Aristotle, Prior Analytics

297 Pages·1989·69.31 MB·English

by  Aristotle

Prior
Analytics
translated by
Robin Smith

ARISTOTLE
Prior
Analytics
translated, with introduction,
notes, and commentary, by
Robin Smith
Hackett Publishing Company
Indianapolis I Cambridge
Aristotle: 384-322 B.C.
Copyright © 1989 by Robin Smith
All rights reserved
Primed in the United States of America
Cover and interior design by L. Daniel Kirklin
For funher information, please address the publisher
Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
P.a. Box 44937
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Aristotle.
[Prior analytics. English]
Prior analytics / Aristotle; translated, with introduction,
notes, and commentary by Robin Smith.
p. em.
Bibliography: p.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-87220-064-7
1. Logic-Early works to 1800. I. Title.
B440.A5S65 1989
160- dc19 88-39877
CIP
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum re-
quirements of American National Standard for Information
Sciences-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.
Contents
Preface VII
Introduction XIII
Prior Analytics
Book A 1
Book B 65
Notes to Book A \OS
Notes to Book B 183
Appendix I
A List of the Deductive Forms in Prior Ana/ytics A 4- 22 229
Appendix II
Deviations from Ross's (OCT) Text 236
Glossary 239
Bibliography 244
Index Locorum 249
General Index 252
In Memoriam
Charles Allen Carson
1928- 1989
PREFACE
No other neatise on formal logic is comparable CO Aristotle's Prior
Anolytics. This is true in the first place because no other logician oc-
cupies a position in history at all comparable to Aristotle. He was not
only the first formal logician, he was also one of the greatest: the most
compelling evidence for this assessment is his startling appearance on
the stage of history, with no real predecessor. But historical accident
has added much to the importance of the Prior Analytics. For many
generations, Aristotelian logic (or at least what passed for Aristotelian
logic) was identically logic: thus, Kant could say, in the Critique of Pure
Reason, that the entire field of logic had not made a single advance
since Aristotle's great treatise. Few would concur in such an opinion
today, but the effect of the Prior Analytics in forming our philosophical
heritage is difficult to exaggerate.
At the same time, it might be argued that the work has little philo-
sophical interest today. During the last century, formal logic has
reached extremely high levels of technical sophistication, and philo-
sophical discussion of its underlying concepts has advanced commen-
surately. As a result, it might be suggested that whatever admiration
we may have today for Aristotle's achievement, nevertheless he has
little to teach us that we cannot learn better from our contemporaries.
When we consider the effort that is required to study a system in many
respects awkward and unfamiliar from a modern point of view, the
difficulties occasioned by Aristotle's ignorance of much of what we
have since learned about deductive systems, and the many problems of
interpretation which arise with any work produced in another language
and in another culture at a distance of over two millennia, the Pn·or
Analytics may seem to be of value only to the philosophical antiquary.
I do not think this is a fair assessment. In part, I would respond with
the same defense many historians of philosophy give for the practice of
their craft: Aristotle is a major part of our philosophical ancestry, and
we come to understand ourselves better by studying our ideal origins.
In larger part, however, I would suggest that we still may have some-
thing to learn from this old Greek. If he is ignorant of our vast body of
VII
VIII PREFACE
metalogic. he is also unencumbered by our many newly-born preju-
dices. Sometimes, we find his approach to a question, once we come to
understand it in our own terms, is a fresh one: occasionally, he might
even be right. The proof, of course, must be in the experiencing.
The Translation. Translation is almost by nature arrogant: the trans-
lator acts as a kind of impersonator of the author, and rhe reader has no
good means of defense against a false representation. In rhe case of a
work like rhe Prior Anaiylics, there is a temptation to even further
arrogance. Aristotle's Greek is frequently clipped, difficult of con-
struction, awkward. ambiguous, or obscure. The translator is sorely
tempted to give him a hand in coming across better in English: to
resolve the ambiguities, clean up the messy constructions, fill out what
is abbreviated (or even absent), smooth out the awkward parts. While
about it, one could also give the reader a bit of help with a few rather
full renderings of difficult terms or phrases, creating a text that em-
bodies a certain amount of commentary in its interstices.
There are occasions when this sort of translation is appropriate, but
it is not what I have aimed at. I have tried instead to give the philo-
sophically informed reader who does not know Greek a vehicle for rhe
study of Aristotle's Prior Analytic!. To that end, I have attempted to
leave as much of the interpretative work as possible undone. One way
to do that is to follow the model of Robert Grosseteste and construct a
SOrt of functional mapping of Aristotle's Greek into English (or rather
into a barbarous sort of construction made of English words). But this,
I believe, is in many cases just not to translate at all. The Greekless
reader, presented with such a subliteral string of English vocabulary, is
often prompted to ask: Well, whatever could that mean?
What I have tried to do instead is to strike a compromise. The
