The Private Aristotle, Two Clues - R. Renehan

The Private Aristotle: Two Clues
Author(s): R. Renehan
Source: Hermes, 123. Bd., H. 3 (1995), pp. 281-292
Published by: Franz Steiner Verlag
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477085 .
Accessed: 21/09/2014 02:46
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 192.167.204.6 on Sun, 21 Sep 2014 02:46:42 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THE PRIVATE ARISTOTLE: TWO CLUES*
To attempt to flesh out and bring to life Aristotle as an individual rather than as
an abstract philosopher has always been a precarious undertaking. The nature of
the surviving Aristotelian corpus, consisting as it does chiefly of academic texts
and lectures, scholarly memoranda and collections of materials, only rarely allows
us to catch a glimpse of the man responsible for these writings. That is, alas,
probably as it must be; the sort of personal details, the private revelations, which
we would be so grateful to possess rarely find a place in such productions. There
are, of course, the familiar exceptions where the austere Aristotle lifts the veil for
a moment and shows us his human side. One such, touching in its way, is the
passage in E.N.I.6 where Aristotle regrets that he must disagree with the propo-
nents of the theory of Forms (1096a 11-16, tr. W. D. Ross): >>We had perhaps
better consider the universal good and discuss thoroughly what is meant by it,
although such an inquiry is made an uphill one by the fact that the Forms have
been introduced by friends of our own. Yet it would perhaps be thought to be
better, indeed to be our duty, for the sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy
*
The following works are cited by authors' surname in this article:
ALLAN ALLAN, D.J., >Two Aristotelian Notes,< Mnemosyne 27 (1974):
113-122.
BARKER BARKER, E., The Politics of Aristotle. Edited and translated by E.
BARKER
(Oxford 1946).
BIDEZ BIDEZ, J., >A propos d'une maniere nouvelle de lire Aristote<, Bulletin
de
l'Academie Royale de Belgique, Classe des Lettres 30 (1944): 43-55.
CHROUST CHROUST, A.-H., Aristotle. New light on his life and on some of his lost
works. Vol. I (Notre Dame and London 1973).
DCRING1 DURING1, I., Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical
Tradition (Goteborg
1957).
DORING2 DURING2, I., Aristoteles. Darstellung
und Interpretation
seines Denkens (Hei-
delberg 1966).
GUTHRIE GUmRIE, W.K.C., A History
of Greek Philosophy.
Vol. VI (Cambridge
1981).
JAEGER JAEGER, W., Aristoteles. Fundamentals of the History
of His Development2.
English Translation by Richard Robinson (Oxford
1948).
PLEZIA1 PLEZIA1, M., Aristotelis epistularum fragmenta cum testamento, recensuit et
illustravit M. Plezia (Warsaw 1961).
PLEZIA2 PLEZIA2, M., >The Human Face of Aristotle<, Classica et Mediaevalia 22
(1961): 16-31.
PLEZIA3 PLEZIA3, M., Aristotelis Privatorum Scriptorum Fragmenta recognovit
Mari-
anus Plezia (Leipzig 1977).
RADERMACHER
RADERMACHER, L., Demetrii Phalerei Qui dicitur De Elocutione
Libellus
edidit Ludovicus Radermacher (Leipzig
1901).
282 R. RENEHAN
what touches us closely, especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom;
for, while both are dear, piety requires us to honour truth above our friends.<<
This is a nobly put sentiment and justly famous. We know from Proclus (ap.
Philop. = fr. 8 RoSE = fr. 10 WALzER and Ross) that this was not the only time when
Aristotle felt a natural reluctance about expressing disagreement with his teacher
Plato and with other friends in the Academy. Proclus informs us that Aristotle
rejected the theory of Forms not only in the logical, ethical, physical, and meta-
physical treatises but, he adds, iaxt ?'V TtoI &taX6yot; aa(sataxa
Kcpayo)
[1X
66vaaOat
-roC
66ycat ToiSTc
caugiiaO1iv
icKav 5t avtov
otlrjat
&ta
otkovetKiav avuXysWtv.
All the more human then does Aristotle appear when,
in another work, he succumbs to temptation and dismisses the Forms as nothing
but >twaddle<:&a yap
dt&n
Xatpkwo
*
petiagrat
re
yYap 'Eau, icat ?i ?aTtv,
oV &v
ipO5;
t6v
X6yov
Ea(TV (A. Po. 83a 33-35). As W. D. Ross observed ad
loc., >This is the harshest thing A. ever says about the Platonic Forms.< Again, his
last will and testament, now universally acknowledged to be genuine, has sur-
vived, miraculously; in some of its details one can see clearly how considerate and
human Aristotle was in his personal relations. But such pieces of evidence are
uncommon. All the more reason is there to study with the greatest care the few
precious documents which we do possess. I propose in the present paper to discuss
two such passages - each from an epistle and each but a single sentence in length
- in an attempt to discover what they can tell us of Aristotle's character and
temperament. The reason for this reexamination is that the Greek of both sentenc-
es is genuinely ambiguous and has elicited strikingly different interpretations. A
new analysis is in order.
I. Aelian, Var. Hist. 14.1
=
Fr. 666 RoSE
=
PLEZIA3, Ep.
