Aristotle: New Light on His Life and On Some of His Lost Works, Volume 2

Observations on Some of Aristotle's Lost Works

Anton-Hermann Chroust

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• eBook ISBN: 9781317380658
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Philosophy History & Theory

Originally published in 1973. Aristotle's early works probably belong to the formative era of his philosophic thought and as such contribute vitally to the understanding and evaluation of the development of his philosophy. This book shows that the philosophy propagated in these lost works indicates an undeniable Platonism, and thus seems to conflict with the basic doctrines in the traditional treatises collected in the Corpus Aristotelicum. Was the author of the lost early works and the later preserved treatises one and the same person, or were some of these treatises written by members of the Early Peripatus? This, the second of two volumes, discusses in detail certain decisive aspects of Aristotle's early works. Fascinating hypotheses and conjectures put forward here provoke discussion and further investigation in the 'Aristotelian Problem'.

Notes

INTRODUCTION

* In a different form, part of this introduction appeared under the title of ‘The problems of the Aristotelis Librorum Fragmenta,’ Classical Journal, vol. 62, no. 2 (1966), pp. 71–4.

1 As early as 1581, to be sure, F. Patrizzi made a feeble and not altogether successful attempt to collate some of the fragments ascribed to Aristotle’s lost works. F. Patrizzi, Discursiones Peripateticae (Basle, 1581), vol. I, part 7, pp. 74 ff. See also G. Mazonii Caesenatis, In Universum Platonis et Aristotelis Philosophiam Praeludia, Sive de Comparatione Platonis et Aristotelis (Venice, 1597), passim.

2 Diogenes Laertius V. 23 (DL V. 23), no. 51; Vita Aristotelis Hesychii 10 (VH 10), no. 48; Ptolemy (-el-Garib), no. 24.

3 V. Rose could not anticipate that of this Collection of 138 Constitutions, the Constitution of Athens would soon be discovered (in 1890).

4 V. Rose, De Aristotelis Librorum Ordine et Auctoritate Commentano (Berlin, 1854), pp. 104–17. Rose also insists that Aristotle was never a true disciple of Plato, but merely a ‘casual auditor’ who from the very beginning rejected Plato’s teachings without compromise. See A.-H. Chroust, ‘The lost works of Aristotle in pre-Jaegerian scholarship,’ Classica et Mediaevalia, vol. 25, fasc. 1–2 (1964–5), pp. 77–80.

5 Teubner edition, Leipzig, 1886. It should be noted that in this edition and, as a matter of fact, until the very end of his life, Rose maintained that all the fragments and excerpts credited to Aristotle are spurious. Hence, the title of Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus still applies to Rose’s last and most authoritative collection.

6 Only in relatively few instances does an excerpt or fragment make specific reference to a specific work of Aristotle. See, for instance, frags 3, 6, 7, 9, 13 and 26 (Rose), to the On Philosophy; frags 37 and 44–5 (Rose), to the Eudemus or On the Soul; frag. 49 (Rose), to the On Prayer; frags 50–1 (Rose), to the Protrepticus; frag. 63 (Rose), to the On Education; frag. 65 (Rose), to the Sophist; frags 70 and 72 (Rose), to the On Poets; frags 75–6 (Rose), to the On Poetry; frag. 79 (Rose), to the Politicus; frags 82 and 87 (Rose), to the On Justice; frags 91 and 93–4 (Rose), to the On Noble Birth; and frag. 101 (Rose), to the Symposium; etc.

7 DL V. 22 (no. 13); VH 10 (no. 13).

8 In this Rose seems to follow the suggestions made by I. Bywater in his ‘On a lost dialogue of Aristotle,’ Journal of Philology, vol. 2 (1869), pp. 55–69.

9 One remarkable exception is O. Gigon, ‘Prolegomena to an edition of the Eudemus,’ Aristotle and Plato in the Mid-Fourth Century (Göteborg, 1960), pp. 19–33, who in a most scholarly manner takes issue with Rose’s assignments and arrangements. Gigon’s example has been followed by other scholars.

10 This is particularly true of certain Neo-Platonic authors who in their syncretist efforts wished to reconcile Plato and Aristotle and, accordingly, often did violence to both.

11 W. Jaeger, Aristoteles: Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung, first published in Germany (Berlin) in 1923. An English translation was published in England under the title of Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of his Development (Oxford, 1934 and 1948).

