![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper deals with the scrutiny, as found in the Discussiones Peripateticae 1, 2–4, to which Francesco Patrizi da Cherso subjected the works of the transmitted corpus Aristotelicum, and those attributed to Aristotle outside the corpus. It explains why Patrizi rejected most of the transmitted œuvre as spurious, and shows what would have been the most radical consequence of his hyper-critical stance, had it carried the day. Particular attention is paid to contemporary (i.e. sixteenth-century) scholarship available to, and used by, Patrizi.
Acknowledgements
This article was first read as a pièce de circonstance in a panel on “Humanism and Scholasticism in the Renaissance”, organised by John Monfasani at the annual meeting of the Renaissance Society of America in Chicago, 2008. If it had not been for Prof. Monfasani’s ongoing interest in the topic treated here, and his repeated encouragements to publish my results, I would not have returned to it. I would therefore like to offer this paper to him, al miglior fabbro, as a token of friendship and esteem. My thanks are also due to Ovanes Akopyan, who had the great kindness to invite me to participate in this special issue of the Intellectual History Review, even before he knew what he was letting himself in for.
Note on contributor
Luc Deitz received his PhD in Latin summa cum laude from the University of Konstanz. He was both a short-term and a long-term Frances A. Yates-Fellow at the Warburg Institute, where he also held a British Academy Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. After a stint as an Alexander von Humboldt-Fellow in the Department of Classics at the University of Heidelberg, he was appointed Curator of manuscripts and rare books at the National Library of Luxembourg. He was habilitated at the University of Trier, where he holds an extraordinary professorship for Mediaeval and Renaissance Latin. Research interests include the history of Platonism, rhetoric and poetics in the Renaissance, and the history of classical scholarship (c. 1500–1750).
Notes
1 Jaeger, Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte; Jaeger, Aristoteles. On Jaeger, see King and Lo Presti, Werner Jaeger.
2 Bignone, L’Aristotele perduto.
3 Moraux, Les listes anciennes.
4 Düring, Aristotle.
5 Dirlmeier, Merkwürdige Zitate.
6 Wiesner, Ps.-Aristoteles, MXG.
7 On this, see Ryan and Schmitt, Pseudo-Aristotle: The Secret of Secrets.
8 On this, see the preface by Schönberger in Schönfeld and Schönberger, Liber de causis.
9 On Patrizi’s life, I still find the account given by Jacobs, “Francesco Patricio”, 19–28, very readable.
10 The full title reads: Discussionum Peripateticarum tomi IV, quibus Aristotelicae philosophiae universa historia atque dogmata cum veterum placitis collata, eleganter ac erudite declarantur. The DP (as they will be abbreviated in this paper) consists of four “tomi”, each made up of several “libri”; references are to “tomus”, “liber”, page, and line(s). In the quotations as given, spelling and punctuation have been adapted to modern reading habits; all translations are my own. For a brief summary of the contents of the DP, see Deitz, “‘Falsissima'”, 228–9.
11 Situated in the Troas, at the present site of the village of Kurşunlutepe, near the town of Bayramiç.
12 Strabo (whom Patrizi variously calls “Strabo” [DP 1, 3, 28, 35] or “Strato” [DP 1, 4, 34, 26–7: “suo enim nomine posthac huius Geographiae authorem appellabo”; note that there actually was a Peripatetic philosopher called Strato (of Lampsacus), but Patrizi does not conflate the two]), Geography, 13, 1, 54; text quoted by Patrizi in the original Greek in DP 1, 4, 34, 26–47, and in a Latin translation in DP 1, 3, 28, 37–47. On this famous episode, see above all Moraux, Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, 1: 3–94; Drossaart Lulofs, “Neleus of Scepsis”; Primavesi, “Ein Blick in den Stollen”, 51–8. Primavesi quotes all the relevant literature on the topic; my article owes a lot to his fine piece. I should point out that, in this paper, I am not interested in the question what really happened to Aristotle’s library, but only aim at explaining what Patrizi thought had happened to it.
