Bekker preferred A, Waitz B; the Teubner Editors give a slight preference to B, the readings of which are sometimes supported by papyrus fragments. C sometimes preserves the true reading.V. Select Bibliography Editions
- J. T. Buhle, Text, Latin Translation and Notes, Biponti, 1792.
- I. Bekker, Text, Berlin, 1831, Oxford, 1837.
- T. Waitz, Text and Notes, Leipzig, 1844–1846.
- Y. Strache and M. Wallies, Teubner Text, Leipzig, 1923.
- E. Poste (De Sophisticis Elenchis only), Text, Paraphrase and Notes, London, 1866.
- T. Taylor, London, 1812.
- O. F. Owen (Bohn’s Classical Library), London, 1902.
- W. A. Pickard-Cambridge (Oxford Translation), Oxford, 1928.
- In French:
- J. B. Saint-Hilaire, Paris, 1837.
- In German:
- J. H. von Kirchmann, Heidelberg, 1877
- E. Rolfes, Leipzig, 1922.
- P. Gohlke, Die Entstehung der aristotelischen Logik, Berlin, 1936.
- H. Maier, Die Syllogistik des Aristoteles, Tubingen, 1900.
- F. Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik, Leipzig, 1929.
- J. L. Stocks, ‘The Composition of Aristotle’s Logical Works,’ Classical Quarterly, 1933, pp. 115–124.
In translating the Topica and De Sophisticis Elenchis I have used the text of Bekker in the Berlin Edition, and when I translate any other reading this is noted at the foot of the page. I have constantly referred to the Teubner text of Strache-Wallies, which does not, however, seem to me to mark any considerable advance on that of Bekker. I have found Waitz’s edition of the Organon of great use, and the Latin version of Pacius is often helpful. I have frequently consulted the Oxford translation by W. A. Pickard-Cambridge. For the De Sophisticis Elenchis the notes and paraphrase in Poste’s edition are often enlightening, though I cannot always agree with his interpretation.
My aim in translating has been to represent Aristotle’s meaning as closely and faithfully as I can in simple English without resorting to paraphrase or trying to express it in modern terminology.
I have to thank my friend and former colleague Professor W. S. Maguinness, of King’s College, London, for reading through my version and giving me the benefit of his fine scholarship and accuracy. He has suggested several improvements in the text which I have been glad to adopt.