jam diu viget et vigebit. Ex hisque omnibus perpensis mihi sedet sententia de non mutandis Manuscriptis:-Quoad autem Bii conjecturam, διὰ τοῦτο οὐ θολίαν, κ. τ. λ., hanc quidem existimo viri hujus ingenio crudito indignis

simam.

Dabam Liverpoolii D. 3. Aprilis, 1822.

OBSERVATIONS

W.

On that part of a work entitled, EMPEDOCLIS ET PARMENIDIS FRAGMENTA EX CODICE TAURINENSIS BIBLIOTHECA RESTITUTA ET ILLUSTRATA, AB AMEDEO PEYRON, LIPSIE, 1810, in which the author treats of the genuine Greek text of the Commentary of Simplicius in Aristotelem De Calo et Mundo.

THE intention of the learned Professor Peyron in this part of his work, is to demonstrate that the Greek text of the Venice edition of this commentary of Simplicius is a translation by some modern Greek sophist from a barbarous Latin version of this work made by Guillelmus de Moërbeka, in the 13th century. And the Professor thinks that he has most satisfactorily proved this to be the case, from this version of Moërbeka so exactly corresponding with the Greek of the Venice edition, which is faulty in the extreme, as he shows in many instances by comparing it with the Codex Taurinensis of this work, in which alone the genuine text of Simplicius is to be found.

Plausible however as the Professor's arguments in support of this opinion may appear to be, I trust that the following instances of variations between the version of Moërbeka, and the Greek of the Venice edition, will be found to be at least equally powerful in proving that the latter is not a translation of the former.

But previous to the detail of these instances, it is necessary to observe, in the first place, that I am in possession of the first edition of this version of Moërbeka, which was published at Venice in the year 1540, of which the Professor says, (p. 8.) "At quum hanc habere hucusque non licuerit, utor alia editione anni 1563. ibidem fol." He adds, " Hæc etsi dicatur in fronte novi

ter fere de integro interpretata, ac cum fidissimis codicibus Græcis recens collata, tamen quam parum promissis editor stetiterit, vel ex eo licet agnoscere, quod postremi duo libri eduntur ex Guilielmo Morbeto Do Interprete. Priores duos, licet nuspiam appareat nomen interpretis, a versione Moërbeka penitus fuisse desumtos, tum ex barbarica scriptura, tum ex pari interpretandi modo, plane judico.?" And he concludes with observing, that he shall cite this edition of 1563 as the true version of Moërbeka. In the second place, it is remarkable that this version, which the Professor confidently ascribes to Moerbeka, should in the first edition of it be said to have been wholly made by Guillermus Morbetus; for the following is the title of this translation: Simplicii Philosophi Acutissimi Commentaria in Quatuor Libros De Celo Aristotelis. Guillermo Morbete Interprete. Quæ omnia, cum fidissimis Codicibus Græcis recens collata fuere. Venetiis 1540. Whether therefore this Morbetus is in reality the same with Moërbeka, who was the Archbishop of Corinth in the 13th century, and whose version of the treatise of Proclus De Providentia ' is extant in the 8th volume of the Bibliotheca of Fabricius, I shall leave to others to determine, who are better qualified than I am for such philosophical discussions. I shall only remark, that to me it appears that the version of Proclus De Providentia, which is ascribed to Moërbeka, is far more barbarous than that of Simplicius De Cœlo, which is ascribed to Morbetus; and this opinion of mine might be corroborated by many instances, if it were necessary. It is however sufficient for my purpose that this edition of 1540 is that of which the edition of 1563 is a reprint.

Having premised thus much, I proceed to the detail of instances, which sufficiently, as I conceive, confute the opinion of Professor Peyron, that the Venice Greek edition of Simplicius De Coelo is a translation of the Latin version of that work by Moërbeka, or Morbetus.

2

In the first place, in p. i. of the Preface, we have in the Latin, "Sed si velit aliquis Aristotelis theoriam de mundo videre, in omnibus simul ipsius negotiis naturalibus, primum de mundo

At the end of my translation of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, in 2 vols. 4to, I have given a translation of this treatise of Proclus, accompanied by numerous emendations of the text.

