ἐν γὰρ τοῖς περὶ τὰς πράξεις λόγοις οἱ μὲν καθόλου κοινότεροί εἰσιν, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ
μέρους ἀληθινώτεροι· περὶ γὰρ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα αἱ πράξεις, δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν. ληπτέον οὖν ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς διαγραφῆς.
Burnet comments: “δέον can hardly be anything else but an accusative absolute; {a} it cannot stand for δέον ἐστί. {b} Bonitz would therefore delete οὖν in the next clause; {c} there must be a lacuna in the text.”
I have several questions regarding this.
- What might be Burnet’s grounds for claiming {a}?
- What would be the difference in meaning in this context between δέον as an accusative absolute vs. δέον as part of δέον ἐστί?
- What might be Bonitz’ and Burnet’s respective rationales for doing {b} and claiming {c}?
περὶ γὰρ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα αἱ πράξεις, δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν. ληπτέον οὖν ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς διαγραφῆς.
Somehow I don’t feel I have enough information. You are assuming I (the reader) know what editions Burnet and Bonitz refer to. Could you clarify and possibly reproduce the critical apparatus and possibly spell out how the sentence would read and be punctuated under the different proposed readings, at least as you understand it?
As for δέον accusative absolute versus δέον ἐστι as a general matter, what does LSJ have to say?
(You quote Burnet. Curious, assuming [a] and [c] are from Burnet and not from you, was there a ?)
The Burnet edition is here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=77ENAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA293&ots=LZOwTiW1e7&pg=PA96#v=onepage&q&f=false
He mentions Bonitz in his note.
Δεῖ δὲ τοῦτο μὴ μόνον καθόλου λέγεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς καθ’ ἕκαστα ἐφαρμόττειν. ἐν γὰρ τοῖς περὶ τὰς πράξεις λόγοις οἱ μὲν καθόλου κοινότεροί εἰσιν, οἱ δ’ ἐπὶ μέρους ἀληθινώτεροι· περὶ γὰρ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα αἱ πράξεις, δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν. * * * ληπτέον οὖν ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς διαγραφῆς. περὶ μὲν οὖν φόβους καὶ θάρρη…
I understood this as:
“This has to speak not only of the whole, but also to harmonize τοῖς καθ’ ἕκαστα. For in the reasonings regarding actions, the ones καθόλου are more κοινότεροί, the ones ἐπὶ μέρους are more ἀληθινώτεροι, for the actions are περὶ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα, and it’s right to speak without contradiction ἐπὶ τούτων * * * So they were left out of the διαγραφῆς (summary?). Therefore regarding fears and braveries…”
There does appear to be something missing from there that doesn’t lead to that ληπτέον οὖν. However, I would have thought that περὶ <μὲν> γὰρ would have worked instead, taking γάρ appositionally, (like the examples on Denniston pg. 67).
“the ones ἐπὶ μέρους are more ἀληθινώτεροι. The actions are, to wit [appositional γάρ], περὶ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα, and it’s right to speak without contradiction ἐπὶ τούτων. So they were left out of the διαγραφῆς [that is, too much detail for a διαγραφῆς, with all those ἀληθινωτέροις λόγοις going into specifics]”
Thanks, Joel.
Randy: I have the statement by Burnet in quotation marks. My questions were about the meaning of that statement. I found no help in LSJ.
First, please ignore my original reply, some of which got garbled.
Bonitz (page 168 of his I_ndex Aristotelicus_, lemma δεῖ) gives examples in Aristotle of δέον both as accusative absolute and as short for δέον ἐστί or δεῖ. If I am reading Bonitz correctly, he believes in the passage in question that δέον is for δέον ἐστί but that to make sense then of the passage οὖν should perhaps be omitted. He cites another passage (1145b28) where he believes δέον is for δέον ἐστί but where similarly an emendation (dropping a preceding καί) would be suggested. Tugodum, am I reading Bonitz correctly? I assume you have followed up and checked out 1145b28; does it offer any help?
How would the sentence be punctuated and read with Bonitz’s δέον ἐστί plus emendation?
Sorry I don’t have an answer for you, only questions I would be asking myself if I were pursuing this.
Burnet implies that Bonitz does not read it as δέον ἐστί, and drops καί for that reason. Burnet’s note for 1145b28:
I have to clarify that the most important for me is my question #2 (which has nothing to do with either Burnet or Bonitz). Can we please start with this one? Thanks in advance.
The absolute version has another subject hanging out somewhere, or implied, and it’s sort of tacked onto a sentence. (Evidently the πραξεις here if it’s absolute.)
But δεον εστι is a new subject. We have to be done with πραξεις to get to it.
I guess the usual glosses are “it is necessary” and “there is a need”, but I can’t personally tell the difference between the glosses in English.
At least that’s how I understand it.
“But δεον εστι is a new subject”–
I thought it is impersonal, taking kinda indirect discourse with the same subject implied as in the case of the absolute, namely, πραξεις. Am I mistaken in this?
(BTW, your German citation is awesome!)
I looked for examples of the specific conjunction “δεον εστι” in the TLG, but they all appear to be later than Aristotle, though it seems common enough in Polybius.
