ARISTOTLE'S PRIOR AND POSTERIOR ANALYTICS
APILTOTEAOYL ANAAYTIKA
ARISTOTLE'S PRIOR AND POSTERIOR ANALYTICS A REVISED TEXT WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY
BY
W. D. ROSS
OXFORD AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
PREFACE IT is one hundred and five years since Waitz's edition of the Organon was published, and a commentator writing now has at his
disposal a good deal that Waitz had not. The Berlin Academy has furnished him with a good text of the ancient Greek commentators. Heinrich Maier's Die Syllogistik des Aristoteles supplied what amounts to a full commentary on the Prior A nalytics. Professor Friedrich Solmsen has given us an original and challenging theory of the relation between the Prior A nalytics and the Posterior. Albrecht Becker has written a very acute book on the Aristotelian theory of the problematic syllogism. Other books, and articles too numerous to be mentioned here, have added their quota of comment and suggestion. Among older books we have Zabarella's fine commentary on the Posterior Analytics, which Waitz seems not to have studied. and Pacius' commentary on the Organon. which
Waitz studied less than it deserved. In editing the text, I have concentrated on the five oldest Greek manuscripts-Urbinas 35 (A), Marcianus 201 (B), Coislinianus 330 (C), Laurentianus 72.5 (d), and Ambrosianus 490 (olim L 93) (n). Of these I have coUated the last (which has been unduly neglected) throughout in the original, and the third throughout in a photograph. With regard to A, B, and d, I have studied in the original all the passages in which Waitz's report was obscure, and all those in which corruption might be suspected and it might he hoped that a new collation would bring new light. Mr. L. Minio has been good enough to lend me his repOr( on the Greek text presupposed by two Syriac translations some centuries older than any of our Greek manuscripts of the Analytics, and a comparison of these with the Greek manuscripts has yielded interesting results; I wish to record my sincere thanks to him for his help. as well as to the librarians
of the Bibliotheque Nationale, and of the Vatican, Marcian, Laurentian, and Ambrosian libraries. W.D.R.
r
CONTENTS SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
ix
INTRODUCTION I. The Title and the Plan of the A nalytics II. The Relation of the Prior to the Posterior AMlytics . III. The Pure or Assertoric Syllogism IV. The Modal Syllogism V. Induction VI. Demonstrative Science VII. The Seco",d Book of the Posterior A nalytus VIII. The Text of the Analytics List of Manuscripts not included in the Sigla
6 23 040 -47 51 75
SIGLA
98
ANALYTICS Text and Critical apparatus Conspectus of the contents Table of the valid moods Commentary
INDEXES Greek index English index
I I
87 93
99 99 280
286 287
679 688
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldine edition: Venice, 1495. Organum, ed. 1. Pacius: Frankfurt, 1592. etc. Aristotelis Opera, vol. i, ed. 1. Bekker: Berlin. 1831. Organon, ed. T. Waitz,.2 vols.: Leipzig, 1&t4-6. P,iO'T Analytics, ed. and trans. H. Tredennick: London, and Cambridge, Mass., 1938. Analytica Priora, trans. A. J. Jenkinson, and Analytica Posteriora, trans. G. R. G. Mure: Oxford, 1928. Commentaria in Arislotelem Graeca: Alexander in Anal. Pro t, ed. M. Wallies: Berlin, 1883.
Themistius quae fertur in Anal. Pro I Paraphrasis, ed. M. Wallies: Berlin,
188.t.
Ammonius in Anal. Pro I, ed. M. Wallies: Berlin, I&J9. Themistii in Anal. Post. 2 Paraphrasis. ed. M. Wallies: Berlin, 1900. Ioannes Philoponus in Anal. Pr., ed. M. Wallies: Berlin, 1905. Eustratius in Anal. Post. 2, ed. M. Hayduck: Berlin, 1907. Ioannes Philoponus in Anal. Post. and Anonymus in Anal. Post. z, ed. M. Wa1lies: Berlin, 1909. Aquinas, St. Thomas, Comment. in Arist.libros Peri Hermeneias et Post. Anal.: Rome and Freiburg, 1882. Becker, A.: Die arist. Theorie der MoglichkeitsschlUsse: Berlin, 1933. Bonitz, H. : Arist. Studien, 1- 4, in Sitzungsb. der kaiserl. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, xxxix (1862), 183-280; xli (r863), 379-434; xlii (1863), 25-t09; Iii (1866), 347-423. Bywater, 1.: Aristotelia: in J. of Philol. 1888,53. Calogero, G. : I Fondamenti della Logica Arist. : Florence, 1927. Colli, G. : Aristotele, Organon: Introduzione, traduzione e note. Turin, 1955. Einarson, B. _ : On certain Mathematical Terms in Arist.'s Logic: in A.J.P. 1936. 33- 54, 151-72· Friedmann, 1.: Arist. Anal. bei den Syrern : Berlin, 1898. Furlani, G.: II primo Libro dei Primi Anal. di Arist. nella versione siriaca di Giorgio delle Nazioni, and It secondo Libro, etc.: in Mem. Ace. Line., Cl. Sc. Mor., Ser. VI, vol. v. iii and yr. iii, 1935, 1937. Gohlke, P.: Die Entstehung der arist. Logik: Berlin, 1935. Heath, Sir T. L.: A History of Greek Mathematics, z vols.: Oxford, 1921. Heath, Sir T. L.: A Manual of Greek Mathematics: Oxford, 1931. Heiberg, J. L.: Mathetnatisches zu Arist.: in Abh. zur Ges,h. d. Mathern. Wissenschaften, 1904, 1- 49. Kapp, E.: Greek Foundations of Traditional Logic: New York, 1942. Lee, H. D. P.: Geometrical Method and Arist.'s Account of First Principles: in Class. Quart. 1935, II3- 29. Lukasiewicz, J.: Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of M odem Formal Logic: Oxford, 1951. Maier, H.: Die Syllogistik des Arist., 3 vols.: Tiibingen, 18¢-1I)00. Mansion, S.: Le Jugement d'ex£stence thez Aristote: Louvain and Paris, 1946. Miller, J. W.: The Structure of Arist. Logic: London, 19,38. Nagy, A.: Contributo per la revis£one del testo degli Anal. : in Rend£t. Acc. L£nc., C1. Sc. Mar., Ser. V, vol. viii, II4- 29.
law,
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
x
Pacius, J.: Aristoleiis Organon cum com~ntario analytico: Francofurti, 1597. Solmsen, F.: Die Entwichlung der ami. Logik und RMtorik: Berlin, 1929. Solmsen, F.: 'The Discovery of the Syllogism', in Philos. Rtf). 50 (1941) , 410 ff.
Stocks, J. L.: The Composition oj ATist.'s Log£cal Works: in Class. Quart. 1933,
lIS-24· Waitz, T.: Varianten JU An:st. Organon: in PhiloI. 1857, 726-34. WaIlies, M.: Zur Textgeschicht.e dtr Erslen AMI.: in Rhein. Mus. 1917-18,
626-.)2.
Wilson, J. Cook: Aristotelian Studus I: in Goltingische gelehrte Anuigtr, 1880 (I). 449-14. Wilson, J. Cook: On the Poss£bility oj a Conception oj the Enthymema earlier than that found in the Rhet. and the Pro Anal.: in Trans. of the Oxford Philol. Soc. 1883- 4. 5-6. Zabarella, I.: In duos Arisl. Libros Post. Anal. Comment.: Venice, 1582. Zabarella, I.: O~a Logica: Venice, 1586. In the notes the Greek commentaries are referred to by the symbols AL,
T., Am., P., E., An.
INTRODUCTION I THE TITLE AND THE PLAN OF THE AN ALYTICS HE A nalytics are among the works whose Aristotelian authorship is certain. Aristotle frequently refers in other works to -ra dvaAVT~Kd, and these references are to passages that actually occur in the Prior or the Posterior Analytics. He did not, however, distinguish them as Prior and Posterior, and the earliest traces of this distinction are in the commentary of Alexander of Aphrodisias (fl. c. A.D. 205) on An. Pro i. The distinction occurs also in the list of Aristotelian MSS. preserved by Diogenes Laertius (early third century A.D.), which probably rests on the authority of Hermippus (c. 200 B.C.); in that list the Prior Analytics occurs as no. 49 and the Posterior A nalytics as no. 50.1 Diogenes ascribes nine books to the Prior Analytics, and so does no. 46 in Hesychius' list (1 fifth century A.D.), but no. '34 in Hesychlus' list ascribes two books to it. The nine books may represent a more elaborate subdivision of the extant work, but it is more likely that they were a work falsely ascribed to Aristotle; we know from Schol. in Arist. 33b 32' that Adrastus mentioned forty books of Analytics, of which only the extant two of the Prior and two of the Posterior were recognized as genuine. Aristotle occasionally refers to the Prior Analytics under the name of 'Tn 7T~PI.. avl\Aoyw/LoiJ, but the title "fa. avaAVT£lca, and later the titles 'To. 7Tp6npa. avaAVTLKa, 'TO: il(:rT"£pa aVaAlJTUCa prevailed. The appropriateness of the title can be seen from such passages as An. Pr. 47 a4 En oE TOUS- YEYEV7JJLEVOUS- avu,\voLfLEV ELS -ra. npoELP"'lfLEVU
T
J
crxrJJLU'TU, 49aI8 OUTW JLEv ovv ytvE'TaL alla'\vUtS, A n. Post. 9IhI3 EV'Tfj aVaAvuEt 'Tfi 7tEPL Ta uX?1JLu-ru. The title is appropriate both to the
Prior and to the Posterior Analytics, but the object of the analysis is different in the two cases. In the former it is syllogism in general that Aristotle analyses; his object is to state the nature of the propositions which will formally justify a certain conclusion. I Under the title &'VaAtl'TtKa ~rrrfpa J,wyr1Aa, which presumably distinguishes Aristotle's work from those written by his followers. 2 Cf. Philop. in Cat. 7. 26, in An. Pro6. 7; Elias in Cat. 133. IS.
4985
B
INTRODUCTION In the latter it is the demonstrative syllogism that he analyses; his object is to state the nature of the propositions which will not merely formally justify a certain conclusion. but will also state the facts on which the fact stated in the conclusion depends for
2
its existence.
The extant Greek commentaries on the Prior Analytics are (I) that of Alexander; he commented on all four books of the Analytics. but only his comll)entary on An. Pro i is extant; (2) that of Ammonius (fl. C. 485) on book i; as its title (L'x6A", .is TO A' TWV 1TpO'T'EPWlI a.VaAUTLKWV awo rj>w'vTjs ~fLf'Wvlov) implies it is a pupil's notes of Ammonius' lectures; all that remains is the commentary on 24'1-25'13; (3) that of Joannes Philoponus (c. 4<)0- ' 530) covering the whole work; (4) a paraphrase of the first book which bears the name of Themistius but is not by him. It is in the style of Sophonias' paraphrase of the De Anima. and may be by Sophonias (fl. C. 1300). It is put together in a very inadequate way out of the commentaries of Alexander and Philoponus; it covers chs . . !)-46 (the end). The commentaries on the Posterior Analytics are (I) the paraphrase of Themistius (c. 317--88); (2) the commentary of Philoponus; (3) that of an anonymous commentator on the second book; (4) that of Eustratius (c . 1050-1120) on the second book. All these commentaries have been edited in the series of Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. the last by M. Hayduck. the rest by M. Wallies. The arrangement of An. Pro i is clear and straightforward. There are three passages in which Aristotle states his programme and sums up his results: 43'16-24. 46b38--47'9. 52b38--53'3. In these passages-most clearly in the second-he describes the book as falling into three main parts: (I) A study of the ,,
type of conclusion; these Aristotle gives in chs. 27- 30. (3) A study of how syllogisms are to be put into the forms of the three figures (chs. 32-45). This is in the main a consideration of the possibilities of error in putting into syllogistic form arguments couched in ordinary conversational form.
Two chapters-31 and 46-fall outside this scheme. Ch. 3' is a
TITLE AND PLAN OF THE ANALYTICS 3 criticism of the Platonic method of reaching definitions by means of dividing a genus into species and sub-species. It has no close conhexion with what precedes or with what follows; the last sentence of ch. 30 implies that the study of the choice of premisses is already complete without ch. 3'. Maier' may be right in holding it to be a later addition; for in 46'35- 7 it seems to presuppose Aristotle's doctrine that a definition cannot be reached as the conclusion of a demonstration, and thus to presuppose the discussion in An. Post . ii. 3-]0. Ch. 46, on the distinction between 'B is not A' and •B is not-A', is equally unconnected with what precedes it; the last sentence of ch. 45 implies that the study of reduction of arguments to syllogistic form is already completed in chs .. 32- 45. Maier' treats the chapter as a later addition forming the transition from An. Pro i to the De I nterpretatione, which he improbably (in my view) regards as among the latest of Aristotle's surviving works;' and the chapter has plainly a close affinity with De Int. 10 and 14. But Maier seems to be wrong in saying that propositions are here considered simply as isolated propositions. not as syllogistic premisses, and that therefore the chapter belongs to Aristotle's theory of the judgement, not to his theory of the syllogism. The chapter begins with the statement that the question whether 'B is not A' means the same as 'B is not-A' makes a difference £V 70/ lCaTaO'KEvd{EW 7j avaO'KEvO:{EtV, and this point is elaborated in 52'24- 38, where Aristotle points out that whereas 'B is not-A' requires for its establishment a syllogism in Barbara, •B is not A' requires for its establishment a syllogism in Celarent, Cesare, or Camestres. Instead of forming a transition from An. Pro i to the De Interpretatione, the chapter seems rather to take account of a distinction belonging to the theory of judgement and already drawn in the De I nterpretatione, and to make use of it with reference to the theory of syllogism. Nor is Maier justified in saying that the use made in this chapter of the laws of contradiction and excluded middle presupposes the discussion of them in Met. After all, they had already been formulated by Plato, and must have been familiar to Aristotle from his days of study in the Academy. Though slightly misplaced (since it is divided from the section on reduction of arguments to syllogistic form by ch. 45, which deals with reduction from one figure to another), ch. 46 is not seriously out of place. It would have been
r.
b 77 n. 2, 78 n. 3. 2; , Arch.f. d. Gmh. d. Phil. xiii (1900), '3-12.
I 2.
2.
b 364 n.
INTRODUCTION 4 natural enough as part of the section comprised in chs. 32- 45 and dealing with possible sources of error in the reduction of arguments to syllogistic form. Cf. avl-'{3a.lvn 8' EvioT€. Ka.t. Ell -rff 'TOto.&ry Ta~E:' nuv opwv a1Ta.'Taa8a.t K'TA. (46. 52bI4) with 'TtoA>taK~S'" j.L£V ouv a7Ta.Taa8(u CTVp.f3alvEt K'TA. (33. 47b1S) and similar expressions ib. 38, 40, 34. 48 1 24.
The structure of the second book is by no means so clear as that of the first. It begins with a section (chs. I-IS) which brings out what may be called properties of the syllogism, following from its structure as exhibited in i. 4-Q-viz. (1) the possibility of drawing a fresh conclusion from the conclusion of a syllogism, Of by parity of reasoning with the original conclusion (ch. 1); (2) the possibility of drawing true conclusions from false premisses (chs. 2- 4) ; (3) the possibility of proving one premiss of a syllogism from the conclusion and the converse of the other premiss (chs. 5-7) ; (4) .the possibility of proving the opposite of one premiss from the other premiss and the opposite of the conclusion (chs. 8- 10); (5) the possibility of a particular application of the last process, viz. reductio ad impossibile (chs. 11-14); (6) the possibility of drawing a conclusion from two opposite premisses (ch. 15). The object of these exercises in the use of the syllogism may be best described in the words which Aristotle applies to one of them, viz. 'TO dvrurrpE~£Lv, the conversion of syllogisms (chs. 8-10). Of this exercise he says in Top. 163129-36 that it is useful wpos YVJ.Lvaalav Kat jJ.EAE'T'J]V nuv TOWWWV '\'6ywv.
From this section Aristotle passes to a rather loosely connected section in which he exposes certain dangers that beset us in argument. The first of these is petitio principii (ch. 16). The second is 'false cause': when a syllogism leads to a false conclusion, there must be somewhere a false premiss, but it is not easy to detect this (chs. '7, 18). To these two topics he adds certain others concerned with the practice of dialectical argument-hints on how to avoid admissions which will lead to an unwelcome conclusion, and how to disguise one's own argument (chs, 19, .20). To these he tacks on a chapter (21) on the question how it can happen that, while knowing or believing one or even both of the premisses which entail a certain conclusion, we may fail to draw the conclusion, or even hold a belief opposite to it. His solution turns on a distinction between universal knowledge. particular knowledge, and actualized knowledge' which is closely akin to I
6,b4- s.
TITLE AND PLAN OF THE ANALYTICS 5 the distinction drawn in An. Post. 71''7-30, and may be even later than it, since the latter passage draws only the distinction between universal and particular knowledge.' It will be seen that chs, 16-21 form no organic unity. They are a series of isolated essays grouped together for lack of organic connexion with any of the other sections of the book. Next comes an isolated chapter (22) which itself deals with two unconnected subjects: (1) various rules showing under what con-
ditions the convertibility of two terms can be inferred, and (2) a rule for comparing two objects in respect of desirability. The present position of the chapter is probably dne to the fact that one principle laid down in it becomes the basis for the treatment of the inductive syllogism in ch. 23 (where 68b·24-7 refers back to 22. 68'21-5).
Finally there is a section (chs. 23- 7) in which Aristotle examines five special types of argument with a view to showing that all methods of producing conviction by argument are reducible to one or other of the three figures of syllogism.::" Maier's arguments for considering chs. 25 and 26 as later than 23, 24. and 27 3 seem to me unconvincing. The Posterior Analytics falls into five main parts. In i. ,-6 Aristotle states the conditions which are necessary to constitute a demonstration, or scientific proof, and which together form the essence or definition of demonstration. In i. 7- 34 he states the
properties which a demonstration possesses by virtue of having this essential nature. This part of the work hangs loosely together, and contains, in particular, two somewhat detached sectionschs. ,6-18 dealing with error and iguorance, and chs. 33- 4 dealing with (a) the relation between demonstrative knowledge and opinion and (b) that quickness of intelligence (&yxivo,a) which in the absence of demonstrative knowledge of the causation o~ a given effect enables us to guess its cause correctly. In ii. 1- 10 he deals with one specially important characteristic of demonstration, viz. that the demonstration that a subject has a certain property can become the basis of a definition of the property. In ii. II- IS he deals with a number of special questions connected with demonstration. Finally in ii. 19 he considers how the indemonstrable first principles from which demonstration proceeds themselves come to be known.
, n.71.. a27""9. a 453 n. I
~,
472 n.
6
INTRODUCTION II
THE RELATION OF THE PRIOR TO THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS AN editor of these works is bound to form some opinion on their relation to each other and to Aristotle's other works on reasoning, the Topics and the SoPhistici Elenchi; he may be excused from considering the Categories and the De Interpretatione, whose authenticity is not certain, and which do not deal with reasoning. We may assume that the Topics and the Sophistici Elenchi are earlier than either of the Analytics. They move more completely than the Analytics within the circle of Platonic ways of thinking. They discuss many arguments in a way which could have been immensely improved in respect of definiteness and effectiveness if the writer had already had at his command the theory of the syllogism, as he has in the Prior and (as will be shown) in the Posterior A nalytics; and we can hardly suppose that in writing them he dissembled a knowledge which he already had. It is true that the word UV.:u0YLUM0S" occurs occasionally in the Topics, but in some of these passages the word has not its technical meaning of 'syllogism', and others are best regarded as later additions made after the A nalytics had been written. Scholars are agreed that Topics ii-vii. 2 at least are older than any part of the Analytics. Maier' thinks that bks. i, vii. 3- 5, viii, and ix (the Sophistici Elenchi) are later additions; Solmsen thinks that only bks. viii and ix are later; we need not inquire which of these views is the true one. The main question which divides scholars at present is whether the Prior or the Posterior Analytics is the earlier. The traditional view is that the Prior is the earlier; Solmsen has argoed that the Posterior is (as regards its main substance) the earlier. Nothing can be inferred from the names Prior and Posterior. Aristotle refers to both works as 'To. avaAvrLl
ii. b 78 n. 3.
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 7 schools of his time-the Megarian, the Cynic, the Cyrenaic school; that he evolved his theory of dialectic, as it is expressed in the Topics, with a view to the refutation of sceptical arguments. Further, he holds that in his formulation of dialectical method Aristotle was influenced by Plato's conception of dialectic as consisting in a twofold process of O'vvayw;nJ. the gradual ascent from
more particular Forms to the wider Forms that contained them, and 8LalpHTt!;, the corresponding ordered descent from the widest to the narrowest Forms; a conception which naturally gave rise
to the doctrine of prediCables which plays so large a part in the Topics. Maier thinks further that reflection on the shortcomings of the Platonic method of division-shortcomings to which Aristotle more than once refers-led him to formulate the syllogistic procedure in the Prior Analytics, and that later, in the Posterior Analytics, he proceeded to deal with the more specialized problem of the scientific syllogism, the syllogism which, in addition to observing the rules of syllogism, proceeds from premisses which are 'true, prior in logical order to the conclusion, and immediate'. ·
Solmsen's view, on the other hand, is that, having formulated the method of dialectic in the Topics, Aristotle next formulated the method of strict science in the Posterior Analytics, and finally reached in the Prior A nalytics the general account of the syllogism as being the method lying at the base both of dialectical argument and of scientific reasoning. Thus for the order Dialectic, Analytic, Apodeictic he substitutes the order Dialectic, Apodeictic, Analytic. It will be seen that the order he reaches, in which the most general amount of method fullows the two particular accounts, is more symmetrical than that assigued in the traditional view; and it is obviously a not unnatural order to ascri~ to Aristotle's thinking. Further, he attempts to show that the circle of ideas within which Aristotle moves in the Posterior A nalytics is !I'ore pm;ely Platonic than that presupposed by the Prior A nalytics. And he makes a further point. He reminds us' of what is found in the Politics. It is, as Professor Jaeger has shown, highly probable that in the Politics the discussion of the ideal constitution which we find in bks. ii, iii. vii. viii is earlier than the purely descriptive account of various constitutions, many of them far from ideal, which we find in bks. iv-vi. In,the former part of the work Aristotle is still under the influence of • P·56.
INTRODUCTION 8 Plato's search for the ideal; in the latter he has travelled far from his early idealism towards a purely objective, purely scientific attitude for which all existing constitutions, good and bad alike, are equally of interest. Solmsen traces an analogous development
from the Posterior Analytics to the Prior. In the Posterior Analytics Aristotle has before him the syllogism which is most fully scientific, that in which all the propositions are true and necessary
and the terms are arranged in the order which they hold in a tree of Porphyry-the major term being the widest, the middle term in.termediate in extent, and the minor the narrowest; in fact, a
first-figure syllogism with true and necessary premisses. And this alone, Solmsen thinks, is the kind of syllogism that would have been suggested to Aristotle by meditation on Plato's So.aipECm, which proceeds from the widest classes gradually down to the narrowest. In the Prior Analytics, as in the middle books of the Politics, he has widened his ideas so as to think nothing common or unclean, no syllogism unworthy of attention so long as the conclusion really follows from the premisses; and thus we get there syllogisms with untrue or non-necessary premisses. and syllogisms (in the second and third figures) in which the natural order of the term is inverted. A minor feature of Solmsen's view is that he thinks Posterior Analytics bk. ii later than bk. i-separated from it by the eighth book of the Topics and by the Sophistici Elenchi-though earlier than the Prior A nalytics; and he finds evidence of the gap between the two books in the fact that while in the first book mathematical examples of reasoning predominate almost to the
exclusion of all others, in the second book examples from the physical sciences are introduced more and more. There is much that is attractive in Solmsen's view, and it deserves the most careful and the most impartial consideration.
What we have to consider is whether the detailed contents of the two Analytics tell in favour of or against his view. We may begin with a study of the references in each work to the other. We must realize, of course, that references may have been
added later, by Aristotle or by an editor. We must consider each reference on its merits, and ask ourselves (I) whether it is so
embedded in the argument that if we remove it the argument falls to pieces, or is so loosely attached that it can easily be regarded as a later addition. And (2) apart from the mode of the reference, we must ask ourselves whether Aristotle is assuming
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 9 something which he would have no right to assume as already proved within the work in which the reference occurs-no right to assume unless he had proved it in a previous work; and whether the previous work must be, or is likely to be, that to which the reference is given. This study of the references is a minute and sometimes rather tedious matter, but it is a necessary, though not the most important, part of an inquiry into the order of writing of different works. I will pass over the references from which no sure conclusion can be drawn-the references forward to the Posterior Analytics in An. Pr. 24b12- 14 and 43'36-7 and the possible reference ip. 32h23, the references back to the Prior Analytics in An. Post. 77'34- 5 and 9IbI2- 14 and the possible reference in 95b4o--¢a2. I will take the remaining references in order. (I) i. 4. 25b26. 'After these distinctions let us now state by what
means, when, and how every syllogism is produced; subsequently we must speak of demonstration. Syllogism should be discussed before demonstration, because syllogism is the more general; demonstra.tion is a sort of syllogism, but not every syllogism is a
demonstration.' This reference ('subsequently', etc.) is not embedded in the argument, and is easily enough detached. It cannot, however, be neglected. We must consider with it the opening words of the book (24'10) : 'We must first state the subject of our inquiry: its subject is demonstration, or demonstrative science: We can, I believe, feel pretty sure that in these two passages Aristotle himself is speaking. Two interpretations are, however, possible. One is that the words belong to the original structure of the Prior Analytics, that Aristotle's subject all along was demonstration, and that the treatment 0.1 syllogism in the Prior Analy-
tics was meant to be preliminary to the study of demonstration in the Posterior Analytics, on the ground actually given, viz. that it is proper to examine the general nature of a thing before examining its particular nature. The other is that these two sentences
were added after Aristotle had written both works, and reflect simply his afterthought about the logical relation between the two. Obviously this interpretation ascribes a rather disingenuous
procedure to Aristotle. He is supposed to have first worked out a theory of demonstration, without having discovered that demonstration is but a species of syllogism; then to have discovered that it is so, and the nature and rules of the genus to which it belongs, and then to have said 'let us study the genus first, because we
10 INTRODUCTION obviously 'ought to study the genus before the species'. I do not say this procedure is impossible, but I confess that it seems to me rather unlikely. (2) An. Post. i. 3. 73'7. 'It has been shown that the positing of
one term or one premiss . . . never involves a necessary consequent;
two premisses constitute the first and smallest foundation for drawing a conclusion at all, and therefore a fortiori for the demonstrative syllogism of science.' The reference is to An. Pr. 34'16-21 or to 40b3°-7. No proof of the point is offered in the Posterior Analytics itself. If it had not been established already, as it is in the Prior Analytics and there alone, it would be the merest assumption. Therefore to cut out this reference as a late addition would involve cutting out the whole context in which it occurs. (3) lb. 73'II. 'If, then, A is implied in Band C, and Band C are reciprocately implied in one another. it is possible, as has been shown in my writings on syllogism, to prove all the assuf!1ptions on which the original conclusion rested, by circular demonstra-
tion in the first figure . But it has also been shown that in the other figures either no conclusion is possible, or at least none which proves both the original premisses.' Not only are the two explicit references references to An. Pro ii. 5 and ii. 6-7, but the phrases 'the first figure', 'the other figures', which are explained only in the Prio~ Analytics, are 'used as perfectly familiar phrases. Evidently the whole paragraph would have to be treated by Solrnsen as a later addition; and with the omission of this Aristotle's disproof of the view that all demonstration is circular becomes a very broken-backed affair . . (4) i. 16. 80'6. 'Error of attribution occurs through these causes and in this form only-for we found that no syllogism of universal attribution was possible in any figure but the first'-a reference
to An. Pro i. 5-6. Tho reference is vital to the argument; further, it is made in the most casual way; what Aristotle says is simply 'for there was no syllogism of attribution in any other figure'. We can feel quite sure that ch. 16 at least was written after the Prior A nalytics. (5) i. 25. 86b lo. 'It has been proved that no conclusion follows if both premisses are negative.' This is proved ouly in An. Pro i. 4-6; the assumption is vital to the proof in An. Post. i. 25. Summing up the evidence from the references, we may say that references (2), (3), (4), (5) show clearly that An. Post. i. 3, 16, 25
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS I I were written after the Prior Analytics, and that reference (,) is more naturally explained by supposing that the Prior A nalytics was written before and as a preliminary to the Posterior A nalytics. The other references prove nothing except that Aristotle meant the Prior A nalytics to precede the Posterior in the order of instruction. There is, however, another way in which we can consider the explicit references from one book to another. Many of Aristotle's works, taken in pairs, exhibit cross-references backward to one another; and this must be taken to indicate either that the two works were being written concurrently, or that a book which was written earlier was later supplied with references back to the other because it was placed after it in the scheme of teaching-which is what Solmsen supposes to have happened to the Posterior Analytics in relation to the Prior. But it is noticeable that no such crossreferences occur here. The references in the Prior A nalytics to the Posterior are all forward; those in the Posterior A nalytics to the Prior are all backward. If the order of writing did not correspond to the order of teaching, we should expect some traces of the order of writing to survive in the text; but no such traces do survive. This is an argument from silence, but one which has a good deal of weight. We must now tum to consider whether, apart from actual references, the two works give any indication of the order in which they were written. It may probably be said without fear of contradiction that none of the contents of the Prior A nalytics certainly presuppose the Posterior. Let us see whether any of the contents of the Posterior Analytics presuppose the Prior. The scrutiny. involving as it does an accumulation of small points, is bound to be rather tedious; but it will be worth making it if it throws any light on the question we are trying to solve. Broadly speaking, the nature of the evidence is that the Posterior A nalytics repeatedly uses in a casual way terms which have been explained only in the Prior, and assumes doctrines which only there have been proved. If this can be made good, the conclusion is that before the Posterior A nalytics was written either the Prior must have been written, or an earlier version of it which was so like it that Solmsen's contention that the philosophical logic of the Posterior Analytics was an earlier discovery than the formal logic of the Prior falls to the ground.
INTRODUCTION First, then, we note that in An. Post. i. 2. 71b17- I8 Aristotle defines demonstration as a syllogism productive of scientific knowledge, O'uAAoy'O'j.LoS' €1TI..
71'PW'TOV,
'TO
'Tpl'TOY.
i. 9. 8I bro-I4 assumes, as something already known, that every syllogism has three terms, and that an affirmative conclusion requires two affirmative premisses, a negative conclusion an affirmative and a negative premiss. A n. Post. i. 13 is admitted by Solmsen to be later than the Prior Analytics, and rightly so. For according to his general thesis the main framework of the Posterior A nalytics is based on the consideration of a Platonic chain of genera and species-let them be called A, B, C in the order of decreasing extension-and Aristotle contemplates only the inferential connecting of C as subject with A as predicate by means of the intermediate t erm B; i.e., Solmsen conceives Aristotle as being aware, at this stage, only of the first figure of the syllogism, and as discovering later the second and third fignres, which are of course discussed fully in the Prior Analytics. But in this chapter2 an argument in the second figure (referred to quite familiarly in b 24 as 'the middle figure') forms an integral part of Aristotle's treatment of the question under discussion. It is of course easy to say that this is a later addition, but the question is whether we shall not find that so many things in the Posterior Analytics have from Solmsen's point of view to be treated as later additions that it is sounder to hold that the work as a whole is later than the Prior A nalytics. Again, the theme of i. 14 is that 'of all the fignres the most scientific is the first'; i.e. the whole set of figures, and the nomenclature of them as first, second, third, is presupposed. This quite 1 a 1 I i. 6. 74b29-7S117; 7. 7Shu; 9.76 9; II. 77 8; 13. 78hS, 13; Ij. 79 35; 19. 81b17; 24. 86aI4; 25. 86b18j 29. 87b6j 33. Sg114, 16; ii. 2 passim; 3. 90135; 8. 93-'; II passim; 12. 9s l ;36; 17. 99 14, :U. z 7ShI3- 28.
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 13 clearly presupposes the Prior Anrdytics. Not only is the distinction of figures and their nomenclature presupposed, but also the rules, established only in the Prior Analytics, that the second figure proves only negatives' and the third figure only particular propositions.' And further it is assumed without discussion that arguments in the second and third figures are strictly speaking validated only by reduction to the first figure 3-precisely the method displayed in detail in the treatment of these figures in An. Pr oi. 5. 6. It is assumed, again, in i. IS that the minor premiss in the first figure must be affirmative,' and that in the second figure one premiss must be affirmative. s An. Post . i. 17. 8obzo casually uses the phrase TO J.L£r,Op 4KpOV, which presupposes the doctrine of the syllogism stated in An. Pro i.4. b 23 presupposes what is shown at length in An. Pro i. 4, that in the first figure the minor premiss must be affirmative. 8IaS refers casually to 'TO ,.,.'aop l7)(fip.a, the second figure, and 81 aS-I4 relates to error arising in the use of that figure. i. 21 says6 that a negative conclusion may be proved in three ways, and this turns out to mean 'in each of the three figures' ;7 the three figures are expressly referred to in 8zb3O-I. Once more
it is assumed that in the first figure the minor premiss must be affirmative;' the proof is to be found in An. Pro i. 4. i. 23 alludes to arguments in the moods Barbara, Celarent, Camestres, and Cesare. 9 i. 29. 87br6 makes a casual reference to 'the other figures' ; ii. 3. 90b6, 7 a casual reference to the thIee figures; ii. 8. 93'8 a casual
reference to the first figure. Taking together the explicit references and the casual allusions which presuppose the Prior A nalytics, we find that at least the present form of the following chapters must be dated after that work: i. 2,3.6,7,9, II, 13- 17. 19, 21, 23- 5. 29. 33; ii. 2.3.8, II, 12, 17. Thus of the thirty-four chapters of the first book eighteen explicitly (leaving out doubtful cases) presuppose the doctrine of the syllogism as it is stated at length in the Prior Analytics. If the Posterior Analytics was written before the Prior, we should have to assume a very extensive rewriting of it after the Prior A nalytics had been written. I think I should be describing fairly the nature of Solmsen's S
79125. 2 lb. 27. 3 lb. 29. 79b2o-proved in An. Pro l. 5.
7
lb.
1
5- 16, 16-21, 21-8.
79b17- proved in An. Pro i. 4. 6 82b4. 9 84b31- 3,8511- 12. lb. 1. 4
8
INTRODUCTION argument if I said that his attempt is to prove that the philosophical atmosphere of the Posterior A nalytics is an early one, belonging to the time when Aristotle had hardly emerged from Platonism and had not yet attained the views characteristic of his maturity. I will not pretend to cover the whole ground of Solmsen's arguments, but will consider some representative ones. A great part of his case is that the preoccupation of At!. Post. i with mathematics is characteristic of an early period in which Aristotle was still much under the influence of Plato's identification (in the Republic, for instance) of science with mathematics. The preoccupation is not to be denied, but it is surely clear that at any period of Aristotle's thought mathematics must have appeared to him to represent in its purity the ideal of strict reasoning from indubitable premisses- with which alone. in the Posterior Analytics, he is concerned. Throughout the whole of his works we find him taking the view that all other sciences than the mathematical have the name of science only by courtesy, since they are occupied with matters in which contingency plays a part. It is not Plato's teaching so much as the nature of things that makes it necessary for Aristotle, as it in fact makes it ne.cessary for us, to take mathematics as the only completely exact science. Let us come to some of the details of the treatment of mathematics in the Posterior A nalytics. Solmsen claims' that Aristotle there treats points, lines, planes, solids as constituting a chain of F onms-an Academic doctrine professed by him in the Protrepticus but already discarded in the (itself early) first book of the Metaphysics. The conception of a chain of Forms of which each is a specification of the previous one is, of course, Platonic, but there is no evidence that Aristotle ever thought of points, lines, planes, solids as fonming such a chain. Nor is there any evidence that Plato did-though that question must not be gone into here. Let us look at the Aristotelian evidence. What the Protrepticus says2. is: 'Prior things are more of the nature of causes than posterior things; for when the former are destroyed the things that have their being from them are destroyed; lengths when numbers are destroyed, planes when lengths are destroyed, solids when planes are destroyed.' There is no suggestion that planes, for instance, are a species of line. What is said is simply that planes are more complex entities involving lines in their being. I
p.83.
2.
fro 52, p. 60. z6 Rose:t,
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 15 This has nothing to do with a chain of Fonus such as is contemplated in Plato's avvaywyrJ and 8talp€(JL~J where each link is a specification of the one above it. Now what does the Melaphysics say? In.:l 10'7b17- 21 Aristotle mentions the same view, ascribing it to 'some people', but not repudiating it for himself-though he probably would have repudiated one phrase here used of the simpler entities, viz. that they are 'inhering parts' of the more complex; for the view to which he holds throughout his works is that while points are involved in the being of lines, lines in that of planes, and planes in that of solids, they are not component parts of them, since for instance no series of points having no dimension could make up a line having one dimension. M cl. A. 992'1<>-19 is a difficult passage, in which Aristotle is not stating his own view but criticizing that of the Platonists. The . point he seems to be making is this: The Platonists derive lines, planes, solids from different material principles (in addition to formal principles with which he is not at the moment concerned)lines from the long and short, planes from the broad and narrow, solids froIll the deep and shallow. How then can they explain the presence of lines on a plane, or of lines and planes in a solid? On the other hand, if they changed their view and treated the deep and shallow as a species of the broad and narrow, they would be in an equal difficulty; for it would follow that the solid is a kind of plane, which it is not. The view implied as Aristotle's own is that undoubtedly the planes presuppose lines, and the solids planes, but that equally certainly the plane is not a kind of line nor the solid a kind of plane. Now. this view is not the repudiation of anything that is said in the Poslerior Analylics. What Aristotle says' is that the line is present in the being and in the definition of the triangle, and the point in that of the line. But this is not to say that the triangle, for instance, is a species of the line, but ouly that there could not be a triangle unless there were lines, and that the triangle could not be defined except as a figure bounded by three straight lines; i.e., Aristotle is not describing points, lines, plane figures as forming a Platonic chain of Fonus at all. In fact there is no work in which he maintains the difference of ,.<",/ more finnly than he does in the Poslerior A nalylics. The theory expressed in the Prolreplicus and referred to in Met. A and.:l, if it had treated the t
73.35.
I6 INTRODUCTION line as a species of point, the plane as a species of line, etc., would equally have treated points, lines, planes, solids as descending species of number;' but in Post. An. 75'38- b14 he scouts the idea that spatial magnitudes are numbers, and in consequence maintains that it is impossible to prove by arithmetic the propositions of geometry. Thus the doctrine of the Posterior A nalytics is not the 'stupid doctrine which treats numbers, points, lines, planes. solids as a chain of genera and species, but the mature view characteristic of Aristotle throughout his works, that lines, for instance, are not points nor yet made by a.mere summation of points, but yet tbat they involve pain.ts in their being; and Solmsen's reason for placing the Posterior A nalytics earlier than M Bt. A disappears. Again, Solmsen treats the term opor, which is common in the Prior A naly tics and comparatively rare in the Posterior, as the last link in the process by which Aristotle gradually advanced from the Platonic Form, with its metaphysical implications, to something purely logical in its significance, the 'Universal' being the intermediate link. We may, of course, grant that 'Term' is a more colourless notion than 'Form' or even than 'Universal'. standing as it does for anything that may become the subject or predicate of a statement. Solmsen is probably right in describing the three conceptions- Form, Universal, Term- as standing in that same order chronologically. But if so, the more evidence we can find of the word opos (in the sense of 'term') in the Posterior Analytics, the later we shall have to date that work. Solmsen speaks as if the word occurred only thrice.' But I have found examples in i. 3. 72b35, 73~; 19. SIbIO; 22. 84&29, 36, 38; 23. 84brz, 16,27; 25. 86b7, 24; 26. 87'12; 32. 88'36, b5, 6. It is surely clear that the notion was familiar to Aristotle when he wrote the Posterior Analytics; it is also clear that, whatever was the order of writing of the Prior and the Posterior Analytics, it is only natural that the colourless word opor; should occur oftener in the work devoted to formal logic than in that from which metaphysical interests are never absent. Further, it is at least arguable that the casual use of the word in the Posterior Analytics as something quite familiar presupposes the careful definition of it in An. Pr. 24b16. Again, Solmsen treats' the instances Aristotle gives of the second kind of Ka8" aV'T64 -straight and curved as alternative I
See the Proptrepticus passage.
, p. &t.
:z 4
p. 86 n. 2. 73il37- b3.
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 17 necessary attributes of line, odd and even, etc., as corresponding attributes of number-as evidence that Aristotle is still plainly Platonic in his attitude. Might it not be suggested that the nature of things, and not Plato, dictated this simple thought, and that these are facts of which mathematics has still to take account? Take again Sohnsen's argument' to show that when he wrote the Posterior Analytics Aristotle still believed in separately existing Platonic Forms. His only argument for this is the passage in ii. 19. 1ooa4--9 where .Aristotle says: 'From experience-i.e. from the universal now stabilized in its entirety within the soul, the one beside the many which is a single identity within them alloriginate the skill of the craftsman and the knowledge of the man of science.' 'The one beside the many'-this is the offending phrase; and it must be admitted that Aristotle often attacks 'the one beside the many', and insists that the universal exists only as predicable of the many. But is the phrase capable only of having the one meaning, and must we suppose that Aristotle always uses it in the same sense? The passage is not concerned with metaphysics; it is concerned with the growth of knowledge. No other phrase in the chapter in the least suggests a belief in transcendent Forms, and all (I would suggest) that Aristotle is referring to is the recoguition of the universal, not as existing apart from the many, but as distinct from them while at the same time it is 'a single identity within them all'. · This, after all, is not the only passage of the Posterior Analytics which refers to the Forms, and in none of the others is their transcendent being maintained. In i. II. 77'S Aristotle points out that transcendent Forms are not needed to account for demonstration, but only 'one predicable of many'. In i. 22. 83a32 there is the famous remark: 'The Forms we can dispense with, for they are mere sound without sense; and even
if there are such things, they are not relevant to our discussion.' In i. 24. 8Sh,8 he says: 'Because the universal has a single meaning, we are not therefore compelled to suppose that in these examples
it has being as a substance apart from its particnlars---any more than we need make a similar supposition in the other cases of unequivocal universal predication.'
Aristotle states as the conditions of one term's being predicable Ka8' av,.6 of another that the subject term must be the first or
widest of which the predicate term can be proved, and that the
, p.14. c
18
INTRODUCTION predicate term must be proved of every instance of the subject term, and illustrates this by the fact that equality of its angles to two right angles is not a KnO' aVTo attribute of brazen isosceles triangle, or even of isosceles triangle, nor on the other hand of figure, but only of triangle.' 'The fixed order of this line'-figure, triangle, isosceles triangle, brazen isosceles triangle (says Solmsen on p. 87)-' Aristotle owes without doubt to the Platonic 8,aipea«.' But is not the fixed order part of the nature of things, and
does not Aristotle owe his awareness of it to the nature of things rather than to Plato? We must not overdo the habit of attributing everyone's thought to someone else's previous thought; there are facts that are obvious to any clear-headed person who attends to them, and one of these is that, of the given set of terms, triangle is the only one for which having angles equal to two right angles is 'commensurately universal' , neither wider nor narrower than the subject. And if Aristotle need not have owed his insight here to Plato, still less should we be justified in concluding that the Posterior A nalytics is early because in it Aristotle uses a chain of Forms such as Plato might have used; for the fact is that any logician at any time might have used it. A whole section of Solmsen's book' is devoted to showing the substantial identity of Aristotle's theory of apxai with Plato's theory of ',."oUla«<. There can be little doubt tha.t Aristotle's theory of apxai finds its origin in Plato's description of the method of science, in the Republic. But the connexion is not more striking than the difference. For one thing, Plato does not discriminate between the different sorts of starting-point needed and used by science. He simply says:3 'Those who occupy themselves with the branches of geometry and with calculations assume the odd and the even, and the figures, and three kinds of angles, and other things akin to these in each inquiry; and, treating themselves as knowing these, they make them hypotheses and do not think fit to give any further justification of them either to themselves or to others.' Here, as Solmsen points out, it is not at filst sight clear whether what Plato depicts mathematics as assuming is tenns or propositions ;nor, if the latter, what kind of propositions. But I believe Solmsen is right in supposing that what Plato is ascribing to mathematicians is assumptions of the existence of Forms of odd and even, triangles, etc., corresponding to the odd- or evennumbered groups of sensible things, to sensible things roughly I
73b32-74&3.
2
Pp.92-
107.
J 510 C.
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 19 triangular in shape, etc. There is no question of assuming definitions. Observe now how much more developed and explicit is Aristotle's theory of apxnl. He distinguishes first between common principles which lie at the basis of all science, and special principles which lie at the basis of this or that science. Among the latter he distinguishes between hypotheses (assumptions of the existence of certain entities) and definitions.' And finally he lays it down explicitly that while science assumes the definitions of all its terms, it assumes the existence only of the primary entities, such as the unit, and proves the existence of the rest. 2 Next, while Plato insists that the hypotheses of the sciences are really only working hypotheses, useful starting-points, requiring for their justification deduction, such as only philosophy can give, from an unhypothetical principle, Aristotle insists that all the first principles, common and special alike, are known on their own
merits and need no further justification. And while he retains the name 'hypotheses' for one class of these principles, he is careful to say of them no less than of the others that they are incapable of being proved-not only incapable of being proved within the science, as Plato would have agreed, but incapable of being proved at all. The attempt to prove the special principles (which include the hypotheses) is in one passage' mentioned but expressly said to be incapable of success, just as the attempt to prove the common principles is in another passage· referred to merely as a possible attempt, without any suggestion that it could succeed. Further, while the entities which Plato describes mathematicians as assuming are either Forms, or according to another interpretation the 'intermediates' between Forms and sensible things, the entities of which Aristotle describes mathematicians as knowing the definition, and either assuming or proving (as the case may be) the existence, are not transcendent entities at all but the numbers and shapes which are actually present in sensible things, though treated in abstraction from them. In view of all this, valuable as Solmsen's discussion of Greek mathematical method is, I think it does not aid his main contention, that the Posterior A nalytics belongs to an early stage of Aristotle's development in which he was still predominantly under Plato's influence. Solmsen claims' that the following chapters of the first book I
72 '14-24.
.1
76.33--6.
;, 76• 16-25.
4
77.29-3 1.
5
p.
146
n.
2.
INTRODUCTION are early, 'so far as the problems found in them are concerned': 7,9, '7, '9 fl. (i.e. 19-23), 32, 33, and probably 24. 25, 28. 29. This may be true, but, as we have seen, all these chapters, except 20, 22, 28, and 32, in their present form, at least, presuppose the Prior Analytics. It may be added that ch. 22, so far from being Platonic in tone, contains the harshest criticism of the theory of Forms that Aristotle anywhere permits himself.' The chapters which Solmsen claims to be undoubtedly early, not merely dem Problem nach, are 2, 3, 4-6. 74b.. , 10. 76'31-b34, II. 77'26-35. But we have seen that ch. 2 probably presupposes the Prior Analytics, and that ch. 3 has a definite reference to that work and involves knowledge of the three figures. Thus we are left with chs. 4-6. 74b12, 10. 76'31-b34, II. 77'26-35 as all that at the most could be claimed with any confidence as earlier than the Prior Analyticsjust over four columns out of the thirty-seven and a half in the book, These sections, which we might think of as earlier than the Prior Analytics, since they make no use of the theory of syllogism, we are not in the least bound to treat so, since the alleged Platonic features which they are said to show are not specially Platonic at all, but are such as might be found in almost any work of Aristotle. After all, if the Posterior Analytics was later than the Prior, it would be absurd to expect to find proof of this in every one of its chapters. Since, then, a theory which makes so much of a patchwork of the Posterior An'alytics is inherently unlikely, and since many chapters of it are much more clearly late than any are clearly early, I prefer to regard the work, as a whole, as later than the Prior A nalytics-though I should not like to say that there may not be some few chapters of it that were written before that 20
work.
.
But before finally committing ourselves to this view, we ought to consider two general arguments that Solmsen puts forward, One is this: that, having in the Topics recognized two kinds of argument, a dialectical kind resting on 'T01TOt and a scientific kind resting on "'P07(i.U£t S, and having discussed the first kind at length in the Topics, the natural order would be that Aristotle should next discuss the second kind, as he does in the Posterior Analytics, and then and ouly then discuss what was common to both kinds, as he does in the Prior Analytics, That is a natural order, but another would have been equally natural. Already in the Topics Aristotle shows himself well aware of the two kinds of argument. J
83832- 5.
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 21 Might that awareness not have led him directly to trying to discover the form that was common to both kinds? And having got, in the syllogism, a form that guaranteed the entailment of certain conclusions by certain premisses, was it not naturalthat he should then turn to ask what further characteristics than syllogistic validity reasoning must possess in order to be worthy of the name of demonstrative science? Apart from the matters of detail in which, as I have pointed out, the Posterior Analytics presupposes the Prior, I have the impression that throughout it Aristotle betrays the conviction that he already has a method (viz. the syllogism) which guarantees that if certain premisses are true certain conclusions follow, but guarantees no more than this, and
that he is searching for a logic of truth to add to his logic of consistency.
The second general argument of Solrnsen's to which I would refer is this. He contrasts J the assured mastery of its subject which the Prior A nalytics shows from start to finish with the tentative, halting, repetitive manner characteristic of the Posterior A nalytics, and treats this as evidence of the greater maturity of the first-named work. To this argument two answers naturally present themselves. First, it is well known that some of Aristotle's works have come down to us in a much more finished form than others. For reasons which we do not know, some received much more revision from him than others; and there is no difficulty in seeing that the Prior A nalytics was much more nearly ready for the press, to use the modern phrase, than the Posterior. And secondly, the nature of their subject-matters naturally leads to a difference of treatment. The syllogism was a brilliant discovery; but, once its principle was discovered, the detail of syllogistic theory, the discrimination of valid from invalid syllogisms, was almost a mechanical matter; while the philosophical logic treated of in the Posterior A nalytics is a very difficult subject naturally leading to hesitation, to false starts, and to repetition. Anyone who has taught both elementary formal logic and philosophical logic to students will at once see the truth of this, and the falsity of treating the Posterior A nalytics as immature because it treats in a tentative way a subject which is in fact very difficult. The connexion of the syllogism with an Eidos-Kette is Solrnsen's central theme; and if he had confined himself to asserting this, and the consequent priority, in Aristotle's thought, of the recoguition • pp. 143-4·
INTRODUCTION of the first figure to that of the others, I should have agreed heartily with him. But the Prior and the Posterior Analytics seem to me to have the same attitude to the three figures; they both recognize all three, and they both emphasize the logical priority of the first figure; so that in their attitude to the figures I can see no reason for dating the Posterior Analytics earlier than the Prior . And in general, as I have tried to show, Professor Solmsen seems to have under-estimated the maturity of thought in the Posterior Analytics. He is undoubtedly right in urging that in the Posterior A nalytics there is very much which Aristotle has inherited from Plato; but the same might be said of every one of Aristotle's works, and the fact forms no sound reason' for dating this work specially early. It is impossible to speak with any certainty of the date of writing of either of the A nalytics. The latest historical event alluded to is the Third Sacred War, alluded to in An. Pro 69'2, which can hardly have been written before 353 B.C. The allusion to Coriseus in An. Post. 85'24 takes us a little later, since it was probably during his stay at Assos, from 347 to 344, that Aristotle made acquaintance with Coriscus. These allusions may, no doubt, be later additions to works written before these dates, but there are more weighty considerations that forbid us to place the Analytics at an earlier date. Aristotle was born in 384. We must allow time for the writing of the early dialogues, which probably occupied pretty fully Aristotle's twenties. We must allow time for the writing of the Topics, not only a long work but one which Aristotle himself describes as involving the creation of a -new 'TEXVTI out of nothing. and as requiring much labour and much time. I The immense amount of detail involved in the writing of the Prior Analytics must itself have occupied a· considerable period. In the Posterior A nalytics Aristotle has plainly travelled far from the Platonism of his early years. The year 347, in which Aristotle was thirty-seven years old, is about as early a date as can be assigued to the Posterior A nal}'tics. It is harder to fix a terminus ad quem. The allusion to Coriseus by no means pins the writing of the Posterior Analytics down to the period 347- 344; for there are allusions to him in many of Aristotle's works, the writing of which must have spread over a long time. There is, however, one consideration which tells against fixing the date of the A nalytics much later than that period. Individual allusions in one work , Soph. EI . • 83b .6-'84b3.
22
RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 23 to another have not necessarily much weight, since they may be later additions, but where we find an absence of cross-references
works which consistently refer back to another work are probably later than it. There are cross-references between the A tJ,alytics
and the Topics, and if our general view be right the references in the TOPics to the Analytics must be later additions; and so is, probably, the one reference in the De Interpretatione to the Prior Analytics. But it is noticeable that while the Prior Analytics are cited in the Eudemian Ethics and the Rhetoric, and the Posterior Analytics in the Metaphysics, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Nicomachean Ethics, there are no references backwards from
either of the Analytics to any work other than the Topics. This points to a somewhat early date for the two Analytics, and they may probably be assigned to the period 350-344, i.e. to Aristotle's late thirties. This allows for the wide distance Aristotle has travelled from his early Platonism, while it still gives enough time (thougb not too much, in view of his death in 322) for him to write his great works on metaphysics, ethics, and rhetoric, and to carry out the large tasks of historical research which seem to have filled much of his later life.
III THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM ARISTOTLE was probably prouder of his achievement in logic than of any other part of his philosophical thinking. In a well-known passage' he says: 'In the case of all discoveries the results of previous labours that have been handed down from others have been advanced gradually by those who have taken them over, whereas the original discoveries generally make an advance that
is small at first though much more useful than the development which later springs out of them.' This he illustrates by reference to the art of rhetoric, and then he continues: 'Of this inquiry, on the other hand, it was not the case that part of the work had been thoroughly done before, while part had not. Nothing existed at all .. . . On the suhject of reasoning we had nothing else of an earlier date to speak of at all, but were kept at work for a long time in experimental researches.';:
This passage comes at the end of the Sophistici Elenchi, which is an appendix to the Topics; and scholars believe that these
INTRODUCTION 24 works were earlier than the Prior Analytics, in which the doctrine of the syllogism was worked out. If Aristotle was right in distinguishing his achievement in the Topics from his other achievements as being the creation of a new science or art out of nothing. still more would he have been justified in making such a claim when he had gone on to work out the theory of syllogism, which we regard as the greatest of his achievements as a logician. 'Out of nothing' is of course an exaggeration. In the progress of knowledge nothing is created out of nothing; all knowledge, as he himself tells us elsewhere, I proceeds from pre-existing knowledge. There had been, in Greek thought, not a little reflection on logical procedure, such as is implied for instance in Plato's discussions of the method of hypothesis, in the Phaedo and in the Republic. But what Aristotle means, and what he is justified in saying, is that there had been no attempt to develop a systematic body of thought on logical questions. His claim to originality in this respect is undoubtedly justified. The question remains, what Aristotle meant to be doing in his logical inquiries. Did he mean to provide a purely contemplative study of the reasoning process, or to aid men in their reasoning? In the most elaborate classification of the sciences which he offers us (in Metaphysics E)-that into the theoretical, the practical, and the productive sciences-logic nowhere finds a place. Yet certain passages make it probable that he would rather have called it an art than a science. This is in no way contradicted by the fact that in a great part of his logical works he is offering a purely theoretical account of inference. It is inevitable that the exposition of any art must contain much that is purely theoretical; for without the theoretical knowledge of the material of the art and the conditions under which it works, it is impossible to provide the artist with rules for his practical behaviour. Aristotle's practical purpose in writing his logic is indicated clearly by the passage of comment on his own work to which I have already referred. 'Our programme was', he says,2 'to discover some faculty of reasoning about any theme put before us from the most generally accepted premisses that there are.' And again 'we proposed for our treatise not only the aforesaid aim of being able to exact an account of any view. but also the aim of ensuring that in standing up to an argument we shall defend our thesis in the same manner by means of views as generally held as possible'.J I
An. Post. 7Ial-2.
2
Soph. E1. 183a37-8.
;) lb. 183b3-6.
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 25 And 'we have made clear ... the number both of the points with reference to which, and of the materials from which, this will be accomplished, and also from what sources we can become well
supplied with these: we have shown, moreover, how to question or arrange the questioning as a whole, and the problems concerning the answers and solutions to be used against the reasonings of the questioner'.' And a little later he definitely refers to logic as an art, the art which teaches people how to avoid bad arguments, as the art of shoemaking teaches shoemakers how to avoid giving their customers sore feet.:1 This passage, it is true, is an epilogue to his treatment of dialectical. reasoning, in the Topics; but his attitude to the study of the syllogism in Prior Analytics i is the same. That work begins, indeed, with a 'purely theoretical study of the syllogism. But after this first section' there comes another' which begins with the words: 'We must now state how we may ourselves always have a
supply of syllogisms in reference to the problem proposed, and by what road we may reach the principles relative to the problem; for perhaps we ought not only to investigate the construction of syllogisms, but also to have the power of making them.' This purpose of logic-the acquiring of the faculty of discovering syllogisms-is laterS again mentioned as one of the three main themes of Prior A nalytics i. So far, then, Aristotle's attitude to logic is not unlike his attitude to ethics. In his study of each there is much that is pure theory, but in both cases the theory is thought of as ancillary to practice-to right living in the one case, to right thinking in the other. But a change seems to ~ome over his attitude to logic. In the second book of the Prior Analytics, which scholars believe to be later than the first, ch. '9 seems to be the only one that is definitely practical. In the Posterior A nalytics there seems to be none that is so. It is with Prior AnaJytics i that we shall be first concerned; for
it is here that Aristotle, by formulating the theory of syllogism, laid the foundation on which all subsequent logic has been built up, or sowed the seed from which it has grown. How did Aristotle come by the theory of the syllogism? He nowhere tells us, and we are reduced to conjecture. Now in one passage6 he says that
the Platonic 'division' 'is but a small part of the method we have I lb. 8-12. " i. 27-30.
.2:
lb. 18411-8. s 471:2-5.
3
i.
6
46a31-3.
1-26 .
26
INTRODUCTION described; for division h:, so to say, a weak syllogism'; and Heinrich Maier has fastened on the Platonic 'division' as the probable source of the theory of syllogism. He thinks that reflection on the shortcomings of the Platonic method of division . (which Aristotle points out in detail) led him to formulate his own theory. But there is force in Shorey's remark' that 'the insistent and somewhat invidious testing of the Platonic diaeresis by the syllogism reads more like the polemical comparison of two finished and competing methods than the record of the process by which Aristotle felt the way to his own discovery'. In particular, it is clear that syllogism has no connexion with the characteristic element in Platonic division, viz. the recognition of species mutually exclusive, and exhaustive of the genus; there is no 'either ... or' in the syllogism as Aristotle conceives it. But there is another element in Platonic division with which we· may well connect the syllogism, viz. the recognition of chains of classes, in which each class is a specification of that above it in the chain. And, as Shorey pointed out, there is one passage in which Plato comes very near to the principle of the syllogism. In Phaedo 104 e-105 b he says that the presence of a specific nature in an individual introduces into it the generic nature of which the specific nature is a specification; threeness introduces oddness into, and excludes evenness from, any individual group of three things. Now Aristotle's usual mode of formulating a premissthe mode that is almost omnipresent in the Prior Analytics-is to say that one thing 'belongs to' another. Plato is thus in germ formulating the syllogism 'Oddness belongs to threeness, Threeness belongs to this group, Therefore oddness belongs to. this 'group', and the syllogism 'Evenness does not belong to threeness, Threeness belongs to this group, Therefore evenness does not belong to this group' -typical syllogisms in Barbara and Celarent. Plato is not writing logic. His interest is metaphysical; he is working up to a proof of the immortality of the soul. But he recognizes the wider bearings of his contention. He goes on to say' that instead of his old and safe but stupid answer-his typical answer in the first period of the ideal theory-to the question what makes a body hot, viz. that heat does, he will now give a cleverer answer, such as the answer lfire does so' ; the general principle being that the presence of a specific nature in a subject entails the presence of the·corresponding generic nature in it; i.e., I
Class. Philowgy, xix. 6.
Z
loSk.
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 27 he treats it as a universal metaphysical fact that the presence of generic natures in particular things is mediated by the presence of specific forms of these generic natures. And in his theory of first-figure syllogisms Aristotle does little more than give a logical tum to this metaphysical doctrine. The connexion of Aristotle's theory of syllogism with this passage of the Phaedo seems to be made clear, as Shorey points out, by the occurrence not only of the word '1TapF:'iVQL, a word very characteristic of the Theory of Ideas. in Aristotelian passages, I to express the relation of predi-
cate to subject in the propositions of a syllogism, but also of the more definite and unusual words E1TuP'PHV ('to bring in') and uvv","p'p<w ('to bring in along with itself') to express the introduction of the generic nature by the specific." The occurrence of these words in the T apics in this very special meaning is clear evidence of the impression which the Phaedo passage made on Aristotle's mind. But the passage does not seem to have immediately suggested to him the theory of syllogism; for the Topics passages have no reference to that. We may, however, suppose that in course of time, as Aristotle brooded over the question what sort of data would justify a certain conclusion, he
was led to give a logical tum to Plato's metaphysical doctrine, and to say: 'That which will justify us in stating that C is A, or that it is not A, is that C falls under a universal B which drags the wider universal A with it, or under one which excludes A.' This is very easily translated into the language which he uses in formulating the principle of the first figure:' 'Whenever three terms are so related to one another that the last is contained in
the middle as in a whole, and the middle;s either contained in or excluded from' (the same alternatives of which the Phaedo takes account) 'the first as in or from a whole, the extremes must be
related by a perfect syllogism.' And the fact that only the first figure answers to Plato's formula is the reason why Aristotle puts it in the forefront, describes only first-figure arguments as perfect
(i.e. self-sufficient), and insists on justifying all others by reduction to that figure. Aristotle's translation of Plato's metaphysical doctrine into a doctrine from which the whole of formal logic was to develop is a most remarkable example of the fertilization of one brilliant mind by another. An. Pr. 44 a4, 5, 45aIOj Top. 126b22, 25. Cf. Phaedo 104 e 10, I05a3, 4, d 10 with An. Pr. 52b7. Top. 144bI6, 17,27, 29,3o,I57b23. 3 An. Pr. 2Sb32-5. I
2
28
INTRODUCTION The formulation of the dictum de omni et nullo which I have just quoted might seem to commit Aristotle to a purely class-inclusion theory of the judgement, and such a theory does indeed playa part in his thought; for it dictates the choice of the phrases major term, middle term, minor term, which he freely uses. But it by no means dominates his theory of the judgement. For, in the first place, his typical way of expressing a premiss (a way that is almost omnipresent in the Prior Analytics) is not to say 'B is included in A', but to say' A belongs to B', where the relation suggested is not that of class to member but that of attribute to subject. And in the second place, it is only in the Prior A nalytics that the classinclusion view of judgements appears at all. In the De I nterpretatione, where he treats judgements as they are in themselves, not as elements in a syllogism, he takes the subject-attribute view of them; and in the Posterior Analytics, where he treats them as elements in a scientific system and not in mere syllogisms, the universality of judgements means the necessary connexion of subject and predicate, not the inclusion of one in the other. We may next tum to consider how Aristotle assures himself ofthe validity of the valid and of the invalidity of the invalid moods. To begin with, he only assumes the dictum de omni et nullo, which as we have seen guarantees the validity of Barbara and Celarent, in the first figure. It equally guarantees the validity of Darii and Ferio, and of this he offers no proof. But when he comes to consider other possible moods, he has no general principle to which he appeals; he appeals in every case to a pair of instances from which we can see that the given combination of premisses cannot guarantee any conclusion. Take, for instance, the combination All B is A, NoG is B. We cannot infer a negative; for, while all men are animals and no horse is a man, all horses are animals. Nor can we infer an affirmative; for, while all men are animals and no stones are men,
no stones are animals.' The difference of procedure that Aristotle adopts is to a certain degree justified. To point out that all animals are living things, all men are animals, and all men are living things would not show that Barbara is a valid form of . inference; while the procedure he follows with regard to the combination All B is A, No G is B does show that that combination cannot yield a valid conclusion-provided that the propositions he states ('All men are animals', etc.) are true. Yet it is not a completely satisfactory way of proving the invalidity of invalid I
An. Pro 26-2-9.
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 29 combinations; for instead of appealing to their form as the source of their invalidity, he appeals to our supposed knowledge of certain particular propositions in each case. Whereas in dealing with the valid moods he works consistently with ARr for the first figure, MNE for the second, nPE for the third, and, by taking propositional functions denoted by pairs of letters, not actual propositions about particular things, makes it plain that validity depends on form, and thus becomes the originator of formal logic, he discovers the invalidity of the invalid moods simply by trial and error. The insufficiency of the proof is veiled from his sight by the fact that he takes it to be not a mere matter of fallible experience, but self-evident, that all horses are animals and no stones are animals-relying on the correctness of a system of classification in which certain inclusions and exclusions are supposed to be already known. He would have done better to point to the obvious fact that the propositions 'All B is A and -No Cis B' have no tendency to show either that all or some or no C is A or that some C is not A. It is only syllogisms in the first figure that are directly validated by the dictum de omni et mulo. For the validation of syllogisms in the other two figures Aristotle relies on three other methods--conversion, reductio ad impossibile, and €,d1EQ"tS-ahout each of which something must be said. (1) All the moods of the second and third figures but four' are validated by means of the simple conversion of premisses in E or I, with or without change of the order of the premisses and a corresponding conversion of the conclusion. Cesare, for instance, is validated by simple conversion of the major premiss; No P is M, All 5 is M becomes No M is P, All 5 is M, from which it follows directly that no 5 is P. Camestres is validated by conversion of the minor premiss, alteration of the order of the premisses, and conversion of the resultant conclusion; All P is M, No 5 is M becomes No M is 5, All P is M, from which it follows that no P is 5, and therefore that no 5 is P. To such validation no objection can be taken. But in the discussion of conversion which Aristotle prefixes to his discussion of syllogism he says' that All B is A entails that some A is B; and he uses this form of conversion in validating syllogisms in Darapti and Felapton.' In this he comes into conflict with a principle which plays a large I
Viz. Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Disamis, Datisi, Ferison.
2
2Sa7-10.
J
28aI7--22,
26-9.