2 All the following citations are made from the above-mentioned Latin version of Morbetus, and the notes in the margin of it, which were made by me from comparing it with the printed Greek edition of this work, when I was engaged in translating all the works of Aristotle.

tractasse dicendum." But in this passage, the Greek word for primum is wanting in the original. A little after, in the passage, "Ad alios autem expositores dicendum, quod non videtur sermo de quatuor elementis in his præter necessarium, neque simpliciter præter theoriam de celestibus assumptus esse, sed principaliter de ipsis docet," the Greek for the words præter necessarium, i. e. Tapa to avaɣxasov, is wanting in the Venice edition. In p. 3 a, "motus quidem enim animalium (ut æstimo) neque unus proprie est, cum fiat secundum extensionem et inflexionem membrorum." But the Greek, instead of wwv for animalium, has erroneously owμarwV.

Again, in p. 7 a, " et quidem et totum a sui unionem in seipso producit propriam discretionem." The whole, or the universe, from the union of itself, produces in itself a proper distinction and separation [of its parts.] But the Greek for unionem has erroneously ονοματος, instead of ενοτητος, which the interpreter found in his Ms. In p. 8 b, Comment. 15. Simplicius having observed, that Aristotle in what he there says departs much from nature, contrary to his usual custom, οτι επι πολυ παρα το εθος ATTOßαIVEL TNS QUoews, adds, according to the Latin interpreter, "hæc enim sunt mutabilia:" but the Greek has rightly lavuaora γαρ ταυτα. P. 106. Comment. 20. " appetitus enim et totius et partium est ad medium, et apud illud salvari volunt et contineri, vagam in sui ipsorum natura consistentiam habentia." In this passage the Greek for the word vagam is wanting in the Venice edition. P. 146. "Sed quoniam duorum horum sermo totus dictus est, uno quidem, si debeat aliquid generari et corrumpi, oportet esse omnino subjectum aliquod et contrarium ex quo fit et in quod corrumpitur, altero autem quod circulari motui non est motus contrarius." Here the Greek word which should correspond to circulari, is in the Venice edition erroneously qure, instead of xuxλixw; I say erroneously, for it is a wellknown position of Aristotle, that to a circular motion no other motion is contrary. And shortly after in the same page, Simplicius shows that Aristotle and Plato are not discordant with each other, when the former asserts that the world is unbegotten, and the latter that it is generated; because according to Plato, though the world perpetually proceeds from its cause, yet as every thing which derives its existence from a certain cause is generated, the universe also, in consequence of not being selfsubsistent, is generated. Hence he observes, "genitum autem communiter dicitur quod suiipsius subsistentiam ab aliqua causa ac cipit; etenim quod fit, ab aliquo faciente fit, et quod generatur a b aliquo generante generatur, et impossibile, ut ait Plato, sine

causa generationem habere; et palam, quod secundum hoc ingenitum est quod primum omniuni causa, quod et unum et simplicissimum est, siquidem omuia participant uno, et quod non participat uno, nihil est: quod autem unum nihil participat multitudine: quare genitum omnem multitudinatum est." In this passage, in the original, instead of ayevntov, ingenitum, which Morbetus evidently read in his Ms., and which is the true reading, we find by a strange blunder xexwpioμevov, in the printed Greek. P. 156, in the first line of the page, "corrumpitur enim aqua ab igne in ignem." But the Greek, instead of vowg, aqua, has erroneously Tia. Thus too in the same page, at the beginning of the second column, "et quamvis habeat aliquid animale nutritiva virtus, tamen secundum naturales transmutationes ita perficitur." But the Greek, instead of uxixov, animale, has erroneously quoixov.

