BOS Notes on the de Mundo

Supplementary Notes on the 'De mundo'Author(s): A. P. BosReviewed work(s):Source: Hermes, 119. Bd., H. 3 (1991), pp. 312-332Published by: Franz Steiner VerlagStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4476828 .Accessed: 17/11/2011 06:20

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Franz Steiner Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Hermes.

http://www.jstor.org

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON THE 'DE MUNDO'

G. REALE'S monograph' has revived the discussion on the treatise 'De mundo', traditionally attributed to Aristotle but generally considered a pseudepigraphic work. Many reviewers have rejected REALE'S thesis that the writing is an introduc- tion to Aristotle's philosophy written by Aristotle himself in the period before the accession of Alexander of Macedonia. But there has been a positive reception for his arguments against the notion that the 'De mundo' is post-Aristotelian or non- Aristotelian. Various readers have agreed with his view that it is not the author of the 'De mundo' who cites the Stoic Chrysippus, but that instead Chrysippus has drawn on the 'De mundo'2. This does mean that the terminus ante quem has to be moved up to about 250 before Christ.

While preparing a Dutch translation of the writing, I have found that various aspects remain insufficiently clarified, in spite of intensive commentary on the work during the past century. It appears that a correct explanation often confirms the Aristotelian character of the work.

1 G. REALE, Aristotele, Trattato sul cosmo per Alessandro, trad. con testo Greco, introd., comm. e indici (Naples 1974). This work and the works listed below will be referred to by the author's name, with page numbers where necessary. E. S. FORSTER, The Works of Aristotle transl. into English under the Editorship of W. D. Ross, vol. III (Oxford 1931) - FORSTER'S translation of the 'De mundo' dates from 1913. P. GOHLKE, Aristoteles an Konig Alexander uber die Welt (Paderborn 1949; 31968). J. TRICOT, Aristote, Trait6 du Ciel suivi du Traite pseudo- aristotelicien Du Monde (Paris 1949). D. J. FURLEY, Aristotle, On Sophistical Refutations, On Coming-to-be and Passing-away, transl. by E. S. FORSTER; On the Cosmos, transl. by D. J. FURLEY (London 1955; repr. 1965). H. STROHM, Aristoteles, Meteorologie, Uber die Welt (Ber- lin-Darmstadt 1970). J. BARNES, The complete works of Aristotle, The revised Oxford transla- tion, ed. by. J. BARNES (Princeton 1984; 21985). This edition uses E. S. FORSTER'S 1913 transla- tion, but with corrections. P. MORAUX, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, vol I. Der Aristotelismus im I und II Jhd. n. Chr. (Berlin 1984) 5-82. H. B. GoTr- SCHALK, 'Aristotelian philosophy in the Roman world from the time of Cicero to the end of the second century' in: Aufstieg und Niedergang der Romischen Welt (ANRW), vol. 36.2 (Berlin 1987) 1079-1174, esp. 1132-1139.

2 Cf. J. BARNES, Cl. Rev. 27 (1977) 41; M. MIGLIORI, Riv. di filos. Neo-scol. 69 (1977) 367. A. PREUS, J. H. Ph. 14 (1976) 79 also accepts a dating of the 'De mundo' to the 4th or beginning of the 3rd century. G. L. KONIARIS Am. J. Philol. 98 (1977) 184 accepts a date in the 3rd century BC. But P. MORAUX, 79, n. 263 keeps to the view that the 'De mundo' has rewritten a Stoic handbook along Aristotelian lines.

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 313

The title

In most manuscripts the title of the work is given as rfIQi ToIv X6oio'U. Some- times 'To Alexander' or 'To Alexander the king' is added. The Armenian tradition and Stobaeus mention a 'Letter to Alexander'. But in none of the ancient lists of Aristotle's work do we find mention of a treatise 'On the cosmos'. This has often been considered an important argument against the work's authenticity3.

It has been established, however, that these bibliographical lists were consider- ably corrupted in the course of their tradition4. The absence of a certain title by no means guarantees the non-authenticity of the work in question. On the other hand the catalogues do mention scrolls of writings addressed by Aristotle to Alexander. Diogenes Laertius mentions IlQos 'AXFtavbQov EtoxoXcT a'5. Although the 'De mundo' is not in the actual form of a letter, since it lacks a sender and personal greeting, it may well have been included by a librarian in a collection of 'Letters to Alexander'. The letters of Epicurus to Herodotus, Pythocles, and Menoiceus6 are strictly comparable in terms of form and content.

But there is another aspect to the title of the 'De mundo'. In effect it only covers the content of chapters 2 to 5. Chapter 1, on the other hand, does not deal with the cosmos but with the value of philosophy. And chapters 6 and 7 are about the God who transcends the cosmos and about the names of God. If xoji[og is understood in its most common sense, as in the first definition of chapter 2 (391b9-10), the title 'On the cosmos' properly covers only half of the treatise. If x6o[tog is understood in the very special sense given in the second definition (c. 2, 391blO-12), the title 'On the cosmos' can be considered appropriate. But one wonders about the suitability of a title which would probably raise wrong expectations about the content of the work for those unacquainted with it.

There is another, final consideration. Greek writings are often cited with refer- ence to a keyword from one of the first lines. For this reason authors often gave a programmatic meaning to the initial sentences of their work7. Now the central topic in the first sentence of the 'De mundo' is not 'cosmos' but 'philosophy'. The entire first chapter is devoted to the high value and importance of philosophy. And besides 391a2 the term philosophy also occurs in 391all and 391b6. The rest of the

3 Cf. Rassegna di letteratura Tomistica 9 (1974) 136; E. BERTI, Bolettino filos, 9 (1975) 101-2; S. BYL, Ant. Class. 45 (1976) 250; C. VANSTEENKISTE, Angelicum 53 (1976) 429; P. Louis, Rev. de philol. 51 (1977) 119; P. MoRAux, p. 5 n. 1.