INTRODUCTION ,3 0 part in modern logic. In modern logic a class may be a class with no members, and if B is such a class it may be true that all B is A, and yet it will not be true that some A is B. In other words, the true meaning of All B is A is said to be There is no B that is not A, or If anything is B, it is A ; and Aristotle is charged with having illegitimately combined with this the assumption that there is at least one B, which is needed for the justification of the inference that some A is B. It must be admitted that Aristotle failed to notice that All B is A, as he understands it, is not a simple proposition, that it indeed includes the two elements which modern logic has detected. But I should be inclined to say with Cook Wilson' that Aristotle's interpretation of All B is A is the naturalinterpretation olit, and that the meaning attached to it by modem logic is more properly expressed by the form There is no B that is not A, or If anything is B, it is A. Aristotle's theory ofthe proposition is defective in that he has failed to see the complexity of the proposition All B is A, as he interprets it; but his interpretation of the proposition is correct, and from it the convertibility of All B is A into Some A is B follows. (.) Wherever moods of the second and third figures can be validated by conversion, Aristotle uses this method. But it is frequently supplemented by the use of reductio ad impossibile, and for the moods Baroco, in the second figure, and Bocardo, in the third, which cannot be validated by conversion, reductio becomes the only or main method of proof. He describes it as one form of uv..u.oyw~S' Ef lnrOO£UEWS.'Z His references to argument Eg tnroe£ClEWS in general, or to the kinds of it other than reductio ad impossibile, J are so slight that not much need be said about it in this I Statement and Inj"ence, i. 2JJ-7. A somewhat similar point of view is well expressed in Prof. J. W. Miller's The Structure oj Aristotelian Logic,"in which, writing from the point of view of a modern logician, he urges that the modem interpretation of 'class' is not the only possible nor the only proper interpretation of it; that it is equally proper to interpret a class as meaning 'those entities which satisfy a propositional function, provided that there is at least one entity which does satisfy the function and at least one entity which does not satisfy the function'; and that Aristotle's system, which adopts this interpretation (though in fact the condition 'and at least one entity which does not satisfy the function' is not required for the justification of Aristotle's conversion of All B is A). falls into place as one part of the wider system which modem logic has erected on its wider interpretation of 2 4ob25-6,4I'37--8. 'class', See especially Prof. Miller's pp, 84"""'95. 3 4Ia37-bI, 45bI5-20~ 50aI6--b4, Aristotle's view. and the development
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 31 general review; clearly it played no great part in his logical theory. This much is clear, that he analysed it into a syllogistic and a nonsyllogistic part. If a certain proposition A is to be proved, it is first agreed by the parties to the argument that A must be true if another proposition B can be proved. This agreement, and the use made of it, are the non-syllogistic part of the argument; the syllogistic part is the proof of the substituted proposition (TIl JLE'TaAatLf3allO/-LEVOV). I B having been proved, A follows in virtue of the agreement (St' ofLOAoytas, eLa uvv07jK1JS, E~ l)77'oO'O'£oos).'2 E.g., if we want to prove that not all contraries are objects of a single science, we first get our opponent to agree that this follows if not all contraries are realizations of a single potentiality. Then we reason syllogistically. Health and disease are not realizations of a single potentiality (since the same thing cannot be both healthy and diseased).' Health and disease are contraries, Therefore not all contraries are realizations of a single potentiality. Then by virtue of the agreement we conclude that not all contraries are objects of a single science." Aristotle divides reductio ad impossibile similarly into two parts -one which is a syllogism and one which establishes its point by the use of a hypothesis.' The two parts are as follows: To validate, for example, the inference involved in Baroco, All P is M, Some 5 is not M, Therefore some 5 is not P, we say: (I) Let it be supposed that all 5 is P. Then, since all P is M, all 5 would be M. (2) But we know that some 5 is not M. Therefore, since we know that all P is M, the other premiss used in (I)- that all 5 is P-must be untrue, and therefore that some 5 is not P must be true. At first sight we might think that the ""69w,. is the supposition that all S. is P (which in fact Aristotle refers to as a v".69"".).' But that is inconsistent with Aristotle's dissection of the argument into two parts. For that hypothesis is used in the first part, which he expressly describes as an ordinary syllogism, while it is the second part that he describes as reasoning Jg lmofMuEwr. The imo8£at~ referred to in this phrase. then, must be something different; and the natural inference is that it is the hypothesis that, of two premisses from which a false conclusion follows, that from it of Theophrastus' theory of hypothetical syllogism, are discussed at length by H. Maier (ii. a 24sr-S7). 1 41 a39, 4SbI8. % 41a40, Soa18, 2S. 3 Clearly a bad reason j but the argument is only meant to be dialectical. of SOal9-28. 5 41'23-'1, 32~4, SOIl29-32. 6 41332.
INTRODUCTION which is not known to be true must be false, and its contradictory true. That this, and not the supposition that all 5 is P, is the ",,60'(7" referred to is confirmed by the distinction Aristotle draws between reductio and other arguments imo(JluEwS, that while in the latter the ",,60'(7" must be expressly agreed by the parties, in the former this need not happen, 3U1 '7"6 cpavEp()II Elva, 'TO if€fi3os.I The reference is to an assumption so obvious that it need not be mentioned, and this must be the assumption that premisses leading to a false conclusion cannot both be true. There is thus an important difference between reductio and other arguments lnro81.u£ws. The latter rest on a mere agreement between two persons, and are therefore merely dialectical; the former rests on an indisputable principle, and is therefore indisputably valid. (3) Finally, in addition to one or both of these methods of validation, Aristotle sometimes uses a third method which he calls EKO",... Take, for instance, the mood Darapti: All 5 is P, All 5 is R, Therefore some R is P. This must be so, says Aristotle ; for if we take a particular 5, e.g. N, it will be both P and R, and therefore some R (at least one R) will be P.' At first sight Aristotle seems to be merely proving one third-figure syllogism by
32
ie
ie
means of another which"is no more obviously valid. He wants to
show that if all 5 is P and all 5 is R, some R is P; and he does so by inferring from' All 5 is P' and' N is 5' that N is P, and from 'All 5 is R' and 'N is 5' that N is R, and finally from 'N is P' and 'N is R' that some R is P; which is just another third-figure syllogism. If this were what he is doing, the validation would be clearly worthless. He can hardly have meant the argument to be taken so; yet how else could he mean it to be taken? He must, I think, mean to be justifying the conclusion by appealing to something more intuitive than abstract proof-to be calling for an act of imagination in which we conjure up a particula:f S which is both Rand P and can see by imagination rather than by reasoning the possession of the attribute P by one R.' Aristotle's essential problem, in the treatment of the three figures, is to segregate the valid from the invalid moods. His procedure in doing so is open to criticism at more than one point. It I 5oa3z-8. The account I have given in Aristotle, 36-7, requires correction at this point. 2 28 a22-6. 3 This is approximately Alexander's explanation: ~ OV 'TOlQVn] ~ 8.. '~,S' ~ xpij'Ta,' & yap 8 l' lK8'a~ws 'Tpr!nroS' 8,' aia87}a~ws ",(v~'TQ' 09. 31- 2).
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 33 most nearly approaches perfection with regard to the valid moods of the first figure; in dealing with them he simply claims that it is self-evident that any two premisses of the form All B is A, All Cis B, or No B is A, All C is B, or All B is A, Some C is B, or No B is A. Some C is B, warrant a certain conclusion in each case.
But in his treatment of the invalid moods he does not point out the formal error involved in drawing a conclusion, e.g. that of reasoning from knowledge about part of a class to a conclusion about the whole. ' He relies instead on empirical knowledge (or supposed knowledge) to show that, major and middle term being related in a certain way, and middle and minor term being related in a certain way, sometimes the major is in fact true of the minor and sometimes it is not. He thus shows that certain forms of premiss cannot warrant a conclusion, but he does not show why they cannot do so. With regard to the other two figures, his chief defect is that he never formulates for them (as modern logicians have done) distinct principles of inference just as self-evident as the dictum de omni et nullo is for the first figure, but treats them throughoutor almost throughout-as validated only hy means of the first figure. In fact the only points at which he escapes from the tyranny of the first figure are those at which he uses £K9('1« to show the validity of certain moods. We have seen that his concentration on the first figure follows from the lead given hy Plato. But it would be a mistake to treat it as a historical accident. We must remember that Aristotle undertook the study of syllogism as a stage on the way to the study of scientific method. Now science is for him the knowledge of why things are as they are. And the plain fact is that only the first figure can exhibit this. Take the second figure. If we know that nothing having a certain fundamental nature has a certain property, and that a certain thing has this property, we can infer that it has not that fundamental nature. But it is not because it has that property that it has not that fundamental nature, but the other way about. The premisses supply a ratio cognoscendi, but not the ratio essendi, of the conclusion. Or take the third figure. If we know that alI things having a certain fundamental nature have a certain property and also a certain other property, we can certainly infer that some things having the second property also have the first; but the fact that certain things have each of two properties is not the reason why the properties are compatible; again we have only . . .5
D
. INTRODUCTION 32 . which is not known to be true must be false, and its contradictory true. That this, and not the supposition that all 5 is P, is the inr68ECltr referred to is confinned by the distinction Aristotle draws between reductio and other arguments £~ .zl7To8laEWS, that while in the latter the lm08WLS must be expressly agreed by the parties, in the former this need not happen, SLa. TO q,av€pov Elva, 1'0 "'€liSos.! The reference is to an assumption so obvious that it need not be mentioned, and this must be the assumption that premisses leading to a false conclusion cannot both be true. There is thus an important difference between reductio and other arguments ~Oe'aEws. The latter rest on a mere agreement between two persons, and are therefore merely dialectical; the fonner rests on an indisputable principle, and is therefore in~ disputably valid. (3) Finally, in addition to one or both of these methods of validation, Aristotle sometimes uses a third method which he calls lK8,ULS. Take, for instance, the mood Darapti: All 5 is P, All 5 is R, Therefore some R is P. This must be so, says Aristotle; for if we take a particular 5, e.g. N, it will be both P and R, and therefore some R (at least one R) will be P.' At first sight Aristotle seems to be merely proving one third-figure syllogism by means of another which' is no more obviously valid. He wants to show that if all 5 is P and all 5 is R, some R is P; and he does so by inferring from 'All 5 is P' and 'N is 5' that N is P, and from 'All 5 is R' and 'N is 5' that N is R, and finally from 'N is P' and 'N is R' that some R is P; which is just another third-figure syllogism. If this were what he is doing, the validation would he clearly worthless. He can hardly have meant the argument to be taken so; yet how else could he mean it to be taken? He must, I think, mean to be justifying the conclusion by appealing to something more intuitive than abstract proof-to be calling for an act of imagination in which we conjure up a particula:r;: S which is both Rand P and can see by imagination rather than by reasoning the possession of the attribute P by one R' Aristotle's essential problem, in the treatment of the three figures, is to segregate the valid from the invalid moods. His procedure in doing so is open to criticism at more than one point. It
J,
I 5oa32-8. The account I have given in Aristotle, 36-7, requires correction at this point. 2 28 a 22-6. 3 This is approximately Alexander's explanation: '? 0':' TO~(1tM-"1 ~ 8Eie~s V xpijT(1~' 0 yap o~' €KSEClEWS 'TprmOS at' (1lClS~ClEWS ylVE'TUt (99. 31- 2).
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 33 most nearly approaches perfection with regard to the valid moods of the first figure; in dealing with them he simply claims that it is self-evident that any two premisses of the form All B is A, All Cis B, or No B is A, All Cis B, or All B is A, Some C is B, or No B is A, Some C is B, warrant a certain conclusion in each case. But in his treatment of the invalid moods he does not point out the formal error involved in drawing a conclusion, e.g. that of reasoning from knowledge about part of a class to a conclusion about the whole. ' He relies instead on empirical knowledge (or supposed knowledge) to show that, major and middle term being related in a certain way, and middle and minor term being related in a certain way. sometimes the major is in fact true of the minor
and sometimes it is not. He thus shows that certain forms of premiss cannot warrant a conclusion. but he does not show why
they cannot do so. With regard to the other two figures, his chief defect is that he never formulates for them (as modem logicians have done) distinct principles of inference just as self-evident as the dictum de omni et nuUo is for the first figure, but treats them throughoutor almost throughout-as validated only by means of the first figure. In fact the only points at which he escapes from the tyranny of the first figure are those at which he uses EKO",.. to show the validity of certain moods. We have seen that his concentration on the first figure follows from the lead given by Plato. But it would be a mistake to treat it as a historical accident. We must remember that Aristotle undertook the study of syllogism as a stage on the way to the study of scientific method. Now science is for him the knowledge of why things are as they are. And the plain fact is that only the first figure can exhibit this. Take the second figure. If we know that nothing having a certain fundamental nature has a certain property, and that a certain thing has this property, we can infer that it has not that fundamental nature. But it is not because it has that property that it has not that fundamental nature, but the other way about. The premisses supply a ratio eognoseendi, but not the ratio essendi, of the conclusion. Or take the third figure. If we know that all things having a certain fundamental nature have a certain property and also a certain other property, we can certainly infer that some things having the second property also have the first; but the fact that certain things have each of two properties is not the reason why the properties are compatible; again we have only 4985
D
34
INTRODUCTION
a ratio cognoscendi. This is true of all arguments in the second or third figure. Now not all arguments in the first figure give a ratio essend;. If we know that all things having a certain property must
have a certain fundamental nature, and that a certain class of things have that property, we can infer that they have that fundamental nature, but we have not explained why they have it. But with properly chosen terms a first-figure argument can explain facts. If we know that all things having a certain fundamental nature must in consequence have a certain property, and that a certain class of things have that fundamental nature, we can know not only that but why they must have that property. In other words, while the other two figures can serve only for discovery of facts, the first figure can serve both for discovery and for explanation.
There is another difference between the first figure and the other two which helps to explain and in part to justify the predominant position that Aristotle assigns to the first figure; that is, its greater naturalness. It is natural that a term which is subject in a premiss should be subject in the conclusion, and that a term which is predicate in a premiss should be predicate in the conclusion; and it is only in the first figure that this happens. In the second figure, where P and 5 are suhjects in the premisses, one of them must become predicate in the conclusion; and what is more,
there is nothing in the form of the premisses to make either P or 5 a more natural predicate for the conclusion than the other. In the third figure, where P and 5 are predicates in the premisses, one of them must become subject in the conclusion; and in the form of the premisses there is nothing to suggest which of the two terms is to become subject. The difference between the three figures lies, according to Aristotle, in the fact that in the first the connecting term is predicated of the minor (i.e. of the subject of the conclusion) and has the major (i.e. the predicate of the conclusion) predicated of it, in the second the connecting term is predicated of both, and in the third it is subject of both. This naturally raises the question why he does not recognize a fourth figure, in which the connecting
term is predicated of the major and has the minor predicated of it. The answer is that his account of the syllogism is not derived from a formal consideration of all the possible positions of the middle term, but from a study of the way in which actual thought proceeds, and that in our actual thought we never do reason in the
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 35 way described in the fourth figure. We found a partial unnaturalness in the second and third figures, due to the fact that one of the extreme terms must become predicate instead of subject in the second figure, and one of the extreme tern,s subject instead of predicate in the third; the fourth figure draws a completely unnatural conclusion where a completely natural conclusion is possible. From All M is P, All S is M, instead of the natural first-figure conclusion, All S is P, in which P and S preserve their roles of predicate and subject, it concludes Some P is S, where both terms change their roles. A distinction must be drawn, however, between the first three moods of the fourth figure and the last two. With the premisses of Bramantip (All A is B, All B is C) the only natural conclusion is All A is C, with those of Camenes the only natural conclusion is No A is C, with those of Dimaris it is Some A is C; and if we want instead from the given premisses to deduce respectively Some C is A, NoC is A, SomeC is A, the natural way to do this is to draw the natural conclusions, and then convert these. And this is how Aristotle actually treats the matter, instead of treating Bramantip, Camenes, Dimaris as independent moods. I The position with regard to Fesapo (No A is B, All B is C, Therefore some C is not A) and F resison (No A is B, Some B is C, Therefore some C is not A) is different; here no first-figure conclusion can be drawn from the premisses as they stand; for if we change the order of the premisses to get them into the first-figure form, we get a negative minor premiss, which in the first figure can yield no conclusion. To get first-figure premisses which will yield a conclusion we must convert both premisses, and then we get in both cases No B is A, Some Cis B, Therefore some C is not A . This also Aristotle points out. 1 Thus he recognizes the validity of all the inferences which later logicians treated as moods of a fourth figure, but treats them, more sensibly, by way of two appendixes to his treatment of the first figure. There is a certain misfit between Aristotle's definition of syllogism and his actual account of it. His definition is a definition of the meaning of the word as it was occasionally already used in ordinary Greek, and it is a definition which might stand as a definition of inference in general-ov,u,oywJLOS- ECI'n. .\oyoS' EV 0/ 7'£8lll'rwv TWWV ET£pOV T(. TWV K£tpiVWV €tva(..l I
Eg civaYKr]S' avp,{1alvn Tcfj Tam-a
But in his actual usage he limits ClVAAoytap.6s- to inference
An. Pro 53a3- 12.
2 29aI9-26.
l 24bI8-20.
INTRODUCTION whose nerve depends on one particular relation between terms, that of subject and predicate. It is now, of course, well known that many other relations, such as that of 'equal to' or 'greater than', can equally validly serve as the nerve of inference. The fact that he did not see this must be traced to the fact that while he rightly (in the Posterior A nalylics) treats mathematical reasoning as the best example of strict scientific reasoning, he did not in fact pay close attention to the actual character of mathematical reasoning. In a chain of mathematical reasoning there are often syllogisms included, but there are also many links in the chain which depend on these other relations and cannot be reduced to syllogisms. For his examples of reasoning Aristotle depended in ·fact more on non-scientific reasoning in which special relations such as that of equality do not playa very large part, and subsumption plays a much larger part. Yet it was not a mere historical accident, due to the atmosphere of general and non-scientific argument in which he was brought up, that he concentrated on the syllogism. The truth is that while many propositions exhibit such special relations, all propositions exhibit the subject-predicate relation . If we say A is equal to B, we say that A is related to B by the relation of equality, but we also say that A is related to equality 10 B by the subject-predicate relation. And it was only proper that the earliest theory of reasoning should concentrate on the common form of all judgement rather than on particular forms which some judgements have and others have not. It is true that often, while consideration of the general form will not justify any inference (since a fallacy of four terms will be involved), attention to the special form will do so. But Aristotle at least does not make the mistake of trying to reduce the relational forms to syllogistic form. He simply fails to take account of them; he does not say what is false, but only fails to say something that is true. There is this further to be said, that while it is possible to work out exhaustively the logic of valid syllOgistic forms, and Aristotle in fact does so with complete success as regards the assertoric forms of judgement (though he makes some slips with regard to the problematic forms), it is not possible to work out exhaustively the logic of the various relational forms of judgement. We can point out a certain number of types, but we can never say these are all the valid types there can be. The logic of syllogism is thus the fundamental part of the logic of inference, and it was in
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 37 accordance with the proper order of things that it should be the first to be worked out. Aristotle not infrequently speaks as if there were other forms of inference than syllogism-induction, example, enthymeme. But there is an important chapter l in which he argues that if inference is to be valid it must take the syllogistic form; and that this was his predominant view is confirmed when we look at what he says about these other types. He means by induction, in different places, quite different things. There is the famous chapter of the Prior A nalytics in which induction is reduced to syllogistic form. Z
But the induction which is so reduced is the least important kind of induction-the perfect induction in which, having noted that membership of any of the species of a genus involves possession
of a certain attribute, we infer that membership of the genus involves it. More often 'induction' is used by Aristotle to denote something that cannot be reduced to syllogistic form, viz. the process by which, from seeing for instance that in the triangle we have drawn (or rather in the perfect triangle to which this is an approximation) equality of two sides involves equality of two angles, we pass to seeing that any isosceles triangle must have two angles equal. This cannot be regarded as an inference; if you regard the first proposition as a premiss you find that the second does not follow from it; the 'induction' is a fresh act of insight. Thus the only sort of induction which Aristotle, in all probability, regarded as strict inference is that which he reduces to syllogism. The kind of inference which he calls example is just an induction followed by a syllogism; and enthymeme is just a syllogism in which the propositions are not known to be true but believed to be probable. There are, however, two kinds of inference which Aristotle regards as completely valid and yet not syllogistic. One is the non-syllogistic part of reductio ad impossibile . In cannexion with
reductio he makes the remark that the propositions by which a proposition is refuted are not necessarily premisses, and the negative result the conclusion, SC. of a syllogism.) The same point is made in another passage, in which he points out the existence of arguments which, while conclusive, are not syllogistic; e.g. 'Substance is not annihilated by the annihilation of what is not substance; but if the elements out of which a thing is made are annihilated, that which is made out of them is de, .. I An. Pro i. 23. n. 23.
INTRODUCTION stroyed; therefore any part of substance must be substance'; or again, 'If it is necessary that animal should exist if man does, and that substance should · exist if animal does, it is necessary that substance should exist if man does . . .. We are deceived in such cases because something necessary results from what is assumed, since the syllogism also is necessary. But that which is necessary is wider than the syllogism; for every syllogism is necessary, but not everything that is necessary is a syllogism.'l Here is a clear recognition of inference that is conclusive but not syllogistic, and we must regret that Aristotle did not pursue farther what he here so clearly recognizes.
Some logicians have attacked the whole theory of syllogism on the ground that syllogism is not a valid inference at all but a petitio principii. Now the essence of a petitio principii is that it assumes two propositions of which one or other cannot be known unless the conclusion is already known; and the charge of petitio principii against the syllogism must therefore assert that either the major premiss or the minor premiss presupposes knowledge of the conclusion. This charge is nowhere, so far as I know, better discussed than it is by Joseph in his Introduction to Logic.' There are two ways, as he points out, of interpreting the major premiss of a syllogism, which would in fact reduce syllogism to a petitio principii. If the major premiss is an empirical generalization, we cannot know it to be true unless we already know the conclusion. We say in the syllogism All B is A, All C is B, Therefore all C is A ; but if· All B is A is an empirical generalization we do not know it to be true unless we already know that all C is A. On the other hand, if All B is A is merely an explanation of the sense in which the name for which B stands is being used, we have no right to say All C is B unless we already know that all C is A. Thus on one interpretation of the major premiss, that premiss commits a petitio principii; and on another interpretation of the major premiss, the minor premiss commits one. The value of syllogism thus depends on the major premiss's being neither an empirical generalization nor a verbal definition (or partial definition). It depends in fact on its being both a priori and synthetic; and of course the possibility of our knowing such propositions has been severely attacked by the Positivist schoo!. But it has outlived such attacks in the past and is likely to do so again. The arguments brought in support of the attack are not I An. Pro 47a22-35. 2 278-82.
THE PURE OR ASSERTORIC SYLLOGISM 39 very strong, and for my own.part I think they cannot stand up against criticism.' It seems probable that Aristotle's theory of syllogism will not founder in a sea of discredit, but will always be regarded as the indispensable foundation offormallogic. Aristotle nowhere defends the syllogism against the charge of petitio principii, which we first find in Sextus Empiricus ;' but he would have had his own defence. He would have had to admit that the form of the major premiss, 'All B is A' or 'A belongs to all B', is compatible with its being either an empirical generalization or a nominal definition of B, and that when it is either of these, the syllogism is a petitio principii. But he would have pointed out that in dealing with a certain type of subject-matter (e.g. in mathematics) a universal truth may be ascertained by the consideration of even a single instance-that the generic universal is different from the enumerative. You may know by a universal proof that all triangles have their angles equal to two right angles, without having examined every triangle in the world,3 and even without having examined the various species of triangle. Again, to the objection that we have no right to say that all C is B unless we know it to have all the attributes of B, including A, he would have replied by his distinction of property from essence. Among the attributes necessarily involved in being B he distinguishes a certain set of fundamental attributes which is necessary and sufficient to distinguish B from everything else; and he regards its other necessary attributes as flowing from and demonstrable from these. To know that C is B it is enough to know that it has the essential nature of B-the genus and the differentiae; it is not necessary to know that it has the properties of B. Thus each premiss may be known independently of the conclusion, and neither premiss need commit a petitio principii. The objector might then say that the premisses taken together commit a petitio principii, that we cannot know both without already knowing the conclusion. To this Aristotle would have replied by a distinction between potential and actual knowledge. In knowing the premisses we potentially know the conclusion; but to know anything potentially is not to know it, but to be in such' a state that given one further condition 'we shall pass immediately to knowing it. The further condition that is needed I Such, for instance, as is,brought against them by Dr. Ewing in Proc. of ATist. Soc. xl (1939-40), 207-44. l Pyrrh. Hypot. 195- 203. 3 An. P,. 67&8-21 .
INTRODUCTION in order to pass from the potential to the actual knowledge of the conclusion is the seeing of the premisses in their relation to each other: ou yap '.-"lerraTal. on 'TO A T
IV THE MODAL SYLLOGISM ARISTOTLE does not in the Prior Analytics tell us what he means by a 'necessary premiss'; he treats as self-evident the distinction between this and one which only professes to state a mere fact. The test he applies is simply the presence or absence of the word o.vaYK7] . But while the disti~ction between a necessary and an assertoric premiss is this purely grammatical one, as soon as the question of validity arises we must take account of the fact that a necessary proposition is true only if what it states is a neces· sary fact; and there is for Aristotle a most important distinction between a necessary fact and a mere fact. In his choice of examples, in An. Pro i.!}-II he seems sometimes to be obliterating this distinction. Consider for instance 30bS-{i. To show that. in the first figure. premisses of the form EIn warrant only an assertorle, not an apodeictic, conclusion he takes the example '(a) No animal is in movement. (b) Some white things are necessarily animals. But it is not a necessary fact that some white things are not in movement.' And then consider ib. 33--8. To show that. in the second figure. premisses of the form A nE warrant only an assertorie, not an apodeictic, conclusion he takes the example '(c) Every man is necessarily an animal. (d) Nothing white is an animal. But it is not a necessary fact that nothing white is a man.' It looks as if in (b) Aristotle were treating it as a necessary fact that some white things are animals. and in (d) treating it as a fact that nothing white is an animal. But he is not to be 1 An. Pr o 67136-7. 2 24bI9. 3 67a12-bII, An. Post. 7I124-bS, 86 1 22-9.
THE MODAL SYLLOGISM accused of inconsistency here. He is not saying that some white things are necessarily animals and then that nothing white is an animal. These are simply illustrative propositions; he is merely saying that if propositions a and b were true, it might still not he necessary that some white things should not be in movement, and that if propositions c and d were true, it might still not be necessary that nothing white should be a man. His examples, then, throw no light on the question what kinds of facts he regards as necessary, and what kinds as not necessary. But we should be justified in supposing that he draws the distinction at the point where he draws it in the Posterior Analytics, where he tells us that the connexion between a subject and any element in its definition (i.e. any of the classes to which it essentially belongs, or any of its differentiae), or again between a subject and any property which follows from its definition, is a necessary connexion. while its connexion with any other attribute is an accidental one.
The most interesting feature of Aristotle's treatment of apodeictic syllogisms is his doctrine that certain combinations of an apodeictic and an assertoric premiss warrant an apodeictic
conclusion. The rule he lays down for the first figure is that an apodeictic major and an assertoric minor may yield such a con-
clusion, while an assertoric major and an apodeictic minor cannot. The rules for the other two figures follow from those for the first (since for Aristotle the validity of these figures depends on their reducibility to the first), and need not be separately considered. We know from Alexander' that the followers of Eudemus and Theophrastus held the opposite doctrine, that if either premiss is assertoric the conclusion must be so, just as if either premiss is negative the conclusion must be so, and if either premiss is particular the conclusion must be so, and that they summed up their view by saying that the conclusion must be like the 'inferior premiss'. Nothing is really gained by the comparison; the question must be considered on its own merits. The arguments on which Theophrastus relied were two in number: (1) 'If B belongs to all C, but not of necessity, the two may be disjoined, and when B is disjoined from C, A also will be disjoined from it." Or, as the argument is put elsewhere by Alexander, since the major term is imported into the minor through the middle term, the major I
124.8-127. 16.
a
124. 18-21.
INTRODUCTION 42 cannot be more closely related to the minor than the middle is.' (2) He pointed to examples, quite comparable to those which Aristotle uses to prove his point : (a) Every man is necessarily an animal, and it might be true at some time that everything that was in movement was a man : but it could not be true that everything in movement was necessarily an animal. (b) Every literate being necessarily has scientific knowledge, and it might be true that every man was literate; but it could not be true that every man necessarily has scientific knowledge. (c) Everything that walks necessarily moves, and it might be true that every man was walking; but it could not be true that every man was necessarily in movement. 2 We need not concern ourselves with an attempt that was made to water down Aristotle's view so as to free it from these objections-an attempt which, Alexander points out, is a complete misunderstanding of what Aristotle says.' Aristotle bases his case on the general statement 'since A of necessity belongs, or does not belong, to B, and C is one of the B's, evidently to C too A will necessarily belong, or necessarily not belong' .' I.e. he takes it as self-evident that if A is necessarily true of B, it is necessarily true of everything of which B is in fact true. A further light is thrown on Aristotle's reasoning, by what he says of one of the combinations which he describes as not yielding an apodeictic conclusion-the cOn;>bination All B is A, Some C is necessarily B. This, he says, does not yield an apodeictic conclusion, OVSEV yap dSt1vo:rov aV/Jlrr{1T7'Et, 'for it cannot be established by a reductio ad impossibile'.s He clearly held that in the cases where an apodeictic conclusion does follow, it can be established by a reductio. The cases ar~ four in number; A nAA n, EnAE", A nIIn, EnIOn. In principle all four cases raise the same problem, and it is only necessary to consider A nAA "-'All B is necessarily A, All C is B, Therefore all C is necessarily A . For if some C were not necessarily A, then since all Cis B, some B would not necessarily be A.' The reductio syllogism gives a conclusion which contradicts the original major premiss, and the contradiction seems to establish the original conclusion. And, further, by using the reductio ArisI 124. 31- 12 5. 2. .. An. Pro 300.21-3.
1
AI. 124. 24- 30.
5 30bt-S .
THE MODAL SYLLOGISM 43 totle seems to get round the prima facie objection to the original syllogism, that it has a premiss 'weaker' than the conclusion it draws; for the reductio syllogism is not open to this objection. Yet Aristotle's doctrine is plainly wrong. For what he is seeking to show is that the premisses prove not only that all C is A, but also that it is necessarily A just as all B is necessarily A, i.e. by a permanent necessity of its own nature; while what they do show is only that so long as all C is B, it is A, not by a permanent necessity of its own nature, but by a temporary necessity arising from its temporarily sharing in the nature of B.' It is harder to point out the fallacy in the reductio, but it can be pointed out. What Aristotle is in effect saying is that three propositions cannot all be true-that some C is not necessarily A, that all C is B, and that all B is necessarily A ; and if 'necessarily A' meant the same in both cases this would be so. But in fact, if the argument is to prove Aristotle's point, 'necessarily' in the first proposition must mean 'by a permanent necessity of C's nature', and in the third proposition 'by a permanent necessity of B's nature', and when the propositions are so interpreted we see that the three propositions may all be true together. Thus the reductio fails, and with it what Alexander rightly recognizes as the strongest argument for Aristotle's view. 2 Aristotle's treatment of problematic syllogisms depends, of course, on his conception of the meaning of the word EVS'XE'TaL, which occurs in one or both of the premisses of a problematic syllogism. This conception we have to gather from four passages of considerable difficulty, none perhaps intelligible without assistance from one or more of the others-zsa3i-hz5. 3ZaI6-b22, 33bz533. 36b3S-37a3I. I have considered these passages in cannexion with one another in my note on 25'37-b'9; the general upshot is all that need be mentioned here. In all his treatment of problematic syllogisms Aristotle recognizes two and only two senses of Ev3EXOJLEVOV. In a loose sense it means 'not impossible'. but in its strict sense it means 'neither impossible nor necessary'. These are, indeed, the only meanings which the word could be said naturally to bear. But in each of the two senses the word has two applications. That which is Aristotle recognizes the distinction. in the words olll( ;a'7w alla.)ll(aioll «?TAWs, TO,",""V OI"7(1.1V Q.1la.YKaiov (Job 32-3), but unfortunately does not apply it impartially to all combinations of an apodeictic with an assertoric premiss. I
ilia z
12 7.3- 14.
INTRODUCTION 44 known or thought to be necessary may be said a fortiori to be possible in the loose sense; and that which, without being known or thought to be necessary, is known or thought to be not impossible, may be said to be possible in the loose sense. And again, that which has a natural tendency to be the case or to happen, and is the case or happens in most instances, may be s.aid to be possible in the strict sense; and that whose being the case or happening is a matter of pure chance may be said to be possible in the strict sense. This latter distinction is one to which Aristotle attaches much importance; he says for instance that while science may deal with that which happens for the most part, as well as with that which is necessary, it cannot profitably deal with that which is a matter of pure chance. But while this distinction is of great importance in its own place, and is mentioned in the Prior A nalytics,' it plays no part in Aristotle's treatment of the problematic syllogism ; it is in fact more pertinent to the Posterior Analytics, which is concerned with science, than to the Prior Analytics, which is concerned simply with valid syllogism. In his treatment of this, Aristotle always takes ..SIX.Ta. in a premiss as meaning 'is neither impossible nor necessary' ; where the only valid conclusion is one in which Jv8€XE'T'Qt means 'is not impossible', he is as a rule careful to point this out. For the understanding of the chapters on problematic syllogism, two further points must be kept in mind: (r) Aristotle points out a special form of &.JmUTpO"'~ (what I have called complementary conversion) which is valid for propositions that are problematic in the strict sense: 'That all B should be A is contingent' entails 'That no B should be A is contingent' and 'That some B should not be A is contingent'. 'That no B should be A is contingent' entails 'That all B should be A is contingent' and 'That some B should be A is contingent'. That some B should be A is contingent' entails That some B should not be A is contingent', and vice versa. 2 This form of conversion (whose validity follows from the strict sense of
:&
32129'-35.
3
36b3S-37a3I.
THE MODAL SYLLOGISM 4S tions stating conjunctions of subject and attribute to be possible in the stTict sense, are the same as the rules for the convertibility of assertoric and apodeictic propositions (A propositions convertible per accidens, E and I propositions simply, 0 propositions not at all), a proposition of the form 'Tllat no B should be A is contingent' does not entail 'That no A should be B is contingent'. This follows from the fact that since (i) 'For every B, being A is contingent' entails (ii) 'For every B, not being A is contingent', and (iii) 'For every A, not being B is contingent' entails (iv) 'For every A, being B is contingent', therefore if (ii) entailed (iii), (i) would entail (iv) , which plainly it does not. On the other hand, both 'For every B, not being II is contingent' and 'For some B's, not being A is contingent' entail 'For some A's, not being B is contingent'. This apparent divergence from the general principle that universal negative propositions are simply convertible, and particular negative propositions not convertible, has from early times awakened suspicion. Alexander tells us' that Theophrastus and Eudemus rejected both the dicta stated in our last paragraph and the doctrine of the complementary conversion of propositions asserting possibility in the strict sense. Maier, following Theophrastus and Eudemus, has a long passage' in which he treats the dicta of our last paragraph as an aberration on Aristotle's part, and tries to explain how he came to commit it. But Alexander defends the master against the criticism of his followers, and he is right. If Aristotle's reasoning is carefully followed, he is seen to be completely justified. Those who have criticized him have done so because they have not completely grasped his conception of strict possibility, i.e. of contingency, in which the contingency of B's being A and the contingency of its not being A are logically equivalent. This once grasped, it {ollows at once that if the statement of a universal affirmative possibility is (as everyone admits) only convertible per accidens, so must be the statement of a universal negative possibility. And this is no divergence from the general principle that while A propositions are only convertible per accidens, E propositions are convertible simply; for 'For every B, being A is contingent' and 'For every B, not being A is contingent' are, as Aristotle himself observes,' both affirmative propositions. A statement which denies the existence of a possibility is not a problematic statement at all, but a disjunctive statement asserting the existence either of necessity or of impossibility. I 159.8-13,220.9-221. 5.
a 2. a 37- 47.
3
2SbI9-24.32bl-3.
INTRODUCTION If these general features of Aristotle's theory of the problematic proposition are kept in mind, it becomes not too difficult to follow his detailed treatment of syllogisms with one or both premisses problematic, in An. Pr. i. '4-22. Of all the valid syllogisms of this type, few escape his notice; of those that do not need comple_mentary conversion for their v~lidation. none does, but of those that require such conversion several are omittedl- no doubt because, having mentioned the possibility of such validation in many cases, he does not think it necessary to mention it in all. The method of reduction of syllogisms which he adopts is in a few cases inconclusive, but these occasional flaws do not prevent the discussion from being a most remarkable piece of analysis. The fact that Theophrastus denied the convertibility of lvSlx.ra, 1TaVTl Tip B TO A inrapXELv with Ev8lXETat JL718EVI. Tip B TO A inraPXEw shows that he was ·interpreting
See instances in the table at facing p. 286.
z A1. I73. 32-174. 3.
THE MODAL SYLLOGISM 47 'Some C is not A'.' His proof of the first of these entailments (and that of the other follows suit) is as follows: 'Suppose that some C is A, and convert the major premiss. Then we have All A is necessarily not B, Some C is A, which entail Some C is necessarily not B. But ex hypothesi for all C, being B is contingent. Therefore our supposition that some C is A was false, and No C is A is true.' It will be seen that Aristotle tries to validate the inference by reductio to a syllogism with an apodeictic and an assertoric premiss. and an apodeictic conclusion; and we have already' seen reason t o deny the validity of such an inference. Aristotle is at fault, and Theophrastus' doctrine that the conclusion follows in its nature the weaker premiss is vindicated.
V INDUCTION THE chief method of argument recognized by Aristotle apart from syllogism is induction: in one passage3 he says broadly a1TaV'TG. mtTTEvojLEV 1j 3ul (1l),uoy,ap.ov ~ Jg £1raywYiis-, and in others" the same general distinction is implied. And since syllogism is the form in which demonstration is cast, a similar broad opposition between induction and demonstration is sometimess found. The general distinction is that demonstration proceeds from universals to particulars, induction from particulars to universals. 6 The root idea involved in Aristotle's usage of the words E1tI:tYEtv
and b,ay'"Y'7 is not (as Trendelenburg argued) that of adducing instances, but that of leading some one from one truth to another.' So far as this goes, ordinary syllogism might equally he described as E1TayWYJ1. and €rTaynv is occasionally used of ordinary syllogism. s And in general Aristotle clearly means by '"aywY'7 not the adducing of instances but the passage from them to a universal conclusion. But there are occasional passages in which E1TCLK'T'KOS. 9 E1TCLKTtKWS/ O and E1Tayw,qIl are used of the adducing of instances; and it seems to. be by a conflation of these two usages that £1TayW'Y"1 comes to be used habitually of leading another person on by the contemplation of instances to see a general truth. 36'7-15, 34"""'9. ::I pp. 41-3. 3 An. Pr. 68bI3. 42a3, 68b32-7; An. Post. 7IaS-II. 5 ' An. Post. 9Ib34- S, 92&3S-br. 6 SI&4o-bl, Top. 1°5&13. 1 , See introductory note to An. Pro ii. 23. 8 An. Post. ?IaU, 24. 9 nb35 and perhaps Met. I07Sb28. 10 Phys. 2lohs. b JI Cat . 13 37, Top. l08 blo, Soph. El. 174 a37, Met. I04S&36. I
4
INTRODUCTION With one exception to be mentioned presently, Aristotle nowhere offers any theory of the nature of induction, and the word braywJ'Ti cannot be said to have been with him a term of art as UVA.\OYLU,.wS' is. He uses the word to mean a variety of mental processes, having only this in common, that in all there is an advance from one or more particular jUdgements to a general one. At times the advance is from statements about species to statements about the genus they belong to;' at times it is from individuals to their species';2 and since induction starts from senseperception,3 induction from species to genus must have been preceded by induction from individuals to species. Again, where the passage is from species to genus, Aristotle sometimes' passes under review all (or what he takes to be all) the species of the genus, but more often' only some of the species. Where a statement about a whole species is based on facts about a mere selection of it.s members, or an inference about a whole genus on facts about a mere selection of its species, it cannot be reasonably supposed that there is a valid inference, and in the one passage where Aristotle discusses induction at length,- he says that induction to be valid must be from all the KaO'
INDUCTION
49
a~'\OY a~ cYrL ~p.i.1I
7"0. WpW'J'a. E7TUYWyfi yvwpl,£w avaYK'ai.ov: 'T(VV apxwv at J-I-EV E1Taywyfj 8£wpovVTa&.. at (i:' alalh}an, 0.18' E8wtJ.o/ nvl, 1((1(. ruaL S' lliwS': Elal,lI apa apxaL Jg £Lv 0 O"VAAoy'U,.,.o), WV OVK Ea'TL UV,uOYLCTJL0S' . E1ray~ apa,1 Now Aristotle considers that, in the mathematical
sciences at least, knowledge of derivative propositions can be reached, and that this can happen only if the ultimate premisses from which the proof starts are themselves known. But these are not themselves known by proof; that is implied in calling them ultimate. Here, then, under the heading of induction he clearly contemplates a mental process which is not proof, yet on which knowledge supervenes. Take the most fundamental proposition of all, that on which all proof depends, the law of contradiction. How do we come to know it? By seeing, Aristotle would say, that some particular subject B cannot both have and not have the attribute A, that some particular subject D cannot both have and not have the attribute C, and so on, until the truth of the corresponding general proposition dawns upon us. And so, too, with the a.pxalproper to a
particular science. The induction here is not proof of the principle, but the psychological preparation upon which the knowledge of the principle supervenes. The knowledge of the principle is not produced by reasoning but achieved by direct insight-vavS' av EfT} 'Twvapxwv.2 This is in fact what modem logicians call intuitive induction. And this is far the most important of the types of induction which Aristotle considers. The general principle, in such a case, being capable of being known directly on its own merits, the particular examples serve merely to direct our attention to the general principle; and for a person of sufficient intelligence one example may be enough. At the very opposite extreme to this application of induction stands the application which Aristotle considers in the one passage in which he describes induction at some length, An. Pr. ii. 23. He here studies the kind of induction which really amounts to proof and can be exhibited as a syllogism, 0 £~ £1Ta.ywyijr av,u0yw/Lor. In this all theparticulars must be studied, in order that the general principle should be proved. Induction is said to be 'the'connecting
of one extreme syllogistically with the middle term through the other extreme'. This seems at first sight inconsistent with the very notions of extreme and middle term. The explanation is not far to seek. He contemplates a situation in which certain species Ct. C2 • etc., have an attribute A because of their membership of a I
An. Post. loob3, E.N. IQ98b3,II39b29.
4985
E
':
An. Post. lOOb I2.
INTRODUCTION 50 genus B. The demonstrative syllogism would run 'All B is A; c" C" etc., are B; therefore they are A.' The inductive syllogism runs 'C" C" etc., are A; C1 , C" etc., are B, and this proposition is convertible (i.e. all B is either C1 or C" etc.); therefore all B is A.' C and A are still called the extremes and B the middle term, because that is what they are in the demonstrative syllogism, and in the nature of things. It is strange that in the one considerable passage devoted to induction Aristotle should identify it with its least valuable form, perfect induction. The reason is to be found in the remarks which introduce the chapter. Filled with enthusiasm for his new-found discovery the syllogism, he makes the bold claim that all arguments-dialectical, demonstrative, or rhetorical-are carried out in one or other of the three syllogistic figures . Not unnaturally, therefore, he selects just the type of induction which alone can be cast in the form of a valid syllogism; for it is plain that whenever the named Cs fall short of the whole extension of B, you cannot validly infer from 'C 1 , C., etc., are A ; C" C" etc., are B ' that all B is A. Nor is perfect induction entirely valueless. If you know that C" C" etc., are A, and that they are B, and that they alone are B, you have all the data required for the knowledge that all B is A ; but you have not yet that knowledge; for the drawing of the conclusion you must not only know these data, but you must also think them together (uvvO.wp"v)! and it is this, as in all syllogism, that makes a real advance in knowledge possible. To sum up, then, Aristotle uses 'induction' in three ways. He most often means by it a mode of argument from particulars which merely tends to produce belief in a general principle, without proving it. Sometimes he means by it the flash of insight by which we pass from knowledge of a particular fact to direct knowledge of the corresponding general principle. In one passage he means by it a valid argument by which we pass from seeing that certain species of a genus have a certain attribute, and that these are all the species of the genus, to seeing that the whole genus has it. We can now see why it is that Aristotle describes syllogism as 'TrpO'TEpOr Kat YVWPt/-LW'TEPO~ than induction, while induction is ~.utV £vapyE(]'7'EpoS,'J. or demonstration as being (I< 7TpOTEPWV Ka, YVWP'jLWM TEPWV a.7TAWS', induction as being EK 1TpO-r£pWV Kat YVWP~f£W-r'PWV 1\1"v.' All knowledge starts with the apprehension of particular I
An. Pro 67 1 37.
~ 68b35- 7.
3
An. Post. 72b26-30.
INDUCTION 51 facts, which are the most obvious objects of knowledge. But Aristotle is convinced that if a particular subject C has an attribute A, it has it not as being that particular subject but in virtue of some attribute B which it shares with other subjects, and that it is more really intelligible that all B is A than that C, a particular instance of B, is A. To pass ftom the particular fact that C is A to the general fact that all B is A is not to understand why all B is A ; but to pass, as we may then proceed to do, from knowing that all B is A to knowing that C, a particular B, is A, is to understand why C is A. Having in An. Pro ii. 23 shown how induction. in one of its forms, viz. perfect induction, can be reduced to syllogistic form, Aristotle proceeds in the remainder of the book to treat of other modes of argument reducible to syllogistic form--example, reduction, objection, enthymeme; but these are not of sufficient general importance to need discussion here. VI DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE As the Prior Analytics present Aristotle's theory of syllogism, the Posterior A nalytics present his theory of scientific knowledge. This, rather than 'knowledge' simply, is the right rendering of his word ''''C1T~I''1 ; for while he would not deny that individual facts may be known, he maintains that '''urnil''1 is of the universal. Syllogistic inference involves, no doubt, some scientific knowledge: viz. the knowledge that premisses of a certain form entail a conclusion of a certain form. But while formal logic aims simply at knowing the conditions of such entailment, a logic that aims at being a theory of scientific knowledge must do more than this; for the sciences themselves aim at knowing not only relations between propositions but also relations between things, and if the conclusions of inference are to give us such knowledge as this. they must fulfil further conditions than that of following from certain premisses. To this material logic, as we might call it in opposition to formal logic, Aristotle now turns; to the statement of these further conditions the first six chapters of A n. Post. i are devoted. Aristotle begins by pointing out that all imparting or acquisition of knowledge by reasoning starts from pre-existing knowledge; and this passage from knowledge to knowledge is what
52
INTRODUCTION occupies almost the whole of the Posterior Analytics. There remains the question whether the knowledge we start from is innate or acquired, and if acquired, how it is acquired; and to that question Aristotle turns in the last chapter of the second book. But about the nature of this original knowledge he says at once' that it is of two kinds. There is knowledge of facts and knowledge of the meaning of words. The first he illustrates by the knowledge of the law of excluded middle; the second by the knowledge that 'triangle' means so-and-so. He adds that there are certain things (e.g. the unit) about which we know not only that the word by which we designate them means so-and-so, but also that something answering to that meaning exists. And elsewhere' he expands this by observing that while we must know beforehand the meaning of all the terms we use in our science, we need know beforehand the existence of corresponding things only when these are fundamental subjects of the science in question. The instances he gives suggest-and there is much in what follows to support the suggestion-that he has mathematics in mind as furnishing the primary example of science (or rather examples, for in his view arithmetic and geometry are essentially different sciences). It was inevitable that this should be so; for the mathematical sciences were the only sciences that had been to any degree developed by the Greeks when Aristotle wrote. In Euclid, who wrote about a generation later, we find recognized the two types of preliminary knowledge that Aristotle here mentions; for Euclid's 0po, answer to Aristotle's 'knowledge of the meaning of words', and his Ko£Vat EvVOtat answer approximately to Aristotle's 'knowledge of facts'; though only approximately, as we shall see later.' Now Euclid's Elements had predecessors, and in particular it seems probable that the Elements of Theudius' existed in Aristotle's time. But we know nothing of its contents, and it would be difficult to say whether Aristotle found the distinction of two kinds of knowledge already drawn by Theudius, or whether it was Aristotle's teaching that led to the appearance of the distinction in Euclid. Aristotle turns next s to what is in fa.ct a comment on his own statement that all knowledge gained by way of reasoning is gained from pre-existing knowledge. What his comment comes to is this, that when knowledge that a particular member of a class has a I
4
7Ian-I7. .2 76a3z-6. Cf. Heath, Greek Mathematics, i. 320-1.
, PP·56-7. 5
71aI7-bS.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 53 certain attribute is gained by way of reasoning, the major premiss must have been known beforehand, but the recognition of the particular thing as belonging to the class and the recognition of it as having that attribute may be simultaneous. 'That every triangle has its angles equal to two right angles we knew before; that this figure in the semicircle is a triangle, one grasped at the very moment at which one was led on to the conclusion.'1 This implies, of course, that the knowledge that all triangles have this property was not knowledge that each of a certain number of triangles has the property Plus the knowledge that there are no other triangles-was knowledge not of an enumerative but of a generic universal. If he did not know a thing to exist, how could he know that it has angles equal to two right angles? One has knowledge of the particular in a sense, i.e. universally, but not in the unqualified sense';<1 or, as he puts it elsewhere. 3 in knowing the major premiss one was potentially, but only potentially, knowing the conclusion. This important distinction had already been stated, in a more elaborate form, in An. Pro ii. 21. We think we have scientific knowledge of a fact, Aristotle proceeds,. when we think we know its actual cause to be its cause, and
the fact itself to be necessary. Our premisses must have two intrinsic characteristics. They must be true, and this distinguishes
the scientific syllogism from all those correct syllogisms which proceed from false premisses (for which ct. An. Pro ii. 2-4). But not all inferences from true premisses are scientific; secondly, the premisses must he primary or immediate, since a connexion that is mediable can be known only by being mediated. And besides having these intrinsic characteristics they must stand in a certain special relation to the conclusion; they must be 'more intelligible than and prior to and causes of the conclusion . .. causes because we know a fact only when we know its cause; prior, because they are causes; known before, not only in the sense that we know what the words mean but also in the sense that we khow they stand for a fact.'s These, while named as thr,ee separate conditions, are clearly connected, ·Prior'· and 'better known' state two characteristics both of which follow from the premisses' being causes, i.e. 'statements of the ground on which the fact stated in the conclusion depends. Both 'prior' and 'better known' are used in a special, non-natural sense. Aristotle would not claim that the I 7IaI9-2I.
• 7,~,6.
, lb. 2&-9. , lb. '9-33.
INTRODUCTION
54
facts stated in the premisses are necessarily prior in time; for in mathematics there is no temporal succession between ground and
consequent. Aristotle would even go farther and say that a fact (or a combination of facts) which precedes another fact can never be the complete ground of the other, since the time-lapse implies that the earlier fact can exist without the later fact's doing 50. 1 'Prior' therefore must mean 'more fundamental in the nature of things', And again 'more known' does not mean 'more familiar', nor 'foreknown' 'known earlier in time', For he goes on
to say that 'the same thing is not more known by nature and more known to us. The things that are nearer to sense are more known
to us, those that are farther from sense more known without qualification. Now the things that are most universal are farthest from sense, and individual things nearest to it.':t In ademonstratio potissima all three terms are actually of equal universality; but nevertheless wilen we say All B is A, All Cis B, Therefore all C is A, in the minor premiss we are using only the fact that all C is B, and not the fact that all B is C, so that notionally the major premiss is wider than the conclusion, and therefore (Aristotle would say) less known to us. In saying this, he is pointing to the fact that is brought out in the final chapter of the Posterior A nalytics-that the ultimate premisses of demonstration are arrived at by intuitive induction from individual facts grasped by sense; while in saying that the premisses are more known by nature he is saying that the universal fact is more intelligible than the individual fact that is deduced from it; and this is so; for if all C is A because all B is A and all C is B, we understand all C's being A only by grasping the more fundamental facts that all B is A and all C is B. Thus the two senses of 'more known' are 'more familiar', which is applicable to the conclusion, and 'more intelligible', which is applicable to the premisses. In demonstration we are not passing from familiar premisses to a less familiar con·
elusion, hut explaining a familiar fact by deducing it from less familiar but more intelligible facts. . One thing in this context that is puzzling is the statement that the premisses must' be
'TTPOYLVW(fKop.Eva,3
which clearly refers to
temporal precedence and might seem to contradict the statement that the conclusions are more familiar to us. But the two state· ments are not inconsistent: for even if the premisses have been
reached by induction from particular instances, it need not be I An. Po~t. ii. IZ.
2 7Ib34- 72as.
l 7Ib3I; cf. 7,128.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE
55
from the instances to which the conclusion refers, and even if it is so. within the syllogism the knowledge of the conclusion appears as emerging from the knowledge of the premisses and following it in time. Aristotle adds one further qualification of the apxai of science; they must be OlKt/ta" I This must be understood as meaning not 'peculiar' to the science in question (for Aristotle includes among the apxai axioms which extend beyond the bounds of anyone science). but 'appropriate' to it. What he is excluding is the p.E'ra.f3aut~ E, c:i.\.\ou Y€lIous/' the use (as in dialectic) of premisses borrowed from here, there, and everywhere. Aristotle turns now'·to distinguish the various kinds of premiss that scientific demonstration needs. There are. first of all. dg.wp.a'Ta (also called Kowa or Kotva2 apxat), the things one must know if one is to learn anything. the principles that are true of all things that are. The only principles ever cited by Aristotle that strictly conform to this account are the laws of contradiction and of excluded middle,' but it is to be noted that he also includes under ag.wl'aTa principles of less generality than these but applying to all quantities. e.g. that if equals be taken from equals. equals remain. s Even these are Kowa as compared with assumptions peculiar to arithmetic or to geometry. Secondly, there are 8/C1£tS, necessary for the pursuit of one partiCUlar science. though not necessary presuppositions of all learning. These fall into two groups: (,) w08.".... assumptions of the existence of certain things. and (2) op'''f'oi. definitions. which, since they are co-ordinated with lmo6luns and not described as including them as elements. must be purely nominal definitions of the meaning of words. and are. indeed. so described in 7'"'4-15. The same passage adds that while with regard to some terms (e.g. triangle in geometry) only the meaning must be assumed. with regard to others (e.g. unit in arithmetic)' the existence of a corresponding entity must also be assumed. Aristotle's view is that the meaning of all the technical terms used in a science and the existence of the primary subjects of the science must be assumed. while the existence of the non-primary terms (i.e. of the attributes to be asserted of the subjects) must be proved.' I
72 '6.
.1
75'38.
4 711l14, 77.10--12, 30, 88 hz. 6
Cf. magnitude in geometry. ']6·36.
72 '14- 2 4. 76.4 1, h20, . , 76a3H . 3
5
771130-1.
INTRODUCTION With regard to these assumptions, he makes two important points elsewhere. One is that where an assumption is perfectly obvious it need not be expressly stated.' The second is that a science does not assume the axioms in all their generality. but only as applying to the subject-matter of the science'-on the principle of not employing means that are unnecessary to our end. Aristotle is not so clear as might be wished with regard to the function of the axioms in demonstration. He describes them as £; wv, starting-points. 3 In another passage he says demonstrations are achieved 8uf T€ 'TWV KOtvwV Kat £1<. nov a7To8£8Etypivwv,'" apparently distinguishing the function of the axioms from that of any previously proved propositions that form premisses for a later proposition. Their function is more obscurely hinted at in 88b3, where it is said that propositions are proved through (S
4
76bI6--2I,77I1o-12. 76b10.
z 76a37-b2.
3
5
75 1 42, 76h14, 77127, 88b28. 77"10-12.
6 On the relation of Aristotle's dpXo.l to those of Euclid cf. Heath, The Thirteen Books oj Euclid's Elenunts, i. 117-24. In referring to Euclid's axioms and postulates, I refer to the restricted list given in Heiberg's edition and Heath's translation. ' 72114-17.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 57 all things that are (the laws of contradiction and excluded middle) or at least common to the subject-matter of arithmetic and geometry ('if equals be taken from equals, equals remain'). In Kowa, Iwota", Kotva.l means 'common to the thought of all men', and the phrase is derived not from KOLVa.L riPXat but from a phrase which Aristotle uses in the Metaphysics'----"T'us KOLVaS S6eas 19 wv a1TavTE$' S€LKVVoVaLv. Euclid's KOLVa.' mOLQL include neither of
Aristotle's axioms of supreme generality. They do include axioms common to arithmetic and geometry ('things which are equai to the same thing are also equal to one another', 'if equals be added to equals, the wholes 'are equal', 'if equals be subtracted from equals, the remainders are equal', 'the whole is greater than the part'), and one which is
KOLV7]
in the second sense but not in the
first, being limited to geometry-'things which coincide with one another (i.e. which can be superimposed on one another) are equal to one another'. . _.' Euclid's Jpo. answer exactly to Aristotle's &pwp.ol (which Aristotle elsewhere often calls Jpo,). Like Aristotle, Euclid included
definitions not only of the fundamental terms of the sciencepoint, line, surface-but also of attributes like straight, plane, rectilinear. The underlying theory is Aristotle's theory, that geometry must assume nominal definitions of all its technical terms, alike those in whose case the existence of corresponding entities is assumed, and those in whose case it must be proved. Euclid states no presuppositions answering to Aristotle's lmo8E(}EL~, assumptions of existence; it is reasonable to suppose that he silently assumes the existence of entities corresponding to the most fundamental of the terms he defines. Aristotle's treatment is in this respect preferable. He admits' that when an assumption is perfectly self-evident it need not be expressly stated; he is right in saying that even when it is not expressly stated, the presupposition of the existence of certain fundamental entities is a distinct and necessary type of presupposition. On the other hand, Euclid recognizes a type of presupposition which does not answer to anything in Aristotle-the atryp.« or postulate. The word occurs in Aristotle, but not as standing for one of the necessary presuppositions of science. When a teacher
or disputant assumes without proof something that is provable, and the learner or other disputant has no opinion or a contrary opinion on the SUbject, or indeed when anything provable is .
I
9C)6b2 8;cf. 997.zl .
INTRODUCTION assumed without proof (the alternatives show that Aristotle is not using at'"lJ1.4 as a technical tenn, but taking account of a variation in its ordinary usage). that is an a'T'I}p.a. 1 In neither case is this a proper presupposition of science. Euclid's alrrjp4Ta.
58
are a curious assemblage of two quite distinct kinds of assumption.
The first three are assumptions of the possibility of perfonning certain simple constructions-flet it be demanded to draw a straight line from any point to any point, to produce a finite straight line continuously in a straight line, to describe a circle with any centre and distance'. The last two are of qiIite a different order-'that 'alI right 'angles are equal to one another' and 'that, if a straight line falling on two straight lines make the interior angles on the same side less than two right angles, the two straight lines, if produced indefinitely, meet on that side on which are the angles less than two right angles'-the famous postulate of parallels. The first three postulates are not propositions at all, but demands to be allowed to do certain things; and as such they naturally find no place among the fundamental propositions which Aristotle is seeking to classify. No doubt the demand to be allowed to do them involves a claim to be able to do them if one is allowed; an improper claim, since in fact no one can, strictly speaking, draw or produce a straight line, or describe a circle. All that the geometer really needs is pennission to reason about that which l}e has drawn, as if it were a straight line or a circle. And on this Aristotle says what is really necessary when he points out that the geometer is guilty of no falsity when he so reasons, and that the supposition, fiction if you will, that what he has drawn is a straight line or circle forms no part of his premisses but only serves to bring his reasoning home to the mind of his hearer.%
When we come to the last two of Euclid's postulates, the situation is quite different. The fourth states a self-evident proposition whose right place would be among the KOtVal. EVVOta,t.. a proposition quite analogous to the KOU..fJ €woc.a that figures which coincide are
equal. On the famous fifth postulate it would ill hecome me to dogmatize against the prevailing trend of modem mathematical theory; but 1. venture to regard this also as axiomatic. Aristotle's recognition of axioms, definitions, and hypotheses as three distinct types of assumption needed by science is sound, so far as it goes, but it needs supplementation. To begin with, he I
76b3l- 4.
a 76b39-77a3.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 59 should have recognized the distinction between the axioms that are applicable to all things that are, and those that are applicable only to quantities, i.e. to the subject-matter of arithmetic and geometry. Secondly, he should have recognized among the principles peculiar to one science certain which are neither definitions nor assumptions of the existence of certain entities-such propositions as Euclid's fourth axiom, that things which coincide are
equal, and his fourth and fifth postulates. Among these principles he should have included such assumptions as that every number is either odd or even, every line either straight or curved, which in another passage I he inclu.des among the assumptions of science.
In recognizing the existence of such self-evident propositions as these, Aristotle is recognizing an important difference between the mathematical and the inductive sciences. In the latter the alternative attributes, one or other of which a certain subject must have, can only be discovered empirically; in the former they can be known intuitively. And finally, a closer scrutiny of the actual procedure of geometry would no doubt have shown him that it uses many other assumptions which aJ;"e involved in OUf intuition of the nature of space, e.g. (to borrow an example from Cook Wilson) that the diagonals of a quadrilateral figure which has not a fe-entrant angle must cross within the figure. It is not unusual to describe Aristotle as lacking in mathe-
matical talent; but there are at least three things which show the falsity of such a view. One is his discussion of the presuppositions of science (which means for him primarily the foundations of mathematics); this, though far from perfect, is almost certainly a great advance on anything that preceded it. Another is his masterly and completely original discussion, in the sixth book of the Physics, of the whole problem of continuity. A third is the brilliant passage in the Metaphysics' in which he anticipates Kant's doctrine that the construction of the fignre is the secret of geometrical discovery. He did not make original mathematical discoveries; but few thinkers have contributed so much as he to the philosophical theory of the nature of mathematics. Aristotle's firm insistence that there must be starting-points of proof which neither need nor admit of proof enables him' to set aside two theories that evidently had some vogue in his daytheories which assumed in common that knowledge can only be J
74bS- I2.
;!
1°51&21- 33.
l Ch.3.
60 INTRODUCTION got by proof. On this assumption some based the conclusion that knowledge is impossible since no proof proves its own premisses;1
while others held that knowledge is possible but is got by reasoning in a circle, proving a conclusion from premisses and these premisses
from the conclusion.· Aristotle refutes the latter view at some length' by pointing out in detail the futility of circular argument. He next points out' that that which is to be known scientifically must be incapable of being otherwise, and that therefore the premisses from which it is proved must also be necessary. But before drawing out the implications of this he proceeds to distinguish three relations which may exist between a predicate and
a subject, and must exist if the proposition is to be truly scientific. (I) The first is that the predicate must he Ka-rd. naY7oS', true of every instance of the subject. Universality in this merely enumerative sense is the minimum requirement. (2) The second is that the
one term must be Ka8?
a-m-o,
essential, to the other. He dis-
tinguishes four senses of KUO' aUTO, hut the last two are irrelevant
to his present inquiry and are introduced only for the sake of completeness. The first two senses have this in common, that a term A which is KQ.O'
Q.v.ro
to a term B must belong to B as an
element in its essential nature. They differ in this, that A is KaO' am-o to B in the first sense when A is an essential element in the definition 'of B. and in the second sense when B is an essential element in the definition of A. The underlying idea is that in the essential nature of anything there are two layers-a complex of fundamental attributes (genus and differentiae) which form the core of its being and by reference to which it is defined, and a complex of consequential attributes which are its properties and
can be defined only by reference to it. Propositions which are examples of the first kind of KaO' av.ro relation are definitions or partial definitions. which form suitable premisses of demonstra. tion: with regard to the second kind of KaO' am-o relation, Aristotle
no doubt means, though he fails to point out clearly, that propositions like 'every angle is either right, acute, or obtuse' occur
among the premisses of geometry, and propositions like 'the a!lgle in the semicircle is right' among its conclusions. The instances Aristotle gives of these two kinds of KaO' a.~o relation call for two comments. (a) Terms that are KaO' av.r6 in
the first sense are said to belong ("m'PXEw) to their SUbjects. inrciPX£tv is a non-technical and ambiguous word, Line belongs to I 72b7-15. 2 lb, 15- 18. ) lb. 25- 73-20. -4. 73- 21 -4_
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 61 triangle as being its boundary, point to line as being its terminus; but more often it is an attr;/;ute that he describes as being in this sense Ka.O' o.v,.o to its subject. And if we wish to express the relation of line to triangle and of point to line in terms of a relation
between an attribute and a subject, we may say that a triangle is necessarily 'bounded by lines', and a line necessarily 'terminates in points'. (b) The examples Aristotle gives here of terms that are Ko.O' am-o to others in the second sense are pairs of terms that are
alternatively predicable of their subjects (e.g. straight and curved) ; but there is no reason why he might not have cited larger groups of terms that are alternatively predicable of their subjects, or for that matter single terms that are necessarily predicable of their subjects. (3) But it is not enough that the predicate should be true, without exception and necessarily, of its subject. It must also be true of it il a.n-6, of it precisely as itseif, not of any wider whole. Aristotle applies this distinction to both kinds of Ka8' a.n-6 relation. 1 As applied to the first kind it would mean that only propositions ascribing to a subject its final differentia are suitable premisses of demonstration, for only these are simply convertible.
But it is doubtful if he would have stressed this point. What he has mainly in mind is to assert that the conclusion of a demonstration Z must have terms that are equal in denotation or 'commensurately universal', though he allows that in a looser sense a proposition whose predicate is not commensurately universal may be demonstrated.' If we merely show that a subject always
and necessarily has a certain attribute, we have not yet reached the ideal of demonstration; we do this only when we show that a subject has a property ill virtue of its whole nature, so that nothing else can also have it. This is the severe ideal of demonstration which Aristotle sets up. In the next chapter< he points out various circumstances in which, while there is a 'sort of proof', there is not genuine proof because there is not a perfect fit between the subject and the predicate of our conclusion. Greek mathematics, he says. had at one time been defective because it proved that if A is to B as C is to D, A is to C as B is to D, not universally of all quantities but separately for numbers, lines, solids, and times, but had later remedied this defect.' In Euclid' we find the universal proposition actually proved. I 73b29-32. 2 74al-2. 3 lb. 2. .. i. s. s 74*17-25. Such advance from particular to general proofs is in fact constantly happening in all the sciences. 6 Bks. v I vi.
