¹ ‘James of Venice is a riddle’: Haskins, C. H., Studies in the History of Mediaeval Science (2nd ed. Cambridge Mass. 1927) 228.Google Scholar

² Another translation of the Physics and Metaphysics was made from the Greek in the twelfth century: only the first book and part of the second of this other translation of the Physics are preserved, and are now called Physica Vaticana, while the Metaphysics — now called Metaphysica Media — still exists complete (book XI was probably not translated). The date of these translations, made both by the same man, is not known, but it is likely that they are later than those made by James. The Physics was also translated in the same century by Gerard of Cremona (d. 1187) from the Arabic. The De Anima was not retranslated from the Greek before the fifteenth century, and from the Arabic before the thirteenth. The Parva Naturalia were translated again only in the fifteenth or sixteenth century. See Lacombe, G. etc., Aristoteles Latinus, Codices I (Union Académique Internationale, Rome 1939) 51–2, 58–65. For the Physica Vaticana and the Metaphysica Media see my ‘Note sull'Aristotele latino medievale,’ Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 42 (1950) 222–31 and the literature mentioned there.Google Scholar

³ Very little has been written so far on the philosophical studies and intellectual life in Constantinople in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. See, for a general survey and bibliographical information, Tatakis, B., La philosophie byzantine (Bréhier, E., Histoire de la Philosophie, fase, supplém. 2, Paris 1949) 137–227.Google Scholar

⁴ On Anselm of Havelberg and his discussions in Constantinople see Dräseke, J., ‘Bischof Anselm von Havelberg und seine Gesandtschaftsreise nach Byzanz,’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 21 (1900) 160–85 (particularly 168 for the date of the report from which the passage is taken), and Schreiber, G., ‘Anselm von Havelberg und die Ostkirche,’ ibid. 60 = dritte Folge 11 (1941) 354–411. The date 1145 given to Anselm's text in D'Achéry's edition (PL 188, col. 1139) is the date of Eugenius III's election, and the words ‘tempore Bernardi’ are probably an addition by a monk of Cîteaux where the manuscript on which the edition is based was preserved; the date 12th August, 1158 given by Théry, G., Jean Sarrazin traducteur de Scot Érigène (Studia Mediaevalia in honorem R. Martin, Bruges 1949) 363, is the date of Anselm's death (see Dräseke, , op.cit. 185). — This passage was printed for the first time in 1677 in D'Achéry, L., Veterum aliquot scriptorum spicilegium XIII (Paris 1677) X and 123. The interest shown by historians in James was first aroused by this passage: G. G. Gradenigo, who had probably read it in D'Achéry's second edition of Anselm's Dialogic in Spicilegium sive Collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum I (Paris 1723) 172, or in the extract from the first edition given by Oudin, , De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis antiquis II (Leipzig 1722) 1429–30 (reprinted in PL 188, 1089–90), listed James among the Italians who had known Greek and tried to prove that ‘Veneticus’ meant ‘from Venice’, not ‘from Vannes’ (Lettera intorno agl’ Italiani che seppero di greco [Venice 1743] 62–5 [I owe the information on this work to Prof. Francesco Rossi of Venice]; see also Gradenigo's Ragionamento istorico-critico intorno alla letteratura greco-italica [Brescia 1759] 68–70). This piece of information on James was made known to wider circles by Tiraboschi in his Storia della letteratura italiana III (Modena 1773) 266 (= 343 of the 1787 edition); shortly after, he read in the 1651 edition of Robert of Torigny's Chronicle (see below, note 6) more evidence on James, cf. St. lett. it. IV (Mod. 1774) 127–8 (= 166–7). But Anselm's passage was forgotten until V. Rose found it out through Gradenigo's work; see Rose, V., ‘Die Lücke im Diogenes Laertius und der alte Übersetzer,’ Hermes 1 (1866) 381. — On Burgundio of Pisa see Mols, R., ‘Burgundio’ DHGE 10 (1938) 1363–9, and, among older works, Savigny, F. C. v., Geschichte des römischen Rechts im Mittelalter IV (2nd ed. Heidelberg 1850) 394–10, and Haskins, C. H., Stud. 144–52, 184–5, 206–9, 231–6. On Moses of Bergamo see Haskins, , Stud. 144–50, 197–206, and Cremaschi, C., Mosè del Brolo e la cultura a Bergamo nei secoli XI-XII (Bergamo 1945). Prof. E. Franceschini exposed A. Gaudenzi's mistaken identification of this Moses with the archbishop of Ravenna (see below, p. 296) in Il contributo dell’ Italia alla trasmissione del pensiero greco e la questione di Giacomo chierico di Venezia (Atti della XXVI riunione della Società Italiana per il Progresso delle Scienze [1937], Rome 1938) 300–1 = 14–5.Google Scholar

