Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ZETA
OF
ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS
1975-1979
Sub-Faculty of Philosophy,
10 Merton Street,
Oxford,
1979
( reprinted 1986)
PREFACE
Once a month on winter Saturdays a group of scholars converges
on New York City by car , train and aircraft to discuss some
Greek philosophical text . On his return to Britain the group ' s
founder , G . E . L . Owen , set up a daughter house in London, which
first met at the British Academy in Piccadilly on Sth February
1975 and began discussion of Aristotle ' s Metaphysics book z.
M . F . Burnyeat took minutes of the meeting , which he later wrote
up and circulated. The record was continued , by Burnyeat and
others , at every subsequent meeting unti l , on 17th March 1 9 7 9 ,
we reached the end of Z .
This volume contains those minutes , together with two
previously unpubli shed papers, by G . E . L . Owen and G . J.Hughes ,
which we had before us during our discussions of Z 7 -9 and
Zl3 respectively. The proposal to publish was made in May
1979 , whenit was decided to leave all the material in the
form in which it had originally been circulated, with only
minor editorial deletions and clarifications . What follows ,
thereforeis a record of the London group ' s discussions , now
and then embell ished (as will appear) , but for the most part
merely organized , ' by the subsequent labours of the recorders.
In comparison with a commentary our record must lack unity
and comprehensivenes s ; but we offer it in the belief that
others will find value in an account of what a number of
people , working together , thought about this difficult text.
We express our cordial thanks to the British Academy for
making their premises available to us from 1 9 7 5 to 1977 , and
to the Ins itute of Classical Studies in Gordon Square for
extending the same favour since October 197 7 .
Nearly half the minutes are by Myles Burnyeat , the rest by
Julia Annas , Lesley Brown , Christopher Kirwan , Alan Lacey ,
Gwilym Owen , Malc olm Schofield , Bob Sharples and Michael Woods .
Others who attended meetings (many not often) were Elizabeth
Anscombe , Jonathan Barnes , David Charles , James Dybikowski ,
Theodor Ebert, Gail Fine , Peter Geach , Gerald Hughes , Edward
Hussey , Terence Ir win , Barrington Jones , Anthony Kenny ,
i
ABBREVIATIONS
The works of Aristotle are referred to as follows :
An . Pos:t
Posterior Analytics
Cat .
Categories
De An:
De Anima
EN
Nicbmachean Ethics
GC
De Generatione et Corruptione
Met .
Metaphysics
PA
De Partibus Animalium
Phys .
Physics
Pol .
Polictics
Rhet .
Rhetoric
SE
De Sophisticis Elenchis
Top.
Topics
- ii
Other references :
Apostle
Asclepius
In Aristotelis Metaphysioorurtt<'Libros
A-Z Commentaria, ed. M . hayduck ,
Berlin 18 8 8 .
Barnes
Bohn
Bonitz
Jaeger
Oxford translation
Ps . Alexander
Reale
Aristoteles , la Metafisica ,
traduz ione , introduzione e
commento , Giovanni Reale ,
Loffredo 1 9 6 8
Ross
iii
Note to
2nd Impression
1.
C.A.
Kirwan
Exeter College,
Oxford.
March
iv
1986.
CHAPTER
Zl
10 28a 1 1 - !2
{-6i gnifiesl what a thing
is and ( that it is) a this something, a subject . It was
suggested that the ua( joins the two marks of oo(a that will
later get pres sed , indeed overpressed , in different directions :
form and subjecthood (matter) .
1 0 28a 14
1 0 2 8a
18
ON
NOTES
1028a 18-20
ZETA
( a ) H i s a quality,
( b ) H qualifies some
6(.i;a.)
By contra st ,
C/
t'\
oui:wb
i:ou
of course, be an
ts'v
?fvi:oi;; .
7fvr
&i:w i;; : in
exi s t .
The
but only '6vi:a in the dependent way described , maybe they are
not
vi;a
l028a 2 1
at a l l .
No great anxi ety was felt about the readings ona(ve: L
).I.
rte:q>uu.&'i;;.
inclination
to
the ground that the usual expansion for u.aa 'ai:o i s ;\.e;y c(e;vov ;
thi s to be weighed against texts where non substantial items
are u.aa' an i:&' ;\.e;y
l028a 24-25
'
c{e;va .
,,.
i:o 13a5L!:ov
10 28a 2 6
CHAPTER 1
10 2 8a 26-9
(ta(vEaL)
manifest
- Kaana8aL
= designation cf . 1 0 4 7 a 34 .
1028a 2 9 - 3 1
aunv
/
ouaLa
C/
,,,,,
xanyopLa
that KE(vwv
a 2 7 , not
,,,
Exaoov "
EOLvi second that ,,EKELvwv
most likely refers to the
,;.
' ::>
"'
'
more remote o aaoLELV, etc . a 20-2 1 , rather than o aya8ov,
,
' ">/
xa8nEvov a 28-29 1 i f the latter, "'
L
ov makes the point
,;
'
'
that o aaeLOV must always be o aaoLOV L1 eg, the walking
.
"'
"
man, whereas ' the man' is complete as it stands and does not
require to be backed by an answer to the question ' The man
what? ' .
This reading of o
ingenui ty ,
SO
o aaofELV,
we settled for\KEVWV =
etc.
nptwc
.1
nWG,
j us t is
c&n}..(;iG).
xa\
-i:(
in
,,..
ELVaL
into one
8.nA.lG i s parenthetica l ,
np-CWG v i s intended as
anG VS,.V L
v-r:a
(complete use)
substance i s primary .
"'
ELvaL
within
but
ZETA
ON
NOTES
l.028a: ;30
8th March 19 75
1028a 30 - 1
&nA.wb
is epexegetic to
note) .
For
't'vaL
"tL
"tv
rather than
npfu'"twb,
speci fying it as
dnA.b
with
'i'vaL,_y {yvEcr8aL,
?:i.A.A.' Jv
"tL v
( see previous
c f . SE 166b
How
exis t without subs tance, subs tance can exist without ( any)
accidents , whether-s.ubstance is .taken. as.'..individual or kind .
To meet this constraint, 3 types of solution were canvas sed : ( 1)
Ob jection :
the qualities
Ob j e ction :
th is
determinable
ones ; e . g . bodies could exist without any being pink but not
without any being coloure d .
CHAPTER
10 2 8 a 3 1
context of change .
83a 4 ff;
( b ) seems to apply. ]
AbYOG Kcrou
This result has an important bearing .. on the next ques tion, which
concerns the range of ( a )
Ka'cno u
G o?icr(aG.
(b)
1
A . planet
body
A' .
( surface)
(,
substance
colour
B . yellow
The maximum range for
&
quality
/'
If an A2 definition
1028a 34
NOTES
ON ZETA
(definitional)
inheres in .
More
or of substance itself ( A3 ) .
does it help t o replace the route Bl-B2- (A' 2 ) -A2-A3 by the route
Bl-B2-B3-A3 :
Kou
/
@v Awv Kanyopnctwv
If
, 2
'
( a 11-12 ) .
o'ua(a
is
sight.)
to fit both the strong A6YOG -withi n-A6YOG claim and Aristotle's
practice, we mus t, and can, accept that Kaoov<at a 36 had the
broader range that Aris totle indicates at a 3 7 .
10 2 8a 3 6 -b 2 priority in knowledge . The problem was rais ed, how
does a contrast between two questions concerning . one single
( s ub s tantial)
5 vapwnoG
(a)
and io
ft%
are a
'What is it? ' i s asked and answered about someth ing that is in
6
CHAPTERS
fact
noL6v
man or a fire .
l, 2
10 28a 36'
nocrov and T
. .
The problem itself was left over for the next meet ing .
llth Apri l 1 9 7 5
1028b 2 - 7
"'
/ .
can
T 'LC
.!:
11
...
oucr
L a. ; , not that the
( 1)
It was proposed
ques tion Tr
TO v
Diffi culty
TL
txa'."crTou ( 10 28b 35 ) .
TC TO
v ; but referring
This would
:pe:rce:p tible bodies ; t):l;ts is suggested by ( i ) his summingup of the p:roJ:ilems of . Z 2 at .!:> 28- 3 1, ( i i ) contrasts with the
1 0 2 8b 8
NOTES
ZETA
ON
oaLlJ.OVLa
he avenly bodies , c f . 10 2 8b 1 3 . )
10 28b 12
accepting ( wi th Jaeger )
by Ros s ) , although
to
lJ.OPLCJl\I.
1028b 15
1028b 16-18
,,,
aAlw>v
and Ross's
But ( a )
LOL
(b 16 ) are
nepaa have a
to be o&oCaL than bodie s . S o llAAOV fb 17 ) i s
.... _..r..\. ._
uw.u. MaL o on;pe;ov, MaL is
( b ) In 17-18 o
'
'
'
n(paa
( c)
At 1002b 10 Aristotle
see
10 17b 17-2 1 , 101 9 a 1-4 , and the references and discuss ion in
de S trycker , p . 9 3- 8 in Aristotle and Plato in the mid-fourth
century ( e dd . I . During and G . E . L . Owen, G8teborg 196 0 ) .
The
oOoCa
oGi.La
(mathematical) solid.
I f this is right
perceptible body to
CHAPTER
Given that
1 0 2 8b 18
o:acr(a L ,
1.
1083a 17-b 8
1085a 7-20
2.
( c f . 9 9 2a 10- 19 )
a 3 1-b 2 3
Derivation of geometrical
magnitudes
b 2 7- 1 0 8 6 a 18 .
3.
4.
10 8 7b 4 - 3 3
10 8 8 a 15-b 35 .
10 9-0b 13- 1 0 9 la 9 ,
Alexander, in Met . 2 2 8
10-2 8 , 7 7 7 . 162 1 .
See H . D . Saffrey , Le Peri
5.
1090b 19-20
materi a l principle
NOTES
1028b 18
10 8 4 a 2 9 -
6.
ON
b 2
ZETA
7.
2 0 ff Sextus , Adversus
Mathematicos . X 2S9 ff .
See de Voge l , Philosoph ia
part 1 pp . 2 8 3-S . c f .
9 9 2 a 20-4
Theophrastus ,
8.
Metaphysics 6a 2 3b 2 2 .
9.
Sextus Adversus
Mathematicos X . 2 S 8 .
cf. 1036b 1 2 , b 2 2 ,
1044a 13 .
10 .
1 0 8 8b 3S- 1 0 9 0 a 2 .
11 .
9 8 8 a 14- lS ,
109la 2 9 - 1 0 9 2 a 1 7
Eudemus
evi l .
(Gaiser , Platens
9 9 2 a . 13-19 ,
10 8Sa 7-20
derivation of magnitudes .
a 3 1- 10 8Sb 4 .
1028b 19
"
( c f . 9 9 0b 4 ) .
aA.A.ov
.,
.aoLa.
CHAPTERS
2, 3
10 28b 19
>/
... .
NOTES
ON
ZEll'A
be) a
q.
&LOOG
can have ( or
"""
Hence argument of Z 3 that &Looi; must be
i:C \I Etvcu.
,.
,..
& .vcu:
,
AOYLxn
r,.
-opT.J in the analysis of the physical individual
UAT.l
and &L5oi;;
at 1029a 2-5 .
II
ifAT.l
Z 3 treats
1-2)
...
I>
unou&L&vov
npwi:ov
-
( 10 2 9 a
et.
""'
'
i:o
.,,,,.
(
unoK&L&vov &Kacri:
nti!'tov
,,,.
'
is what Aristotle
his examp le
The surface is
...
Ka3.aui:o
Ka31a6i:nv
wi' l l
white ( 10 2 2 a 3 0 - 3 1 ) , matter
...
Kai:a crua&anuoi;;
'
privation, l . 9 lb 14-16 ) .
change?
.
lOth May 1975
Method We start from the ordinary . materials of dialectical
discussion:
AY&l:aL
AOYOL
&'ALcri:a in
oucr.L/a), viz that
5ou&'i:,
>
CHAPTER
debate about physis and what underlies change , but Ari stotle
formulates it as the thes is that substance is the primary or
ultimate sub j ect, that which of all else is said and which i s
not itself said o f anything further ( 10 28b 2 6 - 7 ; n . b .
' said
.e:!:.;
1:<.
( 10 2 9 a 10 , 26-8) .
On
On view
In more detail : -
For (A), cf . II in
The
c.
'
,..
This
c:
,,
Ket3'aui:nv i:L
not
The
Ycixai:ov ( 102 9 a 2 4 )
,,
you get to; but prime matter i s not xa3' aui:nv "f:L, nooov , etc . ,
whereas substance must be XCilP Loi:O'v and i:6'oe: i:L ; therefore,
13
,,
NOTES
ON
ZETA
( for wh ich cf .
I t i s unde rtaken in
Conclusion: so ( 10 29 a 18 :
c:i&i:e) matter is le f t , by
A.eyro
B'
ll'>..nv
Ki:A.:
given that on
stripping does not put us in touch with matter , the only grip
we have on b">..n as yet i s the e xamp1e of the bronze of the statue
( 10 2 9 a 4 ) .
we
I f , on the
..
,..
y,ap
exp.J,ci.ins why
'CHAPTER
i:e;
1029a 5
if
the
1029a 5
prior to B
1029a
j.n Z l .
1029a
OUOLO.,
ualA.ov
12 ir;l'v 'Y.A.A.oov:
all of
stand ' other than matte r ' here and, with (A) ,
matter ' at the end of the line, would
tautoloyous :
if
3<..
(To under-
'nothing but
13
,,
OUVO.].l.Lb:
too is not a property that prime matter has im3 ' a.un1v ) , the
context makes it appear that Ari stotle i s thinking of the
various categories into which the stripped
grouped, so that the ouva.ueL' are probably the ouva.ue L' in the
category of quality .
1 0 2 9 a 14-18
stripped?
Why
(Cat . 8 ) .
i( marked
out by the
The
question
was
Z3 ' @bevel
predicates generally
coloured, so when
,,
'
,.'
ti:t
(a quite
distinct sense of xa3 'a.ui:o from t.hat in which matter has none of
tl
primary recipient at 102 2 a 18, it was not found that this line of
thought would be helpful with
Z3 .
15
1 0 2 9 a 27
NOTES
7th
ON
ZETA
June 1975
E:'to oG and
102 9 a 27-8
i:
XlllPLoi:ov.
Compare 10 4 2 a 26 ff.
i:o i:L
f$\
Loo!;
.....
""
same be true of
c/
uAn?
No,
uAn,
/
the concrete is
'
/.
uAn
i s, so go on to
I'>\
LOO!;),
or
( i ) was preerred.
cpavEpct?
perhaps
that unlike that of form1.. the'-'conc1;!pt of.. matter is eas ily grape,
e . g . by consideration of substantial change.
1029b 1-2
1.'ooG
investigation of
i: i:( v E"E'vaL
is a
EtooG and
t9I
i: 'o i:L, ,..
nv LVnL
e stablished .
