ARISTOTLE'S PRIOR AND POSTERIOR ANALYTICS

RELATION OF PRIOR TO POSTERIOR ANALYTICS 13clearly presupposes the Prior A nalytics. Not only is the distinctionof figures and their nomenclature presupposed, but also therules, established only in the Prior Analytics, that the secondfigure proves only negatives I and the third figure only particularpropositions. z And further it is assumed without discussion thatarguments in the second and third figures are strictly speakingvalidated only by reduction to the first figure 3 -precisely themethod displayed in detail in the treatment of these figures inAn. Pr. i. 5, 6. It is assumed, again, in i. IS that the minor premissin the first figure must be affirmative,4 and that in the secondfigure one premiss must be affirmative. sA n. Post. i. 17. 8obzo casually uses the phrase 'TO /-L£"i'OV aKpov,which presupposes the doctrine of the syllogism stated in An. Pr.i.4. bZ3 presupposes what is shown at length in An. Pr. i. 4, thatin the first figure the minor premiss must be affirmative. 81"5refers casually to 'TO /-daov axfifLa, the second figure, and 81"5-14relates to error arising in the use of that figure.i. ZI says6 that a negative conclusion may be proved in threeways, and this turns out to mean 'in each of the three figures' ;7the three figures are expressly referred to in 8zb3Q-I. Once moreit is assumed that in the first figure the minor premiss must beaffirmative;8 the proof is to be found in An. Pr. i. 4.i. 23 alludes to arguments in the moods Barbara, Celarent,Camestres, and Cesare. 9i. 29. 87b16 makes a casual reference to 'the other figures' ; ii. 3.90b6, 7 a casual reference to the three figures; ii. 8. 93"8 a casualreference to the first figure.Taking together the explicit references and the casual allusionswhich presuppose the Prior A nalytics, we find that at least thepresent form of the following chapters must be dated after thatwork: i. 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 1I, 13-17, 19, 21, 23-5, 29, 33; ii. 2, 3, 8, II, 12,17. Thus of the thirty-four chapters of the first book eighteenexplicitly (leaving out doubtful cases) presuppose the doctrine ofthe syllogism as it is stated at length in the Prior A nalytics. Ifthe Posterior Analytics was written before the Prior, we shouldhave to assume a very extensive rewriting of it after the PriorA nalytics had been written.I think I should be describing fairly the nature of Solmsen's] 79825. % lb. 27. 3 rb. 29. 4 79b1 7-proved in An. Pr. i. 4.5 79b2cr--proved in An. Pr. 1.5.6 82b4.7 rb. 5-16, 16-21, 21-E. 8 lb. 7. 9 84b31-3,85"1-12.