Abstract
This chapter presents my complete analysis of all 31 extant manuscripts of the Mechanics, its division into three manuscript families, and my newly established stemma codicum, illustrating the affiliations among the manuscripts. This research led to new insights concerning the transmission of the Mechanics. Most importantly, I have shown the urgent need for a new text. First, the most recent edition by Maria Elisabetta Bottecchia (Aristotele: MHXANIKA, Tradizione manoscritta, testo critico, scolii. Padua: Antenore, 1982) contains serious errors. For instance, Bottecchiaʼs stemma codicum makes manuscripts depend on others in a way that is incompatible with strong evidence concerning the chronology of the manuscripts. Second, all of the editions since the Aldine have been strongly influenced by the paraphrase of the Mechanics by the Byzantine scholar, Georgius Pachymeres. Therefore, a new critical edition of the text is needed, in which these paraphrastic traces are separated from the authentic text.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Results from my analysis of the Greek manuscript tradition of the Mechanics have already been published in van Leeuwen (2013).
- 2.
- 3.
See Bottecchia (1982), 21 and 28.
- 4.
See Bottecchia (1982), 63.
- 5.
This has already been noticed by Hilgers (1992), 63.
- 6.
- 7.
See Rashed (2001), 250.
- 8.
See Harlfinger (1971), 165–166.
- 9.
See Harlfinger (1971), 159–160.
- 10.
See Siwek (1961), 42–46.
- 11.
See Harlfinger (1971), 162–163.
- 12.
See n.6. Because of Bottecchiaʼs incorrect early dating of Ha to the twelfth century, she can exclude the possibility that Ha was copied from the younger codex L. In order to show an independence of both manuscripts, she thus only needs to prove that L is not a copy of Ha. She does so on p. 40 by giving some examples in which L contains a reading that is more complete than the variant in Ha. Although most of the examples stated here are correct, Bottecchia forgets to mention those cases where L is less complete than Ha, e.g. lines in 852b16-17 that are only omitted in L. To sum up, Bottecchia reaches the correct conclusion that Ha and L are independent witnesses derived from a common source. However, she draws this conclusion based on an erroneous examination of the codicological evidence.
- 13.
- 14.
See e.g. at 848a6, 850a24, 850a31, 851a13, 852b26, 854b27, 855a3, 856a24, 856a34, 857b12 and 858b11.
- 15.
Manuscripts Mv and D1, which contain only part of the readings of family b, will be discussed below.
- 16.
See Vogel and Gardthausen (1909), 221. Vogel was the first to decipher the name Ἰωσήφ as the copyist of P, although the name was hardly recognizable. Harlfinger (1971), 253 confirmed this assumption by finding another manuscript Vind.Hist.gr. 16 by the hand of the same scribe. This enabled him to dispel the controversy surrounding the dating of P and to propose a date in the second half of the fourteenth century.
- 17.
See Harlfinger (1971), 250.
- 18.
See Bottecchia (1982), 80–82. Bottecchia mentions the contaminated character of D1, but does not notice its close connection with Mv. She lists Mv among the manuscripts collated by her, but apart from a description in the first chapter, this manuscript does not appear in her classification and, in her view, it is therefore not clear to which family it belongs.
- 19.
Dependence of Mv on D1 can be ruled out by reason of omissions in D1, e.g. at 847a27, 848a16, 849b5, 851b38, 853a22 and 854a19, by reason of more complete readings in Mv at 849b17, 853b10 and 854a24, and of individual errors in D1 at 851a25, 851b8, 851b30, 852b1, 854b13 and 856b14. Dependence of D1 on Mv seems unlikely, since in D1 Kamariotes had other difficulties in reading his source than he had in Mv: at 849a8 [lac.] om. εὔλογον D1: εὔλογον Mv; 849b17 ἔσται [lac.] om. ἤν D1: ἔσται δὲ A om. ἤν Mv; 857a4 αἱ [lac.] πλευραὶ D1: αἱ πλευραὶ Mv.
- 20.
