The Classical Review http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

Testimonia for the Text of 's , for the and for the Posterior Analytics

J. Cook Wilson

The Classical Review / Volume 9 / Issue 01 / February 1895, pp 1 - 4 DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00200899, Published online: 27 October 2009

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X00200899

How to cite this article: J. Cook Wilson (1895). Testimonia for the Text of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, for the Metaphysics and for the Posterior Analytics. The Classical Review, 9, pp 1-4 doi:10.1017/ S0009840X00200899

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: on 23 Mar 2015 The Classical Review



THE /xaOrjiiaTLKri (or fieydXr/) cnWafig of pjj tfewr aAA' ofitos V aptTutv evias Kal dvev 8iSao*KaX(as references to the matter of passages in the TreptyCyv€o-6ai, if; e$ovs yap a.Trao-ai avrai TrXrjv second and sixth books of the Nicomachean povqo~tpoo-vvri dvSpia apcrrj's overt)'; rijs fi.lv 8tavoijTiia}s rijs S« rjOiKrj1;, 8tKaioo~vvr] TrpaoTijs' v(riKu>'S Trapayi- ireipias SeiTai Kal yfpovov, 17 Si rjOiKrj i$ O veo~0ai. Kal yap Kal aAoya ^Sa TO fiev avSptia trtpiyiyverai, o6ev Kal rovvofia (.aryrjKtv Ta 8e o-o)ovvTetXoo-o<^)ias. «ai yap et crv^i^rjKt KOX TW seen that Theon's additions are not put irpoKTiKco Trporepov awoii TOIJTOU OtiaptyriKov in oratio obliqua like some of the sentences rvyyavtiv ovSev TJTTOV av TIS evpoi fjt.eya.Xriv he takes from Ptolemy, though it is un- owrav ev airois Siaopdv ov [x.6vov 8ta TO T5V necessary to lay stress upon this. The fiiv rjOiKwv aptrwv Ivtas indp^ai 8wao"6at latter part of the passage from Theon seems 7roAAots (cal XWP'S /ia^ } 8 \ to refer to the doctrine of Nic. Eth. VI. decop/as dSvvaTOV ttvai Tv^cttv avev 8i8ao"8i8ao"KaXtasK , xiii. 1, 1144* 4, irao-iv yap 8o/c€i eKaora TSV aXXa Kal T(3 T-^V irXucrTtjv 0>fX.iav €KtT JUCV €Krj6u>v vTrdpxeiv vpoviKol Kal dv8peloi Kal TaAAd e^o/xev tvOvs tc^aSe 8« «K T^s cv Tois OvapdfUKTi ^ €K yeveTrjs)' aW ofJLoss rjyov/xtO' irepov TI TO dya#ov Kal TO roiavra aXAov Tpoirov pyy v. Kal yap iraial Kal Orjpwis at (j>wucal The corresponding part of Theon's com- mentary (p. 1, Basle edn. 1538 ; p. 3 bottom, px of Halma's edition) is as follows :— There are several points in these various <£ijo-i 8e 6 IlToXe/taios (TVfif3e^7]K€Vai T<3 passages and in their relation to one another Trpa.KTiK(p TO irporcpov airov TO OtwpijTiKOVwhich seem worthy of discussion. Tvyxdveiv, Sia TO "O-COS 8eiv Trporepov rbv irpd- I. $avrd TI Kal on aiperov TO 7rpa}(@r]o~6fievov KaT€iX.rjevai, Kal on Sia. TWVSC av yevoiro Kal It if not absolutely certain that Ptolemy rovSe TOV Tpdirov, curep ianv akrjOtvTiKrjs Kal had the Aristotelian text before him. If HO. LXXV. VOL. IX. THE CLASSICAL REVIEW. mas rmv T)6IKS>V aperSiv implies, as Theon sup- III. poses, that p6vr/(ni is counted among the •qOiKol aptraC, there is an important depar- The passage from Ptolemy may rank as ture from Aristotle's doctrine, though it is one of the earliest of those quotations from such a one as the difficulty of his own the Ethics of which the date can be approxi- representation was very likely to occasion : mately fixed. It may be earlier than the and it is at least not impossible that this commentary of Aspasius, and is at least change, as well as some minor ones of about contemporary, for Ptolemy and expression, is not due to Ptolemy himself Aspasius are both said to have flourished but to a later Peripatetic version of the about 125 A.D. And when it is remembered passage. A little lower down Ptolemy quotes that Proclus belongs to the fifth century Aristotle by name (Halma p. 2) KO.1 yap av A.D. and that Simplicius and Philoponus Kal TO Otpr]TiKdv 6 'ApurTOTeXrjs 7rdw ifiX are as late as the sixth century, the refer- eis rpla TO. irpStra yivrj Staipet TO re p ence in Theon of Alexandria gains in Kal TO /j.a.