Fr. 9:
'AptatoTuXTl O6
NticogdaXo
ao
avinp
1cat cov 1cat etvat 6oic6V,
?X?it
rt;
rvoio aeito
ta;
Etlo avr( EV Aebl
a;,us
britaTXXcov cpo6; 'AvtiracTpov rept To6tnov
nClliv
VIMp TOv eV
Ae?4oi; iptmO'?VTCOV
got1
Kcal XOV adprijLat V1)V
Ol)to);?X)
C0X
g.UtS
gota oaopa
gX?tv %n&p ai5-r6Jv rts
01ngotV
grl&v
IgXtv.
It is our good fortune to know something of the event to which reference is
made here. Aristotle and his nephew Callisthenes had compiled lists of victors in
the Pythian games at Delphi as well as of the organizers of the contests there. For
these services the sacred officials
Ctepovigoveg)
had decreed honors to them,
most probably sometime between 334 and 332 B.C.; the inscription recording this
(= DITTENBERGER S.I.G.3, 275) has survived. A decade later, rumors of the sudden
death of Alexander were reaching Greece; by September of 323 the truth of the
reports of Alexander's death could no longer be doubted and an anti-Macedonian
sentiment swept through Athens and the rest of Greece. Aristotle,
because of his
well-known connections with Alexander and the Macedonians, was obliged to
leave Athens (>I will not allow you to sin twice against philosophy<). He crossed
The Private Aristotle: Two Clues 283
over to Chalcis in Euboea where there was some family property on his mother's
side. It was in these times of anti-Macedonian feeling that Aristotle was formally
stripped of the Delphic honors which had previously been decreed. There is no
good reason to question either the reality of the event or the genuineness of the
fragment'.
The fragment has been interpreted in different ways without, it seems, any
conscious awareness of that fact. Thus JAEGER
(p.
320) writes >[Aristotle] was not
spared the news that the Delphians, who had accorded him honours for his list of
Pythian victors, were revoking them now that his royal patron was dead; but even
the confusions of this time could not permanently disturb the peace of his soul,
specially sensitive though he was to man's misfortunes.< In the English translation
of JAEGER'S Aristotle (p. 320, n. 2) the fragment is rendered thus: >About the voting
at Delphi and their depriving me of my honours my feeling is that I am sorry but
not extremely sorry.<2 He adds >the tone of this fragment is very genuine.< Guthrie
(p. 45) takes it otherwise: >... There is a note of weary resignation in the letter
which he wrote to Antipater about the business: >>Concerning the honours voted to
me at Delphi, of which I have been deprived, I have now reached a stage when I
don't greatly mind about them, and yet I cannot say I don't mind at all.<<<
(Emphases added.)
There is not a little disagreement and confusion here. 1) JAEGER finds that the
peace of Aristotle's soul was not permanently disturbed whereas GUTHRIE detects
a note of weary resignation. 2) GUTHRm'S language (>the letter which he wrote to
Antipater about the business<) seems to suggest that Aristotle wrote a letter to
Antipater specifically and primarily to inform him of his own reactions to the
deprivation of honors. Whether GuTHRE really intended this I cannot say, but it is
surely improbable that at this time of upheaval Aristotle would write, or Antipater
care to receive, a special note on such a matter. It is not the sort of thing about
which one would >alert the presses<, as one might say. More likely it was but one
item in a letter addressing various topics to which we are no longer privy. 3) The
original Greek sentence contains the little word vv5v. Texts which I have seen
punctuate neither before nor after it. It is ambiguous and could be construed
legitimately either with the preceding
dilpilliat
or with the following ov)tw)
?c); word-order is not decisive here. JAEGER
ignores
the word and GuTHRIE takes
it with oVTSto CO,
as his paraphrase
shows (>... I have now reached a stage
when
...<). It is a curious fact that this seemingly pedantic question can affect considera-
bly our view of Aristotle's frame of mind at this time. Take the vv3v with oistcwq
?Xx,
and at least two interpretations are possible. First the vi6v could refer to
I
For further particulars see, in addition to the notes in S.I.G. ad loc., DORING1, pp.
339-340
and GUTHRIE, pp.
44 45.
2 In the original German edition of 1923 the fragment is cited in the original Greek with
punctuation neither before nor after vf3v. One may assume that the English rendering had
JAEGER's approval. (See R. RoBINSON'S >Translator's Preface< to the English edition.)
284 R. RENEHAN
Aristotle's present attitude towards the loss of honors in contrast to an earlier and
different state of mind on same. (= >Previously my feelings on this were ... but
now I feel thus ...<) Surely this is a strained and unlikely reading. After all, if vi3v
goes with
oiotox,
"
), its intitial position in its clause makes it most emphatic.
The natural way of taking the words with this punctuation (and GUTHRIE seems to
have so taken them) is as a more general statement about Aristotle's mood at the
time: >... now my frame of mind is such that ...< If this is the case one understands
why GUTHRIE detected >weary resignation< here. It would be of considerable
interest to see the philosopher confessing to such feelings at this stage in his life.
