This study began as a paper. It got out of hand. It had help doing that.
Oswaldo Chateaubriand, Ronald Haver, Paul Horwich, Bernie Katz, Norman
Kretzmann, Stanley Martens, Stephen Pink, Michael Stokes, Eleanor Stump,
Bill Ulrich, Celia Wolf, and a lot of other people questioned or
criticized or helped reformulate one or another of the arguments and
interpretations along the way. In spite of (maybe partly because of)
their efforts, the book is full of mistakes. At least, induction over
previous drafts indicates that irresistibly. But I do not, right now,
know of any particular mistakes. All but a couple of the translations
are mine (the exceptions are noted). That is not because existing
translations are bad, but because some uniformity was essential. The
translations often make unpleasant reading. So, often, does Aristotle; I
have tried to be literal. A text and translation of the passage on which
the book centers is in Appendix III. Footnotes cite literature by author
and (sometimes abbreviated) title. Details are in the bibliography. I do
not profess to have covered all the literature. An enormous amount of
editorial work was done by Margaret Mundy. She was not able to undo the
errors that remain. In particular, the footnotes are often numbered
oddly: '4', '4a', '4b', etc.