ARISTOTLE AND THE EARLIER PERIPATETICS vol.I by Eduard Zeller, B.F.C.Costelloe 1897

—
.
Simpl. Cat. 106, a, 107, a, sq.,
Schol. 89, a, 37, 90, a, 12 do not
prove that Strato referred to Aristotle's
Categories. On the other
hand, the ancient critics never
doubted the genuineness of the
extant book, although they rejected
a second recension (v.
Simpl. Categ. 4 & Sclwl. 39, a,
36 ; Anon. ibid. 33, b, 30 ; Philop.
ibid. 39, a, 19, 142,b, 38 ; AMMON.
Cat. 13, 17, and Boeth. In
Prced. 113, all following Adrastus,"'
a noted critic circa 100
A. D. ; cf . Fr. m. 114). The only
doubts suggested are by Schol.
33, a, 28 sq., and these apparently
were not derived from
Andronicus. The internal characteristics
of the book, however,
are in many ways open
to criticisms, which Spengel
(Miinchn. Gel. Ana. 1845, 41 sq.),
Rose (Ar. Libr. Ord. 232 sq.),
and Prantl (Gesch. d. Logik, i.
90, 5, 204 sq. 243) have used to
combat its genuineness, the latter
vot, r.
ARISTOTLE'S WAITINGS 65
which, however, is itself so brief saying that its compiler might
and undeveloped that it presupposes
an early and better account. peripatetic school of the age
be found 'in any master of a
Simpl. (Categ. 4 (, Sclwl. 30, b, following Chrysippus ' (p. 207).
36) and David (Sclwl. 30, a, 24) Their critical positions, however,
say that Aristotle had also referred
to this work in another (ibid.) takes exception to the
are not all tenable. Prantl
place—not now extant—under number 10 ; but in the Top. i.
the title of Karriyopiai or Ae'na 9, the same ten Categories are
Kot. We are told also that, following
Aristotle's example, Eu-
(In Categ. 40, Schol. 48, a, 46)
given, and we know from Dexipp.
demus, Theophrastus, and Phanias,
wrote not only ' Analytica,' Aristotle named these ten in
and Simpl. (ibid. 47, b, 40) that
and works 'II. epfiiipstas,' but other works also. It is true that
also Karriyopiai (AMMON. Scltol. Aristotle generally uses a less
28, a, 40, and in q. v. Porph. 15 m, number ; but that may only mean
David, Schol. 19, a, 34, 30, a, 5, either that he here adduces all
Anon. ibid. 32, b, 32, 94, b, 14 ;
the ten because his object was
but Brandis in the Rhein. Mus. i. logical completeness, or that he
1827, p. 270, rightly denies this as counted more Categories at an
to Theophrastus, and doubts it as earlier time than he did later.
to Eudemus). The references in He never assumed, as will be
shown later, a fixed number of
them. Again, it is objected that
the K0T177. speaks of Sevrepat
ovalai ; but we find as parallels to
this not only irpurai oia-lai (e.g.
Metaph. vii. 7, 13, 1032, b, 2,
1038, b, 10), but also rpirai ovtriai
(ibid. vii. 2, 1028, b, 20, 1043,
a, 18, 28). The words of Karny.
c. 5, 2, b, 29: cikoWus . . .
p.6va . . . Tcfc etSri Kal ra ysvn
Sevrepat ohatai \eyovrai, are not
to be translated ' the term SetSr.
ova. is used for genera and species
and rightly so,' since it was not
commonly so used before Aristotle,
but rather, ' there is reason
to treat as a second class of substances
only genera and species.'
Again, when it is remarked in
Karriy. c. 7, 8, a, 31, 39, that,
strictly speaking, rrp6s ti includes
those things only which
not merely stand in a definite
relation to some other thing, but
have their essence in such a relation
oh rb elvat ravr6v io"Tt
F
66 ARISTOTLE
the parts and kinds of propositions, 1 those on
T