But is this the correct way to take the Greek? And, more importantly, is this
>analysis< of Aristotle correct? If he were really so weary and resigned, one would
rather have expected him to say simply that he didn't care at all, which he does not
do. Human nature suggests so much; I do not press the point. Consider now the
alternative punctuation and place a comma after vv5v. This gives us a natural
contrast between the original decree and the present cancellation thereof; notice
the shift of tenses
(WnrrtaOevtCov
-
d4pqgJat):
>Concerning the honors passed
by resolution on my behalf at Delphi and of which I have now been deprived, I am
of such a mind that ...< If this is the correct way to construe the Greek, as I believe
it is3, then
ovstoq
Xxo
is confined exclusively to Aristotle's reaction to this one
act; one should not read a general world-weariness into the sentence. This ap-
proach finds, I think, some further support from the Greek itself, specifically from
the language of the result clause (8a jnjtt got a Zc jXetv 'OXCp aV(tOV j.uFjt
got gTj8v 4Xetv). The two carefully balanced gite ... gkXtv cola are actually
rather witty and elegantP. Aristotle seems not to have been so distracted by adverse
circumstances, that he could not attend to his literary style. It does not follow from
this that Jaeger was correct to write as he did of Aristotle's >peace of soul<. This
3
PLEZIAI also took the Greek this way, as is clear from his Latin version: >iis quae mihi
Delphis olim decreta, nunc ablata sunt, afficior ita, ut illa neque magnopere curem, neque tamen
nihil curem.< (He does not discuss the ambiguity of the Greek.) For vvv
ovs'ro.
construed
separately compare Ath. Pol. 7.1 and IA 710b 32-71 lal: ic fp tv wep6v 4it5, d5 wouat
'co (sad vv5v, ovsox ainoi; Xp atjiji; ?atv. (I have added commas to make the construction
clear.) These seem to be the only other occurrences of vv3v o1xco)w in the Aristotelian corpus.
4 The phrasing is quite Aristotelian, GA 776a 16-19, ti;
' p tpo?f; Xaptv
aino [= To
ydXa]
Tij;
&6pate ino0il?v i' n at; rot; 4qSot;, dxy' oi'Sv' ??xiiretv at5t6 ?V )
XpovCp
lo'S) oA
1 o0''
nepPdXXztv
o68&.V. (One may regard this language as some slight support
for the genuineness of our fragment.) This passage has its own linguistic interest. Notice that
Aristotle uses ov6 negatives in the infinitive result clause where normal grammar leads one to
expect jxij. It would be an easy matter to >correct< the infinitives to indicatives (Xeinet,
v6zpP[ki Xet), but it would be wrong. Compare Pol. 1270a 35-36 ...
gvreMiboaav ti; noXudiac
wSat' oi'
yiyv 0cat rO6'r OXtyav0poirav. So far from being a sub-literate usage, this serves to
bring out a very fine distinction. The infinitive expresses the tendency, the ol5 calls attention to, in
JEBB'S words, >the prominence of the negativefact in the speaker's mind< (Appendix to Soph. El.
780f.). Aristotle is in good Attic company here (Sophocles, Euripides, Demosthenes and others).
See further W.W. GOODWIN, G.M.T.2 ? 598-599.
too seems to read somewhat too much into the sentence.
What then does the fragment tell us about Aristotle? Something less grand, it
may be, but no less interesting. 1) By acknowledging that he cared, even if not a
great deal, about the loss of his Delphic honors, Aristotle reveals a natural human
vanity5. One is reminded of the reports that he dressed elegantly, wore rings, and
kept his hair well-trimmed6. 2) By refusing to conceal his real feelings - many, in
the same circumstances, would have fibbed and uttered a feigned and dignified
>ov5
~povi;
jot< - he reveals his candid honesty. One is gratified to see that,
especially in a philosopher; such is not always the case.7
II. Demetrius, De Elocutione 144 = Arist. Fr. 668 ROSE = PLEZIA3,
Ep.
Fr. 15:
Kal C& istaicoiV 6& ovo6aTo;
yiyvsta
[sc.
XaPt;],
6 'Aptaxo?-X-
7i;,
Tcs yap,
Ornai,
iovd ; eiSA, tXoO6tepo; ?Vva. Kic ?K
Z?X01np?VOV,~~~~~~~0) 0
avro;
eV X@, avr 8ax paUm aiF
IFICotrlgvo'u
l 6at;i) r 1t a,
yap
al)TiTI;
iKat
g.ovo?i;
eipi,
IXORv0O6Tepo;
'vva. TO
WV
y&p
govenn
i&ottK(Opou
c0ool;
ij&7 ecru,
To &
anuTin; ieicotu1nvov
Eic Toil a-oTo;.
This fragment is generally acknowledged to have come from a letter (to
Antipater?) written near the end of Aristotle's life, when he had left Athens under
duress after Alexander's death (see above). That the words oa(p yap antrrli
Kat
govV0r;
?iK1i, 4)I pOlOOtspo; w{yova are a genuine fragment of Aristotle's is
generally accepted8. These eight words have been responsible for even more
striking divergencies of interpretation than the passage just discussed. Thus
JAEGER found them moving and most suggestive: >[Aristotle's will was] written by
a lonely man. A trace of this remains in an extremely moving confession that he
S One should not discount the store Aristotle set by honors; EN 1 124a 4-5: td'Xata j?v
O'v lEpt
uga;
icat aTtptias o
?W0aX6yuX0;
ar. See the whole section.
6 DDRING',
Pp.
319, 349.
7
It may interest some to know how WILAMowITZ reacted in a comparable situation. During
World War I a certain foreign learned academy, of which he had previously been elected a
member, stripped him of his membership because of the hostilities. In reference to this WILAMO-
wITz took to describing himself as eiectus honoris causa, with an elegant pun on electus. I suspect
that Aristotle would have been amused by the bon mot. (My source here is W. JAEGER, in
conversation towards the end of his life.)
8
Demetrius also quotes the word a'inj; at c.97, where he explicitly attributes it to
Aristotle and glosses it 6
go6vo5 avxo; xv (cf. L.S.J. s.vv. ano6; I.3 and
go6vo;
II). He repeats
the entire fragment (with v.1. 0crov for o6crq,) at c. 164, where he is discussing To
7yXoiov, thus: to
?
