aristotle's 'nameless' virtues

8/16/2019 Aristotle's 'Nameless' Virtues

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/aristotles-nameless-virtues 1/16

De Gruyter

Aristotle's 'Nameless' VirtuesAuthor(s): Paula GottliebReviewed work(s):Source: Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science, Vol. 27, No. 1 (March 1994),pp. 1-15Published by: De GruyterStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40913737 .

Accessed: 01/08/2012 14:38

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 [email protected].

.

De Gruyter is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Apeiron: A Journal for

Ancient Philosophy and Science.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=degruyter

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40913737?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40913737?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=degruyter



Aristotle'sNameless' irtues

Paula

Gottlieb

It s a

good

dea toexamine

henameless irtuess

well

s

the

thers.

For

f

we discuss

articular

spects

f haracterne

at a

time,

e

will

acquire

better

nowledge

f

hem;

nd

f

we

survey

hevirtues nd

see that

n

ach ase

the irtues

a

mean,

we

will

havemore onfidence

in

our

belief hat he

irtuesremeans.

Aristotle,

N

V

7, 1127al5,

r.

Irwin)

Aristotle's octrine f

themean

s,

at

least

n

part,

heview that ach

virtue fcharactertandsn a meanbetween wovices, neanexcess

and the ther

deficiency.1

or

xample,

hevirtue f

generosity

s

n a

meanbetween

wo

vices,

wastefulness,

he

xcess,

nd

stinginess,

he

deficiency.

here

re two

popular

riticismsfAristotle's

iscussion f

virtues f haracter.

hefirsts

that

Aristotle'soctrinef hemean

has

no substantive

onsequences

f

ny

nterest.he econd

riticisms

that

Aristotle

s

merely arroting

he views of his time n thevirtues.

comment

y

J.L.

Ackrill

uccinctly

ombines oth

harges:

nsofar

s

Aristotle'sccounts f

particular

irtues

mbody particular

moral

outlook

and

that

s,

perhaps,

ot

far),

his s due

rather o his

acquies-

cence nthevocabularyndoutlook fhis time han o his theoretical

commitmento "thedoctrine f hemean".'2

1

Thedoctrines more

omplicated

han

his,

utfor

resent

urposes

t

ufficeso

say

hat n

ny articular

ccasionwhen

irtuousehaviours

called

or,

here

ill

be more

han

ne

opposing

irection

n

which necanerr.

2

J.L.

Ackrill

ristotle'sthics

London:

aber nd

Faber,

973),

2.

See

also

24 ...

Aristotle

learly ligns

himselfwithconventional

alues and

takes themfor

APEIRON

journal

or ncient

hilosophy

nd

science

0003-6390/94/2701

-16

3.00

©Academic

rinting

Publishing



2 Paula

Gottlieb

By oncentrating

n Aristotle'snameless'

irtues,

aim

to

how hat

both fthese riticisms

re

misplaced.3

shall

rgue

hat

henameless

virtues re no less

mportant

han

heir

amed

ompanions

nd that

f

Aristotles

right

bout he xistence

f henameless

irtues,

isdoctrine

of themean

will

have resulted

n

some

mportant

iscoveries

nd

so

does have substantive

mport

fter

ll.4

shall lso

argue

hat he

very

existence

fnameless

irtues

n

Aristotle'siscussion asts oubt n

the

idea

that

Aristotle

s

simply eporting

ontemporary

iews.

hope

to

show

that Aristotle s more

nnovative

han

has

previously

een

thought.5

In

section

I

explain

whichvirtues

re nameless'

nd what

their

namelessness

onsists

n. In

thenext wo

sections

explain

how the

nameless

irtues re controversial

ven

within

heAristotelian

orpus

granted...'

ormore n the

irst

harge,

ee

BernardWilliams ho

complains

hat

the octrinef

hemean s one

of hemost elebrated

nd

east

seful

arts

fhis

[Aristotle's]ystem'nd is betterorgotten'Ethicsnd the imitsfPhilosophy

[Cambridge,

A:Harvard

niversity

ress,

985],

6).

The econd

harge

asbeen

made most

recently

y Gregory

Vlastos

(Socrates:

ronist

nd Moral

Philosopher

[Ithaca,

Y: Cornell

niversity

ress,

991],

79);

Neil

Cooper

'Aristotle's

rown-

ing

Virtue',

peiron

2

(1989),

93);

nd

J.O.

Urmson

Aristotle's

thics

Oxford:

Blackwell,

988], 2).

The

charge

s

an

old

one.See

e.g.,

J.A.

tewart

otes n the

Nicomachean

thics

f

Aristotle,

ol.

1

Oxford:

larendon

ress,

892),

52.Noneof

the bove-mentioned

uthors iscuss

Aristotle's

ameless irtues.

ckrill

oes

not

translateook

V of

Nicomachean

thicsnwhich

hey

ppear.