$rjfJt,aTiKbv Kal TO OtoXoytKov, K.T.A.. importance, for he is said to have flourished This distinction is found in Metaph. K, 7 in the latter half of the fourth cen- (cf. 1064b 2), and in the parallel version in tury A.D. e, 1 (cf. 1026* 19) ; but Ptolemy's account IV. of it though mainly Aristotelian (cf. e.g. Metaph. X 1072* 26) differs a" good deal in One may venture to think that in the form from that in the Metaphysics and seems passage above quoted from Nic. Eth. II. i. 1 to show the influence of later ideas. there is a difficulty about the position of the words Siowtp i/j-Treipias Seirat Kal -^povov which makes the testimonia of interest. II. It is true that in Nic. Eth. VI. viii. 5, If the passage above quoted from the 1142* 11—16 p6vr]o-is is said to need ex- Nicomachean Ethics (1103a 14) be compared perience and time (irkfjOos yap xpovov iroiei Trjv lfi.Trtipl.av), and in the next passage,2 with the corresponding statements in the a second book of the Evdemian Ethics (1220* 1142 16—20, the same is said of o-ota, 39) and in the (1185b 38), it <^poKijo-ts and o-ota being SMVOI/TIKCU dperat. will be clear that of the three it is the But according to the same two passages Nicomachean version which, whether mathematics is contrasted with o-o<£ia and directly or through a medium, is the proto- p6vrjcns as not needing experience, and type of Ptolemy's quotation : and the same mathematics is the conspicuous instance is true of the quotation in Theon's com- in Aristotle of a science which proceeds by mentary. Again the reference peculiar SiSaoTcaXta, in the technical sense. Hence to Theon is obviously nearer to the the fact that a science proceeds by SiSao-KoAi'a Nicomachean Ethics (1144b 4) than to the could not be a for its needing time version of the same thing in the Magna and experience, as affirmed in the received Moralia (1197b 38). Now when an ancient antiquity under the title ? Does writer refers, as Theon does here, to an any quotation of the matter of the disputed books undisputed Nicomachean book, and at the poiut to a version different to the extant version ? same time to the matter of a passage in a As far as the list goes which is prefixed to Susemihl's disputed book, it becomes important to edition (cf. also Fritzsche's) the answer to both ques- tions seems to be in the negative. And it is worthy observe whether the latter reference seems of note that the undisputed Eudemian books are to be to our text; for, if it were, as it is sometimes quoted under their title ' Eudemian,' rather more probable than not that both while the disputed books are quoted as Aristotle, the quotations would be taken from the Aristotle's Ethics, or the Ethics, or as the Ethics with the number of the book given as it is in the same version of the Ethics, the hypothesis Nicomachean version, and not as in the Eudemian, that the disputed book is Nicomachean or lastly with the definite title of Nicomachean Ethics. would be somewhat strengthened. Here 2 The two passages, though contiguous, are dis- however the resemblance is not close enough tinguished in the above because there are peculiarities in the form of the second which suggest that it may to make it certain that the extant version be a later addition to the first. If this were so, it of the disputed book is the one quoted, nor might account for the apparently inaccurate use of remote enough to make it probable that the iriiTTCuouffi for MtrravTcu (TCI fiiv ou jrioreiioviri oi vioi reference is to the other version (i.e. End. hwb. Kiyov

