Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 30



B M SOti Obb


a -i


















« •
• »
« • m • o



Some years ago I had an experience which has made a difference to

my view about a difficulty I had always been in with reference to the

authorship of the parallel versions. The main thing" I had to contend
was that the passages in question were parallel versions, and as such
not intended for the same context, so that whether by the same author
or not, their appearance in the same context is not author's work proper,
but of the nature of compilation.
Of the supposed versions each seemed prima facie Aristotelian in its
general form, notwithstanding such differences as those pointed out, e.g.
in paragraph 37, p. 28. But then I found this difficulty, that where
there seemed to be evidence that one version was later than the other,
there were sometimes signs of a kind of inferiority not easy to account
for ifwe assume the later version to be a rewriting by the same
author of his own earlier work (see paragraph 41, p. 34). This
evidence was not represented as conclusive (see e.g. paragraph 42,
p. ^^, and other places), but as being, so far as it went, against unity
of authorship. As a matter of fact, one of the best known of foreign
Aristotelian critics thought the evidence I put forward conclusive in
certain passages. But the argument proceeded on the assumption
that the writer of the later version had the earlier one before him.
This assumption is natural if the parallelism of the versions is admitted,
as the general correspondence is so close ; and it did not occur to me
to question it, nor, as far as I am aware, has it occurred to any one
else to do so.

Now some years ago happened that I wanted to make use of a


discussion on a philosophical subject written by myself some consider-

able time before. Not being able to find it I had to rewrite it. I
remembered the general drift of my argument, but not the phrasing,
and it took me some time to arrive at the formulae which seemed to
me most what I wanted to express. I could not recall my
suited to
previous formulae, and the mental effort of finding those which I
H 2


eventually decided upon seemed quite new. Not long* afterwards

I fortunately came across my original paper, and I was greatly sur-

prised to find that the languag-ewas in the important places almost

exactly the same, and that the phrases which had taken me some
pains to arrive at were precisely what I had got by a like mental
process years previously.
A phenomenon, not quite of the same kind, is the un-
conscious reproduction of something which a man takes for his own,
though it can be proved that he heard it or read it some time before.
This is fairly well known ; but I have observed such striking instances
of it that I have come to think it reaches much further than is usually

suspected, and that it is the true account of certain rather strange

cases of supposed plagiarism.
Someof the parallel versions in the Nicomachean Ethics are much
longer than the passage of my own writing which I unconsciously
reproduced, but it seems to me quite possible that they should have
originated in the same way, if Aristotle had occasion to rewrite parts
of the treatise, and for some reason or other had not his original
manuscript before him. On this hypothesis the argument in favour
of the later writing of a given version would be weakened in some
cases, perhaps in all, because it depended on the assumption that the

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

may be invalidated, because (e. g.) the omission of an interesting or

important part may, in some cases, well be due not to a want of
appreciation of but to mere forgetfulness. Whether this is likely

to be so or not will depend upon the comparative importance of the

point itself.

I have indicated in the text 4) that the evidence of diverse


authorship seemed to me stronger in some other books of the Ethics.

I hope to return to this subject if I ever find opportunity to prepare
for publication a discussion of the Fifth Book, which formed part of
the work offered for the Conington subject in 1882. (See p. 95 below,

n. I.)

§ a.
regards the bearing of inconsistency upon unity of authorship
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
— —


of when I wrote this study of Nie. Eth. VII, but far beyond what is

usually admitted in contemporary criticism. I venture to hold that

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 :

I have long maintained that in the special analysis of -npoaipeais

in Eth. Ill Aristotle developed a view inconsistent with the use of the
word everywhere else in his writings, with a doubtful exception in the
Ethics; and that he was led into it quite naturally: in the main
through certain difficulties inherent in the subject, likely to make
themselves felt when an attempt was made to analyse and define

precisely the nature of the conception — difficulties about the relation

of Reason to Desire which have produced a somewhat similar effect

in modern moral philosophy ; and partly, also, because it is quite

natural, especially in philosophic subjects, that when a man tries to

define precisely a conception which he is constantly using the result

should not be adequate to his own use of it. From a want of
recognition of this fact commentators are not uncommonly misled into

interpreting the philosopher's use of the conception in general from

these singular and exceptional passages. In the matter of irpoaCpeai^
Eudemus set the example of this kind of misunderstanding to modern
interpreters, and he got himself into much confusion.
Certain difficulties also in the special analysis of (/)poVrj(ns seem to
be most reasonably explained in the same manner.