3 This

s not o

claim

hat t s

mpossible

o

argue

gainst

hese riticisms

sing

he

other

irtues

especially

hose,

erhaps,

hich

Aristotlessociates

ith ameless

vices).

restrict

yself

o

thenameless

irtuesince

think

hat n

considering

he

nameless irtuesnecanaddress hecriticismsn a particularlyividway.A

discussion

f he

nameless ices

ies

beyond

he

cope

f his

aper.

4 The ubstantive

onsequences

ay

not

e what he etractors

f he octrine

f he

mean

re

xpecting,

ut,

f am

right,

he etractors

re

ooking

n

the

wrong lace

for

what hese ubstantive

onsequences

reor hould

e.

5

It

might

e

objected

hat he

nameless

irtuesre nherent

n

ncient

reek ife

ut

are

unimportant

ndtherefore

ameless.

y

nswer

o his

bjection

astwo

arts.

First,

do not

mean

to claim

hat,

nce

articulated,

he nameless

irtues ook

unfamiliar.

f hatwere

o,

Aristotle's

ntroduction

f

henameless

irtues ould

appear

d hoc.

All am

claiming

s

that heres

nothing

o

parrot

efore

ristotle's

articulation

f he

ameless

irtues.

econdly,

shall

xplain

owards

he nd

of

my

paperwhy henameless irtues

reno

mere etails.



Aristotle'sNameless'Virtues

3

itself,

nd

yet

why

here s no reason o exclude hem rom

ristotle's

list fvirtues.

n

section

I I

explain

ow

Aristotle'sntroduction

f

he

nameless irtue

oncerning

mallhonours

n

theNicomacheanthics

a)

solves

problem

n

the

Eudemian

thics hich

rises ecause hevirtue

is not

recognised

here

nd

(b)

explainswhy

there s confusionbout

what hevirtue s

in

the

phere

f

smallhonours. s

I

show,

both

he

problem

nd the onfusionrisefrom

ailing

o

apply

Aristotle's oc-

trine f hemean

n

the

roperway.

n

section

II

explain

why

Aristotle

thinks hat hree fthe

nameless irtues o notcount s

virtues

n

his

Eudemianthicsndwhyhe swrong o do so. nsectionVI give ome

positive

easons

for

ncluding

he nameless

virtues

n

the roster

f

virtues

nd

I

show how thenameless

irtues ranscendhe

parochial

Greek ulture f the fourth

entury

.C..

In

the

concluding

ection

suggest

ome further

mplications

f

taking

he

nameless irtues

eri-

ously,

othfor he

understanding

f Aristotle's

thics

nd

for

stab-

lishing

he

hronology

fAristotle's

orks.

I

The

Namelessness ftheNameless

Virtues

There re five

virtueswhichAristotle

ays

are

nameless

n

his

M-

comacheanthics

EN

I

7).

These re he

irtue

oncerning

mall

onours,

TcpaoTTjqmildness),

c^r|0£ia

truthfulness),

mpam'kia

r

£7u8ei;i6Tr|<;

(wit)

nd

piMoc

friendliness).6

inceAristotle

eferso ll

of hese

irtues

by

name,

xcept

or he

irst,

he

namelessnessf

he

irtues

learly

alls

for ome

explanation.

he

explanation

nvolvesnot

only

the

terms

which

Aristotle ses to describe

is virtues ut

also

the

novelty

nd

hence

ontroversialature f he

virtues

hemselves.

First,ntheirrdinarysage, he erms ristotlesestodescribehe

virtues,

nd

also the erms

vailable or

modern

ommentatorsouse

to

6

The

translationsre rwin's

Nicomachean

thics

Indianapolis:

ackett,

985]).

discuss hem

elow.

Ackrill,

oachim

nd

Ross

ll

translatehe irst

our s

follows,

'ambition',

good temper',

truthfulness'nd

ready

wit'.

J.L.

Ackrill,

ristotle's

Ethics;

H.H.

Joachim,

Aristotle: he

Nicomachean

thics,

d. D.A.

Rees

[Oxford:

Clarendon

Press,

1978];

W.D.

Ross

translation f

Nicomachean

thics

eprinted

n The

Complete

Works

f

Aristotle: he

Revised

Oxford

ranslation,

d.

J.

Barnes,

with revi-

sions

y

he ditor

Princeton:rincetonniversityress, 984], ol.2).



4

Paula

Gottlieb

translate

hem,

o not

capture xactly

hatAristotle as

in mind.

or

example,

ristotleimself

xplains

hat he erm

Tcpaoxriq'

'mildness')

inclines

oward he

deficiency

ather

han

ccurately eferring

o

the

mean:

7ipaoTn<;

'ecrci

ieaoTr'q cep

pyd<;-

voovouoi)

'6vto<;

o')

legox),

xeSov

8e

Kal xcov

Kpcov,

m to

pioov

rnv

cpa6xr|Tapepo|iev,

pbq

r'v

AAeiyw

anoKkivovGOv,

vcovujLio'u

tiaav

(Mildness

is

a

mean with

respect

to

anger.