13 DP 1, 4, 37, 4.
14 Patrizi acknowledges this in DP 1, 2, 13, 41–4: “Tres viri celeberrimi nominis Aristotelicos libros et collegisse et in ordines digessisse antiquitus traduntur: Hermippus Callimachius Smyrnaeus, Andronicus Rhodius, quem Peripatetici cognomine antiquitas ornavit, et Adrastus Aphrodisieus: quorum monumenta si extarent, magno me labore levassent”. On Andronicus, see above all Moraux, Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, 1:45–141.
15 Plutarch, Life of Sulla, 26, 1–2; text quoted by Patrizi in the original Greek in DP 1, 4, 35, 20–8, and in a Latin translation in DP 1, 3, 28, 50–29, 4.
16 Porphyry, Life of Plotinus, 24, 6–11; quoted in DP 1, 4, 36, 44–7.
17 Athenaeus, The Learned Banqueters, 1, 3a–b (adapted from S. Douglas Olson’s translation); quoted in DP 1, 3, 28, 29–32.
18 Among the three ancient lists of Aristotle’s works that have come down to us, Patrizi could only know (and did in fact know) the one by Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 5, 21–7 (cf. DP 1, 2, 13, 44–7: “Diogenes quoque Laertius non parum laboris in id contulit, ut scilicet praeter Aristotelis mores, actiones, fortunas etiam libros enumeraret, eorum quoque librorum versus [‘lines’] numeraret”), on whose account he relies (DP 1, 3, 18, 35–6: “Itaque si credamus verum esse Aristotelicos veros libros eos esse, quos Diogenes Laertius catalogo in eius vita recensuit, suntque a nobis superiore libro enumerati”). Patrizi was obviously unaware of the so-called Vita Menagiana (first published by Égide Ménage in his 1664 edition of Diogenes Laertius, and named after him; it is nowadays known, following Ingemar Düring, as Vita Hesychii and completes Diogenes’ list by the so-called Appendix Hesychiana, which contains another 58 titles unknown to Diogenes Laertius), nor could he have known Ptolemy al-Gharīb (closer to Andronicus’ pinax than the inferred “Hellenistic” list on which both Diogenes Laertius and Hesychius seem to depend: see Primavesi, “Ein Blick in den Stollen”, 58–63). An edition of the three lists can be found in Gigon’s (not very satisfactory) collection of the fragments of Aristotle, T 1. 2. 6. For a truly useful synopsis of the catalogues transmitted by Diogenes Laertius and by the Vita Hesychii, though, see Goulet, “414 Aristote de Stagire”, 424–31. On Ptolemy al-Gharīb, see Hein, Definition und Einteilung der Philosophie, 388–439 (with an edition of the Arabic text). For a summary assessment of the three lists, see Flashar, “Aristoteles”, § 10.A.1, 190–2.
19 DP 1, 3, 19, 6–20, 21. The whole passage is worth reading; it is a brilliant apology, both biographical and doxographical, of Diogenes Laertius against his Renaissance detractors, who would object to his trustworthiness by pointing out that one did not know “quis homo fuerit, quo tempore et qua fortuna vixerit” (DP 1, 3, 19, 8–9). According to Patrizi, Diogenes Laertius lived “non longe a Tiberii aetate …; antiquitas autem haec authoritatis satis ei acquirit” (DP 1, 3, 19, 45.48).
20 DP 1, 2, 14, 4–6.
21 Ibid.; see below, note 29.
22 Mentioned in DP 1, 2, 14, 32; see further below, notes 30 and 66. For this and other pseudo-Aristotelica, cf. Schmitt and Knox, Guide to Latin Works Falsely Attributed to Aristotle.