16
CHAPTER
1029b 1 3
A.OYLKOOG .
l029b 13
1029b 14
c.
e:Ka.oi:ce ;
"
e:Ka.OTov, codd
Though
an
'
emendation,
c /
e:Ka.oi:ce
a.oi:ov
Even if we keep
' /
e: KO.Ol:W
\J
i;('ifv e:'t'va.L
( of the thing
1029b 14-16
Ka.i: oa.ui:v
musical .
Despite the
musical
Ka.ea.ti:6 wh ite
give the
Ka.ea.5i:6
The sense of
in Which a surface i s
i:C v e:'t'va.L .
There was
an
the following as
It
( I ) .What
or circularity .
a.?no = white,
surface.
Woods :
i s in the de finiens
npooe:oi: Lv
I
NOTES
1.P2!lb 18
ON
ZETA
4!>
..
'
;>" \.
,, C/
"' '
,
,..
.
d ing
-,ru11derstan
e:nuq:ia.ve:1.,,-'C A:e:ux
v e:1.t-va.LL a4:ter 't'o a.ui;o xa. e:v
and translating 'being whate .and (therefore) smooth will be one
and the same as being a white surface ' . ( 4 ) What is the fate
of the third suggestion? (a) On woods ' view it.-.is . al lowed to
stand, since it is not open to the repetition obgectidn to
the second suggestion . It will be ruled out by the succeeding
lines wliii@h. deny_ that oU"v17e:i;a. xa.i; i;i; A:A:a.i; xanlYOP (a.i; have an
essence . (b) Suppose we read b 21-22 in the more natural way
as ; bei\'.}g white and being smooth will be one and the same ' .
Is this a reductio of the second suggestion? If so, is this
(i) because the conclusion is clearly false , or (ii) because
if being white and being smooth _are_the same the obj ection
on the grounds of repetition has not really been circumvented?
i . e . i f A has been ruled out as the es sence of AB , and C = A,
there will be the same obj ections to the claim that C is the
essence of AB. There was some support for (ii) ; none was voiced
for (i) . Against (ii) it was objected that this line of
argument would involve paradox of analy$sis type objections which
would prevent anything being the essence, of anything . Consensus
on the overall strategy of the passage was not reached . On
/
..,
...,
b 19-20 i.e:v ,..
a.pa
etc : (i) apa. is difficult , (ii) A:e:yovi;L: a
strong sense , roughly define , ( iii) there is use/mention confusion
.,, "'
in b 2 0 : the first a.ui;o the expression ' x ' , the second = the
thing x.
18th October 19 75
1029b 18-20 We started by going back to 19-20 , which sets two
,.
conditions for a A:oyoi; stating the essence of something : (i)
"
.
the A:oyoi; must state the definiendum , not something else , (ii)
the definiendum (sc . its name ) must not appear in the definiens .
With a view to making sense of the a.pa (1029b 19) , we looked for
a justification of the 2 conditions in the preceding 17-19 . It
was suggested that (i) arses out of 17-18 (being a surface is
not being white , i . e . 'white' does not say what surface is at all) ,
(iil out of 18-19 , read as saying that neither is being a
surface being a white surface , because the definiendum, surface ,
reappears in the definiens 'white surface ' . (n . b . some MS support
7
,,
for aui;nl . This , of course , involves going against Woods ' suggestion
18
CHAPTER
1 0 2 8b
(see previous note) that 17-18 says not that ' wh ite surface '
does not give the essence of surface (as Ross and above ) ,
but that ' white ' does not give the essence of white surface .
We considered, . in fact, 3 interpretations of the sentence
18-19 : ( a ) Nor is it ( .!!E_ .be ing a surface - understood.: subject
carried over from previous line ) being a white surface , because
it (aCrtil'aDi:n surface ) .'_ is::repeated.:..in .the "defJ.nii;ins the
first interpretation described above . (b) Nor is it (.!!
being white - subject understood from the complement in
previous line , though it was also pointed out that in 17-18
Ii'
, ,,.
... ,
d
/5'
\.
i:o
AEUX ELVaL coul be Sub)ect, i:o EnL<P<l.VEL ELVaL complement)
being a white surface , because it (ai:O' = white ) is repeated
in the_definiens - Woods ' view, motivated by a di fferent
understanding of 17-18 ' s objection to white ' s giving the
es sence of surface . According to Woods , the trouble wi th the
latter is that a surface may cease to be white , so that it is
no improvement to suggest defining surface by ' white surface ' ,
whereas i t might be possible , so far as the Objection goes ,
to define white sui:face by ' white ' According to ( a ) , 'white '
does not give the e ssence of surface simplfi because white is
something other than surface , in which case 'wh ite surface '
might still seem a possible definiens of surface . ( a) holds
cons tant the question ' What is the definition of surface ? ' ,
(b) the question ' What i s white the definitd.on of ' ? ( c )
Subject understood a s under (b) but the question under con
sideration is that white be defined by ' white surface ' , and
in 1 7-18 that white be defined by ' surface ' . The main motive
here was to secure defini.t;ions'LJ:hat .someone might actually
want to propose; , and by th.is test ' White is a (white) surface '
looks better than ' A surface i s ( a ) white ( surface ) ' or ' A
white surface i s white ' . However, the latter are no more
eccentric than the de finition of white man as"'thecessence of
whi te ; it does not seem that realistic examples are a prime
concern of the passage . It was also felt important to guide
our choice of interpretation not only by the need to make:
sense of 19' s pa but also by the need to construct a coherent
sequence of thought from 1029b 1 3 , and in particular from
066 on i:oli'to nt1v at 16 . From this point of view the examples
should supply per se predications which someone might think
19
=
"'
18
If
NOTES
1029b l'S
ON
ZETA
?.Q
CHAPTER
1029b 25
...
breakfast, landmark .
note ..
"
Ma\ior problems in 1029b 23: .;,. 1030a 2 (1) The meaning of the
ob jection at 29. We saw little justification for.Ros s ' s
explanation , that the objection says that ' white man ' is not
internally per se ( ' white ' is not per se to man) , and that
therefore it cannot give the essence of anything. We thought
that , to be relevant , the ojection should state that ' cloak ' ,
i . e . ' white man ' , is not said per se of anything . ( 2 ) Sup
posing this is the meaning , no grounds are indicated for the
claim . (unle ss it be simply that white man is a compound)
( 3 ) The objection is followed by a reply ( 29- 3 4 ) which specifies
two ways in which something may fail to be said per se of
something. But surely they are not the only two ways . What
is clear is that if neither of these ways validates .the objection
- and we could not see that they did - the objection stands
until ctA.A.if gA.wi;; at l030a 2-3 raises the question whether
being a cloak (i . e . a white . man). is an es sence at all . ( 4 )
The account of the two ways ( 30 - 4 ) i s itself so obscure . as to
offer little help with these problems : - .
21
1029b 30
NOTES ON
ZETA
'
ll
CHAPTER
1030a 2
predicated nonessentially . (But exampJ.es of this were unconvincing . ) ( 2 ) also depends on understanding somel:hing not
in the Greek , viz . ' nonessentially ' . ( 3 ) White is not ex
clusive to men , so here something is predicated of what is
not identical with it. But if substances are not to be ruled
out this implies that the genus has to be identical with the
differentia . ( 4 ) White is something other than white man
(not ) , since some non-white-men are white . This does not
rule out substances if we suppose Aristotle to have in mind
here his doctrine .of "the. unity qf genus and differentia in
the species . So AAO Ka ' AAou = the differentia is not
logically equivalent to the species . Doubt was felt about
this on the grounds that this confines the subjects of pre. .
.
w
dications that are not aAAO Ka ' aAAou to species whereas the
doctrine should allow for the inclusion of particulars (in
' Socrates is a man ' etc . ) Also unhappiness. was felt about the
fact that while the 'II
aAAo = white , the ,,
aAAou = white man , given
.
,,,
.,,
ttAAou
the previous remarks on ouv3ETa . (5) aAAO = white. and ?,
= man , and the trouble is that these are items from different
categorie s . i . e . otiK r{AAO Ka ' AAOU rules out cross category
compounds; t J.10'.'T L ov was introduced above as such a crosl"'
:a ./
category hybrid. The argument would be : it isn ' t an uoLa
because only part of it is; something else has been added .
This fits better than (4 ) the previous points about definitions
misfiring by addition. But it does involve reading a point
?/
'I
about categories into the phrase aAAo Ka ' aAAou . And if it
is not to rule out substances it requires that differentiae
be in the . category of substance .
-
C/
1030a 6- 7 The ooo.E-cd.ause does not follow from what has gone
before , bt anticipates the following discussion to Show that
only substances can have definitions .
, 1090a 7.:-g A negative point about definitions . It ' s not a
/
'
"
suffic ient condition for a OPLOJ.10' that there be a AOYO'
with
the same sense as an i'fvo).1a; a single word can always be intro
duced and stipulated to mean the same as a Ayo, , so there is no
guararitee t11at there is anything that the vo).1a define s .
VOJ.la here = ' word ' , not ' name ' . The nearest parallel to the use
23
1030a 7
NOTES
ON
ZETA
.
....
c.
--
>
CHAP.TER
10 30a 11 -
oi:L i:ooe:
oe: unapxe: L will say that
for an item to be white ,
i:"'
something e . g. smoothness , is found in something e lse e . g .
surface .
1 3th December 19 75
10 30a 1 7- 2 7 The structure o f the argument is made clear by the
'
two e:p sentences 17-18 , 21- 3 : (' ai;L is said in more than one
'
way , there fore so is '?
i: L,,, ,.e:ai:L , there fore so also is 5pLa 6i;; .
Our problem was with the st!!P from the first to the second .
(Not that the next step could not be que ried too, but given
that c5pLad'G is defined in terms o f the i; ( ai:L question , it
is intelligible that Aristotle should think that being said
25
--
IP
1030 a 17
MOTES
ON
ZETA
>
....
CHAPTER
l 0 30a 1 7
,,
1030a 32-b 6 Two options are re jected, that Ta.oo. are OvTo. o0
/
c/
.
wvuWb and that they are so (J)Q'O.UTW!; = xo.a' e; v . The additionsubtraction option remains , illustrated by the tl'crn:e;p-clause
33-4 and its preferabilij::y e;icplaine<L!;>y ..the lne: C-clauae 34-b 1 .
The additi_on aspect is clear enough , but what is the subtraction?
Ross suggests that adding a qualification to e:tvaL subtracts
from its full . meaning , but this assigns a di fferent type of
ob ject to the adding and the subtracting . The same ho. lds if it
IS!
is the .implications- of unqualified e; LVO.L which are subtracte d .
I f , then, linguistic i terns are to be subtracted, the possibilities
27
/
If
1030a 13 2
NOTES
ON ZETA
lOth January 19 76
1030a J2 ff A di fferent interpretation of these lines was
mooted: the addition-subtraction option is different from the
' focal rneaning ' option of 34 . Aristotle is re jecting the two
' " ..
"'
"'
c:.
,
optio.ns that "t'ClU"t'Cl are o va OIJ,W).!UCJJ!; , and that they are so
&aa6"t00l;; (
xa ' lfv) but with the possibility of qualifying
the statement containing &';'LVClL by addi tion and subtraction ;
his own favoured alternative is then brought in (b 3 4 ) . On
this interpretation lne ( in 34 is adversative , and what fo llows
it replaces , rather than illustrates , the addition-subtraction
ppt:hon . ( Examples of this usage can be found . ) On this reading
t'he addition and subtraction do not qualify the sense of e'tvaL
itse l f , which remains the. Sarl!Ei! , that . in wh.:l.ch s.ubs tances exist;
qualifications have to be added to use e'tva L of the existence
of a non- substance i tern . The farnili ar prob lern remains of
28
CPTEI<l:l . 4 , 5
l.D30a 3.2
'
(b ) if the sense of ecrL
substance sense of e LVaL )
is
constant how do we generate the necessary ambiguity in the . , (
cr L ; question? There has to be a primacy among uses of the
question as a whole .
'
"'
/
we
l0 30b 14-16 . For the meaning of o ex n:pocreecrewG AOYOG
naturally seek help from Z4 , 1 0 29b 32- 3 , where it is explained
;i s, defining A as AB . The . Z 5 examples could wel l be introduced
as special examples of introducing something .iir\ . the definiens
not in the definiendum, cases where A cannot be de fined or
explained without introducing B . However, later at 103la 4-5
K npocre 0ewG is explained as saying the same thing twice, and
it is not clear why the previous examples should involve
literal repe tition . The only justification for the second
characterzation seems to be the preceding regre ss argument
,,.
>/
(cf . a 5 - wcrnep ev OUO LG . )
:>
l 0 30b 16
NOTES
01!1
ZETA
.
-(
1030b 2 7 Kaaangp
If this refers to 1 0 30a 17-20
g LPnKa v .
(and cf . l0 3la 8-10) we get at .most deriyative. senses of
5p LoO"i;; for i terns in non-substance ea tegories , not for cross
category compounds,:;.llke .. white:. man . _ . Possib ly the :.. c laim should
be weakened: there are as many senses of 6p Ladi;; as there
are of ta L , and since there::. is .. a_ s.e nse_in :which white.: man
aL there is a sense in which it has a definition . But this is
not obvious from Z4 at leas t . Alternative ly , Aristotle is
referring to the last sentence of Z4 ; but in that case he
merely harks back to an unargued and puz zling claim. Perhaps
he is thinking of 1030a l L ff, where it is c laimed that only
species have an essence (and so a definiton) . This does not
seem to rule out particulars yet ( c f . Z 6 ) , and most plausibly
rules out accidental conjunctions like white man.
.CHAPTER
l03 0b, 2 8
,,
'
./
l0 30b 2 8
NOTES . ON
ZETA
"
,,.
,,..
7th February 19 76
I'
CTERS
5,
-io3la
is
103la 2 1
NOTES ON
ZETA
CHAPTER
103la 2 5
103la 2 8 . c5oite: o'e: off could state ( a ) that the conclusion does
not seem to follow, hence the reductio does not work ; (b) that
the conclusion seems to be false , hence the reductio does work .
,\
/.
( a) is recommended by the SE . passage and by c5oEe: Le:v av
/
ouaLve: Lv in 26 . But i t leaves Aristotle without any argument
standing against the thesis that accidental unities are identical
with their essence , and g iven earlier doubts about whether such
35
10 3la 28 . .
NOTES ON
ZETA
l0 3 la 2 8- 3 1
,,.
"'
unoKELEvov
'
Rathe r , it i s the
.Pl atonist who will think that is the only way to conce ive a
separ ate essence .
essence i s separate
it
is
if
,, .
"
L5Ea.
( 10 3 lb l ) .
are distinct.
But would
No
the passage i s
issue between Aris totle and the Platonist i f the ques tion
is not whether the Forms are distinct from the i r essences
but whether, i f they exis t , they are to be di s tinguished
from what Aristotle calls es sence .
I call essence
'(,EP<lL
Textual points
1 0 3 lb l :
Ros s ' s
..
n p6EpQ.L
oo o (a.L is
,..,
The firs t
Ev
is
not answered .
CHAPTER
'
ehat
1 0 3 lb 3
assen
does. not
&noAEAU{vaL
as connoting a separation
c f . Phys . 185a 2 8 ) .
So s trong a
so,
o3o(aL
once they are dis tinguished from the Forms , this amounts to
se tting them up as independent householders on their own , i . e .
to the divorce s i tuation .
10 3lb 3-4
' 5 '
(v
Forms ,
essences .
't/v,a,
e s sence to be known.
the things that exist are not knowab le , those that are knowab le
do not exist .
'
10 3 lb 11 f f
'
/
,
o ayaeov
e tc . in
,...
though i t i s
'
even
.....
/.
...
' >
xaAoV
xaL
ayaeov
o
are
the same as the i r essences , and then genera l i zes the asse rtion
...
'
'
This i nterpre tati on presupposes
ove r al l xae aua KaL npwa .
xa
( 1 ) Are
noted that ( a)
pa
"
tfoa
P laton ic Forms ?
is uninte ll igible .
I n favour we
a 28-b 1 1 which .was about Forms , and ( b ) i f they are not Forms
they are
men
tba . . .. . . . np@a
( see
(2) ) ;
"
"
""'
own
person .
( 2 ) What is included in
1 0 3 lb 11
NOTES
ON
ZETA
suggested that in b 2 2 - 3
'
,,
'
ou.j3EnxoG
of xaa
"
Again st this
it signifies a
a.
'
AEYOUEVOV
, and the Sub J e c t of onuaLVE L V in b 2 3 and
re ference of
AEY 6u&vov .
I
/
auo
'
'
. o A.&uxov , not o K . o .
in b 2 4 and b 26 is
( 3 ) What does
:Av
mean in b 14?
,'b
(cf .
!v
ya36v
/
( 4 ) Kav un
(i)
1;' g'(on .
We
..
' even i f they ( s c . o
_-r;
"
na3n , so that na3n would have to be among the rtua
, see ( 2 ) ) .
( i i ) ' Even i f there are no.t P latoni c Forms ' .
The difficulty
with ( i ) and ( ii )
of
npwa
with
O'oa
forms ' i
in b 1 3 .
"
"
( i ii )
difficulty arises in
' E ven if they are not
this
..
aua
"
aua
:i'
Ag ainst ( i i i ) i t was sugges ted that b 15-6 g (ng p
>
,
t. ,
L5Ea
E t.O L V at.
to this phrase .
'(o(l)b K({V
But
then we found no easy pas sage between the Scylla that Aris totle ' s
arguments up to this point apply only to Forms and the Charybdis
that they apply equal ly to non-Forms . Perhaps , if ( i ) or ( ii )
is right under ( 4 ) , Aristotle thought that the price for non
identity is one which every one should, and Platonists do,
regard as excess ive .
I, .
38
C;-iAP'l.':o;;t
1Q3lb 11
/
, '
aL.. )LoEa
L , ti:\.e
103lb 15-8 , parantheseis . The premiss is e:-Lcnv
conclusion o;t l'crt"cu 'to f>nc;-: e:l'.'JJ.e:vov oto(a . How does the
aryument . 90? We canvassed three interpretaions of aov 't"c:t L
xa JJ.:3i.:f L v . ( .i) I t rreans ' subjects w i l l exist by cour tesv of
their pa:i;tic i;,-:ation in :a'ormr:i ' , from whici1 it follows that
subjects are not rcp!:i''t"c:t, hence r.ot oo(a.L , A;ainst this (a)
the purpose of the arguraent is unexplained , since Platonists
c.
/
.
will not assert that uTto'KE Le:vov is ouoLa (but pernaps they
should , ,. f.l,oss) , and if Aristotle is using Platonists to help
him show
that it is not oOo(a , we need H al g, L <'KO'.l) in b 1 5 ;
( b ) no use is made of xa.3 ' ox e: i. /vou ;:,t, 3.nd ( c ) it i s
;
c.
.,,
very hard to understantl unoxe: Le:vc:i as subj ect of OOV't"aL
.
( i i ) It means (Ross) ' the forms will exist only as and when
partic ipated in' . This is presented as something the P1atonists
rej ect (y = for otherwise) . The argument i s : .Since they
reject it , if substances are tola L , substances are things
which necessarily exist but do not necessarily hold of a
su!,'>jec t . Whence s before subjects are not TtPt:la. Against
this ( a ) of ( i ) still stands ; also (b) in b 17 ' exist ' is
harder than 'be' for e:'tva.L and ' not necessarily ' is harder
than 'necessarily not '. for ; also ( c ) the argument assimilates
' are partic ipated in ' to ' ar-e said of a subject' , contra
9 9 0b 30-1 where the latter bu.t; _ not the former 'is rated
transitive . We did not examine the force of these objections
thoroughly . ( iii) ;rt means ' the Forms will be participabl '
(u
t8e:E1. v e;3e:xa). . As under ( i ) this is to be :
.
'
,,,,.
understood as a consequence of E)LOLV
ac.L :!'LOEa
L . The argument
is : since the Forms are JJ.E;3E'K't"!, t_hey are not said of a
subject; so the Platonist is not forced to forgo their claim
to be substances in favour ' of that of sul?jects . The difficulties
with this were that (a) 990b 30-1 does not make U&3E K't"OV
incompatible with Ka3 1 TtOK E LJJ,(voU and ( b ) W have to construe
ot'K toi;a.L in b 16 as of>x &v<fyxn , ' it does not follow that i .
In reply to (b) it was suggested that ' it follows that not '
could be kept by understanding ' so there wil l be ho
unoxe: Le: vc:i' as an unexpressed intermediate conclusion .
,.
..
,,
If
------
l 03 lb 18
NOTES
ON
ZETA
thing with. its essence . On one view the new way is taking
cases ( Kau
EK3EcrLv
in the first sense of Ross ' s note on
' nv
'
,,
9 2 2b 10 ) . 8, L Y E
n(cracr3aL explains why this way works .
But (a) the syntax then seems to require 8, L YE <FhL) ( ' and
also because because
therefore
' ) , and (b ) it is
unc lear how the alleged explanation does explain . The other
"
..
view was that o
L YE ETtLcra03aL
supplies a new argument for
identity . We judged the argument a bad one , comparing the
fallacy in hearing x
hearing the sound of xi therefore x
the sound of x ' and noting Aristotle ' s own view that
knowledge of opposites is the same though the opposites are
not the same . We were also puzzled why .th is should be
presented as a new argument, s ince it has already appeared as
part of the divorce argilment in b 6- 7 ; but we thought that
oCwv v AYwv in b 18-9 might sloppily pick out the other
part alone . Four interpretations were suggested for Kal
Ka v K3EcrLv . ( i ) ' It is provable by taking cases too
that
'Against this we objected that (a ) nv is not accounted
for and (b) neither is OE , s ince L YE in(cracr3aL neither
explains wh!l. taking cases works as a. proof (see above ) nor
itself constitutes a ! case ' . ( i i ) We considered, but did
'
not favour , omitting KaL and understanding the sense .. Kaa ov
Aoyov , ' as I have set things out' . ( iii) ' Even if you try
to separate them, you wil l find them both one ' (Benitz ) was
thought to get support from l090a 1 7 , but to be fairly feeble .
( iv) I t was suggested that (K3EOL(; might be. a ( ? Platonic)
name for divorce , n6AUOLG (b 3 , 4- 5 ) , referring to the
n(cracr3aL argument just repeated from b 6- 7 ; but ' divorce '
also describes the unrepeated part of the argument in b 3-ll .
We were unsure whether &vifYKn in b 2 2 expresses necessitas
consequentiae , reinforcing cnE , or necessi tas conseq.uentis ,
...
/
,
confirming ou
Kaa
cruJ.113 E nKoG
in b 19 . The latter phrase.
shows that Aristotle believes he has proved more than the
bare truth of the identity thesis , but we did no.t discuss
the grounds of that belief .
...
'
'
27th March 19 76
'
'
)/
\
l 0 3lb 18- 22 . KaL Kaa
nv EK3EcrL v .
40
We began by reviewing
CHAPTER
1 0 3 lb 18
interpretation :'(i ) ' -in j:he pa:evious J;l.ote , . ' it is provable .by taking
Against the minuted ob jection that this
does not explain c:i'cr e we suggested ' so that an 8&cr L b will
cases also that
'
es tab lish ( the truth of the tf, L claus e , that knowing each thing
is the same as knowing its essence , and thereby ) the thesis
that each thing is its essenc e ' .
10 3lb 22-8 , parenthesis .
19-28 .
( i ) ,6
is
na
nan
et ne'i':v
. K . cr . >.. e yc5'evov
re ference of a.Oo in
sub j ec t of
crna.fve L v
in b 2 3 arid
.,,,
as
b 2 4 and
b 26 ; and a 27- 8 , which seems to treat oucrLKO\J and >.. & uKov as
.
,
,
even when those words refer to no.an . We noted
K . cr . >.. eyoeva.
that 10 32a 2 is going to identi fy
.
ev
i s exceptional ( Ca t . 2a 2 7-9 ,
wv n>.. e (a,oov)
na.80
'
is o $ a.O L 6& L v .
( 1) b 28-30 .
The absurdity
( i ) Ross ' s
( i i ) ' there
The
We preferred ( i ) :
the absurdity
10 3lb 2 8
NOTES
ON
ZETA
its own essence . The fact that if.A.A.o = essence in 10 32a 2 also
favours ( i ) We agreed that one occurrence o f Lnnw mus t be
excised from b 30 , but the choice need not affect the sense .
( 2 ) b 31-2 . Ross sees this as proposing a means of avoiding
the absurdity in ( 1 ) : essence of essence of x won ' t differ
from essence of x if the latter is already ( 68U'G , ' straight
off ' , ' from the start ' ) the same as x . But this leaves out
KaL vuv , and the means would be insufficient . if only 'rvLa are
identified with their essences . So we preferred: ' even as
it is ( sc . without the incentive of the i;onov) ,some' JtJii,ings are
their essences , since ' 1 ng p . , then, should .cite a
reason granted even by the champon of non- identity , So it
cannot mean ince substances are the ir essences ' which he
u
>
,
would challenge , e . g . for LnnoG ; rather ' since ouoLa
of x =
essence of x ' . 686G either = 'just are ' , ' are no more than ' ,
or = ' it follows immediately that ' ; we thought that
Ar-istotle could have regarded as negligible the extra premiss
needed to mediate the LTIP clause , viz . ' and ouoLa of x = x,
in some cases ' . ( 3 ) b 32-a 2 . What are the Lpnva? ( i )
b 20-2 ' knowledge o f each thing i s the same as knowledge of
its essence ' ; each bit of knowledge .is specified in a. A.oy oG ;
<I
"
...
'
,,
'>
'
,,
"'
,,,
so the A.oyo L are the same . But then the yap clause is needed
neither to support the tpnsvov (rather was said in b 2 0 ,
({i; L ' , to be supported by it) nor as an extra premiss with
the tpnevov to support A.oyoG-identity . ( i i ) b 18- 20 ' each
;
thing is the same as its essence ou, Kai;a ounKoG ' , The
,,,,.
c. '
. /
yap clause s imply repeats . this Lpne:vov,
with c/
V;/V
L ""'L vaL
as a (new) E-xample . The thought would be ' we can go beyond
(mere ) :: identity to (necessary identity and therefore) A.oyoG
identi ty ' . To what are the lpn{va additional (KaL ) ? We
suggested : the considerations ..in ( 2 ) . I f so , ( 3 ) like ( 2 )
concerns only :things which ( arec or) have an oa Ca . ( 4 ) a 2- 4 .
We thought this was sufficiently different from ( 1 ) to
justify Aristotle adducing it . In ( 1) the absurdity was that
horse generates an .essence of its essence , here that it generates
an infinite chain of essences . <!> a6i;G A.OYOG : the same
argument, the same story .
42
.
'
CHAPTER
1 0 3 2 a. 4
uptake :
tf>..e: yxoi;
about . Socrates?
( 2 ) What is the
( i ) Ross follows
. ( i i ) Cf . SE . 16 6b 3 3- 4_:
is
the conj unction of. the chapte r ' s ae:aLi; with ' man is the essence
( i i i) .I f Socrates is his ess ence , and Socrates
ess ence , and Soc rates is the same as the man approaching ,
then his essence . is the same as the man approaching .
These use
Prolegomenon to Z 7 -9
So
NOTES
A.
ON
ZETA
,._ ...
l0 3 4 a 4 ) , and the phrase recal l s the o u
oLa nc:.
,..
,.
aA Loa AEyoEvn
of Cat . 2 a 1 1- 1 2 .
.,..
,,.
'
E KaL
KUpwaa
So it
,.
,.
npw-n
ouoLa
"
( l 0 3 3b 1 7 , l 0 3 4 a 3 1- 3 2 , cf .
l032b
3-6 with 1 6 ; so s ti l l in Z l O , 10 35b 15 & 2 6 and esp .
...
2.
.,
ouo
a
,.
'
/
. ( :tOOE
'
l!.liH
"
/
WPL
OEvov)
(not only 1 0 3 3b
060
with Jaeger at
(or
</
"
"'
oav YEvvnaD
4S\
O L!l.LU 1J
'
.>,.
of 1 0 33b 2 3 with
Phys . 2 0 lb 11- 12
"
,.
YEv
oav
n a
Me t .K 1 0 6 6 a 4- 5 ;
'-I
oav
tl'
so o Y EYOVO(; ,
1 0 3 3a 6 ,
'
( a ) in this context the form is the " such " , yet Aristotle
AAOLG
that
in H J , 1 0 4 3b 16-18 ) ;
"'
/
( ooE
TO LovoE )
PROLEGOMENON
TO
Z79
B.
The thesis .
"
c.
Philosophical credentials
NOTES
report',
ON
ZETA
( Ex )
(Bil l , x)} ,
This
(1957)
p.
145) :
If they do not
Proceedings
( 1 9 71- 2 ) p .
150)
0f
the .
I argued :
But,
1 0 3 3b 22-24 e t passim .
One d i fference
o't.x65ona(;
Aristotle
(Phys
2 0 lb 11-
PROLEGOMENON
TO
Z7-9
true of the actual statue or tree that happened to: emerge ; and
.3 .
It is natural to say
11 . . Geach" ( i b13lj_eve)
someone says " Callias is a man" the que stion "Which man ? "
would b e pointles s ; y e t patently this could not show that
Callias is not a particular man .
show and anxious to1 sort out the name s in my cata logue
(I
can ' t tell which are of dogs and which of owners ) ; then if
you tell me that Callias
if I say that
does not enitle you to-. expec t that there is any answer to
the question "Which statue ? " .
But in default
"Which s tatue?"
sculptors ;
NOTES
ON
ZETA
raise d .
4.
l0 3 4 a 5- 8 .
Surely
Le t us be explicit:
what I make
( o f or from)
or from)
the expres sion " a s tatue " : makes . . reference to j us t that statue .
A:
( 10 3 3b 11-19 ) .
Here
( 10 4 0b
( 10 35b 3 0 - 3 1 ,
can be dis tinguished and counte d , though with some fami liar
hazards that do not bese.t the counting of houses and s tatue s .
PROLEGOMENON
Z7-9
TO
11.AAOU AEybEvov .
So to
( 1 0 0 3b 2 6 - 3 0 ,
1 0 5 4 a 1 6 - 19 ) .
By
is not a man" .
was
there is
( timelessly)
D.
Exegetical dividends .
1.
,.
becoming something ( L ) , e . g .
so- and- so ( 6oE )
( 10 3 2 a 1 3- 15 , 18- 19 ) .
Give " a man" and " a plant" the i r proper use i n such contexts
and prob lem A 1 does not arise :
".
So Socrates is
: n , 1 0 3 5B 3-4.,-10 3 6.a I ) .
-Oi:Ji
an.irilaJ;
as
NOTES
ON
ZETA
It
PROLEGOMENON
TO
Z 7- 9
Qualms .
,,.
,,
I
NOTES
ON
ZETA
PROLEGOMENON
TO
1032a 13
Z7-9
S th May 19 76
10 32a 1 3-14 . In reply to GELO' s qualm E l we were impressed
by the fact that on Aristotle ' s own explanation of L in
14-15 it would be something general and predicative at least
in the non-subs tance categories ; so why not for ,Q'og toor
uno L VOG .,,
gx LVOG L can be viewed as corresponding
to three questions , in which case it is left entirely open
whether the specimen answers will indicate something general
or something particular and whether .all . three will. be on the
same level in this regard . Whether this account also allows
'
,
a Y LYvogva to pass as end-products (cf . qual E 2) is a
question we did not fully explore . We noted, further , that
1032b 2 wpuld be a worse jolt than it initially is ( gi.ven
z I s progress to date) i f the uaA. L a a o Ba ra. L were Socrates ,
etc .
c.
IC'
o u and the L ( 1 7- 1 9 ) , and on the g E ou also if
on the
(but only if) E
A.n c contrasts with e . g . the case of
qualitative change . These points collectively elucidate
=
r.-
>
'
gx ucrg<ilG
53
10 3 2a
NOTES
:Z2
ON ZETA
'
,
,,,,
,,
l 032a 26- 8 . aL' 5' aAAaL
YEVEOE LG AEyovaL noLnOE LG works only
,,.
' f , at the least,we understand the coverage of Y EVEOLG in all
1
categories at the beginning of the chapter to have been
narrowed to the category of substance ( c f . a 20) . We did not
worry much about seeking a hard and fas t account of the triple
alternation in 2 7- 8 : perhaps 1.n6 txvnG = the man can give a
principled explanation of why he made the thing the way he
did , tn6 5Lavo L'aG = there is. no explanation of this form but
he can give his . reasons in that he can retrace his steps of
del iberation , no ouV<fEooG
he cannot even do that .
,
.,,,,,.
>
,,.
CHAPTER
1 0 3 2b
,,
"
..
'
E Lnwv OE O't'L 't'O
ELOob KO.L 't'O" 't'Ll'"' l"i'
nv ELVO.L
,...
:>. """
)
:J. /
't'OU
't'O, EL OOb npwi;nv OUOLO.V
EO't
' LV OUOLa.,
>....
, ;
O.L't'
LOV ennYa.YE
't'O KO.L ya.p 't'WV EVO.V't'LWV
<.
'
....
'
, ...
Ii'
't'f?OnOV 't' L VO. 't'O a.ui;o E LOoG . >EnE L on ya.p n
" L 't'O'
cri;{pncrLb 'tj;l AD mXE L , 'Il OE O't'EPnOE
'
>
n
a.noUOL,.
E'tva.L i;b E'toob Tll.1;)6-X.E"ra.1. ( i;D ya.p 0.U't'Ou
7
'
,,
...
,,,.
'
...
'
.....
'
'
55
.,.
------.............................
--------
1(;32b l
NOTES
ON
ZETA
/
tfl"' :J
)
n..; crgpncrLG
gcr L v) , g;,L on' xaL 'V crgpncrg L n gv
...
"
,....
'
"=>'
...
"'
"
01
"'
p UAD ouori o g L vaL KaL DAWG nv unap L v o
\
, ,,. ,
1) ,
,
'
.,,..
O L OOV
O
og.... gcrL
KaL
o aov
g L OOG gcr L v , auo
....
'
""
...
""'
/
.....
xaL ,opLCov
nv
uAnv uaL
uoa.ouv
, npwn
uaL
.,,,.
.,, ,
. 7
KUPLWG OUOLa
ou
av g>L,..n .
'\i
.,-
'
,,,.
.....
>
,,,.
'
t:J
,,,.
\
<>
' healthy body ' rather than 'health ' ; but g L 5g o<HO
in b 8
is abstract
o aAo n a . Certainly at b 12 , but there was
disagreement as to how this was to be understood . Firs t,
' without matter ' does not exclude all re ference to matter
in the definition , as in the best sort of definit.ion according
to De An . I 1 (where note that the e xamples inc lude house , so
that the curious doctrine of two senses of ' house ' at H3 ini t .
may be referred to tile Platanists )' . L also the criticism of
Socrates the Younger at 1036b 24 f f . But , of course , any
reference to matter in the definition will be to a sort of
matte r . such a definition will still be ' without matter '
i n the sense Aristotle intends here , vi z . an idea as yet
unembodied in the material world . Second, the other te rm
56
=
C.
CHAPTER
l032b
l 0 3 2b 9
l032b 27-8 That being so, one would prefer to take goxaov
in 2 7 in the same straightforward sense , rather than Ross ' s
' minimal necessary basis ' . In other word s , as the last item
(L ) in deliberation ( the first in execution) , which wil l
.,,
,,.
produce , directly ()n\ guaub
can J:e understood in 28 without
necessarily inserting it into the text) or indirectly,
something which is a part ( P ) of health . That said, a
conj ecture in Ross ' s apparatus , further elaborated in Jaeger ' s
text, goes on to the idea that L is itself in some sense
"
(n;wb Bonitz) /in ' this sense (ouwb
EJ - in what sense is that?)
a part o f health . The conjecture is an attempt to combine
rather than choose between two MSS traditions . But the text
/ 7
'
.....
Ross actually prints (OUO o ' ..,,
goxaov
go, L , <O
1'0 LOUV
o'
/
c.
"
gpob nG
uy
L g LaG , - ) preserve s , what his con.jecture fudges ,
the distinction , which one wishes was more clearly made in
EN but is cle.ar in the previous lines of the present passage ,
between the external relation of L to P ( fngaL in 2 7 ) and the
57
""
--.................... .....
--------------------
NOTES
1J 32b 27
ON
ZETA
,.
3rd July 1 9 76
1 0 32b 21- 1033a 1 . We went over the passage discussed last
time in the light of difficulties that emerged then, notably
(a) the L/P distinction .
(b ) the transition from health to the house examp le .
( c ) the sense of ' part ' when matter is introduced as a part .
(a )
58
CHAPTER
1032b 21
"
......
1,----------------------------
10 3 2b 2 1
NOTES
ON ZETA
CHAPTER
10 3 3a 1
5'
..
,.
.,,..
1. -----------------------
l 0 .3.3a 5
NOTES
ON
ZETA
)
l6th October 1 9 76
We were puzzled by the relation of Z 8 to what had immediately
preceded, and in particular by the parenthesis at l 0 33a 25- 7 .
What is the force of ,,cr,w? What is the re ference of Kon
,
O LWP LOLGlL ? WhY. does Aristotle apparently go back on his
recent insis tence that x is properly used of what does not
persist, and tel l us now to use it of the matte r , not the
,
cnfpnoLG? Does E:'aw mean ' Let i t stand as our view that
or ' Let it ( fo r the sake of the ensuing discussion) be
taken in the sense
1/
Probably the latter . We agreed anyway
that tfon oLWp L oa L is bes t referred to the beginning of Z 7 ,
i . e . in e ffect to Z 7 as a who le (with Jaeger and Ross ' s
ranslatioru) , and not to the immediately preceding discussion,
i . e . l033a 8 (with Ross ' s commentary and Apostle ) , nor to
Phys ics A ( as might poss ib l be thought , if Aristotle ' s point
was that we always give a name for matter, if not for the
atpno L G ) . In trying to find whe'..ller either of the uses of
x was the one Aris totle really plumped for we asked whether
what is seen by one who nLaA.tnE L crci>6opa ( l0 33a 21) is
Aris totie ' s own view or what linguistic usage actual ly is ,
since the trans ition to Z 8 seemed more violent if it was his
own view . The point is , has the end of Z 7 given us Aristotle ' s
own reason for speaking one way or the other, or only his
reason for why ordinary language does so? We decided it
wasn ' t really necessary to insist on the ' l inguistic usage '
interpretation . Taking i t as Aristotle ' s own reason we can now
perhaps make better sense of the end of Z 7 than we did l ast
time , when in particular we couldn ' t see how the point about
62
. '
CHbPTE.S..
the interpretation o f
1033a 2 4
7., 8
( anAWG ) ,
s ince
sK
.;
draws us , so that whe n wood has been thus pre-empted by EK
'>
( the s tatue comes E K the wood) we fee l reluctant to go on
It
,,.
OEPnOLG
But
K , where an ob j e c t come s
the
box pers i s ts , but the ob j ect i s no t the box , but at most ' boxis h '
( ' box born ' ) .
In Z 8 he is
( 10 3 3b
Take a sentence
1.
: ,/
1033a 24
NOTES
ON
ZETA
ouJ.Lfl e:l3nKoG
( 10 3 3a 29- 31 ) .
6o e: ,
He
without (what we
I;'\
( c f . l 0 33b 10 ) .
.
_,
c, ,
TOUOL , o .e:OTL
we make E:K
toe:
'
,...
TOUTO
'
e:v .,,
aAA'e- we make the form
cl ' ';)
'
Perhaps then o o L
o e:oT L oqio.pa , which
because we make o e: L o OG
xaAKOG ( 1 0 3 3b 2 - 3 )
.
l.S
We c ompared E N . I 6
unattai nab le .
'
1 0 44b 2 4
1.
'
O"Awi;;
We thought
"'
One
,,,,,,.
OTE:PT)OLG
c./.
,,.
OTE:PT)OLG
,,,,,.
KUPLl!lb
"'
"
or anAWG ?
</.
non-oAwi;;
, so c.t.:
OAWG can hardly be ruling his out , and to call
the matter
c.
,,.
' unrese rvedly ' unoK e: L e:vov may pe rhps sound odd
64
CHAPTER
10 3 3a 3 1
Z7.
OAWG
At l 0 3 3b 2 6
means ' taken general ly ' - but would that help here?
Neighbouring oc currences o f
Z/AWG
e./
OAWG
,,
c.
help here .
( 1 0 3 3a 3 2 ) ,
...
00 ,
without L , could then mean the form and the GELO prolegomenon
view would be fac ilitated .
We also
(A{yw
) might be clearer i f
8nox L (vou
" c.l
OAWG
the sentence .
beginning at
A(yw
In particular the
,..
o r Co
( 1 0 3 3a 3 2 )
i f we drop L
fJ
OAWG
But
'
If it does ,
importance
parenthesis at all
'
'
GI
"
preceding oo L o O L crcpa pa , or e se
t
JUS
"
to crcpa;pa; i n
suggest that we made the form , though we didn ' t discuss Ros s ' s
C/
/_
. aAA'<B
no L 1 H v is an odd
_
combination for ' makes one thing in anothe r ' . Without the
own objection, that POV L V
comma
POV
,/_
aAA
q; .
----------------------------................
c; .,i'
'
,...
TOUTO yap unEKELTO .
1 0 3 3b 1
ZETA
ON
NOTES
LEvov
unoKE ,,.
it .
.
YEVEOL G
o f f orms .
....
TO LoVOE
rather than
,.
TO LOV 5E .
ToE
TO LV 5E , as
K To'u'5E To L bv 5 E .
Howeve r , to say no-one ' makes o r generates ' the form i s consist ent:
w ith saying it can
...,.
,..
,,.
'>I
TOU
Y L YVE 08a.L ,
YEYOVEVO.L O.VEU
a poss ib i l i ty
.......
/
E 'LOLV1
OUK
KClL Q>&opa.G ELOL KO.L
avEU YEVEOEWG
..,.,
.....
repeats but
'
Which 1 0 4 4b 2 1
b lack , but differently from the way white man comes from b lack
that arise incl ude : How is yE yov{vo.L 6.\.Eu ToC
Questions
man .
.
,,.
Y LYVE08a.L
related to
,,..
i>
\
E,,LOLV?
KO.L\ OUK
E')LOL
"
'
doub t , arising
TOCE
can
r..
CHAPTER
napa aoos
precede s ) .
1 0 3 3b 19
is an expre s s ion
e lsewhere
y (yvso
sub je c t o f
in b 2 3 .
aos ) ,
/
.
and ( b ) the
ocpa.1pa na
os ' L - rather
denotes ,() o LO'vos ,
it
an . .expression like
,.
c.
/
(sc .
e; L OUwi;; nv
(i)
l'.i'
c/
>
. .
it is
( i i ) I f i t were thus
would not come to be
(sc. if
,6os L ,
oQXlpo.
o Lovos .
):Jut
dos
OQXlpa
is
nap'Cl. ,a'cros ) ,
Some doub t
Against ( i i ) , there
is the argument that it make s Aris totle say that the form
become s
,6os L
parallel was cited , and which seems incons i s tent with Aristotle ' s
Some were i n favour o f combining
normal docrine .
r./
Ii"
rendering of
(ii) ' s
Alternative ly , i t
_
,,,..
was suggested that we might de lete the comma after nv found
i_.e . with
na ,6'.aos)
/'
,
napa aaos
...
i f the
be fore
ift'ooi;;
/
S L ooi;;
ysvsoLi;; ,
.s-
s L ooi;; oos L
67
10 33b 2 1
NOTES
ON
ZETA
,,.
aAAa
,,.
expressed for
.,
aAA '
/
,.,
1033b 2 2- 2 3 . How is the nega tive claim that the form is not
..
"
,,.
form i s not in any sense at all , ,O"o E ' " ' would conflict with
1 0 3 3a 2 4-b 19 , it was thought that
'
xaL
c.
"
ooE
but of course
p L a{vov
L aov ;
and ( b ) :
,....
.;
KO LA6',n
Aristotle generalises
CHAPTER
1 0 3 3b 2 2
ooE , reference
v ,;:
aAAW ( ouo
Als o ,
clearly referential)
of
' BE '
...
"
in question:
COG
at
wax .
,;
ooE
the form is
,6oE '
general .
over
( a 2 4-b 1 9 ) he lets
,,..
o ovoE '
is preferred
and likewise the fact that forms are not the sort o f things
that are made .
