-
8/6/2019 Barnes - Review de Mundo Reale
1/5
Review: De Mundo
Author(s): Jonathan BarnesReviewed work(s):
Aristotele: Trattato sul Cosmo per Alessandro, traduzione con
testo greco a fronte,introduzione, commento e indici by Giovanni
Reale
Source: The Classical Review, New Series, Vol. 27, No. 1 (1977),
pp. 40-43Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The
Classical AssociationStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/710942
Accessed: 24/01/2010 11:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of
JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's
Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an
entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and
youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal,
non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this
work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the
same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
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
[email protected].
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
http://www.jstor.org/stable/710942?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/710942?origin=JSTOR-pdf
-
8/6/2019 Barnes - Review de Mundo Reale
2/5
400 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWHE CLASSICAL REVIEWof the first four
books-and arguing for his own choice. But, in the Topics
aselsewhere, Aristotle is frequently obscure, and we expect
examination of suchobscurities, to find whether Aristotle himself
is at fault-and if so what featureof his language or habits of
thought has misled him-or whether we ourselveshave failed to
understand him. A typical place where Zadro fails us is Book
VIII,Chapter 5. Here Aristotle treats evbo~ov and dbo0ov as logical
contraries, withpuzzling results, if we compare earlier uses of
~vo~Oov. Zadro, having argued fornotevole as the best translation
of evbo~ov in Book I, keeps it here, and ignoresthe obscurity. He
also ignores the fact that Aristotle has two words, lrapdooovand
'5o~ov, as negatives of evbo~ov, and, worse, uses lrapdbo~ov in his
notes onthis chapter where Aristotle has only 'Bo0ov.The fact that
here and elsewhere Zadro does not seize the opportunity towork out
Aristotle's abstract discussions with actual examples is
particularly dis-appointing because he is interested in the
development of philosophical language,and the various levels at
which arguments may occur. He does however contributeto our
understanding of Aristotle's logic in the appendices, setting out a
system ofintensional logic which he claims is faithful both to
Aristotle's text and to tradi-tional Boolean algebra, and which
illuminates the vnrdpxetvrelationship, andtaking up the problem of
the interpretation of syllogistic argument first raised
byLucaziewicz.He also gives an evaluation of the Commentary of
Alexander of Aphrodisias-the only ancient commentary we have-which
he thinks more useful as a historicaldocument than as an aid to
understanding Aristotle, except where Alexandersupplies items of
information which may have reached him intact after fivecenturies.
An example is the illustration of a geometrical paralogism at 101a1
3.Unfortunately such information is sparse for the
Topics.University of Liverpool PAMELAM. HUBY
DE MUNDOGIOVANNI EALE:Aristotele:Trattato ul
CosmoperAlessandro,traduzione on testogrecoa fronte,introduzione,
ommentoe indici.Pp. xv + 358. Naples: Loffredo, 1974. Cloth, L.
9,000.The corpus Aristotelicum contains a short treatise de Mundo
addressed to Alex-ander the Great. Its professed aim is to
'theologize about all the features of theuniverse' (391b4), and it
duly serves up a potted account of science and phil-osophy.
Scholars disagree over its date and authorship; but an almost
universalconsensus places it at least two centuries after the death
of Aristotle.The chief claim of Reale's new edition of the de Mundo
is to have explodedthat orthodoxy: the tract, he argues, is
genuine. 'It can be proved that the workis, or may be, Aristotle's,
it dates, in all probability, from the period whenAristotle tutored
Alexander at the court of Macedon, and it is nothing otherthan the
handbook to philosophy which he composed for the young prince'(p.
xi). The treatise is in fact 'the best Introduction to Aristotle
that we couldpossibly desire' (p. xv): doubtless, it was so used in
the Lyceum, and it may havebeen lightly retouched by the mature
Aristotle and by Theophrastus (see pp. 114-17; 211 n. 2); but the
work as a whole is an exoteric exercise, and it can besafely dated
to 343/340 (pp. 32---3).