Wdtoov
Kait 6vodtrcov iaitv c5EOX?V Kacc KotvoTepwv, dx?rep
?XEv >oaOV
yp aarti;
Kati ovrr; ditt,
otXogu0O6tepo;
>'yova.< How either ai
itTq;
or
govaM;
can be described
as commonplace or ordinary I do not see; the point of this exemplum is not obvious (as many
have felt). RADERMACHER posited a lacuna after y'yova, apparently for a different reason, while in
the translation of Demetrius by D.C. INNES (in D.A. RUSSELL and M. WINTERBOTrOM, Ancient
Literary Criticism, Oxford 1972) the fragment is omitted, p. 203 n. 3: >1 delete the
example,
Aristotle, fr. 668 Rose, quoted in 144, since it has charm and does not illustrate the crude
laughter
of comedy.( See further the very sensible remarks of GUTHRIE, p. 40 n. 1.
286 R. RENEHAN
makes in a letter of this last period, words that have an inimitably personal
fragrance. >>The more solitary and isolated I am, the more I have come to love
myths.? Within the noisy house there sits an old man living entirely to himself, a
hermit, to use his own expression, a self withdrawn into itself, a person who in his
happy moments loses himself in the profound wonderland of myth.< (p. 321.) E.
BARKER was so impressed with both Aristotle's words (>One of the most remarka-
ble passages ... a personal confession which sets thought busy<) and JAEGER'S
>striking comment< thereon that he made a discussion of them the concluding
paragraph of his annotated translation of the >Politics< (p. 389 with notes 3 and 4).
BIDEZ
(pp.
5 1-52), DURING1 (pp.
350-35 1) and GUTFHRIE (p.
40 n. 1)
all
expressed basically similar views. PLEZIA1 (pp. 121-123) argued for a less pro-
found interpretation: >quanto magis solitarius mihique ipsi relictus dego, loqua-
cior factus sum<. He summarized his position thus (PLEZIA2, p. 21): >... Demetrius
... quotes an excerpt from Aristotle's letter ... as an example of a humorous use of
simple, everyday expressions. Somehow this observation passed unnoticed, and
the fragment of the letter was wrongly intepreted as having some deep philosoph-
ical meaning. But if it is read in the same way as it is quoted by Demetrius ... it
means simply: >the more solitary and self-centered I am, the more garrulous
I
become.? ...the whole charm of the above saying lies in the paradoxical compari-
son of garrulity with solitude, added to which there is a touch of self-irony and a
subtle psychological observation.< These arguments persuaded DURING to change
his mind on this: >M. Plezia kommentiert diesen Brief in seiner Ausgabe,
Aristo-
telis epistularum fragmenta, Warschau 1961, 121-123. Er hat mich davon uiberzeugt,
daB Aristoteles absichtlich ein pointiertes
o6gvcopov
priigen wollte: ich bin
einsam und alt, und i&t6v mti 'V yr p t t6 46X6pxOv, wie der Verfasser der
Schrift isp'
`iVoi;q
9, 11 sagt.< D. J. ALLAN also accepted this interpretation:
>M.
Plezia, however, pointed out ... that they [viz. JAEGER and DURING1] give the
passage a more serious meaning than it will bear. Demetrius ... gives it as an
example of a jest happily expressed in common words. Therefore
4tX6juOoq
is
not used as at Metaph. A. 982b1 8 &6O Kca o 4tX6uOo0o 4tkX6ao46
no5sq
iCattv but
as at E.N. III 11 17b34 toi; iXot n$0ou;
Kai
&TYnnX01O)
Kat 1Pt tov
tu~6vtovT
iaxtatpi'ovwa;
T&;
i
Lpa;,
>those who are fond of hearing and
telling stories, and who spend their days on anything that turns up< (Ross's
translation). DURING in a later work admits the force of this argument, >... It
appears, then, that Aristotle ... said ... something of this kind: >>Human nature is a
strange thing. I find that my taste for idle conversation increases in direct ratio to
my growing solitude.? That PLEZIA'S account of the meaning and general tone of
the fragment is correct seems to me clear.< (p. 120) Finally, GUTHRIE in a brief
footnote (p. 40 n. 1) stated >... Plezia's suggestion, adopted by Allen, that the
sentence is intended as a >>jest?, seems to me a most unhappy one< and returned to
Jaeger's interpretation of
4mXogxuO6'epo;
as meaning >more fond of traditional
stories.<
The appropriate reaction for one confronted with such incompatible views is to
take, once again, a hard look at the Greek itself. This means, first and foremost, to
examine and explain three words, avnriTrs
gov
s
q,
and, especially,
4tXo,uo-
O6tepo;.
The linchpin of PLEZIA'S thesis is that
OlXO6jixOo;
= >garrulous<,
>talka-
tive<, >an idle chatterer.< If the word is not attested with such a meaning, then his
thesis collapses. Here is the entry in L.S.J.:
>tX6gOU0o;,
ov, fond of legends or
fables, o
0.
4tX6ao4 no');7
'atv Arist. Metaph. 982b18, cf. Jul. Gal. 39b: X0 (.