Since themean

is

nameless,

nd the extremes lmost so

too,

we

put mildnessin themean, though t inclines toward thedeficiency,

which s

nameless

EN

IV

5,

1125b26-9).)7

Interestingly,

he

Latin term

mansuetudo'sed

by Aquinas

and the

English

ranslation

mildness'

or

gentleness'

nd

gentle emper'),

ot

to

mention

he

rench

erm

placidite'

,

havethe ameunwelcome

onno-

tations.8

Again,

Aristotle

ays

that e

will

use the

Greekwordfor

riendship

'(plaice'

or he

nameless

irtue etween

lattery

nd

quarrelsomeness,

because

thisvirtuemost

resembles

riendship,lthough

here s

an

importantifferenceetween he two.Friendship equires special

feeling

or

he

person

ne s

friendly

ith,

riendliness

oes not

EN

IV

6,

1126bl9-28).

ndeed,

iddell

nd

Scott

ite

nly

Aristotle

s

using

he

term

cpiMa'

ith he ense

f friendliness'

r

amiability'

p.

1934).

ven

the

English

erm

friendliness'

s

inaccurate. o be

a

friendlyerson,

according

o

Aristotle,

snot

obe

ndiscriminately

riendly,

ut o

ccept

and to

object

o the

ight

hings

n

the

ight

ay

EN

V

6,

1126bl6-17).

There

re lso

difficulties

n

finding

dequate

nglish xpressions

or

theother

ameless

irtues.

he

translation

wit'

and

ready

wit'),

ike

7

Aquinas

makesAristotle's

inguisticoint

more

xplicit

n

his

ommentary:

Nomen

autem

mansuetudinis

ssumitur

d

signandum

medium,

um tamen

x vi nominis

magis

declinet

d

defectum

rae'

(Lectio

XIII

of

In Decem

Libros

Ethicorum ristotelis

d

Nicomachum

xpositio).

8 'Gentleness'

s

Rackham's

ranslation

Eudemian

thics,

Cambridge,

A: Harvard

University

ress,

935],

evised

952],

eprinted

981]),

gentle

emper'

s

MJ.

Woods'

(Aristotle's

udemian

thics

Books

,

II

and VIII

[Oxford:

Clarendon

Press,

1982]).

Placidite'

s

R.A.Gauthier

nd

J.Y. olif's

referred

ranslation.

hey

lso

consider

la douceur'

Aristote:

'Ethique

Nicomaque

Paris:

ouvain,

958],

ol

I

Pars ,301).



Aristotle's

Nameless'Virtues

5

theGreek erms

empane^a'

and

/87ci5e^i0Tr|(;//

onjure

p

mental

ex-

terity

nd

mply

hat

he

person

with

his irtue

ill

know rbe able

to

make

up many ood okes

nd

be

good

at

delivering

hem.

n

fact,

he

point

f hevirtue f

wit

s rather oenable ts

possessor

obe sensitive

tohis udience nd to knowwhen

particularoke

wouldbe

appropri-

atetomake

and

also to

appreciate)

nd

whennot

EN

V

8,

1128a9-33).

Finally,

he ermtruthfulness's

a

translationor

aA,r|0£ia',

s simi-

larlymisleading.

t

s

apt

to

mply

hat

he

ruthful

erson

will

simply

tell he

ruth

n

all

occasions.Aristotle'sccount fthe

virtue e calls

'aA,f|0£ioc'smore ubtle. is truthfulersons onewho s truthfulbout

his own

possessions,

eliefs

nd

abilities nd who

gives

out the

right

amount f nformationn the

ight

ccasions.

ristotles often

hought

to restrict

ruth-telling

o

explicit

tatementsbout

neself,

utthis

s

a

misunderstanding

f his

position,

ince whenever

ne

expresses

n

opinion

one is

indirectly aking

claim about

one's own

abilities,

especially

he

bility

oback

up

the

pinion

ne

s

expressing.9

Not

only

must heAristotelian

irtuous

erson's

tatementsruth-

fully

eflecter

views f

herself,

ut

her ssessment

fherself ust

lso

be

right.

he term

sincerity'

Rackham's

ranslation)

s

thereforeoo

narrow,ince hosewho have thevicesofboastfulnessrself-depreca-

tion

may

lso be

quite

incere

n

their

ssessment f

themselves;

hey

may ust

be

wrong

bout heir bilities.

Aristotles therefore

ustified

n

calling

isvirtues

nameless'

ecause

theGreek ermswhich

xist,

ust

ike

heirmodern

ranslations,

o

not

exactly

it

hevirtues e means o

describe.10

urthermore,

s

might

e

expected,

oneof

Aristotle's ameless

irtues re treated

s central

y

his

ancient reek

redecessors

nd

contemporaries.

