No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
ARISTOTLE, POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 2.1, 89B25–6 ΕΙΣ ΑΡΙΘΜΟΝ ΘΕΝΤΕΣ
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 June 2020
Extract
In the opening sentences of Book 2 of Posterior Analytics, Aristotle defines the four types of question that one can pose within the demonstrative science. In the edition by William D. Ross, the text reads as follows (89b23–31):
τὰ ζητούμενά ἐστιν ἴσα τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὅσαπερ ἐπιστάμεθα. ζητοῦμεν δὲ τέτταρα, τὸ ὅτι, τὸ διότι, εἰ ἔστι, τί ἐστιν. ὅταν μὲν γὰρ πότερον τόδε ἢ τόδε ζητῶμεν, εἰς ἀριθμὸν θέντες, οἷον πότερον ἐκλείπει ὁ ἥλιος ἢ οὔ, τὸ ὅτι ζητοῦμεν. σημεῖον δὲ τούτου· εὑρόντες γὰρ ὅτι ἐκλείπει πεπαύμεθα· καὶ ἐὰν ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἰδῶμεν ὅτι ἐκλείπει, οὐ ζητοῦμεν πότερον. ὅταν δὲ εἰδῶμεν τὸ ὅτι, τὸ διότι ζητοῦμεν, οἷον εἰδότες ὅτι ἐκλείπει καὶ ὅτι κινεῖται ἡ γῆ, τὸ διότι ἐκλείπει ἢ διότι κινεῖται ζητοῦμεν.
The things we seek are equal in number to those we understand. We seek four things: the fact, the reason why, if it is, what it is. For when we seek whether it is this or this, putting it into a number (e.g. whether the sun is eclipsed or not), we seek the fact. Evidence for this: on finding that it is eclipsed we stop; and if from the start we know that it is eclipsed, we do not seek whether it is. When we know the fact we seek the reason why (e.g. knowing that it is eclipsed and that the earth moves, we seek the reason why it is eclipsed or why it moves).
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 2020
Footnotes
This paper was conceived as part of the research project ‘Ancient Greek Manuscripts on Aristotle's Works Used in Teaching and Their Interpretation’ (headed by Christian Brockmann) at the Centre for the Study of Manuscript Cultures (CSMC), University of Hamburg (Sonderforschungsbereich 950 – Manuskriptkulturen in Asien, Afrika und Europa). I would like to express my gratitude to Christian Brockmann, Tiziano Dorandi, Renzo Tosi and the anonymous peer-reviewer for their valuable comments and remarks as well as to Carl Carter for copy-editing this article for me.
References
1 Ross, W.D., Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics (Oxford, 1949)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (my own emphasis).
2 I quote the translation by Barnes, J., Aristotle's Posterior Analytics (Oxford, 1975)Google Scholar, 53 (my own emphasis). In the second edition (see n. 3 below), he revised his translation: on this point, see below, page 155. The translation by Detel, W., Aristoteles Analytica posteriora (Berlin, 1993), 1.60CrossRefGoogle Scholar (‘indem wir es in eine Zahl setzen’) seems to take Barnes's version into account, but he does not comment on it.
3 Among others, see Ross (n. 1), 609–10; Barnes (n. 2), 194–5; Barnes, J., Aristotle Posterior Analytics (Oxford, 1993 2), 203–4Google Scholar; Detel (n. 2), 2.542–52; Goldin, O., Explaining an Eclipse. Aristotle's Posterior Analytics 2.1–10 (Ann Arbor, 1996), 17–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar along with n. 2; Mignucci, M., Aristotele Analitici secondi (Bari, 2007), 249–50Google Scholar with further references.
4 Ross (n. 1), 610.
5 The relevant passages from secondary literature quoted by Ross are the following: Pacius, I., Aristotelis Stagiritae Peripateticorum principis Organum (Frankfurt, 1592; 15972Google Scholar, from which I quote), 503 (he translates ‘plura complectentes’) with n. g; Zabarella, J., In duos Aristotelis libros Posteriores Analyticos commentarii (Venice, 1582; 15873Google Scholar, from which I quote), 110r–v: he translates the phrase ‘in numerum ponentes’ and comments ‘declarat eas omnes quaestiones Aristoteles sola ipsarum enumeratione per divisionem absque ulla probatione, & incipit a quaestionibus complexis dicens, quando quaerimus an hoc sit hoc, aut illud, quod quidem est in numerum ponere, qui non de una tantum re quaestio est, sed de inhaerentia huius in illa, haec dicitur quaestio ipsius quod complexa [etc.]’; Waitz, T., Aristotelis Organon Graece (Leipzig, 1846), 2.380Google Scholar: ‘εἰς ἀριθμὸν θέντες, quum singulas propositae quaestionis partes, quippe quae se invicem excludant, enumeramus: debent enim numerari, quia, si quid praetermissum est, proposita quaestio non pertractatur.’ On Eustratius and Philoponus, see below, page 156 and n. 15 respectively.
