In the beginning of the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle says he has taught such-and-such about A and about B and he will now teach the same about C. To do this, he lays down a few apparent dilemmas(aporiai) and solves them. To introduce these dilemmas, he says,
ἐντεῦθεν ἔσται δῆλον προαπορήσασι πρῶτον
Should προαπορήσασι be read as a dative of interest (it will be clear to those who first lay out these difficulties) or as an instrumental dative (it will be clear by having first laid out these difficulties)? I have seen both. Are there grammatical reasons to prefer one or the other? Does the ἐντεῦθεν suggest one or the other?
I lean toward the dative of interest only because I have seen Aristotle use a dative after δῆλον, "clear to us,” and when he wants to say what causes the clarity, I have seen him use “ek” or “dia.” But I can’t say he does it that way all the time.
In many other cases, especially (on a quick scan) when referring to the future, Aristotle omits ἡμῖν, and often includes what I take as a circumstantial participle agreeing with it, e.g.:
De Caelo 308b3: Δῆλον δ’ ἔσται τοῦτο μᾶλλον προελθοῦσιν. De generatione et corruptione 316a14: Δῆλον δ’ ἔσται ὃ λέγομεν προιοῦσιν. Metaphysica 1048a27: καὶ γὰρ τὸ δυνατὸν ἅμα δῆλον ἔσται διαιροῦσιν, Meteorologica 347b33 τὸ δ’ αἴτιον εἰποῦσι περὶ χαλάζης ἔσται δῆλον.
You might take the circumstantial participle as one of manner or means in certain cases (… will be clear [to us] by … / by means of …), but I’ll stop at that point, as interpretation of circumstantial participles depends on the context in each case (see e.g. Cambridge grammar sec. 52.34 and following).
I don’t think ἐντεῦθεν would make a difference to the construction of the dative here.
You helped me understand what is going on here, but I think you also just resolved an outstanding issue in the manuscripts.
Almost all the early manuscripts have ἐστι δῆλον προαπορήσασι πρῶτον, instead of ἔσται. Only one manuscript (siglum n) has ἔσται. It is a very early and generally reliable manuscript, but still it is only one. Editors have disagreed on which is best.
From what you found and what I see in TLG it looks like every other instance of δῆλον with a dative participle and with either ἐστι or ἔσται has ἔσται.
Your observation convinces me we should read ἔσται.
Hi, when it comes to textual criticism, I’ll leave it to others—I have no skill there—but it reminded me of an interesting and relatively recent (2019) podcast I heard on how much work there is still to do on Aristotle’s text (compared with Plato’s), especially to bring in the indirect tradition from Latin, Syriac and Arabic translations, when these can improve on the direct tradition (as they sometimes can, where they go back to an archetype independent from the direct tradition). Check out in particular from 22:30 to the end here:
The edition of the Analytics that I have at home is Ross 1949 (I haven’t checked whether there is an improved critical text)—he does say at p. 88 that ἔσται is the correct reading from n alone (as you say above), the other manuscripts (at least those that he used to establish the text) having ἔστι. He also notes having considered at least two Syriac translations from the indirect tradition (p. 89).
I’d be interested to hear whether there is still the possibility of scholars bringing in new sources from the direct and indirect tradition to improve the Analytics in the future.
If you want to see a scholar use Greek, Syriac, and Arabic just to figure out three troublesome words in the Posterior Analytics, see Adam Crager, “The Aporia of ἢ ἐκ παντὸς in Posterior Analytics II.19,” Manuscripto 42:4 (2019), https://philarchive.org/rec/CRATAO-19
It is tedious work. No one has yet published a top-to-bottom update to Ross’s edition.