Codex Ambr. P80 sup. might form an additional connecting link between P, Ba and Be. Burnikel (1974), 72 states that Ambr. P80 sup. is mutilated and contains in its present form only the Opuscula of Theophrastus. It likely contained also the Aristotelian texts that were transmitted together with Theophrastus in Ba and Be, including the Mechanics, as Sicherl (1997), 92 notes. In that case, in order to explain the shared errors of Ba and Be against P (e.g. at 858a23 φαίνεται Ba and Be: φέρεται P), Ambr. P80 sup. would occupy a position in the stemma as a copy of P and the exemplar of the independent copies Ba and Be.
- 21.
- 22.
Chapter 5 treats in more detail Leonico Tomeo’s Latin translation of the text, the Mechanical Questions. This work is especially interesting regarding the diagrams contained in it, which are influenced by the diagrams in Be.
- 23.
See Sicherl (1997), 96.
- 24.
Apelt (1888), VI, assumes that Bekker included some of Leonico Tomeo’s emendations in his edition; this has now been confirmed by my collations. It might also be possible that Bekker did not consult Leonico Tomeo’s commentary himself, but borrowed Leonico Tomeo’s emendations from the edition by van Cappelle. Van Cappelle included many emendations by Leonico Tomeo in his critical apparatus.
- 25.
See Bottecchia (1982), 56–58.
- 26.
Dependence of Ba on Oa before latter received emendation can be ruled on the basis of the omission of 858b25-26 in Oa.
- 27.
See Bottecchia (1982), 22.
- 28.
See Bottecchia (1982), 54. Bottecchia argues for this double derivation from P and the archetype by means of the following example, where she claims that the scribe was uncertain how to choose between the readings in his sources and in the end combined both: Bottecchia reads at 849b12 ἐν τ[lac.] ἐφ’ οὗ X σημεῖον Oa: ἐν ἐφ’ οὗ X σημεῖον Ha: ἐν τῶ ἐφ’ οὗ X σημεῖον P. As my collations have proven, the readings in Oa and P are not deviant at all, since both read: ἐν τ[lac.] ἐφ’ οὗ X σημεῖον. Therefore it is not necessary to assume a further dependence apart from that of P on the archetype.
- 29.
See Bottecchia (1982), 46. Here Bottecchia cites some small variants contained in both Q and Vph, on the basis of which she concludes that a direct dependence of Vph upon Q is evident. The omission of several passages in Q alone already shows that such a relation must be dismissed.
- 30.
Codex V2 contains abstracts from the Mechanics and is on the basis of its many modifications and strong paraphrastic character presented in Sect. 3.1.5 on contaminated and incomplete manuscripts.
- 31.
Bottecchia (1982), 145–165, was the first editor to include the scholia to the Mechanics in her edition. However, it is important to notice that not only the scholia from family c are contained in this edition, but also the glosses added by Pachymeres (from the codex Mu), which should be distinguished from the “real” scholia.
- 32.
See Harlfinger (1971), 266, on the date of V1. The full name of the copyist remained unknown until recently. As Harlfinger informed me in October 2009 he was able to decipher the name of the copyist from another manuscript Berol.Phill. 1582 by the same hand.
- 33.
See Bottecchia (1982), 28.
- 34.
- 35.
See Rashed (2001), 69.
- 36.
See Stornajolo (1895), 49.
- 37.
See Mioni (1972), 246–247 and Zorzi (1993), 40. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, Bottecchia (1982), 21 acknowledges a dating of Um before 1446, but still believes that this codex is a copy from the manuscript Wa, written around 1465. At p.63–64 she comes to the following conclusion: “È più facile, dunque, supporre che sia Um a copiare da Wa, anziché Wa da Um, anche se Um dovette colmare con lʼaiuto di altri codici le due omissioni di Wa.”
- 38.
See Tziatzi-Papagianni (1994), 346.
- 39.
- 40.
As Harlfinger informed me in a conversation in May 2010.
- 41.
See Bottecchia (1982), 68.
- 42.
Bottecchia (1982), 28.
- 43.
See n.2 on the dating of V2.
- 44.
As I mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, in Bottecchiaʼs assessment of the manuscripts, V2 is a copy of Wa. This attribution speaks against the chronology of the manuscripts. At p.28 Bottecchia dates V2 to the fifteenth century, without referring to a source or providing grounds for this late dating.
- 45.
Harlfinger (1971), 265 gives a terminus post quem for this manuscript of between 1300 and 1325.
- 46.
See Harlfinger (1971), 310.
- 47.
See Bottecchia (1982), 45.
- 48.
See Harlfinger (1971), 309–310 where he mentions the highly contaminated character of Na in the case of the treatise LI.
- 49.
- 50.
See Pingree (1968), XI.
- 51.
- 52.
See Mondrain (2007), 167.
- 53.
See Mondrain (2007), Figs. 1 and 2.
- 54.
See Bottecchia (1982), 84.
- 55.
From my analysis of both manuscripts, it turns out that Bottecchiaʼs certain attribution of P4 as a copy of M1, and Ps as a copy of Um, is highly problematic and unlikely.
- 56.
See Zografidis (2011), 394.
- 57.
See Pappa (2002), 29 on the Metaph.
- 58.
See Harlfinger (1971), 349.
- 59.
Wartelle (1963); see no. 1038, where he lists Mu as a manuscript containing the Aristotelian Mechanics.
- 60.
These autographs were identified by Harlfinger (1971), 357–358.
- 61.
See Harlfinger (1971), 358 n.1.
- 62.
For this reason Pachb is a not a new Aristotelian manuscript as Hilgers (1992), 62–64, assumes. Hilgers noticed for the text passage 857b14–858b31 a proximity to the manuscripts L and Q. Apart from some small similarities between these manuscripts, there are too many peculiar readings in both L and Q, which make such an affiliation impossible. Peculiar errors in L can be found at 857b18, 857b33, 858a1, 858a12, 858a15, 858a16 and 858b25. And in Q: at 857b18, 858a1, 858a15, 858a16, 858a23, 858b11, 858b25 and 858b26. Furthermore, L and Q do not share the variants of Pachb at 857b15, 857b33, 858b5 and 858b11.
- 63.
It should be noted that codex L contains at 847b26 after ἀλλήλων a scholium in the text that is similar in part to a remark in the text of Pachymeres. It is possible that it was added by Pachymeres to his exemplar and copied from here by the scribe of L; since this is the only case in the whole text of the Mechanics, we cannot say anything definite on possible interventions by Pachymeres in his exemplar. Something similar happens in some variants, where Ha agrees with manuscripts from other families in a minor error, whereas L and Pachymeres contain the correct variant, for example, at 851b19 μόνον L/Pach.: μένον Ha; 853a34 ἐκ θατέρου L/Pach.: ἑκατέρου Ha; 856b36 τρυπήματα L/Pach.: τρυπήματι Ha. This is possibly a further indication that Pachymeres might have been responsible for making some smaller adjustments in his exemplar. In this case, his corrections influenced only codex L, since Ha had probably already been copied from the hyparchetype when Pachymeres accessed this manuscript.
- 64.
See Bottecchia (1976), 389–392. Bottecchia here lists the text passages where V3 and the Aldine agree against the other manuscripts. In most cases manuscript Be shares the reading of V3/Aldine, and where it has a different reading, the paraphrase by Pachymeres provides the variant of V3/Aldine, see, for example at 854b20, 856a4, 857a24, 857b12, 857b32 and 857b38. Since Bottecchia did not recognize the paraphrase of Pachymeres, she does not give a satisfying explanation for those “peculiar” readings in V3, where V3 has a reading different from all other manuscripts. They are definitely not a result of a derivation from the manuscripts L and P as presented in her stemma at p.392. Bottecchia probably supposes a different hyparchetype for V3, as she does in her edition of the Mechanics. However, as my collations have proven, these “peculiar” readings in V3 do not stem from a new hyparchetype, but are variants by Pachymeres.
- 65.