6 Barnes (n. 2), 195.
7 Barnes (n. 3), 48. The translation clearly takes Ross's commentary into account.
8 Wallies, M. (ed.), Themistii Analyticorum posteriorium paraphrasis (Berlin, 1900), 42.4–14Google Scholar.
9 89b31–3 ταῦτα μὲν οὖν οὕτως, ἔνια δ’ ἄλλον τρόπον ζητοῦμεν, οἷον εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μὴ ἔστι κένταυρος ἢ θεός· τὸ δ’ εἰ ἔστιν ἢ μὴ ἁπλῶς λέγω, ἀλλ’ οὐκ εἰ λευκὸς ἢ μή.
10 Not ἥλιος, as in Aristotle's text.
11 On Philoponus’ commentary, see n. 15 below.
12 Hayduck, M. (ed.), Eustratii in Analyticorum posteriorum librum secundum commentarium (Berlin, 1907), 12.22–33Google Scholar.
13 The transmitted ἐκλείπειν should probably be ἐκλείπει.
14 The syntax is difficult here and something may even be missing.
15 A similar explanation also occurs in the commentary to Posterior Analytics Book 2, usually attributed to Philoponus of Alexandria—and so mentioned by Ross (see pages 154–5 above)—but likely composed by Leo Magentinus (twelfth century): [Phlp.] in An. post. 336.29–32 ἀντὶ δὲ τοῦ εἰπεῖν ὅτι εἰσὶ σύνθετα προβλήματα τὰ ζητούμενα εἶπε τὸ εἰς ἀριθμὸν θέντες· ὁ γὰρ ἀριθμὸς ἐκ συνθέσεως καὶ πλήθους μονάδων συνίσταται, ὡς ἡ δυὰς καὶ ἡ τριάς. ἡ δὲ μονὰς ἁπλῆ ἐστι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ ἁπλᾶ προβλήματα λέγεται μοναδικὰ καὶ ἑνιαῖα. The annotation also occurs in the MS Vat. gr. 244 (end of the twelfth century), fol. 370v (no. α΄), a manuscript that contains the treatises of the Organon introduced and surrounded by Magentinus's commentaries. See Ebbesen, S., Commentators and Commentaries on Aristotle's Sophistici Elenchi (Leiden, 1981), 1.302–13Google Scholar; id., ‘The Posterior Analytics 1100–1400 in East and West’, in J. Biard (ed.), Raison et démonstration. Les commentaires médiévaux sur le Seconds analytiques (Turnhout, 2015), 11–30, at 13 with n. 4; Brockmann, C., ‘Helpful interactions between commentary and text: Aristotle's Posterior Analytics and important manuscripts of this treatise’, in Boodts, S., De Leemans, P. and Schorn, S. (edd.), Sicut dicit. Editing Ancient and Medieval Commentaries on Authoritative Texts (Turnhout, 2020), 209–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 219–23. However, see also Goldin, O., Philoponus(?) On Aristotle Posterior Analytics 2 (London, 2009), 1–4Google Scholar (as well as 17–18 for a translation of the quoted passage from Ps.-Philoponus).
16 Moraux, P., Le Commentaire d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise aux «Seconds analytiques» d'Aristote (Berlin and New York, 1979), 86–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar (fr. 38), 88–9 (fr. 39). He also observes that the explanation in the anonymous commentary on Book 2 edited by Wallies (n. 8), 548.23–549.7 depends on Alexander's commentary as well.
17 See Herzberg, S., s.v. ‘arithmos/Zahl’, in Höffe, O. (ed.), Aristoteles-Lexikon (Stuttgart, 2005), 83–4Google Scholar, at 83 (‘das jeweilige Eine […] ist daher Prinzip der Z[ahl] […], nicht aber selbst Gezähltes, weshalb die Eins im eigentlichen Sinn keine Z[ahl] […] und die Zwei kleinste Z[ahl] ist [Phys. IV 12, 220a27]’) and 84 (‘eine Menge von Einheiten’, on the basis of Metaph. X.1, 1053a30).
18 On the marginalia in these manuscripts, see also N. Agiotis, ‘Inventarisierung von Scholien, Glossen und Diagrammen der handschriftlichen Überlieferung zu Aristoteles’ De interpretatione (c. 1–4) […]’, Working Paper des SFB 980 Episteme in Bewegung 5 (2015) [http://www.sfb-episteme.de/Listen_Read_Watch/Working-Papers/No_5_Agiotis_Inventar/Working_Paper_Nr_5_Agiotis.pdf]; Brockmann (n. 15), 209–11; Valente, S., ‘Reading and commenting Aristotle's Posterior Analytics over the centuries: (marginal) remarks on some vetustissimi of the Organon and the case of the Ambrosianus L 93 sup.’, Scripta 11 (2018), 111–24Google Scholar, at 112–14, with further literature.
19 See n. 15 above for the Greek text and bibliographic references.
20 Above the previous τόδε ἢ τόδε, this hand wrote ἤτοι τὸ ἐκλείπειν τὸν ἥλιον· ἢ τὸ σφαιροειδές ἐστιν.
21 The exact source still needs to be identified.
22 A later hand added εἰς σύνθεσιν ὡς μερικόν after this note.
23 Only the interlinear annotation in the MS Par. Coisl. 330 (C), fol. 181v is different, and probably autoschediastic: ἄρα πολλὰ πράγματα ποιήσαντες.
