Telelis, Ioannis, ed. <Georgios Pachymeres, Philosophia, Book 3: In Aristotelis de Caelo>.

Commentary. Editio princeps. Prolegomena, Text, Indices. Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi.
Philosophi Byzantini. (Athens: Academia Atheniensis, 2016)., Ppp. X+156*+128, 7 facsimiles. €
35.50., ISBN: 978-960-404-312-5.

In light of his contribution in preservingto the preservation of classical philosophical works and in
producinghis own production of philosophical works of his own, George Pachymeres (1242–after
1307) has rightly been recognized as a key figure in the history of Byzantine culture and
education.1 Among Pachymeres’ most relevant achievements the compendiary <Philosophia>
shines as a monument of to his philosophical scholarship. The <Philosophia> epitomizes in 12
books much of Aristotle’s writings and inaugurates the late Byzantine tendency of producing
proto-encyclopedical works summarizing for the sake of the readers all the available
philosophical knowledge in one and the same work. Before Pachymeres, Nikephoros
Blemmydes had composed <epitomai> only of Aristotle’s logic and <Pphysics>. Earlier on,
between the 11th and 12th c., the ‘consul of the philosophers’ Theodore of Smyrna squeezed
Aristotle’s <Pphysics> and some of the late-antique commentaries on it into his <Epitome of
Nnature and Nnatural Pprinciples>. Yet, none of these earlier works compares with Pachymeres’
<Philosophia> in its breath and its impact on later scholars. The high large number of
manuscripts preserving this massive work testifyies toof its tremendous success. Furthermore,
due to its completeness, the <Philosophia> fulfilled so much well the task of providing a useful
and reader-friendly access toaccount of/summary of Aristotle’s work, that from now then on
Byzantine scholars will would read and refer to the Aristotelian corpus directly from Pachymeres’
<Philosophia> rather than from Aristotle’s writings themselves. 2
The book here under review presents the critical edition of book 3 of Pachymeres’
<Philosophia>, which is devoted to Aristotle’s <De caelo>. The present volume follows the
edition of other books of the <Philosophia> for the series <Corpus Philosophorum Medii Aevi,
Commentaria in Aristotelem Byzantina> carried out by various scholars, including I. Telelis, who
is also the author responsible for the present volume. Just asAs in the previous volumes, also the
present edition presents contains a very useful introduction to the text in which the editor
addresses issues such as the scope of Pachymeres’ <Philosophia> (pp. 3*-13*), the content and
method of book 3 of this work and a study of Pachyemere’s’s language and modus operandi as a
commentator (15*-71*), the textual tradition (73*-112*), a description of the paratextual
material (113*-125), a study of Pachymeres’ language (127*-140*), the editorial principles (141*-
146*). From this/these introductory section/sections we learn that, while summarizing <De
caelo> Pachymeres did not stick to the original division into four books, but organized the
content of the text into three titles (sections) and chapters, probably because he thought this
division of the material was more suitable for his purposes, i.e. to highlight and focus on certain
parts more than others.
The Greek text has been established on the basis of the two most important witnessess toof
the text, namely ms. Berol. Ham. 512 (gr. 408) and ms. Par.gr. 1930, the first being an autograph
by Pachymeres himself, the second having beening copied under his supervision. There are
indeed several manuscripts preserving this work, but they all derive directly or indirectly from

