierodiakonou: ) [pdf file]; , εὔπορον ἐντεῦθεν τὴν ἐντεῦθεν εὔπορον 99 . available from available 100 , τῆς τε τῆς , 27 ἃς CEU eTD Collection εἶναι 104 ἔλλειψιν καὶ περιόδων κατὰ τάξιν ὑπαλλαγήν 103 περικοπάς 102 Louvain du Grec Sophonias’ paraphrasis.For adetailed study subjectthis on see Riet,S. van “Fragments de l’ Original offered a lot in order theyhave form of interpretingAristotle, however, reasoning “appropriate” the of to resolve the difficulties,follows in a manner.confused which what approach to or exposition the of arisebeginning the forget be to can commentary from the text itself. By were phrased with those verbally.” those were phrasedwith asthey ours, into sections whole we inserted Philoponus, especially and majority the commentary on commentary 101 continuity.” the “proffering problems and solutions,against order [literally,in order].” so that […] it was not easytransposition for some to observe of whole occasional the additionally colons “conjunctions, the donotproperly use exegetes and the addition the that orclaims Sophonias Finally, line of reasoning. the of track lose can easily omission andreader the and follow to exchangeeasy not is structure a such with exposition an that out ofpoints periods methodology of exegesis first for the discontinuity of the original diction. Then he andfollowed by interpretation the of Sophonias author. the criticizes such primary istext dividedseparate content into units ( Philoponus’ text is the of Thestructure exegetes. of the methodology structure of the asrepresentative of Philoponus of a lemmatic commentary, namely the body of the 2.17-19:Ibid., Sophonias, 2.15-16: Ibid., Philoponus’ […] 63 (1965): 5-40. , Sophonias appropriates as a main for source his paraphrasis John Philoponus’ De intellectu τὸ συνεχὲς ἔχειν ὡς κατὰ λέξιν εἶχεν ἐκείνοις De Anima De Intellectu τῇ τε τῶν ἀποριῶν ἐπεισαγωγῇ καὶ τῶν λύσεωντῶν ἀποριῶνἐπεισαγωγῇ κατατρίβουσιν καὶτῶν τῇ τε πολλὰ υδσω ἀκαιρίαν συνδέσμων 104 DA de Philopon dans une Compilation de Sophonias”, in Sophonias concludes that the result of applying the lemmatic the applying of result the that concludes Sophonias . . 101 , 3.3-4: in exegetes in the As preface “following the hehimself states (Book IIIof his καὶ τοῖς ἐξηγηταῖς ἑπόμενοι κἂν τοῖς πλείοσι καὶ μάλιστα Φιλοπόνῳ ὅλας Φιλοπόνῳ μάλιστα καὶ πλείοσι τοῖς κἂν ἑπόμενοι ἐξηγηταῖς τοῖς καὶ , 105 τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἐνέθεμεν , Although the exegetes seem haveto chosen a not-so- τ δ κὶ ώω ἔτν τ μτθσι ὅω καὶ ὅλων μεταθέσεις ὅτε ἔστιν κώλων καὶ δὲ ἔτι . 102 103 Sophonias classifies the commentary approach commentary the classifies Sophonias occupied much were they time, same the At De Anima · commentary) is partially preserved in preserved partially is commentary) lemmas ). Each of them is stated Revue Philosophique de , ὡς μὴ εὐχερέςτισινὡς

ρσήη ἢ προσθήκην 28 CEU eTD Collection 108 as is corrected sometimes order The word distinguish. to become easier argument the phases of the therefore, ones, into several dividedshorter areoften sentences longer shortened by Sophonias. The punctuation of Aristotle’s ispassages altered as well: the followed by from excerpts his interpretation, sometimes revised and significantly are text Philoponus’ from lemmas The commentary. lemmatic in his Philoponus form paraphrasisthe of sameand atthe time including the exegesis byJohn offered explanation. has his Sophonias structured usingtreatise the continuous and fluent of amore satisfactory difficulty gives this Asecondconsideration his ownstatements. in them he contradicts – more even – and claims in his inconsistent is Sophonias that [thegroup from exegetes].” of first [results profitthe] the “and I do not like to be content with the latter [paraphrasts] if it is not also possible to to difficultiesthe whichhad emerged,” 107 point onfor those [whocame] after them” followfrom that to easy philosophy to “thepath leaves which a typecommentary of onetoprefer mighthold, of work this audience aboutthe purposes andhypothesis the 106 of text the continuous exposition with unified diction and ahomogenous style. for problem the makingof comprehend. the interpretation to resultseasier in It a method paraphrastic offers comparison, the onewhouses itthe to an solution elegant 105 προσφέρεσθαι Ibid. Ibid., 1.27-28: Ibid., 1.26-27: 2.19-20: Ibid., ὐὲ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀρκεῖσθαι τοῖς παρ οὐδὲ On the other hand, although the paraphrasts had “offered most noble solutions noble most “offered had paraphrasts the although hand, other the On From the discussion so far,it appears natural that Sophonias chose to deal with . DA ταῖς τε ἀνακυπτούσαις ἀπορίαις γενναιοτάτας τὰς λύσεις ἐπήνεγκαν εὔπορον ἐντεῦθεν τὴν εἰς φιλοσοφίαν ὁδὸν τοῖς μετ τοῖς ὁδὸν φιλοσοφίαν εἰς τὴν ἐντεῦθεν εὔπορον through the through technical ἀλλὰ κινδυνεύειν ἐπιλελῆσθαι τῇ μεταξυλογίᾳ καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ τοῖς ἑξῆς συγκεχυμένως ἑξῆς τοῖς καὶ ἀρχῆς τῆς καὶ μεταξυλογίᾳ τῇ ἐπιλελῆσθαι κινδυνεύειν ἀλλὰ ’ ἐκείνων instrumentarium 107 , 106 εἰ μὴ τῶνκαὶ πρώτωνἐξέσται τυχεῖν Sophonias claims that he does not prefer is a justified motivation. isjustified a ’ αὐτοὺς ὑπολείποντες αὐτοὺς of the paraphrasis. Whatever of paraphrasis. the 108 One’s first impression is impression first One’s · . . 29 CEU eTD Collection 112 111 110 to the edition of W.D. Ross, changes it to DA φθαρτοῦ used by andSophonias, it although is probable that was latter the acquainted with Elenchi Scholia Elenchi insertion of an excerpt from a commentary on islastof examples. The addition the ones. means of clearer by phrases difficult or imprecise of replacement is the third The sentences. unchanged in otherwise words single for synonyms of substitution is the second The exposition. mainin the of glosses is addition first the The exegesis. scholiastic of features the the to similar very characteristics, constitutive four altogether distinguishes Ebbesen Sten his account of Sophonias’ exegetical methodology in paraphrasisthe of the Description ofSophonias’ method. ‘Innovation’ of both texts, which cannot be completed in the limits of the present research. comparative study aseparate however,requires paraphrasis, of purposes Sophonias’ question how Philoponus’of theory of soul the intellectcouldand servethe possible but by the content of theTherefore, the choice of source must beargumentation dictated not by the efficiency of the approach, and significance. of exegesis of philosophical the development the allow commentary the theoretical platforminstead it tocreates. Philoponus, The goes interpretation far as asthe toThemistius) (e.g. some paraphrasts of refer to the must be related to well. the intention of his treatise. Both types of instance in the paraphrase of paraphrase the in instance 109 Ibid., 338. Ibid., 335. Ebbesen, “Commentators Commentaries:”and 333-341. Example for the change of word order and the substitution of some conjunctions one can find for find can one conjunctions of some substitution the and order of word change the for Example 415 109 .” b Finally,itis left discuss to Sophonias’ methodology own of commenting. In The second part of the question, namely, why did Sophonias choose not to 8. Aristotle states Sophonias paraphrases: “Ἔστι δὲ ἡ ψυχὴ τοῦ ζῶντος σώματος ἀρχὴ καὶ αἰτία that I knew have it.” : “ Aristotle. De anima σι ὲ ψχ τῦ ῶτς ώαο ατα α ἀρχή καὶ αἰτία σώματος ζῶντος τοῦ ψυχὴ ἡ δὲ ἔστι DA “ὥσπερ τοῦ φθαρτοῦ τὸ ἀίδιον 413 b 24. Aristotle’s texts reads as follows: 112 (Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1967). He does not specify which commentary is commentary which specify not does He De Interpretatione .” Another example is the paraphrase of .” Aristotle’s text is quoted according 111 Ebbesen also points the points also Ebbesen , “though none of the of none “though , “καθάπερ τὸ ἀΐδιον τοῦ ἀΐδιον τὸ “καθάπερ ,” while Sophonias SE , 110 30 CEU eTD Collection It is important to interpret his claim for innovation both in the context of the purposes the of context inthe both innovation for claim his interpret to important is It mine]. [emphasis Aristotle in addition to in addition offer something and others, the of standards the up to keep to is, that explanation, sufficient provide to 115 preface. “Following exegetes,” the preface. development of a new one –a characteristics revision of andapproach previousthe methodological the that overcomes thesingle being,andfinally essencethe of itself. preface Sophonias’ has samethe disadvantages of theinquiry formerabout the essence – of the soul first– in – then, eventually,his of the essence of of every method auniversal todevelop trying then and soul of the essence on the theories περικοπάς methodological in enterprise methodological Aristotle’s andreflects repeats however, some extent, to Sophonias’ preface of problem by itself. Thestructure differentways of the aphilosophical approaching differentwaysthe of aphilosophical stand text inapproaching mainfocusthe and not explanation of its divisions. He does not comment on Aristotle’s method, however, asand acategorization methodological and provides criteria tradition to according Michael Psellos’ paraphrasis on the on treatise, the paraphrasis Psellos’ Michael 114 De Anima Paraphrasis 113 of tothetext approach Sophonias’ exegetic methodology provides a paradigm useful for analysis the of his canhardlyconnection bemade. This summary description of of Ebbesen’s Ibid., 2.34: Sophonias, the to preface his in paraphrasts of the group of the representative a as Psellos to refers Sophonias Sophonias twice refers to his approach Sophonias twice refers tohis as “novel”( approach , Sophonias’ preface gives an account of an gives Sophonias’ preface account of Greekcommentary previous the ὡς κατὰ λέξιν εἶχεν ἐκείνοις τάχ De Anima ’ ἄν τι καινὸνἄν τι ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς Ἀριστοτελικοῖς . , 3.3-4: , DA . 