But here is an example from the LXX: ὑπὲρ ὧν δέον ἐστὶν ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ισραηλ παιδείας καὶ σοφίας…
Is ἐστι an impersonal verb there? I wouldn’t think so. δέον is the subject. “ἐπαινεῖν…” is the predicate. Is δέον ἐστίν as a whole somehow impersonal? Maybe? I don’t know. That’s too deep for me.
**
The German citation is Wilamowitz, from the Vorrede to his Lesebuch. I actually found it through a Burnet essay, “Form and Matter in Classical Teaching.” Burnet disagreed strongly with the sentiment.
I may be totally in the dark yet I have to admit that δέον ἐστὶν in your example does seem to me impersonal, governing an indirect discourse construction.
Yes, I googled the citation right away, and also disagree with it, yet love the distinction drawn.
{b} Bonitz would therefore delete οὖν in the next clause;
I have to clarify that the most important for me is my question #2 (which has nothing to do with either Burnet or Bonitz).
How does {b} have nothing to do with Bonitz?
What is the latest critical edition? Is it later than Burnet and does it have a critical apparatus?
Well, here’s an example of the absolute usage. Switching it for δεον εστιν doesn’t work, right? εστιν γεγονα would be nonsense.
πάντως δὲ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἔσεσθαι ἁμαρτὼν ἀδελφεοκτόνος τε οὐδὲν δέον γέγονα καὶ τῆς βασιληίης οὐδὲν ἧσσον ἐστέρημαι.
To answer my own question, I see in a journal article that the only critical edition of the EN still in print is the OCT from Bywater in 1894. Too bad.
Randy:
“How does {b} have nothing to do with Bonitz?”
– {b} has to do with Bonitz but my question #2 has nothing to do with {b}.
Joel-
This is a great example, thanks. But it only shows that the distinction between the impersonal and accusative absolute respective uses of δέον has a point, as there are cases of the latter which are not cases of the former (like this passage from Herodotus). My question, however, was: “What would be the difference in meaning in this context [i.e., in the context of my Aristotle passage] between δέον as an accusative absolute vs. δέον as part of δέον ἐστί?”
Well, assuming that δεον εστι isn’t just an importation from later Greek (which I think it might be now, after some TLG searching), you’re asking the difference in meaning between the following:
- περὶ γὰρ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα αἱ πράξεις, δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν [something that includes a finite verb, I suppose that πράξεις would be unlikely to be the subject after all, despite what I said earlier, due to the δε]
Or:
- περὶ γὰρ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα αἱ πράξεις [εισι], δέον δ’ [εστι] ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν
Well, I’d say that #2 means something like: “For the πράξεις are about what is to each, but there is a need speak without contradiction regarding these.”
#1 is tougher for me. But if the ουν goes away:
δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν ληπτέον ταῦτα ἐκ τῆς διαγραφῆς
It being necessary to speak without contradiction regarding these, it was left out of the διαγραφῆς
Or, filling in the lacuna from my imagination (with my bad Greek):
περὶ γὰρ τὰ καθ’ ἕκαστα αἱ πράξεις, δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν μακρολόγως ἐφαρμόττομεν αὐτὰς τούτοις
For the πράξεις are about what is to each, and it being necessary to speak without contradiction regarding these, we harmonize them with these at great length.
No doubt the above contains many errors, and may be misguided in total, but it’s my best attempt at your question.
I do not understand why there cannot be a period after συμφωνεῖν in the first case (with accusative absolute), if this is what you meant.
Also (but this is an aside) what do you mean by “an importation from later Greek”? Are you saying that impersonal δέον does not appear in Classical authors? Or that you suspect such appearances to be “emendations” by the scribes?
So if δεον is accusative absolute, I wouldn’t have thought that this is a complete thought: δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν. Where is the finite verb? What is it absolute to? But maybe you could give me some examples of that sort of usage elsewhere.
Are you saying that impersonal δέον does not appear in Classical authors?
What do you mean by “impersonal δέον” here exactly? I would have thought that the accusative absolute is impersonal, so I don’t follow you at all. Is δεῖ ever personal in any form?
But, as I said earlier, I did a sloppy search for “δεον εστι” and didn’t find it until Polybius and later. Everything earlier that I could find was “τὸ δέον” or with a preposition. But as I said, the search was not thorough, so please post examples of what you’re talking about.
“if δεον is accusative absolute, I wouldn’t have thought that this is a complete thought: δέον δ’ ἐπὶ τούτων συμφωνεῖν. Where is the finite verb?” –
The thought is the same, in my view, as it is on your second reading:
“For the πράξεις are about particulars, and there is a need to be in agreement regarding these.”
Why do you think that the accusative absolute cannot give this meaning?
As to the other option, I agree that calling it “impersonal” was unfortunate, as δέον is impersonal in both. What I meant by this was just δέον ἐστί, with ἐστί either explicit or implied.
My sense is that that there are cases, like my Aristotle passage, in which one might equally construe δέον with ἐστί implied or without it (i.e., as absolute). Given that Burnet denies the possibility of the former in this case, I must be wrong. But I want to see where exactly I am wrong.