23 The figures are those given by Patrizi in DP 1, 2, 14, 5–34.
24 According to my own reckoning, Patrizi mentions only 56 books of natural philosophy (as against “septuaginta quatuor”, DP 1, 2, 14, 9): eight books on Physics, four books On the Heaven, two books De generatione et corruptione, four books on Meteorologica, one book De mundo (!), three books On the Soul, one book De sensu et sensilibus, one book De memoria et meminisse, one book De somno et vigilia, one book De insomniis, one book De divinatione per somnum, one book De animalium motu, one book De longitudine at brevitate vitae, one book De iuventute et senectute, morte et vita, one book De respiratione, one book De animalium ingressu, one book De spiritu, five books De animalium generatione, four books De animalium partibus, ten books De animalium historia, one book De coloribus, one book De physiognomicis, and two books De plantis (DP 1, 2, 14, 9–21).
25 13 books on Metaphysics (“eorum quae post naturalia”) (DP 1, 2, 14, 21).
26 One book Mechanica and one book De insecabilibus lineis (DP 1, 2, 14, 22–3).
27 Eight books on Politika, two books on Oikonomika, ten books Nicomachean Ethics, two books Magna moralia, seven books Eudemian Ethics, and one book De virtutibus (DP 1, 2, 14, 23–5).
28 Three books Rhetorica, one book Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, and one book Poetica (DP 1, 2, 14, 25–7).
29 According to my own reckoning, Patrizi mentions 43 books extra ordinem (as against “quadraginta duos”, DP 1, 2, 14, 28): 38 books of Problemata, one book De mirabilibus auscultationibus, one book De Xenophane, one book De Zenone, one book De Gorgia, and one book De Nilo (DP 1, 2, 14, 27–30).
30 One book De causis [proprietatum] elementorum, one book De causis, one book De pomo, and 14 books Mystica philosophia, sive, Aegyptiorum theologia (DP 1, 2, 14, 30–33).
31 The sum total of books listed by Patrizi is 199 rather than 202. See DP 1, 2, 14, 33–4: “Qui si omnes in unum colligantur, ducentorum duorum numerum conficiunt”.
32 DP 1, 2, 14, 35–16, 9. According to my own reckoning, there are seven books on mathematics (as against “sex”, DP 1, 2, 15, 26); the sum total of books mentioned (not including the 19 Letters listed in Diog. Laert., Lives, 4, 27) is 516, rather than 513.
33 DP 1, 2, 16, 17–20.
34 DP 1, 2, 16, 34 = Metaph., 4, 1, 1004a2 = fr. 644, 1 Gigon. On the possible relationship of this highly controversial passage with Plato’s “unwritten doctrines”, see Gaiser, Platons ungeschriebene Lehre, 515–6.