115 καὶ DA , τοῖς ἡμετέροις ἐνέθεμεν τοῖς ἐξηγηταῖςτοῖς ἑπόμενοι . On onethe hand, Aristotleis revising theprevious new 114 but borrowing the form of paraphrasis, he aims he paraphrasis, of form the borrowing but and tosome extent 113 at the presentstage of thissuch study a καταλείψειε · [emphasis mine] [emphasis κἂν τοῖς πλείοσι καὶ μάλιστα Φιλοπόνῳ ὅλας Φιλοπόνῳ μάλιστα καὶ πλείοσι τοῖς κἂν . [emphasis mine] [emphasis τι καινὸν useful in the studies of ) in preface.the 116 31 CEU eTD Collection 119 10 (1902): 55-72. 118 1995), 1-17 (hereafter: Kazhdan: “Innovation in Byzantium.” Originality Byzantinein Literature, Art and Music, ed. A. R.Littlewood (Oxbow Books: Oxford, 117 χρήσιμον existing tradition of commenting without altering it essentially. it altering without commenting of tradition existing type methodology of iswhich added to previousthe two. It complements already the the approaches of the exegetes and the paraphrasts. The result of this process is a third “innovation” is an improvementhis Therefore, morein profitable approach. tooffera ititorder and complements by rearranging the already as itsSophonias “improvement.” isnot denying preceedingtradition; he analyses the existing material, that is, as astatement of theexegeticalrevolutionizing methodology. Itshould beunderstood be taken not should “originality” for claim Sophonias’ that argue would I novelty? the is where commentary. Then arather stardard produces however, which, methodology a different of invention the claims He commentary. Aristotelian of tradition innovation, or “innovation.” of accusation the against himself defending imprisoned) (while Moschopoulos by Manuel written letter famous toa refer to suffice presentstudy; the of subject the not is significantly it transformed or heritage, Roman and Hellenic scholarship. καινοτομία or originality” “Byzantine of notion the of context general in the and text his of 116 Kazhdan: “InnovationByzantium:” in 11. See L. Levi, “Cinque lettere inedite di Manuele Moscopulo” in Moscopulo” Manuele di inedite lettere “Cinque Levi, L. See See the overview of this discussion by Alexander P. Kazhdan, “Innovation in Byzantium”, in Byzantium”, in “Innovation Kazhdan, P. by Alexander discussion this of overview the See The second occurrence is ibid., 2.6: ibid., is occurrence second The . [emphasis mine] commentaries at a time when hardly anybody had the ability to offer to ability the had anybody hardly when a time at commentaries innovation served asanexcusefor writing andpublishing commentaries…literary Aristotelian Early …in the Palaeologan Börje Bydén proposes an additional aspect of Sophonias claim for “novelty”: . The latter has been the subject of continuous discussion in the in discussion continuous of subject the been has latter . The 117 119 Whether the Byzantines strove conservatively to preserve their preserve to conservatively strove Byzantines the Whether ; inthepresent late thirteenth/early fourteenth context century it may however, influences the understanding of Sophonias’ place in the in place Sophonias’ of understanding the influences however, καὶ εἰ μὴ καινόν τι τὸ παρ 118 Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica The dichotomy ofimitation ’ ἐμοῦ , καί τί που καὶ συνεισφέρον 32 CEU eTD Collection Sophonias’ embassy to Italy. to embassy Sophonias’ reasonable man. Simon apparently heldhim in respect aswell,great after their dispute 121 120 Constantinople of heengaged in Dominican, Simon the correspondence with comesthe from character life. origins His andfamily areconnections also unknown. Theonly evidence for his monasticof a heto thepursuit is wasdevoted itclearwhat extent to not In addition, it. entered he when or to belonged he monastery the of evidence is no there but monk, who? when? how? where? and finally,is Sophonias why? believed tohave been a hisand function treatise. of context probable most the canserve reconstructing for as itsand author tools text concerning the factors such intendedwas.In of a case,theanalysis what his audience several overlapping the composing certain extent hypothetical, it is preface involving conclusions from analysis.the previous the difficult tofollowing section of study inquiresthis aboutthe audience and of purposes the determine andSophonias’ prefaces, (3) other finally within the what his motivesnamely, within (1) generalframeworkthe of commentary,the within (2) of group the were for Congourdeau: “Note sur les Dominicains:” 178. Bydén: “Literary Innovation:”33. wished they wishedhad they had. significantnew philological philosophical insights, butmanyor people The starting point for such an analysis is as simple as asking the questions: aboutBecause evidence Sophonias’life andactivities is scarceanda rather to levels, several on preface Sophonias’ contextualized above discussion The De AnimaParaphrasis 121 Audience and purposes of the commentary of Pachymeres George by given account the from and 120 122 Pachymeres describes Sophonias as a wise and wise a as Sophonias describes Pachymeres , what the purpose purpose of , whatthe writingitwas, and even De AnimaParaphrasis . The . 33 CEU eTD Collection grand Basile, à ce que tu me disais, affirmait que l’ mesure de mes possibilités sa signification àtes yeux ; il te semblait eneffet que parcette citation entre le différence la sur celui deNysse Grégoire àsonfrère discours unses continuedans de Basile saint du grand unecitation qu’à cette occasiontu passas par Euripos, et deSicile, roi glorieux très du auprès ambassadeur comme Romains des empereur grand fois trios Constantinopolitain:” footnotes 9 and 20: “Je me souviens que lorsque ta sainteté fut envoyée par le 123 in the composition of the scholia Sophonias made use of Nikephoros Blemmydes’ compendium of logic and of the εοόαο Σοφονίαν ἱερομόναχον διαπρεσβεύσεσθαι 127 126 125 124 Fils, comme disent ceux quiaffirment que l’Esprit est produit par lesdeux.” [emphasis mine] main source for his paraphrasis of formain hisparaphrasis source was acquainted Psellos). Michael and Philoponus, John Simplicius, had access at leastcommentary to Philoponus’ he and itcommentary Aristotelian knew the the appears that corpus he wrote paraphrases tradition as this Sophonias’ education.he Apparently obtained a from theological education; wasthe as thewell (Themistius, in theforthcoming for Pope. with negotiations Euripos the Alexander as a possible indication Sophoniasthat was preparinghimself ofamong the Dominicans Aphrodisias, Ammonius, argumentation. passage from Basil Greatapparently forthe useful purposes the of Simon’s citations; evenmore, Sophonias himself brought to Simon a book which contained a wasbased usageof on partof the patristic discussion to Italy.the An important on the matters of the procession of the Holy Spirit in 1294 while Sophonias was going 122 See Hayduck, “Preface,” footnote 3. footnote “Preface,” SeeHayduck, 38. footnote See I. Appendix in preface of Sophonias’ translation the See Congourdeau: “Frère SimonLe Constantinopolitain:” 169. Pachymeres, Cf. Vatican City, BAV MS Gr 1104, f.23, tr. Congourdeau in Congourdeau “Frère Simon Le of Magentine. Leo the of From From one can evidence this easily draw someconclusions concerning . Historiae [emphasis mine 123 Congourdeau interprets the theological discussion between the two the between discussion theological the interprets Congourdeau , νρ σφν ε α συνετόν καὶ τε σοφόν ἄνδρα , 202.8-10: ousia De Anima ParaphrasisDe Anima ] et 126 hypostasis Ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς πρέποντα γάμον τῷ παιδὶ παρεσκεύαζε he Hayduck usedIamblichusout that points aswell DA tu me remis en mains un volume dans lequel se tu me trouvait remisen undans lequel mains volume . In his paraphrasis on the on paraphrasis his In . , de sorte qu’après l’avoir examinée je connusse dans la ousia , ππμε πὸ Πυίν ὸ ιομνν κῆδος κινούμενον τὸ Πουλίαν πρὸς ἀποπέμπει 125 du Père est la seule cause de l’Esprit, et pas le . 