^ 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.

But whether Aristotle, when he came to a special analysis of

OLKpaaia, could have g-one so far in inconsistency (par. 60, a, ii-iv), I am
not prepared to say. The omission in the Eudemian Ethics of all
allusion to the doctrine seems to me remarkable, and the omission of it

from Plutarch's treatise on moral virtue, under the circumstances to

which I have drawn attention below (p. 99, addition to p. 56), seems
also remarkable.^
Yet the passage I Eudemian Ethics
have quoted (p. 51) from the
(1225^ 11) favours the opinion that the writer had 1146^ 37 and
1147* 10 before him so possibly he may have felt the inconsistency

of the doctrine with Aristotle's general view, and omitted it because

he disbelieved it. On the other hand, he has shewn no such dis-
crimination in the case of npoaipeai.s and (ppovrja-Ls, and if it were
allowed possible that the Nicomachean passage was not Aristotle's,
then it would be possible that this passage had been affected by the
Eudemian text.
I venture to think that the reasonable interpretation of some of
the contradictions in Aristotle is that he came to definitely abandon
earlier views. Thus in the De Interpretatione and in certain parts
of the Metaphysics is found the doctrine that the conceptions
(I'OTjjuara) which are elements in the proi:)Osition are neither true nor
false (truth and falsehood belonging only to the a-vvOea-i^), whereas in
the De Anima it is maintained that certain vo-qp-aTa are true (and cannot
possibly be false) just because there is no (rvvO^a-is in them.^ The prob-
able account of this is not that the De Interpretatione and the part of
the Metaphysics concerned are ungenuine, but that they represent an
earlier stage in Aristotle's thinking.^ If such were the explanation of
the present case it might account for the omission by Eudemus.
But beside the disagreement with everything else relevant in
Aristotle (par. 60, a, ii-iv), the difficulty here is that he should ever
have held the doctrine at all (par. 60, a, i). Yet I admit one may
observe that able thinkers occasionally drop into what seems quite
unworthy of their penetration. It is a question of degree ; and while
in face of the facts I have observed I would not say the thing is
impossible, I do not find it easy to credit Aristotle with so grave
a lapse as this.

* 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


The experienced reader of Aristotle will attach great weight to the

Aristotelian form of the part of the text under consideration, and
rightly ; but what is left of the writings of Aristoxenus, Eudemus,
and especially Theophrastus,^ including the remains in Priscianus
Lydus of his rewriting of the De Anima, shew that the style of the
pupils was often undistinguishable from that of the master. And that,
in rewriting an Aristotelian treatise, they did not hesitate to develope
doctrines of their own is shewn by the Eudemian Ethics, especially
in the latter part of it. See also above p. 79, paragraph 90.
In another part of the text where there are duplicates ch. viii — —
still find the afiinity of one of them, 1151* 11-19, to a doctrine dis-

tinctively Eudemian somewhat striking, though I have indicated in

the Study itself (paragraph 46 a) how the difficulty may be got over.
The afiinities also of other passages in phrase and style to the Eude-
mian Ethics, confined as they are to one of the versions in each case
(pars. 38, 49, 59), are of interest ; and the differences in general pointed
out in the versions seem worthy of consideration in themselves and of
a kind not to be ignored whatever view we take of their origin.

§ 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,

et ample loqui, quum humiliter demisseque sentiret vexatur autem ab omnibus

. . .

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 ?

composed without having the original before him. Is it not worth

suggesting that this might the more easily happen if the work, at least
in its final form, was dictated to an amanuensis
Aristotle might from ?