⁵ This translation of the Posterior Analytics was discovered in 1913 by Haskins in the Toledo manuscript (hence it was improperly called ‘Toletana’; the true ‘Toletana’ translation of the same work is that made in Toledo from the Arabic by Gerard of Cremona). The prologue by the translator was published by Haskins, in ‘Mediaeval versions of the Posterior Analytics,’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 25 (1914) 93–4 (reprinted in Stud. 229) and reproduced from Haskins's text by Baeumker, C., ‘Lateinische Übersetzungen der aristotelischen Analytica Posteriora,’ Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft 28 (1915) 324; by Lacombe, , Arist. Lat. I 122–3; by Grabmann, M., ‘Aristoteles im zwölften Jahrhundert,’ Mediaeval Studies 12 (1950) 127, and partly by A. Hofmeister in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde 40 (1915) 454–5. The ‘terminus ante quem’ of this translation was determined by B. Geyer when he saw that the word ‘cicadationes’ for τεϱετίσματα (Post. Anal. I.xxii 83a33 = ‘monstra’ in the ‘vulgate’) quoted by John of Salisbury (Metalogicon II.xx 111 Webb) in 1159 belonged to it (‘Nochmals die alten lateinischen Übersetzungen der Analytica Posteriora,’ Philos. Jahrb. 41 [1928] 338–40). This translation is only preserved in the Toledo manuscript; a few quotations from it are found on the margins of some manuscripts of the ‘vulgate’. Rose (‘Die Lücke,’ 383–4) suggested that the author of this version — known to him only from John of Salisbury's reference—was Henricus Aristippus, while Bliemetzrieder, F., ‘Noch einmal die alten lateinischen Übersetzungen der Analytica Posteriora,’ Philos. Jahrb. 38 (1925) 230–49 and ‘Nachtrag,’ ibid. 40 (1927) 85–90 suggested Burgundio of Pisa: apart from other arguments brought against these identifications by Geyer, , ‘Die alten Übersetzungen der aristotelischen Analytik, Topik und Elenchik,’ Philos. Jahrb. 30 (1917) 39, a study of the language used by these translators has shown that they cannot be the authors of that version (see below, p. 288 f.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ This passage was missing from the manuscript on which the first edition of Robert's chronicle was based (Gemblacensis, Sigebertus, Chronicon cum additionibus Roberti, Paris 1513, reprinted in 1566, twice in 1583, again in 1613, partly in 1619, and for the last time completely in 1726; cf. the list of editions at pp. lxv-lxix of Howlett's preface to his edition [below note 15]), and was not printed until D'Achéry's edition of de Novigento, Guibertus Abbas Beatae Mariae, Opera (Paris 1651), containing Robert's chronicle at pp. 743810 (note on James: 753). Tiraboschi noticed this passage in 1774 (see above, note 4, p. 266); after him, probably through M. J. J. Brial (who in 1786 had published another edition of the chronicle, mainly based on that of D'Achéry, and had written about it in the Histoire Littéraire de France XIV, Paris 1817, 369), Amable Jourdain took it into account, Recherches sur l’âge et l'origine des traductions latines d'Aristote (Paris 1819) 62–3, but dated the passage ‘1228’ (instead of ‘1128’, cf. below note 16, p. 271) and ascribed the note to a chronicler who enlarged Robert's work: thus (through the German translation made by Stahr, A., Forschungen über Alter und Ursprung der lateinischen Übersetzungen, Halle 1831) he misled C. Schaarschmidt, who suggested the identification of James with Yaqob ben Abba Mari, the translator of some works of Averroes in southern Italy; cf. his Johannes Saresberiensis nach Leben und Studien (Leipzig 1862) 121. Charles Jourdain, who prepared a second edition of his father's work (Paris 1843), repeated the mistake in the preface (p. xi) but corrected it at p. 58. In 1854 Rose, V., De Aristotelis librorum ordine et auctoritate (Berlin 1854) 256 took notice of the information from Ch. Jourdain's edition, and later on, following Prantl (Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande II, Leipzig 1861, 99 n. 3), found it again in Bethmann's edition of Robert's chronicle, and thought himself justified in inferring that James was the actual translator of those works in the form in which they were read all through the middle ages; cf. ‘Die Lücke’ 381, and see below pp. 300–301.Google Scholar

⁷ This passage was found by Hunt, R. W. Dr. and edited by him in ‘Studies on Priscian in the twelfth century,’ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 2 (1950) 43, cf. 19.Google Scholar

⁸ Prof. R. A. B. Mynors kindly called my attention to the name ‘Iacobi’ in this note.Google Scholar

⁹ A. Gaudenzi (followed by Prof. E. Franceschini) and A. Testi Rasponi in the texts mentioned below, note 20, p. 272, transcribed and printed ‘Iacobus Veneticus grecus philosofus’ and appear to have interpreted ‘James the Venetian, Greek philosopher’ (see also Cremaschi, C., Mosè del Brolo 58 n. 30, and 60). But the manuscript reads ‘Jacobus veneticus grecus. philosofus,’ and there is no evidence of any philosopher of that time calling himself ‘grecus philosophus.’ One might compare our phrase with ‘Johannes Avendeuth Israelita philosophus,’ by which the Jewish translator of the middle twelfth century describes himself in the prologue of the translation of Avicenna's Shifa (Psychological section), printed in Jourdain's Recherches 504–5 (second edition 449) and in other places: ‘Israelita’ refers in the first instance to ‘Iohannes Avendeuth’, not to ‘philosophus’.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Συμβαίνει τἠν γῆν ὓσαντος γίγνεσθαι διάβϱοχον, Soph. El. ν, 167b6–7. The ‘vulgate’ reads: ‘accidit terram pluvia fieri madidam.’ Google Scholar