=
0Xoglu)Oia,
Str. 1.2.8, Longin. 9.1 1.- II. talkative, Arist. E.N. 11 17b34, Fr. 668
(Comp.).< Thus L.S.J. cite two passages for meaning II, >talkative<, this fragment
and E.N. 11 17b34. In view of the undoubted meaning >fond of fables or myths<,
attested both in Aristotle and elsewhere - clearly the usual meaning - the frag-
ment, with no further context, could hardly by itself establish the reality of a new
and distinct meaning. The only other potential source for such a sense of
Oix6gu0o;
is EN 11 17b34, and that is precisely where, as we have seen, supporters of the
>garrulous Aristotle< theory have gone to buttress their argument. I repeat the
passage: to);
yap IXo 0Om o cKait
68rqy91rtoV;
ica't
nicp
tci5V
tVuX0V?)v
Ka-
Tarpit
a;,n"pa5
Vt0o9Xa;
...
XVYOgLV.
ALLAN quoted Ross's transla-
tion (see above), with which I have no quarrel. Here are some other versions.
RACKHAM: >Those who love hearing marvellous tales and telling anecdotes, and
who spend their days in trivial gossip, we call idle chatterers.< THOMSON-TREDEN-
NICK: >Those who like to hear marvellous tales or to relate anecdotes or to spend
their days in aimless gossip we call idle and talkative.< T. IRWIN: >Lovers of tales,
story-tellers, those who waste their days on trivialities, are called babblers.< It will
be seen that the translators do not render
OX6k6,U0o;
by >garrulous<, >talkative<
vel
sim., and they are correct not to do so.
00X6,6t0o;
means >loving pAO00t,< nothing
more and nothing less. In an appropriate context it may suggest hearing fviOot
or
telling pi500t, writing them or reading them. In the E.N. Ioc. cit., it obviously
means hearing fiOot, and is in explicit contrast to
&i1yyutcoi,
>given to telling
tales,< as the translators have understood. Aristotle describes the talkative fellow,
the
&8o&XkaXiT,
in the round; he has three distinct characteristics. He is (i)
tX6Ru0o;0,
(ii)
tYr1rtuCK0,
and (iii) lnEp\ xCiv tiOvtCov icataoupip3ov
txz;
jji,ppa;.
The
&o&XiaXNl
is, as it were, the end result of the combination of all
three, but no one of these attributes is synonymous either with any other or with
a6okaXTxI;.
Put differently, every
dc8okXoaiX
may be (6k6OoUVt; but not every
potX6p
o;
is
dhoX&TX%T;
the terms are not convertible. In short, the equation
otX6jw0o;
= >talkative,< essential to PLEZIA'S interpretation, lacks all independent
documentation, L.S.J. notwithstanding. When ALLAN renders OtX6RuOo; >my
taste for idle conversation< and >my fondness for stories and gossip< [emphases
mine] he is giving
the word connotations which it does not have. Whatever else
it
may mean, pi5Oo;
does not connote >idle gossip.<9 What ALLAN and
others,
9
The >Characters< of Theophrastus are illuminating here. (Questions of authorship and
288 R. RENEHAN
including the editors of L.S.J., have done is to invent a meaning of
4tX6gO#0oq
for
EN 11 17b34 suggested by, and more appropriate to other words in the surrounding
context. That is an illegitimate procedure even for the EN passage where these
other words at least occur; for our fragment, where they do not (so far as we
know), it is doubly so. The simple fact is that
0tX6gv0oq
means >liking stories.<
The stories in question may be the old myths, they may be stories from one's long
lost youth, and they may be neither. Context alone determines.
As DURING2 has adduced >Longinus<, On the Sublime 9.11 i&6v E&TtV ?V
pqo TO
t)X6JVuOov, in support of PLEZIA'S interpretation, let us examine that
passage. The author of the treatise believed that Homer composed the Odyssey
after the Iliad; here are his words: &?iicvuat 6' ouxos &&a
Tis
'O&UcEciwa ... OT8
pzydXrj; 5asYe0
n0o4po0vm5
ij&T ?i&6v iaTttV iEV yipqTO
4tXR6V0ov (>he
demonstrates that when a great mind begins to decline, a love of story-telling
characterizes its old age< tr. D.M. RUSSELL). When Homer became old, he included
more of the old Oo00t in the Odyssey.
OIX6ioiOo;
here is hardly >talkative< in the
sense required for PLEZIA and his supporters; in fact the pU5Ooi in question here are
precisely the sort of pI5O0o which JAEGER'S interpretation assumes. >Longinus<
continues this theme, 9.13:
Tfjq
jv 'IXw6o;
ypa0ophv1rl
F?V ad
fiq
nvFvsU5jaTo;
OXov To ccoja.trov 6pa,auac6ov u' inscaato Kat
evaWvtov,
Tf &? '06ua-
GeaS t6o nAXov
ryngarauwov,
VOsep ia&ov
ypwq.
What is characteristic of old
age is both a love of the old poetic pA5Oot and a proclivity for telling stories in
general. >Longinus< used
4tXR6g0o;
in his first obiter dictum because Homer was
his subject and the pl3Oot of epic poetry were primarily at issue. When he repeats
his observation about old age, he chooses a word,
&tny?LatuKc6,
which, by
explicitly mentioning the activity, >narrating,< >recounting<
(&n'tiaOat),
and by
suppressing the object of narration, adds a new dimension. It is not merely, or
especially,
g,i0ot
which the elderly are fond of recounting. Notice that these two
adjectives
OtX6jvOoq
and &tilyqJattKo6 correspond exactly to the two which
Aristotle used at E.N. 11 17b34,
4tX6j.aOoq
and
8rnyyuick.