"'
&/
,,.
v ooE
should be trans lated ' the whole this ' rather tha n ' this whole
On the other hand , b 1 5 might be thought to . favour
the second alernative .
A further suggestion, that the sentence
thing ' .
o v '
"
and
(ii)
( ii i )
The choice
'
.....
.,
,,,,
E'ton
in b 28 :
i f Aristotle
1 0 3 3b 2 6
!'OTES
ON
ZETA
Also , on ( i ) , it i s unclear
Forms for
XPT)OLa
Or
XPT)OLT) ?
was preferred .
Natural generation is
(ii)
it is in
phys ical cases that you can explain most hygienically what
Platonists were trying to explain by a
napcl6E L ya .
I t looks
>I
9/
'"'
o[
e'v
in b 2 9 ,,
1 8 th December 19 7 6
Aristotle says that Forms would be looked for
1 0 3 4 a 2-5 .
(i)
B'vTa ; SO
they
oi'.>o e"a L .
"'
ouoLaL ;
1 0 70a 1 8 f . )
oo(a L
CHAPTER
.LV
34a 2
> ,.
ouaLa.
is to issue a caveat :
( i ) remains
is individualised .
,.
oLovoE
(i)
It
(iii)
It explains
There was
':>/
I>'
E LOOG is aoov?i
?i:'ooc ( i . e . inf ima
Some queries
the
YEVOG
which is
y (voc
"'
YEvoc
.
1 0 3 4a 5
NOTES
ON
ZETA
thus
On the
first view, the point is that , Callias and Socrates both being
men, there is no morespcific . form that could differentiate
them .
Callias
?/
, {xvn
t ie s up with Z 7 , and
This
in
1034a 11 :
c,/
>/
apxouoa
,/
"'
nb ye:ve:oe:Clli;; mean?
Ros s
,(
apxe: Lv .
To tanslate
>/
apxouoa
On
( i ) matter which
( e . g . a s tone )
{pob
( i i i ) matter which
He seems to regard ( ii )
.tel&C)iogical ch_p.nge
.D!"d .he
1034a 13
CHAPTERS - - 8 t 9
There were two views o f these lines :
1 0 3 4a 1 9 - 2 0 .
e:xvn will
,{xvn but are
without
have
txvn
{v
(Omitting
,..
a.uwv)
The
...
e:xvn ,
but are capable o f being set in motion by other things those being e i ther external things o r a part of the thing
itse l f .
I t was thought by some that there i s i n fact no need to
excise
/'
e;v
with interpretation ( i i )
X Lve:craa.L
,(xvnv
K ,
/
/
c.
.,.
n,,, e:x
UE: PoYG PUWV!JUOU
E'xvn
not from a
doctrine of
as
itself
{poG
.in a . 2 4 .
2 2 nd January 19 7 7
1 0 3 4 a 21- 2 5 . Two main interpretations o f this sentence were
canvassed , involving different readings :
c.
"!)
,,,>
is a case
73
,\ .,.
, :owuou
.
d insert..,ng
. 2 3_.an
- ..
/
0
a
owvuou
"!ll
(I
of !;".Ol-L(llv uou
e;potJib
On
NOTES
1 0 ;3 4a 2 1
/
.....
./
(,;
ON
=
..
ZETA
"
,,,..
e
adumbrated but not exemplified, ( 2 ) EU EPOUG owvuou
and
( 3 ) lE txovo'G L gpoU(; .
:( i i ) leaving E U {pOUG owvu'ou
,, )
On this reading
E L ( nEP = for instance ) ,
,.,
')
:>
,,,
u;
C./
c.
'f>
")
.,
o L u L a E E O LU LaG is generation
The
fami l iar s tory according to which the mas ter builde r , that is
his cra f t , that ":is the formc of house in his mind, produces
r(>
"
4"\
"'
"
c.
'
,;
,;
'D
if
u L v aE L
The
might be
1
heat in a rubbing hand, or heat engendered by j ogging .
E) E
..
owvuou
CHAPTER
1034a 26
production?
by it is
"
e.
EE owvuou .
.
. ... ' /
xci se '.-nv l'j"\1
1i(t\>Slind
1 0 34a 2 9 - 3 0
KEvo
a&pJ.13'.'lt:
1 0 3 4a 3 0 - 3 2
'>
'
"
.,,,.
Exvn?
n6
Does
)
ouoLa
;'
...
,,
Kaa ouSESnKoi;;
case of
/
'
ouSESnKoi;;
Kaa
pro9ess .
10 34a 3 0
NOTES
ON
ZETA
" "
e:ve: c n i;; , OUOLO.
"
(i . e form)
is the
apxn'.
I t was suggested
cruv Lcra.e:va..
'
o:mfpa.
operate by art , i . e
a.no
,6 crn{pa.
,,
IS'
e: Looi;;
Against
.,'d.
/'
\ , ,
c.
....
a.nAWG
, ' a.
a.no e:xvni;;
' is a
,,
,
;'
the EXV L ni;; ; ( i i ) EXEL ouva.e: L
.,
It was
{pa.
( i) )
1.
pya.vov
is regarded as an
/'
'
) '
a.
a.no
crne;pa.
.
owvuov
'
"
(of which
"
/'
n<1.ovou ,
bracketed by Jaege r .
. 76
CHAPTER
1 0 3 4b 3
Hence
( ii i ) the
(ii)
Ross ' s
nL vou,
you
5uov
but it wi l l be
npwa .
MSS
c.(vuov
Aristotle move s to
1 0 3 4b 4- 7 .
/
;;>
;
LaULOll(lLOV
by itsel f .
sentence
(is
,,.
Y L YVLa L
Y LYVLa L ,
r,-.
so
in all the
in . the
..
a preexisting e L 5oi;: (b 1 0 1 6 ) .
that he says
y evecrLi;:
,....
<- ., ,
_,L ,ecrLL
enL LOU
CUL xaL
a'
at b 1 3 .
Does this
"
</
"
CUL xaL
'\ GI
o?
xaL
a corruption o f oA.wi;:
KaL ,
Or
.
itse lf a corruption
,,
ex LOULWV) .
The point ought to be that the effic ient cause of a substance ' s
coming-to-be must be another actual substance o f the same kind
77
1 0 3 4b 1 6
NOTES
ON
ZETA
For
o0v&sa.
The
,,,
s eparate A.oyoc for each one , butj the plural svovEG at b ' 2 4
i s agains t that .
( 2 ) Are the
(1)
(1)
l 0 3 4b 3 2 - 1 0 35b 3 ,
( 2 ) 1 0 35b 3- 3 1 , ( 1 ) 1 0 3 5b 3 1- 1 0 36a 1 2 ,
(2)
10 36a 1 3- 2 5 .
But
CHAPTERS . 9 ,
10
Hl 34b 20
79
I
10 3 4b 2 0
NOTES
ON
ZETA
the man, but then seems to say the right angle and the man are
;
,.;..
prior both in AOYOG and in e: Lva.L . We noted that :Ma . . 1 0 8.4b . 7 ff .
makes the acute prior in one sense and the right in ano the r ,
but we found di fficulty i n what natural priority comes to in
mathematical cases , assuming i:t: does apply there .
We cannot
i'hel1e are
( i) the acil'.le
l cbul.d .exist without . . the right
but a.re not yet goalpos ts i this seems to ass imilate the acute
case tc the finger oasei
( i i i ) an
This
e:1ioG ) .
?Cveu &AAnAwv
(b 3 2 )
is difficul t .
&e: c'oaw
abandoning a topic?
;
in favour o f those at 10 2 3b 1 7 - 2 5 .
expressed that
.;
fi'An
'
unless ovnv . ( 1 0 2 9 a 19 )
CHAPTER.
10
l035a
v
' the wolf has four legs ' ) is suggested by such thiilgl? . '
a .5'noG (hot a o ) at 1 0 3 4a 5 - 6 and
""
G EYoouG
at a 7
Also
(/
EXa.aov ( l 0 3 5 a 8 ) need
ene
VEU eooUG .
,.
.. .(
1 0 3 5a 13 . Why EYYU Ep ?
This seems
I'
'
l0 4 3b 14-5 , in H 3 :
1 0 3 5 a 25-b 3 , esp . a 2 9- 3 0 .
>/ /
'
'
')
""""'
,,,.
1 0 35a 25
NOTES
ON
ZETA
KUKAOG
between geometrical
)/
,/
L o L ov ovoa is not
We
remained . undecide d .
)'
)\ )/
,,
AOYOV
? '
ouo
L a , are prior ( 1 0 3 5b. s - 6 , 1 4 , 1 9 ) .
EVLa
,,
vonoL
G,
,,
lJ,Juxn ,
we agreed to begin
30th April 1 9 7 7
We resume d , as proposed , with the_ problemc. o f
( 1 0 3 5b 6 , 1 4 , 1 9 ) .
/
,\ >/
navi:a n EVLa
as parts _: _
' ,,..
ouoLa
CHAPTER 10
l035a 3 3
'
'
c.
')
,...
( 15 - 1 6 ) , s o that we
auv6A.ou 6ceou
On
would be that,
tyi;:e of body .
?;'v E't'vaL
,g TO LW5E
\.
/
and keep o UEPOG in parenthesis b 15- 1 7 .
Difficulties : ( a )
,,
>I
the nava n EVLa point ought to be more general , having been
,...
>
introduced as such; (b) at b 20- 2 n ouaLa is contrasted with
both the body and . aU'voA.ov, indeed in such a way that ( c )
A
ya
.,
- true ,
An alternative
,,.
>
ouaLa
. ue:"ooG
and has us de fining each part o f the body ) one should mention
its
yov,
. aCuaL
't'O L!35E
On this view ,
. ,( v :fvaL
..
but
TOO"
a ,
't'O auvO"A.ou 6u
a;
'
..,,
f.
Cl
5n'-I OUOLWG
KaL xaa' Exaai:o't>
NOTES
10 35a 33
( c f . 10 35a 17-)
ZETA
ON
i;b
{po!;; i s r ad o r not .
15'A.nG
The drawback
"
)\ y
rr.a.vi;a n EV La .
The
But
..
The point about the exception is that there will be one part,
the central sensori where the de finition ocr (a/soul i s
primarily realize d , such that the whole and part cannot exi s t
apart a t a l :l ; the whole ceases together with the part , so that
the posteriority claim fails here , i . e .
.
soi;
L
84
c,
5 ' WG
>/
La 5E
ou .
GI
aa denies ,
In respect of the
CHAPTER
priority claim ( L V
and finger .
G)
10
1 0 35a 3 3
evEAEXE{aG
(ii)
( ? as ob jects of re ference ) .
Should
oY
'
;
J.!.E POG
10 35b 31-10 3 6 a 2 .
form and of
or of
of
'
no point
',
'
'
"'>'
J.!.EV ouv
or (with Ross )
: ' there
are parts of a
"'
"
xaL nG
uXG : we agreed . that the reading
.
4
'
Cl
'
to aunG . ( a ) . W91tEP uaL Alexander , or CiJG
'
""
of n gives
would mend
this , but at the cos t of makd.ng Ari stotle seem to say that
' aU"voAOV
\fAn G ,
is j us t
u ii'G EoouG .
( b ) I f we double
ud'L ,'Jk;
to give point to
a6nG
suggested
;.
,...
'11 G UAnG ,
.,_
W>;
NOTES
1 P3 5b 3 1
ON
ZETA
.,,.
conclus ion ,
'"hat precedes as i f
uepn ,
,.....
....
no o p L cruoc
'
(yvwp(i:;ovi:a.),)
sc . by a A
,,
(Aeyovi:aL
l
.
6y oc ,
it i s by a
general AOY06
1 sc . which does not individuate and so is not a
.
P L oUo"6 i ['for] their matter [ which alone individuates them] is
,
This
6.AA
or,K et cr {v . After further reflection
agreed _ that &n e A86v i: E 6 lx i:nc vi:eAEXE C"a c could mean ' when
left a 5- 7 ,
we
,,
,,,,,,.
..
(Ros s ) .
Moerbeke in a 6 :
ae L
v cfncrL 6 .
'
.'
.,,
..
Then the
But
C!WtPTER
it seemed awkward
10
l0 3 6a 2
AOYOG .
perhaps
:I\
..,/
...
.,;
In a 1 7 we noted that
....
living thing .
aaov
to refer
by
5'
'
\.
by
a
in
,
"'
TLVOC
op3nG
,
ta,(pa a, (v
We translated
,1 v xa\ TLVG
' one
xa't
seems redundant.
aT LV gG
T L VC P3nc
87
'
T L ev KaL
We thought that
answered
in a 2 4 .
1 0 36a 1 2
NOTES
(2)
ON
ZETA
' The parts o f the formula are prior to tbe bronze right
angle ' ,
I"\
EV
Twv
,....
,,
AOY
' The . fD'l::m: -liif tigt apgle is prior to the the parts o f the
( 3)
' tr'he parts o f the formula are prior <to :cthe form' , a 22 ,
picks up 1 0 35b 3-14 , s uppress ing ' al l o r some o f them ' .
Although all these answe rs are given under the suppos ition that
a thing is its form ( a 1 6 - 1 9 ) , i t appears that only ( 3 ) and
OUOAOV
posterior , but to
.,,,,
t
EOT 5' WG
OU'
in 1 0 3 5b 2 3 ,
'
The
AOYQG
the summary .
Zll
l l th October 1 9 7 7
1 0 3 6a 3 1 starts a sl ippery s l ope argument inspire d by the
thought ( 28 - 9 ) that definition i s o f the form .
Aristotle
shows that if you press that idea too far, there wil l be no
s topping short o f the absurd conclusions o f b 1 7-20 .
(b 2.2 - 4 ) :
Mora
S tage 1 ( 10 3 6a 31-
( a 34-b 3 )
S tage
CHAPTERS
,_
nr,
11
10 36a 3 1
(ii)
(b 3- 7 ) ,
Thus
But now
form
They carry on
no E .
Does
inessential - witness the hypothetical bronze circles but it is unclear what the conditions are which dis tinguish
such cases from cases like man ( s c . where flesh and bones
are not inessential ) ?
We
preferred (b ) .
We preferred ( b ) ' -
that the VEG are crazy enough to suggest that circ le need
not be embodied in lines .
The VEG
Their thought
And
1 0 3 6a 3 1
NQ';!)ES
..
ON.. ZETA ,
The lines of a
./
o o L oo
AEYEO&l. L )
as
This , then,
L VEG?
are these
Who
The
LVEG
the
We
Mo;i:-e
AEYOVoov .
'
, ,-..
\
.,
/
L oEa.G
KO.L
oov a.c
This
{v
..
oL
oE
say that
""
oE
agree with Speus ippus that two gives the essence of line , and
with
..
,,
OL e:v
CHAPTER
10 36a 31
matter .
numbers
11
I t was unclear tc us
to
have seen that this Academic Pythagoreani zing was not exclusively
mathematical in its concerns , but had a connection with thoughts
about defining man .
in the Speusippean
passage 1 0 9 0 b 1 8 - 1 9 .
?
,
aooJJ,aa
aLatma
_,,,..
