Philoponus: On Aristotle's Prior Analytics

Thus, it was necessary, when about to discourse on demonstration, to teach about simple terms. He has therefore done this in the distinction, insofar as they are nouns and verbs, and regarding the first composition. (p. 5,1) He has done this... this is the so-called and existing composition... when these are composed again... and since, as we said, there are three differences of syllogisms... the propositions, whether negative or affirmative, make the syllogism. If, therefore, he teaches here about... in the Analytica regarding the demonstrative, and in the Sophistical Refutations regarding the sophistical, and in the Topics regarding the dialectical, it will reasonably follow the De Interpretatione, and will precede the rest. As for the cause... and the reduction of complex things into simple ones, which even mathematicians use... reduction. If, therefore, the syllogism is rather a composition... and not an analysis, it should have been synthetic rather than analytic. In order, then, that the cause of the title might be apparent to us from the start, let us inquire into the division of the book, which is as follows. This book is divided, according to a primary and more general division, into two parts. One is called Prior Analytics and the other Posterior. And the Priors, again, are divided into three: in the first, he teaches the genesis of the syllogism; in the second, how we might provide ourselves with propositions; and in the third, the analysis into the proper forms of syllogisms. From the third part, therefore, he titled the whole work "Analytics," as being more authoritative... Laymen know how to compose nouns and verbs and complete a sentence... (p. 6,1) which is a noun, and which a verb... of the remaining kinds, reasonably... he said earlier, and in those which are about the kind, that is, the demonstrative, "Posterior Analytics." That... is clear from this. For they say that... forty analytic books having been found in the ancient libraries, these four alone were judged to be Aristotle's... of the syllogisms formed according to the connection of the propositions. And in... of matter. And we call the "kind" of a syllogism... the matter is that which is for the sake of something... for the sake of. And these things are to this extent. Henceforth, it would be necessary for us to proceed with the explanation according to the text. —

(p. 9,21) 1. In the first instance, he omitted the "it is necessary," according to the Attic custom... it is a custom for the Attics to omit... to offer. — (p. 9,28) 2. He rendered the syntax appropriately to each, preserving the structure. To the one... and to the "of what"... the demonstrative science. One should not wonder if he constructed the preposition "peri" concerning with the accusative. For in all things, Aristotle, being a master craftsman, does not neglect the rules of grammar. But knowing that the preposition "peri" is commonly constructed with the genitive, but in the Ionic dialect with the accusative, he used the custom of the Ionians. Or, taking "we are occupied with" from elsewhere elliptically for the sake of brevity, he does not harm the correct syntax. Demonstration differs from demonstrative science... proceeding. For just as sensation and "to sense" are differences, and sensation is the sensitive power of the soul, but "to sense" is an act that proceeds from sensation, and we have sensation always, both while waking and while sleeping, but "to sense" only while waking, so also demonstration stands in relation to demonstrative science, even if Aristotle, at the end of the present work, says that demonstration does not differ from demonstrative science, as we shall know there. —
(p. 10,28) 3. Being a Peripatetic, the philosopher uses many definitions, defining from the very beginning the things that are useful to him for teaching. Just as he did in the previous works. In the Categories, having taught in advance about homonyms and the rest. In the De Interpretatione, what a noun is and what a verb, and so on. And in this teaching, being a lover of geometry, he performs the transmission in the same way as those others. For they are accustomed to teach in advance the things that contribute to demonstrations, so as not to be at a loss when demonstrating. He immediately proclaims the purpose of the book at the very preface, saying that the subject at hand is demonstration. If someone, being puzzled, should say: How did Aristotle say that the inquiry regarding demonstrative science was his, which does not appear to be in the first book nor in the second, we will say to him that the primary purpose of Aristotle is... it is impossible to distinguish... for the sake of this, he provides this teaching first. Some are puzzled here because of...