Abstract

Aristotle defines the in/voluntary both in a Eudemian mini-treatise consisting of EE II 6-9, as well as in a Nicomachean mini-treatise consisting of EN III 1. In a passage by passage analysis, solutions are presented for numerous obscure passages; then ET and NT are compared. ;The NT presents an essential definition of the voluntary as having its origin in the agent. Aristotle seeks to validate this by its ability to explain what the populace praises or blames, rather than pardons or pities. This rather severe criterion classes as voluntary all passionate acts, and mixed actions unless the duress exceeds human endurance. ;The ET develops a broader definition of the voluntary as what is "up to" the agent . This is less severe than the NT criterion, in that some passionate acts can be assessed as voluntary, and extreme duress is not required for involuntary mixed actions. ;Groundwork is laid for the eph'hauto criterion in the difficult EE II 6 geometric example and the ensuing nesting passage, in which Aristotle shows in what way the ET and NT criteria are alike, in what way different. The nesting passage can in fact be viewed as 'quoting' the NT criterion. ;But there are broader indications that the ET is later than the NT. Its eph'hauto definition is a philosophic advance over the arche definition of the NT, and better explains the popular assessments--which is the NT criterion for validation of the essential definition. It also reflects a recognition that the usefulness of efficient causation as an explanatory device is limited. ;Some topics that have received special attention are the following: cogency of the EE II 7 arguments, except for two which are aporiai resolved in EE II 8; their resolution by the whole soul agency concept, its validity, its role elsewhere in Aristotle and Plato; ananke interpreted as matter resisting form and as hypothetical necessity; apparent incoherencies in the ET discussion of ignorance and the six NT particulars