of the first four books-and arguing for his own choice. But, in
the Topics aselsewhere, Aristotle is frequently obscure, and we
expect examination of suchobscurities, to find whether Aristotle
himself is at fault-and if so what featureof his language or habits
of thought has misled him-or whether we ourselveshave failed to
understand him. A typical place where Zadro fails us is Book
VIII,Chapter 5. Here Aristotle treats evbo~ov and dbo0ov as logical
contraries, withpuzzling results, if we compare earlier uses of
~vo~Oov. Zadro, having argued fornotevole as the best translation
of evbo~ov in Book I, keeps it here, and ignoresthe obscurity. He
also ignores the fact that Aristotle has two words, lrapdooovand
'5o~ov, as negatives of evbo~ov, and, worse, uses lrapdbo~ov in his
notes onthis chapter where Aristotle has only 'Bo0ov.The fact that
here and elsewhere Zadro does not seize the opportunity towork out
Aristotle's abstract discussions with actual examples is
particularly dis-appointing because he is interested in the
development of philosophical language,and the various levels at
which arguments may occur. He does however contributeto our
understanding of Aristotle's logic in the appendices, setting out a
system ofintensional logic which he claims is faithful both to
Aristotle's text and to tradi-tional Boolean algebra, and which
illuminates the vnrdpxetvrelationship, andtaking up the problem of
the interpretation of syllogistic argument first raised
byLucaziewicz.He also gives an evaluation of the Commentary of
Alexander of Aphrodisias-the only ancient commentary we have-which
he thinks more useful as a historicaldocument than as an aid to
understanding Aristotle, except where Alexandersupplies items of
information which may have reached him intact after fivecenturies.
An example is the illustration of a geometrical paralogism at 101a1
3.Unfortunately such information is sparse for the
Topics.University of Liverpool PAMELAM. HUBY
DE MUNDOGIOVANNI EALE:Aristotele:Trattato ul
CosmoperAlessandro,traduzione on testogrecoa fronte,introduzione,
ommentoe indici.Pp. xv + 358. Naples: Loffredo, 1974. Cloth, L.
9,000.The corpus Aristotelicum contains a short treatise de Mundo
addressed to Alex-ander the Great. Its professed aim is to
'theologize about all the features of theuniverse' (391b4), and it
duly serves up a potted account of science and phil-osophy.
Scholars disagree over its date and authorship; but an almost
universalconsensus places it at least two centuries after the death
of Aristotle.The chief claim of Reale's new edition of the de Mundo
is to have explodedthat orthodoxy: the tract, he argues, is
genuine. 'It can be proved that the workis, or may be, Aristotle's,
it dates, in all probability, from the period whenAristotle tutored
Alexander at the court of Macedon, and it is nothing otherthan the
handbook to philosophy which he composed for the young prince'(p.
xi). The treatise is in fact 'the best Introduction to Aristotle
that we couldpossibly desire' (p. xv): doubtless, it was so used in
the Lyceum, and it may havebeen lightly retouched by the mature
Aristotle and by Theophrastus (see pp. 114-17; 211 n. 2); but the
work as a whole is an exoteric exercise, and it can besafely dated
to 343/340 (pp. 32---3).
-
8/6/2019 Barnes - Review de Mundo Reale
3/5
THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 41Reale's thesis is exciting: if it is
correct, then the de Mundo is the earliest ofAristotle's writings
to have survived intact; and we possess in it a perfect exampleof
those Aristotelian juvenilia upon whose fragments modern scholars
have solaboriously lucubrated.The sceptical orthodoxy has argued
that the style of the de Mundo is highflown,prosy, and
unAristotelian; that its dogmatic treatment of its subject is alien
to theaporematic and richly reasoned method of the Aristotelian
treatises; and that inphilosophical and scientific doctrine it
contradicts Aristotle's familiar opinionsand exhibits Stoic,
Neopythagorean, Neoplatonic, and Biblical influences.Reale's long
Introduction is primarily devoted to a refutation of those
scepticalaspersions. The style of the de Mundo and its method are
indeed unlike those ofthe esoteric treatises; but what else should
we expect from a popular or exotericexposition addressed to a
youthful prince? (See pp. x; 26-9.) The philosophy ofthe de Mundo
owes nothing to the Stoa or to any post-Aristotelian school; on
thecontrary, all the philosophical assertions can be paralleled
from the treatises orfrom the fragments of the early exoteric works
(see pp. 51-97). Similarly, thescientific opinions of the de Mundo,
whether on matters geographical, astro-nomical, or meteorological,
are perfectly Peripatetic; for where they cannot bematched exactly
by passages from the Aristotelian corpus, the fragments
ofTheophrastus' scientific oeuvre provide convincing parallels (see
pp. 99-127).The argument of Reale's Introduction is confirmed in
detail by his Commentary(pp. 193-277). In sum, nothing-in the de
Mundo indicates any post-Aristotelianinfluence; and numerous
parallels with Platonic and early Aristotelian thoughtpoint plainly
to the true origin of the tract.Reale's argument is elegantly done:
his Introduction is a model of scholarlyexposition, pellucid in
expression and meticulous in inference. The annotationsare often
illuminating, and sometimes bring new resources to bear upon the
text.(Thus the Syriac version of Theophrastus' Meteorologica is
frequently appealedto; and the Derveni papyrus advances our
understanding of Chapter 7.) Thevolume also contains a Greek text
facing an Italian translation, an admirable
bibliographie raisonnee, and a complete Index Verborum. (I have
two complaints:Reale prints the text without any critical
apparatus; and his notes are inconveni-ently keyed to the
translation rather than to the text. I note an omission fromthe
bibliography: G. Rudberg, Gedanke und Gefiibl, Symb.Osl. suppt.