12 Ibid. (1948), pp. 39–166.

13 Thus Jaeger added to Rose’s fragments or excerpts from the Aristotelian Protrepticus the following: Iamblichus, Protrepticus 34, 5–35, 8 (Pistelli); 36, 7–38, 22; 41, 6–43, 27; 44, 9–45, 3; 49, 3–52, 16; 54, 13–60, 10.

14 See A.-H. Chroust, ‘Werner Jaeger and the reconstruction of Aristotle’s lost works,’ Symbolae Osloenses, fasc. 42 (1967), pp. 7–43, and Postscript, pp. 231 ff.

15 I. Düring, Aristotle’s Protrepticus: An Attempt at Reconstruction (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, vol. XII, Göteborg, 1961). In his inimitable scholarship, Düring not only collected the fragments of the Aristotelian Protrepticus as well as many related texts or references, but in a most original and, it appears, most commendable manner, he also renumbered the traditional fragments or materials. Moreover, he subdivided these fragments into more manageable and more sensible short ‘units.’ At the same time, Düring introduced a novel and, on the whole, most satisfactory sequence in which these ‘reduced’ fragments or ‘units’ should be arranged. A.-H. Chroust, Aristotle: Protrepticus—A Reconstruction (Notre Dame, 1964), although radically differing with Düring on the philosophic background and doctrine of the Aristotelian Protrepticus, to a large extent adopted Düring’s novel subdivision, numbering and proposed sequence of the several fragments.

16 M. Untersteiner, Aristotele: Della Filosofia (Rome, 1963). Untersteiner not only restates and renumbers some of the fragments identified by V. Rose, R. Walzer, W. D. Ross and others, but also adds several new fragments. At the same time, he supplies most useful and most erudite commentaries to each fragment, as well as recites and comments on some of the recent scholarly discussions of the Aristotelian On Philosophy. Despite its many scholarly merits, the book of Untersteiner has been subjected to an undeservedly harsh and, in parts, unfair review by L. Tarán, in American Journal of Philology, vol. 87, no. 4 (1966), pp. 464–72. Tarán s review contains some highly questionable assertions of its own, as does probably every attempt to discuss the lost works of Aristotle, including the present book.

17 This becomes obvious not only in Jaeger’s justly famous book of 1923 (see note 11), but also in those works which followed in its wake, including in A.-H. Chroust (see note 15), passim.

18 An outstanding example among many is E. Bignone, L’Aristotele Perduto e la Formazione Filosofica di Epicuro, 2 vols (Florence, 1936), passim.

19 W. G. Rabinowitz, concentrating on the Protrepticus of Aristotle, among other scholarly contributions, has made a critical beginning with a novel approach to the whole source problem and collection of fragments related to the lost works of Aristotle. See W. G. Rabinowitz, Aristotle’s Protrepticus and the Sources of Its Reconstruction (University of California Publications in Classical Philology, vol. 16, no. 1, 1957), passim. A similarly critical approach has been taken by W. Haase, ‘Ein vermeintliches Aristotelesfragment bei Johannes Philoponos,’ Synusia: Festschrift für Wolfgang Schadewaldt (Pfullingen, Germany, 1965), pp. 323–54; and by H. Flashar, ‘Platon und Aristoteles im Protreptikos des Jamblichos,’ Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, vol. 47 (1965), pp. 53–79.

20 In the work mentioned in note 15, pp. 20–1, and 74–6 (frag. 13, Walzer; frag. 13, Ross; frags 48–50, Düring; frags 45–7, Chroust), the present author assigned a passage from Iamblichus, Protrepticus, chap. X (p. 55.7–56.2, Pistelli) to Aristotle’s Protrepticus. In his ‘An emendation to fragment 13 (Walzer, Ross) of Aristotle’s Protrepticus,’ Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, vol. 28, no. 2 (1966), pp. 366–77, he now assigns this passage to Aristotle’s lost Politicus. See also Chapter VIII.

21 See A.-H. Chroust (see note 15), p. 377, note 32; and Chapter VIII, note 43.

22 A notable exception is P.-M. Schuhl (ed.), Aristote: cinq Oeuvres perdues: De la Richesse—De la Prière—De la Noblesse—Du Plaisir—De L’Éducation, Fragments et Témoignages, Édites, Traduites et Commentées sous la Direction et avec une Préface de Pierre-Maxime Schuhl, par Jean Aubonnet, Jannine Bertier, Jacques Brunschwig, Pierre Hadot, Jean Pépin, Pierre Thillet, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Paris-Sorbonne, Série ‘Textes et Documents,’ vol. XVII (Paris, 1968). See also A.-H. Chroust, ‘A note on some of the minor lost works of the young Aristotle,’ Tijdschrift voor Filosofie, vol. 27, no. 2 (1965), pp. 310–19.

