Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I
liMMHe
UC-NRLF
B M SOti Obb
iw!'
CO
o
ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES
-n
a -i
T
BY
1879
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
MDMCXJI
ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES
BY
1879
Q
A POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP
OF THE PARALLEL VERSIONS
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
MDMCXII
W5Z.
« •
• »
« • m • o
POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE
PARALLEL VERSIONS
255799
POSTSCRIPT ON THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE PARALLEL
VERSIONS.
§1.
88 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES.
writer of the one version had the other before him : and even if the
one gave the impression of being later the evidence of inferiority
still
n. I.)
§ a.
regards the bearing of inconsistency upon unity of authorship
As
a consideration which enters into the argument of Part IV, Section VII
— a study of writings of which the authorship is certain, especially
modern writings, convinced me long ago that the possibilities of
incoherence are not merely greater than what I may have thought
— —
POSTSCRIPT. 89
of when I wrote this study of Nie. Eth. VII, but far beyond what is
the modern criticism of ancient books suffers much from the want of
such a comparative method applied to modern books. More especially
I believe that a consideration of the anomalies actually presented by
modern books is destructive of certain forms of argument used in
Homeric criticism. Further, I have come to hold that there are
certain kinds of anomaly which only occur in original composition
mistakes that no one but the author himself would naturally make,^
and just of the sort that an editor or compiler or rewriter would
naturally avoid. Such anomalies, which are actually evidence of unity
of authorship, get mistaken for evidence of the contrary.
To these views, which I have held for years, I have not given
expression otherwise than in lectures and in papers before the Oxford
Philological Society, with the exception of a short article in the
Classical on Anomalies natural to original composition.
Review (xxiv. 4)
To return to the matter of Part IV, Section VII, and the incon-
sistency of Nic. Eth. VII. iii. § 3 sqq. with Aristotle's general view
of OLKpaaia :
^ It may give satisfaction to that paladin of the Organon — ^Mr. Charles Cannan — that
I now incline to think the difficulty about the introduction to the Prior Analytics raised
in my lectures may possibly be met in this way.
pO ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES.
* Cf. also the relation to Post. An. pointed out below, p. 99, addition to page 56 (/3).
' It is curious that Trendelenburg has overlooked this, and has associated the passage
from the De Anima, imperfectly quoted, in El. Log. Ar. § i with the passages from the
De and the Metaphysics, as if it conveyed the same
Interpr. docti'ine.
' For a change of view in Prior Anal. II see my article in the Transactions of the
Oxford Philological Society, 1883-4, p. 5. If Aristotle wrote both of the treatises on
Pleasure in the Nic. Ethics we have the same thing on a large scale. See, however,
next note.
— ' 1I
POSTSCRIPT. 9
§ 3.
I have said above that one of the arguments which I had advanced
against unity of authorship in the parallel versions — one which had
weighed much with me would be met — if we suppose that Aristotle
might sometimes substitute something for what he had previously
1I remember that once the late Professor Chandler, when talking to me about the
authorship of the two treatises on Pleasure in the Nicomachean Ethics, remarked on the
affinity of what Cicero quotes from Theophrastus on the possibility of happiness under
torture to the passage on the same subject in the first of these treatises Nic. Eth. VII. —
xiii. 2 (1153'' 3 sqq.), and its bearing on the authorship of this treatise. To the best of
my recollection Chandler did not express any strong opinion either way. The Ethics
passage is as follows ol 5e tov r poxi-^oyavov Kat rbv Sucttux'"'? ij.eya,\ais iripiir'nTrovra
evSaifiova (p&dfcovTes tlvai, eav ^ dyaOos, ^ eKovres q aitofTes oiidtv Xiyovcn. Cicero de
Finibus V. xxvi. 77 says —
Theophrastus cum fortuna, cum dolore, cum cruciatu coniungi
'
beatam vitam nullo modo posse putavit' (quoted in Orelli and Baiter's Onomasticon
TuUianum). Grant quotes (after Fritzsche) Tusc. Disp. V. ix. 24, which is as follows
'
Nam quum statuisset (sc. Theophrastus) verbera, tormenta, crticiatus, patriae eversiones,
magnam vim habere ad male misereque vivendum, non est ausus elate
exsilia, orbitates,
primimi in eo libro quem scripsit de vita beata, in quo multa disputat, quamobrem is
qui torqueatur qui crucietur beatus esse non possit : in eo enim putatur dicere in rotain,
vitam beatam non escendere.* It might be suggested that the passage in the Ethics was
the original of a version by Theophrastus, and that Cicero referred to the latter.