127 From these, I argue that he certainly that argue From I these, Sophonias’ knowledge of isLatin 124 Sophistici Elenchi . καὶ τὸν μὲν 34 , , CEU eTD Collection certain easiness totheeffort reading”. easiness regarding the certain those who would appropriate his methodology, as the ones who would come “to a commenting he proposes, Sophonias identifies theaudience of his works,in terms of of method theadvantages of Whiledescribing the preface. aforementioned whole. based on them he has drawn generalthis histowards conclusion exegetical as texts a 133 claimits “If the usefulness: Imyself havehence for of choice madethe adducing is meant tobe andtransmitted, itis not aproduct of isolatedan scholarly enterprise, is on paraphrasis of preface Sophonias’ of the monk areamere paraphrase study of Aristotle’s philosophy. facilitate the to intention wasthe activity scholarly behind Sophonias’ The reason lastduring the centuriesof three empire,the Tatakis seesthis idea asself-evident. Byzantine thought of representatives philosophical among the Sophonias’ place of account short his In (1). text educational an as treatise the sees scholarship attested deGaillac. by Bernard Guillaume attested 132 ce philosophe.” de l’étude 131 130 129 14. footnote Dominicains,” les sur “Note Congourdeau: in etlatinam…” litteram graecam sciens monachus, 128 on paraphrasis fourSophonias, Ipropose hypotheses purposes forand the audienceof possible the elite. member Byzantine of the a highly educated diplomatic task entrusted him entrusted by II diplomaticto task Andronikos Sophonias, Sophonias, Tatakis, 34. footnote See Ibid.: “…Sophonias,paraphraséqui a plusieurs ouvrages d’Aristote,dans l’intention de faciliter Uppsala,MS UU 342.55 “Utreverendus virdominus Sophonias, graecus (…) kalogerus sive This hypothesis canThis hypothesis be confirmed tosome by extent a close reading of the Taking into consideration the summary of the available information on Histoire de la Philosophie De Anima De Anima DA . The firstand safest, and perhaps most acknowledged in the , 2.34-35: . See Appendix I. καὶ ῥᾳστώνηνκαὶ τινὰ τῇ ἐπὶτῇ ἀναγνώσει ὀρέξεισπουδῇ , 246. 131 the to dedicated has Tatakis that passages The 128 All this, combined with the delicate the with combined this, All 129 133 demonstrate that Sophonias was Sophonias that demonstrate Another indication that the text the that indication Another . DA 132 and 130 35 CEU eTD Collection mine] Constantinople asapreparation for with pope negotiations the has future the already Constantinople subjectin the interest personal Sophonias’ of result a be can paraphrasis the of composition (4). Thethe forthcoming discussions (2), or as means of self-representation (3). Finally, the theological beforecomposed embassy the of itcould1294, served have either asapreparation for dispute that Sophonias entered in with Simon of τὴν ἀπολογίαν εὑρών something useful iswhich [coming]from me is somethingnot new and in a certain degree introducing something Iwould seem notsuperfluous proffering asufficientjustification if that 134 inOn courtof the II. ifAndronikos theparaphrasis onethe hand, on treatises were meant to be involvedhis that possibility the somehow consider can one Catholicism, to as conversion a toollater in(Sophonias’) his career as a high official the negotiations for evidence.the If one marriagetakes into consideration the political ofactivity Michaelof Sophonias, his herefar cansorole only be as ideas proposed and by can hardly be supported inextant IX to Catherine of Courtenay, and his probably formed have part of hiscould audienceof the paraphrases. he “scholarly of was the circle” Representatives to. this wasdirected text apprentices educational tool to Sophonias’ paraphrasis. Itremains unclear, however, who were the From what was stated above, it seems quite appropriatemyself withit exegetes) the my occurred to showmind kindness to to towards others.” attribute the function of an havingbecause (because of lot exegetes] enduredthem [the of Ispent a time troubling complaints concerning effortthe hehas putin studying the tradition him:before “And his with together comes fact in paraphrasis Sophonias’ of intention instructional 2.4-7: Ibid., The remaining hypotheses concerning the audience of of discussed treatise theaudience the hypotheses The remainingconcerning εἰ δὲ τούτων ὄντων καὶ αὐτός τι συμβαλέσθαι προῄρημαιτι συμβαλέσθαι αὐτός καὶ ὄντωνδὲ τούτων εἰ , καὶ εἰ μὴ καινόν τι τὸ παρ [emphasis mine].” [emphasis ’ 134 ἐμοῦ finalTheremark suggests that the , καί ί ο κὶ συνεισφέρον καὶ που τί , περιττὸς ἂν δόξαιμι ἂν περιττὸς χρήσιμον , μὴ ἀποχρῶσαν . [emphasis DA was 135 36 CEU eTD Collection problematic and possibly even imprecise. even possibly and problematic 137 136 ἐπῄειἄλλοις φιλανθρωπεύσασθαι Florence, Laur. MS Gr 7.35. The codex is dated to the end of the thirteenth/beginning Hayduck’s description oldestthe of manuscriptof the before the diplomatic chronological is frame changed. missionpersonal interest in the topic (4))will considerablyadopt meaningdifferent if their to thetext (1),court or it was employed ofThe for Naples.remaining self-representation three options of Sophonias’ for preparation negotiationsthe inItaly would(2)) have tobe rejected. I (3),base or(the it wasparaphrasis writtenthis indiscussed previousthe because thesecond subchapter (the was statement ofwritten eitherIn case that the text was written beforeas the embassy of 1294, from a the four hypothesespropaedeutical on significantrole in establishingthe of its probablepurposesand possible audience. been mentioned. The paraphrasis of paraphrasis The mentioned. been 135 my on paraphrasis the of Thedating of a fewobservations own. makeimpossible to on progress this question; I will here review theevidence andadd is it available presently data the With century. thirteenth the of end the towards for the composition of his paraphrases. It has been shown The dating of the in Italy. stay could have been an useful instrumentin building acertain image and during status his philosophy. Ontheother hand, being reputation the of acommentator onAristotle See Hayduck, “Preface” and Ebbesen, and “Preface” Hayduck, See 3.6-8: Ibid., Indeed the dating of the paraphrasis is important, but one has to consider that it is highly is it that consider to has one but important, is paraphrasis the of dating the Indeed However, I argue that the paraphrasis of paraphrasis the argue that I However, Previous research on Previous research Sophoniason has managednot toestablish aprecise dating καὶ τῷ παθεῖν αὐτούς τῷ παθεῖν καὶ De Anima Paraphrasis . ( πολὺν γὰρ ἐτρίβομεν χρόνον τοῖς ἐξηγηταῖς προσταλαιπωρούμενοι ἐξηγηταῖς χρόνονἐτρίβομεν τοῖς πολὺν γὰρ Commentators and Commentaries DA could have been a similar exercise in exercise asimilar been have could DA De Anima Paraphrasis was most probably composed probably most was DeAnimaParaphrasis 136 that they were written were they that . DA would play a waspart ) τοῖς – 137 37 CEU eTD Collection within life the span of Sophonias. Paraphrasis paraphrasis of paraphrasis the of author the been have not could Sophonias monk same the and one that assume is there to noreason ascertain. Byhow is However, manuscript. to impossible extant analysis. attributed to the same author, all they are together century. Nevertheless, fourteenth back the to date treatises Sophonias, on the basis of stylistic and morphological attributed attributed to Sophonias as beingmuch earlier. paraphrasis on paraphrasis the transmits that manuscript the that out points He copied. been have to text discussion of the issue.Hayduck informs us about this discrepancy briefly in a footnote withoutfurther Also, he does not Sophoniasspecify the philosopher with Sophonias the ambassador. howIn addition to that, much earlier he assumes the (before 1294– 1351). ismanuscript notthe archetype, he therefore and doubts authorshipthe of Sophonias hand. recent a more to belongs which folio, exception of the with one century in thirteenth the wascopied Sophonias’ paraphrasis with some care). needstobetreated century date (but this fourteenth of the 142 141 140 139 138 codex codex by proposed Bandini and Vitelli See M. Hayduck, Ibid. Ibid. 2. footnote Ibid., Hayduck, “Preface,” vii. If indeed Florence, Laur. MS Gr 7. 35 is not the archetype, it must predate 35 isarchetype,If indeedthe mustitFlorence, Laur.MSGr7.notthe predate 142 could have been written could havebeenwritten earlier the other than butsurely treatises, still DA DA “Preface” in “Preface” differs from from differs manuscripts paraphrasesthe other the transmitting and the other ones attributed to his name. The name. his to attributed ones other the and 139 However, his objection suggests only that the dating of the Anonymi in Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Paraphrasis 140 doessupportnot theidentification of 141 138 other ofthe manuscripts The oldest this that convinced is Hayduck De Anima , CAG , v. 38 CEU eTD Collection Sophonias. represents On with acquainted hand,Aquinas’ other Themistius’ works. the commentary the Latin commentary tradition of a period roughly contemporary to information by information the inhis given Sophonias to preface the to according addition, In paraphrasis. the type: exegetical same the employs also he and commentary, Aristotelian of tradition Greek same the to belongs Themistius Thomas Aquinas’ preface, Themistius’ introduction histo exegesis. Aristotelian of same the tradition to belonging prefaces other among preface Sophonias’ madeinconclusions thecharacter general about of a preface and todistinguish also the exemplify is to here intention The material. comparative introducing by Aristotle will illustratewhat apreface isin claim not general reachdoes to conclusions.universal Second, I various of about this discussion The study. chapter case intheprevious general the described typesitself anas individual example in paradigmaticthe commentary structure after having of preface positions preface Sophonias’ how analyze isto aim The functions. and intentions used within inhistorical a context order to presentmore complete its understanding of various the commentary Aristotle’s of commentaries tradition of is,prefaces that nature, same of the prefaces other two with preface of the on section Sophonias’ preface. Thepresent a of this study presents comparative analysis The following subsections provide two acomparative analysis of Sophonias’ First Idiscuss the preface as such itsand specifics independently the of The objective of the previous chapter was to provide a contextualization of III. THE PREFACE. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS COMPARATIVE III. THEPREFACE. Lectio Prima DA . of his of Sentencia libriDeAnima In Aristotelem De Anima paraphrasis De AnimaParaphrasis . On the one hand, one the On . , he was , and , 39 CEU eTD Collection commentary (4). commentary in of the and function whole the place own even preface’s or the (3) methodology approach (1), his choice for alterations from the original philosopher’s(2), the to ensurethatthetextisreadproperly asits function chief has out “thepointed the …authorial Genette preface… As Gerard instrumentarium evenconceptual) Thepreface(and methodological necessary the offers interact. Both preface mainthe andbody principal text. of a commentary the theoretical from the a derives etymologically preface problem. Even asakey exposition appears preface andits properties, inevitably interrelatedness of the prefacethe andthemain of paraphrasis. the characteristic terms technical the and commentary ‘proper’ the of focus characteristic Itechnical on terms the “Terminology” title the under Finally, treatise. the of body main in the method this of utilization actual “Methodology” deals provide aclassification of previous commentaries? Theto dedicated section with the author’s description prefacethe includeof it preceding adescription the commentary Does tradition? of his own method and with the himself hisand treatise to Aristotle’s following does “Tradition” questions: Iam relate three author How addressing the the haveandpreface. I Themistius’ threecategories. theminto divided Under titlethe discussing preface Sophonias’ andit comparing with Thomas Aquinas’ 143 1997): 197. Gerard Genette, Gerard Whatever starting point one may choose in order to discuss the nature of nature discuss inmay a the to one choose order startingpoint Whatever In Appendix haveII I presented mainthe I shall elements address here when in order to assure bestthe possible graspof matter the under study. Paratexts: Thresholds ofInterpretation Thresholds Paratexts: A model of a preface. General framework .” DA 143 , especially in terms of methodology? Does The preface can explain can Thepreface commentator’s the explain (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Lectio Prima 40 CEU eTD Collection however, does not deal with the content of thecontent deal not with does however, easier tocomprehend than existingthe and ones, The preface, completely clear. much is that form in a text the of transmission is the commenting of methodology new of introduction the behind a intention premise, then leading that If the accepts one the purposes of an initial education in the study of the Aristotelian theory of the soul. textual units are essentially and functionally different. despitedemonstrates that the unanimous andunifying style of narrative,the these two prefaces andtheexpositions they discussedin three introduce, chapter this the of that consideration the hereproposes I am advancing hypothesis The manner? in a different thesameaudience they that approach audiences or different addressing levels different on operate commentary the and preface the that possible it is Finally, andown, anindependent anintention structure not to related commentary?the meaningful if separated from the text it introduces? Does a preface have a topic on its depend exclusively mainon the of unit itargumentation introduces? Can a preface be a preface Does former. of the characteristic one only represent exposition and an a preface of however, interrelatedness Iargue, that the of purposes exposition. the the exclusively apreface that serves seemsassumption a natural then It and key the terms. method of from as of is asderived method commentating described their former two, the inparaphrasts order to outline their advantages andThen, disadvantages. the new writing. carefully revisionthe through precedingtraditionthe of in of thisgenre exegetic He analyses methodology.commentary The ‘novelty’ is introduced which he contextualized theand justification of Sophonias’ personal claim methodsfor the improvement of the used by the ‘proper’ commentators and the As discussed above, Sophonias’ paraphrasis appears to have been written for have been to written appears paraphrasis Sophonias’ above, As discussed alsomain the states the problems The prefacetopic, discussion, clearly inthe DA at all. It represents an argumentation 41 CEU eTD Collection preface should contain: “For the one who writes a preface has three objectives. In the objectives. three has apreface whowrites “For the one contain: preface should his for whata Whatwere Aristotle’sprovoked prescriptions separately. interest “preface” is not distinguished in text,Aquinasthe defines it assuch and discusses it Animalibus Approach to the Soul,” Aquinas’ 145 1274), doctrinale etlittéraire dumoyen âge Soul: Form and Substance? Thomas Aquinas’ Critique of Eclectic ,” 2008) (hereafter: Aquinas, Alarcón; available from http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/can1.html; Internet; (accessed 27 January definition is and how wedefine things. Prima Aquinas’ then acommentary, should howone compose teaches If Sophonias in of methodology the teaching. at samethe audience; its prefaceto isdirected time partof that audienceinterested the asitsof agroup addresses paraphrasis disciples while Sophonias’ concluded that of clarifying Aristotle’s thought.Following the same line of itreasoning, can be instructional skillfully whichaimsintroduce moreprepared treatise, to efficientways paraphrasis isnot development the of a newphilosophical argumentation, buta transmittingit. andstudying Hence,one shouldfrom what expect Sophonias’ Aristotle’s related to theory of soul the itsor understanding,means butto the of philosophy. Therefore, of in an education is, facilitation that with respect the to acertain objective, perfection the aim and the main concern of Sophonias’ preface are not 144 Thomas Aquinas, For a general introduction to Aquinas’ theory on the soul see Michael J. Sweeney, “Thomas Sweeney, J. Michael see soul the on theory Aquinas’ to introduction general a For deals with the issue how to write a preface, and Themistius discusses what a 145 In here. prefaces analysed two other the to be applied can Similar argumentation Quaestiones de Anima after discussing itAristotle’s methodology is appliedas in Lectio Prima , and so on, pays special attention to the “preface” of the “preface” to attention special pays , andsoon, Sentencia libri De anima Miscellania Medievalia Sentencia libri De anima of his of Thomas Aquinas, and the Difference between a Philosophical and a Theological and Philosophical a between Difference the and Sentencia libriDe Anima 64 (1997): 95-126; Leonard A. Kennedy, “ANew Disputed , in Corpus , Thomisticum [database on-line],ed. Enrique 26 (1998): 587-594; Carlos B. Bazán, “The Human ). Lectio Prima , 144 (1225- Aquinas Thomas DA Metaphysica Archives d'histoire . Although . Although this Lectio , De 42 CEU eTD Collection Tertio ut reddat attentum. facit prooemium tria intendit. Primo enim ut auditorem reddat benevolum. Secundo ut reddat docilem. Third,to provokeits interest.” place first topredisposethe‘audience’ tolearn. tomake Second, itknowledgeable. 146 littéraire dumoyenâge Questionof St. Thomas Aquinas on the Immortality of the Soul,” unlike Sophonias as well,Aquinas does notplace his somewherecommentary work in Aristotlewhathas in asappropriate prescribed case.Unlike this Aristotle and himself, notexpressdoes Aquinas’ownmethodological inpreferences anyway;it reports The preface as possible. asstrictly text Aristotle’s follows its exposition that assure information for understandingof the structure wholethe treatise, anditalso seeks to exegetical is Aquinas’ about. work ispreface toprovide designed necessary the an what twowaysmoreover itself, of but function understanding preface of the the to what a preface to any kind of tract should be like. interest his transfers later itself and methodology Aristotle’s summarizes first Aquinas texts. Aristotle’s on commenting of methods the discusses and tradition commentary is discussion different, rather Sophoniasthough. presents an of overview previousthe introduction of his treatise to a sort of methodological discussion; the matter of dedicates the also Aquinas from Sophonias’. of that different isquite its character that difficulties in a treatise of this kindin toprovokeorder the interest of reader. the hasthe toindicate Finally, author the ofthe and treatise. thedivision contents the should explain thecommentator enterprise, dialectic following for the “audience” prepare the Then,demonstrate in usefulnessthe to of knowledge. this order in topredisposefollowingFirst, thereadertolearn,order way. should one Aquinas, The comparison between the prefaces reveals two ways of perceiving not only not perceiving of ways two reveals prefaces the between comparison The From shortthis overview ofThomas Aquinas’can prefaceone easily observe Sentencia libri De anima 45 (1979): 205-223. : Lectio 1 [86462] Sentencia De anima, lib. 1 l. 1 n. 2 146 These three tasks are to be accomplished in the accomplished be are to tasks These three