Some Notes On Arist., Metaph. a 4,985b9

Abstract

In Metaph. A 4, 985b4 ff. Aristotle speaks about the atomists Leucippus and Democritus. For them, he says, the void (?e???) is by no means less than the full (p???e?, s??a). The text runs as follows: ?e???pp?? d? ?a? ? eta???? a?t?? ???????t?? st???e?a ?e? t? p???e? ?a? t? ?e??? e??a? fas?, ?????te? t? ??? d? t? d? ?? ??, t??t?? d? t? ??? p???e? ?a? ste?e?? t? ??, t? d? ?e??? t? ?? ?? (d?? ?a? ????? ?????? t? d? t?? ?? ??t?? e??a? fas??, dt? ??d? t? ?e??? t?? s??a^ t ? ?), a?t?a d? t?? ??t?? ta?ta ?? ????. The difficulty lies in the words dt? ??d? (se. ??????) t? ?e??? t?? s??at??. We should expect ??d? t?? ?e??? t? s??a. In fact Fonseca made the conjecture dt? ??d? t? s??a t?? ?e???. Palaeographically this reading is as indefensible as that of Schwegler, followed by Ross (t?? ?e??? t? s??a)because the question arises how such a mistake could have come into being. Zeller inserts after ?e??? , which makes very good sense and is palaeographically quite justified. Yet this is too verbose for Aristotle's concise style *). W. Jaeger 2) is right in maintaining the reading of all the MSS. His interpretation however of the expression ????? ??????.?3) does not seem quite successful to me; nor do the greater part of the passages he cites in support of his view. Let us begin by treating these passages. The first instance of this use he quotes is Metaph. A 8, 990al4ff. .?? ?? ??? ?p?t??e?ta? ?a? ?????s??, ????? ?????? pe?? t?? ?a???at???? ?????s? s???t?? ? t?? a?s??t?? d?? pe?? p???? ? ??? ? t?? ????? t?? t????t?? s???t?? ??d' ?t???? e????as??, ?te ????? pe?? t?? a?s??t?? ???a? ?????te? ?d???.