On Two Passages in Aristotle's Ethics

Author(s): R. Hackforth
Source: The Classical Review, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Feb., 1932), pp. 5-9
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/701324 .
Accessed: 03/12/2014 18:39

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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and The Classical Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Classical Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:39:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL
denied the first charge when stating
her point of view to Creon. Had she
done this, she would have realised the
divine miracle-a miracle which must
weaken Creon's moral position and, at
the least, comfort her when she begins
to doubt her complete guiltlessness--
4XX' el /py oisY7s' h'P
&
TrVL eiO^ KCaX6,
WraO6vr7Esavps yyvyoLv 7apc-qtK6Tre.
i (925/6)
These lines surely imply a vague
doubt as to the righteousness of her act
(especially if we accept Mr. Woodcock's
translation, C.R. XLIII., p. 116). What
greater justification of herself and what
more convincing condemnation of her
mortal judges could she have found
than to point out that they were not
only violating the laws of the gods, but
attempting to undo their acts ?
The miraculous appearance of the
first burial is not unnaturally stressed
by the unfortunate Guard-' a very
Launcelot Gobbo,' as Dr. Rouse has
called him. That the Chorus should
accept his theory is a tribute to his
power of suggestion. If Creon also
could be persuaded to accept the super-
natural explanation, the Guard would
extricate himself from his dangerous
position. Unfortunately for him, Creon
treats the suggestion with the natural
contempt of a practical man.
It would seem difficult to reject Mr.
Norwood's theory (GreekTragedy, p. 140)
that Antigone is responsible for both
burials; that her obstinacy in attempt-
ing the second burial is the cause of
three unnecessary deaths, in that she
must have realised that the Guards
would continue to 'unbury' the corpse
as often as she attempted its burial.
Presumably, in this case, she hoped
that after her first attempt Creon would
accept the burial as a fait accompli.
This will allow us to dismiss the
question, 'Why, if she wished to be
caught in ipso furto, did she not attain
her aim on the first occasion, instead of
ON TWO PASSAGES
(I.) 1173A 5-13.
If T&cvlVJqiTE'pov be retained
the argument seems to fall to pieces.
For .4V1q8E'pov can only be taken to
standT-Crv
for JapoZi'v ~vowvT'IT-)&vEP87TEpOV
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:39:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEW 5
having to wait for some wind-storm to
assist her in approaching the corpse
unobserved ?'
Conscience, however, raises the un-
easy doubt that we are allowing our-
selves to base a rather elaborate theory
on slender evidence in the play itself.
One might perhaps expect Antigone to
make some reference to her original
hope that Creon would accept the
burial, once it had been accomplished,
and to find in his persistent obstinacy a
further charge against him.
There is another point, which, as far
as I can discover, has not been dis-
cussed. The K'p of the corpse was
presumably released by the first burial,
which the Guard tells us was complete:
eC
YTS aprwto
r76vYEKp6v
&Xph.1
Oiqas . . i.K
7KE . K. yU7e6tcas
This burial could be annulled by the
forces of Nature (e.g. a wind-storm that
might strip the body of its covering
dust) without effect on the Kip. Because
human beings perform the same action,
they incur the wrath of the spirit.
'The withholding of burial is worse for
the withholder than for him to whom
burial is refused' (Isocr. 14. 55 quoted
by Rohde, Psyche V.). But has the
action of the Guards in 'unburying'
the corpse any effect on the spirit of
the Dead? Can their action not only
insult the spirit, but deny it rest in the
hereafter, although it has already re-
ceived the necessary rites ? Have
human beings the power that Nature
has not ?-a truly religious paradox.
K. W. MEIKLEJOHN.
St. Bees.
1
Jebb's suggestion that Antigone's double
journey may have been due to her having failed
to bring the Xoalon her first visit does not seem
very confident. He points out that the sprinkling
of dust was sufficient in an emergency (Hor.
C. I. 28. 35), and we may add that his sug-
gestion postulates a carelessness foreign to the
nature of Antigone,
IN ARISTOTLE'S ETHICS.
' if both belong to the class of neutral
in II things': and this hypothesis, to have
any relevance, ought to have been put
forward in the argument of the anti-
Hedonists against the Eudoxean argu-
6 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
ment rep't D'vavTiov. But it was not polation due to the 4atucoiv of io, and
70o
so put forward: it is impossible to get that Aristotle wrote
it out of the words 6ver'tse1-lat ' ryAp
the
IcarKv Kcal caK ical7r~ to /r•erTpw,
d•bo, 7T-and
Butcher has proposed lVqe•pT'P.