XIV, 1953).Whether his main thesis is accepted or rejected, Reale
has made a noteworthycontribution to Aristotelian studies.Is the de
Mundo genuine? Reale is, in my judgement, uniformly successful
inhis objections to the many and various attempts to find
post-Aristotelian elementsin the philosophy and science of the
tract. And his objections yield one importantresult of a positive
nature: Arius Didymus (fr.31 Diels) transcribes a long passagefrom
Chrysippus (SVF ii.527) which is strikingly similar, both in
substance andin language, to parts of Chapters 2 and 3 of the de
Mundo. Reale argues thatChrysippus copied the de Mundo, not the de
Mundo Chrysippus (pp. 118-27); andhis argument is cogent. Thus we
may set a terminus ante quem for the compo-sition of the de Mundo
at c. 250 B.C.That result is corroborated by the remark-able
absence of the Stoic term lrpodvo0trom the list of thirty-seven
names ofGod in de Mundo 7 (cf. p. 94).Thus the de Mundo is early
and Peripatetic, not late and eclectic. But it doesnot follow that
it is genuine. And we may allow full force to all the
argumentsReale produces, and still resist his conclusion. For he
fails to take issue with the
-
8/6/2019 Barnes - Review de Mundo Reale
4/5
42 THE CLASSICAL REVIEWmajor and most evident objection to his
thesis. He does indeed observe that theliterary style of the de
Mundo is not to be judged by canons drawn from theesoteric
treatises of our corpus; and his notes contain a few remarks
uponindividual words and phrases used in the tract; and he hints at
the need fordetailed philological investigation (see p. 317). But
he nowhere undertakes tosatisfy that need, and his edition is
curiously lacking in stylistic and linguisticcomment. The major
objection to Reale's thesis is linguistic; and Reale
virtuallyignores it.A cursory reading of the de Mundo discovers in
only ten Bekker pages someninety words not found elsewhere in the
Aristotelian corpus; and fifty of thoseninety are not attested
before the third century B.C. Here are some of thosesingularities,
roughly categorized. Two asterisks indicate that the word is,
accord-ing to LSJ, atrratXeT6pyevOv;ne, that it is not otherwise
found before the thirdcentury:(i) Prepositional compounds:
Karolnretu3 (391al0); avvavaxopevco** (b18);avliTreptarp??co*
392alO); lrept/wKtSc (b29); avvepeSc (b 33); rtrrtXar6vc**(393a20);
adTvt7aprKCO * ( a31); ovav aarolea&* (bl); nreptareCavdoa (b
17)-bteat'iTco* (394bl5; 397a31); &e~rwve** (394635);? KpT^ct*
(395Sa5);
tEKcO&o*a22); KaTaorrTpia) (bl6); lrep'eoroc** (b25);
rrape~ceO&** (b31);avvrwdaao* (b35); 7rpoaavao3a\dX ** (396a6);
&vraTroraXXwc** (a8); ovaao-luaronote&o** (a14);
&vravaKorrr** (a19); ovlarreptoSedco* (a26);
~repti3X6'co(397a25); rreptox~o,uat** (a25); emK\XV'co (a29);
treptirrEo (a34); ?TravaoTr)Xco**(b3); eKv~XOlaat**398b32);
bte6pprco** (b34; 399a24); avvemnrx&o399al5);avvercqaapTvpeo
(400a 15); &va\v^tjco* (a32); ~Kc)(oao (a32);
~TeptKaraXaai(3davw(bl ); eKox'co* (b4).(ii) Nouns terminating in
-ts: &vdaxeoat* (393b2); vnroaraaot*(= ovaia, LSJ
III.2,395a30); e~at~tc* (b3); &va r3ovaot* (b21);
a&rdrraXait*396a9); &v&~Xvot~*(a22); &vrdoarato*
(LSJ II, 397al); ~rrtrdxv~tytq (398a10); ~ca)XtS 399b30; b32).(iii)
Alpha privative compounds: &Komrraroc (391a12); &ve~etperoS
(392a17);&verepo&oroq* (a32); daaXevroq (b34); a&e0eXoq
(394a23); aVd,latXoq** (a23);arpo06oS (395b28); &~evbeda
(397al1); dKardX\rT]Xos* (b31); aaelaVoS* (398b4);dK&)ot~UT
(401b10); ara7ro?bpaorTo* (401b13).(iv) Words used technically in
post-Aristotelian philosophy: vOrooraoti* (395a30);arrTraXtc*
(396a9); arroreXelaja* (397a14); oVVrKTLKOS b9; cf. Reale p. 246
n.4).(v) Other notabilia: &vrapKrtKo*(392a4; cf. Reale, p. 206
n. 17); 7yeally (392a9;a22; 393a5; b2; b11; 394b21; 395a5; cf.