time to time wish to recast something already dictated, without

taking the trouble to look at the passage in the manuscript of the
amanuensis or to have it read up to him. Here again I may be
allowed to add another possibility derived from an experience of my
own —the more so as I suspect it is not uncommon. I find that
when I want to recast something written on a philosophic subject,
I feel a certain unwillingness to look at my first draft, and prefer
to think the matter out afresh. There might be a greater or less
difference between the versions accordinfi- to the interval of time
between the two dictations. One can understand that even a further
version or versions of the same passage might arise in this way. On
the other hand, short and unimportant duplicates might sometimes be
due to unconscious repetition on the part of the person dictating, or
sometimes to conscious repetition, merely for clearness, accompanied
by some change of phrase, not always intentional. We may well
suppose, in the immense amount of thinking and composing done by
Aristot]e, that he did not always trouble to revise the final manuscript
himself.^ A manuscript presenting such anomalies might later be
subjected to some editing by a disciple, who would play the part of
a compiler in so far as, from a wish to preserve all the words of the
master, he allowed the duplicates to stand as if in a continuous text,
and perhaps made some alteration either by re-arrangement (which
might disjilace a duplicate) or by adding a few connecting words.
Something like this happened to the works of Hegel, from the desire
to preserve as much See the prefaces by
as possible of the original.
the redactors,e. g. Works, Vol. 2, p. vi, especially line 9 der Darstel- — '

lung durch leichte Anderungen zu helfen Vol. 6, p. vi. Also the veiy
' :

important introduction by Michelet to Hegel's Lectures on the History

of Philosophy, Works, VoL 13, where (p. x) should be noted especially
— die Aufgabe fiir den Herausgeber bestand hier iiberhaupt in der

Kunst des hieinanderscJiiehens, und zwar nicht nur grosserer Stiicke

verschiedener Vorlesungen, sondern auch, wo es nothig war, einzelner
Satze '. On the combination of duplicates see p. x of the same preface.
But the material here was in some cases the author's own notes for

^ 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.

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 ;

and, as regards notes taken by hearers, the external evidence points in

the same direction, if we consider the mechanical difficulty (even with
tachygraphy), in those days, of taking such notes as could account for
the text we have, and consider also the absence of confirming tradition.
Indeed, as Chandler once remarked to me, when I was putting my
view before him, tradition tells the other way for Aristotle was said

to have taught by discussing as he walked about. In modern phrase,

then, his method was '
informal instruction.' As to the vise of
<J/cpoar^s, in the Aristotelian treatises, for a student of the subject.
Chandler maintained the term would naturally be applied to those
who studied in a book as well as to the hearers of lectures, because the
practice was to have books read up by a slave. To which may add
that, accordingly, (pvaiKri aKpoaais as the title of a book would mean
\ * Lessons in Physics.' Lefons in French.
Cf. also the use of ' '

There are only two passages, as far as I know^ in Aristotle which

might conceivably be taken as evidence that the treatises in which they
are found are lectures : 1 104^ 18 (ttp(oi]v) and the singular passage at the
end of the Topics, where vixlv and vixoiv are supposed to mean the hearers
of the lecture. In the last passage rjtxLv and rifxciv have authority in
MSS. and ancient interpreters (see Waitz). But if we accept the
harder reading, the address may merely be to the readers or students
of the book. Compare 34 (quoted by Waitz), where a similar
sentiment is expressed without any address. The solitary instance of
TrpwTjy is best explained as a colloquialism = '
lately ' (see L. and
S. Trpwrjy I, and Jacobi's Comieae dictionis index), or, less probably,
may be a mere slip, as Aristotle, when dictating, recurred in imagina-

^ 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.

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 :

might, in some respects, be inferior.

(I may add that, in lecturing on the Post. Analytics, I have had

occasion to notice other features of style which might be due to

The recasting of a passage in the dictation of the final form of
a book might sometimes follow at once and be written in the same
roll directly after the original.^ The afterthought, however, might
come when the writing had advanced beyond the proper position for
it, and whether then the new version was written in the same roll

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

discuss a subject over again when he came to treat, or treat again, of

something else with which it was connected.^ The rewriting in

Metap. M of the criticism of the Platonic Ideas in Bk. A may be an

example. For such changes as Aristotle there makes ^ he may well
have looked at the original. Yet, though considerable portions of
the text correspond almost word for word, I think it quite possible
that he did not, or not very carefully.
^ e. g. the duplicates in De Sensn, 444* 8-28 and 444* 29-444'' 7. Chandler told me he
had noted a doubling in the Parva Naturalia, and I think it was this. For other instances
in these treatises see my article Philolog. Rundschau I, No. 39, 1240.
2 The fragments E ras. of the De Anima may prove such a reissue, with frequent
in the
but comparatively unimportant verbal changes, and a few slight improvements in the
matter. though the simpler cause may explain the generality of the repetitions,
If so,

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
* See my article in the Classical Review, xviii, 5, p. 250, n. 2.
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.^