62
INTRODUCTION Aristotle has already said' that since it is the object of science to prove conclusions that state necessary facts, its premisses also must state necessary facts, but he has not supported this dictum by argument. Instead, he turned aside to state the conditions which any proposition must fulfil if it is to be necessary-viz. that it be enumeratively true, and that it state a connexion which is KaO' aUTO (for the third characteristic, that it enunciate a CODnexion which is ii aVTo, cOI:nmensurately universal, while it is a characteristic of a perfectly scientific proposition, is not a precedent condition of its being necessary). He now turns to prove the proposition stated without proof in 73'2I- 4. He supports it by a variety of probable arguments, but his most cogent argument is that stated in 74b26-32. If a proposition is provable, one cannot know it scientifically unless one knows the reason for its being true. Now if A is necessarily true of C, but B, the middle term one uses, is not necessarily true of C (or, for that matter, if A is not necessarily true of B), one cannot be knowing why C is A. For obviously C's being something which it is not necessarily cannot be the cause of its being something which it is necessarily. It is, of course, possible to infer a necessary fact from nonnecessary premisses, as it is possible to draw a true inference from" false premisses, but as in the latter case the conclusion cannot be known to be true, in the former the fact cannot be known to be necessary; but the object of science is to know just that. On the other hand, just as if the premisses are known to be true the conclusion is known to be true, so if the premisses are known to be necessary the conclusion is known to be so. Thus the requisite and sufficient condition of the conclusion's being known to be necessary is that our premisses be known to be necessary,Z or in other words that we know their predicates to be connected with their subjects by one or other of the two KaO' aUTO relations. 3 The first corollary which Aristotle deduces' from the account just given of the nature of the premisses of scientific reasoning is liA'\ov rEIIOVS', no proving of that there must be no p.£."T&j3aaLS propositions in one science by premisses drawn from another science. No science has a roving commission; each deals with a determinate genus. The subject of each of its conclusions must be an entity belonging to that genus; the predicate must be an attribute that is KaO' aUTO to such a subject; but two terms of which one is KaO' awo to the other obviously cannot be properly
le
1
73a2I- 4.
a 7Sat- t7.
3
lb. 28- 37.
.. i.7.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE linked by a middle term that is not in such a relation to them. Thus a geometrical proposition cannot be proved by arithmetic,' nor vice versa ;' for the subject of geometry is spatial magnitudes, i.e. continuous quanta, and that of arithmetic is numbers, i.e. discrete quanta.' At the same time, Aristotle allows the possibility of I'ETcf/3ClUL< from one genus to another, when the genera are 'the same in some
respect'.' What he has in mind is the possibility of using mathematical proofs in sciences that are intermediate between mathematics and physics, what he elsewhere! calls 'Tel c/JVaf.KcirrEpa 'TWV JUl-!hJJ.LaTwv, since their sUbject-matters are subordinate to those
of a mathematical science. Optics is in this sense subordinate to geometry, and harmonics to arithmetic.' He elsewhere says much the same about astronomy7 and mechanics. s Consider, for instance, optics. Optics studies rays of light, which are lines 'embodied' in certain matter ; and in virtue of their being lines they obey geometrical principles, and their properties can be studied by the aid of geometry without any improper transition being involved. But elsewhere' Aristotle adds a refinement, by distinguishing within these sciences a mathematical part and a physical or observational part, the latter being subordinate to the former as that is to geometry or arithmetic. Here it is the business of the observer to ascertain the facts, and that of the mathematician to discover the reasons for them ,10 The second corollary which Aristotle draws" from his account of the premisses of science is that there cannot, strictly speaking, be demonstration of perishable facts, i.e. of a subject's possession of an attribute at certain times. Aristotle is taking account of the fact that there are not only mathematical sciences stating eternal
and necessary connexions between subjects and attributes, but also quasi-mathematical sciences which prove and explain tem-
porary but recurring facts, as astronomy explains why the moon is at times eclipsed. There is an eternal and necessary connexion
between a body's having an opaque body interposed between it and its source of light, and its being eclipsed, and the moon someI
7S&38-9.
• 15 b&-9.
Z
7SbI3-14 .
' Phys. '94'7.
J
Cat. 4b2o-S, Mel. I020a7- 14. 6 7SbI4-I7.
Phys. 193b2S-33, Met. 10'/3b3-8. 76a22-S, 78b3S-9, Mel. 1078&14- 17. 9 78b39-79aI3. 10 For a full discussion of Aristotle's views about these intermediate sci~nces d. Mansion, Introd. a la Phys. Arislotil£cienne,94-101. I I 7Sb21- 30. 7
8
INTRODUCTION times incidentally has the one attribute because it sometimes incidentally has the other.' The proof that it has it is eternal inasmuch as its object is a recurrent type of attribute, but inasmuch as the subject does not always have this attribute the proof is particular.' The fact explained is an incidental and non-eternal example of an eternal cannexion.
The third corollary' is that the propositions of a science cannot be proved from common principles (Le. from principles which apply more widely than to the subject-matter of the science), any more than they can be proved from alien principles. For it is plain that there will be some subject to which the predicate of our conclusion applies commensurately, and that subject and not something wider must be the middle term of our proof, if our premisses are to be commensurately universal. In consequence, Aristotle rejects the ideal, adumbrated by Plato in the Republic, of a master-knowledge which will prove lbe apxa1 of the special sciences; each science, he holds, stands on its own basis, and its appropriate premisses are known by their own self-evidence. Zabarella argues' that Aristotle is not attempting to show that metaphysics cannot prove the apxa1 of the sciences, but only that they cannot prove their own tipxa1; but there is nothing here or elsewhere in Aristotle to justify this view. In the Metaphysics itself it is nowhere suggested that metaphysics can do this, and it would be inconsistent with the underlying assumption of that work, that metaphysics is the study of TO ov av, of being only in respect of its most universal characteristics. Zabarella's interpretation is, I think , only a projection of his own somewhat Platonic view into Aristotle. It is natural enough that Plato should have been scandalized by the spectacle of several sciences statting from separate apxai, and should have been fired by the ideal of a single unified system of knowledge. But it is significant that neither Plato nor anyone else has ever had any success in realizing such an ideal, while mathematics offers a clear example of a science which, starting from premisses which it holds to be self-evident, succeeds in reaching a unified body of knowledge which covers one large sphere of being. The search for a single all-explaining principle seems to be a product of the equally mistaken desire to have proof of everything. If we cannot have proof of everything (so its advocates seem to say), since the ultimate premisses of any
n
(1tIP/3~I3TJKOS 7Sb2S. % lb. 33-5. In duos Aristotelis lib. Posl. An. Comm. 44.
I ICaTcl 4
l
Ch. 9.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE proof are obviously themselves not proved, let us at least have as few unproved principles as possible, and if possible only one. But there is really nothing more scandalous in a plurality of unproved premisses than in a single one.
.
In maintaining that proof must be from the proper principles of the science in question, Aristotle might seem to be contradicting his inclusion of the KOLIla. dg,wp.aTa among the premisses of a science. In ch. 10 he meets this difficulty by pointing outl that a science does not assume the KOLVa. d(u.vp.aTa in their generality.
but only in so far as they are true of the subjects of the science in question, this being all that is necessary for its purpose. Aristotle draws an interesting distinction between three types of error which may arise in the attempt at scientific proof.' In the first place, we may sin against the principle that our premisses must be true.' In trying to prove a geometrical proposition we may use premisses that are geometrical in the sense that their terms are geometrical terms, but ungeometrical in the sense that
they connect these terms incorrectly (e.g. by assuming that the angles of a triangle are not equal to two right angles). In the second place we may sin against the principle that our proof must be syllogistically correct.' In this case our premisses may be in the full sense geometrical, but we misuse them. In the third place we may sin against the principle that proof in any science must be drawn from premisses appropriate to the science. s In this case our premisses are not geometrical at all. Aristotle adds that error of the second kind is less likely to arise in mathematics than in dialectical reasoning, because any ambiguity in terms is easily detected when we have a figure to look at. 'Is every circle a figure? If we draw one, we see that this is so. Are the epic poems a circle?' Clearly not'-i.e. not in the literal sense in which every circle is a figure.
With this distinction of three types of error we may compare a later section of the Posterior Analytics, i. 16-18. Paralogismreasoning not in accordance with the rules of syllogism-is not there mentioned, probably because it has been fully considered in the Priar A nalytics. The first kind of error discussed in the present chapter, 0: be nov av-ru(Etp.£vwv OV,uOYLup.or (e.g. reasoning from incorrect geometrical assumptions). is described in chs. 16 and 17 under the title uyvoLa 1J KaTa. 3,d8€Gw. ignorance which I 4
76a37-b2. Cf. ib. IS.
4985
2 S
77bl6-33. Cf. ch. 7.
l 6
F
Cf. 7Ibl9-2l, 25-6. They were often called & K,),cAos.
66
INTRODUCTION involves a definite though mistaken attitude towards geometrical principles. The third kind discussed in the present chapter, & O.>J.~< 7£Xvy}<, that which in the absence of even iucorrect geometrical opinions attempts to prove a geometrical proposition from premisses borrowed from another science, is by implication called aYVOta 1} Ka:r' a7Toq,aatv,I and in ch. 18 such ignorance of a whole sphere of reality is described as due to the absence of one of
'e
the senses; and this is in accordance with Aristotle's general view
that the principles of all the sciences are derived by generalization from sensuous experience.:t
The chapter with which we are dealing' contaius one further important point, not made elsewhere. A science grows, says Aristotle, not by interpolation of new middle terms, but by one or other of two methods, both of them methods of extrapolation. If we already know that C is A because B is A and C is B we can (1) add the premiss' D is C' and thus get the new conclusion that D is A, or (2) we can add the premisses that D is A and E is D, and thus get the conclusion that E is A; Le. we may extrapolate either vertically or horizontally. The dictum that a science grows by extrapolation might at first sight seem to contradict what Aristotle says elsewhere,. that 'packing' or interpolation (",;',vwa,S') is the method of science; but there is no real contradiction. We have not science at all till interpolation has been completed, till we have replaced all provable premisses by premisses that need no proof. But once this has been done, extrapolation comes by its own and provides for the growth of the science. Aristotle has pointed out' three types of error which do not yield knowledge at all. In ch. 13 he passes to consider less gross falms of error, which lead to something that may in a loose sense
be called knowledge, but falls short of demonstratio potissima. When we commit them, we may reach knowledge that a fact is so,
but not knowledge of why it is so. In the first place, we may sin against the priuciple that our premisses should be immediate' If D is A because B is A, C is B, and DisC, and we reason 'C is A, Dis C, Therefore D is A', i.e. if 'C is A' is provable and we assume it without proof, we shall not know why D is A, nor iudeed in the strict sense know that D is A, but we shall at least have reached a true opinion, and have to some extent reached it by correct means. Secondly, we may sin agaiust the principle that our I
79b23.
5 In ch. 12.
2:
ii. 19.
1
i.
12.
6 78a2J--6, d. 7IbI9-2I, 26-9.
4
84b 33- 5.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE premisses must be YVWptp.wT£pa Kat 1rpOTEpa lea! at'TtCt TOU avP.'1TEpaap.o.TOS .· Suppose we reason: 'Heavenly bodies that do not
twinkle must be relatively near to us, Planets do not twinkle, Therefore planets must be relatively near to us.' Then our premisses are true, our reasoning is syllogistically correct, and we reach a true opinion about the state of the facts. But it is not the case that because the planets do not twinkle they are near to us, but that because they are near they do not twinkle. We have clearly not reached knowledge of the actual ground of the fact we state in our conclusion. In this case the converse of OUf major premiss is true, and we can therefore replace the defective syllogism by the syllogism 'Heavenly bodies thai are near to us do not twinkle, The planets are near to us, Therefore the planets do not twinkle', and then we shall know both the fact stated in our conclusion and the ground of its truth, and our reasoning will be truly scientific. But in other cases OUf major premiss may not be convertible; then we have an unscientific syllogism which cannot be immediately re·
placed by a scientific one. Thirdly, we may sin against the principle that our premisses must be true fj au"l,. This happens when the middle term 'is placed outside', i.e. occurs as predicate of both premisses. as when
we say' All breathing things are arUmals, No wall is an animal, Therefore no wall breathes'. Here we reason as if not being an animal were the cause of not breathing, and imply that being an animal is the cause of breathing; but plainly being an animal is not the callije of breathing, since not all animals breathe. The precise or adequate cause of breathing is possession of a lung; being an animal is an inadequate cause of breathing. and not being an animal a super-adequate cause of not breathing. In saying, in effect, 'Nothing that is not an animal breathes', we have used a premiss which, while true KaTa. 1TaV'ToS' and KaO' aliTo, is not true aUTO; for it is not precisely qua not being an animal, but qua not possessing a lung, that that which does not breathe does not breathe. Having thus pointed out in ch. '3 the fallure of a second-figure argument to give the true cause of an effect, Aristotle goes on in ch. '4 to point out that in general the first figure is the figure appropriate to science. He appeals to the fact that the sciences actually use this much more than the other figures, and he gives I 7S&26-bI3, cf. 7IbI~2, 29-72&5:z 78bI3-3I, cf. 73b25-74a3.
n
68
INTRODUCTION two reasons for its superiority: (1) that it alone can establish a
definition, since the second figure cannot prove an affirmative, nor the third a universal, conclusion; and (2) that even if we start
with a syllogism in the second or third figure, if its premi"es themselves need to be proved we must fall back on the first, since the affirmative premiss which a second-figure syllogism needs cannot be proved in the second figure, and the universal premiss which a third-figure syllogism needs cannot be proved in the third. Aristotle has in ch. 3 shown, and has repeatedly thereafter assumed, that there must be immediate premisses, neither needing
nor admitting of proof. He now' makes the·important point that among these there must be negative as well as affinnative premisses, and points out clearly the kind of terms that must occur in them. If either A or B is included in a wider class in which the other is not included, the proposition No B is A cannot be immediate. For (1) if A is included in C and B is not, No B is A can be established by the premisses All A is C, No B is C. (2) If B is included in D and A is not, No B is A can be established by the premisses No A is D, All B is D. (3) If A is included in C and B in D, No B is A can be established by the premisses All A is C, No B is C, or by the premisses No A is D, All B is D. The only type of immediate negative proposition which Aristotle seems to consider is that in which one category is excluded from another, as when one says 'No substance is a quality'. The types of proposition he does not consider are those whose terms are (I) two infimae spe~ies falling under the same proximate genus, (2) two alternative differentiae, or (3) two members of the same infima species. In the first case the differentia possessed by one and not by the other can be used as middle term to prove the exclusion of one species from the other. In the second case Aristotle would have to admit that the two differentiae exclude one another directly, just as two categories do. The third case would not interest him, because in the Posterior A nalytics he is concerned only with relations between universals. His consideration of the problem is incomplete, but both his insistence that there are immediate negative premisses and his insistence that propositions
in which one category is excluded from another are immediate are important pieces of logical doctrine. He now2. embarks on a discussion, much more elaborate than any that has preceded, of the question whether there are im, Ch. IS.
2;
Cbs.
15r-22.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE mediate premisses, not needing nor admitting of proof. A dialectician is satisfied if he can find two highly probable premisses of the form All B is A, All C is B; he then proceeds to infer that all Cis A. But a scientist must ask the question, 'Are All B is A, All C is B, really immediate propositions; am I not bound to look for a middle term between B and A, and one between C and B?' Aristotle divides the problem into three problems: (,) If there is a subject not predicable of anything, a predicate predicable of that subject~ and a predicate predicable of that predicate, is there an infinite chain of propositions in the upward direction, a chain in which that which is predicate in one proposition becomes subject in the next? (2) If there is a predicate of which nothing can be predicated, a subject of which it is predicable, and a subject of which that subject is predicable, is there an infinite chain in the downward direction, in which that which is subject in one proposition becomes predicate in the next? (3) Is there an infinite chain of middle terms between any two given terms?' He first' establishes that if questions (,) and (2) are to be answered in the negative, question (3) must also be so answered. This is obvious, because if between two terms in a chain leading down from a predicate, or in a chain leading up from a subject, there is ever an infinite number of middle terms, there is necessarily an infinite number of terms in the whole chain; this must be so, even if between some of the terms no middle term can be inserted. Next' Aristotle proves that if a chain having an affirmative conclusion is necessarily limited at both ends, a chain having a negative conclusion must also be limited at both ends. This follows from the fact that a negative can only be proved in one or other of the three figures: (a) No B is A, All Cis B, Therefore no C is A ; (b) All A is B, No Cis B, Therefore no C is A ; (c) No B is C (or Some B is not C) , All B is A, Therefore some A is not C. Now if in (a) we try to mediate the negative premiss, this will be by a prosyllogism: No D is A, All B is D, Therefore no B is A. Thus with each introduction of an intermediate negative premiss we introduce a new affirmative premiss; and therefore if the chain of affirmative premisses is limited, so is the chain of negative premisses; there must be a term of which A is directly deniable. A similar proof applies to cases (b) and (c). Aristotle now4 turns to his main thesis, that a chain of affirma:a Ch. 20. J Ch.21. 4 Ch. ~2.
INTRODUCTION tive premisses must be limited both in the upward and in the downward direction. He first offers arguments which he describes as dialectical,' but which we must not pass over, because they contain so much that is characteristic of his way of thinking. He starts' with the true observation that if definition is to be possible, . the elements in the definition of a thing must be limited in number. But clearly propositions other than definitions occur in scientific reasoning, and he therefore has to attempt a wider proof. He prefaces this by laying down a distinction between genuine predication and another kind of assertion. He discusses three types of assertion: (I) 'that big thing is a log', or 'that white thing is a log'; (2) 'that white thing is walking', or 'that musical thing is white'; (3) 'that log is big', or 'that log is white', or 'that man is walking'; and analyses them differently. (I) When we say 'that white thing is a log', we do not mean that 'white' is a subject of which being a log is an attribute, but that being white is an attribute of which that log is the subject. And (2) when we say 'that musical thing is white' we do not mean that 'musical' is a subject of which being white is an attribute, but that a certain man who has the attribute of being musical has also that of being white. In neither case do we think of our grammatical subject as being a metaphysical subject, or of our grammatical predicate as being a metaphysical attribute of that subject. But when (3) we say 'that log is white' we understand our subject to be a metaphysical subject underlying or possessing the attribute of being white. Aristotle recognizes oply assertions of type (3) as predications proper, and describes the others as predications Ka'Ta. aVfLfJ3~K6s, as statements which are possible only as incidental consequences of the possibility of a proper predication. This distinction is open to serious criticism. It is evident that the form of words 'that white thing is a log' or 'that musical thing is white' is not only a perfectly proper statement, but in certain circumstances the only appropriate statement. When we say 'that white thing is a log', our meaning would be quite improperly conveyed by the words 'that log is white'; 'that white thing' is not only the grammatical but the logical subject-that about which something is asserted-and what is predicated of it is just that it is a log. Aristotle is either confusing the logical distinction of subject and predicate-a distinction which depends on our subjective approach to the matter in hand-with the
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 71 metaphysical distinction of subject (or substrate) and attribute, or else, while aware of the difference, he is saying that only that is proper predication in which the metaphysical subject and attribute are made respectively logical subject and predicate; which would be just as serious an error as a confusion of the two distinctions would be. 1 It may be added that his mistake is made more easy by the Greek usage by which a phrase like 'T6 AEVKOV may stand either for 'the white thing' or for 'white colour'. For the speaker of a language in which 'TO AEUKOV £crn gvAov might mean 'white colour is a log', it becomes easy to suppose that the statement is an improper statement. It may be said too that while as a general logical doctrine what Aristotle says here is indefensible, there is some justification for his restricting predication as he does, in the present context. For the Posterior A nalytics is a study of scientific method, and he is justified in saying' that the sort of proposition which the sciences use is normally one in which an attribute is predicated of a substance. But to this it must be added that the mathematical sciences habitually assert propositions of which the subject is not a substance but an entity (such as a triangle) which is thought of as having a nature of its own in consequence of which it has the attribute that is predicated of it, as substances have attributes in consequence of their intrinsic nature. Aristotle is, in effect, recognizing this when he later describes the unit as ouO'{a a8ETO~ and the point as ovu{a OETOS'.l Among proper predications Aristotle proceeds' to distinguish definitions and partial defmitions (01T£p £KE'ivO ~ 01TEP EKE'iVO 'n OTJp.aivn) from those which assert of subjects UlJp.fJ43~K6Ta, among which he includes not only accidents but also attributes that are Ka8' atlTo in the second sense,s i.e. properties. In any case the chain of predication must be finite, since the categories. under one or other of which any predicate of a given subject must fall, are finite in number, and so are the attributes in any category,6 There is only one type of case, he points out, in which a thing is predicated of itself; viz. definition, iIi. which a thing designated by a name is identified with itself as described by a phrase. In every other case the predicate is an attribute assigned to a subject and not itself having the nature proper to a subject, i.e. not a I There is a penetrating criticism of Aristotle's doctrine in J. Cook Wilson, Statement and Inference, i. 159-66. :: 83-20-1, 34-5. 3 87a36. .. 83-24. 5 Cf. pp. 60-1. 6 83bI2-I7.
INTRODUCTION self-subsistent thing. Every chain of predication is terminated in the downward direction by such a thing, an individual substance. Upwards from this stretches a finite chain of essential attributes, terminating in a summum genus or category, and a finite chain of C1V!'f3
some of which are predicated of the subject strictly
n aVTo, just as being that subject, while others are predicated naV7"6 of some element in the nature of the subject (i.e. of some
species to which it belongs), and thus related KaO' a,lTo but not aUTO to the subject. Any chain of C1V!'f3
n
misses are.
Aristotle now' turns to the proof which he describes as analytical-analytical because it rests on a consideration not of predication in general, but of the two kinds of predication which in ch. 4 have been described as being proper to science, those in which we predicate of a subject some element in its definition, and those in which we predicate of a subject some attribute in whose definition the subject itself is included. If we had an infinite chain of predicates, each related to its subject in the second of these ways, we should have a predicate B including in its definition its subject A, a predicate C including in its definition its subject B, .. . and therefore the term at infinity would include in its definition an infinite number of elements. If, again, we had an infinite chain of predicates, each related to its subject in the first of the two ways, the original subject would include in its definition an infinite number of elements. Each of these two consequences Aristotle rejects as impossible, on the ground that, since any term is definable, no term can include an infinite number of elements in its essential nature. It would seem plausible to say that if two subjects have the 3 B4as.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 73 same attribute, it must be by virtue of some other attribute which they have in common. But Aristotle is quick to point out' that this would involve an infinite chain of predication. If, when C and D both have the attribute A, this must be because they both have the attribute B, it will be equally true that if they both have the attribute B, this must be because they both have a further attribute in common, and so ad infinitum. The true 080S' bTl 'TaS' apxas is one that tenninates not, as Plato supposed, in a single o.pxJJ dVV1T68~TOS', but in a variety of immediate propositions, some affirmative, some negative. In seeking the ' ground of an affirmative proposition we proceed by packing the interval between our minor term and onr major, never inserting a middle term wider than our major. B is A because B is C, C is D ... y is Z, Z is A, the ultimate premisses being known not by reasoning but by intuition (voas). If the proposition we seek to prove is a ?legative one, we may proceed in either of three ways. (I) Suppose that no B is A because no C is A and all B is C; then if we want to prove that no C is A, we may do so by recognizing that no D is A and all C is D; and so on. We never take in a middle term which includes our major term A. (2) Suppose that no E is D because all D is C and no E is C ; then if we want to prove that no E is C, we may do so by recognizing that all C is F and no E is F; and so on. We never take in a middle term included within our minor, E. (3) Suppose that no E is D because no D is C and all E is C; then if we want to prove that no D is C, we may do so by recognizing that no C is F and all D is F; and so on. We never take a middle term that either includes our major, or is included in our minor.
From this consideration of the necessity for immediate premisses, Aristotle passes' to compare three pairs of types of proof in respect of 'goodness', i.e. of intellectual satisfactoriness. Is universal or particular proof the better? Is affinnative or negative proof the better ? Is ostensive proof or reductio ad impossibile the better? On the first question, he first' states various rlialectical arguments purporting to show particular proof (i.e. proof proceeding from narrower premisses) to be better than universal, then4 refutes these, and offers s dialectical arguments in favour of the opposite view, and finally" offers what he considers the most conclusive arguments in support of it, viz. (I) that if we know a z Cbs. 24-6. .5
lb.
23-86a2I.
l 8Sa2o-b3. 6 lb. 22- 30.,
INTRODUCTION 74 . universal proposition such as 'Every triangle has its angles equal to two right angles', we know potentially the narrower proposition 'Every isosceles triangle has its angles equal to two right angles', while the converse is not true; and (2) that a universal proposition is apprehended by pure v6'1"'" while in approaching a particularization of it we have entered on a path which terminates in mere sensuous perception. His consideration of the merits of affinnative as compared with negative proof, I and of ostensive proof as compared with reductio,' is of less general interest.
Turning' from the comparison of particular proofs to that of whole sciences, Aristotle points out that one science is more precise than another, more completely satisfactory to the intellect, if it fulfils anyone of three conditions. In the first place, a science which knows both facts and the reasons for them is superior to a so-called science which is a mere collection of unexplained facts. In the second place; among genuine sciences a pure science, one that deals with abstract entities, is superior to an applied science, one that deals with those entities embodied in some kind of 'matter'; pure arithmetic, for instance, is superior to the applica· tion of arithmetic to the study of vibrating strings. In the third place, among pure sciences one that deals with simple entities is superior to one that deals with complex entities; arithmetic, dealing with units, which are entities without position, is superior to geometry, dealing with points, which are entities with position. It is noteworthy that, while Aristotle conceives of demonstration in the strict sense as proceeding from premisses that are necessarily true to conclusions that are necessarily true, he recognizes demonstration (in a less strict sense, of course) as capable of proceeding from premisses for the most part true to similar CODc1usions;4 That which can never be an object of scientific knowledge is a mere chance conjunction between a subject and a predicate. And, continuing in the same strain,' he points out that to grasp an individual fact by sense-perception is never to know it scientifically. Even if we could see the triangle to have its angles equal to two right angles, we should still have to look for a demonstration to show why this is so. Even if we were on the moon and could see the earth thrusting itself between the moon and the sun, we should still have to seek the cause of lunar eclipse. The function of perception is not to give us scientific knowledge but to rouse the curiosity which only demonstration I
Ch.25.
Z
Ch.26.
J
Ch. 27.
+
Ch. 30.
5
Ch.31.
DEMONSTRATIVE SCIENCE 75 can satisfy. At the same time some of our problems are due to lack of sense-perception; for there are cases in which if we perceived a certain fact we should as an immediate consequence. without further inquiry, recognize that and why it must be so in any similar case. To quickness in divining the cause of a· fact, as
an immediate result of perceiving the fact, Aristotle assigns the name of arxlvota. t
VII THE SECOND BOOK OF THE POSTERIOR ANALYTICS THE second book of the Posterior A nalytics bears every appearance of having been originally a separate work. It begins abruptly, with no attempt to link it on to what has gone before; even the absence of a connective particle in the first sentence is significant.z
Further, there is one fact which suggests that the second book is a good deal later than the first. In the first book allusions to mathematics are very frequent, and it might almost be said that Aristotle identifies science with mathematics, as we might expect a student of the Academy to do; the only traces of a scientific interest going beyond mathematics and the semi-mathematical sciences of astronomy, mechanics, optics, and harmonics are the very cursory allusions to physics and to medical science in 77-41. b41 - 78'5, 88'14-17, bu. In the second book allusions to mathe-
matics are relatively much fewer, and references to physical and biological problems much more numerous: d. the references to the causes of thunder' and of the rising of the Nile,' to the definition of ice,' to the properties of different species of animals' and to analogical parts of animals,' to the causes of deciduousness· and of long life,' and to medical problems." The subject of the first book has been demonstration; the main subject of the second book, with which the first ten chapters are concerned, is definition. Aristotle begins by distinguishing four topics of scientific inquiry, TO on, TO 8mL, *"' 100L, Tt '(TTL. The difference between 'TO OTt and 100t turns on the difference between the copulative and the existential use of 'is'; the two
£,
• Ch·34· Apart from the Metaphysics, the only other clear cases in Aristotle of books (after the first) beginning without such a particle are Phys. 7, Pol. 3, 4. 1 93822-3, b7- 12, 94 8 3-9, b32 - 4 . .. C)8:13 I -4. 5 95116-21. (, 9883-19. 7 lb. 20--3. 8 lb. 36-bI6, b33-8, 99:123-9. I) 99bS-8. 10 94b8-2I, 97b26- 7. 2
INTRODUCTION questions are respectively of the form 'Is A B?' and of the form 'Does A exist?' If we have established that A is B, we go on to ask why it is so ; if we have established that A exists, we go on to ask what it is. Aristotle proceeds in ch. 2 to say that to ask whether A is B, or whether A exists, is to ask whether there is a middle term to account for A's being B, or for A's existing, and that to ask why A is B, or what A is, is to ask what this middle term is. But there are reasons for supposing that this is an over-statement of Aristotle's meaning. He never, so far as I know, makes the question whether a certain substance exists tum on the question whether there is a middle tenn to account for its existence, nor the question what a certain substance is tum on the question what that middle tenn is; and it would be strange if he did so. The question whether a certain substance exists is to be decided simply by observation; the question what it is is to be answered by a definition stating simply the genus to which the substance belongs, and the differentia or differentiae that distinguish it from other species of the genus. It is really of attributes that Aristotle is speaking when he says that to ask whether they exist is to ask whether there is a cause to account for them, and that to ask what they are is to ask what that cause is. And when we are considering an attribute, the question whether it exists is identified with the question whether this, that, or the other substance possesses it, and the question what it is is identified with the question why this, that, or the other substance possesses it. 'What is eclipse? Deprivation of light from the moon by the interposition of the earth. Why does eclipse occur, or why does the moon suffer eclipse? Because its light fails through the earth's blocking it off." In ch. 3 Aristotle passes to pose certain questions regarding the relation between demonstration and definition. How is a definition proved? How is the method of proof to be put into syllogistic form? What is definition? What things can be defined? Can the same thing be known, in the same respect, by definition and by demonstration? In a passage which is clearly only dialectical' he argues that not everything that can be demonstrated can be defined, that not everything that can be defined can be demonstrated, and, indeed, that nothing can be both demonstrated and defined. Dialectical arguments directed against various possible methods of attempting to prove a definition, and tending to
SECOND BOOK OF POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 77 show the complete impossibility of definition, are offered in chs. 4-'1. In ch. 8 Aristotle turns to examining critically these dialectical arguments. As a clue to the discovery of the true method of definition, he adopts the thesis already laid down,' that to know the cause of a substance's possessing an attribute is to know the essence of the attribute. Suppose that we know that a certain event. say, eclipse, exists. We may know this merely KdTa. uvp.{3€f3"rJKO< (e.g. by hearsay) without knowing anything of what is meant by the word. and in that case we have not even a starting-
point for definition. But suppose we have some knowledge of the nature of the event, e.g. that eclipse is a loss of light. Then to ask whether the moon suffers eclipse is to ask whether a cause capable of producing it (e.g. interposition of the earth between the moon and the sun) exists. If, starting with a subject C and an attribute (or event) A, we can establish a connexion between C and A by a series of intermediate propositions such as 'that which has the attribute B, necessarily has the attribute A, that which has the attribute B, necessarily has the attribute B, . . . that which has the attribute B. necessarily has the attribute B._" C necessarily has the attribute B.', then we know both that and why C has the attribute A. If at some point we fail to reach immediacy, e.g. if we have to be content with saying 'C actually (not necessarily) has the attribute B,;, we know that C has the attribute A but not why it has it. Aristotle illustrates the latter situation by this example: A heavenly body which produces no shadow, though there is nothing between us and it to account for this, must be in eclipse, The moon is thus failing to produce a shadow, Therefore the moon is in eclipse. Here the middle term by the use of which we infer the existence of eclipse plainly cannot be the cause of eclipse, being instead a necessary consequence of it; it does not help us to explain why the moon is in eclipse, and therefore does not help us to know what eclipse is. But the discovery, by this means, that eclipse exists may set us on inquiring what cause does exist that would explain the existence of eclipse, whether it is the interposition of an opaque body between the moon and its source of light, or a divergence of the moon from its usual path, or the extinction of fire in it. If we find such a cause to exist, it becomes the definition of eclipse; eclipse is the interposition of the earth between the moon and the sun. And if we can in time discover the presence of a cause which J
90-14-23.
INTRODUCTION will account for the earth's coming between the moon and the sun, that will serve as a further, even more satisfactory. definition
of eclipse. I We never get a syllogism having as its conclusion 'eclipse is so-and-so', but we get a sorites by which it becomes clear what eclipse is-a sorites of the form 'What has B. suffers eclipse, What has B. has B• ... What has Bn has B n_I , The moon has B n , Therefore the moon suffers eclipse'. Our final definition would then be 'eclipse is loss of light by the moon in consequence of the sequence of attributes B n , B n_., . . . B., B1 '. This type of definition can of course be got only when A is an attribute that has a cause or series of causes. But there are also things that have no cause other than themselves, and of these we must simply assume, or make known by some other means (e.g. by pointing to an example) both that they exist and what they are. This is what every science does with regard to its primary . subjects, e.g. arithmetic with regard to the unit.' There are thus three types of definition:' (1) A verbal definition stating the nature of an attribute or event by naming its generic nature and the substance in which it occurs, e.g. 'eclipse is a loss of light by a heavenly body'-a definition which sets us on to search for a causal definition of the thing in question. (2) A causal definition of such a thing, e.g. 'eclipse of the moon is a deprivation of light from the moon by the interposition of the earth between the moon and the sun'. Such a definition is 'a sort of demonstration of the essence, differing in form from the demonstration',. I.e., the definition packs into a phrase the substance of the demonstration 'What has an opaque body interposed hetween it and its sou;ce of light is eclipsed. The moon has an opaque body so 'interposed, Therefore the moon suffers eclipse: A definition of type (1), on the other hand, contains a restatement only of the conclusion of the demonstration. (g) A definition of a term that needs no mediation, i.e. of one of the primary subjects of a science.
Aristotle now passes from the subject of definition to consider a number of special questions relating to demonstration. s It is unnecessary to enter here into the difficulties of ch. II, one of the most difficult chapters in the whole of Aristotle. He introduces here a list of types of a17ia. which differs from. his usual list by containing, in addition to the formal, the efficient, and the final I
93bI2-I4.
5
These occupy Cbs.
2
Ch. 9.
11- 18.
3
Ch.
10.
" 94- 1- 2 •
SECOND BOOK OF POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 79 cause, not the material cause but ore) 'Tlvwv OV'TWV Q.VclYInJ 'TO;;" Elva~. That this is not another name for the material cause is shown by two things. For one thing, the material cause could not be so described; for Aristotle frequently insists that the material cause does not necessitate its effect, but is merely a necessary precondition of it. And secondly, the example given is as remote as possible from the typical examples of the material cause which he gives elsewhere. How, then, is this departure from his usual list of causes to be explained? We may conjecture that it was due to Aristotle's recognition of the difference between the type 01 explanation that is appropriate in the writing of history or the pursuit of natural science and that which is appropriate in mathematics. In history and in natural science we are attempting to explain events, and an event is to be explained (in Aristotle's view) by reference either to an event that precedes it (an efficient cause) or to one that follows it (a final cause). In mathematics we are dealing with eternal attributes of eternal subjects, and neither an efficient nor a final cause is to be looked for, but only another eternal attribute of the same eternal subject, some attribute the possession of which by the subject can be more directly apprehended than its possession of the attribute to be explained. This eternal ground of an eternal consequent is thus introduced here instead of the material cause which we find elsewhere in Aristotle's account of causation. A reference to the material cause would indeed be out of place here; for the analysis of the individual thing into matter and form is a purely metaphysical one of which logic need take no account, and in fact the word ~>''1 and that for which it stands are entirely absent from the Organon. It is not easy to see how the efficient cause, the final cause, and the eternal ground are related, in Aristotle's thought, to the formal cause. But we have already found him stating the definition or formal cause of eclipse to be 'deprivation of light from the moon by the interposition of the earth', where the efficient cause becomes an element in the formal cause and is by an overstatement said to be the formal cause.' And similarly here he identifies the formal cause of the rightness of the angle in the semicircle. with its being equal to the half of two right angles, i.e. with the ground on which it is inferred" And again, where an event is to be explained by a final cause, he would no doubt be prepared to identify the formal cause of the event with its final cause. We 1
93b6-7.
Z
94&28-35.
80
INTRODUCTION have here in fact the doctrine that is briefly adumbrated in Metaphysics I04IaZ7 - 3o-->avEpov 'Totvvv 07£ '7'JTEi 'TO arnov' 'Toiho 8' Ecrrt 'TO 'Tl -ryv Elvat , W~ El1TE'iV AO)'tKWS'. 8 E'fr' t.vtwv p.£v Eun TlvOfi EVEKa, olov wwS' al'TtoV
yup
£.'11"
Kat 'TOVTO.
olKlas ~ KAlVTjS',
;1f
t
ktwv
Se 'Tl
EKlVT}UE trpC¥rov'
The doctrine is that the cau'se of the inherence
of a ,,0.90s in a substratum (e.g. of noise in clouds) or of a quality in certain materials (e.g. of the shape characteristic of a house in bricks and timber) is always-to state the matter abstractly (AOYLKws)- the 'Tl1}v Elva, or definition of the union of substratum and 1Ta.f)OS', or of materials and shape. But in some cases this definition expresses the final cause-e.g. a house is defined as a shelter for living things and goods;' in other cases the definition expresses the efficient cause--e.g. thunder is a noise in clouds produced by the quenching of fire.' In yet other cases, he here adds, the formal cause expresses the eternal ground of an eternal attribute. In other words, the fannal cause is not a distinct cause over and above the final or efficient cause or the eternal ground, but is one of these when considered as forming the definition of the thing in question. The one type of cause that can never be identical with the formal cause is the material, and hence the material cause is silently omitted from the present passage. Aristotle goes on in ch. 12 to point out a difficulty which arises with regard to efficient causation. Here, he maintains, we can infer from the fact that an event has occurred that its cause must have occurred previously, but we cannot infer from the fact that a cause has occurred that its effect must have occurred. For between an efficient cause and its effect there is always an interval of time, and within that interval it would not be true to say that the effect has occurred. Similarly we cannot infer that since a certain efficient cause has taken place, its effect will take place. For it does not take place in the interval, and we can neither say how long the interval will last, nor even whether it will ever end. Aristotle is clearly conscious of the difficulty which everyone must feel if he asks the question why a cause precedes its effect; for it is hard to see how a mere lapse of time can be necessary for the occurrence of an event when the other conditions are already present; this is a mystery which has never been explained. Aristotle confesses his sense of the mystery when he says E"" UK€7TTEOV S~ -rl 'TO UVllEXOV WO"7'E P.E'To. 'TO yeyov£va, 'TO ylvEu8a, irrrapx€w EV 'ToiS' 7rpayp.auw. 3 This much" he adds, is clear, that the cam8 I Met. 1043aI6,33. Z An. Post. 93b8, 94 5. 3 9Sbl-S.
SECOND BOOK OF POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 8I pletion of one process, being momentary, cannot be contiguous to the completion of another, which is also momentary, any more than one point can be contiguous to another, nor one continuous process contiguous to the completion of another, any more than
a line can be contiguous to a point. For the fuller treatment of this subject he refers to the Physics, where it is in fact treated much more fully.' It is reasonable to infer that this chapter either was written after that .part of the Physics, or at least belongs to about the same period of Aristotle's life. It being impossible to infer from the occurrence of a past event that a later past event has occurred, Aristotle concludes that we can only infer that an earlier past event must have occurred; and similarly, it being impossible to infer that if a future event occurs a later future event must occur also, we can only infer that if a future event is to occur an earlier future event must occur. In either case the implied assumption is that for the occurrence of an event there are needed both a set of particular circumstances and a lapse of time whose length we cannot determine, so that we can reason from 't he occurrence of an event to the previous occurrence of its particular conditions but not vice versa. In ch. 13 Aristotle returns to the subject of definition. He has
stated his theory of definition; he now gives practical advice as to how definitions are to be arrived at. But here he is concerned
not with the definition of events, like eclipse or thunder, but with the definition of the primary subjects of a science. If we wish to define the number three, for instance, we collect the various attributes each of which is applicable to all sets of three and to certain other things as well, but all of which together belong only to sets of three. Three is (I) a number, (2) odd, (3) prime, (4) not formed by the addition of other numbers.' It is noticeable that Aristotle does not follow the prescription laid down in the Metaphysics,' that each differentia must be a further differentiation of the previous differentia, SO that a definition is complete when the genus and the final differentia have been stated; and in fact the number two satisfies conditions (3) and (4) but not condition (2). The present passage may be compared with that in the De Partibus' in which he rejects, so far as biology is concerned, the Platonic method of definition by successive dichotomies, as failing to correspond to the complexity of nature. J
In Bk. 6.
J I038~2I. 1985
2
For the Greeks, one was not a number but an cipx;' &p,8p.ofi. .. i. 2- 3. G
82
INTRODUCTION This passage is, however, followed by onel in which he assumes that each of the differentiae included in a definition will be a differentiation of the previous differentia. .The latter passage must almost certainly date back to an earlier period in which Aristotle was still accepting the Platonic method of definition. He concludes with a passage in which he points out the danger of assuming that a single term necessarily stands for a single species, and recommends that, since wider terms are more likely to be ambiguous than narrower ones, we should move cautiously up through the definition of narrower terms to that of wider. Aristotle assumes' that. generally speaking. ordinary language will provide us with names for the genera and species which form the subjects of a science. When we have established the existence of such a chain of gen~ra and species, the right order (he continues) of attacking the problem of discovering the properties of the genus and of its species is to discover first the properties of the whole genus, for then we shall know both that and why the species possess these properties, and need only consider what peculiar properties they have and why they have them. But we must be prepared to find that sometimes common language fails to provide us with names for the species. Greek has no name for the class of horned animals, but we must be prepared to find that they form a real class, whose possession of certain other attributes depends on their having homB. Or again we may find that the possession of certain common attributes by different species of animals depends on their having parts which without being the same have an analogous character, as the spine in fishes and the pounce in squids are analogous to bone in other animals. We may find that problems apparently different find their solution in a single middle term, e.g. in d.VTL7TEp{a'Ta(n~, reciprocal replacement, which in fact Aristotle uses as the explanation not only of different problems but of problems in different sciences. Or again we may find that the solution of one problem gives us part of the solution of another, by providing us with one of two or more middle terms. 3 Aristotle now' turns to the problem of plurality of causes. We may find a complete coincidence between two attributes, e.g. (in trees) the possession of broad leaves and deciduousness, or between two events, e.g. the interposition of the earth between the sun and the moon and lunar eclipse, and in such a case the presence of r
96bI5-97b6.
2
Ch. 14.
3'
Ch. 15.
.. Ch. 16.
SECOND BOOK OF POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 83 either attribute or event may be inferred from that of the otherthough, since two things cannot be causes of one another, only one of the two inferences will explain the fact it establishes. But may there not be cases of the following type-such that attribute A belongs to D because of its possession of attribute B, and to E because of its possession of attribute C, A being directly and separately entailed both by B and by C? Then, while the possession of B or of C entails the possession of A, the possession of A will not presuppose the possession of B nor the possession of C, but only the possession of either B or C. Or must there be for each type of phenomenon a single commensurate subject, all of which and nothing but which suffers that phenomenon, and a single commensurate middle term, which must be present wherever the phenomenon is present? Aristotle offers his solution in an admirable chapter' in which he does justice both to the general principle that a single effect must have a single cause, and of the facts that seem to point to a plurality of causes. He distinguishes various cases in which a plurality of things have or seem to have an attribute in cornmon. At one extreme is the case in which there is not really a single attribute but different attributes are called by the same name; we must not look for a common cause of similarity between colours and between figures, for similarity in the one case is sensible similarity and in the other is proportionality of sides and equality of angles. Next there is the case in which the SUbjects, and again the attributes, are analogically the same; i.e. in which a certain attribute is to a certain subject as a second attribute is to a second
subject. In this case the two middle terms are also analogically related. Thirdly there is the case in which the two subjects fall within a single genus. Suppose we ask, for instance, why, if A is to B as C is to D, A must be to C as B is to D, alike when the terms are lines and when they are numbers; we may say that the proportion between lines is convertible because of the nature of lines and that between numbers because of the nature of numbers. thus assigning different causes. But we can also say that in both cases the proportion is convertible because in both cases we have a proportion between quantities, and then we are assiguing an identical cause. The attribute, the possession of which is to be explained, is always wider than each of the subjects that possess it, but commensurate with all of them together, and so is the I
Ch. 17.
INTRODUCTION middle term. When subjects of more than one species have a common attribute there is always a middle term next to each subject and different for each subject, and a middle term next to the attribute and the same for all the subjects, being in fact the definition of the attribute. The deciduousness of the various deciduous trees has one common cause, the congelation of the sap, but this is mediated to the different kinds of tree by different proximate causes. Any given attribute will have ODe immediate cause A ; but things of the class D may have A because they have B, and things of the class E may have it because they have e; because of the difference of nature between class D and class E they may require different causes of their possession of A and of the consequent attribute. But things of the same species, having no essential difference of nature, require no such differing causes of their possession of A and of its consequent. Leaving aside the question of the possession of a common attribute by different species, and considering only the possession of an attribute by a single species, we may say that when species D possesses an attribute e, which entails B, which entails A, e is the cause of D's having B, and therefore of its having A, that B is the cause of e's entailing A, and that B's own nature is the cause of its entailing A.' Aristotle now' comes to his final problem; how do we come to know the first principles, which as we have seen cannot be known by demonstration, being presupposed by it? The questions he propounds are· (I) whether they are objects of ""crnip.'1 or of some other state of mind, and (.) whether the knowledge of them is acquired or inborn; and he attacks the second question first. It would be strange if we had had from birth such a state of mind, superior to scientific knowledge (of which it is the foundation), without knowing that we had it; and it is equally difficult to see how we could have acquired such a state if we had no knowledge to start with. We must therefore have from birth some faculty of apprehension, but not one superior either to knowledge by demonstration or to knowledge of first principles. Now in fact all animals have in sense-perception an innate discriminative faculty. In some, no awareness of the object survives the moment of perception; in others such awareness persists, in the form of memory; and of those that have memory, some as a result of 1
Ch. 18.
Z
Ch. 19.
SECOND BOOK OF POSTERIOR ANALYTICS
85
repeated memories of the same object acquire (experience', From
experience-from the 'resting' in the mind of the universal, the identical element present in a number of similar objects but distinct from them-art and science take their origin, art concerned with bringing things into being, and science with that which is. Thus the apprehension of universals neither is present from the start nor comes from any state superior to itself; it springs from sense--perception. In a famous simile I Aristotle likens the passage from individual objects to universals, and to wider universals, to the rallying of a routed army by one stout fighter who gradually gathers to him others. The process is made possible by the fact that while the object of perception is always an individual, it is the universal in the individual that is perceived, 'man, not the man Callias·. 2
The discussion started from the question how we come to know the universal propositions which lie at the basis of science: it has diverged to the question how we come to apprehend universal
concepts like 'animal'. Aristotle now returns to his main theme by saying that just as we reach universal concepts by induction from sense-perception, so we come to know the first principles of science. Just as the perception of one man, while we still remember perceiving another, leads to the grasping o~ the universal 'man', so by perceiving that this thing, that thing, and the other thing are never white and black in the same part of themselves, we come to grasp the law of contradiction; and so with the other fTPW'TQ. of science.
Aristotle now' turns to the other main question propounded in the chapter; what is the state of mind by which we grasp the "pw7a? The only states of mind that are infallible are scientific knowledge and intuitive reason; the first principles of science must be more completely apprehended than the conclusions from them, and intuitive reason is the only state of 'm ind that is superior to scientific knowledge . . Therefore it must be intuitive reason that grasps the first principles. This is the faculty which is the starting-point of knowledge, and it is it that grasps the startingpoint of the knowable, while the combination of it and scientific knowledge (the combination which is in the Ethics called "o.pta) grasps the whole of the knowable.' This chapter is concerned only with the question how we come I 100-12- 13.
z lb. I7-bI.
" With this chapter should be compared Met. A.
3
I.
qb
s.
86
INTRODUCTION to know the first principles on which science is based. Aristotle's answer does justice both to the part played by sense-perception and to that played by intuitive reason. Sense-perception supplies the particular infonnation without which general principles could never be reached: but it does not explain our reaching them; for that a distinct capacity possessed by man alone among the animals is needed, the power of intuitive induction which sees the general principle of which the particular fact is but one exemplification. Aristotle is thus neither an empiricist nor a rationalist, but recognizes that sense and intellect are mutually complementary. The same balance is found in the account which he gives of the way in which science proceeds from its first principles to its conclusions. Sense-perception, he says, supplies us with the facts to be explained, and without it science could not even make a beginning.' Its problem is that of bridging the gulf between the particular facts of which sense-perception informs us and the general principles by which they are to be explained. He is often charged with having proceeded too much a priori in his pursuit of natural science, and he cannot be acquitted of the charge, but his fault lay not in holding wrong general views on the subject, but in a failure to apply correctly his own principles. His theory is that it is the business of sense-perception to supply science with its data; the O'rt must be known before we begin the search for the 8wn,' and d,,68,,[tS is thought of by him not as the arriving by reasoning at knowledge of particular facts, but as the explanation by reasoning of facts already known by senseperception. This is no doubt the true theory. But he failed in two respects, as anyone in the infancy of science was bound to fail. The 'facts' with which he started were not always genuine facts; they were often unjustifiable though natural interpretations of the facts which our senses really give us. And, on the other hand, some of the first principles on which he relied as being selfevident were not really so. His physics and his biology yield many examples of both these errors. Yet he must be given the credit for having at least seen the general position in its true light-that it is the role of science to wait on experience for the facts to be explained, and use reason as the faculty which can explain them. Of the further function of reason-that of reasoning from facts known by experience to those not yet experienced-he has little conception. z
&)bZ9-3 I •
THE TEXT OF THE ANALYTICS VIII THE TEXT OF THE AN ALYTICS FOR the purpose of establishing the text I have chosen the five oldest of the MSS. cited by Waitz. These are (I) Urbinas 35 (Bekker's and Waitz's A), of the ninth or early tenth century; (2) Marcianus 201 (Bekker's and Waitz's B), written in 955; (3) Coislinianus 330 (Bekker's and Waitz's C), of the eleventh century; (4) Laurentianus 72.5 (Waitz's d), of the eleventh century; (5) Ambrosianus 490 (formerly L 93) (Waitz's n), of the ninth century. Where we have so unusual an array of old MSS., it is unlikely that very much would be gained by exploring the vast field of later MSS. We may look, in the first place, at the relative frequency of agreements between the readings of these five MSS. There are two long passages for which the original hand of all the five is extant, and I have made a count of the agreements in these passages, 31218- 49az6 and
~b4-82a2,
which together amount to
between a third and a half of the whole of the Analytics. The figures for the groupings of consentient readings are as follows: ABCd 399, ABCn 173, ABdn 199, ACdn 78, BCdn 70. ABC 18, ABd 68, ABn '9, ACd '3, ACn 6, Adn 12, BCd 4, BCn '7, Bdn II, Cdn 19. AB 20, AC 7, Ad 26, An 5, BC 8, Bd 5, Bn '7, Cd 14, Cn 60, dn 14. A alone 78, B alone 88, C alone 235, d alone 185, n alone 416. Summing the agreements of MSS. two at a time we get: ~~,~~M~hW,OC~M~,&~~m,
Cn 423, dn 403. We notice first that the agreements of four MSS. are much more numerous than the agreements of three only, or of two only. Either the variations are due to casual errors in single MSS., or
there is a family of four MSS. and a family of only one, or there is a combination of these two circumstances. The fact that all the groups of four are large, compared with the groups of three or of two, shows that casual errors in single MSS. playa large part in the situation. But when we look more closely at the groups of four, we find that one group, ABCd, is twice as large as that which is nearest to it in size, and more than five times as large as the smallest. Either, then, n is particularly careless, or it represents a separate tradition, or both these things are true. Now individual variations in one MS. from the others may. when they are wrong.
INTRODUCTION 88 imply either carelessness in the writing of the MS. or careful following of a different tradition. But when they are right this must be due to the following of a different, and a right, tradition. We must 'therefore look next to see how our MSS. compare in respect of correctness, in passages where the true reading can be established on grounds of sense or grammar or of Aristotelian usage. Within the two long passages already mentioned I have found B to have the right reading 40' times, A 389 times,C 363 times, n 339 times, d 337 times; the earlier editors Bekker and Waitz are evidently justified in considering A and B the most reliable MSS. Bekker gives the preference to A; Waitz gives it to B, and his opinion is endorsed by Strache in his edition of the Topics . At the same time it is noteworthy that the other three MSS. fall so little behind A and B in respect of accuracy. The value of a MS., however, does not depend only on the number of times in which it gives an evidently correct reading. but also on the number of times it is alone in doing so. I have made a note of the passages, throughout the Analytics, in which a certainly (or almost certainly) correct reading is found in one MS. only (ignoring the very numemus insertions by later hands). The results are as follows: A alone has the right reading in 92'32, 94'7, 95'35, '00"; B alone in 3I332, 441 34-5, 4Sb3, 46bz8, 47a2l, 59126, 65129. 67118, 70b " 75 b34, 87 b38 , 94b30, 35, 99'33; C alone in 28b31, '29b28, 30b31, 32'5, 47'14, 5,'8, 52b8, 19, 54b35, 56b29, 65 b3, 66'14, 67 b37, 69b20, 73", 33, 74'8, 81"; d alone in 2t'9. 33125. 48bI2, 49b36. 70b32. 72%,88127.94-322, b16; n ala'ne in 34138, bI8. 31. 35aI3. 39bzz, 44a4. 6, 46139, 4712, II. 19. 49129. 52ar. 54a37. 57bz4, 58a25, b33 , 62 bro, z3, 64b30' 73120, 74122. 38, 7SbI9. 28, 77br, 78b2- 3. 31, 35. 8014, 8z br, 10, 841J9. 32 , b33 • 85'5. 26, 28, b8, IS. 86a20, 37, 39. b 17 . 87118, 88a7. 10. 15, 20, ZI. bII , 16, 89127, 90119, 24, 27, bI . 91b3, 921II, 27. 34, b27 , 93131, 35. 36, bu , 13,31,36. 95a16. b6, 25.
Util
g6'15, 98'II, '2, 26, 32, 38 (specially important because n comes to our aid where there is a lacuna in A. B, and d, and the original hand of C is lacking), b20, '3, 38, 99'5, 25, bI I, '9. Thus, while there are only four passages in which A alone has the true reading. there are fourteen in which B has it. eighteen in which C has it, nine in which d has it, and no fewer than eighty& ~!1,e in which n has it. It follows, then, that the very numerous
~%Ei'8~~i~ ~u,""'\'\;""',
;::: ,\
__
12, 24. 30, 37,
It!' .."."
L. ...
.
THE TEXT OF THE ANALYTICS 89 variations of n from the other MSS. are not always due to carelessness on the part of the writer of the MS. or of one of its ancestors, but are often the result of its following a different, and a right, tradition; we have clear evidence of there being two families of MSS. represented by ABCd and by n. Next, we note that A and B agree a good deal more often than any other pair of MSS., and we may infer that they are the most faithful representatives of their .family. B is both more often right, and more often alone in being right. than A; and n agrees more often with B than with any of the other three MSS.; we may therefore infer that B is the best representative of its family. B and n, then, are the most important MSS. It follows, too, that any agreement of n with any of the other MSS. is prima-facie evidence of the correctness of the reading in which they agree. Much new light has recently been cast on the text of the Prior Analytics by the researches of Mr. L. Minio into two ancient Syriac translations. The older of these (which he denotes by the symbol II) is a translation of i. 1-7, not improbably by Proba, a writer of the middle of the fifth century; it is extant in eight MSS., of which the oldest belongs to the eighth or ninth century. The other (denoted by F) is a complete translation by George, Bishop of the Arabs, and belongs to the end of the seventh or the beginning of the eighth century; it is found in one MS. of the eighth or ninth century. Minio's critical apparatus shows only the divergences of rand II from the text of Waitz, and since Waitz's text is based mainly on A and B, the comparative rarity of the appearance of A and B in his apparatus does not prove that the Syriac translations agree less with them than with the other MSS.; it is quite likely that a complete apparatus would show that they agree more closely with these two Greek MSS. than with any others. Further, the translation II covers ouly a part of the Prior A nalytics for which we have not the original hand of n, hut a text in a later hand. What Minio's collation does show, however, is two things: (1) the large measure of agreement of both translations with C, (2) the large measure of their agreement with the late Greek MS. m. From the point at which the original hand of n begins (31'18), the most striking feature of Minio's collation is the very large numher of agreements of r with n. Its correspondences with C, though not so numerous as those with n, are fairly numerous. Minio ranks the MSS. ABCmn in the order nBCAm as regards
INTRODUCTION their affinity, and with this I agree, except that it would seem that if Waitz's citations of m were complete, it might he seen to have more affinity with r than any of the other MSS. The readings of r and II, when they do not agree with any of the best Greek MSS., do not seem to me very important; in many cases the apparent divergences may be due simply to a certain freedom in translation, or to errors in translation. For · this reason, and to avoid overburdening the apparatus, I have abstained from recording such readings. In passages in which no Greek MS. affords a tenable reading, I have not found that r or II comes to our aid. Again, I have refrained from recording the readings of r and II where Minio expresses some doubt about them. But where there is no doubt about their readings, and where these agree with any of the chief Greek MSS., I have recorded them, as providing evidence that the reading of the Greek MS. goes back to a period some centuries earlier than itself. it is particularly interesting to note that n, which on its own merits I had come to consider as representing a good independent tradition, is very often supported by the evidence of r. I may add Minio's summary of the position as regards the Categories, which he has very carefully studied: '(a) The Greek copies current 'in the Vth to VIIth centuries' agreed between themselves and with the later Greek tradition on most essential features; '(b) they varied hetween themselves in many details; most of these old variants are preserved also in one or more later Greek MSS, and a large proportion of the variants which differentiate these later copies go hack to the older texts; '(c) Wait,'s choice of B ... as the best Greek MS is confirmed to be on the whole right; but '(d) other MSS appear to represent a tradition going back at least to the Vth-VIth century, especially n . . " and in a smaller degree C and e .. .; '(e) iu a few instances the older tradition stands unanimous against the Greek MSS; and '(f) in the instances coming under (d) and (e) there is no apparent reason to prder the later to the older evidence.' 'The frequent coincidence', continues Minio, 'between the Greek
MS nand Boethius confirms what had already been pointed out by S. Schuler, K. Kalbfleisch and G. Furl.ni on the importance of I
i.e. those on which Boethius' translation was based.
THE TEXT OF THE ANALYTICS 91 this MS, which is perhaps the oldest we possess. They even exaggerated the extent of its similarity to the older texts. It is true that it agrees with them on many points against the other Greek MSS, but it is not true that it is nearer to them than B is, since it has a great number of variants differentiating it from all older texts. It is, however, interesting to notice tbat the importance of n as preserving old features was emphasized also in regard to the De Interpret. by K. Meiser and J. G. E. Hoffmann who found striking examples of this fact while examining the Latin and Syriac versions of this treatise: I have still to consider the contribution of the Greek commentators to the establishment of the text. Alexander is more than 600 years nearer to Aristotle than the earliest Greek MS. of the Analytics, Themistius 500, Ammonius about 400, Simplicius 300; it might perhaps be expected that the commentators should be of primary importance for the text of Aristotle. But we must be careful. Support for a reading derived from the commentaries is of very different degrees: (I) Sometimes the course of the commentary makes it clear what reading the commentator had before him. Such support I designate by AI (Alexander), Am (Ammonius), An (Anonymus), E (Eustratius), P (Philoponus), T (Themistius). (.) Sometimes the commentator introduces a citation which is evidently meant to be exact. But even so he may not be quoting quite exactly, or the citation as it reaches us may pave been influenced by the text of Aristotle used by the copyist from the commentator's MS. Such support I designate by Ale, etc. (3) Sometimes the commentator introduces a careless citation, paraphrasing the sense of the text he had before him. (4) The lemmata I designate by Ai1, etc.
It is agreed among scholars that the lemmata were written not by the commentators, but by copyists; and the copyists responsible for our MSS. of the commentators are as a rule later than the writers of our five old MSS. The lemmata are therefore almost valueless as support for a reading against the evidence of our MSS., and not worth very much as support for one variant as against another. For obvious reasons the loose quotations also have little importance. I have included lemmata in the apparatus only to show that there is some support for a reading found in only one,
INTRODUCTION
92
or in none, of our MSS. To make more mention of them than this would be to overload 'the apparatus with n~edIess infonnation. The first two of the four kinds of evidence, on the other hand, have great importance, and the first kind has much more than the second, because it can hardly have been influenced by the MSS. of Aristotle used by the copyists of the commentaries. But even when we know that a commentator had a certain reading, it by no means follows that that reading is what Aristotle wrote; in many places the commentators plainly had an inferior text. Nevertheless, of the '34 places cited above in which the plainly right reading is found in only one MS., there are 69 in which that reading finds support in one or more of the commentators. In addition, there is a certain number of passages in which the first hands of all our five MSS. go astray, while one or more of the commentators has the right reading. Those that I have noted will be found at 30b'4, 36"3, 44b38, 45 b'4, 46'17, 82b'7, 83b'4, 86'8, b'7, 88b29, 89'13, 90b10, 16, 92'24, 30 (bis) , 31, b9, 93'24, 94'34, 35, 95b34, 97bI4, 33, 98b6. In addition there are a few passages in which a commentator has a reading that has claims on our acceptance not by reason of intrinsic superiority but because the commentator is a much earlier authority than many of our MSS .. These are found at 24b29. 26 a2, 38b2I. In our two test passages (31'18- 49'z6, 6gb4-S Z" ) the following agreements occur : A B
=
AI
20
times
=
Aleg
22
9
C
29
II
d
17 30
9 12
=
P
21
z9 32 27 29
=
.pc 5
~
4
T4 2
Total 5S 66
II
5
88
8
4
65
il9 It is surprising that the two MSS. hitherto reckoned the best show the least agreement with the commentators; but the total number n
9
9
of agreements is probably too small to warrant any very definite conclusion, and the agreements throug/wut the Analytics should be taken as the basis for any conclusions to be drawn. It is interesting, however, to find some confirmation of the possession of an old and good tradition by n. Our original hypothesis that, with five MSS. of so early a date, we have little need to take account of later MSS. is confinned if we consider the .very small number of passages in which a clearly right reading is found only in a later MS. or MSS., or in a later hand in one of the old MSS. The only instances I have
THE TEXT OF THE ANALYTICS 93 noted will be found at 26'32 (f). 66b,o (mn'). 82 b'7 (MP). 83b'4 (DM). 84 b33 (D). 87'24 (c'). 88b22 (DM). 89'13 (DP). 90b10 (c'P'). 16 (Mn'E), 92'31 (B'E). b9 (DAn'E). 94'3 (D). 34 (c'P). 35 (DP).
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SIGLA A
I, '.2
= An. Pro I, IT; A 3, 4 = An. Post. I, II
Ambrosianus 124 (B 103), sacco xiii 231 (D 43) u xiv (A I, mutilus) " 237 (D 54) "xiii (A I (pars), 2, 3 (pars»
"
255 (D 82)
"xiii
344 (F 67) "xvi (A 3, 4) 525 (M 71, Waitzii q), saec. xiv and xv Bodleianus, Baroccianus 87. saee. xv " "
" " "
" Laudianus " Seldenianus
177 u 45" 46" 35 "
xiii ineuntis xv xiv xiv xv (A I. 1"""'9)
" Miscellaneus 261 " Bononiensis (Bib!. Univ.) 3637, saec. xiv (A I, mutilus) Escurialis
Gennensis F VI. 9, saec. xv-xvi (A I) Gudianus gr 24. saec. xiii Laurentianus 72, 3 (Waitzii e), :mni 1383 (palimpsestus) 72, 4, saec. xiii " 72, ·10 " xiv (A I, 2) " 72, 12 (Waitzii T), saee. xiii " 72,19, saec. xiv (A I. 1-7) " 87,16" xiii (A I (pars» " 89, 77 " xvi " Suppl. 55 (88. 39), saec. xiv (A I, mutilus) " Conventi suppressi 192, saec. xiv (A I, 2) Lipsiensis (Bib!. Sanataria) 7, saec. xv (A I, 2) Marcianus 202, saec. xiv-xv " 203" xiv " 204 (Waitzii a), saec. xiv " App IV. 53 (Bekkeri Nb, Waitzii L), saec. xii Manacensis 222, saec. xiv (A 2- 4) " 234" xvi (A 3, 4) Mutinensis uB (II D 19), anni 1400 " 149 (II E 16), saec. xv (A 3, 4) " 189 (III F II) " xiv-xv-xvi Neapolitanus III D 30, saec. xv " III D 31 " xiv " In D 32 " xv (A 4)
INTRODUCTION
94
Neapolitanus III D 37 saec. xiv (A I) Oxoniensis, Coll. Corporis Christi 104, saec. xv (A 3, 4) " CoIl. Novi 225, saec. xiv " Coll. Novi 299 " xv Parisinus I&i3, saec. xiii I&i5 " xiv r&i6 " xiv (A I, 2) " IB47 " xvi (A 3, 4) " I8g7 A, saec. xiii " 1919, anni 1442 (A I, 2, 4) " 1971, saec. xiii xiv 1972 1974 " xv
" " " " " " " "
2020 2030
" " " "
XV
xvi (A I, 2) xiv (A 1, 2) 2051 2086 xiv 2120 " xvi " 167, saec. xiv Coislinianus xiv (A I, 2) 323 " xiv " 327 " Suppl. 141, saec. xvi " xiv 245 " " 644 " xiv " " " Toletanus 95-8 Vaticanus 110, saec. xiii-xiv (A I, 2) " 199" xiv (A I, 2) " 241 (Bekkeri I, Waitzii K), saec. xiii " 242, saec. xiii-xiv xiii-xiv 243 " 244 " xiii " 245 " xiii (A 1- 4 (A 4 mutilus» " 247 (Waitzii E), saec. xiii- xiv (A I) " 1018, saec. xv-xvi (A I, 2) " 1294
" " " " " "
" " " " " " "
14<)8 16<)3 Ottobonianus ,386, saec. xv (A 1) Palatinus 34 saec. xiv A I, 2 (A 2 mutilus) " 74" xv JJ 78 " . xvexeuntis 159, anni 1442 "" 255, saec. xv Reginensis 10'/, saec. xiv " u 6 " xiv " 190" xvi (A 1-4 (A 2 mutilus» Urbinas 56, saec. xvi (A r, 2, mutili)
MANUSCRIPTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE SIGLA Vindobonensis 41 , saec. xv-xvi (A I, mutilus) "
" "
..
94
155.. xvi exeuntis (A 3, 4) 230 (A I, .2) Suppl. 59. saee. xiv (A 1,2, mutili) ,.
60
"
XV
95
APTETOTEAOYl: ANAAYTlKilN
H
SIGLA An.P" 24&10-310.17 31aI8- 49a26
codices
49a21~b4
69b4-An. Post. 8z1l2
An. Post. A B C d n
8Za 2-IOOb I7
ABCd ABCdn ABCn ABCdn ABdn
(Bekkeri atque Waitzii) = Urbinas 35. saec. ix vel x ineuntis (Bekkeri atque Waitzii) = Marcianus 201, anni 955 (Bekkeri atque Waitzii) = Coislinianus 330, saec. xi (Waitzii) = Laurentianus 72. 5, saec. xi (Waitzii) = Ambrosianus 490 (olim L 93), saec. ix
r n Al Am An E P T Ale, All,
= Georgii traductio Syriaca = Probae traductio Syriaca
= Alexander in An. Pro i = Ammonius in An. Pr.. i = Anonymus in A". Post. ii = Eustratius in An. Post. ii = Philoponus in An. Pro et Post. = Themistius in An. Post.