Bonitz, Index Aristotelicus, 147a44-8;Denniston, Greek Particles,
p. 347: 'This combination affords a remarkable ex-ample of a
particular author's predilection for a particular particle; etc.')
r&aoXa(392b3; 395a31; b4; b9; cf. Reale, p. 231 n. 55);
76co7pa0cko* (393b20; cf. Reale,p. 219 n. 29); 7pa,Laloeitcb*
(395a27); ad?tet (396b9; 398bl4; 400bl3; cf.Lorimer, The Text
Tradition of Pseudo-Aristotle 'De Mundo', p. 1 n. 2);)kepovtlV,CS*
(399al9); &pX~Eyovoq*a26); 0 7evvafq IlXdrco(v 401b24).
This collection of words is not the fruit of prolonged
scholarship; nor are allthe singularities in it surprising: some
were perhaps consciously adopted fromPlato (e.g. ijLatra7y7q.94a26
~ Tim.59 E; bvoa0rcaavptoroq:01a5 ~ Critias115 B); a few poetical
items were chosen for literary ends (e.g. ecKatOtptco.397627 ~ cf.
E. I.T. 978'; Ka#TartTp6.:00b9 ~ cf. h.Ven. 246); a few are
tech-nical terms whose absence from the rest of the corpus need
raise no eyebrows
-
8/6/2019 Barnes - Review de Mundo Reale
5/5
THE CLASSICAL REVIEWHE CLASSICAL REVIEW 433(e.g. E7Kor6o}:
393a23; oaTr]pia: 398bl5). But such excuses leave most ofthe
singularities of vocabulary of the de Mundo untouched.The purpose
of my list, however, is not to compose a refutation of
Reale'sthesis: its aim is merely to indicate one part of the
evidence which any judge ofthat thesis must take into account.
Reale's defence of the de Mundo is only halfdone: he has shown, I
think, that the tract cannot be expropriated from Aristotleon
purely doctrinal grounds; but he has neither stated nor examined
the linguisticarguments for expropriation. And those arguments, I
venture to predict, willprove difficult to
overturn.OrielCollege,Oxford JONATHAN ARNES
HOMOCENTRIC SPHERESERKKAMAULA:Studies in Eudoxus' Homocentric
Spheres. (Commen-tationes Humanarum Litterarum, 50.) Pp. 124.