However, Cicero knew that Theophrastus rewrote Aristotelian subjects, and if he had
known of an Aristotelian original here he was far more likely to have quoted that than
Theophrastus, considering the strictures he passes upon the view itself. For Cicero's
familiarity with the fact that Theophrastus paraphrased Aristotle cf. the following
(quoted in the Onomasticon), De Fin. I. ii. 6 ' Quid ? Theophrastus mediocriterne
delectat, cum tractat locos ab Aristotele ante tractates ?
92 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES.
lung durch leichte Anderungen zu helfen Vol. 6, p. vi. Also the veiy
' :
^ Mr. Case, President of Corpus Cbristi College, Oxford (whose lectures on the Organon,
combining enthusiasm with sound judgement, I gratefully remember among many other
benefits), adds to my suggestion here that such negligence would be the more liliely in
Aristotle's later years, when, according to tradition, he was in such ill health.
POSTSCKIPT. 93
lecture, together with those taken by his pupils, and I cannot believe
that the Aristotelian treatises were put together from such sources.
That they did originate thus is indeed one of the first hypotheses that
suggests itself in the early stages of one's reflection on the subject.
But I soon became convinced — perhaps manylike others, when their
reading of Aristotle advanced — that idea was not this to be enter-
tained.^ The internal evidence from style seems to me convincing ;
^ It will be obvious in what respects I have to differ from the opinion of Michelet
expressed in the preface above quoted about the materials from which the traditional
text of Aristotle had been compiled. I may add that if it had been put together from
notes taken in lectures, or with the help of them, there would probably have been a far
larger number of duplicate passages than we actually find. Compare what Michelet says
(1. c, p. xi) on the systematic combination of duplicate treatments in the text of
Hegel. The peculiar feature of the Aristotelian doublings is that they do not run
at all continuously through a book, and that nevertheless when they do occur they are
sometimes in sets of more than two.
ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES.
Q4
tion to the time when the passage referred to was dictated. The
Vulgate is irporepov : K'' alone is quoted for irpior^v (read by Bywater).
The hypothesis above proposed would make it easier to understand
not only (i) why the parallel versions should be so sporadic, but also
(2) why, where they do occur, there should be sometimes more than
one (as, e. g., in Nic. Eth. V. v), and (3) why they should be sometimes
so short and apparently purposeless also (4) why the later version :
with directions for placing it, or on a separate leaf, it might get a wrong
place in the redaction, which would be one cause of the fact (if it be
a fact) that some duplicates are out of their true context.
Again, the recasting of single passages might happen when a fresh
set of copies of a book was wanted, corresponding to a modern
reprint.^ might be associated by a redactor in one
Later, the variants
context. Here too there would be a possibility of short duplicates.
Thus, if we do not think the evidence against unity of authorship
conclusive, a fairly simple hypothesis would cover the repetitions,
with one exception. Aristotle, one may think, was sometimes led to
the hypothesis in par. 89 (11. 14-16) is not always excluded. See also p. 100 1. 24 below.
' There are curious instances of this in Thackeray, where the first treatment is
forgotten.
* See my article in the Classical Review, xviii, 5, p. 250, n. 2.
POSTSCRIPT. 95
Certain other anomalies in the Aristotelian text, particularly as
illustratedby the Polities, which critics are inclined to explain by
supposing that we have the notes or first draft of the author
rather than the finished work are, I would suggest, to be explained in
a very difierent way. In philosophy the very effort to give our
thoughts precision by writing them down (or dictating them) often
serves to bring out possibilities we had not provided for. And in this
difficult subject it may well happen— and here again I feel that the
experience of others will agree with mine that when, the drafting —
process being complete, a man is writing what he intends to be the
quite final form, he is disturbed by something he had not thought of,
and the result may be a certain interference with the plan already
fixed ^ for the whole in his completed draft. I believe this accounts
for the peculiar anomalies of the Politics, and that the traditional order
of the books is the true order. The incoherences of the treatise seem to
me just of the kind not likely to be produced by any one but the author
himself. I hope that sometime I may be able to treat this subject
in more detail.^
§ 4-
^ Cf. above p. 79, 11. 17-18, par. 94. I believe the diflSculties of Nic. Eth. are due V
to a very similar cause, and, demonstrably, not to dislocations of a coherent original.