Arne, Anc, Ee, pc = Alexandri, etc., citatio Ami, Ani, EI, pi = Alexandri, etc" lemma
RARO CITANTUR D (Bekkcri atque Waitzii) = Coislinianus IS7, saec. xiv medii F (Waitzii) = Vatieanus 209~ saee. xiv M (Waitzii) = Mareianus App. iv. 51 a (Waitzii) = Angelieus 42 (olim C 3. 13), saee. xiv e (Waitzii) = Vatieanus 1024, vetustus f (Waitzii) = Mareianus App. iv. 5, saee. xiv i (Waitzii) = Laurcntianus 72. IS, sacco xiv m (Waitz.ii) = Ambrosianus 687 (olim Q 87), saee. xv p {Waitzii) ,.", Ambrosianus 535 (olim M 89), saee. xiv u (Waitzii) = Basileensis 54 (F ii. 21), saee. ~i
ANAAYTlImN IIPOTEPQN A. ... IIpurrov a.7T&aE'~tV
.. 'rTf:P"" ., , .. 'TL Kal. 'TtVOS E(1'TW 1]
'.1."
'"€oP'• 24owpwo.r. 'Tl
aKE"~tSJ OT'
Ka~
E1T'~P.1JS a1ToO£tK'TUC'ij,S" ElTa Ka~ -rl opoS' Ka~ -rL UVAAOYLUP.O,S', Ka~ 1TOtOS' Ka~ ?TOWS ti'TE"~S', }UTa 8i -raiha -rt 7"0 EV 0A't1 EtE -r68E TcpoE J Kat -rt A¥IUV 'TO Ka1'ti. 1TaVToS'
7rp6-raUlS
E(]'Tt
TlAnoS'
7j
VCU
~
E(.7TE"W
p..q tva,
~ p:rJS
Karrrrop<wlJa,. 'S ' . . , . . • '\ ,,,j...... ' IIfJOTUu£, fUiV GVV E(]'TL "oyos Ka'Tu.r-o-'TtKoS' 1J a7T""f'U''Tt.KOS' 'TWOS KaTa 'TWOS' o07oS' Se 7j Ka1J6>"ov i} EV pipEt 1j dSt.&ptO'TOSo A'YW Of Ka8o'Aov f'€v 'TO 1TaV'T' i} fL7Jo€J/f. t.maPXEw, tv JLfPEt Of TO 7'tV' 7j p..q 'Twt 7j p..q '1TaV'Tt imdPXEW. dOtOpLO''TOV S~ 'TO tmapXELV 7j p..q tmapX£LV avw 'TOV Ka86Aov 7j Ka'Ta pipos, orov 20 'TO 'TWV £VaV'T/.wv Elva, .,.ryv aVn}v lmcrr-ryp:YJv 7j 'TO -rryv ~8ovr}v p.-q E tval. dya8av. 8uuf>'PEt SE ?j (i1rOO EtK'TtK'iJ 7Tpo-raatS' rYjs O«lAEK"TI.Kfj,S', (h-t ~ 1'& a7ToO£LK'TUc1] 'AfjyJts 8a.,.'pov p.oplov Tijs aVTufxi.... ~
I
\
..
(1' t. ~ ')'.' EO"TLV ov yap E{JWTCf (l.I\/\a l\at'1-'av€L 0 a1TOO€LKVVWV , TJ OE ' I , • • .l..! " '\:,O \:'\ \:' I , \ Ow.l\EJ('T(.1C'YJ EPW77JU(,S aV'T~u£WS EO"TtV. ovo£v oE oLOtUEt 1TPOS TO 25 YEvlCT8ru TOY £KaTlpov uuAAoywp.6v· Kat yap 0 a1To8etKVt5wv t .... '\'\'Y '\ft' tl KaL., t 0 EPWTWV UUN\oy£~ETa, I\a WY n KaTa, TWOS V7Tapx£l,V ~ J-L.f] {mrtPXEW. ~cnE Ecrra£ UVAAO'}'W'nK1} J.'Ey 1Tp6-raats a1T'\ws '.l. .. , 1..l. ... ' , \, I , KaTa'f'aCTtS TJ a1TV'f"-'-UtS TWOS KaTa TtVOS TOY ELPTJJ-L6'OY TPO'\:' '\:"" -''\ ~:1. '\:" .... 't ' ,.. 11'0V, a1TOOELlC7'tKTJ OE, Eay a/\TJVI,S U Kat ota TWY ES ap')(TJS 30 tm08EUEWV El>..TJJlJLOrq, 8t.aAEK7LIO} 8E 7TVvOaVOJ-LEvcp J.LEv lpJJ- 24b TTJUtS aVTu/xiuEws, croAAO'}'t'OJ.Llv<.p BE A-ryif1£S TOO 1mWO,uVOV Kat Ev86~ov. Ka8rt11'Ep lv TOtS T011'tKOtS EifYY}7'a£ . 'Tt JLEv OOV Ecrr~ , 0;:0 ... .l., '\'\ \ t' \ 1Tp0'TaUtS, Ka£0'T£' Otu.o.rEPEt UUN\O'}'W'T£K7] Kat\ .a1TOoEtK'TLKTJ Kat• B£aAEKTLIO}. O£' aKptf3Elas J.LEv EV TOtS E1TOJ.LlvO£S pTJ8fJuerat, 1TpOS OE Tijv 1Tapofiaav xpEtav Zt
..vETat ~ 1TpOTaClLS, olav TOTE KU7'7}YOpoVJ-LEVOV Ka~ 'TO KaO 00 KarYJi'opEtTa£, 11'pOa'TLOEJ-L'VOV [Tj 8UI£POVJ-£lvOV] TOO E lvat 7j JL.f] £ lvru.. GVAAoy(.O'~s 8' EO"TI. Ao,,0S lv 0/ TEOlVTWV 'TLVWV ETEpOY '1'(. TWV K£f.,J.'lvwv ciyaYKT}S GVJlf3al, .
UEWS
("
I
....
_' ' \ ' \ '
'\
••
\:' __ '\
ov t
le
24810 lOThl am. C'l II l7n~f'7]V alToliuKTuc,",,, Ai 17 T'VOS2 codd. AiAmP: +1}' TWOS alTO TWOS AmYP : Kat TtVOS alTO nvoS' j>Yp 29 ~ alTot/>au(S' om. C1 Ttvos2+ +1j Tt"OS' 0.11"0 TUIOS' AmYI' b I7 '1TPOUT,OtP./vov C2iAi cpc: 11 77/J
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A Tip -raVra Elvat. Aiyw 8i Tip 'Taiha. Elva£ 'TO Ou1 'Taiha CTVJ-L{3a{JlEtV 'TO OE OLa. -rath-a CTV/L{3a{VEW 'TO lL1}oevoS" ;,w801 opov 7TpoaoEiv 7rp6) 70 Y€PEu8a£ 'TO dvaYKaiov. TEAELOV ply OW
20 YEt
J
KaAW uvMoywp.Ov 'TOV fL7JOHOS lliov 1TpoaOEofLEvOV 1rapd.
'To.
ElA"lP,JLEVa TTpOS 'TO ~vfjvat 'TO avaYKaL'ov. a:rEAij DE 'TOV 1Tpoa25 OEOfL€VOV 71 EvOS ij 1T)..OOVWV J 8 ECT'n JLEv d.vaYKaw Sui 7"(OV
VrroK£"J.LEvWV opwv. 00 p.-ryv ELA7]1T'Ta£ o,a. 1TpO'TaUEwv. 'TO oE tv oAcp t:lVat. E'TEPOV E'TEPCP Ka, 7"() KaTa 7TaJI'ToS' KarrrropEw8a£ 8aTEpou 8&:repov -rav.rov Eerrw. Alyoj1£V DE 'TO Ka.'Ta 1TavroS' Karf)yope LaOat
&ray
P:T}OEV
'll
Aa{3dv
['ToO tnrOKEtP.a..OV]
\ I'TjOfYOS' ... \ waaV'TWS'. ~ , O• au'0'aTEpov OU~'Il.!. I\EXv 'luETat' KaL" 'TO Ka-rQ. 2sa 'EnE;' DE TT'o.aa ,"pc),Tauts EU7'W 1} 'ToO VrraPXEw 1J 'TOV E~ 2 o.vaYWI}S mrapxEtv i} 'TOV ~o'XEcr8a, tnrapx€w 'TOth-WV OE al , ... A.-,. , ... \ ,,,A-.... • 8' E"KaCT7iJV , , fL€V KaT"'f"""T'Kat at OE" a1rvy"-'-TtKaL Ka 1rPOUP"']OW, 30 Ka
J
~
~
mtAw 8~ TWV KaTa4mTLKWV Kat a7TocpaTtKWV al /L€v Ka8oAov 5 al Ot tv fLipn al oE a8wpW'To" ,.,ryv ph €v 7'ip im&'pXE"W Ka'\ CJ7E"fYYlT'K7JV \ avayK1'/ • , ..... • '..t. ,,_ t 8OI\OV TO'S' OPO'S' aVT'CJ7pE"'t'E"W, 0 WV E"L p.7]OE"p.la ~8oV7} ayaOovl ovo' ayaOov ov8Ev ;CJ7at ~8oVl}' rryv 8e Ka'M}\. , J.. \, ... '\ aN\ -' \ \' €V • yopLKTJV aVTt07pe'f'Etv fLaI avaYKaLOV. ov" p.7]V Ka 0OI\OV p.£PE"' . oTov E"l 1Taoa ~8oY1} ayaBav, Kat aya8av 'T' ElvaL ~oo, ... \ 1 , \ \ ..t.,. \, '..1.' , 10 VTJV' TWV OE €V fLE"pn 'M}V /LEV KaTa'FTLK7JV aVTW'TpE"'f'E"W avayK1'/ , , (' • ~~, • 0' , . aD' • KaTa IJ-EpoS' E"I. yap 'rJOOVTJ TtS' aya ov. Ka, ay ov TL E"CJ7ar. ~8ovry). ,.,ryv O'TE"prJT',qV OUK dvaYKaLov' (ou yap El av8pw7To~ fLT] im&.PXEt TtV' ~cf;lfJJ Kal {qJov ovx {m&.PXn TLvt dvfJpdmqJ). IIpWTov ,."Ev oov EaTw CJ7EprjTl.~ KaBoAov ;, A B 1Tp/rraaLS'. ,.. ~, ... B TO'A V7TapXEL, ~ , .~, ... A OVOEVL -'~ , tnTar..E' t I ... i: IS E' ovv IJ-7]OEV' Tep OVOE TlfJ 'B • I ,,_ ... 0' ~ TO • E' yap TW', OWV To/ , OUK aA7] ES' "EO"TaL 'TO f'lfV€VL TqJ B TO A im&'PXEW' 'TO yap 'TWV B Tl t.CJ7w. El Oe 1TaV'T~ TO A 'Tip B. Kat -r6 B 'TW~ 'rqJ A im&'P{Et· E"l fL7]OEVt. o08e 'A OVOEV' .~, ... B tnTar..E'· ~ '",i: _'"\"\' ~ ~ ~ 'TO '7"0/ £U\I\ tnTEKELTO 1TaVTL tnTapXEW. 20 &fLOlw~ Ka, El KaTa pipoS' t.O"T~V ~ '"pln-aa,S'. El yap TO A Twl T0 B J Kat TO B Twl Tep A dV&YK17 im&'PXEW' El yd.p fL'Y)SEVl. OVOE 'TO A ovcevt Tip B. El 8£ ye TO A 'Twl ~
~
Se
r r
. -"
>I
,
.....
\
...
yap
f
,
ce
b20 TO] T~ C 21 oVIlJ301vnv om. rn T~ 3( AC 27 ETCpov+il' BC 28 8o.upov (JaT(pov rn 29 l(aTTjyopcio8a, om. rn TOV V1TOI(€'IlEVOIJ BCdn: nul' T0V V1TOIWIlEl'OV A: om. Al 2S aI2 ov yap cl J3C1d, fecit A: cl yap C IS T~ CIIAl: TWl' AEJC2d Tep mnAle: TWl' ABCd 16 Tr;} J32m1I: TUtV ABCd 18 Tip]TW" AI TWl' (l Fn tmaptn rlI: tmapxn ABed 19 Tep ABCdAle: TWV A'FPe :n T~ bisfmAl: 'TWV ABCd a v1TapxuC .22 TipfimAl: TWV AB£d p+waKufim
I. 24h20 -
3. 2ShIS
'Tip B p..~ WraPXEt, aUK avayK'YJ Ka~ TO B 'TLV~ -ri;J A fLTj f trmipXEw, olov el ·Tt] fL£v B EC17'L {<pav, 'TO oE A J.v(Jpcmros· avfJpunros /LEV yap
ou
7TaVTL
{cpov oE 7TaVTL av8pW1T
{cp~,
tmapXEt. Tov UVTOY OE
3
, -raaEWV.
'Tp01rOV
" yap "It!-u;v A,.......
1:"
e"
;,et
Kal
£17"(,
'TWV avaYKalwv 'Tf'PO-
'e I"
'.1. Ka OI\OV UTEfYI1TUCTJ Ka OI\OV aJITtcrrp6.f'E(', 'TWV f,
Of Ka'Ta'F"TtKWV EKa'TEpa
\ '
K<1ra
• £(.
Jl-EpoS.
\
JLeJ
•
yap
.,
avaYKTJ
'TO A 'Tip B 1.1..''1]061(. VTraPXEW, o.vaYK1] KaL 'TO B 'Tip A P/1]- 30 Off' tmo.PXEW· El yap 'Tw(' EVOEXE'Tar., KaL 'TO A -rep B 'TWL £v., , \ 't • , , A ,.. \ "" B V1Tap• , OEXO''TO av. E(' OE ES avaYKrJS 'TO 1Tav-r(' 1] 'TW(. T
~
Xl',
Ka,
dV&YK"I1J .,
'TO B
ovo' av
'Ttv;' 'T~ A avaYK71 tmapXEw' fEL yap fL-t, 'TO A 'Ttl'L Tip B lE dvdYKTlS inrapx0t.. 'TO S'
,
••
fA..
€V jLEpE(, C17'Ef»17'LKOV Q1JK aVTWTpE'fEt,
<:- \
0(.(1.
,
"
"
7TJV a1J'T7jv at:nav
~,
0(,
..
TJv
35
""I.. KaL" 1TpO'TEpOV f,'f'ajLEV • .... • '" I ' . U 'TrON\axwS' "... '\ ' TWV EVoEXOfL6IWV, E'TrEIN'1 I\EYETat 'TO lvo{XEu8a, (Kat yap 'TO clvaYKatov Kat TO p,?] avaYKawv Kat 'TO SvvaTOV lvS'xEu8at )"lyop.Ev), EV fL~V Tots Kanupa.TtKOtS op.otws ;,Et KaTel r1}V aVTWTpocpTW iv a.7Tao'W. El yap TO A 40 7TaJn"t ~ TWt TijJ B lvS{XETat, Kat 'TO B TWt 'Tep A EVS{XOtTO 2Sb av' el yap fL118EVl, o~' av TO A O~8EVt 'TijJ B· 8{8EtK'Tat yap TOVrO 7Tp6-rEPOV. lv 8~ 'TotS' a'Tro¢>a'TtKo'iS' OUX wua&rws, lli' aua p,a, EVOEX€CI0W. AEYE'Ta, ~ 'TtP ie avaYK7]S {mapXEw ~ 'Tip , 'l: • , \ , ., i' .. ./..' , fLTJ E~ avaYK11S J.L'fJ V7TUPXEW, OJ.LO'WS', OOOV €t ns -rat'fJ TOV 5 avOpw7Tov iVOEXEa8at ,.,,7J Elvat '1T7TOV ~ 'TO AEVKOV ,."TJ8EVt ip.aTUp VTTlIPXEW ('TO&rWV yap 'TO ,.,,~v Ee o.vayK'1]S' oUX inrapxEt, \ , './.. , TO OE OVK ayaYK7J tJTtapXEW, Ka, OJ.Wtws aVTtUTpE't'Et TJ 7TPOTew,S' El yap £vS{xeTa' ,.,,1JO€Vt dvOpw'Trtp '1T7TOV, Kal a.vf}pw~ 7TOV EyxwPEf. fL1JOEvt Z7T7Tip' Kat El TO AEVKOV EYXWPEL ""'fJ0EVt 10 if.La.TUp, Kat 'TO lfLaTU)V EYXWPEi fL1JSEVt AEVKcfr El yap 'TW' avayK'1], Kat 'TO AEVKOV lfUL'TUp TtVt €UTa, avaYK7JS" TOfYrO yap O{SEtK'Tat 7TpOTEPOV), oJLOtwS' S~ Kat E7Tt -riiS' lv ,uPEt a'TrO.J.~ ".. ., ~, .... • • \ \ '\' , ... .J. ' '\ ' o.ru-T'K7JS'· oua UE 'Tip WS' E7T' 'TO 'TrOI\V Kat 'Tip 'TrE-rVKEVa, l\eyETat EvS'xEuf}a" Kaf}' OV Tp07rOV Stopl{Op,EV TO £vOEX6j-LEVOV, OUX 15 a23 'rwv fJ A2BCdrn TWV «cnp 29-34 E1 ••• uTTapXOt codd. rnAZP: seel. Becker 30 'TWV f1 A2Crn 1(0.4 Bpc: om. ACd TWV 0. AZCrn 31,32 To/] TWV A'tCrn 33 T~ ABdAI: TWV A3Crn p.~ &v&YK1J] &-. UXETo., p:1}8cvt ]>yp 34 TW" fJ A'Crll il1TapX1I fecit A . 39,m, TO 8vvaTOV codd. rnAlP: sed. Becker hI TWV f1 A2Crn To/ ABdAl: TWVern :2-3 El ••• TTpOTEPOV codd. rnAl: seel. Becker 2 TW.. P crn 4 civ&.YK7JS"+p.~ AIIflCdrAl 5 p.~s om. ABlCdAIP 7 oux om. rn 8 V7I"a.pxu r: p.~ VTTa.pXUV CP 14 TO Cd2 Al: am. ABd • D_ \
£/TTl,
""
OE
~
~
\
.
.,
.,
.,.
i,
~
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A OfLOiw~ ;~EI. £V Tal:~ ("TC:fY1}TtKa'is aVTI.Cl'Tpocpa'is, ill' t., p..~v Ka~ " O"TEp'YJ'T'K'TI\ '1T'poracns OUK aVTurrpE.,.,Et, 'A-.''I] OE ~ \, , , 8OI\OV EV fLEpEr, aV'TtI
'.J.._
crrpE~'.
"
.1..".
....."',.,
rOtJ'TO
\.,
\,.,
,~
I
~OEX0p..EVOV
DE E"crral. 'f"-"VEpOV orav 7TEpt.. 'TOV
>..IrWfL€V. vvv 3~ roaowov t.,p..'iv EO"TW 7TpOS '\
"
e
"'i:"
. . \ 7J..
20 I\Oll, aT(. 'TO €VOEXECl at fL'1')OEVI.
KOV
'TO£S' ElfY11/J."f.vo/,s Sij\ JL7J\., J. V7TapXEW Ko:ra.,.,a'Tt-
'TWt.
EX€(' 'TO axfip,a (TC) yap Ev3txerat 'Tip
7TOtEt
EaTW
ofLOlws r&:r-
'" \ " 1''' ,.. 2.1.. • \ 'TO, Of: f£(T'nv. atS' av '"pOClKarrrYOp-rrrat, Ka'TUAf'aaw an
'TE'Tat,
Ka~
1TaV'TWS'.
a7TAWS'TO EUTtV ')
au
, ... '
orov
'TO
TOUrO'
\.
2S P.€VWV , Kara DE. ras
Ea7'LV
OUK
aya06v 7} lc:rrw
au AEVK6v
7}
3HxO",uerat. SJ: Ka2 'ToVro 8,d. 'TWV ;:"0....J.. \
aV'TW7'p~aS'
~
'''t.
..
~\
'\
0fLOLWS E!:,ov(n 'TaLS' a.tV\aLS' •
.dLWpf.apivwv 3~ TOv,.WV >..,fywp..£JI
1f87] aLa
rtvwv Ka~
oe
?Ten-£.
4
ylV€'TaL was UVAAOYLUj.OOS'· VO'TEPOV AEK'T€OV 1fEP~ &.1TOOE~EWS'. 1fpo-rEPOV OE 1fEpt av>J..0YLufLOv AEK'TEOV 1j 1TEpt a1TooE[gEWS' Ow 'TO Ka06Aov p.JiJ\Aov ECVaL 'TOV UV'AAOYLUp.OV· 30 ~ JLEV yap a1TooELgLS' UVAAOYLUj.OOS' 'TLS, 0 uvAAOYLUp.OS' oE OU 71'8.S' d1T60E~LS' . "O'TaJI OVV opaL 'TpErS' oVrWS' EXWUL 1TpOS' lli.ryAovS' (mE 'TOY EUxa'TOY EV (jAcp dvaL Tij; p.Eucp Ka~ TOV JLEUOV €v OACP 'Tij; 1fpdncp 1j ElvaL 7} /L~ ElvaL, avcfYK11 'TWV aKpwv ElvaL av;UOYLU~V 35 TEAELOV. KaAW of: JLEUOV ph 0 Ka~ am-o €v aMcp Ka~ ilia £V 'ToV-rcp EUTlv, a Kat rfj 8EU€L ylvETaL J.t€UOV· aKpa OE ro am-& 'TE ill llicp OV Ka~ €v 4J ruo Ecrrlv. El yap 'TO A Ka'To' 1favTOS' TOV · B Kat 'TO B Ka'Ta 1TaVTOS' 'TOV avaYK7] 'TO A KaTa 1Tavros TOV KaTTJYOpErUOaL ' 1fPO'TEpOV yap dp"y}TaL 1TWS' 'TO 40 Ka'Ta 1favros AtyofLEV. oj.LOlwS' OE Kat El TO ply A Ka'Ta fL'YJ26 8 oEVOS' 'TOV B, 'TO OE B Ka'Ta. 1TavroS' 'TOV OTL TO A OOOEVt 'Tep tmap,EL. €l oE 'TO ,.,.f:V 1TPWTOV 1Tavrt Tep plucp G.KOAOVOEr, 'TO of: piuov IL1']~I(;:VI. Tip EUXaTCP imapXEL, OUK EcrraL avMOYLU~S' 'TWV aKpwv' oooJv yap avay~a'iov uVILi'atvEL Tij; 'Taih-a 5 EtVaL' Kat yap 1TaVTI. K(1.1. /L'Y}S~1. EVOEXE'TaI. TO 1fPWTOV 'Tep EaxaTCP iJ7TdPXELV. WO"TE OVrE TO KaTa J.dpoS' OWE TO KaOOAOV ylVETat avaYKatOV' IL1']OEVOS' OE 5VTOS' avaYKatov OLa TOV-rWV OUK EO"TaL avAAoYLUfLOs. opaL TOO 1TaVTt tnrcfPXELV 'ij;Ov-O..VOPW1TOS'i1T1TOS', TOO IL7]OEVI. 'ij;Ov-O..V8pW1T0S'- 'At(}0S'. ouO' OTav fLo/E TO I01TPWTOV Tep fLEUCP p:ryTE 'TO p.EUOV Tlp Euxa.rcp IL7]OEVt lnrdpX1JJ OVo' oVrWS' EaTa, avMOYLUILOs. opaL TOO inrapXELV E1TLCTT'iJfL7]Ka,
TrWS'
r
r
r,
r,
hl7 aT(P1J"T'K~ om. rn 19-25 viiv ••• dAAo.tS' codd. rIlAIP: sed. Becker 26 Alywp.€V d 2 AI: Alyop.£I' ABed 30 "TtS'+lcrr, C 38 'T02] Ka.~ "TO rn 26a2 Q.ltoAov6£r At: u1rapxo codd. 10 ~mfpxn B
3. 25b16-4. 26b4 11
I
" " , ypapp:'r-taTP'KTJ, TOU... PTJ, vrrapXEw <""CTn)PTJ-ypapprr-povas. Ka86Aov I-'~ 0011 OVTWV 'TWV optov) 8-ryAOV lv TOtfr~ -rip O'xr]-
aUK €G"TaL av~oYLO'fL6S', Kat. Or, OVopovS' ciVdYKdtDY EXEW clJs et7Top.€V, IS av 0' oVrWS' ExwatV, OTt lerrot ov'u'oyw,wS'. Ei. 8' & plv Ka86Aov 'nov opwv 0 S' iv f.LEPEt ,"poS' 'TOil ETEPOII, &ray fL€v 'TO Ka06,\ov 'n::Ofj ,"POS' TO p£iCov O,KPOV 1} KaTY}yopucoII 7} crrqrr(TtKOV, TO O£ €v ,.lipE(. 1TPOS' TO tAOrTO)) KarrrrOptKOV, I<'YJ OVAAoytO'tWV Elvat ,ri).€tOV, o-r:av OE: '"poS' 'TO E'Aarrov 1} to Kat a.AAWS' 7TWS' EXWO'tV al 0POL, dOVVdTOV. >./yw 8E fLEi'{OV plv aKpov €v ~ 'TO fI-'aov £(J7'lv, ;Aarrov oE 'TO WO 'TO fdaov ov. tmapXE'TW yap 'TO flO, A 1Tavr, Tip B, 'TO OE: B 'Ttvc. 't:o/ r. OVKOVV El EaT' ?TanDS' Ka7i')yopdaOat 'TO Ell apxfi AexOElI, o.va.')IK7) ''A · ' -'Tep B 2S 'TO'A TWt -repr "VTfapXEtv. Kat"E£·'TO fUll - fL'fV£VL tmaPXt:t, 'TO 8~ B 'TWt 'Tep avaYK1] 'TO A 'Ttvt 'Tep fL~ fLC1TI. '7T07"€
EcrraL Kat.
1107£
'TOS' TE' cni)J"oYLUJ-LOV 'TOOs
avay-
r,
r
fmapx£w ' wptG'Tat yap Kat 'TO Ka'Ta. fL1]8£vo~ 1TW~ Alyop.Ev· WU'T£ £a-rat avAAOYUTfLo~ 'TlAEtos. 6JLolws 8~ Kat cd d.StoptG'TOV Et1] 'TO B KarwoP'KOV 0 yap am-os £G'Tat avAAoyt, I \ .l.8'£V1'0~. UJLOS aowpUTrou 'TE Kat, .EV fLEpEt 1\1]-r 30 •Edv 8~ 'TTpOS 'TO £Aa-r- 30 -rov a.Kpov 'TO KalMAou 'TE8n ~ Ka'M]yoptKoV 7j GTfP1]'TtKoV J OVK £U'Ta~ uvAAoytup.os. OVrE Ka'Ta¢a:nKOV OVrE d.1To¢anKOV 'TOV d.8toplO'TOU 7j Ka'Td JLlpos OV'TOS, otav El 'TO fL~v A 'TW~ 'Tep B inrapxEt 7j fl.';' VTrtlPXEt, 'TO 8E B 1TaV'Tt 'Tep rmapxEt· 6pOt 'TOV " ' 8 OJJ-EstS~pOVTJUt~, ' ott __.l. I ., f I ' 80V-E!.l.S'-.35 '"' 1J'TTapXEtV nyn TOU. .fl.." 1J1TnpXEtV nrn dfW-8ln. 1TcOtW El 'TO JL~V B fl.1]BEvt 'Tep 'TO BE A 'TW~ Tep B ~ im&.PXEt 1} fLT, t~1T(f.PXEt 7j fl.';' 'TTaV'Tt rmapXEt, 0118' oVrws £G'Tat crvAAoytUft-OS. opo, AE1JKov-i"717roS'-KvKvOS, AEUKoV-i''TT'TTOS'-KO... _i: r , .~, \ . 'AB'.' ~. 01, atn"Ot DE Kat Et 'TO aotopurrov. 39 'Olio' &ray 'TO IJ-tv 7TpO~ 39 'rep fUl'ovt aKpcp Ka8oAou ylVTJ'Tat 1] Ka'M]yoptKOV 1} G'TEP1]'rtKOV, 26b 'TO 8E ,"pos 'To/ EA&:rrovL U'TEP'YfTtKOV Kn'Ta fJipo~, OUK £(J'TQt av'\AoyWp.OS' [d8WplO'TDV 'TE Kat EV IJ-'pt:t A1]¢8&-ros], olav fl TO IJ-~ A '1T"aV'Tt 'Tep B ·{m&'PXEt, 'TO 8E B 'Twt Tep r ft-~, 7j el JkT,
r,
oV'
.~,
r
r.
aI3 o~v am. C
23 y+a.
p. y B
24laTl + It'QT4 d :+ 1To.V'n:ls It'ClTUC
zgovom.cn 31 i]lom. C 32 TOVj:oVrEABCdrn 33 '7 AdAl: TOV e, fecit B: oVrEtf%rn TWVP A 2 36~om. rn 37 ~l om. C 38 Opot+TOV JlfV v1Tapxnv en ~EV1(O~) TOV Sf Jl~ Inrapxov .\fVIt'OJI e n 39 alhoptaTOV+fi'1 c rn b2- 3 oJIt' .• • ~7J¢8eY'ros BC, fecit A: ci.StOptOTOV . .• ~'1¢8b'TOS om. d 1 et fo rt. ALP 4 ~ fl] urrcipxu .q e rn
r
ANAAYTIK!JN llPOTEP!JN A .,.,)/ 'f'" 5 ?TO-VT/. V1TapX~L' cp yap av 'TLVL ILTJ vrrapX1J 'TO ILECTOV, TOV'T
J
yap ot OPOL ~CPOv-aV8PW1TOS--AEVK6v' Etra Ka~ eLv f£~ Ko:r'l-
yopetraL "EVKWV 0 av6pw1ToS. ElA~4>ew KVKVOS Ka~ X~v· OVKOVV 'TO ~cpov TOV Ji-f:V 7TaVToS' KUTI]yopeL-rat. 'TOV of: o~EV6S', Wa7'E 10 OUK EU'TD.L avAAOYWJ-'OS. 1n:tAW 'TO /LEV A p:YJoEv2 Tip' B {mapXl'TW, 'TO OE B 'Ttvt 'Tip J.L~ tmapxl:rw' Kat at €crrwaav
r
opO(,
/f4roxov-av8PW1TOS-AEVKOV' etTa EiAf]tP8waav, WV fL-fJ KG.'T'Y}"IopetTaL AE'VKWV 0: a:v8pW7TOS'. Kt$J(VQS Ka.;' XuiJv' 'TO yap /bIroXOv 'TOV /LEV 1TavroS' KD.T'fJyopet-rD.L, TOV 8£ OOOEVOS'. En E1TE, MW15
ptcrrov 'TO TWt 'Tip r 'TO B fL~ tmaPXE"LV. ci).7]8EV€'Ta£ 81., Kat p:rJ0(iVt {nrapXH KaL El p.~ navr", D-r£ 'TWL 0Ux tmaPXEt, A'f}cp8EV7'WV oE 'Towm-wv opwv CfJa7'€ J.L1JOEVt im&.pX£l,V OU ylvETa,
el
uvlV\oyLap.os " ' (TOlJ7"O " yap '. Ef,prpa£ 1TPOTEPOV, ' ) - 'YaVEPOV l.'" ouv ""
.,
~"
,
\
',3:
\
OTI,
\
'lI
'Tep ovrws EXE:LV 'TouS' opOVS OVK EO""Ta&. OV{\/\oy&.up.os· 'IV yap av 20 Kat. E1T!. 'TmS'TWv. ofWiws ai aE£XB7]uera£ Kat. El 'T6 KaBoAov 21
'TEBEL'T} C17'EfY'}'TtKOV. !~'" "".I.. OVOE Eo.v afMfw 'To.,~, o£aa7"'T}fLG.'Ta Ka'To," fLEpos ~ KarrryoptKWS ~ Cl'TEfYYrT£KWS, ~ 'T6 J-Ltv Ko:r"fJyop£KWS 'TO O~ aTEpr(TtKWS .\.lyrrra£, ~ 76 J-LiY dot6pw-rov 'T6 Si ()LWptUJ-LEVOV, ~
"".J..".
a~
,>I
,
~~
\\
,,~..
~,
or
aOLOpLO"Ta, OUK EU'Tat uVlV\oytuJ-L0S ovoo.p..ws. OpOL
OE
,
KOWOL
257TUVTWV {cp0V-AEVKOV-L1T7TOS, {cp0V-AEVKOV-.\.L80s. m
.,
,
~
,..
,
,
.,'
\\
~
"
'TWY ELp'T}fLEVWY WS Env !J OVNloY'UJ-L0S EY \ I
"
EXEW
AOV
EK
..,
t
I'
-
"\ \
\',
5tc:
,~..,
WS' Ef,1T0J-L~V ' atV\WS' yap EXOVTWV ovoap..ws YWE'raL. VIIKat. O'T£ 1TdV'TES 0;' £V aVr
?E
30 (1TdV'TES yap E1T£'TEAOVV7'a£ OLa 'TWV E~ apxijs A'T}cp8brwv), Kat. I
,
7Tavra 'To.
t:)\ , 7TpO~(\'T}J-Lo.-ra
<,::
,
OELKV1J7"at
t: "
f'7J
Kat yap 'T6 7TaV'Tt Kat 'T6 {t'T}SEVt Kat. 'TO 'TtYt Kat 'TO inrdpX€tv. KaAW
•0 'Tav
35
xn,
<'::' OE
\
'TO
oE
'TLYL
'T6 'TotoWOV axfjp.a 1TpWTOV • "
....,
,....
avro 'Tep [LEV 7TaV'T&' 'Tep
t:'
QE
<::-
\
•
,
J-LTJO€V&. V7Tap-
~ EKa'TE(Xp 1TaV'Tt ~ JLTJaEVt, 'TO JLEP axfjp,a 'T6 'TOtoin-OY
KaAW OEtYrEPOV, piuoy dfU!>otv, aKpa 7Tp6S'
D-r£
....,
oLa 'TOV'TOV 'TOU crxrJfW-TOS"
-rep
'TL8E'Ta,
oE
oE EV
av.rep AEYW 'T6 Ka77JyoporJfLEVOY
KaB' wv AEYE'TW 'ToVro, JL€t~ov
piuep KELJ1-€Vov' ;AarrOY
OE
'T6 fLEUOV
19w
aE
OE
d.KPOY 'T6
'T6 7TOPPW'TEPW 'TOV fLEuov.
J1-ey nov aKpWY. 7TPW'TOV
oE rfj
BEuE&.,
b 7 o[ om. C K«'TT}'Y0pfj'Ta~ A 19 "T
5
4· 26 b 5 - 5· 27&34 .,lAEu)s ph oOv OUI< EUTat av,\;\oyWtWS ovSajLWs €v TOliTtp -reF> "X11- 27fUL'TI., SwarDS 8· EClTOJ. Ka~ Ka,86AOV Ka~ fL~ Ka86Aov 'TWV opwv Oll'Twv. Ka8oAov fLb oW OIl'TWV €cn-at avMoywp.Os Mav 'TO plaov 'T~ fL€v '7Tal"Tt Tip BE fL7JS€V~ v"ap)({J, av ."pos CmCYrEp
I~
(:01
...
I
I
\
'f"
j;.,;/
-
)
I
,~"
I
o~ onKYtWal. Taii'Ta Ka~ E"ls TO dovva.'TOV aY0V'Tas. on p.~v oov ytvE"'Tal. UVA- [5 , ,., ., '" Of ,/..,. , _.", '" , 1\00000,afLos OVTWS EXOVTWV 'TWV 0pwv. 'f'U"VEPOV. a.N\ OU TEI\EWS ' ou yap p,ovov EK 'TWV Ef apx71S Ka~ E{ aAAWV E1Tt'TEAELTac. 'TO avaYKawv. Eav 8~ '(0 M 7TaVTos 'TOU N Kat TOU E KarrrrOpfj'Tat. OUK ;C1'Tac. auA.\.OYLap.os. Opot 'ToO rmaPXEU1 ooata- {ijJov-av8pW1TOS, 'TOU p,-t, tmapXEtV ouata-{ijJov--apt8~s' piuov ouota. oUS' OTaY 20 p,~TE 'TOU N P.?]TE TOU E fL7JO£VOS Ka77Jyopip-at 'TO M. OpOL 'TOU tmapXEW ypafLfLf-{cpov-a.v8pW7TOS, 'TOU p.-t, o-rrapXEt.V ypaJ.Lp.?]r'iI! os. 'f'avEpov -1. ' • • • " ' \,!P0V--I\ ow on av ?1.uv/V\oywp.os Ka B',\ 0 ou TWV opwv OV'Twv. avaYK7} 'TOUS opovs EXEW WS €v apxfj Er1TOfL~' ciMws yap EX0V'TWV 00 ytvE'Tac. 'TO avaYKaWY. 25 'E'av OE t" , ,., ~ {j ' , \ " ., , 7TpOS 'TOV ETEPOV u KWJO OV 'TO fLEUOV. O'Tav fL£V 7TPOS 'TOV j-LEt{w ytvry'Tat Ka8oAov 1j Ka77JyoptKwS 7j aTEPTj'T'KWS. TrpOS 8E 'TOY EAd'T'TW Ka'Ta fLlpos Kai aV'TtKEtp.£VWS TcfJ Ka86>..ov (Alyw 8~ TO aVTc.KELplvwS. El fLfv 'TO Ka06).ov aTEprfTtK6v, 'TO " IUpEt. Ka'Ta'f'U"'TtKOV' ,/..".." Et. OE ~\ KarrrrOptKOV "'TO B EV Ka 0',\OV, 'TO' .EV 30 fLlpEt C17Ep7JnK6v). avC£YK7} ytvEafJa.t UVAAOYLO'"wV C1'TEPTJ'TtKOV Ka'Ta p.lpos . El yap 'TO M 'TCP plv N P.TjOEV(. TcfJ 8i E 'Twi tmapxEt., avdYK11 'TO N nvt Tc{j g p.,ry tmapXEw. €TrEI. yap , ,,/..' "~ '" M'VTrap<:. I At. a.V'TtcrrpEoyEL TO C1'TEPTJ'Tt.KOY. OVaEVc.\ T4J Et TO'N • 'TO'.' OE yE M
B inr&ptE"'J WO'7"' £0'7"0.' 0 aUTOS avAAoywp.6s. ;0'7"'
&Ma.
2,a3 oo)! om. e OYTWV+TCdV opwv er 4 ov8t"v~ e KaY rn 8 1Tpo-Ttpov+t"i "lap 'TO f' otl8t'yt 'Tip f (v C) OV8f 'TO f (v C) ottat'vl 'TciJ f' (d. aIon) A1BlC 10 'TO f Tip Y BCdrnAl: Tip f TO V A:iI: 'TCi v 'Tip f imu: TO f IP t'l ••• II Ml om. Bd Tip . . . II Tip' fecit A II TO apa] ~0''Tf TOen: waTt' o.po. TO r 15 41T4yoVTo.S' Cdrn
ANAAYTIKfJN IIPOTEPfJN A
'Tep 8 tmapx€w' OJO"TE TO N TtV~ Tip E OUX V7Tfipyap ovAAoytC1P.Os ~ha TOU 'TTpciJ'rov uXJ1/-WTOS .
35 lmEKEt'TO 'Ttvt.
,H' ,,(VETal,
7Ta.-
'rep "'€v N
'TO M, 'TCP O€ E nVL p.~ imapxeL, avaYKrJ oT() N TW' T
'1TaVT'
v"apXEW {/iJov-ova{a-fWv&s, 'TOU fL-? imdPXEW {tP0v-ova{a.E1TwrrJf''1 ' "Orav fLfv OOV dV'TLKEtp.evov Ti 'TO Ka86'Aov 'Tep Kura f-LEpOS, 10 etprpat 7Tor' EarnL Kat. 176T' OOK EC1'Tut avA.\.OYLUI-'OS' lYrav BE ,
,
'j'
•
,
1"
,."J.J._
'
o/-Wtoax'YJI-'0Vt:s wuw at TTpOTaUELS J OLOV al-"'P'" t:pa, C1'Tt:pT(nKaL ,.,1,. ''i:' ..." " ,,, , 'Y'"J KaT'-'-'t'aTLKaL . ovoal-'WS t:aTaL UVlV\oy'uP.OS, E"UTWUaV yap 1TpW'TOV aTt:p'YJTLKal. Kat. 'TO KaOo~ov Kt:luOw TTPOS TO I-'E"OV G.KPOV. orov 'TO M 'Tep .P.Ev N J.''"I}B€Vt. Tcii B~ E TtVL J.'~ tmap~ , • t" \ , \ 'i:' \ ... ,..... , N ' , IS XETW ' €VOEXt:'TaL. v'l Kat TTavrt KaL J.''"I}OEVL 'Tc.p ,!:J '7'"0 mrapXt:w. 0POL 'TOV p'EV I-'~ tmapXt:Lv fLIAav-XLC.ov-'epov' TOV BE TTavrL mrapxnv OUK EaTL ~a{3E'v, t:l TO M Tep . E 'TL~L I-'Ev mrapXEL TWL BE fL-,J, El yap 7Tav-rL Tep E TO N. 'TO Be M fL'"I}BEVL Tep N. TO M OUBEVt Tep E imapgt:L' a,1;\' tmEKEL'TOTtvt tnrapXfELV . 20 OtrrW /LEV OUV OUK £YXWPE'i >ta{3E'iv opovs. €K BE TOO dStoptCT'TOV SnKTlov ' €7TEt. yap aA'"I}OEtJETaL 'TO 'TLvt fJ.~ imapXEw 'TO M 'Tcii 'M' \ • ~ 'f I ~ , 'i:" , I 'So' ... KaL EL fl-7]OEVL V7TapXEL. IL'"I}OE"VL OE tnrupXOV'TOS OVK 'IV uv,,, ',1,. ,~ 1t' \ " L' >1 "arLUILOS, .,.,aVEpov OTt DUDE VVY EaTaL, TTa/\LV ECT'TWUaV KUTYJYOptKal, Kat. TO KaOo~ov Kt:tUOW op.olws, olov TO M TeP fLEV N 25 TTavrt Tep Se E Ttvl tmapxETW . €VSEXt:TaL S~ TO N Tep E KaL naVTL Kat fJ.'"I}BE"VL tmapXELV. OPOL TOV J.'1J8€VL lmapXELV AEVKOV-, "8os' TOV... DE ~\ , E(1Tat " 'Q ~ \ \ " , KUKVOS-M TTaV'TL\ OUK "a~E LV OLa T1JV UVTTJV aLTlav i}V1TEP npO'TEpov. aM' JK TOU dOLOplcrrov 8t:LKTEOV. t:l Be 'To. KaOo~ov 71"pOS TO. E~aT'TOV aKpov Jcrrl. Kal TO M Tcii fLEv E fL'"I}30 BEVt 'Tip BE N TW~ fJ.~ imapXEL. JvSEXt:TaL 7'0 N Tep E Kat I
~
a35 v.n-6I(n"Ta, AIBCr,n "TiP'! BeAl: "TWV Adr inrapxn e 37 lmap· 38 inrapfn ern b4 1TaJ'TOS+ "TO p. c rn KaTl]'Yop-ijTa' + "TO 2 p. d 7 Toii + 8E .C 14 "TO S€ A 17 Aa/kiv+ opovscn I8.u1}+ IJ1Tapxn cn ov8t"vt C 19 u1Tapxn C "TtVI + J.41} c In 20 aop{a"TOV d1 27 "TO C
X!I AlB
5. 27'35 - 6. 28'25 1TaV'Tt Ka~ fL'I'}3£v(, tmd.PXHV. OPOt 'TOV fmdpX€LV ~EVK6v-~<pov KOpa,.g, TOV fL~ V7T(fPXEW AWK6v-A18oS"-Kopaf. Et Ot KaTrJyoptKa~ at 1TpO'T&.aEt~, OpOt. TOU /L0 imciPXELV '\EVK6v-~
I
'\
'r'"
.l.~'
I
'TOV V1fapXELV I\EVKOlJ-I;,lp0V-KVKVOS;.
7Tpo-rduEtS Ka~
T"
f
,
oyu-V€POV aVlI J OTav ofLowax:rJ-
Ka66'Aov ~ o~ Ell pip€l., OTt 35 oVl>ajLWS; riVEra, avAAOYLUp.OS'. dAA' 0130' El 'TLV~ £Ka'Tipcp tnrapXEt 7} fL.fJ v."dpXel., ~ 'To/ fLEV rep OE 1-''';, ~ fLr/8erEPCP ,"avri, ~ OJjwplcrrws;. OpOL OE Kowot 7TclV'TWV AEVK6v-,cpov-dVOPCJ)1TOS; p.oVES
cLaw at
1]
fL~
J
AevKov-'c:pOV-W/roxov.
tPavEpov ow EK 'TWV ElpTJpivwv on Jav 'TE oihws €XWUW ot 28 a 0POL 7TpOS; dM-,}.\ovS' ciJs J).iXB'T} J ylVE'TaL UVAAOYWt-WS' ig S. \\ ,. , ,., " " avaYK1Js. av 'T !I UVNtoytUfWS>, avaYK7J TOllS' OpOVS OVTWS' EXEW. ,., , • '\,.., ,\ f' , ... v'JI\OV OE Kat. OT/' 1TaV'TES; a'TEIlHS' fLaw ot. EV TOVTip T
f
~'\
.,.
~,
f
f
OIl
cr
ov
KalJ6'\ov '7 ow OV'TWV o.,av Kai 'TO II Kai 'TO P 1TaV'Ti 7~ E ImOp,)([], ML "p 'TO' I I V1Tap~E~ 't 't· '.J. TWt, T
JL~V
J
I
f
,\
\,
s£a
XEW· r{VETat yd.p UVMOYLU,mS ToD 7l'PWTOV uxrJfLaTos. lOTL S€ Kat OLd. TOV dovvd'TOV Kat Tip EKOEuOat 1TOLELV rt,v d7168EtgW" El yap dJU/>w 7TaV'Tt T~ 1: inrapXEL. A'YJcpDfj T£ TWV E olav 'TO N, 'TOV-rip Kat 'TO II Ka, 'TO P V7Tap,EL, ~0'7E TWt 'Tip P 'TO II 25
uv
b 32
.d 1:iE:] ;1f£tll,/ d 33-4 xtwv • •• '4iov am. Cl 34 Toil + lI€ OTt Eav C: 07;, av d 37 -rj liT] iJ1fapXH am. Bl 1i1jl!' £TE/xp 28 34 OTt Kat Cd 9 ill> a7TaVT£S C 10 &rav d I80Qv om.C OVTWV+ TC»V opwv cn 23 T4i] Toil C 25 inrapxo Adn
en e
ANAAYTIKDN llPOTEPDN A fma~Et. Kal av 'TO plv P 1TClVT4 -rep I, 'TO oE n fL"I}OEVi inrapXll, ECT'To.L UV'uoytUfL0S" 0,-, 'TO II 'Ttv, 'Ttj> P DUX tmapgEt ig dvaYKT}§"' ,; yap aVros 'Tp01TOS rijS' a:1TOOEtgeWS aVTt~-I. ' • p 4J" 7rpo-raUEWS. , " 8£'1] ' "0' " ' 'TOV• crrp~ELUTJS rT)S OELX av Kat . 0(.0. .30 dSVVcl'TOV, KaBcf.:rrep E7T' 'TWV 1TpIrrEpOV. ,lav DE 'TO /Ltv P fJ-"I}8£v1. oT() oE II 1TaV'Tl. inrapXll 'Tip I, OUK EcrrO-I. UVAAOYW"wS. 0P0l. 'TOV inrdPXEW {(jJov-i:rnros-/iv8p<.o1TOs,
Wfroxov--tivOfJW1Tos.
ov8~
&ray
aJUPw
rov p.~ inrdpX££v 'qJo~ Ka'Td. fI.:1JOEvos 'Toi) .E )"'l-
Y"7'TO-t, OVK Ecrrat ov.uoytafLds. OPOL 'TOV &rOpXEW 'ipOV-t1T1TOS'35 rutroxov, 'TOV fL~ v"apXEw av8fJW'TTos-iTmos-W/roxoy' fLlaov
,t
UAfvXov .
1:.1...
A \ ."avEpov
nOT' aUK
;(17'0., avMOYLUp.Os Ka8oAov nov opwv OV'Twv.
T'
ow
I
...
,
I,,,
,
KaJ. Ell 'TOV'T
o-rav MEV
' ... A' ,~.,. I.. \\ , yap at"'foTEpOL 01. 0P0l" waf, Ka'TrrrOptKOL, £070.' (J'Vl\I\oytup,os
an 'Tw(' t.mo.PXEL 'TO aKpov 'Tip d.KPCP, Mav St crr~P7JTI.KOt, OUK a-r~pr]'TtKOS 0 8t KaTo.tPa'TtKOS, lav}LEV ' yYEVJ']'T(ll. ' '" <:0' .J.....'" o, JUI.,:>WV UT~prfTI.KOS aT~pos OE K(lTa.."....,nKOS, ~a-ral. uv>J..oywp.Os Ttve. OVX imd.PXfl. TO d.KPOV Tep d.KfXp, lav 8~ dVd.1TaAW, OUK £crra,. \ , 3u : J((l8OAOV '" \ TO\ P.EcrOV , 5 'E'av 0"'" 0 fUV 1TPOS 0~ 0"" £V }L~P~I.J ... \ " ' .. .J..,..-' , ' 8 " KarrrroPI.KWV ,..,.EV OV'TWV at"'f'Vw avaYK'YJ yl.v~cr aI. UVN\OYL, .. , "',3: 8 1\ ....., " \ \ P UJLOV. av 01T07~poaovv U Ka OI\OV TWV opwv. ~L yap 'TO P.£V 1T(lV'Te. Tep I 'TO SE II Ttvl. av&.YK7] TO II TWe. 'Tep P imd.p, , \. '.l.. • ....l..... ' "t ,~ X~W. ~1TH yap (lV'TI.crrP£.r~1. TO K(lT'"""f'U''TtKOV, lJ1Tap<:,EI. TO ~ 10 'TW!. Tep II, Wa-r' l1T€e. 'To }La, P 1TavTe. Tep I. TO Se E TWe. 'T~ ' AEI.t' .wcrr~ , . p • 1Ta-, n , Kal."'TOP 71.VI., Tep• n'tnT(lr.. 'TO\ n 'TtV'' TCfJ NV El ro fLtv P Ttv' 'Tip 1: 70 OE II 1Ta.Y'Te. trml.pxEl., avaYK1J TO II 'Twe. 'TcfJ P tmapXEW' 0 mnos 'TP&rros -rfjs a1TooElg~ws. €U'TI. 0' a1TOO€ZgaL K(le. Sw. 'TOV d8vvaTov Kal 7fj EK8'a~I., IS Ka8d.1T€p £7fe. 'TWV 1TpO'T~POV. IS 'Edv 8' 0 p.ilI II KaTr]yoptKoS 0 8e , 8" "'" ,.. \ t~, 1 ,3: crr~fY'J'TI.KOS, Ka OI\OV DE 0 Ka77JYopl.KOS, O'Tav ,..,.£V 0 ~a'T7'WV U Ka77JYOpLKOS, £a-ral. uv>J..oywjL6s. ~,yap TO P waV'Te. 'Tep X, TO Ot 7"I.Ve. JL.fJ -/md.PX~I., avd.YKTJ 'TO II 'TtVe. 'Tep P }L.fJ vmJ.pX€w . "lap 1TaV'Tl, Kae. 'TO P WaVTt Tep E, Kat. 'TO II 1T(lVTt.
28 b £crral.. Mav 8' 0 }La,
n
on
1
,
yap
n
e,
az6 lnrapxn Ad 28 'Tpo1for +€<1Ta, e: +i<1T1 n 30 '1"WII] TOU p.1j8EJ1i+TO uC: +T~ u II 34 (und 35--6 'Toli ••• o.YJ1JXOV om. cP . 37 fL(V om. (;1 38 TfSwa, ern bI iii om. rIl 8 u+ lffl-apxu crn II wuu+Ka, J3'lCrnAle IS brt] Kai i1fi crn 7rpOTf:pov BAle: TrPOTfPWV ACd ]7 P+ fL,(v rn o+v1Tapxn C 18
ern
wuPXn]
wapX"l
B1
6. 28"26 - 2g'IO 'Tip .E {md.pgEL' d,M' OUX cbraywy)}s, ldv ATJ~8fj " ~,. QTav 0 0
'y
p.€t~wv
inrijPX~' 'Tf,
J:
O€UcvvrQ.t
cp 'TO
'reVv E "
Of
8~ Kat
aVEV
~5; I-'~ wro.PXEI..
n
'\,
20
,.,
:t KarrrlOPLKOS. OVK EU'TQ.L (JVIV\OjILap.os, OLOV
El 'TO /LEv II want TcfJ E, 'TO O£ P nv, 'Tip E fLTJ im&PXEL. OpOL
rov
17'o.V7'('
tmapXELV ;Ji4roxov--O,vOpw7Tos-'ipov. TOV
OE fL1'}06't
'af3"" ELV opOVS, €L" 'TLVL , /J.O'. tnrapXEf, 'Tip .£J 'TO P ,'T'Wt.'.' OE 2S JL~ ' El yap 1TaVTt 'TO n 'Tep E tmapXEt., 1"6 8E P 'TtY2 'Tep E, , ' II 'TLVL' '7"0/- P V1Ta""" • , _to €L' V1TEK€C:TO ., ~'I:'" Kat 'TO DE P:J106lf, tnTaf>XELV. d.\.\' (JenrEp lv TOLS 'TTpO-r€pov A7J7TT'OV' aowptcrrov yap OV7'OS TOV 7(.v2 fLTJ {mapXELV Kat 'TO p:1}oev2 inr&.pxov aA7JOES El1TELV 'TW' p.~ im6.PXEW' fLTJo€J/t SE VmipXOV'TOS aUK ;Jv uv"-AoywfLos. tfoaVEpOV 30 ow 6-rf, aUK Ecn-aL ovMoywJWs. Jdv S' 0 crTEf»1TtKOS KafJ6>..ov 'TWV ,.
I
aVK EO'Tt. 1\
...
'"'
\
I
"
n
.,
,. '1':t. ' • 1:" " , /L€V 0 fJ..E'I,:,WV t/ Cl'TEp-t]'TUCOS 0 OE El\aTTlOV Ka77jJ'OP'K6s, E(7-rac. avAAO,),LUfI,OS. El yap 'T6 f':YJS£v~ 'Tep E, 'T6 S~ P 'TLV~ inrdPXEL 'Tep E, 'T6 n 'TW~ 'Tep P OUX Vrr&.p'EL· 1TcL\W ydp ECT'Tat 'T6 ."piiYrOV uxTifUL 'Tfjs P E 7Tpo-rO.UEWS OYrw-rpa.cpel.c:rYjs. 35 '" ~,~ ' ' I . ' , J ; . "., \'1. '''' OTav OE 0 El\aTTWV a CT'TEfY"l'TLKOS, OVK ECT'Tat UVlV\oywp.os . opot 'TOV imaPX€tv 'epov-av8pw1TOs-fLYpUJv, TOt} fl-~ tm&PXEW {cpov, I., " ' .. .J.." ,,, ., .. .J...! E1TtCJ7"Y]fL-rr«Ypwv' fl-Eaov Ell at"'f'ow 'TO aypuw. OVO O'Tavat-""F, 8" .:l~' t ' 8'\ f 0;:." , ., 'TEpOL CT'TEfYY)TI,KOt 'TE wow J U 0 0 fLEl' Ka OI\OV 0 0 €V f.LEpEL. OpoL ., "\ f -;8''1. ,. y" • f _ OTav 0 El\a'T'TWV '[J Ka o/\ov 1TPOS 'TO JUUOV, "cpOv-eTrWTrJp.:l]- 29 aypwv, {ipov-av8pW1TOs-aypwv' ;n.av S' 6 p..el{wv, 'TOV p.~ p.~ tmdpXELV Kopa[-XLCfJV-AEVKOV. 'TOV 8' tma.PXEW J..' EK 'TOV d8wplcrrov OE'K'T£OIl. 6 003' av 6 EKaTEpos 'TWL 'Tip fL£acp tma.pX'!1 1} fL~ inrapXTJ J ij 6 p£v VmipXll 6 oE J.L-fJ imo.pX1J, 1} 6 J.LEv TtV, 0 oE J.L-t, 7TavTl, ij dowpltrrws, OUK ECT'Tat UV'AAOYLGj.WS oV8apiiJs. opot oE KOWOL '1To.V'TWV .{~vav8pw7r0S"-AEVKOV, {ipov-c'f.o/vxOV-AEVKOV. 10
opwv, O'Tav
n
,~,
~
1
n
b 20
A2132
e
VwfjPXE + 1rClVTl 22 KCl'T1'}'}'OPU('os"+ o 8' EAarrwv P-EptKO!) aTEfY1]TU(O!) 23 {mapX1J Al : om. d 28 aopl(]TOV A 29 v'JI'apxov]
30 p-T]8£vl • •• av)..\o,.tO'JlO!) om. rn inr&PXOV'Tt e1 .qv O'VAAor'O'p.O!) om. C 31 oJv om. ABd 32 0 8, ETEPOS ICClT'T/yoptKOS d2 : 0 b£ EAa-rrwv KCl'Tatf,o.'TtKOS n : om. Adr J8 born. en 39 opot + 'TOV p.TJ w&.PXnl' ASCn 29- Y 1'Jl',O"7"7jJl'1] av8pw1ros fecit B 2 'ceov] 'TOP waPXEw 'ceov e: 'TOV BE wapxEU' (ceov ra &'l'8PW'Jl'oS'] E'JI'(~Jl'1 fecit B jlEICwv+11I(08o'\ov en : + 'Il r 60'+ {maPlE' ern aoplcrrov A 7 p.~ inrapXE' e 7j ••• 8 1'; waPXV AdAl : om. Bell
Vml.PXnv A2 OVIC
n
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A
Tep
OX'flfL4Tt. 17"&r' EaTat. Kal nM' EXOVTWV TE nov opwv WS uvAAoyt."fWS" 19 avd:YK'YIS'1 C1.v T' OVAAoyt...
r/Jav€pOv oov Ka, EV TOv.rcp
QUK £crrw. uv.uoywfLos 1 Ka,
lAlxth] ,
,,{vETaL •
I
\.
"
on
~
"
"/LOS, avaYK7] TOVS" opovs OVTWS EXHV. IS TE!;
a:TEAEtS ElaLV o[
EV
TOVrqJ
TCP
\
~\
n
CJXl1,.."aTt. av>J..oy~afLot
yap 7"EAEtOVVTat. 1TporiAaJ-Lf3avoplvwv 'TWWV) Kat yluaafJa(, 'TO Ka8o'Aov 8,0. -roth-au TOV axrlfLaTos aUK
'rES'
. OtrTE " O'TEfY'YTLKOV
... .l.
(nav-
0'7"£ UVAAOEena" oVrE
I
anUal. TOtS axrlf£aUW, &ray fL~
11
avAAoyL",.wS, KarrrrOpt.KWV {LEv
pwv OVTWV'TWV
,
KaT~aT'Kov.
AfjAOV O€ Kat G'T(. ;., 20 V7]7'al.
\.
-raVEpOV DE Ka.I. OTL nav-
opwv
yl- 7
dJUlxn-'-
DUSa, O')..W5' ylVETo.t. ci.vaYKaiov, KarY)yopt.KoiJ
oE Ka, C1TEfY1]TLKOV, Ka8oAov A7J¢>8lVTOS' TOO C17'EfY1rTt.KOV aE' ylVE'Ta(' '"
,
_
'\ I
"
•
\
O'Vl\I\oyt."p.os TOV E'I\Q.TTOVOS aKpov npoS' 'TO
-r
ILEL~OV,
r·
l'
,'
\
OLOV n TO
fLEv A waVTt 'Tip B 11 nvl, 'TO SE: B jk1]S6Ii. 'Tip dvncrrpf¢>O25 p£vwv yap 'TWV 7Tp07'aUfWV o.vayK1] 'TO r 'TW~ 'Tip A jk~ inrapxnv, oJLOlw~ St Ka7Ti. 'TWV E'T£pWV crxrJ,.w.'TWV' df~ yap ylVf'Tal. 0«1 'Tfjs o.V'TW'Tpot/Yiis avX\oytafL-&s. 07JAOV OE: Kai. iJ-rt 'TO PW'TOV aV'Ti. 'TOU Ka77]'Y0ptKOu 'TOV lv jk£pn 'TtO£fL6IOv 'TOV awol' 7Tonlon avX\oytaj.Wv €v U7Taat 'Tots crxr1J.Ulaw. 30 fPavEpov OE: KCli. iJ-rt 7TaV'TES ot d'TEA£tS avAA.oytuf£O' 'TEAE"toWra(' out 'TOU 7TpdrrOV oX';JI.La'To~ , ~ yd.p O£tK'TtKwS ~ o,d. 'TOU .'" I , f . . . .1..' '" \ytVE'Tat ' ... aOVVCl'TOV 7TEpatVOV'TClt 7TaVTES' a/-""'r07'EpWS OE TO\ 7Tpw'TOV uxjjp,a, OEtK'TtKWS jkEV 'TE"AEWVpiVWV, an 0«1 'Tfjs dvrW'T~s 1 f f • ... • I .. E7TEpaUlOV'TO 7TQV'TES. 1] 0"'. aVTtcrrp~/J 'TO\ 7Tpw7'Ol' E"7TOtn UX'1J.Ul, 3S ow. OE 'TOV dOvva'Tov OEU(VVjdvWV, OTt 'TEOWroS 'TOV "'Et500VS 0 avAAoyWp.OS ylV€7'at om 'TaU wpdnov crxrJJ.Ul'TOS, olav lv 'Tip 'TEAEV'Taltp crxr1J.Ul'Tt; El 'TO A Ka, 'TO B 7Tani. 'Tip tmapXEt, O-rt 'TO A 'Ttvl 'Tip B inra.PXE" El yap jk1]06lt. 'TO OE: B 7TClV'Tt 'Tip _1.'>' , '" r 'TO'A 'aI\I\ -" " 3.'IV want,' OfWI-WS ~ , "" Kat, E7Tt . , 'TWV ... al\l\WV, -" " OV06lt'Ttp OE b 29 "Ean ot Kat avayay£tv 7TCtJI'Tas 'TaUS avX\OYWJ.LOVS £ls 'TOVS lv 'Tip 7TPWTC.p fIxfULa.n Ka06Aov avX\OYWJ.LOt5s, ot jktv yap €v 'Tip OEtrr£ptp q,av£p(Jv OTt Ot' EK€i.VWlI 'TEA£WVV'Tat, 7TA~V oUx OfWlws 7Ta.V'T€S, aM' oi plv Ka06AOV 'Toil CJ'T£p1]'TtKoil o.VTtS crrpa¢>ivros, 'TWV O· lv jk£pn EKa'TEpOS out 'Tfjs Els 'TO dSwa'TOll d7Tayw')I'7js. ot 0' lv 'Tip 7TPciJ'Ttp. ot Ka'Ta jk£pos. E7Tt'TEAOilv-
aow-
~
...~
r
aI2 TI! om.
Ov8E A
d
ern
en
16-17 TO Ka8o)"ov av.uo laaa8al 17 (O'7'IV Kat d YEV1JTa, d 21 TWV opwv] E1Tt JJ.fpovr TWV A2: Ital (,"1. JJ.£povr TWII opwv C: TWV opwv -Ij ''"' '""pour 29 7I'OlE' 30 Kai 35 8E om. tflr rjJfrKJOUr
19 OTI Ka1
e:
n, fecit 27 on Kat Cd e A Bd ,36-8 i" .. . Bl fecit A2
opwv
y
r,
on
e
r
6. 29'Il - 8. 30'2 'Tal. Ka~ 8,' am-wv .. Ecrn Ot Kal ow. 'TOV oWTlpou uxfJfU1TOS O€uevOvQ.I. Els; aCUVa.TOV anayovraS'. olov El 'TO A ?TaV'Tt Tip B, 'TO OE B nvt 'Tep r .. 67' 'TO A Tty, 'Tip r· · El yd.p P:TloEvt, -rep BE B navrt.. ovo€Vt 'Tip r 'TO B inrap{EI.· 'ToVro yap 'tUf'EV 014 10 'TOV OE1.1'Tlpov C1)(1]JU1TOS. 6fWlws BE Kat E7ft 'TOV c:rTqnp'Kov £(J7'at, ~ o.'1T68€t"S'. El yd.p 'TO A f'1JOEVt 'Tip B .. 'TO aE B nv, 'Tip r , , 'A ' - r DUX ~ "",I: ,\ , - ~\ tnrapXEI.. 'TO 'TLV' 'Tip V1Tar.,El.· EI. yap 1Tavn, T 1; ' B f'T}OEY(''"V7TapXEt .. OVOfll(. · roUTO 0 .'IV 'TO p.luov oxfif'a. WaT' J.7l'Et ot ILlv Ev 'Tip piucp OX'lp..a'T{' ovA· IS AOYWfLO' 1TclV'TfS civdyoVTal. Els TOVS €v -rep wpdJ"4} Ka8oAov uvlloywp,ovs.. ot St Ka'Tfl pipos €v 'Tip wpdrrcp Els TOVS lv
,uv
...
,
~,.
,.,
"
-rep fLEUCP.. 'r-'"vc:pov on Kat
0(,
\
,
'DI
Ka-ra IUpoS avaxu7JuOVTat.
,
E('S'
Iv 'Tip 7TPW"4! oxrJJL(1n Ka86'\ov O1.IAAOYLO'J-LOVS'. ot 8' Ev 'Tep 'Tpl'Tt.p Ka8dA-ou /-LEV OV'TWV 'TWV 0pwv w(}v~ £1Tt'TEi\oVv-rat 20 8,' EKElvwv 'TWV OVAAOYUlp,WV, Mav 8' £V piPH i\'Y]CP(}WUt, 8ui 'TWV Ev f'Epn avAAoytup,Wv 'TWV Ev 'Tip np6J'T4J Uxr1fU1'Tt· OfrrOt TOVS
<;:0'
•
,
It..
,.,
or
\
f.