¹¹ Dräseke, , Bisch. Ans. 173. Anselm himself says: ‘die decimo, si tamen bene memor sum,’ col. 1163B.Google Scholar

¹² Poole, R. L., ‘John of Salisbury at the Papal Court,’ English Historical Review 38 (1923) 321–30, and his preface to the Historia Pontificalis (Oxford 1927) viii-ix.Google Scholar

¹³ We cannot say who exactly these ‘Francie magistri’ were, but one might think of those of Chartres and Paris among whom John of Salisbury acquired what knowledge he had of Aristotle's logic. Towards 1140 Thierry of Chartres was collecting the ‘corpus’ of texts for liberal studies, the Eptateucon (cf. Clerval, A., Les écoles de Chartres, Paris 1895, 220 ff.), which includes all the logical works of Aristotle with the exception of the Posterior Analytics: it may well be that Thierry was one of those who ‘non audent eius libri notitiam profiteri’ because of its difficulty. The translations of the Prior Analytics, Topics, Elenchi which he accepted into the Eptateucon were those of Boethius, whose version of the Posterior Analytics was probably not completely available. There was at Chartres, until the destruction in 1943 through bombing, the oldest manuscript in existence of the ‘vulgate’ of the Posterior Analytics, the twelfth-century cod. 92.—The history of the so-called Logica nova is different for each of the single works, particularly so for the Posterior Analytics. We know that Abailard had some knowledge of the Prior Analytics and Sophistici Elenchi, perhaps around 1120 (see particularly Geyer, B., ‘Die alten Übersetz.’ 33–8); and already in 1132 Adam of Balsham ‘Parvipontanus’ had elaborated doctrines derived from the Topics and Elenchi in his Ars Disserendi (an article on this subject will appear in Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies 3); the Elenchi may have been the object of much study and many discussions between 1120 and 1140 (see Grabmann, M., Kommentare zur aristotelischen Logik aus dem 12. und 13. Jahrhundert im Ms. lat. fol. 624 der preussischen Staatsbibliothek [Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse 1938. xviii] 190–1). The Posterior Analytics may not have come into circulation before ca. 1145. John of Salisbury is our first evidence (A.D. 1159) of the knowledge of its contents; Otto of Freising did not know of its existence when he was writing the first recension of his Chronica in or about 1145; see Hofmeister, A., ‘Studien über Otto von Freising,’ Neues Archiv 37 (1912) 676–9 (‘so ist es unbedingt notwendig zu schliessen, dass Otto… vor 1149 von dem vollständigen Organon noch nichts wusste’, 678), and his preface to Otto's Chronica (Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum; 2nd ed. Hannover and Leipzig 1912) xvi-xxiii.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The point needs to be stressed that the anonymous translator did not know James’ version, nor of any actual blame of obscurity attaching to it: he only made an inference on this score from the fact that the Posterior Analytics was not the subject of teaching although it has been repeatedly said that the translator's words were evidence of such a blame being actually laid on James. The only evidence to this effect can be found in John of Salisbury's Metalogicon IV. vi, 171 Webb; cf. below, note 31.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The ‘terminus post quem’ and the ‘terminus ante quem’ of the note can be inferred from the history of the text of Robert's chronicle. This history was made clear by Howlett, R., The Chronicle of Robert of Torigny (Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen… IV, Rolls Series, London 1889) xlvi–xlviii, after Bethmann had given an incomplete and confused account of it (Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores VI, Hannover 1844, 283–5, 294) and after the spade-work done by Delisle in his Chronique de Robert de Torigny (Rouen 1872–3) I, p. liv. Robert left the Abbey of Bec in 1157 and left there the original copy of his chronicle. From this copy many others were taken, directly or indirectly, none of which contains the note in question. He took with him to Mont-Saint-Michel another copy (now cod. Avranches 159) in which he continued the records down to shortly after 1180, partly in his own hand, partly with the aid of scribes. Copies were taken from the Avranches text from 1169 down to later times. The 1169 copy, and all those made after it, contain the note on James.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The date 1128 is usually taken as the date of James’ translations and commentaries. There is no reason to be so exact: the note had to be inserted somewhere in the course of the account of facts not too near to the present. And it is unlikely that James did all that work in one year.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The same hand which wrote this, and another note quoting from the ‘nova translatio,’ wrote several passages from Gerard's Arabo-Latin version and from Themistius’ paraphrase (again in Gerard's translation). All the four texts (the two Graeco-Latin and the Arabo-Latin versions of Aristotle's text, and that of Themistius) are found together in the Toledo manuscript. At a time very near to that at which the Balliol manuscript was being written (in Oxford?), Robert Grosseteste was writing his commentary on the Posterior Analytics, in which he mentioned ‘other translations’ (edition of Venice 1497, f. b3^vb) and Themistius’ paraphrase (passim).Google Scholar

¹⁸ For the date of the council see Jaffé, Ph., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum II (2nd ed. Leipzig 1888) 58.Google Scholar