They are not
synonyms. Note also that L.S.J. correctly (if with some inconsistency) cite 4tX6pu-
Oo? in the >Longinus< passage under meaning I, fond of legends< or >fables.<
It is understandable that some have found it curious for Aristotle, one of the
most profound of metaphysicians, to state >The more isolated and alone I am, the
genuineness do not affect my point). In the collection there are sketches describing
dcoXeYxt',
>garrulity<, XaXta, >loquacity<,
and Xoyonot'ia, >tale-telling.< Char. 3.1: 6 &
d8o4caXia
?ait
?tv &riyriat; X6Wv gacicpov
lca't dcpo3ou?Xenwv rcX. Char. 7.1: i
&? XaXa, a- tt; a-o a v
6pi4?arat
poiSXorto,
Etivat ai v
&4iov dicpaaia& oXMyou
KtX. Char. 8.1: i
o
yootyoia
?criu avOiV0 ;a5
eVSU&oV
X6'ovV ivat
npgaov
rrX. One will look in vain for any mention of
v3Oo; in these sketches. The jt30o; is a different kind of >tale<, not >gossip< or >chatter.< (For
meaning Ill of u00oXo 'o3 in L.S.J., >tell stories, converse,< see J. BURNET on P1. Phd. 61E and
W.H. THOMPSON on PI. Phdr. 276E.)
more I love myths.< At first sight it does not seem a particularly philosphical
remark. In reality, the thought is thoroughly Aristotelian, indeed Hellenic. When
Aristotle composed the first >history< of philosophy in Book A of the Metaphys-
ics, he included Hesiod and the
OsoXy7ot
among his predecessors. The crucial
passage for an understanding of our fragment is to be found there, as JAEGER
realized: >According to Aristotle myth and philosophy are closely connected. This
was a problem that he took over from Plato. Metaph. A 2, 982b17: >>A man who is
puzzled and wonders thinks himself ignorant. Hence even the lover of myth is in a
sense a lover of Wisdom, for the myth is composed of wonders.<< [= &o icat
6
4tX6ow0oo; 4tX6ao06;
ncc& iamV 6
y0ap pi?0o; a0-7K1CtTat
i'cK
Oa'ugaa'&v.]
It
is of course one thing to see elements of philosophy in the love of myth, and
another when the philosopher, as Aristotle does in this fragment, indulges himself
by returning at the end of his long struggle with the problems to the half-hidden,
illogical, obscure, but suggestive, language of myth.< (p. 321 n. 1.)
JAEGER was correct to see the influence of Plato here; Theaet. 155 D alone
would prove this:
gdXa
yp
0tXo6oto
tooVro TO
na00o;,
TO
Oavd4etv
* OV
yap
& j
apxni 01XoYo4ia;
in
avuTrj, icax ?o0Kcev 6 Tnv Iptv Oa46avro;
?1CYOVOVo paa;
o6
00Kaicc*
WvxXo0v.
(Note the allusion to myth.) There can
be no better proof of the enormous influence of myth on Plato than the fact that the
so-called Platonic myths are so integral a part of his thought. Aristotle elsewhere
takes myth into account, for instance Pol. 1269b27ff., 1284a22ff., but the locus
classicus is Metaph. 1074a38-bl4 (see Ross ad. loc. for further references). This
attitude towards myth took root in the Greek psyche and persisted. I give
two
examples, Plut. Mor. 680C-D: ?XAo ... O 'irr)V ?V ?cda( t6 s?Xoyov a&vatp?t
~~~~~ya E a stu
-O-
a, * wt Tow
t a Oavdatov noo O yp 6 ;
a'na;
?incXdt X6,v;,
?K?E VpX?ravrX
a6cop?1v, Tol T?r
-6 tXXoao4V tTE -p6iov nva v& otoaoictv avatpoiatv
oi -oi;
Oalogaaiol
to t
arnoiuvle;.
Strabo 1.2.8: iccii rrp&tov on rovi; i.nOot;
axsc&?avo vo'X
oit noulrnat govov,
akka icad at
ICO6Xa;
inoXi rnp6'TrpoV
ICat
ot voi1OOrat -rolo
xrnia4tov
%aptv,
0ivavne;
?i;
ro
0aOticv
nao
00;
roi
Xoytco
"
co)
*t4tMgXetl
V 'p
avOpopro;.
inpooiptov &,
oroo-oir OtX6-
gu0ov.
If any doubt the source of this last sentence, let them reflect that the
preceding sentence,
0tXct8AgoiV
y'ap
av`pono;, is nothing but the opening
statement of the >Metaphysics< in new clothes: nadvle;
avOp(o0toinoi 6i&val
opeyvvat
0i5stI.
If we thus choose to reject the views of PLEZIA, DURING, and ALLAN, and elect
to
return, with GUTHRIE, to JAEGER'S explication of the passage, can we be more
precise about the particular activity to which Aristotle refers in the
words
ptXoIw00rspo;
"
va? I believe that we can. One should not picture him going
about in his old age, telling stories, idly or otherwise, to whatever audience.
Nor
are we to imagine him listening to tales recounted by others. What he is doing is
reading once again and reflecting upon, in the isolation of his study, the
old
jxi3oi. This is the philosopher who in his younger days had >edited< Homer
for
Alexander and now, in his loneliness, he finds consolation in the contemplation of
290 R. RENEHAN
the venerable tales of Greek antiquity, tales in which he had long ago perceived
the seeds of philosophical speculation.