The idea of there

eing

four

entral

irtues

eems to have been

popular

n

Plato's

ime,

lthough

ot

veryone

reated he ame

virtues

as central.

ignificantly,

one of

Aristotle's

ameless

virtues

ppear

among he ardinal irtues fPlato'sRepublic,isdomaoqnoc),ravery

(6cv5pe{a),

emperance

acocppoauvri)

nd

ustice

8iKocioat)vr|)

e.g.,

Rep

V

9 I am

grateful

o

J.

Goodwin nd P.

Mooney

or

elpful

iscussion

f his

oint.

10 One

might bject

hat his s

true f

Aristotle'samed

irtues

oo.

f

o,

Aristotles

even

more

nnovativehan amsuggestingere.



6 Paula Gottlieb

427E).

Nor do Aristotle's

ameless irtues

ppear

n

any

of theother

extantists ffour.11

Plato also mentions

enerosity

etauGepioTnc;)

nd

magnificence

('ieyaXonpEnem),

womore

fAristotle's

amed

irtues,

rominently,

n

his

RepublicRep

II

402C,

f

Rep

VII 536a nd

VI

487A).

henearest

lato

comes o

discussing

ristotle's

ameless

irtuess

in

his discussion f

the

good philosophical

tudent

Rep

VI

487A).12

uch

person,

e

says,

will

be,

mong

ther

hings,

yiXoq

emi

GDyyevTic;

taiGeiocq'

'gracious,

a

friend

nd

kin

o

truth').13

Even f, s appearsunlikelyrom hecontext,latoweregroping

towards

heAristotelian

irtues f riendliness

nd

truthfulness

ith is

mention

f

graciousness

nd

truth,

e

s

clearly iscussing

he

empera-

ment

f he

tudent,

ather

han isorher

ull-blownirtues.

rue,

lato

says

hat is

guardian

must

e mild

Rep

I

375C-E),

ut

gain,

e seems

to have

temperament

n

mind,

or e worries

bouthow such

person

can

be both

mild and

high-spirited.

he

quality

f

being

mild

has

a

broader ense

n

Plato's

Republic

han t

does

n

Aristotle'sthics.

hat

itmeans

quietness'

reven

passivity'

nd

s

not

necessarily

virtues

11

For

example,

indarmentions our

mainvirtues

em

II

70ff,

ut

not

by

name.

Aeschylus

escribes

mphiaraus

s

a

temperate,

ust, ourageous

nd

pious

man')

(Sept

10). On

the ranslation

courageous'

connoting ilitary

alour)

or

ccyaBoq'

see

J.L.

Creed Moral

Values

n

Thucydides'

ime/

lassical

uarterly

3

(1973)

213-31,

17).

socrates

ists

ourage,

isdom,

iety

nd

temperance

s the our

main

virtues

nHelen

31),

ut

n

Evagoras,

ike

lato,

e ubstitutes

ustice

or

iety.

lato

may

have

taken is

particular

our

irtues rom he

Pythagoreans.

n

this,

ee

J.

Ferguson,

oral

aluesn

he ncient

orld

London:

Methuen,

958),

specially

h.

3. Formore n

thehistorical

ackground,

ee

H.

North,

ophrosune

Ithaca,

Y:

Cornell niversityress, 966],speciallyhs3-5.

12 In a laterwork

lato

gives

similarist

or he

ualities

f he

young erson

who

willbe

ruler,

ut he

phrase

uoted

next bove s

conspicuously

bsent

Laws

V

709E-710A).

enophon

raisesAgesilaus

or o

i)x«P1/

is

graciousness

Agesilaus

VIII),

ut his s

broader

han

ny

ne

ofAristotle's

ameless

irtues;

t

eems

obe

a

mixturefAristotelian

riendliness,

ruthfulness

nd

magnanimity.

nterestingly,

in

K.J.

over's

ook,

Greek

opular

orality

n he ime

f

lato nd

Aristotle

Oxford:

Basil

Blackwell,

974),

friendliness'

nly ppears

s a

synonym

or

piA,av9pamioc

(201-5).

A^r|0eia

oes

not

ppear

t

all.

13

Shorey unctuates

he entence

ncorrectly

s

gracious,

riendly,

nd akin o

ruth

...

(The

ollected

ialogues

f

lato,

d.

Hamiltonnd

Cairns

New

York:

ollingen

Foundation,eprinted966], 23).



Aristotle's

Nameless'Virtues

7

clearfrom

he

passage

where latonotes hat onvicted riminals

n a

democracy isplay

his

roperty

Rep

VIII

558

A).14

nterestingly,

ris-

totle imselfistsmildness

mong

he

motions

n

de Anima

de

An

1,

403al7).

ndeed,

whether ristotle's

ameless irtues

re rue irtues r

merely

matter f

temperament

s

an

importantuestion,

which

address

elow.