¹⁹ On the dispute for the right of precedence between Ravenna and Milan, culminating in a riot in 1027, see Kehr, P. F., Regesta Pontificum, Italia Pontificia V (Berlin 1911) 53, 58, 66 (n^os 169, 170, 192, 232); Arnulfus, , Gesta archiepiscoporum Mediolanensium (ed. Bethmann, L. C. and Wattenbach, W., MGH Scr. VIII, Hannover 1848) 12; Amadesi, J. A., Dissertatio de metropoli ecclesiastica ravennate, PL 52, 91–180.Google Scholar

²⁰ James’ text is only preserved at f. 35^rb-va of cod. Modena Estense α.P.4.9 (olim V.F. 19) of the early fifteenth century. The manuscript was fully described by Testi Rasponi, A., Codex pontificalis ecclesiae Ravennatis (Istituto Storico Italiano, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores II.3.I., Bologna 1924) vi–vii. It contains, after Agnellus’ Liber pontificalis, a complementary anonymous chronicle of the archbishops of Ravenna down to 1296, completed by Paul Scordili of Crete as far as A.D. 1413. Our text is in the first part of this chronicle, and is the second of four documents added to the information on archbishop Moses. It is probable that these documents were added to the chronicle by Scordili himself who, as ‘praepositus S. Ravennatis Ecclesiae had access to the archives: the documents are introduced by ‘de isto archiepiscopo reperi in quodam instrumentello antiquo sic’, ‘et demum istud erat in quodam scrineo’, ‘de isto archiepiscopo ita reperi quod hic pono’. James’ text as we have it may be the last of this series of copies; 1. the autograph, 2. the abbreviated text (see below), 3. the copy for the archives, 4. Scordili's transcription, 5. the copy by the scribe of the Modena manuscript (unless Scordili himself wrote it). — The chronicle was first edited by B. Bacchini at the end of the ‘editio princeps’ of Agnellus’ Liber pontificalis III (Modena 1708) and again by Muratori (Rerum Italicarum Scriptores II.i, Milan 1723, 188–215, reprinted in PL 106, 751–810), who revised Bacchini's text from the manuscript. But of the whole chronicle both editors omitted precisely James’ text (Muratori gave the introductory words ‘De isto … hic pono’ which Bacchini had omitted). Testi Rasponi seems to have been the first to notice it, and A. Gaudenzi the first to transcribe it for publication. It appeared in an almost diplomatic copy in Gaudenzi's posthumous ‘Il costituto di Costantino,’ Bullettino dell’ Istituto Storico Italiano 39 (1919) 54–5. Gaudenzi did not give any light on the document but used it for fantastic hypotheses, see below pp. 296–297. Prof. Franceschini reprinted it from Gaudenzi's edition in Il contributo 307–8 = 21–2, thus bringing it to the notice of students of medieval Aristotelianism. Gaudenzi thought that Bacchini and Muratori had omitted the document because they did not understand it: this seems very unlikely, especially in the case of Bacchini, who, prompted by the Liber pontificalis, had discussed the very problems of Ravenna's rights with a vast knowledge and great acumen in the third section of his De ecclesisaticae hierarchiae originibus dissertatio (Modena 1703).Google Scholar

²¹ I only give variants of some importance, omitting all that is purely orthographical (‘philosofus, ravenati, cuncilij’ etc.) or due to obvious corruption (‘antiquo’ for ‘antique’, ‘forma’ for ‘formam’ etc.). I have corrected ‘septimum’ into ‘sextum’ as a mistake most probably due to the abbreviation ‘sex^m’ in which the ‘x’ may have been written, as it very frequently was, almost like a ‘p’.Google Scholar

²² This has been suggested to me by Dr. N. Rubinstein.Google Scholar

²³ Among the obscure points of this text are the following: What does ‘secundum Tolomeum’ mean? What is the ‘constitutio Viri equati’? This second passage points to the rights of papal legates (see, e.g. Hofmann, K., Der ‘Dictatus Papae’ Gregors VII: eine rechtsgeschichtliche Erklärung [Görres-Gesellschaft, Veröffentlichungen der Sektion für Rechts- und Staatswissenschaft 63, Paderborn 1933] 89–104, 121–9), but I could not trace any such ‘constitutio’.Google Scholar

²⁴ The order of hierarchy among the patriarchal sees was usually founded not on Roman history but on the dignity conferred on them by the Apostles; see, e.g., Ps.-Anacl. III.34, p. 84 Hinsch.; Ivo, , Decr. V.ii, col. 321–2, V.xxxi, 331, V.xlv, 340. This is the theory behind the archbishop of Milan's claim against the archbishop of Ravenna in 1027 ‘sicut Petrus primo Romam docuit, ita Barnabas eius coapostolus Mediolanii primo catholicam instituit fidem… Hoc apostolico iure, sicut Romana sedes est prima, ita et Mediolanensis censenda est secunda’, Novo Beroldo of the cathedral chapter of Milan, at the year 1027, quoted in Arnulfus, , Gesta (ed. Bethm.-Wattenb.) 13 n. 70. On the same theory Anselm of Havelberg based his arguments in the discussions of 1136 (Dial. III.li-lii, col. 1213 ff.), and so did the anonymous author of a passage in the Chronicon Altinate (see below, p. 297), in his claim for the rights of Aquileia.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Hofmeister's, A. preface to his second edition of Otto's chronicle and G. Waitz's preface — with additions by B. von Simson — to the third edition of the Gesta Friderici (Scriptores Rerum Germanicarum, Hannover and Leipzig 1912).Google Scholar

