Το διδακτικό εγχειρίδιο λογικής του Γεωργίου Σχολαρίου
Authors: Μπαλκογιαννοπούλου Ειρήνη 
Published: September 2021

The dissertation forms part of the international research project Thomas de Aquino Byzantinus, which is co-hosted by the Laboratory of Humanities, Department of Education, Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies, University of Patras, and the Hellenic Institute, Royal Holloway, University of London. It consists of four Parts: (a) Introduction; (b) Scholarios and ars vetus, (c) Scholarios and ars nova, and (d) a critical edition of Scholarios’ Commentary on Aristotle’s De interpretatione, whose largest part derives from Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary.IntroductionThe Introduction consists of four chapters.In the first, information about Scholarios’ early engagement with philosophy, his teachers and his first steps in commentating and writing philosophical works is offered and discussed. The information on the first two issues is drawn upon certain autobiographical references. For the third issue, manuscripts containing comments of his on logical works by previous Byzantine authors are singled out and examined. In codd. Par.gr. 1928, Plut. 86.19 and Vat.gr. 115, there is a number of Scholarian comments on certain Aristotelian works, but also comments on certain Byzantine Commentaries on Aristotelian works.Scholarios probably started producing philosophical pieces of writing c. 1430/31, being mainly translations/adaptations of Latin works. His being fond of Latin exegetical works, combined with his severe criticism of the Byzantine ones, clearly differentiates him from the scholars of the day.Chapter 2 furnishes information about Scholarios’ teaching activity, his students and the courses he offered. Although information on these issues is scanty, some elements from his works and epistles, shed, if carefully examined, light on the issue. Chapter 3 describes the works the dissertation focuses on, the problems that emerged during research, and the new findings. As far as the first issue is concerned, Scholarios’ works on Aristotle’s logic which are examined here are: (a) exposition of Porphyry’s Isagoge, (b) a Commentary on the Categories, (c) a Commentary on the De interpretatione, (d) the partial translation of Petrus Hispanus’ Tractatus (olim Summulae logicales), and (e) a short text sent by Scholarios to his disciple John On Syllogism.The last chapter focuses on the problematic aspects of the outdated edition of the Commentaries by M. Jugie. These aspects have foremost to do with the manuscript tradition, the sources and the date of Scholarios’ ars vetus. The manuscripts are re-examined mainly as far as their scribes are concerned. The significance of the issue of the sources, with which Jugie was hardly concerned, is highlighted, and an attempt at more accurately dating (on the basis of evidence from Scholarios’ Preface to his Commentary on ars vetus and from his writing activity during that period) is made. Jugie placed the Commentaries to 1433/35. There are some clues showing that we might be able to place them a bit earlier. According to Scholarios’ prefatory epistle to Constantine XI Palaeologos, this was his first major literary creation. He also says that he depended on Latin Commentaries; he started with taking notes from them and then completed his Commentaries, since it would be rather impossible for his students to retain from memory the courses delivered. Further, it is not clear if he wrote his Commentaries on the ars vetus before he translated Aquinas’ Commentary on the Posterior Analytics or vice versa. Although in his prefatory letter he mentions that he had already translated Aquinas’ Commentary, the letter was presumably written some time after the work dedicated; so, it is not clear whether the translation was produced some time before the Commentaries or simply prior to the epistle. The passage from the proem to Aquinas’ Commentary on the Posterior Analytics which is included in Scholarios’ commentary of the Isagoge can be accounted for in terms of Scholarios’ direct access to the Latin work before the production of the translation. Last, the passage from Aquinas’ Summa contra Gentiles that is found in the beginning of Scholarios’ ars vetus in Jugie’s edition would seem to indicate that Scholarios started his Commentaries after 1432, namely after he got a copy of Demetrios Kydones’ translation of the Summa. Still, in fact, unlike what Jugie’s edition implies, this passage does not form part of Scholarios’ text; it occurs in the margins of the manuscripts, being simply a parallel to the paragraph from Brito’s Ars vetus silently translated by Scholarios. Therefore, no exact date for Scholarios’ ars vetus can be established. Part I: Scholarios and ars novaPart I consists of two chapters. The first one deals with the manuscripts, whereas in the second Scholarios’ method of writing logical Commentaries is analyzed. Chapter 1 includes the status quaestionis and offers a description of the relevant manuscripts. Chapter 2 focuses on the translation problems and the method and structure of his Commentaries in general and offers a detailed description of the sources and structure of each Commentary on Porphyry’s Isagoge and Aristotle’s Categories and De interpretatione.The manuscripts that formed the basis of Jugie’s edition as well as of the present re-edition are Vat.gr. 2223 (V), Barb.gr. 124 (B), Par. gr. 1941 (P) and Mut. α.