However,

t

s not

necessary

o

go

very

ar

field o

appreciate

he

novelty

fAristotle's ameless

irtues,

incewhether r not hename-

less virtues re

virtues s controversialven within

he Aristotelian

corpustself.nhis extantarlyworks, ristotlenlymentions lato's

cardinal

irtues, isdom,

ravery,emperance

nd

ustice Protrepticus

fragments

and

12

Ross);

Topics

16,

108al-3).

n a

passage

n

Rhetoric

Aristotleists hostof

virtues,

ut

ncludes

nly

ne

nameless

irtue,

here

named s mildness

Rhet

9,

1366bl-3).15

nterestingly,

he

passage

seems

o

predate

Aristotle'soctrine f hemean

or

perhaps

t

merely

reflects

rdinarysage),

ince

nly

nevice s mentioned

or achvirtue

(Rhet

9,

1366b3-20).

Themost

tartlingiscrepancy,

owever,

s

between he

Nicomachean

Ethics nd

the

Eudemian thics.

our of the five

namelessvirtues f

Nicomachean thicsdo not appear as virtues in EudemianEthics. n

Eudemian

thics,

hevirtue

oncerning

mall

honours s not

mentioned

at

ll,

nd

friendliness,

ruthfulness

nd wit

re aidnot

obe virtues ut

14 Plato's

mentionf

7ipa6xr|<;

s

passivity

s not

unique.

H.

North as an

nteresting

discussion f theconnection

etween ipaoTr|<;and (lexpioxric;)n Isocratese.g.,Nicodes

9)

and

the

political

deal of

sophrosune

hich

here

onnotes he

quiet

behaviour

nd

obedience f

ubjectsSophrosune,

47).

Isocrates omesnearest o

describing

ontemporary

xamples

f the

vices

associated ith

henamelessmeans n

Areopagiticus

7-54.

he

estimony

fTheo-

phrastus

s

inconclusive. is Characters

s

a

satire

escribing

ices

not virtues.

Sometimesisnamed icesmatch

ristotle'snd

ometimes

hey

o

not,

ut

when

they

o

Theophrastus

ay ust

e

following

is

eacher

ristotle.

15

Here he

manuscripts

iffer.

am

using

Kassel's ext

which elies n a

manuscript

which ncludes

mildness.

oss,

he

ditor f he

Oxford lassical

ext,

ollows

he

one

manuscript

hich oesnot

mentionhis irtue.

is

reading,

f

ccepted,

ould

only trengthen

y

laim hat

he

nameless irtues

re

controversialithin

he

Aristotelianorpustself.



8

Paula

Gottlieb

emotionalmeans

|xea6xr|xe(;..7ra0r|TiKa{)

nstead

EE

III

7,

1233bl7-19).16

I

shalldiscuss hese ontroversialirtues

n

more etail elow.

II

The Virtue

oncerning

mall Honours

In

Aristotle's

icomachean

thics,

he

pair

of

virtues,

enerosity

etauG-

epiornq)nd generosityn a grand cale, ndmagnificenceLieya^o-

7ipe7i£ia),

re matched

by

two virtues oncerned

with

honour,

he

nameless irtue oncerned

ith

mallhonours

nd a

virtue oncerned

with

honour n

a

grand

cale,

magnanimity

ixeyaXo^xio).

lthough

Aristotle iscusses

both members f the first

air

of virtues

n

his

Eudemian

thics,

e

only

mentions ne member f the second

pair,

magnanimity.

wish o

suggest

hat

here s

a

problem rising

n

Aris-

totle's iscussion f

magnanimity

n Eudemian

thics hichwould be

solved

by

the

discovery

f new

and

distinct

irtue.

In

his

Eudemian

thics,

ristotle

rgues

hat

magnanimity

s

a

mean

state

y

first

escribing

hedifferentttitudesne

might

ave towards

honours. e describesourharacters,he ersonwho sworthyfgreat

things

nd

who

thinks imself

o

worthy,

he

person

who s

worthy

f

great hings

ut

who does

not

hink

imselfo

worthy,

he

person

who

is

worthy

f small

hings

nd who thinks imselfo

worthy,

nd

the

person

who s

worthy

f mall

hings

utwho thinks

hat

e s

worthy

of

great

ones.

By

a

process

of elimination

sing

the schemaof his

doctrine f he

mean,

Aristotleoncludes

hat

magnanimity

s

a

virtue

between

the two vices

of

pusillanimity

niKpoyoxict)

nd

vanity

(xocovornq).

ccording

o

Aristotle,

he

magnanimous

erson,

he

erson

who is

worthy

f

great

honours

nd who thinks imself o

worthy,

comes etweenhe ersonwho sworthyfgreat onours utdoes not

think

hat

e

s,

nd the

person

who s not

worthy

f

great

onours

ut

who thinks

hat e s

EE

III

5,

1233all-17).

So

far o

good.

However,

his eaves

out the

person

who neithers

northinks

imself

orthy

f

great

hings

EE

III

5,

1232b32-4).

here

16 The

Magna

Moralia

ollows

he

Eudemian

thicsn

omitting

hevirtue

oncerning

small

honours,

ut the

uthor eaves

t an

open question

whether

riendliness,

truthfulnessnd

wit revirtues r

not

MM

1

32,1193a37-9).