²⁶ Doxapatrius, Nilus, Notitia Thronorum Patriarchalium (ed. Le Moine, S. in Variorum Sacrorum I, Leyden 1685, 211 ff., reprinted in PG 132, 1083–1114). See Caspar, E., Roger II und die Gründung der normannisch-sizilischen Monarchie (Innsbruck 1904) 346–54.Google Scholar

²⁷ See e.g., Innocent III's letter printed in Ughelli, , Italia sacra XI (Venice 1721) 480^a .Google Scholar

²⁸ The second and third books of this translation are usually called Ethica vetus, the first book is called Ethica nova; fragments from books VII and VIII are called Ethica Eorghesiana. I shall show somewhere else that all these are parts of one (complete?) translation of the Nicomachean Ethics made in the twelfth century by the same scholar who translated the De Generatione et Corruptione; cf. below, pp. 288–289. For the usual views on the translations of the Nicomachean Ethics see Arist. Lat. I 67–71. See also Lottin, O., ‘Saint Albert le Grand et l'Éthique à Nicomaque,’ BGPM Supplbd. 3.i (1935) 611626, and Callus, D., ‘The date of Grosseteste's translations and commentaries on PseudoDionysius and the Nicomachean Ethics,’ Recherches de Théologie Ancienne et Médiévale 14 (1947) 200–9.Google Scholar

²⁹ The ancient Latin translations of the Nicene canons were critically edited by Turner, C. H., Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima Ι.ii (Oxford 1904) 120–1. 196–7, 260. Another medieval translation is found in the Dresden manuscript of the Chronicon Altinate, see below, p. 298. The ancient translations of the canon of Constantinople are found in Eccl. Occ. Iur. Ant. II (Oxford 1939) 418–9, 431, Google Scholar

³⁰ On James’ language in his Aristotelian translations see below, p. 283–291.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Posteriorum Analeticorum subtilis quidem scientia est et paucis ingeniis pervia; quod quidem ex causis pluribus evenire perspicuum est. Continet enim artem demonstrandi que pre ceteris rationibus disserendi ardua est. Deinde hec utentium raritate iam fere in desuetudine abiit, eo quod demonstrationis usus vix apud solos mathematicos est… Ad hec, liber quo demonstrativa traditur disciplina ceteris longe turbatior est, et transpositione sermonum, traiectione litterarum, desuetudine exemplorum, que a diversis disciplinis mutuata sunt, et postremo, quod non contingit auctorem [and this means that the ‘transpositio sermonum’, the ‘traiectio litterarum’, and the ‘desuetudo exemplorum’ are Aristotle's faults], adeo scriptorum depravatus est vitio ut fere quot capita tot obstacula habeat, et bene quidem ubi non sunt obstacula capitibus plura. Unde a plerisque in interpretem difficultatis culpa refunditur, asserentibus librum ad nos non recte translatum’ (Metalog. ΙV.vi, 170–1 Webb).Google Scholar

³² See above note 14.Google Scholar

³³ On the dilemma ‘Boethius or James’ see below, pp. 299–303.Google Scholar

³⁴ For the translations from the Arabic see my article, ‘Note sull'Aristotele latino medievale, IV: la tradizione semitico-latina dei Secondi Analitici,’ Rivista di Filosofia Neo-scolastica 43 (1951) 97–124.Google Scholar

³⁵ See my articles, ‘The genuine text of Boethius’ translation of Aristotle's Categories,’ Mediaeval and Renaissance Studies I (1941–3) 151–77, and ‘The text of the Categoriae: the Latin tradition,’ The Classical Quarterly 39 (1934) 63–74.Google Scholar

³⁶ I have based my study of these translations on the following manuscripts, after making sure, by comparing them with others, that they represent the ‘vulgate’ in a pure or almost pure form: Post. Anal., codd. Oxford Balliol College 253 and Glasgow Univ. Hunter. U.6.10, both of the first half of the thirteenth century; Prior Anal., Oxf. Ball. 253 (cod. Glasgow Univ. Hunt. U.6.10 gives a revised or contaminated version which has not yet been studied), and the only existing twelfth-century manuscript, Ambrosian I.195. inf.; Top., Oxford Trinity College 47, the only surviving twelfth-century copy; Soph. El., Ambros. I.195.inf. (again the only twelfth-century copy) and Cambridge Trinity College 0.7.9 (ca. A.D. 1200). — For the Categ. I have used codd. Arras 862 (343), Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 2788, Venice Marcian. Z.L.497, Munich lat. 18480, Oxford Bodl. Laudian 49, all of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Meiser's edition of the De Interpr. (Leipzig 1877) and Brandt's edition of Porphyry's Isag. (CSEL 48) provide the best texts of these two works.Google Scholar