Burnet opposite of an evil may be not a good
adopted rb /JEqT8epoV in ii. The MSS. but 2 another evil or neutral thing.' If
reading is retained by Stewart and the order ~cat Kaca got changed
to KatcaKOv KaKo•
Rackham, and implied in Ross's trans- Kalqc it would very naturally
lation: all these three take the words be felt that a new subject was needed
in the sense above mentioned. Burnet for TW /on&-rEepc(sc. •a'vTue1Oat), and
translates 'that which is neutral ought would suggest itself to anyone
to be neither shunned nor sought, or dluf,
who misunderstood the argument.
both alike'; but he does not explain the As to dpolo, the word seems to be
argument. understood-very naturally--by every-
I would accept T6b but in- one except Burnet as implying a like
it as •l•q•repov,
to one attitude to two things: and indeed, if we
terpret referring only thing,
viz. Pleasure. The whole argument retain Tr^v ,Wt8erE'pwov,there is no other
may be stated as follows:1 way of taking it. But reading bTo' 1tWd-
The anti-Hedonists urge against Eu- Tepov and limiting its reference to one
doxus' argument 7rept 'vavTov
o70 that thing, viz. Pleasure, it seems possible to
(a) The opposite of an evil may be take 0potow as 'indifferently,' 'as often
another evil; one way as the other.' Aristotle means
(b) The opposite of an evil (as of a that out of any twelve cases of reaction
to prospective Pleasure one would ex-
good) may be a neutral state, or neutral
thing. pect (if it were a neutral thing) to find
six cases of pursuit and six of aversion.
True enough, replies Aristotle, but it
does not apply here. Fully expressed, the clause would be
To fJ/&TepOIv &8
6\rTE CEVKTOV 6e8at Etvat
For if (a) applied, why is it that Pain rjtre alpe'rvY, 21Ld o10 lE fvIrKTOVa atpe-
is shunned, and Pleasure not ? TOv. This is as Burnet takes it, but he
If (b) applied, then Pleasure (qua does not explain the reference of Tb
opposite of an Evil) will be a neutral 1Ik86repov, nor the relevance of this
state. In that case it ought to be clause to the whole argument.
treated as a neutral state, i.e. treated (II.) II74B 14 ff.
either as a thing to be neither sought Aristotle explains that Pleasure at-
nor shunned, or else as a thing to be taches to every activity of sense or
sought or shunned indifferently. But intellect, and that the most perfect, or
what we actually find is that people complete, activity is that in which the
shun Pain as an evil, and seek Pleasure faculty is in good condition and directed
as a good; hence they are (as Eudoxus towards the best of the objects with
says) opposed as evil to good. which it is concerned. At B 22 he says,
The two chief difficulties in this in- 'And Pleasure perfects the activity.'
Since the lines preceding this sentence
terpretation lie in the p4wo of 8 and have shown that an activity is also per-
the duolcos of ii. must be taken
•4•po•(which it might
to mean, not both evils fected by the efficiency of the faculty
naturally be taken to mean, and which (sense or intellect) and the worth of
Ross's 'both' seems to mean), but 'both the object, it is plain that we ought
evil and good' (as Rackham takes it) now to be told how these two sorts of
or rather 'evil no less than good ': it is 'perfecting' differ. This we are told,
so far as any positive information goes,
only in his last meaning that it seems &
in B 31-33 AeXLetot 7jV dpyeVLeaV
to have any relevance to Eudoxus' argu- re ?b'Vt
ment. I suggest that CZ- t1Ois an inter- eov0 obX <37> Evv7rdpxrova,
JXX' Sj VrrLCrOVytVoeov t TeXoS, olov Tot
S
pa. Apart from this (which
I accept Bywater's <rTjv> in io as an
Mr.
&ctpalovr;i
improvement, though not really essential. 2 The two Kal will not be correlative: the
H. Rackham reminds me that Kb has ;'VTCOv '
and that this is no doubt a lipography first will mean 'also,' i.e. o, pvov dyaO&
ov
,KaK•v,
for > KGaKV. dth',
<rotw 7TVO
KGLL.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:39:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL
is itself partly negative, saying what
Pleasure is not) we are given only the
sentence of ? 6, o' rv abCtbv. . To
.
by&talvetv: for ? 7 is a mere parenthetical
repetition of what has gone before.