English of my translation is intended to be English, though I have
sought to avoid making it more elegant than Aristotle's Greek. When
Aristotle is hard to construe, I have undertaken to translate him with
difficult English. However, I have made intelligibility take precedence
over the goal of reproducing the character of Aristotle's Greek in
English, something which probably cannot be done. When alternative
interpretations of the text are possible, I have, of course, chosen the
one I find most likely (though in some fortunate cases, I have been
able to reproduce an ambiguity of Greek syntax in English); however,
in the Notes I alert the reader to those possibilities which I have
PREFACE IX
closed off in the translation itself. When a ccnain translation of a
technical term is well-established, I have more often than not opted
for it, even though these traditional renderings are sometimes less
than optimal, simply to make my version useful: readers must other-
wise have a glossary converting my renderings into the established
ones in order to make sense of the secondary literature. I have,
however, avoided one unnecessary barbarism: I usually translate
huparchei ponti as 'belongs to every' rather than 'belongs to all' (which,
in the present sense, has no English use outside discussions of the
syllogistic: see Geach 1972, 69).
The Text. The translation is generally based on Ross's text; varia-
tions from his readings, where they are important, are discussed in the
Notes (a list of variations from Ross is given as Appendix II). In
virtually every such case, my differences with Ross lean towards edi-
torial conservatism: I have tried to find a coherent sense for the best-
attested reading, and I have taken the position that Aristotle some-
times nods. I retain the traditional division into Chapters, which
(though completely without ancient authority) is a convenient and
generally reasonable way of subdividing the text. Line references in
the margin are to the standard edition (Bekker). Square brackets en-
close passages which, although well-attested in the manuscripts, nev-
ertheless seem to be spurious. I use angle brackets to mark both
editorial additions to Aristotle's text (i.e., corrections to the manu-
scripts) and interpretative additions to the translation.
The Notes. The Notes are not intended as a comprehensive com-
mentary, but rather as an aid to the reader with more knowledge of
logic and philosophy than of Greek. My goal has been to provide
others with a Prior Analytics that can actually be used for serious study.
Accordingly, I have tried to make clear what is controversial or prob-
lematic about the text and, to the extent possible, to get out of the
reader's way. This has sometimes led me to include rather lengthy
discussions of the grammatical and textual problems surrounding cer-
tain passages, which may seem odd in a work intended to be intelli-
gible to those who do not know Greek. But it is precisely for that sort
of reader that these points require the fullest discussion. Such a reader
has no text beyond the translation and cannot see through the finished
product to its often murky origins. What I have done is reconstruct
X PREFACE
some of the messy, even tendentious process whereby renderings
come to be chosen; I hope that I have at the same time managed to
undermine my own appearance of authority.
I have also tried to alert the reader to difficulties in understanding
the text and to give some broad picture of the range of opinion among
scholars, although this is necessarily selective and omits mention of
many issues. In ;ome cases, I do not take a position myself, but in
others I do: the reader is better armed against my prejudices by being
informed of what they are. On one poine, I have argued for a rather
specific line of interpretation. I see the Pn"or Analytics as organized in a
certain way to suppOrt the goals of the Posterior. The nature of my
view is spelled out in the Introduction, and the details are defended in
various places, as appropriate, throughout the Notes. Once again. I
believe that if my readers are aware of my own exegetical hobby-
horses, they will be in a better position to defend themselves against
any distorting effects.
The Introduction. The Prior Analytics is a technical work, and a
difficult one. Some framework for viewing its theories is necessary. and
we must (as Aristotle says) begin with what is familiar to us. I have
therefore offered, in the Introduction, a model for Aristotle's deductive
system in the style of mathematical logic. This may be regarded as a
bit of temporal provincialism: perhaps in a century or twO, it may seem
as quaint to future readers as mid-nineteenth century accounts do to
us. But at the least, it offers a point of departure from which to begin.
I cite the twO Books of the Prior Analytics simply as A and B ('A 23'
means 'Book A, Chapter 23'). Other works of Aristotle are given
English (rather than Latin) titles. References to commentaries and
other translations are identified by the commentator's name and page
number only; other literature is cited by author and year. The details,
in each case, are found in the Bibliography. As for the Bibliography, it
should be regarded simply as the list of works I mention (though I also
include a few general works on Aristotle).
Acknowledgments. A grant from the Bureau of General Research of
Kansas State University provided support for the acquisition of mate-
r
rials and expenses of manuscript preparation; acknowledge this with
thanks. A number of persons have generously helped me with various
stages of the work. Robert Turnbull offered advice and encouragement
as the project was taking initial shape. John Corcoran has for many