³⁷ McKinlay, A. P., ‘Stylistic Tests and the Chronology of the Works of Boethius,’ Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 18 (1907) 152–4, already noticed the striking divergence between the language of the Post. Anal. and that of the Pr. Anal., Top. and Soph. El. in the ‘vulgate’; but he was not acquainted with the problem of the attribution of these translations to one or another translator, and forced the Post. Anal. into his chronological scheme. His ‘tests’ can be used as complementary evidence confirming our results, although McKinlay based his study on the revised texts as printed in PL 64 and did not pay any attention to the different Greek words which may underlie one and the same Latin word.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁸ See other evidence on the difference between Boethius’ language and that of the Post. Anal. at p. 288 f. A fuller analysis will be given in a book on Boethius, James the Venetian and Greek, and the Mediaeval Aristotle, which will appear among the ‘Classical and Philosophical Monographs’ of the Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

³⁹ For the peculiar translation of ὣστε in the ‘advice’ and in other texts, see below p. 286.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ On the question of the Metaphysica vetustissima see my ‘Note sull’ Aristotele latino medievale I,’ Rivista di Filosofia Neo-scolastica 42 (1950) 222–6 [= 1–5], where I tried to show that the version called by that name is only part (books I-III and beginning of book IV) of a probably complete translation: the passages quoted as ‘translatio Boetii’ by Aquinas come from that translation, not only in books I-IV, but in the other instances as well.Google Scholar

⁴¹ See Birkenmajer, A., Classement des ouvrages attribués à Aristote par le moyen-âge latin (Prolegomena in Aristotelem Latinum I, Cracow 1932) 18.Google Scholar

⁴² I have used the following manuscripts: Oxf. Ball. 253 and Glasgow Univ. Hunt. U.6.10 for the Post. Anal.; Avranches 221 (of the late twelfth century) for the Phys., De An., De Mem. (for these three works I have also occasionally examined codd. Oxf. Corpus Christi College 111 and 114 of the middle or late thirteenth century), Avranches 232 (of the third quarter of the twelfth century?) and Oxford Bodleian Selden supra 24 (ca. 1200) for the Metaph Apart from collecting complete evidence for the sections mentioned in the text I have tested the consistency of the language through the whole of each of those translations.Google Scholar

⁴³ See above, note 28 p. 279. On the attribution of the version of the De Generatione et Corruptione to Henricus Aristippus and on the question of the several recensions of that translation, see my articles ‘Henri Aristippe, Guillaume de Moerbeke et les traductions latines médiévales des Météorologiques et du De Gen. et Corr.,’ Revue Philosophique de Louvain 45 (1947) 208–35, and ‘Les « trois rédactions » de la traduction latine médiévale du De Gen. et Corr.,’ ibid. 48 (1950) 247–59.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ The lists given here are the result of a study of some characteristics of the following texts: 1. Boethius, , Isag., Categ., De Interpr., Pr. Anal., Top., Soph. El. (see above, note 36); 2. Anonymous translation of the Post. Anal. (cod. Toledo, Chapt. Libr. 17.14); 3. Aristippus, Henricus, Meteorolog. IV (codd. Oxf. Bodl. Seld. supra 24, Venice Marcian. VI.47), Meno (ed. Kordeuter, and Labowsky, , London 1940), Phaedo (my edition, London 1950); 4. Burgundio, , Gregor. Nyss. [Nemes. Emes.] πεϱì φύσεως ἀνθϱώπον lib. (ed. Burkhard, , Vienna 1891–1902); 5. De Gen. et Corr. (Oxf. Bodl. Seld. supra 24, Avranches 232 [only for part of book I], Ven. Marc. VI.47), Eth. Nicom. (book I [Nova Eth.] Paris B.N. lat. 3572. and 6569; books II and III [Vet. Eth.] Oxf. Bodl. Seld. supra 24, Paris B.N. lat. 3572 and 6569; sections of books VII and VIII [Eth. Borghes.] Vatic. Borghes. 108); 6. Phys. Vatic. (Vatic. Reginens. 1855), Metaph. Med. (Vatic. lat. 6944); 7. De Somno et Vig. (ed. Lulofs, Drossaart, Leyden 1943), De Ins. et Divin. per Somn. (ed. Lulofs, Dross., Leyden 1947); 8. Grosseteste, , De Caelo II (Oxf. Ball. Coll. 99), Liber Ethicorum (sections of books IV and X, Oxf. Ball. Coll. 116), De Lineis Insecab. (Oxf. Ball. Coll. 232A); 9. Bartholomew of Messina, De Signis and De Princ. (ed. Kley, , Berlin 1936), Problem. (ed. Seligsohn, , Berlin 1934), Physiogn. (ed. Foerster, , Leipzig 1893), De Mundo (ed. Lorimer, , Oxford 1924 and his new edition for the Arist teles Latinus, Rome 1951; cf. my ‘Note sull’ Arist. lat. III,’ Riv. Fil. Neo-scol. 42 [1950] 232–7 [= 11–16]); 10. William of Moerb., many texts listed in my study, ‘Guglielmo di Moerbeke traduttore della Poetica,’ Riv. Fil. Neo-scol. 39 (1947) 6–7.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ I have prepared an edition of this text for the Aristoteles Latinus on the basis of the only good manuscript existing, Avranches 221 ff. 86^v-88^v, and of a number of ‘codices deteriores.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ The remains of an ‘alia translatio’ of the Topics and Sophistici Elenchi (cf. Arist. Lat. I, 47, 120) do not agree with James’ language, as far as I have been able to establish from an examination of parts of cod. Assisi 658. B. Geyer has shown that there are texts of the Sophistici Elenchi considerably different from each other (‘Die alt. lat. Übersetz…’ 33–4); the same applies to the Prior Analytics, and perhaps to the Topics; all these imply the existence of different translations or at least of revisions on the basis of the Greek texts. But I have not been able, so far, to detect elements justifying an attribution to James. M. Grabmann found a reference to an ‘alia translatio’ of the Sophistici Elenchi which may go back to the first half on the twelfth century (Komment. z. arist. Log. 191): the quotation seems to come from the ‘vulgate’ (‘genus disputationum’ 165a29); does that mean that the translation normally used by that commentator was not the ‘vulgate’, but possibly James’ lost version? Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Richard of Fournival owned ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias’ commentaries on the Elenchi and Posterior Analytics’ (Biblionomia n^os 22 and 23, ed. Delisle, in Cabinet des Manuscrits II 525; cf. Birkenmajer, A., Bibljoteka Ryszarda de Fournival, Cracow 1922, 47). There is no evidence of any such translations from the Greek or the Arabic. Could they have been James’ work? Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See Metalog. I.xxiv and II.x, pp. 57, 80 Webb.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ In the Annales of Mont-Saint-Michel (ed. Delisle, II 228) Richard's election to the bishopric of Avranches (1170) was particularly mentioned. In Robert of Torigny's chronicle his death (1182) is recorded with these words: ‘Obiit pater noster Richardus Abrincensis episcopus, vir magne literature tam secularis quam divine, morum honestate virgo ab utero laudandus’ (p. 304 Howl.). In a letter by Robert to the abbot of Bec we read: ‘De cetero supplico paternitati vestre ut habeatis memoriam et sancta congregatio cui Deus vos prefecit de karissimo fratre meo Ricardo Abrincensi episcopo…’ (p. 360 Howl.) Google Scholar