...,
,
aVTJXVIJuav E'~ EKEtvOU~, WG7'E Kat Ot EV 'Tep 'TPt'Tep OX'1fU1'Tl. f " ~ • f''' , 'DI " Ot Ka'Ta fU:PO~' 'f~avEpov ouv OTt 1TaV'TE~ avaxu'1O"oV'Tat E'~ 'TOU~ l.v 'Tip 1TpW-rep axrJJLU'Tl Kaf}Oi\OU av;Uoywp.otJ~. 2S Ol oW TWV av.:u.oywJLWv im&'PXEtV ~ p.TJ imapxov 8EtKVtJV'TE~ EiprJ'Tat 1TW~ Ex0ueJL J Kat Ka(}' EaVTOV~ ol £K -rov av-rou (JX!JlUJ.TO~ Kat 1TpO~ dXhJi\ou~ ol £K 'TWV ETEpwV. " I ,t, , , " .cmn\ 0 E'TEPOV EO"TW V1TapXEW 'T€ Kat\ ES; avayK'Y)~ V1Tap8 '1:'_ X(W Kat iv'O'xEa(}w tmapXHv (1ToAAd yap tmapXEt /LEV ~ ou 30 fLEVTOl £~ avaYK7J~ ' 'Ta S' ou-r' E~ dV&:YK7J~ ov(J' imapxEt o..\w~J !...~ I ~'" ) ~'\ ., '\ '\ \, I EYOEXE'Tat 0 tnrapXHV, VI/"OV OTt KW, avN\oytap.o~ EKaO'TOV 'ToVrwv E'TEPO~ Ecrrat, Kat 0Ux op..olw~ £XOVTWV -rWV opwv, Q.i\i\.' 13 ply £~ avaYKalwv, 0 8' £~ tmapxoVTwv, 0 8' E~ £VOEXOfL&wv. . 3S '&t /Ltv ovv TWV dvaYKau.uv OXEOOV op.olw~ EXEt Kat E'1Tt 'TWV imapXtWTWV" waaVrws yap 'TdJEp£vWV 'TWV opwv £V 'T€ Tip tmapXEtV Ka~ Tip £~ avaYK7JS imapxnv ~ J.LTJ imapXEtV EO'Tal 'TE Kat OUK EcrrO,t ov.:u.OYla"ws, 1T'A~v 8wlaH Tip 1TpoaKE"iaBat 'TO'~ OpOlS" 'TO E~ dvaYK7J~ tmapx€w 7J f1-TJ imap- 30· I . • I • ,\, XEW . 'TO 'TE yap O'TEf"rTlKOV waaV'TW~ aVTW"'TpE'f'Et, Kat 'TO EV OE
,u.v
~'or
f
~
,~
en:
r
29~ TU'~ T~ J'2 om. tP y+wapen +wapxn 17 1I"~TCP] Ii B 20 TplTcp] Y B 22 1JpWT'P] ii B OX11~ClTt + a.I'aYOVTCU €l~ TOVS Ka8o>.ou C 23 TplTIP] Y B 240' om. B 25 1JPw,.cp] ci B
28 a:.u~>.ov~ lJ2Cd2 ALP: ci.Uovs ABd fTlpwJI drnp c : +oXTJp.aTc.w ABC: + 1).,
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A 6Acp E tvm. Ka.~ TO Ka.'nt '1TamS' op.o{ws a1Tooc1Jaoj.£€V. Ev tUv OVV 'TOLS' ruOtS' 'TOV Q.VTOY Tp/mOV a€Lxe~uera., om rijs aVT£5 GTpexfoijs 'TO avp.7Tepa.ap.« dva.yKa.'OV~ tiJf1'1TEP J'Tf'f. TOV {ma.PXEW· ,
<::- \
€V
DE
'""
TCfJ
'TO S' €v
fLECTcp
~
CT')(f]J-W.'TI.,
fL~ Ka86>..ov Ka7"'l'}yop£K6V Ecrra(. Tj &:l'T68E£~£S'J dAA' TO
O'TUY
J. U
\
'TO
pipEt UTEfYYJ'T'tK(W. Kat '1T~LV
e
1,\
Ka OI\OV
...
.1..'
Ka'Tu..ya'TLKOY
Ev 'Tip 'TptTCP,
'TO 'TO 3' tv /liPEL O"TEprJ'TLKOV. DUX op..o{ws avdylC11 tKBEJLEVOVS i[J 'TtI'L JKO:T€POV o-rav
J.I--t, imaPX€L, Ka'Ta TOtM-OV 1TO£Eiv 'TOV O'tJAAOYLUjLOV' EO"Ta£ ydp «varKuLoS' E7Ti 'TOVTWV" ei Ot Ka'Ta. 'TOU ElC'rf:8EV'TOS' EcrTI.V dva,,Ka,os, KaL Ka,.' EKE{VOV 'Ttvos'
'TO yap EIt7"€fN.v
rmep EKEivo
ylvn"m OE 'TWV UVAAoyWp.WV £Ka:TEPOS EV
faTLY.
-rep
'Tl
OLKt:t
oxr1l·ta:r£. 15
1:vl4Ja{vt:t. OE
'1TOTE
Kat.
rYis E'rJpaS
'1Tpo-rd.aEWS'
avay- 9
Kalas OVC17)S' ava:YKawv ytvEuBw. 'TOV avMOYLO'JU>V, 1T'>"~v ot3x" OwO'TI.pas E71JXEV, d.Md. -rijs 7TPOS TO P.Et~OV aKpov, otov El TO
p;v A Tep B ~~ aVcll'K1}s E"tA711T'Ta.t imclpxov ~ fJ,~ imripxov, T6 6£ B Tep r lm&.pxov JL6vov ' oVrws yd.p E"lAT)JLp,Evwv nov 20 7Tpo-rC£uewv ~~ avC£I'K'1]S TO A 'rep r lnr&p~E' 7} OUX inrdP~Et. ~7TEt yap 7Tavrt 'Tep B Eg UVd.YK7}S inrd.pxEt 7j OUX imdpxe, - B eC1'Tt, ~ ,~... \ "OTt Kat\ 'T€p- r €~ 't avay' I TO'A ,'TO'.' OE" r 'Tt 'TWV "r"vepov K7JS ZO"Tat 6dT€POV 'ToVrWV. E"l 8~ 'TO JL~V A B fL~ Zunv avayKatOv. 'TO 6~ B r avaYKatOV, OUK €O"Tat 'TO uvJL7Tlpaup.a avay> I€C1'Tt, UVJLfl' ' 'T€p- B V1TaPXEW • , 2S KatOV. Et' ,yap 'TjUE'Tat TO'. A 'TWt E~ avciYK'1S 8uf 'TE 'TOV 7TpWrOV Kal 6U}; 'TOV 'Tpl'TOV oxr7,..,.a:Tos. \ .1. , I , ... ., , B €p• €'YXW, 'ToV'Ta aE 'fEVOO~" EVOEXE'Tat yap 'TOWtJ'TOV ova, 'TO ' A ~'~I ., " " A.._ 1ft pE t 'TO fL7JO€JIt V1TapXEW. €'Tt Kat €K 'TWV opwv "r"V€POV OTt OUK €C1'Tat 'TO UVP.1TEpaUJLU avaYKatoV, alov €l r6 JL~V A €t'1 Kl30 V1juts, 'TO 8£ B ~epovJ iif>' I . Il " ~ \ \, ,>I avaYK7JS, ovo avvpw7Tos. op.oUJJs OE Kat Et U'TE"fYTlTtKOV E''1 'TO A B· i] yap aVrtj d7T68E~tS. £7Tt 8~ 'TWV Ev JLEpEt UVAAoytup.wv, El fLtv 'TO Ka66AOV EU'Ttv a.vaYKawv, Kal 'TO UVp.3S 7Tlpaup.a €U'Tat avaYKatOV, El 8£ 'TO Ka'Ta. pipos, 001( avayKat'ov, oUrE" U'TEfYTl'TtKfjS OUrE KUTTJ'YOptKfjs OVOiJS Tijs Ku66>..ov 1TPOA
~
-~
~
, ,. e
°
as "TO] 0.,.,.,0 C
6 To+p.Ey C 7 o.,.av+"1i C 10 inr&.pX'!1 Ald 11 rlvaYlCa{ws Cl 16 TOP om. C 20 '1 21 yap+"To ncr 22 "TO nOm.Cr TW ABCP: TO JPd 24 lao" d "TO om. C 25 EC17"
EtC : "TOv-rwv r oVx inr&.pfn om. d
TOiho
'TdUEWS. EcrrW &l} 1Tpiin-OV 76 Ka86Aov avaYKawv, Kat 'TO fLtv A 1TClV'Tt -rq, B 1mapX'T<1J t~ avcfYK1JS J 'TO 3e B TWt TcfJ r tmapXE-rw pbvov' civaylC71 &) 'TO A nVL 'Tcfj tnrapx€w ig
r
o.vaYK1]S· 'TO yap r Vrro 'TO B E"a-rl, 'Tip OE B wanL 40 tnrijPXEV l, dvaYK7}). op..otws Se Kal El (]7'EfY'rTC,KOS E'1'J ,; UVA- 30b ).CYyWJ-L0s· ~ yap aVrt) Ecrral" d1TOSE~'S'. El 8£ 'TO KC1-ra JLE,
\ .
_
•
II
pos EO"TW avaYKC1WV, OVK
,
EO"TC1(.
I
'TO
1
'"
UVJL1TEpaap.a avaYKC1WV
(ov8tv yap aOVVQTOV UVP.1TL7T7'E('), KaBd7T€p ov8~ lv TOtS' Ka86AOV avAAOY£OJ.WtS. OJLOiws Kchrt. nuv t:rrEfY'}'TC,KWV. op~c, Kl- 5 VPJO'C,S--'ctu>II--'\EVKOV. 10 Erri. Oe 'TOU OElYTEPOV UX77J.LU'TOS'. El fLO, ~ U'TEP"J'fLKT] '"po-
oe
1
"
'TUO'LS' EUTLV
•
I
\,
,
• ~
"
'"
Ka, 'TO ClVj1-7TEpaap.a EO"TC1t. aVQYKQc,OY,
«varICUla,
r, Ka'MJyopL~, oi)J( avaYKC1tOv. €O'TW yd.p 7rpeJ7'ov r, f.L€v B J-Ll]8EVL EJl8Ex€a(}w. 'TcfJ .' r , p.ovov. '.I..' O7£PTJ'TtKOV, QV'rt07P£ A ovS£Vt tvS£X£'Ta,' 'TO O( A '7Tant 'Tip r inr&.pX£f., tJ07' oUS£Vt r TO B £vS£X£'T(U' 'TO yap r {mo TO A £07'V. J.,uavTw~ O( Kat El 7TpO~ r 'T£8E'''1 'TO O7£PT}'TtKCW' £l yap ro A ILTJo£Vt 'Ttf> r Evo£XETat, OVO( 'TO r ovS£Vt 'T4J A EYXWPEt· IS TO Si A '7TaJl'Tt 'T4J 'B imciPXEt, W07' ovSO't Tep B'TO r EvO£XEEl 0'
(]'T£-
fYYJTUC't, civaYKata, Kai. 'TO A ~
V1TapXETW
aE
I
•
\
Tip
10
....
E7TH OUV
,
'TO
.~,
DUDE
'TctJ
'T4J
a.pa
'Ta" y,vETa, yap TO '7TpWTOV ~fLa 1TdAW. OVK O~E TO B 'Tip r· aVnU'Tp'c/>E£ yap op.olws. 18 El S( ~ Ka77Jyop'K~ '7TpO'Ta- 18 Cl'~ E(J'TW Q.vaYKata, OVK ;errOL 'TO (1tJfL'7TEpaCTfLO avaYKatOv. inrapxl'Tw yap 'TO A '7Tant Tep B Eg dvciYK1)~. Tip OE r fL"1· 20 06" tmapx£'Tw pOvov. avr'U'Tpo.c/>&ro~ OOY 'TOV U'TEfYYI'T£KOU 'TO 7TpW'TOV ylvETa, crxfjp.a· S£S£t.KTa£ S' tv 'TtiJ 1TPcffr'P an fL~ avayKala~ oVCT'f)S -ri1~ 1TpO~ 'TO jJ<Ef:'ov U'T£prJnKfj~ ovS~ 'TO (11)jJ/TT£paO'jJ4 terra' o.vaYKatov. werr' ovS' £7Tt 'TOVTWV terrat J.g dvciYK7]~. tn S' " , ~ 1 , QI ' r 'TWL' 'TCfJ- 25 £(. 'TO crofL7T£paufLa EO"TLY avaYKatoV, (1tJJL~aLV£t 'TO A fL~ tmaPXEW dvciYK1J~' EL 'TO B 'Tip J.L7JSEVt f tt.' ~ , (:0 \ ' r 'TCfJ- B DVOEVL 1~ \ • t. 't. V1TQ.PX,£(. £~ ava.YK1J~, OUOE 'TO V1Tapr;EL £5 civdyKT}~. 'TO O£ yE .B '"tvt 'Tef; A. dvaYK7J tJ1Tf1PXELV, E!1TEp Kat 7'0 A '1TQ.VTt 'Tip B Et dV&.YK7]~ inrijPXEY. WO"TE 'TO dvaYK7J 'TtV' TCP A fL~ WrdPXE£V. aM' ovSev KwAvEL TO A TOWtfrOV >'7J- 30
'e
yap
r
I
I
r
1139 1)« d 40 8J+YE All 11'0"'+ 1'0 a ACdr bI 'f avayK1']S inri]PXf:V AI : inri]PXf:II Jf aveYI
om. tIl 498S
I
ANAAYTIKDN IIPOTEPDN A -'-8... '7TaV'Tt\'TO ' 'f' 1}vat q>
r EVOEXETat . 0;:.'
~ I tmapxEf,v.
"....
ETt..
Kav opovs
,
EK-
eep,evov £''1 SE~a, o-n 'TO OVIl:rrEpaup.Q. aUK EOTLV avaYKawv a1TAWS', d..Ua Tothwv ovrwv avaYKaiov. olov E(J'TW TO A 'cpov, TO 8£ B o.vBpw-rros, 'TO Ot AWKOV, Kal al 1Tpo-r&.aEtf; OfLOUuS
r
35 E'iAijqlJwaav' &8iX€1"at. yap 'TO {4Jov fl.'T}8EV(. AEVK
oux
ovs'
inrciP~EL 8~ 0 IWBpw7roS OUOEV' AEVKip, d.\,\.' OUK Ee avaYK11S" lv8iX£TG.t ydp av(JpWTrOV Y£viofJru AEVKOV, OU p1v-rOt EWS; elV '<pov J.L'1]o£vi. AWKcft imdpXT/. WO'U 'ToVrwv JLtv OV-
TWV dvaYKaiov Ecrrat TO C1Vp:rr£paup.a, a'7TAWS' S' aUK c:ivay40 Kawv.
'Op.otws o' ;eEt Ka, Enl. 'TWV EV piPE/" avAAoywpiixv, \ \ f \ ' 8'\ J:1. •• JLEV yap 'T] U'TEpTrTtKTJ 1TpOTG.ms Ka OAOtl T U Kat avayKala, Kat TO GVJ.i-7TEpauJ.W. £070.1. dvaYKatOY' &rav OE ~ KaT'T}'YOp,Ki] KaBoAov, ~ OTEfY'}TtKTJ Ka'Ttl pipos, OUK Ecrrat. TO 5 crop.'7TEpaaJUL avaYKQ.WV. EU7'W 3tj '1TpOrrov .q crr~fYY1TtKi] Kaf}OAOV 'T~ Kat avaYKala, Kat 'TO A r
3111
.,
O'Tav
o£
I
ovSe
•
,
1
r
r
"r
,
ovs'
Se
~
h31 7"~ Y At B1dl 33 avaYKalwv Bt 35 AWKc1) CdAlc: Ae-VKOV AB 31az 'T' om. Bl 9 T~ £mr: TcLlII ABed v1Tapee-~ d 7"0/ rp: Twvcodd. 13 nv~ om. r 17 Q.lfolSntts + lvOs p.ovov p.noJ.a.p.{Ja.voP.EVOV AlYP 20 01tOTfpo
Tt~Ov
tlr
(+?J
nl)
ava.YKa.ios
n
21
KaTT}"YopHCOV TO
ISE
VT£PT}'
Ka'iol! 8' EaTW TO A
r.
Kat ""0
1J7fap~E('
, 'r
'
"B 'Tip
TLVL
E7l'EI, ovv 'TO B 7TaV'T1, 'Tip
tIc
~,
'.l._
\'
r
inrdpXEtJ
\
ll"
oLa 'TO aJITUrrpE'Ftv TO KUtlOI\OU
r
'Tip K(J.Ta. pipos, Oja-r' El '1TaV'T~ 'Tep TO A ig avC£yK7}S tmapxn Kat 'TO r Tip B 'TtV{. Kat 'Tip B 'TW!, avaYKatOV V1TtlPXEtV 'TO A· 'TO ydp B 1mO 'TO r Ecrr{V. ytyveraL ov" TO 7TPW'TOV uxiip.a. 30 op.olws 8f 3Elx(J~O'E'Ta(, Kat ' EL 'TO B r E(}"TtV avaYKatov' aV'TL'..1...... yap ' \ r -rep "A nlll.., . . ,£f.' '1Tavn\ 'TC[J. . r 'TO'B "'s 1< crrpE'F-' 'TO wcrr ava:yK"f1S inrdPXEL, Kat 'Tip A 'Tty!, vmip[EL ig avaYK1]s. 33
AtV
'TO I-'-£V A
ECJ7W
•
,..
<:,1
\
r
a7EfY1}'TLJ<6v, 'TO I . \ .,..
BE B IJ..
r
II&.-
33
Ka'Ta.¢aTI"KOV J \ ..... B
3S
avaYKawv DE 'TO CTTEfY'}'T(,KOV. E7TH DVII av-rurrpEo.yE(, 'TW'
-rep
'r
'TO
J
'TO oe A OUOE"I, :rip r i[ avdYK7JS ou3E rip B nil!, vmip(E:t. ig av&yKTJS 'TO A· 'TO yap B tmo TO r EG·d". El Of 'TO Ka77JyopLKOV c.ivayKatoll, OUK Ecrra£ 'TO CTVfL7TEpaUJ-U.L avaYKatov. EaTW yap 'TO B r Ka'T1'}yopl.KOV Kat avaYKaiov, 'TO DE A r U'TEprJnKOV Kat fL~ ava,... J
'.J. ~.I.. I " t OVY aV'TtG'TpEI <;:0' ....., ".J.. '" , Et7'Tat avaYKawv. E'T' Kav om 'TWV opwv E'7] <paVEpov. Et7'TW yap , , A • a' '<;:0' '.J.' 1" B Y.... , <;:01 'TO fLEV ayauov, 'TO 0 E'f' cp ~cpOYJ 'TO OE t'TT1TO!). 'TO S plv oov aya60v ivStXE'Tat P.'rJSEV~ t1T1TCP imdPXEW, 'TO SE {ipav avdyKYJ 1TaV'T~ inrdPXEW' aM' aVK avdyK'Y1 'epov n fL~ Elva, aya8ov, Ei1TEP ivStX€'Tat 1Tfiv €tvat aya6ov. 1] El fL~ 'TofYro DU· Ya'TOV, &Mcl 'TO tYfYYIYopa,at 7} 'TO Ka6EvSEw opov 6E'TEav' d.1TaV yop {<pav SEK'TI.KOV 'To6-rwv. 10 El /LEv oov oi opal. Ka6o;\ov 1TpOS' 'TO fLtoov Etulv, EiprJ'Tw, '1TO'TE IOTat 'TO UVfL1TtpaOjW. avaYKawv' El S' d JLEv Ka6oAov • "'~. , ....,., ... . J . ' . " o EV fLEfJEt , Ka'T'J1yoptKWV fLEV OV'TWV afMr0'TEpWV, O'Tav 'TO Ka6o/\.ov ytvrrrat avaYKaiov, Kat 'TO OU/L7TtpaojW. EO"Tat dvay"~ t ~,. ,\.. " • '.J.. \ K(UOV. a7TooEtf:,ts 0 7] aVT"t] 7] Kat 7TP07€POV' aV'TtarpE
r
.,.,.,
E7rE'
.' r
r
'
r .
,
°
nr,
3z6 lrrrapXE,' o~. 27 'T(U Ka8oAov 'TO en Z9 Ka1.2 •• • 30 AJ avaYlCarol' Ka~ 'TO a 'T'I'~ 'TijJ f3 v-rrapxny nr 30 oxijp..a om. d 31 ' 1TaAw op..otws nr 32 7ijJl] Kat 'TijJ AC1dn: Kat 7ijJ f3 Kai tip r 33 70 Bl: 'TOOI' r 36 ovS~] WOTE' OV8E n 36-7 70 a €~ .ivaYK"1S nr J8 OVK Eon
d
41 'TO om. d 1 70/ BrAlP: 7001' ACdn S It// c;, om. nr 6· t1T1T'tJ am. d t
r AlP: 'TooV codd.
£t liE n
tj T02
nPc: am. ABCd
11
0: om.
A
hI 7ip bis S 1j fl]
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A r tmapXELV, TO 8~ A tmb TO r lc,..rLv, aVa.YKTJ 70 B 'TWt 'Tip A tJ1TclpXELV. cd BE 'TO B 'Tip A 'Twi, Kat TO A rip B 7"(.Vt .,
,
...,
IJ.
'
f
,
V7Tapxew avaYKUtoV- UV'Turrpeop£l, yap. oP.Otws 20
r
I
. , .
\
Kat
~
£(.
ov' 'TO yap B inTo TO r €a7iv.
eLl] avaYKuiov Ka86>..ou "
t"
DE
...
."
\
,
\
A
el
Se
'TO •
'TO EV J-LEpet €Q'TUI avaYKUWV, OUK €O"7'Ut. 'TO (]1)fL1r€PUUf-LU avay-
KUWV.
faTW
yap 'TO B r Ell ,..dpeL p.r, ,.uno,
T€
7TaV7't 'Tip r lJ7Tapxl.rw,
Kat avaYKUWV, 'TO Oe- A
avaYK1}S.
J~
aVTLcrrpa-
cfol.vTos OVV 'TOV B r 'TO 7TPWTOV ylYVETW. ax!ifLa, Kat ~ fLEli KU25 80>..00 1TpOruats OUK dvaYKulu. Tj S· €v ,dpel. dvaYKula. o-re S' oVrws EX0l.EJI at 7TpO'TaaeLs J OUK 1jv 'TO C1Vfl:1T€paUfW- avay...
Kawv, WUT
.",..
DUO
\
I
E7T1. 'TOU'TWV.
"'" \
\
1
_
II
eTL De Kat.. EK TWV opwv
,J,.
,
't'uvepov .
A'eYP'rJyopaLS. TO De B OL7TOVV, 6fJ 'J.' cp1" DE t" \ r EO'rW yap TO /-LEV TO ,cpov. TO fLa, oov B TWt 'Tip r avaYK7J mrapx£w. 'TO SE A Tif; >I
, \
\
I
,
~,
<:;'1
r
EVSEX€'Tat, Kat. 'TO A Tip B OUK avaYKatOV- ov yap avaYK7J al1TOVV 'Tt Ka8EJaEW 1] eYprJyopEVat. oJ-LOlw) 3E Kat. 3ut TWV aUTWV oPWV a€tX8~(1'ETat Kat €l 'TO A dry EV pipet TE Kat. 33 avaYKa'i'ov. 33 Ei a' 0 p..~v Ka'T1]yoptKOs 0 aE aTEfY')TtKOS 'TWV opwv. Drav fLEV ii 'TO Ka8oAov CT'TEP7J'TtKOV TE Kat avaYKawv, Kat 'TO 35 avfL1TEpaafLa ECT'Tat avaYKa'i'ov' yap TO A Tep fL1]3ev~ lva'XE'Taf., 'TO aE B TW;' 'Tip r IrrrapX£t, 'TO A 'TtVL Tip B dvaYK7l fLTJ mraPXEW. O-rav 3~ 'TO KaTao/aTtKov avaYKawv TEfJfj, ~ Ka8o>...ov OV 1] ev fLEpEt, 7j 'TO aTEp7J'TtKOV Ka'Ta fLEPOS. OUK EaTat TO aV/l.1TEpaaj.ta dvaYKa'i'ov. 'To. fL~ yap rua Tam-a a. leal, 40 E1T~ TWV 1TpO'TEPOV epoDI-'Ev, oPOt o~ &rav I-'~ ii KafJoAov 'TO KaT1JYOptKOV avaYKaLov. eYfflopats-~ipov-f1vOpW1TOS. plaov av3z a fJPW1Tos. bTav 0' b I-'EPH 'TO Ka'T1}yoptKOV avaYKaiov, eyrrllyopat)-~00V-AEVK6v' 'cpov J1.Ev yap avaYK7J TtVI, AEVKCP lrrrapXHV. eyp~yopat) O' Ev3£X€'Ta(. I-LTj3evl. Kat aUK avaYKTJ 'TtV;' '
r
E'
r
b19 Ka~ fl ACAl: fl Kat Bdn 29 a+,"aVTL d2 31 n+l'1] n1Alc i} lyfY1Jyopivat om. nr 36 B . . . y ... f3 nlr 39 & om. n 40 1rpoTipwv Cdn: lTlpwv d2 Ka06Aov TO nr: TO Ka8oAov ABed 41 p.EO'ov+3i C 32aS 0)/ om. d 1-1-10'01' '~ov '~ov ILlaov ]32, coni. A l: 3i1roVV fLEaov AdnAI et ut vid. B: 3l1roVV p.Eaov '~ov d2: fL(aOV ot'"(>vv
rJ
cr:
pyp
' .. .I..'
at-"'f'0'TEpots
~ I
OE,
\
Kat
....
~J.._
Ka'T~TtKwV
\
...." .... OVTWV 'TWV
Kat U'TEfY']'Tt,KWV
r:roMoywpiiJv, dvdYK7J 'TijV E'rEpaV 7Tp6-rQaW oJLOlav IElva" 70 10 avp:TTEpdup-un. >"1'(1.) SJ TO op.otav, et fLEV imdpxov, lnrap-· xovaav, d 8' avaYKatOV, avaYKalav. WaTE" Kat TOlYrO 8fjAov.
OTt aUK £a-rut TO aVfL7T/.paufLu ow' avaYKai:ov ov8' mrapxov ElvaL fL~ A7]cpfJdCT1]S avaYKulas ~ rnrapxouCTrJS 1Tporauews.
· ' TrWS . . yLyvE"'TaL , n IEP"" JLEV" ouv ' TOUavaYKawv,
Kat\/~.J.. nva ota'¥O- 15
13 pa~ ~XH 7TP~S TO inr.apxo~J €i,~'Y'JTaL aXE~OV ;K~VW~' 7TE~;' 8~ 'TOV
EVO€XOjL€VOV
/-LeTa
'TO-UTa
AeYW/1-EV
7TOTE KaL 'TrWS
Kat
SLa
avAAoytOJLOS. Aiyw S' €vo,[XEu8ut Kat 'TO €VOEXOJL€Vov J 00 fL~ OVTOS avaYKulov 'TE8mos S' imapXEw J OOOEV (UTa' 8t.d. TOUT' aowa:TOV- TO yap avaYKatOV 0fLWvup.ws €yOEXEuBa(. 20
''{vwv €crraL
J
BE 'ToiYr' Ern, T() .£yOEXOfLHOII. ¢UVEpOV ;K TE T(tlV • .I.' .I."'! -, 1 U1r0
fL~ tmo.PXEW ifTOL Tutho. E07"W ~ dKOAov8EL &.N\~AOLS', 0)07"E: KUt 7<1 dllTLKdfLElIO-~ TO ElIO€XETO-L Imo.pXE:Lv Kut oilK dSwaTOll imrfPXEW Kat OUK avaYKT] fL~ imdPXELV. ~TOL 'TalYra Ern-at ~ aKoAov80UIITU &.N\~AOLS'· KUTa 1rUlITOS' yap -r, ¢dULS' ~ ~ a1TO¢aULS'. ;07"o.L upu TO Ev3EXOfL€VOll OUK avaYKaLOll Kal 'TO fL7] avaYKaLOv Ev8EXOfLElIOV.] aVfLf3utllEt ~" , ~ 1 II ' • I.J. OE 1TauuS' 'TUS' KUTU" TO . EVOEXEouaL. 1TpOTanEtS' UVTL07"pE'f'EW _' \ \ 1 \ \1 ~\ ,\ ~ J.~ \ ... , J. ... UlV\TjI\ULS'. I\EyW aE au 'TaS' KaTu.opuTtKaS' 'TUtS' a1T0<pa'TLKuLS'. _' \ \ • ., ~J. \" ,... ' \ ' 'll UIV\ OUUL KUT""rUTLKOll ExovaL TO u)(TJfLU KU'Ta 'T7}1I UVTLUEaw. OtOll TO Ev3€XEu8aL lrmipX€tv 'Tep ElI;)€X€u8uL fL~ ImrfpXEtll. Kat. TO 1TaVTl Ev3€X€u8UL 'Tep ElIO€X€u8uL J.LTjOEllt Kat J.L~ 1TUlI'Tl. KUL 'TO TLYt. Tip fL~ TWt. TOV atJ-rOV OE Tp6770ll KaL E1TL nJ,w tiMwv. E1T€L yap TO ElIOEXOfL€1I01l OUK ;U'TLV aVUYKULOII, TO OE fL~ avayKUtOll EYXWPEt fL~ imrfpX€tv. ¢UV€POll OTt. €l EVOEXETUL 'TO A Tij) B imrfpXELV. EVO€XETaL Kat fL~ mrapx€w' KaL El 1TUVTt ElIOEXETUL imciPXELV. Kat. 7TUlI'Tt EVOEXETUL fL~ imapXE"LV. 6J.WtwS' OE KanL 'T(iw EV fLEP€L KUTa¢xJ,a€WV' ~ yap alrrij d7T03€L~tS'. EluL 0' al TOLaihaL '"poTaU€LS' KaTrJyopLKat Kat
ou
07"€pT]TLKal' TO yap ElIOEXEuOaL T0 Elvat 6fLOiwS' nlTT€TUL, KaBanEp EAEXBT] 1TPOT€POV. 20 Q.vaYKd,lOV:,-QII1t ,21- 9 on .. . tVO(XOP,£vov ~;odd. 22 Kal TWV KdTarpaU€Wv am. n 23-4 /(a,2 • • • 25 Q.VTL/«({P,€lId nr: +TOVTOl!l A BCd 25 ct 26/(al + To C ll7TclPXHV om. n 1 27 ~] 1] 1t : 'il ~ .1. 2 :t8 /(UTarpaat!l Cd Q.7TOrpaaIS+ taTty A: 26 T/TOt] .fj 1t +iaTat r 33 T~J TO Al 34 Ka~I+T~ n 40 o~ om. BC alj >.iyoP,(V Ad
r All': sec!. Becker
25
30
35
40
3zh
ANAAYTIKQN llPOTEPrJN A
LI tWptGP.£JJWV 8~ 'TOVTWV 7T&.AW A€yWtLfV OTt 5 aOat. KaTct. 860 AEI'ETUL 7p67TOVS, €va J.L~V TO 1TOA~ y{veu(}(lt Kat. OtaAd7n:LV TO avaYKa'i'ov, olov
'TO bOEX€t.bS E7Tf. TO TO 7TO'\'tOVuOat /lvOPW7TOV 1} TO av,dv€a8at. 1} ~e{V€tV, ~ OAWS TO 7TErpVKG:; v-rrapXEW (roih-o yap ou ClVV€X~S' f£€V lXEt TO aVUYKUtOV ow. TO fl.';" dd etv(lt avOpW'TTov, Oj/TOS JL&rOL dvOpcimov 1} if 10 avaYK7]s 1} WS E7Tl TO 1TO'\t.i ecrrw), UAAOV OE TO d6pt(77"ov, 0 Ka~ OtrrwS' Ka~ J.L~ oVrwS' Ovv(lrov, OLoV TO f3a8{~EW 'cpov 1} t"'I' e YEve-a at CTEUJp,OV. '1) OI\WS' TO a7TD TV)(Y}S ywof3 aOt,:>OVTOS' J.LEVOV· ov8€v yap pii).AOV OlYrwS' ,"E1>VK€V 1} EV(lJl'rlws. avncrrpE.t. , . [ ' ] KUTU Ta:; aVTLK€l.J.LEva:; 7TpOTaaELS I .EKUTEPOV , ~Et P€V" OVV' Kat 15 T(VV EVOEXOfLEVWVJ 0.0 fL~V TOV ath-ov ye TP07TOV, &.Mel TO J.LEV I
I
...
"\
\,
\ ,
,
" 0 1
'1 € val.
J.
. . fL'YJ\
~c
., ( ., , . t" tnrapXEW OVTW yap £vo£~ XETat p..~ 1Toi\wvaOal. avOpW1TOV), TO 0) doptO'TOV TtP p..1JoEv pJiA~ AOV OVTWS' 1} EKElvwS' , E1TurnlfJ-1] ot Kat. avi\AOytatWS' a1TOO£I.KT~ KOS' TWV fL~V aoplO'Twv OUK Ean O,d. TO aTaKTOV Elval. TO piaov, .... <;,- \ ;'" " '<;'- \ f '\' ' f './. 20 TWV OE 1T6yVKOTWV EO'Tt, Kat ux€OOV 01. I\oyat Kat at aKE'f€t~ ylvoV7'at 1TEP~ 'T(VV OVTWS' EvcH=xofJivwV" EKElvwv 0' EYXWPEt fL;v YHEaOat avi\Aoywp..ov, ou fL~v £lWOE ')'E '1fTEta(Jat, TaiJTa fLEV oov StoptaO~aETat fLfi).)..ov EV TOtS' €1TopillOtS' VVV OE- AEYWp..EV 1TOT€ Kat. 1TW~ Kat TlS' EaTat uvi\AoytUfLOS' EK TWV 25 EVO€XOfLEVWV '''pOTaa€WV, E1T€t OE TO £voEx€C:rBat TOOE TtPOE "<;,.... " )'\f3""~ . '1"~ 1~"'1' mrapXEW otXUJ~ EO'TW EKl\a EW' 1] yap cp mrapXEt TOOE 'T} cP EvOEXETat aUTO imapXEtv--To yap, Ka(P OD TO B, 'TO A EVoEXEUBat TOUTWV O'1JfWlvEt 8aTEpov, 1} Ka8" 00 AEyerat 'TO B 1} KaB' 00 EVOEXETUt A€YEa8at· TO O€, Ka8' OU TO B, TO A 30 EvoEXEaOat ~ 1TaV7't TtP B TO A EYXWPEtV ouotv OtacpEpEtcfoaVEPOV 8,xw~ av i\€YOtTO TO A TtP B 1TaJl'Tt. EVSEXEUOat inraPX€W , 1TPWTOV oov €t1TWJ.1.£V, El KaO' 0.0 'TO TO B XETat, Kat. KaO' 00 TO B TO A, Tt~ EO'Tat Kat. 1TOtO~ avi\i\o~ .1..), \ .. R' ytap..o~· OVTW yap at 1TpOTaaf:t!) afLy-rvTEpat l\aJ-'t"avOVTUt 35 Ka'Ta. TO EVOEX£O-8at, oTav 0; Ka8' 00 'TO B mrapXH TO A Ev8/X'1TUt, ~ fI.;v {mapxovaa ~ 0' EVO€xofLEvr]. cOaT' a.1T0 TWV ofLOwaX1Jflovwv apKTEOV, KaOa1TEp Kat. €v 'TOt!) ruo,!).
'11'6pVKOS
TCfJ
E!,
>
,
avaYK7JS
an
I
..
r
\
•
,
lvoi-
•
b4- 22 t1~wp~(]J.dvwv • • . ~7)T€i:qfJat cadd, r AlP: susp. Becker 4 AqOJlEV ABZCd 5 -r1jJ W~ n 7 av{(qfJa~ n 9 (tVat+-rov C 10 ruo Alln II ~+-ro ABd 14 Kal. codd. AI: om. Pacius et ut vid. r 2 . 21 iK(tvW~ Ed 23 ovv om. C 24 >.I.YWjJ.EV Bdnr: MYOP.El' AC KcU 7TWS" Br: om. ACdn 25- 32 bn:l ... v"l'Tapxuv codd. r AlP: sed. Becker 33 TIjJ fJ n 2 34- 7 OVTW ••• ciMots" caddo rp: sed. Becket 35 vnapX11 B 37 Op.(HoO"X~jJ.WY Al Kat om. nr
J4
"'Orav oov
r,
'Tep
13· 32b4-14· 33'30 'TO A 1TOV'Tt -rlp B EvSlX"],ro(.
ovAAoy(.u~S' EUTat.
-rlAEUJS'
Kat.
TO B
;n.t TO A nant. T
8ixE"Tar. {md.pX£w. 'ToVro 8t ~VEP(>V
tK
1TaV'Tt.
r
EV-
'TOV 6pwfWv' 'TO ya.p 40
ivSlXE08a(. 1TaJI'Tt -/mOpXf:tV OlYrwS' lAlyop.€V. OfWlwS' OE Kat 33· ft 'TO I"tv A ivolXETot J.L1JO£Vl. -rep B. TO 8E B 1TOV'Tt 74)
r,
A a,8IXE"rat JL1']8EVi Tcp r· TO yap Ka(P OU 'TO B EV'81.'A I'TJ' 6'OEXEava£, ~ . -<:.', _11 ... '.r \ _s::' • '\' XETOC.. 'TO TOVT _,v 'TO p.'JVW a1TO"H1TEW 'TWV Uno 'TO B &oEXOfLlvwv. arav 8e 'TO A 1TaV'Tt rip B iv- S 8lXYJ'Tat, 'TO oE B iv8l)(1}Ta(, p:110ev;' Tip r, StU. /LEV TWV .d-
on 'TO
ATJfLl.dvwv 1TfXYTduEWV ouae,S' ,,{vETat UVAAOYtop,OS', aVTurrpaoE rijs B 'TO Ev8lXEufJaL ,,(vETat «>
r KaTa
tj,E~S'
• , OO1TEp 1T(XYTEpOV.
""< ; :EVVEXETat 0' E1TEt yap
am-oS'
- "Ttp ' r "V7Tap'TO' B p.'JValt
XEW, JvSlXE'T'ot Kat 1Tuvrt imapXEW' Toiho 8' Et(YfJ'Tal. 1Tp6TE- 10 pov. Cixrr' El TO ply B 1T<WTt. -rtP 'TO 8' A ;uvrt Tep B, 1TaAW 0 aVT6~ YW£Tal. OVAAoywJ.L&~. 6J.Wlw~ O~ Kat EL 1Tp6~ a~€pa) 'TaoS 1TPOT(i.UEt~ ~ d1T6fP.uts nO£LTJ IL£Ta 'TOU EIIOctXEufJat. 'Aiyw ' 0' orOV El TO A 1II0iXETo.I. IL1JOEVt Tip B Kat 'TO B J-LT}OEVt Tip r· om p£v yap 'TWV El.ATJJ.l-J.l-ivwv ?TpO'Taa£wv IS
r,
,~
\
I
"
I '
.L~'
~
\
~,
°•
,
YWE'Tal. OVlV\oywfLO~. aV'TW'TfJEoyvJ.l-EVWV o£ 1TafUV av., \' .I.,.' "'. -'.I.'! 'TO~ EUTat CXl'TrEp Kat np07Epov. 'f'U'VEPOV OUV OTt TTJS a1TO.,.,...,u£w~ ' \...., .. .. • ' .. . 1 . ' , Tt8EfL€VrJ~ 1TpO~ TO El\arrov aKpov 1J 1TpOS at-"'P0'TEpas 'Tas 1Tpo'Td(TEt~ ~ ou ytvE'Tal. OVAAOYwfUl) ~ "ILVE'Tat J.l-t... aM' OU'TE';\('OS' EK yap ~) aVTtUTpexPfjs 1TEpaLVE'Ta, 'TO dvaYKatov. 20 'Eav S' ~ J.L~ KafJ6Aov 7(UV 7rP0'To.UEWV ~ 0' a, piPft AT}#Jii. 1TPO~ /L~ 'TO J-LEi{ov O,KPOII KE'fLEIIT}S 'Tij~ KafJ6Aov uvMoy,uJ-L0S' (UTa, ['TEAEtOS']. fl yap 'TO A 1TaV'Tt 'Tip B EvoiXf'Tat. 'TO B ~\.L,. \, 'TW' 'Tep , 'TO'A 'TW'' 'T!P'r'~' £IIO€Xf'Ta,. 'TOV'TO Of 'f1O...VfpoV f .K 'TOll &pta/-Wv 'TOV ivoiXEa8a,. ?TriAw £L TO A a,oiX£,Ta, fLTJ8EVt 'Tip B,25 'TO OE B 'TWt 'Tip Ev8'XEro" tmapXEt'" dVo.YKTJ 'TO A Ev8'xEcr8al 'T'V' 'TWV r J.I-~ tnroPXEW. a1T68E~'S' 0' 7j Edv Cl'TEprrrtKTJ ATJcp8fj ~ iv pifJE' 1TpO'Taats. ~ KafJ6Aov Ka'Ta4>a'T'K1}. -rfi 8EUEt o/-W{ws EXWUtV (0 Cov TO fLtv A 1TaVTt rip B bOEXE'Tat. 'TO B rwt 'Tip iv8iXf'To., fL~ mrapXfw). pot... 30 a 3,3 I ltiYOl-'tv nAle 4 P~ 0t;t. nr et ut.vid. Al 9 W(J1Jtp ,A1n : OOfrtp A:a.t C: t'fJuntp A:a.t CZ Iffrn ••• 10 frponpov om. n 1 II IffrU B J4 et 15 T~ r: nov codd. 17 oanlfp Br: wa1Tlfp n: ws ACd A:al om. B1 20 1TlfpaiVlf'To., A 2n1': ylvno., ABed 23 TiAnos susp. Becker. om. ut vid. AlP 25 JvSixlfa8o., dr Al; €v8lxta844 a. fl. y. ABCn!: JvalXlfa8w. p. n : Jv8iXlfa9w. 1TC.vrt EJI: A:aTU no.VTOi' Ev8ix£o8ru CJcF 26 T~ Cnr: TWV ABd 29 £XOtlOlV nS otov]+lfl coni. Waitz b.sJX'J]Tu, OUOH~
••
, 'r
r
oE
Waitz
oe
-
oe
oE
30
r
Jv8iX'JT~
n
o,VrrJ.
oE
om
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A ,,,, , " ./.. ' \ \ ' TWV ELI\TJfLfLEVWV 7T'po-rauewv ov YWETa/. 'raVEpo~ UVI\/\OY,Up..o!; t a;VrtU'7pacpetO'Tjs OE Tfjs EV plpeL Ka~ 'TEfUVTOS -rov B 'Ttvl T8ii, 1j 8~ 'TTp6S TO EAarrov Ka86.\ov, Jav '"
r
am-o
T
. . . . .1..'
0...... ,
~J._,
, .,
at"'Y0TEpat KaTIMfIU'TtKat 'TE WUW EO-V TE CT'TEfY'}'T£Kat EO-V T€
,~
I
• I
./...!. ,~ I .. " at-"'f"-'TEpat aotopLCrrOI. 1] KaTa ...
fLTJ 0fLOWUXTJI·UJVES. EO-V T fLEPOSt ovSa"uvs EcrraL avAAOYLO'j.WS'· Dullev yap KwAVEL TO B
W€(YTdVEW 'TOV A Kai fL~ Ka:rwopetaBat. €tT' lawv'
' r•
A ,EI.I\7j'f' ',\ ''/''Ow
'TO
'
c;,
S· V7TEP-
' ' 'OUTe ' want, yap 33 b OUrE P:1]061' oUre nVL OWE fL-? 7W, a,O€XE'raL TO A !)'T/'apxEw J Et, fA. . , ' '~I 0 ' " 7TEp aV7'U::1'TpE'f0VULV at. KUTa 'TO EVOEXEU at 7Tpo-raO'EtS Kat TO B 7TAEtoaw EvS/XETat ~ TO A inrapx~.tV. En S~ Kat EK TWV opWV cPaVEpOV' oihw yap Exovawv TWV 1Tp07"aaEWV rd 1rPWTOV 5 Tip EOXaTCP Kat OUSEVt EvS/XE7'at Kat 7Tant tmapXEW avayKaLov. opaL 8E KOWOt mlvrwv TaU fLEV tmapXEW Eg rivayK'"f)S {cjJOv-AwKov-av8pw1ros, TOU 8E fL~ EvS/XEa8aL ~CPOV-AEVKOV lp.cfnov. cPUVEpov oOv TOih-OV 'TOV 'Tponov EX0V'TWV 'TWV opwv oVl>Els ytvE'TaL ovAAoytap.6s. 7j ydp 'TOU imapXEw ~ TOU 10 avayK'I']S ~ 'TaU b8lXEu8aL 1Tfis EO"'T2 OVAAoytufLos. TOU fL6> 'f' • , ,,.. • A.. \" '" ., ovv V1TupxelV Kat 'TOU avaYKawv 'fUVEpoV 07"L OVK EO'7"W' 0 fLEV ydp KU'TruPaTtKOS aVaLpEL'TaL Tip Cl7"EP"I'TtKCP, 0 l>~ C1'TEP"ITtKOS 'Tip Ka'TwPUTLKip. AEL1rE'TUt l>~ 'Toil lvSlXEu8at ElvaL' 1'oih-o 0' d3waTov' 3/8EtK'To.t ydp OlYrWS lx0VTWJJ TWV opwv Kat IS 1raV'Tl. Tip iax&rep 'TO 1T~1'OV avaylO] Kat OVO£llt EvSlxerat v1TapXEw. waT' OUK av E'tTJ TaU EVS£XEu8aL ovAAoytajL6s' TO yap dvaYKaiov OUK .ryv EvOEXOfW'OV. fPavEpov OE OrL Ka06Aov nov 8pwv ~VTWV Jv 'To.iS' Ev8EX0p,EVULS 1TpoTauEuLV aEt ytVETUt uv.\Aoytup.OS" EV Tip 7TPWI , ,.. \ ,..» 20 rep OX7Jf.L«TL, Kat KU'T"T}YOPLKWV Kat C1TEfYTl'TtKWV OVTWV. 7TAryv KU7TJ'Y0PLKWV p1v TlAEtOS, C1TEpYJ'T'tKWV OE arEA-,JS". SEt DE Ev3€XEa8aL AaJ.L!3&'vEw fL~ Ev · TOtS dvaYKatots. ciAAG. KCtra T6V Elp'I']fLtvov 8toptup,ov. EvloTE oE AavOavEL r6 TOtoih-OV. 25 'Eav 0' 1j Jdv imapXELV 7J 3' EVO/xEaBCtL 'Aa.p.{M.V7JTaL IS rwv 1rpcrrauEwv, Mav P,EV .fJ 7Tp6S r6 fLE'i'ov aKpov EvS'x,EulJat a37 op.o~oaX'lp.ov£s CdP: &f.loax~p.ov£s ABn 39 'TOV C2P: 1'0 ABCdn 40 rov] 1'0 n bI4 1'WV opwv om. d 1 18 OV1'WV 1'(UV oprov d 1 2;1 f/-EV+ OV1'rov nr 22 f.l1}+'T0 d , 40 TEtVn TO'B TOU
TOUT
on
E,
I
on
ro
14· 33'3 1- 15. 34'19
aYJJ.LOl.vrJ, "dAELOl lvol.xeu8at.
7'
laovTar.
7rd.V'TE'S'
Ka:rct. TOll et{Yf]p.ivoJl
ot av'uoytafW' Ka, 'TOU
3wptup.Ov, Mav 8' '" 71'poS' 'TO
£.:\arrov. aTEAe,S' 'TE 1rcivrES, Kat ot O'7'EfY1lTLKO'i. 'TWV avMoyt-
utWJv Oil 'TOU KU'T(I. 'TOll 8topwfLOV JvSexopivov. ci.AAd. 'TOV fL7JOEVl. ij p,~ '7TQV'Ti £~ dvaYK7J) imG.pXEW" ei yap .J.L7JO€V1, ~ fL~ \
'7Tavn
't
ES
• ,
avayK'T}),
,
<;:0 ,
.J._ opuJ-L€V
_D'
€VoExeouaL
''"' \ Kat iJ/'I)O€Vt.
\ Kat
30
\
J.l,,"fJ
1r(1V'Tt imapXEW. Ev8€}(.Ia8w . yap 'TO A ?Tani -rep B, 'TO Be B ?Tani 'rep r KEla8w lnT&'PXEW. Em"i oov tnrO 7"6 B ECl'TL TO A.' B '1TavTL, .EVOEXETat ,",' , A.L .., \ ... • T~ OE TO • opav€pov on Ka, T
r
r
~'\
Kat O"TEpTJ'TLKfis OVC1TJ) rijs A B 1TpcrrauewS'. rTjS' DE B r Ko:ra.J.L~ Jv8/XEafJat. rijs 8' imapXEw 'Aaft{3avOJ.1.ivTJS'. -r'AE"tOS irrrat avAAOYLO"/LOS' CYr' TO A Evol.x£'ral. J.L7Jo€Vi -riii imapXnv. 40 "On p.€v o.ov 'TOV imapx€ow n9€op1vov 7rpor; 'TO EAO-TrOV aKpov 34", " '..1..... '" ~~ . , " T€ol\€t.Ot. Y'YVoV'Tat ot"\AOYtap.oL~ -yu-vepov' on ° EVaV'TLWr; €oxov· 'TOr; EaOVTw. av),}.oytap.ot. St.d. 'TOV Muva-rou Onl<7Eov. ap.a 0' €(J7'at 07JAOV Kat &rt. a-reAeir; ' ~ yap oeL~,r; OOK EK 'TWV €oZAT'JP.JilvWV 7rfXYT&'aEWV. 1TpiiYrOV OE AEK'TEOV (h-t. £1 'TOU A OVTO> 5 . avayK1} 'TO B E lvat., Kat ouva'ToO OV'Tor; 'ToO A ouvG.'TOV lerrat. , " ,.. " "'..I..' '" • Kat, 'TO'B"(;' E~ avaYK1}r;. EaTW yap OU'TWr; EXOV7WV 'TO /LEV e~ cp 'TO ~ , .~, '..I..' '" • B '~I • T • ~ A ovvaTOv, TO 0 E~ cP 'TO Q.ovva'TOv. E' OUY 'TO, /LEV OWo.'TOv. OTE ouvaTOV Ellla" Y&O''T' 'TO 0' dSvva'TolI. &r' d.Stfva'Tov, OOK <Xv 'Yo,O''To. ap.a 0' £'T'J 'TO A owa'Tov Kal .,.0 B 10 dOVva'Tov, M'xOL'T' <Xv 'TO A 'YEV/aBa, o.V£l} 'TOU B, EI o~ 'Y£v/aDa" Kat Elv(U' 'TO yap yeyoyor;. ME 'YEyoV£V. Eo-nv. OEL oE '_ .. Q I " • _ , \ I \ I I\~a.v£w p.7] p.ovov EV T{J YEVEO'£(, 'TO aovva'TOV Kat. OVJlaTOV. d>v\a. Kol Ev Tip 6A7]0EvEuOat. Kol EV TCP imapXEw, Kal aaaxwr; ci.Uws AE'YE'Tat TO oVYa'TOV' lv a1TauL yap ap.olwr; ;~Et.. IS En -rO oV'Tor; 'TOU A 'TO B ElvaL, OUX ws bar; 'TwoS' oVTor; 'ToO A 'TO " ~ -, 'afJ'" '\ " ,~,.t; • If, B EO'Ta.t. OE" lI7TOl\ EW' OV yap EO'TW OVOEV E~ avo.YKYJr; £Vor; TWOS OVTor;. d.AAd. OVOLV lAaxUrrow. olov &ray at 7rpoT'aaEt.r; OUTWS' Exwaw ws EAEX07] Ka-ra. 'TOV O'VAAoyWp..OV. EI yap -rO
. cf>anKijs. Kat. rijs
r
av.
_.~
~
b27 aVJlpalYfJ n l 29 n: om. C ItcU ••. avAAOY'O"JlWII et 31-2 ~118f"1'L caddo r ALP: Ot aVAAOY'O"Jloi Ita, et JlT] coni. Becker 34 ?'TaJ"TL J6 ai] 81} n ,38 )'ClJlfJClIlOJlllITjs At Bd2nr: ).o.P.PClVOrXn,S ACd 39 £O"'TCl' Bdnr: om. AC 341111 ToD om. n 1 liltpov om. n 2 EXOVT£S Al 4·0.,., Ital d: 0.,., (;1 7 Kai. dnI': om. ABC ExolITWII +TWV opwv AI 9 on A 0.,.' 4.8t1Vo.TOV AEflCcJ2nAl: O'TClII 8vllaToli Bd 10 Erl1 scripsi: El codd. Ai: om. r 14 /Call om. C ••• 17aVTL Olll. n 1
18 8w~v
B
JAa.XlO""TolJ
B:
JMX~O"'TOII
EP
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A 20 r Karo. 'TOU il, 'T6 ()€ Lf Ka'Ta. 'TOO Z, Kat '1'6 r K'ct'Ta. 7'06 Z E~ avC£yK7])' Kat El 3vva'TOY EKO:TEPOV, Kat. TO uvllmlpaup4 8vvarov. t%Jcnrep Oov d'TLS (lEtT) TO J1-Ev A 70S 'TtpO'TaaEts. 'TO Se , Q''') -A B 'TO\ OVf.L7TEpaUp.a, avt-Lt'ctU/0(, av au f.LOVOV aVClYKawv 'TOV I
OVTOS'
25
ap.a Kat 'TO B Oe
TOVTOV \
,
E'CVaL
KaL SUliaTou
3vvaT<5v.
~avt:pov
if1€vSOVS'
V1fOTE(Ja,-
I
Or, Q""
\.
TOS Kat P:1) aovvarov Kat TO uvf.L{Jawov .1. -~ II \. _'t' ' ". t 'f'EtJDOS' £(77"(1' Kat aUK aovvClrov •. OWV E't TO
,."i] pivTot. d8Jvct'TOV,
,
avaYKat'ov, cLUd
OEI.Xf)lVTOS. 't'
•
OVTOS'
3£
TOO
'" \ , ~'8 ata 77JV V'TTO EUtv
A .1. -,.,. ~EVUOS' fLEV EaTt A TO B EeJ'Tt, KctC. TO B laTa(.
.1. ,..'" '
, '0;:. I • , \ t't<;:, .,) av. IM.vT~' aovvarov. E7TH yap OEOEtK'Tctt on €(. 30 'TOV A OVTOS' TO B Ecrn, Kru 8VJ.1UTOV OV'TOS' TOO A Eura, TO B 8v VctTOV, WOKEtTru 8e 'T(~ A OVVctTOV etvct(., KaL TO B E07'a(' 8vw
varov' El yap d8vvUTOV, ilJ.W. Bvvu'TOV Ea7"Ut 7'0 uu,.O Kat dSVVUTOV. LJ I-wpta,LEvwv 8;' 'ToVrwv tmuPX£'TW 'TO A 1TaV'Tt 'Tip B, 35 'TO 8~ B 1TUV'Tt TcfJ r JvB€XEa8w' avaYK7] 00" ro A 1Tant 'Tip r Jv8£x€a8at, vmJ.PXELV. J1-r, yap £v8EXEaOw, TO 8€ B 1TUVT~ T(P r KEtaOw WS tmapx0V" 'Toiho S€ if/€fJ80s J1-EV. OU tL£v-rOt d8vvarov. Ei OVV 'TO plv A p.-r, JyS£XErat 1TaV'Tt T
r,
r.
A
'~I
"
.
~,
r
,~,
r
au 8vva7f.Jv + 8' ABdn: an + 8~? 24 afta 0111. ACd Kat fecit A 29 ~."JlTO~+y£ n 30 8VVaTQV TO ~ C 32- 3 £i ••. ti8vvaTov om. n 1 38 JlEV om. d
28
8E ... 31 ~ + dpa nr lI'aJITt om. ABCdAl 41 l"aEx£u9at codd. rAiP: sed. Becker apa om. d1 hI ulI'oT£9/"TOS n 2--6 lyxwp£'i . . • lyxwp£tv codd. AlP : sed. Becker 5 Ka~ ABCnr IvaEX£Tal d: av IvaixoITo n 7 mrapxov n 8-1 [ ,~ha .. • uvA.\oylap,os codd. r: sed. Becker II Kal. om. Cnr "TOS'
IS· 34'20-35'4
ruo
oe
p.€vCfJ o.v8PW1TOV inrapxnv, olov El fJ.TJOEv KwoiTO' TO KLVOV/-,EJlOV Ev8£XE'TaL 1TaVTt t1T1TCfJ' ill' o'V9PW1TOV OVO€Vt i7T1TCfJ Ev8/xETW.. ETC. EUTW TO plv 1'fpWroV '41011, TO OE /-,'aov KWOO/-,€VOV, 'TO 0' EcrxaTOV av8pwrror;. al/-,Ev OVII 1TfXYTMELr; o/-,o~ IS UovaL, TO OE UVfJ.1TEpaajUJ. allaYKaiov, OUK EVOEXOfL€VOV' allaYK7]S" yap 0 av8pw1Tos 'ctJov. cPavEp6v OVV 07, TO Ka96Aov AfJ1TTI.ov a1TAWr;. Kat OU XpOVCfJ 8LOpt{oVTas. [J&'>'w EUTW UT€PfJT~ 1TpOTaaLS Ka8oAov ;, A B, Kat ED.~f9w 'TO fJ.EV A JLfJ8EVt Tip B inrapXEw, TO OE B 1TaVTt 20 EvoExI.a8w inrapXELv Tip r. 'TOVTWV OOV 'TE9'VTWV &.vaYKfJ 'TO A 6oEXEa8aL fLfJOEVt 'Tep inr&'PXEW. J.L~ yap b8EX.lUOW, 'TO oE B Tip KEtafJw inrapxolI, Ka8a.rrEp npo-rEpolI. &.v&.YK1J &} TO A 'TLvi Tep B V1TfJ.PXEW· y{vETaL yap av'\'\OYLafLor; Ola TOU 'Tpt'TOV axrJJ.LaTor;· TOVTO OE &'ovvaTOV. a)UT' EvolXOLT' Q:v TO zS A ILfJOEV'i. -rijJ ,pEVOOUS yap T€Ol.VTor; ci8uvaTov TO uvfLf3aivov, Oln-or; OOV 0 av'\'\OYLup.Or; OUK EUTL TOU KaTa 'TOV OtOP'UILOV EvOEXOfLEVOV, &...\An TOV J-LfJOEVt avaYK?}S (ailrry yap EUTW ,., aVT«/>auLr; Tfjr; YEVOJ-L£VTJS 1nr08EcrEwr;' ET£OT] yap E~ civayK7]S TO A 'Tl.vt Tip lnrapXEW. 0 BE TOV dovvdTOV uv'\'\o- 30 ywp.Os 7ijs a.VTLKHf'lvr]r; EUTtV t/xiUEWS). ETt OE Kat 'K TWV ., "I.;. ,., '" \ , 1<;:,' " opWV .",.,.VEpOV OTt OVK EUTa' TO CTV/-,1TEpaUJ-La EVUEX0J.l.EVOV. EUTW , , , A ,~ • 'i::' .~. 1" B ~ , '.L' yap TO J.l.0I KOpar;;. 'TO y E't' c.p OI.O.VOOVf££VOV 7 Eoy '<;:' • II .... B 'A" . ~\ \ ~ UE av pW7TOS. OVOEVL VII TCfJ 'TO V1TapXH' OVOEV yap OUlVOOUJ-LEVOV KOpaE. TO O€ B '1TaVTt Evol.XETat Tc1J 1TaVTt.3S o.v8pcfm
E,
r
r
r·
E,
r
ow
•" r .e
yap
E,
r·
r •e
TO OE B 1TaVTt Tip
r·
".
r Ev8lXETQL,
Kat OUK EUTat TO UVfL1T£paup.a 40 avaYKa.i:oV' OV yap dvaYK7] p,fJol.va KtvE'ici8aL o.v8punrov, Q.U' OUK avaYKTJ TWcl. OfjAOV OOV OTt TO UVJ.L1TEpauJ.L& EUTL Toil JL"f'JOEVc' 3s a ,t, , I f ' '" <;:' \ f3 '\ ...opoVS • E~ ava.YKrJS V1TapXEW. I\fJ1TTEOV OE EI\TWV Tovr; •Ed.v OE 'TO UTEP"f'J7"KOII 'TE8n 1TpOS 1'0 EAaT'Tov aKpov Evol.XEu9aL C1fJp.aivov, av.rwv J-LEv TWV ED.fJJ.LJ.t.iVWII -rrpo'TaGEWV
E,
LI3 1r(1VTi.+To/ n 14-17 tTl •.. (0/01' codd. rAlP: M:c1. Becker a.1I'~wS'] aoptC1TwS' C o,opl~o"T(1S'G"An: o,opl~ovTt ABd 19-3Si211'aAW .•• opovS' codd. r ALP: sec!. Becker 28 iernv om. d1 Z9 Vrrcr/8f] n 31 rpa.C1£WS' A!Ct-'lrpc: o.V'Tl#-C1£WS' A BCd 33 pEv+i,,' ct.v n: +i~' ~ r J6 av8pw1I'
18
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A 5
auae,s
oi
E(J'TaL ovlloytup.6s, dvrurrprupdCTrJS
rijs
K£t'T
TO
ivSlXEafJat 7rfXYTaUEWS EGTa(', KaOa7TEP €v TO'S' 7TpCYTf:POV. imap-. XETW yap 76 A 7TaJI'Ti Tip B, TO OE B EvoEX1aBw p:T}OEVi
r.
'Tip ou-rw fLEV OVII EXOVTWV TWV opwv ouSEv E(J'Tat avaYKaLov' EaV 8~ aV7"W'Tpa>ii TO B r Kai ATJtPBfl TO B 1TaVTi TijJ r b10 8txeuOat, ylvETaL (TVAAOYL(1tWS ciJUTrEP 'TTpOTEPOV- Op,oLwS yap EXOUOW ol OpOL Tfj BEan. TOV ath-oJ! oE Tp07TOV Kat aTEpTJTLKWV " ••• ..1.- ' ... ~ , " • • A B p."'l' OP'TWV af4 KO/Ta TO EVO€);:ECJ at 7TpOTauews ferra, UVAAOY(,(7/LOs. E[A~4>8w yap TO p..€v A 1..{:l]oEvi Tip B imapXELV, TO OE B lv8lXEaBac. fLTJOEV'i Tip r. out p.£v ow Tothwv ovo!v avaYKawV" lav OE ).,1JcpOfi 'TO B 7Tavri -rep a,BEXEaOat, OOEP t07~V aA'Y}8Es, -Yj BE A B 1TPOTCWtS OfLOlws EX!1, 1T(lAW 20 0 atrTOS EU'Tat UVIV\OYWfOOS. Eav OE JL'Y} V7TapXEW TEvIt::; U 'TO\ B
r
~
•
\"
'\'\
.\
'
~,
\
f
,
r
1TaJl'Tt Tei' Kat JL~ iv3EXEU8at JLTJ tnrOpXEtV, OUK Ecrrat ClVAAOYWp,OS oUBajJ.Ws, OinE ClTEP11'nKijS OUC1T}S OinE Ka'TacpaTUcfjs rijs A B '"pO'TaUEwS'. 5pOt BE KOWOt 'TOV P.EV t£ o.VaYK1}S {maPXEw AEVKOV-'CPOV-X~v, 'TOV BE fLTJ a,Blx,w-fJat AEVKOV-'4JoV-1Tt'T'Ta. 2S €PavEpov OOv OTt Ka8oAov 'T(OV Jpwv OVTWV, Kat rijs JLEV mrapXEW 'T'ijs S' JvSiXEU8at XaJ43avoJLE.vrys TWV 1TPOTduEWV, .. \ ''''\ .. _D '\ {J ' , OTW 11 '"pos TO El\a'T'TOV o.Kpov EVOEXEC1t1W 1\0.1-'. aJn]'Tat 1TPOTCWLS, aE~ ytVETW UVAAoytUj.LOS. 1TA~V OrE fLfrv E, aO-rwv ~ \ ~). . ~_J.. .. ' , , ~\ , " OTE 0 aV'TW'T~WTJs '"1S '"(JOTaUEWS. 1TOTE OE TOJ)'TWV EKa'TE30 poS Ka! Sui. 'Ttv' al-r-tav, ElfY11KaJLEv. 30 •Eav OE 'TO P.EV Ka8oAov 70 O· b piPEt A"f} ..' .. a1TV'f'a• ~.J. 70, JL€t':,ov aKPOIl Ka 0" OI\OV 7E 0' TJ Kat,EVOEX0P.EIIOV, Et7 \.. J.._ \ \ TtKOV 07t; Ko.'T'-"YaTtKOII, 'TO 0 Ell ~PEt KaTa'fAA'7tKOIl Kat wapxolI, Ecrrat UVAAoytO'p.Os 7D..OOS, KaOa.1TEp Kal Ka80AOV 3S TWV opWV OVTWII. o.1T60Et£t5" O· f] a?rrTJ 7] Kat 1TpCrrEpoV. Orw SE Ka86Aov plv 70 1TpOS 'TO }LEi~ov aKpov, imdpxov OE Kat I-'TJ EVOEX0J.W'OV, 8aTEpov 0' iv I-'EPEt Kat Ev8EXOfl.€vOV, EaV 7' • ""J.. , .Eav , _A.._ \ 'TE0'" '".l.:' " U1TV'f'anKat TE KaT""'f"-"TtKUt WO'W Uf"'FTEpat. Eav ~
.~,
~.J.'
\~..,
n
a6-IS lCa8a:1T£p • .. EaTa' om. A
u60., om. nrAle ouSaf'ws] ou nr il'8tXia8w nr 19 nis om. d
8
TtlJ Adr: TWV Ben
13 tl7Ta.PXU ABCd
16
fTfjp.o.lvt'v
at.'~oy,a,uGs+a.
21 71'0.1'1"'
om. n
p. y.
f'.q'!
d:
n
om. !PC
9 JvS,fXf:'
OIll-'Pa1V£tV
cF
{,wapXt,v C 27
14
17
Ao.I-'Pavn n
IS· 35'5-16. 35b31 'TE
•
7J
\ '".l..,. , • ... \ ,..1.,. ~, " "\ fL6I aTTV'f"""'nK7J T} O€ KaTU
AOYLUtWS d'TEA~S'. 1TAi]V ot p.tv St.e1 'TOU dovva-rov SE'Xe~aOVTa" 40 ai Ot Ka' 3,a Tfj) avncrrporpijs 'Tfis 'TOV bOEXEuOaL, KaBa1TEp a, 3S b 'TOtS' 7Tp/yrepov. ;crraL S~ avAAOYLajUls OLa rijs dViLUTpoc/JijS [K'al] cn-av TJ p..€v Ka86Aov 7TPOS' 70 JLE'i~OV aKpov 'TEOEtUa. 07JJLulvn ~,
, "
[" \.,
1.....
\
I
XELV' ,\
ciJI'TW'TparpMoS' 'lap ,
OVI\I\OYU:'1.ws.