Archives d'histoire doctrinale et Qui enim Qui 147 43 CEU eTD Collection commentary, and it therefore has instructional an purpose. Such a commentary comprehensible structure. can easily function as amodel commentary standard, asaresult with or a paradigmatic, a clearly produces meaning of textby the it.extending The simplification applied byAquinas to the clarify to aims he since by Sophonias chosen one the to contrasted simplification, through clarification namely, strategy, commenting another shows This form. in explicitly and a condensed arguments much diction the transmitted the clearer, One canobserve that language the of isAquinas’ commentary much more simplified, of the need for clarification,is,in aresult my in firstparagraph, opinion, the insertion of the contextualization the which Aquinastext, can be considered an indicator for Aquinas’felt own method of commenting. That is, Aristotle’sthe study text of the essence of the soul. Thatcouldinsertion, which does not follow Aristotle’smake use in contextualize to used the methodology Aristotle inorder treatises of other discusses of. is important only in so far asits insertion into the preface is concerned.Here Aquinas of whatever being. namely, his explanation of Aristotle’s general proceedingin study the of essencethe of his own input in distinguish position Aquinas’ comparison with beforeothers him. a Perhaps trace in the the tradition established so far. There is no general scheme provided where one can 148 distinctionem tractatus: attentum attestando difficultatem tractatus 147 de animatamquam communem eis.Aristoteles ergo volens tradere scientiam de ipsisrebus animatis, conveniunt. Adtradendum igitur derebus animatis scientiam,necessarium fuitprimo tradere scientiam rei animatae. Commune autem omnibus rebus animatis est anima: in hoc enim omnia animata considerare ea quae sunt communia omnibus animatis, postmodum vero illa quae sunt propria cuilibet animatarum omnium quoddam genus est; et ideo in consideratione rerum animatarum oportetprius propria unicuique enti. Cuius ratio est,quia nisi hocfieret,idem diceretur frequenter. Rerum autem metaphysicae enimprimo tractat etconsiderat communia entis inquantum ens,postea vero considerat propria unicuique illius generis: quem quidem modum Aristoteles servat in philosophia prima. In animalibus, in quolibet genere rerum necesse est prius considerare communia et seorsum, et postea Ibid: Lectio 1 [86461] Sentencia Ibid.: De anima, lib. 1 l. 1 n. 1 Benevolum quidem reddit, ostendendo utilitatem scientiae: docilem, praemittendo ordinem et 148 This very methodology is not a subject of interpretation here; it DA commentary is the very beginning of Sicut docet philosophus in undecimo de . Lectio Prima DA 44 , CEU eTD Collection 153 152 μεθόδων ὅσας ἐνέδωκε τῇθεωρίᾳ ἐνέδωκε ὅσας μεθόδων μηδὲ ἐξαριθμήσασθαι μόνον οἱ πρὸ Ἀριστοτέλουςμηδὲἐξαριθμήσασθαιμόνον οἱ ἐξίκοντο πάντων ἄγασθαι μᾶλλον προσήκει τὴν Περὶ ψυχῆς πραγματείαν καὶ τοῦ πλήθους ἕνεκεν τῶν προβλημάτων φορτικὸν εἰπεῖν φορτικὸν texts.” to him,enlargementand refers of elucidation the torearrangement “restatement, comments that these terms “may well procedures.” tooverlapping “maywell terms that these comments refer Todd Robert English, into text Themistius’ of translation his to introduction the points out the internal discussions, which do not repeat Aristotle’s text, but are either outtheinternalrepeatpoints butare which Aristotle’s not discussions, do text, solutions to certain problems within the theoretical discussion. Finally, the elaboration schematic way than way the they are explainedin the original. Theanalysis provides terminology. The isreconstruction presentation the of Aristotle’s ideas inamore τῇδε τῇ πραγματείᾳτῇἐκθέσθαιτῇδετῷ 151 reconstruction ( exegesis he isemploying in the on paraphrasis First, the preface begins with a methodological discussion of the four types of soul.Aristotle’s theory of the about explaining of anewmethod justification and is Thefocus introduction on the treatise. Aristotle’s of content the with deal not does it but discussion, terminological extent some to and previously illustrated inand Appendix Sophonias’ I, preface offers a methodological set criterion the threefold to According Sophonias’. intention than different apparently 150 Theodosius Vanderspoel, 149 sequentibus libris primo traditscientiam de anima, postmodum vero determinatde propriis singulis animatis in Ibid., 4 Todd, “Introduction,”4. 1.2-10: Ibid., Themistius, For an overview on Themistius’ rhetoric and the role of philosophy in his speeches see John see speeches his in philosophy of role the and rhetoric Themistius’ on overview an For 153 Themistius’ preface contains all three characteristics in new a configuration. all characteristics preface contains three Themistius’ Themistius’ prefaceThemistius’ This also implies the omission of repetitions and the clarification of the of clarification the and repetitions of omission the implies also This , Ann Arbor(University of Michigan Press, 1995). ) Themistius and Imperial Court: Oratory, CivicDuty, and Paideia from Constantius to In Aristotelis libros de anima paraphrasis καὶ Περὶ ψυχῆς ὅσα δυνατὸν σὺν ἐπιστήμῃ λαβεῖν δυνατὸν σὺν Περὶψυχῆς ὅσα . συνίστασθαι ἐξεργάσασθαι · [ δῆλον δὲ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔσται τῶν λεγομένων τῶν ἔσται ἐξαὐτῶν δὲ δῆλον . ) analysis ( analysis ) 149 καὶ καὶ γὰρ πολλῶνσυνταγμάτωνὄντωντις γὰρ καὶἅ tohis paraphrasis on ] τὰ μὲν τὰ Themistius’ preface Themistius’ ἐκκαλύψαι ἐπίσταναι , καὶ τῆς εὐπορίας τῶν εἰς ἕκαστον ἀφορμῶντῶν εἰςἕκαστον τῆςκαὶ εὐπορίας , τοῖς δὲ τοῖς ), and elaboration ( elaboration ), and , CAG , ἀκολουθοῦντας Ἀριστοτέλει πειρατέον ἡμῖν ἐνἀκολουθοῦντας Ἀριστοτέλειπειρατέονἡμῖν DA 5.3 (hereafter: Themistius, συστῆναι DA 150 has a different structure and structure adifferent has . : elucidation ( , τοῖς δὲ , ἂν θαυμάσειενἂν Ἀριστοτέλους ἐπιστῆσαι ἐξεργάζεσθαι 152 ἐκκαλύπτειν , According DA τὰ δὲ ) , ). καὶ τῶν καὶ ( 151 εἰ μὴ In 45 , ), ἃ , CEU eTD Collection ἐδόκει καί τινα ὠφέλειαν παρέξεσθαι level of the on only new as method its paraphrastic his to is referring opinion, in my Themistius, propaedeutical function. That is why he defines it as both novel and 160 παρομαρτεῖνδύναμιν κατὰ φιλοσόφου τοῦ συντομίᾳ τῇ καὶἐξαγγέλλειν τε τάχει γεγραμμένωνσὺν rapidly fall to me in the field of Aristotelian studies.” Aristotelian of field in the me to fall rapidly by his “somethingthat novel Healso stated and method using would paraphrasts. the of commenting, combining the most useful elements from the methods of the exegetes innovation. paraphrasts. proceeding: unfolding the meaning, butrestating it in longera manner than of that the it Philosopherthe andin reporting a concise form. Here shouldone recall Sophonias’ 159 158 τῶν δὲαὐτὰ συνεχῶςοὐ δυναμένοις τῷμήκει ὑπομνημάτων ἀναλαμβάνειν ἔσεσθαιγὰρ τοῦτοιούτουδιὰ τρόπου τὴν ἀνάμνησιν ὑπειλήφαμεν ἅπαξμὲντοῖςτὰ Ἀριστοτέλους μεμαθηκόσιν παρέξεσθαι ὠφέλειαν τινα καί ἐδόκει τε παρομαρτεῖνδύναμινκαινόν κατὰ φιλοσόφου τοῦ συντομίᾳ τῇ commentaries. which be would convenientforwho those fail in task,strugglingthis with lengthy the defines histaskastheelaboration method of Aristotle’sfora arevision works of involves motivationthe behind Themistius’ enterprise. Similar toSophonias, he Posteriora hisin on paraphrasis to placeddedication the description Themistius Post. related topics notexplored in the primary text of deal or in similar paraphrasis or with introduced the with sources connected other 157 156 155 154 Sophonias, See Appendix I. Bydén: “Literary Innovation:” 8-14. Ibid., 3. Ibid., 5. Themistius, Themistius, ): τὸ μέντοι ἐκλαμβάνοντα τὰ βουλήματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις γεγραμμένων σὺν τάχει τε ἐξαγγέλλειν καὶ ἐξαγγέλλειν τε τάχει σὺν γεγραμμένων βιβλίοις τοῖς ἐν τῶν βουλήματα τὰ ἐκλαμβάνοντα μέντοι τὸ Another common feature between these commentators is the claim for Todd [Posterior Analytics]. There the description is more detailed and also and detailed more is description the There Analytics]. [Posterior 159 158 De Anima 155 Analyticorum posteriorum paraphrasis As wasalreadySophonias developing attemptedshown, at anewtype An. Post. An. 157 and also Börje Bydén The paraphrastic method is classified as extracting the intention of intention the asextracting isclassified method The paraphrastic , 2.35: , lines 1.7-10: τάχ · [emphasis mine] ’ ἄν τι καινὸν τὸ μέντοι ἐκλαμβάνοντα τὰ βουλήματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς βιβλίοις ἡμῖν ἐν τοῖς Ἀριστοτελικοῖς καταλείψειε 156 have noticed the similar methodological similar the noticed have , CAG DA 5.1, 1.7-12(hereafter: Themistius, . 154 . 160 Sophonias,Similarto . [emphasis mine] [emphasis Analitica καινόν · εὔκολον An. 46 τε CEU eTD Collection καὶ ἐμφύεσθαι δυνάμενος In Themistius, 163 mine] [emphasis controversial topics in topics controversial greater interest,by justifying the value of matter, subjectthe namely inquiryan about soul.the Of however, is thewhere necessary. reference at this early stage to one of the most 162 soul] in way.”