From Biology to Linguistics: The Definition of Arthron in Aristotle's Poetics

101 Pages·2018·1.87 MB·English

by  Patrizia Laspia

UNIPA Springer Series
Patrizia Laspia
From Biology
to Linguistics:
The Definition
of Arthron in
Aristotle's Poetics
UNIPA Springer Series
Editor-in-chief
Carlo Amenta, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Series editors
Sebastiano Bavetta, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Calogero Caruso, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Gioacchino Lavanco, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Bruno Maresca, Università di Salerno, Fisciano, Italy
AndreasÖchsner,GriffithSchoolofEngineering,SouthportQueensland,Australia
Mariacristina Piva, Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy
Roberto Pozzi Mucelli, Policlinico G.B.Rossi, Verona, Italy
Antonio Restivo, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
Norbert M. Seel, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany
Gaspare Viviani, Università di Palermo, Palermo, Italy
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13175
Patrizia Laspia
From Biology to Linguistics:
fi
The De nition of Arthron
’
in Aristotle s Poetics
123
Patrizia Laspia
Dipartimento di ScienzeUmanistiche
University of Palermo
Palermo
Italy
ISSN 2366-7516 ISSN 2366-7524 (electronic)
UNIPA SpringerSeries
ISBN978-3-319-77325-4 ISBN978-3-319-77326-1 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77326-1
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018934441
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG,partofSpringerNature2018
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbytheregisteredcompanySpringerInternationalPublishingAG
partofSpringerNature
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
Ἐpeὶ wάllo1 ἀqihlὸm peqipέφetcem
jaὶ jeῖmo1 ὅra vάqlas' ἄk-
koi1 ἔhηjem, sί1 ἂm φqάrai dύmaiso…
Pindaro, Olimpica II, Ant. 5, vv. 98/101
(178–180 Gentili)
A D. P., con gratitudine
Contents
1 The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 The Definition of ἄqhqom in Aristole’s Poetics: An Unsolvable
Dilemma? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 State of the Text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3 The Principal Critical Positions Regarding the Definition
of ἄqhqom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2 From Biology to Linguistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.1 Biological Patterns in the Twentieth Chapter of the Poetics . . . . . 37
2.2 The Aristotelian Definitions of ἄqhqom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2.3 eἶmai as ἄqhqom: My Conjecture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.4 Some Possible Objections. Is eἶmai a Verb?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.5 Nature and Uses of eἶmai: The Contemporary Debate. . . . . . . . . . 53
3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Bibliography .. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 65
Index Locorum .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 73
Index Verborum ... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 79
Index of Ancient Authors.... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 81
Index of Modern Authors.... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 83
vii
Abstract
This volume is not intended as a philological or paleographical specialist contri-
bution:itisanewattemptatreadingAristotle’sworkasawhole.Itconsistsoftwo
chapters.Thefirstchapterconsistsofthreesections.Firstsectiondiscussesthemain
problems posed by the definition of arthron; second section considers the state
of the text; third section examines the critical literature on that issue since the end
of the nineteenth century. The second chapter is the actual pars construens of the
work. It consists of five sections. The first section explores the close relationship
thatAristotleholdsbetweenbiologyandlanguage.Aristotleisnotthefatherofthe
specialized sciences: He isratherthelast great global thinkerofAntiquity; ineach
field of knowledge, he employs the method of his biological inquiries. Second
sectionanalyzesthedefinitionofarthroninthetwentiethchapterofthePoeticsand
emphasizestheirclosesimilaritytoitsdefinitioninthebiologicalworks.Inthethird
section suggest my conjecture about the first example of arthron in the Poetics,
accordingtowhichIreadeimiinsteadoff.m.i.Inthefourthandfifthsections,Itake
someobjectionstomyconjectureintoaccount;Irejectthateinaimaybeconsidered
‘one verb among the others.’ Last section considers the more recent critical issues
about Greek einai.
ix
Introduction
The content of the work whose introduction I am writing today, September 13,
2017,wasalreadyclearinmymindbackin1996whenIgavebirthtothevolume
that was published in September 1997 with the title L’articolazione linguistica.
Origini biologiche di una metafora (Laspia 1997). As demonstrated by the eighth
chapter—almost a fifth of the volume1—the difficulties posed by the definition of
ἄqhqom in the Poetics were already well known to me, and, I must say, their
