204 1. Diiring: Aristotele, Organon, ed. Colli auf, sie kamen ja, um ihn zum Jambendichter zu weihen. Sie tun dies mit dem aufgezwungenen Tausch der Kuh fiir die Laute: einem sublimen Scherz. Ich erblicke darin eine Bestatigung des “Kontextes? ~ mit jener unaus- sprechlichen Zugabe, die zur richtigen Gestalt vom Stoff aus nach dem Konkreten hin, das der Mythos historisch war, immer noch hinzukommt. Bonn Karl Kerényi * Aristotele: Organon. Introduzione, traduzione € note di Giorc1o Cout1. Torino: Einaudi 1955. XXVIII, 1057 S. (Classici della filosofia. 1.) Aristotle’s Organon has a venerable history as one of the basic text- books in the ancient Mediterranean world and in medieval Europe. It is one of the exceedingly few Aristotelian writings of which some papyrus- fragments have survived. We know almost nothing about the history of the text before Andronicus. From the ancient catalogues of Aristotle’s wri- tings we can see that the Alexandrian library possessed a great number of logical treatises, probably many more than we have in our present corpus. Only one of the treatises in our corpus is explicitly referred to before An- dronicus. Cicero saw a copy of the Topics in Sulla’s library. From what he says about its style it seems unlikely that he ever read it. He asserts that he is going to explain Aristotle’s Topics, but he actually treats the syllogisms in the stoical form; his only definite allusion to Aristotle's doctrine is to a point now found in De interpr. For us the history of the Organon begins with Andronicus who, some ten to twenty years after Cicero’s death, published his edition. In this he combined the treatises then known to hirn into a logical corpus to which he gave the appropriate title Organon. The fact that this logical corpus (or parts of it) was continuously used as a text- book for propaedeutic courses until the text was finally published in 1495, has posed for us an extremely complicated textual problem. We have three (possibly four, as Colli maintains) MSS from the ninth or tenth century, more than one hundred later MSS, ancient translations into Syrian, Armenian, Latin and Arabic, seven Greck commentaries, and many paraphrases. Much of this material has been little or not all investigated. The present work contains no edition of the Greek text. After a brief introduction, with an excellent survey and evaluation of the work hitherto done on the text and interpretation of the Organon, follows a complete translation, 300 pages of notes and comments, finally indices, including a useful index of logical terms. It is vigorously written and well printed. C. has reconsidered the textual problem in all its complexity and based his translation on a carefully established text. The obvious starting- point is Waitz’ excellent edition of 1844. Whereas Bekker had preferred A, Waitz showed that B offered the best text, and in this all subsequent editors have followed him. In his discussion of the five MSS ABGdn in his edition of the Analytics (Oxford 1949), Ross found that in a great number ofI. Diiring: Aristotele, Organon, ed. Colli 205 passages n has the true reading. He tentatively suggests that the MSS can be divided into two families, ABCd and n. Ross is very cautious in using the Syrian translation and disregards u. Minio-Paluello in his edition of the Cat. and De interpr. (Oxford 1949) presented a vast amount of new textual material, especially from the ancient Latin, Syrian und Arabic translations. He too attached great importance to the two oldest MSS, B and n, but like Ross found that these two MSS very often disagree. In this dilemma Ross followed the rule, that any agreement of n with any of the MSS ABCd is prima-facie evidence of the correctness of the reading in which they agree. Minio applied a similar rule, but since the three foundations of his text are Bn and the translations, it follows that he very often eliminates a reading offered by ABCd for one offered by n and one or more of the translations. C. criticizes this solution of the textual problem. He observes that Ross has paid too little attention to u and finds it remarkable that Minio has completely ignored A in his critical apparatus. In C.’s opinion the value of n has been overestimated. He does not claim to offer a precise and definite solution of the textual problem himself, but lays down two general prin- ciples. 