10

Paula

Gottlieb

For t

bstains,

ust

s

generosity

oes,

from

nythingreat

utforms

the

ight

ttitude

n

us on

medium nd small

matters;

nd

ust

s the

taking

nd

giving

f

money

dmits f

a

mean,

n excess nd a defi-

ciency,

o also we can

desire onourmore

r ess

than

s

right,

nd we

can desire

t from he

right

ources

nd in

the

right

way.

EN

IV

4,

1125bl-8,

r.

rwin)

Aristotlelaims

hat

here

s

a

nameless

meanbetween

wo

vices,

n

excess,

pitamuioclove

of

honour)

nd a

deficiency,

qutamuiocindiffer-

ence

to

honour). owever,

ecause

hemeanhas

no

name, eople

are

mislednto

hinking

hat hevices re thevirtues. ristotle

ays,

But

when

the mean

has no

name,

he extremes

ook

ike rivalsfor

t,

s

though

t were unclaimed'

EN

IV

4,

1125bl7-8,

r.

rwin).

Aristotle

explains

hat ometimes

eople

praise

hehonour-lover

s

if

hewere he

virtuous

erson.

At other

imes

hey raise

the ndifferent

erson

s

exhibiting

he

virtue.

he introduction

f the nameless

virtue

elps

explain

he

apparent

nconsistency

n

people's

thinking

n the

topic.

Aristotle

ispels

he onfusion

s follows:

When

compared

with ove of

honour,

t

[sc.

the nameless

virtue]

appears

s indifferenceo

honour;

when

ompared

ith

ndifference,

it

ppears

s loveof

honour;

ndwhen

ompared

ith

oth,

t

ppears

in a

way

as

both.

hiswould eem

obe

true f he ther

irtues

oo;

but

nthis ase

the xtreme

eople

ppear

obe

opposed only

oeach

other]

ecause

he

ntermediate

erson

asno

name.

EN

V

4,

1125b21-

5,

tr.

rwin)

It s the

doctrine

f the

mean

which shows

that

he

virtue

n

any sphere

should

come

between

at

least)

two vices.

This is

what allows

Aristotle

to

explain

that there

s

a virtue

where

people

had not noticed

one

before.

concerned

ith onours

n

large

cale,

uch s

being

sked

o ndow

he

rts,

nd

of he

ompanion

irtues concerned

ith onours

n

more

mundane

cale,

uch

as

being iven

he

ppropriate

espect

n

conversation

y

someone

ne

admires.

Thehonours

he

magnanimous

erson

ill

isdain,

y

ontrast,

ill e

nappropri-

ate mall

nes,

uch

s

being

sked o

chair

committee

or

eciding

he olour

f

the ecorations

t a

neighbourhood

elebration.



Aristotle'sNameless'Virtues 11

II

The

Questionable

Mean-Dispositions'

In

his Eudemian

thics,

ristotle

rgues

hat hree f theNicomachean

Ethics'

ameless

irtues,

pi?iiafriendliness),

c?ir|0eia

truthfulness)

nd

empaKEXia

wit)

re

mong

ix onditions hich renot obe classified

as virtues

EE

III

7).20

heother

hree,

hich

re

not lassifieds virtues

in Nicomacheanthics

ither,

re

vejieoi<;

righteousndignation),

ci8cb<;

(shame),

nd

C£[iv6xr'q

dignity).21

n

both thical

orks,

ristotle

rgues

that

irtues

a

e^iq

a

settled

isposition)

and

not

n

emotion)

n

mean

involvingational hoice EN II 5-6;EE II 2-3). nhisEudemianthics

Aristotle

xplains

hat one f he boveconditionsare

virtues,

or re

the

opposing

tates

ices,

ecause

they

o not

nvolve

cpoa(peai(;

ra-

tional

hoice).

hey

reall

n

the lassificationf he

motions,

or ach

one

is an emotion'

'

...

lama 8e

7iavi'

eaxlvev

xaiq

tSv

7ta9r||idTcov

8iaipeaeaiv

£kocgtov

ap

mcov

cd9o<;

i

eoxiv') EE

III

7,

1234a25-7).

n

his

Nicomachean

thics,

ristotle olds the

opposite

view;

the three

nameless

irtues ave the tatus f

full

irtues.

Aristotle'sdentificationf the nameless irtueswith

motions

n

Eudemianthicss

puzzling.22

ll

three tates

nvolve

owers

freason-

ing nddiscrimination.venwit,whichmighteem he east romising

in

this

egard,

nvolves uch

powers.

t

s often

hought

hat

Aristotle

20

Although

he irtues

n

question

renameless

nd,

s

I

have

xplained,

henames

Aristotle

ssigns

o them o not

uite

it,

shall ontinueouse

Aristotle'sames

because his s ess umbersomehan

iving description

f ach

virtue henever

it

s discussed.

21

On

ve(j.eaiq

nd

cxi5(o<;,

ee

EN I

7,

1108a30-b6nd

formore n

why

iScbq

s not

virtue,

N IV

9,

1128blO-33.

e'iv6tt'<;

s notmentionedt all.