23 A thorough discussion and an attempt at reconstructing these two compositions will be made in the near future by S. Mansion and É. de Strycker, Aristote: ‘Du Bien’: Essai de Reconstruction; and by G. E. L. Owen, Aristotle’s Essay ‘On Ideas’: An Attempt at Reconstruction.

CHAPTER I THE PROBABLE DATES OF SOME OF ARISTOTLE’S LOST WORKS

* In a different, shorter and probably less adequate as well as less annotated form, this chapter was first published in Rivista Critica di Storia della Filosofia, vol. 23, fasc. 1 (1967), pp. 3–23.

1 Diogenes Laertius V. 22 (DL V. 22), no. 5; Vita Aristotelis Hesychii 10 (VH 10), no. 5; Ptolemy (-el-Garib), no. 3; Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria II. 17.14. See also F. Solmsen, Die Entwicklung der Aristotelischen Logik und Rhetorik (Berlin, 1929), pp. 196–207; P. Thillet, ‘Note sur le Gryllos: ouvrage de jeunesse d’Aristote,’ Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étranger, vol. 82 (1959), pp. 152–4; P. Kucharski, ‘La rhétorique dans le Gorgias et le Phèdre,’ Revue des Études Grecques, vol. 74 (1961), pp. 371–406.

2 See, in general, A.-H. Chroust, ‘Aristotle’s first literary effort: the Gryllus—a lost dialogue on the nature of rhetoric,’ Revue des Études Grecques, vol. 78, nos 371–3 (1966), pp. 576–91, and Chapter III.

3 DL II. 54; Pausanias I. 3. 4.

4 DL II. 55. Diogenes Laertius also relates that Xenophon, upon receiving the news of his son’s heroic death, ‘did not shed any tears, but exclaimed: “I know my son was mortal.’” Ibid. The same story is told of Anaxagoras who, when informed of the death of his sons, commented: ‘I knew that my children were born to die.’ DL II. 13. Ibid., we are informed that ‘some people, however, tell this story of Solon, and others of Xenophon.’

5 See A.-H. Chroust, ‘Aristotle’s earliest course of lectures on rhetoric,’ Antiquité Classique, vol. 33, fasc, 1 (1964), pp. 58–72, especially, pp. 69 ff., and Volume I, Chapter VIII.

6 F. Solmsen (note 1), pp. 208–28.

7 I. Düring, Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition (Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, vol. LXIII, no. 2, Göteborg, 1957), pp. 258–9.

8 See Dionysius of Halicarnassus, De Isocrate 18; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Epistola ad Cn. Pompeium 1; Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae II. 60DE; III. 122B; VIII. 354B; Themistius, Oratio XXIII. 285AB (p. 345, ed. W. Dindorf); Eusebius, Praeparatio...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Abbreviations
• Introduction
• I The Probable Dates of Some of Aristotle’s Lost Works
• II A Note on Some of the ‘Minor Lost Works’ of Aristotle
• III Aristotle’s First Literary Effort: The Gryllus—A Work on the Nature of Rhetoric
• IV Eudemus or On the Soul: An Aristotelian Dialogue on the Immortality of the Soul
• V The Psychology in Aristotle’s Eudemus or On the Soul
• VI Aristotle’s On Justice
• VII A Brief Account of the Reconstruction of Aristotle’s Protrepticus
• VIII An Emendation to Fragment 13 (Walzer, Ross) of Aristotle’s Protrepticus
• IX What Prompted Aristotle to Address the Protrepticus to Themison of Cyprus?
• X The Term ‘Philosopher’ and the Panegyric Analogy in Aristotle’s Protrepticus
• XI Aristotle’s Politicus
• XII The Probable Date of Aristotle’s On Philosophy
• XIII A Cosmological (Teleological) Proof for the Existence of God in Aristotle’s On Philosophy
• XIV The Concept of God in Aristotle’s On Philosophy (Cicero, De Natura Deorum I. 13. 33)
• XV The Doctrine of the Soul in Aristotle’s On Philosophy
• XVI Aristotle’s On Philosophy and the ‘Philosophies of the East’
• XVII Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s ‘Philosopher King’: Some Comments on Aristotle’s On Kingship
• Conclusion
• Postscript Werner Jaeger and the Reconstruction of Aristotle’s Lost Works
• Notes
• Index of Ancient Authors
• Index of Modern Authors