text of Nic. Eth. II. i. 1. On the other example is given by the manner in which hand, it is characteristic of the moral Proclus reproduces a certain passage of the virtues that they require time and ex- . The original is: aKpifleo-Tepa 8' perience because they come through habitua- iirio-Truxr/ ejrtoTjy/t^s Kal irporepa, rj re TOV OTI tion, and it is the very object of the second Ka'i SLOTI r) avrrj aWa fj.r] ^o)/)is TOV on Trjs TOV book of the Nic. Ethics to make this clear. SIOTI, Kal rj fir] Kaff viroKei/ievov r^s Ka6' viro- We should expect therefore rather r) Keifievov Kal r) i£ ikaTrovtov TTJS £K irpoo-- S TO ir\.eiov e SSA/ l 0«re&>s K.TX. Post. An. 87* 30. There is TTJV yevtmv Kal TT)V av£t]o~iv, r) 8e rj8iKr) i$ ?0 here a known difficulty. From what is said irepiylyvercu (56ev Kal Tovvop.a to~xr]K elsewhere in the same treatise, 78b 32 sqq., •jraptKuXlvov drro TOV WOWS) SioVep and from the sequel of the passage itself, Seirai Kal xpovov. the reader would expect to find that the The Paraphrast evidently found the text science of the SIOTI alone would be ranked as we have it, but his date is probably so higher in exactness than the science which modern that this is not of much consequence. combines the SIOTI with the on, and this Aspasius does not quote or paraphrase the again higher than the science of the OTI. suspected words at all; yet he has a remark Yet the statement of the passage is clear, which suggests that he may have possibly and there can be no reasonable suspicion found them where they are and felt a that the words are corrupt. No plausible difficulty about them. He says d 8' apa emendation—in fact nothing less than an TWOS Set ev T<3 p.av9dv€iv, TOVTO 8' el entire rewriting of the passage would give i Tts Kakelv Wos, KaXeiTto. aXXa. TO ye the sense expected. Proclus (Oomm. in pr. $ 6i£6 \ i Eucl. Element, lib., Friedlein p. 59 1. 11) p , writes : a.Kpij3eo~Tepa yap eo~TW iino~Tiqp.r) aWr) 8eu/xa<7i. Kal (/.rpr r) p6vrjo-is Sia TroXXrjs ep,-aXkrj's, cos r)o~iv ''ApiOToreAr/s, r) Te i£ airXowr- Treiptas irapaylyveTai Kal SiSao-KaXlas. It looks Tepmv VTro6eo~etov a)pp.rjfi.fvr] TTJS iroiKiXtoTepaK as if he felt that ip^apia and eOos were dp^ats xp(op,evr)s1 Kal r) TO SLOTI \£yovo~a T^S more distinctive of r)6iKr) ape-rr) as suchT,O OTI yiyv(ao~Kovo~r)s K.T.X. though conceding on the one hand that in the limited sense of fiiXirt) they belong to He seems merely to have avoided the the SiavorrriKal aperaC in general, and on thhare d words, making the passage easy by substituting for them the kind of formula other hand that povr)o-is in particular, which b is one of these virtues, needs, beside StSao-- which suits the doctrine of 78 32. In fact, Ka/U'a, also ipireipia in the proper sense. as may be seen by referring to the con- tinuation of the passage partly quoted above, However this may be one can hardly found a an argument for or against the position of Proclus combines Post. An. 87 30 with 78" 32 as if there was no difference between the the words SibVep K.T.X. on Aspasius. 2 In the passage from Ptolemy the expres- two places. sion nearest to SioVep K.T.X. is EK -rrjs iv avrois TOIS Trpa.yp.ao-i crvvexovs ivepydas, and 1 The text has ^ re iroiKi\wr4pais &pxcu pl this is connected with the ethic, not the Trjs ii air\ovaT£pa>i> 6iro64