It is ? 6 that presents difficulties of
interpretation. It seems most conve-
nient to start with Burnet's proposal
to excise 6'olws .
.iryalveiw; his re-
sulting interpretation, however, I pro-
pose to discuss later. Now with these
words excised the sentence could have
two possible meanings:
' us in line 32 how Pleasure does perfect,
(I) But Pleasure does not perfect in
the same way as the object of sense and
the sense do so, any more than Health
perfects in the same way as the doctor.'
(2) ' But Pleasure does not perfect in
the same way as the object of sense
and the sense do so, any more than
Health and the doctor perfect in the
same way as the object of sense and
the sense do so.'
Now although the words can formally
bear this second meaning, it is plainly
nonsense. The only conceivable object
of mentioning Health and the doctor
(unless, indeed, they are mentioned as
merely further instances of differing
reXhetiwaLct-a hypothesis which must
be considered separately) is to contrast
their modes of perfecting with the mode
applicable to Pleasure, just as the mode
(or modes) of To Te ial i
have been alo'-Oqrdv
mentioned
a'"rOo-te by way
of contrast with the mode of Pleasure;
to contrast their modes with that (or
those) of sense is pointless. It is as if
one wishing to explain the noise made
by a cat began by saying' A cat does
not make the same sort of noise as a
dog, any more than an elephant and a
hyena do.' The mention of elephant
and hyena tells you something more
about the noise of a dog (viz. that it is
different from those of a hyena and of
an elephant), but nothing more about
the noise of a cat. The first meaning
then is the only really possible one.
But it is itself ambiguous in the sense
that it may imply two quite different
things. The mention of Health and
the doctor may, as suggested above, be
purely illustrative: they may be nothing
more than two instances of differing
modes of on this hypothesis
eX-iwGaLs:
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:39:17 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REVIEW 7
Aristotle will be saying ' Pleasure does
not perfect in the same way as ala-On-
7OV+a1 for you need not sup-
+arOic"w:
pose all TEXeleI0rt is of the same sort : I
can provide you with another pair of
differing
This isTEXELrthoetre.'
conceivable, but I think un-
likely. In the first place, it would not
prove that the two modes in question
(those of Pleasure and sense) are in fact
different, but only that they might be:
and that is hardly worth proving.
Secondly, when Aristotle comes to tell
he prefaces his positive account by the
words o'X Cos
'i 7• <nr> dvV7rapXovo-a,
'not like the immanent formal cause.'
(I assume for the moment this reading
and interpretation.) Now there would
be no point in these words unless there
had previously been a suggestion, ex-
pressed or implied, that Pleasure does
perfect like a formal cause; and that
suggestion' can only be found in the
mention of here. If then the
b•yita was intended as a
clause
cVarrep o~S'
mere illustration of differing
when written, we must suppose reXL•uo'aet
that,
when Aristotle resumes his discussion
after the interruption of 11. 26-31, he
has changed his view and regards the
clause as something more, viz. an
analogy. Such a shift of standpoint
seems improbable.
The more likely hypothesis is that it
was intended as an analogy from the
first. Let us then see where this leads
us. We shall have the proportion
4i`0ov4: a lro•vr6,+ar+t6a-7o-s: : ytEta : aTrpo6.
Now Health is the formal cause of To
bytalvevv, and the doctor its efficient
cause: hence Aristotle must be saying
that Pleasure is the formal cause, and
+ the efficient cause,'
ala•c7T0`v a'•`rCloya
of the pleasurable
activity.
Before we proceed to examine this
result, two points should be noticed:
There cannot be any separation of
(I)
alotanlrv and alt'oearLvfor the purpose
I It
may fairly be called a suggestion, though
of course it is made only to be rejected.
2 In view of the fact that rylata and are
Aristotle's stock examples of formal andlarpop
efficient
causes I do not think that the proportion can
mean anything less than this.