* Subsequent to a paper on such anomalies, read before the Oxford Philological
Society, I received, in answer to a request of mine, some valuable instances of incoherence
in modern books which others had noticed. In musical composition I had an important
one from Mr. Case. I should be grateful to any reader of this Postscript if he would
send me anything of the kind which has come under his observation.
* I am jroud to think that Mr. Bywater approved my view that there were structural
difficulties in Nic. Eth. I. vii. 14-15 caused by the fact that 1098* 12-16 was an alternative
version of the preceding. To Mr. Bywater, I need hardly say, I myself owe dfirjxa,vov oaov.
g6 ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES.
Page 13, line 16. At the end of (/3) add 'Nor does the first part.
Page 15, line 2. Add In Plato's Laws, Bk. IV, 705 D to Kar' apxas
'
author of the Magna Moralia (II. vi. 42-3, 1203^ 29-^ 2) com-
bines A (vii. 8) and B (x. 4) in the same context. He has here
what corresponds and B^, but with the
to the first sentence of B
lx€Xay\oXiKoi (which he seems to misunderstand) and not the
(Ko-TaTLKOL of B^. That he had the rest of B before him seems
evident from another passage (II. vi. 49, 120, 1203'' 30), where
he makes a strange use of it.'
Page 18. At the end of Section VI add 'The Magna Moralia agrees
with Aj, and does not seem to have the characteristics of A^.'
Page 23, paragraph 30. At the end of the paragraph add The '
author of the Magna Moralia may have had the traditional text
before him. There seems nothing, however, in his reproduction
to correspond to A
and A^ nor to the distinctive features of Dj
(i 147* 24-^ 3) except the word ivepydv. The passage correspond-
Page 29, 1. 31. Cancel dvai, (as in the original corrigenda slip of
1879).
Page 30, line i. Add after 1148^5 '(The author of the Magna
Moralia, II. vi. 28, 1202'' 4-9, takes \}reKT&v to refer to the objects
of CLKpaaCa).
Page 30, paragraph 38. Add at the end of (/?) 'This use of yeVet
confirms the reading of the best manuscript in Uepublic 442 B
against the reading yevav adopted by Stallbaum and Bekker.
See my article in Class. Rev. xxi. 4, and Bywater (1. c). Cf.
also ayaOQv roJ yevei, Mag. Mor. II. vii. 24, and passim.'
Page 31, paragraph 39 (a). Add to the passage illustrating the use
of eiret : Pr. An. 94^ 20, 95^ 38, 112^ 27 De Sensu
An. 35* I, Post. ;
voluntary in Eud. Eth. II and the two discussions of the same subject
in the Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. Ill, and Bk. V (one of the disputed
books). The Eudemian passage combines the characteristics of the two
Nicomachean passages.^
Consequently, instead of assuming* the disputed books are common
to the two treatises, because in the MSS. of both, we ought first to
make no parts of them are reproduced in the admittedly
sure that
'
Eudemian' books in some relatively different position. It turns out that
the last topic of the third of these books is actually reproduced in the
second book of the Eudemian version in a position different to that
which it Nicomachean Ethics. This is only natural,
occupies in the
because the author of the Eudemian Ethics, when he comes to the
discussion of irpoaipecns in the part of the treatise corresponding to
Nic. Eth. Ill, according to his habit, collects together discussions of
the subject separated in the Nicomachean Ethics. It will be found
that the passage from the sixth book is not only, in part, rewritten,
but that the writer has misunderstood most seriously the relation of
it to the passage with which he is combining it, and developed entirely
erroneous consequences. Could there be any completer proof of diversity
of authorship than reproduction with clear evidence of misunderstand-
ing ? For my own part I am convinced that we have here a striking
instance of the difference between the work of the disciple and that of
the master.
It is implied in what I have said above that another part of the
disputed books —that on the voluntary— has also been reproduced in
The works of the Greek tacticians present an instructive parallel. The view accepted
*
by modern editors is that the treatises attributed to Aelian and An-ian were based upon
the completer treatise of Asclepiodotus. But an examination of these texts has convinced
me that the opposite is true. The treatise attributed to Asclepiodotus is the latest of the
three, and it is founded upon the other two. The plan of the writer was evidently to
reduce the material in these others to systematic form, and to make additions to it.