.,
<;:-,
OTaV
OE
'TOU ,
B r \
Ka-ra .,
70 EvoEXEaBa(, "\
Q'
ylvErat •
\
JLTJ tnrapXELV I\Q,JLfJall[J TJ Ka'Ta UVAAOYLO'P.OS" Opol. TOU plv imaPXEw
'TO
pipes 'ndJetaa. aUK EcrralAEVKOV-'CPOV-Xu.Ov, 'TOV DE p.~ imd.pX£w AevKov-{cpoJ)-'JT{nu' to aLa yap 'TOV dOwplarov A'YJ7T'TEOV -rryv <.br6SE~w. ,av DE 'TO Ka80AOV TEOfj 11'p(Js TO EAaTIov aKpov, TO O~ & pipEt ,"pOs TO JLet{ov • •; " , "..1..... ')') • " Eav 'TE ClTep1}TtKov Eav Te KaT~T'KOV, Eav T EVO€XOJLFYOV EaV 0' inro.pxov &1TO'Tepovoiiv. ovoaJ-LWS ;crra, avMoytaj.£6s. ~,
14
OVO~ 14
o-rav & JLlpet 7} ao,op'07O(' TeOwuw at ,"pmaUEts. EZT~ ivo'xe- 15 ~{j ' •• Q; "0' V1Ta.pXnv • , ., ~ EVwv\u.s ~ _. , '.!c .... ' OVTWS ., ova£ l\afAtJavovaa£ E (. e'T J ovo Eerra, avMoytaj.£6s. a1TOSetf's 0' ?j aVriJ ;prep Ka1Tl TWV ,"pCrrepov. 6PO(' Ot KowOt TOU plv tmapxe,v if avayK'1)s {tPoV-AWKOv-JVOpW1TOS, TOU o~ JL~ Evo'xea8a, {cp0V-AWKOV-tJLo.TLOV. ~ , ,.., ..., , , ",y" 0" 0' Fvepov ouv 07" TOU JLFY 7TPOS TO jJ-Et,=,OV aKpov Ka OI\OV Te €V- 20 'TOS net Y{V€Ta, Cl1;)JI.0Y'Uj.£6s. TOU 8t ,"pos 'TO EAarrov ov8lt 7TO'T ou3€Vos. {6 "OTav 0' ~ JL€v avclYK'I'JS imOpXew ~ 0" EvOExEaBo., C1TJJLO-{vrJ 'TWV 1TpoTdoewv. 0: JL& OlJAAOYW,t-WS' ;070.(, ,.ov o.Vrdv TP0"'OV EXOvrwV 'TWV opwv. Kat 'TIAetoS' O-rav 1TpOS TijJ EAch- 25 TOVt Oxp
i,
hI I(al. Cd', coni: P: om. ABdn .2 1(a4 om. Pacius 4 inro.pxov ACd ; IJ.~ inrapxoll C: om. Adnr 5 inrapxnv '11J.~ v"apxnv C 10 {cpov-'\cul(ol'-7rl'TTa d II ti0p(frTOlJ AdAI 'TO om. C I7 V ABdAlc ('ITt n 23 Vn-apx(,v+'1I'~ \l'ITo.PX~'" dnr 27 'TWI' opwv om. d 28 l(a,1 om. d 30 S£+n C 31 a'TEp11'TlI(OV + cl.vQYI(Qiov C
ANAAYTIKQN llPOTEPQN A inr&'PXEW# Kat Ka8&>..ov Kat fl.';' l(a8&AOv 'TWV opwv OV7"WV ' 'TO 8' lvSlxEa8ac. Ell T
OV'TWV 'TWV
opwv
00
'TO
ytVE'TaL
, ''''.J.._/~' "TO 'A UVfL7TEpaa,."a. avaYKawv, opuVEpOV. tmapX£7'W yap P.EV
-rep
?TaVTt
E,
B
~
"
avC£YK7]S', 'TO
'\\
••
\'
oE
II
B £VOE)(EafJW '1Tani -rq, '~I A '1TavTl.,'T
40 EO"Tac. VII UV/V\OYWfLOS Q'TEI\T]S' OTt. £V0E)(E'T(lC. TO
• 36 • tnrapx£w. I
•
\
..
~,
01'"(. 0 I
•
'\ I
1
...
...
> _ ... 't £wS"
.,
.,...
~\
vlltlOV'
\
TOil yap Tpo1TOV OEt.Xv'IC1ET
-ro
IL~
A EvOEX1aOw 1TaV'Ti. Tip B. 'TO OE B 1TaV'Tt Tip
• av-
TOil
I
r.r
.' ' \
1TW\tV
r
wapA '1TaVTt'
'1:"avaYK1JS'. EU1'
ow.
j
r
r
I
~ \'"
I
...
I
r
h34 lCal. CnAlc: om. ABd 37 TO am. C 38 TO J.'~" A am. d1: J.'~" am. AB 40 iOTa, •.. &.TE"~S am. C: 8~ am. A on+S' n 36a7 oJ.'OO"X71P-OIiES A1u1 9 lvlSEXfU8w] imo.PxiTw d TWV Ai pl CnrAl: fJ o.vaylC1'}S ABd I I VTTa.pXOll n ~ TTaV"Tt ~ T,vl codd. r ALP: susp. Becker 12 T~] TO C'l 13 1j TTaV"Tl ;; ,.,v1 caddo AlP: 1j T'Vi. 1j TTav"T1 r: susp. Becker 14 ovlSo, ~ caddo AlP: susp. Becker ou am. n 16 ETTEl1TEP n I"'~ om. dl 18 T~ CnrAi: no" A Bd 21 1} om. n 22 a1Ta.)'a.yfi"V C 23 ·1"(vi AlYp: 1'1'}ISEIIl codd. rAI lCai+TO a. J3I 23- 4
le
16. 35 b 32 - 36b 16 _ll
~,
~..,
OEXEovat. 1"''''100'(.
lJ'TTapXELV I
,~,
OUOEV
" ,Q I OVI"'fICJ.WE('
""
,
am 'TOVTWV
.~,
a.ov-
va.-rov. Jav oE 7rpO~ Tip EAarrOVL aKfXt' TE8jj TO C1"T€fYTj'Tl.KOV, 25 o-rav JJlv Ev8lXEu8at. C1'YJfLatVYh C1VAAoyWj.WS' EaTa, 7ijr;
ow.
fL';'
civrurrpo
TOLS' 1TpCrrEpOV, &ray OE lv8'x€.(:0'" "".L,.. \ a"'" , . ~ "'. OVO O'TCJ.V a~ fUll TEU?1 aTEfY'l'TtKa, fLTJ u 0
,,,
aua,. OUK (UTa"
OOEX0P.£VOV 'TO npoS' 'TO EAarrav. 0POL o· ol ainot, 'TOV fLEIl im¥XEW AEVKOV-'cPOV-XWJv. 'TOV O£ p,';' ima.pXEW AEVKOV- 30 tipoV--'11IT'TCJ. . Tov am-ov oE 'TpO'TTOV E~E!. Ka11t. nov Iv fL'pet av>J..OYLUpii;V. OTCJ.V /-LEv yap Ti TO C17'EP1(TLKCJV avaYKawv. Kat 'TO avP':1TEpa.afLCJ. EcrrCLL TOU p:~ imdPXEW. olov 'TO p.€:v A fL7J8EVt 'Tip B lvOEXE'TCJ.t imdpXEW. TO OE B 'nVt 'Tip r b-oIXE'TCLI, imdPXEW, avdyJ('T} 'TO A 'TWl. 3S 'Tip r p.~ tmaPXHV. £l yap 1TCJ.v-rl. tmapXEL. 'Tip oe B f'7]06'l. EvSEXE'TCJ.I., aucE TO B OvaEVt Tip A £VOEXETat imdpXnv. Wm-' El'TO A 7TClV'T' 'TCP r inr&'pXn, OUSH't Tip r TO B EIISlXETal.. aM' v"E-
e,
., ... ' \" .J.~" OTav OE TO Ell fl-EpEI. KaTaoyu.TtKOV alla:yKatoll '9. TO Ell Tcp crTEfYY1TtKCP av.:u.oyw~cp. oroll 'TO B ~TO Ka- 40 86'Aov'T0 EIITep KarrrrOptKep. OlallTO A B. OVK lenal. 'ToO tnrapXEtv 36b uvMoyw,.,.os. a7T6SEtgts 3' 1} aUn} 7} Kat E7Tt 'TWV TfpCrrEpOV. Eav 3E- 'TO tt~1I Ka8oAov TE8fj TfPOS TO ti\arroll aKpov, ~ Ka.J.... \ .. , . (:0, , (:0" I , 'Taoyu.'TtKolI T} C1'Tep7f1'tKov. EVOEX0P.01OII. TO 0 €V fLEpEI. allayKaWII [7TpOS 'Tep fl-Et'Ollt aKPcP]. OUK Eena, O1.IMoy'u,.,.os (opm 3£ 5 TOO p,E1I v"apXEW Eg o.va-ylC1JS ~CPOV->"EVKOv-av8pw1Tos. 'TOO B£ fL~ EvSlXEu8at 'CPOV-AEVKOV-lJ-UiTtov)' Mall 3' o.lIaYKai'oll 'TO Ka8oAov, 1'0 S' Ell piPE' iv8EX0f-LEIIOV. enEp7f1"KOO plv OI"TOS 'ToO Ka86AOV 'ToO p1v v"apXEW Opo, 'ipoV-AEVKov-Kopag, TOO S~ fLTJ v"apXEW 'cpov-AwK6J1--'7Ttrra, KaTar/>a'TtKOO SE- TOO 10 fLa, imapXEw 'ipoV-AEVK6v-KVKVOS. TOO BE fLT, EIISlXEa6at r, ' , _,.... or _.... ' \ .J.8 • , 1:oCfJ0V-I\EVKOV-XtWII. DUO o-r(lll aotoptCT'TO, l\'YJo.r WO'W 7Tpo-ra... , .. .J.~ \' .to' fI.. \, ' GE'S T) o,~.Epat Ko,Ta P.EPOS. ovo OtrTWS EO"Tat uvlV\oywfLos. opo, 8E KOWO' TOO p1v imapXEw ,q,OV-AEVK6v-av8pw7TOS, 'ToO 8E fLTJ {mapXEl.1I ,epOV-AEVKOv-rupVXOII. Kat yap 1'0 'epOIl IS \ \ '.'~~ \,. ,.. ~, TW, I\£VK~ Kat, 'TO\,I\EVKOV a'fuXCfJ TW' Kat avaYKatOV tmap,
,
_D
(:0,
KHTO TtVI. £VOEXeOUa.L.
r.
'9
a,
\
-
1''130'1 EvUXf:a8cu d a29 'T02] 'T';; d 33 p.£v Cnr: om. ABd 34 'T';; r AlP: TWV codd. ~VUXETo.,] &.vaY"'1 d 35 '1'';; CnI'P: '1'WV ABd 36 '1'.;;1 r AI: 'TWV caddo P o~ om. A~ 37 T~ A om. d1 38 'Tip'!. AlP: TWV codd. 39 (VO£Xf:a8QL+o.. /3. y. nr 40-br TO! ..• OWV
om. A
hI '1'0 1 d11,r: om. ABCAlc
ACd BCnr: om. Ad
rrICp
4
11
9
2
1(0.1.
om.C
(vO(XU",O'OV dP opm om. C 16 '\EVK~]
OTEP"1TU':OV 1;
3 Tip (ACTTOV' 5 TfPOS ••• a.lCptp
'\ElIICOV
n
ANAAYTlKDN npOTEPDN A X€LV Kal OUK Jv8'xE'Tal. im&.PX£.tv. Kci7rt 70U bStXEa8a.t OfWlw~, ~O"TE: 7rPO~ &7TaV'Ta XprJOLfLOL at OpoL. iPavepov oOv Ef( "TWV elpr)p,Evwv ch-I. oJ-Lolws exOV'TWV 'TWV or
., €V 'TE
20 opWV
-.
•
,
\.....
,
,
,
,
'Ttp tmapXEW Kat €V 'TOtS avayKatOtS' jlLlIE'Tat 'TE Kat.
au yiveTal. UVMOYLO'fL0S', 7TA~v KUTa. J-LEv 'TO Vm!pXEW 'fLBeJI.iYrJs rijs U"TEP'1]'TtKijS 7Tpo7'aa£WS 'ToO Jv8lXEu8w. '1jv 0 croMor'up,Os, Karel aE 'TO civaYKatov rijs UTEpr)'TU
•Ev 8E
.\o,p.-
'<;:0'"Ea'TQ.L UVlV\oytu/LOS, \, I Dun: KanryopLKWV Otn-E OTEp1J'TLKWV TdlEJ-LEvwV oriTe Ka86'\ov OVrE () I
•
.J..1.
jJavwaw ap.-yv'TEpw.
at•
,
1TpO'TaO£ts ~ DUDELS'
J
pipos' o'Tav 8E Tj
KUTa
30
{LEV
inrdpX£w ~ S' Ev8lXE08at CTYJJ-LatV[J.
rijs fLEV KaTa4>anKij,; imd.pX£w CM'JJUlLJlOUq1]'; OVO£7TOT' EC1"Tat, Tfj,; O£ C1'T£fYY}TLKfj,; -rij,; Ka80~ov det. TCIJI Ilv-rOJl O£ TPC)7TOV Kal m-aJl lj fL£v £f avayK'T]'; ~ 0' M£XeuOa:t ~aJLfid.V'rfTat TWV ,
~
..
~\
\'
,
'\
,,(1'
,.
..
7TpOTQ.O€WV. aH O€ Kat €V TOtn"O'S' l\a~aVEW TO EV 'TOtS UUfL7TEpaup.a.atv bOEXOfL£VoV Oxnr€p b TO'S' 7TP&TEpOV. TT .... I fl •• '.1.. , • .... LI 35 .l.l.pwTov OUV OE'K"TEOV on OVK aVTu37'PE-rE' 'TO €.V Tep EJloEXEO'oa, C1"TEfY'1'TtKOV, olov 'TO A £vO£xera, f.L7Jo€Vt Tq, B, OUK dvay~ Kat 'TO B tvo£x£0'8at fL7Jo€Vt 'Tq, A. KEta8W yap 'TOVro, Kat bOEX£UOw 'TO B fL7JO£Vt Tq, A imapx€w. OOKOVJI' £11 Et dVTUJ7PE~ovaw al b '~I _L1 .I..~ . . . . ,.,.J.~ I -rep'" EVOEXEuvat Ka'Ta-rv.O'HS' Ta,S' a7Tv-yu-ueu" lCat, f ' £JlaVTm, 40 Kat al dv-rtKEtfLEVat, TO O£ B Tip A bOEx€7'aL f.L7JOEVt tmo.p.I..~ \.. \ \'" ~ I ... A V1TapXEtv. ' , 37 3 XHV, "f'UVEpov OTt Kill. 7TaVTI. av EVOEXOtTO 'Tep 'TOVTO Ot ,pEfiooS" 00 yd.p €t TOOE 'TipSE 1TaVTt bOEXETat, Kilt 1<;:' _<;:" ..
'
~ I
€,
a,
o·
A
OUx
b 20 '1'<' om. n 21 'TaU Cl 22 0 om. n 24-5 liij'\ov .•. (J](TJp.a.'TWV codd. AlP: sed. Maier 24 on I(at C ol]
r
17
16. ,
'"
,~
36b1 7-1 7· 37'39
I
OUK TJ~ £VOEX0J.L£VOV.
9
'AMd JL~V ovs' EK 'TOV dawn-rov 8Ef.x8~a£- 9 'Tat dVTLcrrpiq;ov. olav Er 'T(.S' detoJUE('£V, El'TEL rpeOOoS' ,..0 lvSJ- 10 XEaBal. 'TO B "rep A fL1Jo6'i v.rrapXEw, 0A1]8€S' 'TO fL~ bS/XeaBat fL'Y]O£VL (¢x5ntS' · yd.p Ko,(, a.mxlxJ.(Jcs), El OE .'Toih-'. d>.TJO€S' i~ avaylC7]) nvl rep A tnrapXEwO wunr Kat 'TO A 'TWL Tep B· 'Toiho 0" ciovvaTov. ou yap El J.LT] b8/xETal. fLTJl>£VL 'TO B Tcp A, aVO:YK7J 'TtVI. W&.pXELV. 'TO yap J.L~ Ev8'x€a8m IS J.L1J£JIi S'XWS' AEYETal., 'TO El E~ o.vaYK7]S 'TWL inrcf..pX£C., 'TO iV El avo.YK7]S 'TtVL fL~ inr6.pxn° 'TO yap E~ avayK'1]S' 'TW~ nov A J.L~ inrdpxov OUK d).1JOE~ El7TELV wS' ,"aPT' OOEXETW. fL~ Vm:lpXEtJI. WU1TEP ouSE 'TO 'TtV;' fmapxov le aVO:YK7JS' /Yr, 1TaVTL Ev8EXE'Tal. inrdpXEf.v. El oov 'Tc,s Q.gwt"l. E1TEi OUK o,'8lxe- 20 Tal. TO r 'Tep LJ want rmapxEf.v. E~ avaYK11S' 'Ttvl. p.-r, tmapX£LV " .I..... ~ " '\ fJ'aVOL' 1TClV'T1.' " ~ ..!'\ \ ' atn"o, 'f'EVQOS" av I\ap. yap tnrapXEl., a/\I\ 07'(, blots E~ aVclYK1JS tmaPXEt, 8ul ToitT6 q,aJ.L£v 9V '1Tavrl OOE-
,.uv
i.e
01
XEu(}at. c:i')crrE TfjJ Ev8EXEa8at '1Tavrt tmapXEW T6 T' E~ nvay· K'Y)S TLVl {mapXELv av-rtKEtTac, Kat TO Eq avayK'11S Tc,vt J.L~ V'1Td.p- 25 XEW. op,olws 8£ Kat Tep £v8EXEofJW. 1-"T)8£vt. 8~AOV ow ML '1TpOS OV-rWS Evoex6p.£VOV Kat J.L~ lv8EX6fLEVOV WS ;" apxfj Ol.Wpl uafLEV OV TO E~ avdYK1JS TtVt {mdPXEtv TO E~ civayK'11S ' \ ' I ... , \ .La' . "" . ,Q' 'TtVL\ J.L'I},~, 1.fTrapXEW /WJ'1T'TEOV, 'TOU'TOV Of 1\"f} want 35 TcfJ lv8EXEu(}at <J.L~> {mdPXEtv ovoev uvp.f3atvEI. ifJEVOOS' ;"OExoc,'To. yap .AoywJ.L6s, Ofj>.ov OTt TOV EvolXEu8ru
ro
rua
r
r
ow
r
Ow
aU Ka'Ta~aCnr yap C 13 £~] Kat El B 'To/ r AI: 'TWV codd. P liwapxt:w] 'TO {J tnrapxo" A : liwaptflv 'TO BC : inrapxn 'TO {J n : tnr&.pxn r 14 'To/ AI: 'TWV ABCdnP 15 'TWV a Jf &'''&''''''1$ 1'W, inrapxnC 16 t:l om. Bl inrapxo ••• 17 1'lVt om. A 16 imapxov ('l ]7 rnrapxnv ('l: rnrapX11 n 22- rnrapxn+t:l.,..vxm n 23 blo,s dnrp: EV E"iots ABC 2S rnrapx~wl om. d z6 1'0 ('l 28 ou ACrAl: ou JLOVOV BdnP nvt+wq n1 &>..\ci AAI: +Ko.' BCdnP 35 JL~ adi. 36 JL~ coni. AI: om. codd. P ov8nt n1 Maier: om. codd. AlP
mr
g8 t:l] brd n -49B5
K
ANAAYTIKQN llPOTEPQN A .. 40 XEty, Ko,f.' .OVTOS' "1..
37b xwpet.
,.../.....
'
Ka'T~'T'KOS'
'.~' '1"'} UTEfY"}'TtKOS" OVOET£PWS 0<::'" EY-
l
TWV
6pwV CYr' aUK JvSlXn'cu inrcfp)(£,V, crrEfYY1TtKOii oE, 6'1"(, TO UVfL7T£.paOP.O, aUK Jvo£X6p.€Vov ill' dvaYKai6v £U7tv. €crrw yap 'TO , A AEVKOV \ I ',\:,\ B aVUpU)7TOS', 11 n '.I.' c.p " OE t'l J1-£V 'TO OE E'f' L7T7TOS. 'TO lW. A \ ' \ to' ..., , - t" \ 5 VII J 'TO /\E1,JKOV, EVOEXE'Tat 'TCP fL€V 1TaV'Tt rep OE P.:YJOEVL
r.
J
f
,
~
•
tnrapXELV. llicl 'TO B Tep rOWE inrdPXEW MIXE'To,t. •
I
vrrapxnv.
yap
'1T1TOS'
.,
OTt
\
P.£V
"
OUV
•
,
....J.'"
"
JL-f]
OVTe f
,~
\
VTTapXEW QUK eyxWPEt, 'r'"vepoV" QUGeLS'
aYBpw1TOS. ill'
avo'
Ev8£'XEOOat 1-"1, inrct.PXEW·
avaYK7J yap P:1]OOO i'1T7Tov av8pw1ToV elva" TO 8' avaYKawv , .% ~ _I:' ' 10 QVK 'IV £VOEX0P.EVOV. ""
I:'
~A '
...
•
Of
I
'- \
f
aVK apa yWE'Tat UVI\AO"ftuj.LOS'.
,
,
__ '-
n ....
\
,
.,
OfWI..WS'
...
oe'A-v"1un'ac. Kat av aVQ.1TWUV T£Un TO o-r£prrrt.KOV, Kav afLKaTarpaTLKal )\,YJif>8WOLV .f} GT£prJTLKal (SLa. yap TWV av.rwv 6pwV Ecrra.t ~ a-mSon,t.S')· Kal Mav ~ fL~v Ka86"Aov , ... •.. .I.~ " . . . .<:-' .. • 7J• 0<:-.,W fL£pn, 1J a,.~"f'''''' £pcu KaTa IMPOS 1J aowpw-rot., 7J oaa15 XWS ci"A"Aws €v3£X£TaL fL£TaAa{3£I.v TOS 7Tpo-rdanS" a£l yap " <:-,... ......., I~.t. .J.. ' .,.. • £GTG.t ot.o. TWV G.vrwv opwv TJf 'a7Too£"iot.S'. 'f"av£pov ovv OTt. afL.1..-..-' ... , " .!.._~, 1I Ll 1 .(:0 , 'Y'" EPWV TWV 7Tpo-rau£WV KUTa 'TO €VOEXEOUG.t. TWEfLWWV OVO£t.S' ylV£TCU av).).OYLUp.6S'. DE
q,&T£pa~
20
El S· ~ p.~ {ma.pX£
'TWV av.rwv 6pWV)' O-ro.v 0' ~ fLEV Ka'Ta4>aTLKi} 1v0£XEaBo.t ~ (:0, • I " " ' . , I.J..{J , , UTEpTJ'Tt.K'YJ, V7Tapx£LV, £UTaL aVN\oyt.up.oS'. Ef,/\1J'f"UW yap TO 25 A Tep plv B jJ..1JoEvl Vrrapxnv, 'Tep O~ 7TG.V'Tl EvS£XEaBat. , ,..... _.1. I ~... ..... 'B Tefl• A OVOWt ,(:0 , • I ""c aV7"w-r~EVTOS ow TOV UTEfYYJTtKOV TO tma~ Et.· , .' A , . r . (:01 ' l l " • TO OE 7Ta.VTt. 'Tep EV€O£X£TO' yLVETG.t v'l avN\oyt.afLOs Cn-t bS£X£'TG.t. TO B JL1JOEVI. Tep TOU 7TPWTOV OX"lfLG.TOS. OfLOUnS OE Kal. £i 7Tp6S Tip T£8£l'YJ TO UTEp'YJ'nKOV. Eav 0' .J...!.. ' "1' " (:0" , ,. I 30 'f'VTEpm JLlV wat. UT€prrrt.Kat.. crY]fLaLVrJ 0 'YJ fLEv JL7J tmapXEt.V ~ o· Ev8£XEa8at. 01.' aVTWV JLEv nov Ei.A7JfLJLl:vwv ovSEv avJL{3~lVEt. avaYKaiov, aVTtUTpaif>Ela7]s o~ Tfjs KG.Ta 'TO Ev8£XEa8CU 7Tp07'duEWS' ylYVETG.t av>J..oyLufLOs o-Tl. 'TO B 'Tip r EVO£XETG.t. fL'YJOlVl. imapx£t.V, Ka8c5.7TEp Iv 'TOLS 7TP&'TEPOV. OE
r
r
r om
ap.-
o.v9pw1roS t1rTTOS d Ev8IXE'To., n II all om. d leal A 13 d 15 p.€'Ta/3aA€iv C: p.£Ta/3illov Ad 16 JTt om. d 19 rrqp.aiVOtC 20 Tt8Ep.lllTjS C 26 QV'Ttl7Tp/1>oV'TOS d v1rapxo ABd 29 80l om. C 30 rrqp.alvn C p.~ om. cr 31 iv8'x€0'8a,+p.~ vnapxovB hS
JO'T~V
17· 37"40-19. 38"27 'TO 1TpWTOV axYip.a. Ea.V
EtrTo., yap 1TaAW a~ aptPOnpar. 'Te- 35 "" Karrn'OPLKQ.r.,, QUK t" ),)...... I., ..'" 0war. EUTa&. av'VUTyWp.os. 0POl. 'TOV fLEV V1TapXEW VytEta-{ipov-av8pw-rros. TOU 8E p.~ tmapxnv VylEl,(J.'i1moMv8pomos.
Tov av-rov
oE 'TpCmov ;en Ka1T~ 'TWV tv pipet. UVAAoyr."1'" . • tl " JLflI yap 'l1 'TO Ka'T~'T'KOV V1Tapxov, E(.'TE KQ,- 40 (JOAOV fiT' €v p.EPEL A'r]cp8iv, Oti8E~S' €l1'To.r. avMoyw,.ws (TOVrO 388' 6fLOlws Kat sw. 'TedV atn-wv opwv OELKWTo.t 'TOtS' 1TpIrrEpOV) • _~~
....
UfLWV.
.,
OTav
"'..
f
~
It
\
Mav DE 'TO frTEP"'J'Tt KOV, EO"Tar. ot.a
'T7JS'
0'
~
....,
avrurrpo.,.,,/S', KU Cl1TEp
€v TO is '1Tp8fi, Ka86)..ov OE 'TO p.~ WcJ.pXEtv, av-rwv ,uv 5 'TWV Wf>OTaUEWv OUK €CT'Tar. 'TO ava:YKaLov. aIlTUrrpa.¢.,Ev-ros oe 'TOV £VS/XEafJo.t Ka9a:TrEp €v 'TO'S' 1Tpo-rEPOV £(170.(, UVAAOYr.O'j.tO).
;e
'Tuta
0;:. \ f l . ~ \ , 1 , '" \ '\ .LO' • DE V1Tapxov p,£V U TO UTEfY1l't.KOV, €V J.LEP€L DE I\TJ'f' n. OUK ;crrat avMoywp.Os, OVrE KaTw/>aTudjs OV-rE crrEprrrU(,?S olicn]s rijs iT'paS 1fpo'Tao£ws. ouo' o.,av iiJM!xYr£pat A1)rp8wow ciS,oH
Eav
..
~,.
19
....
,
""'",~,.
.,
,
KaTa'r..:nKat 'YJ a1fU'f"-"T'KO.l.---'T} KaTa pEpoS.
purrOt-'Yj
10
a1fO-
SELf,S' S' .,j aVn) Ka, St.ti TWV am-w", opwv. 'EO.v S' ~ p€v E~ civc(YJC?'}s .,j S' £vS£x£a8a(. CJT]fW-lvn TWV '"p
'
,
av",nvyU7pOS, ..
t
W
,
ou
POVO'"
.,
...
.,
, _ _~,
...
OT' EVOEXETa, PTJ ~..
,.~,.
...
I
KO.l. on ovx 1J1Tapx£', TrJS O£ KaT""'f"A'T'ICJ1S OVK £O'7"a(..
yap
'TO A r 1fQ.VTL.. ~-
Tep ~,
EVOEXEU
TO B
Tep
po, B if avaYK1]S 8a'. aJlT"O'Tp~El,(rrJS • ,
A OVSEV'
~
-',
YW£Tat
VII
1TQ.I\W
0."
'TO
B T4>
• 07"'
. .~. OVO
,
OVKOUV
TW~
-rep
,.~
r
t I At 1J1Tap<.,Et.
El TO A r, TO A
fmap,EI.· ~..
....
p~£v' fmaPXEW, 1"...
'_ll
KEtavW
Tep ...
S£ t~
..
ouv TrJS OTEprrrU(T]S OUOE
TO Se A I
_.".
UN\a IS
V1TapXEW,
t..
7TaV'T~ T4> ,
r
EVES'XETO'
. ,\
ota. 'TOV 1ffJWTOV ax:rJfUlTOS 0
..
avlV\oywJ..WS
20
bS'xETQ(. p.1JSEV' tnrapXnv . afUL S,1 S1jAOV -'-~ . Tep. . 1.. h , 8 ' " TO.. B OVOEV' KEW W yap tnrapxE'V' Tep B P.TJaEV~ €vS'XETat., TO Se B inr&'PXE(. Tep TtV, OUK M£XETa,' IDa. 1faVT~ 'TOV aVrov Se 'TpCmov 8E'X8~OE'Tat Kat El 25
KEl.TO EvS£XE08w. 1fPOS Tip r 'TE8ElTJ TO
w,-
r
crrEprJT'KOV.
26
IIa)",v ;(J'TW 'TO KQ.TYJYOP'KOV 26 avaYKaiov, 8aTEpov
8'
€v8EXofUVOv, Kat TO
A Tep p.€v B €v-
b35 11'aM.vom.d J8Il6Toom.d 88f l + ",.qA 10ETEpaS om. dr c1TTpoa8,op,aTo, d II -Ii tl",orpaTu
ANAAYTIKDN IIPOTEPDN A
ov-
OEX'0'8w p:l}'fu:vt, -rep 3~ r 1TaV7"~ tmapX£TW £{ a.vaYK7}s. EX6VTWV TWV 6pWV ovoElS' ECl'Tat UVAAoy(.O',uOS'. GVp., yap , 'TO'B -rep r E~ 't ' , • 3D (3a.wn avaYK'Y/S' fL1J, V7TapX£LV. EQ'7'W yap , , A "EVKOV \ , Elf '.1..' cpl' DE ~\ \ B al' • 0PWTTOS J E'f '.1..' cpl' aE ~\ TO /LEV 'TO 'rWS' OVIl
I
A
r
.,
\
J
'TO K?JKVOS'. TO 8~ AEVKOV KUKVCP fL~ eg rtvaYK7]S' inrdpXE(', dv8poJ7T4! 3' £v8/X€'Ta(. 1-L'fJ8€Vt· Kat o'v8pW'TTOS OV8EV~ KOKVCP i~ avayK"1]S.
0-,.£ /LEV ouv 'TOV £v8lXEufJa£ OOK £(f'n , , 'c" ..,.. ~ 'TO yap E~ avaylC'1'}S' Ot/K 7Jv EVO£.-
\ '\ '.I.. ' 35 UVI\AOyL0"l.wS' J .,.,avEpov·
XOfLflJOV. dAAd. J-L1]V otiSt 'ToO avaYKalov' TO yap avaYKawv Tj E{ ap4xyrlpwv 'avaYKalwv 1} EK rijs CT'TEfYYrTucijS avvipa(.VEV. E'T/' SE Kat EYXWPEt 'TOVTWV KE'fL~WV 'TO B Tep r imapXEW' otiSEV yap KW.AO£L 'TO JLEV r U7TO TO B ElvaL, TO OE 40 A -rep fLEV B 7TaV'Tt EvSlXEu8a(., -rep oE r E~ dvd.yK'l'}S' imaPX£tv, orav EL 'TO /LEV r Et7} EYPTJYOpO)J 'TO BE B {cfjov, '.I.' 'f' ' A ' . .p.EV . ,yap " EyfY'1Yopon "l; , , 'TO, 0 Elf
K7J~ KtV1}O'tS, {anKfj~ . •Eav S' OfLOWaxrJfLOVES tLaw ai 7TpO'TaUEt) , O"TEf"YrT'KWV tLEv ,... • \, '\, \. .I. ' ,.. \ ouawv aEt yWE'TCU (1t)lV\oytGfLOS aVT'O"7"palfEtaT/S 'TTIS KaTa 'TO Ev8/XEaBat 1TporaO'EWS KalJa7TEp EV 'TOtS 7TpCn-EPOV. ElA~~8w 'TO A Tep J1-EV B Eg clvaYK7]S J.L~ tmapXEw, Tep "tnrapXEW' , • .1._....,.,.. 10 DE EVDEXEO'0at /L"1 o.V'TLCrrpa'FtGWV OUV 'TWV ,"POTaO'EWV TO J1-Ev B 'Tep A 008EVi imdPXEt, 'TO 8E A 1Tavrt Tip r lv8/XETQ.t" ytvE'Tat &) q-o 7Tpw-rOV axfjjLa. Kav E"l 7TPOS Tep r 'Te8et"f} 'TO CJ'rep"f}'TtKOVl waa&rws. Eav DE Ka'TT}yOptKal TE(Jwaw, OUK ;07at GuAAoytO'J1-0s. 'TOV J.LEV yap fL~ ., . . . , . . 'I! • I ," .J.. \.. , 15 V1Tapxew "1 'TOU E~ avaYK1JS /L7J tmapxEtV 't'aVEpov OTt OUK ;0'70.(, 8«1. 'TO fL~ El).:ry4>8at O'TEPTJnK1]V 7TpO-raaw J1-1fr' iv Tep inrdPXELV J1-fr' Ell 'Tip aVO:YKrJS inrdPXEW. ilia J1-~V 008E 'TOV Ev8/xEa8at p.-ry inrdPXEW' Eg ava:YK1]S yap oin-OJS' ExOV'TWV 'TO B -rep r OUX inrapgEt, olov E"l 'TO J1-Ev A TEI '\ I '.J.. • .,. 1:'\ I ~\ r av . 0pw7TOS. 20 O Et"f} I\EUKOV, Elf 'P OE 'TO'B KVKVOS. 'TO\ OE
38h
yap "' r '"'
E,
-30 nOli" d 31 'TO' et 32 'TOl om. d 41 lyPWopo,s n om. ABd b4 Ko.T~&OEWlI nA1P'lp: tPaoEwlI ABCdP"lP OX'1f'ovt"s A 3lJ2CdP: O~aX'11f'OllES ABn I I Uff4P~t:I B
".8' A
42 TO' 6
Of'O,o~
r6 et 17
19· 3 8'28-20. 39'13 o~8' yE 'TWV aV7'tKELpivwv . Ka'Ta4xiaewv, ETrE], 8e'8HKra, 76
r l~ o.vayK'"l]S' DUX inrapxov. AOYLUP.OS' OAWS.
B 'Tip .,
·Op.olws 8' \ \
19E'
Ka1T~
,
~
OVK apa yivEra, GVA-
lv flipE/, 8 \
'TWV
\
O'Tav fJ-EV yap 1I TO arep1]7"tKOV KG. OIlOV ' T€
O'VAAOYLO'j.LWV'
\,
~
Kat avaYKatoV, 25
dEt. O'V.:uoywp.Os Ea7'a(. .Kal 'ToD bS/xea8at Kat TOV fLTJ inrapXHv (d7T6SE~tS' 3~ Sul rijs aVTurrpocpijs), m-av DE 'TO \:0 8' KaT"""ra.nKOY, OVOE1TOT€' 'TO)) aUTO)) yap TP01TOV OE"LX 1Juerat. ~.J..
0))
€v
Kat.
TOLS'
... .J.' afA"f0'TEpat J
I~.
.~~ I
I
t
a1TooE"S'S'
Ka86'Aov,
\ "TJ't'
7J
Kat
wat·
'
KaTU't'unKat· I
\
,
..
~
\, Kat. yap \ • .. .J..1.
OTav DE
Kat. 7TpCYTEpOV.
I
Bta reVv atiTwv 8pwv.
.I..
.J..8~
<\
~,
\
I
TOVTDV '
a~TEpaL
ovo' 7J•
&rav ,\
av'TT} 30
fL€V UTEPT)'Tl.-
Kat, Ka86'Aov oJ Kat. dvaYKala ~ 'TO p..fJ tnrapx€£V ..TJfLplvwv OUK laTa, 'TO avo.y,.. , .J..... , to' '" \ \ • 8 ' Kawv, avnarpa.r:WT}S DE 'TTJS Ka.Ta. TO EVOEXEU at 7TpOTa~ I
Eura, avUOYLO'P.OS, KafJ6.7TEp EV 'ToiS' TTp6TEPOJl. EaV • .J.. I 't' I I • €O"Tat >I '\ ap.o.r0'TEpa, aowpurrot. 7J" ,€V fLEpE' 'TE 8.... waw, OVK UVI\AOYU1P.6s. dTT68E~t.S 8' ij alrrij Ka~ 8ui nov ati'Twv 0PWJl. r/JavEp6v oov EK 'TWV Elp'fJ,uvwv 67£ Tfjs plv U7EP'fJTt~S rijS' Ka06Aov 7LOEfJiV'YJs d.vaYKaias dE~ YWE7al. GvMoytov p.6vov 'TOV Ev8EXEaOat j.J,~ vmlPXELV, dAAa Kat 'TOV I-'~ inrapXELV, Tfjs 8E Ka'TwPa'Tt.Kijs OV8E7I'0'TE. Kat 0'Tt. \ " I " " ..... 1 "'TOV aVTOV 'TP07l'OV EXOV'TWV EV 'TE 'TOLS' avaYKaWLS' Kat" EV 'TOtS' mrapxovCTL ytvE'Tai 'TE KaL OV yLVE'Tal. croMOYLap.oS'. 8ijAOV 8E KaL q,rl. 7Tav-rES' d.'TE:AEiS' ot avMoYl.ap.oi, Ka~ on 'TeAEtoMa!. 'TWV 71'pOELp7]piVWV O)(1}ph.'Twv. 30 'Ey 8e 'Tep 'TEAEV'Tatcp Uxr1fWTt KaL d.140'TEpWV EVOEX0P.tvwV Ka~ Tfjs E'TEpaS EO"Tal. avMoytup.os. Dray JL€v oov lv8Exea8at. aT)J.UltVWGW at 71'poraaet.s, Kal r6 GVJL7I'EpaafLa Ecrrat. EvSEXoJL€Vov' KaL Mav ij f'EV Ev8EXEuOat. ij S' , I
35
ot"
u,ros
40
39a
8,a
>I
,
b 21 KaTrI.#aEWV Al: a.vnrpavaEwv A: a.1f'orpdvaEwv AZBC: a.l-·nrpdaEwv d: &7TorpaaEwv P : Ka7'arpaaEwv Ka~ a.1f'OrpdUEWV n brEIS~ C 25 yap om. d 33 'TO om. d1 39 TijS om. n 39-3 7TPOELfYTIfJ.EVWV (1)(T1fJ.a7'wv ABCnP: €lp1Jfl£VWV U)(TIfla7'WV d: EV 7'0/ 7TPOOP1JflEVCP aX11fJ.aTt coni. Maier 8 V] ~ 10 ~ Cnr Toii] Kat Toii C II lI'p6TEpov+a. fl. y. Cn
c
5
10
ANAAYTIKllN IIPOTEPllN A II
IS
B , 'TO
Ecrrwuav &r] 1rptinov bt'8€xoj.L£val., Kat 'TO
r
,T
7TQVn
.J...."" KC1TC1-yu.TLKOV E?T'
xeraL,
, 'r
Kat. 1'0
'9
,<
•
flIOEXEU W
P.€poVS' J
' 'rep.
Ttvt.
1
J
V1TapXEW.
B
B
, (:0. 'TO oe ,
'(\J
Kat TO
A
T'
avo
I.J.
C1vrc.crTf'EoyEI.
OVV
r
,. 7TQVT(. -rep
."
E'VOEX0l.'T
,
E7TEI.
1
.,
war
,<, &0£-
I
TO
EI.
•
P.EV
A 1raV7't 'Tip r Ev8EXE7'QL, 'TO 8£ r'TWt TcfJ B, o.vaYK1) Kat 'TO A 'TtVt 'Tip B a,sEXEu8aL' ylYV€Tat ya.p 'TO 7TPc7YrOV axfjp..a.. Kat.
El 'TO fLE.V A iv8ExE'TC1C. fL1Joevt Tep r tmapXHV TO S£ B 'Tep r, dv&.YK71 'TO A Twt 'Tep B Jv8/XEuOal. fL.f] v-rrrlpXEW" terral. yap 1TdAW 'TO Trpiirrov uxijp.a. Std. rijS' avn. .-'-" •••1.1 '" C1tn"WV • U'Tf"J'YIJS'. EI.' . 0 .' C1fN'YV'TEpal. C1'TeprfTt.KC1f.' 'TE 9' E'TJaav, Es ply 'TWV £l:A7JfLJdvwv aUK laTa, 'TO a.vaYKaiov, av-rurrpcu/>Et25 O'WV O£ 'TWV npo-rauEwv laTa, UVMOYLO'.uOS KaBd:1TEp €v 'TotS' TrpO·TEPOV. El yap 'TO A Kat. TO B 'Tip r Ev8/xeral. fL~ 1J7TapXEW Eav p.E'TaA7J4>8fj 'TO Ev8/XEU8al. tJ'Tr&pXEw 1TaAW terral. TO '1TpW-rOV axfjfUl oui rijr a.v-r(,errpo¢nj~. El 0' 6 p1v t.err(' Ka8dA-ou TWV opwv 6 O· t.v /L/pEt, 'TOV aVTov Tp61TOV
20
J
1Tavrt
J
J
J
30 EX6VTWV 'TWV opwv OV7TEP E1Tt 'TOV inrdPXEW, Ecrra(' rE Kai. OUK €crra(' uvAAoy(,u}-'6r. bOEXEu8w yap 7"0 [tEll A 1Tav-ri. 'Tip 'TO oE B 'Twi. 'T0 inrdPXEW. €O"Ta(' &ry 1T&..\W 'TO 1TpW-rOV axTJ}-,a rijr EV IJipEt 1TparduEwr aV'Ttcrrpa4E'ClTJr ' El yap 'TO A naV'Ti. 'T0 'TO oE 'TW' 'T0 B, 'TO A TWi. 3S'Tip B bOEXE'Ta&.. Kai. El 1TpO~ 'Tip B r 'TE8E''rJ 'TO Ka86Aou, c.fJuav,.wr. o/Lotwr OE Kai. f:l 70 plv A r O"TEfY'J'TtKOV EL'YJj 'TO 8E B Ka'Tatj>anK6v' €crra(' yap 1TMW 'TO 1TpW-rOV axTJfUl 0..0. rijr dv-rW'TfJ04>TJ~' El O· d~Epa, O"TEP'YJ'T('Kai. 'TE8EtrjO'av, ~ /LEV Ka86Aou ~ 0' £v pipet, 8(" aVTWV J1.£V "TWV Ei.A'YJP-' ." \\ ,, . A-....~' " 39bP-EVWV OVK EO"Ta(' UVNlOYWfLO~ aVT(,crrpao.rE(,UWV 0 EO"Ta(', Ka~ ',.A-..!. ' 9a1TEp EV 'TO'~ 1TpO'TEpOV. aTav OE afA"t'U'TEpa(, aOLOp'O"TO(' 71 €v pipE(, A'YJ~ewrnv. OUK Earn, UVAAOY'UfL6S-' Kai. yap 1TaVTt a.vdyK"l'} 'TO A 'Tip B Ka, /L'YJ0EVi. tmdpXEw. opal. 'TOV tJ1Tdp5 XEtV {ipov-av8pw1TOr-AEVK6v, 'TOU fL~ 1nrdPX£LV t1T1ToMV8f>W1T0S--AEVK6v. piuov AEVK6v. 'Eav OE ~ IlEV inrdPXEW ~ O· t.vOixEu8m In]p.atV''{} 21 'TWV npaTdaEWv. 'TO fLEV UVfL7TEpaUJ.La €O"Ta, ;n.(, bOEXE'Ta(,
r,
r
r,
r
r 1
...,
,,~\
,~
I
..
a14 1TPOUPOV C IS T~ {3y n 16 TOS'l I(cU TO C 18 T~ dr: 1'(;;" ABCn al'aYJC'l} Cnr:om.ABd lCaL •. I9Bom.A I9T~r:TWV codd. EVS€X£Tat ABd 20 P+ lvOlxotToCnr 21 TO] Kat TO r TfjJ ABdr: TwvCn 23 ieiv • •• T£8wutvCAl 26 Y + 1TaVT~ C 2770] 70 PY €ls 70 C: Ek 1'0 r lmapxnv ABCdr: f'~ inr4Pxnv n, fort. ALP 32 TfjJ' ABdr T"WvCn 34'T,,!V11 ACdnI' 35 TO py Cdn 36y om.r 38'TE9wO'~v C b4 lmapxn,,+ a. p. y. n 5 >tEVKosAd 'TOU ••• 6 AwlCov2 am. n 1
Kat.
20. 39'14-21. 40'3 DUX 6-1"(, imapX~t, avMoytO',.ws ;;r E(J7'Ur. 'TOV ,
I
,.,
"
\
1
...
I
am-a" >I
'TpO,
opwv OV Kat EV TOtS 1TpOn-OV Ka'TTfYOPtKot, Kat 'TO Jdy A
7TUVTt
TO
, .J..' '" .... UV'TtcJ'rpa'farTOS ovv 'TOU
'lTOV EXOVTWV 'TWV
••• B OE
r
\.EVOEXeO"OW t' Ill' , V7TapXELV.
7TQ.vn
'1TfXY'EPOV.
EO"TWaaV yap 10
-rep r
imapxlTw,
TO 7TPWTOV Ecrraf- oxiip.a. Kal TO avp.7TEpaCTtta &rt lvOEXE"TUt TO A TtV;' rip B imaPXEw ' ME yap ~ E"dpa TWV 7Tpo-raaEwv €v TCfJ 7TPW'T<.p oxrJl14'Tl.. U7]f.Latvm lJ,oEx€a8at. Kat 15 TO ~fJ:T;Epaap,a .ryv EvOEXOfMVOV. o/-Wiws OE Kat El TO fLEV B r U7rapXEW TO oE A r EVoEXEu(}at. Kai €l 'TO {LEV A r aTE(YYJ7"lKOV TO OE B r KUTIJYOPLK6v, imapxot S' MrOT€POVOOV • • .. .1..,,' • "" " • I , • Q.J-"'r'TEPWS €VOEX0J.tEV0V EO"Tm. TO UVfL7TEpaO'fUL' YW£'TQ.(. yap 7f11Atv TO 7TPWTOV axflfLa. SleEtlerat 3' cYrL rijs £TEpaS ."po- 20 TaaEWS EvolXECT8a(. a1JfLatV01)aTjS EV avnp Kat 'TO avp..7TEpaaj-UJECJ7at €vO£XOJMVOV. El 'TO (J7'EPl]'TtKOV TEfht'1} 7rpO~ TO ;>'arrov aKpoII, 1j Kat a/UPw A1]4>8Et1] CT7EfYYrTtKd.. Ot' av-rwv fL£v TWV KE('J.L£VWV OUK EC1'Ta(. O'VAAOY('O'lLC)s, o.VTurrpa.J.. I " II I , '" I 'fEVTWV 0 ECT7at, KaUa7rEp EV 'TOtS' 7rpOTEpOV . 25 El 0' 1] fL;;" Ka86AOV TWV 7r(JOTo.aEWV 1] 3' EV jdPEt, Ka'M'fYoptKWV p.tv ovawv dp.c/>OTlpwv, ~ TijS' fL£V Ka86>.ov CT7EP'f}Tudj~ rijS' 3' £V jdpEt KaTa¢mn~~ 0 av-ro~ Tp/mOS' EU7at 'reVv ovMOYWfLwv' 7raV'TES' yap 7rEpalvoVTat 3,0. TOU , I ".J...,.. \" ,. __ _ll \, 7rpWTOV CT)(TJfL«TOS'. WC1'TE 'f"-"VEPOV OTt TOV EVOEXEUUa.. Ka(. ov 30 ... " " ' \ \ ' , ,"," \ ,...J..,.. TaV V7rapxEtV ECT7a(. 0 OVIV\O"J't(JfLOS'. E(. 0 TJ fLEII KaT""'t"-"TtKTJ\ Ka86>.ov ~ o~ CT7EP"f}T'~ lv fL'PE(.. 3,0. TOU d.3vv&rov ECT7a(. ~ d.7r68E'~('~. {mapxtTw yap TO p,a, B 7raV"T2 Tep TO OE ''"''lI nll(.' 'T'fJ '''r '' "~\A' A E"1I0EXEaUW p'7Jl lJ1TapxEW' avaYK71 VII 'TO E'VOExEcr8a(. nvt Tep B p,~ inrapxEtv. El yap 7raV"Tt 'Tip B TO 35 A inrapXE(' E~ d.vayK'llS', 'TO Ot B 7TaV'T2 Tep r KEtTa(. inrapxEtV J TO A 7Tavr2 Tep r dvcf.yK1}S' inrap~E(" TOVrO yd.p O'~E(.I('Ta(. 7TpO-rEPOV. ill" imtKE('Ta nvt £v3tXEcr8a(. fL~ imapXE('V. "O'Tav 0' do~pLO'To(' 1j ~ jdPE(' >'TJ4>8w(Jw OUK Ecrra(. avAAoyW,..wS'. d7T60E~tS' 3' ~ aim, ~ 7rp&rEPOV, Kat 314 TeVV av-rwv opwv.
B
oe
~,
J
~
~,
r,
£,
cS" Kal & ABdAIc : ws J" C: cS" i" r: om. n 12 'lfal'Tl+T~ yC f1 ABdnr 16 ~v om. A 17 Br . •. p.Ev om. n1 v'lfd.pxn nil 22 T() nAIP: + Ev8£x o P.OOIl ABCd,coni. P 31 &om. AC 33 T~ !"~,,nl 34 nv~ T~ f1 EvSlXEoOa, C 36 VrrclPXO' Cn 40aI UOp,OTO' A 2 £V 1'ois 1rpOHPOV scripsi: ;V Tois Ka(J6Aoll codd. ALP: Enl TWV Ee a.p.,poTlpwv iv8€XOP.EVWV coni. Al bIO
14 TW"
ANAAYTIK!JN IIPOTEP!JN A
Ei o· EC1'T('V 1j /LEV avaYKala TWV 7TporauHtJv ~ 8' lv- 22 5 O~XOJ.L&ry, Ka'T7}yopudJv fLa, OV'TWV 'TWV opwv aE' 'rOV lvSEX€-. aBa, Ea7'a~ uv'\'\'oytOP,os orav 8' 7"6 plv Ka'T7}yopLI«()V 70
n
J
""
~,
DE" G'T€fY'}7"tKOV,
€av
fLEV
. TJ" 'TO
SEXH18aL fL~ imapXELV ldv J
.L
••
...
~
,
Ka'Ta't'ar('KOV avaYKawv, 'TOV E'V-
'Oe 'TO
UTf::P1}7"LK6v J Kat 'TOV
bOE-
ToiJ I"~ lnrd.PXELV. TOiJ 8' ~t 10 p.,ry tnrapXELV aUK EC1'Tar. O'VAAoywp.6S, WU7H:P OVo'
XEu8m
Kill
JrEpms OXTlJLaCTl,v.
"Ea-rwaav o~ Ka'T7}yopLKoi TrPWTOV ot 0PO"
r
fL~
A 1Tavrt Tep {mapXE'TW It avdYK1]S' TO Ot B 1Tavri tvOEXEaBw imaPXEl.V. E1TE' OVV 'TO fLEV A 7TaJl7"l -rep r dVclYKT}. 'TO SE r 'nvt 'Tep B ivSEX£7'(U" Kat 'TO A 15 nvt Tip B lvo£X0f'-&OV la-ra, Kat DUX imapxov' OWW yap CTWbTL7T'T€V €1Tt TOU 7TPWTOV OX1Jp.o:ros. op,otws Ot OE(.x8-rlCTE'Tar. Kat El TO JL~ B r 'TEfh:l1'] avaYKatOV, 'TO Oe A r a,o£XoJL€vov. 7TclAW EU'TW 'TO fLEv Ka77]yopLlcoJl TO OE: C"TEfYY)TtKOV, avaYKaLOV OE: TO Ka'T7]yop(,KOV' Kat TO fLt.l' A JvOEXECT8w P!YJ200evt Tcp r inrapXEw, TO OE B 1TaV'Tt inrapxbw Jg avayKat 76
"
II
1,\
,...
J
...
\,
f
1CrjS, EO"Ta(' VII 7Tall.W TO 1TfJWTOV crx:rJfUL' KaL yap T} C"TEfYY)" 't'l D I J.~ , l' TLKTJ 1Tp0'TaCTL~ EVOEXECToa(, CTrJfLawE(,' 'fA'-VEpOJJ ovv on 'TO CTVfL77'EPauj-LCL EaTaL bSexofLEVOV' OTE yap oVrw~ €Xo(,EV at 7TPO1 , .... t I I '" Taans EV TeelCTrJ~ 7'ij~ 1TPO'T(:L35 aEw~, KaOa7TEp Jv 'TOL~ 7Tplrrepov. ~av S· dvaYKa'Lov, aUK ECTTaL' Kat yap 71'aV'T1. ava.yK'YJ Kat OUOEVt ~vS/XE'TaL inrapXELJJ. opaL
r
,
on
r
r
as Ev8JXEU8ru. nr: +,u~ JwuPXnv ABCd II 8~] yap s~ d ~~ w4VTl.] To/ y 1T4VT~ A: wan, To/ y n 17 Br] fJ To/ Y r 20 T~ CnI': "rwv ABdP 1TllVTl.+TqJ y C 21 yap codd. Ale: sed. Tredennick 25 TO] Kul TO C 28 1TaVTl.+np y C 29 .Kal+yap C 30 EtXOV fmpc UI),u{JalVE' d 31 Kat IJ.~ V'l'Tfl.PXE'V am. A 32 Kal om.C
/"
22. 4°'4-23. 40b30 TaU 1TavTt tnro.PX.Ew V7rv0S'-t1T7TOS Ka8EU&ov-O.v8pw1T~, 'TOV f''YJ86'~ VnvOS-Z7T1TOS lyprjyopws-/1.v8(JW1Tos. 'OfLolws 8' ;~E£ leal El 0 fL~ KalMAov 'TWV opwv 0 8' €v fLipE' 7Tp6S 7"6 fliaov' KCl7'17l'0PLKiiw- P.EV yap OIl'TWV a.p.- 40 .J..-.-' ,... '~I 0 " ,...' 40b 'f'V' EPWV rev EVOEXEU at Kat OU 'TOV mrapXEW EO"TClt UV/\AOY(.up.6s, Kat o-rav 'T6 fLfl, O"TEp7JTtK(W A'Y}rP8fl 'TO BE KU-rtUfoa,>I
,
....
,
~.J..~
(:01'
'nICOli, avaYKa£Ov DE 70 Ko:rlMF'TtKOV.
•
t'"
07"(lV D E
\'\
\
'TO
\
UTEprrr£KOY
dvaYK(ltOV, leal 'T6 UVfL'TTEpaUp.a £crrat 'ToO 1-1-';' im&.pX€l.V· & 'Yap
Tijs 8E~EWS' Kal Ka.8&AOV Kat fL-f] lCa06.\ov 5 dvdyK'Y/ yap Sui 'TOV 7TPW'TOU U)(1]fUl'TOS' 'TEAELOvcr8at 'TovS' uvX\oytUfW6s, WO"TE Ka8o:",ep Jv JKEtVOt.S, Kat mt 'Totn-wv avaYKa'i'ov UV/L1T{1T7'EW. &rav BE 'TO O"TEp7JTtK6V
(lVros TpCmOS opwv
'TWV
'\
lea 0OI\OV ~,
Ecrrat
OVTWV.
\..,.A,.O'
I\'ff fV .,
OEXO/MVOV,
EO"T(lt
TE
0....TJ
,
\", ., "\, EI\(lTTOV aKpov, Eav /LEV EV-
'"POS
'\ '\
TO \
UVI\I\OYUIJ-WS'
t'"
.....
.J..,;;."~'
o£a 'TT]) (l1l'Tw-rp0'Y"S"
Eav
(} 10
avaYKawv, OUI( l(J7OJ.. 8E'X81/uETCU 8£ TOV aUrov Tp01TOV 8v • leae"Ol1.otJ, KQ..l.\ Ola ~, - avrwv , . . opWV. . .L~..' Ka,,.£II 'TO'S 'TWV t.yUNfEPOV ooY lea, lv TO&r
..ov EK TWV ElP"]p£vwv' 07"4 a' a"'Aw~ 1Tiis O1JMoyw,MS' oinw~ e!E'J vVV 20 EOTaf, t/>aVEpc)V, tYrav aEtx8ti nos yw&jJ.EVO~ 8ui TOVrWV Ttv6S' 'TWV O)(YJp4TWV. 'AVctYK7J &i] nauav ci7T&8E~'V Kat 1TaVTa avMoytO'jJ.ov 1j {mapxov 'Tt 1j JL~ imapxov OEtKJ.f6Vo.t, Ka, TOtiTO 1j Ka86>..ov 1j KaTo. P£POS', ETt 7] 8EtK'T'KWS' 1j ~'imo8'aEw~. 'rOV 0' ~'25 Vrr08EUEWS' JLtpoS' TO 8ui 'TOV aowaTov. '1rpWTov o~v E t'1rWfUV '1rEpl nov OEU<'TtKWV ' 'TOVrwv "q.p OEtX8Wrwv if>aVEpO" EO'Tat Ka, E'1rt TWV El~ TO Q.8Vva.TOV Kal 0Aw~ TWV E! Vrro-
on
8'aEW~. El ~
8Eot -r6 A KaTa TOV B O1JAAoytuacriJo.t 1j -tJmlp- 30
er
837 ToO+8~ bS KQ.~ ... p.l}] WU'TrEP Ka~ n ' Ko.~ Ko.90MII om. (;l • • • 6 ovrwv] TWV opwv ovrwv AJ3C1dr: 'TC~jJI opwv OV'TWV Kat f'~ KCt90AOII jJJ 14 i..a'X(TCt~ 17 ow om. d IS 'TE om. Ad KCt90AOII A Bdn' Al: om. e n 19 aYOI"TClL Atfl 20 ncis om. Bl (xn Waitz 24 nvt nI': 'Tl'Tm A i 2S-6 1"Oii • • • Vn08/ UEWS om. n 1 26 f'/poS+lCl'Tf(:n 'ToG om. B 27 TOVrWV ya.p 8nx8&-rwv am. Ka~ "'~
e
e
ANAAYTIKDN npOTEPDN A
..
.,
,~,
"(3 . .
xov 1'] fl."'l tmapxov1 avaYKTJ I\a
'TO A pillal/. El OVII
KG-Ttl. 'TOU
O~
ruo
KCL'Ta.
E I.V
B A'Y]rp8ElT). 'TO TOU r, TO 8£
,
'TL
KaTCL
E~
apxfjs ~(J'Ta,
r
,.
T(VOS'.
JMV
€L
EiA'T]fL-
fL'10a-OS'. fL7JO'
KCLTa.
KaT' EKElvov, p.7JS~ KaTd. 'ToO A ETEPOV, ovoEls €crra(. 35 UVAAOYW,uOS" Tip yap €v KaO' ElloS' >':rr/>Bfjvat oliSa, avp.'t., " \.,. f , , puLVEt. E~ avaYKTJS'. WU7'E 7TpOUI\7]1T'TEOV Kat. ETEpav '1Tpo'Ta>I • .,. \. ,/,.D" • A ..., \. .. -"'\ \. ' uw. Ea.V JUII DVII Il.Tl"f,UTJ TO KaT (LIV\OV '1 aNtO KQ.-rQ. TOU A, ~ KaTa TOU r ETC:POV, Elva, J.4£V avM.0YLapov avaiv KwAOet, 7TpOS' pivrOL TO B aUK €aTru Sul 7"(011 EiA'Y]JlfL£VWV, 400VO' Mav TO r ET£fXP, KctKEi'VO tlAA
41. CTVVtl'n'T{) 8i 7TpOS' TO B, oUS' ov,.wS' £(17"Q.' 7TpOS' TO B av.\>"OYWfLos. o.\WS' yap et7ToJUv O'rt oUBe;'!! OVS£1TO'T€ €OTal. \,
•
JJI' " 1i-1J' \ .l\'Y]oyfJ€V'TOS' 'TWOS' fLE1 " " ... ' " aov, 0... 1TpOS' EKCL'TEpOV £Xe, 7rWS 'Tats KarrrrOptats' 0 /LEV 5 yap avAAoyWp.6S' Q7rI\WS JK 7rfXYTauewv Je,..nv, 0 3~ 7rpOS 'Tooe ov.uoywp.OS' JK 'TWV 7rpOs 'TOOE 7rfXYTauEwv, 0 S~ ,0V8e 1TPOS 'T60e 3,0. 'TWV Tov8E 7rpOS' 'T68e 7rpo-rauEwv. d8t1va'Tov 8~ 7rpoS' 'TO B )..af3etv 1rp&ramv fI:'1o~ JA':r]-TE Ka'M}yopoVlI'TaS awou Jl-lrr' o.1TapvovJllvovs, ~ 7r«AtV TOV A 'TTpOs 'TO B fL'I'J.;:.' KOWOV ' \I\ap.(3'aVOVTas QI\I\ ~\\'" ~ 10 aEV EKa'TEpov 00(4 a'T'Ta Ka77}yapovJl'TaS' ~ d7rapvov,.uvovS'. Wo-rE A1']'TT'Tlov 'T' pluov dJUfoow, 8 ovJJt:UpEt 'TaS KaTTJYOplas, e'l7rEP ;C17at. 'Tov8e 7rpoS' ,..ooe 011)..\ 1 ,., 1 , \ (3 ... ' > 1 .. .1.".. ' 1\000WfWS. Et., .ow avaYK7J ~ 'Tt. 1\0. EW 7rpas a~ KOWOV, TOin-O 3' Jv8lXE'T0" 'TptxwS' (~ yap 'TO A 'TOV Ka~ 'TO I5'TOV B KaT7}Y0prJuavras, ~ 'TO r Ka'T' aJUPoLv, ~ G.JUI>w ... ...',E07'\ 'To., Et.P"JJ.L6'O" , KaTa• 'TOV• 1'), 'TaV'Ta 0 UX'I'}p.a.:ra, 'fIU'VEpOV o,.t. 7ravra O11AAoyt.UI'0v dV&yK7] y,veuBa, SW 'TOV-rWV 'TWOS' 'TWV UX'I'}p4'TWV. 0 yap awos )..0,..05' Ka~ El Sui 'TTAEt.6vwv ovva-rrrot. 7rpOS TO B· Tawo yap €C17at. crx:iJp.a Ka~ 20 J'TT' 'TWV '7TOAAWv • ., On plv oov 0;' OEtI<"TLKO' 7rEpaWoV'Tat. 8m nov 7rPOEtP"Jpl.1..... VWV UX'I'}f.LCLTWV, .".....vepov· on OE Kat. ot. EL5' 'TO aovva'TOV, 01']AOV €C17at. 8m 'ToV-rwv. 7rdVTES yap 01 8La 'TOU d8vva'Tov 7rEpa{VOV'TES' 'TO I'~ tPEv80S uvAAoyL{oV'TaL, TO 3' Jg apxfjS' Je ~ n' ... 1 ., .'" " (3'" 25 V1ToueUEWS' oeLKVVovaw, OTav aovvaTov 'TL avJ-L. au'11 'TT]S' aJI'T'"LA n ~. '" ~ 'r"aews 'TEUEW7]S', owv 07'L aUVf'f'ETpoS ", Ol.afLETpoS' Ol.a TO 'Y'_~\\
OVN\OYWp.oS'
(1/\/\00
KaT
,~\\
aN\OV
>I
r
r
"L~
1
1
I
b31171J.~ imapxovom. Al O"uAAoYIUIJ.0s + 'I'"oii a. B
12 OS
A
ot om. d
""
I
4181
21
.,
17
\
f
1
...
\
'
'''' 1
......
'"
\
,
I
33 ~U1+'I'"O a.e 35 'l'"oA1 39 8td. om. Bl 2 €i1TW/J-£V AlB 7 'l'"68€1] 't6vB€ B1 on] ouv on Cl: ws d y€v€uBa.t d 18 d om. C1
23. 40b31-24. 41b20
-rei '1Tfpr.rra. taa TO'S' ap-rWLS' uvfLp£rpov TEBElcrr]S. 'TO plv oW taa y{pEaOaL 'TIl 7rEp(:rro. 'Tots ap-rwLS' OV.uoylCE'Tm., 'TO 8' auVfLlU'Tpov E lvn, -rTJv 8uifLETpOV €~ tmo8l,,!wS' oetKVVuw, brE~ tPEvoos ovfLf3alvn OLa ~v avr«paaw. TOGrO yd.p 7]v 30 'TO SLa 'TOV d8vvcf.rov uvAAoylaaa8aL, 'TO 8£~al ." dOVva.;:. \ \ 't' ... "8 .., , \ - .1. , 'TOV ota 'TTJV E"~ apxrJS' V7TO EC1W. WU'T E1TEL 'TOV 'YEVOO~ Y'VETa, UVAAoyWJ.Ws oeLKTLKoS €II 'TotS' £is TO ci8t.iva'ToY 0.1Tayopivol.S', ro 8' apxT1S lmoBluews 8EtKVV'Tat, 'TooS' BE OE'LK'7'tKOVS' 7TpO-rEPOV E t1Tof1£V /Yrl. oui. 'To&rwv 11EpalJlOV'Tat 'TWV 3S
v£a8ar.
i,
ie
I CT)(TJI.J.IJ:rwv,
'Y'uJ.W~
Kat \
fLEV
8r.a
~'
'f'U'VEpOV
_ /~
..
on
'TOVTWV
•
Kar.
f';:'
\
0' oro.
'\ \
,
aovva'TOV
. ,
YLVE'Ta&.
,\
'"poS'
'TO
tv -- \
'\'\
UVN\O-
WuaVTws BE
EUOV'Ta, 'TWV CT)(fJp.O.'Twv .
ot a:A~m 1TciV'T~S' ~l E~ 1mOOlUEWS" UVIV\OYWfLOS'
~~
...