VI. rtvas oucras. el&l o" avrai o-u>poo~vvr] dvopia iXevOepioTrjs 8iKaioo~vvr] irpaorrji, Kal aVAws The passage from Theon's commentary KaXoi Kal ayaQol TO TJ 6 o s eTvai Acyo- seems to require emendation. The clause jieOa So/coucri 8e rourcov rives K.T.X. Kal dwAais KtxAol Kal dyadol TO IOOS tivai It may be noticed that the conception of keyofitOa might be construed as an inde- KOAOS Kal dyaBos here and of KaXoxayaOia pendent sentence with the emphasis on seems to be of the general kind found in 20os. Yet this would be very harsh: the the Nicomachean Ethics and the : sentence SOKOVO-L 8e rovrwv rives would befor KaXoKayaOia in that special sense which separated awkwardly from the list of moral is peculiar to the Eudemian Ethics includes virtues to which it directly refers. Again, dianoetic as well as ethic virtue. On the that list would be naturally terminated by Eudemian view therefore it ought not to a general expression to cover any virtues appear at all in a list of ethic virtues, such not enumerated, and KO.1 aTr\S>s is a phrasaes Theon here gives, and in a general list of by which such an expression is properly the virtues would pretty certainly be repre- introduced. Hence it may be inferred that sented by the substantive (KaXoKayaSia) and something has dropped out between d7r\£s not by the adjectives as above. In the and Ka\oi, perhaps ais absorbed by the second passage from Theon xaXoKayaOia termination of ivai.; emended would then read thus: SOev Kal Halma gives it without variant. rjOiKas auras d^iouaw ovofiA£eo-6cu olov J. COOK WILSON.


THEBE is probably no subject connected even underlies the apparently contradictory with Roman criminal procedure about which statement of Marcel Fournier (Essai sur such vagueness prevails even at the present Vhistoire du droit d'appel, p. 40) that ' the day as that of the exact nature of the " provocatio " did not tend to the reforma- 'provocatio ad populum.' To the student tion of a sentence like the appeal, it of courts of appeal the question of main changed the competent tribunal, which interest must always be whether the ' pro- permitted a new judgment to be rendered vocatio ' was a true appeal; that is, that had no connexion with the first' ; for, whether the people could, by this procedure where a tribunal is changed after a sentence, amend, as well as confirm or reject, a there we have the true appeal. But no sentence. Under great varieties of state- adequate explanation is vouchsafed by any ment we find a general agreement amongst of these authorities as to how this reforma- modern authorities that the people possessed tory character wos attained. An explanation this power. Mommsen (Staatsrecht ii. p. could only be furnished by an accurate 978 note 3) says that the ' provocatio ' knowledge of the procedure of the goes from the magistrate to the ' comitia,' ' provocatio'; but here we are met by and is not merely ' cassatory' but also the initial difficulty that, as Geib says ' reformatory '; Merkel (pber die Geschichte (Griminalprozesse, p. 168), nothing is known der Klassischen Appellation) thinks that, at about such procedure. This is literally least in the case of ' multae,' it may have correct; with the exception of the brief been reformatory ; in Smith's Dictionary of account, meant to be typical, of the trial of Antiquities (s.v. ' appellatio ') we read that Horatius, no description of a ' provocatio' ' the " provocfttio " was an appeal in the has been preserved in Roman history, unless strict sense of the term, i.e. it consisted of the trial of Rabirius for ' perduellio' can be a rehearing of a case previously tried and considered a true case. The reason for a new judgment upon it'; and this belief considering it to be one is that the procedure