Τ.9.13 (M). Paleographical examination based on Scholarios’ certain autographs, i.e. manuscripts that bear his signature (such as the Vat.gr. 433, his notes in cod. Barb.gr. 164, Par.gr. 1289 and Vat.gr. 115), shows that Jugie’s assumption that all of them are autographs is wrong. (Jugie’s misattribution of other scribes’ manus to Scholarios was not without consequences for other scholars’ studies, such as by de Andrès with regard to certain folia from cod. Scor. y. ΙΙI. 13 and by Demetracopoulos with regard to certain folia from cod. Par.gr. 1868; much more work is to be done in this direction.) Numerous Tables contain the differences on letters and abbreviations that appear in the compared scribes in high frequency and establish what follows.(a) V is the only manuscript written in its entirety by Scholarios’ hand.(b) In the main text of B, two scribes are discernible: Scholarios, who wrote only fols. 40r3-27 and 186r1-27 as well as few corrections on the margins, and an unknown scribe, who wrote the remaining text. It seems that B is a copy of V, which inserts the additions and corrections of the margins of V to the main text. Re-corrections made in Scholariοs’ hand show that B is an improved version of V. (c) P was not scribed by Scholarios. Harlfinger (1971) attributed the manuscript to his Anonymous 18. Only fol. 146r-v was written by Scholarios, which has nothing to do with his Commentary on the ars vetus. Further, certain comments that occur in the manuscript do not occur in the others, whereas some omissions were completed by Scholarios himself. So, we are led to the highly probable conclusion that the manuscript was written on Scholarios’ behalf.d) M is not an autograph of Scholarios either. Although Harlfinger attributed it to his Anonymous 18, it is shown that it was written by two scribes and that the second one is not the same as the scribe of P. Although the codex is a complete handbook of Aristotelian logic, based mainly on works and translations by Scholarios, nothing shows that it was directly linked to him.For the description of the manuscripts, an autopsy was made for V, P and B, also taking into consideration their already existing descriptions. Basic information for each codex (size, number of folia, folia numbering etc., watermarks and contents) is offered. Corrections and additions in the margins are identified and listed in Tables, which helps determining the order of the production of each and the relationship between them. In the case of M, a detailed description of its contents is offered, from which new information occasionally emerges: some chapters attributed to Nicephoros Blemmydes (by the scribe and by modern scholars) seem to belong to Georgios Pachymeres.The stemma codicum shows that B was copied from V, P from B, and M from P and V. The text in its entirety emerges from the study of V, B and P. M exhibits several omissions and does not seem to be directly related to Scholarios; for this reason, it is not included in the new edition of Scholarios’ Commentary on the De interpretatione.In Chapter 2, the method and structure of Scholarios’ Commentaries are outlined, both on the basis of the Commentaries themselves and the information included in Scholarios’ prefatory epistle to Constantine XI Palaeologos. In the first section of the epistle, the author explains the reasons of dedicating the work to Palaeologos. In the second, he explains how he gathered his material. He opted for Latin authors, because he considered their work more complete than the works of the Arabs and the Byzantines. In the third one, he refers to the negative reactions by some of his contemporary Byzantines and his expectations regarding the impact of his work. In the fourth, he analyzes the method he followed. He primarily aimed at accuracy, brevity, and clarity, whereas he sometimes wrote down and assessed various exegetical views. He also explains the structure of his logical handbook. He divides the text into lectiones (ἀναγνώσεις), in which he first introduces the subject matter (προθεωρία), and then offers an outline of the text (ἡ τοῦ γράμματος διαίρεσις γενικῶς), subsequently providing a detailed division and interpretation of it (διαιρεῖται τὸ γράμμα εἰδικῶς καὶ ἑρμηνεύεται). If some issue calls for further explanation, he states the problem, records the arguments for and against, declares the correct position, and resolves the counter-arguments. This is the