4 Cf. P. MoRAux, Les listes anciennes des ouvrages d' Aristote (Louvain 1951) 185 ff. 5 Diog. La. 5. 27. 6 Diog. La. 10. 35ff. Cf. Epicurus, The extant remains, ed. by C. BAILEY (Oxford 1926)

19-93. 7 Cf. E. NACHMANSON, Der Griechische Buchtitel. Einige Beobachtungen (Goteborg 1941;

repr. Darmstadt 1969) 37; 50. P. MORAUX, Les listes anciennes 7 (n. 17). E. SCHMALZRIEDT, Peri physeos; zur Fruhgeschichte der Buchtitel (Munich 1970) 32.

314 A.P.Bos

work exemplifies a comprehensive philosophy in its X?yELv and f?oXoy?tv about the cosmos (391b3-4). Pseudo-Justin can therefore rightly say that 'Aristotle in his discourse addressed to Alexander the Macedonian gives a kind of concise sum- mary of his own philosophy8. Now we know both from the ancient lists and from quotations by ancient authors that Aristotle wrote a work 'On philosophy' in several books9. We therefore have to consider the possibility that the 'De mundo' was intended by its author, either Aristotle or a deliberate imitator, as a concise summary of the larger work 'On philosophy', which was probably a standard work with regard to Aristotle's views. In the bibliographical catalogues it may have been classified with the collection of writings addressed to Alexander. In a subsequent period the title 'On the cosmos' may have gained currency for purposes of citation, in order to avoid identification with the larger work 'On philosophy'. We can also consider that the dedication of the 'De mundo' to the Macedonian Alexander may have influenced the fate of the treatise. It is well-known that Aristotle was obliged to leave Athens in 347 and 323 on account of his close connections with the Macedonian court.

C.1, 391b5-8: nEQ?6?LV _v& yF o0raL xai 0o0, OVTL 13y?iVWV tQ., xiV xbv "iYLUTCOV LOTOQLcLV RETLEVQL, WLXo0owL l? RLV pXQOV sELVO?Lv, aXXa tot; TOLO1)T01 )OQOLg 68EuOVcktaL TO'; &aQUTOUg.

Modern authors disagree as to whether 'Alexander' or 'philosophy' is the sub- ject of 6t LVodV. J. TRICOT translates: >>Et je pense qu' il est du moins convenable pour toi aussi, toi le plus noble des princes, de t' engager dans la connaissance des realites les plus hautes, et, en Philosophie, de n' appliquer ta reflexion a rien de vil, mais d' enricher de tels dons les grands de ton entourage

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 315

Platonic ideal of the philosopher-king. Far from being necessary for the king, philosophizing would be an outright impediment. The main thing was for the king to be in touch with people who really practised philosophy and to heed their advice10.

This passage in the 'De mundo' is to be understood in the light of this informa- tion. Therefore xacL CoLo should be seen as referring back to 391al, where it is said: 7EoXXcXLg [tv E'o`y8 [ i?tdv TL xca baL[OvLov OvTwg XQr[a ... i1 (pLXo0ooqAa EbotEv ELvat. Following on, the author observes that it is also fitting for Alexander, the statesman and non-philosopher, not to become a philosopher but to pursue know- ledge of the insights of philosophers and treat philosophy with respect.

Next it needs to be seen that the author contrasts Alexander, as the hyeut6vwv cQioTog, with the tot; TOolwoTOL &WQot; ... ai oTOiU, that is to say, with 'those who excel through the gifts of philosophy' (only P. GOHLKE has this: >>die in solchem Bereich ihr Bestes hergebenI think that it is also fitting for you, most excellent of world leaders, to pursue knowledge of the most important things and in no way to think little of philosophy, but to welcome generously those who excel through the gifts of philosophy

316 A. P. Bos

cerned with a second definition (in c.4 of the word nvei3[a), but not with just any other definition. In both places the second definition is related to the first accord- ing to the difference which was indicated in c.1, 391b3-4 by the words XeZyCOREv ... xaL -EokoyoFv and wich determines the structure of the entire 'De mundo'. The difference is one of perspective: the first is the immanental perspective, where the reality that surrounds us is regarded from the point of view of common human experience. The second perspective is the perspective 'from a God's eye point of view', the transcendental perspective which presupposes that the soul, guided by the intellect, has 'crossed over' (cf. c. 1, 391all-12) and contemplates reality 'from the outside'. It is the difference in level which the Aristotelian Corpus distinguishes between physics and 'first philosophy'.

C.2, 391b26: iqv TLVEg x"ovz xaXoivoL. Various modern authors have seen the occurrence of the term &iuova as indica-

ting a post-Aristotelian date of the work. Cf. H. STROHM: D. J. FURLEY. But see G. REALE and A. P. Bos, Philosophical Inquiry 1 (1979) 141-2. It is worth mentio- ning that manuscript F reads &attauav here instead of &aeova. But it seems improba- ble that the line which connects the celestial poles would be referred to as a kind of 'waggon box' or 'chassis', the weels of which were identified with the poles. How- ever, from the time of Homer (1 487: E 273), the constellation 'the Bear' ( "AQxTo;) also bore the name

`A[tcLa. And a well-known device for locating the Pole Star is to extend upwards the line which connects the last two stars of the Wagon.

In addition it is useful to remember that Plato, Rep. 10, 616c4 in 'the myth of Er' talks about the aTQaxTog of Necessity, which there also symbolizes the celestial axis.

Aristotle, De motu an. 3, 699a28 mentions that some have interpreted the mythical figure of Atlas as symbolizing the 'diameter' of the celestial globe (cf. De Caelo 2.1, 284a19).

C.2, 392al3-16: TLL b, JTXCTt oVTCL, . EV . TEQOLv MIL xcT VEQOLg XVXOL, 6Tte c1UVT?OV TxO RV 'QOYEL6EQOV dvc, to b &v6exov.

D. J. FURLEY translates here: >>The others, the planets, move, .. each in a different circle, in such a way that one is nearer the earth, another higher in the heavenswahrend die andern als Wandelsterne . . auf immer wieder anderen Kreisbahnen laufen?.