1. Since the text of our Organon goes back to the edition of An- dronicus, it should be considered as a whole, and the textual principles should be the same for all parts of this corpus. 2. The MS tradition is in- curably contaminated (thus already Amm. in de interpr. 8, 27 Busse, CIAG IV 5). In selecting the ‘best MSS? it is therefore impossible to apply a strictly chronological criterion. C. regards B as codex optimus for the whole Organon and develops an interesting hypothesis (p. XVII) that this MS is derived from a text ol- der than Porphyry. The MS n is certainly the oldest we possess, but he finds that its value and reliability are reduced by its numerous erasures. Both A and d are important; d possibly dates back to the tenth century It is also necessary to take some recentiores into account; as an example C. points to a remarkable agreement between m (= Ambros. Q 87, s. XV) with the two most ancient Syrian translations. It is hardly possible to distinguish between families. In each individual case the text must be established eclectically, with B as testis optimus. There are, according to C., very few interpolations in the text of the Organon, and on the whole the preserved text is sound. Unlike the previous editors, C. is very cau- tious in suggesting deletion of a word or of entire sentences. In his review of Minio’s edition (this journ. 24, 1952, 410) Solmsen stressed the difference in aim between Minio’s and Waitz’ texts of the Cat. and De interpr. Minio’s aim was to reconstruct the text of the neoplatonic schools, including the numerous interpolations made for the purpose of clarifying the context and making the language less ovvestpaypévov. Waitz distinctly preferred the succinct, often brachylogic phrases because they seemed to him more Aristotelian. It may be objected that this is a subjective criterion. But on the other hand it may be objected that a text based on ‘Byzantine tradition”, i. e. our best MSS, is not necessarily a priori206 I. Daring: Aristotele, Organon, ed. Colli inferior to a text based on ‘neoplatonic tradition’, i. e. the ancient trans- lations and commentaries. This is to overestimate the chronological cri- terion, and at the same time to underrate the influence of the work done in the neoplatonic schools. Cat. 188, explicitly discussed by Waitz, offers a good example, Waitz, followed by Colli, reads ovvévaus 8 héyeran dv <6 te Gyo. xowby xd 6 2505 8 abrbc, olov CGov 5 te Operas nai 6 Bots: 6 yp AvPearng ral 6 Bois xo) dvouatt npoouyopeberan CGov, xa 6 dbyog BE 6 aubréc. Instead of the first 6 26yog Minio reads 6 xavd rotvous Myo Tic obing, instead of 4 yip 4vPpaos xat 6 Bots he reads cobrwv yap Exdcepow, and instead of the second 6 Aéyag he reads 6 Aéyos 88 Hg obsiac, The repeated vijg obsiag is defended by Porphyry on the authority of Herminus and was probably introduced into the text in bis edition, The words xzré zoivoux are supported by all known MSS, but they are omitted by some Greek commentators and the latest Syrian translation; they make the definition incorrect and are therefore suspect; they were probably interpolated from the definition of the udvyx. By whom? Our best guess would be Andronicus. The fact that these words do not occur in certain of our ancient sources can be explained in two ways: the ancient commentators and translators may have had at their disposal pre- Andronicean texts, or they may have deleted these words for the same reasons we do, ‘The existence of pre-Andronicean texts of certain Aristotelian works is confirmed, inter alia, by the observations in some Mss of the Rhetoric 1368 b 1, 1377 b 15 and 1403 b 5. The substitution of robrev yp édzepov is supported only by n and the Latin translation ascribed to Boethius. The original text is supported by Andronicus, Boethos of Sidon, B, and the two oldest Syrian translations, This is, in a nut-shell, the textual problem With some simplification of the problem, we can say that we have two texts of the Organon, one represented mainly by ABCduef, the other mainly by nand the Armenian, Latin and Syrian translations. Colli has a high opinion of Minio’s text and accepts many of his readings, but on the whole