In 1583 Frane Petrić translated into Latin and published the Commentaries on Metaphysics, today generally regarded not to be Philoponus’s authentic work, the author of which is in literature referred to as (Pseudo-)Philoponus. Despite certain initial doubts, Petrić, however, had no doubt about its authenticity. The paper examines and interprets Petrić’s reception of (Pseudo-)Philoponus on the basis of two quotations from Petrić’s translation of Philoponus’s Commentaries on Metaphysics, one quotation of Philoponus from the third volume of Petrić’s Discussiones peripateticae, and one quotation from the transliterated text of the Vienna manuscript. The key word that repeats in these quotations is adverb symbolically (symbolice). By using this word, (Pseudo-)Philoponus explains that the Pythagoreans in a symbolic way spoke of numbers as the principles of things. The paper shows that a similar position on Pythagoreans may also be found in the works attributed to the authentic Philoponus. The paper also highlights the findings discovered during the process of the transliteration of the Vienna manuscript Cod. Phil. gr. 189, which contains the Greek original of (Pseudo-)Philoponus’s Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The leaves 26r–125r contain the text of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The text of Book 1 (A) runs from 26r to 46v. According to Hunger’s catalogue, the leaf preceding f. 32 is missing, but not the text. Further, the leaf preceding f. 47 is missing together with the text, no identification being given. We believe that on the basis of the scarce fragments of the torn out leaf we will be able to identify the missing text and conclude with fair exactitude that it is the beginning of Book 5 (Ε) of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. From 47r to 49v runs Aristotle’s book α’ ἔλαττον, Book 6 (Ζ) starts on 50r, Book 7 (Η) on 71r, Book 8 (Θ) on 74v, Book 9 (Ι) on 80v, Book 10 (Κ) on 87v, Book 11 (Λ) on 98r, Book 12 (Μ) on 107r and finally, Book 13 (Ν) starts on the leaf 118r and runs until 125r. From 125v to 129v the catalogue identifies the Commentary of Aristotle’s work De lineis insecabilibus by George Pachymeres. The leaves 130r to 213v contain the Commentary on Aristotle’s Metaphysics by John Philoponus entitled Ἐξήγησις τῶν μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ Ἀριστοτέλους. The catalogue description includes the introductory and closing words of Philoponus’s entire text, failing to cite the leaves which contain the openings to the commentaries on the particular books. Having obtained an insight into the manuscript, we are able to define the order of (Pseudo-) Philoponus’s commentaries. The commentary on Book 1 (Α) has been found on the leaves 130r-131r. By comparing the Greek text of the manuscript with Petrić’s printed translation, we realise that the Greek text of this book is partial. Further omitted are the commentaries on α’ ἔλαττον, as well as the commentaries on Book 2 (Β), 3 (Γ), 4 (Δ) and Book 5 (Ε) of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. On 131v-140r the manuscript, evidently with no text omitted, continues with (Pseudo-) Philoponus’s commentary on Book 6 (Ζ) of the Metaphysics. This part of the text (130r-140r) we have transliterated in full. On 141r we find (Pseudo-)Philoponus’s commentary on Book 7 (Η), on 146r starts the commentary on Book 8 (Θ), on 154r on Book 9 (Ι), on 166v on Book 10 (Κ), on 174r on Book 11 (Λ), on 183v on Book 12 (Μ), and on 201v on Book 13 (Ν) of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. By comparing the Greek text of the manuscript Cod. Phil. gr. 189 with Petrić’s translation, published in the work Ioannis Philoponi enarratio in omnes Aristotelis libros, quos Metaphysica appellant. Eam Franciscus Patricius de Graeca, Latinam fecerat (Ferrariae: Ex Typographia Dominici Mammarelli, 1583), we have established that the Greek text is partial. A comparison between the transliterated text of the Vienna manuscript and the edition of Petrić’s Latin translation has revealed certain discrepancies between the Greek manuscript and the published Latin text. At some points they are evidently the result of the misreading of the manuscript of Petrić’s Latin translation, which the typographer used as basis for the printed edition. At some other points these discrepancies may be ascribed to the tradition of the Greek text–that is, differences between this transliterated manuscript and the manuscript that Petrić used as basis for his translation into Latin. It should be noted that the transliteration of this Greek manuscript has been an invaluable experience. Regrettably, today Greek manuscripts rarely come into scholarly focus and it is not often that one may be given a chance similar to this. The fact that this manuscript abounds in tachygraphic marks has been a challenge itself. Indeed, Petrić’s printed translation in Latin has been equally invaluable throughout our work on the manuscript as an important standard of comparison.