I hope

to

providedetailed reatmentf llsix onditions

lsewhere.)

22

Even

W.W.

Fortenbaugh,

ho

argues

hat

he ccount

n

Eudemian

thicss

the

correctne

'Aristotle

nd

the

Questionable

ean-Dispositions/

ransactions

f

he

American

hilological

ssociation9

1968]

03-31),

oncedes hat

one f he

name-

less

virtuesre

learly

ssociated ith

ny articular

motion,

xcept

or

wit,

which

Fortenbaugh

ssociates

ith

he esthetic

motionf

finding

omethingaughable'

(216),

ut

uch

n

emotion,

f

t

exists,

s notmentioned

y

Aristotle

imself.or

general

riticismf the

presuppositions

f

Fortenbaugh's

iew,

ee

R.

Sorabji,

'Aristotlen theRoleof ntellectn

Virtue'

n

A.O.

Rorty,

d.,

Essays

n

Aristotle's

Ethics

Berkeley:niversity

fCalifornia

ress,

980),

10-11.

ortenbaugh

imself

appears

o

have

hanged

ismind

bout he

ameless irtues

y

he ime e

wrote

his

book;

AristotlenEmotion

London: uckworth,975),

0-1.



12

Paula Gottlieb

approves

nnuendo verout-and-outbuse

ust

s a matter f

taste.

A

more

ikely xplanation

s

that

nnuendonvolvesmore

easoning

han

out-and-out

buse,

and it

also

requires

nd

invitesmental

gility

n

response,

hereas he atter oes

not.

There s thereforeo reason o

deny

hese irtues heir ue.

Still,

he

question

emains

why

Aristotlelassifies hesevirtues s

'emotional

..

means'

n

his

Eudemianthics.

he dea that

hey ust

re

emotions

ill

nothold

up, lthough

motions

roper

retobe found

n

the

triads f the other onditions hichdo not count s full-blown

virtuesneither ork. nvy ndshame, or xample,ust reemotions,

according

o

Aristotle;

hey

re not ettled

tates

n

virtue fwhichwe

experience

motions

n

particular

ccasions

n

particular ays.

The

problem

s

why

Aristotlehould ven

ntertainhe

hought

hatwit nd

friendlinessre motions

ike hese.

suggest

hat

ristotle as worried

that

wit,

ruthfulness

ndfriendlinessremattersf

emperament

ather

than irtue.

n

fact,

he

way

n

which hese onditionsre described

n

Eudemianthics

might

end

upport

o the dea

that

omeone

empera-

mentallyriendly

r

temperamentally

luntwould

do

ust

s well s the

virtuous

person

in

Nicomachean

thics.

n

his

Nicomachean

thics,

Aris-

totle eesthat hese irtuesre no moremattersf heer emperament

than

re

any

of he thers.

t

appears,

hen,

hat heNicomacheanthics

contains

he

uperior

ccount.

IV

Including

heNameless

Virtues

In

the

revious

ections

argued

hat

espite

ecognising

he ontrover-

sial

nature f the

nameless

virtues s

virtues,

ristotle

rovides

no

conclusive

easonnot

o consider hem

irtues. now

wish o consider

the

positive

easons or

xtending

he ist fvirtues

o nclude hem.

AtthebeginningfNicomacheanthics, ristotleresentsnimpor-

tant

rgument

elating

uman

happiness

nd the virtues o

human

nature

EN

1

7).

Happiness

onsists

n

carrying

ut

distinctively

uman

activity

ell,

.e.,

n

accordance

withvirtue

and

it also

requires

he

wherewithal

odo

so).

Therefore

t s reasonable

o

expect

he

articular

virtues o

allow their

ossessors

o

make

good

use

oftheir

pecifically

human

ttributes

nd hence

oflourish

s

human

eings.

All the thical

virtues

nvolve

easoning,

central

uman

ctivity,

ut

they

ach

pick

up

on other

articular

spects

f

human

nature s well.

The nameless

virtues re

no

exception.

ildness oncerns

he

motion f

nger.

he

virtue

oncerning

mall

honours

oncerns

hedesire

for

pproval

r

respectna small cale.The hreether ameless irtuesoncernpeech




13

and the ense fhumour

besides

ction),

hich re lso

special

harac-

teristicsf

human

nimals

ccording

o Aristotle.23

The nameless

irtues

pecifically

oncern

uman

elationships

nd

community,

oth

he

ways

n

which he

gent

hould

present

imself

and treat ther

eople,

nd the

ways

n

whichhe should

ccept

heir

treatment

f

him.

Thesevirtues hereforeeal with most

mportant

aspect

of human

nature,

he social. As Aristotle

oints

ut,

human

beings

re

political

nimals,

ending y

nature o ive

together'

EN

IX

9,

1169bl8-19

f. N

1

7,

1097bll).

