8/3/2019 The Aristotelian Ethics a Study of The Relationship Between the Eudemian and NicomacheanEthics of Aristotle

1/3

Mind Association

The Aristotelian Ethics: A Study of the Relationship between the Eudemian and NicomacheanEthics of Aristotle. by Anthony KennyReview by: A. R. LaceyMind, New Series, Vol. 89, No. 354 (Apr., 1980), pp. 287-288

Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the Mind AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2253180 .

Accessed: 04/01/2012 12:35

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.

Oxford University Press andMind Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access toMind.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2253180?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2253180?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mindhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

8/3/2019 The Aristotelian Ethics a Study of The Relationship Between the Eudemian and NicomacheanEthics of Aristotle

2/3

BOOK REVIEWS 287TheAristotelianthics:A study fthe elationshipetweenheEudemiannd Nicomacheanthics fAristotle.y ANTHONY KENNY.Oxford: ClarendonPress, I978. Pp. xi + 250. ?8.50.

It is many ecades inceLewisCampbellndLutoslawskiut Platonicstudies n theirtylometriceet ndproduced rough onsensus ntheauthenticitynd dating fmostofthedialogues. espitethework fJaeger o such consensus xists verAristotle. partial emedy orthis n onesphere, thics,s whatKenny etsouttocontribute.houghhe mentions previous tylometricnterprisevera centurygo byR. Eucken who broughtvidence gainstKenny'smainconclusion,accordingo Ross Aristotle,. I5)), thepresent ork s incomparablymorepowerful,rmedwith hepanoply fmodern tatisticsndcom-puters.His mainconclusioneems o me to be proved boutas con-clusivelys anythingould e nthis rea. t s apityhe ook sdisfiguredbya fairnumberfmisprints,speciallynGreek uotations;most fthese reharmless,hough hetoptwo Bekker eferencesn page 67are mportantlyisprinted.pot-checksn thetables eveal numberofminorrrors.His mainconclusions that he books ommon o theNicomacheans(NE) andEudemiansEE) belong olely o EE. (He confusinglyefersto thesebooks as 'AE', for Aristotelianthics'; am noteven surewhether istitle eferso them r to thewhole thical orpus.Whynot'ABC', combiningissymbolsor hethree omponentooks?n anycase hissubtitles, on his ownshowingp. 238),onlypartly ccurate,though e nsists emust utAE in tsplacebefore ating E and EE(pp. 4,50).)Subsidiaryonclusionsre thatAE is a unity, ot a patch-work; hat E islater hanNE (thoughoth regenuine)ndrepresentsAristotlen fullmaturity;hat hetwopleasure reatmentsreindeeddoubletspace Owen),butgivedifferentxpressiono a single octrine(that fAE; NE bringsnsupervenienceecauseactivities'herencludeimpededs wellas unimpedednes:p. 236,referringoGosling); hattheMagnaMoraliaarenotes n an orally eliveredE-writtenbyastudentompetentnough o add a historicalntroductionfhisown(p. 225),though otenougho avoid a constantotchingfthedetails'ofthe rgumentp. 2I9). I amnot learwhy student ho followsheEE slavishly'p. 220) shouldchange heexamples nd add hisownintroduction,rwhyhis botched'work chieved ublication; ennycompares he-presumablynbotched-reconstructionsfWittgenstein(butunpublished ittgenstein)yMoore ndBarrettp. 200,n. 2).The arguments in three arts, istorical,tylometrical,ndphilo-sophical.The historical iscussionmainly imsto showthatEE wasuniversallyegardeds themainAristotelianreatise ntilAspasiusreversedheposition,pparentlyecause he itle uggestedo him hatEE belongedo Eudemusthough ot, pparently,hatNE belongedoNicomachus: . 32). Aspasius,Kenny hinks, egarded E as partofEE, but ncorporatedcommentaryn t ntohiscommentaryn NE tofill gap,and itmayverywell havebeen' thisthat inauguratedhe

8/3/2019 The Aristotelian Ethics a Study of The Relationship Between the Eudemian and NicomacheanEthics of Aristotle

3/3

288 BOOK REVIEWStradition' fcountingAE withNE (p. 36). Later (pp. 51-52) hemodifiesthis by suggestingAspasius' NE mayhave contained n earlierversionof AE. This would leave AE itselfwithEE, but deprivehim of hisexplanation f its transfer.n making ense of the ancient ists he usessome ingenious suggestionsabout the cataloguinghabits of ancientlibrarians pp. 39-46).The stylometric ase forms he central core of the book. Assumingthetechnical tuffs all right on whichI cannotcomment, hough tisreasonably ully xplained), he evidence seemsoverwhelming;muchofthe statistically on-significantmaterial seems to point in the samedirection, nd may have, I suppose, some cumulativeweight.As headmits p. 89),themost his vidence an do isexclude hance sgoverningthe differences etween AE and NE. Conscious stylisticdecisions,revisions, nd polishings, re all left n thefield. But his claim that themosteconomicalhypothesiss toput AE togetherwithEE is fair nough,and he buttresses t with the historical nd philosophicalarguments.One methodologicalpoint arises. Since forhis main case 'it is moreimportantnot to discover maginary tylistic ifferences han it is tobe sure of discovering ll genuineones' (p. 88) he uses the i per centrather han the 5 per centsignificanceevel-but he continuesusing itwhenarguing hatAE is homogeneous nd not a patchwork,where t isnotso appropriatepp. 95, I05-Io6; p. I27 is better).Far morecontroversy,imagine,willsurround hephilosophical laimsof the laterchapters.A generalpoint s thatone has to be careful boutresemblances. hey may be so close as to provenot common originbutduplication, nd so different rigin, pointhe notes at page i82 butperhapsforgetst pages I8o (bottom) nd I89 (top). In a wayhis claimsbalanceeach other.For ifone holdsboththatAE belongswithEE, andthatEE is laterthan NE, then AE, at least, is saved fromthe Nico-macheanwreckagefor the matureAristotle.Apart from the pleasurequestion,mentioned bove (wherestrangely e onlygrudginglymakesa brief tylometricomparison: p. 233, n. 2), interest aturally entreson happiness, nd the ideals of the lastbooks ofEE and NE. NE has a'dominant' conception he rejectsAckrill t pp. 204-205), applying o aseparablenous,while EE has an 'inclusive'conception,wherein heroleof the contemplation nd service of God is to settle what particularbehaviour n concretecircumstancesountsas virtuous iving' (p. 208;cf.pp. I76-I77); he does not discuss the date ofthe De Animain con-nectionwiththis.This 'inclusive' and 'this-worldly'nterpretationfEE(P. 176 seems to soft-pedal E's penultimate entence, ellingus torejectas faras possible theirrational artofthe soul) is supported,he insists,by AE (especially Ii44a3-6-misprinted as 1143), where sophia oddlytranslatedlearning':whynot understanding', ith insight' r intuition'fornous?) s onlya partofvirtue ntire pp. 209-2II).BEDFORD COLLEGE, LONDON A. R. LACEY