(I may add that the treatise of the Anonymus Byzantinus is founded upon Aelian,
supplemented probably from Asclepiodotus. I should also maintain that the so-called
Military Lexicon, notwithstanding its ancient titles, is not an Onomasticon at all, but
merely a compendious rewriting of the subject as presented in Aelian, Arrian, and Ascle-
piodotus. Kochly eiToneously supposes that the source of it is almost exclusively Aelian.
I hope I may some day be able to vindicate these views on the relations of the Greek
tacticians.)
POSTSCRIPT. QQ
should have a special interest for the author of Prior Anal. II.
than that Aristotle had not yet developed the view in question
when he wrote the Prior Analytics.'
Page 59. Add at the end of Section I '
The author of the Magna
Moralia seems to follow A^ and not Aj, and gives Ag the same
position in the context as it has in the Nic. Ethics. He expands
the reference to Nic. Eth. VI.'
Page 61, paragraph 6^ fin. For VII read VI. i. 2.
Page 67, paragraph 73 end. Add That ' such short and unimportant
duplicates could be preserved, even where it would seem only
reasonable to leave out one, seems proved by Politics 1301* 22-4
(ubi vid. Susemihl).'
Page 70, line 8 up. For this meaning of d.vTLKd(r6ai cf. De An. II. iv.
lOO ARISTOTELIAN STUDIES.
(Seite 74) zwischen 11 48* 11 ff., da die erste Stelle nichts iiber
Schmerzen sagt.'
p. 41. 51, /3 : p. 42. 51, e, iii : p. 73 15, 16, 1 102" 14-25, p. 49. 60, a,
mid. ii p. 50 bottom.
: II. ii. 3, p. 96
(XTTo, \v-nrj diTo, &c., p. 48. 58 : p. 74. (page 14). II. iii. 1104" 18, p. 93.
86. II. vii. 3, 1 107*^ 6, p. 79 top. III.
Apuleius, Apol., p. 80 top. p. 47 top. III. ii. 14, p. 99 (page
dpxv- dpx'f) in the aKpar-qs, p. 35-6. 50). III. iv. 5, p. 51. III. vii. 13,
43-44 : p. 38. 46, 7. dpxai and II 16* 12-14, P- 33- 39, fin.: p. 46
vnoOeffeis, p. 36 mid. : p. 37-8. mid. III. ix. 2, p. 97 (page 33).
46, a. kv dpxfi, p. 15, note i. f£ III. X. xi. p. 31. 39, jS: p. 32
dpxv^, p. 1 5 , note i : p. 96 (page bottom 47 top
: p.p. 72. 83. :
15, note i). fcar' dpxds, p. 14. III. ch. X. § I, 1117^ 24-7, p. 32.
17, 6, i. 2 : p. 15. 17, 6, ii: p. 96 39, /3, III. xi. 5-6, 1118" 28-
(page 15). i"9*5, p. 31. 39, /3: p. 47 top.
dpiTTj. In the aKpaTTji, p. 36. (pvaiicfi, III. xi. 7, 18* 5, p. 79 top.
1 1 III.
p. 39- 46, 5. ch. xii. §§ 1-2, 1119* 21-5, p. 32
Aristotle,and Pseudo- Aristotle. mid. IV. 1123" 12, p. 100 (page
Analytica Friora, II. p. 90, note 3. 72): ii28''33, p. 31, note 2. V,
as* I, p. 97 (page 31). 32^ 34, p. p. 95, note I. V. V. p. 94 top
15, note I. II. xsi. 8-9, p. 99 mid. V. 1138*34, p. 98 (page 40). VI
Analytica Postei-iora, I. iii. 72'' 5, i. 2, 1138'^ 26, p. 61. 65, fin. VI.
I. 84* 32, p. 14. 17,
xxii. f, i. 2. V. 6, 1140*11, p. II. 12: p. 36
94* 20, 95^ 38, 112b 27, p. 97. 44, init. VI. (viand vii), p. 57
100*14, P- 61 65 fin. • 62. VI. (vii. 7 and viii. 8), p. 57
De Anima, I. ii. 404*17, I. ii. 405'' 62. VI. xiii. p. 36 bottom. ^ VII,
I
: :
p. 48. 58. X. ix. II 79** 33, p. 46. 445" 29, 446* 29, p. 97 (page 31).