The nameless irtues re ust s importants their amed ompan-

ions,

ot

nly

ecause

hey

elate

o

mportant

spects

f

human

ctivity,

but lso because

hey

re

necessary

or

ny

human

ommunity

o

exist

as a

community.hey rovide ecessary

onditions or human

om-

munity

o flourish

nd

are

part

f

hat

lourishing

tself.

lthough

heir

expression ay

differrom

lace

to

place, hey

hemselvesre not

par-

ticular o

anyplace

or time r

even,

despite

Aristotle'sccasional

om-

ments o

the

ontrary,

lass nd sex.

n

the

ase of he

nameless

irtues,

it s

particularly

lear hat

hey

ranscendhe

arochial

reek

ulture f

thefourth

entury

.C.

Onemight bject hat heexercise f thenameless irtues smade

redundant

y

the xercise f henamed

irtues,

specially,

or

xample,

justice.

he

objection

ails,

ut

not

because thenameless

irtues

nly

concern

rivate

ifewhereas henamed irtues

oncernife

n

the

ublic

sphere.24

ather,

t

fails ecause

f

one acks

hevirtue f

mildness,

or

23 On the elationo

peech

nd

anguage,

ee Pol1

2,

1253a9-18nd

Top

4,

102a

0-2;

on

aughter,

ee

PA II

10,

73a8 nd

673a28.

24

Gauthiernd

Jolif

rgue

hat

ruthfulness,

riendlinessnd

wit oncern

ife

n

ociety

where his xcludes

ublic

ife nd

business,

hich

hey

laim

s the

province

f

justice

Aristote:

'Ethique

Nicomaque,

ol

I,

pars

1,

304-5).

his

estrictionn the

scope

of

thenameless irtuess

unwarranted.

he

nameless irtues re

useful,

indeed

specially

seful,

or uman

elationships

n

the

ublic

phere,

or

xample

for

he

iplomat

ho

s

negotiating

treaty

r

for he

dvertiser

elling

ares.

rue,

Aristotle

enies

hat

dr|0eia

overs ontracts

EN

IV

7,

1127a33-4)

hich re the

province

f

ustice,

ut

Aristotleeednot e

contrasting

he

ublic

phere

with

he

private.

ather,

e s

contrasting

hat s

covered

y

the

aws of he

ity

nd what

is not.

Virtuous

onduct

n

abiding y

a

contracts

the

province

f aw.

Virtuous

conduct

n

entering

nto he ontractn

the irst

lace

s not.

Both

ypes

f onduct

are

n

the ublic phere.




15

4, 1125b21-5,

uoted

bove

n

section

I).

Indeed,

n examination

f he

nameless

irtues

rings

ut the

significance

f Aristotle'snnovative

triadic iew of thevirtues

nd

vices embodied

n

his

doctrine f the

mean. As Aristotle imself

ays,

It is a

good

idea to examine he

nameless irtues

s well s the thers.

or

f

we discuss

articular

spects

of haracterne

at a

time,

we

will

cquire

better

nowledge

f

hem;

and

f

we

survey

he irtues

nd

see

that n

ach asethe

irtues

a

mean,

we

will

have more onfidence

n

ourbelief hat

hevirtues re means'

(IV

7

1127al5,

r.

rwin,

my mphasis).

I hope to have shownthatthenamelessvirtues re at least as

important

s their amed

companions

nd that

tudying

hem

asts

new

light

n the

point

f

thedoctrine f the

mean,

specially

n the

idea

that

ach virtue as more han

one associated

ice. Not

only

s

Aristotle'sreatment

f thenameless irtues

mportant

n

confirming

his doctrine

f the

mean,

but it

shows

very learly

hat

Aristotle

s

more nnovativehan

has often een

thought.

s

an

added

bonus,

my

discussion f the

namelessvirtue

oncerning

mall

honours ends

support

o the view that

Aristotle's icomachean

thics

s the more

mature

work.27

lthough

he

namelessvirtues

re

nameless,

hey

shouldnotbe consignedoanonymity.28

Department

f

Philosophy

University

f

Wisconsin

5185H.C.

WhiteHall

600

North ark

treet

Madison,

WI

53706

U.S.A.

27

A.J.P.

enny,

ho

hallenges

his iew

n

his

book,

he

Aristotelian

thics:

Study

of

he

Relationship

etween he

Eudemian nd

Nicomachean

thics

f

Aristotle

Oxford:

Oxford

niversity

ress,

978)

oes not

discuss he

nameless irtues.

28

Especial

hanks o T.M.I.

Penner,

. Meinwald

nd

N. Sherman

or

ery elpful

discussionnd

riticismsf n

earlier raft.

have

lso

benefitedrom

he

uestions

of

C.

Card,

B.

Enc.,

M.

Munn,

H.

Newell,

.

Sober,

.

Van

Ophuijsen,

.

Weitzman

and

K.

Yandell.

should

ike to thank

he

Center or

Hellenic

tudies

for he

opportunity

o

complete

his

aper.

aristotle's 'nameless' virtues

Documents