^{page 108 note 1} Cf. the apparatus to 109 ^b 7–14 in Top. ed. Strache and Wallies, Leipz. 1923; also Grenfell and Hunt, , Fayûm Pap. 88–89Google Scholar, and Arch.f. Papyrusf, ii. 367.Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 2} See Strache and Wallies, xiii-xix. Fragments of a Latin translation of Alexander on El. seem to be preserved on the margins of cod. Vienna Nationalbibl. 2377; this translation is also quoted in a 12th-century commentary (cod. Oxford Bodl. Laud. lat. 67, f. 8V) and, according to Grabmann, M. (‘Petrus Hispanus’, Sitzungsb. d. Bayer. Ak., Phil.-hist. Abt. 1936, ix. 87)Google Scholar, in two 13th-century logical treatises; there was a copy in Richard of Fournival's library in the middle of the 13th century (Delisle, , Cab. d. Manuscr. ii. 525)Google Scholar; see about it our ‘Note sul l'Arist. lat. mediev. ix’ in Riv. di Filos. Neo-scol. xlvi (1954), 229–31Google Scholar. The 12th-century Latin commentary by James of Venice on El. of which a few quotations remain (codd. Paris. Bibl. Nat. lat. 15141, ff. 3 ^r, 22 ^r, 28 ^r, and Berlin Oeffentl. Wissensch. Bibl. lat. fol. 624, ff. 65 ^r–73 ^v) was related to Michael of Ephesus's commentary: probably both depended on Alexander (cf. our ‘Note … vi’ in Riv. di Filos.Neo-Scol. xliv (1952), 401–5)Google Scholar. A Greek copy of Alexander on El. seems to have existed in Mosul in the 10th-11th century (cf. a note at the end of the Arabic translations of El. in cod. Paris Bibl. Nat. arab. 2346, printed in ‘Badawi, Abdurrahmān, Organon Aristot. in vers. arab. ant. iii, Cairo 1952, 1018)Google Scholar; but the translations mentioned by Wenrich, (De auct. Graec. version., Leipz. 1842, 274Google Scholar; cf. Comm. Ar. Gr. II. iiiGoogle Scholar, p. v, n. 1) are not translations from Alexander but from Aristotle-'s text (see al-Nadim, ibn, Kitäb al-Fihrist, ed. Flügel, Leipz. 1872, 264).Google Scholar

^{page 108 note 3} All these translations are now printed in Badawi, , op. cit. ii–iii, Cairo, 1949–1952Google Scholar (467–733 Top., and 735–1016 El.); cf. Walzer, R., ‘New Light on the Arab. Transl. of Arist.’, in Oriens vi (1953), 106, 112–13, 141. That Yahyā ibn ‘Adi translated El. from Theophilus’ Syriac version is stated in Fihrist, 249 (cf. Walzer, 112), but contradicted by the title of his translation in the Paris MS. (Badawi, 737). It is possible that more material for the history of the Greek text exists in Arabic commentaries and paraphrases.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 1} The lemmata reflect later stages of the Aristotelian texts; cf. Strache and Wallies, xiii-xiv.

^{page 109 note 2} Cf. Riposati, B., Studi sui Topica di Cicerone, Milan, 1947.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} Instil. 2. 3. 18 (see the apparatus in Mynors's edition); Cassiodorus seems to have also misled his latest editor on this point (cf. his Index auctorum, s.v. Arist.).

^{page 109 note 4} See our ‘The Ars Disserendi of Adam of Balsham, Parvipontanus’; in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies, iii (1954), 136–40.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 5} See Lacombe, G., etc., Aristoteles Latinus, Codices, i, Rome, 1939, 11–12, 46, 418.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 1} See Arist. Lat. Cod. ii, Cambridge, 1955, Index nom. et oper. s.v. Elenchi, Topica; and Gesamtkat. d. Wiegendr. nn. 2335, 2337–41, 2391–3, 2401–4.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 2} Cf. our ‘Iacobus Veneticus Grecus’, Traditio, viii (1952), 265–304, and ‘Note … vi’, quoted above, 398–411.Google Scholar