57, a, I. De Virtutibus et Vitiis, p. 46. 57,
De Generatione Animalium, p. 38. a, I : 1250'' 4 sqq., 1250*28, p. 46.
46, a. 57, a, I.
46, a.
Misplaced duplicates, p. 16-17.
De Motu Animalium, ch, vii. p. 51.
19-21 p. 25 mid. 34
: : p. 43,
6, a, iv. fin.
54: p. 12-15. 16-18: p. 57-9.
Physica Auscultatio, VIII. i. 250'',
62-64 : p. 76 top : p. 92 mid. :
V. 260* II, p. 14. 17, «, i. 2.
p. 31. 39, a. 1329* 2, p. 31. 39, a. 1220* 16-20, p. 61. 65 fin. II. ii.
1329" 30, p. 31- 39, a. 1329'* 34, p. 32 bottom. 1 22 1* 28, p. 45 note:
P- 93- I33i*'26, p. 31. 39, a. p. 46. 57, a, I. II. vi. p. 38. 46, a.
:
O
•• • •
• • • 9
go•
p. 38 top. 23,
1222'' p. 38 mid. sqq. : p. 48. 60 sqq. : p. 54 top ;
I229''5, p. 31-2. 39, /3. I229''i, 6p9o5o^eTv. dpOodo^eiv nipt ttjv dpxr]y,
I9> P- 33 top. 1230*3, p. 48. 58. p. 36, 44.
1230'' 13, p. 79 top. III. ii. p. 78
mid. III. ii. p. 32. 39, &. III. Paraphrast, p. 58 mid. : p. 59 top.
ii. 6, p. 47. 57. a, 4. 1231*25, Pasicles, p. 79. 95.
p. 47 note. 1231*26, p. 79 top. Phanias, p. 79. 95.
1231*30, p. 33 top. 1231^3-4, p. (ppovrjais, p. 89.
47 note. 1232*17, p. 48. 58. III. (pmfi. (pvaei ^dea, p, 15 : p. 35. 41.
iv. 5, p. 25. 34 fin. III. vii. fin., (pvaei aipeTot, p. 6. 8, a, init. : [>. 30.
p. 39. 46, 8. 1235*4, p. 14. 17, e, 38, a : p. 35. 41.
i. 2: p. 60. 65. 1235'' 13, 17, p. 60. (()vaiK-fj dpeTT], p, 39. 46.
65. 12351^25, 30, p. 38. 46, a. (pvcriKus, p. 23. 32.
I2 38''6, p. 40. 49. 1239*^7, p. 14. Plato, Laws, p. 96 (page 15). Laws
17, €, i, 2. 1246* 35-'" 35, p.
53 717 B, p. 99 (page 70). Prota-
bottom. 1248'' 16-1249'' 3,
P- 3°- goras 358 B-D, p. 99 (page 56).
38, a. 1249*10, p. 30. 38, 7. Pleasures, unnatural, 13 : 14 : 16 : 17,
1 249'' 3-6, p. 61 65 fin.
.
7, (, ii : 48 : 51 : 52.
Eudemus, p. 91. Not author of Nic. Plutarch, De Virtute Morali, p. 90.
Eth. V, VI, and VII, p. 38 note Priscianus Lydus, p. 91,
p. 60. 65 p. 97 (page 38, note i).
: npoaipeais, p. 89 : p. 98.
Fragment, p. 38. 46, a, fin. irpmr]v, p. 93.
m
i
Ml
1
i
II
^1
mi
rm
I
ml
iiiHiiiiiii
liiiil
:mm
i!ii.i!
?m
i1
r i'kr
ii
I
fliliffi'.''!
I iif
''
''''ii
iISi
ilB
iiaiH,,
ISi
m \M
YO 07108
14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORRO\
LOAN DEPT.
This book is due on the last date stamped below,
or on the date to which renewed. Renewals only:
Tel. No. 642-3405
Renewals may be made 4 days pried to date due.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.
UCLA
T)^H
SEP 1
».^^6a
General Library
LD21A-60to-8,'70
(N8837sl0)476 —
A-32 University of Califoi
Berkeley