No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 November 2013
Aristotle's Ethica Eudemia (EE) Book 2 Chapter 2 contains, at lines 1220b10–11, a well-known crux in the phrase ἐν τοῖς ἀπηλλαγμένοις. The context makes clear that Aristotle is using this phrase to refer to some writing or other, but scholars have been puzzled both about what the phrase means and what writing it refers to.
1 Walzer, R.R. and Mingay, J.M., Aristotelis Ethica Eudemia (Oxford, 1991)Google Scholar.
2 Susemihl, F., [Aristotelis Eudemia Ethica] Eudemii Rhodii Ethica (Leipzig, 1884)Google Scholar.
3 Allan, D.J., ‘Quasi-mathematical method in the Eudemian Ethics’, in Mansion, S. (ed.), Aristote et les problèmes de method (Louvain, 1961), 312 n. 4Google Scholar.
4 Dirlmeier, F., Merkwürdige Zitate in der Eudemischen Ethik des Aristoteles (Heidelberg, 1962), 39–40Google Scholar.
5 Dirlmeier (n. 4), 35, 43, followed by von Fragstein, A., Studien zur Ethik des Aristoteles (Amsterdam, 1974), 64Google Scholar. Some elements of Div. have perhaps survived, see Rose, V., Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus (Leipzig, 1863), 679–80Google Scholar. By contrast, Kenny, A.J.P., The Aristotelian Ethics (Oxford, 1978), 11CrossRefGoogle Scholar, tentatively suggested that the reference was to an appendix containing material excerpted from Ethica Nicomachea (EN), which, if we combine it with his other suggestions that EN is an earlier work than EE and in some sense superseded by it, might fit Allan's proposal that ἀπηλλαγμένοις means ‘cancelled version’.
6 Rose (n. 5), 679.
7 Gohlke, P., Die Entstehung der aristotelischen Ethik, Politik, Rhetorik (Vienna, 1944), 16–18Google Scholar and Aristoteles. Grosse Ethik (Paderborn, 1949), 6–7Google Scholar and Zürcher, J., Aristoteles' Werk und Geist (Paderborn, 1952), 259Google Scholar seem to be the only ones who have defended the authenticity of VV within the past 100 years. It was, however, universally regarded as by Aristotle in Antiquity and the Middle Ages.
8 Rowe, C.J., The Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics: A Study in the Development of Aristotle's Thought (Cambridge, 1971), 9Google Scholar; Broadie, S. and Rowe, C., Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics. Translation, Introduction, Commentary (Oxford, 2002), 4Google Scholar; Kenny, A.J.P., Aristotle. The Eudemian Ethics (Oxford, 2011), x n. 1Google Scholar.
9 Zeller, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen (Leipzig, 1859–68), vol. 3.1, 573–4Google Scholar; Susemihl (n. 2), xxxi; Rackham, H., Aristotle. The Athenian Constitution. The Eudemian Ethics. On Virtues and Vices. LCL (Cambridge, MA, 1961), 484–6Google Scholar; Stock, St. George, in Ross, W.D. (ed.), The Works of Aristotle (Oxford, 1915), vol. 9, xxii–xxiiiGoogle Scholar.
10 Schmidt, E.A., Aristoteles. Über die Tugend (Darmstadt, 1965)Google Scholar.
11 Ibid. 13–16.
12 Ibid. 16–17.
13 Zeller (n. 9), vol. 3.1, 573–4.
14 Schuchhardt, C., Andronici Rhodii qui fertur Libellus peri pathōn: pars altera de virtutibus et vitiis (Darmstadt, 1883), 35–6Google Scholar.
15 Schmidt (n. 10), 29–31.
16 Susemihl (n. 2), xxxi; Schmidt (n. 10), 19.
17 Schmidt (n. 10), 19.
18 Schmidt (n. 10), 20–1; the same argument is given by Rackham and Stock (n. 9).
19 Gohlke (n. 7, 1949), 6–7.
20 Schmidt (n. 10), 51; Gohlke (n. 7, 1944), 16–18, (1949) 6–7.
21 Schmidt (n. 10), 25.
22 Gohlke, P., Aristoteles. Nikomachische Ethik (Paderborn, 1956), 5Google Scholar.
23 Schmidt (n. 10), 28. See also Hall, R., ‘The special vocabulary of the Eudemian Ethics’, CQ 9 (1959), 197–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24 Schmidt (n. 10), 32–42.
25 Schmidt (n. 19), 88–91.
26 Schmidt (n. 10), 16, 27.
27 Ibid. 18.
28 Ibid. 25.
29 Rowe (n. 8, 1971), 12.
30 Even express statement by an author that he wrote a certain book is not held to be proof by scholars, else the authenticity of the Magna Moralia would have been settled long ago by the author's remark (1.6.1201b25) that he is also the author of the Analytica. Cf. also Bendixen, J., ‘Bemerkungen zum siebenten Buch der Nikomachischen ethik’, Philologus 10 (1855), 199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 263–92, at 203–4, who lays down the personal witness of an author as a sound principle to follow in deciding which books are authentic, and well uses the principle in favour of the authenticity of EN 5 (because of references thereto in the Politica). He refrains, however, from using it in favour of MM.
31 The text used for the translations is Susemihl's (n. 2).
32 Accordingly we do not have to suppose, with Gohlke, that if VV is genuine it must be early. On the contrary, if it is a summary collection of endoxa for use in philosophical analysis, it could come from almost any point in Aristotle's career.
33 That one of these other works might be Rh., and in particular Rh. 1.9, is possible but unlikely because Rh. 1.9 does not speak of the virtues and vices in terms of a division into passions and powers and habits.