1
On Pachymeres’ life and work, see P. Golitsis, “Georges Pachymère comme didascale. Essai pour une reconstitution
de sa carrière et de son enseignement philosophique.” <Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik> 58 (2008), 53-
68. 
2
Cf. D. Harlfinger, “Aristoteles aus dritter Hand. Die <Parekbolai> aus der. Philosophia des Georgios
Pachymeres,” <Parekbolai> 1 (2011), 171-186.
the afore-mentionned witnesses. The editor dividesd the critical apparatus into three sections:
the first listing all quotations from Aristotelian writings, the second listing
intertextualities/textual connections? with other ancient philosophical works, the third listing
corrections and alternative readings found in the two manuscripts which that were used for
collating the textcollated. In this regard, it would perhaps have been perhaps better to
differentiate, within the second section of the apparatus, between actual quotations from the
commentary tradition and mere parallells with other texts which. There are also a few misprints,
which fortunatelybut fortunately these are mostly found in the prolegomena and in the indices.,
sparing the Greek text from unwanted error.3
As establishing the Greek text of <Philosophia> 3 is not problematic at all, I find Telelis’
introduction and prolegomena to the edited text very useful and complete for framing the
Philosophia within what has been called “the early Palaeologan Renaissance”.4 In what follows I
shall mention some aspects particularly worthy of mention.
In the first part of this long and erudite introduction, Telelis accepts Golitsis’ view that
Pachymeres’ <Philosophia> does not only aim at producingto provide an easy-access version of
the Aristotelian corpus, but ratheralso reflects the author’s attempt toat defending the value of
secular learning against the hostility of Patriarch Athanasios I (died 1310). 5 Far from conceiving
the <Philosophia> as a mere instrument for improving the teaching and learning of Aristotle,
Pachymeres was moved by actual concerns regarding the place and function of philosophy
within the Byzantine education and culture. In this respectAt this point, I would like to spend few
wordsI want to spend few words against regarding the a widespread and die-hardpersistent
prejudices, namely that the Byzantine intellectuals lacked inventive invention and originality, as
since they mostly reproduced and summarized the classical material for scholarly purpose.
Perhaps Pachymere’s’s <Philosophia> is not the best example for disproving ranks among the less
adequate works to disprove this judgement. However, it might be useful to take into account
that compendiary works of this kind -— works that had no other aim than facilitating the access
to a classical or post-classical work - —are not peculiar to Byzantium alone, but are relatively
common in the literature produced in the known mMedieval societies, including the Latin and
the Arabic ones. One does not necessarily have to see set works such as Pachymeres’
<Philosophia> in opposition to more philosophically creative texts, insofar assince the latters
arise on the condition that a certain tradition has been already absorbed thanks to the formers.
In light of thisIn this light, when evaluating we evaluate works like the <Philosophia>, it is
perhaps better to drop the our modern expectations for originality and to investigate the work’s
relevance to and impact on the readers of the time. Why did Pachymeres’ compose thed
<Philosophia>? Which What were the his purposes for the composition of in composing this
compendium? Who benefited from it? When seen under from this perspective, the Philosophia’s
tremendous success appears to be of extremegreat importance for reconstructing the way that
classical philosophical works such as the <Corpus Aristotelicum> were received and transmitted,
3
E.g.: p. 147* Finenze pro Firenze; 147* Leibsig pro Leipzig (twice in the same page); 149* Copenhague pro
Copenhagen; 151* and and; 152* Stocholm pro Stockholm; 155* Varticanus pro Vaticanus; 118 Cleomides pro
Cleomedes. In the critical apparatus all sources are cited with an indication of the editor of the text, with the
exception of Simplicius’ commentary on <De caelo>. In the critical apparatus Telelis accepts Linos Benakis’ attribution
to Michael Psellos of the commentary on the <Physics>Telelis refers to the commentary on the Physics edited by Linos
Benakis asascribed by Linos Benakis to Michael Psellos’ as being authentic [or: “Telelis accepts Linos Benakis’
attribution to Michael Psellos of the commentary on the Physics, whereas...” ; I think this is better], whereas most
scholars follow Pantelis Golitsis in considering it to be the work of the same Pachymeres.
4
Cf. E. Fryde, <The Early Palaeologan Renaissance (1261-c.1360)> (Leiden: Brill 2000).
5
P. Golitsis, “Un livre reçu par le Patriarch Athanase Ier et retourné à l’expéditeur,” <Revue des éÉtudes Bbyzantines>
68 (2010), 201-208.
and, ultimatively, how they shaped the Byzantine culture and education. Telelis’s long
introduction answers these questions in the mosta very complete way and his a most welcome
addition to our knowledge of the early Palaiologan philosophical literature.

Reviewed by Michele Trizio

Università degli Studi di Bari “Aldo Moro”
michele.trizio@uniba.it