^{page 110 note 3} Cf. ‘The Genuine Text of B.'s Transl. of Arist.'s Cat.’, Mediaev. and Renaiss. Stud, i (1943). 151–77Google Scholar and ‘The Text of the Cat.: the Lat. Trad.’, C.Q.. xxxix (1945), 63–74.Google Scholar

^{page 111 note 1} Cod. Coislin. 170, which Bekker gives as the equivalent of D in his list of sigla, does not contain Aristotle's works (cf. Waitz, , Aristotelis Organon Graece, i, Leipz. 1844, 11Google Scholar; Torstrik, , ‘Die authentica d. Berl. Ausg.’ in Philologus, xii (1857), 512–13Google Scholar; and Devreesse, R., Le Fonds Coislin [Bibl. Nat., Catal. des Manuscr. grecs ii], 1945, 152–3)Google Scholar; nor does the text of cod. Coislin. 157, which was considered to be D by Ross, , Aristotle's Prior and Post. Anal., Oxford, 1949 (among the sigla), correspond to cod. D as collated by Bekker. The identification of D with cod. Paris. Bibl. Nat. gr. 1843 has been made recently by H. D. Saffrey, after a comparison with Bekker's readings. The sections of c, f, i, o, q, N, P, T collated by Waitz are the following: c and f very many passages from the whole works; i 164 ^a 20–170 ^a 21, 172 ^a 10–176 ^a 16, 177 ^b 12–184b 8; 0 100 ^a 18–108 ^b 33; q 129 ^a 27–164 ^b 19; N 151 ^b 28–155 ^a 38; P 100 ^a 18–135 ^b 24, 139 ^a 16–148 ^a 19; T 164 ^a 20–178 ^a 31. The manuscript 0 is almost identical with u, and is probably a direct copy from it; we have quoted it in the one case in which it seems to differ from u while agreeing with Boethius' translation.Google Scholar

^{page 112 note 1} See ‘The Text of the Cat.’ C.Q. xxxix (1945), 71.Google Scholar

^{page 115 note 1} Two other MSS. are mentioned in Arist. Lat. Cod. i, 12, 47, 120 as containing these readings; the large sections of one of them, Charleville 250, which we have examined do not contain any quotation from the ‘alia translatio’. The passages quoted at p. 120 have been transcribed from the MS. very carelessly.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 1} For further details on the various texts of El. discussed here see ‘Note … ix' in Riv. di Filos. Neo-Scol. xlvi (1954), 223–9.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 2} Some of the peculiar readings of cod. Avranches 228 had already been noticed by Geyer, B., ‘Die alt. lat. Übersetzgn d. arist. Anal., Top. u. El.’, Philos. Jahrb. d. GörresGes. xxx (1917), 33–34; he gives the number of the MS. as 227.Google Scholar

^{page 117 note 3} It is possible that a few words quoted in the Berlin MS. mentioned above (p. 108, n. 2) belong to the lost translation or revision by James (cf. our ‘Note … vi’, 411).

^{page 117 note 4} Cf. ‘Note … vi’, 405–8.

^{page 117 note 5} ‘Et in dictis quidem vasis, habentibus autem feminini aut masculini declinationem. Quecumque enim in O. et. n. terminantur, hec sola vasis habent declinationem, puta xylon id est lignum, skhoinion id est tabernaculum. Que autem non sic, feminini aut masculini, quorum quedam ferimus ad vasa, puta ascos id est uter quidem masculinum nomen, klini autem id est lectus, feminini.’

^{page 118 note 1} The reading of л is not recorded as an independent reading by Waitz; but it seems probable that was a gloss written between the lines, that in some manuscripts it has been added as a part of the text, and that in others it has supplanted a section of the phrase which it was meant to explain; Boethius may, in this instance, preserve alone the right text.

^{page 118 note 2} On this revision, and on the way in which it came to be accepted as Boethius' translation, see ‘Note … vi’, 408–11. On Buhle's, Waitz's, and Strache's use of it see ‘The Text of the Cat.’ 71. The actual Boethian translation is quoted several times by these editors—from a corrupt text—as a translation by an unknown scholar (Strache's siglum ‘tr').