Lastly, to return to the point with which I began (p. i, para-

graph I fin.), I would maintain that whatever view may be- taken of
the origin of the duplicate passages, the recognition of the existence
of alternative versions, never intended to stand both in the context, is

necessary for the right understanding of the argument in the text, as

well as for points of grammar and interpretation.^

§ 4-

I may take the opportunity to make some additions to my

discussion of Nic. Eth. VII. i-x.
Page 4, note 3. Add vi after v.
Page 8, bottom. Add The Magna
Moralia does not give the double
treatment of the subject, and seems to follow the second version.'
Page II. At the end of paragraph 1 3 add '
The Magna Moralia does

^ 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.

not shew the characteristics of either version, except that it has

the Aj form of d . . . . d.'

Page 13, line 16. At the end of (/3) add 'Nor does the first part.

Cf. (e) below.'

Page 14, bottom. Add In '
Nic, Eth. II. ii. 3, 1104* 2, to Nic. Eth.
I. iii. 4, 1094^ 19.'

Page 15, line 2. Add In Plato's Laws, Bk. IV, 705 D to Kar' apxas

clprjixivov refers to Bk. I. 62,^. In 664 E the reference is to 6^^ E.'

Page 15, note i. Add '
e£ apx^l? generally means "original". Cf.
De Somniis 460* 32 ti]v i^ o.px>]S (rKi-\\nv,
" the original question,"
Prior Anal. I. 22, and many other places.'

Page 1 6. At the end of paragraph The treatment of the 1 8 add '

subject in the Magna Moralia corresponds to A, and Bj.'

Page 17. At the end of Section V add '
It noteworthy that the

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-

ing to Dg is Mag. Mor. II. vi. 20, 1202"* 1-8. Bg he certainly

follows, but it is doubtful whether this is true of Bj. C^ he com-
bines with Cg. To the part which I have doubtfully associated
Dg, viz. §§ 13-14 (1147'' 9-17)5 there seems nothing corre-
Page 23, paragraph 31. This criticism of Rassow's view is objected
to by Susemihl, but it is confirmed by Magna Moralia, 1201''
9-20, 34 sqq.
Page 25, bottom. Add De Sensu, ch. i, 437* 3 ; De Resp. ch. i,

470^ 13 ; Nic. Eth. VIII. i. 6, 1155^ i.

Page 26, Pt. Ill, Section VII. Add '

eKo-TariKoC has in De Div. in
Somno, ch. 464* 25, the same kind of sense as in Nic. Eth. VII.

viii. 2.' See also passages quoted in Bonitz Index.


Page 29, 1. 31. Cancel dvai, (as in the original corrigenda slip of
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. ;

445^ 29 De Juv. et Sen. 467'' 13 De Sensu 446° 29

; Politics
; ;

1282'' 14 (cf. Eucken, p. 27), 1253^ ^3 i^^- Eucken, p. 27). Some

of these have Se in the apodosis. Pol. 1282^ 14 seems to be one
of these, notwithstanding Bonitz, Arist. Studies, II. iii. p. 128.

Page 32, 1. 32. For II read III.

Page ^^, paragraph 39 fin. Add to Nic. Eth, III, vii. 13 the passage
in Nic. Eth. III. ix. 2.
Page 34, paragraph 40 fin. Add at the end of 41 '
The Eudemian
Ethics shews an acquaintance with the Politics and the De Anima
not found in the Nieomachean Ethics.'
Page 35, line 4. To this add the note * For this sentence cf. Mag. Mor.
II. vi. 28, 1202^ 4-9.'
Page 38, note i. For Eud. Eth. II. ix read Eud. Eth. II. xi.
In consequence of what Grant has said of this note in his generous
notice of the Study in the preface to the last edition of his Com-
mentary on the Ethics, it is better to explain at more length what
I was referring to, though I cannot here give the matter in full.
There has been, I venture to think^ a curious oversight in the con-
troversy about the authorship of the fifth, sixth, and seventh books of
the Nieomachean Ethics, which in the Eudemian Ethics MSS. of the
form the fourth, fifth, and sixth books of the latter treatise. It was
assumed that these books were common to the two treatises in the
strict sense, and that the Eudemian Ethics had not a distinctive version
of these books.
Now it should have been noticed that it was the plan of the writer
of the Eudemian Ethics to collect together in one context the matter
of various passages relating to a given subject separated from one
another in the Nieomachean Ethics.
This, e.g., is the account of the relation between the discussion of the

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 Eudemian Ethics Study (Part V, Section II, p. 60,

; and in this

q.v.) I have noticed the reproduction in the Seventh Eudemian book

of a passage in the Seventh Nicomachean book.