8 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW
of the analogy: for then it would have formal and final) as opposed to the
five terms. external dtpxi or efficient cause: see
(2) The excision or retention of the the distinction explicitly drawn at
words aldTa o70D Met. A Io7oB and for g4@tv=edo
22:
d6tol•t a mattera-roT
has become alYavetr,
of indifference; cf. IoI8A 34, Io44B 32, Io55A 33-
for they are equivalent to 6tolweO7TXEXo& Moreover, seeing that 11. 26-3I xa6'
Tob cZua, and if we retain them we may eKadErv . .. T70 are a
write our proportion in an expanded rD7rE•oLTevov
repetitive parenthesis, the sentence
form, but its meaning will remain un- which denies that Pleasure is a 96e
changed: follows immediately upon
D
evv7rapXov•a
that which has referred to the differ-
08Iov KarbL 7l'v EivIpyetLav: aIO'6q7r6v + rnt KaLa'Lr•v
dvptyErav :: ytgta
U
T aa
7&J
at'o•f
: iarpbs KaTd 7T6 ence between Pleasure and Health (the
oCua. KaTr
Form). That being so, it seems im-
This is, in fact, the proportion implied possible that gtq should mean anything
in Stewart's note on B 23; it is the but eto80q.2
only possible interpretation of the text What then is to be done? We must
as it stands. But it involves two fatal alter the text to o`8' 0 qbeyleta lcat
difficulties : o tai-poq [6ALotow] atlt"ar7repKX.
c This
(I) Aristotle nowhere speaks of al-O7- simple transposition, to which the
TOv+ as an efficient cause, an excision of 6o/ol(o is, as I shall argue in
aaoo-v•s a moment, a corollary, makes all plain
apX7 Kc'io-eco9, nor does anything in the
de Anima justify us in regarding it as sailing. Aristotle will then be mention-
such. An act of sensation is the ing three possible ways in which an
actualisation of two &vva'letv, on the activity might be held to be perfected:
object-side and the subject-side re- (I) The way already described, in
spectively: the ordinary classification which it is perfected by the goodness
of causes does not apply here at all. of the sense-object and the sense; TO'
It is true that the word CtVL7rT•IOV is alof77lTvTe E Kal 7) ato'cr0to -c7rov8aia
used of the at 426A 4 oVra of course= 7o aowrov8ataevas TO
(;q(yP T70 object-86va/wt
7rTOTcTtOVIcat ICtVYJTcoD alt0. 'V ai-0.; (2) the way in
~cal 7v
divp7eta dv ro7r dtXovtO d,ylyverat), but which an efficient cause perfects a
it is a mere synonym of wro1vrUc'ov,and thing; (3) the way in which a formal
implies no antithesis of aIlra eltSo9. cause perfects a thing. A doctor makes
Even if it did, it would lend nocJ" support his patient's body perfect by restoring
to Stewart's interpretation: for it is in it to its dOvq-; the Form of health
virtue of being contrastedwith 7b rr~toov makes the body perfect by its im-
(the subject-&Uvajtav)that it is called manence in the matter. But neither
CCtv7)7ttdcv,not in virtue of the simul- (2) nor (3) is a way in which an activity
taneous actualisation of the two 8vvV~tLev. is perfected; and the perfection brought
(2) At B 31 Aristotle says 86 to an activity by Pleasure is not similar
TqV EvepryeLaVq jso7w OUX (0) 7i
reX•toF
,v <1> to either. Having rejected (3) in line 25
evv7rapXovata aXX' (9;W
'rL'"OvEVOV T he again rejects it, after the parenthesis,
r7hXo. What plainer way could there in line 32; (2) is too obviously inap-
be of saying that Pleasure is not the plicable to need a second rejection in
formal cause of the activity ? g~t here line 32.
as often =eLov, and Burnet translates The essential point to grasp is that
correctly (though I think we must no analogy is suggested between what
either have two articles (") or none) altaTOfTv and a'-Onoave do on the one
'not like its immanent formal cause.'" hand and what and layrp6qdo on
Stewart seeks to avoid this patent the other. Norbylt•ta is Aristotle thinking
difficulty by translating gtFv as 'habit.' here of alto007r)v and ai'a0lo-'v pro-
Now d)VVWdpXEwL is regularly used of the ducing an actual sensation: the sensa-
7rootxea or'internal' causes (material,
2
Ross has 'the corresponding permanent
we might take 'vvirdpXov-ra as
1 Alternatively state'; Peters 'the habit or trained faculty';
agreeing with qt8oyq, instead of inserting a Welldon 'a state or quality'; Rackham 'the
second article. fixed disposition.'