In fact we have to conclude that in this passage the author wants to explain why the planets are called 'wandering stars', namely because they do not make perfect

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 317

orbits, but have so-called retrograde motions, which cause a kind of loop in their orbits. As a result the position of each planet sometimes seem higher and someti- mes lower. The actual orbits of the planets were regarded by astronomers like Eudoxus and Callippus as the resultant of a combination of circular motions. This passage in the 'De mundo', therefore, briefly touches on a phenomenon referred to in De caelo 2. 14, 296a35 and dealt with in Metaphysics 12. 8.

In fact we should translate: 'but each of them moves in constantly changing orbits, of which one part is closer to the earth and the other part is higher up'. In this light 392a19 ei T ta-Q ?q XecpacXaolV[EVOV is not as strange as many scholars have thought. The author of the 'De mundo' is saying that even if one needs 33 or 47 or 55 circles to describe the motions of the planets, yet seven 'main orbits' are recognizable in these circles. So MoRAux is wrong in claiming >>daB der Anony- mus die aristotelische Lehre der einzelnen Beweger der Planeten uiberhaupt nicht berdcksichtigt

318 A. P. Bos

We also find the 'light names' of the planets mentioned in Cicero, N. D. 2. 20, 52-53; Philo of Alexandria, Cher. 22; Decal. 54; Quis heres 224; In Exod. 75; Ps. Plutarch, Placita 2. 15; Plutarch, De facie in orbe lunae 925a; 941c. In the 'Som- nium Scipionis' which concludes Cicero's 'Republic', Scipio Africanus Minor con- templates the orbits of the planets from heavenly heights. He is told that 'people on earth' call them 'star of Saturn' and 'star of Jupiter' etc. (6. 4.17). In the concluding myth of the 'De facie', Plutarch mentions the planet Saturn and continues: 'which we call Phainon, but which they (sc. the inhabitants of the great Continent, who possess a much more comprehensive knowledge than common mortals) call >>Nightwatchman?' (941c). On the basis of this we might hypothesize that the phenomenon of the 'double name' is related to a difference in perspective and difference in level of knowledge. We can link up here with Homer, who frequently contrasts the name which the gods give to something and its name in human language (A 403; B 813-814; E 291; Y 74; x 305; [t 61). Plato played with the same motif; cf. Phaedrus 244c; 252b.

Now the 'De mundo' is a work in which this kind of difference in perspective plays a structural, systematic role, that is, the earthly, immanental perspective opposite the theological, transcendental perspective (cf. c.1, 391b3-4; c.2. 391b9-13 and the opposition between c. 2-5 and c.6-7). This opposition governing the 'De mundo' is entirely in agreement with Aristotle's distinction between phy- sics and 'first philosophy'. Hence I believe that the 'light names' of the planets were introduced by Aristotle, for instance in his dialogue the 'Eudemus or On the Soul', in which he undoubtedly outlined a 'transcendental perspective' too. In this dialo- gue he may have linked the 'divine names' of the planets to the limited, earthly perspective and may have introduced the new 'light names' of the planets as names used by those who had reached a superior knowledge of the nature and divinity of the planets, and of their dependence on a higher source of power and light.

C.2, 392a30. The words Tr'v Trfg XLVi?GEWC T&tLv are usually interpreted as 'the order of their movement', namely of all heavenly bodies. Thus P. GOHLKE; J. TRICOT; D. J. FURLEY; H. STROHM; G. REALE. But the word Ta'Lg can also mean 'level', 'category', 'branch' in Aristotle. It is used in this sense in c.6, 399b7. Cf. Politics 1.2, 1252b6; Magna Moralia 1.33, 1194b15; 34, 1198a27; 2. 1183b35. If we translate these words by 'and the order of being of movement', duplication with 392a31-32 is avoided and the realm of Nature is identified, in typical Aristotelian fashion, with the realm of movement, in contrast to the transcendent order of being. Addition: Otherwise we might, with prof. D. HOLWERDA of Groningen university, consider to change the preceding xac into xcTca (personal letter, June 20, 1990).

C.2, 392a31: MET& bE TIV aLU&EQL0V XCiL ftEUXV cVolV, )VTLVa TETGay[tEvr,v QT0o- CpCLvo01cv, ETL b8 aTQEzTTOV XaCL XVETEQOLOTOV XaiL CJrTcdh, . ..

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 319

Presumably under the influence of the standard interpretation of the preceding phrase T1v Tig XLV'COEWg tttv (see above), J. Tricot, D. J. FURLEY, G. REALE translate &nocpaNvoRv as: 'have argued' ('as we have declared'). But it cannot be said that the author has just argued that the ether is without change of identity, condition, or quality. One cannot even say that it has been argued that order reigns in the ether. In accordance with the programme expressed in the double definition of xoiio; in c.2, 391b9-12, the order in the celestial spheres and the cause of this order are not discussed until c.6, 397b27-32 and 400a19-20. Therefore the present tense of a3nowa;Lvo[iEv has to be maintained and taken as a brief reference to the views held in Aristotle's philosophy. Cf. P. GoHLKE: ?nach unserer LehreDer haufige Gebrauch der ersten Person Plural ... darf nicht als Bekenntnis zu einer Schule gegen andere gedeutet werden. Der Verfasser meint einfach: Wir, die Fachleute .. .>Das Hyrkani- sche Meer kann eigentlich nur die Ostsee sein

320 A. P. Bos

is hesitant. He thinks that '"Xcaocav is easier to understand than yiv'. He does admit that this puts a somewhat strange meaning on O'Qfov. >>But the author is running short of synonyms for ?forming? seasJenseits davon aber nimmt er den weiten Raum nordlich des Maotissumpfes ein?. G. REALE: >>Al di la di questa esso occupa poi il profondo spazio situato al di sopra della palude Meotida?. J. BARNES'S revision of E. S. FORSTER'S text: >>Beyond that it occupies the deep beyond the Lake of Maeotis

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 321

Asia lies between the area above the Sea of Azov and the area above Caspia, or east of the area above Caspia. I think, therefore, that the reading I3cad in T has to be accepted and that EXFt has to be understood as 'borders on', or emended to awvexc, as a variant of the auvexF;g FGTLV frequently used in the 'De mundo'. Cf. De lin. insec. 970b28 oavevouiCv yeaRtCov. Our translation of the passage con- cerned would thus be: >>Flowing through a very narrow and very long strait at the other end, it broadens out again and thus marks off the Hyrcanian and Caspian land. The vast area north of this borders on the area north of the Lake of Maeotis

322 A. P. Bos

and permeating all things'. In the second place 6La tavtwv has then to be interpre- ted as 'permeating the entire cosmos', that is to say, not just the sublunary but also all the supralunary spheres, consisting of ether according to the 'De mundo'. That would imply that all the divine celestial beings, although their bodies are said to be made of the fifth element, are permeated by a vital substance called ruvF-iLa. In that case, however, this 'all-pervasive vital substance' would be identical with the 'force that permeates the entire cosmos', which is mentioned in c.6, 398b8 and forms one of the main subjects of discussion in chapter 6 (Cf. also c.5, 396b28).