he follows Waitz’ line. If we look at De interpr., we shall find that in this short text Colli’s text differs from Minio’s in no less than 69 instances (two of which are only misprints). Cat. 6a 21 is a good example of the gradual improvement of our text, through the combined efforts of Waitz, Minio and Colli The running commentary is devoted to textual criticism and to explana- tion of the logical content. C. is sceptical towards modern speculative interpretations because of their unhistorical method (Calogero is accused of «scarsa aderenza concreta al testo del’ Organon»). He is aware that Aristotle’s logical doctrine and terminology developed gradually and accepts in the main Solmsen’s chronology. At the same time he has an open eye for the risks involved in basing the interpretation of a single passage on the supposition that it represents an earlier or later ‘stage’. His text is therefore not conservative in the usual sense, and he is not afraid of emendations. ‘This is a sound principle. After all, if we assume that Aristotle revised his text, we must also assume that he approved the parts which he left unchanged, and that they, at the time of the lecture, represented his opinion, We cannot accept glaring inconsistencies in the same course of lectures, and explain them by means of the genetic method. A good example of Colli’s method is his discussion of An, post. 72 8 mpésams 8 Eotly dropdvaceas 7d Erepov udptov by xaB’ évéc ‘a proposition is either part of an enunciation, i.e. it predicates a single attribute of a single subject”; Ross explains: «either an affirmative or a negative proposition ». Solmsen first observed the strange use of the words npbraaig and drégavars in this phrase. On the basis of Jacger’s theory of the young Aristotle as a Platonist, he developed an elaborate hypothesis according toI. During: Aristotele, Organon, ed. Colli 207 which the sentence, as it now stands, is a product of a revision of the text made by Aristotle himself. Colli cuts right through this unconvincing explanation by rejecting dropivoeug as a textual corruption for dyrupioeas, pointing to an exactly similar error a few lines later, 72 a 49 (accepted by Waitz but rejected by Ross). This emendation makes it necessary to read with d dxégaveis 88 évridceus in 72 a 11, This is an elegant and convincing solution. In his notes C. throws much light on the problems of authenticity and relative chronology of the logical lectures contained in the Organon. Many scholars have expressed the same opinion as Jaeger, Aristotle p. 46, namely that the Categories, although Aristotelian in its content, is un- Aristotelian in its form and not written by Aristotle. In C.’s opinion the Categories is a genuine work of Aristotle. It embodies some very early opinions and formulations, and probably goes back to an early draft. In its present form it was written when Aristotle taught in the Lyceum (the Lyceum is mentioned twice). This explains why the Cat. is never quoted in other Aristotelian treatises. Its form and content show that it was com- posed for a lecture, introducing a course of logic. It is outspokenly didactic and even dogmatic, the terminology is systematic, its form elemen- tary. It is clear that Aristotle does not speak to advanced students able to discuss with him, but as a professor to a non-restricted audience. This explains the simplified form in which he expounds his doctrine, espe- cially the manner in which he sets forth his doctrine of first and second substance. C. supports his view with good arguments, and in a broad sense it might well be true. But still we must reckon with the possibility that Aristotle constantly revised his lectures. It is an illusion to believe that we always can distinguish, in detail and with certainty, between a presumed older draft and later additions (ef. what I have said in: Autour @ Aristote, Mélanges Mansion 1955, 97). We must content ourselves with differentiating broadly earlier and Iater strata, With this reservation we can say that Top. 1-7, 2is the earliest stratum, and that An, pr. 4, 3 and 8-22 and An. pr. 2 the latest. The best crite- rion is a change of terminology. Aristotle upheld the principle stated 148 b 21 +f 6vo- nals Bet yp%io0un th napadeBouvy vxl rxpenoutvy xa wh xvely