Page 40, line 6 up. Add the note '

Cf. especially 1138^ 34 KUKia fj

reAeia kol aTrAo)?.'

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

Page 45, note i, last line. For '

next paragraph '
read 'next paragraph,
but one.'

Page 46, line 18. For 1229* read 1229^.

Page 46, line 19. For 32 read 39.
Page 49, line 7 up. To Nic. Eth. IX. iv. 8 add Nic. Eth. IX. iv. 9-10.
Page 50. Add to the passage in (iv) Nic. Eth. III. ii. 14 boKovaC re '

ov\ oi avTol 'npoaiptiaOai re apia-Ta Kat bo^d^eiv, aW' ei'tot bo^dCdv

ixev djxiivov hia KaKiav 8' alpela-dai ov^ o. beV
Page 51, line 7, read '
It may be replied that this is not the view taken
in this chapter, and by no means follows, &c.'

Page ^6, line 6. Add The use of oXecrdai here and in

iii. 2, 1146'' 23
and in ix. 7, 1152* 6, is perhaps a reminiscence of the kindred
passage in Plato's Protagoras 358 B-D.'
Page ^6, last line. Add 'Cf. also Rhetoric I. xii. 1372^ 11-13.'
Page ^6 {(3). After (jS) add '
In Plutarch's treatise Trepl ttjs rjOiKrjs

ap€Tr}s, which is based on Aristotle's Ethics, the aKpart^s occupies

a large space, but there is not a word about potential knowledge.
On the contrary, Plutarch speaks as if complete knowledge con-
tended with appetite. See, among many passages, especially that
beginning dkXa Kal tco \.6yM Trpds to ttolOos avn^aCvoov, in ch. vii.
Tauchn. p. 219, line 21.' To the from other parts of
Aristotle given in Pt. VI Section VII may be added another.
The kind of error ascribed to the aKparris in Nic. Eth. VII. iii

should have a special interest for the author of Prior Anal. II.

xxi. 8-9, and it would be so important to his theory that he could

not, humanly speaking, have failed to discuss the view if it had
been familiar to him. Yet there is no reference whatever to the
dxparTy? in the passage. This must be associated with the evidence
against Aristotelian origin but in itself it may prove no more ;

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.

415* 20 where to. avTLKCLixd'a = the objects which correspond to the

faculties. Cf. also the use o^ avrCcpo^va in Plato's Laws 717 B.
Page 72-3, paragraph 84. To this paragraph I made the following
supplement in Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, Stiick 15, 14 April,
1880, p. 452 In § 85 mochte ich nicht so verstanden werden,

dass ixaXaKOL (1148* 12) sich nur auf Schmerzgefuhle Leziehen

konnte, -nepl ravras kann auch Genlisse mitbedeuten dadurch aber :

wird die Beweisfiihrung nicht gestort auch bleibt derUnterschied


(Seite 74) zwischen 11 48* 11 ff., da die erste Stelle nichts iiber
Schmerzen sagt.'

Page 72. Add to paragraph 84 the note With rt yap av k-noUi

in E^,
1150^ 30, cf. Nic. Eth. IV. iii. 7, 11 23'' 12.'
Page 78, line 8 up, for 6'^ read 6^.
Page 81. Add to paragraph 95 '
Biichsenschiitz, Studien zu Aristoteles,
Politik, endeavoured to shew that there had been some later
version of the Politics by some Peripatetic writer. This opinion
he grounded upon the compendium in Stobaeus, which he
supposed was derived from an original diflPerent to our text of the
Politics. The conclusion would have been welcome enough if it

could have been maintained, but, as I have argued in a review of

the Essay in the Philologische Rvindschau, II. Jahrgang, No. 39,
there is the strongest evidence in the extract in Stobaeus that it
was based on the very text of the Politics which we have.'
To the suggestions made here (par. 95) about the sources
of duplicates, it should be added that the well-known phenomena
in the MSS. of Physics VII are usually held to be due to a
mixture of a paraphrase with the original text.

Table IX. In this table for '

compare Tables I and IV '
read ' compare
Tables II and IV.'

New College, Oxford.