'TOV
o.1Tam, .. Q
'
yap
fLE'TW\aptJavoJ..UVov,
<> ,
'TO
8' E, apxfjs 7rEpatvE'Tal. 01.' 6fLOAoylaS .;; Tn'oS" aAA1)S" tmo- 40 8€aEWS" . El S,t TOW' &.>...1)81s, '1Tauav a7TOSE'{W Kat 7TaV'Ta 4Ih avAAoywP.OV c:iVC£YK1J ylvEaOa, Sui TPr.WV TWV 7TPOEtp1)p8wV UX'1J.ul..'TWV. 'To&rov S,t SELX8m-os- 8ij.:\OV wS a7Tas- 'TE av.:\.:\oywp.os E7T''TEAEL-ra, Sui 'ToD 7TpWrOV O)(I]p.4TOS- Kat avaYETa, Els TOtJS Ev 'TOVTlp Ka8o>..ov avMoywp.(n$s- . 5 24 "ETt TE Ev d.:rTavn BEL Karrr;op'KOV Twa 'TWV opwv Elva, Kat 'TO Ka8oAov tmaPXEw' aVEv yap TaD Ka8oAov 1j OUK E(17"a, avMoywp.Os 1} ou npos TO KElf'EVOV, 1j TO E{ c:ipxiis al-n]uE'Ta,. KElu8w ydp rt,v p.ova,K'fJv ~80vryv Elval. O'1TOVSalay. El plv oJv .:Aov Se ylvETat q,o.VEpOV Ev Tots" 8r.aypap.p.a.aw, oCov on ToD laouKEAovs iua£ " " aL 7TPOS TTl f3~" aaEe.. E(J7"W(1aV us TO , KEVTPOV 1)yp.Eva£ ae.~ A B • 15 El ouv iOTJv )..ap.{Javoe. rt,v A ywvlav rfj B Lf f'~ oAwS a{ufJaas iaas 'Tels 'TWV ~f"KVKAlwv, Kat 7TclAW rt,v r rfj LJ p.~ nauav 7Tpoo').a{Jwv rt,v -roD 'TP..ryfUl'TOS, En S' •• " , .... ... ." .... , ,, .!.J..I a7T tUWV ovawv TWV OI\WV ywvc.wv Kat wwv ~lIP1J/LEVwv iaas- ElvaL TOS Ao£,,",ls TaS E Z, TO 19 apxijs al-nJaE- 20 •
•
A
r
a36 ~o.IIEpOII+ OJII Bl
40 ci'u"1S' 1"W6S' d b2 1"WV 1"P~WV C 5 1"£ om. d 1"011 opell B 7 Yclp + av C 8 TrPOK f'J.dvo !) C 10 Trpoo 6jj B1 12 TrPOKf{· J.UVOV Cd 15 B) y fecit B 16 >'al'/Javo Cd: >'o.l'/3avn d2 171"«Som. d 18 TTpo>.o.{1W II n 8' om. A Bdn 19 lowvl) 1"(OV n 20 1"clS' E{ A BCnrA IP, fecit d : sed. Waitz KaODA-O!)
sed. Maier rijS' d
6 01"' n
ANAAYTIKQN I1POTEPQN A Tat,
25
" ea.v
\
fLTJ
''!Q "Uof-'Tl
~,
a'1TO
....., TWV W'wv
., tawv
.!~ , u..ya.LpO'lJjLEVWV
wn A£t1TEu8at., ,pav£pdv oW &rL £V a.7TaV'T& Se£ 'T6 Ka86>..ov inrdpXEl.VJ Kal 0-,., 76 pl.v Ko.86Aov l~ a1T/1V'Twv TWV opwv Ka.(}6'\ov oetKJlV'Tu('. 'TO S' EV fLEPEt. Kal. oVrws KaKElvwS'. WO"T' " \.s. \ , 8 Ea.V fUV 1I 'TO CTVfL7TEpaufLa Ka OI\DU. Kat. TOVS' opovs avaYK1J I,
•
\.,
•
I
Ka86'Aov Elva,. Eav 8' at opaL Ka86,\ov, a,oEXETat. 'T6 CTVfL1TE· paufL« fL~ £1va.1. Ka86Aov. Sij>..ov BE Kat ~, £V a:rravn crvAAoyl.· - " ••. .J..~, ..." r" O'fUp .." al-""r'" EpaS '1 T1]v ETEpav 'TTfXYTauw ofJ-OtaV «vaylO'} Y WEa8ru 'Tip CTVJL'1TEpaap,a:n. >'lyw S' ou p.ovov 'Tip Ka-raq,o:rudJ., 30 Elva, ~ U'T£p1f'Tt1<1}v. &';ud Kal. 'Tip o.vaYKatav 7} tmapxovaav 7} 0,~ , 1 '.'. 8 <;:'1 " , . . \ \ _" \ \ OEXOfUlI1]V. E1nUK€.oyaa at. DE O£L Kat 'Tas a.t\I\a.S KarrrY0PWS. lPavEpov OE Ka, a:rr'Aws 17M' EO"To.t. Kal. 'TrOT' DUK Een-at. ovAAoyw.u&S'. Ka, 7TcYrE 3VVQ.TOS' Kal. 7TO'TE ,..lAHOS, Ka~ OTt I
I
,
I
uv>..AOYW/-LOv onoS' dvaYKawv EX£LII TOt,~ opovS' KaTcl Twa 35 TWII elP'1pivwlI TpWWII • .d~ov 8t Kat '1T8.aa d1To8E~L~ Ecrrru. TpUlJII Opwll 2S Kac. 1TAnollWII, lay /-L7] 8,' aAAWV Kat aAAWIl TO aYrO OV/-L1T'fXUTfUl ylvrrraL, olov TO E 8uf TE TWV A B Kat 8Ld TWV .d 1 ~ 81.0. T01II A B Kat A .d. 1TAElw yap fLEaa 'T01II 40 aUr01v ou8~11 Elva, KWAVEL. 'Tot).,.wv 8' OVTWV OUX EtS' dMd. 42a1TAElovs 'Elatv oi ov'JV..oywJ.Wl. ~ 1Tcl,\W oTav 'KO:TEPOII 'TWV A B
un
au
r
O,a
r
8u:\ av'\'\oywp.oii "",>8fi (olov Tel A 8,a TWV .::J E Ka1 ",!.ALII TO B oLd 'T01II Z 8), 1} 'TO /-LEV ~1Taywyfj. TO Of OVAAOYL-
ilia
yap
up,ip. Kat oVrws 7T).,E{OV~ ol avAAoyw/-LO{' 1TAEtw 5 'Td. ovfL1TEpdaJUl'Ta ~crrw. OtOIl TO 'TE A Kat.,.o B Kat 'TO El 3' 0011 p..-r, 1T).,Elov~ cU.A' Et~. ov-rw p.fv Jvo'XE'TaL YEV'a8ac. Sui '1TAEWIIWII 'TO aUro avp.1TEpaaJUl, W~ OE TO T01II A B. dovvaTov . €.a-rw yap TO E aVfL1T€7r€paapAvov £K T01II A B .d. OUKOVV dvdyK1'J TL av.rwv ruo 1TPOS aAAO El).:ijq,Bac.. IO 'TO p.ev wS' OAOV 'TO 0' W~ p..'po~· 'ToVrO yap 818ELKTUc. 1TPO'TEpaV, on OV'ToS' OVAAOYW/-LOV avaYKatOV oVrws TWaS EXEW nov Opwll. EXE'TW 0011 TO A oVrw~ 1TpOS' 'TO B. EcrrW apa n E~ am-wv uvfL1T'paCTjUL. OUKOVv troe. TO E -r; TWII .d 8r1:rEpoll -r; .,.1. 7Tapa Taih-a. Kat €Z J.L€v 'TO 'E. EK TWII A B J.L6~ IS vov all EZ,? 0 UV>J..OYLUJ.L0S . 'Tel. Of r.d El fLfll EXEC. oVrwS' WO'Tt
r.
r a,a
r
r
ruo
b21 T"WV op.o{wsd
om. d
tawvl om. A
27 1CQ.86Aou €tvcu d'" 28 dvayK'l1 30T"cpom. n 3IO€rom. nr 34 'W/Q.Sdl 39 Ar.d scripsi : (Jy Bd: o.y C; fecit A: o.y Ka, fly lJ2CSnAIP: /J)' Kal 0.)' tP 400tixlC 4:l;l6 )'{~a8at.Cdn 8 ':+7'0 n 9 1i.Uo2 om. AIBI 12 apa] 1I'allTWS d 14 A B] OUO n p.6vwv AtC IS 0: om. dl fX!J n 29T"~S]T"onr
1vat.
\
\
.....,
~~,
,,,
, '/:. • ,
J.L€POS. EOTa, 'TL KQ.£ ES EKEt,vwv, Ka~ Vro' 'TO E 7} 'TWV A B 8dTEPOV ~ ,.t. 7TapO. 'TaVra. Kat El /Ltv TO E 1} 'TWV A B Ba.'TEPOV, ~ 1TAEtoVS luov'TaL ol croAAOYWfWl, 7} wS' bE8'xE'TO 8m 7TAEt6vWV E
fLO'
TO
• opwv
WS
01\0)1 TO 0
lUOV'T-aI
ruo
"awa
' 8at.
,~,
Q ' uvf-LfJawEl.·
1TEpaW€U
1TAEWVS
WS'
0
£(,
.!",'
,,., TaVTa. 20
'Trap«
Tt.
W'V\O
aaV'va1T7'OL or avMoywJLOt. 1TpOS dM~"I'"
Ka£
lxot. 'TO r 1Tp(JS TO A WOTE 110L£I:V OVAAOYLU,.wV, ,w,rYJv £crraL eiJ.?}J-LJilva, El J-L~ E1Taywyijs 1j Kp-oJ-L~ oVrwS'
AOVS.
El 8£
t/J€WS
7f TWOS
ciMov
'TWV 'TOOOVTWV Xo.PLV.
24
El 0"
EK
'TWV
A B
24
ruo.·n ylYVE'Tat uvp.:rr€pau}l4. EK Ot 'TWV 25 A 1j TOVTWV 8&:TEpOV 7} ruo Trap« 'Taiha, TTA"lovs 'TE o{
p:i] 'TO E aM"
r
yap
O'VAAoyWj.tO£ ytvoVTaL Kat au 'TOU imOKEI,p£VOV' &rrEK€I:ro
r
at
Elva, 'TOV E 'TOV UVAAOYLUJ-LOV. El J-L~ ,,),{vn at EK TWII , , " ....JJJ ,\ Q ' O'V}i/1TEpaulUl. fUlTTJV TE ELA7J'r'aL awa avpj-IaLJlE(,
A fL7JOEV "
J-LTJ
Kat
'ToO J( apxfjS' Elvat 'TOV ovMoywp.Ov. ~E ¢a.VEpOV o.L 'TTnua a'TT6SE~LS' Kat 'TTcis avMoyw,ooS' E!1'rO.f, 8ta. 'TP"wv opwv ,.wvov. Toth-ov 8' OV'TOS cpaVEPOV, &i].\ov WS' Kat. EK 800 'TTPOI
\,
'\
I
'TaUE"WV !CaL OV 'TTI\EtOVWV Q I I 1TpoUl\afL~avo,'TO
I
.'\
fL1] \
\
((
'TL,
'\'
...
I
.....
\"
' ) '
OL yap 'TPELS' opo, ova 1TpO'TO.UELS ,
8 Ka a7rEp I
,
EV
'\ '\
.......1..
I
.,.
(
t
..,..aVEpov ovv ws
EV
(J1)MOYLCJ"TLK4J fI-~ lIprUJ.t E"Lo'LV ai 1TpomuELS' 8L' wV
, VE'Tat 'TOI CTVfL7rEpaUfLO. 'TO" KUpLOV
("
EYUJ.
EL
...,t·...·'\ , 8 WfS Es, ap)(1}S EI\EX 1],
7rpOS' 'T'T]V 'TE"I\HWUW 'TWV (J1)I\I\OYLUfLWV.
'\0Y'P
.,.
'P I'l-
0
.\o,,0S' ~
ou avUE)U)Y«rT£U ~ 7rAEUu 'T(VV avaYKalwv ~pW'TTJKE"
7rpOt;; ff]v
BlaLv.
40
Karo \
fL£V
,
'Ta.s
OOV
uvMOYWfl-WV,
•
35
I .. " 8Ell OVfLyap 'TWV avw
'TT€Pa.UP,O.'TWV avaYKaLov Elvcu 7rptYTOnElS), 0&7-0S
TWV
30
't..
a7ras \,1
KUptaS ;CT'TaL .....
7rp0'Tf5.U£LS uv.\AOYLUfLOS r
I
I
.\ap.{1avoplvwv 42b
~K 'TTpoTa.aEWV r
'\'
~
...
fUV a(YrtWV Es, opwv OE 7r€PLTTWV· EVL yap 'TTI\ELOVS OL 0POL 'TWV 'TTPO'T(iUEWV. ECT'TaL .,.a.UEWV. O-roV 8E 1TAElovwv pluwv
8£
Kat 'Ta uvfl-1T€pdafLO-Ta ~p1G7'J TWV 1TPO-
Sui '1TfXXnJ>J...oywp.Wv 1TEpa/:vrrraL ~ BUl 5 uvvEXwv, otov 'TO A B But TWV ii, on)
r
1T.\fj80s TWV opwv cIx7ath-ws Evt imtEp£~tEL TaS 1TpcmiatELS 01 I "t_ .ll 01 , \ I t:t.!. r I .. ( TJ yap Es,WQEV T] E"LS' 'TO fUUOV TEu'lueraL 0 7TapEfl-1TL1TTWV opos·
ply
. . . ~I
Q'
\,\
"''\'
1:
I
\'
I
EfXJJS' OE UVfLf-IWVEL EVL El\a1"TW tELVo.L 'To. OUJ.C1"'MJfLO.'TQ. A • ) f \,1 I " ... \" t I 'TWV opwv , aL OE 1TPOTaUELS ,uaL TO'S o,aurrllM1.uw· ov f'EVTO' 10
a~,
·~1I1I''\f"lous+Tf"C
o,CnAI: am. ABd 22 Tcp8n 2sybJrrw.d B 28 'Toil] 'TO Al ,,3 ABCd ALP: oft coni. AI, fecit n 1J.'73~ EJI n 34 1" PI: am. cOOd. «Mx9r, om. A 35 olhr+ ch, n b2 «aT, d 6 fJ-EaWJI CnAl: + IJ.~ A WdP: + "cU r 8~
fecit n
26
~
T{)il1'O
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A EUOV'Tru. ot SE 7T£P'/'M'Ot, ill' EvaX\~. MaV /Lev at 7TpcrrciUEfS o.prW.L, 1'TEP'TTO~ ot CPO', &ray 8' ot oPOl. a(YTuJL, 7TEp,:rTat at npo-rduEfS' Q.JLO. yap 'Tep opcp p.la. 'TTpocrrt8eraf, 1Tpo-raCItS, av &rr08EVOVv 7TpOaTE8fj & opos, WaT' E'Trd al£~
f
15 a(.
at p£v
,.,
o.prr.w.
apTl.aL
fLEV
•
Of,
'..t
~,
7T€PCrTOI.
OE
'Ioav,
'
~
avaYK1]
~\\I
napUN1.a7TEW
rYis ain7js 1rpoaOluEws ywop.'YrJS. 'Td. OE uufl/1TEpaofLaTa otJldT, -J.
~
\
,,/:
'1:.
>I
,
\..
"
, \
'Iv aV7"11v ES£t. Tas-w OUTE 7TpOS TOVS opovs OUTE' 7TPOS TQS' ..".po'TcWELS" 'vos yap opov 1rpocrr,jJEpivoV ovp:rrqxl.ap.a:ra 7TpoaTE8-rJoETat. £Vi EAaTTw 'TWV 'TTpoihrapxoV'Twv opwv- 7Tp(JS p.Ovov 20 yap TOV Euxa:rov au 7TOLEL UVJ1:TTlpa.up.a, 'TrpOS' OE 'TOOS' a.\AOVS mlvras, orav £1 Tip A B r 7TpOUKE,:raL TO Lf, dJ8vs Kat OVJ-LTTEpcWJLa:ra 8tio 'TTp6UKH'TaL. 'TO TE '"pos Td A Kui TO ,"POS' 'TO B. ofLolws OE Ka.7Tt 7"(OV MAWV. Kav Els 'TO fl,EOOV OE 'TTapEJL7Tt'1TT[}. 'TOY airrov TplmOJ.l" npos o,a yap JL6vov ou 1TO'~UEL '5 avMOYL(yJL6v. WO'T€ 1ToAv 1TAElw 'Ta. CTVfL1TEpaUj-La'Ta Ka~ TWV .,,, ,, opwv EO'Ta(. Ka(. 'TWV 1TpoTaUEWV. J &rE~ 8' EXOJUV 1TEP~ WV 0' avAAoywfOOl. Ka~ 'lTOWV £v 26 t, , _"" . . _ ' t ... EKacrrcp UX'lf£4'Tf. Ka(.\ 1ToaaxwS' OEU(vV'Ta(.. A ~VEpOV 'rJfLw €CIT(. ,... 'Q\. -" , ... \ Ka(. 1TO(.OV 1TPoJJ":TJfLa XUAE1TOV Ka(. 'lTOWV EVE'lT(,XE'P'rJTOV' TO 30 /LEv yap EV 1TA.Eloa(. axtJf£4a, Ka~ 8ui '7TAEtoVWV 1TTcf;aEwv '7TEpaWOj-LEVOV pij.ov, TO 8' EV EA.aTToa, Ka~ 8,' EA.aTTovwv 8va, \ \.,. .I.... \ \ e'\ t' \ ... E1T'XEt.P'TJ'TCYTEpOV. TO fLEV ow Ka'Ta~T('KOV TO Ka O/\OV V(.Q. TOV '7TpW-rOV axrJfW.TOS' 8ElKJlV'Ta(. JL6VOV, Ka~ 0(.0. 'ToVrov J.UJvaxws· ro o£ UT£P"JT('KOV ouf 'T€ TOO '7TpcfrrOV Ka~ S('(1 TOO }Alaov, Ka~ 3S Sui plv -toO 'lTpcfnov J.UJvaxws. 8ui O£ roO plaov O'XWS" TO ,., ... .1..... \ "" -, '" \ , o" 'EV fLEpEt KaTUw"~V Ell plv Tip 1Tp
~\
~,
ow
avo
b n al ",Ell om. AJl 13 'lTfiplTTa~ om. Ai 22 om. BI 'lTpoa· "daETa, n 24 'lTol"i d 27 wlI+ ..;a~ n leal • •• 28 EC7T~ om. A 1TTWO"(WII fecit B 36 alaI] leal a,a B 39 p,ovaxwS' n et ut vid. AI: Q.'lTul A BCd 40 T~2 om. n l 43-1 TO om. A 3et 41111] «t
d' :.,r
'TOV
nth-ov DE
0XJ1-
TO
£11'2 OE -rwv l.v
jLaaw.
yap el 1TaVT~ ~~ ap)jj~' TOVTO 8' "Jjv ~ 000 piPfH' p.ovaxw~j Tj 1TaVTt. , 7} JL'1JoEv2 oEl-
'TpMrOV K&'11;' 'TWJ.' UT£pr]'Tt.K{iW· Kat.
avnJY1rrat
Kat. El 'Twl,
oE pq.w 'Ta €v piPEt· Kat. OLd 1TAEtbVWV TpMrWV. 6AwS; 'TE 10 av OE"2 Aav(JeivELv on avaUKEVcWac. fLEv 8,' aA'A:7]AWV €C17't Kat. 'Ttl Ka(JoAov 8(.0. nov €v pipEt. Kat 'Taiha s,a nov Ka8&'Aov, Ka-rauKEVaaac. 8' QUK ECTn 8t.d nov Karu ,.,ipos ro Ka8o>..ov, 8,' €KElvwv. DE -rath' €rrTw. d.p.a oE 8fjAOV /$-r, Kat. 'TO avaUKwci{E"W EC1"Tt 'TOV Ka'TaUKEvdCEtV pq.ov. 15 llws JLEv oov "IVETat. was uvAAOytOp.6S' KaL 8td 1Toawv OfXtJV Kac. '1Tpo-raUEWV, Kat. 1TWS; €xovawv wpos lli,.,AaS' En ,aV'Ta {mdPXEW.
KaTauKEvcf{OVTt
yap EV 1TAEloat ax!JfLUUt Kat.
J
~\...
IQ\
'"
I
\..,
\
I
OE 1TOtOV 1TpofJ/\'1JILU €V EKacn-cp 0)(y}P/J:rt. Kat ?TOWV €V '7TI\EWac.
Kat 7TOZOV lv tAd:T'TOCTt. O€lKVV'Ta(.. 8fjAOV EK 'TWV €lfYY1p.Evwv . elmofY17CTofL61 aVToi 'rrpd~ TO Tt,61JUVov ael OVAAoyt,- 20 '" I , ,f. I 8a Tas; \ 'rrept,,..EKaU'TOV ap, ap..wv;J Kat\ 01.0.\ 'rrota~ ooov'" 1\"f}'f'0JLE Xas, vvv ';;S"f} AeKTloy' ou yd.p Jdvov tawS" Sei: ~v y'veaw Bewpei:v TWV avA'Aoyt,a"uov, cL\'Ael Ka~ ~V Svvaf'W £Xew TOU
%7 '1TWS' 8'
~
.~
'rrot,ei:v.
'A' 1TaVTWV
l lTWY -" V'I OV'TWV
TaI"~ f'€V eO"Tt, 'TOLaV'Ta WU7'e Ka'Ta 25 p..7J8€V0~ mov Ka77Jyopei:aBat, ciA7JBws; KaB6>..ov (otov IOiwv Kat KaAA.la~ Ka~ 'TO Ka6' EKaU7'OV Ka~ ala87JT6v), KaTel SE TOm-WV rua (Ka~ yelp avBpW1ro~ Kai 'aplv yap 'rrGTE TO AWKOV t.KEWO EWKpa:rrlv elvcu 35 Kai TO 'rrpoawy Ka)Jdav * 6n SE Ka~ t.7Ti TO aVW 'rropevop.£votS" f".... "'~' " '. . KEtfLEVOV. Ka'Ta to"Ta'Tat 7TOTE, 'rr(lAW epovf'EV' vvv 0 eU7'W TOV'TO ply ovv 'TOVTWV OUK £U7'tV a7Tooei:gat, Ka'M']yopovfLEVOV ETEPOV, 7TA~V EI fJ.~ KaTel 86gav, illa Tav.,.a KaT' Q.;UWV· KaO' iKaU'Ta KaT' Q.;UWV, ill' E'Tepa KaT' t.Ketvwv. Tct. SE 40 c' 0"f}I\OY ....... , • afA"'f'V' ' .. .1...-.-'epw~ EVoeXETat. ' ... ' (Kat " yap aUTa , I KaT , fLETar,;v WS" ",'II
\
J
"~
•
I
I
\
ouaE Tn
8 8f.,{aV'Tt A 2n
37 8uut n 12 TWv2] KpaTT}
Tij~
Bn
28 EKaT'pa~ n
d1 36 Tel
~VW n
10
Evom.C Tp01I'WV] 1TTWUf.WV Waitz 34 KaTa om. A 3S Ew'
ANAAYTIKSJN IIPOTEPSJN A G..U.wv Ka~ &:,\Aa KUTa. ro&rwv AEXlh]UE'TW,)' Ka~ OXE-8dv
oI
"01'0' Kat. at. UKErElS EWe. , ..,ull,crra 7TEpl.. 'TOV'TWV. ,\f
"'.1.
"
....fl. .
,
,
-'lei: &ry TdS 7Tpo-rdUEfS 'TTEP1. Z«acrrop OlYrWS ~KAap.fJ&.VEt.V, tnro(UJ1.8'OV aUTO 'TT'PW'TOV Ka, Tavs 0P(.ufWVS' 'TE lea;' 60'0. tOut 'TOV 7TpaYfLo:roS JO'TiVJ etTa /LETa TOVrO oua €'1T€7"a(. -rep 7Tp&.YfU1:rt, Ka;' 7TcL\W ors 76 7Tp8.yp.a aKoAov8Et, Kat. aaa 5 EvSIXE'Ta.t. aiYrip imaPXELY. ars 8' am-d tvOtxE'TaL, OUK 1 '\ '<::-'" '.J..' I I:' , ~ \ \ EKI\"fl'"'7'EOV ow. 'TO avT(.aTpE-r€LV 'TO crrqY1)'TtKOV. otG.'PE'TEOV of: lear.
43 b
p.r,
fLr,
'TWV ~7TOfJ,EVWV aero.
TE
€v Tip TL lO7"
WS uvfLfJef17]K6Ta Ka7'7JYOpEL'Tat., Ka;'
Kat. oaa
'TOth-WV
LOut Kal. 00'0.
'lTota 3o~aO"T'KwS'
10
d),ryBetav- ooqJ fL& yap tiv '1TAE,6vwv 'TO,otn-wv emropfi or'S', 8arrop €VTEvgETa(. CTVfL1TEpaap.a:TL, OCTCP 8' (tv
II
d.>..7]f)EUTtpwV,
Kat. 'lTota. KaT'
pii}.Aov
d:7TOSEt~E'.
AEt: 0' €KAEyew
II
JL~
'Tn ;1TO-
J-LEVa 'Ttvf, dAA' aCTa 8Acp Tep 7Tpdyp.an €7TETat., olov J..L~ .,.l TW~ dv8pclmcp ilid. Tl 7TaV'T~ dvBpclmcp E1TETat.· aul yd.p TWV KaO&Aov 7Tpo-rduEWV 6 UVAAoyI.upOs. dawpUn-ov JLf:v oov ov>f~ '\ , ~ '~\.J..' 15 TOS ao7]I\OV EI. Ka OI\OV 7] 7Tp0'Taut.S, Ol.WpWJLEVOV DE 'f'aVEpoV. oJ.Wlws S' EKAEK'Tiov Ka~ ors aUTO €1Terat. OAOI.S, Sul ..,..qv ElP"J~v alTw.v. ath-6 TO '1T&f.I.£VOV >"7]7T'''"'OV OAOV €7TEu8at., Aiyw S' otov dVOpdJ1TCP 7Tfiv {410v 1} f.Lovut.Kfi 7Tao-aV E7Tt.crrJ]f.l.1Jv, dAAci p.6vov a7T>..ws aKOAOVOE'V, KaOd1TEp Ka~ TrPO20 TEI.V&fLE8a' Ka~ yd.p aXP7]O'7'OV edTEpOV Kat dSwa7'Ov, otov Trdv'Ta o.VepW1TOV Elvat. 7r&I {41ov ~ ot.KaLoaVV'1}v aTrav dyaB6v. ill' cp ors E7TE'Tat. avBpw7ToS" avdyK'T} yap, El avBp<.lmtp aKoAov8d T6 {cpov, Ka2 'TOV'Tot.s aTrauw o.KOAov8Eiv,
e'\
"
ae
e '"
'.'
\
"'"
A
ou
(I
e'\
'\
a42 oE,x8~a'ETa, n 43 'IT£pl 'l"av.rwv 'l"ov.rwv d bI EKaarov+'I"ov.rwv n A'1TrTlov n: otlld'l"t (JC)'TJ1r'Tlov ut vid. Al 10 av om. C. II 6.ATJ8EcrrEPOV Bl d: T't T'cfj Cfi2 23 'lTPOJCElf'EVaV n 30 {/fiav d aVarK'1+f'~V n
,
£la~ ~OTa
C! wf.).uml, £w, Trt:pl 5 oQKln
2 wa'l"t81p.EVOV f3Z 7 lata codd. r: ws 12 OAcp om. n 26 iITTtlPX1l n
t8~a Bekker 13 'l"t] T'tfJ
29 3££ tP
27. 43'42- 28. 44'20 oix.Emepa. BE TaliTo. Tijs 'TOU dvOpcImov £KAoyrjS. ATJ71T€oV OE Kat .,.d. WS E11' 'TO 'lT0)..';' E7T6fLEVa. Kat. orS E1TETa,' TWV yap cJJs E7fi. 'TO '1TOAV 7TpofJ>'7JfLo:rwv Ka, 0 av,uOYWfLOS' Ele TWJI r1Js E'TTI. 'TO ?ToAV 7Tpo-raaEWV. 7j 1Taawv 7j Tt.VWV- op.owv 3S yap EKa.crroV TO UVfL1T€paCTf-La 'Ta,S' apxaiS'. En 7'<1 1TaaLV E'1TOf*Ya aUK EKAEICTEOV' OU yap Ecrra(. avAAOY('CTIMjS l, uv-rwv. ~
0(,
z8
.
0\
(:'oJ
1JV 0
"
•
I
_.
~\
"
at'Ttav, EV 'T01.) E1TOp..6'OIS E07a.l. V I/I\OV.
f10V>'Op,EVOLS KaT&' 'TWOS OAOV f3>'E'11"T€OV els 'Tel. VrrOKE{fLEva lea8' 40 WV av-ro '1'VJ'XaVEL AeyofLEVov, 00 OE Set KaTr)YOpEwBaL, aaa '" '" I.J.:' I • IJI 'TOV'Ttp E1TETa(.· a.v yap 'TL TOtfTWV 1I TO-vrOIl. avaYK7J rJaTEpov Ba-rEfXP tnrapXEW. tjv BE fL~ OTt 1TaV7"' dX\' crn Twl, ors £'11'£., " I.,., ,., 'Tat EICaTEpoV' £(. yap .,.(. 'TOV'TWV Tavrov, avaYK7l 7'Wt tJ'TTap- 44 a xew. o-rav Ot P:'10£v;' 3'n tmaPXHv. CP Jdv au 8€£ tnrapxnv) €ls 'Ta J7TOfL€vu~ · o 8E 8€t fL~ imaPXHv. €ls a p.~ tvo'xeruL uv.r
Ka-rG.OKEOO{HV' 1L€v
ouv
'TOV {-Ltv KU'TaaKEva{op.,Ivov
Y
£1TOP.£JIU. 'ToV-rwv yap OV'TWV 'TWV uVrwv 01TOTEPWVOVv,OVO£JIt fv8'xE'TaL (jU'TEPCP (jU'T€pov tnrupxnv' ytvE'TaL yap o,.~ ,dv <> €v 'TavEp6v. EG"'TW yap 'Ta , ~, . . . A E'f' '.J.. t of' B f' <:" '\., '.1.' wv of' jL£V errop..£vu 'T£p WV • OLS 0 aV'TO E1TE'TaL, E'f' '..L'''' A .1\ • a OE J.L1J £JIQEXE'TUL UV'T' ols H, o~ fL~ £v8EXE'TaL atiT' ols El /L£V 'Tam-o 'TL tan 'TWV 'TLVt 'TWV Z, avaYK7J 'TO A 1TaV'Ti 'Tip E tnrapxeLv' 'TO fL£V yap Z 7TUV'Tt 'T
a
o
r .
e.
~,
,
.....
,~,
ow
~
a
,
r
5 b-3EXT]To.& d 0 8E JL~ Wdn, fecit A : 0 8E Ba 6 07TOT€PWlIOVV C2nAlc: OTtoTlp<JJJI ABCd 9 3€, WCnr: om. ABd p.~ AWdnr: om. B'C 15 ("" WI' 13'-Alc 17 ((Tn scripsi: ;(TTC' codd. 19 Tol] Tq, Bekker 20 T~l AI; nUll codd. L
yap 1(0"
•
r \
'TO
ANAAYTIKllN npOTEPllN A 'TO A~ -rep at H 'TO E 1TaVTL aKoAov8d. El oE 'TO Z A ,. _.t>. .. E 'TO• A V7T~ '.!. .. t t \ \ LI -raVTOV, OVOEV(. 'TWV fa, EK '1TPOUVIV\OKat 'TO Z 'Tip .d • • E• 7TaV'n. -rep ruth-ov, OUO€Vt 'TWV E'TO A tmap[c:,,'
'YI.up.ov· E'TTEL yo.p dvrurrp€1>Et TO "
_t....
\
...
'T(lV'TOV. OVOEVL 'TWV
2S 11'd.\w El
.
'TO
• yap
Z V7TaM> " .. t E'
'TO B Kat. 'TO
B 7'0/•
• A
P.EV
e
I
..
U'TEP"J'TtKOV
\
1"0
... '
1TQVTt. 7ft' 0
A ,'TO. OE •• Z '.J..' 0/9'
E,¥
I
TO
E
.~
, • ,
OUOEY' V7Tap-
[£I.' 'To,Vro ydp 1Jv 'Tip 8. 'TO 8E e oVSEVt 'TWV E imfjPX£v. Ei OE 'TO ..1 Kat. 'TO H 'Tath-6v, 'TO A 7"£11' 'Tip E oUX im&~E" 'Tip yap H oUX inrap[n, J.rt ovo;' 'Tip ~ . TO OE H lOT'" Vrro 30 TO E. WO"TE Tty, ,.wv E OUx im&p[n. El 8E -rep H TO B 70,V70V, aV'TEC17paILp.ivos £crrat uv,\AOYWfLOS" 'TO /-,EV yap E 'Tep A {mo.",Et 1'lo,VTt--rO yap B 'Tip A, TO OE E -rep B (Tam-o yap iiv 70/ H}--7o oE A T~ E 1Tavrt. fLEV aUK avaYK7J im&p• .... >, ... . . . '.J..... \ 8" XEtv. 'TWL 0 avayK1') ota TO o,VTWTpEr:W 7TJV Ka OI\OV KO,'T7}yoplav Tfj Ko,-ra plpos. n.. .~.,.\ '{3 " /EKa'TEpOV f' 'VaVEpov ouv OTt EtS" 'Ta '11POEtfYTIlLfVa I\E7T'TEOV KaO' EKacrrov 7TpO{3A'1fta· 'Too-rwv yd.p Q7TaYTES' 01 O'VAAOYWJLO{. OE~ S~ Kai 'TWV l.7Toftlvwv, Kai orS" E7Terat €KaG70V, ElS" 'Ta 7TpcJn-a Kai T..ov 8~ Kat aLa TWV TPtWV opwv Kat TWV AVO 7TPO'TaClEWV 1j ClKE!fJLS', Ka, Sui rwv 7TPOEtP"'lp.bwv crx:rJp4TWV 01 O'VMoyt,Clp.o' 7TaVTES'. oE{KVVTaL yap inrapxnv p.~v 7TaV'Tt rep E TO A. orav TWV r Kai Z Tav-rov n A'1~Ofj. TOfirO S' {crraL 10 J.L£ClOV, o.Kpa. OE 'TO AKa, E· y{vETat TO 7TpWrOV crx:1ip.a. ~ f ., .J.8-'l1 TaVTOV. " ,.. OE ~. TWt\ OE, OTav 'TO• r Kat. 'TO. H'1\'10/ TOV'TO TO\"~oxaTOV crx:1iJ.Ul . IL/CIOV yap TO H y{VEraL. p.'YJoEvi 8E, Orav ro LI Kat Z 'Tatirov. oUrw 8~ Kat TO 7TpWTOV axiilLa Kat TO p.iClov. r6 lL~v 7TPWTOV OU8EVt Tep Z inrapXEL TO A (E't7TEP aV'Tt3S
ota
p.r,
E'
on
ow
on
aWTw' ASCnAl :ToABd :Twvr 21T~]TOB tmapXnvn 28 29 Vnap{t:~ + To a cr 31 av.uoytu!-'os ABCAI: oavMoYla,.,.osdnPc lL~vom.C t: ACAl.feceruntBd:TJurp 320.1 fecit B wapxo C .,.0 ~~v yap fP+ 1I"allT' C 33 TO 'J} C 34- 5 ~v • • • Tfj BAIP: Tfj Ko.96'\ov KaTTJyopt9- ,",v ACdn 39 TO.' om. n bI wapX11 n 9 Ka'+Twv C 13 Kat TO' C 1I'PWTov+ tO'Tal nI' 14 T01] Kill TO C
T~ AI: ~wv codd.
c
28. 44'21-45'8
Z
~.J., TO\ O'TEfY1fTI.KOV ') ' OlE .' crrpE'F1. J 7'0
0'1"1. 76 Ll rip ply A
oU86'~
" ., tmapXEW, OTo.v 'TO' A ~
Tip
O£ E
1TaV'TI.' A -rCfJ 1TClV'Tt
E
J
i 'TO'<;:0' OlE JUGOV IS
im&.PXno
7W~ o~
p.-r,
".l ... ~\ • 01 Kat'H 'TaVTOV U . -rOWO OlE TO EOXa-
TOV fJ}fjjJ.W.' 'TO fL£v yap A oOS£v~ TciJ H inrdP,EL, 'TO at E 'lTaVT(' 'Tip H. cpav£pOv ow 0-,., out 'reVv 1TPOEl,fY1lJLlvwv "X']p.ciTwv ol ovlloywp.ol miV'TES Kat on OUK EKA€KTEOV roo. 20 wauw E1TETat., out 'TO fL'1J0Eva ytyveafJaf, UVAAOYLUp.OV E~ avTWV . Ka'TaUKEOO{UV fL~ yap O'.\WS' OUK "7v EK '7"'WV E'TrOfLEvwv, a1TOC1'TEp€LV o· OVK EvS£x£Tal. 3M. 'rOV wil(nv £1Toplvov' 8Et yap Tip fL& mrapXEW 'Tip Ot fL~ im&'PXEW. m • '" \ \., , . , \ '\ '.1. ... \' -vavepov OE leal. OTI. at aNlal. UKE'f'EI.S' TWV Ka'Ta 'Tas 25 J
EKAOytlS a:Xp€to(, 1TpOS' 'TO ?TotEiv av,uoywp.6v, oTov lEt ro rnOJ.LEVa EKa"dptp 'TatiTd E(]7W ~ El ors E7TE7"aL 'TO A Ka(. a fLT] MIXE'Ta(' Ttp E, 1j &7a 1TaAW fL~ iyxwpeL EKa-rEfMf' tmapx£t.v· ou yap ,,[vETaL uvMoywp.O~ Sui 7"01irwv. E' p):v yap -rel i1Top,£JIa -rau-rct, otov 'TO B Kat 'TO Z, -ro p,Eaov 30 ylVE-ra, oxijJ.Ul Ka77J)'Op'KOS EXOV -ra~ 1Tpo-raaEI.S· 0' or~ mETa' TO A Kat a. J.L~ a,sEXE'Tat 'Tep E, olav 'TO r Kat ro e, 'TO 1TPilYrOV axfjp.a C17'Ep7}'TI.K~V EXOV T1jv 1TpO~ ro tAa'T-rov aKpov 7rpO-raaw. o~ ooa fLTJ lv8EXE'7UI. EKd-rlfXP. olav J
E'
E'
'A".e:. , ... .l..J. t 'TO £.J Kal. TO '0', U'TEfY'J'T'Kal. al-"'F'TEp«' a, Tip 'TrpciJTcp 1] €v 'Tep piacp oxr1fLa'TI., oVrW~
I
.... ." EV 35 ouoap,WS' av..\-
7rfKYTaoE'~,
0'
AoyloUJJo&, • ~71"ov OE Kat ;n., &wow 'Tavrn A-rprrEOV Ta KaTa -rfJv E1TlUKE!fW, Kat oUX chrot'a ETEpa 1] €vaV'Tf.a, 7rp'i7rrov /-LEV "'YJcp9~val. ~aV'Tta 1] f'~ EvoexoJ.'£JIa ,.. .,.. t , " , . . • Tep 4trTcp V1TapXnv, Et~ TOVS' 1fPOE'fYYlfLEVOVS' a7rana avax8-r]uETal. T,mrOVS', otov 'TO B Kat 'TO Z Evav-rta i} P-TJ -EvOixE'TCll. Tip ath-ep inr&'PXEW' ina, p£v yap To1irWV A'T}- 5 .1.8' " ,., -.~ \ 'TWV ... E 'TO'A V1TapxEt. f' 1"" 'f' EVTWV UVN\OYWfLO~ OTI. OVQEVI. aI\I\ OUK ~, av.rwv ill' EK TOiJ 1TpoEf,fYYlplvOV Tp01TOV' TO yap B -rep fJ-€V A 1TaV'TL -rep oE E otiSEvi inr&'p'EI. · WaT' ci.vctYK7l TaVTo
E'
b21 JE awwJI] ap.,po'rJpaS' 'raS' n
if awwJI aui "rWJI d : 3ui 'rWJI tP
26 1I'0'';;O'a, d 31 "raS'] 33 'ro1 om, A o;rip.a] iO"rcu axijp.a n: o;ril-'a la'ra' r 360v3ap.wS'+ IO"ra,nr 3B O''r' All : om. codd. rAlP 'raw« AIJZC2dnAIP: "rav'ra BCr 'ra om. (;2pe 39 OUx codd. P, coni. Ai: om. rAlYp 40 fn40'IwplS C . 4s a l Kat EJI QO'o,s n : EJI QO'O'S' r 3 anall Al Bd: a1l'al"l"GS' B'- Ale 4 'rot. om. n 6 E TO om. d 8 TO ~JI B
ANAAYTIKt:lN JIPOTEPt:lN A
Elvat. 'TO B TtVL 'Tip e. [1Tc£,\W El 'TO B KaL H p..~ o/xWpEi. 10 'Tip ai'n-ip 7TapE'iva~, 6Tt 7"l.V' Tip E OUX tmap~E' 'TD A· Kat yap oiYrw~ 'TO jdaov €crraL crxiifLO-' orO yap B Tip fJ-€v A 7TavrL Tip BE E otWEV' inr&p~€L' a;C'T' dvayK7} 'TO B rav.rov 'TtY,
e. 'TO yap
ElVtU 'TWV
fL~
lv8/XEu8at. 'TO B
'TO H
Kat
Tip awEpeL Tj 76 B 'TWV 9 'TWL 'TaVIS'TOV elva,- 1TaVTa yap EtA'I'}1T'Tat. ra. p.-ry EVSEX0f.LEVa. 'Tip E
inrriPXEW.] <PaVEpOV OOV 0-,£
Eg
.1.
\ '\
,~"
au.rwv po, 'TOVrwv 'TWV E'TTL{3'A/I.
~,.
I
€vavrla, raifT6v ,
L'l
I
TWL t'l
e
Elva, 'TO B 'TWV
f3'
I
ota 'TOVTWV.
20 UfLOV yt.YVEoOat
Kat
..
~
B
\
Et. TO
'
'Z
Kat. 'TO
'TOil O'VAAOYL-
.,
•
auf.'- aLlin VII 'TOtS' OVTWS E1TtUKO-
Om
7TPOUE7TLf3>..bTHV ru1']v 0'8011 rijs avaYKalas TO AaVOaVE:tv rT]V Tav,.o.n,ra 'TWV B Kal 'TWV e. Tov aVTdv De rp01TOY Exovat. Kat o{ Els 'TO dStivdrov 29 ?TOVl1/,
aYOVTEs GVUoytGfLOL 'TOL~ S€UCTf,KOLS' KUL yap ov,.o, ylvov25 TU' Sta TWV €'Tfop."'WV Kal "
.1,
•
€'TfLaK€'fLS
• .,.J.,.,-
£v
a~
TOU dSuvaTOV
Eun
tv·
<\
0
olS' \
yap
E7TerUt EKaT€pov. I
~
O€LKVV'TUL
uv>J..oyluaa8at
Sui
30
E
imcipX€t ,
K€la8w
aVn) \
KUI.
~
\
ota
TWV aVrwv opwv, Kal
;; SLa 'ToO dSvvci'TOV, Kul 8nKTLKWS, olov T0
r,
Kal '"
~
OnK'TtKWS I
D'T(.
'TO
A
ovS£vl
yap nvl inrapx€w' OVKOUV E1TE~ 'TO
A, 'TO SE A nvt T0 E, TO B TLVt TWV E ill' OV8Evt rmfjpx €v. 7Td)u,v 6-rt 'TW;' imdPXH' El yap p:r;SUf. 'Tip E 'TO A. 'TO SE E 7Tan;' 'T0 H. Ov8fVL TWV H imdpg€L 'TO A· illd 7Tan;' inrfjPX€V, oJ.Wlws 8E Ka~ E'TI't
B
7TaVTt 'T0
imdpgn '
_ ."
f3"
35 Stcl 'ToO
d.8vvci'TOV
•\
\ "€araL
'TWV Q.l\/\WV 'TfpO 1l'T)lLa'TWv' aEL yap t , €KaT€pov.
- S' KnKW
T€
\ £v. a7Tauw "
KaL
'Tt)
8EL~LS' lK TWV E7TOP.£VWV KaL ors E7TETat
'f3.'
. , UK€'fLS ',I, ~ KUL\ Kaull'" €KaarOV 7TpO 1l'l')lLa 1]t UV77J O€t-
f3 OVIl0fL6''P \ I
D • • ~, , UVI\I\DYLuauuat. KaL, EIS aovvaTOV aya'"
')'ELV' lK yap 'TWV aVrwv opwv df146TEpat al
a7To8ElgEL!). olov
, V7TapXEW • , - E 'TQ' A ' f3 ' 'TCP • OTL UVIL awn , 'B ' E • , ., " \ .J.D40 KaL TO 'TLVL 'To/ V1TUpXEtV. 07TEp aoVva'TOV" Eall 1l'fJ'f'UTJ •
€I.
~/~ OEOEtKTUL
~ f-L",}OEIIL
.~ ,
119 'T~
r: 'TWY codd.
1Ta).~ .... . 16 U7TapXtty seclusi: habent codd. rAIP Ad 10 'T ciJ! AI: 'TWY codd. II yapl + l(o.~ C 12 'TO r l" BnAi: "1 AJ!lCdP, coni. AI; f: 1' ~ 11 r OtiO(lIi. codd. r AlP: otinll! Waitt 17 01511] /LEY oJy tn, fort. Ai 18 al1ay~ 0' €i] ld.y af ACd: a llaylOj 8d r 1'02 om. n 19 'TOil om. n, fort. Ai 21 'ftpOf:1Tt~>.l7T£t" A 'fttpt08oy d 22 ).o.y8cfy£tv+'I'I'0'TE nr 24 yd.p+ Ko.! C 26 l7T(~).€o/J~s ABd E1T' C 27 atd.] Ko.t 8Ld. nr 29 'T~ AI: ni;v codd. 30 1'~2] 1'WV A BCdrp 3:2 1'0/ P; TWII codd. To/ r: 1'WV codd. 37 tlS+TO n 40 'T~ r Al: 1'Wv codd.
9
Ko.~ TO "1
C
~yxwpii
-rep
28. 45'9-29. 45h32 at A 1Ta.YT~ mraPXELv 'TO· B I t/Jav€pov E 'TO A tnrapgEc.. 1TdAW d 8€~I<-r'KWS UVAA€- 4S b
ply E /LT]8£V~
Tip
O;e. ov861t -rep >t6yLO'TUC. 'TO A -rep E /L7}oevl. tnrapXEw, lmo(hpivOLS imapXELV Ttv/. OLa 'TOV d8vv&TOV oHXflr}UE'Tat. auaEV/' inrdpxov. OfLOlws S~ Ka:7TL 'TWV aAAwv' Iv a/Traut. yap avaYK7] KOtVaV TtVa 'Aa{3e iv 6pOV ruov 'TWV fmOKEtfLEvWV I wpos OV Ecrral. 'TOV 5 .1. '''' f \ \ I ." > ~J. I , ... '1'EVOOVS 0 UVIV\OYwf-LOS, WG'T aV'Turrp"-'-'fEL
'TO
ci8waToII,
eYr, Jv J.L&
'Tep
O€LKnKcp Kar'
"'8£{.o.v at"'rO'TEpac. ... ./..' I >.."..., \ a/\T) n '8 EVTac. 0.1.f 1TPO-rauEtS, £JI DE 'rep HS' TO 10 ci8vvarov IjIEvOWS ~ p.{a. TafiTa fL~ ouv EcrrUC. pJJ}Jtov cpavEpa o£o. TeO" E7TOpivwv. Mav 7TEpl 'TOV dovva:rav >"/yWJl-EV' vvv 8t 'ToaoVrOY -t,p.tV EU'TW of}.>tov, t5'rt. Els 'Talh-a PAE7T7toV O£tK'T'KWS 'TE f30vAOpDCP crv:Uoyt{£uOa, Ktt~ Els TO d06vaTov ayEw. £v O€ 'Tots aMOtS crvX\oytu,uots 'Tots 19 lmOOtaEws, oCav OCTO' Ktt'Ta fU'TclJ,,7J"'tv 7} Ktt'Ta 11ot6-np-a, lv 'TOLS lnrOKE'P.~OLS, OUK lv 'TOLS E~ apxijs d.U.' lv TOtS fLETaAap.{Javo,.,lvOts, lerra, ~ '.1, ~ ... \ , t, \ ... • {3' '.1. • , '1J aKEoyLS UE Tp07TOS 0 aUTos 'T'YfS E11(. I\E't'EWS. E11LUKE"'aaOaL O€ OEL Ka~ ou.>tdv 1Toaaxws Ot 19 lnrOO/UEWS. A' \.,.., ... • LlELKvtn"a, J.LEV OVV EKttcrrOV TWV 1TpO{3"1\7Jl-'a'TWV OVTWS, EC17L o€ Ka~ aMov 'TPWOV EvLa crvX\oytaauOat TO&rWV, olav a', 0 ' 'T'YfS " ',n '.1. '" tnTO8' 'Ta, KauOI\OV ULa KUTa" I-'EpOS E'TTLtH\EoyEWS E50 EUEWS. , , ' r ' 'H , \ " , ~\ '.L8 ' " E(' yap 'TO KaL 'TO 'Tavra H"l, p.oVOLS UE 1\"l'P EL,? TO'S H 'TO E tnraPXEW, 1Tavr~ Tip E 'TO A tmapxo,' Ka~ 'TTelALV El 'TO LI Ka~ H -rain-a, I-'OVWV o~ 'TWV H 'TO E KU" ., OVUEV, '.... \ T
°
nv
ow.
b3 1'U/1 Bet ut vid. AlP: om. ACdn 4 avay~+1'0~S' 8£' a8vvaTOv n B 7 8€u('1'£l(wS' d €'(11'£ B 8 0'1 om. C II ifJ€v8~S' d 12 Il-MAOV ~av£pdJ1'£pa Cd 14 1'aVra C2 AI: 1'tlV'T(l ABCdnr povAo.uJvo£s nr IS a.Y4"£~V ABCd 16-17 olav • •• 7To£on],r4 codd. r ALP: sed. Maier 20 Sf om. n1 a€~ om. A 24 1'0 .•. 1'0 nAl : 'Ta ••• 1'0. ABCd 26 'TO AAl: 'To. BCdn p.ovov Cd n1 nr 27 'To/ AI: 'TWV codd. 31 d om. n
5
i(l'n
15
20
25
30
ANAAYTIKQN lIPOTEPQN A
O'TI.
OHK'Tat yap
.
, ow.
Kat
'TOth-WV ytl'E"Tat
OfLOl.WS
OVAAoytO'J.LOS. 35 yop";'v.
d 'TOU u81XEa8CU a.:uWV KQ'"1-
f/JaVEpDv ovv EK TWV £lp'T}p.ivwv ou /-Lovov ;;.,., EYXWp,zt aUl TaVrr]s rijs 0006 "lVEu8at 1Tdvras 'TOUS ov,u,OYWJLOVs, ci.Md. Kat UrI, 8,' l1»..T]s dOtivaTOV. d7Tas J.L~ yap crvAAoYLUJU>S 8l0£tK'Tal. Sui 'TwoS' TWV 1TPOEtprjpivwV fT)(J'Jph.TWV Y'-
40 VOfLEVOS', TaiiTa 8' aUK EYXWPEI. 8,' lliwv OVO"TO.8ijv«r. .".>"~v our. 'TWV E.".opivwv Kat orS' E1T£Tat EKaaTOV' EK 'ToVrwv yd.p
46- at
'"fXYTaOE1S
Kat
rov plaov A:iil/ltS', Wen' OVOl ovUOY'-
~
UfL6V €yxWPEI. ylvEafJat
fH /LEv
ow
000S'
8,,' ci'AAwv. Ka-ra
1TaVTWV
~ attn} Kat. WEPt.
tP'- 30
Aoao4>lav Kat. 1TEpt Tl-XV''lV 01TO(.(lVOVv Kat. ,ro.OTJpa· OEt yap 5 -rei inrapXOV7'a KaL orS" Vm1.PXE, 1TEPt. EKaTEpov dfJPEtv, Kat TOtfrWV "d'T'TW Ka~ ~p"'JLivQ. #ca8' £KQcrrov aE EKAtYEW 'TWV 6V'TWV. olav 7rEP~ aya80v 7} E1T~fLTJS" '{8,n, aE KnO' EKdCTTTJv aZ 1TAEUrrU'. 8,,0 'TOS \ ., \ \. . , ' \ _ .... _5:._ .. ILEV apxaS' 'res WEpt EKUcrroV EJL1TEe.pWS Eern 1Tu.yuvvvvaL. >..tyw a' orOV ."ryv acrrpo>..oy£KT]V JL& EIL1TEtplav rijS' acrrpoAOY'20 KfjS' E1T£~ILTJS' c>. #lvrwv yap lKavwS' TWV cfxuvophwv oVrwS' Eupt8"fjCTav at «crrpo>"OY'Ka~ ci.1ToaE~EtS'). 6fLOLwS' aE KQ~ '1TEP' ..." . . .EXEC. . . .'TE)(VT}V , ',. I 1\'YJ'f' 'A.B"'ll WV\"fjV 07TOlaVOW 'TE Kae.\ E1TWT7}JL'YJV' wcrr"EQV \ , , \ • • , ...5i:,... 'To. V1TapXOV'Ta 1TEP' EKQ<1'TOV. 'YJIU'TEPOV 'YJv'l 'TQS' a1TOOEl.!,Et.S' " ' .. ,,1._ 't '\ ~ \ \ I' , EorotJU.US' E,....,...,..V'~EW. Et. yap fLTJO& KQ'TQ TY)V 'CT'T0PlaV 1Tapa25 AE'4>8El"fj 'TWV OATJ8wS' VrrapxoV'TWV 'Tots 1TpO.yp.aCTW, £eop.G' I
•
_ ~
,~
h34 S'+Un nr 46-3 piflo8oi n S€Kc1Tt:poV ABCdnAI: E/(aCTTov mu: Ale 12 'lTavra C 13 aUTa A 1(41 avaaJl'nra{ovrt:i om. A 14 Tt-] 'TO n 16 Kal Kafl' n 17 tSta, ALP: 18(", codd. Ko.O' AC2dnAI: Kol KOO' BC l.K(lCTTOV n a1 AI: t:lall' a.i codd. r
EKacrrot' €/(c1TfPOJI
18 EI«(laTOV + S,' d i'ITU1T~~?1 ACld
24
19 a(TTpovo~,q" i~'lTnplav Cd 'lTapo.>.l1?6fj d1 : 1tOpo.>.1Jq,Ot:tl1 n 1
Tjj t1.crrpo>'UY'Kfi
'1TEP' a7TaVTOS 00 8EI.KVVval.,
Ka8oAov
31
p,a, EcrrW
a1T68E~'S'~ 'TuOn]v EVPE'iV I(a~
a1TO"
ou at p..fJ '"€tfoVK£V am58er.e,S'. 'Toiho ?TOtErV ~aVEpOv. JL~
oOv, Bv SEt
TplmOV
'TOS '7Tpo-rri.ans EKA,f-
ynll, E'prrrul. OXE86v' 8,' axp'PElaS BE 8teA7JAV8a/-LEv £11 rfi 7Tpo.YJ.W.TElcf rfl 7TEp2 rr)v SUIAEKTLK7]V. 30 .(h, 8' ~ Sui TWV Y£JIWV 8w.lf1£ms I-UKpOV 'n POp,,01l ~S' ElfYTlp.brJs- 1U80&v, Mawv D)E'iV' EOT' yap -? 8mtpEoTov da8EVfJs at....Uoywp.Os· 0 }La, yO.p 3d 8EtgaL o.lTEtTa" avAAoyt,ETU' 8' aEl 'n TWV aVWOEI/. 7TpWTOV 8' av-ro
EUT'
(lLS'
E).E>"~8£t. TOllS
XpwpbovS' ainfj 7TallTas, Kat 7Tf:t8£w 35 oUotas ci1T&.iE~U-' YEv/aBat Kal 'TOU -rt tUTtV. tOOT' OVrE 6 .,., MiX€'TaL uvMoyluaa8ru. ow."POVplVOLS' g1JVtECTav, otn-£ OTI. o&rws evE8'£XeTo CJxnrEP fiZfYIIKufL£v. £11 p1v oW TaLS' d.7TOOE~EC1tv. Mav Sirl .,.., UVAAOytoa.q{JQ.L tnr&'pXELv. SEI: 'TO p,iuov, ~h) 00 "lvETa' 0 ovMo- 40 y,a~S'. Kat 1j'T'TOV ad Elvat Kat p:~ KaOoAov 'TOU 1tpW'TOV 46b TWV aKptov· ?j o~ 3l.O.tpEa,s To?JVOJI'Tlov {300).,ETat.· TO yap KaOo).,OV ).,aJL!3avEl, piaov. ecrTW yap ~" 00 A, TO ~, A _ ' ~.I.~ '.I.' ov'" r , 0~~, ., 1I OE .,.,'/' Oil E't' OV'" B ,Kat."8' a avaTov E't' 0 avufXU?rOS, 00 TOV AOYOV.BEt AaJ3Eiv, E4>' 00 TO.d. anav &t, {<pov 5 AaJLl3dvE' 1j 8vrrrdv ij o.O&vaTolI· roVro 0' E(]TtV, 0 all U A, CiTrav Elllo, 1j B Tj r. 1Tc£).,W 'TOV /ivOpw1tov o.E' o,a'pooJL6'OS T{OETaJ. ~cpov Elvat, Wo-rE KaTa TOU .d TO A AaJ4MIIEt inrapXELV. 0 JL& 03... UVAAOYW,ws E(lTtV 00-1. TO .d Tj B Tj r a-rrav ., • , ., 8 .. A_' \"'8 ' , EO"Ta,. W(lTE TOV av fKtJ7TOV '1 .,v,/TOV fUV '1 a ovaTOIl avay- 10 Kawv ElvaL, {cpov Ovrrrov oE OUK o.lIaYKatov, a.M' ai'TEha,' TOVrO ~II 0 E8E' av).,,\oyWaa8aL. Kat 1Td.\W O€JLEVOS TO JL~V A ~<pov iJvrrrovI Eq,~ ou OE TO B ti7r01TOVII, lq,' 00 3~ '~1 ., 8p
TOiiTo
ETr£XElpoW ~
OVTOS' OVYa'TOV 1TEpt
o·
, r .,
1
')
..
ron
a26 1TaIlTO~ n z8 1l~J/ om. d Z9 J):"M9all£V cf1 30 &Mf"~)I' A 3~ iSf"iv fecit n 36 ylJlf"u9ru ABCd 37 0""' codd. AlP: OT'
ivSiXf"a8fU d 38 lna.lpov,uvol' scripsiJ fort. habuerunt ALP: Slalpovlll:VO' AB: S'~POVIl'VOVS dn, fecit C, fort. ALP 39 Sly nAl: af.,,1'ru ABCdr b3 ~
Waitz
r
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A
&) 'TOP "penToII dEL 8,atpovp.bol,s 'TO /kEIl KaOoAol1 avpf3alvEt. am-oZs piuov Aapf3&.V£l,V, KaO' 00 ~r €DEl. ?ki~at ~ .J......'" 1,\ ~I "8 Kat. 'Tas OUJ.'Fpas ul<pa. TEI\OS DE, on 'TOUT E0'7W av punTOS
20 Kal 'Towall I
..
,
.,
...
'5'
r
•
......
,~
I
\
"
.L \
'\'
.,
•
7J 0 "n. 1707" av TI TO s7JTOUP.£VOV, OUOEV "€}I0vaL aa'j'ES (OaT avaYKatov E"Xva, " Kat yd.p T7JV o»"7JV 0'8dv 1Tot.olWral. 7Taaav, .,..,
\
''''
I
•
I
•
R
'\
I
•
I
250UOE 'Ta!> €IIUExop.£vas €V7TopmS' U7TOl\af-Lt"UVOVTES tmapXELV.
Wavepov S' ,
on OUT' dvaaKEvdaat TaVrn rfj J-l-E068cp
{:l ,Q
?rEP'
I
.. ' TJ. . . . .W£OV
UVfLfA:t"'YJKO'TOS'
,'\
ECfTW, OlYrE 8 • " OUTE 'lTEpt. ye<.VDt i} ciJ31. EXEL, otov
I
O'VlV\oyLaaa at,
vouS', oUr' €v ars ciYVOEL'TaL 'TO 1TOTEPOV dp' ~ owp.erpos dcnJlI-fLE'TpoS' 17 aVpp.eTpos. · lav yap 'Aaf3!J WI, U:1Tav 30 fLijKOS 7} uVfLfLETPOV 1] aaVfLfLETpOV, OVAAEAOytU7Ut daVfLfLETpOS 7} ~,
1
TpoS.
OE
E(.
'\ '.1.
on '.1
'\
l\'Y'JyIETar.
,,,,,
-!; DE St.dftETpOS
.,
<\,,~
aavILfLETpOV J -Co
~
•
p:ijKOS,
~ 8u:1.fLE'\ '\ , 8 O'Vl\I\oy,uua ar.
aVfLf.LeTpOS 0
,
EOEr. \
~~
,
.,
~
,
1\'Y'J'f'ETar.. OVK apa ECT'Tr. oEt~at · 'Y'J IJ.€v yap OOOS atrMJ J ota , ." •• , ..., • Tatn7Js 0 OVK EO'TW. TO aavppE7poV 'Y'J avpfLETpOV E~ ov 35 A,' fLfjKOS B. OulfL€TPOS c/>avEpov oW OTE. OVrE TrPOS Tra'.1. apfLO~H • 'r 7"Y'jS '" ...r ' ~ I ",. l' , uav UKE€t[EtS y{vov-raE. Kai. TrWS, ~,
.J....-~
r.
at
Ka,, •
, .Er.S
'"
TWV
40 EK
( ... O1Tor.a
Q'\' fJAE'l1'TEOV
"
E'P'Y'J~WV '
l ' .'f'aVEpoV I.' I<.a 8" EKaG"TOV 7TpO' { A'Y'J!-"'2.
...~,
1TWS 0
• .t Co avu,sof-tEV
•
'\ '\
,.
TOVS O'VIV\OJI,up,oVS EtS
47- 7(1
1TP0E(.P'Y'JfL€vu ax:fJfLCLTa. AEKTtOV av E''Y'J fLETa Tawa' Aot,,1TOV yap €TE. TOWO rijs UK'ifJEWS. El yap -n7V TE y€vEUW TWV av>..A.oytO'J-LWv f:hwpoif-tEV Kal TOV EVplaKEW €XOtfL£V l>vva-
oJ
jJ.w. ETI. TOVS YEyEVfJfL€vOVS a.VaAVOLf-tEV Els Td 7TP0El"fY11/Ltva , ''\'''''. 'Co , . . . '8 Q ' 5 UXTJfW.Ta J TEAOS av €XOI. 'Y'J E~ ap)(Y}s 7TpO EO'LS. UVfLfJ7JUE~,., \ " l , . Q .R - 8 Tal" 0 ap.a KaL Ta 7Tp07'EpOV E'P7JfL£va E7TLfJEfJuLova aL Kat' >aVEpWTEpa dvru OTE. ovrws €XE(" SLd TWV vw AEX87Juotdvwv- SEt ydp 1TaV TO d)..7JO~S ath-a JaV'Tcp dp,oAOyotffJ-EVOV E-lvat 7T'(i:VT[}. 10 IIpiiYro~ [LJv OOy 8Ei Tr€tpauOat Tds SVO 'TtpOraUELS JKAafLi3dvE(,V TOV UVMOYUlfLoV (pq.ov ydp els 'To. fJ;EtCw OtEAeiv 7) EAaTTW, /Mt,w SJ rd aUYKEt[L6Ia 7} Eg cl)v).
'Tn
21 41iTovS n SE Sf:i' Cd; at Uo, n: at B: AoytuaaOo., rJ.1 28 WSf: Cdn : 0'7" WSf: A '1 wSl scripsi: ~ Waf: BCdn; om. A 29 ,~ ,avp,p.npos om. ACd 31 O'Tt + 1i n ~ a"Lf.'f:'TpoS om. n 33 alJ'TT] n 34 €a'T,+af;~CU Cn aVf.'f.'erpov .jj aov/-,/-,erpov Cn: oVIl-f.'erpov a. {J. y. ~ a.ovf.'f.'erpov r 35 B] icp' ov {J C r] icp' OV Y a. {J. y. C: y a. {J. y . n 47a2 'T~s] 'TO Tijs ABICld 3 OEwpoiiiUv d II p'fovC2nrAlP: pq.w A BCd 12 i~] 'To. if nr WV+OVyKO'7'CU A2 b 20
~aH
r
aE C
/Cal om. B
27 ~]
'7"
~ n
32
Ev OAcp
elTa. O'K07TEiv 'lTO'TEpa ".. ../..;., ELI\'1)/J-fLcvat ~\ , p:Y}, a~
1
Kat 1Torlpa
"
E fEY,
aUTO)) 'Tt
8Eva, I
lv piPEt,
Kat,
'~I
'T'Y}V
)
ETEpaV.
fEZ
,
eVW'TE
, 7"'1]V '8 I \, I • '\ f3' yap Ka OI\OV 7TpOTEwaVTES 77JV €V 'TaVT'{} ov l\ajL avou- 15 '\ "
(]W..
,:../..
".,
OtrT€ i'P""f'0V'TES
a,'
vova,..
o'
eLv
OVT
-
, 7J.. 'Tav-ras;
EpwTWV'TES'
\
fJ-EV
I
7TpOTEL-
&Ma
atTnc, 7TEpatvov-rat., 7TapaAe{1Tovaw,
o~ p.O.77JV '-pwrwaw. UKE1TTEOV oOv d n TTEptepyov eiA7]1TTaL Kat. eZ n nov avaYKatwv 7TapoJ..lAEL1T'Tal" Kat 'TO fLO, BETEOV \
~'.!.l.
'TO
I
u..>.palpE'TEOY.