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:39:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 9
tion theory of the de A nima is beside cussing Stewart's view; secondly, he
the point; what he is thinking of is holds that and the are
just what is relevant, viz. of their good- 'illustrations ifyte•ta
of the differenceIa'p6'
between
ness perfecting the activity of sensation. a'rOnovrtand alorl7rdv, not of the differ-
I take to be the natural inter- ence between these and pleasure.' This
polation 0/zoiow
of a scribe who found c'rdrep latter assertion is irreconcilable with
ob84. ot~8'would at once suggest the text, bracket or no bracket. It
that theo•a'rep
clause which begins thus ex- would require a contrast to be asserted
pressed a difference of operation ana- in the leading clause between alo-Or•7v
logous to the difference between i$ov and at'aOrlntqin addition to that as-
and ala6qT'6v In fact the serted between 758ov7and +
text here has+aaf-•~lvo-.
suffered precisely the alerl•rOv
for a contrast between two
same sort of treatment, viz. interpola- ai'o-•9•t;;
terms in a clause beginning Soarrepobi'
tion due to previous transposition, as must be parallel to a contrast already
that of 1173A 8. expressed; and the leading clause has
I have deferred consideration of no contrast between aioO'rT6v and
Burnet's interpretation in order to For Burnet's interpretation
avoid interrupting my argument. It is ataOerat,.
we should need 7byvaiTV 8' TpO7roV
o0iKac
not, I think, necessary to set it out in 9 Te 78ov7 TEX6Loi bOald7O7O 'TE Katal
full. I am unable to accept it for two a''aorlatl raD'-a
<oz3" tolwkOq
AtXXl4Xotv,
reasons: first, it involves the assertion e7 the
or like> ac0rep
' oV8' icrX.
that ' Tb aicy0Op'vis the efficient cause R. HACKFORTH.
of the evE'pyea':" this I believe to be
Sidney Sussex College,
incorrect, for the reasons given in dis- Cambridge.

AITAQTOY.
AN ancient site situated some two
hours' journey to the north of Adalia
in Pamphylia, which was discovered in
Iqii by Messrs. H. A. Ormerod and
E. S. G. Robinson, contains, among
other buildings, a well-preserved tower,
on the blocks of which are engraved
several inscriptions. One of these re-
lates to the building and subsequent
repair of the tower, and the original
publication by the discoverers (B.S.A.
XVII., p. 231, No. 9) gives lines 1-5 as
follows:
ATroKpd0ropt Katoapt [AojuertavG]
2e-raor• 'AprgLt•t HIep-yala
J error or in ignorance. Secondly, what
ripyov iosreyov4dpetaA [10-]
[replzavLKo]
dj-AXWrov
rpo 'A[p&qr] A[q]vAqrpiov
5 T7_K /L-17!r7y7CTE/EK7TWVirayytXau/v-q
LiOV, K.T.X.
This text is republished by Professor
Josef Keil in an interesting article on the
site (Jahreshefte XXIII. [1926], Beibl.,
p. 92, No. I), in which he emphasises
the importance of the tower, adding
'Die Zweckbestimmung des Gebaiudes
ist, wie ich meine, aus dem Attribut
mit geniigender Deutlichkeit
1EX•droT
zu erkennen. Er sollte das o-vX&vver-
hindern,' etc. Before his article ap-
peared the word dXErX-os had been
duly incorporated in the new edition
of Liddell and Scott, and, as far as I
know, its authenticity has not hitherto
been questioned.
Nevertheless, it is high time that its
credentials should be reconsidered, and,
if they are unsatisfactory, that its life
should be painlessly terminated. In
the first place, it must be admitted that
•E•YXcoToqis an improbable formation
from oavxav as an alternative to the
existing aOcvXl7pro,1and it is incredible
that the engraver of the inscription
should have so written the word by
has happened to the article? We
on the
should expect ' T'rv rpyov,
analogy of ro yyeov (vel simn.)on sar-
cophagus inscriptions; and its omission
in so carefully-phrased a text as that on
this tower would be most surprising,
since even quite illiterate texts on sar-
cophagi do not tend to leave it out.
Both these objections vanish when
we realise that t-ARorov is not one
I
Found in Euripides, Hel. 449; Josephus,
Ant. Jud. i9, I, I; Dio Cassius, 75, I4 (=Loeb
edn. 76, 4).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 3 Dec 2014 18:39:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions