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).