March 12, 2026

Together with citations, summaries, and excerpts, ancient translations form an essential part of what philologists designate as the “indirect tradition” of a text. Far from being secondary witnesses, such translations can preserve readings that predate the surviving manuscript tradition and thus provide invaluable evidence for the reconstruction of an original text. Their importance becomes particularly evident when the translations are older than the extant manuscripts in the source language.

This is precisely the case with Aristotle’s Categories and De Interpretatione, the first two treatises of the Organon. The earliest Greek manuscripts preserving these works date from the ninth century, whereas the old Armenian translations were produced at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century. Chronologically speaking, the Armenian version stands several centuries closer to the archetype than the Greek manuscript tradition that has come down to us. Any attempt to establish a reliable Greek text or to produce a rigorous critical edition must therefore take this evidence into serious account.

Yet the systematic use of ancient translations in the study of Aristotelian philosophy is a relatively recent development. It was only in 1949 that the Armenian evidence was incorporated into the Oxford Classical Text (OCT) edition prepared by Lorenzo Minio-Paluello. While this edition marked a decisive step forward and significantly advanced our understanding of the transmission of Aristotle’s logical writings, its engagement with the indirect tradition—especially the Armenian material—remains problematic.

Several methodological issues can be identified. First, the Greek critical text relied on an Armenian collation dating from 1892, produced according to standards that do not meet modern philological criteria and lacking methodological consistency. Second, the Armenian text itself had not been established through a proper critical edition; consequently, the Greek editor was working with a text whose internal variants had not been systematically assessed. Third, and most crucially, the editor depended entirely on this earlier Armenian recension, without direct access to or verification of the underlying material, since he did not know the language or its alphabet. These limitations have concrete consequences. They may introduce inaccuracies into the critical apparatus, obscure the relationship between Armenian and Greek variants, and ultimately distort our understanding of the textual transmission. Notably, even more recent editions—such as the 2002 edition of the Categories by Richard Bodéüs and the 2014 edition of De Interpretatione by Hermann Weidemann—continue, to varying degrees, to reflect these unresolved methodological difficulties.

This paper proposes a renewed philological approach to the indirect tradition of Aristotle’s logical works, focusing in particular on the old Armenian translations of the Categories and De Interpretatione. It will begin with a general overview of the Eastern transmission of Aristotle’s logic, including both the Armenian and Syriac traditions. It will then examine the practical and methodological challenges faced by Greek editors who rely on translations in languages they do not themselves master. Finally, it will outline a set of principles and procedures for the systematic comparison of the Greek and Armenian texts—principles designed to integrate the Armenian evidence in a transparent, critically controlled, and methodologically sound manner. By reassessing the status of ancient translations within the indirect tradition, this study aims not only to refine the textual basis of Aristotle’s logical writings but also to contribute to a broader rethinking of philological method in the editing of philosophical texts.

This activity is funded by Portuguese national funds through FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., within the project UID/00310/2025, Centro de Filosofia da Universidade de Lisboa (https://doi.org/10.54499/UID/00310/2025).