( 1 7- 20 ) .
Firs t ,
xa\
au.(3aL ve: L
The second
e:
"
xaL
e:voe:xe:cr8a. L )
Here
(19)
)
,
auo
to the gibberish of Ros s ' s ' make one thing the Form-its e l f of
al l ' .
(20) .
'1
,/
.,, ...
ouaLa
,...
,,
oov ovoov .
10 36b 2 1
NOTES
ON
ZETA
"'
"t LVEC .
of the chapter .
{lrigere
was o n:: i1t.s own terms incorre c t , merely that it leads one
away from the truth and makes one s uppose something false .
10 36b 28- 3 2 , Aris totle ' s argument to dis tinguish the case of
circle from that o f man .
premises :
( 1)
VEU K L VhOE!.lli;; .
If
and ( 2 )
(1)
it is
(2)
are each
Or is
.
( 2 ) a consequence
( l) ?
aLa8ri"tov
...
'
aLa3nTLKOV
for
remote i l l us tration .
thing.
K L vnaEwi;; ,
VEU
discussing definition1
and of . 1 0 2 6a 1- 3
.,
in other words ,
EXOV"t!.llV nwi;; .
EpWV
92
CHAPTER
o f ( 1)
S o we left 2 9 ' s
construed ( 1 )
,,.
xa.i.
11
10 36b 2 8
Re lation of Z l O and Zl l
They seem to cover much o f the same ground .
10 excels
lpyov
We agreed to
( see
----
10 36b 3 2 .
NOTES ON
ZETA
'
.....
.....
'
c./
11
CHAPTER
by a c ompl ication:
1 0 3 7a 5
is his soul , the name will have a double reference and the
point to be made will hold only fr the use in which the
,
C/
wonEp x A
CL UEv
c;.
oL
OE
!;;wov
h UX9.V
....
'
,.
(.
TlL.
.
'
l!Juxn
'
'
E L UEV J.ta.L
""*
"
l!Juxn EwJ.tpa.nG
. cru'voAov ,
But
awuci ,6oE
as particula r .
'
..
n i.tiuxn n oE
has to be
this soul and this body , the i ndividual matches what was
said of the universal in 6- 7 .
In respect of definition?
How?
In :r;espect of being a
That s eems a trivial
inference .
'\>
,,.
ouaLa.)
mus t be to N ( cf . Ml
10 76a 8-12)
On a 10-11 , the temptation res i s ted by Ros s , to unde rstand
95
NOTES
l0 37a 1 0
'
ON
ZETA
_,,
e/_
..._
vonn uAn ,
which at 1 0 37a 5
von t"An ,
postponing
.,
uAn
Alternatively ,
to be a Speusippean quasi-material
(;/
UAn
GL.
..,
,.
,,,
o ?ia{a
instead
is that
....
....
distinct question .
""
"'
...
e:ne: i.
oou
referring
because
'
'
to nbe:pov) .
or
"1c
e'ffect)
1\r.e we to think , then, that the present discussion
i n fact is no di f ferent from ( the mo re general part of) physics
c;,
,/
,,
:e:e:pa ouaLa,
(numbers , God , e tc . ) ?
On
.-.
e/
axe:ne:ov yate:pov
c;,
/
e:e:pa ouaLa
.
i s matched by
"'
vuv oe:
18-20
This
at the opening
o f Zl 2 .
S ilmmary from Z ! . This fits the Hypothesis .
insofar as i t refers in 21- 2 to Z 4 , in the snub example ( 30 - 2 )
1 0 3 7a 21-b 7 :
to Z5
and i n 31-fin . to Z 6 .
CHAPTER
11
10 37a 2 1
When
G ..._
xaa auTa
AEyoeva KaL' n;pwTa .
_,
"''
Thi s is
that
the identity does not hold with the matter or with the
/
..
,,.
/
n;pwTn oucna .
1 0 3la 19- 2 8 . )
KaT cruaeanxt
predicates ?
[A reconr
'
.....
'
(note ad
,,,
""
0(. WKPaTn
KUL TO oUOLKOV,
essence are accidentally one and the same is too weak , but
it is on the other hand too strong to say
> '
ouoe
Why
Aristotle
will be warnig, Don ' t j ump to the assumption, when I deny the
identity with ess ence for Socrates qua
mfvoAofv
that Socrates
Matter is
made for a closer unity with form than Socrates has with the
mus ical , and this in turn makes a difference to the relation
of cruvoAOV to form/essence . )
1 0 37a 2 1
NOTES
,,,
ON
ZETA
I t seems to suggest that once
'\
,. /';'
I?'
""
mentioned in the AOYOG defining the i:- ;I'
L '>"
nv '>"
E L VCL L , but then 2 4
,...
.,
,,...
in the >..o yoG nG ouoLCLG , since they are parts of n ouvo >..n
,,
,
'P /
,,,
;> ,,,,
"?'
'\ "
OUO L a. , i . e . OYOG
now is of OUOLCL = npwi:n OUOLCL ( 2 8 ) = E: L OOG
' , I
i:o e:vov ( 29 ) -
,,
.'
/.
,,,
and as individual .
For he explains
.,
,,,..
/
as a result o f Aristotle ' s confusing auvo>..
n ouoLa. as gneral
( 28) ,
( i i ) by the argument
Verdi e :
..
bred confusion .
1 7th Decemb er 1 9 7 7
/
The ques tion was raised whether auvo>..o G was two- or threetermination .
,
and i:a.ui:nG
98
CHP.PTERS
1037b 8
l _c 1 2
Zl2
10 37b 8- 1 4 . I f the reference to the_ Analytics in b 8 is to a
specific pas sage , An . P os t . B
6 . 9 2a 2 9 ff . , suggested by Ros s ,
S urprise
terms of participation that will work for ' man ' and ' wite '
will not work fer the genus and the differentia ; 21- 2 7 goes
on to rai s e difficulty if the genus does partake of the
differenti a .
b 14 :
ou- '/
av8poon.Q.
,,.
b 15 :
' . b 18 :
does not
partake of the other '.Cdi:E ;eerentia) ' ; so therefore in b 1 5 f i t is j us t the case of men not white that is in question, not
a lso that o f white things tha t are not men .
difficul tie s were raised concerning 1 4- 21 .
oppos ites
( 19 - 2 1 ) ?
The
case
(cf .
another , but rather as one thing ' animal ' , this option is not
open .
( cf .
g'a.
in 1 9 ) .
99
.......
1 0 3 7b 1 4
NOTES
ON
ZETA
Arisi.:.itle is thus
The argument
(e . g .
The argument is
,..
oOX E L
in 1 9
qualified) .
,,,
no.en
Ps-Alexander 5 1 8 . 1 7 uses
to gloss
.
,,,
ETEXn
'
,,,
XO.TO. E3EGLV
rather than
,,,.
E't'EXE L V ,
but the
( 4 ) Ross explains
Aristotle ' s point as that one cannot infe r , from ' A partakes
in B ' and ' A partakes in not-B ' ,
, yevE L
ETlXE L ;
with
EVUltCIPXE L
T t:
\,
i n 2 3 one
The
very brief ( 2 3- 2 4 ) .
CHAPTER
differentiae do
n at
vunpxe: L v
12
1 0 3 7b 21
( 1 ) involving
ivU"napELG .
Aristotle ' s
that any
( i i ) was preferred.
"
,
auoc
AOYOG
.....
in 21
w.as
It
made that the point is that the ques tion or prob l em is the
was however pointed out that the random combinations of
differentiae in ( i i ) would often involve contrar ies ::ir
incompatibles [ and ( i )
certainly would] ;
two-footednes s is
point is not
This
,,.
/'
..
"
...
e:O L ,
27
5 19 . 4 ] .
SC .
Is
or
0. L ?
[Ps-Alexander as s umes
Stri ctly ,
,,
the< assertion should be ' express ions for QUOLaL s ignify . . . . ' ,
, ,
' . Perhaps
' ouoLaL are denoted by expressions which s ignify
however
""
onaLve: L
1.ol
1 0 3 7b 24
NOTES
ZETA
ON
Even so ,
c,
ev
(sc .
.;
ona,ve )
in 2 7 here , but, if we
only have " ( se oonda.ry ) .substance ' reve als' a unity " , not that
i t is one , the argument of 2 4 - 2 7 will not go through .
I t has
ooe
'
;'
oob cpaev
in 2 7 suggests
Is the contras t
Aristotle ' s
CHAPTER
12
10 ll7b 2 7
:ro L
..fri'1:
(ac; ;
Even if Aristotle ' s pos ition were that the only useful
I t is not clear
....
there is no need for mo:te than the summum genus and the last
differentia , since the last di fferentia implies all the others .
But thi s invo lves assuming what i s not s tated until a L.ff, . , 2 1
f f . ; and the exampd.e of 'wingless two- footed animal ' a t b 3 3
103
NOTES
1 0 38a 1
does not satisfy c .
ON . ZETA
are packed into the genus , as if there were a s ingle name for
' two-footed :animal ' , the genus, and 'wingless ' were differentia .
a 4 then introduces a different example.
There is no need
As the matter
e lsewhere the view that the genus and all differentiae but the
last are to 'the last differentia as matter is to form; the
reference s eems problemati c , cf . H ayduck ad loc . Alexander ' s
.
: i;.e;A.e:ui;a'Ca,
at b 30 ; 5 20 , 5- 7 ] ,
n' 8 aopa ,
,
( i i i ) b 3 3- .a 4
sc .
are s imply
Prob lem in that the more the analogy withrmatter is ... s.tressed ,
the more Aristotle s eems to be using the mode l of the genus
differentia relationship re j ected in 1 0 3 7b 1 4- 2 1 (but cf .
The
analogy is perhaps that, though the genus ' anima l ' cannot
change from ' dog ' to 'cat ' , i t is like matter in that it
rules out some possibilities;:::als o , an animal must be of
some species just as matter mus t be informed in some way .
The argument of a 6 - speech is both genus and matter, so
genus i:s matter l: . was .. agreed ,to be ludicrous .
104
CHAPTER
was raised whether ' animal '
>
a differentia o f oucna .
12
1 0 38a 5
Will
>
,,
ouaLa
bring.r.ng .
wrong .
B 3 . 9 9 8b 2 2 argues that
'
TO
)/
ov is not a genus ; i t
ota(a .
I n any
(j)(A)Vn" ,
This time
those species .
Rather his
no.pa
...
The example
,.,..
5Lapav ,
5Laoi:lal
requires emendation of v
would regard ' footed divides into c loven- footed and uncloven '
as a necess ary truth , but not knowable a priori .
We noted
10 3 8a . 9
NOTES
di chotomy by privationi
ON
ZET 1\
practice of defining each species by many ' last ' dif ferentiae
i s , at
' show
'D
already said,
whether this . is ( a )
ooa C :
we did not
yd,p
claus e i or (b)
/
ue:aaE
LG
( Ross) .
to be
nOOG
a prior part ( or :
'
,,....
nv n:ownv
np&iov
I n any case
whether the
'
oe;
' Ka;a, k
Z l3
Dis cussion of the chapter was introduced with general remarks
on the . pr.oblem 6f re conc i ling its conclusion that no Ka36Aou
,,
,,.
Aeoue:vov
is a substance with the treatment of e:Lon a$
Ka30'Aou
and s'ubstances .
that
e:'C on
are not
Ka3bAOU
CHAP.T!';.RS. .
Toronto 10 6 3 ) , or that not all
(M. J . Woods ,
12
J. 3
/_
xaeoAOU
are
/
/.
xaeoAou
Aeyoeva
The interpretation of
Metaphys ics Z l 3
Discussion of the thirteenth chpter of Book ! of Aristotle ' s
Met aphysics can hardly be said to have reached any s atis factory
conclusion (W . D . Ros s , Aristotle ' s Metaphys ics , Vol II , ad
.
( ed . )
Aristotle ; J . H . Lesher,
( 19 7 1 ) , pp.
1 69 - 7 8 ;
A Di lemma '
' Aristotle on
in Phronesis ,
' Aristotle
2 39 - 4 9 ) .
( 19 7 2 )
opponent.
Woods ' s
I shall
consider once again , at the risk of: some tediUJ)I, the main
arguments of Z l3 relating them to what I take to be the main
conclusions about subs tance reached in the book as a whole .
I shall maintain that it is i-naccurate to ake the remark in
10 4 la 35 as a total re j ection of the view that universals
10 7
I
NOTES
are substances .
ON
ZEll'A
It is true
( thUs
In
These conclusions
the previous
are plausible
(a suming that
Moreover ,
The
108 -
UNIYERSALS
cons tantly refers
10 3 7b 9 )
AS
POTENTIAL
S UBS TANCES
( e . g . , at 10 30b 14 , 1 0 3 4b 2 3 , 10 3 5a 2 6 , and
'
of essences to b e substances ,
At
Th i s all goes to
In h i s note on
as
one could s ay that ess ences were subs tances and al so that
Socrates was a s ub s tance , since he i s one with his essence i n
n o merely accidental way .
both the senses of
NOTES
ON
ZETA
end of chapter 3 .
Ros s , of cours e , wrote his note in the l i gh t o f the last
paragraph< of Z l l , where it is expli ci tly denied that Socr4tes
is the s ame as his essence , unless by ' S ocrates ' is meant ' the
soul 0 Socrates ' .
dealt with later.
There i s
Ari stotle i s not here saying (what would in any case be a very
odd thing t o s ay)
The se cond
the matter from this point of view will conclude that matter
1 10
UNIVERSALS
is s ub s tance . '
115
POTENTIAL
SUBS TANCES
C. 10 3 8b. 3 4 - 3 5 ) ,
Otherwi s e ,
But j us t
It follows
Mis,- ...
But it . may well not b e unavoidable to take ' uni vers al '
i n this way .
NOTES
ON
ZETA
But i t s ti l l
s eems t o me that Woods has made the righ t kind of move here ,
and that Ari s totle be lieves universals to be substances only
when they are not predicated o f individuals .
The di stinction
I ts function i s
unders tanding . of ' s ub s tance ' which he has already used i n his
introduction to the discus sion of essences in chapter 6 :
' e ach
thing is though t to be nothing other than its own subs tance '
(10 3la 1 7 - 1 8 ) ; i n contras t to which a univers al is though t to
belong to many.
So far , so good.
identical with B i n the s ame sense o f ' i denti cal ' required
when we s ay that i f A is S ocrates and B i s Socrates , than A i s
identi cal with B .
as follows
s ub s tance) :
112
UNIVERSALS
AS
POTENTIAL
SUBS TANCES
I t wi ll be the s ub s tance
But
[ . on the
( 10 3 8b 1 2 - 1 4 )
I f i t is
( Explanatory expansions of
the argument are my own , not Ari stotle ' s , and have
accordingly been enclosed within< square b rackets . )
As Aristotle goes on to s ay ( repeating the position of chapter
6)
I think i t
If
<
numerically plural .
To b e sure, on this interpretati on the argument would
prove too much , as Woods and others h ave pointed out, in that
However , I submit
......
NOTES
Otf
ZETA
withoti
qualification.
ta HJ untinate th'e :
In chapter 6
( 10 16 a 1 7 - 3 2 )
that things can b e called ' one ' for. several reasons .
he says
The first
H e gives as
H e s ays that
we can ,
Indeed, there
Aristotle does not the:ie adopt as his own the view that sub s tance
is predicated o f matter , but gives it merely as part of a whole
theory with whose consequences he does not h imself agree .
114
H is
UNIVERSALS
AS
POTENTIAL
SUBS TANCES
individual .
I believe it
follows :that by the t.ime Al::' lstotle wrote z..1. _ he would no .. lgnger
h ave considered that in the examples offered in A6
oi l ' , or ' animal is human ' )
( ' water
is
nor separately
suitable sub j ect terms ; he would not have cons idered dog or
man suitable predicates either , . if dog or man are taken as
substances .
In r 4
A particular man
It will
(Aristotle ' s
In short , the
presuppos es a theory of
I t follows , too ,
that terms expressing .the essence of s omething are not univers als
either , because they are not predicated of many individuals .
They are not predicated of many individuals because in the
1 15
....................................-
NOTES
ON
ZETA
s trict sense they are not predi cated of i ndividuals at:. all ,
Hence , in Z 4 Aristotle makes it clear that being an essence i s
. incompatib le with being predicated o f someth ing else:
' An essence i s
is;
I shall try to
( i n s o far as
and hehce that nei ther substances nor essences are universals .
I t i s at this point, after the preliminary ob jecti ons h ave
been set out , that the real discussion in Z l 3 begins .
I n effect,
He
concedes that this w i l l not be the case with terms like ' man '
which , although it expresses what Socrates i s , i s not predicated
of Socrate s ,
But he argues
AS
UNIVERSALS
POTENTIAL
SUBSTANCES
like an essence,
animal
-r
as
For it will
j us t as much as man
So
I think
am
agreeing wi th
(npov v)
( T )
ii
at b 1 5
s ame word ' moreover ' occurs twice more , at b 2 3 and b 29 ; then ,
at b 30 , Aristotle writes
it follows that
'
( gA 5 au(ve ) ,
117
which reads
NOTES
ON
ZETA
I t s eems to me
very odd to read b 30 as the beginning of Aris totle ' s cons idered
view , as Woods s eems to take i t .
taken as a
Woods
it
Read in
( e:T L oe:) it
( 10 3 8b 2 3 - 2 8)
( n&3nl
At 10 30 a 13-14 , in a discussion of
UNIVERSALS
AS
POTENTIAL
SUBSTANCES
Here in 1 3 ,
to
clear
Aristotle also
Since he
NOTES
after all .
ON
ZETA
refer to part
.,/
( 10 3 8b 29 - 3 0 )
' the
The point
Either
As well
For the
UNIVERSALS
AS
POTENTIAL
S UB STANCES
( l0 3 8 a 5 ) .
This
a mis take .
In the language
For just as it
an
as
committed also to the view that ' being made o f f lesh and bones '
does not refer t o a property of theform of S ocrates either .
It follows that neither species , nor the forms of material
121
NOTES
ZETA
ON
11,,
:1
''
I
"
III
The whole discussion i n Z l 3 seems to pres uppos e that genera
are universals , and the s ame assumption appears in H l , at
10 4 2a 1 5 .
The arguments i n
couched in terms
I regard it
This
th en,
UNIVERSALS
AS
POTENTIAL
SUBSTANCES
species , share , nor in the ' rel ated sense that they are predicates
of an indefinite numbet of species .. Woods may not be able to
show that there is clear terminology in Aristotle to distinguish
between universals and universal predicates , but he seems to
me right to say that some such distinction underlies the whole
of Aristotle ' s posit ion . Its importance is perhaps obscured
by the fact that most universals , such as white , or tal l , are
also universally predicated . The only ones which are not
are those closely related to essence s .
Against Woods , however , i t is my view that the same can
also be said about essences . Discussion of Z l 3 has in my
opinion been bedevilled by thect::Once:rn to avoid interpreting
it in such a way as to call in question the apparently clear
doctrine of earlier chapters that essences are sub stances . But
the passage in 69 mentioned above where Aristotle says that we
can say 'every man ' because 'man ' is predicated of more than
one subject seems to suggest .that man is a universal; and if
..this is true without any furher qualification , then the
arguments of Zl3 would seem to apply to essences just as they do'
to genera . The remedy i s neither to conclude reluctantly that
13 is inconsistent with the rest of z , nor , as Woods does , to
force a different interpretation on the text of 1 3 . I t lies
in being clear about the possible equivocation on the term
' essence ' , in its rel ation to ' universal ' .
Consider an ,essence term like 'man ' ( and the same would
apply to fully explicit formulae or definitions of such terms)
In one sense , essence terms can be regarded as universal , in
the sense that there are indefinitely many individuals who
could be men; but 'man ' i not the name of some thing which they
share in common . The form Man is not an actual entity at all ,
but a potentiality which can be actualised in indefinitely
many individuals such as S ocrates and Callias . ' Man ' , like
' animal ', . .can be regarded as a universal term, just .so long
as it is understood that as universal it refers to a potentiality ,
not to any existing thing. It is precisely because substances
exist in actuality that universals cannot be substances . I
suggest that in so f ar as essence s , too , can be regarded as
potential entities ( as they can in the case of al l essences of
material individuals ) they are potential substances , can be
123
NOTES
ON
ZETA
UNIVERSALS
AS
POTENTIAL
SUBSTANCES
NOTES
ON
ZETA
Gerald J ;. Hughes ,
Heythrop College ,
Uliiversity of London
,
2 5th February 19 7 8
We had before us the papers of Woods (see previous note) and
Hughes ( reproduced immediately above) b oth aiming to secure
the. :1h:iil6lili!ng gentira:l miisul t LJiom. hlle .chap ler . 'l'Jle '!: t'i t ique
be subtance does not apply
of the claims
. of the KCJaOAOU to
.,.
to the .{0G1i;: e . g . man . Man is not in the relevant sense
universally predicated of many individual men , because they are
not imdependen:t:lY. identif'iable as sjects. about ..which,one
could prceeci to .ask whether or not they are men ( c f:. , Woods
pp :< 37- 8 ) . I f this is correct , Z l3 provides no b asis for
commi tting Aristotle to individual forms . Notice therefore that
126
'-
CHAPTER
13
tnou&(&vov ,
na3n ,
referring
Pxn' -
"t' LOLV)
to see .
apxif
(b 8 f f)
"
- and
EOLKE
ua36'>..ou >.. & yo:vCilv .
show that
and
)
1 5- 16 . At 16- 17ca>..>.. ' apa the Platonist starts a
( 2)
E"t'L
reply to ( 2 ) :
E "t' L
On these
be low)
l""t' L o{
in Ross ) .
Ob j e ction (1) 10 3 8b 9 - 15 . Aristotle does not indicate whether
u<faou/tucl'OT
Nor need
not be at issue .
token , although n
L O Los; ,
e.
,-
"JI
By the same
.
looks to b e explanatory of
,
KOL VOV
= 0
n>..E ,
LOOLV
10 3 8b
. ON
NOTES
ZETA
_,
G _,_,
to distinguish
Kae&'A.ou
and
,,,
was
1 0 3 8b 1 5 - 1 6 . Again a contras t :
(b)
/.
. KaeoA.ou
( a)
substance
i s said of a sub j e ct .
,,,._
and KaeoA.ou .
KaeoA.ou
b KaeA.ou ,
(P)
the specimen
that essence i s .
and
( a)
ov
Kaeo"A.ou
is 6 ov .
vo{xeaL
The Platonist
,Co L oG ,
1f
characteriz ation ( i )
- or does it ( ii )
claim that
rather
"
I'_
evunCJPXE
L
Categories notions?
(Hughes p . 1 1 6 } .
[ I f that is so , ]
S tart from ( i)
is
CHAPTER
13
1 0 3 Sb 18
/
one-word >..o yoG'i forced rendering of TO
o.uTo
no.>.. L v ,
wb.ii:h should refer to a consequence which has occurred before
.
,, L OV to man
as a consequence; br"
/h orse . version
ov is not ,L/v
(B) ( cf. woods p . 2 3 2 ) .
Construe 18 as : [If that is so , ]
then it is clear that there i s a definition of it [ bt.ov ] ;
no matter that it [ this definition] is not the fonnula of
everything in !!!fil! it wil l s till be both substance and
"
Jof.0.3o>..ou , since it wi ll be unique to a clas s of species in
just the way !!!fil! is the oDa (a. of individual men . Difficulties :
,.
,,.
>
'
)/
?/
'.')
>
EKE I.. VOU
E:V Ii:'
00 E: L O& L = E:Jof.E: LVOU e: L OOU !:; 'e:v 'e h as to mean a
,
/
class of species (Woods p . 2 3 3 ) ; TO o.uTo
no.>.. Lv is stil l
troub lesome - even if the voice is P ' s rather than Aristotle ' s
(Woods pp. 231-2) , can the words mean that P ' s amended position
is the same as the one previous ly re jected? Version (C As
.
before , but offer1ng to solve the problems over r.:
LO Lov at 2 3
by the suggestion that the ift'ooi;; for which bV i s uniquely
the o&a Ca. is the Platonic Fonn Animal (which would of course
/")\
also be said of many individuals) . e: Looi;; has not been preempted for Aristotelian use in the chapter so far. The
general merit of Interpretation ( i ) is that it makes reasonable
sense for P to claim that if is unprob lematically substance ,
.so should animal be , yet since animal is only an e lement in
the essence which it is extracted from , it i s s aid Jo1.o.3t>..ou
of a number of separately identifiable subjects . The general
drawback of ( i) is that if P speaks al l the way to 2 3 , Aristotle
is setting do:wn prel iminary objections and merely notes a
' .., .;
possible line of reply to one of these . Also TO o.uTo
nc()., Lv sounds like it should refer to the recurrence of some
ob jectionable consequence .
..
"-i.
.,
1 0 3 8b 18
ON
NOTES
ZETA
,,
>
Difficulty:
assertion .
Vrsion
of
(B)
oeov
P intended
xaaAOU
to be
to start with
"'
ob j e ction comes at 2 0 - 1 :
6ov will b e
Difficulty :
oa(a
version ( D) .
f!1
Difficulty :
"'
'The
is so spoken of by Aristotle
( C)
Version
P must
cknfvaov '
lf'a, L
no dif ference
I'
AOYOG
Diff iculty:
ov
In terpretation
in 20 as exi s tential :
of everything in
we have
if there is not
it makes
i t makes
approximating ( ii )
(C)
(i)
and ( i i )
considered above;
to b e both
xaa6Aou
and
o?iac'a,
"
\,
The merit of
( ii)
"'
AOYOG of it
"
,
""'
xaaoAou and oucrLa
or of part of
ought to have .
.,
l'o L ov
ecr L .
in 19 .
llth March 19 7 8
10 3 8b 12-15
xaaS'Aou ,
if it i s
H 38b 12
13
CHAPTER
1.1012 ) ,
(nor ,
,6
xa36\ou
predicated of) .
and if
xa3Aou
Difficulty :
(v ycip K,A . )
the thesis
x = y) ,
13-14
suggests ..that
fv
218) .
(p.
Cherniss
y6.p
le;\
"
wv yap
as explaining
219 ) ,
' "
(p .
219 , 2 3 5 )
wants
yap
12-15
'
in
( see
13.
not to
A commitment to
131
In
10 38b 12
NOTES
other words ,
Evo
o'
ON
ZETA
Difficulty :
is not the
does the
yap
And how
Further difficulty:
the consequence
if K is the substance
Whether it
103'8b 2'3- 9 . S ee
1978
for alternative
according to
. guesses as to which voice speaks these lines :
Woods P is still replying to earlier objections , according to
Hughes Aristotle is making his first objection to P ' s reply ,
18 .
I f it
18-23 ) ,
:>
EVUnaPXE LV
otherwise
/
XOOPLOTa.
naerr;
XOOPLOTa
they
Ros s :
132
9-16
CHAPTER
13
l 0 38b 2 3
nonsubstancer
prior to substance .
e: L oe:,,
,,
it is not
"'
/
ooe:
L,i
so P ' s position constitutes the genuine ooe: ' " from elements
which are not
the sense of
then noLov
,
yvwae:
L - x.povw... .
/
,
A.oyce - x.povce
- y e:ve:ae:
L
( so a l l MSS and
/'
1 0 2 8a 3 2 - 3 has A.oy -
( S omething
nan .
ye:ve:ae: v
to
yvwae:
L
/
W
X.POV
..
and
,,.,.
y e:ve:ae:
L
l0 38b 2 9- 3 0 .
of Socrates .
(Woods pp .
234-5) .
Difficulty :
( i ) , version
(B) ,
( c f . note on
above ) .
quo'Lv
( 1 ) Callias - no supporters ;
133
(2)
NOTES
1038b 29
ON
ZETA
,.
'22nd Apri l 1 9 7 8
CHAPTER
13
1 0 3 8b 30
..,
/
..'.lvv ..apx.e
the xse d:.s
LV is reminiscent of
AE:yC?ue;;vov to be. ouoLa
10 39a 3-14 .
,,,
.....
,,.
earlier parts of the chapter , but the use of the OU'llO. ULG/
lve(py & LO. contrast is novel . The question was raised whether
Aristotle was relying on a principle that no single F can
consist of several Fs , where ' F ' is a substance term, or a
more general (and retty indefensible.) princ.iple that no
single thing can be constituted by an actual plurality of
things . On the first alternative , the propriety of taking a
categorial term like bOo(a as substituend of p might be
questioned; to do so would be to place strong requirements
on the unity of genuine substances , such as are going to
imposed in Z l 6 . a 7-11 were found puzzling in a nuniber of
respects . The subject of nol. e'i:' at a 12 could be either
"
1039a 3
NOTES
ON
ZETA
>
-'
,,.
.,
:>
...
/'
CHA,PTERS
1039a 24
13, 14
Zl4
. 20th
May
19 78
TOCE
but is not made up of TO.O E . S o , either Aristotle , while
not himself endorsing T , regards the P latonists as committed
to :Lt ; or the argument depends not on T but on parity of
reasoning as between the species and the genus and differentiae
if the Platonists regard the former as a separately existing
substance , so must they the latter . That the argument is a
dialectical one against the P latonists , not an assertion of T
as a principle that Aristotle would himself endorse , is shown
by 30-31 ; Aristotle would accept that the specific form is
137
.,.
10 39a 24
NOTES
)
'
ON
'
ZETA
/
,,,
6'c5e:.
CHAPTER
( i ) h 7'- 9 .