taie2, but of course he could not avoid infusing new sense into many words, and in order to find adequate ex- pressions for his thoughts he finally had to resort to artificial phrases and words never used outside his school. C, has some interesting notes on the development of Aristotle's logical terminology. In 103 b 20 - 104 a 2 we can clearly see the word xarmyopla used in the sense adopted from ordinary language, ‘that which can be predicated of some- thing?, and at the same time we can sce how under our eyes the specific sense, ‘sphere of, being’, ‘Seinsart’, is developed. The distinction made beween obola and +i ger, ‘sub- stance’ and ‘essence’, also shows that we are here in the initial stage of the doctrine of categories. In 146 b 3-4 we can see the phrase 7d 71 Hy elvar in statu mascendi: 7) elvat Brep 18 mods xt rus Ezetv (the being-in-a-certain-relation-to-something) radedy fy Exdaty tiv mpdg 71 (was shown to be identical with every relative term) In his commentary Colli frequently (and more systematically than Ross in his Analytics) discusses the interpretations of modern scholars, especial- ly Maier, Becker and Lukasiewicz. Bochenski is not mentioned. The aberrations of the schoolmen or of modern scholars like Korzybski or Ziircher are more seldom referred to. In all parts of the Organon and par- ticularly in the Topics there are numerous allusions to the contemporary208 1, Diiring: Aristotele, Organon, ed. Colli philosophic discussion, mostly in the form of examples. Waitz made no comments on the substance of these ténet, and C. follows his example. This is to be regretted. It is an urgent task to investigate this material, which gives us some insight into the discussion current in the Academy, and to establish the relationship with parallel passages in Plato’s dialogues", Interesting examples are: allusions to the definition of time 120 a 39, the numerous passages with different definitions of guy émorhun épeth ‘ABovh, the definition of 3ixmocbvn 145 b 35 = Diog. L. 5, 21, the zoological definitions, on the eternity of the universe 104 b 8, on the species of move- ment 111 5 (cf.Cat. 14), the ascription to Plato? of a doctrine of indivisible lines 121 b 19, and so forth. No extant commentary gives the reader any guidance in these matters. In 107 b 29 Biaxprewcdy xa ovyxprtudy Bees (and three similar passages) we find a definite allusion to the accepted Academic definition of colour, Tim. 67 e. Although from other reasons it is likely that the Timaeus was written in the 350’s and that the Topics too can be assigned to that same period,no valid conclusions can be drawn from passage. But another observation is pertinent. Passages in the Topics, in which Aristotle incidentally mentions Platonic doctrines or definitions, or uses Plato's lan- guage, are often quoted in support of the opinion that Aristotle during this period was a devout adherent of Plato’s philosophical doctrines. But Aristotle refers to these Acade- mic definitions not in order to state an opinion, but because they were well-known the inter-Academic discussion, of which alll his works written before 347 formed part. With one glaring exception, he never indicates whether he approves of them or not. The exception is of course the theory of ideas which he seldom mentions without dissociating himself from it. The Academic definition of colour, which is entirely inconsistent with his own doctrine, De an. 418 a 31 etc., is mentioned also in a professedly late context, Met. 1057 b 8. C, discusses only one of the passages referring to the theory of ideas, which he finds «assai importante per lo sviluppo del pensiero aristotelico ». Like Gohlke he comes to the conclusion that this is one of the passages in which Aristotle is decidedly positive in his attitude. In my opinion there is no justification for this interpretation®. In this passage (137 b 3-14) Aristotle merely says that «in a discussion of this kind arguments can also be found by applying the theory of ideas». As C. rightly says, Aristotle is not speaking of the difference between man and an individual man, but of Plato’s “dea of man’ and the common generic use of the word ‘man (xa8" 6 2éyerat toto, i.e. ‘man? as an Syoua). In refuting or defending a thesis that x is a property of