See Sicherl (1997), 95–96.
- 66.
See Canart (1977–1979), 282.
- 67.
See Canart (1977–1979), 281.
- 68.
Capocci (1958), 24, also dates it to the beginning of the sixteenth century.
- 69.
That V3 descends from Nc can be ruled out on the basis of omissions in Nc, as e.g. at 847b23–24 and 849b5. The arrangement of the title page of Nc is a perfect copy of V3.
- 70.
- 71.
See Haskins (1927), 316–317.
- 72.
- 73.
See Clagett (1959), 71.
- 74.
See Clagett (1959), 71–72.
- 75.
See Ibel (1908), 123–125.
- 76.
See e.g. Peters (1968), 61. Peters notes that the Mechanics was possibly employed, though not cited by name, in the Mizan al-Hikma of al-Khazini. He further states that there is no distinct trace of a translation in either the Arabic or Arabic-Latin manuscript tradition.
- 77.
- 78.
See Abattouy (2001a), 96.
- 79.
I do not agree with Abattouy (2001a), 122, that the text of the Nutaf min al-hiyal comprises all important aspects of the Greek text. The geometrical analysis of motion cannot be regarded as a mere digression, since it offers the authorʼs justification of the central argument in the text that the longer radius moves more quickly than the smaller one. Abattouyʼs conclusion that the Arabic version presents the authentic text, whereas the Greek contains many later comments and additions, including the geometrical proof, should be rejected on these grounds.
- 80.
See Abattouy (2001a), 104.
- 81.
See Abattouy (2001a), 106.
- 82.
See Abattouy (2001a), 106–107.
- 83.
- 84.
Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to consult either of the manuscripts myself. As Abattouy (2001a), 108 mentions, two complete copies of the Kitab Mizan al-Hikma are preserved: one in Saint Petersburg (Khanikoff MS 117), and the other in Hyderabad (MS Riyāḍī 125). Apart from the diagrams preceding the Nutaf min al-hiyal, I do not consider it likely that the text of the Nutaf min al-hiyal itself contains any diagrams in the Arabic manuscripts. Since the geometrical analysis of motion was left out of the Arabic version, the text does not contain any letter labels that refer to a corresponding diagram.
- 85.
Abattouy (2000), 10–11 notes that the same set of letters is used in the second problem of the Mechanics as well as in the Arabic version. Some letters coincide, which is self-evident when many of them are used in a geometrical construction, but apart from that I cannot find any similarities.
- 86.
See Abattouy (2001a), 101–102.
- 87.
See Abattouy (2001a), 101–103.
- 88.
See n.24 on the influence of Leonico Tomeoʼs Mechanical Questions on Bekkerʼs edition.
- 89.
See Apelt (1888), VI–VII.
- 90.
See e.g. Ch. 4 n.62 for the readings in Par at 855b8 and 855b22, and Ch. 5 n.19 for 849b12-14.
- 91.
See Sect. 3.2 on the relationship between Pachymeresʼ paraphrase and the Aldine.
- 92.
Variants can be found at 849a23, 849a27, 849a31, 849b3, 849b7, 849b12, 849b14, 849b16, 850a27, 851a22, 851a24, 851a27, 851a36, 851a39, 853a30, 854b23, 854b36, 855a6, 855a7, 855b9, 855b16, 855b23, 855b28, 855b37, 855b39, 856b9, 856b15, 857a10, 857a11, 857a17, 857a26, 857b7, 858a2, 858a30 and 858b2.
- 93.
See Diels (1969), 203.
Bibliography
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2000. Nutaf Min Al-Hiyal: An Arabic partial version of pseudo-Aristotle’s Mechanica Problemata. Preprint 153. Berlin: Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2001a. Nutaf Min Al-Hiyal: A partial Arabic version of pseudo-Aristotle’s “Problemata Mechanica”. Early Science and Medicine 6(2): 96–122.
Abattouy, Mohammed. 2001b. Greek mechanics in Arabic context: Thābit ibn Qurra, al Isfizārī and the Arabic traditions of Aristotelian and Euclidean mechanics. Science in Context 14: 179–247.
Andrist, Patrick. 2007. Les manuscrits grecs conservés à la Bibliothèque de la Bourgeoisie de Berne – Burgerbibliothek Bern: catalogue et histoire de la collection. Zurich: Urs Graf.
Apelt, Otto (ed.). 1888. Aristotelis quae feruntur De Plantis, De Mirabilibus Auscultationibus, Mechanica, De Lineis Insecabilibus, Ventorum Situs et Nomina, De Melisso Xenophane Gorgia. Leipzig: Teubner.
Bekker, Immanuel (ed.). 1831. Aristotelis Opera II. Berlin: Reimer.
Berger, Friederike. 2005. Die Textgeschichte der Historia animalium des Aristoteles. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Bloch, David. 2008. The text of Aristotle’s De Sensu and De Memoria. RHT 3: 1–58.
Bottecchia, Maria Elisabetta (ed.). 1982. Aristotele: MHXANIKA, Tradizione manoscritta, testo critico, scolii. Padua: Antenore.
Burnikel, Walter. 1974. Textgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu neun Opuscula Theophrasts. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Canart, Paul. 1977–1979. Démétrius Damilas, alias le “librarius Florentinus”. RSBN N.S.14-16: 281–347. Rome.
Capocci, Valentino. 1958. Codices Barberiniani Graeci. Tomus 1: Codices 1–163. Rome.
Clagett, Marshall. 1959. The science of mechanics in the Middle Ages. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Crombie, Alistair C. 1967. Medieval and early modern science: Volume 1: Science in the Middle Ages: V-XIII centuries. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diels, Hermann. 1905. Die Handschriften der antiken Ärzte I. Berlin: Verl. der Königl. Akad. der Wiss.
Diels, Hermann. 1969. Zur Textgeschichte der Aristotelischen Physik. In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte der antiken Philosophie, ed. W. Burkert, 199–238. Hildesheim: Olms.
Ferrini, Maria Fernanda (ed.). 2010. Aristotele: Meccanica. Milan: Bompiani.
Formentin, Mariarosa. 1997. Codici greci di medicina nella Biblioteca Nazionale Vittorio Emanuele III di Napoli: le vie di acquisizione. In Lingue tecniche del Greco e del Latino II, ed. S. Sconocchia, 207–216. Bologna: Patron.
Hadot, Ilsetraut. 1978. La tradition manuscrite du commentaire de Simplicius sur le Manuel d’Épictète. RHT 8: 1–108.
Harlfinger, Dieter. 1971. Die Textgeschichte der pseudo-aristotelischen Schrift ΠΕΡΙ ΑΤΟΜΩΝ ΓΡΑΜΜΩΝ: Ein kodikologisch-kulturgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur Klärung der Überlieferungsverhältnisse im Corpus Aristotelicum. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
Haskins, Charles Homer. 1927. Studies in the history of mediaeval science, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hett, Walter S. (ed.). 1936. Aristotle: Minor works. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hilgers, Robert. 1992. Eine neue Aristoteles-Handschrift in Berlin. Codices Manuscripti 16: 62–64.
Ibel, Thomas. 1908. Die Wage im Altertum und Mittelalter. Erlangen: Junge.
Khanikoff, N. 1860. Analysis and extracts of the Book of the Balance of Wisdom, an Arabic work on the water-balance, written by Al-Khâzinî in the twelfth century. Journal of the American Oriental Society 6: 1–128.
Leonico Tomeo, Niccolò. 1525. Nicolai Leonici Thomaei Opuscula nuper in lucem aedita quorum nomina proxima habentur pagella. Venice: Bernardino Vitali.
Manutius, Aldus (ed.). 1495–1498. Opera Aristotelis. Venice.
Mioni, Elpidio. 1972. Bibliothecae Divi Marci Venetiarum codices Graeci manuscripti, Classis II, codices 121–198; classes III, IV, V; Indices. Rome: Ist. Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato.
