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

—.
;
;
ARISTOTLE'S WRITINGS 67
conclusions and scientific method in general, 1 on the
also that Eudemus n. Ae'feois
(Alex. Anal, pri. 6, b, Top. 38,
Metaph. 63, 15; Anon. Schol. in
Ar. 146, a, 24) may have been
an imitation of this book (not,
as Scliol. 84, b, 15, wrongly suggests,
of the Categories ; of. the
quotation from Ammon. in preceding
note). This last suggestion,
however, is uncertain, and
the notices as to Theophrastus
-
are not absolutely clear, for the
texts show that he did not name
the n. kfjx.tfv. at all. Alexander
thought he saw, from the way in
which Theophrastus dealt with
the subject (thema) in his own
book, reason to infer that he had
Aristotle in mind; but whether
he was right in that inference or
not, we cannot judge. The Schol.
ap. Waitz has nothing to show
that the reference there quoted
from Theophrastus referred to a
passage in this book, and was not
rather a general reference to the
frequently recurring Aristotelian
law of the excluded middle.
On the other hand, it is singular
that while the n. epiitjv.
is never cited or referred to
in any of Aristotle's books (cf
Bonitz, Ind. Ar. 102, a, 27),
it cites not only the Mrst
Analytic (c. 10, 19, b, 31 : Anal.
46, 51, 6, 36) and the 'Juries
(c. 11, 20, 6, 26 : Top. ix. 17,
175, b, 39), but also the II: rjivxrjs
(c. 1, 16, a, 8), and that for a
proposition which neither the
ancient opponents of Andronicus
nor modern scholars have been
able to find in it (cf. Bonitz,
Ind. Ar. 97, b, 49, whose suggestion,
however, is not satisfactory).
Its remarks on Rhetoric
and Poetry (c. 4, 17, a, 5) have
no relation to the corresponding
treatises of Aristotle. It should
be added that the work accords
throughout with Aristotle's line
of thought, but frequently enlarges
in a didactic way on the
most elementary points in a
fashion which one would suppose
Aristotle would not have found
necessary at the date at which
it must have been written, if by
him. The question, therefore, is
not only whether it is by Aristotle
or by another, but whether
it may not, as Grant suggests
(Ar.
57), have been written out
by one of his scholars from oral
lectures in which the difficulties
of beginners would naturally be
kept in view.
1
Syllogisms are dealt with
by the 'AvaKvriKct irpdrepa in two
books, and scientific method by
the'AvaA. Bffrepa, also in two. The
fact that D. 49 and An. 46
give nine books to the 'Avah.
irp6r. (though An. 134 repeats
the title with two only) points
probably only to a different division;
but it is also possible
that other tracts are included,
for the Anon. Selwl. in Ar.
33, b, 32 (cf. David, ibid. 30,
b, 4, Philop. ibid. 39, a, 19,
142, b, 38, and Simpl. Categ. 4
says that Adrastus knew of forty
books of Analytics, of which only
the four which are extant were
counted genuine. — That these
are genuine is proved beyond
doubt, both by internal evidence,
by Aristotle's own references,
and by the fact that his earliest
pupils wrote works modelled on
them (cf. p. 65, swpra, and Bkandis,
Mhein. Mus. Nibbuhe and
Be. i. 267), Thus we know
F2
68 ARISTOTLE
proof by probability, 1 and on fallacies and their disof
an Analytic by Eudemus
(Alex. Top. 70), and we have
references to book i. of the
Hp6repa ava\. of Theophrastus
(Alex. Anal. pri. 39, b, 51, a,
131, b, Schol. 158, b, 8, 161, b, 9,
184, b, 36; Simpl. Be Casio, Schol.
509, a, 6). Alexander, in his
commentary, quotes from both on
numerous points in which they
developed or improved Aristotle's
'AvaK. irp6r. (cf. Tlwophr. Fr.
[ed. Wimmer], p. 177 sq. 229;
Eudem. Fr. [ed. Spengel], p.
144 sq.). For the Second Analytic
the references are less
copious ; but we know of passages
of Theophrastus through Alexander
(Anon. Schol. in Ar. 240, b,
2, and ap. Eustrat. ibid. 242,
a, 17), through Themist. ibid.
199, b, 46, and through Philop.
ibid. 205, a, 46, and through an
Anon. Schol. ibid. 248, a, 24, of
a, remark of Eudemus, all of
which seem to refer to the Second
Analytic. We know as to Theophrastus,
not only from the form
of the title of the'AyoA. irpifa-epa,
but also from express testimony
(v. Diog. v.42; Galen, Hippocr.
et PI. ii. 2, vol. v. 213, and
Alex. Qu. Nat. i. 26) that he did
write a Second Analytic, and it
is probable that in that, as in
the text, he followed Aristotle.
Aristotle himself cites both
Analytics under that name : Top.
viii. 11, 13, 162, a, 11, b, 32
Soph. El. 2, 165, b, 8 ; Bhet. i.
2, 1356, b, 9, 1357, a, 29, b, 24,
ii. 25, 1403, a, 5, 12 ; Metaph. vii.
12 init. ; Eth. N. vi. 3, 1139, b,
26, 32 ; also De Interpr. 10, 19, b,
31 ; M. Mm: ii. 6, 1201, b, 25
Eth. Eud. i. 6, 1217, a, 17, ii. 6,
1222. b, 38, c. 10, 1227, a, 10;
(cf. other references ap. Bonitz,
Ind. Arist. 102, a, 30 sq). It is
therefore the original title, and
has always remained in common
use, notwithstanding that Aristotle
cites certain passages of
the First Analytic with the word
iv tois Trep! avWoyuriiov (Anal,
post. i. 3, 11, 73, a, 14, 77, a, 33),
or that Alexander (Metaph. 437,
12, 488, 1), 718, 4) and Pt. 28
call the Second Analytic oiro-
SeiKTiK^i, or that Galen (De Puis.
iv. Jin., vol. viii. 765 ; De Libr.
Propr. vol. xix. 41) chooses to
substitute, as he says, for the
common titles, the names n.