70 Dr. WHEWELL'S CRITICISM OF ARISTOTLE'S ACCOUNT OF INDUCTION. 



The other emendation which I have made is in ^ 6. In the received text § 6 and 7 stand 

 thus : 



6. Then every C is A, for every acholous animal is long-lived 



(t<j> at] V o\<t) vnapyei to A, -rrav yap to ayoXov fxaicpopiov) 



7. Also every C is B, for all C is destitute of bile. 



Whence it may be inferred, says Aristotle, under certain conditions, that every B is A (to 

 A t<j5 B virdpxetv) that is, that every acholous animal is long-lived. But this conclusion is, 

 according to the common reading, identical with the major premiss ; so that the passage is 

 manifestly corrupt. I correct it by substituting for a\o\ov, T; and thus reading irav yap to 

 r fxaxpofiiov "for every C is long-lived": just as in the parallel sentence, 7, we have aXXa 

 Kal to B, to jixj) e-^ov ^oXr/v, TravTt inrdp-^ei tw Y. In this way the reasoning becomes quite 

 clear. The corrupt substitution of ayoXov for I' may have been made in various ways ; which 

 I need not suggest. As my business is with the sense of the passage, and as it makes no sense 

 without the change, and very good sense with it, I cannot hesitate to make the emendation. 

 And these emendations being made, Aristotle's view of the nature and force of Induction 

 becomes, I think, perfectly clear and very instructive. 



W. WHEWELL. 



Additional Note. 



I take the liberty of adding to this memoir the following remarks, for which I am indebted 

 to Mr Edleston, Fellow of Trinity College. 



Several of the earlier editions of Aristotle have y instead of a-^oXov in the passage referred 

 to in the above paper : ex. gr. 



(1) The edition printed at Basle, 1539 (after Erasmus): "to y." 



(2) Basil (Erasmus) 1550. "to y." 



(3) Burana's Latin version, Venet. 1552, has " omne enim C longasvum." 



(4) Sylburg. Francf. 1587 "to 7" is printed in brackets thus : "[to 7] to dypXov." 



(5) So also in Casaubon's edition, 1590. 



(6) Casaub. 1605 "to 7," (though the Latin version has"vacans bile;") not "[to 7] to 

 d-^oXov," as the edition of 1590. 



(7) In the edition printed Aurel. Allobr. 1607, " [to 7] to d)(oXov," as in (4) and (5). 



(8) Du Val's editions, Paris, 1619, 1629, 1654 u to 7," though in Pacius's translation in 

 the adjacent column we find "vacans bile." 



(9) In the critical notes to Waitz's edition of the Organon (Lips. 1844) it is stated that 

 "post dxoXov del. 7. w," implying apparently, that in the MS. marked n, the letter 7, which 

 had been originally written after a^oXov, had been erased. 