35 DP 1, 2, 16, 30 = De somno, 3, 456b2–9 = fr. 633 Gigon.
36 DP 1, 2, 16, 13 = Diog. Laert., Lives, 1, 8 = fr. 662 Gigon.
37 DP 1, 2, 17, 3 = Plut., Quaest. conv., 3, 3, 650a = fr. 1015 Gigon; see also frs 666–77 Gigon.
38 DP 1, 2, 16, 44–5 = Simpl., In De coelo, 386, 22–3 = fr. 164 Gigon.
39 DP 1, 2, 17, 56–18, 5. As Patrizi’s references here may not be immediately clear to every reader, I hope to be forgiven for adding what may perhaps be deemed a superfluous explanation. “Nicephorus … libro 10. cap. 86 Ecclesiasticae historiae” refers to Nicephorus Kallistus Xanthopoulus (c.1270–c.1330), Historia ecclesiastica, 10, 36, in which a work named Peplus is attributed to Aristotle (Patrizi quotes from the Latin translation by Johannes Lang, which had first appeared in Basel in 1553). Patrizi then goes on to identify the Peplus with a work called Pallium, similarly ascribed to Aristotle in “historia Tripartita, lib. 7. cap. 2”, i.e. Cassiodorus’ compilation in twelve books known as the Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, the most widely read handbook on the history of the early church (fourth and fifth centuries) during the Middle Ages, which draws on the (Latin) excerpts made by Epiphanius Scholasticus (sixth century) from the (Greek) Historia ecclesiastica of Socrates Scholasticus (c.380–c.440), from the (Greek) Historia ecclesiastica of Sozomenus (died c. 450), and from the (Greek) Historia ecclesiastica of Theodoretus Cyrrhus (c.390–c.460). Patrizi’s reference is correct as it stands; the line recalling the existence of an Aristotelian Pallium was originally culled from the Historia of Socrates. Neither reference has made it into Gigon’s collection of fragments; this is just one example of many showing how Patrizi could occasionally be ahead of current scholarship. On a different Peplus from the one mentioned by Nicephorus, but similarly ascribed to Aristotle, see DP 1, 4, 49, 43–9: “Prodiit nuper libellus sub Pepli Aristotelici nomine, heroum Homericorum epitaphia aliquot continens, qui certe non est is, quem Nicephorus ac Tripartita historia, uti libro secundo retulimus, nominarunt. Non enim continet theologiam antiquorum, uti hi illum Peplum continuisse autumant. Sed est potius alterius cuiusdam Aristotelis, quem Laertius tertium commemorat”. The references here are to Diog. Laert., Lives, 5, 35 (γεγόνασι δὲ Ἀριστοτέλεις ὀκτώ· πρῶτος αὐτὸς οὗτος· δεύτερος ὁ πολιτευσάμενος Ἀθήνησιν, οὗ καὶ δικανικοὶ ϕέρονται λόγοι χαρίεντες· τρίτος περὶ Ἰλιάδος πεπραγματευμένος), and to Aristotelis Stagiritae Pepli fragmentum, sive, Heroum Homericorum epitaphia, in which the Dutch Hellenist Willem Canter had vindicated Aristotle’s authorship for the collection of epigrams supposedly to be found on the tombs of Homeric heroes (fol. a3v: “hunc librum Aristotelis esse primus praeter omnem [sic; read “omnium”?] opinionem asseram”). The editio princeps of these epitaphs, which had been published a few months previously by Johannes Sambucus as an appendix to his edition of the Love Letters of Aristaenetus (Antwerp, 1566; see p. 89ff.), was based on a manuscript in Sambucus’ personal possession; the latter had made no claim regarding their authorship.
40 DP 1, 2, 18, 7. The precision of Patrizi’s figure is certainly remarkable when it is compared to that given by Gigon, who, in his list of “Titel, die bei Diog. Laert. fehlen” (723), arrives at a total of 35 works. On the assumption that the Peplus and the Pallium were two different works, the figures would match precisely. However, this is mere speculation.
41 DP 1, 3, 18, 19–21: “Est tamen quod animum meum magis etiam cruciet: quandoquidem et haec eorum tertia pars, quam vix retinemus, vel tota, vel maiore ex parte, in magna est controversia”.