0
If
EWS"
"\8D
..
av
£1\
•
EtS'
\
'TQS
~ I
ovo
,
1TpuTaUELS' 20
d.veu yd.p 'Tom-wv aUK €(rnv avayayeLv TOUS oVrwS' ~PWTTJI..dvovs >"6YOVS' . EvtwV JL& DOV MaW)) iSE tv 'TO Evoe's .. €vI,ot. S~ AavOdvovcn Kat. l>oKovat. av>J,.OY{~EaBat. Sui 'TO avaYICaLOV 'Tt OVfLf3at. I "" . JEt.'1} . .fLTJ 8ovat.as ' I " .ava,povj.£E-I YEW EK 'TWV KHJLEJlWV, OW)) £1." 1\1}-r JI1}S' JLTJ avaLpEtafJat. ovalav, 19 eLv S' €O'Tiv dvat.povfLEVWV, Ka~ 2S , A..8' _ .lI , , 8' , TO,~€K TOVTWV 'f' £l,pEuua(.· TOVTWY yap TE EV'TWV avaYKawv P.EV TO oualac; plpo~ €lvut ova{av) ou p.~V avMEA6yW'Tut aut. TWV ELATJI-l..p.bwv, J..\\' EAAE{TToVat 7TponiaE('C;. 7TcL\W El av8pcfmov OV7'OC; avaYK7J '0011 Elvat Ka~ C4>0v ova{av, avOpcInrov OVTOS avaYK7] ovulav Elvat-" J..\\' OV7rW UVME).,0Y(.(]"Tat-" ou yelp 30 >I t I >I Exovaw at 7TpOTaUEtC; wc; E t7To/.uw. 31 "A7TaTwp.EfJa a' lv TOLe; TO(.- 31 06TOtC; otel TO avaYKatov n uvp.fJa{vEW EK TWV K€LplvWV, &-1, Kat '& qvMoytaj.LOs avaYKUtOV EaTtY. E7Tt 7TAEOV OE TO dvayKawv ~ & uvMoytup.6S' · 0 fLEv yelp avMoywp.oS' was avay" KUWV~ 'TO 0' dVUYKULOV ou miv ovMoytup.oS'. WO'T' aUK EZ n 3S ' .Tt8'EVTWV TLVWV, - '11"€LpaTEOV I 'f _"~,I OVf'-.f3aLVEL. avaYEW €V'8' US'. W'\Ila 1TPilYroV A'1]1T'TEOY Tas Suo 1TpO'TaaEtS'. dO' oVrw aW(.pETEOV ElS' 8 ' .J......-. I TaUS' opoVS', f-LEUOll OE" ETEOVTWlI opWV TOll EV afLrr' EpalS 'TatS' TrPOTriaEU(' AEyOP.O'OY· avayK'l'J. yelp TO plaov €v afLA.."..,.j ., • I 'f'V' 'CpatS V7T'apX€LV 0' aTraut TOtS' O")(fJfLQ.CTLv. 'Eav /-LEV oov 40 KUTf(YOpfj KU~ KaTTJYopitrat TO f'EUOV, ~ av-ro fLEY KaT'1}- 47 b " , , ....." ..... yopjj, 0AA0 S' EKEWOV aTrupV'1}Tat, TO TrpwTOV EUTat. UX'Jf.UL' ~
\
' ' ' ' \
, . ,
...
-
ABdn IS 1Tp
polT} B
"1",8/YTa
2
EaTw d
ANAAYTIKDN npOTEPDN A
lav S~ Kai KaTrfYOpfj Kat a7TapvfjTat. &.170 'TWOS', 70 IJiaov' EaV 3' rua EK£lvov Ka'TTJ'YopfjTat., ~ 'TO pEV a:1TapvfjTat. TO 5 OE l(arrr;o~Tat., 'TO €OXaTov. 01n-w yap E1XflI EV £Kacrrcp oxrJp,aTl. TO piaov. op.oUus dE Kat lav J.L~ Ka66Aov
,\
"'" ' yap avroS' mop'upos
0
....
TOU
I ..L.... \ .,. fJ.€oov . , 'Y'-"VEPOV ouv
wS' b c;, >"6ycp p.TJ AE'YETat. ram-o 1TAc:ovaKt.S, OTt, ou ylvETal. ovMoytu,.,,6s· ou yap ECA1'}1T'Ta(. ~uov. EnE' S' ;X0p.£v ?TOtOP "~I
EKacrrcp
10 EV
,
,
J U}(Y]p,aTt.
'TO
fLaToS' ,MUOV
0'\
I '1T€p«W€Tat.
••EV
.... TWV
, 'TO\ EV t ,., ,'J f3" I EtS' awanG. 'Tn O)(f}fw:ra. AE7T'TEOV,
'Tt.VL
Ka OI\OV
Els 'TO
Kat
1TOUP
"'€V.
.."......VEPOV
_. \ , . ,
'Tt'Epatverat.,
ON\aKtS'
Om ro
I
I
'_",,_D
T
ow
a1Ta7U.UVa('
\
uvp., aWEt.
'.J.' .. r
,
"
aVK
'Tt'pojJH7J-
rfj
TOV
\ 33 Aoy,Up.oVs avaYKawv, (VC17T€P E'tprrrm 1TpOT€poV, EVtOTE o~ 1Tapd .,.;,v ofW,6-rrrra -rijs 7(011 opwv 8EuEws' OwEP au XtrlJ Auv8dvE'V ~p..Os. atov El T6 A KaTa TOU B AEY€Ta, Kat 'T6 B Ka'Ta TOU r · o6~n€ yd.p av o&rws EXbJI'TWV TWV opwv Elva, zo ovMoywp.os, ou "tvETa, 0' ov-r' avaYKaLov ouoEv oV-r€ avMo, , ,EOTW yap , €~ '.I.'" " .Hva,. , '.I.'''' ~ \ B • ywp.os. if A TO' an Eop cp O€ OUl, '.of ~, '.of , -" sw. 'TO' vOTJ'TOS np'OTofi£V7}SJ 'TO 0 Eop if npw-rop.fV1}S. ~7] ES VII A Tip B inrapxew' aet yap EOT' SUlV07]TOS_ tJip,Cn-op.~~. "a.uc:l Kat 'T6 B 'Tip r · <> yap ~pw-roplvrjs lOTt OUlVO'T}'T6S ~, 25 '.of npurrolMVflS. TO 0~'A TepovX V7TapXe,' op aPToS' yap EOTW <> '4PLOTOjd"'1S , ou ydp . Eytvero ov,\,\oy,O'p.6S' oU-rWS EX0JI'TWV TWV opwv. ill' ;Se, Ka8oAov ~v A B A7]>8ijva, 1TptYroOW. -r:C?Yr0- g~ ",eugos, .TO yap MtKKaAOS lun fLOVO"KOS -'" \ Ka'\ 'TO\ A TOV- B . .I.e I \.." ' -, M 'KKaAOS. atV\a op EtpO'TO yap av avpc.ov fWvmKos MtKKaAOS . TO OE yE A 'Tof] ",fUOOS'. 'TOVTO ~ ,,, I 35 V'I 'Tavrov EUT' 'Tep 7rpoTEpoV' OV' \ yap' , aft'l] 0'ES" Ka Ol\OV, M' '1('KQAOS' fWVULKOS OTL ~ E'PE'TCL' avpwv ' 'TOV'TOV OE p.7J 1\7]O&rO< O~K .)v avMoy,uf'6s.
IS
f3 '
Kat., t Ell , ,
WS'
,R}'
J
EKacrrov
WV\
Daa 0' EV 7TAEWu'
OlKEWV.
BEuEt. yvwpt.oiifL6! 'TO 0')(Yjp.a.
n '\'\ '
/3'"
'"po l\1jfW:TWV, I ..L... •
P.EpEt.,
WEpt
TOVS
O"VI\-
e'
r •
.J.e'
,
r
-,
·".J.e '
4 Ka'T'l1Y0pf~'Tal B 8 AE'Y'I7al Ad 17 8lacws A] 'To, a A 22 'To, • •• 'Ap,a7o"uVT/S om. n1 23 24 IDa. • • • "AP"noflv",S om. n1 25 8'+),c [p. 27 8., n 29 "ApurrOfl'l'1I BnAI 30 MlKaX>.OS 34 ¢tni8os+a. p. y. nr
h3 Ka'Tfjyopol"fJ A 'TWV opwv C 21
EO'fW+O n 26 OUK «po. n
d, ut solet
"
r e" ' ' ' ' \ .,
At'!rrJ I
wS'
\
yap
32. 47b 3-3S. 48'32 p.€v oW >i &..,,0.""1 yiverru. b _'.(:0'
OVOEV
~._.l.J
I...
O~PO"
Et1TE"W
_fr;::,
'TOO€
••• ~
TcpoE
"rep f
TTapG "",pOv· ..!t' 'TOOE
I
vrrapXE'" TJ
34 -r
?'TolldKtS' Sf: SUJJ/JEV- 40 OEu8af. avP.1T€O'E"iT4t 'Trapo. TO p'TJ KaAWS EKTl8EC18m TOVS 48Kam rryv 1TpCn-aUtV opovS'J orov El ro pw A EZ7J irytna, 'TO '.L' c.p... B1'00'05', ' 'oL'''' ~\ r av'fXAY1ToS'. •0 " 0ES'' " o~t E-y E'fJ c.p QE aATJ yap Et?TEiv 5-rt ro A oV8EVt 'TCP B &0ExET41. inr&.pXnv (OVSEf.U4 yap v6acp VylnG, lnrapxEf.). Kat 1TaAW 6,-(. TO B 7Tavrt -rep 5 r tmapXEt (miS' yO,p aviJpw1TOS' OEKTtKOS' vOuov). 3~E'EV av .. R_' _~, 'viipw1Tt.p fYOEXE" ~_'i:' uIIat vyU'UlV " ow UVP.,.,....U/EW JL'fUEVI. a tJ'TTapXE4V. T'Oth-ov O' a'Toov 'TO ,."", KaAWS EKKEWfJar. 'TooS' opo~ , , ," ., --'.LO' • "., K4ra TTJv AEstv. mEt IUTUI\7J'f' 6"TWV 'TWV Ka'T4 70S E!>EtS' '" ),l._.' f'_ , , \ ... • , 0' aUK EC7'Tat av'\/\lFyWp.oS, OWl' avTt fJ-EV '"IS' lI)'utas Et 1'£ EtT} 10 TO Vyw.ivov &vrt Se rijS' vOuov ro vooow. au yap aA:TjBES' El'TTE"iV WS' OUK a,a/xerol. Tep vououvn ro iryw.lvnv inr&.peal.. I
I
I
I
I
J
'_.to'EVT'OS' ou" ytvETal. atlN\Oj'wjWS', " ' n p..TJ TOU I\,I'P to' ~to' , to' \...J: \ 0 OVK aovvaTOV' EVOEXE7'tU yap p..'fV£VI. avOpdmcp inr&pXEtv irylEW.V. 7Ta.Atv bTl TOV pJuov axlJp.a.'roS' "" \ .1• ..to "t , , .. OfWtWS EU'Ta.£ TO 't'EVOOS' '1'7}V yap vyt.nav vouc.p J.L£V OVOEJLUf av8ptfnrc.p o~ 7Tavrl fi,O/XETal. inr&pxnv, War' oV8£vl o.v8pdnrc.p v6uov. tv O£ Tep Tp{Tcp axrJfLaTt. KaTel TO EvOtXEaOal. avp..Q ' '.1. -~_ \, t' " ,. , paLVEI. TO 't'EVOOS J Kal. yap VYl.EtaV Kal. vouov Ka.1. E7TU177JJ.L'1V Kai ayvol.O.v Kai 6AwS' Tel I:vavrla Tep ath-ep £v8£x,.ETCU • , -', \ " <:0' ~to' .. to" .... ). , 1J7TapXnv J (1.I\I\7]I\Ol.S' 0 aovva'TOV. TOtJ'TO 0 avofIN"Oj'OvfUVOV 'Tots '1TPOEl.fYT)plvol.S· (hE yelp Tep attrep 7T)..EI.w a,EO/XETO inr&pXEW, £VEO/XE'TO Kal a..:u~)..0£S'. <1JavE';'v ow, (hI. Jv o.7Taal. 'TottrOtS 1j o.7T&'"1 ytvertU 7Tapa \ TWV ...., " 0EO.".,' J.LETa/\7]'f' ' .LO'EVTWV yap ..... \ T'r}v opwv EK TWV Ka'TO.• 'Tas fit: .<:0 \ I .1. _.... -\ .,.., " , E~Et.S' OVOEV YWETal. 'f'EVOOS. 07]I\OV OVV 0'7' KaTa Tas rol.O.V'Tas 7TpcrraUEl.S o.El 'TO KaTel -rTJv ;gw &vrl rfjS' ;gewS' f'ETa)..:'-r , KtU'0" ' 1T"TEOV E'TEOV opov. 35 Oti oEt O£ 'TOVS 6poVS' ael {']'TELl' &Vt5fUlTI. EK'TtoEufJW,' 1ToMtiKI.S yap EC1OV'TO.I. )..0,..0, ofs OU KEVral. Ovop.a· 8td Xa"E7TOV aV&YEW TOVS' 'TOWO-rOVS' av,uOYWfLOVS. fi,lo-rE Ot Nal a1TaroaBal. avp.fJl]uerai. oui ~V 'T01.O.~v {'7rr1uw, ofov (hI. 'TWV , TOVTOV
to \ f'7]\ OE
'.0' uIIal.· EVQEXE
I
.. 'rOtJ'TO
\
....
I
15
,,~
~
20
2S
~
bJ8 Evom. A1IPCd 48-3 at om. B 4 TWlo' Pn 18 voaoJl A BCnAIP : ..oao& d: voaoS' coni, Tredennick TtiJ om. A~ TplT
30
ANAAYTIKQN ITPOTEPQN A
dJiiuwv lUTe, avXAoYUJp,&s. ECJ'TW 7'0 A 8V'o dp8at TO l
J
,
~
.....,
a7TOV€£K'TOU OVTOS'. '\
./..
'
\
"
"
't'av€pov yap (rT(, 'TO
~!<:;:,
I
.\\."
1\'Y}1T7'EOV WS' TOO€ 'Tt, a/\I\
EVLO'TE'
'\ ,
I\oyov,
I
.,
•
\
jLf;(JOV OVX OVTWS nEt
01TEP
f3 ' aVfL aLVEL
., Kam,
'TOV AEXOlv'TOS'. 40 To oe tmaPXEW 'TO 7TPtiYrOV Tep piac.p Kat TOVrO Tip 36
"
aKpCP
"aL€L ,
av'~""f3' OE"t I\af/-, aVEW WS
' KO':T7JYOPTJ 0 7JUOf-l-EVWV
_'\\1 a/\/\rr
48b AWV ~ op.olws 70 'TE 71PWTOV TOV jJlaov Kai rofho TOV eoxa'Tou. Kai E7T~ 'TOV p.~ imaPXEw 0' waawwS'. d.\,.\' oaaxws 'TO Elva, A.€yE"'nu Ka~ 'TO aA7JOes El7TEW aVro 'Totfro, 'Tooav-raxwS' oreaOar. XrdJ U7JfL«tV€LV Kat 'TO ImdPXEW. olov 0,.1 5 'TWV Evav-rlwv EaTL Ji-la. E1TLUrrjP.TJ. EG7W yd.p 'T6 A 'T6 J.Llav ,.. " \" -'\\'\ '.J..' ov-~ B . 'TO' .OTJ ' A EWai. E1TW'T"fJfLTJV, 'To. EVavno. atV\iJ/\O'~ E,/" 'Tep B tmapxEt OUX Q)U'TE 'Ttl tvaV'Tla ['T6] fJ-lav Elva, [av-rwv]
on
t1TWrrJfJ-TJV, ill' d}.TJ8ts El1Tt~tv Ka'T' av-rwv J.Llav Elvat awwv t1Turr-!,J.LTJV. 10 .Evp.fJatvEt 3' cht J.Ltv t7Ti. 'TOV plaou T6 'lTPW'TOV A€YEaBw., 'T6 St ft€UOV t7Ti. 'ToO 'Tpl'TOU J.L~ AlyEa8aL, oLov E1 t "".J..' • \. / ... 'i:" • 0 ..... \ ~ .J.I TJ u~,a EC17'W E1TW'7"YJJ.LTJ, 'TOU 0 aya ov EG7LV iJ (J0'f'ta, avJ.L1dpaaj14 8;-, 'ToD aya80u EO'TW J1TurT77fJ-iJ' 'TO J.Ltv S~ aya80v ,,, ., , • 'i:' \ .J.I • \. , • \ ~, \ aUK EG7U1 E7TWTTJj1:TJ, 'T) OE aO'f'La EC17"V E1T'aT'TJJ-LiJ' 07"E OE 'TO 15 J.L~ piaov J7Ti. 7"00 'Tpl'TOV Aly£7"a" 'TO at 7TpCirrov E7Ti. 'TOV jdaov au A€YE7"al., olav E1 'TaU 7TOWO 7TaV'TOS Eanv E7Tf,urrJJ-LTJ 1j waV'Tlov, 'TO 0' ayaB6v Kai. waV'Ttov Ka~ 7Tol.6v. UVJ-L7TEpaajUJ. ph 'ToO a.ya80v EG7W E7Tf,a-rrJfLiJ. aUK EC17" DE 'T6 aya86v E1Tt,crn7fLiJ ouSt 70 7TOLOV ou8£ 'TO wo.V'Twv, dMd. 'TO aya80v 'Tafh-a . 20 EC17" S~ p:r(rE 'TO 7TpGrrOV Ka'Tcl 'TOV J-L'aov p:,p-E 'ToVro Ka'Td 'TOV 'Tpl'ToD. 'TaU 1TPWrOV Ka'Tct 'TOV Tpl'TOV d'Tt JLtv AEYOp.LVOV &r€ DE 1L.fJ AEY0plvOV. otov E1 00 EmO'nJfLiJ EaTW. Eel''"' 'TOVTOV i'tvo~, 'TOO 0' aya.8ov EaTW bTl.a-rrJfLiJ, UUp.11€paafLa 'TOV o.ya800 ECl'TI. rlvos' KaT1]YopEtTa, S' ouab KaT' oUSEV6~. E1 O' 00 EC17'W t7T~JL7J, 25 rlvos JC1'Ti. rotho, TaU a' 0."10.800 Ecrnv E7TLO'7"IjJL'T}. uufL7TEpo.ap"a
on
on
a33 EUTt ABCdP: EOTa, n : om. Ale 0: UVAAOY'Ufl6S' AZep 'TO om. d 34 SE + 'TO A 37 41TOOHKTtKOV ABlCdn yap] ow C2 3 «tho om. nAlc 6 'Ta+li' ASnr €VUvTta+'Toi'S' AlB B] 'TO fJ d 7 WU'Tf" 'T4 lvuvrta p.1a.v EtV(U scripsi. fort. habet AI: WS 'Ta EVUV'Tta (+EUTt nI) 'TO fdav Etva, au-rwv codd. P I2- I3 (U'T£v1 • . • 'TOV om. A1 I2 uOtPta2+E1T'U7~flTJ ABCnAIP 20 liE ABdnr: SE Ju: B2CAIc
'TO + S' C b2 o· om. Bl
35· 48"33-3 8 . 49"18 '7 ~\
TPWOV Kat. br(. TOV JL~ inrdpX€LV )..7)'117-1011.
au
"
I I 'J.7
.L OJ! aVTav VII
yap cUt C17jElva£ 70SE" 70SE", dM' tvm£ -rO f£~ Elva" TOOe 'TOUO£. ~ 700e 'TtfJOE, olov 07-£ olue Ecrn 30 KLvr]crEW~ KlV'fjULS ~ Y£JIiUEWS "beaLS'. ?jooVljs 0' EG'7"W"OtJlC apa -q ~SoV7) ybEG'lS. 7j 7TaAtv OT£ yl)'WTOS p.€v Eun C1T)fLEwv, 0TjfL£tov a' oine E(rn C17JJLE'iOV. WCJ7' 0.0 CTTfI-'r/iOY 0' ytAws. op.otws
p.a{vn 'TO
p.,ry tnrapxEt,v 700E 1"00£ JL.f]
iv QerOLS' aVaLpEL'T(lL TO 7TpO/lA'YJJUL -rep 'TTpoS' aUro 'TO yt-,;oS'. 7TaAW 07-(' 0' Katp6S OUK ;c"rt. Xpovos 8'£Ov' BEep yap KaLpaS' /1.£V €crn, xp6voS' S' OUK • S'EWY S' • 0E
O£
KaV
Tots
ruO(S
)"iYE"cf)al 1TWS'
3S
On'lov Ka£pOY KU' Xpovov Siona Kat 8£ov -rY]v Ot 7Tp(rraULV A7rTT',",OV KU'T (l .,.,ryv 'TOV ovop..aros 1TTWaw. a1TAWS' yap 'ToVro 'AfyoJL£JI Kard. 1Ta.1I'TWV, on TOVS /Ltv opovS' aE' BE-dov KUTd. 40 I
'TaS It'A~UELS'
TWV 6VOfLClTWV, otov tJ.v8panroS' ij aya86v ~ lvavTta, OUIt' av8pcfnrov ~ aya80v ~ lvavrlwv, TaS' OE 1TponluEts 49A.7J1T"T€OV It'aTd Ta$' €Kacrrov 7T'TcfJ(TEtS' 1} yap Cht. TOVTCP, otov TO tuov, ~ Cht. TO-J-rOV, olov TO Ot.1TA.aUWV, 1} OTt. 'rotiTo, olov TO -rVm-OV ~ 6pWV, 1} OTt. om-oS', otov 6 avBpW1Tos {cpov, ~ Et 1TWS' lliws 1Tl7T'T€t. TOVvofLa KaTd T7]v 1Tp6-racnv. S 37 To 0' imdPXEW TOOE 'TepOE Ka~ TO M1]BroEoBat. TOO£ KaTa T01JOE TOUaV'TaxwS' A7J1TTlov 60axws at Ka"T"'Y(Y0ptat. St.?1P7JVTat, Ka~ TatH-a$' 7} 1Tjj 1j &'1TAWs. ETt. 1} &'1TAus 1} ovp.1TE1TA.£YfL£vas· 6J.LOlws OE Kat 'TO fL~ v"apx£t.V. J1Tt.UKE1TTEOV oE Taiha Kat OWPt.CJ7"EOV /3IATwv. 10 38 To S' J7TaVaOt7TAOvfLEVOV lv nits 7TpoTauE'" 'TTPOS Tep 7TPWTCP d.Kpcp BETlov. OU 'TTp0S' Tep piut.p. A./yw 8' otOY €l YEVOtTO OVAAoyt.ufL0S' Cht. rfjs St.KawaVvr,S' EC17't.V l1TtC177}fl-1] OTt. ' 0 'OV, TO\.,an. nya . 0'ov 1]",s • 0' . Tt.p... 1TPWTt.p , 0 ' aya 1I aya ov 'TTpOS €'TEOY. •EC1"TW yap " TO A'E1TWT'YJfl-1J , .,OTt nyn • 0OV. f ~,J.'" ~ \ B ' E.,., cp OE nya0'OV, IS J.p'
y'JIO~
CdnAI: /(").tatil~ AB ni.llaYTla n 49 a3 0,.,1 om . n 4 ~l+'1'O n 8'13 nrAlc; om. A BCd 12 otov]J'1',ABCd 14 '1 om.Cl 15 J.q,' ••• ayaOoll om. n 1
ANAAYTIKDN npOTEPDN A • "'. • - B n WW'\VOLS' . EL DE 7TPOS -rep 'TEU£L1} 'TO OTt. ~
VETa,
20
.1'\
I
...
,
~ A~IJ'
ar ........ OV' QVI(
EC1'TO.L· -r6 p1v yap A KaTa. 'TOV B M1J8i) laTat., orO a~ B Ka-rd 'TOV r OVK QA1}8is EcrT(U,' orO yap clya80v on dya80v KarrrrofJ£LV' rijs; StKawaWr]S' "'eu80S' Kat OU avvE'T6v. 6J.LOUuS O£ \
,
\,
't'
a'
Kat. E'l. TO vyt.£LVOV OELXf7H1]
1-''
.,,,
1
•
J.
OTt EO'TW E1TLC177JTOV U
'
III
..
ayaQOV, 'YJ
Tpayl>.acf>os fJ 0ap-rov fJ 25 a't.u8r}'rov· Ev o:Trau, yap 'TOtS l1Tu
7'
8ES' 3i] 'TO A 'TOU B KarrrroPE'iV' ~v yap imcrnJJJ.7J 'TOU 'TWOS ov.. 'T'\"OV . aJV1.a. .,' \ Ka.t\ 'TO'B TOV• r . TO\ yap , £op 'J.'''' . 'TOS' on "'I'(T17£OV TOOS' OPOVS' . ..dE' 8i Kat /LETaAafLf3dvEl.v TO aOr-o Swa'TOJ., ovo- 39 p.a.'Ta O,VT' ovoJ-Ui'TWV Kat >..6yoUS' aVTt >"6yWV leal OVOlLa Kal. " \.\. \ _\, to 'Q' \ S /loyav, Ka, aEl. ant 'TOU I\OYOV Tovvop.a l\afLfJavew' pftwv yap ~ ..... to II f" ~\ '" J.' • " , T) TWV opwv EIeI7EUtS'. ot.ov E(. J.1.7JOEV O(.Q.opEpE' Et'1TEl.V 'TO V7T01\T}1T"TOV TOV So!acrroO fL~ elvat YEvoS' 7} fL~ Elvat 07TEP ~o.\7J1T'TOV Tt. TO So!aO"TOV ('TaVrov yap TO C1TJJ.1.at.vOJ.1.EVOV), aVTt TOV "\6yov TOO .\EXB£VTOS TO ~O"\1'}1T'TOV Kat TO 80!aO"Tov OpOUS' 8ET£OV. 'E'1TEI.,~, " .EO"Tt. TO\ EUiat. . '.!5: \ • II \ 10 ° OV, TaVTov TTJV IJVOVYJV ayal70v Kat.\ 40 TO elvat rryv -rj80vf]V TO ayaBav, OUX op.otws 8ETEOV TaUS' opo~, aM' el p.Ev €U'TUI " uv"\"\oywp.OS' 0'" -rj -rjoovf] Taya86v, Taya8av, El S' 0,-(, aya86v, aya86v. OVTWS Ka.'1Tt TWV aAA.wv. a2o-I TOI •.• lcrrat om. n 1 : lcrrat om. C 23 E1TtC1T7jTOV £OTW pe:
o.pa
~
It
It
It
a
~I
ALP: 80eaoToII y lJ2 Ale: p..~ 011 Yn 28 Ka, ••• 1T1i om. n i 290.", net ut vid. P : Tt OTt ABC 32 T~ fecit B 33 8~] all n 1}1I] -? n 34 Ti om. n i 36 ciya8ov] Tt 011 8 2 39 orOIl om. An bS pq.OIl n 8 TO] To8E 8 1 ycp+ n n: + icrrt r 9 ATJ",elvros n 13 otn-w E1TtC1T7jT(W n
oll+bo~aO'Tov t:f2
+8Enr
24
y ABCd et ut vid. <1 om. nAle
41
OOK EOT" S~ 'T
,.,v,
aA:1JO€;s el1Tdv o-Tt. 'Tip "EV~4i imdPXEL KaA6V* dAA' OU ?Tant WwS'. El JL€v oW TO A -rep B iJ1uf.pxEI., p:~ 1Tavrt aE Ka8' 00 'TO B, oUr' EI 1TaV'Tt 'Tep r ro B, ow· El f.L6vov tmapxn, ava:YK7J 'TO A 0t?: on 1TaV'Tt, ill' oUS' rmapxnv . EI BE KaB' 00 ~v 'TO B "lrrrroL o):Tj()wS', 'TOwcp 1TavTt im&PXEL, •• 1>' 'A , Ka O'~, •• \' UUfA1.J7JClETat TO OV 1TavroS' TO B I\EYE'TdL, Ka'Ta•
20
au
av
'TOOrov 1TaJI'TOS' ).EyeuOat.. El p.&ro, 'TO A )"IYETa, Ka8' 00 2S TO B )"I')"'Il'T«t Kam ?TamS', ov8~ KWAvn Tip r tmapXEW • B ,1-"1]\ 7TaVTL OE 'TO A T}... OAWS" ,,\ , . .. 'TO 1-"'7, t V1TapXEw. EV V'I 'TOtS' 'Tpwtv opotS' SijAoV on. 'TO Ka8' 00 ro B wavroS' 'TO A AeyeaBaL 'rofiT' Ef17't., Ka8" oawv .,.0 B AEy£'Ta.,~ Ka7a 1T&VTWV A',~"
~
£,
y£u8a., Ka.2 76 A . Kal ,."v, Ka'Ta 'TTa.VT6S 'T6 B, Ka2 .,.0 30 A oVrws' o~ p..ry KaTd 1TavroS', OVK avtiyK'lJ T6 A KaM 7TQ.vrOs. (]V o£t o~ OtEa8a.t 1Tapa .,.0 t./C'Tt8EuOat T' O11p{3alv£tv a'T07ToV" O&S~V ydp 1Tf1OCTXjHiJp.EOa 'Tip 'T' €WaL, c:i.M~ Wvrr£p 0 y£WfdTfY'1S' .,.ryv 1T08utlav Ka2 wO£iav nJVO€ Ka2 35 cbrAarij Elva, AEy€f, OVI( ovaas, ill' oVX oVrwS' xpijTar. wS' t.K "TOth-WV O11,uoyt{o/UvoS'. ,jAws yap 8 fL.ry EUTtV ws ,jAOV 1TpdS fdpo,S' I(al ciAAo 'TTp6,S' TOVTO WS ""'pos 'TTpfJS' ,jAOV, ,~ O&S£lI6S'" .,-wv 'Tot.Oth-WV o€lKVtKJW 0 O€ucvUwV J Wo-r€ oV8~ ytV£'Ta, ovMoywp.Os. 'Tip 0' t.lC'Tt8(uOa, oVrw ~,.,,€8a Wa-rr€p Ka2 50· 'Tei) alalJdv£a8at, 76V p.av8&voV'T' dA.E'YOV'T£,S" OV yap oVrws ws 011'\av€v TOth-WV ovx oMv 'T' a'TTOO£tx8fjva" ciJCT7TEP €~ WV AOYf,a,.,,6s. ~ M~ AavfJavETw 0' TJp.B.s OT' £v 'Tei) atfrt.P O11,uoywpJjJ 5 OVX a:rravra 'To. CTVfL1TEpO.aJULTa 0,' €v6S' uxrJp4'To,S' t.CT'T1JI
E'
m€
a
J
b16 '10/ fJ Bl OMfC ·18 Y+'1O AB 19Ttf. om. n 21 El'+TUlt Ale 22 wapxnv+'1
ANAAYTIKQN flPOTEPQN A ci.\M TO fLEII Sui \
•
'Tns ..
'7:0 oE 8,' ciMov. oiji\ov , .
OV'TW 7TOL'1]'TEOV.
,
y\ \ ' WV\
!l1TaVTI. oxrJl.La':TL 10
'TOJrOV
- '- , . .
aVaAVOEtS
,
\~,
E'1T£L
0
f,
''''
ou
OVII 'Q\
~
,
"
€V EKflcrrcp 'TE'TaYfLEVCL, "r'"vepov
Kat ,
..
EK TaU
O'VP/TTEpdafLu'TOS' £V cP C1)(7]fLdTt {7Jrrrrlov. Tous 'TE 1TpOS 6pwplw '7"WV AOyWV, oaot '"po,; ~ 7"£ 711')'- 43 XaVQvO'L 8LnAeyjlivo(. 'TWV £V Tep opc.p, '1TpOS d 8c.E~ElC'Ta, 8EI., • ., " .l: \ 'TEOV opov. Kat." au 'TOV a1T(lv-ra /\O)'OV' '/'T7'OV yap avJ.Lf3' 'lO'E-
8m 'TO fI/7}KOS'. olov El 'TO 1J8wp 'TO 7TO'TOV Kac.. 'TO Vowp opoVS' Be-rEoII.
'Tat Tapa'T'TEUOUL IS
on
1Tav 7TP0/-,/\'1]J.Ul. EV
v-ypOV 11
?TO'T()II.
D_
Cfl/..
<;:0'
OE
au
,
'TOVS'
fe'
't
V1TO EClewS'
Ec:.
'\ '\
"
UV/\l\OYLap.ovs
071.
€8E,gEV
OV
I
'1TELpa'TEOV
au
+1
yap €CTTW ~K 'TWV KELpivwv o.vaYEW. yap 8ui avMOYLl7fLOO oeoELyplvOL Haw. &.Md avv8",K'Y]S' WJLoAoyrll1iyol. ml.VTES'. orov el inrOBEftEVO'l, av owu""ts T£!) fLla. 20 p..fJ 7"WV tvaVTlwv, P:T}O' E'TT,arljP.T)V p.lav Elvm, ElTa. OuxAEavaYEW'
out
n
XOElT) Or, OVK £c;rr, 'TTa.uQ. Swap.'s TWV Ellav-rtwV, OloVEL TOO UyLEWOV Ka~ 'ToO voawoovs' a.p.a yap €C1'Taf. 'TO aVTO VyLEWOV Ka~ VOaWOES. p.Ev ovv OUK JaTt p.la '1TI:LV'TWV nZw EVaV7'UvV ouva/-Us, E'TTc.8lS€LK'TaL, 0'" 0' E1'fLO"T"IJP.1J OUK E(]"TLV. olOEtK'TaL. KalTOL 25 OJLOAOYELV civaYKawv' a.M' OUK €K avMoywfLOO, cLU' E~ imoBlClEws. Toihov p.£v OVV OUK eO'Ttv avayaYELv, OTt 0' Ji-la ovvaILLS. £anv' oVros yap taws Kat ~V UVAAOYLUJi-0S, EKE'VO 0' inrOOEatS . 'OfLOLwS OE Kat E1rt. TWV oui 'TOO a8vv(lTov 1rEpawoplvwv' 300ME yap TOVrOVS OVK [(]"TW aVaAVEW, r1}v JLEv Els 'TO vaTov a1'fayW"Y17v £OTL (uvAAoytUfLqJ yap SElKVVTat), 8dTEPOV ~" 'l;'InTO EUEWS yap 1rEpaLVETa" Ota'FpouUl.< to.J.J <:0' o<:OJ OUK EO"'TW' E!:, OE 'TWV 'TTpo€l.fY'1fL~WV (h-, £V 'KElvots fLEV DE' 1rPOOwfLOAoyrJuaJ.' .. U aI., EI. fLEIV\El. O'Vt-"o/7]UE'V, otOV av , OE'X IJ fLta ouvafus 3S'TWV £vall'Ttwv. Ka~ £'TTurn]fL7JV elval. ~v a&n]v' tvravOa Ka~ fLr, TtPOOWfLO>"O')'1'JudfLEVOl. atrtXwpoVUI. Sui TO <PaVEPOV Elva, 'TO 'PEVOOS, olav TEOElU7}S rfjs OtapiTpov UVJ.LI.t€'TPOV TO Tel 1'feptrra tao. elva, TOLS apTtms. floMot oE Kat. ETEPOt 1TEpalvolI'Tat Eg VrrOO/crEWS, OUS 40 E1rl.UK£t/JaaOal. OE' Kat. oU1.U7]fLfjvat Ka8apWs. TlvES J.L~ oov at
on
ou
ov
e"
e
. '"
d.\A.a .
,
...
ci8v-
e- , "
oE
a7 Kat om. ACnr uypov] ou n : OUX vypov r
9 TETayJ.tEvov Bn 1!)-20 "'~
II Op~ul-'ovr
D"to. n: pla 11 C 1
Cin
:n Troaa ABCnAI: ",ta A 28'CSr: Tral"Twv AS olov ~ n Snnc:u] uTr08'Sw('Tal AIC 26 1'OU1'OV ABAlc : "OUTO oUS€ n 27 ~II+&C 30 ovK om. CSnr 37olov+onC
en
rua C
40 ovv]
1'OVrWII
C
u1 am. n
IS
20 S~a)'(}{6ii C
24 JmSl· C 38 (lliaL
&'w1~u"
ouupopa~ 'Tol..i'rwv,
Kat 7Toaaxws
ro Eg
ylVETUL
ava.\VE"LV Els -rct CJX11JLuru rovs (5(.' ~v alTla.v, Elp~KaJLEv.
45
"Oaa
~v
Ev
fLa:rwv, ~v ;.,
1TXe{oat.
8arEptp
TOLOm-OVS
oxr7fLaar,
tmo(Naews, Soh
on aUK
EC17W
UVAAOYWjLOVS'.
Ka~
vcrn::pov EPOVJL(£JI ' vvv o~ Toao{h-ov ~fLiv €CJ'TW ~avEp6v)
OE{KVUTUL
TWV
1Tpo/3Arr 5
avayaYELV TOY O"VA-
avAAoytu()fj, EG'TW
AOYU:TfLOV Els BdTEPOJl, oTov TOY ill rip l1pcfJ'T
\ -' \,.
DE
W\/\
.,
"
EVWVS' •
'" \.J..
\
.
,..,
"
~,
E(J'TaL De 'f'aVEpOV EV 'TO LS' E1TOJLEVOLS' .
£L
r,
yap
TO A fL7JOEV' rijJ B, 'TO 8E: B 7TaJn"L 'TijJ 'TO A ovS€Vt Tip r. ouno [LEV ovv 'TO 7rpWTOV oxiJjVJ-J idv S' aVTLCT'Tpa¢rfi 'TO crn::p7]TLKoV, 'TO J.daov Ea-rat" 'TO yap B 'rep fJ-~ A ov'88/{, rep
10
tmapXH. O/-LOLwS S~ Kat, fEl JL~ KaB6>..ov ciAA' b fLEPEt 0 av,\..\oytUJLos, olav el 'TO /-LEV A f1-1Jo£vt. rep B, 'TO O€ B TLVt rcp r· aV'T'tarparpbro,; yap TOV U'T€P7]TtKOV TO ;daol' IS
oJ r
7TaVTt
Een-at oxiif-La . Twv 3' £v
nt>
3€VT€Pcp aVAAoytaf-Lwv ot f-L€v Ka86'Aov 3' £v f1-€PH aT€pO'; 11-6vo,;. €en-w yap TO A Tip f-L€l' B 11-'1)3€"l Tip 3€ TTaVTl imapxol'. al'narparplv-ro,; OVV TOV aTEp1)TtKOV TO TTpWrOV €r:rrat oxfif1-a' TO :20 fJ-€V yap B Ov8EYl Tip A, TO 8€ A TTaVT' Tij> r inrapg€t. Jav 8E TO Ka'T7]'YoptKOV i1 7TPO'; Tip B, TO 3€ en-€P1)TtKOv 71'pO'; Tc1J r, TTpCn-OV opOV BETEov TO r· TOiiTO yap OUO€V' np A, TO oE A 71'aVT' Tip B· waT' ou3EY' np B TO r . OUo' apn TO B Tip r I, I).. \ \ ," OVO€Vt· aV'TtaTp€'f'Et yap TO en-EfYT)nKOV. €av 0 €V fLEpE' U 0:25 uv>J..oytup.6,;, oTav f1-EV i1 TO O'TEprJnKOV TTPO'; Tip JL€{~OVt axpcp, avaxB~o"ETat El,; TO TTpCn-OV, olOv e£ TO A 1-'7]3EV' Tip B, Tip 3€ nv{' aVTWTpwpEV'TO'; yap TOV fJ'TEfY!).-"'tKOV TO TTPW~ TOV Een-at axfil-'a' TO fL€V yd.p B OV3Evl Tip A, TO 3€ A nv, Tip OTa" 3€ 7"0 KaTY)yopLKCW OVK dva.\v8~aETa" olOl' El TO 30 ' B ?TaV'Tt. . , Tep- O€ 0;:.' r OV ?Ta"TL' OUTE yap ' 0;:.1 A Tep' f.L€V OEXETaL , .J...j,' A B " ' " " , avrten-po'f'l/l' TO , OUT€ YEVOJL€VT)'; EfJ'TaL OVIV\OYLa/L0';. lldAw ot J.L€l' €v Tip Tp{np OxrJJULTL OV"K dva.\v8~aov TaL TTrtV'TE'; El,; TO ?TPWTOl', ot 3' Jv Tip 7Tpc.fJTep miV'TE'; El,; TO Tp{TOV. tnrapX€TW yd.p TO A 1TaV'Ti TeP B, TO SE B Ttl" Tip 35 r. OVKOVv JTT€'~ aV'TWTp€rpEL TO Jv pAPH Ka:rrr;OpLK6l', lnrap~ hI "TOVTWV om. C TO om. n1 6 lTv] tv' B: fil JJ'l 8 "Tov] dvaxB~aoV'Tat €l,; TO TTPWTOV, TWV
r
.~
~"
I
~
~
r
r.
J
1
"TO n a7Tuvru n 27 &.yaAv8~o"fiTa~ B2r
A2CnAI: ova' ot AB 4985
,.,
9 ill' + E7T' nr Evlwv bion n 31 E7T~3EX("Ta, Ale 33 EV om. A 36 TO] KU' TO nr M
18 J-lOVOV A 34 ot 8'
ANAAYTIKQN lIPOTEPQN A
gEl. Tel r 'Twt 'TCP B· 'Tel of. A 'TTQ.V'Tt inrfjpx£v, Wu-rE yiVE'Ta, , .... \ ' ) , \-_. ' , , 'TO\Tpt:rov crx:rJfW. Kat" EI. U7EprfTUCO~ 0 UVIV\VrWJLO~, wuav• 'J.. ' " , ' f I , , 'TW~ ' UV'TWTPEo.pE' yap TO EV ILEpEI. KaTY/YOpucov. WUTE 'TO fLEV 40 A OVOEVt Tcp B, Tel of. r nvt inrapeEL. 51& Twv £V Tcp TEAEV'Taltp UxIJfWTI. UVAAOYLUfLWV ET~ p.&vo~ OUK aVaAVE'Ta, E1~ -r6 7TPW'TOV. OTaV fL-iJ Ka8dAov 'TE8fj 'Tel U7EprfT(,KOV, o[ 3' ruo(, 7TaV'TES avaAVoV'TO.'. KaTY/YopEluOw , 'lTav'T0~ "'TOV r ' TO AKat ' 'TO'B • OVKOVV , .....antO'TpE
o·
r
r,
r,
r,
r
r,
r. r.
r.
r.
r,
r
J..~
rr, .
b37 'TWV P n tHrrjPXE+'T6 p n 51&7 'T
fecit n
Ecrrw, aVaAVmS" OME'Tipa yap 'TWV 7rpo-rauEwv lie rijS' av'Tt-
crrfK'fls Ka86NJU. Ka~ ot EK 'TOV -rpt-rotJ ~ fL€aov, OTaV Ka86Aov
BE oxrip.a'TOS' avaAvih}aoVTm Eis Ttl 07'EfYTITU
n
r,
at
r
, , ',...,1.,. I EV fLEpEt a7Tvy.-u.'T"KOV.
q:,avEpov
tv
ow
ot av.ro2 uvMoywJW'
0,-,
avaAVoVTfU
DOK
40
rotS' U)(1}JUlO'tV OL1TEP ov8' EIS' 'TO TrpW-rov aVEAVoVTO, UrI. EiS' 'TO ."piJn'ov c:rxfjp.a wv uv,\).oytO'pWv avaYOI1'£- SIb
TOrnO'S'
#cal
8,ci TOV d8vv&TOV 1T£pa{vOVTat.. llwS' J1-€v oov BIE! 'TOUS' UVAAOYLO'f'OVS' avdY€Lv, Ka, 0,-,
VWV OOTOL p.OVOl. '_._-',
dvaAVE'TaL
' ..6 P"lfLEVWV. y
'::oELV
"
'TQ
CT)(f}JUl'Td
~._.J..'!
'~\\,\
EtS
<::!> f
WV\'TJ «,
A.
\
'rdVEPOV
,...
,
...
'TUJV
EK
,
ELI
,,.....
-rep Ka'TQO'K£va.~€LV 1J aVaUKEtJC1- 5 ...... ' \ \ 1J.. -raVTOV 1J E'TEpOV O"r]p.aWELV 'TO fLTJ Kat flllat p..ry 'TOVro, orov 'Tb p.~ £lvat A£VKbV 'Tip
Oo.u.
OE 7' €V
" ' \ .. Q'
70
V7TO
a~aVELV
Elva.c. 'TOOt £lllat p.~ A£VKOV. OU ydp 'Tath-ov 07)p.atv£t, OVO' [CJ'TW &1T0.I.. ' \£VKOV \ , \' -' \ \ ' 'TO\ JLTJ\ .,....Ut~ 'TOV" £tva, 'TO\ .£tVa, p.TJ\ '£VKOV, W\l\CL £lva& A£VKOV. A6yoS" 'TOth-OV Jp.otws yap lxn 'Tb 10 va'TCL£ /3a.ot{nv 'Trp6s 'TO oWa'TQI, ou {Jaot{nv 'Tip [un A£VKOV 1Tp6S 'TO EC1'TW OU A£VKOV, Kat £1TtCJ'Ta'Tat 'Tdya80v ,"poS" 'TO £1TI.crra'TCLt 'TO OUK aya8oll. 'TO ydp E7rta-ra'Tat 'Taya86v ~ [(J'TW ., • 8'ov OVOEl' - '~\ ~,_.J.'! -' ~\ ~, Q_S::' E7TW"TO.fl£I'0S" 'TayCL 0tlU.
oE
00£.
ov-
II
•
II
~\
~,
I
\
~,
II
~
II
....
a34 8~ am. AB
\
\
.,
am .
B
...."
24 ci.,Mo"W.,
IP
\
II
•
7 T08€ n l Ale 12- 13 'TO E'1TtOTa· /lo.8i{n., Vam. P 20 l(o.~+O n1Ale Jo-rl ABnAlc: Exn.,Cn! 21 ap.a
b3 TOUS Myovs nr
18 o~ om, Alep E'1T~~iLW" ABAlc: i.'1T,o-r~~TJ.,Cn
oem B
,
25 TO· om. n
ANAAYTIKQN IIPOTEPQN A 'TO avwav, 'Tip 8' oriSb. 8U)7T€P '<10Y fLbI 7j alltO'OIl ou 'TTiiv, toov 8' 7j OUK wov wav. En 'TO EO'TW ou AEVKOV ~VAOV Kat 001< tC17'e. At"VKOV ~v'\ov OVx ap.a inrapxn. £1 ydp ~U7" 30 gV'AOV ou A£VKOV, EU7W, ,6'\ov' TO 8~ fL~ 011 AEVKOV {VAOV OUK ., t.', t ., .I. \ avaYKT) SVIlOV (£ vat., WcrTE 'faVEpOV OT(. OUK (ian 'TOV EO'7"LV uyan aD' • '.1.. ..,. \ \ \ 17011 'TO EO'TLV OUK ay all a7T0'faUIS. £L ovv Ka'Ta 1Ta.V'TOS' EVOS' 'Toih~ Ecrn
f/
I
,,,
".I...!
7J
oyv-O'LS'
'\ov
Ws
,.,
,..
II
•
~
, .
. . . ll...
1] a1r""f'U'UIS Ka-ra.qx,.u(.S'
• .!.I........ 35 a7T""f'"u('S E07W'
av
.!\
£I'
,
aA'YJI77JS,
£(.
'TrWS'
EJ't].
,.,
fL7J
EO"TW
'.I..""
•
a7T0't"-"C11.S',
Ka-ra.cp&.U€wS'
Ol
~
u'r
7T&t:17]S
\ I .. \ . " , > £II Kat. -rQ.V7'7}S' apa 'TO OUK EO'T('V OUK ayauDV.
"Ex£(. BE ragw n]vo£ 7TpOS aAA1]Aa. EaTW 'TO Elvat dya8cw 00 A, TO OE f':~ Elvat aya80v Eif/ 00 B, 'TO oE 'Elvat
J4>'
• n' p.."f}• «yauov
"r,V7TO "
'.J..) ou
E'f
'B ,'TO\
'TO
~,
DE
1-"1]\
E
tvaL
fLTJ"
«rOo
.I..._TAf\'A auoy E
(un-cp' Kul 1} 'TO r 1} 'TO Ll, Kul ou06'l ,' (' Tep- aV'Tcp. Kat\~ .7]fJts El1TE'V Eo.Ut~, fJ d1TO¢;aat~ imap[Et), 'TCP O~ B TO r "'(01 \ .. , ,~" ,~,t:"" "') 5 OVK aEt 0 yap OI\WS 11.7] ':,VI\OV, QVOE s,VI\OV E(]'Tat ov I\EVKOV . dVa1TaALV TO{VtlJl, .7JfJE~, 'TO S' A OUK GA7JfJES, o-,.t gVAov AEVKOy). SijAoy S' OTt Kat TO A r OO8EVI, TCP ath-cp Kat TO B Kat 'TO .d EvSEXETat TW/' -rtjJ aV-rcp inrdpgat, 15 'Of'Olws S' EXOVat Kat at fFTEP~UEtS 7TpOS" -ras K(l'T'T}, I f)' " ',J..' 0 {j TO'A , OVK ' WOV • yoptas -r(ltrr'{J 711.... UEUEt, tUOV E
B, Kal ou36'l 'TCP
o'n
ro
r,
ou
~
_~,
{j
h31 q,a.V(pOv o'n om. n 33 VnAle ~+v nAle 35 Kal. om. C 5211 EUTiv nr: om. ABC 3 OUA(VI(OV • •• A(VKOV) A£VKOV ••• ou At"VKOV n 4 'ljl om. Bn ""~] ""0 Al 9 1I'all'TwS' Cn 10 a lJ2ClnAl, fecit A: ,.. BCr 1I A£UlCOV AIBCnAl: ou A£VKOV AJ32 8' om. n 17 TO P A 19 o.A.''10WO'T' av] tU"lOt'vn pc
' \ 'au ' \IlEVKOJ.' ,ffEKCtO"TOV 'fJ.. nana , " , \ ' . I....\:' €(J"TLV OV A£VKCt, 'f'EVOOS'.
€C1'TtV
op,olws at Kat rov EC1'TL '1Tav ~00v AEVK6V au 'TO E(rTtV OU AEVKav O:1TCtV {a'TtS (aJMPw yap if;£vSe'is) , &.Md 'TO aUK EOTL miv {cpov
AEVKOv.
24
8~
'EnEt
'TO
VEL
EC1TLV
'.J.....
\
rCtFUlS ...
I:'
00
AEVKOV Kat aUK
1:"
TO
J.A......
>
f'
'
f' _ " owv crn.
'TOV OELI<'VUVCtl. EKCt'TfEpOV,
1
TO JL~ Ka- 25 >' -rpO'TrOS I ,,, \. aUK EaT" I\€V-
•
OUX
0
aUTOS'
.. ...:t r'" (tv U "'~OV
<\
0
G7JJLa{- 24
ETEPOV
AEVKOV, Kat
EUTL
.J. \ f .,.,aVEpov WS
Ct7TV\f"-"atS>
0
&ijAov &Tt.
KOV ~ Ev8lXETCtt. p.TJ ElvaL AEVKOV. Kai ChI. aA7JOES el1TEtV JL~ AEVKOV' TOVrO yap ~U'TLV ElvaL fl.';' AWKOV. ciMd. 'TO p.~v
dA7JOES El1TEiv EO''n AEVKOV KCt'TaUKEVCtU'TLKWS'
"rcfJ
'TO yap 0A7J8es
fUL'TOS'
>, 8'ES at\TJ
' " '\
fLTJ AEVKOV 0 mhoS'
€LTE
(1/4w aut
yap
'
1
ofLolws
EG7'LV
8'
,.,
Tp67ros' 30
'TOV 7TPWTOV 8e{KVVrCtt. ax1rclrrE'TCtL'
.....
\ '\
\
yap
'TOV
• ,,/.,
H7TE/,V /lEVKOY OU TO a/\7J ES EL7TeLY p.7J l\eUKOV o.7T0't'o.-' \ \ ' , ' 1 \ 8' ,.... \ , ' l l Ii -'\ 8' ULS, aN\U TO p.7J OJ\7J ES EL7THV I\E1JKOV. EL VII EO"'TaL Wl.7J ES
a av ii av8pw7Tos a av V {epov .\:rprrlov 7j
1j JLTJ
p,oVULK(JV elva,
El7TEtV
p.oVULKOV elva" 35
elvat fLOvmKOV 1j Elva, JLTJ fWUULKOV, \~~ ,~,\,. '''''J; 8 > KaL OEOELK'TaL. TO oe 1-'7] EtvaL J.WVULKOV 0 av U av PW7TOS, avali
UKEVaO"TLKWS OE{KVVTaL KUTa TOIk ElprjP.EvOVS TP07TOVS Tpets;
0'
:47TAWS
JL~v
&rav
aw~
Tep
JLTJ
pov, Ka~ 7TdA,V TO
'A
\
TO KaL ••
EXTJ
OVTWS
r
Ka~ TO
'J., JL7]\ . Qv-rurrPE't'u, KUL '.1.
,
,'
OVK UVTLO"Tp6fEL' Ka, TO 11£V
'TO ,
'TO
A
LJ
r
KU~
OE B ..
•
E7TE'TUL,
L1
oe
A
'f'UVEpOV.
B
B
\
ap.a
Wu(J'
E~ dvaYK7JS (}6:re- 40
wuam-ws, E7T7(To.L ....
T
OUK lvoiXE'TaL. \:'.1. '
8'
€V EVOE
Ka~ TO
A
TO
7Tav-r~
lvoEXEu(}aL,
'
ol
Tep
LI
}llv
7Tpw-rOV
• \, E7TEL yap
OTt
OVV
Tcfj
r
\...
7TUVTL TWV
B, OUK ivoExETaL TO r A Kat'B JLTJ\ EVOEXEU .~, 8at
r .,
'r'" \
0/
52b
'to' . . . . , .... EVOEXETaL T
A
Kat LI
(}6.TEPOV G.v6.YK7]S, Ot TO •.J..' ' OE <, TO\ avvE7T"'fA=PELV 'TO' A ,'TO
Eg
r
, \ It.!. \ UKOI\OVVIJUEL Kat
A
'TO
B A
LJ
5
oui
rep • .....J..". . . . • A • \ 8' . ~\ . , ... A ' aVT
L1
Tep
awep
im6.PXEW.
TO
EvoiXETUL ow. TO uvvaKOAou(}Etv Tcfj ·to I . I . ' ' ' ' or 1~\
TL aovvaTOV.
'f'aVEpoV ovv
E7TEl7TEp EYXWPEt EvJ43alvEL
o·
ap.a. TO L1 EvlO'TE
0'7"£
yE
B
r
TO
A·
....
A
OVOE T
Kal TO
Kal
OE
A
EV -rfl
\
TO
KaL TO
r
uvJL{3alvEt
B
>
OVK
y&P '-'_
aV'TUrrp6yd J
tnr6.PXELV. TOLaUrn
TdgeL
rwv
opwv
a29 TO] T06 n 31 KCl"TaOK€UaOTU(OS nil 34 fOTa, coni. Jenkinson, habet ut vid. AI: ;O"TH' codd. 35 ~s n ct.. CnAI: (a" AB 36 (l..a,1I om. B 39 otn-wS' o"Ta .. C b I "T02 om. n Bf: om. Al 2 aVTlClTpi,pn B 4 r] "TO YC 5 (."na4 "TO 0 C ¢aHp0.,+ EQ'TCl' C 8 Tip a TO Y A2Cn' P:"To Cl Tc;, Y ABnr 9 o~+l1 n
10
ANAAYTIKQN npOTEPQN A , '\ fl' , 8' • am TO• 11-"7\ 'To.\ , Q.VT/,I(EI.JUVCl. 1\4fL aVE"W op w~ (ov avcf.YK1] 1TQ.V'Ti 8aTEpov VrrapXEW' olov til TO A Kat 'TO B p.~ lvS'xn"at ap.a -rip au.rtp, avo.yl<"I] 3' tmapxov. tP I'~ Oa.,
~.
-_.ll
IS 41Ta'TO.UUal.
r
'TEpa V• OJ.TEPOV. Kat 1TctAW 'TO Kat TO .d ciwarn-ws. ~ OE . ' t cp " TO .4 \ B 'TO, r '1Tnun' E7TE7-a1. TO, A • UVfL.fl' 7]UE'T4(' yap I:.J J 'TO " 't.' , • ' \ .1... ", 1\ '.J..n I " 20 tmapXEW E~ avayK'1)~. 07TEp eaTt 't'EVOOS'. EVI.'YJrW yap 41TOt/>aUlS 'TWV A B ;¢/ c;, Z, Kat 1TciAw 'TWV r A t¢l Ll·f II . '.J..! cp' I '0". avaYKTJ V'I ?TO-von, 7J.. 'TO' A '7J 'TO'z'" • 'TJ yap 'TTIV 'f'U-... , ".J. \ .'\ .. \ r" ,.L! ow 1] '"Ill a'Tr0't'aULV. K4' 7TaALV 7J TO '1 'TO\.c::. 1:7' 'f"""Uts \ "'..1.. ' .,. \ A ' , yap Kat a1T0't'aOIS. Kat . cp 'TO • 1Tavn TO tnTOKH'TCU. 2S Wo-rE c;, 'TO Z, 1TaV'Ti 'TO B. 1TaAW E?rEt 'TWV Z B 1Tavri 8&'rEpav Kat 'TWV 8 .d waa-m-ws J aKoAovOE L oE 'Tip Z TO B. J
r,
r,
r
'Tep
Kat
r
clKo.\ov6~aEt
.d
'IV
EV
1'6 A 11
30 71all'Tt
A
q,arlts 'TOV ,,/.._
"
'T6
Z, oVSe -r6 Z 11
'TO
Z.
£1
apa 'TtfJ
yap
\
, aya ' 8 OV. ' OUK
<:0'
•
\
~.
EU'Tt
0
'TO
B·
ou yap t.U'TW a716-
'TOV yap aya80v 'TO OUK aya80v a1r6-
" ofLOtWS
'f'U-uts' ou 'TatITo UEtS
yap tup.~.
TOVTO
T
Kat .d 'TO B. 'ToVro OE I/JEVOOS' aVo.71aAW ... .." ~ • "It.-. '\" • I 'TOtS OV'TWS EXOUCtV 1J aKOI\OUv'IUtS. ou yap U1WS avaYK1J
'TO A,
~,
TO B·
"
OE
\
•
•
8 \ ... " t ,aya 8'ov OVT •, ... rAt \ . .....L.! 'TWV ~. at yap a1r'""f'U'-
'TO OVK aya ov 'TC[J OVT
. Kat. , E1rt
ai El).1JfLfL£vat Suo Elutv.
B. 'Ev uwv " 40 En
53-
0<:0"
uxriJ.U10t
110'TE
Kat
Kat
fl'I\E7T'TEOV "
7TOW
E'S
ow
fLEV
1r600tS
,"PO'To.UEWV
Sui
Kat
1rolcov
ytvETat
7TWS
'Y avaUKEtJa,=,oVTt
Kat
7T6-
auMoyU1I-'OS J
Kat\
, Ka'TaUKEva-
'OVTt, Kat 7TWS ad '1J'TEiv 7TEpt 'TOV 7TpoKEtp.EVOV KaO' o,.,.Otavoliv fLi80Sov, E'Tt aE Sui 7Totas aSov A'YjI/JofLE8a 'Tas 7T£pt £KaO'TOV apxrls. iJS1J 8t£>''Yj>.60afL£v,
oE
'TWV au)J.oytu,.uvv £lutv ol 5 7To.VTES
7TAElw
atEt \
vov.
~
at
,
,
,
•
'.L
<:0'
\.
a7T0'fla'TtKOt 'TO
0
_""
.,
, .
• 8'
'J.
\~,
all'TtU'TpE'fIEt.
wa
hl5 'Ta Waitt
ABn
t
0'
oi fLEV Ka80>"ov
fLEv
ol
Ka86>..ov
fL£PEt ol ,
UVfL7T£paufLa ''/''
•
fLEV yap atV\aL 7Tp0'TaUEts all'TLrrrp£'fI0UutV, TJ
PTJ'TtKTJ OUK EQ"Ttv.
7TI\EtW.
S'
a' J:v
uvAAoyl'oll'Tat, 'TWV
"
Ka7'7}yoptKO'
t.7T£t
Ka'Td. fL£por,
•
0'
,
fLEV
. . ,'
'TO
,\
UVfL7TEpaufLa
\ Tt
. 7TI\EtW , ,
UVIV\OYLufLO'
a""Ot
Ta om. n l
OE
,
~
Al
18 8a'TfpolI om. C1
<:0 \
OE
IJ-Ev , po-
U"T£-
,
,
Ka'Ta 'TtVOS
"'Y
UVIV\OjI',=,ov-
19 11r1j'TOA
yap om. AB' 25 TO 8 "ITa", Tip , J3l 26 'Tip , 'TO At BCnAIP: TO , TO A: 'TO , 'Tep f32 27 Tepl] 'TO Al 32 'TO OUK aya8011 om. n l 33 ov/( aya801l] Ka/(Oll Kat TO au/( aya8011 n: KaKOII ni 39 yllo'E'1'a'+1Ta~ r 53-3 alt:A1JAv8al"t"II+1tpOUPOII n 8 'T' fecit n l
46. 52bI5-B. 2. 53b4 -rat. ala ... El TO A Sl8nKTal. 1TaV'Ti. Tefl B 71 'Twi, Kai. TO B 10 'TUft Tep A avaYKawv tnr&'PXEW, Kal El f'~6'i. Tip B 'TO A, ouSt TO B ao8EYt TCP A, TOtn-O 8' €'TEPOV 'TOV ;p.'1TpoafJ€V· El Of! nVL fL~ inrrtPXH. aOK avo.yK'I'} Kat 'TO B TWL Tip A fLit
imdPXEW' bSlXE'Tal. yap 1TaVTL inrdPXEW. AVrr] JLo, oOv KOW.ry 1Ta.V'TWV al.Tt.a, 7(!W 'TE Ka8o>..ov Kat TWV leaTa fL'pos' EUTL 3'} 1TEpt 'TWV Ka8oAov lea, aAAws ElWELV. yap 71 Owe> 'TO piaov 71 v".o TO (}1),.,:rrlpaap.a tcrrw, J1TclV"TWV EU'Tac. & uv;UOYW'~S', J.av 'Ttl p1v €v 'Tip ,Muep 'Ta S" €II Tip UVfL1TEpO.C1f1.a:T(, 'TE8fj, olov El. TO A B uvp.1Tlpaap..a 'TOU oaa Vwo 'TO B ij 'TO lcrrlv,
oon
IS
am-oS'
aLa
r,
r
20
El ydp 'T() LI EV o'Acp 'Tip B. 'TO 8E B EJI Tip A, Kai. TO Ll ;(17'a, EV 'Tip A· 1Td).'V El TO E Iv oN.p TCP r, 'TO oE r lv 'Tip A, KaL 'TO E €v TtP A Ecrrat, oJ.Wtws 8E Kai. El U'TEfY'I'TtKOS' 0 UV>J..OYLUp.OS. E1Tf. BE TOV 8EV'TIpov crxr}fLO.TOS' 'TO WO 'TO UVfL1TlpaufLa J.LO- 25 vov £C1TaL uv'Moywaa8a" olov El TO A Tij) B p.7]8£Vl, Tij) .. r 1TaVTI.·' uvp.1T£paap.a , . OVOEV(. -'~ O£ OTt 'Tep r 'TO'B • £(.' lV"l TO' AII'r",/" '''''B• ~ 1J7r0 TO EO"T', 'f'aVEpDV 01"' OVX V1TapxEt aVT
I
I .
...
, . ,
. " , I '\ \ • , .. R_! • WUT' ou 0(.(1.\ 'TOV uvlV\oywp.ov uv~vn TO B Tc;, E p..~ lnrapxnv. Ent 8E: TWV €v plpn TWV ply thrO 'TO uVfl:rrlpaoJUL OUI< £0Ta' TO avaYl8fi €v pipE'), 'TWV 8' tHrO TO p..Eaov EaTa(' 1TaV'TWV, 1T'\~V ou 800. TOV avMoyw/Lov' olov El 'TO A 1Tant Tij) B, 'TO St B 'TI.Vt 'Tij) r· 'TOV /LEV yap 1hr0 'TO TE8lV7'oS OUI< EC1"Tar. uvMOjI'o!-'os, 'TOV 8' Vn-O 'TO B Ecrra" &.\A' ou Ow 'TOV 1TpDyEY£V7]fLlvov. op.otws at l..ov E~ ava1TooE{I
IeTOIJ
-"'\
E(.A7f7TTa"
~
r
~'"
aIo~
~
~
... fJom.nl lI'T~a'T'v!C IS'T(fecitB 22bis,24£Y 25 oW'Tipotl] p n 26 (fIT, C O'v.uo'Y'O'J.'os A 29 O'TI+'TO {J C 30 cd] 0 A1n 36 aVr-1J C bi ~ ABOr
+ J~ nr
ANAAY7'IKQN IIPOTEPQN B 5 'Tacr€LS' 01.' eLv 6 avAAoywj.LOS, fan
3~ WU'T£ if;€VOeLs. Ecrn 3' ifiw3fj. 'TO SJ UVP/1TEpaUfLO- 7j MTJ8ES i} "'ruoos Jg o.vaYK7]s, J( GA1]8wv plv ouv OUK Eern ",d;Sos uvAAoy{aaaBm. EK fEVOWV S' EUTLV dA.1JrNs. 7T>"~V
cOO,-E"
, "" -'\. \' ., au OLO'Tt. G.IV\ (rn' 10
S~
Ti]v j.L& d>..7J8fj -H]v ...
'T01)
\ (" yap own
,,,. • .1. ,",'" '\, eGnv EK 'f'€VOWV UVI\/\O-
OUK
YWp,OS' 8,' ~v 3' alriav, ill TO'iS i7rop.lvols AE"x8rya€7al.. flpWTOV ,.,,& oov £~ aA.1')8wv DUX otov TE "'£uoos av)')"oy{aaaBm. €JI'T€1J8ev SfjAOV. El yap 'TOV A ovros ci.vaYK1J 'TO BeLva!., 'TOU B f.L~ onos dvayK7] 'TO A p.~ Elval.. el oW
on
aA1J81s EaTl. 'TO A, ava:ylO'} 'TO B M'YJOJS ElvaL, i} aVfLj31jaVro C1.JU1- elval 'TE Kat aUK dvav 'ToiYro 3' dSvva\ . '" \ '" \ A ftS 1''' ~'.J,.CJ' • <;:. 'TOV. fLY} D'n OE KE:I.'TUL 'TO opos. tJ7TOI\"f}'fU'Y'j'TW EVOEXE-
15 aeTaL 7"()
I
i'I
cruaL
ol6v
•
I
"'c Oll'TO,S' Es,
TWOS
£VOS
• I avayK7}S
'T/.
' CJV/-L,fJ OW€LV'
., au yap
TO /LEV yap croJ1/3a'ivov €{ o.vayK7]S' T6 croJ.L1ftpaup..&. JU7""~ St' J:jv SE TO[ho ylv€7·ut lAaxlU7"wv~ TPE'iS' opot, 20 Suo SE StUI7'T'1}[LaTa Kat ."pOTaUELS'. El OOV d).TJ~tS', oT€PWV TWV ."pOTauEwv rpEVOGV ouuGv KaL rfjs fLtos. TavTT)S o· OUX d."oTtpas €'TVXEV dtv\d rfjs '8€lYrtpas, J&'V1TEP OA7)V Aap.fJtf.V'[J .p€v8fj- JL~ OA7)S 8£ AaJLfJavOJL&-rjs ;a-rw 30 &."OTEpaUOVv. ECl'TW yap T6 A 6AqJ Tip r tmapxov, Tip OE B fL71oEVl, [L71S€ T6 B Tip r. £VO€X£.Tat SE TO[hO, orov Al8cp OU3EV~ {cfjov, ouSE "AlOoS' OV3EVL dvBpcimc.p. Jdv ow A1]q;OfJ TO A 7TaV'Tt Tip B Kat T6 B 7Tavrt Tip r, T6 A 7Tav-rt 'Tip r tmap~EL. W