Helsinki: SocietasScientiarum Fennica, 1974. Paper, FM. 25.It is
well known that Plato set before the mathematicians of the Academy
theproblem of explaining the apparent motion of the heavenly
bodies-'saving thephenomena'-on the assumption that all movements
were uniform and circular.It is also well known that Eudoxus in a
lost work entitled riepi raXchvgave abrilliant solution of this
problem by means of homocentric spheres. The moon,sun, and five
planets (Venus, Mercury, Mars,Jupiter, Saturn) were all supposedto
move round a stationary earth. For the moon Eudoxus postulates
three spheres.The moon was supposed to be at an extremity of an
equatorial diameter of theinnermost sphere, which moved uniformly
about its centre, which was also thecentre of the earth. But the
poles of this innermost sphere were not at rest; theywere on the
surface of a larger sphere, concentric with the first, which
revolvedwith uniform speed about poles of its own. These poles of
the second sphere werethemselves on the surface of a third
outermost sphere which turned about itsown poles with its own
speed. For the sun likewise Eudoxus postulated threeconcentric
spheres, but for each of the five planets he required four
concentricspheres, the planet being regarded as at the end of an
equatorial diameter of theinnermost. A final enveloping sphere
carried the fixed stars and by its uniformrotation accounted for
the apparent daily motion. There were thus twenty-sevenspheres in
all.For moon, sun, and planets the first (outermost) sphere
produced the apparentdaily movement in the heavens and the second
the apparent annual movementalong the zodiac. The crown of Eudoxus'
achievement was to show that, if thethird and fourth spheres alone
are considered, the path of the planet is like afigure of eight, a
curve which he called a hippopede (horse-fetter) and which weshould
call a lemniscate described on a sphere. In this way he was able to
accountfor the stationary points and retrograde motion of the
planets.Few quantitative details are given by Aristotle and
Simplicius in their accountof the system, and in this monograph a
Finnish scholar, Dr. Erkka Maula, makesit his business to see if
such details can be found. His starting point is that it
ispermissible to use the numerical data for the construction of the
World Soul inPlato's Timaeus as evidence for Eudoxus' system. The
Timaeus is undoubtedly
(e.g. E7Kor6o}: 393a23; oaTr]pia: 398bl5). But such excuses
leave most ofthe singularities of vocabulary of the de Mundo
untouched.The purpose of my list, however, is not to compose a
refutation of Reale'sthesis: its aim is merely to indicate one part
of the evidence which any judge ofthat thesis must take into
account. Reale's defence of the de Mundo is only halfdone: he has
shown, I think, that the tract cannot be expropriated from
Aristotleon purely doctrinal grounds; but he has neither stated nor
examined the linguisticarguments for expropriation. And those
arguments, I venture to predict, willprove difficult to
overturn.OrielCollege,Oxford JONATHAN ARNES
HOMOCENTRIC SPHERESERKKAMAULA:Studies in Eudoxus' Homocentric
Spheres. (Commen-tationes Humanarum Litterarum, 50.) Pp. 124.
Helsinki: SocietasScientiarum Fennica, 1974. Paper, FM. 25.It is
well known that Plato set before the mathematicians of the Academy
theproblem of explaining the apparent motion of the heavenly
bodies-'saving thephenomena'-on the assumption that all movements
were uniform and circular.It is also well known that Eudoxus in a
lost work entitled riepi raXchvgave abrilliant solution of this
problem by means of homocentric spheres. The moon,sun, and five
planets (Venus, Mercury, Mars,Jupiter, Saturn) were all supposedto
move round a stationary earth. For the moon Eudoxus postulates
three spheres.The moon was supposed to be at an extremity of an
equatorial diameter of theinnermost sphere, which moved uniformly
about its centre, which was also thecentre of the earth. But the
poles of this innermost sphere were not at rest; theywere on the
surface of a larger sphere, concentric with the first, which
revolvedwith uniform speed about poles of its own. These poles of
the second sphere werethemselves on the surface of a third
outermost sphere which turned about itsown poles with its own
speed. For the sun likewise Eudoxus postulated threeconcentric
spheres, but for each of the five planets he required four
concentricspheres, the planet being regarded as at the end of an
equatorial diameter of theinnermost. A final enveloping sphere
carried the fixed stars and by its uniformrotation accounted for
the apparent daily motion. There were thus twenty-sevenspheres in
all.For moon, sun, and planets the first (outermost) sphere
produced the apparentdaily movement in the heavens and the second
the apparent annual movementalong the zodiac. The crown of Eudoxus'
achievement was to show that, if thethird and fourth spheres alone
are considered, the path of the planet is like afigure of eight, a
curve which he called a hippopede (horse-fetter) and which weshould
call a lemniscate described on a sphere. In this way he was able to
accountfor the stationary points and retrograde motion of the
planets.Few quantitative details are given by Aristotle and
Simplicius in their accountof the system, and in this monograph a
Finnish scholar, Dr. Erkka Maula, makesit his business to see if
such details can be found. His starting point is that it
ispermissible to use the numerical data for the construction of the
World Soul inPlato's Timaeus as evidence for Eudoxus' system. The
Timaeus is undoubtedly
