The Two Versions of Radulphus Brito’s Questions on Porphyry

This article re-examines the long-debated relationship between two textual versions (A and B) of Radulphus Brito’s *Quaestiones* on Porphyry’s *Isagoge*, traditionally assumed to stand in a simple chronological order with the longer B version as a later “augmented” revision of A. Building on new collations across the *Ars vetus* corpus (Porphyry, *Categories*, and *De interpretatione*), Marmo argues that earlier scholarship compared too small a portion of the material and underestimated the extent and complexity of textual contamination—especially the role of an interpolating emulator, “Hytpibbius,” whose interventions affect not only the Nürnberg witness of B but also several manuscripts usually treated as A. A quantitative survey of word counts across corresponding questions shows that B is longer in only about two thirds of cases, while A is longer in roughly a third, undermining length-based inferences about priority and motivating a more neutral descriptive vocabulary. The article then offers detailed comparative analyses of key question-pairs (on logic’s scientific status; whether genus is a principle of species; whether a genus can remain with a single species; whether a species can remain with a single individual). These comparisons reveal systematic tendencies: A often streamlines argumentation, reduces repetitions, and reorganizes material for clarity, yet sometimes adds new objections, polemical articulations, and more mature theoretical commitments. In several places A explicitly anticipates or aligns with doctrines developed in Brito’s later works (e.g., on the simplicity of the concept of species and on individuation and substantial form), while B occasionally preserves unresolved drafts or structures that would be unsuitable for wider circulation. The article concludes that the traditional assumption should be reversed: B is likely earlier, and A represents a subsequent authorial revision intended to replace B and facilitate dissemination—explaining A’s wider manuscript diffusion, particularly in Italy—while emphasizing that final confirmation requires a full critical edition and comprehensive witness study.