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: 11 February 2009
In considering the question as to the order of composition of different portions of Aristotle's works it is necessary to start (as Jaeger did in his study of the genesis of the Metaphysics) with some idea as to his method of composition.
On looking at the surviving works one sees at a glance that at some date and by some hand they have been carefully arranged as a continuous series. Internal references forward and backward are frequent. The author refrains as carefully as Euclid does from anticipating ‘earlier’ discussion the answer to a question which will arise ‘later.’ The forward references are merely promises that a question will be discussed. These multitudinous cross-references are so interwoven with the thought and the argument that there is little doubt that in the main they are due to Aristotle himself. On the other hand, the short transitional statements with which the ‘books’ as we have them close must always be accepted with some reservations. The book is a device of the ancient bookseller, not the unit of composition. Of course, where they could, the editors have made the ends of books correspond with important breaks in the argument; but wholly artificial book-endings do occur. There is, e.g., the end of N.E. θ, which corresponds to no important stage in the thought; and here the editor or bookseller has merely emphasized the artificiality of the division by inserting the wholly inappropriate clause, περὶ μὲν οὖν τούτων ἐπὶ τοσοῨτον εἰρήσθω
page 177 note 1 Jaeger, , Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des Aristoteles (1912)Google Scholar, referred to subsequently by the abbreviation Entst.
page 178 note 1 Compare, however, Jaeger's, treatment of this treatise (Entst., p. 151)Google Scholar.
page 178 note 2 With the uses of μέθοδος should be compared the uses of the rather wider term πραуμάτεɩα: see Bonitz, Ind. Ar. s.v.
page 179 note 1 Cf. Zeller, , Aristotle I., p. 105Google Scholar.
page 179 note 2 E.g. the De Motu and De Incessu Animalium are not proved spurious by the fact that the end of Part. An. (preceding M.) promises an immediate investigation of Gen. An. Nor is the De Incessu proved spurious by its concluding transition to the De An. (or Parva Naturalia—reading doubtful).
page 179 note 3 Entst., p. 160.
page 179 note 4 Entst., p. 144.
page 180 note 1 This list of components, with their titles, is adopted from Jaeger, , Entst., p. 156Google Scholar.
page 182 note 1 In the number eighteen I have included all forward references which seem to point beyond the book in which they occur. The passages are: A 1260b 10; B 1265b 17, 66a 24, 69a 29, 71a 20, 72a 25; Τ 1276a 31; Δ 1296a 6, 1300b 7; Ζ 1317a 4; Η 1324a 2, 26b 33, 30a 5, 30a 32, 35b 3, 36b 25; θ 1338a 33, 41b 38.
page 183 note 1 Whoever wrote this clause must surely have had the discussion of our Pol. T in mind. There is no reason to suppose it a later addition. Probably, then, Pol. T is earlier than N.E. E: but what is the date of N.E. E?
page 183 note 2 Jaeger's, opinions are most fully expressed in his Aristoteles (1923), Chap. VIGoogle Scholar. Cp. also his discussion of the Protrepticus in Chap. IV., and his article in the Hibbert Journal of January, 1927 (‘Aristotle's Politics’).
page 185 note 1 Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der aristotelischen Politik, 1924 (Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Ph.-hist. Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, Band 200, 1).
page 186 note 1 The two passages are 1270b 12 (Sparta) and 1272b 20 (Crete). Newman suggests 333 B.C. (hesitatingly) as the date of the events referred to in the former, and 345 B.C. (or, less probably, 333 B.C.) for the latter (Vol. II., pp. 333 and 360). In the former passage Von Arnim suggests that the MS. reading άѵδρíοɩς (άѵτρεíοɩς, etc.) conceals the word Ἀѵτɩπατρεíοɩς.
