Page:Mind (New Series) Volume 9.djvu/548

 534 CRITICAL NOTICES : it is a disciplina operatrix, not Qtwpia. It uses the results of science, but its theoretical knowledge is limited by its practical purpose. In this way it is neither apodictic in character nor yet merely dialectical. The only other sections of the introduction that call for special reference are the first seven, which deal with questions relating to the text, and especially with the authorship of books v.-vii. Mr. Burnet brings forward good reasons for regarding these books as the work of Aristotle, and this conclusion is supported in detail in the commentary. Hence the inference that "the Eudemian Ethics is the most authoritative commentary on the Nikomachean," and Mr. Burnet has adopted the excellent plan of printing the relevant Eudemian passages below the text of the Nicornachean Ethics. The convenience and advantage of this device are very great. We may turn now to Mr. Burnet's commentary. It is impos- sible in a review to do justice to the commentary in detail, and one must be content with recording the general impression that Mr. Burnet's interpretation of the Ethics in detail is of the very highest value and interest. There are, however, one or two general features that call for notice. As we have seen, Mr. Burnet's fundamental thesis is that the Ethics is dialectical throughout, in other words is a discussion of ev8oa. It is therefore an essential part of his method of inter- pretation to discover the authorship of the evSofa examined. The claim which Mr. Burnet makes in the preface that his " own con- tribution to the illustration of the Ethics lies chiefly in the direc- tion of tracing the originals of many passages in Plato and Iso- crates " and that " some of the material has been collected for the first time " is amply justified. To give an example. N'ic. Eth., i., 6, contains a refutation of Plato's Universal Good, and the first part of the following chapter is occupied with a discussion of the Chief Good as being (1) complete, (2) self-sufficient, (3) more worth having than anything else. The current interpretation of this passage seems to suggest that Aristotle is here advancing views of his own. Mr. Stewart, for instance, with reference to the discus- sion of point (3) remarks : " In this section Aristotle virtually maintains all that Plato contended for in his doctrine of the Idea of the Good ". Mr. Burnet throws a new light on the discussion. He explains to us that in chapter 5 Aristotle begins the discussion of evSoa about the Chief Good, commencing with the beliefs of the many, and that in chapter 7 he proceeds with the discussion of the beliefs of the wise, i.e., of Plato as expressed in the Philebus. It is true that the reference to the Philebus had been pointed out before by Giphanius and others, but this does not affect the value of Mr. Burnet's exposition, which consists in showing that the reference is not merely casual and that Aristotle is consciously discussing and accepting the doctrine of the Philebus. Besides his exhaustive knowledge of Plato, Mr. Burnet pos- sesses another essential qualification for interpreting the Ethics.