⁵⁰ PL 199, 254–5. The editor J. A. Giles dates this letter ‘A.D. 1167’. It is certainly later than 1163, belonging as it does to a group of letters of the time at which John was with Thomas a Becket; it does not mention Richard's episcopal dignity, and this suggests that it is earlier than 1170.Google Scholar

⁵¹ They certainly were not the logical works as Prof. C. C. J. Webb seems to imply (John of Salisbury, Policraticus, Oxford 1909, p. xxvi): they must have been works still unknown to John after he had written the Metalogicon .Google Scholar

⁵² See Arist. Lat. I, 437, and Catalogue général des manuscrits des bibliothèques de France: Départements X (Paris 1889) 110–2.Google Scholar

⁵³ Arist. Lat. I, 398–9, and Madan, and Craster, , A Summary Catalogue II.i (Oxford 1922) 622–3, n° 3412.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Arist. Lat. I, 433; Catal. gênér.: Dép. X, 102–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See above, note 28.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Birkenmajer, A., Le rôle joué par les médecins et les naturalistes dans la réception d'Aristote au XII ^e et XIII ^e siècles (La Pologne au VI^e Congrès International des Sciences Historiques, Oslo 1928), Warsaw 1930. The marginal and interlinear notes in the manuscripts mentioned above are the most important evidence so far known of the study of those works in the twelfth century: I hope to examine them on another occasion. — Miss B. Smalley has called my attention to a passage in Herbert of Boseham's Liber Melorum III, notula 8 (PL 190, 1357A-B) where he seems to show knowledge of Aristotle's proof of the existence of a first mover, especially Phys. VIII.x, 266b25–267b7. This leads us again into the circle of people to whom John of Salisbury belonged.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ ‘Cum super hoc articulo multos conferentes et varia sentientes audierim, non pigebit referre nec forte audire displicebit quod a Greco interprete et qui Latinam linguam commode noverat, dum in Apulia morarer, accepi; nam et ipsi volo referre gratiam, etsi non utilitatis — que tamen in his aliqua est —, saltem bone voluntatis, qua auditoribus prodesse cupiebat. Primus ergo huius sententie aut opinionis articulus est quem premisi: quod adiectivorum secunde impositionis et substantivorum prime coniunctio etiam secundum gramatices rationes inconsequens est… Sed nunc Greci interpretis nostri procedat explanatio. « Homo est rationalis »: rebus existentibus ut nunc sunt, hec quodammodo necessaria est. « Homo est risibilis »: hec probabilis est. « Homo est albus »: hec quidem possibilis, dubia tamen, eo quod eque vera potest esse et falsa. « Homo est rudi bilis »: hec quidem impossibilis est ut omnino vera esse non possit. Nullam istarum gramaticus abhorret quia ubique invenit legem suam; nichil istorum corrigit, nichil immutat, gratanter accipit omnia. Quartam corripit et redarguit logicus, eo quod sibi veri falsique commissa est examinatio, et ob hoc quidem eo prebere aurem ducit absurdum. Modo predicts quintam adice: « Homo cathegoricus est »: hanc utique absurditatis damnat gramaticus qui non modo dubiam, non modo falsam, sed etiam impossibilem admittebat. Quare, inquit, nisi quia non sequitur leges suas? Perpetuo enim dicebat inhibitum hec adiectiva illis copulare subiectis.’ (Metal. I.xv, 37–9 Webb). ‘Topicorum… liber… planus est, ita., ut… ab his dumtaxat fideliter intelligatur qui sequuntur indifferentie rationem sine qua nemo unquam nec apud nos nec apud Grecos — sicut Grecus interpres natione Severitanus dicere consueverat — Aristotelem intellcxit’ (III. v, 140). ‘… Interpres meus, cum verbum audiret ignotum, et maxime in compositis, dicebat « analetiza hoc », quod volebat equivalenter exponi’ (IV.ii, 166). —For the equivalence between ‘Severitanus’ and ‘from Sancta Severina’ see Trinchera, , Syllabus Graecarum membranarum (Naples 1865) 85, 86, 357, 372. Rose, who established the meaning of ‘Severitanus’ in the Metalogicon (‘Die Lücke’ 379–80) suggested that the ‘interpres’ was Henricus Aristippus; many followed him, lately Mandalari, M. T., ‘Enrico Aristippo arcidiacono di Catania,’ Bollettino Storico Catanese 4 (1939) 87–123. But Henricus Aristippus was certainly not a Greek; he was alive in 1162 while the ‘interpres Grecus’ seems to have died before 1159; he had obviously a very good knowledge of Latin, not so of Greek; there is no evidence that he was interested in logic; and nothing of what we know of him agrees with what we know of John's ‘interpres Grecus’. See the prefaces to the editions of Aristippus’ versions of Plato's Meno and Phaedo (London 1940 and 1950).Google Scholar