Scholastic quaestio format. Finally, he in advance asks Palaeologos to defend him against those who would accuse him of his innovations.Although Scholarios’ sources are Latin indeed (and he explicitly says so), he does not name them at all. Regarding Porphyry’s Isagoge, his basic source is Radulphus Brito, whereas Thomas Aquinas and at least one other, currently unidentified Latin commentator are supplementary sources. A Table with the sources and the way in which Scholarios exploited them is offered. In terms of structure, the work is divided into seventeen lectiones and two Parts.The structure of the Commentary on the Categories differs from that of Scholarios’ contemporaries. The text is divided into eighteen lectiones, the first being the proem to the Commentary. In the still extant previous Greek Commentaries, both edited (by Porphyry, Ammonius, Simplicius, Elias, Olympiodorus, John Philoponus, Dexippus and Arethas) and unedited (by Michael Psellus and Joseph Filagrius, studied on the basis of codd. Bodl. Barocc. 87 and Bibl. Ang. 30 respectively), a standard form for the proem to the Categories is recognizable. Ten themes are discussed: the philosophical schools, the division of the Aristotelian works, the order in which the Aristotelian works are to be studied, the utility of Aristotle’s philosophy, the way in which the works are linked to each other, who should teach them, who the student should be, Aristotle’s style, why Aristotle seems to write in an obscure way, which elements should be analyzed (purpose, utility, title, authenticity, structure, and division into chapters). Although Scholarios discusses certain of these issues (focusing on the specific work, not on the whole of the Aristotelian corpus), he does so by following the Latin model: after summarizing what he had already analyzed with regard to Porphyry’s Isagoge, he (a) examines the four causes of the production of the book, i.e. τὸ ὑλικόν (the subject matter), τὸ ποιητικόν (the author), τὸ τελικόν (the author’s purpose) and τὸ εἰδικόν (the category the book belongs to), and (b) divides the book into chapters.The Commentary on the Categories is a translation of a large part from the Commentary by an unidentified Scholastic author and a large part of Radulphus Brito’s Commentary. A Table is offered, which shows how Scholarios exploited his sources.Scholarios, following the scholastic practice that (Ps.-) Gilbertus Porretanus’ Liber De sex principiis be taught along with the Categories, translated this work as well. The translation is preserved only in M. This is a word for word translation, with no additions or omissions.The Commentary on the De interpretatione is a synthesis of various (mainly Latin) sources in an elaborate way. Scholarios follows step by step the structure and the method he announced in his prefatory epistle. He uses five at least Latin Commentaries and two Greek sources, whereas his own additions are easily recognizable due to their Greek style. He minds for brevity (by summarizing paragraphs or even whole chapters from his sources), accuracy and clarity.Greek sources fall under two classes: (a) references to Greek commentators which occur in the Latin works he translated, and (b) additions made by him on the basis of two texts from the Greek tradition, i.e. Psellus’ Paraphrasis and Ammonius’ Commentary.With regard to the Latin sources, besides the already known ones (i.e. certain parts from Radulphus Brito’s Quaestiones super Artem Veterem, singled out by Ebbesen / Pinborg in 1981/82, and numerous long parts from Thomas Aquinas’ Commentary on the De interpretatione, revealed by Demetracopoulos in 2010), three more Latin sources are revealed: two by known authors and one still unidentified. The first one is a Commentary preserved in its entirety in cod. Pad. Bibl. Univ. 1589 and partially in cod. Pal. Bibl. Com. 2Qq. D 142. Its authorship is uncertain. In the first codex, there are two colophons, which attribute the text on the De interpretatione to two different authors. The first colophon was written by one of the five scribes of the codex and ascribes the Commentary to John Buridan, whereas the second is the final colophon and, according to Doucet, Lohr, and Gauthier, attributes all the Commentaries of the codex to the 13th c. philosopher and theologian of the University of Paris Johannes Pagus. Regardless of the problem of the authorship, the proem to the Commentary on the De interpretatione is, as shown in detail, very close to Scholarios’ proem.The second source is Guillelmus Arnaldus’ Commentary on the De interpretatione. This Commentary was initially attributed to Gilles of Rome, printed under his name in 1507, along with some other Commentaries on Aristotle’s logic. The authorship issue was settled by Tabarroni (1988) and Gauthier (1989). Scholarios, for his own Commentary, relies on some points from Arnaldus’ Commentary, as detailed comparison illustrates.In addition, there are