24 See Mure, G.R.G. in Ross, W.D. (ed.), The Works of Aristotle Translated into English (London, 1928)Google Scholar: ‘when our question concerns a complex of thing and attribute’, as well as the Loeb edition by H. Tredennick (Cambridge, MA and London, 1960), 175: ‘introducing a plurality of terms’ together with the relevant footnote a ‘i.e., a predicate as well as a subject’. See also Rolfes, E., Aristoteles. Lehre vom Beweis des Organon. 4. Teil oder Zweite Analytik (Leipzig, 1922), 69Google Scholar (‘denn wenn man so fragt, ob das oder das ist, daß man der Frage Zahlcharakter gibt [etc.]’), 139 n. 2 (‘man gibt einem Prädikat Zahlcharakter, wenn es nicht bloß die Existenz aussagt, wenn ich z.B. nicht sage: Gott ist, sondern Gott ist gut’); Seidl, H., Aristoteles Zweite Analytik (Würzburg, 1984), 139Google Scholar (‘wobei wir [die Frage] in eine Anzahl [von Termen] bringen’), 279; Pellegrin, P. (ed.), Seconds analytiques (Paris, 2005)Google Scholar, 241 (‘posant <les termes> en nombre’), 396 (after rephrasing the comment by Ross, he adds that the customary interpretation ‘semble confirmée par le οὕτως de 89b31’, on which see n. 9 above).
25 See e.g. Bonitz, H., Index Aristotelicus (Graz, 1870), 94Google Scholar; Herzberg (n. 17), 83–4.
26 Loeb translation (adapted) by Perrin, B., Plutarch's Lives (Cambridge, MA, 1914), 483Google Scholar.
27 A similar usage can also be discovered in Plut. Num. 18.7 (also quoted by Stob. Flor. 1.8.44.18–21) διὸ καὶ οἱ ταύτην τὴν χώραν οἰκοῦντες [sc. οἱ Αἰγύπτιοι] ἀρχαιότατοι δοκοῦσιν εἶναι, καὶ πλῆθος ἀμήχανον ἐτῶν ἐπὶ ταῖς γενεαλογίαις καταφέρουσιν, ἅτε δὴ τοὺς μῆνας εἰς ἐτῶν ἀριθμὸν τιθέμενοι.
28 This phrase is also recorded in LSJ s.v. τελέω (II.3): ‘to belong to a group, a class’.
29 Wallies, M. (ed.), Alexandri quod fertur in Aristotelis Sophisticos elenchos commentarium (Berlin, 1898), 75.17–19Google Scholar.
30 See also Walz, C., Rhetores Graeci (Stuttgart, 1834), 6.184.19–20Google Scholar (Iohannes Siceliotes) … προϋπόσχεσις δὲ διὰ τὸ εἰς ἀριθμὸν τὰ ζητηθησόμενα τίθεσθαι κτλ. (the preceding promise consists of numbering the points that will be investigated by the orator). A slightly different meaning emerges in Plotinus, Enn. 6.3.1 … ὥσπερ ἂν εἰ τὴν φωνὴν διῃρούμεθα ἄπειρον οὖσαν εἰς ὡρισμένα ἀνάγοντες τὸ ἐν πολλοῖς ταὐτὸν εἰς ἕν, εἶτα πάλιν ἄλλο καὶ ἕτερον αὖ, ἕως εἰς ἀριθμόν τινα θέντες ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, τὸ μὲν ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀτόμοις εἶδος λέγοντες, τὸ δ’ ἐπὶ τοῖς εἴδεσι γένος. Here, Plotinus elaborates upon Pl. Phlb. 18a7–d2: the division of vocal sounds into their elements (viz. letters) causes one ‘to put each of them into a certain number’, that is, in a singular category.
31 Notably, the discussion is introduced by the particle γάρ.
32 Transl. by Barnes (n. 3), 48.
33 This is the only mention of a solar eclipse in the Analytica Posteriora; the usual example is a lunar eclipse (see also page 156 above with n. 10).
34 As quoted above (page 155), Barnes (n. 2), 195 suspected that this question ‘mentions a number of alternatives’.
35 The phrase may possibly be grammatically more correct with the article (i.e. εἰς τὸν ἀριθμόν): however, it may be implicitly assumed, if it is not to be supplemented.
36 I have taken both translations by Barnes (nn. 2 and 3) into account here. Furthermore, Christian Brockmann (8/2/2018, email) has also suggested to consider An. post. 2.2, 89b36–7 ἃ μὲν οὖν ζητοῦμεν καὶ ἃ εὑρόντες ἴσμεν, ταῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτά ἐστιν, ‘now what we seek and what on finding we know are these and thus many’ (transl. Barnes [n. 2], 53). This sentence proves that Aristotle is keen in assessing the number of questions that can be investigated.