However, it seems out of the question that vv~v in 394bll could mean 'here in chapter 4' and that the author could be saying: 'which we must not discuss here but in chapter 6'. Moreover, with a doctrine of JvETVLc which permeates the ether, the author of the 'De mundo' would be presenting a theory which cannot be linked up with anything we know about Aristotle. So we have to conclude that the doctrine of God's 5VcVijL which permeates the entire cosmos differs fundamentally from what is referred to here and that chapter 4 cannot be talking about a nvFiiuLa which pervades the entire universe. The only remaining possibility is that nvEv[ta is considered the vital substance in everything that lives and is animated in the sublunary sphere, i.e. in the cpvTa' and 4Cpa. But that compels us to conclude that bLa navTWv must refer to the totality of the physical constitution of these plants and animals. That, finally, leads to the conclusion that the text should be emended by adding (ovoa) after 4COL;, as D. HOLWERDA kindly suggested to me (by letter of Jube 9, 1990).

In that case we have to do with a theory that seems Aristotelian, to the extent that Aristotle too regards plants as 'animated' and also has a doctrine of itvE8[La in the sense that all living and procreating things possess an 'innate nveF4ta'13. But it is also true that Aristotle does not talk about nvED[ta as an E"[tvXog oviu(a anywhere else.

In any case I think that this passage is crucial for interpreting the author's views in the 'De mundo'. The text recalls the passage in c.2, 391blO, where a second definition of xo'utog is given. It was clear there that the author was not giving just any other current, familiar definition, but that his second definition assigns a qualitatively new meaning to xo;aoo, corresponding to a different, more compre- hensive perspective, namely one in which the relationship of the cosmos to God comes into view. The words used here in 394b9 suggest that the author believes that a fundamentally different discussion of nvEv[4a is possible besides the purely physical, meteorological discussion that follows. Something like this is also found in Gen. anim. 2. 3, 736b29 ff., where it is said that the capacity of each kind of soul

13 A nveiFi4a cn5iicPitov is spoken of in Motu anim. 10, 703a9 ff.; Part. anim. 3. 6, 669al; 668b35; Gener. anim. 2. 6, 744a3; 5. 4, 784b7. The notion of an F.qUto; ftFoQR6T1 can be found in Meteor. 2. 2, 355b9; Probl. 2. 27, 869all.

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 323

fteQOl mo4aTog oE6OLXE XEXOLVWV13XeVaL xaL tOLLOT8QO1U TOV xacXOVELV(OV o-Ol- xFLwv. Slightly further on we are told that this is to xaXoi[tcvov OFQROv, and that it makes the otQ[taTa of a living being yovtl,ca. Aristotle then goes on in 736b35: Tovto 6' ov1 nVJQ O1V6? TOLaVuT v bUvavof ECoTLV adkX T-O ? QLXa[Pavo6IuEVOV E'V TO OnEQRCtT xLaL V T(O aqlQo&6ELT nvdi[ta xaL I) EV TO jtvELutL cpioL, acvcaXoyov ouvxa Tn T4Ov a&oQwv oTOLxELt. In order to speak about the life of the living beings in the sublunary sphere, about their procreation, and about the preservation therein of the genus-form, it is necessary to speak about the theory of the vital nvei,4ta and about the soul.

The author does not consider this subject required for a discussion of the cosmos. But he does show decisively here that an all-round discussion of these matters finally leads to the field of 'first philosophy', where the divine is taken into view (cf. De anima 1.1, 403a28 and b16; Phys. 2. 2, 194bl3-15).

The remarkable thing about the treatise 'De mundo' is in fact that it smoothly links a doctrine of an u4VuXov 3TvFt[ta as principle of all sublunary life with a view of the human soul as not being necessarily dependent on the body but largely independent. For in c.1, 391a15 the author had already talked about the human intellect as the divine eye of the soul, under whose guidance the soul raises itself to knowledge of the heavens and even to knowledge of God himself. Although invisible, the soul is said in c.6, 399b14-15 to be the principle through which people live and inhabit houses and cities and practise culture. In c.5, 397al8-19 the author posits a close relationship between the soul and the life-breath, claiming that all living beings owe their life-breath and soul to the cosmos. Now the 'De mundo' is remarkable here in cutting across traditional views on Aristotle. After W. JAE- GER14 and F. NUIJENS15 it was long thought that Aristotle held a 'dualistic' psycho- logy in his first, Platonic period, in which the soul was granted independence and priority with regard to the body. In his later writings he was supposed to have developed a hylomorphistic conception. However, Ch. LEFPVRE16 was the first to show convincingly that it is impossible to distinguish different phases and concep- tions in Aristotle's psychology, since Aristotle more than once uses an 'instrumen- tistic' and a 'hylomorphistic' psychology in one and the same writing.