The curious word ai5titiTr further confirms this interpretation. L.S.J. s.v.:
>(ai5t6;) by oneself, alone, Arist. Fr. 668, II. as Subst., wa5ltt1 (sc.
o'ivo;),
6,
home-made wine, Telecl. 9, Polyzel. 1, Hp. Morb. 3.13.< (The forthcoming
Supplement to L.S.J. will insert >(or perh. made in this (same) year)< after >home-
made< in meaning II.) They therefore regard avrnmTi;
as one word with two
meanings. ALLAN, who has some useful remarks on the word and correctly rejects
RADERMACHER'S ill-considered comments (pp. 89-90), adopts an agnostic stance:
>It remains to ask whether Aristotle intended, so to speak, to make a fresh start, or
to give a new twist to the existing adjective applied to wine. This I regard as open
to question. If the word meant >>home-produced?, there could be an allusion to it.
But if so, this was surely secondary to the main intention.< (p. 122.) atimsT;
used
of wine was an ordinary word in the classical period, BEKKER, Anecd. Gr. I.464.
30: Arirtiv: -rov auOtivf otvov. 'Aj.uvt'ooat
Til
xOxi&i1 [= fr. lO.K-A.].
Erotian gives an alternate definition: oLvov
abu)nv
Tov
atcapaX)Tov,
(0
Ka1
fIoXVi4qko;
[= fr. 1K.-A.]. He understood
a6ti'T;
to mean wine >by itself,< that
is, unmixed
(a&lapaXvto;);
compare Hp. Morb. 3.14. otvov aixitnv irTvetVo
e'4ScXopov. What precisely a&ritiT;
means when used of wine is of no conse-
quence for our purposes. The main point, which does not seem to have been given
its due, is that the suffix -i4
;
is frequent with names of wines (also e.g. of baked
goods and stones); olvo;
is sometimes expressed, often omitted. Let the following
few examples suffice exempli gratia: dpejiatitxrj, yXktoimr, O,uitrj;,
KcXaXuxvOilT;,
guxpaOitm, guViT%;,
vap8iTr,
o6jiaKtr";, 6aKoR
X
itrW;,
tYaviti1;,
Irtaairi;, pl?tvirm, poimil,
ataatsiv;,
atguXitsivs,
at-
ictrr;,
OotvtuitrT;.
Clearly,
atitT5;,
as the name of a wine, is a normal forma-
tion. Just as clearly this wine has no conceivable point, even as ajest or pun, in our
passage. Aristotle's
awtisTr;
is an independent coinage, which deserves a sepa-
rate entry in L.S.J. Demetrius states explicitly that
aiXtiTr1
here is an invented
word (7?not1 ?vov i?Kc to'
ai3xiot;) and I believe him. Aristotle obviously
realized that a'tirlT; here needed clarification and accordingly he >glosses< it, in
what EDUARD FRAENKEL has described as the >guttatim< manner1o, by adding lacI
,uoVotMT
to explain it.
govort q itself is an unusual word, although its meaning is
clear and no one should ever have doubted that Aristotle used it here deliberately,
because of its -Tr; suffix, to make its relationship to
ab5titq;
perfectly appar-
ent'1. The two words are roughly synonymous. Compare, from a later period,
10
For this device see FRAENKEL on Aesch. Ag. v. 2, M.L. WEST on Hes. Theog. v. 521, F.
SOLMSEN in Harv. Stud. 86 (1982): 22, and my Studies in Greek Texts (Gottingen 1976), pp.
136-
137 (for Plato). Aristotle has a good example of this at Cael. 293b31 Mea0at Jcal ctveia6at
(see GUTHRIE ad. loc. in his Loeb edition); he repeats the expression at 296a26.
I
Note WILAMOWrrZ at Eur. HF 70: >Die Ableitungen auf
-Trll;, -trTj;, -or;
wechseln
viel. <
ep,JitTuj,
which, of course came to have a special sense, >hermit.< What Aristotle
meant by
govdYrTK
appears from E.N. 1169bl6-19: dXonov
6' LGO)
Kait To
govdnv
iouI?V iOV raKapaOV * Ov oiI6
yeap
'F_oW' av ita0' aviovv -a& laEvr
E%?v
&ya0a
d oXtuc6Ov
yap
6 &vOpcsoo K(il oai v i?e4wic. This is
unambiguous. When Aristotle describes himself as
a1'itTnq
and
gtovo
mlq,
he
means this in the strictest sense; such a one is KaO' acxio'v. As we have seen,
Aristotle asserts that no one would choose to have every good >all alone.<
It occurred to ALLAN, as it did to me, that Aristotle modelled
a-'ouiTn1
specifi-
cally on nroXiTi. This is economical; at one and the same time it suggests that
avct"i
is an original and independent coinage, having nothing to do with
atttTj otvos, and also explains why Aristotle coined the word in the first
instance. ALLAN writes >The novel word meant >>no longer
IDrarapit'",
or
>Afvalo;, or any other kind of lokiTii, but M5titi;.< (p. 122.) This is correct
but perhaps not the whole truth. Recall that the Greeks derived it6X1 and lokiTrj;
from loUooi. E.M. s.v.