14
1039b
I
10.3 9b 7
NOTES
ON
ZETA
.
e:i: L noA.A.a
e:cri:aL au, i:o
i:c 6wov in 9 (whether 6wov or e:v e:Kacri:ov
is aken as subject in 13- 1 4 , a point over which there was some
discussion) . In 14 6ov is to be understood with i:cw . 10- 1 1 :
i f ' anima l ' was not the substance o f ' man ' , whatever was--wou_ld
be his genus . 12-13 cannot be giving the reason for navi:a
"'
Zl5
17th June 19 78
/
....
CHAPTERS
14, 15
1039b 23
'"'
'
"'
,,,.
':.
'
NOTES
10 39b 2 5
ON
ZETA
'
'
'
.,,,.
"
,...
.
'
10 39b 33- 4 . <O TOL OIJ"t"OV is the subJec:J, a vague one : the sort
,
..
/
of thing that can be now En:Lcr<nun , now ,ayvo
La. This in turn
must be construed generously , since Aristotle has j ust said
,,
,,
that e:n Lcr<nun can ' t be now that , now ayvo La. What he means
/
i s : the state which can be now true , now false , is ooEa.
The thesis i s : no nLcr<n'un of what can be otherwise , because
.,
EnLcr<nun is not compatible with change of truth-value , so
equally no demonstration:. or definition of what can be otherwise ,
hence none of particular sensible substances ( 1 0 4 0 a 2 o.GI@v
,
""
et
10 39b 2 8 OUCJLWV TWV O.LcrnTwv <WV xo. EXO.CJTO.) . These are
subsumed under what can be- otherwise on the grounds that they
are all PT ( 10 3 9b 30 , as argued earlier in the chapter , rut ,
Ross notes , in defiance of the distinction at Al . 1069a 30
between eternal and perishable substances ; yet cf . 1040a 27-8 ) .
,,
.,
r.
rt
I':\.
CHAPTER
15
1040a 2
,.
"
.
.
can be hose who claim
the
exouaL
enLa,nun
' ) , or (b) as making
_point that the EnLa,ifun had (vide the AQYo L remaining) is not
of them ; ( ii ) when the . particulars are gone , the same AyoL
rmain in the soul but wi ll no longer be definitions and
demonstrations ( s c . of them) .
The main problem is ( i ) . Is 3e Lp6ueva present continuous
,.
or does it j ust do duty for Cfl{1ap'a (which mght .in context be
mis leading as also meaning ' perished ' ) ? We did not have the
linguistic resources to hand to decide whether the second was
.
Cl
)
...
>
)
/
.
possible
, but some felt that o'av eK 'nG aLa3noewG aneA3
would be a bizarre epexegesis of 3e Lpbeva present continuous :
to be in process of perishing is to be actually disappearing
from sight . But in a way that ' s j ust how it is , since when
Socrates dies the corpse . which remains in view is not him.
t/
o'av K,A . could also be a reminiscence of 1036a 6-1 . So the
choice remains : either Aristotle tak$ the very special case
,.
where the AOYOL are actually in process of falling false of
the perishing particular, or his point is that with a perisrable
this may happen when that particular is out of sight . Some
thought ' L in 5 favours the first . Further question affecting
the issue of scepticism: Is that ' may epistemic (we can ' t re
certain that it does not happen) or non-epistemic ( it is
not necessary that it does not happen) ? Top . 13lb 19-33 opts
for the first . Finally , even on the reading ' perishable'
143
"
NOTES
1040a 2
ON
ZETA
the case ll:s special : . not all of that wh1ch cah be bthe:twise
is covered by the singular propositions under consideration
here and in the related passages 1036a 3-8 , Top. 13lb 19- 3 3 .
S- 7 .
1040a
""'
C./
'
For i:wv npo1:;
opov (which l: L G indicates is pers6ns ,
"'
14th
.,,..
""
104oa
144
CHAPTER
15
1040a
8.
1040a 14
NOTES
ON
ZETA
,.
,.
least theoretically of change (.and J:he oua1.'a of 1040a 33 is
such an individual - the sun might conceivably stop circling
., ,
or shine at night . ) But the aLoLa of 1040a 17 were Forms
revealed by definition : one more mark of a patchwork chapter .
io4oa
104o'b
"'
CHAPTERS
10 40b 5-16 .
1040b 5
1 5 , 16
Zl6
4th November 1 9 7 8
10 4 0b 16- 2 4 . Aristotle turns very abruptly to a new topic at
1040b 16 , and continues discussion of it until b 24 at least .
I appears that he i s attacking the csecond of '.' two wrong views
about substance" (Ross ) . [Perhaps Aristotle , having relied on
unity as a criterion of substance: at b8-10 , now warns that we
wust not take unity to be substance . ] The view in question has
to be inferred from b 18-19 , 2 1 : i t consists in the claim
'- <-!
" "'
.
.
that TO Ev and TO
ov (unity
and being)
are the substance of
things . Aristotle ' s argument against this claim at b 16-17
is very unclear . Some possibilites : (a) Perhaps he argues :
( i ) unity and being are shared by a plurality of things ( indeed
by all things ) ; ( 2 ) but no substances are shared by a plurality
of things ; ( 3 ) so unity and being are not substance . ( 1 )
' "/
\
\ fa/
IE"
;'
'
,...
ap LJ.J.Ce
is stated by TO Ev
KUL TO ov ( 2 ) by WV La
., ?/
'
It/
To ov is an opaque
Difficulties in (a) are ( i ) that TO Ev
,,
' "
way of staing ( 1 ) , and ( ii ) that the clause KUL n oucr La
.,,
La is redundant . Perhaps ( i i ) can be softened by taking the
" C
c.
,,,...
/
words to mean : " thing has one substance" ( Tou EVOG = EVOG
T LVOG) , and as intended to express ( 2 ) . We then suppose that
Aristotle realizes that this is an imprecise way of putting ( 2 ) ,
'
.
and so immediately adds epexegetically : KUL wv KTA . Against
this defence against ( i i ) it may l.n turn be objected . that i t
"' '"
/
.
/
' r,/
is hard to read TOU EVOG (b 1 7 ) as EVOG T LVOG when TO EV both
in b 16 and b 1 8 means "unity " . Alternatively (b) we might
naturally read Aristotle ' s second premiss as designed to say
' e/
something specifically about TO EV , understood in the sense of
" unity" . On this assumption we might construe the argument as
follows (vel sim. ) : ( 1 ) If anything is , it is one (cf . 1003b
23-32 ) : so ( 2 ) the substance consisting in unity ( i . e . the
substance that unity is according to the view under attack :
n . b . TOU vo'G) must be one (sc . qua existing ; cf . 1003b 32-3) .
But ( 3 ) things which must have a substance which is one are one .
So (from ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ) we conclude ( 4 ) that unity cannot be
147
10 40b 16
NOTES
ON
ZETA
CHAPTER
16
1040b 16
,;
.
EXOV L aunv must be singular . He needs to repeat the stronger
premiss of b 17 (xa'i. xA. . ) - which is perhaps how he means us
to read b 2 3- 4 . At b 2 4 we read an [presumably Christ and
Jaeger read atin because of an{,, J ; but nothing turns on it
.
"
I
10 40b 25
NOTES
ON
ZETA
Zl7
20th January 1979
10"4la 8-9 . Is this to be translated '
concerning that
substance which is separate from sensible substances ' or ' that
substance wich is separate , amo19" sensible substances ' ? rt . was
thought that the first was the only option .
1041a 9-10 .
CHAPTERS
1 0 4 la 9
16., 17
)
/'
,.
.,,,,.
10 4 1a 13 .
It was proposed that AAO might be emended to
>/
aAAWG ( ' vacuous ly ' ) to give a better sense .
1 0 4 la 11- 2 0 : Problems were raised about Aristotle ' s reasons
for the dismissal of enquiries framed in the ' Why is the X X? '
form, in particular the argument of 15-19 . ( i ) The nAr{v
clause at 18-19 was found puz z ling : Aristotle has said that
you have a single AQY OG , which might be recast in the form
required for a genuine i:r(Tncr L (; , but it is too unspecific to
be any use . But then it is unclear how the nAnv- clause , and
what follows i t , introduce any qualification . ( i i ) 15-16
appear to present the standard view that what is to be explained
has to be accepted as being the case in advance of i:il-rncrLG
.( ' Why is it the case that .P ? ' presupposE:s ' P ' ) , and the example
is then given ( that there is an eclipse) of the sort of thing
of which an explanation may properly be sought ; but then is
' X is X ' being given as an example of the sort of thing for which
it is fruitless to ask for an explanation, or is it an instance
of the sort of vacuous expJ.anation that is no explanation at all
( i . e . Because it ' s itself (ati:o cri; L v a."ti:o)' is no explanation
"'
'
ii"
P
'
" '
,,;
r
of anything) ? E L G AOYOG ii.a t La. at i: La e:nt navi:wv ( 1 7 ) would
the second of these , but the unfavourable contrast with
suggest
. .
'
" Y
7/
.
the eclipse example , and what follows (oLa T L av3pwnoG av3pwnoG
) suggest the first . The adoption of the second would
151
,..
104la 11
NOTES
ON
ZETA
I./
permit , but not require , taking oT
L in 16 as ' because ' rather
than ' that ' . On the whole , it was felt that Aristotle was
concerned to rej ect ' Why is X X?' as a suitable form for a
question inviting the discovery of an a1,(a : it will always
be possible to get a more promising question in the ' Why does
Y belong to X ? ' form . Against this view of Aristotle ' s two
criticisms were raised : ( i ) The dismissal of "Why is X X? '
as a sensible question may invmlve the overlooking of a scope
ambiguity . In one way , to ask ' Why is X X? ' may be pointless ,
but not to ask , concerning x , why it is x . Aristotle may have
thought that tnis will always turn into the question of what
it is for some matter to have taken on a form apt to constitute
it as an X . But i t seems unreasonable to insist that the
question be framed in that form in advance of all inquiry .
( i i ) Aristotle ' s rejection of the ' Why is X X? ' enquiry may
have i.nvolved him in a fallacious argument for the conclusion
/
that ouaLa is form : if you were allowed to ask ' Why is X X? ' ,
the answer might bring in matter; and answer solely in terms
of form is required only if the nOKE Evov has been ruled out
in advance . Arguably , Aristotle ' s preferred formulation
prej udges the issue in favour of form , so far as the argument
/
of this chapter , relying on the connexion between ouaLa and
aoxif, goes (cf . note on 1 0 4 la 9 -10 above , ad fin) .
>
24th February 19 79
104la 24-6 . ' Why does noise occur in the clouds ? ' is claimed
to trans late ' Why does it thunder? ' into the form ' Why is s
P? ' , which Aristotle has j ust said is the proper form for
fruitful inquiry. The example is not yet in the required form ,
but no doubt Aristotle assumes it could be got there - his
examples in the Analytics are often similarly optimistic .
l0 4aa 2 8 . Should we excise TOUTo
AOY LKOOb , following Ps
Alexander ( and hence i;ossibly , after all, Alexander ' s original
commentary) and Jaeger against Ross? Gramma r might suggest Yes :
;J
;:>/
>I
'
'
o should pick up aLT LOV directly , in view of aLT Lov yap KaL
TotiTo at 30 . Content might suggest Yes : we have not been
eansidering essence AOY LKb (quite the contrary) and it is
152
CHAPTER
17
lv4la 28
"
Cl.
.. .,.
....
. appropria
. te .
.
t o wh ic
' h T "L npoocov
EKLVti crE ; is
are E LvaL - ques t ions
one suggested solution : the last - mentioned questions would
be questions about particular existents that had come to be
q.
in the course of some chain of events , so if we take the E LVaLquestions more narrowly a s questions about the standing structure
of the universe , the efficierl: cause would indeed drop out . We
supposed that Aristotle would not want us. to infer that final
causation is appropriate to every E'tvaL - question , e . g .
mathematical ones should be excluded . Problems were raised
,.
/
about the TEAOG of cp3E LPEcr3aL but on the whole it seemed
'
_,
., ,
,....
.;
KaL Ql3E LPECT3aL as a
easier to take ETtL TOU Y LYVECT3aL
compendious reference to a single class of item .
'
,.
,. .
>/.
aA.A.nA.oov
vs . Ka< ' aA.A.oov
. The sense
104la 3 3 . We debated Ka< '
.
requires that Ka< ' aA.A.nA.oov mean not ' of one another ' but
' one of another ' , i . e . form of matter , but can it? On the
If
other hand , Ka< ' ;
aA.A.oov would seem to make the 1EyoEvov
be
form alone , contrary to the sense needed . Ross ' s reference
""'
" '
/..
TETa.y1,1.i;:voov"seemed to show that
to cat . lb 16 n un ' aA.A.nA.a."
Ka< ' A.A.nA.oov ought to be OK .
153
,
104lb
NOTES
.
..
.,,
ON
ZETA
,,
( L) .
,
,,
104lb 7 . It was thought that it would be nice to have OO L
/
secundum refer to the matter , as oo L has done so far , though it
is not of course impossible for it to shift over to the form
( i . e . ' This body halriilg this [_2. form] [is a man] ' - so Ross ) .
suggestions were : ' Why is this having this body a man? ' , ' Why
is this body having this [ sc . flesh , etc . ] a man? ' . But support
fpr these remained lukewarm. Another aesthetic urge was to
see if b 7 could yield a parallel to the question-answer format
of b 6 . Suggestions : ( a ) ' Why is this a man? Or is it that
this body [ is a man] by having this [ form] ? ' ( answer in form
of an amplifying question) ; (b) ' Why is this , i . e . this body ,
after ,oto) . Again
a man? By having thi s ' (punctuating
nothing more than lukewarm.
I
'
,..
' "'
104lb 8 . we decided we should leave out ouo . . orei:8oG
(with Jaeger against Ross) so as not to prejudice the results
I'
of the chapter . has to link to aLLov : the cause by which the
matter is something .
154
l04lb 9
CHAPTER 17
l.I
,.
....
"'
10 4 lb 22f . That a thing ' s being EK O"tO LXE LOU as opposed to its
being a ai:oxE'i:ov implies its being composed of a plurality
,.
of elements is explicitly assumed here ; c-f . the plural ai:o L XE Loov
in 20 . The analogy was drawn between b 1 1-27'. and similar
discussions in Plato; it was noted that Sophist 253A suggests
that the letters cannot be known except in the context of
syllables , a point not made here , but against this it was argued "
that the question of our knowledge does: not affect that of what
makes a syllable a syllable .
155
104lb
NOTES
25
ON
ZETA
.
.
....
.,,
..
.
'
156
...
"
CHAPTER
17
104lb 2 7
104lb 2 8
NOTES
ON
ZETA
104lb 29 . aL for c/
oaaL would make the restriction of substances
to natural kinds less dogmatic; but that would weaken the
argument for the conclusion in 30 . After Kaa JaLv in 29 ,
understand , p;ri;lbal:rly , a,'t. i Kaa aLv could be taken with
,
/
u
oaaL oua La L -zrather than with what follows , but that would not
provide the contrast with 2 8-29 indicated by aAA '
>
. .
. . ,.
"
. .
- . . - :
158
. _:.
._
. . -
. i
.:
' ...
..
_.
, ' '