Feb. 1 913.
(See also p. 83)

Aelian, p. 98 note. Aristotle (continued).

atperd KaO' aiird, p. 35. 41 : p. 6-7. 10-17, P- 14- 17, €, i. 2. II. i. p.
oLKpaaca in the Eudemian Ethics, p. 78 51. 60, a, fin. II. iv. 415*20,
mid. p. 99 (page 70). II. V. 417* 23-9,
dfepoarifis, p. 93. p. 51 middle. III. iii. 427*29, p.
aKpoaais, p. 93. 14. 17, e, i. 2. III. iv. 8, 429'' 6,
d\ea and ipvxos, p. 31-3. 39, /3. p. 51. 60, a, fin. III. ix. 8,
Alexander of Aphrodisias, p. 81 top. 433* i-3> III. ix-x. 432*1-^10,
Animonius in Arist. Cat., p. So top. and X. 6, 433^5-10, p. 50 mid.
dva\VTiKai9, p. 23. 32. 433" 7, P- 56. 61, /3 fin. III. xi.
Anomalies natural to original composi- 434*12-14, p. 51. 60, a, iv.
tion, p. 89 : p. 95. Second recension, p. 94, note 2.

Anonymus Byzantinus, p. 98 note. De Caelo, p. 38. 46, a.

dvTiKeiffOai, p. 99 (page 70). De Divinatione in Somno, ii. 464* 25,
dvTiipaiva, p. 99 (page 70). p. 96 (page 26).
ottAovj. dirKfj aKpaaia, p. 40. 49. JEthica Nicomachea, I. iii. 4, p. 96
dffXcDs. t;. KaO' oixotoTTjTa, Kara fiera- (page 14). I. iii. 7, 1095* 8, p. 49
(popdv, Kard irpoaOecnv, p. 7- 8, )3 : bottom. I. iii. 4, p. 96 (page 14).
p. 1 1 bottom : p. 1 2 top : p. 40. 49 : I. viii. 30. 38, 7.
16, p. I. xiii.

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,

* For other passages in Bk. VII see the Index on p. 83.

: :


Aristotle (continv.ecT). Aristotle (continned).

i. 4, p. 36. 44, init. VII. iii. p. 99 Prohlemata, 880*4-5, p. 46. 57, a, i.
mid. VII. iii. 2, 1 146'' 23, p. 99, 949'' i3j P- 64. 70, a, fin. 949^ 26
1. 6. VII. iii. sqq., p. 89. VIL sqq., p. 45 note p. 46. 57, a, i.

ii49''25, p. 25 bottom. VII. vi. 6, 953" I4> P- 44 note.

1 31-1150*1, p. 43. 51, C- VII.
149'^ De Arte Rlietoricu, 1368'' 17, p. 46.
vii. p. 46 top. VII. ix. 7, 1 152* 57, a, I. I372''ii-i3, p. 99 (page
6, p. 99 (page 56). VII. xiii. 2, 56). i383''35>P-46- 57, a, i.
"53'' 3, sqq., p. 91, note i. VIII. De Respiratione, 470'' 13, p. 96 (page
i. 1-6, p. 60. IX. iv. 8-10, 1166'^ 25)-
7-10 sqq., p. 49 bottom p. 99 : De Senm, 437*3, p. 96 (page 25).
(page 49). X. 1 1 73'' 29, 1 1 74'' 10, 444* 8-444*^ 7, p. 94, note 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.

De Interpretatione, p. 90. Aristoxenus, p- 91.

Be luventute et Senectute, ^6"]^ 11, Arrian, p. 98 note.
p. 97 (page 31). Asclepiodotus, p. 98 note.
Magna Moralia, p. 46. 57, a, i init. Asclepius, p. 80.

P- 95 (pa'ge 8 : page 11) 96: p. Authors' mistakes, p. 89 : p. 95.

(page 16: 17: 18: 23, paragraph avToiv TovTwv, p. 25. 34 fin. : p. 96
30, paragraph 31): p. 97 (page (page 25).
30, line I and paragraph 38) p. :

97 (page 35) : P- 99 (page 59)- Compilation, p. 3. 4 : p. 76. 89 fin. :

Metaphydca, p. 90. Bk. A, p. 94. p. 92 : p. 94.