noktq:
... napa -r6o iic nioXXov oaviataOat. ?iic &, tof
,t6Xtc yivett soXinrlT. Orio s.v. 6Xt; St ic nloXX65 aOvKi Yviaaa0at. These
are late passages, but the doctrine is surely early; it seems to be reflected already in
Aristotle's own Politics, 1274b38-41: i?m 6' i' nI6t; Cv
oya
eV ov, lcaOalesp
aiXXo art t6-v6X obv ?v cuvecto)v 6' ?Kc coXXv opivo, 6mov
&on irpotepov
0 1oXiti0
i
4uqreoq. 1 Y'ap
noL6tX noXrttv i
X7Xf0iO6;
i?rnV. 1286a29 aXX'
?aitv nt6 E1x ?roXXv. Man is by nature a noXtuic6Ov 4Cov, as Aristotle's
famous phrase expresses it, and that means constant contact with other human
beings. In oE6Xt; and its cognates Greeks seem to have heard noXoi and mentally
associated the words. By describing himself as avYrin1, Aristotle points the
contrast between his own situation and that of ordinary Greek coCIxrat in a most
striking manner. They are members of a noXtudj icotv(oia, they have many
friends and acquaintances among their fellow citizens12. Aristotle, across the
straits of Euboea from his beloved Lyceum, enjoys no such associations; he is by
himself. Ultimately, a
rrTnq
is untranslatable, but this analysis of its meaning and
overtones has led to the same results as did our discussion of
OIXopU0Oxepo;.
It remains to make a few observations on the style of the sentence. PLEZIA2
(p. 21) alleges that Demetrius quotes it >as an example of a humorous use of
simple, everyday expressions< (emphases added). It is true that there are some
12
noXkuhtia, taking 4iXo; in the noblest sense, is neither desirable nor attainable accord-
ing to Aristotle; he discusses the question, e.g., at EN 1 17Ob2Off. But
a-i''Tn;,
by its implicit
contrast with noXiTr11; shows the level of human association which Aristotle has in mind here.
He is a noXItuc6v 4iov and 6 cnMjv is his natural state. Compare now EN 1171a15-19: oi &?
iroXiiXotB cocJ IUtXnv
oucY,w vEva
CvovTE;
o0&v\t &KOclv ivat ~iXoI,
iXhv
noXtuc6I,
icM K CICItXoiV
ap?aKou;.
noXttulc6 j& o16v FarOV noxxo;
?vc
OX0v
icaX
pil dpeacov
Mvma,
On'
&
krnO6*
? euci1. This passage not only refutes any possible objection to the
effect that Aristotle would have been opposed to many friends (in this broader sense of the term),
but also, once again, shows the association of
n6XtcjnoXin;
(noXtOlcK, a17 bis) and ioxxoi
(noAXoW;,
b18) in the Greek mind.
292 R. RENEHAN
obscurities in Demetrius' remarks (above, n. 8), but this assessment of Aristotle's
language will not do. acit Tj;, whether or not a distinct word from that autTij5
which signifies a kind of wine, is used only here in this unique sense.
gov5ri
is
attested in the classical period only in Aristotle. The only other extant occurrence
is to be found half a millenium later in the sophist Maximus of Tyre who used it in
a lecture (21.7) on the relative claims of the contemplative and practical lives, an
issue which (coincidentally or not) is prominent in the >Nicomachean Ethics<,
where
govoBCr1
occurs five times13. At 1097b9 the phrase
PtioS gvoVrll;
occurs,
the same phrase (in the reverse order) which we find in Maximus. How either
avAYritr (in this sense) or
govotii;
can be described as >simple, everyday
expressions< I do not see. They have survived only in Aristotle. (For our purposes
we may leave out of account the late and derivative Maximus.) Even
plX6g)00o;,
of simple appearance, survives from the classical period only in Aristotle. As we
have seen, later authors (Strabo, Plutarch) use the word not only in the same sense
as Aristotle (>loving myths<) but with specific allusion to famous passages in the
Metaphysics'4. The upshot of all this is clear. The diction in this fragment of
Aristotle's is anything but commonplace; rather what we have is a carefully-
crafted and affecting sentence. Demetrius rightly refers to its
Xdpt;.
Aristotle
writes of himself as of a man isolated and withdrawn who returns once again to
contemplation of the old myths for solace. This is most evocative of Aristotle's
real frame of mind as he ended his days. To depict him as a garrulous old
chatterbox is ludicrous.
These fragments are the merest of snippets, it is true, but even such, if their
language and thought be rigorously scrutinized, may yield up a secret or two about
Aristotle the private individual behind the philosopher. It was with fine insight
that Plutarch observed >Often a small thing, a remark, it may be, or some bit of
playfulness reveals the character of a man more than do conflicts that kill tens of
thousands and massive battle lines or sieges of cities'5.<
The University of California, Santa Barbara R. RENEHAN
13
1097a9, 1099b4, 1157b21, 1169b16, 1170a5.
14
For further examples of the meaning >loving myths< see the passages cited in L.S.J. s.vv.
OtXogiuOhCo
and
OtXouOwia.
Whether Aristotle was the first to use
4tX6guOwo;
is impossible to
say. Normal compounds such as this could have been, and doubtless were, coined independently
more than once. It is even a bit misleading to describe ordinary formations of this sort as
>coinages<; this is how any Greek spoke. That English, for historical reasons, cannot form
compounds with the fecundity of Greek needs to be remembered. The important points are two:
1) Aristotle was clearly fond of the word and 2) he used it in a passage of the >Metaphysics< which
became well-known and was often echoed. In a real sense he may claim the word as his own.
15 Alex. c. 1: rp&xca
OpaXU
noXXdiat; Kma
pil,a
Kai ial8ta t5 uq Ctatv T001 ;
Enotilm? gCX?.ov il gaiXat
guptoveipot Kai mapawtct'; ai tyt
P
atCai Ka noXtopKtat
r6o?1v.

The Private Aristotle, Two Clues - R. Renehan

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Private Aristotle, Two Clues - R. Renehan

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Private Aristotle: Two Clues

Вам также может понравиться