Aristotle "Metaphysics" 5, 1010 b 2

Author(s): H. J. Blumenthal
Source: Mnemosyne, Fourth Series, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1/2 (1979), pp. 165-166
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4430862 .
Accessed: 22/01/2015 09:34
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Mnemosyne.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:34:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MISCELLANEA
ARISTOTLE

METAPHYSICS

165
G 5, ????

b 2

pe?? d? t?? a???e?a?, ?? ?? pa? t? fa????e??? a?????, p??t??

??? dt?
??d* <e?> ? a?s??s?? <??>
t??
?d???
???*
est??,
?e?d??
?e
? fa?tas?a
?? ta?t?? t? a?s??se?.
Thus ???? b 1-3 in Jaeger's Oxford Classical Text.
line 2: ??d' ? codd., Bonitz; ??d* <e?> ?.
<??> Ross; ?? d? ?
con. Tredennick.
Jaeger's apparatus gives "el et ?? ex Alc add. ci. Bonitz".
Aristotle
is arguing
the view that all appearances
are
against
the law of contradiction
true, which would invalidate
1). The sense
of these lines should then be that while sense-perception
in general
is reliable in respect of the special objects of the several senses, any
instance
of fa?tas?a
which, as the first part of the sentence
shows,
is unreliable,
is different
from a?s??s?? in any case.
??d? is inappropriate,
as Aristotle
would not say that not even
a?s??s?? of ?d?a is false, when that is the only kind that is exempt
from error2).
The supplements
are
given
by Ross and Jaeger
based on Bonitz* reconstruction,
exempli gratia, of the text behind
Alexander's
comments
on the
in Metaph.
311.26 ff.
passage,
from a clear reference
(Hayduck)
8). They do not arise directly
in Alexander.
Alexander's
has simply
??d* ?
lemma,
moreover,
on
and
b
in
Ross,
2,
notes,
a?s??s??
?e?d??,
properly
apparatu,
"fort. leg. Al. Ase: om. codd. G AU".
These supplements
does not
produce two difficulties:
1) Aristotle
think
of
of
?d?a
as
even
for
the
sake of
fallible,
normally
a?s??s??
on the passage,
noted this
argument
4). Ross, in his commentary
as a difficulty
for the text he prints. 2) They make the last clause
more difficult,
in so far as it does not then easily attach
itself to
the preceding
words.
the MSS ??d? but
Further,
??d(?) is unnecessary.
Keeping
??
and
therefore
??
dividing
d?,
reading
d? a?s??s?? d), would solve
the problem:
"of course a?s??s?? of the ?d?a is not false, but the
with the perception
image is not identical
(which gave rise to it)".
The following
lines make it clear that images of the ?d?a a?s??t?
cannot
all be correct, and are evidently
meant to expand
the contrast made in ???? b 2-3 between
a?s??s?? of them, which is norwhich is not.
mally correct, and fa?tas?a
Alexander's
comments
do not in fact depend
on a
(311.24-9)
text such as Bonitz
What he says is, d?a???eta? p???
suggested.
.. . ., de????? dt? ?? p??
t??? pa? t? fa????e???
a????? ?????ta?
a?????, p??t??
??? dt? ??? e? ? a?s??s?? ?? t??? ?d???? a?s??t??? ??
that is, Aristotle
d?a?e?deta?,
?d? ??d? ? fa?tas?a:
argues against
Mnemosyne,

Vol. XXXII,

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:34:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fase. 1-2

l66

MISCELLANEA

those who say that every fa????e??? is true, by showing

that not
all fa????e?a are, in the first place because it does not follow from
in dealing
the fact that a?s??s?? is not deceived
with the special
sensibles
that fa?tas?a
too is not so deceived,
is part
e?.??
but he is simply spelling
of Alexander's
out in detail
explanation,
he has set out
the meaning
of Aristotle's
text, and the meaning
would be covered
quite adequately
by the reading here proposed.
Further
the words e? .
?? do not occur when Alexander
refers back to Aristotle
a few lines below (31-32). And the examples
Aristotle
to give are precisely
cases where fa?tas?a
proceeds
may
be wrong about ?d?a a?s??t?, namely colours (???? b 3-9).
in Metaph. 76.25-27
Syrianus,
(Kroll), explains that the erroneous
two false premises,
p?sa fa?tas?a
thesis involves
a?s??s?? and p?sa
of these premises
is most easily exa?s??s?? a?????. The second
on the other hand, does
tracted from the text suggested.
Asclepius,
seem to have had a conditional
before him. He writes,
f?s?? ?d?
dt? ??? ?p????e?a,
dt? ??? ?st?? ? a?s??s?? ?e?d?? t?? ?d??? a?s??t??,
in Metaph. 280.24-25
but the run of his argu****...,
(Hayduck),
lacuna
at
the
this
ment is obscured
by
point, and he may in any
rather
his comments
on Alexander's
case be basing
commentary
than the text itself, a common
enough habit in the work of Ammonius
and his Neoplatonic
successors
e). We cannot be sure that
in any case 7).
f?s?? does not refer to Alexander
University

H. J. Blumenthal

of Liverpool

?) For a recent discussion of the arguments, cf. A. Kenny, The Argument

from Illusion in Aristotle*s Metaphysics (G, 1009-10), Mind 76 (1967), 184-97,
esp. 190 ff.
2) Cf. e.g. de Anima 418 a n-13.
II (Bonn 1849), 205 f.; cf. also C. Kirwan,
3) Aristotelis Metaphysica,
Aristotle's Metaphysics G ? E (Oxford 1971), no.
4) Cf. however de Anima 428 b 18-19.
5) After writing the first draft of this note I found this suggestion tucked
away at the end of the note on b 1-3 by G. Colle, Aristote. La M?taphysique.
Livre Quatri?me (Louvain 1931), 112, where it appears to have remained
menunnoticed by the subsequent editors, translators and commentators
tioned: G. Reale, Aristotele. La Metafisica (Naples 1968), also translates
the text of Ross and Jaeger.
6) Asclepius* commentary is derived from the courses of Ammonius, cf.
223.1-3.
7) This note arose out of an Aristotle reading group at the Center for
Hellenic Studies in 1975-6. I should also like to thank the Leverhulme Trust,
from whom I held a Research Fellowship at the time.

Mnemosyne,

Vol. XXXII,

This content downloaded from 168.176.5.118 on Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:34:19 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fase. 1-2