Aristotle Metaphysics 10

Hugh Tredennick (Translator)

Metaphysics. Aristotle. Hugh Tredennick (Translator). London. 1933-1935.

Sponsored by Perseus Project, Tufts University.

Funding provided by The Annenberg CPB/Project.

Current edition Perseus

Metaphysics (English) (Aristotle. The Metaphysics, Vol. 1-2. Tredennick, Hugh, translator. London: William Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933-35 (printing).)

Editions (1)
τὰ Μετὰ τὰ Φυσικά Perseus (Aristotle. Aristotle's Metaphysics, Vol. 1-2. Ross, William David, editor. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924 (printing).) — 10 focus

Notes on the current edition

Metaphysics

1. Aristot. Met. 5.6 .
2. This description applies to the celestial spheres.
3. The reference is undoubtedly to Anaximander.
4. i.e., the enharmonic (or quarter-tone proper) and the chromatic, which was 1/3 of a tone ( Aristoxenus 1.21, 2.51 ). There was also the δίεσις ἡμιολία, which was 3/8 of a tone.
5. The meaning seems to be that the diameter consists of two parts, one equal to the side, and the other representing its excess over the side; the two parts being incommensurate are measured by different units (Ross). καὶ ἡ πλευρά must, I think, be a gloss.
6. What Protagoras really meant was (apparently) that appearances are true relatively to the percipient. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.4.27 , and see Burnet, Greek Philosophy (Part I. Thales to Plato), 92.
7. Aristot. Met. 3.4.24-27 .
8. Empedocles.
9. Anaximenes.
10. Anaximander.
11. Aristot. Met. 7.13 .
12. Cf. Aristot. Met. 3.3.7 .
13. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.2.6-8 .
14. Cf. Aristot. Met. 4.2.9 .
15. Or the same. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.9 .
16. Or like. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.9.5 .
17. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.9.4 .
18. sc. as opposed to same in sense (a); 3 above.
19. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.9.4 .
20. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.10 .
21. Aristot. Met. 5.28.4 .
22. This is not a proper example of privation. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.22 .
23. Held by the Platonists. Cf. Aristot. Met. 14.1.4, 5 .
24. Cf. Aristot. Met. 10.3.8
25. i.e., a fluid, which cannot be described as many.
26. Cf. Aristot. Met. 1.3.9 .
27. sc. and then the absurdity of his view would have been apparent, for, etc. Aristotle assumes the Anaxagoras meant smallness ( μικρότης) to be the opposite of multitude ( πλῆθος); but he meant just what he said—that the particles of which things consist are infinitely many and infinitely small. See Bowman in Classical Review 30, 42-44.
28. Aristot. Met. 5.15.8, 9 .
29. Cf. Aristot. Met. 10.1.19 .
30. This is Plato’s definition. Cf. Plat. Tim. 67d, e .
31. Aristotle does not use induction to prove his point; indeed he does not prove it at all.
32. In ch. 4.
33. Or category.
34. i.e., indivisible species and individuals.
35. Cf. Aristot. Met. 5.28.1 .
36. It appears that in this chapter (apart from 5, which may be a later addition) the terms εἶδος and γένος are used in a non-technical sense. Cf. Ross on Aristot. Met. 1058b 28 .
37. i.e., the individual man is perishable and the Idea of man imperishable; and these must be other in kind ( γένει non-technical). But the Platonists hold that the Idea is the same in species as the particular. This is impossible if it is other in genus ( γένει technical).