42 DP 1, 3, 18, 22–5. The allusion here is to Mario Nizzoli, De veris principiis et vera ratione philosophandi contra pseudophilosophos libri IV (first published Parma, 1553). I quote the text according to the 1670 edition (bk. 1, ch. 1, p. 14), in which a breathtakingly learned preface by Leibniz (Dissertatio praeliminaris de alienorum operum editione, de scopo operis, de philosophica dictione; Leibniz’ aim is to show – against Nizzoli – that at least some of Aristotle’s teachings can be reconciled with those of the recentiores) precedes Nizzoli’s text proper: “[N]e pro certo habeant [scil. qui recte philosophari cupiunt] istos libros, qui hodie pro Aristotelicis circunferuntur ac leguntur, praesertim eos qui sunt de Dialectica, atque etiam magna ex parte de philosophia, vere legitimos et germanos esse Aristotelis, et vere ita, ut nunc extant, ab Aristotele illo Alexandri Magni praeceptore fuisse compositos. Qua quidem in re credenda fere omnes quicunque abhinc annos mille et amplius philosophati sunt, et qui hodie etiam philosophantur turpissime fuerunt decepti [ … ] [C]um antea probatum fuerit Dialecticam [ … ] maxima ex parte esse falsam, inutilem, et vanam, tum facilius credatur libros eos, qui tam mendacem tamque absurdam doctrinam continent, ab Aristotele illo tantopere laudato nunquam fuisse editos: et propter hanc causam aut non attingendos prorsus aut certe maximo cum judicio et consideratione legendos”. Closer to us in time, a thesis not unlike Nizzoli’s was propounded by Zürcher, Aristoteles’ Werk und Geist, who held that the greater part of the works ascribed to Aristotle were actually written or re-written by Theophrastus: see on this above all Reale, “Josef Zürcher e un tentativo di rivoluzione nel campo degli studi aristotelici”.
43 DP 1, 3, 20, 29–32: “[S]atis clare constat libros Aristotelicos indubios, et extra controversiam omnem apud antiquos positos eos fuisse qui a Diogene sunt enumerati, atque idcirco eos omnes, qui ab eo inter illos non sunt coniecti, esse controversos”.
44 Diog. Laert., Lives, 5, 34.
45 DP 1, 3, 20, 32–3: “Nam si soli ii, quos ipse numeravit, indubii sunt, reliquos omnes dubios esse necesse est”. The list of the victims appears in DP 1, 3, 18, 43–6, in which Patrizi mentions the Sophistical Refutations, the Physics, the Metaphysics, the De caelo, the Meteorologica, the De generatione et corruptione, the De mundo, the books on the Parts, Generation, and History of Animals, as well as all the Parva naturalia, “which [add, with an ironical twist: “supposedly”] contain the major, and the most important part of Aristotelian philosophy” (“quae tum maxima, tum praecipua Aristotelis sapientiae pars est”); Diogenes Laertius has “not said a word about these” (“reticet quidem hos omnes”, DP 1, 3, 18, 43).
46 DP 1, 3, 18, 46–50: “Illi vero quos iisdem inscriptionibus recenset, librorum vero numerus discrepat, hi sunt: Priora analytica – novem enim libros ait, nos duos habemus; De anima – unum enim recenset, nos tres tenemus; Ethicorum – nam ipse quatuor tantum ait, nos decem et novem”. Patrizi’s figures are again slightly flawed: we have 20, not 19 books on ethics (10 books EN, 8 books EE, and two books MM), but this detail does not affect his general argument.
47 DP 1, 3, 19, 2–4. E.g. “Nos enim Topicos octo libris distinctos habemus, ipse septem primum sub hoc nomine Termini ante topica, unum deinde adjicit titulo Ea quae ante topos; postremo duos alios Topicorum ad terminos vocans”. Patrizi here refers to Diog. Laert., Lives, 5, 23–4; note that, following a conjecture by W. Jaeger, Gigon (# 55–56), Goulet (# 55a–b), and Dorandi (359, l. 310–1) print the following text: “Ὅροι πρὸ τῶν Τοπικῶν αʹ, <Τοπικῶν αʹ> βʹ γʹ δʹ εʹ ϛʹ ζʹ […], Τὰ πρὸ τῶν Τοπικῶν αʹ, Τοπικῶν πρὸς τοὺς ὅρους αʹ βʹ”.
48 DP 1, 3, 19, 5–6: “Quam ob rem efficitur, ut de ducentis et duobus, centum et nonaginta tres in dubium vertantur, atque an Aristotelis revera sint, certo sciri nequeat”.
49 DP 1, 3, 18, 38–40. In brackets, I give the numbers corresponding to these works in the lists of Gi[gon], 23–4, and of Go[ulet], 427–8.
