the private aristotle, two clues - r. renehan

The Private Aristotle: Two CluesAuthor(s): R. RenehanSource: Hermes, 123. Bd., H. 3 (1995), pp. 281-292Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable 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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=fsv

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4477085?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


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 survived, 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 profound 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 philosophical 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<, >talkative<, >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 fragment, 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 specifically 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 according 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

Documents

human aristotle

austere aristotle

politics of aristotle

aristotle regrets

life aristotle

jstor terms

jstor archive

barker barker