some similarities regarding the division to lectiones and the structure. The way in which Scholarios exploited his sources is shown in detail. The relevant Table reveals the complexity of his Commentary. The style and the syntax of the text from the middle of Lectio 10 suggest that Scholarios uses at least one more Latin source. Aquinas’ Commentary remained incomplete; so, Scholarios probably had access to some continuatio, which he translated so as to have his Commentary completed. Comparison shows that none of the eight extant continuationes that were written before Scholarios’ time was his source.With regard to structure, Scholarios’ Commentary on the De interpretatione is divided into five Parts and fourteen lectiones. The division to five Parts was common among Greek scholars. In the six known Greek Commentaries (by Ammonius, Stephanus of Alexandria, the anonymous commentator of cod. Par.gr. 2064, Michael Psellus, Leo Magentinus, and Scholarios), division is made into five “chapters” (as Ammonius called them) or “parts” (as all the others called them). The Latins, for their part, followed Boethius’ separation into two books. Scholarios’ separation is closely compared to that of his predecessors.As for the lectiones, in the first five Scholarios follows the division in Arnaldus’ Commentary, whereas in lectiones 6-10 he follows the division in Aquinas’ work. In addition, in his first lectio, Scholarios follows Arnaldus’ division. Still, he follows the formal structure of the Greek commentators in his prooemium, where he discusses: (a) the subject matter of Aristotle’s writing, (b) its utility, (c) how the De interpretatione relates to the other logical Aristotelian works, (d) its title, (e) its author, (f) its division into chapters and parts, (g) its structure, and (h) which branch of philosophy it falls under.An occasional reference is made by Scholarios to Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae, which is an adaptation of a similar reference by Radulphus Brito: whereas Brito refers to lectio 14 of Aquinas’ Commentary on the De interpretatione, Scholarios refers his reader to the Summa Theologiae, Ia Pars, qu. 14, art. 13, where Thomas deals with the same subject, i.e. God’s foreknowledge of the future contingents. Part I of the Summa Theologiae was accessible to the Greek-speaking readership of the day, thanks to Demetrios Cydones’ translation of the work (1358).Part II: Scholarios and ars novaPart II consists of four sections, referring to the manuscripts, Ps.-Aquinas’ De fallacies, Petrus Hispanus’ Tractatus, and a short letter of Scholarios to his disciple John On syllogisms.The codices preserving these translations are presented. Jugie used Pal.gr. 235, Plut. 71.33, Auct. T.5.13 and Mutinensis α.Τ.9.13, considering the last three as Scholarios’ autographs. Still, paleographical examination results in the following conclusions.1. Plut. 71.33, according to the description by Bandini, was written by two 14th c. scribes. Still, this is not sustainable, as some Scholarian works are included in the codex. Graphological examination reveals a third scribe. The differences between the first two and the one who wrote Scholarios’ translations, as well as between them and Scholarios, are illustrated in Tables. In the margins of the manuscript, some scholia by a different hand (attributed by Harlfinger to his Anonymous KB) are discernible.2. In cod. Auct. T.5.13, three manus are discernible, but none of them is Scholarios’, as a Table with the differences between the three scribes of the manuscript and between them and Scholarios clearly shows.3. The third scribe of Auct. T.5.13 coincides with the Anonymous 18 Harlfinger (who is the scribe of cod. Par.gr. 1941). A comparative Table is offered. In the section on Ps.-Aquinas’ De fallaciis, Scholarios’ word for word translation of it is briefly discussed. In the section concerning Petrus Hispanus’ Tractatus, Jugie’s estimation that Scholarios, after translating the first five tractatus, deliberately skipped the sixth is refuted. In fact, Scholarios’ translation simply reflects the order of the chapters as it stood in the older manuscripts of the Medieval tradition of the work. The last section refers to a letter by Scholarios to his disciple John, which explains the term “simple syllogism”, an issue which falls under Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. The letter is included in Mut. α.T.9.13, properly placed between Scholarios’ Commentary on the De interpretatione and the Περὶ εὐπορίας προτάσεων (from chapter 9 of Georgios Pachymeres’ exegesis on the Prior Analytics).Part III: A critical edition of Scholarios’ Commentary on the De InterpretationeA new, critical edition of Scholarios’ Commentary on the De interpretatione is offered. It is based on the manuscripts directly linked to Scholarios, i.e. V, B and P, P being used as the basic codex, as it preserves, as shown, the final version of Scholarios’ text.