Mondrain, Brigitte. 2007. Les écritures dans les manuscrits byzantins du XIVe siècle. RSBN N.S.44: 157–196.
Moody, Ernest A. and Marshall Clagett. 1952. The medieval science of weights: Treatises ascribed to Euclid, Archimedes, Thabit ibn Qurra, Jordanus de Nemore and Blasius of Parma. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Napolitano, Felicia, Maria Luisa Nardelli and Luigi Tartaglia. 1977. Manoscritti greci non compresi in cataloghi a stampa. Naples: Arte Tipografica.
Nussbaum, Martha Craven. 1976. The text of Aristotle’s De Motu Animalium. HSCP 80: 111–159.
Omont, Henri. 1888. Inventaire sommaire des manuscrits grecs de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Seconde partie / troisième partie. Paris: Picard.
Pappa, Eleni (ed.). 2002. Georgius Pachymeres, Philosophia. Buch 10. Kommentar zur Metaphysik des Aristoteles: Editio princeps. Einleitung, Text, Indices. Athens: Akademia Athenon.
Peters, Francis E. 1968. Aristotle and the Arabs: The Aristotelian tradition in Islam. New York: New York University Press.
Pingree, David (ed.). 1968. Albumasar: De revolutionibus nativitatum. Leipzig: Teubner.
Presas i Puig, Albert and Joan Vaqué Jordi (eds.). 2006. Aristòtil: Questions mecàniques. Barcelona: Fundació Bernat Metge.
Rashed, Marwan. 2001. Die Überlieferungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Schrift De generatione et corruptione. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
Sicherl, Martin. 1997. Griechische Erstausgaben des Aldus Manutius: Druckvorlagen, Stellenwert, kultureller Hintergrund. Paderborn: Schöningh.
Siwek, Paul. 1961. Les manuscrits grecs des Parva naturalia d’Aristote. Rome: Desclée.
Stornajolo, Cosimo. 1895. Codices urbinates Graeci Bibliothecae Vaticanae. Rome: Ex Typographeo Vaticano.
Turyn, Alexander. 1972. Dated Greek manuscripts of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries in the libraries of Italy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Tziatzi-Papagianni, Maria. 1994. Die Sprüche der sieben Weisen: Zwei byzantinische Sammlungen; Einleitung, Text, Testimonien und Kommentar. Stuttgart: Teubner.
Van Cappelle, Johannes Petrus (ed.). 1812. Aristotelis Quaestiones Mechanicae. Amsterdam: Den Hengst.
Van Leeuwen, Joyce. 2013. The text of the Aristotelian Mechanics. Classical Quarterly 63(1): 183–198.
Vendruscolo, Fabio. 1996. Manoscritti greci copiati dall’umanista e filosofo Niccolò Leonico Tomeo. In ΟΔΟΙ ΔΙΖΗΣΙΟΣ. Le vie della ricerca. Studi in onori di Francesco Adorno, ed. M.S. Funghi, 543–555. Florence: Olschki.
Vogel, Marie and Victor Gardthausen. 1909. Die griechischen Schreiber des Mittelalters und der Renaissance. Leipzig: Harrassowitz.
Wartelle, André. 1963. Inventaire des manuscrits grecs d’Aristote et de ses commentateurs: Contribution a l’histoire du texte d’Aristote. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.
Wilson, Nigel G. 1983. Scholars of Byzantium. London: Duckworth.
Wood, Casey A. and F. Marjorie Fyfe. 1943. The Art of Falconry by Frederick II of Hohenstaufen. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zografidis, George. 2011. George Pachymeres. In Encyclopedia of medieval philosophy: Philosophy between 500 and 1500, vol. 2, ed. Henrik Lagerlund, 394–397. Dordrecht: Springer.
Zorzi, Marino. 1993. Collezioni veneziane di codici greci: dalle raccolte della Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana. Venice: Il Cardo.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
van Leeuwen, J. (2016). The Textual Transmission. In: The Aristotelian Mechanics. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol 316. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25925-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25925-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-25923-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-25925-3
eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)