50 Gi 96 = Go 95 mentions a Contra Melissum; hence Goulet’s hypothesis (427) that “(95 + 98 + 99 = De MXG?)”. On this work (i.e. De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia), see below n. 65.
51 DP 1, 3, 20, 36–8: “Sunt autem rationes multae praeter hanc Laertianam tum omissionem, tum confessionem, quae extantium librorum plerosque in controversiam vocent ac dubios reddant, quas pergam referre, uti inde veritas omnis excutiatur”.
52 DP 1, 3, 20, 39–21, 13.
53 Ammonius, Comm. in Cat., 13, 20–25 = fr. 650 Gigon; quoted in DP 1, 3, 20, 43–4.
54 Simplicius, Comm. in Cat., 18, 7–21 = fr. 651 Gigon; quoted in DP 1, 3, 20, 48–51.
55 Quoted in DP 1, 3, 21, 4–5.
56 Arist., Top., 1, 9, 103b22–3; referred to in DP 3, 1, 21, 10–11.
57 Let me recall that, independently of the problems raised by a presumed Aristotelian authorship of the Categories, Patrizi was convinced that our text is but a rehash of a much earlier work written by the Pythagorean philosopher Archytas of Tarentum: see on this Deitz, “Criticism of Aristotle’s Logic”, 117–21, with the literature quoted there.
58 DP 1, 3, 21, 13–22, 6 (“Liber vero qui De interpretatione inscribitur, Categoriarum libro longe est suspectior”; a nice rhetorical gradatio).
59 DP 3, 1, 21, 19–25. Cp. Arist., Int., 1, 16a8–9 (περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς περὶ ψυχῆς – ἄλλης γὰρ πραγματείας), with Boethius, In De int. ed. sec. 11, 13–30, and Ammonius, Comm. in De int. 5, 28–6, 4. On the whole episode, see Moraux, Aristotelismus bei den Griechen, 1: 117–9, and, on the supposed inventor of propositional logic (according to Patrizi the Pythagorean lady Periktione), see Deitz, “Criticism of Aristotle’s Logic”, 121–3, with the literature quoted there.
60 DP 3, 1, 21, 42–4: “Praeterea hoc libro […] ex Topicis citat quaedam, quae in Topicis nusquam sunt”; cf. Arist., Int., 11, 20b26: “εἴρηται ἐν τοῖς Τοπικοῖς περὶ αὐτῶν”.
61 DP 31, 1, 21, 37–41: “Sed magis etiam animos moveat considerantium, quod hoc libro […] primarum substantiarum mentio fit longe alio modo quam libro Categoriarum praecedente. Ibi enim indivisa corpora primae substantiae sunt appellatae, hic vero primas substantias vocat divinas et quae actus sunt”. Cf. Arist., Int., 13, 23a23–4.
62 DP 1, 3, 25, 50–52: “levitate doctrinae et a reliquis diversitate”.
63 DP 1, 3, 25, 45–50: “Libri duo De plantis, quod nomen inter incontroversos initio positum fuerat, nunc in dubium vocatur: nam eorum interpres ex recentioribus Graecis attestatur eos libros primum de Graecis Latinos factos, de Latinis Arabicos, de Arabicis rursus Latinos, ac demum de Latinis Graecos. Potuerunt forte priores illi germani Aristotelis fuisse, at quos habemus, ut sunt, nequaquam sunt Aristotelis”.
64 The editio princeps of the Greek text appeared in Brassicanus, De re rustica selectorum libri XX. Graeci, 494–551. For a modern edition of all the versions, see Nicolaus <Damascenus>, De plantis. A useful overview of scholarship is given by Hugonnard-Roche, “Pseudo-Aristote, De plantis”; this must now be complemented by Herzhoff, “Ist die Schrift ‘De plantis’ von Aristoteles?” (with comprehensive bibliography).