I think the 'De mundo' can help to do away with the old theory of phases, so that we no longer see the 'De anima' as being written to replace another (superseded)

14 W. JAEGER, Aristoteles, Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung (Berlin 1923). 15 F. J. C. J. NUIJENS, Ontwikkelingsmomenten in de zielkunde van Aristoteles; Een histo-

risch-philosophische studie (Nijmegen-Utrecht 1939): French edition: L'Efvolution de la psycho- logie d' Aristote (Louvain 1948). A. PREUS, in his review of G. REALE'S book, J. Hist. Philos. 14 (1976) 469 accepts such a development in Aristotle's psychology: >Aristotle accepted the ;tvEi4ca theory only after he had given up (if he had ever accepted) the Platonic dualism of soul and body utilized, or abused, in 'de Mundo' 1

324 A. P. Bos

work, the 'Eudemus or On the soul', but as a further elaboration of particularly the physiological side of psychology. The 'De mundo' can help us to accept that Aristotle saw the doctrine of the 4tVuXov nvri[a (also called E`[VT'ov 4F0Q6ov or UCUVVUoTV nVEvUta, cf. Motu anim. 10, 703a9; Meteor. 2. 2, 355b9), taken as an analogue of the celestial element (Gen. anim. 2.3, 736b37), as a way of bridging the gap between 'first philosophy' and physics. Through this doctrine of the nvEU[:a Aristotle was able to connect his physiology with his epistemology by regarding the

wvvf4ca as the bearer of the genus-form and the ether as the divine element and as the subject of the cognitive functions in their pure, 'liberated' state. Properties of the astral element are present in the nvrFia in a covert, disguised way, because that element, being celestial, does not belong in the sphere of mortality and trans- ience. The divine principle of all life can only occur in a mortal being in a denatured form. Nevertheless Aristotle has held on to the divine origin and potential of the human soul. This is attested by Cicero, who reports Aristotle as saying that the fifth element was the substance of both the stars and human souls (De philos. fr. 27 Ross). Furthermore, Aristotle had argued in the dialogue 'Eudemus' that the human soul, with its divine origin, was as ill-accommodated in a mortal body as a prisoner of Etrurian pirates, left trussed to a corpse (Aristotle, 'Protrepticus' fr. 10b Ross; B 106-7 DURING). And in his work 'De philosophia' Aristotle seems to have argued that at the approach of death or sometimes during sleep the soul acquires mantic powers, because it then regains its original nature (fr. 12a Ross).

The passage in 394b9-12, therefore, is very important for several reasons. In the first place we note that it cannot be regarded as Stoicizing, as some modern scholars, on the basis of prejudices, have done. Next, the combination of an apparently dualistic psychology with the doctrine of the life-giving wvof4a cannot be properly situated in any post-Aristotelian period; nor would one at all expect the combination in a writing that very deliberately imitates Aristotle's lost writings if this combination were not an accepted and so truly Aristotelian view in the lost works. This means, however, that the 'De mundo' compels a drastic revision of current views on Aristotle's psychology - so drastic that there is no longer any reason for regarding the 'De mundo' as unauthentic.

C.4, 394b19: xCi oL Ev adr.o vcLToXki; oUvErCEf EeUQOL %6x1]vTaL, . .. All translators except P. GOHLKE17 take oVvrXrT; in a temporal sense. Thus J.

BARNES translates: >>the winds which blow continuously from the rising sun are called Euri

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 325

But here, where the subject is merely the names of the winds (wind-directions), it is irrelevant whether a wind blows long from a certain direction. What is relevant is that we are first given a name of a wind quarter and next, from 394b21, three subdivisions per quarter. And the three subdivisions on the compass cover three adjoining segments of the circle. I therefore propose the following translation: >>The adjoining easterly winds (i.e. adjoining on the compass) are called Eurisustained?) chosen by all recent translators; a cloudburst is characterized not so much by its long duration as by the large quantity of water it sends down.

C.4, 395a31; xact' fr6o(TaoLv &e aXa EC xaL 6LQr-TovTOT xCL XO[tTaXL xctL T\ TOiiTOt; 3caQanXcuTIYLa.

In the text which W. L. LORIMER opts for it is unclear what phenomenon LaTovTeg refers to. C.2, 392b3 said oeXa bLQETT8L and in c.4, 395b4-9 it becomes

clear that comets are seen as meteors which do not shoot through space but are relatively fixed. So it seems natural that what is meant here is the contrast between 'shooting meteors and fixed meteors (i.e. comets)'. We therefore opt for the stronger manuscript tradition 8Lqttovtct and delete the first xaL.

C.5, 396b4-7: TO'UT' JV nOXLTLX1g OiovoLg To 1tah'UaGL(OTcaTOV ... To ... a7OTEXELv bLtacOlEV vU7O8E&XO[ELV1qV xta iVaV xaL cpiUiV XL TVXTV.

Elsewhere in the Aristotelian Corpus the verb '3to8EXEGtahL is only used in Pol. 5.3, 1303a36 in the sense of 'admitting' a foreign population group into a city, which leads to civil war. In the present passage most translators opt for the same sense: D. J. FURLEY: 'capable of admitting every variation of nature and degree'; J. BARNES: 'admitting every kind of nature and change'. Cf. also H. STROHM: >>der ein Fundament bietet fur jegliche Wesensart und jegliche Lebenslage>Aus dem Gesonderten und Verschiedenartigen, Luft Erde Feuer Wasser, hat sie das Weltganze erbaut; sie umschlieBt sie durch eine einzige Kugelschale, sie notigt ... .

326 A. P. Bos

GOHLKE, J. TRICOT, G. REALE, P. MoRAux, p. 25, J. BARNES. This interpreta- tion seems to have been induced by c.2, 392a18: (TOv C'MXcNvOv) Zti [Uct;g XLVO1U- JEvOv JULCpoVfCLcg TT]t TOtU GU[ttaVTog ovUQCvov.

However, neither of the two variants quoted makes it clear what the remark [LtLq ... E7tcpcCvEila adds by way of relevant information. Moreover, the verb used here is not nEQLXcC[fkxvco as in e.g. c.2, 392a22; c.3, 393a21 or ?VtngLEXw (c.2, 392a9; a21; a30) or tEQL?XW (c.3, 393al; c.6, 399a3) but bLakacp3avvw. The same verb occurs at two other places in the 'De mundo', in c.3, 393b4 and c.6, 398a29. In the latter passage the sense is clearly 'to divide'. But 393b4 too must mean that the Okeanos 'divides off' the Red Sea, in view of what Meteor. 2.1, 354a3 says about the narrow connection between the Red Sea and the Okeanos. And throughout the Corpus 8LUXLC34PLvo always has the meaning 'to separate', 'to distinguish', 'to divide' (cf. Eth. Eud. 7. 10, 1242b14; Oecon. 1.3, 1343b27; Pol. 7. 7, 1327b22; 12, 1331a20; 6. 5, 1320b8; Motu anim. 4, 705a31). In fact H. BONITZ only lists our passage in the Index Aristotelicus between parentheses and adds a query.