solution,too.Butin1996,Iwasonlythirty-fiveyearsold,withlittleexperiencein
philologyandpaleography,nostableacademicposition,andalltherecklessnessof
youth,butnotenoughtoproposeahypothesisasdaringastheoneInowproposein
these pages.
Once the book had been published—and the reviews had been read—I thought
that the question was closed, and that there was no reason to return to the subject.
I had to wait until the year 2009 and the Ph.D. defense of Laura Gianvittorio, my
doctoral student at that time and today my colleague, whom I thank for finally
exhuming the issue at a symposial dinner. Laura and her boyfriend (now her
husband) Alex Ungar, who has been studying Classical Philology in Oxford for a
while,thoughttheideaexposedherewasagoodone.Meanwhile,yearshadpassed
(somehow, twenty!) and my self-confidence had increased somewhat. So I began
the arduous task of acquiring the philological, paleographic, and, not least in
importance,thebibliographicskillsnecessarytore-examinetheissuefromthevery
beginning.
ThedefinitionofἄqhqominthePoeticsisarealpuzzle,intheveryprecisesense
explainedbyThomasKuhninhisfamousbookof1962,TheStructureofScientific
Revolutions. Generations of scholars have used it as their exercise regime, only to
endupproposingwhatisalreadywell known,attimes whatisoutdated,orelseto
expressadrasticdistrustofanypossiblesolutiontotheproblem.Withthispaper,I
hope I have made a small contribution to the subject. Up to Sect. 2.2, my con-
clusions run parallel to the contents of L’articolazione linguistica. Since I do not
1Lalogicadelvivente.Rύmderlo1edἄqhqominAristotle,inLaspia1997,pp.79–126.
xi
xii Introduction
think that there were many more than the proverbial twenty-five readers of that
book, there is no need to apologize: repetita iuvant. But the conjecture I propose
here is different, and my bibliographic knowledge is different as well—time has
movedforward,andsome(thoughnotmany)havespokenoutonthedifficulttopic.
Aboveall,themethodologicalawarenesswithwhichIwritetodayisdifferent,even
though my method has not changed. I say, moreover, that if one should choose to
refuse the conjecture I propose here regarding the first example of ἄqhqom in the
twentieth chapter of Aristotle’s Poetics, but appreciate the way I have conducted
my reading of Aristotle, we cannot say that we disagree completely.
WhatamIalludingtoandwhatisthemethodIusetoreadAristotle?Inmyreading,
Ibeginwiththreemainassumptions.(1)Unlikewhatiscommonlysaidtoday,Aristotle
is not the father of the specialized sciences, nor is he the one who inaugurated spe-
cialized studies in Greece, but the last great global thinker of antiquity2. There is,
therefore,aunitaryAristotelianresearchprogram3,whosedimensioncoincideswithhis
ownwork.(2)TheheartoftheAristotelianresearchprogramisrepresentedbythelife
sciences.Thecurrentreadingparadigm,whichgivesprioritytoAristotle’sethicaland
political works, does not do justice to that research program and should not be fol-
lowed.(3)WithintheAristotelianresearchprogram,indeedatitsheart—representedby
the biological investigation—a highly significant place is occupied by the
‘language/living body’ analogy, which is the basis of Aristotelian linguistic investi-
gation, and in particular, of twentieth chapter of the Poetics. Any reading of the
so-calledlinguisticchapterofthePoeticsthatdoesnotproceedsimultaneouslyandin
parallel with the biological investigation, which is the model of Aristotle’s linguistic
investigations, has in my opinion no foundation on principle.
Tothisisaddedthefollowingmethodologicalpremise:InreadingAristotle,we
are in no way justified in seeking to understand what precedes in function of what
follows—that is, in interpreting his words on the basis of later texts by other
authors. This means that we are not justified in reading Aristotle in light of our
contemporary prejudices, or in considering him as the forerunner of any of our
fashions or theories. Instead, it is necessary to read Aristotle iuxta propria prin-
cipia:«AristotlethelinguistwithAristotlethebiologistandnaturalist».4Onlythen
can Aristotle regain his voice, which still speaks to us after thousands of years.
In this way, we can avoid the insurmountable contradictions present, for
example,inthe current readings ofthetwentieth chapterof thePoetics.But thisis
2«L’ultimograndepensatoretotaledell’antichità»(Laspia1997,p.79).
3Originally coined by Imre Lakatos (1968), the notion of ‘research program’ was first used in
regardtoAristotelianbiologybyJamesLennox(1987).Lennoxisconvinced,however,thatthis
notioncanonlybeappliedtothebiologicalworks.Theauthor,therefore,implicitlyadherestothe
ideaofAristotleasthefatherofspecializedsciencesandusestheterminanarrowersensethanthe
oneIusehere.MyhypothesisisthatAristotle,theheirofIonicnaturalism,andinabroadersense
of the Homeric Encyclopedia (see Laspia 1996), is the last global scientist of antiquity. In my
view, the notion of ‘program’ would, therefore, be applicable to his entire work, viewed as a
whole.
4«L’Aristotlelinguistaconl’Aristotlebiologoenaturalista».Laspia(1997),p.80.