Works

Leo wrote commentaries on all ofAristotle’s logical works, not only those normally included in the curriculum for higher education in Middle and Late Byzantium (i. e., the Categories, the De interpretatione, the first seven chapters of Prior Analytics 1, and the first seven chapters of the Sophistici elenchi). Only parts and fragments of his commentaries have appeared in printed editions, and consequently they have been little studied in modern times. In at least one case, his commentary on the Sophistici elenchi, it is clear that Leo did little more than rework older collections of scholia and compose a brief general introduction to the work. In other cases, such as his commentary on the Topics, he added much explanatory material that is not known from other sources. His mode of exposition is twofold: each new commentary starts with a general introduction, which purports to discuss all or some of eight preliminary issues inherited from the Alexandrian tradition of commentary, namely, the subject of the treatise, its usefulness, its authenticity, the reason for its title, its division into chapters, its method of teaching, its place in the curriculum, and the part of philosophy to which it belongs. After that follows a collection of notes on individual passages and words in Porphyry’s or Aristotle’s text. The oldest manuscript containing Leo’s works (Vat. gr. 244) also contains the texts on which they comment; Leo’s notes are then keyed to the texts by reference numbers, much like modern footnotes. They are more philologically than philosophically orientated, offering little in the way of in-depth discussion. Their value has been harshly judged, and it is true that while Leo often fails to make Aristotle’s meaning clearer, he sometimes happens to make it significantly more obscure as a result of elementary misunderstandings.

In the case of the De interpretatione, two commentaries attributed to Leo survive. One (Commentary 1) is a collection of notes preceded by a general introduction in the manner just described; this has never appeared in print. The other (Commentary 2) is a continuous text that was edited by Aldus Manutius in 1503. The authenticity of Commentary 2 has been contested (byBusse 1897), but on weak grounds. On the other hand, there might be positive reasons for thinking that it is after all authentic. In the first note of Commentary 1, Leo refers to another work in which he has enumerated the senses of thesthai (Int. 16a1). It does not seem unlikely that the reference is to another commentary on the same Aristotelian text; looking in Commentary 2, one will find that six senses of thesthai are indeed enumerated, approximately the ones given by Ammonius (In Int. 9.4-27). The styles of the two commentaries exhibit many similarities; and even if it is true that Commentary 2 is superior to Commentary 1, as Busse thought, this may be due to the use of different sources: Commentary 2 draws heavily on Ammonius on the De interpretatione, whereas Commentary 1 does not seem to make direct use of Ammonius. However, if Commentary 2 is authentic, it seems that Leo must have composed two series of commentaries on the Organon, since the author of this commentary refers back to earlier commentaries on the Isagoge and the Categories dealing with the prolegomena to philosophy and logic respectively, and the prolegomena to philosophy and logic are not dealt with in the commentaries on these works ascribed to Leo in the manuscripts.

See also: > Aristotelianism in the Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and Hebrew Traditions > Logic, Byzantine > Philosophy, Byzantine

Magentenos Leo (1536) loannis Grammatici Philoponi comentaria in Priora analytica Aristotelis. Magentini comentaria in eadem libellus De syllogismis. J. F. Trincaveli in aedibus B. Zanetti Casterzagensis, Venice

Magentenos Leo (1981a) Dilectus scholiorum Leonis Magentini in Categorias, ed. Ebbesen S. Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi: a study of post-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies, vol 2. Brill, Leiden, pp

278-279

Magentenos Leo (1981b) Dilectus scholiorum Leonis Magentini in Aristotelis Sophisticos Elenchos, ed. Ebbesen S. Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici Elenchi: a study of postAristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies, vol 2. Brill, Leiden, pp 280-306

Magentenos Leo (1999) Leontis Magentini in Aristotelis Topicorum prooemium et librum secundum commentaria, ed. Kotzabassi S. Byzantinische Kommentatoren der aristotelischen Topik: Johannes Italos und Leon Magentinos. Ekdoseis Vanias, Thessaloniki, pp 109-152

Secondary Sources

Busse A (1887) Porphyrii Isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias commentarium. Supplementum praefationis IV: Con

Spectus Commentatorum Graecorum, Leo Magentinus. CAG 4 (1):xliv-xlv

Busse A (1897) Ammonius. In: Aristotelis De interpretatione commentarius. Supplementum praefationis III: Conspectus

Commentariorum post Ammonium scriptorum, Leo Magentinus.

CAG 4(5):xxxv-xliv

Ebbesen S (1981) Commentators and commentaries on Aristotle’s Sophistici elenchi: a study ofpost-Aristotelian ancient and medieval writings on fallacies, 3 vols. Brill, Leiden

Kotzabassi S (1999) Byzantinische Kommentatoren der aristotelischen Topik: Johannes Italos und Leon Magentinos. Ekdoseis Vanias, Thessaloniki