65 DP 1, 3, 26, 42–4: “Ad hunc ergo modum de tot Aristotelicorum librorum numero soli supersunt quatuor, qui omnem controversiam effugerunt”. A word of explanation concerning the last three texts retained, i.e. nos (vi)–(viii) of the list above, is in order here. The pseudo-Aristotelian treatise that is nowadays known as De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia (MXG) was known in Patrizi’s days as De Xenophane Zenone Gorgia, which is the sequence of names almost invariably referred to by him (e.g. DP 1, 2, 16, 7 and 1, 4, 43, 47; for an exception, see DP 1, 3, 26, 44). This is in fact the title that the work was given in vol. 3 of the editio princeps of Aristotle’s works (Venice, 1497), which was based on the superscriptio contained in manuscript R (= Vaticanus gr. 1302, first half of the fourteenth century). However, manuscript L (= Lipsiensis 16, second half of the thirteenth century–first quarter of the fourteenth century), supposedly first collated by Beck, Varietas lectionis libellorum Aristotelicorum (but see Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca, 3: 248: “In editis [i.e. printed editions of MXG] graeca admodum sunt corrupta, et hinc inde etiam manca, quae suppleri et emendari possunt ex codice MS. eximio Bibliothecae Paulinae, quae est Lipsiae in patria mea […]. Habeo et ipse lectiones eiusdem codicis, quas mecum olim […] communicauit […] Godfridus Olearius”), has the title De Zenone Xenophane et Gorgia. The sequence of the three names – i.e. Melissos, Xenophanes, Gorgias – that is current today has no manuscript authority and goes back to a conjecture by Spalding, Vindiciae philosophorum Megaricorum. Thus, when Patrizi writes about “Xenophanes”, he means “Melissos”, and when he writes about “Zenon”, he is actually referring to “Xenophanes”; a fact which, to the best of my knowledge, has never been pointed out or explained. Patrizi was convinced that MXG was a genuine work by Aristotle and held it in high esteem for two very different reasons: first, as a source of possible knowledge about Eleatic philosophy; and second, as a perfect illustration of how disingenuously Aristotle treated his predecessors. See e.g. DP 3, 1, 295, 39–298, 38 (referring to MXG 974a–978a), and on the whole context, Deitz, “‘Wie ein Tintenfisch!’” (in press). On the many questions raised by MXG, see e.g. Wiesner, Ps.-Aristoteles, MXG, esp. 331–87, on the transmission of the text, with the review by Cassin, “Review”, 773–84. The latest critical edition with translation, notes, and (not always pellucid) commentary is also by Cassin, Si Parménide, but Cassin’s edition does not really supersede Bekker, Aristotelis Opera, 2: 974a–980b, nor Apelt, Aristotelis quae feruntur … De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia.
66 In DP 1, 3, 20, 36–26, 41, Patrizi adds a detailed criticism of the authenticity of the remaining works of the corpus Aristotelicum (i.e. those not corresponding to any entry in Diogenes’ catalogue). It would lead too far to rehearse his arguments in detail; suffice to say that they all prove – if indeed proof were needed – Patrizi’s intimate acquaintance with antique, late antique, and contemporary scholarship on Aristotle: he mentions Simplicius on the Categories; Ammonius on the Categories and the De interpretatione; Cicero on the Topica; Alexander of Aphrodisias and Philoponus on the Metaphysics (note DP 1, 3, 23, 20–22: “Minus Alpha [i.e. Metaph. 2] Philoponus commentariis iis in eundem [librum] quae nos ex Cypro attulimus Pasicratis Rhodii esse ait”); the Souda on the Physics; Julius Caesar Scaliger (“nostrae aetatis doctissimus”, DP 1, 3, 23, 49) on the De sensu; Theodorus Gaza on the De animalibus; Georgius Pachymeres on the De lineis insecabilibus; Gellius on the Problemata; and Quintilian on the Rhetorica. The clearly spurious texts (Theologia, sive, Mystica philosophia secundum Aegyptios, Liber de pomo, Liber de Nili inundatione, Libellus de causis proprietatum elementorum, Liber de causis, Liber de nobilitate) are dealt with in DP 1, 3, 25, 53–26, 41; cf. 1, 4, 49, 41–2.