Now if one did not find bLacaut4avw in the sense of 'to separate', 'to divide' at two other places in the 'De mundo', one might regard a different use of the verb as an extra argument against the authenticity of the treatise. But that still leaves us with the problem of having to attribute a rather meaningless statement to the author of the 'De mundo'.

Things change drastically if we decide to take &LaXa4OtocLa here too in the sense of 'to separate', 'to divide', so that we translate: >>while it divided them by just one spherical surface

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 327

deliberately referring to the famous speech of Zeus to the other gods, in which the 'golden cord' (the XQuoaL' oCLQTQ) is mentioned, then we also realize that the divine b61vauLg is taken by the author of the 'De mundo' to be allegorically indicated in that text. 'The golden chain' is the bond which unites the heavenly bodies of c.2, 392a23-30 to each other and to their divine Source (cf. Eustathius. Il. 694,63 (= p. 514, 18-22 VAN DER VALK) and 695,10 (= p. 515, 9-12) and that is the reason why they are referred to there by the striking 'light names' Phainon, Phaethon, Pyroeis, Stilbon, and Phosphoros. To see this is to see much more significance in the fact that Aristotle in M.A. 4, 699b37 quotes lines 21-22 and 20 from the same passage of Iliad e in relation to his theology of the transcendent Unmoved Mover, and in the fact that Theophrastus, Metaph. 5b15 quotes e 24 in a critique of the theology of his teacher.

To my mind the quotations from Iliad e in the 'De mundo' prove the impor- tance of the 'golden chain' motif for Aristotle's theology. At the same time this reference to the motif is so casual and inconspicuous - it has not been picked up by earlier translators or commentators - that it is very unlikely to be the work of a conscious imitator of Aristotle.

The studies of A. 0. LOVEJOY, The Great Chain of Being (Harvard 1936) and L. EDELSTEIN, The golden chain or Homer in: G. BOAS (et al.), Studies in Intellec- tual History (New York 1953) 48-66 can therefore be supplemented by noting that the motif of Homer's 'golden chain' as an image for the hierarchy of Being was introduced in Aristotle's philosophy instead of much later in Neoplatonism or Middle Platonism.

C.6, 397b32: ouv Rdiv aekLa xaW?' O0ov E3it naV LLXVeLIktaL n&pVXc Tr6 f?EoV, xai E & TaXc' aft' ag 6[io(w P4aiVEL Tla Tm V JT'c[tag, XaT 6 eyoV TE xal nOQ(QWTEQO) f660V ElVaL [iXkkov TF xcd j'rTTov xpOEXELag RTCtraXa[4a'vov-cc. KQEtT- toV ovv tnokaXctv .v..

W. L. LORIMER has seriously impeded a correct interpretation by inserting a second preposition CnL before ra xacd' ' Rag in b33, a preposition which does not occur in any Greek manuscript. As a result, to fhliov is made the subject of (cr,u,l3tvas well as of tL rZatv 8LxvELofaL. This leads to extremely contrived translations of ovrujt(VEL: J. TRICOT: 'dans la mesure oiu la divinite pdnetre natu- rellement toute chose, les etres de notre terre subissent cette penetration ...'; H. STROHM: 'wirkt es auch bei uns gleichermaBen wie in der Region uber uns'.

D. J. Furley has rightly sensed that o1u4ta(VEV cannot function in this way and has rightly deleted the EtL added by LORIMER. His translation reads: 'even the things around us occur in the same way as the things above us . . .'. We also find ov1)YctiaVtv in this sense of 'to occur' in 399a25. FURLEY'S correction allows us to see that the author is saying this: although the divine power does not directly act on the sublunary, there is an indirect effect of the divine in the sublunary, inso- far as the phenomena in the sublunary sphere correspond to the movements of

328 A. P. Bos

the celestials in the heavenly regions (cf. c.4, 396a25-27; c.6, 398b8-10; 399a20-30). In Ps. Plutarch, Placita 2. 3 this is expressed by saying that (Tr rrE9LyELa) Trg ETCa;lCg xcTCr uV 40PX6; OVU ZeOriOV?"VWg [tETEXELV. In 397b29, therefore, aXQL TrOV xacu' fl'[Si; TO6TuV means >>'up to' our regions? and not >>'up to' and including our regions?.

Finally, we have to go even further in correcting the text as read by W. L. LORIMER. We have to make one continuous sentence of the two independent sentences in 397b32-398a6 by reading in 398al: [tETaXcC[tIVvovTa, XpcTTOV orv... In 397b30-32 the author has said that the earth and all that lives on it is weak, disharmonious, and full of confusion. It might be inferred from this that the earth is completely isolated from the divine. The author firmly denies this and specifies his position: >>Nevertheless, insofar as the divine by nature permeates all things, and (insofar as) things in our world occur according to what occurs in the (celestial) regions above us, in which all things more or less share in the help proceeding from God, according to whether it is closer to or remoter from God, it is better to assume, and also proper and most in accor- dance with God's nature, that the power which has its seat in heaven is the cause of preservation even for those things which are remotest from it ... . etc.

C.6, 398a9: ... xAL 'l T1 r cXOAT6QOV &ZOTXEiv F'YOV, 6 xav To TUV)OV vb6QWTobov 3TOLT1oYLEV, aXX' OlOV Un1 TOV ?tyXoV I3cClVg kYTOQCTaTL.

This text of W. L. LORIMER, which is followed by all modern editors and translators, deviates considerably from the manuscript tradition, which reads: 0 ?0Tl TOt' .wYCX0oU IaQLXCW; OVUX av To Tn)ov &vbQcUtobov nTOLYcLEV L XX' OLOV UTOQ?EtXL ... LORIMER's alterations have to be rejected for the reason that the prepostion E'n( plus genitive cannot mean: '(something is told) about the Persian king'. 'EnCi has to be taken temporally in the sense of 'in the days of the Persian king', as in 400a31 eat IftovTog. The author is saying here that it is improper to conceive God as carrying out every work himself, even inferior tasks which in the days of the Persian king not even any slave would have performed. The casual reference to the Persian king permits the author to dwell on the organization of the Persian empire with its extremely elaborate hierarchical structure. But in this description the author takes the view, which is also expressed in authenticated Aristotelian writings, that the subjects of the Persian king are all slaves, including the highest satraps, generals, and viceroys (cf. 398a30), and the king himself is their 6E_orunO'T (398a22). For the final part of the passage I am inclined to accept a suggestion made by D. HOL- WERDA (by letter of June 14, 1990), viz. to read: 'AkXotov LVTOQELTUL T'o Kcat- P3iThOV B.Quo0 TE xacL AaUEIoV eo'xr[tcc -- bl.. EEXEXocITlO, and to translate: 'Different, it is told, from that during the reign of Cambyses, the pomp of Xerxes and Darius was organized'. For this difference, see Herod., 3. 89 seqq..

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 329

C.6,398a13: avTo'g [?v yaQ . . . 't8QVTo ... ftahiaGTo'v iTEXwV Paz(X6Lov o?xov xaL nEQL'OXOV ...

In view of the fact that the author intends an analogy between the position of God vis-a-vis the cosmos and that of the king vis-a'-vis the Persian empire, we may assume that the n?Qp3okog of the royal palace corresponds to the outermost cele- stial sphere as the 'boundary' (cf. 400a7) between the cosmos and God. Arranged in a concentric circle around it were other nEQ?(3OXoL, with their cpivXaxEg (398a21). Herodotus 1. 98 reports that Ecbatana had seven walls, each with its own colour. One logically concludes that the author of the 'De mundo' also saw the seven spheres of Sun, Moon. and the five planets as so many stations on the road to the 'great king'. The royal palace was the place where the highways of the empire, the 'royal roads' - cf. Herodotus, 5. 53 and Aristotle, Oecon. 2. 2, 1348a24; 1352a24 and 'De mundo' 6, 398a30-35 - converged from all parts of the empire. When later Philo of Alexandria explains the 'king's highway' mentioned in Numbers 20:17 as the soul's ascent from the sphere of visible reality through the heavens to the transcendent God (cf. Deus 140; 144; 159; Gig. 64; Migr. 146; Spec. 4. 168), there is no mistaking the influence of the ontology and epistemology of the 'De mundo' or lost Aristotelian writings.

C.6, 398a2-3: ri ?v oiQavcp 6iUVa;Lg QLEV,? xci tots tXCEoToV CTEGFTlXOLV, (0) ?VL -YE EUTEV, Xat cnUtcoLV acLTLOg YLVETaL GTqQLag. ...

The text as read by W. L. LORIMER is not very satisfactory. In the manuscript tradition this is brought out by the variant ?vL in ETW. Thus P. GOHLKE and J. TRICOT read: 'la puissance qui est etablie dans le Ciel est la cause de la permanence des choses, meme pour celles qui en sont le plus eloignees (disons-le en un mot: pour toutes choses sans exception)'. But apart from the fact that the specification oGLTCLCOLV does not clearly reinforce xcd rot; T LuXETOoV &qpEcoTxoGLv, the place of xct too goes against this solution. D. J. FURLEY translates the text given by LORIMER: 'the power which is based on the heavens is also the cause of preserva- tion in the most remote things, as we may say, and indeed in everything, . . .'. But even then xcL in a4 remains a problem. WENDLAND and von WILAMOWITZ had in fact proposed to delete the xac. I think we should assume that the main sentence is: 1 ?V OiVQaVC bVVaU; IbQ itkVr xcd Tot; 3TXET0V aECTqaXo6Lv ... cLTLo; yiVETaL c(oT)nria; and that 4; ?VI ? ?tctv xcd OX4itWLV is parenthetic. And this paren- thetic clause would make most sense if it talked about the varying degrees in the effect of the divine power in relation to the susceptibility of the level of being in question (cf. for this idea Philo, Opif. 23). Perhaps one could think of something like: 4;g ?VL yI E ? VaL w[UTCEoLV.

C.6, 399b29: 'EoLxe & 6VwO;, EL xCa yLXQOTEQOV ruaQC4SaXEtv TIOV X&OdYV, Tot; oWFcaXoLf XEYo[EVOLg TOIO EV VaiXLtLV [XWtot;].

In this passage W. L. LORIMER has deleted the words Tov x6o0tov found in all

330 A. P. Bos

the manuscripts, and H. STROHM (p. 346) is obliged to him for this, since he thinks it logical that God and not the cosmos is compared to the keystones. Yet there is not enough basis for the correction. It is true that the comparison deals with the position of God in the world system, but the author can easily mention in passing that there is 'a world' of difference between the construction of an arched vault and the system of the cosmos. Perhaps we may prefer to read, with prof. D. HOL- WERDA: 'OEOLX & 6OVTOg, ci XaCi [IXQ0TE(OV, JTGEQcq3ctXEiv TIOV XOJRoV TOL; oaPCC- Xoi; XEyOp.EVOL TrO! ?V VaXLOLV [XL'0U;] and translate: 'It is indeed fitting, alt- hough a bit too low-key, to compare the cosmos to the so-called 'key-stones' of vaults...'

C.6, 400a15: o0vvFcTLwQUQ6 &6 xaCL o ILMo; (Tag, TrIv &vw x60Qav anobob fti- xac ya&Q 3avTTg acVfQfS3ToL aVaTELVO[V Tag XELQA5 6Z TO6v oQCaVOV ?x&ag MTLO'U[LEVOL.

The words o Jiog 'acna; are remarkable here. D. J. FURLEY translates: 'all ages'. H. STROHM: 'das tagliche Leben'. G. REALE: 'tutti i viventi'. But in 'De mundo' 5, 397a18 ILos means 'time of life' and in c.6, 399b16 'human existence'. The meaning which it seems necessary to give PIlo; here is not listed for any place by the Index Aristotelicus. We might therefore consider the reading: oOO a3Tca;. For precisely the stretching out of one's hands during the utterance of a prayer produces the testimony the author is talking about. And Plato, Euthyphro 13b3-4 and 14c5-6 already referred to prayer as a manifestation of oet6rig. Rhet. ad Alex. 38, 1446a39 calls offering according to the ancestral tradition a token of piety.

C.6, 400a33: xaca&wEQ T(Ov Ev A'LTrvJ xQacTQv &vaQaQayEvTwv. Except for here and in the corresponding passage in Mirab. Ausc. 154,

846a9 ff., the word xQaTv Q does not occur in the Aristotelian Corpus. In Plato the word still means 'mixing bowl' (cf. Tim. 41d4) or 'cauldron', for instance in Phaedo lild5, in a passage which immediately goes on to mention a volcanic eruption in Sicily. So I think it preferable to translate here: >>as when the cauldrons of the Etna boiled over

Supplementary notes on the 'De mundo' 331

might therefore consider that the author means: 'divided over all natural substan- ces'. This idea that each of the cosmic elements is inhabited by living beings appropriate to it is attributed to Aristotle by Cicero, N.D., 2.15.42 (= Aristotle, Philos. fr. 21 Ross).

C.7, 401a15: KQ6vou & natg xac XQOVOV XEYEtaT, 61XWOV atvog TEQRo- VO5 ?5 ETEQOV aLcdva.

This passage is somewhat puzzling. In itself the appellation of Zeus as 'child of Kronos' is completely straighforward, in view of the tradition familiar since Hesiod, Theogony 453 ff. that Zeus was one of the three sons of Kronos and Rhea. On the other hand it is striking that manuscript F reads the word n7or instead of nat;; and that Stobaeus has the striking notion of acLoa (in combination with the reading LOdxOV for &Wxwv), while Z and Apuleius lack even the slightest trace of the word na3g. Cf. W. L. LORIMER, Some notes on the text of Pseudo-Aristotle 'De mundo' (Oxford 1925) 49-50. There is also something contradictory in the fact that the author characterizes the transcendent God as 'dependent on' an anterior, more original principle, after first expressly presenting him as self-sufficient and immutable. It seems illogical to present the God who is described as na'vTrOv avToS aLtLog (Dv (401a26) as having been brought about by another entity. The Orphic presentation of 401a28 ZF?V5 Q(11TO; yEVETo agrees much more with the line of thought followed by the author of the 'De mundo'.

Another consideration is that according to 'De caelo' 1. 9, 279a1 ff. Aristotle emphatically related time to the cosmos and presented the reality transcending the cosmos as supratemporal: &67OrQ OVIT' v T6'M) Tup tat 7T6cPrEV, OVI?T xQovog av'a 3OLEt Y1jQfLXELV, oi6' oTiLV OMEVO6g ov6E[ia iEtacoXik TOV &XT'EQ T8IV EMOT Tvtacyvcov PoQav, &XX' &vakkoia xai a"T'aO & tv aQiotrv ?xovTa 5oiv xa T-v avTaQxeoTaTTnv 6LatEXL TOv a6avTa aciova (279al8-22). He continues fur- ther on: To T'ov tvaVa %QOVOV V Xad TrV aivELQLcaV 3TEQLEXOV TEXog CoUv WMtLV, WTo TOVO aLeb dLVaL EL? b TnV Enwvu[Aav (279a26-27).

On the strenght of these considerations I prefer to emend the text to: KQov(wv ' og xaiL XQOVOU XyVrTaL in the sense of: 'He is also called 'Kronion' or 'of Time'

...'. The text given by the manuscripts might be the result of a marginal gloss KQOvou. In that case Stobaeus' reading may have been caused by the misunder- standing of a scribe who thought that KQOvou a'Wv was meant.

C.7, 401b22: awEaaLvETCx &6 xac o [d)og o0vx aTaxTWg. Plato, Rep. 10, 621b8 concluded his myth of Er the Pamphylian with the same

kind of playful twist. By [00og the author of the 'De mundo' must first of all be referring to the directly preceding discussion of the Moirai. But we should also recall that Aristotle qualified the work of the ancient mythical poets as Eokoydv (Metaph. A 3, 983b29; cf. B 4, 1000a9; A 10, 1075b26). Now in c.1, 391b4 the author of the 'De mundo' had declared his intention as follows: xacd' 0O(ov ?6PX-

332 A. P. Bos

TOV, foEXoyCOtEV ni TOlTWV oG,[rtvxVv. So that the whole of chapter 7 can also be called R'Oftog and fcokoyLca, in the sense that the reality which goes beyond human experience of reality can never be discussed other than in terms derived from that experience of reality18.

Free University, Amsterdam A. P. Bos

18 I gladly express my recognizance and gratitude for valuable suggestions and critical remarks to my colleagues prof. D. M. SCHENKEVELD and prof. D. HOLWERDA.

Article Contentsp. [312]p. 313p. 314p. 315p. 316p. 317p. 318p. 319p. 320p. 321p. 322p. 323p. 324p. 325p. 326p. 327p. 328p. 329p. 330p. 331p. 332

Issue Table of ContentsIndustrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 44, No. 3 (Apr., 1991), pp. 393-592H and Poetic Self-Reference in Pindar 'Olympian' 6.87-90 [pp. 257-264]Leid und Erkenntnis: Zum Zeus-Hymnus im aischyleischen 'Agamemnon' [pp. 265-281]Being and Seeming: Empedocles' Reply [pp. 282-293]Problemi Testuali e Azione Scenica in Medea 1019-1080 [pp. 294-303]Scapegoat Narratives in Herodotus [pp. 304-311]Supplementary Notes on the 'De mundo' [pp. 312-332]In Margine all'Edizione piu'Recente Dell' 'Ilias Latina' di Bebio Italico [pp. 333-355]Capella = ? [pp. 356-366]MiszellenAischylos und die Phryger [pp. 367-374]Das Maptypion der Sybariten (Herodot, 5, 43-46) [pp. 374-380]Was Eratosthenes the Oligarch Eratosthenes the Adulterer? [pp. 380-384]

Back Matter [pp. III-VI]