[as the canbeimplanted other some refers to it as “either a part, or capacity of the soul, or else by being of the same kind distinctions made in distinctions and main problems the summarizes He soul’s essence. the about theory Aristotle’s on is main reflection The focus the precisely his of of the preface treatise. commentators commentary tradition. Unlike Sophonias, is Themistius not concerned with other relates backtothe way commentator the original. the text ofhow clear remains it however, methodology, his of exposition brief that from Even The four types of exegesis serve towards aspointers aprevious, detailed discussion. in approach description of paraphrastic the Themistius’ preface acertain novel, andto degree useful. to his paraphrasis on beneficial, 161 Themistius, Themistius, Sophonias, After abrief methodologicalin beginning,the discussion proceeds Themistius The second criterion of comparison between the three prefaces concerns the concerns prefaces three the between comparison of The secondcriterion It remains clear, then, that the methodological discussion at the beginning of at beginning the discussion methodological the that then, clear, It remains 161 DA On Aristotle On the Soul An. Post. DA De Anima something be would him by was offered what hoped as Sophonias is approachedand whatkind of alterations havebeen made in the , 1.22-23: . , 1.9: DA , 2.6: DA λέγω δὲτοῦ νοῦ in a rather systematic way, expanding Aristotle’s reasoning καινόν καὶ εἰ μὴ – the problem of the nature of the intellect. Themistius intellect. the of nature the of problem – the τε ἐδόκει , tr. Robert Todd (London: Duckworth,1996), 15. καινόν 162 , ὃς εἴτε μέρος εἴτε δύναμίς ἐστιτῆς ψυχῆςεἴτε συγγενὴς ἄλλως καί τινα τι τὸ παρ ὠφέλειαν Analiticorum Posteriorum Paraphrasis Analiticorum DA DA completeis comparedhis not to of Aristotle of and previous tothe ’ ἐμοῦ παρέξεσθαι 163 , This quotation illustrates the καί τί · που [emphasis mine] καὶ συνεισφέρον καὶ χρήσιμον 47 . . CEU eTD Collection 167 166 ‘potential’ and as ‘actual,’” as and ‘potential’ should specify genus.its Second,“since genusthe is spoken in ways,two as one First, soul. the essenceof the namely understanding stage, a second to proceeds haveitsbe accidents distinguished. to other, On the be understood. to have essence and nature its hand, one the On inquiry. depend its stages differentbetween understanding. on its correct of definition as thestarting point of discussion.the aim, Its conjunctions the and premise of the argument that follows. In that sense, itis important to clarify the notion discussion. Second, they presenteither the conclusions demonstrated sofar, or/and the overall the of stages different the between distinguish reader the help they First, philosophy…” This is because [the soul] offers valuable foundations for every art of grasp about soul the couldbeimportant equipment for thejourney wholeto the truth. 165 ἀλήθειαν τὴν σύμπασαν πρὸς τοῦτο about whichever essence, orabout the essence as such. bein methodology possibly defining which inquiry essence, its can appliedtothe later on in on paraphrasis later on the hinttowards elaboratedthe discussion problem the on isThemistius going tooffer functions asa itand consequently of intellect nature the the concerning uncertainty 164 of of soul the every provided atof in discussion stage the Ibid., 16-17. Ibid., 16. Ibid., 19. In Themistius, InIbid.,15.Themistius, In order to define the soul, one has to consider several distinctions within the In accordance with Aristotle, Themistius states that “…any truth that we might Defining the soul is the starting point of all demonstration. all of point starting isthe soul the Defining 164 That is, an inquiry about the soul aims at the elaboration of such a DA DA , 5.19: , 1.26-28: 167 . πρὸς γὰρ ἅπαντα τὰ μέρη τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀξιολόγους δίδωσιν ἀξιολόγους τῆςφιλοσοφίας μέρη τὰ ἅπαντα γὰρ πρὸς DA problemthis the concerns followinginquiry as well: ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν πάσης ἀποδείξεως ὁ ὁρισμός 3.5. εἰ δέ τι περὶ ψυχῆς ἀληθὲς κατανοήσαιμεν 166 After this initial distinction, the inquiry the distinction, initial this After DA serve as auxiliary markers. serve as auxiliary . , 165 πάμμεγα ἂν ἐφόδιον εἴη The definitions The 48 CEU eTD Collection ἔσται δῆλον 171 170 τῆς ἀνθρώπου τῆς ὲἡτς ἕξεως ἐνέργειαδὲ ἡ τῆς 169 ἔστι δὲ καὶ τῶνἐντελεχειῶνδὲ καὶ ἔστι διπλόητις τούτων ἀποταχθήσεταιτούτων become subsequently.)” clear (energeiâi)] ‘in (entelekheiâi),entelechy’ and whywehave this way of speaking will δύναμις ‘actuality,’ while for the meaning of ‘potentiality’ only one term is employed – being and that of a horse?” the whole of soul single, or are there different definitions for the soul of a human many souls in existence: “…is there a single definition [of soul], and is the essence Then,of finally, it has to be queried whether there is one universal soul, or are there between difference the about discussion terminological brief the namely, chapter, present the difference is related to the third criterion of comparison discussed at the beginning of in of argumentation the structure the same time summarizes inform methodology and Aristotle’s a systematic atthe restates Themistius essence, substrate? in identical but in definition, different they Are exist? they do way in what parts, are as whether one individual can have several souls or whether the soul has parts. If there 168 Ibid., 18. Ibid., 17. In Themistius, Themistius,In17. Ibid., Themistius,In 17.Ibid., . Themistius mentions briefly how “(We also say [instead of ‘in actuality’ Thirdly, one has to pose the question of whether the soul has parts or not. or parts has soul the whether of question the pose to has one Thirdly, activity of the soul’s the aboutinquiry the within proceeding of stages By recallingthe the As secondary, and primary entelechies. substance,like an potentiality underlying and naturally to [become] a disposed it Is isolated? be soul] [the it will [senses] distinct these of which …in or is it more like entelechy? There is also a duality to · ἐντελέχεια 170 , ἄλλος δὲ τῆς ἵππου τῆς δὲ ἄλλος , . ἆρ and ’ hexis ὡς δύναμις ὑποκειμένη καὶ πρὸς οὐσίαν ἔχουσα εὐφυῶςἔχουσαοὐσίανδύναμιςπρὸςὑποκειμένη ὡς καὶ DA DA ἐνέργεια DA , 3.23-25: . secondary. , 2.41-3.1: 169 , 3.1-6: This leads to the consideration of different cases such different of consideration the This leadsto 171 , καὶ ἡ μέν τις πρώτητιςμένἡ καὶ the of beginning the at issue backtothis He goes . Both . terms areusedtoexpress meaning the ἆρα εἷς ὁρισμὸς καὶ ἓν τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι πάσης ψυχῆς πάσης εἶναι ἦν τὸτί ἓν καὶ ὁρισμὸς εἷς ἆρα εἴπερ οὖν τὴν οὐσίαν εὕροιμεν τῆς ψυχῆς τῆς εὕροιμεν οὐσίαν τὴν οὖν εἴπερ ὅπερ λέγομενἐντελεχείᾳὅπερ 168 , ἡ δὲ δευτέραἡ δὲ hexis , διότι δὲ οὕτω λέγομεν ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆςτοῖς ἐν λέγομενοὕτω δὲ διότι being primary, the · πρώτηἡ ὥσπερἕξις μὲν , DA ἢ μᾶλλον ὡς ἐντελέχειαὡς μᾶλλον ἢ , . An interesting An . ν ίι ῶ διαφορῶν τῶν τίνι ἐν , ἢ ἄλλος μὲν ἢ ἄλλος , δευτέρα 49 ; CEU eTD Collection τὸ θεωρεῖν τὸ ἐντελέχειαἕξιντὴντῆςτελειότητος ἢ ἡ τελείωσις ἑκάστῳ παρὰ τοῦ εἴδους καὶ τὸ ἐντελῶς ἔχειν παρὰ τῆς μορφῆς ὀνομάζοι “to open up or “to open to close downpossibilities of meaning.” intention genre andits isfunctions.commentary Theintention of commentary and the the of discussion overall the within namely, level, general more a on be useful paraphrasis wholeas canbe distinguished as focusthe of Sophonias’ preface. methodology purposes and the hisand references accompanying the of audience to innovation of exegetic claim clearly. The the for emerges preface Sophonias’ explanation inform how in the reader this necessary the to the order gives summary procedure of and A preface text. commented the upon approach methodological of a certain utilization the clarification of the original text are produced. As ithispreface to was Thomas(e.g. Aquinas’ prefacetohis preface to the to preface methodology, and terminology) I have distinguished the features of Sophonias’ main (previoustradition, based criteria onthree analysis comparative through the discussedOn theone hand, atthebeginning. backrelate tothe twofold purpose known], the first being like a is [what contemplating like as well as (episteme), knowledge islike it [compound]: has sensesin two caseof […] Yet‘entelechy state the each the of perfection paraphrasis onBookII,412 173 172 Ibid., 56. Themistius,In 56-57. Ibid., , The alsoprovidespresent chapter conclusions to whichmayperhaps turn out The conclusions from the comparison presented in this chapter of the study οὐ δικαίως ἂν συκοφαντοῖτο ὡςπάνυ ξένῳ τῷ ὀνόματι κεχρημένος , καὶ ἔστι τὸ μὲν ὡς ἕξις ὡς τὸμὲν ἔστι καὶ In Aristotelis Libros De AnimaParaphrasis De AnimaParaphrasis , τὸ δὲ ὡς ἔργον τῆς ἕξεως τῆς ἔργον ὡς δὲ τὸ DA a 10-11. hexis . ἀλλὰ διχῶς γε ἡ ἐντελέχειαδιχῶςἡ ἀλλὰ γε ἐφ , 39.16-22: , the second like afunctioning of the 172 There the There and how they relate to other types of prefaces Sentencia libri De anima ταύτην οὖν τὴν μορφὴν καὶ τὸ εἶδος εἴ τις ἐντελέχειαν . ἐντελέχεια ’ ἑκάστου . ). Thus, the main feature of mainfeature Thus, the ). is defined as “the 174 εἰ γὰρ τὰ προειρημένα ἀληθῆ This is a result of the of result isa This , , ἡ μὲν ὡς ἐπιστήμημὲνἡ ὡς σημαίνοι ἂν οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἡ and Themistius’ hexis .” hexis 173 , ἡ δὲ ὡς δὲ ἡ , of 50 καὶ CEU eTD Collection soul’s essence. of matter the the inquiry on asan text Aristotle’s of coherence the reestablishes It most efficient way. The exposition that follows is ademonstration of this efficiency. preface deals with the question howof to teach Aristotle’s theory about