y, says Aristotle, it might be profitable to use an argument from the theory of ideas. ‘Being motionless? is not a property of the ‘idea of man’ qua man, but only qua idea, since all ideas are motionless, ‘Being motionless? is consequently ‘not a property of man ~ “Being compounded of soul and body? is a property of the ‘idea of living animaP, not qua idea, but qua living animal; it is consequently also a property of ‘living animaP, ~ To this Alexander dryly remarks that Aristotle often uses the example 2 adrotipoy avyxetaban & Yoyiis xal aduaros: ob why ouyyopetza Ind cov tag Ieee iOéveey, 143 b 14 (= 154 4 18) provides a useful argument for meeting ‘those who assert the existence of ideas?. Gohlke labels this as (Nachtrag?, Colli says: «Aristotele fa leva sul- Pindivisibilita dell’idea platonica ». In 147 a § Aristotle launches a trenchant but rather 1 Cf. E. Hambruch, Logische Regeln der platonischen Schule in der aristotelischen Topik. Pr. Berlin 1904, a very good paper, reliable and sound in discernment. 2 Or Xenocrates, cf. H. Cherniss, Aristotle’s crit. of Plato 1, 14-16. * Cf. Cherniss, op. cit. 1-5.I. Diiring: Aristotele, Organon, ed. Colli 209 sophistic argument against the idea of the Good, and in 148 a 14 the polemic is very similar to 137 b 3. Particularly interesting is 162 a 24-34. The translations of Rolfes, Pickard-Cambridge, Gohlke and Colli differ, and this for a simple reason: this passage is not difficult to understand, but extremely difficult to render into a modern language. It is a brief summary of arguments, used in the discussion in the Academy for and against the theory of idea, employing the current jargon. It says essentially the same as Eth, Eud, 1217 b 25 and Eth, Nic, 1096 a 35, namely that the idea of the Good is pds ob8ty zefousoc, ‘a useless detour in reasoning”, And Eth, Eud. 1217 b 27 of course also refers to the discussion of the matter in the Topics. In 178 b 36 ~ 179 a 10 we find a reference to the argument of the third man, probably from the ITegt i8eév. Gohlke and Colli cannot get round the fact that this isa severe attack on the theory of ideas. Since Jaeger, it is an accepted opinion that all passages in which the name of Coriscus figures were written in Assos. But Coriscus was a well-known member of the Aca- demy already in the 350’st. ~ The passages in the Analytics referring to the theory of ideas are quite clear, with one exception, 100 a 4-9. Solmsen’s argument to show that when Aristotle wrote this, he still believed in separately existing Platonic ideas, has been well refuted by Ross, Analytics p. 17. And 77 a§ and 84 a 32 leave no room for doubt. It is true that, given enough ingenuity, all these passages in the Organon can be explained as late interpolations. But is this really a sound scientific method? It is aa inescapable fact that not a single passage and no objective evidence whatever can be adduced, proving that Aristotle believed in the theory of ideas, On the contrary, all ancient evidence, except some remarks made by harmonizing neoplatonists, favour the opposite opinion. From all that we know about Aristotle's personality as a scholar and his thinking habits, it is understandable that he could have no sympathy for the theory of ideas. With his common-sense approach to the world of gaivéueva (cf, 46 a 17 and 88a 4-8) he was bound to be oppositional. As a young man he did not shrink from using that harsh word ceperiauxza, 83 a 33. What a difference, if we compare Eth. Nic. 1096 a 13 mpoadwcoug. And Plato had felt this lack of comprehension: he regarded Aristotle's criticism as napexoboyara (ep. 7, 340b) and observed: Goo gacly elBévan rept Sv yd arovdale, rolzouc ox Eat. xard ye thy Suhy B6zay nept tod rpdyuaros (the theory of ideas) Evztew ob8év. As Aristotle's views on ethical and metaphysical problems matur- ed, in the course of years of intensive thinking, he came to understand him better, and without perhaps realizing this himself, he finally formulated his Platonic doctrine of vols as cldos elddv and yootaréc, Metaph. A, dean. 3, 5. C. abstains from pronouncing an opinion on the absolute chronology of the writings contained in the Organon. And he says nothing in his commentary about those passages which indicate that the lectures were held in the Academy (which of course does not exclude the possibility that they were later held again in the Lyceum). It is the merit of H. Jackson (Journ, of Philology 35, 1920, 191-200) to have drawn attention to passages which give us some information about Aristotle's lecture-room. An. pr. 43 2 36 is especially interesting: ‘We say that that fair-faced thing (cf. 17 28) is Socrates, and that that which approaches him is Callias’. This is exactly the scene in Protagoras 335¢. In other examples Aristotle often uses xa0¥ja8xt or xa0yuevos (160b 27), or heuxbs, talking of Socrates, which recalls the scene in the proem of the Phaedo, Socrates row xh Epyakoueves uovowcty. As Jackson points out, Aristotle in some of these examples speaks «deictically», as if pointing with his finger towards some representation on the wall. Was it a painting, with the central figure in white? Docs it not in fact seem very natural that the main lecture-room of the Academy was decorated with wall-paintings depicting two famous scenes: Socrates at the meeting of the sophists in Callias’ house, and Socrates sitting on his bed in the jail on the day of his death, talking with his friends? 4 Coriscus was probably of about the same age as Aristotle, see H. v. Arnim, Hermes 63, 1926, 103, 14, Gnomon 1956210 M Severyns, Chrestomathie de Proclos III 1 This book is altogether marked by good scholarship and sound judg- ment. C. asks the reader «che non ama le difficolt4» simply to ignore this, book. I can offer assurance that the reader who ignores this advice will profit very much from a thorough study of this important contribution to Aristotelian studies. Princeton, N. J. Ingemar Diiring A. Sevenyns: Recherches sur la Chrestomathie de Proclos III: La Vita Homeri et les sommaires du Cycle. 1. Etude paléographique et critique; [Anhang:] Procli fragmenta. Paris: Les Belles Lettres 1953. 368 S. 14 Taf.; XII S. (Bibl. dela Fac. de Phil. et Lett. de l'Univ. de Lidge. 132.) Die Chrestomathie des Grammatikers Proklos aus dem 2. Jh. n. Chr. ein Abrif der griechischen Literaturgeschichte, ist nur auszugsweise auf uns gekommen: durch die Inhaltsangabe in der Bibliotheke des Photios (cod. 239), bei dem zuletzt die Kenntnis des vollstiindigen Textes nach- weisbar ist (279), und durch sieben wartliche (122. 246. 281) Fragmente aus dem Abschnitt tiber die epische Dichtung, die in byzantinischer Zeit einem nicht mehr greifbaren Iias-Codex als Einleitung vorangestellt wor- den waren (121. 280 ff); es sind dies die Vita Homeri und die Inhal angaben von sechs kyklischen Epen: Kypria, Aithiopis, Kleine Ilias, Iiu- persis, Nostoi, Telegonie. Proklos hatte diese Epen nicht mehr selbst ge- lesen. Seine Ausziige gehen auf eine tere Quelle zuriick, die auch Apollo- dor in seiner Bibliotheke benutzt hat.? In zwei umfangreichen Banden hatte Severyns bereits 1938 das Photios- exzerpt einem eingehenden Studium unterzogen. Der erste befat sich mit der durch die beiden Marciani 450 (= A) und 451 (= M) reprisentierten handschriftlichen Uberlieferung,‘ der zweite bietet Textherstellung, Uber- setzung und Kommentar. Von dem zweiten parallel angelegten Zwillings- paar iiber die wértlichen Fragmente liegt nun der erste Band vor, seit einigen Jahren durch eine Reihe von Abhandlungen des Verf. iiber Einzel- fragen, die indes bereits einen Blick aufs Ganze erdffnen, vorbereitet und angekiindigt.® Der zweite Band mit Text, Ubersetzung und Kommentar 1 Vgl. Schmid-Stahlin, Gesch. d. gr. Lit. 1, 1, 1929, 198°. Die Gleichsetzung mit dem Neuplatoniker nur in Ottob. gr. 58 durch einen byzantinischen Gelehrten (Tzetzes?): 155. 319. 345. 3 Vel. Schmid-Stablin a. 0. 199. ® Recherches sur Ia Chrestomathie de Proclos. 18 partie: Le codex 239 de Photios. 1, Etude paléographique et critique. ~ 2¢ partie: Texte, traduction, commentaire, Liittich—Paris 1938 (Bibliotheque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de I"Univer- sité de Liege 78. 79). “E, Martini, Textgeschichte der Bibliotheke des Patriarchen Photios von Konstan- tinopel. I. Die Handschriften, Ausgaben und Ubertragungen. Leipzig 1911 (Abh- Leipz, Phil.-hist. KI. 28, 6). Un sommaire inédit des Chants Cypriens, Annuaire de l'Institut de Philologie et d’Histoire orientales et slaves 10 (= Mélanges Henri Grégoire 11), 1950, 571-605.