In p. 17 a, Comment. 23, in which Simplicius is speaking of augmentation, we have in the Greek το γαρ αυτῳ προστιθεμενον, και εναντιον και ομοιον εστι αυτῳ ῳ προστιθεται, i. e. That which is added to a thing, is both contrary and similar to that to which it is added." But the Latin has, " quod enim ipsi quod apponitur est contrarium, et simili ei scilicet cui apponitur contrarium est." This however is erroneous, and not what Simplicius meant in this place to say. For he had just before observed, that augmentation is a certain generation, and that a thing which is increased, is increased from something which is contrary to it. The Greek therefore is right, and the Latin is evidently not that from which it was translated. P. 176. "Deinde dicendum (ut estimo) quod Arist. non omnem alterationem abnegat a celestibus: non enim utique et imperfectivam invicem tarditatem et transumptionem." But the Greek of the latter part of this sentence is, ουδε γαρ την τελειωτικήν προς άλληλα μεταδόσιν και μεταληψιν, which is correct; but the Latin is erroneous in the extreme. For the intention of Simplicius in this part of his Commentary, is to show that Aristotle does not deny all change of quality (aλλowo, in Morbetus alterationem) in the heavenly bodies; since he does not deny of them a mutual communication and reception [of light and power] of a perfective nature. In p. 18 a, Comment. 26. Simplicius says, conformably to Aristotle, that it is impossible an immortal nature [i. e. the heaven] should not be coadapted to an immortal being [i. e. to deity.] And that as this is asserted by all men, not only by the Greeks, but also by the barbarians, it shows that such an opinion is natural to the souls of men, εν ταις ψυχαίς των ανθρωπων ;-so the Greek, but the

Latin of Morbetus has, in animalibus. P. 18 a, Comment. 27. "Si enim mundani Dii, quod quidem tanquam probatum et evidens dimisit, est aliquod divinum corpus exemptum ab ipsis." But in the Greek syxooμio, mundani, is wanting; and for εξηρημενον, exemptum, it is necessary to read εξηρτημένον. In the same page also, and shortly after, we find in the Latin, “Audivi autem ego Ægyptios quidem astrorum observatione, habuisse descriptas non paucioribus quam a quinque millibus annorum, Babilonios autem adhuc a pluribus." But the Greek, instead of five thousand years, which is doubtless what Simplicius wrote, has oυκ ελαττοσιν η δισχιλίοις ενιαυτοις, for not less than two thousand years. Again, in the same page, the following passage, Comment. 25, which I had overlooked, is defective, but the deficiency is supplied in the Greek. The passage is, "mihi enim non frustra videtur ultimo apposuisse, [impossible,] sed tanquam omnibus his secundum passiones accedentibus." But the Greek rightly adds, αμοιρον δειξη τον ουρανον, which Morbetus has not translated. And a few lines after the Latin has, "hoc enim tanquam suppositiones accipiens ex ipsis contraria conclusit." But the Greek which should correspond to contraria conclusit, is so far from this correspondence, that it is τον ουρανον αγένητον συνεπέρανε.

Again, in p. 23 b, near the bottom, Comment. 36, Simplicius, speaking of the motion of the planets, and the motion of the sphere of the fixed stars, and showing, conformably to Aristotle, that the one is not contrary to the other, is made to say rightly in the Latin, "deinde utraque harum secundum idem tempus ab oriente et ab occasu dicitur utique moveri;” but in the Greek, instead of what should correspond to the words ab oriente et ab occasu, we have απ' ανατολων επ' ανατολας. P. 30 b, Comment. 37, "principaliter quidem de simplicibus elementis proponit inquirere, et ostendit quod finita et secundum numerum, et secundum magnitudinem.' So the Latin rightly, but the Greek, which should correspond to quod finita, is, instead of doing so, ori aTeigov. Thus also in p. 31 b, Comment. 42. "Ostensum est in naturali auditu, quod assequitur tempus quidem motui, motus autem magnitudini ejus quod movetur, et ejus super quod motus, et quod si tempus fuerit finitum, necesse et motum esse finitum, et magnitudinem amborum, scilicet ejus quod movetur, et ejus super quod motus.' " In this passage, the Latin in the words "necesse et motum esse finitum,” has rightly finitum, as must be obvious to every one; but the Greek has most erroneously awesрov. In p. 33 a, Comment.