Bk. B, p. 59 mid. B ii. 4, 999** 24, Cicero, Tusc. Disp. V. ix. 24, De
and B ii. 6, 1003^^ 6, p. 14. 17, <, Fin. V. xxvi.
I. ii. 6, 77, p. 91
i. 2. A i. 1013" 14, p. 37 note. note I.
A viii. ioi7''3, p. 50. 60, a, iv.

vi. 1048*34, p. 50. 60, a, iv.

Dislocations, p. 95, note i.
init. M X. 10S6* 10, p. 37. 46, a:
Dujilicates. Short duplicates, p. 76
1086'' 15, p. 14.17, f, i. 2 : p. 37.
p. 92 p. 94: p. 99 (page 67).

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.

De Arte Poctica, 1453* 36, p. 48. 58. p. 94 mid.

Politica, p. 95. Supposed later ver-
sion, p. 100 (page 81). 1253'' 23, (KaraTiKus, p. 16 bottom : p. 26. 35 :

P- 97 (page 30- 1253'' I. l^. 31- p. 96 (page 26).

39, a. 1259*37, p. 31. 39, a. Emendations, p. 70. 80 : Table IV.

1269'' 20-3, p. 46 mid. 1270'' 3, p. itni, p. 31. 39, a : p. 63 fin.

46. 57, a, 1 . 1 270^ 34, p. 46. 57, Eudemianisms, p. 30 : p. 37-9. 46 :

a, I. 1278* 22, p. 14. 17, e, i. 2. p. 40. 49 : p. 48. 58 : p. 74. 86 :

1278'' 27, p. 46 mid. 1279*25, p. p. 78. 92 : p. 91, § 2, fin.

31. 39, a. 1282'^ 14, p.

97 (page Eudemian 97 (page
Ethics, p. 90 : p.
I293>'27, 14. 17, 2.
1216b i_25^
p. 53. 60, a, iii.
31). p. f, i. 34).
1301*22-4, p. 99 (page 67). 1216'' 11-19, p. 48. 59. II. p. 45

1322" 7, p. 31. 39, a. 1325^' 33, bottom p. 53 bottom p. 55 note.

: :

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.

•• • •
• • • 9


Eudemian Ethics (continued). Knowledge, actual and potential, im-
1222" II, p. 48. 58. I222''23-28, plicit and explicit, p. 19. 26, /3

p. 38 top. 23,
1222'' p. 38 mid. sqq. : p. 48. 60 sqq. : p. 54 top ;

II. vii, viii, p. 53 top. 1223'' 7-9, p. 99 (page 56).

52. 60, /3, I. 12231^32, p. 53 top.
1224^30 and " 19, p. 52. 60, )3, i. Lectures, p. 93.
1225"^ 1-5, p. 30. 38, €. I225''II- Koyiicius, p. 23. 32.
16, p. 51. 60, /3 : p. 90. II. ix.
p. 53. 60, /3, ii. fin. 1225*^30, p. Military Lexicon, p. 98 note.
46. 57, a, I. 1227*8, p. 37
bottom. II. X. 26, p. 51 top. voarjiMTwd-qs, p. 15, note 2.
1227*^28, p. 38 top and mid. : p.
48. 59. II. xi. p. 38. 46, 7 and o'UaOai, p. 99 (page 56).
note. 1229*1, p. 46. 57, a, i. olov, p. 20. 26, iS, iii.

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.

7fVet, p. 30. 38,^ p. 97 (page 30). : Tactical treatises, p. 98 note.

Genitive plural of adjective, p. 29 fin. Thackeray, p. 94, note 3.
Themistius, p. 79 note.
Hegel, Redaction of Hegel's works, Theophrastus, p. 79. 95 : p. 91.

P- 92-3. Tischendorf, Synopsis Evangelica, p.

77. 90 fin.
Inconsistencies, p, 88-91, § 2 : p. 95. Trendelenburg, Elementa Log. Arist.,
p. 90, note I.

KaXbs Kol ayaBos, Ka\d Kal dyaOa,

Ka\oKayaOia, p. 30. 38, /3. vnoOeais and dpx'7, P- 37- 46-47, a.

KapTtpeTv, p. 17. 22, a : p. 18. 22, 7 :

p. 45. 55, 7. Xenophon, Mem. III. ix. 4, p. 50 top.

/f. '^i^^, t^av---,-'








r i'kr



I iif


m \M
YO 07108

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.



General Library
(N8837sl0)476 —
A-32 University of Califoi