the soul in the the Sophonias, of case the In exposition. main the from prefaces their distinguish functionally – Sophonias and Aquinas, Thomas –Themistius, commentators of a commentary, orby explaining proper the use of definition, the three tocomposing ways in to the discussion of related or Aristotle prefaces teaching their terminological or amethodological offering meta-level.By sospeak, to separate, in a preface preceding ona the demonstrated however, canoperate discussion, 174 Most, “Preface,” ix. 51 CEU eTD Collection ‘innovative’ of character his has approach tobe as understood an improvement, nota in paraphrasts order to deliver subjectmatter the in a more efficientway. is, That the on the soul. Sophonias developed a method different from that of the exegetes and the educational is,introduce certain that purposes, to apprentice(s)Aristotle’s to theory serve to it is was meant that paraphrasis of Sophonias’ for the composition reason ‘novelty’. of this character tospecify the inorder preface of the elements other from the separately was discussed as an‘innovation’ Aristotle’s text towards approach own focusof of description inthe Sophonias’ commentating wereplaced analysis. The the Aristotelian commentary tradition and his discussion of the various methods of its andcontent. structure Sophonias’analyzed categorization of precedingthe and I presented in and second itsTherefore, the chapters, of preface. third features hypotheses aboutthepurposes and audience of Sophonias’ by treatise analyzing the preface. the of analysis contextual complement the in to order activities first chapter inquiryof the aprosopographical reconstruction Sophonias’ offered of to commentaries on Paraphrasis the of text andthe prefaces, other Sophonias’ commentary), Aristotelian morethe specifically (and genreof frameworks: the commentary within textual three maintwo in course the perspectives of presentstudy.the itwas contextualized First, As a result of the analysis described above, I argue that the most probable most the argue that I above, described analysis of the As aresult different explore to was study this throughout intention leading The Sophonias’ preface to his paraphrasis of his paraphrasis to preface Sophonias’ . Second, the preface was analyzed in comparison with two other prefaces other two with comparison in analyzed was preface the . Second, De Anima : Themistius’ and Aquinas’. Thomas Additionally, the CONCLUSIONS De Anima has been from approached De Anima 52 CEU eTD Collection Aristotelian commentary? Aristotelian did athow itmethodology andimprove or alter least the exegetic Sophonias’ of usageof the results the were what paraphrasis: of mainthe exposition the researchis future athorough analysis correspondence prefacethe between of the and for preface,inGreek. What the high-brow remains which was written a complicated, paraphrasis. a key elementwithin inquiry the about purposes the and audience of Sophonias’ ofAristotle promotion approach clearthe ‘innovative’ is studies the within an that of it servebe as Although himself.remains this hisaudience ascertained, cannot well as from commentators wasintended approach to previous a different introducingthe and self-representation of the commentator. That is to say, Sophonias’ justification for self-reflection of an example also is ‘novelty’ for claim The commentary. Byzantine late this of characteristic important an as however, it, consider to has still One and, therefore, it does not concern the elaboration of Aristotle’s psychologicalmethodological is improvement theory. Sophonias’ commentary. Aristotelian the of change, Finally, for the first time the present study offers a full English translation of translation English full a offers study present the time first the for Finally, 53 CEU eTD Collection Angelov, Dimiter Angelov, Ancient Commentators on AristotleinGuide to the CAG Editionof the Ancient Secondary sources: Sophonias. Thomas Aquinas. Thomas Pachymeres. George Themistius. Themisius. Themistius. Themistius. Themistius. Aristotle. Anonymi inAristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos Paraphrasis Anonymi inAristotelisCategorias Paraphrasis sources: Primary Internet; (accessed 24May Internet; 2008). http://www.umds.ac.uk/kis/schools/hums/philosophy/aca/cag-guide.pdf; Sorabji [pdf file]. Available from Commentators, with Project Volumes Arranged Accordingly January 2008). http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/can1.html; (accessedInternet; 27 line]. Ed.Enrique Alarcón. Available from Bonn: Weber, 1835. libri tredecim 1330) 1996. MichaelEd. Hayduck. Berlin: Berolini, 1883. Paraphrasis Wendland, G. Reimer. Berlin: Berolini, 1903. Wendland, G. Reimer. Berlin: Berolini, 1903. Wendland, G. Reimer. Berlin: Berolini, 1903. Michael Berlin:Hayduck. Berolini, 1883. Hayduck. Berlin: Berolini, 1883. De Anima Sophoniae inlibros Aristotelis De Anima paraphrasis On Aristotle theSoul Themistii Quae Fertur in Aristotelis Analyticorum Priorum LibrumI Themistii (Sophoniae) InParva naturalia In Aristotelislibros de anima paraphrasis Analyticorum posteriorum paraphrasis . Cambridge: Cambridge University 2007. Press, . Imperial Ideology and Political. Imperial Thoughtin Byzantium (1204- Sentencia libriDeanima . CAG, 23, 3. Ed. Michael Hayduck. Berlin: Berolini, 1883. . Ed. W.D. Ross. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967. . Ed. I. Bekker. Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Georgii Pachymeris de Michaele etAndronico Palaeologis BIBLIOGRAPHY . Tr. Robert B. Todd. London :Duckworth, . Corpus Thomisticum [database on- . CAG, 23, 2. Ed. Michael . CAG, 5, 1. Ed. Paul . CAG, 5, 6. Ed. Paul . CAG, 5, 3. Ed. Paul . CAG, 23, 4. Ed. . CAG, 23, 1. . Ed. Richard 54 CEU eTD Collection Gollitsis, Pantelis.“Un commentaire perpetuel de Georges Pachymérès” Laiou, Angeliki E. Kennedy, Leonard A. “A New Disputed Question of St. Thomas Aquinas on the Ierodiakonou, Katerina. Ierodiakonou, Mergiali, Sophia.Mergiali, Levi, L. “Cinque lettere inedite di Manuele Moscopulo” Genette, Gerard. Genette, Fryde, E. Sten. Ebbesen, Constantinides, C. N. ______. “Frère le Simon Constantinopolitain.” Congourdeau, M.-H. “NoteCongourdeau, sur les Dominicains deConstantinople audébutdu Commentaries –Kommentare Bazán, Carlos B. “The Human Soul: Form and Substance? Thomas Aquinas’ Aristotle Transformed.TheAncientCommentators and Their Influence Bydén, Börje. “Literary Innovation in the Early Palaeologan Commentaries on Blumenthal, Henry. “Sophonias’ Commentary on Aristotle's De Anima.” Byzantinische Zeitschrift University Press, 1997. moyen âge Immortality of the Soul Clarendon Press, 2002. Classica Andronicus II,1282-1328 Athens: Kentron Athens: Kentron Ereunes Byzantiou, 1996. Elenchi 1982. Fourteenth Centuries (1204-ca. 1310) 14e siècle.” Ruprecht, 1999. littéraire dumoyenâge Aristotelianism.” Eclectic of Critique Richard Sorabji. London: Cornell 1990.University Press, Aristotle’s De Anima.” Néoplatonisme etphilosophie médiévale The EarlyPalaeologan Renaissance . Commentators and Commentaries onAristotle’s “Sophistici ” 10 (1902): 55-72. 10 (1902): Leiden: Brill, 1981. Paratexts: ThresholdsInterpretation of L’enseignement etleslettrés pendantl’époquedesPaléologues 45 (1979):205-223. Constantinople andtheLatins: The Foreign Policyof REB Higher education in Byzantium intheThirteenth andEarly 45 (1987): 175-181. Byzantine Philosophy and its AncientSources . Ed. Glenn W. Most. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & 64(1997):95-126. .” Archives .” Archives d'histoire doctrinale etlittéraire du Hypomnema 100,2 (2007): 637-676. . Cambridge: HarvardUniversity 1972. Press, 4 (2006): 221-251. 4(2006): Archives d'histoire doctrinale et . Nikosia: Cyprus Research Centre, . Leiden: Brill, 2000. 6 (1997): 6(1997): 307-317. REB 45(1987):165-174. . Cambridge: Cambridge Studi Italianidi Filologia . Oxford: . Ed. 55 . CEU eTD Collection Vanderspoel, John. Vanderspoel, Van Riet, S. “Fragments de l’ Original Grec du De intellectu de Philopon dans une Trapp, Erich. Walther, Rainer. Beyer, Hans-Veit. Sweeney, Michael J. “Thomas Aquinas’ Quaestiones de Anima and the Difference Originality inByzantine Literature, Artand Music Tatakis, Basile. Tatakis, Michigan Press. Michigan ConstantiusPaideia from to Theodosius 5-40. Compilation de Sophonias.” Wissenschaften, 1976-1983. der Palaiologenzeit 1949. Miscellania Medievalia between a Philosophical and aTheological Approach to Soul.”the 1995.Books: Oxford, La philosophiebyzantine Themistius andImperial Court:Oratory, CivicDuty, and . Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der 26 (1998): 587-594. Revue PhilosophiquedeLouvain . Paris: Press Universitaires de France, . Ann Arbor: University of Prosopographisches Lexikon . Ed. A. R. Littlewood: Oxbow 63(1965): 56 CEU eTD Collection treatises,exegetes, being butratherin not paraphrasts name and justdeed, asthe makingas if foralmost theiran seemed good tothem, own effort accomplished what figures periods,and with proper whatevermind cametotheirit was in wantof, they it andwith him rhetorical adorning intense), andis to intellective what was great message of the and (for theforcefulness phrasing theobscure even degree) (in some by meaning, whichwas the contracted the man of the thoughtfulness or [Aristotle] term 176 Sophoniae in libros Aristotelis De Anima paraphrasis 175 [the it to comments own] [their adding diction, the disregarded they sections, into divided not and be one would whole the and mind by the in taken be easily would it so that mask, garment of Aristotle and by employing [the technique of] speakinghis through own within wholethe [of his works]. who left bulky works full Ammonius, Philoponus and previously Alexander ofof Aphrodisias (andmany others), many good observations Simplicius, of kind the of are [commentators] These original]. the [of clarity of sake to Aristotle’s the for explanation own their forth brought various also they in division, time] same the [at treatises attached the interpretation. Observing diction the of Philosopherthe soundas well as commentators, proper were the who ways.ones, in For different purpose their accomplish I will refer to this group throughout my translation as “exegetes” appropriating the respective Greek respective the appropriating “exegetes” as translation my throughout group this to refer Iwill The reference boldin is given tothe numeration critical inthe editionof Sophonias’ paraphrasis: (1.11-22) (1.4-11) ἐξηγηταί lexis Paraphrasis of . 175 The [wereapplying]others method: adifferent for by donning the ] which eitherwas not united: or divided only andunfolding clarifying 176 It occurred to different commentators commentators It to differentof to Aristotle’soccurred treatises itsin specifics, and individual mannerin text expounding the On the Soul, APPENDIX I by Preface kyr , in Sophoniasthe mosterudite CAG 23, 1, 1-186. 57 CEU eTD Collection considered excellent. considered torecognizeOne [approaches] combination of be the ought should that both from me isnot something new and in a certain introducingdegree useful. something [coming] is which ifthat justification sufficient a proffering not superfluous seem to some—or use in to use of infelicitous of degree animproper a certain and diction the all in a conclusion pertaining to all, each of them approached his task in his own way. mostnoblethey say whichSo, had difficulties offered to the solutions emerged. to it path to philosophy easy to follow from that point on for those [who came] after them, their scholarly skill, knowledge and their their inall excellence leaving the [regards]; forwardbrought a multitude of theoretical insights regarding proof eachchapter, of and discovered, had they which considerations, and observations (authoritative) most useful paraphrasts]addedsome all: oncefor [the method systematical others the clarify meaning,asfarthe as phrasingthe permitted, thoroughly following the later, imitating in the works of logic, and [also] others. eloquentThemistius had for achieved amajority of Aristotle’s and Psellosworks, 177 as itwere? everywhere, oracular divination needs Aristotelian is which diction the that know not does who For easily. followed not scholia interspersed the and explanations the of length the of Because continuity. the preserve pull wasindeed exegetes, there the meaning anecessity wholly apart the not to to and To be understood as ‘different in a positive sense.’ (2.8-2.13) (2.4-8) (1.22-2.4) (2.13-20) , which obscurethe diction had imposed on them necessary,as meaning the is If hence I myself have made the choice of adducing something Iwould Articulating the syntax in between the lemmas, which seemed confused seemed which lemmas, the between in syntax the Articulating And those [the exegetes] were induced only to show the content and to show content the only induced to were And [the exegetes] those For even if (on the one hand) the diction was preserved in division by in division preserved was diction the hand) one the if (on even For 177 58 CEU eTD Collection continuous with the interspersed explanations, so that it is in harmony and the whole the and harmony in is it that so explanations, interspersed the with continuous diction the topreserve [theparaphrasts], way,as in those a different intervals in things by arranging or manner in awell-arranged [elements] mixing by either he strove, if [2] well-joint; diction the maintain to managed additionally explanations, again bearand [thus] thedouble effort. not like] therefore to be of firstthe] group [the exegetes];in being devoted to dictionthe of Philosopherthe [I do need of an exegete and contentto hurry with the latterback [paraphrasts] to the if sameit isbelike to not do andnot I of paraphrasts], the [the work learn that andto alsoexegetes] things possible to profit from the [results matter. subject of the for thecompletion strive towards clarity comparisonsthrough and examples, itthey kept for themselves to extent a certain to it expanding by and diction own their with said), was (as together by combining his [Aristotle’s] reasoning, which is intricately condensed and strung for tothem: applies necessarily following for butthe all; once diction the disregarded confused manner. their of writingbecause beginning the forget to risked they that but continuity, the observe to some in between [theproffering problems andsolutions, so becausethat of additionsthe itwas not easy for lemmas] asattaching well whatas tohas approachbeenaddition omission [literally, and or of and exchange againstperiods in order order]—, cut fromthe and colons them whole of what transposition occasional (as the additionally itconjunctions, followed were), they were in mucha occupied with (2.28-38) (2.25-28) (2.20-25) This, on the other hand, does not apply to the paraphrasts, who But itif seemed [1] an exegete, whilstavoiding intervals his between For it is not enough once for all to approach this [the work of the 59 CEU eTD Collection towards others. towards timemyself troubling itwith exegetes) the occurredmy mindshowto kindness to a lot (becauseIspent of exegetes] them having endured [the And becauseof place. in many itways—even where a featured certain clarity—leavingin its everything itself text the superseded have I And verbally. those with phrased were as they ours, into inserted wholesections we in majority exegetes especially the and Philoponus, incourage overseerthe and guideof souls, GodandWord,andfollowingour the the Soul paraphrasts. the than longer than exegetes, the same atthe time, shorter as ifitwere voiced text, the of understanding the explanation the with together granting both, in approach easiness to effortthe regardingif reading, the indeed he will sufficiently his place would rapidly fall to me in the field of Aristotelian studies. And he will offer a certain[3] finally, express to treatisethe if Aristotle’sas through voice; own something novel by one means of arrangedin being mannera consequential itself; and dependent on 178 andtask chose it, such things areleftbeto judged to them. That is, ‘self-explanatory’. (3.8-9) (2.38-3.8) , [me] notforgettingmy insufficiency the regarding task, yethaving taken If something has been accomplished by me whodedicated myself tothis Towards this my eager zeal drew me, and first in those on the On the 178 60 Sophonias Aristotle’s theory Reflection on

CEU eTD Collection Tradition Previous Greek commentary Description Classification Description tradition on tradition Aristotle and paraphrasts commentators commentaries the previousthe ‘Proper’ APPENDIX II of the commentary the elements from combining the Innovation of Methodology commentary Description the ‘proper’ the most useful paraphrasis and usage genre by and the and ρπς τρόπος τρόπος πραγματεία πραγματεία πραγματεία Commentary ‘Proper’ ξγτί παραφρασταὶ ἐξηγηταί σχήμα Terminology Paraphrasis Sophonias τρόπος method method rhetorical rhetorical figure treatise πραγματείας commentary, διαφόρους τῶν Ἀριστοτέλους Translation κατέλιπον generic (... 61 εἰς τὰ . ) ς Aquinas Thomas process formulating of process described. Rational described. proceeding in the methodological prescriptions a definition a Aristotle's

CEU eTD Collection Simplification. each preface. each elements for 3 necessary περίοδος σύγγραμμα αὐταγγελία ὑπόμνημα καινόν treatise singular firstperson writing from (observation) commentary, sentence completed a novelty a new, something 62 Themistius soul in potentiality and potentiality in soul the soul; the one universal essence andaccidents; genus and species; the definition of the soul, the of definition Repeats andexpands in actuality; parts of in parts actuality; soul/multitude of discussion of the discussion of its of discussion distinct souls? distinct methodology: on on Aristotle's

CEU eTD Collection reconstruction, Four typesFour of elaboration. elucidation, exegesis: analysis, ἐξεργάζεσθαι ἐπίσταναι συνίστασθαι ἐκκαλύπτειν elaboration analysis reconstruction elucidation 63 CEU eTD Collection ὑπόμνημα ὑπαλλαγή τρόπος σχήμα σύνταξις συνδεσμός σύγγραμμα προσθήκη πραγματεία περίοδος παραφρασταὶ παρατροπή νοῦς μεταξυλογία μεταθέσις λόγος λέξις κώλων τὸ κείμενον ἑρμηνεία ἐξηγηταί ἔλλειψις διάστασις διάνοια αὐτοπροσώπως αὐταγγελία GREEK – ENGLISH INDEX, SOPHONIAS’ PREFACE– ENGLISHINDEX,SOPHONIAS’ GREEK (observation) commentary, treatise, interchange method rhetorical figure composition, writing passage conjunction treatise addition commentary generic sentence completed paraphrasts alteration reasoning [Aristotle's] meaning, scholia interspersed the to refers “writing between lines”,the transposition discussion diction subunit, period exposition text, content, matter, subject explanation ‘proper’ commentators omission interval meaning one’s authority delivering an from opinion singular person first from writing 64