67 DP 1, 3, 26, 44–5: “Huiusce autem rei tam absurdae causam multiplicem potuisse esse conjicio”. In fairness to Patrizi, I should add that, in DP 1, 4, he reckons with the possibility that at least some of the remaining works transmitted in the corpus may still be genuine. I cannot help feeling, however, that this is done tongue-in-cheek, and mainly out of pedagogical regard for his pupil Zaccaria Mocenigo, a nephew of bishop Filippo Mocenigo, to whom DP 1 is dedicated: Zaccaria might have felt a bit frustrated if he had been told that so far, all his efforts to study philosophy at Padua and to get to grips with Aristotle had been totally in vain.
68 DP 1, 3, 26, 45–7: “Quod situ atque tineis corrosi multorum librorum tituli, quodque et docti et elegantes viderentur libri, Aristotelis veluti celeberrimi authoris sunt nomine insigniti”.
69 Liron, Les aménités de la critique. See on this Primavesi, “Ein Blick in den Stollen”, 53–8, 74. Patrizi’s contention that several copies of Aristotle’s works must have been in circulation after his death is likely to be correct, although the details of the story as he tells it are probably not.
70 See DP 1, 3, 28, 2–20. Patrizi here quotes “Ammonius […] prolegomenis in Categorias”, but since the nineteenth century, the text he refers to (i.e. Philoponus, In Cat. prooemium, 7, 16–28) is ascribed to Ammonius’ pupil Johannes Philoponus. Patrizi is either relying on the editio princeps published by the Aldine press in 1503 (repr. 1546), or on the one that appeared “Venetiis per Ioan. Ant. & Petrum fratres de Nicolinis de Sabio, sumptu Melchioris Sassae, anno MDXLV”, both of which attribute the Commentary on the Categories to Ammonius. On the whole episode, see also DP 1, 3, 29, 8–11 and DP 1, 4, 36, 8–11.55–6.
71 DP 1, 3, 26, 48–53: “Cum Alexandriae Pergamique reges studio librorum comparandorum inter se certarent, magnis propositis praemiis illis, qui ad se ferrent libros, coepti sunt tunc quaestus gratia libri insignibus titulis adulterari. Quod nostris temporibus solent ii saepe facere, in antiquorum metallis vel marmoribus ementiendis, qui antiquarii gaudent nominari: nam saepe recentia opera pro antiquis et vendunt et supponunt”.
72 Galen, In Hippocratis De natura hominis commentarius, 1, 2, 25, 6; quoted in DP 1, 3, 27, 51–3. For the reference to “Ammonius”, see note 70 above. The “real” Ammonius, In Cat. prooemium, 13, 20–1, merely says that “ancient libraries” housed not less than 40 books with the title Analytika; Philoponus (=Ps.-Ammonius) specifies that they could all be found in “the great library” at Alexandria. On the question, see Schneider, “90 Phainias d’Érèse”, 269.
73 DP 1, 4, 37, 1–3.
74 DP 1, 4, 37, 5–6: “Pleni erroribus editi, Romam translati, transcripti, errores erroribus additi, ab Andronico publicati, in indices ac proprias suppositiones distributi”.
75 DP 1, 4, 34, 9–13: “Si enim omnes primo in universum libri, tum extantes, tum etiam qui ad nostra saecula non pervenerunt; deinde ii, quos prae manibus habemus singuli in dubium vocentur, nullaque certitudine quod Aristotelici sint nitantur, iam non immerito nullam Aristotelis philosophiam esse possumus arbitrari”.
76 DP 1, 4, 34, 13: “frustra”, “vanum”.