⁶⁸ Gaudenzi, A., Il costit. 12, 53–7, 61–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Cessi, H., ‘Studi sopra la composizione del cosidetto Chronicon Altinate,’ Ballettino dell’ Istituto Storico Italiano 49 (1933) 111–12, cf. 12, 72; and Origo Civitatum Italiae seu Venetiarum (Chronicon Altinate et Chronicon Gradense), ed. Cessi, R. (Istituto Storico Italiano per le Fonti della Storia d'Italia, Rome 1933) xxxiv-xxxvi.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ At pp. 51–88 of his edition.Google Scholar

⁶¹ For the claims of Aquileia see, e.g., Kehr, , Ital. Pont. VII.i. pp. 12–7 and VII.ii pp. 27–8; and R. Cessi's works quoted above.Google Scholar

⁶² See above, note 24.Google Scholar

⁶³ Edited by Polidori, F. in Archivio Storico Italiano, I ser., App. 5.19, p. 119,Google Scholar

⁶⁴ The exceptions of which I know are the following: in cod. Oxford Trinity College 47, the translation of the Topics is ascribed to Boethius; in one marginal note to the anonymous translation of the Posterior Analytics, a reading which may come from the ‘vulgate’ is given as ‘Boetii’; Richard of Fournival lists many works of Aristotle, including those in question (n^os 13, 16) as being in his library in Boethius’ translation; Albert the Great mentions Boethius as the author of a version of the Posterior Analytics which he used, cf. pp. 303–304); and see below, note 67.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ ‘… Finis ex Volgangiana [sic] officina anno… MCCCCCI… Recognita… Registrum… Octobris xxvi. ‘ Google Scholar

⁶⁶ ‘In hac tibi paranda rationali parte non sum usus continua paraphrasi ut et in praecedentibus solitus eram, ratus id sufficere si literam ad fideles archetypos recognoscerem, et si scholia ubi declarationis lux alique desideraretur adjicerem:… et id te non latere velim lectionem latinam usque adeo vitiatam corruptamque fuisse, ut pene novo traductionis labore nobis opus fuerit…’ (f. 228^v).Google Scholar

⁶⁷ E.g., in 1545 an edition of the Topics and Sophistici Elenchi was produced in Lyons by Antonius Vincentius, and printed by Theobaldus Paganus ‘Boethio Severino interprete’. This edition reproduces in all details Lefèvre's text as printed by Hopilius and Étienne, including the drawing of two snakes at the beginning of the Elenchi .Google Scholar

⁶⁸ In his introduction to the De Consolatione Philosophiae, also reprinted in the second Basle edition, 1570, p. 899.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ The first edition was printed in Venice in 1491–2, and re-issued there more than once.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Jourdain, A., Recherches, 1st ed. 177; 2nd ed. (by Ch. Jourdain) 166; Rose, , De Arist. libr. 256–7; Prantl, , Gesch. d. Log. I 680.Google Scholar

⁷¹ One ‘Ioannes peripateticus who might be John of Salisbury, is mentioned in the Summa of Pseudo-Grosseteste (ed. Baur, 280); one ‘Ioannes’ is mentioned in the Flores librorum philosophie naturalis et moralis (cod. Erlangen Univ. 367; see Grabmann, , Methoden und Hilfsmittel 162); one ‘Magister I.’ is referred to more than once as a commentator of the Sophistici Elenchi, possibly of the first half of the twelfth century (should one think of a ‘Magister Iacobus’?), see Grabmann, , Komment. z. aristot. Log. 190.Google Scholar